Quote from: fletcher on September 05, 2012, 07:20:49 AM
(snipped)


patent applications protect your rights.

(snipped)

If one reads much on the topic by Don Lancaster, one might think that patents only provide you a right to sue somebody. And pay out a lot of money doing it, and still not win. He's not a big fan of patents.


They offer no real protection he believes, other than guaranteeing you the right to spend up to $250,000 or more per violation to defend them, depending on situation and the pockets of the other party, who may seek to spend you out of the patent, or simply void the patent (he says this is quite simple for most), and other horrors. For example they can just outright copy it, and others can too, and by the time you are done defending it, and suing each and every other party copying it, they can alter it and patent their "improvements" of your technology as well.

Thank you all who have put forth the effort to understand the system -
Leadership is often..... better realized than explained.
Please remain respectful - as the pennies drop - great work and sharing.

From the postings and discussions - I see three of the stages of discovery have been answered.
It would be safe to share this tid bit - the next four are solvable - Let this be an encouragement to you - You have afforded effort to a challenge that has a successful end.

You who have afforded the effort - prove yourselves to be of the Pareto effect - the 20% - and yes that shows that you merit extra consideration now and in the future.

Learning is a process - this invention is a new frontier, the innovation will bring countless blessings.

Wayne Travis
President
HydroEnergy Revolution.com

Quote from: mrwayne on September 05, 2012, 08:38:07 AM
(snipped)


Learning is a process - this invention is a new frontier, the innovation will bring countless blessings.

Wayne Travis
President
HydroEnergy Revolution.com

Wayne, I sure hope this is all you say and more, because the world could use some really good news like this.


But let's say naysayer worst case comes to pass (not saying it's the case, just saying if it does after all the testing) and you've instead created some "only" 98 percent efficient something that almost works by itself and quits 4 hours later, or longer, over time.


Seems to me, paying 2 percent input energy cost all day long is a far better thing than anything we have now for power making. Why would that not be 'revolutionary' as well?


rc

@Fletcher.I do not blame you or anyone else to take the attitude of leaving no stone unturned-that is what I understand by"due dilligence". However if someone proposes a theory, and I have seen evidence to the contrary, I feel the need to point it out.


You know, there is something else bugging me. The current consensus of opinion seems to be, one zed alone is or can be 100% efficient, but we need two zeds working together to achieve OU. We gain OU by using the "exhaust" of one zed to partly charge a second Zed. I see the logic of that.
       However, from that we can see that when the zed has completed its upstroke, and done work, the contents of the zed are still under pressure. So in a one Zed machine, instead of just releasing that pressure and wasting its energy,we could store at least some of that energy, and use it to partly recharge the same Zed.It could be stored in a "poor man`s hydraulic accumulator", that is a balloon, or even a vertical water column.
     So suppose that at the start of the downstroke , the exhaust pressure of the zed is 10psi. WE connect it to the said accumulator. The accumulator fills until the pressure equalises at say 6 psi. We then release and waste some more pressure from the zed until its pressure falls to precharge pressure at say 2 psi.
   Then , at the start of the upstroke we connect the accumulator to the Zed to partly recharge it. Thus saving part of the energy needed to recharge it.
     Owing to the complexity of valves etc, it would probably be easier to use two zeds. But nevertheless, this would be a way to gain OU with a single Zed. Does this make sense to anyone, or am  losing the plot?

Quote from: Artist_Guy on September 05, 2012, 08:47:34 AM

Wayne, I sure hope this is all you say and more, because the world could use some really good news like this.


But let's say naysayer worst case comes to pass (not saying it's the case, just saying if it does after all the testing) and you've instead created some "only" 98 percent efficient something that almost works by itself and quits 4 hours later, or longer, over time.


Seems to me, paying 2 percent input energy cost all day long is a far better thing than anything we have now for power making. Why would that not be 'revolutionary' as well?


rc

It is a funny thing - the Grant Committie - told me that if I would repackage and present our system as 79% they would be all over it - so I see your point, yet I am a man of honor.
Say it as it is (respectfully) and let the chips fall.
Yes, this is world changing - mechanical free energy - Nature provided a way for us to protect it - from us while benefiting us - a win win in my book.

Thank You
Wayne