Any of you come across this before, and if so what did you make of it?
http://www.rexresearch.com/spiteri/spiteri.htm
Trev.
Spiteri
Moderator: scott
Thank you Trev - most interesting. This sounds like a modern day Bessler, who has managed to convince some very influential people. The patent gives a very thorough explanation of how this works - it certainly is complex, and I can't say I follow it completely yet. I see that they have distanced themselves from "perpetual motion" and attempted to compare this with Heat Pump technology - but that's obviously an attempt to overcome prejudice against this concept. Fascinating.
All too easy for armchair experts to simply dismiss this under the laws of thermodynamics. I think this could be more related to Bessler than it seems. I've had a hunch that bellows were important to Bessler (being a pipe organ builder), and this certainly makes good application for bellows.
If this thing works submerged, I'm sure a dry land version could be engineered too. This patent talks about using solenoid valves - and that's one advantage that hydraulics have in engineering the controlled timing of forces/pressure. But Bessler had clockwork mechnical skills that could achieve similar results.
This reinforces my belief that there is something worth pursuing with buoyancy - even if we ultimately discard a hydraulic solution. The key is to understand the basic working principle, and how it fools gravity.
Over maybe Spiteri has fooled the distinguished people of today, just like Bessler fooled the distinguished people of his time ...
This warrants some serious thought...
All too easy for armchair experts to simply dismiss this under the laws of thermodynamics. I think this could be more related to Bessler than it seems. I've had a hunch that bellows were important to Bessler (being a pipe organ builder), and this certainly makes good application for bellows.
If this thing works submerged, I'm sure a dry land version could be engineered too. This patent talks about using solenoid valves - and that's one advantage that hydraulics have in engineering the controlled timing of forces/pressure. But Bessler had clockwork mechnical skills that could achieve similar results.
This reinforces my belief that there is something worth pursuing with buoyancy - even if we ultimately discard a hydraulic solution. The key is to understand the basic working principle, and how it fools gravity.
Over maybe Spiteri has fooled the distinguished people of today, just like Bessler fooled the distinguished people of his time ...
This warrants some serious thought...
re: Spiteri
He's been thinking about this since 1989, he's build the working model, and convinced some of todays world leaders ... if this doesn't get us curious, nothing will ...In summary, by
1. Incorporating a number of facilities to lock / unlock the moveable components of the pump motor 20 at particular stages of its movement and, 2. Altering the position of the centre of mass of the pump motor 20 at particular stages of its movement, determined by the position of the ballast tank 95 within the buoyant member 35, it is possible to transfer energy derived from the loading of the buoyant member 35 while it is rising towards the free water surface into 'useable' potential energy, and repeating the cycle by overturning the system.
The resultant upward force on the buoyant member 35 is given by: R = P5A - [ P4 A + Wg ]
If P5 A > [ P4 A + Wg ] the buoyant member 35 rises (see figure 2 ) If P5 A < [ P4 A + Wg ] the body sinks.
And, the resultant upward force on the ballast tank 95 is given by: R = P2A - [ Pi A + Wg ]
If P2 A > [ Pi A + Wg ] the ballast member 50 rises, (see figure 4) If P2 A < [ Pi A + Wg ] the ballast member 50 sinks.
If the centre of mass 45 of the pump motor 20 lies above the fixed pivot point 30, and the weight of the pump motor 20 is greater than the buoyancy & frictional forces acting on the pump motor 20, then the pump motor 20 is unstable and will swing in an anticlockwise direction (see figure 5) to a position at an angle of O2 to the vertical (see figure 6).
Anything not related to elephants is irrelephant.
re: Spiteri
Perhaps related? (see attachment)
- Attachments
-
Anything not related to elephants is irrelephant.
re: Spiteri
Hi Greendoor,
I'm glad to see it caught someones interest. It seems to be the real deal, so If you figure out how its working let us know.
Trev.
I'm glad to see it caught someones interest. It seems to be the real deal, so If you figure out how its working let us know.
Trev.
re: Spiteri
Been a while I know...
Bumped into a friend today who says he's just come back from a trip to see this machine in action, reckons it's the real deal and say Spiteri cant understand why people aren't taking any interest in it.
Anyone get anywhere with it? I see looking at youtube there's a more recent video explaining the concept:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQCO7iYTkwU
Bumped into a friend today who says he's just come back from a trip to see this machine in action, reckons it's the real deal and say Spiteri cant understand why people aren't taking any interest in it.
Anyone get anywhere with it? I see looking at youtube there's a more recent video explaining the concept:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQCO7iYTkwU
-
nicbordeaux
- Addict
- Posts: 2140
- Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 2:54 pm
- Location: France
Looked at 4 to 5 minutes of Dr What link above. Yeah. It'll work. Maybe. If it is made 10 000 feet tall and sunk in a ocean rift. To quote from the vid "the power comes from difference in hydrostatic forces". Take the difference in hydrostatic, and those work out as a lot less than needed to overcome the drag of the water as the egg timer flips over. Duh, where is the working proto ? Utter load of tosh IMO.
re: Spiteri
this is interesting i was unable to find any replications though ty. i think it would be feasable to incorporate it into a wheel design if it works!
i found this: http://www.ipo.gov.uk/patent/p-decision ... o08608.pdf
PATENTS ACT 1977
BL O/086/08
20th March 2008
APPLICANT JOE SPITERI-SARGENT
ISSUE Whether patent application
GB 0710779.0 complies with
sections 1(1)(c) and 14(3)
HEARING OFFICER Stephen Probert
DECISION
1 Mr Spiteri-Sargent’s UK patent application concerns an apparatus for
converting what he calls “hydraulic energy� into kinetic energy. It has not been
published yet, although a PCT application (WO 2007/141653A1) based on the
same priority document has been published. The examiner has reported that
Mr Spiteri-Sargent’s invention, as described and as claimed, purports to create
energy from nothing, and is therefore contrary to the law of conservation of
energy.
2 Consequently, the examiner reports that the application should be refused
because it is not capable of industrial application (as required by
section 1(1)(c) of the Act), and/or because it is not disclosed in a manner that
is clear enough and complete enough to be performed by a person skilled in
the art (as required by section 14(3) of the Act).
The Invention
3 The apparatus of the invention comprises a
reciprocating member that is submerged in a
tank of fluid - eg. water. The reciprocating
member is supported by a frame pivot at its
centre, and contains a buoyant (air-filled)
member that is able to move upwards within
the reciprocating member.
4 The apparatus may be provided with a
constraining means to prevent rotation of the
reciprocating member while the buoyant
member is rising, and a releasable locking
means to prevent [linear] movement of the
buoyant member while the reciprocating
member is rotating between either of two
‘rest’ positions. At both of these two ‘rest’ positions, the reciprocating member
is inclined at 15N to the vertical. In fact, the movement of the reciprocating
member is such that it is never closer than 15N to the vertical.
5 As described in the application, the buoyant member itself contains a “ballast
member� which is filled with liquid, and is in “fluid communication� with a pair of
air tanks — one at either end of the reciprocating member. The ballast
member is allowed to move up and down within the buoyant member, except
when it is locked in position within the buoyant member during certain stages
of operation. What makes this fluid-filled ballast member rise upwards within
the buoyant member is something of a mystery. The application says that it will
slide upwards “under the force created by the hydrostatic differential of
pressure P2 and pressure P1 where pressure P2 is greater.� (P2 is the
hydrostatic pressure near the bottom of the apparatus, and P1 is the
hydrostatic pressure near the top of the apparatus.)
6 As far as I can tell, the idea behind the invention is that when the tank
containing the reciprocating member is filled with water, and the buoyant
member is released, it rises upwards within the frame of the reciprocating
member due to the force of buoyancy. When it reaches the top of its travel, its
position within the reciprocating member will have moved its centre of gravity
to a position above the frame pivot point. Incidentally, as the buoyant member
rises within the frame of the reciprocating member, it pulls a cable which, after
passing over several pulleys, operates a pump that lifts water to an upper
reservoir. This far I can follow the explanation.
7 Then, because of what the application calls “the differential pressure acting on
the ballast member�, it also rises until its centre of gravity moves from a
position below the frame pivot point to a new position above the frame pivot
point. This, according to the application, renders the whole apparatus
unstable.
8 With the buoyant member now locked in position at the ‘top’ of the
reciprocating member, and the ballast member similarly locked in position
within the buoyant member, the reciprocating member is released and
(according to the application) the new position of the combined centre of
gravity forces the whole apparatus to rotate about the frame pivot until it
reaches the other rest position in which the buoyant member and the ballast
member are once again at the ‘bottom’ of their respective vertical range of
travel.
9 The motion of the reciprocating member can now be reversed by allowing the
buoyant member to float upwards (again), and the ballast member to rise
within it until the combination of these two movements returns the centre of
gravity of the apparatus to the other side of the pivot.
10 According to the application, these two reciprocating phases of motion
continue indefinitely, powered by the so-called “hydraulic energy� of the water
in the tank. As the application also describes it:
“The apparatus exploits the ‘hidden’ energy available in the form of the
hydrostatic pressure exerted on a submerged body to generate a series of
forces and movements which are managed and controlled in such a way
that the system generates a net amount of useable energy.�
11 As I have stated above, the apparatus makes use of the repeated upwards
movements of the buoyant member to operate a pump (via a cable and pulley
arrangement) that lifts water up to a second reservoir. The water in the second
reservoir is then used to generate electricity by means of a conventional
hydro-electric generator.
12 The application contains one independent claim, which is reproduced at
annex A of this decision.
13 In response to the examiner’s report, the applicant requested a hearing. At the
hearing, which took place on Tuesday 18th March 2008, the applicant was
represented by his patent attorney, Dr Gillian Whitfield of Astrum-IP. At the
end of the hearing, I said that I would refuse the application in its current form;
however, I did allow an opportunity to amend the application in a specific way
to overcome the objections. As required by rule 80(6), I hereby give my
reasons for this decision.
The Law
14 Section 1(1)(c) of the Act reads as follows:
1(1) A patent may be granted only for an invention in respect of which the
following conditions are satisfied, that is to say -
(a) ....
(b) ....
(c) it is capable of industrial application;
(d) ....
and references in this Act to a patentable invention shall be construed
accordingly.
15 Section 4(1) expands on this by saying
4(1) An invention shall be taken to be capable of industrial application if it can be
made or used in any kind of industry, including agriculture.
16 It is, however, settled law that machines alleged to operate in a manner which
is clearly contrary to well-established laws of physics are regarded as not
having industrial application.
17 The other section of the Act that is particularly significant in this decision is
section 14(3). It reads:
14(3) The specification of an application shall disclose the invention in a manner
which is clear enough and complete enough for the invention to be performed by
a person skilled in the art.�
The Issues
18 There are several passages within the application that attempt to address the
anticipated criticism that it purports to create energy from nothing and/or that it
is a perpetual motion machine. For example, it is said that:
“... the invention exploits and converts the hydrostatic pressure exerted on a
submerged body into a more useable form of energy, kinetic (mechanical)
energy.
In the process, energy is not created; it is merely transferred from one form to
another in accordance with the established laws of thermodynamics.�
19 The application rejects the allegation of perpetual motion on the basis that the
reciprocating member comes to rest at both ends of the reciprocating motion,
and would never move again unless the various locking means are released to
permit another cycle. I will simply observe that this is not what I think most
people understand by the term — “perpetual motion�.
20 It seems to me that the nature of the apparatus in this specific case is such
that if it could ever complete a full cycle, without some energy input from
outside the system, it would be a perpetual motion machine. This is because if
it could complete one full cycle (without energy input from outside the system),
then in theory there is no limit on the number of cycles that it could complete
— because the system is (allegedly) returned to exactly the same (starting)
condition at the end of each cycle. But perhaps the application is suggesting
that the system does not return to exactly the same state. For example, is
some of the ‘hidden’ energy or hydraulic energy removed with each full cycle?
Energy transfer?
21 The application stresses in several places that the invention is about energy
transfer. Indeed, the claims seek to define an “apparatus for conversion of
hydraulic energy into kinetic energy�. So if kinetic energy is produced, where
does the energy come from? Does the temperature of the water in the tank
reduce over time? Does the relative height (potential energy) of the water in
the tank drop over a period of one or more cycles? Does the water in the tank
slow down in any sense (ie. reduce its own kinetic energy? The answer to
each question appears to be “No�.
22 The application says the energy is ‘hidden’ energy available in the form of the
hydrostatic pressure exerted on a submerged body. So how long would it take
to exhaust this so-called ‘hidden’ energy and bring the system to a standstill?
Again, the application simply says that the invention uses “a renewable energy
source�.
23 Nothing that Dr Whitfield said at the hearing altered my prima facie view that
the invention described in the application is another example of the much
sought-after, yet elusive, perpetual motion machine. The invention is alleged
to operate in a manner that is clearly contrary to the law of conservation of
energy, and is therefore not capable of industrial application (ie. it won’t work
as described in the application). Moreover, the application as it stands does
not disclose an apparatus (or a method) for converting “hydraulic energy� into
1 What some might call “a Rube Goldberg machine�.
kinetic energy in a manner which is clear enough and complete enough for the
invention to be performed by a person skilled in the art.
24 Dr Whitfield argued that even if I did not accept that the apparatus of the
invention was capable of continuous operation, that should not prevent her
from amending the application to protect the apparatus per se — eg. in an
embodiment that converts energy from one form to another within a partial
cycle of operation. Dr Whitfield submitted that such an amendment would
overcome the objection concerning capability of industrial application, and in
consequence would also overcome the sufficiency objection.
25 I accepted this submission, and said that I would allow the applicant one
month (from the date of this decision) in which to amend the application to
remove any suggestion of continuous operation. What this means in practice
is that element ‘f’ (at least) must be deleted from claim 1 since I have
concluded that the apparatus, as described, could not possibly become
unstable and rotate. It follows that the description (and other parts of the
claims) must be amended to remove any suggestion that the operation of the
apparatus would continue beyond the first phase — ie. when the buoyant
member rises within the frame of the apparatus.
26 As the apparatus appears to be capable of operating to this limited extent -
that is to say, the buoyant member would rise once - the invention can
conceivably be claimed as an apparatus for converting energy from one form
into another.
27 I note here that what the application calls “hydraulic energy� is really potential
energy. It is converted (when water in the tank moves down to fill the position
originally occupied by the buoyant member), into another instance of potential
energy in the upper reservoir. This, in turn, is converted into kinetic energy as
the water descends from the upper reservoir into the turbine, where it is
converted into electrical energy. As I commented at the hearing, it is hard to
imagine a more convoluted and inefficient means of converting energy from
one form to another1; but that is not an objection that arises under patent law.
28 If the application is amended (without offending section 76 - “added matter�) to
overcome the objections concerning industrial capability and sufficiency, I will
return the file to the examiner for a search to be conducted, and for the
application to be published. Substantive examination will follow in the usual
way, upon filing of form 10/77. (The examination reports that have issued so
far have been produced even though no request for substantive examination
has been filed, and regardless of whether the other requirements of
section 18(1) were met - see Rohde and Schwarz’s Application [1980]
RPC 155.)
Conclusion
29 I have found that the invention described in this application in its current form
does not comply with sections 1(1)(c) and 14(3) of the Act. However, I have
allowed one month from the date of this decision in which the applicant may
file amendments to the description and claims, to make them comply with
those sections of the Act. If the application is not amended to my satisfaction
within the stated period, it will be refused under section 18(3) of the Act with
the consequence (under section 16(1)) that it will not be published.
Appeal
30 Under the Practice Direction to Part 52 of the Civil Procedure Rules, any
appeal against this decision must be lodged within 28 days.
S J PROBERT
Deputy Director acting for the Comptroller
Annex A
Claim 1.
Apparatus for conversion of hydraulic energy into kinetic energy, the apparatus
comprising:
a. a housing containing a fluid;
b. a pump motor submerged withing the fluid, the pump motor pivotable
within the housing about a fixed pivot point;
c. a buoyant member contained within the pump motor;
d. A ballast member contained withing the pump motor, the ballast
member containing a ballast tank;
e. transfer means coupled to the buoyant member to transfer the upward
movement of the buoyant member within the pump motor;
and
f. pressure differential means operable to move the ballast tank upwards
within the pump motor, thereby causing rotational movement of the
pump motor about the pivot point.
i found this: http://www.ipo.gov.uk/patent/p-decision ... o08608.pdf
PATENTS ACT 1977
BL O/086/08
20th March 2008
APPLICANT JOE SPITERI-SARGENT
ISSUE Whether patent application
GB 0710779.0 complies with
sections 1(1)(c) and 14(3)
HEARING OFFICER Stephen Probert
DECISION
1 Mr Spiteri-Sargent’s UK patent application concerns an apparatus for
converting what he calls “hydraulic energy� into kinetic energy. It has not been
published yet, although a PCT application (WO 2007/141653A1) based on the
same priority document has been published. The examiner has reported that
Mr Spiteri-Sargent’s invention, as described and as claimed, purports to create
energy from nothing, and is therefore contrary to the law of conservation of
energy.
2 Consequently, the examiner reports that the application should be refused
because it is not capable of industrial application (as required by
section 1(1)(c) of the Act), and/or because it is not disclosed in a manner that
is clear enough and complete enough to be performed by a person skilled in
the art (as required by section 14(3) of the Act).
The Invention
3 The apparatus of the invention comprises a
reciprocating member that is submerged in a
tank of fluid - eg. water. The reciprocating
member is supported by a frame pivot at its
centre, and contains a buoyant (air-filled)
member that is able to move upwards within
the reciprocating member.
4 The apparatus may be provided with a
constraining means to prevent rotation of the
reciprocating member while the buoyant
member is rising, and a releasable locking
means to prevent [linear] movement of the
buoyant member while the reciprocating
member is rotating between either of two
‘rest’ positions. At both of these two ‘rest’ positions, the reciprocating member
is inclined at 15N to the vertical. In fact, the movement of the reciprocating
member is such that it is never closer than 15N to the vertical.
5 As described in the application, the buoyant member itself contains a “ballast
member� which is filled with liquid, and is in “fluid communication� with a pair of
air tanks — one at either end of the reciprocating member. The ballast
member is allowed to move up and down within the buoyant member, except
when it is locked in position within the buoyant member during certain stages
of operation. What makes this fluid-filled ballast member rise upwards within
the buoyant member is something of a mystery. The application says that it will
slide upwards “under the force created by the hydrostatic differential of
pressure P2 and pressure P1 where pressure P2 is greater.� (P2 is the
hydrostatic pressure near the bottom of the apparatus, and P1 is the
hydrostatic pressure near the top of the apparatus.)
6 As far as I can tell, the idea behind the invention is that when the tank
containing the reciprocating member is filled with water, and the buoyant
member is released, it rises upwards within the frame of the reciprocating
member due to the force of buoyancy. When it reaches the top of its travel, its
position within the reciprocating member will have moved its centre of gravity
to a position above the frame pivot point. Incidentally, as the buoyant member
rises within the frame of the reciprocating member, it pulls a cable which, after
passing over several pulleys, operates a pump that lifts water to an upper
reservoir. This far I can follow the explanation.
7 Then, because of what the application calls “the differential pressure acting on
the ballast member�, it also rises until its centre of gravity moves from a
position below the frame pivot point to a new position above the frame pivot
point. This, according to the application, renders the whole apparatus
unstable.
8 With the buoyant member now locked in position at the ‘top’ of the
reciprocating member, and the ballast member similarly locked in position
within the buoyant member, the reciprocating member is released and
(according to the application) the new position of the combined centre of
gravity forces the whole apparatus to rotate about the frame pivot until it
reaches the other rest position in which the buoyant member and the ballast
member are once again at the ‘bottom’ of their respective vertical range of
travel.
9 The motion of the reciprocating member can now be reversed by allowing the
buoyant member to float upwards (again), and the ballast member to rise
within it until the combination of these two movements returns the centre of
gravity of the apparatus to the other side of the pivot.
10 According to the application, these two reciprocating phases of motion
continue indefinitely, powered by the so-called “hydraulic energy� of the water
in the tank. As the application also describes it:
“The apparatus exploits the ‘hidden’ energy available in the form of the
hydrostatic pressure exerted on a submerged body to generate a series of
forces and movements which are managed and controlled in such a way
that the system generates a net amount of useable energy.�
11 As I have stated above, the apparatus makes use of the repeated upwards
movements of the buoyant member to operate a pump (via a cable and pulley
arrangement) that lifts water up to a second reservoir. The water in the second
reservoir is then used to generate electricity by means of a conventional
hydro-electric generator.
12 The application contains one independent claim, which is reproduced at
annex A of this decision.
13 In response to the examiner’s report, the applicant requested a hearing. At the
hearing, which took place on Tuesday 18th March 2008, the applicant was
represented by his patent attorney, Dr Gillian Whitfield of Astrum-IP. At the
end of the hearing, I said that I would refuse the application in its current form;
however, I did allow an opportunity to amend the application in a specific way
to overcome the objections. As required by rule 80(6), I hereby give my
reasons for this decision.
The Law
14 Section 1(1)(c) of the Act reads as follows:
1(1) A patent may be granted only for an invention in respect of which the
following conditions are satisfied, that is to say -
(a) ....
(b) ....
(c) it is capable of industrial application;
(d) ....
and references in this Act to a patentable invention shall be construed
accordingly.
15 Section 4(1) expands on this by saying
4(1) An invention shall be taken to be capable of industrial application if it can be
made or used in any kind of industry, including agriculture.
16 It is, however, settled law that machines alleged to operate in a manner which
is clearly contrary to well-established laws of physics are regarded as not
having industrial application.
17 The other section of the Act that is particularly significant in this decision is
section 14(3). It reads:
14(3) The specification of an application shall disclose the invention in a manner
which is clear enough and complete enough for the invention to be performed by
a person skilled in the art.�
The Issues
18 There are several passages within the application that attempt to address the
anticipated criticism that it purports to create energy from nothing and/or that it
is a perpetual motion machine. For example, it is said that:
“... the invention exploits and converts the hydrostatic pressure exerted on a
submerged body into a more useable form of energy, kinetic (mechanical)
energy.
In the process, energy is not created; it is merely transferred from one form to
another in accordance with the established laws of thermodynamics.�
19 The application rejects the allegation of perpetual motion on the basis that the
reciprocating member comes to rest at both ends of the reciprocating motion,
and would never move again unless the various locking means are released to
permit another cycle. I will simply observe that this is not what I think most
people understand by the term — “perpetual motion�.
20 It seems to me that the nature of the apparatus in this specific case is such
that if it could ever complete a full cycle, without some energy input from
outside the system, it would be a perpetual motion machine. This is because if
it could complete one full cycle (without energy input from outside the system),
then in theory there is no limit on the number of cycles that it could complete
— because the system is (allegedly) returned to exactly the same (starting)
condition at the end of each cycle. But perhaps the application is suggesting
that the system does not return to exactly the same state. For example, is
some of the ‘hidden’ energy or hydraulic energy removed with each full cycle?
Energy transfer?
21 The application stresses in several places that the invention is about energy
transfer. Indeed, the claims seek to define an “apparatus for conversion of
hydraulic energy into kinetic energy�. So if kinetic energy is produced, where
does the energy come from? Does the temperature of the water in the tank
reduce over time? Does the relative height (potential energy) of the water in
the tank drop over a period of one or more cycles? Does the water in the tank
slow down in any sense (ie. reduce its own kinetic energy? The answer to
each question appears to be “No�.
22 The application says the energy is ‘hidden’ energy available in the form of the
hydrostatic pressure exerted on a submerged body. So how long would it take
to exhaust this so-called ‘hidden’ energy and bring the system to a standstill?
Again, the application simply says that the invention uses “a renewable energy
source�.
23 Nothing that Dr Whitfield said at the hearing altered my prima facie view that
the invention described in the application is another example of the much
sought-after, yet elusive, perpetual motion machine. The invention is alleged
to operate in a manner that is clearly contrary to the law of conservation of
energy, and is therefore not capable of industrial application (ie. it won’t work
as described in the application). Moreover, the application as it stands does
not disclose an apparatus (or a method) for converting “hydraulic energy� into
1 What some might call “a Rube Goldberg machine�.
kinetic energy in a manner which is clear enough and complete enough for the
invention to be performed by a person skilled in the art.
24 Dr Whitfield argued that even if I did not accept that the apparatus of the
invention was capable of continuous operation, that should not prevent her
from amending the application to protect the apparatus per se — eg. in an
embodiment that converts energy from one form to another within a partial
cycle of operation. Dr Whitfield submitted that such an amendment would
overcome the objection concerning capability of industrial application, and in
consequence would also overcome the sufficiency objection.
25 I accepted this submission, and said that I would allow the applicant one
month (from the date of this decision) in which to amend the application to
remove any suggestion of continuous operation. What this means in practice
is that element ‘f’ (at least) must be deleted from claim 1 since I have
concluded that the apparatus, as described, could not possibly become
unstable and rotate. It follows that the description (and other parts of the
claims) must be amended to remove any suggestion that the operation of the
apparatus would continue beyond the first phase — ie. when the buoyant
member rises within the frame of the apparatus.
26 As the apparatus appears to be capable of operating to this limited extent -
that is to say, the buoyant member would rise once - the invention can
conceivably be claimed as an apparatus for converting energy from one form
into another.
27 I note here that what the application calls “hydraulic energy� is really potential
energy. It is converted (when water in the tank moves down to fill the position
originally occupied by the buoyant member), into another instance of potential
energy in the upper reservoir. This, in turn, is converted into kinetic energy as
the water descends from the upper reservoir into the turbine, where it is
converted into electrical energy. As I commented at the hearing, it is hard to
imagine a more convoluted and inefficient means of converting energy from
one form to another1; but that is not an objection that arises under patent law.
28 If the application is amended (without offending section 76 - “added matter�) to
overcome the objections concerning industrial capability and sufficiency, I will
return the file to the examiner for a search to be conducted, and for the
application to be published. Substantive examination will follow in the usual
way, upon filing of form 10/77. (The examination reports that have issued so
far have been produced even though no request for substantive examination
has been filed, and regardless of whether the other requirements of
section 18(1) were met - see Rohde and Schwarz’s Application [1980]
RPC 155.)
Conclusion
29 I have found that the invention described in this application in its current form
does not comply with sections 1(1)(c) and 14(3) of the Act. However, I have
allowed one month from the date of this decision in which the applicant may
file amendments to the description and claims, to make them comply with
those sections of the Act. If the application is not amended to my satisfaction
within the stated period, it will be refused under section 18(3) of the Act with
the consequence (under section 16(1)) that it will not be published.
Appeal
30 Under the Practice Direction to Part 52 of the Civil Procedure Rules, any
appeal against this decision must be lodged within 28 days.
S J PROBERT
Deputy Director acting for the Comptroller
Annex A
Claim 1.
Apparatus for conversion of hydraulic energy into kinetic energy, the apparatus
comprising:
a. a housing containing a fluid;
b. a pump motor submerged withing the fluid, the pump motor pivotable
within the housing about a fixed pivot point;
c. a buoyant member contained within the pump motor;
d. A ballast member contained withing the pump motor, the ballast
member containing a ballast tank;
e. transfer means coupled to the buoyant member to transfer the upward
movement of the buoyant member within the pump motor;
and
f. pressure differential means operable to move the ballast tank upwards
within the pump motor, thereby causing rotational movement of the
pump motor about the pivot point.
re: Spiteri
Apart from this in correspondence with spiteri i got this in his reply:
"For your information the Spiteri Water Pump machine has been proven in the Technical feasibility stage, which is Stage 2 of the Engineering Stages of New Product Development"....Joe Spiteri Sargent. Wed 26/01/2011 11:42 PM
"For your information the Spiteri Water Pump machine has been proven in the Technical feasibility stage, which is Stage 2 of the Engineering Stages of New Product Development"....Joe Spiteri Sargent. Wed 26/01/2011 11:42 PM
re: Spiteri
My current view on this device:
"The difference of hydrostatic pressure between the external surfaces of the ballast unit" is supposedly the driving force to raise the mass above the axis.
The difference of hydrostatic pressure minus the weight of the ballast unit, is a fancy way of saying "buoyancy of the ballast unit., as bouyancy is caused by the difference.
Buoyancy only works where the density of the object is in total less than the density of water....
So the buoyant mass rises above the axis of rotation. It cannot rotate because mass has fallen in the entire system. And although mass has been raised above the axis, due to it being buoyant, cannot rotate unless the air contained in the ballast unit is pushed downwards into the water against gravity, or air is released from the ballast, replaced with water(again air will have to be pumped down into the water later to re-lift it).
The other alternative method to lifting the ballast mass greater than the density of water, Is to create a massive pressure difference by using the 19 Meter reservoir as the pressure source on the bottom of the ballast unit only. This pressure difference, when used also drops water mass over a great distance, which then has to be pumped back up at a different time.
So can there be a gain in this system? At the moment, I am convinced there isn't.
"The difference of hydrostatic pressure between the external surfaces of the ballast unit" is supposedly the driving force to raise the mass above the axis.
The difference of hydrostatic pressure minus the weight of the ballast unit, is a fancy way of saying "buoyancy of the ballast unit., as bouyancy is caused by the difference.
Buoyancy only works where the density of the object is in total less than the density of water....
So the buoyant mass rises above the axis of rotation. It cannot rotate because mass has fallen in the entire system. And although mass has been raised above the axis, due to it being buoyant, cannot rotate unless the air contained in the ballast unit is pushed downwards into the water against gravity, or air is released from the ballast, replaced with water(again air will have to be pumped down into the water later to re-lift it).
The other alternative method to lifting the ballast mass greater than the density of water, Is to create a massive pressure difference by using the 19 Meter reservoir as the pressure source on the bottom of the ballast unit only. This pressure difference, when used also drops water mass over a great distance, which then has to be pumped back up at a different time.
So can there be a gain in this system? At the moment, I am convinced there isn't.
re: Spiteri
I wrote to joe spiteri and asked ..."do you have a fully functioning prototype?" and recieved this as reply
"Yes I do but not ready for commercialization yet. We have what is known as a Working prototype to prove all the functions.It would be ideal for remote energy, because the machine runs in a manufactured water-tank that can be placed over or under ground and the power supply can satisfy the requirements of the place or site."Joe Spiteri Sargent Sun 30/01/2011
spose ill just wait & c...
"Yes I do but not ready for commercialization yet. We have what is known as a Working prototype to prove all the functions.It would be ideal for remote energy, because the machine runs in a manufactured water-tank that can be placed over or under ground and the power supply can satisfy the requirements of the place or site."Joe Spiteri Sargent Sun 30/01/2011
spose ill just wait & c...
re: Spiteri
I came across the Spiteri pump a month or more ago and have given it some serious thought and made some models of part of it to verify the concept.
First, the power does not come from overbalancing, this is trivial compared to the power from the differential pressure between the top of the unit and the bottom. Consider a pressure of just 1psi over one square foot of area of the lower bellows as it rises, 144lbs.
The displacement of one cu ft of water wieghs 62lbs, which with mechanical leverage would take it to around the eqivalent of that 144lbs to overbalance the machine. No useful work.
His principle uses the 'Hero's fountain' effect of using the compressing air to move water to a lower pressure area, with a neutral effect, but with far less air and consequently far less bouancy to overcome, leaving maybe 100lbs as work.
As long as there is a reasonable skin of air it will compress to the lowest water level pressure and act on water that is communicating to a bellows at a higher level and move the water. It will force the water above surface level as I have proved in my models, well above the surface.
The construction of a working model will probably take me months, but the bellows within bellows work, the power measured by spring balance as the bellows rise was close to the theoretical, 60lbs on a 9" disc and the internal bellows delivered water close to the surface in less than 3 feet of water.
I hope some others will take this up as I may not live long enough to see it through being close to 80, it would be a shame if the world lost a source of energy like this if the spiteri venture fails, and nobody else seems to comprehend the principle.
Hero's Fountain has seemed to contravene logic for 2000 yrs although when explained is simple enough. What Spiteri has done is to manage to reset it, and at the same time use water pressure that was used for a fountain to work a pump every few seconds, whereas the fountain was allowed to work as long as possible before being recharged.
First, the power does not come from overbalancing, this is trivial compared to the power from the differential pressure between the top of the unit and the bottom. Consider a pressure of just 1psi over one square foot of area of the lower bellows as it rises, 144lbs.
The displacement of one cu ft of water wieghs 62lbs, which with mechanical leverage would take it to around the eqivalent of that 144lbs to overbalance the machine. No useful work.
His principle uses the 'Hero's fountain' effect of using the compressing air to move water to a lower pressure area, with a neutral effect, but with far less air and consequently far less bouancy to overcome, leaving maybe 100lbs as work.
As long as there is a reasonable skin of air it will compress to the lowest water level pressure and act on water that is communicating to a bellows at a higher level and move the water. It will force the water above surface level as I have proved in my models, well above the surface.
The construction of a working model will probably take me months, but the bellows within bellows work, the power measured by spring balance as the bellows rise was close to the theoretical, 60lbs on a 9" disc and the internal bellows delivered water close to the surface in less than 3 feet of water.
I hope some others will take this up as I may not live long enough to see it through being close to 80, it would be a shame if the world lost a source of energy like this if the spiteri venture fails, and nobody else seems to comprehend the principle.
Hero's Fountain has seemed to contravene logic for 2000 yrs although when explained is simple enough. What Spiteri has done is to manage to reset it, and at the same time use water pressure that was used for a fountain to work a pump every few seconds, whereas the fountain was allowed to work as long as possible before being recharged.
re: Spiteri
Gday Jubragg,
The spiteri device if you notice, each compartment is ported to another, so the air isn't compressed, it is merely moved.
I contacted Mr Spiteri, and even signed a non-disclosure, but Im not sure why, because all the data is freely available on the web site. I sent Mr spiteri multiple mathematical analasys as to why the device always balanced, but he was convinced I was wrong, and vice versa.
I studied the device mathematically, comparing it to some basic experiments I did for about three weeks, also convinced it worked at the start. I found with my examination, the drawings on the site are good enough to use as a basic theoretical model, to test volumes etc.
To my dissapointment, I found if you fiddle the numbers so it overbalances, you will find it won't lift, or if you fiddle them to lift, it won't topple.
If you have ideas how by compression you can get this to work, then you are have discovered something I couldn't.
Good luck
The spiteri device if you notice, each compartment is ported to another, so the air isn't compressed, it is merely moved.
I contacted Mr Spiteri, and even signed a non-disclosure, but Im not sure why, because all the data is freely available on the web site. I sent Mr spiteri multiple mathematical analasys as to why the device always balanced, but he was convinced I was wrong, and vice versa.
I studied the device mathematically, comparing it to some basic experiments I did for about three weeks, also convinced it worked at the start. I found with my examination, the drawings on the site are good enough to use as a basic theoretical model, to test volumes etc.
To my dissapointment, I found if you fiddle the numbers so it overbalances, you will find it won't lift, or if you fiddle them to lift, it won't topple.
If you have ideas how by compression you can get this to work, then you are have discovered something I couldn't.
Good luck