SCIENTIFIC CONSIDERATIONS FOR A PATENTED CLIMATE CHANGE SOLUTION 1) The fundamental science is the discovery of a hydraulic actuator that is more efficient than standard pistons, first patented in 1874 by Mr. Reilley, US patent #147,519. ( Logic illustration on page 10) Another style of more efficient hydraulic actuator was patented in 1999 by Mr. Strain, founder and President of APS. The efficiency differential has been empirically confirmed by current scientists/engineers. 2) The more efficient hydraulic actuator produces more work than a standard piston when each is supplied identical volumes of fluid at the same pressure. 3) Conventional knowledge has been incorrect before: the sun does not orbit the world and the world is not flat. Applying this effficiency differential in the 1999 patent challenges conven�onal knowledge. 4) Opposing views have been based only on opinions with no supporting technical arguments addressing the inventions actual design. Quotes from scientist/engineers in APPENDIX "A" on page 15.303 in APS manual linked the next page. The saying "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" (some�mes shortened to ECREE), also known as the Sagan standard (From Wikipedia), should apply to both sides in any scien�fic debate: APS has provided full empirical scien�fic evidence to multiple opposing scientist/engineers. Opposing opinions of blocking authorities are standing only on unconditional acceptance of the Laws of Thermodynamics from the mid-1800’s, not emperical science or technical logic. 5) This climate change opportunity will die without the informed support of concerned persons. FOR CONSIDERATION A quote from Brian Kelley who was the Sustainability Manager for the Region of Durham, Ontario, Canada. Mr. Kelley resigned his posi�on contes�ng the Region’s lack of support in presented sustainability proposals. QUOTE: "More to the point, do you want to have to explain to your own children or grandchildren why you lacked the courage to protect their futures?" The "Sagan Standard" has been quoted by some scientists as refutal of this invention, while refusing to look at the "extaordinary evidence." This is not a scientific response. 15.327 Patent offices's link: https://worldwide.espacenet.com/inpadoc?submitted=true&DB=EPODOC&CC=US&NR=2002178719&KC=&F
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy ODY1ODQy