THE PROBABLE REASONS FOR THE LACK PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT
I have to thank my thirty-seven years as a designer and installer of plants in private companies if I did able to grow and study my daughters. But at the end of that pleasant and important duty, I wanted to measure myself with the activities of environmental inventor, which has not rewarded me. However, I still think that the world would be much better if there were more free inventors to invent and less obedient designers, especially, in the field of environment and energy, where it is difficult to understand the rationality of systems that are designed and produced in world. Probably, I never became an inventor, I continue to do the designer, but without obeying a boss, who in turn must obey other bosses without understanding the rules globally, but only those in the market. I always wondered who obey designers public? Who are lucky not to have to compete with other companies to acquire customers and orders. Why not invent and do not experience environmental and energy solutions more complete than at present? Lack of full experiences? Why not get together to propose solutions synergistic? Unnecessary questions. The silences that I collected with the solutions that I proposed so far, are already answered. The quietest are mainly universities, ministries, and research institutions. The specifications of public procurement are the brakes on global purifications, the thermal power plants do not recover the heat and do not use water cooling to limit CO2 emissions and produce alkaline water. Hydropower is focused only on the hydraulic jump that makes it, in many cases, uneconomical and dangerous. The hydraulic lifting defying gravity, are by far the largest energy absorbers of the planet. For myself, at least in the lifting of the water, the force of gravity could get around without consuming energy. In the cities are not enough smokestacks and urban traffic to pollute and will issue CO2, throughout the planet grows every day hundreds of thousands of air conditioners, that with air / air exchangers increase even more global warming. What does it take to understand That it's all just redone starting from urban centers? The solution is to create complete modules That purify larges part of pollution at source of energy, water and air, Also using the sewer system modified (Global urban environmental conditioning GUECD depuration). These plants would make clean too much of the pollution from traffic, creating escape routes downwards, given that a large part of the combustion gases are heavier than air, while along separate paths send sludge waters and to other systems of greater size to complete and purifications productions sustainable energy (global synergy for depuration plants, biomass production and thermoelectric cogeneration GPSD PTC). But as mentioned above, the first to row against these solutions are just the silence of those who should design them. From the experience of these years of environmental isolated inventor, probably, I realized that public designers are not in a position to do their job better. Lacking in them the stimulus of competition and the organization to compete on major projects, which need not be thematic competitions such as those proposed at EU level with "Horizon 2020" it could also be understood as simple studies and projects patents. But to stimulate rational i environmental and energy inventions should, first, to amend the existing rules on intellectual property, separating patents utilities from commercial ones. Those dedicated to the first section should be exempted from paying filing fees and maintenance worldwide. On the other hand, you should enjoy copyright as writers. Who would use patented solutions would pay an annual contribution to the public or private authors. Probably, with this solution, public agencies may be encouraged to organize themselves and to seek greater synergies, not just single issues, but also cross, but also transversal, to achieve complete plants. Not incomplete as the current ones, that generally, exploiting only one technology for commercial reasons (purifying or energy), not completing the cycles purifying of waters and not even those of the air. All this would result in a different organization's way of working, especially for the universities college. Only in this way could be set aside disciplinary and exceeded specifications, they would study most comprehensive and rational, which would allow government agencies to be at the forefront in systems and regulations, contemplating more parameters and tighter emission limits. Today, intellectual property protects only those companies that can pay for it, producing consumer goods on a large scale. The costs of patent protection are so high that they scourage the study of structural solutions, not commercial (It takes about 50,000 Euros to internationalize a patent in major countries and have to pay annual maintenance fees in each country which arrive almost to 10,000 €). The 'world organization for intellectual protection (WIPO) can not use the same system of protection and can not charge the same costs among those who produce commercial goods and public services. At the same time we can not fail to acknowledge the work of those who are better organized than others to study the environmental systems that benefit all. The organization and the time it takes to study common problems have costs, which in some way who will benefit, even in a distant country should recognize, through international agreements. It remains valid instead the criterion used for the recognition of patents that must meet equally the requirements of novelty, inventiveness and industrial applicability. Without the contemporaneity of these requirements the public facilities will continue to live in a state craft while private travel at supersonic speeds to produce consumer goods and also pollution, which can not remedy oneself if designers public do not create the necessary infrastructure. At present, lacking in all countries the organization of the public planning that goes in the direction of the global security environment, it is more convenient to ignore all the work myself, which took ten years to put together the above website http://www.spawhe.eu. These may seem like many, but they are few if we think that the Kyoto summit was held in 1997 and since then no country has produced even a prototype that comes close to the system GUECD and GSPDPTC cited above. These systems can be freely copied by any country. The reform of the intellectual property has not been done, the undersigned does not claim even the moral property seeks only to inform you that you can protect the environment. But if the experts ignore the good projects and do not produce other equally efficient, what does that mean? Who do not want to protect the environment, or who are ashamed to copy solutions from a simple retired? We'll never know the truth.
Luigi Antonio Pezone