We integrate the principles of energy conservation to correct the serious errors of science

(Tenth open letter to the International Courts of Justice, second to the UN Secretary-General)


Science has established that perpetual motion does not exist. He should also have asserted that the existence of perpetual motion, however, would be useless because it would not consume and would not produce energy. Instead, in hydraulic systems, only by changing the way of feeding the pumps you can circumvent the gravitational force and the hydrostatic pressure. Therefore, we can create plants that go far beyond perpetual motion, producing energy in a hydraulic turbine, tens or hundreds of times higher than that consumed by the centrifugal pump that feeds them. But the pump must have a separate double supply until to the impeller.  With the plants and pumps correctly designed, the energy would multiply due to the combined effect of Pascal and Torricelli proportionally to the hydrostatic pressure of the plant and also multiply the purifying effect on the circulating water, due to the law of Henry. The above pumps must only turn as normal circulation pumps to overcome the inertia with a very low prevalence, as in a closed system. They must not challenge the hydrostatic pressures that are not opposed to the internally developed kinetic energy, nor must they overcome the gravitational forces to pass through the system, since the pumps with the double feed separated up to the impeller, have the power to connect an open system which produces energy to a closed one that continuously recycles water inside the accumulated volume. Therefore, the water that produced the electrical energy in the turbine, through the second supply of the pump, fits again into the volume of the closed recycling circuit, as if it had never come out of the pressurized tank. Obviously, these systems, with the appropriate pressures, can replace all the thermal engines, the thermal power plants and the nuclear ones without using fossil fuels, chemical or radioactive metals, producing powers not inferior, since the compressed air has no compression limits and the water which does not compress and which has an eight hundred times higher density can circulate one-way in the system pushed by the air pressure, recovered after the turbine and reinserted into the circuit by the recycling pump with the double feed in an infinite cycle.  This system only consumes the plant wear, so it is not perpetual motion, but has a very high performance by exploiting the raw material supplied free by nature, physical principles legislated in the sixteenth century and the current technology, not fully developed, lacking just the aforementioned circuit that the undersigned has developed in different versions. The principle on which these systems work is as follows: two volumes of water cannot occupy the same space at the same time, with the same pressure. If we insert excess water into a recycle circuit of a full pressurized tank with compressed air or atmospheric pressure, this water is immediately expelled from overflow or from a safety valve with the force of the hydrostatic pressure due to the atmosphere or compressed air. If we reach a balance between the water entering and the one coming out of the tank, the level in the pressurized tank does not change, therefore the volume of air contained and the pressure of the same do not change either. However, the water continues to come out with the static pressure of the system, which is much higher than the prevalence of the pump that inserted it into the circuit, having used the only point where water can enter low pressure which is the center of the impeller, but after balancing the pressures with the other power supply, which does not exist today. This means that the static air pressure (Pascal) gives the water the output speed that passes through the turbine (Torricelli) and that the pump with the double separate power supply, must only fill the vacuum created in the system instant by instant. In fact, if the water does not leave the circuit (to be consumed or produce electricity) the recycle pump with the double separate power supply, being in low prevalence does not have sufficient strength to let the water enter, having to win in this case even the air pressure.  Not having modified the pumps and not having realized the connected circuits that could be done at the beginning of the industrial era was the biggest mistake of world science. It has produced more damage to humanity and the environment of world wars and mafias. Today, the public debt of the industrialized countries has become unbearable because of all the wrong energy and purification plants, while the most important multinationals have to change the production of the main products (cars, trucks, airplanes, trains, ships, vehicles, agricultural, pumps, turbines) We do not need methane pipelines and gases if we extract energy with hundreds of times less costs, comfortably, where we find ourselves when we need it. Also at the North Pole. It is obvious that science, the world authorities of the environment and energy, the global land transport, marine and aerospace industry, together with the manufacturers of pumps and engines of all types, solar panels and wind turbines, they pretend they do not understand. Those who do not really understand are the politicians, the economists, the legislators, the judges, who do not know what the real source of wealth, public debt, pollution is, that they live and manage every day. Therefore, they continue to make their electoral campaigns, economic programming, laws and sentences, without knowing the real backstory, which no one goes to tell at the international meetings.  Until we have to witness the triumph of Machiavellism which is nothing but scientific, industrial, political, economic ignorance?  Where are the UNITED NATIONS and international justice that should be vigilant? In large industrial companies it has been demonstrated that the scientific organization of work does not make mistakes: it serves to select the best solutions in all the production sectors. Why has it not been applied globally even for purification and energy production?  It is no coincidence that the undersigned has lived half the working life to learn the organization of industrial work, the other half to know the public environmental and energy systems, to be able to correct them as a retiree through the study of work organization. You can not improve what you do not know I went beyond the expected objectives also changing industrial systems. Which, without the environmental experiences, could never rationalize and economize the world transport system. The world authorities and the multinationals are making themselves ridiculous with their silences, along with the science that continues to work in watertight compartments and at the UN organizing the COP summits among the one hundred and ninety six sovereign states to reduce CO2 emissions, which the SPAWHE system has already passed a long time. Now he is more concerned with natural cataclysms that could transform planet Earth as Mars. Only land and space transport vehicles with an inexhaustible energy that one can drink, eat and breathe can save us. It is all written on However, on this article I dwell above all on the troubled history of local and global silences and boycotts, which is having the energy of salvation that I propose.


The search for this energy had to wait for the undersigned to retire, because no one would have paid to look for it. But it was not born immediately, because the undersigned first, has been committed for eight years to implement the global purification systems, which purifying water and air together also neutralize CO2 (producing carbonates in urban wastewater and rainwater) and most of the fine powders. However, even today no world authority has invested a single euro or dollar in the serious cleaning of fossil energy, where the national and international patents that have been granted to me have not found interlocutors.  Suffice it to recall the document published, where the undersigned protests that the European commission that indexes a race to solve a small part of urban environmental problems by spending € 3,000,000 just to realize the competition, without taking into consideration four of the undersigned international patents, which addressed the problems of urban pollution in a more complete way and without even responding to the open letter published.

How can the world authorities, through the WIPO (World Property Intellectual Organization) claim the fees for filing and maintaining patents from the inventors, as if they were entrepreneurs, if no world authority has taken them into consideration to clean the fossil energy? The same is happening with artificial welling and hydroelectric energy with the recycling of water, which is even accused of violating the principles of energy conservation, not by official science, which is silent and hidden, but by the Italian patent offices and European. It is Necessary to clarify some aspects ON THESE issues and it can not be done if science, international judges and the United Nations Organization do not take Their Responsibilities in front of the world population.

The first principle of thermodynamics is the fundamental principle of energy conservation, from which the term energy balance takes its cue, starting from two concepts:

  Energy is not generated. (ΔEG = 0); Energy is not destroyed. (ΔED = 0); But this is true in an isolated system, that is, without energy flows coming from outside.

In renewable energy: solar, wind, hydropower, energy is taken from outside the system. The same applies to compressed hydropower, where the compressed air pressure is due to an external air source and a compressor that compresses it. Gravitational force is also an external force.

The second principle of thermodynamics states that while it is possible to transform all work into heat, it is not possible to transform all the heat into work. This determines the efficiency of the plant, especially if it uses a paid fuel. In compressed hydropower, the energy source that is water and air that is continuously recycled is not paid. There is no heat production, so the principles of thermodynamics are not relevant. One can speak only of the gain ratio between the energy produced and that consumed by the same system, not in a closed but open circuit that has the advantage of using an infinite external energy source that costs nothing.

The principles of Newton’s dynamics, on the other hand, have been established in the atmospheric environment. They are partially valid in the water, where they can intervene disturbances of various motion. And with the combination of compressed air in an autoclave, operating conditions vary further, depending on many factors that depend on the way the system is built, the direction of the water flow, the way in which compressed air pressure is used. Since the undersigned has also modified the pumps, realizing them with the double separate power supply up to the impeller, as it is right that they are made, in order not to waste water and energy resources, everything must be redone again to accurately determine the yields Although it is already clear that the benefits will be immense.

The principles of chemistry only mention the “law of mass conservation” by Antoine Lavoisier (1774): “the mass of the products of the reagents is always equal to the mass of the reaction products, or in a chemical reaction the mass is conserved”.

In light of the experiences lived and published by myself, to respect the principles of energy conservation the following rules should be respected:

1) before opening a thermal energy cycle, chemical, biological, atomic, which involve the opening and closing of side cycles required, it is necessary to verify the possibility of using a cold cycle predominantly physical between the water and the air .

2) if you used thermal, chemical, biological, atomic cycles, at the end of the process all must be closed perfectly (we know very well that this does not happen at the exits of chimneys and pipes of transport means, or at the exit of the waste water, or at the exit of sludge and radioactive waste.)

3) If physical energy cycles of water and air are used, these must be used with maximum efficiency, recycling the water and statically using the air pressure. Since, each expansion of the compressed air involves a subsequent compression and therefore an absorption of energy. While the recycling of incompressible water, at constant volume of water and air, entails only the energy consumption of a circulation pump that does not have to overcome the hydrostatic pressures of water and air compressions.

4) The physical energy cycles of water and air, in the terrestrial environment can be achieved only with the use of pumps with the double separate supply until to the impeller that have the power to connect an open circuit that exploits the jump of pressure and kinetic energy in a turbine for the principle of Torricelli, and a closed circuit that recycles the water inside a pressurized tank by replenishing the same amount of water that feeds the turbine through the second supply of the pump. Therefore the complete circuit is an open-closed hybrid circuit, which produces energy with the open circuit of the turbine powered by the compressed air pressure that can not be expanded but exerts its pressure in all directions (Pascal), forcing the water feeding the turbine, but consuming the energy of a closed circuit because the water returns through the second feed of the recycling pump.

5) in the energetic circuits conceived in this way we must not forget the side effect of Henry’s principle that provides oxygen without energy costs to the water every time it crosses the pressurized tank. This is useful to purify all urban and industrial wastewater that does not pass through the purifiers.

6) in the energy circuits conceived in this way we can reduce the production of energy by diverting part of the water outside the turbine by lifting it in drains in the event of flood hazards without creating appropriate energy or water lifting works.

None of these six basic concepts, not only for energy conservation, but also for purification, the prevention of disasters of droughts and floods, and sustainable energy production are written in no world university text.

The world cannot leave unprepared patent examiners, with insufficient scholastic knowledge, to face problems that have escaped world science since the advent of the industrial age. It cannot even leave private inventors in total isolation to knock at the doors closed by public research that sells patents to private industry with the complicity of legislators.

In the production of compressed hydropower, which in the previous article I called “energy of survival” /, we must verify moment by moment the single laws are respected and we can do this by mentally realizing the algorithms that establish instant by instant for instant what happens in the various points of the plants at the level of kinetic energy and pressure. These same arguments made them even a century ago the inventors of thermal engines, which are much more complex than hydroelectric ones that are limited to statically exploit the air pressure (without consuming it) and circulating only one-way water, thanks to the invention of the pump with the separate double feed up to the impeller, which works with a small head, like a recycle pump.

The history of energy that drives this means of transport is a long battle with the Italian and European patent offices, which claim the right to judge patents also from a scientific point of view, but with superficial statements that do not enter into the merits of solutions While public science pretends that the problem is not within its competence and justice continues to be silent. Private inventors without economic means can not even fight legal battles, especially if they deposit patents of global public utility and do not claim industrial property. Patent filing in any office of the WIPO member world offices should be sufficient to enforce copyrights if inventions are found to be accurate, regardless of the opinions of the patent offices and legal remedies that could not to support for economic reasons or other formal errors, which do not center anything with the technical and scientific value of the invention, once established.

The domestic and private domesticated inventors of the centers of power would never have found the energies interactive and of salvation. This is proven by the fact that they are the only ones that nobody has ever tried to pursue commercial energy patents. The domesticated inventors have no idea how they are really designed for the environment, because there are no training schools. I can testify to him personally, having a daughter who has a degree in environmental sciences and chemistry with honors, to whom nothing has been taught of the experiences lived by me.  It was a case that an environmental designer found these energies because his task was just to close the cycles he saw left open by public and private designers. Why have world legislators allowed public and private companies not to close the cycles they open? Lawmakers can not know, or do not want to know? It does not take much to realize that the fumes coming out of a chimney or a drain pipe, even if they contained only CO2, are an alteration that can not be remedied to the state of the starting environment. But no legislator and no judge has ever imposed on governments the realization of the patented chimneys that would capture the fumes and purify them in the ground together with water and in limestone greenhouses, to close the carbon cycle correctly, at least in fixed installations urban and industrial. It is obvious that if this was not in the world’s public fixed systems it could not be done even in private plants, because closing the carbon cycle entails higher costs, a more complete layout and more space required. Therefore, if the carbon cycle has never been closed, it was not due to the absence of scientific knowledge, but to precise political, economic and environmental choices. After the undersigned has proposed solutions at national and European level in the patent offices of economic development and internationally at the WIPO which is a UN body, and after he launched them on the web, none of the insiders could not know that the carbon cycle can only be closed by proportioning the plants to the amount of pollution produced and the amount of water and limestone needed to close the cold cycles.  Obviously, all the world thermal plants have not been sized according to these fairly elementary considerations. Who designed these facilities, if not global public scientists? If nobody has informed the judges and the legislators, I would like to explain the question with another example, besides those already provided and published. Designing for the environment and energy is no different from what computer programmers do: mentally running algorithms, which allow you to instantly follow the flows of fluids circulating in the plants. As in computer science, the steps of the algorithm must be elementary and not interpreted differently (ambiguity). The algorithm must necessarily be carried out in a certain number of specific steps and, at the same time, must request only a certain amount of data (finiteness); the algorithm’s execution must end within a certain period of time (termination); the execution of the algorithm must lead to a univocal result (effectiveness); every step of the algorithm must be well established (determinism).

The principles of energy conservation do not center anything with the sequence of instructions given to the shut-off valves of the flows, pumps, compressors, turbines, alternators and electric motors. Fluid, whether water or air, must respond to precise elementary laws of physics. It cannot be asserted a priori that a system without combustion and chemical reactions can not produce energy. When opening a valve the fluid passes from the side with greater pressure to the one with less pressure, circulating in a turbine consumes kinetic or pressure energy and exits with a small residual pressure at atmospheric pressure (so we are never in a closed circuit). The algorithmic reasoning entails the designer to find the solution so that at the same instant in which the water passes through the turbine the inlet pressure does not lower and the water flow rate does not decrease. What are the conditions to verify the algorithmic sequence required by the system? It is necessary to modify the feed pump and the way of circulating the water of an autoclave under the air cushion, which does not have to expand, because if it expands the pressure exerted in the turbine decreases and at the same time requires a energy absorption to restore the pressure from the compressor. The most logical algorithmic sequence is to allow the same amount of water to drain into the autoclave moment by moment in the autoclave. The ideal solution is to let the impeller of the pump a second separate flow of water at low pressure and create an internal recycle to the autoclave tank, so that outside this water enters at the point where it creates major depression ( in a quarter or two quarters of sectors in the middle of the impeller) and insert into the flow already balanced by the inlet and outlet pressure of the pump during the rotation of the impeller. It is obvious that this system does not disturb the principles of energy conservation but uses them to the maximum, allowing the Pascal principle to act dynamically in the impeller of the pump itself and statically in the air cushion that feeds the turbine. Since the water enters the circuit with the simple atmospheric pressure as in all the pumps in the world, we do not violate any physical or mechanical principle. Centrifugal pumps are already designed to perform this function, but by inserting this flow of water into another existing flow that goes in the same direction, there is no possibility that this system will not work. In addition, a circulation pump is not a water lifting pump: It works with a low head of a few meters of water column that has nothing to do with the pressure of the air cushion of the autoclave. Therefore the conditions imposed by the algorithm are perfectly verified. In the autoclave tank the water coming out of the turbine enters exactly because the circulation pump does not have the prevalence to make it enter more. In fact, if you close the valve that feeds the turbine in the tank can not even enter a drop of water from the outside. This means that whoever asserts that the turbine can not produce more energy than the one that supplies the pump, although it has been clearly explained, can not judge the work of the inventors. The pump works in a closed circuit with low head, while the turbine works in an open circuit fed infinitely from the air cushion without the pressure of the pump which supplies only water.

THE FIRST REFUSAL TO UNDERSTAND HYDROELECTRIC ENERGY WITH THE RECYCLE OF WATER it happened with the protocol n. 77232 of 26/05/2015 of the Italian patent office against patent filing no. 102149022298581 of 06/10/2014 entitled “Submerged hydroelectric plants for the production of energy, oxygenation of the seabed and artificial welling”, where they send me the research report of the European patent office. Which asserts:

In the present application there is a fundamental insufficiency of explanation in the sense that the claimed invention can not be understood by a person skilled in the art. The present application, as far as can be understood from the unclear formulation of the claims, concerns a hydroelectric plant comprising a pump and a turbine arranged in a vertical tube immersed in water, whereby the pump feeds the turbine to produce energy. In particular, the presumed hydroelectric power plant does not exploit any wave or currents of water or energy (see page 1 of the description), but is rather designed to use the hydraulic height in the vertical pipe which, with the help of the pump, would maintain water flow to the turbine. According to the description the plant would be able to exploit the largest source of energy on the planet, clean and infinite, that nobody has ever thought to use (see page 1, last paragraph). Furthermore, the description indicates that the current hydropower plant would presumably be capable of producing a net production of energy; this would result from the positive difference between the energy obtainable from the turbine and the energy required for operation the pump to transfer the water downwards, also taking into account all inevitable losses (see the description, for example the last paragraph of the page 3 and the paragraph between pages 7 and 8). However, this would be clearly impossible because it would imply that, in a constant way throughout the operation of the plant, energy would be created from nothing, as in a “perpetuum mobile” machine type and therefore violates the law of conservation of energy.

It is believed that, in a stable operating condition of the current hydroelectric plant, the energy required to pump the water to the highest depth and through the turbine will be greater than the energy obtained from the rotation of the turbine. Where the successful execution of an invention is inherently impossible because it would be contrary to well established physical laws, as in the present case, where the successful execution of an invention is inherently impossible because it would be contrary to well established physical laws. as in the present case, the invention must be considered as insufficiently described.  Furthermore, although the argument defined in the claims may be industrially manufactured for illustrative purposes, it would not work in the manner presumed in the present application because this would be contrary to the well established physical from the physical law, as indicated above. Therefore, even the industrial applicability requirements are not considered satisfied. The objections raised above are such that there seems to be no possibility of overcoming them.

The reply of the undersigned to this refusal was as follows:

 With reference to the ministerial letter dated 26/05/2015. Prot. N.77232, received on 06/03/2015, the present is intended to provide to your Office the arguments of the Applicant in support of the patentability of the invention subject to the application for patent under examination and a set of modified claims as set forth in Art. 5 (1) of the Ministerial Decree of 27 June 2008.

In the written opinion the industrial applicability of the invention has been denied, since, according to the examiners, the invention can not be understood by a person skilled in the art. The examiners claim that the energy would be created from nothing, such as in a “perpetuum mobile” and therefore violates the law of conservation of energy.These statements by the examiners refer to generic principles that are valid only for simple machines and circuits closed systems. Today, plant technology allows energy exchanges between different environments and energy transfers that multiply the energy spent in terms of the performance of calories or refrigeration. We must not speak of efficiency but of energy transfer, since it costs less to transfer the energy from one form to the other that produces it, obviously, integrating it, with the performance of the machines. For example, with the use of compression or gas absorption heat pumps. We can have a COP (coefficient of performance) above 5. It means that for each Kw consumed they produce 5 in terms of heat or cold. We can also have a coefficient GUE (gas utilization efficiency) that reaches 1.75, which means that they exceed the lower heating power of the 1.75-fold. These facilities are an acquired reality. Those who invented them knew very well that closed systems can not exceed one hundred percent of the energy spent, so they tried and found solutions that allow exploiting thermal energies existing in the air, in the water and in the subsoil (geothermal). These systems do not violate the principles of energy conservation producing more than they absorb, but on the contrary, they apply them coherently, taking energy from the universal network that creates nothing and transforms everything, into a system open to all physical, chemical and biological transformations. For myself, the example of heat pumps can also be applied to large thermal, purifying and energy plants. In fact, the proposed plants are not closed but connected to other plants, and other sources of biological chemical physical energy, according to the environment in which they are made. In the specific case of submerged hydropower, one can not ignore the existing hydrostatic pressure, which can easily be transformed into kinetic energy to be transferred to the blades of a turbine that drives a current generator. But Heat pumps show that energy transfer is not automatic. It is necessary to create special systems for every energy resource that is intended to be recovered.

 Since the undersigned has also provided formulas and calculations that prove the validity of the invention, the examiners should enter into the merits of the operation of the system and the calculations made, not generally assert that the principles of physics are violated. For the undersigned the opposite is true. This solution rationalizes the way of producing energy while protecting the environment. It is not simply neutral.

The undersigned, who does not allow himself to question the experience in the branch of the plumbing of examiners, believes that what has been written at the end of page 2 and at the beginning of page 3 of the patent application has escaped: “our circuit does not it is closed but submerged and subjected to an infinite reservoir, which does not recycle the same water but reintegrates it immediately in any quantity thanks to the principle of communicated vessels, based on the presence of gravity, which uniforms the surface level. Moreover, since the plant is intubated, the water we move can not be reintegrated by the surrounding water. It must necessarily be reintegrated from above, entering from the upper tube, subjected separately to gravitational pressure. Therefore, the water that feeds the pump, which in turn feeds the turbine, thanks to the intubation, is separated from the surrounding water and can have its hydrostatic pressure concentrated on the impeller blades as the terrestrial systems and the plants can be hydraulically sized with the principles legislated by Bernoulli “. This paragraph is very important for the understanding of the circuit that produces energy, because without the pump intubation, the plant would have produced only a recycling of water around the pump and the turbine without any possibility of producing electricity. In fact, a flow of gravitational kinetic energy separated from the static mass of the basin water would not have been created. Instead, this flow, in the proposed circuit, starts from the surface layer of the water, enters the descent pipe, transforming the pressure energy into kinetic energy before entering the pump, as happens in any hydraulic water lifting system. powered under the hydraulic head. For this reason, the hydraulic formulas deriving from the Bernoulli theorem, in calculating the prevalence of a pump, expressed in meters of water column, subtract the geodetic height of the pump’s supply basin. This geodesic height (Hgeo) is called positive beating. Therefore, from what has been described, from the drawings and the hydraulic calculations shown as an example of sizing of the plants, both with the turbine in a sealed chamber and ducted directly under the pump, it is shown that the call to perpetual motion by the examiners is inappropriate for several reasons:

1) There is the consumption of electricity by the pump that generates the flow of water;

2) There is the atmospheric pressure and the hydrostatic head participating in feeding this flow and overcoming the load losses, according to principles universally used in the calculations of the prevalences of the plants and the hydraulic pumps, which refer to the principles of conservation of the power;

3) in an elementary hydraulic circuit in an open vessel, as in our case, the prevalence of the plant, is determined by the following factors:

A) Hgeo (m) = geodetic prevalence: distance between the upper water level and the pump axis. Hgeo in our case, for energy purposes, is positive because the pump is subjected to the water level and pumps down.

Note: It is important to note that in hydraulic applications known to the state of the art, positive Hgeo is always lower than negative Hgeo, which is constituted by the geodetic height of the discharge basin. In fact, the pumps are used above all to lift the water to the water distribution basins (with negative HGEO) that can also be placed hundreds of meters in height, while positive HGEO, in general, is only a few meters.

However, the hydraulic principles are the same and the undersigned did not consider it necessary to deepen them to explain the operation of his invention. In fact, in submerged hydroelectric plants, the operating conditions of the known hydraulic systems are reversed. Positive HGEO assumes very high values, whereas negative HGEO disappears completely, being the same suction and discharge level. Therefore, the pumps are not used to lift the water but to produce energy together with the turbines, which alone can not exploit positive HGEO, needing kinetic energy, to turn the blades and the shaft of the current generator.

B) Pdc (m) = sum of all load losses of the system, which, for the purpose of absorbing the pressure energy are to be considered with the negative sign. In our case they are represented by the down tube, the special pieces, the resistance to the rotation of the turbine and the loss of load at the outlet Pds.

Consequently, the prevalence of the system, which is equal to the head required by the “H” pump, is equal to the algebraic sum of: Hgeo (+) Pdc (-) Pds (-). This is exactly what has been done in the simple hydraulic calculations given in the description, where only the loss of load at the outlet has been omitted, considered negligible and further reducible by means of diffuser cones that reduce the output speed. It is evident that by placing the pump under a high positive leaf, the head required at the pump becomes very low because all the energy required to overcome the loss of pressure is supplied by Hgeo, while the pump must only ensure the continuity of the flow and win the state of initial inertia which certainly requires a higher energy absorption, but these are problems already solved by the state of the art which allows a gradual starting of the motors.

The fact that the examiners have not found previous patents that produce energy through the combination of pumps and turbines does not mean that the solution can not be achieved. If they had found other inventions using the same system, they would have confirmed the industrial application but the requirements of inventiveness and novelty would have ceased to exist. Instead, in this invention, once the technical doubts of the examiners have been clarified, the industrial applicability of the system is even more evident than novelty and inventiveness, since it would allow energy production at very low costs, not only without polluting the environment but protecting the waters from the phenomenon of eutrophication.

The reason why this invention has not yet been realized despite its simplicity is due to the fact that it was necessary to simultaneously put together four more practical and theoretical intuitions: 1) the exploitation for energy purposes of the positive hydrostatic head of existing water basins; 2) vertical intubation of the circuit; 3) overturning the pump to push the water down; 4) the feeding of a turbine by means of a pump, which at the current state of the art may seem a contradiction. In fact, without the coincidence of these four practical intuitions, which find irrefutable scientific evidence, mentioned above, it would not have been possible to defeat secular technical taboos, which prevented the production of energy in the simplest, cheapest and cleanest way in the world. Without unnecessary pollution from fossil fuels, without billionaires investments in large hydraulic works to produce useless hydraulic leaps and without financing anti-economic energies, which subtract investments in social welfare.

Obviously, the replication was useless, the patent was not granted and nobody verified who is right. It is so difficult to understand that by intubating the water in a large or small basin from above and putting a pump and a turbine in the lower part in series, do we have the static pressure between the inside and the outside of the pipe? But by operating the pump, a kinetic energy develops within the entire vertical tube, depending on the entire column on the pump. The speed of the water is slowed by the turbine blades and therefore produces energy. The water exits the bottom with a low low speed, at which the external pressure can not oppose, because the static pressures inside and outside the pipe where the energy production takes place are the same. Is it so difficult to understand that the amount of energy produced depends on the depth at which we install the pump that pumps down, which does not have to supply energy but only to conquer the inertia state? The energy produced by the Torricelli principle because the pump overcoming the inertia state works like a gate that connects a submerged outlet to atmospheric pressure. If the turbine were not there, the water outlet speed would be very high and all the torricellian kinetic energy would dissipate in heat, instead of producing electricity. How do you assert that this is a closed circuit and that the turbine produces only the energy that supplies the pump?

THE SECOND REFUSAL TO UNDERSTAND HYDROELECTRIC ENERGY WITH THE RECYCLE OF WATER occurred in the research report sent with the letter dated 06/06 / 2016. Prot. N.159075 related to the invention called “electro pumps and turbines with double feeding spout” n. 102015000048796 of 07 September 2015. In this research report the European patent office declares relevant documents that have nothing to do with the invention of the undersigned and makes a lot of formal reliefs without understanding what my invention is for, although I had attached many drawings for make it understood. Here’s what they write:

Reasoned statement with regard to novelty, inventive step or industrial applicability; citations and explanations supporting such statement. Reference is made to the following documents:

US 2002/114694 A1 (TEPLANSZKY GEORGE .i [us]) 22 Augusr 2oo2 (2002-os-22)

US 1 927 727 A (uoi-1N BUZARD) 2o october 1991 (1931-1o-20)

The claims are not clear. In the following, the most severe clarity objections are stated. The term “Electric pumps and turbines” used in the claims leaves the reader in Doubt if pumps, turbines or both is claimed. The term “sector” used in claim 1 was not introduced. lt is unclear, to which feature it refers or it has relations to. Maybe it was meant to refer to the inlets. The term  parts water flow without solution of continuity  used in claim 1 is unclear. No technical features are provided by what an absence of a solution of continuity  can be justified. Moreover, it is not clear, to what solution of continuity is referring to. The expression  the electric pumps do not serve to overcome the pressure of hydraulic load but only the state of inertia  used in claim 1 is unclear: neither a “hydraulic load” nor a “state of inertia” was defined. Therefore, the result to be achieved cannot be identified and with this, no features, which would be necessary to achieve the result, can be related or are obvious. The term “… direction of the atmospheric pressure used in claim 1 is unclear. A pressure is a scalar value and has no direction. The term  calculated hydraulic head  used in claim 1 is unclear: no such calculation or a preceding definition of the value is present in the claim. The expression  overcome the pressure Iosses in the turbines and in the tubes  used in claim 1 is unclear. Pressure Iosses can be produced by different factors (friction, changing of the cross sections of flow sections, obstacles in the flow, impellers). As it is unclear by what exactly the mentioned pressure Iosses are generated, it is also not clear how such pressure Iosses can be overcome. 1 Moreover,the formulation attempt to define the subject-matter in terms of the result to be achieved (overcome pressure losses), which merely amounts to a statement of the underlying problem, without providing the technical features necessary for achieving this result. lt is unclear if the expression  mobile installations that produce energy with water recycling  used in claim 1 should be part of the scope protected by the claim, as there is no relation to other features of the claim. The term  the electric pump is controlled by a group of three-phase at the initial stage  used in claim 1 is unclear as the term  group of three-phase y at the initial stage  has no well recognized technical meaning. The term  the rotation speed is managed by inverter during exercise” used in claim 1 is unclear as it is not obvious from the context, to which feature “rotation speed” refers to. lt is supposed that it should refer to the pump. The term “submersible multicellular pumps” used in claims 4 and 5 has no well recognized technical meaning and the skilled person is unable to associate respective features. The term “delivery mouth” used in claim 5 has no well recognized technical meaning and the skilled person is unable to associate respective features. Due to the number of clarity issues stated above, independent claim 1 was interpreted with the help of the drawings and the description. However, the present application does not meet the criteria of patentability, because the subject-matter of claim 1, insofar as this claim can be understood, does not involve an inventive step. 1 D1 is regarded as being the prior art closest to the subject-matter of claim 1 and shows the following features (the references in parenthesis applying to this document):

Electric pumps and turbines (paragraph 1 and 23) with double supply inlet (46; figure 1) whereby the electric pumps circulate ducted water (paragraph 17); the entry of water from two sides happens by means of a special piece applied externally (figure 1), which divides into two symmetrical parts (paragraph 21) water flow without solution of continuity, to the inside of the pump body (22), stopping in correspondence of the impeller and following the profile (figure 1); at least one of the suction intakes must be connected with a tank at atmospheric pressure (paragraph 48). The subject-matter of claim 1 therefore differs from this known D1 in that D1 does not show: that each sector is in turn divided into four channels by sheets separating of the flow which also reach up to the impeller, even they follow the profile the rotation speed is managed by an inverter during exercise However, dividing the sectors or the inlet pipes into four channels by sheets is a known option for the skilled person in order to straighten the flow in cun/ed pipes (see for example D2: figure 6). The fact that these sheets are reaching up to the impeller would be also an 4 option; moreover, the sheets being near to the impeller would simply displace the mixing process of the two inflows after the impeller and would lead to an equivalent technical effect. The pressure in the area around the impeller, the outflow and the two inflows is dependent on the instantaneous power of the pump. The inverter is considered to be a standard feature which is considered, if not implicit, to be a widely and well known feature. The two differences between claim 1 and D1 (inverter and subdivided sectors) therefore seem to represent merely a simple juxtaposition of known features and not a true combination which would be providing a functional interaction between the features and achieving a combined technical effect which is different from, e.g. greater than, the sum of the technical effects of the individual features. The solution proposed in claim 1 of the present application can therefore not be considered as involving an inventive step. Dependent claims 2-7 do not appear to contain any additional features which, in combination with the features of any claim to which they refer, meet the requirements of inventive step, the reasons being as follows:  Claims 2 and 3: The subject-matter of the claims refers to technical details which seem obvious to the skilled person starting from D1. Claims 4 and 5: As far as the claims can be understood, their subject-matter seem obvious to the skilled person starting from D1. I The applications stated in claim 6 would be an option for the skilled person. Claim 7: Different curvature angles of the inflow pipes do not seem to add anything inventive to the present application.

From these very long observations of the examiners, only formal, which are lost in details of no importance, I think they have not understood that the pumps already exist at the state of the art and that the undersigned only modifies the way to feed them, making them become double separate power supply up to the impeller. If the current pumps work, the modified pumps also work. But this simple modification allows the plants to be built differently. For this reason it is one of the most important inventions in the history of mankind. However, my answer was as follows:

With reference to the ministerial letter dated 06/06/2016. Prot. N.159074, received on 14/06/2016, the present is intended to provide your Office the arguments of the Applicant in support of the patentability of the invention subject to the application for patent under examination and a set of modified claims as set forth in Art. 5 (1) of the Ministerial Decree of 27 June 2008.

In the written opinion, inventive activity is not recognized. For myself, this lack of recognition is due to the fact that the European examiners were limited only to the examination of the claims without taking into account the description in Italian, drawings or even the summary in English. In fact, these documents clarify the purpose for which this invention was born, which concerns both pumps and turbines. The pumps are the heart of hydraulic lifting systems and the turbines are at the heart of hydroelectric power plants, but these plants are now strictly separated due to the lack of inventiveness in the design of the plants and pumps. In fact, with the inventive activity it is possible to produce energy in the plants that lift and distribute the water, modifying what is needed, case by case, both the plants and the pumps and the turbines.

The inventiveness of a patent can not be conditioned by the way in which the claims are written, which are claimed to describe only how the machine or plant is made, without taking into account the operation and industrial applications which involves this change in all the sectors concerned.

Over all the European examiner focused only on the words used in the claims. It defines a word as “nozzle” of the pump unclear, defining it unclear to the experts in the field. This word, the undersigned, who is definitely an expert in the plumbing industry, has known her for half a century. The examiner defines unclear the direction of the intubated water coinciding with the direction of atmospheric pressure, because the atmospheric pressure has no direction  How do you make such observations without understanding that in a circuit connected to open tanks is the entry and exit of atmospheric pressure to determine the flow direction? Obviously, in the pressurized circuits and that, the turbines employ the pumps; the direction of the flow determines the orientation of the delivery of the pump and the output of the turbine which can not not coincide with the direction of the dynamic pressure. For the undersigned, certainly more experienced in the hydraulic circuits of the examiner, the pressure that has no direction is the static in a closed tank without fluid circulation, which is not the case examined. The European examiner fills three pages of criticism of this kind in seven short claims that occupy a little more than one page, without getting in the least in the technical and scientific concepts that led to this invention, which can not be thwarted by formal considerations, while justified by the wrong way in which they were written, but which have nothing to do with inventive activity.

At the state of the art, hydraulic lifting systems are wrong because they absorb too much energy. Consequently, it is obvious that, from an energetic point of view, the way to build the pumps for lifting and water distribution is wrong. In the same way, it can be said that the state of the art from the technical and economic point of view, hydroelectric plants are wrong, because they produce energy only by exploiting hydraulic jumps, and streams of water already equipped with kinetic energy. Today, in order to exploit these energies, it is necessary to realize great civil works that can not always be realized and are not always in harmony with the environment. The pump with double feeding port on the suction side, as it was conceived by myself (with the dividing partitions of the water flows that reach right inside the pump impeller), that the research report confirms that they do not exist also on the basis of the documents that the examiners have attached, represents what in the mechanics was the inclined plane, the lever of Archimedes, the gear transmission ratio or with pulleys. In fact, it allows you to lift the water absorbing energies tens of times lower than those of traditional pumps, which were among the first inventions of the industrial era. Until today these pumps, despite the conceptual simplicity, have not yet been realized because it was necessary a great inventiveness by the inventor, who had to simultaneously conceive the modification of the plants in many versions, deepening the reasoning, on the physical characteristics of the water. In fact, the water being incompressible, allows circulations inside the accumulated volume without having to spend energies that involve the lifts against the gravity force and the pressures of the air cushions of the autoclave tanks.  The change, to a lesser extent (which depends on the applications in the plants) also concerns the turbines, which can be considered pumps fed backwards (pump as turbines = pat), which can produce electricity by exploiting the energy of position of the water, placed at the top, if they are combined with pumps that create a circulation that does not develop in static water alone, if no special plants are built.  Figure 4 also shows the use of turbines with separate dual feeds until to the impeller, which is a rarer use of the pumps, but possible. In the present application, the examiners say that it is not clear whether the patent application concerns only the pumps or even the turbines. For the undersigned the question is useless because the title itself of the invention speaks of pumps and turbines with double supply mouths, moreover, as written above, conceptually, the turbine is a pump that works powered upside down.  So the modification of the pumps and turbines is not absolute, but it must be seen according to the plants in which the modified pumps and turbines will be installed. These systems, at the state of the art, do not exist because of the lack of inventiveness of the designers of the past, who did not think that the pumps and turbines can coexist in the same plant, creating new ways to save and produce energy. Do not accept the inventiveness of pumps and turbines with a double separate supply opening and of the systems in which they will be installed, appealing only to presumed unclear words extracted from the claims, not from the many pages of descriptions and drawings, which clarify the scientific concepts and technicians, means denying the possibility of producing sustainable energy in the fixed and mobile version. In fact, it denies the possibility of the birth of some of the most important inventions in human history, being the only ones that put together can overcome the force of gravity, both to save over 90% of the energy needed for hydraulic lifts, both to produce hydroelectric energy without the classic hydraulic jump. In fact, the hydraulic jump although it has been used to produce energy for over a hundred years, its implementation did not require inventive activity for the conceptual aspect, but only for the technological one. Just think of the wooden blades of the mills that have grinded wheat for thousands of years to remove inventiveness from the exploitation of the hydraulic jump. While still today nobody produces energy with static water recycled in the same volume and during the water lifting phase. In fact, if the plants are always kept full at the highest level, since it is the level of water that produces energy in the turbines, it is obvious that even static water can produce energy if we intubate the surface water and pass it through the turbines. , after having recycled the used water from the turbine, making it enter the suction side of a pump with a separate dual feed, which recycles the water from the upper basin with the other feeder. In fact, the water produces energy during the descent, exploiting only the energy of position of the surface water with respect to that coming out of the turbine. Precisely because these concepts are not easily understandable even by experts in hydraulics, the undersigned has filed on the same day (07/09/2015) three patent deposits (102015000048789 -102015000048792, 102015000048796) of which the first concerns hydraulic lifting systems, which also become energy producers (fig.4); the second concerns a producer of hydroelectric energy with recycled water pressurized with compressed air (figs 5 and 6); The third patent filing concerns the modification that the pumps and turbines must undergo so that they can be inserted into these plants to save energy and produce hydroelectric energy differently from the current state of the art.  In fact, inventiveness is not in the single machine but in the systems (hydraulic – energy) that must be designed differently. These concepts at the state of the art have not yet been acquired and therefore unknown to those skilled in the art and therefore also to patent examiners.

In my opinion, the first mistake was made by the Italian patent office that separated the three patents, entrusting them to different examiners, these could not understand the global scope of the three inventions combined and the usefulness of the internal division of the pumps and the turbines up to the impeller. In fact, two patent deposits were transmitted to the European office, while the third that would produce only electricity by recycling the pressurized water from an autoclave managed by means of a pump a turbine and a compressor that restores the air cushion was rejected and defined as “perpetual motion” (impossible to achieve for the Italian examiner, who certainly can not be expert, if the same experts do not know these plants). The written opposition from the undersigned has served nothing. Even the European patent examiners have already shown that they have serious deficiencies in hydraulic knowledge, also defining their “perpetual motion” another even simpler patent filing (CE2014A000012 concerning the production of hydroelectric energy with pumps and submerged turbines with single feed). The reasoning that led the examiners who rejected the aforementioned patents was not scientific, as they did not enter into the details of the hydraulic calculations enclosed by the undersigned. They simply did not believe it possible that the most important applications escaped from hydrology experts, including many scientists. But this reasoning reinforces even more the inventiveness of the three inventions, including the one in question. In fact, article 48 of the ICC writes: An invention is considered as involving an inventive step if, for a person skilled in the art, it is not evident from the state of the art. This is the case of the three inventions filed on 07/09/2015 and the previous CE2014A000012. The entire hydrology sector can not be considered fully experienced, having had colossal oversights, which have penalized the production of sustainable energy and the protection of the environment, above all, underestimating, the role of the incompressibility of water and the compressibility of the air in the design of pump and turbine systems, but also by not sufficiently distinguishing the functions of static and dynamic pressure (or kinetic energy) in practical hydraulic applications. In fact, theoretically everyone knows the difference between static and dynamic pressure, but if we propose plants that exploit this difference, the examiners define it as “perpetual motion”, while the presumed experts who have never realized plants with the features highlighted the undersigned, silent for obvious interest of part or to conceal colossal errors of design errors that have affected above all the water saving and the production of sustainable energy. Having to modify the majority of industrial plants, civil, environmental and energy existing in the world, the undersigned misses interlocutors because the alleged experts have designed the hydraulic systems without sufficiently deepen the possible circuits with the combination between the pumps and turbines, with water recycling at atmospheric pressure and pressurized with an autoclave. The study of these circuits that only those who know the plants and the machines could do even from the point of practical and functional view has led to the modification to be made to the pumps and turbines to transform them with the double separate supply until to the impeller, which is fundamental for the future of industrial, environmental civil and world energy development. However, this change is very simple:

it consists in the division into four parts of the inlet section, continuing this division also in the internal part of the pump or turbine body, up to the rotating impeller, perfectly following the profile. The rotation of the impeller, in the case of the pump, entails a depression in the center of the impeller which coincides with the arrival section of the four separate flows. Therefore, it favors the entry of the flows even if they are fed with different positive pressures, because the rotating impeller and the narrow tolerances of the coupling plays of the fixed and mobile parts, force the water of different origin to advance in the same direction , alternating successively in the same quarter sections of the rotating impeller. In the case of the turbine, however, there is no need for the impeller produced by the turbine, also because the turbine blades rotate in the opposite direction to those of the pump. Just the simple division of the flow, up to the impeller and the precision of the mechanical processes that prevent the entry of water with greater static pressure in the parallel sectors fed with lower hydrostatic pressure. Therefore, both for the pumps and for the turbines, if we feed the inlet ports with the same pressure they work (more or less) with the same performance as the current pumps and turbines. If, instead, we feed the inlet ports with different pressures, at the pump outlet have the sum of the flow rates and the maximum pressure (static + dynamic produced by the pump), even if the greater static pressure is on only one side of the pump; while at the exit of the turbines we have the sum of the flow rates and the maximum kinetic energy exploited, even if the greater static pressure enters through only one of the two inlets (Pascal principle). Obviously the results of these sums must be multiplied by the yields that depend on the type of impeller used and on the precision of the machining operations.

Since this invention is very simple to realize, nobody has understood its importance, therefore, it could only be understood through the description of the new plants invented specifically for water saving and energy production, which without the use of this pump could not be invented. The undersigned did not expect so much incomprehension on the part of the examiners on the hydraulic principles used, that absolutely they were never violated. The oppositions received were always of a formal nature and when in some applications they opposed the violation of a principle of conservation of energy, the Italian and European examiners were unable to explain how and what principle was violated. In particular, when it came to the production of submerged hydroelectric energy (which is based on the incompressibility of water) and when it came to electricity generators that use a cushion of compressed air on the surface of water collected in a tank (which exploits the energy accumulated in compressed air and the incompressibility of water). These cases, which always see the combination of single or double separate power pumps combined with the turbines have not yet been developed worldwide because the arguments on the operation of the pumps and turbines in certain circuits have not been examined in depth. put together for the first time in the whole world, and the research reports confirm it.  It is evident that behind the silence of the experts of the energy sector there are great interests of part and a private inventor who can not prove anything practically for lack of economic means, is in serious difficulty, especially if he has to fight also against patent offices. Which, as public offices, included in the ministries of economic development, should encourage innovations, not to curb them on the basis of generic, in-depth, school principles in the field of fluid dynamics.

In the two cases mentioned above, the undersigned, instead of spending about six hundred euros for an appeal, preferred, after a few months, to resubmit the patent with another application, spending only fifty euros with a new electronic deposit. Then we will see how it turns out.

Unfortunately, patent examiners cannot think that in the dynamic fluid sector, the experts of the sector have never hypothesized to develop virtually and virtually the solutions that developed the undersigned, otherwise the submerged hydropower, that with the recycling of the water and the pressurized, fixed and mobile, would already be a reality and the world would be much better.

In the case that only concerns the pumps with the double separate power supply, which good or bad, has passed the Italian exam, the undersigned, could not increase the description, risking the invalidation of the patent deposit. For which it provides other explanations and another example of application with the requirements of inventive activity and industrial application, reserving the right to enrich the description in a possible subsequent international patent filing that uses the deposit in question only as a priority document. For me, what matters is the fact that the European examiners did not find similar applications. Without this simple invention, it is not possible to produce energy by recycling water, even if it does not depend only on the pump, but on the plants as a whole.

In this letter of reply to the research report, reserved only for Italian examiners, the undersigned, invites the Italian examiners to also read a subsequent patent filing of the undersigned, where, based on the deepening of the concepts expressed, he arrives to propose, even a car with a hydroelectric engine. To develop this project, the undersigned has waited to respond to the protocol in question. An example of such an important application should be to honor the entire Italian industry, if there was more teamwork and private inventors were not left alone, especially by public institutions, which also includes the Italian patent office. The following excerpt of the description is attached with the relative figures extracted from the patent filing N. 102016000087373 dated 25/08/2016, with relative drawings (for further details the  original patent filing  can be consulted):

Observing the FIG.1, it is necessary to make a distinction between the static and dynamic pressure of system.  The static pressure is the pressure supplied by the compressed air cushion and with the valve (1.4) open, spreads on the right side of the pump with double separate supply also entering into the impeller. The dynamic pressure, or kinetic energy, is that which circulates the water inside the tubes and autoclave. In open circuit on the left side of the autoclave. To circulate the water is sufficient to open the valve (2.2) and the air pressure circulates the water in the turbine, but the air pressure decreases as it expands the volume of air and the water comes out from the circuit. While to circulate the water on the right side of the pump with the double separate supply up to the impeller, it is necessary to open the valve (1.4) and to move the pump since the static pressure already fills the entire circuit, also coming into the impeller, but without the movement of the pump the water is not circulating for obvious reasons. However, it is sufficient to provide the pump the prevalence of a few cm of water column to overcome the pressure loss of the check valve, since the static pressure does not oppose the kinetic energy developed internally to the stored volume of water.  So, we can have a static pressure of 12 bar and a dynamic pressure of 0.25 bar. But the movement on the right side (looking at FIG. 1) does not produce energy, being only an internal recycling in the stored water volume. To produce energy we must use the circuit on the left side of the autoclave passing through the pump used as a turbine (2) and insert with a low energy cost the water free of static pressure in the autoclave tank, that the current state of the art requires a pump with a prevalence that wins the static pressure and the pressure drop, then a higher prevalence to 12.5 bar. This is the reason why hydropower with water recycling has never been produced. With the pump with double separate supply until to the impeller we can achieve this application with a very low energy cost that seems impossible, because coming from the suction side of the pump that is already full of water statically pressurized from the autoclave, we get around the opposition of pressure hydrostatic, as if it were an internal circulation to the pressurized volume of water. In fact, the suction pipe of the pump, which comes from the left side (open) and from the right side (closed) is divided into four fixed and separate sectors (as seen from FIG.2), therefore, when the impeller rotates, advances towards the autoclave the water present in the impeller and produces in each quarter of the sector of the supply pipe a depression which favors the entry of water into the impeller both from right side, both from the left side. As soon as the inlet water is involved by centrifugal acceleration towards the periphery, produced by the fins of the impeller which is proportional to the square of the angular velocity, and in the radius of rotation, according to coefficients that depend on the type of impeller But the important characteristic of the pump with the dual separate power supply is one that the rotation forces the impeller to receive in succession in the same quarter of the impeller, the water sucked from the four separate sectors. Not simultaneously, as is the case with pumps that have only one power supply. Therefore, the water of open circuit (no static pressure) and the water of the closed circuit (with the static pressure of the autoclave), alternates in the same location and with the same direction (toward the impeller exit). This functioning implies that the flow rates are added together, while the total pressure (static plus dynamic) spreads in the entire outlet section, according to the principle of Pascal. Obviously, since the static pressure is only transmitted from the right side of the system, for not having drops in pressure in the pump with the dual separate supply, the passage sections must be dimensioned, for the transmission of the entire flow rate and pressure. This simple modification of the pump allows us to retrieved with costs infinitesimal the water that has produced energy in the pump used as a hydraulic turbine which is located on the left side of the system and reinsert it in the pressurized water recycling of the tank circuit, without that occurs the pressure drop due to the expansion of the air cushion, which occurs in normal autoclaves, whose restoring, would require energy both from the pumps that the compressors. In fact, the autoclave system was not born to produce energy, but to limit the number of starts of the pump motors, by providing for a few minutes to the hydraulic system, which consumes water, the volume of water stored by means of the expansion of the cushion of air. It ‘obvious, that the same system can be used to produce energy if the water exits the autoclave circuit (to produce energy) and go back simultaneously by another input, without changing the internal volume. Obviously, the return of water i pressurized autoclave must not be with the force of a multistage pump, which consumes more energy than it produced, giving reason to skeptics who ironically call “perpetual motion” hydropower with water recycling. Skeptics have been right only because it lacked the pump invention with double separate supply until to the impeller. In fact, if the separation of the flow does not reach inside the impeller and if this is not rotating, the system does not work, relying on the dynamic pressure to bypass the static pressure. In the hydropower system of the car the valve (2.2), which feeds the pump used as a turbine, must be strictly closed when the car is not in operation, otherwise they are not the conditions for starting the system.  In the car hydroelectric plant of FIG.1, we expand the air cushion only in the starting phase of the hydraulic motor, to reduce battery costs for starting and possible three-phase UPS group. During normal operation, the water coming out from the autoclave must be perfectly in a quantity equal to that which enters into the left mouth of the pump with the double feeding, without stopping in the tank (3) and without accelerating the flow, while the mouth the right is used only to pressurized water recycling from the air cushion (the recycling pump works with a very low prevalence merely to recycle the water in the same volume without lift or win the compressed air cushion pressure). Today these adjustments are possible by establishing a priori limit the oscillation of the water level in the two side by side tanks, either by means of adjustments of the valves, both of the speed of the pump motors, while the decrease of the air pressure is regulated by a pressure switch that drives the compressor at the minimum variation. Thus, at rated operating conditions, not happening the variation of volume of water in the pressurized tank, do not happen the expansion of the air cushion, therefore, no power is consumed to compress the air cushion. However, the water that comes out from the autoclave also receives the pressure required to produce energy in the turbine. Obviously, the energy absorption can not be eliminated completely, but it consumes only a very small percentage of the current energies that absorb the hydraulic systems that need to raise the water or compress the air cushions.

In another extract of the same patent filing no.102016000087373, the concepts on the operation of the pump with the double feeding are further clarified: “These optimistic technical considerations on the production of energy that someone defines” produced from nothing “are not hopes but certainties , confirmed by the same technique of construction of hydraulic pumps, in particular, those multistage, with closed impeller, which are used in this application, both with the turbine function, both with the pump function with the double power supply separate to the impeller . In fact, the construction technique of these pumps and the precision of the workings, allow you to get to build pumps with a prevalence up to a hundred bar.  We do not need to get to these prevalences, but this shows, what has been stated in this description, namely that the rotation of the impeller, performs the function of anti return from the left side of the pump with the double separate power supply (FIG.1 ), supplied with less static pressure. In fact, in the current multistage pumps, the pressures that can be reached could not be reached, if the rotating impeller and the precision of the workings did not perform a powerful anti-return function, since the water leaks through the coupling yokes between the fixed parts and rotating, would prevent the increase of pressure from one stage to another. Therefore, implicitly, we already have the confirmation of succeeding with very low costs to recover the water and to reinsert it in the pressurized tank, following the path of the second separate suction mouth up to the impeller, while the other mouth recycles with very low pressure head the water equipped with high static pressure, using the same impeller. For the above, it can be said that there is no more valid application in the world from an industrial and economic point of view. “

The patent offices, in this context of the absence of development of the hydroelectric sector with the recycling of water, which worldwide is developing only the undersigned (without public and private funds because the truly sustainable energy is scary to all the centers of the economic power) that the experts do not want to highlight to hide serious responsibilities, not only technical, but also social, penalize the inventors, who not only do not have money to demonstrate their inventions, they must also find the money to make legal appeals.

As the undersigned, as mentioned, already damaged on previous patent deposits, to avoid being misunderstood again, he presented three patents together, so that they would be examined jointly and with greater attention, not only by the examiners, but also, possibly, by qualified consultants, not involved in general errors in the whole sector. Above all, while it is true that patents are an important indicator of the country’s development, inventors should not be left alone to fight against huge, partisan interests, especially in the fields of energy and the environment. It should be the Ministry of Economic Development of the country that is following more closely the patents that could benefit Italy against the competing countries, which are as many as 195, including the European countries, which continue to hinder each other. But, obviously, what should have been a logical procedure, in the name of common interest, did not occur. The three patents have had different paths, entering into the merits of the solutions at the sole discretion of a single examiner. An Italian examiner rejected the filing 102015000048792, and the two patents who survived the Italian examining the same mentality, who did not enter into the merits of the solutions, but only in the bureaucratic aspects of filling out the claims. But the hydroelectric car shown above derives precisely from the patent deposit rejected by the Italian examiner, from the present patent filing, whose inventiveness has been rejected by the European examiner. With due respect, for the examiners, for myself, the most serious mistake that the examiners can commit is to provide for the status of the art of specializations and sciences, since they always investigate in the same direction. They can improve systems, but do not overcome defects of origin. In fact, car manufacturers today are launching cars with large and expensive lithium rechargeable batteries, which is also an endangered material. They know very well that compressed air is an excellent energy accumulator and is also more environmentally friendly and does not cost anything. But they did not have the inventiveness of studying a circuit to exploit it, being fossilized to think only about thermal engines, mechanics and control electronics. While the hydroelectric engine combines the dynamic fluid of the air water, the mechanics and the control electronics and can not work without the pump with the double power supply separated up to the impeller and without the circuit realized exactly as designed by myself.

In current plumbing systems, water is used as a weight to be lifted or used for fall. At best for heat exchange in open and closed vessel circuits. The absence of inventiveness has not allowed, since the advent of the industrial era, immense energy savings and immense energy production without wasting water. The creativity of the plants that lift the water producing energy is low especially on the exploitation of the unbeatable water, on the combination with the turbines and on the pumps with the double feed separated to the impeller, while the creativity of the plants that produce energy with small volumes of water, in fixed and mobile versions), in addition to the unbundling of water, and pumps with dual power supply, when combined with turbines, also require compressibility of the air. But patent examiners are not used to examining cross-cutting facilities in various disciplines and they focus only on scientific principles, valid in isolated systems, and on claims that must only describe how the machine or plant is made. Everything that is around a machine or plant in a system that has not developed properly can not be understood if we do not put together a state of the art that has only developed virtually through the projects of the undersigned. Today there is nothing similar to the undersigned electro-hydraulic design, which is the only one that could immediately replace fossil energy even on transport in a sustainable way. So much so that documents D1 and D2 attached to the research report have nothing in common with the functional aspects of pumps and turbines with double inlet. It is necessary to ask on the basis of which hydraulic principles the European examiner considers decisive for the negation of the inventive characteristic, the pump represented in the document D1? It does not have the separation of separate flows up into the impeller and therefore can not add the two flow rates inside the pump in the way it is used to circumvent the hydrostatic pressure which is opposed and can not perform the anti-return function of the impeller. ‘water, from the side with less hydrostatic pressure? The pump of the document D1 can not work according to the hydraulic diagrams of the original patent filing 4, 5, 6, where, as widely described, the supply pressures on the suction side are very different from each other. In fact, the partitions divisions (fss) of the special piece with double curve (fdsf) accompany the water with different pressure inside the impeller. Since the feed sectors are fixed and the impeller rotating, the impeller receives at the same point alternately water in low and high pressure, whereby the water in high pressure provides kinetic energy to the water in low pressure and raises it to the upper level, consuming only the energy needed to insert it into the circuit from the suction side of the pump, not the one that would be needed with the current single feed pumps, which lift the water without the help of the dynamic pressure of the upper basin that feeds one of the two ports of entry into the pump. If we tried to feed the diagram in Figure 4 with the D1 pumps that have the double feed, we would have a disastrous result because the water with greater pressure would completely prevent the entry of water with less pressure. So the plant could not lift water or even produce energy. The reasoning used to supply the pumps also applies to the turbines if they are powered by two tanks placed at different heights (as shown in fig 4). In fact, even in turbines the flow rates can be added together and the greater pressure can become common, only if the flows meet in the rotating impeller, not before. If the flow occurs first, the water with greater pressure, instead of supplying kinetic energy to the one with less pressure, loses its pressure trying to go back towards the tank with lower hydrostatic pressure. Instead, with the changes proposed at the same time to plants, pumps, turbines, the current water lifting systems will produce much more energy than they consume for the circulation of water, as evidenced by the energy calculations reported in the description. What is the use of energy calculations if nobody takes them into consideration? If this is not inventive, what is the inventive? Never as in this case, according to the undersigned, inventiveness predominates with respect to novelty and industrial applicability, which have instead been recognized. In fact, the pumps, turbines and lifting systems have existed for a hundred years and are never put together in the same plants because they lacked above all the invention of connection, which are, in fact, the modification of the plants, and the modification of the pumps and turbines. In light of the foregoing, the undersigned believes that the invention implies an inventive activity pursuant to Art. 48 CPI.

In light of the research report of the European patent office, this invention probably had to have a longer title to distinguish them immediately from other pump applications that have dual feed, but do not have internal separation up to the impeller, which is the fundamental aspect of the invention. The complete title of the invention should have been “Pumps and turbines with double separate supply opening up to the inside of the impeller”But such a long title is not allowed and the undersigned has failed to highlight sufficiently this aspect in the claims, but he hopes to have remedied in the new claims that he will probably propose internationally, with an expanded description and with new examples of employment. of turbine pumps with the double power supply separated until to the impeller, in fact, are applications that show that this simple invention is one of the most powerful energy inventions of all time.

It is therefore considered that the present invention meets all the patentability requirements laid down by the ICC and confides in the acceptance of the patent application under Article 173 (9) ICC. We remain at the disposal of the Office for any further clarification

  Despite the silences of science and the written opinion of the European patent office, the pumps with the double power supply separated to the impeller have become an international patent with a regular patent number. PCT / IT2016 / 0000202 – WO 2017/042847. But it took only thirty months to find international investors. This shows that there is something wrong at the level of international public institutions because they do nothing concrete to encourage the protection of the environment and the development of sustainable and protective energies of the environment. The solutions they finance are only inefficient palliatives. As I write this article (end of February 2018) I receive many invitations to hasten to complete the procedure by the specialized legal offices in the extension of international patents. Many have understood the importance of this patent and together with words of appreciation invite me to hurry up to complete the procedure otherwise my rights fall. At one of these offices that used more words of appreciation, I replied with the following letter:

Dear Director, I thank you for the words of appreciation for my patent, but I have decided not to spend even a dollar more for my patents. If anyone believes in this patent, they must also start to pay the small costs of filing patents in India and other countries. I am a simple pensioner with a small income and a family to support. I  have deposited about thirty two patents of public cleansing and energy, one of which European and five international, subtracting my family about 20,000 euros. Of all these patents, no one has ever been financed and I have let it fall by not paying maintenance fees. Some were not granted to me because they were considered contrary to the principles of energy conservation. But I consider all my patents to be valid, even if they have never been financed, being connected to each other, they represent a model of development that is alternative to the purification and energy systems and therefore to the whole current economy. . Which is based on the alliance between political economists and multinationals, while scientists and technicians have lost the habit of reasoning with their own heads, being satisfied with having a job. My patents are worth nothing from an economic and legal point of view because I have not paid maintenance fees in individual countries. Some were not granted to me because they were considered contrary to the principles of energy conservation. But I consider all my patents to be valid, even if they have never been financed, being connected to each other, they represent a model of development that is alternative to the purification and energy systems and therefore to the whole current economy. Which is based on the alliance between political economists and multinationals, while scientists and technicians have lost the habit of reasoning with their own heads, being satisfied with having a job. My patents are worth nothing from an economic and legal point of view because I have not paid maintenance fees in individual countries. But I say that inventors of patents of public utility do not have to pay any tax in any country in the world and that patents must be accessible to all countries in the world, such as medicines. I wanted to show that both governments and multinationals are currently not really interested in protecting the environment and neither are international justice nor the United Nations to whom I wrote nine open letters without receiving any answers. At this moment I am writing the tenth letter (the present). Sooner or later they will have to answer. Sooner or later, someone will experiment and build the pumps with the double power supply separated to the impeller, which are essential for realizing the energy and purification plants, fixed and mobile, as the undersigned indicated to produce energy protecting the environment. I have already done my part. I would prefer International justice to intervene by imposing on WIPO the change in patent laws, recognizing inventors the same rights as writers without chasing entrepreneurs and public bodies. Also to safeguard the dignity of the work of the inventors who are dedicated to solving these problems. In the meantime, if there are entrepreneurs who want to take advantage of current laws, to begin to innovate at least the pumps, I give my consent. As they say, do not give up the egg waiting for the hen. But I do not participate by subtracting other resources from the already scarce family resources to support the current system that does not deserve any support from private inventors, for the way they are treated. The absence of these pumps that allow to circumvent the gravitational forces and to purify and produce energy with costs hundreds of times lower than the current ones has already cost humanity more than the damage done by the mafias and wars. Only a free inventor could invent them, even if they differ from other pumps only for feeding. I expect things to take their course, especially justice, otherwise the free inventors of studying impartial solutions in the common interest, already very rare, will disappear from the face of the earth. They will remain only paid inventors that do not work in the interest of the common people, the environment and the survival of humanity.

Having made this parenthesis, I take the list of rejections received in the name of the wrong interpretation of the principles of energy conservation.

THE THIRD REFUSAL TO UNDERSTAND HYDROELECTRIC ENERGY WITH THE RECYCLE OF WATER took place in the research report sent with the letter dated 06/06/2016. Prot. N.159074 related to the invention called “hydroelectric plants with lifting, recycling and water distribution. “n. 102015000048789 of 04 September 2015. Where examiners enclose the usual document that has nothing to do with the invention of the undersigned and focus on formal observations without understanding the technical aspects. Here are the comments received:

Reference is made to the following document:

D1 us 2000/032374 A1 (VRANA Julius s [us] ET AL) 16 February 2006 (2006-02-1 0)

1 The claims are not clear. ln the following, the most severe clarity objections are stated.

1_1 The expression “Hydroelectric installations with lifting, recycling and distribution water  used in the claims leaves open, if the terms “lifting, recycling and distribution” should describe an alleged function of the claimed hydroelectric installations or if they should imply technical features not explicitly stated in the claim. Such implicit features, however, can not be considered for the assessment of novelty of the claim.

1_2 The expression  two  reservoirs, equally filled  used in claim 1 leaves unclear if the reservoirs should just all are filled with water or if they have exactly the same (equal) water level (filling level).

1,3 The expression  lift  water that is lost from the distribution networks and the overflow….” used in claim 1 is unclear, because no “overflow” and no “distribution networks” were defined and/or related with other features in claim 1. lt is therefore unclear, from where and with what exactly such water should be lifted.

1,4 The technical feature “the suction mouth” was not introduced in claim 1 and it is unclear in which relation it is to the other technical features. Maybe the suction mouth of the pump or of the turbine should be addressed to by the term. The same objection is analogously valid for the feature “descend tube”.

1. 5 The expression  water reservoir placed at a level lower elevation  used in claim 1 is unclear as it provides no reference, in relation to which other feature the water reservoir should be placed lower.

1.6 The expression  the opposite side, by means of the stop valves, is fed by a water reservoir placed at a level lower elevation, by a check valve, alternatively, by a derivation additional that part from the same descent tube, or from the overflow“ used in claim 1 leaves open if a- “stop valve”, “check valve” , “a derivation additional” or “the overflow” is used for feeding the “opposite side’. As the mentioned features have different technical effects, it is unclear, which is the actual purpose of the different alternatives. Moreover, the term “derivation additional” does not have a well recognized technical meaning. The term  pumps with single or double feeding  used in claim 6 leaves doubts, if in the claimed subject-matter also pumps with single feeding are existing (as additional feature) or if the feature “…pumps  with double 6 feed  in claim 1 is referring to the same feature and hence can also be single fed. Due to the number of clarity issues stated above, independent claim 1 was interpreted with the help of the drawings and the description. However, the present application does not meet the criteria of patentability, because the subject-matter of claim 1, insofar as this claim can be understood, is not new. D1 discloses (the references in parenthesis applying to this document):

Hydroelectric installations for lifting, recycling and distribution water, using together a pump (44) and a turbine (490) and are always full of water and connecting to two reservoirs (12, 42), equally filled with water, placed at different elevations (figures 1 and 6) on which operates the atmospheric pressure; the pumps must be with double feed (46, 52) and the descent tube (52) supplies one side of the suction mouth, while the opposite side (46) is fed by a water reservoir placed at a level lower elevation from the overflow

(overflow: the upper end of the reservoir 42). Dependent claims 2-10 do not appear to contain any additional features which, in combination with the features of any claim to which they refer, meet the requirements of inventive step, the reasons being as follows: With regard to the unclarified contained in the claims and partially stated above, it seems that the subject-matter of claims 2-10 merely represents a technical details which would be obvious to the skilled person in view of the disclosure of D1. 

The response of the undersigned to these observations was as follows:

With reference to the ministerial letter dated 06/06/2016. Prot. N.159075, received on 14/06/2016, the present is intended to provide your Office with the arguments of the applicant in support of the patentability of the invention subject to the application for patent under examination and a set of modified claims as set forth in Art. 5 (1) of the Ministerial Decree of 27 June 2008.

In the written opinion the industrial applicability was recognized for all the claims as originally filed. The novelty has been recognized for claims 2 to 10 as originally filed, while the “novelty” feature is not recognized in claim no. 1, which has been rewritten. For myself, this lack of recognition is due to the fact that the European examiners were limited only to the examination of the claims without taking into account the description in Italian, the drawings or even the summary in English. In fact, these documents clarify above all possible doubt, that the hydroelectric plants with lifting, recycling and water distribution, to the current state of the art do not exist in. Nowhere else in the world, so the novelty is implicit in the patent application itself. It can not be invalidated by a written claim in the wrong way from a formal and bureaucratic point of view

Inventive activity: In the written opinion the inventive step for claims 1 to 10 as originally deposited is not recognized.

For me, this lack of recognition is due to the fact that the European examiners were limited only to the examination of the claims, without taking into account the description in Italian, the drawings or even the summary in English. In fact, these documents clarify the purpose for which this invention was born, which concerns all the water lifting and distribution systems, which still constitute the second world energy expenditure, after that of transport. If with the system that proposes the second world energy expenditure will be eliminated, transforming the plants, even in energy producers, this can not be done without inventiveness. In fact, the industrial era that we are experiencing began with the construction of the first hydroelectric plants that date back to 1898, anticipating the thermal power stations. If in more than 200 years the waters are raised, no one has decided to realize this solution, it should be evident that the solution required considerable inventiveness, having to modify the plants and the hydraulic pumps at the same time.

The inventiveness of a patent can not be conditioned by the way in which the claims are written, which are claimed to describe only how the machine or plant is made, without taking into account the operation.

Above all, the European examiner defines unclear conceptual expressions such as those reported in observation 1.2 of the research report: (Hydroelectric plants lifting, recycling and water distribution, characterized by the fact that together they use pumps and turbines, they are always full of water and connect two or more natural or artificial reservoirs (wddr), equally filled with water, placed at different altimetric levels on which the atmospheric pressure acts). Not understanding this expression written in the old claim (that the undersigned has rewritten, hoping to be clearer), does not mean that the water circulation in the hydraulic systems always full does not involve the energy costs for lifting the water on which it bases the whole system, which allows energy production, even recycling or lifting water, without violating the principles of energy conservation.

The research report ends by stating: “With regard to the lack of clarity contained in the claims and partly indicated above, it appears that the object of claims 2-10 represents only technical details that would be apparent to the technician in view of the disclosure of the document D1 (01 US 2006/032374 A1) “. For myself, the D1 is very different from the systems, which proposes myself. In fact, the drawings are not similar in any particular and the description of the plants even less. The D1 document does not concern a hydroelectric plant, nor is it a water lifting system with hydraulic pumps, but by the injection of more or less heated gas into the aquifer by means of fans and blowers. In this plant, the word turbine was used only to indicate an equipment that mixes gas and water.

Note: In order to make readers understand the difficulties encountered by inventors who deposit patents of public utility, it is necessary to understand that since the international patent system was designed primarily to defend industrial, not intellectual, property, examiners focus mainly on inconspicuous parts so that they can not be copied by competing companies. While those who want to claim something that does not exist intellectually while using existing technologies are in trouble because the bureaucracy predicts that the claims should not speak about the benefits of the new functions, but only describe how the facility is made. The undersigned on some occasion was forced to write to the Italian patent office that refuses to modify the claims, although risking the granting of the patent. I mention in this regard another patent filing entitled “TOWER FOR AIR FILTRATION AND HEAT EXCHANGE WITH GEOTHERMAL WELL” N. 102014902260232 of May 13, 2014. Here is what I write to challenge even the formal aspects of the patent system:

Object: Protocol 0368448 of 08/09/2017. Application No. 102014902260232 (CE2014A000003). Received on 21/09/2017. Relief regularization the senses of the art. 173, paragraph 1, of Legislative Decree No. 30/05.

With reference to the demand in question, the undersigned replies with the following observations.

The object of the invention is not a commercial invention but of public social utility, which the undersigned has deposited hoping to find international public interlocutors, since, in his opinion, the current heating, conditioning and urban purification systems are not very efficient and damage the health of citizens. Not finding such interlocutors, he believes that the Italian patent deposit has a value of zero because the Italian public bodies, clearly, are not interested in changing the conditioning and purification heating systems, creating plants connected to each other to create global plants. If public bodies are not interested, there is no hope that an Italian company will be interested, as these plants should first be implemented by public bodies, tested, legislated and imposed on private companies.

For myself, the current regulations are affected by the inability of global public bodies to design global environmental and energy plants. The lack of progress in the state of the art also conditions the legislators to accept plants that are not adequate for the protection of human health and the environment. This involves the acceptance of air conditioning systems that exchange the air with air heat and re-heat the urban centers even more, the acceptance of flues that do not capture the fumes to take them underground and purify them together with the urban and rainwater in a complete wet cycle which would also benefit from the treatment of fumes produced by urban traffic, since the exhaust gases are heavier than air, including dust and CO2, stagnate in the lower layers of the atmosphere and therefore would be largely captured and neutralized by the facilities proposed by the undersigned. But the current patent system has created more damage than development benefits because it has directed the employees’ inventors of companies and research institutions to develop commercial solutions that can not protect the environment if they are not included in a global process that closes the cycles that open the combustion processes and organic urban ones. Ideas based on synergies between physical and chemical physics have lagged behind because neither science nor industry has developed them. The objective of the undersigned is not to obtain a patent, which would not know what to do with it, having no chance to realize its inventions on its own, but to introduce new global purification systems that bring together the purification of water and air, in the same urban centers, and possibly, receive the recognition of intellectual property and copyright, as recognition of a work of intellect. This is not foreseen by current patent legislation, which has failed on all fronts. At the moment, for the moment it is sufficient that its patent stores exist in the archives of national and international patents, regardless of whether or not the patent is recognized, because several requests are already under way in the International Court of Justice , in order to investigate the reasons why certain environmental and energy solutions are ignored by the world research organizations that also sell their patents to private companies.  For myself, inventions of public utility must be disseminated, not protected, recognizing the inventor the copyright, and without the payment of patent maintenance fees nationally and internationally. The current way of describing inventions focuses on constructive aspects, above all, to protect industrial property, which for the undersigned can also be copied. The undersigned is concerned with the operating principles of the plants that must be compatible and protective of the environment, which can also be copied, but recognizing the copyright to the inventors. Many inventions patented with the current criteria are not compatible with the environment, which should be the fourth requirement, even the main one, with respect to novelty, inventiveness and industrial applicability. The examiners should ask themselves whether the invention in question is useful, compatible or harmful to human society and whether it exists or not at the state of the art? Instead, the examiners want to know only how physically and materially the invention is to protect industrial property, which does not interest the inventor who does not aspire to become an entrepreneur, but only to solve an environmental problem. The undersigned is not surprised that his solutions are ignored by the world public bodies that have done everything wrong in environmental matters and is not amazed by the bureaucracy that find patent examiners accustomed to examined patents for commercial purposes. Not dealing with commercial but environmental solutions, in advance with current times, he is transmitting all his patents to international judges for having this separate recognition of industrial property. Public utility inventions must be disseminated unprotected. But recognizing the inventors copyright as they are recognized by the writers. For the foregoing, the undersigned deems it unnecessary to modify the claims that would have a value only if he was interested in industrial property in order not to be copied. Instead his goal is exactly the opposite. Would it be appreciated that all private public companies realized that since the advent of the industrial era they have completely failed to protect the urban environment and copying its system regardless of the claims that have no meaning, however they are written. The undersigned has obtained recognition of several environmental patents, but this did not help finding interlocutors or lenders. It means that the time is not ripe to overcome the current obsolete systems from a technical and environmental point of view. Therefore, receiving or not receiving an Italian patent number, for the undersigned is the same thing. But not receiving the formal patent number because of bureaucratic quirks concerning industrial property that should not even exist for public utility inventions is simply paradoxical.

The letter above has been completed as indicated. Probably not even this patent will be granted to me and if I were granted, no one would realize it because the public research bodies will continue to sell their patents to the multinationals, without taking into account the global purification systems that I have also denounced in open letters

Paradoxically, if we compare the list of patents of, with those of any university or public research organization worldwide, it seems that SPAWHE is the world public body, while the patents of the research bodies they do not differ much from those of the multinationals. The reason is very simple: public bodies do not work to acquire the intellectual property of patents with copyrights, as would be right, but to acquire industrial property and sell it to multinational companies The fault lies mainly of international legislators WIPO accredited at the United Nations, that should encourage the intellectual property of cleansing and global energy solutions for many reasons, scientific, technical and economic policies. In fact, the TOWERS FOR AIR FILTERING AND THERMAL EXCHANGE WITH GEOTHERMAL PITS, will never be in contrast with the depurative and energetic systems of urban centers, both from the biological point of view which purifies water and air, while the current air conditioners (which exchange air-to-air heat, current boilers, chimneys, non-purification sewers, urban traffic, they damage each other and waste energy in fixed and mobile installations. Instead the towers for air filtration and heat exchange with geothermal pits would integrate perfectly with the pressurized domestic hydroelectric plants, Instead the towers for air filtration and heat exchange with geothermal pits would integrate perfectly with the pressurized domestic hydroelectric plants      

 But even more paradoxical is the situation created with the plants proposed subsequently, accused of violating the principles of conservation of energy by patent examiners. If science does not admit its mistakes at world level, how can they understand that science, working in watertight compartments, has not elaborated on how to rationally combine the principles of Pascal Torricelli and Henry and therefore the principles of conservation of energy must be integrated? Obviously, patent examiners did not believe the undersigned who tried to explain how things are. They keep repeating like trained parrots, that energy is not created from nothing. And I, with calculations reports and drawings, to repeat that water and air are not nothing but the raw material to exploit the current technical and scientific knowledge that led to the invention of the pumps of the turbines of the electromagnetism of the engines and alternators. Only the connecting link of all these inventions was missing: the invention of the pump with the double feed separated to the impeller to start a new industrial revolution that will positively involve all human activities and contribute to greater equity in the distribution of world wealth, reducing the parasitic revenues due to those who own oil, gas, uranium, lithium and so on.

Today the multinationals close the peripheral factories because the large series production to be competitive must be completely automated and the automation involves the concentration of production in a few factories with high productivity and few workers. But in the meantime all that does not concern the production of large series, of public competence, which has not been updated with the study of environmental and energy work organization, must be redone by means of millions of small and medium enterprises that can absorb the workers who are fired by the multinationals. But this can not be understood by public scientists working in watertight compartments, politicians and economists, who manage the wealth produced by others. The high specializations in individual sectors are very much needed to improve individual scientific and technological systems, but they are not very useful for identifying alternatives in the face of unsurpassable flaws such as CO2 emissions, fine dust or radioactive waste. Unsurpassed defects are also the low yields of solar and wind energy, as they are unsurpassed those of all commercial energies, which must be produced and distributed, by special distribution networks, with cables, railways, railways, tankers, facing energy powerful and small size that can be produced everywhere in fixed and mobile version by small and medium-sized specialized companies, which will absorb the workers dismissed by large companies Unfortunately, public science, incompetent in the design of the plants and in the organization of cleansing and energetic work has created immense public debts in all the countries of the world with large thermal, nuclear, hydroelectric, inefficient and counterproductive works, while the multinationals have erred propulsion engines of all land, naval and aerospace means of transport. The means to work the land and put out fires have also been wrong. Nobody wants to openly admit mistakes made and they all hide their heads in the sand so as not to hear, including the press organs that make partisan information. I could not have reached these solutions if I had not experienced industrial and environmental experiences before, seizing the strengths and weaknesses of both sectors Today it is necessary to create a capillary system of environmental protection from the purifying point of view and subsequently, to an interactive energy system that is both energetic and purifying but global Fortunately, in many cases the solutions coincide and are much more efficient and economical than the current large thermal power stations, the current purifiers, the current sewage systems, the current boilers, air conditioners, oil tankers, pipelines, pipelines. Also pressurized hydroelectric engines are much simpler and cheaper than thermal engines. Only the courage to start again is needed.

The energy would be produced everywhere instant by instant at all hours of the day and night, in the amount needed, without large accumulators, simply by adjusting the speed of the small motors that will mate to the pumps with the separate dual power supply to the impeller. As mentioned, these do not produce energy directly but only the state of inertia, which allows the synergistic exploitation of the principles of Pascal, Torricelli and Henry that will allow the production of purifying energy multiplied by the static pressure of the plant. However, to see these depurative energies realized, it will be necessary to defeat many enemies, nested above all among those who are paid with public money to do research and protect the environment.

THE FIRST REFUSAL TO UNDERSTAND THE PRESSURIZED HYDROELECTRIC ENERGY WITH THE RECYCLING OF THE WATER it happened with the protocol 0265543  of Italian patent Office dated 04/12/2015 regarding the patent filing entitled “Mobile perpetual current generators with compressed air or gas and water recycling” n. 102015000048792 of 04/09/2015, where the Italian patent office writes:

“This Office believes that the invention referred to in the application in question does not have the patentability requirements prescribed by the current patent law for industrial inventions – Legislative Decree No. 30/05 – as it is a” perpetual motion “and without, therefore , of the requirement of industriality (Article 49). The object of the patent deals, in fact, with a machine in which “the energy that is consumed is produced by the same system”, but this is in clear contrast with the principle of energy conservation. Therefore, the application in question will not be sent to the European Patent Office for the search for anteriority and vein ‘rejected, as provided for in Article 1, paragraph 5, of the D.M. 27/06/2008. For any comments in this regard, the term of two months from the date of receipt of the present is assigned, before proceeding with the final refusal, pursuant to art. 173, paragraph 7, of the Legislative Decree. n. 30/05.

The reply of the undersigned was as follows:

With reference to the question in question and to the protocol in question, received on 23/03/2016, with the following undersigned, opposes your decision to reject the application, as it does not enter into the merits of the technical characteristics of the project, nor in the attached hydraulic calculations, the principles physical and hydraulic cited. As I have already written in the previous reply, dated 15/02/2016, what you affirm in your provision is completely meaningless, since the solution I propose is not produced by a single system and is not at no cost. Only the fact that it is produced from inexhaustible sources is true. But this can not be a reason for refusal.

The undersigned, allows you to refer to your duty as Italian public officials, who should promote, not hinder, Italian inventions in these areas very delicate for the planet in which they lived our ancestors and will live our children. Unfortunately, for me, it was scientific oversights that aggravated environmental problems. Universities, research laboratories, private companies, are specialized in single sectors and do not seek multidisciplinary and complete solutions. Patent offices are used to examining projects that exploit individual technologies, especially in the energy field, but this does not mean that there are no other energy possibilities. In this reply, the undersigned believes he has to start from scratch on the current knowledge of energy conservation, at least from the practical point of view, to have a frank comparison with those who think differently. Comparison that there has not been and cannot be judicially at the expense of the undersigned. If the patent office bases its judgments on authoritative scientific advice, by employees of the Italian state, these should already be published and in the public domain. Instead, there is nothing that contradicts my solutions if someone is able to go into the details of the solutions. Herewith, the undersigned merely acknowledges that the Italian Patent Office, despite being invited, in the previous reply to enter into the details of the solutions to indicate precisely where the principles of energy conservation are violated, has not done so, continuing to base its judgment, lightly, on general statements, without scientific references, despite the huge economic resources available to the Italian State, which the Patent Office represents. Therefore, the following document is an integral part of this reply and summarizes the reflections made by the undersigned, based on his experience of work and study, not only on energy conservation, but also on the laws of physics, hydraulics and mechanics involved. Therefore, the following document is an integral part of this reply and summarizes the reflections made by the undersigned, based on his experience of work and study, not only on energy conservation, but also on the laws of physics, hydraulics and mechanics involved. precisely because it deserves an open discussion, on the general principles of conservation and transformation of energy, not on a national but worldwide level:

The aforementioned reply was useless, the refusal was confirmed. The legal action involved an advance of expenses of about 600 euros plus court fees.

THE SECOND REFUSAL TO UNDERSTAND THE PRESSURIZED HYDROELECTRIC ENERGY WITH THE RECYCLING OF THE WATER it arrived on another patent filing entitled “Autoclave plant for water lifting, producer of hydropower” n. 102016000066396 of 27/062016. This new application managed to overcome the obstacle of the Italian patent office, but not that of the European office, which writes:

1 The present application is considered not applicable industrially.

2 With regard to the claims and the description as a whole, a technical effect:

producing net energy through a closed flow stream at time indefinitely self-sufficient so that a turbine interposed in this flow continues to operate continuously and possibly so using this turbine to cover an external energy demand while at the same time is also capable of providing water pressed into a water distribution network seems to be contrary to the first law of thermodynamics according to which, in an isolated system, energy can be transformed from one form to another but can not be created or destroyed.

3 In fact, in the device in question, the energy collected by the turbine (2) is at most equal to the energy required by the compressor (8) and by the pump (4).

4 Instead of providing a net power output, the required apparatus requires energy from an external power source to overcome at least the inherent mechanical losses (such as friction, turbulence in the liquid, losses in the pump motor) to which it is subjected.

5 In conclusion, although it may be possible to construct an apparatus having the components described in the present application, such apparatus would not function in the manner presumed in the claims and descriptions, as this would be in contrast to well-established laws of nature.

6 in the light of the above, it is not possible to issue a motivated statement regarding the novelty and the inventive step of the object of the claims.

Comments of the undersigned above written opinion, communicated to the Italian Patent Office with certified electronic mail on 13/09/2017:

At position 2 of this document incorrect things are stated, since the hydraulic circuit pressurized with compressed air is not a completely insulated circuit, moreover, the first principle of thermodynamics does not fall within the proposed application, since there is no temperature variation of the fluids present in the system, which are not-compressible water and compressible air.

IN THE AUTOCLAVE SYSTEM FOR WATER LIFTING, MANUFACTURER OF HYDROELECTRIC ENERGY, the electric energy we produce is due to the set of principles of Pascal and Torricelli, which date back to the first half of 1600. In fact, Pascal in 1646, carried out the famous experiment of the cask, through which he demonstrated that by connecting a small vertical pipe of about ten meters to a barrel full of water, and filling it with water, the pressure inside the barrel increased to the point that the wooden barrel part was broken. While Torricelli shortly before, in 1643, had shown that the water that comes out of a hole in a tank full of water comes out with a speed equal to the square root of 2gh. These two principles are already sufficient to produce hydroelectric energy through a turbine with relative alternator connected to the outlet of the submerged hole, regardless of the presence or absence of one or more pumps.

I have made this premise to establish that energy production does not depend on the circulation pumps, which were inserted into the circuit only to recover the water and insert it back into the pressurized tank with the minimum cost allowed by the state of the world. Unfortunately, the undersigned has realized that after more than three hundred and fifty years from the experiences of Pascal and Torricelli, nothing has yet been invented that allows you to recover water with low energy costs to insert it back into the initial reservoir, pressurized or atmospheric pressure. For this reason, the undersigned has invented “the pumps and turbines with the double power supply separated up to the impeller”, which allow to be fed at the same time with two feeds coming from different hydrostatic heights. These applications are possible as long as the two power supplies are hermetically separated until the rotating impeller enters. In fact, if the two water flows met first, and if the impeller was not rotating, the water with greater pressure would not let the water enter with lower pressure. On the other hand, if the two flows meet inside the rotating impeller, having the same direction, they allow the dynamic application of the Pascal principle and at the output of the rotating impeller we have the sum of the two flow rates and the greater pressure which is due to the maximum hydrostatic head, to which the prevalence of the pump must be added and the pressure losses in the valves and connecting pipes must be subtracted. Pumps and turbines with separate double power supply to the impeller are already an international patent of the undersigned (WO2017 / 042847).

Obviously, in pressurized compressed air circuits, pumps are more useful than turbines because the problem to be solved is not that of producing more energy but of recovering water with low running costs. From the description and drawings of the undersigned, it can be seen that the pumps and the water lifting systems should have been designed differently so as not to challenge the gravity force and the hydrostatic pressures. The pumps had to be designed with the double power supply separated up to the impeller since the advent of the industrial era, if the designers had reflected at the same time also on the way to circumvent the gravitational force and the hydrostatic pressure that opposes the delivery. It would have been enough to think that in a centrifugal pump the centrifugal force always has a radial direction that creates a depression in the proximity of the impeller center (eye of the pump) capable of recalling the water from the outside through the suction side, in way to always keep the plant full. This is valid in all hydraulic applications, especially if the pumps are supplied with a minimum hydraulic head that overcomes the pressure losses due to the feed tube and shut-off and check valves.  Therefore, if we feed the so-called “pump eye” with two distinctly separate flows of water, coming from different hydrostatic heights, we can use a feed to balance the pressures in suction and delivery through the internal recycling of the tank with higher pressure and l another supply to let the water enter with less pressure in the same rotating impeller. This system would have allowed us to circumvent the gravitational force and pressure in the supply, even if losing some point of return the advantages would have been immense. All the world’s hydraulic systems, from energy absorbers, would be transformed into energy producers because the recycling of incompressible water within the volume inside the water itself, is not affected by external pressures, while the water outlet from the circuit , produces energy as written above, due to the pressure of Pascal and the effect of the same pressure on the law of Torricelli. The difference between the energy spent to recover the water and that produced by the hydraulic turbine by applying these simple inventions would be immense.

Those who have failed to design the pumps and lifting systems can not easily admit their mistakes, but who invented the new systems can not easily surrender, in the interest of the whole world community, highlighting the fact that the major advantages of the modification of the pumps and systems we can see them, above all, in the pressurized circuits, where we can also compact the pipes necessary to recycle the water around the pressurized tank, while in the atmospheric pressure applications, the water recycling with the maximum hydrostatic pressure would result higher costs for connecting pipes. However, what is important in the water systems of the future is that they always work at the maximum hydrostatic level to zero the costs of water lifting and replacing them with recycling ones that are hundreds of times lower. In circuits made at atmospheric pressure for water distribution, water must be used which comes out of overflow, which by gravity can be distributed to users, or produce energy in quantities that are always much higher than that spent. In pressurized systems, on the other hand, the water that is used for water distribution or to produce energy, is the one expelled from the pressurization system, in fact, this system, receiving more water than it can contain, through the internal recycling circuit, expels it at the same time, from the only available outlet, which is the one to which the turbine is connected, the same amount of water that entered, but to expel it uses the maximum pressure, as written above, due to Pascal and Torricelli, not to the pump with the double power that introduced it.

Therefore, who asserts that the turbine (2) cannot receive more energy than that absorbed by the compressor (8) and the pump (4), is not able to understand the importance of this invention, which makes the three independent circuits, inspired by the natural system that occurs in nature:

1) Compressed air acts statically with the air cushion and if a part does not dissolve in the water (among other things with purifying effects), it will exert its own pressure indefinitely without consuming, just as with atmospheric pressure which acts on the oceans thickened by the gravitational force, but with a much higher pressure, allowed by the invented compressors of man.

2) The hydraulic circuit that feeds the turbine instead adds the pressure of the compressed air to that of the water, but because the water level does not lower because the same amount of water enters the pressurized tank through the pump with the double power supply separated, the turbine can produce energy indefinitely in proportion to the flow of water that passes through it.

3) The hydraulic circuit which feeds the pump with the double separate power supply up to the impeller, the impeller exploits the principle of Pascal, but since in the autoclave tank can not enter more water than that exits through the turbine, for the principle of impenetrability of bodies (two bodies can not occupy the same space at the same time), we produce energy only with water coming out in high pressure, while we introduce it by spending little energy, due to the fact that we exploit the second input, of the pump, which today does not exist because no one has invented it, making the arguments of the undersigned.

The three circuits are independent of each other but produce energy only with the water expelled from the physical and hydraulic energy regimes more favorable to the conservation of energy, which are as mentioned above, the principle of Pascal that maintains the pressure of compressed air to the maximum of its strength by circulating air instead of water, which does not compress, which, however, circulating at constant volume within the volume of accumulated water, does not require electricity to raise the hydrostatic level and not even to overcome the pressure of the air cushion as in the current autoclave systems. In these systems the air cushion does not expand but statically exerts its pressure on the entire surface of the water in the tank, so that the water that comes out of the turbine takes advantage of the entire pressure drop, but the water comes out of the turbine, not air, being the submerged turbine’s power in the water.

In order for the low-pressure water discharged from the turbine to re-enter the pressurized circuit, only two conditions are required: that the output supplying the turbine is open and that the pump with the separate dual power supply is operating at any rotation speed. The rotation speed of the pump increases the inlet and outlet flow, while the pressure does not depend on the pump and the motor connected to the pump but only on the static pressure of the air on the water (exactly as it happens naturally in the artesian wells that are pressurized with atmospheric pressure). Who has designed the current hydraulic, hydroelectric, thermal, nuclear, solar, and wind power plants, without selecting the more or less favorable principles for energy conservation in the recovery phase of resources and in the energy production phase, can not continue to pretend not to understand that water is air, together they are the most powerful energy source on the planet. Not only because the pressure can multiply well beyond the current resistance of the materials, but also because the more we increase the pressure, the more we solubilize oxygen in the water with purifying effects. These arguments are not born from nothing, but in the case of the undersigned, after having participated in the construction of many industrial plants, lifting and traditional purification, drawing on existing technologies to the current state of the art. Learn the art and put it aside it serves above all to improve the state of the art, where the experts of the sector believed to have reached the maximum efficiency, without ever having overcome the vices of origin of the systems, such as nuclear energy that did not overcome the problems of the safety and radioactivity of the waste, the fossil energy that did not pass the pollution of the fumes, and the lifting pumps that did not find the way to circumvent the gravity force and the hydrostatic pressures in the delivery. Since, above all, heat engines and pumps, are widespread everywhere, in billions of specimens, it is necessary to review the entire worldwide development, comparing all the solutions where pumps, motors, alternators, burners are used, in the light of compressed hydropower which is the only interactive energy with high energy and purifying yields. From this comparison without hypocrisy, the things to be saved and those to be scrapped should come out. For the undersigned, it is necessary to concentrate above all on the research of materials that will allow us to exploit the pressurized hydropower pressures to the maximum. The thing is not very complicated, because, as I wrote the pressures are exploited statically without thermal stress.

Already today there are light and resistant materials that can replace the current cast iron impellers, such as carbon fibers and kevlar, to be mounted on compressed hydroelectric engines that will travel cars and airplanes without fuels and with operating pressures much higher than those allowed from internal combustion engines that do not exceed the yield of 35% of the lower fuel calorific value, and of the jet engines of the aircraft, which for greater power, do not exceed 25% of the same efficiency. The current backwardness of the state of the environment and energy is absurd, if we also consider all the costs necessary for the production of fuels and all the problems we are experiencing due to global warming, including typhoons, which they are growing hyperbolically in recent years. Pascal and Torricelli have been waiting for over three hundred and fifty years for the invention of the pump with the double separate supply and the pressurized circulation circuit one-way water circulation in hydraulic turbines, which would rationally exploit their undervalued principles. Obviously, when I talk about water in transport, I do not mean pure water, but with the necessary anti-oxidant additives, which preserve the wear and durability of turbine pump materials and alternators submerged in water for reasons of space. Water recycled in transportation is not like lubricating oil, it is like radiator water, it can be recycled indefinitely, even if it contains some antioxidant additive, it will not cause ecological damage.

The undersigned, wants to hope that at least the Italian examiners understand the error committed not only by European examiners, but also by professors and scientists who are re-heating the planet with thermal energy since the advent of the industrial era for not having conceived before the signed this very simple circuit. The undersigned, who has no doubts about the validity of his invention, which can be applied in all areas of human activity, with powers developed even higher than thermal energy without producing any form of pollution. In fact, in heating systems, it is not the heat produced in the combustion chambers to produce energy but the pressure given to the hot fumes coming out of the combustion chamber and moving the pistons connected to a crankshaft, or turning a gas turbine.

It may seem strange that this simple and logical invention will come after more than a hundred years of an unbridled use of fossil energy that has almost destroyed the planet. But the validity of the operation of the pump with the double supply is confirmed by the same multistage pumps with closed impeller with which it is now possible to reach delivery pressures up to 100 bar by letting water enter in low pressure on the suction side.  If this is possible (due to the precision of the mechanical working of the sealing members and rotating impellers), it is even more possible to operate the pumps with the double separate power supply, where the pressure in suction and delivery is balanced by the recycling circuit inside the pressurized tank. Therefore, in these circuits, where the pressure that feeds the turbine, or pumps used as turbines, is statically exploited and at room temperature, pressures above one hundred bar can easily be used, while the dynamic pressure in a combustion chamber reaches about forty bars and must be renewed with a series of successive bursts without lowering it, as happens in internal combustion engines, or with a continuous flow of fuel in the combustion chambers of the jet engines.

Faced with the guilty silences that is also showing world public science, which should be above private interests, the undersigned, in other ways, parallel to patent deposits, is turning to the International Courts to clarify this fundamental aspect for the environment and progress. This also involves the concepts of industrial and intellectual property of patents on an international level. In fact, the undersigned asks the International Courts, the clear separation between intellectual and industrial property, above all for the recognition of the inventive activity, which by definition is characterized by the fact that it must not be easily understood by those skilled in the art.  Unfortunately, many, including public research agencies, pretend not to understand inventions, especially if they have committed scientific and technological errors. Others pretend not to understand them because they have made investments wrong since the origin of the industrial age. Therefore, at present, industrial property that excludes the rights of capitalless inventors is creating more harm than good to the environment and the global economy.

The current regulations on the property are incomplete because the inventions as well as being industrially applicable must also be applicable from the environmental point of view, closing the thermal, chemical, physical cycles that they open. This condition, today, is not satisfied in fixed installations and even more so can not be satisfied in the billions of mobile energy plants mounted on means of transport and of work.   The best way to produce energy compatible positively with the environment is to not open cycles that can not be closed for reasons of space available or for reasons of economic cost. In fact, there can be no energy cheaper than that produced with water and air, especially if the air can be used at very high pressure, statically, without making it expand, by circulating and expelling the incompressible water through the use of the pump with the separate double power supply up to the impeller.

The burden of proof cannot be left to private inventors who do not have the money for experimentation and to deposit international patents. While patent offices, when they do not find similar applications, can not come to the easy conclusion, that the inventor violates the legislated scholarly scientific principles, which are valid only in isolated systems. Patent examiners can not take responsibility for judging by themselves inventions involving world-class strategic scientific choices. In fact, pressurized hydroelectric energy with compressed air, which has never been born, has the potential to be much more powerful than thermal energy (reaching much higher operating pressures), while combining the production of energy with purifying effects of water. Modern energy and purification inventions can not be based on single scientific and technological principles, but must investigate beyond thermal energy, nuclear energy, geodesic, solar and wind, creating not only powerful but also interactive energy, exploiting well and at the same time the properties of water and air together. In fact, by increasing the air pressure, in addition to multiplying the production capacity of energy proportionally to the pressure, we can also multiply the purification capacity by exploiting the laws of Henry and Dalton. If the entire science that has failed dramatically in these sectors, leading us to global warming, how can a single patent examiner affirm that we can not follow other paths, especially if the proposals come from those who have lived practical industrial experiences for almost half a century. and environmental? It is necessary that the legislators oblige public research bodies to experiment with the synergistic solutions over the interests of the part, recognizing the intellectual property of inventions independently of the industrial, even retroactive (as to the writers), given the difficulties encountered by private inventors they deal with environmental and energy solutions to be understood, not only by patent offices, but also by the authorities of the environment, energy, and entrepreneurs. Among those who do not understand, someone can be in good faith, but many pretend not to understand, or have the order not to understand. In order not to err, science must be applied and experimented globally, in every detail, as happened through Taylorism, unfortunately applied only to solve the problems of industrial productivity. When it does not work, one must not stop but overcome the obstacle by changing the solution. This is why solutions must be multidisciplinary. The important thing is to ask all the cycles that open up. This is why compressed hydropower is not only the most powerful, but also the most economical of all: it does not open unnecessary and expensive thermal cycles, but only physical cycles that multiply the energy and purifying effects.

The interactive scientific applications between water and air to be exact must be applied globally and tested in all possible versions, at different operating pressures, with different types of pumps and turbines, and at different pump speeds for certain top yields for each application. Until now, this has not been done because the current development has privileged the industrial property of private companies, to which public research bodies have also collaborated selling their patents to finance themselves. Recognizing also a tangible intellectual property to research institutions and leaving accessible to all environmental and energy inventions, sustainable development can be achieved, avoiding that many pretend not to understand. Who does not really understand, must not be able to do damage, albeit, in good faith. The world governing bodies, including patent offices, must be included in a scientific work organization that allows in any case the best solutions to be identified, as is the case today for industrial productivity. This system could be called Global Taylorism. Unfortunately, today only industrial Taylorism exists, the global environmental and economic one is missing. In fact, we have realized the great mass production, but we have made the wrong energy to make it function respecting the environment and the world economy. When we have achieved a scientific organization of perfect and global work, scientific and technological updates will become automatic in all sectors. Both inventors and patent examiners cannot make mistakes. But we are far from this phase if you do not start immediately to produce compressed hydropower that is the only one in the world that not only costs nothing, apart from the wear and tear of the machines, but the more we will produce, the more we protect and cool the planet

The undersigned remains at the disposal of the Office for any further clarification.

THE THIRD REFUSAL TO UNDERSTAND THE PRESSURIZED HYDROELECTRIC ENERGY WITH THE RECYCLING OF THE WATER has also occurred, notwithstanding the long and detailed descriptions reported in the patent deposits and the replies of the undersigned to the waste of the deposits of previous patents. The patent offices did not take into account the documentation and calculations presented and the Italian patent office on the occasion of patent filing entitled “Pressurized hydroelectric aerospace transport system with turbofan and compressed air injection” n. 102017000059993 of 01 June 2017, wrote:

“This Office believes that the invention referred to in the application in question does not have the patentability requisites prescribed by the current patent law for industrial inventions – D.L.vo n.30 / 05 – because it lacks the requirement of industriality (Article 49). To the extent that the present application could be understood, the object of the patent consists of a space transport system that uses pressurized electrical energy using only air and water. In the system in question, the energy collected by the turbine is currently equal to the energy required by the pumps to recycle the water and the energy needed to overcome the mechanical losses as friction and turbulence in the liquid seems to arise from nothing. In conclusion, even if a system could be constructed with the elements described in the presented documentation, it would not work in the manner required in the claims and in the description, as this would be contrary to the principle of energy conservation. Therefore, the application in question will not be sent to the European Patent Office for the search for anteriority and will be rejected, as provided for in Article 1, paragraph 5, of the Ministerial Decree. 27/06/2008.

This miserable letter, devoid of technical and scientific content, shows that the Italian patent examiners do not even read the technical reports of the inventors, and repeat the instructions received from the European office as parrots. It would be more dignified to simply store patent deposits without making scientific judgments, but only on the aforementioned similar inventions. What is displeasing and does not leave any hope of improvement of this system is the fact that the main organization, on which depend the European and Italian, is under the leadership of the United Nations: WIPO.

This notification sent to me 10.10.2017, but I have learned about the 02.10.2018 day when by chance I opened the box of certified mail. I realized for the first time that strangely, the Italian Patent office, in the last months alternates sending notifications with paper letters (by registered letter) and others with certified mail, which in Italy has not entered ordinary use,  and can easily escape from users like myself who do not carry out legal activities, being a simple pensioner. Therefore, I could not present my reply, which in any case would have been useless, since from the first observations I have always replied that hydropower with the recycling of water does not fall within the principles established on the conservation of energy. Se loro insistono a notificare sempre le stesse cose per tutte le applicazioni, che l’inventore ha il dovere di sviluppare per far comprendere al mondo intero l’importanza dell’invenzione, senza giustificarle scientificamente, costringono soltanto gli inventori a sostenere spese legali, che non possono sostenere. They commit an abuse of power, which in this case goes against the general interests. They can refrain from spending money on the search for anteriority of the invention that certainly does not exist, then repeating the same observations and the threat of not transmitting the invention to the same-minded European offices, what do they aim for? For the undersigned and sufficient that they have registered the patent and that they have informed me that they do not intend to send it forward. For myself, it is the same thing.  But for the United Nations it should be a small confirmation that the current patent system does not help the development, discriminates on the invention of private inventors, not recognizing copyright and even does not even want to register patent deposits not to recognize even the moral property of inventions.

Naturally, this happened also for other patent deposits and I do not think that the problem concerns only the undersigned. What is serious is the fact that in notifications that continue to send with paper letters, they do not warn the inventors that the paper letters are eliminating them and do not invite to check the e-mail. If they had warned the inventors, the problem would not have been born.

The undersigned, in addition to the aforementioned patent filing, has not replied to four other notifications, of which three concern other uses of pressurized hydropower which have received the same irremediable observation of not respecting the principles of energy conservation.


– pressurized hydroelectric plants submerged in basins with lifting and oxygenation. n. deposit 102016000111938 of 08 November 2016; – pressurized hydroelectric plants submerged in wells with lifting and oxygenation. n. deposit 102016000111939 of 08 November 2016;

These plants are also important for the environment because currently only a small percentage of the polluted water passes through the purifiers. Producing energy in the basins and in the stratums, in addition to saving economically and not emitting emissions into the atmosphere, we can also free water that does not pass through the purifiers. Moreover, with the same systems we can raise the high waters in the security zone to defend ourselves from floods. These patent deposits can be found at


– pressurized domestic hydraulic system, producer of hydroelectric energy. n. deposit 102016000130510 of December 23, 2016;

This plant is very important because it allows the production of clean energy, heating and air conditioning at all hours of the day and night even at the Arctic and Antarctic poles and in the deserts without fuels. This patent filing can be found at


– floating plant, hydroelectric, desalter, extractor  of calcium and carbon from deep sea waters. Deposit No 102016000058018 of 16 November 2016. This plant is very important as it allows the extraction of marine proneness, off the oceans, far from earthquakes and tsunamis, the elements necessary to produce on the surface the phyto plankton that allows the production of zooplankton that currently it is produced only in 5% of the ocean waters, near the mainland where the sea currents produce natural welling. With this system, artificial welling and desalination of the water would take place to create habitable artificial islands and increase fishing activity.

This plant was particularly unlucky because it was also presented in a previous version with the title “marine waterborne systems suspended at floating platforms for down and upwelling” n. of deposit 10201140902298581 of 06 October 2014 . I was accused of not having responded to a letter by mail, which I never received. Since the legal appeal cost a lot more, I preferred to change the name of the invention and add the water desalination system, filing the patent again in 2016.  The European examiners have stated that this plant has the characteristics of novelty and industrial applicability but lack of inventiveness. I think inventiveness is missing from all the world public bodies. I would understand, how do they write such a thing as the nature plankton in the oceans it only produces 5% of the sea surface and is decreasing along with many species of fish and coral reefs? This patent filing can be found at

Another confirmation that patent offices must be confined to make formal comments and report the relevant documents without expressing scientific and technical judgment proves this other incident that happened with the patent filing, “hydroelectric car with torque device to the wheels” n. 102016000087373 of 26 August 2016, which was sent to me by ordinary mail, to which I replied regularly, is even worse. In fact, I was forced to reply with the following letter:

With reference to the ministerial letter dated 31/05/2007. Prot. No. 206692, received on 06/16/2017, the present is intended to provide to your Office with the arguments of the applicant in support of the patentability of the invention subject to the application for patent under examination as foreseen by the Art. 5 (1) of the Ministerial Decree of 27 June 2008.

In the written opinion the inventive activity of the invention is not recognized.

The explanations of this lack of recognition are shown in the attachment to box N. V, written opinion, which I report below the summary, which refers to the following documents:

D1) WO2010/098881 A2:  original title HYBRID BRAKING SYSTEM


D3) US 2004/263099A1:  original title ELECTRIC PROPULSION SYSTEM


D5 US2005/227131A1: original title FUEL CELL SYSTEM

According to the examiners, the present application does not meet the criteria of patentability, since the object of claim 1-10 does not entail an inventive step.

Comments of the undersigned to the above written opinion:

“The examiners arrived at this decision considering the above mentioned documents as relevant, which instead have nothing in common with the invention of the undersigned for the following reasons:

The title of the invention of the undersigned is HYDROELECTRIC POWER AUTO WITH TORQUE PERIPHERAL TO THE WHEELS. This title summarizes at most the object of the invention that intends to produce hydroelectric energy with recycled water on board the car, which feeds the electric motors applied not on the wheel axis but on the periphery of the same, not to save energy absorbed by the car (which produced with the recycling of water and without consuming even compressed air, it costs almost nothing) but to reduce the size of the hydroelectric plant, so that it can enter the hood of the car. The physical principles on which the energy production is based are based on the expansion of Pascal’s pressure in a pressurized tank and the kinetic energy that develops through a hole that feeds a hydraulic turbine under a hydraulic head; while the recovery of the discharged water of the turbine takes place by means of the invention of the pump with the separate dual power supply and an internal recycling circuit for the pressurized water.

The European examiners do not take into account the principles of operation of the plants, not even of the invention of the pump with the double separate power supply, which does not currently exist, nor even of the internal one-way recycled water recycling circuit of the autoclave tank, without causing the compressed air cushion to expand and compress. They do not even take into account the nature of the liquid that circulates in the circuit (if it is water or oil) and even if the system pressure is carried out with compressed air, or with another energy source, however they say that the plants look alike which inventive activity does not exist.

Instead, for the undersigned, who has examined carefully the documents considered important by the examiners, the document D1 is not a hydroelectric plant that produces energy that serves the direct motorization of the car but only a system that recovers energy from the braking circuit with circulation, not of water but of hydraulic oil. The claims of this invention are described below to make it understood at least to Italian examiners that this invention has nothing to do with the hydroelectric car which is completely autonomous from the energetic point of view and does not need to recover energy through the braking system. because any recovery system would cost more than the energy produced with water and air, from the hydroelectric current generator mounted in the engine bonnet instead of the heat engine. However, if someone wanted to recover the energy from the braking system, he could do it freely without interfering with the main hydroelectric energy system, which is that of the undersigned. These considerations are also valid for document D2 which is equally irrelevant for the same reasons, as explained in detail”.

These episodes, beyond the bureaucratic aspects confirm the technical and scientific incompetence of the examiners and even more that the inventors of solutions of public utility, must be free to invent without worrying about the bureaucratic aspects, procedures and immediate applicability of the ‘invention. Who decides on the usefulness of inventions important for the international community cannot be the patent offices. But the world scientific community, which must assume its responsibilities, at the UNITED NATIONS. For this reason, at least for these types of inventions, intellectual property must be fired from the industrial one. Too many interests of part and too much scientific ignorance can condition choices. The patent offices must limit themselves to receive, record the date of receipt and keep it, to recognize the inventor, not the industrial property, but the merit of having invented a new solution for survival, if the life of man has any value. To the inventors the bureaucratic cavils should not interest, otherwise these kinds of inventions will never come out.

I believe that the patent offices are not scientific bodies authorized to sentence on the principles of energy conservation, which in the aquatic environment, have not been investigated even in the best universities in the world. For the time being, only myself has understood that in the aquatic environment the principles of conservation depend on how the machines and systems are designed and the principles of Newton, Pascal, Torricelli, Henry, Bernoulli, applied synergistically, as the undersigned clearly demonstrated, in all applications filed as patents and in all the publications published on the website, on which the official science has always silent. It would be time for the world authorities of the United Nations to order honest and impartial scientists to document and to officially respond to the implants proposed by the undersigned, otherwise the United Nations themselves will lose prestige.

I am the first to confirm what the patent offices claim: it is obvious that in a closed circuit the turbine can not produce more energy than the pump absorbs, but the real problem is that the patent offices do not understand the difference between a circuit open and a closed circuit, although I have tried to explain it in all the descriptions of the patents and appeals listed in this document, so that readers and above all international judges understand it, who in some way have to provide for practical demonstrations in the world interest. Probably, they do not even understand the professors who trained them in universities and all those who are silent on this subject. In the plants proposed by the subscriber, the energy produces the turbine in an open circuit by discharging the pressure supplied by the atmosphere or compressed air, while the pump with the double power supply separated until the impeller, is a special pump compared to those currently existing, as it is the link between the open circuit of the turbine and the water recycling circuit inside the greater volume of accumulated water, which can be pressurized by the same atmosphere, or with the compressed air, purposely accumulated in the tank. In any case, the energy produced by the turbine is always much higher than the energy absorbed by the pump, because in open systems we have at least the atmospheric pressure that is 10 meters of water column, to which is added the hydrostatic water head , while the recycling of water within the volume of accumulated water must not overcome the atmospheric pressure and not even the compressed air of any pressurized tank. It is sufficient the prevalence of only one meter of water column to circulate the water inside its own volume because the hydrostatic pressure cannot oppose the kinetic energy that develops internally for any reason and in particular by means of a pump.   It is not necessary to consider the functioning of the current pumps that lift the water but only the circulation ones that have the balanced static pressures in suction and delivery. The only way to get water from atmospheric pressure into a closed pressurized recycling circuit without overcoming the pressure is to get around the pressure. But we can not do this by putting a feed pump in parallel with the recycle pump, as this should have a higher prevalence than the air cushion which pressurizes the tank. Therefore, it is necessary to modify the current low pressure circulating centrifugal pumps, equipping them with a separate power supply, but this feed must reach the impeller grazing because the pressurized recycle water must not come into contact with the feed water before enter the impeller, otherwise it prevents entry. It is obvious that once the water inlet has been modified in the pump, the whole circuit works in another way: with a power supply, it recycles the water of the pressurized circuit and with the other it feeds the water that comes out of the circuit, because the two flows go in the same direction without contrasting. If the valve feeding the turbine is closed, the water does not come out of the pressurized tank If the valve feeding the turbine is closed, the water does not come out of the pressurized tank. In this case, water at atmospheric pressure does not enter the system because the pump head is not able to compress the air cushion, but the internal water recycling continues regularly through the second feed. This is an immense advantage from the energy point of view, since it confirms that we can keep the water level constant with the small prevalence of the circulation pump, compensating the amount of water that comes out of the tank in high pressure: in fact, if we keep the water level constant, we also keep the pressure of the air cushion constant, which does not decrease the thrust pressure while not expanding and at the same time does not require the activation of the compressor that absorbs energy.

This means that in the pressurized hydroelectric circuit, in the turbine, with very low costs we have an authentic multiplication of the energy absorbed by the pump that we can also divide on many parallel plants that exploit the same amount of water, further multiplying the energy produced up to feed a sufficient quantity of electric motors that turn turbo fans and compressors that are able to move the marine and aeronautical land transport vehicles.  This has been extensively explained to patent examiners who not only did not understand the explanations but continue to assert generally that they are against the principles of energy conservation, without specifying what these principles are.

I principi legiferati dalla scienza con chiarezza sono quelli della termo dinamica che non centrano niente con l’idroelettrico e quelli del moto dei corpi studiati e sperimentati nello spazio che nemmeno centrano. I principi della fluidodinamica non hanno una soluzione generale in forma chiusa, e vengono risolti solo con la metodologia della fluidodinamica computazionale (detta, in breve, CFD) ovvero tramite metodi numerici al calcolatore. Questi metodi servono a calcolare la quantità di moto, non a studiare le soluzioni che consentono il risparmio energetico nella fase di recupero dell’acqua e l’incremento della produzione di energia nella fase di produzione.  Lo dimostrano i complessi calcoli delle perturbazioni di moto vario degli attuali impianti di sollevamento idraulici che comportano grandi assorbimenti di energia, la rottura delle condotte e necessità di realizzare grossi blocchi di cemento reggispinta e casse d’aria per attenuare le perturbazioni. Mentre il sottoscritto con l’invenzione delle pompe con la doppia alimentazione separata fino alla girante, ha risolto il problema brillantemente, mantenendo gli impianti sempre pieni di acqua equilibrando le pressioni in aspirazione e mandata che eliminano le perturbazioni di moto vario e consentono di produrre energia con l’acqua di riciclo e l’acqua di alimentazione del circuito che si sommano nella pompa e nella turbina. Queste soluzioni dipendono esclusivamente dall’esperienza e dalla creatività del progettista e inventore, rispettando i singoli principi di Bernoulli, Pascal, Torricelli, Newton. Not generic principles of energy conservation.


The unfortunate accident, caused by the fact that I have not read the certified e-mail for these five very important patent deposits, does not change the fate of the same, since only the floating plant patent, hydroelectric, desalination, calcium and carbon extractor from deep sea waters. N. 102016000058018 writing my answer, would have had the opportunity to receive a patent number and with it the legal rights of industrial and intellectual property, only in Italy. Where certainly the environmental authorities would not have implemented it, as they did with all the previous patent deposits. This episode only shortened the official legal death of my patent stores.  However, the speech that the undersigned, wants to continue is always valid, having never aspired to industrial property, aware of the difficulties that they would find at the national and international bureaucratic level.

PROBABLY, IT WAS A GOOD THAT DOES NOT READ THE CERTIFIED MAIL. YOU CAN NOT GO TO GO TO DEFECT THE INFINITE PUBLIC UTILITY PATENTS AND SEE YOU IGNORED BY THE WORLD PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS WHEN APPROVED BY THE PATENT OFFICES, OR CONTINUE TO WRITE REPLICATIONS FOR THOSE ACCUSED TO NOT RESPECT THE PRINCIPLES OF ENERGY CONSERVATION. THE WORLD INSTITUTIONS THAT SHOULD PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT HAVE BEEN AWARE IN ALL THESE WORKS. I BELIEVE TO MAKE MY DUTY AS INVENTOR TO GO NEXTLY TO PROPOSE AND PUBLISH THESE INVENTIONS IN THE LIGHT OF THE SUN, ALSO REJECTING MY SAVINGS, AGAINST LAW THAT DOES NOT RESPOND TO THE PRIORITIES OF THE PROJECTS OF WORLD PUBLIC UTILITIES, NEITHER THE RIGHTS OF INVENTORS WHO ARE DEDICATED TO THE STUDY OF THESE SOLUTIONS. ANYONE WITH A MINIMUM OF A GOOD SENSE SHOULD UNDERSTAND THAT THESE INVENTIONS SHOULD HAVE BEEN RELEASED BY THE INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY AND ACCESSIBLE TO THE ENTIRE WORLD COMMUNITY. ANYONE WITH A MINIMUM OF A GOOD SENSE SHOULD UNDERSTAND THAT THESE INVENTIONS SHOULD HAVE BEEN RELEASED BY THE INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY AND ACCESSIBLE TO THE ENTIRE WORLD COMMUNITY? PROBABLY HAVE MORE COMMON SENSE ENTREPRENEURS WORLD NOT ANSWERING NOT WANT TO TAKE THIS GREAT RESPONSIBILITY ‘, EVEN IF I AM SURE THAT DO NOT RESPOND TO REASONS FOR LESS NOBLE AND LEAVE THINGS AS THEY ARE, HAVING WRONG MOST INVESTMENT EVEN IN THE WORKS ELETTROMECCANICHE OF THEM COMPETENCE. Objectively speaking, it is not easy to intervene in the public procurement sector, dominated by tenders for expensive and inefficient large-scale depurative and energy works, and in the mobile energy sector dominated by oil and transport multinationals with advanced technologies but wrong by the foundations for costs and production processes. While the undersigned, who purely worked and studied the organization of work in both sectors, in the public sector proposes simultaneous energetic and purifying plants, invisible, which would act immediately, almost in the pollution production phase. While for transport the same solution used with greater operating pressures to reduce the size of the plants, using them instead of thermal engines. What are we surprised about? We do not know that the transport industry is introducing the hydrogen engines Pressurized at 700 bar, which involves a dedicated pay-as-you-go distribution network? While compressed air is free, it requires an operating pressure of up to 40 bar and can be produced by mini-compressors aboard the vehicle that cost less than ten dollars? Also because compressed air is not consumed in the process. It is necessary to reintegrate only the small part that dissolves in the water is released into the atmosphere by passing from the closed pressurized circuit to the open one at the turbine outlet, in the few seconds that passes into the tank at atmospheric pressure, before being introduced again into the pressurized tank (Henry’slaw)

These problems are far above the difficulties of communicating with national and international patent offices. They concern world democracy that cannot exist without a free science and impartial justice. Today there are too many scientific ambiguities and too many national and international legal inequalities. If you hide the intellectual and scientific truth without showing openly who are who hides the truth, there is no real democracy and the International Judges and the United Nations lose prestige. We will never be a single people conscious of their own strength and weakness in the face of natural disasters and threats of nuclear war, as Einstein wished.

I, as an author and inventor, will always consider these projects my works because only I know how many sleepless nights have cost me and how many reflections. Having deposited them with internationally recognized organizations, in the distant hypothesis that things change at an environmental, cultural, justice level, and the truth that I assert, come out. Nobody can deny me intellectual and authorial rights, if one day it will be truly true that the law is the same for everyone. This is a problem that must solve the UNITED NATIONS, if they really want people like myself, without being paid by anyone, continue to work even as retired by providing their experience and the few savings they have to assert scientific and technological truth useful for the international community, escaped to the established centers of power. By chance, or by calculation? I do not know what the worst hypothesis is. They both scare. Certainly, by publishing articles like this, I discourage other inventors to make experiences like those of myself, but those who discourage them the most are the institutions do not respond and continue to not assume their responsibilities. For my part, however things go; I will never regret having dedicated my time and my little savings to study these solutions.

For what purpose do inventors of public utility solutions have to indebt to pay taxes that they should not pay and experience things of general interest that should be the responsibility of world public bodies? Above all, the inventor should experiment with inventions within the time frame established by WIPO and always find the lenders who help him to pay taxes, otherwise the rights of industrial property lapse and with it also the copyrights. Only moral property would remain.  Not even Franz Kafka, the most famous writer of the paradox, would not be able to imagine a situation that is more paradoxical than that created by the current legislators of patent laws. Furthermore, patent offices, are not international scientific authorities, cannot make technical judgments on energy conservation. They can only verify in the database whether the invention has already been implemented or has not been. But even this they cannot do but distinguish a hydraulic circuit opened by a closed one and how the pumps, compressors, fans work.

For the undersigned, an inventor only has to file the patent in the country of origin, if the invention is original, compatible with the environment and public morality must also transmit it to the international organizations to take it into account. If they do not they commit the crime of omission of office documents. They can not force the inventor to make a legal appeal to ascertain the scientific truth, which should be in the interest of the entire world community, especially if the problem raises an inventor who does not aspire to industrial property, but only to intellectual property and copyright, which are recognized to all authors of works of intellect The United Nations has a duty to ensure that no solution that can save lives is not overlooked. If international justice, which is an integral part of the UN, continues to remain silent, the UN, using the words of Einstein, does not play the role of Moses, but of Machiavelli. Of Machiavelli there are already too many and in every social stratum. Let’s keep it away at least by science and justice.

Best Regard

Luigi Antonio Pezone