B e n V e r s u s | c i v i l i s s u e s
B e n C o l l i n s | Åkarhagsgatan 2C, 72337 Västerås, Sweden | +46 727 447422 | email | Website © 2014
?
Occasio aegre offertur, facile amittitur
creating opportunity is difficult, but easy to lose
BC vs DTI EM Dept of Innovation and Universities - 2003
The immediate best application function of the CLP engine proposed in 2002-3 has now come of age in the crucial predicted role of the recharge engine within an electric vehicle. Battery technology has improved to make the EV the most likely form of future transport. Internal combustion engines will not be used as direct drives but high power density regenerator engines to extend the range of EVs and also to keep battery weight, cost and size small.
Failure to provide the SMART award to this project has irreparably damaged it commercially given that the PCT (world) patent was granted but unable to be funded. The way the SMART application was adjudged in 2003 was prejudicial and unfair amounting to negligence and or malpractice by SBS DTI (now called the DIUS) in consideration of this carbon reducing technology. The main reasons are as follows;
- SBS DTI refused to value time previously given to the project as a legitimate contribution.
- SBS DTI refused to value time proposed for the duration of the SMART period of the project.
- SBS DTI declined to get a third appraisal after the negative appraisal by ”Expert 2”.
- Expert 2 failed to visit the website on the engine for his appraisal, SBS DTI stated they and their consultants were not obliged to consider websites, what century is it?
- Expert 2 failed to acknowledge a moving full scale model of all parts that had already been built and demonstrated in person at SBS DTI Nottingham by BC and RS, disproving the expert’s assumption the engine could not be assembled.
- Expert 2 based his negative appraisal largely on this perceived ”unable to assemble assumption”
- Expert 2 failed to appreciate that not all engines are bound for direct driving car engines, in fact the CLP was and is still seen to be ideal for a flygenset in electric trucks, vans and light trains and direct drive for ships etc.
- Expert 2 ignored frame by frame assembly photograph sequence showing engine assembly, in very close relation to contemporary engine assembly.
- Expert 2 claimed the idea was old but produced no reference of prior art and this contradicted three independent patent searches including the final triplicated one commissioned by SBS DTI. The worldwide patent application approval by the world patent authority as novel and inventive.
- DTI’s Expert 1 - the UK patent office - agreed the proposal was novel.
- Expert 2 was repeatedly discredited in clear communications yet SBS DTI refused acknowledge this discredit.
- Expert 2 Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. False in one thing, false in all.
- SBS DTI failed to assist a potential carbon reducing technology when obligated by the the Kyoto agreement 2000 to give fair and proper consideration to such projects.
- The last communications from DIUS they invited me to explain how compensation could be met.
- I answered : fund this 1 stroke engine and Aerogeni wind turbine, they declined to admit negligence and settlement.
- IMO rejection of this settlement opportunity was in direct contempt of the 2008 Climate change act.
- Makes you wonder how many other worthwhile technologies have been ignored or blocked through the years?
- DIUS did not follow their own instructions for the SMART application.
Errare humanum est, in errore perservare stultum It is human to make a mistake, it is stupid to persist in it.
DIUS Resource list
All details : Detdti58pages.pdf
Final communications in 2009.pdf (to be added shortly)
