Vaporizing Fuel w/my Device... Results...

BigBlockMopar said
I thought the (US) way for applying for a patent was that it's "best" to mainly describe the idea, and not the materials used, as to keep it as vague as possible for copycats?
So if someone else makes a similar device, you can defend your idea with 'prior art'.

I was using that as an example. You are right, that is what patent atty's and agents specialize in, making sure the "claims" portion of the application are as vague and specific as they need to be to prevent someone else from stealing it/copycating it and making it a new application. However, if you leave some important detail out when you send your material to the agent/atty, they may not see your "absence of important information", leave something critical out and there you are.

The test results on this dyno thing are kicking my butt. There "are" a lot of variables, though I did prove with this latest test that it does not cause restriction, even though it is a non-powered device. That alone should get me the patent, that is extremely unique and I don't "think" anyone has done that before. I know it is next to impossible, without revealing the critical aspects of this device, for you guys to know what I need to include, but here I was looking for help with why the dyno was saying I had more power back then Oct of 16 than now, when I clearly am producing more power now. It did show an increase, it's just that the overall was less hp and torque now as to then. I will post the old results here in a few. That may help.

Thanks.