This is highly plausible but be careful over claims outside the patent offices, where the lawyers live.

A preliminary review of you drawings indicates interference between the support columns & the tracks at ground level. i.e the reclaim conveyors cannot move very far at all in practice.

Still at ground, or near ground, workings there is a lack of detail for the inbye, the supply of material to the central elevator. If you insist on locating the elevator centrally then consider the inbye conveyor is directly below the central outlets of alternate radial cell arrays. The reclaim conveyors run downhill, why so steeply? They also seem to interfere with the hopper bottoms which is another restriction to their intended travel.

Fooling the worldwide patent system is one thing. Making it work is something else.

Personally I think its a great structure. You can solve the inbye issue by sticking the elevator against a convenient outside wall & adding a bridge conveyor. Some of your customers will use an inclined conveyor anyway to maintain roadway access around the plant.

Consider improving the reclaim conveyor passages by replacing some of the grillage legs by portal frames. Your honecomb will be able to take additional shear forces, I'm sure.

Reduce the slope on the reclaim conveyors so that they can navigate under the hopper bottoms. Also recognise that, as shown, the reclaim conveyors reclaim to.... where?

There is no indicated method of directing reclaimed material radially, inwards or outwards is irrelevant, so there is no plausible reclaim. Even if the material is directed radially, reclaim demands a gathering. Otherwise it degenerates to spreading.

Hint: If you relocate the hopper outlets as far inwards as they can get; offset even then you can try collecting the discharge after slewing the short reclaim conveyor under the offset hopper outlet.

Then you can direct the material onto subsequent, similarly slewed and aligned reclaim conveyors (I sound like a patent agent don't I?) to a single central ground hopper for further reclaim. That way it'll work but nobody can patent it because the idea has just been published. I came up with a solution at typing speed, mine admittedly, which illustrates the value of patents.

But good luck anyway. ■

Mr. John Gateley made so many inaccurate assumptions with his "preliminary" assesment "at typing speed" that I feel compelled to respond.

I have spent four years of research and logged over 3,000 hours developing the concepts presented in this forum post that are based on my 23 years of experience with bulk material handling systems. Two of the three patent applications have over 50 pages of text and 16 and 28 pages of drawings.

The drawings shown are full scale 3D parametic drawings that are detailed down to the bolt hole. The conveyors do not interfere with the support columns, that is an illusion due to arcuate tracks under hexagonal bins. I spent considerable time insuring that these 1 meter belt conveyors and drives do not interfere. Within the drawings I can move the conveyors without interference to support columns or hopper discharge. The conveyors do not run downhill, but uphill to feed the next conveyor. Locating the bucket elevator in the center bin and having the conveyors feed inward is one approach of many that I have designed and included in patents. The track-and-trolley guided conveyor system can be used for any shape of shared wall or plurality of round silos both in arcuate and linear configurations.

The location of hopper discharge does not matter, nor effects the validity of patents. Relocating the hoppers increases height of support legs and is not neccessary.

A patent that is properly described, claimed, and prosecuted does have significant value. I am highly offended to be described as "fooling the worldwide patent system". My patent portfolio ranges from mechanical to petrochemical.

Dwight E. Kinzer process@fmtc.com ■

Your full scale parametric model indicates several legs are landed on the inside rail of the outer track. Either the drawing is wrong or the conveyors have a magical drive. While you decide which it is you might consider clarifying "illusion".

I didn't make assumptions: I just read the drawings & found them wanting.

I said I liked the concept & still do. The reference to fooling the patent lawyers is meant to point out that they never picked up the obvious travel obstructions indicated on the drawings. As drawn, your conveyor travel is prevented by the trackway interference from the legs & the headroom interference between the hopper outlets & the conveyor top end.

For all your taken offence you have not proffered an explanation of your reclaim sequence. If you did so I would probably recommend the system quite wholeheartedly. The strength of the modular construction is obvious & the cost savings could be quite high. I just don't see material getting in or out of the array as shown. So, out of your 23 years, 3000 hours, 50 pages & 28 drawing pages, admirable work, it sould be easy for you to explain the reclaim method. I'm sure there is one there somewhere. ■

The legs are outside of the track. I am sorry you don't believe me ~ they are close, but the support legs do not interfere.

These are not patent drawings ~ you are making assumptions ~ No body is fooling anyone, especially patent examiners!

For a detailed explanation I suggest you read the full disclosure posted on the European Patent Office website, the following link will take you to the patent application that has been approved by USPTO and filed as a PCT application for international rights. The "Description" tab will provide text, the "Mosiac" tab will show the drawings.

http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=E...N=US2005258015

The reclaim track-and-trolley conveyor guidance system has three layers of track-and-trolley assemblies plus adjustable load bars for inclining the top linear track/trolley assembly and conveyor.

The middle t-a-t, upper t-a-t, and conveyor travel into position with the conveyor at a horizontal position so it does not touch the hoppers. The upper t-a-t and conveyor can weave through obstructions using the middle t-a-t. Once in the desired location the upper t-a-t and conveyor turn on the middle t-a-t to a desired location. Then the upper t-a-t adjust the the linear position of conveyor so its incoming and discharging ends are in desired locations. Then the adjustable load bars adust the upper t-a-t and conveyor to the desirable angle of incline.

A detailed explanation is beyond the capabilities of this forum. I highly recomend reading the full disclosure contained within the patent application or contact me directly. ■

Your erection system is not new it, is used to erect AOSmith Harvestor silos for animal feed and water towers.

The use of "Keplers Conjecture" is fine and not unknown but it has its own huge set of problems aside from storing the most number of cannon balls in a ships hold where it all started. ■

I got the jack construction technique from round corrugated steel bins used for grain silos. Round bins with hoppers of any size still require a crane to set the bin ontop of the hopper and its support structure. Except for round silos that use walls as a support structure, I do not know of any support structure that allows for jack construction.

As far as I know jack construction has never been applied to shared wall bins with hoppers.

Hexagonal bins were first patented in the 1930's, so that concept is not new or novel. However, all of the concepts were cumbersome to erect.

The novel aspect of the silo design is the colum that attaches the walls that also works as the support structure.

The "Modular Load-Bearing Structural Column" patent application can be found at:

http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=E...2004154236&F=0

What huge set of problems do your foresee with my design? ■

My biggest worry is bridging ratholeling and mass unregulated flow from the above.

The ability to use a bin vibrator in the interior bins is a concern.

unless you use a thick plastic wall liner to avoid bridging and hang ups I think you will have problems. Freezing in the exterior bins is also a big concern.

I would also worry about mass flow in regard to the foundation and exterior walls as has has happened in feed silos the force was enough to drive them over from the inertia and created energy of the silage mass moving at once. ■

Excellent thoughts/concerns.

Bridging/ratholeing and mass unregulated flow is an unknown since little is known about mass flow properties of hexagonal silos.

I have thought about these issues and I have two solutions that I will discuss publicly. One would be to use air aeration fluidizer disks on the hoppers as they are excellent for elimating bridging, rat holes and sticky buildup without structural fatigue. Another would be to incorporate mass flow hoppers like those supplied by Jenike & Johnson.

Screw feeders like those used in animal feed manufacturing facilities with inlets one to two meters long and screws with 1/3-1/2-2/3 variable pitch, then full pitch with shroud should work fine.

As far as foundation and walls, that is a matter of proper engineering.

Thank you for the excellent questions and feedback. ■

Thanks for explaining the reclaim behaviour which is not entirely unlike my perceived slewing & dipping understanding of the situation. So now I also believe that the legs could clear the tracks.

Have you considered the wind load capacity? I imagine the arrangement is far better than a long rectangular bank when high winds are frequent. ■