It's an interesting idea, and it's a good illustration of why the patent system is broken. This idea is the sort that a clever person could get in half an hour,

It's an interesting idea, and it's a good illustration of why the patent system is broken. This idea is the sort that a clever person could get in half an hour, but in inself it isn't fully worked out, and therefore lacks utility. To turn this idea into a working practical engine would take many man-years of engineering effort. The patent system is supposed to be a bargain: an inventor gets a limted-term monopoly on an invention, in return for teaching that invention to others. But this invention doesn't teach others how to make the device; to do that you'd need exmpensive man-years of engineering. Similarly, in 1930, Frank Whittle patented the turbojet. But his patent didn't teach others how to make a turbojet -- how could it when Whittle didn't know himself how to do it, and only had a working engine in 1937? Probably the patent system is unreformable, but if it is reformable, then one necessary reform would be for any patent application to include a working example of the invention, and all technical drawings and documentation (in computer-readable formats).