PATENT ABSTRACT
Method and apparatus to efficiently utilize wind energy that “leaks” into a structure during high winds; to protect that structure from those high winds. By capturing, channeling, concentrating this wind energy within that structure; to directly operate any number, type, form, size and/or shape of “self-activating” relief valves and/or transfer openings installed on various external and internal surfaces. The internal areas of these structures will be constructed as “single pressure vessels” with sealed external surfaces, where channels are established allowing all of the rooms, cavities, floors, plus any and all other internal areas within the structure to communicate. The prior art only applied “controlled openings” to various external surfaces of the structure and not to any internal surfaces; and they all failed to use of this uninterruptable, unlimited, free wind energy that “leaks” into structures during all high wind events.

PATENT DESCRIPTION
FIELD OF THE INVENTION 
       [0001]    I am the first inventor to conceive and produce a working prototype of a method and apparatus to efficiently utilize wind energy that “leaks” into a structure during high winds; to protect that structure from those high winds. By capturing, channeling, concentrating this wind energy within that structure; to directly operate any number, type, form, size and/or shape of “self-activating” relief valves and/or transfer openings. High wind protection for structures with one or more external surfaces, separating one or more internal areas with one or more floors with one or more rooms and one or more internal surfaces, from an outside. These internal areas will be constructed as “single pressure vessels” with sealed external surfaces, where channels are established allowing all of the rooms, cavities, floors, plus any and all other internal areas within the structure to communicate. Captured wind energy that leaks into the structure in an unplanned way, will be utilized through the use of “self-activating” transfer openings and/or relief valves installed on various external and internal surfaces. 
         [0002]    The prior art only applied “controlled openings” to various external surfaces of the structure and not to any internal surfaces within the structure. Additionally, all prior art employed the standard method of constructing structures as multiple pressure vessels, where almost none of the internal rooms, cavities, spaces, floors, areas, etc. within the structure could communicate with each other; leaving them prone to destruction from high winds. This method and apparatus will produce a single, strong, pressure vessel that will operate at a uniform wind energy pressure and withstand substantially stronger winds and increased wind energy pressure challenges, than multiple pressure vessel structures. Further resistance to high winds can be accomplished by establishing a channel to outside; at the external surfaces of all of these internal areas. Utilizing captured wind energy that “leaks” into the structure to operate “self-activating” transfer openings and/or relief valves, in these channels. Relieving wind energy pressure buildups within the structures, to an outside, as they occur during these strong wind energy pressure challenges; and before this captured wind energy can become so concentrated as to cause catastrophic structure failure. 
         [0003]    Previous attempts have failed to detect this free captured wind energy that “leaks” into structures, so they mistakenly used “control theory” systems involving electrical power, data processors, controllers, “controlled openings”, pressure transducers, static and dynamic pressure theory and/or sensors; to protect structures from high wind challenges. Their “controlled openings” are not “self-activating” as taught by the patent application at hand. They are totally, externally influenced and/or assisted by electricity, their pressure sensors, pressure transducers, controllers, data processors; even when “operated manually”, which is just another form of external influence. Disconnect their openings from electrical power and/or their pressure sensors, pressure transducers, controllers and/or data processors; and these “controlled openings” will never operate properly, if at all. Since my scheme utilizes this uninterruptable and unlimited captured wind energy that “leaks” into the structure to operate all of my transfer openings and/or relief valves; they do not suffer from any of these prior art limitations. 
       BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION 
       [0004]    The design of structures in hurricane zones, tornado alleys and other high wind prone areas is a complicated and difficult issue that has undergone much study and scrutiny over the years. The events of the past several years have further heightened this research. Construction designs that are resistant to strong, high velocity winds and the dramatic wind energy pressure fluctuations and differentials they cause; are not only difficult to accomplish, but exceedingly difficult to accomplish when guided by prior art assumptions. Assumptions concerning the design of structures have been determined by me to be inaccurate, if not totally incorrect. One of the tasks of structure architects, designers, developers, contractors, owners, building codes and/or others is to construct structures that can survive high wind challenges. 
         [0005]    For the past 108+ years, building construction has involved the construction of an enclosed living and/or working area that is usually sealed as well as possible to all surrounding environments including the un-sealed attic and/or roof cavities (creating one pressure vessel); along with separate un-sealed attic and/or roof cavities that are allowed to leak to all surrounding areas except the enclosed living and/or working area (creating another, separate, but leaky, pressure vessel). Plus, sealed floor cavities, sealed roof cavities, sealed ceiling cavities, along with sealed external and internal wall cavities; creating even more, individual and totally separate, pressure vessels. For a description of “sealed”, I refer to Webster&#39;s; “to close or make secure against access, leakage, or passage by a fastening or coating”, and “to fix in position or close breaks in with a filling (as a plaster)”. I will also italicize all future quotes and special phrases for clarity and to allow them to easily stand out. 
         [0006]    These prevalent mistakes have resulted in individual structures that incorporate multiple, yet totally separate and individual pressure vessels, with shared vessel walls that end up working against one another and weakening all of the areas involved, which in turn weakens the entire structure. This common error in design has in turn lead to the premature failure of structures during hurricanes, tornadoes and even excessive straight-line winds. Through my extensive research into structure pressures involved in the my three granted U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,584,855; 6,968,745 and 7,127,850; I have discovered that these uncontrolled, multiple, separate and individual pressure vessels existing next to one another, while sharing some vessel walls; generates a series of structure failure points during strong winds and wind energy pressure challenges. 
         [0007]    Winds result from atmospheric pressure differentials. High winds result from deep atmospheric pressure differentials. As these atmospheric pressure differentials pass over or even near these multiple pressure vessel structures, the wind energy pressure differences generated between these individual and totally separate, pressure vessels within the structure, such as the enclosed, sealed, living and/or working area, the un-sealed attic area, the un-sealed roof cavities, the sealed interstitial areas, sealed floor cavities, sealed roof cavities and sealed wall cavities, etc., that share common vessel walls, dramatically increase and can lead to the premature failure of the structures. It is these uncontrolled high wind energy pressure differences, between these totally separate and individual pressure vessels, some with shared walls, working against one another, that can literally pull, compress, tear and blow a structure apart. 
         [0008]    My 23 years of research in the field of structure pressure has taught me many things. One is that air moves into a standard structure on the wind impact wall, as air moves out of the other three walls. Even when the wind impacts the walls of a standard structure in a glancing blow, the net effect is roughly the same; approximately 75% of the external wall surfaces are under a high-velocity-low-pressure wind energy effect generated by wind; which pulls air out of the structure. The remaining approximately 25% of the external wall surfaces are operating under a low-velocity-high-pressure wind energy effect generated as the wind impacts these areas, resulting in air being pushed into the structure. This results in an ever increasing high-velocity-low-pressure wind energy effect on roughly 75% of the skin, or external surface, of a standard structure. As the wind increases, structures begin to reside at lower, and lower pressure than the outside. 
         [0009]    I originally thought that this phenomenon continued on forever and that structure pressures just grew ever lower than outside and is the primary idea that I based my original three patents on. Through my continued research, I discovered that something very interesting began to occur when wind speeds reached somewhere around 60 to 70 MPH. This phenomenon reverses itself and the stronger winds on the approximately 25% low-velocity-high-pressure wind impact wall, begins to push much more air into a standard structure than can be pulled out of the remaining roughly 75% high-velocity-low-pressure wind energy walls; and structures begin to operate at an ever increasing high pressure in comparison to outside. 
         [0010]    In 1684 Blaise Pascal wrote the primary rule of pressure, known as “Pascal&#39;s Law”: “a change in the pressure of an enclosed incompressible fluid is conveyed undiminished to every part of the fluid and to the surfaces of its container”. In the case at hand, atmospheric air is the fluid and it can be considered incompressible. All of the structure&#39;s wall cavities, floor cavities, ceiling cavities, sealed roof cavities and other cavities are normally sealed with plaster, so they each operate as standalone pressure vessels/containers. For a definition of “vessel” I turn to a Webster&#39;s dictionary: “a container for holding something”, the “something” in our case is “the wind energy pressure that leaks/pushes its way into the structure through its skin/surface”. “Pascal&#39;s Law” can also be interpreted as: “the pressure at any point in the contained fluid field is the same as at any other point in the contained fluid field”. Based on this information, the patent application at hand defines “single pressure vessel” as “any and all internal areas and/or spaces of the protected single pressure vessel within the structure, that are sealed to all surrounding areas, except each other; so that any wind energy pressure that leaks/pushes into the contained fluid field of the single pressure vessel, resides at equilibrium, that changes uniformly; whereby any wind energy pressure change applied at any point in the fluid field is immediately equalized within the single pressure vessel and immediately conveyed undiminished to the surfaces of the single pressure vessel”. 
         [0011]    This is the primary physics behind my first three granted U.S. patents. I chose to determine the pressure of a vessel by measuring the speed of air as it enters and/or leaves through holes in the surfaces of a structure/container/vessel. Because I knew that any and all pressure changes applied to the fluid field within any structure/container/vessel; will also be immediately conveyed undiminished to the surfaces of that structure/container/vessel. Webster&#39;s defines “equilibrium” as “a state of balance between opposing forces or actions that is either static or dynamic”. Webster&#39;s defines “equalize” as “make equal, uniform”. While defining “uniform” as “(1) always equal; (2) non-differentiated”. For this invention, “uniform” and “equilibrium” mean/describe the same thing and are interchangeable, and refer to “any attempt, method, scheme, plan, assemblage of parts, occurrence and/or apparatus that allows pressure and/or air to equalize to a uniform equilibrium within the structure and/or the single pressure vessel”. 
         [0012]    I began to closely study the effects of “Pascal&#39;s Law” on a standard structure during a high wind event. I quickly determined that the dramatic high-velocity-low-pressure wind energy flowing over roofs during a strong storm are insufficient on their own to pull/lift a single roof from a single structure, so I turned my attention to the wind energy that these high-velocity-low-pressures winds generate, within the structure. Wikipedia describe “wind” as “the flow of gases on a large scale” and goes onto say “air is accelerated from higher to lower pressures”; so “pressure energy” is the root force of all “wind energy” and is why air will only move from all higher pressure areas towards low pressure storm areas, based on Pascal&#39;s teachings and Daniel Bernoulli&#39;s dynamic/velocity pressure equation: “the square root of this pressure differential; times the constant 4005; equals the velocity of this movement of air in feet per minute”, thereby generating “wind energy”. Air is just the fluid, the important information is the dynamic wind energy pressure imparted on it, as represented by Bernoulli&#39;s velocity/dynamic pressure formula stated above. Air, plus this energy, is what we call “wind energy”. I could not find a definition of “wind energy” and must assume that its very name describes itself. For the patent application at hand “wind energy” will be used to describe “any energy, motion and/or force derived from wind, wind speed, including pressure, pressure from wind, dynamic pressure, dynamic pressure energy, dynamic wind pressure, dynamic wind energy pressure, wind pressure energy and/or any version thereof, regardless of how it is used”. 
         [0013]    Wikipedia describes “wind power” as “the conversion of wind energy into a useful form of energy” which will be used in this application. “When work is done upon an object, that object gains energy; the energy acquired by the objects upon which work is done is known as” “mechanical energy”. Wikipedia defines “dynamic pressure ” as “being closely related to the kinetic energy of a fluid particle” and “the pressure of a fluid particle in motion”, again the fluid particle in our case is air, therefore in the patent at hand, “dynamic pressure”, “dynamic pressure energy”, “dynamic wind pressure”, “dynamic wind energy pressure”, “wind pressure energy”, “wind energy pressure”, “pressure from wind”, “wind”, “wind energy” and/or any versions thereof, describe the same force, motion and/or energy and can be used interchangeably. 
         [0014]    The definition of the primary terms used to describe this invention need to be established. Webster&#39;s defines “utilize” as “to make use of turn to practical use”; “capture” as “to take captive”. “Channel” is defined as “a means of communicating”; “concentrate” is “to accumulate”. So for our purposes here “to utilize wind energy within a structure” refers “to any and/or all attempts, schemes, plans, assemblage of parts, occurrences, methods, strategies and/or apparatuses that uses any form and/or type of wind energy whatsoever within a structure, regardless of the output”. 
         [0015]    “Capture/captured/capturing” refers to “any and all attempts, schemes, plans, assemblage of parts, occurrences, methods, strategies and/or apparatuses whereby wind energy becomes captive and/or trapped within a structure”. 
         [0016]    “Channel/channeled/channeling” refers to “any and all attempts, schemes, plans, assemblage of parts, occurrences, methods, strategies and/or apparatuses imaginable for allowing this captured wind energy within the structure to communicate with any and/or all areas within the structure and/or an outside, for any purpose imaginable”. 
         [0017]    “Concentrate/concentrated/concentrating” refers to “any and all attempts, schemes, plans, assemblage of parts, occurrences, methods, strategies and/or apparatuses for accumulating wind energy within a structure”. 
         [0018]    “Utilize/utilized/utilized” refers to “any and all attempts, schemes, plans, assemblage of parts, occurrences, methods, strategies and/or apparatuses to make practical use of any and/or all captured, channeled and concentrated wind energy within a structure in any way conceivable and/or imaginable”. 
         [0019]    Velocity/dynamic pressure is the high-velocity-low-pressure wind energy that impacts the walls of a standard structure during a high wind event and immediately slows to become a low-velocity-high-pressure wind energy force; once it forces its way into a standard structure through small “leaks” the structure&#39;s skin/surface. Where it continues as a captured, low-velocity-high-pressure wind energy force within the structure. For this invention, “leak/leaked/leaking/infiltrate/infiltrated/infiltrating” are interchangeable and refer to “wind energy entering the structure and/or single pressure vessel by mistake and/or in any unplanned way”. This captured low-velocity-high-pressure wind energy force will quickly begin to tear apart the structure&#39;s external wall cavities, floor cavities, ceiling cavities, roof cavities and other cavities within multiple pressure vessel structures. 
         [0020]    This can be avoided if the structure is constructed as a single pressure vessel as taught by this patent, because only then can this captured dynamic wind energy pressure that has leaked into the structure; be quickly channeled, undiminished to all of the external surfaces of the single pressure vessel&#39;s, internal areas. Where this captured low-velocity-high-pressure wind energy force can be utilized to actually strengthen these same surfaces against strong impact winds, by exerting an approximately equal counter force on these same areas, according to “Newton&#39;s Third Law” which states that “to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction”. Sealed external wall, floor, ceiling, roof and other cavities will prevent this strengthening from occurring. This is why the structure must become a single pressure vessel operating at a uniform pressure, so that all captured wind energy pressure changes will be immediately channeled undiminished to all of its surfaces, as it strives to reach equilibrium within the structure, with any excess wind energy pressures channeled to outside, preventing structure failure. 
         [0021]    Pascal and Bernoulli agree that “velocity pressure” and “dynamic pressure” are the same force, and as stated above is “the pressure of a fluid particle in motion”; so to measure them, one must measure the movement of air. “Static pressure” is defined as “the pressure of a fluid particle that is not moving”. Therefore, static pressure sensors and/or pressure transducers cannot measure the pressure of moving air, so they will never accurately measure velocity/dynamic wind energy pressures, nor could they ever measure them quickly enough. All before me have attempted to determine the differential pressure of a standard structure during a storm, and even during normal wind conditions, using pressure transducers, static pressure sensors and/or theory, therefore they have always failed. Since static pressure sensors and/or pressure transducers must be deployed directly into the fluid field, where they must wait until the structure&#39;s entire fluid field begins to actually inflate, before additional wind energy pressure is imposed on a static pressure sensor. By then the damage to the structure will have already occurred. A much faster scheme was needed to accurately and quickly measure structure pressure and my first two granted patents directly addressed this particular issue. I employed “Pascal&#39;s Law” by measuring the dynamic pressure of a structure/container/vessel directly at its surface/skin by measuring the velocity of air as it enters and leaves the structure. This method is much faster and far more accurate and was never used before me, by the prior art. 
         [0022]    The patent application at hand is also based on dynamic pressure in the form of the low-velocity-high-pressure wind energy force, which becomes captured within a structure during a high wind event. Including exactly how to channel, concentrate and/or utilize captured wind energy to save the structure by using it to operate “self-activated” transfer openings and/or relief valves to establish communication channels; while also strengthening the impact walls. When I stood below my roof mounted skylight and saw it pop open every few seconds, and even faster as the winds strengthened during IVAN and felt the dramatic rush of air by me on its way out of my home, I instantly knew my research and math was right and that I had discovered something new, important and very powerful. 
         [0023]    I soon realized that this captured low-velocity-high-pressure wind energy force can easily be channeled, into one or more channels within a structure; then concentrated and/or utilized to operate any form, type and/or size of wind powered device. The force, motion and/or mechanical energy generated by these wind powered devices can be transmitted through connection with any form, type and/or size of machine device including but not limited to electrical power generators. Large amounts of mechanical energy can be generated within properly designed “wind energy structures”, in winds as low as 1.0 MPH, and continue operating throughout hurricanes and/or tornados. 
         [0024]    How does this low-velocity-high-pressure wind energy force become destructive within a structure? During high velocity wind events, approximately 25% of a structure&#39;s external cavities on the wind impact side of a standard structure begin to inflate to an ever increasing high pressure as wind energy enters through “leaks”. Once this high-velocity-low-pressure wind energy force enters the structure it immediately loses velocity and quickly becomes a captured low-velocity-high-pressure wind energy force. “External wall cavities, roof cavities, floor cavities, ceiling cavities and/or any interstitial areas”, refer to “any wall cavity, sealed roof cavity, floor cavity, ceiling cavity and/or any interstitial area that has an outside on one side of the wall cavity, sealed roof cavity, floor cavity, ceiling cavity and/or any interstitial area and the enclosed internal area within the single pressure vessel, on the other side of the wall cavity, sealed roof cavity, floor cavity, ceiling cavity and/or any interstitial area”. This ever increasing low-velocity-high-pressure wind energy force is transmitted undiminished to all of the surfaces of these external cavities. This can cause these sealed external cavities to actually inflate and expand before the air can further “leak” into the structure core. For a description of “core” I turned to Webster&#39;s: “the center of an object”. Therefore, in the patent application at hand, the term “structure core”; “includes all of the internal areas, rooms, etc. of the single pressure vessel, which are located within the structure”. 
         [0025]    This expansion can weaken everything connected to these external cavities such as windows, doors, roofs, etc. It can progress to the point that windows, doors and roofs are actually blown out and off of the structure. Unchecked, I assert that this low-velocity-high-pressure wind energy force can quickly grow to the point in these external cavities and the structure core where they contain enough captured wind energy pressure to easily push windows and doors out of the actual wind impact wall of a structure, directly against 100+ MPH winds. Therefore, wall openings as employed and taught by previous patents, could eventually be prevented from opening when needed by the high velocity wind impact. Or, more importantly they could be blown open by this captured low-velocity-high-pressure wind energy force within the structure; leading to the assured destruction of the structure. 
         [0026]    The deflation of the approximately 75% of a structure&#39;s downwind external wall cavities of a standard structure, is also conveyed undiminished throughout these external structure cavities and can easily progress to the same point where windows, doors and roof connections within these cavities are weakened. Whether deflating or inflating, the result is the same, over time and many, many storms, or just one strong storm; all connections within these external structure cavities are weakened, including roof tie downs. The low wind energy pressure external cavity during one storm may be the high wind energy pressure cavity during the next storm, or even later during the same storm. 
         [0027]    The inner core of the structure is another totally separate pressure vessel, from the individual external cavity pressure vessels. One of the purposes of this invention is to address this situation by establishing channels that allow all external cavities to easily communicate with the inner core of the structure, establishing a much larger single pressure vessel that can easily withstand much stronger low-velocity-high-pressure wind energy forces and thereby eliminate the opportunity of these multiple vessels with shared vessel walls, from working against each other and eventually tearing and blowing each other apart, right along with the entire structure. 
         [0028]    These external cavity low-velocity-high-pressure wind energy forces are slowly transmitted directly to the core of the structure through leaking shared vessel walls. Once the structure core begins to experience this ever increasing low-velocity-high-pressure wind energy force, it will also weaken as it inflates. Other “internal cavities” of the structure such as but not limited to floor cavities, ceiling cavities, wall cavities, attic cavities and/or other interstitial cavities will now operate as even more totally separate pressure vessels that reside at different pressures than the structure core and its external cavities. “Internal wall cavities, floor cavities, ceiling cavities and/or any interstitial areas”, refer to “any wall cavity, floor cavity, ceiling cavity and/or any other interstitial area that has enclosed, internal areas within the single pressure vessel, on both sides of the wall cavity, floor cavity, ceiling cavity and/or any interstitial area”. Over time the ever increasing pressure differentials experienced between all of these totally separate pressure vessels with shared vessel walls, within the structure, begin to tear and pull against one another, further weakening the entire structure. 
         [0029]    My research teaches me that this ever increasing internal low-velocity-high-pressure wind energy force within the structures core eventually concentrates to the point where it blows roof membranes and sometimes entire roofs, off of structures. Many before me have asserted that the increased relative air flow parallel to the top surface of the roofs and/or wind under roof eves during a storm, generates a sufficient high-velocity-low-pressure wind energy force over these roof surfaces, to lift/pull the roof from a standard structure. I say they have never truly understood the real problem, so they have failed every time they tried to solve it. Building codes doubled the number of roof tie downs to solve roof lift. This attempt at an improvement failed to produce noticeable results. If one does not know the real problem, then they can never solve it; dooming them to only treat the symptoms of the real problem. The real problem is run away low-velocity-high-pressure wind energy forces within structures; that eventually becomes so concentrated that they blow the roof off of the structure, and/or explode the entire structure. In high rise structures this run away low-velocity-high-pressure wind energy force on the individual floors; eventually blows windows and walls out. 
         [0030]    I ran many aerodynamic calculations based on “Newton&#39;s Laws of Motion” and “Bernoulli&#39;s Principal” and mathematics, and I hereby declare that I never came across a single formula or solution that would generate a sufficient lift to pull a single roof from a single structure it is attached too, even before I added the additional drag forces of the roof tie downs. I would love to see someone prove me wrong, so I can learn something new. Both flat and sloped roofs failed to provide the smooth, streamlined air flow pattern required to provide a sufficient aerodynamic lifting force, especially when dormers, chimneys, roof vents, etc., were added to the calculations. It must be remembered that sloped roofs and especially flat roofs, generate high Reynolds Numbers over their surfaces as the air moves up walls and over the roof. Turbulence always denies lift. 
         [0031]    After running many of these calculations, my 23 years of structure pressure work along with my 32 years of living in a highly active hurricane zone; it is my opinion and observation, that the predominant component of the aerodynamic force that occurs in the wind fluid flow up to approximately 60 MPH, relative to approximately 50% of a standard structure that have winds flowing along them; is manifested as a “drag force that acts parallel relative to the flow”. This explains the ability of this flow to pull/suck/draw air out of approximately 50% of the structure&#39;s external surfaces that have up to 60 MPH winds flowing along them. Then when the wind fluid flow along these same sides of a standard structure exceeds approximately 60 MPH, the predominant component of the aerodynamic force is manifested as a “lifting force that acts perpendicular relative to the flow”. This explains why the ability of this flow to pull air out of this approximately 50% of the structure&#39;s external surfaces; is dramatically reduced during high strong winds. The approximately 25% of a standard structure that is truly downwind, does continue to encounter a high-velocity-low pressure wind energy force that continues to pull/suck/draw air from a standard structure, regardless of wind speed. I hereby declare that I have never seen or heard of anyone else explain this phenomenon this way and that I have shared it with no one until I did so in previous parent applications to this one. I spent a lot of my personal funds and productive hours to learn this and use it in the patent application at hand, and to protect my own home from hurricane IVAN. 
         [0032]    And yes, I am saying that a high-velocity-low-pressure lifting wind energy force definitely exists over the roof of a standard structure, it is just dramatically insufficient to lift a single roof from a standard structure, even during hurricanes and tornadoes. It failed to lift my operating skylight from my home during hurricane IVAN when only one piece of ½″ bungee and one piece of ½″ rope, tied so it would let the skylight open 10″ were available to keep it from flying away. In other words, the elastic memory of ½″ bungee is all that was needed to keep my skylight closed and prevent it from being torn from my roof. This is positive proof that the 138 MPH high-velocity-low-pressure winds of IVAN that raced over my roof, were unable to lift even this skylight against ½″ bungee. It only opened every few seconds to relieve the built up dynamic wind energy pressure from within my home; and then slam shut, directly against these same roof lift forces. When I sold my home in 2005 it was still there, undamaged. 
         [0033]    These roof lift forces are however quite sufficient to make my same roof mounted relief valves extremely efficient and quick, due to the large wind energy pressure differentials that are generated on the roof, in relationship to the captured dynamic wind energy pressure within the structure. The perpendicular lifting force along the sides of the structure will render wall mounted openings as used in prior art, inefficient, if not totally inoperative. All before me have failed to understand this important phenomenon, so their attempts at protecting a standard structure during high winds, have totally failed as they only treated the symptoms of the real problem, but never treated the real problem itself. 
         [0034]    I hereby assert that the walls of a standard structure, experience far stronger impact forces than these roof lift forces during strong storms; due to the well-known “Coanda Effect” that teaches “the tendency of fast moving streams of air to deflect towards a nearby surface”, which means that winds usually deflect towards and move parallel to the surface of the Earth. This tendency even increases when the surface is curved, like the Earth. So, even though both hurricanes and tornadoes have cyclonic motions which are governed by Coriolis Effect, the strong high velocity winds they generate will contact structures with an aerodynamic force moving parallel with the Earth&#39;s surface and perpendicular to a structure&#39;s vertical external walls. Contacting the external walls that face the oncoming winds with the strongest possible impact force, before moving over the roofs and generating a far lesser lifting force. Bernoulli&#39;s equations linked with the mathematics supporting the Coanda Effect, back my assertion. 
         [0035]    So, other than within the actual vortex; high velocity, straight line winds moving parallel to the Earth&#39;s surface cause most of the structure damage encountered during tornadoes, derechos, hurricanes and all other high velocity winds. Tornadoes do not just lift up everything they encounter and carry it away, as some believe. If this were true, then tornado damage zones would be wiped clean of all debris, making starting over a whole lot easier. But this is not true. Yes, the actual vortex center of a tornado can lift objects until the air mass (air plus energy) beneath the object weakens to the point where it becomes less than the mass (weigh corrected for shape) of the object; allowing objects to simply fall from the sky. Objects that are lifted any significant distance, are light. 
         [0036]    I hereby assert that most, if not all structures damaged by high winds are blown apart as described within this specification and not as previously believed. Other support is found in the pictures on TV; which show walls still standing when roofs are blown off. I would love for someone to try to prove me wrong so I can learn something new. Plus, I await an explanation of how these walls remained standing, when the roofs of the same structure have been blow off. I would also love for someone to explain how my skylight survived the 138 MPH winds that flowed over my roof; with only the ½″ bungee holding it down. My research and mathematics all combine in a coherent theory that simply and completely tells the truth about what is happening. The walls are currently strong enough to withstand strong storm winds and current roof tie down requirements are sufficient to keep the roofs on the structures. Provided the captured low-velocity-high-pressure wind energy force within the structure&#39;s cavities and its core, are channeled and allowed to quickly communicate with each other and generate a single pressure vessel; and prevented from becoming excessively concentrated and explosive. 
         [0037]    To keep this high wind induced and ever increasing, captured low-velocity-high-pressure wind energy force within structures from becoming so concentrated that is destroys a standard structure; a direct channel must be established so that the inner core of the structure can easily communicate with an outside, in a “self-activating” way. My scheme was the first ever, to utilize this captured low-velocity-high-pressure wind energy force within my home/structure to operate my “self-activating” relief valve/skylight; which can be set at any desired relief pressure. Presently, I think that the structure should be kept at a slight higher pressure, in relationship to outside; allowing “Newton&#39;s Third Law” to help save the structure. I hereby declare that I have done extensive research on the size requirements of these relief valves to outside and all of the other pressure relief openings located on various internal surfaces within the structure, as described in this patent, for single story and multiple story structures and have developed a formula for sizing them, but I do not want to release it until I have had the time to conduct extensive testing to verify my mathematics; so that I do not mislead anyone. 
         [0038]    I have over 14 years of experience selling and commissioning self-regulating, self-activating and self-contained, pressure relief dampers, vents, openings and/or valves in the HVAC Industry. Some used springs, some used counter weights and some even used blatters. Pneumatic controlled, motor controlled, solenoid controlled, manually controlled, electronic controlled and/or electricity controlled openings, as used in the prior art are not included. So for our purposes here “relief valve” and/or “self-activating valve” and/or “self-activating channel” includes “any and/or all types and forms of self-regulating, self-activating, self-contained, wind energy operated, pressure relief dampers, openings, vents and/or valves that are adjustable to be set to open at a predetermined undesirable internal pressure set point within said structure; and allow air to easily and/or proportionally move from one space to another, and then closes again when the pressure situation is solved and has returned to an acceptable internal pressure; and once the predetermined relief pressure set point has been set, these relief valves and/or self-activating valves do not require any external influence and/or any human, electrical, computer, electronic, control, sensor, machine, trigger and/or any kind, type and/or form of external assistance to function”. 
         [0039]    Additionally, the term “weather resistant relief valve” applies to “all relief valves that open to an outside and must be constructed of weather resistant material and in weather resistant dimensions, so they can withstand high winds, salt water and extremely bad weather, for example”. To avoid confusion the standard term “relief valve” applies to all relief valves whether they are fully removed from the outside and mounted on internal surfaces; or exposed to high winds and bad weather. Their particular installation location determines how they must be constructed, and the decision is left to the installer. 
         [0040]    For the patent application at hand, “self-activating” is defined as “no controls of any kind, including manual, can be employed if the system is to be accurately considered ‘self-activating’; and all openings must be self-contained and capable of starting, operating and regulating themselves once their set point has been set and be considered totally independent of any and/or all external influence, whatsoever; their self-contained nature prevents the use of any electrical power, controls, electronics, information technologies, triggers and/or control systems of any kind in a truly self-activating system; additionally no form of ‘control theory’ involving any or all of the following: data processors, controllers, controlled openings, pressure sensors, pressure transducers, static pressure theory and/or static pressure sensors, can be used in a truly self-activating system”. No other prior art; structure, high wind, protection scheme complies with all of the above definitions of my “self-activating relief valves”. Because unlike me, they all failed to observe the unlimited, uninterruptable, free, source of dynamic wind energy pressure that builds up within structures during high winds. On my home, I used a variation of the spring type of a self-activating, wind energy operated, weather resistant relief valve, by employing a ½″ piece of bungee cord on my operable skylight. 
         [0041]    The only prior art involved in any of the claims herein is PARKER (U.S. Pat. No. 5,956,903) and FEX (U.S. Pat. No. 7,127,850) and both of these schemes are based totally on “control theory”; which involves the use of electricity to control and operated openings. Wikipedia describes “control theory” as “an interdisciplinary branch of engineering and mathematics that deals with the behavior of dynamical systems. The desired output (structure pressure control) of a system is called the reference. When one or more output variables (sensor readings) of a system need to follow a certain reference over time, a controller manipulates the input (controlled openings) to a system to obtain the desired effect on the output of the system.” Wikipedia goes on to show that “controllers, sensors, electronics and pneumatic or electric motors” are always required in “control theory” applications. Webster&#39;s defines “dynamical systems” as “systems marked by usually continuous and productive activity or change”; which is how all “control systems” operate, including PARKER and FEX (U.S. Pat. No. 7,127,850). 
         [0042]    Whenever PARKER and/or FEX (U.S. Pat. No. 7,127,850) references their pressure sensors, pressure transducers, controllers and/or data processors, all of them are mounted apart/externally from their “controlled openings” and never installed directly on their openings; leaving all of their openings completely dependent on these remotely mounted items. Therefore, none of them are “self-activating”. PARKER does however mount a sensor on each of his openings, but the sole purpose of this sensor is to “sense the open or closed status of the opening”. These particular sensors are not pressure transducers nor do they sense pressure, nor could they be used to sense any pressure or control these openings, nor could they ever actually open or close the openings, by themselves. Therefore, all of the “controlled openings” of the prior art operate only under the external control and external influence of their externally mounted pressure sensors, pressure transducers, controllers and/or data processors; leaving them anything but “self-activating”. These very devices in turn are not “self-activating” themselves as defines by this applicant; because all of them are totally dependent on electrical power to operate and electricity is the ultimate form of external influence that usually fails during storms. These open-close sensors simply mean that even more precious seconds are lost as their information is processed by the controller and/or data processor. 
         [0043]    Plus, PARKER refers to the use of “triggers” that he defines as either a “pressure transducer” or a “telephone call”, neither of which complies with the patent application at hand&#39;s use of “self-activating valves” and/or “relief valves” as clearly defined previously. Additionally, the drawings involved with these words by PARKER show no pressure sensor or pressure transducer mounted on the shutters involved. A true self-activating system never needs a trigger nor does it ever need someone to manually do anything to assist in its control, and/or to activate the system itself. My ideas are the only true self-activating, high wind, structure protection scheme in existence, requiring that no one do anything to assist in its control and/or to active it. Once set it is ready to protect the structure 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, even at night, or when unoccupied, even when the electrical power is out; just waiting for wind energy pressures to increase within the structure, to activate its self-activating openings and/or valves. 
         [0044]    I have 20+ dynamic structure pressure control systems based on schemes claimed within my existing U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,584,855 and 6,968,745 in operation in a Ciba Specialty Chemical Plant in McIntosh, Ala. Where many people have observed that when a door into a protected space is opened, thereby immediately lowering internal structure pressure; the dampers controlled by my scheme begin to move, immediately. My systems can literally respond to any and all structure pressure challenges faster than you can read this very sentence describing their speed. Ciba had never been able to get any other structure pressure control system to operate; and they had 30+ units at this Plant alone. Ciba can confirm this total failure of every other structure pressure control system they ever had, before they began to use the ones I patented. Their comment to me was that “they could not get a single structure pressure control system to react to a single opened door, much less accurately control structure pressure”, and “their control dampers never seemed to move”. They have been amazed at how simple and elegant my dynamic structure pressure control systems are and how easy they are to install and calibrate. 
         [0045]    The practical application of these patented ideas allowed me to see things about structure pressures and the movements of pressure within a structure, which no one before me on the face of the Earth, had ever had the opportunity to see. I hereby assert that all before me mistakenly used the ideas taught by ASHRAE in their attempts to control structure pressure. So none of them ever actually gained control of the pressure of a single structure since the beginning of time; so how could anyone before me have ever had the opportunity to see what I saw occur within a structure, once I had gained control of it. As proof of this bold statement, I offer what happened at Ciba when Tropical Storm HANNA passed within miles of this Chemical Plant during the night of Sep. 14, 2002, with 60 MPH winds and 80 MPH gust. Ciba can easily verify the following. 
         [0046]    Ciba contacted me on September  15   th  and told me that my dynamic structure pressure control systems had “gone haywire” and lost all control the previous day and that I needed to come find the reason for this “failure” and provide a solution. All of my systems at Ciba provide an output that is data logged on computers. These data logs proved to be invaluable in finding solutions to previous problems; that usually necessitated adjustments to my digital control algorithms. This had happened six times previously; each rewrite requiring the installation of new computer chips in each of the digital control networks involved; which I provided for free. I knew that all educations are expensive and I was thankful to have a patience working partner, such as Ciba; so I could have the chance to see and learn what no one before me had ever had the chance to see or learn. Previous failures had allowed me to learn things I never knew, or even imagined could occur, within a structure. When one is the first to actually and accurately control the pressure of an entire structure, one is in for a long and arduous education on the intricacies of how air will move around within a structure, due to what I call “pressure bubbles” and “pressure waves”. Which are almost impossible to predict, but are controllable with fast and accurate sensor input data; linked with a sophisticated digital control network with adapting algorithms, as I employed. 
         [0047]    Each structure at Ciba has its own unique air flow patterns that arise from the air distribution design; linked with internal room layout. With 20+ individual structures, I was given an incredible opportunity to learn from these different air distribution systems. These intricacies must be dealt with one-by-one, with each individual one teaching me more about how really tough it is to manage the pressures within an entire structure; especially when I also had to contend with ASHRAE&#39;s incorrect air handler design information. In fact I actually had to design my own special purpose air handlers to accomplish fast and accurate structure pressure control and I have never seen anyone else design air handlers exactly like this. Two of them are on structures at Ciba. 
         [0048]    Introducing large amounts of outside air into structures in the humid Southeast is extremely difficult and improper humidity control would spell disaster; which is exactly why I became involved in ASHRAE&#39;s Dehumidification Committee. After almost two years of constant mathematical corrections I was finally able to get my control algorithms to efficiently and quickly handle each and every anomaly that I had encounter within all of the different structures at Ciba; and I truly doubt that anyone else in the World has ever seen a single one of them. Ciba had become well versed in these chip change outs and always enjoyed the improved performance they provided. So, I just thought that the events of Sep. 14, 2002 were just another new unique situation that I could solve with an algorithm re-write. I went there and worked with their lead Mechanical Engineer, Don (full name available). 
         [0049]    I reviewed the computer data logs for the ten+ structures involved in the failure and was unable at first to understand what I was seeing; so I spent the next six weeks studying them in detail, before I cracked the code on what had occurred during HANNA&#39;s high winds. Through tedious, mathematical comparison to normal operations; I discovered something amazing and it is related on page 4, lines 7-27, herein. This in turn led to my discovery as described on page 9, line 28 through page 13 line 13, of this specification. After many more months of applied mathematics, I learned that my digital systems were operating in a wave form frequency that resembled “noise” on these computer data logs; producing a failure alarm and loss of structure pressure control. All of my mathematics led me to the conclusion that the only possible cause was that the high velocity and turbulent winds of HANNA had blown much more air into these structures than normal, through the wind impact wall. This in turn set up “wind energy pressure turbulence waves” within the structure as my control network strived to regain control of structure pressure; which proved impossible until the turbulent winds finally moderated. 
         [0050]    It is important to note for the record; that these 20+ structures at Ciba were fairly new, concrete block, industrial structures with no opening windows and steel doors with heavy duty door closers, at my insistence. Plus, each structure underwent a meticulous inspection, with all visible holes and/or leaks sealed with caulk. Then their entire exteriors were coated with two coats, of two-part epoxy paint. I truly doubt that any standard structure is sealed half as good as these industrial structures were sealed, and each one of them took approximately 8-15% of the structure&#39;s volume in outside air, per minute, to keep them at only a 0.10″ higher pressure than the outside. Even though they had been extremely well sealed; they still leaked badly when impacted by 60-80 MPH turbulent winds. So please don&#39;t tell me that standard structures do not leak like sieves, even during low wind conditions and especially during high velocity wind challenges. I have the installations, data logs and 23 years of experience, that prove otherwise. 
         [0051]    ASHRAE and just about everyone else in this World operates under the illusion that structures leak very little; leaving them with the lie of “stack effect”; as our structures become mold and mildew factories. PARKER is just one more. He should have used different language if he even thought that air was “leaking into structures” and leaving them at ever increasing high wind energy pressures during high wind events, as taught within this application. But neither PARKER, nor ASHRAE, nor anyone else; can teach what they know nothing about! ASHRAE cannot admit that structures “leak” very much, or then they would have to accurately determine exactly how much they leak. Then they would have to dramatically increase their recommendations on the amounts of outside air required to achieve their stated goal:of simple neutral structure pressures in relationship to outside. Much more outside air would be required to achieve structure pressures that are higher than outside; but currently ASHRAE and just about every Mechanical Engineer in the World is doing everything they can to reduce outside air requirements; while “slickly” pointing to energy savings; as our structures actually become inefficient energy hogs and mold and mildew factories. 
         [0052]    It is my opinion that just about every structure in this country is operating at a pressure that is lower that outside; turning the skins/external walls of our structures into low efficient filters, as large amounts of dirty, hot/cold and/or humid air are constantly sucked/drawn/pulled into structures. It cost 3-5 times more, to deal with this infiltration than to properly condition enough outside air to avoid a low structure pressure in relationship to outside. Pretending that a “stack effect” existed in our structures was much easier and cheaper than actually dealing with all of our sick structures and the real truth. The real truth is that significant amounts of air are constantly being pulled out of the upper floors of our structures by winds that grow stronger over height. Allowing significant “replacement air” to be pulled up from the lower floors through elevator shafts and other “pathways of least resistance”; which accounts for air moving upwards within our structures. It is my opinion that every air handler in the World should be capable of handling much more outside air than currently designed, preferably around 50% of total supply air flow, of approximately one CFM per structure square footage. While still producing 48 degree F. dew point and 55 degree F. dry bulb supply air, if we are ever going to conquer our humidity ravaged, energy hog structures. ASHRAE&#39;s current misguided theory of using dedicated outside air units; actually causes more structure pressure problems than they solve, by duplicating air flows and generating even more structure “pressure waves” and/or “pressure bubbles”. If one refuses to see the real problem; they are left with only treating the symptoms of the real problem, even ASHRAE. 
         [0053]    Please ask Ciba if they think structures “leak”. It would only take about 1-2% of structure volume per minute to generate a 0.10″ higher pressure than outside, if they were hermetically sealed; but it takes a lot more, almost 8-15 times as much, or 800-1500% more. I would love for someone, especially PARKER and/or ASHRAE, to explain this difference; if “leaks” are not involved. Most Mechanical Engineers on projects I have worked on, say I am wrong; but I say I am the only one that has ever made structure pressure control systems work and proved it with analog outputs. These Mechanical Engineers doom their projects to failure due to their lack of real world experience; by providing far too little outside air for pressurization. I have walked away from many structure pressure projects because no one would listen to me. 
         [0054]    Without sufficient amounts of properly conditioned outside air, per minute, no structure pressure control system will work; no matter how elegant and sophisticated the control system is. When Engineers refused to listen to me about increasing the amounts of outside air required; I could no longer keep selling structure pressure control systems based on my granted U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,584,855 and 6,968,745, in good conscience. Knowing that my ideas would just fail; and the structures involved would turn into mold and mildew factories. So I totally stopped selling them and shut down the sales side of my incorporated business and devoted all of my time to research. I figured I would rather keep my soul than make that kind of money. 
         [0055]    The real truth about how important it is, to know the real truth about how much structures “leak”, is the real reason why the ideas expressed by PARKER; who based his scheme on what ASHRAE teaches on how to measure structure pressures, do not work, even under light wind conditions. PARKER just regurgitated exactly what ASHRAE was teaching back in 1999 concerning how to measure structure pressures! Please check me out! ASHRAE had it wrong and PARKER just repeated their mistakes. I thought that only new ideas get patents? Their ideas would work if structures did not leak very much and structure pressures changed very little over any given hour. Their slow speed cannot account for these leaks until a whole lot of leaks have already occurred over a period of approximately 6-10 minutes, per my hundreds of hours spent trying to make them work. Only then can their ideas even begin to detect an increase in the pressure of the fluid field within the structure; then they begin to react to a situation that has been going on for over six minutes. Thereby setting into motion what I call “a dog chasing its tail scenario” whereby these static pressure control systems attempt to correct a pressure problem that has already changed again; setting into motion a series of “pressure waves” and “pressure bubbles” within the structure, that are impossible to stop until the static pressure control system is disabled. Which is exactly how this I found over 100 of them. If fact, I have never found a single structure pressure control system based on the ideas taught by PARKER and/or ASHRAE, operating properly, in my life. 
         [0056]    My digital, dynamic, structure pressure control systems at Ciba began to work perfectly again once the high winds had passed by the structures involved; just as they were programmed to do and ultimately no corrections were required. They had done everything they could; to solve the situation they encountered. My special dynamic structure pressure control systems were required at this Ciba Plant; by Federal requirements within NFPA 496, to prevent fugitive explosive gas releases at this Plant, from entering electrical switch gear rooms, resulting in an explosion. These exact same dynamic systems could easily be used to protect all structures in America along with their occupants, especially any Governmental, Medical and/or Military structures; from chemical, biological and dirty bomb attacks that occur outside of the structure; while also dramatically enhancing structure humidity control, every day of the year. 
         [0057]    This failure at Ciba let directly to the discovery of the ideas taught in this patent involving high wind structure protection and wind energy structures. I uncomfortably learned that even my super-fast and super-accurate patented dynamic structure pressure control systems that employ the most advanced pressure sensors currently available. Could not keep up with the turbulent wind gust generated by even this weak tropical storm, even though they leave all of the antiquated prior art systems, including PARKER and FEX (U.S. Pat. No. 7,127,850), in the dust. So I knew a tornado and/or hurricane would drive my dynamic systems into almost immediate failure, even if the power were able to stay on. 
         [0058]    Maybe no one before me ever understood how extremely important understanding “structure leaking”, is to understanding how to control structure pressure and/or how to use this “leaking” to protect a structure from high winds. PARKER never even mentions anything about the effects of winds driven leaks on the structure and the effects this can have within a structure, but I do, in both U.S. Pat. No. 7,127,850 and in the application at hand; which once again further separates us. These “leaks” are the power source for my entire high wind structure protection scheme; so knowing about them and knowing how to use them is extremely important. Just maybe my practical application of the three active U.S. patents that I hold on this subject; have kept anyone else from learning exactly how important structure leaking is. So how could anyone else ever teach what I am teaching? They cannot teach what they know nothing about! 
         [0059]    PARKER never mentions a single word about controlling the pressure within a structure; which is exactly why I was granted patent U.S. Pat. No. 7,127,850. Which is the most complete system of capturing, channeling and concentrating pressures within a new or existing structure ever devised. I hereby declare that I have even seen my internal structure pressure methods and apparatus as expressed in U.S. Pat. No. 7,127,850, go completely haywire in high winds; so PARKER&#39;s scheme will also fail in high winds. In fact, while testing my theories I was taught the hard way that all structures must operate as “single pressure vessels”. If they are ever to survive a single tornado or hurricane and that the openings/channels used to protect the structure must be “self-activating” exactly as I disclose within the application at hand. Leaving structures that employ PARKER&#39;s scheme, unprotected from explosion and destruction. 
         [0060]    During several test of my U.S. Pat. No. 7,127,850 scheme I suffered such persistent, severe and various failures during periods of high winds that I disconnected my “controlled openings” while leaving my sensors operating and then installed “self-activating valves” in the form of, simple, adjustable weight, counterbalance operated dampers. I was just hoping that their operation would tell me where I needed to relocate my sensors too; so I could then simply calibrate out the observed anomaly. But instead and to my amazement, something new and totally unexpected occurred; as my pressure readings revealed that the entire area began to immediately float at a perfect uniform pressure as these newly installed “self-activating valves” within all of the rooms involved, wildly opened and closed at unbelievable speeds; as high winds raged outside. 
         [0061]    I quickly learned that I had to install more “self-activating valves” that opened in the opposite direction in all of the rooms that had exterior walls, to accommodate the constantly shifting internal structure pressures, caused by the constantly shifting high winds outside. This is exactly why I show self-activating valves of both sides of wall, ceiling and attic cavities, in my current  FIGS. 1-4 . This event also confirmed that the large amounts of wind “leaking” into these rooms, provided the necessary free low-velocity-high-pressure wind energy force to effectively operate all of these self-activating valves, without any electricity; which usually goes out during high winds. When the winds decreased my self-activating valves just stayed closed. I tried adjusting the counterbalance weights; but there was just not enough air leaking into the structure to power any of my self-activating valves, and uniform pressure was lost. 
         [0062]    I went back and forth between these two separate operating systems during this prolonged period of high winds; and the results were always exactly the same, as related above. Once the winds had permanently decreased I reactivated my controlled openings as taught in U.S. Pat. No. 7,127,850; and once again gained control of all rooms. In other words, these tests proved that the “controlled openings” as disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 7,127,850 and by PARKER only worked properly in low wind conditions; and that my “self-activating valves” only worked properly in high winds, when enough wind energy was leaking into the structure to power them. I hereby declare that this is exactly why I have been saying that these two separate operating systems, are not the same, ever since Apr. 11, 2006. 
         [0063]    While somewhat crude, the above tests do represent a “Scientific Method” that had repeatable results; and means that I might just be the first person to ever test the actual operation of both of these two separate operating systems, directly against one another under ever changing wind conditions. I also say that this was the first time a true low-velocity-high-pressure wind energy powered, single pressure vessel, was ever generated within a structure, employing my disclosed self-activating valves. I failed to document these failures and learning experience because I prefer to work alone, so I can take as long as it takes to get it right and learn from my mistakes. The exact same failure was experienced at Ciba Specialty Chemical Plant in McIntosh, Ala. as disclosed above; and that failure is well documented, including computer logs; allowing Ciba to provide third party verification of that failure. I hereby declare that I have had no contact with anyone at Ciba for over eight years; and I have not manipulated them in any way! 
         [0064]    So for the sake of clarity, one operating system (this application at hand) only worked properly when high winds are blowing; while the other operating system (FEX U.S. Pat. No. 7,127,850 and PARKER) only worked properly when there are no high winds blowing. Based on long held “Scientific Methodology and Testing”, both of these two separate operating systems, consistently and completely failed to operate exactly or even similarly the same, under the exact same operating conditions; including high wind and normal wind conditions. “Scientifically” proving once and for all that these are in fact two totally separate operating systems; regardless of what we agree/chose to call/name them. My failures describe above with U.S. Pat. No. 7,127,850 along with the failure at Ciba of my U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,584,855 and 6,968,745 systems. Compared with the success I enjoyed in my home during hurricane IVAN; verifies once and for all that these two totally separate systems do not operate the same, and cannot be considered as the same. 
         [0065]    This is exactly why I knew ever since Apr. 11, 2006 that my schemes expressed within U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,584,855; 6,968,745 and 7,127,850 along with PARKER&#39;s scheme are not “self-activating” and they will ALL FAIL in high winds; just when they are needed the most. All of this together makes my “single pressure vessel” and “self-activating” ideas taught through the application at hand; not a duplication of parts from any other existing patent in this World, and leave my ideas producing a significant, valuable and unexpected result. I say this is just another huge discovery that began with many failures. If I had not been willing to continually test the ideas taught through U.S. Pat. No. 7,127,850 and keep on trying to figure out how to fix them in high winds, none of the ideas expressed in this application at hand, would have ever been discovered. So, this on the job training taught me that structures definitely “leak” generating a low-velocity-high-pressure wind energy force within structures. 
         [0066]    The associated turbulent wind energy pressure fluctuations generated by high-velocity-low-pressure wind energy forces outside of structures; all work together to generate dramatic and dynamic wind energy pressure fluctuations within structures. That occur much faster than even my existing patented dynamic four tenths of a second systems could adapt to. The self-activating, wind energy operated, high wind structure protection system as taught in this patent application at hand, represent a whole new level of system speed that will react to dynamic wind energy pressure fluctuations within a structure at around one tenth of a second; which is barely fast enough. This means that my new, novel and non-obvious self-activating high wind structure protection systems taught in the patent application at hand are at least four times faster than my own dynamic systems; which makes them at least 3,600-6,000 times faster than anything else available on this Planet; which by reference includes all existing prior art and PARKER. An advancement of this magnitude deserves the granting of the broadest claims possible! 
         [0067]    In high wind structure protection schemes, speed saves lives and structures, while lack thereof will end lives, allow severe injuries and destroy structures. As proof, I offer the over thirty times I have personally heard victims of tornadoes say on TV, “All this damage occurred in just seconds”. All of the prior art high wind structure protection schemes will fail and fail miserably during every tornado, derecho, hurricane and/or high wind event they ever encounter. I hereby assert that none of them would ever even react to a single tornado, until it is miles past the structure involved, ruining more lives and structures. My failure at Ciba, linked with the failures of my FEX (U.S. Pat. No. 7,127,850) systems, taught me that “self-activating”, wind energy operated, openings as taught in the patent application at hand, are the only ones that will ever respond fast enough during any and all high wind events. Any scheme that employs any form of “control theory” will waste far too much time gathering data, then processing it and then deciding what to do with it; while the high winds destroys the very structure around them; even ones that employ my super-fast dynamic pressure control theory, even if the electrical power did stay on. 
         [0068]    Therefore, all of the openings of the prior art schemes are not fast enough, nor are they “self-activating”, leaving them totally externally influenced and/or totally controlled, because these openings are mounted apart from the pressure sensors, pressure transducers, controllers and/or data processors involved in their scheme, even when operated manually, which is just another form of external influence and/or external control per Webster&#39;s definition of “control/controlled/controlling” as “to exercise restraining or directing influence over”, which clearly means that external influence and/or external control are always involved; which also means they are anything but independent. These pressure sensors, pressure transducers, controllers and/or data processors have the sole purpose of influencing and/or controlling PARKER&#39;s “controlled openings” by telling them exactly when to open and exactly when to close. 
         [0069]    Since neither the drawings nor specifications of the prior art, including PARKER, shows or describes any of these pressure sensors, pressure transducers, controllers and/or data processors mounted directly onto any of the individual controlled openings, these controlled openings are totally incapable of regulating themselves, or of any form of independent operation. This can easily be proven by just simply disconnecting PARKER&#39;s “controlled openings” from his data processor and/or controller and these “controlled openings” will never move again, unless someone manually moves them, which again is just another form of external influence and control. Or just simply disconnect all electrical power from PARKER&#39;s scheme, and nothing will ever happen again. It will just sit there as the next tornado or hurricane destroys his system, right along with the structure that it was supposed to protect. In fact PARKER&#39;s “controlled openings” only operate after his data processor and/or controller waste valuable time processing the data from his pressure sensors and/or pressure transducers and deciding which “controlled openings” to influence, by “controlling” their opening and closing. 
         [0070]    My openings employ no electricity, pressure sensors, pressure transducers, data processors and/or controllers of any kind. Each of my individual openings only employs blatters, springs and/or weights, and the like, so it can regulate itself. The captured low-velocity-high-pressure wind energy force within the structure provides the necessary energy to operate these blatters, springs and/or weights and the like, on my “self-activating relief valves”. No pressure sensors, pressure transducers, “controlled openings”, electric, solenoid, manual or pneumatic operators and/or any controls of any kind are required to operate the relief valves and/or transfer openings in my structure protection scheme. All of which would fail when the power fails. Therefore, with my scheme, no “controlled openings”, no solenoid operated openings, no pneumatic openings, no motorized openings and/or no manual relief openings of any kind shall be applied to protect a structure from high winds. 
         [0071]    All of the energy required to operate all of the “self-activating relief valves” in my structure protection scheme, will be totally utilized from the captured, channeled and/or concentrated low-velocity-high-pressure wind energy force that builds up within a structure during high winds. It is just these large pressure differentials generated by the inflated high wind energy pressures that build up within these enclosed sealed internal areas within the structure, due to low-velocity-high-pressure wind energy intrusions that create the potential for the explosion of these enclosed, sealed, separate, internal, pressure vessels within the structure, and consequently leading to a catastrophic failure of the entire structure. 
         [0072]    In the patent application at hand, “external” refers to “any and/or all surfaces, areas and spaces that connect with an outside”; while “internal”, “includes any and/or all surfaces, areas and/or spaces located within the single pressure vessel within a structure”; and “internal surface” refers to “any surface that is located within and/or connects with these internal areas”. For clarity “external surface” is used to define “the surface that is located within and/or connects with an outside”; to differentiate it from “internal surface”. Therefore for this invention, “the external surface of the structure” refers to “all surfaces that are situated at the external boundary of the structure itself”. “The external surface of the internal areas and/or external surface of the single pressure vessel” refers to “the surface that is the external boundary of the internal areas of the single pressure vessel”. 
         [0073]    There are times where the, “external surface of the internal areas of the single pressure vessel”, may not always be the “external surface of the structure” due to construction methods that place unprotected areas that are not part of the single pressure vessel, between the “internal areas” and the “external surface of the structure”. This situation is described with language such as “the external surface of the internal areas” and/or “the external surface of the single pressure vessel”; which refers to the same surface and are interchangeable. To further clarify, “outside” refers to “all areas of any kind that are beyond any and all of the external surfaces just defined”. So it is possible for a single structure to have two “outsides”; one that is “outside of the single pressure vessel”; and another one that is “outside of the structure itself”. 
         [0074]    For a description of “transfer opening”, I referred to dictionary.com where I only found a definition for “transfer” as “to convey or cause to pass from one place to another”. For the patent application at hand “transfer openings” and/or “self-activating openings” refers to “any attempt, strategy, scheme, plan, assemblage of parts, occurrence, method and/or apparatus involving any self-regulating, self-activating, self-contained, wind energy operated, opening that allows air and/or pressure to be transferred/conveyed from one space to another without any restrictions, every minute of every day and may be as basic as a simple hole in a surface, which may or may not have a cover, that allows pressure to easily and quickly equalize between different spaces”. This makes them “self-activating”, since no external influence or control of any kind is required for them to operate properly. Plus they are “wind energy operated” because “pressure differences generated as wind leaks into the structure between various spaces will provide the necessary energy to move air and/or pressure through these openings”. These self-activating, wind energy operated, transfer openings can be any now known device or any device developed in the future that fits the above description. There is no reason to limit the design of these self-activating, wind energy operated, transfer openings at this time, since no one currently employs the principals as described in this patent. Additionally, the term “weather resistant transfer opening” and/or just “weather resistant self-activating opening” applies “to all transfer openings that open to outside and must be constructed of weather resistant material and in weather resistant dimensions to withstand high winds, salt water and extremely bad weather, by way of example”. For clarity, the standard term “transfer opening” applies to all transfer openings whether they are fully removed from the outside and mounted on internal surfaces within the single pressure vessel, or if they are located where they can encounter high winds and bad weather. Their construction will be determined by their location. 
         [0075]    I have done extensive research on the exact size, type and location of these transfer openings and the practical application of the principals taught by this patent will most certainly reveal even more information. I added over 40 leaky, recessed, lights to the ceiling and roof cavities of my own town home on Pensacola Beach, to act as self-activating, wind energy operated, transfer openings during IVAN, and they worked perfectly. They also provided great lighting flexibility. Many other common products can also be used as transfer openings, while serving other practical and useful purposes. These transfer openings will be approximately located as shown on the drawings and mounted per the manufacturer&#39;s recommendations so that all warranties remain in effect. 
         [0076]    The primary desired result for a “transfer opening” and/or a “relief valve” is the same: “to allow air to move between various, desired spaces and allow the wind energy pressure too easily and quickly equalize between these desired spaces and produce a uniform, equalized wind energy pressure throughout the structure and/or single pressure vessel”. The primary difference between a “relief valve” and a “transfer opening” is that a “transfer opening” is allowing air and/or wind energy pressure to, quickly and easily move from one space to another without any restrictions, every minute, of every day, while a “relief valve ” will allow air and/or wind energy pressure to, quickly and easily move from one space to another, only after, the required/desired/set relief pressure, has been reached within one of the spaces involved and then closes again once the wind energy pressure situation is solved. Such as when the wind energy pressure of the area involved is reduced below a specified maximum set point by operation of the relief valve. It should be noted, that no one currently puts holes in the various internal surfaces of structures as taught by the patent application at hand. Instead everyone operates under the misconception that all internal surfaces within structures must be sealed and any holes are totally unacceptable, especially in humid climates. They could not be more incorrect. 
         [0077]    It is impossible to decide at this stage exactly which opening should be applied at the locations shown on the drawings. There are many variables that determine exactly which type of opening should be used on any given structure. To decide before all of the variables are known would lead to operational and/or humidity problems and application confusion. This is why there is such detail in describing the use of “vapor retarders”, within this specification. Whether or not a vapor retarder is applied, along with its exact location, and exact permeability, can dramatically effect which opening should be used in a particular installation. The outside climate can also dramatically effect which opening should be used in a particular installation. Also, structures that have attics and/or other areas that are “un-sealed” to outside offer even more variables as to which opening should be used in a particular location, or application. I owned a business that focused on specialized dehumidification equipment sales and installation. I have designed and installed many specialized dehumidification systems within the most humid areas of America and all are still operating properly. I gained knowledge that few can match in America, or the World, concerning exactly how humidity and pressure can move within a structure. 
         [0078]    I hereby declare, that I learned most of what I know about structure pressure by studying the intricacies and mathematics of exactly how humidity moves within a structure; involving “Boyles Law” and “Fick&#39;s Law”, the primary “Laws of Diffusion”. As pressure differences within a structure move to reach equilibrium, they will also easily move humidity around within that structure. It is extremely easier to measure the movement of absolute humidity within a structure, even at low dew points, than it is to measure the movement of pressure within the same structure. Especially low pressure differentials, where humidity measurement may be the only way. I spent 23 years studying structure pressure. I discovered the hard way that pressure differences within structures can dramatically affect the performance of even the best designed humidity control system. 
         [0079]    I immediately learned that I had to master how to control structure pressures, before I could master the control of structure humidity. This on the job humidity and structure pressure education, led to my first three granted U.S. patents. I am not trying to patent, and/or claim vapor retarders and/or their location, herein. I am using this application to share what I know about when, where and how to apply vapor retarders to achieve the best “single pressure vessel”; so as to protect structures from high winds. And I also want to share with others what I have learned over the past 23 years on how, when and where to apply them to achieve better structure humidity control, for free. 
         [0080]    The general function of “self-activating relief valves” and “self-activating transfer openings” is the same as stated previously and those skilled in the art of humidity control will easily be able to determine exactly when and where, which opening should be chosen based on information contained within this patent application disclosure. For example, say two exact same structures are constructed, one is located where for most of the year the climate is considered cold; like in Duluth, Minn. While the other is located where for most of the year the climate is considered hot and humid; like in Panama City, Fla. In the winter time in Duluth the only “drying force” is the low outside dew point of around 20 F. If “self-activating, transfer openings” are used on the internal surfaces of an external wall cavity in Duluth, the “Laws of Diffusion” would allow moisture generated by the occupants through showers, cooking, breathing, and the like to be pulled into this cavity where the cold dry bulb temperature from outside could freeze this moisture, expand it and literally tear the wall apart. So, in Duluth only a “self-activating relief valve” would prevent structural damage and must be used in these cold locations. 
         [0081]    While during the summer time in Panama City, the 55 F dew point generated by the interior air conditioner, provides the only “drying force” when outside dew points soar to 80F or above. Here only “self-activating transfer openings” mounted on the internal surface of this same external wall cavity, would allow it to be continuously dried out. As once again the “Laws of Diffusion” allow humidity to continuously enter the structure from outside at around 7,500 fpm based on the differential vapor pressures linked with mathematics by Bernoulli; which he derived directly from “Pascal&#39;s, Boyles and Fick&#39;s Laws”. Luckily the “leaks” are extremely small. So in Panama City, only a “self-activating transfer opening” mounted on the internal surface of this external cavity, would allow this cavity to continuously remain dry. If a “self-activating relief valve” was used here, this external wall cavity would only dry out during high wind events when the wind energy operated, pressure relief opening is forced open by pressure differentials. This would allow significant mold and mildew to grow within this external wall cavity in Panama City when no hurricane or tornado is experienced. 
         [0082]    Right now over two million structures, in the humid American Southeast could have uncontrolled mold and mildew growing within their external structure cavities. How would any other patent in the World address this important issue? My scheme is the first ever to protect a structure from high winds and dramatically improve structure internal humid control. I may be the only person in the World that has spent over 23 years studying dynamic pressure, structure pressure control and structure humidity control at the same time and concerning the same structures. Allowing me to fully understand and interrelate all of the principals, mathematics and “Laws of Physics” involved, into one concise method and apparatus. Therefore, no one before me could have ever invented the new, novel and non-obvious scheme taught in the patent application at hand, or I would have heard about them, or met them on a project, or met them through ASHRAE. 
         [0083]    I can think of over twenty similar, location specific requirements where similar problems could occur if a transfer opening were used in lieu of a relief valve, or visa-versa. Another interesting fact is that the 50% or less relative humidity level generated in these external wall cavities by employing transfer openings in hot and humid climates as described above, and further within this patent application. Will create what is called a “high stress environment” for roaches and other insects; which should keep them from entering a home/structure protected by my scheme. Again employing a relief valve in exactly the same location would allow roaches and other insects to enter these external cavities and live comfortably in the humid climate there. The current structure design of sealing all external structure cavities, also prevents these cavities from drying out, allowing insects to live within these external cavities and freely move into and out of the structure. Back in 2006, shortly after filing the parent application for this continuation in part, I got on the internet and studied roaches and found that they breathe through their skin and areas of 50% or less relative humidity will dry them out and they will die unless they escape. So, another positive byproduct of this patent application at hand would be less roach infestations in structures that employ what I am teaching. 
         [0084]    Also, to completely and exactly clarify such an interrelated set of variables as to which opening should be used, and under which exact humidity and temperature and pressure conditions, would result in a patent application that would easily be over 500 pages long and be difficult for any lay person to comprehend and be expensive and time consuming for me to file. The resulting confusion could easily mislead someone into using exactly the wrong opening, at exactly the wrong time, in exactly the wrong location and in exactly the wrong outside climate. While accurately choosing exactly when to use which opening will actually produce structures that not only can withstand high winds, but also produce enhanced structure humidity control and/or less insect infestations, at no additional cost, but at considerable energy savings. No other prior art patent in existence, offers this possibility. I employed all I have learned over the past forty years into the patent application at hand. 
         [0085]    An unreasonable person might say that “PARKER disclose an apparatus and method that includes transfer openings or channels, ( 20 ,  21 ,  22 ,  23 ), which openings or channels allow for passage of air from an internal area of the structure to an outside of the structure. PARKER also discloses valves (e.g.,  24 ,  25 ,  26 ,  27 ), to allow for transfer of pressure. The valves are set to open or close at a predetermined external as well as internal pressure. The openings or channels would be the openings or channels themselves, (e.g.,  20 ,  21 ,  22 ,  23 ), while the valves are the regulating devices, (e.g.,  24 ,  25 ,  26 ,  27 )”. The openings PARKER claims will fail when they are needed the most, in high winds, while my “self-activating” openings will be even faster in high wind. 
         [0086]    I know I can never leave any stone unturned so I will take the above unreasonable statement in detail, and show how it is actually a purposeful paraphrasing of PARKER&#39;s statements into a false assertion; in order to purposefully confuse an extremely clear issue. Every time PARKER mentions these “openings” and “valves”; he uses the complete phrase “openings  20 ,  21 ,  22  and  23  with opening operators  24 ,  25 ,  26  and  27 ” making them what PARKER himself only calls his “controlled openings”. Which do not fit any definition of a “transfer opening”, especially all of the definitions within the application at hand. Every time PARKER ever mentions openings  20 ,  21 ,  22 , or  23  in later statements concerning his drawings he uses these exact words “the closing of opening  20  by motorized opening operator  24  and the opening of opening  22  by motorized opening operator  26 ”. PARKER never separates his “openings  20 ,  21 ,  22  and  23 ” from his “opening operators  24 ,  25 ,  26  and  27 ”. So he never teaches applying his “openings  20 ,  21 ,  22  and  23 ” without also applying his “opening operators  24 ,  25 ,  26  and  27 ”. So PARKER is only teaching “controlled openings”, or “openings with valves” as these unreasonable people might now call them! PARKER&#39;s shutters are not controlled and are just a method and apparatus for protecting “windows” from high winds and the associated flying debris; and have nothing to add to this discussion concerning “transfer openings” and/or “controlled openings”. For clarity, PARKER does teach “controlled openings”, “that allow air to pass from an internal area of the structure to an outside of the structure”. But that is absolutely all that PARKER teaches on this all important issue. 
         [0087]    Therefore, PARKER only teaches how to use “controlled openings”. He never even uses the words “transfer” and/or “transfer openings” anywhere within his disclosure. PARKER only uses the term “controlled openings” when referring to his openings. If PARKER wanted to use the term “transfer” and/or “transfer opening”, he should have. Plus, he should have then explained exactly how different “transfer openings” are from his “controlled openings”. He has the burden to go into detail and explain exactly how, when and where he wanted to use any “transfer openings”, just like he did concerning exactly how, when and where he wanted to use his “controlled openings”. But he never does, and something this important cannot now be inferred or assumed by you; or any other unreasonable person. Further, PARKER never mentions any desire to use any “un-controlled openings” which are exactly what “transfer openings” are. My “transfer openings” are really the exact opposite of PARKER&#39;s disclosed “controlled openings”. 
         [0088]    I go to great lengths to explain exactly how, when and where I want to use “transfer openings”, and it takes a lot of explaining, to make sure that they are used properly; please see above page 31 line 12 through page 36 line 19 herein. Misapplied “transfer openings” can do more damage to a structure, than the high winds they are supposed to protect that structure from. I do use “transfer openings” in the roofs of “un-sealed attics”; as I clearly point out herein, “un-sealed attics” are already open to outside, every minute of every day through soffit vents, turbine vents, gable vents, etc. All of which makes these “un-sealed attics” a part of the outside, before I ever added my “transfer openings” to them. Which is exactly why these “un-sealed attics” are also sealed from the internal living areas they are above; and why they are cold in the winter and hot and humid in the summer and are not air conditioned. Because all of that air conditioning and/or heat would just be a waste of energy; as it floats out through those soffit vents, turbine vents, gable vents, etc. I do add “transfer openings” to the roofs of these “un-sealed attics” as disclosed in detail herein; because most if not all of those soffit vents, turbine vents, gable vents, etc. are usually too small to release hurricane and tornado wind induced low-velocity-high-pressures, which can build up in these “un-sealed attics”. These added “transfer openings” are properly sized to quickly release all wind energy pressure buildups, before runaway high wind energy pressures in these “un-sealed attics” blow the roof off the structure; allowing rain to destroy the entire structure along with everything in it. 
         [0089]    If PARKER applied “transfer openings” to “allow for passage of air from an internal area of the structure to an outside of the structure” like some unreasonable people might say; then these “transfer openings” would be “opened”, every minute, of every day, because there would be nothing on them to close them; and adding any form of control, even manual, turns them back into PARKER&#39;s “controlled openings”, in his own words. “Transfer openings” cannot have any form of control even manual; because the next tornado or high wind event could come without sufficient warning. When the occupants are away, or asleep; and therefore unavailable to operate any form of control, even manual control. Also, those “internal areas” now become part of the outside; through this always opened “transfer opening”; because PARKER would have now established a “direct pathway between the internal areas of the structure and the outside that never closes”. 
         [0090]    This would mean that moisture in the form of wind-blown rain; along with hot very humid air in the summer and cold very dry air in the winter; could come into the structure, every minute, of every day, directly through these “transfer openings”. Plus, when there was a tornado or hurricane present, it would move around the structure involved and eventually drive 100+ MPH winds directly into the structure, through their “transfer opening”. Quickly destroying the very structure they were supposed to save. No reasonable person would purposefully destroy their home by slapping a “transfer opening” on it, like these unreasonable people are falsely asserting; in an idiotic attempt to protect it from hurricanes and tornadoes, not even PARKER. 
         [0091]    PARKER and I both know that if we were going to protect a structure during a hurricane and/or tornado; by establishing a connection that would “allow for passage of air from an internal area of the structure to an outside of the structure”; then that connection must only open when it is needed, and then immediately close when it is not needed. PARKER makes this point extremely clear and so do I. If I had just propped my skylight open the necessary 10″ and left it that way during IVAN; the 138 MPH winds that passed over my home would have eventually ripped it from my roof and my home would have been destroyed by wind and rain. This is why I say that all attics and roof cavities should be completely “sealed” to outside by removing all of those soffit vents, turbine vents, gable vents, etc. Thereby deleting any requirement for “transfer openings” on these roofs. But it is not a perfect World and “transfer openings” on “un-sealed” attic roofs are much better than soffit vents, turbine vents, gable vents, etc., alone. 
         [0092]    I knew that my skylight must immediately close once it had released the wind energy pressure buildup; or the ever shifting winds, especially the 150+ MPH gust, would have eventually caught it from a bad angle, and destroyed it. We each just chose to utilize a different source of power and operation to open and/or close our connections to outside. PARKER mistakenly chose to employ electricity and pressure sensors; both of which will fail during most hurricanes and tornadoes, if not all. While I chose to employ only wind energy, which will be abundant, un-interruptible and “self-activating” during every hurricane and tornado; requiring no outside influence to initiate it, or keep it operating throughout any storm. I say, PARKER chose poorly and unwisely. 
         [0093]    If this same unreasonable, or some other unreasonable people, did file for a patent on their idea of “transfer openings that allow for the passage of air from an internal area of the structure to an outside of the structure” to protect that structure from high winds! They could include details like just permanently removing several exterior doors and/or windows! They must be permanently removed because removing them right before a storm and/or just simply opening them before and/or during a storm; would exhibit “manual control” and therefore fall under the prior art established by PARKER, through his claimed “controlled openings”! Or, if they have “un-sealed attics” like 95% of America, they can just rush up and kick out their gable vents along with kicking out a 10 foot by 10 foot hole in their sealed attic floor; or if they have sealed attics they can just rush up on their roofs with an axe and hack a 10 foot by 10 foot hole in their roof! “Roof”? “Who needs a stinking roof anyway”? They could just market “homes without roofs”! “Great views from your bed! Birds singing, rain falling; what a wonderful experience”! “Get yours now, before the next hurricane”! Watch all your belongings slowly mildew into mush! They will probably be granted a patent on this idea, in a year or less; because it involves magic! Specifically concerning how rain and wind and weather will magically never enter the structure through their “transfer openings”! Along with exactly how they will magically prevent heat, cold and humidity from leaving the structure every minute, of every day; through their “transfer opening”! And personally I think the USPTO likes patent applications based on magic! An issue I address in detail within a patent application concerning “wind energy structures”. That I filed on the same day as this one! 
         [0094]    Earlier herein I said “I hereby declare, that I learned most of what I know about structure pressure by studying the intricacies and mathematics of exactly how humidity moves within a structure; involving Boyles Law and Fick&#39;s Law, the primary Laws of Diffusion. As pressure differences within a structure move to reach equilibrium, they will easily move humidity around within that structure. It is extremely easier to measure the movement of absolute humidity within a structure, even at low dew points, than it is to measure the movement of pressure within that same structure. Especially low pressure differentials, where humidity measurement may be the only way.” It is worth repeating at this time for emphasis because it supports my arguments above and I want to add that I spent 23 years studying structure pressure. It was extremely hard, exhausting, difficult, exacting and complex work, because no one had been able to control the pressure of a single entire structure before I finally did. 
         [0095]    There was no Professor I could just go ask; there was no book I could just go study. I had to write the book on this issue; without any help from anyone else. This is how I learned firsthand that the “Fan/Affinity Laws” do not have anything to add when I had to deal with wind energy within structures. All of my calculations always kept bringing me back to mathematics within the “Laws of Pressure”. I quickly discovered that everybody I talked to about all of this; actually knew a lot less than I did and I got tired of trying to educate them. Especially when they usually just called me stupid and said I did not know what I was talking about; and that ASHRAE had figured all of that out, a long time ago. So I just shut up and went back to work and stopped sharing what I was learning with anyone, until now! 
         [0096]    So, as stated above, some part of every hour of those 23 years of work, also included studying how moisture/humidity moved through structures. These 23 years taught me the hard way, exactly how, when and where to use “transfer openings” to avoid structure pressure and structure humidity problems. Something PARKER has no idea about. Now, I have spent the last eight years studying how heat moves through structures out here in the desert and it has been hitting 114 F lately, so I am learning as much as I can, as fast as I can. Much of my current work is based on what I learned during those first 23 years. And I hereby assert that heat moves through structures, very differently than most people think; but I will never teach them what I now know! Especially not after having eight years of my life wasted like they have been by the USPTO! This is my life&#39;s work and I honestly doubt that anyone else on this Planet, has spent that much time studying these same issues, ever. I have literally taken thousands, upon thousands, upon thousands of structure temperature, humidity and pressure readings. Spent countless days doing mathematics so that I could just try to learn something new; or sometimes just to try to figure out exactly what I was observing. But it still took those clear dreams that I have mentioned, for it all to come together for me. 
         [0097]    I have been through the Patent Examination Process before and found to my dismay that there are some very unreasonable Examiners there at the USPTO; that enjoy in taking the prior art out of context, and then purposefully paraphrasing it into many false assertions! Just like the one above, concerning “transfer openings”! I have learned the hard way that they find great joy in purposefully confusing simple issues! I hereby formally demand that any Examiner on any of my patent applications, including this one, stop paraphrasing the prior art, whatsoever! And supply the exact words of the prior art in context and in “quotation marks” along with exact page and line numbers involved! So we can all at least begin with the real truth; instead of lies made up by Examiners! Please stop paraphrasing the prior art into purposeful false assertions; which misleads everyone and confuses perfectly clear situations. All of which is extremely frustrating, time consuming, wrong and a clear abuse of your power and privilege. 
         [0098]    Your actions represents such an egregious abuse of the public trust in our Government and the USPTO! Along with the fact that for probably the twentieth time, I feel that my Civil Rights have been violated by your actions! I remind you that a United States patent is the right of every American Citizen; it is not a privilege to be manipulated by the greed, the evil, the rich and/or those in positions of power and/or by the USPTO itself! Again, I assert that as a United States Citizen, I deserve the protection a United States Patent would afford me and my new, novel and non-obvious ideas as expressed in this application at hand! I feel that I am left with no other alternative than to file a complaint with the FBI; involving your actions concerning my ideas and your continued use of false assertions concerning the prior art involved! This will be my fourth complaint to the FBI on this and I have never heard back from them; so maybe you can continue on forever, since no body must care! I have also written President Obama about this intolerable situation four times, and never heard a word! So now I will copy my FBI letter to Congressman John Lewis from Georgia! My mom was born in Georgia, along with her mom and he is the only Congressman that I trust right now, so maybe he can help me! 
         [0099]    Additionally, he is on the House Ways and Means Committee and a Ranking Member on the Congressional Oversight Subcommittee and maybe, just maybe, he can launch a Congressional Investigation into your abuse of power and privilege, while Americans continue to die and whole communities are ravaged by tornadoes and hurricanes, like hurricanes SANDY; IKE; IRENE; along with the tornadoes that hit Moore, Okla.; Joplin, Mo.; Tuscaloosa, Ala.; and many, many more. Costing America BILLIONS and unimaginable heartache. 
         [0100]    Per my above argument on the issue of “transfer openings”; I only use PARKER&#39;s exact words to disprove your false assertion. This issue could not be more important! You are now attempting to take away my claims involving an “open top” from me, on a separate patent application involving “wind energy structures”; by saying that PARKER is teaching “transfer openings that allow for the passage of air from an internal area of the structure to an outside of the structure”. When he does NOT! For over eight years USPTO Examiners have attempted to take my ideas with just these types of false assertions. A patent application is a contract where I publicly disclose my new, novel and non-obvious ideas; and in return I obtain twenty years of patent protection. I honestly thought that this patent examination process is supposed to be about utilizing solid science and physics; that could be proven with solid mathematics and the truth. Not a purposeful manipulation of the truth through persistent false assertions. 
         [0101]    The prior art, including PARKER, never shows a single opening, on a single “internal surface” within the structure. PARKER is the primary prior art and he only shows “controlled openings” on “various surfaces” and/or “various external surfaces” of the structure; and per Webster&#39;s definition for “surface” as “the external boundary an object”, only “external surfaces” apply. Yes, PARKER&#39;s openings will go through these external surfaces and reach internal surfaces, but not in any way that is similar to what this I am teaching or claiming. If PARKER wanted to teach mounting his “controlled openings” on “internal surfaces” and why; then he should have clearly said so, and fully explained why and used different language such as “various internal surfaces” and defined them as I do. 
         [0102]    PARKER very obviously chose not to; because he saw no need for them. Neither his specification nor his drawings ever mentions any requirement or desire to add any openings to any internal area and/or internal surface, within the structure, and such an important issue cannot now be simply assumed and/or inferred by anyone. I respectfully request the exact patent and phrases in context therein, that refute these statements in “quotation marks”. No more paraphrases, please! I looked and never found a single one within PARKER; or any other patent in existence. The patent application at hand is the only high wind structure protection scheme that has relief valves and/or transfer openings; on various internal surfaces, within the structure. 
         [0103]    Since PARKER failed to pay his maintenance fees several years ago; his ideas are now part of the public domain. So people that choose not to pay me, can apply PARKER&#39;S teachings on “controlled openings” only to the outside walls (“skin”) of their structures to “release internal pressure”, exactly as he discloses them; for free. Without any “controlled openings” within the structure as I teach within U.S. Pat. No. 7,127,850; that could be used to create my “single pressure vessel”; and without any “self-activating relief valves” and “self-activating transfer openings”, as I teach. Or, they could choose to pay me for a system that is approximately 3,600-6,000 times faster than PARKER; and includes my “single pressure vessel” theory. Then we will all learn once and for all, exactly who has it right after the next big storm. I have already risked my life to test my theories; and I personally would never risk my life or the lives of others, to test PARKER&#39;S theories. Especially after all that I have seen over the past 23 years, including observing my U.S. Pat. No. 7,127,850 scheme fail time after time, during high winds. 
         [0104]    32 years of living on Pensacola Beach, Fla. and the 20 plus hurricanes I had to deal with, taught me that the power always goes out during a hurricane and any control theory structure protection system, dependent on electricity in any way, will go out too and subsequently fail. So, relief valves and/or transfer openings that utilize the captured low-velocity-high-pressure wind energy force that builds up within the structure during storms; as their only required energy source, as taught in the patent application at hand. Are the only ones that will continue to work when they are needed, no matter what, no matter when. 
         [0105]    I built the invention that this patent teaches, onto my own home, and it taught me that it will work, no matter what. My electricity went out eight hours before I experienced the 138 MPH strongest winds of hurricane IVAN, on Sep. 15, 2004, as it passed very close to my home, in the pitch black darkness of night. My scheme worked perfectly without any electrical power, and/or any conscious control, manual control, “controlled openings”, controllers, data processors, sensors, or any form of external influence and/or assistance of any kind. I was able to calmly sit back, take notes, let the storm teach me things few have ever observed, while watching it work perfectly and quickly; through all wind increases and directional changes. 
         [0106]    By applying these principals to my own town home located at 1521 Via Deluna, on Pensacola Beach, Fla., I hereby declare that this was the first working prototype of a method and apparatus to utilize wind energy within a structure as taught in this patent. This prototype provided me with valuable knowledge and insight, as these principals allowed my town home to withstand the devastating winds of hurricane IVAN, on Sep. 15, 2004. I stayed in my home throughout the hurricane, just like I was told to do in my dreams, and observed the associated 138+ MPH winds and eight foot storm surge, to see for myself when, how and where my ideas on this subject, might fail. My ideas did not fail and are now described in this application. I stayed in my town home for nine additional days after IVAN, without electricity or running water, while the area was under Martial Law, so I could continue to study the useful, new, novel and non-obvious ideas taught by this application. 
         [0107]    I sat in my home during an actual category 3 hurricane, to test my invention. I literally risked my life to learn what I am teaching. I figured that before I ever asked another human being to risk their lives in structures modified with my ideas, I must verify all of my mathematics and then risk my own life, first. I knew it was the only way to see and experience what actually happened. I sat next to the wind impact wall of my home and experienced the internal wallboard wall expand inwards, and I felt air blow out of the holes I had cut in this wall. I instantly knew they had to be larger, so I corrected my formulas. I also saw and felt my double pane windows flex inward by over an inch, as I heard the wind gust increase outside, and they had high quality storm shutters over them, outside. One of my next door neighbors also had high quality storm shutters but several of their windows and their roof still failed. Experiencing an actual category 3 hurricane provides critical information on exactly what happens during a high wind event. 
         [0108]    I hereby declare that at the height of the storm I saw and felt the wind impact side of my home switch back and forth from one side to the exact opposite side of my home in an instant. This means that the 138 MPH impact winds switched 180 degrees in an instant. I doubt any control theory structure protection scheme; which depends on pressure sensors, pressure transducers, data processors and/or controllers could ever sense this rapid powerful change and then perform the math fast enough to determine which “controlled opening” to open and which one to close. All prior art schemes will fail, because their openings will never work fast enough to solve what I experienced. My roof mounted self-activating, wind energy operated, relief valve skylight continued to work perfectly during this 180 degree event, popping open as fast as every few seconds without any interruptions or delays, just as my mathematics said it would. Many times this skylight would open multiple times in a single second, sounding like machine gun fire. 
         [0109]    I hereby declare that while observing the operation of my self-activating, wind energy operated, pressure relief skylight, during IVAN as described above, I learned exactly how powerful this captured low-velocity-high-pressure wind energy force really is; and that I had never accurately calculated or observed this force within a structure before. I had seen the computer data logs from Ciba, and I had experienced the failures of systems based on my patent U.S. Pat. No. 7,127,850; but I never thought it could be so powerful. Within a day I realized how this energy could be captured, channeled, concentrated and/or utilized to power any type, size, form or shape of wind powered device, even in winds down to 1.0 MPH and as high as 240 MPH, regardless of wind direction, including but not limited to wind powered electrical power generators. Any applicable form, type, size or shape of wind powered device currently existing or invented in the future can be used within my wind energy structures. I just kept on studying it until I disclosed it on Dec. 24, 2008; without mentioning it to anyone until then. These ideas are revealed within a separate patent application, filed on the same day as this one and named “METHOD AND APPARATUS TO UTILIZE THE PUSH-PULL POWER OF AN UPWARDS FLOW OF WIND ENERGY WITHIN A STRUCTURE” 
         [0110]    Thus, there is a need in the current art of structure construction for providing a method and apparatus that utilizes the low-velocity-high-pressure wind energy force that will occur within a structure during high winds; and allow structures to better survive hurricanes, derechos, tornadoes and/or other high wind challenges. It therefore is an objective of this invention to provide a “self-activating” method and apparatus for constructing structures that consist of a “single pressure vessel”, which can easily relieve/channel any and all excess low-velocity-high-pressure wind energy through its external surface and thereby to outside. Such a method and apparatus must be easy to apply, require no electricity and adequately produce a structure that is actually a “single pressure vessel” operating at a uniform pressure, which is not excessive. 
         [0111]    This method and apparatus will also include “self-activating relief valves” and/or “self-activating transfer openings” on various internal surfaces to relieve any excess wind energy pressure that can build up within the structure as high wind energy pressure wind “leaks” in around windows, doors and/or minor wall imperfections, inflating the structure, and/or it&#39;s sealed cavities to destructive wind energy pressures. If there is any doubt that my ideas can be detected on a standard structure; it must be remembered that after catastrophic wind events, insurance agents and adjusters must visit the effected structures to inspect the damage. They could easily note on their reports which structures had my ideas on them. Plus, all fifty states have laws and restrictions that require “building permits” to retrofit existing structures and build new structures with the ideas disclosed herein. Just like I had to get a “building permit” before I retrofitted my home with these ideas. So building permit inspectors could easily note on their inspections exactly which structures have my ideas on them. While the “building permits” themselves would provide written proof of which structures have my ideas on them. 
       SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION 
       [0112]    A method and apparatus for protecting new or existing structures from high winds by utilizing wind energy to form a single pressure vessel within the structure. Includes a structure with one or more external surfaces, separating one or more internal areas with one or more floors with one or more rooms and one or more internal surfaces, from an outside. When attic and/or roof cavity areas are sealed to outside, the “outside” of the structure itself is also the “outside” of the single pressure vessel. Multiple floor structures are included by reference and inference. These “sealed attic and/or roof cavity areas” as named, include any and all spaces attached to the structure and located directly below the roof structure and directly above the living and/or working areas. Basements, party rooms, family rooms, stairways, enclosed pools, mechanical rooms, utility rooms and/or all other attached, enclosed, structures that the designer, architect, etc., chooses to protect and include within the single pressure vessel, are also included by reference. 
         [0113]    One objective of this patent is to design structures where internal areas, such as but not limited to, sealed attics, sealed roof cavities, rooms, floors and/or ceiling cavities, floor cavities, wall cavities and/or any and all interstitial areas, etc., within the structure. Along with the internal areas of any desired attached, enclosed structures are all constructed into a “single pressure vessel” as defined earlier within this application. Where all of these internal areas can communicate with each other and operate at a uniform pressure. By “interstitial area”, we refer to “any space and/or area between other any and all other spaces and/or areas”. The, internal areas of the protected single pressure vessel will be sealed to all surrounding areas, except each other, within the structure. Practical application of this embodiment will involve the deletion of all soffit vents, roof vents, and roof turbine vents, ridge vents, gable vents, etc. Sealed attics must now be completely sealed to outside, except for the addition of self-activating relief valves at the external surface, of the internal areas, of the single pressure vessel. Now is a good time to fully address “sealed attics and/or roof cavities” and their exact opposites “un-sealed attics and/or roof cavities”. For this application at hand “sealed attics and/or roof cavities” are “attics and/or roof cavities that have been sealed to outside, and have absolutely no soffit vents, roof vents, roof turbine vents, ridge vents, gable vents, etc.; but are still fully opened and fully able to communicate with all of the other internal areas of the protected single pressure vessel within the structure; thereby making them internal areas that are separated from the outside; that will be sealed to all surrounding areas that are not part of the single pressure vessel”. 
         [0114]    Inversely, “un-sealed attics and/or un-sealed roof cavities” are “attics and/or roof cavities that are not sealed to outside, and are fully opened to and fully able to communicate with outside, though soffit vents, roof vents, roof turbine vents, ridge vents, gable vents, etc.; thereby actually making them part of the outside; that are fully sealed from and un-able to communicate with, any of the internal areas of the protected single pressure vessel within the structure”. 
         [0115]    According to a further embodiment, transfer openings are added to the various internal surfaces of the sealed attic ceiling surface and/or sealed roof cavity ceiling surface, of the top floor of the structure. Creating a channel to allow captured wind energy pressure to easily and quickly equalize between the sealed attic and/or sealed roof cavity and the enclosed internal living areas and/or working areas thereby including them in the single pressure vessel, which will operate at a uniform wind energy pressure. This sealed attic ceiling surface, refers to any and all surfaces that exist between the attic as described, and the enclosed, internal living and/or working areas. In other cases, ceiling refers also to the upper surface of any living or working area. A ceiling cavity is the area between a ceiling surface and the attic, roof, or floor surface above it. Sometimes a floor cavity from one floor and ceiling cavity from the floor below, can be the same cavity, and can be called either, or both. 
         [0116]    This embodiment can involve the installation of insulation just below the roof surface, or even on top of it. For the past 100+ years, the surface between the attic area and enclosed living and/or working areas has been insulated, and un-sealed attics were allowed to gain heat. Sealing the external surface of the attic to outside will allow heat to increase in these sealed attic area, unless the insulation is moved to the roof. Moving the insulation is not critical to the design of a single pressure vessel, but instead is just a recommendation that will allow for energy savings. I feel that if insulation is installed at the structure&#39;s roof, then insulation is not required at the sealed attic ceiling surface located between the sealed attic areas, and the enclosed living and/or working areas. 
         [0117]    According to another aspect of the invention, the internal areas of any and/or all desired attached and enclosed structures can also be added to the protected area and then sealed to all surrounding areas, except each other and the structure core itself; thereby increasing the size of the single pressure vessel. Practical application of this aspect will also involve the addition of transfer openings and/or relief valves to the internal surfaces of all internal areas and/or spaces within the attached structures, creating a channel that will allow captured wind energy pressures to easily and quickly equalize between all of the internal areas of all of the attached structures involved. Thereby creating a larger single pressure vessel that will operate at a uniform pressure; preventing the creation of wind energy pressure differences between any of these internal areas and/or spaces. 
         [0118]    According to another embodiment, the external ceiling cavities, floor cavities, wall cavities and/or any and all interstitial areas, etc., within the structure will also have transfer openings and/or relief valves added to their internal surfaces, creating channels that will allow captured wind energy pressure to easily and quickly equalize between these cavities and the internal areas of the single pressure vessel. This will prevent the uncontrolled buildup of wind energy pressures within these external ceiling cavities, floor cavities, wall cavities and/or any and all interstitial areas, etc., within the structure. For the past 40+ years these external cavities have always been sealed to all internal areas and a vapor retarder was normally located on the internal side of these external cavities. Allowing pressure to equalize within these external ceiling cavities, floor cavities, wall cavities and/or any and all interstitial areas, etc., and the internal areas of the single pressure vessel within the structure, will mean that the vapor retarder should be moved to the internal most side of these external cavities, in colder climates. And to the outer most side of these external cavities, but inside of the weather resistant external coating on the outside of structures (brick, vinyl siding, wood siding, aluminum siding, stucco, etc.); so that these entire external cavities now become part of the single pressure vessel, in humid climates. 
         [0119]    A vapor retarder should be included to assist in sealing the enclosed internal areas within the structure and creating the desired single pressure vessel, but is not required to create a single pressure vessel. A vapor retarder will provide increased humidity control and increased energy savings. In hot, humid locations, I feel that the best location for this vapor retarder is just behind the weather resistant external coating of the structure (brick, vinyl siding, wood siding, aluminum siding, stucco, etc.). When the vapor retarder is located here, a space for ventilation drying should be allowed between the vapor retarder and the weather resistant external coasting, with vent holes at the top and bottom of each floor that open to outside, so that moisture is allowed to escape. A vapor retarder should not be applied inside the wall structure, as this would allow moisture to become trapped between it and the weather resistant external coating, resulting in mold, mildew and rot. 
         [0120]    A vapor retarder should also be applied to the external most surface of the roof structure, for the same reasons. In both of these cases, “external most” means “the surface of the roof and/or wall that is the closest to an outside”, so as to maximize the size of the single pressure vessel. I also feel that the best vapor retarder for roof membranes are tar based, peel and stick products that offer great vapor protection and help to keep the roof membrane in place during high, strong winds. This peel and stick type of vapor retarder should be applied to the external surface of the roof structure, and just below the roof membrane itself. Again, a vapor retarder should not be applied below the roof structure, as this would allow moisture to become trapped between it and the roof membrane, resulting in significant mold, mildew and/or rot. 
         [0121]    According to another embodiment, internal areas, such as but not limited to, attics, rooms, floors and/or ceiling cavities, floor cavities, wall cavities and/or any and all interstitial areas, etc., within the structure, can also have transfer openings and/or relief valves added to their internal surfaces, creating channels which allow captured wind energy pressure to quickly and easily equalize within the single pressure vessel. This will also prevent the uncontrolled buildup of wind energy pressures within these internal areas, such as but not limited to, attics, rooms, floors and/or internal ceiling cavities, floor cavities, wall cavities and/or any and all interstitial areas, etc., within the structure, before they become explosive. If insulation is added to these internal cavities, then vapor retarders should not be employed unless some specific reason requires them. If a vapor retarder is applied to internal cavities, care should be taken to prevent the generation of any separate pressure vessels that could also trap moisture and/or wind energy pressure. 
         [0122]    According to another embodiment of the invention relief valves may be added to quickly and easily relieve built up internal wind energy pressures during any and all high wind challenges. Relief valves have been applied to structures in the past but not as used, or described herein. They can be added to various internal surfaces within the structure, creating channels to accomplish the single pressure vessel principal. They can also be added to the external surface of the internal areas and/or single pressure vessel. Due to the high winds involved, walls are not suitable locations, as deployed by previous patents. The aerodynamics of high winds could easily prevent a relief valve located on a wall from operating at the proper relief pressure when needed. The same does not hold true for roof surfaces, due to the well-known wind energy pressure envelope that develops over roof surfaces, combined with the aerodynamic lift, that occurs over roofs in high winds. 
         [0123]    So, for proper operation and protection of structures with sealed attics and/or roof cavities; relief valves to outside must always be located on the roof surfaces of the internal areas of the single pressure vessel. Directly after IVAN, I observed that the roof membranes of over  35  homes on Pensacola Beach had undergone catastrophic and uncontrolled explosive wind energy pressure releases, resulting in the roof membrane being blown up into a bubble at its weakest connection spot. Utilizing captured wind energy pressure to operate these relief valves to relieve the built up wind energy pressure right at the external roof surface of all internal areas, will prevent just this type of explosive wind energy pressure release. If sloped roofs are involved, then weather resistant relief valves should be installed on each external sloped roof surface of all internal areas, to prevent wind from blowing directly on all of them, at any given moment. So, every sloped roof surface should have at least one weather resistant relief valve installed on it. Flat roofs can have as few as one weather resistant relief valve, provided it is sized and located properly. 
         [0124]    There are times where this external surface of the internal areas of the single pressure vessel, may not always be the external roof surface of the structure due to construction methods that place unprotected areas that are not part of the single pressure vessel, such as “unsealed attics and/or roof cavities”, between these internal areas and the external roof surface of the structure. This situation is described with language such as “the external surface of the internal areas” and/or “the external surface of the single pressure vessel”; which refer to the same surface, and are interchangeable. 
         [0125]    The release pressure for these weather resistant relief valves can be set at any relief pressure desired. I used an existing operable skylight on my town home, and set it to relief at a pressure well below the failure point of all of my external surfaces. At the height of WAN, this skylight was relieving the built up wind energy pressures within the structure, to outside, about every 2 seconds or less, with some releases sounding like machine gun fire every fraction of a second, and would then reset with a loud pop, and some releases could even be felt in my ears; reflecting substantial wind energy pressure differentials. I used the failure pressure of my roof membrane, as my design relief pressure. I found it to be my weakest external surface. No external surface failed on my town home during IVAN, while both of my next door neighbors lost several windows and doors, plus both lost their roof membranes to the explosive wind energy pressure release described above. Allowing my home to survive these same wind energy pressure challenges. For other structures, other surfaces may have a lower failure pressure. 
         [0126]    By reviewing all of the failure pressures, of all of the external surfaces (windows, doors, skylights, walls, roof membrane, etc.) for a particular structure, and then using a percentage of the lowest known failure pressure, an adequate relief pressure can easily be determined. Maximum rated wind loads for various external surfaces can easily be converted to failure pressures, by applying simple velocity pressure (dynamic pressure) conversion formulas. These weather resistant relief valves can be any now known device or any device developed in the future that will utilize captured wind energy pressure within the structure, to self-activate and create a channel that allows wind energy pressure to be quickly and easily relieved to outside, so as to prevent catastrophic failure of a standard structure and/or roof membrane. There is no reason to limit the design of these relief valves at this time, since no one currently employs the principals as described in this patent. Plus, the practical application of these principals may reveal even more information on how to quickly and easily relieve wind energy pressure build ups, before they become catastrophic. According to another aspect of the invention, captured wind energy pressure within the structure can be utilized to quickly and easily operate these relief valves at any and all internal surfaces within the structure, including but not limited to various attics, rooms, floors and/or external and/or internal ceiling cavities, floor cavities, wall cavities and/or any and all interstitial areas, etc., within the single pressure vessel, to provide protection from uncontrolled wind energy pressure differentials. 
         [0127]    According to another embodiment, new or existing structures with “un-sealed attics and/or un-sealed roof cavities” that are un-sealed to outside, can be modified with relief valves between the sealed living and/or working internal areas, and these “un-sealed attic areas and/or un-sealed roof cavities” at the external surface of all internal areas of the single pressure vessel, to relieve wind energy pressures during high winds. In this situation a single structure may have two “outsides”; one that is “outside of the single pressure vessel” and another one that is “outside of the structure itself”. Transfer openings should not be used at these locations, as they will uncontrollably allow humidity to enter into the working and/or living area. I hereby declare that I have never seen anyone else use relief valves at these internal surfaces, much less transfer openings. 
         [0128]    According to another aspect of the invention relief valves and/or transfer openings may be added between any or all attached, enclosed, structures of the new or existing structure that have un-sealed attics and/or un-sealed roof cavities that cannot be sealed to outside, including but not limited to the various internal surfaces of rooms, floors and/or external and/or internal ceiling cavities, floor cavities, wall cavities and/or any and all interstitial areas, etc., within all of the structures involved, to achieve a single pressure vessel. To prevent uncontrolled wind energy pressure differentials during a catastrophic event, weather resistant relief valves should be used at the external surface of all of the internal areas of the single pressure vessel to prevent the uncontrolled entrance of humidity, where transfer openings could allow humidity to enter and move throughout the structure causing mold or mildew problems. Relief valves can also be added to the roof surface of these un-sealed attic and/or un-sealed roof cavities, to readily, easily and quickly relieve wind energy pressure to outside. Since moisture intrusion is not a concern here, weather resistant transfer openings could also be used on these roof surfaces. 
         [0129]    According to another embodiment, internal ceiling cavities, floor cavities, wall cavities and/or any and all interstitial areas, etc., within these structures with un-sealed attics and/or un-sealed roof cavities, can also have transfer openings and/or relief valves added to them, creating channels that allow captured wind energy pressure to easily and quickly equalize within the single pressure vessel. This will also prevent the uncontrolled buildup of wind energy pressure within these internal ceiling cavities, floor cavities, wall cavities and/or any and all interstitial areas, etc., before they become explosive. If insulation is added to these internal cavities, then vapor retarders should not be employed unless some specific reason requires them. If vapor retarders are employed in any internal ceiling cavities, floor cavities, wall cavities, interstitial areas, internal walls, floors and ceilings etc.; care should be taken to prevent the generation of any separate pressure vessels within the structure, that could trap moisture and/or wind energy pressure. 
         [0130]    It should be noted here, that I hereby declare that I personally have never seen any structure pressure control and/or structure pressure monitoring system that uses pressure sensors of any type; ever place a single pressure sensor on a single roof surface, in my life. And this was my profession for over twenty years and I currently hold three granted U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,584,855; 6,968,745 and 7,127,850; that all involve structure pressure control. All three use pressure sensors of various types and I purposefully do not claim, disclose and/or show putting any pressure sensors whatsoever, on any roof surfaces whatsoever, please check me out. This is why the dream I had in March of 2004 concerning utilizing wind energy within my home, to actually protect it from a coming hurricane; involved installing a self-activating pressure relief valve on every roof surface. I knew instantly that no pressure sensors could be used, because I already learned that they would fail when I needed them the most. I was also honestly mystified when that dream told me to use an operable skylight that I had installed on my home in 1983. 
         [0131]    And yes, another dream told me install that skylight and to make sure it was operable. I took many showers and sat in many hot tubs, as rain poured in on me through that opened skylight. I would always close it when I finished using it. It is the one thing about that home that I miss the most. It took less than an hour and only about $10.00 in parts; to convert it into a “self-activating relief valve” in 2004, as disclosed herein. I then used my fish weight scale that used spring resistance to determine fish weigh; to set the bungee to release at 60 pounds of internal wind energy pressure. Another point about all of these dreams, is that in March of 2004 I was recovering from open heart surgery and did not have the strength or stamina to build that skylight on my home at that time. It took over 8 months in 1983 to rip out the old tub, install a hot tub and reinforce all 3 floors involved, to take the added weight of a 100 gallon hot tub. And to meticulously water proof the skylight and the entire tub area so that incoming rain would not destroy my home. 
         [0132]    So if I had not had that dream in 1983 and acted on it at that time, there is no way I could have complied with the dreams of 2004. Talking about my dreams like this is a little unsettling, but it is the truth and the patent laws require that applicants tell the truth. I guess we are the only ones in the examination process that have too! Trying to lie about all of this would have proved much more difficult; and the resulting complex lies, would have eventually fallen apart, making me look worse than I do now. Plus, it is easier to tell the truth, than trying to remember a bunch of lies. All of which truly startles me and whenever I work on the dreams that HE gave me, I always feel my LORD&#39;S pleasure. I still do not know exactly why he chose me. I am truly no saint. The dreams were incredibly clear and concise; all I had to do was to figure out the mathematics involved and to work on what I was allowed to observe. It gave me something to do at a time when I honestly thought that I had nothing left to live for. It is hard, tough manual labor that has allowed me to get stronger; and I am thankful for it. 
         [0133]    A reasonable person might ask, why would I say that a pressure sensor on a roof surface will fail? It is because I took over 500 pressure readings on roof surfaces of various sizes and shapes; before I ever filed for the first of those three granted patents. I quickly discovered that all roofs are under a continuous high-velocity-low-pressure condition, as clearly disclosed earlier within this application. I knew that this constant low pressure sensor reading would have introduced an anomaly into my sensor calculations; eventually leading to the entire failure of my control system due to bad sensor input data. It would have done the same to PARKER&#39;s scheme. Please check me out, I never installed any pressure sensors on any roof surface whatsoever at Ciba, nor anywhere else. I say that if PARKER had ever built a working model of his scheme, and survived the hurricane; he would have also noted this anomaly and never mounted another pressure sensor on another roof surface. PARKER never shows a single pressure sensor on a single roof in any of his drawings; he just refer to the option. Even ASHRAE did not recommend installing a pressure sensor on a roof surface, back in 1999 when PARKER filed his application. This is just one more reason why any high wind structure protection scheme that depends on pressure sensor input data will never work properly when needed and/or where it is needed the most, on the roof. And as I clearly point out herein, the roof is the absolute best place to relieve internal pressure buildups, during high wind events, such as hurricanes and tornadoes. 
         [0134]    So, even though structures are emphasized in this patent, it is understood that the same principles of protecting a single pressure vessel structure during high winds and/or constructing a wind energy structure could easily and effectively be applied to any structure what-so-ever; such as but not limited to commercial, military, governmental, industrial, amusement, vehicular and/or residential, even high rise structures, etc., regardless of size, shape, and/or number of floors and/or decks involved. Other aspects of the invention are more fully disclosed hereafter. 
         [0135]    While preferred embodiments have been described, it will be appreciated that other modifications, adaptations and changes to the invention will be readily apparent to those skilled in the art. I hereby declare that I had all of these included ideas back in 2006 and chose to keep some of them private until now. I have just realized that I am now unable to patent my core ideas as originally planned. This would have protected all of the above therein and prevented others from taking them from me; while I continued to study them. Since I am forced to dramatically limit my claims; I must clearly state now, how I intended to employ my ideas, all along. 
     
    
     
       DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS 
         [0136]      FIGS. 1-4  Are cross section views of a method and apparatus for protecting new or existing structures from high winds by utilizing wind energy to form a “single pressure vessel” within the structure. And includes a structure with one or more external surfaces, separating one or more internal areas with one or more floors with one or more rooms and one or more internal surfaces, from an outside. 
           [0137]      FIG. 1  Illustrates how all of the attics and roof cavities are sealed to outside; illustrating that the “outside” of the structure itself is also the “outside” of the “single pressure vessel”. Revealing that the external surface of the internal areas of the single pressure vessel can be the external surface of the structure. 
           [0138]      FIG. 2  Is a cross section view similar to  FIG. 1 , illustrating the sealing of attached, enclosed structures to enlarge the “single pressure vessel”. 
           [0139]      FIG. 3  Is a cross section view illustrating un-sealed attics and/or un-sealed roof cavities that cannot be sealed to outside. In this situation, the “outside” of the structure itself is not always the “outside” of the single pressure vessel. This shows how the external surface of the internal areas of the single pressure vessel is not always the external surface of the structure. 
           [0140]      FIG. 4  Is a cross section view of new or existing multi-floor, high rise structures. In this situation, the “outside” of the structure itself is also the “outside” of the single pressure vessel. This shows how the external surface of the internal areas of the single pressure vessel is not always the external surface of the structure. 
       
    
    
     DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION 
       [0141]      FIGS. 1-4  One embodiment of the present invention is illustrated by way of example; of a method and apparatus for protecting new or existing structures  10  from high winds by utilizing wind energy to form a single pressure vessel  12  within structure  10  with one or more external surfaces  22 ,  40  and/or  58  separating one or more internal areas  12  with one or more floors with one or more rooms and one or more internal surfaces (shown with many numbers), from an outside  32 . While it is important to show the rooms and/or floors involved; none of them will be numbered to avoid confusion in defining the single pressure vessel  12 . Also, it serves no purpose to show and/or number, either wind and/or wind energy in  FIGS. 1-4 . Neither their presence, nor their direction affects the locations of any transfer openings  24  and/or relief valves  26 ; because high winds can come from any direction. Also, due to the many variables involving the “self-activation” operation or  24  and/or  26  during high winds; it would prove too complex and cumbersome to clearly show this within these drawings. Each and every channel shown in  FIGS. 1-4  will be “self-activating”, as fully disclosed herein. 
         [0142]      FIG. 1  Illustrates structures  10  that have sealed attics  56 , and/or sealed roof cavities  60 , that are not opened to outside  32 ; with single or multiple floors, floor surfaces  36 , floor cavities  38 , ceiling surfaces  50 , ceiling cavities  52 , external wall surfaces  40 , external wall cavities  42 , internal wall surfaces  44 , internal wall cavities  46 , sealed attic  56 , sealed attic ceiling surfaces  54  and rooms. The sealed external surface  22  is shown with a thick black line. A clear illustrations of how the external surface  22  of the internal area  12  can be the external surface  40  and/or  58  of the structure  10 , is shown. 
         [0143]    This sealed external surface  22  is used to establish the external surface of the single pressure vessel  12 . Therefore, all of the internal areas  12  within a single, continuous sealed external surface  22  that are marked 12 are internal areas of the same, single pressure vessel  12 . Various possible locations of transfer openings  24  and/or relief valves  26 , are shown for example only, and not by way of limitation, to allow wind energy pressure to easily and quickly equalize between all of the internal areas of the single pressure vessel  12 . Such as but not limited to, through floor surfaces  36 , floor cavities  38 , through ceiling surfaces  50 , ceiling cavities  52 , external wall cavities  42 , through internal wall surfaces  44 , internal wall cavities  46 , sealed attic  56 , through sealed attic ceiling surfaces  54 , and/or sealed roof cavities  60 , rooms and/or floors, of the structure  10 . Any location of transfer openings  24  and/or relief valves  26  that is desired and/or appropriate may be used. 
         [0144]    This drawing clearly illustrates the formation of a single pressure vessel  12 , in a new or existing structure  10 , that has a sealed attic  56 , or sealed roof cavity  60 , that is not opened to outside  32 , by establishing the external surface  22  of the single pressure vessel  12  with a thick black line, through the implementation of sealed external surface  22 . This along with transfer openings  24  and/or relief valves  26 , are done so that all of the internal areas  12  to be protected, such as but not limited to, through floor surfaces  36 , floor cavities  38 , through ceiling surfaces  50 , ceiling surfaces  50 , ceiling cavities  52 , external wall cavities  42 , through internal wall surfaces  44 , internal wall cavities  46 , sealed attic  56 , through sealed attic ceiling surfaces  54 , sealed roof cavities  60 , rooms and/or floors, of the structure  10 , can easily communicate with each other throughout the single pressure vessel  12  and allow wind energy pressure to easily and quickly equalize between one another, and all of the internal areas of the entire single pressure vessel  12  and not outside  32 . The sealed external surface  22  prevents the protected internal areas  12  within the structure  10  from uncontrollably communicating with outside  32 . There are times where this sealed external surface  22  of the internal areas of the single pressure vessel  12 , may not always be the external surface  40  and/or  58  of the structure  10  due to construction methods that place unprotected areas (not shown) that are not part of the single pressure vessel  12 , between the internal areas  12  and the external surface  40  and/or  58  of structure  10 . This situation is described with language such as “the external surface  22  of the internal areas  12 ” and/or “the external surface  22  of the single pressure vessel  12 ”.  FIG. 1  provides a clear illustration of how the external surface  22  of the internal areas  12  can be the external surface  40  and/or  58  of the structure  10 . 
         [0145]      FIG. 2  According to one embodiment,  FIG. 2  includes the addition of two attached, enclosed structures  14 , that are to be included in the single pressure vessel  12 , of a new or existing structure  10 , that has a sealed attic  56 , or sealed roof cavity  60 , that is not opened to outside  32 . The sealed external surface  22  is now extended to include structures  14 . Therefore, all of the internal areas  12  within a single, continuous external surface  22  that are marked 12 are parts of the same single pressure vessel  12 . For example only, and not by way of limitation this drawing includes a garage  18 , on the right side of the structure  10 , and an enclosed swimming pool area  20 , on the left side of the structure  10 . A more complete description of the variety of possible locations for transfer openings  24  and/or relief valves  26  is shown for example only, and not by way of limitation, to allow wind energy pressure to easily and quickly equalize between all of the internal areas of the single pressure vessel  12 , of a new or existing structure  10 , that has a sealed attic  56 , or sealed roof cavity  60 , that is not opened to outside  32 . Such as but not limited to, through floor surfaces  36 , floor cavities  38 , through ceiling surfaces  50 , ceiling cavities  52 , external wall cavities  42 , through internal wall surfaces  44 , internal wall cavities  46 , sealed attic  56 , through sealed attic ceiling surfaces  54 , sealed roof cavities  60 , rooms and/or floors, of structure  10 . 
         [0146]    Any location of transfer openings  24  and/or relief valves  26  that is desired and/or appropriate may be used. Please note that when transfer openings  24  and/or relief valves  26 , are installed in an external wall cavity  42 , they are only installed on the internal wall surface  44 , of this cavity  42  that faces, opens up to, the single pressure vessel  12 . The external wall surface  40  is the one that is closest to the outside  32 . Neither this external wall surface  40 , nor its sealed external surface  22 , are ever pierced by anything except required openings (not shown), windows (not shown), and/or doors (not shown) that are then sealed in place. In fact, under no circumstances is the sealed external surface  22  ever pierced, except by required openings (not shown), windows (not shown), and/or doors (not shown) that are then sealed in place, as well as possible, or by weather resistant relief valves  26 , to outside  32 , that are installed on all roof surfaces  58 , in order to easily and quickly relieve wind energy pressure build ups within the structure  10 , to outside  32 , at the external surface of the structure  58 .  FIG. 2  clearly illustrates how the external surface  22  of the internal areas  12  can be external surface  40  and/or  58  of structure  10 . 
         [0147]    Stairways (not shown) in a normal multiple floor, new, or existing structure  10 , that has a sealed attic  56 , or sealed roof cavity  60 , that is not opened to outside  32 , will serve as a perfect self-activating, wind energy operated, transfer openings  24 , between the various floors. When this is true, then the transfer openings  24 , and/or relief valves  26 , that are mounted on ceiling surfaces  50 , of the various floors, will only pierce the ceiling surface  50 , and allow wind energy pressure to be quickly and easily released from the ceiling cavity  52 . If there is no stairway (not shown), or if for some reason, the stairway (not shown) is sealed, or has some other form of restriction, then some of the ceiling surface  50  mounted transfer openings  24  and/or relief valves  26 , will need to be installed on both the ceiling surface  50  and the floor surface  36  above the ceiling cavity  52 , so that wind energy pressure can easily and quickly equalize between the multiple floors involved, and easily escape the ceiling cavity  52 . Sometimes a floor cavity  38  from one floor and a ceiling cavity  52  from the floor below, can be the same cavity  38  or  52 , and can be called either or both. 
         [0148]    FIGS.  1 , 2  AND  4  According to anther embodiment of the invention,  FIGS. 1 ,  2  and  4  also illustrates how weather resistant relief valves  26  to the outside  32 , that pierce the sealed external surface  22 , at the roof surface  58 , may be added to relieve built up wind energy pressures from within the single pressure vessel  12  of a new or existing structure  10 , that has a sealed attic  56 , or sealed roof cavity  60 , that is not opened to outside  32 , that occur during any and all wind and wind energy pressure challenges. These FIGURES provide a clear illustration of how the external surface  22  of the internal areas  12  can be the external surface  40  and/or  58  of the structure  10 . These roof  58  mounted weather resistant relief valves  26 , to outside  32 , are the only time that the sealed external surface  22  is pierced, other than for required openings (not shown), doors (not shown), and/or windows (not shown), and these should then be sealed in place, as well as possible. Due to the high winds involved, external wall surfaces  40 , are not a suitable location for these relief valves  26 , as deployed by previous patents. The aerodynamic forces of high winds on a relief valve  26 , located on an external wall surface  40 , or on only one side of a sloped roof surface  58 , could easily prevent it from operating at the proper relief wind energy pressure, when needed. The same does not hold true for flat roof surfaces  58 , or sloped roof surfaces  58  that are not in the direct path of the wind, due to the well know wind energy pressure envelope, that develops over roof surfaces  58 . So, for proper operation and protection, the weather resistant relief valves  26 , which open to outside  32 , must be located on roof surface  58 . 
         [0149]    So, if the roof surface  58  is sloped, weather resistant relief valves  26  should be installed on all of the sloped sides of the roof surface  58 . So, in other words, every slopped roof surface  58  should have at least one weather resistant relief valve  26 , installed on it. This will allow a wind energy pressure envelope to develop over at least one of the weather resistant relief valves  26  to allow it to operate properly during high winds. Individual flat roof surfaces  58  and individual sloped roof surfaces  58  can each have a few as one weather resistant relief valves  26 , provided it is sized and located properly. More than one weather resistant relief valves  26  can be used on each of these roof surfaces  58 , if desired. The weather resistant relief valves  26  can be located anywhere on the roof surface  58  that is desired, or appropriate, as long as it is sized properly and can easily communicate with the single pressure vessel  12 . 
         [0150]      FIG. 3  Due to the way that some new or existing structures  70  are constructed with un-sealed attics  72 , un-sealed roof cavities  74  and/or any other areas that cannot be sealed to outside  32 , I feel that it will be difficult, but not impossible to create a sealed external surface  22  and convert them to the above described single pressure vessel  12 .  FIG. 3  is another embodiment of the invention that illustrates how weather resistant relief valves  26 , can be added to the external surface  22  of the single pressure vessel  12  as shown with a thick black line, in a new or existing structure  70 ; which in this case are the ceiling surfaces  76  just below the un-sealed attic. This will allow wind energy pressure to be released from the internal areas of single pressure vessel  12 , into the un-sealed attic  72 , un-sealed roof cavities  74  and/or any other un-sealed areas, at this external surface  22  of all internal areas of the single pressure vessel  12  and thereby to outside  32 , before an uncontrolled catastrophic explosive wind energy pressure release occurs. Transfer openings  24  should not be used at these locations as they could allow humidity to uncontrollably enter into internal areas  12 . Any location of the weather resistant relief valves  26 , on ceiling surfaces  76  that is desired and/or appropriate, may be used. Weather resistant relief valves  26  can also be added to the roof surface  58  of these un-sealed attic  72 , un-sealed roof cavities  74  and/or any other un-sealed areas to readily, quickly and easily relieve wind energy pressure to outside  32 . Since moisture intrusion is not a concern here weather resistant transfer openings  24  could also be used. 
         [0151]    Refer again to this drawing, for a variety of possible locations for transfer openings  24  and/or relief valves  26 , in new or existing structure  70  that have un-sealed attics  72  and/or un-sealed roof cavities  74  that cannot be sealed to outside  32 . Relief valves  26  locations are shown for example only, and not by way of limitation to allow wind energy pressure to easily equalize between all of the internal areas of the single pressure vessel  12  of the new or existing structures  70  such as but not limited to, floors, through floor surfaces  36 , floor cavities  38 , through ceiling surfaces  50 , ceiling cavities  52 , external wall cavities  42 , through internal wall surfaces  44 , internal wall cavities  46 , rooms, before an uncontrolled catastrophic wind energy pressure release occurs. All the internal areas  12  within a single, continuous surface  22  that are marked  12 , are parts of the same single pressure vessel  12 . Transfer openings  24  and/or relief valves  26  can be located as desired and/or where appropriate. 
         [0152]    Again, relief valves  26  will prevent the uncontrolled entrance of humidity into the internal area of the single pressure vessel  12  of the structure  70 , where transfer openings  24 , could allow humidity to enter and move throughout the structure  70 , uncontrollably, and cause considerable mold, mildew and/or rot problems. As mentioned above, it could be difficult, but not impossible to establish the external surface  22  of the single pressure vessel  12  as shown with a thick black line, through the implementation of a sealed external surface  22  and convert new or existing structures  70  into the above described single pressure vessel  12 . Or they can just be modified as best as possible with transfer openings  24  and/or relief valves  26 . 
         [0153]    Please note that when transfer openings  24  and/or relief valves  26 , are installed in an external wall cavity  42 , they are only installed on the internal wall surface  44 , of this cavity  42  that faces, opens up to, the single pressure vessel  12 , of a new or existing structure  70 . The external wall surface  40  is the one that is closest to the outside  32 . Neither this external wall surface  40 , nor its sealed external surface  22 , if installed, are ever pierced by anything except required openings (not shown), windows (not shown), and/or doors (not shown) that are then sealed in place. In fact, if a sealed external surface  22  is created on a new or existing structure  70 , then under no circumstances is the sealed external surface  22  ever pierced except by required openings (not shown), windows (not shown), and/or doors (not shown) that are then sealed in place, as well as possible, or by the weather resistant relief valves  26 , to outside  32  at ceiling surfaces  76  just below the un-sealed attic. There are times where this sealed external surface  22  of the internal areas of the single pressure vessel  12 , may not always be the external surface  40  and/or  58  of the structure  70 , as shown, due to construction methods that place unprotected areas  72  and/or  74  between the internal areas  12  and the external surface  40  and/or  58  of structure  70 . This situation is described with language such as “the external surface  22  of the internal areas  12 ” and/or “the external surface  22  of the single pressure vessel  12 ”. This drawing provides a clear illustration of how the external surface  22  of the internal areas  12  is not always the external surface  40  and/or  58  of the structure  70 . “Outside”  32  refers to “all areas of any kind that are beyond any and all of the surfaces  22 ,  40 ,  76  and/or  58  as defined and illustrated in FIGS.  1 - 4 ”. This FIGURE adds clarity to the fact that, for this invention a single structure  70 , and/or structure  10  (as illustrated in  FIGS. 1 ,  2  and  4 ), may have two “outsides”  32 ; one “outside”  32  of the single pressure vessel  12  at ceiling surfaces  76  just below the un-sealed attic and another one that is “outside”  32  of the structure  70  and/or  10  itself at roof surface  58 . 
         [0154]    Stairways (not shown) in a normal multiple floor, new or existing structure  70  will serve as a perfect self-activating, wind energy operated, transfer openings  24 , between the various floors. When this is true, then the transfer openings  24  and/or relief valves  26  that are mounted on the ceiling surfaces  50 , will only pierce the ceiling surface  50 , and allow wind energy pressure to be easily and quickly released from the ceiling cavity  52 . If there is no stairway (not shown) or if for some reason, the stairway (not shown) is sealed or has some other form of restriction, then some of the ceiling surface  50  mounted transfer openings  24  and/or relief valves  26 , will need to be installed through the ceiling surface  50  and the floor surface  36  above the ceiling cavity  52 , so that wind energy pressure can easily escape the ceiling cavity  52  and/or floor cavity  38 , and equalize between the floors. 
         [0155]      FIG. 4  Clearly illustrates a new or existing multiple floor  34 , high rise structure  10  that can be of unlimited height and unlimited number of floors  34  and rooms. Shown is the formation of a single pressure vessel  12 , that has a sealed attic (not shown), or sealed roof cavity  60 , that is not opened to outside  32 , by establishing the external surface  22  of the single pressure vessel  12  with a thick black line, through the implementation of sealed external surface  22 . Therefore, all of the internal areas  12  within a single, continuous surface  22  that are marked  12 , are parts of the same single pressure vessel  12 . This along with transfer openings  24  and/or relief valves  26 , are done so that all of the internal areas of the single pressure vessel  12  to be protected, such as but not limited to, through floor surfaces  36 , floor cavities  38 , through ceiling surfaces  50 , ceiling surfaces  50 , ceiling cavities  52 , external wall cavities  42 , through internal wall surfaces  44 , internal wall cavities (not shown), sealed attic (not shown), through sealed attic ceiling surfaces  54 , sealed roof cavities  60 , rooms and/or floors  34 , of the structure  10 , can easily communicate with each other and allow wind energy pressure to quickly equalize between one another, and all of the internal areas of the entire single pressure vessel  12  and not outside  32 . The sealed external surface  22  prevents the protected areas  12  from communicating with outside  32 . In fact, under no circumstances is the sealed external surface  22  ever pierced, except by required openings (not shown), windows (not shown), and/or doors (not shown) that are then sealed in place, as well as possible, or by the weather resistant relief valves  26 , to outside  32 , that are installed on all roof surfaces  58 , in order to easily and quickly relieve wind energy pressure build ups within the single pressure vessel  12 , to outside  32 .  FIG. 4  clearly illustrates how the external surface  22  of the internal areas  12  can be the external surface  40  and/or  58  of the structure  10 . 
         [0156]    The description of the present embodiments of the invention has been presented for the purposes of illustration, but is not intended to be exhaustive or to limit the invention to the form disclosed. Many modifications, adaptations and variations will be apparent to those of ordinary skill in the art. As such, the present invention has been disclosed in connection with the preferred embodiments which fall within the spirit and scope of the invention as defined by the following claims.