> I don't follow your logic at all.
I have another try at communicating the idea.
It sounds like the main problem with sleep apnea is that the air passages are collapsed when it comes time to start inhaling - preventing the process from occurring. Therefore the core of the solution is having "inflated" air passages at the point when inhalation starts.
The idea is to kick-start the next inhalation with the current exhalation. When you exhale you increase the pressure in your air passages which is work ("wattage") that completely goes to waste - it all goes out your nose/mouth. The device would gradually restrict the passage of air out of the nose (as the exhalation process completes), eventually cutting it off completely. This means that once you have completely exhaled your air passages would still be "inflated." This is what (2) and (3) do. In this situation conventional CPAP would be providing pressure (even though it's not needed) and would hence be wasting work.
That is the special sauce: relying on the human to do work that they don't have problems with. This will reduce the amount of work you need to do to assist with their medical condition: possibly down to 1 watt, or at least way less than you'd need with conventional CPAP.
> 1 watt
The problem is collapsed airways and not dysfunctional lungs, there's still plenty of wattage there: all you need to do is keep the air passages open using (1).
As I said: a long-shot, remotely plausible. Most importantly: if the above is a plausible idea there is no guarantee that it's the same as theirs or that they even have one. Show me the patents.
At the same time it's better to ask questions before initiating a witch-hunt. I think the first plan of action would be for them to prove that they have a working device instead of the seemingly common "warning off people" suggestion. A better suggestion to people is encourage them to ask for proof.