Moray,
I'm not sold/convinced on this "traveling wave" idea in terms of planar speakers.
The Quad concept is a "traveling wave" , but there is only a singleton wave (in principle) which exists, since the diaphragm is energized sequentially with respect to the speed of sound vs distance from the center of the diaphragm (at least that is the idea). Thus emulating as spherical source.
In the system you have just described one gets the "jump rope" standing wave effect, as far as I can see. One gets in phase and out of phase radiation from the diaphragm as the wave travels across the surface, or so it would seem.
Even if you argue that a non-repeating excitation will create a singleton, clearly a sine wave input of some frequency will create a standing wave on the surface, yes?
And, the amplitude of the wave will diminish with time/distance from the center in general. (standing waves being a possible exception)
Just curious,
_-_-bear
I'm not sold/convinced on this "traveling wave" idea in terms of planar speakers.
The Quad concept is a "traveling wave" , but there is only a singleton wave (in principle) which exists, since the diaphragm is energized sequentially with respect to the speed of sound vs distance from the center of the diaphragm (at least that is the idea). Thus emulating as spherical source.
In the system you have just described one gets the "jump rope" standing wave effect, as far as I can see. One gets in phase and out of phase radiation from the diaphragm as the wave travels across the surface, or so it would seem.
Even if you argue that a non-repeating excitation will create a singleton, clearly a sine wave input of some frequency will create a standing wave on the surface, yes?
And, the amplitude of the wave will diminish with time/distance from the center in general. (standing waves being a possible exception)
Just curious,
_-_-bear
think of it this way....
say you are standing behind a large diaphragm and just for now lets assume that there will be no edge termination reflections. If you poke the compliant diaphragm with your finger in the centre (which would be what a pulse with the voice coil does) you will create a forward traveling (in the air) pulse of air on the front side of the diaphragm. The instant your finger is removed the pulse also starts to travel outward in all directions across the diaphragm (like the ripple in the water). The leading edge of that circular (and expanding) wave is pushing air outward from the trailing edge of the central pulse you just generated with your finger. The two seperate wave fronts (one in the air going forward on the central axis and the other in the diaphragm traveling across the plane of the diaphragm) are moving at about the same speed. The combined result of these two actions generates a half spherical wave to expand on the front side of the diaphragm.
Another way to imagine this would be to think of blowing a bubble with a wire hoop that is expandable in size (from small diameter to large) as you blow. The soap film is your diaphragm and your breath is the inital pulse while the expansion in size of the hoop (and then so your bubble) is the wave traveling across the diaphragm. You end up with a great big bubble the size of which is determined by the size of your hoop (or the speaker frame). If you increase the size of the hoop at the exact same speed as the forward traveling pulse you will end up with a spherical bubble. If you expand the hoop size too slowly you end up blowing a hotdog shaped bubble and iif you expand the hoop size to quickly you end up with a flattened out buble.
You may not believe that this works but I can assure you that it does. We had our Highwood Audio speakers measured extensively at the acoustic lab department at the university of Alberta and by the JBL labs in LA and on our own system. We were able to take a 1/4 inch B&K microphone and place it at the outside edge of the speaker (at 90 degrees) and measure 10 K responce try that with an electrostatic panel and see what you measure (we did)!
A lot of hoop jumping has to be done with the diaphragm material and with its tension, diaphragm damping and especially with the edge termination damping to make this all happen and work well but it can be done. I used to like to think of this as a horn loaded speaker with no horn. The diaphragm can be made to act like a wave guide to expand the initial pulse much as a wave guide (horn) does. I hope that this helps some. Best regards Moray James.
say you are standing behind a large diaphragm and just for now lets assume that there will be no edge termination reflections. If you poke the compliant diaphragm with your finger in the centre (which would be what a pulse with the voice coil does) you will create a forward traveling (in the air) pulse of air on the front side of the diaphragm. The instant your finger is removed the pulse also starts to travel outward in all directions across the diaphragm (like the ripple in the water). The leading edge of that circular (and expanding) wave is pushing air outward from the trailing edge of the central pulse you just generated with your finger. The two seperate wave fronts (one in the air going forward on the central axis and the other in the diaphragm traveling across the plane of the diaphragm) are moving at about the same speed. The combined result of these two actions generates a half spherical wave to expand on the front side of the diaphragm.
Another way to imagine this would be to think of blowing a bubble with a wire hoop that is expandable in size (from small diameter to large) as you blow. The soap film is your diaphragm and your breath is the inital pulse while the expansion in size of the hoop (and then so your bubble) is the wave traveling across the diaphragm. You end up with a great big bubble the size of which is determined by the size of your hoop (or the speaker frame). If you increase the size of the hoop at the exact same speed as the forward traveling pulse you will end up with a spherical bubble. If you expand the hoop size too slowly you end up blowing a hotdog shaped bubble and iif you expand the hoop size to quickly you end up with a flattened out buble.
You may not believe that this works but I can assure you that it does. We had our Highwood Audio speakers measured extensively at the acoustic lab department at the university of Alberta and by the JBL labs in LA and on our own system. We were able to take a 1/4 inch B&K microphone and place it at the outside edge of the speaker (at 90 degrees) and measure 10 K responce try that with an electrostatic panel and see what you measure (we did)!
A lot of hoop jumping has to be done with the diaphragm material and with its tension, diaphragm damping and especially with the edge termination damping to make this all happen and work well but it can be done. I used to like to think of this as a horn loaded speaker with no horn. The diaphragm can be made to act like a wave guide to expand the initial pulse much as a wave guide (horn) does. I hope that this helps some. Best regards Moray James.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, I know you've put much work into this.
If I think about this in terms of the forward moving waves, I feel as if the result of this linear forward component and a linear lateral component will produce a conical wavefront.
Wouldn't the bubble start as a point (cone) and distort to produce a dome shape due to the air trapped behind it, not at all like a wavefront? I suppose I just feel that there could be a better angle for analogy.
moray james said:
If I think about this in terms of the forward moving waves, I feel as if the result of this linear forward component and a linear lateral component will produce a conical wavefront.
Wouldn't the bubble start as a point (cone) and distort to produce a dome shape due to the air trapped behind it, not at all like a wavefront? I suppose I just feel that there could be a better angle for analogy.
too sick to think straight
Yes I did say spherical and in truth it is only half of a sphere. Perhaps my discription is poor but the initial pulse of air disturbed in front of the voice coil is essentially the diameter of the voice coil there is a slight amount of tenting happening due to the diaphragm but not much. For arguement sake the forward wave is only as wide as the coil. The rollong action of the wave expanding in the plane of the diaphragm (at approx the same speed as the wave launched into the air) expands the back trailing edge of the forward moving wave and so over time develops a half sphere. As I said polar plots confirm the dispersion. Sorry if my choice of terms may not be the most acurate but I have a flue like infection and don't feel too swift. I don't have technical training in this area so I may not be correct in the use of my terms but I think that you get the drift. All the best Moray James.
Yes I did say spherical and in truth it is only half of a sphere. Perhaps my discription is poor but the initial pulse of air disturbed in front of the voice coil is essentially the diameter of the voice coil there is a slight amount of tenting happening due to the diaphragm but not much. For arguement sake the forward wave is only as wide as the coil. The rollong action of the wave expanding in the plane of the diaphragm (at approx the same speed as the wave launched into the air) expands the back trailing edge of the forward moving wave and so over time develops a half sphere. As I said polar plots confirm the dispersion. Sorry if my choice of terms may not be the most acurate but I have a flue like infection and don't feel too swift. I don't have technical training in this area so I may not be correct in the use of my terms but I think that you get the drift. All the best Moray James.
Moray,
I will take your representation that you measured some 10kHz response at 90 degrees... not sure that is all good or not... but does indicate that the idea works to some extent.
My concern is the anti-phase wave that is created.
I think that you are claiming a "singleton" - that is a wave that is singular, only positive? Sort of like 1/2 of a sine wave, no negative going portion.
In the case of your traveling wave on the surface, it is being "followed" across the surface by an image, negative wave, (of nearly equal amplitude) which is merely delayed in time compared to the initial positive wave. So, I am suggesting that there would be some cancellation taking place at any point in time beyond the initial stimulus??
Then too there is the question of the speed of sound in the diaphragm material playing a role in the shape of the wavefront.
And, I would think that the system is somewhat frequency limited/dependant upon the stiffness of the diaphragm material/ diameter of the VC?? The area of initial "excitation" will determine the volume of air that can be moved, so intuitively a 1/2" VC drive might make a fine tweeter, but doesn't seem terribly useful at lower frequencies since the excursion is limited??
Not sure how this idea translates into a practical speaker with useable sensitivity/efficiency?
_-_-bear
I will take your representation that you measured some 10kHz response at 90 degrees... not sure that is all good or not... but does indicate that the idea works to some extent.
My concern is the anti-phase wave that is created.
I think that you are claiming a "singleton" - that is a wave that is singular, only positive? Sort of like 1/2 of a sine wave, no negative going portion.
In the case of your traveling wave on the surface, it is being "followed" across the surface by an image, negative wave, (of nearly equal amplitude) which is merely delayed in time compared to the initial positive wave. So, I am suggesting that there would be some cancellation taking place at any point in time beyond the initial stimulus??
Then too there is the question of the speed of sound in the diaphragm material playing a role in the shape of the wavefront.
And, I would think that the system is somewhat frequency limited/dependant upon the stiffness of the diaphragm material/ diameter of the VC?? The area of initial "excitation" will determine the volume of air that can be moved, so intuitively a 1/2" VC drive might make a fine tweeter, but doesn't seem terribly useful at lower frequencies since the excursion is limited??
Not sure how this idea translates into a practical speaker with useable sensitivity/efficiency?
_-_-bear
That was done by the same guy that orig. brought us all the Heil tweeter (in the 70s); see his (old) web site @ http://americanpowerlight.com/lt7/lt-7.html
I would not refer to the Heil driver as a piston (the diaphragm is squeezed on edge; but the planar drivers in the American Power & Light LT7 are stiff/square/carbon-fiber pistons (w/foam sur.). American Power & Light is working on a new variation on the Heil driver.
My post was an attempt to reply to the thread starter (but I couldn't find the quote box).
Is there a we site to promote this new speaker w/concentric traveling waves?
regards,
DK
My post was an attempt to reply to the thread starter (but I couldn't find the quote box).
Is there a we site to promote this new speaker w/concentric traveling waves?
regards,
DK
I was not clear...
I was referring to the LT7 whic is a piston driver (I had assumed that it was a Heil design and so the reference by name rather than a specific design. I have a Us Patent on the design that I mentioned but will have to look it up for you. The design was manufactured in Canada by my old company Highwood Audio and soold under the Sumo brand name then later Highwood merged (bought) Museatex and distributed under the Museatex "Melior" name. Hope this helps. Regards Moray James.
I was referring to the LT7 whic is a piston driver (I had assumed that it was a Heil design and so the reference by name rather than a specific design. I have a Us Patent on the design that I mentioned but will have to look it up for you. The design was manufactured in Canada by my old company Highwood Audio and soold under the Sumo brand name then later Highwood merged (bought) Museatex and distributed under the Museatex "Melior" name. Hope this helps. Regards Moray James.
Highwood patent details
For those of you following this thread who may want to take a look at the patent, you can view it online at esp@cenet:
The best document is the European application, EP0296139, as it has all the drawings (called "Mosaics" by esp@cenet). The direct link below might work, otherwise you will have to do a number search:
http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=EP0296139&F=0
There may have been other IP generated after I left Highwood (I don't know), but this is the original patent.
A strange thing is that this patent actually contains two inventions: A line source and a point source. This is not allowed under international patent law (as I have since learned), but the patent examiners never noticed. Had they done so, they would have required the filing of "divisionals" and there would have been two patents. Had it ever been wheeled into court it would probably have been judged prima facie invalid on this basis.
The line source was never commercialised because it was too inefficient and didn't have enough bandwidth. In other words, it didn't really work... The existence of a patent is no guarrantee that the invention is workable, or useful.
The Sumo Arias were reviewed in Absolute Sounds (Vol. 62, I think) and there was a good explanatory article in Hi Fi News, although unfortunately I have lost my copy, so I can't give the issue number. Anybody got a back collection who could look it up, sometime in the late 80s?
There is also a description in Martin Colloms' book "High Performance Loudspeakers", including the new edition, right next to the section on Manger.
Moray is quite right, the speakers did work well (eventually, after the liberal application of $$$), and produced a flat response from 40Hz to 20kHz, with constant wide directivity. They did this without any form of equalisation or crossover.
He is also correct that they were very hard to get right, and proved James B. Lancing's (JBL) adage that "Loudspeakers are 90% glue" to a greater extent than anything else I've worked on before or since. Not for the fainthearted or shallow of pocket...
So, I'd second Moray: Electrostats have to be a much easier route to high performance home made di-poles.
Bear: As Moray says, travelling wave radiators do work. They are a true low mass "coherent" source, behaving as a virtual point source located behind the panel. You might like to contrast them with their conceptual opposite, the quasi-random Distributed Mode Loudspeaker (DML), which is an "incoherent" defuse sound source. (see the technical white paper at NXTsound.com for an introduction).
The point source is an acoustic radiator who's behaviour is easy to analyse and model, but is damn near impossible to build. On the other hand, a DML is nearly impossible to analyze and model (the maths is extremely complex), but once you have managed to do so, it is really easy to build one.
...And now there's the Balanced Mode Radiator (BMR), courtesy of Dr Graham Bank of Celestion SL600 fame. That's what this forum should be concentrating on, never mind the Heils, Mangers and Arias of 20 years ago. Much more interesting.
BMR patent: WO2005101899.
There is a recording of Dr Bank giving an AES lecture on BMR here:
http://www.aes.org/sections/uk/meetings/a0701.html
He makes it sound so obvious... But it isn't. It's very, very clever stuff. It should by rights transform the industry. But I wonder if it will? Ten years ago, we all thought NXT was going to do that, and look what happened.
Regards,
Paul
For those of you following this thread who may want to take a look at the patent, you can view it online at esp@cenet:
The best document is the European application, EP0296139, as it has all the drawings (called "Mosaics" by esp@cenet). The direct link below might work, otherwise you will have to do a number search:
http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=EP0296139&F=0
There may have been other IP generated after I left Highwood (I don't know), but this is the original patent.
A strange thing is that this patent actually contains two inventions: A line source and a point source. This is not allowed under international patent law (as I have since learned), but the patent examiners never noticed. Had they done so, they would have required the filing of "divisionals" and there would have been two patents. Had it ever been wheeled into court it would probably have been judged prima facie invalid on this basis.
The line source was never commercialised because it was too inefficient and didn't have enough bandwidth. In other words, it didn't really work... The existence of a patent is no guarrantee that the invention is workable, or useful.
The Sumo Arias were reviewed in Absolute Sounds (Vol. 62, I think) and there was a good explanatory article in Hi Fi News, although unfortunately I have lost my copy, so I can't give the issue number. Anybody got a back collection who could look it up, sometime in the late 80s?
There is also a description in Martin Colloms' book "High Performance Loudspeakers", including the new edition, right next to the section on Manger.
Moray is quite right, the speakers did work well (eventually, after the liberal application of $$$), and produced a flat response from 40Hz to 20kHz, with constant wide directivity. They did this without any form of equalisation or crossover.
He is also correct that they were very hard to get right, and proved James B. Lancing's (JBL) adage that "Loudspeakers are 90% glue" to a greater extent than anything else I've worked on before or since. Not for the fainthearted or shallow of pocket...
So, I'd second Moray: Electrostats have to be a much easier route to high performance home made di-poles.
Bear: As Moray says, travelling wave radiators do work. They are a true low mass "coherent" source, behaving as a virtual point source located behind the panel. You might like to contrast them with their conceptual opposite, the quasi-random Distributed Mode Loudspeaker (DML), which is an "incoherent" defuse sound source. (see the technical white paper at NXTsound.com for an introduction).
The point source is an acoustic radiator who's behaviour is easy to analyse and model, but is damn near impossible to build. On the other hand, a DML is nearly impossible to analyze and model (the maths is extremely complex), but once you have managed to do so, it is really easy to build one.
...And now there's the Balanced Mode Radiator (BMR), courtesy of Dr Graham Bank of Celestion SL600 fame. That's what this forum should be concentrating on, never mind the Heils, Mangers and Arias of 20 years ago. Much more interesting.
BMR patent: WO2005101899.
There is a recording of Dr Bank giving an AES lecture on BMR here:
http://www.aes.org/sections/uk/meetings/a0701.html
He makes it sound so obvious... But it isn't. It's very, very clever stuff. It should by rights transform the industry. But I wonder if it will? Ten years ago, we all thought NXT was going to do that, and look what happened.
Regards,
Paul
Paul,
I see it is your patent.
Myself, I never thought that NXT was going to revolutionize anything but "MUZAK" for places where people wanted better sounding MUZAK! I heard them a number of times, and yes they sounded "inchoherent"!
Speaking only for myself, the Quad 63s which do much the same trick, sound nice, but there is something that to my ears sounds "wrong". Not sure what exactly. And, even though they should have good HF response off axis, they don't seem to image worth a darn left or right of the center listening position (whereas some ESLs I listen to seem a bit better on that account...)
I'm downloading the USA version for reading now... Can't stand that Euro site, too wierd for my taste!! Hard to follow, and I can't figure out how to make it print or save anything... (I must be "web challenged" ,eh?)
_-_-bear
I see it is your patent.
Myself, I never thought that NXT was going to revolutionize anything but "MUZAK" for places where people wanted better sounding MUZAK! I heard them a number of times, and yes they sounded "inchoherent"!
Speaking only for myself, the Quad 63s which do much the same trick, sound nice, but there is something that to my ears sounds "wrong". Not sure what exactly. And, even though they should have good HF response off axis, they don't seem to image worth a darn left or right of the center listening position (whereas some ESLs I listen to seem a bit better on that account...)
I'm downloading the USA version for reading now... Can't stand that Euro site, too wierd for my taste!! Hard to follow, and I can't figure out how to make it print or save anything... (I must be "web challenged" ,eh?)
_-_-bear
Hello Bear,
Yes the patent is mine. Moray has written: "I have a Us Patent on the design that I mentioned but will have to look it up for you." Maybe something was filed after I left Highwood, but if so, I can't find it at the USPTO website (or the world-wide database used by the EPO/Esp@cenet). Moray was a founding shareholder of Highwood Audio (as were others), but he was not the inventor - which is why his name isn't on the patent.
My US patent should be treated with some caution as far as the claims are concerned (I am assuming you mean US 4,924,504) as the US examination process happened after I had left Highwood Audio, and it does not appear to have been well fought by the company. The outcome was that most of the claims were disallowed, and the patent is a bit of a hollow shell as a result. It only has two allowed claims, whereas the original Canadian one has 33 (CA 1,284,837). This often happens with US patents that are not properly supported through the examination process, usually due to the high cost.
However, the description and drawings are intact, so it is useful in that respect.
I agree with you about the ESL63s. I have a pair (currently in pieces in a box - I must do something about that...). Despite being quite heavily modified (removal of grilles, dust covers, nasty electrolytic cap, rejigging the delay line to compensate etc. - all the usual stuff you can find described online), they still managed to sound, um... overly polite. Much better than standard ones, but still not quite there.
Partly, this is because they are quite directional above 10kHz, due to the large size of the inner stator circle. I tackled this by adding a 25mm neodymium magnet soft dome tweeter in the middle, which there is room to do between the two central panels, if you nip away some of the plastic louver walls. The tweeter was a Vifa D26-55-06 (now discontinued, although there are other similar units available from Tymphany/Peerless - this was about 4 years ago). I took the tweeters apart and removed the ferrofluid, so as to get the absolute best out of them, and brought them in with a first order filter (2.2uF and an Lpad, though I can't remember how much attenuation I used). That helped a lot.
Only, it didn't really do the trick, and I soon moved on. So they can't have been that compelling... In the end, I think you are paying an inevitable price for listening to miles and miles of copper (or is it the energy stored in the transformer core?) and a load of complex electronics.
NXT: Bending wave panels can be made to sound like all sorts of things. They can perform to the very highest performance levels, if you take the trouble to get the engineering right. They can definitely be a lot better than muzak, although yes, they are always diffuse sources. But quite a lot of people (especially non-audiophiles) actually prefer this sort of presentation, finding it more natural.
The trouble with the bulk of commercial NXT products is that they are not intended to be Hi-Fi, and are usually too small and low powered to perform to hi-fi standards. I worked at NXT for six years, both as an engineer and as intellectual property manager. During that time I designed and made prototypes, and heard other people's panels, which certainly qualitied as high-end Hi-Fi. It is a pity so little made it into the commercial world...
Regards,
Paul
Yes the patent is mine. Moray has written: "I have a Us Patent on the design that I mentioned but will have to look it up for you." Maybe something was filed after I left Highwood, but if so, I can't find it at the USPTO website (or the world-wide database used by the EPO/Esp@cenet). Moray was a founding shareholder of Highwood Audio (as were others), but he was not the inventor - which is why his name isn't on the patent.
My US patent should be treated with some caution as far as the claims are concerned (I am assuming you mean US 4,924,504) as the US examination process happened after I had left Highwood Audio, and it does not appear to have been well fought by the company. The outcome was that most of the claims were disallowed, and the patent is a bit of a hollow shell as a result. It only has two allowed claims, whereas the original Canadian one has 33 (CA 1,284,837). This often happens with US patents that are not properly supported through the examination process, usually due to the high cost.
However, the description and drawings are intact, so it is useful in that respect.
I agree with you about the ESL63s. I have a pair (currently in pieces in a box - I must do something about that...). Despite being quite heavily modified (removal of grilles, dust covers, nasty electrolytic cap, rejigging the delay line to compensate etc. - all the usual stuff you can find described online), they still managed to sound, um... overly polite. Much better than standard ones, but still not quite there.
Partly, this is because they are quite directional above 10kHz, due to the large size of the inner stator circle. I tackled this by adding a 25mm neodymium magnet soft dome tweeter in the middle, which there is room to do between the two central panels, if you nip away some of the plastic louver walls. The tweeter was a Vifa D26-55-06 (now discontinued, although there are other similar units available from Tymphany/Peerless - this was about 4 years ago). I took the tweeters apart and removed the ferrofluid, so as to get the absolute best out of them, and brought them in with a first order filter (2.2uF and an Lpad, though I can't remember how much attenuation I used). That helped a lot.
Only, it didn't really do the trick, and I soon moved on. So they can't have been that compelling... In the end, I think you are paying an inevitable price for listening to miles and miles of copper (or is it the energy stored in the transformer core?) and a load of complex electronics.
NXT: Bending wave panels can be made to sound like all sorts of things. They can perform to the very highest performance levels, if you take the trouble to get the engineering right. They can definitely be a lot better than muzak, although yes, they are always diffuse sources. But quite a lot of people (especially non-audiophiles) actually prefer this sort of presentation, finding it more natural.
The trouble with the bulk of commercial NXT products is that they are not intended to be Hi-Fi, and are usually too small and low powered to perform to hi-fi standards. I worked at NXT for six years, both as an engineer and as intellectual property manager. During that time I designed and made prototypes, and heard other people's panels, which certainly qualitied as high-end Hi-Fi. It is a pity so little made it into the commercial world...
Regards,
Paul
you are right...
the patent was changed after you left the company. Both myself and John Wright 's names were added to the patent. KJ did not keep up the patent maintenance and so it probably fell back to what it was prior to the beginning of the changes.
I consider the speaker and patent to be equally shared by the three of us. You may not agree but it matters little now.
the patent was changed after you left the company. Both myself and John Wright 's names were added to the patent. KJ did not keep up the patent maintenance and so it probably fell back to what it was prior to the beginning of the changes.
I consider the speaker and patent to be equally shared by the three of us. You may not agree but it matters little now.
Moray,
Just for the record (as this forum is public), I feel I have to make the following comments. I confine myself to matters of fact only:
You wrote: "the patent was changed after you left the company. Both myself and John Wright 's names were added to the patent. KJ did not keep up the patent maintenance and so it probably fell back to what it was prior to the beginning of the changes."
I don't think so. Patents are absolutely a matter of public record. Everthing relating to a patent application is published and these days, is available online. Things don't "fall back" and patent inventor lists don't normally change once filed, at least not without there being a clear record.
Specifically:
[1] Neither you nor John are named on any of the published patent documents that I have been able to find using the worldwide patent database maintained by the European Patent Office (Esp@cenet), the USPTO, or Canada (CIPO).
[2] The published documents I know about are: CA1284837, EP0296139 (A2), US4924504 (A1), JP1132300 (A), and EP0296139 (A3).
[3] Changing the inventor list on a patent aplication is rare and a serious matter. It must be carried out by the original applicant (that's me) and there must be a very good reason for it. As far as I recall I didn't do any such thing, and in any case, there is nothing I can find in the public record to suggest any such change was made. As an example of the regulations about this, I refer you to:
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/appxr_1_41.htm
[4] You and John are of course free to THINK anything you like about who invented things, but the fact of the matter is that you aren't named inventors on any of these documents, and there is a good reason for this: You weren't the original inventors.
[5] You both made contributions to how the invention was made to work in practice, but as far as I know, the company did not file any new patent applications relating to that work (which is how one normally adds new inventive content and inventors to a patent family, not by changing an existing application).
[6] If there were any such subsequent patent applications filed, they must have been abandoned without publication. This is a common practice, but effectively renders them as if they never existed.
You may be right to say that it doesn't matter much now, but I do assert my right to be recognised as the sole inventor with regard to these patents.
Paul
Just for the record (as this forum is public), I feel I have to make the following comments. I confine myself to matters of fact only:
You wrote: "the patent was changed after you left the company. Both myself and John Wright 's names were added to the patent. KJ did not keep up the patent maintenance and so it probably fell back to what it was prior to the beginning of the changes."
I don't think so. Patents are absolutely a matter of public record. Everthing relating to a patent application is published and these days, is available online. Things don't "fall back" and patent inventor lists don't normally change once filed, at least not without there being a clear record.
Specifically:
[1] Neither you nor John are named on any of the published patent documents that I have been able to find using the worldwide patent database maintained by the European Patent Office (Esp@cenet), the USPTO, or Canada (CIPO).
[2] The published documents I know about are: CA1284837, EP0296139 (A2), US4924504 (A1), JP1132300 (A), and EP0296139 (A3).
[3] Changing the inventor list on a patent aplication is rare and a serious matter. It must be carried out by the original applicant (that's me) and there must be a very good reason for it. As far as I recall I didn't do any such thing, and in any case, there is nothing I can find in the public record to suggest any such change was made. As an example of the regulations about this, I refer you to:
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/appxr_1_41.htm
[4] You and John are of course free to THINK anything you like about who invented things, but the fact of the matter is that you aren't named inventors on any of these documents, and there is a good reason for this: You weren't the original inventors.
[5] You both made contributions to how the invention was made to work in practice, but as far as I know, the company did not file any new patent applications relating to that work (which is how one normally adds new inventive content and inventors to a patent family, not by changing an existing application).
[6] If there were any such subsequent patent applications filed, they must have been abandoned without publication. This is a common practice, but effectively renders them as if they never existed.
You may be right to say that it doesn't matter much now, but I do assert my right to be recognised as the sole inventor with regard to these patents.
Paul
second time I said this, you are right...
"If there were any such subsequent patent applications filed, they must have been abandoned without publication. This is a common practice, but effectively renders them as if they never existed"
I all ready told you that KJ started the process but probably let it go. John and I were there and you were not. So feel free to call me a liar if it makes you feel better.
I still consider that the patent and the speaker are the result of the work of the three of us. At the very least you and I should have shared the invention title on the first application. You can argue legal all you want and be as right as you want but I don't care. Legal does not make right it just makes legal. Posting a page full of facts does not make right either it just makes factual. You see Paul your real problem is that you can't make this right. You gave up all your chances to make any of this right a long time a go.
I think that you will have to learn to live with this. You have had some practice but it seems that you will have to keep working on it a while longer. You are a very clever chap (I always thought so) just keep your spirits up and stay the course. You know it might help if you start painting again. Are you still painting? I still have that one of the two old men by the sea shore that you did. You remember I traded you a bunch of tubes for it? It has hung on my wall all these years, I've always liked it. Painting would be good for you it helps to deal with things. You could get your creative side working again and do something special. That would help.
Paul I have forgiven you for what you did but I have not forgotten. I think that you have forgotten but now you need to start to work on forgiving yourself for what you did. I hope that you do so because inside you are a very special person. You have the eyes of an eagle so you can see better than most. You are very clever so look and see, you can figure it out.
If your mum and dad are still alive please say hello for me. In the mean time I will keep you in my thoughts. Good bye Paul.
"If there were any such subsequent patent applications filed, they must have been abandoned without publication. This is a common practice, but effectively renders them as if they never existed"
I all ready told you that KJ started the process but probably let it go. John and I were there and you were not. So feel free to call me a liar if it makes you feel better.
I still consider that the patent and the speaker are the result of the work of the three of us. At the very least you and I should have shared the invention title on the first application. You can argue legal all you want and be as right as you want but I don't care. Legal does not make right it just makes legal. Posting a page full of facts does not make right either it just makes factual. You see Paul your real problem is that you can't make this right. You gave up all your chances to make any of this right a long time a go.
I think that you will have to learn to live with this. You have had some practice but it seems that you will have to keep working on it a while longer. You are a very clever chap (I always thought so) just keep your spirits up and stay the course. You know it might help if you start painting again. Are you still painting? I still have that one of the two old men by the sea shore that you did. You remember I traded you a bunch of tubes for it? It has hung on my wall all these years, I've always liked it. Painting would be good for you it helps to deal with things. You could get your creative side working again and do something special. That would help.
Paul I have forgiven you for what you did but I have not forgotten. I think that you have forgotten but now you need to start to work on forgiving yourself for what you did. I hope that you do so because inside you are a very special person. You have the eyes of an eagle so you can see better than most. You are very clever so look and see, you can figure it out.
If your mum and dad are still alive please say hello for me. In the mean time I will keep you in my thoughts. Good bye Paul.
Moray,
Don't you think you are getting a bit personal? I confined myself to matters of fact on this public forum. You haven't.
You wrote: "So feel free to call me a liar if it makes you feel better". Okay, I will: You have gone from claiming that "I have a US Patent on the design" (Post 29) , to "Both myself and John Wright 's names were added to the patent." (Post 33), to "KJ started the process but probably let it go" (post 35)... Nope, it doesn't make me feel better.
If you thought your name should have been on the patent, you should have done something about it at the time. But it was my idea, not yours, or ours. That's just the way it was: As I recall, our first meeting was to show you a working protoype I had already built. It was pretty poor stuff compared to what came later, but it embodied the invention. It was already there.
Also, I don't think John had even joined the company when the patent was filed... but I could be wrong. It is so long ago.
The rest of what you wrote in your last post has no business being on this forum. I'm not even sure what you are on about half the time. Please refrain from further personal comments, or I shall report you.
At least you have solved one small mystery for me: That picture. I have a photo of it - but had forgotten where it was. Thanks for that. My parents are well by the way.
Good bye to you too.
Paul.
Don't you think you are getting a bit personal? I confined myself to matters of fact on this public forum. You haven't.
You wrote: "So feel free to call me a liar if it makes you feel better". Okay, I will: You have gone from claiming that "I have a US Patent on the design" (Post 29) , to "Both myself and John Wright 's names were added to the patent." (Post 33), to "KJ started the process but probably let it go" (post 35)... Nope, it doesn't make me feel better.
If you thought your name should have been on the patent, you should have done something about it at the time. But it was my idea, not yours, or ours. That's just the way it was: As I recall, our first meeting was to show you a working protoype I had already built. It was pretty poor stuff compared to what came later, but it embodied the invention. It was already there.
Also, I don't think John had even joined the company when the patent was filed... but I could be wrong. It is so long ago.
The rest of what you wrote in your last post has no business being on this forum. I'm not even sure what you are on about half the time. Please refrain from further personal comments, or I shall report you.
At least you have solved one small mystery for me: That picture. I have a photo of it - but had forgotten where it was. Thanks for that. My parents are well by the way.
Good bye to you too.
Paul.
el '01,
Can you explain more about the radiator you have constructed? Are the 20 segments like slices of a cake? And you don't say if this is flat or a cone. If it is a cone, it might be interesting.
But if it is flat, in general round bending wave speakers driven from the centre perform very badly. They are symmetrical and suffer from severe tympannic modes (drumskin resonances). I refer you to my earlier post in this thread and the links there to Dr Graham Bank's BMR invention. This tackles in a very thorough way how to go about making symmetrical radiators work properly, and also smoothly manage the transition from pistonic to bending wave behaviour. The results can be spectacular...
You could follow his scheme, but be aware it is patented, the rights to it being held by New Transducers Ltd (NXT). So while you can make a pair for your own use, you cannot sell any without a license.
Paul
Can you explain more about the radiator you have constructed? Are the 20 segments like slices of a cake? And you don't say if this is flat or a cone. If it is a cone, it might be interesting.
But if it is flat, in general round bending wave speakers driven from the centre perform very badly. They are symmetrical and suffer from severe tympannic modes (drumskin resonances). I refer you to my earlier post in this thread and the links there to Dr Graham Bank's BMR invention. This tackles in a very thorough way how to go about making symmetrical radiators work properly, and also smoothly manage the transition from pistonic to bending wave behaviour. The results can be spectacular...
You could follow his scheme, but be aware it is patented, the rights to it being held by New Transducers Ltd (NXT). So while you can make a pair for your own use, you cannot sell any without a license.
Paul
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.