Re: New information on Planot Web site...
What exactly does "certified" mean? I assume that some measurements were involved. Do you have any info as to what the results of these were? SPL, FR, CSD etc.
Have you thought of using a tapered triangular prism, wider at the base than the top? Perhaps this would increase bass output while still allowing decent high frequency response.
planot said:
What exactly does "certified" mean? I assume that some measurements were involved. Do you have any info as to what the results of these were? SPL, FR, CSD etc.
Have you thought of using a tapered triangular prism, wider at the base than the top? Perhaps this would increase bass output while still allowing decent high frequency response.
Certified means that NCEE Labs is a certified testing lab. They have certified that the Planot design works. That means that the response of the third Planot prototype was measured in a 10 meter semi-anechoic chamber.
It was found to be linear in all microphone positions. It was measured with an A-weighting. This test set up was intended only to certify that the design works as claimed. It was not intended to test the performance limits of the design but to establish that the basic design parameters were satisfied. Further tests will be carried out on future prototypes.
Test results can be sent to qualified individuals and companies that sign and return my nondisclosure agreement.
I felt this was necessary to establish credibility. Many who are schooled in the physics of sound were incredulous after reading the description of the Planot speaker. They believed it would not produce much if any sound. Fortunately the opposite is the case.
I can't imagine enduring all of the barbs that I have and doing all of the work that I have done for a lark. There is much work that remains to be done. It is heartening to receive the support that I have received from Discussion Forums such as this. I hope that there is some way to repay the support in the future.
John
It was found to be linear in all microphone positions. It was measured with an A-weighting. This test set up was intended only to certify that the design works as claimed. It was not intended to test the performance limits of the design but to establish that the basic design parameters were satisfied. Further tests will be carried out on future prototypes.
Test results can be sent to qualified individuals and companies that sign and return my nondisclosure agreement.
I felt this was necessary to establish credibility. Many who are schooled in the physics of sound were incredulous after reading the description of the Planot speaker. They believed it would not produce much if any sound. Fortunately the opposite is the case.
I can't imagine enduring all of the barbs that I have and doing all of the work that I have done for a lark. There is much work that remains to be done. It is heartening to receive the support that I have received from Discussion Forums such as this. I hope that there is some way to repay the support in the future.
John
planot said:
John,
Could you share more information on the acoustic measuring capabilities of NCEE Labs? I'm sure that many here, including myself, dream of some day building and selling speaker systems of their own designs. To which, a means for professional measurement and certification in an acoustic semi-anechoic (half-space) chamber that is cost effective enough to use even on prototypes is very alluring.
The problem is, I can't find any information regarding NCEE Lab's capabilities in these respects. I'm a reader, when I want to know something, I've no problem sitting down and going through a couple hundred pages of material or so. However, everything I've found to read regarding NCEE Labs' capabilities make no mention of acoustic measurements of loudspeaker systems or the like. In fact, most everything they do and are capable of testing focus on electromagnetic interference (production of and resistance to) with some further testing with regards to environmental factors and general safety. Their A2LA certification, which is what gives them the authority (and limits it) to certify products, itself makes only mention of EMC/EMI and the environmental/safety testing.
Odd.
So, I figured any information regarding their acoustic testing facilities would be related to the 10 meter semi-anechoic chamber you mention. Well, dang it, all I can find NCEE Labs mentioning as an anechoic chamber is one devoted purely to RF (EMI/EMC) testing, not acoustic.
Odd indeed, this chamber looks the same as the one shown on your website. I'm a bit confused by that as all the pictures I've seen of acoustic anechoic chambers always had a surreal look with many fiberglass peaks, not oddly sci-fi looking flat white panels.
Now, surely this can't be right. This means that the Planot speakers are only certified to be in compliance with FCC Part 15 rules and possibly safe from self-destruction or are even salt-spray resistant. While it's nice to know a set of speakers won't cause RF interference in the clock radio the next room over, I'm sure most here are more interested in measurement and certification of the audio output performance of a speaker design.
So, could you share some more information about the acoustic measurement facilities of NCEE Labs for future reference? I would like to learn more as their website and all the others I found regarding their certification are mum about audio. Surely this information won't violate your rarely paralleled secrecy about the performance of your speaker.
Thanks,
- JP
planot said:
A little harsh to an knowledgeable audio consumer who's handing out free advice don't you think?
What strikes me as odd is how defensive you are John. Obviously with a design such as this you would have expected that there would be more doubters and nay sayers than believers. The funny thing is that Bear and many others here never said that they doubted, but instead brought up problems that they foresaw with the design. Now obviously these are problems you've foreseen and encountered, and as such I would expect the proper response to explain how you've dealt with them, not to attack those who see the problems as well. After all, wouldn't that be why they are bringing up the problems and issues inherent to your design, to see how you've dealt with them? After all John, I can guarantee there are many people far more knowledgeable than you or I on this message board...
-Justin "despotic931"
Justin:
Mr. Bear's comments defiantly had an edge. My reply was acidic. Mr. Bear, I saw his Web site, is obviously a sophisticated "poster" here. I appreciate his comments but I was wanting a question. All of what he had to say appeared to me as rhetoric.
Don't assume that you know what I know.
With that said I appreciate your comments and will act accordingly as I don't wish to insult anyone's intelligence or motives.
I would like to stimulate discussion.
Some of the issues bear raises are beyond my ability to measure. I have contacted a "super computer center" about modeling the behavior of the Planot diaphragm. Unfortunately I have not been able to receive a commitment from them. I have explained that there is very serious science to be done here. When asked to I identified a modeling software package that would be able to do the modeling. It turned out that they have an academic license for the software!
The center is the Holland Center for Computing in Omaha Nebraska--where I live. It is on the campus of the University of Nebraska at Omaha.
Maybe if I could instigate an e-mail campaign I could convince them that there is a lot of interest in doing this science. Guerilla supercomputer science.
Please e-mail mfurtney@hollandcomputingcenter.com with comments.
John
Mr. Bear's comments defiantly had an edge. My reply was acidic. Mr. Bear, I saw his Web site, is obviously a sophisticated "poster" here. I appreciate his comments but I was wanting a question. All of what he had to say appeared to me as rhetoric.
Don't assume that you know what I know.
With that said I appreciate your comments and will act accordingly as I don't wish to insult anyone's intelligence or motives.
I would like to stimulate discussion.
Some of the issues bear raises are beyond my ability to measure. I have contacted a "super computer center" about modeling the behavior of the Planot diaphragm. Unfortunately I have not been able to receive a commitment from them. I have explained that there is very serious science to be done here. When asked to I identified a modeling software package that would be able to do the modeling. It turned out that they have an academic license for the software!
The center is the Holland Center for Computing in Omaha Nebraska--where I live. It is on the campus of the University of Nebraska at Omaha.
Maybe if I could instigate an e-mail campaign I could convince them that there is a lot of interest in doing this science. Guerilla supercomputer science.
Please e-mail mfurtney@hollandcomputingcenter.com with comments.
John
The NCEE Lab is what it is. It was close at hand. They did not charge me a small fortune. They are nice people. They are a not for profit organization that has no affiliation with Planot, LLC. My goal was to have an outside and non-interested organization certify that it WORKS. My goal was not to measure performance. (Especially this proof of concept prototype.)
If you are a verifiable authentic audio company and sign and return my nondisclosure agreement and pay me a handling fee I'll send you a bunch of test results. You probably won't be too excited about that. When P4 is built I will have it tested by a lab certified to do acoustic testing and probably post test results. I believe specifications do not tell you how a speaker is going to sound. This is why I place more importance on reviews and testimonials. I will be posting more on my Web site real soon.
John
If you are a verifiable authentic audio company and sign and return my nondisclosure agreement and pay me a handling fee I'll send you a bunch of test results. You probably won't be too excited about that. When P4 is built I will have it tested by a lab certified to do acoustic testing and probably post test results. I believe specifications do not tell you how a speaker is going to sound. This is why I place more importance on reviews and testimonials. I will be posting more on my Web site real soon.
John
I think I speak for many here, in saying that it would be nice if you could, please, share some performance information. We're all interested in your idea, and this is considered to be an open forum where ideas, results etc are shared. Moreover, few if any of us will have the opportunity to listen to your prototypes.
Regards,
Ed
Regards,
Ed
Good luck with THAT project.
Take this as you like, but I've made a career out of inventing and licensing. My inventions range from aerospace materials and structures to game controllers to beverage packaging. They are produced by the billions of units and used all over the world. I've started and sold off several companies. So with that in mind, when I tell you that you're not on a path that's likely to pay off, please take it as constructive criticism.
SY said:
Well, I would sure know exactly what THAT is. I don't want to make THAT mistake. I admit freely that I am new to the _business_ of inventing. If you have any advice to impart please send me a private e-mail with you phone number and I'll call on my nickel. I am bereft of advice for the business of invention.
John
I notice that the USPTO has no applications or patents for you. That's a problem right there- you've put the idea into the public domain, so that's pretty much foreclosed to you.
In general:
1. Do patent searching- is your idea actually new? Does someone else have a patent that would prevent a potential licensee from practicing your invention?
2. Do not do public disclosure until you've got a patent application filed. Nolo Press has some excellent books and forms which will guide you through the process.
3. Once you have that application in, publicize like crazy. NDAs are nice when there's know-how extending beyond the patent app which needs to be disclosed, but no-one serious is going to sign an NDA unless you've already established some credibility with a patent app or an already-impressive track record. Too much liability.
4. No-one serious is going to pay you a fee to look at test results.
5. No-one serious is going to come to you; you have to aggressively and persistently go to them.
6. Have a VERY clear idea of who your targets are, how you will sell them your idea, and why they would want to buy it.
There, I saved you a dime.
In general:
1. Do patent searching- is your idea actually new? Does someone else have a patent that would prevent a potential licensee from practicing your invention?
2. Do not do public disclosure until you've got a patent application filed. Nolo Press has some excellent books and forms which will guide you through the process.
3. Once you have that application in, publicize like crazy. NDAs are nice when there's know-how extending beyond the patent app which needs to be disclosed, but no-one serious is going to sign an NDA unless you've already established some credibility with a patent app or an already-impressive track record. Too much liability.
4. No-one serious is going to pay you a fee to look at test results.
5. No-one serious is going to come to you; you have to aggressively and persistently go to them.
6. Have a VERY clear idea of who your targets are, how you will sell them your idea, and why they would want to buy it.
There, I saved you a dime.
OK.
• I do have a patent pending status from USPTO.
• I have have submitted Planot as a trademark. I have incorporated as Planot, LLC. I have been doing extensive searches for years.
• I seriously did not expect anyone to pay for test results at this time. That was the point of that statement.
• Sorry but I have had a lot of people, make that companies, contact me.
• So far your advice has not been worth a nickel.
"You know a lot of people here do not read the posts they are commenting on and do not do diligence. They just spew invectives to vent steam."
Next question...
John
• I do have a patent pending status from USPTO.
• I have have submitted Planot as a trademark. I have incorporated as Planot, LLC. I have been doing extensive searches for years.
• I seriously did not expect anyone to pay for test results at this time. That was the point of that statement.
• Sorry but I have had a lot of people, make that companies, contact me.
• So far your advice has not been worth a nickel.
"You know a lot of people here do not read the posts they are commenting on and do not do diligence. They just spew invectives to vent steam."
Next question...
John
why the defensive posture?
It'd be really interesting to see some sort of technical data on this. I think you're response to SY's input is foolish. He offers a wealth of insight to all manner of topics on this forum, and is dead on target here. I don't think he's going to snipe or rip off your idea, but it's tough to get a handle on your "invention" w/o some real input. Hard to stimulate interest when detailed information is sparse to non-existant.
Lots of claims w/o supporting documentation doesn't bode well for success. Most here would only want to help. Lighten up...
John L.
planot said:
It'd be really interesting to see some sort of technical data on this. I think you're response to SY's input is foolish. He offers a wealth of insight to all manner of topics on this forum, and is dead on target here. I don't think he's going to snipe or rip off your idea, but it's tough to get a handle on your "invention" w/o some real input. Hard to stimulate interest when detailed information is sparse to non-existant.
Lots of claims w/o supporting documentation doesn't bode well for success. Most here would only want to help. Lighten up...
John L.
John,
As a fellow mad inventor, may I offer some advice please?
Check out this thread, just bounce through it and glance through the last few pages. It is too large for anything more serious, just get a flavor of it's progress
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=100399
Then actually read this thread.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1460032#post1460032
Don't read it to learn about this process for controlling speakers. This is not important for you. Read it to gain an insight into just how closely you can expect to be questioned and what attitude you MUST develop about this process. Read it to see how you must present yourself and how to request actual real world help in vetting your idea and preparing it for presentation, as a commercial venture.
I can assure you that what you will find on those two threads and have found here, is absolutely normal activity in the world of engineering, where you really are expected to produce results. The group of people posting and wrangling on these two threads, are doing me an enormous favor. Doesn't matter that I am publicly embarrassed and often ridiculed, I couldn't possibly pay for the help they are providing.
So, from a fellow mad inventor, get your patent protection in line, find some folks to physically collaborate with, as you are doing. Then, throw your process open to scrutiny here. This is some tough love for sure, but you will come away with far more benefit than damage.
There is no better place to be, if you are serious about getting your novel and quite interesting idea ready for prime time.
Bud
As a fellow mad inventor, may I offer some advice please?
Check out this thread, just bounce through it and glance through the last few pages. It is too large for anything more serious, just get a flavor of it's progress
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=100399
Then actually read this thread.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1460032#post1460032
Don't read it to learn about this process for controlling speakers. This is not important for you. Read it to gain an insight into just how closely you can expect to be questioned and what attitude you MUST develop about this process. Read it to see how you must present yourself and how to request actual real world help in vetting your idea and preparing it for presentation, as a commercial venture.
I can assure you that what you will find on those two threads and have found here, is absolutely normal activity in the world of engineering, where you really are expected to produce results. The group of people posting and wrangling on these two threads, are doing me an enormous favor. Doesn't matter that I am publicly embarrassed and often ridiculed, I couldn't possibly pay for the help they are providing.
So, from a fellow mad inventor, get your patent protection in line, find some folks to physically collaborate with, as you are doing. Then, throw your process open to scrutiny here. This is some tough love for sure, but you will come away with far more benefit than damage.
There is no better place to be, if you are serious about getting your novel and quite interesting idea ready for prime time.
Bud
- Status
- Not open for further replies.