feedback stabalizer, snake oil or real deal

[randytsuch]

OK guys,
Wondering if somebody wants to take a look at this patent, and voice an opinion if this circuit could make an improvement.

http://www.pandathumbaudio.com/download/Patent1.pdf

At another site, some people said they have used this device, and it improved their system.

Randy

[SY]

I have only skimmed the patent, but I note a few things:

1. The inventor makes reference to standing waves in speaker cables and interconnects. Well, maybe if you run a mile of cable.

2. No real data is given to support his contention that conventional feedback amps of good design are "unstable."

3. No comparative data is given demonstrating the advantage of this invention, only vague claims of "improved sound" and "improved stability."

4. Testimonials are worthless. Totally worthless. I don't care how nutty or wrong something is, I can find you someone willing to say it works. Like those, ahem, extension pills that I keep getting emails about. Or Alex Chiu.

So, I don't know definitively that this is snake oil, but it sure has that aroma.

[tubetvr]

Hi,

Reading the patent text I can not help wondering what is needed in order to get a patent approved in the US?

Is it really allowed to ignore basic proven facts and argue for things that are not true?; (like the rubbish in the beginning of the patent text regarding stabilisation of amplifiers)

Stabilisation of feedback amplifiers is well known and completely understood since the 1940-ties and it is not very difficult for a competent designer to design an amplifier that is unconditionally stable for any load condition.

I can agree that in some cases there has been amplifiers designed that is questionable from a stability point of view, (some Naim amplifiers I recall) but then this design has been a delibirate choice done by the designer or maybe because of his incompetence, however it is not in any way true that currently applied methods for feedback stabilisation is insufficient, this can even be proven mathematically.

Regards Hans

[Steve Eddy]

Originally posted by tubetvr
Is it really allowed to ignore basic proven facts and argue for things that are not true?; (like the rubbish in the beginning of the patent text regarding stabilisation of amplifiers)

For all practical purposes, you don't really have to prove anything anymore. They're handing out patents for perpetual motion machines as well as granting patents on stuff they've previously granted patents for.

se

[SY]

Originally posted by tubetvr
Hi,

Reading the patent text I can not help wondering what is needed in order to get a patent approved in the US?

A lawyer, some money, and a good line of bull will work. It helps to get an examiner who is overworked, doesn't really have any stake in the quality of issued patents, and who isn't terribly competent in his/her area of specialization. I've had some who could barely speak English.

[Magura]

Originally posted by Steve Eddy


For all practical purposes, you don't really have to prove anything anymore.

se

That dosnt sound very practical!!

Why is that so?

Here you have to pay for an investigation of the application, wheater its really a new idea or not.

Magura

[SY]

Here you have to pay for an investigation of the application, wheater its really a new idea or not.

There are advantages and disadvantages to the European system. Advantages include better overall examinations and better patents. Disadvantages are that an inventor gives away trade secrets with no compensation if the patent doesn't issue (this is now partially the case in the US since two or three years ago), the process is prohibitively expensive for little guys, and the rules regarding pre-filing disclosure are onerous.

[sam9]

It looks more like "the Zobel from Hell" than anything else. I sort of lost interest when the parts count started to rival that of the typical amplifier itself. Even if it works, it may fall into category of "solutions to problems no one even knows they have".

[sam9]

On further reflexion it may be a candidate for inclusion in one of the more humorous sections of Doug Self's site.

[Christer]

Originally posted by tubetvr

Is it really allowed to ignore basic proven facts and argue for things that are not true?

Incidentally, I have seen at least one such patent approved in
Sweden too (I note you are from Sweden), although in this case
it was probably over the head of the patent engineers to realize
that the claim was wrong (and above the head of those applying
for the patent too, I am afraid). It was a claim based on a
common misunderstanding of some basic theoretical computer
science.