Yes, when they started issuing patents for perpetual motion machines, cutting the crusts off sandwiches, twisting the body on a swingset, superluminal antennas, and the like, it was obvious that the PTO had degenerated into a revenue mechanism for lawyers. Still, this one is unusually and hilariously stupid.
I don't think it is appropriate for you to comment on this mans patent in that nature.
I realize your prejudice in this category but perhaps things are done in a strategical sense and not in the literal sense.
Not everything that has to do with cables is B.S. We use specific sizes for heaters, solid where convenient, flexible where necessary, shielded where necessary......
When I was a kid I used to wire 12V car stereo amps with 14/2. As it turns out you can carry more DC current through thicker multistrand wire. Is this snake oil or physics?
So is this guys patent snake oil? No. There is no disputing wires of different physical makeups have different electrical properties.
From what I gather from breezing over this patent, his product is proposed to be made of as many small conductors as possible.
Is he right? I have been wrong before.
His concept is not out of line with daily practices used around here.
If his patent is "weapons grade stupid", we can wire everything with simple 26awg zip-cord. Everything from the battery cable your car to the power lines that run down the street can all be zip cord.
I would be interested in viewing some of your patents Sy, they must be amazing. Or perhaps they did not let you patent the red LED?
I realize your prejudice in this category but perhaps things are done in a strategical sense and not in the literal sense.
Not everything that has to do with cables is B.S. We use specific sizes for heaters, solid where convenient, flexible where necessary, shielded where necessary......
When I was a kid I used to wire 12V car stereo amps with 14/2. As it turns out you can carry more DC current through thicker multistrand wire. Is this snake oil or physics?
So is this guys patent snake oil? No. There is no disputing wires of different physical makeups have different electrical properties.
From what I gather from breezing over this patent, his product is proposed to be made of as many small conductors as possible.
Is he right? I have been wrong before.
His concept is not out of line with daily practices used around here.
If his patent is "weapons grade stupid", we can wire everything with simple 26awg zip-cord. Everything from the battery cable your car to the power lines that run down the street can all be zip cord.
I would be interested in viewing some of your patents Sy, they must be amazing. Or perhaps they did not let you patent the red LED?
Some might think that it's best to allow stupidity and the incompetence of bureaucracies to be unremarked. I don't share that view.
Non-sequitur.
Reading that Patent is an interesting example in how many words can be used, yet there is no substance, apart from a nostalgic reference to his uncle. Now maybe I missed something, but was ALL his data based on him listening to the cable, as I did not see any measurements on would expect of such a wonderful transducer!!!
He also mentions, I believe that this cable would also be suitable for digital and video signal transfer.
Look at the bright side. Isn't it a great country. Even monkeys can work in patent office if they are willing to fill the application form 😎 😀
3000 strands of #60 ("the best") and that's about what you get. Bond wires in small signal discretes are ~#52-#56.
Last edited:
Translation: I don't know, therefore nobody else does either.
Translation: on my home planet, the meanings of 'objective' and 'subjective' are the reverse of what they are here on Earth. I forgot to swap them when I wrote the Earth version of the patent application.
"If more recorded information can be heard, then this is an objective observation."
This statement is difficult but doable.
I could say that what you see with your eyes on a scope is subjective. Sooner or later isn't all information subjective? lol kaboom.
This statement is difficult but doable.
I could say that what you see with your eyes on a scope is subjective. Sooner or later isn't all information subjective? lol kaboom.
I can draw or photograph what I see on a scope. Someone else can look and see it too. A computer can analyse what I see on a scope. With a modern scope the computer has already done this, as it is the computer which creates the trace. A table of time-tagged sample values is somewhat more objective than 'what I think I heard'.
"Proposals for such inoperable machines have become so common that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has made an official policy of refusing to grant patents for perpetual motion machines without a working model. The USPTO Manual of Patent Examining Practice states:
With the exception of cases involving perpetual motion, a model is not ordinarily required by the Office to demonstrate the operability of a device. If operability of a device is questioned, the applicant must establish it to the satisfaction of the examiner, but he or she may choose his or her own way of so doing.[23]
And, further, that:
A rejection [of a patent application] on the ground of lack of utility includes the more specific grounds of inoperativeness, involving perpetual motion. A rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 for lack of utility should not be based on grounds that the invention is frivolous, fraudulent or against public policy.[24]"
Sy why did you not tell the truth?
It now appears you have less credibility then the patent holder you loath so much.
It now appears you have less credibility then the patent holder you loath so much.
I did. Crackpot inventors and charlatans have learned how to use different words to say the same thing and that gets by the civil servants working at USPTO, as well as by credulous internet forum posters.
See, for example, 7095126, 6960975, 5710531, 4385246, and a few hundred more if your search skills extend beyond cut and pasting from Wikipedia.
Had a look at 7095126, I cant understand why we all don't have one? It would cut my power bills, and I could transfer the power using the super transducer cable linked to earlier, all the worlds energy problems and my bills solved...
It is unfortunate that we are back to discussing audio cables. There are other areas on this website for that, even if they are usually heavily biased against any audible differences between cables.
This patent makes little sense to me, but without a working model, how can I actually know if it has any merit? I prefer to ignore what I cannot prove to be a hoax.
This patent makes little sense to me, but without a working model, how can I actually know if it has any merit? I prefer to ignore what I cannot prove to be a hoax.
I think "hoax" is an inaccurate term- I get the impression that this guy actually believes the nonsense he wrote, and there's no shortage of credulous marks who will happily believe that an issued patent is an imprimatur that the claims are valid.
For more than 30 years I have watch as the experts beat their chest and said that cable can't make a difference . This even when I raised the question of how can different material insulators different conductors made of several different metal and alloys and different configurations balanced , ubbalanced , sheilded and unsheilded all function as the same . No good answer was forth come as it is still that way today. The cost of audiophile cable is one of low volume and very high price more a study of what the market will bare than what that cable is of real value. The snake oil story work better than a quality definition of what the cable is made of and how it works. Hevenside in some of what I read liked hemp as in insulator other like cotton and silk. Western Electric used hignly anealed copper of it wire because it was less prone to breaking . Some find it to sound to their liking. Snake oil sells science not so much.
I don't think that's true. See, for example, Dick Greiner's excellent papers on the subject.
One of the wonders of modern science is that it is quite good at predicting the results of experiments which have not yet been performed. That relieves us from the burden of having to try everything that anyone suggests. Only at the forefront of knowledge (which despite all claims to the contrary, does not include audio electronics) is the outcome of an experiment likely to be partially unknown.john curl said:
I have never tried running my petrol-engined car on diesel fuel. Should I try it, just in case it works OK? Or by refusing to do so am I being 'closed-minded'?
I am surprised that nobody gave you a 'good answer'; or was it that you did not accept the 'good answer' because it did not suit your preconceptions? There are two reasons which when taken together are the 'good answer' you seek for why competently-made audio cables all function the same:Triodethom said:
1. low frequencies mean that the quasi-static (i.e. circuit theory) approximation may be used unless the cable is very long.
2. in this approximation a cable is just a lumped network which is a potential divider with a small series impedance and a high shunt impedance - provided that they are sufficiently small/large respectively then the cable cannot make a difference.
There is an assumption in this: that the cable does not also provide an alternate path for ground currents - if it does then the issue is ground current control, not cable quality. 'Competently-made' includes screen/shield integrity, where difficulties can add noise which may be misinterpreted as "detail".
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.