We are fast approaching November 2nd 2020, so is applicable to mention Mary Hallock- Greenewalts invention the rheostat, Patent 1,357773 and on that date a century now, of the invention being used widely for the wrong purpose.
Its inventor intended the rheostat to be ( index 25) 'designed to vary the brightness of a lamp, or the light it gives forth by amounts capable of causing the minimal perceptible variation in the intensity of such light between the limits of operation "
Nowhere in the inventions description is any mention of passing audio signals.
Its inventor intended the rheostat to be ( index 25) 'designed to vary the brightness of a lamp, or the light it gives forth by amounts capable of causing the minimal perceptible variation in the intensity of such light between the limits of operation "
Nowhere in the inventions description is any mention of passing audio signals.
Hi Chris, have you started working on an active LDR volume control yet? You know it makes sense 😉
It would appear audio still isn't important, as the rheostat has been wrongly applied now for nearly 100 years,with wilful opposition to what was intended.
Mary's invention of the rheostat was one of many parts used to express her visual art,she called Nourathar with a instrument she called the Sarabet
Mary Hallock-Greenewalt - Wikipedia
Mary won infringement of the rheostat patent against General Electric
Industrial Light and Magic | Topic
Reading Mary's patent she allowed for varying the resistance in different zones of the resistance element Page 2 (20) patent 1,357773 - Mary Hallock- Greenewalt the Complete patents.
But not patented, and Wheatstone also never intended his invention for audio signals either, rather his intention was " to measure unknown electrical resistance "
Charles Wheatstone - Wikipedia
Last edited:
So she came up with a non-linear Rheostat. Wheatstone was a scientist, so did not wish to profit from his learnings rather to share.
Good on Mary, but your original post is wrong.
Good on Mary, but your original post is wrong.
The wording of Page 2 (20) of the 1,357773 patent. " The material constituting the resistance body, while possibly having its cross section varied in different zones of the resistance element consists in the present instance of a single length, and its sections are connected at intervals with or tapped to the contact blocks."
Making mention of both methods, demonstrates she was well aware of each form.
Making mention of both methods, demonstrates she was well aware of each form.
That would depend on the legal definition of inventor which you accept, which varies country to country, It is fairly clear IMO with regard to when a patent is granted, as is the case here, showing Mary Hallock-Greenewalt as the holder of patent 1357773 for the rheostat invention, arguably proving intellectual domination.
The wording of the patent allowing for " possibly having its cross section varied in different zones" page 2 (20 ) United States Patent Office patent 1357773, inviting also intellectual domination of that as well. But credit to Wheatstone for method to measure unknown electrical resistance.
The point remains, neither inventor intended their invention to pass audio signals.
Inventor (patent - Wikipedia)
"In patent law, an inventor is the person, or persons in United States patent law, who contribute to the claims of a patentable invention. In some patent law frameworks, however, such as in the European Patent Convention (EPC) and its case law, no explicit, accurate definition of who exactly is an inventor is provided. The definition may slightly vary from one European country to another. Inventorship is generally not considered to be a patentability criterion under European patent law.
Under U.S. case law, an inventor is the one with "intellectual domination"[1] over the inventive process, and not merely one who assists in its reduction to practice. Since inventorship relates to the claims in a patent application, knowing who an inventor is under the patent law is sometimes difficult. In fact, inventorship can change during the prosecution of a patent application as claims are deleted or amended.
Given she successfully sued GE for knicking her idea I think she possibly did ok. Her musical instruments were wonderfully bonkers.