How does this differ from an end-loaded mass loaded transmission line? It is kinda long and inefficiently folded. They put an image of the fold for their commercial 4-way (i assume), and it seems the designer had as a design goal … as convoluted a foling as i can practically do.
@GM @Scottmoose se @pkitt
dave
If I built that but had the port out the bottom would I be infringing on their patent?
Add a $1000 usd pr stands like this:
Devore O/Baby
https://www.stereophile.com/content/devore-fidelity-orangutan-obaby-loudspeaker
"The stands are handmade, with no fasteners, also from white oak to match the baffle."
Gee how much $$$ More for some screws. Thank You for saving the customer some money. How generous.
Add a $1000 usd pr stands like this:
Devore O/Baby
https://www.stereophile.com/content/devore-fidelity-orangutan-obaby-loudspeaker
"The stands are handmade, with no fasteners, also from white oak to match the baffle."
Gee how much $$$ More for some screws. Thank You for saving the customer some money. How generous.
Last edited:
Each bend is a LP filter, not a huge one but they help. Scott has been taking advantage for at least a decade & a half.
And here a basic end-loadedML-TL from 2009: https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/microtower-bipolar-ml-tl-for-chr-70-or-el70.148901/
As well one has to consider that many/most “tower” loudspeakers are ML-TL. You used to hear a lot of “you need to measure them and adjust the vent” Alwaya a little lower. The guys modeling as QW boxes have software that accuratly predicta ethe terminus action — whereas a BR modeler will be inaccurate.
dave
And here a basic end-loadedML-TL from 2009: https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/microtower-bipolar-ml-tl-for-chr-70-or-el70.148901/
As well one has to consider that many/most “tower” loudspeakers are ML-TL. You used to hear a lot of “you need to measure them and adjust the vent” Alwaya a little lower. The guys modeling as QW boxes have software that accuratly predicta ethe terminus action — whereas a BR modeler will be inaccurate.
dave
What if I put one port out the back and one port out the bottom (2 ports) ? Plus 2 ports on the sides = 4 ports?
Figures 1,2,3,4 only show 1 port.
Figures 1,2,3,4 only show 1 port.
Last edited:
The claims have little to do with the folding pattern or port location as I read it. The drawings and body of the patent can be more about exclusionary disclosure, instead of describing what you are doing or claiming. Or sometimes they are the leftover start of a patent that gets narrowed down and pushed into a very small corner to get granted.
https://patents.justia.com/patent/11917361
I assume these are the key phrases from claim 1: "the method comprising simultaneously tuning a transmission line" . . . "wherein the transmission line is tuned to a frequency of the tuned port."
The rest of claim 1 seems very generic, so without the specific qualifiers, there doesn't seem to be much there.
Other permutations also claimed.
No idea how claim 7 made it in there as is.
Whether any of it provides the benefits described or if this is a unique configuration, I can't say.
Last edited:
In terms of loading, it doesn't -it's just a folded MLTL with a vent offset, as has been used (when desired) since Olson's original of the '40s. It just happens to be folded. Like plenty of others have been. So scores nil for originality.
For individual use, not AFAIK. I haven't yet ploughed through the text, but based on the image & some of the quotes above that patent could be challenged in any case as it does not appear to show originality (which is all that matters with a patent), and 'prior art' for a common load scheme should come into effect. If not, somebody could claim pretty much any existing item as fair game for a patent.
In some patents, careful wording seems to be the most novel invention.
I recently had to analyze a patent at work for an optical filter, and what was described throughout the specifications/drawings as the main design elements had nothing to do with what the claims actually delineated. To add insult to injury, the commercial product also doesn't match any of the claims. They succeeded in describing things in a very convoluted way that took me multiple hours to untangle though, so they've got that going for them.
Last edited:
That can often (not always, but often) be the only thing involved -as noted, it doesn't actually have to work. My personal favourite amongst rich pickings: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/05/e6/5b/28bc7b597f459f/US6025810.pdf
Yes, it's a device that is claimed to send signals faster than the speed of light by transmitting through another dimension. It was granted too -but good news! We can all benefit, as the patent has now expired. 😉
Yes, it's a device that is claimed to send signals faster than the speed of light by transmitting through another dimension. It was granted too -but good news! We can all benefit, as the patent has now expired. 😉
Just wanted to mention that getting a patent by itself can help, but in cases like this might mean very little if challenged. Prior art (other similar TL/MLTL speakers) could easily be used perhaps by someone to challenge the patent, and may even be successful. But unless you're JBL/Bose you probably don't have the lawyers to throw money at. It's possible the patent officer didn't know about TL speakers, or could be a bunch of other factors.
Valve (the guys behind Steam) were hit with a lawsuit after releasing the steam controller... a patent on buttons on the back of the controller. Odd/frivolous patents very much exist. IIRC the "pull to refresh" is also patented by Twitter.
The way it is drawn makes it easy to think the vent is offset, but it goes thru to the inner boit and is at the other end from the driver.
dave
More or less. There's a modest offset, mostly provided by its own thickness, or in the case of the unfolded type, the length of the duct itself. Since there doesn't seem to be much direct reference to it (if any) in the text, I assume that the applicant / holder is either avoiding mentioning it, or isn't actually aware. Having read the full thing over -all I can say is that it's so riddled with factual errors or peculiar / partial statements it would take me a couple of hours to go through it point by point. What I can say, with my moderate designer's hat on, is that either a/ the holder is broadly describing an end loaded MLTL, which falls under 8 decades worth of prior art & therefore means they haven't a leg to stand on, or b/ they are applying fuzzy terminology & descriptions with the intent of finding some narrow applicability, but mostly for marketing value for a commercial product / products.
For 'thickness' above, read 'diameter'. Apologies, had one eye on the comedy elecation 'debate'.