there is since that side is open and all modules have the open side towards the middle
I do not understand what you mean? The video explains that the modules do not produce any sound in the middle. the large loudspeaker has many modules, similar to an amt? the smaller speaker has fewer modules. the efficiency of a single module is likely to be low.
Attachments
Can you point us to the the video explaining there is no sound in the middle?
In video linked below (between 10:00 - 11:00) it is mentioned that there are planes centered between a modules diaphragms or between adjacent modules where there is no sound. That would imply that the diaphragms are moving in tandem producing nulls and alternate phases as you move around the speaker.
https://youtu.be/EomUt0QLQ8g?t=600
Those comments in the video directly contradict the patent verbiage which states that the diaphragms move toward or away from each other(like an AMT) and that there is sound in the middle. Blocking elements are used to keep it from interfering with the forward radiation, and it escapes out the back.
Last edited:
Due to the small dimensions of the interior of the module, only pressure fluctuations can occur without releasing a sound wave. only in the area of the opening of the module would sound waves arise?
am not a physic
am not a physic
the best speaker is nor here on earth,its is compremise .
Veddan UFM is reflection music ,music to great and impressive, imposing,wrong music.
its resonaters that is not Good music,
wolie
Veddan UFM is reflection music ,music to great and impressive, imposing,wrong music.
its resonaters that is not Good music,
wolie
Not good, and very expensive? Do you think it is not good, or have you actually listened to it?
I agree that what resonates, could have problems.
I agree that what resonates, could have problems.
Well I suppose there may be alot of cancellation going on similar to an AMT with very deep pleads
I have heard in the netherlands ,big great music and then v-Horn units ,Good reflecting ,price sad me nothing,its marketing mony.
wollie
wollie
hmm im not asking here to bash them , i asked it because i wonderd how they work.
as we normally do, looking at patents maybe build a replica see what it does etc. have a discussion about how it works pros and cons etc
as we normally do, looking at patents maybe build a replica see what it does etc. have a discussion about how it works pros and cons etc
Building a replica is a patent law violation.
And those are not easy to build.
And planar speakers are not really mainstream...
And those are not easy to build.
And planar speakers are not really mainstream...
If you look at what WrineX has built in the past, I think you'll see that his skills and creativity put a project like this within his grasp.
While the strictest interpretation of patent law might agree with your premise, have you ever known someone or heard of anyone that was sued for reverse engineering a physical design of something like a speaker for their own use? I'm not including patented technologies that are used to make other technologies or to benefit the person in any way other than the personal use of the item for their hobby.
Even when you have proof of direct infringement and corporate profit, relatively simple patent lawsuits are a giant, expensive pain that involve lots of lawyers making arcane arguments for months, and typically sucking up at least as much of the patent holder's time. Unless there are significant damages involved, very few companies are interested in going down this path. Yes, a few companies love suing other companies; they are an exception and have more complex reasons for that approach. High quality attorneys run about $500/hour, and they like running that clock. You only typically unleash them when a lot of money is on the line or when a lack of enforcement could lead to abandonment of your intellectual property rights.
There's also this bit to consider:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_exemption"The common law research exemption is an affirmative defense to infringement where the alleged infringer is using a patented invention for research purposes. The doctrine originated in the 1813 decision by Justice Joseph Story appellate decision Whittemore v. Cutter, 29 Fed. Cas. 1120 (C.C.D. Mass. 1813). Story famously wrote that the intent of the legislature could not have been to punish someone who infringes "merely for [scientific] experiments, or for the purpose of ascertaining the sufficiency of the machine to produce its described effects." Subsequent decisions later distinguished between commercial and non-commercial research.
In 2002, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dramatically limited the scope of the research exemption in Madey v. Duke University, 307 F.3d 1351, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2002). The court did not reject the defense, but left only a "very narrow and strictly limited experimental use defense" for "amusement, to satisfy idle curiosity, or for strictly philosophical inquiry." The court also precludes the defense where, regardless of profit motive, the research was done "in furtherance of the alleged infringer’s legitimate business."
. . .
This type of exception is permitted by Article 30 of the WTO's TRIPs Agreement:
Members may provide limited exceptions to the exclusive rights conferred by a patent, provided that such exceptions do not unreasonably conflict with a normal exploitation of the patent and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the patent owner, taking account of the legitimate interests of third parties."
https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/publications_e/ai17_e/trips_art30_jur.pdf"It is often argued that this exception is based on the notion that a key public policy purpose underlying patent laws is to facilitate the dissemination and advancement of technical knowledge and that allowing the patent owner to prevent experimental use during the term of the patent would frustrate part of the purpose of the requirement that the nature of the invention be disclosed to the public. To the contrary, the argument concludes, under the policy of the patent laws, both society and the scientist have a 'legitimate interest' in using the patent disclosure to support the advance of science and technology."
While the strictest interpretation of patent law might agree with your premise, have you ever known someone or heard of anyone that was sued for reverse engineering a physical design of something like a speaker for their own use? I'm not including patented technologies that are used to make other technologies or to benefit the person in any way other than the personal use of the item for their hobby.
Even when you have proof of direct infringement and corporate profit, relatively simple patent lawsuits are a giant, expensive pain that involve lots of lawyers making arcane arguments for months, and typically sucking up at least as much of the patent holder's time. Unless there are significant damages involved, very few companies are interested in going down this path. Yes, a few companies love suing other companies; they are an exception and have more complex reasons for that approach. High quality attorneys run about $500/hour, and they like running that clock. You only typically unleash them when a lot of money is on the line or when a lack of enforcement could lead to abandonment of your intellectual property rights.
There's also this bit to consider:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_exemption"The common law research exemption is an affirmative defense to infringement where the alleged infringer is using a patented invention for research purposes. The doctrine originated in the 1813 decision by Justice Joseph Story appellate decision Whittemore v. Cutter, 29 Fed. Cas. 1120 (C.C.D. Mass. 1813). Story famously wrote that the intent of the legislature could not have been to punish someone who infringes "merely for [scientific] experiments, or for the purpose of ascertaining the sufficiency of the machine to produce its described effects." Subsequent decisions later distinguished between commercial and non-commercial research.
In 2002, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dramatically limited the scope of the research exemption in Madey v. Duke University, 307 F.3d 1351, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2002). The court did not reject the defense, but left only a "very narrow and strictly limited experimental use defense" for "amusement, to satisfy idle curiosity, or for strictly philosophical inquiry." The court also precludes the defense where, regardless of profit motive, the research was done "in furtherance of the alleged infringer’s legitimate business."
. . .
This type of exception is permitted by Article 30 of the WTO's TRIPs Agreement:
Members may provide limited exceptions to the exclusive rights conferred by a patent, provided that such exceptions do not unreasonably conflict with a normal exploitation of the patent and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the patent owner, taking account of the legitimate interests of third parties."
https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/publications_e/ai17_e/trips_art30_jur.pdf"It is often argued that this exception is based on the notion that a key public policy purpose underlying patent laws is to facilitate the dissemination and advancement of technical knowledge and that allowing the patent owner to prevent experimental use during the term of the patent would frustrate part of the purpose of the requirement that the nature of the invention be disclosed to the public. To the contrary, the argument concludes, under the policy of the patent laws, both society and the scientist have a 'legitimate interest' in using the patent disclosure to support the advance of science and technology."
Last edited:
mattstat I agree, and thanks for the detailed response. As a patent holder and co-author of several others, I have come to see the patent as both protection for the inventor and a repository of intellectual information that exists to benefit all mankind. The protection expires but patent record is a self perpetuating path to progress for everyone. So build your replicas, and make them better. Armed with the knowledge that an improvement to an existing patent can itself be patented, you have nothing to loose.
thanks Mattstat for the trust in my building abilities 🙂 and your very detailed explanation !
I might have chosen the wrong word, i should have said CLONE. since in every diy community a clone is perfectly acceptable.
But what i actually meant was , something similair to see if this works and how well, since this company as many in this segment , claim allot, but never show anything to back there claims , like a few simple measurements. so i would be interseted if something like this works. and that might inspire people. not to copy it. but it might change the way one thinks about what is possible or not. for now i have not allot of faith in the design. but proof is in the pudding
I think the speakers are of high quality. no one can offer bad speakers at this price because no one would buy them. it would also quickly become known in the Internet age if the whole thing was no good.
Well i cant imagine the suck. but at this pricepoint, smaller details would be considering sucking i guess.