Thanks John
I don't remember apologizing for anything. I think I did make the mistake of incorrectly quoting efficiency gains in dB, but as to the lever working as claimed, I know that's correct.
Sure thing
I just dont understand the need of the "coupling chamber" between the two passives, especially not when they in fact are physically bonded together
Your patent is based on that, as I understand it
My much simpler suggestion works the same way, and might have some limitations and drawbacks, but doesnt violate patent
In fact, it may be patent pending
I just dont understand the need of the "coupling chamber" between the two passives, especially not when they in fact are physically bonded together
Your patent is based on that, as I understand it
My much simpler suggestion works the same way, and might have some limitations and drawbacks, but doesnt violate patent
In fact, it may be patent pending
Last edited:
This chamber is the downside of the invention - it has to be there, but its undesirable. If you could find a way to elliminate it then youd REALLY have an invention on your hands.
Sure, its tricky
But if we consider it too much, there might not have been F1, F2... and all the other nice stuff we have around here
Hard to judge right or wrong in such matters
But with this subject it surely isnt worth to take the risk
And I take it seriously, like Earl does
It was quite strange when I looked at my own drawing and thought, "my, who might steal that idea without anyone knowing"
Strange thought
Fact is, this forum will die if we go down that road
Last edited:
John, either way is fine with me, in fact the patent idea is even better. Thats because in all likelihood it would still infringe my patent (my claims don't require this space) and so to use yours one still needs a license for mine. So, in fact, I would be more than happy to actually write it, file it and prosecute it for you. You own it, no problem. Because the combination of inventions would be incredibly powerful - your invention just makes mine all that more useful.
However, if the idea is not "practicle" to do in practice, then its not really a solution, its just a "good idea". Good ideas are a dime a dozen.
Last edited:
Hi,
Nice to see an academically reasoned argument.
Its the sort of answer I expected, ignoring the questions.
There is nothing in the patent other than a claim it works.
I'm pretty sure it does not work, and it not up to me to prove
it doesn't on the basis of a claim it does, without a viable and
rigorous analysis of the principles involved.
Implying I do not know what I'm talking about is cheap.
Who is embarrassing themselves is a question for debate.
Personally I have no interest in your agenda, you are obviously
going to claim it does work, and as far as I'm concerned defend
it to the hilt without ever defaulting to strict academic rigour.
That it because as far as I'm concerned there is not any.
Unlike e.g. Linkwitz/Riley networks and loads of other names that
are related to accepted principles the "Geddes" acoustic lever is
IMO destined for for obscurity and only being argued about in a
forum such as this.
If it worked you simply would not need to engage anyone here.
/sreten.
(Trying to change the implied claims of a patent is pointless.
By definition the claims in a patent are the claims.
You cannot say you actually meant something else.)
Last edited:
Not defending Earl, he doesn't need that. However, I did the analysis and it does work in theory. I posted that several days ago.
Sreten's post on Gedde's patent claims sans working proof in the document brings to mind another thread (EnABLE) on this site. I soapboxed about exactly that problem with the patent system; wherein one can get a patent written on claims alone with no proof of utility.
What's the purpose? I feel the patent office should demand proof and thus not waste their time on ideas that don't work.
BTW, I have no opinion one way or the other about the AL.
What's the purpose? I feel the patent office should demand proof and thus not waste their time on ideas that don't work.
BTW, I have no opinion one way or the other about the AL.
Last edited:
But a patent never says that the item works only that its new. How can they give you a document saying that something works when they have no idea if it does or doesn't. And further they don't care. If it doesn't work then its a pointless patent - no need for them spending time proving it.
That the lever may not be a viable product for the marketplace is certainly possible. However it does work as claimed. Its correct on paper and in practice, which was shown via a proof of concept that was published. That the patent contains no proof is always the case.
That the lever may not be a viable product for the marketplace is certainly possible. However it does work as claimed. Its correct on paper and in practice, which was shown via a proof of concept that was published. That the patent contains no proof is always the case.
They would have an idea if it worked if you showed that it worked. Simple as that. I'm a patent holder myself and the ones I have do indeed include proof -as many many others besides mine as well. Just two audio classic examples follow: Villchur's AS patent and Modafari's Infinite slope patent show evidence of the utility and not just the ideal
But isn't the point that a patent IS NOT a statement that said device actually works, so why should such a proof be required? Sure its possible to add, but not necessary and generally not a verfy good idea. You need to understand what a patent is, what it is used for and how its evaluated. It has nothing to do with the device actually working as claimed. No examiner is going to care about that.
Are you saying that if we put up the complete mathematical "formula" fore a plain woofer, show it like a strange contraption, we could get a patent on that, because they wouldnt understand any of it
Is that what it is, a strange contraption of a formula
But I do wonder why you made that generous joint venture offer to JohnK, if you already know how to make it work
Actually I think he was joking, or forgot the "if", or a smiley
But I could be tempted to build one, shouldnt be too hard
My suggestions was ignored
Were they getting too close
btw, how much does a patent really cost ?
Is that what it is, a strange contraption of a formula
But I do wonder why you made that generous joint venture offer to JohnK, if you already know how to make it work
Actually I think he was joking, or forgot the "if", or a smiley
But I could be tempted to build one, shouldnt be too hard
My suggestions was ignored
Were they getting too close
btw, how much does a patent really cost ?
Last edited:
Well, in short
Who cares whether it works or not
Try to build this strange thing
Its DIY
Not worth to fight about
Have fun
Oh, I forgot to show how it looks to meyou can have my patent, and hopefully get rich oh, maybe not, it doesnt work
Who cares whether it works or not
Try to build this strange thing
Its DIY
Not worth to fight about
Have fun
Oh, I forgot to show how it looks to me
you can have my patent, and hopefully get rich oh, maybe not, it doesnt work Attachments
Last edited:
Are you saying that if we put up the complete mathematical "formula" fore a plain woofer, show it like a strange contraption, we could get a patent on that, because they wouldnt understand any of it
Is that what it is, a strange contraption of a formula
But I could be tempted to build one, shouldnt be too hard
My suggestions was ignored
Were they getting too close
btw, how much does a patent really cost ?
You can't patent anything mathematical, only physical realizations are basically allowed - there are some exceptions however.
I didn't understand your suggestion.
The actual patent isn't too expensive - a few hundred filing fees, another thousand or so if it issues, but it's extremely difficult to navigate the USPTO and if you hire a lawyer then the price jumps to 10 thousand or more just to get started. The lawyers are where the expense is. If you can do it without one of those then its not bad at all.
On my last patent - foam plug - I had to use a lawyer because the process just got too complex for me. I've done about a half dozen patents myself, but this last time I got a real gem of an examiner and he was a hard nut to crack. In the end it just got over my head. But the good news is that I prevailed! The patent was allowed last week,
Some friends of mine once got a very nice idea
They managed to get a Taiwan or Thailand company to produce the thing
They received very little money
Upon investigating it they found that most of their design left the company "backdoor"
They lost a lot of money, and nothing they could do about it
If it really works Im certain it wont be yours to keep for very long
They managed to get a Taiwan or Thailand company to produce the thing
They received very little money
Upon investigating it they found that most of their design left the company "backdoor"
They lost a lot of money, and nothing they could do about it
If it really works Im certain it wont be yours to keep for very long
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.