John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part III

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to Latest
#4,661
1audio said:
If JN privately tells me his idea and I run to the patent office first I win...)
Click to expand...
But then you'll die horribly in a plane crash going to your private island in a hurricane...
I could never be responsible for that.

I waffle between thinking I could make big bucks, or a useless patent, or nobody cares...

Honestly, the stuff I do, things I helped make 15 years ago, will be state of the art in another ten or 20 years... Carbon gantry delivery magnets, rapid cycling medical cyclotrons..things that might help people live through the the worst of things I assure you are not pretty. Money, that's not the goal. (Well, perhaps it shouldn't be).

As to IP..I'm not sure what I want to do..speakers, well, they are not high on my list of things that are important.

Jn
 
#4,663
Patents these days sure seem oriented toward large corporations, and to nullify the ability for anyone to ever have a great idea and profit.

But if I follow correctly then the best thing you can do is immediately publish or sell a product to prevent someone flush with cash from running to the patent office then suing you.
 
#4,664
I would agree about that.... go take the plunge and try to make money and license it also to every speaker maker. OR, publish it and get fame but no fortune. But, if it works well for little cost/effort, you could affect an entire industry to start making them 'your' way. Then you can work as a consultant to the industry and make money that way. The mfr'ers need you to show them how to do it well.


-RM
 
Last edited:
#4,665
who owns the IP? That comes down to who were the contributors here which lead you to the conclusion/design you want to patent. Who helped flush out the issues leading to this approach. You would have to list them all as co-patent owners on it and each of us involved ... materially or by influence etal ... would be able to use patent without royalty.

Fun stuff, isn't it?

For example.... I say... do it like thus... and you say... change this a little this or that way and have another new thing and It's my idea ... my patent. No. You both own it.



-RM
 
Last edited:
#4,668

Attachments

  • Dr. Knowlton.PNG
    Dr. Knowlton.PNG
    106 KB · Views: 263
#4,669
jneutron said:
, rapid cycling medical cyclotrons..
Click to expand...

Cyclotrons are continuous. Rapid cycling synchrotrons are great for hadron therapy but expensive. It isn't that people don't know to make them. Now, some of the gantry magnets are a different thing. People are trying to figure out how to make them on a commercial budget where having one go wrong can be financially disastrous.

Turns out you need to use protons or carbon. Protons are less costly, carbon is expensive. One reason it is so expensive is very few can raise the money to build a machine, so development of the technology is slow. Carbon therapy is perhaps the worst and most extreme example of expensive medicine.
 
Last edited:
#4,670
RNMarsh said:
who owns the IP? That comes down to who were the contributors here which lead you to the conclusion/design you want to patent. Who helped flush out the issues leading to this approach. You would have to list them all as co-patent owners on it and each of us involved ... materially or by influence etal ... would be able to use patent without royalty.

Fun stuff, isn't it?

For example.... I say... do it like thus... and you say... change this a little this or that way and have another new thing and It's my idea ... my patent. No. You both own it.



-RM
Click to expand...
Bingo.

You have correctly identified my question.
Jn
 
#4,671
Markw4 said:
Cyclotrons are continuous. Rapid cycling synchrotrons are great for hadron therapy but expensive. It isn't that people don't know to make them. Now, some of the gantry magnets are a different thing. People are trying to figure out how to make them on a commercial budget where having one go wrong can be financially disastrous.
Click to expand...
Actually, people don't really know how to make them.

For instance, standard procedure is to weld the laminations to prevent movement, and to prevent the possibility of untoward voltages on the iron. The eddies cause the beam to broaden and become less focused. The prototype we are testing now in the production bay, I looked at it for five minutes and identified quite a few problems... Some of which are consistent with problems speakers have.

The tech I've worked on for 23 years can make a supercon gantry about 2 meters long and two tons, whereas Heidelberg is room temp and about 30 feet cube and 60 tons (trying to remember if it was 30, 60, or 300 tons, but honestly does it matter?). The funding process is not very good, it can be frustrating to have the tech but not be allowed to do it.

Edit: I see you added... My gantry example was for carbon 12. What is interesting about that is penetration depth is directly tied to energy. Focusing and bending are dependent on energy as well, so the gantry has to do both. Normal superconductor cables cannot take ramp rates well, they tend to quench because of skinning. Tech we developed (me actually, but I cannot own it) can ramp at kilo amps per second and we know how to quench detect through that high ramp enviro..but...no funding. It's an odd disconnect really. We're too expensive for production parts, but we should be funded to develop. I suspect it's the public vs private thing.
Jn
 
Last edited:
#4,672
People have been making rapid cycling synchrotrons for physics research for a long time. If the money is there they can be made. There aren't a lot of them made and every one is different. So each one may have some development problems. Scanning a superconducting magnet is however a comparatively big deal. People have been trying to make do with large apertures and do the scanning upstream as you probably already did.

Anyone tell you how many lives could be saved by one carbon machine as compared to protons, photons, electrons, etc.? Mostly we are talking about a small number of children with fairly rare cancers. For them it would be maybe their best chance. But, one machine could serve a very large geographic area given the numbers of patients who can justify existence of the machine.

Of course, if some institution had a machine the doctors would use it for lots of other things just because they could. Insurance reimbursements would never pay the cost.

As you may surmise, I didn't just read all this stuff somewhere in a newspaper or journal article.

Aside: penetration depth is tied to energy, but tail toxicity limits candidate species. Some kind of carbon is around the sweet spot for heavy ions.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom