Looking for a sheet that resists

well, part of doing a project is choosing one at the right level. A Doctor of nuclear physics might attempt a project to create a viable nuclear fusion reactor. If I did that, it would be laughable. You don't seem to have done anything at all with signal transmission, or done any experiments with electromagnetic waves but you're talking about all this wonky super science involving differentiating one electron from another or using multiphasic wave interference. So in short, the requirement for entry is that you know enough that your project is the logical next step. I suggest you start with experiments on a simpler level, use a multimeter and manually check how the resistance varies across a sheet of material, create a 555 timer frequency generator, do some basic tests on your idea, see if you can measure the resistance of two signals at once in a single material before you worry about pin pointing an object using it or making the sheet transparent.

blueroomelectronics said:

I found Jason's "Biodemometric" site. Might offer some insight to what Jason is getting at. (IMHO sounds like complete bunk)
**broken link removed**

Seems the product has a name and even though it doesn't exist he claims to have applied for a patent for the RBSM-1000. Care to share the patent # with us Jason?

Click to expand...

Now, I have to admit (especially in the context of this forum) that is funny!

What's even more amusing is that it was easy to tell who the author was even before getting to the byline. Rambling, repetitive, almost dhild-like prose. Perhaps an 8th pr 9th grader?

Actually, the premise is sound enough. I suppose, one could accurately postulate that a randomly selected cross-section of the world's population has never considered videotaping people's body language for the purpose of computer analysis. But, there is actually a lot of work being done in that area. The notion of videotaping and analyzing the nuances of body motion and language is a staple of companies like the movie outfit, Pixar. Of course, they take it a step further and impress the results onto CGI characters.

My understanding is that the only time you need a working model when applying for a patent (as opposed ot a description or drawings) is when the claim is for patenting a perpetual motion machine.

It's probably safe enough to tout that a patent is pending on a, RBSM-1000 if it doesn't actually exist. But, if it does, I agree that it would be interesting to see the patent application and perhaps a photograph of the setup.

Hey, I'll bet that the RBSM-1000 might be something the Scientologists would be interested in. I'm pretty sure that a RBSM-1000 could get Tom Cruise really jumping around in excitement on Oprah's couch....(hehe...even after all this time I still giggle like a school girl when I think of that)

In light of what appears to be his tender age rather than a gaming skill, I'll lighten up. Sorry, kid.

Patent Pending

blueroomelectronics said:

PS patents are pretty much useless for sub $12,000,000 dollar ideas. And a DIY one is worthless, you need a patent lawyer and can cost from $10K to $100K

Click to expand...

That's true. There's an old (very accurate) saying in the invetor's world. "A patent is only as good as the amount of money you have available to defend it".

Isn't that a TV series called "Lie to Me" where the guy studies body language to determine the truth?

Triode said:

Can I patent cold fusion, teleportation, a cure for cancer and light speed travel? I haven't created them but I'd like to.

Click to expand...

Without addressing the specific things that you mentioned, I don't think that you have to create something to patent it. I think that it is the design that matters - and where you submit the application to. Please do not take anything that I am saying as accepted. However, for example, if a person experienced within a field that relates to your invention knows how to make something, you might be able to state part of your idea as a means for doing that something. For example, if my game were patentable, I might say a means for detecting locations, a means for electronically interrogating said means for detecting locations, etc. In this case, the means for electronically detecting locations could be a chemical sensor, radar, sonar, video, etc. It recently occurred to me that phrases such as electronically communicating and electronically interrogating may be copy written. However, it is difficult to tell because so many of the descriptions in the patents that I was reading were probably specialized. Also, I think that ideas might have to be novel and unobvious to be patentable.

Hero999 said:

I can see what you're asking but you need to learn the basic first.

For the final time, answer the questions I set you or I will not help you.

Click to expand...

My determination is that I could use help identifying a formula that is applicable to my project. I am not certain that your questions involve a formula that is applicable in this sense. I could also use help with math, but I'm more concerned about the formula at this time.

jasonbe,
Don't worry about arguing with them.

Help yourself by attempting the problems I set you.
EDIT:

I am not certain that your questions involve a formula that is applicable in this sense.

Click to expand...

They are applicable, don't question this, if you want me to help, answer them; I will not tell you again.

Everyone else,
Don't bother arguing with jasonbe.

I'm prepared to give him one last chance, that's my problem I know but please don't make it any harder than it needs to be.

blueroomelectronics said:

You should take the phrase "patent pending" off your description on your site. Are you in Europe, North America or elsewhere?

PS patents are pretty much useless for sub $12,000,000 dollar ideas. And a DIY one is worthless, you need a patent lawyer and can cost from $10K to $100K
https://www.electro-tech-online.com/custompdfs/2009/07/casagpat-1.pdf

Click to expand...

Why should I take the phrase "patent pending" off?

Are you planning on hiring a patent lawyer?
1. If not it'll never stand up in court, no chance. Even a well written patent can fall apart.
2. you've already discussed it on an open forum and your site. You may not be able to get a patent based on this or it's possible somebody may have already gone to the patent office with your idea.
3. lets say Sony wants your idea, well they could offer you a modest sum (unlikely) or simply just built it and wait for you to sue. They have plenty of lawyers who specialize in patent disputes and you'll run out of money before they even break a sweat.

jasonbe said:

Why should I take the phrase "patent pending" off?

Click to expand...

Because it's fraudulent so say you have a patent pending if you don't. And you don't.

Triode said:

well, part of doing a project is choosing one at the right level. A Doctor of nuclear physics might attempt a project to create a viable nuclear fusion reactor. If I did that, it would be laughable. You don't seem to have done anything at all with signal transmission, or done any experiments with electromagnetic waves but you're talking about all this wonky super science involving differentiating one electron from another or using multiphasic wave interference. So in short, the requirement for entry is that you know enough that your project is the logical next step. I suggest you start with experiments on a simpler level, use a multimeter and manually check how the resistance varies across a sheet of material, create a 555 timer frequency generator, do some basic tests on your idea, see if you can measure the resistance of two signals at once in a single material before you worry about pin pointing an object using it or making the sheet transparent.

Click to expand...

I'd like to be able to use a multimeter to make a forumula of how resistance varies over a sheet of material that might be conveniently measured in units of feet square. However, I don't know enough about math to do this. Would this be purely statistical? Or, could it involve preexisting formulas? Is there a preexisting overall formula? What if I was also interested in the path of the current and how the current changed in paths - if there is more than one average path? At this time, I think that such an experiment is beyond my level. However, I do not think that not being able to do this type of experiment disqualifies me from participating at this site. Whether this is your opinion or not, I think that I can say that it is of many of the people who have been participating. Should a request for information about if there is only one current path between two point electrical conacts on a sheet conveniently measured in feet square - and how the paths might be modelled if there are multiple paths, be considered unreasonable at this site?

Hero999 said:

jasonbe,
Don't worry about arguing with them.

Help yourself by attempting the problems I set you.
EDIT:

They are applicable, don't question this, if you want me to help, answer them; I will not tell you again.

Everyone else,
Don't bother arguing with jasonbe.

I'm prepared to give him one last chance, that's my problem I know but please don't make it any harder than it needs to be.

Click to expand...

If you were offering me help with math, then I might ask you some more questions and answer yours. However, because my question is electronic, I think that I should know how current flow relates to L before I consider using formulas that might not be as applicable to my project as I would like for them to be.

blueroomelectronics said:

Are you planning on hiring a patent lawyer?
1. If not it'll never stand up in court, no chance. Even a well written patent can fall apart.
2. you've already discussed it on an open forum and your site. You may not be able to get a patent based on this or it's possible somebody may have already gone to the patent office with your idea.
3. lets say Sony wants your idea, well they could offer you a modest sum (unlikely) or simply just built it and wait for you to sue. They have plenty of lawyers who specialize in patent disputes and you'll run out of money before they even break a sweat.



Because it's fraudulent so say you have a patent pending if you don't. And you don't.

Click to expand...

You would be helping me by referring me to a source that documents what patent pending means in the United States.

Why not read the link I posted eariler on why not to patent. Or contact a patent lawyer. Or wikipedia on patents.

crashsite said:

Now, I have to admit (especially in the context of this forum) that is funny!

What's even more amusing is that it was easy to tell who the author was even before getting to the byline. Rambling, repetitive, almost dhild-like prose. Perhaps an 8th pr 9th grader?

Actually, the premise is sound enough. I suppose, one could accurately postulate that a randomly selected cross-section of the world's population has never considered videotaping people's body language for the purpose of computer analysis. But, there is actually a lot of work being done in that area. The notion of videotaping and analyzing the nuances of body motion and language is a staple of companies like the movie outfit, Pixar. Of course, they take it a step further and impress the results onto CGI characters.

My understanding is that the only time you need a working model when applying for a patent (as opposed ot a description or drawings) is when the claim is for patenting a perpetual motion machine.

It's probably safe enough to tout that a patent is pending on a, RBSM-1000 if it doesn't actually exist. But, if it does, I agree that it would be interesting to see the patent application and perhaps a photograph of the setup.

Hey, I'll bet that the RBSM-1000 might be something the Scientologists would be interested in. I'm pretty sure that a RBSM-1000 could get Tom Cruise really jumping around in excitement on Oprah's couch....(hehe...even after all this time I still giggle like a school girl when I think of that)

In light of what appears to be his tender age rather than a gaming skill, I'll lighten up. Sorry, kid.

Click to expand...

It is interesting that you would say that you could tell who the author was before getting to the byline. That you would say that confirms something that I though about - and that is probably likely being done - analyzing peoples' writing. I am not sure how much information is publicly available about the origin of computer communication activity that could be used to correlate geographical areas with patterns that might be able to be analyzed from changes in peoples' writing and what such a study could reveal sociologically, neurologically, and dynamically. However, I would be interested in a description intended for a layperson that would describe methods of analyzing written structures. What would be optimal geographical sampling techniques?

blueroomelectronics said:

Why not read the link I posted eariler on why not to patent. Or contact a patent lawyer. Or wikipedia on patents.

Click to expand...

Those are good ideas.

Paths of current between source and sink on large flat sheet

On a sheet that can be conveniently measured in meters squared, between a source and a sink, how can paths of current be described?

Why would you start yet another thread on exactly the same subject as your previous threads?

jasonbe said:

Without addressing the specific things that you mentioned, I don't think that you have to create something to patent it. I think that it is the design that matters - and where you submit the application to.

Click to expand...

In theory, patents, like copyrights don't need to be "filed" with the patent office. In practice, it's virtually impossible, even if you can prove that you were the first to come up with the idea, that you can win in court. All the plaintiff has to say is that they came up with the same idea independently. And, if they were the ones that patented it, they have the law on their side.

But, even if something is patented, it's no real protection. A guy I bought a property from one time was in the saw harpening business. He "invented" a tooth guard for hand saws. It was nothing more than a piece of plastic U channel that slipped over the teeth. But, he got it patented as the, Grogard (terrible product name but, his name was, Grogan so...). Anyway, Sears started selling some hand saws with a strip of plastic over the teeth and Grogan challenged them. Their defense was that the idea was so simple and intuitive that it was unpatentable (that's one of the tests). Of course Sears won. They had more money for lawyers. That fits in with the next part of your post.

jasonbe said:

Please do not take anything that I am saying as accepted. However, for example, if a person experienced within a field that relates to your invention knows how to make something, you might be able to state part of your idea as a means for doing that something. For example, if my game were patentable, I might say a means for detecting locations, a means for electronically interrogating said means for detecting locations, etc. In this case, the means for electronically detecting locations could be a chemical sensor, radar, sonar, video, etc. It recently occurred to me that phrases such as electronically communicating and electronically interrogating may be copy written. However, it is difficult to tell because so many of the descriptions in the patents that I was reading were probably specialized. Also, I think that ideas might have to be novel and unobvious to be patentable.

Click to expand...

Whenever you see those ads on TV for getting help with your patent, there's an outfit behind it that knows how to file a patent and promoter any invention you can come up with the cash to have them do it. Again, personal experience. I knew a guy who was always "inventing" stuff. Anyway, he invented a little plaque for bike safety. It was like a reflective mini license plate with the word, "BIKE" on it to alert drivers that you're riding a bike. They actually got a prototype made. I don't know how much it all cost but, I know that none ever sold.

I'm guessing that such a company would be thrilled to patent and promote your project...for a fee...and would stroke the hell out of you, convincing you what a fantastic idea it is and how it would be sure to sell like hotcakes. That's what they do.

Shoot for your team's goal...

jasonbe said:

It is interesting that you would say that you could tell who the author was before getting to the byline. That you would say that confirms something that I though about - and that is probably likely being done - analyzing peoples' writing. I am not sure how much information is publicly available about the origin of computer communication activity that could be used to correlate geographical areas with patterns that might be able to be analyzed from changes in peoples' writing and what such a study could reveal sociologically, neurologically, and dynamically. However, I would be interested in a description intended for a layperson that would describe methods of analyzing written structures. What would be optimal geographical sampling techniques?

Click to expand...

Watch, History Detectives on PBS Television. A lot of their investigations of historical artifact involves things like notes and letters and the "detectives", in addition to analyzing papers and inks, also examine handwriting and the content and context of them.

Of course, they use computers as well as many other methods for their examinations. I'm sure there's plenty more sophistication that could be applied and that computer resources will continue to be on the cutting edge.

I relied on none of those factors to see that the web page was authored by you. It just had that rambling, jumbled format common of your posts.

BTW: Your posts about the patent stuff really are a lot better and better organized. You might want to consider sticking with stuff you have more talent for?

blueroomelectronics said:

Why would you start yet another thread on exactly the same subject as your previous threads?

Click to expand...

Because he is a troll. I briefly engaged him on an earlier thread and started answering this particular question, but he has clearly 'forgotten' this post from this thread:

Tesla23 said:

I found a suitable picture of the current flow between two contacts



This is the solution to a different problem (which is why the lines are labelled E and H), but the equations being solved are the same and so the picture is relevant. In the picture the E lines correspond to current flow (and the closer the lines are together the higher the current density) and the H lines for your problem correspond to lines of equal voltage (with equal voltage difference between adjacent lines). Note that the current density gets very high around the conductors, and the voltage gradient increases. This is what makes the problem very sensitive to the actual area of contact, and what I think is the achilles heel of the design.

If you want to explore further, you can get Maxwell SV from Ansoft, a serious commercial solver that is free, and has no limitations for solving this sort of problem. **broken link removed**

Click to expand...