Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

User Menu

Custom Search

Author Topic: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie  (Read 643639 times)

Cloxxki

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1083
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #90 on: June 29, 2009, 06:24:21 PM »
It has a WIPO number, so looks like a granted patent to me, too.

The patent is obviosuly rather dated, 1998/1999. Are you aware of significant prior art before 1998 where Back EMF was attemptedly captured using a similar circuit? I suppose it would be your duty to contact its inventor, and WIPO with such information.

If little has been accomplished in real life with such circuits, it's at best costing the patent holders a lot in patent maintainance fees. Within a decade, it will be free for anyone to use.
Or is this a commercial product today?

S.Roksund

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 10
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #91 on: June 29, 2009, 06:39:18 PM »
Cloxxki, thank you for answering to my posting.
I will see what I can do to dig up similar circuits from time before 98/99.
It may take some effort though. I am not aware of a commercial product.
Else -  I agree with you.

To Groundloop;
I guess it is you that must contact me first. My mail is in the profile.

Rgds
SR

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #92 on: June 29, 2009, 10:53:00 PM »
Well, I've looked in the USPTO database, and as far as I can tell that is a patent application, not a patent. Certainly Rosemary Ainslie has no US patent in her name that I can find. But when searching for applications the WIPO application comes up.


ramset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8073
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #93 on: June 30, 2009, 01:31:49 AM »
S.Roksund

You are in good company here ,men of like mind looking for answers.
you mentioned a circuit cop< 2-5
This is not common here ,can you share?
I hope so
Chet

S.Roksund

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 10
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #94 on: June 30, 2009, 08:12:09 PM »
It is good if no patent has been issued.
I will post my electronic schema and a component list - as
well as the measurement methods I have used, here in this forum.
My intention is  that someone (hopefully) will make a replicate and test.
When I get the circuit and measurements confirmed, I will start making
units that can be tested in practice - before I start the production.
If all fails, - well it has been exciting all the way, and I have learnt a lot.
I am leaving to celebrate my mother (98), so no posting until next week.
Rgds
Sigvald

rensseak

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 330
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #95 on: June 30, 2009, 09:42:48 PM »
Well, I've looked in the USPTO database, and as far as I can tell that is a patent application, not a patent. Certainly Rosemary Ainslie has no US patent in her name that I can find. But when searching for applications the WIPO application comes up.


http://v3.espacenet.com/searchResults?locale=en_EP&IN=Rosemary+Ainslie&ST=advanced&compact=false&DB=EPODOC&submitted=true



TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #96 on: June 30, 2009, 10:21:40 PM »

http://v3.espacenet.com/searchResults?locale=en_EP&IN=Rosemary+Ainslie&ST=advanced&compact=false&DB=EPODOC&submitted=true

Thank you. Those all look like Applications, not issued patents. There are no "B" documents, they are all "A" or "A1" as far as I can tell.

From the FAQs:

"What does A1, A2, A3 and B stand for after an EP publication number in the "Also published as" list?
   
     When a European patent application is published together with the search report, it is known as an A1 publication. When this application is published without the search report, it is an A2 document. The search report is then published later as an A3 document. When the patent is granted, it is published as a B document."

Groundloop

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 1736
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #97 on: June 30, 2009, 10:45:47 PM »
@S.Roksund,

I'm glad you decided to open source your circuit. When you are ready to post you information, please ask Stefan Hartmann, Moderator of overunity.com forum, to make you a new thread. Then ask him to make you the moderator of your new thread.

Looking forward to your information.

Regards,
Groundloop.

rensseak

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 330
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #98 on: July 01, 2009, 09:04:05 AM »
Thank you. Those all look like Applications, not issued patents. There are no "B" documents, they are all "A" or "A1" as far as I can tell.

From the FAQs:

"What does A1, A2, A3 and B stand for after an EP publication number in the "Also published as" list?
   
     When a European patent application is published together with the search report, it is known as an A1 publication. When this application is published without the search report, it is an A2 document. The search report is then published later as an A3 document. When the patent is granted, it is published as a B document."

i think it then never reached the status B1

Groundloop

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 1736
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #99 on: July 01, 2009, 11:35:10 PM »
@ramset,

I saw you post over at Energetic Forum where you said:

"One good thing ,a fellow from Holland showed up on the thread at OU".

If you are referring to S.Roksund (Retired electronic engineer with some 35 years of experience.) then he is from Norway, not Holland.

I'm in email contact with him and will cooperate with him to be able to replicate his circuits.

Regards,
Groundloop.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2009, 02:22:29 AM by Groundloop »

ramset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8073
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #100 on: July 02, 2009, 01:08:39 AM »
OOpppss....
Thanks Groundloop
Sorry Mr Roksund
Chet
« Last Edit: July 02, 2009, 01:32:37 AM by ramset »

WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3141
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #101 on: July 02, 2009, 02:02:16 AM »
Build the circuit as shown in the Quantum paper. Look at the duty cycle produced by the timer portion.
Then, tell me who has made the ee101 mistake.

Then, once you've done that, tell me logically why I should bother to do any more testing, since the ORIGINAL Ainslie circuit produces the WRONG duty cycle.

And while you're at it, tell me why Stiffler has made ee101 mistakes in every post he's made over there.
so i take it that is a no then. you still don't have the "exact" fet.

rosemarie did. then you did also.

as i said before, i agree with you about the duty cycle (only because you failed to get the fet into self oscillation...) and i don't care what you do on who, just don't tell me it's "exact", or you replicated it "exactly" here or on any other forum until it is "exact".

why are you bringing stiffler into it? did he help you pick out the wrong fet? did he put the words "exact" or "exactly" in your posts? misdirection and ad hominem...
« Last Edit: July 02, 2009, 02:54:52 AM by WilbyInebriated »

ramset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8073
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #102 on: July 02, 2009, 02:26:06 AM »
Wilbynice?
Or Wilby Not nice?
TK was just getting there attention[seems pretty hard to do!!]
Can anything be exact ?
What I would like to know is, why so much off time?
Why so many hours to accumulate the "EFFECT'

Chet
PS
and Stiffler threw some low blows [made fun of the penguin[mascot]

WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3141
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #103 on: July 02, 2009, 02:35:04 AM »
Wilbynice?
Or Wilby Not nice?
TK was just getting there attention[seems pretty hard to do!!]
Can anything be exact ?
What I would like to know is, why so much off time?
Why so many hours to accumulate the "EFFECT'

Chet
PS
and Stiffler threw some low blows [made fun of the penguin[mascot]
i dont care what stiffler did or didn't do, it's irrelevant.
no, nothing can be exact. obviously semiconductor components have a inherent variation even from the same batch, but for the love of zeus get the right fet before one calls it "exact". i should hope you can see this self evident truth and not have issue with that.
i asked TK a simple question at the beginning of this thread and all he has done is beat around the bush. if it's not exact don't use the word exact... and furthermore, if it's not exact don't be a pompous ass while using the word exact and expect not to get called on it, especially after someone asked you on page 1 of the thread if you planned on doing it "exactly".

PS i think TK does great work, he just never quite does it exactly ;)
PPS i agree with stiffler, stuffed animals are for children...

WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3141
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #104 on: July 02, 2009, 02:47:06 AM »
it's not TK's madness that i have issue with, it's his method.

if TK is not willing to retract/correct his erroneous statement about his circuit being "exact" why should rosemary retract/correct her paper?