Ergonomics means comfortable operation under control. Comfort has little to do with it. It is for the purpose of reducing the force required, and the precision of the let-off point, which relates to accuracy. A trigger can be uncomfortable and still have a highly predictable let-off point and require less force. The purpose of a fine point, predictable let-off is to reduce the movement of the weapon for accuracy. Nothing more. The comfort of the finger is not a reason for it.
Many inventions are forgotten. However, the technology has since been liscenced. BTW, electrically ignited cannon in the 19th century do not necessarily use an electrically triggered cartridge, an electric switch for a trigger, or electrical conduits in the bolt, or anything at all that is posted here.
I suppose it could be the same, I would have to see the details to know. But my intent is not to say that I had the idea first. Only that I could have had the patent, and should have, and had I applied, all firearms using this technology would have had to liscence it from me to manufacture it unless they were willing to break the law and place themselves in liability for a law suit.
BTW, the Daystate rifles you mention are brand new technology, and I am sure that it was liscenced from the one who got a patent on “MY” invention in 2000 - 8 years after I illustrated and described it for that purpose. What a mistake it was not to send it in eh?
For ease of comparison, I present below the claims from the patent cited by IRONMAN.
- An electrically activated primer for use in small arms ammunition, comprising:
an electrically conductive cup having a bottom and opposed side walls defining an internal chamber, said bottom including an aperture formed therein;
wherein the primer is sized so as to have a primer volume within a range of approximately 0.001 cubic inches to 0.010 cubic inches;
a conductive explosive material received within said internal chamber in an amount sufficient to initiate firing of the ammunition;
a contact positioned within said internal chamber adjacent said bottom of said cup in contact with said explosive material for actuating said explosive upon application of an electrical charge, said contact having a reduced thickness sufficient to enable a desired volume of explosive to be received within said internal chamber, wherein said contact has a thickness of between approximately 0.010 inches and approximately 0.030 inches;
an insulating liner received within said cup for separating said contact from said cup; and
a retaining means received within said cup for retaining said explosive material therein.
The primer of claim 1 and wherein said insulating liner comprises at least one polymeric material.
The primer of claim 2 and wherein said insulating liner comprises at least one polymeric material having an impact toughness of approximately 1 ft-lb/in, a heat distortion temperature of at least 175.degree. F., and a modulus of elasticity of at least approximately 130,000 psi.
The primer of claim 1 and wherein said insulating liner is configured to fit between said contact and said cup to isolate said contact from said cup and retain said contact within said cup after discharge of said explosive.
The primer of claim 1 and wherein the desired quantity of explosive received within said internal chamber comprises approximately 12% to 18% of the primer volume.
The primer of claim 1 and wherein said contact includes a nipple portion that projects at least partially into said aperture formed in said bottom of said cup so that as said explosive material is exploded, said contact is at least partially reshaped to fill and seal said aperture without being reshaped to an extent that would cause rupture of the contact and permit high pressure gas leakage.
The primer of claim 1 and wherein said insulating liner includes a conductive material to provide shunt current paths from said contact to said cup.
An electrically actuated primer for small arms ammunition, comprising:
a cup having a bottom with an aperture formed therein and opposed side walls defining an internal chamber;
an electrically conductive explosive material received within said internal chamber of said cup;
a contact mounted adjacent to said bottom of said cup in contact with said explosive, said contact being formed from a deformable, electrically conductive material for transmitting an electric charge for activating said explosive material, and having a nipple portion which projects at least partially into said aperture of said cup to receive an electric charge for activating said explosive material, when said nipple portion is displaced from said bottom of said cup at least a distance h, wherein h is defined by the equation
h=R+L-((2R+2L).sup.2 -D.sup.2)/2
wherein
R is a radius of a tip of an electrostatic discharge source,
L is a maximum distance from said electrostatic discharge source to said nipple portion, and
D is a diameter of said aperture; and,
an insulating liner positioned between said cup and said contact for supporting and insulating said contact from said cup,
whereby as an electric charge is transmitted through said contact and said explosive material is initiated said contact is reshaped against said insulating liner to substantially fill said aperture and seal said cup against gas leakage.
The electrically actuated primer of claim 8 and wherein the primer has a volume of less than approximately 0.010 cubic inch.
The electrically actuated primer of claim 9 and wherein said explosive material comprises approximately 12% to approximately 18% of the total volume of the primer.
The electrically actuated primer of claim 8 and wherein said cup is formed from an electrically conductive material.
The electrically activated primer of claim 8 and wherein said insulating liner is configured to fit between said contact and said cup to separate said contact from said cup and retain said contact within said cup after discharge of said explosive.
The electrically actuated primer of claim 8 and further including a retaining means received in said cup over said explosive for retaining said explosive within said internal chamber of said cup.
An electrically actuated primer for small arms ammunition, comprising:
a cup having a bottom with an aperture formed therein and opposed side walls defining an internal chamber;
an electrically conductive explosive material received within said internal chamber of said cup;
a contact mounted adjacent said bottom of said cup in contact with said explosive, said contact being formed from a deformable, electrically conductive material for transmitting an electric charge for actuating, said explosive material, and having a nipple portion which projects at least partially into said aperture of said cup to receive an electric charge for actuating said explosive material, wherein said contact has a thickness of approximately 0.010 inches to approximately 0.030 inches; and
an insulating liner positioned between said cup and said contact for supporting and insulating said contact from said cup,
whereby as an electric charge is transmitted through said contact and said explosive material is initiated, said contact is reshaped against said insulating liner to substantially fill said aperture and seal said cup against gas leakage.
The electrically actuated primer of claim 14 and wherein said cup is formed from an electrically conductive material.
The electrically actuated primer of claim 14 and wherein said nipple portion of said contact has a thickness of approximately 0.010 inch to approximately 0.015 inch.
The electrically activated primer of claim 14 and wherein said insulating liner is configured to fit between said contact and said cup to separate said contact from said cup and retain said contact within said cup after discharge of said explosive.
The electrically actuated primer of claim 14 and further including a retaining means received in said cup over said explosive for retaining said explosive within said internal chamber of said cup.
The electrically actuated primer of claim 14 and wherein the primer has a volume of less than approximately 0.010 cubic inch.
The electrically actuated primer of claim 14 and wherein said explosive material comprises approximately 12% to approximately 18% of the total volume of the primer.
Ref: United State Patent Office, Patent No. 6,487,972.
IRONMAN’s document outlines the method by which a cartridge may be electrically detonated, at a schematic outline level. The patent he cites describes an electrically detonated primer suitable for use in small arms in more detail.
The concept of a firearm where the propellant is activated by means of an electrical rather than mechanical system is at least half a century old, whilst the more detailed design of an electrically detonated primer suitable for use in small arms is somewhat newer, as the date on which the patent was issued indicates. It would seem that although IRONMAN may have independently thought of electrical activation of the propellant, he is some 50-plus years late. The patent is irrelevant to his claim in this respect, being related to the design of the primer itself and not the method by which it is detonated.
The patent is not relevant? You did not read or look very carefully.
There is something about patents that you are unaware of it seems. If someone patents a thing, it is irrelevant what they call it. If someone applies for a patent that uses the technology described in another patent, and which is a part of that patent, then the application is not granted, because the 1st patent provides for the technology already. That is fact. If you don’t believe me, look it up in the US Patent Office.
You could not, for example, patent an electrically discharged primer if an electrically discharged primer is described as part of an electrically discharged cartridge for which a patent has already been granted. That would be patent infringement.
Similarly, you could not patent a self-powered slingshot that uses a spring powered motor to pull back the rubber band if a patent has already been granted for a self-powered slingshot that uses an electric motor to pull back the bubber band. One would be an infringement of the other’s patent.
However, the electrically discharged primer is clearly defined in my invention, and because it is a part of the invention of the electrically discharged bullet cartridge, nobody would have been able to patent it without commiting infringement.
Had I sent it to the US patent Office, they would have granted me patents for:
A) the Electrically Discharged Firearm Cartridge
B) the Electrically Discharged Firearm Primer
…because each of those components are clearly described and illustrated, had not been patented at that time, and were not for another 8 years.
That’s how patents work. You cannot be granted a patent for something that is already a component of another patent.
If you look at the first text description of the invention, I mention the primer itself being electrically discharging. When it comes to patents, it is the description and any accompanying illustrations that matter, not the names used for the components.
Patents are not granted for names. They are granted for unpatented things which are clearly described. Names or catch-phrases may be trademarked, but that is a completely seperate issue. Read it again. 
To be fair Ironman is not claiming to have unilateraly invented electronic ignition but is claiming to have invented a particular method of firing smallarms cartridges. Furthermore it is not necessary to understand much about firearms to think of such a device, indeed inventions in many areas hae been thought up by people who know shag-all about the business.
I would still argue that ergonomics refers to the interaction between man and machine in general though, rather than simply a matter of comfort. Things designed with ergonomics in mind are more comfortable but the science itself is purely concerned with machine-people interactions.
Ofcourse not!
However, it might be interesting to know that caseless ammunition is not cost effective at this time. It also has problems that have not been solved. Caseless ammunition (1960’s idea) does not operate on the same prinicple as the electic primer either, hence the patent for the electic primer was granted in 2000.
Not a particular method, but the electric firearm itself, and it’s components. There were no patents granted for this technology at the time when I designed them.
My invention of the Electric Firearm includes:
A) the Electrically Discharged Firearm Cartridge
B) the Electrically Discharged Firearm Primer.
All 3 are are described and illustrated, and none of them were pateneted until 8 years later.
Two-stage triggers exist because they improve accuracy, and for no other reason.
Maybe im wrong but I was under the impression that you cannot patent an “Idea”. So is it safe to assume IRONMAN that your actually built what you are refering to??? As im sure that they would have needed the physical concept to establish any differences in your design. I just would have guessed that you would posted images of that along with your other posts. :?: :?: :?:
Just curious.
As I understand it General, you can patent a thing by concept alone. Perhaps that is why the US Patent Office requires a detailed description and an illustration to grant a patent. That is how I understand it. I have not built what I designed.
I think you can or at least could at on time patent an idea, I seem to remember that the mother of Mike Nesmith ( wolly hatted member of 60’s tv pop combo ,the Monkeys and MTV guru) patented the idea rather than the product for liquid correction fluid (Tippex ) and scooped in around 36 mil although this may be one of those urban myths. I’m just off to the patent office site to register Warp Drive, Photon Torpedoes and Phasers, back in a mo.
Not if i beat you there first. 
I better go ahead and start buying property on Mars and the Moon too. By god you may get the Warp drive and torpedos but im getting the cloaking device and the light saber for sure. Do you think you could patent “the force”??? I think Yoda lives in my backyard so ill have to ask him.
I want to share something with you guys (that I dont know but feel strangely comfortable with) that I have never shared with anyone on the internet.
“The details of my life are quite inconsequential… very well, where do I begin? My father was a relentlessly self-improving boulangerie owner from Belgium with low grade narcolepsy and a penchant for buggery. My mother was a fifteen year old French prostitute named Chloe with webbed feet. My father would womanize, he would drink. He would make outrageous claims like he invented the question mark. Sometimes he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy. The sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament. My childhood was typical. Summers in Rangoon, luge lessons. In the spring we’d make meat helmets. When I was insolent I was placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds- pretty standard really. At the age of twelve I received my first scribe. At the age of fourteen a Zoroastrian named Vilma ritualistically shaved my testicles. There really is nothing like a shorn scrotum… it’s breathtaking- I highly suggest you try it.”
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Didn’t someone already patent those things? Didn’t someone already provide illustrations of “The Force” and Mars and the Moon and Warp Drive and cloaking devices and light sabers with detailed descriptions to the US patent Office? Didn’t the US Patent Office already determing that those things are manufacturable? :shock:
Maybe I was mistaken.
BTW, I think the Monkeys were cool in their day. :o
And you are aluding that I have made lots of false claims eh? You’re lost. Actually, I’ve done quite a lot to clear up a lot of false bullsmackey that has been posted here. You’re included. :lol:
On the plus side, your mouth is bigger than than the facts, and only proves your insolence, since you see the truth for yourself, right here. The next time you open your mouth to spout insolence, make sure that it has a foundation, because without it, you simply look like someone nobody should listen to.
In light of the evidence, what a foolish punk you’ve made yourself out to be, eh?
You know, if people did not spout bullhockey at me, I would have no reason to respond in kind, but since I am not the intimidatable man they think they can make me out to be, shit happens. Let’s not forget that all things are British! :shock:
[quote] Crab_to_be wrote:
If it were any other person posting, I’d have assumed this was fishing. The trouble here is that the claim is no less bold, unjustified and wrong than some claims previously posted in other areas. On the plus side, my flatmate has done well out of this as I mentioned it to him and he’s spent a happy morning reading up on electric priming systems.
And you are aluding that I have made lots of false claims eh? You’re lost. Actually, I’ve done quite a lot to clear up a lot of false bullsmackey that has been posted here. You’re included.
On the plus side, your mouth is bigger than than the facts, and only proves your insolence, since you see the truth for yourself, right here. The next time you open your mouth to spout insolence, make sure that it has a foundation, because without it, you simply look like someone nobody should listen to.
In light of the evidence, what a foolish punk you’ve made yourself out to be, eh? [/quote]
Apologies for
a) going off topic,
b) biting the second fishing post on this thread.
I reverse order:
In the absence of any evidence that I am either foolish or a punk, I think we can agree that this statement is incorrect.
I am impertinent and insolent. This claim is laughable because it carries the assumption that you are worthier of respect than I am. One of the advantages of a forum is that everyone is roughly equal. I could be impertinent to a mod, and they would deal with that. The only person I have ever seen post on a forum who deserved any kind of deference is the Lord Tim Garden (apologies for lack of post-nominals) who participated as a normal, functional member of society.
The relative size of mouth and facts is as difficult to quantify as, say, the relative size of a conquest based mediterranean empire a trade based global empire. As I suggested there, you’d need a pre-determined set of metrics by which you could measure them or the comparison would be meaningless. Of course, you ignored this suggestion last time I posted it, so why should you bother now.
I will return to the relation between your undimensioned sketches and broad outline of an idea and the detailed specifications included in the patent later. Wait out on that one.
Your assertion that you have cleared up lots of ‘bullsmackey’ does not relate to the utter drivel that you have also posted. We’ll use two of my posts as an example. The first is on the jet engine, where I did my very best to clarify the matter of why a compressor fan is not considered to be the same as a fan when discussing a complete aero gas turbine. That post is both correct and undisputed. The second was my assertion that the Welsh Cavalry took part in a large MBT battle during Op. Telic. That was false - it was the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards, not the Royal Welsh Dragoon Guards (not least as the Welsh Cav. use CVR(T)s instead of MBTs). However, the veracity of one post does not affect the veracity of the other. Similarly, you may have corrected misunderstandings elsewhere (although I do not concede this) that does not mean that any rubbish you posted elsewhere is any less rubbish.
I’m not aluding that [sic] you have made false claims. I am stating as fact that you have made claims that are false.
A sample of false claims:
-
Gurkha. -
The spitfire was an American design, built in America. That is wrong on the grounds that it was a British design, built in Britain. In fact, having reviewed the thread on fighters, I can't help thinking that you have mistaken the spitfire for another aircraft entirely. -
Effective range of the SA-80 A1 and SA-80 A2 (IW) as a section weapon. This is 600 metres. No ifs or buts. It's 600 metres. The TAM (Tactical Aide Memoire) says so. And I believe what the TAM tells me until my Platoon Sergeant tells me differently.I seem not to be lost at all. Additionally, where I have disputed something, I have laid out my arguments and the supporting evidence as the foundation for my argument. Where I am rude, I am rude about the quality of argument or facts presented and substantiate it where necessary. Note the significant difference between ‘I believe you are wrong because of […]’ and ‘you are a dweeblette’. One is an opinion, backed up with evidence. The other is an opinion that is not backed up with evidence, not relevant to the argument and not in any way useful.
You can call leader until your ass bleeds, but it doesn’t make it true
I never claimed that. :shock: Post the link if you can, but you cannot.[/quote]
Yes, you did:
Once more:
[quote=“IRONMAN”]
No. You are in the Nevernever Land of physics. You are so far off that it is diffifult to conceive such a horrendous error of logical thinking. I have not seen such an illogical, completely out-of-touch statement in my life (I don’t think).[/quote]
From: http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=216&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=75
From: http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=216&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=75
All in context of this original statement here:
From: http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=216&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=45
and a further clarification here:
From: http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=216&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=60
Given your statements and the situation described above (and elaborated upon further by Man of Stoat), your statements make sense if and only if air has the same density as titanium or nickel alloy. It was explained to you that the redesign required would consist largely of adding a lot of air space to the engine, but you persisted in claiming that weight would scale with size.
Oh, and you also seem to think that efficiency is affected by the weight of the engine. It is for aircraft, but not engines - specific fuel consumption for engines is quoted in terms of thrust per unit mass of fuel burnt.
Hello forum. First post so be gentle.
Don’t beat yourself up about missing out on your fortune Ironman - you didn’t.
That patent you’ve shown appears to be more of an engineering improvement to the already existing concept of electrically primed rounds - which is not what your invention is for. They have technical detail of how to make electric primer succesful in small arms - not that it hadn’t been tried before and found to be lacking.
The idea of the electric primer - and hence the electric cartridge and electric firearm is even older than suggested by others. I direct you to a 1902 patent - US Patent Office Pat No 712826. You can view copies of the original documents online (you’ll need to click “Images” since it’s so old it’s just been scanned). Even this is unlikely to be the first electric primer - this is a patent looking to combine percussion and electric priming - presumably so you can have a choice of which to use.
Given that the US Military alone has an electrically primed ammunition firing cannon in most of it’s fighter aircraft - and has done since the 1960’s (except from that period where they decided cannon’s were outdated he he) I highly doubt it’s been forgotten.
Had you submitted your patent for an electric firearm and cartridge - they would do a patent search to find if what you propose as your patent application is truly new or novel. Without actual detail of why your idea builds upon the state of the art - a state of the art which already includes electrically primed arms and the rounds to go in them - it would not be successful.
Again - you invented an electric firearm and cartridge, genuinely believing this to be new. It is not, unfortunately. This happens to MANY inventors. Probably more inventors than ever receive patents, I would guess. That patent you’ve found “invents” a FORM of ammunition to make electric priming WORK BETTER in Small Arms - overcoming SPECIFIC problems of doing so. Look at their patent and drawings properly - their detail in design is far beyond “concept” level. They haven’t imagined an electrical contact to a round - they’ve detail designed the primer internally. An electrical contact is a simple and long established idea. You’d struggle to patent an electrical contact. Equally, you’d struggle to patent the electrical arms CONCEPT, since that’s been around since at least 1902, as proven by patent 712826.
People were filing patents involved with the actual detail of making this technology practical and efficient for decades before you thought it up again. I refer you as a mere first-thing-I-picked-from-the-list, to patent no. 3,019,732. Again, this is old - 1962, so you’ll have to click “images” to see it.
People had moved on to electric primer for Caseless rounds by 1980 (pat no 4,402,268). Indeed a patent of 3,580,113 (1971) claims to have invented a method for electrically firing caseless shotgun ammunition with no primer at all. Again - by 1971 people had long since moved on to ideas above and beyond the level of yours.
So good news. You didn’t miss out on a fortune. I’d be gutted if I were in your shoes and thought I had so hopefully this will be a weight off your mind! 
I’m still looking for the original patent for electrical primer (and not just improvements and developments thereof) and will post it if I do.
Patent Number 291,288 - “Electric Fire Arm” - 1884!!!
And I’m not even sure if that is the first!!!
100 year old! Man, who’d have thought it. Sorry Ironman old bean.
Hi Evan, Just to clarify…
I am the inventor of the Electric Bullet Cartridgeand the Electric Primer. I invented them in the late 1980’s, and I designed four variations of the inventions. This technology is significant because it is, in my opinion, the future of firearms.
I discovered that a patent had been granted for my inventions to someone else 8 years after I had designed them and mailed them to myself.
No you didnt, and what is an electric bullet?
since there is no firing pin involved, the weapon is more accurate because there is less movement and vibration. It could aslo make match rifles somewhat more accurate for professional competition shooting. In sniper rifles, the advantage is obvious.
the vibration and movement that effect firing are in the human component of the weapon, a two stage trigger allows better control of the point at which the shot wil be fired - allowing the marksman better opportunity to cordinate the firing of the weapon with the rise and fall and “vibration” of the weapon. The tensing of the index finger does not massively affect the accuracy of the weapon and it is something one learns to account for.
The movement of the weapon is in fact largely due to the weight of a reciprocating bolt and breech flying forward and backwards inside the TMH at a rate of knots, something that “your” weapon would also have to deal with (for removal of spent cases) , unless of course you invented the side opening or nut-cracher breach?
Incidentally on your design with both contacts arrange equidistant from the centre of the cartridge base, how do you ensure that the contacts on the cartridge meet cleany with the contacts in the weapon?
You know, if people did not spout bullhockey at me, I would have no reason to respond in kind, but since I am not the intimidatable man they think they can make me out to be, shit happens. Let’s not forget that all things are British!
That’s funny. I hit the ‘quote’ button to quote IRONMAN’s last post in its entirety, but that last para was missed out entirely. How curious… Is it possible to edit a post without the "edit by… edited X times in total’ message being displayed?
I never claimed that. :shock: Post the link if you can, but you cannot.[/quote]
Yes, you did:
[/quote]
No you dork. Nothing that you quoted is such a statement. Now you REALLY look like a dork.
:lol:
No, I have not, at least I have not made an error and not admitted it.
What is obvious however, is that it is truly pathetic that you come here and blather garbage for no good reason. What are you hoping to do? What is the point of griping here? You are motivated by something, and I have said nothing hateful toward you in this thread unless you did towards me first.
You simply want to be hateful, and that is pathetic.
I was right, wasn’t I. You did come here and blather your spittle. Didn’t you.
It is the clear implication from your statements (as any of the engineers on the board could tell you - as a matter of fact many already have). The only way your statements can possibly be accurate and make sense is air and nickel to have the same density for the conditions inside a jet engine.
This leaves four possible conclusions.
- Your statements were incorrect because you are a complete numpty who has no grasp whatsoever of any part of physics or engineering.
- You genuinely believe that nickel and air have the same density.
- You are deliberately lying in those statements for some unclear purpose.
- You are deliberately trolling to wind up the engineers on this forum.
I was initially leaning towards statement (2) because I like to believe the best in people and (3) and (4) require a person so devious and mendacious as to be implausible. (1) requires an epic level of stupidity and misunderstanding, but given your statement above I am forced to conclude that it is the only remaining option.
I assume so - TinWalt has edited his post at least twice while I have been replying to it, which is getting highly irritating.
Edit: phraseing