Design no. 1 (at the top) uses a single contact. It does not use a pair of them to create a spark gap. The electricity causes the primer material to ignite.
So you see, they are the same.
But the patent for an electrically discharged primer for use in small arms was granted in 2000 - which I illustrated in 1992. You have seen the patent yourself. Are you trying to claim it does not exist now?
How about that apology for saying that I altered the image?
Design no. 1 (at the top) uses a single contact. It does not use a pair of them to create a spark gap. The electricity causes the primer material to ignite.
So you see, they are the same.[/quote]
You do not mention anywhere a primer material, let alone an “electrically conductive primer composition”. Almost none of the features of RA’s claim 1 appear in your document, even by giving them an extremely broad reading (which is what we normally do). Please re-post the description scans so that we can all see that nowhere do you mention “an electrically conductive primer composition”.
Isn’t that what I said? Except you are incorrect about the “packing them in” bit. The materials used in batteries are charged by giving their atoms orbits additional free electrons. The electrons are not taken away from the material per se. The added electrons are removed to create current. Different elements can accept different numbers of electons in their orbits. Some elements will not accept any additional electrons, others will accept quite a few more than normal. Bateries use materials that will allow for the adding of electrons to the orbits of their atoms.
Again, design no. 1 has a contact protruding into a primer compound. The electrical current passing through the primer material is what causes ignition.
It does not matter if it is stated that the primer material is electrically conductive or not. The electrical current passing through the explosive material is used for ignition in BOTH my design and the patent. Had I sent in the application and then the other one sent in theirs later, they would not have been granted a patent, since a patent would have already been granted for the process of using an electrical current from a contact passing through a combustable material to detonate a primer for small arms! If they wished to market a primer using this technology for small arms with an electrically conductive explosive, they would have had to liscence the patent from me to do it!
Well, it is new technology for small arms. Thus the patent granted in 2000 for an electrically discharged ammunition primer, which has been liscened for research and development.
[/quote]
sigh. Except it’s NOT a new technology for small arms. It hasn’t found widespread usage, but I have shown you it’s as old as 1884 (although your persistence in ignoring this fact is breathtaking). Just because it’s never been as good as the alternatives, doesn’t make it new.
As for caseless ammunition, I thought gun makers had given up on it because of the problems they were having with it. I could be wrong though.
As I understand it, caseless is pretty much the only way to make the Metal Storm concept work. There’s no mechanism to eject empty cases after all. It’s just a bank of barrels filled with rounds, and the box has the electronics to address each barrel in sequence, all at once, in a ripple or other firing patterns. If you added the complication of cases, the whole thing would ramp up in complexity.
I imagine that many of the problems with caseless ammunition wouldn’t apply to Metal Storm either, since it’s physical complexity is about the same as a dispenser of McDonald’s drinks straws. 
Actually, I think the real future of small arms will be met when battery capacity technology has improved greatly. Then we will have laser weapons like in the scifi flicks. The trouble is packing enough electrons into a battery to make it work. The other end is the optical part of focusing a beam and keeping it from dispersing because of the atmosphere over long distances is what is keeping that technology from becoming reality.
Putting aside what has already been said about batteries, I would like to know just how much energy would need to be put to a laser in order to give fatal effects at combat ranges. And how would a soldier then carry a power source sufficient to give him (or her) multiple shots.
Certainly the US is moving ahead with YAL-1, which is an (frankly enormous) airborne laser which requires a 747-400F to carry it, and it must be trained on a theatre ballistic missile for “a period of time” (e.g. not instantly!) to heat the booster fuel tanks and cause them to rupture and destroy the missile.
Which begs the question, how much power and for how long (e.g. how much energy) to ‘zap’ other soldiers? Because if it’s a lot of power or energy you’re going to need an impossibly large power source for a man to carry, and if it’s for too long it is going to be pretty damn useless!
Enemy soldier: “Ouch that’s hot!” ducks
Laser-carrying soldier: “Damn! They got away again sir!”
The “how much energy” and “what power source” are questions I was looking for an answer too a while ago but didn’t find - do you have a link to the stuff the US has been developing to see if there’s a clue there?
I have noticed recently that the US is paying for development of a new weapon for the AC-130 (or maybe I just dreamt it?!?!). This will basically be a less than lethal “ray gun” in the strictest sense of the word (not sure, but I presume the rays mentioned were microwaves) which will be pointed at enemy combatants and give them a nice hot, boiling feelings under the skin and make them less keen on fighting. All very sci-fi. 
Yes it bloody well does matter whether it’s stated as being electrically conductive or not - in your design you don’t even mention a primer composition AT ALL! Re-post the original description, where it is clear that it is not mentioned. If I am wrong, re-posting the (un-edited) original will prove this.
The concept of novelty requires that ALL the characteristics of claim 1 appear in one other document, either explicitely or unambiguously implicit - even if they’re stupid ones like “the primer composition is blue”, or an apparently arbitrary dimension. It is a pretty objective concept - they are either there, or they’re not. In this case, you don’t even mention a primer composition, and it’s not even unambiguously derivable that there is one there - in your diagrams where you claim that there should be a primer composition, there’s empty space in the drawing, which you refer to as a “spark gap”. A spark gap implies that a spark is jumping between two points across empty space. I say again - nowhere in your original did you explicitely mention any primer composition.
If you had put in the sheets originally shown on here, the examiner wouldn’t have known what to do with it - there were NO CLAIMS. He’d have done the search on the basis of the description & would then refuse to examine, since there were no claims to examine. And your documents aren’t even novelty-destroying for the RA patent, as you keep trying to claim.
For someone who’s trying to claim that I don’t do the job I say that I do, you’re not doing a terribly good job of it.
Again, please re-post your original scans of the description, without editing them.
Widespread usage? Ive been a shooter most of my life and I have yet to see a rifle with an electrically discharged cartridge. BTW, the patent that was issued in 2000 was liscened by Remington Firearms. I assume to develop it further and possibly improve it and make agun that uses it. I am inclined to believe that what came before did not use specifically the desing onf the 2000 patent, but something much more crude and less reliable. Is there a firearm on the market today that you can buy that uses an electrically discharged cartridge? I’ve never seen one.
I see. I know almost nothing about caseless ammo, except a paragraph or so that I read somewhere and a picture. What I read said there were problems with it, but maybe it will improve in time.
Good question. All I know is that I saw an article in Popular Science magazine about 10 years ago that described an experimental system in development by the US military. They said it could kill, but the power source was insufficient for multiple uses. :idea:
Yea, I’ve heard of that. I think they wanted to use that in the “Star Wars” killer satellites that were proposed back in the 1970’s.
:lol: No doubt. A soldier with a cable running to a truck that follows him with a diesel generator in the back? :lol:
No, I have no link. But it is an interesting concept. Perhaps in a few decades something like this will be efficient enough for actual use by a foot soldier.
Interesting. I have also heard of experimental weapons which cause extreme discomfort in one’s belly by using directed low frequency sound waves. I think it was to be used by police to control crowds. What I don’t understand is how do they control the direction of low frequenct sound waves, since they sread so widely. High frequency waves would be far, far easier to direct. I saw something about this on TV a few years ago, but I don’t remember if they said it was actually in use or just a concept on the table.
Widespread usage? Ive been a shooter most of my life and I have yet to see a rifle with an electrically discharged cartridge.[/quote]
My emboldenment.
Please note the use of the word hasn’t. You see, if you actually read the post before replying you then don’t look like a fool.
Widespread usage? Ive been a shooter most of my life and I have yet to see a rifle with an electrically discharged cartridge.[/quote]
My emboldenment.
Please note the use of the word hasn’t. You see, if you actually read the post before replying you then don’t look like a fool.[/quote]
:roll:
Man of Stoat,
It seems that in our deliberation over this, you have stumbled upon something that I cannot deny. The elcetrically conductive primer explosive is precicely what makes the patent of 2000 special. You are right about that.
However, don’t go getting cocky, because you never thought of it or mentioned it as being a point of contention untill just now in all of this time! Not once have you mentioned it as being the reason my desing was not patentable until now. You did not know this yourself uintil just now. In our debating you have narrowed down, through your deisre to find reason to disqualify my invention, you have by process of elimination turned to the primer compound.
I see now that this material is what makes this patent special and grantable. All of this time I thought that my design was patentable, but it was not. Nonetheless, you still owe me an apology for saying that I modified my illustrations to suit the patent application of 2000, which I had not done.
It seems that by our debate we have determined that the primer compound is what makes the design more reliable. I’m glad that we discovered this, even if it came about by debating each point of the design. Now I know that my design would not have received a patent. 
I do think that you have been unnecessarily combative in this matter however. For you never knew yourself that it was not patentable for any reason specifically until just now when the discussion turned to the primer compound. I do not appreciate the fact that you were so combative without having reason to be or knowing the specific reason why my design would not have been patentable. And you did not have to say that I altered my drawings, which I clearly did not.
Nah, I brought it up on Mon June 06
http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=5747#5747
So, how much of claim 1 is disclosed in Frionpan’s thingy? Only “An electrically activated primer for use in small arms ammunition”. None of the other characteristics of the Remington patent appear in Frionpan’s document. I was considering giving benefit of the doubt on the “electrically conductive cup”, but there was really nothing that could be described as that in Frionpan’s disclosure. There is certainly no electrically conductive priming compound!!!
Nah, I brought it up on Mon June 06[/quote]
And all of this time you kept digging for various reasons to disqualify the design without maintaining that the compond was the reason it would not be grantable. So, no, you did not realize this was the real reason until just now. In fact, you’ve been claiming that I modified my drawings and trying to point to mechanical differenced between the patent and my design, which essentially do not exist in your efforst to disqualify it. If you knew the primer compound was the reason, you’d have centered your debate on it instead of going all over the place and pointing to the mechanical design of it. You were stumped for a reason to disqualify it until now, thus you persued everything EXCEPT the primer compound, until two posts ago.
How about that apology you owe me for saying that I modified my drawings - as you were looking at the mechanical aspects because, that’s where you thought the difference was, not the primer compound. :lol:
WTF?
In terms of novelty, every feature in claim 1 of RA’s patent distinguishes it from your claim, except the 1st line. Your contention was that RA’s patent was “the same” as your disclosure, which means that you thought that it was not novel over your disclosure.
Again, what’s there & what’s not?
- An electrically activated primer for use in small arms ammunition (yes, that’s there),
comprising:an electrically conductive cup having a bottom and opposed side walls defining an internal chamber, said bottom including an aperture formed therein; (there’s nothing really that’s part of the “primer” that can be called this in your figures, even twisting the meaning of “cup”, let alone with an apeture 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; b[/b]
a conductive explosive material received within said internal chamber in an amount sufficient to initiate firing of the ammunition; b[/b]
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, (nope - can’t be anything in contact with said explosive material if said explosive material is not present)
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; b[/b]
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. (nope - since there’s no “cup”, there can’t be an insulating liner in it)
US search reports are not very informative, so I can’t tell how much negotiation went on between the examiner & applicant - I would have objected to the ranges of volumes by saying that they’re arbitrary, thus non-inventive. But, if the rest of the claim is novel & inventive, I wouldn’t obect to it, since it only limits him and that’s his problem. I’ve had a quick flick through the prior art cited & a brief look at the figures, and it would appear that the details of the cup, the contact and the insulating liner are important to inventivity also (I don’t have time to go analyse each cited document individually). As an examiner, I’m also not happy with the word “reduced”, since it is unclear. We’re rather stricter on that kind of thing than the US examiners though.
Oooh, kijk, moeder - the images have disappeared again! 
Look im letting this go on because you both seem very enthusiastic about it and the insults have gone down. THEY HAD BETTER STAY THAT WAY TOO. But have you guys ever thought about agreeing to disagree. Just an idea. But if not please continue.
Back to lasers:
I don´t see them coming due to several reasons:
a) All lasers only convert a small amount of the energy provided into usable photons. The rest gets dispersed as heat. This is why power lasers are water cooled, else they would melt.
b) Light, at least in our atmosphere is being dispersed by particles (dust) in the air.
c) A bullet rips a hole, which tears blood vessels and causes bleeding. A laser burns a hole which is instantly cauterised, stopping all bleeding. Unless the laser hits in a vital spot, the person hit will just have a clean hole through some part of his body, but will still be able to function.
d) Depending on the power, a laser beam will have to dwell on a certain spot for a certain time to heat it up high enough, since the target works like a heat sink. Bad if the target is moving.
Jan
Well if you could cut down the time and have enought power it might make bunker busting alot easier. Hard to say at the moment what role high powered lasers might play in the future.
My illustration shows a primer “cup” and an apeture (opening) at the end. Yes, that is in there too. It’s clearly illustrated. It’s in there.
The measurements are a part of the description of a primer that is elevtrically discharged being smaller than 20mm. See the text from the 2000 patent, 1st paragraph. If it is designed for small arms, obviously it falss within acceptable dimensions for use in a rifle cartridge, providing actual dimentions of it would not qualify one one patent or disqualify another. In fact, my illustration, if compared to a .30 cal cartridge, are probably very close to those expressely names in the patent. The point of the patent is to make a reliable, non-accidentally discharged primer for small arms smaller than 20mm, thus the conductive explosive.
The dimensions are neither here not there, since the device could be made with a variety od dimensions for those components and still funtion. So, it’s in there.
No, the conductive material is not stated in my documents. That is where my design fails.
Now you are playing semantics. My documents describing the illustrations mention an electrical charge passing through and detonating the primer explosive. It is assumed that the primer is functional, not disfunctional, and therefore contains enough explosive material to discharge effectively. Patent applications are sent in all the time and granted despite nopt specifically defining things which are natural to their design or function so long as they are illustrated. I do know that to be a fact, as I have read documents from the US Patent Office which were free publications sent to me by request years ago. It’s in there.
Reduced from previous designs (see paragraph 1 of the application) of 20mm. My illustrations fall within thiose ranges. They are very broad ranges, expressly for the purpose of insuring that the patent is seperate from previous designs of a 20mm or greater width. Again, the specific dimensions are not important. Scale is. It’s in there.
Yes, my illustrations show a primer cup for crying out loud. Geez dude. Again, something assumed and unnecessary - a means of retaining the primer material??? It would not be a primer if the material were not restricted. You must understand this about patent applications - considerable leway is given for such things when describing a known thing. This is specifically stated in US Patent Office free publications. It’s in there.
EDITED TO ADD THE FOLLOWING LINES:
If you are applying to patent a ball, it is assumed that it is round. YOu could not say, “Oh look! You never said your ball was round, so no patent for you!” It does not work that way at the patent office.
Look, mate - semantics is what we do.
Yesterday, the interpretation of the French word “retourner” was the difference between a positive and a negative International Preliminary Examination Report (i.e. the difference between a claim that’s novel & inventive & one that isn’t).
In my experience, if you have to argue as to whether something’s there or not, it isn’t there. You did not even explicitely mention any primer explosive (if I’m wrong, re-post the original scans of the description to prove it), and it is nowhere illustrated on the diagrams. Therefore it’s not there, since it’s neither explicit nor unambiguously derivable that it is there. Thinking it should be there isn’t good enough.
Dimensions are important when discussing NOVELTY. They may be irrelevant in considering inventive step.
Patent applications are sent in all the time and granted despite nopt specifically defining things which are natural to their design or function so long as they are illustrated. I do know that to be a fact, as I have read documents from the US Patent Office which were free publications sent to me by request years ago. It’s in there.
Yes, the USPTO is renowned for granting exceedingly sloppy claims. A case in point happened to a colleague of mine in the PCT procedure - he searched & did the preliminary examination of an application which went to both the US and to Europen Regional phase. There was an absolutely brilliant “X” document (novelty destroying document) cited which laid waste utterly to claim 1, and a whole heap of dependent claims. In the European procedure, this was sorted, and a new independent claim was formulated based on one of the dependent claims which was allowable. The US examiner, however, just granted it as it was, despite having a fantastic X document in his posession.
Oh, and I’ve asked another examiner as to whether he thinks that there’s a “cup” on your figures. Will report back.
Re. the “cup”.
I asked my colleague to look at the figures, and to look at this:
comprising:an electrically conductive cup having a bottom and opposed side walls defining an internal chamber, said bottom including an aperture formed therein;
his immediate reaction was “no”.
We then discussed it a bit, and came to the conclusion that there were 2 valid ways to look at it:
1: Parts 8, 9 and 10 taken together form a cup, but with no apeture.
2: Parts 8, 9 and 10 are taken separately, and constitute a sleeve (9) which has opposed side walls defining an internal chamber, an insulating annulus (8) and an electric contact (10) closing the end of the sleeve.
i.e. they can either be considered all together, or all separately.
If parts 8 and 9 were actually one piece (same material & everything), then given a really really broad reading it would possibly fall within the scope of the wording, with part 10 plugging the “apeture”. But, since they are separate pieces, you cannot pick & choose & decide that you want to call 8 (a conductor, IIRC) and 9 (an insulator) together an electrically conductive cup with an apeture when one part of it is not actually electrically conductive.
And if you believe that significant leeway is given to applicants on claim wording if it’s very well illustrated, look at the figures of US6,487,972, where the apeture is quite clear, un-plugged by another part & beyond dispute. Also, the overall configuration is vastly different to your document, and he actually incorporates the primer composition into the figures rather than just saying with hindsight that “it’s there”.
See here:
http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=US6487972&F=0
edited to add link to image
EDITED TO ADD EMBOLDENMENT ONLY
The US Patent Office allows for what is commonly understood in patents. Again, if you are patenting a ball, it is assumed that it is round unless stated otherise. As I have said, I have read this in publications of the US Patent Office. Not mentioning a primer material makes no difference - it is assumed that because it is a primer it has a comustable material in it.
However, here is one of the documents I wrotre describing it:
The explosive material in the primer? Yea, it’s there:
Perhaps in some cases, but the specific dimentions are irrelevant in the case of this patent. The “novelty” as you speak of it, is that the primer is small enough for use in small arms and uses an electrically conductive explosive. It does not matter if it is 4mm in diameter or 10mm in diameter. It is for small arms. The patent office knows what small arms are. Again it is assumed that the dimensions are small. They are not even necessary for the application because no primer of this design was patented already for use with small arms using an electically conductive explosive!
Do you have any idea how big 20mm is? It’s probably larger than the diameter of your pointer finger. That’s a huge primer - bigger than most small arms cartridges! It is not a primer for small arms. It is for cannon. The calibre of a cartrige using such a huge primer would be no less than a 40mm cannon. That is not “small arms”. The patent states “than the existing 20mm …electrically activated” ….
They are describing a primer smaller than the existing ones which are electrically discharged - one for small arms. Prior to this patent, none was granted for an electrically discharged primer smaller than 20mm! That is why this patent was granted! Seriously, if you work in a patent office, how is it that you have trouble understanding the text from this patent, or my illustrations? Please, read that first. Do you see now what I am saying? The “novelty” has nothing to do with any dimensions provided other than to say it is for small arms. The patent would be grantable without having mentioned any dimensions whatsoever.
Again, it is a primer. Primers consist of a “cup” so to speak. If I had sent the design in, I could have called it a container, a miniature shell, a tube with an enclosed bottom, anything, OR NOTHING, because it is a primer, and it is assumed that it has an enclosed rear and open front. It is also assumed that it has combustable material inside, and that this material is somehow retained.
The essence of the design is that it is electrically discharged and for small arms, and nothing more. Not that a primer is such and such. They know what a primer is. You are playing semantics that play no part in determining the validity (novelty) of the design.
OMG. So he agreed that there was a primer “cup” in my design but no apeture? Again, primers have apretures.
WTF is this then? :lol:
You are not understanding the drawings at all :shock: . BTW, the apeture is not plugged by the contact. Now you say the apeture is plugged, but you say there is no apeture? Dude, you are shooting blanks in your desperate attempt to disqualify the design. it’s not working though. Let me help you.
8 - insulating bottom of the primer “cup”
9 - primer wall
10 - contact
Not conductive? Pick and chose? Dude, you do not understand the illustration at all. Primer “cups” are metal. metal conducts electricity, this process is described in my documents.
9 is an insulator? 9 IT IS THE PRIMER WALL DUDE. It is not an insulator. It is conductive, not insulating. It is metal, it is conductive. The insulator is in the bottom. shaking head God man. Please look at it and try to understand what you are looking at.
Now that I have told you what those componets are that you are lpoking at, do you understand how the electrically discharged primer operates? Do you now see that what you thought was an insulator is the freaking primer casing wall? Do you see that what you thought was insulating material is the conductive primer wall, as described in my document? Do you see that the apeture is not closed off (plugged as you say)? :roll:
Let me do this one more time. I’ve already done it once. Let me zoom in on the illustration and denote everything for you so you can understand what you are looking at. Here you are:
As I have said, the only thing which prevents my design from being precisely the device in the 2000 patent is the electrically conductive primer explosive material. That’s it. In function they are the same - an electrically discharged primer for use in small arms.
I am dissapointed that my design lacked the conductive explosive, but it is interesting to know that had I sent in the patent and it had been rejected, I would have learned that the exact thing had been patented for lager weapons, and this likely would have prompted me to study it and discover that if I changed the explosive material to one that is electrically conductive, I would be granted a patent. I suppose it is possible that I would have reveived a patent for it in the end, since my design was submitted 8 years before the patent was granted, and 8 years is a lot of time to study something!