Is it just me (and I don’t normally pass up a chance for a good IRONMAN baiting session) or has this passed into the surreal? Both of you are now merely arguing between yourselves at a level where I for one cannot comment as I do not know the intricacies of the patent system.
For the mere mortals on this site this argument is getting more than a little esoteric and (also) boring. I don’t think that anyone else really gets the minutiae of what the problem is on the original posts. As Gen Sandworm said earlier, can you not just agree to disagree? Neither of you can be proved to be right or wrong by your peers as none of us (speaking personally) can understand why one is right and one is wrong!
I know that Man of Stoat is the nearest that we will get to an expert on firearms on this site but I no longer understand the points of the argument on either side.
Please, both of you concede this one and treat this as gentlemanly as you can.
So right you are. I’m done explaining it to him. I don’t care what he posts. It’s quite simple actually, and I’ve made it clear that they are the same in function except for the primer compound. I’m not responding to any posts about it.
He still owes me an apology for saying I altered my drawings to suite the patent of 2000, which has been proven untrue.
So right you are. I’m done explaining it to him. I don’t care what he posts. It’s quite simple actually, and I’ve made it clear that they are the same in function except for the primer compound. I’m not responding to any posts about it.
He still owes me an apology for saying I altered my drawings to suite the patent of 2000, which has been proven untrue. :D[/quote]
That was not what I meant at all - just call it a draw and get on with your lives. It is quite obvious to an outsider that neither of you will back down so rather than each demanding apologies from the other for perceived misdemeanours, just both back off and stop posturing!
I would like to say that had I sent in the application, while I would not have been granted a patent for the primer itself (until having studied it further during the 8 yr. timeframe that I had to my advantage), I likely would have been granted at least 2 to 3 other patents for the means of conducting the electrical charge through the bolt or frame of the small arms firearm, or for the dual contact design, and the designs therein, none of which had been patented as that time.
I designed in my documents several different designs of this invention. Some used a single contact, others a dual contact, some sending the electrical current through the bolt of the weapon, others through the barrel and frame of the firearm.
I would have likely received at least 2, perhaps 3 other patents even thought I would not have reveived a patent for the electrically discharged small arms primer. The US Patent office, in determining the validity of a patent, will grant a patent for an invention that is submitted if it is a new variation of an already patented design. Hence, although I may have not been granted a patent for the primer, I likely would have been granted related patents for other devices described in my submission.
Unfortunately for me, now that Remington Firearms has liscenced this technology, their intelligent engineers have undoubtably considered and submitted designs which include all of the alternate designs which I defined in 1992. When corporations finally obtain a patentable design, they ASAP submit every immaginable variation of that design for a patent, knowing than more will be rejected than granted. They do this simply for the purpose of insuring that they have the technology in their pocket. This is common for all companies that submit patents.
Regarding patents and inventions, it is typically the imagination of the 1st invention of a kind spurs the immediate and speedy patenting of subsequent devices and technologies.
When the wheel was invented, the 2 wheeled cart, the 4 wheeled cart, and the water pump all occurred in fast succession (considering the timeline of mankind). This is typical of patents today, except the process takes place at an incredible rate of speed in comparison. Typically, weeks.
I HAVE EDITED THIS POST PERHAPS 9 TIMES, ALL FOR THE PURPOSE OF CORRECTING TYPOS, ALL PRIOR TO ANYONE POSTING ANYTHING AFTER THIS POST.
(9 as an “insulator” was a typo, was meant to be 8 - I could have stealth-edited it, but I don’t care any more. In any case, the apeture is clearly stated as being in the bottom of the cup, not the top as you illustrate [read the wording carefully]. “Combustible material” from your thingy, since it’s not shown on the drawings, could simply be referring to the propellant. There are electric primers in the prior art which don’t have a separate primer material - a hot wire ignites the main charge directly, therefore it is not implicit that there is a separate primer material. If it existed in ALL of the prior art then I would agree with you, but it doesn’t. There are also primers which are not shaped anything like a cup - rimfire, teat fire, pinfire, and many of the electrical primers using a hot wire, so the existance of a “cup” also not implicit)
OK, Ironman clearly knows better than 2 experienced patent examiners how to interpret claims & prior art documents.
Why don’t you come & do our jobs for us, since you clearly know it better than us? I see that this concept of “novelty”, around which our whole work revolves, is just a load of bullhicky - I guess that Article 33(2) PCT + guidelines 12 and Article 54 EPC + guidelines C IV 7 are just completely wrong. I also guess that Article 6 PCT and Article 84 & Rule 29 EPC describing that the claims are required and define the invention are also wrong. I guess all our formal guidelines on how to interpret what’s implicit in a document & what isn’t are also wrong (EPC Guidelines, C IV 7.2, PCT guidelines 12.01). & the USPTO doesn’t do it significantly differently (there’s been a lot of harmonisation between the EPO, JPO & USPTO due to the PCT procedure).
But, of course, you’re right & not only are we, the Conventions, the Guidelies, our trainers, our bosses and 3000 other examiners wrong, you are right. You understand the concept of novelty in a way that all of the above do not. There’s no point in argueing with you because of this.
I didn’t want to reply to this, but since once more you are trying to disqualify the design for reasons that are completely culpable, I had to.
So 8 and 9, both of which you “labeled” and described as the wrong parts were typos? No, you simply did not understand what you are looking at. You thought the primer wall was an insulator, the insulating material was a conductor, and you though the contact was blocking the “apeture” of the primer, when it’s resting in the bottom of the primer. :shock:
Where? Not in my document it’s not. I don’t even mention the “apeture” since it’s illustrated as having one, and it’s unnecessary because all primers have one. No, the apeture is not said to be anywhere ar all. :shock:
However (OMG yet again we have to show you with a freaking picture) it was illustrated:
Good Lord. Read it. For once, just read it. It describes the flow of the electrical current systematically as moving from the primer contact, through the combustable material, to the primer casing. Where does it say that the current leaves the primer? Where does it state that the current takes a detour from the contact, throught the cartridge’s main charge and then back down to the primer casing wall???
Dude, if you cannot follow a simple, explicit description of the passing of an electrical current from one specified thing to another specified thing in an utterly simple device, how is it that you are going to understand any patent application at all? :shock:
OBVIOUSLY. At least I can read a simple, explicitly described paragraph and understand it.
(my emboldenment)
Well something is sure fluckerd up when you cannot understand a simple EXPLICIT description in a document, much less some thing which is IMPLICIT in an illustration. :shock:
Man of Stoat, I am not trying to be insulting here, honestly. But I find it difficult to believe that you work as a patent examiner if:
you completely incorrectly interpret labeled items in a simple line-drawing illustration of an utterly simple device.
you misinterpret something that is explicitely described in a document as implicent, and something which is implicent in an illustration as explicit, and still misinterpret what is implicent in the simple illustration of an utterly simple device.
you are unable to follow the explicit description of the path of electricity through 3 simple components, one after the other, in a single, very brief paragraph.
you assume that a primer for a firearm does not contain combustable material, even though it is mentioned in the text.
you believe a primer which is illustrated as havin no enclosure at it’s top is somehow not open and is missing the “apeturte”. :shock:
you believe that a contact clearly illustrated in the bottom of a primer is blocking the apeture at the top of the primer.
you believe that a primer in an illustration which depitcs it’s wall, insulating bottom, and open end top (apeture?) does not constitute the shape of a primer “cup”.
you describe as “sloppy” the US Patent Office’s policy of allowing for implicitness in illustrations of utterly simple devices which are described in the accompanying text explicitly
accuse an designer of having changed his illustrations to defend against
you are unable to comprehend the utterly simple, labeled device therein
you state that an arc of electricity cannot ignite combustable materials in a primer after stating that previous patented devices have been doing do that very thing since the 19th century (even supposedly conducting your own experiment to do what patented devices have been doing for a long time - then concluding it is impossible)
you do not understand that chemical reactions are the product of electon activity
you believe that batteries provide current because the electrons of the atoms of the materials within them are drawn away (which would cause them to explode violently, like an atomic bomb perhaps), instead of added “free electrons” being drawn away.
…and ultimately:
you require 13 pages of posting and legthly debate over an utterly simple device to conclude that the electrically conductive combutive material in a primer is what seperates one patented device from another’s design, which is essentially identical, and then STILL carry on about imagined differences.
…and perhaps a dozen or more other crazy things.
Honestly, (and this is not an insult, just a very, very important observation) I do not believe that you are a patent examiner. No patent examiner could possibly have so many difficulties understanding a simple line drawing illustration of such an utterly simple device with only a few components, or following the simple, explicit description of the path of electricity through just 3 components. If the device were an extremely complex mechanical device consisting of dozens or hundreds of components, there is absolutely no doubt that you’d be utterly lost for comprehending and interptreting it’s components, and would be totally unable to “examine” it. You have not even been able to “examine” an utterly simple device consisting of fewer components than the number of fingers on your hand with text and illustrations to guide you.
It’s a little harsh to attack Man of Stoat’s professional ability in such a manner and then ask that he not reply. It would be fair for Stoat to address those points publicly by posting a reply. Then he could make his counter-allegations by PM, where you could both continue this discussion. That would also have the added benefit of stopping either party having the last word - which is how one wins arguments in internet fora, I believe.
[edited 'cos I can’t punctuate and only noticed straight after pressing ‘submit’]
But I do not want to continue discussing it you see. Yes, it was a bit harsh, but Great Scots, it is completely factual. Every difficulty that I listed is one which he has made specific posts about, even created lengthly arguments about. Every single one of them. I only wished to convey to him how ridiculous it is to discuss it since he has been unable to understand the operation of this incredibly simple, illustrated and described device, and because of this, he has then created numerous pages of debate over the function of clearly illustrated and described componets of at amazingly simple device. It is absolutely and unequivically ludicrous to do such a thing as that.
I’d like to drop the subject completely and discuss other things pertinent to the future of firearms. I see no point in discussing it with him. The equvilent would be devoting 2 pages of posts arguing about why a ball rolls downhill! It’s completely ridiculous. Anyone could build a model of the device in my illustrations out of lego in a few seconds. I just have no idea why he continues bringing up arguments about the function of each of less than a half-dozen components in an astoundingly simple device with no moving parts, and then arguing about what they are and what they do - even with text and illustrations as a guide! I have never seen anything so totally ridiculous in all of my life. Truly. I don’t want to discuss it any more.
There is no point in discussing points of substantive patent law with someone who posts a supposed patent specification which he says would have been granted, but yet contains no claims.
I’m not going to discuss the individual points you raise, since you can’t understand that the claim says "an electrically conductive cup having a bottom and opposed side walls defining an internal chamber, said bottom including an aperture formed therein " and not "havin no enclosure at it’s top ". QED.
and
you believe that batteries provide current because the electrons of the atoms of the materials within them are drawn away (which would cause them to explode violently, like an atomic bomb perhaps), instead of added “free electrons” being drawn away.
WTF?
And please do not attack my professionalism, nor that of my colleague. I have offered to provide a Mod evidence of my professional status, which has been declined as unnecessary. The 1st thing my colleage said was “well that’s totally different”, before we even started to discuss the features of the claims.
If you’re so sh1t-hot & understand the concept of novelty & claim interpretation so well (althoug that “understanding” differs greatly from how it should be understood from substantive patent law), explain how WO2004029733, entitled “mechanical pieces”, the description & figures dealing simply with watch embodiments although the claims were much broader has US5994160, whose embodiment deals with part of an atomic force microscope, cited as novelty-destroying against claims 4, 8 & 19? I know why, cos I PROCESSED THE FILE. It’s got my name on the search report. The search report & the International Preliminary Examination Report was accepted by my coach, and by the applicant’s attorney.
Initially I did an analysis of RA’s patent on the basis of your document to stop you labouring under the impression that you’d lost out on something, thinking that you could benefit from my off duty professional opinion as it were, but you attacked everything I said as if I were a fool and didn’t know my job. I asked a colleague for a 2nd opinion. He agreed with me, and said that there was absolutely no way that RA’s claim 1 could be read onto your document. I understand that you might not like that, but that’s just the way it is. It’s a common thing with lone-applicants (of whom I mercifully have to suffer very little).
Some of my colleagues who do have to suffer these types bitch about them constantly. There’s usually a water-tight novelty or inventive step argument, & the applicant comes back saying “no, you’ve misunderstood it, what I meant was this, as is clear from p. x & fig. y, even though it’s not in the claims”. They usually tend to over-interpret what they’ve written in the claims, since they can’t look at them objectively since they’re too focussed on their embodiments. Writing claims is hard (as you’d know if you’d attempted it), and this is why patent attorneys are paid an awful lot of money. It’s been interesting watching the way you’ve done sort of the opposite - you’ve over-interpreted your document to desperately try to make it fit someone else’s claim.
An example of a watertight claim 1 is EP1536298 (another of my files). The applicant already knew the closest prior art, knew what they wanted, and didn’t want to mess around. The search report thus contains only “A” documents.
An example of useless, over-broad claims are in WO2004029733 (which I already mentioned). What it is common for us to do when there’s claims like this is that we search the subject matter of the embodiments to try and get something which will anticipate a new claim of reduced scope based on these embodiments. If we can find one, we cite it as “X”, along with another novelty-destroying document from the same field, and then one or two novelty-destroying documents from completely different fields. If not, we cite the 1 or 2 closest documents to the embodiments which destroy the novelty of the claims, along with the same 1 or 2 novelty destroying documents from completely different fields. The point of this is to make the applicant realise that their claim is Really Really Stupidly Broad. We also attack them in the communication for lack of support in the description. In the specific case of WO…793, the guy thought that he was the first ever to use diamond for a mechanical piece, and particularly in a watch. Hence the broadness of his claims. Even if he had been, (which he hadn’t), and the search report contained only “A” documents, he would still have been attacked for lack of support - his embodiments only deal with specific parts in a watch and yet he claims any mechanical piece.
Both myself and my colleague are patent examiners. You might not believe that, but hey, you’re free to believe what you like. I’ve come across a lot of Patentanwalts in my career so far. You are, however, the first Patentwalt :lol:
And, I promise the last thing this evening: a game of spot the difference!
Compare & contrast both these with claim 1, looking at only what is there, not what you think should be there, what probably should be there, or what you’d like to be there, and looking at all adjectives (I wish the USPTO were more strict on the use of reference signs in claims :evil:)
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.
No, you did the attacking dude. Not I. You misunderstood completely what was labeled and described in text. You thought the primer casing was insulating and the insulating material was the conductor and your mind was stuck on the patent so you could not understand how MY design has an aperture in the top of the primer “cup” etc. etc. You were completely at a loss for interpreting what was right before your eyes in a simple line drawing. :shock:
Good job on finally providing the illustration for the 2000 patent though. Nice of you to think of doing that after 13 pages of debate and an inability to understand what you saw in mine. What is perhaps more ridiculous is that because you could not grasp what you were looking at in my illustrations, you claimed that I changed them as a way of defending against your inability to understand what was said in my text and in the illustrations i provided. Obviously you did not understand what you were looking at if you think I changed the images to match the 2000 patent. :shock:
I finally provided the illustration cos it was quite clear that you had no interest in looking at the figure yourself (easy to find from the USPTO site or Espacenet), just like you never properly read what’s posted or linked to. You could have posted it yourself.
you could not understand how MY design has an aperture in the top of the primer “cup” etc.
Of course I understand that you have an apeture in the TOP. That’s the point. You STILL don’t understand that RA’s claim 1 has an apeture in the BOTTOM of the primer cup. A typical case of you not reading what’s written.
Again:
an electrically conductive cup having a bottom and opposed side walls defining an internal chamber, said bottom including an aperture formed therein;
But no, sorry, clearly I must be misreading the word BOTTOM there, cos Ironman is always correct.
I could look at some of the other features of the claim (where’s the “retaining means for…”? How, if the 3 elements (the 2 conducting ones and one insulating) form an electrically conductive cup (even though one of them is insulating), can a contact positioned within said internal chamber be adjacent said bottom of said cup if it is forming part of said cup itself? The two are mutually exclusive. How can an insulating liner be received within said cup if it itself forms part of that cup? Likewise mutually exclusive. You can’t have it both ways.) but if you can’t understand the difference between “top” and “bottom” (and it’s not a question of frames of reference, the claim is quite clear) then you’re not really much of an “expert”. And if you want to call that semantics, well that’s exactly what it is. That’s what I do every working day. The invention is defined in words, so the exact meaning of the words is highly important - hell, we’ll argue over the placement of a comma for chrissakes, if it changes the meaning!
And that apology? Several other members saw the amended drawings with the exact wording from RA’s patent on them before they were taken down. It’s not some mass-hallucination.
I’ve deliberately avoided discussing inventive step (“obviousness”) with you, since you don’t seem able to understand the concept of novelty (the most basic concept) after having had it explained (the novelty of the claim is not “that it is small enough to be used in small-arms” or whatever you wrote, the novelty is every feature of the claim which does not appear in combination in a document in the prior art, and in this case we were discussing the novelty over your document - you just gave the term your own definition [as usual], not the one which is precicely defined in substantive patent law), nor read a claim in sufficient detail to interpret it adequately, nor tell the difference between a method and a device claim, so how are you to understand the problem-solution approach or the concept of the man skilled in the art? These are far more difficult concepts.
Some of my colleagues get applicants who act like this, and who think they are experts cos they read some publications from one of the major offices, and thus know better than the examiners. In the PCT procedure it’s simple - they issue a negative International Preliminary Examination Report (IPER). Simple. In EP procedure, they call them to oral proceedings, where they often look extremely foolish indeed, if they turn up.
Since you seem to think that you are argueing against another Patent walt such as yourself (who you seem to think is less well-informed than your good self, and my god you’re ill-informed on patent law, methodology, terminology & procedure), I thought I’d put you out of your misery.
Here’s my ID & business card (with important bits blacked out, of course):
Right. 2 other examiners have now looked over this thread independently.
The 1st one said:
El Diablo Azul says:
the guy’s either an idiot or a troll, very successful as both, really
El Diablo Azul says:
if I understood correctly (most of the scans don’t show correctly), his is a direct ignition system whereas the 2000 patent electrically ignites the primer, right?
El Diablo Azul says:
if so, he clearly has very little to back him up…
El Diablo Azul says:
that said, I guess I can understand his (flawed) reasoning
El Diablo Azul says:
it’s his attitude that’s way out of line
El Diablo Azul says:
anyhow, bbiab, need to do some quick shopping before Konmar closes
Stoatman says:
I interpreted his thing as direct ignition too, cos he mentions “explosive material”, but since there was no primer material marked on the figures, I interpreted that as being the main charge. He thinks that it’s implicit cos it “has to be there”. I’ve looked at the prior art, & there’s plenty that show direct ignition.
Stoatman says:
Thus it doens’t have to be there, since implicit things /have/ to be there, not “are probably there on balance of probabilities”
And the 2nd said (when shown what the 1st said):
Meisje says:
Yup, you can tell him to f#uck off from my part too!
Meisje says:
Ironman that is, not El Diablo Azul
Stoatman says:
I mean, you’ve read the whole thing - the guy’s a mong
Meisje says:
A brilliant shining example
(real name replaced with screen name)
So, that’s now 3 genuine patent examiners ranged against Ironman, a man who’s read a couple of free USPTO publications…
EDITED TO CORRECTLY SHOW THE CORRECT IMAGE IN A URL
Your first post, Man of Stoat, on the 1st page of this thread, before having seen any illustrations of my design, makes it clear that you came to the thread with an immature and combative attitude. All of the ensuing debate with you resulted from:
your insolent attitude
your inability to understand the text and illustrations of my utterly simple device, so you attacked each component sperately without understanding them or even reading the 2000 patent first.
In your compulsion to insult me, you even state flasely that two-stage triggers are for ergonomics instead of precision firing. Furthermore, you call me “Ironpan” because you are immature, insolent, and ill-behaved.
You made it clear that you had no intention of discussing or even debating the issue, but were instead bent on defaming me from the start.
Well, I have seen and fired both an M1 Carbine and an M1 Garande. My father owns both. I’ve mentioned this in another thread where you posted something else negative about me, but you come here and lie about it anyway. More of your hatefullness.
Your 2nd post in this thread is an attack on the concept of electrically discharge small arms, simply because I said that I had invented something, evensofar as to criticize Remmington (holder of the 2000 patent). You went to Google looking for a reason to criticize the invention. All for the purpose of putting me down.
Your 3rd post in this thread was another attack on me personally, and not realted to the subject of the thread. Stating that patents are a “specialty of mine” leads me to believe that you do not work in a patent office at all. It would seem that with your demeaor, you’d have straight out stated that you work in a patent office because it would have been your best ammunition in an attack upon me. But you didn’t state that.
Btw, the Bren had problems because of it’s curved mag, and that is why tracer rounds were not commonly used in it. Read about it and see for yourself.
In your 4rth post you insult me again, calling me “Frionpan”, having not yet discussed anything with me at all. You are completely insolent, aggressive, and hateful.
Mechanical watches? How long has it been since anyone applied for a patent for anything new in the design of a mechanical watch? Quartz has replaced the majority of moving parts in watches since the late 1970’s. Is this why you were thinking that the source of current for an electrically discharged firearm was from a peizo-electic source?
In your 4th post you mention peizo-electric source again, as if anything in the 2000 patent states such a source. Still thinking watches. You also state that you disbelieve that an electric spark is not strong enough to discharge such a device, even though you later state that some patents use that very method. You even attck the entire concept of one which uses a single contact (like the 2000 patent) and one which uses dual contacts because you hate the idea that I might be onto something.
Then someone else informs you that this method has been widely used, but you don’t go after them for it. You’re still after me.
Then you state that I mention no primer compound in my design.
Then you state that my design is like others which are patented which use a spark gap, which you have already and will again attack, even though some patented designs use this method, simply because you are hell bent on putting me down. You’re also still stuck on the peizo-electric thing, as if it’s a part of my design or the 2000 patent:
:roll: Really. Still stuck on the idea of a watch’s power source. So the current military primers that use electricity to ignite the primer charge don’t work? Below you are about to say so in so many words:
There we go. They don’t work because your little experiment proves it! Those silly military people! Now you’re about to say that it does work:
:roll: So now you say that some DO work by using a gap. And now you say some use an electrically conductive primer compound before the patent of 2000, which is what it was granted for… in small arms?
Really now. After looking at the documents you say I wrote no claims.:roll:
Now you’re about to claim that I modified my illustrations because you don’t understgand the utterly simple device:
Here you claim that I changed the drawings because at this point you believe the wording of the 2000 patent precicely describes my illustrations, and you have no other recourse except to claim that i modified my illustrations to match the words of the 2000 patent:
Now you’re about to claim that batteries work my drawing the electrons from the orbits of the atoms in the materials, making them atoms which have no electrons:
Another claim that batteries strip the electrons from atoms, making the materials into atoms which have no electons:
Antoher claim that I modified my illustrations because you can’t understand what is the conducot and the insulator, even though they were labeled and describbed to you:
Now you claim that in my illustrations the electrical current takes a huge detour from the primer up into the main charge and back down to the primer casing which is in close tollerance to the contact:
How many times must you see something to understand it? You sat this a long time ago in this thread but kept on stating, page after page, that my device had no primer explosive?
Here I’ve tinted the components of the “cup” to make it dummy proof. WOW! A cup!
Here you do not understand that the term “reduced” refers to the difference between previous patents using primers of 20mm diameter. 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:
8 is labeled as insulating material
9 is labeled as conductive material
Can you not read an illustration accompanied by text? And you think that because one part of it is not electrically conductive (as it is supposed to be, and as it is in the 2000 patent) that the insulating material is there for no reason?
Man of Stoat, you have made some things quite clear:
You came to this thread using insulting languiage and name-calling because you have a very poor attitude and are insolent toward others that are not British or have anything to say that you did noth think of first
You have had a terrible hard time understanding the utterly simple device, even unable to distinguish between insulating and conductive materials whan they are labeled and described in text
Your work with watches has had your mind stuck in a crook that somehow a piezo-electric source must be used to discharge such a device as I described or in the 2000 patrent, even when other patented devices do not.
You think that because my device uses a spark gap, like other patented designs, it could not function.
…and numerous other inabilities to understand the process of my device. BTW, my design is not a watch component.
Despite all of the difficulty you have had accepting that my design is something intelligent, and in understanding it, you could have discussed it, even shown me where I was wrong (the electrically conductive compound) without insults, name-calling, and a combative attitude. You spent 13 pages of posts criticizing ever element of my design, none of which make the design non-functional, when all this time the thing which seperated my design from the 2000 patent in function was the compound, simply because you did not understand what you were looking at and reading in my illustrations and text - and because you are hateful and wish only to demean.
You are not a good citizen of the on-line community because of your insolent, angry, and hateful demeanor, which you drag around with you from thread to thread, seeking a way to undermine or demean me or anyone who has a thought that is not your own, especially me, which I can only assume is because I am not British like your chums. You’ve done the same thing to Erwin consistently, because he also is not British, but Argentinian. In virtually every thread where I have posted, you have called me one name or another, without being provoked or attacked in any way by me.
Had you wished to discuss this matter like a mature adult, we could have. Instead you chose from post 1 to use insults and an aggressive, combative attitude. May I suggest something? I suggest that you come to the conclusion that people whom you meet on-line are not your enemy and should not be your target for disdain. I don’t know whay monkey is on your back, but it would serve you better to leave your baggage at home.
I hate to say this, because it is similar to your behavior, but in light of the numerous personal insults and the name-calling you’ve levied upon me in this and virtually every single thread where I have posted, I feel that I’m entitled to it. Your attitude, your name-calling, and your trolling, hateful behavior are all perfect examples of the very meaning of what most people think of when they use the word “punk”.
