IRONMAN: Hypocrisy in action. The majority of complaints you make against Stoat I have levelled against you, with supporting arguments. If you want to carry this pointless argument on GO TO PRIVATE MESSAGING. If you are as bored of this as you will claim to be in your reply, don’t reply.
I resent your claim that any member of this forum could be insolent to any other. I resent it particularly because it has been levelled against me. It demonstrates that the user does not understand the term insolent, or believes himself to be worthy of deference form other site users.
I think it ill becomes you to complain about Stoat calling you IronPan. In the subject of modifying names, let he who is without sin cast the first stone. You are not without sin in this respect. Desist from stone throwing.
More hypocrisy. I have made factual posts, backed up with supporting evidence, that you have greeted with personal abuse and total disbelief. Regardless of the rights and wrongs in this patent debate, you are a hypocrite. You constantly claim to be more mature, older and wiser than other members of this site. Actions speak louder than words, and your actions do not supported your assertion.
No no. I’m done and through discussing it, especially with a hatemonger. I won’t return to this thread, like a few others that I have not returned to because of the hatemongering. See you in another thread perhaps.
I’ve posted my business card & ID badge for the European Patent Office. I did not post this originally for considerations of PERSEC.
There were design problems due to the curved mag, but this has nothing to do with the feeding of tracer, which is externally no different from ball ammo. I have absolutely no idea of where you got this stupid idea about the BREN and tracer from. There are people who posted on here stating that they have fired tracer through the BREN. Your supposed problem with tracer is neither mentioned in Jane’s, Smith & Smith, world.guns.ru, or any other book on the subject that I have read.
In fact, here’s an account of one in battle:
We were waiting for the dark, and at 8.30 p.m. just as we decided to move, over in our sector we could see Bren gun tracer bullets. tank shells and sound of firing. From Alan Jackson’s Diary of Greece, http://riv.co.nz/rnza/units/5fd/greece2.htm
Another one: So, armed with a bren gun, 1248 rounds of tracer ammo … [snip] … and a magazine of tracers went over the hill … From Memories of Geordie Bannerman, http://www.gordiebannerman.com/bio72.html
Isn’t google wonderful?
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.
The last filing will have been last week. I actually granted one EP application for one on Friday. There’s enough work in mechanical watches to keep 2 of us snowed under, and there’s enough for electrical/electronic watches to keep another 2 colleagues snowed under. I suggest you go to espacenet, put G04B into the “EPC classes”, “ep” into publication number, and 2004 into the publication date, and this will give you all last year’s European patent and European patent application publications in the field of mechanical watches which have been given ECLA classes. You can do the same with “wo” for PCT applications.
: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:
[/quote]
please explain what piezoelectrics have to do with watch power sources.
My experiment shows that a piezoelectric spark will not directly ignite powder. All the other designs have a separate priming composition included. Both myself & the other 2 examiners who looked at the documents assumed that yours worked by direct ignition of the main charge, because you only mention “combustible material”, it is unclear whether this is meant to be the main charge or a separate priming material, and since no separate priming material is illustrated, we concluded that it is that it is not present.
Twisting, deliberately confusing, and avoiding. RA passes a /current/ and not a /spark/.
I saw nothing in the documents which said :
“CLAIMS”
“1. blah blah blah etc etc etc”. Re-post it if I’m wrong. Your documents consisted of a description and some figures, but no claims.
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:
[/quote]
Yup, that’s what happens. Atoms deficient in electrons are called CATIONS by the way.
Let’s look at the 1/2 cell equations for the daniell cell:
Zn -> Zn2+ + 2e- (2 electrons “stripped” off a zinc atom, and travel through the circuit, leaving a zinc ion behind)
Cu2+ + 2e- -> Cu (2 electrons arrive from the circuit, and combine with a copper ion to form a copper atom).
The overall reaction for the whole cell is Zn + Cu2+ -> Cu + Zn2+, and the energy comes from the fact that the electrons are at a lower energy state on the right hand side of the equation compared to the left. You will notice that charge balances on both sides of the equation. QED.
As above, you mention “combustible material”. This could mean the main charge, or a primer. No primer composition is illustrated on the figures, thus it was assumed (by me & 2 other examiners) that the main charge was meant by “combustible material”. If that’s not so, then if you’d filed this as an application (with some claims), you’d be in trouble.
where’s the apeture in the BOTTOM of the cup, as required by the effing wording of claim 1. You seem to keep ignoring the word BOTTOM.
[/quote]
What you do not understand is that “reduced” is a relative term and cannot be understood in terms of the wording of the claim itself. This is substantive patent law - relative terms are generally not permitted if not clarified. And again, you’re reading stuff into the claim that is not there.
PCT guidelines:
Clarity of Relative Terms
5.34 A claim that includes vague or equivocal forms of wording which leave the reader in
doubt as to the scope of a feature should be objected to for lack of clarity. A claim should not
use a relative or similar term such as “thin”, “wide” or “strong” unless the term has a wellrecognized
meaning in the particular art, for example “high-frequency” in relation to an
amplifier, and this is the meaning intended. If a term of degree appears in a claim, the
examiner should determine whether one skilled in the art would be apprised of the meaning of
the term either by a disclosure of a standard for measuring that degree in the description or in
view of the prior art and state of the art. It may be appropriate to invite the applicant to either
define or excise the term if he could do so without extending the subject matter beyond the
content of the application as filed in contravention of Article 19(2) or 34(2)(b). An applicant
cannot rely on an unclear term to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.
Look, mate, 3 examiners have looked over RA’s claim & your figures. Your figures do not fit the claims. You keep trying to argue over and over again that somewhere in your figures there is an electrically conductive cup formed with side walls and a bottom, with an apeture in the BOTTOM. It’s also quite hard to remember what’s what when it keeps disappearing & reappearing.
This is the considered opinion of 3 professionally qualified people who do this sh1t for a living. Disagree with us all you like. I’ve posted reasons /why/ what you have disclosed does not fit the claims. The exact technical fields we work in is irrelevant - the principles are the same. In any case, all 3 of us work in mechanical fields.
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
So now you’re saying that I have a very poor attitude and am insolent towards my wife? Tw@t.
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.
Whatever
…and numerous other inabilities to understand the process of my device. BTW, my design is not a watch component.
well, the other 2 examiners interpreted it the same way I did. If it works differently to the way we interpreted it, due to unillustrated features, then it’s a case of insufficient disclosure and would lead to a refusal.
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.
look - your design differs significantly from the claim in more ways than just that, which is what I’ve been trying to tell you! E.g. the “retaining means” for holding the composition in. It is you who cannot understand the wording of the claim! I can pick on plenty of things that will make your design non-functional, but chose not to, and instead stuck to the substantive issue of the features of the RA claim which were different to what you disclosed.
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”.
Projection!
Look, were are a target for distain initially because you made unsubstantiated allegations against the British Army. You called it racist and abusive. You then make ridiculous claims in threads on almost any topic, from firearms to linguistics, to tactics and doctrine, and then fight tooth-and-nail to not admit that you were wrong. This is why people hound you this way, and will continue to do so until you stop making ridiculous claims.
All of your hatefulness and confusion because you were trying to compare something patented in 2000 to something I designed in 1992. Once you found the image for the 2000 patent, it became obvious why you were so utterly confused and stumped to understand why my design was functional (like other, patented military primers using an electric arc) but didn’t match the description of the 2000 patent on every point.
Try having all of the information and what you are looking at squared away in your head before trying to dicredit the next patent.
NO WONDER genius. Which is why you tried so hard and so hatefully to discredit it’s functionality but could not. No wonder you were confused and thought the insulator and conductors were each other. You were comparing the text of one patent to the illustration for a design that was physically completely different.
Your desire to discredit it was greater than your willingness to admit it’s funcionability. That left you incapable of discussing the device reasonably. You handicapped yourself with compusive disdain. And that’s just sad.
Here’s another patents I may have received or superceded. I’m not so sure that I would not have recieved a patent afterall. It seems that many designs have come about since lomg after my designs, and received patents, some not using electrically conductive primer compound at all!
Like I said, one patent leads to the patent owner submitting many alternate designs to try to keep the technology for themselves.
BTW, when searching the US Patent Office using the boolean equasion SPEC/(primer and firearm and electric), every patent that turns up is no earlier than 1997. :shock:
Too bad I didn’t send mine in back in 1992 eh?
This one uses (like mine, dual contact design)…
“The primer powder 38 is virtually any primer mixture already available, known, used or yet to be developed for use in standard percussion primers.” :lol:
What’s the point - you won’t read what’s written, nor interpret it correctly, and you’ll read more into both your stuff and the prior art.
This topic has been full of classic Ironman debating techniques:
Straw-man arguments
Misreading
Selective reading
Wilful misunderstanding
Reading more into things than is there
Over-interpreting things
Argueing with an expert
Assuming that argueing against you is some form of hate-filled anti-americanism
Oh, and you wanted to know when the last thing for a mechanical watch was patented. Well, in 2004, there were 89 publications of European applications (not including chronographs) in the field of mechanical watches, and there have been 29 to date this year. With PCT applications, there were 68 and 14 respectively (although there will be some overlap between EP & PCT).
BTW, when searching the US Patent Office using the boolean equasion SPEC/(primer and firearm and electric), every patent that turns up is no earlier than 1997.
Boolean text searching sucks. I hardly do any at all. If I do it, it’s in combination with classification.
Searching EPODOC using the EC class F42C19/12 (electric primers) gives 608 documents, 84 of which are pre-1950.
Oh, and did you look at the claims of any of those you found? Do you understand what claims are for, what they look like & what they do?
This all started because someone said that American soldiers shoot with wreckless disregard and have little regard for winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqis. They mentioned a video that supposedly showed US troops firing aimlessly into the civilian crowd as they tieid to evade an attack on their convoy. Close-up examination of the video showed that the soldier was shooting his weapon into the sky without moving the barrell at about 35 degrees to create noise and get civilians to move their vehicles out of the way.
Then they quote a blogger :roll: as a source for supposed proof that the US troops are wreckless and disconcerned with the Iraqi people. BTW, the blogger was an Iraqi who mentioned the difference between the way British toops conducted themselves in a relatively secure part of Iraq where there was little if any violence occurring, and the way US troops were acting more defensively in the north of Iraq where the violence is high and attacks on US troops are numerous. :!:
Then they persisted in saying that British soldiers count their rounds and have to account for every shot. :roll: while US soldiers shoot at anything that moves.
Then they continued to say that American soldiers conduct themselves with little regard for winning the “hearts and minds” of the Iraqi people and shoot aimlessly when attacked.
There’s your recap.
All of that has been proven to be bunk. I have explained how the US troops do many things to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people - more than any other force is doing by a long shot. As for Amnesty International, why you have a problem with it I don’t know. Surely you are not suggesting that because they did not launch a full-scale investigation into every account that none of their reports contain factual accounts of actual events. Amnesty International, now that you bring that back up, has numerous reports of British soldiers carelessly killing civilians, sometimes by the dozens with air power. I am sure they have some like that of US soldiers as well. Surely you are not implying that the reports about US soldiers are true but the ones about British soldiers are not.
If you want to get into a debate wherein you claim that the US does little or nothing for the “hearts and minds” of the Iraqi people, that’s fine. Before you start that, be aware that billions of US dollars that are being spent on numerous programs to do that very thing - covering everything from veteranary care and pet adoption for strays, building schools, water supplies, electricity infrastructure, telecommunications, building community centers, visiting civilians to see if they are in desperate need of anything, meeting with local officials to discuss community needs and issues - there is no stone left unturned in what the US is doing to improve life for the Iqari people and to show them that we are their friends and allies. That’s a lot more than the British or anyone else is doing, that much is certain.
Saying that the US does little to win the “hearts and minds” of the Iraqi people is completely unjustifiable and incorrect. It is very much the opposite of the truth, in fact.
As was said, recklessly firing rounds without aiming, in a built up area - that is not the mark of a well trained or well disciplined soldier. Where do the bullets go that he is firing?
Then they persisted in saying that British soldiers count their rounds and have to account for every shot. Rolling Eyes while US soldiers shoot at anything that moves.
I was issued 120 rounds in Iraq, every month we had our rounds counted by the Troop SSgt. If we had fired a round, we would have been asked why we fired that round before being issued replacements. The British Army does indeed account for all of the rounds fired in non-war situations and they do indeed count their rounds.
Then they continued to say that American soldiers conduct themselves with little regard for winning the “hearts and minds” of the Iraqi people and shoot aimlessly when attacked.
Shooting aimlessly like sticking your rifle out of a moving vehicle and firing “to make some noise”?
I only got 50, and I was there during the war! I suppose thats what you get when you go to war with a load of nurses. The fringe benefits were pretty good though…
They probably went somewhere other than into the civilian crowd, like about 1-2 miles away would be my guess. What’s yours? :roll:
We’ve already seen how British soldiers make gross errors in war like any other army - plenty of them in Iraq too. Your contention that such happenings is a uniquely American phenomenon is beyond offensive and absurd. It’s just plain utter stupidity.
Every soldier is issued rounds. But I agree with my Canadian friend who said “If British soldiers are counting their rounds, that’s just f’d up. They must not be fighting the real war over there.”
You are trying to imply that each single round is accounted for by a seperate explaination, and that’s silly. What you mean is the soldier must account for his rounds altogether with a plausable explaination of where this many went and where about that many went. I know you could not be implying that soldiers take a notrepad and pencil with them and stop in the middle of combat to write down how he just shot 3 rounds from his burst selector at a guy who is still firing at him. :lol:
All soldiers acount for their ammo. You’re tying to make it look like british soldiers account for each single one on an individual basis for the purpose of trying to imply that US soldiers are wreckless. That’s just truly silly.
Silly. Still blathering that garbage eh? Let me see now, how many Iraqi citizens did Amnesty International say were killed by cluster and other bombs from British planes that day on “Bloody Sunday”? 1200 civies in Basra? I think that was correct. What do you have to say about that? Nothing? It was all aimed fire? Did they count their bullets?
“In a number of cases UK soldiers have opened fire and killed Iraqi civilians in circumstances where there was apparently no imminent threat of death or serious injury to themselves or others. In most such cases documented by Amnesty International, soldiers resorted to lethal force even though the use of such force did not appear to be strictly necessary in order to protect life. The following cases are just some of those studied by Amnesty International.”
Inter Press Service News Agency http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=23689i
“The new reports have shattered a myth that some British media had been building up that British forces were acting with far more restraint than U.S. forces and were being more respectful to the Iraqi population.”
Your silly claim about US soldiers had fallen through the cracks dude. But you’ve seen all this and still make the claim. Good Lord dude. Your really hate the US badly don’t you.
BTW, why isn’t Britain doing as much to win the “hearts and minds” of the Iraqi people as the US? Is it because it is so costly? That’s my guess.
“Hearts and minds” is a concept that is widely regarded as predominately used by British troops. Who were the first troops to remove helmets and patrol in berets?
I am not on an American bashing crusade here, I just know a lot about how British troops are operating over there. One of the first things we did was to establish field hospitals to deal with the local population, I can tell you from personal experience that the locals were overwhelmingly welcoming as they were getting the sort of care that they hadn’t seen for a very long time.
