More classic Iron man

[system]

@festamus

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

No, there were no patents issued for an electically discharged primer for small arms prior to 2000. Did you not see the document I provided from the US Patent Office? You did? And you say that? :?:

@festamus

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most of it’s fighter aircraft - and has done since the 1960’s (except from that period where they decided cannon’s were outdated he he) I highly doubt it’s been forgotten.

If that is true, why was no patent issued until 2000? Perhaps because they are of a different design? Perhaps also partly because they are not for use in small arms? Obviously, whatever you are pointing to is different enough that it does not match the description of the item in the patent:

“An electric primer for the discharge of ammunition suitable for use in small arms.”

@festamus

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, no patent was issued for this invention until 2000, as you have seen. My design includes precicely what is described in, “An electric primer for the discharge of ammunition suitable for use in small arms.”

Had I submitted it, I would have been granted the patent for “an electric primer for the discharge of ammunition suitable for use in small arms”.

@festamus

Again - you invented an electric firearm and cartridge, genuinely believing this to be new. It is not, unfortunately.

Again, no patent was issued for this invention until 2000, as you have seen.

@festamus

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.

If the patent you mention were for an invention that included an electrically disharged primer for small arms, the patent issued in 2000 could not have been granted. You are trying to say that the US Patent Office granted 2 patents for the same thing? :?:

And, as I have said before, the US Patent Office does not require physical, working models of inventions. They do not have some huge testing facility where people can send automobile sized inventions to them for testing. They require only a detailed description and illustrations.

@festamus

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.

Caseless ammunition has nothing to do with my design or the patent issued for it to someone in 2000. Caseless ammunition is not the same as ammunition using “an electric primer for the discharge of ammunition suitable for use in small arms” which uses electrodes and a spark gap, as described in my papers and shown in my illustrations, as described in the patent issued in 2000.

[system]

@pdf27

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.

It is clear, you sissy dork, that you are trying to make some twisted interpretation of my words into something that I never said. :lol: :lol:

@pdf27

I assume so - TinWalt has edited his post at least twice while I have been replying to it, which is getting highly irritating.

pudfuker27, you do nothing but demean yourself with such trash.

[Crab_to_be]

This is getting tiresome.

I have not spouted garbage on here. You made the allegation, you prove it.

I am posting on here because lots of people believe what they read on the internet. Thus, I do not like letting statements which I believe to be incorrect pass unchalleged. I bear you no ill will, but I will continue to challenge assertions you make that I disagree with.

I do not want to be hateful. Where I believe you are wrong, I have challenged your assertions and provided evidence to back up my claims. You reply with personal abuse and do not address the points that I have made, merely those points that you wish I had made.

I have made two derogatory marks about you as a person. In the first, I questioned your claim that you had studied philosophy at College. I did this because of your total inability to understand my previous posts, despite me using plain and simple english. At your request, I removed the allegation as it did not constitute constructive argument. I also noted in that post that I had indeed edited it in such a manner. After you continued to reply to my posts by offering personal abuse and not addressing the points raised, I concluded that you were a troll. I would like to make clear that by ‘addressing the points raised’ I do not mean simply contradicting them. You need to provide evidence or discussion to support your statements.

My previous post was made before I had seen your reply. To address those points:
I note that you have now admitted that you do ‘spout bullhockey’. I also note that you think by offering reasoned argument in the face of your ranting, you feel that I am trying to intimidate you. Trying to intimidate someone over the internet is a rather pointless activity and the thought of trying to do so had not occurred to me. Again, the assertion that ‘all things are British’ is another example of a straw man. Instead of offering debate, you post bizarre statements seemingly in the vain hope that they will detract from others and not youself.

I look forwards to your reply.

[festamus]

@IRONMAN

No, there were no patents issued for an electically discharged primer for small arms prior to 2000. Did you not see the document I provided from the US Patent Office? You did? And you say that? :?:

I read it in full and viewed the accompanying drawings. I also did what YOU should have done and done a more comprehensive patent search.

There are more than one patents for electrically discharged primers for small arms prior to 2000. Including one in 1884 for an electrical firearm and it’s associated cartridge. I even made it easy and gave you the patent number 291,288. I suggest you go read it. Then there was a dual purpose percussion/electrical primer in 1902. And a string of other patents following that.

Did YOU read them? It seems not.

I’ve been very polite and sympathetic and only posted things I can back up with valid US patent numbers which you refuse to read. After one post in these forums I already understand why so many people disagree with you so often.

If that is true, why was no patent issued until 2000? Perhaps because they are of a different design? Perhaps also partly because they are not for use in small arms? Obviously, whatever you are pointing to is different enough that it does not match the description of the item in the patent:

Has it escaped your attention that your idea only bares a vague resemblence to the patent you say is “your” idea, and even then that resemblence is that both are electrically primed arms relatd, which I have quite politely shown you is an idea dating back to 1884? The difference being the patent you posted up refines the concept with actual engineering, whereas your idea merely defines the existing concept yet again and therefore would NOT have got a patent. Where is the problem you have in understanding this?

Again, no patent was issued for this invention until 2000, as you have seen. My design includes precicely what is described in, “An electric primer for the discharge of ammunition suitable for use in small arms.”

Their invention is quite specifically a refined electrical primer suitable for use in small arms. They have done a lot of great detail in doing so, showing how it is a refinement over existing patents and hence worthy of a new one. Yours is merely a concept for the electric gun, as I have given you SEVERAL pre-existing patents for, including small arms, and even patents which take electric primer as the existing state of the art and build on it with caseless design.

Had I submitted it, I would have been granted the patent for “an electric primer for the discharge of ammunition suitable for use in small arms”.

No, because you did not advance the state of the art. You drew an existing concept and added nothing which you could demonstrate was an improvement warranting a new patent. I know it sounds harsh but that’s just how it is.

Again, no patent was issued for this invention until 2000, as you have seen.

No. I have given you several patent numbers proving to the contrary. You clearly didn’t read them. The 2000 patent has a great deal of detail justifying it’s granting as a patent, in the context of existing patents. Yours merely details applying an electrical current to a contact on the base of a round - i.e. a concept which has existed since at least 1884 as I have kindly PROVEN to you by supplying a valid US patent number for said concept.

If the patent you mention were for an invention that included an electrically disharged primer for small arms, the patent issued in 2000 could not have been granted. You are trying to say that the US Patent Office granted 2 patents for the same thing? :?:

I’ve given you the patent numbers for electrically primed weapons far predating 2000. I told you in the original post and will say it again - the patent is for a particular detailed design of an improved electric primer. Nothing more or less.

And, as I have said before, the US Patent Office does not require physical, working models of inventions. They do not have some huge testing facility where people can send automobile sized inventions to them for testing. They require only a detailed description and illustrations.

Which must represent an advance in the state of the art. Yours was 100 years late.

Caseless ammunition has nothing to do with my design or the patent issued for it to someone in 2000.

sigh. Your idea has as little to do with the 2000 patent. Electrically primed caseless ammunition is still electrically primed. The 2000 patent is for a particular design of electric primer - with a Great deal of detail - which represents an advance in the state of the art.

Caseless ammunition is not the same as ammunition using “an electric primer for the discharge of ammunition suitable for use in small arms” which uses electrodes and a spark gap, as described in my papers and shown in my illustrations, as described in the patent issued in 2000.

An idea which has existed for a century or more, it would seem. READ the patents I’ve gone to a lot of trouble to providing you the numbers for, to make you feel better about having reinvented something unknowingly - something that happens a LOT to a LOT of hardworking inventors.

[system]

@Crab_to_be

This is getting tiresome.

I have not spouted garbage on here. You made the allegation, you prove it.

I made no statement that nickel has the same mass as anything else. You have failed to quote me saying it, because I did not. Your attempt to put words into my mouth is simply sissified. Don’t get pissy with me, be pissy with yourself for trying such garbage. What are you hoping to accomplish with that, and with doing it here in this thread? :shock:

@Crab_to_be

I have made two derogatory marks about you as a person. In the first, I questioned your claim that you had studied philosophy at College.

That’s nice. I could care less if you believe that I have or not.

@Crab_to_be

Trying to intimidate someone over the internet is a rather pointless activity and the thought of trying to do so had not occurred to me.

Then what is this blather you spout? Why do you come here only to make derrogatory remarks? In a thread devoted to the future of firearms, you are here making such comments and bullhocky, trying to put words in my mouth that you cannot quote, and simply trying to fill up a thread with unrelated trash and personal criticisms. What is wrong with you?

[system]

@festamus

I read it in full and viewed the accompanying drawings. I also did what YOU should have done and done a more comprehensive patent search.

Has it occured to you that you did not read my descrition and the patent I showed that was issued? They are precicely the same.

@festamus

There are more than one patents for electrically discharged primers for small arms prior to 2000. Including one in 1884 for an electrical firearm and it’s associated cartridge. I even made it easy and gave you the patent number 291,288. I suggest you go read it. Then there was a dual purpose percussion/electrical primer in 1902. And a string of other patents following that.

Did YOU read them? It seems not.

Has it occured to you that you did not read my descrition and the patent I showed that was issued? They are precicely the same.

@festamus

Has it escaped your attention that your idea only bares a vague resemblence to the patent you say is “your” idea, and even then that resemblence is that both are electrically primed arms relatd, which I have quite politely shown you is an idea dating back to 1884? The difference being the patent you posted up refines the concept with actual engineering, whereas your idea merely defines the existing concept yet again and therefore would NOT have got a patent. Where is the problem you have in understanding this?

Has it occured to you that you did not read my descrition and the patent I showed that was issued? They are precicely the same.

@festamus

Their invention is quite specifically a refined electrical primer suitable for use in small arms. They have done a lot of great detail in doing so, showing how it is a refinement over existing patents and hence worthy of a new one. Yours is merely a concept for the electric gun, as I have given you SEVERAL pre-existing patents for, including small arms, and even patents which take electric primer as the existing state of the art and build on it with caseless design.

Has it occured to you that you did not read my descrition and the patent I showed that was issued? They are precicely the same.

@festamus

No, because you did not advance the state of the art. You drew an existing concept and added nothing which you could demonstrate was an improvement warranting a new patent. I know it sounds harsh but that’s just how it is.

Has it occured to you that you did not read my descrition and the patent I showed that was issued? They are precicely the same.

@festamus

No. I have given you several patent numbers proving to the contrary. You clearly didn’t read them. The 2000 patent has a great deal of detail justifying it’s granting as a patent, in the context of existing patents. Yours merely details applying an electrical current to a contact on the base of a round - i.e. a concept which has existed since at least 1884 as I have kindly PROVEN to you by supplying a valid US patent number for said concept.

Has it occured to you that you did not read my descrition and the patent I showed that was issued? They are precicely the same.

@festamus

I’ve given you the patent numbers for electrically primed weapons far predating 2000. I told you in the original post and will say it again - the patent is for a particular detailed design of an improved electric primer. Nothing more or less.

Has it occured to you that you did not read my descrition and the patent I showed that was issued? They are precicely the same.

@festamus

sigh. Your idea has as little to do with the 2000 patent. Electrically primed caseless ammunition is still electrically primed. The 2000 patent is for a particular design of electric primer - with a Great deal of detail - which represents an advance in the state of the art.

Has it occured to you that you did not read my descrition and the patent I showed that was issued? They are precicely the same.

@festamus

An idea which has existed for a century or more, it would seem. READ the patents I’ve gone to a lot of trouble to providing you the numbers for, to make you feel better about having reinvented something unknowingly - something that happens a LOT to a LOT of hardworking inventors.

Has it occured to you that you did not read my descrition and the patent I showed that was issued? They are precicely the same.

[Crab_to_be]

Eh? You are clearly confusing me with someone else - I suggest Stoat, pdf or Bluffcove.

Although, now you mention it, the mass of nickel is a meaningless concept unless you specify how much nickel. I think you are referring to density, which is part of your argument with another person. That’s your first point dealt with.

Your second point is taken out of context, but was part of a reasoned response to one of your accusations.

Your third point also does not relate to me. I have given evidence for each of my points, except where such evidence would require reproducing entire threads.

I will continue to defend my good name in the face of the unjustified libel that you continue to peddle. I make few derogatory marks. Mainly, I challenge your assertions and provide the basis of this challenge. You are most welcome to then reply with your own arguments. This is known as debate. Posting abuse in response to arguments is not. So far I’ve now made about four posts directly attacking you because you have directly attacked me without justification. I respond reasonably and rationally. You should pay me the same courtesy.

[Sid_the_Sexist]

Here are some more documents which I suspect may come from our tinfoil hatted friends archives. I obtained them from Area 51 via the NSA, who talk to me using mind control rays beamed from USAF Menwith Hill

[festamus]

Has it occured to you that you did not read my descrition and the patent I showed that was issued? They are precicely the same.

(repeated, childishly, ad nausem)

“Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth” - FDR, 1939
:lol:

They are precisely NOT the same.

I invite the members of the forum to go here to read Patent 6,487,972 in full, http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6487972.WKU.&OS=PN/6487972&RS=PN/6487972

Also click Images and view the accompanying drawings.

Note the great detail about the actual practicalities of an electric primer for small arms which this patent goes into solving, which is what makes this a Patent following on from the other patents which I have posted the numbers of and Ironman refuses to acknowledge the existence of, and instead posts rather childishly despite the fact my original post was very polite and sympathetic, and FULL of factual content and references to back it up.

I also invite you to visit the patent numbers in my original two posts and see just how old the concept of electric primer (which is all Ironman really proposes) and the means of using it is LONG established.

Having invited you to look at this evidence (not opinion. factual evidence as provided kindly by the US Patent Office, bless em), I also invite you to join me in pissing yourself laughing at Ironman’s refusal to accept more than a century’s worth of patents.

[system]

Once more, for those who are trying to say that a patent was issued for something that no patent was issued for until 2000:

Patents are not granted for technology that is a component of another patent. A patent cannot be issued for something that is already patented, otherwise no patent could be issued. Had a patent been issued for an electically discharged primer for small arms that uses a spark gap with electrodes (as described in the patent that was granted for precicely that in 2000), then the patent in 2000 for nothing more than an electrically discharged primer using an electrode and spark gap would not have been issued in 2000.

The patent is not for an adaptation of such an invention that was previosly patented. The patent was not issued for “an adaptation of” or a “new method of using” an electrically discharged primer using an electrode and spark gap for small arms.

The patent issued in 2000 is for nothing more than an electrically discharged primer using an electrode and spark gap for small arms.

[system]

@Crab_to_be

Eh? You are clearly confusing me with someone else - I suggest Stoat, pdf or Bluffcove.

Although, now you mention it, the mass of nickel is a meaningless concept unless you specify how much nickel. I think you are referring to density, which is part of your argument with another person. That’s your first point dealt with.

Your second point is taken out of context, but was part of a reasoned response to one of your accusations.

Your third point also does not relate to me. I have given evidence for each of my points, except where such evidence would require reproducing entire threads.

I will continue to defend my good name in the face of the unjustified libel that you continue to peddle. I make few derogatory marks. Mainly, I challenge your assertions and provide the basis of this challenge. You are most welcome to then reply with your own arguments. This is known as debate. Posting abuse in response to arguments is not. So far I’ve now made about four posts directly attacking you because you have directly attacked me without justification. I respond reasonably and rationally. You should pay me the same courtesy.

Then what is this blather you spout? Why do you come here only to make derrogatory remarks? In a thread devoted to the future of firearms, you are here making such comments and bullhocky, trying to put words in my mouth that you cannot quote, and simply trying to fill up a thread with unrelated trash and personal criticisms. What is wrong with you?

[system]

@festamus

They are precisely NOT the same.

Indeed, they are.

[system]

@Sid_the_Sexist

Here are some more documents which I suspect may come from our tinfoil hatted friends archives. I obtained them from Area 51 via the NSA, who talk to me using mind control rays beamed from USAF Menwith Hill

Why show the world what a sissymouth you are?

[system]

@IRONMAN

I know a few hecklers will blather some schookie twat spittle and try to say that there is some reason why my invention is not legitimate. All I can say to those who do is that you are only making yourself look like a dweeblette because you are jealous.

:lol:

Well, I was right. My invention is precicely described in a patent granted for precicely what I detailed, and nothing more (not an adaptation of it, but the device itself), in the year 2000. You have once again ruined another thread with off-topic blather and insults. Enjoy your thread. I’m done here. Post what you like, but I will never read it since I won’t return to the thread.

Regardless of what you post, you cannot change the fact that I designed it and could have patented it. You have made it obvious that you are both jealous and hateful, and that is simply sad. You have my pity.

Bye bye now.

[Sid_the_Sexist]

In the UK we don’t usually let mental patients own guns, is it the same over in the USA ?

I’m glad the nurses give you internet access though, you are the funniest thing since…something

[festamus]

Nonsense. I’ve provided you with patent numbers for electrically primed small arms dating back to 1884. You refuse to recognise their existence.

If you can’t recognise that the patent in 2000 is for detailed design of a new type of electrical primer (not just a electrical primer) then you have clearly yourself not read the patent in full.

Again, I urge you to look at the 1884 patents and others. The list of electric primer patents is long. I point you to those patent numbers I have already posted, 3090310 patented in 1963. As similar to your invention as you claim yours is to the 2000 patent 6487972 patent - if not more so to each other than to yours. And notice - in 3090310 they refer to the PRIOR art (this patent becoming the new state of the art) of electrical primers and give detail chemical compositions for the primer. Notice 3090310 is a NEW AND IMPROVED electrical primer for rapid fire machine guns. Just as 6487972 is a new and improveed electrical primer for small arms. Electrically primed small arms having dated back to AT LEAST an 1884 patent as I keep telling you but you refuse to acknowledge. Your patent includes nothing but drawings of electrical contacts. That an electrically primed weapon (as invented in 1884) needs electrical contacts goes without saying (but it was said, and patented, in 1884 anyway).

Your invention is a good idea. And that’s why it’s already been patented for a 100 years.

Again. I invite the forum to read patent 6487972. To read the 1884 patent posted earlier. To read the MANY patents in between. And then tell me exactly HOW Ironman’s sketchings advanced the state of the art in 1907, yet alone 1987.

The patents are THERE for you to see. You refuse to acknowledge them. Your loss.

[Crab_to_be]

Your failure to address any of the points that I have raised and the continued abuse you offer means that must fall into one of two categories.

The first is a troll. You offer no debate, only personal and unjustified abuse to those who do not hold identical opinions to your own.

The scond is that you are utterly, utterly stupid. And I mean so stupid that you could starve to death in Wal-Mart. That’s why you have been unable to reply coherently to anything I have ever posted.

I would ask a mod to lock this thread as IRONMAN clearly has nothing to contribute any more - look at his response to festamus - but it is amusing watching this very stupid person proudly showing his stupidity off to the world. Baldensberg has a point - mind if I retire from the ring and join you in the front row. I promise not to steal your boiled sweets.

[Man_of_Stoat]

Let’s just remind Ironpan of another ridiculous claim made by him before I go out:

The Bren can’t fire tracer or armour-piercing because of its curved magazine. (or words to that effect - see the LMG thread & Walter’s Book of Soldier Knowledge). :roll: :evil:

I will deal with the patent issues when I get back from fishing. It happens to be rather a speciality of mine

[Gen_Sandworm]

K i think just about everyone has had a go at IRONMAN now. Regardless of what he says he invented…his topic idea is good. So I suggest we get back to the Future of Firearms.

[system]

This will be my last visit to the thread.

Read this,

then,

Bye bye now!