http://www.ninesigma.com/mx/50753-1 is a link containing another link to a Request for Proposals that might interest members of the group. Read all of the contractual details before proposing so your budget can account for all project costs.

Emmett Redd
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------



(You need to be a member of msp430 -- send a blank email to msp430-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

Redd, Emmett R wrote:
> http://www.ninesigma.com/mx/50753-1 is a link containing another link to a Request for Proposals that might interest members of the group. Read all of the contractual details before proposing so your budget can account for all project costs.
>
>
Hi Emmett,
They are seemingly vague on this contradiction:

(And, they seem to have protected so I can't copy/paste)

But:
Yes, harvest power from kinetic energy...

But don't, Use explicit power generation...movement..

So, should one pull a rabbit out of their hat??????

Best, Dan.
--
email: y...@lakeweb.com but drop the 'x'.
------------------------------------



(You need to be a member of msp430 -- send a blank email to msp430-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

Dan,

If the remote control does not work, the user will unconsciously shake
his head. We can generate power without requiring conscious shaking ;)

--OCY

--- In m...@yahoogroups.com, Dan Bloomquist wrote:
>
> Redd, Emmett R wrote:
> > http://www.ninesigma.com/mx/50753-1 is a link containing another
link to a Request for Proposals that might interest members of the
group. Read all of the contractual details before proposing so your
budget can account for all project costs.
> >
> >
> Hi Emmett,
> They are seemingly vague on this contradiction:
>
> (And, they seem to have protected so I can't copy/paste)
>
> But:
> Yes, harvest power from kinetic energy...
>
> But don't, Use explicit power generation...movement..
>
> So, should one pull a rabbit out of their hat??????
>
> Best, Dan.
> --
> email: yotox@... but drop the 'x'.
>

------------------------------------



(You need to be a member of msp430 -- send a blank email to msp430-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

Well they ban all the rational, and feasible methods of energy
scavenging, like vibration, motion, solar etc. They do suggest that
motion is OK provided it only occurs when the user is lifting the remote
to use it, although it must be confined to incidental motion. Wha
happens when the user doesn't lift the remote but wants t operate it?
What happens when they lift it and decide to channel hop, ie multiple
sequential transmissions without much motion between them? since there
are also no batteries allowed, and since a typical RF transaction, in
the class they need, takes around 20mJ-40mJ, it needs either a damned
large storage cap, or a small battery with high pulse capability. But
they've banned batteries. It seems this is a large company that has
tried and failed to do this in-house. What concerns me most is their
requirement that any proposals be guaranteed free of IP, ie if you don't
tell us how it works so that we can assess its viability you won't be
'chosen', if you do then we are free to steal what you tell us. I think
anyone who goes for this is potentially on a hiding to nothing. Of
course I may always be wrong and one of us has a) developed such a beast
and not marketed it yet, b) possibly has patents granted/lodged so is
protected, or c) feels confident they can hook the 'client' without
disclosure.

Cheers

Al

Dan Bloomquist wrote:

>Redd, Emmett R wrote:
>
>
>>http://www.ninesigma.com/mx/50753-1 is a link containing another link to a Request for Proposals that might interest members of the group. Read all of the contractual details before proposing so your budget can account for all project costs.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>Hi Emmett,
>They are seemingly vague on this contradiction:
>
>(And, they seem to have protected so I can't copy/paste)
>
>But:
>Yes, harvest power from kinetic energy...
>
>But don't, Use explicit power generation...movement..
>
>So, should one pull a rabbit out of their hat??????
>
>Best, Dan.
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------



(You need to be a member of msp430 -- send a blank email to msp430-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

I just thought of 2 technologies which might be allowed (I'm just going from memory of reading the RFP because my time is short this morning): 1) the resonant RF power xfer that has been developed at MIT in the last couple of years and 2) harvesting the energy from the button click (humans like the tactile feedback). I have thought of a third, but I'll keep it to myself for now; number 2 may be better.

I cannot fault the concerns about the proposal process. After all, I said to check it out. I have looked into another project of compressing salt crystals in brine that is on the other end of power consumption spectrum, but the company is not forthcoming in answers to simple, direct questions. Even if there were no IP problems like those discussed here, they have so far impressed me of how poor work partners they might make.

Al, allowing that there might be people out there in the three classes you mention was the reason I posted. On top of that is the old engineer bromide, "The difficult we can do immediately; the impossible takes a little longer."

Emmett

________________________________

From: m...@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Onestone
Sent: Thu 8/28/2008 11:59 PM
To: m...@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [msp430] RFP for Low-Power Remote-Control-Like Transmitter

Well they ban all the rational, and feasible methods of energy
scavenging, like vibration, motion, solar etc. They do suggest that
motion is OK provided it only occurs when the user is lifting the remote
to use it, although it must be confined to incidental motion. Wha
happens when the user doesn't lift the remote but wants t operate it?
What happens when they lift it and decide to channel hop, ie multiple
sequential transmissions without much motion between them? since there
are also no batteries allowed, and since a typical RF transaction, in
the class they need, takes around 20mJ-40mJ, it needs either a damned
large storage cap, or a small battery with high pulse capability. But
they've banned batteries. It seems this is a large company that has
tried and failed to do this in-house. What concerns me most is their
requirement that any proposals be guaranteed free of IP, ie if you don't
tell us how it works so that we can assess its viability you won't be
'chosen', if you do then we are free to steal what you tell us. I think
anyone who goes for this is potentially on a hiding to nothing. Of
course I may always be wrong and one of us has a) developed such a beast
and not marketed it yet, b) possibly has patents granted/lodged so is
protected, or c) feels confident they can hook the 'client' without
disclosure.

Cheers

Al

Dan Bloomquist wrote:

>Redd, Emmett R wrote:
>>http://www.ninesigma.com/mx/50753-1 is a link containing another link to a Request for Proposals that might interest members of the group. Read all of the contractual details before proposing so your budget can account for all project costs.
>>
>>
>Hi Emmett,
>They are seemingly vague on this contradiction:
>
>(And, they seem to have protected so I can't copy/paste)
>
>But:
>Yes, harvest power from kinetic energy...
>
>But don't, Use explicit power generation...movement..
>
>So, should one pull a rabbit out of their hat??????
>
>Best, Dan.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------



(You need to be a member of msp430 -- send a blank email to msp430-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

Hi Emmett and others. Yes I have a few ideas too, the resonant Rf thingy
is really very little removed from the RFID stuff, except it's using
background noise, which there is usually plenty of in a house, so I am
pretty certain that it could be made to work, but is probably not
patentable. Also the button click might work, but I have resewrvations
about the amount of enrgy you can gather from it at an affordsable
price. Don't forget their stated manufacturing proce o $10 for a
receiver/transmitter pair. Damned hard to do with a piezo that outputs
significant energy in a single dhort burst. Some of the best sensors in
this area are those from NOLIAC. i have experimented at great length
with their stuff, and it is possible to gain enough energy from a
single activation for a complete transcation, but even in 500k volumes
their product cost more than this project can bear.

My two previous 'working' scavengers used a similar idea, one with
impacts on a piezo transformer the other using a cantilever flexing, and
various things based on those concepts, and I am fairly certain that
that at least 2 of the other 3 ideas I have will work. I'm also certain
that within this group there are plenty of people with ideas I'd never
think of, that would work too. I guess though that the 3 points I raised
are the kicker. if somebody already had an energy scavenging system that
efficient they would have it covered by patent, or already be
negotitiating, or be trying to raise the money to file a patent before
they disclose it, and point c) I think is going to be the sticking
point. It's the main reason I wouldn't try. I can't figure out a way to
give somebody the confidence I can do this without telling them enough
for them to be ablke to go it without me anyway.

Emmett, I wasn't being critical of you for Posting at all. It's good
that people occasionally post these things to the possible benefit of
others, it's just that this one seems to have rules that are extremely
lopsided.

Finally I thought that it was the impossible we do now, miracles need to
wait until after lunch.

Cheers

Al

Redd, Emmett R wrote:

>I just thought of 2 technologies which might be allowed (I'm just going from memory of reading the RFP because my time is short this morning): 1) the resonant RF power xfer that has been developed at MIT in the last couple of years and 2) harvesting the energy from the button click (humans like the tactile feedback). I have thought of a third, but I'll keep it to myself for now; number 2 may be better.
>
>I cannot fault the concerns about the proposal process. After all, I said to check it out. I have looked into another project of compressing salt crystals in brine that is on the other end of power consumption spectrum, but the company is not forthcoming in answers to simple, direct questions. Even if there were no IP problems like those discussed here, they have so far impressed me of how poor work partners they might make.
>
>Al, allowing that there might be people out there in the three classes you mention was the reason I posted. On top of that is the old engineer bromide, "The difficult we can do immediately; the impossible takes a little longer."
>
>Emmett
>
>________________________________
>
>From: m...@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Onestone
>Sent: Thu 8/28/2008 11:59 PM
>To: m...@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [msp430] RFP for Low-Power Remote-Control-Like Transmitter
>
>Well they ban all the rational, and feasible methods of energy
>scavenging, like vibration, motion, solar etc. They do suggest that
>motion is OK provided it only occurs when the user is lifting the remote
>to use it, although it must be confined to incidental motion. Wha
>happens when the user doesn't lift the remote but wants t operate it?
>What happens when they lift it and decide to channel hop, ie multiple
>sequential transmissions without much motion between them? since there
>are also no batteries allowed, and since a typical RF transaction, in
>the class they need, takes around 20mJ-40mJ, it needs either a damned
>large storage cap, or a small battery with high pulse capability. But
>they've banned batteries. It seems this is a large company that has
>tried and failed to do this in-house. What concerns me most is their
>requirement that any proposals be guaranteed free of IP, ie if you don't
>tell us how it works so that we can assess its viability you won't be
>'chosen', if you do then we are free to steal what you tell us. I think
>anyone who goes for this is potentially on a hiding to nothing. Of
>course I may always be wrong and one of us has a) developed such a beast
>and not marketed it yet, b) possibly has patents granted/lodged so is
>protected, or c) feels confident they can hook the 'client' without
>disclosure.
>
>Cheers
>
>Al
>
>Dan Bloomquist wrote:
>
>
>
>>Redd, Emmett R wrote:
>>
>>
>>>http://www.ninesigma.com/mx/50753-1 is a link containing another link to a Request for Proposals that might interest members of the group. Read all of the contractual details before proposing so your budget can account for all project costs.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Hi Emmett,
>>They are seemingly vague on this contradiction:
>>
>>(And, they seem to have protected so I can't copy/paste)
>>
>>But:
>>Yes, harvest power from kinetic energy...
>>
>>But don't, Use explicit power generation...movement..
>>
>>So, should one pull a rabbit out of their hat??????
>>
>>Best, Dan.
>>
>>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>------------------------------------



(You need to be a member of msp430 -- send a blank email to msp430-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

Emmett and Al, thanks for your postings - very interesting.

I too have an approach which would provide the required power. So
suppose one were to submit a proposal with technical details, and as
Al suggests these technical details were taken by the organisation
for (say) a patent application or otherwise disclosed. Where would
the original author of the proposal stand, since there would be a
clear paper trail indicating that the invention originated with that
author? In such a case, unless the "invention" was signed over to the
organisation, I have a feeling that the organisation - although it
could "steal" the "invention" - could not stop the author from using
it elsewhere. What do you think?

Hugh

At 02:42 AM 8/29/2008, you wrote:
Hi Emmett and others. Yes I have a few ideas too, the resonant Rf thingy
is really very little removed from the RFID stuff, except it's using
background noise, which there is usually plenty of in a house, so I am
pretty certain that it could be made to work, but is probably not
patentable. Also the button click might work, but I have resewrvations
about the amount of enrgy you can gather from it at an affordsable
price. Don't forget their stated manufacturing proce o $10 for a
receiver/transmitter pair. Damned hard to do with a piezo that outputs
significant energy in a single dhort burst. Some of the best sensors in
this area are those from NOLIAC. i have experimented at great length
with their stuff, and it is possible to gain enough energy from a
single activation for a complete transcation, but even in 500k volumes
their product cost more than this project can bear.

My two previous 'working' scavengers used a similar idea, one with
impacts on a piezo transformer the other using a cantilever flexing, and
various things based on those concepts, and I am fairly certain that
that at least 2 of the other 3 ideas I have will work. I'm also certain
that within this group there are plenty of people with ideas I'd never
think of, that would work too. I guess though that the 3 points I raised
are the kicker. if somebody already had an energy scavenging system that
efficient they would have it covered by patent, or already be
negotitiating, or be trying to raise the money to file a patent before
they disclose it, and point c) I think is going to be the sticking
point. It's the main reason I wouldn't try. I can't figure out a way to
give somebody the confidence I can do this without telling them enough
for them to be ablke to go it without me anyway.

Emmett, I wasn't being critical of you for Posting at all. It's good
that people occasionally post these things to the possible benefit of
others, it's just that this one seems to have rules that are extremely
lopsided.

Finally I thought that it was the impossible we do now, miracles need to
wait until after lunch.

Cheers

Al

Redd, Emmett R wrote:

>I just thought of 2 technologies which might be allowed (I'm just
going from memory of reading the RFP because my time is short this
morning): 1) the resonant RF power xfer that has been developed at
MIT in the last couple of years and 2) harvesting the energy from the
button click (humans like the tactile feedback). I have thought of a
third, but I'll keep it to myself for now; number 2 may be better.
>
>I cannot fault the concerns about the proposal process. After all,
I said to check it out. I have looked into another project of
compressing salt crystals in brine that is on the other end of power
consumption spectrum, but the company is not forthcoming in answers
to simple, direct questions. Even if there were no IP problems like
those discussed here, they have so far impressed me of how poor work
partners they might make.
>
>Al, allowing that there might be people out there in the three
classes you mention was the reason I posted. On top of that is the
old engineer bromide, "The difficult we can do immediately; the
impossible takes a little longer."
>
>Emmett
>
>________________________________
>
>From: m...@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Onestone
>Sent: Thu 8/28/2008 11:59 PM
>To: m...@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [msp430] RFP for Low-Power Remote-Control-Like Transmitter
>
>
>
>Well they ban all the rational, and feasible methods of energy
>scavenging, like vibration, motion, solar etc. They do suggest that
>motion is OK provided it only occurs when the user is lifting the remote
>to use it, although it must be confined to incidental motion. Wha
>happens when the user doesn't lift the remote but wants t operate it?
>What happens when they lift it and decide to channel hop, ie multiple
>sequential transmissions without much motion between them? since there
>are also no batteries allowed, and since a typical RF transaction, in
>the class they need, takes around 20mJ-40mJ, it needs either a damned
>large storage cap, or a small battery with high pulse capability. But
>they've banned batteries. It seems this is a large company that has
>tried and failed to do this in-house. What concerns me most is their
>requirement that any proposals be guaranteed free of IP, ie if you don't
>tell us how it works so that we can assess its viability you won't be
>'chosen', if you do then we are free to steal what you tell us. I think
>anyone who goes for this is potentially on a hiding to nothing. Of
>course I may always be wrong and one of us has a) developed such a beast
>and not marketed it yet, b) possibly has patents granted/lodged so is
>protected, or c) feels confident they can hook the 'client' without
>disclosure.
>
>Cheers
>
>Al
>
>Dan Bloomquist wrote:
>
>
>
>>Redd, Emmett R wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>http://www.ninesigma.com/mx/50753-1 is a link containing another
link to a Request for Proposals that might interest members of the
group. Read all of the contractual details before proposing so your
budget can account for all project costs.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Hi Emmett,
>>They are seemingly vague on this contradiction:
>>
>>(And, they seem to have protected so I can't copy/paste)
>>
>>But:
>>Yes, harvest power from kinetic energy...
>>
>>But don't, Use explicit power generation...movement..
>>
>>So, should one pull a rabbit out of their hat??????
>>
>>Best, Dan.
>>

------------------------------------



(You need to be a member of msp430 -- send a blank email to msp430-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

When faced with something they want to obtain in this way there are some
companies that would produce the flimsiest of 'evidence' that they too
had previously, and coincidentally been working on the same idea all
along, even if it was an interoffice memo. they would then tie you down
with lawyers so heavily you couldn't afford to fight them legally. I
have faced that precise situation. even though i also had docunments
showing that the owner of that company had attempted to become a partner
with me, and had written documents describing me as the inventor. The
simple fact that he'd managed to obtain seed investment funding,
produced an almost working system, and then received massive investment
meant that his investors were ready to defend 'their' money, whereas I'd
been held back by my accident and they knew I couldn't afford the court
action.

On two other occasions very large multinationals have used documents
that described something in-house that was only related by the barest
stretch of the imagination to what I was doing to a) try and scare me
off (a cease and desist notice), and b) claim prior ownership, to stop
patents from being granted (won one, but the other has been granted in
every country but the USA, where I am still periodically writing
rebuttals to their seemingly tame examiners objections (how can an SPDT
mechanical switch possibly be misconstrued as a 192 channel 4 layer
electrode multiplexer operated electronically?)

This instance is different in any case. the key difference is that here
the company seeking the work make it a condition of submitting an
application that the proposer accepts that their submission contains no
material that they claim IP over, hence the act of submission itself
allows them to use any information contained within the submission. That
is the bit that makes me extremely wary.

Personally I can't see how you can provide enough information to give
them the assurances they would need to invest up to $100,000 in a proof
of concept without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

By the way since Emmetts first post, I've tinkered with one of my ideas
and managed to power up the blinky LED board with it. But haven't tested
it further yet, ie no wireless, but it was such a dumb off the wall
concept I had to try it, but I won't be attempting to patent it any time
soon. I am not a fan of the patent process. It originated as a scheme to
protect the smaller inventor to profit from their own labours without
having large companies steal their ideas. It has now become such a
massively expensive excercise that it is little more than an invitation
to be ripped off, as large companies are seemingly allowed to file ever
broader and more ludicrous claims. Somewhere out there is a granted
patent that effectively claims the use of an LED to indictae that power
to a device has been turned on. Not sure but that one might be Casio or
Sony, and it isn't that old either.

Cheers

Al

Hugh Molesworth wrote:

>Emmett and Al, thanks for your postings - very interesting.
>
>I too have an approach which would provide the required power. So
>suppose one were to submit a proposal with technical details, and as
>Al suggests these technical details were taken by the organisation
>for (say) a patent application or otherwise disclosed. Where would
>the original author of the proposal stand, since there would be a
>clear paper trail indicating that the invention originated with that
>author? In such a case, unless the "invention" was signed over to the
>organisation, I have a feeling that the organisation - although it
>could "steal" the "invention" - could not stop the author from using
>it elsewhere. What do you think?
>
>Hugh
>
>At 02:42 AM 8/29/2008, you wrote:
>Hi Emmett and others. Yes I have a few ideas too, the resonant Rf thingy
>is really very little removed from the RFID stuff, except it's using
>background noise, which there is usually plenty of in a house, so I am
>pretty certain that it could be made to work, but is probably not
>patentable. Also the button click might work, but I have resewrvations
>about the amount of enrgy you can gather from it at an affordsable
>price. Don't forget their stated manufacturing proce o $10 for a
>receiver/transmitter pair. Damned hard to do with a piezo that outputs
>significant energy in a single dhort burst. Some of the best sensors in
>this area are those from NOLIAC. i have experimented at great length
>with their stuff, and it is possible to gain enough energy from a
>single activation for a complete transcation, but even in 500k volumes
>their product cost more than this project can bear.
>
> My two previous 'working' scavengers used a similar idea, one with
>impacts on a piezo transformer the other using a cantilever flexing, and
>various things based on those concepts, and I am fairly certain that
>that at least 2 of the other 3 ideas I have will work. I'm also certain
>that within this group there are plenty of people with ideas I'd never
>think of, that would work too. I guess though that the 3 points I raised
>are the kicker. if somebody already had an energy scavenging system that
>efficient they would have it covered by patent, or already be
>negotitiating, or be trying to raise the money to file a patent before
>they disclose it, and point c) I think is going to be the sticking
>point. It's the main reason I wouldn't try. I can't figure out a way to
>give somebody the confidence I can do this without telling them enough
>for them to be ablke to go it without me anyway.
>
>Emmett, I wasn't being critical of you for Posting at all. It's good
>that people occasionally post these things to the possible benefit of
>others, it's just that this one seems to have rules that are extremely
>lopsided.
>
>Finally I thought that it was the impossible we do now, miracles need to
>wait until after lunch.
>
>Cheers
>
>Al
>
>Redd, Emmett R wrote:
>
> >I just thought of 2 technologies which might be allowed (I'm just
>going from memory of reading the RFP because my time is short this
>morning): 1) the resonant RF power xfer that has been developed at
>MIT in the last couple of years and 2) harvesting the energy from the
>button click (humans like the tactile feedback). I have thought of a
>third, but I'll keep it to myself for now; number 2 may be better.
> >
> >I cannot fault the concerns about the proposal process. After all,
>I said to check it out. I have looked into another project of
>compressing salt crystals in brine that is on the other end of power
>consumption spectrum, but the company is not forthcoming in answers
>to simple, direct questions. Even if there were no IP problems like
>those discussed here, they have so far impressed me of how poor work
>partners they might make.
> >
> >Al, allowing that there might be people out there in the three
>classes you mention was the reason I posted. On top of that is the
>old engineer bromide, "The difficult we can do immediately; the
>impossible takes a little longer."
> >
> >Emmett
> >
> >________________________________
> >
> >From: m...@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Onestone
> >Sent: Thu 8/28/2008 11:59 PM
> >To: m...@yahoogroups.com
> >Subject: Re: [msp430] RFP for Low-Power Remote-Control-Like Transmitter
> >
> >
> >
> >Well they ban all the rational, and feasible methods of energy
> >scavenging, like vibration, motion, solar etc. They do suggest that
> >motion is OK provided it only occurs when the user is lifting the remote
> >to use it, although it must be confined to incidental motion. Wha
> >happens when the user doesn't lift the remote but wants t operate it?
> >What happens when they lift it and decide to channel hop, ie multiple
> >sequential transmissions without much motion between them? since there
> >are also no batteries allowed, and since a typical RF transaction, in
> >the class they need, takes around 20mJ-40mJ, it needs either a damned
> >large storage cap, or a small battery with high pulse capability. But
> >they've banned batteries. It seems this is a large company that has
> >tried and failed to do this in-house. What concerns me most is their
> >requirement that any proposals be guaranteed free of IP, ie if you don't
> >tell us how it works so that we can assess its viability you won't be
> >'chosen', if you do then we are free to steal what you tell us. I think
> >anyone who goes for this is potentially on a hiding to nothing. Of
> >course I may always be wrong and one of us has a) developed such a beast
> >and not marketed it yet, b) possibly has patents granted/lodged so is
> >protected, or c) feels confident they can hook the 'client' without
> >disclosure.
> >
> >Cheers
> >
> >Al
> >
> >Dan Bloomquist wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>Redd, Emmett R wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>http://www.ninesigma.com/mx/50753-1 is a link containing another
>link to a Request for Proposals that might interest members of the
>group. Read all of the contractual details before proposing so your
>budget can account for all project costs.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Hi Emmett,
> >>They are seemingly vague on this contradiction:
> >>
> >>(And, they seem to have protected so I can't copy/paste)
> >>
> >>But:
> >>Yes, harvest power from kinetic energy...
> >>
> >>But don't, Use explicit power generation...movement..
> >>
> >>So, should one pull a rabbit out of their hat??????
> >>
> >>Best, Dan.
> >>------------------------------------



(You need to be a member of msp430 -- send a blank email to msp430-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

See below.

Emmett

________________________________

From: m...@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Onestone
Sent: Fri 8/29/2008 12:16 PM
To: m...@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [msp430] RFP for Low-Power Remote-Control-Like Transmitter

When faced with something they want to obtain in this way there are some
companies that would produce the flimsiest of 'evidence' that they too
had previously, and coincidentally been working on the same idea all
along, even if it was an interoffice memo. they would then tie you down
with lawyers so heavily you couldn't afford to fight them legally. I
have faced that precise situation. even though i also had docunments
showing that the owner of that company had attempted to become a partner
with me, and had written documents describing me as the inventor. The
simple fact that he'd managed to obtain seed investment funding,
produced an almost working system, and then received massive investment
meant that his investors were ready to defend 'their' money, whereas I'd
been held back by my accident and they knew I couldn't afford the court
action.

ER: Expanding on this paragraph and some of the information below, unfortunately, having a patent gives you only a slightly better standing in court. And, if you have no money, you cannot defend it unless some lawyer takes it on contingency and he will likely end up owning it.

ER: It would not work in this case, but a often author for Byte magazine had an interesting strategy. He said to publish your inventions and put them into the public domain. Then, start manufacturing. If your market was not large, no one would be interested in competing with you because it would not be worth it. Otherwise, if your market was large, few to none large companies would begin competing because they would not be able to protect their (your) product from competitive pressures.

ER: Al's stories only seem to conflict with this. Because of his accident and possibly other circumstances, he cannot manufacture and market his invention himself and make enough money to survive the court action. Manufacturing and marketing it yourself is a must for the above strategy to work.

ER: Note: I am only analyzing and critiquing the above strategy. I am not advocating it.

ER: Al, If you wanted to attempt this strategy on any project by making it public domain in this group, I am sure there are some of us which would be willing to support and testify to its public domain status if someone tried to interfer with your manufacturing.

On two other occasions very large multinationals have used documents
that described something in-house that was only related by the barest
stretch of the imagination to what I was doing to a) try and scare me
off (a cease and desist notice), and b) claim prior ownership, to stop
patents from being granted (won one, but the other has been granted in
every country but the USA, where I am still periodically writing
rebuttals to their seemingly tame examiners objections (how can an SPDT
mechanical switch possibly be misconstrued as a 192 channel 4 layer
electrode multiplexer operated electronically?)

This instance is different in any case. the key difference is that here
the company seeking the work make it a condition of submitting an
application that the proposer accepts that their submission contains no
material that they claim IP over, hence the act of submission itself
allows them to use any information contained within the submission. That
is the bit that makes me extremely wary.

Personally I can't see how you can provide enough information to give
them the assurances they would need to invest up to $100,000 in a proof
of concept without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

By the way since Emmetts first post, I've tinkered with one of my ideas
and managed to power up the blinky LED board with it. But haven't tested
it further yet, ie no wireless, but it was such a dumb off the wall
concept I had to try it, but I won't be attempting to patent it any time
soon. I am not a fan of the patent process. It originated as a scheme to
protect the smaller inventor to profit from their own labours without
having large companies steal their ideas. It has now become such a
massively expensive excercise that it is little more than an invitation
to be ripped off, as large companies are seemingly allowed to file ever
broader and more ludicrous claims. Somewhere out there is a granted
patent that effectively claims the use of an LED to indictae that power
to a device has been turned on. Not sure but that one might be Casio or
Sony, and it isn't that old either.

Cheers

Al

Hugh Molesworth wrote:

>Emmett and Al, thanks for your postings - very interesting.
>
>I too have an approach which would provide the required power. So
>suppose one were to submit a proposal with technical details, and as
>Al suggests these technical details were taken by the organisation
>for (say) a patent application or otherwise disclosed. Where would
>the original author of the proposal stand, since there would be a
>clear paper trail indicating that the invention originated with that
>author? In such a case, unless the "invention" was signed over to the
>organisation, I have a feeling that the organisation - although it
>could "steal" the "invention" - could not stop the author from using
>it elsewhere. What do you think?
>
>Hugh
>
>At 02:42 AM 8/29/2008, you wrote:
>Hi Emmett and others. Yes I have a few ideas too, the resonant Rf thingy
>is really very little removed from the RFID stuff, except it's using
>background noise, which there is usually plenty of in a house, so I am
>pretty certain that it could be made to work, but is probably not
>patentable. Also the button click might work, but I have resewrvations
>about the amount of enrgy you can gather from it at an affordsable
>price. Don't forget their stated manufacturing proce o $10 for a
>receiver/transmitter pair. Damned hard to do with a piezo that outputs
>significant energy in a single dhort burst. Some of the best sensors in
>this area are those from NOLIAC. i have experimented at great length
>with their stuff, and it is possible to gain enough energy from a
>single activation for a complete transcation, but even in 500k volumes
>their product cost more than this project can bear.
>
> My two previous 'working' scavengers used a similar idea, one with
>impacts on a piezo transformer the other using a cantilever flexing, and
>various things based on those concepts, and I am fairly certain that
>that at least 2 of the other 3 ideas I have will work. I'm also certain
>that within this group there are plenty of people with ideas I'd never
>think of, that would work too. I guess though that the 3 points I raised
>are the kicker. if somebody already had an energy scavenging system that
>efficient they would have it covered by patent, or already be
>negotitiating, or be trying to raise the money to file a patent before
>they disclose it, and point c) I think is going to be the sticking
>point. It's the main reason I wouldn't try. I can't figure out a way to
>give somebody the confidence I can do this without telling them enough
>for them to be ablke to go it without me anyway.
>
>Emmett, I wasn't being critical of you for Posting at all. It's good
>that people occasionally post these things to the possible benefit of
>others, it's just that this one seems to have rules that are extremely
>lopsided.
>
>Finally I thought that it was the impossible we do now, miracles need to
>wait until after lunch.
>
>Cheers
>
>Al
>
>Redd, Emmett R wrote:
>
> >I just thought of 2 technologies which might be allowed (I'm just
>going from memory of reading the RFP because my time is short this
>morning): 1) the resonant RF power xfer that has been developed at
>MIT in the last couple of years and 2) harvesting the energy from the
>button click (humans like the tactile feedback). I have thought of a
>third, but I'll keep it to myself for now; number 2 may be better.
> >
> >I cannot fault the concerns about the proposal process. After all,
>I said to check it out. I have looked into another project of
>compressing salt crystals in brine that is on the other end of power
>consumption spectrum, but the company is not forthcoming in answers
>to simple, direct questions. Even if there were no IP problems like
>those discussed here, they have so far impressed me of how poor work
>partners they might make.
> >
> >Al, allowing that there might be people out there in the three
>classes you mention was the reason I posted. On top of that is the
>old engineer bromide, "The difficult we can do immediately; the
>impossible takes a little longer."
> >
> >Emmett
> >
> >________________________________
> >
> >From: m...@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Onestone
> >Sent: Thu 8/28/2008 11:59 PM
> >To: m...@yahoogroups.com
> >Subject: Re: [msp430] RFP for Low-Power Remote-Control-Like Transmitter
> >
> >
> >
> >Well they ban all the rational, and feasible methods of energy
> >scavenging, like vibration, motion, solar etc. They do suggest that
> >motion is OK provided it only occurs when the user is lifting the remote
> >to use it, although it must be confined to incidental motion. Wha
> >happens when the user doesn't lift the remote but wants t operate it?
> >What happens when they lift it and decide to channel hop, ie multiple
> >sequential transmissions without much motion between them? since there
> >are also no batteries allowed, and since a typical RF transaction, in
> >the class they need, takes around 20mJ-40mJ, it needs either a damned
> >large storage cap, or a small battery with high pulse capability. But
> >they've banned batteries. It seems this is a large company that has
> >tried and failed to do this in-house. What concerns me most is their
> >requirement that any proposals be guaranteed free of IP, ie if you don't
> >tell us how it works so that we can assess its viability you won't be
> >'chosen', if you do then we are free to steal what you tell us. I think
> >anyone who goes for this is potentially on a hiding to nothing. Of
> >course I may always be wrong and one of us has a) developed such a beast
> >and not marketed it yet, b) possibly has patents granted/lodged so is
> >protected, or c) feels confident they can hook the 'client' without
> >disclosure.
> >
> >Cheers
> >
> >Al
> >
> >Dan Bloomquist wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>Redd, Emmett R wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>http://www.ninesigma.com/mx/50753-1 is a link containing another
>link to a Request for Proposals that might interest members of the
>group. Read all of the contractual details before proposing so your
>budget can account for all project costs.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Hi Emmett,
> >>They are seemingly vague on this contradiction:
> >>
> >>(And, they seem to have protected so I can't copy/paste)
> >>
> >>But:
> >>Yes, harvest power from kinetic energy...
> >>
> >>But don't, Use explicit power generation...movement..
> >>
> >>So, should one pull a rabbit out of their hat??????
> >>
> >>Best, Dan.
> >>------------------------------------



(You need to be a member of msp430 -- send a blank email to msp430-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

--- In m...@yahoogroups.com, "Redd, Emmett R" wrote:
>
> http://www.ninesigma.com/mx/50753-1 is a link containing another link
to a Request for Proposals that might interest members of the group.
Read all of the contractual details before proposing so your budget can
account for all project costs.
>
> Emmett Redd
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Here's a fun idea. Make the controller really, really, heavy. There
are then most likely several ways of extracting some of the energy the
users needs to expend to pick the thing up.

As for storing energy, it doesn't have to be electrical, it could be a
wawatch spring, or compressed gas. Or even the good old rubber band!

Or for something more refined how about the Atmos clock mechanism -
cacapture small changes in ambient temperature.
Michael
http://mike.saunby.net

------------------------------------



(You need to be a member of msp430 -- send a blank email to msp430-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

I agree generally with the public domain concept. And thank you for the
offer of support. My problem is that I currently have no way of
building anything, so I would be beaten to market anyway.

Al

Redd, Emmett R wrote:

>See below.
>
>Emmett
>
>________________________________
>
>From: m...@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Onestone
>Sent: Fri 8/29/2008 12:16 PM
>To: m...@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [msp430] RFP for Low-Power Remote-Control-Like Transmitter
>
>When faced with something they want to obtain in this way there are some
>companies that would produce the flimsiest of 'evidence' that they too
>had previously, and coincidentally been working on the same idea all
>along, even if it was an interoffice memo. they would then tie you down
>with lawyers so heavily you couldn't afford to fight them legally. I
>have faced that precise situation. even though i also had docunments
>showing that the owner of that company had attempted to become a partner
>with me, and had written documents describing me as the inventor. The
>simple fact that he'd managed to obtain seed investment funding,
>produced an almost working system, and then received massive investment
>meant that his investors were ready to defend 'their' money, whereas I'd
>been held back by my accident and they knew I couldn't afford the court
>action.
>
>ER: Expanding on this paragraph and some of the information below, unfortunately, having a patent gives you only a slightly better standing in court. And, if you have no money, you cannot defend it unless some lawyer takes it on contingency and he will likely end up owning it.
>
>ER: It would not work in this case, but a often author for Byte magazine had an interesting strategy. He said to publish your inventions and put them into the public domain. Then, start manufacturing. If your market was not large, no one would be interested in competing with you because it would not be worth it. Otherwise, if your market was large, few to none large companies would begin competing because they would not be able to protect their (your) product from competitive pressures.
>
>ER: Al's stories only seem to conflict with this. Because of his accident and possibly other circumstances, he cannot manufacture and market his invention himself and make enough money to survive the court action. Manufacturing and marketing it yourself is a must for the above strategy to work.
>
>ER: Note: I am only analyzing and critiquing the above strategy. I am not advocating it.
>ER: Al, If you wanted to attempt this strategy on any project by making it public domain in this group, I am sure there are some of us which would be willing to support and testify to its public domain status if someone tried to interfer with your manufacturing.
>
>On two other occasions very large multinationals have used documents
>that described something in-house that was only related by the barest
>stretch of the imagination to what I was doing to a) try and scare me
>off (a cease and desist notice), and b) claim prior ownership, to stop
>patents from being granted (won one, but the other has been granted in
>every country but the USA, where I am still periodically writing
>rebuttals to their seemingly tame examiners objections (how can an SPDT
>mechanical switch possibly be misconstrued as a 192 channel 4 layer
>electrode multiplexer operated electronically?)
>
>This instance is different in any case. the key difference is that here
>the company seeking the work make it a condition of submitting an
>application that the proposer accepts that their submission contains no
>material that they claim IP over, hence the act of submission itself
>allows them to use any information contained within the submission. That
>is the bit that makes me extremely wary.
>
>Personally I can't see how you can provide enough information to give
>them the assurances they would need to invest up to $100,000 in a proof
>of concept without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
>
>By the way since Emmetts first post, I've tinkered with one of my ideas
>and managed to power up the blinky LED board with it. But haven't tested
>it further yet, ie no wireless, but it was such a dumb off the wall
>concept I had to try it, but I won't be attempting to patent it any time
>soon. I am not a fan of the patent process. It originated as a scheme to
>protect the smaller inventor to profit from their own labours without
>having large companies steal their ideas. It has now become such a
>massively expensive excercise that it is little more than an invitation
>to be ripped off, as large companies are seemingly allowed to file ever
>broader and more ludicrous claims. Somewhere out there is a granted
>patent that effectively claims the use of an LED to indictae that power
>to a device has been turned on. Not sure but that one might be Casio or
>Sony, and it isn't that old either.
>
>Cheers
>
>Al
>
>Hugh Molesworth wrote:
>
>
>
>>Emmett and Al, thanks for your postings - very interesting.
>>
>>I too have an approach which would provide the required power. So
>>suppose one were to submit a proposal with technical details, and as
>>Al suggests these technical details were taken by the organisation
>>for (say) a patent application or otherwise disclosed. Where would
>>the original author of the proposal stand, since there would be a
>>clear paper trail indicating that the invention originated with that
>>author? In such a case, unless the "invention" was signed over to the
>>organisation, I have a feeling that the organisation - although it
>>could "steal" the "invention" - could not stop the author from using
>>it elsewhere. What do you think?
>>
>>Hugh
>>
>>At 02:42 AM 8/29/2008, you wrote:
>>Hi Emmett and others. Yes I have a few ideas too, the resonant Rf thingy
>>is really very little removed from the RFID stuff, except it's using
>>background noise, which there is usually plenty of in a house, so I am
>>pretty certain that it could be made to work, but is probably not
>>patentable. Also the button click might work, but I have resewrvations
>>about the amount of enrgy you can gather from it at an affordsable
>>price. Don't forget their stated manufacturing proce o $10 for a
>>receiver/transmitter pair. Damned hard to do with a piezo that outputs
>>significant energy in a single dhort burst. Some of the best sensors in
>>this area are those from NOLIAC. i have experimented at great length
>>with their stuff, and it is possible to gain enough energy from a
>>single activation for a complete transcation, but even in 500k volumes
>>their product cost more than this project can bear.
>>
>> My two previous 'working' scavengers used a similar idea, one with
>>impacts on a piezo transformer the other using a cantilever flexing, and
>>various things based on those concepts, and I am fairly certain that
>>that at least 2 of the other 3 ideas I have will work. I'm also certain
>>that within this group there are plenty of people with ideas I'd never
>>think of, that would work too. I guess though that the 3 points I raised
>>are the kicker. if somebody already had an energy scavenging system that
>>efficient they would have it covered by patent, or already be
>>negotitiating, or be trying to raise the money to file a patent before
>>they disclose it, and point c) I think is going to be the sticking
>>point. It's the main reason I wouldn't try. I can't figure out a way to
>>give somebody the confidence I can do this without telling them enough
>>for them to be ablke to go it without me anyway.
>>
>>Emmett, I wasn't being critical of you for Posting at all. It's good
>>that people occasionally post these things to the possible benefit of
>>others, it's just that this one seems to have rules that are extremely
>>lopsided.
>>
>>Finally I thought that it was the impossible we do now, miracles need to
>>wait until after lunch.
>>
>>Cheers
>>
>>Al
>>
>>Redd, Emmett R wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>I just thought of 2 technologies which might be allowed (I'm just
>>>
>>>
>>going from memory of reading the RFP because my time is short this
>>morning): 1) the resonant RF power xfer that has been developed at
>>MIT in the last couple of years and 2) harvesting the energy from the
>>button click (humans like the tactile feedback). I have thought of a
>>third, but I'll keep it to myself for now; number 2 may be better.
>>
>>
>>>I cannot fault the concerns about the proposal process. After all,
>>>
>>>
>>I said to check it out. I have looked into another project of
>>compressing salt crystals in brine that is on the other end of power
>>consumption spectrum, but the company is not forthcoming in answers
>>to simple, direct questions. Even if there were no IP problems like
>>those discussed here, they have so far impressed me of how poor work
>>partners they might make.
>>
>>
>>>Al, allowing that there might be people out there in the three
>>>
>>>
>>classes you mention was the reason I posted. On top of that is the
>>old engineer bromide, "The difficult we can do immediately; the
>>impossible takes a little longer."
>>
>>
>>>Emmett
>>>
>>>________________________________
>>>
>>>From: m...@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Onestone
>>>Sent: Thu 8/28/2008 11:59 PM
>>>To: m...@yahoogroups.com
>>>Subject: Re: [msp430] RFP for Low-Power Remote-Control-Like Transmitter
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Well they ban all the rational, and feasible methods of energy
>>>scavenging, like vibration, motion, solar etc. They do suggest that
>>>motion is OK provided it only occurs when the user is lifting the remote
>>>to use it, although it must be confined to incidental motion. Wha
>>>happens when the user doesn't lift the remote but wants t operate it?
>>>What happens when they lift it and decide to channel hop, ie multiple
>>>sequential transmissions without much motion between them? since there
>>>are also no batteries allowed, and since a typical RF transaction, in
>>>the class they need, takes around 20mJ-40mJ, it needs either a damned
>>>large storage cap, or a small battery with high pulse capability. But
>>>they've banned batteries. It seems this is a large company that has
>>>tried and failed to do this in-house. What concerns me most is their
>>>requirement that any proposals be guaranteed free of IP, ie if you don't
>>>tell us how it works so that we can assess its viability you won't be
>>>'chosen', if you do then we are free to steal what you tell us. I think
>>>anyone who goes for this is potentially on a hiding to nothing. Of
>>>course I may always be wrong and one of us has a) developed such a beast
>>>and not marketed it yet, b) possibly has patents granted/lodged so is
>>>protected, or c) feels confident they can hook the 'client' without
>>>disclosure.
>>>
>>>Cheers
>>>
>>>Al
>>>
>>>Dan Bloomquist wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Redd, Emmett R wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>http://www.ninesigma.com/mx/50753-1 is a link containing another
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>link to a Request for Proposals that might interest members of the
>>group. Read all of the contractual details before proposing so your
>>budget can account for all project costs.
>>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Hi Emmett,
>>>>They are seemingly vague on this contradiction:
>>>>
>>>>(And, they seem to have protected so I can't copy/paste)
>>>>
>>>>But:
>>>>Yes, harvest power from kinetic energy...
>>>>
>>>>But don't, Use explicit power generation...movement..
>>>>
>>>>So, should one pull a rabbit out of their hat??????
>>>>
>>>>Best, Dan.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>------------------------------------



(You need to be a member of msp430 -- send a blank email to msp430-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )