Help – quick survey for a tool you never even dreamed about!

[Spectric]

Now you know (PM sent!)
Thank you!

Why not post the PM so everyone can actully see what you are thinking ?

 

[Jake]

Why not post the PM so everyone can actully see what you are thinking ?

Patent concerns maybe.

 

[HOJ]

If so, just let me know and I will send a PM.

I'm curious, don't want to miss out on the next big thing.

 

[TRITON]

I wouldnt mind seeing a far far cheaper chopstick making jig

Bridge City Tools make one, but even the UK price is nearly 300 quid. Sisters bestie married in Japan after working there for a decade, and i suggested this would be ideal, but the price is seriously off putting

 

[chatometry]

Why not post the PM so everyone can actully see what you are thinking ?

It is just because I prefer one-to-one answers rather than an open discussion which is going to bias the answers.

Our results are available to everybody on www.chatometry.com so you can somehow guess what we are talking about
Paolo

 

[John Brown]

No - his original paper suggested that there were only 5 colours.

"Prior to that, the spectrum had been thought to have five colours. For example, in his book Experiments and Considerations Touching Colours, Robert Boyle described the spectrum he produced with a prism as “denoting the five consecutions of colours Red, Yellow, Green, Blew, and Purple”.

This book was published in 1664, just before Newton started his experiments. However, the number seven had long been considered mystical, denoting perfection and completeness. This sort of mysticism fascinated Newton as much as science, so he thought there must be seven colours in the rainbow. He added orange and split purple into indigo and violet."

From New Scientist.

 

[pgrbff]

I wouldnt mind seeing a far far cheaper chopstick making jig

Bridge City Tools make one, but even the UK price is nearly 300 quid. Sisters bestie married in Japan after working there for a decade, and i suggested this would be ideal, but the price is seriously off putting

I believe Japanese tools Australia sell a more economical version and tgey are quite easy to build DIY fashion.

 

[murphy]

I am in too

 

[Newbie_Neil]

Hi everyone.

I am thinking about manufacturing a completely new type of device for woodworkers, but first I am trying to understand if there would be market for it.
Would you be so kind as to support me with a quick survey?
If so, just let me know and I will send a PM.
Thank you very much - any help is really appreciated!

Paolo

Yes, please. I'll always look at something new.

 

[MorrisWoodman12]

Why not post the PM so everyone can actully see what you are thinking ?

No @chatometry definitely should NOT post if he wishes to procure a patent. If he posts any detail in the public domain, I.e. on here, there is no chance of a patent whereas someone else can steal his idea and, if they have the resources, beat him to the market. Mind you obtaining a patent, particularly a worldwide one, is extremely expensive as is defending it when some high corporation nicks it. I'm never sure if it's worth the bother. One bit of advice though: when you've finalised your design and just before you market it collect a drawing/manufacturing detail pack and lodge them with a solicitor. It shows prior history so if someone sues stating that you are selling something against their patent you can show you have prior (Oh why can't I remember the correct term) rights.
All the best
Martin

 

[Eshmiel]

"Prior to that, the spectrum had been thought to have five colours. For example, in his book Experiments and Considerations Touching Colours, Robert Boyle described the spectrum he produced with a prism as “denoting the five consecutions of colours Red, Yellow, Green, Blew, and Purple”.

This book was published in 1664, just before Newton started his experiments. However, the number seven had long been considered mystical, denoting perfection and completeness. This sort of mysticism fascinated Newton as much as science, so he thought there must be seven colours in the rainbow. He added orange and split purple into indigo and violet."

From New Scientist.

Yeee - that Newton was a strange one but then aren't we all? Humans! Cuh!!

If one has a go at photography in this digital age, its commonplace to read phrases along the lines of, "Adobe colour space has N millions of colours". Wot would Isaac say to that, eh?

In reality, there are as many colours as a particular eye-brain can distinguish. This seems to vary with the beast having the eye-brain, even within a species. Some photographers allege that one can train one's eye-brain to distinguish more "shades" of colour than one used to notice and that others commonly restrict themselves to. Even the pressure of a cultural dollop of centuries ago (such as Newton insisting on them 7 colours) can persuade us that, "Well, there are only seven, so Adobe is wrong".

As woodworkers, we can observe a similar thing concerning, "How small an increment of length can a woodworker perceive and how small must they be to make the furniture reet?"

 

[mrgrumpygeorge]

An explanation can be found here:
https://www.neilhillman.com/2582/indigo-rainbows-isaac-newton.html
I couldn't resist being sidetracked ;-)

 

[MorrisWoodman12]

Getting technical but just to point out that what we perceive with our eyes is a minute part of the electromagnetic spectrum the frequencies of which range from zero (dc) to infinity. So if we talk solely about that minute part the eye perceives it ranges from a wavelength (1/frequency) of around 670nm (nanometers) (red) to about 400nm (violet). The eyes are most sensitive to green at about 532nm.
So the question is simply, is the colour at say 530nm different to that at 530.5nm? If it is then what is the finest graduation of colour? If it's infinitesimally small then there's an infinite number of colours. That's one for the philosophers among us not me.
I think that in Newton's day the understanding of electromagnetic radiation was in its infancy so he wouldn't have understood that colour was just part of that spectrum......
but I could be wrong.
Martin

 

[Garden Shed Projects]

I'm happy to help if i can

 

[Ross Buchanan]

Go on then- Always interested in answers to questions that nobody has ever thought to ask

 

[Windows]

No @chatometry definitely should NOT post if he wishes to procure a patent. If he posts any detail in the public domain, I.e. on here, there is no chance of a patent whereas someone else can steal his idea and, if they have the resources, beat him to the market. Mind you obtaining a patent, particularly a worldwide one, is extremely expensive as is defending it when some high corporation nicks it. I'm never sure if it's worth the bother. One bit of advice though: when you've finalised your design and just before you market it collect a drawing/manufacturing detail pack and lodge them with a solicitor. It shows prior history so if someone sues stating that you are selling something against their patent you can show you have prior (Oh why can't I remember the correct term) rights.
All the best
Martin

The term you’re looking for is “prior art”.

One can establish prior art without releasing a product, so if one’s goal is solely to invalidate any potential patents (including your own), one should talk freely about one’s ideas in a public forum as early as possible.

For example, I think it would be swell to release a tracksaw that has dust extraction built into the track.

The track could provide the conduit down which dust would travel, being equipped with intake ports to accept the dust and outtake ports that could be attached to an air and dust moving device and an external means of storage for the dust.

Alternatively one or both of the 1) machinery for moving the air and dust and 2) storage for the dust could be built into the track itself.

Further, whether or not the track can move air and dust by itself, the track can also be designed to cooperate with a moving cutting device that could also contain one or both of 1) machinery for moving the air and dust and 2) storage for the dust.

In addition, the track can be designed to deliver power to the moving cutting device either while the device is in use or while the device is at rest between cuts. Power delivery could be by physical contact or wireless delivery and could be continuous or in bursts.

The track need not be limited to a planar surface that rests below the movable cutting device and above the object being cut; it could also be one or more rails or columns, vertical, horizontal, or at any angle which serves to constrain the movement of the cutting tool in a particular direction and provide the dust extraction features described.

And everything described above applies to any cutting tool that could benefit from a track and dust extraction, including but not limited to saws, routers, planers, sanders, shapers, surfacers, and other tools not yet contemplated.


And that’s an example of how you might try to establish prior art to invalidate future patents.

Feel free to publicise these tracksaw ideas #priorart

 

[mwinfrance]

The problem with relying on "prior art" is that the US patent office doesn't bother checking for prior art before granting patents. If the person, or company that patents the idea that you had first ( and talked about ) gets a patent there before you do, the only redress you possibly have is to hire very expensive lawyers to sue them.If they have more money than you, you will have to give up the legal fight first. Thus you will lose by default. That means that in the USA at least ( a huge market ) you will never see any money from your idea, and may well be sued by the "copier" ( with deep pockets ) into not being able to market what was your own original idea.

 

[chatometry]

No @chatometry definitely should NOT post if he wishes to procure a patent. If he posts any detail in the public domain, I.e. on here, there is no chance of a patent whereas someone else can steal his idea and, if they have the resources, beat him to the market. Mind you obtaining a patent, particularly a worldwide one, is extremely expensive as is defending it when some high corporation nicks it. I'm never sure if it's worth the bother. One bit of advice though: when you've finalised your design and just before you market it collect a drawing/manufacturing detail pack and lodge them with a solicitor. It shows prior history so if someone sues stating that you are selling something against their patent you can show you have prior (Oh why can't I remember the correct term) rights.
All the best
Martin

Thanks.
I fully agree but I also take and appreciate it as a suggestion.
Paolo

 

[chatometry]

Getting technical but just to point out that what we perceive with our eyes is a minute part of the electromagnetic spectrum the frequencies of which range from zero (dc) to infinity. So if we talk solely about that minute part the eye perceives it ranges from a wavelength (1/frequency) of around 670nm (nanometers) (red) to about 400nm (violet). The eyes are most sensitive to green at about 532nm.
So the question is simply, is the colour at say 530nm different to that at 530.5nm? If it is then what is the finest graduation of colour? If it's infinitesimally small then there's an infinite number of colours. That's one for the philosophers among us not me.
I think that in Newton's day the understanding of electromagnetic radiation was in its infancy so he wouldn't have understood that colour was just part of that spectrum......
but I could be wrong.
Martin

You might find interesting the CIEDE2000 formula to estimate "how different" two colours are from the human point of view.
You may also be puzzled by knowing that some timbers, when seen in some directions, are actually whiter than white
Paolo

 

[Ross Buchanan]

The term you’re looking for is “prior art”.

One can establish prior art without releasing a product, so if one’s goal is solely to invalidate any potential patents (including your own), one should talk freely about one’s ideas in a public forum as early as possible.

For example, I think it would be swell to release a tracksaw that has dust extraction built into the track.

The track could provide the conduit down which dust would travel, being equipped with intake ports to accept the dust and outtake ports that could be attached to an air and dust moving device and an external means of storage for the dust.

Alternatively one or both of the 1) machinery for moving the air and dust and 2) storage for the dust could be built into the track itself.

Further, whether or not the track can move air and dust by itself, the track can also be designed to cooperate with a moving cutting device that could also contain one or both of 1) machinery for moving the air and dust and 2) storage for the dust.

In addition, the track can be designed to deliver power to the moving cutting device either while the device is in use or while the device is at rest between cuts. Power delivery could be by physical contact or wireless delivery and could be continuous or in bursts.

The track need not be limited to a planar surface that rests below the movable cutting device and above the object being cut; it could also be one or more rails or columns, vertical, horizontal, or at any angle which serves to constrain the movement of the cutting tool in a particular direction and provide the dust extraction features described.

And everything described above applies to any cutting tool that could benefit from a track and dust extraction, including but not limited to saws, routers, planers, sanders, shapers, surfacers, and other tools not yet contemplated.


And that’s an example of how you might try to establish prior art to invalidate future patents.

Feel free to publicise these tracksaw ideas #priorart

I think Mafell might have beaten you to it several years ago.Lookee and film