A physics-defying speaker array(?)

[fdeck]

You have a patent pending on your concept. Did you mean to entitle it "Large-Diameter Accurate Speaker"? Just interested in clarity here.

I think "arcurate" means "arranged in an arc." So, arcurate is accurate.

 

[mongo2]

I think "arcurate" means "arranged in an arc." So, arcurate is accurate.

You are quite accurate.

Personally, I'm more interested in his more recent "swim fin" waveguide design.

 

[billfitzmaurice]

As the patent is now pending, disclosure is permitted.

A patent pending is not a requirement for disclosure. An applicant has a year between when he reveals an invention and when he must apply for a patent; in the meantime an inexpensive provisional patent application protects his prior art rights. One would think a patent attorney would be aware of this proviso, which has existed since 1995.

 

[fdeck]

A patent pending is not a requirement for disclosure. An applicant has a year between when he reveals an invention and when he must apply for a patent; in the meantime an inexpensive provisional patent application protects his prior art rights. One would think a patent attorney would be aware of this proviso, which has existed since 1995.

This is true. The provisional also secures the right to patent outside the US, where there is no one-year grace period. However, many US inventors elect to stick with a US patent, simply due to the cost and diminishing value of multiple filings.

 

[Mingo Sanders]

Is that "tube" P ~ R * v^2 ~ 1 * (1/f)^2 = 1/f^2 ... or "solid state" P ~ R * v^2 ~ 1 * (1/f)^2 = 1/f^2 ?

Tube equations are louder.

 

[Taylor Livingston]

I asked them, "any chance you'll post some measurements this time?" I'm not holding my breath.

 

[BassIan]

A patent pending is not a requirement for disclosure. An applicant has a year between when he reveals an invention and when he must apply for a patent; in the meantime an inexpensive provisional patent application protects his prior art rights. One would think a patent attorney would be aware of this proviso, which has existed since 1995.

Absolutely right. My statement was the other way around: Disclosure is permitted because the patent is pending. As you state above, he has a year between disclosure and application.

Nevertheless, I'm interested if he can provide any further information. Even if it just proves to be an entertaining game of "Dodge the Question."