Donations towards server fund so far this month.

 
£0.00 / £100.00 per month
Page:
Home > MS Trials & Testing > Siamesed Code Trial

TurboDave16V
Forum Mod

10913 Posts
Member #: 17
***16***

SouthPark, Colorado

Dave - seriously - I don't think you have any issues as what you sell is a ready-to-fit unit unlike the other two.

It is megasquirt and Vems that seem to have this rivalry for whatever reason.

On 17th Nov, 2014 Tom Fenton said:
Sorry to say My Herpes are no better


Who remembers this first time around: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JF0a5aoEGsw


jbelanger

1244 Posts
Member #: 831
Post Whore

Montreal, Canada

Dave,

I'd be curious to see what exactly your patent application is about. Is there a link to the text somewhere?

While I don't doubt you've done quite a bit of development, I'd be interested to read about what specifically you have done on top of what Marcel has had on his site for quite a while. Also, I don't think you knew about the fact that I've had an implementation of this method for quite a while (even though it's only been validated on the bench up until very recently with Paul's work).

Jean

http://www.jbperf.com/


robert

User Avatar

6471 Posts
Member #: 828
Post Whore

uranus

wheres that bloke eating a packet of crisps icon when you need it ?

Bicester scramble ,Medusa enjoyed the trip. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-7I7-nA19U


TurboDave16V
Forum Mod

10913 Posts
Member #: 17
***16***

SouthPark, Colorado

Jean,
In the world of patents, Prior / parallel art is of no consequence. In this case - it is first to the patent table that will get the cream - ie canems.

It is possible to search for pending disclosures - but it will cost. They won't show up on a basic patent search anyways.

I suspect - that for the cost involved - Canems only have a UK patent (as was the Rover one); so there is - in theory - nothing to stop you applying your theories to a US patent application; if you so wanted.

On 17th Nov, 2014 Tom Fenton said:
Sorry to say My Herpes are no better


Who remembers this first time around: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JF0a5aoEGsw


alpa

520 Posts
Member #: 2093
Post Whore

Grenoble, France



On 19th Feb, 2008 canemsdave said:

ner and outer cylinders. The fact that the lambda readings are oscillating at all prove that we can balance the fueling on the stoichiometric point throughout the rev range.
If you have any doubts about the capability of the system please come and have a drive of a car fitted with the system. I don't want to become involved in any arguments about Megasquirt/Vems/Canems or any other systems - I admire your development work and would hope for a mutual respect for ours.

Cheers
Dave


Hi Dave,
We were talking about logs (seen as facts) you show on your page. You state you have solved the AFR problem. However facts show you did not solve it.
There is no doubt about the possibility to solve the problem. The question is "how to do that" ?
Hey, my car is also fine to drive. What does it prove ?

Edited by alpa on 19th Feb, 2008.

std 998 A+, g295, MD266, RHF4, 109hp @0.8bar/5400rpm


alpa

520 Posts
Member #: 2093
Post Whore

Grenoble, France

...

Edited by alpa on 19th Feb, 2008.

std 998 A+, g295, MD266, RHF4, 109hp @0.8bar/5400rpm


alpa

520 Posts
Member #: 2093
Post Whore

Grenoble, France

...

Edited by alpa on 19th Feb, 2008.

std 998 A+, g295, MD266, RHF4, 109hp @0.8bar/5400rpm


jbelanger

1244 Posts
Member #: 831
Post Whore

Montreal, Canada

On 19th Feb, 2008 TurboDave said:
Jean,
In the world of patents, Prior / parallel art is of no consequence. In this case - it is first to the patent table that will get the cream - ie canems.

It is possible to search for pending disclosures - but it will cost. They won't show up on a basic patent search anyways.

I suspect - that for the cost involved - Canems only have a UK patent (as was the Rover one); so there is - in theory - nothing to stop you applying your theories to a US patent application; if you so wanted.


I thought this sounded wrong and I found this that does contradict what you're saying at least for US patents: http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/matte...tters-9106.html

Just a small excerpt:
First, a person is not entitled to a patent if the invention was "known or used by others in this country, or was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country" before the date of invention by the applicant for the patent. If, for example, an invention is known or is being used by someone in the United States, another person who makes the same invention at a later date may not obtain a patent. Prior knowledge or use in a different country, however, is not a bar to a patent application in the United States. In contrast, a prior patent or a printed publication anywhere in the world will bar an applicant for patent in the United States if it appeared before the date of the applicant's invention.


I don't know what the UK patent law says but for the US it seems that prior art is clearly a reason not to grant a patent.

Jean

http://www.jbperf.com/


TurboDave16V
Forum Mod

10913 Posts
Member #: 17
***16***

SouthPark, Colorado

Well, that looks good in that paper, but patent attorneys work their magic however they want... We have things going forwards and backwards all the time. The key is 'knowing' or proving that you 'knew' about it in its fullest extent - or rather did not know...

Exactly what you know, is not known fully by Canems, and exactly what canems knows, is not known fully by you. This would be a good example of in this case whowever actually pulls their finger out and got there first (remember theirs simply doesn't have to match yours 100% word for word and it is patentable in this case). This is also another reason why i supect Canems will not share their application. But you knowing the name of the inventor - WILL allow you to easilly search in this case for the patent application that is currently pending.

Further - If you did a search and found sufficient evidence to suggest that Canems had plagiarised your ideas from this forum - or marcels ideas, then that would be grounds for appealling the patent being granted - but ultimately won't achieve anything unless you wished to apply for a patent yourself...

It is a very messy business that benefits no-one except those in suits. Much better to negociate or just acknowledge and maybe (dare i say it) work together to further develop ideas.

EDIT - I'm not in anyways saying that Dave @ Canems has plagiarised ideas - far from it! I was using this as an example! :)
It is cleat that Canems Dave has done a lot of work, and sufficiently developed something that he is confident is a workable solution, and based on what he has developed - is likely to be different enough from the 'public domain knowledge' that was shared by yourself and Marcel to be worthy of a patent being granted. Also - I know Marcel had talked to Dave in the early stages - and the lack - or presence of an NDA or other such agreement is also not known.

Bear in mind, all of this is only my personal opinion, based on the experiences I've had with my patents, working around other patents, and with the attorneys.

Edited by TurboDave16V on 19th Feb, 2008.

On 17th Nov, 2014 Tom Fenton said:
Sorry to say My Herpes are no better


Who remembers this first time around: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JF0a5aoEGsw


TurboDave16V
Forum Mod

10913 Posts
Member #: 17
***16***

SouthPark, Colorado




On 19th Feb, 2008 TurboDave said:
EDIT - I'm not in anyways saying that Dave @ Canems has plagiarised ideas - far from it! I was using this as an example! :)
It is cleat that Canems Dave has done a lot of work, and sufficiently developed something that he is confident is a workable solution, and based on what he has developed - is likely to be different enough from the 'public domain knowledge' that was shared by yourself and Marcel to be worthy of a patent being granted. Also - I know Marcel had talked to Dave in the early stages - and the lack - or presence of an NDA or other such agreement is also not known.

Bear in mind, all of this is only my personal opinion, based on the experiences I've had with my patents, working around other patents, and with the attorneys.



Just making sure it's up here with a time stamp!

On 17th Nov, 2014 Tom Fenton said:
Sorry to say My Herpes are no better


Who remembers this first time around: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JF0a5aoEGsw


jbelanger

1244 Posts
Member #: 831
Post Whore

Montreal, Canada

The issue is not searching for the patent because they even provide the number (Patent No. GB0719958.1) here: http://www.canems.co.uk/siameseports.php. It's just not available on the net because it's an application (I think).

I just wanted to have an indication of what they were claiming and if it is their work or if it is Marcel's work. I don't really care and I even understand because of people like M-Tech (which we've had a pleasure to hear about here) but that also shows something about people's ethics. If it's Marcel's work with his knowledge or their own work then fine. Otherwise, you'll be the judge.

In my case, I have no intention of patenting anything because first of the cost involved and second, it would be ridiculous to patent something targeted at a DIY crowd on a more or less open source platform. In any case people can use patented ideas for their own personal use.

Jean

http://www.jbperf.com/


TurboDave16V
Forum Mod

10913 Posts
Member #: 17
***16***

SouthPark, Colorado

oh yes - I'd forgotten that M-tech debarcle!

ha ha ha!

On 17th Nov, 2014 Tom Fenton said:
Sorry to say My Herpes are no better


Who remembers this first time around: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JF0a5aoEGsw


canemsdave

9 Posts
Member #: 2172
Junior Member

Hi,

Discussing a patent application would negate the purpose. Sorry if this sounds obstructive, but I hope you can see it from my own perspective.

I'm unsure what you mean Alpa. If you believe the system doesn't work there's not much I can do to persuade you otherwise.

Sorry for disrupting your thread Paul!

Cheers
Dave


canemsdave

9 Posts
Member #: 2172
Junior Member

double post..

Edited by canemsdave on 19th Feb, 2008.


canemsdave

9 Posts
Member #: 2172
Junior Member

Hi,

Discussing a patent application would negate the purpose. Sorry if this sounds obstructive, but I hope you can see it from my own perspective.

I'm unsure what you mean Alpa. If you believe the system doesn't work there's not much I can do to persuade you otherwise.

Sorry for disrupting your thread Paul!

Cheers
Dave


curta_crankn_daddy

User Avatar

20 Posts
Member #: 799
Member

Canada, eh?

Fame and untold wealth is all the thanks I ask *wink*

Actually, some acknowledgement where it's due wouldn't be a bad thing either... he said, thinking of no website in particular....http://www.emeraldm3d.com/em_projects_Aseries.html OH! Was I thinking out loud again? Silly me *wink*


www.starchak.ca and www.TDCperformance.ca


Rob H

4311 Posts
Member #: 700
Formerly British Open Classic

The West Country

On 19th Feb, 2008 curta_crankn_daddy said:
Fame and untold wealth is all the thanks I ask *wink*

Actually, some acknowledgement where it's due wouldn't be a bad thing either... he said, thinking of no website in particular....http://www.emeraldm3d.com/em_projects_Aseries.html OH! Was I thinking out loud again? Silly me *wink*



With out wanting to put Emerald down or rubbish their work, it is worth noting that they've go for SPI point injection on the Midget which negates everything that Pau, Jean, Dave & others are trying to achieve. It is an option but it's not the answer.

EDIT: can we get back to trying to crack sequential injection on the A Series please?

Edited by Rob H on 19th Feb, 2008.

Isambard Kingdom Brunel said:
Nothing is impossible if you are an Engineer


alpa

520 Posts
Member #: 2093
Post Whore

Grenoble, France




On 19th Feb, 2008 canemsdave said:

I'm unsure what you mean Alpa. If you believe the system doesn't work there's not much I can do to persuade you otherwise.

Sorry for disrupting your thread Paul!

Cheers
Dave


I did not say that. I said your logs don't prove your system works as well as you pretend, as you pretend to have solved the AFR issue. And that was the initial discussion.
I don't doubt it's possible to get a clean result with your system. Or with mine. What we lack is logs of the Rover setup, as a reference. They had to be EPA regulation compliant, that's much more difficult than just having good AFR in steady state.

std 998 A+, g295, MD266, RHF4, 109hp @0.8bar/5400rpm


jbelanger

1244 Posts
Member #: 831
Post Whore

Montreal, Canada

On 19th Feb, 2008 canemsdave said:
Discussing a patent application would negate the purpose. Sorry if this sounds obstructive, but I hope you can see it from my own perspective.


Sorry to drag this on but I just need to add something.

I can see that you might want it some other way but applying for a patent actually makes the invention public domain; it does not keep it a private thing. It does not mean that it is freely usable or commercially available to anyone else but it is public domain nonetheless. All it does is to protect your rights to the commercial benefits.

I do not care for the details. I was just curious what your original contribution to the whole thing was. If you could just give us an idea of what your claim is, it would satisfy my curiosity. It's just that I become suspicious when people take legal means and hide behind them and want to keep things secret. I don't have a problem with people benefiting financially from their work especially when they bring new solutions to a known problem like your system does. Where I have a problem is when people benefit from other people's work while claiming it as their own. I'm not saying that it is your case but your response makes me uneasy.

By the way this is the application's title (with the typo as found from the patent's office document):
Hampshire, David
Equalising air fuel
ratios between cylinders without
detecting canshaft position in an
internal combustion engine with shared
inlet ports
Date Lodged: 10 Oct 2007


Like I said, I'm not interested in the details of your implementation because I'm perfectly comfortable with what I have done in my code and what I can do to improve it. In any case, if you're granted a patent, what you claimed in your application will become easily available then.

Cheers,
Jean

Edited by jbelanger on 20th Feb, 2008.

http://www.jbperf.com/


alpa

520 Posts
Member #: 2093
Post Whore

Grenoble, France

Jean,

I must have missed a detail. Did you find a way to adjust AFR for each cylinder without cam sensor ?

std 998 A+, g295, MD266, RHF4, 109hp @0.8bar/5400rpm


jbelanger

1244 Posts
Member #: 831
Post Whore

Montreal, Canada

This is Dave's claim from his patent application. I don't know if this is simply what Marcel was mentioning and what I have in my code which is simply adjusting the timing of single pulse per rev.

This will equalise the AFR between cylinders up to a point as shown by Paul's testing and from Canem's results.

Jean

http://www.jbperf.com/


alpa

520 Posts
Member #: 2093
Post Whore

Grenoble, France

Do you agree that we need a cam (phase) sensor we if want to make different timing for inner and outer cylinders ?

std 998 A+, g295, MD266, RHF4, 109hp @0.8bar/5400rpm


jbelanger

1244 Posts
Member #: 831
Post Whore

Montreal, Canada

If you want to change the timing and/or the pulsewidth for the inner and outer cylinder, you have to have a cam sensor. You then also need one driver per injector.

The only equlisation you can do without a cam sensor, as far I can see (but Dave may have something new...), is with respect to how much is injected during the injection window for the outer cylinders. But this does not take into account the difference in fuel coming from the intake walls (wall wetting).

From the Paul's results thus far, it seems that wall wetting contribution is not negligible. And the data published by Canems seem to confirm this. But it's difficult to draw a conclusion from the latter due to not being able to confirm what they do in terms of injection timing.

Jean

http://www.jbperf.com/


jbelanger

1244 Posts
Member #: 831
Post Whore

Montreal, Canada

I should add that one of the most interesting things from Paul's thorough testing is the fact that the car seems pretty well behaved despite the important difference in AFR between cylinders.

This would tend to confirm somewhat what I thought when some people were saying they had successfully port injected their a-series engine without having to do anything about injection timing. With injectors far away from the intake valve and some balancing tube, you basically have a wet manifold where you rely on wall wetting from both injectors. Since the engine is quite tolerant about AFR difference, you can get the engine running pretty well. I would bet that if they were to do what Paul has done they would find out that they quite a significant AFR difference. And this is far from optimized port-injection which is the goal here (at least that's what I assume).

Jean

http://www.jbperf.com/


alpa

520 Posts
Member #: 2093
Post Whore

Grenoble, France




On 21st Feb, 2008 jbelanger said:
I should add that one of the most interesting things from Paul's thorough testing is the fact that the car seems pretty well behaved despite the important difference in AFR between cylinders.


This is what I've seen too. The car runs very well when both injectors are driven by the same signal. However idle is rather difficult to tune to stay under 1.5% of CO and looking at the plugs it's obvious inner are too rich and outer too lean. On cold days (0C) the cold start must be very rich to avoid engine stalling in transients.
Injecting 20% less in inner than in outer solves lots of troubles. This is how I've been running for 2 last weeks. CO is still difficult to tune because when lights are switched ON the AFR falls down if an idle RPM controller is used (more load -> better efficiency). I'm going to test a carb-like solution, controlling the pressure level and not RPM, this should let RPM to fall when peripherals are switched on.

std 998 A+, g295, MD266, RHF4, 109hp @0.8bar/5400rpm

Home > MS Trials & Testing > Siamesed Code Trial
Users viewing this thread: none. (+ 1 Guests) <- Prev   Next ->
To post messages you must be logged in!
Username: Password:
Page: