Siamesed Code Trial
Turbo Mini Forums

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.

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/

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

Medusa + injection = too much torque for the dyno ..https://youtu.be/qg5o0_tJxYM

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.

Edited by alpa on 19th Feb, 2008.

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

...

Edited by alpa on 19th Feb, 2008.

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

...

Edited by alpa on 19th Feb, 2008.

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

http://www.jbperf.com/

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.

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/

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

ha ha ha!

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

double post..

Edited by canemsdave on 19th Feb, 2008.

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

Fame and untold wealth is all the thanks I ask

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

www.starchak.ca and www.TDCperformance.ca

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

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

Edited by Rob H on 19th Feb, 2008.

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

Edited by jbelanger on 20th Feb, 2008.

http://www.jbperf.com/

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

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/

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

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/

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/

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