2 stroke thread (with occasional F1 relevance!)

All that has to do with the power train, gearbox, clutch, fuels and lubricants, etc. Generally the mechanical side of Formula One.
manolis
manolis
102
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 9:00 am

Re: 2 stroke thread (with occasional F1 relevance!)

Post

Hello all.

PATENTING


Each one of the “Ten highly unconventional 2-stoke engine designs” of my last-but-one post is patented.


Patenting an idea is, today, the only way to protect your intellectual property.

Patenting an idea / invention is not easy.

When a Patent Examiner (typically an engineer specialized in a narrow technological area, say in the fuel injection) performs a Search for a Patent Application, the Examiner tries to find documents to “kill” the claims of the patent application. It is his job, his duty.

The Set of Claims is the core of a patent application and defines what the applicant considers as his own “intellectual property”.

If the claims are too "wide", it is too easy for the examiner to "kill" them.
If the claims are too "narrow", the patent – if and when granted – will be worthless because it cannot really exclude others from making, using or selling the invention.

It is difficult for the applicant to decide for the claims, i.e. for the protection he will ask.
Too wide protection? Problem.
Too narrow protection? Problem again.


Having the Search Report,
  • Parenthesis:

    The final Search Report needs more than 18 months to complete;

    Why?

    A patent application in another patent office is not “open” / accessible / available to the Patent Examiner until it is published, and this happens no latter than 18 months after the initial filling of the application.

    That is, there is an 18-months time-window during which the applicant and the examiner cannot be really sure what the “Prior Art” is.
and provided the patent examiner does know to do his work,

the applicant can judge whether his invention is really new and really his.


Without a Search Report, anybody can claim the ownership of any idea.
Only with the final Search Report the applicant can be sure the idea is his own (and this, provided the Patent Office did properly their work, which is not always the case).


Yes, there are millions useless patents and patent applications, say like those for “perpetual motion devices” (some patent offices refuse to examine such patent applications),
however,
there are thousands of good / useful patents.


The fight between Apple and Samsung some years ago, was based on their patents.

The drug companies make billions based on their patents.


Patenting is a useful tool of the modern world.

The money you pay is in order an authorized, experienced and highly specialized “third party” to examine your invention and decide if it is new or old.
Albert Einstein started his carrier as a patent examiner.

The same US patent-office examiner who searches today a Toyota’s patent for a new VVA (Variable Valve Actuation system), the same examiner may search tomorrow the patent application for a VVA of a foreign independent inventor (poor or reach, does not matter).
And the rules used for the Search and Examination are exactly the same, in both cases.


The patenting system has many problems. It should (and it can) be way better.

However the patenting system is what we have today in order to see if an idea / solution / invention is ours or not, and in order to protect our Intellectual Property excluding others from "making, using or selling" it.


*****************


For instance,

here is the cover page of a US patent of Rotax, filed 20 years ago (i.e. it is already expired, i.e. anybody can make, use or sell it):

Image

and here https://www.pattakon.com/tempman/Rotax_ ... Patent.pdf is the complete patent document.

The documents related with Rotax's invention were so many, than the “Reference Cited” continues in another page.

The patent application was filed in 2001, the patent was granted to Bombardier / Rotax in 2004.

Only after the examination of their patent application and the issue of the patent
  • which means, an official / authorized third party, the US-PTO, searched and examined the invention and decided that ir complies with all rules and can take a patent
,
only then Rotax could claim the specific TPi was their own “Intellectual Property” and nobody else could “make, use or sell” it.


***************


At top right of the web-page dedicated to each one of the “Ten highly unconventional 2-stoke engine designs” of my last-but-one post, you see the patent(s) granted for the specific invention.


Thanks
Manolis Pattakos

Rodak
Rodak
28
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2017 2:02 am

Re: 2 stroke thread (with occasional F1 relevance!)

Post

All good and well, but how is your 'pilot' attached to your motor unit so he/she can take vertical hanging loads of 2g? Seriously, you said you'd answer all questions. I think you have no idea and haven't actually thought about it; please prove me wrong (and glue or ropes is not the answer).

uniflow
uniflow
36
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 9:41 am

Re: 2 stroke thread (with occasional F1 relevance!)

Post

Whats your point here manolis? Old patents time out, we know this.
Or are you insinuating something?

nzjrs
nzjrs
93
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2015 10:21 am
Location: Austria

Re: 2 stroke thread (with occasional F1 relevance!)

Post

manolis wrote:
Tue Oct 27, 2020 5:45 am
Patenting an idea is, today, the only way to protect your intellectual property.
That's not true in many fields - software for example, ironically F1 is another. But anyway all off topic.

Is my theory about you not wanting to test the PF or disclose details of the PF harness because of patent reasons correct? How many patents do you intend to apply for on the PF?

Tommy Cookers
Tommy Cookers
540
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 3:55 pm

Re: 2 stroke thread (with occasional F1 relevance!)

Post

manolis wrote:
Tue Oct 27, 2020 5:43 am
Thanks Gruntguru.
You write:
"If the airflow is "toroidal" or "annular" the working area will be 3/4. The "hole" of lost flow in the middle is 1/4 of the area."


Reducing the "working area" to 3/4 of the "disk area" of the propeller, the 72mph of the initial approach of NathanE for the velocity of the air "hitting" the pilot increases to 72/(3/4)^.5 = 83mph = 133Km/h

The NASA approach gives 160Km/h, not too different.
With the body parallel to downstream, the pilot will feel nice and enjoy the hovering.
so that's 160 km/h (100 mph) in (HOGE) hover .....

but doesn't the pilot's body partly block the downstream 'jet' ? (in all modes of flight)
so increasing the velocity and pressure on the pilot - maybe a 15% increase in velocity ?

so a 160 mph Ferrari driver's hand out of the window feels air at maybe 190 mph relative speed (the car body is blockage)
in a twin-engined plane cruising at 160 mph a hand would feel the same 190 mph for the same reason
as it would on a Rossy jet-equipped wing-thing (or on a jet-pack)
these are all cases of movement (with blockage) through still air

but in a single-engine plane the hand is moving through a moving air 'jet' (with blockage)
(as is the PF in all flight modes)
eg at 160 mph cruise flight speed the hand is at a relative velocity of c.300 mph or more
yes I have done this (in a proper plane where the canopy is slid back in flight) - it's like pushing on a brick wall

what is the relative air velocity on the PF pilot at its maximum speed ?
shall we say about 300 mph/500 km/h ?

manolis
manolis
102
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 9:00 am

Re: 2 stroke thread (with occasional F1 relevance!)

Post

Hello all.

PATENTING COST

A forum member asked, privately, about the patenting cost.
Other forum members (young engineers and mechanics, thinkers and tinkers) might find this information (and my "PATENTING" post, top of page) useful.


The following costs are for the case the applicant does everything (no patent agent, no patent attorney).



US patenting cost

For a "small entity" (note: for companies the costs double) an electronically filed "utility" US patent application (having till 3 independent claims and till 20 claims in total) costs as follows:

Filing:

1. Basic fee: 160$
2. Search Fee: 350$
3. Examination Fee: 400$

Total: 910$ with the filing.

After nearly three years, and provided the applicant responded correctly to all requirement of the Examiner / Office (amendments of claims, corrections of disclosure, replacement of drawings etc, etc), a Patent is granted and an Issue fee of 600$ has to be paid.

So far you have paid 910+600 = 1510$, and you have a US patent in force for the next 3.5 years.


US Maintenance Fees:

3.5 years after the issue of the US patent, a 1,000$ maintenance fee is to be paid (otherwise the patent expires).
7.5 years after the issue of the US patent, another 1,880 maintenance fee is to be paid (otherwise the patent expires).
11.5 years after the issue of the patent, another 3,850 maintenance fee is to be paid (otherwise the patent expires).


Provided you paid all the above fees and maintenance fees (1,510 + 1,000 + 1,880 + 3,850 = 8,250$ in total), the patent automatically expires 20 years after the filing of the patent application.



UK patenting cost

An electronically filed UK patent application has a cost of 310 UK pounds, from filing to grant.

The maintenance fees are paid each year (starting the fourth year after the filing) and increase as the years pass through:

Image

For the last year you have to pay about two US dollars per day(!) to keep your patent in force in the United Kingdom . . .



There is no World Patent.

What there is, is the PCT (Patent Cooperation Treaty) patent application (it cost nearly 3,000$ with the Search and Examination), which gives you the right to file - into 30 months from the first priority - National Applications in each patent office around the world (like the above US and UK patent applications) claiming priority the original patent application.

Without a PCT application (and cost), there is a 12 months time limit for filing National Applications in other patent offices claiming the priority of the initial application in a patent office.

I.e. what the PCT really offers (besides their Search and Examination) is an 18 months extention of the time for entering into the National Phase in various countries.


If something is confusing, please let me know to further explain.

Thanks
Manolis Pattakos

NathanE
NathanE
2
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 6:49 am

Re: 2 stroke thread (with occasional F1 relevance!)

Post

The real cost is vastly different. A patent is only worth anything if you are willing to defend it. This means taking enforcement action in a court. In the UK expect this to cost you at least £250,000. The upper limit tends to be decided by the depth of pockets of the people on the other side. Many millions is not unheard of.

gruntguru
gruntguru
465
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 6:43 am

Re: 2 stroke thread (with occasional F1 relevance!)

Post

NathanE wrote:
Tue Oct 27, 2020 10:28 pm
The real cost is vastly different. A patent is only worth anything if you are willing to defend it. This means taking enforcement action in a court. In the UK expect this to cost you at least £250,000. The upper limit tends to be decided by the depth of pockets of the people on the other side. Many millions is not unheard of.
True, but the need to defend your patent will only arise when someone else deems your idea is marketable. Once that happens both parties will spend as much money as they think is warranted by the "value" of the IP.

The inventor will be able to attract third party funding to defend his IP if it is valuable enough.
je suis charlie

uniflow
uniflow
36
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 9:41 am

Re: 2 stroke thread (with occasional F1 relevance!)

Post

Depending on your end game.
Perhaps some of us are just better off keeping 'mum' about whats going on inside our engines.
Im intetested in the actual hardwear and its performance, not all the paperwork around it.
That's the truth, its not so much the cost of the patent, it is the cost to defend, for sure.
I guess manolis is using this forum as some sort of advertising medium, sell his patents or the rights to?

manolis
manolis
102
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 9:00 am

Re: 2 stroke thread (with occasional F1 relevance!)

Post

Hello Tommy Cookers.

You write:
  • “but in a single-engine plane the hand is moving through a moving air 'jet' (with blockage)
    (as is the PF in all flight modes)
    eg at 160 mph cruise flight speed the hand is at a relative velocity of c.300 mph or more
    yes I have done this (in a proper plane where the canopy is slid back in flight) - it's like pushing on a brick wall

    what is the relative air velocity on the PF pilot at its maximum speed ?
    shall we say about 300 mph/500 km/h ?”

In page 241 I’ve been corrected (thanks again): the gyroscopic rigidity increases with the revs and not with revs squared.

Here we have the opposite case: the thrust increases with the difference of the squared speeds (NASA’s formula, page 242):

F = .5 * r * A * [Ve ^2 - V0 ^2]

Suppose that at hovering you need 100mph air speed in order to get the required thrust (equal to the total weight), and that at 200mph cruising you add the above 100mph to take 300mph air speed at the back side of the propeller (it is the speed of the air hitting the pilot).

According the above formula for the thrust, if the thrust is Fh at hovering, and Fc at cruising, then:

Fc / Fh = (300^2-100^2)/100^2, i.e. Fc = 2.8*Fh

****************************************************************************
EDIT / CORRECTION: Fc / Fh = (300^2-200^2)/100^2, i.e. Fc = 5.0*Fh
****************************************************************************

That is, if you keep unchanged the difference of the air speed at the two sides of the propeller disk (in the above two cases it is 100mph),

Image

as the cruise speed increases, the thrust force increases a lot.


From another viewpoint:

The 160Km/h (say, +15% = 184Km/h) air speed was calculated for a thrust force of 150Kgf (1,500N) (for a 3m/sec2 (or 0.3g) upwards acceleration).
Not important, yet at hovering the required thrust is 110Kgf (the overall weight) and the air speed hitting the pilot drops from 184Km/h to 158Km/h (say, 100mph).

The Ve is the “air speed hitting the pilot”, while the V0 is the cruise speed.

For simplicity suppose that at 160mph cruise speed, it is required the same thrust force F as at hovering (wherein the V0 is zero).

So, if at hovering we need a Veh=100mph in order to create the necessary thrust force, and the same thrust force is required at V0c=160mph cruise (the index h is for hovering, the index c is for cruising), then:

Veh^2 = (100mph)^2 = Vec^2-V0c^2 = Vec^2-(160mph)^2, which gives:

Vec=(100^2+160^2)^1/2 mph = 189mph (~300Km/h)

189mph is only 29mph (and not 100mph) higher than the cruise speed.

As Yves Rossy says, he feels well with the air hitting his body; at 300Km/h cruising, the air speed hitting Rossy's body is 300Km/h
According the previous, at 256Km/h cruising (160mph) with the Portable Flyer, the air speed hitting the pilot is 300Km/h.


Worth to mention here:

The thrust required for 160mph (71m/sec) cruise is less than the thrust required at hovering.

With 110Kgf=1,100N thrust force and 71m/sec speed, the power absorbed is:
1,100N*71m/sec=78kW=106PS.

A 600cc sport motorcycle making the above power has a similar top speed, i.e. the drag force is about 1,100N.

The smaller frontal area of the Portable Flyer, and the smaller drag coefficient (supine posture), show that a smaller thrust force is required by its propellers.

Image

This further reduces the speed of the air hitting the pilot at a specific cruise speed.

Thanks
Manolis Pattakos
Last edited by manolis on Fri Oct 30, 2020 5:00 am, edited 2 times in total.

manolis
manolis
102
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 9:00 am

Re: 2 stroke thread (with occasional F1 relevance!)

Post

Hello all.


What difference makes a patent?


In order to get a patent you have to disclose your invention.
The disclosure (text and drawings) must be complete in the meaning that a “skilled in the art” who reads it, should become able to make / apply the invention.

Then you have to show / explain that your idea is new, that it has an inventive step (which means that what your invention proposes is not obvious to a “skilled in the art”) and that it is applicable.

Then you have to define the protection you ask, i.e. what EXACTLY is yours. During the examination of the patent the claims may be amended a few times to bypass the objections of the examiner, or to comply with the suggestions of the examiner.

If a patent is finally granted, it means that an authorized (for this work) independent third party specialized in the technological area agrees that what you disclose and claim is yours, which means nobody else can make, use or sell your invention in the territory of the specific Patent Office.


In our world, by getting a patent, you have something.
Take it, and then you can maintain it in force, or you can withdraw it, or you can leave it to expire.
Your name and idea will remain in the Patent Offices for long (maybe for centuries): anyone who searches may read it and see who invented it and how he was thinking.

Without a patent, you have nothing.


Here is the US patent number 1,000 patented in 1838:

Image

Thanks
Manolis Pattakos

User avatar
Mattchu
46
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2014 6:37 pm

Re: 2 stroke thread (with occasional F1 relevance!)

Post

We don`t really care about patents that much...what we really want is pictures of funny stick men hanging under spinning blades...again :shock:

uniflow
uniflow
36
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 9:41 am

Re: 2 stroke thread (with occasional F1 relevance!)

Post

Having a patent does not mean its useful, or works.
Id rather have something that is useful and works and keep it to myself thankyou manolis.
To me you are sort of missing the point, why patent a whole lot of rubbish that has never been tested and clearly will not work?
Im more of a make it work first kind of guy, then if need be, patent it.

Tommy Cookers
Tommy Cookers
540
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 3:55 pm

Re: 2 stroke thread (with occasional F1 relevance!)

Post

https://thevintagent.com/2019/03/28/the ... o-miracle/
(the ohc unit construction P10 engine when rubber-mounted and even cable-restrained shed its secondary chain)
says (of Commando rubber mounts) the advice was (still) that a high resonant frequency was needed for the mounts to last
but then they moved the resonant frequency down and down without a problem

btw the Laverda club seems to says that the 3 cyl flat crank was chosen because ......
Laverda at first tried a 3 plane crank but couldn't make rubber mounts work - it ate the rubbers
as the flat crank and the (eventual) 3 plane crank seem to be made from identical components .....
(multi-element roller bearing crank in principle resettable to any angles) ....
the internet story about tooling costs of the 3 plane dictating the flat crank seems to be .... nonsense
amusingly Laverda twins (360 deg) crankshafts can now be reset on their splines to the fashionable 270 deg (or 180 deg)

https://ajsstormer.wordpress.com
is worth a read for the 2 stroke design atmosphere
amusingly there's pictures of the 1960s DMW Typhoon 500 racer (coupled 250 engines)
this was another Brit 'world beater' - but it had truly disastrous vibration despite the 180 deg crank (coupling)
decades later another owner coupled the cranks at 90 deg then 45 deg and solved the problem
Last edited by Tommy Cookers on Thu Nov 12, 2020 11:46 am, edited 2 times in total.

manolis
manolis
102
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 9:00 am

Re: 2 stroke thread (with occasional F1 relevance!)

Post

Hello Tommy Cookers.

Your link to the “commando miracle” is not working.
Here is the correct link:
https://thevintagent.com/2019/03/28/the ... o-miracle/

Image


Regarding the vibrations of the 3-in-line with flat crankshaft, the analysis in top of page 233 explains a lot.

Besides the inertia vibrations there are the power pulses vibrations (and loads in the transmission).

While the two-stroke 3-in-line with flat crankshaft cannot help having simultaneous combustion in two cylinders (giving a two times stronger power pulse), the four-stroke 3-in-line with flat crankshaft has three combustions at 0, 360 and 540 degrees, i.e. away from each other.

Thanks
Manolis Pattakos