[Stoves] Patent Protection or the Lack of It

[Richard Stanley]

Ken,
  I am no expert but or own experience suggested to us that one is far 
better off creating the vortex in upper portion of the combustion 
chamber where the secondary air is coming in to assure more  complete 
mixing above and beyond merely trying for a "good draft".

Vortexing within the chimney only (as compared to creating the said 
vortex within the upper reaches of the combustion chamber,  can 
actually be  detrimental in that it delays mixing in the combustion 
chamber, and actually can have a cooling effect on incoming secondary 
air.
or so I'm told..

Richard Stanley


On Jun 26, 2006, at 4:56 AM, ksmith46 at frontiernet.net wrote:

> This is my first time posting to this list but hav monitored it for 
> some time. I found this site from the woodgas group I belong to and 
> have built several Midge stoves on different designs. Why don't the 
> list start a commity that would regester either the person or company 
> with the commity. Drawings and paperwork would be at that location 
> other than in the patent office. After a couple of months, if the 
> person wanted to patent the idea, then you have a record of the device 
> other than the patent office. I don't believe in patents mainly 
> because of greed. Greed from the patent offices and if the project is 
> very useful, its not allowed to go forward anyway. This way the stove 
> commity would be the one to say it will work and the person could then 
> manufactor and sell it without putting it on public display where it 
> could be stolen.
> This list is doing a great service and I should be more active in 
> helping I guess. One thing I will say, as I don't have much time 
> anymore to test things, has anyone tried to use a Vortex in the 
> chimmey of a stove. I am thinking if one could get the stack hot, then 
> the twisting air should give more vacuume to the primary air without a 
> fan. This should also work on a short chimmey to lift the air higher 
> simulating a taller chimmey than is.
>
> Thank You
> Ken Smith
>
> Quoting Harry Stokes <hstokes at blazenet.net>:
>
>> Dear Dr. Karve,
>>
>> Your words are very wise.  When others take credit for your ideas, 
>> you know
>> that you have won the argument.  This is an old saying among 
>> politicians.
>>
>> For the thoughtful person, finding the answer and successfully 
>> conveying it
>> is worth more than a fortune!
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Harry
>>
>> P.S. Congratulations on the recent Ashden Award
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: stoves-bounces at listserv.repp.org
>> [mailto:stoves-bounces at listserv.repp.org] On Behalf Of adkarve
>> Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2006 6:46 AM
>> To: stoves at listserv.repp.org
>> Subject: Re: [Stoves] Central channel combustion stoves.
>> WasRE:HensonCenterFiure Burner System
>>
>> I agree with Richard that it takes a lot of money to defend one's 
>> patent and
>> that the true winners are lawyers on both the sides. We have for 
>> instance
>> registered the design of our Sarai cooker. But a multimillionnare 
>> capitalist
>> has blatantly copied it and is selling it. We are just too small and 
>> too
>> poor to sue him. All we can do is to congratulate him for having 
>> decided to
>> do what we wanted to do,  namely to disseminate our technology!
>> I consulted an industrialist friend of mine about this. He told me 
>> that the
>> life of a patent is about 17 years. Any clever lawyer can keep the 
>> case
>> before the court of law undecided and pending for that period, and 
>> after the
>> 17 years are over, the case is thrown out, because the cause for 
>> litigation
>> does not exist any longer.
>> Yours
>> A.D.Karve
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
> Stoves at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves
> http://www.bioenergylists.org
>