Cross Compatible Reloads

ContrailRockets · Jul 17, 2007

gorillarockets said:
Not true. I did NOT request to use AMW hardware for certification. Tripoli said I could use AMW hardware if I wanted to and if I went that route I had to submit 3 complete sets of AMW motor hardware to do so. Although I was given the choice to certify in AMW hardware (I personally enjoy making the propellant over making the hardware) I felt that it was morally and ethically wrong to certify in some other manufacturers hardware without his permission. So I made my own to be submitted.

Jim Harris
Gorilla Motors

Jim,
Its great to see your here on the forum. Welcome.
Sorry for the confusion on if you requested to use AMW Hardware or not. With all the talk at LDRS Regarding the subject I am sure it just got misinterpreted in my head.
I was aware that you did submit your own hardware, but had the opportunity to submit AMW hardware. I guess I figured since you were given permission to use the AMW Hardware you had requested it.

Out of curiosity, is there any difference in size between the AMW Hardware and your own? Or are you both producing the same dimension product (Hardware)?

I am pretty sure There is at least a few items which both Contrail and SRS Produce that are the same item essentially... I would have to ask Todd to find out if that is 100% accurate.

gorillamotors · Jul 17, 2007

ContrailRockets said:
Jim,
Its great to see your here on the forum. Welcome.
Sorry for the confusion on if you requested to use AMW Hardware or not. With all the talk at LDRS Regarding the subject I am sure it just got misinterpreted in my head.
I was aware that you did submit your own hardware, but had the opportunity to submit AMW hardware. I guess I figured since you were given permission to use the AMW Hardware you had requested it.

Out of curiosity, is there any difference in size between the AMW Hardware and your own? Or are you both producing the same dimension product (Hardware)?

I am pretty sure There is at least a few items which both Contrail and SRS Produce that are the same item essentially... I would have to ask Todd to find out if that is 100% accurate.

Gorillas hardware is identical to AMWs except for the nozzles. Different length and throat diameter.

Jim Harris
Gorilla Motors

deandome · Jul 17, 2007

ContrailRockets said:
You can also be taken to court for patent infringement for using the Aerotech Patented "Delay Train." (Gary Correct me if I am wrong on name, design etc.)

I admitted this several times in this thread:

...and maybe come up w/a unique delay arrangement, which I've said might be the only thing they have that's truly unique.

Could there be anything more 'intellectual property-worthy' than the design of a car? Sculpted by artists, first in clay, then in steel...literally defining a multi-billion $$ company's identity?

Then why can any yahoo with a metal plant crank out aftermarket body panels for current models & sell them (usually these parts are forced upon you by insurance companies, too)?

Jim @ Gorilla laid out the main reason there hasn't been any "crossover propellant wars"...yet. Despite a few contentious relationships among the mfgs., they have, for the most part, respected each other's product lines, companies & niches; there have been 'gentlemen's agreements'.

I'm not so sure this will be the case any more.

matthew · Jul 17, 2007

Deandome said:
jee-sus....I can't believe people actually accuse me of being a "know it all"

I can't believe it either.

2muchstuff · Jul 17, 2007

Deandome said:
YOU CANNOT PATENT A SIZE...YOU CANNOT PATENT A SHAPE.

OK, here's some 'real' intellectual property for you:

Tell Howard Head you cannot patent a size. Patent number 3,999,756 (look it up). He patented the oversize tennis racket. Yup, he patented a size. Here's the first line from the patent abstract:

"The tennis racket has a strung surface which is larger than the strung surface of a conventional racket,"

So, don't bother with reality, say what you want in CAPS and it must be true.

tms

jadebox · Jul 17, 2007

2muchstuff said:
He patented the oversize tennis racket. Yup, he patented a size.

You can patent pretty much anything. Whether or not the patent is valid is another question. Unless there's something noteworthy about the enlarged tennis racket other than its size, I doubt the patent would hold up in court.

-- Roger

jadebox · Jul 17, 2007

Deandome said:
Then why can any yahoo with a metal plant crank out aftermarket body panels for current models & sell them (usually these parts are forced upon you by insurance companies, too)?

It's not as clear-cut as you make it appear. Aftermarket companies can make replacement parts, but only if they don't infringe on the automaker's patents or they have permission from the patent holder. I suspect that quite a lot of third-party replacement parts do violate trademarks or patents.

-- Roger

deandome · Jul 17, 2007

2muchstuff said:
OK, here's some 'real' intellectual property for you:

Tell Howard Head you cannot patent a size. Patent number 3,999,756 (look it up). He patented the oversize tennis racket. Yup, he patented a size. Here's the first line from the patent abstract:

"The tennis racket has a strung surface which is larger than the strung surface of a conventional racket,"

So, don't bother with reality, say what you want in CAPS and it must be true.

tms

Took a while, but the Head patent somehow fell into some "radical invention" category that superceded the size thing. I waded through this annoying, legalese tome https://64.233.167.104/search?q=cac...head"+tennis+patent&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=70&gl=us
to find this:

Mapping citation patterns to criteria of novelty, uniqeness, and impact In this section, we discuss how citation patterns are expected to map onto the three criteria for radicalness.

dian patent office denied a recently granted US patent for the “sealed crustless sandwich,” US Patent 6,004,596 (see The Economist, 2004; Shulman, 2001, for commentary) for not meeting the office’s novelty and non-obviousness demands. Similarly, although Howard Head was granted a US patent for the oversized tennis racket in 1976 (despite size being explicitly termed “non-patentable&#8221, he was unable to patent this feature in West Germany or Japan.

"...size being explicitly termed non-patentable"...where have I heard that before?

Also, the patent landscape has changed drastically due to computers & software wars. The changes have made it much tougher...if not impossible...to get broad, anti-competitive patents for things like search engines & web browsers...and memory chips....and pretty much ANYTHING that prevents interoperability w/other mfgs. software & hardware.

2muchstuff · Jul 17, 2007

jadebox said:
You can patent pretty much anything. Whether or not the patent is valid is another question. Unless there's something noteworthy about the enlarged tennis racket other than its size, I doubt the patent would hold up in court.

I guess all the companies who pay royalties to Head for the patent are wrong then, or maybe they figure it's cheaper than fighting it in court. But they are paying royalties on the patent, so draw whatever conclusion you want.

And you can't patent anything pretty much anything. Patents go through a review process. Patents on engineering designs are now pretty cut and dried. They are rarely challenged on validity, more that it infringes on someone else's patent. It's software and business practices that are giving the patent office grief right now.

tms

jderimig · Jul 17, 2007

Deandome said:
Also, the patent landscape has changed drastically due to computers & software wars. The changes have made it much tougher...if not impossible...to get broad, anti-competitive patents for things like search engines & web browsers...and memory chips....and pretty much ANYTHING.

Tell that to Vonage.

deandome · Jul 17, 2007

2muchstuff said:
I guess all the companies who pay royalties to Head for the patent are wrong then, or maybe they figure it's cheaper than fighting it in court. But they are paying royalties on the patent, so draw whatever conclusion you want.

And you can't patent anything pretty much anything. Patents go through a review process. Patents on engineering designs are now pretty cut and dried. They are rarely challenged on validity, more that it infringes on someone else's patent. It's software and business practices that are giving the patent office grief right now.

Actually, patents are easy to get for lots of stupid things...patents that won't ever hold up. That's because of the number of software/computer cases & backlogs...the unstated policy of the understaffed patent dept. is to issue first, then let the lawyers sort it out later.

That's the reason for all these "Patent Your Invention" infomercials/companies you've seen in recent years. They suck up your $$ & get you a patent that isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

Heads' Prince raquet patent was so broad & unwieldy (it did indeed hold up & companies paid royalties...that's true), that when Wilson tried the same trick with their also-revolutionaly Hammer "widebody" raquet, they were NOT allowed to patent a size-range like Prince did. They wanted to say "any racquet with a cross-section of 1-3" or something, but they were shot down, so they reworked it to patent the degree of shock absorption & other stuff.

jadebox · Jul 17, 2007

And you can't patent anything pretty much anything.

There are many patents for obvious ideas and unworkable inventions.

-- Roger

jderimig · Jul 17, 2007

jadebox said:
There are many patents for obvious ideas and unworkable inventions.

-- Roger

Until that is decided by a court that is not true. (You or anyone else but a judge can make that conclusion, legally).

deandome · Jul 17, 2007

jderimig said:
Tell that to Vonage.

Verizon's patents weren't broad, anti-competitive "we invented VoIP!", they were specific technologies. Lots of other VoIP companies are doing fine without getting sued.

This is clearly getting off topic, but it's kind of an interesting, relatively polite discussion of patents

jadebox · Jul 17, 2007

jderimig said:
Until that is decided by a court that is not true. (You or anyone else but a judge can make that conclusion, legally).

Oh, come on .... an idea only becomes obvious once a court says it is? Prior-art magically appears only after a court rules that it exists (some sort of quantum thing)? As I said, there are many patents for obvious ideas and non-workable inventions. Most will never be challenged in court because there's no need to challenge them.

-- Roger

jderimig · Jul 17, 2007

jadebox said:
Oh, come on .... an idea only becomes obvious once a court says it is? Prior-art magically appears only after a court rules that it exists (some sort of quantum thing)? As I said, there are many patents for obvious ideas and non-workable inventions. Most will never be challenged in court because there's no need to challenge them.

-- Roger

No simply a patent is not deemed invalid until the court says so. Until that happens the patents are assumed valid and possess the neccessary qualities of being 1)novel, 2) non-obvious and 3) useful. It is not yours, mine or anyones else's call otherwise. Legally (patents are a legal instrument).

Remember before a patent is issued a patent examiner has already deemed it possesses the necessary requirements. As someone who is intimately familiar with the patent process I can assure that these guys (patent examiners) to not take this job lightly. When in doubt they reject. What is your experience with the Patent Office?

heada · Jul 17, 2007

I thought that anyone would challenge a patent and a USPTO investigator had to investigate the patent.(seems you either had to have a competing patent or pay a fee or some such....I don't recall and I'm not a patent lawyer) At that point, it could be found to be invalid for a number of reasons. (pior art, trivial, etc) A judge doesn't have to be involved and from my understanding it is actually rare for a judge to be involved in invalidating a patent compared to the number that are turned over on review/challenge.

To bring this back on topic. If a manufacturer of a case feels that his/her patent has been violated by someone else, they have a legal recorse they can take (sue) I don't think AMW cases are patented so the question is moot for this case. What might be patentable (I don't know, I'm mearly specualting) is the combination of case, nozzle, propellant mixture and effects (colors, sparks, etc)

-Aaron

jadebox · Jul 17, 2007

jderimig said:
No simply a patent is not deemed invalid until the court says so.

I never said anything about invalid patents. I just said there are many patents that are for obvious or non-workable inventions.

-- Roger

Art Upton · Jul 17, 2007

Deandome said:
....<snip> ...

Also, the patent landscape has changed drastically due to computers & software wars. The changes have made it much tougher...if not impossible...to get broad, anti-competitive patents for things like search engines & web browsers...and memory chips....and pretty much ANYTHING that prevents interoperability w/other mfgs. software & hardware.

Hi Dean,

It allowed Amason to patent one click shopping

It allowed IBM to a-mass a slew of patents, but some web based patents are silly.

IBM created their special PS/2 buss and patented it.

Nothing could work with the PS/2 bus unless it was licensed. It went away due to market share lost to the generic PC Bus, the EISA bus and the later PCI bus.

heada · Jul 17, 2007

Art Upton said:
Hi Dean,

It allowed IBM to a-mass a slew of patents, but some web based patents are silly.

I've been told (by an IBM employee, so take with a grain of salt) that IBM has more patents then all other companies combined. They have so many that the servers that run the patent database is on IBM hardware managed by IBM in an IBM datacenter.

Nothing could work with the PS/2 bus unless it was licensed. It went away due to market share lost to the generic PC Bus, the EISA bus and the later PCI bus.

MicroChannel Bus? The MCA bus is what IBM used for the longest time and was a direct competitor to ISA (16 bit only) EISA (32 bit or 16 bit) VESA (24 bit....funky thing that...never did like it much) and later PCI (32 bit, became the standard) IBM was well ahead of the curve when it came to the MCA bus but since they were viewed as "an evil empire" back then, everyone rebelled and found a different solution (one that you didn't have to pay license fees to IBM) Oddest thing I've ever seen when it comes to buses... I had a Compaq server motherboard that had ISA/EISA/VESA/PCI on it. It could handle pretty much anything non-MCA. I still have a few MCA 10Mb/s ethernet cards if you want.

-Aaron

Art Upton · Jul 17, 2007

heada said:
I've been told (by an IBM employee, so take with a grain of salt) that IBM has more patents then all other companies combined.
-Aaron

Hi Aaron, I have been told this as well .

The PS/2 Bus, yes the MicroChannel :cry:
'Caused me plenty of greif after April 27th, 1987

I call what happened to it the market share effect, the market drove the MCA out of existance.

VESA Local Buss was a video card interface was it not?
Like an AGP buss but it was designed for the 486 chips to talk to the video and memory at the same time?

We had the PC bus, (ISA)

the compaq and other brands (EISA)

then the next good thing to come out , the PCI

Ok, I typed Bus and Buss, hum... what's the differance?

heada · Jul 17, 2007

bus == buss (as far as I knew...they're the same thing) maybe bus for computers and buss for electrical bus?

VL-Bus (VESA Local Bus) was mostly used by video but also by HDD controllers (my second EIDE controller was a VL-Bus controller) and early higher-end ethernet (I saw a 100VG adapter for VL-Bus) The benefit to the VL-Bus was that it was one the same bus as the CPU/memory and therefore much faster, but most of the I/O controllers could only handle 1 or 2 devices on the VL-Bus and so it was very limited in use.

April 1987?? I was still dealing with MCA up to last year some time on RS/6000 servers here ar work. Give me hot-swap PCI-X anyday.

-Aaron

scott ulrey · Jul 17, 2007

ContrailRockets said:
Since AMW doesn't have any patents on there snap ring type motors and as Dark Helmet Said, they are "not patentable". AT did nothing wrong in certifing reloads for AMW hardware...

CTI set the precident years ago by certifing their reloads in AT Hardware. AT is just following up on that.

So if that is correct? and we all hear all kinds of rumours, If CTI started it.... Then A.T. makes loads to fit AMW? Isn't that like punishing the dog catcher when you get bitten by your neighbors dog????????

Personally I think this is nothing more than adult PI$$ING contest. I think A.T., CTI, AMW and Loki all make quailty hardware and reloads.
Looking at it from a dealers point of veiw, How many reloads and sets of hardware do you guys think the dealers are willing to carry? So if we carry all the loads that AT makes for their cases and AMW's cases, and then all the loads and cases that AMW makes plus the loads AMW makes to fit AT cases and so on and so on, You get the picture. Us dealers would have to have a tractor trailer to bring all this to your launches.
I think that Tripoli and NAR testing should adopt and new rule before this gets way out of hand that each motor manufacture can only make and certifi
loads for their cases. This should never have been allowed to start and I think the only ones that can stop it is the Tripoli/NAR testing.

PStein · Jul 17, 2007

darkhelmet said:
This is TRF. If anyone posts what they really think about this subject here, it will be removed by the moderators.

The topic of unauthorized cross-compatible reloads has many twists and divisive issues. If you want answers, email the NAR BOT and the TMT BOD. All other discussions here will just produce ignorant speculation and FUD.

I do not want or need NAR BOT and / or the TMT BOD to "protect" me in warranty issues. If you are capable of using these products, you are capable of determining whether you want to accept the potential risks to your hardware in case of a malfunction that might or might not be covered by a warranty.

PStein · Jul 17, 2007

billspad said:
For what it's worth, some members of the S & T committee thought that the scenario you mention was possible and that there should be some testing of the casings beyond just firing a couple of motors. snip.

THe original certification is just firing a couple (ok 3) of times. Why should that change?

PStein · Jul 17, 2007

KermieD said:
Fact is, until you identify yourself QUOTE]

People identifying themselves with a real name does wonders for credibility. I don't know why doing so isn't a requirement.

Stuck Fingers · Jul 17, 2007

PStein said:
KermieD said:

People identifying themselves with a real name does wonders for credibility. I don't know why doing so isn't a requirement.

Click to expand...

Because there is no credible way to verify the veracity of all the users statements of identity.

billspad · Jul 17, 2007

PStein said:
THe original certification is just firing a couple (ok 3) of times. Why should that change?

NFPA 1125 requires casings to be tested to 2 times the working pressure. This is done by the manufacturer.

Manufacturer A makes casings and reloads. He knows his working pressure and tests the casings accordingly. Manufacturer A does this because he knows he's going to be replacing casings for free if they fail.

Manufacturer B makes a reload for Manufacturer A's casings. It has a significantly higher working pressure than Manufacturer A's propellant. The casing is now at a working pressure more than half the test pressure so it no longer complies with 1125.

Manufacturer B should be required to test the casing to the higher pressure or provide a statement from Manufacturer A stating that he tested the casing to the higher pressure. However, Manufacturer B decides not to bother with this because he knows he's not going to have to replace casings.

It seems trivial and in the particular example of AT propellant in AMW casings it probably is. The potential for problems is greater if someone states making reloads for AT's RMS casings.

Warranties aren't S & T or TMT's problem but if there are a bunch of failures you know people are going to say "but you certified them".

And in the case of these motors it was only two firings.

AZ_Ron · Jul 17, 2007

This is incredible...
I've gotten an earful of all this cross compatability crap all weekend at LDRS. I think at this point, everyone is now going to expect AMW loads for AT hardware. Where is the benefit in all this. Scott's right about the inventory deal and needing a tractor/trailer rig to get inventory to the launches.
The worst part is the politics... it's un-friggin' believable. I LOVE this hobby, but all this muss'n and fuss'n is taking some of the fun out of it... The old axiom about 'Can't we all just get along' is out the window it seems.
I had no problems with the Kosdon By Aerotech (KBA) deal, and Frank kept me up on the majority of it while it was happening. When I heard Gary was going to finally re-release the line, I thought great, a lot of people can dust off their Kosdon hardware and start using it again. Well, this 'NEW' KBA-Animal Compatible deal is not KOSDON by Aerotech...seems to me to be more AMW by Aerotech. Kosdons nozzle and bulkhead designs are different than the AMW designs. I'd like to see if you bought a current KBA load and tried to use it in old Kosdon hardware if it would work? Anyone want to comment on that?

I spoke with John Lyngdal at LDRS... he was very upset about all the flak he was taking about this whole deal. According to NFPA1125, he did what he was supposed to do. He said he didn't agree when CTI made the AT compatible stuff and doesn't agree with the current KBA deal.

I guess at this point, you "Can't stuff the crap back into the horse". I think AMW will release loads to fit AT hardware, and the main benefit will be lower prices to fliers at first, but Gary and Paul just might put each other out of business, along with a bunch of vendors who simply can't keep up.

I let this bother me way too much, and after the first day of LDRS, I tried to steer clear of the fiasco.

Not much info here, just some random thoughts...

Cheers everybody!

Ron

billspad · Jul 18, 2007

AZ_Ron said:
I'd like to see if you bought a current KBA load and tried to use it in old Kosdon hardware if it would work? Anyone want to comment on that?

It won't and it wouldn't be certified. The new KBA reloads are only certified for AMW casings.

I spoke with John Lyngdal at LDRS... he was very upset about all the flak he was taking about this whole deal. According to NFPA1125, he did what he was supposed to do. He said he didn't agree when CTI made the AT compatible stuff and doesn't agree with the current KBA deal.

That's the price of being a committee chairman. If he was against this certification he did a poor job of communicating that to his committee.

I guess at this point, you "Can't stuff the crap back into the horse". I think AMW will release loads to fit AT hardware, and the main benefit will be lower prices to fliers at first, but Gary and Paul just might put each other out of business, along with a bunch of vendors who simply can't keep up.

The only possible good outcome of this would be a standard casing. The market might force that but I doubt the manufacturers would do it own their own.

Cross Compatible Reloads

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Optimistic Pessimist

Well-Known Member

Roger Smith

Roger Smith

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Roger Smith

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Roger Smith

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Roger Smith

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads