In Reply to: From Tom Danley - Re: Patentable claim posted by Mark Seaton on July 2, 2002 at 10:17:35:
Hello!Thanks for the response.
You wrote:
> > At least with all the other patents I have gotten successfully
> > through the patent office, "what is patented" are the things
> > called out in the claims.As I had mentioned, patent writers make a list of claims and if one is found to be unique by the examiners then the patent is granted. I had hoped that you might share with us which claim that was.
As to the Unity's phase relationship between the drivers, it has been shown that there is a path length distance, which is obviously a fixed distance. It has also been shown that electronic filters shift phase, but this is in relation to frequency. So the dilemma is this: Since wavelength is a function of frequency, how can one fixed distance be expected to maintain a constant phase relationship between drivers in a wide overlap region, such as is the case with low order networks?
If you've got two octaves of overlap, then you've got a fourfold difference in wavelength between the lowest and highest frequencies of interest. In other words, if the slope is 1st order then the -6dB points are two octaves away. So if the crossover frequency is 1Khz, then the upper-frequency driver is -6dB at 500Hz and the lower frequency driver is -6dB at 2Khz. The overlap region is wide and between these two frequencies, energy from both drivers is high. But the wavelength of 2Khz is a little under 7 inches and the wavelength of 500Hz is a little over two feet. Obviously, half wavelengths are then about 3.5" and 12" - and it is this range of distances that are most critical, because anything that causes parallax between the drivers and the listener to be between these two measurements will cause an anomaly to be expressed in the frequency domain.
It is also exactly this type of response that was shown for your horn, and which was removed from your website after our last discussion a year ago, but clearly after the patent was drafted. I expect that this implementation of diaphragm position and phase is an item listed in the claims that may have been unique and not been patented previously. Either this or the pyramid shape.
Take care!
Wayne
P.S. Why must Tom have you post replies for him?
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Wayne Parham 07/2/0215:41:48 07/2/02 (74)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - hancock 13:29:29 07/3/02 (56)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Wayne Parham 16:40:11 07/3/02 (52)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - tomservo 11:50:41 07/4/02 (47)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Wayne Parham 14:23:45 07/4/02 (46)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - tomservo 16:48:59 07/4/02 (45)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Wayne Parham 17:49:49 07/4/02 (44)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - tomservo 10:45:57 07/5/02 (14)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Wayne Parham 11:10:52 07/5/02 (13)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - tomservo 14:49:43 07/5/02 (12)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - str8aro 19:49:25 07/5/02 (1)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Wayne Parham 00:01:03 07/6/02 (0)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Wayne Parham 16:28:43 07/5/02 (9)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Mark Seaton 16:21:49 07/6/02 (1)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Wayne Parham 02:08:32 07/7/02 (0)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - tomservo 09:00:14 07/6/02 (6)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Wayne Parham 14:23:07 07/6/02 (4)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Mark Seaton 18:26:34 07/6/02 (1)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Wayne Parham 01:39:22 07/7/02 (0)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - tomservo 16:55:53 07/6/02 (1)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Wayne Parham 02:46:26 07/7/02 (0)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - hancock 03:20:37 07/5/02 (29)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Wayne Parham 11:38:48 07/5/02 (28)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Mark Seaton 13:39:56 07/5/02 (5)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - hancock 14:07:08 07/5/02 (4)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Mark Seaton 14:19:15 07/5/02 (3)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Wayne Parham 17:47:03 07/5/02 (2)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Mark Seaton 13:28:59 07/6/02 (1)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Wayne Parham 14:09:45 07/6/02 (0)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - hancock 13:35:47 07/5/02 (21)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Wayne Parham 16:49:15 07/5/02 (0)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Magnetar 14:14:09 07/5/02 (19)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Wayne Parham 16:55:31 07/5/02 (18)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Magnetar 09:18:20 07/6/02 (8)
- Change your mind again? - Wayne Parham 23:10:09 07/14/02 (0)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Wayne Parham 15:05:37 07/6/02 (6)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Magnetar 08:42:59 07/7/02 (5)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Wayne Parham 02:01:00 07/8/02 (4)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - hancock 04:28:53 07/8/02 (3)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Wayne Parham 12:45:35 07/8/02 (2)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - hancock 14:28:22 07/8/02 (1)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Wayne Parham 16:37:21 07/8/02 (0)
- hard not to remember "the king of comb filtering"(nt) - Sam P. 07:10:54 07/6/02 (8)
- Re: LOL - Magnetar 09:21:07 07/6/02 (7)
- Misconceptions - Mark Seaton 10:34:57 07/4/02 (1)
- Re: Misconceptions Department of redundancy Department - tomservo 12:01:42 07/4/02 (0)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - hancock 09:58:37 07/4/02 (1)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Wayne Parham 15:41:04 07/4/02 (0)
- LOL, using the phrase "linear phase response" - Sam P. 15:10:57 07/3/02 (2)
- Re: LOL, using the phrase "linear phase response" - hancock 08:39:22 07/4/02 (1)
- Re: LOL, using the phrase "linear phase response" - Wayne Parham 14:39:54 07/4/02 (0)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - dwiggins@adireaudio.com 08:24:59 07/3/02 (16)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Wayne Parham 16:41:39 07/3/02 (15)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - dwiggins@adireaudio.com 17:39:04 07/3/02 (14)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Wayne Parham 22:24:00 07/3/02 (13)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - DanWiggins 08:09:31 07/4/02 (12)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Mark Seaton 09:57:06 07/4/02 (11)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Wayne Parham 13:03:15 07/4/02 (10)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - dwiggins@adireaudio.com 22:53:34 07/4/02 (7)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Wayne Parham 01:34:40 07/5/02 (6)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Mark Seaton 12:08:51 07/5/02 (1)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Wayne Parham 16:59:24 07/5/02 (0)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - dwiggins@adireaudio.com 08:54:53 07/5/02 (3)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Wayne Parham 11:23:20 07/5/02 (2)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - hancock 13:47:11 07/5/02 (1)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Wayne Parham 17:09:41 07/5/02 (0)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Andre Jute 13:59:04 07/4/02 (1)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Wayne Parham 14:41:47 07/4/02 (0)