Thats a real shame.
The best way forward isto develop a solution within an open source framework - we all havecomplimentary skills and working together is the way forwards.
Onthe practical commercial level I find it hard to see where a company would find theROI to support development, testing and qualification as there areeither patents preventing us and/or our discussions have now limitedthe field for new patents (well done all!).
We are after alltalking about a very simple design, one that would be easy to copy,easy to add new feature too and then claim as original design. Thosepursuing the commercial route would need a patent or some magic otherdevice property (cost, features, company reputation etc.) in order tohead off alternatives. The fact that several here have developedtheir own system would tend to make this case. At a certain marketsize (which seems likely) some of those playing catch up willhave surface mount and will therefore trash all for cost andreliability whilst also having a company name which can be trusted.
Certainly there's a few pounds to be made selling kits or homers. At some point I suspect that runs foul of the law though.
I recognise though thatit must be hard though for some to share the design which they havesweated blood over.
Perhaps one area wecould all share in is the status of patent protection, which may inturn help understand the best way forwards.
The Emma patent
LOAD MANAGEMENT CONTROLLER - Cooper, Timothy Patrick would seem to cover all the devices which we have discussed. PerhapsI am wrong, I would be grateful for a second reading and somediscussion. If I am wrong and there
was a gap in the patentthen have we now prevented new patents through our discussion?
Personally I find itquite hard to accept the Emma patent. I am sure that I have readabout similar home energy management systems in the past. I have inthe past designed control systems which monitor supply and controloutput currents to match available power (battery chargers). Where isthe intellectual effort/novelty in saying finite resource would benefit frommanaged output control or that a closed loop system needs an input function and an output function?
Sunny Boy's homemanager
SUNNY HOME MANAGER. SMA Solar Technology AG capabilities would seem to overlap the Emma patent, wonder whatthat's all about.
To open the field toboth those seeking commercial gain and, to a lesser extent, free opencollaboration then we should post any references to articles whichpre-date and therefore may invalidate the Emma patent.
In my view the Emmapatent is simply too far reaching and may stifle the development ofenergy saving devices, whilst only providing an expensive solution.That cannot be good for the planet.
If Emma were innovativeto say £200 or so (the bits cannot cost more than £50 in volume)then I would be more inclined to believe some effort which justifiedprotection and a large markup return.
Perhaps the Emma engineers worked outside the open discussion forums and have a lot of NRE to recover.........
Finally this is a discussion forum we should discuss & share.
For those struggling with construction side should look at
Renewable Energy UK where Niel has a 100 and 1 microcontroller / AC control systems at low cost, usually less than £30. Last time I looked he had a solar immersion controller (no diode) using an LDR rather than CT. They are all PIC microcontroller based. Think the software is often posted so should be easy to modify. Buy a control system, buy a learn to program a PIC book (its easy to learn) and I can support your code. Buy me a system and I will write the code for you.
As we all lack patentprotection (hopefully) then what would our individual business modelsbe?Lowest product cost, most product features? – that comes fromteams and the discussions we share here.
Sell low volumes to thehome enthusiast / kit market through the forums? Hardly seems worththe effort, especially considering the safety risk. I am sure thatthose involved are properly trained and highly skilled. There ishowever a reason why standards organisations require design reviewhowever, we all make mistakes sometimes. Anyway at the end of the dayall someone in China has to do is buy a kit , reverse engineer andmass produce in surface mount. Try proving that is your design then!