OP
bradburts
A kit is good. A kit with explanation and discussion even better!
IMHO offering a kits with explanations support an open development so long as copyright is not claimed. Others can then learn from the kit.
Better still sell the AC side properly built and boxed, that would leave others able to develop the digital side.
I would be keen for example on a AC proportional control module rated to 3KW and accepting, say, 0 to 5V demand with the demand appropriately buffered and isolated within the module.
On practical level I find it hard to see where a company would find the ROI to support development, testing and qualification as there are
either patents preventing us and/or our discussions have now limited the field for new patents (well done all!).
Commerialisation would be hard as we are after all talking about a very simple design, one that would be easy to copy,
easy to add new feature and then claim as original design. Those pursuing the commercial route would need a patent or some magic other
device property (cost, features, company reputation etc.) in order to head off alternatives. The fact that several here have developed
their own system would tend to make this case. At a certain market size some of those playing catch up will have surface mount and will therefore trash all for cost and reliability whilst also having a company name which can be trusted.
There was some earlier discussion on patents.
The Emma patent LOAD MANAGEMENT CONTROLLER - Cooper, Timothy Patrick would seem to cover all the devices which we have discussed. Perhaps
I am wrong, I would be grateful for a second reading and some discussion. If I am wrong and there was a gap in the patent
then have we now prevented new patents through our discussion?
Personally I find it quite hard to accept the Emma patent. I am sure that I have read about similar home energy management systems in the past. I have in the past designed control systems which monitor supply and control output currents to match available power (DC only). Where is the intellectual effort/novelty in saying finite input requires managed output control?
Sunny Boy's home manager SUNNY HOME MANAGER.*SMA Solar Technology AG capabilities would seem to overlap the Emma patent, wonder what that's all about.
To open the field to both competing commercial and, to a lesser extent, free open collaboration then we should post any references to articles which
pre-date and therefore may invalidate the Emma patent.
In my view the Emma patent is simply too far reaching and may stifle the development of energy saving devices, whilst only providing an expensive solution.
That cannot be good for the planet.
If Emma were innovative to say £200 or so (the bits cannot cost more than £50 in volume) then I would be more inclined to believe some effort which justified protection and commercial return.
IMHO offering a kits with explanations support an open development so long as copyright is not claimed. Others can then learn from the kit.
Better still sell the AC side properly built and boxed, that would leave others able to develop the digital side.
I would be keen for example on a AC proportional control module rated to 3KW and accepting, say, 0 to 5V demand with the demand appropriately buffered and isolated within the module.
On practical level I find it hard to see where a company would find the ROI to support development, testing and qualification as there are
either patents preventing us and/or our discussions have now limited the field for new patents (well done all!).
Commerialisation would be hard as we are after all talking about a very simple design, one that would be easy to copy,
easy to add new feature and then claim as original design. Those pursuing the commercial route would need a patent or some magic other
device property (cost, features, company reputation etc.) in order to head off alternatives. The fact that several here have developed
their own system would tend to make this case. At a certain market size some of those playing catch up will have surface mount and will therefore trash all for cost and reliability whilst also having a company name which can be trusted.
There was some earlier discussion on patents.
The Emma patent LOAD MANAGEMENT CONTROLLER - Cooper, Timothy Patrick would seem to cover all the devices which we have discussed. Perhaps
I am wrong, I would be grateful for a second reading and some discussion. If I am wrong and there was a gap in the patent
then have we now prevented new patents through our discussion?
Personally I find it quite hard to accept the Emma patent. I am sure that I have read about similar home energy management systems in the past. I have in the past designed control systems which monitor supply and control output currents to match available power (DC only). Where is the intellectual effort/novelty in saying finite input requires managed output control?
Sunny Boy's home manager SUNNY HOME MANAGER.*SMA Solar Technology AG capabilities would seem to overlap the Emma patent, wonder what that's all about.
To open the field to both competing commercial and, to a lesser extent, free open collaboration then we should post any references to articles which
pre-date and therefore may invalidate the Emma patent.
In my view the Emma patent is simply too far reaching and may stifle the development of energy saving devices, whilst only providing an expensive solution.
That cannot be good for the planet.
If Emma were innovative to say £200 or so (the bits cannot cost more than £50 in volume) then I would be more inclined to believe some effort which justified protection and commercial return.
Last edited by a moderator:
