Using a shower head for a spray induction skimmer?

[MarkS]

I just recently replaced my shower head. I bought one by Teladine (sp?) that is all plastic and has a removable flow restrictor.

My water pressure is pretty low, so I needed to remove the restrictor. The water jets were so powerfull that I thought it might be good as an injector.

To my understanding, AquaC only holds the patent to the injector they use. The spray induction skimmer is still legal to make as long as you don't duplicate the injector.

Any thoughts?

Mark

[Danables]

ive never seen the inside of the AquaC does it look the same as the shower head? cant you duplicate the injector but not sell it?

[generalee]

It is not illegal to make an exact copy of a patented product. It is illegal to sell them without the expressed permission of the patent holder.

[ReefVan]

:D MarkS,

If you're curious as to what the actual injector looks like, go to the U.S Patent Office, look up the patent number listed on the manufacturer's site.

In the graphical section you will find all the drawings for this unit including the spray nozzle. That's the part you don't want to copy... ;)

[mr. pluto]

here is the injector
http://www.dslextreme.com/users/ljjay1//images/reef%20pics/injector

[David Grigor]

General Lee,

How sure are you on your interpretation of the patent laws ?

If I remember correctly when dicussing the whole ReefVan /
Sea swirl patent fiasco, where patent lawyers gave input.

Technically, not allowed to DIY a patent even for your own personal use...

ReefVan, Do you remember?

[cuc]

Mark I would go ahead and do it, if you don't tell anyone then there is nobody to tell on you. I thought Generalee was right but I'm not a lawyer.

[cuc]

And don't sell it when you are done with it. (Give it away) lol

[MarkS]

I DO NOT want to copy AquaC's skimmer and definitely not their injector!

As I stated, would a powerfull showerhead work?

The patent laws are very clear.

Mark

[ReefVan]

:D Hi folks,

I think that so many opinions were given during the Sea-Swirl debate that everyone is still confused.

We must all remember that there are always two lawyers to argue a case. One for and one against, that is how they drum up business.

Whether or not it is or isn't illegal has to be ruled on by a judge, each case is different and IMHO the law is unclear on DIY.

To play safe, you don't do anything, to push the envelope you risk retribution.

After all, what patent lawyer in his right mind would tell you it's o.k? He'd be out of a job so fast that your head would spin.

Only expressing my humble opinion, and I am NOT a lawyer.

p.s - Is it ethical for a lawyer to post his own legal opinions and interpretations on the internet anyway?

[SPC]

LOL, I don't see why it wouldn't work Mark. I have also wondered about spray nozzles for hoses too.
Steve

[slipknottin]

Any spray injector having a spray tip positioned above the water bubble chamber and arranged to direct a spray of protein contaminated water onto the surface of the water is patented by Aqua C.

[BeanAnimal]

It isd 100% illegal to copy a patented item EVEN for your own use. That is the law and it ius not hard to make stick. That said, who the heck is going to go after a guy for his DIY aquarium equipment. Who is going to know?

On another note...

I build high end DIY loudspeaker systems. A jerk from a company called US Enclosures has tried (and succeeded in a few cases) to patent just about anything and everything regqrding loudspeaker enclosures. The funny part is that the BASS LIST (a diy speaker forum) taught him EVERYTHING he knows. And he really doesn't know much. BUT he did pay a guy to file the patents and WON some of them, afterall a patent judge has no idea in most cases about the "technology" behind a patent. The "ideas" and "designs" he patented are PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE and have been around since before this kid was born. What does that mean? Well he may have got a few patents, but in court they will get thrown out when it is proved he stole them. Will it ever go to court? Most likely not, he is not stupid enough to sue somebody over something he did not invent in the first place. IF he is that stupid he will lose, and also lose the right to manufacture his "sphereical enclosures" under the security of a patent.

Bill

[ReefVan]

:D Hi Mark,

I read that the spray nozzles have to be cleaned frequently in order for them to be able to retain their efficiency.

They will block over time as they shoot protein laden water. Anyway, lets face it, that's dirty water isn't it?

A shower head may be more difficult to clean and be more prone to blockage over time.

The all plastic garden hose nozzle may be an option, it has an adjustable spray pattern and intensity.

As for the patented spray nozzle, though ingenious, it looks nothing more complex than a piece of pvc pipe fitting that has been heated and consequently pinched shut with a pair of long-nose pliers, IMHO.

As far as discussing this project, there's nothing illegal in that, you are guaranteed your right to free speech. Keep the discussion technical and do not incite people to break any laws. You already know that what you're discussing is already posted for public scrutiny on the USPTO website anyway. It's called freedom of information.

IMO, anyone threatening anyone else with legal action to make them stop discussion is guilty of a slapp suit, apparently more and more common in many states, to the great surprise and chagrin of many a BBS bully. Kind of like a nasty payback for sue-happy people.

Once again, the debate is not to get RC in any hot water, but to be able to intelligently discuss existing technologies without someone who feels threatened for whatever reason getting their shorts in a knot.

[slipknottin]

Originally posted by BeanAnimal
It isd 100% illegal to copy a patented item EVEN for your own use. That is the law and it ius not hard to make stick. That said, who the heck is going to go after a guy for his DIY aquarium equipment. Who is going to know?



Um. If the patent holder asks RC to give them the IP and they refuse they could sue RC. They could sue RC just for allowing someone to post information about making your own patented product. Thats what happened last time with the SS incident.. (even though the person who made it was in Canada and could legally make them)


I say just change it a bit so it doesnt fall under the patent, make the spray injector half submerged half above water. Just cheat the system a little bit :cool:

[ReefVan]

:D slipknottin,
Any spray injector having a spray tip positioned above the water bubble chamber and arranged to direct a spray of protein contaminated water onto the surface of the water is patented by Aqua C.

If this is true, then what technology does a Precision Marine Bullet series skimmer use? :confused: Beckett I guess...

You can't patent an idea or a function, only an implementation. You will find this on the USPTO site along with many other interesting details on patent law. :eek:

Therefore, IMHO you can build yourself a generic type spray injection skimmer, but you must use your own design implementation for the spray nozzle. ;)

Maybe re-position the nozzle as previously stated in a semi submerged state with an additional venturi added.

[DiscusZ]

RC Does not have to give any IP Address/Login info/Email address that are registered here, they can not be sued for not giving the infortmation out UNLESS they were served with a search warrant to gather the information on a member of their service. At that point they MUST devulge the information.

Trust me on this (being in the ISP business) Client information is confidential and we must be served with a search warrant by the police to get any information on any of our clients. (I have been served with one of these warrants once for some illegal activity one of our customers was involved in)

Jim

[H20ENG]

"Any spray injector having a spray tip positioned above the water bubble chamber and arranged to direct a spray of protein contaminated water onto the surface of the water is patented by Aqua C."

This is BS. Where did you obtain this quote?
What about the ETS, which was built years before the AquaC? And all the rest, including the PM that Van mentioned. Does he have a patent on the air, too? :rolleyes:

[slipknottin]

Patent #6,156,209
Its part B of their patent.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r=2&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1=6,156,209&OS=6,156,209&RS=6,156,209

The ETS is a venturi skimmer, its different than a skimmer that has a spray nozzle.

Here is what it says right at the top

A protein skimmer for removal of protein contaminates from protein contaminated water. An injector is used for spraying protein contaminated water into a mixing chamber having a water bubble chamber. The spraying motion causes bubble generation in the water bubble chamber. Contaminates in the water attach themselves to the bubbles and rise to the surface of the water as foam. A hollow foam riser is attached to the top of the mixing chamber and provides an exit pathway for the contaminated foam. As foam is generated, it rises through the foam riser and carries with it contaminates. A foam collection cup is attached to the top of the foam riser and collects the contaminated foam. Consequently, the water left behind in the mixing chamber is substantially more pure. The substantially more pure water exits the mixing chamber through a purified water exit aperture.

[H20ENG]

"The ETS is a venturi skimmer, its different than a skimmer that has a spray nozzle."
Umm, No. It shoots a stream of water (from above) down into a column of water, thereby inducing air into it, same as the AquaC, and probably just where he got the idea from.
Thanks for the link!

[ReefVan]

:D slipknottin,

I guess you saw this also when visiting the U.S Patent site? :p

Novelty And Non-Obviousness, Conditions For Obtaining A Patent
In order for an invention to be patentable it must be new as defined in the patent law, which provides that an invention cannot be patented if: “(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent,� or “(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country more than one year prior to the application for patent in the United States . . .�
If the invention has been described in a printed publication anywhere in the world, or if it has been in public use or on sale in this country before the date that the applicant made his/her invention, a patent cannot be obtained. If the invention has been described in a printed publication anywhere, or has been in public use or on sale in this country more than one year before the date on which an application for patent is filed in this country, a patent cannot be obtained. In this connection it is immaterial when the invention was made, or whether the printed publication or public use was by the inventor himself/herself or by someone else. If the inventor describes the invention in a printed publication or uses the invention publicly, or places it on sale, he/she must apply for a patent before one year has gone by, otherwise any right to a patent will be lost. The inventor must file on the date of public use or disclosure, however, in order to preserve patent rights in many foreign countries.
Even if the subject matter sought to be patented is not exactly shown by the prior art, and involves one or more differences over the most nearly similar thing already known, a patent may still be refused if the differences would be obvious. The subject matter sought to be patented must be sufficiently different from what has been used or described before that it may be said to be nonobvious to a person having ordinary skill in the area of technology related to the invention. For example, the substitution of one color for another, or changes in size, are ordinarily not patentable.

p.s - I will be using this in another thread soon ...

[slipknottin]

Then what did Aqua C patent?

I never knew ETS didnt have a venturi.... :confused:

[H20ENG]

I guess it was just his nozzle design. ETSS had patents LONG ago.
Funny topic, patents.:rolleyes:

[slipknottin]

If its true then he didnt patent anything

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

The present invention provides a protein skimmer for removal of protein contaminates from protein contaminated water. An injector is used for spraying protein contaminated water into a mixing chamber having a water bubble chamber. The spraying motion causes bubble generation in the water bubble chamber. Contaminates in the water attach themselves to the bubbles and rise to the surface of the water as foam. A hollow foam riser is attached to the top of the mixing chamber and provides an exit pathway for the contaminated foam, As foam is generated, it rises through the foam riser and carries with it contaminates. A foam collection cup is attached to the top of the foam riser and collects the contaminated foam. Consequently, the water left behind in the mixing chamber is substantially more pure. The substantially more pure water exits the mixing chamber through a purified water exit aperture


Some invention :rolleyes:

[H20ENG]

On the patent page you linked, there are many other skimmers along with this one, so its got to be the injector. Any skimmer would have his description of operation.

[slipknottin]

Hes giving a summary of the other skimmers and explaining the problems with them.