On page R2 of the 17 October 2011 issue of The Wall Street Journal, in
the midst of WSJ's Innovators' Awards, a purely mechanical innovation
was recognized, the ZeroG arm from Equipois
http://equipoisinc.com/products/.

What it does is to mechanically cancel the weight of a tool, so the
worker can use a very heavy tool as if it were weightless.

The original invention was to stabilize the big video cameras used by TV
stations and the like.

For technical details, see US Patent 7,618,016, available from
www.pat2pdf.org.

There is a series of related inventions by the same person, Garrett W.
Brown, but 7,618,016 explains the problems with each of these prior
approaches.

This is simple enough that a HSM could adapt the idea.

Joe Gwinn

I thought that "tool balancers" have been around forever, no?

On 2011-10-18, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
On page R2 of the 17 October 2011 issue of The Wall Street Journal, in
the midst of WSJ's Innovators' Awards, a purely mechanical innovation
was recognized, the ZeroG arm from Equipois
http://equipoisinc.com/products/.

What it does is to mechanically cancel the weight of a tool, so the
worker can use a very heavy tool as if it were weightless.

The original invention was to stabilize the big video cameras used by TV
stations and the like.

For technical details, see US Patent 7,618,016, available from
www.pat2pdf.org.

There is a series of related inventions by the same person, Garrett W.
Brown, but 7,618,016 explains the problems with each of these prior
approaches.

This is simple enough that a HSM could adapt the idea.

Joe Gwinn

On Oct 18, 10:23*am, Ignoramus25480 ignoramus25...@NOSPAM.
25480.invalid wrote:
I thought that "tool balancers" have been around forever, no?


Yes but this one uses a easily obtained spring and can be made at
home.

Dan


This is simple enough that a HSM could adapt the idea.

Joe Gwinn

On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 07:35:48 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Oct 18, 10:23*am, Ignoramus25480 ignoramus25...@NOSPAM.
25480.invalid wrote:
I thought that "tool balancers" have been around forever, no?


Yes but this one uses a easily obtained spring and can be made at
home.

Dan

Goodness, I've got three of these around the farm. I used car leaf
springs to zero balance very heavy things. I didn't even think it was
worthy of a note to RCM as they are so common. Guess I should have got
a patent about 20 years ago when I built the first one.

Karl



Karl

"Ignoramus25480" wrote in message
...
I thought that "tool balancers" have been around forever, no?


It isn't really new, but the Wall Street Journal thought it was.
I suspect that there is a limited amount of tool use going on at the WSJ.

Paul K. Dickman





On 2011-10-18, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
On page R2 of the 17 October 2011 issue of The Wall Street Journal, in
the midst of WSJ's Innovators' Awards, a purely mechanical innovation
was recognized, the ZeroG arm from Equipois
http://equipoisinc.com/products/.

What it does is to mechanically cancel the weight of a tool, so the
worker can use a very heavy tool as if it were weightless.

The original invention was to stabilize the big video cameras used by TV
stations and the like.

For technical details, see US Patent 7,618,016, available from
www.pat2pdf.org.

There is a series of related inventions by the same person, Garrett W.
Brown, but 7,618,016 explains the problems with each of these prior
approaches.

This is simple enough that a HSM could adapt the idea.

Joe Gwinn

On Oct 18, 7:40*am, "Paul K. Dickman" wrote:

I suspect that there is a limited amount of tool use going on at the WSJ.

Paul, you got that right. Many years back I worked as a Product Review
Journalist in the computer industry. In those 12 years, in many
different magazines and newspapers I worked for, I never once met
another journalist working there who was technically adept with
computers. They were hired for their journalistic skills (???) and not
their knowledge of computers. No surprises that the WSJ figured this
is new. The guy reporting probably got to take home a few freebies.

The support arms on my $12 double-parallelogram desk lamp has two
almost identical set ups. Not sure exactly when I bought the lamp but
it was before we moved to this house and that was 14 years back.

Dave

Ignoramus25480 fired this volley in
:

I thought that "tool balancers" have been around forever, no?

Not only that, but tool balancers on swinging trolly arms have been
around forever, too. I'm not sure I see the advantage of a big, bulky
spring arm attached to my tool.

That bit about the swinging trolley is important if you're moving the
tool around in a work envelope that might pull the balancer cable off-
angle from the reel. When it draws at an angle, it both fails to balance
the weight, and also tends to pull the tool toward the reel horizontally.

The arm swings an arc that covers the (say) NE-SW corners of the work
envelope, and the trolley allows it to move along the NW-SE lines.

I think that could be hammed up by an HSM faster and more easily than the
pantograph style arm depicted.

LLoyd

In article ,
Ignoramus25480 wrote:

I thought that "tool balancers" have been around forever, no?

Yes. The innovation is that they came up with a better way to do it.
The details are in the patent, and not in the sales propaganda.

Joe Gwinn


On 2011-10-18, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
On page R2 of the 17 October 2011 issue of The Wall Street Journal, in
the midst of WSJ's Innovators' Awards, a purely mechanical innovation
was recognized, the ZeroG arm from Equipois
http://equipoisinc.com/products/.

What it does is to mechanically cancel the weight of a tool, so the
worker can use a very heavy tool as if it were weightless.

The original invention was to stabilize the big video cameras used by TV
stations and the like.

For technical details, see US Patent 7,618,016, available from
www.pat2pdf.org.

There is a series of related inventions by the same person, Garrett W.
Brown, but 7,618,016 explains the problems with each of these prior
approaches.

This is simple enough that a HSM could adapt the idea.

Joe Gwinn

--Many moons ago when Steadicam was new and kewl and very expensive
a guy reverse engineered it and made one with a pair of aluminum crutches
and some garage door springs. He got an article published in Super 8
Filmmaker magazine. Steadicam had a **** fit and by court order every copy
of the magazine was recalled and destroyed. Not sure what happened to the
guy who wrote the article but I bet it wasn't nice. If you decide to clone
this thing just be aware of the lawyers that'll be in the loop in short
order. 'Course nowadays if you put a page up showing how to do it, it'll go
viral and no amount of legaleze will be able to re-cork that bottle, hehe.

--
"Steamboat Ed" Haas : Steel, Stainless, Titanium:
Hacking the Trailing Edge! : Guaranteed Uncertified Welding!
www.nmpproducts.com
---Decks a-wash in a sea of words---

On Oct 18, 12:04*pm, steamer wrote:
* * * * --Many moons ago when Steadicam was new and kewl and very expensive
a guy reverse engineered it and made one with a pair of aluminum crutches
and some garage door springs. He got an article published in Super 8
Filmmaker magazine. Steadicam had a **** fit and by court order every copy
of the magazine was recalled and destroyed. Not sure what happened to the
guy who wrote the article but I bet it wasn't nice. If you decide to clone
this thing just be aware of the lawyers that'll be in the loop in short
order. 'Course nowadays if you put a page up showing how to do it, it'll go
viral and no amount of legaleze will be able to re-cork that bottle, hehe..

--
* * * * "Steamboat Ed" Haas * * * * : *Steel, Stainless, Titanium: *
* * * * Hacking the Trailing Edge! *: *Guaranteed Uncertified Welding!
* * * * * * * * * * * * *www.nmpproducts.com
* * * * * * * * * *---Decks a-wash in a sea of words---

I imagine steadicam did have a **** fit and *wanted* every copy
destroyed, but showing a reverse-engineered trade secret or patent
violates no patent or trademark law that I can think of, and fairly
sure you can't copyright such.

Also, no law stops someone from implementing any patented item for
their own use short of a commercial use.

Of course that does not mean the aforementioned plague o' lawyers
won't occur.


Dave

On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 12:54:49 -0700 (PDT), Dave__67
wrote:



Also, no law stops someone from implementing any patented item for
their own use short of a commercial use.

Not so. There's no exception for personal use, in the US anyway.

--
Ned Simmons

Ned Simmons wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 12:54:49 -0700 (PDT), Dave__67
wrote:



Also, no law stops someone from implementing any patented item for
their own use short of a commercial use.

Not so. There's no exception for personal use, in the US anyway.


I didn't know that. Thanks, Ned!

http://www.uspto.gov/patents/resources/general_info_concerning_patents.jsp#heading-24

"The [patent] grant confers 'the right to exclude others from making,
using, offering for sale, or selling the invention throughout the
United States or importing the invention into the United States'".

Another childhood illusion STH!

--Winston

On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 14:12:58 -0700, Winston
wrote:

Ned Simmons wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 12:54:49 -0700 (PDT), Dave__67
wrote:



Also, no law stops someone from implementing any patented item for
their own use short of a commercial use.

Not so. There's no exception for personal use, in the US anyway.


I didn't know that. Thanks, Ned!

http://www.uspto.gov/patents/resources/general_info_concerning_patents.jsp#heading-24

"The [patent] grant confers 'the right to exclude others from making,
using, offering for sale, or selling the invention throughout the
United States or importing the invention into the United States'".

Another childhood illusion STH!

Sorry about that, Winston, but I was also the little turd who pulled
out a loose tooth and put it under my pillow without telling anyone.
Then ran downstairs in the morning waving the tooth around demanding,
"Where's the Tooth Fairy now?"


--
Ned Simmons

On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 14:12:58 -0700, Winston
wrote:

Ned Simmons wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 12:54:49 -0700 (PDT), Dave__67
wrote:



Also, no law stops someone from implementing any patented item for
their own use short of a commercial use.

Not so. There's no exception for personal use, in the US anyway.


I didn't know that. Thanks, Ned!

http://www.uspto.gov/patents/resources/general_info_concerning_patents.jsp#heading-24

"The [patent] grant confers 'the right to exclude others from making,
using, offering for sale, or selling the invention throughout the
United States or importing the invention into the United States'".

Another childhood illusion STH!

Sest lavvy, wot?

It's just that sending a speaking weasel after everyone who made one
of the client's gadgets wouldn't be cost effective.

--
Good ideas alter the power balance in relationships, that is why
good ideas are always initially resisted. Good ideas come with a
heavy burden. Which is why so few people have them. So few people
can handle it.
-- Hugh Macleod

On Oct 18, 4:21*pm, Ned Simmons wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 12:54:49 -0700 (PDT), Dave__67

wrote:

Also, no law stops someone from implementing any patented item for
their own use short of a commercial use.

Not so. There's no exception for personal use, in the US anyway.

--
Ned Simmons

Doing some reading, the enforcement mechanism still won't work if
there are no damages.

Anyway, if you made a copy of a patented item they may be able to keep
you from using it, issue an injunction to keep you from making more,
but no enforcement mechanism exists to make you destroy it or not
display it.


Dave

On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 14:41:37 -0700 (PDT), Dave__67
wrote:

On Oct 18, 4:21*pm, Ned Simmons wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 12:54:49 -0700 (PDT), Dave__67

wrote:

Also, no law stops someone from implementing any patented item for
their own use short of a commercial use.

Not so. There's no exception for personal use, in the US anyway.

--
Ned Simmons

Doing some reading, the enforcement mechanism still won't work if
there are no damages.

Anyway, if you made a copy of a patented item they may be able to keep
you from using it, issue an injunction to keep you from making more,
but no enforcement mechanism exists to make you destroy it or not
display it.

From the page Winston pointed to:

"If a patent is infringed, the patentee may sue for relief in the
appropriate federal court. The patentee may ask the court for an
injunction to prevent the continuation of the infringement and may
also ask the court for an award of damages because of the
infringement."

Recoverable monetary damages may be nil, but a motivated patent holder
could still prevent an infringer continuing the patent violation. In
other words, force him to destroy the offending device.

In addition, it's apparently infringement to induce or enable others
to infringe a patent.

http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise59.html
"Whoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as
an infringer. {FN51: 35 U.S.C. §271(b)}," which may have been the
basis of the Steadi-cam incident.

--
Ned Simmons

Dave__67 wrote:
On Oct 18, 4:21 pm, Ned wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 12:54:49 -0700 (PDT), Dave__67

wrote:

Also, no law stops someone from implementing any patented item for
their own use short of a commercial use.

Not so. There's no exception for personal use, in the US anyway.

--
Ned Simmons

Doing some reading, the enforcement mechanism still won't work if
there are no damages.

Anyway, if you made a copy of a patented item they may be able to keep
you from using it, issue an injunction to keep you from making more,
but no enforcement mechanism exists to make you destroy it or not
display it.

Basically a U.S. patent is a patentee's 'license to sue'
"*to exclude others from making*, using, offering for sale,
or selling the invention throughout the United States or
importing the invention into the United States'".

The Patent Office does not enforce patents.
Only wealthy companies can do that.
(The same companies that purchased the judge
and your lawyer.)

--Winston --Emphasis mine. All MINE, do you hear me?

On Oct 18, 4:21*pm, Ned Simmons wrote:


Not so. There's no exception for personal use, in the US anyway.

--
Ned Simmons

There was an exception for personal use in the U.S. But it was
eliminated quite a number of years ago.

Dan

--Yah; it was a big company and a little magazine; 'twas ever thus..

--
"Steamboat Ed" Haas : Steel, Stainless, Titanium:
Hacking the Trailing Edge! : Guaranteed Uncertified Welding!
www.nmpproducts.com
---Decks a-wash in a sea of words---