Engineering Approaching a company or career engineer with an idea

[CrysPhys]

I guess @russ_watters advice is the most logical here, problem is a patent in itself does me no good it only gives me some safety but I still need to find money to do any further work, also there is always the possibility that I file a patent and some critical part doesn't function the way I thought after I make the prototype model, what then? It means I need to reconfigure but that might make my already filed patent useless as now I have a different critical part? I guess the question is how wide is a patent coverage given that my basic idea and means of achieving it which are written down in the patent stay the same but I make changes in geometry and overall details like form, shape or parts of an electrical circuit?

(a) If you plan to license or sell your patent, or get some sort of financial investment, you need to demonstrate that the device works (preferred), or at least is likely to work. An actual working prototype is much more convincing than a simulation in this respect. Since the simulation will cost about the same as building the prototype, I'd say let's drop the simulation from further consideration. Then a key issue is the time to produce the prototype.

(b) From a financial perspective, it would make sense to produce the prototype first.
* If it works as planned, file a patent application.
* If it doesn't work as planned, but it can be made to work with modification, do that; then file a patent application.
* If it doesn't work as planned, and can't be made to work with modification, then drop it.
* From a patent perspective, though, the down side is that while you're doing all this prototype work, prior art may be accruing, and this prior art may lead to rejection of your claims. You just don't know.

(c) From a patent perspective, it would make sense to file the patent first to lock in the earliest priority date. Then build your prototype.
* If it works as planned, pat yourself on the back for a job well done and for making the right choice (in hindsight).
* If it doesn't work as planned, but it can be made to work with modification, do that. Check to see whether the modified device is covered by the original claims in the patent application.
- - If so, OK.
- - If not, check whether the modified device is covered by the written description.
/ If so, file an amendment to the claims (exactly when depends on your filing strategy).
/ If not, file a second application.
* If it doesn't work as planned, and can't be made to work with modification, then drop it.
* From a financial perspective, this could be more expensive, depending on the particular outcomes.

The choice between (b) and (c) depends on how much confidence you have the device will work, how you arrange your finances, how thorough you are in thinking though alternative solutions, and how good a patent practitioner you hire.

 

[CrysPhys]

This is where you want a patent attorney. What is written in the application will determine what is covered and what is not. Unfortunately, this is not cheap: figure $15,000-20,000 if you want it done right.

About right price range for US. But OP indicates he's in some unnamed European country (not a major one) where the amount might be a lot less. Just don't want the OP to go into conniptions.

 

[hutchphd]

Two heads are always better than one. Is there a trusted person who is capable of critiquing the idea? Can one be hired ( with an appropriate nondisclosure)? If the concept is bad the investment is well worth it. If the concept is really good you might have found a partner.

 

[Vanadium 50]

where the amount might be a lot less

True. Or more. The amount of research is probably the same to within a factor of two-ish, so the cost is likely driven by how much patent attorneys make.

 

[Klystron]

[...]The model basically needs a magnetic flux simulation for it's core, electromagnetic simulation for current in the loops and overall efficiency as well as an MHD flow simulation to see how the part that would use mhd behaves.[...]

From wikipedia:

Magnetohydrodynamics (MHD; also magneto-fluid dynamics or hydromagnetics) is the study of the magnetic properties and behaviour of electrically conducting fluids. Examples of such magnetofluids include plasmas, liquid metals, salt water, and electrolytes.

[edit: removed question about fluids.]

There are several PF threads on various MHD fluids including this recent one:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/magnetohydrodynamics-propulsion.973843/

 

[CrysPhys]

From wikipedia:

Can you safely say what fluid you expect to model? My reason to ask, beyond curiosity, concerns prior publications and development. For example most Navies and submarine manufacturers have salt water MHD programs. I have learned a little about the subject reading unclassified USN training documents.

There are several PF threads on various MHD fluids including this recent:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/magnetohydrodynamics-propulsion.973843/

If the OP is planning to file a patent application, he should avoid discussing details in public forums.

 

[Klystron]

If the OP is planning to file a patent application, he should avoid discussing details in public forums.

No details wanted nor requested. Considering prohibitive prototype costs, a major hurdle even for university groups.

 

[russ_watters]

I guess @russ_watters advice is the most logical here, problem is a patent in itself does me no good it only gives me some safety but I still need to find money to do any further work, also there is always the possibility that I file a patent and some critical part doesn't function the way I thought after I make the prototype model, what then?

No, a patent (even a pending one) is good for another very useful purpose; you can wave it in front of a prospective investor.

Submitting the application gives you the protection to enable the freedom to talk openly with prospective investors. And early investors will recognize the risk/reward of buying-in before a prototype is built. And if they are looking to invest a lot, they will pay for their own evaluators of the technology.

 

[russ_watters]

(b) From a financial perspective, it would make sense to produce the prototype first.
* If it works as planned, file a patent application.

Isn't the risk greater with this approach? You show people a prototype, is an NDA as strong as a patent if someone steals the idea?

 

[CrysPhys]

Isn't the risk greater with this approach? You show people a prototype, is an NDA as strong as a patent if someone steals the idea?

That's why I posed option (b) as what's best from a financial perspective (but potentially worse from a patent perspective) and option (c) as what's best from a patent perspective (but potentially worse from a financial perspective). The OP needs to assess the trade-offs and make the call.

Also, as I posted earlier, an NDA or a patent has value only if you have the resources to enforce it (i.e., only if you can afford the legal fees to sue someone and win; and, even if you do win, be able to collect damages).

The choice between (b) and (c) depends on how much confidence you have the device will work, how you arrange your finances, how thorough you are in thinking though alternative solutions, and how good a patent practitioner you hire.

 

[artis]

@Vanadium 50 , luckily in my country the patent itself costs around 1500 usd, plus the fees and taxes it would come to around 2k usd maybe bit more. Definitely not 15k and above, if it were that high I would not even be writing this thread.

From all of the above discussion as well as my own thoughts on the subject matter I think that I should either file a patent and then do as @russ_watters said, go wave at some wealthy and knowledgeable folks and whoever will find the idea applicable or worthwhile will then help me make a prototype and everything that goes with it, the second option , make a prototype myself , see if it works and measure efficiency etc, then if I am certain that this is what I wanted file a patent and then I could not only wave my patent to potential people of interest but also claim with certainty the results in which case the talking points and potential deals could be made much more specific.

Now this boils down to a problem, making a prototype for an otherwise industrial complexity machine that has two specific parts that aren't even manufactured anywhere in the world and is the result of my R&D in my own head. Well they work according to the physics theory the question is how efficiently.
PS. the problem with finding partners without a patent or any other serious background is that there are mostly two things that happen, first thing that happens most of the time is that people simply don't take you seriously or they themselves do not understand your idea, the second thing that might happen is if I indeed come across a well versed and smart individual and if the idea turns out working exactly or close to the way I see it working I have no guarantee that all my hard work doesn't end up with me played for a fool and working at McDonalds and crying myself to sleep.

Since I found out that simulating the thing virtually is rather expensive and not a 100% guarantee of success and that building a prototype is also rather expensive and complicated maybe the most logical step is to simply file a patent and maybe get some people interested enough so that they would make the prototype and test it and then simply arrange a contract where each get their shares etc.

 

[artis]

I will have to make some additional research maybe I can make some injection molds and some other modern materials and make a crude prototype which would then be enough to shows whether the basics work as they should.
PS. Does anybody know, is it possible to make a 3D printer or are there any 3D printers that I could use in orther to make powdered metal parts? This maybe would be cheaper and faster for a demo than going to a factory and pressforming and cnc laser cutting all the parts

 

[CrysPhys]

PS. Does anybody know, is it possible to make a 3D printer or are there any 3D printers that I could use in orther to make powdered metal parts? This maybe would be cheaper and faster for a demo than going to a factory and pressforming and cnc laser cutting all the parts

There are 3D printers that fuse metal instead of plastic particles. At least in the US, there are companies in which you can send them the CAD files, and they will print the parts. That's the way to go, if there is such a company in your area.

 

[Vanadium 50]

luckily in my country the patent itself costs around 1500 usd, plus the fees and taxes it would come to around 2k usd maybe bit more.

No...no...no...no...

In the US, the patent application itself is something like $85. The issue is not the patent application, it's knowing what to put in the patent application. Write one that's too narrow, or too broad, or too close to what someone else has done and it's suddenly worthless. Getting advice on that is what costs the money.

 

[artis]

Yes @Vanadium 50 here also the price for patent application in the patent office is somewhere around 100usd, the 1500-2000 usd price tag was for a patent attorney that would do the patent disclaimer writing and all the other stuff that goes into the paper.
And this is from one of the most popular and prominent patents attorney offices in the country.

 

[CrysPhys]

In the US, the patent application itself is something like $85.

Not quite that much a bargain. Patent application fees are structured like your cell phone or cable fees: several mandatory fees plus optional fees. The cheapest a garage inventor who qualifies for a micro-entity discount can get away with for a US nonprovisional utility patent application (filed electronically) is:

* Basic filing fee: $75
* Utility search fee: $165
* Utility examination fee: $190

So, total initial application fee: $430

Plus a $250 issue fee if the application is allowed; and additional maintenance fees downstream.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Thanks for the details. You aren't disputing my point that it's the legal advice that costs the money, though, and that without such advice the odds of hitting on the optimal application are low.

 

[CrysPhys]

Thanks for the details. You aren't disputing my point that it's the legal advice that costs the money, though, and that without such advice the odds of hitting on the optimal application are low.

Full agreement there.

 

[artis]

Well sure , apart from the huge price difference in attorney services the idea is the same, and yes I would use an attorney especially since this is my first attempt at such a thing.

 

[gmax137]

The model basically needs a magnetic flux simulation for it's core, electromagnetic simulation for current in the loops and overall efficiency as well as an MHD flow simulation to see how the part that would use mhd behaves.

I'm no undergrad, in fact I have never studied or held a diploma in any of the "natural sciences". This is simply my hobby ...

The combination of "MHD" and "I have never studied natural sciences," makes me instantly skeptical. Skeptical, and you haven't asked me to invest any money. In my opinion, getting investors without a working demonstration will be very difficult if not impossible. I'm sorry, but fair or not, no credentials = no credibility.

 

[artis]

Well that is a fair point but physics is not magic, if I file a patent based on my understanding of physics that is my own business and money and the patent filling I could actually pull off with my own funds, then further I have my schematics and my description , the investor is welcomed to calculate my design and see that it works for himself, surely a working prototype would only accelerate this.

But in all honesty my credentials I think are only relevant if I want to get a job under someone else , like in a company or an agency like CERN etc, but when I provide my own design and my own device I think my credentials are second if not third , the most important thing is what I can offer, and if it turns out to be good enough I think I have the same chance of getting funded like anyone else.

At least this is what it seems from my perspective , maybe I'm dead wrong.
And after all people with credentials usually don't search for partners or funding as often cases they already work within a university or within a group that already gives them the necessary platform and finances to advance their research, at least it seems so from reading the research papers and patents from others.

 

[gmax137]

Please don't be offended, that wasn't my intent.

What I was trying to say is, without the credentials (degrees, institutional affiliation, previous successful designs, etc.) I think you will need to have the working prototype to convince anyone to lend you money or buy into your enterprise.

 

[berkeman]

The combination of "MHD" and "I have never studied natural sciences," makes me instantly skeptical.

if I file a patent based on my understanding of physics that is my own business and money and the patent filling I could actually pull off with my own funds, then further I have my schematics and my description , the investor is welcomed to calculate my design and see that it works for himself, surely a working prototype would only accelerate this.

I think you will need to have the working prototype to convince anyone to lend you money or buy into your enterprise.

I agree with @gmax137

@artis -- I stopped replying to your technical thread(s) about your questions because you didn't seem to have a good understanding of E&M and practical EE/RF issues. Maybe your posts improved in those threads after I unsubscribed, but based on my experience so far with your ideas and threads, you definitely need a working prototype before proceeding much farther. I'd recommend that you try your best to make at least a basic working prototype "proof of concept" device/circuit before going much farther.

You seem like a creative person, which is a good thing. I like to think of myself as a creative person, but I learned early in my career that it's very important to look for "non-existence proofs" or find issues with early basic experimental circuits in order to avoid wasting my creative efforts on dead ends. That theme has served me very well so far in my life and career.

 

[artis]

@gmax137 oh no I'm in no way offended, maybe my wording gave a wrong impression, I'm only a little nervous and quite exhausted because trying to pull something like this off in my case sort of feels like finding water in the midst of a desert.

Well I'll think about making a prototype, essentially it all boils down to money, theory is one thing but even if it is right one still needs resources. sadly not everything can be made in a garage, the prototype has to be accurate and mechanically precise otherwise I might get bad efficiency or wrong results, so I can't just throw a bunch of stuff together and glue it with superglue.

PS. one more takeaway from this, either way if I succeed or not, is that Hobbies are fun and joyful and a lot of good time as long as you toy around with them or do them in your garage, the moment one tries to make something real or complex most of the fun ends and a lot of dead ends and worries begin.