Chemical treatment of silicon carbide

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a modified process for treating bulk silicon carbide grit to produce crystal clear grains, potentially resembling silica. Participants explore the implications, applications, and ethical considerations of this process, as well as the need for further details regarding the original patent and modifications made.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant describes modifying a patented device to treat silicon carbide, resulting in clear grains, and questions the potential applications of this process.
  • Another participant emphasizes the need for the patent number to understand the original process and modifications, suggesting that the clear grains might be pure silicon dioxide.
  • A participant expresses concern about the ethical implications of disclosing details about the discovery, noting it was made 40 years ago and may still belong to the employer.
  • There is speculation that the process must have removed carbon to yield SiO2, raising questions about the original material's status regarding public domain.
  • One participant insists that without the patent number or a detailed description of the process, the discussion may not progress, citing the importance of patent publication for understanding modifications and potential novelty.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the necessity of obtaining the patent number and details about the process to advance the discussion. However, there are competing views regarding the implications of the discovery and its ethical considerations.

Contextual Notes

The discussion is limited by the lack of specific details about the original process and modifications made, as well as the absence of analysis on the resultant material. There are unresolved questions about the patent's status and whether the discovery is still proprietary.

Recycler
Messages
19
Reaction score
4
I modified an employer's patented device,in order to treat bulk silicon carbide grit.It became crystal clear resembling clear silica grainsThe resultant was not analyzed.This was a low-temperature process.Is there any potential application for this type of process?
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
We do not know what the process was, or how you modified that process.
The patent number would help identify the process, especially if there is a US patent number.
What do you think the crystal clear grains might be, why ?
 
Baluncore said:
We do not know what the process was, or how you modified that process.
The patent number would help identify the process, especially if there is a US patent number.
What do you think the crystal clear grains might be, why ?
I thought the clear grains were probably pure silicon dioxide,but they were not analyzed.I must step lightly here,because although my employers did not want the discovery at the time,it probably still belongs to them.I was curious if this result could be used to lay down very thin layers of material by transforming a thin layer of SiC.If it might be useful,I could contact the patent holders.Ethically,I don't know how much more I could disclose.The discovery was 40 years ago,but now I see many people working on hybrid thin layer materials.My discovery was definitely supported by another man's basic work.
 
Your process must have gotten rid of the carbon somehow if the result was SiO2. If the original was 40 years old, wouldn't it be in public domain by now?
 
This thread will go nowhere unless we can get the patent number, or a description of the process and the modification that was employed.

A patent is published from the day it is granted, which is why I asked for the patent number. There is no advantage in keeping the number and date of grant secret. A significant modification might in itself have been an independent invention, but I expect any simple modification will have been published somewhere in the last 50 years so will not be novel, and so cannot be patented now.

I have an undocumented optical instrument here. I followed a patent number back to the 1951 registration in the USA and so now have a very good set of diagrams, with a clear explanation of how everything works and is connected. There are even some interesting extended features disclosed in the patent that are not included in this instrument.

Let's see that patent number, or we may as well abandon this thread.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
9K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
10K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K