Tag: sensors

Double bucket

 

Couple of years ago me and Jakke where conducting some lightning measurements. We were in a hurry and on a budget. Well, perhaps not so much on a budget as I was (and am) fond of cheap solutions. What we came up with, was a way of using some 50 mm by 50 mm sawn softwood (likely spruce or pine), some plywood and a couple of polypropylene buckets to make a fairly durable weather cover. These could be used for example as part of an open monitoring project.

Since I’m lazy, I didn’t bother to dismantle them after the measurements ended and a couple of these have been out in the weather (Southern Finland)  for about four years. Today I finally decided to take them a part. I found out that they have been holding up pretty well and would likely have been up to their task for at least a few more years. So if you are looking for a way of making a similar system, below I explain how to make them. At the end are a couple of pics and comments on the dismantled set.

White buckets were used in an attempt to keep the electronics cool. Other colors may be used depending on location to make it less visible.

Figure 1 shows a rendering of the two ways we used to setup the systems. In the left the stud is driven to the ground. I used an iron bar to first make pilot hole and then carefully using a small piece of plywood as protection (between the sledge hammer and the pillar) hammered the stud to the ground.

In the right is the system we used on a (Melbourne) Florida roof top for a couple of months to create a more temporary measurement setup. We used some concrete blocks as additional weight just in case. If you are considering a more permanent system consider adding some steel wire to attach the system to something really heavy. You don’t want it hitting someone when it is picked up by hurricane winds or a tornado.

Cheap weather cover for measurement devices
Figure 1. Cheap weather cover for measurement devices

Figure 2 shows what you need. All sizes are approximately those we used, select your bucket size to match the size of your device and scale everything else accordingly.

  1. Two short pieces of wood. One should be short enough to fit side ways in to the bucket and one should be about 5 cm shorter than the bucket is high. One long piece of wood, it will determine how high the rest of the system sits.
  2. A piece of plywood, cut a circle that fits in to the bucket to a depth of about 5 cm
  3. Two buckets
  4. Some screws and hot glue
  5. a saw, (sledge)hammer, screwdriver, eye protection etc.
Figure 2. Things you need
Figure 2. Things you need

As shown in Figure 3 set the longer of the two short pieces of wood on top of the plywood. Use hot glue or two screws or both to attach it in a manner that it can’t rotate around the vertical axis. Before this, make any openings you need for electrical wiring and such.

Figure 3. Set one of the short pieces on top of the plywood.
Figure 3. Set one of the short pieces on top of the plywood.

The shorter piece of wood is then attached on the other side of the plywood. Select the correct length for the support pillar and after driving it to the ground attach the plywood to it. If any of the wood surfaces is curved using copious amounts of hot glue between surfaces before inserting the screws will make the system more solid. The inner bucket is attached with one screw, which is driven through the bucket bottom to the piece of wood shown in Figure 3. Note that you will be driving the screw in the direction of the grain, do it carefully or the strength of the attachment will be reduced.

Figure 4. Attach the shorter piece of wood as shown and put the bucket on top of the assembly
Figure 4. Attach the shorter piece of wood as shown and put the bucket on top of the assembly.

Add the other bucket, this one stays in place by gravity and friction. If you use a screw, rain will seep in.

Figure 5. Add the other bucket.
Figure 5. Add the other bucket.
Image 1. Two systems, the outer bucket has been removed from the one on the left.
Image 1. Two systems, the outer bucket has been removed from the one on the left.
Image 2. View from below.
Image 2. View from below. Looking good, all the wood is still healthy.

 

Image 3. View inside the protected area. Apart from some spider web its like new.
Image 3. View inside the protected area. Apart from some spider web its like new.

 

Image 4. The support structure. The limiting factor for the operating life of this setup is likely rotting at the air ground interface. I was able to snap the wood by tapping the sharp end to the ground
Image 4. The support structure. Limiting factor for the operating life of this setup is likely rotting at the air ground interface. I was able to snap the wood by tapping the sharp end to the ground.

Figure 4 shows the support structure and the weak point at the air-ground interface. Rotting has reduced the strength of the wood. If the place where measurement are taken is not very sensitive, consider using wood that has been treated to protect against rot. Using a larger size like 75×75 or even 100×100 mm2 will likely also give you a couple more years of service life.

Image 6.
Image 5. Ultra violet radiation has made the plastic brittle. Some erosion was also visible on the surface. Note the white stuff at the end of the screw. This screw was used to hold the inner bucket in place and the Zinc protection was showing signs of wearing out.
Image 6. Markings at the bottom of the bucket.
Image 6. Markings at the bottom of the bucket.

 

Pollution week 5: Summary

“So we will continue to plod on. In fact, we will be expanding this activity to a new website soon.After all, what’s the alternative? Maybe if we all close our eyes and ears, all the bad things will go away?”

Written by: Jakke Mäkelä, Timo Tokkonen, and Niko Porjo.

The postings this week have, we think, given an overview of what a project like Troglodyte could hope to achieve against entities like Intellectual Ventures. Not much, but even a tiny bit helps. Especially posting four might give ideas on countermeasures against the worst of the trolls.

The possibilities are quite limited; on the other hand, being prepared is infinitely better than being unprepared.

Continue reading Pollution week 5: Summary

Pollution week 4: Could we do something about Intellectual Ventures?

“But a normal company would never let a poo reference take pride of place on its patent document. For most healthy companies, patents are simply too serious a matter to allow sophomoric poo humor.”

Even if the previous parts of the Pollution week (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3)  left a general sense of bewilderment, they don’t necessarily have to leave a sense of complete hopelessness.  Maybe the phenomena that were noted in Part 3 could be useful. Even if it’s not directly possible to fight trolls, it makes eminent sense to see what vulnerabilities they might have. This information might be useful to someone, somewhere.

The metadata of part 3 suggests that the inventors have been working in a “patent factory” mode, i.e. churning out applications for the purpose of churning out applications. This may have happened during one intense day, or during several workshops, or over a longer period of time.

It so happens that this mode is not completely unfamiliar to me.  This means that I may have insights into the weaknesses of this mode, which might be helpful should anyone ever wish to try to invalidate a patent of this type.

 

Note that these points are not in any way related to this particular ‘002 patent. The same kind of mechanisms seem to be operating in any number of cases, and the ideas here are fully applicable there as well.

The article in bizjournals.com is worth quoting again. “….Several times per year ISF brings together thought leaders across industry and academia for these day long, forward ideation discussions. At times, a specific innovation is created as a result of these sessions. When that happens, it is customary for the individuals who have contributed to the innovation to be credited if a patent application is filed.”“

This may well be “customary” at IV, but I do not believe I have seen such a cavalier attitude expressed elsewhere. The question of “who contributed” is actually a hotly contested issue. (See C.R. Bard v. W.L. Gore & Associates for an 800 million USD case that has lasted 38 years, and is about who should be credited as a co-inventor). Any incorrect names in the inventor list would certainly be interesting in litigation.

Also there seems to have been a long development time for these patents; the ‘002 seems to be a variant/extension of an original idea that was more closely related to personal health monitoring. There are certainly innocent explanations for this in the filing process (applications may have to be rewritten and so on). However, it does leave open the question of just *when* something was invented.

Specific possibilities:

  • Are they sure they have the right inventors? In principle, having even one name included incorrectly, or lacking just one name, could mean the patent (or at least some claims) are invalid. The Bizjournals article suggests that IV has a somewhat cavalier attitude toward this aspect.
  • If these were made at ideation discussions, where and when were they, and who took part? Were minutes taken? Who invented which claim?
  • In general, is all the paperwork in order? Has every inventor signed every piece of paper that needs to be signed? A group filing an application a week is bound to make careless mistakes at some point. Cases can be made or destroyed on small technicalities.
  • Are there any anomalies, such as people being on inventor lists when they did not attend a specific meeting at all?
  • Was everything in these patents really invented during one day long session? If so, why have there been so many additions and amendations throughout the years? Who has made the additions? Where are they documented?
  • If the additions the workshop results were considered just technical steps rather than new inventions, who made that evaluation?
  • Are these applications actually the result of multiple inventions? If so, who made them, and are they documented? What claims are owned by what inventor?

 

——————————-
CODA

The ‘002 patent itself provides a somewhat appropriate note on which to end.  The first reference, in a prominent place, is the following:

Figure 1: First reference in ‘002 patent

 “Buchanan, Matt: “Twitter Toilet Tweets Your Poo”; Gizmodo.com; Bearing a data of May 18, 2009; Printed on Jul. 1, 2009; pp. 1-2; located at http://gizmodo.com/5259381/twitter-toilet-tweets-your-poo”

The reference does not seem to be cited in the actual document. It has a vague connection with the subject matter, but so could any number of articles,  so it is not really clear why it is here in the first place.

It is even less clear why it is here, in first place. The list is in no particular order, and there is for example Agger in the references, so it is not a question of Buchanan being the first in alphabetical order. Someone somewhere wanted a poo reference to be the first thing that hits the reader in the eye.

I would definitely have wanted done something like this in high school. Or university, for that matter. Or, come to think of it, even now. I’m childish. I would love to have to have a poo reference on a serious document like this.

But a normal company would never let a poo reference take pride of place on its patent document. For most healthy companies, patents are simply too serious a matter to allow sophomoric poo humor.

An attitude that is this cavalier toward inventor status and poo humor is a sign that something is just not quite working right. And that makes it increasingly probable that the company will make careless mistakes. A single comma in the wrong place can make all the difference.

What overall conclusions can we now draw from the exercise? (Subject of next posting).

 

Pollution week 3: How does Intellectual Ventures do this?

“Two of the inventors (D and N) have been producing close to one granted patent per each working day for the last decade … I am trying to remain neutral, but I cannot help but feel that there is something moderately ridiculous here about Intellectual Ventures.”

In part two of the pollution week, I analyzed patent US 8,127,002  (“Hypothesis development based on user and sensing device data”) and how it (perhaps) relates to monitoring of pollution. I described a software program that I might write, which would estimate the air pollution level at a certain place.

I found that, most likely, my software would not infringe on the patent, and the patent holder would not win in court. However, I would still pay the fee.  Given that the patent is controlled by Intellectual Ventures, I would have too much to lose. Whatever the actual facts might be, the general perception is that IV is a large patent-litigation machine. Personally, I would not go against it.

Here’s the interesting question: how is IV able to do this?

Continue reading Pollution week 3: How does Intellectual Ventures do this?

Pollution week 2: What’s preventing me?

“Would “my” software infringe on the ‘002 patent? My answer? It probably does not infringe. But I probably should pay nevertheless.”

In the previous part of the pollution theme week, I defined a fairly  trivial software that would allow an asthmatic to follow the air pollution at some other location. I suggested that a patent  (US 8,127,002) has some features that make it look worrisomely close.

I will now try to see guess whether “my” software would infringe the ‘002 patent. And I do mean “guess”;  there is no way of finding the “truth”, as has been discussed earlier. The “truth” can only be discovered in court, when the patent owner sues someone.

Continue reading Pollution week 2: What’s preventing me?

Translate »