My doctorate is in Mechanical Engineering
on
Ph.D Employment?
·
· Score: 4, Informative
I have never worked in academia and have never seriously considered it, other than as a part time adjunct faculty member. Industry has a strong need for PhD's; you have to look hard and be somewhat creative to find the opportunities but they are there.
The coupling is, like you said, most likely to isolate the engine vibration from the exhaust system vibrations. You might want to check your engine mounts; those do tend to go bad over time and can allow the engine to move more than it should. That would show up in the form of excess strain on the coupling and a short life.
The high heat should not bother the juncture... that is what it was designed for. Of course, it was also likely designed to only live 10 years/100k miles.
If the juncture was filled with anything, by the way, it would have been a sort of basalt-based rock wool. Excellent temperature resistance and reasonable durability in the presence of high speed hot exhaust gasses.
That said, though, if your engine is firing not-quite-right, that could also explain the short life of the coupling.
The Mustang and Camero/Firebird markets are very well served. I would not think I could add a lot of value there; I would just be one more name in a huge list.
Other markets are not so well served, though, and would be receptive to a new manufacturer.
Quieter?? Most people buying aftermarket exhaust systems want them to be LOUD so their 4 cylinder Honda sounds like a Ferarri.
That would also be a good market. Using good design, an equally loud pipe can have a lower pressure drop and be produced at a lower price. Okay, that does not make the world a quieter place, but improved fuel mileage is always a good thing for all of us...
It is not as bleak as it seems. I would not even bother with the auto or motorcycle manufacturers as the cost of entry is too high relative to the margins. The people replacing broken or warn mufflers are similarly looking for cheap parts or whatever the mechanic has in inventory.
No, the real opportunities are in the enthusiast market. You are right, those folks tend to want (in general...) high-flow pipes, not low-noise. But there is a small segment that wants their car to be quiet while at the same time getting reasonable fuel mileage. This segment, admittedly small, is quite underserved.
Remember, a company does not have to be big to be profitable and does not have to be huge to provide a reasonable income for its owners.
Besides, it is possible to serve both the "loud pipes save lives" crowd and the auto audiophile without doubling either marketing or tooling costs. I will leave this as an exercize to the reader...
I work as a noise control engineer and have the same feelings; I provide a valuable service, but it is so abstract... I originally got into engineering to "do stuff" and "make stuff", not "think stuff" and "program stuff".
For the past few years, I have been seriously considered starting my own muffler manufacturing business. Provide an actual product, one that makes the world a better, quieter place, at a reasonable cost that actually performs as advertised.
Right now, it is just a dream. Still waiting for a certain set of noncompetes to expire...
MS Word, through 2 or 3 revisions up to and including Word 95 had a bug that destroyed multi-file documents after they reached a certain size.
I am patiently waiting for that class action law suit. Any lawyers reading this? I saved all of my receipts.
I used to like M$ before they ate my dissertation and then charged me extra to get it back. In the end, I spent an extra $300 in upgrades and M$ "support". In spite of that, I still had to re-type the darned thing anyway.
This reminds me of another fight, almost a decade ago, that was that was very actively discussed in rec.motorcycles. (Anyone care to fill in the missing pieces? My memory is kind of hazy on this one.)
California (USA) was trying to pass legislation mandating the use of helmets for motorcyclists. They made up a bunch of statistics to support their position, ticking off motorcyclists everywhere and convincing people like me to stay out of CA as it was being run by a bunch of liars.
I don't know how (or if...) the fight ended, but there seem to be some parallels with this Internet Censoring thing:
Truth is irrelevant.
The only people who care are the ones who realize they have something to lose.
Far too few people bother to consider the motives behind pending legislation.
Quite honestly, I am glad I do not get all of the government I pay for.
$400. Built very well. Fast print speed (12 ppm), 600 dpi, and Linux thinks it is a Laserjet 4. Memory upgrade via SIMM. A little bit above the $300 price tag, but I highly recommend this printer for just about any home or office. See it here.
Disclaimer: I am only a satisfied user. I own stock in HP, not Xerox.
You might also want to check out some of Bruce Schneier's work to see if he's patented his encryption algorithms.
I did. A quick check shows 14 patents, a fair chunk of which involve dealing with issues related to cryptography.
For what it's worth, I am glad to see that he is protecting his intellectual property. It is his choice what to do with his patents (except for the several I noticed are assigned to various corporate entities), and he does not need to fear some other entity laying claim to his inventions.
In theory, the USPTO does this. In terms of software patents, however, I do not think they are yet capable of serious prior art research. (My solution to this would be to dramatically increase funding, but that may bring about a whole new set of problems --in general, I am glad I do not get all the government I pay for:-)
How does the rest of the world handle software patents? I am under the impression that the US is bringing its patent laws around to be compatible with international patent laws (the "Patent Cooperation Treaty"). It would be strange if, we are allowing things to be patented that no one else does. Considering software patents were only recently (~10 years or so?) beginning to be granted.
b) period during which the patent is published, and anyone can bring documents opposing to the patent
The U.S. period is 20 years, same as the rest of the world. (Used to be 17, see above.) During this time, anyone can initiate a "Request for Re-examination" by filing a citation of prior art. (See section 2204 of the "Manual of Patent Examination Practicioners" which references "35 U.S.C. 301" which I am not familiar with.) (Note: My copy of the MPEP is dated "July 1997, rev 3", which is obsolete, however this information should still be close to valid.)
Currently, the USPTO brings in far more money from fees than they are allocated by Congress. All USPTO fees go directly to the US "general fund". In other words, the fees are more of an "invention tax" than a payment for USPTO services.
One result is a high turnover rate for patent examiners. Another result is that software patents are not examined as closely as perhaps they should be (...because of the inexperience examiners).
If you were congress, who(sic) would you fix it? (snip)
So, assuming that we're not out to destroy the patent system completely (and I know there are people out there who'd like too, but I think that's unrealistic), how would you legislate to stop abuses while still letting the reasonable patents get through?
You are asking the right questions. Here is my answer:
I wouldn't. The mechanisms to stop this nonsense are already in place, if we just get off our asses and do it.
Why has no one mentioned pre-publication? Pre-publication is the surest way --and pretty cheap-- to stop an impending patent cold in its tracks. And give the ammunition to those companies who must fight these silly patents.
You have an obvious algorithm that might have patent potential? You could:
patent it (and earn the ire of Slashdot).
or send a good writeup to Linux Today or IEEE Spectrum or wherever.
Disclose everything, including every possible application you can think of. That technology can no longer be patented; if a patent is later issued, you can send a friendly note to the USPTO requesting a review with a heads-up concerning where it was published. For one year after publication, the technology is in a sort of limbo; an unscrupulous person could potentially patent your technology and claim they invented it before it was published. (That is called "fraud" by the way and the USPTO takes a dim view of such activities.) After 1 year, though, your software/idea/algorithm is permanently in the public domain.
(Yes, there are some drawbacks to this, involving the patent laws in countries other than the U.S., which is NOT the subject of this article. Anyone abroad care to comment? Defensive publication is one of the tools used by U.S. corporations to protect themselves from "the obvious".)
Publish early, publish often.
I am getting pretty tired of seeing the U.S. patent system blasted across Slashdot. Our system ("first to invent"), IMHO beats the heck out of most of the rest of the world ("first to file") and is much more friendly to individual inventors than we give them credit for.
Consider the world of academia - how much scientific progress do you think we'd make if every little idea and discovery was walled off behind patents and IPR, instead of being shared with the rest of the world, free of any restriction beyond giving credit where it's due?
Academia is a bad example, at least here in the states. Quite a few (dare I say most?) academic discoveries ARE walled off behind patents.
Example #1: MIT. According to the USPTO, in 1998 and 1999 a total of 282 patents were assigned to this university. I do not know the policies of MIT, but I suspect a fair chunk of those patents were based on the work of professors and/or students, and quite a few papers were generated describing the work of these patents.
Example #2: University of Akron. (Where I received both my PhD and a distaste of academia.) It is their policy that ideas generated by the staff and students belong to the university. And they, also, patent aggressively. (20 patents since Jan 1, 1999.)
Every so often you hear about some undergrad student working on a project and later being told by the university to not disclose any information. The last one I heard about was in Florida, but I do not recall any details, sorry.
I should wrap this post up. A patent (in the US) is a government granted monopoly in exchange for a complete disclosure of the idea and its implementation. This is not in conflict with the free exchange of ideas. In fact, I tend to think it promotes the free exchange of ideas because it gives the inventor an incentive to publish a full disclosure, which puts the idea in the public domain immediately --where it can be improved-- and the implementation winds up in the public domain in 20 years --where anyone can copy directly from the patent document and go into that business for themselves.
My point is: Quite a few ideas and discoveries in academia are walled off behind patents and IP rights. This has not slowed down scientific progress one iota.
Just a few comments, and basically I agree with what you are saying.
RE: $25K/patent. Obviously, some law firms are more expensive than others. An individual should consider going with a patent agent rather than a patent attorney; the total cost can be as little as 1/3 of this. Less, if you do your own searching, drawing, or specification writing. Corporations don't generally go this route (I think it is because they like to spend money:-) ), but this is a very real alternative for individuals.
RE: Don't patent it yourself. I agree with this, completely. There is an honest review of this book at http://www.evansville.net/biz/patagen t/book.htm which asserts it is a good book to learn from, but not so good for filing patents.
DISCLAIMER: My father is the knowledgeable patent agent, not me.
Slashdot Mirror
I have never worked in academia and have never seriously considered it, other than as a part time adjunct faculty member. Industry has a strong need for PhD's; you have to look hard and be somewhat creative to find the opportunities but they are there.
The coupling is, like you said, most likely to isolate the engine vibration from the exhaust system vibrations. You might want to check your engine mounts; those do tend to go bad over time and can allow the engine to move more than it should. That would show up in the form of excess strain on the coupling and a short life.
The high heat should not bother the juncture... that is what it was designed for. Of course, it was also likely designed to only live 10 years/100k miles.
If the juncture was filled with anything, by the way, it would have been a sort of basalt-based rock wool. Excellent temperature resistance and reasonable durability in the presence of high speed hot exhaust gasses.
That said, though, if your engine is firing not-quite-right, that could also explain the short life of the coupling.
Say, if you ever run across that article again, I would like to read it.
Thanks!
The Mustang and Camero/Firebird markets are very well served. I would not think I could add a lot of value there; I would just be one more name in a huge list.
Other markets are not so well served, though, and would be receptive to a new manufacturer.
Quieter?? Most people buying aftermarket exhaust systems want them to be LOUD so their 4 cylinder Honda sounds like a Ferarri.
That would also be a good market. Using good design, an equally loud pipe can have a lower pressure drop and be produced at a lower price. Okay, that does not make the world a quieter place, but improved fuel mileage is always a good thing for all of us...
I'll gladly be your alpha/beta tester...
:-)
You are on. It may be a few years before you hear from me, though.
Step 1 is to independently develop/buy the theoretical tools I will need to build the darned thing.
Step 2 is doing the market research to determine a target market. Jetta is one of my top choices, anyway.
Step 3 ???
Step 4 Profit!
It is not as bleak as it seems. I would not even bother with the auto or motorcycle manufacturers as the cost of entry is too high relative to the margins. The people replacing broken or warn mufflers are similarly looking for cheap parts or whatever the mechanic has in inventory.
No, the real opportunities are in the enthusiast market. You are right, those folks tend to want (in general...) high-flow pipes, not low-noise. But there is a small segment that wants their car to be quiet while at the same time getting reasonable fuel mileage. This segment, admittedly small, is quite underserved.
Remember, a company does not have to be big to be profitable and does not have to be huge to provide a reasonable income for its owners.
Besides, it is possible to serve both the "loud pipes save lives" crowd and the auto audiophile without doubling either marketing or tooling costs. I will leave this as an exercize to the reader...
I work as a noise control engineer and have the same feelings; I provide a valuable service, but it is so abstract... I originally got into engineering to "do stuff" and "make stuff", not "think stuff" and "program stuff".
For the past few years, I have been seriously considered starting my own muffler manufacturing business. Provide an actual product, one that makes the world a better, quieter place, at a reasonable cost that actually performs as advertised.
Right now, it is just a dream. Still waiting for a certain set of noncompetes to expire...
Has anyone else been bitten by this one?
MS Word, through 2 or 3 revisions up to and including Word 95 had a bug that destroyed multi-file documents after they reached a certain size.
I am patiently waiting for that class action law suit. Any lawyers reading this? I saved all of my receipts.
I used to like M$ before they ate my dissertation and then charged me extra to get it back. In the end, I spent an extra $300 in upgrades and M$ "support". In spite of that, I still had to re-type the darned thing anyway.
I now use Framemaker. And Linux.
This reminds me of another fight, almost a decade ago, that was that was very actively discussed in rec.motorcycles. (Anyone care to fill in the missing pieces? My memory is kind of hazy on this one.)
California (USA) was trying to pass legislation mandating the use of helmets for motorcyclists. They made up a bunch of statistics to support their position, ticking off motorcyclists everywhere and convincing people like me to stay out of CA as it was being run by a bunch of liars.
I don't know how (or if...) the fight ended, but there seem to be some parallels with this Internet Censoring thing:
Truth is irrelevant.
The only people who care are the ones who realize they have something to lose.
Far too few people bother to consider the motives behind pending legislation.
Quite honestly, I am glad I do not get all of the government I pay for.
Disclaimer: I am only a satisfied user. I own stock in HP, not Xerox.
I did. A quick check shows 14 patents, a fair chunk of which involve dealing with issues related to cryptography.
For what it's worth, I am glad to see that he is protecting his intellectual property. It is his choice what to do with his patents (except for the several I noticed are assigned to various corporate entities), and he does not need to fear some other entity laying claim to his inventions.
In theory, the USPTO does this. In terms of software patents, however, I do not think they are yet capable of serious prior art research. (My solution to this would be to dramatically increase funding, but that may bring about a whole new set of problems --in general, I am glad I do not get all the government I pay for :-)
How does the rest of the world handle software patents? I am under the impression that the US is bringing its patent laws around to be compatible with international patent laws (the "Patent Cooperation Treaty"). It would be strange if, we are allowing things to be patented that no one else does. Considering software patents were only recently (~10 years or so?) beginning to be granted.
b) period during which the patent is published, and anyone can bring documents opposing to the patent
The U.S. period is 20 years, same as the rest of the world. (Used to be 17, see above.) During this time, anyone can initiate a "Request for Re-examination" by filing a citation of prior art. (See section 2204 of the "Manual of Patent Examination Practicioners" which references "35 U.S.C. 301" which I am not familiar with.) (Note: My copy of the MPEP is dated "July 1997, rev 3", which is obsolete, however this information should still be close to valid.)
Currently, the USPTO brings in far more money from fees than they are allocated by Congress. All USPTO fees go directly to the US "general fund". In other words, the fees are more of an "invention tax" than a payment for USPTO services.
One result is a high turnover rate for patent examiners. Another result is that software patents are not examined as closely as perhaps they should be (...because of the inexperience examiners).
So, assuming that we're not out to destroy the patent system completely (and I know there are people out there who'd like too, but I think that's unrealistic), how would you legislate to stop abuses while still letting the reasonable patents get through?
You are asking the right questions. Here is my answer:
I wouldn't. The mechanisms to stop this nonsense are already in place, if we just get off our asses and do it.
Why has no one mentioned pre-publication? Pre-publication is the surest way --and pretty cheap-- to stop an impending patent cold in its tracks. And give the ammunition to those companies who must fight these silly patents.
You have an obvious algorithm that might have patent potential? You could:
patent it (and earn the ire of Slashdot).
or send a good writeup to Linux Today or IEEE Spectrum or wherever.
Disclose everything, including every possible application you can think of. That technology can no longer be patented; if a patent is later issued, you can send a friendly note to the USPTO requesting a review with a heads-up concerning where it was published. For one year after publication, the technology is in a sort of limbo; an unscrupulous person could potentially patent your technology and claim they invented it before it was published. (That is called "fraud" by the way and the USPTO takes a dim view of such activities.) After 1 year, though, your software/idea/algorithm is permanently in the public domain.
(Yes, there are some drawbacks to this, involving the patent laws in countries other than the U.S., which is NOT the subject of this article. Anyone abroad care to comment? Defensive publication is one of the tools used by U.S. corporations to protect themselves from "the obvious".)
Publish early, publish often.
I am getting pretty tired of seeing the U.S. patent system blasted across Slashdot. Our system ("first to invent"), IMHO beats the heck out of most of the rest of the world ("first to file") and is much more friendly to individual inventors than we give them credit for.
Academia is a bad example, at least here in the states. Quite a few (dare I say most?) academic discoveries ARE walled off behind patents.
Example #1: MIT. According to the USPTO, in 1998 and 1999 a total of 282 patents were assigned to this university. I do not know the policies of MIT, but I suspect a fair chunk of those patents were based on the work of professors and/or students, and quite a few papers were generated describing the work of these patents.
Example #2: University of Akron. (Where I received both my PhD and a distaste of academia.) It is their policy that ideas generated by the staff and students belong to the university. And they, also, patent aggressively. (20 patents since Jan 1, 1999.)
Every so often you hear about some undergrad student working on a project and later being told by the university to not disclose any information. The last one I heard about was in Florida, but I do not recall any details, sorry.
I should wrap this post up. A patent (in the US) is a government granted monopoly in exchange for a complete disclosure of the idea and its implementation. This is not in conflict with the free exchange of ideas. In fact, I tend to think it promotes the free exchange of ideas because it gives the inventor an incentive to publish a full disclosure, which puts the idea in the public domain immediately --where it can be improved-- and the implementation winds up in the public domain in 20 years --where anyone can copy directly from the patent document and go into that business for themselves.
My point is: Quite a few ideas and discoveries in academia are walled off behind patents and IP rights. This has not slowed down scientific progress one iota.
RE: $25K/patent. Obviously, some law firms are more expensive than others. An individual should consider going with a patent agent rather than a patent attorney; the total cost can be as little as 1/3 of this. Less, if you do your own searching, drawing, or specification writing. Corporations don't generally go this route (I think it is because they like to spend money:-) ), but this is a very real alternative for individuals.
RE: Don't patent it yourself. I agree with this, completely. There is an honest review of this book at http://www.evansville.net/biz/patagen t/book.htm which asserts it is a good book to learn from, but not so good for filing patents.
DISCLAIMER: My father is the knowledgeable patent agent, not me.