sandy said:[member=64030]TinyShop[/member]
My responses (in blue) to your various points (in black) follow:
"First of all, I have been a Registered Patent Attorney for almost 50 years. As a Patent Attorney I have prosecuted approximately 500 patent applications before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and I have litigated scores of IP cases in about a dozen U.S. District Courts. I have also handled many, many IP licensing and transactional matters, whereby I know that I am qualified to speak as an expert on IP matters. I am not sure, though, what (if any) qualifications you may have in that regard."
Curious, I would have thought that, if anyone, a patent attorney would understand the importance of full disclosure and giving credit where credit is due. I merely picked up on Mr. Goetzke's clear frustration and then spent a few minutes trying to understand the source of same. Reading through the readily available thread that I linked to earlier, it doesn't take being a patent attorney (or a rocket scientist) to smell injustice and slimy behavior (as I and others would argue has been committed by the person behind the Dustopper).
"With regard to your comment about, "... how much the Festopper steals from Festool's CT-VA design..." the answer is zero. Had you actually read what I wrote, you will note that I do not claim that I did anything other than design and implement a "collection box" that has a bottom that locks onto a Festool Dust Collector, and a top that interfaces with the commercially available Dustopper device sold by The Home Depot. Can you design something that will do the same? Frankly, I don't know, but feel free to do so, as I am sure that when you attempt to do so you will have a far greater understanding and appreciation for the fact that it was not a trivial exercise. I am also quite certain that the design of the FESTOPPER is such that, at $60 in parts, it accomplishes pretty much the same result that the $300 Oneida and the $375 Festool versions accomplish at a cost that is far more palatable to hobbyist (as well as many professional) woodworkers. By the way, as shown in the attached photo, the FESTOPPER can be placed under an MFT/3 table, something that the Oneida unit cannot do."
Words are one thing, actions are another. The concept behind your "Dustopper" (a low-profile baffle-type dust separator which is designed to nest onto a Festool dust extractor) is quite akin to Festool's new CT-VA...at least I think it is. The timing of your release is also curious, coming as it did some time after (and not before) the public release of the CT-VA. Regarding your design: you built it, you photographed it and then you posted it, essentially as an ad, on a forum that is supposed to honor a certain DIY ethos. Had you not offered from the get-go to sell your plans but instead only come around to the idea once multiple people requested them (which is how these types of interactions typically go), those of us who balked at your unpalatable approach would have been only too happy to support you. So, yes, you brought this push-back on yourself.
Now, regarding your odd insinuation that I might not know my way around a hammer, let me respond by saying that I am perfectly confident in my abilities to accomplish the following seven (7) tasks which are required to construct a DIY systainer'ized "Thien/Dustopper/CT-VA/Festopper"-inspired dust separator:
1. build an open-topped, seven-sided plywood box (with interior joints caulked for air-sealing);
2. attach a set of 3D-printed systainer cleats (attributes, in part, to [member=40705]Ben_[/member] !) to the bottom and front of the aforementioned box (to allow simple locking attachment to the top of the vac via a T-Loc hose garage or already affixed T-Loc systainer or via a classic-style sys-plate of choice) [another image of the latter);
3. cut an appropriately-sized hole in a piece of plywood (the latter to act as the lid of the box) in which to accept the Dustopper product as an insert;
4. caulk the latter into the former;
5. drill eight holes and use four threaded inserts and four star knobs (I'll probably make my own) to fasten the lid to the top of the box (or utilize some other method of easy-on/easy-off attachment) but not before adding a strip of foam to the edges of the box's open side (to act as an air-sealing gasket between the lid and the box);
6. gather together the appropriate hose fittings (in my case to go from the 57mm friction-fit vac-end on my 35mm hose to the inlet on the Dustopper - no additional fitting necessary - and then from the male vac-end of the Dustopper supplied hose to the 58mm inlet on my Starmix extractor - accomplished with one "Shop-Vac 1-Piece Right-angle Brush" [Lowes # 215752 Model # 9067911] with the brush removed) (even cheaper tax-free source); and
7. hook everything together.
Total cost? I expect around US$60-70 (assuming scrap plywood and DIY star knobs).
Heck, if I feel like it, I may even offset the position of the Dustopper in the lid (to get the inlet flush with the edge of same) and then partially or fully enclose the Dustopper in it's own plywood box (if fully enclosed, adding penetrations for the inlet and the outlet hose) and then fasten a set of these 3-D printed fittings to the lid (along with one of these custom latches) or perhaps instead employ a modified version of this (with the undersides of the back penetrations relieved to allow the dove tail rear systainer feet to slot into place (and, again, this locking latch or a shop-built equivalent) to allow the fitting/stacking of systainers up above.
"Regarding the design used in Festool's CT-VA, as I said in my earlier post, it is different from the design promoted by Phil Thien, as well as from the Dustopper design, but it, too, is virtually identical to prior designs that I have seen. Again, I am speaking from the perspective of one who has actually seen the inside of the CT-VA, something that you, clearly, have not done, or you would realize that the CT-VA uses a disk at the bottom of a tube that has a rectangular opening which is keyed to be oriented at a particular angle from its input. Neither Phil Thien's version, nor the Dustopper, have anything similar."
That's funny, that's exactly what I meant when I said, "...that Festool's design departs from Thien's enough [emphasis added] that one would never mistake Festool's for Thien's (or vice versa)." Not sure how you took this mean that I think the CT-VA is the same as Thien's baffle. Moreover, one doesn't need to have the CT-VA in hand to understand the design of its baffle.
"As far as the use of the word "cyclone" is concerned, you should be aware that that term came from meteorology, rather than woodworking. As such it refers to the rotation of the airflow, rather than the means that created the rotation, whereby those who think that a "cyclone" separator requires a conical device, such as the Dust Deputy, are simply incorrect, by definition. Consequently, all of the devices that use rotational air flow to separate sawdust, etc. are "cyclone separators"."
Ok, now we're just splitting hairs. The context of all of this is that the word "cyclone" proliferates the woodworking dust separation world. However, when discussions focus in on comparisons between the Thien baffle and devices like the Dust Deputy (for instance), usually the word "cyclone" is reserved for the latter while "baffle" is reserved for the former (as a way to easily distinguish between the two). It's only natural, therefore, that a company marketing its own ultra-low-profile (and in that way "similar" to Thien's) dust separator would, out of an abundance of caution and perhaps also "respect", want to give a wide berth between its product and what most people know and refer to as a "baffle" (the term, at least up until now, that is commonly associated with Mr. Thien's design).
Now, to the point you try to make about what I may or may not know about dust separators and meteorology (in the case of the former, a little something given that I've been both a professional and amateur woodworker for decades and, in the case of the latter, also a little something given that I happen to be a former airline captain), only a poorly informed person/woodworker would think the word "cyclone", in the context of a dust separator, has any real meaning beyond that of a catchy marketing term. Again, it's all about context.
In closing, I appreciate your thoughts. I also really appreciated the act of putting together my response. Doing so proved to be a very fruitful exercise as I now have the parts list I need to construct my very own systainer'ized "Thien/Dustopper/CT-VA/Festopper"-inspired dust separator. All time well spent!
"Sandy"
FESTOPPER - an inexpensive Dust Extractor mounted cyclone
- Thread starter sandy
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2007
- Messages
- 10,355
Well this has become interesting .................................
In any case the situation here ( on the forum ) is really simple. Festool made the call that the Festopper will be considered a competing product. The item itself or the plans for such can not be sold on FOG or through FOG. Whether it actually is a competing product or not, whether there are patent situations involved or not, whether sandy can post them for free and or show his design, etc............ None of that really matters. Festool owns the FOG, in the end it is Festools call regardless.
Seth
In any case the situation here ( on the forum ) is really simple. Festool made the call that the Festopper will be considered a competing product. The item itself or the plans for such can not be sold on FOG or through FOG. Whether it actually is a competing product or not, whether there are patent situations involved or not, whether sandy can post them for free and or show his design, etc............ None of that really matters. Festool owns the FOG, in the end it is Festools call regardless.
Seth
[member=1619]SRSemenza[/member]
I understand, and appreciate, your position, whereby I have specifically requested that anyone interested in obtaining plans contact me outside of the FOG.
[member=64030]TinyShop[/member]
First, I noted, with both respect and interest, that you are a former airline captain. While I do not know where you are located, I am in Atlanta, where I keep a Diamond DA40 at PDK. I have been flying since 1973.
Next, I appreciate that you are quite articulate. That having been said, you have nonetheless made numerous assumptions which are simply inaccurate. While you are absolutely entitled to your opinions, I think many on this, or any other, forum would value them more if you did not assume that your opinions are the equivalent of fact, and that, as such, you are free to defame others.
Regarding your (blue) responses, I can state the following:
Title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations does require a duty of disclosure by an applicant for patent as well as by his/her legal representative, something that I take quite seriously. Accordingly, I agree that full, and complete disclosure, of both one's claimed invention and the known prior art are required. We have common ground in that respect.
On the other hand, it was presumptuous, and demonstrably inaccurate for you to (wrongly) assume, and then express as fact, that Mr. Huntley (the person behind the Dustopper) failed to advise the Patent Office of Mr. Thien's baffle. Specifically, there was an Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on May 30, 2017 in Mr. Huntley's patent application (Ser. No. 15/465,051 filed March 21, 2017) which specifically referenced Mr. Thien's patent application (Pub. No. 201100132317 published on June 3, 2010). You may view all of the foregoing on the Patent Office website.
It was also presumptuous, and inaccurate, for you to have assumed that the timing of my creation of the Festopper had anything to do with Festooll's release of its CT-VA. In fact, as stated in my original post, I only recently became aware of the Dustopper device, and I believed, as you appear to believe, that your "7 step" procedure would be reasonably trivial. Again, your presumption is (as was mine) simply inaccurate, so after you follow your own steps, please report back with the actual result you obtained. In fact, my initial approach was the same as yours ("Great minds think alike."). Unfortunately, it took me several attempts before things actually worked out, but you, too, will learn that lesson when you follow your own procedure.
As far as 3D printed items go, I do not have a 3D printer, so I cannot comment on that aspect of your post, but, as far as enabling the attachment of additional Systainers above the Festopper goes, that is one of the things that I mentioned in an earlier post. As a "heads up" to doing that, and to including a box around the Dustopper with hose entries like on the Festool CT-VA, I will alert you to the following issues. First, due to the fact that the vacuum hose enters the top of the Dustopper, you will find that anything you do in that regard will increase the overall height of the unit to the extent that you will not be able to fit it under an MFT/3. Of course, if your objective is to simply stack additional Systainers, then it probably would not, in any event, fit under an MFT/3. Festool's CT-VA actually includes a hose having a uniquely shaped end portion to assist in maintaining a low profile, and the top of the Festool cyclone cylinder does not extend up, as does the top of the Dustopper. Notably, in the "taller" version of the Festopper that is the subject of one of the photos in my original post, an advantage that can be gained, if you are not concerned about overall height, is that you can retain the portion of the "Homer" bucket that includes the handle, which actually makes it convenient to pull the Extractor around.
Next, regarding the "readily available thread" to which you linked, I am sure that you understand that it may be somewhat biased in that it is hosted/run by someone who has a vested interest in its content. Also, regarding the various references to patent issues, both by you and on that other forum, I assure you that many of them are simply wrong.
Finally, as this is a public forum, I have tried to respond in a responsible, and civil, manner to your comments. While I do not wish to engage in a legal discussion here, if you are truly interested, please feel free to email me or PM me with your phone number, as I will be happy to spend time discussing patent law, flying, woodworking, or just shooting the breeze with a fellow woodworker/pilot.
Sandy
I understand, and appreciate, your position, whereby I have specifically requested that anyone interested in obtaining plans contact me outside of the FOG.
[member=64030]TinyShop[/member]
First, I noted, with both respect and interest, that you are a former airline captain. While I do not know where you are located, I am in Atlanta, where I keep a Diamond DA40 at PDK. I have been flying since 1973.
Next, I appreciate that you are quite articulate. That having been said, you have nonetheless made numerous assumptions which are simply inaccurate. While you are absolutely entitled to your opinions, I think many on this, or any other, forum would value them more if you did not assume that your opinions are the equivalent of fact, and that, as such, you are free to defame others.
Regarding your (blue) responses, I can state the following:
Title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations does require a duty of disclosure by an applicant for patent as well as by his/her legal representative, something that I take quite seriously. Accordingly, I agree that full, and complete disclosure, of both one's claimed invention and the known prior art are required. We have common ground in that respect.
On the other hand, it was presumptuous, and demonstrably inaccurate for you to (wrongly) assume, and then express as fact, that Mr. Huntley (the person behind the Dustopper) failed to advise the Patent Office of Mr. Thien's baffle. Specifically, there was an Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on May 30, 2017 in Mr. Huntley's patent application (Ser. No. 15/465,051 filed March 21, 2017) which specifically referenced Mr. Thien's patent application (Pub. No. 201100132317 published on June 3, 2010). You may view all of the foregoing on the Patent Office website.
It was also presumptuous, and inaccurate, for you to have assumed that the timing of my creation of the Festopper had anything to do with Festooll's release of its CT-VA. In fact, as stated in my original post, I only recently became aware of the Dustopper device, and I believed, as you appear to believe, that your "7 step" procedure would be reasonably trivial. Again, your presumption is (as was mine) simply inaccurate, so after you follow your own steps, please report back with the actual result you obtained. In fact, my initial approach was the same as yours ("Great minds think alike."). Unfortunately, it took me several attempts before things actually worked out, but you, too, will learn that lesson when you follow your own procedure.
As far as 3D printed items go, I do not have a 3D printer, so I cannot comment on that aspect of your post, but, as far as enabling the attachment of additional Systainers above the Festopper goes, that is one of the things that I mentioned in an earlier post. As a "heads up" to doing that, and to including a box around the Dustopper with hose entries like on the Festool CT-VA, I will alert you to the following issues. First, due to the fact that the vacuum hose enters the top of the Dustopper, you will find that anything you do in that regard will increase the overall height of the unit to the extent that you will not be able to fit it under an MFT/3. Of course, if your objective is to simply stack additional Systainers, then it probably would not, in any event, fit under an MFT/3. Festool's CT-VA actually includes a hose having a uniquely shaped end portion to assist in maintaining a low profile, and the top of the Festool cyclone cylinder does not extend up, as does the top of the Dustopper. Notably, in the "taller" version of the Festopper that is the subject of one of the photos in my original post, an advantage that can be gained, if you are not concerned about overall height, is that you can retain the portion of the "Homer" bucket that includes the handle, which actually makes it convenient to pull the Extractor around.
Next, regarding the "readily available thread" to which you linked, I am sure that you understand that it may be somewhat biased in that it is hosted/run by someone who has a vested interest in its content. Also, regarding the various references to patent issues, both by you and on that other forum, I assure you that many of them are simply wrong.
Finally, as this is a public forum, I have tried to respond in a responsible, and civil, manner to your comments. While I do not wish to engage in a legal discussion here, if you are truly interested, please feel free to email me or PM me with your phone number, as I will be happy to spend time discussing patent law, flying, woodworking, or just shooting the breeze with a fellow woodworker/pilot.
Sandy
While the so-called “issue” of static discharge has come up in the forum, in practice, based on my own extensive experience, and with scores of units in use (and actual uses measured in the several thousands, or more), there have been as many reports of static discharge damage as there have been authenticated sightings of the Loch Ness monster (Perhaps this relates to the construction of the DUSTOPPER.). While it may be theoretically possible for static discharge to adversely affect any electronic circuit that has not been properly designed and/or shielded that has simply not happened when the FESTOPPER has been used. As Yogi Berra reportedly said, “In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.”
Sandy
Sandy
[member=15585]Svar[/member]
I cannot speak to the issue that the Oneida Dust Deputy reportedly experienced, so perhaps you will be kind enough to direct me to the "well documented and acknowledged" statements by Festool and Oneida. However, the DUSTOPPER sold by Home Depot has not, to my knowledge, been the subject of any issues, and that DUSTOPPER is what is used in the FESTOPPER, again, without a single reported problem. I do not make or sell the DUSTOPPER, but I have used several to make FESTOPPER preseparators, and neither I nor any of those who built FESTOPPERS, or, for that matter, used DUSTOPPERs, have reported any static issue, so while your comments about the Dust Deputy may be accurate, what evidence do you have that there are any issues with the DUSTOPPER, whether or not used in a FESTOPPER?
For that matter, despite all of the various Thein-type and cyclone-type preseparators, many of which are described in this forum, I have not seen a single report of static damage. On the other hand, you never know when the next reported sighting of Nessie will take place.
Sandy
I cannot speak to the issue that the Oneida Dust Deputy reportedly experienced, so perhaps you will be kind enough to direct me to the "well documented and acknowledged" statements by Festool and Oneida. However, the DUSTOPPER sold by Home Depot has not, to my knowledge, been the subject of any issues, and that DUSTOPPER is what is used in the FESTOPPER, again, without a single reported problem. I do not make or sell the DUSTOPPER, but I have used several to make FESTOPPER preseparators, and neither I nor any of those who built FESTOPPERS, or, for that matter, used DUSTOPPERs, have reported any static issue, so while your comments about the Dust Deputy may be accurate, what evidence do you have that there are any issues with the DUSTOPPER, whether or not used in a FESTOPPER?
For that matter, despite all of the various Thein-type and cyclone-type preseparators, many of which are described in this forum, I have not seen a single report of static damage. On the other hand, you never know when the next reported sighting of Nessie will take place.
Sandy
Sandy - search the forum here -
Oneida offered anti-static upgrade kits to owners due to static discharge issues.
It has been an ongoing discussion on FOG since maybe 2008 or so. I know Shane Holland mentioned in one thread as they sold a lot of DD's.
Search for 'Dust Deputy Static' with posts from Shane as one thread.
Oneida offered anti-static upgrade kits to owners due to static discharge issues.
It has been an ongoing discussion on FOG since maybe 2008 or so. I know Shane Holland mentioned in one thread as they sold a lot of DD's.
Search for 'Dust Deputy Static' with posts from Shane as one thread.
[member=167]neilc[/member]
As you suggested, I did a search for "Dust Deputy Static". Surprisingly, I found the following by Jaybolishes inhttps://www.festoolownersgroup.com/...any-worries-about-static/msg573806/#msg573806:
Again, though, I acknowledge that any electronic circuit that is not properly designed can be subject to damage due to static discharge, and, again, I must point out that I am not dealing with a Dust Deputy, although I have used them in my shop for years without any issues.
Surely, you acknowledge that there are scores of posts in this forum relating to the design and use of Thein and cyclone separators, some of which are made of metal, but most of which are plastic and/or wood designs, and I have heard of ZERO instances in which any Dust Collector suffered damage due to static discharge; nor have I heard of any report that the DUSTOPPER device, used in the FESTOPPER, or the FESTOPPER, itself, have ever been implicated in any static related damage.
So, once again, can anyone point to a single, documented instance of static damage that implicated a DUSTOPPER, whether or not it was a component of a FESTOPPER?
And, finally... I do love your posts on the Shaper Community site. If you're anywhere near Atlanta, I'd love to come visit you and learn how to use mine. I'll even bring you a completed FESTOPPER for your time. PM me.
Sandy
As you suggested, I did a search for "Dust Deputy Static". Surprisingly, I found the following by Jaybolishes inhttps://www.festoolownersgroup.com/...any-worries-about-static/msg573806/#msg573806:
Again, though, I acknowledge that any electronic circuit that is not properly designed can be subject to damage due to static discharge, and, again, I must point out that I am not dealing with a Dust Deputy, although I have used them in my shop for years without any issues.
Surely, you acknowledge that there are scores of posts in this forum relating to the design and use of Thein and cyclone separators, some of which are made of metal, but most of which are plastic and/or wood designs, and I have heard of ZERO instances in which any Dust Collector suffered damage due to static discharge; nor have I heard of any report that the DUSTOPPER device, used in the FESTOPPER, or the FESTOPPER, itself, have ever been implicated in any static related damage.
So, once again, can anyone point to a single, documented instance of static damage that implicated a DUSTOPPER, whether or not it was a component of a FESTOPPER?
And, finally... I do love your posts on the Shaper Community site. If you're anywhere near Atlanta, I'd love to come visit you and learn how to use mine. I'll even bring you a completed FESTOPPER for your time. PM me.
Sandy
- Status
