Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: another hint of quantum consciousness
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2024 16:40:33 +1000
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 75
Message-ID: <vc8jt1$2mm28$1@dont-email.me>
References: <0s9bej1bhklummnn5iduadn94uvvne5k26@4ax.com>
 <a3gbejlt6o1d0nth0896cm48srt0bk99ma@4ax.com>
 <j1ibejh34njhlcocdut0idv1mtk4v4dg7p@4ax.com>
 <9qlbejpoe6lbpefvd7220e2eibrd1ioh5g@4ax.com>
 <t4nbejhkmh4gtl3rqnp84j2kr192ee1a4l@4ax.com> <vc4nvf$1kpl3$2@dont-email.me>
 <vc4vkb$1mgt3$1@dont-email.me> <q1hcejtl3ah417bjfivher6mqoe0epgb6k@4ax.com>
 <vc5rfk$200qt$3@dont-email.me> <e8udejlupd84oot2ii5pk0us6ne42do0rb@4ax.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2024 08:40:35 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3e3be5d2ff0c3459a7fea3c93741f591";
	logging-data="2840648"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX189GNiAGH8Ox96ReXQsjHutTCnSDf5m0cE="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:rvaLZatVTRF2djTCbzWUtN/4EYI=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 240915-10, 16/9/2024), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <e8udejlupd84oot2ii5pk0us6ne42do0rb@4ax.com>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Bytes: 4647

On 16/09/2024 1:17 am, john larkin wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Sep 2024 15:31:31 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
> wrote:
> 
>> On 15/09/2024 12:26 pm, john larkin wrote:
>>> On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 14:35:59 -0700, Don Y
>>> <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/14/2024 12:28 PM, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
>>>>> Discoveries happen by diddling with the problem, trying out different
>>>>> things to see what happens. Once you have a collection of observations,
>>>>> some theory will form of how it all fits together. You test the theory
>>>>> by doing more experiments. If these experiments keep confirming your
>>>>> theory, then, and only then, can you claim to have discovered something.
>>>>
>>>> To be clear, you design experiments that *challenge* your theory,
>>>> not experiments that hope to *confirm* it.  "Proof" always remains
>>>> elusive; DISproof is what you are looking for.
>>>
>>> No.  If one imagines an equation that describes the period of a
>>> planetary orbit, and tests it in all available cases, it's rational to
>>> assume it's true.
>>>
>>> Let someone else find a counter-case. They will usually try.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Just throwing harebrained ideas around leads nowhere.
>>>>
>>>> Agreed.  That's little more than high-brow bar-room chatter...
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ideas are the starting point of theories. Or circuits.
>>>
>>> No ideas results in few of either.
>>
>> And if you have very few new ideas, you do tend to over-value the few
>> that you do come up with.
> 
> Not my problem! I have to keep a notepad by my bed to write down all
> the ideas I have at night. Some nights I fill a page, and then there's
> the shower.

But how many of them are actually new? The acid test for that is were 
they patentable? Nobody patents all the patentable idea that they have 
had, but if none of them get patented, the implication of them is that 
none of them were.

One of my colleagues at EMI Central Research had the record for the 
maximum number of patent queries that he had submitted in one year - 
some 53. I don't recall that any of them got patented.

I got my name on two patents in the three years I worked there. One was 
for an aspect of some work I'd done which hadn't struck me as patentable 
and the other was for an approach that struck me as obvious, until I'd 
had to explain it to enough people that it clearly wasn't obvious to 
those skilled in the art.

> I invented a new product line, small PoE powered instruments, and keep
> coming up with box ideas. I started a new design center to develop
> them. It's been fun so far.

And will keep on being fun until you realise that they aren't as 
original as you imagine, when you find yourself having to pay royalties 
to the people who invented them first.

> I might post the introduction here and get opinions, and maybe
> suggestions for new boxes.

Don't do it until you have got the patenting process going on the ideas 
that you do imagine are patentable. Prior publication bars you from 
getting a  patent.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney