What do you think of Hesham's patent posts?

[overscan (PaulMM)]

I'm posting this because I have had feedback from certain users that Hesham's constant posting of patent images in particular is annoying them. I want to know what people think in general.

This should be in no way seen as a personal attack, but the forum is there for the benefit of all users, not just one, and if one user's behaviour causes others irritation it needs to be dealt with.

 

[sferrin]

I don't mind patent pictures if they are unique or adding info to a generally interesting topic (as in there are threads on it) but seeing 400 four piston-engine aircraft whos only known reference is a solitary patent drawing that is only different from all the rest by enough to qualify for a patent gets on my nerves after a while. Coming here and finding half the new posts are more Heshem patent finds gets annoying after a while. Anyway that's my two cents. (Not trying to crucify the guy but we need to be self-regulating. Better to have 50 gold posts than 51 buried in 900 count-bumpers if you know what I mean.)

 

[Sentinel Chicken]

I once had a professor who told me that "Opinions are like a**holes, everyone's got one."

For what it's worth, I think that patent information should only be posted in the context of an ongoing thread/discussion about a particular design, say like a patent about Boeing's CX candidate in a thread that is already ongoing about Boeing's CX candidate.

There are going to some patents (but presumably *few*) that warrant the initiation of a discussion on that particular design and that should really be based on the fidelity of the drawings and the content of the patent itself- like that patent that Scott posted on a Boeing supersonic transport design.

I certainly applaud his energies in searching patent files, but there should be some purpose to posting it rather than "here's some unknown Bell design".

 

[TinWing]

I really don't know why anyone complain about Hesham posting patent threads for specific manufacuturers?

I must admit that most of the patents in question are familiar to me, but there are occasional surprises.

I also must admit that I found most of the patents in question shortly before Google introduced its marvelous patent search engine. Searching patents was much more of a chore only a year or two ago.

 

[Hood]

I think with all things its searching the wheat from the chaff. Discarding the wild ideas clearly dreamt up by amateurs and making sure who patented what would go a long way to making sure the really interesting stuff finds its way here. As I see it an aircraft firm took time to take out a patent to make sure no-one else could utilise the idea first. Someone on company time and money worked the thing out in the first place but I agree these 'boy racer' style drafts are not serious projects. Overall I've found the 1930s era patents more interesting. Whatever value they have it shows someone wanted to try something new to acheive a goal. Unfortunately the patent itself does not show the reasoning behind it.

I applaud Hesham's efforts both with patents and Flights's archive which I've browsed but never seem to have enough time to pull off much interesting stuff.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Perhaps we need some ground rules about posting patent images. Like making clear its a patent in the topic and the post. Also, the patent should be assigned to an established aircraft manufacturer.

That way people who want to can avoid them.

Comments?

 

[flateric]

Agreed with Overscan. We must not kill Hesham's enthusiasm, but must move it to the right direction...and switch off some of them sometimes.

 

[Sentinel Chicken]

Having some ground rules would be a good starting point. I don't want him to stop what he's doing- he's found some interesting things along the way that have either stimulated discussion or things that I've found interesting personally. Perhaps some way of focusing the effort would be the most idea as Gregory pointed out.

 

[dan_inbox]

I don't think the patent posts in themselves are the problem.
Not more than all Hesham's post about "xyz-1234 was a biplane in 192x...", which come for no apparent reason and often feel like sponging.

Those posts don't bother me but others have already reacted negatively. I suspect that basically the same people are now reacting to the patents only because Hesham has switched to those.

Personally I see his posts (today's patents or y'day's mentions) as bona fide opportunities to start a discussion. Easy to take up if interested, easy to skip if not.

More generally, Hesham being a positive contributor with many interesting posts, I'd cut him some slack if he sometimes shows more hunger than our usage would have it. BTW, how would our 'manners' live up in Cairo's good society?

And frankly the intolerance bothers me much more. The conceit too. Netkops are enjoyment polluters, way worse than some knowledge-hungry enthusiast.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

While I mostly agree, part of the appeal of this forum to aviation professionals and authors over other aviation forums has been the historically high ratio of signal to noise. Generally speaking, we don't have pointless "Su-35 is better than Raptor" type discussions, and for me thats a good thing. Therefore I want to preserve the generally high standard of the forum.

This means thinking before you post whether your post is likely to be of interest to others. If I find a patent registered by Northrop, that seems to show an unknown design, thats an interesting post that can stimulate discussion.

That doesn't mean that every single patent ever registered showing an aircraft drawing is automatically interesting. If users want to collect every single patent drawing made, good on them, but is this always the best place to put them?

 

[richard]

I agree with dan_inbox

 

[Overkiller]

Just my two pence...

Maybe I am being "a bit thick" but why not just set up a subforum purely for posting patents? That way people who find this sort of thing annoying can avoid it?

I am sure I'm missing something obvious, so apologies in advance.

cheers

Duncan

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Thats one option. Perhaps unidentified patents could go into a sub forum. There will be certain patents that belong in the main forums though.

 

[hesham]

My dears,

I am with you in any way you choose it,but there is
many designs in patents we can't ignore it,and just
example for you;
an aircraft for James S. McDonnell,it was designed by
himself,and of course he put it in his series as I think,
and believe it is not only a dream ,look with me for that
pursuit aircraft;
http://www.google.com/patents?id=NiF0AAAAEBAJ&pg=PA1940&dq=pursuit+design+of+airplane&num=100

 

[richard]

For me ,a sub forum is a good idea .

 

[Sentinel Chicken]

I think a subforum would be a decent compromise and we could always move stuff out of there that warrants more discussion.

That patent hesham posted is one example of one I'd find personally fascinating as it seems to predate the XP-67 but clearly seems to have influenced the design process. That's something that I'm glad he has the time and energy to go and find and share with us here.

 

[Antonio]

My vote is for a new "patent subforum".

Hesham,
I think you're one of the most active members. In my opinion, sometimes your research seems a race against time, then quantity raises over quality. It seems that you post evey patent you discover without any criteria. I'll be grateful if you could try a more reflexive posting. That's only a constructive criticism because I'll be one of the "patent subforum" visitors.

I thank you very much your work with the patents and your research with Flight archives because in the latest times I have very little time to dig it.

BTW, that McDonnell patent is a real pursuit fighter design. It is Model 2 which was submitted at R-40C contest.

Cheers
Antonio

 

[Skybolt]

Absolutely agreed. Best would be two subforums: "corporate patents" and "individual inventors".

 

[lark]

A good compromise..

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

I've created a new forum, to post patents in. Rules will be posted shortly.