the Automag a spool valve?

[JimmyBeam]

hmm.....sean@smartpartswest, a sales rep for smart parts is saying the Automag valve is a spoolvalve.


The automag is a spool valve as well as the ion. The on/off is different and it is spring return where as the ion is electonically controlled.

and


Automag is a spool valve. Just ask Tom kaye...

I hate this argument. A spool valve has to be inline. Hence a BKO would never be one.


i dont know enough about this subject to know if he is right or wrong, but with all the talk of spool valves lately, i was jsut curious since i thought the mag was a blow forward/spring return


heres a link to the thread
http://www.pbnation.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=12245866#post12245866

[Chronobreak]

http://www.pbnation.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=12245866#post12245866

bext time link TO THE POST so we can find it easier

not sure if its true or not..im going to say no..or very diff from the spool valve tech sp is using.

[JimmyBeam]

sorry bout that.

yea im in the same boat, i dont know. i figured someone here would

[MicroMiniMe]

Any merit to that? Along the lines of broad sweeping gereralities?

A tactic by SP to sidestep the DYE spool valve injunction/lawsuit to give AGD 'prior art' over DYEs design to get off the hook?

Interesting comparison to say the least.

[Lohman446]

Sean is a smart guy, but he is not an engineer, he's a sales rep and toting company line - well I guess he is.

AGD has patented the blow forward marker, though they did not call it a spool valve. I don't think SP is helping themselves any by saying that they have not violated one patent because they have stepped on other intellectual property (unless there is an agreement somewhere between AGD and SP - may very well be).

I think an argument could be made that all semi auto markers, where the bolt rests behind the firing chamber before firing, are in violation of AGDs original patent. Apparently TK has decided not to, or does not beleive this.

[Chronobreak]

he said you "CAN EVEN ASK TOM KAYE HIMSELF"

ok here it goes...


TOM TOM TOM(must say his name 3 times for him to appear like beetlejuice)

so is the mag a primative spool valve? and ifso does that mean you technicaly own the spool valve patent?

[RRfireblade]

In basic terms, a spool valve consists of a 'spool' and the valve body. By moving the spool through the valve body and due to the passages or design of the spool, it changes the direction of flow through the valve.

This is how the Matrix bolt system functions or the 3 way on an Autococker for example.How the spool is moved through the valve can vary quite a bit. In the Matrix, which is basically a Piloted valve system, air pressure which is controlled by an electronic soleniod...also a piloted spool valve BTW..is used to create a differential that forces the bolt to move in the valve body. When doing so, the 'spool' or bolt allows air to pass throught the valve body in the manner required to fire a paint ball.It is then 'spooled' back to the original position to start the cycle over again.

An Autococker 3 way functions the same except it is 'spooled' manually and is directly acted on by the timing rod/trigger.

The Automag in simplest terms, is nothing more than a cork in a Coke bottle. Pressure in the dump chamber simply pushes out the cork till the bottle opening is clear and can release gas.When the flow of gas is stopped, and it must be stopped by an outside source/valve, the 'cork' is allowed to return.There really is no valving or switching at all.Now the L10 does add some spool like valving but it's really not the primary part of the design as much as it's mearly a side note to the original intent.

The ION does use some parts of both systems as it uses contained pressure to initiate the 'spools' primary forward movement but there is no mistake the the bolt system in the ION IS a spool valve consisting of all the air/fluid switching characterists of what most would consider to be a spool valved system.One may call it a blow forward but that is only a description of one single part of it's function, not at all ,IMO an accurate description of the complete function of the markers bolt system as it completes a full cycle.

[Army]

'Mags are a pressure relief valve.

[Evil Bob]

The "spool" description refers to the bolt behaving like a "spool" when you wind thread onto it. Anyone who has done any work with sewing machines knows that as you wind thread onto a spool or bobbin, the thread winds back and forth in a nice pattern. If the thread is sufficiently heavy, the actual spool will move around as the thread winds onto it, bouncing up and down on the stand.

Think of the air that is forced around the spool to force it to move as the thread, as the volume of air or "thread" increases, the spool moves. As the thread reaches the edge of the spool, it winds on top of itself and starts winding in the opposite direction, which gives you the back and forth movment.

-Evil Bob

[AGD]

Ok you said it three times.....

NO the mag valve is NOT a spool valve. There are some things that are similar but I am very suprised someone from SP said it was. He must have figured that all single tube guns are spool valves.

AGD

[Creative Mayhem]

Ok you said it three times.....

NO the mag valve is NOT a spool valve. There are some things that are similar but I am very suprised someone from SP said it was. He must have figured that all single tube guns are spool valves.

AGD

Ask and ye shall recieve. What I think the SP guy was trying to say was that he likes the "tool valves" SP = :tard:

[Twiek]

As usual, SP has their heads up their collective "rear ends".

Not all single tube guns are spool valves and not all spool valves are necessarily single tube guns. The bolt does not have to be part of the spool for it to qualify as one (the Mayhem and Nova series are good examples of such). You could theoreticly make a spool valve conversion for any double stack 'marker (including the BKO). And there must be 1000 different nelson based single tube pump guns that aren't spool valved, and the ATS is a non-spooled single tube semi.

[Evil Bob]

Keep in mind this is the same marketing group who came up with "Seal Forward Technology" that makes their open bolt perform "like a closed bolt".

-Evil Bob

[RRfireblade]

Ok you said it three times.....

NO the mag valve is NOT a spool valve. There are some things that are similar but I am very suprised someone from SP said it was. He must have figured that all single tube guns are spool valves.

AGD

Actually SP is trying to argue that the ION is a blow forward like a Mag, not the other way around. ;)

Obviously that's the only arguement that if could be shown, would get Dye off thier case.

That's why. :ninja:

[FSU_Paintball]

I think it's really funny how everyone in this thread was talking like "Well, this guy from SP said it... it sounds weird... is it true?"

And as soon as Tom chimes in, everybody says, "YEAH! Those SP guys are STUPID! How could they say/think something like that?" :rolleyes:

I guess it could be argued that a mag is a very basic spool valve, but that's a vast, vast generalization to the point where I'd say the designs are two completely different beasts. I think a prior poster was correct in saying that this is a good way for SP to sidestep legal action pointed at them by claiming prior art by AGD.

It's pretty smart if you think about it.

[Lohman446]

I guess it could be argued that a mag is a very basic spool valve, but that's a vast, vast generalization to the point where I'd say the designs are two completely different beasts. I think a prior poster was correct in saying that this is a good way for SP to sidestep legal action pointed at them by claiming prior art by AGD.


I agree partially with this. I think what SP is going to argue is that any open bolt semi-auto marker has prior art in the mag. Where I do not beleive that the spring returned bolt on the mag is a spool valve I think that the argument could be made that the spool valve was obvious evolution of an air returned bolt (timmy and whatever) that was an obvious evolution of the mag and is thus not patentable because of prior art and obviousness.

I wonder where TK stands on this, and how much $$ he stands to make if a court sets precedent that all open bolt markers are obvious advancements of the mag and subject to its patent (during the patent life).

[hitech]

...all open bolt markers are obvious advancements of the mag and subject to its patent (during the patent life).

There were open bolt semis before the 'mag.

[Lohman446]

There were open bolt semis before the 'mag.


Well then... obvious advancements of whatever?? :D

Oops...

[Jack & Coke]

He must have figured that all single tube guns are spool valves.

AGD

http://www.pbreview.com/pics/1017730463.jpg

http://www.pbreview.com/pics/tippmann98custom.jpg

Who woulda thunkit?

:rofl:

[Evil Bob]

There were open bolt semis before the 'mag.

First mass produced open bolt semi I knew about was the PMI III (later renamed the VM-68), the grandfather of the spring forward, blow back stack tube design, bought one when I saw it in 1990.

-Evil Bob

[Lohman446]

LMAO.. after all these years could you see Tippman sending out cease and desist orders, getting royalties, and being THE major sponsor of tournaments.

[JimmyBeam]

lol

[Enemy]

losley interpreted under dyes patent concerning the operation of the patented valve(spool valve) there are alot of similarities between the electronic spool valves and the mechanical cork in a bottle with a spring on the end.lmao that just sounds funny! i mean the patent isnt as specific as it should be and actually left a little broad..(hmm dye must be taking notes) so if sp were to take the pantents discripription to its losest terms, im talking singapore hooker lose, then they may be able to convince a jury that agd owns the patent to the spool valve!! then when agd sues they will claim that there design is far more advanced than agds pantent includes and negate their previous claims. but thats all just speculation lets tune in and find out!!

ps its 2 20 am so yeah that really sounds funny!!

[ApexAZ]

Actually SP is trying to argue that the ION is a blow forward like a Mag, not the other way around. ;)

Obviously that's the only arguement that if could be shown, would get Dye off thier case.

That's why. :ninja:

No, Sean is trying to say the automag is a spool valve.


The automag is a spool valve as well as the ion. The on/off is different and it is spring return where as the ion is electonically controlled.

[RRfireblade]

He's confused with what SP is trying to prove in order to side step Dye's infringement suit against them. They would like to show that a blow forward and a spool valve are based on the same principal idea and are looking for a link to that theory.

The Automag "aint" it. ;)

[ApexAZ]

He's confused with what SP is trying to prove in order to side step Dye's infringement suit against them. They would like to show that a blow forward and a spool valve are based on the same principal idea and are looking for a link to that theory.

The Automag "aint" it. ;)

Gotcha. Do you really think that's SP's agenda?

[quik]

He's just trying to impress the PBN kids guys, thats all.

[SlartyBartFast]

I think that the argument could be made that the spool valve was obvious evolution of an air returned bolt (timmy and whatever) that was an obvious evolution of the mag and is thus not patentable because of prior art and obviousness.

And if that is the argument used, someone with their act together could argue many current paintball patents are simply obvious uses of technology developed and patented in other industries.

I fail to understand why this hasn't occured.....

Notable exceptions would be devices and technology SPECIFICALLY related to paintball such as the incorporation of the bolt mechanism with the valve (Automag, DYE Spool Valve).

But everything else........

[RRfireblade]

Everything since the sharpened wooden stick is an evolution of something. That doesn't obsolve it from the realm new invention or neccessarily qualify it as prior art.

An ample 'improvement' over a previous invention, currently patented or otherwise,is grounds enough for new and seperate Patent.

The primary reason why current Patents, if done correctly, are typically so broad in description is to try and encompass future developments and improvements so as to 'not' allow a new,superceding Patent to be applied for or granted over it.

[ShadowCaster]

Ok you said it three times.....

NO the mag valve is NOT a spool valve. There are some things that are similar but I am very suprised someone from SP said it was. He must have figured that all single tube guns are spool valves.

AGD


Seems like the SP guys are trying to play the blame game and try to take down as many companies as they can with them in the whole Dye lawsuit thing.

[RRfireblade]

Oh, and BTW...

The last thing anyone ever wants to do is to try and fight an existing Patent in a court of Law. The finacial burdens are monumental and the chances of winning are an absolute crap shoot.There are endless methods of interpretation,so tt's quite a scary option and why so many smaller companies won't even risk it.

[ApexAZ]

It's speculation at this point as to whether or not they are going to drag AGD into this.

But if anyone has the resources to bring SP to court it's Dye.

[SlartyBartFast]

Everything since the sharpened wooden stick is an evolution of something. That doesn't obsolve it from the realm new invention or neccessarily qualify it as prior art.

No. There are actual new inventions that aren't natural evolutions from previous design. But I don't dispute your point.


An ample 'improvement' over a previous invention, currently patented or otherwise, is grounds enough for new and seperate Patent.

Certainly. Except using a device, for the purpose for which it was designed, with the only new or novel concept being the use in paintball should certainly be excluded from patents.

Using a switch to interrupt electrical current, short contacts, or power devices for example. :rolleyes:

Or, patenting the use (really excluding the use) of standard chip functionality by claiming rights to the use of all external programming interfaces. :rolleyes:

[RRfireblade]

No. There are actual new inventions that aren't natural evolutions from previous design. But I don't dispute your point.



Certainly. Except using a device, for the purpose for which it was designed, with the only new or novel concept being the use in paintball should certainly be excluded from patents.

Using a switch to interrupt electrical current, short contacts, or power devices for example. :rolleyes:

Or, patenting the use (really excluding the use) of standard chip functionality by claiming rights to the use of all external programming interfaces. :rolleyes:


Evolution is purely debatable perception. ;) Inspiration is always inspired by something. It's just how far you want to stretch to see it...or to admit it in some cases. :ninja:

An "Improvement" is determined soley by the USPTO and the USPTO is the only one you need to convince. Reality has little function there. ;)

[RRfireblade]

And I'll just add this for the sake of this discussion,

We're not talking about absolute truths or quantifiable reasoning, we're talk about Law and Government......HUGE DIFFERENCE. :p