Just invented a variable pitch propeller hub. These are typically 10-20k$ systems and my design has no oil, no seals, no pressure, no roller bearings, you can just throw grease in it. Probably 500$ to manufacture. And I'm *extremely* confident that it will have absolutely heroic strength and vibration properties.
Should I chuck in a patent application and see where life takes me, or should I dismiss it as head-noise?
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
@cjd
Patent it. But I suggest you build a prototype first so you can work out the inevitable materials adjustments and deviations/distortions that come from real life use into your patent.
Additionally, you can also validate the aerodynamic modeling of your rotor in QBlade (open source).
* You're making an SLSA and you've decided it's time to go proprietary engine route (lets imagine)
* I have a hub that will clamp existing ground-adjustable prop blades and all you need to adjust them is to wire up a brush to get power down the prop shaft to a servo motor in the spinner.
* You can get this thing made at PCBWay, it's just CNC lathe and milling work, every shop knows how to do this.
* It uses ball joints so basically all of the load is centrifugal. My invention is the way to pitch the blades while they're being held in ball joints.
* EAB and non-commercial gets CNC codes for free, anyone selling the hub to the public can license it for 20% of their sale price, if you're selling it as part of your plane, you pay $100 per unit. With the license you get all of the test results that I have, so you have a head start to your MOSAIC documentation.
Does this sound attractive?
You said that a 20%-of-sale-price fee makes it IMPOSSIBLE to sell without profit - until I pointed out that basically every government in the world does this already.
That's not a typo, that's something that people who have experience with money and budgeting would never say.
So now I know that you've never sold anything before, and most likely you live at home - and budgeting is mostly something your parents manage.
And you would like me to take your opinions about sales tax and intellectual property seriously.
Interesting.
You said that a 20%-of-sale-price fee makes it IMPOSSIBLE to sell without profit - until I pointed out that basically every government in the world does this already.
It is what people do, but logically it makes no sense.
Apply on sale price -> new sale price, need to re-apply -> apply infinitely. There is no condition given for stop. It's improperly defined.
So now I know that you've never sold anything before, and most likely you live at home - and budgeting is mostly something your parents manage.
If you're going to resort to ad hominem bullshit that isn't even accurate to start with, you could just block me instead.
It's like saying "You just called me a loser, and I'm not gonna deny it, but I claim it has no bearing on the value of my opinion".
Uhm, yes it fucking does.
IF, it's a purely theoretical field like logic or mathematics, then yes, you can write a proof and even if you're a bumbling idiot, that proof is either correct or incorrect and that's it.
But on every single topic that people actually disagree about, you can't "prove" an argument correct. Unless there are obvious logical inconsistencies, you can only tell if it "sounds good" which is totally unreliable.
This is why real world decision makers who have serious consequences if they're wrong always pay attention to WHO they are listening to. Financial advice from poor people, and health advice from sick people rarely gets a hearing.
And people who respond "ad hominem" to a challenge of their credibility are kinda forfeiting the debate.
@cjd @lispi314
True. I've never used the word "ad hominem" in my life. It's such a gay tactic that makes no sense.
Who gives a shit about credibility or appeal to authority? You either have a good argument or you don't. You can always reason it logically and one should always be flexible to question even the most adamant of premises in search of the truth.
I personally love this video where joe explain how debates work (or don't work).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=st2S71m60fY
You debate people mostly to make impressions on onlookers at this point.
Anyone trying to ad rules to debate is probably not approaching you in good faith. If something is objectionable you'll object to it in the debate and be able to demonstrate why it was a bad argument. Slippery slope is probably the worse example, it is actually valid more often than it is a fallacy.
