Hilski
Hazard to Others
Posts: 197
Registered: 13-9-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
A dumb question regarding ratios in general
I have noticed that in a lot of the older patents I have read through that many of them use the term 'parts' as opposed to an actual measurement when
referring to amounts of reagents used. For example, one patent I have been using as a guide for some experiments with manganese compounds includes
the following passage:
"Prepare a solution of manganese persulfate [...] by oxidizing a solution of six hundred parts of manganous sulfate in twenty - nine hundred parts of
sulfuric acid, (containing about 55% H2SO4)..."
I know the term 'parts, is often used to describe the concentration of a solution. (i.e. 10 parts bleach, 90 parts water etc) But what exactly is the
author referring to as a 'part' in the above quote? Is he talking about ratios like w/w or w/v, or maybe a density measurement like g/ml? Or is he
using the term 'parts' in some sort of reference to molar mass?
I may be wrong, but I would be inclined to think the author means to "oxidize a solution of 600 grams of manganous sulfate in 2900 grams of sulfuric
acid which contains 55% H2SO4 (1595 grams H2SO4 in 1305 grams of water.) Am I understanding this correctly? If so, why not just say grams instead of
'parts' in the patent to begin with?
Like I said, this is a really dumb question so don't beat me up too bad over it.
\"They that can give up essential liberty
to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety. \"
- Benjamin Franklin
|
|
|
Sauron
International Hazard
Posts: 5351
Registered: 22-12-2006
Location: Barad-Dur, Mordor
Member Is Offline
Mood: metastable
|
|
Patent lawyers love to make things unclear.
Somewhere in the patent is SHOULD state that parts = parts by weight, or parts by mol, or parts by volume.
But it may not, and in fact the lawyer may have written this up using any or all of these meanings in same document without clarification.
As someone "skilled in the art" the reader is supposed to be competent to figure withis all out.
And if you can't then (legally) it means you are insufficiently skilled in the art.
The test of completeness of disclosure is whether someone skilled in the art can reproduce the invention using only the patent details and his skills.
Of course many patents really do not make full disclosure but conceal the truth in the night and fog (Ger: nocht und nogel) of "skilled in the art".
Ain't it so. @Roscoe?
|
|
|
Rosco Bodine
Banned
Posts: 6370
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: analytical
|
|
I got your skilled in the art right here 
Usually parts will mean parts by weight ,
but sometimes it can be a mystery to solve ....
in which case you can plug in what numbers seem to be most likely , do the math and see if it plays out .
Anyway those numbers look right to me .
If the patent is simply worded , then just go
with what seems the simplest interpretation
as a first guess .....if no joy.....
Later you can try a crystal ball or a ouija board ,
maybe hold a seance and try to channel the spirit
of the departed inventor to see if he will give you a sign
[Edited on 11-2-2007 by Rosco Bodine]
|
|
|
Sauron
International Hazard
Posts: 5351
Registered: 22-12-2006
Location: Barad-Dur, Mordor
Member Is Offline
Mood: metastable
|
|
I prefer Rolfing the ratios.
Out here we hire a Chinese feng shui shaman to see whether the patent lies on the dragon's neck (not good! litigation coming!)
Or I Ching random-access memory to the Infinite.
Most of the time you could think of patents as an early example of applied Chaos Theory.
I am working on a manuscript, "The Tao of Chemical Patent Law." Soon to Be published by Hubris Press.
So you see, @Hilski, it really wasn't a dumb question at all. Help yourself to an Attaboy.
|
|
|
unionised
International Hazard
Posts: 5102
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: UK
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
My guess is parts by weight because
1) I doubt that most lawyers think a mole is anything other than a burrow dwelling mammal and
2) they wouldn't like parts by volume because they change with temperature. Things are only allowed to change after there has been a court hearing to
decide if they are permitted to change and all the lawyers have been paid.
|
|
|
brig.Sabari
Harmless
Posts: 3
Registered: 11-2-2007
Location: Jerusalem
Member Is Offline
Mood: sufic
|
|
In doubt, if you need the patent, try it out. You may reduce all by 10, by100,etc...
Try it out, start from were you think is more likely. Work it out.Stuff the lawyer
.: Sanachie :.
|
|
|
Hilski
Hazard to Others
Posts: 197
Registered: 13-9-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Thanks for the replies. It's good to know that I wasn't missing something obvious that would have told me what I needed to know. And since I'm not
skilled in THE art, or any art for that matter, simple is the only route I can go. And I guess simple was correct this time. I already tried the
electrolytic process in the patent and it did work, but that still didn't necessarily mean I did it right. That's why I asked.
Thanks again.
\"They that can give up essential liberty
to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety. \"
- Benjamin Franklin
|
|
|
Hilski
Hazard to Others
Posts: 197
Registered: 13-9-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Just because I got the compound I was looking for in some concentration, didn't necessarily mean I used the reagents in the correct ratios to obtain
the maximum amounts of the end product in the highest concentrations.
\"They that can give up essential liberty
to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety. \"
- Benjamin Franklin
|
|
|
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
