Synergistic Red Fuse ...

wolf_garcia:

Jay23…unlike fuses, most component bits like the caps, resistors, transformers, tubes, etc., matched or otherwise, obviously all have plenty to do with the tone and performance of gear, and measurement isn't what I'm "harping" about anyway…it's simply that in the face of preposterous claims of tonal efficacy I would think somebody, perhaps the manufacturer of a product, could explain why and how a fuse would perform so many tasks that logic (and my previous fuse test) would indicate it couldn't. Carpal Tunneling (uh…make that Quantum tunneling), carping at me, eating carp, buying into SR's "fog of nonsense" when describing their pseudo esoteric methods of filling fuses with fudge or carbon or dog meat, all add up to not so much…a fuse is still simply a fuse, even if it "absorbs" the vibration of the cash in your pocket.

You just want to have your cake and eat it too. 🙄 Like that desire, you are fully illogical. All of these items can be in the power supply. If fuses do not affect performance, why do people bypass them or make use of circuit breakers? Manufacturers have measured the differences. But again, you don't care about measurements...only things you can't comprehend.

Only idiots bypass fuses, risking fire and life, thinking the sound will be bettered by doing so.

Cheers George  

Joe (Jafreeman), thank you for the witty and gracious response. I hope my suggestion proves to be helpful.

Jay23, since your last three responses to my posts have been largely devoid of anything substantive, I have little in the way of further comments. However, as best as I can surmise the key to what you may not be realizing could be reflected in your statement a few posts ago that:

A patent need not discuss every usage and effect.

A patent has no applicability to, and provides no protection against, uses and applications of something that is covered by the patent that do not fall within the scope of its claims. To conjure up a hypothetical example, if someone patents an additive to the rubber that is used in automobile tires, and the stated claims apply only to that usage, and someone else subsequently discovers that the same substance is useful as an additive to carpenter’s putty, that someone else is free to market the substance for that purpose. In fact he is even free to patent its use for that purpose, assuming usage for that purpose meets the requirements any patent must meet (i.e., its usage for that purpose must be new, useful, and non-obvious to someone reasonably skilled in the particular art).

That kind of situation, involving patents for new applications of previously patented substances or methods, occurs very commonly.

Similarly, use of Mr. Denney’s patented acoustic paint for purposes that do not fall within the scope of the claims in the patent, such as for treating fuses, is not protected by that patent, and that patent has no relevance to such usage.

Regards,
-- Al

Jay23, since your last three responses to my posts have been largely devoid of anything substantive, I have little in the way of further comments. However, as best as I can surmise the key to what you may not be realizing could be reflected in your statement a few posts ago that:
A patent need not discuss every usage and effect.
A patent has no applicability to, and provides no protection against, uses and applications of something that is covered by the patent that do not fall within the scope of its claims. To conjure up a hypothetical example, if someone patents an additive to the rubber that is used in automobile tires, and the stated claims apply only to that usage, and someone else subsequently discovers that the same substance is useful as an additive to carpenter’s putty, that someone else is free to market the substance for that purpose. In fact he is even free to patent its use for that purpose, assuming usage for that purpose meets the requirements any patent must meet (i.e., its usage for that purpose must be new, useful, and non-obvious to someone reasonably skilled in the particular art).

That kind of situation, involving patents for new applications of previously patented substances or methods, occurs very commonly.

Similarly, use of Mr. Denney’s patented acoustic paint for purposes that do not fall within the scope of the claims in the patent, such as for treating fuses, is not protected by that patent, and that patent has no relevance to such usage.

Regards,
-- Al

If you figure out the truth, you will realize how substantive they are. You are looking at this from the perspective of a patent lawyer. Look at it from a marketing perspective. 😉 That will be my last hint. Hopefully someone has had that "ah hah" moment regarding the patent, paint, and UEF Technology.