Fittings are like a**holes. But I was referring to the patent process.
David
On Sep 29, 2018, at 10:48 PM, Lars Osborne <lars.osborne@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
David,
I had gotten the impression from this list and other sources that Swagelok
was 'not good' for flight systems (but excellent for ground). I believe the
stated reasoning is because they are not as resistant against vibration
compared to AN and 'flareless' tube fittings.
Any differing opinions?
Thanks,
Lars Osborne
On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 9:39 PM David Gregory <david.c.gregory@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Wait it’s good or not good? I’m confused.
On Sep 27, 2018, at 11:44 PM, Ben Brockert <wikkit@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Sorry, forgot the AR part: the Rocketmoonlighting blog is 3 of the 11
non-patent citations from the examiner. So showing your ideas in an
accessible blog can directly impact the patent process as prior art,
which is good to hear.
On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 10:40 PM Ben Brockert <wikkit@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
https://patents.google.com/patent/US10072612B2/
Garv and co. patented the idea of printing tubs stubs onto a
particular kind of rocket injector. The claims are fairly long, it
must have been a hard fought one. Congrats to them on the grant.
Also a lot of text about propylene in there.