Patent application number | Description | Published |
20080237278 | Dispensing valve with hydraulic hammer resistance - A fluid dispensing valve is provided with a peripheral mounting portion and a connecting sleeve connecting the peripheral mounting portion with a head which defines a dispensing orifice. The valve head includes a central inner surface portion that bulges axially inwardly to project from a radially outer surface portion. | 10-02-2008 |
20090188950 | Valve for decorative dispensing - A dispensing valve is provided for dispensing a fluid substance. The dispensing valve is pressure-responsive, and may be of a self-closing type, or define a central discharge aperture through which a substance being dispensed flows. A substance contact surface of the dispensing valve defines one or more projections and/or recesses which can cooperate with the substance being dispensed to impart a contoured or shaped cross-sectional configuration to the substance. A decorative effect can thus desirably be achieved, enhancing the aesthetic appeal of the dispensed substance, such as a whipped dessert topping, toothpaste, foamed construction material, etc. | 07-30-2009 |
20090212078 | Valve mounting assembly with slit misalignment prevention feature - A mounting system is provided for mounting a valve for accommodating the flow of fluent a substance from a supply of the fluent substance wherein the valve includes a peripheral attachment portion, an intermediate portion extending from the peripheral attachment portion, and a flexible, resilient head that extends from the intermediate portion and that has (a) a first side, (b) a second side, (c) at least one self-sealing slit through the head, (d) a laterally marginal portion adjacent the intermediate portion, and (e) confronting, openable portions along the slit to define an initially closed orifice. The mounting system includes a retention structure for engaging holding the valve and includes an abutment structure. The abutment structure is adapted to be disposed adjacent the valve intermediate portion so that the abutment structure can be engaged by the valve head first side at the laterally marginal portion of the valve head to limit movement of the laterally margin portion of the valve head in one direction. | 08-27-2009 |
20100116371 | PORT CLOSURE SYSTEM WITH HYDRAULIC HAMMER RESISTANCE - A port closure system ( | 05-13-2010 |
Patent application number | Description | Published |
20110072985 | CUTTING DEVICE FOR LETTUCE AND OTHER FOOD - A food cutting device has a raised platform with both food preparation surfaces and an opening through the platform through which cuttings may be forced or dropped. Across the opening are stationary blades that preferably do not move during operation. Pivotally connected to the platform is at least one moving blade that is swung toward the opening to both cut the food and force the food to and past the stationary blades. The moving blade may be part of a pivotal jaw that is manually swung down on top of food placed on, or overhanging, the stationary blades and opening. The jaw provides leverage to the user swinging the jaw, and the combination of generally parallel stationary blades in the platform and the moving blade, perpendicular to the stationary blades, allows quick swings of the jaw in succession to cut or shred the food as desired. A container may be provided underneath the platform to catch the cuttings. By cutting the food into the opening, by means of the stationary and moving blades, or sliding cut food from the food preparation surfaces to the opening, the user need not grasp cut food to transfer it to a strainer or bowl. The food preparation surfaces may be integral top surfaces of the platform and/or may include a removable cutting board(s). | 03-31-2011 |
20130037012 | TOY FOR FLINGING MISSILE OR OTHER PROJECTILE - A hand-held flinging device includes a launcher that engages the projectile and improves control of the launcher and projectile, during a throwing/flinging motion, until centrifugal force causes disengagement of the projectile from the launcher. The engagement system involves the rearward portions of a launcher shaft and the projectile bore, so that, upon disengagement, frictional engagement and interference of the engagement system with the projectile is prevented or limited as the projectile moves forward to fly off the launcher. The engagement system may include a member that snaps into engagement with a hole or recess to hold the projectile on the launcher even through the wind-up portion of the throw that may include the launcher distal end being pointed downward. The preferred projectile covers the entire or nearly the entire launcher shaft distal of the hand grip and is heavier toward its front end. Even though the launcher does not have a shaft or “stick” that is long relative to the projectile length, the flinging device gives enough mechanical advantage that a projectile that is large and heavy compared to conventional foam darts can be flung a long distance with accuracy and consistency. | 02-14-2013 |
20140141138 | Dehydrated Vegetable Food Product and Methods of Making the Same - A vegetable food product and a method of making a dehydrated vegetable food product are provided. A quantity of vegetables is cut to a predetermined size. The quantity of cut vegetables is cooked. The quantity of cut vegetables has surface moisture removed. A flavoring material is imparted into the quantity of vegetables. The quantity of cut vegetables is substantially dehydrated, wherein each of the cut vegetables has a jerky-like texture, whereby shearing through the jerky-like texture requires a force of at least 30 N until a 95% strain is achieved utilizing a TA-HD Plus Texture Analyzer Device. The quantity of vegetable may include a quantity of potatoes. | 05-22-2014 |
Patent application number | Description | Published |
20080254436 | Selection Of A Consensus From A Plurality Of Ideas - A method of forming a consensus from a collection of ideas is disclosed. The ideas may be generated by a collection of participants, or may be provided to the collection of participants. The ideas are divided into non-exclusive groups for evaluation, with each group being provided to a participant for voting. Each participant chooses a favorite idea from the group, or selects a first and second choice, or a first, second and third choice. The votes are tallied, and for each idea a “win percentage” is calculated, which is defined as the ratio of the number of groups in which a particular idea wins the voting, divided by the number of groups in which a particular idea appears. Each idea that has a “win percentage” that exceeds a particular threshold is passed on to one or more subsequent rounds of voting. If desired, the voting may continue until a single idea is chosen as the consensus. In some rounds of voting, the groups are configured so that a participant does not vote on his/her own idea. In the first round of voting, the groups are configured so that no two ideas compete against each other more than once. A formulaic template is provided for generation of the groups, based on the number of ideas, the number of participants, and the number of ideas per group. In some embodiments, the template and number of ideas per group may be formulated using the sequence of integers known as the Mian-Chowla sequence. | 10-16-2008 |
20090239205 | System And Method For Algorithmic Selection Of A Consensus From A Plurality Of Ideas - A system and method for algorithmic selection of a consensus from a collection of ideas is disclosed. A group of ideas is provided to a group of participants for voting. Voting may occur in a single round or in several successive rounds, optionally until a consensus idea is chosen. Typically, the votes that are cast use discrete levels, such as “approve”, “disapprove”, “positive”, “neutral” or “negative”. For ideas that receive the same votes, a differentiator may be the time spent casting the vote. A relatively long evaluation time may signal some internal conflict in the mind of the participant, when compared with a relatively short evaluation time, which may signal no such conflict. The evaluation time may be combined with the rating of the participant to form a weighted rating. Consequently, a short evaluation time of a positive rating may yield a more positive weighted rating, while a short evaluation time of a negative rating may yield a more negative weighted rating. | 09-24-2009 |
20120017591 | SIMULTANEOUS PRODUCTION OF ELECTRICAL POWER AND POTABLE WATER - Biomass or refuse-derived fuels ( | 01-26-2012 |
20120021123 | PROCESS TO SEQUESTER CARBON, MERCURY, AND OTHER CHEMICALS - Biomass is devolatilized to produce both a combustible fuel (syngas) and activated carbon. The activated carbon is used as an adsorbent to capture a contaminant, such as mercury, and stored in a landfill, is impregnated with components with inherent fertilizer properties and tilled into arable land, is used along with coal in an electric power generation facility, or is used to remove mercury or other heavy metals from the flue gas of a coal fired power generation station prior to being stored so as to sequester both carbon and the heavy metal. Thus, both the carbon and the adsorbed mercury or other chemical are sequestered. | 01-26-2012 |
20130060605 | Selection Of A Consensus From A Plurality Of Ideas - A method of forming a consensus from a collection of ideas is disclosed. The ideas are divided into non-exclusive groups for evaluation, with each group being provided to a participant for voting. The votes are tallied, and for each idea a “win percentage” is calculated, which is defined as the ratio of the number of groups in which a particular idea wins the voting, divided by the number of groups in which a particular idea appears. Each idea that has a “win percentage” that exceeds a particular threshold is passed on to one or more subsequent rounds of voting. In the first round of voting, the groups are configured so that no two ideas compete against each other more than once. | 03-07-2013 |
20130302778 | System And Method For Algorithmic Selection Of A Consensus From A Plurality Of Ideas - A system and method for algorithmic selection of a consensus from a collection of ideas is disclosed. A group of ideas is provided to a group of participants for voting. Voting may occur in a single round or in several successive rounds, optionally until a consensus idea is chosen. Typically, the votes that are cast use discrete levels, such as “approve”, “disapprove”, “positive”, “neutral” or “negative”. For ideas that receive the same votes, a differentiator may be the time spent casting the vote. A relatively long evaluation time may signal some internal conflict in the mind of the participant, when compared with a relatively short evaluation time, which may signal no such conflict. The evaluation time may be combined with the rating of the participant to form a weighted rating. Consequently, a short evaluation time of a positive rating may yield a more positive weighted rating, while a short evaluation time of a negative rating may yield a more negative weighted rating. | 11-14-2013 |
20140162241 | DETERMINING CROWD CONSENSUS - Among other things, participants who belong to a crowd of participants can provide indications of relative values of ideas that belong to a body of ideas. A rank ordering according to the relative values of at least some of the ideas of the body is derived based on the indications provided by the participants. The participants can provide the indications in two or more rounds. Each of at least some of the participants provide the indications with respect to fewer than all of the ideas in the body in each of the rounds. Between each of at least one pair of successive rounds, the set of ideas is updated to reduce the role of some of the ideas in the next round. | 06-12-2014 |
20150046538 | System And Method For Algorithmic Selection Of A Consensus From A Plurality Of Ideas - A system and method for algorithmic selection of a consensus from a collection of ideas is disclosed. A group of ideas is provided to a group of participants for voting. Voting may occur in a single round or in several successive rounds, optionally until a consensus idea is chosen. Typically, the votes that are cast use discrete levels, such as “approve”, “disapprove”, “positive”, “neutral” or “negative”. For ideas that receive the same votes, a differentiator may be the time spent casting the vote. A relatively long evaluation time may signal some internal conflict in the mind of the participant, when compared with a relatively short evaluation time, which may signal no such conflict. The evaluation time may be combined with the rating of the participant to form a weighted rating. Consequently, a short evaluation time of a positive rating may yield a more positive weighted rating, while a short evaluation time of a negative rating may yield a more negative weighted rating. | 02-12-2015 |
20150310687 | Synchronous and Asynchronous Electronic Voting Terminal System and Network - Among other things, participants who belong to a group/crowd or group of participants can provide indications of relative values of ideas that belong to a body of ideas. A rank ordering according to the relative values of at least some of the ideas of the body is derived based on the indications provided by the participants. The participants can provide the indications in two or more rounds. Each of at least some of the participants provide the indications with respect to fewer than all of the ideas in the body in each of the rounds. Between each of at least one pair of successive rounds, the set of ideas is updated to reduce the role of some of the ideas in the next round. Voting can by synchronous, i.e. more or less simultaneously, or asynchronous, i.e. where voting occurs as groups of voters are reaching a critical mass (min number) to allow distribution of ideas groups. | 10-29-2015 |