Home Page

Over 20,000 hours of work was invested into a large collection of Microsoft Excel spreadsheets, during a 15 year period with Acutran, a small Pittsburgh area transformer manufacturing company, followed by 10 years of consulting, refinement and innovation has resulted in a proven way to design dry type transformers that can be trusted. The author worked hard every night and on week-ends, and would then take them to work and use them to satisfy inquiries for custom transformers.

Not many people need to know how to design dry type transformers because most of them have become obsolete because technology has passed them by. The epoxy encapsulated, “Cast Coil” transformer is capturing a larger and larger percentage of the world production and improvements in electric consumption have made the need for most transformers a flat market.

The smaller dry types, 250 KVA and below, continue to survive but the introduction of ”MetGlas” and other brands of amorphous magnetic materials with low , 24/7 hour losses are growing fast. And, that will have a big impact as replacements for the old antiques are needed. The smaller “Throw-Away Aluminum” transformers suffer from a low price that never seems to be profitable for the manufacturer.

Therefore, a transformer design that uses the good low loss magnetic material and, at the same time, allows for a reduction of the core material, will need to have a design method that is not creating the antique dry types that the world now has. For example, TV2PlusPatPend.xls is a 474 KiloByte spread sheet that suggests the new “MetGlas” designs using only 7 specified input values and the all the rest is done except the details of a winding sheet, one shown, that always needs human intervention to avoid failures. A winding sheet can be attached and other files like TriRiseV4.xls , 686 KiloBytes, has a winding sheet that is easily copied and pasted in place, with care, and a thorough study that is the winding that will stay out of trouble.

An unusual file, TririseV6Dictionary.xls , 129 KiloBytes, is a well worked-out “active” dictionary that uses the hard won excel calculating cells to produce the various results with shortened names in English and the Spelled Out Name next to it along with the formula and results of the calculation as well. Because of the work invested in naming the cells and the scientific truth behind each calculation, the Copyright Laws are applicable to the design process which produces real world transformers that behave exactly as the designs are intended.

The 4^th file, worth describing here, is named TriRiseV17Skew.xls 2,282 KiloBytes, is a recent addition to the family that does not calculate a conventional 2 window core as the starting point, but rather, produces a 3-window, stacked, “Skew Core” and shows many variations of the 3-window that can be used to understand what can be done with the basic idea. Only the yokes are “Skewed” chunks. The legs are shown as chunks. There are over 60 inputs with the results of the entire design nearby to show the effect on the entire design that changing any input sell will cause. The 3-window core needs to be accepted by America as a way to catch-up to Europe and the East who have been diligent and forceful in implementing “Cast Coils” and novel ideas like the “HexaCore”.

America is staying with old, antique designs in both the dry type market and the Oil filled Market as well. Also, the rest of the world accepts the use of Amorphous core material as something that must be done as a matter of policy while Americans sit here with old factories filled with old designs that force a buyer to stay with the old designs on paper. The buyers at the factory and their engineers use the old design to prove that nothing is going to be changed because they can sell what they have to a flat market place that does not seek improvements because what is in inventory is what is the easiest to get.

The American D.O.E. has always avoided transformer innovation just like they avoided L.E.D. Lights over all the years. There was a time when America was the leading electrical innovator and now we have become a stale system that is alive with a country filled with old transformers ready to fail, a bunch of dangerous Nuclear reactors producing Horrible Nuclear Waste and hundreds of factories across the country left over by the investments in other places that are filled with the dumb old paperwork that was shipped with the re-located equipment. Even though the “the technology” that all the re-located plants are using make them obsolete. They are destined for the same lack-luster status as Acme, the innovator of “throw away transformers” that really can not be repaired.

The ideas that TriRiseV17Skew.xls presents, along with the other 3 spreadsheets mentioned, can change all that. And, they can return America to a leading position in the building and use of transformers that can be repaired, that make very little noise, that have extremely low core losses and have very smooth balanced operation.

All four files, in Microsoft Excel sheets, can be obtained for the sum of only $ 99.99 sent to R. J. Gramm at zip code 15229 via Western Union. Mr. Gramm will e-mail the files within 3 weeks.

Three Phase Transformers with WOUND CORES, Designs with round coils not shown.:

:Cut and Stacked cores can also be made using the same basic Idea because a patent can not be obtained from the USPTO. See Below about that under USPTO-Broken.

The solution to the conflict is to offer Copyright Protected software to design the transformers and there-by set up a 50 year protection life for the ideas authorized by an up-front fee of $ 99.99 and a filled out information form included from this site below to buy the 4 basic files that so much work has produced.

Mr Gramm became dis-illusioned with the Patent Office as the result of a 3 YEAR struggle to get the patent issued with the final act being one of deceit by the examiner and his supervisor which is described in the 'BROKEN" web site. The final straw was the discovery of a 9 YEAR Application Process by the USPTO against Nathasingh who finally got his patent issued ( 7,057,489 ) on 5/6/2006 with a filing date of 7/21/1997. None the less, Gramm applied again (Application US 12/221,443) which is certain to encounter difficulty because of the Anti USPTO profile of the "broken" web site. Not to worry, the use of the Copyright system with a 50 year protection is far superior to the Patent system because the patent protection is a scant 17 years and inventor Gramm has already wasted almost 4 years of the 17 in a futile attempt to fix the USPTO. The USPTO is nothing more than 7 million generally bad ideas that have never been used and /or already obsolete and expired.

If you have a lot of money, hire some attorneys to clean the clock of the USPTO and Gramm will be happy to split with you 50/50. The last contact with the USPTO was a faxed and e-mailed request dated 9/26/2008 to ebs@uspto.gov relative to [thread ID:1-22eamz] and the subsequent application US 12/221,433 which has not been answered as of 12/04/08. This kind of activity borders on being a Felony (over $ 100.00) action by the USPTO who had not responding to a valid question and simply ignoring the request and causing the abandonment(?) of that application made in accordance of commonly accepted business rules. Inventor Gramm is not bitter, he is simply an observer of how bad the people who work at the USPTO are after examining how much trouble he had experienced with his first 3 patents. Having Copyright Protected software that calculates and presents with drawings the exact solution and method for designing these revolutuonary transformers is the right thing to do and now the project becomes one of working out individual agreements with prospective licensees in a co-operative and proprietary manner.

Cores using cruciform chunk style legs with top & bottom ring cores is a good possibility.

www.3-windows.com was waiting for a patent number but is no longer a stand alone site and is attached to the bottom of this file and all of it is for sale at the earliest opportunity r.j.g. 10/26/09.

On this day, 7/11/2008, An inventor awaits word from the USPTO that his 2^nd application for a patent has been accepted and entered into the examination system. The application entitled “Three Window Transformer or Inductor”, filed via fax on 7/9/08 along with information on a credit card to pay the application fee ($105.00), was hastily prepared because the date for the abandonment of the first application (10/907,837) was up coming on 7/15/08 and there was no time to get to work on it during the 90 day period since final rejection because the USPTO sat on their response for more than 70 days. Instead of filing for an extension of time ($60.00) for 30 days to work through what to do on a solution for a final rejection, appeals to a 3 judge panel, ect, ect, he decided to file an all new much shorter, clean presentation of the application rather than allow the USPTO to bog him down in another futile project. He had already spent over 3 years in his fight to get the patent issued.

The USPTO has problems, lots of them. They usually deal with lawyers and that certainly means problems even if the USPTO has the laws on their side. They are empowered by the Constitution and the Congress of the United States. They operate using “Rules” that they constantly change to improve things. They use a long list of “Forms” that allows mindless bureaucrats to operate the system of rules. In all the years of existence, they have done everything in their power to improve the way applications are handled and keep track of an exponentially increasing number of applications because of the many smart and creative people in America. They are just about ready to grab hold of the computer based “E-Filing” that gets out of date faster than they can install the software. But, they will always suffer from legalese sleaze who will have a ready made counter-form to cope with and cancel out any form the USPTO can come up with.

There are some things that no number of forms and rules can cope with and they are deceit and/or incompetence. In the present example where the inventor was at loggerheads with the examiner for a 3 year period, the inventor got some HELP from the examiners boss and that was to get rid of reference to the drawings in the claims and change the claims using the words as follows: (currently amended), before each claim and submitting the revised application in the response to the office action.

The result was a disaster with an immediate FINAL rejection and the use of a new grounds for rejection based on an old 3-window attempt totally unlike the invention at hand. The “help” suggested by the examiners boss was the ultimate poison pill. Both the examiner and his boss (who was happy to counter sign the rejection and the Final Action) got rid of another application to add to the group’s performance. That will teach that guy to mess around with us! (The inventor had complained to the commissioner in a long letter earlier on in the 3 years because of the long delays between when a response to an office action was made and when the examiner responded)

This inventor is happy to tell the story and put it on a web site so that people who want to tell America about their wonderful ideas will not have to put up with the kind of treatment that this inventor received.

The USPTO is BROKEN and it needs to be fixed as soon as possible. There needs to be an enlightened, secure, quick and thorough response system manned by responsible people (who are not lawyers) that works as fast as a phone call but does not cast in bronze every word transmitted. The examiner should work quickly and completely with as many (non-adversarial) contacts as are required to treat the inventor as a partner in the construction of a good patent that America needs as soon as possible.

The USPTO must ABANDON the use of “anticipated by” a previous inventor and the word for word use of the inventors claims as being used by a previous inventor as the basis of rejecting a claim. Inventor Gramm hopes that this practice was only used in his case by an incompetent inventor (Baisa) and that it is not a standard technique in use. This inventor hopes that when a supervisory examiner (Enad) helps an inventor, he will stand behind the inventor when unforeseen consequences arise from the work of the examiner.

After dealing with Transformers for almost 50 years, inventor R.J.Gramm, at age 71 decided to apply for a patent after spending 20 years working on transformer design spreadsheets for all kinds of transformers. After he retired from designing transformers he got beat down on his first try for a 3-window design which was technically sophisticated but not very practical because it was too much of a departure from the existing practice and the examiner was too skilled in winning. All the examiners are skilled fighters because they have to deal with lawyers all the time. They work with an adversary outlook because that is what all lawyers expect. And, the examiner literally resisted all the claims Gramm wrote. He was $500.00 poorer and 2 years older as a result of the negative experience.

Then, bless his soul, he figured out a way to do it that was simple, reliable and easily accomplished by the transformer manufacturers actually using their existing coils that are in production as a first step, and then, with some engineering activity to cost reduce the 3-window units one step at a time. Then, he made the mistake of calculating the value of the core steel reductions that could be realized as the result of a 25%, and more, savings. It came out to be at least $20 Billion Dollars worldwide and he was hooked. Worse than that, the USPTO had developed a CD that allows the use of Microsoft word documents. The CD prepares a well understood set of pages that follow all the rules that the people inside the beltway need to deal with all 7 million patents in existence as well as the new ones. Also, on line, one can pay with a credit card, so he took the plunge.

This one, being his 4^th patent, was sure to be a simple project because the ideas were simple, the application process was simple and self checking with instructions and he had previously bought printed copies of some 120 patents several years earlier that covered all the U S patents ever issued. He could afford three claims and they were studied over and over to keep the number of words at the bare minimum. He also made simple drawings so that each drawing only addresses one item to be referred to because getting words on drawings is clumsy computer stuff that is time consuming. Complicated drawings, with a lot of items, are the fuel that examiners need to kill your project anyway and should be avoided. He followed the CD instructions and composed the various pages as he went along and Bingo, press the SEND button and he was DONE.

Wow, he got an acknowledgement that the application was made with a reference number and a time and date proof of submission. The Date was 4/18/05. It was a good spring day and the sun was shining. The stars were in alignment and now he could start on a web site that would tell the world that the future is going to be better. He was not afraid of something that sounds too good to be true. No good deed shall go unpunished And, the road to hell is paved good intentions. It took a over a year and a half to build and publish the web site.

You guessed it. He had just embarked on the rocky road to disaster. The USPTO had devised a way to kill any possible patent application and reject all claims with a few simple words and actions that would allow the rejection of essentially everything and not have to work on it any more but keep the money. They get a lot of applications and have never been smart enough to hire enough examiners to process them and it results in an 18 month delay on the acceptance or rejection of a patent. They needed a new way to deal with all these people.

The first part of new way is to use the word “anticipated” as the way to reduce any idea to a pile of rubble. Looking up “anticipated” in the Webster New world Dictionary, 1951, 1952, 1953, 1957 yielded the following:

Anticipate: Exactly-the perfect, elusive, multiple meaning word that will dumbfound Attorneys and Inventors.

2. to make happen earlier than due; as, don’t anticipate calamity by refusing to prepare for it.

4. to forsee (a command, wish, etc.) and perform in advance; as the servant anticipated his masters request.

The second part of the new way is to copy the inventor’s claims and precede them with “Jones Discloses” followed with the inventors claims with minor insertions of the Jones drawing references ect.

Inventor Gramm says, “I never anticipated that the USPTO could be so evil and twisted”. It is un-American.

Three Window Skewed Core Transformer or Inductive Device----- Application date 04/18/05

The last 3 years have been difficult for me because in your response you have used the words in my claims to defeat my claims by saying that another inventor used the exact words in his invention. I was not kidding when I said it was deceitful on your part to reject my claims in that manner. It may even be illegal for such a thing to be used because I am convinced that in America the TRUTH is important. It is a LIE for you to say “Mayberry Discloses” followed by my words. You state that my pointing out the differences between Mayberry and my claims are not a convincing argument. I say in response that your repeating the same lies 4 times in a row is 4 times more deceitful and untruthful 4 fold as well. It is certainly not a very persuasive argument that you use.

I took the advice of your supervisor Elvin Enad and removed reference to my drawings in my claims. Talk about bad advice? Gosh. So, therefore, I have no choice but to fight it out again with my claims un-changed with the references to the drawings exactly as shown the last time around. You must surely realize that this is a Billion Dollar decision on my part. I am sure that TRUTH will win. I have copied my claims 1 and 3 into this letter so that there is no questions as to exactly what they are. Plagiarizing my claims is an unfair practice.

Making my application “Special” was obviously of no benefit to me because it took many months for a response (your usual response times for all previous office actions) and now I have a FINAL office action on my desk. The Billion Dollars might already be gone because I don’t know what “final” means to your system.

So, on claim 1, putting the drawing references back in makes sense because it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to look at Figure 1, 2 and 3; read claim 1 and understand that a common wound core loop is all that one needs (which only has one sheet width) and the skewing of all the single width sheets is the ONLY way to get the herringbone shape! That does the trick to get a good 3 window transformer with a herringbone cross section. And my claim as presented has always said that. You keep saying that calling out single sheet width is not in the claim and I keep saying a common wound core loop as shown in the drawings only has one sheet width and everybody else knows it but you. I know that you, or any examiner, would not allow any addition to a claim like that. Right? Advise, and put single sheet width (or tell me exactly where to insert it if it is allowable). So, the comparison page for Clain1 will show what the claim is and immediately underneath will what you asy Mayberry says. Followed by what Mayberry Actually Discloses.

You did not look at Mayberry very closely because you earlier used “anticipated” and my word “skewed” to mean the POSITIONING of the various sections of multiple narrow strip width sections built up into layers (like a coil winding exercise) of wound sections. The positioning has nothing to do with skewing as referred to in the present invention where individual sheets are slid back from the front edge of the common wound core loop. I think that your use of “anticipated” is not a persuasive statement. When Mayberry positions his foolish and impractical sections in the outward direction from the center he makes the mean turn of the outermost sections too long and is counter productive to reducing core material content. That is why there is no mention of a core weight savings or a reduction of 3^rd harmonics. You know what? His result is a round coil device and I think that a rectangular cross section is superior for most distribution size transformers where the most volume will be used. I can’t visualize how to use Mayberry to make a gadget with a rectangular cross section. Mayberry is so far removed that, that it makes you look bad as an examiner. I know that you have an endless supply in the government players that will win in any action I try to take against you so, if this doesn’t do it, I have no idea what to do.

I know this, NOBODY has EVER found a way of reducing magnetic core content by 25% and more as my application has shown and NOBODY has disclosed a Claim like My Claim One and that is a Fact. People who will view my claim will realize that they can simply stop making the large outer loop and make 3 identical indide loops, reduce the core losses, save some money and get improve the performance. If you and Elvin Enad can not agree with that, America will loose an important idea with a 17 year life. Trying to give Maberry some life after all these years with an unmake able white elephant and plagiarizing my Claim 1 in place of Mayberry’s words. is the highest level of unfair activity possible It is time to issue the patent as soon as I present my case for Claim 3 which also has reference to the drawing items added back into the claim.

CC; Elvin Enad, Look what you did to me! Never try to help a guy out. It is not the USPTO way.

So, on Claim 3, I have added back the reference to Figure 9 which shows three independent stacked loops in a customary cut and stack arrangement. The drawing negates Somerville which has 5 Step cruciform legs extending toward the middle so that the various 5 sections meet and are somehow fooled with to complete the magnetic circuit. The examiner again uses (plagiarizes) my basic claim words and precedes them with “Somerville Discloses” which he does not. The use of “Skewed” is used in the phony Somerville claim when in fact there is no skewing involved. The present invention saves material as described in the specification as being a stacked substitute for the wound loops and lowers 3^rd harmonics which Somerville does not because there are not 3 independent core loops there are only Three 5 step cruciform legs bent at the ends and quite complicated as to completing the magnetic circuit. It is a moot phony claim when my Drawing item number is part of my claim as it always was until Elvin Enad suggested that I omit the drawing references. The reason it is moot is that “one picture is worth a thousand words” and the 2 pictures differ drastically so much so that the use of my words (with added drawing numbers and words by the examiner that are not from Somerville) removes the fact that my sheets are 90 degrees disposed from Somerville in both the leg elements as well as the yoke pieces. One can hold up the Figure 9 from the present invention next to the Somerville drawing (with information added to the drawing that is not in the Somerville patent) and ask: are there 3 independent cut and stacked loops that have yoke elements that are ½ the core leg area? And the answer is NO. Does Somerville look like Gramm’s drawing 9?, NO) Are there any Patents that look like Somerville?, Yes. Burkhardt, 3,195090 7/13/1965 looks like Somerville and how come Burkhardt was allowed to be issued when clearly it was “anticipated” by Somerville?

The plagiarizing kind of playing around with the facts on a patent application with a Billion Dollar impact on this inventor’s family is fraudulent activity and gets away from the power of the examiner to honestly say things the way they are rather than going into criminal activity. The examiner is all powerful as it is so why go over the line of fair play? You guys may have some sort of a cultural methodology where you do this kind of stuff to “make it more clear” what you mean. But, when you essentially change what the cited patent actually says and add words that the cited inventor did not use, you are on the slippery slope to fraud. So much for Somerville.

The addition of the name of the drawing in Claim 3 brings us back to the conflict in all previous actions where you plagiarize my claim 3 by writing that “Corbino Discloses” followed by my Claim 3 wording. On the Claim 3 page, my claim is shown first followed by your Myopic version and then followed by what Corbino actually says, which is not very much.

This applicant is totally disillusioned by your sending this action out without letting me know that the action is “FINAL” and having Elvin Enad Sign off on it as being approved under his signature (I see no actual signature and a date stamp as in previous actions.) when he knows he talked me out of keeping my drawing numbers in the claims. Would you care to guess what I think you will do next instead of issuing my patent?

Anyhow, in my earlier response to your adding Corbino into the game, I mentioned it was an old incomplete situation because one can not tell when looking at Figure 1 what the structure was. And the core structure is not mentioned in the claims. There are 2 choices. The first is the use of 2 “L”-“I” laminations with one bend facing each other and the gap between pieces providing the 2 additional bends when 2 of the L-I are assembled together facing each other. The 2^nd option is a two bend “U’-”I” facing downward when looking at Figure 1 (3) or (2). An ”I” is at the bottom with no bends and the gap at both ends provide the 2 additional bends necessary.

Both of the choices are big generators of scrap when manufacturing and are not acceptable in today’s system of using Grain Oriented material because the yoke sections are 90 degrees out of alignment with the crystals in the legs in the case of the L-I choice. The U-I down has the same problem and much more scrap of the area inside the U.

In contrast, My use of the modern method of using grain oriented material in a butt and lap, cut and stack configuration with 1 bend yokes pieces, 2 bend yoke pieces or with one bend yoke pieces with a large radius (which removes the need to anneal after bending) is far superior, and actually necessary, in today’s market. When you use my description as to what my claim is and state that “Corbino Discloses” followed by my words it is fraud. It is not true. It is a lie. It is misleading to the supervisory personnel and the managers who have no time to actually pull up the old patents. My “Claim 3 Page” will set the record straight and I demand that you do not use your prostituted method to Deny America and the World of the beauty of my ideas.

Here is my claim copied from the Application with drawings as a separate file on the CD.

The world has not seen either claim because I have requested a non publishable application as explained on the last page.

The examiner then rejects my Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.102(b) as being anticipated by Mayberry,[2402,952].

He then writes “Mayberry discloses system of three wound magnetic cores A,B,C positioned in an equilateral triangle arrangement such that the innermost sheets are telescoped (skewed) at a 30 degree with the plane of the front surface so that a nearly rectangular (herringbone) cross sectional area results for the two vertical leg portions of the cores that are adjacent to each other thereby allowing the placement of three identical coils of skewed legs to create a fully balanced three-phase electromagnetic device.

All of the words in bold are the exact words from my claim! The examiner has plagiarized (stolen) my words which I carefully constructed as I looked at a telescoped wound core comprised of full width sheets of core steel which are easily telescoped by hand to make the desired herringbone shapes.

If Mayberry had actually done this the world would be a much better place today. With a lot of power saving, 3-window transformers.

Here is what Mayberry actually discloses as I informed the Commissioner on a CD that I sent to him.

Here is what I sent back to him as part of the final version of the prior art section of application 10/907,837 :

[A recently discovery (by the examiner), Revealed Mayberry, U.S. 2,401,952 which discloses ” Three circular conducting winding assemblies having circular windows” using cores with a “plurality of closed sections” with each section consisting of narrow wound ribbons with a rectangular cross section and each section having different widths so as to present a semicircular profile for each of the core loops assemblies. The rectangular sections of different widths are skewed 30 degrees as seen from the top. This would require positioning and winding the various sections on top of the previous section using narrow ribbons in multiple layers much like winding an electrical coil. Each of these complicated assemblies would then be difficult to cut and positioned back to back to accommodate the circular coils. The present invention has only one section using a single wide strip with a parallelepiped cross section. Only the individual strips are “skewed” at the 30 degree angle and matched with the adjacent loop so that the “herring bone” cross section is revealed. This is so simple and elegant as to put the Mayberry multiple sections of many turns of narrow ribbon into the “difficult and impossible to build” folder. Claim 1 of the present invention, on the other hand, is very easy to accomplish by creating the skew profile with the palm of the hand or a rubber mallet to move the inside turns of a common wound core toward the middle of the 3 core arrangement.]

I have to conclude that Mr. Doll never got my CD and never made a decision to let this kind of stuff continue. r.j.g.

The same technique was used to reject Claim 3 where my words are immorally used to state what Corbino [2,616,070] disclosed.

Corbino Discloses ---------the exact words from my claim involving designs with and without bent yokes----

[U S 2,616,070, Corbino, 1952, entitled “Device for the Polyphase Transformation of the Frequency of Three-Phase Circuits”, Shows in Figure 2 what appears to be the use of “L” pieces (numbered 3 and 2 in Fig. 1) with a bend exactly at the vertical intersection of the leg portion and the yoke portion of each piece. Trying to reconstruct what Corbino meant is difficult at best because he is long gone. There is no mention of an “L” piece or that two L pieces are used facing each other when flipped top to bottom and the space between the one end of the yoke pieces being the second bend. An unskilled person looking at Figure 1 and Figure 2 could conclude that the Yoke pieces have a bend which is not the case. In addition, the number 3 piece is shown as a flat “U” piece and the number 1 leg piece is only vertical leg material with no bends. In his claims he refers only to ”single-phase cores” and “magnetic legs” mentioned but no information is given as to how to construct the cores. In the present invention, Claim 3 gives a complete description and states that “skewed and bent yokes can be used” as in Figure 9 and Figure 10. No bends are needed in Figure 7 or Figure 8.]

According to the methods of this examiner, essentially ALL of the 3-phase patents since 1952 could be anticipated by Corbino and would have been denied and the electrical grid would not be in existence.

NOW, In the present time, I have been forced to spend more time on this stuff while being under pressure in a FINAL action. As I mentioned earlier in this letter , Corbino’s way using what appear to be L’s and U’s needed to be up-graded by modern magnetic material with the Scrapless cut and stack method and with Grain Orientation in the strip direction which L’s and U’s can not accommodate. Corbino got an incomplete patent awarded and your’s truly is being dragged through the mud in an adversary relationship that the patent offices is forced to use because it is beneficial for fighting off a lot of lawyers.

I think that the Commissioner, because of a busy schedule (and too many applications and not enough examiners to ever reduce the backload) did not see the CD I sent to him. Further making my application “Special” did nothing mare than set my project back further. You have an irritated old guy that always wins and does things in a careful way at all times. You have a Tiger On Your Tail and don’t realize it.

The reason that I am in a non-Publish mode is because I needed time to work on my licensing system and work on a web site that will give world wide exposure with a minimum of exposure to the Patent and Invention Creeps who will steel you blind at every opportunity. I waited over a year before working on the web site and when it looked like I had disposed of your “Anticipated By” and your “Mayberry Discloses” stuff and the hated “Corbino Discloses” stuff, I started working on the web site and it is now open but non functional on the e-mail side because I wanted people to contact me at rongramm@msn.com .And I did not want to work on it any more until I had more digital pictures and a Licensee Information Package with a minimum of errors.

You (the USPTO) set me back at least 18 months by continuing to stick to the dark side and not really listening to what I had to say.

The web site www.3-windows.com has attracted a bunch of creeps, as I expected, and I have them on a list that will give them a tough time with me when I publish the Patent Claims and a Patent Number.

If you Guys and Gals can not come up with an Issued Patent considerably before the statutory 90 days (call it July 4^th 2008 ), I will copyright every word and picture in my patent file in the dated order and Publish it on my web site with the deal that any body who likes my idea and wants to patent it should contact me to remove the copyrights for their country , and file in there own country along with some improvements I have in mind.

It will also be a blogg to give Americans an idea of dealing with the USPTO and I think that it will get me some lawyers willing to work for some of the action.

The CD will go out during this coming week and I have mailed the electronic version to Donetta Alston for forwarding to Mr. Doll on 4/20/08.

This inventor thinks that you should double your staff with computer savvy examiners with individualized e-mail addresses and a large server for each one networked together for recording purposes and reduce your cycle time down to 9 months over all.

America can not stand what you are doing now and the sooner that creative people can get their stuff patented, the better it will be for everybody.

If you all can not see it to give me the patent I have worked so hard to think through, It will be bad for me, my family and for America.

The Patent application now follows and shows what my application says and which is a Revolutionary Idea. And, some jerks inside the beltway have played games with me to prove their superior position in the matter of writing and prosecuting patents.

[Para 1] Three independent cores positioned next to each other in a triangular manner, as seen from above, that produces three identical vertical core “Legs” that allows one or more insulated conductive windings to be placed around each of the three legs to produce the desired transformer or inductor. The independent cores can be wound cores with insulated electrical steel sheet or stacked cores with yoke and leg pieces of sheet (as commonly known as stacked cores) where two yoke pieces and two leg pieces are suitably assembled to produce each of the three independent cores. The vertical legs of the independent wound cores are then “Skewed” toward the middle of the triangular arrangement in order to minimize any wasted space inside the winding. In the case of the stacked cores, the yokes are “Skewed” by cutting increasingly long pieces as their position relative to the center of the triangle is increased. If desired, the yoke pieces can be bent to allow for high fill factor of the leg portions inside rectangular or round coils.

[Para 2] Prior Art: There are many kinds of inductors and transformers with a great variety of sizes and performance properties. In a conventional transformer, the magnetic circuit is thought of as being made with square or rectangular or cruciform cross-sectional legs that are encircled by spiral windings of conductor. Because the "transformer" is over 100 years old and hundreds of millions are in existence, the present invention discloses the novelty and benefits of a 3-window triangular, balanced, less costly, lighter and smaller transformer. Putting it another way, the Tri-Core concepts in the present invention is so simple, profound and elegant that the conventional transformer design can be said to be "Technically Incorrect" and "Seriously Flawed" to the point that a Three-Phase, Three-Core Device as described herein, WILL ALWAYS PERFORM BETTER, COST LESS AND HAVE about 25% LESS WEIGHT AND CORE LOSSES than an existing device with three legs designed by the conventional method. This inventor is delighted to disclose a new and not-obvious way of looking at transformers and is dumbfounded by the fact that no one has made the discoveries described in this invention over all the years that such devices have been designed and manufactured. The electrical apparatus industry and the world at large have are served well by three leg, three phase transformers such as that described in U.S. 771,238 issued in 1904 from J.J.Frank. U.S. 963,132 by Frank (G.E.) is a second attempt to cope with a Wye - Wye three phase device and unwanted circulating currents. The list of three phase, three leg patents is long with the most interesting being U.S. 5,331,303 Power transformer for Cycloconverters, Shiota, issued July 19, 1994. The Three Phase, three leg, two window core with "coils" and "windings" has a culture all of it's own and an inertia (a mind set) that is only occasionally examined for possible improvement.

D. S. Stephens in 3,395,373 (year 1968), for a "Three Phase Transformer Having Four Core Legs" had three windows but then puts a coil on each of the four legs, with two coils at leg voltage and two coils at 1/2 leg voltage.

G.C Wilburn, 3,504,318 shows a Four Leg Core with 2 small windows and one large window and 3 coils with two of the coils on outside legs.

T.R. Specht in 3,509,507 shows a Four Leg Core with 2 Large windows, one small window and 3 coils with one coil on an outside leg.

J. Jonas in 1,814,557 shows three windows but puts the coils on the yokes rather than the limbs. The Three Coil, Three limb, six window arrangement in U.S. 2,544,871 represents one example of how far a "coil thinker" can go with the concept of coils wound on core legs. The Six window, 12 coil, 6 central limb device in 4,156,897 (Vigh et al) represents a second example of the "coil" and "limb" mind set in it's extreme.

The most recent attempt in Hoglund, U.S. 6,809,620 foolishly interleaves loops from two different legs in a common leg portion in the first claim thereby destroying the technical honesty of the entire effort. The present invention proclaims that the essence of a 3-phase transformer is the existence of 3 independent cores (non-interleaved) that are located next to two other cores and that the conductors then connect the cores together when in operation as a transformer.

[US 4,588,971 Jean-Claude Beisser shows 3 wound loops intended for coils with round openings and suffers from the liability of having a different sheet width for each and every turn of the nagnetic material. Cutiously, each of the core loops have a round window and no straight leg portions and the “anular coil forms” with a semicircular sross sectional area that is an unrealistic complication. Sush an arrangement is certain to generate core material scrap and completely misses the beauty and simplicity of the three herring bone sross sectional profile of the present invention that uses a single strip width throughout and uses “normal” windings as would be found in common coils made today.]

The above examples are the only reasonably creative attempts at a fully symmetrical core and winding configuration out of some 130 transformer patents ever issued in the U.S. since the origin of transformers in 1893.

None of the efforts has identified the center tap of a transformer winding as a "Node" as present invention does in the definition of a transformer, and the present invention is the first device to produce the design of a Delta - Wye device WITHOUT a 30 degree phase shift in a fully coordinated and symmetrical manner. The clear recognition that the center tap is a node is fundamental to the understanding and operation of the many zig-zag transformers.

The present invention is the first to recognize the advantage to be gained with skewed cores suitably arranged with nodes at the middle of the three cores and reduced material content as well.

The present invention defines A CUTTING EDGE IN AN OLD INDUSTRY. This invention is highly significant because the three core means of construction (and an analysis method that results from the three windows being energized by single half turn segments) reveals many new electrical arrangements that can be made using these new phasors, which have specific and un-changing vector like characteristics that are usually relegated to full turns that do not consider the use of nodes.

Figure 1 Three identical wound cores (1) as seen in a top view are positioned as shown and the innermost turns of the formed, cut and annealed, core are free to be “telescoped” toward the center of the group of three cores until they are adjacent to the other two core sheets with the same relative position on each core.

The result is a core cross sectional area in the vertical section of the cores that have a nearly rectangular “herring bone” shape (2) around which the electrical coils will be positioned. The cores are said to be “skewed” toward each other so that they are still independent of each other and do not adversely affect the magnetic field in either of the two neighboring cores when in use. There is no “interleaving” that produces 3^rd harmonics.

With an insulating tube upon which the coils (3) are wound and the coils as well shown in the same cross sectional top view, it becomes clear that the coil windows are nearly filled with core material having round shaped coils facing toward the inside of the three window arrangement and rectangular shaped coils on the outside with a triangular shaped cooling duct which is also used to secure the top frame to the base with a suitable structural member.

When a round coil is desired, sheets of different widths and nested shapes(4) are wound, cut and annealed and handled as finished cores that fit inside each other and are then assembled with the same basic telescoping method except the complete core sections are skewed toward each of the two core neighbors of the same size and relative position on each of the three phases.

This method allows the use of nested “C” cores of varying widths and size and in the case of a six loop core for each phase as shown, three of the loops for each phase have the same cross sectional area, two(the inside loop and the 5^th loop from the middle) are also the same width and the outermost (6^th) loop is the smallest so that the fill factor for the area of the core inside the winding tube is on the order of 85% or more. Increasing the number of loops that are used can increase the fill-factor.

This view for each of the 3 phases and either step or skew cores as well is essentially the same and the placement of the cuts (5) is near the top of the core section so that the weight of the core pieces to be assembled into the top of the coils is minimized and so that the core legs can be secured to the neighboring core before installing the coils and the top of the cores.

The shape of the window with rounded or right angle corners, with any height or core build-up or core material is allowed if it will go together.

The idea applies to wound and annealed cores as well as stacked cores as shown in Figure 7 and Figure 8 and the requirement to wind and anneal are avoided with the stack core methods which only require the selection of the strip width and the length for each and every width specified.

In the case of bent yoke skewed pieces as shown in Figure 9, the bends can be made or not depending on core loss considerations.

~~The edges of all core sheets(Figure 6) can be seen for stacked cores before skew.~~

So far, as seen from above, all of the yoke elements are considered to be straight members that connect the vertical legs and result in each of the 3 windows that a 3-window device must have.

All of the vertical sheets are flat and of the same length and two pieces are assembled as shown with one short bent yoke piece (at the bottom) and one long bent yoke piece (at the top). The next layer is then flip-flopped top to bottom, in the customary manner, to produce the stacked core window assembly. The distance between bends is increased as the stack is increased so as to have the necessary 30 degree angle, called the skew angle, and is easily accomplished at the same operation as the increasingly longer pieces are cut. Three of the independent window assemblies are positioned in the triangular arrangement to make the completed 3 phase core. Some people may want to anneal the bend area.

A common butt-lap arrangement is shown but the benefits of a mitered step-lap, as commonly understood, would be a good construction method for those inclined to do so.

Two 30 degree bends are shown for the yoke pieces as the preferred arrangement using the minimum amount of yoke material but some designers could desire a single 60 degree bend at the center of the yoke pieces which would eliminate the central open area and require more material. One bend with a large bending radius could also be used if desired.

Figure 10, Skewed and Bent Yokes with Cruciform Legs for round or oval coils.

Those skilled in the art will immediately recognize that the vertical legs for each of the window assemblies being made as half (10) of a so called cruciform core is a practical use of the skewed and bent yokes.

What may not be recognized is that all of the 3 window cores shown above have essentially 25 Percent less core material than a common 2 window (3 leg) core with the same core cross sectional area and coil length.

The big 3^rd loop(11) going around the 2 smaller inside loops has a big window indeed and is the cause of many 3^rd harmonics. In the stacked core equivalent 3 leg, 2 window version as in Figure 13, the situation is one of confusion and denial that the big 3^rd window exists or is causing problems and creating 25% more material than is necessary and causing 3^rd harmonics.

With the existence of the present invention, an end will come to the 25% of wasted core material and the associated 25% more core losses that consume 40% of all the generating capacity in the world, because it is a 24 hour a day, 7 days a week drain on the energy supply.

The large outside loop as in Figure 11 is not obvious in a stacked core but the same 25% reduction is obtained be using 3 small window assemblies, 2 of which are outlined by the dashed lines(13), and then building a third small window assembly in the desired 3-Window configuration.

The same reduction would be obtained with a stacked cruciform core using the same rational as in the previous stacked core. A casual observer looking at Figures 9 and 10 would not necessarily conclude that what is shown is inherently 25% lighter than the 2-Window, 3 Leg common stacked core.

~~There is an increase in the amount of yoke material for the arrangements of Figure 7 and 8 because the yokes are extended outward away from the core window at a shallow angle.~~

[Para 3] The annual world production of electrical steel for 3-phase transformers in 2004 amounted to about 750,000 tons and the full implementation of these ideas could result in a savings of 188,000 tons with a dollar value of nearly $ 400 Million Dollars per year (thereby reducing the need for power plant construction) is very significant as well.

[Para 5] Three Phase, Three window, Three Core electromagnetic devices used as Electric and Electronic Transformers, Inductors, and like devices of any size, voltage rating and capacity used in the transmission of Electric Energy and in electronic and power control systems. The circuit behavior from such fully balanced, low loss and distortion free arrangements that reduce third harmonics caused by magnetic hysteresis and unwanted flux generated in the wrong phases from cross talking between phases. A significant reduction of 25% of the core weight and losses results from this work which uses 3 small “skewed” core loops or Skewed core sheet stacks that allows three independent core assemblies placed in a triangular pattern (as seen from above) to fit closely together by “skewing” (moving or sliding) the innermost sheets toward each other. The 3 small loops take the place of 2 small loops and one very large loop that encircles the 2 small loops in a common wound 3-phase transformer. The large outer loop has always been a costly material and labor waste and only now can be eliminated (replaced with a small loop) because of the present invention.

What we need now is the response by a guy in the Commissioners office to a letter sent to the commissioner which is then followed by the critical letter sent by the inventor:

Very soon, it will be 6 months since I sent my complete and correct response to the 2^nd Office action.

I have added to the bottom of this mail my letter to Commissioner Doll for your further consideration.

I hope my letter to the commissioner is getting results and that my patent will be issued soon.

Advise when I can expect to receive the good news that the patent will issue.

It has now come to pass that it has been 31 months since I filed this application and 5 months since I sent my complete and correct response to the 2nd office action.

For the record, 30 months have passed since I applied and it has been 4 months since I responded to the 2nd office action.

Thank you for your letter of May 29, 2007 and corresponding e-mail of September 17, 2007 to the Commissioner for Patents, John Doll of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Your letter has been referred to me for response.

1. objection to the long and painful application and review process and the justification of such delay being a lot of applications,

2. because of the delay this would allow potential infringement experts to view the application and submit applications to the same invention,

3. the examiner is plagiarizing your claim language by copying them identically in the office action for the purposes of rejecting a claim and to forget anticipated,

4. are patent examiners American citizens and can they disclose information about any application to an unauthorized person under penalty of law,

In addressing your first concern, I apologize for the difficulties and delay you may have encountered in dealing with the USPTO. While it is recognized that the pendency to first office action varies in different technologies throughout the Office, the overall average pendency to first action for fiscal year 2006 for the USPTO was 22 months. This does not appear to be significantly different from the time frame of when your application received its first office action. We are constantly seeking ways to improve our service to the public, as well as the quality and timeliness of examination and have published our plan to address these issues in our Strategic Plan 2007-2012. As you know applying for a patent can be a stressful endeavor, but it is one that potentially can also be very rewarding. As you mentioned in your letter that you are 73 years of age, I would like to bring to your attention our petition to make special procedures based on the applicant's age as outlined in our Manuel of Patent Examiner Procedures (MPEP) at section 708.02 which states in part:

(a) Applications will not be advanced out of turn for examination or for further action except as provided by this part, or upon order of the Director to expedite the business of the Office, or upon filing of a request under paragraph (b) of this section or upon filing a petition under paragraphs (c) or (d) of this section with a showing which, in the opinion of the Director, will justify so advancing it.

(b) Applications wherein the inventions are deemed of peculiar importance to some branch of the public service and the head of some department of the Government requests immediate action for that reason, may be advanced for examination.

(d) A petition to make an application special on grounds other than those referred to in

paragraph (c) of this section must be accompanied by the fee set forth in § 1.17(h).

In regards to your second concern, the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 (AIPA) was enacted into law on November 29, 1999. The AIPA amended 35 U.S.C. 122 to provide that, with certain exceptions, applications for patent filed on or after November 29, 2000 shall be published promptly after the expiration of a period of eighteen (18) months from the earliest filing date for which a benefit is sought under title 35, United States Code, and that an application may be published earlier at the request of the applicant. See 35 U.S.C. 122(b) and 37 CFR 1.215 and 1.219. Patent applications filed on or after November 29, 2000, and those including a request for voluntary publication shall be published except for the following enumerated exceptions.

Second, an application shall not be published if an applicant submits at the time of

With respect to your third concern, the examiners often copy a claim in a rejection applying prior art in order to communicate what part of the prior art document is being relied upon to meet the limitation as claimed. This is not meant to plagiarize your invention but merely serves as a tool to accurately indicate what portions of the prior art device the examiner is interpreting to meet the limitation of your claim. The examiner's relation between your claim and the prior art device is not evidence of the patentability or unpatentability of your invention; the prior art disclosure itself is the evidence. If you disagree with the examiner's interpretation you should indicate your interpretation of the prior art in your response.

The "anticipated" language comes from the statute of title 35 section 102 of the United States Code governing patent laws. The Constitution of the United States gives Congress the power to enact laws relating to patents, in Article I, section 8, which reads "Congress shall have power . . . to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." Under this power Congress has from time to time enacted various laws relating to patents. The patent law specifies the subject matter for which a patent may be obtained and the conditions for patentability. The law requires the United States Patent and Trademark Office to administer the law relating to the granting of patents and contains various other provisions relating to patents. To modify or delete the laws is an act of Congress and is beyond the jurisdiction of the USPTO. The patent law specifies the general field of subject matter that can be patented and the conditions under which a patent may be obtained. It is not until these laws are satisfied to the satisfaction of the examiner would a patent be obtained on an invention. However generally, when an applicant and/or his attorney arrive at a point where they feel that the claim distinguishes from the prior art and needs no further amendment, yet the examiner persists in a rejection of the claims, then an impasse is reached. The applicant then has the option to seek an independent appellate review of the rejection by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI). The appeal process is outlined in Chapter 1200 of the MPEP.

With respect to your fourth concern, all patent examiners must be citizens of the United States and 35 USC 122 states in part:

35 U.S.C. 122. Confidential status of applications; publication of patent applications.

(a) CONFIDENTIALITY. - Except as provided in subsection (b), applications for patents shall be kept in confidence by the Patent and Trademark Office and no information concerning the same given without authority of the applicant or owner unless necessary to carry out the provisions of an Act of Congress or in such special circumstances as may be determined by the Director

In summary, I sincerely regret the difficulties you have encountered in prosecuting this application. The USPTO is aware that there is room for improvement in the areas outlined above, and is taking steps which we believe will address these situations.

The USPTO values and encourages ideas from independent inventors. We have a staff of individuals available to answer questions from inventors regarding the filing and prosecuting of patent applications.

I hope this letter addresses your request. If you have any further questions relating to this matter, please contact Peter M. Poon at (571) 272-8800.

Dear Commissioner: TROUBLE AT THE USPTO, a voice in the wilderness cries for help with application no. 10/907,837

If you have an invention, the United States Patent and Trademark Office is not your friend. They like attorneys.

My first two patents were handled in the 60’s and 70’s by attorneys because that was the way it was supposed to be done. In the 80’s I did my 3^rd one by myself. It was troublesome but I got it through as I learned how to put up with the people and the system, which was cumbersome. Recently, over 2 years ago I filed for my 4^th patent for improved 3-phase transformers with a way to reduce magnetic core material content by 25% or more. It is an important idea because the savings can be easily done and allows the transformer manufacturers to use the exact coils that they already have designed and end up with a smaller, lighter and a lower loss gadget that is balanced electrically and magnetically.

I went and bought copies of all the patents that were in the area of interest to me, 120 of them at $ 3.00 each. They went back 120 years and Nobody had done what my idea does or you would be able to go and see them somewhere. With today’s world production of electrical transformer steel is approaching 2 million tons with 1 million tons going into 3 phase transformers. My patent application, therefore, will save 250,000 tons per year and at $ 4000.00 per ton it amounts to $1 Billion Dollars in value per year and the value over the life of the patent is over $20 Billion Dollars.

There is a problem. The examiner went and found a clumsy old patent (Mayberry, (2,401,952) for a transformer that uses narrow magnetic ribbon to make rectangular sections by winding layers and building the layers up (like winding coils) which are stacked up in different widths and the assembled back to back with two more of those messy assemblies so as to accept coils with round windows. Such transformers were never made and never will be. The sections had to be slid at a 30 degree angle like my idea in order to make the core profile essentially round to receive the coils with round windows.

The examiner then rejects my Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.102(b) as being anticipated by Mayberry,[2402,952].

He then writes “Mayberry discloses system of three wound magnetic cores A,B,C positioned in an equilateral triangle arrangement such that the innermost sheets are telescoped (skewed) at a 30 degree with the plane of the front surface so that a nearly rectangular (herringbone) cross sectional area results for the two vertical leg portions of the cores that are adjacent to each other thereby allowing the placement of three identical coils of skewed legs to create a fully balanced three-phase electromagnetic device.

Here is what I sent back to him as part of the final version of the prior art section of application 10/907,837 :

So, here is the trouble, how can a bureaucrat use his skill and cunning to kill a claim by putting my words in the mouth of a dead inventor whose patent was never used and deny America and the world a new and practical way of reducing the material content by 25%? How twisted has the USPTO become to allow such a deceptive method of rejecting a very well thought out claim for a very important patent application?

How can the primary examiner allow the interpretation of 35 U.C.C. 102(b) to be so broad as to destroy a perfect, new and novel claim by using the inventors words to reject the inventors words?

(B) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States.

My invention was not patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country and that is a fact.

The same technique was used to reject Claim 3 where my words are immorally used to state what Corbino [2,616,070] dicclosed.

Corbino Discloses ---------the exact words from my claim involving designs with and without bent yokes----

With a value to the world of $20 Billion Dollars over the life of the patent, my invention deserves to be issued and the USA deserves to be at the forefront of the changes that must be made to use these important ideas.

America should not be held back by a cadre of narrow minded legal wanabees who only want to have battles with lawyers as a game to play. The examiners have almost 7 million patents that can be used to anticipate any new idea.

To the Commissioner of Patents I strongly suggest to FORGET ANTICIPATED and STOP EXAMINERS FROM ECHOING BACK TO THE INVENTORS THEIR OWN WORDS AS A BASIS TO REJECT THEIR WORDS.

It may well be that some legislation may be necessary to stop the USPTO from stepping on creativity and stopping America from going forward at the fastest pace. As a 73 year old inventor who paid his fees and who demands fair treatment, I want to express complete disillusionment as to how long it took to be treated so badly.

The examiner has made a mistake and this will go to the Supreme Court if the patent is not issued forthwith.

Here is where the situation was oh Monday 10/27/08 NO RESPONSE TO THIS MAIL also sent as a fax

8/23/08

to ; Mail Stop Missing Parts, Commissioner,USPTO, POBOX 1450. Alexandria VA 22313-1450

Response to Notice To File Missing Parts of Nonprovisional Application Filed Under 37 CFR 1.53(b)

Filing Date Granted.

The Applicant Thanks the Commissioner for assigning:

The Application Number US 12/221,443

Filing date 08/04/2008

Invention Title “Three Window Transformer or Inductor”

From the Applicant, Ronald John Gramm

This letter is in response to confirmation number 1505 Formalities Letter, Notice to file missing Parts.

THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION was a complete and formal application First filed via Fax on 7/9/08 on the advice of ebc@uspto.gov, [THREAD ID:1-22EAMZ] in response to my Original Message of 7/7/2008 and it was immediately rejected and stamped “Cancelled” on 7/9/08.

The ebc should be advised not to tell Applicants to file applications via Fax.

Copy of my e-mails with ebc are enclosed for your information.

There was plenty of time for me to mail the application in a timely manner by regular mail to beat a July 15 th deadline and the ebc directions thwarted that. The ebc suggestion appears to be costing me $ 65.00 for the late submission of a filing fee.

A letter regarding application Papers transmitted by facsimile transmission, undated, but mailed 7/30.2008 from zip 22202 was received almost a month after the faxed application was faxed.

The same application was then mailed via regular mail as a clean original copy with clear drawings and resulted in the confirmation no 1505 filing receipt received here.

A copy of the Application showing the matter to be deleted is enclosed.

The substitute application with the deleted matter missing is also enclosed and therefore Figure 7, 8 and 9 were not omitted because they were not supposed to be in the specification in the first place.

Figure C is the replacement for the old Figure 9.

No new matter has been included in the enclosed substitute application, page numbers were added.

Additionally, I am hoping that this letter can be used as a Petition to Make Special under 37 CFR 1.102. Advancement of Examination without a fee under Paragraph (C) has been recognized as valid because of (1) my 74 years of age, And: (2) The invention will materially (i) Enhance the quality of the environment by reducing the pollution necessary to produce a multitude of transformers, 24/7 core losses in excess of many hundreds of gigawatts in the years to come. And: (ii) resulting in a conservation of energy resources.

A CD is enclosed containing this letter and the application using the ABX file originally used and I could not convert it to Plain Text without the macros.

I hope the inclusion of the CD allows you to grant a basis filing fee of $75.00 for a small entity and the establishment on an account for the balance of $ 105-75 = $30.00 credit toward future payments.

Advise.

Ronald J. Gramm

Three identical coils mounted on three identical cores in a compact, space saving arrangement that provides identical cooling for each of the coils has always been desired but not obtained. Now, after many years of software development to calculate the exact design and cost of all kinds of transformers, a Pittsburgh inventor (R.J. Gramm) has devised a way to construct transformers with about 25 percent less core steel at the same voltage and number of turns as the now obsolete transformers that the new units will replace.

After 50 years of dealing with transformers and having examined all 120 three phase transformer patents ever issued in 120 years since the first transformer, Mr. Gramm decided to file for a patent in 2004. He fought tooth and nail and was not successful in convincing the USPTO to issue a patent. For details go to www.USPTO-broken.com to get the details. There is a positive result from the experience. It is to promote the basic goal of lowering the core losses about 90% in addition to reducing the weight as well as the fully balanced performance that a 3-window design offers.

For manufacturers using cut and stack designs, the new method uses a strip of material 1/2 the width of the existing strip width and constructs three equal "Cut Loops" which are the stacked core equivalent of the three small wound loops. In the case of the wound loop manufacturer, getting rid of the big 3rd loop and replacing it with a 3rd small loop is a 25% reduction but raises the question of how to put the three loops together into a single 3-Window configuration. The idea of simply "Skewing" (at a 30 degree angle) the inside turns of the loops so they fit against each other at the back edge thus making a herringbone cross sectional view was not obvious. The V shaped notch inside the coils around the outside make fine cooling ducts and pointed shaped cores pointing toward the inside of the unit makes for a rounded coil shape that fits all 3 coils together nicely without increasing the core window dimension of the old design.

Customers wishing to have rectangular coil windows with a high fill factor can use the cut core method which requires the yoke pieces to have one or more bends totaling 60 degrees. The bend (s) allows the core to have a rectangular cross section and the corners of the sheet are cut off in the new design. This also puts the savings well over 25% from the square corner original stacked core with 90 degree corners.

The annual world-wide production of electrical steel is over 1.6 million tons and about 800.000 tons is used to manufacture 3-phase transformers. If all manufacturers were to adopt these ideas for 3-phase transformers, a reduction of the annual electrical core steel production would be approximately 200,000 tons per year at 2005 production levels with the assumption that 50% of the 2005 production is consumed in the manufacture of 3-phase transformers. At $ 4,000.00 per ton, the economic value of the core steel reduction for the idea amounts to $ 8 Billion Dollars per year that the manufacturers can save by getting a license and getting busy. The present worth of the ideas over the life of the patent exceeds $ 20 Billion Dollars

The energy savings at 1 watt per pound amounts to 3,500 Giga Watt Hours per year of generator capacity that can be saved. At 10 cents a Kilo-Watt Hour, this would give a value of $ 350 Million Dollars per year to the utilities of the world in free generator capacity. The great additional core loss reduction by Using "MetGlas" along with a practical butt type construction (no anneal required) is now added to the concept and is covered by copyright protected spreadsheets available from the inventor after payment of a nominal $ 1,00.00 proprietary package fee that is a credit against any future royalty agreement that may be concluded.

If one starts with the statement that Electricity is transmitted by antique transformers with old technology, it presents the underlying reason why (in the 120 years since the first transformer) there have been only 120 transformer patents issued in the United States.

The gains since the beginning have been mainly improvements in materials, in the up-graded factories and the infrastructure that powers the antiques and in the fancy control circuits and computers that control them in service. There are also many improvements in theory which have improved the antiques but they are antiques none the less. As an inventor who lives several miles from where Westinghouse and Tesla first got together back then, I humbly consider transformers to be an eastern U.S.A. technology and that I am the custodian of the cutting edge of transformers because I have been thinking about them for 60 of the 120 years. My eyes have seen over 1 million transformers in various stages of construction and I have personally designed almost 1000 of them from 10VA through 2MVA that are still working today.

Hundreds of millions of transformers are in service around the world and they are all getting older and closer to failure every day as their insulation structure deteriorates at a faster and faster rate. The loss of bound water from the paper in oil filled transformers is particularly damaging. They are also abused by overloading and poor voltage protection. Fifteen years ago, I bought copies of all the transformer patents issued from the USPTO (a Three inch thick pile) and went over them to see if some ideas I had in mind were any good. I was un-impressed with the whole group and found myself laughing about a “polonal” winding in one of the last Westinghouse efforts in the pile. My idea was for a “3-window” transformer that would be perfectly balanced both electrically and magnetically with 3 identical coils around the legs of three identical core loops. There were a dozen (that's 10%) 3-window attempts and they were all a disaster. For the record, nothing is ever known completely and absolutely.

My 40 month old patent application to the USPTO was the result of 15 years of work that I invested in my design software every night and every morning before going to work designing and selling transformers. It is a brilliant idea that had a 15-year time delay fuse waiting for my retirement and the time to think that I now enjoy without the pressures of economic survival. The idea results in a 25% reduction in the amount of core material that the manufacturers will have to install while using the existing coil designs they now have. This is possible only if the yoke members have 1/2 the cross sectional area of the legs. The new core acts as a heat removal tool for the coils and thereby reduces coil losses as well. The new devices use the exact same coils that are already in use except that they generate less watts and they run cooler. Additional benefits are; less noise because the Magnetic Turn Length is much shorter; Lower harmonic distortion and 3rd harmonics because the 3 loops of core are independant; because of the modular design, the weight of the individual components is greatly reduced and easily handled; the balanced cooling of each of the coils allows to reduce conductor material content as well.

It is very important to describe a transformer as a reflector of the incoming wave and a generator of the outgoing wave as a result and that the early units were called “secondary generators” that really do generate the secondary wave that travels at the speed of light as it leaves the secondary node. It is also important to realize that the power that is transmitted is carried in the airspace around the conductors that only serve as guides for the waves and consume energy (transformer losses and line losses) in the process. Now, therefore, we have 3 waves coming into 3 windows that offer high impedance to the waves as they approach the nodes of the primary windings and 3 waves leaving the secondary nodes like a rotating generator. How beautiful it is.

When first working on the project, I worried about the phasor relationships that a 3-window transformer would have when compared with a 2-window (3-leg) ordinary transformer and much work is documented on the “3-Window CD” that my software customers have and the full story has not yet been presented to very many people because I am only now getting started. The problem was solved by defining “all of space” as the “missing” window, and it is a large window indeed. Transformers and the electric grid emit a heck of a lot of electromagnetic radiation as a result. Now, I don't worry about all of space. Owners of 3-window transformers will be able to sleep better.

There are many barriers that prevent widespread use of 3-window cores and the benefits of drastic reduction of core losses around the world that can result. A typical example would be all the 3-phase banks of single phase transformers that are now hanging on the utility lines all across America and the world. Such arrangements are (were) necessary to build the grid and distribute the power to all the little factories that only need about 150 KVA and don’t want a small pad mount on the ground that is going to be hit by cars and trucks. It is said to be a cheaper installation with 3 of the standard 50 KVA units on the pole no matter what the 24 hour core loss liability is because the customers (and not the utility) pays the bill. What we need from here and forward is a whole bunch of smart customers who ask the utility “What are you doing to reduce core loss and basic load so we don’t have to buy you a bigger generating station?

This puts the problem on the backs of transformer manufacturers and the engineers who specify the properties of the replacements as compared to their ability to meet the goals. Some progress has been made since some of my 3-Window CD customers are large and the ones who are not large are willing to get busy and grow as fast as the demand. The following list are the Charter Members who had the vision to buy the first group of CD’s that I made and I am sure they will be delighted to look at any inquiries that specify the KVA as well as the non-penalty core loss goal that is 90% less than the core loss you now have. America is running far behind in the use of MetGlas and the stacked core method recommended by this inventor will greatly assist in catching up and lowering costs as well.

Some of the following companies have thousands of old designs that they call upon to meet the inquiries they handle every day and I hope you will allow some delay while they determine how fast they can get all the paperwork out for the necessary design changes. These people are shakers and rollers and they can simply change their e-mail address if too much trouble comes in from this list. Here they are:

In addition, there are suppliers familiar with the design software used to develop these kind of transformers and they have already invested effort to produce designs:

An inventor who would successfully apply and obtain a patent for a novel transformer core does not have an obligation to design and be responsible for a finished transformer that uses the invention. The patent is what it is, no more, no less, ---well, maybe more.

In the case of application 10/907,837 for a Three-Window, Skewed-Core Transformer or Inductive Device, there are however, loose ends because the patent gives information that says a 25% core material reduction can be obtained. For example, in the case of a common wound 3 phase core, the reduction is in fact 25% when the 3^rd big loop that encircles the two inside loops is replaced by a third small loop and it is a simple matter to calculate the weight of the big loop and compare it with the weight of the small loop that replaces it.

The reality is that if the original core to be cost reduced is a common stacked core with four 90 degree corners the weight reduction can easily be a 33% reduction at the same magnetic flux density and still higher if the new core is operated at a higher flux density to take advantage of the shorter mean magnetic turn length.

Additionally, because of a uniform and equal cooling situation for the coils, the conductor size can be reduced to save money and the core window made smaller to reduce the weight of the core still more. And any increase in the magnetic flux density makes the mean turn of the coils smaller which reduces losses and cost even more and allows for still more reduction in coil conductor size.

The cost reduction and size shrinking process requires engineering and testing effort and potential transformer manufacturing companies are not easily convinced to invest the effort. A smaller enclosure and a savings in the cost of the enclosure is also an intense effort and even if the reduction saves money the reality is that the sales information alone tends to make it a really big project. Even though the freight savings is substantial, it is often so far buried in the costing structure that nobody is ready to calculate it.

In the case of inventor Gramm and the long list of tried and proven computer spreadsheets that he devised over a 20 year period while the 3-window idea was kicking around in his head, it is his hope that all that work, some 20,000 hours, will come into play and give interested prospects the capability to completely design the entire 3-window transformer including all paperwork and components as a fully integrated system that frees the prospect from the hazards of attempting to duplicate 100 years of documentation, lost tests, large data bases and hidden calculations authored by retired or dead engineers and stored in caves. Eaton Electric, for example, formerly Cutler Hammer, formerly Westinghouse at Sharon PA and management in Pittsburgh, now with Plants in Mexico and no engineering support, is a bad prospect for the invention.

A well financed start-up transformer company with experience in Electrical Steel Processing and a list of loyal customers, who would consider using the new cores with fully tested designs made by the start-up group, is the best choice to take the ideas to market.

The designs and the actual transformers made by the start-up will become the uniform National Standard Transformers for the home country so that a money and energy saving commodity is made available to everybody. Detailed transformer designs are customarily made with proprietary information and the design remains that way and conforms to a performance based specification without regard to the design details. But, Mr. Gramm has some good additions and he hopes that somebody will file the applications and thereby get a corner on the full market with all the spin-off gains.

Features of a 3-window transformer as made in Europe with a complicated multi-loop(18 loops?), 3-window, wound core and barrel wound copper coils with round windows because of being wound into the finished core. The following information was picked off the web site of the competitor:

These things are generally true by just starting with the classic 25% core weight reduction and using the full weight of the hard won spreadsheets to do iterations of the design changing one input at a time until the operating characteristics are reasonable, followed by testing.

The weakness of the wording “conventional designs” makes it so the statements can only be believed if the test results and full design information can be compared with the finished and tested full 3-window design. Inventor Gramm provides all the software to produce a conventional design and then provide the 3-window design with which to compare.

Many of the sheets like TV2PlusPatPend.xls automatically produce a complete conventional design with a minimum 7 input front sheet and the 3-window core design attached as a starting point. Next the designer should use a “fully elastic sheet” to work down the core and conductor weights to a minimum content design.

One file, TLINE.xls provides a whole line of designs (19 different designs ) with incremental designs in any va size as entered (for example it arrives as 1500 VA up to and including a 3Mva design) as t starting point for a new transformer venture that does not have 100 years of history to rely upon.

The rules that change the designs can be individually adjusted in the calculation string for each design in order to match up to tested designs.

When the patent issues, it will require a lot of work to bring in licensees and get the reward of (say) 5% royalty. The potential is $1.25 billion dollars at 5% royalty on the material reduction.

The estimate is based on the assumption that the 2007 annual production of material used in 3-phase transformers was 1Million Tons which would easily escalate to 20 Million tons over 17 years. This makes the project have a value of steel saved equal to 20 million x .25 saved = 5 million tons x $5000 per ton with escalation = $25 Billion Dollars of material saved by the world.

By only applying royalty to the material saved is a fair starting point keeping in mind that the 3-phase world production 20 million tons at $5,000 dollars per ton is a $100 Billion Dollar saved by the world and the ideas are only charging $1.25 Billion.

Call it 1.25% royalty on the finished core that has been cost reduced by 25% and more.

Bid evaluations give a credit for reducing core and load losses and this idea and the long term benefits of that suggests that the 1.25% is entirely too low considering the many advantages that the overall benefits of the ideas can yield.

An inventor who would try to collect the benefits from the world for saving the world 80 Giga Watts in reduced core losses, and the resulting cost of building a bunch of generators that do not have to be built, is entirely un-collectable.

If the world saves 80 Giga Watts on this project (with all core builders using the idea), and the loss capitalization is stated as $4.00 / watt, a simple multiplication yields $320 Billion Dollars in reduced power plant operation and/or construction. Note that it is over 12 times the $25 Billion Dollars worth of core steel saved by the world.

It is 276 times the royalty of $1.25 Billion Dollars Royalty (that gives the world $320 Billion in energy savings and $25 Billion in material savings) and sounds like a good deal for everybody if all the manufacturers participate and the patent holders and licensees can survive at such a low rate.

A practical royalty fee has not been determined as of December 2007 and the inventor is searching for opinions and suggestions as to how high or low the fee should be.

At last, after 50 years of designing, making, testing and studying 3- phase transformers, a Pittsburgh Pennsylvania inventor has announced that patents have been disclosed and that the Mexican licensee for 3-Window transformers in Guadalajara is starting to build, test and set-up a the production system for customers in Mexico and the USA. Over a dozen transformer manufacturers are already studying the implications of the ideas and already have Gramm software that compares the cost of common 2-window transformers with the new method.

There are 3 basic ways that the inventions can be implemented, depending upon the manufacturing set-up that the prospective licensee is presently using. The first and easiest way is to use the “Chunk and Wound Yoke” method which adds the opportunity to easily adjust the reactance. For prospects that have in house cutting and stacking methods a second way is to cut and stack three identical loops of core that fit together nicely and can use existing coil designs. And finally, the “Wound Skew Core” method which will appeal to manufacturers that know and understand wound core construction.

The inventor, R.J.Gramm, already has the Patent Application pending at the USPTO on the subject of 3-Window Skew Core Transformers and only recently started work on the details of this idea for Gustavo Blancarte, President of BlanTek, who “gets stuff done like we did in the U.S. A. 50 years ago” according to Mr. Gramm.

These units inherently have 25% less core material and will permit immediate use by transformer manufacturers world wide because the existing coils that the manufacturers produce every day can be used in the 3-window arrangement without modification. And, the resulting device will be shorter, lighter, and more compact and will have lower core losses and better cooling because of the ability of all 3 coils to cool in exactly the same manner.

The middle coil of ordinary 2-window transformers often overheat as a result of being in the middle but the identical physical positioning of all three coils in the new arrangement provides for balanced electric, magnetic and thermal performance. The ability to adjust the reactance at the factory allows for exact impedance modification so as to eliminate the “chokes” that are usually added to a typical rectifier circuit application. The basic arrangement is also applicable to 3-phase reactors of all kind and puts BlanTek into the “Line Reactor” business in addition to making good , round and compact oil filled transformers with less core loss (that utilities need) than all of his competitors. Not to worry, BlanTek is authorized to license the technology to all who have interest.

Mr. Gramm has developed transformer design spreadsheets over the last 15 years which he sells on a “3-Window CD” that provides exact design solutions for many kinds of transformers including the new 3-Window Transformer or Inductor shown here. Information about that effort can be obtained from Mr. Gramm. at rongramm1@verizon.net

It is unusual for the inventor to provide essentially all of the information needed to manufacture the device that has been patented. “It speeds things up”, says Mr. Gramm,”and allows me to accumulate cash at this late stage of my life”. He will be happy to send a blank copy of the non-exclusive license that he has prepared to qualified persons who agree that the world needs to have three phase transformers like this and are willing to pay a fair royalty that they suggest. So far, the “Charter Software Members Club” includes:

All of these companies are qualified manufacturers that can probably be convinced to supply 3-window transformers after an appropriate waiting period to schedule their work. Gustavo can be reached at gblancar@hotmail.com (523) 331241630

International Implications are involved because these ideas will result in an immediate reduction of about 25% of the core steel needed to construct all three phase transformers. In addition, the magnetic and electric behavior for all three phases is identical. Also, third harmonics are reduced as well. Since the patent ideas require only minor changes in the manufacturers tooling and assembly methods, they should enjoy widespread use as companies become aware and sign up for a license. The annual world-wide production of electrical steel is 1.5 million tons per year and about 750,000 tons is used to manufacture 3-phase transformers. Therefore, the ideas will save the transformer manufacturing industry about 187,000 tons per year valued at more than $300 million dollars per year and $5 Trillion dollars over the life of the patent. Widespread use will have a large impact on the 24 hour-a-day energy consumption and give all the Electric Utilities an effective increase in generating capacity. It is to the benefit of the utilities to specify Three Window Transformers and implement prototype construction and testing as soon as possible. The interesting thing about these ideas is that they are SELF FINANCING. Using these ideas results in making money without any investment. Smart executives are requested to sign the attached license agreement because there is no down side in the words. It is the most liberal and progressive agreement that I could think of. Ron J. Gramm

These ideas include information about how to reduce the magnetic core material of 3 Phase Transformers in the amount of 25%, more or less.

The inventor, R.J. Gramm of Pittsburgh PA has developed a series of Microsoft Excel spreadsheets that design all kinds of transformers and these sheets are listed on the web site as well. One file, TV2PlusPatPend.xls is given away at no charge to those interested in becoming Licensees and it automatically calculates the details of a “normal” 3-phase transformer (using only 7 inputs). It also calculates the core weight for the same transformer using the new patent.

Interested parties are requested to examine the preliminary license application, modify it to suite the the business and timing goals of the company and send the proposed agreement for consideration and further modification (as needed) if necessary, to arrive at a workable arrangement. All manufacturers are encouraged to construct a prototype and test it to more fully understand the many advantages of the smaller, lighter, cooler running and 3^rd harmonics reducing properties that the idea will provide.

Patents issued in the United States can automatically be assigned as a patent in foreign countries and licensee prospects will be expected to pay the reduced fee and become a partner with the inventor as a way of getting an inside track to profits and expansion of the numbers of licensees. It is intended that all licensees will become involved “Licensee Police” who can derive profit from patent infringement anywhere it is found and force the violating party to sign up for a valid license agreement as a sub-licensee registered with the idea owner.

Funds are to be paid to the “3-Windows Trust Account” which will be advised to licensee prospects who have a signed and numbered agreement with an identified schedule of material consumption in the agreement along with the details as to where the funds will be disbursed from as an accounts payable or other payer. The inventor wishes to point out that the basic preliminary agreement is intended to have no “down side” to it so people can feel free to identify themselves as interested persons who will in fact institute a positive program of reducing losses and overall costs of manufacturing.

It is expected that the first 10 agreements will result in a modified document that will be put into place for all new licensees with typical legalese and some sort of an “up-Front” fee that the ideas deserve based on the benefit that the licensees are likely to receive.

Mr. Gramm is now actively soliciting interested family members and experienced business enterprisers who may have interest in getting involved with marketing the patent. As a practical matter, all communications, including the license agreement, shall be handled in the English language and payments made in U S Dollars.

The abandoned patent application was in a “Non-Publishing” mode at the USPTO and the inventor has posted it on the web site www.USPTO-broken.com .

R. J. Gramm can not guarantee that any of the various computer design files, that he has devised to design transformers, is error free or will produce a design that will not fail or that it will otherwise perform as the design process in the files may intend or imply. It is the responsibility of the software user to study and approve that the calculations are correct and scientifically complete and that the results can safely be used. Further, the inventor can not guarantee that any statement about the advantages to be gained as specified in the patent named “Three Window, Skewed Core Transformer or Inductive Device” can be trusted or considered as reliable. It is the responsibility of the software user and/or the patent licensee, who uses the ideas in the patent, to test and verify that the performance is correct by performing all necessary tests and verify that the performance, weight and dimensions are acceptable.

The inventor has no obligation to design transformers as the result of having filed for the abandoned patent. In addition, due to the many possible ways of constructing any given transformer, the inventor is not responsible for achieving any specific economic improvement in costs or any improvement in performance that the user of the ideas is attempting to achieve. The inventor is not responsible for any costs associated with attempting to use his ideas when converting from the existing designs to a way that uses the ideas in the patent. The inventor is not liable for any costs associated with someone who files a lawsuit against the use of the Gramm (such as by stating that the Gramm patent is an infringement on another patent).

Having stated all that above, Mr. Gramm further wants to point out that the various calculations used in his spreadsheets are very old and have not been copied from another set of design software and that the ideas as embodied in his patent application are his ideas alone after purchasing copies of and studying some 115 U.S. patents before filing his claims.

Prospective licensees are encouraged to suggest modifications of the agreement to reflect the way they do business and improve the agreement to make it more professional and complete based upon other agreements with which they are familiar. The agreement is certain to be modified as time goes on and as the desirability of the patent and the supporting software is proven to be useful and complete as time passes.

Since the $ 1,000.00 Fee is credited against any future royalty payments that may come due in the license agreement, it is hoped that it will encourage executives to sign up and get busy. The projected tonnage converted to the 3-window method is only an “adjustable benchmark” that can be changed to reflect an increase in tonnage or not as experience is accumulated and bottom line improvements are recognized. The inventor has learned that risk taking is an important concept in all successful activities and that his taking the risk of not insisting upon advance payments is his proof of the advantages of taking a risk.

One objective that the inventor expects is that all licensees assist the license administrator on the “Patent Police” project where-by everybody “looks out” for infringers and reports them so they can be brought to justice.

The main idea of an easy sign up agreement is to promote the growth of the number of licensees, increased volume by all licensees and the establishment of a licensee network that permits working together for the good of everybody except infringers.

Caution and careful consideration when applying the 3-window Phasor Analysis

The “Web Circuits” (as far as I know) require the use of half turn segments. A single turn winding consists of 2 segments, that is, a conductor that enters one window and exits a second window. When looking at the 3-phase to 1-phase transformer in the file CompareNew300kva3PH-1PH.xls which has been put into the “Licensee Package” folder, it must be remembered that it is a 1999 file that did not reveal the “skew” idea in the 3-windows patent.

There are 3 files that should be looked at to give a significance to the 300kva3PH-1-PH file and indeed to the 3-windows parent. They are Method.xls, Nameplates.xls and MoreNameplates.xls which are also in the Licensee folder. These are revolutionary and visionary files that will take many years to become widely circulated and applied when needed.

There is another file Trirules.xls in the licensee folder that attempts to set the rules that determine how to label the various “starts” and “finishes” in the 3-window world. It is going to take a long time to “Weed Out” the unnecessary material in those 5 files and you are invited to try to simplify them and show how to cope with and reconcile all of it.

It was very difficult to keep quiet about the skewed core patent while I wrote the above 5 files because of my full time job was necessary to pay off old debt and pump up the size of my social security check before I retired. Ideas really are fragile and easily abused and used by other people. But, they are necessary for mankind to survive and advance toward a better future. I sat on the ideas for a good 10 years before filing the application and it would have killed the idea and the value of the patent to have filed in 1995 while I had my hands full making a living.

There is no way that the patent could ever be applied for when attempting to show the examiner how to make a 3-Phase to 1-Phase transformer that has “nodes” and a virtual extension of a wye segment through the node to a common external connection of 2 displaced segments.

Only the secondary conductors are shown here and only half turn segments able to carry full current must be used for all 6 segments. I am encouraging all licensees to go and file a patent for this using a 3-window core as well as 3 common wound cores as shown. r.j.g. 2/1/08

How would you like to reduce the amount of 3-phase electrical steel that you make by 25% and raise the profit on the remaining 75% of the 3-phase material by 10%? It is like getting a 25% capacity increase without having to invest the funds to do it! And, you get paid to do it!

This is possible because Inventor Gramm has found a way to allow transformer manufacturers to cost reduce by providing 25%, give or take, less steel in 3-phase transformers by applying U.S. Patent App. No. 10/907837 which will issue soon. The transformers will be perfectly balanced electrically and magnetically with less 3^rd harmonics and load losses.

Contact your customers and mention to them to look into the royalty agreement posted on www.3-windows.com and see if they are interested in dealing directly with the inventor, or, if it makes more sense to set up a formal reporting scheme with you to say how much of the reduced tonnage they are buying that uses the invention so you become the licensee that forwards the royalty and the tonnage saved to the 3-windows Trust Account and the report the tonnage to the trustee.. The issue is if they want to be the licensee and make an arrangement directly with the inventor or if it makes more sense for magnetic core steel manufacturers and distributors to be the leaders and see with your own eyes that you effectively get a 25% capacity increase and allow your customers to deliver transformers with much less core steel.

The transformer users get an important 25% reduction in transformer losses that will mean an effective reduction in capacity requirements as more of the new transformers are delivered and a reduced electric bill as well.

1). Steel manufacturers get a virtual capacity increase and can increase the price at the same time for the trouble to get involved.

2). Transformer manufacturers get a basic product improvement and cost reduction with very little effort and only minor engineering and administrator costs to do it.

3). Transformer users (and ultimately the Electric Utilities) will see a reduction in 24 hour core losses and generator capacity requirements.

4). America and the world will be a better place because of this invention because there will be less energy requirements.

Advise Mr Gramm if you want to have your company and/or organization listed on the web site as a 3-Windows Supporter who will get benefits for becoming involved. Mr. Gramm will supply all the necessary computer software to design the transformers and calculate the reduced core weight as shown on 3-windows.com. He is available to answer any questions you may have. 1-412-364-7402 Also, Mr. Gramm is looking for experienced intellectual property sales personnel and publicity agents.

Finally, As soon as the patent issues it will immediately for sale because of the advanced age of Mr. Gramm and the price for an immediate sale will be considerably less than the $20 Billion Dollar Savings that the electrical industry and the utilities will experience.

Going to 3 window transformers in order to reduce core losses by 25%, lower the temperature rise and get perfectly balanced electrical and magnetic performance with a reduction in the generation of 3rd harmonics caused by 2 window transformers is easy, if one has some good ideas and some guidance on how to use the ideas. The patent gives the instructions to prospective licensees how the 25% (and more, or less) core steel reduction. That is, using 3 little loops instead of 2 little loops surrounded by a large loop weighing twice the weight of the small loops.

Step 1 Get a copy of the cool spreadsheet from Inventor Gramm (at no cost) : TriRiseV15Skew.xls and enter the data for the transformer desired.

For example the attached file is for a 75 KVA, 60 Hertz, using aluminum conductor, 480 Volt Delta to 208 Wye using 3.5 inch core strip with a 4 inch stack and a core window length of 9 in. and a window width of 4 in. operating at 17,400 Gauss as shown at N762 on the SkewCore sheet, Butt stacked design, weight 236 Pounds. FigureE shows the recommended coil positioning for the herringbone core cross section and with the most compact footprint.

Step 2 Examine the Wound Skew Core at A1 on the SkewCore Sheet. Note that the weight is 174 Pounds consisting of 3 Wound Loops, each weighing 58 Pounds using 2 inch wide strip and a 3.5 inch stack. This is a 61 pound decrease from the 236 pound, 2-window design. the coil mold must be changed to suit the herringbone core cross section with "Mold Deep x Mold High" as shown. Since all 3 coils have good cooling and a new cooling duct inside the winding, a 10 % decrease in conductor cross section will more than off-set the fill factor reduction and give the same temperature rise as the antique coils.

Step 3 Study the various choices of SkewCore as shown on the SkewCore sheet. (FigureA through FigureE)

For example using the same leg chunks as the 236 pound old core and the same coils as the 2 window design, the simplest 3-window, is shown at A182 using a 2-bend yoke design weighing 247 pounds. This allows a heat run to be made and compared with the old 2-window heat run. Also, the obvious decrease in Total Harmonic Distortion will show itself. This is an easy 3-window because all the yoke pieces are the same length and are cut at 90 degrees to the strip width.

Sophisticated Management should seriously consider FigureB and think about going to Metglas, no anneal required, using the old coils and all yoke or leg pieces with 90 degree cuts.

Volts per turn may deserve a change with such a drastic reduction in core losses.

Inventor Gramm worries about the basic inability of large corporate transformer manufacturers to absorb the benefits of his work. He fears that there are too many obstacles to changing ANYTHING because of the lack of engineering support for the employees at the foreign plants who are working to produce designs that are 50 years old and the engineers who designed them are dead.

The above plan allows the use of the existing coils as a first step so that all the lead insulation and insulating pads are used without making mistakes by beginners. The coil integrity then allows a hook up into the desired connection and testing can be done even though the lowest weight is not realized in the first instance. The improved cooling and the reduction of 3^rd harmonics is probably a sufficient benefit of that first step which also allows a smaller containment and lower costs.

Most inventions get the patent published and nothing else. This inventor provides a relatively sophisticated software package, at minimal or no cost, and encourages the upper management to think about making the world better as well as the bottom line. “My mother always said that nobody ever said it would be easy.” Says Mr. Gramm, “And for the life of me, I can’t figure out why I keep trying to make it easy!”

A hexaformer restricts the user to round coils with a complicated double cylindrical tube that serves as the stationary winding lathe and the moving coil winding surface. A coil winding machine that has to hold and position the entire core and frame can easily cost $ 1 Million Dollars and makes the users winding lathes obsolete. These transformers can never be taken apart.

The hexaformer core winding machine is also costly (say another $ 1 million).and the core itself is made of at least 18 narrow strips of steel requiring a state of the art positioning, tensioning and winding system that has always been overlooked by transformer manufacturing engineers for 100 years. It is an impractical gadget.

The 3-window method is a classic “make it simple stupid” system that allows the use of the existing coils (with either round or rectangular winding molds) requiring no investment

The 3-window cores are 3 identical loops that fit together back to back and can be wound or stacked requiring essentially minor investment and mechanical fixtures that can be acquired in a short period of time. And they produce compact, high performance transformers with the same wonderful properties that Hexacore have listed in their wonderful web site. All 3-window transformers are practical to be taken apart.

The Swedes have out done themselves with a very well performing sophisticated transformer but with a complicated and costly set of equipment and restrictions. They REALLY stuck to the project until they got results and they are to be congratulated and admired.

That old 3-window guy in Pittsburgh, who says he is at the center of the world of transformers where Westinghouse and Tesla first met, has forced into existence simple well performing transformers that the US Patent and Trademark Office fought with tooth and nail for 3 years before admitting that the patent deserved to be issued. It took him 20 years to develop the ideas and the software to design the details.

So, therefore, Sweden and the creative people who put together the family of Hexacore Transformers have done the world a favor by showing the benefits of 3 phase transformers with actual tests and have proved that 3-window transformers eliminate 3^rd harmonics, reduce core losses by having much less core material with short magnetic mean turn, less transformer noise as well and balanced and cool running coils that inherently have less losses because they have less heat from the core and because they have larger equal cooling surfaces to get rid of heat. There is a whole world of detailed gains like less stray losses and reduced electromagnetic radiation.

As soon as the Gramm patent issues, the 3-windows web site will be improved with many good digital pictures and exact instructions about how to switch from the antique transformers now being made to the new way without spending an arm and a leg. Simple ideas are easy to steal and inventor Gramm is diligently setting up a system of “Patent Infringement Police and Lawyers” with prosecuting experience because he REALLY DOES believe that honesty and fair play must be followed in all human transactions. The time has come to reduce losses across the entire system of grids and stop making junk transformers that steal power from everybody.

A close examination of the Hexaformer web site reveals a large, essentially empty building waiting for customers. The building served the purpose of providing space for construction of the prototype core winding machine and the prototype coil winding-into-the-core machine. Both machines proved that the transformers shown could be wound with the existence of the 2 machines and produce transformers with SUPER PERFORMANCE never before possible. Inventor Gramm made the observation to the Hexaformer executives that their accomplishment has proved to the world that 3-window transformers do indeed offer spectacular and unique features that will be good for all future transformers made with 3-windows. It was pointed out that there was a financial barrier to the market place that other manufacturers would have to invest into two expensive machines in order to reap the benefits. And, that would put the conversion to the new way a matter of having customers pay more for less transformer (better performing but costing more to get the benefit). The alternative would be that all transformers would be made by Hexaformer who would charge more for better transformers. The world has already proven that bad transformers that cost less is what has been done and will continue to be. The web site says nothing about licensing and inventor Gramm pointed out that 17 years is not very long to wait for the big corporations that have an infinite life.

This device is an addition to the core described in US Patent Application 10/907,837 entitled “Three-Window, Skewed-Core Transformer or Inductive Device” which describes a Three Phase, wound core which is wound with a rectangular cross section that is “skewed” by telescoping the inside turns at a 30 degree angle to the front face thus creating a HerringBone shaped cross section when three of the skewed loops are set back to back in a triangular manner to make the 3-phase core.

This device then adds to each of the wound cores an additional triangular shaped section wound on top of the rectangular section. This additional section has been slit with a bias cut so that when it is wound it produces a right triangular section with a 45 degree angle to the front face. The first turn of the new section is the same width as the turns of the base rectangular core and narrows in width as the section is wound. When the rectangular section is skewed from the front face and the triangular section is skewed toward the front face at a 15 degree angle, the result is a “half hexagon section” which when matched up with the 2 adjacent sections results in 3 identical hexagons which are subsequently prepared to receive round coils.

Figure 1 shows the three loops setting back to back to create the desired cross sections as well as a top view of the cross section of one loop and with the right triangular section wound on top of the rectangular section before skewing.

1) A 3-phase magnetic core consisting of three identical core loops: each consisting of two sections where the first section has a rectangular cross section, whose turns are skewed toward the back plane as in Patent Application 10/907,837 and a right triangular cross section, which when skewed forward away from the back plane, produces a “half Hexagon which is matched up with 2 adjacent identical skewed loops to produce 3 Hexagon shaped core legs around which coils can be placed.

2) Any stacked leg substitute for the wound skewed hexagon cross section where the legs pieces have an identical cross section to that of Claim 1 but with stacked yoke pieces with a rectangular cross section with suitable magnetic properties to carry the same flux density as the leg pieces of varying length as shown in Figure 2.

The 2^nd application was filed and is up in the air waiting for a response from the USPTO as of 12/05/08. The USPTO is in fact BROKEN as far as this inventor is concerned and the USE OF COPYRIGHTED DESIGN FILES is being used.

All of the yokes can be made from pieces with the same width, identical length and identical bend.

When the bend radius is generally equal to the core window or greater, and M2 or amorphous material is used, no anneal is required. The tooling to hold the bends in place is very simple and low cost.

All of the leg chunks, of course, are of the same length and the cross sectional area may be a rectangle, a cruciform style for round coils (or a hexagon shaped area constructed several ways) or a herringbone style as a normal “skew core” as in the Gramm Patent.

Each of the 3 window loops are independent and have 4 gaps whose thickness are adjusted to obtain the desired impedance. This is a superior way of obtaining a particular impedance value rather than involving the high/low coil barrier thickness and the height and width of the core windows.

The gaps also reduce noise by reducing the magnetostriction in the yokes from moving the leg chunks and visa versa. The weight of the chunks and the yoke assemblies allow large transformers to be assembled easily and disassembled to replace coils. Even Field Assembly can be considered.

The existing coils that a given manufacturer uses can be used in a 3-window core and the properties of the coils transferred to the 3-window configuration which will allow the existing coils to run cooler because of the lower core losses and because of the symmetrical and more effective cooling arrangement. Also less 3^rd harmonics and equal coil resistance in a 3-window situation means a fully balanced, high quality and more robust transformer.

When the hexagonal leg chunks are used, it will allow for closer fitting hexagonal winding tubes and superior coil bracing (and cooling) to be installed before the top yoke assembly is set in place. Such a close fitting arrangement will be far superior to round coil forms and a low fill factor for the core material. The coils will not rotate out of position causing problems in use.

As with all 3-window transformers, the use of the highly polar low voltage half turns (with high currents) will permit 3-phase to single phase constructions to be made more easily through the central areas of the top and bottom yokes. Round tanks and enclosures are suggested thus giving more internal space to route conductors or enhance the cooling with internal baffles that improve the natural chimney effect of the central area.

On smaller sizes, the central area can be used to clamp the top and bottom yokes to the leg chunks and work as a lifting device.

A clever mechanical engineer is surely going to find a way to order small oil filled units that are mounted on a sturdy pole top rod that fits onto a top to bottom pips that serves as the clamping device for the lid as well as the a lifting and central grounding rod.

The low cost to cut, stack and assemble 3-window chunk style transformers is surely going to be an important consideration when making the decision to re-engineer from the antique 2-window designs spread all over the world.

A major Push for the Patent and the new web site should be made in July 2009.

A Pittsburgh Inventor had a dream that this is what people will think about it.

The various spreadsheets shown on the 3-windows web site use the basic calculation technique that goes back well over 95 years at the Allis Chalmers Pittsburgh Plant which was closed and sold off in 1975 laying off 1500 skilled transformer people producing $50 million Dollars per tear of all kinds of transformers (mainly oil filled) up to 50 MV, dry type, oil filled potential and current transformers up to 210,000 volts and cast metering.

Inventor Gramm was one of the 1500 laid off. He refused transfer to Milwaukee or anywhere else. He started building the sheets in 1985 with an Everex 1800 computer, a gift from his daughter, who advised him he was a computer illiterate. By 2005 he had developed over 20 mega bytes of tried and verified designs during the evening hours while he designed and sold transformers during the days of the previous 20 years. He disclosed the 3-window ideas at that time and filed his patent on 4/18/05.

Designing From Scratch is a matter of putting in the 7 pieces of information into a fully automated sheet called “TV2PlusPatPend.xls”.

At this point, the design is pretty much finished including the dimensions of a NEMA 1 case, Factory price and the wound skew core on the Detailed Calculations sheet which shows that the results are “live” and actually calculated in row 2 across the top of the sheet with the name of the cell shown in row 1

The core dimensions and weight as well as the dimensions and weight for the wound skew core are also shown with the calculation details.

The range names in row 1 and the formulas in row 2 are from a simplified sheet called “MainString.xls” which is also given to licensee prospects and should be studied to convince yourself that this tried and proven calculation can be copied and pasted anywhere and get reliable results.

For example “Tline.xls” has 18 copies of Mainstring attached to an input range that automatically calculates a whole line of transformers and produces even the KVA using rules on the sheet that the user can adjust to suit the range of KVA desired.

The General sheet has 6 entries (in yellow background) and shows the General results.

Similarly, the other sheets are Primary, Secondary, Core, Coil, Mechanics, Temp, Material and Labor sheets with appropriate inputs for that subject.

TriRiseV15skew.xls is the most advanced of the spreadsheets dealing mainly with stacked cores and is “elastic” as far as t details of design allowing (and indeed) requiring making design decisions as to all the common design decisions like magnetic flux density, current density and overall dimensions or cooling information like the number and size of cooling ducts. Most of the standard sheets produce a winding sheet and a bill of materials.

The Licensee Package includes 20 Microsoft Excel spreadsheets built up over a 15 year period as an evening project while the Author was designing transformers during the day before his retirement in 2004.

This input page was copied from “TV2PlusPatPend.xls” and shows the minimum information to get a complete design including the 3-window core weight and compares it with a typical 2 window design with a minimum of effort. The entire 2 rows of the sheet are used to do the desige and each cell in the second row contains the formulas that do the design using the cell names in row 1 above each of the cells in row 2.