Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Math professor's side mirror that eliminates 'blind spot' receives US patent

phys.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 77 posts

Re: Math professor's side mirror that eliminates 'blind spot' receives US patent

#31

Post by bermanoid »

kschua wrote: post #12

This is just beautiful. Practical application of maths. I would love to get my hands on one of these when it is done. Glad that he has a patent for that. He should be justly rewarded for coming out with this road safety feature. To those that believe that there is prior art, do note that the patent granted is for "Wide angle substantially non-distorting mirror". It is not just any curve mirror, it is unlike normal cu…

I can't access the actual article, but this doesn't sound like a very substantial bit of work. On its face, it's the type of thing I'd probably expect a decently bright college kid to solve quite well as a week-long project, nothing more.

Even if it was, we don't typically give out patents for mere solutions to novel math problems. Why should this be any different?

Re: Math professor's side mirror that eliminates 'blind spot' receives US patent

#32

Post by snitzr »

confluence wrote: post #29

Relevant: http://www.quora.com/Why-haven-t-cars-yet-solved-the-problem... Apparently most people set up their mirrors incorrectly by overlapping view paths, when it would in fact be better if things moved between mirrors without any overlap (e.g. rear view mirror covers the back whilst the side mirrors cover blind spots - no overlap in between). I've tried it out and it feels rather weird, but I must say I've found i…

I agree, but prepare for flame war thread based on this idea. http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/uq4l0/math_professo...

Re: Math professor's side mirror that eliminates 'blind spot' receives US patent

#33

Post by pwg »

mbreese wrote: post #15
lloeki wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, because there is prior art. I'm not even sure it would stand in the US. It's been a while since I have not driven a car that has a flat mirror near side (cost cuts and relative driver position makes far side less of a problem. Still, they're often not exactly flat either). Cars here (Europe) generally have an improved version, as the linear radius was giving too much of a fisheye, which breaks depth linearity. Th…

He would be able to patent all curved mirrors, just his particular implementation and design. He may have an optimal design that certainly would deserve patent protection. The question that he has to worry about with the patents is whether or not his 2008 paper was published before or after the non-US patents were applied for. If I'm not mistaken, the US has a one year grace period between public display (publishing…

If you lookup the patent on the USPTO's system:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sec...

You will find that the ultimate filing date is Feb. 2007, and that multiple publications by Dr. Hicks were cited in the "Other References" area.

Re: Math professor's side mirror that eliminates 'blind spot' receives US patent

#34

Post by pwg »

willvarfar wrote: post #3
stephengillie wrote: post #2

In the United States, regulations dictate that cars coming off of the assembly line must have a flat mirror on the driver's side. Curved mirrors are allowed for cars' passenger-side mirrors only if they include the phrase "Objects in mirror are closer than they appear." Because of these regulations, Hicks's mirrors will not be installed on new cars sold in the U.S. any time soon. The mirror may be manufactured and so…

so the question becomes, is his patent valid in Europe and Asia?

US patents are only valid in the US. He has to obtain a patent in each country separately (other than in the European union where it is possible to get a "European Patent").

Re: Math professor's side mirror that eliminates 'blind spot' receives US patent

#35

Post by wccrawford »

confluence wrote: post #29

Relevant: http://www.quora.com/Why-haven-t-cars-yet-solved-the-problem... Apparently most people set up their mirrors incorrectly by overlapping view paths, when it would in fact be better if things moved between mirrors without any overlap (e.g. rear view mirror covers the back whilst the side mirrors cover blind spots - no overlap in between). I've tried it out and it feels rather weird, but I must say I've found i…

I had my previous car set up so that there was only a tiny bit of overlap. This left my mind free of worry about a blind spot between them while giving me full view of everything behind me.

Sadly, my new car's mirrors can't be positioned like this, and I really hate backing up in it. Due to the shape of it, I think the only solution is going to be a camera and video display. If I could find one that had nearly 180 degrees of viewing angle, that would be awesome. I usually don't need to judge where it is, just that there's something there or not.

Re: Math professor's side mirror that eliminates 'blind spot' receives US patent

#36

Post by naner »

confluence wrote: post #29

Relevant: http://www.quora.com/Why-haven-t-cars-yet-solved-the-problem... Apparently most people set up their mirrors incorrectly by overlapping view paths, when it would in fact be better if things moved between mirrors without any overlap (e.g. rear view mirror covers the back whilst the side mirrors cover blind spots - no overlap in between). I've tried it out and it feels rather weird, but I must say I've found i…

I have had my side view mirrors setup like this for years and it isn't always better.

The first problem is that you cannot see your car in the side view mirror. This doesn't seem like a big deal, but it can be difficult to judge where everything in the mirror is positioned if you don't have a reference point. You get used to this.

The second issue is that if you have a big straight long line of cars behind that are close together (e.g. traffic on the interstate is at a crawl), you can not see far back on either side of your lane since your mirrors are pointed out and your center mirror is mostly consumed by the vehicle behind you. This makes it difficult to safely merge out of your lane in this situation.

Re: Math professor's side mirror that eliminates 'blind spot' receives US patent

#37

Post by gjm11 »

Blogspam.

Original press release from Drexel University: http://www.drexel.edu/now/news-media/releases/archive/2012/J... Added value in PhysOrg article: zero.

Please, everyone, stop submitting links from PhysOrg and ScienceDaily. I have never ever ever seen anything on those sites that isn't either (1) bullshit or (2) a recycled press release with zero (or often negative) added value. (Sometimes it's both at once.) It only takes ten seconds' googling to find the original source.

Re: Math professor's side mirror that eliminates 'blind spot' receives US patent

#38

Post by joshuahedlund »

Confusion wrote: post #26
archangel_one wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Curved mirrors are more efficient in one sense but tends to lead people to misjudge distances. Presumably the government think that showing a misleading picture may be worse than not showing one at all, which is not complete idiocy. This mirror apparently doesn't really suffer from that problem, but the legislation didn't anticipate it - which isn't really surprising, it's hardly realistic to expect them to foresee t…

Any mirror tends to lead people to misjudge distances and speeds. Mirrors are not things we naturally understand and you have to get used to judging how far behind you something is, while looking in front of you. If you're looking in a mirror and something comes in your direction very fast, you tend to step back... directly into the thing coming at you. Curved mirrors also take getting used to, but I doubt it has eve…

> but I doubt it has ever been shown that the number of errors people make because of using curved mirrors is larger than the number of errors people make while using regular mirrors.

I'm even more interested in the number of errors people make from curved mirrors compared to the number of errors people make from having no mirrors at all (regarding the blind spot area)

Re: Math professor's side mirror that eliminates 'blind spot' receives US patent

#39

Post by confluence »

naner wrote: post #36
confluence wrote: post #29

Relevant: http://www.quora.com/Why-haven-t-cars-yet-solved-the-problem... Apparently most people set up their mirrors incorrectly by overlapping view paths, when it would in fact be better if things moved between mirrors without any overlap (e.g. rear view mirror covers the back whilst the side mirrors cover blind spots - no overlap in between). I've tried it out and it feels rather weird, but I must say I've found i…

I have had my side view mirrors setup like this for years and it isn't always better. The first problem is that you cannot see your car in the side view mirror. This doesn't seem like a big deal, but it can be difficult to judge where everything in the mirror is positioned if you don't have a reference point. You get used to this. The second issue is that if you have a big straight long line of cars behind that are c…

You're right about that, but I don't usually find myself in such situations too often, and when I do I just move my head to get a better view straight back (either side/rear). I find blind spots much more dangerous :D.

Re: Math professor's side mirror that eliminates 'blind spot' receives US patent

#40

Post by dhimes »

gjm11 wrote: post #37

Blogspam. Original press release from Drexel University: http://www.drexel.edu/now/news-media/releases/archive/2012/J... Added value in PhysOrg article: zero. Please, everyone, stop submitting links from PhysOrg and ScienceDaily . I have never ever ever seen anything on those sites that isn't either (1) bullshit or (2) a recycled press release with zero (or often negative) added value. (Sometimes it's both at once.)…

I think you are a little harsh in bashing the sources. Their value is that they serve as a distribution of press releases from many sources. That is exactly how a press release is supposed to be used. And I can go to a press-release redistribution site and see press releases from various organizations in a related field instead of having to check each organization individually.

Yes, please filter the bullshit. But submitting from press-release redistribution sites is ok. If it's of further interest, submit the original paper. In this case, the paper (scientific news) is old- it's the step in the business direction that is being disclosed.

Post reply on HN