Tom Kirkman Wrote:

> He held 20 patents for
> fishing related innovations and inventions.

I'd sure like to see the complete list of patents he held.

I did basic searches with google, and inside the patent office itself and can not find 20 patents granted. I actually found only 2 granted patents and one design change to a patent. And that's it.

Here they are listed:

7,300,012 B1 Doug Hannon 2007-11-27 SPINNING REEL SPOOL
9,642,346 B2 Robert Douglas Hannon 2017-05-09 GUIDE
D685,056 S, Robert Douglas Hannon 2013-06-25 GUIDE DESIGN CHANGE

I have to wonder if Doug filed for 20 patents, but was only granted 2 and one design change to one of those patents?

One patent is granted in the name of Doug Hannon, while the other patent was granted in the name of Robert Douglas Hannon.

So let's take a look at what the patents actually show.... let's start with the patent that is today used to protect the trademarked name of microwave: 9,642,346 B2 Robert Douglas Hannon 2017-05-09 GUIDE.

And let's look at what was really Doug Hannon's original design as filed in his original patent:



NOTE: In the follow image from the original patent please notice the change in reel angle in relation to guides that is a part of his original idea accumulatively:


This type of an "idea" would not pose a snag hazard to casting now would it?










What is crystal clear is that Doug Hannon had an idea in his head of what he wanted to accomplish, but his designs are all over the place showing he was not so clear as to how to implement his idea and how to put it into production.

But what we all know today is that the microwave guide design is in production and is being sold and is a protected idea which can only mean to me at least that Doug Hannon sold his idea and possibly the patent just before his death in 2013. And oddly enough, that is when the patent design change was filed... D685,056 S, Robert Douglas Hannon 2013-06-25 GUIDE DESIGN CHANGE. And this is how all of the above changed from his original idea as filed for in his patent:





What I am curious about is how did this design change come about? Did Doug Hannon himself just magically come up with this new design all by himself and file this design change all by himself, or and I am speculating here, but could this design change have anything to do with the transfer of ownership of the patent and idea? So I am left wondering if those who today make this guide and *possibly* bought this patent and idea from Doug Hannon are in any way partly responsible for this design change at the last fleeting weeks and months of his life back in 2013?

But the bottom line here is that the microwave guide currently in production today is NOT what Doug Hannon originally envisioned. It is a modified change to his original ideas as the images clearly show.

Let's take a quick look at the only other patent I could find in Doug Hannon's real name from inside the U.S. patent office... 7,300,012 B1 Doug Hannon 2007-11-27 SPINNING REEL SPOOL

This "idea" of Doug Hannon's was to create a new design for spinning reel spools that would eliminate birds nest line flow. And here is that patented idea that was actually granted to him...









I'm not an engineer, but if something on the spool is "grabbing" the line during a cast, would it be reasonable to consider or conclude this type of thing might actually impede casting ability some? Curious what some of you think.

Oh, and if any of you are better at searching government data bases for patents, please see if you can find the other missing 18 patents I could not locate using the patent offices simple search function and advanced search function. Here is the link to patent office search page: [www.uspto.gov]

I noticed the patent used to protect the microwave guide is assigned to a company called Angling Technologies, LLC out of Boca Raton, Florida. And it should also be noted that Doug Hannon filed for this patent in 2010, and he died in 2013, and this patent was finally granted in 2017 some 4 years after his death. So what I am curious about is could any of those missing 18 patents be filed under different names?

No doubt Doug Hannon was a smart innovator with some workable ideas and some that may never see production reality while another did, but only once changed. So according to the U.S patent office based on my searches, I could only document that Robert Douglas Hannon was granted only 1 patent during his lifetime. Patents filed for and not granted don't count and are not available in the searches I did. I will have to contact the patent office to inquire as to whether or not patents filed for are available upon public records requests.

Another possibility is that a person can file for patents in foreign countries which are harder to trace.

To me this stuff is fascinating to dig into.

ADDED- In digging into the corporation known as Angling Technologies, it is "mysterious" to say the least and I will leave it there... very mysterious indeed! Gonna do some more digging on this one... since I am retired I have plenty of time to dig!

Here is where the mystery deepens! The following was found inside of the Florida Dept. Of State division of corporations public information search as allowed by laws of Florida...

HARKAVY, JEFFREY S BONEFISH & TARPON TRUST INC N00000001226
HARKAVY, JEFFREY STORM BARRISTERS FUNDING, INC. M56898
HARKAVY, JEFF S PINNACLE ADVISORS, LLC L03000017737
HARKAVY, JEFF S J.S.H. HOLDINGS LLC L06000055139
HARKAVY, JEFF S ANGLING TECHNOLOGIES, LLC L15000118307
HARKAVY, JEFF S JEFF STORM HARKAVY, P.A. P03000133623

Very interesting indeed! The question I have is why??? Time to dig sideways.

One thing I find interesting is that this trademarked Microwave patented idea and design may not be necessary.

What I mean is this... B.A.S.S. founder Ray Scott years ago before this Doug Hannon idea was patented said openly that he thought it was a good idea to reduce the spinning rod stripper guide size down to about the size of a dime.

And this is precisely the idea I have been building a lot of my spinning rods on. A reduction in stripper guide as Ray Scott publicly stated.

When I observe the line flow action of the microwave guide as shown on the American Tackle website, it immediately jumps out at me how the larger outer guide is not really doing the work, but the smaller guide is what is forcing the line flow to "stable".

What is interesting to note in the original design as thought up by Doug Hannon, you can measure the funnel effect of his original idea, but if you measure the funnel effect of the in production microwave guide you will see it is about cut in half in distance. So the operation of this guide design could really be simplified by eliminating the larger outer guide and simply going with the reduced stripper as Ray Scott originally stated in public when he produced his own line of Kistler made rods for his company SportsTackle. I own one myself and have used it to mimic from with many of my newer rods.

So we are doing the same thing in different ways.

But if you watch the video on the American Tackle website observe how little the line touches the outer ring in part due to the shortened funnel effect of the line having to flow into the smaller center guide so close behind it. Now if that funnel effect distance were increased as the original patent show, then I would conclude that more of the line would touch the outer guide than what we see now. But is that outer guide really even necessary with the shortened funnel effect pulling the line away from it so quickly?

Bottom line is, I can do the same thing without the microwave guide by simply reducing the stripper guide as Ray Scott publicized with his own line of signature series rods made by Kistler. Here is what Ray Scott said in 2003:

[www.rayscott.net]

"Scott's downsizing theory is revolutionary as far as typical spinning rod size guides. Starting with the "dime-size" gathering guide 18-inches in front of the cork handle, the guide placement is increasingly smaller toward a tiptop with a "pinpoint size opening."

"Conventional spinning rods feature an oversize stripper guide and normal size guide placement," points out Scott. "With smaller size stripper guide and reducing the overall guide sizes, there's less line drag and slap on the cast and improves casting distance and accuracy," he claims."

Interesting to note Doug Hannon's idea for the patent came just a few years after Ray Scott already did basically the same thing. Ray Scott 2002/2003 for production. Doug Hannon 2010.

I now have to wonder about Doug's idea and its origins. Pure speculation I know, but one has to consider the possibilities...

All Doug Hannon did was reduce that which was already being used and in production. Nothing more than a change in design and that's it. The "idea" had already been created but not patented. One has to wonder if Ray Scott patented his idea back in 2003, would the Doug Hannon patent idea been viable? The only difference is the 2 guides on 1 idea change. The reduction idea was already a done deal by legend Ray Scott.

Here is Ray Scott back in 2003 holding one of his Kistler made signature series SportsTackle, inc. spinning rods with Tennessee handle, and dime sized reduced stripper guide and entire rod reduced guide system doing precisely the same thing back then that today's microwave guide does now in 2021...



Now, add into this situation the common belief that in a standard spinning rod guide setup, that there is increased line flow friction that is eliminated due to the line control of the microwave guide. But keep in mind the microwave guide is 2 guides in one. So theoretically it should be x + Y = ? as far as line flow resistance on those 2 guides, while the Ray Scott method is simply X = ?. So X + Y > X of the Ray Scott method meaning Ray Scott's method should theoretically cast further than the microwave guide design since it has lower line flow resistance accomplishing virtually the same end result of line flow control.

Add all of this up, and this is behind why I no longer use the microwave guides. I tried the simple approach and it was not accepted. Hopefully this lengthier explanation will do the trick.

Today, I use the Ray Scott method. Its a shame he did not apply for a patent for it.



Edited 17 time(s). Last edit at 04/23/2021 07:15PM by Kent Griffith.

Kent - You missed a few of his inventions such the weedless trolling motor prop, the mule anchor, catch and release formula, moon clock, plus numerous lures like the skitter fish, Hannon frog, and snake lure. He was an accomplished angler, as well as a successful author, educator, and cinematographer who did a lot to promote fishing and fishing education. Some of reason he is in the bass fishing hall of fame. Give the guy some credit and respect, he deserves it. Hard for be to believe that you will demean the Microwave guide system, because Doug Hannon was not an engineer. Yet you have not even tried the microwave guides. A lot of inventions have been produced by people without an engineering degree. In fact by a lot of people without a college education, or even a high school education. A good idea is a good idea no matter who has it. This is after all America, the land of opportunity. I respect Ray Scott for what he has done, but I also don’t think he has an engineering degree, but you seem to respect his idea more than Doug Hannon’s. With all due respect, give me a break and stop this inane attack on microwave guides.
Norm

Norman I have tried the microwave guides. I built them on 4 of my personal rods years ago and removed them.

I am not trying to disrespect Doug Hannon at all, There were claims made and I check things out and do my homework is all.

Besides, he has been deceased now for 8 years and I doubt if he cares what is dug up these days... no pun intended.

If Doug Hannon has other inventions then where is the documentation for it? As I said I tried locating 20 patents and was not able to do so. His name in the U.S patent office only pulls up 2 patents, and one design change and that's it. And I made it clear based on the U.S. patent office search that Doug Hannon was granted only one patent while he was alive, and the second one I could find was granted 4 years after he died. These are simply facts on the ground and not a slight against him at all.

And it is not an insane attack on microwave guides. It is research and getting to bottom of it in my opinion and I merely posted the information I was finding so all could see it.

I am not doing anything wrong here. This is a discussion forum for information and discussion on that information, and I try and share information and nothing more or less. That is what this is. Researched out information and nothing more.

My point about engineers was clearly missed and redirected.

When you view Doug Hannon's original patent idea, it is clear he does not have an engineering background as his idea designs are all over the place as I showed. But just before he died, all of a sudden, his new design change shows advanced engineering being implemented from the top to the bottom of the new design, even the shape of the guide foot is telling me he had outside help to refine his idea into a production model. And that refined production model is vastly different than some of his original patent designs by a long shot. All one has to do is compare the funneling distance to see the vast differences.

Give me a break on the personal words about what I am posting since your opinion of it does not match my own opinion of it or why.

When claims are being made, I want documentation for it. Not opinions. And if documentation is not going to be presented here then I go searching for it. And posting it should not be considered a negative. You should actually say gee thanks Kent for such an informative comment, I had no idea- would be more appropriate to me. What's a discussion forum for anyway if we can not discuss verified information. Maybe just shooting the cheit with B S opinions is more preferred? I don't know.

Again, if anyone can provide a list of all Doug Hannon's patents please do so. I have been doing patent research for years and helped out with the Mitchell reel museum years ago in domestic and foreign patent research. Its a hobby of mine and I have stockpiled a large quantity of fishing related patents- many for ideas that will never see the light of day anywhere outside the patent office.

As for Doug Hannon I have followed his fishing advice for years. But if he has contributions then there should be documentation for it. Nothing wrong with searching it out and posting it.

Oh, and you said "Hard for be to believe that you will demean the Microwave guide system, because Doug Hannon was not an engineer."

And that is not the case. I went after the microwave guide because of physics. And what the patents show is that Doug Hannon did not create the microwave guide as shown in the patent design change made in 2013 just prior to his death. I believe someone else came up with that and in the process of buying it had the patent changed to reflect the new design vastly different from Doug's original idea. Doug merely came up with an idea, but the final product is not his. Idea yes. Microwave guide as produced today I do not believe came from him. The change in drawings compared to Doug's original drawings are not in the same ballpark or league. So he is credited with an idea for a product I now do not believe was his creation. His original patent shows what his brain came up with, and the change order shows what someone else came up with I believe during a transfer process.

And this is not a slight on Doug at all. Merely my opinion based on what I found. And it should be fair game to post since it is easily accessible public information. Is it too much to handle?

All you are accomplishing with a comment like the one above is to give me encouragement to keep on digging. There is an old saying truth hurts. And I must be on to something with a response like yours deviating from the topic to me.

I believe Ray Scott nailed it back in 2002, and Doug Hannon's idea and patent are for a gimmick idea geared towards nothing more than sales same as the old helicopter lure. Another gimmick I don't need to catch fish with. Sorry if you can't handle a difference of opinion. Please stick to the topics as I try to.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 04/23/2021 03:28PM by Kent Griffith.

""Dup



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/23/2021 04:30PM by chris c nash.

So Ray Scott figured out that a larger diameter spool will outcast a smaller diameter spool and came out with the Super Caster spinner , I don't call that groundbreaking I call that 'Basic common sense' . He also came to the conclusion that when using light line a smaller stripper guide and a gradual reduction in guide sizes from the stripper moving forward will produce a more efficient guide train , another 'basic common sense' conclusion .

I would bet the house Doug figured that one out long before he came up with the Microwave system . Sure you can use a KL20H or KL16H as a stripper but the Microwave still has that 1- 2 punch advantage of not only collecting the line from the reel but also instantly choking it down within a single guide which clearly is a revolutionary concept .

Just starting with a much smaller stripper doesn't allow that and I honestly can not see any other guide type or system that could be more efficient IF the line choice is light braid , that's as good as it gets . Doug was light years ahead of his peers .

Nobody has ever insisted on seeing Mr. Hannon's documentation , nobody cares about that . We all sincerely appreciate, (Except you) what he has done during his life and he's sorely missed .

chris c nash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Just starting with a much smaller stripper doesn't
> allow that and I honestly can not see any other
> guide type or system that could be more efficient

You would probably lose the house.

A microwave guide is starting with a smaller stripper. That's the whole point of it. How could that be missed or so easily dismissed?

There is a forest but some trees are in the way!

Ray Scott did it in 2002 and produced rods based on it in 2003.

Doug Hannon's idea was filed for patent in 2010 years later and not granted the patent until 4 years AFTER he died.

From where I sit, Ray Scott was light years ahead. He had the idea first between these 2. A provable first.

There are other claims out there that Doug developed the first camo line, developed the advanced live well, and others, but where is the documentation? I've read on this thread he developed some catch and release formula but where is the documentation for it?

"In the United States, catch and release was first introduced as a management tool in the state of Michigan in 1952 as an effort to reduce the cost of stocking hatchery-raised trout. Anglers fishing for fun rather than for food accepted the idea of releasing the fish while fishing in so-called "no-kill" zones."

Ray Scott pushed catch and release a long time ago, so how are we out here to believe all these claims for ideas and inventions based on what? I need documentation, not he said, she said and well maybe. Proof is required.

Let's take the livewell claim for example:

[1source.basspro.com]

"Doug invented the weed-less trolling motor prop, advanced live well systems in modern day bass boats,"

When I try and research the history of the livewell to find out who did what and when, guess what? Doug Hannon's name is not coming up.

Start with an unreliable source like Wikipedia:

[en.wikipedia.org]

Nothing to find there...

Next search for history of the livewell:

From BassMaster's own website:

[www.bassmaster.com]

"Ranger patented an aerated livewell system in 1973, which became standard on its boats. All bass boat manufacturers begin to add livewells and livewell plumbing, as well as permanent gas tanks."

And,

[innovativeplasticsinc.com]

1984 T-H Marine recognized the many opportunities for injection molded plastics that were not being met in the boating industry. We introduced many new products in that niche, including our first marine plumbing fittings, floor drains, fishing rod holders, and more variations of aerator heads for livewells."

But guess what? Not a single mention of Doug Hannon, nor precisely what Doug Hannon came up with to back up the easily spread around claim that he did something, only what? And what proof is there to be found for it? I surely did not find any patents for it in his name.

What is wrong with asking for proof and documentation so we can all learn from it? Not a dam thing as I see it. If you choose to blindly believe everything you hear or read online then have at it! But don't expect all of us to play along with it.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/23/2021 04:55PM by Kent Griffith.

Obviously your search was not exhaustive, here are a few you missed.
[patents.google.com]
I’m sure there are a few more. Took just a couple of minutes to find these. Just because you cannot find them does not mean he doesn’t have more patents to his credit, such as various fishing lures, catch and release formula, and the moon clock.
If you are trying to inform us then inform us in a non prejudicial fair and honest manner, without the inane speculations.
I didn’t say insane I said inane, they do have different meanings.
Whether you admit it or not you did demean the Microwave guides by stating,
“Concerning the microwave guide... I may be wrong, but it was not designed nor developed by an engineer like the standard traditional guide system has been carefully developed over many long years. Doug Hannon was not an engineer if I recall correctly. To me the microwave guide is more or less a sales gimmick idea. A way of making money from a product that is somewhat successful, but maybe not entirely sound physics. Anyone remember the helicopter lure? “ Give me a break.
Norm

The Microwave guide DOES NOT start with the smallest stripper Kent c'mon . The larger outer ring BEFORE the smaller choker guide is the stripper and it does make a difference . I don't care when Ray figured out that a larger spool will lead to longer casts than a smaller spool or when Ray came to the conclusion that a smaller diameter stripper seems to work more efficiently then a larger diameter stripper does when using light lines . They're still 'Basic common sense ' conclusions.


I don't care about all the other stuff and inventions Doug or Ray might have achieved I was specifically talking about the Microwave guides and the fact is that it's a brilliant concept brought to life that flat out works thanks to the 'Outside the box' thinking of Doug Hannon.

I think we all know where you stand on this topic meaning a purchase of a Microwave guide system on your part in the near future is unlikely at this point and that's OK .

Thanks! These are listed under R. Douglas Hannon. A variation of the name I did not consider and it did not come up, but the douglas Hannon search in the patent office should have pulled these up. So now up to 9. Good deal. Exactly what I was asking for.

Can you push it to 20?

Again Norm, what are discussion forums for? Filled with opinions. So you venture yours but others shouldn't? I should have a predictable popular opinion in line with everyone else in order to post comments?

Nah, not going to happen.

I'm now curious why someone would file for patents under at least 3 variations of their name. Back to patent office...

The fishing industry is filled with sales gimmicks and the patent office is proof of that! "but not entirely sound physics." Yep.

I have considered starting a thread on some of the wacky ideas found inside the patent office like the spiral wrapped spinning rod. A 360 degree spiral wrapped spinning rod is some how supposed to be better than a standard spinning rod. If it were being sold and making millions there would be those agreeing with how great it is. That much is plain to see. Sort of like how rods built on the spine can't cast straight and are horrible, but rods built on the straightest axis are awesome, never mind according to Gary Loomis he sees no difference between the two. People are never going to agree on everything all the time. Just the way it goes...

I wonder how many here used the helicopter lure and still have them in their boxes?

The diameter of a U.S. dime, is 17.91 mm. The center ring in the Microwave stripper guide is not a 17 mm guide. To my knowledge is it a 6 mm guide. I can only guess as to what the ID of that 6 mm guide is, but it isn't 17.91 mm. If you want to direct the stealing of Ray Scott's idea, direct it at Fuji and their KR concept. Not Doug Hannon.

As far as Doug Hannon and Catch and Release goes ..... no he didn't invent it, but he promoted its' use heavily, and is the man responsible for my personal use of the product, and live well additives in general.

As far as the lack of patents in Mr Hannon's name and challenging whether he invented something or not. You've got to be kidding? Not everyone that invents something gets a patent for it. Especially back in the late 70's and early 80's It's a much different world today. It wasn't the money grab that it is today. At least not for sportsman. And Doug Hannon was a sportsman and an educator. Teachers don't go into teaching for the money. They go into it for the satisfaction they get from opening peoples minds and effecting change.

chris c nash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Microwave guide DOES NOT start with the
> smallest stripper Kent c'mon . The larger outer
> ring BEFORE the smaller choker guide is the
> stripper and it does make a difference .

Really?

The microwave guide as a whole unit- as made- is the stripper guide. And at its core is nothing more than a small guide choking down the line oscillations right there at the stripper location.

Let's just agree to disagree.

I'll agree to disagree on all your other posts but not what the Microwave guide is . The main guide of the Microwave system is a larger stripper and a choker guide combination contained in a single guide . Just a stripper guide would be a Fuji KL25H . The Choker is not a part of it.

David Baylor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The diameter of a U.S. dime, is 17.91 mm. The
> center ring in the Microwave stripper guide is not
> a 17 mm guide. To my knowledge is it a 6 mm guide.
> I can only guess as to what the ID of that 6 mm
> guide is, but it isn't 17.91 mm. If you want to
> direct the stealing of Ray Scott's idea, direct it
> at Fuji and their KR concept. Not Doug Hannon.
>

That is interesting.

And I agree with Ray Scott in not choking down too much on line oscillations all in one spot like the microwave guide does. Hence the difference in sizes in this location. I think Ray Scott was seeking a balance while the microwave goes full tilt on it.

I'm curious why you think Fuji stole Ray Scott's idea? All i said was Ray came up with the stripper reduction idea before Doug did.

>
> As far as the lack of patents in Mr Hannon's name
> and challenging whether he invented something or
> not. You've got to be kidding? Not everyone that
> invents something gets a patent for it. Especially
> back in the late 70's and early 80's It's a much
> different world today. It wasn't the money grab
> that it is today.


Disagree. I believe people get patents to protect ideas so they can sell them. Patents are NOT for education. They are for the protection of ideas to be sold.

Also in digging through these patents, some list Doug as sole inventor, others only as co-inventor.

But I still firmly believe that anyone who files for a patent is hoping to make millions off of it. Only Doug did not get to live long enough to see that type of money from his idea he clearly sold to others... I hope he got enough to make the rest of his life more than comfortable back then because he did not get to enjoy it for very long sad to say.

The bird’s nest related to the Microwave casting guides that I most don’t want is the metal one that is the guide itself. The high frame, reverse Fuji guides (TRVTG, TRVAG, TRVSG) do the job at least as well, and arguably better. The TRV’s are compact, tidy, and sleek. I also like the SeaGuide Blu-Ti guide system. The Fuji TRV guides literally weigh several times less than the choice that is comparatively a Rube Goldberg-esque wad of more snag prone metal and ceramic. I considered the MW system for a heavier casting rod and decided against it after considering the options.

There is getting to be so many seemingly dubious claims on here about a certain brand. Are their rings really the most durable? How do posters know this? Is there independent, destructive testing comparing every makers’ guides? Are their blanks really better for drastically cutting down than others? Is this even a positive attribute over buying a blank that is the needed length? Do their guide trains really weigh less? Is casting length really longer? Where is the independent, empirical evidence for all of these assertions?

I’m not negative towards many of their products, For instance, I like the CCT reel seats. It is just becoming apparent that a chorus here is over-amplifying where these products really are relative to the rest of the market. I have used parts from every major component company within my last few builds, including their’s. I’m not stuck on or off of any company. If you like their stuff, great. However, Fuji, Alps, SeaGuide, CRB, and others make their share of better to equivalent products, too.

Kendall Cikanek Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> There is getting to be so many seemingly dubious
> claims on here about a certain brand. Are their
> rings really the most durable? How do posters know
> this? Is there independent, destructive testing
> comparing every makers’ guides?

I totally agree with you Kendall!

And I would add that this is a problem throughout the entire fishing tackle industry from top to bottom.

Humans are easily deceived, and this is taken advantage of by a lot of tackle brand companies. And you are right again there is no independent verification on any of it.

And on forums like this one we can disagree and debate it from now until forever it seems.

But at least with a thread like this one, I can actually learn something as it progresses.

So is it possible to change this situation of independent verification or is the fishing tackle business hopelessly lost to using misinformation endlessly for sales?

Kendall Cikanek Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The bird’s nest related to the Microwave casting
> guides that I most don’t want is the metal one
> that is the guide itself. The high frame, reverse
> Fuji guides (TRVTG, TRVAG, TRVSG) do the job at
> least as well, and arguably better.

Could you elaborate on this please? I am not sure if I am following you correctly.

chris c nash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Microwave guide DOES NOT start with the
> smallest stripper Kent c'mon . The larger outer
> ring BEFORE the smaller choker guide is the
> stripper and it does make a difference .

Chris, I just checked the MudHole website concerning the microwave guide and it is sold as a stripper guide exactly as I stated it was:

[www.mudhole.com]

"MicroWave 12-6 Stripper Guide"

[www.mudhole.com]

"Set includes 1 stripper guide, 1 transition guide & 7 running guides (9 total based on a 7’ spinning rod, additional running guide available for longer rods). Also includes suggested layout measurements."

And above I said that that Doug Hannon had outside help on the design change to his original patent. And it looks like I was right again. I pointed out how the drawings on the original patent were no where close to the current production modeling, and I was dead on target!

[www.mudhole.com]

"Introducing the MicroWave Guide System by the American Tackle Company. Inventor Doug Hannon also known as “The Bass Professor” partnered with American Tackle to conceive, design and manufacture the perfect “line control” system for spinning rods."

The updated, shortened funnel effect, and complete overhaul of the original Doug Hannon patented ideas were from outside help indeed!

Now it is clear how it went from this- and why:



To this:



The funnel reduction to finished product is staggering!

Another interesting feature is the change away from the original patented idea in guide angle alignment to the reels. On the spinning rod and reel shown in original patent, Doug angled the spinning reel to his guide idea which is parallel to the rod and not angled towards the reel.

But, with the baitcasting version of this microwave guide we find the opposite is happening. The reel is now parallel with the rod, but the entry into the microwave guide is now angled off axis to the line coming out of the reel. Not that it matters much at all or would be noticeable in any way, other than being a peculiarity observation.



Is it just the photography or is the smaller guide closer to the bottom than the top of the larger guide?



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 04/23/2021 07:26PM by Kent Griffith.

Here's the thing about patents, I know because I have had two (expired now) and there is a difference between a good patent and a bad patent. The reason it is advised to have a good patent attorney write your "claims" is that they know the ins and outs of how to word things. Patent claims (at one time you could make 14 claims per patent, if I recall correctly) and thus you would expand every possible manifestation of your item or process so that the patent would have broad coverage. For instance, you would never patent a chair and expect it to hold up for long if you claimed "A device supported by 4 uprights that will support a human being." That's a bad claim. What you would want to claim is "A device supported by any number of uprights and is intended to support a person/persons or similar." The latter claim holds up a heck of a lot better But patent claims are a subject for a different discussion.

The issue here is whether or not the MicroWave butt guide causes some sort of line overshoot. It doesn't. The video screen shot showing such also contains a caption explaining the video and that this was intentionally done to show how the system handled a birdsnest. Anyone that has used the MW system will tell you from practical experience that line overshooting of the butt guide isn't an issue with these guides. Trying to convince them otherwise by diagrams on a piece of paper or theories that fly in the fact of practical experience is futile.

.............

I’m sorry, but the dime sized stripper was not Ray Scott’s idea. It came forth during the 80s or 90s when a number of people demonstrated that the height of the guide off the blank was more important than ring size for controlling line flow. Dale Clemens, among others, wrote about this way in advance of Scott’s endorsement. This was a reasons I played around with match guide set-ups back then. This dime size stripper was nothing more than a size16 match guide which was the same height as as a size 25 V guide, commonly used as a spinning rod stripper back then, and even now. Match guides had a taller frame for a given ring size and were fairly common in the US back then, but never really caught on here. However, they were quite popular in Europe and Asia. They were sold by both Fuji and PacBay. Who holds the patent, I don’t know or care, but wouldn’t be surprised if it was Fuji. I still have some old Fuji and PacBay Match guides laying around. The Fuji KR reduction guides are basically tangle free match guides. What Fuji did with the KR concept was to group their tangle free match guide-like KR reduction guides based on their heights. The reduction train was designed to quickly and efficiently choke line coils from the spinning reel and feed the straightened line to small low profile running guides. It worked! Doug Hannon independently came up with a different solution, and it also worked. Although I prefer the KR concept, the Microwave guide system is valid spinning rod guide option, and it is not a sales gimmick.
Norm

Kent , lets try this again it's NOT COMPLICATED !!! What I said about the guide is 100% correct , it's a Stripper/Choke combo guide one look at it tells you that . OF COURSE American Tackle and Mudhole call it a stripper that's to make it easy to understand for the average rod building person . Any semi experienced rod builder knows it's a Stripper/choke combo guide JUST LOOK AT IT C'MON . Note how the descriptions DO NOT mention a choke guide , that's because the choke is a part of the stripper .



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/23/2021 08:59PM by chris c nash.