www.sausagemaking.org

Hi all
just thought I'd share my cold smoker design....although there may be better ones out there. It has one component and cost me a total of £3.40 from http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Fine-Stainless-Steel-wire-mesh-Insect-Reptile-vent-/280545324966?pt=UK_Pet_Supplies_Reptiles_Spiders_Insects.

Mesh...marked-up with the measurements shown in the pdf link further down the document

First folds...with the first set of cuts made as shown in the pdf

Folding close-up

Folded 1

Folded 2

Folded 3

Cross tracks....tabs of wire are folded down out of the way

Finished...one continuous track. Finished article is 10cm by 16cm


The original sheet is 30cm by 20cm. I mark it at 2cm intervals across the 20cm direction. I also mark a single line along each edge of the 30cm direction. I make a series of cuts 2cm into most of the 2cm spaced lines...(see this pdf link https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B6nMClWjtUcZZWZhMDBlNjAtYmFkMi00ZWI3LTkxNDctZjg2ZmJiODViYjk1&hl=en&authkey=CNyc89sJ). I then fold along each of the lines as you can see in the pictures, finally wrapping the ends round to block the ends off (bottom tabs are bent up and then the side tabs are bent in behind it). I then make selected cuts down at the end of alternating ends of each track to make the cross tracks.

In reference to the pdf ....the meaning of the pages are:

First page is how to mark up the mesh sheet
Second page is where to make the first set of cuts
Third is where to make the first set of folds (you'll need to look at the pictures above though to work out which direction to do each fold)
Fourth is where to make the last cuts for the cross-tracks...although it will look different to this as the sheet is now folded. These cross-track cuts could also be made while the sheet is flat...but I found it easier to do once it was folded. The cut tabs are then bent flat to open up the cross tracks

The result is a total track length of >80cm. I used beech saw dust (very dry) and it burnt for 7.5 hours...just light with a lighter or candle (as you would for a ProQ). I simply put it on the bbq with food beside it and it worked fine. The mesh supplier also does a 30cm by 60cm sheet that with a 2cm spacing would burn for ~20 hours. At the end of the burn there wasn't a single grain of sawdust left . Timing is adjusted by only partly filling the tracks. 1 track (about 1.5 hours) was just right for a block of cheese (then wrapped in the fridge for a day for the flavour to penetrate and even-up).

Cheers
Kev

I don't doubt you made it, but I have to wonder if it is really your own design...

Jaunty wrote:I don't doubt you made it, but I have to wonder if it is really your own design...

Hi Jaunty
What makes you say that?

Having the wire base is inspired by the ProQ (a very clever design, particularly for its simplicity)....apart from that it is my own design. Dimensions were dictated by the size of the wire sheet that happened to be for sale on ebay, and the layout of the tracks was the only way I could think of getting a continuous run using only pliers and scissors for tools.

Kev

Jaunty wrote:I don't doubt you made it, but I have to wonder if it is really your own design...

I also haven't done an exhaustive search to see of anyone else has made one the same way....but I have designed my layout quite independently.....and if this has already been done exactly the same by someone else....well done....another inventive person out there

Just thought it was worth sharing with all the other misers out there (like me ), who try to save a penny wherever possible. The easiest answer, of course, is to go buy a ProQ

Kev

Kev,
Thanks for sharing, grate little smoke genny.

A fellow miser

lemonD wrote:Kev,
Thanks for sharing, grate little smoke genny.

A fellow miser

You're welcome. The challenge of doing things on a budget (whether I need to or not) gives me an extra sense of achievement. If I had unlimited funds to throw at it I'm not sure I would enjoy it as much.
Cheers
Kev

I don't want to dampen your enthusiasm for a great piece of work, but it does seem to be your own version of the ProQ smoker, using mesh instead of bar as I imagine you don't have the facilities to form the track using bar.

I would be keen to get the thoughts of the designer of the original, would also be interesting to know exactly what the patent is pending for on the Original CSG. Are there implications for an individual infringing a patent.

I personally feel it is a shame that you have such a sense of achievement in nicking someone elses intellectual property that you feel you should post a photo, encouraging others to make one, reducing the potential sales for a guy trying to make a few quid.

Richierich wrote:I personally feel it is a shame that you have such a sense of achievement in nicking someone elses intellectual property that you feel you should post a photo, encouraging others to make one, reducing the potential sales for a guy trying to make a few quid.

Oh come on Rich give Kev a break, he's just following the spirit of this forum.

Richierich wrote:I don't want to dampen your enthusiasm for a great piece of work, but it does seem to be your own version of the ProQ smoker, using mesh instead of bar as I imagine you don't have the facilities to form the track using bar.

I would be keen to get the thoughts of the designer of the original, would also be interesting to know exactly what the patent is pending for on the Original CSG. Are there implications for an individual infringing a patent.

I personally feel it is a shame that you have such a sense of achievement in nicking someone elses intellectual property that you feel you should post a photo, encouraging others to make one, reducing the potential sales for a guy trying to make a few quid.

I appreciate your concern over the rights of the ProQ CSG inventor....but I do not appreciate you saying that I have stolen (nicked) the idea . I can assure you I have not.....and I gave proper credit to the principle of the ProQ CSG in my original posting.

I have a patent law qualification (part of a Master of Law degree) and two of my good friends are qualified patent lawyers. Without even bothering to look at the ProQ CSG patent (if it is published yet) I can tell you that I have not infringed the patent for two basic reasons:

1 - I have no intentions of selling or giving away copies of the device
2 - I have made no preparations to manufacture the device (I hardly think owning a pair of scissors counts)

One or both of these are required for this to be a patent infringement.

The aim of patents is not to make money for the inventor (although most inventors think this is the case)...it is actually to encourage inventors to publish the principles behind their invention under a cover that prevents others exploiting it through manufacture and sales. The state wants inventors to publish their invention rather than keep it a secret because the next stage of innovation is then possible using this publically available knowledge.

I'm sure you have in the past chastised all the people who have used a fridge and a soldering iron CSG since there may be some resemblance between their smoker and a Bradley. I assume that in your opinion all these people should have bought a Bradley so as not to reduce the company's income.

I have also been very open about the fact that my idea was inspired by the ProQ CSG...which I said myself was an excellent idea.

I do not appreciate being called a thief or that my actions are a direct attack on someone else’s livelihood any more than all the other DIY smokers, bbq's, etc out there are. Everyone out there is in fact entirely entitled to make exact replicas of the ProQ CSG if they wish, so long as they do not go into production or sell the product...and ProQ have been more revealing than I have since their product is available for the whole world to see and copy if they wish.

Sorry if I have taken your post in the wrong way...but the only person here to have spoken out of turn in my opinion is the one calling me a thief when I am not.

I would also add that in my thrid post I suggest that the easiest option is to buy a ProQ CSG....and this is certainly true and would save you the hastle and provide you with a more robust product than my design provides.

Just to be clear on the IP side also...I waive any design rights to my CSG and will not enforce copyright on my graphics or pictures

I have written, deleted and re-written several responses.

I think the most appropriate is to apologise for any offence meant, and hope that we can put this behind us and can actively correspond side by side moving forward.

Kev that is almost exactly the same as my 1st design of my ProQ Cold Smoke Generator, which took 6 months of fiddling to get it to that stage... there was nothing on the market to go by. It only had a burn time of around 6 hours, hence the change to the current design.

Well done!

Ian

Good to hear from Ian.

I didn't really have a problem with an enthusiast "having a go", I just wanted to see an acknowledegement that the design used was basically a copy of the ProQ.

Richierich wrote:I have written, deleted and re-written several responses.

I think the most appropriate is to apologise for any offence meant, and hope that we can put this behind us and can actively correspond side by side moving forward.

Hi Rich
I will have to add my apologies . I am normally a very measured and chilled person and I'm afraid I fired off on one (already had a row with the CEO today so was a bit heated at the time...not the best mood to respond in).

If it helps, my design is a bodge and will not last long, whereas the ProQ CSG is solid and comes with a long guarantee. Realistically, it takes an hour or two to make mine (so on an hourly rate it would not really save anyone any money unless they enjoyed doing such things for leisure..which is what I was doing), plus lots of stabbings from the frayed wire ends and most people (unless they are born tinkerers) would be better off buying the ProQ CSG, which is very good value for money....and it burns for longer.

My construct required little ingenuity and no inventiveness (in the strict IP sense of the word) on my part...simply because it relies entirely on the principle that I presume is the inventive step claimed in the filed patent on the ProQ CSG...that is, a track for the burn and the wire base (although I haven’t seen the patent...I couldn't find it on espacenet.com....so I presume it is currently pending). It was ProQ who put in the inventive thought and development effort to come up with a good product.

Anyway...no offence taken all-round hopefully.
All the best
Kev

probbq wrote:
Kev that is almost exactly the same as my 1st design of my ProQ Cold Smoke Generator, which took 6 months of fiddling to get it to that stage... there was nothing on the market to go by. It only had a burn time of around 6 hours, hence the change to the current design.

Well done!

Ian

Hi Ian
Sorry if this has caused hassle....it wasn't the intention. I would like to add that my design was inspired by your ProQ CSG... but was not a copy (although this now looks a bit suspect given that it does look like a direct copy of your prototype ).

Professionally I have gone down a different road to IP law now...but it remains an interest and I do love to see a real innovation that is both attractive and deceptively simple in its principle (this is not the same as obvious...the test of which is that if it was obvious someone would already have done it ). Also that you have made a commercial success of it.....most patented products do not even get to the market.

Carry on innovating
Cheers
Kev