Fender trans-impedance power attenuator vs. Ultimate Attenuator

[Amptone]

What's the difference between Fender's trans-impedance power attenuator in the Fender Princeton Recording amp and the Ultimate Attenuator?

Fender's trans-impedance power attenuator:
http://pat2pdf.org/patents/pat6816009.pdf

Fender Princeton Recording amp:
http://fender.com/products/search.php?partno=2152000000

Demo video of the amp:
http://gearwire.com/fender-princeton-recording-amp.html

http://ultimateattenuator.com

Are the above similar to the coupling used in London Power's Super Scaling?
http://londonpower.com/sscaling.htm

Do both the Fender and Ultimate provide continuously variable wattage from 0 to max watts?

Does the Ultimate provide an active reactive load with current-coupling and transmitted pushback from the guitar speaker to the power tubes?

[hasserl]

Well we don't know the specifics, but probably the Fender circuit uses a correct impedance load in the "Resistive Element", while the UA does not. After reading some good descriptions of the construction of the UA, and seeing some pictures, I'll go out on a limb here and say the Fender unit is probably better built.

But I've got to say, the wording used in Fender's patent app in the Background of the Invention section is pretty crappy. I hope their system is more well thought out than that text.

[Old Tele man]

re: "...their system is more well thought out than that text."

...just remember, that text was written BY lawyers FOR lawyers (at the Patent Examinors Office) and not for techs or engineers

...with the sole intent of persuading the PEO that "this" application is a "...new, unique, and different..." manifestation of PRIOR applications, ie:

5,682,121-A * 10/1997, Naokawa et al...
5,905,802-A * 05/1999, Megeid...
5,973,368-A * 10/1999, Pearce et al...

...cuz if it wasn't they (FMIC) couldn't get a Patent on it!

[Amptone]

that text was written BY lawyers FOR lawyers
The text was written by techs and then edited by lawyers. The techs' description of why customers need volume-independent power-tube distortion is concerningly mismatched with the customers' own explanation of why they need volume-independent power-tube distortion.

If you were to ask guitarists why they need volume-independent power-tube distortion, their many plain and sensible answers would be notably different than the narrow, off-base reasons (or single reason) given by the techs in the patent. The Fender techs who drafted that copy don't appreciate or understand why in so many ways people need volume-independent power-tube distortion.

At least, they are unimaginative and ineffective at articulating the reasons; they only state some cliched notions, without getting to the full and plain reality of it. Their thinking and expression is stuck in narrow cliches that have misled designers and the industry. It's time for the designers, marketers, magazine writers, and industry to get real and properly understand and describe the many ways people need volume-independent power-tube distortion.