IZArc virus scan settings for McAfee VirusScan

Reddit It | Digg This | Add to your: del.icio.us, Google, Yahoo

IZArc is fantastic for handling virtually every possible file compression, but I'm sure you already knew that. Microsoft did well building zip into the operating system, but IZArc is better.

Anyway, when you install it, you can optionally specify a virus scanning program. I have McAfee / Network Associates VirusScan (v8.0.0), and it took me a moment to figure out reasonable values for the Virus Scanner options. I didn't see any settings on the web for what other people were using for scan32, so here is what I did.

Options / Configuration / Program Locations / Virus Scanner
Optional Virus Scanner: C:\Program Files\Network Associates\VirusScan\scan32.exe
Parameters: %d /AUTOEXIT /NOESTIMATE

If anyone has better settings, let me know.

Google Pages hosting with/without WWW

Reddit It | Digg This | Add to your: del.icio.us, Google, Yahoo

As a tip to godaddy subscribers (such as myself), I post my experiences with google page hosting...

I have a host (example.org for this writeup) domain purchased through godaddy.com, and I wanted to host pages at Google. Google makes it easy to point http://www.example.org to their page hosting services, but there is no (or little) information about making http://example.org point to the same web site. The result was that if you people visited http://example.org, they would be greeted with a godaddy domain parked page.

The good people at godaddy.com lead me to forward the main domain to the subdomain.

• I had already setup godaddy as Google pages suggested creating a CNAME to point to ghs.google.com.
• I ensured that the A record for Host @ is set to the original value set up by godaddy.com.
• I then clicked on example.org and clicked the "Forward" button, enabled forwarding to "http://www.example.org" with option "302 Moved Temporarily".

Now, when someone tries http://example.org, the forwarding should cause them to browser redirect to http://www.example.org, which has a cname record pointing to ghs.google.com, which should bounce the browser to google pages for example.org.

In short, http://example.org (and http://www.example.org) should now end up at http://www.example.org-a.googlepages.com

I hope this helps godaddy customers who have google apps page hosting.

Repair ViewSonic V150 BATTERY

Reddit It | Digg This | Add to your: del.icio.us, Google, Yahoo

I bought a ViewSonic V150 airpanel Smart Display on ebay a while ago, and its battery was never very good. Now it won't hold a charge at all. This isn't surprising since the device was discontinued years ago. I see that a "new" battery is currently $129, and I've seen repairs for $79 (at BatteryRefill).

As a remote display, it is a nice laptop replacement for around the house, and repairs are too expensive, so I'm fixing the battery myself. Warning: I must mention that this is my attempt, and an account of my own experiences. I ended up encountering many warnings about Li-Ion batteries and their potential for fires and explosions. You may follow my instructions completely at your own risk, but you will need the skill (not just confidence) to do it safely and successfully.

The battery cartridge appears to be glued tightly all the way around, and the rubber feet have nothing useful hidden below them.




Carefully twisting this battery compartment cracked the seal on the connector's side. At this point, I can see that there is a groove that goes all the way around the compartment that holds it all tight, and is only glued together.

Some additional prying from the center, to crack open the entire connector side.

The with some gentle, but firm prying, the end came apart. Again, just glue holding it together.

As I claimed victory against the glue, I let the comparement open with the labels side down. A small circuit board, and 4 crudely taped batteries are exposed. Interesting that the space beside the batteries is clearly contoured to handle another row of batteries. The extra batteries must have been an idea, or buy-up option that you could have paid for.







A quick search on the internet for this ICR18650-20 Li-Ion Rechargeable Battery by Samsung reveals all.

Samsung Site for ICR18650-20 battery.

ICR18650-20 Li-Ion Rechargeable Battery

Nominal Capacity            2,000mAh
Nominal Voltage             3.7V
Dimension                   D 18.25mm, H 65.0mm
Charge Method               Constant Current
                  Constant Voltage (4.2V)
Max. Charge Current         1CmA (2,000mA)
Max. Discharge Current      2CmA (4,000mA)
Discharge Temperature       -20°C ~ +60°C
Weight (approx.)            44g
Energy Density              448Wh/I, 172Wh/kg
Charging Time               Standard : 3hrs.
                  Rapid : 2.5hrs.

I could order the same exact battery, or improve the battery with either the 2,200mAh or 2,400mAh alternatives.
See
http://www.samsungsdi.com/contents/en/product/battery/type01_ICR18650_20.html
http://www.samsungsdi.com/contents/en/product/battery/type01_ICR18650_22.html
http://www.samsungsdi.com/contents/en/product/battery/type01_ICR18650_24.html


I looked around at all the options, 2000mAh - 3600mAh, with slightly varying specs. Sometimes the built in safety protection circuits made the size slightly longer than 65mm tall. It looks like any additional length will cause problem with the already tight fit. I suspect that there are lots of options that will work, but I tried to go for close compatibility and safety. More capacity means more longer charging, higher density, and more potential instability. Closer specs to the original should mean the better the existing circuitry will treat the new batteries. I also want a good price without buying cut-rate or used merchandise.

I found an inexpensive battery that had a close match to the original Samsung 18650, except in a 2200mAh. It even had similar charge and discharge current numbers, which sometimes was the only obvious difference from the original battery. I decided to get pre-wired tabs since I'm not supposed to soldier directly to the battery. The company also had "reasonable" feedback on ResellerRatings.com.

I ordered:

Li-Ion 18650 Cylindrical Cell 18650 3.6V 2200mAh Cell (LC-18650H2-tab)

4 x $5.80 (includes $.25 for Pre-Wired Tabs) + shipping = $30.18

Here at BatterySpace

I NOTED THE ORIENTATION (DIRECTION) OF ALL THE BATTERIES. If I put a battery back in the wrong orientation and tried to charge it, the battery would probably catch fire or explode. The negative/positive ends must be lined up properly !!!

I removed the batteries by clipping the ribbon "tabs," then noted the orientation of all the batteries to install the new batteries exactly the same way as the old batteries. I removed all the tape from the tops and bottoms very carefully. Be most careful by the two small wires next to the blue one. Save the brown single sided tape if possible! Throw away all the double sided tape.

I soldered the SAME wires to the battery tabs the SAME way the old batteries were attached. I was careful to only solder to the tabs (and quickly) to be sure no heat bothered the fire hazard explosive batteries (as all the warnings told me).

I left the two dangling wires beside the blue wire. I'm convinced that they are thermo devices to help the circuitry ensure that the batteries aren't getting too hot during charging. These temperature sensors must attach the same way they were afterward.

I secured the batteries to the plastic compartment with double sided tape. I used "Glass-Tac Acrylic Double-Face Tape" from Home Depot. I also had to secure the batteries AFTER I soldered them in place. It would have been MUCH better for me to put tape in the plastic chamber, add the batteries, positioning the tabs for soldering, then solder them in. I was left trying to lift the connected batteries enough to put double sticky tape below, which was rather difficult.

When I secured the batteries, I made sure the blue wire's connection was reasonably far from the two temperature sensing wires, because I would then need to carefully secure those two with their own tape.

I put tape over the two wire temp sensors to secure them tightly against the batteries just as they were before. If I had saved any of the brown single sided tape from above, I could have reused it here. I ended up using the same double sided tape for this. I wanted to use heat resistant tape as was there before.






I resisted the temptation to use the typical black electrical tape. That stuff tends to get gooey over time and slide around. It certainly wouldn't work for anything that needed to be tightly taped. I did put the little paper dividers back under the solder points to protect the battery from contact and put a little bit of electrical tape on top of the paper to thicken the divider.

After reassembling the pack, I found that the battery pack would attach to the console without the battery pack top plastic attached. I attached the power supply and charged the unit out in the garage for 1.5 hours keeping it carefully covered (in case of explosion), and touched the batteries every few minutes to test for overheating. The unit charged perfectly, without the batteries warming up at all.

I will probably NOT glue/secure the battery pack shell together since when assembled and jammed into the console, it locks and stays together perfectly. If anyone other than myself were to use the unit, I would immediately consider gluing it back together. I will be carefully charging this unit for some time to come, and feeling for battery heat.

I spent less than $40, and consider the project a success!

If you want to further hack the unit, try this (I'm not going to)
PanelPet's Smart Display Panel page

Google Bot-Net Stopper?

Reddit It | Digg This | Add to your: del.icio.us, Google, Yahoo

With an idea like GoogleDNS widely in use, Google would be in a position to detect Bot-Nets. Many computers (estimated to be 1 in 4) have been taken over and made part of a Bot-Net to do the hackers' bidding. Quite often, these computers are used to serve as hosts for impossible to detect/track web sites.

If a scam artist wanted to run an "example.com" web site and provide purchase and payment instructions, but not get caught doing it, they would pay a hacker to have it hosted by a bot-net. When the user clicks on the example.com link, a dynamic DNS entry would dole out an IP address for some poor individual whose machine has been compromised. The scammer's web page would be served up, and no one would be able to track down the scammer. The next time someone went to example.com, the IP address would be someone else's compromised computer. The IP addresses for example.com would appear to bounce around all over the world. Law enforcement is left trying to "follow the money" to catch the scammer, since they can't track them down via the web site.

A GoogleDNS solution would allow Google to detect DNS resolution oddities such as a bot-net would exhibit. As the user attempts to visit example.com, Google could provide the user with warnings or outright blocking of the site based on the user's preferences.

Unfortunately there is a possible work-around for hackers to avoid immediate detection. Hackers would want to make their bot-net web site "clusters" act like respectable authentic web site clusters. Many web sites exhibit this DNS resolution behavior as they load balance their web site across the country, or across the world. I am convinced though, that there are detectable differences in this behavior that the clever people at Google can use. For example, bot-nets would likely need a larger number of sites, or higher turnover, to do the same thing as a "respectable" cluster... or the hosts of the web site could be resolved to be on home cable networks.

Google is in a unique position to offer protection from bot-nets that few services could detect or provide.

GoogleDNS

Reddit It | Digg This | Add to your: del.icio.us, Google, Yahoo

Google has a lot of high level information about internet web sites, including topical categorizations. They have the ability to offer services to filter the web traffic from your machine(s), and insights to discover phishing and other malevolent web sites.

(See Google Porn Stopper? and Google Bot-Net Stopper?)

Google could provide a service such as OpenDNS.com which currently provides a robust DNS lookup and web site filtering (if desired). Google has the knowledge and horsepower to offer DNS services and the associated web site filtering. They would then connect your existing Google account to web site filter settings (possibly with some automatic help from a small network identifying and setup application in Google Pack). Google Apps already intends to be most of the personal/home/business web services infrastructure that you'll need... web based content filtering seems to fit right in for those users that want it.

A GoogleDNS solution would also provide users with a way to remotely monitor the activity of their own machines/networks, just as any commercial web site filtering software would offer. This would be possible because your machine using GoogleDNS services would log all their DNS lookups (which amounts to all internet activity).

The real question is whether Google will determine this to be "evil" because of the potential for abuse of information. Though they are already housing your email, your web sites, your browsing habits, ...

Google Porn Stopper?

Reddit It | Digg This | Add to your: del.icio.us, Google, Yahoo

Google is built on some rather advanced reliance algorithms, but can also detect communities of interest. Looking at white papers about detecting groups of sites in a topical community can be rather difficult due to the surprising amount math involved. The end result though, is that Google can detect the interconnected nature of adult web sites, or sites of any other topic.

The difficulty for adult site blocking software is the manual categorization of sites. I would suggest that Google has that information, through it's current algorithms, possibly with better coverage than any other database. They are already offering a glimpse of their knowledge by providing moderate and strict filtering from the search preferences page.

The next step is for Google to package an web site filter into their Google Pack of essential software.

(Of course this filtering and web site categorization works great for other topics as well. Google should have sites already categorized as: adult, violence, gambling, illegal, ...)

Look to my GoogleDNS post for how Google could help us filter our web browsing.

FileSystem Firewall

Reddit It | Digg This | Add to your: del.icio.us, Google, Yahoo

There is a compromise security model that could make it easy for Windows users to prevent unauthorized programs (ex: malware) from reading files that they shouldn't.

There is currently a disparity between the "ideal" file system security model touted by Unix/Linux zealots, and the "practicality" of novice Windows users. The tight security model says log on to your computer as a low privileged account and only occasionally run "certain" programs as the high power administrator. The Windows user is used to logging in as a "Power User" or an administrator, and running every program with full authority. With file system security usually as the main goal, the Unix users are preventing rouge programs from corrupting or taking over their computer. Windows users typically see security as getting in the way of desirable programs conveniently auto-installing plug-ins and sometimes even working at all!

Security enthusiasts use the approach of securing with users and groups that have just enough access to regions of the file system to perform their preprogrammed function. If a program tries to step out of bounds, it will fail since the user account the program "runs as" simply was not granted access to any other region of the file system. This is a solid approach that has worked for decades, but generally requires a system administrator to setup and maintain. In the Windows world on a workstation, this would require a high degree of effort (creating dozens of accounts and groups, and assigning proper permissions to file system nodes) and is well beyond what even most power users would consider reasonable.

What is needed is an approach where the program is considered as an individual entity automatically. Consider how modern network firewalls let the user allow or disallow network access down to the application level. If a new program tries to access the internet, or a modified program attempts to phone-home... the user is alerted, and given the option to allow or block it. What if an individual application was automatically treated with those kinds of restrictions while trying to access the file system?

Programs start their lives on your system with an install. You then run them repeatedly and they might even receive updates. An uninstall may also occur. Generally this normal cycle is moderated by core APIs and known directories on the Windows platform. When considering what files and directories an application should be legitimately accessing during that life cycle, it is possible to use community submitted configurations and distribute them the way virus protection software gets updates.... but there is also another "automatic" way.

When an application is installed, the operating system can "notice" the installation directory, and automatically provide that application with full control to that directory as its "home." When the user goes to save files from the application, the operating system's common "save" dialog box could inform the system of directories or individual files that the application should have read/write access to. Registry entries associating file types to applications is also a clue for the operating system to allow special access. If all these clues aren't enough, the user could always be asked to allow/disallow, the way firewall programs do. Generally between these system clues, and profiling by the community, this system shouldn't require much, if any interaction from the end user to provide this extra layer of security.

I think there is a potential here for a solid application based file system fire-walling product. A few years ago I did the research, and I only found one defunct product that had attempted this type of "sandboxing" (with a different market and purpose). I am sure that the same consumers that enjoy the Norton or ZoneAlarm network firewall features would find the security and ease of use of this approach. In fact, I even approached ZoneAlarm with an idea to enhance their product line, but I got no response from them.

I run my PC as an Administrator, and would welcome this security enhancement. I don't want any programs but Quicken accessing my Quicken data files! In Windows, I'm basically forced into this "wide open" predicament because Windows is such a standard and productivity enhancing platform... ie: I like it, but it has problems.

This Work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License.

Swarm fighting

Reddit It | Digg This | Add to your: del.icio.us, Google, Yahoo

Fighting games are limited by the player's ability to comprehend the complexity of game play, the player's reaction time, and the computing horsepower to present a beautifully rendered bout (which people expect these days). One-on-one or One-on-few games are all you are likely to find. What about an advanced One-on-Many or Few-on-Many where one or more players battle a large group of nicely rendered attackers with realistic physics? Are you wondering if it would be playable or even possible? I think it can work well, but conventional one-on-one game play concepts won't produce a compelling result.

Consider a One-on-One fighting game. It is easily comprehended by the general gamer. The game authors improve the game by adding stunning graphics and special button press combinations (combos) to enhance game play with special moves. Combos are a sly way to add complexity to a game to challenge advanced players, without turning off the beginners, since the core game play still seems obvious (approach opponent, use attack buttons). Utilizing new hardware and improving the software make the games wonderfully rendered and attractive to new players. Modern games feature three dimensional "feel," realistic looking surroundings / bodies / clothes / eye movement, swooshes / blurs / replays, fighting implements (like swords), humor, special moves and powers, strategy, … But when you consider them, although fun, they are still just "souped up" classics, and not revolutionary.

The One-on-Few or Few-on-Few fighting games are not very prevalent. They usually have poor game play due to limiting the virtual environment or providing contrived fighting scenarios to aid the player's game comprehension and reaction time (by turning the game play into many one-on-one fights). These games have existed for a while, and are getting better.

Remember the old arcade games like the Simpsons or Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles? They were Few-on-Few by having 1 to 4 players and usually had several attackers on the screen at once. Horrible graphics, physics and game play from today's standards, but they were somewhat entertaining at the time. Many of the multi attacker games today unfortunately provide the same simplistic two dimensional feel of those old classics.

It would be amazing to see a good "Swarm Fighting" game where one or more human players face a large group of attackers (imagine 100 attackers!) in the same type of beautifully rendered three dimensional physics that modern one-on-one games exhibit. The questions are how would it work, and would it be playable. There have been some successes in this arena, but nothing modern. Robotron 2084 and Smash TV were basically two dimensional top-down perspective shooters, but they drew players in and gave them the panic of attacking hordes. These games introduced two joysticks (no buttons) for quick reaction time. Move with one joystick, fire with the other. Smash TV even supported two players. The innovation of top-down perspective and two joysticks broke with convention (not just 1 joystick, and 1 fire button) and made game play more natural in fighting large swarms of attackers with what looked like near impossible odds. They were good games, but how about a modern game with well rendered actors and believable physics as dozens or hundreds of attackers approach?

Here is an approach that would be entertaining and would pull players willfully into the middle of a swarm of attackers. The proven combination of "simplicity of play for beginner players, with combos for advanced players, and beautiful imagery for players and onlookers alike" can be achieved, but the mechanics of game play needs to change to allow the player to react to a new type of battle scene.

Base the fighting game play on a meta-game that the player can easily understand, allow them to almost fight by "feel" so they get so absorbed that the controls quickly become an extension of themselves, and then add combos and stunning visuals that are worthy of modern gaming. The meta-game is a game-within-a-game, and could be anything. In this case we are using it as a mechanism to play the main game… or a sly substitution for the impossibly difficult task of battling 100+ opponents with one or two joysticks. The player will be drawn in by the simplicity of the meta-game, but then subconsciously find the depth and challenges addicting. Some players may even find themselves internalizing the meta-game and reacting solely to the main display of the game in ways that wouldn't have been possible without easing them in with the meta-game.

As a concrete example, let's talk about a playable version of the Agent Smith swarm on Neo in the movie Matrix where he fought the impossible battle to a rock'n soundtrack. In the movie, Neo could fight off the swarm of thousands of Agent Smith attackers due to his immersion and first person interaction with the environment. To make the game playable to the average real-world person, overlay a fast paced meta-game on top of it that corresponds to the visuals and expected game play. A meta-game that would work well in this example would be a variation of Dance Dance Revolution where upcoming moves are presented "just-in-time" and even correspond to the rhythm of the sound track. As attackers approach, the nearest 4 to 8 would be represented on the "radar" as approaching "blips." The physical orientation of player would be represented in that peripheral viewer with the attackers approaching. Just as Dance Dance Revolution (and others) show you what is coming, and when to act, the player would see the swarm of attackers and be able to react to the most imminent 1-8 attackers. Run away from the swarm to minimize simultaneous attackers, into the swarm to maximize simultaneous attackers. Consider that even in "real-life," if you were attacked by 100 people, it would be difficult for more than 8 people to actually be physically by your side to attack you at once.

To completely bring the player into the action, the game would take advantage of rhythm based game play that Dance Dance Revolution demonstrates so well. This swarm fighting game would have an immersive sound track just as in the Matrix fights or any Hollywood theatrical fight scene (think of our Matrix Agent Smith fight swarm for one), but in this case, the game play would also benefit from it. In the fight, each punch would correspond to the heavy beat of the soundtrack rhythm. The software would even adjust the approach of the attackers to ensure that every punch or kick occurs on the beat. As the player learns this enhancement to game play, reactions will start to occur more accurately and quickly than just watching for or anticipating attacks. There are many depictions in television and movies where a "tough-guy" starts playing a "fight song" or theme song before engaging the enemy. In the case of this game, the fight song will actually help further the immersion and improve game play (I've been in that zone, it feels great).


Theories for improving immersion with additional feedback have worked well for driving games for many years. Provide the player with a rear-view mirror, radar to show other cars and players, and the player will be more entertained, more involved, and even play more realistically. Consider that adding force feedback to the steering wheel to subtly inform the user of road conditions (and turns) is similar to adding awareness to a fighter that would help convey the timing of encounters with attackers' punches and kicks. The radar and soundtrack rhythm provides the fighting player with a tactical advantage.

One joystick with directional attack buttons would work. With two joysticks, the player is provided with more flexibility, each joystick representing a different side of the body, or one joystick would be arms and the other joystick would be the legs. These types of controls provide the ability to respond to more attackers in the "radar view" and also provide a wider variety of responses. Add joystick/button combos to game play to allow for one-hand-stand-kicks, round-houses, jumps, pile-up-escapes, attacker-freezing-fast-time and other gravity and time defying moves.

Considering these approaches, the overwhelming fights in the Matrix movie should be as playable (and cool) in the arcade as they were depicted in the theater.

(It has been suggested to me that a big game house such as Electronic Arts should appreciate this idea, should build the next killer game based on the One-On-Many or Few-On-Many concept, and that they should also express at least $ome gratitude my way for putting forth the core idea. That remains to be seen.)

Buy Food @ Movie Ticket Counter

Reddit It | Digg This | Add to your: del.icio.us, Google, Yahoo

The food served at a Movie theater is it's bread-and-butter, metaphorically that is. They need to sell more (and better) to survive. The proceeds from the movie itself are minor compared to the soda, popcorn, candy, etc... sold at the refreshment stand. Those items are completely under their control and sometimes the only real profit the theater can make. I've even gone to a drive-in theater where they begged outright requested that you buy food from their snack building. These days, without the refreshment stand, the theaters couldn't stay in business.

Theaters need to make food purchases more convenient and FAST. I try not to buy refreshments at the theater because I'm normally late, either on my own accord, or because the ticket line was so long. I'm certainly not going to stand in another line. Especially one where a bunch of hungry patrons stand at the counter in indecision trying to determine what looks good, then fumble with money or credit cards. Although snacks and drink are pricey, who wants to sit for 2hrs without a drink nearby?

Theaters need to provide the opportunity for patrons to purchase food at the ticket counter. Consider the convenience for couple asking for two movie tickets and two large sodas at the outside entrance. The couple would pay once and then be handed their two movie tickets and two food vouchers. As the couple enters the building and approaches the refreshment counter, they would choose the short "prepaid food" line, and hand over the vouchers, maybe indicating which soda they preferred. Moments later they are walking to their seats and had avoided a 5-15 minute wait in a second line, and didn't have to pay an additional time.

The main problem with the refreshment stand is the wait and perceived inconvenience. This system removes all the long indecision times and payment concerns from the customer when going for food. If money is involved, the customer will need to go to the "long" line. It's almost like the airport's self-checkin ticket kiosks or the shorter lines for preferred status customers.

The ticket counter (and associated line) still cannot be burdened by the aforementioned delays of a normal refreshment stand. To avoid the delays, food should not initially be offered or even suggested by the ticket seller. A small menu could be provided at the counter, but in general, word of mouth, perceptive patrons, and the signs inside will quickly spread the new offering. After one person asks for a drink and popcorn at the counter, the people right behind them are likely try as well. Actually, a short menu of only a few "combo deals", like 2 large sodas and popcorn, would minimize indecision and maximize customer throughput and theater profits. Customers uncomfortable with exploring the new idea (or whom are naturally indecisive) will have to stand in the long line inside and will quickly figure out the benefits of prepaying outside (as they watch the prepay customers walking away with food).

With the advent of purchasing movie tickets on-line, this could be another valuable differentiating offering. The value of purchasing movie tickets on-line is avoiding the theater entry line and ticket counter. What if the patron could get the snacks they want while avoiding the "long" line at the snack bar too?

Or... You could always wait for the theaters to implement a "frequent flier" program of their own so you could rack up your "movie points" and stand in the short preferred-customer line at the door, then the preferred-customer line at the refreshment stand.

I hope I haven't ruined your next movie theater experience. Now that you know it should be possible to avoid one, or both lines a the theater, you're going to hate the wait even more.

This Work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License.

The Four Way Door

Reddit It | Digg This | Add to your: del.icio.us, Google, Yahoo

A door that can open four different ways.

I wondered 10 years ago if it was possible to create a door that opens 4 different ways. We've of course seen doors that swing in or out on a double way hinge. I figured there should be a way to build a door that, regardless of whether you were inside or outside, you could push either the left or right side of the door and it would open. Not only that, but the door would swing open as a door should intuitively swing... not merely pivoting in the center.

This is the design that I came up with, and have done nothing with all that time. One of many ideas that I will eventually publish here.

There are many Rube Goldberg ways to accomplish an opening door based on pushing any one of 4 areas on it. This was the simple way that I came up with after chewing on the idea for a while.

At rest, the door's hinges are rods that jet out of the top-left, top-right, bottom-left and bottom-right, engaging into the frame so that the door is essentially "locked" in place. Consider this just as immobile as adding conventional hinges to both sides of the door.

The pedestrian (user) is expected to approach the door, then push on either the left or the right side. There are many doors with wide recessing "push panels" that disengage the door latch to open the door. This idea uses a panel that pivots in the center so that when pushed on either side, the mechanism behind that side engages.

When the right side of the door panel is pushed, the right-side mechanism retracts the right-side hinge rods, allowing it to swing on the remaining left-side hinge. The door must also be prevented from "falling out" of the frame due to a curious pedestrian then pushing the other side. The answer is to engage a lock on the opposing hinge. When the right-side mechanism retracts the right-side hinge, the left-side hinge rods are locked at the normal full extension until the door returns to the resting state, and all four hinge rods return to full extension.

Normally, some sort of automatic door closing mechanism would be added to the door to ensure that it returns to its closed state once a person walks away. The normal mechanisms mounted on left and right sides would seize a 4 way door. One solution involves a semi-attached version of the conventional slow swing hydraulic mechanism. As the door opens, an extension of the door pushes one of four hydraulic arms out, which slowly returns the door to its closed state.

Gravity could also be used as a simple mechanism for returning the door to a closed state. When the door is opened, the door's construction where the hinge meets the frame causes the door to slowly rise as the door is opened wider. With the door's weight working for us, the door wants to drop back into the hinge/frame groove, which causes the door to close.

When the door returns to the closed position, the springs in the retracted mechanism and tapers on the rods will cause the rods to re-engage back into the frame. The door would then be back in it's resting position, and ready for the next pedestrian to walk up and randomly push one of the door's 4 pressure points to open it again.

This Work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License.