Sport tech company: Ergotest Technology, Norway

My name is Ole J. Olsen and I am an electronic engineer from Norway.

In 1990 I met the italian exercise physiologist Prof. Carmelo Bosco, the inventor of the ErgoJump contact mat for jump tests. We worked closely together until he passed away in 2003. In 1990. Bosco and myself in Formia.

I developed the first encoder system for barbell speed and biofeedback training. In 1995 Bosco published the first study using our new product for force/velocity profiling. Presenting in Oslo 1992. The linear encoder. New improved version 1994. There were no hand held computers with interface available at that time so I made my own; microMuscleLab  It also had the new encoder with retractable string. I developed this new encoder after I observed a person walking the dog with a flexi dog leash.

Over the years from 1990 to 2010 I worked through my own company Ergotest Technology, as the only employee with most types of muscular training devices like weight training, eccentric overload, sprint velocity, swimming and many more.  In 1990-98 I developed EMG system, electro goniometer, accelerometer, force plate, timing gates, CO2 sensors and more. Early MuscleLab system.

Bosco introduced me to Håkan Andersson and Håkan introduced me to assisted and resisted sprinting. We also developed a sensor measuring speed and stroke by stroke analysis for swimmers.

I also worked in collaboration with Dr. Hans Berg at Karolinska Institute developing flywheel resistance training (YoYo) for training astronauts in Space (micro gravity). I adapted the Musclelab software and hardware to work with the YoYo system

With Bosco I also worked with the development of the NEMES whole body vibration training machine.

In the same period, and in collaboration with Prof. G. Leivseth, I also ideated and developed a system for treating women stress urinary incontinence, Flyte therapy.

In 2005-10 I developed the measurement system for the TWO friction measuring device.  I worked at Wallops flight facility in Virginia and Penn State university for testing airport runway friction.

In 2010 Ergotest Innovation was born and took over all activities from Ergotest Technology

In May 2005 I received a phone call from Mr. Rolf Ohman in Västerås Sweden where he wanted me to come to visit him to discuss a new project. I did not know Mr. Öhman before that, but he knew me through my products; MuscleLab system and whole-body vibration machines. Rolf Ohman was running a fitness center at this time.

The background for Mr. Öhmans call was that there were some funds available in Västerås for projects using robot technology for health-related products and they needed some ideas to create a project that could fit into the program.

In fact, I had some ideas and robotics sounded exciting, so I decided to go to Västerås to learn more about the available funds.

The 1040 km (646 miles) roundtrip should become very familiar to me. Over the next 4 years I took the trip more than 20 times.

Training devices

The most common type of resistance used for muscular training is naturally lifting a mass in a gravitational field, weightlifting. This type of resistance is referred to as Iso-Inertia. It’s cheap and available everywhere on the surface of the earth.

The force experience by the athlete lifting a weight ‘F’, can be described by the formula:

F = m*g + m*a where ‘m’ = mass in kg, ‘g’=gravity and ‘a’ is acceleration

But we can also experience other types of resistance, for example when swimming.  In the water there is no mass that needs to be accelerated, but the resistance is proportional to the square of the movement speed.

A simplified formula to describe resistance experience when moving through water:

F=b*v², where ‘b’ is a constant and ‘v’ is velocity

A third type of force is experience when pulling or pushing an elastic band or spring

F=k*x,  where ‘k’ is the spring constant and ‘x’ is the length pulled or pushed

And there are more, like Iso-Kinetic (constant velocity) usually generated by an electric motor and Iso-Tonic (constant force) also easily achieved by using electric motor.  A pneumatic system where air is compressed is also commonly used to provide Iso-Tonic resistance. The latter is not exactly Iso-Tonic, but for practical applications close enough.

My favorite resistance has always been Iso-Inertia, especially for sport. The resistance pattern is what the body would expect when force is generated by our neuromuscular system. Thus, training and measuring under this condition is close to real life.

But Iso-Inertia has its challenges as the work generated by the muscle is stored as kinetic energy in the mass. For example, squat jump, the athlete needs to land with the load and that may cause high undesired forces that may cause injuries.

Also, in regular training machines there are challenges. Testing with light loads will make the load fly and create undesired noise, and unpredictable impact forces. Demonstrating unwanted flying weights. 

But what if there was no real load, just a virtual load that could vanish at any moment? Then there is no need to land with the load after a jump and there would be no flying weights in the training machine.

The Idea:

Common for all the various forces above is that they can be described by mathematical formulas.

What if we could create a training machine using motorized resistance that could generate all these types of resistances by just feeding in the desired formula?

Probably not, since electric motors already have been commonly used to generate resistance for strength training and testing.

Except for one variant: Iso-Inertia! That would require a performance level and precision not yet seen. Besides, if the new machine could do Iso-Inertia all the other resistance modes would be very easy to implement.

So we decided to apply for a patent for an Iso-Inertia machine.

My email explaining more about my idea sent to Robotdalen immediately after my return to Norway (translated to English):

The project was by the way named “REROB”

********************** email begin ************************

Specifications, REROB
Principle
The system reads data from the accelerometer, force sensor and velocity-meter (encoder) and use information from those to control the motor. The motor generates force from the formula

F = m (g + a)

where m = weight in kg (input from user), g = gravity 9.81m / s2, a = information from accelerometer. Possibility of different ‘m’ in concentric and eccentric phase.
When / if the above principle works, other types of resistance can be simulated.

The formula F = m (g + a) must then be replaced by e.g. F = mg or even constant speed.
Power and encoder position send to PC every 10ms. (100Hz).

Claim
Force sensor: 0-500kg
Encoder: Incremental two channels, 500 pulses / rev.
Accelerometer: + – 2G or better
Motor: 2000N, 3500W, 5m / s

The system should be able to change the direction of rotation at <30ms and preferably <10ms (Switch from eccentric to concentric phase)

Comment
The attached sketch ‘REROB’ illustrates the principle and will provide the basis for discussion for the final design. It is for example not practical to mount the force sensor as illustrated, but rather integrate it into the system. Also the principle sketch allows the handle to be moved up/down as needed, but technically this can be solved in other ways.

A weakness with the principle sketch is that as the string that is winded up will change the diameter of the encoder spool so that the encoder counts/revolution will change with how much of the string is pulled out.

Suggests that we implement a simple communication protocol between PC and REROB control unit.
A possible supplier of belts and wheels is Aratron AB http://www.aratron.se
June 7th 2005
Ole

Sketch of the idea i presented for Robotdalen

********************email end*********************

-and the idea was patented in 2006

Sensyact was financed by Robotdalen and Sensyact should manage the develoment process of the new robotic training machine.  I was granted 55% of the shares and took the role as Board dircetor.  Sensyact should own the patent. Since I was located in Norway we needed a local representative in Västerås to mangage the company on daily basis.

Mr. Öhman was the person who intially contact me and brougth me to Sweden and he was willing to takie the role as CEO. For this unpaid role he was granted 45% shares and also addeded as co-inventor in the patent application.

The mission for Sensyact was to:

1. Prove the concept
2. Secure financing
3. Develop the product
4. Market and sell

A Västerås based technical engineering company ‘Motion Control’ was given the task of transforming the idea to a working prototype.

After several months and many meetings, trying out different designs and models without being able to replicate Iso-Intertia on a satisfying level, Motion Control concludes that it might be impossible with the available technology.

In a report dated March 2006 Motion Control concluded that the safest and simplest way to control the electric motor would be to abandon the attempt to use feedback loop involving signal from accelerometer or force sensor. It simply became too complicated. Instead it was recommended to just use a simple plain torque control.

(The report is is Swedish langauage and can be made available upon request)

With the knowledge from Motion Control the task now shifted from developing ‘the impossible’ to finding an ‘out of the box solution’.

An implication was that our patent did not cover the ‘torque’ approach. We kind of expecting that. Ref. comments in 2005.

With high performance parts the system would still allow generation most other types of resistance like Iso-Kinetic, Isotonic etc.

Iso-Inertia would however be suffering with a lag and feel a bit chewy compared to a real gravitational load, especially at high acceleration movements. But with sufficient high performance servo drive, position sensor and motor system, it could be close enough!

Could we find standard parts that could provide torque control?

At this time the son of a close friend of Mr. Öhman was in the last year of his study for an engineering degree. The studenst name was Christoffer Bergkvist. Mr. Bergkvist was prestented the project and wanted to take the REROB-project as a graduation project at the University.

After a lot of searches for a motor/servo system that suited our needs, we ended up with OMRON.

The OMRON system provided out of the box operation in three modes, Constant Speed, Torque and Position.

IsoKinetic became very simple: Set OMRON system in constant speed mode and just tell the system what speed you want, and the motor rotates with the desired speed regardless of the load you applied.

Other types of resistance: Just set the desired torque and the motor generates the desired torque (Force). The desired force can be updated 1000 times pr second so we only need to apply the desired formula (explained in June 2005 in timeline).

For example, if you want the system to generate force to emulate stretching an elastic band the Force will be calculated form the formula F=kx,  where k is a constant describing the spring stiffness and x is the length pulled.

So from here on: Just make the product!

A common challenge for most startups is Financing. Sensyact was no exception. Almi, a Swedish  financing institution, had been a great support and was willing to help with the further financing to get the project moving.

But there was one condition: The majority of the shares was required to have Swedish owners. At the time I still had 55% of the shares in Sensyact and I was Norwegian..

Christoffer Bergkvist had been a great help to the company so I thought that he should be offered the possibility to become a shareholder of Sensyact. This was a good moment to make it happen. I therefore reduced my ownership to 49% by transferring 6% of my shares to Christoffer Bergkvist.

We have invited potential customers and investors to Halmstad, Sweden to see and try our new product. Btw, the product had changed name from REROB to GENESIS.

PRESENTATION OF GENESIS SYSTEM

We now had a working machine and made the first quote..

Without my knowledge Rolf Öhman and Christoffer Bergkvist registered a new company: Inmotion Intelligence AB

??

We were about to seriously start a business and I had no idea of the fact that Rolf Öhman and Christoffer Bergkvist had founded a new company. But I was about to learn that my partners in Sensyact had their own plans that did not include me;

As Rolf Öhman and Christoffer Bergkvist now controlled 51% of Sensyact shares, they called for a General Assembly meeting. The meeting turned out not to be a real meeting as all decisions were already made beforehand. The purpose was to remove me from the board. My comments and objections were not either documented in the memorandum.

From there on I got no information on what was going on. Keep in mind for every face-to-face  meeting I had to travel  1040 km (646 miles) from Norway to Sweden by car.

I decided to move on with my company, Ergotest Innovation and tried to forget about the 5 years I had wasted 2005-2009.

It took a while until I learned about what happened:

After getting me out of the way, Rolf and Christoffer transferred all activities from Sensyact to their jointly owned new company, Inmotion Intelligence. They ran the business with limited success. Some time down the line 1080 Motion AB acquired Inmotion Intelligence AB and Rolf and Christoffer bacame shareholder of 1080 Motion. Inmotion Intelligence was liquidated Sep. 19th 2017.

I was still the major shareholder of Sensyact AB with 49% of the shares, but the only asset remaining was the patent. And as explained earlier, the patent did not describe exactly what we built but was probably close enough to confuse competitors and scare them away.

Little did I know that the first competitor to be threatened with my patent was myself!! Read on…

I decided to use my knowledge from the time with Sensyact and use the same OMRON-parts to make DynaSpeed, a sprint machine that naturally became very similar to 1080 Sprint.

When this became known a rumor was out to warn potential buyers that it could have legal consequences if they bought the DynaSpeed as it was infringing my patent now controlled by 1080 Motion.

We both knew that theres was no patent infringment, but damage was done, and customers started to hesitate to buy DynaSpeed in the US.

I received this mail from 1080:

Från: Manni@norrbystrommen.se
Skickat: den 14 juni 2018 12:03
Till: ‘ole@argotest.com’

Kopia: ‘Mr. X’

Ole,

We have noted that Mr. X is promoting the Dynasprint in the US. Still not clearly stating that it is for sale there, but if he would do that, we would object. As you know, our jointly owned company holding the patent rights need revenues, and a reseller of products based on the patent in the US should have a license from Sensyact before commercialization.

Sincerely

Manni

I replied to 1080:

Från: Ole Jakob Olsen <ole@ergotest.com>
Skickat: den 6 november 2018 09:07
Till: Manni@norrbystrommen.se
Kopia: xx@xxxgmail.com
Ämne: US Patent

Hi Manni,

I have not heard from you regarding your threat of objection if we launch our products on the US market.

We are basing our business on transparency and honesty and would never intentionally infringe any intellectual property. I personally would never base my business on other people’s original ideas without consent.

I suggest that you clarify the following:

• Which patent(s) do you mean we are infringing?
• What claims in the patent do you mean that our product(s) are infringing?

Thank you,

Ole

I have repeatedly heard from Mr. Öhman claiming on social media that he was the inventor of the 1080 technology. Also 1080 Motion, represented by Christoffer Bergkvist, claims that the whole thing is based on Rolf Öhmans ‘crazy idea’ and that he did all the development work himself.

That is simply not true. Inventing and engineering are two different disciplines. Please read first box in this timeline again.

There are people out there who believe that Ergotest Innovation has copied the 1080 technology! But if I tell the true story, they tend to believe that I am a liar.

I owe my mentors, friends and collaborators over the years in the time from 1990 to 2005 to point out that these ideas were heavily inspired by them!

Ideas like this do not come out of thin air, but from experience and hard work from skilled people over time.

Just ask these simple questions:

• Why was I invited to Västerås in Sweden in 2005 if Mr. Öhman already had the idea?
• Why was I given 55% of Sensyact after I had presented my idea for him and Robotdalen?
• What was the purpose and intention of establishing the company Inmotion Intelligence? We already had Sensyact..

Judge for yourself

We notified 1080 about this timeline and welcomed any comments. In response we got a letter where 1080 presented their version of the story, which I believe is fair.

However the 1080 response contained some statements that needed some further clarifications so I added my comments to the letter as well. The letter with comments is available here.

We have always been privileged to work with the best and highly competent people in the sport science and rehabilitation field.  And we still are!

And we are committed to continuing innovation!