"...including by a critic who has previously tested soft-kite integrated turbines" . Where? Any reference?


PierreB

The present forum is too closed on itself. Some "Great AWE Debate" is invoked but no AWE company posts on AWE forum...

 

PierreB 

Nice, Rod. 

MikeB's studies on AWE generate interesting and unbiased discussions among a panel of various personalities comprising Dr.Mark D.Moore. MikeB and other participants do not deform the words of writers to denigrate their analysis. Such discussions are precious, giving some basis (AWE problems)  for R&D (towards AWE solutions).But it is true as moderator MikeB has some requirements (be relevant) to keep a high quality in spite of disagreements. The same for GuidoL, allowing an excellent AWEC2013 in Berlin by being requiring. On the present forum some famous inventor like Douglas Selsam has to loss much time to restore basic technical truths.  

 

PierreB 

The company KiteLab Los Angeles posts in the forum. The company KiteLab Ilwaco posts in the forum. The company kPower posts in the forum. The AWE company US WindLabs posts in the forum. And more.    How a poster came up with a claim that "no" AWE company posts is a mystery to me. 

The claim of "unbiased" is a tall one to prove. 

Where are searchers?Other individual players? What is the interest of a forum of which 2/3 is about DougS's corrections on what DaveS fails to understand?


PierreB

"How a poster came up with a claim that "no" AWE company posts is a mystery to me." *** Most companies wasting lots of money don't post here.  Everyone might find out their kite-reeling secrets. ;)
I'd be pleased if they could come on here and explain why I might be wrong about their reeling approach.  Kind of an empty discussion with nobody to take the opposing position.

Joe: Patents are not always what laymen assume. There is always prior art.  That's a given.   It comes with the territory.  All the claims have been vetted by professionals.  It took you years on the internet to find what I used to find within days, thumbing through "the stacks" at the patent library in Washington DC.  I used to have to fly to DC and hang with my homies there for a few weeks taking the train to the patent library.  I got to know some examiners.  I'd talk to them in person, and prosecute my patents in interviews. 

After I got some traction, I was invited to fly to DC to speak in front of an auditorium full of patent examiners, representing America's independent inventors, for an annual event they have there.  Throughout all that, Harburg is one of the names that came up a lot.  Beyond that, I now have more patents, in more countries, than I can even count.  It is interesting that laymen can now do a patent search on the web, kind of like "armchair athletes" can scream at the TV in response to a sports game. 

Just realize though, if it took you this long just to find Harburg when he is listed in my prior art, what is the true depth of your understanding of patents?  Yes you know more than most, but the examiners would blow your mind.  Anyway, my battle with patents is in the past.  Patents and grants can be two ways to get sucked into government quicksand.  I passed up on some multimillion dollar offers, to concentrate on progress without the distractions. 

From what I've learned since then, I've advised people to work on your concept and if you get something working, THEN worry about what is patentable, and who may already have a patent that could offer you protection, if you negotiated a license or purchased the patent.  I plan to follow that same advice.  Once something is working, take whatever it took to get it to work, and patent it, if desired.  Meanwhile, many companies have eschewed patents in favor of concentrating on progress itself - that's called the "first to market" approach. 

The idea is you offer the best product and are moving ahead so fast with improvements that other companies can't keep up.  Look at Elon Musk making all his Tesla patents public domain.
:)
Doug S.

A little bio kite space note:
Circa 1965 to 1970, my patent depth on kite patents was by use of the Los Angeles City Library Patent Depository that they had going ... full set of patents of US. Then I purchased hundreds of copies of patents as well as copied many. Then sometime in the 70s I sold two large boxes of patents to Valerie Govig for an exchange of $10 or $1, forgetting; she wrote the check. The boxes became part of the holding of the AKA for editorial research. Ref: http://kitelife.com/forum/user/3193-joe-faust/?tab=posts
Such study was pre-Internet for me.

Prior art is just that: prior art. Rich. I like that there is the patent depository. But times are changing with the Internet. Novelty can be traced in a new manner. And the tools parallel with the digital age are permitting novelty to occur at a faster rate. Just what will win meaningful blessing to core needs is part of the mystery.

~ JoeF

Attachments :

FAA orange 9M pilot.jpg

"Circa 1965 to 1970, my patent depth on kite patents was by use of the Los Angeles City Library Patent Depository" JoeF ***Joe: I started there too.  I ended up having to fly to Washington so I could thumb through the actual stacks, which takes a few minutes, instead of all day.  The L.A. Patent Depository Library took a long time to find, or look at, any one patent on microfilm.  You had one microfilm to tell you, in words and numbers, where to look for the next microfilm (no pix at that stage).  There were something like 3 levels of microfilm to get to the actual patent film.  Once you found the actual patent microfilm, assuming it was intact, all the images were fuzzy, festooned with insect legs and antennae - quite a joke, actually.  Maybe a better way to study insect than patents...   It was not hard to tell that nobody was interested in providing a truly usable patent search facility in Los Angeles.  It was more like they had a mandate to provide some searchability, so they did the minimum.  Oh well, times have changed, and luckily we now have the web, which we are seeing can save time, or waste more time than EVER, which is something I'm endeavoring to correct, at least for myself.  Meanwhile, now that we can see as many patents as we want as fast as we want, it all seems boring.  A hundred thousand whacky ideas that will never even be tried - who cares?

Nice idea for a kite.  Maybe have the front curve help to define the leading edge.  Possibly use two S-shaped members, side-by-side, for stability especially on the ground.  Brawk!

Yes, Rod. 

I know a kite which stays on the ground

What kinda nugget would do that?

One starting from the ground up.

Weirdly enough every earth launched kite ever has had to start like that though.

I care because I guarantee you I'd never have bothered my arse to fly to Washing booming town just to look at some braggers garbage about monopolies on thoughts.

Washing blooming town sorry. Phone

Not too "weird [that] every earth launched kite ever has had to start like that".

Let "that" be defined as launch without an S-spine required. There probably is an S-spine somewhere in kiting that we are not aware of, but it hardly an essential kite feature in power kites.

Again, what is the urgent design problem a giant S-spine solves better?