Critical analysis of a paper published in 31 May 2017
  • Paper’s title: Comparing Patent and Scientific Literature in Airborne Wind Energy
    Topic invited is to bring forward a critical analysis of the paper. Pros, cons, misses, plusses, quality, methods, biases, narrowings, …
  • All are welcome to critique and discuss the paper.
  •  I have not yet marched through any exercise toward this topic. Today is my first effort toward a critical analysis of this paper. Maybe others will do some critical analysis over the paper. I will give a start herein. My start concerns what might turn out to be a minor point.
Send AWE notes and topic replies to
March 10, 2020, post by Dave Santos

All in all a very interesting review of AWE patent and academic publishing. The dual-track key word analysis validates patents as technical linguistic sourcing, oddly questioned in the “water kite, paravane” topic.

Perhaps the most interesting aspect is how much AWE domain knowledge is missed by omission of sport and hobbyist kite expertise, as well as Open AWE. Those developers who follow all of the major branches of technical AWE discussion are greatly advantaged.

Clarifying for Joe that Van Gries’ historic patent is cited, as the earliest AWE patent we know of.

" In 1935, Aloys van Gries filed the patent on airborne wind energy,"

Dai and Dai is a marginal patent decades later, that somewhat reflects a social resurgence of AWE interest. The Oberth citation is perhaps wrong (not the '60s??).

March 10, 2020, post by Joe Faust

I am reading in the paper that the first patent in their view was by Dai and Dai in the 1970s. My following reference #37 brings forward a patent that seems to fit their note
but there is seemingly a 2016 or after notation over the patent; so, I may be missing a detail. But analyzing with or without a mistake, I see an uncomfortable claim about Dai and Dai dating.

So, 1970 does not equal 2016. Do you see my error or does the paper have an error on this point?
March 10, 2020, post by Dave Santos

March 10, 2020, post by Joe Faust

The paper's statement: "It was possible to verify the main authors, research centers and companies, countries and journals that publish on the subject"   Yet, though it was "possible" the authors' methods and choices ended up missing some robust research centers and missing some companies. They missed thousands of pages in Upper Windpower, an online journal dedicated to airborne wind energy. Had the research team for the paper used low cost simple search over the Upper Windpower pages, the paper would not have missed AWE patents far earlier than what they found- many decades earlier. The paper would not have missed so many effective energy kite systems.  The paper also missed the huge near 28,000 AWES messages from pioneering frontline AWE workers that held technology that the paper did not hold.  The paper missed one of the oldest AWE companies:  kPower.  And missed KiteLab, Los Angeles.  And others.  Decades of energy kite system innovation prior to 1970 was fully missed by the paper. 1700s to 1970 was missed; important roots and patents of AWE were exercised and formed in those scores of decades. They missed that ground-based items were charged by electricity from the use of kite systems in the 1700s.
The paper's bias arrived from several causes. The author team chose a person to advise keywords. Who was that person?  Well that person apparently from results missed giving clues to large sectors of AWE-related literature.  The author team got stuck in academia and in a bias caged by high-less scientific journals which resulted in missing firm AWE matter present in active pioneering kite worlds. The bias choice permitted a favoring of non-total-AWE interests. Hundreds of years of kite-expertise dedicated to using harvesting energy was missed by the paper.

Not fact:  "It was also possible to identify that researches on wind energy with tethered airfoils began their studies in the late 1970s"    The paper came up with an untenable statement. Actually researchers on wind energy with tethered airfoils began their studies way more than a hundred years earlier.  The paper's bias methodology resulted in such a stark non-fact statement.    The paper did find Van Gries for 1938 patent; good.   Van Gries, A. Improvements in or Relating to Wind-Driven Power Apparatus. Application Number GB2081337A, 20 July 1938.    Well, such is confusing, then, with the "1970s" statement.

Suspect: The paper mentions a patent that uses the phrase "High Altitude" but the patent deals with using high towers to reach high altitude.  "high" is relative term.  The patent was not an AWE patent.   NOT AWE:
The problem might have arrived from translating German: fur Hohenwind-Ausnutzung.  Maybe  "high wind" would have been better than "high altitude."   Honnef, H. Wind Power Turbogenerator for High Altitude Wind Utilization; National Aeronautics and Space Administration: Washington, DC, USA, 1974.Of course the involved counter-rotating rings could be used in an AWES; but that could be said of most any turbine or machine: just integrate a machine into a kite system!     A research student expressed things about this matter in a correct manner:
The Flying Electric Generator: Evaluating the claims of a largely ignored proposal for generating electricity from high-altitude winds  by Steven Kambouris Master of Science September 2015    He wrote: "In 1939, Hermann Honnef described the design for an arrangement of wind turbines atop a tower approximately 300 m in height, designed to take advantage of the faster winds found at high altitudes."   That is, people understood that wind high up had higher speeds on average and thus wre desirable, if only one could get up there to tap the winds.