Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Intellectual property matters //Public Notice from Wayne German

Expand Messages
  • Joe Faust
    To All, The Vertical Blinds as we conceive them will be patented and should have been sent out only to those who were or are willing to sign mutual
    Message 1 of 19 , Feb 22, 2013
    • Rod Read
      Joe, I have absolutely no trust in nor respect for the patent system... It s a nonsense when global information searching is freely available and globally
      Message 2 of 19 , Feb 22, 2013
        Joe,
        I have absolutely no trust in nor respect for the patent system...
        It's a nonsense when global information searching is freely available and globally prolific. (With minimal exception, and I can't imagine many governments sensor the AWE yahoo group and kitepowercoop.org)

        If any party is seriously interested in or studying AWE systems they will find out about this forum.

        I have a new massive actuation whole mothra stack flap movement design I will work on... basically setting the beast body still and whipping the wings upward... bird flight mimic power.
        cc3.0 BY NC SA  (Attribute, Non commercial, Share Alike)
        Creative Commons Licence
        This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

        It may be that a commons based peer production license would be better / more appropriate... not sure.

        There are a bunch of Open Source Hardware licenses to choose from
        I can't see anyone being able to defend patent novelty against the data filed and posted on this site.
        This forum is in the collective conscience of all AWE developers we know of.
        It is a phenomenal resource for research and It should be respected as such.

        Rod Read

        15a Aiginis
        Isle of Lewis
        HS2 0PB

        07899057227
        01851 870878



        On 22 February 2013 17:50, Joe Faust <joefaust333@...> wrote:
         

        Wayne, 

                On Kite Energy or AWE intellectual property: 
        • A "patent pool" is being promoted. Of course, that assumes someone holds valid and current patents. Validity may be attacked between patentees in or out of court; and negotiations leading to agreements may occur in or out of court. Attacking validity uses prior art, expired patents, public domain, and non-novelty and "obvious" arguments when contests arrive.   This game could become expensive when Kite Energy or AWE begins to flourish.   Even though a patent might be granted, that does not assure that its claims of novelty may not be overcome during contest.  

        • The commercial game has already started with come contest between Sky Windpower and a Mr. Grenier  http://www.energykitesystems.net/0/BaseloadEnergyINC/index.html  ---I do not know the outcome of the dispute. 

        • Some provisional patents on tethers appear to be invalid by some of us; but teams may one day be paying each other royalties or fees for the use of certain tether mechanics. 

        • Some wind machines that have vertical airfoils have shown in patents, especially on rails, especially in a ground-hugging manner; Some products have been tried that have airfoils go one way and then round up and go the other way.   Just what novelty you might hold is something I personally still am not clear about concerning railed or free-flying vertical airfoils.   Getting a provisional patent will not mean that novelty respect will be certain; the road to clout with patents can be a long long adventure.
           
        • DaveS has written about using social professional pressures within the AWE Kite-Energy community to force respect of intellectual property. How effective such tactics will be is anyone's guess.  The huge body of methods that we have been putting out into public view with essays, drawings, experiments, videos ... is being promoted as protectable under "commons" ...something: I am not expert on the strategy, sorry.  One main deposit of the methods is linked in the following pages: 

        • My personal contract with the public has been often published: Any intellectual property regarding kite systems that might be novel from my pen and disclosure is automatically placed into public domain for anyone to use without having to glance my way by statement or remuneration.  I do not expect any others will being doing such gifting formally, at least.   However, by disclosing functions, methods, processes, applications into the public, one begins a decision tree that will have patent protection or not involved; and such protection varies among nations, not all the same. 

        • Suppose someone makes and sells some AWES, or uses some AWES.   Suppose someone claims: "Hey you, you are using my IP; please negotiate with me, so that I share in the benefits."    Then what?  Ignoring? Private settlement?  Court battle?   Battles in courts have been a substantial part of aviation history.   Personally, I have zero time and energy for intellectual property battles in courts, but I have very much energy to discern invention history; but results must remain personal satisfaction in simply "seeing" the flow of novelty; e.g. I just recently for five years put in thousands of hours on discerning novelty regarding an untenable claim of "invention" by John Dickenson under the campaign of his admirer Graeme Henderson; by yelling and threats they won untenable awards by wimpy organizations which orgs had very low scrutiny for professional facts regarding invention; so another false history branch has been created in aviation where a non-invention gets awarded as invention. My gain in the battle has been a happy seeing of the more factual flow of invention in that hang gliding aviation sector; but the robbery of merit is still standing in infamy.  Sad and happy joys mixed in the fuzzy world of merits and "history."       I am still struggling to know what novelty you hold or not in "Vertical Blinds."  And I guess it will be years before I personally am clear about the matter; but my clarity or not will probably have no effect on the flow of money in AWE or Kite Energy. 

        • Will some AWE companies simply look for ways to bless early IP promoters and inventors?   I do not see much evidence for such in the Magenn-SWP-Makani-Joby-NTS-Ampyx-BaseLoad group.   But I do some some "cooperative" benevolence in the KiteLab Group arena where IP may be blessed without having to do big battles; but the hard gusts have yet to hit the fan, if you will. 

        • Can the AWE and Kite Energy industry fly and flourish without there being court battles?    I doubt it; there will be battles and actual inventors may well not be in the winning circles of those battle settlements; money clout and patent trails might win, even if the patent trails might be full of invalid novelty claims.      However, there may be a big win for the world when Kite Energy Systems end up flying and replacing coal and oil to large extent!  Everyone will win when AWE has its full flowering on earth.   

        • The meaning of CC IP       and the meaning of    CC BY NC SA          are items to be studied;  I personally yet struggle to know the meaning of these two respect flows.  
        Best of lift to you and yours in this adventure!
        JoeF


      • Joe Faust
        In 2003 we see a cousin-Vertical-Blinds description, if you will, by Wayne German, which we quote him here from rcuniverse posting: ===2003== by Wayne German:
        Message 3 of 19 , Feb 22, 2013
          In 2003 we see a cousin-Vertical-Blinds description, if you will, by Wayne German, which we quote him here from rcuniverse posting: 

          ===2003== by Wayne German: =

          Arch ARTAGs 

          Large commercial enterprises could attach numerous large kites on both sections of a tether loop that loops between a generator and a pulley. A generator would be in one anchored boat and a pulley would be in the other. 

          1. The tether would pass through a generator on one anchored boat, 
          2. Through a long arch in the sky, 
          3. To the pulley in another anchored boat, 
          4. Through another long arch in the sky, 
          5. Back to the generator again, and 
          6. The long arches in the sky would have numerous large kites equally spaced, 
          7. And the kites would be synchronized by radio, 
          8. To roll in directions that would cause the tether to pull in the same direction, 
          9. Such that the kites on one arch would roll one direction, and 
          10. The kites on the other arch would roll in the other direction, and 
          11. The kites on one arch would have a higher angle of attack, and 
          12. The kites on the other arch would have a lower angle of tack, 
          13. So that there would always be a safe distance between the two arches to avoid collisions, but 
          14. The kites would be inflatable, 
          15. So they would generally bounce rather than crash in the case of a collision, and 
          16. The arches are arranged perpendicular to the prevailing winds. 

          < Message edited by wlgerman -- 12/10/2003 4:08:05 AM >
          ======

          Also, his public post in 2003 where he outlined some of his AWES matters: 
        • dave santos
          Yes, the patent and venture-capital models are broken, but a Golden Age of Mass-Collaboration has dawned. Wayne is now far more likely to get support from a
          Message 4 of 19 , Feb 22, 2013
            Yes, the patent and venture-capital models are broken, but a Golden Age of Mass-Collaboration has dawned. Wayne is now far more likely to get support from a grateful AWE open-business movement (us), out of simple decency and fairness, than he is likely to succeed in the shark-tank with a patent, its defense, and the IP monetization hurdle.

            The latest Mothra work Rod is doing is wonderfully compelling. Mothra tech an prime example of an AWES architecture evolved openly in a large group (~50 direct contributors) likely dominating over concepts developed in secret by far better funded ventures. The explosive open biz model seems capable of blowing-the-doors-off of all closed-source AWE players, if only we keep attracting ever more fine folks into the open circle. A true AWES winner will not need IP royalties, given a leadership position in a profitable open tech solution.

            Crowd-sourced AWE is simply the best game we have-

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_collaboration

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_business
          • Pierre BENHAIEM
            Wayne is now far more likely to get support from a grateful AWE open-business movement (us) So Wayne is not among us...But who is us ?Probably not me,since I
            Message 5 of 19 , Feb 22, 2013

              "Wayne is now far more likely to get support from a grateful AWE open-business movement (us)"

              So Wayne is not among us...But who is "us"?Probably not me,since I have some patents,and I respect as much the patent system as the open-source.Patent system and open-source are the two legs of R&D for AWE as for the other fields.

               

              PierreB

               






               

              > Message du 23/02/13 00:14
              > De : "dave santos"
              > A : "AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com"
              > Copie à :
              > Objet : Re: [AWES] Intellectual property matters
              >
              >  

              > Yes, the patent and venture-capital models are broken, but a Golden Age of Mass-Collaboration has dawned. Wayne is now far more likely to get support from a grateful AWE open-business movement (us), out of simple decency and fairness, than he is likely to succeed in the shark-tank with a patent, its defense, and the IP monetization hurdle.
              >
              > The latest Mothra work Rod is doing is wonderfully compelling. Mothra tech an prime example of an AWES architecture evolved openly in a large group (~50 direct contributors) likely dominating over concepts developed in secret by far better funded ventures. The explosive open biz model seems capable of blowing-the-doors-off of all closed-source AWE players, if only we keep attracting ever more fine folks into the open circle. A true AWES winner will not need IP royalties, given a leadership position in a profitable open tech solution.
              >
              > Crowd-sourced AWE is simply the best game we have-
              >
              > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_collaboration
              >
              > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_business
              >
              >

            • dave santos
              Pierre, By Us is meant the growing AWES Mass-Collaboration Open-Circle. Patent holders are included in the open Patent Pool plan, as part of the
              Message 6 of 19 , Feb 22, 2013
                Pierre,

                By "Us" is meant the growing AWES Mass-Collaboration Open-Circle. Patent holders are included in the open Patent Pool plan, as part of the collaboration.

                Wayne is a close friend who has shared his ideas with the world far longer and better than most AWES developers with patents. He does not have any of his own patents, due to poverty. Since you can afford to secure AWE patents, you are obviously not as poor as Wayne. 

                If you get even richer by enforcing your AWE patents on a desperate world (out of "respect" for patents), you might generously choose to help indigent AWE pioneers like Wayne, to help correct the moral unfairness of patent availability based on economic class; to really prove to be one of the glorious "Us".

                If your patents never pay, and worse, cost you your life-savings, then AWE Open-Circles will hopefully remember and help you,

                daveS








                ==========================
                I am sorry for the Yahoo "CSNBC Jobs" Spam Virus 
                that hijacked the Contact List for this mail account. 
                Please accept this apology for any trouble caused.

                From: Pierre BENHAIEM <pierre.benhaiem@...>
                To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 6:00 PM
                Subject: Re: [AWES] Intellectual property matters

                 
                "Wayne is now far more likely to get support from a grateful AWE open-business movement (us)"
                So Wayne is not among us...But who is "us"?Probably not me,since I have some patents,and I respect as much the patent system as the open-source.Patent system and open-source are the two legs of R&D for AWE as for the other fields.
                 
                PierreB
                 





                 
                > Message du 23/02/13 00:14
                > De : "dave santos"
                > A : "AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com"
                > Copie à :
                > Objet : Re: [AWES] Intellectual property matters
                >
                >  
                > Yes, the patent and venture-capital models are broken, but a Golden Age of Mass-Collaboration has dawned. Wayne is now far more likely to get support from a grateful AWE open-business movement (us), out of simple decency and fairness, than he is likely to succeed in the shark-tank with a patent, its defense, and the IP monetization hurdle.
                >
                > The latest Mothra work Rod is doing is wonderfully compelling. Mothra tech an prime example of an AWES architecture evolved openly in a large group (~50 direct contributors) likely dominating over concepts developed in secret by far better funded ventures. The explosive open biz model seems capable of blowing-the-doors-off of all closed-source AWE players, if only we keep attracting ever more fine folks into the open circle. A true AWES winner will not need IP royalties, given a leadership position in a profitable open tech solution.
                >
                > Crowd-sourced AWE is simply the best game we have-
                >
                > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_collaboration
                >
                > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_business
                >
                >


              • Pierre BENHAIEM
                DaveS, I do not pay so much for (and only French) patents because I have no attorney,and because I leave patents _ becoming open-source _ one after one before
                Message 7 of 19 , Feb 22, 2013

                  DaveS,

                   

                  I do not pay so much for (and only French) patents because I have no attorney,and because I leave patents _ becoming open-source _ one after one before heavy taxes of preservation without utility since (in my sense) a patent has value no long time if no operation of the patent is made after 4 or 5 years from the application.

                   

                  Note that AWE is the champion of not exploited patents.Where are specific patents for Ampyx,even Makani (excepted probably the last)?Due to the huge amount of prior art patents_as protection_ is not the ultimate key.Engineering is the key.

                   

                  In my sense patent system is good and is used in the world when the produce is marketed.

                   

                  Note also companies like Ampyx test probably other schemes or other ways before completely developping a single method.It is possible (but not sure) arches as AWES was not yet tested.But when a single method will be chose (if it is possible since there is not unanimity in the list) investors will be needed for a correct development.Perhaps a common patent for the chosen AWES will be better than "patent pool" since it is too hard to develop all concepts.

                   

                  Note also a common point between cooperatives and startups:AWE is far of commercialisation,AWE does not produce money now.So startups can work as cooperatives and vice versa,startup being cooperatives with investments.But their CEO _ and investors _ often think marketed AWES is the next year,keeping the spirit of a startup.

                  PierreB   



                  > Message du 23/02/13 02:25
                  > De : "dave santos"
                  > A : "AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com"
                  > Copie à :
                  > Objet : Who is Us?   //Re: [AWES] Intellectual property matters
                  >
                  >  

                  >

                  Pierre,

                  >
                  By "Us" is meant the growing AWES Mass-Collaboration Open-Circle. Patent holders are included in the open Patent Pool plan, as part of the collaboration.

                  >
                  Wayne is a close friend who has shared his ideas with the world far longer and better than most AWES developers with patents. He does not have any of his own patents, due to poverty. Since you can afford to secure AWE patents, you are obviously not as poor as Wayne. 

                  >
                  If you get even richer by enforcing your AWE patents on a desperate world (out of "respect" for patents), you might generously choose to help indigent AWE pioneers like Wayne, to help correct the moral unfairness of patent availability based on economic class; to really prove to be one of the glorious "Us".

                  >
                  If your patents never pay, and worse, cost you your life-savings, then AWE Open-Circles will hopefully remember and help you,

                  >
                  daveS

                  >

                  >

                  >

                  >

                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  ==========================
                  > I am sorry for the Yahoo "CSNBC Jobs" Spam Virus 
                  > that hijacked the Contact List for this mail account. 
                  > Please accept this apology for any trouble caused.
                  >

                  From: Pierre BENHAIEM
                  > To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
                  > Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 6:00 PM
                  > Subject: Re: [AWES] Intellectual property matters
                  >

                  >
                   
                  "Wayne is now far more likely to get support from a grateful AWE open-business movement (us)"
                  So Wayne is not among us...But who is "us"?Probably not me,since I have some patents,and I respect as much the patent system as the open-source.Patent system and open-source are the two legs of R&D for AWE as for the other fields.
                   
                  PierreB
                   

                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >  
                  > Message du 23/02/13 00:14
                  > > De : "dave santos"
                  > > A : "AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com"
                  > > Copie à :
                  > > Objet : Re: [AWES] Intellectual property matters
                  > >
                  > >  
                  > Yes, the patent and venture-capital models are broken, but a Golden Age of Mass-Collaboration has dawned. Wayne is now far more likely to get support from a grateful AWE open-business movement (us), out of simple decency and fairness, than he is likely to succeed in the shark-tank with a patent, its defense, and the IP monetization hurdle.
                  > >
                  > > The latest Mothra work Rod is doing is wonderfully compelling. Mothra tech an prime example of an AWES architecture evolved openly in a large group (~50 direct contributors) likely dominating over concepts developed in secret by far better funded ventures. The explosive open biz model seems capable of blowing-the-doors-off of all closed-source AWE players, if only we keep attracting ever more fine folks into the open circle. A true AWES winner will not need IP royalties, given a leadership position in a profitable open tech solution.
                  > >
                  > > Crowd-sourced AWE is simply the best game we have-
                  > >
                  > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_collaboration
                  > >
                  > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_business
                  > >
                  > >

                  >
                  >
                • Doug
                  Sounds nice. These are good descriptions. I don t think the clothesline / laddermill concept should be given up on, in the unlimited forms it might take.
                  Message 8 of 19 , Feb 22, 2013
                    Sounds nice. These are good descriptions. I don't think the "clothesline" / laddermill concept should be given up on, in the unlimited forms it might take. Steady-state operation is good. Airfoils traveling in a circuit is good. One thing that you grow to appreciate about a propeller though is it can keep spinning for years and nothing wears out. Stresses don't vary much withing the rotating frame of reference. That's why vertical axis machines always shake themselves apart - the stresses vary and continually reverse in all reference frames.

                    --- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, "Joe Faust" <joefaust333@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > In 2003 we see a cousin-Vertical-Blinds description, if you will, by
                    > Wayne German, which we quote him here from rcuniverse posting:
                    > ===2003== by Wayne German: =
                    > Arch ARTAGs
                    >
                    > Large commercial enterprises could attach numerous large kites on both
                    > sections of a tether loop that loops between a generator and a pulley. A
                    > generator would be in one anchored boat and a pulley would be in the
                    > other.
                    >
                    > 1. The tether would pass through a generator on one anchored boat,
                    > 2. Through a long arch in the sky,
                    > 3. To the pulley in another anchored boat,
                    > 4. Through another long arch in the sky,
                    > 5. Back to the generator again, and
                    > 6. The long arches in the sky would have numerous large kites equally
                    > spaced,
                    > 7. And the kites would be synchronized by radio,
                    > 8. To roll in directions that would cause the tether to pull in the same
                    > direction,
                    > 9. Such that the kites on one arch would roll one direction, and
                    > 10. The kites on the other arch would roll in the other direction, and
                    > 11. The kites on one arch would have a higher angle of attack, and
                    > 12. The kites on the other arch would have a lower angle of tack,
                    > 13. So that there would always be a safe distance between the two arches
                    > to avoid collisions, but
                    > 14. The kites would be inflatable,
                    > 15. So they would generally bounce rather than crash in the case of a
                    > collision, and
                    > 16. The arches are arranged perpendicular to the prevailing winds.
                    >
                    > < Message edited by wlgerman -- 12/10/2003 4:08:05 AM >======
                    > Also, his public post in 2003 where he outlined some of his AWES
                    > matters: http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=1223438
                    > <http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=1223438>
                    >
                  • Hardensoft International Limited
                    Thanks, Rod.   John Adeoye  Oyebanji   B.Sc. MCPN Managing Consultant & CEO Hardensoft International Limited ; ;
                    Message 9 of 19 , Feb 22, 2013
                      Thanks, Rod.
                       
                      John Adeoye  Oyebanji   B.Sc. MCPN
                      Managing Consultant & CEO
                      Hardensoft International Limited
                      <Technologies>; <Project Finance>; <Environmental Remediation>; <Energy> Company
                      3rd Floor, 53 St. Finbarr's Road, Akoka-Yaba;
                      Lagos. Nigeria.

                      ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
                      Disclaimer and confidentiality note
                      This e-mail, its attachments and any rights attaching hereto are, and unless the content clearly indicates otherwise, remains the property of John Adeoye Oyebanji of Hardensoft International Limited, Lagos, Nigeria. 

                      It is confidential, private and intended for only the addressee.
                      Should you not be the addressee and receive this e-mail by mistake, kindly notify the sender, and delete this e-mail immediately.
                      Do not disclose or use it in any way. Views and opinions expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender unless clearly stated as those of some other.



                      From: Rod Read <rod.read@...>
                      To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
                      Sent: Friday, 22 February 2013, 21:01
                      Subject: Re: [AWES] Intellectual property matters

                       
                      Joe,
                      I have absolutely no trust in nor respect for the patent system...
                      It's a nonsense when global information searching is freely available and globally prolific. (With minimal exception, and I can't imagine many governments sensor the AWE yahoo group and kitepowercoop.org)

                      If any party is seriously interested in or studying AWE systems they will find out about this forum.

                      I have a new massive actuation whole mothra stack flap movement design I will work on... basically setting the beast body still and whipping the wings upward... bird flight mimic power.
                      cc3.0 BY NC SA  (Attribute, Non commercial, Share Alike)
                      Creative Commons Licence
                      This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

                      It may be that a commons based peer production license would be better / more appropriate... not sure.

                      There are a bunch of Open Source Hardware licenses to choose from
                      I can't see anyone being able to defend patent novelty against the data filed and posted on this site.
                      This forum is in the collective conscience of all AWE developers we know of.
                      It is a phenomenal resource for research and It should be respected as such.

                      Rod Read

                      15a Aiginis
                      Isle of Lewis
                      HS2 0PB

                      07899057227
                      01851 870878

                      http://kitepowercoop.org


                      On 22 February 2013 17:50, Joe Faust <joefaust333@...> wrote:
                       
                      Wayne, 
                              On Kite Energy or AWE intellectual property: 
                      • A "patent pool" is being promoted. Of course, that assumes someone holds valid and current patents. Validity may be attacked between patentees in or out of court; and negotiations leading to agreements may occur in or out of court. Attacking validity uses prior art, expired patents, public domain, and non-novelty and "obvious" arguments when contests arrive.   This game could become expensive when Kite Energy or AWE begins to flourish.   Even though a patent might be granted, that does not assure that its claims of novelty may not be overcome during contest.  

                      • The commercial game has already started with come contest between Sky Windpower and a Mr. Grenier  http://www.energykitesystems.net/0/BaseloadEnergyINC/index.html  ---I do not know the outcome of the dispute. 

                      • Some provisional patents on tethers appear to be invalid by some of us; but teams may one day be paying each other royalties or fees for the use of certain tether mechanics. 

                      • Some wind machines that have vertical airfoils have shown in patents, especially on rails, especially in a ground-hugging manner; Some products have been tried that have airfoils go one way and then round up and go the other way.   Just what novelty you might hold is something I personally still am not clear about concerning railed or free-flying vertical airfoils.   Getting a provisional patent will not mean that novelty respect will be certain; the road to clout with patents can be a long long adventure.
                         
                      • DaveS has written about using social professional pressures within the AWE Kite-Energy community to force respect of intellectual property. How effective such tactics will be is anyone's guess.  The huge body of methods that we have been putting out into public view with essays, drawings, experiments, videos ... is being promoted as protectable under "commons" ...something: I am not expert on the strategy, sorry.  One main deposit of the methods is linked in the following pages: 

                        • http://www.energykitesystems.net/KiteLabGroup/megascalefreespaceDRAFT.html
                        • http://www.energykitesystems.net/FairIP/index.html
                        • http://www.energykitesystems.net/CoopIP/index.html
                        • http://www.energykitesystems.net/0/KITESA/FAQelectric/methods.html
                        • http://www.energykitesystems.net/0/methods/index.html
                        • http://www.energykitesystems.net/MegaScaleAWES/index.html
                        • http://groups.yahoo.com/group/kitepatents  (yet incomplete, but growing ...)
                        • http://kitepowercoop.org/

                      • My personal contract with the public has been often published: Any intellectual property regarding kite systems that might be novel from my pen and disclosure is automatically placed into public domain for anyone to use without having to glance my way by statement or remuneration.  I do not expect any others will being doing such gifting formally, at least.   However, by disclosing functions, methods, processes, applications into the public, one begins a decision tree that will have patent protection or not involved; and such protection varies among nations, not all the same. 

                      • Suppose someone makes and sells some AWES, or uses some AWES.   Suppose someone claims: "Hey you, you are using my IP; please negotiate with me, so that I share in the benefits."    Then what?  Ignoring? Private settlement?  Court battle?   Battles in courts have been a substantial part of aviation history.   Personally, I have zero time and energy for intellectual property battles in courts, but I have very much energy to discern invention history; but results must remain personal satisfaction in simply "seeing" the flow of novelty; e.g. I just recently for five years put in thousands of hours on discerning novelty regarding an untenable claim of "invention" by John Dickenson under the campaign of his admirer Graeme Henderson; by yelling and threats they won untenable awards by wimpy organizations which orgs had very low scrutiny for professional facts regarding invention; so another false history branch has been created in aviation where a non-invention gets awarded as invention. My gain in the battle has been a happy seeing of the more factual flow of invention in that hang gliding aviation sector; but the robbery of merit is still standing in infamy.  Sad and happy joys mixed in the fuzzy world of merits and "history."       I am still struggling to know what novelty you hold or not in "Vertical Blinds."  And I guess it will be years before I personally am clear about the matter; but my clarity or not will probably have no effect on the flow of money in AWE or Kite Energy. 

                      • Will some AWE companies simply look for ways to bless early IP promoters and inventors?   I do not see much evidence for such in the Magenn-SWP-Makani-Joby-NTS-Ampyx-BaseLoad group.   But I do some some "cooperative" benevolence in the KiteLab Group arena where IP may be blessed without having to do big battles; but the hard gusts have yet to hit the fan, if you will. 

                      • Can the AWE and Kite Energy industry fly and flourish without there being court battles?    I doubt it; there will be battles and actual inventors may well not be in the winning circles of those battle settlements; money clout and patent trails might win, even if the patent trails might be full of invalid novelty claims.      However, there may be a big win for the world when Kite Energy Systems end up flying and replacing coal and oil to large extent!  Everyone will win when AWE has its full flowering on earth.   

                      • The meaning of CC IP       and the meaning of    CC BY NC SA          are items to be studied;  I personally yet struggle to know the meaning of these two respect flows.  
                      Best of lift to you and yours in this adventure!
                      JoeF



                    • Wayne German
                      Rod,   I personally think that those that conceive, architect, design, develop, deploy, test, represent, and sell projects should all be appropriately
                      Message 10 of 19 , Feb 23, 2013
                        Rod,
                         
                        I personally think that those that conceive, architect, design, develop, deploy, test, represent, and sell projects should all be appropriately remumerated for their work don't you?   And shouldn't each of them be entitled to royalties or some sort or hourly wages or wages based on commissions?  Why would anyone commit to developing new and better concepts if their were no way of securing compensation for doing so?
                         
                        Basically, the Chinese say that those who conceive deserve nothing for their efforts -- unless they work for a company that has enough financial and maufacturing clout that they are able to dominate their markets by selling more of their kinds of products at such high volumes tthat they are able to repel other companies from competing by being able to offer the best products at the lowest prices because new companies that might spring up will always have to chareg more for products until they learn to sell products in their "sweeet spots" -- even relative to other customers.
                        In other words, selling them for the right cost times the number of units -- but also relative to other customers.
                         
                        While I am not too enamorred with patents and the patent office my self.  What I hear you guys saying (which may be different than what you are speaking) is all new ideas should be shared between the members of a core group, but why would anyone who has developed significant new concepts simply want to toss his ideas in the pool when less than a fourth of the members are likely going to have anything to toss in.  As one who has spent almost all of his spare time for 35 years building and developing our fraternities when there were a few only a few who were as commited shoild I not someday expect to receive compensation for my efforts for other people as much as myself/  Please explain how how it might happen that people in our fraternites might recompense each other faitly and appropriately for what they have done?  And if they choose not to then how can any of us have any confidence that the intellectual property that we share will be held securely and reeareded appropriately?
                        I am not complaining, but yoiu folks should know that there are people like me in our midst that have devoted most all of their spare time to pursue these technologies because it can and likely will be a ministry where the products that are sold to greatly bless others brings in enough profit to pay us reasonably and to contuniually make ever more products.  I see technology and manufacturing as ways to give people products that bless them and have ever more money to make more products to bless others.  Really Rod if we were to forgo patents and jujst toss them in a pool where likely only a few people contribute for everyone else, what reasonable, rational, system are you thinking that might possibly be fair to all -- and not just taking what those that conceive might donate to oher members of the group out of the kindness of their hearts.
                         
                        Forgive me.  I got long winded and somehat redundant.  It's late and I have been working long hours.
                         
                        -- Wayne
                         
                         
                         
                         
                         
                        John Adeoye  Oyebanji   B.Sc. MCPNManaging Consultant & CEOHardensoft International Limited
                        <Technologies>; <Project Finance>; <Environmental Remediation>; <Energy> Company
                        3rd Floor, 53 St. Finbarr's Road, Akoka-Yaba;
                        Lagos. Nigeria.
                        ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
                        Disclaimer and confidentiality note
                        This e-mail, its attachments and any rights attaching hereto are, and unless the content clearly indicates otherwise, remains the property of John Adeoye Oyebanji of Hardensoft International Limited, Lagos, Nigeria. 

                        It is confidential, private and intended for only the addressee.
                        Should you not be the addressee and receive this e-mail by mistake, kindly notify the sender, and delete this e-mail immediately.
                        Do not disclose or use it in any way. Views and opinions expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender unless clearly stated as those of some other.


                        From: Rod Read <rod.read@...>
                        To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
                        Sent: Friday, 22 February 2013, 21:01
                        Subject: Re: [AWES] Intellectual property matters
                         
                        Joe, I have absolutely no trust in nor respect for the patent system... It's a nonsense when global information searching is freely available and globally prolific. (With minimal exception, and I can't imagine many governments sensor the AWE yahoo group and kitepowercoop.org)If any party is seriously interested in or studying AWE systems they will find out about this forum. I have a new massive actuation whole mothra stack flap movement design I will work on... basically setting the beast body still and whipping the wings upward... bird flight mimic power.cc3.0 BY NC SA  (Attribute, Non commercial, Share Alike)Creative Commons LicenceThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. It may be that a commons based peer production license would be better / more appropriate... not sure.There are a bunch of Open Source Hardware licenses to choose from I can't see anyone being able to defend patent novelty against the data filed and posted on this site.This forum is in the collective conscience of all AWE developers we know of. It is a phenomenal resource for research and It should be respected as such.
                        Rod Read 15a Aiginis Isle of LewisHS2 0PB 07899057227 01851 870878

                        http://kitepowercoop.org
                        On 22 February 2013 17:50, Joe Faust <joefaust333@...> wrote:
                         
                        Wayne, 
                                On Kite Energy or AWE intellectual property: 
                        • A "patent pool" is being promoted. Of course, that assumes someone holds valid and current patents. Validity may be attacked between patentees in or out of court; and negotiations leading to agreements may occur in or out of court. Attacking validity uses prior art, expired patents, public domain, and non-novelty and "obvious" arguments when contests arrive.   This game could become expensive when Kite Energy or AWE begins to flourish.   Even though a patent might be granted, that does not assure that its claims of novelty may not be overcome during contest.  

                        • The commercial game has already started with come contest between Sky Windpower and a Mr. Grenier  http://www.energykitesystems.net/0/BaseloadEnergyINC/index.html  ---I do not know the outcome of the dispute. 

                        • Some provisional patents on tethers appear to be invalid by some of us; but teams may one day be paying each other royalties or fees for the use of certain tether mechanics. 

                        • Some wind machines that have vertical airfoils have shown in patents, especially on rails, especially in a ground-hugging manner; Some products have been tried that have airfoils go one way and then round up and go the other way.   Just what novelty you might hold is something I personally still am not clear about concerning railed or free-flying vertical airfoils.   Getting a provisional patent will not mean that novelty respect will be certain; the road to clout with patents can be a long long adventure.
                           
                        • DaveS has written about using social professional pressures within the AWE Kite-Energy community to force respect of intellectual property. How effective such tactics will be is anyone's guess.  The huge body of methods that we have been putting out into public view with essays, drawings, experiments, videos ... is being promoted as protectable under "commons" ...something: I am not expert on the strategy, sorry.  One main deposit of the methods is linked in the following pages: 

                          • http://www.energykitesystems.net/KiteLabGroup/megascalefreespaceDRAFT.html
                          • http://www.energykitesystems.net/FairIP/index.html
                          • http://www.energykitesystems.net/CoopIP/index.html
                          • http://www.energykitesystems.net/0/KITESA/FAQelectric/methods.html
                          • http://www.energykitesystems.net/0/methods/index.html
                          • http://www.energykitesystems.net/MegaScaleAWES/index.html
                          • http://groups.yahoo.com/group/kitepatents  (yet incomplete, but growing ...)
                          • http://kitepowercoop.org/

                        • My personal contract with the public has been often published: Any intellectual property regarding kite systems that might be novel from my pen and disclosure is automatically placed into public domain for anyone to use without having to glance my way by statement or remuneration.  I do not expect any others will being doing such gifting formally, at least.   However, by disclosing functions, methods, processes, applications into the public, one begins a decision tree that will have patent protection or not involved; and such protection varies among nations, not all the same. 

                        • Suppose someone makes and sells some AWES, or uses some AWES.   Suppose someone claims: "Hey you, you are using my IP; please negotiate with me, so that I share in the benefits."    Then what?  Ignoring? Private settlement?  Court battle?   Battles in courts have been a substantial part of aviation history.   Personally, I have zero time and energy for intellectual property battles in courts, but I have very much energy to discern invention history; but results must remain personal satisfaction in simply "seeing" the flow of novelty; e.g. I just recently for five years put in thousands of hours on discerning novelty regarding an untenable claim of "invention" by John Dickenson under the campaign of his admirer Graeme Henderson; by yelling and threats they won untenable awards by wimpy organizations which orgs had very low scrutiny for professional facts regarding invention; so another false history branch has been created in aviation where a non-invention gets awarded as invention. My gain in the battle has been a happy seeing of the more factual flow of invention in that hang gliding aviation sector; but the robbery of merit is still standing in infamy.  Sad and happy joys mixed in the fuzzy world of merits and "history."       I am still struggling to know what novelty you hold or not in "Vertical Blinds."  And I guess it will be years before I personally am clear about the matter; but my clarity or not will probably have no effect on the flow of money in AWE or Kite Energy. 

                        • Will some AWE companies simply look for ways to bless early IP promoters and inventors?   I do not see much evidence for such in the Magenn-SWP-Makani-Joby-NTS-Ampyx-BaseLoad group.   But I do some some "cooperative" benevolence in the KiteLab Group arena where IP may be blessed without having to do big battles; but the hard gusts have yet to hit the fan, if you will. 

                        • Can the AWE and Kite Energy industry fly and flourish without there being court battles?    I doubt it; there will be battles and actual inventors may well not be in the winning circles of those battle settlements; money clout and patent trails might win, even if the patent trails might be full of invalid novelty claims.      However, there may be a big win for the world when Kite Energy Systems end up flying and replacing coal and oil to large extent!  Everyone will win when AWE has its full flowering on earth.   

                        • The meaning of CC IP       and the meaning of    CC BY NC SA          are items to be studied;  I personally yet struggle to know the meaning of these two respect flows.  
                        Best of lift to you and yours in this adventure!
                        JoeF
                      • Bob Stuart
                        One basic reason why life is not fair is that people have different talents. A study of entrepreneurs http://www.wimp.com/helpsomeone/ found that no single
                        Message 11 of 19 , Feb 23, 2013
                          One basic reason why life is not fair is that people have different talents.  A study of entrepreneurs http://www.wimp.com/helpsomeone/ found that no single person had ever been able to do a good job of product development, product promotion, and financial management.  So, partnerships are needed, and, unsurprisingly, the financial guys tend to wind up with more of the Rolls-Royces.  Actually, for them, a Rolex is functional - it helps establish status in that world, and improve effectiveness.  

                          Fortunately, our ideas of value also differ, and a good developer may be fully content with the appreciation of his peers and the means to direct research.  The money generated by AWE could turn into a full-time spending job for a whole platoon of ex wives - we don't need the distraction.  

                          The problem of how to work ethically, or at all, within the current business system is a thorny one.  Thousands of Linux developers seem to have wound up making a great gift to big business, and wasting the time of the individuals they hoped to empower.  Secrecy is clearly dysfunctional - Penicillin was just a lab curiosity for decades until the government forced the drug companies to pool their research.  Capitalism is also ultimately dysfunctional without constant, wise regulation from the whole community of life.  Currently, inefficiency and chaos are favoured, because they have been good for quarterly results so often, when the world had more reserves.  

                          I think the correct model, now that we have the 'net, is for the government to tax industries that do little good and pollute, to support all creative workers on the basis of how much they have been copied.  Those whose creative experiments were more expensive would get more money to recognize that.  Money is actually a lousy incentive for an inventor http://www.wimp.com/surprisingmotivation/ 
                          So far, it has only been chaos around wealth that has occasionally funded benevolent research.  I think we can do better than having most of the money in the hands of very few people who don't really care about the rest.  That does offend the sense of fairness, and inhibit sharing.

                          Bob Stuart

                          On 23-Feb-13, at 2:32 AM, Wayne German wrote:


                          Rod,
                           
                          I personally think that those that conceive, architect, design, develop, deploy, test, represent, and sell projects should all be appropriately remumerated for their work don't you?   And shouldn't each of them be entitled to royalties or some sort or hourly wages or wages based on commissions?  Why would anyone commit to developing new and better concepts if their were no way of securing compensation for doing so?
                           
                          Basically, the Chinese say that those who conceive deserve nothing for their efforts -- unless they work for a company that has enough financial and maufacturing clout that they are able to dominate their markets by selling more of their kinds of products at such high volumes tthat they are able to repel other companies from competing by being able to offer the best products at the lowest prices because new companies that might spring up will always have to chareg more for products until they learn to sell products in their "sweeet spots" -- even relative to other customers.
                          In other words, selling them for the right cost times the number of units -- but also relative to other customers.
                           
                          While I am not too enamorred with patents and the patent office my self.  What I hear you guys saying (which may be different than what you are speaking) is all new ideas should be shared between the members of a core group, but why would anyone who has developed significant new concepts simply want to toss his ideas in the pool when less than a fourth of the members are likely going to have anything to toss in.  As one who has spent almost all of his spare time for 35 years building and developing our fraternities when there were a few only a few who were as commited shoild I not someday expect to receive compensation for my efforts for other people as much as myself/  Please explain how how it might happen that people in our fraternites might recompense each other faitly and appropriately for what they have done?  And if they choose not to then how can any of us have any confidence that the intellectual property that we share will be held securely and reeareded appropriately?
                          I am not complaining, but yoiu folks should know that there are people like me in our midst that have devoted most all of their spare time to pursue these technologies because it can and likely will be a ministry where the products that are sold to greatly bless others brings in enough profit to pay us reasonably and to contuniually make ever more products.  I see technology and manufacturing as ways to give people products that bless them and have ever more money to make more products to bless others.  Really Rod if we were to forgo patents and jujst toss them in a pool where likely only a few people contribute for everyone else, what reasonable, rational, system are you thinking that might possibly be fair to all -- and not just taking what those that conceive might donate to oher members of the group out of the kindness of their hearts.
                           
                          Forgive me.  I got long winded and somehat redundant.  It's late and I have been working long hours.
                           
                          -- Wayne
                           
                           
                           
                           
                           
                          John Adeoye  Oyebanji   B.Sc. MCPNManaging Consultant & CEOHardensoft International Limited
                          <Technologies>; <Project Finance>; <Environmental Remediation>; <Energy> Company
                          3rd Floor, 53 St. Finbarr's Road, Akoka-Yaba;
                          Lagos. Nigeria.
                          ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
                          Disclaimer and confidentiality note
                          This e-mail, its attachments and any rights attaching hereto are, and unless the content clearly indicates otherwise, remains the property of John Adeoye Oyebanji of Hardensoft International Limited, Lagos, Nigeria. 

                          It is confidential, private and intended for only the addressee.
                          Should you not be the addressee and receive this e-mail by mistake, kindly notify the sender, and delete this e-mail immediately.
                          Do not disclose or use it in any way. Views and opinions expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender unless clearly stated as those of some other.


                          From: Rod Read <rod.read@...>
                          To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com 
                          Sent: Friday, 22 February 2013, 21:01
                          Subject: Re: [AWES] Intellectual property matters
                           
                          Joe, I have absolutely no trust in nor respect for the patent system... It's a nonsense when global information searching is freely available and globally prolific. (With minimal exception, and I can't imagine many governments sensor the AWE yahoo group and kitepowercoop.org)  If any party is seriously interested in or studying AWE systems they will find out about this forum. I have a new massive actuation whole mothra stack flap movement design I will work on... basically setting the beast body still and whipping the wings upward... bird flight mimic power. cc3.0 BY NC SA  (Attribute, Non commercial, Share Alike)Creative Commons Licence This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. It may be that a commons based peer production license would be better / more appropriate... not sure.  There are a bunch ofOpen Source Hardware licenses to choose from I can't see anyone being able to defend patent novelty against the data filed and posted on this site. This forum is in the collective conscience of all AWE developers we know of. It is a phenomenal resource for research and It should be respected as such.
                          Rod Read 15a Aiginis Isle of Lewis HS2 0PB 07899057227 01851 870878

                          On 22 February 2013 17:50, Joe Faust <joefaust333@...> wrote:
                           
                          Wayne, 
                                  On Kite Energy or AWE intellectual property: 
                          • A "patent pool" is being promoted. Of course, that assumes someone holds valid and current patents. Validity may be attacked between patentees in or out of court; and negotiations leading to agreements may occur in or out of court. Attacking validity uses prior art, expired patents, public domain, and non-novelty and "obvious" arguments when contests arrive.   This game could become expensive when Kite Energy or AWE begins to flourish.   Even though a patent might be granted, that does not assure that its claims of novelty may not be overcome during contest.  

                          • The commercial game has already started with come contest between Sky Windpower and a Mr. Grenier  http://www.energykitesystems.net/0/BaseloadEnergyINC/index.html  ---I do not know the outcome of the dispute. 

                          • Some provisional patents on tethers appear to be invalid by some of us; but teams may one day be paying each other royalties or fees for the use of certain tether mechanics. 

                          • Some wind machines that have vertical airfoils have shown in patents, especially on rails, especially in a ground-hugging manner; Some products have been tried that have airfoils go one way and then round up and go the other way.   Just what novelty you might hold is something I personally still am not clear about concerning railed or free-flying vertical airfoils.   Getting a provisional patent will not mean that novelty respect will be certain; the road to clout with patents can be a long long adventure.
                             
                          • DaveS has written about using social professional pressures within the AWE Kite-Energy community to force respect of intellectual property. How effective such tactics will be is anyone's guess.  The huge body of methods that we have been putting out into public view with essays, drawings, experiments, videos ... is being promoted as protectable under "commons" ...something: I am not expert on the strategy, sorry.  One main deposit of the methods is linked in the following pages: 

                          • My personal contract with the public has been often published: Any intellectual property regarding kite systems that might be novel from my pen and disclosure is automatically placed into public domain for anyone to use without having to glance my way by statement or remuneration.  I do not expect any others will being doing such gifting formally, at least.   However, by disclosing functions, methods, processes, applications into the public, one begins a decision tree that will have patent protection or not involved; and such protection varies among nations, not all the same. 

                          • Suppose someone makes and sells some AWES, or uses some AWES.   Suppose someone claims: "Hey you, you are using my IP; please negotiate with me, so that I share in the benefits."    Then what?  Ignoring? Private settlement?  Court battle?   Battles in courts have been a substantial part of aviation history.   Personally, I have zero time and energy for intellectual property battles in courts, but I have very much energy to discern invention history; but results must remain personal satisfaction in simply "seeing" the flow of novelty; e.g. I just recently for five years put in thousands of hours on discerning novelty regarding an untenable claim of "invention" by John Dickenson under the campaign of his admirer Graeme Henderson; by yelling and threats they won untenable awards by wimpy organizations which orgs had very low scrutiny for professional facts regarding invention; so another false history branch has been created in aviation where a non-invention gets awarded as invention. My gain in the battle has been a happy seeing of the more factual flow of invention in that hang gliding aviation sector; but the robbery of merit is still standing in infamy.  Sad and happy joys mixed in the fuzzy world of merits and "history."       I am still struggling to know what novelty you hold or not in "Vertical Blinds."  And I guess it will be years before I personally am clear about the matter; but my clarity or not will probably have no effect on the flow of money in AWE or Kite Energy. 

                          • Will some AWE companies simply look for ways to bless early IP promoters and inventors?   I do not see much evidence for such in the Magenn-SWP-Makani-Joby-NTS-Ampyx-BaseLoad group.   But I do some some "cooperative" benevolence in the KiteLab Group arena where IP may be blessed without having to do big battles; but the hard gusts have yet to hit the fan, if you will. 

                          • Can the AWE and Kite Energy industry fly and flourish without there being court battles?    I doubt it; there will be battles and actual inventors may well not be in the winning circles of those battle settlements; money clout and patent trails might win, even if the patent trails might be full of invalid novelty claims.      However, there may be a big win for the world when Kite Energy Systems end up flying and replacing coal and oil to large extent!  Everyone will win when AWE has its full flowering on earth.   

                          • The meaning of CC IP       and the meaning of    CC BY NC SA          are items to be studied;  I personally yet struggle to know the meaning of these two respect flows.  
                          Best of lift to you and yours in this adventure!
                          JoeF


                          Bob Stuart
                          Sent from The Country Formerly Known as Nice.

                        • Rod Read
                          To make that description work. For the arch to be driving (clockwise front looking from upwind) it needs downwind depth and stacked height , to present lifting
                          Message 12 of 19 , Feb 23, 2013
                            To make that description work.
                            For the arch to be driving (clockwise front looking from upwind) it needs downwind depth and stacked height , to present lifting profiles on every point moving clockwise ... ( a minimum of 2 lines and a means to control (or re-tie at junctions) kites mounted on those lines)
                            A roller tensioning system (akin to printing press mechanisms) Or line cross banding is needed to maintain the relative tensions of the kites.
                            And worst of all the kite has to flip from clockwise to anti clockwise.... can rollers balance the tension of tighter kite RHS line clockwise and tighter kite LHS line returning anticlockwise?

                            It's not a bad thought experiment though....
                            If you consider a conical toroidal band made of string & sheet framework, which inflates and lifts clockwise when held and driving clockwise .... It can be held aloft at points by hollow truncated cone funnel buckets.
                            If the funnels were periodically set under an arch, (more open to anticlockwise side) and a band of the sheet and string framework threaded through them... A simple pulley / mesh gear could extract spun band energy.

                            lofted pulleys ... probably better than teflon bucket inners... don't know.

                            guess I need to draw that

                            cc3.0

                            Rod Read

                            15a Aiginis
                            Isle of Lewis
                            HS2 0PB

                            07899057227
                            01851 870878



                            On 23 February 2013 06:16, Doug <dougselsam@...> wrote:
                             

                            Sounds nice. These are good descriptions. I don't think the "clothesline" / laddermill concept should be given up on, in the unlimited forms it might take. Steady-state operation is good. Airfoils traveling in a circuit is good. One thing that you grow to appreciate about a propeller though is it can keep spinning for years and nothing wears out. Stresses don't vary much withing the rotating frame of reference. That's why vertical axis machines always shake themselves apart - the stresses vary and continually reverse in all reference frames.



                            --- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, "Joe Faust" wrote:
                            >
                            > In 2003 we see a cousin-Vertical-Blinds description, if you will, by
                            > Wayne German, which we quote him here from rcuniverse posting:
                            > ===2003== by Wayne German: =
                            > Arch ARTAGs
                            >
                            > Large commercial enterprises could attach numerous large kites on both
                            > sections of a tether loop that loops between a generator and a pulley. A
                            > generator would be in one anchored boat and a pulley would be in the
                            > other.
                            >
                            > 1. The tether would pass through a generator on one anchored boat,
                            > 2. Through a long arch in the sky,
                            > 3. To the pulley in another anchored boat,
                            > 4. Through another long arch in the sky,
                            > 5. Back to the generator again, and
                            > 6. The long arches in the sky would have numerous large kites equally
                            > spaced,
                            > 7. And the kites would be synchronized by radio,
                            > 8. To roll in directions that would cause the tether to pull in the same
                            > direction,
                            > 9. Such that the kites on one arch would roll one direction, and
                            > 10. The kites on the other arch would roll in the other direction, and
                            > 11. The kites on one arch would have a higher angle of attack, and
                            > 12. The kites on the other arch would have a lower angle of tack,
                            > 13. So that there would always be a safe distance between the two arches
                            > to avoid collisions, but
                            > 14. The kites would be inflatable,
                            > 15. So they would generally bounce rather than crash in the case of a
                            > collision, and
                            > 16. The arches are arranged perpendicular to the prevailing winds.
                            >
                            > < Message edited by wlgerman -- 12/10/2003 4:08:05 AM >======
                            > Also, his public post in 2003 where he outlined some of his AWES
                            > matters: http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=1223438
                            > http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=1223438>
                            >


                          • Doug
                            Wayne, this is the problem with newbie peanut-gallery bystander wannabe innovators with enthusiasm but no mastery of the art: They have nothing to offer
                            Message 13 of 19 , Feb 23, 2013
                              Wayne, this is the problem with newbie peanut-gallery bystander wannabe innovators with enthusiasm but no mastery of the art:
                              They have nothing to offer besides enthusiasm and busy-body-ness, and so they first (attempt to) declare "a new system" where "all things of value will be shared equally".

                              It is now well-known that the communist system was designed merely to tear down the previous order of ownership, to pave the way for a McDonalds & KFC on every corner - so much for "sharing everything equally", last I knew the world's biggest "communist" nation had a huge population of newly-minted billionaires! "Share everything equally until I own it" would be the complete statement.

                              The "share everything equally" is a way to get those who HAVE something to give it up. The next stage is "well maybe we SHOULD have SOME individual property"... while the people previously saying everything should be shared begin to explain why THEY now own everything "well things change, things evolve - gotta keep up with the times, can't live in the past - that system of sharing everything didn't work out as planned..."

                              In short, coming into a situation with nothing and advocating that everything be shared can be a way of taking control.

                              Anyway, like technology, the field of law has a long history, and what we have today is a result of thousands of years of finding out what "works" - sound familiar anyone?
                              The result includes our patent system, which I agree can be a pain in the butt like anything worth doing.

                              Having said all that, I can tell you from personal experience that it may hardly matter! When you have teams as (apparently) stupid as the people at Honeywell for example, promoting a "regular" (non-flying) wind turbine as BAD as what they have (patent protected of course!), and then look at all the rest of the intellectual GARBAGE that clogs our patent system, you might scratch your head and begin to wonder how valuable patents really ARE.

                              Think about it: from whale bumps to eccentric-and-bored ole' grandpa's flapping plywood merry-go-round, thousands and thousands of patents describe apparatus that barely works, if at all. What's the use? One thing I learned is to develop the shit first and patent it after you see how it works. Otherwise you end up having to file more patents after you actually figure out what you're doing. Shit seems obvious once you start building and testing. Before that, all ideas may seem equal when only on paper - "Sure, that would work easily" transitions to "Oh I didn't know it would do THAT!" and "Why can't we get these things to hold together?".

                              I was warned early on not to get too attached to patents. People told me how most patents expire worthless, which we have all heard. People told me the greater value was being first to market, or even just being IN the market at all, instead of just in dreamland! Like one more vertical axis professor crackpot, I listened, but didn't listen. Now I have a LOT of patents, and orders coming in for products - and most of the products people order from me are not even patented! They are just generators and electronics that I have not even looked into patenting because I'm too busy making them! People buy what works. For everything else you need grants and subsidies, conferences, hand-waving and happy-talk. Government programs. Like the supposed "communism" (similar to "cool I.P."), it can all only go on for so long before nature retakes the helm. Remember that story "Animal Farm" where "all animals were equal... some just more than others"? Cool I.P., Animal Farm. Sounds nice like the pilgrims sharing all their food - they almost died that first winter til they resumed personal production, personal responsibility, and personal ownership the next year.

                              The factor I was not taking into account is that it is SO ridiculously hard to get ANY wind energy device to last through the first decent wind, let alone hang in there year after year through storm after storm, that I find myself about to offer a simple single-rotor turbine kit that will run forever and never burn out. Why? Because after decades of clean&green hype, there STILL to this day does not EXIST an affordable and reliable small wind energy system. Affordable? Yes. Reliable? Yes - but NOT in the same package. Today you can obtain EITHER an affordable small wind system OR a reliable one that will cost as much as a house, and still possibly require service but after spending that much you will pony up the additional cash.

                              Next, let me tell you about my friend Andy who started the biggest small wind turbine company in the world and today doesn't even work for them. Why? They could NEVER in decades of trying, get a reliable machine out there. Every model they ever produced had major problems, and the company slowly floundered as they drowned in warranty returns, while VC's salivated and companies like GE capital injected as much as $10 million to keep them afloat.

                              Last I talked to anyone at SouthWest Windpower they had sold off every model they ever developed except the still-problematic Skystream. Their entire Whisper line was sold to a company in India. Despite Southwest sending an engineer over to help, they cannot seem to turn out even a single decent version of a Southwest turbine in India. Again, everyone thinks this stuff is easy - NO Virginia, a harbor-freight level of quality WILL NOT cut it in wind energy - you need the very best of the best, not cut corners. Southwest told me they would start sending people to me for replacement blades hand made from wood since the buyers in India also seem unable to make a decent blade. Sounds crazy but I didn;t make this up - heard it from the source!

                              So, try to find a small wind turbine that is not a big basket of problems. Go ahead and search across the countryside. I'd love to hear from that happy customer who is saving on his electric bill and has had no problems for years with his small wind turbine. Then meanwhile, worry about what patents you do or don't have for crap you will never build anyway. Right? Like U.Delfts patented a laddermill yet never built one? Why? Chicken? Its ridiculous that nobody has tried a laddermill yet. Laddermill - one of a hundred easy-to-build airborne wind energy concepts that would probably work the first time! (Work? Yes. Last a long time? Not right away. Crash? probably. Then the work starts - model after model til something hangs in there long enough to still be there the next morning.

                              Ironically, SouthWest Windpower DID have ONE reliable model of turbine. Today it is orphaned - they couldn't get a taker for the one that just worked. Why? Not enough lies. Investors in wind energy mostly respond to lies about performance that is too good to be true. To hear about the performance numbers of a turbine that just works and just runs for years with no problems doesn't sound like enough power compared to the next model up the line that bites off more wind than it can chew, and quickly fails. Well they quickly failed before, butn ow they just don't even work! That's why it can be good to keep production home. Once it is in a different time zone, people just revert to their primitive ways and produce junk unless someone is there to babysit, or so I keep hearing over and over, at "conferences" where people who own IP discuss how they sometimes make money off it.

                              Anyway the only person I know who ever made any money in small wind did it by building and selling a cheap turbine, that was not well-designed and did not perform well. The reason he made a couple million is he at least had SOMETHING to sell in that price range while everyone else was filing patents, preparing grant applications for flawed technology, and attending conferences!

                              So anyway, yeah I think laddermill, in any of the myriad forms one could endlessly cook up, is a promising idea. The fact that a major university patented it yet never built one is just how the field of wind energy IS -0 most big talkers and very few people who really understand it or are really willing to build anything that is not a waste of time. I mean really, why would one patent a laddermill and then never build one? By what mental deficiency would one go on to take a giant step backward from that, to "I think I feel a pull on this kite string" level of thinking?

                              Well truth is stranger than fiction. I think if someone realy wanted to test a laddermill, they might consider using a kite at the upper end, since it is simple. I do not see how a kite arch necessarily adds anything to the equation at that stage, and really, it reduces the overall utility by insuring that it would be more difficult or impossible to aim. Sure, add a giant rotating spar and you just negated the supposed advantage of the kite arch: needing no spar.

                              Most would-be wind energy inventors are very insistent that their untested designs are "the answer". Because the designs ARE untested, the promoters assign ANY desired behavior and just assume the real apparatus will follow their wishes. Most of them are disturbed when they start taking steps like connecting generators to their ideas. THat;s when they start to realize that their dumb ideas don't really make ANY power, let alone outperform the GE 1.5 Mw turbine.

                              So, I guess you have people building real wind energhy systems, airborne or not, and you have the peanut gallery of would-be, wannabe innovators who seldom build anything, produce no wind power, and want to spend all day every day arguing about fundamentals worked out hundreds ofy ears ago such as whether to use lift or drag, whether to try for "crosswind" performance, whether to use flipping or flapping behavior, and indeed whether a patent system is desirable or should be taken seriously.

                              It is good to question ingrained paradigms every so often, but to question all of them all the time and never move forward is just treading water and never swimming anywhere!

                              Speaking of treading water, I think I just wasted another hour, yakety-yaking on the internet, that could have been productive!
                              if I were smart I would pay attention and stop. So you can see I am dumb too. :)
                              :)
                              Doug S.
                              --- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, Wayne German <waynelgerman@...> wrote: [[SEE PRIOR POSTS ON THIS TOPIC]]
                            • dave santos
                              Wayne asked- What I hear you guys saying ... is all new ideas should be shared [freely and openly], but why would anyone who has developed significant new
                              Message 14 of 19 , Feb 23, 2013
                                Wayne asked-

                                "What I hear you guys saying ... is all new ideas should be shared [freely and openly], but why would anyone who has developed significant new concepts simply want to toss his ideas in the pool when less than a fourth of the members are likely going to have anything to toss in (?)" 

                                Answers-

                                - Generous sharing of a "cognitive surplus" (teaching).
                                - Global Crisis trumping petty greed.
                                - To get valuable critique and added value from suggestions.
                                - Because a new culture of open and fairer CC IP is fast emerging.
                                - To avoid high expenses related to stealth IP (Even Pierre cannot afford a legal "patent war").
                                - To leave an auditable trail of date priority faster than stealth IP.
                                - Because so much prior art exists, and no known "secret" is clearly defensible.

                                One can go on and on making a rational case for the AWES Forum... buts lets just focus on the R&D job we have undertaken (RAD- Rapid AWE Development), and see how great it may go.


                              • roderickjosephread
                                you could save time by cutting and pasting old messages again Doug. select the rant text you want then CTRL-C to copy come back to the forum and CTRL-V to
                                Message 15 of 19 , Feb 24, 2013
                                  you could save time by cutting and pasting old messages again Doug.
                                  select the rant text you want then CTRL-C to copy come back to the forum and CTRL-V to paste.
                                  Please don't

                                  --- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, "Doug" <dougselsam@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > Wayne, this is the problem with newbie peanut-gallery bystander wannabe innovators with enthusiasm but no mastery of the art:
                                  > They have nothing to offer besides enthusiasm and busy-body-ness, and so they first (attempt to) declare "a new system" where "all things of value will be shared equally".
                                  >
                                  > It is now well-known that the communist system was designed merely to tear down the previous order of ownership, to pave the way for a McDonalds & KFC on every corner - so much for "sharing everything equally", last I knew the world's biggest "communist" nation had a huge population of newly-minted billionaires! "Share everything equally until I own it" would be the complete statement.
                                  >
                                  > The "share everything equally" is a way to get those who HAVE something to give it up. The next stage is "well maybe we SHOULD have SOME individual property"... while the people previously saying everything should be shared begin to explain why THEY now own everything "well things change, things evolve - gotta keep up with the times, can't live in the past - that system of sharing everything didn't work out as planned..."
                                  >
                                  > In short, coming into a situation with nothing and advocating that everything be shared can be a way of taking control.
                                  >
                                  > Anyway, like technology, the field of law has a long history, and what we have today is a result of thousands of years of finding out what "works" - sound familiar anyone?
                                  > The result includes our patent system, which I agree can be a pain in the butt like anything worth doing.
                                  >
                                  > Having said all that, I can tell you from personal experience that it may hardly matter! When you have teams as (apparently) stupid as the people at Honeywell for example, promoting a "regular" (non-flying) wind turbine as BAD as what they have (patent protected of course!), and then look at all the rest of the intellectual GARBAGE that clogs our patent system, you might scratch your head and begin to wonder how valuable patents really ARE.
                                  >
                                  > Think about it: from whale bumps to eccentric-and-bored ole' grandpa's flapping plywood merry-go-round, thousands and thousands of patents describe apparatus that barely works, if at all. What's the use? One thing I learned is to develop the shit first and patent it after you see how it works. Otherwise you end up having to file more patents after you actually figure out what you're doing. Shit seems obvious once you start building and testing. Before that, all ideas may seem equal when only on paper - "Sure, that would work easily" transitions to "Oh I didn't know it would do THAT!" and "Why can't we get these things to hold together?".
                                  >
                                  > I was warned early on not to get too attached to patents. People told me how most patents expire worthless, which we have all heard. People told me the greater value was being first to market, or even just being IN the market at all, instead of just in dreamland! Like one more vertical axis professor crackpot, I listened, but didn't listen. Now I have a LOT of patents, and orders coming in for products - and most of the products people order from me are not even patented! They are just generators and electronics that I have not even looked into patenting because I'm too busy making them! People buy what works. For everything else you need grants and subsidies, conferences, hand-waving and happy-talk. Government programs. Like the supposed "communism" (similar to "cool I.P."), it can all only go on for so long before nature retakes the helm. Remember that story "Animal Farm" where "all animals were equal... some just more than others"? Cool I.P., Animal Farm. Sounds nice like the pilgrims sharing all their food - they almost died that first winter til they resumed personal production, personal responsibility, and personal ownership the next year.
                                  >
                                  > The factor I was not taking into account is that it is SO ridiculously hard to get ANY wind energy device to last through the first decent wind, let alone hang in there year after year through storm after storm, that I find myself about to offer a simple single-rotor turbine kit that will run forever and never burn out. Why? Because after decades of clean&green hype, there STILL to this day does not EXIST an affordable and reliable small wind energy system. Affordable? Yes. Reliable? Yes - but NOT in the same package. Today you can obtain EITHER an affordable small wind system OR a reliable one that will cost as much as a house, and still possibly require service but after spending that much you will pony up the additional cash.
                                  >
                                  > Next, let me tell you about my friend Andy who started the biggest small wind turbine company in the world and today doesn't even work for them. Why? They could NEVER in decades of trying, get a reliable machine out there. Every model they ever produced had major problems, and the company slowly floundered as they drowned in warranty returns, while VC's salivated and companies like GE capital injected as much as $10 million to keep them afloat.
                                  >
                                  > Last I talked to anyone at SouthWest Windpower they had sold off every model they ever developed except the still-problematic Skystream. Their entire Whisper line was sold to a company in India. Despite Southwest sending an engineer over to help, they cannot seem to turn out even a single decent version of a Southwest turbine in India. Again, everyone thinks this stuff is easy - NO Virginia, a harbor-freight level of quality WILL NOT cut it in wind energy - you need the very best of the best, not cut corners. Southwest told me they would start sending people to me for replacement blades hand made from wood since the buyers in India also seem unable to make a decent blade. Sounds crazy but I didn;t make this up - heard it from the source!
                                  >
                                  > So, try to find a small wind turbine that is not a big basket of problems. Go ahead and search across the countryside. I'd love to hear from that happy customer who is saving on his electric bill and has had no problems for years with his small wind turbine. Then meanwhile, worry about what patents you do or don't have for crap you will never build anyway. Right? Like U.Delfts patented a laddermill yet never built one? Why? Chicken? Its ridiculous that nobody has tried a laddermill yet. Laddermill - one of a hundred easy-to-build airborne wind energy concepts that would probably work the first time! (Work? Yes. Last a long time? Not right away. Crash? probably. Then the work starts - model after model til something hangs in there long enough to still be there the next morning.
                                  >
                                  > Ironically, SouthWest Windpower DID have ONE reliable model of turbine. Today it is orphaned - they couldn't get a taker for the one that just worked. Why? Not enough lies. Investors in wind energy mostly respond to lies about performance that is too good to be true. To hear about the performance numbers of a turbine that just works and just runs for years with no problems doesn't sound like enough power compared to the next model up the line that bites off more wind than it can chew, and quickly fails. Well they quickly failed before, butn ow they just don't even work! That's why it can be good to keep production home. Once it is in a different time zone, people just revert to their primitive ways and produce junk unless someone is there to babysit, or so I keep hearing over and over, at "conferences" where people who own IP discuss how they sometimes make money off it.
                                  >
                                  > Anyway the only person I know who ever made any money in small wind did it by building and selling a cheap turbine, that was not well-designed and did not perform well. The reason he made a couple million is he at least had SOMETHING to sell in that price range while everyone else was filing patents, preparing grant applications for flawed technology, and attending conferences!
                                  >
                                  > So anyway, yeah I think laddermill, in any of the myriad forms one could endlessly cook up, is a promising idea. The fact that a major university patented it yet never built one is just how the field of wind energy IS -0 most big talkers and very few people who really understand it or are really willing to build anything that is not a waste of time. I mean really, why would one patent a laddermill and then never build one? By what mental deficiency would one go on to take a giant step backward from that, to "I think I feel a pull on this kite string" level of thinking?
                                  >
                                  > Well truth is stranger than fiction. I think if someone realy wanted to test a laddermill, they might consider using a kite at the upper end, since it is simple. I do not see how a kite arch necessarily adds anything to the equation at that stage, and really, it reduces the overall utility by insuring that it would be more difficult or impossible to aim. Sure, add a giant rotating spar and you just negated the supposed advantage of the kite arch: needing no spar.
                                  >
                                  > Most would-be wind energy inventors are very insistent that their untested designs are "the answer". Because the designs ARE untested, the promoters assign ANY desired behavior and just assume the real apparatus will follow their wishes. Most of them are disturbed when they start taking steps like connecting generators to their ideas. THat;s when they start to realize that their dumb ideas don't really make ANY power, let alone outperform the GE 1.5 Mw turbine.
                                  >
                                  > So, I guess you have people building real wind energhy systems, airborne or not, and you have the peanut gallery of would-be, wannabe innovators who seldom build anything, produce no wind power, and want to spend all day every day arguing about fundamentals worked out hundreds ofy ears ago such as whether to use lift or drag, whether to try for "crosswind" performance, whether to use flipping or flapping behavior, and indeed whether a patent system is desirable or should be taken seriously.
                                  >
                                  > It is good to question ingrained paradigms every so often, but to question all of them all the time and never move forward is just treading water and never swimming anywhere!
                                  >
                                  > Speaking of treading water, I think I just wasted another hour, yakety-yaking on the internet, that could have been productive!
                                  > if I were smart I would pay attention and stop. So you can see I am dumb too. :)
                                  > :)
                                  > Doug S.
                                  > --- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, Wayne German <waynelgerman@> wrote: [[SEE PRIOR POSTS ON THIS TOPIC]]
                                  >
                                • dave santos
                                  Rod, I thought this was Doug s masterpiece screed to date, and especially enjoyed the Orwellian abuse of Orwell himself (in claiming that Joe and my
                                  Message 16 of 19 , Feb 24, 2013
                                    Rod,

                                    I thought this was Doug's masterpiece screed to date, and especially enjoyed the Orwellian abuse of Orwell himself (in claiming that Joe and my knowledge-sharing as CoolIP is "Animal Farm"). For Doug to equate personal generosity with totalitarian communism is the death-rattle of American alarmist McCarthyism.

                                    Its worth noting that KiteLab Ilwaco did build and test simple laddermill rigs, which worked briefly between turbulent gusts that tended to twist the loop trains into fouled states. So Doug is wrong to think no one bothers to actually work with such ideas (It is sad TUDelft did not do more to test its ideas all-up.).

                                    There was in fact a rich vein of distilled conventional wind power wisdom in Doug's post. The limits of this fine experience was only evident in the pondering of kite arches, which are the primary means to stabilize vast soft kite structure. To answer the question posed, kite arches allow us to stabilize (passive control) airborne structures megascaled far beyond anything rigid. 

                                    A KiteLab soft kite arch conjecture is that the inherent megascaling potential must be realized to hope to trounce modern HAWT economics. Small arches will not directly compete with utility power, even though small soft kite AWES will have favorable pricing and power-to-weight for off-grid uses,

                                    daveS
                                     




                                    ==========================
                                    I am sorry for the Yahoo "CSNBC Jobs" Spam Virus 
                                    that hijacked the Contact List for this mail account. 
                                    Please accept this apology for any trouble caused.

                                    From: roderickjosephread <rod.read@...>
                                    To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
                                    Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 5:20 AM
                                    Subject: Subject: Re: [AWES] Intellectual property matters

                                     
                                    you could save time by cutting and pasting old messages again Doug.
                                    select the rant text you want then CTRL-C to copy come back to the forum and CTRL-V to paste.
                                    Please don't

                                    --- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, "Doug" wrote:
                                    >
                                    > Wayne, this is the problem with newbie peanut-gallery bystander wannabe innovators with enthusiasm but no mastery of the art:
                                    > They have nothing to offer besides enthusiasm and busy-body-ness, and so they first (attempt to) declare "a new system" where "all things of value will be shared equally".
                                    >
                                    > It is now well-known that the communist system was designed merely to tear down the previous order of ownership, to pave the way for a McDonalds & KFC on every corner - so much for "sharing everything equally", last I knew the world's biggest "communist" nation had a huge population of newly-minted billionaires! "Share everything equally until I own it" would be the complete statement.
                                    >
                                    > The "share everything equally" is a way to get those who HAVE something to give it up. The next stage is "well maybe we SHOULD have SOME individual property"... while the people previously saying everything should be shared begin to explain why THEY now own everything "well things change, things evolve - gotta keep up with the times, can't live in the past - that system of sharing everything didn't work out as planned..."
                                    >
                                    > In short, coming into a situation with nothing and advocating that everything be shared can be a way of taking control.
                                    >
                                    > Anyway, like technology, the field of law has a long history, and what we have today is a result of thousands of years of finding out what "works" - sound familiar anyone?
                                    > The result includes our patent system, which I agree can be a pain in the butt like anything worth doing.
                                    >
                                    > Having said all that, I can tell you from personal experience that it may hardly matter! When you have teams as (apparently) stupid as the people at Honeywell for example, promoting a "regular" (non-flying) wind turbine as BAD as what they have (patent protected of course!), and then look at all the rest of the intellectual GARBAGE that clogs our patent system, you might scratch your head and begin to wonder how valuable patents really ARE.
                                    >
                                    > Think about it: from whale bumps to eccentric-and-bored ole' grandpa's flapping plywood merry-go-round, thousands and thousands of patents describe apparatus that barely works, if at all. What's the use? One thing I learned is to develop the shit first and patent it after you see how it works. Otherwise you end up having to file more patents after you actually figure out what you're doing. Shit seems obvious once you start building and testing. Before that, all ideas may seem equal when only on paper - "Sure, that would work easily" transitions to "Oh I didn't know it would do THAT!" and "Why can't we get these things to hold together?".
                                    >
                                    > I was warned early on not to get too attached to patents. People told me how most patents expire worthless, which we have all heard. People told me the greater value was being first to market, or even just being IN the market at all, instead of just in dreamland! Like one more vertical axis professor crackpot, I listened, but didn't listen. Now I have a LOT of patents, and orders coming in for products - and most of the products people order from me are not even patented! They are just generators and electronics that I have not even looked into patenting because I'm too busy making them! People buy what works. For everything else you need grants and subsidies, conferences, hand-waving and happy-talk. Government programs. Like the supposed "communism" (similar to "cool I.P."), it can all only go on for so long before nature retakes the helm. Remember that story "Animal Farm" where "all animals were equal... some just more than others"? Cool I.P., Animal Farm. Sounds nice like the pilgrims sharing all their food - they almost died that first winter til they resumed personal production, personal responsibility, and personal ownership the next year.
                                    >
                                    > The factor I was not taking into account is that it is SO ridiculously hard to get ANY wind energy device to last through the first decent wind, let alone hang in there year after year through storm after storm, that I find myself about to offer a simple single-rotor turbine kit that will run forever and never burn out. Why? Because after decades of clean&green hype, there STILL to this day does not EXIST an affordable and reliable small wind energy system. Affordable? Yes. Reliable? Yes - but NOT in the same package. Today you can obtain EITHER an affordable small wind system OR a reliable one that will cost as much as a house, and still possibly require service but after spending that much you will pony up the additional cash.
                                    >
                                    > Next, let me tell you about my friend Andy who started the biggest small wind turbine company in the world and today doesn't even work for them. Why? They could NEVER in decades of trying, get a reliable machine out there. Every model they ever produced had major problems, and the company slowly floundered as they drowned in warranty returns, while VC's salivated and companies like GE capital injected as much as $10 million to keep them afloat.
                                    >
                                    > Last I talked to anyone at SouthWest Windpower they had sold off every model they ever developed except the still-problematic Skystream. Their entire Whisper line was sold to a company in India. Despite Southwest sending an engineer over to help, they cannot seem to turn out even a single decent version of a Southwest turbine in India. Again, everyone thinks this stuff is easy - NO Virginia, a harbor-freight level of quality WILL NOT cut it in wind energy - you need the very best of the best, not cut corners. Southwest told me they would start sending people to me for replacement blades hand made from wood since the buyers in India also seem unable to make a decent blade. Sounds crazy but I didn;t make this up - heard it from the source!
                                    >
                                    > So, try to find a small wind turbine that is not a big basket of problems. Go ahead and search across the countryside. I'd love to hear from that happy customer who is saving on his electric bill and has had no problems for years with his small wind turbine. Then meanwhile, worry about what patents you do or don't have for crap you will never build anyway. Right? Like U.Delfts patented a laddermill yet never built one? Why? Chicken? Its ridiculous that nobody has tried a laddermill yet. Laddermill - one of a hundred easy-to-build airborne wind energy concepts that would probably work the first time! (Work? Yes. Last a long time? Not right away. Crash? probably. Then the work starts - model after model til something hangs in there long enough to still be there the next morning.
                                    >
                                    > Ironically, SouthWest Windpower DID have ONE reliable model of turbine. Today it is orphaned - they couldn't get a taker for the one that just worked. Why? Not enough lies. Investors in wind energy mostly respond to lies about performance that is too good to be true. To hear about the performance numbers of a turbine that just works and just runs for years with no problems doesn't sound like enough power compared to the next model up the line that bites off more wind than it can chew, and quickly fails. Well they quickly failed before, butn ow they just don't even work! That's why it can be good to keep production home. Once it is in a different time zone, people just revert to their primitive ways and produce junk unless someone is there to babysit, or so I keep hearing over and over, at "conferences" where people who own IP discuss how they sometimes make money off it.
                                    >
                                    > Anyway the only person I know who ever made any money in small wind did it by building and selling a cheap turbine, that was not well-designed and did not perform well. The reason he made a couple million is he at least had SOMETHING to sell in that price range while everyone else was filing patents, preparing grant applications for flawed technology, and attending conferences!
                                    >
                                    > So anyway, yeah I think laddermill, in any of the myriad forms one could endlessly cook up, is a promising idea. The fact that a major university patented it yet never built one is just how the field of wind energy IS -0 most big talkers and very few people who really understand it or are really willing to build anything that is not a waste of time. I mean really, why would one patent a laddermill and then never build one? By what mental deficiency would one go on to take a giant step backward from that, to "I think I feel a pull on this kite string" level of thinking?
                                    >
                                    > Well truth is stranger than fiction. I think if someone realy wanted to test a laddermill, they might consider using a kite at the upper end, since it is simple. I do not see how a kite arch necessarily adds anything to the equation at that stage, and really, it reduces the overall utility by insuring that it would be more difficult or impossible to aim. Sure, add a giant rotating spar and you just negated the supposed advantage of the kite arch: needing no spar.
                                    >
                                    > Most would-be wind energy inventors are very insistent that their untested designs are "the answer". Because the designs ARE untested, the promoters assign ANY desired behavior and just assume the real apparatus will follow their wishes. Most of them are disturbed when they start taking steps like connecting generators to their ideas. THat;s when they start to realize that their dumb ideas don't really make ANY power, let alone outperform the GE 1.5 Mw turbine.
                                    >
                                    > So, I guess you have people building real wind energhy systems, airborne or not, and you have the peanut gallery of would-be, wannabe innovators who seldom build anything, produce no wind power, and want to spend all day every day arguing about fundamentals worked out hundreds ofy ears ago such as whether to use lift or drag, whether to try for "crosswind" performance, whether to use flipping or flapping behavior, and indeed whether a patent system is desirable or should be taken seriously.
                                    >
                                    > It is good to question ingrained paradigms every so often, but to question all of them all the time and never move forward is just treading water and never swimming anywhere!
                                    >
                                    > Speaking of treading water, I think I just wasted another hour, yakety-yaking on the internet, that could have been productive!
                                    > if I were smart I would pay attention and stop. So you can see I am dumb too. :)
                                    > :)
                                    > Doug S.
                                    > --- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, Wayne German wrote: [[SEE PRIOR POSTS ON THIS TOPIC]]
                                    >



                                  • Doug
                                    Yeah well Roddy you may notice that some people insist on throwing away everything that is well-known to work, trying to substitute what came before, that
                                    Message 17 of 19 , Feb 27, 2013
                                      Yeah well Roddy you may notice that some people insist on throwing away everything that is well-known to work, trying to substitute what came before, that DIDN'T work.

                                      For years we've seen this: would-be inventors who sre not up to speed on what actually works, advocating already disproven schemes.

                                      Whether it is someone advocating a flapping wind energy device, in spite of the fact that flapping machines were tried and failed 1000 years ago, and that a wind energy industry exists with thousands of experts, none of whom advocates a flapping anything (except maybe a flap!) or someone who advocates throwing away the patent system after so many years of tens of thousands of dedicated people working out how to fairly reward inventors - you are looking at the same dynamic either way - and it should be no surprise that the same person can be seen advocating the throwing away of ALL useful knowledge accumulated over the last several thousand years, whether it be the technology itself, or the patents that help to nurture and protect new technology.

                                      Throwing away thousands of years of accumulated knowledge is indeed de rigeur in today's world. That is part of the effort to endlessly dumb down the population in some ways - keep it simple! Of course to invent something new, you have to advance, but advancing does not mean throwing away all accumulated knowledge. Instead, that knowledge should be used and built upon. Centuries of machinery design have resulted in a lot of knowledge. It is foolhardy to ignore it.
                                      :)
                                      Doug Selsam
                                      http://www.selsam.com

                                      --- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, "roderickjosephread" <rod.read@...> wrote: [[SEE PRIOR POSTS ON THIS TOPIC]]
                                    • roderickjosephread
                                      Centuries of machinery design have resulted in a lot of knowledge. And I don t want to waste a bit of it. We want to use as large a scope of research as we can
                                      Message 18 of 19 , Feb 27, 2013
                                        Centuries of machinery design have resulted in a lot of knowledge.
                                        And I don't want to waste a bit of it.
                                        We want to use as large a scope of research as we can collect in devising a collective solution.

                                        Centuries of machinery design
                                        has also left us with a changed climate and the means to study and re-design for that fact.

                                        It took millennia of social design before homo erectus learned fire, wheel, clothes, fishing hook, water channel.

                                        Sail has transformed radically in my 37 years. The advances seem to be accelerating.
                                        No ancient civilisation has had the machines we have now....
                                        Nobody knows how much power can be held and worked in a wind dam.
                                        I intend working toward finding out. I'll let you and the forum know ASAP when I get an answer.

                                        I'm far from being alone, fed up with patents... Open Source culture is massive.
                                        Large scale communication change is available and starting. see electronic forums as an example.

                                        Patents are only one grievance.. the speed and unaccountability of democratic governance... that'll be next on my hit list.

                                        Lets just sort the energy thing first eh. since we understand the potential of the problem.
                                        Don't worry about me wasting my time.
                                        I'm sure people are convinced your way and will help your scheme. I like it.

                                        Tech design philosophy... I'm trying to keep plenty in mind... and the dishes and converting my loft... It's what a househusband thrives on.





                                        --- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, "Doug" <dougselsam@...> wrote:
                                        >
                                        > Yeah well Roddy you may notice that some people insist on throwing away everything that is well-known to work, trying to substitute what came before, that DIDN'T work.
                                        >
                                        > For years we've seen this: would-be inventors who sre not up to speed on what actually works, advocating already disproven schemes.
                                        >
                                        > Whether it is someone advocating a flapping wind energy device, in spite of the fact that flapping machines were tried and failed 1000 years ago, and that a wind energy industry exists with thousands of experts, none of whom advocates a flapping anything (except maybe a flap!) or someone who advocates throwing away the patent system after so many years of tens of thousands of dedicated people working out how to fairly reward inventors - you are looking at the same dynamic either way - and it should be no surprise that the same person can be seen advocating the throwing away of ALL useful knowledge accumulated over the last several thousand years, whether it be the technology itself, or the patents that help to nurture and protect new technology.
                                        >
                                        > Throwing away thousands of years of accumulated knowledge is indeed de rigeur in today's world. That is part of the effort to endlessly dumb down the population in some ways - keep it simple! Of course to invent something new, you have to advance, but advancing does not mean throwing away all accumulated knowledge. Instead, that knowledge should be used and built upon. Centuries of machinery design have resulted in a lot of knowledge. It is foolhardy to ignore it.
                                        > :)
                                        > Doug Selsam
                                        > http://www.selsam.com
                                        >
                                        > --- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, "roderickjosephread" rod.read@ wrote: [[SEE PRIOR POSTS ON THIS TOPIC]]
                                        >
                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.