Messages in AirborneWindEnergy group.                     AWES5355to5404 Page 5 of 440.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5355 From: Dan Parker Date: 1/11/2012
Subject: Re: Ryan in 1961

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5356 From: blturner3 Date: 1/12/2012
Subject: Re: FAA Poor regulator

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5357 From: Doug Date: 1/12/2012
Subject: Rebutting Doug's "Professor Crackpot" Meme //Re: [AWES] Re: FAA Poo

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5358 From: dave santos Date: 1/12/2012
Subject: Re: FAA Poor regulator

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5359 From: dave santos Date: 1/12/2012
Subject: Conical Helices and Spirals (clarifications)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5360 From: dave santos Date: 1/12/2012
Subject: Wind Dam AWES Architecture

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5361 From: Dan Parker Date: 1/12/2012
Subject: Re: Conical Helices and Spirals (clarifications)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5362 From: Dan Parker Date: 1/12/2012
Subject: Re: Wind Dam AWES Architecture

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5363 From: roderickjosephread Date: 1/12/2012
Subject: Re: Wind Dam AWES Architecture

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5364 From: Doug Date: 1/13/2012
Subject: Re: Conical Helices and Spirals (clarifications)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5365 From: Doug Date: 1/13/2012
Subject: Re: Conical Helices and Spirals (clarifications)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5366 From: Doug Date: 1/13/2012
Subject: Re: Wind Dam AWES Architecture

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5367 From: Doug Date: 1/13/2012
Subject: Re: Conical Helices and Spirals (clarifications)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5368 From: blturner3 Date: 1/13/2012
Subject: Re: FAA Poor regulator

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5369 From: Bob Stuart Date: 1/13/2012
Subject: Re: FAA Poor regulator

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5370 From: Joe Faust Date: 1/13/2012
Subject: Re: Wind Dam AWES Architecture

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5371 From: Joe Faust Date: 1/13/2012
Subject: Drive that long shaft

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5372 From: Joe Faust Date: 1/13/2012
Subject: Re: Drive that long shaft

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5373 From: Joe Faust Date: 1/13/2012
Subject: Re: FAA Poor regulator

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5374 From: Dan Parker Date: 1/13/2012
Subject: Re: Conical Helices and Spirals (clarifications)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5375 From: Joe Faust Date: 1/13/2012
Subject: Freeware: LEparagliding 2.0

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5376 From: roderickjosephread Date: 1/13/2012
Subject: Re: Wind Dam AWES Architecture

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5377 From: roderickjosephread Date: 1/13/2012
Subject: Re: Freeware: LEparagliding 2.0

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5378 From: Joe Faust Date: 1/13/2012
Subject: Re: SeaGlider Progress

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5379 From: Joe Faust Date: 1/13/2012
Subject: Re: SeaGlider Progress

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5380 From: Joe Faust Date: 1/13/2012
Subject: Re: Wind Dam AWES Architecture

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5381 From: Joe Faust Date: 1/13/2012
Subject: Re: Wind Dam AWES Architecture

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5382 From: blturner3 Date: 1/13/2012
Subject: Paraglider safty[AWES] Re: FAA Poor regulator

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5383 From: Andrew K Date: 1/14/2012
Subject: Re: sailoons, fliptackers and other bizzarre sailcraft

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5384 From: blturner3 Date: 1/14/2012
Subject: Re: Comparison between kite and paraglider regarding ratios L/D

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5385 From: dave santos Date: 1/14/2012
Subject: Re: Comparison between kite and paraglider regarding ratios L/D

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5386 From: Rod Read Date: 1/15/2012
Subject: Re: Wind Dam AWES Architecture

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5387 From: Dan Parker Date: 1/15/2012
Subject: Re: Wind Dam AWES Architecture

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5388 From: roderickjosephread Date: 1/15/2012
Subject: Re: Wind Dam AWES Architecture

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5389 From: roderickjosephread Date: 1/16/2012
Subject: Re: Why people patent ideas: example: e-mail this morning

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5390 From: Muzhichkov Date: 1/16/2012
Subject: The first longitudional vibrations of my rope!

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5391 From: Jan claes Date: 1/16/2012
Subject: Re: Why people patent ideas: example: e-mail this morning

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5392 From: Joe Faust Date: 1/16/2012
Subject: Re: Why people patent ideas: example: e-mail this morning

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5393 From: roderickjosephread Date: 1/16/2012
Subject: Re: Why people patent ideas: example: e-mail this morning

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5394 From: Bob Stuart Date: 1/16/2012
Subject: Re: Why people patent ideas: example: e-mail this morning

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5395 From: Dan Parker Date: 1/16/2012
Subject: Re: Why people patent ideas: example: e-mail this morning

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5396 From: roderickjosephread Date: 1/16/2012
Subject: Re: Why people patent ideas: example: e-mail this morning

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5397 From: Doug Date: 1/17/2012
Subject: Renewable energy investments worldwide set record high in 2011

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5398 From: Doug Date: 1/17/2012
Subject: Re: Why people patent ideas:

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5399 From: Bob Stuart Date: 1/17/2012
Subject: Re: Why people patent ideas:

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5400 From: roderickjosephread Date: 1/17/2012
Subject: Re: Why people patent ideas:

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5401 From: Joe Faust Date: 1/17/2012
Subject: (WO2012005703) ROTATING MOTION POWER GENERATION BY ...

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5402 From: Joe Faust Date: 1/17/2012
Subject: Will any AWES tap lee-shear?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5403 From: Joe Faust Date: 1/17/2012
Subject: Torus in AWES

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5404 From: dave santos Date: 1/17/2012
Subject: First All High-Production COTS AWES Announcement (KiteLab/Util Partn




Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5355 From: Dan Parker Date: 1/11/2012
Subject: Re: Ryan in 1961
Joe,
 
          What a thrilling time that must have been, history in the making, i can feel the electricity in the air. Wow.
 
                                                                                                                                 Dan'l
 

To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
From: joefaust333@gmail.com
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 18:09:38 +0000
Subject: [AWES] Ryan in 1961

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5356 From: blturner3 Date: 1/12/2012
Subject: Re: FAA Poor regulator
So both Dave S. and Doug are saying if it works at a large scale it will work at a smaller scale. So don't worry about the regulations until you've proven it at a small scale. I will have to think on that.

I don't have time to rebut the zero passenger deaths properly. I have a big project that I just got permission to proceed on. So I will make a small effort at it. People did die in aircraft last year. Some died 15 miles from my house in an air ambulance crash. They pointed to the airlines and said "Look, were perfect." And they are really good at what they focus on. I'm only saying that their focus is too narrow.

Brian

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5357 From: Doug Date: 1/12/2012
Subject: Rebutting Doug's "Professor Crackpot" Meme //Re: [AWES] Re: FAA Poo
Hey Dan'l:
Sorry you feel that way. It is sometimes easier to "shoot the messenger" than deal with the facts that the messenger brings. Facts such as spirals being an old idea that never went anywhere? As I keep telling you, we veterans have been listening to newbies scream and squirm with their repetitive, losing "breakthroughs" (always typical beginner mistakes like a spiral rotor) for many years now.

How is the spiral airfoil concept proving out? What is your latest outlook on the spiral airfoil concept? Together we are all proving that this talk is worthless. What has all your talk about spiral airfoils done for AWE after all this time? What has all my talk done? Next to nothing. You are right, I need to take my own advice, and stop spending my time entertaining for entertainment's sake, and stop trying to give anyone a heads-up about anything. Noo good deed goes unpunished. My admonitions are heeded only by those who don;t need to be told in the first place. The dummies and the professor crackpots will never listen. After all, having every statement I make "refuted" by one person (I don't think I need to name him) gets a bit tedious after a fashion.

Just for the record, if I haven't explained it before:
1) The proper term in the art is "helical" not "spiral" since "spiral" can refer to a 1-dimenional continuous ever-expanding circular line.
2) Wind turbine blades are ALREADY helical. The airfoil shape is oriented helically. The twist from root to tip insures that this helix holds at all diameters (stations).
3) The reason you don't SEE the helical aspect is because the chord is small compared to the span.
4) The reason the chord is so small compared to the span is that this is what the last 1000 years of development of helical blades with airfoils used for wind energy has shown us. (for those who pay attention)
5) The term for how much of the helix, or circle, is filled solid with blade is called "rotor solidity".
6) Optimum rotor (helix) solidity for wind turbines is around 2 percent, so it does not LOOK like a helix, but it still is.

All in all, this forum is loaded down with a HUGE amount of complete nonsense. I think I gotta go skiing now.

Have fun!
:)
Doug Selsam

PS it is amazing how many topics read "refuting Doug's XXX" or whatever - I feel honored, but it would be nice if I could find anyone to interact with that knew what they were talking about. This is complete nothingness for me. Nobody here even knows the terminology, let alone how any of this stuff really works. I must stop wasting my time with this nonsense.


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5358 From: dave santos Date: 1/12/2012
Subject: Re: FAA Poor regulator
Brian,
 
I am clearly saying to "worry about the FAA" to most would-be AWE developers. My thesis is that AWE developers must master the high standards of aviation safety or be left behind. For most folks this means "worry", because the standards are rigorous. Worrying about the FAA as a "poor regulator" is not a very practical worry (a political futility).
 
Nor should anyone understate scaling challenges. True, an aviation concept that tests really well at a small scale by a given "theory of operation" can in principle generally scale greatly. In practice there are no shortcuts to meet severe safety-driven economic tests and the higher regulation standards of greater mass aloft. There are no shortcuts to understand and solve scaling challenges in detail; small scale science prototypes by aerospace programs is just the fun easy part.
 
Now you have another real-world FAA regulation case to analyze, your air ambulance crash, on top of the crane waiver. Study how the FAA/NTSB responded to to that crash. Did it shut down the known danger of aviation utility/first-responder work? Or were the causes of the crash carefully studied toward better procedures? Identify a precise "poor regulator" outcome to sustain your rebuttal,
 
daveS

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5359 From: dave santos Date: 1/12/2012
Subject: Conical Helices and Spirals (clarifications)
 
Doug did not correctly note that Dan'ls turbine geometry is formally a (double) conical helicoid and is in fact correctly identified as spiral (seen in frontal projection). Ordinary turbine blades are sections of helicoids (with internal spirals).
 
"Spiral foils" have been found to operate well in key niches of the fluid-dynamic universe, particularly at low Re (ideal corkscrew or flagellum), and have natural application domains (neutrally-buoyant in slow water currents). This predicted niche tested well for KiteLab- a kite spintail on a drive shaft drove a hand charger from a very slow current that deeply stalled conventional foils. Zhang Lab is keen to study logarithmic spiral foils. These brilliant fluid-dynamicists are far beyond the backyard turbine fray. 
 
Dan'l has been correctly oriented to this niche, but is maybe stuck on small wind operations. The essential side by side comparison with a hot standard foil in this domain will prove Doug partially right. A key limitation of a spiral foil at high speeds would be centrifugal distortions causing aeroelastic instability.
 
For any chance of competitive wind power, the spiral foil must beat the classic "Old West" windmill rotor in high starting torque, low wind operation, cheapness, and robustness (not likely). Dan'l's spiral turbine as we have seen it looks over-complicated in contruction compared to the common spintail, but has an esthetic value as an "energy sculpture". A floaty conical helicoid kite would be a fun AWE test, if not a top contender. There will be other niches for the spiral turbine concept.
 
This repetition of Forum knowledge is needed because Doug bungled his attack on Dan'l's spiral turbine; this "nonsense" was not the active AWE topic (call it "Great AWE Professors"). Doug should fairly apply his nonsense filter to himself, and spare us. He should take his masted turbine attacks to the proper forum.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5360 From: dave santos Date: 1/12/2012
Subject: Wind Dam AWES Architecture
There are so many potential AWES architectures that we still have not finished identifying them all.
 
The Wind Dam concept has not been well explored. The intent is to "supercharge" a HAWT by embedding it in a membrane curtain. This allows both a smaller turbine turning faster and a potential boost in unit-power to capital-cost. Is supercharging membrane manageable enough and cheaper than the alternative of ever larger "bare" turbines?
 
KiteLab Ilwaco has a ~10W wind dam AWES kite prototype in preparation* and predicts it will work rather well. Self-lift and furling are features of the experimental design.
 
Could the ultimate AWES architecture be vast numbers of small "hi-voltage" turbines embedded as arrays in large membrane wings?
 
coolIP
 
 
 
* Under the KiteLab Group "test everything" ethos, this is no premature endorsement, just endless active testing.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5361 From: Dan Parker Date: 1/12/2012
Subject: Re: Conical Helices and Spirals (clarifications)
David Santos and group,
 
 
                  I've noticed that when the gas prices drop folks loose interest in alternatives, right now investors are skiddish with the economy in the gutter, without investment the R and D  slows. I chose small wind as the jump point to start with, later unfoldment into water and upper winds will occur when the economy permits. 90 percent of the winds are within the 0 through 20 mph range. seldom do you get 50 mph winds, etc. The sweet spot where 90 percent of the energy happens is 0-20 after 20 the percentages continues to drop exponentially. The SpiralAirfoil was created to take advantage of the sweet spot strike zone of wind 0-20 mph. traditional tri-blades are great but outside of this dominant wind zone, most tri-blades don't even start moving til the Cog factor/resistance is broken 7-10 mph (there are exceptions). 
                  I applaud any and all efforts at innovation, including Dougs works, Toffler's "future shock" dictates a quickening as the world reaches it's climax, we should and will do every thing possible to secure a clean and safe future while we still have the time to be able to respond easily, Later will be far harder. Toffler points out that the ability to respond will become more and more difficult/critical as we near the end and the collapse happens. Already the signs are everywhere, for any body to see, may kewl heads prevail.
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Dan'l

To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
From: santos137@yahoo.com
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 11:27:03 -0800
Subject: [AWES] Conical Helices and Spirals (clarifications)

 
 
Doug did not correctly note that Dan'ls turbine geometry is formally a (double) conical helicoid and is in fact correctly identified as spiral (seen in frontal projection). Ordinary turbine blades are sections of helicoids (with internal spirals).
 
"Spiral foils" have been found to operate well in key niches of the fluid-dynamic universe, particularly at low Re (ideal corkscrew or flagellum), and have natural application domains (neutrally-buoyant in slow water currents). This predicted niche tested well for KiteLab- a kite spintail on a drive shaft drove a hand charger from a very slow current that deeply stalled conventional foils. Zhang Lab is keen to study logarithmic spiral foils. These brilliant fluid-dynamicists are far beyond the backyard turbine fray. 
 
Dan'l has been correctly oriented to this niche, but is maybe stuck on small wind operations. The essential side by side comparison with a hot standard foil in this domain will prove Doug partially right. A key limitation of a spiral foil at high speeds would be centrifugal distortions causing aeroelastic instability.
 
For any chance of competitive wind power, the spiral foil must beat the classic "Old West" windmill rotor in high starting torque, low wind operation, cheapness, and robustness (not likely). Dan'l's spiral turbine as we have seen it looks over-complicated in contruction compared to the common spintail, but has an esthetic value as an "energy sculpture". A floaty conical helicoid kite would be a fun AWE test, if not a top contender. There will be other niches for the spiral turbine concept.
 
This repetition of Forum knowledge is needed because Doug bungled his attack on Dan'l's spiral turbine; this "nonsense" was not the active AWE topic (call it "Great AWE Professors"). Doug should fairly apply his nonsense filter to himself, and spare us. He should take his masted turbine attacks to the proper forum.


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5362 From: Dan Parker Date: 1/12/2012
Subject: Re: Wind Dam AWES Architecture
Dave Santos,
 
             "Could the ultimate AWES architecture be vast numbers of small "hi-voltage" turbines embedded as arrays in large membrane wings?"
 
              Yes, I think this may well be the best approach, if the genny has to be airborn, I've played with lightweight steppermotors, many poles inside yet light in weight, the higher voltage can travel through a much thinner wire, being reconverted down low, higher the voltage the greater the care. Bernoullli, wonderful.
 

To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
From: santos137@yahoo.com
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 12:08:05 -0800
Subject: [AWES] Wind Dam AWES Architecture

 
There are so many potential AWES architectures that we still have not finished identifying them all.
 
The Wind Dam concept has not been well explored. The intent is to "supercharge" a HAWT by embedding it in a membrane curtain. This allows both a smaller turbine turning faster and a potential boost in unit-power to capital-cost. Is supercharging membrane manageable enough and cheaper than the alternative of ever larger "bare" turbines?
 
KiteLab Ilwaco has a ~10W wind dam AWES kite prototype in preparation* and predicts it will work rather well. Self-lift and furling are features of the experimental design.
 
Could the ultimate AWES architecture be vast numbers of small "hi-voltage" turbines embedded as arrays in large membrane wings?
 
coolIP
 
 
 
* Under the KiteLab Group "test everything" ethos, this is no premature endorsement, just endless active testing.


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5363 From: roderickjosephread Date: 1/12/2012
Subject: Re: Wind Dam AWES Architecture
You can fit a shroud at the back of my trampoine loop. if your spinning device can fit in there, the generator body could be contra-rotated by en external set of kites.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5364 From: Doug Date: 1/13/2012
Subject: Re: Conical Helices and Spirals (clarifications)
See what I mean? What is this? Every day...

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5365 From: Doug Date: 1/13/2012
Subject: Re: Conical Helices and Spirals (clarifications)
I agree about the gas prices and interest levels in clean energy.
But then you go on to prove my point. There would be some great shared humor here if anyone else on this list were involved with regular wind energy, so as to see the repetitive same old argument / different day aspect of what you've said.

What does the good professor say when confronted with the fact that his un-researched and unproven idea will never work? He will claim it targets low wind speeds, where either experience or simple math can show there is no energy worth chasing. Someone should just put a number on each one of these standard professor crackpot protest talking points. It's exactly what they all say, and it's so repetitive as to be almost unbelievable.
:)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5366 From: Doug Date: 1/13/2012
Subject: Re: Wind Dam AWES Architecture
Wait, I thought you had positively identified "the ultimate AWE architecture" as oscillating arrays of flipping kites, driving ground-based crankshafts, just a few weeks ago. ;O

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5367 From: Doug Date: 1/13/2012
Subject: Re: Conical Helices and Spirals (clarifications)
Hey Dave S.
I have a stack of wind energy texts over a foot tall. They all refer to the pitch distribution as helical. I've never heard of it referred to as spiral in wind energy. Oh well what do I know.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5368 From: blturner3 Date: 1/13/2012
Subject: Re: FAA Poor regulator
It will be months or years till the final report. But rumor is that they ran out of fuel. I have more sophisticated low fuel warnings in my 2004 chevy pickup truck than most civil aviation aircraft. This tech is slowed substantially for introduction into aircraft because of FAA regs. Look up how long it took for fuel injection to become the norm in aircraft. It was 15 or 20 years as I recall. I wonder how many people died from fuel system failure during that delay.

I wonder how much of the cost of air ambulances is from the FAA. I did first aid on a dying man in 1988. The ambulance was 30 minutes round trip drive time. The air ambulance would have been 10. He might have lived if they had sent a chopper. They probably didn't because it was too expensive. He died of blood loss and brain swelling. I sat there applying direct pressure to one or two of his many bleeding wounds trying not to count the time and focus on keeping him alive while we waited for the ambulance. This probably makes me a bit too emotional to discuss this objectively.

My apologies to the rest of the list for being so far off topic.

Brian

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5369 From: Bob Stuart Date: 1/13/2012
Subject: Re: FAA Poor regulator
That reminds me of the multi-decade delay in switching from magnetos to distributors, after the relative reliability of the two systems changed radically.

Bob Stuart
Sent from The Country Formerly Known as Nice.

On 13-Jan-12, at 10:12 AM, blturner3 wrote:


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5370 From: Joe Faust Date: 1/13/2012
Subject: Re: Wind Dam AWES Architecture
Unit airborne wind dam and centered blade-driven generator?
Let the flygen power LEDs for night-flight entertainment.
 
Let units be in a huge 3D array jello megakite of layers of kite walls. 
Say 100x100 units in the matrix for 10,000 working generators in one kite. That is, 100 kite walls integrated with 100 other kite walls; each wall kite is 10x10 winged-with-gens.  Fly the Cube-Array Flygen using, perhaps, cage bridling.   Perhaps revisit Alexander G. Bell on this direction.
Aggregate stability.  Smart controls for facing weather changes. 

   See=

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5371 From: Joe Faust Date: 1/13/2012
Subject: Drive that long shaft
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5372 From: Joe Faust Date: 1/13/2012
Subject: Re: Drive that long shaft
Click for full application instruction: 

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5373 From: Joe Faust Date: 1/13/2012
Subject: Re: FAA Poor regulator
Apologies not needed, Brian. Thanks for the discussion. 

One tactic is to define categories of airspace users that are not regulated in some ways, like sport paragliders. 
Incomplete data sums: about 900 fatalities in canopy-free-flight-manned gliding kites in a decade
http://www.cometclones.com  Over 80 (and we know collection is incomplete) last year 2011.  Such figures are not in many official "aviation" reports, as pilot licenses and equipment certification is not required in the conventional ways as registered aircraft.   Ground-winch tow launch of such craft does not require certification, registration, or FAA response at incident.    The FAA is not having to look into the near-ground turbulence impact over manned non-airframed gliding-kite canopies, regardless of the injury and fatality rate. 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5374 From: Dan Parker Date: 1/13/2012
Subject: Re: Conical Helices and Spirals (clarifications)
Doug,
 
            Calling the kettle,crackpot black, how very predictable.
 
                                                                        Dan'l
 

To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
From: doug@selsam.com
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 14:23:04 +0000
Subject: Re: [AWES] Conical Helices and Spirals (clarifications)

 
I agree about the gas prices and interest levels in clean energy.
But then you go on to prove my point. There would be some great shared humor here if anyone else on this list were involved with regular wind energy, so as to see the repetitive same old argument / different day aspect of what you've said.

What does the good professor say when confronted with the fact that his un-researched and unproven idea will never work? He will claim it targets low wind speeds, where either experience or simple math can show there is no energy worth chasing. Someone should just put a number on each one of these standard professor crackpot protest talking points. It's exactly what they all say, and it's so repetitive as to be almost unbelievable.
:)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5375 From: Joe Faust Date: 1/13/2012
Subject: Freeware: LEparagliding 2.0
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5376 From: roderickjosephread Date: 1/13/2012
Subject: Re: Wind Dam AWES Architecture
Joe, can I insert a picture into a message when posting?

I've drawn a contra-rotating kite set based directly on a slewring / thrust ring.
A copy has been uploaded to my photos folder.

In my opinion the design looks far too solid in kite density, it would need to be strung very tightly in this multi ring configuration, generation would have to be done on the bearing rings and transmitted through tethers,  individual kite and ring lines could be divided on a whipple tree / branch / twig basis.

yes, there's room for improvement. and it's not the "shrouded, contra spinner, inside my hollowed trampoline ring" version I described earlier in this thread.

been doing a lot of bearing research lately. going to a friends for food tomorrow, he's the local expert. I sailed with his dad many times and kite-surfed with himself last week (my first time in years), he also has an industrial sewing machine in his loft, and he want's to build one of my spinners.... cool

loads of my old kite design stuff can now be found on 
It's totally disorganised and would be like poking through a dusty attic to find goodies.
You were all right so far, I had so many good misguided intentions for developing that site into more... gimme more time though. We all want that.


 

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5377 From: roderickjosephread Date: 1/13/2012
Subject: Re: Freeware: LEparagliding 2.0
WOW,
Truly Heroic

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5378 From: Joe Faust Date: 1/13/2012
Subject: Re: SeaGlider Progress
Related: 

Geophysical Prospecting, 2001, 49, 735-745. 
J. H. Hagedoorn - inventing the Hapa: A review of a geophysicist's "other" work and how it inspired others

Theodor Schmidt, 
Switzerland. 
Received July 2001, revision accepted July 2001

ABSTRACT
This paper describes J.G. Hagedoorn's work on `ultimate sailing' - the combination of a manned kite and a water kite called a Hapa, constituting a minimal sailingsystem - and the way others have taken up his challenge to sail while suspended froma kite. Hagedoorn's goal has not been entirely achieved, but 'near' and partial solutions have been reached. Kite-Hapa-sailing continues to pose a 'Holy Grail' type challenge to many kite-sailors.

See article and more on what are exploration in two wings coupled while using horizontal shears of fluids:

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5379 From: Joe Faust Date: 1/13/2012
Subject: Re: SeaGlider Progress

REFERENCES at the above-in-this-thread  article found here.
 
REFERENCES
Ashford P. 1990. Stabilising paravane experiments.Low Drag Craft .AYRS Publication No. 107.

Ashford P. 1994. Seadogs for monohulls. Ultimate Sailing: The Hapa Revisited . AYRS Publication No. 114.

Beringer W. 1996. Parawings . Verlag fu Èr Technik und Handwerk.

Biegler R. 2001. Taking a `seadog' for a walk. AYRS Catalyst
1
, 24±25.Bradfield W.S. 1979. High speed sailing vehicles. Speed Sailing . AYRSPublication No. 93.

Bruce E. and Morss H. 1965/1970/1976. Opinions about Hydrofoils .AYRS Publications Nos 51, 74 and 82.

Burgess C.P. 1939/1995. Sailing airships at sea. Reprinted in UltimateSailing III. AYRS Publication No. 118.

Costes D. 1994/1996. Windsailing for airships and gliders: using the`Seadog'. Ultimate Sailing IV. AYRS Publication No. 122.

Costes D. 1995. A description of some seadog inventions. UltimateSailing III . AYRS Publication No. 118.

Glencross R. 1993. Sailing craft Hagedoorn. AYRS Projects . AYRSPublication No. 112.

Glencross R. 1996. Kites and Hapas at Speedweek 1996. UltimateSailing IV. AYRS Publication No. 112.

Hagedoorn J.G. 1971/1994. Ultimate Sailing: Introducing theHapa/Ultimate Sailing: The Hapa Revisited. AYRS PublicationNo. 114.

Hagedoorn J.G. 1975. Ultimate sailing. Scientific American , March (page numbers unavailable).

Hanschke T. 1976. Segeln auf Gletschern. Alpinismus 12.

Kitson T. 1994. The experimental craft at Weymouth 1992±4. Speed Sailing and Speed Weeks 1992±4. AYRS Publication No. 115.

Morwood J. 1961. An inflatable kite. Aerodynamics I . AYRS Publication No. 37.

Pocock G. 1827/1851. The Aeropleustic Art. Facsimile reprint, 1 Jan1969, by Edward L. Stearn, San Francisco, CA.

Quinton B. 2001. Winds of change: a rally for innovative watercraft. AYRS Catalyst 1, 5.

Roeseler C. 1997. A field study of kite-powered hydrofoil theory. Transport Sailcraft. AYRS Publication No. 124.

Roeseler W. and Funston N. 1979. The Sea Nymph and the ancient Egyptian Yacht. The Ancient Interface Sailing Symposium1979 , Pomona, CA. AIAA.

Schmidt T. 1984. Unusual sailing systems for kites. The Naval Architect E, 75±76.

Schmidt T. 1985/1995. Hapa development 1980±1985. Reprinted in Ultimate Sailing III. AYRS Publication No. 118.

Schmidt T. 1991. A short history of Hapas. Foils and Hapas. AYRS Publication No. 108.

Schmidt T. 1994/1996. Hagedoorn, Glencross and the Hapa. Ultimate Sailing IV. AYRS Publication No. 122.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5380 From: Joe Faust Date: 1/13/2012
Subject: Re: Wind Dam AWES Architecture
--- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, "roderickjosephread" <rod.read@...
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5381 From: Joe Faust Date: 1/13/2012
Subject: Re: Wind Dam AWES Architecture
Well, it seems a non-member will see the image copy-pasted from the group folder. I signed out and changed browsers and saw the photos.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5382 From: blturner3 Date: 1/13/2012
Subject: Paraglider safty[AWES] Re: FAA Poor regulator
Yes. I am aware of the paraglider problem. Hang gliding, ultralights, gyrocopters and now paragliding. Hang gliding matured and the USHGA helped a lot with that. Ultralights got the sport pilot rules and also did some growing up. I don't have a perfect answer as to what should be done but clearly something. There is a failure of education and attitude. This could be called a poor safty culture giving Dave S credit.

It's also worse than the link you gave. http://www.xcmag.com/2011/07/paragliding-world-championships-2011-cancelled/

When a bad weather call by organizers can kill 2 of the best pilots and force 4 more into emergencies you have to think that their are serious flaws with the sport.

The Hang Gliding world competition was a few hundred miles away and was affected by the same weather system a few days earlier. They opted not to fly. It's all about attitude.

I don't think the FAA is even the right group to address this problem. Or at least another regulation would likely fail. Once a fundamental design flaw is found the manufacturers should be notified. If they keep producing that flawed aircraft without change then they should be held liable. The manufacturers need the authority to require that owners register with them so they can be notified of problems. The manufacturers need to be able to require training by users.

All of this really applies to MANNED aircraft. I think the FAA should regulate airspace and manned aviation. We should have a organization that provides safety training to AWE researchers/users. We should promote liability insurance as a requirement. And the insurers should require training. No where in this plan is their a regulation about what a AWE should look like, act like, how it should be flown or how much you can charge.

We should build our own safety culture following the many successful examples we have like the USHGA(United States Hang Gliding Association), the NAAA.(National Agricultural Aviation Association), LIA(Laser Institute of America)

Brian


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5383 From: Andrew K Date: 1/14/2012
Subject: Re: sailoons, fliptackers and other bizzarre sailcraft
Thanks for the references, you can add "Sailoons and Fliptackers" by
Bernard Smith.
I ran across the book back when I was a junior aero engineer (and AIAA
member) and remember reading the authors statement that since water is
800 times denser than air the airfoil would ideally be 800 times
larger than the water foil.
It made perfect sense, of course the only practical way to get that
ratio would be to use a kite or balloon as the airfoil.
Regrettably my current sailboat is nowhere that ideal ratio but since
it's on a small lake it's not a big problem.
<http://www.shallowwatersailor.us/swsmanual/rigging/index.html
Andrew King
King Technical Services
Ann Arbor Michigan

<http://www.amazon.com/Sailloons-Fliptackers-High-Speed-Sailing-Library/dp/0930403657/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1326548447&sr=8-1 Publisher: AIAA (American Institute of Aeronautics & Ast; First
Edition edition (January 1989)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 0930403657
ISBN-13: 978-0930403652

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5384 From: blturner3 Date: 1/14/2012
Subject: Re: Comparison between kite and paraglider regarding ratios L/D
45 degrees from what? Actual wind or apparent wind?

Brian

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5385 From: dave santos Date: 1/14/2012
Subject: Re: Comparison between kite and paraglider regarding ratios L/D
Brian,
 
Sorry for the ambiguity. With kites we often discuss the kite angle (angle-of-repose) as it correlates with L/D (much as glider pilots use glide-slope). A 45 degree angle-of-repose (or glide-slope) thereby indicates an L/D of 1 (1 unit vertical by 1 unit horizontal). There are a few extraneous minor factors (like line sag and wind gradient) that influence this simple view.
 
Re: Apparent Wind- With high performance sweeping kites in efficient flight the normal apparent wind is just a few degrees, and 45 degrees is a deeply stalled condition. Even this extreme stalled flight attitude could be a design max lift state, if the aircraft has enough power to spare to overcome the equivalent drag. Often kites have plenty of extra power available by a great wind, to tolerate high drag to get max lift, operating long hours naturally highly stalled while avoiding the excessive fuel bill a fueled aircraft would incur.
 
daveS
 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5386 From: Rod Read Date: 1/15/2012
Subject: Re: Wind Dam AWES Architecture
Thanks for clearing up my image insert issue Joe,
I really aught to have known better.
 
I'm replying by email... so my signature is going to be at the bottom..
I really aught to know better than post this on a forum...
where's that send button? oh yes ther..
Rod Read

15a Aiginis
Isle of Lewis
HS2 0PB

07899057227
01851 870878


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5387 From: Dan Parker Date: 1/15/2012
Subject: Re: Wind Dam AWES Architecture
Hi Roderick,
 
                I google earthed your address, you must get some powerful winds there.
 
                                                                                                 Dan'l
 

To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
From: rod.read@gmail.com
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 10:14:09 +0000
Subject: [AWES] Re: Wind Dam AWES Architecture

 
Thanks for clearing up my image insert issue Joe,
I really aught to have known better.
 
I'm replying by email... so my signature is going to be at the bottom..
I really aught to know better than post this on a forum...
where's that send button? oh yes ther..
Rod Read

15a Aiginis
Isle of Lewis
HS2 0PB

07899057227
01851 870878



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5388 From: roderickjosephread Date: 1/15/2012
Subject: Re: Wind Dam AWES Architecture
Europe's best and most consistent. I was brought up here. The local paper wrote an article about what I'm up to, saying how, "unlike most, Roddy loves our windy climate." "I want to make the best use of what we have here, and that's an abundance of wind energy.", "The real elephant in the room is outside. Wind energy doesn't stop at head height, nor the top of the Eisteil mast, it goes up for miles and it keeps getting stronger."
My old pal Eilidh was the reporter. She took to giving me a new moniker "The Kiteman"
It gives me a big head hearing it. Is that a super power?
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5389 From: roderickjosephread Date: 1/16/2012
Subject: Re: Why people patent ideas: example: e-mail this morning
Own-it — Intellectual Property Advice for the creative sector

A group of student lawyers in the uk.
They give advice on intellectual property rights.

I asked them for advice on how to share IP in a cooperative manner.
this was their response...
 
Cooperative IP
I am developing ideas and prototypes in the new field of airborne wind energy devices. These "kites" which make power promise to reduce the cost of manufacturing electricity and do it in an environmentally friendly way.
My designs are simple elegant kite structures. And I freely share my ideas under with creative commons licensing.
I don't believe in the legality of patents, I believe that all knowledge should be shared. Even though it was an inventive step to create my designs, they work in the natural phenomenon of wind energy and with the standard historical knowledge of kite motions.... they are just configured in a novel more useful way.
I would like my designs to be freely available for small community groups and societies to use. I do not like the idea of anyone who holds patents using my designs solely for their own benefit.
Is there a recognised way of licensing to ensure that anyone using my designs has the interests of their community at heart?



16 January 2012


Private & Confidential


Dear


Licensing intellectual property rights in airborne wind energy devices


Thank you for your query concerning licensing your airborne wind energy ("kite") designs to small community groups and societies.  You have asked me to advise on:

  • A recognised way of licensing to ensure that anyone using your designs has the interests of their community at heart.


From your query I understand that you design kite structures, which you have configured in a novel way to use kite motion and wind energy to manufacture electricity in a cheaper and more environmentally friendly way.  You believe that knowledge should be shared and do not want anyone to profit individually from your designs.  You are currently licensing your designs under Creative Commons licensing.  I have based my advice on these facts.


The law


The relevant intellectual property rights


Various intellectual property rights, including copyright and patent, may subsist in your kite designs.


a) Copyright

Copyright is an intellectual property right that is owned by an author of an original (i.e. one that has not been copied) literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work. Whether or not a work qualifies for protection can depend on whether the work is purely artistic or is also functional. Copyright arises automatically on creation and ownership of copyright in a work allows an author to prevent others from doing certain things with the work.


It is important to appreciate that copyright law is intended to prevent copying but does not provide a monopoly; as such it does not matter if a similar or identical work already exists before the creation of the author's work or if someone independently creates the same work. The other key point about copyright is that it seeks to protect the form of expression of ideas and not the ideas themselves.


b) Unregistered design rights

A UK Unregistered design right can protect the 3D shape of a design where it is functional or artistic. This right exists automatically in the design if the design is original. It lasts for 15 years from the end of the calendar year in which the design was first created, or 10 years from the design being made available for sale or hire. Note that this right is only available to European nationals or those who market a product using the design in the EU first.


Designs may also be protected for a period of three years from first marketing in the EU by an unregistered community design right. This right arises automatically provided that the same criteria as that for registered designs are satisfied (as discussed below).


Like copyright unregistered design rights are only infringed where a design is copied rather than being developed independently. They are not monopoly rights.  


c) Registered design rights

This right relates to the visible, external appearance and shape of the whole kite or part of the kite structure.  This right may exist in your design if the appearance of the design is new (i.e. has not been created before) and has individual character as a result of its features, and as long as the design features do not relate solely to technical function.  This right must be granted by the UK Intellectual Property Office (UK IPO) to exist. On payment of a fee the Office would check that the design satisfies the necessary criteria and if so register the design. Once granted the right can exist for a maximum of 25 years. There is also the option to have a European wide design right by application to the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM).


Unlike Unregistered design rights, this right offers monopoly protection such that others cannot create products of similar design during this period irrespective of whether they copied the registered design or came up with the design independently. However, similarly to copyright and unregistered rights the right cannot protect the technical idea behind the design.

 

d) Patents

If a process is new, inventive (i.e. not obvious) and capable of industrial application, it can be protected by a patent.  This right must be registered at the UK IPO for a fee in order to offer protection.  A patent generally gives the owner a monopoly right to use an invention for 20 years.


The intellectual property rights in your kite design


It is likely that the design documents, such as the drawing or blueprint of your kite design and the surface design of the kites would automatically be protected by copyright. The lifetime of the copyright in the design drawings would be 70 years following the death of the author and in that of the surface designs 25 years from creation. Whether or not copyright subsists in the 3D form of the designs will depend on whether their purpose is artistic or functional. From your description it seems that the design is functional rather than artistic and therefore this would not be protected by copyright. In light of this it is important to recognise that copyright would only be infringed where the drawings themselves or surface designs were copied. If someone uses your design drawings to create a 3D kite structure then this will not be an infringement of copyright and so this could be done without any licence. Design rights could protect the 3D structure of the kite. Unregistered UK and EU design rights will probably exist automatically provided the criteria discussed above are satisfied. If someone copied the kite design this would then mean that they had infringed this right.


The most important point to recognise is that none of the intellectual property rights which may currently exist in your design protect the inventive idea behind your kite designs. To protect the inventive idea a patent would be required.


Licensing the intellectual property rights in your kite design


In order to use the intellectual property rights in your designs without infringing a person would need your permission. This permission can be granted in the form of a licence and you can state in the licence particular terms of use. One term of use that you could include could be that the licensee must only use the intellectual property rights for the "interests of the community".  However, in order to make sure that the licence is enforceable it would be important to make sure that this requirement is clearly defined. This could be done, for example, by listing the type of things that would be considered to be appropriate. In addition, you could consider a term which expressly prohibits use of the intellectual property for personal commercial use or financial profit.


Given the nature of the intellectual property rights that subsist in your designs, it is important to recognise the limitation of any such licence. Firstly, because you only have intellectual property rights in the design and NOT the inventive idea behind the kite design, the inventive idea could be reproduced by someone without seeking your permission and therefore without the need to be bound by a licence. Secondly, because all of the rights that are in your design are currently non-monopoly rights you cannot prevent someone who independently comes up with the same design from using it.


Advice

  1. You mentioned that you are currently using a creative commons licence. These licences generally only cover copyright. If this is the case then anyone who uses your design drawings to create the 3D structures could be infringing your design. To resolve this issue you should check if the licence you are using currently includes a licence to use design rights and if not extend it appropriately.

  1. Based on the details provided above you may wish to apply for a registered design right to enhance the protection of your design.

  1. In order to prevent others from using the inventive idea behind your designs outside your terms you would have to apply for patent protection and then grant a patent licence on terms of use that you are happy with. The problem is that you may not now be able to get patent protection.


It seems from your description that the inventive idea in the design has already been publically disclosed. If this is the case then there will no longer be the option to patent the invention because one of the criteria to get patent protection is that an invention must be new. If the idea has been made available to the public it will no longer be deemed new. However, note that for the same reasons this also means that nobody else should be able to patent the idea. It is advisable to keep a record of when/ where the idea was first disclosed, since this could be used to challenge the validity of any patent applied for over the same idea by someone else. Such a challenge may incur legal costs, but could be an important deterrent to prevent anyone who did manage to get a patent covering the idea from trying to get licence fees from you or those who use your design.  


I hope this information is useful.  If you have any queries, or you would like help on any other matter, please feel free to get in touch with Own-it again.


Yours sincerely


The Own-it team



College of Law Disclaimer


This one-off advice is prepared by the College of Law by volunteer students supervised by solicitors/teaching staff.  It is not a substitute for legal advice provided by a specialist solicitor on a continuing basis.





The law really is an ageing ass. 
but I'm quite happy with where I stand.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5390 From: Muzhichkov Date: 1/16/2012
Subject: The first longitudional vibrations of my rope!
Hi everybody! Today I've made the first launch of my new turbine. And I've become the first vibrations of the rope (you can see it on video  ) For the momet it quit small vibration and doesn't produce any electricity, but nevertheless!
Now I think about anouther type of turbine, while ladle turbine really has too little efficiency.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5391 From: Jan claes Date: 1/16/2012
Subject: Re: Why people patent ideas: example: e-mail this morning
So the cheapest way to protect your idea is to go public make sure every one understands it and "legally" fix the date.
This prevents others and yourself to have a patent , but does not prevent others to use the idea to gain money.
However when they use the idea and gain money, you can copy them and do the same......... cause it's all public knowledge!
The rest is business!
 
What a world!
 

To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
From: rod.read@gmail.com
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 11:06:45 +0000
Subject: [AWES] Re: Why people patent ideas: example: e-mail this morning

 
Own-it — Intellectual Property Advice for the creative sector

A group of student lawyers in the uk.
They give advice on intellectual property rights.

I asked them for advice on how to share IP in a cooperative manner.
this was their response...
 
Cooperative IP
I am developing ideas and prototypes in the new field of airborne wind energy devices. These "kites" which make power promise to reduce the cost of manufacturing electricity and do it in an environmentally friendly way.
My designs are simple elegant kite structures. And I freely share my ideas under with creative commons licensing.
I don't believe in the legality of patents, I believe that all knowledge should be shared. Even though it was an inventive step to create my designs, they work in the natural phenomenon of wind energy and with the standard historical knowledge of kite motions.... they are just configured in a novel more useful way.
I would like my designs to be freely available for small community groups and societies to use. I do not like the idea of anyone who holds patents using my designs solely for their own benefit.
Is there a recognised way of licensing to ensure that anyone using my designs has the interests of their community at heart?



16 January 2012

Private & Confidential


Dear


Licensing intellectual property rights in airborne wind energy devices


Thank you for your query concerning licensing your airborne wind energy ("kite") designs to small community groups and societies.  You have asked me to advise on:

  • A recognised way of licensing to ensure that anyone using your designs has the interests of their community at heart.


From your query I understand that you design kite structures, which you have configured in a novel way to use kite motion and wind energy to manufacture electricity in a cheaper and more environmentally friendly way.  You believe that knowledge should be shared and do not want anyone to profit individually from your designs.  You are currently licensing your designs under Creative Commons licensing.  I have based my advice on these facts.


The law


The relevant intellectual property rights


Various intellectual property rights, including copyright and patent, may subsist in your kite designs.


a) Copyright

Copyright is an intellectual property right that is owned by an author of an original (i.e. one that has not been copied) literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work. Whether or not a work qualifies for protection can depend on whether the work is purely artistic or is also functional. Copyright arises automatically on creation and ownership of copyright in a work allows an author to prevent others from doing certain things with the work.


It is important to appreciate that copyright law is intended to prevent copying but does not provide a monopoly; as such it does not matter if a similar or identical work already exists before the creation of the author's work or if someone independently creates the same work. The other key point about copyright is that it seeks to protect the form of expression of ideas and not the ideas themselves.


b) Unregistered design rights

A UK Unregistered design right can protect the 3D shape of a design where it is functional or artistic. This right exists automatically in the design if the design is original. It lasts for 15 years from the end of the calendar year in which the design was first created, or 10 years from the design being made available for sale or hire. Note that this right is only available to European nationals or those who market a product using the design in the EU first.


Designs may also be protected for a period of three years from first marketing in the EU by an unregistered community design right. This right arises automatically provided that the same criteria as that for registered designs are satisfied (as discussed below).


Like copyright unregistered design rights are only infringed where a design is copied rather than being developed independently. They are not monopoly rights.  


c) Registered design rights

This right relates to the visible, external appearance and shape of the whole kite or part of the kite structure.  This right may exist in your design if the appearance of the design is new (i.e. has not been created before) and has individual character as a result of its features, and as long as the design features do not relate solely to technical function.  This right must be granted by the UK Intellectual Property Office (UK IPO) to exist. On payment of a fee the Office would check that the design satisfies the necessary criteria and if so register the design. Once granted the right can exist for a maximum of 25 years. There is also the option to have a European wide design right by application to the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM).


Unlike Unregistered design rights, this right offers monopoly protection such that others cannot create products of similar design during this period irrespective of whether they copied the registered design or came up with the design independently. However, similarly to copyright and unregistered rights the right cannot protect the technical idea behind the design.

 

d) Patents

If a process is new, inventive (i.e. not obvious) and capable of industrial application, it can be protected by a patent.  This right must be registered at the UK IPO for a fee in order to offer protection.  A patent generally gives the owner a monopoly right to use an invention for 20 years.


The intellectual property rights in your kite design


It is likely that the design documents, such as the drawing or blueprint of your kite design and the surface design of the kites would automatically be protected by copyright. The lifetime of the copyright in the design drawings would be 70 years following the death of the author and in that of the surface designs 25 years from creation. Whether or not copyright subsists in the 3D form of the designs will depend on whether their purpose is artistic or functional. From your description it seems that the design is functional rather than artistic and therefore this would not be protected by copyright. In light of this it is important to recognise that copyright would only be infringed where the drawings themselves or surface designs were copied. If someone uses your design drawings to create a 3D kite structure then this will not be an infringement of copyright and so this could be done without any licence. Design rights could protect the 3D structure of the kite. Unregistered UK and EU design rights will probably exist automatically provided the criteria discussed above are satisfied. If someone copied the kite design this would then mean that they had infringed this right.


The most important point to recognise is that none of the intellectual property rights which may currently exist in your design protect the inventive idea behind your kite designs. To protect the inventive idea a patent would be required.


Licensing the intellectual property rights in your kite design


In order to use the intellectual property rights in your designs without infringing a person would need your permission. This permission can be granted in the form of a licence and you can state in the licence particular terms of use. One term of use that you could include could be that the licensee must only use the intellectual property rights for the "interests of the community".  However, in order to make sure that the licence is enforceable it would be important to make sure that this requirement is clearly defined. This could be done, for example, by listing the type of things that would be considered to be appropriate. In addition, you could consider a term which expressly prohibits use of the intellectual property for personal commercial use or financial profit.


Given the nature of the intellectual property rights that subsist in your designs, it is important to recognise the limitation of any such licence. Firstly, because you only have intellectual property rights in the design and NOT the inventive idea behind the kite design, the inventive idea could be reproduced by someone without seeking your permission and therefore without the need to be bound by a licence. Secondly, because all of the rights that are in your design are currently non-monopoly rights you cannot prevent someone who independently comes up with the same design from using it.


Advice

  1. You mentioned that you are currently using a creative commons licence. These licences generally only cover copyright. If this is the case then anyone who uses your design drawings to create the 3D structures could be infringing your design. To resolve this issue you should check if the licence you are using currently includes a licence to use design rights and if not extend it appropriately.

  1. Based on the details provided above you may wish to apply for a registered design right to enhance the protection of your design.

  1. In order to prevent others from using the inventive idea behind your designs outside your terms you would have to apply for patent protection and then grant a patent licence on terms of use that you are happy with. The problem is that you may not now be able to get patent protection.


It seems from your description that the inventive idea in the design has already been publically disclosed. If this is the case then there will no longer be the option to patent the invention because one of the criteria to get patent protection is that an invention must be new. If the idea has been made available to the public it will no longer be deemed new. However, note that for the same reasons this also means that nobody else should be able to patent the idea. It is advisable to keep a record of when/ where the idea was first disclosed, since this could be used to challenge the validity of any patent applied for over the same idea by someone else. Such a challenge may incur legal costs, but could be an important deterrent to prevent anyone who did manage to get a patent covering the idea from trying to get licence fees from you or those who use your design.  


I hope this information is useful.  If you have any queries, or you would like help on any other matter, please feel free to get in touch with Own-it again.


Yours sincerely


The Own-it team



College of Law Disclaimer


This one-off advice is prepared by the College of Law by volunteer students supervised by solicitors/teaching staff.  It is not a substitute for legal advice provided by a specialist solicitor on a continuing basis.





The law really is an ageing ass. 
but I'm quite happy with where I stand.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5392 From: Joe Faust Date: 1/16/2012
Subject: Re: Why people patent ideas: example: e-mail this morning
When a business uses public domain IP and adds some detail that is very successful, and where that detail is well patented, then copies of the whole system would infringe upon that detail. The public domain disclosure, in this scenario, did not include that special detail.   The whole works may actually be top competitive just because of that detail.  Some workers are going in such direction; AWES tech has a large public-domain footprint, but there will be, I suspect, some winners who will have patented some detail without which the whole might flop.  Quality engineering, deep debugging, safe execution,  sparkling service, smart selling, ... are ever aspects that help wins.   
JoeF
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5393 From: roderickjosephread Date: 1/16/2012
Subject: Re: Why people patent ideas: example: e-mail this morning
I always had trouble with the logic of patents though. Just because you tell your big mama government your idea first, you get to tease all the other kids with pictures of your toy and they don't get a shot.
It's weird
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5394 From: Bob Stuart Date: 1/16/2012
Subject: Re: Why people patent ideas: example: e-mail this morning
Patents used to make sense, when a blacksmith could invent a new machine and set up manufacturing himself.  Now, it usually takes a team to develop and market things at the scale of the remaining opportunities.  Patents have become a tool to ruin independents, and enrich shareholders.  A few remaining  contrary examples are publicized as bait.
What I don't understand is how people are almost universally disgusted with price-gouging medical firms, yet Dean Kamen is promoted as a great inventor.
I'd like to see a simple registry, where people can brainstorm and develop ideas, and get paid for the ones that turn a profit, from general business taxes, or penalties on harmful, obsolete enterprises.  
When a game-changing technology like MP3 shows up, we have to focus on supporting musicians, not a new army of lawyers.  

Bob Stuart
Sent from The Country Formerly Known as Nice.

On 16-Jan-12, at 2:10 PM, roderickjosephread wrote:


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5395 From: Dan Parker Date: 1/16/2012
Subject: Re: Why people patent ideas: example: e-mail this morning
Bob Stuart, Roderick and group.
 
 
                "not a new army of lawyers."  The problem, for sure, they create a need, that is self promoting, much akin to health care needless testing because they fear lawsuits, self promotion all the way. I believe Bob is correct for the small inventers out there, on their own, the deck is stacked against true innovation. Of all the patents claimed by Mr. kamen how many came from his company employees signing off their rights to him, just to have a job and put food on the table. It seems the corporations have out grown the countries that bore them and with their packs of legal teams they can pretty much out spend any poor man and countries of poor. The deck is in fact rigged to those who have the money.
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                Dan'l
 
 

 

To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
From: bobstuart@sasktel.net
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 14:29:37 -0600
Subject: Re: [AWES] Re: Why people patent ideas: example: e-mail this morning

 
Patents used to make sense, when a blacksmith could invent a new machine and set up manufacturing himself.  Now, it usually takes a team to develop and market things at the scale of the remaining opportunities.  Patents have become a tool to ruin independents, and enrich shareholders.  A few remaining  contrary examples are publicized as bait.
What I don't understand is how people are almost universally disgusted with price-gouging medical firms, yet Dean Kamen is promoted as a great inventor.
I'd like to see a simple registry, where people can brainstorm and develop ideas, and get paid for the ones that turn a profit, from general business taxes, or penalties on harmful, obsolete enterprises.  
When a game-changing technology like MP3 shows up, we have to focus on supporting musicians, not a new army of lawyers.  

Bob Stuart
Sent from The Country Formerly Known as Nice.


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5396 From: roderickjosephread Date: 1/16/2012
Subject: Re: Why people patent ideas: example: e-mail this morning
So if we do invent a new internationally bounding structure of information sharing, power sharing, cooperative trading, open product standards, mutual respect etc... can we patent it?
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5397 From: Doug Date: 1/17/2012
Subject: Renewable energy investments worldwide set record high in 2011
Jan 16, 2012 - (from Bloomberg)

A report from Bloomberg New Energy Finance said that a sluggish economy did not hamper investments in new clean energy projects as they increased 5 percent to $260 billion in 2011, a record high.

U.S. investments in renewable energy moved ahead of China for the first time since 2008, according to the latest data. U.S. projects saw an investment of $55.9 billion in 2011, up 33 percent from 2010. China’s investments increased 1 percent to $47.4 billion.

“The news that the US jumped back into the lead in clean energy investment last year will reassure those who worried that it was falling behind other countries,” said Michael Liebreich, chief executive of Bloomberg New Energy Finance. “However before anyone in Washington celebrates too much, the US figure was achieved thanks in large part to support initiatives such as the federal loan guarantee program and a Treasury grant program which have now expired.”

In 2011, investments in solar technology increased 36 percent to $136.6 billion, nearly double the $74.9 billion investment in wind power, which was down 17 percent from 2010. Biomass and waste-to-energy investments decreased 18 percent to $10.8 billion, geothermal dropped from $3.2 billion to $2.8 billion, small hydro decreased 25 percent to $3 billion and investments in marine technology were steady at $0.3 billion.

“The performance of solar is even more remarkable when you consider that the price of photovoltaic modules fell by close to 50 percent during 2011, and now stands 75 percent lower than three years ago, in mid-2008,” Liebreich said. “The cost of PV technology has fallen, but the volume of PV sold has increased by a much greater factor as it approached competitiveness with other sources of power.”

The previous year also saw the one trillionth dollar invested globally in renewables since 2004.

The largest single type of investment was the asset finance of utility-scale renewable energy projects, which increased from a revised $138.3 billion in 2010 to $145.6 billion in 2011.

Venture capital and private equity investment saw an increase of 4 percent in 2011 to $8.9 billion.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5398 From: Doug Date: 1/17/2012
Subject: Re: Why people patent ideas:
Roderick:
Which patent would you say is holding you back the most? Can you provide details of how it is holding you back? How soon does it expire?
Doug Selsam

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5399 From: Bob Stuart Date: 1/17/2012
Subject: Re: Why people patent ideas:
I would not answer that question.  I think most inventors are threatened by the whole legal system, by which the rich can usually obtain all the benefits, or suppress a new technology.

Bob Stuart
Sent from The Country Formerly Known as Nice.

On 17-Jan-12, at 10:09 AM, Doug wrote:


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5400 From: roderickjosephread Date: 1/17/2012
Subject: Re: Why people patent ideas:
Hi Doug,
I don't think any patent is holding me back. yet. certainly not in my development, nothing applies.
I release my designs with open source licensing, the ethos being that if anyone improves on the design, they should do the same.

We are probably all held back by inventions / developments not pursued through fear of patent law, or unprofitable research findings buried by large companies.
Quantifying the extent of that recidivist attitude on humanity is very hard.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5401 From: Joe Faust Date: 1/17/2012
Subject: (WO2012005703) ROTATING MOTION POWER GENERATION BY ...
(WO2012005703) ROTATING MOTION POWER GENERATION 
BY HARNESSING HIGH ALTITUDE WIND

Khaled Katmawi Sabbagh

See also video:

International Filing Date:07.07.2010
KATMAWI, Sabbagh, Khaled
(EN) ROTATING MOTION POWER GENERATION BY HARNESSING HIGH ALTITUDE WIND
(FR) GÉNÉRATION D'ÉNERGIE PAR MOUVEMENT ROTATIF PAR EXPLOITATION DU VENT À HAUTE ALTITUDE
Abstract:front page image
(EN)A system for generating power by harnessing high altitude wind consists of a flying frame, a generator mounted on the ground and a group of ropes (A, B, C, D) connecting frame and generator. The flying frame looks like a kite containing a closed triangle surface at the top followed by an open rectangular frame in which a smaller rectangular closed surface is positioned in such a way, that it can slide within the frame from left to right and vice versa. The sliding surface is pushed up by wind, lifting the side of frame upwards, which momentarily carries the sliding surface, causing in the next phase the sliding surface to slide down to the other side within the frame by gravity. In turn, the side of the frame, which is now carrying the sliding surface, is lifted and the other side is lowered. In that state the sliding surface is again sliding from the upper to the lower position within the frame. This alternating movement of the frame is transferred to the generator by ropes C and D. Ropes A and B stabilize the frame. A ballon constantly keeps the frame up in the air.
(FR)L'invention concerne un système de génération d'énergie par exploitation du vent à haute altitude qui se compose d'un cadre volant, d'un générateur monté au sol et d'un groupe de cordes (A, B, C, D) qui relient le cadre et le générateur. Le cadre volant ressemble à un cerf-volant contenant une surface triangulaire fermée en haut suivie d'un cadre rectangulaire ouvert dans lequel est placée une surface fermée rectangulaire plus petite de telle sorte qu'elle peut coulisser à l'intérieur du cadre de gauche à droite et inversement. La surface coulissante est poussée vers le haut par le vent, soulevant vers le haut le côté du cadre qui porte momentanément la surface coulissante, ce qui a pour effet que dans la phase suivante, la surface coulissante glisse vers le bas vers l'autre côté à l'intérieur du cadre par gravité. Le côté du cadre qui porte alors la surface coulissante est soulevé à son tour et l'autre côté est abaissé. Dans cette position, la surface coulissante glisse de nouveau depuis la position supérieure vers la position inférieure à l'intérieur du cadre. Ce mouvement alterné du cadre est transféré au générateur par les cordes C et D. Les cordes A et B stabilisent le cadre. Un ballon maintient constamment le cadre dans l'air.

Discuss: 
Start: 
1. Where is the "high" in this concept?
2. The "balloon" lifter could indeed by a kite balloon or kytoon. 
3. We invited Khaled Katmawi Sabbagh to join forum and introduce his ideas. 
4. It is groundgen using the lever or boom method. Sliding devices aloft provide alternation of two working ropes. The two working ropes seem to drive via sprags or similar to keep a driven shaft rotating; that rotation could then drive a pump or electric generator or other practical works. 
5. Catenary slack and tether stretch will be sources of energy damping and delay, especially as altitude increases for the wing. He does not seem to address this challenge. 
6. To uncover novelty, compare and contrast all earlier AWES patents. 
7. 




[PS: Thanks to PJ for lead. ]

========================================

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5402 From: Joe Faust Date: 1/17/2012
Subject: Will any AWES tap lee-shear?
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5403 From: Joe Faust Date: 1/17/2012
Subject: Torus in AWES
We have already in AWE public domain the torus playing some major roles. 
One of the roles is the LTA element of a wing set where the torus both ducts turbine
and forms a holding frame for the turbine.   Some entities are currently exploring
the inflated torus for AWES. 

PJ has found a lead on a senior project that seems cousin to torus AWE; maybe the author
is looking at our field.   
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5404 From: dave santos Date: 1/17/2012
Subject: First All High-Production COTS AWES Announcement (KiteLab/Util Partn
KiteLab Group and Util (an NYC based green product start-up by Noah Sapir) informally announce to the AWE community the first-to-market availability of an "all COTS" AWES (we just added string). This "science-educational" novelty product* is a small-scale personal charging AWES based on Prism's flip-kite (TM) and an available selection of "ripcord" pull chargers (like eGear, YoGen, Potenco, etc.). The expected base price is 49.95USD, plus 19.95 S&H. WindWorld Kites (Ron Welty) will be doing the order processing (e-commerce, supply-chain, bundling, S&H). We intend to use pizza boxes for shipping. Simple non-COTS value add-ons will follow, like a clamp-mount and our rebrand textile tote sack.
 
Noah and i tested the flipkite with the eGear unit in high wind (25mph gusts) last Saturday. The kite flew stably and drove the charger briskly at about 4Hz. We found the full pull-stroke/retraction spectrum self-adapted across a good wind range (by Hooke's Law of elasticity) to the fast short stroking of the kite. A short tag line a couple of feet or so up the kiteline allowed the mechanical advantage to be further tuned by varying the geometry, as the wind really was quite rowdy. Every prior experiment with spring scales and pumping loads had worked as predicited.
 
Based on its existing industrial high-production COTS elements and the broad application of charging small devices, its not too unreasonable to claim this is the first TRL 9** (the highest level) AWES in history. We don't even have a TM for this AWES yet, but it could be a hit and evolve into a serious tool. If anyone wants to join us in cooperatively marketing such products, please get in touch, there is a lot to do.
 
* This is not a true high-duty product, but a really cool toy, a possible historic collectable.
 
** DOE TRL 9- "final form" "successful operations"