Critical analysis of a paper published in 31 May 2017

Analysis
1

Paper’s title: Comparing Patent and Scientific Literature in Airborne Wind Energy
Topic invited is to bring forward a critical analysis of the paper. Pros, cons, misses, plusses, quality, methods, biases, narrowings, …


https://worldwide.espacenet.com/patent/search/family/058241046/publication/CN206017048U?q=pn%3DCN206017048U

============================== All are welcome. I have not yet marched through any exercise toward this topic. Today is my first effort toward a critical analysis of this paper. Maybe others will do some critical analysis over the paper. I will give a start herein. My start concerns what might turn out to be a minor point.

I am reading in the paper that the first patent in their view was by Dai and Dai in the 1970s. My following reference #37 that bring forward a patent that seems to fit their note https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/a2/d6/75/d9a6e553fb2bdb/CN206017048U.pdf
but there is seemingly a 2016 or after notation over the patent; so, I may be missing a detail. But analyzing with or without a mistake, I see an uncomfortable claim about Dai and Dai dating.
DaiAndDai01
So, 1970 does not equal 2016. Do you see my error or does the paper have an error on this point?

2

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

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

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

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

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

1 Like