Windwind SAFE system

[980725]

North applied for a patent on this long ago.

[DrLightWind]

North applied for a patent on this long ago.

Bullshit,

Than what's the patent number if "long ago"?

If they applied for why not use it?

The 5th Element is completely different animal isn't it?

DrLW

[Spencer]

The Windwing system is definitely very different from the 5th element, but I'm wondering if it might be the same idea as the 2004 North Buster kite. I haven't seen the North Buster up close, but from a distance, it looks like kind of the same idea. Dwight or someone else on this forum must know the answer.

Spencer

[fokiten]

[John B]

Spence,

The North Buster is not a line load transfer. The front and rear lines are independent bridles, which is a distinct difference. We at Windwing R&D have been researching many different bridle combinations for quite some time. It has been a challenge to take a different approach and being SAFE is our number one goal. Being SAFE and keeping it simple is a "mission statement" for us.

Regards,

Windwing R&D

[Spencer]

Hi John,

Thanks for the clarification. The SAFE system does sound pretty cool. Keep up the good good R&D work!

Spencer

[KW]

[quote="John B"]Spence,

The North Buster is not a line load transfer. The front and rear lines are independent bridles, which is a distinct difference. We at Windwing R&D have been researching many different bridle combinations for quite some time. It has been a challenge to take a different approach and being SAFE is our number one goal. Being SAFE and keeping it simple is a "mission statement" for us.

Regards,

Windwing R&D[/quote]


Hey, John, we had some discussion of this issue in Texas over the weekend. It turns out that the diagram you've posted of the Windwing SAFE system is functionally identical to the Buster bridle -- something we started playing around with in the summer of 2002. PCT was secured some time ago, which isn't to say you can't use it. Just thought you should know.

Very best regards, Ken Winner

[John B]

Ken,

Good to hear from you! First of all I would like to aplogize to Spence. You are a sharp kiter with lots of style. Thanks for staying uptop this issue!

The Buster looks similar, however the use of pulleys at the kite would make it loose or very tippy, and even more so with higher attachment points. Maybe that's why you didn't venture too high on the LE.

We do not use pulley's, but use resistance with higher points on the LE. There are key components to make the system work. Sloped "wide wingtips" keep the system locked down while riding with min. input. When you need to tip the kite it's there not loose but tight. The static lines also provide rigidity to the LE. in the closed posistion. The "CC" pulley bar provides the resistance and keeps the system tight.

If you did file a PCT in the summer of 02, that gives you a year "03" to form your patent. Please help me out here, where is the #.... I searched... Did you let it fizzle away? Don't get me wrong I respect your contributions to kite design.

Thanks,
Windwing R&D

[DrLightWind]

The Buster looks similar, however the use of pulleys at the kite would make it loose or very tippy, and even more so with higher attachment points.

We do not use pulley's, but use resistance with higher points on the LE. There are key components to make the system work.
Sloped "wide wingtips" keep the system locked down while riding with min. input. When you need to tip the kite it's there not loose but tight. The static lines also provide rigidity to the LE. in the closed posistion. The "CC" pulley bar provides the resistance and keeps the system tight.

If you did file a PCT in the summer of 02, that gives you a year "03" to form your patent. Please help me out here, where is the #.... I searched..

Even if the Buster looks similar to Windwing's SAFE system from a technical point of views the conbinations of details and refinements,
makes it to work in reality in a different way. I call this method the "Kinematic Inversion of Recon".

Than it's patentable because technically, functionally different and improved,
so as the claims will be different, inspite of the fact of presence of the prior art.

PCT is the catch.
It can be extended for more than 2 years for business purposes or etc. for prior art advantages,
without disclosing the abstract or issue the patent.
This way nobody would have a clue and would give the extra edge to the inventor against competitors,
like looking for a black cat in the dark.

It's not really the patent what is important but how to market it and how to protect it.
Appears to be there are many ways to skin the cat,
but the line load transfer of Windwing's works slightly in a different way which makes the foundation strong IMO.

Thank you John and Ken for the details,

DrLightWind

Flown Arc type, Foil type and L.E.I. kites and found neither one are perfect as people;
But each one has it's good point of applications. Also flown Recon, 5th line, 5th E. and Aventout systems.

[maddy]

rigth doctor

It works like that but in this case (as in most of..) I think nobody is going to get a penny out of this (patents I mean).

Nice to see that much kindness in officially allowing .... somebody, in a forum .
First time in my experience.

and now ?? what's going to happen ?