Patent blocking help needed -- wind turbine PMG mounting

[(unknown)]

I'm posting this for Danish wind power guru Claus Nybroe of Wind Mission, at his request.

In short, a patent has been granted for a system that has been in use for years. Claus was recently informed that his new turbine could be in violation. Anyone that remembers the Kenetech variable speed inverter patent fiasco of a few years back would agree this kind of use of patents is very bad for the entire industry. The deadline for getting some proof that these techniques have been used before is the end of August.

Here's the patent:

http://www.google.com/patents?id=eekUAAAAEBAJ&dq=6911741

Here's whats needed:

- pre-october 2000 photos of testing a wind turbine alternator using a lathe:

From Claus: "What Scanwind claims in their patent, is what a lot of us has been doing

many times, when testing PMG's or other generators: Mounting the generator

shaft in a lathe while fixing the stator house and measuring torque with a

spring or load cell equipped torque arm."

-Or, pre-october 2000 photos of this commonly used mounting system:

"The PMG rotor is connected to main shaft. The stator (housing) is locked

against turning by a non-rotable coupling or torque arm/reaction support

which: (Patent quote): "... transfers substantially no bending or axial

force against the flexing of the turbine shaft due to the bending moment

acting on the turbine shaft from its hub ..." The coupling can the be

connected to machine frame or other non-rotating part."

If you can help Claus, contact his directly at his website,

Wind Mission

Thanks!

ADMIN

[JW]

I see something in itself that's a problem.

"Claus was recently informed that his new turbine could be in violation. -ADMIN"

Although patents are a so-called way to establish a sort of an monopoly for a fixed period of time. It is frowned upon when, any patent holder engages in strong arming. Its best if you own a patent on something, to offer a license, once monitary gain thru production has been identified. Im not even sure Claus has become anytype of competition. Theres always going to be individuals that will create a one-off, and quite frankly its not considered a real threat. So whats going on is not only wrong, but most likely it will lead to patent re-examination once an action has been initilized, not a good thing for the guy who has the patent.

 By the time the dust settles, its going to cost both sides, because of a lack of better judgement by the patent holder. Not good for a whole spectrim of reasons. But supposedly the first guy to apply for the patent has some presidence. This can be a really sore topic, YIKES. In alot of cases patents are good, such as the case with neo magnets, done right, the most will benifit.

JW

[bob g]

maybe i am old and a bit thick between the ears, but

what exactly is the patent holders issue with Klaus

according to his site he is focused on research and development

and not a manufacture, if he does not build units for sale he is

not infringing on anyones patent, correct?

if they are trying to enforce patent rights based on the attachment

of a generator so that it is freefloating, that drive system has been in use

for years, by diyers that connect an alternator to the shaft of a briggs and stratton or the like shaft to shaft with a solid coupler.

as a matter of fact that is exactly what i use to test power input to rewound alternators for my own amusement,

is there more to the story?

if not, if i were Klaus i would tell them to pound sand

let them hire an atty to draft a letter to cease and desist

which i am sure they could do for 50bucks with some ambulance chaser.

i see no way however that there claim would hold up in court, all Klaus would have to do is demonstrate how another type of brg in the drive system would have benefit

and he therefore would clear the patent.

seems like a bunch of crap to me.

bob g

[Chagrin]

I think you're misreading the patent.

"the stator and rotor are carried by the generator shaft, to allow the generator to follow the flexing movement of the turbine shaft....the bearings being provided to allow flexing of the turbine shaft."

I've never seen anyone design a turbine with either a flexible shaft or a stator/rotor that can flex back and forth in response to a force parallel to the shaft like the patent claims. That would require a spherical/self-aligning bearing.

[herbnz]

I Have tried to interperate the patent. They seem to feel that the shaft supporting the rotor can flex and if the stator was mounted to the frame the air gap would have to be large so contact would not occur. They are proposing that the same method we use for testing ie mounting the stator via bearings to the same shaft will eliminate the relative movement affecting the air gap (note spelling mistake zap ) hence less air gap is needed.

Am I reading correctly ? If this is the case I see it as a rather complex solution to a problem that I have not known existed and if it did strenghtern the shaft.

The metod of mounting the stator is not unique the reason they want to do it maybe is. If anyone wants to mount this way to say get a indication of torque, to my mind they are not breaking any patent IMHO

Herb

[scottsAI]

ADMIN,

Patent 6911741

Calin 1: "Wind power plant with a wind turbine with a turbine shaft ..."

A lathe is not a wind turbine, therefore the patent does NOT apply. ALL conditions must apply.

Why not a copy of the letter? Would have been most helpful to see the exact text from Scanwind. Additionally this patent is about a non rotating coupling to stabilize the gear or generator, again a Lathe does not apply. Looking over the patent its about a third bearing before the gear or generator.

Many inventor's or IP houses hire an agency to search for key words, with a match you get a letter, they are fishing. You should respond that you will work to revoke their patent if they follow their claims since what you have been doing predates their patent. And their letter exclaims their interpretation of what their patent is, which is un-patentable!.

They are fishing. Their goal is to get you to settle without going to court, (Many believe it can be cheaper than going to court). The threat of a lawyer involved scares many to just pay up if the numbers are small enough.

Have fun,

Scott.

[JW]

Just getting rid of the the intro title on my previous post.

JW

[bob g]

another point worth mention

it is one thing to get a patent, but quite another having a patent that will hold up to scrutiny in court.

many patents if challenged will not hold up in court in my opinion because they are overly broad.

bob g

[Gary D]

I'm curious if the otherpoewer "wind turbine evolution" section in itself would void their claims? The first test shows a lathe test with pictures... dated 1999, and the "evolution" progress complete with documention of sucesses AND failures since then. Can the "Patent Holder" proove they have been doing any such testing with or without peer review such as the Dans have here? Web pages discussion board kind of prooves it's been happening... A thought for the ADMIN. and any other users

http://wondermagnet.com/other/gentest.html

[bobfandango]

Certain aspects of these claims are certainly found in prior art.  On that basis, it may be possible to invalidate this patent.  But, I wouldn't bother looking for the art because I think it is extremely likely there is no infringement.

As another person mentioned, each and every element of the claim must be present in the accused device for infringement to be present.  With that in mind, I'd like to direct your attention to the following claim limitation:

"...wherein a motor (3) is provided to effect the pivoting..."  

I have never seen any type of wind turbine that uses such a motor (but that doesn't mean much, the only turbines I have really looked at are those on this website).  I assume that such a device could be used to forceably furl the blades out of the wind.  But active control of the furling strikes me as pretty dangerous and wasteful for a number of reasons. But leaving that aside, I also note that the turbines I looked at on the Wind Mission website, e.g. the Windflower, all use passive furling.  In that design, at least, no "motor (3) is provided to effect the pivoting" of the turbine.  In that and other similar designs, the wind itself effects the pivoting of the turbine.  For that reason alone, I don't think you have to worry about this patent.  

Good luck...