Messages in AirborneWindEnergy group.                           AWES10553to10611 Page 108 of 440.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10553 From: Mike Barnard Date: 11/2/2013
Subject: Re: Clear Limits to Conventional Wind foreseen by Harvard's SEAS (AW

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10554 From: David Lang Date: 11/2/2013
Subject: Re: Clear Limits to Conventional Wind foreseen by Harvard's SEAS (AW

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10555 From: Mike Barnard Date: 11/2/2013
Subject: Re: Clear Limits to Conventional Wind foreseen by Harvard's SEAS (AW

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10556 From: Mike Barnard Date: 11/3/2013
Subject: Re: Clear Limits to Conventional Wind foreseen by Harvard's SEAS (AW

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10557 From: Pierre Benhaiem Date: 11/3/2013
Subject: Re: Clear Limits to Conventional Wind foreseen by Harvard's SEAS (AW

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10558 From: dave santos Date: 11/3/2013
Subject: Re: Clear Limits to Conventional Wind foreseen by Harvard's SEAS (AW

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10559 From: Hardensoft International Date: 11/3/2013
Subject: Gems Worthy Of Note.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10560 From: dave santos Date: 11/3/2013
Subject: Is MikeB Sock-Puppeting Newbie AWE References onto Wikipedia?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10563 From: dave santos Date: 11/3/2013
Subject: Re: Gems Worthy Of Note.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10564 From: Rod Read Date: 11/3/2013
Subject: Re: Slack in line or low-tension in tether

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10565 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 11/3/2013
Subject: Re: Clear Limits to Conventional Wind foreseen by Harvard's SEAS (AW

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10566 From: dave santos Date: 11/3/2013
Subject: Possible solutions for SkyWindPower (rebutting MikeB and Pierre)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10567 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/3/2013
Subject: Re: Clear Limits to Conventional Wind foreseen by Harvard's SEAS

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10568 From: Mike Barnard Date: 11/3/2013
Subject: Re: Clear Limits to Conventional Wind foreseen by Harvard's SEAS (AW

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10569 From: dave santos Date: 11/3/2013
Subject: Re: Clear Limits to Conventional Wind foreseen by Harvard's SEAS (AW

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10570 From: dave santos Date: 11/3/2013
Subject: Answer to Mike Barnard

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10571 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 11/3/2013
Subject: Re: Possible solutions for SkyWindPower (lesson of yellow journalism

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10573 From: dave santos Date: 11/3/2013
Subject: Re: Slack in line or low-tension in tether

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10577 From: Rod Read Date: 11/3/2013
Subject: What is a rotational kite?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10578 From: roderickjosephread Date: 11/3/2013
Subject: Re: What is a rotational kite?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10579 From: dave santos Date: 11/3/2013
Subject: Re: Possible solutions for SkyWindPower (lesson of yellow journalism

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10580 From: Rod Read Date: 11/3/2013
Subject: Re: Clear Limits to Conventional Wind foreseen by Harvard's SEAS (AW

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10581 From: Rod Read Date: 11/3/2013
Subject: Re: What is a rotational kite?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10582 From: dave santos Date: 11/3/2013
Subject: Re: Clear Limits to Conventional Wind foreseen by Harvard's SEAS (AW

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10584 From: Pierre Benhaiem Date: 11/3/2013
Subject: Towards a constructive critical of different methods of AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10585 From: Mike Barnard Date: 11/3/2013
Subject: So long, and thanks for all the fish

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10586 From: Mike Barnard Date: 11/3/2013
Subject: Last note

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10587 From: dave santos Date: 11/3/2013
Subject: Re: Towards a constructive critical of different methods of AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10588 From: dave santos Date: 11/3/2013
Subject: Re: Towards a constructive critical of different methods of AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10589 From: Pierre Benhaiem Date: 11/3/2013
Subject: Re: So long, and thanks for all the fish

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10590 From: dave santos Date: 11/3/2013
Subject: Fw: Finally made the sketched FAA Beacon Kite.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10591 From: dave santos Date: 11/3/2013
Subject: Re: Towards a constructive critical of different methods of AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10592 From: dave santos Date: 11/3/2013
Subject: Re: Last note

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10593 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/3/2013
Subject: Re: So long, and thanks for all the fish

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10595 From: Rod Read Date: 11/4/2013
Subject: Re: Fw: Finally made the sketched FAA Beacon Kite.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10597 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/4/2013
Subject: Re: Fw: Finally made the sketched FAA Beacon Kite.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10598 From: David Lang Date: 11/4/2013
Subject: Re: Clear Limits to Conventional Wind foreseen by Harvard's SEAS (AW

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10599 From: dave santos Date: 11/5/2013
Subject: Skydiving Canopies Pre-adapted for Deploy-Retract Aloft

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10600 From: dave santos Date: 11/5/2013
Subject: "Vacuum Packing" parafoils with a blower for reduced furled-volume

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10601 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/5/2013
Subject: Re: Lift mass and then drop it

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10602 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/5/2013
Subject: Re: WPI gets grant for undersea 'kite' project

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10603 From: Hardensoft International Date: 11/5/2013
Subject: Fw: Venture Capital for Energy - Company Directory

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10604 From: dave santos Date: 11/6/2013
Subject: Re: Fw: Venture Capital for Energy - Company Directory

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10605 From: dave santos Date: 11/6/2013
Subject: Two New Goggle (Makani) Patents and Key Prior Art

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10606 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/6/2013
Subject: Re: Multi Autogyro Rotors On One Line

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10607 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/6/2013
Subject: E-Kite Holding

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10608 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/6/2013
Subject: Re: E-Kite Holding

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10609 From: Rod Read Date: 11/7/2013
Subject: single skin low wind capability

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10610 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/7/2013
Subject: KITE awards teasing the future ...

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10611 From: David Lang Date: 11/7/2013
Subject: Re: Multi Autogyro Rotors On One Line



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10553 From: Mike Barnard Date: 11/2/2013
Subject: Re: Clear Limits to Conventional Wind foreseen by Harvard's SEAS (AW
It's also worth nothing that a single MI 26 costs $15-18M USD by itself. There's nothing to suggest that a much bigger, fully autonomous quad copter will be cheaper than that. Ignoring the tether which will be very expensive by itself, it's difficult to see how Sky Windpower expects to reach the lower price point per unit of electricity of a conventional wind turbine.


Cheers,
Mike
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10554 From: David Lang Date: 11/2/2013
Subject: Re: Clear Limits to Conventional Wind foreseen by Harvard's SEAS (AW
MikeB,

There were many statements that were  combinations of lack of basic understanding of rotorcraft mechanics, performance, control, envisioned operational modes, etc (example...a rotorcraft ascending from the ground to altitude).

Unfortunately, I am not in a position to spoon-feed a knowledge of rotorcraft. I can tell you that when I was faced with a need to acquire a basic understanding of rotorcraft, I found many good texts, tutorials, papers, etc on the web, and simply did my homework by using my basic technical background to acquire the needed knowledge base;  it is a stretch to try to educate yourself properly on such a forum as this….rather visit rotorcraft-related forums (for example, you can learn a lot from the RC Autogyro bunch).

One presumes upon the good graces of this forum when one throws-out (and, you are CERTAINLY not alone here) negative (or positive) conjectures stemming from a half-baked knowledge-base, the errors of which, interested parties may envision a duty to refute (albeit an unnecessary activity, had not the mis-conceptions been aired to start with).

DaveL
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10555 From: Mike Barnard Date: 11/2/2013
Subject: Re: Clear Limits to Conventional Wind foreseen by Harvard's SEAS (AW
DaveL:

I was referring to simple rotary kites, not rotor craft. As I stated, solutions to some of the problems required more in air complexity. Rotor craft such as quad copters trade greater in air complexity for the ability to deal with those challenges, as suggested in my response without being spelled out. 

My apologies that this was not clearer to you, but the thread of conversation was about simplicity and rotary kites of a simple nature flying with 2000' of the ground, not rotor craft, which have substantial additional challenges per my analysis of Sky Windpower just sent out. As stated at the beginning of that discussion, it was about a hypothetical relatively simple device without significant information. Based on those assumptions and the constraints suggested by PierreB, I provided my assessment. 

Please disagree in context of those constraints and state clearly why. Arm waving and saying that I'm wrong and that you don't have time to spoon feed me is not a useful or even relevant response. 

As I provide references for all of my substantive comments, please have the courtesy to do the same. That's not spoon feeding, that's basic etiquette. Asserting expertise and expecting me to accept your authority will not lead to a useful conversation.

Cheers,
Mike
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10556 From: Mike Barnard Date: 11/3/2013
Subject: Re: Clear Limits to Conventional Wind foreseen by Harvard's SEAS (AW
Hi all . . .

For those interested in the cleaned up, double checked and better formatted version of the Sky Windpower assessment, please see my blog post here:  


The primary additions to this from the AWES email post earlier today are land usage estimates and a brief look at helicopter maintenance hour to flight time ratios, neither of which are beneficial to this approach.

Just as the Makani assessment has significant portions that can be abstracted to any cross-wind approach to generation, this assessment has significant portions that can be abstracted to any high-altitude mostly stationary rotorcraft approach to generation.

As always, please let me know if I have erred anywhere, but also as always I require both references and math. 

Cheers,
Mike
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10557 From: Pierre Benhaiem Date: 11/3/2013
Subject: Re: Clear Limits to Conventional Wind foreseen by Harvard's SEAS (AW

Hello Mike,
 
As you see,there are several methods in AWE,only one detail being able to make success or failure.
 
As you point Makani is actually the most developed AWES (automated lauching and recovering,automated flight).But this does not prevent to produce an advice (like you make for rotary systems) about not quite developed AWES (the others) because some elements are the same and for some different elements deductions and extrapolations are possible.
 
On your future paper you could make a difference between inherent problems of AWE and some families of AWE and problems due to the temporary lack of available materials and technologies (for example AWE prototypes and SkySails' production would have been impossible before new light and strong tethers.)
 
Concerning marking and lighting (and also no inhabitants-and-other economies zone) for yoyo crosswind tether-kite (SkySails) if possible to analyse what is the same or not the same by comparison with flygen (Makani):indeed beside crosswind motion,there is also a downwind motion towards the top during power phase,then recovering,marking and lighting following this motion.
 
"Was there another proposed solution with relatively equivalent public documentation you would like to me to look at?"
 
Both Skymill (yoyo,groundgen) and Sky Windpower) have rigid blades like autogyros or helicopters. So it would be interesting to examine a rotary kite with soft wing(s) (parafoil-like).Concerning safety it can be very different (falling with lower consequence and slowly,but with some risks to analyse). Rotokite Presentation - Sequoia IT (2 wings in opposition,yoyo) animation on Rotokite, wind generator - YouTube.The only real film (low quality of video) is for a similar system but with only one kite (I think two soft wings are not needed since the swept area is maximized with only one wing)--- on Rotating kite - YouTube I made without the implementation of the generator.Like you point about rotary kite, there is some loss of generation due to the limit of crosswind component (one side of the blade-wing flies slowly),but this loss is not huge.I measured a force of 4 kg for a 0.7 m² kite flying by rotations (or small loops if you prefer) while the same kite pulls 6 kg when it flies crosswind in larger figure-8 (sweeping a not-maximized area).
 
Expected advantages:maximization of the worked space and the swept area,the same that for rigid rotary systems;some economic activities are perhaps possible,the tether and the wing do not travelling crosswind.
 
Expected disadvantages:due to yoyo configuration marking and lighting ciclycally go up and down (maybe it is an advantage, showing to pilots there is a system with moving components). Controller (the wing(s) must be implemented close to the kite and fed by a small additional turbine or/and battery,said turbine feeding also lighting on the tether.(If AWE has success,probably all system must be have lightings on ropes,even if FAA does not require it;for yoyo it is a problem only when the whole tether is winded,that is not the case during cyclic operations).Launching and recovering for Rotokite looks difficult,and for only one kite easier (like other kites thanks to the briddle controller).
 
Good work!
 
PierreB  
 
 
 
 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10558 From: dave santos Date: 11/3/2013
Subject: Re: Clear Limits to Conventional Wind foreseen by Harvard's SEAS (AW

 
Pierre,

You are playing into MikeB's typical "wind expert" style by asking questions as if your were a child asking an adult. He has a native English advantage as well. 

Do some homework on how MikeB has conducted himself with relentless animus against local populations worldwide who, on varied grounds, resist industrial wind development imposed on their homes, based on unsettled science on both sides*. 

Joe and I suspect he is the Wikipedia Sock-Puppet behind the crude Makani attack. He is seemingly positioning to do the same pseudo-wonk hatchet-job against the AWES R&D community (as the potential top competitor to industrial wind). Mike has already used your naively respectful question as his public justification for the latest newbie blog attack on SWP and SkyMill. He has a record of simply deleting negative but respectful rebuttals on his blog, to make response seem mostly adulatory. This is not a highly ethical journalist.

To reverse the game score, you must press him very closely on his endless technical errors, and simply disprove his wrongful propositions. Then he will run from you.

For example:
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10559 From: Hardensoft International Date: 11/3/2013
Subject: Gems Worthy Of Note.
Worth re-echoing:
".....One presumes upon the good graces of this forum when one throws-out (and, you are CERTAINLY 
not alone here) negative (or positive) conjectures stemming from a half-baked knowledge-base, the errors of which, interested parties may envision a duty to refute (albeit an unnecessary activity, had not the mis-conceptions been aired to start with).
DaveL"
John Adeoye Oyebanji
From: David Lang <SeattleDL@comcast.net
Sender: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2013 20:07:05 -0700
To: <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [AWES] RE: Clear Limits to Conventional Wind foreseen by Harvard's SEAS (AWE v. Towers)

 

MikeB,


There were many statements that were  combinations of lack of basic understanding of rotorcraft mechanics, performance, control, envisioned operational modes, etc (example...a rotorcraft ascending from the ground to altitude).

Unfortunately, I am not in a position to spoon-feed a knowledge of rotorcraft. I can tell you that when I was faced with a need to acquire a basic understanding of rotorcraft, I found many good texts, tutorials, papers, etc on the web, and simply did my homework by using my basic technical background to acquire the needed knowledge base;  it is a stretch to try to educate yourself properly on such a forum as this….rather visit rotorcraft-related forums (for example, you can learn a lot from the RC Autogyro bunch).

One presumes upon the good graces of this forum when one throws-out (and, you are CERTAINLY not alone here) negative (or positive) conjectures stemming from a half-baked knowledge-base, the errors of which, interested parties may envision a duty to refute (albeit an unnecessary activity, had not the mis-conceptions been aired to start with).

DaveL
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10560 From: dave santos Date: 11/3/2013
Subject: Is MikeB Sock-Puppeting Newbie AWE References onto Wikipedia?

 Joe and I tracked the Makani Power Wikipedia sock-puppet to Singapore and also found this online clue-


       MikeB: "I'm sitting 85 miles from the equator in Singapore right now in 30 degrees C weather morning: "


1) MikeB is non-responsive to various standing concerns about his journalistic ethics. 

2) His amazing "permanent filter" has been suitably pinged, and mostly consists of him willfully ignoring certain messages.

3) Lets see if he will ever admit or deny the curious MP edit.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10563 From: dave santos Date: 11/3/2013
Subject: Re: Gems Worthy Of Note.
JohnO,

What makes this case far different than the common Forum case (of an AWES developer making half-baked assertions) is that MikeB is a paid journalist, writing to large audiences in popular venues like Gizmag. A far higher standard of truth and accuracy applies. The normal Forum member stands their ground in debate, but Mike's instant dismissal of negative feedback is unique to us. MikeB needs to patiently master the underlying engineering science, so his critiques can prove reliably helpful. He should not impatiently demand of us that we slow our expert work to spoon-feed him his newbie knowledge, when we have archived a vast trove online, for any scholar to easily access.
 
It would be very welcome if you could reach out to MikeB to establish key facts and mediate growing complaints. A hot question is if MikeB is the mysterious sock-puppet inserting his badly flawed scholarship and opinions onto the Makani Wikipedia article, and perhaps elsewhere in the encyclopedia. This is not a trial of AWE yet (which ultimately depends on serious testing to end speculation), but a trial of sloppy wind journalism.

daveS






On Sunday, November 3, 2013 7:02 AM, Hardensoft International <hardensoftintl@yahoo.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10564 From: Rod Read Date: 11/3/2013
Subject: Re: Slack in line or low-tension in tether

Dual tethering systems can also exist where there is a securing tether and a slacker controlling tether. Both tethers can be run at the same time along the same line...  e.g the leading or a trailing edge line of an arch.

We know...
If sudden slack is induced in a standard single line lifting kite by releasing a half walked down line, the kite can become dangerous as it falls downwind in its surrounding air. I think It ends up pointing depending on it's COG pull. Then if it does refill it snaps back into action low in the wind window maxing the line tension.

Multiple tether systems are safer. A whipple tree tether which can bunch a sparsely kixel populated back line for normal steering and power operations, is alao a safety feature for failure scenarios.

Roderick Read
15a Aiginish
Isle of Lewis
HS2 0PB
kitepowercoop.org

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10565 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 11/3/2013
Subject: Re: Clear Limits to Conventional Wind foreseen by Harvard's SEAS (AW

DaveS?

 

"Do some homework on how MikeB has conducted himself with relentless animus against local populations worldwide who, on varied grounds, resist industrial wind development imposed on their homes, based on unsettled science on both sides*."

Please can you provide a reference,a link?

 

PierreB 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10566 From: dave santos Date: 11/3/2013
Subject: Possible solutions for SkyWindPower (rebutting MikeB and Pierre)
Pierre* is actually helping MikeB dump on SkyWindPower on Mike's blog, with misleading poorly-informed critiques. The Forum has explored a large conceptual toolbox of proposed solutions covering many of the exact newbie concerns Pierre and MikeB pose-
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10567 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/3/2013
Subject: Re: Clear Limits to Conventional Wind foreseen by Harvard's SEAS

LBNL   

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory    |   wiki   | LBL Home  |  LBNLonWind  |
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10568 From: Mike Barnard Date: 11/3/2013
Subject: Re: Clear Limits to Conventional Wind foreseen by Harvard's SEAS (AW
All:

I filtered out DaveS completely a few days ago, due to the low signal to noise ratio. His odd POV was copied to me on a response, so a few of remarks are probably useful, or at least I can't help myself.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10569 From: dave santos Date: 11/3/2013
Subject: Re: Clear Limits to Conventional Wind foreseen by Harvard's SEAS (AW

Pierre,

I have been providing key MikeB sources and links, but many more are out there. Its easy to study Mike's many online wind power controversies, without needing "spoon-feeding". Its distracting enough to track down sock-puppet IBM servers in Singapore, rather than do basic text searches for you.

The best picture is revealed by searching across many sources, including a close study of MikeB's writings. He is a resolute clean-coal pro-nuke advocate and GE stockholder, for example. He is seemingly the most extreme "pro CWE" voice on the net.*

JoeF is collecting all relevant sources and links on MikeB's page, so check there later, if you cannot find enough,

daveS


* Just one of a list of typical negative community reactions to MikeB's wind activism-












On Sunday, November 3, 2013 8:21 AM, Pierre BENHAIEM <pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10570 From: dave santos Date: 11/3/2013
Subject: Answer to Mike Barnard

Mike, 

Of course you can't resist reacting to critique of your journalism, there is no "permanent filter" such as you claimed. In fact you still got my messages in your mailbox, in order to censor a polite respectful suggestion from your blog.

I am prowind, of course, but think your extreme prowind Net tactics are crude and dishonest, and hurt wind power's reputation, especially AWE.

Wikipedia guidelines clearly do not support sock-puppet promotion of one's own extremist "journalism". That you do not understand such ethical points seems typical. Its a fallacy to claim anyone pose questions to you, and expect an answer. You do run.

We simply don't have spare time to correct your firehose creation of pubic errors (like in Gizmag) in real time. Be patient. An example of how easily you are proven wrong in your AWES techncial assessments is to think that Makani has a robust solution-

"(Makani) automated launch, flight and recovery systems ... are robust and work today"

We measure robustness of an AWES in terms of MTBCF. One 15min end-to-end flight is not enough for a true aerospace expert to call "robust". You are simply wrong on this point.

Many other of your cited errors remain unaddressed. Covering your ears while singing loudly will not help you,

daveS

PS The M10 as a possible "sweet-spot" is your wording. That would be the biggest E-VTOL AWES ever proposed. Also fairly accept that I am one of the "test-everything" advocates. Arches is just one of many ideas worth testing carefully before true winners can properly emerge.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10571 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 11/3/2013
Subject: Re: Possible solutions for SkyWindPower (lesson of yellow journalism

DaveS,

 

"Pierre* is actually helping MikeB dump on SkyWindPower on Mike's blog, with misleading poorly-informed critiques."

 This sentence is a lesson of yellow journalism (Dave Culp rightly used these terms):mixture, disinformation, lie, in the end lack of arguments.

My first comment on Sky Windpower's high-altitude wind generation system will likely fail to launch.

is:"“It likely needs to consume more land without secondary uses than comparable conventional wind generation.” Not sure since jet-stream is expected to be unidirectional,the tether keeping its position during operation which can set several months."Where are "misleading poorly-informed critiques"? At the contrary this comment favors SWP's field,the beginning being a citation from the main text.

 

Second comment:"” The minimum length 9 km conductive tether would weigh about 33,000 kg assuming adequate strength. A 9 km ceiling would require a roughly 18 km tether weighing 66,000 kg.” More due to additional losses!",then third comment specifying the second comment:"…If the weight of 9 km conductive tether is about 33,000 kg…". Where are "misleading poorly-informed critiques"?

 

What is your problem to be against Makani, against KiteGen (see old posts against M.Ippolito),against Airborne Wind Energy Consortium...?But now maybe they can become your new friends against Mike Barnard.

 

PierreB

 





 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10573 From: dave santos Date: 11/3/2013
Subject: Re: Slack in line or low-tension in tether

More slack notes-
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10577 From: Rod Read Date: 11/3/2013
Subject: What is a rotational kite?
Oh well that's easy it goes round...
Does it?
What does a rotational kite go round?
Does it go all the way round?

A large arch kite (like a c shape surf kite) can be flown powerfully and safely from wide spread tethers. Say the arch shape is 40deg of an arc. In a tight turn it may fly around it's own centre. Say the kite moves in a circular path whose centre may be way below the surface of the earth (a radius much larger than the kite setting is easy if the feet are cross linked).

As a kite is flown it's reactant tether force may be drawn in a circular pattern on the ground. In this case the tapping the power may be best done by placing inline pumps at the feet of the virtual massive swash plate

Is anything really going round other than constant reconfiguration of kite?


Rod Read

Windswept and Interesting Limited
15a Aiginis
Isle of Lewis
HS2 0PB

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10578 From: roderickjosephread Date: 11/3/2013
Subject: Re: What is a rotational kite?

Of course there is also the kixel.

Able to part rotate about it's centre (e.g. deform it's tail (back line coax like control))

or 

Able to fully rotate about it's centre (cross kixel kites (inverted box design with top and bottom steering lines))


Once rotated they fly with a circular collective path on a massive radius.


I'm pretty sure these panel type of kixels would want side edge stiffening.. as kixels stay small it's not a big problem ... But it does lead me to slightly prefer the idea of steerable gills and overall wing deformation as actuated from a footplate



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10579 From: dave santos Date: 11/3/2013
Subject: Re: Possible solutions for SkyWindPower (lesson of yellow journalism

Pierre,

You live in a bubble :)

Dave Culp is still my cherished friend and mentor, and we talk and exchange email regularly (He even reached-out and asked me to join his AYRS forum, after the contentious period you recall). DaveC was at the time of his "anti-Makani Yellow Journalism" (2009?) complaint within Makani's camp (as a paid contractor), under social pressure to make any defence of the dominant Makani at the time (no one else could or would). After all, I was known as "his man" (at KiteShip) in Makani's eyes. I was the scape-goated inside whistle-blower of early Makani engineering miss-steps. We now laugh about this period. By the way, my AWES testing of the OL kite has long continued (even to this day, side-by-side with NPWs) with reports and media files shared to DaveC.

So here is my best "Lesson of Yellow Journalism" in AWE-

You are guilty too, if stating sincere but controversial technical opinion on this Forum is Yellow Journalism. But the Forum is not journalism; its an expert email list. So be an expert, in cooperation with your peers.

MikeB is a professional journalist, whose working methods are perhaps more yellow than DaveC ever complained about (see Wikipedia rules). On the other hand, I really am a hard-working AWES researcher, if you just allow direct kite work to count. We share the Forum as equals (not blogmaster and favored commenter). No one is censoring you here.

I really do think MikeB is using you to help legitimize his crude attack on SWP, but this is no journalist opinion,

daveS







On Sunday, November 3, 2013 10:35 AM, Pierre BENHAIEM <pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10580 From: Rod Read Date: 11/3/2013
Subject: Re: Clear Limits to Conventional Wind foreseen by Harvard's SEAS (AW
It's true... as Mike says
Just as the Makani assessment has significant portions that can be abstracted to any cross-wind approach to generation

Where the significant portion is to the set of crosswind AWE what chocolate sprinkles are to the set beverages.

Is reference and maths. (check the spelling... it's maths by the way)

Gathering any volume of qualitative statistical data on any health issue is a nightmare task. Physicians only came to scientific method in some forum members lifetimes.

Sorry for the continued Mike bashing. Group baying for blood just isn't cool.

Q
What would do generation well and give significant improvement for societal health ?...
A
A great big white 3D cinema dome kite with projections of Adam Hills (watch, research, follow) imploring everyone to not be a D!CK!

Rod Read

Windswept and Interesting Limited
15a Aiginis
Isle of Lewis
HS2 0PB

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10581 From: Rod Read Date: 11/3/2013
Subject: Re: What is a rotational kite?
Bloody typical I've changed my mind on this again sorry.
A kixel with rigidised sides (from upwind) Can reverse it's flight (left to right from upwind) more easily..
When that motion is combined with foot position variations (front and back loadpaths pulled to sides) the overall effect will be very worthwhile

Rod Read

Windswept and Interesting Limited
15a Aiginis
Isle of Lewis
HS2 0PB

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10582 From: dave santos Date: 11/3/2013
Subject: Re: Clear Limits to Conventional Wind foreseen by Harvard's SEAS (AW
Rod,

Good point, its not MikeB that needs bashing on the Forum. Only mistaken technical claims and journalistic errors are the issue. Lets ignore the emotional smoke and focus on specific technical claims posed (like if Makani really has a "robust" technology)*.

Of course, MikeB is not well prepared answer such questions, so lets help him by providing sound answers. That's my intent in invoking MTBCF, so he might correct the public record. I perhaps took him too-literally at his word that he welcomed being corrected, in making a up a list of bloopers for him to defend, so as to judge his mettle,

daveS

* This one is typical; confusing force cubed by velocity with "cubing of wind velocity", nor seeing the SWP autogyro crosswind power component, nor the MP vertical axis component, nor comparable TSR, nor comparing frontal streamtube efficiency, not to mention flawed syntax: "Sky Windpower is foregoing most of the cubing of wind velocity Makani takes advantage of by cross wind flight while still suffering from a large loss of wind swept area."



On Sunday, November 3, 2013 1:01 PM, Rod Read <rod.read@gmail.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10584 From: Pierre Benhaiem Date: 11/3/2013
Subject: Towards a constructive critical of different methods of AWE
Hello Mike,
 
I put again my precedent post with some complement.
 
On your paper about Sky WindPower (SWP) my advice is you do not make enough the balance between the huge resource of HAWE and the huge technological challenge you mention.It is not possible to write about AWE in a same way than for a "new" wind turbine.AWE is a complex field with various components.Utility-scale can be for tomorrow,after tomorrow,or never.
 
Here is a example about possible utility of SWP:due to warming and also to depletion of fossils,all resources of renewables are needed and harnessed.And it is possible to conceive an environment (with for example far less aerial circulation, informations and professional activities going by internet) where SWP would be implementable.That means harnessing massively HAWE would be a part of a new industrial-economic-social environment.See for example new green towns. So what looks impossible today can be a reality tomorrow.In the same way technological progress can make the tether lighter.     
 
As you see,there are several methods in AWE,only one detail being able to make success or failure.
 
As you point Makani is actually the most developed AWES (automated lauching and recovering,automated flight).But this does not prevent to produce an advice (like you make for rotary systems) about not quite developed AWES (the others) because some elements are the same and for some different elements deductions and extrapolations are possible.
 
On your future papers you could make a difference between possible inherent problems of AWE and some families of AWE and problems due to the temporary lack of available materials and technologies (for example AWE prototypes and SkySails' production would have been impossible before new light and strong tethers).Maybe mention "possible for today,or for tomorrow,or never".
 
Concerning marking and lighting (and also no inhabitants-and-other economies zone) for yoyo crosswind tether-kite (SkySails) if possible to analyse what is the same or not the same by comparison with flygen (Makani):indeed beside crosswind motion,there is also a downwind motion towards the top during power phase,then recovering,marking and lighting following this motion.
 
"Was there another proposed solution with relatively equivalent public documentation you would like to me to look at?"
 
Both Skymill (yoyo,groundgen) and Sky Windpower) have rigid blades like autogyros or helicopters. So it would be interesting to examine a rotary kite with soft wing(s) (parafoil-like).Concerning safety it can be very different (falling with lower consequence and slowly,but with some risks to analyse). Rotokite Presentation - Sequoia IT (2 wings in opposition,yoyo) animation on Rotokite, wind generator - YouTube.The only real film (low quality of video) is for a similar system but with only one kite (I think two soft wings are not needed since the swept area is maximized with only one wing)--- on Rotating kite - YouTube I made without the implementation of the generator.Like you point about rotary kite, there is some loss of generation due to the limit of crosswind component (one side of the blade-wing flies slowly),but this loss is not huge.I measured a force of 4 kg for a 0.7 m² kite flying by rotations (or small loops if you prefer) while the same kite pulls 6 kg when it flies crosswind in larger figure-8 (sweeping a not-maximized area).
 
Expected advantages:maximization of the worked space and the swept area,the same that for rigid rotary systems;some economic activities are perhaps possible,the tether and the wing do not travelling crosswind.
 
Expected disadvantages:due to yoyo configuration marking and lighting cyclically go up and down (maybe it is an advantage, showing to pilots there is a system with moving components). Controller (the wing(s) must be implemented close to the kite and fed by a small additional turbine or/and battery,said turbine feeding also lighting on the tether.(If AWE has success,probably all system must be have lightings on ropes,even if FAA does not require it;for yoyo it is a problem only when the whole tether is winded,that is not the case during cyclic operations).Launching and recovering for Rotokite looks difficult,and for only one kite easier (like other kites thanks to the briddle controller).
 
Good work!
 
PierreB  
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10585 From: Mike Barnard Date: 11/3/2013
Subject: So long, and thanks for all the fish
Hi all . . .

I had hoped that by killfiling Dave Santos so that every email from him would disappear in a puff of electrons, I would be able to engage usefully in discussions with others on the AWES forum. Based on the devolution of discussion as well as insights from private emails from observers, that's not the case.

I had assumed that this was a discussion forum for airborne wind energy systems, not the Dave Santos AM Talk Radio show. My apologies for my mistake. It's clear from the lack of useful conversations and the aforementioned private emails that most people with something useful to say have chosen to leave the forum.  It's unclear why this is tolerated or considered a good thing, but that's the reality of the AWES Yahoo group, and I'm a big fan of accepting reality. Joe, as moderator you might want to think about that a bit.

That said, I'll be leaving this corner of the internet to itself and unsubscribing from the Yahoo group. It's clear after analysis that if AWES has a significant part to play in powering the world, it's in a distant and magical future where materials science has evolved much further and air temperature superconductive cables are cheap, insanely strong and weigh nothing.

I will leave you with the following picture and a challenge. This is the first electricity generating wind turbine in the world. It was erected in 1891 by James Blyth. It sat there and produced electricity for his cottage for a long time.

122 years later, there isn't single airborne wind energy system that is doing the same. Raise your game, generate some useful electricity somewhere consistently for a few months. Stop making massively inflated claims that don't stand up to the slightest scrutiny. 


For those of you interested in rational discussions and who have useful corrections for any errors I've made -- as opposed to fundamentally stupid ideas like trains of lifter kites for tethers -- please reach out to me at mike@barnardonwind.com and via comments on my blog, barnardonwind.com. I'm serious about correcting any errors I've made.

More windpower faster!

Mike
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10586 From: Mike Barnard Date: 11/3/2013
Subject: Last note
I still didn't sign up for Wikipedia, but did just add references to the Wikipedia entries on air borne wind energy systems pointing to my analyses from appropriate points.

No sock-puppeting going on, despite DaveS' irrational conspiracy ideation.

Cheers,
Mike
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10587 From: dave santos Date: 11/3/2013
Subject: Re: Towards a constructive critical of different methods of AWE

 
Pierre wrote : "As [MikeB] point Makani is actually the most developed AWES (automated lauching and recovering,automated flight)"

Pierre and MikeB do not account for passive-control classic kite methods. This is true cybernetic autonomy.

KiteLab Ilwaco claims a possible first (someone may have been earlier) automated AWES in 2007 and with self-relaunch in 2008, based on classic kite passive autonomy of the Morse Sled. These capabilities were publicly demoed at the NW Climate Convergence, and the World Kite Museum, before many witnesses [see Hipfish, The Flyer, and online video]. Anyone can confirm what kitemasters know; that several classic kite designs self-relaunch (sleds, boxes, etc.). KiteLab has witnessed hundreds of sled self-relaunches with nary a stuck state (except in tall grass), concluding this is a surprisingly robust mechanism, with scaling shown by self-launching arrays.

Passive kite and AWES autonomy, both relaunch and generation, is real, and its been well documented on the Forum. Makani has required five years to catch up with us, with only the power of an electric scooter from a very fragile system, for so many invested millions (only one Wing7 launch-land cycle was tested, out of fear). Despite MikeB and Pierre's opinion, Makani's architecture is perhaps least developed as a utility-scale contender by the correct metric- Technology Readiness Level (TRL), and will need decades to ever match hype.






On Sunday, November 3, 2013 3:07 PM, Pierre Benhaiem <pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10588 From: dave santos Date: 11/3/2013
Subject: Re: Towards a constructive critical of different methods of AWE

 
Pierre wrote : "As [MikeB] point Makani is actually the most developed AWES (automated lauching and recovering,automated flight)"

Pierre and MikeB do not account for passive-control classic kite methods. This is true cybernetic autonomy.

KiteLab Ilwaco claims a possible first (someone may have been earlier) automated AWES in 2007 and with self-relaunch in 2008, based on classic kite passive autonomy of the Morse Sled. These capabilities were publicly demoed at the NW Climate Convergence, and the World Kite Museum, before many witnesses [see Hipfish, The Flyer, and online video]. Anyone can confirm what kitemasters know; that several classic kite designs self-relaunch (sleds, boxes, etc.). KiteLab has witnessed hundreds of sled self-relaunches with nary a stuck state (except in tall grass), concluding this is a surprisingly robust mechanism, with scaling shown by self-launching arrays.

Passive kite and AWES autonomy, both relaunch and generation, is real, and its been well documented on the Forum. Makani has required five years to catch up with us, with only the power of an electric scooter from a very fragile system, for so many invested millions (only one Wing7 launch-land cycle was tested, out of fear). Despite MikeB and Pierre's opinion, Makani's architecture is perhaps least developed as a utility-scale contender by the correct metric- Technology Readiness Level (TRL), and will likely need decades to ever match scaling goals, based on poor critical-path progress (especially MikeB's M10 idea)

Human piloted AWES are also currently ahead of digital-autonomy in many critical operational aspects. In any case, the FAA is currently requiring pilots (PIC and VO), the only way forward for now. Giant kite farms will require hard-working super-professional crews.






On Sunday, November 3, 2013 3:07 PM, Pierre Benhaiem <pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10589 From: Pierre Benhaiem Date: 11/3/2013
Subject: Re: So long, and thanks for all the fish
Attachments :
    MikeB,
     
    "It's clear after analysis that if AWES has a significant part to play in powering the world, it's in a distant and magical future where materials science has evolved much further and air temperature superconductive cables are cheap, insanely strong and weigh nothing."
     
    That concerns only AWES for very high altitude such as jet-stream,not the most of projects for altitudes about 600 m.
     
    Concerning your decision to leave the AWES yahoo forum,know that none of the leaders of startups (KiteGen,Makani,Sky WindPower etc.),do not post (or very little) on this forum:lack of time,or other thing but what?!
     
    PierreB
     
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10590 From: dave santos Date: 11/3/2013
    Subject: Fw: Finally made the sketched FAA Beacon Kite.

    A really sweet-looking pilot kite in FAA colors by Roy Mueller, Aerology Lab. Photo 3-4 esp..





    On Sunday, November 3, 2013 3:49 PM, Roy Mueller <roy@parafoils.com
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10591 From: dave santos Date: 11/3/2013
    Subject: Re: Towards a constructive critical of different methods of AWE

     
    Pierre wrote : "As [MikeB] point Makani is actually the most developed AWES (automated lauching and recovering,automated flight)"

    Pierre and MikeB do not account for passive-control classic kite methods. This is true cybernetic autonomy.

    KiteLab Ilwaco claims a possible first (someone may have been earlier) automated AWES in 2007 and with self-relaunch in 2008, based on classic kite passive autonomy of the Morse Sled. These capabilities were publicly demoed at the NW Climate Convergence, and the World Kite Museum, before many witnesses [see Hipfish, The Flyer, and online video]. Anyone can confirm what kitemasters know; that several classic kite designs self-relaunch (sleds, boxes, etc.). KiteLab has witnessed hundreds of sled self-relaunches with nary a stuck state (except in tall grass), concluding this is a surprisingly robust mechanism, with scaling shown by self-launching arrays.

    Passive kite and AWES autonomy, both relaunch and generation, is real, and its been well documented on the Forum. Makani has required five years to catch up with us, with only the power of an electric scooter from a very fragile system, for so many invested millions (only one Wing7 launch-land cycle was tested, out of fear). Despite MikeB and Pierre's opinion, Makani's architecture is perhaps least developed as a utility-scale contender by the correct metric- Technology Readiness Level (TRL), and will need decades to ever match hype.






    On Sunday, November 3, 2013 3:07 PM, Pierre Benhaiem <pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10592 From: dave santos Date: 11/3/2013
    Subject: Re: Last note
    Dear MikeB,

    Thanks for henceforth leaving an auditable trail in all your Wikipedia edits where you cite yourself as the reference. Please consider ending your pattern of total blog censorship of critics. You were never censored here, by a far higher standard.

    Best of wishes for your continued study of AWE. We will follow your contributions with keen interest.

    Your Mexican AM TACO Guy,

    daveS

    PS A "conspiracy" requires more than just one actor. The lone sock-puppet theory remains plausible, so be more careful. The Makani edit still is not up to high ethical standards.
     





    On Sunday, November 3, 2013 5:10 PM, Mike Barnard <mbarnardca@gmail.com
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10593 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/3/2013
    Subject: Re: So long, and thanks for all the fish

    James Blythe  windmill of 1891.  
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10595 From: Rod Read Date: 11/4/2013
    Subject: Re: Fw: Finally made the sketched FAA Beacon Kite.

    Looks like it'll be stable and a strong lifter.
    I had an issue yesterday flying a lifter in strong winds with the boys.
    An imbalance was causing the drogue windsock to spin. Without a swivel it eventually started to have a bit of influence on kite steering.
    Keep drogue lines long.
    Roy can probably quote us near perfect ratios.

    Roderick Read
    15a Aiginish
    Isle of Lewis
    HS2 0PB
    kitepowercoop.org

    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10597 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/4/2013
    Subject: Re: Fw: Finally made the sketched FAA Beacon Kite.

     


    Tail-spin generators is an AWES method yet to be deeply advanced. Stabilize strong lifters with a generating tail of counter-rotating turbine blades.  

    [Moderator note: For unknown reasons two-post spam hit two of our members' email; we deleted the two posts and placed the involved email addresses on "moderated" status.]
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10598 From: David Lang Date: 11/4/2013
    Subject: Re: Clear Limits to Conventional Wind foreseen by Harvard's SEAS (AW
    MikeB wrote…

    Mike, you didn't seem to have a problem including both Skywind Power and SkyMill in the context of (your now above avowed) "rotary kite" comments, while both of these are CLEARY NOT rotary "kites" (I presume, per some distinction you are trying to establish).

    You want "math"?….a few hand calculations mean very little for most of these AWE systems as they are highly dynamic. It is not until you can clearly specify a power-harvesting mechanism, then quantify its performance  by creating a time domain simulation of the system, that you start to get even an inkling of what the real potential (or lack thereof) for power harvest actually is.

    DaveL


    On Nov 2, 2013, at 10:57 PM, Mike Barnard <mbarnardca@gmail.com
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10599 From: dave santos Date: 11/5/2013
    Subject: Skydiving Canopies Pre-adapted for Deploy-Retract Aloft
    Its a challenge to set and douse an AWES wing aloft; for early launch in calm, and to furl in increasing wind (or for low-drag pumping retract).

     A common feature of parachutes is a strong attachment point at the apex (conical canopy) or two points at the topskin B-line center (square canopy). A pilot-chute attaches there, and pulls the chute from the deployment-bag (a model for cascade launch).

    Under formal analysis, this is in principle a reversible operation. By slacking the risers and pulling the chute into a pack (bag or sleeve), the volume of the wing is reduced to < 1/50 its inflated volume [SkySails 2013). The pack achieves very low lift and drag coefficients compared to its max values.

    The AWE Encampment has deployed a mini-OL from a pack hung from the line a small pilot-kite. The launch succeeded, with the pilot withdrawing. Next, we intend to show the full cycle; a pop and douse aloft and retract back into the bag, first with a small kite, then with Taylor's old  XXL skydiving canopy. Sailboat racing spinnaker methods are a close similarity case to imitate.

    CC BY NC SA
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10600 From: dave santos Date: 11/5/2013
    Subject: "Vacuum Packing" parafoils with a blower for reduced furled-volume

     Skysails has validated a parafoil-furling method based on internal draw-lines; the functional basis for masthead furlng of  its ship-kite. The loose bundle is further reduced in volume by an entry cone structure at the deck, to fully stow the kite in its locker.

    A plausibly more effective method of reducing the parafoil volume is to "vacuum" out the air with a small blower. The blower would also inflate the wing again, possibly better than passive ram-air alone. Internal blowing might be a basis for drying a kite while packked. A very large parafoil aloft could be reduced to its true minimal volume, for an ultra-low aero-force coefficient.

    CC BY NC SA
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10601 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/5/2013
    Subject: Re: Lift mass and then drop it

    Special droppings for science: 


    Haul up a rocket in a kite system. Point the rocket toward the ground. Set the rocket into rocket flight straight to the ground. The rocket becomes a penetrator. 

    Final Report for NNX12AR02G
    R. M. Winglee, C. Truitt 
    Department of Earth and Space Sciences 
    University of Washington 
    Seattle WA 98195-1310 
     
    R. Hoyt 
    Tethers Unlimited Inc. 
    11711 N. Creek Pkwy S., Suite D113, Bothell WA 98011-8804 
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10602 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/5/2013
    Subject: Re: WPI gets grant for undersea 'kite' project

     


    Looking for tomorrow's power source? Go fly a (underwater) kite

    Worcester Polytechnic Institute professor receives NSF award to explore the use of tethered undersea kites to generate electricity from tides and currents
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10603 From: Hardensoft International Date: 11/5/2013
    Subject: Fw: Venture Capital for Energy - Company Directory
    Further lifts.
    JohnO
    AWEIA International
    www.aweia.org
    John Adeoye Oyebanji
    From: Ami Jenkins - RMI <researchalert@redmountaininsights.com
    Sender: Ami Jenkins - RMI <barbara@energybusinessreports.ccsend.com
    Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 09:16:33 -0500 (EST)
    To: <hardensoftintl@yahoo.com
    Subject: Venture Capital for Energy - Company Directory

     

    Venture Capital for Energy - Company Directory

     

    This Directory features companies that focus on providing funding to energy-industry firms. This Directory of venture capital firms, angel investors, and government funded energy research centers is a must-have resource for energy-industry professionals seeking VC funding for new projects or business growth. [...]


    Read Full Details Now


    The directory features two parts. The first is a profile section of 71 VC and Angel investing entities that provides an overview of each firm plus contact information. Some of the VC firms profiled include:

    Energy-Focused Venture Capital Firms, @Ventures, Advanced Technology Ventures, Advantage Capital Partners, Altira Group, Applied Ventures, Atel Ventures, Atlas Ventures, Battelle Ventures, Battery Ventures, Bay Partners , Bessemer Venture Partners, Braemar Energy Ventures, Burrill & Company, CMEA Ventures, Canaan Partners, Chevron Technology Ventures, Chrysalix Energy Venture Capital, Commons Capital, Crosslink Capital, DTE Energy Ventures, Digital Power Capital, Doll Capital Management, Draper Fisher Jurvetson, Duff Ackerman & Goodrich Ventures, Element Partners, Endeavor Capital Management, EnerTech Capital, Flagship Ventures, Foundation Capital, Garage Technology Ventures, Globespan Capital Partners, JumpStart Inc., Khosla Ventures, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, Lightspeed Venture Partners, Massachusetts Technology Development Corporation, Mohr, Davidow Ventures, and More.

    The second part to this directory is a spreadsheet of 306 VC firms showing their area of expertise, full contact information including email address in most cases.

    Some of the firms included are:
    RAM Capital Management, RBC Equity Investments, Inc., Renaissance Partners, RockMapleVentures, RockPort Capital Partners, Rothschild Australia Capital Investors Limited, RWE Ventures, Sabey, SAM Equity Partners Ltd., Saw Mill Capital, Schneider Electric Ventures, Scottish Equity Partners, SEP Energy-related Technology Group, Sevin Rosen Funds, Siemens Technology Accelerator, Sierra Angels, SJF Ventures, SND Invest, Solstice Capital, SPFundos, Spring Capital Partners, L.P., Standard Renewable Energy Group, Star Capital, Stone Fund NV, Summit Group Ltd, Sustainable Energy Ventures, Technology Partners, Teknologisk Innovation, The Carbon Trust, The Reinvestment Fund, Tondu Capital, Transconnect Private Equity, Trellis Capital, Trillium Group LLC, Triodos International Fund Management, Triton Ventures, U.S. Global, LLC, UPS Strategic Enterprise Fund, Vaekstfonden, Vancity Capital Corporation, VantagePoint Venture Partners, Vattenfall Europe Venture GmbH, Vencon Management Inc., Venture Investors LLC, Ventures West, Viking Venture AS, Viridis Clean Energy Group, Wall Street Venture Capital, Western NIS Enterprise Fund, WestLB AG, Equity Investments, Wexford Capital LLC, WHEB Ventures Ltd, Windjammer Capital

    This comprehensive directory provides business leaders, business development, sales, and finance professionals in the energy industry leads for financing projects.



    $295.00 - Single User PDF
    $395.00 - Single User Print
    $995.00 - Global License


    $295.00 - Single User PDF
    $395.00 - Single User Print
    $995.00 - Global License


    Key Topics Covered:


    Organizations Mentioned in this
    Report:
    Alliance of Angels
    Angel Capital Network
    Angel Strategies
    Arizona Angels Investor Network
    Ground Floor Finance
    Investors’ Circle
    New Enterprise Forum
    Oklahoma Investment Forum
    Silicon Pastures
    Tech Coast Angels
    Tribe of Angels
    Utah Angels

    Problems viewing this page?
    Copy this URL into your web browser:
    http://redmountaininsights.com/shop/Overview.aspx?id=3603&ref=cc&t=22&d=


    Brought to you by Red Mountain Insights LLC - Research for Savvy Professionals

     

    Questions?

    Call us: 1-800-304-0345 or Email Customer_Care@RedMountainInsights.com

    Forward email
    This email was sent to hardensoftintl@yahoo.com by researchalert@redmountaininsights.com |  

    Red Mountain Insights | 39506 N. Daisy Mountain Drive | Ste 122-460 | Anthem | AZ | 85086

    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10604 From: dave santos Date: 11/6/2013
    Subject: Re: Fw: Venture Capital for Energy - Company Directory

    JohnO,

    Once again, I am in the skeptic role regarding VC shark tank culture, and its shameless promotions.

    Red Mountain Insights is a shadowy outfit (Who are the analysts? Why was the AZ US incorporation 2012 (not 2002)?). They charge outrageous prices for biz listings and "analysis" (min. 295 USD for an "energy" VC list), lisitngs that they no-doubt simply mine from the Net and analysis they make up as they go (which we do for free, as real domain experts). Their one visible partner, Market Publishers, operates from a small office in Cyprus. There is hardly any Net presence, excepting company promotions. 

    Virtually all major venture companies are publicly known already. The Forum is the free place for real AWE industry insights. The irony is that any start-up able to pay for such directories, probably does not deserve more capital (by wasting what it has). One can, in a few hours, gather thousands of free VC leads from the Net we have all built. Below is one of many lists, from Wikipedia, but its underdeveloped, because such lists are of limited interest and value.

    We should by now know to beware against empowering a growing list of unqualified AWE "developers" who only succeed by fooling poorly informed investors. We have billions already on tap (if we patiently meet tech milestones) by known AWE-aware investors (Google, Silverlake, Quercus, Sabic, WOW, Daidalos, Royal Dutch Shell*, US DOE*, US DOD*, US NSF, EU Union, Duke, Austin Energy, etc.).

    Dave North of NASA, in frowning on VCs as a promising resource for AWE R&D, suggests finding new high-net worth individuals (missing from saturated VC directories) with a socially responsible motive. The ultimate winners in AWE may simply bootstrap from earned revenue growth, as all greedy VC bets lose.
     

    * not an endorsement of military and big oil investment in AWE






    On Tuesday, November 5, 2013 10:33 PM, Hardensoft International <hardensoftintl@yahoo.com
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10605 From: dave santos Date: 11/6/2013
    Subject: Two New Goggle (Makani) Patents and Key Prior Art
    These two patents can be summarized as follows: No major inventive leap- The first patent covers a rotatable ground station with a "perch", which has been seen many times (like CMNA's starting concept). The second patent regards putting a motor-generator turbine on a "pylon". This idea appears in many guises, like RATS and SkyWindPower's "H" quadcopter. Endless workarounds exist for the minor design details claimed. These patents seem only suited to defend Makani's narrow system configuration, rather than pose any blocking threat to competitors. 

    Thanks to JoeF for the links-

    Kite Ground Station and System Using Same

    www.google.com/patents/US20130221679
    App. - Filed Dec 18, 2012 - Published Aug 29, 2013 - Damon Vander Lind -Makani Power, Inc.
    A kite system with a ground station adapted for airborne power generation. The kite system may include a kite which comprises one or more ...
    Overview - Related - Discuss
    1.  

    2. Motor Pylons For A Kite And Aiborne Power Generation System Using Same

      www.google.com/patents/US20130221154
      App. - Filed Jan 2, 2013 - Published Aug 29, 2013 - Damon Vander Lind - Makani Power, Inc.
      A motor pylon system adapted for use with an airborne power generations system is disclosed. The pylons may support turbine driven ...
      Overview - Related - Discuss
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10606 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/6/2013
    Subject: Re: Multi Autogyro Rotors On One Line

    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10607 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/6/2013
    Subject: E-Kite Holding


    front page image

    Seeing two versions of apparent company:
         E-Kite Holding

          Kite Holding


    KITE POWER SYSTEM  





    Page bookmarkWO2013147600  (A2)  -  KITE POWER SYSTEM
    Inventor(s):SMEENK COENRAAD LOUIS [NL]; VAN DEN BRINK ALFRED [NL] +
    Applicant(s):KITE HOLDING B V E [NL] +
    Classification:
    - international:F03D5/06
    - cooperative:F03D5/06; F05B2240/231
    Application number:WO2013NL50225 20130327 
    Priority number(s):NL20122008547 20120327 ; NL20122008549 20120327 ; NL20122009454 20120913 ; NL20122009457 20120913


    Louis Coenraad Smeenk
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10608 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/6/2013
    Subject: Re: E-Kite Holding
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10609 From: Rod Read Date: 11/7/2013
    Subject: single skin low wind capability
    Video shared on Facebook by
    Reinhart Paelinck
    The video showing the capabilities of the Peak the best, so far !
    Very impressive.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10610 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/7/2013
    Subject: KITE awards teasing the future ...
    There might be a subtle synergy working in the utility world that might point gray matter toward the coming world of tethered aviation and kite energy  with AWES: 


    Knowledge. Innovation. Technology. Excellence
    KITE Awards
    http://knowledgesummits.com/summit-information/kite-awards
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10611 From: David Lang Date: 11/7/2013
    Subject: Re: Multi Autogyro Rotors On One Line
    JoeF,

    you ask,

    Is JoeF supporting the use of "kite" for the involved rotorcraft lifting device?

    DaveL


    On Nov 6, 2013, at 8:25 PM, <joefaust333@gmail.com