Messages in AirborneWindEnergy group.                           AWES10762to10811 Page 112 of 440.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10762 From: Uwe Fechner Date: 12/29/2013
Subject: Re: AWE is not viable economically

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10763 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 12/29/2013
Subject: Re: AWE is not viable economically

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10764 From: edoishi Date: 12/29/2013
Subject: FlipWing

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10765 From: dave santos Date: 12/29/2013
Subject: Re: AWE is not viable economically

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10766 From: dave santos Date: 12/29/2013
Subject: Current Economic Vitality in AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10767 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 12/30/2013
Subject: Re: AWE is not viable economically

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10768 From: dougselsam Date: 12/30/2013
Subject: Re: FlipWing

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10769 From: dougselsam Date: 12/30/2013
Subject: Re: AWE is not viable economically

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10770 From: dave santos Date: 12/30/2013
Subject: Re: AWE is not viable economically

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10771 From: dave santos Date: 12/30/2013
Subject: Re: FlipWing

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10772 From: dave santos Date: 12/31/2013
Subject: FAA Announces Network of UAS Test Zones

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10773 From: dave santos Date: 12/31/2013
Subject: Service-Life of Kites in Field-Testing

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10774 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/31/2013
Subject: Re: FAA Announces Network of UAS Test Zones

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10775 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/31/2013
Subject: Conggui LUO, Haowei QIU, 丘濠玮, 罗琮贵

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10776 From: dave santos Date: 1/1/2014
Subject: kPower IP Pool License

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10777 From: dave santos Date: 1/1/2014
Subject: Complaint to FairSearch regarding Google's Makani Power Search Bias

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10778 From: dave santos Date: 1/1/2014
Subject: TUDelft Launching Mast (and economic prediction)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10779 From: dave santos Date: 1/1/2014
Subject: EU Announces 113.000.000,00 € "Call for competitve low-carbon ener

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10780 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/1/2014
Subject: Wing ring, and mechanism and method with same

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10781 From: Harry Valentine Date: 1/1/2014
Subject: Re: TUDelft Launching Mast (and economic prediction)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10782 From: dougselsam Date: 1/2/2014
Subject: Re: TUDelft Launching Mast (and economic prediction)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10783 From: dougselsam Date: 1/2/2014
Subject: RE: EU Announces 113.000.000,00 € "Call for com petitve low-c

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10784 From: dougselsam Date: 1/2/2014
Subject: Re: TUDelft Launching Mast (and economic prediction)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10785 From: dave santos Date: 1/2/2014
Subject: Basic Solutions to Pierre's "Inherent Problems" in AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10786 From: Harry Valentine Date: 1/2/2014
Subject: Re: TUDelft Launching Mast (and economic prediction)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10787 From: dave santos Date: 1/2/2014
Subject: Re: TUDelft Launching Mast (and economic prediction)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10788 From: dougselsam Date: 1/2/2014
Subject: Re: AWE is not viable economically

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10789 From: edoishi Date: 1/4/2014
Subject: AWEIA publishes 3 more AWEC2013 videos

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10790 From: dave santos Date: 1/4/2014
Subject: Swiss Kite Power (TwingTec) Strengths and Challenges

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10791 From: Pierre Benhaiem Date: 1/5/2014
Subject: Re: AWE is not viable economically

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10792 From: dave santos Date: 1/5/2014
Subject: Re: AWE is not viable economically

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10793 From: dave santos Date: 1/5/2014
Subject: WPI Validates Low-Complexity Passive-Autonomy AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10794 From: dave santos Date: 1/5/2014
Subject: NextGen ADS-B for AWES Use

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10795 From: Gabor Dobos Date: 1/5/2014
Subject: IFO: the proof of concept

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10796 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/5/2014
Subject: AUVSI

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10797 From: mikebarnardca Date: 1/5/2014
Subject: Engineering compromises of airborne wind energy systems

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10798 From: dave santos Date: 1/5/2014
Subject: Re: Engineering compromises of airborne wind energy systems

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10799 From: Rod Read Date: 1/6/2014
Subject: Re: Engineering compromises of airborne wind energy systems

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10800 From: Mike Barnard Date: 1/6/2014
Subject: Re: Engineering compromises of airborne wind energy systems

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10801 From: Rod Read Date: 1/6/2014
Subject: Re: Engineering compromises of airborne wind energy systems

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10802 From: Pierre Benhaiem Date: 1/6/2014
Subject: Re: Engineering compromises of airborne wind energy systems

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10803 From: Pierre Benhaiem Date: 1/6/2014
Subject: Re: Engineering compromises of airborne wind energy systems

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10804 From: Pierre Benhaiem Date: 1/6/2014
Subject: Re: Engineering compromises of airborne wind energy systems

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10805 From: dave santos Date: 1/6/2014
Subject: Re: Engineering compromises of airborne wind energy systems

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10806 From: dougselsam Date: 1/6/2014
Subject: Re: IFO: the proof of concept

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10807 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 1/6/2014
Subject: Re: Engineering compromises of airborne wind energy systems

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10808 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 1/6/2014
Subject: Re: Engineering compromises of airborne wind energy systems

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10809 From: dave santos Date: 1/6/2014
Subject: Re: Engineering compromises of airborne wind energy systems

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10810 From: dave santos Date: 1/6/2014
Subject: AWE Yellow Journalism Prize

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10811 From: Robert Copcutt Date: 1/6/2014
Subject: Re: Engineering compromises of airborne wind energy systems



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10762 From: Uwe Fechner Date: 12/29/2013
Subject: Re: AWE is not viable economically
Sorry, I was criticizing the use of a not well defined "we" and used this term
myself:

If I use the term "we" I mean the kite-power research group at TU Delft, mainly
the paid staff members Roland Schmehl, Rolf van der Vlugt and myself. See:
http://www.kitepower.eu/team.html

Best regards:

Uwe Fechner

Am 29.12.2013 16:36, schrieb Uwe Fechner:
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10763 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 12/29/2013
Subject: Re: AWE is not viable economically

Uwe,

 

What anybody do you address? To me? to us? To we?

"...we have enough elements to conclude that AWE...". "We" = all people interested in AWE. But I agree "we" do not conclude, only "I" conclude. However I think "we" could conclude the same. For example after seeing your paper http://twingtec.ch/  "we" can see the comparison between wind turbine and TT50 where TT50 is 2 times better regarding the cost of energy. Where is the cost of land/sea used? Where is the cost of maintenance? Where is the cost of reliability? And in the end where is credibility,knowing that other papers are on the same model? On your post (but not on the paper you present!) you point rightly these elements ("We do not know...") (Note your "we" seems to be the same that my "we") , and provide an interesting example as "offshore energy at the coast of Japan ". From now the elements of location, land/sea used (note the disadvantage of AWE can decrease while whole area increases), reliability... should be included within a presentation.

 

PierreB

 

 

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10764 From: edoishi Date: 12/29/2013
Subject: FlipWing
kPower demonstrates the power of a 3 meter wingspan FlipWing at the Texas AWE Encampment. Wind speed was approximately 18mph.  The metal spring scale was hard to hold in my bare hand (with the camera in the other hand) and therefore much power was lost through my body.  Stop motion on the camera revealed spikes up to 25 lbs. More accurate testing to follow.


Scale demonstration anticipates giant wings flying high above the Earth. Ground based single stroke kite engines will harvest the power.

kPower CC by 3.0
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10765 From: dave santos Date: 12/29/2013
Subject: Re: AWE is not viable economically
Pierre's opinion willfully ignores AWE's already long proven commercial success, that aviation has already been exploiting upper wind for over a century, with many billions of dollars worth of direct displacement of aviation fuel at Jet Stream altitudes. We are only getting better at tapping the vast resource, by greatly extending AWE applications, as our wonderful circle of kite masters and aerospace experts see so clearly.

Only a very poorly informed short-sighted observer can hastily and fatalistically conclude AWE is "not viable".  Smarter scientific consensus* is that fossil fuel dependence is not viable economically, to those careful thinkers who remind us that everything depends on a sustainable ecology. As Uwe points out, Pierre does not represent any "we" active in our field, but only his own contradictory notions. Wubbo Ockels represents the true "we"; that we are as a proper civilization free to choose a sustainable energy basis (Leuven 2010), even if it seems to cost more (and even if the French nation had nukes administratively imposed without informed free choice).

Pierre's most erratic behaviour is to still be publicly seeking investors for his pet AWE concepts, but without warning that he thinks the technology must fail economically. This is suggestive of either criminal intent to defraud investors or deep mental confusion. 

Rest assured, AWE is an *amazing* energy frontier. The best science-engineering evidence, as considered by economic experts like Gerard-Hassan, suggests that AWE is a real contender for the "Next Big Thing", an essential energy source needed to urgently replace our dependence on fossil fuels and nukes. "We" are the heros making it happen.


* eg. Union of Concerned Scientists, for many years now, has formally declared our current energy basis of fossil-fuels and nukes as ultimately non-viable. I am a long-time member and supporter of this "grassroots" intellectual movement.


On Sunday, December 29, 2013 9:08 AM, Pierre BENHAIEM <pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10766 From: dave santos Date: 12/29/2013
Subject: Current Economic Vitality in AWE
AWE R&D in recent years has attracted around 200,000,000USD in openly disclosed investment.* Some folks misunderstand this vibrant science-engineering research economy. Its a true boom driven by vast existing surplus wealth. AWE will long continue to grow and thrive on this basis, even if a few skeptics like PierreB or MikeB are sadly right in thinking AWE can never be a standard economic energy tech. 

Many are blind to the moral arc of history boosting societal investment by powers like the EU bloc (with many active AWE R&D grants). They seem to think that "miracle" technologies like AWE (or fusion, medicine, etc.) should only be driven by a banal profit motive. They do not naturally imagine society can embrace the precautionary principle with regard to global ecological risk. Fortunately, such fatalistic ignorance is not preventing a flood of AWE investment willing to take chances for a better future. Universities in particular are eagerly devoting resources to the AWE quest.

Already, WOW has turned a profit (on a Saudi-driven buy-back of KiteGen shares). Makani Power has created several millionaires (folks we personally know) via Google's buy-out. More and more of us are being paid to work hard on kite energy progress. Every year seems better than the last, in economic terms. As you read this, the tangible success of recent experiments is motivating fresh investment. It takes a higher intelligence to allow the long view, that winning AWE only needs time to develop and grow, and lack of money will not be the barrier. Predicting the final economic failure of AWE is foolishly premature.

AWE's list of known losers are those with outdated biz models, like hype-driven "stealth ventures", and those seeking patent monopolies requiring expensive legal services to vainly defend fatally weak IP. The high capital burn-rate for the obsolete biz strategies is pauperizing many small players, who can ill afford to perfect core engineering as fast as possible. Aviation safety reliability is real, but takes effort to perfect. Already aviation is a cheap technology, by passenger mile. Jet travel is safer than using a bathtub. AWE, as aviation, will follow this model.

Kites are the ultimate open-source opportunity for those who focus on fundamental open art and operational excellence; and band together in cooperative networks. The world has changed, and the new winners have new economic models to triumph with, like net-based crowd-sourcing. The AWES Forum, Kite Power Cooperative, AWEIA, and so on, are the focal points for the new business models. Watch the spectacular growth continue all the way to the stratosphere. The resource is real. Join in, if you have value to add, and you will do well.


*  Peter Lynn laughed at my original 2007 conservative estimate of 50 million in AWE investment, and asserted that the true total was far higher, as the best informed kite expert on Earth. He is certainly ever deeper in the race himself, investing his own money and talent ever more passionately.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10767 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 12/30/2013
Subject: Re: AWE is not viable economically

Wubbo Ockels, KiteGen, Makani, Ampyx, Sky Windpower and other companies and serious players in AWE do not write _ or very little and often with hostility and personal attacks (KiteGen, Makani, NTS) from Dave Santos as technical answer _ in "our" forum which is a forum for hobbyists in AWE like me. I precise again the non-viability of AWE regarding economy concerns also my concepts. Of course I do not take into account of fancy concepts like flipping-Bose-Einstein-DaveSantos which technically fail (no or little expected power, see old posts) far before economic examination. "Pierre's opinion willfully ignores AWE's already long proven commercial success...". I have happy to learn the old success of AWE, Dave Santos should propagate the good news."This is suggestive of either criminal intent to defraud investors or deep mental confusion. ": personal attacks, yellow journalism, no arguments as usual.

 

PierreB

   
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10768 From: dougselsam Date: 12/30/2013
Subject: Re: FlipWing
Dave S. you gotta stop with these great videos before we lose you to Hollywood!  Smooth operation =
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10769 From: dougselsam Date: 12/30/2013
Subject: Re: AWE is not viable economically
The latest version of my opinion:
1) The statement of "we" (can't do AWE) is accurate if it refers to all the people who are demonstrating an inability to think their way out of that particular paper bag.  "We" includes, unfortunately, most of the people who would insist it DOESN'T include them... wah wah wah...  Sorry but this is funny to watch.  I consider it great entertainment. (A bit puzzling though, I must say.. like, are these people for real? sheesh!)

2) For better or for worse, I can envision 10 easy ways to do AWE without even straining my brain.

3) I can't see why people are not pursuing promising avenues, but instead seem mired in pretending it will be all about kites intermittently pulling on strings, etc...

4) I don't see any of the teams pursuing any reasonable approaches.

5) Two efforts that were pursuing ALMOST-reasonable approaches seem to have stalled, enjoying no progress, abandoned without explanation.

6) I don't think the approaches currently being pursued properly apply, build on, or utilize, existing knowledge.

7) Most approaches being pursued violate principles learned thousands of years ago, with wind energy being at least 3000 years old that we know of.

8) It amazes me how many workable versions of "Airborne Wind Energy"are actually possible.

9) I don't think any of today's teams have even barely a CLUE as to fruitful and promising design directions just sitting there waiting to be exploited;

10) I don't think most of the teams start out with much, if any, knowledge of how wind energy as practiced today actually works.

11) I don't  think most of the teams see the real possibilities staring them in the face.  Take "laddermill" - more promising than many approaches, endlessly-hyped, yet no working models.  Only the name lives on, misapplied to one more reciprocating kite-puller?  (Do I have that right?  Sorry I don't follow details of all the failure modes - too many to keep track of...)  People give up before getting started!

12) Saying it will never work is great to hear!  I'd like to see the impossibility of AWE become the "scientific consensus".  (Like "global warming"?)  It's extra-fun to demonstrate things officially declared "impossible"!

13) Future non-AWE wind energy systems could become as rare as, say, manually-driven cars. (Of COURSE it's airborne - yes, supported by the wind, hello?)

14) If anyone wants to actually conduct a fruitful R&D program in AWE, please contact me.  I'm confident of many approaches that would lead to  quick positive progress.

15) I think I seem to have an advantage, with years of producing working wind turbines, yet I have not become entrenched, digging my heels into the sand, believing that today's single upwind propeller on a tower is the nadir of wind turbine design.  Today's turbines, to me, seem to be only one more intermediate step, on a stairway to the sky, in wind energy.
:)
Doug Selsam
Southern California
714-749-3909 cel
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10770 From: dave santos Date: 12/30/2013
Subject: Re: AWE is not viable economically
Pierre,

I am sorry if you are offended by my repeated request that you explain how one can think "AWE is not viable economically" at the same time that they solicit investment for pet AWE schemes. This is a fair question. Of course, Doug is our comical champ of personal attacks on the Forum. It seems the French have more delicate feelings than American or Mexican norms :)

Wubbo has been in a life-threatening medical battle, so it may be unfair to assume his absence from this forum is based on emotional sensitivity. I was very honored when Wubbo chose to sit next to me at the Leuven Conference banquet, so we could fully share our common passion for megascale AWE concepts. I was equally honored to then assist in the world record for a branching train of fighter kites, which is as close to Wubbo's Spider Mill AWES concept as anyone has ever shown, and Wubbo was delighted. When folks like UweF and Reinhart participate on the AWES Forum, these are top talents in Wubbo's circle, so its false to suggest that the AWES Forum somehow lacks such representation. If fact, UweF had just engaged you, and we are the top fans of his effort toward a world-class AWE software architecture.

Silent teams like Makani are forced to sign very rigid non-disclosure agreements, with the full force of Google-backed legal stealth. I am the the one engineer ever inside that circle (via KiteShip) to negate this secrecy by going into the files and removing "my" nondisclosure form (which anyway contained "UD" after my signature, for "under duress"). Given the climate crisis, I think AWE secrecy is evil, and challenge GoogleX to openly debate the ethics involved. If you know the story of how incompetent Makani acted in its downselect, its from my insider disclosures of the many safety-critical failure modes. Makani has written the Forum to apologize to DaveL, for aerospace hype.

Its true, that the AWES Forum welcomes "hobbyists" (from Old French: hobel). We proudly do not discriminate on such terms, focusing instead on ideas. There is no other AWE Forum (NASA's attempt went nowhere), so we are the best in the world, whatever our flaws. Note that many of us are top professionals. I have been paid for six years now to develop AWE, and am hardly alone on the Forum as an AWE "pro".

Mike Barnard seems to best fit the title of AWE's "yellow journalist", if you count his error-prone AWE journalism for hire, sock-puppeting his own references on Wikipedia, and a dependence on censorship in one-sided hosted discussions. Those of us who work full-time as AWE developers are not real journalists (or hobbyists). Freely posting your opinions on the Forum (like "AWE is not viable") like I do does not make you a journalist either. We are equals here, unlike "Barnard on Wind"; where you are a favored syncophant. Mike does not ask you where the small-scale prototype of your windwheel is (or why it must cost thousands to make one), but Forum discussion does.

You mock (but do not refute) the view that advanced physics presents deep insights into AWE. All wind energy formally begins as phonons, which is a fertile extension of the stress-wave engineering view. You overlook that Bose-Einstein Statistics properly apply to WECS multi-unit synchronization, including turbine blades (but not especially to flip-wings). From sailboats to flip-wings, tacking wings are simply the most ancient wind energy principle. Never forget, my avowed scheme (a la Fort Felker) is to "test everything", even weak ideas. You never seem to agree that the AWE community "test everything", preferring declarations like "AWE is not viable". You fail to address key technical rebuttals, focusing instead on personal issues. If I have not addressed any point you wish me to, please remind me.

Know that you are still very respected and valued in AWE, for your best efforts,

daveS



On Monday, December 30, 2013 12:52 AM, Pierre BENHAIEM <pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10771 From: dave santos Date: 12/30/2013
Subject: Re: FlipWing
Right On Ed,

So in simplified math, if we fairly presume 4Hz for the flipwing pumping frequency, and 3in for spring-travel (neglecting its small mass), and average the sine wave force amplitude you report (~25lbs) to 10lbs, we get 75W of raw power from a ~1m2 bit of fabric weighing ~4oz. Thats an easy 300W per lb power-to-weight (rather better than Makani Wing7) for a single-skin wing being held at belly-button level in a stiff breeze. The calculation is mostly rounded down, and we were also dissipating significant power in our bodies (as you noted, it hurts to try and hold the wing stiffly).

We give kitemaker credit to 2kiteSam, who made this flipwing a couple of years ago, and note that kPower regards the novel flipwing as an interesting comparative test concept, NOT an AWES down-select, which for us still requires A LOT more testing of all AWES contenders (kiteplanes, rotor AWTs, spinwings, micro-turbine nets, skybows, varidrogues, etc., not to mention mothra arch variants, including galloping versions),

daveS


On Sunday, December 29, 2013 1:44 PM, edoishi <edoishi@yahoo.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10772 From: dave santos Date: 12/31/2013
Subject: FAA Announces Network of UAS Test Zones
In headline news, the US FAA announced details yesterday of a national network of approved test flying zones for UAS.Existing Sense and Avoid procedures and emerging NextGen instrumentation standards will be required (see TACO 1.0). AWES will be in the mix of UAS aircraft types. 

Texas is a big winner, with several large flying zones, from the coastal bend region to the western bend region, with test altitudes up to 18,000 ft. Texas A&M University will be the lead research institution in the state. kPower of Austin, in particular, has been positioning for this long foreseen expansion, with plans to pioneer AWE testing at higher altitudes than the current de-facto 2000ft ceiling (FAA AWE provisional standard, and the upper norm in EU AWE), superseding ad-hoc case-by-case experimental approvals.

This news represents the vanguard of a US airspace revolution, with virtually unlimited drone applications to be incorporporated into general airspace as early as 2017, when the newly announced test phase is set to culminate. In Texas alone, A&M estimates a ten year 8 billion USD economic boom, with over 1000 jobs created (In today's Austin American Statesman).


http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsid=15576
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10773 From: dave santos Date: 12/31/2013
Subject: Service-Life of Kites in Field-Testing
The 2013 Texas AWE Encampment began in April and has run on now for almost nine months. During that time it has been a standard side activity to keep several small single-line kites flying out in the field, or laying out on the ground during calm. The harsh conditions have ranged from high storm winds to high UV sun month-after-month, with rain, frost, dew, and icing events. In high winds, the TEs flap violently for many hours. The kites were often abused, like being dragged in over the rough johnson grass or left in mud, hosed-off, then flown again and again. Urethane or silicone coatings with UV blocks seem to be working well for all the kites, which are all in good condition.

One Encampment kite in particular excelled operationally, McConnachie's Kayakite, nicely made by New Tech Kites of Austin in its China factory, so its been flown the most. Its stable even in high winds without a tail and self-relaunches reliably. Of all our kites, it has been by far the most exposed to long harsh conditions, with an estimated 2000hrs or so of flying time, plus many days laying out in calm. There is not a single flaw yet in its fabric or stitching, and it flies just as well as it did new. The only apparent change is a slight fading of the bright colors, and a bit of crazing in the silk-screened logo that suggests its fabric has stretched about 1-2%. The Kayakite seems ready for a few more thousand hours of service.

In KiteLab's seven years of constant trying to wear out kites, not a single kite has yet come close to end-of-service (My original Peter Lynn trainer, that I have flown the most, still looks almost new, with one coin-size thorn patch). A few minor instant field repairs with cloth tape have sufficed to keep all kites flying. The repeated minor failure mode of note is that embedded spars and battens tend to poke thru their pocket ends after long high wind exposure, so technical kite designers should specially reinforce these points, and add rounded end caps to the spars, like sailmakers do. 

An odd Encampment kite failure-mode was crickets chewing on bridle-lines of one kite left out of its bag. In another instance, a curious bat deliberately nicked, but did not cut, a line, with no obvious countermeasure (Austin is famous for its bats).

The Encampment pattern of high kite durability is consistent with what Peter Lynn has independently reported. The field evidence of Lynn and kPower is that a well maintained kite can give a service life of 5000 hrs or more, far beyond the pessimistic guesswork of some AWE researchers who do not tirelessly field-test, nor account for great progress in kite fabric UV resistance and fatigue life. We can confidently ignore the cautious lifetime ratings of parachutes and paragliders, whose high safety-margins are driven by human-rated risk.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10774 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/31/2013
Subject: Re: FAA Announces Network of UAS Test Zones

Good news!

           AWES, be able to be sensed!


sense-and-avoid technology       Aircraft are to sense other aircraft and avoid collision with those other aircraft.   
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10775 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/31/2013
Subject: Conggui LUO, Haowei QIU, 丘濠玮, 罗琮贵
Reciprocating unloading and loading kite and kite-driving working mechanism thereof, power generation method, and vehicle or boat traveling method
WO 2012146158 A1
Publication numberWO2012146158 A1
Publication typeApplication
Application numberPCT/CN2012/074563
Publication dateNov 1, 2012
Filing dateApr 23, 2012
Priority dateApr 24, 2011
InventorsConggui LUO, Haowei QIU, 丘濠玮, 罗琮贵
ApplicantLuo Conggui, Qiu Haowei
Export CitationBiBTeX, EndNote, RefMan
Patent Citations (8), Classifications (14), Legal Events (1)

External Links: Patentscope, Espacenet
The examiner cited: 
ATENT CITATIONS
Cited PatentFiling datePublication dateApplicantTitle
WO2010084520A1 *Jan 20, 2010Jul 29, 2010Sequoia Automation S.R.L.Tether for tropospheric aeolian generator
CN101050752A *Feb 12, 2007Oct 10, 2007孙正维Directly traction motor generation technology by double row reciprocating interlink fixed rail sweep vehicle
CN101240778A *Feb 6, 2007Aug 13, 2008李庆星Kite power generation method
CN102275779A *Apr 24, 2011Dec 14, 2011罗琮贵控缆机、两种筝、三种风力及水流发电机暨风筝电船
CN201714574U *Feb 1, 2010Jan 19, 2011戴宁;戴坚High-efficiency high-altitude kite electric generator
US4124182 *Nov 14, 1977Nov 7, 1978Arnold LoebWind driven energy system
US20050046197 *Sep 3, 2003Mar 3, 2005Kingsley Gordon BruceWind energy production using kites and ground mounted power generators
US20100032949 *May 15, 2009Feb 11, 2010CMNA PowerSystem and method for altering drag and lift forces on a wind capturing structure
* Cited by examine

---------------------------
Happy New Year 2014 
All AWES world ...
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10776 From: dave santos Date: 1/1/2014
Subject: kPower IP Pool License
This is a reminder that kPower is paying royalties to inventors (like KiteLab Group) who create AWE IP, for limited non-exclusive licenses, in order to amass an industry-leading IP Pool that is in turn supported by fees from major AWE developers and marketers who want the best possible domain coverage against infringement claims. Its taken several years of study, as reported on the Forum, for us to work evolve this strategy, given the unique market conditions AWE faces.

In reality, there is very little AWE IP that is not easily challengeable, so there are few court challenges anticipated in our field, given the high risk of legal invalidation. Many fundamental kite patents have expired, and the two-thousand year history of kites abounds with amazing prior art. The Forum has put a huge volume of prior art and new thinking into the public domain to prevent blocking patents, and the only IP claims to our shared Forum knowledge are creator moral rights under copyright law, like CC 3.0.

The Pool intent is for AWE IP to be free for individuals and small developers, and low-cost for more ambitious ventures, around 1-2% of base cost. Holders of a kPower IP Pool License would tend to have overwhelming ammunition and wide social support to rebuff any infringement claim by any party only holding a handful of AWE patents (like GoogleX). Creation of the Pool reduces uncertainty for large investment.

The Pool will be governed transparently and democratically by the IP holders, ideally under the Kite Power Cooperative structure, but we are just at the start of the formalization process. An ongoing group effort is needed to rank IP for fair valuation.

Please join and help out if you are an AWE IP holder, and you will start getting a bit of income from your efforts, which should grow far faster than if there were no IP Pool. There will be a bonus factor for early participation. Participating IP holders are free to license outside the Pool, since the terms are nonexclusive. This is a creator-driven process, responsive to our needs.

Contact Ed Sapir (edoishi@yahoo.com) to join the AWE IP Pool and get your royalty payments started. Special Thanks to WOW for supporting this kPower IP Pool strategy.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10777 From: dave santos Date: 1/1/2014
Subject: Complaint to FairSearch regarding Google's Makani Power Search Bias
Its long been an obvious conflict of interest that Google's AWE search results put its own equity investment, Makani Power, at the top. Carreer aerospace experts like DaveL and ChrisC have publicly noted the pattern of extreme hype behind Makani's high-complexity down-select. Clearly Wikipedia and other neutral sites are a much fairer introduction to AWE, especially since Makani marketing studiously neglects any mention of the wider AWE world. At some point AWE players may be able to join in a class-action lawsuit against Google, which has been settling similar unfair business complaints worldwide.

Its also unclear if Makani has honestly represented its competitive weaknesses to its GoogleX parent. Many if us are counting on Damon (Cc:ed) to make sure the contentious history of complaints has been clearly conveyed to his GoogleX managers for possible relief (like open comparative testing of all contending architectures, including megascale low-complexity).

Here is my New Year's submission to FairSearch's "Share your Story" page-


Subject: Google search unfairly favors GoogleX company

There is a large R&D community in Airborne Wind Energy (AWE), also known as Kite Energy. GoogleX's Makani Power is just one player; arguably not the domain leader that marketing hype implies. Makani Power's site comes to the top of Google searches, rather than neutral and balanced sites like Wikipedia. Other search engines do not unfairly rank Makani Power at the top, but point to independent information sites.

The entire AWE field is overshadowed by Google's PR machine, and search engine results are just one instance of the unfair business practices employed. For example, Google lobby influence secured an exclusive subsidy by the US DOE, despite the existence of many qualified developers, and the obvious fact that Google hardly needs government subsidy for its equity investments.

Thank you for any help FairSearch can bring to our field.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10778 From: dave santos Date: 1/1/2014
Subject: TUDelft Launching Mast (and economic prediction)
 Articles about AWE are now so common they are easy to overlook. This nice UK Guardian science blog article contains an interesting picture of a TUDelft launching mast experiment, and a recent video-


Roland is cited in the text as predicting that AWE will be well validated at utility scale within five years, and that the technology prove economically competitive.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10779 From: dave santos Date: 1/1/2014
Subject: EU Announces 113.000.000,00 € "Call for competitve low-carbon ener
The scamble is on for EU AWE teams to soon get the major R&D funding that AWE deserves-


The cool billion € available dwarfs the budget scale of any single existing team. It will make sense to pool many EU teams together for serious comparative study across the academic and venture world (for perhaps the envisioned 100,000,000 € (kPower) "Fraunhofer Plan"). A collective application is stronger than piecemeal applications, but either way, how exciting the progress will be.

The US has failed to step up in like fashion, so the EU low-carbon energy initiative means a tremendous lead for the region. A lot of us outside the EU will be migrating in to participate. Non-EU teams may get subcontracts via EU partners. TU Delft is already on this, and may be the natural leader (esp. if Wubbo can maintain influence), for coordinating full national participation across EU.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10780 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/1/2014
Subject: Wing ring, and mechanism and method with same

Thanks, DaveS, for another interesting instruction involving tghe same Conggui Luo and a different partner

on a different collection of claims:


WO2013041025A9

Wing ring, and mechanism and method with same

Publication numberWO2013041025 A9
Publication typeApplication
Application numberPCT/CN2012/081623
Publication dateMay 2, 2013
Filing dateSep 19, 2012
Priority dateSep 20, 2011
Also published asWO2013041025A1
InventorsConggui LUO, 罗琮贵, Shouyong QIU, 丘寿勇
ApplicantLuo Conggui, Qiu Shouyong
Export CitationBiBTeX, EndNote, RefMan
Classifications (24), Legal Events (1)

External Links: Patentscope, Espacenet
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10781 From: Harry Valentine Date: 1/1/2014
Subject: Re: TUDelft Launching Mast (and economic prediction)
Governments have been subsidizing tower-based wind turbines . . . without that subsidy and the feed-n tariff, it is likely that very few such turbines would be in operation.

A power market that could operate free from government control and free from government subsidy and/or regulation would likely provide opportunity for cost competitive power generation technologies, including workable AWE technologies.

Hope that the TU-Delft kite technology is successful

Harry

To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
From: santos137@yahoo.com
Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2014 18:18:51 -0800
Subject: [AWES] TUDelft Launching Mast (and economic prediction)

 

 Articles about AWE are now so common they are easy to overlook. This nice UK Guardian science blog article contains an interesting picture of a TUDelft launching mast experiment, and a recent video-


Roland is cited in the text as predicting that AWE will be well validated at utility scale within five years, and that the technology prove economically competitive.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10782 From: dougselsam Date: 1/2/2014
Subject: Re: TUDelft Launching Mast (and economic prediction)

Typical forward-looking statements (below):  powering any number of homes "in 5 years" (but just not a single house until then). Next they will undercut the cost of utility-scale windfarms, all without ever building a small small prototype that could power a single cottage.

"With a 25 square metre sail like that we can produce enough energy to cover the needs of 40 households, with less [environmental] impact than a conventional windmill and at reduced costs," says Roland Schmehl at TU Delft.

Really?  So how many houses is it powering now?  What puzzles me is this:  You start with a "laddermill" which implies you had already considered a single-kite reel-in/reel/out arrangement, and, seeing that it could not yield steady-state operation, modified it into a loop, resembling a looping rope ladder, therefore the name "laddermill".


That was the same process I went thru in a few minutes of consideration as a youth in 1978, after ordering a pamphlet from the government about how wind energy worked.  Time: a few minutes  Education:  a single pamphlet.  So you may note, it took a few minutes for a kid with no degree to sketch out a steady-state "laddermill" (which I did not name "laddermill", but I think is an apt name), in 1978, without having heard anyone else's ideas for airborne wind energy.  It also occurred to me at that time that a rotating (crosswind!) version using propellers (gasp!), that held their ground against the wind, might be even more effective, but to this day I believe laddermill MAY have some merit, possibly more than seems apparent until it is up and running, yet nobody bothers to even build one!  At any scale!  Not one!  All they talk about is needing more money?  Guess what?  You don't need more money!  You need an idea that works and you can build a small one for a few hundred bucks.  That will prove you have something that works, and go forward from there. See the problems and start refining it.   Otherwise you are just wasting investors money, with false hopes, because you can't make something that can power a single cottage, no matter HOW much money you are given.  People make working wind turbines from junkyard scrap.  It is not money that is needed. It is a workable configuration that you need.

:)

Doug Selsam
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10783 From: dougselsam Date: 1/2/2014
Subject: RE: EU Announces 113.000.000,00 € "Call for com petitve low-c
The U.S. is doing its part:
I now have patents issued for SuperTurbine(R) in ALL countries of the E.U.
This opens the door for more serious  development of steady-state airborne wind energy systems especially offshore.  Call me, I will answer.
:)
Doug Selsam
714-749-3909 cel
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10784 From: dougselsam Date: 1/2/2014
Subject: Re: TUDelft Launching Mast (and economic prediction)
The Wind Energy Industry maintains that other energy sources are subsidized, so wind energy is just keeping up with existing fossil fuel subsidies.  The American midwest was powered by a million small turbines before subsidies were considered.  Before that, wind turbines were the leading non-animal industrial power source in Europe for 1000 years.  The reason was not subsidies, but instead reliable, steady-state power production.  There are many wind turbine installations that are not subsidized, but just there to provide electricity.   This includes most off-grid installations.  They are there becuase they work, a reason that seems to have been lost on the current crop of AWE enthusiasts.  (You want something that just works??? no way!)  Sure, subsidies can help a workable industry grow, but the notion that you can just "subsidize" an otherwise unworkable technology into profitability is just one more way to waste a lot of money and talent through misguided application.  You are unlikely to grow a good crop from poor quality seed.  the idea is the seed.  If it is not a good idea, it will never bear fruit, no matter how much fertilizer is used.  And unlike agriculture, bullshit is the wrong fertilizer in this case.  When bad ideas are heavily subsidized, the end result is that remaining pile of bullshit.  Luckily we have flies that will eventually clean up the mess.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10785 From: dave santos Date: 1/2/2014
Subject: Basic Solutions to Pierre's "Inherent Problems" in AWE

Pierre wrote: 

"Inherent [economic utility-scale AWE] problems are: reliability and high level of maintenance, land and space occupation for an unit of power."

Rebuttal:

The following is a rough consensus of what the most experienced kite and aerospace experts working in AWE know. Its hard to name a single pessimist in our growing circles who believes that AWE cannot ever become economic at large scale. Even Mike Barnard allows that AWE can succeed, if only slowly.

Low-Complexity AWE has the basic reliability of cheap simple kites. Kiteflyers know kites always fly, with just a quick preflight inspection to make sure lines are clear. High-Complexity AWE (like Makani) may need a decade or more to develop adequate reliability, but this does not logically invalidate AWE's eventual economic viability.

Soft Kites are very low maintenance. Kite fliers spend very little time on maintenance. Repairs are only infrequently needed and easy to do in the field. At worst, a sewing machine suffices. Kite UV and fatigue lifetimes have exploded since modern materials evolved.  High-Complexity AWE will require more maintenance, but it is not proven this will forever prevent economic operation (smart engineers tend to solve maintenance issues).

Industrial winches and generators on the ground are very standardized and reliable, and will serve for many decades. Maintenance is mostly occasional lubrication, with very infrequent overhauls. Existing utility powerplants have a basic level of maintenance directly comparable to Low-Complexity AWE (which can even drive legacy plants as hybrids).

The University of Maine has simulated and tested soft power wings with a calculated and measured 30% streamtube efficiency. This unit-power may not be quite as high as an ideal turbine, but its impressive nevertheless, fully powerful enough to enable AWE as a dominant energy source. kPower estimates about a 20% efficiency (to account for AWES self-lift need), which is still plenty.

There is no airspace shortage, the sky is very big, and mid-air collisions are increasingly rare (~1 mishap per 2,000,000hr). NextGen will increase practical airspace densities in a revolutionary leap. We only need 1/200 of the world airspace to fully power civilization with AWE. Kite farms will be as tolerable an aviation obstacle as mountains are.

AWE promises to coexist over land use like agriculture. Already, kPower has proven easy coexistence of intense kite operations with hay production. Just as aviation easily flies over populated areas, someday so will AWE, even as FF AWE. The aviation experts working in AWE, including the FAA, do not foresee a fundamental shortage of airspace for AWE. Any battle over airspace will be political, and societal need will prevail.

Regarding objections Pierre omitted: Large-scale AWE will easily afford the labor required for operations. The larger the kite farm, the more economic. No large power plants operate without a crew, and they are "economic" (by disallowing hidden enviro damages). AWE will be greener, if not "cheaper".

Conclusion- Experts like those at TUDelft, who forecast economically viable AWE, have the preponderance of  facts on their side. AWE pessimists are a tiny minority, with far less logical basis for their views.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10786 From: Harry Valentine Date: 1/2/2014
Subject: Re: TUDelft Launching Mast (and economic prediction)
You've raised a valuable point . . .  that there was time when unregulated, subsidy-free wind power generated electricity and served people's needs.

Be interesting to see what happens when cash-strapped governments stop subsidizing (and regulating) electric power . . .  especially the technologies that will generate electric power in the future

To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
From: dougselsam@yahoo.com
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2014 09:05:41 -0800
Subject: RE: [AWES] TUDelft Launching Mast (and economic prediction)

 
The Wind Energy Industry maintains that other energy sources are subsidized, so wind energy is just keeping up with existing fossil fuel subsidies.  The American midwest was powered by a million small turbines before subsidies were considered.  Before that, wind turbines were the leading non-animal industrial power source in Europe for 1000 years.  The reason was not subsidies, but instead reliable, steady-state power production.  There are many wind turbine installations that are not subsidized, but just there to provide electricity.   This includes most off-grid installations.  They are there becuase they work, a reason that seems to have been lost on the current crop of AWE enthusiasts.  (You want something that just works??? no way!)  Sure, subsidies can help a workable industry grow, but the notion that you can just "subsidize" an otherwise unworkable technology into profitability is just one more way to waste a lot of money and talent through misguided application.  You are unlikely to grow a good crop from poor quality seed.  the idea is the seed.  If it is not a good idea, it will never bear fruit, no matter how much fertilizer is used.  And unlike agriculture, bullshit is the wrong fertilizer in this case.  When bad ideas are heavily subsidized, the end result is that remaining pile of bullshit.  Luckily we have flies that will eventually clean up the mess.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10787 From: dave santos Date: 1/2/2014
Subject: Re: TUDelft Launching Mast (and economic prediction)
Roland's mention of subsidies is only incidental to the technology. Its mainly investors that care about subsidies, as part of their professional outlook, and they do read The Guardian. Here, of course, we are more focused on technical benchmarks that most investors have no grasp of.

Doug should applaud that, by diligent efforts, many AWE R&D teams are consistently improving flight times. The critical path trend is quite good.* He will almost surely live to see robust utility-scale AWES automation, based on both active and passive controls.


* 30-60hr autonomous-flight sessions are reported by Makani and kPower, for specific flight-autonomy experiments. KiteSat is a good example of a current TRL9 AWES that simply just works, indefinitely, with sled-kite self-relaunch even.


On Wednesday, January 1, 2014 6:18 PM, dave santos <santos137@yahoo.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10788 From: dougselsam Date: 1/2/2014
Subject: Re: AWE is not viable economically
Hey Dave, no you are the champ.
And I think you are being a little hard on Pierre too.
His opinion is valid, as his opinion at least, and if I didn't see many good ways to do AWE besides the currently-hyped attempts, I would say his commentary, as applied to current efforts, may turn out to be accurate anyway.  Maybe soon, all the experts will be saying AWE is impossible.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10789 From: edoishi Date: 1/4/2014
Subject: AWEIA publishes 3 more AWEC2013 videos
Thanks to AWEIA for publishing 3 more videos from AWEC2013 in Berlin. This collaboration between AWEIA, AWEC, kPower, and WOW is dedicated to knowledge sharing in the spirit of open science.

Corey Houle of SwissKitePower. Subject: Collaborative R&D project:

David Olinger of Worcester Polytechnic Institute. Subject: Modeling and Testing of a Kite Powered Water Pump:

Franz Stuber of Munster University of Applied Sciences. Subject: AWE in Teacher Education:

Thanks to Chase Honaker for video work.

-Ed Sapir
AWEIA treasurer
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10790 From: dave santos Date: 1/4/2014
Subject: Swiss Kite Power (TwingTec) Strengths and Challenges

As seen in the AWEIA video, Corey made a fine presentation for Swiss Kite Power (TwingTec) at AWEC2013. We see why UweF is so impressed with them.

They have done very interesting economic projections; for the first time in academic-oriented circles, taking a good close look at AWE space efficiency (GWhr to km2). They find an advantage to close-fly (overlap land-cells) and fly units higher in the kite window (bucking the trend in the Springer AWE book), for max power by land area. They find a natural potential to exceed conventional wind farm power by 10x in the same area (KG dense-array architectures suggest 100x is possible under 2000ft FAA ceiling). They project medium-term AWE energy pricing to be about 50EU per MWhr. The LCOE calculations are more transparent, detailed, and realistic than earlier projections by other teams.

The TwingTec team is abandoning the flying control pod in favor of steering actuation from the ground. This low-complexity pick reduces mass aloft, a critical safety issue at larger scales, and avoids onboard power need (TUDelft intends RAT-powered control pods). The polished electro-mechanical test platform is rather pretty for an agile-engineering developmental prototype, but this is the common EU fashion (as grunge is in fast US garage-starts). The automation works, with line-angle sensing, but the flight patterns look wild at times. Everybody's automations have alarming random instabilities, esp. given lifetime time-scales. Crashworthiness is currently essential to survive to payback.

The Twing kiteplane is TwingTec's design icon, currently flying at about the 3m2 scale. It zips about nicely but is also seen tumbling repeatedly in the Swiss "Einstein Show" media coverage, but crashes unharmed. Scaling limits will apply. A Twing may well scale to 150m2, as a beautiful jumbo "ultralight" aircraft, and even retain some inherent crashworthiness.

The tensarity airbeam wingspar makes an interesting comparison with classic kite solutions. Modern sled kites have a closely-related low-pressure ram-airbeam with embedded composite whiskers. Ram-air parafoils uniquely stiffen in proportion to velocity. The Twing seeks a higher L/D with a super-pressure airbeam, toward maximizing power-to-wing-area and reducing high motor-reeling retraction-drag losses (Lower L/D Conventional sport kites are at a disadvantage during haul-back upwind, especially in stronger winds, but work well on crosswind cableways, with just brief tacks in cycling).

The Twing will probably evolve toward full span-loading (bridle-lines all along span) as it scales, to minimize mass and thickness. From a classic kite heuristic view, the kiteplane looks to need some vertical fore-and aft surface area forward, for the rudder to act against, and to help stability flying sideways, and at the edges of the window.

TwingTec is a great team doing quite well on many fronts. Major current challenges include developing a good launching and landing method, and proving a Twing beats cheap sport wings by LCOE. In the long term, they will be competing against denser (wing-area-to-airspace) crosswind softkite architectures with far larger units, passive stabilities, and without downwind reeling cycle costs.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10791 From: Pierre Benhaiem Date: 1/5/2014
Subject: Re: AWE is not viable economically

The power of a 5 MW wind turbine could be reached by a soft kite of roughly 5000 m² (or a rigid kite of 500 m²) flying crosswind. If the generator is at ground  the used traction of tether is something like hundreds tons. So above even a great agricultural farm with few inhabitants in the region the risk is too high. In case of flygen method the risk is also too high.
So utility-scale AWE could be possible only offshore. The density of conventional wind turbines offshore is something like 10 MW/km² , maybe less;the space between each turbine is something like 600 m (5 times the diameter of the rotor).Now 600 m is not enough by far for an AWES of 5000 m² flying in figure-8 or loop minimizing the used space. In case of different wind directions each unity can touch the neighbor And boats can pass between conventional wind turbines (with some risks), but probably not under kites and their respective tethers working  according to variable crosswind movement and which traction is hundreds tons/kite-tether.Concerning management and maintenance:a permanent service is needed, it is not possible to call a ship for each problem.
Is it the end of the story of AWE? No, because AWE is a challenge for all searchers, the wind resource is huge, and the need of clean energy increases.
 
PierreB
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10792 From: dave santos Date: 1/5/2014
Subject: Re: AWE is not viable economically
 Pierre,

Keep in mind that working sailing ships reached a 10MW power rating, and the crews operated all over the rigging during operation. In ship-towing, and trawling crews directly handle the hawsers, and work next to loaded lines. I have rigged large complex lifts with cranes up to a 600 ton rating, and set the hooks and place large loads by hand. You seem to have no idea how common such work is today. Its safe enough for men.

Note how close mighty trains operate to traffic and buildings, and how jumbo jets fly over everything, at tens of megawatts rated power. Giant show-kites and ship-kites operate in close proximity to crew and other operations. 

On the kPower hay farm, we have confirmed that there is no major safety issue to harvesting hay near Mothra1 (with several tons of surging kite force). The upwind zone is completely clear for action, and one can briefly bring down the wing, if needed, to harvest any spot, but the natural periods of calm and variations in wind direction allowed hay harvest without forced dousing of the kite. Mothra1 flew safely at a public kite event right on the spot that Edeiken died. We relearned old lessons from Edeiken's death, and continue to fly giant kites, rather than despair.

You don not seem to reason from such extensive real-world experience, which harms your ability to see how megascale AWE can in fact work safely onshore. You seem to imagine some authority can block us, and disregard that offshore operation is the more challenging environment, both economically and safety-wise.

daveS


On Sunday, January 5, 2014 3:07 AM, Pierre Benhaiem <pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10793 From: dave santos Date: 1/5/2014
Subject: WPI Validates Low-Complexity Passive-Autonomy AWE
DaveO's presentation at AWEC2013, as seen on AWEIA's video, described WPI's move away from piloted sport kites and toward a basic passive-autonomy capability for a water pumping AWES. This harkens back to Jitendra Goela's 1983 vision for such a system, and Goela, one of our folk-heros, is in fact part of the WPI team.

The WPI kite is a cheap simple commercial 81ft2 Morse sled, with a tail (an attending engineer asked "what's that?"). A sliding mass on a rocker-arm at the ground creates a mechanical feedback loop that modulates kite AoA. There is no digital computer, nor any electro-mechanical hardware. Nominal work-rate is pumping 150 liters an hour under a simulated deep-well head load, which is a good start, but will go much higher as the design evolves, and is tuned-in for a wider wind range.

Many of the most prestigiously credentialed leaders in AWE R&D have long denied the feasibility of AWES low-complexity passive autonomy. The myth has been common in academia that AWE depends on complex computational control. KiteLab Group, since 2007, has publicly demoed dozens of passive-control AWES (including water pumping), but now the passive AWE club is growing, and cannot be denied from Ivory Towers.

WPI is also a good example of the AWE economic boom in fundamental test-engineering. They have recently secured a large US NSF grant to study underwater kite energy. The era of fraudulent AWE marketers easily raising millions for pet AWE schemes may be over. The predicted golden age of real AWE engineering-science, by modest hard-working players like WPI, has clearly begun.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10794 From: dave santos Date: 1/5/2014
Subject: NextGen ADS-B for AWES Use
AWES will operate in NextGen airspace by means of UAT-based ADS-B technology. This will enable energy kites to launch and land with minimal impact and risk to other air traffic, and help perform the sense-and-avoid FAA requirement.

The main AWES-specific research issue is how to delineate long kitelines as NextGen trajectories; how best to generate the data, for example, either by multiple UATs along the lines, which seems like overkill, or some simpler cheaper estimation method, or local sensor network along the lines.

While the technology is satellite navigation based, jamming the sat (or UAT beacon) signal or other hardware-software failure would only force a low-complexity self-stable AWES to land normally (as opposed to unstable aerobatic AWES proposed to depend on GNSS (GPS) for attitude control). Spoofing might still be an issue, as UTexas AE has warned.

kPower has submitted a proposal to partner in NextGen integration research with TAMUCC, the FAA designated UAS airspace testing institution along the Texas Coastal Bend area. Partners from the wider AWE community are invited to join the effort.

The following link is to ADS-B Technologies, a leader in the field. The website provides good background info. Note the ready availability of small reasonably-priced UAT beacons suited for experimentation-
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10795 From: Gabor Dobos Date: 1/5/2014
Subject: IFO: the proof of concept
Gentlemen,

it is time to respond to your posts below. Take a look please at the following two links:
This is the proof of concept of my energy harvesting gliders ("IFO") that you wanted to see.

"Re-GENERATION SYSTEM:
Our electric re-gen systems provides battery charging during non-powered flight/gliding. This system can also be used with our folding prop to force the motor to stop so the prop can fold. "
http://www.electraflyer.com/price_list.php

The following link contains a photo of the aircraft:
http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/pilot-talk/more-pilot-talk/light-sport-chronicles-profiles-in-vision-randall-fishman.html

I have received some further details from the company about the solution and how it functions. It can be integrated into our preliminary plan, though of course a further development is needed.
There is nothing unforeseeable. As I told before

The larger part of the whole system can be developed and constructed this way, using "off-the-shelf" components. Other parts of the system need further research work.


DaveS, yes, dreams are dreams. But don't forget: toda la vida es sueno, and I dare to dream great, though sometimes it is un frenesi, sometimes una illusion, sometimes una ficción. But now (and for some time now) it is the reality.

Doug, just one question: are you serious? I am.

Gabor

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

PS.: Your cited posts:



On 2013-08-23 17:18, Doug wrote:

On 2013-09-04 17:44, dougselsam@yahoo.com wrote:
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10796 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/5/2014
Subject: AUVSI
http://www.auvsi.org

Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10797 From: mikebarnardca Date: 1/5/2014
Subject: Engineering compromises of airborne wind energy systems
Hi all . . .


I know that those of you working in this field are aware of the challenging compromises entailed in each of the major decisions regarding harvesting wind with airborne devices, but I've put together a post on the subject trying to capture at least 80% of the common decisions. I hope that you will find this of interest, and perhaps of use.

http://barnardonwind.com/2014/01/06/airborne-wind-energy-a-collection-of-challenging-compromises/

As a reminder, I no longer subscribe to this AWES group, so please reach out to me via mike@barnardonwind.com or the comments section of my blog with corrections to my inevitable mistakes and suggestions for improvements.

Happy New Year,
Mike
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10798 From: dave santos Date: 1/5/2014
Subject: Re: Engineering compromises of airborne wind energy systems
Hi Mike,

You are mostly correct, if rather slow, in identifying well-known flaws in the select group of AWE concepts you chose.

The basic logical fallacy in your thinking is to conclude from a partial sampling of still weak early contenders that there are no other possible AWES architectures that can ever succeed. A secondary fallacy is to not be able to see any important niches where even inferior AWE can beat conventional wind (like say, by capital cost, fast deployment, NIMBY "ridge-line" perceptions, or mobile remote apps).

A big shortcoming in your wind advocacy is to prematurely present AWE R&D as a conclusive failure, and to imply thereby that serious societal investment in R&D is not desirable. Watch as progress simply continues, to see if your pessimistic take really stands the test of time.

Since you choose to censor even neutral factual corrections of your AWE webstuff, I won't bother to point out all the obvious factual errors in your latest writing (issues previously well-covered on the Forum), but do encourage you to keep studying, and take some heed of your many critics regarding your journalistic ethics. You will not be censored on the AWES forum, but are welcome to add your aerospace novice views to the mix,

daveS







On Sunday, January 5, 2014 7:06 PM, "mbarnardca@gmail.com" <mbarnardca@gmail.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10799 From: Rod Read Date: 1/6/2014
Subject: Re: Engineering compromises of airborne wind energy systems
Thanks Mike,
It's always good to keep considering as large a range of factors as possible.
I think looking into mesh systems or large oscillatory systems may rejuvenate your enthusiasm for AWE.
You do need to make a point in journalling... but saying Maintenance of airborne devices is much higher than for ground-based turbines.You're way off the mark there.


Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10800 From: Mike Barnard Date: 1/6/2014
Subject: Re: Engineering compromises of airborne wind energy systems
Hi Rod . . .

Regarding maintenance, manufacturers of HAWTs guarantee 95% uptime at present. They receive preventative maintenance once every six months typically.

My analysis of AWES to-date indicates that there is no way that AWES systems will achieve that. And that farms of cross-wind devices will likely require at least adjacent generators turned off to maintain a single generator given the safety risks. 

You might be thinking of a different metric, but I'm thinking of thinks impacting capacity factor. Perhaps I'm not clear enough on that point?

What makes you think that AWES will not require significant maintenance downtime compared to flight time? Is there an industry study on this point you could point me to?

Cheers,
Mike



On 2014-01-06, at 4:36 PM, Rod Read wrote:
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10801 From: Rod Read Date: 1/6/2014
Subject: Re: Engineering compromises of airborne wind energy systems
Attachments :
    You have me there Mike,
    There is no industry study as the industry I'm describing still doesn't exist.

    There's no way my any of my local turbines get 95% uptime. Unless you mean up on a pole.

    Of course a kite doesn't fly if there is no wind... unless it is a valley strung mesh... another system you could look at if interested. (Not flying in no wind isn't an indication of not being ready... which is what system uptime indicates.)

    Kite systems can be maintained on the ground whenever there is a lull in the wind. Compare that with the cost of specialist rope and tower access certified engineers, with cranes if anything does go wrong.
    Kites last over 5000 hrs in service. Kites can easily be swapped to smaller kites in high winds. Kites can be hot swapped. Kites spares are swapped in under a minute.

    A narrow view of what the class "cross wind device" encompasses is harming your analysis.

    Keep thinking of thinks


    Rod Read

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

    07899057227
    01851 870878
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10802 From: Pierre Benhaiem Date: 1/6/2014
    Subject: Re: Engineering compromises of airborne wind energy systems
    
     
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10803 From: Pierre Benhaiem Date: 1/6/2014
    Subject: Re: Engineering compromises of airborne wind energy systems
    
    " Energy potential increases with the cube of velocity of air, so rigid wings have significant potential advantages."
     
    This sentence is not correct:"potential advantages" of rigid wings has nothing to do with the cube of velocity of air, but with the square of their own speed generating apparent wind speed like a blade of wind turbine. Please correct me if I am wrong. 
     
    PierreB
     
     
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10804 From: Pierre Benhaiem Date: 1/6/2014
    Subject: Re: Engineering compromises of airborne wind energy systems
    
    "
    • Potential energy of air is a function of the velocity of air cubed. This means that the faster the air is flowing over any device, the more energy that can be gained from it.
    • A dominant strategy for increasing airspeed is flying kite devices through the air in figure eights or circular patterns, using the forward motion of the kite to increase aerodynamic lift. Whether generation is in the air or on the ground, this increases the total amount of energy to be harvested."
    The same as the precedent message:
    Simplified formula for yoyo (but in part working with flygen) is:
    Power = 2/27 air density x kite area x wind speed cubed x lift coefficient  (lift coefficient/drag coefficient)²
     
    So wind speed cubed and kite speed squared.
     
    PierreB

     
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10805 From: dave santos Date: 1/6/2014
    Subject: Re: Engineering compromises of airborne wind energy systems
    Aircraft availability across all sectors (military, commercial, and general) runs about 60%. Most downtime is scheduled conservative maintenance to ensure human flight safety standards (or service weapon systems), and does not apply to simple fabric kites, even large ones, which any experienced kite flier knows are pretty much always available, with only the occasional quick simple repair, or quick change in quiver. Our groundgen systems will be similarly robust to conventional wind gens, but more accessible for cheaper faster repair and replacements.

    Conventional wind availability, compared to AWE, is limited by low placement on a tower. Common effects, like night-time surface inversion, stop HAWTs dead, while AWES will enjoy the typical accelerated LLJ above that Wayne and Cristina identified. Accounting for the wind gradient with altitude is why top academic teams are able to predict a capacity-factor advantage for AWES over conventional wind. MikeB is not informed enough yet to account for these facts.

    =========== Side Complaint about MikeB's Modus Operandi================

    Joe and I had to track MikeB down as the anonymous sock-puppet violator of Wikipedia rules on Makani's webpage, and correct the damage (you're welcome, MP). We will continue to correct Mike, point by point, as time allows. Mike's AWE gaps and errors simply fall apart upon expert critical scrutiny, but I expect him to long continue to hide in willful cowardice in blocking and otherwise avoiding open honest debate, the better to emotionally sustain his unique anti-AWE bias. 

    Rod is now inadvertently feeding into Mike Barnard's notorious bias* by allowing crude AWES prototypes as somehow a proper availability standard to apply to an eventual mature field. As with Pierre (the unnamed "correspondent", who Mike invokes as the "opportunity" for his latest AWE attack), he cherry-picks technically irrelevant rhetorical weaknesses to suit a HAWT-and-Nuke-Only agenda, while ignoring critical logic, like altitude-enhanced AWE capacity-factor. 

    Mike too easily flummoxes folks by demanding easily found sources, yet he does not cite any peer-reviewed sources in AWE (like Springer AWE book). He should do his own newbie homework for the many authoritative sources for topics like aviation availability and estimated AWE capacity factor data, before publishing.


    * Mike has been called a "one man propaganda machine" for Industrial Wind, and far worse, by a very long list of his critics. His censorship of comments to his articles is a widespread complaint. He calls this "moderation", without regard for his conflict-of-interest as the all-powerful censor. Deleted comments posted elsewhere are found to be tame sincere opinion, worth respecting. He, on the other hand, is not censored as he roams the net with his own opinions, that are often gratuitously abusive.


    On Monday, January 6, 2014 6:33 AM, Pierre Benhaiem <pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10806 From: dougselsam Date: 1/6/2014
    Subject: Re: IFO: the proof of concept
    Hi Gabor:
    One thing almost every "new idea" in wind energy has in common is being "possible" in the sense that a "proof of concept" is not really in question.
    Good to know, you at least respect the laws of physics.  That is a start.

    You're basically re-stating that your idea "does not violate the laws of physics".  For every economically-efficient way of harnessing power, there are perhaps a million non-economical ways to harness SOME power, but by spending far more money than that power is worth.

    Virtually ALL the bad ideas use the laws pf physics to make power.  Look at the tilting disc that pushes and  pulls on pistons.  It clearly does not violate any laws of physics, just that it costs more and produces far less power than a propeller.  It's not worth building, no matter how many "geniuses" re-invent it.

    Anyway, I will wait with bated breath (whatever that is) to hear of the economic success of your system.  Hey, you never know!  Good luck!
    :)
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10807 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 1/6/2014
    Subject: Re: Engineering compromises of airborne wind energy systems

    DaveS,

     

    From your last post:" As with Pierre (the unnamed "correspondent", who Mike invokes as the "opportunity" for his latest AWE attack)..." I deny formally.

     

    From MikeB'text:"Recently, a correspondent asked me about the strengths and weaknesses of Kitegen’s Stem concept for airborne wind generation.This provided a useful opportunity to formalize my thoughts regarding design choices and the compromises that they typically entail around airborne wind energy systems. "

    It is not me! I propose the price of yellow journalism for Dave Santos!

     

    PierreB 
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10808 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 1/6/2014
    Subject: Re: Engineering compromises of airborne wind energy systems

    DaveS,  (correction "prize")

     

    From your last post:" As with Pierre (the unnamed "correspondent", who Mike invokes as the "opportunity" for his latest AWE attack)..." I deny formally.

     

    From MikeB'text:"Recently, a correspondent asked me about the strengths and weaknesses of Kitegen’s Stem concept for airborne wind generation.This provided a useful opportunity to formalize my thoughts regarding design choices and the compromises that they typically entail around airborne wind energy systems. "

    It is not me! I propose the prize of yellow journalism for Dave Santos!

     

    PierreB 
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10809 From: dave santos Date: 1/6/2014
    Subject: Re: Engineering compromises of airborne wind energy systems
    There are dozens of unfair assumptions and critical errors in MikeB's AWES piece. In deciding where to start the correction process, lets look first at the most unfairly judged, like SkyWindPower, as triage.

    SkyWindPower is the team with the historic first serious flying electrical generator (FEG), as they called it, in 1986. The design evolved greatly over the years, and does not suffer under the imaginary defect MikeB claims-

           "Sky Windpower is non-viable due to tether weight alone. "

    So MikeB scored SWP a zero, despite its scoring points in 4 of 5 categories. His engineering scoring matrix is a pathetic novice effort nowhere near AE standards. He merely pulled subjective numbers out of his head (very predictably, HAWTs got a perfect score).

    The technical facts are this- 

    SkyWindPower long ago revised down its altitude targets to the same initial 2000ft FAA ceilings we all face. There is no issue with the calculated feasibility that all FlyGen teams have in reaching the FAA ceiling. If and when regulatory ceilings rise, SkyWindPower merely has to put lifter kites along its conductive tether to reach high altitudes (KiteLab Group Forum Finding).

    Kite trains routinely served this purpose during the Kite Golden Age over a century ago (to raise payloads and set altitude records of ~10km, with primitive designs and materials). MikeB is wrong to have hastily asserted last year that  kite trains are not viable (to allow fallacious dismissal of FEGS at high altitudes).

    MikeB's many remaining errors are similar "wind energy disinformation", as will be patiently shown.


    ======= apology to Pierre ==========

    Dear Pierre,

    I am very sorry if I am wrong about you being MikeB's unwitting "opportunity" to crudely trash AWE, and we all make mistakes. My evidence is not conclusive, and I should have written "my guess is", rather than posing opinion, based only on a pattern interactions, like a fact.

    If the AWES Forum where "yellow journalism", due apologies and corrections would not be routine, and we would not be speaking as equals under the RAD mission, free to disagree. Please ask Mike who he had mind when he invoked the unnamed "correspondent" (if he will be transparent here),

    daveS


    On Monday, January 6, 2014 9:30 AM, Pierre BENHAIEM <pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10810 From: dave santos Date: 1/6/2014
    Subject: AWE Yellow Journalism Prize
    Pierre wrote- "I propose the prize of yellow journalism for Dave Santos!"

    Pierre; after all, I proposed you for a Germy Award, so now we are even :)

    I nominate Mike Barnard for AWE's Yellow Journalism Prize...
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 10811 From: Robert Copcutt Date: 1/6/2014
    Subject: Re: Engineering compromises of airborne wind energy systems
    Mike,

    Dave S. may well have irritated you but to take yourself off the AWES
    forum because of him and then to continue to write about AWE is
    unethical. Your blog is full of errors and false assumptions. So much so
    that I am left seriously questioning your honesty and integrity.
    Dishonesty always inevitably eventually comes back to bite us. In the
    future when AWE has made the present style of HAWT totally redundant the
    AWE community will remember your attempts to trash the industry and
    opportunities will be closed to you.

    Robert.