Messages in AirborneWindEnergy group.                           AWES11078to11127 Page 118 of 440.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11078 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 1/22/2014
Subject: AWE: new discipline of kite-art for fun or towards high altitude win

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11079 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/22/2014
Subject: Re: Stable Down-going Kites

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11080 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/23/2014
Subject: Trombley makes heat, noise, vibration, spinning

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11081 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/23/2014
Subject: Structures from aft of kited wing to main tether

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11082 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/23/2014
Subject: Re: Structures from aft of kited wing to main tether

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11083 From: dave santos Date: 1/23/2014
Subject: AWE as Aviation (review & correction)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11084 From: dave santos Date: 1/23/2014
Subject: Energy Ethics, Wind-Towers, and AWE Economic Viability

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11085 From: Rod Read Date: 1/23/2014
Subject: Re: AWE: new discipline of kite-art for fun or towards high altitude

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11086 From: roderickjosephread Date: 1/24/2014
Subject: Re: AWE: new discipline of kite-art for fun or towards high altitude

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11087 From: Rod Read Date: 1/24/2014
Subject: Re: Stable Down-going Kites

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11088 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 1/24/2014
Subject: Inherence v. engineering

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11089 From: dougselsam Date: 1/24/2014
Subject: Re: Inherence v. engineering

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11090 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/24/2014
Subject: Re: Stable Down-going Kites

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11091 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/24/2014
Subject: GRP distinguish from CRP or CFRP

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11092 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/24/2014
Subject: Gyrokite

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11093 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 1/24/2014
Subject: Re: Gyrokite

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11094 From: dougselsam Date: 1/24/2014
Subject: The almost complete lack of intelligence of humans

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11095 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/24/2014
Subject: Density

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11096 From: dave santos Date: 1/24/2014
Subject: Re: Inherence v. engineering

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11097 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/24/2014
Subject: Re: Inherence v. engineering

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11098 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/24/2014
Subject: Re: Inherence v. engineering

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11099 From: dave santos Date: 1/24/2014
Subject: Re: AWE: new discipline of kite-art for fun or towards high altitude

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11100 From: dougselsam Date: 1/24/2014
Subject: Re: Inherence v. engineering

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11101 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/24/2014
Subject: Re: Gyrokite

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11102 From: dave santos Date: 1/24/2014
Subject: Re: The almost complete lack of intelligence of humans

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11103 From: dave santos Date: 1/24/2014
Subject: Re: Inherence v. engineering

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11104 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/24/2014
Subject: Re: Inherence v. engineering

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11105 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/24/2014
Subject: Re: Inherence v. engineering

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11106 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/24/2014
Subject: Re: Inherence v. engineering

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11107 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/24/2014
Subject: Re: Inherence v. engineering

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11108 From: Harry Valentine Date: 1/24/2014
Subject: Re: Inherence v. engineering

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11109 From: dave santos Date: 1/24/2014
Subject: Crosswind Lattice-SpinKite Arrays

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11110 From: Rod Read Date: 1/24/2014
Subject: Re: GRP distinguish from CRP or CFRP

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11111 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/24/2014
Subject: Wind Power Kite

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11112 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/24/2014
Subject: Re: Stable Down-going Kites

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11113 From: Gabor Dobos Date: 1/24/2014
Subject: Re: Energy Ethics, Wind-Towers, and AWE Economic Viability

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11114 From: dave santos Date: 1/24/2014
Subject: Re: Energy Ethics, Wind-Towers, and AWE Economic Viability

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11115 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 1/25/2014
Subject: Re: Inherence v. engineering

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11116 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 1/25/2014
Subject: Re: Inherence v. engineering

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11117 From: Rod Read Date: 1/25/2014
Subject: Re: Stable Down-going Kites

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11118 From: Rod Read Date: 1/25/2014
Subject: Re: Crosswind Lattice-SpinKite Arrays

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11119 From: dougselsam Date: 1/25/2014
Subject: Re: Inherence v. engineering

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11120 From: dougselsam Date: 1/25/2014
Subject: Re: Inherence v. engineering

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11121 From: dave santos Date: 1/25/2014
Subject: Re: Crosswind Lattice-SpinKite Arrays

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11122 From: dougselsam Date: 1/25/2014
Subject: Re: The almost complete lack of intelligence of humans

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11123 From: dougselsam Date: 1/25/2014
Subject: Re: Passively Autonomous Kite Power

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11124 From: dougselsam Date: 1/25/2014
Subject: More idiot newbies, more lies

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11125 From: markbrinsden Date: 1/25/2014
Subject: Re: More idiot newbies, more lies

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11126 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/25/2014
Subject: Re: Inherence v. engineering

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11127 From: dave santos Date: 1/25/2014
Subject: Re: The almost complete lack of intelligence of humans




Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11078 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 1/22/2014
Subject: AWE: new discipline of kite-art for fun or towards high altitude win

Pessimism v. Optimism means nothing. If wind energy works well in next future for offshore HAWT but not for AWE,it is all the same a good thing for renewable. AWE has two ways to contribute in wind energy: as a component for a sea/groundborned system, and as a whole system. The winning design (if it exists) should look simple and obvious, as the current design of HAWT. So forget the style of a kite linked to four pulleys whereas six supplementary ropes run under twelve other pulleys acting a swivelling tray linked to a secondary element allowing alternating right and reverse AoA... Forget also obviously non-workable elements like (for kites) passive-control, being good for kite-art or even for some energy production but only for some hours, like kite-pilot (how do you launch both kite-pilot and power kite ?!), and above all fancy conversion systems like flipping with no possible production but maybe with some applications within kite-art as funny AWES.Please DaveS forget also Heidegger: for you conversion in wind energy is already difficult to understand, and Heidegger is also very difficult to understand. Forget also numerous futile arguments: a good system speaks by itself and is easily understood.

The serious teams like DELFT, Makani, Ampyx, Windlift, etc..., by making a very good job, show kite systems have serious problems like moving tethers on great areas. My idea is these designs are not enough AWE specific: kite + turbines, kite + reel system etc. AWE design should look simple and recognizable, not a juxtaposition, and of course not an accumulation of devices to correct devices to correct other devices... So it is possible to deduce the tether must be stationary, both lift and crosswind power being assumed by rotation. So AWE winner could be a sort of gyrocopter with specific features making it light and huge.

 

PierreB

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11079 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/22/2014
Subject: Re: Stable Down-going Kites

Rod, 

     I am not confident that I have captured the description just given; here is a draft of a first round interpretation of the description:   (thanks for any correction or redirection)

http://www.energykitesystems.net//DRAFTDRAWS/DRAFT001.jpg


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11080 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/23/2014
Subject: Trombley makes heat, noise, vibration, spinning
Trombley had a preference of mounting his blades on the lower part of a simple bridle. He preferred to have bearings.  Yet the result was that he converted upper winds into spinner mechanical motion (naturally: that then would be converted into heat of friction, some noise, as some vibrations.) Someone else might want to use the rig to generate electricity.  He noted that he was achieving keeping the axis of rotation fairly horizontal. 

Filed May 26, 1921


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11081 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/23/2014
Subject: Structures from aft of kited wing to main tether
This topic thread is dedicated to structures that go from the aft end of a kited wing to the main tether, not counting the wing itself. 


Most simple structure might be a string from the aft end of the kited wing to the main tether; even with such most simple structure, there are options about the string, its texture, its length, its point of connection with the main tether, the nature of the connection with the main tether, whether or not the line is elastic or not, whether or not the line is connected firmly with the main tether or not or goes through a fairlead for control in various arrangements, whether or not the line is involved through connection with other items or parts.   Description of dynamics of the system with such a structure may be studied and reported. 

Then the simplicity could be removed by having a structure which is more complex than a simple line. 

A wide variety of explorations may be made. Invited are any interesting findings that may affect the generation of energy or the accomplishment of specific special works that might save the world from having to use fossil fuels. Or the performance of good works that are especially fulfilled by a structure from the aft end of a kited wing which structure is forwardly connected to the main tether used in the kiting operation.   Or the performance of passive or active control over the kite system by such situated structure. 

?: tails that kiss the main tether?
~ JoeF

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11082 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/23/2014
Subject: Re: Structures from aft of kited wing to main tether

A start sketch: 

http://www.energykitesystems.net/Structures/AftToTether/AftToTether001.jpg



Even such seemingly most simple structure has infinite variations; which among the variants will solve some need important to someone? 

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11083 From: dave santos Date: 1/23/2014
Subject: AWE as Aviation (review & correction)
Review: AWE will be regulated under FAA/ICAO FARs as an aviation class designated as AWES. We will be subject to every relevant requirement for safe flight. Conventional wind power is not aviation, according to professional aviation standards.

Corrections: Doug is consistently confused in claiming that wind towers are actual aviation. They do not meet dictionary definitions for flight, nor operate in regulated airspace under flight rules. Wind tower folks may say they "fly", but they really don't. Wind turbines can be described as having pitch-roll-yaw axes, but so are non-flying cars, boats, cameras, etc., so this linguistic quirk is not the proof-of-flight Doug imagines.

These corrections are not made for the sake of argument, but to correct factual errors on the record.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11084 From: dave santos Date: 1/23/2014
Subject: Energy Ethics, Wind-Towers, and AWE Economic Viability
Could AWE be economically viable as a wind-tower killer?

Industrial wind advocates are facing strong NIMBY insurgencies as they seek to build-out the surface wind resource near populations. Full theoretic deployment would be so sprawling that only a few extremists favor it. The latest issue of Scientific American notes that the transition to renewable energy, barring revolutionary solutions, is moving slowly. Worldwide, the share of wind and and solar is still below 5%.

Academic and professional estimates of actual and potential wind-power space-utilization suggest that AWE can be far more compact for a given capacity (assuming wide enough kite farm units to leverage higher altitudes). AWE promises to slash the capital cost of massive wind towers. The median range of AWE LCOE estimates is within reach of most energy markets, but does AWE really have to be "cheaper than coal" to advance?

Wubbo is right: Advanced urban communities with a strong sustainability-ethics will choose to pay more for cleaner energy. Much of the amazing success of wind energy in Texas is based on Austin electricity consumers voluntarily choosing to pay more for wind energy. Many EU countries share this progressive sociology. AWE will be a very popular idea in these markets, and possibly very profitable were it is most valued. A wildcard is whether rural NIMBY tower opposition will embrace AWE as a better option. Politics will drive economically viable deployment as fundamentally as technical factors.

The few lonely critics of AWE economic viability suppose a brutal world where saving a few pennies per kilowatt-hr is all that counts. In this grim view, if carbon fuels are cheaper, that's what must "win", at whatever hidden costs to nature and human well-being. Perhaps the critics badly underestimate the chances for an ethical energy economy to emerge. A similar anti-humanistic bias exists against human AWES piloting, which kite freaks agree would be a dream job.

Ivan Illich's brilliant 1973 classic, Energy and Equity, is still unsurpassed in framing energy ethics-


Let Pierre vainly cry, "Fog!"  :)
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11085 From: Rod Read Date: 1/23/2014
Subject: Re: AWE: new discipline of kite-art for fun or towards high altitude
Attachments :
    A line of these aught to do it PierreInline images 1

    Rod Read

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

    07899057227
    01851 870878



    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11086 From: roderickjosephread Date: 1/24/2014
    Subject: Re: AWE: new discipline of kite-art for fun or towards high altitude
    Attachments :

      Still have to work on getting the driver kites skinnier but this is showing some promise.

      Want to tie it all to only work on an outer tether set too.

        @@attachment@@
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11087 From: Rod Read Date: 1/24/2014
      Subject: Re: Stable Down-going Kites
      I hope to get round to drawing one soon, but since we have a taught line and a weight hanging in a wind
      Loads of configurations are possible.
      You can add a swivelling fuselage (boom) and sail web from up the line to the fuselage tail. Mount wings and fins around the weight, set or controllable from the fuselage.
      Suspend more weight below and tie off it for more stability.
      All the frames of reference are there in the model.
      Push, pull and kick stuff in until you get a good enough result

      Rod Read

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

      07899057227
      01851 870878



      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11088 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 1/24/2014
      Subject: Inherence v. engineering

      Last years and yet now, said crosswind kite systems (yoyo and flygen) were studied in first as most promising schemes. But some deeper analysis shows problems like moving tethers over a huge area, like non optimized both swept area and worked area, like also irregularities of power (see on videos on http://flygenkite.com ) and losses, probably stresses in both tether and wing, the motion being not as natural as rotor motion. These problems can be qualified as inherent problems: with a tether in nanotube, with some improvements, the problems will stay, making such schemes non economically viable with regard to HAWT. So the tether and also the flying member should be stationary, crosswind motion being assumed by the blades like for a HAWT or a gyrocopter, the swept area being optimized. But actually such autorotating kites are too heavy and are able to fly with more than 6 m/s wind speed, making it not (yet) viable. Is an inherent problem or a problem of engineering? If some features make gyrocopter able to fly with 2-3 m/s wind speed by producing energy on the basis of half swept area with correct Betz ratio, AWE will have a foot into viability.

       

      Are searchers making crosswind systems in some organizations like Delft or Makani newbies or Crackpot? Of course no, there are fine searchers making optimized job about all components, from active-controle to aerodynamics, the chosen solutions being actually better; but without enough taking account of the difference of inherent problems and problems of engineering, or more probably having not yet the possibility for that.

       

      So the (for the moment) non-viability of AWE makes possible all ridiculous theories with futile arguments like I cannot prove them (but I assert 3 times/week as basis for Mega-Giga-Watt-Scale) but you cannot prove they do not work; makes possible the perpetual false confrontation enters Doug and DaveS, Doug posing correct technical (comprising about SuperTurbine(R)) and historical assertions and fine analysis about correlation between them, but without convincing enough due to interferences with qualifications of newbies and Crackpot, and also sentences like "all roads go towards SuperTurbine(R)"; and DaveS collecting both false technical directions by promising the world with fabric and string ,and hair-splitting under appearances of skill. So the "match" between Doug and DaveS is finished for a long time: of course  Doug was the winner. 

       

      So concerning a tethered AWE I propose studying different features for a lighter gyrocopter-like. All people for it is welcome for a real cooperation, even DaveS with his high qualities of dynamism. Please DaveS make good science! Stop with F-B-E (flipping Böse-Einsten), stop promising the world with Mothra-Arch which is even not an AWES (where is the conversion system?), only a kite being able to fly in prevailing winds, only a basis for funny "Kixel" AWES, please return to correct schemes like yours in www.energykitesystems.net/KiteLab , please listen to Doug more instead arguing and arguing.

       

      PierreB 

       

       

      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11089 From: dougselsam Date: 1/24/2014
      Subject: Re: Inherence v. engineering
      Yeah, thanks for noticing, Pierre B.
      Watching all these supposedly smart people, with all their millions of dollars, making spectacular claims and predictions of glory, without even having a basic understanding of what they were doing, pretending they are doing anything but amusing themselves, has been a technological version of a tragicomedy.  Like watching the bloopers of early attempts at flight, specifically, the pumping umbrella comes to mind.

      Some of the claims are merely never followed up on, like that stealth-looking rendering some Aerospace company brought to the 2010 conference at Stanford, while others have wasted everyones' time and investors money chasing schemes that a few minutes conference with me might have steered them away from.  As though placing a bunch of wet-behind-the-ears yet enthusiastic students out in a field and taking videos of them flying kites really hits the mark.  Me bringing a working demo of SuperT to the first conference didn't seem to make much of a difference - people still wanted to reel kites.
      What can you do?  It really IS a world of mostly idiots.  Very few people, at very few moments, are truly capable of being an inventor.  I

      Today, it seems like, as time goes on, many of these "teams" are, true to the formula, beginning the process of "quietly going away", like all the rest of the wind energy "Professor Crackpots" of past years.  At some point, they have no choice.

      Just remember, when people decide they are serious and really want to get AWE going, I am here for you.
      :)
      DougS.
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11090 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/24/2014
      Subject: Re: Stable Down-going Kites

      Rod, 

          One target direction might be missed if the "taut" downline is taken for granted; one target is to obtain robust negative kiting to give the down tension with little dependence on simple mass for the tautness. It costs to keep mass aloft. Negative kiting gives variable tautness for downing whereas once mass is accepted the downing cost of that mass for itself is constant, not variable. Ultralight tactics are encouraged to obtain robust substantial negative lift that would be variable and correlate with wind variation.     The lead ball is just part of an exploration, not intended to be central giver of tautness in the main target exploration.   We keep the mass of a sled kite low to win flight in low-speed winds; similarly in negative kiting one target is to keep the mass low so that positive-lifting systems (kite system or bridge, etc) have less work to do to carry the constant mass of the negative-kite system. 

      Best, 

      JoeF

      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11091 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/24/2014
      Subject: GRP distinguish from CRP or CFRP
      How will be our habit on 

      "glass-reinforced plastic" or "glass-reinforced polymer"
      GRP  ?

      versus

      "carbon-reinforced plastic" or "carbon-reinforced polymer" where the carbon fiber sometimes is referred to as graphite. 
      CRP  or CFRP ?

      The literature sometimes is confusing for the "G"    as it wrestles with "glass" or with "graphite."     Glass is not a carbon item. 

      Example, I am not sure what Rod Read is intending when he writes GRP. 
      In either case the rods employed are compounds; the fibers involved will be a result of choices facing many factors.

      ~ JoeF 

      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11092 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/24/2014
      Subject: Gyrokite
      http://tinyurl.com/gyrokiteGENERAL


      Gyrokite     
         1. Powered
         2 .Non-powered  (simple kiting)

      Powered gyrokite 
            1. Powered anchor
                a. Powering anchor is on ground with torque shaft or fan-belt loop  (early Thomas H. Purcell, Jr.)
                b. Powering anchor is in flight (paraglider sort with tethers to gyrokite above a puller or pusher unit; early patents in realm of Daniel Funcheon, especially with option of kited wing that is a gyrokite.)
                c. Conventional pusher or puller gyrocopter using rigid shaft for autorotating blade while powered pusher or puller propeller creates ambient wind for the enjoyment of the autorating gyro blades.     Gyrocopter   [main lifter blades are not powered except by autorotation; such distinguishes such from helicopters.]
                 d. Powered anchor is a moving grounded vehicle or powered aircraft; such vehicles "tow" the gyrokite, but the total system is a "powered" system with the power supplied by the powered towing vehicle. Such operations may be a launch method for a later gyrokite session. 

      Distinguish:  SWP is a helicopter with a hanging string during part of its operation, not a powered gyrokite during such powered phase; when power is off, then gyrokiting occurs.   So, SWP is not a gyrokite.    Makani Power in powered launch is a captive helicopter during the powered launching or powered landing phase, but when the power is off, then the system become a kite holding autorotating blades for the purpose of generation, not for the purpose of system lifting; hence, such system in the generation phase is not a gyrokite but simply a kite with spinners on it with the spinners arranged so that there is electricity generation. 

      Furtherance and corrections and distinctions are welcome. 
      Lumping all such above into gyrokite misses helpful distinctions. 

      Grant Calverley and David Lang  are in stealth mode. They compete with other teams who are focused on AWES gyrokites. 

      Many kite patents involve autorotation of blades in ambient wind and enhanced apparent wing.  Turbines having blades autorotated by water and air flow permeate energy-generation realms.  Altaeros uses autorotation of HAWT blades without using those blades for system lifting; they are not a gyrokite system, but a LTA lifted-HAWT system; axis of rotation is generally parallel with the stream wind, so the blades are not used to lift weight of the lofted parts. 

      Autorotation occurs for generally HAWT in towered wind energy and in tethered-kite-system wind energy systems.  VAWT have blades that autorotate; flip-wings autorotate.  Mine the rotation for energy to be sent to energy consumers challenges developers. 

      Furtherance, polishing, correction, additions ... are welcome. 

      Best, 
      ~ JoeF


      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11093 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 1/24/2014
      Subject: Re: Gyrokite

      JoeF,

       

      Thanks for precisions. I think in an helicopter-mode like SWP ,being able to be launched by itself, and being stationary during power phase. Some targets: different designs for decreasing the weight and increasing scalability, towards an use also for low (100-600 m) altitude, high altitude becoming later.

       

      PierreB




      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11094 From: dougselsam Date: 1/24/2014
      Subject: The almost complete lack of intelligence of humans
      Imagine the following I.Q test:  Place millions of humans on a planet.  Their main starting point for tools are sticks, rocks, and strings.  The challenge: "How long will it take them to discover the bow-and-arrow?" 

      They are able to attach a rock to the end of a stick, forming a spear, but for a million years, that is as far as it gets.  At some point, someone gets tired of the limitations of using his own arm to throw the spear, and they add another stick, forming the atlatl, or throwing stick. So, they now have two sticks and a rock, but that is as far as they get.  No bow-and-arrow.  Nobody noticed, over hundreds of thousands of years, that they could attach a string to BOTH ends of a stick, and have a new way to launch their stick-with-a-rock-on-the-end.

      By the time Comumbus "rediscovered" ATLANtis, by sailing across the water  where the natives speak NuhATL, (water = ATL in the NuhATL language), and where the cities have names like MazATLAN, IxTLAN, etc., and which region of Mexico is to this day called ATLAN, he found these natives STILL using the ATLATL.  The bow-and-arrow had not made it there yet!  They were still using "throwing sticks".

      So, the lesson is, if you take millions of people, for perhaps a million years, all using sticks and rocks and string every day, no doubt congratulating themselves as being geniuses the whole time ("Look at the animals - they have no moccasins!  No clothes!  We are geniuses!"), they will be very lucky, even if given hundreds of thousands of years, to discover the attachment of a string to BOTH ends of a stick as a throwing device.  That, to me, indicates an almost ZERO level of inventiveness.  It's almost as though the concept of "inventiveness" itself had barely been invented!

      Similarly, the Egyptians, with their peak stone-age ability to make a very large pile of rocks in a square pattern, never even discovered Madagascar, a continent-sized island a few hundred miles away to the East.  When Indonesians finally sailed canoes past India, they found Madagascar populated by giant, flightless birds, fearless of humans and therefore easy to hunt, that made great hot-wings and omelets, until hunted to extinction within the forst year or so, with such birds indicative of islands that have never seen human habitation.  Apparently neither ancient Egypt, nor ancient India, ever sailed there.  In millions of years, nobody sailed 250 miles to reach Madagascar.  We congratulate ourselves for having these great past civilizations, but somehow they never sailed a boat 250 miles off their own East coast...

      The bow-and-arrow seems to have only taken hold in the past few thousand years, slowly spreading across the world.  Arrowheads in North America show spears being used in the early years of proven habitation a few thousand years ago (large, well-made arrowheads), and the slow decline of arrowhead quality as the bow-and-arrow began to take hold, since arrows do not require much more than a small, hard tip, rather than a large, knifelike stone tip of a spear.  An arrowhead required something more like a bullet.

      Anyway, the point is this:  If one were to regard this as a world I.Q. test "How long do you suppose it will be before someone combines one stick and one string, which they use every day, to make a bow?"  The answer is, it took hundreds of thousands of years before someone figured that out, or at least before it caught on.

      In the face of such facts, how can we take credit for having more intelligence than an anthill?  Just sayin'...  This is why nobody is having any luck with AWE.  Too dumb.  We like to congratulate ourselves as being so smart, but are we?  Are we really smart, or are we mostly limited to merely repeating what we have already seen?  The evidence suggests our self-assessment as geniuses may be overly optimistic.  Hopefully, we all have the potential for genius thinking, just the the actualization of it is rare.  At least that outlook gives us hope.
      :)
      Doug S.
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11095 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/24/2014
      Subject: Density
      Dense ways?   Furtherance is invited for advancing density in AWES farms.

      Review sketch: 

      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11096 From: dave santos Date: 1/24/2014
      Subject: Re: Inherence v. engineering
      Pierre, Doug,

      What you both fail to address is my consistent position that only careful testing settles what ideas "win". This is not a pet idea, but the norm of aerospace R&D ("Test, test, test, test, and test again" FortF, NREL)

      To imagine yourselves to be some sort of winners on the basis of your primitive AWE arguments is folly. You must show your WheelWind and SuperTurbine commercial promotions actually work. The same standard applies to megascale kite arches, flipwings, spinwings, etc.. All the contending AWE ideas need to be comparatively tested in a serious program: That is my claim.

      Allow history to decide if you are winners,

      daveS


      On Friday, January 24, 2014 7:47 AM, "dougselsam@yahoo.com" <dougselsam@yahoo.com
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11097 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/24/2014
      Subject: Re: Inherence v. engineering

      Autorotating-blade flygen (HAWT) with aloft-generated electricity sent to ground via electrical conductor by Dave Santos many years ago; shown item is in an AWES Museum in Low Angeles inspiring others to our field. Pierre just placed a link to a page holding this photo:

      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11098 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/24/2014
      Subject: Re: Inherence v. engineering

      "Los Angeles"   

      spelling correction, not "Low"     ;)

      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11099 From: dave santos Date: 1/24/2014
      Subject: Re: AWE: new discipline of kite-art for fun or towards high altitude
      Problems with these "bol-like" AWES concepts as depicted are many: Similar configurations are well-known in classic kiting to be progressively trickier to launch at larger scales. Extracting torque effectively is not convincingly solved. Only a small fraction of the wing area is productive. Testing will best tell if these problems are resolvable.

      Netiquette hint- The subject title of this thread is misleadingly vague. Good technical subject titles reference more specific ideas.


      On Friday, January 24, 2014 2:26 AM, "rod.read@gmail.com" <rod.read@gmail.com
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11100 From: dougselsam Date: 1/24/2014
      Subject: Re: Inherence v. engineering
      Encouraging to see, Joe.
      Dave S. was telling us last summer he was about to loft a wind turbine using a kite, (Hitch that trailer to that truck, and stop saying hauling dirt is difficult or mysterious!) but I don't remember hearing about it since.
      How could people claim to be serious about using kites for wind energy if they have not even tried simply using a kite to lift a turbine?  That's about as basic as it gets.
      I did not realize there is an Airborne Wind Energy Museum here in the Los Angeles area.  Or anywhere else, for that matter...  Where is it?  What are their hours?  How many exhibits do they have?  Why do I not find it using Google?
      :)
      Doug S.
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11101 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/24/2014
      Subject: Re: Gyrokite

      Clarifying an incomplete explanation on SWP; rather SWP is not a gyrokite when it is powering as a helicopter with a hung power-giving conducting tether; but when such power is not being used, then it enters a gyrokite mode. In total, SWP is a hybrid that shares captive helicopter life and also gyrokite life; two phases; if the SWP releases the tether during special choice, then the resulting glider would be a gyroglider, unpowered, but perhaps still generating some electricity during the glide down, if it so chose (gliding might occur better if no electricity was being mined during a glide during a recover or landing operation).    SWP is welcome to comment. 


      ~ JpF

      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11102 From: dave santos Date: 1/24/2014
      Subject: Re: The almost complete lack of intelligence of humans
      Doug,

      Crank theories about intelligence are not relevant enough here. Please find another Forum for off-topic musings.

      daveS

      PS Archery was in fact well known by Native Americans, who are smarter than you imply.


      On Friday, January 24, 2014 9:39 AM, "dougselsam@yahoo.com" <dougselsam@yahoo.com
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11103 From: dave santos Date: 1/24/2014
      Subject: Re: Inherence v. engineering
      Doug,

      I have been making small flygen AWES HAWTs since around 1984, with over a dozen distinct variants, many shared on the Forum. Beware of being a lazy AWE observer who relies on "out-of-sight, out-of-mind" reasoning.

      Here are two recent such AWES (the latest is a 4m rotor)-


      Pierre also ignores real AWE testing as a debate-winning basis,

      daveS






      On Friday, January 24, 2014 10:05 AM, "dougselsam@yahoo.com" <dougselsam@yahoo.com
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11104 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/24/2014
      Subject: Re: Inherence v. engineering

      Clip and interpretive captions: (others may add caption comment). 


      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11105 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/24/2014
      Subject: Re: Inherence v. engineering

      Clarification of a caption:

      The "brace to allow knee action" is also formed to hold the torque for use by the generator only and not to twist the main tether.   DaveS might caption this matter better. 


      ~JpF

      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11106 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/24/2014
      Subject: Re: Inherence v. engineering

      Notice that the rig shown may be trained in two ways: 

      1. Repeat branches off the main tether for unit HAWTs. 

      2. At a branch multiple ultralight blades may drive the shaft, a tactic known well from early patents and also forwarded by Doug Selsam in later years; Doug's patent does give some citing to some early multi-rotor patents, but not all. 


      Note that such system generally fits Pierre's stable-position advice.

      Note that such stable-position training may be repeated to form farms both left and right and area-filling downwind of first line of trains. 

      Note that the system may be scaled also by blade length. 

      Provision of lift by the lift system may be supplied by single-wing or trains of multiple wings. 

      Electricity made aloft may be routed into separate or unified tethers. Some treatment of the electricity may be done aloft, if needed or chosen. 

      Note that electricity made aloft need not be the only way to transfer the HAWT energy mined; rather, driven loops per several published research instruction might be employed; such loop transferred energy then may be converted on the ground to electricity or used directly.  Note that ganging such loop-carried energy may be a tactic to drive central electric generators on the ground. 


      ~ JpF

      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11107 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/24/2014
      Subject: Re: Inherence v. engineering

      Doug asked about the "AWES Museum in Los Angeles, California"   ." Where is it?  What are their hours?  How many exhibits do they have?  Why do I not find it using Google?"   

      Here is the entry in the AWES Glossary:

      ==================================

      AWES Museum is in an embryonic stage without open hours. Direct visits are not permitted; some items are shown in visits at exterior venues.  Los Angeles, California. Founded by K.I.T.E.S.A. Holdings are objects, papers, books, and digital records. Stewardship of most of the matter is by EnergyKiteSystems and shared to the world online.  Others may enter items for the collection by e-mail or URL reference or by postal mail arranged with the curator.   

      =========================


      Note: Google will eventually get wind of AWES Museum.

      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11108 From: Harry Valentine Date: 1/24/2014
      Subject: Re: Inherence v. engineering
      With regard to the discussion on AWE technology, simplicity of maintenance, ease of repair and reliability are crucial factors.

      I recall Air France flight 448 that ended up in the Atlantic off the coast of Brazil, the flight computers had encountered an unfamiliar situation and handed control of the aircraft over to the pilots, who did'nt have a clue as to what was happening.

      Some types of AWE technology require automated control to re-adjust the angles of kites at various points along their power-and-return 'stroke'. Kites pulling railed carriages along a circular track appear to be very sensible and very attractive . .  . and it would be quite wonderful when a multi-megawatt installation goes into operation . . . and delivers 10MW or whatever output at competitive costs.

      I was recently in a coastal city with wind-swept valleys and wind-swept gorges where it may be possible to install cable-mounted (or cable suspended) wind power technology. There ware attractive mountain tops galore, possible sites to install cables for looping kites. Yes, sites galore for variations of Doug Selsam's super-turbine.

      At present, there is much debate about the amount of subsidy governments provide to various forms of electric power generation (nuclear, hydroelectric, natural gas, biomass, wind, hydro-kinetic turbines). Due to economic pressures, many governments may have to abandon subsidizing power stations . .  . meaning that there is an emerging need for cost-competitive, subsidy-free electric power. Lets hope that AWE people can deliver something worthwhile in this regard.


      Harry  



      To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
      From: joefaust333@gmail.com
      Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 10:54:19 -0800
      Subject: [AWES] RE: Inherence v. engineering

       

      Clarification of a caption:
      The "brace to allow knee action" is also formed to hold the torque for use by the generator only and not to twist the main tether.   DaveS might caption this matter better. 


      ~JpF


      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11109 From: dave santos Date: 1/24/2014
      Subject: Crosswind Lattice-SpinKite Arrays
      It is proposed that numerous SpinKite Cells can be arrayed crosswind under a Kite-Arch in a string-lattice sandwich, for bulk synchronous phased pumping output. This method avoids drive-shafts, as a parallel extension of the KiteLab Tri-Tether or Loyd's Tri-Tether, in converting rotary motion to line-pumping transmission.

      A geodesic fore-mesh with swivels at the junctions would support multiple spinkites in close proximity without interference. An aft-mesh attached behind the spinkite layer keeps them from fouling on the foremesh. A triangular sandwich of this sort would output phased pumping at the fore-mesh vertices. Three-phase pumping is suited to drive rotary machinery on the ground.

      It is predicted that a well designed lattice-spinkite sandwich will tolerate landing bunched up and relaunch without snags. This method promises scaling up well beyond the supposed single spin-kite unit limit for practical human handling. A new scaling limit will emerge as the spinkite cell-scale becomes too small in relation to the lattice to coherently overcome dispersive elasticity. This seems like only a passive-control scaling limit; active spinkite cell controls might coordinate far larger patterns of coherent pumping.

      CC BY NC SA


      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11110 From: Rod Read Date: 1/24/2014
      Subject: Re: GRP distinguish from CRP or CFRP
      General Rebounding Pole

      A boingey stick
      not a pulley rope

      Obviously I will apply a more quantified and qualified answer when I have the data

      Rod Read

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

      07899057227
      01851 870878



      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11111 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/24/2014
      Subject: Wind Power Kite


      Wind Power Kite


      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11112 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/24/2014
      Subject: Re: Stable Down-going Kites

      Underwater "divers" partially inform on topic; however mass challenge for topic is quite apart from the mass use in underwater divers that are paravanes or water-"flying" kites.   

      Here is a photo of Dave Santos' Underwater Kite Museum

      http://www.energykitesystems.net/DaveSantos/KiteLabUnderwaterKiteMuseumDaveSantos.jpg

      (high resolution image)

      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11113 From: Gabor Dobos Date: 1/24/2014
      Subject: Re: Energy Ethics, Wind-Towers, and AWE Economic Viability
      On 2014-01-23 21:52, dave santos wrote:
      Maybe there are people "choosing to play more for wind energy" . But I
      don't think that most people do so. (You didn't say that either.) Most
      people know that this topic is about the debate of huge interests,
      namely that of proponents and opponents of conventional wind energy,
      from all over the world. Obviously, both sides are biased, and I am
      afraid that the cited sentence from you is the product of wishful thinking

      There are some cardinal questions regarding renewables, that have no
      correct answers, for example:

      Are conventional wind power plants profitable?
      If yes, why do these plants receive governmental support almost all
      over the world?
      Is backup power needed or not?
      In fact how many % power reserve (dispatchable peak power) has the
      electrical grid had 30 years ago, and how many doess it have today?
      Is there a correlation between the penetration of wind energy and
      of peak power capacity?
      By the way, if no backup is needed, why are there large ongoing
      research projects in the topic energy storage all over the world?

      and so on.

      Churchill said: "I only believe in statistics that I doctored myself."
      It's time to have our own wind power prices that we (this community)
      believe in. I would much appreciate reading the data of "real wind
      people". Doug mentions them in almost all his posts. (But based on his
      letters it seems to me that he is the only one.. :-))

      Gabor
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11114 From: dave santos Date: 1/24/2014
      Subject: Re: Energy Ethics, Wind-Towers, and AWE Economic Viability
      Dear Gabor,

      Please speak for Hungary, but Germany comes to mind as a well-known case of willingness to pay more for wind energy. In Austin, Texas, choosing wind at a higher price came with every monthly bill. It was as easy to raise extra wind cash as Graf Zeppelin long ago raised seed funds for airships from school children.

      Such social dynamics are even powerful enough make IFOs real, rather than "wishful",

      daveS

      PS When I suggested you build a small IFO, it was not to question concept feasibility, as Doug does, but as the logical next-step. Using model airplane parts, with minor modifications, it can be very fast and cheap to make a slope-soaring electric glider able to self-charge. 


      On Friday, January 24, 2014 7:15 PM, Gabor Dobos <dobosg001@yahoo.com
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11115 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 1/25/2014
      Subject: Re: Inherence v. engineering

      The design from SWP could evolve towards  www.energykitesystems.net/Beaujean/index.html  ,a rotating design with huge diameter but using "small" blades and no hub. In such a design, some inherent problems in AWE can be topped: (for crosswind kites) moving tether, hazard from both a single unity and a farm, non-controled whole swept area...; (for helicopter-mode) the low ratio area/weight. But a huge work in engineering is needed to reach such a system by making also feasible elements. In the end a huge work in engineering to reach a viable AWES is better than inherent problems after realization.So to make a viable AWES, it is better to imagine the whole system without (or with little) inherent problems and evaluate needed engineering to make it from small to utility-scales. But sometimes it is not so easy to make a difference between inherent problems and problems of engineering. http://wheelwind.com is an attempt where the rotor is also seaborned, but conversion makes an _inherent_ problem due to generator in tip blades. So I study other possibilities. Note that SuperTurbine (R) is also a possibility but only (for an utility-scale and according to me) in a light semi-rigid structural configuration allowing a greater diameter for the tower-shaft without excess of weight and drag, that by latticework structure (fig.32 of Selsam's US2002192068). Indeed tethered configuration making it too difficult to launch, too dangerous due to the risk of contact between rotors, too heavy to fly in a correct angle, and not being able for a correct transmission by torsion.

       

      PierreB

       

       



      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11116 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 1/25/2014
      Subject: Re: Inherence v. engineering

      Precision: "(for helicopter-mode) the low ratio swept area/weight."

       

      Pierre B




      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11117 From: Rod Read Date: 1/25/2014
      Subject: Re: Stable Down-going Kites
      There's certainly a lot to look at there.
      I guess it would take a book to explain it all.
      Got any simple annotated device photos?

      Rod Read

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

      07899057227
      01851 870878



      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11118 From: Rod Read Date: 1/25/2014
      Subject: Re: Crosswind Lattice-SpinKite Arrays
      Can you explain (preferably pictorially of course) how this bit works please?
      A triangular sandwich of this sort would output phased pumping at the fore-mesh vertices.
      Is this like pump driving a tri tether? (like the coffee grinder video)

      Rod Read

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

      07899057227
      01851 870878



      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11119 From: dougselsam Date: 1/25/2014
      Subject: Re: Inherence v. engineering
      Dave S.:
      Yes sure, test, test, test, great, but if you test every combination like the proverbial monkey at the typewriter waiting for a Shakespearean result, statistics say you will typing til the end of the solar system's lifetime, and still no Shakespeare.
      We in wind energy typically try to help newbies, who tend to all make the same sort of newbie mistakes, to more quickly learn about the types of features that make wind energy systems actually WORK.
      It turns out to be a thankless job, as you well know, and one which, you might note, veterans like Paul Gipe have pretty much given up on.
      Imagine some religious people come to your door, burdened with a plethora of pamphlets, trying to convince you of whatever they've been told in some intentionally-windlowless building designed to shut out the light of day.  Your response is to try to shine the light of day on them - to open their eyes and let the sunshine in.  "Are you sure about that?  The world is ending when exactly?"  After a few times, most people stop trying to engage them in discussion, and learn to politely say "Gosh, sorry but I'm kind of busy right now, have a nice day".
      It's the same with wind energy.  People who understand it know there are certain things that tend to work, and certain other types of things that are proven NOT to work.  Good signs and bad signs.  We try and save people from what they imagine in their darkened room, but what we've learned is most of them do not WANT to let the sunshine in.  They don't LIKE to know any facts.  They are actually confortable re-exploring old, disproven ideas and clearly inadvisable ideas, pretending they are new, just like the inappropriately well-dressed people mysteriously walking, instead of driving, through your suburban or even rural neighborhood.
      In any art, there are proven "rules of thumb", and known pitfalls.  When someone comes in with a basket of the known pitfalls and wants to call it a new idea, we bristle.  We've seen it before and it's simply a case of "Oh, no, not again!  Not ANOTHER one!"  We've heard all the arguments.  You like to think yours are original, but like the person at your door saying "But it says so right here, in WRITING!", the person listening just wonders how anyone could possibly think they are presenting original thinking when they are merely regurgitating the most common ignorance that one could glean from anyone living under a bridge.  In the case of wind energy, we note the same symptoms over and over.   A few of us are still, somehow, in disbelief that anyone could be so dumb as to not "get it" even if we bother to explain it to them over and over again in fine detail.  At some point, people like me are the dumb ones to think that we can convince anyone of anything.  We try to save people like you time and effort, and are inevitably punished and castigated for it.  Of course you all, in the end, scream "The Wright Brothers!" and that is when we know the whole thing is hopeless.  The ultinmate symptom of an idiot newbie and you simply can;t help yourselves from finally falling into that bottom point in the well-worn crack you are stuck in.  So, go ahead and "test" whatever you think is the hot new idea this week, but what I see is old news, mostly just you amusing yourself and bothering people to try and somehow "debate" your way to making bad ideas temporarily "seem" like good ideas, for people who can follow the words on the web, but not understand what they are reading.  A faint and fleeting partial taste of the glory you imagine.  The worst thing is, with the web archiving every dumb thing you say for perpetuity, as reality slowly unfolds, the errors, misstatements, and outright lies accumulate to comprise a well-documented comedy of ignorance, but fear not, nobody will ever care to scrutinize the failures that much.  The ignorance, like most ignorance, will not be interesting enough for future people to go back and analyze except perhaps as an example of how persistently ignorant humans are capable of being.
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11120 From: dougselsam Date: 1/25/2014
      Subject: Re: Inherence v. engineering
      OK, so there is NOT an AWE museum in Los Angeles. 
      No visitors, no hours - no museum.  Just checking...
      :)
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11121 From: dave santos Date: 1/25/2014
      Subject: Re: Crosswind Lattice-SpinKite Arrays
      Roddy,

      Yes, the crosswind triangle sandwich would translate in a smallish circle (the size of the unit kite-loops), and the three phase-pumped corner-lines could direct down to the groundgen crankshaft via corner-blocks supported by the kite arch. 

      I should have reminded folks that the spinkite layer would probably be standard (looping) parafoils, since "spinkite" was only recently defined (to distinguish from a radially symmetric spin-basket).

      The coffee-grinding AWES demo was not a tri-tether, but a single pumped line from a FlipKite to the grinder handle, which had a rubber-band return.

      daveS


      On Saturday, January 25, 2014 2:45 AM, Rod Read <rod.read@gmail.com
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11122 From: dougselsam Date: 1/25/2014
      Subject: Re: The almost complete lack of intelligence of humans
      Curly said it best:
      "I (you) resemble that remark!"
      You did not read my post.
      Arrowheads in North America indicate the bow-and-arrow reached here thousands of years ago, starting in the NorthEast.  By the time Western explorers reached Atlan, however, the Atlan people were still using atlatls (throwing sticks).  You repeat the common oversimplification of  ignorance that all people living here were somehow "the same".  Not true, there were many many separate cultures here, with many disparate origins and influences.
      The significant FACT that you should take from what I wrote is that humans can go for thousands of years, never seeing what is right in front of them.  It appears that there was one person somewhere who invented the bow-and-arrow, perhaps by accident, and that nobody else could ever figure it out for themselves, but rather EVERYONE could suddenly build one once someone else SHOWED them how.  My point is that millions of people suddenly say "of course!" when they see a bow-and-arrow, but NONE of them were able to think it up for themselves.  None.  If any aspect of archaeology (study of archery) is well-understood, it is arrowheads, and EXACTLY when the bow-and-arrow arrived at any region is easy to determine from the fact that arrowheads go from large and well-made (spear tips) to small and quickly turned-out - disposable little tips instead of the former large works of art.
      The excruciatingly-slow crawl of bow-and-arrow technology across the face of the globe is a simple and astounding fact, that we should learn from, as part of "letting the light of day illuminate our minds", but, as usual, you would rather remain in the darkness.  The resistance to new information and remaining in darkness is the entire point of my post.  Your answer shows, once again, that some people are hopelessly resistant to good information.  Thanks for illustrating my point.
      :)
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11123 From: dougselsam Date: 1/25/2014
      Subject: Re: Passively Autonomous Kite Power
      I get the idea that "Edioshi" is a pen-name for Dave S. to make it seem like someone else besides him is posting.
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11124 From: dougselsam Date: 1/25/2014
      Subject: More idiot newbies, more lies
      This just in from the real wind energy Yahoo group:
      http://www.keanwindturbines.com/
      Watch the video - all lies, not even consistent from one lie to the next.
      Maybe if you have been paying attention, you can start to spot the lies.
      It's really pitiful to see people delude themselves like this.  Looks a lot like the Honeywell turbine.  The guy cannot not even stay consistent within one sentence:
      "A new concept in physics that has been known a long time..."  (say that again?)
      "Current windmills generate about 1% of the wind's energy as electricity, so we're about 40 times better..."
      "95% of the wind goes right between the blades and is not used!"
      "We actually extract about 50% of that energy"
      "Their extraction rate is about 30% versus our 50%"
      "This device will be the gold standard of the future"
      "We'll be manufacturing about 40 turbines a day.  This will employ about 2500 people"  lies lies lies lies lies
      OMG can people really be this dumb?

      The response from real wind people?
      R. Feynman: "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over
      public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled."
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11125 From: markbrinsden Date: 1/25/2014
      Subject: Re: More idiot newbies, more lies

      Thanks for this - I watched the video with my mouth gaping - also - an RF quote is always a pleasure for the sane and rational amongst us.

      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11126 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/25/2014
      Subject: Re: Inherence v. engineering

      DougS, 

             You are invited to see the different rooms that are always open 24 hr per day. Visitors are welcome to most of the museum's rooms. You have been visiting one of the rooms almost daily, this room: AirborneWindEnergy  where access is open to you and others in the world for viewing shares, discussing technical matters, etc.  


      The AWES Museum exists and is growing by the contributions of many people. The collections are kept in various rooms both online and offline; the offline rooms are open by appointment with the curator. Some of the collection goes mobile and is presented by the museum at various exterior venues for show-and-tell-and-discuss sessions.    You and others are invited to increase the collections for sharing. 


      Here is a dated snapshot of the AWES Museum front room: 

      AWES Museum
      ~ Collect and share to the world
      items from airborne wind energy systems (AWES)
      or kite-energy systems ~

      • AWES Museum is in an embryonic stage without open hours. Direct visits are not permitted; some items are shown in visits to exterior venues.  Los Angeles, California. Founded by K.I.T.E.S.A. Holdings are objects, papers, books, and digital records. Stewardship of most of the matter is by EnergyKiteSystems and shared to the world online.  Others may enter items for the collection by e-mail or URL reference or by postal mail arranged with the museum's curator.  
         
      • The entire collection displayed online in the various works of K.I.T.E.S.A. are included in the museum's holdings.
         
      • A branch of AWES Museum is the collection HangGliderMuseum where the focus is on converting wind energy to mechanical lifting of wings, people, and goods for various purposes using the technology of hang gliders of the kite-glider sorts.
         
      • DaveSantos/KiteLabUnderwaterKiteMuseumDaveSantos  Underwater Kite Museum amounts to a "room" in AWES Museum dedicated to divers that are paravanes or underwater kites.
         
      • The Patent Room of AWES Museum allows open public discussion of AWES patents. The collection grows nearly daily. Access is free.
         
      • Working AWES to perform specialized tasks are collected by the AWES Museum. The public is invited to add and further descriptions of applications for kite systems where the energy derived from the wind is used for useful purpose. Access is free to the KiteApplications room.
         
      • The AWES Museum collects links to videos that tend to advance kite-energy systems. Access to the video room is free. We have two rooms:   VideosEntryRoom  |  VideosForum is for discussing any selected video; the public is welcome.
         
      • The AWES Museum provides a room for international technical development of kite-energy AWES. People strongly interested in AWES technical development, especially via collaborative and cooperative efforts are encouraged to participate in the conversations and sharing process. Access to the room is free: AirborneWindEnergy
         
      •  The AWES Museum collects selected links to radiant sources of information that tend to advance kite-energy systems. Such collection grows nearly daily. The public is encouraged to add to this collection and discuss the involved matters related to selected links:    KiteLinks    Access to the room is free to the public.
         
      • The AWES Museum has a book room. Links to books and the discussion of selected books is encouraged. Access to the room is free to the public. Additions keep occurring.    KiteBooks
         
      • Images tell stories. Those stories are invited. The museum's image room is free and access is easy: KiteImages   Please add links to images or the images themselves. Discuss the images.
         
      • The AWES Museum has a room dedicated to plans and specifications for AWES, kite-energy systems, and kites. The world is invited to share detailed plans.   KitePlans
         
      • The energy of the wind effectively used in kite hang gliders is the focus of the museum's room on hang glider inventions. Interested persons add items to the room for discussion:  HangGliderInventions     Free access.
         
      •  
      • The kite-motor by Dave Santos sans lifter kite is held in the museum.  DiscussHere.
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11127 From: dave santos Date: 1/25/2014
      Subject: Re: The almost complete lack of intelligence of humans
      Doug,

      Something is terribly wrong with your AWE R&D work, and maybe your life, since years are going by without you able to report any progress. Instead you are increasing irrelevant and rude Forum posting, like Tea Party climate-science. Little wonder that you seek SuperTurbine partners in vain while other progress steadily.

      You are prohibited on conventional wind forums to post your extreme self-promotion and off-topic content, so you then constantly abuse the freedom here, and sadly drive away needed intelligence (especially some of our best academics you slime as "professor crackpots", who must interact off-Forum to avoid your abuse). I obviously did read your off-topic screed to then cite you wrongly asserting Columbus found natives who had no knowledge of archery. This is as false as your aviation-on-a-pole notion.

      If you continue so, you will need to be once again moderated, but not for poor AWE ideas, but for Spam. Please be a better AWE Netizen, and stick to constructive technical sharing,

      daveS

      ======== correcting history ===========

      Doug- "By the time Comumbus "rediscovered" ATLANtis,... he found these natives STILL using the ATLATL.  The bow-and-arrow had not made it there yet!"

      What Columbus really found, in his own words- "they wear their hair long like women, and use bows and arrows"






      On Saturday, January 25, 2014 8:28 AM, "dougselsam@yahoo.com" <dougselsam@yahoo.com