Couple of images (art) that I've not seen and a LTA guy Herbert A. Beuermann 

1906 FFAWE seed: 

I agree it is a waste of my time to try and provide any helpful information, in most cases.  As long as any would-be, wannabe, wind energy inventor thinks his battle is with people on the web, they will never get anywhere, forever mired in endless arguments that will never be resolved and always remain mere arguments.  Being relatively new at arguing newbie wind energy concepts on the web, you do not realize it is all a rerun - a deja vu.  Gabor, should you ever really try to build wind energy devices, your battle will be with the wind itself, with Mother Nature, not people on the web.  Mother nature doesn't care how smart you think you are on the web, she deals with reality only.  Good luck.
:)
Doug S.

"Mother nature doesn't care how smart you think you are on the web, she deals with reality only."

OK but to deal with reality the present AWEforum can be useful and everyone should use it to improve the possibility to deal with both Mother nature and economical requirements, not to waste time to write about Crackpots and newbies then complaining to waste time for it.

Known AWE teams have partially failed by putting off too quickly discussions to choice the good scheme. The advantage of the present forum is that we know we disagree about the good scheme,mixing ideas for now and ideas for later.

 

PierreB

Energy engineer Leo Goldstein: 

Top of his preprint with my bolding and sizing:

Pierre:
An analogy might be a forum supposedly dedicated to investing.
People new to investing (just won the lottery) might recommend going to Las Vegas and placing all your money on red or black on the roulette table, citing the decent odds of immediately doubling your money.  Then they could go on explaining how one could double their money time after time, out-performing normal investment portfolios by a huge margin, by playing roulette!  If they had all day to talk about it, they might recommend long-disproven techniques, like waiting for black to come up 4 times in a row, at which point, the person posting might claim there is a huge probability that red will come up next.  As long as the discussion is restricted to ignorant people with no investment background, the participants indeed believe they are:
1) participating in an investment forum;
2) what is being said makes sense.
Imagine then, a person with actual investment experience enters the picture.  Imagine the resistance when they start to label the roulette table as "mere gambling", trying to explain to the people on the forum how investing is powered by reliable compounding returns over time, and that the odds are intentionally tilted toward the casinos making all the money.  Imagine some forum participants so enthusiastic over their newfound investment "wisdom" that they resist any sort of real wisdom by calling the financial person nasty names for using the term "gambler".  "Your use of the term "gambler" is not helpful in this serious "investing" forum"...
"But all I'm trying to point out is that thousands of idiots over the centuries have thought they had discovered "the new secret" to investing in playing roulette, but in the end, the laws of mathematics caught up with them and they all lost money eventually!".
Would it matter?  How long could they go on imagining that merely playing the roulette table was actually investing, especially with uninformed newbie strategies like waiting til black comes up 4 times in a row to then place their money on red?

What if the person with investment experience predicted that no "investment" team pursuing the red/black roulette strategy of investing would come up with successful results, no matter how many years they tried, no matter how much "investors" put into their game?  What if, as the years passed, no player with the roulette strategy was showing any gains in the portfolio?  At what point might one note that at least someone had been predicting this across-the-board loss the whole time? 

What about when an extreme gambling promoter enters the scene?  Someone promoting gambling so recklessly, they could be called an "Investment Crackpot" - someone not only promoting the gambling-as-investing theme, but expounding on it in elaborate proposed scenarios such as "Wait til red comes up 4 times, bet on black, then take your winnings over to the blackjack tables and double them there, quick get over to the craps tables and double it again..." OK do you still think you are seeing a true "investment forum"?  Or are you just listening to a complete out-of-control nutcase?  Does this remind anyone of "first you build an airplane - no wait, it's a glider.  Install a wind turbine, powering an onboard air liquification system - oh, and a cryogenic tank on the plane too, send it up, and wait for it to come back down at the special airport you had to build, connect it to the liquified air energy recovery system, then and harness the air in the tank to power generators that will then deliver power to the grid cheaper than any other way!"  Then just send the plane up again!  Then go back to the roulette table!
You can imagine trying to explain to a newbie "investor" that roulettte alone is already a proven money loser, let alone including blackjack and craps, and you could challenge them to show that even roulette alone has ever made anyone except casinos any money, but they would be resistant, calling you closed-minded as they lost their fortune.
What if they say "You HAVE to test EVERY possible investment idea! - test test test!" as though these gambling-as-investment ideas had not already been tried a thousand times, as though they weren't already famous bad examples, as the worst investment ideas ever, ideas that only completely uninformed people could come up with, and sadly, would predictably come up with over and over again?  Is it possible that someone on such a forum might actually find a better way to invest?  Well, yes, we can't say anything is 100% impossible, but we might also acknowledge that almost 100% of what is being said on such an "investment" forum is not even RELATED to investing, and that this fact is unknown to most participating in the forum.

With wind energy, aviation, or any other topic, the underlying topic IS actually "investing".. Instead of just buying a stock and waiting for the money to roll in, we're talking about investing in materials to construct a configuration, whereby a company could be constructed around the configuration to offer positive financial returns on the physical system described.  That would make this forum an investment forum, in some sense.  So I guess anyone might take a second look to see whether your proposed "investment" in materials to construct a given configuration favors "the investor" or "the house".
:)
Doug S.

So Goldstein is saying airborne wind energy follows what is already known about wind energy.  Lots of fanfare to point out the obvious. 

Meta-note: The text still runs challenge about just what is a "kite wing."  The term game misses opportunities, I hold. The paper has "glider wing" in spots where actually the "glider wing" is a kite wing. Kite wings may range from full limp to fully solid and rigid; the gradation opportunity is a continuum; such opportunity is not uncommonly missed in some teams as they seem to wrestle with "kite" even to the extent of full shy of the term.  Suggested: Go for the gold and include the full opportunity of kite wings that allows analysis of the full continuum from from limp to full rigid.   Certainly there are gliders that are fully limp as well as gliders with very rigid wings.    AWES is dealing with kite wings that occur someplace along the opportunity continuum of limpness to rigid. Deformations under given stresses becomes the resultant of particular wings found on the continuum. While a wing is a kite wing, it is not a glider wing.  

Leo, do you want to include     a sub max  in your "Nomenclature" list of symbols/definitions?

In Fig. 1, I am wanting the "q"  to have a longer drop mark; my view confuses the ink mark with "a". 

It's OK Roddy, that post didn't really apply to you.
That was for the "Casino Investing" (Kite-power?) crowd, who would say:
But wait Doug, your "stock exchange" COULD be redefined as "a casino"...
And so by redefining words, they will hope to win any argument.

"PS Doug fails to understand tether-drag as an AWE issue (a soft-wing advantage unknown to "conventional windpower"). His consistently dismissive attitude, absent of specifics, is not helpful; as usual."
"Hith conthithently dithmithive attitude"
Dave S.: Do you mind if I stop you right here to say "you are an idiot"?  Thanks.  What the heck dragged me into THIS conversation?  I have never introduced any idea that tried to drag a tether around sideways at high speed.  Like most people who understand wind energy, I prefer blades rotating around a hub, which need not move very fast, if at all.  Then the tether(s) is also called a driveshaft.  The patent shows how a filament-wound driveshaft works as a helical bundle of tethers.  I know, I know, you say a driveshaft can't transmit torque.  Fine (tell the automakers, quick!), we make it as large diameter as necessary to transmit any torque it needs to transmit, even if it turns into a lattice structure or just all tethers spaced from a center, like it shows in the patents.  Try posting something without the "Professor Crackpot" retreat to "What Doug Failth to underthand ith..." (I picture the complete scene with the beard, polka-dot bowtie and lisping speech that sprays food particles into the air so they can settle on the dandruff-encrusted eyeglasses with tape on the temple.  Yes, fine, you can also wear a pocket protector, if you think it will help.
"What Doug failth to underthand ith that the Wright Brotherth fathed thimilar skeptithithm!"  Umm yeah, ya got me there.
:)
Doug S.

Why not make a glossary and stick with it if you have a problem with redefining every known component or system as "kite"?  It sees to me the real problem is trying to perpetuate a domain centered around the word "kite" as ruling over every future method of accomplishing airborne wind energy, even if it has nothing to do with "kites" as originally envisioned, or as originally defined. So come with a glossary and state specifically what you mean by terms like "blade" and "rotor", "kite" and "gyrocopter", so you can avoid the future temptation to call everything a "kite".

"You will find what AWE professors already know, that the SuperTurbine is as not nearly as scalable as rope and soft kites."

Please DaveS can you provide references about studies of scalability of (flexible rope as shaft) ST by AWE professors?

 

PierreB

DougS,

 

For now I try to collect some data about flexible rope-as-shaft SuperTurbine(R). On your video the curved line shows lifting is assured almost only by the kite, such a configuration staying limited for scaling up since the tether is not enough straight.

So examine us if it is possible to implement rotors of autogyro studied to generate lift and making the rope more straitght ,assuring a better rotation and a better torque for generator. The French site http://www.inexfrance.fr/  presents a picture where AoA is 24° upwind and 16° downwind, with an average of 20°.

Considering the rotor should be + - perpendicular in the rope to assure good rotation, flight angle should be something like 70°: it is very high since autogyro-kite flies with an angle of 30° or 45°. What is your thinking about it? 

So for flexible ST we deal with problems in both wind energy and aviation.

 

PierreB

DaveS,

 

I note you have no reference in study of scalability of ST about AWE professors.

Now (see my precedent post) I try to make an analysis of scalability of flexible ST with rope as axis, finding it can be possible if the rope is enough straight.

PierreB

Thank you DaveS for these technical observations. So a rubber-band motor could be the low part of flexible ST. Another problem is the stability of rotors as they generate some lift: in a gyrokite the body carries the rotor and allows some stability, but on ST there are no body since the rope itself is the body. And AoA of optimal like-autogyro (20°) does not correspond in rope angle (expected to be about 45° for the better) , so the torque of lifting rotors is not perpendicular in the rope. In the other hand if these problems can be resolved (and if long rope + rubber-band moteur work; if + if...) ,ST,in rope version,can take some advantages for continuous power, maximization of space at some level, and groundgen.

 

PierreB 

AWE is already with economically viable sectors. 

I can verify that the shock was to the hands and forearms - my chest felt nothing (though i was wearing multiple coats...).

Take a section of a main tether under flight service, say from 100 m to 200 m. 

Fly-by-wire AWES  (not the piano wire of the Weather Bureau working-kite systems)

(not just the Swedish team in the underwater kite-energy)