Greetings All,
I'm working with a company called West Coast Blimps, they teach how to build RC Blimps yourself and supply parts.
Lynn


---- Joe Faust <joefaust333@gmail.com

This is a cut-and-paste from a "real" wind energy discussion group (where people like us are met with raised eyebrows, and most of our postings would be censored for promoting "a pet theory"):
Quote:
It is now one year ago Sully landed his Airbus in the Hudson River. It
makes an old small wind freak glad to know, that with engine power gone the hydraulics of ailerons etc. was driven by a "Ram Air Turbine" RAT. You can see one here
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Airbus-A320-216/1475556/L/

Small wind turbines has been used in planes for ages.

Claus

WINDMISSION Co.
Claus Nybroe, Architect MAA
Stenbankevej 6, 5771 Stenstrup, Denmark
VAT: DK 11271448
http://www.windmission.dk
Tel. +45 3698 1778
+45 5194 4438 (mobile)

The Ram Air Turbine works above a certain inlet speed. Several makers of small wind turbines are hoping to duplicate the effect with lower velocity wind entering the turbine . . . the gently expanding area of the exhaust duct is crucial under such conditions.
 
Perhaps is somebody properly designs the duct outlet behind the turbine, ram air may work on small wind turbines . . . perhaps they may be able to attach wings or kites to the ductwork, or even a balloon to keep the concept airborne. 
 
 
Harry

 

---

To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
From: doug@selsam.com
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 15:26:30 +0000
Subject: [AWECS] Airbourne Wind Power: Airbus

 

 March 5, 2010. 8 a.m. PST ...USA national AWE phone conference: 
 E-mail collaboration and then phone conference re: HR 3165 amendments.

Decided:

"airborne wind energy technology"

 

will be formally admitted as a proposed phrase modification in the bill.

=

Thanks Doug Selsam and Harry Valentine for the nudge on RATs.  Such definitely is an AWE sector.
RATs form a subset in a family of "ram air" applications in AWECS. 

Some ram-air uses in AWECS:

• Ramming air for driving turbines is a big member.  Drive tethered kited or free-flight aircraft
  in a manner to increase the ram-air pressure on turbine blades to generate either electricity,
  or transferable piped air, or mechanical energy via endless loop.
• Ramming air from AWECS to form lifting bodies' shapes
• Ramming air from AWECS to cool ground rooms
• Ramming air from AWECS to cool genertor parts
• Ramming air from AWECS to dry goods in a ground room
• Ramming air from AWECS to fill ground bladders and chambers later to be used for on-call energy.
• ? <send in ideas  : ) 
• Ramming air from AWECS to freshen the air in underground rooms, tunnels, chambers, mineshafts
• ? <send in other uses of ram air in the AWE environment RAT  Ram Air Turbine      wiki          M1224        Airbus A320-216 ram-air kite ram-air parachute ram-air parafoil ram-air spar ram-air turbine ram-air drogues and variDrogues

Anush Badii

Rapidly Deployable Wind Turbines 

"Also the proposed project is the only one that can be prototyped for

under $100,000 and can be scaled up to 15 Megawatt in implementation." ...from the project article.

Study and comment proposed ...

I couldn't stand to wade through it very far, but I get the impression that it is a workable device being enhanced  by language in an attempt to raise investor confidence.  There are a lot of groups that depend on a false exclusivity to improve their focus.

Bob

Weight:350 kg;span of rotor:8 m.Question:what is the minime need wind for staying aloft?The paper says "...For example at an altitude of 550 m,the average speed is about 17.5 m/sec..."...

The swept area for electrical production is that of the relatively small propeller (initially with a motor for propulsion).For a MW scale the span of the (lift) rotor must be in rapport with the span of the MW scale propeller-generator.

"...Unfortunately the proponents seem to be unaware that autogiro produces no torque,as such cannot turn any machine...".What is Sky Wind Power thinking about it?It seems Sky Wind Power' technology is an interesting compromise between lift and production with only one rotor with higher swept area.Specialists on flygens like Joby,Sky Wind Power,Makani and others could precise this points.

Pierre B

Crosswind pathes could increase relative wind (and so global swept area) on the propeller (and also on the rotor):so the autogiro would work like a flygen kite,but with more difficult implementation.

Pierre B

The pdf Windenergienutzung mit schnell fliegenden Flugdrachen gives a useful panorama of kite systems with formulas:see p.17 on reeling-in-out systems and p.8 on flygens.On p.17 a formula schows power and loss of power because of loss of relative wind (power is 4/9 with reel-out speed = 2/3 real wind speed).

In fact loss of relative wind seems to exist for any kite systems with generator at ground:linear (or reeling) systems,but also carousel (downwind motion of the carousel during the higher production phase),and also for OKB where lever motion produces a downwind motion,but without loss for reel-in phase that does not exist.

Flygens have not this problem but others:weight aloft,electrical cable,drag of the propeller.

A very important point for choice can be the space occupation (according to any wind directions) with closed traffic,and so the ratio space occupation/power.

Pierre B

Correction:"and loss of force because of loss of relative wind (force is 4/9 with reel-out speed = 2/3 real wind speed)".

Pierre B

This thread invites long-term on-point notes just on the ratio Pierre B.
mentioned:

Space occupation per power for useful load. Perhaps S/P, until
consensus on symbols.

Then for the thread, a definition of "S" would be helpful. The matter
of cost of space might come

into play in this thread. Using space (whatever we come to agree that
will mean) costs something:

working in the space, setting up the space, maintaining the space,
communicating about the space

with other parties, etc. (?). Using a space involves agreements that
are negotiated

with interested parties. Long-term vigilance regarding keeping a space
for AWECS operations

is part of the space cost. Getting power from a physical point to
useful work point seems to be

part of the cost of space. S or possibly its meaning as "cost for
space use" will be a parameter

that could be used to compare various AWECS.

Then "P" will need to be identified. Will the power at the
production point be used;

or will end-point-at-useful-load-available net power be P in the
comparison ratio?

Perhaps at generation area, as cost-of-space might include the losses
and costs

of distributing the gained energy.


The scheme of Badii seems to neglect the potential play of shaped
kytoons to reduce

space cost and to increase lift into higher altitudes for some given
length of tether.

The OrthoKiteBunch seems to go for massive use of a given space. DaveS
mention of large

meshes comes to mind for greater use of a given space.

JoeF

ROI of AWECS should take in count safety zone for population and (shared with aviation) space occupation.

The ratio land occupation/power (L/P) is often used to show AWECS advantage over conventional turbines.But it is not the same thing for ratios about space occupation/power where advantage goes to conventional turbine.
 
Space occupation could be divided into volume occupation/power (V/P) and aerial surfaces occupation/power (S/P) from different altitudes according to the global shape of kites evolutions.The lower layer of S being superior LLS zone can be considered as a basis to determinate the safety zone for population (instead L).

These ratios can be variable according to the site,to the AWECS,to aerial rules,to governments subsides...
Some examples:KiteGen thinks a need forbidden zone for the carousel recovering the global shape according to any wind directions;for Sky Wind power used jet stream is only for one wind direction.For most other systems the shape evolves according to wind directions,so the question is what is considered,the global shape or the shape of the "day" (with risks of quick direction changes)?I think administrations should take in count the global shape,so the global volume,so the global surfaces occupation over the shape,volume,surfaces occupation on the "day".It would be interesting to know the opinion of specialists of aerial rules (whole volume or day volume?).

Pierre B

Many years ago there was a commercial jet in Canada that acquired the nickname of "the Gimli Glider". The refueling crew at Montreal were unfamiliar with the new aircraft and put too little fuel into the tank (possibly at Montreal). The plane was headed to Vancouver. It ran out of fuel over Manitoba.
 
The pilot glided the plane to a one time military airbase at Gimli, Manitoba (he knew the airport as he had once been a military pilot). The ram-air turbine kicked in at 150 to 200-mi/hr and provided the necessary hydraulic pressure to enable the pilot to safely land the plane at the airport.
 
It may be possible to attach wings. kites, kytoons or balloons to the duct system of the ram-air-turbine concept intended to operate as a high-altitude, airborne wind turbine. An inventor in the UK developed wings that contain rotors on a transverse-axis . . . to maintain the boundary layer on the upper surface of the wing at extreme angles of attack . . . the airplane can actually hover. Such a wing concept may be applicable to high-altitude wind power conversion . . . it may be possible to use wind energy to drive the transversly mounted Magnus rotors.
 
 
Harry
 

---

To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
From: doug@selsam.com
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 15:26:30 +0000
Subject: [AWECS] Airbourne Wind Power: Airbus

Where do tethers break?  High or Low?

Bob the Simpleton

Tether would break at the weakest point for the stress at that point. The upper section of tether would carry the weight of the lower sections of tether. Placing balloons, kites or kytoon at regular intervals along the tether could allow these buoyant and flying structures to carry portions of the weight . . .  that approach would be crucial for AWE technologies that generate electric power using airborne generators . . . the weight of the conductive lineor tether along with the tensile stress on it would be horrendous.
 
 
Harry
 

---

To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
From: bobstuart@sasktel.net
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 18:23:07 -0600
Subject: Re: [AWECS] Re: Tether Art & Science Overview

 

---

Don’t miss a beat Get Messenger on your phone

http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0701/0701114.pdf

Utilization of Wind Energy at High Altitude*

Alexander Bolonkin

Yeah so you realize that the gyrocopter is itself a sideways wind turbine (they have similar blades and even sound the same) and let it tilt back enough to fly like a kite and also capture wind energy like a wind turbine.
You get rid of the redundant second wind turbine. Next you stack up a hundred or so of these gyrocopters, and connect them with a driveshaft-as-tether, use that same spinning driveshaft to rotate the heavy generator on the ground, atop a tower, or atop a mountaintop, (because it's heavy so you leave it down there), and you are back to Superturbine(R).
:)
Doug Selsam
http://www.standardwindturbine.com
`~<brawk!

Interesting simple idea.
And a kite could be used instead of a gyrocopter.
or a blimp. Yup - make a lightweight turbine and hang it in the air. Seems straightforward enough.
Although on the other hand I am surprised all kites haven't been replaced by gyrocopters already as it seems that the frame members of any kite, if provided with an airfoil cross-section and allowed to rotate, could provide as much lift as the original kite, except without the fabric. True or my mistaken impression?
Now there's another meta-study (or is it mega-study?) for the armchair-bound and credential-laden.

Anyway, I can provide the permanent-magnet alternator at the specified weight, or a 2 kW PMA at around 35 lbs. currently, and yes airbourne versions could be significantly lighter if we wanted.
Meanwhile we intentionally make the rotor from solid steel (heavy) since in our world of actual operating wind turbines, anything you can do to make things beefier and more stable adds to longevity.
But on balance, I think this looks like a quite achievable idea. Economic? Maybe, or maybe not, but at least it is a start.
Will anyone bother to build one?
I guess time will tell.

...If only we had some agency that had lots of clout with a commitment to finding and funding promising new breakthroughs in clean energy! Wow that would be nice.

I was told there are a couple agencies that are supposed to be like this but when I checked into it and applied for the dough, they turned out to be paralyzed by their own bureaucracy as usual and staffed by people without vision, financially addicted to supposedly trying to solve problems that they actually believe are not soluble anyway.
In the end all they could do was waste more of my time and resources.
Everything they say is a lie. From the very beginning with their global warming crapola down to the point when they say they will do anything about it, NOT ONE NEW TYPE OF WIND TURBINE HAS BEEN TESTED BY THE FEDERAL LABS IN 30 YEARS. (and even that one was not new, just a Savonius). Oh and they recently tested a Darrieus that someone else built. And testing was halted because it had problems. Well what do you expect? And this decades after both types of turbine were already known losers. One more stab at the ill-advised "vertical-axis" eggbeater configuration. And they couldn't even keep it running. whoopee-doo. your dollars at work.
Put that in your bong and smoke it up.
:)
D.S.
PS If I were in charge of the "labs" I'd make each "scientist" produce a new turbine configuration each month til we found the answer.

Authors of Part  I of a major book by the European Wind Energy Association:

How'd the Korean's get this Dave?

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/03/hydro-paraplant/

- Dimitri

Great minds think alike
 

---

To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
From: dimitri.cherny@yahoo.com
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 14:00:13 +0000
Subject: [AWECS] Dave Lang's Wind/Water combo in Wired

 

Eureka!  Found the guy.  Pen name for some publishing is Colin Bruce.   Colin Jack.    Perhaps: Colin Humphry   or Colin Humphrey (not sure yet).

WIPO patent author and instructor:  Free Rotor

Just placed a note in wiki:

WO/1992020917 Free Rotor by JACK, Colin, Humphry, Bruce (one man).
Colin Jack. Colin Bruce.
Multi-rotors are treated.
Faired tethers are recognized. 1992.

Study file with links for full images and patent, etc.:

http://www.energykitesystems.net/FreeRotor/index.html

Spome furthering has occurred, but what is missing?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_altitude_wind_power

Yes it is truly amazing:
These agencies don't target any specific solutions at all, but rather merely publish requests for proposals, which is fine in itself, but they seem to always have a reason to not fund anything new anyway.

Let's look at it realistically:
Let's just imagine that the global warming thing were real.
Imagine if "the end of the planet" were really at hand...
Imagine now that the solution to global warming is out there, perhaps in the patent literature. Perhaps there is even someone out there trying as hard as they can to implement this new technology.
They've applied for grants several times, and even gotten a state grant. But they are so busy manufacturing and delivering product on a limited basis, due to their small size, that they don't have time to apply for any more grants right now. The patent work is already too much time spent "talking about it" "on paper".

The agencies refuse to be proactive and identify/fund promising new innovations in any way.
So I guess the world ends.
The world ends because the labs didn't find a solution that was, in fact, there all along.
But it wasn't the fault of the government labs.
They "did their jobs."
They published RFP's as they are used to doing.
Oh well, the end of the world - who cares?

The end of the world is OK as long as you have an excuse.
We have rules and policies you know.
See? This is how you can tell that the whole global warming thing is bunk - deep down nobody really believes it or cares other than to use it to get funded, or to insure a few more months of steady paychecks.
I mean "the science" clearly tells us that we're already past "the tipping point" anyway, so what's the use of trying to stop "runaway global warming" at this point?

And after "science" has burned this bridge and ruined their own credibility, what will we do with "science" when "science" and "scientists" have become about as relevant as "the church" in the official sense of a bureaucracy that merely plods along on a tradition of robe-wearing people who supposedly are the keepers of a mysterious knowledge that only they can truly understand, but whom most people no longer take seriously? Another group with their hand out, asking for donations to be paid for promulgating a belief system that says essentially "pay me now, quick, or the world will end"?

I mean like remember "the ozone hole"? Another "runaway" situation? Another "train-out-of-the-station" that can't really be reigned in at this point because it's already "past the tipping point"? That there was so much CFC's in the air already and their use would continue in many countries anyway, and the new CFC's weren't that much better, and so by now we're all supposed to be dying of skin cancer. And yet somehow, now that the frenzy has shifted to CO2, the ozone holes are mysteriously, (and quietly) "healing", way ahead of schedule...

Of course, conveniently, one can't measure such things without massive funding. And the measurements themselves are what generate more funding. So if you have a kid in college and an upside-down mortgage and need more funding which way are your results gonna go?

I can't tell you how many times NREL has invited my to apply for their clean energy investment forums where clean energy breakthroughs are introduced to business people and investors. They always ask me to apply, then turn me down to present because their hired-gun reviewers don't think I don't have an advanced enough "business plan".
Oh well, so it's the end of the world. That's OK. We have rules, and you need to not only invent the solution, but craft the perfect business plan too. That way the business people don;t have to do anything. They are lazy too you know, just like "scientists".

OK so the world ends because a technical innovator was invited to meet business people but then the technical person didn't have the perfect business plan in place - didn't also do the work of the "business" people. So if the inventor also must have the perfect business plan, what are the "business people" for?
I mean, shouldn't the "scientists" be the ones with the solutions in the first place? With their "advanced knowledge", why do they need us little people at all? Then the business people create a business plan? But no, they want us little people to do all that for them. So what are they for?

See, not only do the labs refuse to participate in any advanced research into new concepts, asking the proposers and inventors to do ALL the work, they even extend the concept to their "business" people, who are also expected to do nothing whatsoever but sit in abject judgement of innovators, not contributing what they are supposedly good at: business plans etc., but instead merely faulting the innovator for not also having the business angle all sewn up and, voila! - another perfect excuse not to participate in new clean energy technologies that could eclipse the old technology - if only anyone would pay attention. But who cares. It's only "the end of the world". That isn't that important. Not as important as established policies and procedures for heaven's sake.

And we are all caulking our old boats since the seas are now inundating our cities, since, after all it is now 2010, and by 2010 sea levels were supposed to be so much higher. Start bailing!
There is something about authority: no matter how many times they lie, we all sit there and acknowledge them as "smarter than us", over and over again - infinite gullibility.
Now I decided long ago to fight this tendency. While a physics major at UCI, I decided all scientists were basically full-of-it. I decided to simply say every new "scientific fact" was bunk. Stephen Hawking can say whatever he wants about black holes, the "expanding universe", the big bang and all I have to say is "that's probably wrong" and sure enough, he'll change his mind in a couple years and come out with a new "truth for all time" that everyone will believe for all time again - at least for a few months til he changes his mind again. Hey - don't question him - the guy is in a wheelchair for heaven's sake! He must be right! 'Til he changes his mind again, then the new thing he says is right. Right?

Realize this: In the middle ages we all believed in a universe that spun around once a day: the daily "spinning universe". Call it "The spinning universe theory". Well, it was an obvious and undeniable observation that the whole universe was spinning around the Earth once a day, right? But there was a simpler explanation all along. Gee ya think? So now, we exchange the "spinning universe" theory for "the expanding universe" theory. Well c'mon, obviously our observations show it is expanding, right? Will we ever learn that sometimes things are not as they simplistically appear?

The science I had known was gone and it had degenerated into politically correct social manipulation.
Anyway, yeah it's the end of the world(!) and the government really takes it seriously so that is why they pull out all the stops and make sure people like us are well-funded.
:)
Anyway, back to reality:
It has been an exceptionally cold winter, and the skiing is Southern California is epic this year. Temps are falling and even the gullible masses are starting to wake up to the manipulation that passes for science where last decade's "cooling emergency" seamlessly transitions to this decade's "warming emergency" without skipping a beat. The actual temps now are even said to be irrelevant. "Are you going to believe me or your lying eyes"? We the people struggle on to find clean energy solutions on our own, without so much as a phone call from a government lab. They spend their millions on conferences rubber-stamping the status-quo, while we develop advanced solutions on a few thousand. Oh well. It really does not take money so much as determination. Not all that glitters is gold.
:)
D.S.

Hello,

no pictures in the article, that is bad.

I think, at least the pumping kite and the dancing kite should be
explained (with a picture).

Using kite energy to producy electricity to drive a ship in any
direction, this priciple should
be explained, too.

Best regards:

Uwe Fechner

Joe Faust schrieb:

Good suggestions, Uwe,
 
Anyone is allowed to edit the wiki.   With over 50 methods for working AWE systems, the wiki has room to
display gems.  

Anyone having rights on photos may enter the photos to WikiCommons and then call those images to the article.
The Wikipedia only allows images that have been entered to their system; we cannot just call anyone's photo to show.
Good idea. I hope too that someone gets some photos up into that wiki article.



http://www.sandia.gov/wind/2004BladeWorkshopPDFs/PeterJamieson.pdf
Peter Jamieson

Slow the wind.
Mix airs.
Send upper airs to stagnate regions.
Affect by "Butterfly Effect" a regions air.
And more.
Some of such is instruction in Colin Jack's 1992 patent "Free Rotor" mentioned in thread:

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/AirborneWindEnergy/message/1250

What would it take to quiet a hurricane or confuse a tornado? Bring rain to a dry region?    Do weather modification while storing energy from AWECS?

 

In 1992, Colin Jack, in his world patent instructed faired tether for kite system for Free Rotor airborne wind energy technology.   The Free Rotor kite system was primarily intended for fixed moorings on land or undersea for water rotor scheme.    Faired tether has occurred in kiting in other ways.  The next note of this post regards a system that converts wind energy in a free-flight conversion system, namely hang glider in the fre-flight kite format where the mooring point of the kite's tether is the falling body of the pilot; the short single tether in the CG-1000 harness allowed lower drag and other assets.  After a many-year hiatus, the harness is again being produced for kite pilots in free-flight. When lowest drag is wanted, the fairing of the single kite tether is perfected by some competition pilots.  Similarly, when an AWECS system needs tether fairing, the technology of fairing early torpedo paravane tethers, and the explorations and instructions attending various balloon tetherings being faired is available.

The free-flight AWECS kite system using a short kite tether in a hang glider system has had some commercial faired-tether use even before the dates mentioned by the harness maker herein below:

=============Answer to query by AWE publisher:

In the early 1980s the Keller harness was the first to eliminate all the lines, sometimes 8, to hang from a single suspension point; this was done by bringing the fabric up above the pilot and sewing it together forming a dorsal fin or like hanging in a bag configuration.  The space above the back was used for storage.  It was popular and Bill Bennett copied it right away. It also had the first zipper entry doors where you brought your legs up from under the harness and zipped up.
 
The CG 1000 was the next single-point suspension harness that worked  and some ideas were taken from the Keller. The CG incorporated an internal frame with a moving suspension point that could be adjusted with your foot pressure on a bar. The suspension line with fairing came straight out from the back and up to the hang point on the glider.  There were many fears that this would be unstable and that the frame could hurt you in a crash.  Just the opposite was true; the movable hang point allowed the pilot to get more upright for landing; and the frame saved several people's lives in accidents.

Jordan
Center of Gravity                     [March 11, 2010, note]

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

SEE:  http://www.flycenterofgravity.com/     See the single kite tether.

And large up close:

http://flycenterofgravity.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/jordan1.jpg

===================clip from 1992:

ByDanJohnson Product Lines column:

Jay Gianforte, builder of the successful CG 1000 harness (over 700 sold), has introduced his newest: the CG 2000. This new product is not custom fit, rather being made as a harness dealers can stock. Over the years, Gianforte has discovered, "There really is an average guy. The CG 2000 is made in a couple sizes that will fit the majority of all pilots." New features include more storage area, lighter weight, less rigid foam, simplified zipper lines, and a change to plastic seat belt buckles for the main closure. Price is expected to be about $500, somwhat less than the CG 1000, which is still available for the pilot who wants a custom fit."

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

 

 

 

 

On a looping kite to crankshaft system, what  do you recommend as a ratio between  tether length and crank length?

Thanks,
Bob

http://www.ewec2008proceedings.info/ewec2008/allfiles2/13_EWEC2008fullpaper.pdf

Peter Jamieson will be coming out with a book that mentions AWECS some. Further details are not known yet.

JoeF:
I have to say I am super-impressed with how much you have accomplished in accumulating info in the AWE field.
I am in AWE of how much you have accomplished in such a short time.
It is very seldom that we see someone taking a self-appointed task so seriously and being so thorough. You've done us all a huge favor! Imagine if the powers that be were so dedicated! This planet owes you a big Thank You!
Doug S.



Dave S,

Crankshaft axis toward the loop center produces low tangential force,so
low torque,and high radial force:the tether direction is near to the
crankshaft direction instead a better configuration where the tether is
perpendicular to the crankshaft.

Pierre B

--- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, dave santos <santos137@... wrote:
optimal crosswind motion (without a crosswind cableway or track).
do is aim their crankshaft axis toward the loop center. Similarly, lever
schemes should aim the lever axis at the center of the sweep pattern &
let the lever arm travel crosswind. You can upgrade your orthokite
geometry this way & eliminate one arm & drive line. WPI & others can
merely turn their levers sideways & tip them back a bit.
The KiteLab string tripod does crosswind geometry at super-low
capital cost.
configuration) to keep transmission of type cableway with more powerful
high speed crosswind trajectories of a kite (and also is it possible
with Kitelab tripod or other cyclic reel systems) or (if it is possible)
a rotor as kite-autogyro which high speed motion generates more swept
area and relative wind?A ground station on bears is it enough to allow
orientations according to pathes?
and need tension of tether;this problem would be higher with crosswind
pathes (if it is possible to accord the positions and tensions of cables
with kite moves)
of cableways over conductive tethers, by a Russian physicist, no
less. KiteLab Group & others have generally come to the same central
conclusions. Dave Lang has offered to eventually wade in on the
preferred transmission question & Bolonkin's calculations should help.
the growing case in favor of mechanical transmission to
ground gens. The VC pretense of superior stealth knowledge has
worn thin. If on a bad horse, change mounts without
shame.