Messages in AirborneWindEnergy group.                           AWES12905to12954 Page 154 of 440.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12905 From: Cleventine Date: 5/21/2014
Subject: (no subject)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12906 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/21/2014
Subject: Re: I met Professor Crackpot (again) the other day.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12907 From: Christian Harrell Date: 5/21/2014
Subject: Re: I met Professor Crackpot (again) the other day.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12908 From: Rod Read Date: 5/22/2014
Subject: Re: I met Professor Crackpot (again) the other day.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12909 From: Christian Harrell Date: 5/22/2014
Subject: Re: I met Professor Crackpot (again) the other day.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12910 From: dougselsam Date: 5/22/2014
Subject: Re: Another Crackpot wind turbine

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12911 From: dougselsam Date: 5/22/2014
Subject: Re: I met Professor Crackpot (again) the other day.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12912 From: Christian Harrell Date: 5/22/2014
Subject: Re: I met Professor Crackpot (again) the other day.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12913 From: Christian Harrell Date: 5/22/2014
Subject: Re: I met Professor Crackpot (again) the other day.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12914 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/22/2014
Subject: Vane, vanes, ...

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12915 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/22/2014
Subject: Re: Vane, vanes, ...

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12916 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/22/2014
Subject: Re: Vane, vanes, ...

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12917 From: dougselsam Date: 5/23/2014
Subject: Re: I met Professor Crackpot (again) the other day.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12918 From: dougselsam Date: 5/23/2014
Subject: Re: Vane, vanes, ...

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12919 From: Cleventine Date: 5/23/2014
Subject: Re: Vane, vanes, ...

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12920 From: dougselsam Date: 5/24/2014
Subject: Re: Vane, vanes, ...

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12921 From: dave santos Date: 5/24/2014
Subject: Re: Vane, vanes, ...

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12922 From: dave santos Date: 5/24/2014
Subject: Re: Fwd: AWE pioneer Wubbo Ockels passed away

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12923 From: dave santos Date: 5/24/2014
Subject: Peter Lynn's Pilot-Lifter design evolution and Kytoon Method; also,

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12924 From: dave santos Date: 5/24/2014
Subject: Who will first choose the AWES winners?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12925 From: dave santos Date: 5/24/2014
Subject: Novel Soft SLK by Peter Kite

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12926 From: Christian Harrell Date: 5/24/2014
Subject: Re: Vane, vanes, ...

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12927 From: dave santos Date: 5/24/2014
Subject: Re: I met Professor Crackpot (again) the other day.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12928 From: dave santos Date: 5/24/2014
Subject: (no subject)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12929 From: Cleventine Date: 5/24/2014
Subject: Re: (unknown)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12930 From: dave santos Date: 5/25/2014
Subject: Re: (unknown)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12931 From: Christian Harrell Date: 5/25/2014
Subject: Re: (unknown)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12932 From: dave santos Date: 5/25/2014
Subject: Re: (unknown)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12933 From: stephane rousson Date: 5/25/2014
Subject: Les news du Voilier des Airs, Sky-sailing yacht

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12934 From: dougselsam Date: 5/25/2014
Subject: Re: I met Professor Crackpot (again) the other day.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12935 From: dave santos Date: 5/25/2014
Subject: Re: I met Professor Crackpot (again) the other day.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12936 From: dave santos Date: 5/26/2014
Subject: AWE Research by GIPSA-labs Cerfs-volants Team

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12937 From: Rod Read Date: 5/27/2014
Subject: Re: AWE Research by GIPSA-labs Cerfs-volants Team

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12938 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/27/2014
Subject: Mind Meister on AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12939 From: dave santos Date: 5/27/2014
Subject: AWE Social Model- Shirone Kite Mania

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12940 From: dave santos Date: 5/28/2014
Subject: NCAR/UCAR begin AWE Studies under Cristina's Lead

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12941 From: dave santos Date: 5/28/2014
Subject: Open Invitation to Demo at NWTC

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12942 From: dougselsam Date: 5/28/2014
Subject: Re: I met Professor Crackpot (again) the other day.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12943 From: dougselsam Date: 5/28/2014
Subject: Another "press-release breakthrough" archmedean screw windmill.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12944 From: dave santos Date: 5/28/2014
Subject: Re: I met Professor Crackpot (again) the other day.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12945 From: dave santos Date: 5/28/2014
Subject: WindPower Monthly reviews "Quirky" Concepts (includes AWE)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12946 From: dave santos Date: 5/29/2014
Subject: Pitfalls in Wind Investment (Der Spiegel)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12947 From: dougselsam Date: 5/29/2014
Subject: Re: Open Invitation to Demo at NWTC

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12948 From: dougselsam Date: 5/29/2014
Subject: Re: WindPower Monthly reviews "Quirky" Concepts (includes AWE)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12949 From: dave santos Date: 5/29/2014
Subject: Re: Open Invitation to Demo at NWTC

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12950 From: dave santos Date: 5/29/2014
Subject: Re: WindPower Monthly reviews "Quirky" Concepts (includes AWE)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12951 From: Rod Read Date: 5/29/2014
Subject: Re: WindPower Monthly reviews "Quirky" Concepts (includes AWE)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12952 From: dave santos Date: 5/29/2014
Subject: Re: WindPower Monthly reviews "Quirky" Concepts (includes AWE)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12953 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/30/2014
Subject: Re: Boost for graphene: Spray-on substrate

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12954 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 6/3/2014
Subject: Tether-lifting Conspicuity Markers



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12905 From: Cleventine Date: 5/21/2014
Subject: (no subject)
Know
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12906 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/21/2014
Subject: Re: I met Professor Crackpot (again) the other day.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12907 From: Christian Harrell Date: 5/21/2014
Subject: Re: I met Professor Crackpot (again) the other day.
Doug

I have come to notice that certain personality types seem to understand the MFV better than others. As I stated before it is not something I can explain chronologically.. Personally, I dont care about investors, Im predominantly making this for myself. Im sure I can find financial aid/ publicity when I debut on the lake in Seattle this winter. 

The Modular Foil Vane is my approach to an industrial kite bar, I am aiming to create a comprehensive kite powered boat where the user controls the kite lines remotely with the pulleys inside of the vehicle (instead of physically touching the lines). It allows the user to reel in and out the lines independently of the control (sheeting) mechanism.The nacelle is mounted on a slew which gives it more than 180 degrees of freedom.
It also prevents the tethers from ever twisting all the way up the lines, This means it can loop ceaselessly (along with the ability to change the orbiting radius) It is portable, fits in the back of a car. So far, I haven't seen any configuration that can perform the same duties as the MFV. ... and this is just a proof of concept.  

Kite aerial photography is something that i've been interested in for some time and I expanded on the sturdy configuration of my kite aerial photography platform to the MFV. Making sure that everything balances. Eventually i would love to see this lift out of the water to reduce unnecessary drag. (the prototype will weigh around 90-120 lbs.)

In essence it is a deconstructed sailboat, with the sail as a kite, the cabin or pod (which will be automated in the future, and a paravane as the keel.) 

The benefit of being able to retrieve the lines separately from the sheeting mechanism is the ability to simulate apparent wind by winding up the line. Reeling in both the paravane and the kite during a beam reach should provide some decent speed if it is ever needed.

 Otherwise, the paravane/drouge gets dragged through the water and spins my impeller to create electricity. 

Eventually what i would like to see is the kite performing powerful continuous loops while the paravane does it's work.  

I

Cleventine. 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12908 From: Rod Read Date: 5/22/2014
Subject: Re: I met Professor Crackpot (again) the other day.
Clev,

I really like that you have a controller able to keep a (so far 2 line but 4 possible) kite continually looping.
And even better it takes the human out of the loop. (contentious)

Is there a function of the sheeting / tension difference control which allows for differences to be loop phase adjusted..
e.g. can you steer a non circular loop path?  e.g. going down on RHS to tight inward turn - flat along the bottom - less tight turn to big upand down loop - repeat

What we have seen so far is your kite control set-up. And it's neat.

Certainly if winding sheeting controllers were actively slewing around the axis of rotation of any superturbine / tornado / looping parafoil type with an MFV type controller.... then there are likely to be numerous improvements in output performance.

As for Power Take Off (PTO)
In your particular case, you see the MFV PTO being applied to steerable vectored pulling over long courses.

Yeah, I can see that if you have a large controllable kite up high and looping a steered course... you can generate a load of pull for less kite...and still vector the pull to an averaged useful (tighter loops allow closer to ideal pull vector VS larger loops may be faster and stronger but bumpier output)
What I'm not sure about in you intended application is the advantage other than implied size of kite this method has over a simple single line controllable kiteship like kite.

Come to the dark side Clev
start taking power from the slewing
Doug is your father

Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12909 From: Christian Harrell Date: 5/22/2014
Subject: Re: I met Professor Crackpot (again) the other day.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12910 From: dougselsam Date: 5/22/2014
Subject: Re: Another Crackpot wind turbine
Exactly as you say, Harry.  Most crackpot wind turbines are just that.  Most "offbeat" turbines represent "giant steps backward", often by thousands of years.  Even most regular small wind turbines on the market today are a disappointment, failures waiting to happen, which is why the market leader, Southwest Windpower, went bankrupt last year after 80 million in funding.  The reason the world leader in small wind went bankrupt during a time of almost unlimited funding and liberal tolerance for failure in renewable energy?  Most of their products went to market before being truly proven as survivors, in a field where failure is almost 100% certain for any new turbine.  Small wind seems to have an aspect of "throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks", in the sense that the best engineering effort is only given so long, by the bean-counters, to be proven, before they insist on selling in large numbers to rationalize the expense of tooling and staff.   The result is most small turbines are not tested sufficiently to see the failure modes.  A few models turn out to be survivors, but so far, there is usually only a single reliable model in any brand.  In other words, coming up with a model that survives is partly a matter of luck, and partly persistence.  The only solution seems to be testing in the worst sites possible, which is like accelerated testing in a way, but also testing for real world conditions in super-windy areas.  Most companies like to "test their vehicle on the freeway", whereas what they really need to do is test it "off-road", since any "Cadillac" will find itself being asked to run the Baja-500.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12911 From: dougselsam Date: 5/22/2014
Subject: Re: I met Professor Crackpot (again) the other day.
Hi Clev
Thanks for explaining.  I have watched at least one of your videos in the past, but for some reason I have a bad memory and forget details.  Then I get deja vu's as I take a fresh look.  I remember wondering why the word "vane" was used, since I did not see any "vane" being used, but more what I would call a rotating winch assembly.  A vane is usually a downwind surface that gets pushed sideways by the wind for automatic aim, no?  Like the vanes on an arrow?  A weathervane?  So, if you call something a "vane" that has no features typically defined by the word "vane", that is where my confusion comes from.  My personality type is "words have meanings".

If I have the idea right, your assembly is a way to have a multi-line kite go in circles, without twisting the lines.  Do I have that right?  I remember being pretty impressed with a few things:
1) It seemed to work as you had intended
2) it looked like it was potentially useful
3) it looked like you were having fun
4) You actually BUILT it and ran it, instead of just talking about it or just drawing it
5) despite a lack of shop class, you found a way to "make it happen"
6) the woodwork looked like it got the job done just fine.
7) If a major university, aerospace company, or federal agency such as (ahem) NASA had done it (tried to do it, that is) instead of an individual, it would have cost over a million dollars and taken a huge team of snot-nosed milk-and-cookies grad students having their pictures taken together against various backdrops, to accomplish the same or less.  (he he he)
8) Places like "The National Wind Technology Center" could never even be bothered to try something like that.
( I could go on but I will spare us all)
So good luck and thanks for explaining, to some extent, but I am still wondering why a winch is being called a "vane".
:)
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12912 From: Christian Harrell Date: 5/22/2014
Subject: Re: I met Professor Crackpot (again) the other day.
Doug, 

thanks for the feedback!

Regarding "Vane" The nacelle (that houses the spinning/orbital mechanism) is not quite complete. Attached to the nacelle will be an arm that the para "vane" is attached to. Also the arm and nacelle will typically point down wind (Hence the vane). 

I call it modular because of the many configurations this instrument is capable of. Instead of inflatable pontoons for the water, it could be fixed with blades for ice, skis for snow/ mud, Tires of sand and dessert. 

It also modulates the frequency of rotation and corresponding vector of the kite.

The difficult part of all of us is the fact that we are inventors.. We are creating something from our imaginations.. It just so happens that those ideas are not always easily translatable.. (especially for someone who is not in the field or versed with the jargon)

Despite the fact that it is expensive (and fun) I realize I need to fund my own prototype in order to give people a better springboard for their imagination. If Steve jobs told the world (or even his board) that he was going to mass produce a music device that could hold 1000 songs he could have been laughed out of a job. Instead he quietly built it in secret and debuted in in a remarkable way. 

I would like to see that same childlike sense of excitement in AWE devices. 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12913 From: Christian Harrell Date: 5/22/2014
Subject: Re: I met Professor Crackpot (again) the other day.
Doug, 

Tell me about the National Wind Tech Center, what could be improved?
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12914 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/22/2014
Subject: Vane, vanes, ...

Vane?   

Start: 



vane

  • v
  • weather vane       wiki
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow  See vane on arrows. Fletchings are traditionally made from feathers (often from a goose or turkey) bound to the arrow's shaft, but are now often made of plastic (known as "vanes").
  • http://people.eku.edu/ritchisong/feather_evolution.htm    Study vanes involved in feather evolution
  • Pennaceous feather    See details of such feathers. 
  • : a thin, flat or curved object that is attached to a wheel and that moves when air or water pushes it         Illustration: http://www.merriam-webster.com/art/dict/feather.htm
  • :  a thin flat or curved object that is rotated about an axis by a flow of fluid or that rotates to cause a fluid to flow or that redirects a flow of fluid <the vanes of a windmill
  • a blade, plate, sail, etc., in the wheel of a windmill, to be moved by the air.
  • any of a number of blades or plates attached radially to a rotating drum or cylinder, as in a turbine or pump, that move or are moved by a fluid, as steam, water, hot gases, or air.
  • Aerospace.
    a.  any fixed or movable plane surface on the outside of a rocket providing directional control while the rocket is within the atmosphere.
    b.  a similar plane surface located in the exhaust jet of a reaction engine, providing directional control while the engine is firing.
  • paravane      water kite
  • Modular Foil Vane ( Kite Looping Mechanism)  by Cleventine
  • http://www.peterlynnkites.com/news.htm   Peter instructs on increasing "vane area" in the rear.   He notes in his instruction though: "Kites are wind vanes- there needs to be more 'vane' area towards the rear than at the front or the kite will turn against the wind direction. "
  • The wing of a kite system may be considered to be a vane of the kite system.  ~ JpF
  • Vanes in a box kite construction:  SeeHere
  • Some wings of kite systems are controlled by vanes on the wing or on extensions from the wing.
  • Stabilizing vanes in some wings of kite systems.
  • v
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12915 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/22/2014
Subject: Re: Vane, vanes, ...
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12916 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/22/2014
Subject: Re: Vane, vanes, ...
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12917 From: dougselsam Date: 5/23/2014
Subject: Re: I met Professor Crackpot (again) the other day.
In my opinion, the same thing could be improved at NTWC as at other agencies:  explore new ideas.  These agencies think of themselves as being at the forefront of research, but in reality they are populated by people who worship the status quo and refuse to try much of anything new at all.  I think if people actually believed in things like "global warming" as a true impending catastrophe, they would pull out all the stops to explore various new ideas.  As it is though, not only do they not explore any new ideas, they have no mechanism in place to even consider them.  They are just blah blah blah paper pushers, with a steady government job, using lots of jet fuel to fly to various conferences where they congratulate each other on doing nothing while paying lip service to the climate hand-wringers.  I have a friend who recently became head of small wind for NWTC.  He asked us windies what he could do to improve the landscape for small wind.  I suggested that they push to get a grid-tie inverter specifically for small wind turbines on the market, with 3-phase input and automatic built-in overvoltage protection.  He didn't even miss a beat explaining basically that they don;t actually DO anything there, and did anyone else besides "Doug" have any suggestions?  I found after a while that these agencies are staffed with nice people, but getting involved with them is like stepping in doggie-doo.  All it will do is slow you down.  Imagine in your case, instead of actually building anything, you'd still be mired in "getting ready to get ready" paperwork, with no working anything to show for getting sidetracked from building and testing, to people-pleasing, filling out forms that promise how many billions of dollars you sill save taxpayers if only they will give you a few thousand now.  Meanwhile you could have built it and move on.  It's similar to an unemployed person - they could stand in lines all day attempting to fit into various jobs programs, or they could just go out and get a job themselves and move on.  Which is the course effective people should pursue?  You have to figure out if the ground you are about to walk on is solid, or quicksand in disguise. :)
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12918 From: dougselsam Date: 5/23/2014
Subject: Re: Vane, vanes, ...
Joe:  Yes I guess someone could do a doctoral dissertation on the word "vane", but that is the type if intellectual quicksand I think masquerades as progress while it actually slows the world down. 

After hearing Clev's explanation as to why he calls his machine a "vane", which is that it may someday be covered with a fairing and that it usually points somewhat downwind, I believe he should call it a name that is more in line with what it actually DOES.  It does not function as a "vane" in any way that I can see.  It doesn't always point downwind, it is not passively aimed by the wind, and a fairing is obviously not required for its operation.  Therefore, I think it should be called something that actually describes what it does, such as "rotary dual kite-reel", for example.

By calling it what it is, Clev would not have to rely on "personality types" for people to have some idea what he is talking about.  He should explain it so all people can understand.  I'd start with using that first picture on his website to show it, rather than showing an empty landscape(?), naming it what it actually DOES, including a brief explanation, perhaps in the form of "problem =
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12919 From: Cleventine Date: 5/23/2014
Subject: Re: Vane, vanes, ...

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12920 From: dougselsam Date: 5/24/2014
Subject: Re: Vane, vanes, ...
When I click on the previous message, I see a blank page and I have to click on "show message history" to even read the message. 

I also see to names: 'Cleventine' and "Christian Harrel" - are these two the same person?  If so, why two names on this list?  Two separate yahoo identities?  Two people or one person? Am I merely confused?  Did I miss something?

Reading the website for the foil vane or rotating dual-winch kite-line controller, or whatever it will eventually be called, I see comparison to Makani (they are deemed as OK but the "vane" is said to be an improvement) I don't see any way that the kite guided by the dual-line rotating winch is to generate electricity.  How is the kite controlled by the dual-line rotary winch supposed to generate electricity?  Just wondering.
:)
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12921 From: dave santos Date: 5/24/2014
Subject: Re: Vane, vanes, ...
"Van" is archaic anglo-gaulic for wing, as I recall my youthful Milton-study, where we perhaps find a first reference to aeroelastic-flutter and settling-under-power as a combined flight-dynamics failure-mode-

From Paradise Lost:
...
At last his sail-broad VANs
He spreads for flight, and, in the surging smoke
Uplifted, spurns the ground; thence many a league,
As in a cloudy chair, ascending rides        930
Audacious; but, that seat soon failing, meets
A vast vacuity. All unawares,
Fluttering his pennons vain, plumb-down he drops
Ten thousand fadom deep, and to this hour
Down had been falling, had not, by ill chance,        935
The strong rebuff of some tumultuous cloud,
Instinct with fire and nitre, hurried him
As many miles aloft...
On Saturday, May 24, 2014 10:23 AM, "dougselsam@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12922 From: dave santos Date: 5/24/2014
Subject: Re: Fwd: AWE pioneer Wubbo Ockels passed away
Hi PJ (and Guido),

We are all deeply saddened by Wubbo's departure. Thank you for your memorial effort on his behalf. I am forever in his debt for the strong personal support he extended to me and many others in Open-AWE. His best legacy is for all of us to redouble our efforts to master upper winds once and for all.

Did you and Guido follow up on Director Fort Felker's offer to host AWEC 2014 in Boulder Colorado at NWTC/NREL? Recall that you asked me to help find a suitable 2014 conference venue, and Fort's enthusiastic offer was the result. No better venue seems possible, but AWEC's reply is overdue.

Thanks for AWEC giving Fort and the rest of us a prompt answer regarding AWEC's 2014 conference plans. Viva Wubbo!

In sorrow and hope,

dave santos


PS This is not an AWEIA request, but my own initiative.

On Tuesday, May 20, 2014 12:50 PM, PJ Shepard <pj@aweconsortium.org
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12923 From: dave santos Date: 5/24/2014
Subject: Peter Lynn's Pilot-Lifter design evolution and Kytoon Method; also,

When Peter Lynn posts any progress applicable to AWE, its linked here. His latest newsletter details progress with pilot-lifters and and how he concocted a COTS Kytoon-

http://www.peterlynnhimself.com/newsletter/May_Nl_14.html

On another front, the issue of Chinese Kite Pirates has abated greatly in the last decade as elite Western designers have entered in Chinese partnerships. Here is a curiously brazen yet not so bad "Peter Kite" variant taking the name and look of Peter Lynn kites-

Company Overview - Kuiwen Guangwen Peter Kite Sale Department

In the Chinese (and my own) view, kite design knowledge wants to be free, and such cloning is homage to greatness by hard working folks, and leads to eventual legitimization as these upstarts eventually develop new kite designs, which are already flowing upward from Chinese shop floors. Rather than sue, Peter himself could probably approach this company as a hero, if he does not already have a stake.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12924 From: dave santos Date: 5/24/2014
Subject: Who will first choose the AWES winners?
While its true that markets eventually choose technology winners, they are always late to do so. The actual first to choose tech winners are the top engineering experts who develop specific designs for the markets to embrace.

The best engineering due-diligence is the winning expert method. The Wright Bros* chose to win before the "airplane market" even existed. Those who wait for markets to choose for them are not experts.

Expect Aerospace-Engineering and kiting expertise in our circles to first define AWES winners for the dumber slower Energy Market to sequentially discover. Our progress is quite rapid; the unique enabling domain knowledge is growing explosively.


* High school drop-outs embraced by our AE professors
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12925 From: dave santos Date: 5/24/2014
Subject: Novel Soft SLK by Peter Kite

As evidence for for strong Chinese soft-kite innovation, check out this sophisticated single line kite design (unless this is a knock-off of some non-PRC inventor unknown to us). The attractive feature is the minimal ram-air LE on an otherwise SS kite, a theoretic sweet-spot of lowest-cost for maximal lift-to-weight only undertaken by advanced designers.

If only someone would buy, fly, and review this kite; since many promising-looking kites fly poorly. A comic aside: Disney's iconic mouse was fair-game for pirating, and Alibaba is no IP cop-

http://i01.i.aliimg.com/photo/v0/900737179/soft_kite.jpg


image



View on i01.i.aliimg.com
Preview by Yahoo


full page link-

http://peterkite.en.alibaba.com/product/900737179-218692003/soft_kite.html
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12926 From: Christian Harrell Date: 5/24/2014
Subject: Re: Vane, vanes, ...
It is good of you to notice that. indeed, the steering mechanism itself does not generate electricity. Though I could, I'll be happy to get to that later.

 

As you know, I'm seeking to evolve sailcraft. I envision a vehicle that charges all of its own system along side with a battery. 

I intend on doing this with the Para "Vane" (Modular Foil Paravane sounds a little funny).

Instead of the Sea glider's paravane, I'm currently in the process of developing what looks like a whale tail fitted with an impeller inside with three control lines..(underwater kite). The actual foil is articulated DOWN, so instead of Lift it provides the traction necessary to keep the vehicle anchored. 

Perhaps soil kite is the word? Anyhow, Paravane works just fine. 

This impeller/paravane will function much like a parachute. Parachutes must have a hole to funnel energy out. In that hole will be a tightly fitted impeller that should provide electricity as well as the downforce necessary to keep traction as the kite spins power kite loops above. 

The paravane is not only a Keel necessary to steer the vessel but a tool to gather energy with. 


Ahh Makani. I like what they are doing and it works, very well. I just think that I could get more power (mechanically, not by rotors) if the device was cross-wind capable. AND not need a proprietary kite ( better not crash, Makani)

We are all aware that apparent airspeed is directly proportionate to lift.. So to me it makes sense to keep the wing moving quickly. Makani; however, is putting rotors on the wings and effectively slowing the RPMs of the rotating foil. (arc seconds?)

So to me they are making a conventional ground based wind turbine that flies high in the sky. It works. Ive no qualms.. but I'm looking for the MOST efficient method. 

(DOWN WIND) This would be a Kite stack able to perform loops, and during the power stroke around 3 oclock, open the paravane collect energy, and upon the recovery of the kite around, say 9 oclock slicken the paravane and shoot forward, in a form of Passive Dynamic Motion (wiki that). I like to call this Diametric Dynamic Locomotion because we are using two opposing foils.

Sounds difficult maybe, but really it is as simple as letting the depower out of one kite and pulling it in on the other.. and transfering energy.  Lots of research will be needed to find the correct frequencies but as an amature toy, it should be fun, and just within reach. 

Unitl then, the paravane will remain a sea anchor, Much like a drogue for safety while I practice.  




Christian Cleventine Harrell.  
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12927 From: dave santos Date: 5/24/2014
Subject: Re: I met Professor Crackpot (again) the other day.
The medical doctor unfairly and cowardly maligned by Doug in this thread cannot rebut, so I'll stand in.

Its a gross logical fallacy to think that an MD should measure up to an AE professor in forming sound wind engineering opinions. The fallacy is akin to supposing a brain surgeon should know Art History at a PhD level. That this unnamed doctor was a random social encounter underscores how poorly Doug researches and supports his Forum topics (far below an advanced academic standard) 

The doctor did not name a type or brand, nor buy any defective product. Nor did he ever invent and market a "fantasy-turbine", lecture on wind tech, nor have the crude irrelevant defects Doug endlessly ascribes to his ProfC bogeyman (dandruff, lisp, bow-tie, dirty glasses, etc.). To his credit as a wind lay-person, this doctor was marginally correct that a few small WECS on his house in his high-wind corridor might make useful amounts of power, presuming quality devices and an efficient home. Distributed generation is a sound idea.

None of Doug's intellectually dishonest ambush on the man was relevant to our focus on sharing AWE knowledge. Those who chose this topic for "chat" did a disservice to the AWES Forum original intent, whose best-practice is to stay on-topic (AWE), with new subject lines when the subject shifts, to assist third-party study. The formal goal of this forum is professional-level communication, with the standard becoming higher over time, as most of us advance in knowledge together. 

Doug should start his own public forum for his "Professor CrackPot" straw-man. He has never succeeded in proving that any professorial expert in our AWE community is as demonstrably and willfully ignorant of aviation (esp. kite) and physics facts as he is*. Weak trollish attacks on our learned experts or casual strangers do not cover for an ongoing lack of progress with the SuperTurbine, or any other AWES architecture. AWE is progressing without Doug.



* After five years of constant expert usage and reporting on the Forum, Doug still asking what LE means, not recognizing a Sutton FF, and even asserting without retraction that maintaining HTA flight does not consume energy by mass-aloft (10W per kg), and many bizarre unrelated-to-AWE theories, like Columbus and Cortes did not encounter the bow-and-arrow, despite clear original accounts, etc..
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12928 From: dave santos Date: 5/24/2014
Subject: (no subject)

Clev,

No "qualms" about Makani? Their tech "works very well"? Wing7 generates the power of a motor-scooter and cannot survive a week, much less a five-year payback (optimistic).

It seems you have swallowed Makani's marketing hype, and not read much tech critique about them. Their actual critical safety and reliability metrics are grim. Its a super high-capital-cost high-complexity premature down-select. It cannot unit-scale under Galilean scaling law. The economic prospects are therefore very dim. Under FAA regs, the Makani approach is non-viable, for many reasons long well-covered here (high mass-velocity, low reliability). That is why they desperately hope for a niche offshore, to escape the mountain of unsolved land/population issues, but offshore is a howling graveyard. 

We know of no independent Aerospace or aviation AWE expert who thinks Makani has a real working solution. Its just that they do not much bother countering Google hype in public any more than they waste time attacking endless PopSci or PopMech hype. Lay people want to believe the slick PR myths fed to them, and Google dominates AWE lay mindshare. The unheard experts hope no one gets hurt as the final debacle unfolds (M600 fizzle predicted).

Keep an open mind that there has long been a far higher standard (global Open-AWE) than Makani's. Not a single EU academic or start-up team has made the same list of design mistakes. No imitators are even temped. At least a dozen teams are able to beat Makani by the numbers, right now, but you have to diligently study the serious technical sources to understand why. A lot of incompetence is hidden under Google secrecy. Secrecy and hype mostly inverse-correlate with merit in AWE.

So you can out-think Makani just as you suggest, especially if you master AWE COTS KIS fundamentals, but you are hardly alone!

daveS


PS A conical parachute need not have an apex-hole to function, its a secondary option that many canopies omit.



Cleventine wrote:

"...Ahh Makani. I like what they are doing and it works, very well. I just think that I could get more power (mechanically, not by rotors) if the device was cross-wind capable. AND not need a proprietary kite ( better not crash, Makani)

We are all aware that apparent airspeed is directly proportionate to lift.. So to me it makes sense to keep the wing moving quickly. Makani; however, is putting rotors on the wings and effectively slowing the RPMs of the rotating foil. (arc seconds?)

So to me they are making a conventional ground based wind turbine that flies high in the sky. It works. Ive no qualms..."
 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12929 From: Cleventine Date: 5/24/2014
Subject: Re: (unknown)
Dave,

I'm sorry, I thought by my tone that I am unimpressed with Googles Makani project. It appears one shouldn't be afraid of being unnecessary blunt on this forum.

The whole premise behind Makani's foil is not practical. By using an expensive proprietary kite instead of refitting perfectly good kitesurfing and traction kite they're making a very very expensive and fragile energy "solution". It really doesn't require much research to see that it is not the most practice investment.

Also even you have figured out that slowing the airspeed by adding propellers has got to be devastating to overall performance. Not to mention heavy..

By the way ,

The parachute remark was an analogy. If you want to get technical a classic drogue. The hole in the back provides stability. As well as producing a high velocity funnel, as bernoulli's principles on hydraulics would suggest (or your old school squirt gun). So a chamber and impeller would be a natural solution to converting that flow into electricity.

C Clev
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12930 From: dave santos Date: 5/25/2014
Subject: Re: (unknown)
Clev,

A quick review, so you can catch up fast. Some folks never quite grasp these basics, but you seem ready to drink in domain knowledge.

Safety-critical engineering critique consists of key metrics applied in standard logics. Its properly tone-deaf to emotional nuance, so if "works well" really meant "bad", that's way too subtle. Economic and performance metrics like LCOE are applied as well. These fade into subjectives, but clarity is still wanted. Top engineering metrics include MTBCF (Mean Time Between Critical Failure), LifeCycle, and so on. Makani scores poorly in almost any such dimension, by the numbers. Excess Makani AWES complexity correlates with a high number of failure modes, many of which are first documented here.

A drogue does not require an apex-hole for adequate stability: many are stable enough just by the selected depth-of-section and bridle geometry. At KFarm, our best drogues are by Rocket Man, with no apex hole. Where max-drag is critical, a holeless drogue often wins (ie. many modern reserve parachutes). A "classic drogue" could be confused as the streamer tails long applied to kites, and early canopy drogues did not start with holes, so what is properly classic is unclear.

Whoops for my violating subject-line relevance on this thread, just after admonishing others. I meant to start a new thread titled perhaps "Makani AWES "works well" (?)".

daveS

PS Still plagued by double-posting bug, even on a good connection. Sorry for the bother, will try to troubleshoot again... 



On Saturday, May 24, 2014 9:41 PM, "Cleventine christianharrell@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12931 From: Christian Harrell Date: 5/25/2014
Subject: Re: (unknown)
Dave, 

Please wiki 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drogue
 
I wouldnt consider rocket man Drogues to be classic. 


No one one is suggesting that a droge need an apex hole. I am saying, for the purposes of this project that it is necessary, unless you can think of a better way to generate electricity from paravane. They key is to SLOW DOWN the flow of fluid by using an apex hole and an impeller, this will ALSO provide stability. I really hope that is clear enough. Sea anchor, Drogue, Paravane.. take your pick Im using concepts of all three to devise something new. 

And by now, I hope it is terribly clear that I am unimpressed with Makani, The metrics you mentioned are probably useful but as far as Makani goes, they have a long way to go before the LCOE will be necessary. 

My LCOE test is how fast can one person independently set up and run a whole AWES system. because private buyers or enthusiasts often don't have a crowd of kiters eager to help them. 

C Clev
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12932 From: dave santos Date: 5/25/2014
Subject: Re: (unknown)
Clev,

"Classic" was your seeming drogue adjective, and it confused me. Your design imperative for an apex-hole seemed related to your idea of classic. The wiki link shows a holeless version at top (sea-anchor case).

Note that your use of LCOE (Levelized Cost Of Energy) is also non-standard, but Makani and many others have long hyped estimates, rather than waiting for it to be accounted as an after-thought. You seem to be confusing usability with LCOE, which are distinct concepts, although both are important.

Note that Low-Complexity AWE, as it has lately evolved, is generally simpler still than your starting scheme, and Makani's "launch-and-forget" intent is in theory simplest for the end user (disregarding maintenance!).

Don't worry about the confusion here over so many fundamental issues; its high time we review and update them,

daveS






On Sunday, May 25, 2014 8:53 AM, "Christian Harrell christianharrell@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com wrote:
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12933 From: stephane rousson Date: 5/25/2014
Subject: Les news du Voilier des Airs, Sky-sailing yacht
Attachments :

    Bonjour à tous, Dear all ( Translate with google ) 

    les news du Voilier des Airs," l’aerosail "

    J’ai reçu  les encouragements  du Musée océanographique de Monaco ainsi que de la Direction des Sports du Conseil Général 06 et le soutien des médias avec une ITV de Virgin radio ce mois ci , et je me prépare pour mes essai programmé fin septembre début Octobre sur Nice. ( encore quelques papiers adminsitratifs , mais cela semble en bonne voie, on va finir par y arriver !! ) 

    Un dérivé du voilier des air que je développe: le Sky-sailing avec une superbe video de notre nouveau rider Damien Leroy (photo jointe )  avec notre Owlone Seaglider : http://youtu.be/6uNWkd8nYHY

    Aujourd’hui mon Team comporte plus de 20 riders parmi les meilleurs dans le monde , et je débute les premières ventes de mon prototype dans le monde entier.  www.seaglider.fr 

    Les nouvelles de mes autres travaux en cours :

    - Le navire  Aerocenaographe, j'attaque la longue série de ponçage de la coque et deux couches de résines et peintures, de quoi m’occuper quelques mois..

    - Le nouveau sous-marin  E-scubster version électrique devrait voir le jour cet été pour sa mise à l’eau

    - et le Funfoil, pédalo sur hydrofoil en cours de développement 


    Je cherche du prototypage rapide gratuit pour faire des pièces, ( une hélice , un renvoi d’angle )  , un dessinateur 3D passionné de mécanique à pédales mais aussi  un peu d’aide financiere , des mécènes, des investisseurs , pour faire avancer les projets …alors venez me rejoindre !!

    Bonne journée à vous tous
    Images intégrées 2
    --
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12934 From: dougselsam Date: 5/25/2014
    Subject: Re: I met Professor Crackpot (again) the other day.
    One more crazy post from Dave S.  Yes, I can see why you feel the need to defend Professor Crackpot:  You share the same characteristics: zero knowledge =
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12935 From: dave santos Date: 5/25/2014
    Subject: Re: I met Professor Crackpot (again) the other day.
    Doug

    ProfC is your albatross to double-down on, if we need yet more reminders of your lack of shared technical progress. At least many of us here are sharing fresh work, good and bad.

    What Open-Awe has over Makani is COTS giant wings (like MegaFly, OL, and Sky Sails). We also have a superior knowledge-sharing culture. For us, AWE is a wonderful quest for knowledge, not a dead-end search for Professor Crackpot. We are scaling-up with larger kites and intend to dominate the sky if ever allowed to fly-off against Makani, If they can get the M600 up at all,

    AWEfest is gestating nicely, but it takes time to master our methods. We bought a 40 watt Marshal and Johnson axe and moved our AWES gear into Austin to conduct park demos. This summer R&D continues in the cool NW. We have an invite from Fort to demo at NWTC, whch we intend before the larger NYC AWEfest in the Fall (Shawn and Abe got their training in TX and are back in Gotham preparing the ground. We will grow AWEfest organically over time, and surpass your criteria of success, so chill-out.

    At least the Good Doctor got his due defense in AWE circles. Next time pick on someone who can defend themselves, or whose associates can defend, on specifics.

    dave

    PS Your original "no bow and arrow" claim was false. The atlatl and bow naturally coexisted. Reread your original off-topic post impugning the intelligence of native people. Take off-topic rants to appropriate forums.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12936 From: dave santos Date: 5/26/2014
    Subject: AWE Research by GIPSA-labs Cerfs-volants Team

    As we eagerly await report of further progress by GIPSA-lab Cerfs-volants kite energy research, here is the link again to the portal to people, papers, and videos (including kite arch wind tunnel testing), much of which has still not yet been 
    reviewed by us, with many fine details to study-

    http://www.gipsa-lab.grenoble-inp.fr/recherche/plates-formes.php?id_plateforme=70
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12937 From: Rod Read Date: 5/27/2014
    Subject: Re: AWE Research by GIPSA-labs Cerfs-volants Team
    Does anyone know where the video of the reverse pumping test set-up is? as mentioned in the paper
    http://www.gipsa-lab.grenoble-inp.fr/recherche/plates-formes.php?id plateforme=70

    Rod Read

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

    07899057227
    01851 870878
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12938 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/27/2014
    Subject: Mind Meister on AWE

    Suggestions to the author will be ever invited for the map: 


    AWE
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12939 From: dave santos Date: 5/27/2014
    Subject: AWE Social Model- Shirone Kite Mania
    This is "the right stuff"-

    The Great Kite Fight
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12940 From: dave santos Date: 5/28/2014
    Subject: NCAR/UCAR begin AWE Studies under Cristina's Lead
    AWE research is gaining traction in major atmospheric science institutions. Large data sets are being prospected for persistent wind energy maxima for AWES to target. Boulder, Colorado, is an epicenter of study, with Cristina Archer leading developments-

    A mother lode of wind power | UCAR - University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12941 From: dave santos Date: 5/28/2014
    Subject: Open Invitation to Demo at NWTC
    Let it be known that Fort made an open invitation to demo prototype AWES at the National Wind Energy Technology Center; its not just a kPower gig*. Please get in touch if you have something safe and compelling to fly for the scientists, so we can share logistics.

    Boulder, Colorado is trending as a hotbed of AWE interest. It looks like AWEC2014 will be hosted by NWTC (AWEC and NWTC are in planning phase).


    * We envision a diversity of small AWES demos in a hands-on science-camp format, to jump-start thinking and long-term collaborations.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12942 From: dougselsam Date: 5/28/2014
    Subject: Re: I met Professor Crackpot (again) the other day.
    Dave S. wrote: "Doug ProfC is your albatross to double-down on,"
    Doug S. replies: **Prof C is you**
    Dave S. wrote: "What Open-Awe has over Makani is COTS giant wings (like MegaFly, OL, and Sky Sails). We also have a superior knowledge-sharing culture. For us, AWE is a wonderful quest for knowledge, not a dead-end search for Professor Crackpot."
    Doug S. replies: **No need to search - look in the mirror**
     "    We are scaling-up with larger kites and intend to dominate the sky if ever allowed to fly-off against Makani,"
    **"Intend to dominate" - wow I'll bet they are scared.  You are "allowed" to fly against McConney now, and you have, with zero results.**
    " If they can get the M600 up at all,"
    **They are not a serious player - no steady-state operation.  But their effort blows yours away.**

    "AWEfest is gestating nicely, but it takes time to master our methods."
    **Yeah, a LOT of time - garbage-in/garbage-out.**
    "We bought a 40 watt Marshal and Johnson axe and moved our AWES gear into Austin to conduct park demos."
    **You need electricity. Organizing a concert starts with electricity, not buying a guitar.  Cart ahead of horse. Let the bands bring their existing guitars - not a promoter's job to buy a guitar.  "Marshall" has two "L"s.**
    "This summer R&D continues in the cool NW. We have an invite from Fort to demo at NWTC,"
    **Wow that makes YOU cool - one more "future accomplishment" to brag about**
    "whch we intend before the larger NYC AWEfest in the Fall (Shawn and Abe got their training in TX and are back in Gotham preparing the ground. We will grow AWEfest organically over time, and surpass your criteria of success, so chill-out."
    ** You chill out - take 1000 chill pills.**
    "At least the Good Doctor got his due defense in AWE circles."
    **circles?  What circles?  One more Dave S. fantasy...** 
    "Next time pick on someone who can defend themselves, or whose associates can defend, on specifics."
    **OK how 'bout I pick on you?  As usual, you miss the whole point and focus on extraneous details.  The point was, those who don't know, don't know, even though they THINK they know...**
    "dave
    PS Your original "no bow and arrow" claim was false. The atlatl and bow naturally coexisted. Reread your original off-topic post impugning the intelligence of native people. Take off-topic rants to appropriate forums."
    **MY off-topic rants?  Ha ha, you are funny!  You, the king of off-topic rants!  The only person I'm impugning is you, and that is only because of your relentless impugning of me, which is typical newbie-denigrating of those who produce power.  Once more, you miss the main point: technology that seems obvious in retrospect is nonetheless not so easy to stumble across or invent, even for entire civilizations, over thousands of years.  The pieces are all there, and yet nobody can put them together.  This applies to AWE, and you don't get it.  Many civilizations around the world did not have the bow-and-arrow.  That is a fact.  We could argue endlessly about exactly whom and when.  That doesn't change the essence: You're still using an "atlatl", or worse, throwing by hand, while pretending to be at the forefront, yet producing nothing.  Many of us can feel that an AWE "bow-and-arrow" exists, but so far nobody is using it.**
    **Don't bother replying - save yourself the effort of trying to make me look bad by redefining words or wrongly paraphrasing me - go back to sleep.  No amount of "making me look bad" will make your goofy ideas work.      Find something to fixate on besides me.  Take a guitar lesson.**
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12943 From: dougselsam Date: 5/28/2014
    Subject: Another "press-release breakthrough" archmedean screw windmill.
    Screwy-looking wind turbine makes little noise and a big claim
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12944 From: dave santos Date: 5/28/2014
    Subject: Re: I met Professor Crackpot (again) the other day.
    Doug,

    Sorry for making you "look bad", but I don't know to best express the damage your ProfC attacks have done for open participation on the AWES Forum by actual professors. You have long driven that contingent underground; many interesting communications are not being shared by folks you personally implicated as ProfCs.

    This is the noble community you have relentlessly maligned (often by name), even if unwittingly-
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12945 From: dave santos Date: 5/28/2014
    Subject: WindPower Monthly reviews "Quirky" Concepts (includes AWE)
    "Windpower Monthly is the leading news magazine of the international wind energy business, publishing non-stop since 1985."

    Revolutionary advances beyond current HAWTs seen plausible. Makani, TUDelft, and USWindLabs reported in the mix-

    Can quirky wind designs become mainstream?
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12946 From: dave santos Date: 5/29/2014
    Subject: Pitfalls in Wind Investment (Der Spiegel)
    Fine coverage of a shake-out in the German wind industry. The lesson for AWE is to focus on reliable service in great wind locations with high-priced energy markets while avoiding excessive finance and managerial costs-

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/wind-power-investments-in-germany-proving-riskier-than-thought-a-946367.html
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12947 From: dougselsam Date: 5/29/2014
    Subject: Re: Open Invitation to Demo at NWTC
    Thanks for passing that along, Dave S.
    :)
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12948 From: dougselsam Date: 5/29/2014
    Subject: Re: WindPower Monthly reviews "Quirky" Concepts (includes AWE)
    Thanks for that, Dave S.  At least they spelled my name right.  :)
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12949 From: dave santos Date: 5/29/2014
    Subject: Re: Open Invitation to Demo at NWTC
    Doug,

    Please share the name and email of the NWTC contact for small wind so we can provide him with everybody's ideas, as he requests.

    Thanks,

    daveS

    PS Note that warrantied small-wind grid-tie products already exist (TRL9), but one must integrate components (like dump-load). The main role of NWTC is to inform policy, not develop products.

    Doug wrote:

    "I have a friend who recently became head of small wind for NWTC.  He asked us windies what he could do to improve the landscape for small wind.  I suggested that they push to get a grid-tie inverter specifically for small wind turbines on the market, with 3-phase input and automatic built-in overvoltage protection.  He didn't even miss a beat explaining basically that they don;t actually DO anything there, and did anyone else besides "Doug" have any suggestions? "


    On Thursday, May 29, 2014 8:25 AM, "dougselsam@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12950 From: dave santos Date: 5/29/2014
    Subject: Re: WindPower Monthly reviews "Quirky" Concepts (includes AWE)
    Doug,

     The "real wind folks" journal clearly contradicts positions you have insisted represent real wind thinking (like ST v. fabric-kite prospects. AWES Forum ST critique is consistent with the journal review and ranking). Its time for the ST to put-up; a decade of incredible hype has worn thin.

    You can't just flipflop between calling folks names and then kissing-up. Take social-sourness and thank-you notes off-forum, as off-topic "chat", to spare the busy. Focus on sharing positive tech knowledge with the world, as the self-proclaimed "greatest living wind power inventor". 

    daveS


    On Thursday, May 29, 2014 9:10 AM, "dougselsam@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12951 From: Rod Read Date: 5/29/2014
    Subject: Re: WindPower Monthly reviews "Quirky" Concepts (includes AWE)
    Quirky can really work in favour of social engineering inventiveness and product development ...
    see
    https://www.quirky.com/blog/post/2014/05


    Rod Read

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

    07899057227
    01851 870878
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12952 From: dave santos Date: 5/29/2014
    Subject: Re: WindPower Monthly reviews "Quirky" Concepts (includes AWE)
    Rod,

    Your quirky segue is a wee dodgy, but as it turns out, Quirky's NYC HQ is a short walk from our friends at FatCat (Noah-Util) and NYU (Zhang Lab), and we have begun forging those contacts. Lets now introduce all our HK contacts to each other (CarlGu, HaoYu, and Quirky HK), and to our fav kite manufacturers, deep in the PRC.

    We are still in planning for a 100M funding round, patiently building a large team of pre-activated pros for looming action,

    daveS

    PS kPower has an inside track into MicroVentures of Austin venture crowd-funding, but they demand some sort of biz plan, which may be a deal-killer (Google famously had no biz-plan, just reactive heuristics)

    PPS Who Knew? There are at least eight words for bow and arrow in Nahuatl.




    On Thursday, May 29, 2014 1:36 PM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12953 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/30/2014
    Subject: Re: Boost for graphene: Spray-on substrate
    It is not clear how AWE will one day be affected by spray-on graphene: 
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12954 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 6/3/2014
    Subject: Tether-lifting Conspicuity Markers

    Tether-lifting Conspicuity Markers

    This topic thread is dedicated to the growth of the arts of "tether-lifting conspicuity markers" for some AWES.