Messages in AirborneWindEnergy group.                           AWES13108to13158 Page 158 of 440.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13108 From: Rod Read Date: 7/9/2014
Subject: ring kite over-rotation solution more obvious

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13109 From: Rod Read Date: 7/9/2014
Subject: Re: Mothra Definition (and Crosswind-LadderMill note)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13110 From: dougselsam Date: 7/9/2014
Subject: Re: Mothra Definition (and Crosswind-LadderMill note)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13111 From: dave santos Date: 7/9/2014
Subject: Re: Mothra Definition (and Crosswind-LadderMill note)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13112 From: dave santos Date: 7/9/2014
Subject: Croatian AWE Website

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13113 From: dougselsam Date: 7/10/2014
Subject: Re: Mothra Definition (and Crosswind-LadderMill note)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13114 From: dave santos Date: 7/10/2014
Subject: Re: Mothra Definition (and Crosswind-LadderMill note)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13115 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 7/10/2014
Subject: Spider and Bug ... wings of a kite systems

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13117 From: dougselsam Date: 7/11/2014
Subject: Re: Mothra Definition (and Crosswind-LadderMill note)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13118 From: dave santos Date: 7/11/2014
Subject: Re: Mothra Definition (and Crosswind-LadderMill note)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13119 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 7/11/2014
Subject: IBF

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13120 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 7/12/2014
Subject: How to operate, serve, do business without patents

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13121 From: dougselsam Date: 7/12/2014
Subject: Re: Mothra Definition (and Crosswind-LadderMill note)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13122 From: dougselsam Date: 7/12/2014
Subject: Re: How to operate, serve, do business without patents

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13123 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 7/12/2014
Subject: Re: How to operate, serve, do business without patents

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13124 From: dougselsam Date: 7/12/2014
Subject: Re: How to operate, serve, do business without patents

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13125 From: dave santos Date: 7/12/2014
Subject: Re: Mothra Definition (and Crosswind-LadderMill note)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13126 From: dave santos Date: 7/12/2014
Subject: Copertura Brevettuale

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13127 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 7/12/2014
Subject: Re: Mothra Definition (and Crosswind-LadderMill note)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13128 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 7/12/2014
Subject: Re: Mothra Definition (and Crosswind-LadderMill note)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13129 From: dave santos Date: 7/12/2014
Subject: More LadderMill Variants

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13130 From: dave santos Date: 7/12/2014
Subject: Two SpiderMill Similarity-Cases

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13131 From: Joe Faust Date: 7/12/2014
Subject: Re: More LadderMill Variants

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13132 From: Joe Faust Date: 7/12/2014
Subject: Re: Two SpiderMill Similarity-Cases

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13133 From: Mario Marchitti Date: 7/13/2014
Subject: Re: [kitegen] Copertura Brevettuale

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13134 From: dougselsam Date: 7/13/2014
Subject: Re: More LadderMill Variants

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13135 From: dave santos Date: 7/13/2014
Subject: Re: [kitegen] Copertura Brevettuale

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13136 From: dougselsam Date: 7/13/2014
Subject: Re: More LadderMill Variants

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13137 From: dave santos Date: 7/13/2014
Subject: Re: More LadderMill Variants

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13138 From: Harry Valentine Date: 7/13/2014
Subject: Re: More LadderMill Variants

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13139 From: Joe Faust Date: 7/13/2014
Subject: Re: More LadderMill Variants

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13140 From: dougselsam Date: 7/13/2014
Subject: Re: More LadderMill Variants

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13141 From: dave santos Date: 7/13/2014
Subject: Re: More LadderMill Variants

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13142 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 7/13/2014
Subject: Re: More LadderMill Variants

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13143 From: dave santos Date: 7/13/2014
Subject: Teenager develops LTA AWES

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13144 From: dave santos Date: 7/13/2014
Subject: Re: More LadderMill Variants

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13145 From: dave santos Date: 7/13/2014
Subject: Re: Two SpiderMill Similarity-Cases

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13146 From: dave santos Date: 7/13/2014
Subject: Kite-Trees for TreeMills

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13147 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 7/13/2014
Subject: Re: More LadderMill Variants

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13148 From: dave santos Date: 7/13/2014
Subject: Re: More LadderMill Variants

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13149 From: Joe Faust Date: 7/13/2014
Subject: Re: More LadderMill Variants

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13150 From: Rod Read Date: 7/14/2014
Subject: remote ultra lightweight awes

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13151 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 7/14/2014
Subject: Re: More LadderMill Variants

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13152 From: Rod Read Date: 7/14/2014
Subject: The emergence of eolics: Peter Clive at TEDxUniversityofStrathclyde

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13153 From: dave santos Date: 7/14/2014
Subject: Re: More LadderMill Variants

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13154 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 7/14/2014
Subject: Re: More LadderMill Variants

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13155 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 7/14/2014
Subject: Re: More LadderMill Variants

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13156 From: dave santos Date: 7/14/2014
Subject: Re: More LadderMill Variants

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13157 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 7/14/2014
Subject: Re: More LadderMill Variants

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13158 From: dave santos Date: 7/14/2014
Subject: Pierre's MikeB Thread



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13108 From: Rod Read Date: 7/9/2014
Subject: ring kite over-rotation solution more obvious
I witnessed a problem that looks like an over rotation of the driver kites on my ring kite generator.
Flattening out the soft driver kites helped quite a bit (Leading and trailing edge  tensioning being tried (TE to fore LE to aft would seem to make flattening sense in this case))

However if you've looked at the construction ... I used chopped off symphony beach kites around the ring... I chopped off about 3 cells... chop off only 2 and it should fly straighter...

I don't think we had previously mentioned that method as a correction solution
cc4.0

Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13109 From: Rod Read Date: 7/9/2014
Subject: Re: Mothra Definition (and Crosswind-LadderMill note)
As you tend toward maximum scales ,
The tension of a main load path will be v.high, the line will be characteristically smooth.
Soft hanks become less effective at resisting travel along extremely tight (ergo smooth) lines.
I wonder at larger scales will it be more prudent to use through line securing methods
such as splicing or whipping
Both methods are "soft" and field operable.



Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13110 From: dougselsam Date: 7/9/2014
Subject: Re: Mothra Definition (and Crosswind-LadderMill note)
Not a laddermill variant, since it does not resemble a laddermill in its operation. 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13111 From: dave santos Date: 7/9/2014
Subject: Re: Mothra Definition (and Crosswind-LadderMill note)
There are multiple loadpaths across a large Mothra, not just a "main one". Generally one wants an A, B, and D line across each row of kixels.

When we first flew Mothra1, we expected the prusik knots would slide just as Rod expects, but they stayed put, as prusiks are supposed to. It seems that there is not too much side force, but plenty of tension, to keep the knots in place. The sails may even have been self-spacing against each other. We did consider that marks along the line would speed layout by unskilled labor.

What we were after was revolutionary speed-of-assembly and dis-assembly (especially for hot-swapping blown kixels). Mothra took two days to assemble, figuring things out for the first time, but only four hours for two unskilled teenagers to fully disassemble. Whipping and splicing are quality rigging options, but obviously less flexible and f-a-a-a-r slower. 

There is arguably a pumping "laddermill variant" quality to the Mothra-LadderMill Hybrid described. A "Crosswind-LadderMill" could be constructed substantially like a Mothra, but with tackable sails, and just pump sideways in reciprocating strokes, rather than a continuous loop, but its a subjective call to define the ontological limits of a parent-variant in the hybrid-offspring zone. Note that "pumping laddermills" are a well-known proposal to avoid the practical difficulties of passing kite elements around a capstan-loop.


On Wednesday, July 9, 2014 8:02 AM, "dougselsam@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13112 From: dave santos Date: 7/9/2014
Subject: Croatian AWE Website
Wishing these folks well, but the Atlantic has already been crossed by kite-sailing more than once, yet their boat concept is well conceived. They also have a groundgen reeling interest-

Giant kite sail will pull eco-boat across the Atlantic | I Love the Planet - NPO and NGO
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13113 From: dougselsam Date: 7/10/2014
Subject: Re: Mothra Definition (and Crosswind-LadderMill note)
"There is arguably a pumping "laddermill variant" quality to the Mothra-LadderMill Hybrid described."  No.  Every parafoil is NOT a "Mothra", nor is there any attempt at "pumping" here.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13114 From: dave santos Date: 7/10/2014
Subject: Re: Mothra Definition (and Crosswind-LadderMill note)
Doug wrote: "Every parafoil is NOT a "Mothra", nor is there any attempt at "pumping" here."

Corrections: 

No Mothra is a "parafoil" (ram-air twin-skin as invented by Jalbert), and the "Mothra-like" image that prompted these messages was of LEI kites.

The "pumping" mode imagined for a hypothetical Mothra-LadderMill Hybrid is not an "attempt", but builds on a long-documented pumping option TUDelft identified to avoid the bother of kites cycling through a capstan anchor-point.

KiteLab further developed this design option into the CrossWind-LadderMill, a pumping LadderMill laid on its side as an arch, to greatly improve performance (no idle  high-drag return side, better airspace utilization). This pumping AWES concept is potentially a Mothra-Laddermill Hybrid; for example, launching, landing, and looking like a Mothra.


On Thursday, July 10, 2014 7:39 AM, "dougselsam@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13115 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 7/10/2014
Subject: Spider and Bug ... wings of a kite systems

http://www.energykitesystems.net/images/kitesystems/SpiderAndJuneBugWingsInKiteSystems.JPG

Click above link to see image. July 10, 2014.  Home of a kite-energy 

1.   Multiple anchors, multiple tethers.

2.  Active spider manufactures and fixes the  tether set to anchor system (stucco wall, Joe's shirt) 

3.   June bug flies up to the tether net and gets attached.

4.  Wind impacts both the wings (spider and June bug are wings)

5.  The spider wing chooses to move about the tether set while fulfilling various tasks, all the while reacting with the wind.

6.  The June bug wing holds energy that will be used by thespider wing.

7.  Tether motions are damped by many means; energy is converted to heat, sound, and potential energy.  
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13117 From: dougselsam Date: 7/11/2014
Subject: Re: Mothra Definition (and Crosswind-LadderMill note)
"pumping option TUDelft identified to avoid the bother of kites cycling" Key phrase: "avoid the bother" - of actually building a laddermill, for example.  :)
It seems to me that if any normal person endlessly promoted the laddermill idea, then instead just reeled a single kite in and out, they might be called out on it, as in:
"That's NOT a laddermill, you didn't do what you said - what's the matter with you?  Are you lame?  Do you think the rest of us are lame?  Apparently your strategy is to "avoid the bother" of doing what you said."  Somehow since a university name is involved, no such standards apply.  Instead they promote laddermill, but instead just reel a kite in-and-out and CALL it a laddermill, though it is not, and nobody seems to even notice. 

"Bbbbut professor, that is not a laddermi-SHUT UP!  Bbbut sir, it doesn't even operate on the principle of the ladderm-SHUT UP!!!!  You darn kids need to learn to respect your elders!  It's a laddermill if we call it a laddermill!  So what if it does not even resemble our drawings.  Or a ladder.  We're in charge here so shut up! Oh, sorry professor.

 I may have missed it, but I don't remember seeing any evidence that they ever tried to build a laddermill at all.  But I guess you say "kitelab" has it all worked out now with a cross-pumping mothra version.  Really...  So where is it?  How much power has it generated?  Got a video?  Or is it another case of "avoid the bother" of doing much of anything, besides just talk talk talk?
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13118 From: dave santos Date: 7/11/2014
Subject: Re: Mothra Definition (and Crosswind-LadderMill note)
Doug,

Please do not complain about me bragging, when its only to correct your false impressions.

KiteLab did not "avoid the bother of building an actual LadderMill". I did in fact design, build, and test a LadderMill Prototype back in 2008, and reported the project to the early Forum. Passing a kite train thru a capstan power extraction stage is a serious engineering complication made unnecessary given alternate designs. 

The surprise LadderMill problem in testing was the kite-train twisting into persistent bow-tie failures. I still have the prototype ready to fly, but a primitive LadderMill is not a promising AWES contender. Maybe I should rework the prototype as a pumping arch with Mothra features (let me ponder the details). KiteLab never has claimed to have AWE "all worked out", but consistently predicts that many exciting years of intense engineering studies remain.

If it is "lame" to only talk about LadderMills and never build them, then you best-deserve this crude insult. No engineer should care that TUDelft usage of "LadderMill Project" properly allows study of more advanced non-LadderMill ideas (like the SpiderMill). A pumping ladder of kites is after all still a ladder.

Your challenge is in designing and flying fresh AWES experiments to keep up with the advancing field, not sourly repeating off-focus objections to Dutch-English, which is generally more professional than your English,

dave


On Friday, July 11, 2014 7:17 AM, "dougselsam@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13119 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 7/11/2014
Subject: IBF

His various pages are up for study and discussion. Click around his site for some kite-energy matters.  

 

?:    IBF

Dr. Manfred Franetzki

" The owner of this engineering office was for a long time manager in R&D at the SIEMENS company"

Kites with a lifter

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13120 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 7/12/2014
Subject: How to operate, serve, do business without patents

Massimo wondered (machine translate):

"I do not understand how everyone else thinks they can operate without
patent coverage. 

  ~ M."    ...July 2014

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

 

Various answers are anticipated in due time in this topic thread.


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13121 From: dougselsam Date: 7/12/2014
Subject: Re: Mothra Definition (and Crosswind-LadderMill note)
Well Dave, Here is my objection to these large institutions promoting a single design, promoting its "inventor" to worship status, yet never building one, while building something else and just CALLING it a laddermill:  At that rate thgere will NEVER be ANY progress in AWE.  If major institutions can go as far as issuing endless press-releases for an idea, while clebrating its inventor as a genius, citing his "credentials" as an astronaut, then simply never even trying to build one, they are diluting their credibility at a fast rate.  The fact that individual inventors can come up with many workable ideas that are ignored by the well-funded teams is ironic.  What I'd like to distinguish here is people who offer possibilities, versus well-funded, highly-credentialed teams that have the means to build working versions of great ideas, but don't.  At some point one must begin to wonder why nobody seems to notice a disconnect. 
Please try to follow my logic here:
1) Ockels was celebrated as a great thinker for introducing the "laddermill" concept to the general public
2) Great fanfare and publicity were generated celebrating this great idea of a "laddermill".
3) Somehow, the entire effort seems to have been sidetracked to become merely one more instance of kite-flyers trying to make power by reeling a single kite in-and-out.
4) There is no explanation of why no laddermill was ever built
5) There is no explanation of why Ockels is still celebrated while his idea is ignored.
Resulting logic-bomb
A) If Ockel's idea is good, why was one never built?
B) If Ockel's idea is NOT good, why is he celebrated as having a great idea?
If Delfts does not bother to build a laddrmill, why celebrate Ockels for thinking of it? 
Shouldn;t they either be saying:
a) "Yeah Ockels tried to think up a cool idea, but in the end it didn;t seem worth building."
or
b) "Ockel's idea is GREAT, but we are just too lame to actually BUILD one.

So which is it?  Is Ockel's idea great, and U.Delfts is lame for being unable to build one(?), or is Ockels (and me) lame for thinking of laddermill, and U.Delfts should not mention his name in their pursuit of single-kite-reeling?

The whole current AWE scene seems mostly delusional - it makes no sense.  Nobody builds anything remotely promising - too much bother.  I think you have hit on the key concept holding back AWE: Too much bother.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13122 From: dougselsam Date: 7/12/2014
Subject: Re: How to operate, serve, do business without patents
Patents can become like quicksand.  Look what Elon Musk just did.  I understand completely. Having patents can pigeonhole you into only building certain things that you have patented, while better ideas continually come to you.  Elsewise one can go broke and use up a lot of effort, making sure every new notion, most of which will be discarded, are patented in so many countries. 

When you get to the point of idiots who don't even understand wind energy filing endless patents for innocently-proposed yet non-optimal wind energy devices that will never work out, with a constant parade of investors being drawn in to lose their money, you will eventually get to the point where you will get tired of, and financially exhausted from,  maintaining a collection of useless patents. 

One can only go for so many years on renderings, press-releases, and pictures of rows of grad students smiling. Someday people will demand the stated goal of economic power production.  When that is slowly revealed as not possible due to not having a truly robust power-generating concept, the whole delusion will collapse.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13123 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 7/12/2014
Subject: Re: How to operate, serve, do business without patents

Proposed:

1. "Patent Coverage" might be understood as "covered by active approved unexpired valid unassailable patents with respect to a patent issued by a national system or internationalal system for protection purposes during an unexpired time period for specific territorial adjudication."

 

2.  Expired patents hold matters available to all the public to use freely.

 

3. A company producing energy for others may do so without having any active valid patents. Such company might operate efficiently and reliably.

 

4.  Agreements might be made while respecting the historical trace of initiative and creativity.

 

 

~ JoeF
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13124 From: dougselsam Date: 7/12/2014
Subject: Re: How to operate, serve, do business without patents

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13125 From: dave santos Date: 7/12/2014
Subject: Re: Mothra Definition (and Crosswind-LadderMill note)
Doug,

For the record-

Wubbo was a great figure in AWE, both as visionary and mentor, and his entry into AWE in the early nineties was a very early date to be so seriously into AWE. Disadvantages of the original LadderMill were quickly enough identified in piece-meal designs and experiments, but the program also did due diligence with simple reeling AWES, to build flight-hours generate data, and perform public demonstrations. It was publicly explained that this was a side-track in their R&D, and that the SpiderMill concept had superceded the old LadderMill (AWEC 2011).

My TUDelft LadderMill story below will read like bragging, but the facts correct your terrible misrepresentations of Wubbo's legacy.

Recall that I flew LadderMill experiments in the Pacific NW, as routine early due-diligence. Reinhart (one of many AWE figures you have disparaged) was my active contact with TUDelft. It was with great excitement that I rode into AWEC2011, on a bike bought from gypsies in Amsterdam for 70EU (touring old Dutch windmills and doing a flash-apprenticeship with certified millers along the way). To see who my EU friends might be, I decided to sit down alone at the formal banquet. The tables around me began to fill, maybe I had no friends, but to my delight, Wubbo came and sat next to me, then Dave North (NASA LaRC) and his wife. Honored by such elite company, I waved over the WOW delegation (that I intended to follow back to Italy) to fill our table.

During the long fancy dinner, it came out that Wubbo was a "naturalized" Texan (having trained so much to be an astronaut at JSC) and a fan of KiteLab's pioneering AWE work, especially the unmatched practical capability to flight-test so many AWE ideas (even including a LadderMill). We concurred on the demise of the old LadderMill as a contending architecture, based on the studies. At the conference, Wubbo presented his evolved SpiderMill concept (please stop falsely claiming Wubbo was stuck with the same idea as you).

Right after I got back to the US I was honored to fly a SpiderMill experiment at WSIKF, with kite master Terry McPherson, in the form of 39 fighter kites as a passively stable (in aggregate) branching train (a "World Record" that Sci-Fi God and physics professor Rudy Rucker gushed about on Twitter; the "sky seething with chaos"). Wubbo was delighted with this demo, which tangibly suggested the potential for an actively-controlled SpiderMill to pump powerfully. Such ongoing experiments may not mean anything to you, but they are a rich engineering knowledge-harvest to the practitioners.

Tragically, Wubbo's cancer now drove him out of active AWE R&D. It was a default option to keep the LadderMill name for continuity, and the reeling AWES was just a generic testbed (as explained by TUDelft). You only bolster your pariah status in AWE to use the AWES Forum to relentlessly attack Wubbo falsely, from your ignorance of the SpiderMill concept, and wholly irrelevant confusion over a simple naming anachronism (you might as well complain my email has a "carbon-copy" feature).

Everyone who knew and worked with Wubbo came to love him as a father figure. His deathbed manifesto is our shining beacon. Accept the reality that Wubbo, as a real astronaut and rocket-scientist, with leadership genius, will always eclipse your AWE record, unless you produce a true working solution. How sad of you to insist there is no progress in AWE, when only you seem to have no progress to report. Wubbo's AWE colleagues are advancing on all fronts.

Wubbo Lives!

daveS



On Saturday, July 12, 2014 7:52 AM, "dougselsam@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13126 From: dave santos Date: 7/12/2014
Subject: Copertura Brevettuale
massimo ha scritto: "Non mi è chiaro come tutti gli altri pensino di poter operare senza 
copertura brevettuale."

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

Massimo,

Parlando per il movimento Open-AWE, pensiamo che non ci siano brevetti-blocco.

Joe Faust è il top analista-brevetto nella AWE, che ha esaminato centinaia di vecchi brevetti per noi. Come movimento cooperativo, abbiamo un piscina-brevetto come parte di un piscina di IP più grande. Abbiamo fatto "difensivo-disclosure" di molte migliaia di idee.

Pensiamo che sarà KiteGen obbligato a pagare noi le royalty per idee chiave divulgati come CC IP, se KiteGen si aspetta di risolvere le sue lacune tecniche.

dave santos

http://www.kpowertechnology.com/
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13127 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 7/12/2014
Subject: Re: Mothra Definition (and Crosswind-LadderMill note)

4) There is no explanation of why no laddermill was ever built

- Too difficult,as an explain on a TuDelft paper (I forget the reference).

 

5) There is no explanation of why Ockels is still celebrated while his idea is ignored.

- Both as astronaut and major pioneer in AWE. 

Resulting logic-bomb

A) If Ockel's idea is good, why was one never built?

- Laddermill as initial project (reel of kites) is too complicated or not good enough for a permanent exploitation. As inventor of the reel of kites (later named "Laddermill") DougS has provided an explain justifying his searches about SuperTurbine (tm).

 

B) If Ockel's idea is NOT good, why is he celebrated as having a great idea?
-Laddermill is no more the initial reel of kites but a sort of trademark of searches in AWES of TuDelft covering in first reel-in/out systems (which are not Laddermill as reels of kites), and Wubbo Ockels was promoted it.

PierreB
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13128 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 7/12/2014
Subject: Re: Mothra Definition (and Crosswind-LadderMill note)

My precedent message with some corrections:

4) There is no explanation of why no laddermill was ever built

- Too difficult,as an explain on a TuDelft paper (I forget the reference).

 

5) There is no explanation of why Ockels is still celebrated while his idea is ignored.

- Both as astronaut and major pioneer in AWE. 

 

Resulting logic-bomb

A) If Ockel's idea is good, why was one never built?

- Laddermill as initial project (loop of kites) is too complicated or not good enough for a permanent exploitation. As inventor of the loop of kites (later named "Laddermill") DougS has provided an explain justifying his searches about SuperTurbine (tm).

 

B) If Ockel's idea is NOT good, why is he celebrated as having a great idea?
-Laddermill is no more the initial reel of kites but a sort of trademark of searches in AWES of TuDelft covering in first reel-in/out systems (which are not Laddermill as loops of kites), and Wubbo Ockels promoted it.

PierreB
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13129 From: dave santos Date: 7/12/2014
Subject: More LadderMill Variants
A feature that LadderMill variants share is a ladder-like stack of wings. Doug and Wubbo's versions began by presuming a continuous ladder-loop of kite elements, but passing spars and airframes past a driven capstan was a clunky requirement. Bolonkin, Welty, and Culp ("flying rope") LadderMills called for soft drogues in a loop; conical, playsail, and OL canopies, respectively, that would easily pass around a capstan drum and streamer to be hauled upwind again at low drag. For over a decade Pumping Laddermills have also been defined and studied. These should be tested, as R&D resources allow.

But the inherent defect in all these early variants was the lack of crosswind kite power; they all worked downwind and upwind again. Downwind is a weak point-of-sail, and upwind is all parasitic drag, with wings idled much of the cycle. So for some years now, its been known that a LadderMill is best laid on its side crosswind, to resolve the problems. Wayne German's "Vertical Blinds" AWES vision is just this sort of LadderMill.

Its not really that LadderMills are "too hard" to (ever) do, its that most variants are not efficient enough to be worth the bother of developing them, even as curiosities, with our shortage of skilled experimenters in early AWE. Maybe KiteLab's hamster-wheel rig is the only LadderMill in existence. Its sled-train bow-tie tendency would be solved by allowing every wing to rotate on swivels, but we are focused on superior crosswind concepts.

Conclusion: Wubbo invented a wholly new AWES architecture, the Pumping SpiderMill, to transcend early LadderMill limitations. Only Crosswind LadderMills pencil-out so well, so the LadderMill concept space is certainly not dead, only very early still.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13130 From: dave santos Date: 7/12/2014
Subject: Two SpiderMill Similarity-Cases

We need to develop the SpiderMill concept to be included in pending AWE cross-architectural studies. A good starting heuristic is to find all close similarity cases. Many fighter-kites on one-line are a case (this video is a past world record, we flew 10 more in 2011)- 

Record Fighter Kites

Dog Sleds in open terrain were often harnessed in SpiderMill-like configurations, and managed to work coherently. This old picture nicely shows the idea, where the sled dog rigging layout suggests how active AWES kites might work together in similar way-
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13131 From: Joe Faust Date: 7/12/2014
Subject: Re: More LadderMill Variants
The review of laddermill variants missed recalling group-shared Faust
laddermill variant that did promote vertical cross-winding of
ladder-rung wings; both the rising and the downing rung wings stayed
soldly doing cross-winding unlike the Selsam 1970s and unlike the
later Ockels laddermill that have oblique pathing to the relative
wind. Both Doug Selsam and Dave Santos noted positively the matter.
So, such variant would properly be included in a collection of
laddermill variants. The Faust vertical laddermill is a lifted ladder
loop where every wing rung is traversing the wind robustly in
crosswinding; both up-going and down-going rung wings are driving at
all times except during the transition at the upper and lowering
turning points. PTO is on the ground; PTO can be farmed to central
generator from several ladders.

~ JoeF
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13132 From: Joe Faust Date: 7/12/2014
Subject: Re: Two SpiderMill Similarity-Cases
The realm of topic includes:
kite clusters, kite coteries, kite trees, kite meshes, kite domes, ...
and same where elements might themselves be trains, clusters,
coteries, trees, domes ...
Include multiple anchor points of n-count with n being some positive integer.

~ JoeF
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13133 From: Mario Marchitti Date: 7/13/2014
Subject: Re: [kitegen] Copertura Brevettuale
E' fuor di dubbio che la soluzione tecnica che il progetto KiteGen utilizza è stata inizialmente concepita e brevettata da Massimo Ippolito. Mentre l'articolo  scientifico che si ritiene essere stato il primo a indicare lo sfruttamento dei venti di alta quota con gli aquiloni, scritto da Miles Loyd, non offriva alcuna soluzione tecnica adeguata, http://homes.esat.kuleuven.be/~highwind/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Loyd1980.pdf

Pertanto la pretesa di Dave Santos è destituita di fondamento, del resto lui non porta elementi a suffragare la sua pretesa. 

Mentre a mio giudizio è anche opinabile la pretesa di bloccare qualsiasi sviluppo tecnologico su un'idea semplice, quantunque geniale, solo perché chi lavora non è in possesso di un brevetto. Ma qui si tratta ovviamente di una questione più generale.

Può essere utile la seguente lettura
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_brothers_patent_war

CC: airbornewindenergy@yahoogroups.com
From: kitegen@yahoogroups.com
To: kitegen@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2014 13:16:33 -0700
Subject: [kitegen] Copertura Brevettuale

 

massimo ha scritto: "Non mi è chiaro come tutti gli altri pensino di poter operare senza 
copertura brevettuale."

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

Massimo,

Parlando per il movimento Open-AWE, pensiamo che non ci siano brevetti-blocco.

Joe Faust è il top analista-brevetto nella AWE, che ha esaminato centinaia di vecchi brevetti per noi. Come movimento cooperativo, abbiamo un piscina-brevetto come parte di un piscina di IP più grande. Abbiamo fatto "difensivo-disclosure" di molte migliaia di idee.

Pensiamo che sarà KiteGen obbligato a pagare noi le royalty per idee chiave divulgati come CC IP, se KiteGen si aspetta di risolvere le sue lacune tecniche.

dave santos
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13134 From: dougselsam Date: 7/13/2014
Subject: Re: More LadderMill Variants
Yeah Joe, the "Faust"-version of laddermill was the first thing that occurred to me after my initial teenage drawing of the first laddermill in the 1970's.  But let's pretend you invented it now.  An obvious "next step": increase speed, increase angle from horizontal, take power from downward-traveling elements too.  And my own early comparisons to "venetian blinds" in the1970's: Let's pretend Wayne "invented" that 30 years later, so you can claim he ever had one sensible suggestion.  Nice try, but these are all my teenage ideas from the 1970s'.  Next Step: each element rotates, eliminating the capstan and the linear tether travel, in favor of constant crosswind operation of all elements.
The problem in AWE is everyone playing checkers in a game of chess.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13135 From: dave santos Date: 7/13/2014
Subject: Re: [kitegen] Copertura Brevettuale
Mario,

I fratelli Wright hanno creato un aereo tre anni prima hanno depositato un brevetto. E 'stato John Etzler nel 1833 che per primo propose chiaramente il kite energia. 

Pertanto, non avete provato voi l'argomento, ma sostenuto l'impressione che KiteGen non ha alcun vantaggio intellettualmente in AWE rispetto al mondo reale.

daveS
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13136 From: dougselsam Date: 7/13/2014
Subject: Re: More LadderMill Variants
Dave S. states the continuous laddermill was "succeeded" by a NONCONTINUOUS, pumping "spidermill".  If "spidermill" is Ockel's true contribution, and Ockels had great ideas, and UDelfts is competent, where can we see such a fantastic "spidermill" today?  Oh wait, let me guess, too much bother, right?  And they kept the name "laddermill" for flying a kite?  So where is this amazing breaktghrough of "spidermill"?  or are we supposed to just forget you said it was thee next step?  Maybe deep down they realize building prototypes of bad ideas is a bad idea...   Or are you going to tell us that breakthroughs are predicated solely on whom Dave S. had dinner with?  Does it matter if anyone has seen fit to build one?  Does it matter if it makes any power?  Of course not!  It matters who can generate a lot of meaningless renderings for things they will never build, who has access to a keyboard by which they can endlessly brag about doing nothing, and who had dinner with whom while flying around the world for GIGO conferences to promote unworkable ideas while ignoring anything and everything that COULD work.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13137 From: dave santos Date: 7/13/2014
Subject: Re: More LadderMill Variants
Doug,

You are the only person naive enough to think it can be definitely known who invented the LadderMill. I expect the idea is older than you, but there is no way to be sure. Only you claim to know.

Joe surely did propose improvements found nowhere in your printed record. Note that your LadderMill claim lacks the key crosswind component Joe is describing, and that your "Venetian Blinds" are 90 degrees off of the "Vertical Blinds" Wayne identified, so they are not the same. Joe's LadderMill really is vertically crosswind.

You cannot even accept that Wubbo's SpiderMill concept is far beyond your ability to make your driveshaft ideas fly. Try to get even to 200ft with your drive-shaft, while real Spider Trains have already flown well over a thousand feet high (as flown with my mentor, Jim Patton).

daveS


On Sunday, July 13, 2014 9:16 AM, "dougselsam@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13138 From: Harry Valentine Date: 7/13/2014
Subject: Re: More LadderMill Variants
On a related wind power topic, VESTAS has applied to test a 3-bladed tower windmill of 8MW output at an offshore location at Denmark . . . with future plans to develop an offshore unit of 10MW output.

VESTAS has benefitted greatly from government funding in many nations  . . . as have other makers of tower-mounted wind tubines.

Lets hope that the Kitegen people can come up with a workable 20MW installation within the next several years.

Otherwise, the market niche for (kite-based) AWE will be under 10-kw installations at farms and other rural locations.

Harry

To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
From: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2014 08:48:20 -0700
Subject: Re: [AWES] More LadderMill Variants

 
Yeah Joe, the "Faust"-version of laddermill was the first thing that occurred to me after my initial teenage drawing of the first laddermill in the 1970's.  But let's pretend you invented it now.  An obvious "next step": increase speed, increase angle from horizontal, take power from downward-traveling elements too.  And my own early comparisons to "venetian blinds" in the1970's: Let's pretend Wayne "invented" that 30 years later, so you can claim he ever had one sensible suggestion.  Nice try, but these are all my teenage ideas from the 1970s'.  Next Step: each element rotates, eliminating the capstan and the linear tether travel, in favor of constant crosswind operation of all elements.
The problem in AWE is everyone playing checkers in a game of chess.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13139 From: Joe Faust Date: 7/13/2014
Subject: Re: More LadderMill Variants
Doug,
I read your recap and such misses that the Faust laddermill
variant already described tht the vertical down-going wing rungs are
driving as well as the upgoing; and that the attitude of both the
upgoing rungs and downgoing rung wings are nearly precisely 90 degrees
to the prevailing wind. In your first long earlier respect, you did
not reach the Faust laddermill variant; and your present effort at
recap also missed seeing the earlier shared Faust laddermill variant.
None of your notes in view of long past or current or even now had the
Faust laddermill variant. There is no pretending of invention or not,
just that we know such is in the public domain for all to explore
freely with some CCIP licensing on some matters.
The Faust laddermill variant is aside of the Wayne German Venetian Blinds.

Best,
JoeF

On 7/13/14, dougselsam@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]
<AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13140 From: dougselsam Date: 7/13/2014
Subject: Re: More LadderMill Variants
Joe, like I said, these variants immediately sprang to mind after I drew the drawing that I had witnessed and notarized in 1978.  I knew someday someone else would reveal my idea as their own, and everyone would call them a genius, so I wanted to be prepared for that eventuality more than just the typical "Hey, I thought of that years ago." claim that anyone can make.  I wanted to be able to prove it.  To add the name "venetian blinds" is merely a visual observation after the fact, which I also thought of as a teenager, and to draw power from the downward-traveling elements is the next thing that occurs to one after thinking up laddermill.
Here's the progression of thought:
1) The thinker realizes kites pull upward, and if his kite reel were attached to a generator, electricity could be generated.  (That probably occurs to a significant fraction of kite-flyers - let's call kite-reeling "obvious" and a "typical first thought" in AWE.  The next thought that occurs to some fraction of these thinkers is that reel-in/reel-out gives up continuous operation for intermittent operation, and sets that idea aside as probably not so good.
2) A smaller fraction of people might realize that stacks of kites pull harder than a single kite, so more power could be made using many kites in a row.
3) A smaller-still fraction of the thinkers realize that stack of kites could yield continuous motion if a stack could be looped to yield continuous motion, even though half of the stack would not be contributing to rotation, but just be along for the ride.
4) A still-smaller subset of thinkers realize that faster motion and angle adjustments could allow the other half of the stack to still make power on the downward journey.
And the progression continues several more steps past that...
Now a sharp person, say the one who first thought of all this stuff, sees the WHOLE progression quickly.  The teeming throngs and ignorant masses take decades to see each new step and never really grasp where any of it falls into the whole spectrum, nor do they appreciate the significance of any aspect they have noted - they are all just lost, grasping at straws, arguing about which detail of my concept I stumbled upon as a teenager THEY are responsible for, which is actually none.

Next I'd like to disillusion you to the idea that ANY of you morons thought up perpendicular crosswind operation of the "venetian blinds" type of setup:  I've explained that such was tested at a utility scale in Mojave/Tehachapi at Oak Creek Windfarm, back in the 1980's.  I know some of the wind professionals who worked there at the time, and lived nearby, and they have all explained it to me.  The setup operated but quickly failed.  Gee, ya think?  ALL new windmills do that, but the people trying it gave up.  It was all OLD NEWS long before any of you had ever started THINKING about wind energy ideas.

To this day, the crosswind, looping, double venetian blind concept is one of the most  typical newbie, wannabe wind energy "inventions" out there, seen over and over, as I've given ample examples of, such as:
Linear Technologies - Linear Wind Generator - The Efficient Wind Power Alternative

I will not go into detail about why the concept is lacking - tired of throwing pearls before swine.  Like PJ told me about arguing with dave S.: be careful: if you wallow in the mud with pigs, people may mistake you for a pig.

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13141 From: dave santos Date: 7/13/2014
Subject: Re: More LadderMill Variants
Its an obvious fallacy that a single poorly-designed Tepahachi tower-based experiment proved that aviation-based crosswind-wingmill designs are not worth study. Once again, the same error of presuming AWE can never be perfected, if its not yet perfected in a premature time-frame. Look at sailing, a wind power tech thousands of years old, and yet it progresses. 

Where is the evidence Doug proposed crosswind-motion of a LadderMill, before finally hitting on high-altitude driveshafts? Neither of these AWES schemes are considered viable by any aeronautical engineer Doug can cite. Nevertheless, his AWE sharings are "pearls", and we are all just "swine". Doug's AWE ideas must advance in tangible form to justify pearl and "genius" claims, and he should cool the swine-talk. 

Branching kite trains, as invented by Eddy over a century ago, are progressing as fast as we can rig them. They stand newly reanalyzed for AWE by Wubbo, as the SpiderMill. Amazing branching kite-trains easily reach high-altitude wind (fun-fly at WSIKF to 1500ft), and can reach the stratosphere. Its only a matter of time before AWE test engineers trial advanced actuated SpiderMills, based on our already working precursors.

Its a wonderful time to live; to work out for the first time AWES fundamentals, by deep study and broad flight-testing. SpiderMills merit serious trials, as do LadderMill variants.











On Sunday, July 13, 2014 12:17 PM, "dougselsam@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13142 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 7/13/2014
Subject: Re: More LadderMill Variants

"Linear Technologies - Linear Wind Generator - The Efficient Wind Power Alternative"


The basic idea looks good: The whole blade goes fast. But the drawings or photos schow a wind turbine with too many blades, with an excessive solidity coefficient preventing them going fast. The solidity coefficient of a conventional HAWT should be something like 8%, and only 1% for the tip of blades. So a design with crosswind long blades like Venetian Blind can be relevant if the whole blades go fast. The problem is the path allowing maximization of space: eight-figure or loop do not allow maximizing space. Suggestions?

 

PierreB
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13143 From: dave santos Date: 7/13/2014
Subject: Teenager develops LTA AWES
Impressive work for such a young kid (Alex Anderson)-

Federal Way family designs airborne wind turbine as energy source - Federal Way Mirror
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13144 From: dave santos Date: 7/13/2014
Subject: Re: More LadderMill Variants
Pierre,

The LWG concept is not even competitive with a regular HAWT, given its massive draggy box structure (forcing a low scale-limit) and greater mechanical complexity. Its even worse as an AWE aircraft, and would require a hurricane-force wind just to fly.

The AWES basis that can scale greatly is soft-wings flown by kite methods. The ground-based ladder-like wingmills you and Doug mention are simply not LadderMill Variants at all, since they do not fly; nor can they teach us how to really design, build, and fly LadderMills. We best progress by kite methods. Look to Dieppe instead of LWG to study how kites are done,

daveS


On Sunday, July 13, 2014 3:54 PM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13145 From: dave santos Date: 7/13/2014
Subject: Re: Two SpiderMill Similarity-Cases
JoeF,

Lets properly define the SpiderMill, so that it does not stand for anything Wubbo might not agree with (since he originated the AWES category). So what is a "Kite Spider", and what is not?

I propose that a Spider be defined by its branching kiteline structure with no closed loops in general. Kite arches, domes, etc. otherwise embody a topology of looped structure formed by multiple anchors and cross-linking; so are not Kite Spiders.

The same topological test applies to clusters, coteries, swarms, flocks, etc.,

daveS


On Saturday, July 12, 2014 8:52 PM, "Joe Faust joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13146 From: dave santos Date: 7/13/2014
Subject: Kite-Trees for TreeMills
Individual kite-units are scale-limited by ground-handling constraints, hence the need to develop multi-unit designs to scale further.
Mothra's, Trains, Spiders, etc. aggregate units to scale-up, but these face geometric unit-count limits. Various 3D architectures can be developed to exceed the limits of the early "Kite-Mills". One such configuration is tree-like.+

Kite Spiders could be the "cluster-unit"* on a vaster Kite-Tree, with multiple fractal branching scales. TreeMills may be a major AWES basis, as self-interference risk is solved.

CC 4.0

+ "Branching structures are geometric systems that expand through (multi)furcation without returning to form closed 
cells (topological state). In this sense, branching structures resemble the structure of trees that branch continually outward..." Von Buelow

* A parachute cluster is an existing Spider case under our topological definition. 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13147 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 7/13/2014
Subject: Re: More LadderMill Variants

DaveS,


Concerning soft wings Mike Barnard, expert in both HAWT and AWES, indicates the limit of life-time and also a lesser L/D ratio than rigid wings.

 

PierreB

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13148 From: dave santos Date: 7/13/2014
Subject: Re: More LadderMill Variants
Pierre,

If you want, change this topic to who is best qualified to judge soft-kites, the top technologists (Peter Lynn? North Sails (SkySails)? Luc Armant? Storm Dunker? etc) or Mike? We can also review the latest kFarm HALT results, where year-after-year we are trying to wear-out kites.

Re: Mike Barnard- He is no aerospace expert, as he himself admits. Read Mark Moore's (NASA LaRC) strong critique of Mike's AWES expertise (my shared opinion). Mike was caught sock-puppeting his own flawed references on Wikipedia, and censors a long list of critics, rather than answer them competently. If this is your best idea of an "AWES expert", its not the highest standard.

Mike lacks the professional depth in AE to know that super-cheap soft-wings may win by better life-cycle cost-to-performance. He does not study the data, nor does he see the need to flight-test against his naive AWES opinions. He seems unable to reckon how close a Makani L/D of maybe 15 is to a cheap Pansh racing parafoil L/D of about 11, including the relative financial risk of crash damage between such choices. Do you?

Ask Mike if your WheelWind is a soft-kite, and what he thinks of it, if you want to reveal his weaknesses as an AWES expert,

daveS


On Sunday, July 13, 2014 7:28 PM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13149 From: Joe Faust Date: 7/13/2014
Subject: Re: More LadderMill Variants
Thanks for more reporting. Will you be claiming priority on every
possible variation of looped ladder-like kite system?

The Faust variation set allows for the down-going set of wing rungs to
be situatrf significatntly away from the upgoing set of rungs wings in
the loop ladder. One variation even has the downgoing and upgoing sets
of rung wings lateral to each other with neither wind shadowing the
other; I do not see any such arrangement hinted in any of your patents
or notes.

. The different family of loop-set vertical-span-positioned-wings
wind machines show in very early patents prior to the test group you
visited; and as you have pointed out earlier, some near ancients had
the idea of vertical-sailed masts sailing about a loop in a ground or
water arrangement not involving high alititude kite-system operations.

The Linear Technologies ground machine indicates the wrestlle with
wind-shadow; they are not doing kite systems and are not showing some
of the Faust variants just mentioned.
On 7/13/14, dougselsam@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]
<AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13150 From: Rod Read Date: 7/14/2014
Subject: remote ultra lightweight awes
proto promo video from the gorgeous Isle of Lewis.
I was camping with the kids but took the chance to enjoy the holidays ...
http://youtu.be/t4cebOOEP4w

Going to be at Leominster kite festival next weekend if anyone wants to see the ring close up.


Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13151 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 7/14/2014
Subject: Re: More LadderMill Variants

DaveS,




"Read Mark Moore's (NASA LaRC) strong critique of Mike's AWES expertise (my shared opinion)." Where? On the present AWEForum? No, on Mike's blog.

 

PierreB
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13152 From: Rod Read Date: 7/14/2014
Subject: The emergence of eolics: Peter Clive at TEDxUniversityofStrathclyde
you probably want to skip the first 7 mins.



Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13153 From: dave santos Date: 7/14/2014
Subject: Re: More LadderMill Variants
Pierre,

You are mistaken- Mark Moore's critique of MikeB was in fact shared on the AWES Forum. Many of us (including me) are personally on good terms with Mark Moore, and we correspond by direct emails. You know that PhDs on the AWES forum all face Doug's direct emotional abuse, so they shy away; but Doug can never complain his AWE opinions were censored. The truth is that MikeB simply could not get away with censoring "NASA" like he does so many others. Mark Moore, of course, has far better places to publish than correcting a blog, but MikeB's technical errors in judging were so glaring. He never did correct his Sky WIndPower attack, as based on false information, nor did you get Mike to. So what will MikeB say about the WheelWind?

Please change the subject line if you wish to continue to discuss MikeB's journalistic record in AWE. This topic is about LadderMill Variants,

daveS
 
PS I forgot to mention Reinhart as a true AWE soft-kite expert, to compare with MikeB, the confessed non-expert. There is not a single true soft-kite expert who is not excited about the prospect of diligently testing AWES soft-kites for AWES. The professional AE bias for careful testing counts for more than MikeB's preconceived bias toward conventional wind. Get ready to test, if you are in the pro camp (show a scale-model WheelWind generating, and develop detailed plans and specs).


On Monday, July 14, 2014 1:20 AM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13154 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 7/14/2014
Subject: Re: More LadderMill Variants

DaveS,




I am right.There is no post from Dr Mark D. Moore on the AWEForum about critique of MikeB'articles. Please stop your false assertions.

 

PierreB
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13155 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 7/14/2014
Subject: Re: More LadderMill Variants


DaveS,



"Please change the subject line if you wish to continue to discuss MikeB's journalistic record in AWE. This topic is about LadderMill Variants" . Do it yourself.

 

PierreB
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13156 From: dave santos Date: 7/14/2014
Subject: Re: More LadderMill Variants
Pierre,

The "false assertion" here was yours. I copied the Mark Moore message to the Forum myself, but you seem to have missed reading it here. If you wish, we can repost it.*

Again, please create a separate MikeB topic, if you intend to continue this discussion, and have nothing more to add to the LadderMill Variant topic, and let us know what MikeB thinks of the WheelWind, as your ideal of an "AWES expert", but in a new topic thread,

daveS


* Pierre Wrote:" [MarkM's message] Where? On the present AWEForum? No, on Mike's blog.



On Monday, July 14, 2014 12:03 PM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13157 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 7/14/2014
Subject: Re: More LadderMill Variants

DaveS,


This topic is about LadderMill Variants. You are topic-off. You can open a new topic about false assertions, but I agree you are able to produce them in any topic.

 

PierreB
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13158 From: dave santos Date: 7/14/2014
Subject: Pierre's MikeB Thread
Ok Pierre,

This is the new MikeB topic thread you requested, in order to respect the LadderMill Variants topic.

So feel free to carefully correct Mark Moore's critique of MikeB's AWE journalism here, as well as share what MikeB thinks of your WheelWind, and anything else MikeB related,

daveS