Digest

Messages in AirborneWindEnergy group. AWES13260to13309

Page 161 of 440.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13260	From: Pierre BENHAIEM	Date: 7/20/2014
Subject: Re: Weird Electric Kite Toy

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13261	From: dave santos	Date: 7/20/2014
Subject: Re: Weird Electric Kite Toy

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13262	From: Pierre BENHAIEM	Date: 7/20/2014
Subject: Re: Weird Electric Kite Toy, crosswind or not, towards some practica

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13263	From: Pierre BENHAIEM	Date: 7/20/2014
Subject: Re: Weird Electric Kite Toy, crosswind or not, towards some practica

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13264	From: dave santos	Date: 7/20/2014
Subject: Re: Weird Electric Kite Toy, crosswind or not, towards some practica

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13265	From: Pierre BENHAIEM	Date: 7/20/2014
Subject: Re: Weird Electric Kite Toy, crosswind or not, towards some practica

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13266	From: dave santos	Date: 7/20/2014
Subject: Re: Weird Electric Kite Toy, crosswind or not, towards some practica

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13267	From: dave santos	Date: 7/22/2014
Subject: American Public Power Association (APPA) takes pride in its AWE R&D

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13268	From: Rod Read	Date: 7/22/2014
Subject: Re: Daisy definable?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13269	From: dave santos	Date: 7/22/2014
Subject: Re: Daisy definable?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13270	From: Joe Faust	Date: 7/22/2014
Subject: Re: Teenager develops LTA AWES

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13271	From: Joe Faust	Date: 7/22/2014
Subject: Re: Teenager develops LTA AWES

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13272	From: dave santos	Date: 7/23/2014
Subject: Re: Teenager develops LTA AWES

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13273	From: dougselsam	Date: 7/23/2014
Subject: Re: Daisy definable?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13274	From: dougselsam	Date: 7/23/2014
Subject: Re: More LadderMill Variants (I invented Low & Slow Magazine)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13275	From: dougselsam	Date: 7/23/2014
Subject: Re: More LadderMill Variants

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13276	From: Rod Read	Date: 7/23/2014
Subject: Re: Daisy definable?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13277	From: dougselsam	Date: 7/23/2014
Subject: Re: Teenager develops LTA AWES (nice job, kid!)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13278	From: dougselsam	Date: 7/23/2014
Subject: Re: Small Engine Pull-Starters for DIY AWES Pumping Recoil

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13279	From: dougselsam	Date: 7/23/2014
Subject: Re: Connaught Energy - idiots

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13280	From: dougselsam	Date: 7/23/2014
Subject: Re: Connaught Energy

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13281	From: dougselsam	Date: 7/23/2014
Subject: Re: Cabrinha enters AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13282	From: dougselsam	Date: 7/23/2014
Subject: Re: Daisy definable?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13283	From: dougselsam	Date: 7/23/2014
Subject: Re: Daisy definable?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13284	From: dougselsam	Date: 7/23/2014
Subject: Re: Connaught Energy

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13285	From: dave santos	Date: 7/23/2014
Subject: Re: More LadderMill Variants

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13286	From: dave santos	Date: 7/23/2014
Subject: Re: Cabrinha enters AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13287	From: dave santos	Date: 7/23/2014
Subject: Re: Connaught Energy - idiots

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13288	From: dave santos	Date: 7/23/2014
Subject: Re: Small Engine Pull-Starters for DIY AWES Pumping Recoil

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13289	From: dave santos	Date: 7/23/2014
Subject: Re: Daisy definable?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13290	From: dave santos	Date: 7/23/2014
Subject: The role of credentials in AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13291	From: dougselsam	Date: 7/23/2014
Subject: Re: Small Engine Pull-Starters for DIY AWES Pumping Recoil

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13292	From: dougselsam	Date: 7/23/2014
Subject: Re: The role of credentials in AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13293	From: Joe Faust	Date: 7/23/2014
Subject: Long-stroke cross-winding kite arch AWES groundgen

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13294	From: dougselsam	Date: 7/23/2014
Subject: Re: Connaught Energy - idiots

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13295	From: dougselsam	Date: 7/23/2014
Subject: Re: Long-stroke cross-winding kite arch AWES groundgen

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13296	From: Joe Faust	Date: 7/23/2014
Subject: Re: More LadderMill Variants (I invented Low & Slow Magazine)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13297	From: Joe Faust	Date: 7/23/2014
Subject: Re: Long-stroke cross-winding kite arch AWES groundgen

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13298	From: dave santos	Date: 7/23/2014
Subject: Re: Small Engine Pull-Starters for DIY AWES Pumping Recoil

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13299	From: dave santos	Date: 7/23/2014
Subject: Re: The role of credentials in AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13300	From: dave santos	Date: 7/23/2014
Subject: Re: Connaught Energy - idiots

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13301	From: Joe Faust	Date: 7/23/2014
Subject: Re: More LadderMill Variants

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13302	From: dave santos	Date: 7/23/2014
Subject: "something original (in AWE)? "

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13303	From: Joe Faust	Date: 7/23/2014
Subject: Re: "something original (in AWE)? "

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13304	From: dave santos	Date: 7/23/2014
Subject: Testing Self-Launching (New Tech Kan-Kite)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13305	From: Rod Read	Date: 7/23/2014
Subject: Re: Daisy definable?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13306	From: dougselsam	Date: 7/23/2014
Subject: Re: "something original (in AWE)? "

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13307	From: dougselsam	Date: 7/24/2014
Subject: Re: Testing Self-Launching (New Tech Kan-Kite)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13308	From: dougselsam	Date: 7/24/2014
Subject: Re: Daisy definable?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13309	From: Joe Faust	Date: 7/24/2014
Subject: Edmund Villarreal. VentAir Technologies. VAST 6 (TM)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13260	From: Pierre BENHAIEM	Date: 7/20/2014
Subject: Re: Weird Electric Kite Toy

The HomeKite as crosswind (crosswind blades as usual + crosswind kite) AWES? For Makani or FlygenKite the propeller is perpendicular in
wind direction; maybe blades in the same angle of incidence as whole kite could sweep a greater area... Is the stability of such a kite insurable?

PierreB

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13261	From: dave santos	Date: 7/20/2014
Subject: Re: Weird Electric Kite Toy

Pierre,

Note that there is no wind in this case(indoors). Its just a mock-kite, not a real kite. Therefore there is no actual "crosswind kite power" here.

Note that the flying angle-of-incidence of a real wing is close to horizontal, so even if this embedded propeller were a WECS in a horizontal wind, its not properly oriented in the correct crosswind plane. Study Makani's rotor plane for correct crosswind* geometry, exactly as defined by Loyd.

This is just an electric helicopter in clever disguise, designed for the absence of wind,

daveS

* You must account for Relative-Wind being the crosswind that applies to a looping turbine-on-a-wing, as Loyd described.

On Sunday, July 20, 2014 5:30 AM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13262	From: Pierre BENHAIEM	Date: 7/20/2014
Subject: Re: Weird Electric Kite Toy, crosswind or not, towards some practica

Can someone read correctly my post to give a plausible answer? Here are some points from this post:

Making a design from the toy where the rotor is on the same plan as the kite
On designs like FlygenKite or Makani rotors are perpendicular in wind, so the size of rotors is limited
So is it possible to improve power/weight ratio by settling a greater autogyro-like rotor flying in the same angle (more or less close to horizontal: which is the good compromise ?) as the kite. Indeed such a rotor has a lift component.
What are possible problems: stability,gyroscopic, P-factor...

Note about crosswind: a rotor of wind turbine works crosswind, as explained by DougS.Sky Windpower' autogyro-like works also crosswind, but not perpendiculary in the flow: the real swept area used for wind energy is a projection perpendiculary in wind. M.Loyds explains the loss due to tether not completely perpendicular in wind direction.

It is the reason why I named two (completely or not) crosswind components for flygen or no (some AWES with rotor are reel-in/out systems): crosswind component for rotor aloft, and crosswind component for the flight of the whole kite.

Please JoeF if you agree can you relate practical definitions of "crosswind" concerning AWES: crosswind flight, in opposition to static flight, and crosswind rotor aloft; and perpendicular or not in the stream,as linked to the one or the other one.

Some examples:

A static kite with turbine aloft (DaveS, Pacific...): not crosswind kite, and perpendicular crosswind turbine
Makani or FlygenKite: not perpendicular crosswind kite, and crosswind turbine considering the apparent wind
Sky Windpower: not crosswind kite, (not perpendicular) crosswind rotor
Conventional wind turbine: perpendicular crosswind turbine
Proposed design:both not perpendicular crosswind kite and rotor aloft

PierreB

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13263	From: Pierre BENHAIEM	Date: 7/20/2014
Subject: Re: Weird Electric Kite Toy, crosswind or not, towards some practica

(some light precisions)

Can someone read correctly my post to give a plausible answer? Here are some points from this post:

Making a design from the toy where the rotor is on the same plan as the kite
On designs like FlygenKite or Makani rotors are perpendicular in wind, so the size of rotors is limited
So is it possible to improve power/weight ratio by settling a greater autogyro-like rotor flying in the same angle (more or less close to horizontal: which is the good compromise ?) as the kite. Indeed such a rotor has a lift component.
What are possible problems: stability,gyroscopic, P-factor...

Note about crosswind: a rotor of wind turbine works crosswind, as explained by DougS.Sky Windpower' autogyro-like works also crosswind, but not perpendiculary in the stream: the real swept area used for wind energy is a projection perpendiculary in wind. M.Loyds explains the loss due to tether not completely perpendicular in wind direction.

Some examples:

A static kite with turbine aloft (DaveS, Pacific...): not crosswind kite, and perpendicular crosswind turbine
Makani or FlygenKite: (not perpendicular) crosswind kite, and crosswind turbine considering the apparent wind
Sky Windpower: not crosswind kite, (not perpendicular) crosswind rotor
Conventional wind turbine: perpendicular crosswind turbine
Proposed design:both not perpendicular crosswind kite and rotor aloft

PierreB

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13264	From: dave santos	Date: 7/20/2014
Subject: Re: Weird Electric Kite Toy, crosswind or not, towards some practica

Pierre,

Be careful if only you are seeing this toy as a crosswind kite or turbine. You clearly missed a lot of past Forum discussion on how no heavier-than-air AWES can be fully crosswind, owing to the need to provide vertical lift to the flying-mass. Loyd mentioned that point, and we have elaborated on it by developing a fractional-crosswind analysis. Review the Honeywell AWES as an simple example of a crosswind HAWT on a non-looping wing. Everyone including Doug knows that HAWTs are crosswind-power; you don't need an AE expert for that obvious fact.

Note that Doug is not known to be an aerodynamics expert (which is why Boeing AE ChrisC (ret.) asked him how he could accept the flaw of tilted rotors whose blades are not even hinged like de la Ciervo taught us. DaveL was even once compelled to note your difficulties expressing formal aeronautical science, which is part language-barrier, and part professional inexperience. Why don't you seek Labat's clarification of crosswind aerodynamics in French? Even if Doug could answer such questions with the skill Baptiste has, the language barrier might cause confusion.

Review the Honeywell AWES as an simple example of a crosswind HAWT on a non-looping wing. Everyone including Doug knows that HAWTs are crosswind-power; you don't need an AE expert for that obvious fact.

You may want to start a new topic, if a review of basic AWES aerodynamics is the real topic. We do need to review basics regularly, but the HomeKite toy is properly its own topic, and its not even a (cross)wind-case, but a look-alike case,

daveS

On Sunday, July 20, 2014 10:45 AM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13265	From: Pierre BENHAIEM	Date: 7/20/2014
Subject: Re: Weird Electric Kite Toy, crosswind or not, towards some practica

Can someone CLEVER read correctly my post to give a plausible answer? Here are some points from this post:

Making a design from the toy where the rotor is on the same plan as the kite
On designs like FlygenKite or Makani rotors are perpendicular in wind, so the size of rotors is limited
So is it possible to improve power/weight ratio by settling a greater autogyro-like rotor flying in the same angle (more or less close to horizontal: which is the good compromise ?) as the kite. Indeed such a rotor has a lift component.
What are possible problems: stability,gyroscopic, P-factor...

Some examples:

A static kite with turbine aloft (DaveS, Pacific...): not crosswind kite, and perpendicular crosswind turbine
Makani or FlygenKite: (not perpendicular) crosswind kite, and crosswind turbine considering the apparent wind
Sky Windpower: not crosswind kite, (not perpendicular) crosswind rotor
Conventional wind turbine: perpendicular crosswind turbine
Proposed design:both not perpendicular crosswind kite and rotor aloft

PierreB

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13266	From: dave santos	Date: 7/20/2014
Subject: Re: Weird Electric Kite Toy, crosswind or not, towards some practica

Pierre,

The idea to put a rotor in a wing is old, and never entered common use. I experimented with an AWES rotor embedded in-plane with a kite wing (shared on Forum). The test observation was that the wing did not help much to supercharge the rotor.

Of course, the scaling-limits of of single rigid-rotors, in wings or not, are fairly severe. Another way to see the fuzzy scaling limit for AWE is to understand that that as AWES mass grows at the cube of characteristic-dimension, so does the nominal wind velocity required such that the most-probable wind-velocity is no longer flyable. This is why kPower and the UTexas Rotor Lab thinking is to find the optimal unit scale to make large arrays of units, as an AWES scaling strategy.

So we are left with giant Mothra-like wings made of small in-plane turbines, as a scaling path for the AWES rotor concept-space, to test against all other concepts,

daveS

On Sunday, July 20, 2014 2:53 PM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13267	From: dave santos	Date: 7/22/2014
Subject: American Public Power Association (APPA) takes pride in its AWE R&D

We are seeing a shift in an early mainstream perception that AWE is maybe too hard or crazy, toward a more realistic assumption, that it will become a serious technology, and its time to prepare for the change. Thus APPA is able to take it for granted that AWE is real, and that the Anderson family, with a tiny APPA/DEED grant, was able to do meaningful AWE R&D, as just a student project. Its an ordinary feel-good narrative, not a freak case.

About APPA-

"The American Public Power Association (APPA), based in Washington, D.C., is the service organization for the nation's more than 2,000 community-owned electric utilities. Collectively, these utilities serve more than 47 million Americans.

APPA was created in 1940 as a nonprofit, non-partisan organization to advance the public policy interests of its members and their consumers, and provide member services to ensure adequate, reliable electricity at a reasonable price with the proper protection of the environment."

Note: The article's writer was unaware that Austin Energy had already made a grant to kPower, which itself may not even be the first case that an American public utility funded AWE R&D.

American Public Power Association - Airborne wind turbine research project funded by DEED makes the news



				American Public Power Association - Airborne wind turbi... The Federal Way Mirror in Federal Way, Washington, reported on a wind turbine project conducted by a student through a scholarship from the American Public Pow...

				View on www.publicpower.org	Preview by Yahoo

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13268	From: Rod Read	Date: 7/22/2014
Subject: Re: Daisy definable?

I definitely haven't found you putting those 3 elements together in any of your many inventions Doug.

You definitely thought of it however as you did try to claim priority on just about any means possible of creating power from a spinney thing in a fluid.

Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878

http://kitepowercoop.org

http://windswept-and-interesting.co.uk

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13269	From: dave santos	Date: 7/22/2014
Subject: Re: Daisy definable?

Rod,

Doug has a point that if you stack Daisies, its more like an ST than if you just add more rotor diameter. Of course, Doug is not the inventor of of multi-rotors on one shaft, Fitch knew the idea and the Dutch Frisian Windmill has been around for centuries, and I put multiple rotors on shafts for wind-toys decades ago. If a conventional stack of stunt kites is made to loop tightly in place, its an ST from long before the patent (its just not too good an AWES, see below).

That Doug never seems to remember certain facts (like the laddermill I built) allows for a lot of review.

Doug,

Maybe you have invented something essential in AWE, but only time will tell. I only claim to see specific engineering challenges to your ideas, as presented, and propose testing to settle doubts.

I remark repeatedly on the solid driveshaft ST concept for you to understand and concede the scaling law prediction. The soft ST option is of comparable interest, and I have also discussed its torque limiting factors. A soft driveshaft as you disclose in your patent drawings would have high line drag by transmitting torque at the wingtips. and require tremendous pre-tensioning to keep its tube geometry from collapsing and hockling. There are also practical challenges of launching and landing any kite stack, which do get worse scaling up.

Form an ST team to prove such soft ST concerns mistaken. Pay Rod to stack Daisies, if you think this is the closest case to making your AWE ideas really fly high. Simply claiming to be a great inventor is not enough, you must deliver. At least nobody cares if your ideas are not already working, as long as you are trying,

daveS

On Tuesday, July 22, 2014 1:51 PM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13270	From: Joe Faust	Date: 7/22/2014
Subject: Re: Teenager develops LTA AWES

Airborne wind turbine research project funded by DEED makes the news
"18-year-old Alexander Anderson’s research project of three years"
Mention of patent application; I wonder just what he is claiming as novel.
Anyone?
URL of article:
http://www.publicpower.org/Media/daily/ArticleDetail.cfm?ItemNumber=41894
Perhaps copy and paste the full URL to reach the article.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13271	From: Joe Faust	Date: 7/22/2014
Subject: Re: Teenager develops LTA AWES

Some background from a year ago:

http://www.stmartin.edu/inWords/archive/institution/LEED_andersons.aspx

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13272	From: dave santos	Date: 7/23/2014
Subject: Re: Teenager develops LTA AWES

A fine "right stuff" vignette for the AWE Documentary about a family that happens to live at Boeing's historic birthplace getting engineering degrees together. Dad worked 20yrs in aerospace. Mom and dad are on the Dean's list, and the kid is a 4.0 GPA math-whiz National Merit Scholar who began college at age 12. Together they cobble an LTA AWES to conceptually rival MIT's Altaeros.

No telling how far they will go, but it would be neat if they stay in AWE R&D, as a family team...

On Tuesday, July 22, 2014 11:38 PM, "Joe Faust joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13273	From: dougselsam	Date: 7/23/2014
Subject: Re: Daisy definable?

Just keep spelling the name right, Dave S. :)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13274	From: dougselsam	Date: 7/23/2014
Subject: Re: More LadderMill Variants (I invented Low & Slow Magazine)

Joe, here's what you are not getting: We who first drew diagrams of laddermill started with the unstated "Faustian" (as you seem to think) version in our minds, as the most obvious beginning point in the design.
That is merely an adjustment of a regular 100% crosswind propeller. 100% crosswind is THE starting place. Those who KNOW, understand that virtually ALL useful wind energy systems are 100% crosswind. Ockels and I went out on a limb to VIOLATE that KNOWN law of wind energy to get to a self-aiming, flying windmill. It's NOT that we didn;t THINK of a 100% crosswind version, it's that we broke away from the obvious to pursue something possibly more advanced. We KNEW what we were giving up. It is SILLY to think we just "didn;t think of" or "couldn't understand" the possibility of a 100% crosswind version. Design is about removing parts, not adding them.
For idiots and newbies, 100% crosswind seems like an unreachable, difficult-to-comprehend, highly-advanced goal. Then we start getting crafty and ask "Is there a way to get it to fly by itself?" - That's where we voluntarily give up power on the down-traveling section so the down-traveling wings can hold themselves up and travel somewhat upwind. Now it is not MANDATORY that none of these wings make any power, and I'm sure Ockels also mentally allowed for the idea that they COULD contribute SOME power, even while traveling upwind and gliding down. The idea was how could one make it simple(?). The 90-degree constrained straight clothesline idea is what first pops into one's head after seeing so many straight clotheslines, then you start modifying it to get to a simpler, self-aiming result. The whole time, people who can think up this stuff have all these slight variations in mind. If I draw one, as I did in the 1970's, people draw 10 more and claim I "couldn't have thought of the other 9". If I draw 100, as I did with SuperTurbine(R), people will draw 900 more, still claiming that I could never have considered their "advanced" versions, never realizing that those "advanced" versions were mere starting places, passed by for reasons they don't understand since they are merely repeating the original thought process, in a far watered-down manner. The true inventor sees 1000 possibilities and has to pick one or more. The add-on, after-the-fact imitator sees the ones picked, and imagines HE is the originator of some aspect of versions not specifically illustrated. In some cases it may be true, in others, they are way behind the curve imagining they are instead ahead of it.
:)
Doug S.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13275	From: dougselsam	Date: 7/23/2014
Subject: Re: More LadderMill Variants

"Doug, It is sad that you can't prove you invented a crosswind laddermill,"
Hey Dave S. - Oh yes, I'm in tears - who the fuck cares? get a life!

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13276	From: Rod Read	Date: 7/23/2014
Subject: Re: Daisy definable?

Dave S,

I think you need to have a go of flying a Daisy type .

you said
A soft driveshaft -...- would have high line drag by transmitting torque at the wingtips. and require tremendous pre-tensioning to keep its tube geometry from collapsing and hockling.

nah.

bifurcating bridles do is the same for most cross wind-driving kite... cut the 20 edo lines to 1.
Stiffer sport like LEI kites need less bridle support still.
and stack layering groups sets , that cuts bridle to drive ratios further.

Pre-tensioning. hardly any needed. Lift, I'll grant you yes it needs lift. there's enough tensioning in the driving kites to drive plenty of torque on their own.

Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878

http://kitepowercoop.org

http://windswept-and-interesting.co.uk

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13277	From: dougselsam	Date: 7/23/2014
Subject: Re: Teenager develops LTA AWES (nice job, kid!)

OK he was "slightly hampered" by distant association with PhD's. Otherwise it could have been a 1-year project, not a 3-year project. Actually ANYONE could do what he did. And it could have been a 1-month project. Not really such a big deal, conceptually. In fact, I'd say liffting aw ind turbine using a blimp, or kite, would be THE de-facto, super-obvious starting point for AWE. At least he did SOMETHING besides kite-reeling like the super-lame PhD's endlessly repeat. The remarkable thing is not that this kid really did anything THAT special, more how stupid he makes all the multi-letter agencies and universities look, when their best move is merely spending more and more on flights around the world to conferences where they sit there in mutual admiration rather than staying home and actually TRYING some simple solution like this kid did. In other words, this kid is not really exceptional, it just LOOKS that way because all the grownups are SO VERY VERY UN-exceptional. Forget unimaginative, they are just LAZY and DUMB.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13278	From: dougselsam	Date: 7/23/2014
Subject: Re: Small Engine Pull-Starters for DIY AWES Pumping Recoil

"Pumping or continuous rotary AWES? Each has advantages and both are worth testing," - *** OK great, I nominate YOU for pumping. Have fun.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13279	From: dougselsam	Date: 7/23/2014
Subject: Re: Connaught Energy - idiots

"You seem to confuse an unrelated TM with Cold Fusion" - Dave S., you are SO stupid. Nice try... You must think I am as stupid as you. Nah. Look you dumbbell, I was approached by these idiots, OK? I therefore obviously know who they are. Regarding cold fusion: it violates no known rules of physics that we know of, and may be entirely possible. Nuclear reactions take place outside reactors all the time. I'm rooting for cold fusion. Cold fusion is in the same position as airborne wind energy: It has been demonstrated, just not to the point of being self-sustaining. In the case of AWE, "self-sustaining" would mean returning the value invested in the system, with energy output.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13280	From: dougselsam	Date: 7/23/2014
Subject: Re: Connaught Energy

"DaveF is clearly bold, has suitable credentials (MBA, CPA, etc.)" - Really? Why don't you construct a shrine to him?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13281	From: dougselsam	Date: 7/23/2014
Subject: Re: Cabrinha enters AWE

"readers will recall wistful discussion of how great it would be for Cabrinha/Pryde to enter AWE." - more lame-ass kite-reelers, eh?...

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13282	From: dougselsam	Date: 7/23/2014
Subject: Re: Daisy definable?

Rod: Dave S. has a problem envisioning torque transmission. You can safely ignore most everything he writes. Not sure why he posts here, since he has nothing to say. Mostly, he just likes to hear himself talk.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13283	From: dougselsam	Date: 7/23/2014
Subject: Re: Daisy definable?

Roddy: Thanks for pursuing my dream of SuperTurbine(R). It comes with the territory of being an inventor that, if you come up with anything good, people will come out of the woodwork making lame-ass versions, claiming you never thought of it, never envisioned it, never invented it, never patented it, etc. What you really have, so far, is a watered-down version of the standard in wind turbine design 2000 years ago. Stick with it and you may advance. :)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13284	From: dougselsam	Date: 7/23/2014
Subject: Re: Connaught Energy

Gosh, you really ARE an IDIOT! You just never shut up! Yet you never really say ANYTHING, except 100% wrong stuff. Amazing. Dave S., kite-reeling is for IDIOTS who can't understand how things really work. It's junior-high-school-level thinking.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13285	From: dave santos	Date: 7/23/2014
Subject: Re: More LadderMill Variants

Doug,

Folks do care that angry frustration causes you to lash out with public profanity. Unpleasant as it is for us, its surely worst for you.

If you were to create an advanced-version LadderMill, that would earn great credit. After all, the Wright Bros "invented" very little (ailerons were already patented), but they created the most effective technology demonstrator of all, so they got laurelled as heroes. Its mistaken for you to think that Joe and the rest of the world cannot think of original AWE solutions, by believing you already saw them all. What major invention was ever seen in all its dimensions at the moment of conception?

Stop getting so angry all the time, and focus on building solutions with the community; then the AWES Forum will not be a hostile place for mild-mannered folks,

daveS

On Wednesday, July 23, 2014 12:00 PM, "dougselsam@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13286	From: dave santos	Date: 7/23/2014
Subject: Re: Cabrinha enters AWE

Doug,

Pete Cabrinha and Pryde have no previous association with reeling. The big news is that they are entering AWE R&D, whatever the details. The expectation is that Dave Fender will migrate Cold Energy to whatever works best in testing, much like biplanes were supplanted by monoplanes by the same aircraft companies.

daveS

On Wednesday, July 23, 2014 12:26 PM, "dougselsam@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13287	From: dave santos	Date: 7/23/2014
Subject: Re: Connaught Energy - idiots

Doug,

You keep blowing it with potential investors because you consider them "idiots", while totally overselling yourself ("world's greatest living..."). You would have done better to sell rich investors on a careful program of comparative testing, with all ideas competing fairly on merits; without invoking the idiocy theme.

Watch Fender, Pryde, and Cabrinha advance in AWE without you, then,

daveS

On Wednesday, July 23, 2014 12:18 PM, "dougselsam@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13288	From: dave santos	Date: 7/23/2014
Subject: Re: Small Engine Pull-Starters for DIY AWES Pumping Recoil

Doug,

You don't get to "nominate" AWE developers away from the philosophy of broad AWES testing. Suit yourself to represent narrowness, but prepare for testing against a broad field.

As far as I know, no one has designed, built, and tested more small rotary AWES than me, but I also work happily with pumping AWES of many kinds. The reeling AWES space is the only concept I have not worked, since its so well represented by others. I give reeling its due for being the working benchmark, and know that all the teams using it are NOT "idiots", its a case of crawling before running,

daveS

On Wednesday, July 23, 2014 12:11 PM, "dougselsam@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13289	From: dave santos	Date: 7/23/2014
Subject: Re: Daisy definable?

Rod,

Note that the Daisy does not solely rely only on faster-moving wingtip lines (like Selsam patent drawings depict) to transmit torque, but that most of Daisy torque is transmitted by slower lines closer to the center. Similarly, the looping foil transmits torque more at the slower foil root. The ST variants are reverse-cases.

I would love to give a Daisy a go, but am focusing on looping-foils as the minimally-complex maximally-efficient torque-transfer AWES solution. At some point we get to test the two against each other, by comparable foil area, for power and reliability, including self-relaunch, so be prepared,

daveS

On Wednesday, July 23, 2014 12:35 PM, "dougselsam@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13290	From: dave santos	Date: 7/23/2014
Subject: The role of credentials in AWE

Doug once again crabbily dismissed a need for professional credentials in AWE, this time with regard to Dave Fender's Yalie CPA MBA resume, loaded with decades of high-level tech-biz experience. Of course, this is just the "right stuff" to institutional investors who demand best-practice before cutting deals. They do not demand top execs to be a top subject-matter-experts. AWE badly needs enterprise talent now, and DaveF is a sharp technologist with needed credentials, and he is cutting interesting deals at full speed.

A similar expectation applies to elite engineering-science credentials, that those who hold them follow best-practice cultural norms in generating and sharing domain knowledge. While fancy credentials are not required to help build AWE, we depend on credentialed professions to progress as an R&D community. AWE's credential-holders do not deserve demeaning speech by mere crank-inventors. We need to recruit and retain credentialed talent, not drive it away.

Another key set of credentials in AWE will be aviation certifications of all kinds. AWES manufacturing, airworthiness (design, maintenance, and repair) and pilot certifications will be strict requirements, owing to the safety-critical nature of aviation. This is the ultimate credential race for all those serious about creating industrial AWE.

There is always a place for those with no credentials, if their work is good, and they can get along...

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13291	From: dougselsam	Date: 7/23/2014
Subject: Re: Small Engine Pull-Starters for DIY AWES Pumping Recoil

You ARE an IDIOT. Crawling in a world of walking. And your bragging has no basis. You've tested almost nothing. When you think you're testing something, your 100% failure results are from having no idea what you;re doing, and substituting hacked-together cheap foam garbage for a true serious effort. Your latest claims (of course) have gravitated to you being the first inventor and developer of SuperTurbine(R). What else would we expect from such a profiligate source of disinformation? Hey, I'm flattered. And flattered that most of your posts mention me by name. But why not come up with something original? Anyone following your meaningless blather knows you claim to have invented about everything that shows the least bit of promise. Only thing is, when asked for a photo, video, data, etc., you have nothing, save the occasional 5-second clip showing nothing, or next-to-nothing. You can't think your way out of a paper bag. You;re all talk, all the time. All you want to try to do is magically change a physical challenge into a personality contest, which you also suck at anyway, so what's the point of that? Why not construct a shrine to Wayne German and David Fender while you are at it? Maybe Wayne will give you a Germy award if he can peel himself away from his secret AWE research. We'll hold our breath to wait for his results. And yours, for that matter.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13292	From: dougselsam	Date: 7/23/2014
Subject: Re: The role of credentials in AWE

You're an idiot and I can;t take the time to read your post but I can see it is more idiocy. Show us some results, moron.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13293	From: Joe Faust	Date: 7/23/2014
Subject: Long-stroke cross-winding kite arch AWES groundgen

CC 4.0 BY NC SA

Crosswinding vertically kite arch with levers for PTO.

This AWES rotates; it also rotates levers. Rotation reverses direction in lower region and in higher region. The arch anchors are levers that drive ground generators. Scale from toy to mega-scale. Aim gross system arch as we already know for arches. Trains of such elements and farming for good space use are available. This is not a Yo-yo method, but long-stroke oscillator with lever PTO. Airfoils for the arch may vary.

~ JoeF CC 4.0 BY NC SA July 23, 2014

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13294	From: dougselsam	Date: 7/23/2014
Subject: Re: Connaught Energy - idiots

More dire Nostradamus-like warnings from the village idiot of AWE.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13295	From: dougselsam	Date: 7/23/2014
Subject: Re: Long-stroke cross-winding kite arch AWES groundgen

Hey Joe: What's with the sentence-fragments here? I tried to read your post. The sentence fragments do not seem sufficient to have any meaning. What the heck are you talking about?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13296	From: Joe Faust	Date: 7/23/2014
Subject: Re: More LadderMill Variants (I invented Low & Slow Magazine)

Doug,

Some facing of your second list point:

DougS wrote: "2) You remove the ability to aim. Typical stuff newbies don't even notice."

Some answering:

We have had already common understanding that there are many public-domain ways to let the Faust Laddermill Variant have aiming automatically. When sites invite large changes of positions for changing wind directions, the ground PTO for groundgen operation may track on rail. We have not removed the ability to aim as technology exists to allow aiming such a system.

As pledged, I will address each of your points as computer time permits.

Best,

JoeF

On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 9:57 AM, dougselsam@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy] <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13297	From: Joe Faust	Date: 7/23/2014
Subject: Re: Long-stroke cross-winding kite arch AWES groundgen

Doug,

In review of my announcement, I see no "sentence fragments" but rarther full clauses with subjects and predicates. Please show a "sentence fragment" for me and I will correct it to completion. Thanks. Granted, the announcement is laconic, but sans sentence fragments. In time I may produce a million drawings and show ten million variants. : )

But, until you show me a sentence fragment, I will give a little bit more meat to the seed. We have already kite-arches with power takeoff (PTO) using various tactics: wobble, differential let-out at achors, lifting, pumping, Yo-yo, traction, short-stroke oscillation damping, and more. But the announced seed faces PTO by levers at the ground base. And a focus is on crosswinding vert ically with long stroke; rise and then reverse to drive down; then reverse to drive up across the ambient wind.

Soon,

~ JoeF

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13298	From: dave santos	Date: 7/23/2014
Subject: Re: Small Engine Pull-Starters for DIY AWES Pumping Recoil

Doug,

Note that this topic is small-engine pull-starters for DIY AWE experiments, and you are making off-topic erroneous statements. Since the errors are made here, though, I'll correct them in place.

I do not claim anyone but you invented the ST, as an unworkable AWES concept of drive-shaft to high-altitude. Again, you neglect to cite an exact claim behind your straw-man complaint.

Its just that the other basic ST idea, of multiple rotors on a shaft, is quite old. I did put multiple rotors on a long a shaft as practical (Windward Sailor) long before your patent.

We all do accept you to be the earliest recorded laddermill-variant (of a downwind laddermill). Similarly Joe and others are are the earliest references we have for other laddermill variants, especially crosswind. Maybe you did think of such variants first, but sadly never bothered to record them. No one supports your blanket-claim to have invented everything JoeF and others may first record.

We can agree that my AWE efforts are limited, but least concede I test and share far more than you do, with far greater enjoyment. Nothing is finer than to fly kites all the time in order to work out AWE's many fine-points,

daveS

On Wednesday, July 23, 2014 4:29 PM, "dougselsam@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13299	From: dave santos	Date: 7/23/2014
Subject: Re: The role of credentials in AWE

Doug,

You ask for "results" here?

How about that Dave Fender, with all his business credentials, connections, and talent, chose Pete Cabrinha over you as an AWE partner?

Only you would think that's a good result, rather than the moron's end of the stick,

daveS

On Wednesday, July 23, 2014 4:31 PM, "dougselsam@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13300	From: dave santos	Date: 7/23/2014
Subject: Re: Connaught Energy - idiots

Doug,

My key prediction is that AWE will succeed happily by broad comparative testing.

Its your predictions that read like warnings based on superstition, on anything but testing,

daveS

On Wednesday, July 23, 2014 4:34 PM, "dougselsam@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13301	From: Joe Faust	Date: 7/23/2014
Subject: Re: More LadderMill Variants

Not sure how linking will show in group post:

Improvement in wind-engines

www.google.com/patents/US206631

Grant - ‎Issued Jul 30, 1878 - ‎David E. Smith

The invention consists of the combination of a suitable sail or sails with a suitable sail frame or frames moving in an endless track or route, the weight of said ...

[[Inventor may have thought of the millions of variants possible. Wings tackikng crosswind on both sides of the loop. He might have thought of AWES variants of the seed laddermill in 1878, one hundred years before a slanted laddermill was notarized without the loop being driven on all parts of the loop and without crosswinding much. :) ... exploring....]]

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13302	From: dave santos	Date: 7/23/2014
Subject: "something original (in AWE)? "

Doug,

Thanks for asking me for what might be original in my work. The work linked below is offered as evidence.

While we can never rigorously know what AWE inventions are ultimately original, at least any applicable prior art you cite counts as a disqualification. Unless you can cite original sources for all the many AWES ideas presented, then you may be simply overlooking the original work you request; work well beyond your ability to fairly dismiss-

http://www.kitelabgroup.com/

http://www.kpowertechnology.com/

http://www.drachen.org/collections/dave-santos-journal

====missing-link to 2014 defensive-mass-disclosure===== (Joe?)

Start with these links, and there is a lot more for you to carefully review, if you really care to find all the original ideation possible,

daveS

PS Do you have any recent AWE work to share, as possibly original, or at least fresh effort?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13303	From: Joe Faust	Date: 7/23/2014
Subject: Re: "something original (in AWE)? "

The following project is incomplete ... under slow construction:
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/AirborneWindEnergy/conversations/messages/12590

Add:
Add the contents of the messages in:
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/kitepatents/info
Such project is also incomplete yet.

And study each disclosure in:
http://energykitesystems.net/FairIP/index.html
and
http://www.energykitesystems.net/CoopIP/index.html

And all files of
http://energykitesystems.net

On 7/23/14, dave santos santos137@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]
<AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13304	From: dave santos	Date: 7/23/2014
Subject: Testing Self-Launching (New Tech Kan-Kite)

Review and Update

AWES Self-Launching is an essential capability, with two schools of thought: High-Complexity active controls; and Low-Complexity passive reaction. I study the low-complexity solution-space for kPower.

A kite-farm mass cascade-launch can in principle be initiated by one tiny kite able to self-launch, but what kite type is best for this role? Sleds and boxes are the general kite categories for which self-launching is natural. At kFarm we see endless sled self-launches, but testing boxes has been limited to the Prism Triad, a short triangular box, which self-launches well (as reported in past years). I recently noticed a New Tech "pop Kan" kite at the World Kite Museum, and put it to the self-relaunch test. Its a short cylindrical box kite the same size as the Triad, and looked promising as a self-launch choice.

The circular hoops promoted the grounded Kan-Kite to roll across the wind, but instead of hopping up, it tended to park directly downwind belly-up. The only success this first test session was to consistently be able to manually pop the kite up as it rolled past its belly-down phase. The Triad does not readily roll, but has the virtue of not finding the stuck-state readily, so it tends to relaunch first.

The next step is to try various design tricks (y-bridle, chicken-sticks, etc) to fix the Kan-Kite stuck-state problem, so these two kites can contend closely for best-self-launch against sleds, in data-trials. In the long run, there is no doubt that better self-launch kites will evolve, now that we need them.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13305	From: Rod Read	Date: 7/23/2014
Subject: Re: Daisy definable?

Doug, I'm not great on my classical studies. Was it Greek mythology where they used carbon stiffened ram air foils?

Roderick Read
15a Aiginish
Isle of Lewis
HS2 0PB
kitepowercoop.org

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13306	From: dougselsam	Date: 7/23/2014
Subject: Re: "something original (in AWE)? "

OK I looked at a lot of your links. Seen quite a bit of it already.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13307	From: dougselsam	Date: 7/24/2014
Subject: Re: Testing Self-Launching (New Tech Kan-Kite)

Exactly why I've been saying there are no serious teams in AWE. A self-launching kite would be one of many obvious first steps, especially for those convinced that kites are the answer.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13308	From: dougselsam	Date: 7/24/2014
Subject: Re: Daisy definable?

"Was it Greek mythology where they used carbon stiffened ram air foils?" ***They had useful wind turbines, which you do not, at this time. Imagine how far ahead they'd be using modern materials. Why, they'd probably have huge farms of giant wind turbines! Oh yeah - they already do...

---In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, <rod.read@... 15a Aiginish
Isle of Lewis
HS2 0PB
kitepowercoop.org

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13309	From: Joe Faust	Date: 7/24/2014
Subject: Edmund Villarreal. VentAir Technologies. VAST 6 (TM)

Edmund Villarreal. VentAir Technologies. VAST 6 (TM)
Open for study and discussion.
http://www.ventairtechnologies.com/

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