DaveS,

Your sentence :"but its well known that KenC and Makani closely coordinate public relation": does not look as a "technical opinion" but sounds as some suspicion. Generally folks do not like working with someone showing suspicion. It was also the case when you suspected Guido.

PierreB

DaveS,

"Ken himself confessed to JoeF and me that it was his decision to censor us from NearZero's process, but refused to explain himself. It was a NearZero staffer who let slip the existence of third-party emails regarding the censorship. Similarly, Guido admits to have blocked AWEIA participation, but never revealed the process for this decision."

Probably Pr.Ken Caldeira, Makani, GuidoL and others were afraid and jaleous of your discovery of Mothra as the Best-AWES-GigaWatt-Arch.

PierreB

JohnO,

You raise a real problem with some aspects and perspectives:

• "Your strategy and communications are often perceived by outsiders as aggressive and uncompromising" . DaveS's aggressive tone of suspicion towards most organizations (NearZero,AWEC2013), personalities (MikeB,MassimoI,Pr.Ken Caldeira...), companies (Makani,KiteGen,NTS...)..., has consequences: no or little participation of them in the forum. AWEIA is now a tiny part of AWE community. DaveS invokes "open AWE", with sometimes beginning of technical arguments such low complexity, but quickly the debate cannot exist because of suspicion and personal accusations, often under the form of yellow journalism Dave Culp rightly blamed.
• So the debate is now reduced in DaveS and some called "ousiders".So for 2/3 the "open" debate is between DougS and DaveS where DaveS enjoys to provoke DougS replying by general insults [Note that debate between DaveS and DougS is also interesting by opposing the two main aspects of AWE as wind energy (for DougS) and aviation (for DaveS)]. 
• The solution to try making the forum a central place in AWE debate? JoeF and yourself can be moderators and put off or signal (for example making a nomenclature: PA as personal attacks, YJ as yellow journalism,AWP as accusations without proves,) all things being not technical. 

PierreB

JoeF,

A great work is made by TuDelft, Leuven and AWE companies towards autonomous flight. Some applications as feeding meteorological instruments aloft would allow permanent (that is not possible with drones requiring batteries) measures of hydrometry of air, wind speed, temperature,at different altitudes. Results could help having a better knowledge of local repercussions of climate change;also could help farmers to decide which plantations make... 

PierreB

Pierre,

 Awareness of the old-boy Stanford realm for flygen might enlighten. The SWP-Joby-Makani kernel never glanced positively to the open forum; Near Zero and KenC are part of the same kernel.  Apartness was prior to DaveS;  causality of continued apartness by the old-boy Stanford realm cannot be shown to be on the back of DaveS.  Huge prestige and huge amounts of money have been movers of the old-boy Stanford realm. No crack in that realm was ever opened. A pressure of entitlement might be working its way through the Stanford realm; the historical stke of founding AWE looms as a huge prize with implications into reputations and deep pockets.  Do not expect a change from the old-boy Stanford U. realm. But consider simply being the change you wish for AWE.  Perhaps invest all sentences simply in AWE tech text; such might gain a following.

     There will be Massimos that are 100% into aggressive competition for sake of just one company without open share tech text. Such will remain an important part of the AWE industry, but such need not deter quality open-forum tech sharing. There are teams that are so busy that they are not giving time to open discussions beyond their tight circle; we await for teams to have at least one enlightened individual to fold their team's works into the forum in support of RAD. An astute reporter from each team would be great.

        There have been and will continue to be many journalists that dip into the AWE flow. Some will do a great job; some will miss knowing what the flow is about. Gradually the jounalism will improve to have some high level quality articles; such takes time. 

     Collaborate:

1. Report every safety point in detail.

2. Present novelty claims for the hot seat.

3. Report experiments carefully.

4. Discuss the physics involved.

5. Design ways to compare systems.

6.  ...

...

#n ...

~ JoeF 

JoeF,

We must admit the AWE players within Stanford has been convincing enough to obtain funds.

But where are posts from TuDelft, Ampyx, NTS (some posts of which suspicion from DaveS preventing debate), KiteGen (some technical posts but also some attacks from DaveS preventing fair debate) ,and other companies? There is no possibility of real technical debate with someone if you suspect him, for example for having founding, or for having (blocking) patents.In these conditions "open share" or "The Great AWE Debate is forming! " are only words. 

Another thing: what is shared? Makani has some working prototypes with some datas (with not too much chance to realize utility production); DaveS has nothing excepted critics.So what can be shared? AWEIA should work as something above companies, not against companies. And the forum is the public voice of AWEIA.

PierreB

DaveS,

Without DougS or me your forum would be only a solo.

PierreB

1. Getting funds for flygen might be a kind of loss. Where does one get when one runs in a wrong direction?    But RAD will sift for benefits from flygen experiments, in any case.  Conventional towers lift gen to top; it might be difficult for that momentum to reverse to ground-gen tactics. 

2. It is not just those "in Stanford" but those in the old-boy Stanford realm. Full story on such could become the special focus of some author one day; he or she would trace all related actions and expose values, decisions, agreements, etc.  A special sub-cultural dance has been unfolding in AWE since the 1970s that involves the old-boy Stanford realm. There is no clue to such changing. The antidote: RAD where comparative open public testing will reveal.

3. It is OK to take NTS case in itself. Pride, money, hope, conventional company competition, spend all energies without RAD.   No secret.

4. You are invited to appreciate that no one participating in AWES forum need halt any sharing just because someone else has a different perspective!  Indeed, value may be gleened from all perspectives; the tension can be seen as a positive ... to help pull out the best we have to offer the world. Anyone shying from critical statements might have wasted energy to do the shying; rather, consider using critical statements to further clarify a matter; consider being thankful for being criticized!  Sharpen our game.

5. Loads of lessons are being recorded in the Makani files. Makani is invited to immediately share all the data and lessons. 

6.  Open stated suspicion might be considered as putting up a hypothesis to be tested.  Guessing can be a positive tool. Willingness to logically examine a suspicion or a guess would be helpful; during the examination process, the research, the effort to clarify, the effort to prove or disprove ... will be gems that would otherwise have  been missed.   Consider not fearing suspicions sincerely presented or guesses sincerely given or suggestions or hypotheses sincerely presented ... all could be gardens for progress in knowledge.

7.  TU Delft has a lively academic circle. Courses, experiments, papers, conferences, etc.   One day that circle might realized that they may have even more gain by sharing matters also in AWES forum herein. Any of our present 180 members is free to sift TU Delft's productions, papers, courses, etc. for gems to examine more closely. 

8. Ampyx is free to share more than they do. They are welcome to present any or all of their learnings for open discussion.  Critical comment with a sincere scientific foundation intent could be welcomed by Ampyx and others. Varied perspectives are sought!

9. Pierre, this forum is not "the voice" of AWEIA.   AWEIA has its own voice and is free to let that voice be heard here and elsewhere. AWEIA is very young as are many processes in our nascent industry.

10.  "The Great AWE Debate" is a string of words, yes; but more. That string tends to announce something that is occurring, however roughly. There is tension between conventional wind and tethered wing systems; there is tension between single-wing and multiple-wing AWES; there is tension between fly-gen and ground-gen AWES; there is tension over old-school corporation competition and new-era care-about-earth RAD open-source races; there is tension about scale and branches of AWES; there is tension regarding just how AWES might be funded by the world. Debate is occurring however inexpertly such might be.

Lift,

 ~ JoeF

https://www.deutsche-mikroinvest.de/files/2014_05_26_nts_expos___2te_tranche_juni_2014.pdf

Information for potential investors in NTS, an AWES team.

DaveS wrote: "Mo Tzu, Pocock, Etzler, Cody, Jalbert, and Wubbo live on in the Great AWE Debate, in the Optimist camp." But the existing Great AWE Debate you participate is in fact between DougS and yourself (at least 2 posts per day for years) , in the Optimist camp I agree.

PierreB

DaveS,


You ignore the sense of the word "debate" (here GAWED for Great AWE Debate if you prefer). A debate is realized with several contributors. Is there a (fair) debate with MikeB? No, he stopped to argument because of your unfair attitude. The same with MassimoI. Where is the debate with companies like Makani,SWP,Ampyx,TuDelft,Windlift...? In fact there are real AWE debates within NearZero, within AWEC2013, within MikeB's blog (on which Dr. Mark D.Moore expresses his differences, preferring to post on MikeB'blog rather than on the Great AWE Forum for the Great Debate) ; but you look to have some difficulties to fairly debate.You confuse "debate" with "monologue" after personal attacks. For example you repeat something about "blocking patents" against KiteGen but I do not see another position about it within a fear debate. A debate is not to reply to your accusations.

I agree in fact the Great AWE Debate in the forum is between DougS and yourself. So what is Doug's position about blocking patents?

An advice:avoid leaning on the shoulders of the giants as Malraux, Wright Brothers...: your ineptitudes will more go unnoticed. 

PierreB

(correction of my precedent post:"fair debate", no "fear debate", but why not "fear of fair debate")

DaveS,


You ignore the sense of the word "debate" (here GAWED for Great AWE Debate if you prefer). A debate is realized with several contributors. Is there a (fair) debate with MikeB? No, he stopped to argument because of your unfair attitude. The same with MassimoI. Where is the debate with companies like Makani,SWP,Ampyx,TuDelft,Windlift...? In fact there are real AWE debates within NearZero, within AWEC2013, within MikeB's blog (on which Dr. Mark D.Moore expresses his differences, preferring to post on MikeB'blog rather than on the Great AWE Forum for the Great Debate) ; but you look to have some difficulties to fairly debate.You confuse "debate" with "monologue" after personal attacks. For example you repeat something about "blocking patents" against KiteGen but I do not see another position about it within a fair debate. A debate is not to reply to your accusations.

I agree in fact the Great AWE Debate in the AWE Forum is between DougS and yourself. So what is Doug's position about blocking patents?

An advice:avoid leaning on the shoulders of the giants as Malraux, Wright Brothers...: your ineptitudes will more go unnoticed. 

PierreB

Rod,

Thank you for your post which is one on the best from you since the term "ratio" is evoked. However I would want to see more this term concerning 

"tested" AWES instead of fancy Huff/Puff. For example what is the ratios of power/land and space used of your last (fine-for-eye) realization? What is the estimed ratio of losses due to transmission on the wheel, due to the size of the wheel? I asked the last but without answer...Note that I make measures on my tested systems.    

A correction from your fine post: "(at least 2 posts per day for year)" is a quotation taken in a precedent post from me being a rough estimation of DaveS' contribution,not my "engagement metric".

Good measures of your last system!

PierreB

Thanks Pierre,
Unfortunately the best critical observations of my system over the past fortnight have all been by photogrammetry. There's no wind on the mainland.
As for the losses due to size of the wheel.... No, as long as hocking (twisted lines) are avoided you must consider that all forces will be in equilibrium. (rotational and tethering) = (drive and lift) The only reduction of transmitted rotational energy comes from friction on the lines, bearings, wheel....

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

 Ways AWES workers may use the terms "energy density" or "density of energy" will affect appraisals, comparing, analyses, sales,and understanding. There may be abuses, errors, and various meanings. Boastings might be formed with distinct denominators in ratios intended. It might be good to trace key uses of such terms and discuss the quality and accuracy of uses.

Start:

A new Facebook space has an AWES company claiming already "the plant with the highest density of energy production"   without stating the denominator used in its declaration.   The company has been asked for some clarification on the matter. The same may be discussed herein.    Similarly for any other team's use of the "energy density" or "density of energy." 

Energy per ________?_________.

~ JoeF

My note in the outside communication space on one case:

What technically do you mean "density of energy"   ?   Thanks. I am looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density for some guide. But are you having as denominator what?         A discussion on this and similar "energy density" matters has been started at https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/AirborneWindEnergy/conversations/messages/13464  All are welcome on the topic.

• Land used (km²), the cosine of tether is the radius of a circular area due to all different directions of wind (not good for AWE excepted in case of maximization of swept area). According to MikeB no other use is possible under tether due to safety requirements: perhaps other use of land is more possible with stationary AWES.
• Area of ground installations (very good for AWE)
• Space used: land used X height (the most critic point of AWE, huge exclusive space used )

PierreB

• Land used (km²), the cosine of tether is the radius of a circular area due to all different directions of wind (not good for AWE excepted in case of maximization of swept area). According to MikeB no other use is possible under tether due to safety requirements: perhaps other use of land is more possible with stationary AWES.
• Area of ground installations (very good for AWE)
• Space used: land used X height (the most critic point of AWE, huge exclusive space used )

PierreB