Digest

Messages in AirborneWindEnergy group. AWES13533to13583

Page 166 of 440.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13533	From: dave santos	Date: 8/4/2014
Subject: Re: Selsam's Definition of Airborne Wind Energy

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13534	From: dougselsam	Date: 8/4/2014
Subject: Re: Selsam's Definition of Airborne Wind Energy

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13535	From: dougselsam	Date: 8/4/2014
Subject: Re: Industrial energy. Choices.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13536	From: mmarchitti	Date: 8/4/2014
Subject: Re: KiteGen as "sole professional actor" in AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13537	From: dave santos	Date: 8/4/2014
Subject: kPower Definition of AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13538	From: Joe Faust	Date: 8/4/2014
Subject: Re: Selsam's Definition of Airborne Wind Energy

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13539	From: joe_f_90032	Date: 8/4/2014
Subject: Re: Industrial energy. Choices.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13540	From: dave santos	Date: 8/4/2014
Subject: Re: KiteGen as "sole professional actor" in AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13542	From: dave santos	Date: 8/4/2014
Subject: Re: Industrial energy. Choices.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13543	From: Joe Faust	Date: 8/4/2014
Subject: Re: Industrial energy. Choices.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13544	From: joe_f_90032	Date: 8/4/2014
Subject: Yang on transportation

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13545	From: Hardensoft International Limited	Date: 8/5/2014
Subject: Fw: [AWES] Re: Group management

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13546	From: dougselsam	Date: 8/5/2014
Subject: Re: Industrial energy. Choices.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13547	From: Joe Faust	Date: 8/5/2014
Subject: Re: Industrial energy. Choices.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13548	From: dougselsam	Date: 8/5/2014
Subject: Kites, kite-sailing, dynamic soaring, dandelion seeds

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13549	From: dougselsam	Date: 8/5/2014
Subject: Re: Industrial energy. Choices.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13550	From: dougselsam	Date: 8/5/2014
Subject: Kite-reeling & mental health

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13551	From: Joe Faust	Date: 8/5/2014
Subject: Re: Industrial energy. Choices.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13552	From: Joe Faust	Date: 8/5/2014
Subject: Re: Kite-reeling & mental health

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13553	From: dave santos	Date: 8/5/2014
Subject: Re: Theoretic AWES Land Footprint and Airspace Use (review and updat

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13554	From: Joe Faust	Date: 8/5/2014
Subject: Re: Kites, kite-sailing, dynamic soaring, dandelion seeds

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13555	From: dave santos	Date: 8/5/2014
Subject: Re: Kites, kite-sailing, dynamic soaring, dandelion seeds

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13556	From: dave santos	Date: 8/5/2014
Subject: Re: Kite-reeling & mental health

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13557	From: dave santos	Date: 8/5/2014
Subject: Re: Industrial energy. Choices.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13558	From: benhaiemp	Date: 8/5/2014
Subject: Re: Theoretic AWES Land Footprint and Airspace Use (review and updat

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13559	From: Pierre BENHAIEM	Date: 8/5/2014
Subject: Re: Industrial energy. Choices.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13560	From: dave santos	Date: 8/5/2014
Subject: Re: Theoretic AWES Land Footprint and Airspace Use (review and updat

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13561	From: mmarchitti	Date: 8/5/2014
Subject: Re: KiteGen as "sole professional actor" in AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13562	From: Pierre BENHAIEM	Date: 8/5/2014
Subject: Re: Theoretic AWES Land Footprint and Airspace Use (review and updat

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13563	From: dave santos	Date: 8/5/2014
Subject: Re: Industrial energy. Choices.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13564	From: Joe Faust	Date: 8/5/2014
Subject: Re: Theoretic AWES Land Footprint and Airspace Use (review and updat

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13565	From: Joe Faust	Date: 8/5/2014
Subject: Re: Theoretic AWES Land Footprint and Airspace Use (review and updat

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13566	From: dave santos	Date: 8/5/2014
Subject: Re: Theoretic AWES Land Footprint and Airspace Use (review and updat

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13567	From: Pierre BENHAIEM	Date: 8/5/2014
Subject: Re: Industrial energy. Choices.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13568	From: dave santos	Date: 8/5/2014
Subject: Re: Theoretic AWES Land Footprint and Airspace Use (review and updat

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13569	From: Pierre BENHAIEM	Date: 8/5/2014
Subject: Re: Theoretic AWES Land Footprint and Airspace Use (review and updat

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13570	From: Joe Faust	Date: 8/5/2014
Subject: Re: Theoretic AWES Land Footprint and Airspace Use (review and updat

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13571	From: Joe Faust	Date: 8/5/2014
Subject: Re: Industrial energy. Choices.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13572	From: dave santos	Date: 8/5/2014
Subject: Re: Industrial energy. Choices.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13573	From: dave santos	Date: 8/5/2014
Subject: Re: Theoretic AWES Land Footprint and Airspace Use (review and updat

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13574	From: Joe Faust	Date: 8/5/2014
Subject: Re: Theoretic AWES Land Footprint and Airspace Use (review and updat

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13575	From: dave santos	Date: 8/5/2014
Subject: Re: Theoretic AWES Land Footprint and Airspace Use (review and updat

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13576	From: dave santos	Date: 8/5/2014
Subject: Re: Tether-Optional IFO Glider-Ring DS AWES

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13577	From: joe_f_90032	Date: 8/5/2014
Subject: Re: Theoretic AWES Land Footprint and Airspace Use (review and updat

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13578	From: dave santos	Date: 8/5/2014
Subject: Re: Theoretic AWES Land Footprint and Airspace Use (review and updat

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13579	From: joe_f_90032	Date: 8/5/2014
Subject: Re: Theoretic AWES Land Footprint and Airspace Use (review and updat

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13580	From: joe_f_90032	Date: 8/5/2014
Subject: Re: Theoretic AWES Land Footprint and Airspace Use (review and updat

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13581	From: joe_f_90032	Date: 8/5/2014
Subject: Re: Theoretic AWES Land Footprint and Airspace Use (review and updat

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13582	From: dave santos	Date: 8/5/2014
Subject: Re: Theoretic AWES Land Footprint and Airspace Use (review and updat

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13583	From: Joe Faust	Date: 8/5/2014
Subject: Re: Theoretic AWES Land Footprint and Airspace Use (review and updat

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13533	From: dave santos	Date: 8/4/2014
Subject: Re: Selsam's Definition of Airborne Wind Energy

Its clear that sailing, as a branch of wind power, is properly included in Wikipedia's scholarly-motivated wind power articles. Doug is a lone case to grumpily deny sailing counts as wind power, since its not a part of the Las Vegas wind conferences he attends-

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

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

On Monday, August 4, 2014 1:39 PM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13534	From: dougselsam	Date: 8/4/2014
Subject: Re: Selsam's Definition of Airborne Wind Energy

I said sailboats are not normally included in "wind energy". Obviously a sailboat is wind-powered. I believe I stated that, for example, farm water-pumping windmills would fall under the category of "wind power", or being "wind-powered". While energy is taken from the wind to power a sailboat, sailing is not normally included when we talk of "wind energy". Really, I think you all know this, and are just being difficult, trying to see if you can irritate the teacher by being a wise-ass. Yes you can, yes you do, and no, you are not practicing wind energy, not a part of it at all. You are just pretending. Deep down, we all know that.

"Wind Energy" is a term that has come to refer to generating electricity using wind turbines. What we should all realize is:
1) Words mean whatever some group of people decides the words mean to that group of people;
2) Changing the words does NOT change what is being done. It just changes the words you use to describe what is being done.

Airborne Wind Energy has come about because people have realized that more wind exists at higher heights that today's wind energy apparatus normally reaches, and that towers are expensive. Remember?

If you forget this and start chasing butterflies and dandelion seeds, thinking you are pursuing some form of "wind energy", you may be successful in redefining that activity as "wind energy" for some limited audience, such as if you wrote a children's book about it, but, again, the real question is:

ARE YOU GOING TO ACTUALLY DO ANYTHING ABOUT AWE,
or
ARE YOU JUST GOING TO SPEND ALL DAY PLAYING WITH WORD DEFINITIONS?

Constantly redefining words in lieu of generating any electricity is a form of "MISSION CREEP" where you forget your original goal, which was to show the existing wind energy industry how much smarter you are than them.

Maybe you should ask Cristina Archer what she means when she talks about using nocturnal jets for "Wind Energy" I'm pretty sure, last I read, she was talking about wind turbines, and powering the grid.

If you guys want to be totally out of touch with the rest of the world and make up all your own definitions based on your own fantasy industries and your own fantasy future scenarios, have fun, but you should know that there will NEVER be a floating kite-city above New York, populated by dedicated kite-flying volunteer (for the honor) pilots, with people happily bouncing along flower-lined airborne paths, chasing dandelion seeds blown by the wind, as Dave S. promotes.

And one more thing, my wannabe-genius friend Dave S.: I would appreciate it if you would PLEASE stop characterizing every statement I make using terms like "grumpily" or whatever. I don't need you to redefine my words too - keep redefining your own words if you want. Just stick to the facts, lest you push me back into the far more accurate "idiots, idiots, idiots" theme, which is actually what is going on here. Why I waste one more second of my time even responding to this drivel is a good question.

Sure, Airborne Wind Energy is ANYTHING and EVERYTHING you want it to be, so have fun playing with words. Jump in the air during a strong wind and you can say you are practicing airborne wind energy. You and the dandelions. Sure kid, have fun with that. The world will take notice when you start generating some power, and not before.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13535	From: dougselsam	Date: 8/4/2014
Subject: Re: Industrial energy. Choices.

Joe: Interesting question, but you can play these word games all day long, and what you're really doing is avoiding the original mission. You guys come up with these limited scenarios that are not ever likely to happen, and think you're actually DOING something. You're not. If anyone decides to power a ship using batteries, then they will most likely charge them using the grid, and if some wind energy is involved on that grid, that will be incidental. If someone is gonna install a wind turbine on a ship, more power to them. But they probably are not. Meanwhile, what does THAT have to do with AWE? What does it have to do with you? With me? With any of us? Meanwhile, what you're really doing is just more "avoiding the issue". The issue is, nobody seems to be having any luck accomplishing AWE. Maybe because they spend all day on the internet, playing with word definitions.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13536	From: mmarchitti	Date: 8/4/2014
Subject: Re: KiteGen as "sole professional actor" in AWE

- You are saying that you sold back your WOW stock!? because you hold company stock in 2011, when you took part and voted in the assembly in Rome. That's funny.

- It is also funny your supposed spy story, because dozen of open days were organized by WOW-KiteGen, and thousand of people visited the plant.

- In the WOW home page, http://wow.pe/en/ , it is written that "WOW SpA was the first and it’s still the only financial holding operating globally on the emerging airborne wind energy industry." And now you are not interested on how they spend a million of euro?

- Paolo Musumeci was president and "administrator" of WOW, the second title is much more important.

---In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, <santos137@... how they invest. My proposals to them have always taken the form of "cash match" plans, which they never did seem to understand (both parties self-fund for coordinated goals).

Gaetano is the new WOW president; Paolo has moved into a new AWE project at Capannori. I thought your ouster from WOW at the 2011 Rome stockholder's meeting was gratuitously cruel. I did get to see the KiteGen plant, by a strange process of intrigue like a spy novel. I have seldom had more fun.

The KiteGen weakness to me was that Massimo never understood the need to work in close cooperation with the whole AE developer community, worldwide, but instead vainly sought an insider-dominated monopoly. There simply was never enough design talent inside KiteGen for it to quickly develop the mature AWE technology needed. That is why WOW's small investors needed more options than just letting KiteGen overspend for large carbon-composite parts, supercapacitors, galvanized cuppolas, etc.. It never was Massimo's money, but people's money. Massimo did not invent kite reeling, nor do we in open-AWE see any blocking idea in KiteGen patents.

You and Massimo seem unaware that my shared AWE strategy was never based on any single idea, but an open-engineering process of comparative Testing between all the world's best teams, under a third-party like Fraunhofer or NREL. KiteGen could have led us all with a broad test-engineer ethos, but chose to bet narrowly on small ideas like side-slip, blowers, and robot-stems, and lost us. KiteGen seems even to have lost track of new thinking in AWE emerging from many sides.

Broad open AWE Testing in a large well-funded program, with KiteGen as just one contender of many, is what is being actively proposed to SABIC Ventures and other major investors. I hope this is finally clear, so maybe we can work to bring together the core engineering talent of the separated parties in the exciting next phase of AWE R&D,

daveS

On Saturday, August 2, 2014 3:47 PM, "marchitti@... [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13537	From: dave santos	Date: 8/4/2014
Subject: kPower Definition of AWE

For direct reference without need to "paraphrase" (mangle)-

Airborne Wind Energy (AWE) is the complete set of Wind Energy cases which operate flying in the air by wing and/or buoyancy principles. While an electrical-engineering context is the most common case-class discussed, all scientific instances of AWE are allowed for comparative study, and the contexts are carefully accounted for.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13538	From: Joe Faust	Date: 8/4/2014
Subject: Re: Selsam's Definition of Airborne Wind Energy

Good reply, Doug. Thanks for staying on a higher road of language; really.

This topic is a focus on DougS's definition of AWE; we seek to know our fella's definition of AWE

And it seems to me we are close to seeing your definition as one that has electricity-ONLY generation. Does that fit?

While you progress some on topic, it seems you take much effort to tell a group that they are off normality for having AWE also include the generation of other forms of energy other than electricity. Is that correct?

Thanks for anticipated answers to the clarifying questions in this hereon post. Thanks for your time and thoughtfulness.

Best,

~ JoeF

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13539	From: joe_f_90032	Date: 8/4/2014
Subject: Re: Industrial energy. Choices.

Doug,

During rest from doing AWE, some of us drop by the forum and talk a bit about AWE matters.

In this topic, I was sparking to illustrate a premise to be used to help clarify your definition of industrial AWE energy as (I argue) equivalent to industrial conventional tri-blade electricity energy. By the example, I was trying to show that AWE energy of traction can be shown to be equivalent in professional circles to electricity energy. This is not just a word game, but an effort to communicate with you, fellow AWE guy, in professional seriousness.

Best,

~ JoeF

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13540	From: dave santos	Date: 8/4/2014
Subject: Re: KiteGen as "sole professional actor" in AWE

Mario,

I was just a proxy representative for Albanian WOW investment, and never directly owned KiteGen/WOW stock. The night before the stockholders meeting I got "Albanized" :)

There was no "open day" the day I visited the KiteGen stem, but a strange protracted process of hushed negotiations, vehicle transfers, back roads, and then only 15 minutes to study details before being whisked away.

I would love to know all about both WOW and KiteGen, veiled in mysterious sfumato. Italian AWE really is a spy comedy, compared to the rest of the world,

daveS

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

On Monday, August 4, 2014 2:55 PM, "marchitti@hotmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13542	From: dave santos	Date: 8/4/2014
Subject: Re: Industrial energy. Choices.

Doug,

Let Joe be Joe.

JoeF is right. Many of us do more hands-on AWE than the rest of the world, and we write between AWE shop-work and flight-test sessions. The progress is real, but you can't see it. The Net is only driving AWE progress, by so much shared knowledge and talent.

A lot of the AWES Forum traffic is devoted to correcting your basic factual misrepresentations, for example, that sailing and AWE are somehow unrelated wind energy fields. Many of us in AWE crosspost to DaveC's AYRS list, but no similar closeness exists with any conventional wind forum, where its sailing and AWE that are not normal topics. "Grumpy" and "crabby" are a child-friendly ways to describe your negativity, without need to mirror your profanity.

Even if acting-out behaviour is for social attention, the weak technical pretenses inadvertently serve as a foil for newborn AWE culture to develop against, so the game of rigorous semantics is not in vain. Newcomers to the Forum also get a continuous review and update of AWE thinking.

You need not complain so much. Things continue well in the field; the trend-lines only point up, even if you grow too impatient with the marathon work pace required, and the normal word-play,

daveS

On Monday, August 4, 2014 4:34 PM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13543	From: Joe Faust	Date: 8/4/2014
Subject: Re: Industrial energy. Choices.

Doug noted: " If someone is gonna install a wind turbine on a ship, more power to them. But they probably are not. Meanwhile, what does THAT have to do with AWE?"

Some conversation regarding the above remark:

The flow is that kite-system turbines are on ships, boards, yachts, hulls; those turbines are producing mechanical traction energy and producing transportation of a wide variety; coal and oil for such part is not consumed for such transportation. Such AWE gift can be increased much more than the world is doing.

Early in this forum it was shown how a kite system is a wind turbine producing energy; some early show was in a discussion with Dave Culp, kite master, kite-traction master too. Mastery of kite traction is also the subject of Jon Chul's patent where the kite wind turbine tracts hydroturbines in the water hull to make electricity or chemical; wind turbine and water turbine in a combination (such is an extension in part of public domain arts of RATs in water hull during sailing or even during otherwise-powered boating, similar to air RATs onboard yachts, ships, sailing craft).

Recall SkySail kite wind turbines that have a single strong main tether that is seen rotating one way as a big radius and then rotating another way about a center; not an electrical turbine, but a turbine that converts wind energy to mechanical useful industrial energy for the sake of big utility transportation. Such one day will be considered small potatoes compared to what traction from kites will do for the world in small and very huge. Want to move a hill to level things or to get special ore or to prepare for a lake making?

Lift, Pull, Move-Magnets,

~ JoeF

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13544	From: joe_f_90032	Date: 8/4/2014
Subject: Yang on transportation

Wind power air transportation system

YANG LICHENG

Espacenet - Bibliographic data


			Espacenet - Bibliographic data Abstract of CN202609074 (U) Translate this text into Tooltip Select language
			View on worldwide.espacenet.com	Preview by Yahoo

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13545	From: Hardensoft International Limited	Date: 8/5/2014
Subject: Fw: [AWES] Re: Group management

JoeF;

I am most inclined towards DaveS' thinking expressed below on multiple AWE forums versus a single one.

Please consider.

Further lifts.

JohnO

John Adeoye Oyebanji B.Sc. MCPN
Managing Consultant & CEO
Hardensoft International Limited
<Technologies font-family:Arial, sans-serif;">This e-mail, its attachments and any rights attaching hereto are, and unless the content clearly indicates otherwise, remains the property of John Adeoye Oyebanji of Hardensoft International Limited, Lagos, Nigeria.

It is confidential, private and intended for only the addressee.

Should you not be the addressee and receive this e-mail by mistake, kindly notify the sender, and delete this e-mail immediately.

Do not disclose or use it in any way. Views and opinions expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender unless clearly stated as those of some other.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13546	From: dougselsam	Date: 8/5/2014
Subject: Re: Industrial energy. Choices.

"Early in this forum it was shown how a kite system is a wind turbine producing energy" - Not necessarily: a "turbine" must "turn". No, not every surface exposed to the wind is NOT a turbine. The side of a barn is not a turbine.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13547	From: Joe Faust	Date: 8/5/2014
Subject: Re: Industrial energy. Choices.

Doug,
We note strongly how even a wing on a string in flight turns and
turns and turns and turns. Most known kite systems are turbines in
their elemental real physical state in nature's winds; they turn about
centers; there are radial arms guiding the turning about centers; as
the energy is converted from the kinetic energy of the natural wind
and complex apparent winds into mechanical energy, sound energy.
electrostatic energy, molecular energy, heat, light, electricity,
waves, ..we see kite systems fulfilling the roles of a turbine. Detail
illustrtion and similar study was done near the start of this forum.
As we advance the arts of the kite turbine, we advance in having the
turbine turn other turbines sometimes, like highly dedicated
conventional electrical generators. And more. Look for the
turning in most any AWE video involving the tethered sort of AWE;
watch the turning; note the various centers about which moments are
formed. Note carefully the energy conversions involved.

~ JoeF

On 8/5/14, dougselsam@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]
<AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13548	From: dougselsam	Date: 8/5/2014
Subject: Kites, kite-sailing, dynamic soaring, dandelion seeds

My opinion is that generating electricity using airborne means that harnesses wind IS the MAIN topic of Airborne Wind Energy. We all know windfarms now provide a significant percentage of electricity needs, and that the idea of taking a wind-generator technology into the sky is a desirable next step. Most of the "players" certainly pursue this end.

That does not mean, however, that the same people that have the natural curiosity and urge to advance technology are not also INTERESTED IN kites helping to power ships, dynamic soaring, etc. I can say I find all these topics highly interesting, and would not want to miss out on any important news in these areas.

There is definitely a possibility of crossover between these fields, most of which I believe is not even appreciated by most people, including even the people on this list.

So I don't have a problem reading about all these various technological thrusts, but I DO have to point out that it seems like we're easily distracted by them, and it's easy to get off-track and forget that original goal of improving on today;s windfarm technology.

Imagine a supposed "gourmet cooking" group. Let's say, though, that it was populated by people with no actual knowledge of gournet cooking, really, but instead, mostly people interested in a dumpster-based subsistence diet. They could post all day about the latest delictible dumpster-derived delicacy, but at some point, one would see that it was not, in fact, a gourmet cooking forum, but instead a dumpster-diving deviation.

Remember a couple of sayings:
1) A man who stands for nothing will fall for anything.
2) A open mind is good, just not so open that everything falls out.

By those standards, I'd say if you forget the thrust to outperform today's wind energy technology and start thinking your job is to figure out how to power railroad trains pulling water uphill using kites, write fantastical scenarios with floating kite cities over new york, convert the world to compressed-air powered by kites, etc., you've gone off the rails and are showing that you're unable to maintain focus, your efforts splintered to uselessness before you've even gotten started.

So, I love hearing about interesting, related technologies with some crossover potential to AWE, but the problem I have is when we start hearing how dandelion seeds floating by should be included in a tabulation of annual wind energy output, etc., which we all know is complete nonsense - a severe distraction from reality. Stand for nothing, fall for anything, with a mind so open, everything falls out...

Have a day!
:))))))

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13549	From: dougselsam	Date: 8/5/2014
Subject: Re: Industrial energy. Choices.

Joe you are back to thinking that redefining words has any meaning. Words only describe reality. They are not a substitute for reality. Claiming your kite is a turbine becuase you once saw itt urn is a departure from reality. You;re back to playing word games in lieu of playing with wind energy.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13550	From: dougselsam	Date: 8/5/2014
Subject: Kite-reeling & mental health

One requisite exercise would be to show, if one had any desired amount of force at ground level, at no cost, could one take that force and make an economical electric power generation system around it using cable-reeling? I don't think anyone has shown that. That would be a first step to rationalize kite-reeling. My thought is, forget the kite, and start with the idea that you have as much force as you desire for free - can you make even THAT work to generate economical power? That should be easy to show on paper.

Remember: "Einstein's definition of insanity" keep doing the same thing expecting a different result. (Did Einstein REALLY say that?) Isn't it fair to apply that to the kite-reelers? If they were showing any promise of generating significant amounts of electricity, don't you think we'd have heard about it by now? After all, how many teams have pursued this idea so far? How many millions have been spent? How many pix of enthusiastic grad students (being misled by "adults"?)? What meaningful results have you heard about?

I'll bet David C. Fender has given up long ago, for example. I'll bet they spent a couple weekends near Fukushima with poor results and then said "This is bullshit" and gave up, but of course that never gets a press-release:
Newsflash: "Turns out we were full of crap - it barely works". Nope, you never hear that, do you? (They quietly go away...)

I classify kite-reeling for power-production right in there with casino gambling as an investment: A bad idea, where the basic math says it won't work, but that doesn't stop people from developing a gambling problem, or a kite-reeling problem. Both, in my estimation, are mental health issues.

If one has such mental problems, it can manifest as a gambling problem for someone fixated on games and money, or as a kite-reeling problem, for those fixated on kites and not so much on money...

Have a day! :)))

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13551	From: Joe Faust	Date: 8/5/2014
Subject: Re: Industrial energy. Choices.

Doug,
Just observing how natural things are will give you the data for
seeing that a natural kite system fulfills what a turbine is. I am
not redefining anything here.
You have been invited to observe the raw data of a kite and invited to
see the facts of turning about centers and the facts of generating
energy in the process. If you do not observe accurately and collect
the data, then you might not be able to see the turning that is
dominant in a real kite in natural airs. Not once saw a turning, but
never ever had a kite session where the turning was not present
strongly. Said with positive terms: every kite sessin ever observed
by me involved strong turning and energy conversion; every. What do
you see when you see a natural physical kite flying, DougS ?

Best,
~ JoeF

On 8/5/14, dougselsam@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]
<AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13552	From: Joe Faust	Date: 8/5/2014
Subject: Re: Kite-reeling & mental health

Doug,
Thanks for the topic. It will tell in time whether or not the
kite-reelers appreciate the "mental health" part of the title or not.
Your post mentions "power" while maybe you meant generate energy
that could be used at a certain rate in some useful task.
A sound proof either way on kite-reeling would solve for you, I
guess. If you find a proof either way, please present the proof;
thanks.
Some kite-reelers in Yo-Yo fashion driving conventional electric
generators have seen their generators make electricity that could be
used for practical tasks.
Your rotating tether driving ground-level (hand-held) electric
generator was not a kite-reeling method; you used a lifter kit and
tether-mounted rotating blades. Have your tried kite-reeling at
similar scale?
It seems some real teams have generated electricity for use by
using the Yo-Yo Method (under various other names). The method is
one of scores and more of AWES methods. A slew of patents claim the
Yo-Yo Method (under various names) and one would suspect that someone
has invested for such claiming because they have seen some success in
the method.
How Yo-Yo Method in AWES will compare with other methods for
niche applications within each of ten AWE scales will be shown in part
during strong comparative testing among competing teams.
In some Yo-Yo reeling arrangements there are some
very radical low-drag return-phase arrangements whilst having very
strong downwind arrangements.
There are varieties of reeling arrangement. Each variety might
need its own set of proofs.

Lift,
~JoeF

On 8/5/14, dougselsam@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]
<AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13553	From: dave santos	Date: 8/5/2014
Subject: Re: Theoretic AWES Land Footprint and Airspace Use (review and updat

Having carefully re-reviewed Pierre's 520x result, its clear that there are critical errors to correct.

He rejected the NREL wind tower capacity-density factor in favor of his own number, chose an inadequate reference from TUDelft for kite data, and ignored major factors advantaging AWE, such as superior wind velocity and capacity factor. He is mistaken about basic physics (re: work of towing v work of shaft power and close crosswind spacing of turbines).

Then there is the garbled technical English problem that makes many assertions opaque, which is only Pierre's fault if he does not seek French-speaking AE help to correct it. The total result of these flaws is the most nonsense AWE prediction ever, that towers are hundreds of times more capacity-intensive than a reasonable theoretic AWES.

The likely cause for this poor result is Pierre's extreme engineering impatience, in his own words "I have not so much patience as DougS", which one might previously have thought to be the lowest possible standard for "patience" in current AWE!

The result of such impatience may be " real ineptitudes mixed with intellectual dishonesty", in Pierre's own words; if he does not strive to correct the flaws in his technical reasoning, but lets them stand. I have far more patience than Doug, and look forward to correcting any errors in my work. I do not see that Pierre has identified any of my actual errors yet, but I think some expert might do better.

If SkySails 2MW power claim is so far off, also according to Pierre, a plausible explanation is desired of how such a huge error by a leading ship-kite player ever happened. Can anyone support Pierre's 520x claims? It would truly the end of AWE as a promising renewable technology if Pierre somehow got this key question right (with even less diligence than Doug).

-------------------------------- references ---------------------------------------------

Pierre's response to the AWES v tower model-

"Some secondary points are to be corrected:

2 MW is an wrong value (the configuration of measure of towing is not quite the configuration of measure of generating)
Tu Delft gives a value of 20 kW with a 25 m² wing.Click on www.kitepower.eu/technology.html then on "system components".[The simplified formula for reeling-it/out during power phase is 1/2 X 2/27 X air density X wind speed cubed X coef of lift X (L/D)² . With L/D being 4 (plausible for soft wing) you can theoretically obtain about 60 kW, then divide it by 2 or 3 due to losses.]
So we obtain 240 kW for a 300 m² soft wing.

But in first your "analysis" is quite wrong since your comparison with HAWT is quite unfair. Your front of not directional *30 looping units under the arch facing the wind* should correspond in a front of *15 HAWT facing the unidirectional wind*. So rough results are something like:

*30 looping units under the arch facing the unidirectional wind*: 7.2 MW (before losses due to the proximity of looping units) for land used (footprint) being roughly 2 km² (not 4 km² since only one wind direction is considered, but not less by considering the slope of the arch in the direction of the wind).
*15 HAWT facing the unidirectional wind*: 75 MW ( before losses due to the proximity of units, each unit supposed to be 5 MW) for land used (footprint) being roughly 0.04 km² ( here the width of turbines is very weak, less than 20 m)
So the ratio of power/land used of HAWT is 520 times over that of arch with looping units.

(Note that PDF mentions other reasons than yours to make kite-farm more densified. Numerous factors are also to be considered: wind shadow (the same for HAWT).)"

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

This is the TUDelft page text Pierre referenced. Its not a formal model at all, but a gloss missing many variables (like kite area). Two factors mentioned that I do not see Pierre accounting for is stronger winds aloft for the AWES v tower, and roughly double the capacity factor. The generator rating is generic, rather than a real datum based on a given wind-speed, which is not supplied. The Springer AWE book is a far better TUDelft source-

Kite Power is a cost-effective renewable energy solution with a low environmental footprint. The inflatable wing and the traction tether are made from strong but flexible lightweight materials. In contrast to conventional wind turbines, this tensile structure is not obstructing the view. It is an ideal basis for a highly mobile wind energy system. The heavy generator is positioned at ground level, which facilitates servicing and also minimizes structural forces. The direct force transmission into the ground station removes the need for bending-resistant foundations, which is particularly interesting for deep-water offshore deployment. The technology demonstrator of Delft University of Technology uses a tele-operated airborne unit for the flight control of the kite, which can access altitudes far beyond the limit of conventional wind turbines (200 m). Wind at these altitudes is stronger and more steady which increases capacity factors of the system to about 60%. Conventional wind turbines presently achieve values of 20-35%.

Fundamental limitation of horizontal axis wind turbines

Functional separation of rotor blade and generator, tensile force transmission and torque generation by cable drum

Pumping kite concept: energy generation during reel-out phase and energy consumption during reel-in phase

How does it work?

The system is operated in periodic pumping cycles, alternating between reel-out and reel-in of the tether. During reel-out, the kite is flying figure-eight maneuvers at high speed (70 to 90 km/h). This creates a high traction force (3.1 kN at 7 m/s wind speed) which is converted into electricity by the drum and the connected 20 kW generator. When reaching the maximum tether length, the kite is de-powered by releasing the rear (steering) lines such that the whole wing rotates and aligns with the apparent wind. Using the drum/generator module as a winch, the kite is now pulled back to the initial position to start the next pumping cycle. De-powering reduces the traction force during reel-in by 80% and for this reason the energy consumed during reel-in is only a fraction of the energy generated during reel-out. Crucial element of the technology is the automatic control and synchronization of the drum/generator module and the flight dynamics of the kite.

On Monday, August 4, 2014 1:04 PM, "dave santos santos137@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13554	From: Joe Faust	Date: 8/5/2014
Subject: Re: Kites, kite-sailing, dynamic soaring, dandelion seeds

Having not searched the entire record, but, Doug, I think you are the
one that brought up tabulating the energy involved in sustaining the
transport of dandelion seeds. Biologists are attending to seed
transport energies; the mico gusts that rip seeds from mother stalk,
etc. In our forum we may glance at the energy needed to transport
people and goods around the world by way of fuel-less flight means.

Have no doubt that the vast dominance of this forum regards doing
good practical things using AWES to replace as much coal and oil use
as possible. Such incudes a high focus on generating electricity and
othe forms of stored energy (chemical, hydro, mass lift, etc.) to
compete with the electricity from conventionall wind farms, natural
gas, oil, coal, nuclear, biofuels, etc. Go for it. Be ready to
learn from nature and toys; be ready to learn from experiments.

Lift,
~ JoeF

On 8/5/14, dougselsam@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]
<AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13555	From: dave santos	Date: 8/5/2014
Subject: Re: Kites, kite-sailing, dynamic soaring, dandelion seeds

Doug wrote: "...it's easy to get off-track and forget [the] original [AWE] goal of improving on today's windfarm technology."

Correction: When Etzler first proposed AWE, with the stated goal of powering civilization, "today's windfarm technology" did not exist. Because AWE experts are more aware of their history, they do not easily get "off-track" about the "original goal".

Doug wrote: "the problem I have is when we start hearing how dandelion seeds floating by should be included in a tabulation of annual wind energy output."

Correction: No one but Doug has created his "problem" between dandelions and "tabulation of annual wind energy output." Discussion of misc AWE phenomena is done in a scientific context, and only Doug seeks to conflate industrial economics with these cases.

On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 8:47 AM, "dougselsam@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13556	From: dave santos	Date: 8/5/2014
Subject: Re: Kite-reeling & mental health

Who on the AWES Forum has ever proposed reeling to be anything more than an early baseline AWE case? This is another Doug straw-man.

Just because everyone but Doug accepts the pioneering EU academic teams using reeling for initial study does not imply a technological down-select. Let reeling continue for now as a historic baseline reference, but don't bet on it in the long run. Its the one major AWES architecture I have not bothered with, since others have covered it so well.

On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 9:31 AM, "Joe Faust joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13557	From: dave santos	Date: 8/5/2014
Subject: Re: Industrial energy. Choices.

Doug,

All single line kites do loop, and kite arches and barns turn with the planet as hub; these are turnings, so once again Joe is literally correct.

You play the AWE word game as much as anyone, but to lose. Blame the word-game for your long lapse of any experimental progress, but others play to win, and experiment better thereby,

daveS

On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 9:03 AM, "Joe Faust joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13558	From: benhaiemp	Date: 8/5/2014
Subject: Re: Theoretic AWES Land Footprint and Airspace Use (review and updat

DaveS,

I put again my post below with some minor correction (unidirectional = only one wind direction). You make a comparison between unidirectional 30 looping units under arch vs multidirectional (for all wind directions) HAWT. So to make a fair comparison you must have also unidirectional HAWT. So the HAWT are too closed each other, but looping units are equally too close each other.

The reference on TuDelft is correct and measures by Windlift, TuDelft (see videos on Youtube) etc. correspond. I agree the value does not take account of reel-in phase.

I do not see how my analysis can be both opaque due to language and wrong: it is the one or the other.

Some secondary points are to be corrected:

2 MW is an wrong value (the configuration of measure of towing is not quite the configuration of measure of generating)
Tu Delft gives a value of 20 kW with a 25 m² wing.Click on www.kitepower.eu/technology.html then on "system components".[The simplified formula for reeling-it/out during power phase is 1/2 X 2/27 X air density X wind speed cubed X coef of lift X (L/D)² . With L/D being 4 (plausible for soft wing) you can theoretically obtain about 60 kW, then divide it by 2 or 3 due to losses.]
So we obtain 240 kW for a 300 m² soft wing.

But in first your "analysis" is quite wrong since your comparison with HAWT is quite unfair. Your front of unidirectional *30 looping units under the arch facing the wind* should correspond in a front of *15 HAWT facing the unidirectional wind*. So rough results are something like:

*30 looping units under the arch facing the unidirectional wind*: 7.2 MW (before losses due to the proximity of looping units) for land used (footprint) being roughly 2 km² (not 4 km² since only one wind direction is considered, but not less by considering the slope of the arch in the direction of the wind).
*15 HAWT facing the unidirectional wind*: 75 MW ( before losses due to the proximity of units, each unit supposed to be 5 MW) for land used (footprint) being roughly 0.04 km² ( here the width of turbines is very weak, less than 20 m)
So the ratio of power/land used of HAWT is 520 times over that of arch with looping units.

(Note that PDF mentions other reasons than yours to make kite-farm more densified. Numerous factors are also to be considered: wind shadow (the same for HAWT).)

I hope you do not draw WOW from KiteGen with such false arguments (or rather real ineptitudes mixed with intellectual dishonesty) on your last post and on many of your posts.False arguments favoring supposedly AWE are a real obstacle in a fair debate, and a brake for AWE development.

I precise I have not so much patience as DougS. So do not wait for a false perpetual dialogue with me.

PierreB

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13559	From: Pierre BENHAIEM	Date: 8/5/2014
Subject: Re: Industrial energy. Choices.

"All single line kites do loop, and kite arches and barns turn with the planet as hub; these are turnings, so once again Joe is literally correct."

We are the world, we are airborne wind turbines...

PierreB

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13560	From: dave santos	Date: 8/5/2014
Subject: Re: Theoretic AWES Land Footprint and Airspace Use (review and updat

Pierre,

TUDelft publishes technical papers for you to use. The webpage text is a poor scholarly reference by comparison. WindLift never flew its kites high into the target airspace under discussion, and also suffers from all the inefficiencies of reeling. Please allow for better theoretic AWE methods than these primitive early cases. Explain how the SkySails power claim is so false, in your opinion.

You seem unaware that we easily rotate arches to any wind direction, so we can close-space turbines side-by-side optimally. Conventional wind farms suffer from wake effects, since only the tower-tops move.

You do not address how NREL's numbers are wrong, nor calculate the superior power and capacity factor of wind above towers. Try and get someone like Baptiste to help you with these factors, to see how your 520x result changes.

Your model has several parts; those that are linguistically opaque cannot be judged for correctness, but those that seem to make sense can be judged. Again, get Baptiste, Luc, or any French AE expert you prefer, to review your model and clear up the confusing parts. Such experts can help you understand my model better, and also make helpful suggestions for me to adopt.

Lets get to the truth,

daveS

On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 10:44 AM, "pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13561	From: mmarchitti	Date: 8/5/2014
Subject: Re: KiteGen as "sole professional actor" in AWE

Yes, it is a spy comedy, and you are one of the main character.

---In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, <santos137@...

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13562	From: Pierre BENHAIEM	Date: 8/5/2014
Subject: Re: Theoretic AWES Land Footprint and Airspace Use (review and updat

DaveS,

"You seem unaware that we easily rotate arches to any wind direction" So the arch does not turn by itself, so the arch is unidirectional.

I mention Youtube for yourself because I doubt you can understand technical papers.

PierreB

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13563	From: dave santos	Date: 8/5/2014
Subject: Re: Industrial energy. Choices.

Pierre wrote: "We are the world, we are airborne wind turbines..."

Very good; almost the ultimate abstraction, just for fun. We are a sub-part of the world, and we are AWTs only if airborne. It is presumed that air always has motion, that therefore wind is ubiquitous, for the sake of abstract imagination..

The pro engineer ranges freely from far-flung abstraction to real-world technology. Many others can do neither.

On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 10:58 AM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13564	From: Joe Faust	Date: 8/5/2014
Subject: Re: Theoretic AWES Land Footprint and Airspace Use (review and updat

Give one square km to hard-towered conventional wind turbine competitor.
Give one square km to energy-kite systems competitor.
Perhaps have the squares laterally separated by 1 km with respect to
some prevailing wind. Let the two competitors have a go at sending
energy to a remote user 1 km away in the neutral zone between the two
competing land squares.
See which can produce the most energy from the given squares. Then
later consider secondary activity in the given squares, perhaps.
Each separate square of land is allowed to use the airspace above
the squares up to say 600 meters. The towers will be allowed to
build whatever towers they please. The kite-energy-systems team over
their square may build whatever they wish. Each team is to have
safeguards; e.g. if a towered blade fails and flies free from the
tower, then some care is to be taken to handle such incident. If a
kite-energy-system's tether should break, then some provision and
respect for handling such break should be addressed.
Per team, there will be a total-system cost for the energy
arriving to the remote energy user. Finding the total-system cost
will be a careful accounting challenge.

One of the teams will win for LCOE. It is noted that over time, just
what goes into the square kilometer could change, hopefully improve.
Analysis of the competition by energy experts, sharp accountants, and
safety experts should be interesting.

The world deserves to know which team wins the day, month, year,
or decade. Shapening designs could have later cycle results be
different than first early competition results. If kite-energy
systems can beat towered turbines, then the world might be blessed to
know such. And then compare the picture with other RE types.

~ JoeF

On 8/5/14, dave santos santos137@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]
<AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13565	From: Joe Faust	Date: 8/5/2014
Subject: Re: Theoretic AWES Land Footprint and Airspace Use (review and updat

Arches come in many varieties.
Turret weathercocking may occur for some kite arches.
Arm on single pivot may occur to base a kite arch.
Diameter-arm may pivot at center for a kite arch.
Arch-hung WECS may be VAWTs and thus have less need for macro-arch
support to minorly weathercock.
http://www.kitemakers.org/classes/images/2007/charliesarch.jpg
Allowing sensors and controls can alter the game of facing the wind.

~ JoeF

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13566	From: dave santos	Date: 8/5/2014
Subject: Re: Theoretic AWES Land Footprint and Airspace Use (review and updat

Pierre,

By your false logic, a car is "unidirectional" since "it does not turn by itself". Like a car, kite arches are 360 degree directional.

Use technical papers as best you can to support your model, without blaming others for your low reference standard. I cited the NREL paper as an authoritative wind tower baseline reference, and you have yet to indicate that you read it, and explain how its result (3MW km2) is so wrong.

Your 520x result will melt away if all the wrong assumptions are exposed like the two instances above,

daveS

On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 11:31 AM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13567	From: Pierre BENHAIEM	Date: 8/5/2014
Subject: Re: Industrial energy. Choices.

Earth is both an AWES and a turbine (by two times, an AWES being a turbine). There is air around Earth, so Earth is airborned. Then Earth turns around sun, so Earth is a turbine. Earth has far more power than conventional wind turbines. So AWE is the winner.

PierreB

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13568	From: dave santos	Date: 8/5/2014
Subject: Re: Theoretic AWES Land Footprint and Airspace Use (review and updat

Joe,

We support flight-testing as the ultimate method to settle AWE controversies, but this is a preliminary theoretic modeling effort to test against.

Therefore, NREL's 3MW km2 stands as the quant baseline here. The AWES case needs a 4km2 footprint to reach the 600m ceiling, and still operate fully inside the footprint, while harvesting more of the kite window.

daveS

On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 12:08 PM, "dave santos santos137@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13569	From: Pierre BENHAIEM	Date: 8/5/2014
Subject: Re: Theoretic AWES Land Footprint and Airspace Use (review and updat

DaveS,

Your 30 looping-units under unidirectional arch does not respect statements from NREL (space of wind turbines,here being looping units) you cited but obviously without understanding it.And if an arch has only one anchor-pivot like some AWES or existing wind turbines, it is no more an arch. Words have sense.Why do you want compare with a car, why not pursuing with HAWT?

PierreB

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13570	From: Joe Faust	Date: 8/5/2014
Subject: Re: Theoretic AWES Land Footprint and Airspace Use (review and updat

Notice that in a square kilometer that kytoons lifting WECS may use
nearly full tether-set length for working WECs. Up the lift to
increase the PTO capacity.

And former note might have us miss arches that are downwind set with
rear anchor weathercocking while elemental sub-kites that weathercock
format the macro arch kite system. Pump or lift sub-WECs.

We are not to neglect the possibl kite doming the square kilometer to
lift WECs or to wobble for PTO means. and to train the dome (storeys
of doming at intervals to fill the 3-D airspace.

Fun competition. Square dancing. Maybe Gates will fund the
competition. Before that we may see what we can do with the funds
that we have. Bookkeeping? Analysts? When will a letter be sent to
invite Vestas to there square? Who is ready for this in the AWE
world?

~ JoeF

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13571	From: Joe Faust	Date: 8/5/2014
Subject: Re: Industrial energy. Choices.

Package that system, Pierre!
Present it on Market Street for the right price!

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13572	From: dave santos	Date: 8/5/2014
Subject: Re: Industrial energy. Choices.

Pierre,

A simpler view of the highest abstractional AWE case is to count Cristina Archer's subject domain- the kinetic energy of the total atmosphere, as AWE (air itself is airborne). Pros easily make the jump back to the "industrial AWE" case, and let varied views enlighten rather than confuse,

daveS

On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 12:33 PM, "Joe Faust joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13573	From: dave santos	Date: 8/5/2014
Subject: Re: Theoretic AWES Land Footprint and Airspace Use (review and updat

Joe,

Adopting severe economic and operational issues of LTA-based AWE gives a big opening for critics; and for what? For the dubious value of being able to arbitrarily apply a 1km2 land unit? At 600m, with some flight-angle from a central anchor, such kytoons would blow-down outside the small perimeter. You would have to fly from the windward margin of the footprint to land with the tether full extended inside the km square. The largest windtowers have a greater indirect-use area than 1km2 (given setback rules).

The wider kite farm concept can be seen as both a kytoon-killer and large windtower-killer, except perhaps for small pilot-lifter kitoons useful to initiate large-scale HTA cascade-launch.

daveS

On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 12:27 PM, "Joe Faust joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13574	From: Joe Faust	Date: 8/5/2014
Subject: Re: Theoretic AWES Land Footprint and Airspace Use (review and updat

Partial quote from DaveS:
"Therefore, NREL's 3MW km2 stands as the quant baseline here. The AWES
case needs a 4km2 footprint to reach the 600m ceiling, and still
operate fully inside the footprint, while harvesting more of the kite
window." :: DaveS
==============================================
Discussing:
The 3 MW/km2 is an "average" where the data was facing as much a
8 MW/km2 (Denholm 2006) as a data point. The study was respecting
field data point. The AWES end of this topic study is looking at
theoretical AWES capacity density. So, I am moved to look at the 8
MW/km2 as such is at least not the greatest of the theoretical
conventional turbine scene. Pitting the average in the field data of
conventionals against the theoretical AWES potential seems like an
unfair contest. What about the theoretical maximum of conventional
towered turbines for the capacity density? Then compare that
theoretical maximum of conventionals against theoretical maximum for
AWES.
~ JoeF

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13575	From: dave santos	Date: 8/5/2014
Subject: Re: Theoretic AWES Land Footprint and Airspace Use (review and updat

Joe,

We seek an "average" AWES estimate as well here, not a theoretic maximum. That is why the final AWES extraction estimate was only about 10% of the total energy of the wind, and this is a reasonable efficiency target, given the vastness and power of upper-wind.

daveS

On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 1:22 PM, "Joe Faust joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13576	From: dave santos	Date: 8/5/2014
Subject: Re: Tether-Optional IFO Glider-Ring DS AWES

Hey Gabor,

Did this IFO Glider-Ring idea make any sense?

Its looking like achievable mass-velocity will limit ideal DS ring scaling, somewhere around the upper ballistic limit of a 500mph winged projectile (<1km), so anything larger will depend on a mixed DS mode, including dynamics like Wayne's tethered-foil pairs, that harvest any given wind shear due to turbulence. Then the winged ring might be unlimited in length and snake all over the sky.

Is not the glider ring (or winged snake) an interesting extension of IFO theory? Comments?

daveS

On Sunday, August 3, 2014 2:34 PM, "dave santos santos137@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13577	From: joe_f_90032	Date: 8/5/2014
Subject: Re: Theoretic AWES Land Footprint and Airspace Use (review and updat

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13578	From: dave santos	Date: 8/5/2014
Subject: Re: Theoretic AWES Land Footprint and Airspace Use (review and updat

Joe,

I am confidently presuming rotation, having tested several methods, plus carousel and ring-track concepts by KiteGen and NTS. Therefore, only the circle inscribed in a square land unit is used for flight, and the corners are suited for support operations, wild habitat, etc..

In every case, go ahead and presume simple KIS functioning, without resorting to odd tricks like apartment-block anchors or diagonal winds to beat the wind tower case,

daveS

On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 3:04 PM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13579	From: joe_f_90032	Date: 8/5/2014
Subject: Re: Theoretic AWES Land Footprint and Airspace Use (review and updat

Turtle stepping, you invited corrections. I am looking at the calculation of:

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13580	From: joe_f_90032	Date: 8/5/2014
Subject: Re: Theoretic AWES Land Footprint and Airspace Use (review and updat

Sorry about my last two posts that confused the land square; I was taking 600 m incorrectly as the square edge, which, of course is the topic's altitude figure, not the land square edge. My error was massaged in both posts. Thanks for your time on that! The land square edge is 2000 m in topic example. The frontal change for maximum wind facing is still with the 1.4 change that I noted: 1.4 x 2000 m for the frontal face of the wind of 1.4x2000x600.

However, on the second matter of subtracting 10% per side for 20% according to Dave's calculation would be applied to the 2000 m edge for a useful edge of 1600 m to get the figure of wind-face area of the 960,000 m2 that DaveS did first show. The diagonal situation I mention would be a maximum different matter at 1.4 times greater.

~ JoeF

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13581	From: joe_f_90032	Date: 8/5/2014
Subject: Re: Theoretic AWES Land Footprint and Airspace Use (review and updat

Sorry again. Needing to correct my calculations. The 10% against the 2000 m gives the 1800 m. Then 600 m x1800 m gives Dave's 980,000 m2. He is taking 5% off left and 5% off the right side. Thanks for the wrestle over my stumbles.

~ JoeF

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13582	From: dave santos	Date: 8/5/2014
Subject: Re: Theoretic AWES Land Footprint and Airspace Use (review and updat

No problem, Joe, its hard to get these predictive models right without a lot of checking. How do you understand Pierre's -520x result? Could you review both our assumptions for critical errors?

Lets collect the previous estimates of AWES capacity intensity to plot them against the 10x and -520x results.

On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 3:53 PM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 13583	From: Joe Faust	Date: 8/5/2014
Subject: Re: Theoretic AWES Land Footprint and Airspace Use (review and updat

Today is a bit of stream of arithmetic that is making me laugh at myself. My former post still had an arithmetic error; correcting, I still cannot get to your "980,000". My most recent arithmetic error should be corrected; rather respecting the 10% you wanted off the square's edge gives 2000-200=1800. Then 1800x600=1080000. This is not the 980000 that was given originally by DaveS. Someone check my arithmetic. DaveS, your rounding to 1 000 000 is fine. [I neglect units in this post.]

I am still stepping through the various assumptions made by you and PierreB.

The useful land circle for PTO for AWES in your example is with diameter less than the square; are you suggesting 10% less diameter?

Using a mega arch lifter does not use all of the vertical plane frontal face; the approximate catenary leaves upper zones of the frontal face that are not mined for energy.

~ JoeF