Messages in AirborneWindEnergy group.                           AWES13784to13833 Page 171 of 440.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13784 From: Joe Faust Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: Lesson in Patience (150 years of kite buggy evolution)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13785 From: Rod Read Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: Lesson in Patience (150 years of kite buggy evolution)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13786 From: dave santos Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: NREL's Baseline Analysis of Conventional Wind Energy Costs

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13787 From: dave santos Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: Lesson in Patience (150 years of kite buggy evolution)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13788 From: David Lang Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: NREL's Baseline Analysis of Conventional Wind Energy Costs

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13789 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: Lesson in Patience (150 years of kite buggy evolution)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13790 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: NREL's Baseline Analysis of Conventional Wind Energy Costs

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13791 From: dave santos Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: Lesson in Patience (150 years of kite buggy evolution)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13792 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: Lesson in Patience (150 years of kite buggy evolution)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13793 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: Lesson in Patience (150 years of kite buggy evolution)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13794 From: dave santos Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: NREL's Baseline Analysis of Conventional Wind Energy Costs

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13795 From: dave santos Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: Lesson in Patience (150 years of kite buggy evolution)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13796 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 8/14/2014
Subject: Re: Shade

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13797 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 8/14/2014
Subject: Archer Impact continues

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13798 From: dougselsam Date: 8/14/2014
Subject: Re: NREL's Baseline Analysis of Conventional Wind Energy Costs

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13799 From: David Lang Date: 8/14/2014
Subject: Re: NREL's Baseline Analysis of Conventional Wind Energy Costs

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13800 From: dave santos Date: 8/14/2014
Subject: Has AWEC Died? What about the next AWE conference?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13801 From: dave santos Date: 8/14/2014
Subject: More coverage of AWE resource study

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13802 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 8/14/2014
Subject: Wind speed maxima (WSM)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13803 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 8/14/2014
Subject: Re: "Wind speed maxima (WSM)" [1 Attachment]

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13804 From: dougselsam Date: 8/14/2014
Subject: Re: NREL's Baseline Analysis of Conventional Wind Energy Costs

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13805 From: Rod Read Date: 8/14/2014
Subject: Re: Shade

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13806 From: David Lang Date: 8/14/2014
Subject: Re: NREL's Baseline Analysis of Conventional Wind Energy Costs

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13807 From: dave santos Date: 8/14/2014
Subject: Re: NREL's Baseline Analysis of Conventional Wind Energy Costs

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13808 From: Joe Faust Date: 8/14/2014
Subject: Re: Shade

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13809 From: Rod Read Date: 8/14/2014
Subject: Re: NREL's Baseline Analysis of Conventional Wind Energy Costs

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13810 From: Rod Read Date: 8/14/2014
Subject: Rope laddermill

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13811 From: dave santos Date: 8/14/2014
Subject: Re: Shade

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13812 From: dave santos Date: 8/14/2014
Subject: Re: Rope laddermill

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13813 From: Joe Faust Date: 8/14/2014
Subject: Re: Shade

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13814 From: dave santos Date: 8/14/2014
Subject: Re: Wind speed maxima (WSM) [1 Attachment]

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13815 From: dave santos Date: 8/14/2014
Subject: Re: Shade

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13816 From: dave santos Date: 8/14/2014
Subject: Re: "Wind speed maxima (WSM)"

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13817 From: dave santos Date: 8/14/2014
Subject: Re: "Wind speed maxima (WSM)"

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13818 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 8/14/2014
Subject: Re: Shade

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13819 From: Joe Faust Date: 8/14/2014
Subject: Re: Shade

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13820 From: dave santos Date: 8/14/2014
Subject: Re: Shade

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13821 From: dave santos Date: 8/14/2014
Subject: Re: Shade

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13822 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 8/14/2014
Subject: (no subject)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13823 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 8/14/2014
Subject: Re: Shade

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13824 From: dave santos Date: 8/14/2014
Subject: Re:

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13825 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 8/14/2014
Subject: Re: Shade

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13826 From: dave santos Date: 8/14/2014
Subject: DNV GL Latest Engineering Giant entering AWE Circle

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13827 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 8/14/2014
Subject: Considering resources before devices

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13828 From: dougselsam Date: 8/14/2014
Subject: Re: NREL's Baseline Analysis of Conventional Wind Energy Costs

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13829 From: benhaiemp Date: 8/15/2014
Subject: Re:

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13830 From: Rod Read Date: 8/15/2014
Subject: Re: Rope laddermill

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13831 From: Rod Read Date: 8/15/2014
Subject: Re: Shade

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13832 From: Rod Read Date: 8/15/2014
Subject: more symbiotic development

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13833 From: Rod Read Date: 8/15/2014
Subject: Re: more symbiotic development




Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13784 From: Joe Faust Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: Lesson in Patience (150 years of kite buggy evolution)
The serious AWE concerns in Mothra have then a richer portfolio:
produce electricity and do those many other works with its generated
energy.
However, not to short TU Delft, e.g., as their system could also be
sized to lift a large animal, as well as do many other things. Makani
has a bit of a challenge on the animal lifting, as one path would be
to send the flygen electricity to a rig having an electrically powered
winch to lift the animal. Pierre, that Mothra can use its energy
in many ways does not prevent her from using her generative assets for
converting wind energy to the format that you favor; she remains in
the serious-AWE circles various categorized, including electricity
conversion platform.

~ Lift-and-Drag
~ JoeF
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13785 From: Rod Read Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: Lesson in Patience (150 years of kite buggy evolution)
lifting a rhinoceros?
I wish I could find a way to join in this argument
hmmm
Jobi Energy faster than the wind downwind car http://youtu.be/5CcgmpBGSCI

Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13786 From: dave santos Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: NREL's Baseline Analysis of Conventional Wind Energy Costs
DaveL,

What good is your pointing out that Pierre did not include a valid economic analysis if it is not interpreted as a challenge to do better? Almost everybody else seems to understand stricter requirements for sound economic predictions (ROI, COE, LCOE, etc.). Its reasonable and productive for an eager student of AWE to accept didactic critique as a challenge to do better, even if such critique is not offered as a challenge.

I personally challenge Pierre to aspire to the standard you defined for him, rather than he rest on a pathetic effort,

daveS




On Wednesday, August 13, 2014 2:16 PM, "David Lang SeattleDL@comcast.net [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13787 From: dave santos Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: Lesson in Patience (150 years of kite buggy evolution)
Pierre,

Motha can't do "everything", but clearly more than you seem to understand. Lifting a rhinoceros is your original contribution, but not as a valid argument against Fort's challenge.

What you wrote against kite buggying as a kite sport somehow beneath "serious players" is simply not true. KiteShip first took me to NABX in the Mojave desert, all expenses paid, to teach me how to kite buggy, and also introduced me to Peter Lynn, the new Pocock. Makani and TUDelft circles have had many passionate kite sport practicioners (Peter Lynn Jr. helped his dad reinvent the kite buggy, and Reihart is a top Flysurfer wing designer (Flysurfer Peak). Pocock was Miles Loyd's main inspiration (Springer AWE book) and KiteShip only had large Pocock posters on its walls. The Makani founders were deeply inspired by Pocock, within the same Culp mentorship. You are uniquely wrong to seek to deny the role of kite buggying in AWE.

In fact, your piano stylings are the oddest AWE ingredient (AWEC 2013; to fill the gap left by too little kite (buggy) expertise, given Guido's misplaced priorities, as a career non-expert in kites),

daveS



On Wednesday, August 13, 2014 3:32 PM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13788 From: David Lang Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: NREL's Baseline Analysis of Conventional Wind Energy Costs
DaveS,

My point was simply that neither wind-to-energy conversion efficiency alone (and by implication, other detrimental cost factors such as cost-of-land, etc) makes or breaks an AWE design since the raw resource is FREE! And to elaborate, I additionally pointed out that such questions are naturally answered by a well done ROI-COE analysis of a particular design and will start to reveal the truth of that design's economic viability……I am afraid you were twisting my words to your benefit in the current bickering-threads with Pierre.

On a similar note, your comments to Pierre to the effect that "…DaveL and I still await your economic calculations behind your "AWES cannot compete"….." are incorrect because I don't await such, since I don't believe such an evaluation is meaningly possible in support of such a generic AWE conclusion! At best, Pierre might be able to do that for his own design, in which case, such might reveal the viability of his own creation; Pierre could then meaningfully pronounce such a conclusion for his own design, but NOT all designs.

I suggest, that one should in fact attempt to perform such an evaluation in behalf of their own AWE creation, in which case a great revelation would be had concerning the difficulty of such, as well as a respect for not pronouncing one's conclusions in this regard upon projects for which one is not competent to analyze.

DaveL


On Aug 13, 2014, at 4:02 PM, "dave santos santos137@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13789 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: Lesson in Patience (150 years of kite buggy evolution)

DaveS,


"Lifting a rhinoceros is your original contribution" you agreed on your precedent post by writing "Mothra can do all the things you ask, and more."

I advice you to make less personal attacks and more electricity production or at least more correct analysis of AWE within its environment.

PierreB

 

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13790 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: NREL's Baseline Analysis of Conventional Wind Energy Costs

All questions are complex and require an analysis of environment. For example in European countries the density of population is such as implementation of tethered-AWES or dense array or arch on most places would mean tethers and wings flying above or among people. I live out of town, I see an important quantity of wind turbines,and I do not see any place where AWES could be implemented at utility-scale. And in the end it is not me who decide of implementation or not, but authorities like city hall or country. 

In USA, in Canada, Australia, Africa...,there are important desert regions where AWES can be implemented, and where land use is only a problem of cost among others.
And also the analysis of land use is not quite the same for systems harnessing relatively low winds where all wind directions are considered, and for systems harnessing very high winds. The analysis differs also between crosswind kites (greater risk factor) and _more or less_stationary devices.

PierreB

 



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13791 From: dave santos Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: Lesson in Patience (150 years of kite buggy evolution)
Pierre,

That was no personal attack, but a compliment! I insist your Mothra-Rhinoceros Vision is a proper AWE inspiration, in the surrealist absurdist Ionesco-Daliesque tradition. Compose us a grand anthem to go with your flying rhino motif. By comparison, Doug's Unicorn Garden (and musical taste) is quasi-Disney.

As for your advice, I have been doing my best to do so, for seven years now, you just have not noticed. The many aviation deaths I have known or witnessed growing up make me very cautious about scaling up in haste, if you care to know the deep emotional reality behind the endless obsessing over engineering and operational details. Joe Faust lived thru the killing days of early hang gliding and must have lost friends. Never again. Our AWE efforts are not about your (or Doug's) quick approval, and we patiently expect (both) your positive contributions to the art, not endless objections,

daveS


On Wednesday, August 13, 2014 4:54 PM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13792 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: Lesson in Patience (150 years of kite buggy evolution)

DaveS,

"What you wrote against kite buggying as a kite sport somehow beneath "serious players" is simply not true. KiteShip first took me to NABX in the Mojave desert, all expenses paid, to teach me how to kite buggy..." No, I qualify as serious the players who definite a purpose ,here producing electricity since this is the main subject of the forum, but there making buggies, and try to realized their goals rather than anything being able to make everything. 

 

PierreB

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13793 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: Lesson in Patience (150 years of kite buggy evolution)

DaveS,

I hello your and JoeF's work in such tragic conditions. Note also contributions from me or DougS try raising some truths about AWE, even if they are not so agreable to hear. Positive contributions can take also unpleasant forms.

 

PierreB

 

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13794 From: dave santos Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: NREL's Baseline Analysis of Conventional Wind Energy Costs
DaveL,

You were not just informing Pierre of sound economic heuristics, but doing so in the context of Pierre's inadequate analysis. The offering of NREL's tools add to that start. Forgive me; I did not intend to twist words, but guessed wrong about your (non)ambition for Pierre's thesis to be improved. I actually don't "await" sound analysis from Pierre either, but meant the implicit challenge I thought you made was going wanting. Thanks for clarifying that you meant no such challenge to Pierre, but I really do openly challenge him to do better, with you as a ready yardstick.

We agree that time-domain simulations are essential before committing to large-scale experiments, and I don't mind challenging ("bickering", as you put it) those lay-figures who only seem to call for anything but careful simulations and testing. My hope is that newcomers to the Forum are getting a crash course in serious debates that have run now for years, so they can better take productive action. We have learned a lot in past years and face a very exciting new phase, where the flying toys get serious,

daveS

PS To whoever suggested the SkyMill was a rigid-rotor concept only- Flexible rotors, ribbon-wing blades, etc. are soft-kite in character, with similar scaling potential, as BillyR long ago found.




On Wednesday, August 13, 2014 5:23 PM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13795 From: dave santos Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: Lesson in Patience (150 years of kite buggy evolution)
Pierre,

JoeF and I started this Forum to include not just electrical generation. You are mistaken in thinking the Forum will exclude kite sports, since that is our heritage for developing electrical applications.

Please allow kite sports to continue to figure in Forum discourses, if only just as piano had a place at AWEC2013,

daveS



On Wednesday, August 13, 2014 6:29 PM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13796 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 8/14/2014
Subject: Re: Shade
One technique of shade making using kite systems is to have super-low-density broad tails of great length held from a kited-wing system of one or more wings. 
    Perhaps changing the topic to invite reasons for shade could ride parallel to the "how-to" so that motivation and the "how-to" could dance in this one topic thread. 
Where and when might providing shade result in a reduction of the use of coal and oil?
What happens to a land or building space or activity space when shade occurs? 
== Could designed shading save crops from burning or drying? 
== Could water be saved by shading?  
== Could cancer be reduced by shading?  
== Could land value be increased by shading? 
== Could the health of ground workers be advanced by shading? 
== Could production be increased in ground operations because of shading? 
== Could working hours be extended by having shade?
== Could less fuel-based air conditioning result from shading?
== Could animal health be served by shading?
== Could shading slow the destruction of goods? 
== Could shading reduce unwanted fires or slow extant fires?
== Could shading cycling give cycles of contraction-expansion of metals for driving some industrial applications or even electricity generation?
== ?? [All are invited to this party ...]
The shading mechanism lofted by kite system has optional formats. The shading material might be topside highly reflective. Or topside of the shading material might be sunshine absorbing. Will one want the topside or shaders to be thermal generators?  Some shaders will not have fixed topside or bottom side, but waft in such ways that the material faces top and bottom alternatively.   Consider the shader having mirror-like bottom surface; what will people see when looking up? Consider the shading material to be "smart" in various ways (display, alter wavelength let-through, alter sunshine-amount let-through per program.  
Be ready to consider secondary uses of kite-system-lofted shaders. E.g., shaders might be rotating ribbons that generate sound, eye-candy, electricity, message, ...    But highly focused shade making without such secondary uses may be worthy of advancing.
Control the position of the shade.  Keep from taking desired sunshine away from neighbors.  Or sell shade to some activity. 
Control the shade intensity.  Custom intensity?  Want 5% of the sun blocked?  Want 50% blocked?  Want 100% blocked. Want to vary the amount of sun blocked during a session?  
Control the wavelengths let through the shading mechanism.  By material choice, one may customize what wavelengths of sunshine get through to the ground or activity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insolation
Shade (shadow) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

---In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, <joefaust333@gmail.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13797 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 8/14/2014
Subject: Archer Impact continues

From: ClickGreen Staff, ClickGreenMore from this Affiliate Published August 14, 2014 07:53 AM

Harnessing High-Altitude Wind Energy

 

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13798 From: dougselsam Date: 8/14/2014
Subject: Re: NREL's Baseline Analysis of Conventional Wind Energy Costs
Dave L:I agree that wind energy is very model-dependent.  Wind energy, like all energy technologies, is all about results, all about how much power you can make for a given cost.  Make a million Watts for an hour, and you get $40 as a reward, which you can then put toward your cost of land, permitting, substation, cables, roads, foundations, towers, turbines, crane, trucks, maintenance costs, service personnel, etc.The idea is to spin a generator as steadily as possible, for as much of the time as possible, as many hours and days of the year as possible, for as many years as possible, with as little maintenance as possible.Now, imagine a formula-1 race where someone shows up with a "new and better racecar" that goes forward for a certain distance, but then has to back up for a while, then goes forward again...  cable-drive?  Does it have a humping-and-pumping pulsating umbrella?  A clown with a bicycle horn? (Professor crackpot).  It's cable-drive with a nonproductive re-uptake cycle involving reverse motion.  Is it a competitor?  Is it an improvement?  Can it outperform a wheelbarrow?  ZOOOOM - a real race car goes by at 220 mph...In wind energy there have been entire windfarms constructed using bad designs of turbines that fail and must be torn down.  Either you have a model that is reliable, or you don't.There are three challenges to have a good model:1) a good concept2) a good basic design3) good execution of the concept and designToday's AWE system design attempts remain still unable to even reach step one - "a good concept".From NASA and all the big names, it goes downhill from there.Virtually every person in every team purporting to be involved in AWE is, in a broader sense, completely lost in the ozone, unable to generate any useful amount of power for any purpose, unless you include kite-sailing, which seems viable in general, based on mere visuals, but without seeing the numbers of cost versus fuel saved, hard to say if it's making a difference.  One would think you'd have heard about any truly positive results by now.NREL?  Well what I've noticed over the years is, they can be helpful, but it really seems like they're mostly "along for the ride", where the actual industry just "puts up with them" for the purpose of "window-dressing".  The free money is probably about a break-even.You won't find new types of wind turbines being designed or built at "The National Wind Technology Center", as the name implies, and the "National Labs" are mostly not actual labs, so much as offices where they make sure all the best minds never build much or try much new stuff, if at all.Well, c'mon, they're busy going to conferences, etc.  Ya'know...:)
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13799 From: David Lang Date: 8/14/2014
Subject: Re: NREL's Baseline Analysis of Conventional Wind Energy Costs
Doug,

After all the bullshit you handed me over my mere mention of "Time Domain Simulation" (apparently you are unaware that there are various kinds of engineering simulations), I will be unable to have any meaningful dialog with you until you admit your error, and acknowledge the fact that the engineers who design the turbines in the very industry you hold as iconic to real wind power, ie. conventional HAWT, do in fact rely on time domain simulations to both design hardware and optimize performance.

I know whereof I speak since I am good friends with some of the very engineers who have created such simulations for these "icons of the wind industry" (said industry, BTW, being apparently unaware that they don't need Time Domain simulations :-).

Respectfully
(no thith or that, or dandruff, but, I do like the polka dot tie)

DaveL



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13800 From: dave santos Date: 8/14/2014
Subject: Has AWEC Died? What about the next AWE conference?
The Airborne Wind Energy Consortium (AWEC) was founded in secret in 2010 as a pay-to-play insider governed group of AWE ventures led by Joby Energy, Makani, Ampyx, Sky Windpower, KITEnrg, NTS, and Magenn. KiteLab Group was briefly included (unpaid) before blowing the whistle on a crazy undemocratic AWEC lobbying scheme to get the US Congress to privatize airspace for AWE. AWEC assumed tight corporate control of annual AWE conferences (excepting 2011, where EU academics pushed back), and has long been a general cause of complaints over insider dealings.

AWEC gradually fell apart; Magenn went belly-up with a preposterous AWES architecture, Joby collapsed and merged into Makani, Sky WIndpower devolved by internal legal squabbles. AWEC2010 was the notorious "hijacked conference", where attendance cost 800 USD, insiders handed out free passes, and access to US officials was strictly stage managed. Aympx assumed the lead, but failed to enact promised reforms.  AWEC2012 had iow attendence, and NTS stepped up and managed a better effort for AWEC2013, but with heavy NTS insider biases. AWEC's premier founding member, Makani, bailed out as part of its acquisition by GoogleX.

So we wait on the AWEC inner circle to give some sign of life, particularly to announce the AWEC2014 conference location and dates. NREL/NWTC has offered to host the conference, but there is no sign AWEC still has the vitality to respond and create a US conference. Emails inquiring about conference plans go unanswered. The AWEC website has not even been updated in four years. AWEC is incorporated as a California c6 organization (industry association under US IRS law). It has long been porposed AWEC and AWEIA merge in order for AWEC to meet the legal/ethical requirement for c6s to act openly and equitably to all industry stakeholders, but AWEC has so far refused any reform.

Has AWEC effectively died? It may finally be time to recreate the pre-AWEC open cooperative process (that led to the first conference, HAWPCON09) to fill the vacuum. Its is hoped the AWEC non-profit corporate shell can be salvaged if the unsustainable insider dynamic has run its course.

AWEC's lead figures are Cc:ed this post in the hope they can announce 2014 conference plans, and add anything to the little that is publicly known about the "consortium".
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13801 From: dave santos Date: 8/14/2014
Subject: More coverage of AWE resource study
More press coverage of Cristina's circle's work, with Luca Delle Monache emerging as a public voice-


 
 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13802 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 8/14/2014
Subject: Wind speed maxima (WSM)
Attachments :


    "Wind speed maxima (WSM) is mentioned in joined C.Archer's paper "Airborne Wind Energy Optimal Location and Variability".

    An extract: "

    In this altitude range, 200-3000 m AGL, wind speed generally increases

    monotonically with height, with higher gains (shear) in the boundary layer and more

    modest increases above it. However, a variety of weather phenomena can

    invalidate the general rule-of-thumb that better AWE resources are available at higher

    altitudes, for example low-levels jets (LLJs). LLJs are narrow, nocturnal wind speed

    maxima with cores centered below 1000 m that form at a several locations worldwide due

    to a favorable combination of synoptic conditions, regional topography, and local

    stability , discussed later. Here we include LLJs as a subset of the broader category of

    wind speed maxima (WSM), defined as jet-like wind profiles centered below 3000 m

    regardless of the formation mechanism and diurnal variation. Our hypothesis is that

    locations with WSM are ideal for AWE applications because wind speed and wind power

    densities near the WSM are as high or higher than those normally found elsewhere at

    greater elevations, but at much lower altitudes. The height of 3 km is not based on

    physical properties of the atmosphere, but rather on practical limitations of current and

    near-future AWE systems. Since tethers longer than 5-6 km can weigh more than a ton,

    flying altitude will not exceed 3 km as tether angles remain lower than 30°. As such, only

    jets that are located below 3 km are of practical interest for AWE applications and are

    therefore the focus of this paper.

    The most well-known WSM are the nocturnal LLJs that form below 1 km AGL

    (and often below 500 m) at several locations worldwide , both inland

    and along coasts ."

     

     

    (PierreB)

     

      @@attachment@@
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13803 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 8/14/2014
    Subject: Re: "Wind speed maxima (WSM)" [1 Attachment]

    A farm of units with their respectives tethers is too difficult to manage, does not allow a maximization of worked area, and generates important hazards. Solution? : several,even a multitude of linked (finding appropriate means) devices, only one tether. Perhaps also some hydrogen balloon keeping lift.
    If it is possible such an AWES can meeting some qualities being stationary (so safe as TARS, less stress in materials, better possibility of maximization of worked area, less land used), and scaling-up by conglomeration.

    PierreB

    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13804 From: dougselsam Date: 8/14/2014
    Subject: Re: NREL's Baseline Analysis of Conventional Wind Energy Costs
    Dave L., first, I think you misinterpreted my original meaning before.  What I meant was that such sophisticated simulations are great for fine-tuning a good idea, but without that good idea as a starting place, there's really nothing worth "simulating".  Let's see, we have time domain simulations, frequency domain simulations, finite-difference time-domain simulations, and many other sophisticated-sounding simulations.  We also have unlimited conferences, using unlimited amounts of jet fuel, just to get there, to then discuss what simulations we might undertake.  And we have PhD's running amok, unable to get any meaningful amount of power from the wind, in an airborne fashion.Let's shift focus for a moment to the topic of baking a cake.  At some point, frosting helps to refine and finish the cake.  Cake decorations and even birthday candles also play an important role in the cake industry.  It would be absurd to sit here and say frosting, decorations, and candles are not an important part of the cake industry and part of the process of designing just about any cake.However, what if you are unable to even bake a cake?  What if you have no idea what the ingredients even are?  What if all bakers had ever baked were pies, and they had no understanding of anything cake?  They didn't know proper cake ingredients, how to make the batter rise with bubbles, whether or not to use eggs - nothing.  Imagine further that you had large teams of bakers, funded with millions of dollars, major baked-goods companies, the National Baked Goods Research Agency (NBGRA) with a PhD baker, all purporting to be "Working on" developing a cake.Imagine further that all these highly-funded and highly-credentialed parties kept handing you nothing but tarts, and other various types of pies, issuing press-release after press-release announcing their cake-baking programs, but somehow, none of them could EVER actually bake a single cake.Now you could come in and start applying frosting, cake decorations, and even birthday candles to all the pies being produced, but it would do absolutely NO good.  You would be decorating pies and tarts, not cakes.Further, imagine being asked to adjust a TV set to get a better signal.  Now imagine, instead of a TV set, you have a pile of firewood.  Now imagine someone says you need to adjust the pile of firewood to get a better picture.  So you start asking "Where are the fine-tuning knobs on this pile of firewood? I can barely see the picture!"Well, someone who actually HAS SOME KNOWLEDGE (perhaps a kindergartener) might point out: Hey Dave, you will never get a decent picture from a pile of firewood - I know, I know, your old TV was in a wood cabinet, but wood alone will not make the picture you are looking for, so stop trying to find the adjustment knobs.  You'll never get a picture from firewood!  Stop worrying about fine-adjustments - there IS NO PICTURE and there will BE NO PICTURE until you figure out you need A WORKING TV SET!Simulations are great for fine-tuning what you already know works, but if you have no workable configuration, what good is ANY type of simulation?And as far as the pies masquerading as cakes, no amount of frosting, decorations, and candles will make a pie into a cake, so discussing frosting for a pie is meaningless in terms of baking a cake.What I was pointing out with regard to "time domain simulations", as valuable as they can be in engineering, is that without something that actually WORKS to analyze, you can "analyze" all day, every day, and it is meaningless.  Do any kind of simulations you want - what's the use?If I drive up with a trash truck and dump a big pile of garbage on the ground and say "This is an airborne wind energy system", do you believe it?  What if I then say "Well, wait till Dave Lang does a time-domain simulation on this pile of garbage - THEN it will magically become an airborne wind energy system", would you THEN believe it?  Nope, you'd rightly say "garbage-in/garbage-out", no amount of simulations of ANY kind will help this pile of garbage be an airborne wind energy system, and besides that, it's starting to smell bad, could you please get it out of here?"And that is what I believe MOST purported airborne wind energy systems so far belong: in the trash bin, as piles of garbage.  Additionally, most are starting to smell bad - time to "get them out of here!"  Do as many simulations as you want, but just as the icing needs an actual cake to be most effective, time-domain simulations need more than "garbage-in" to work with, or all you will get is "garbage-out".I hope you now understand what I originally meant when I stated that time-domain simulations are, at this time, irrelevant.  Maybe Hillary said it best: "What difference, at this point, does it make?"M'kayyyyyyyyyy?:)))))this is so much fun!Dang, Lang, I gotta get some work done today!  Seeya!
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13805 From: Rod Read Date: 8/14/2014
    Subject: Re: Shade
    Target Shading with a kite has inherent problems and limits.

    Consider adjacent photons from the sun travelling a direct parallel path.
    With the sun directly overhead the area of kite incident to the light = the area being shaded.
    (the area incident directly relates to the energy reflect-able)
    Kites being kites they're more concerned with the wind.
    The world spinning means by the time you have the right shape kite in the right place, it's wrong already.

    Oh where's the wind now? we need a massive array of kites to attempt anything like this.

    Standard shading with devices similar to tents etc... perfectly sensible.
    I've often considered the advantage of the parametric relationships modeling technique I use is being able to apply standardised solutions to varied problems.
    e.g. make a standard tent to fit any van is similar to make a standard energy kite to fit any valley.

    plug in the dimensions then print and stitch the resultant panels.

    Rod Read

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

    07899057227
    01851 870878



    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13806 From: David Lang Date: 8/14/2014
    Subject: Re: NREL's Baseline Analysis of Conventional Wind Energy Costs
    Doug,

    Thanks for your reply.

    Your response "What I meant was that such sophisticated simulations are great for fine-tuning a good idea, but without that good idea as a starting place, there's really nothing worth "simulating"  exhibits a lack aerospace engineering experience/knowledge. Time domain simulation (TD Simulations) are not the exclusive purview of  "great for the fine tuning….", but rather are used to validate conceptual designs from the get-go. To wit, for highly dynamic systems such as "Dynamic Soaring" AWE, one likely won't have a clue as to what kind of net energy harvest might actually be attained; you pretty much can be assured that "back of the envelop analyses" and feasibility analogies won't truly reveal whether DS as a basis for AWE design has viability or not (which is why I have continued querying Gabor along these lines); TD Simulations come in all degrees of sophistication for use at various stages of a design.  

    Since you seem to equate "TD Simulation" as only applying to worthy designs, was your bristling at my suggestion to Gabor, equivalent to pronouncing his design as "un-worthy"?

    DaveL




    On Aug 14, 2014, at 12:57 PM, dougselsam@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy] <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13807 From: dave santos Date: 8/14/2014
    Subject: Re: NREL's Baseline Analysis of Conventional Wind Energy Costs
    Doug wrote: "there's really nothing worth "simulating"

    Correction: All major AWES architectures identified are worth simulating for the insights that will result. For example, TUDelft's baseline time-domain (dynamic) studies of traction kites cross-validated self-pumping modes observed empirically, and advanced kite arch theory by data reanalysis of staked-mode kite models. More simulation will only lead to better architectures.

    Doug only accurately describes his own predicament, of not having an AWES concept seen as "worth "simulating"". I would like his SuperTurbine to undergo full simulation, to settle for all time the questions he raised by the years of unsurpassed marketing hype.



    On Thursday, August 14, 2014 12:57 PM, "dougselsam@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13808 From: Joe Faust Date: 8/14/2014
    Subject: Re: Shade
    Thanks, Rod.
    For the targeting, there are mitigations. Depending on the site
    and target and wind patterns, various solutions may be had. Recall
    that a "kite" is a system of wings, tethers, and resistive elements
    (anchors which may be moved or be wings themselves). Note too how
    auxiliary lines, tag lines, stay lines, become part of some kite
    systems.
    So, an elementary tripodal set of tethers may have a fixed apex
    point while above that point is a tether set to wings that may fly to
    points in any direction whilst the apex point of the tripodal set of
    tethers remains fixed.
    From such fixed points one may begin to let fly low-mass shading
    streams of relatively 2-D material from the tripodal tethers in
    various arrangments.
    Given a certain wing set, just how much shading material may be
    set? Note, that we need not depend on the projection of the lifting
    wings, but rather moreso the shading may be served up from streaming
    flatish material of low-mass per square meter.

    Shady notes,
    ~ JoeF
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13809 From: Rod Read Date: 8/14/2014
    Subject: Re: NREL's Baseline Analysis of Conventional Wind Energy Costs
    You can do your own CFD animations easily enough now too...
    http://youtu.be/_DrpeEGKYro
    http://www.openfoam.org/download/

    Rod Read

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

    07899057227
    01851 870878



    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13810 From: Rod Read Date: 8/14/2014
    Subject: Rope laddermill
    Where a rope ladder has step height shorter than step width, 2 adjacent steps can only rotate less than 180deg with respect to each other... They can't really hockle...
    A long line of these steps can transmit torque under tension.

    Rod Read

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

    07899057227
    01851 870878

    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13811 From: dave santos Date: 8/14/2014
    Subject: Re: Shade
    Lets define as effective any non-oblique shadow that squarely shades the target. A quick take is that a kite free to move anywhere in the proximity can squarely shade the target, except when the sun is directly upwind at about 45 degrees elevation. Is not as constrained a problem as aiming a solar kite optimally, since both sides of a kite make shade just as well. Turbulence will make holding the shadow still very hard. Too high in proportion to kite size, and light leaks around the kite as penumbra and antumbra.

    It would be cool to cross a broiling desert with an auto-shadow from above.


    On Thursday, August 14, 2014 2:00 PM, "Joe Faust joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13812 From: dave santos Date: 8/14/2014
    Subject: Re: Rope laddermill
    The ladder would still hockle on a longer scale, but simple twist would be avoided as porposed (hockle and twist are not the same). The trade-off is powerful span-wise compression forces that scale-limit by a cubic exponent structural mass requirement. This ladder rope- trick only works at smaller scales, where it may serve well enough, if someone bothers to carefully develop it.


    On Thursday, August 14, 2014 2:13 PM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13813 From: Joe Faust Date: 8/14/2014
    Subject: Re: Shade
    Thanks, DaveS.
    In foundational support:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umbra,_penumbra_and_antumbra

    I am pausing on the proposed definition of "effective" scene;
    consider having shading material that is nearly horizontal (forget the
    flying wing set for the moment). Oblique sun lines on a square
    shader of such attitude forms a non-square shadow that has more area
    than the square; such teases me to think that zenithal sun lines may
    not be the most effective; and yet I hold out that I might not yet
    quite understand your proposed definition of "effective."

    Shady notes,
    ~ JoeF
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13814 From: dave santos Date: 8/14/2014
    Subject: Re: Wind speed maxima (WSM) [1 Attachment]
    Pierre quoted: "The height of 3 km is not based on
    physical properties of the atmosphere, but rather on practical limitations of current and
    near-future AWE systems. Since tethers longer than 5-6 km can weigh more than a ton,
    flying altitude will not exceed 3 km as tether angles remain lower than 30°."

    The engineering numbers here are partial and poorly supported, and represent a forgivable gloss by atmospheric scientists. Stated limitations are only valid for "current and near future" AWES, but there is a well-proven scaling path by creating Kite Trains, with kite lift generated all along the tether. SaulG (Makani) overlooked the classic kite train method in concluding (in NearZero's AWE panel discussion) that great heights were not in principle reachable by AWES. In fact kite trains are long known to easily reach great heights (~10km), far above what single kites can manage by lifting too much tether unassisted.


    On Thursday, August 14, 2014 11:12 AM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13815 From: dave santos Date: 8/14/2014
    Subject: Re: Shade
    By "effective" is meant not so oblique as to be "marginal" in usefulness; its a fuzzy value.

    A high L/D kite airfoil effectively is horizontal at its zenith (with at most a small angle-of-incidence).




    On Thursday, August 14, 2014 3:31 PM, "Joe Faust joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13816 From: dave santos Date: 8/14/2014
    Subject: Re: "Wind speed maxima (WSM)"
    Pierre,

    Its not clear what you intend by sending a half-baked idea of kite farm limits to your non AE Cc: list. We reviewed the [Archer et al] paper already, with much Forum discussion of WSM over the years (Wayne gets credit for originating the LLJ insight). You seem to have abandoned defending your -520x kitefarm model (by providing total power and extraction-efficiency assumptions), in favor of new gross errors.

     Its long been known that Moritz's obsolete Single Line AWES Conjecture has several large loopholes (like inherent multi-line kite runaway safety). You somehow continue to overlook that a theoretic kitefarm can take a pssibly optimal form of a single airborne array with its many tethers prevented from interfering by inherent geometric constraint design. A simple model is a giant conical canopy with short lines leading to an anchor circle (kite dome). The canopy merely  tilts to accept wind from any direction, without rotation or fouling risk. The WECS basis can be the winning option to embed in arrays.

    You have not explained clearly why you imagine kite arches cannot be rotated, but at least allow that arches are a multi-tether case without the tethers able to foul. Please account for such gaps in your kite farm theory before making pessimistic blanket-pronouncements,

    daveS


    On Thursday, August 14, 2014 12:07 PM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13817 From: dave santos Date: 8/14/2014
    Subject: Re: "Wind speed maxima (WSM)"
    Correction added ("NOT"); apologies for the error: 

    "You (Pierre) seem to have abandoned defending your -520x kitefarm model (by NOT providing total power and extraction-efficiency assumptions), in favor of new gross errors."


    On Thursday, August 14, 2014 4:48 PM, "dave santos santos137@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13818 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 8/14/2014
    Subject: Re: Shade
    DaveS, the moving shadow working for the mobile desert traveler is neat; and that open up a large branch of shading. Moving targets is part of that branch. Moving the shade under control for static or moving targets is another space in the branch.  Moving shade on and off moving targets becomes another option.  Brainstorming over uses of slow or rapid cycling of shading for static or moving targets could be interesting. 
    Shading during low sun with drop curtains is part of this whole shade topic. 
    I provide a first quick sketch of a side view of what could be two or three or four kite trains (or more) holding a horizontal shading sheet. Downdrafts or updrafts on such a sheet might be used to pump anchors for electricity production or water pumping.  During streaming of the sheet would be least lifting and dragging as regards the shading sheet.    Some tripodal point fixing is hinted in the quick sketch.   Shade001.jpg
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13819 From: Joe Faust Date: 8/14/2014
    Subject: Re: Shade
    Notice that in drawing Shade001.jpg
    the shading "sheet" could be porous, could be with flagging tiny
    elements. The effect of updrafts and downdrafts could be soften by
    such "let-through" designs. At updraft the small tiny elemental flags
    would stream up; upon downdrafts the little flag elements in the giant
    "sheet" would go down. An aggregate average shading would occur
    while not overstressing the flight-support parts of the kite energy
    system.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13820 From: dave santos Date: 8/14/2014
    Subject: Re: Shade
    Joe,

    There is a sort of playsail kite dome sold by the same Chinese mfr. as the PL pilots, but it will take a bit more time to find the product page.

    It pretty much creates a large tent-shade effect, without a lot of tricky flying...

    ds


    On Thursday, August 14, 2014 5:16 PM, "Joe Faust joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13821 From: dave santos Date: 8/14/2014
    Subject: Re: Shade
    Dome-Playsail kite variant (if flown as a kite, not a "banner")-

     


    On , dave santos <santos137@yahoo.com
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13822 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 8/14/2014
    Subject: (no subject)

    A farm of independant units is too difficult to manage, does not allow a maximization of worked area, and generates important hazards. Solution? : several,even a multitude of linked (finding appropriate means of links) devices,avoiding collisions between units, and allowing maximization of space.
    If it is possible such an AWES can meeting some qualities being stationary (so safe as TARS, less stress in materials, better possibility of maximization of worked area, less land used), and modular scaling.

    PierreB

    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13823 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 8/14/2014
    Subject: Re: Shade
    Thanks for finding that shading product for the mix.  Size is relative!     Small shadows, long shadows, narrow shadows, large shadows, giant shadows, etc. 
    Primitive mobile shade: 
    Patent US590270 - Shade for bicycles

     

    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13824 From: dave santos Date: 8/14/2014
    Subject: Re:
    Pierre,

    You are clearly describing the AWES dense array logic that has been advocated here for the last five years. A 10x capacity-intensity advantage over conventional wind limits is realistic,

    daveS


    On Thursday, August 14, 2014 5:40 PM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13825 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 8/14/2014
    Subject: Re: Shade
    The following by Robert D. Hunt with some priority at 2002 has some spirit kin to this topic thread: 
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13826 From: dave santos Date: 8/14/2014
    Subject: DNV GL Latest Engineering Giant entering AWE Circle
    Legacy maritime and energy engineering validation player, DNV GL, is active in AWE feasibility assessment, as mentioned in the ClickGreen article also featuring NCAR and UDelaware science. A DNV GL merger with Garrard Hassan, already known as a top early AWE market analyst, is a clue to this as serious ongoing AWE participation.

    DNV GL website-


    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13827 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 8/14/2014
    Subject: Considering resources before devices

    Hi MikeB,

     

    I read your analyses in AWE and I generally agree. AWE is now far to provide usefull production in reliable way, and actual designs do not seem to be performant actually. But other designs or combinations are possible... 

    Sometimes AWES are presented in the same level as fancy wind turbines making also not usefull production. But here is the problem. Fancy wind turbines compete with good turbines in the same resource,while high altitude wind energy (HAWE) 300-10 000 m) is another energy resource than current winds harnessed by HAWT (50-200 m). HAWE has been recently identified by C.Archer and Ken Caldeira as thick and huge reservoir.

    Then AWES are expected to harness it. What is the difference? Fancy turbines will make zero production for ever. AWES can make zero, then 1% 25 years later. If a device involves a new resource, the new resource must be considered in first. So ground-based wind turbines progress in the world, the cost becoming competitive. HAWE and AWES will add their own contribution when the will become mature, without replacing HAWT (both not the purposes and not the same sites) but improving the percentage of the whole renewables. The better way to push AWES is ...to continue to critize them, obliging the concerned researchers to meet on a method making the unanimity.

     

    Best,

     

    PierreB

     

     

    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13828 From: dougselsam Date: 8/14/2014
    Subject: Re: NREL's Baseline Analysis of Conventional Wind Energy Costs
    Hi Dave L., and thanks for explaining more fully.  My most helpful asset is to have good ideas that work well right out of the box, on first principles, but I don't claim to know everything.  I think it might be appropriate to try some of the simulations you speak of on some of my ideas.  But talk is cheap - why can;t all the PhD's in the world seem to come up with an AWE solution?  What do YOU think the problem is?  Shit-fer-brains?  but what about the computers? And, by the way, if we put frosting on a piece of dogshit, is it then a cake?  (Maybe only if Joe F got involved in "defining" what a cake is.)  I realize I can go on and on trying to explain what I mean and maybe still don't quite get the point across.  While spending the rest of the afternoon with a concrete contractor trying to design a terraced landscape using railroad ties - well, we WERE building it, but then realized we didn't quite have a plan so we had to stop and scratch our heads for a couple hours, that's when I came up with the dogshit/cake thing.  Thinking through that landscape design seemed harder than designing a steady-state, run-unattended, airborne wind energy system that would at least work:  I remember having manufactured a bunch of rotors (without knowing exactly why), wondering what I would do with them, and, having a bunch of carbon-fiber tubes laying around, Popular Science Magazine called and said they wanted to do a story.  They mentioned "Invention of the Year" and "photos" and I asked if they'd be interested in a FLYING SuperTurbine(R).  "Of course!" they said, so I threw together the "Sky Serpent" prototype seen on page 58 and 59, the centerfold of the June 2008 issue, that I also brought to the first world AWE conference in Chico, CA a couple years later.  It's also been in two (2) Discovery Channel shows filmed by Discovery Channel Canada and shown in many countries.  Of course it worked the first try, because I prettty much knew what I was doing. So the question becomes, with all the mathematical tools of which you speak, what solutions do you thereby come up with?  What solutions have all the king's horses and all the king's men contributed?  What solutions have YOU contributed?  It seems to me that, no matter how you slice it, garbage in results in garbage out, or in the actual case, I think MOST of the PhD's are completely dumbfounded, and do not even HAVE garbage to PUT in.  Forget garbage, they don't even have dogshit.   I think they are 100% bereft of ideas.  A mental vacuum.So, do you have a workable AWE idea to do a time-domain simulation analysis on?  Oh wait - you won't KNOW if you have a workable idea UNTIL you do a simulation, right?  Seems like an endless loop with no starting point to me.  SO, what are you going to do the simulations on?  How do you know what to target?  What if your simulations turn out to be wrong like all the global warming models have diverged from reality as the world cools?  What if you only THINK you know the important parameters, but don't have the engineering street-smarts or actual experience in the actual field to understand how the thing you think you're simulating really even behaves?I'd advise you to never underestimate what the human brain is capable of, on its own, without such computer tools.  If the computer tools can help, so be it, but the term GIGO came from the world of computers.  Anyway, if you want some workable ideas to simulate, I have quite a few.Then there's the lesson of FLOWind:  A whole windfarm of Darrieus machines with aluminum blades, worked OK in Altamont, but Tehachapi was too hard on them, and they all broke.  Real wind people have learned to NOT use aluminum for blades by now (metal fatique), but that doesn't stop those with computer simulations from trying them again every so often.  The company went bankrupt as real wind people with high-school educations in the field predicted.  Do you think FLOWind didn't use the best computer analysis available at the time?  Computers didn't rescue a bad design or lack of real-world experience.  Real wind people understand how the wind beats the living hell out of things.  Engineers with computers don't.  Most have probably never even FELT a truly strong wind.  Doors blow off cars, and you are always chewing grit.  Very annoying actually.We test our machines in sites WAY MORE punishing than Tehachapi.  It took years to find these sites.  These are sites where the best turbines fail within a couple months.  Not listed on any computer-simulation windmap.  Ours have been there now for years of unattended operation, with the shattered pieces of the market-leading brand rusting below in the dirt.I also noticed that rotors I manufacture using almost no measurements, let alone a computer, outperform blades designed on a computer (and manufactured) by a leading small-wind aerodynamicist - THE guy, using THE software, and my blades at the same diameter make more power.  Why?  Because I was out there all day every day testing and developed a better feel for it than a computer can attain.So, I invite you to fly to a thousand conferences and do a thousand more computer simulations.  Will you come up with anything?  Who knows?  If you don't, call it "job security"... :)
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13829 From: benhaiemp Date: 8/15/2014
    Subject: Re:

    Yes DaveS,

    I agree. As you say AWES must sweep the whole frontal area of the space used. The maximization of space is a key point you rightly teach. I think Dr.Beaujean makes a "simulation" of what are features of an utility-scale AWES: a stationary rotating great set instead of a farm of independant unities sweeping a small effective area and being able to collide between them.

    An arch has two anchors. So it is more stable but not naturally rotating, so being not able to follow quick wind changes. And an arch lifts but does not convert by itself.

    PierreB

     

     

    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13830 From: Rod Read Date: 8/15/2014
    Subject: Re: Rope laddermill
    The trade off will surely be more involved than just considering the scale of the span-wise compression reaction device.

    If it is used to transmit rotation aerodynamic line drag on the long and now sloped lengthwise lines is involved. If each step is a rotor... can that drag be mitigated?.

    What line weight  is involved to hold the tension needed to keep the ladder in an elastic non hocking regieme?
    Or would a generator torque resistance limit dependant on tension, be a sufficient method of avoiding hockling?

    Hockling in this case will probably take many forms...
    first order hockling being a noticable curve over the length of the ladder
    next developing into spiral the length of the ladder
    then into shorter (~4 or 5 steps) loops and kinks
    All of which you probably want to avoid for the sake of smoothed generation... however hockling is a more rigid structure.

    Reducing the scale of the span-wise compression reaction device allows less line drag as the line doesn't move so fast through the wind. But at the cost of a reduced torque and greater number of steps per ladder length.

    Achd ... it's probably useful somewhere at some scales as you point out Dave
    But it does sound a bit like a superturbine (caveat; without a shaft)



    Rod Read

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

    07899057227
    01851 870878



    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13831 From: Rod Read Date: 8/15/2014
    Subject: Re: Shade
    Attachments :
      Oh That's superb
      Add a few lines and cuts to it ... you've got a ready steerable mini Mothra.
      Interesting looking blue and white stacked sparred pieces in the lower image left hand side too
      Inline images 1



      Rod Read

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

      07899057227
      01851 870878



      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13832 From: Rod Read Date: 8/15/2014
      Subject: more symbiotic development
      When is someone on this list going to develop a machine to automatically hang out my washing?
      It would save me a load of time, and we could surely use one in rapid kite surface deployment and retraction systems.
      auto re-meshing, re-rigging and re covering a web from the ground could enable the shading device desired by JoeF

      2 loads to hang out now. Nice day though.:)

      Rod Read

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

      07899057227
      01851 870878

      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13833 From: Rod Read Date: 8/15/2014
      Subject: Re: more symbiotic development
      Attachments :
        Now this may not help my clothes drying... but
        Say if the leading edge of a kite stock material had a strip of Dacron or regularly spaced eyelets
        Each end of the leading edge has a crimp plate or screw down hole termination or cable clamp ...
        Have lengths of coil be able to be spun axially by a machine aligned on the loadpath feedout foot area.
        Align the material edge with the loadpath, spin the coil, direct it through the leading edge and over the loadpath. Close the terminations onto the coil and the loadpath.
        Repeat. or reverse as necessary.
        Inline images 1

        Rod Read

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

        07899057227
        01851 870878