Messages in AirborneWindEnergy group.                           AWES13937to13988 Page 174 of 440.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13937 From: dave santos Date: 8/19/2014
Subject: Re: Argument from Authority in AWE Engineering-Science

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13938 From: benhaiemp Date: 8/19/2014
Subject: Re: Who are experts in AWE? Joe Faust and Dave Santos as visionaries

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13939 From: dave santos Date: 8/19/2014
Subject: Re: Who are experts in AWE? Joe Faust and Dave Santos as visionaries

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13940 From: dave santos Date: 8/19/2014
Subject: 23 Kite Arches at WSIKF2014 (rotating arch note)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13941 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 8/19/2014
Subject: Re: Who are experts in AWE? Joe Faust and Dave Santos as visionaries

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13942 From: Gabor Dobos Date: 8/19/2014
Subject: Re: Who are experts in AWE?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13943 From: dave santos Date: 8/19/2014
Subject: Re: Who are experts in AWE? Joe Faust and Dave Santos as visionaries

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13944 From: Joe Faust Date: 8/19/2014
Subject: Re: Who are experts in AWE? Joe Faust and Dave Santos as visionaries

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13945 From: Joe Faust Date: 8/19/2014
Subject: Re: Who are experts in AWE?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13946 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 8/19/2014
Subject: Re: Who are experts in AWE? Joe Faust and Dave Santos as visionaries

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13947 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 8/19/2014
Subject: Re: Who are experts in AWE?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13948 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 8/19/2014
Subject: Re: Who are experts in AWE? Joe Faust and Dave Santos as visionaries

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13949 From: Gabor Dobos Date: 8/20/2014
Subject: Re: Who are experts in AWE? -- multidisciplinarity and playing the

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13950 From: Gabor Dobos Date: 8/20/2014
Subject: Re: Who are experts in AWE? --- tinkering

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13951 From: Rod Read Date: 8/20/2014
Subject: Can't wait to see the next design

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13952 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 8/20/2014
Subject: Re: Who are experts in AWE? Joe Faust and Dave Santos as visionaries

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13954 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 8/20/2014
Subject: Fanbelting Groundgen

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13955 From: dave santos Date: 8/20/2014
Subject: LTA or Air Inflated-Hub Daisy

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13956 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 8/20/2014
Subject: Paired Skybow Without Swivels

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13957 From: Rod Read Date: 8/20/2014
Subject: Google get confused about what a kite is

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13958 From: dave santos Date: 8/20/2014
Subject: Re: Google get confused about what a kite is

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13959 From: dougselsam Date: 8/20/2014
Subject: Re: Argument from Authority in AWE Engineering-Science

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13960 From: dave santos Date: 8/20/2014
Subject: Re: Argument from Authority in AWE Engineering-Science

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13961 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 8/20/2014
Subject: Re: Paired Skybow Without Swivels

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13962 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 8/20/2014
Subject: Re: Paired Skybow Without Swivels

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13963 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 8/20/2014
Subject: Re: Anurac

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13964 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 8/20/2014
Subject: Re: Fanbelting Groundgen

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13965 From: dougselsam Date: 8/20/2014
Subject: Re: Fanbelting Groundgen

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13967 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 8/21/2014
Subject: Re: Fanbelting Groundgen

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13968 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 8/21/2014
Subject: Family-time language

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13969 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 8/21/2014
Subject: Jian Dai

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13970 From: dave santos Date: 8/21/2014
Subject: Re: Fanbelting Groundgen

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13971 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 8/21/2014
Subject: Cable Wind Mill

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13972 From: dougselsam Date: 8/21/2014
Subject: Re: Fanbelting Groundgen

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13973 From: Joe Faust Date: 8/21/2014
Subject: Re: Cable Wind Mill

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13974 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 8/21/2014
Subject: Re: Fanbelting Groundgen

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13975 From: dougselsam Date: 8/21/2014
Subject: Re: Fanbelting Groundgen

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13976 From: dougselsam Date: 8/21/2014
Subject: Re: Fanbelting Groundgen

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13977 From: dave santos Date: 8/21/2014
Subject: Oilprice.com AWE Coverage

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13978 From: dave santos Date: 8/21/2014
Subject: HumanKite Superhero (pop culture kite icon)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13979 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 8/21/2014
Subject: Re: Fanbelting Groundgen

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13980 From: dave santos Date: 8/21/2014
Subject: Re: Fanbelting Groundgen

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13981 From: dave santos Date: 8/21/2014
Subject: Kytoon-based "Edison Walking Machine"

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13982 From: Joe Faust Date: 8/21/2014
Subject: Re: Kytoon-based "Edison Walking Machine"

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13983 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 8/22/2014
Subject: Stuffing Encasements

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13984 From: dougselsam Date: 8/22/2014
Subject: Re: Fanbelting Groundgen

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13985 From: dougselsam Date: 8/22/2014
Subject: Jeo F. and Dave S. good AWE ideas

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13986 From: dougselsam Date: 8/22/2014
Subject: Clueless

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13987 From: dave santos Date: 8/22/2014
Subject: Re: Fanbelting Groundgen

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13988 From: dave santos Date: 8/22/2014
Subject: Re: Jeo F. and Dave S. good AWE ideas



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13937 From: dave santos Date: 8/19/2014
Subject: Re: Argument from Authority in AWE Engineering-Science
Its not a proper definition of AWE expertise or authority to have flown AWES at Chico. Doug is clearly not the most expert figure in AWE, when one counts essential aviation expertise, as well as wind-tech (Doug's leaky latex balloons are the least practical choice of LTA). I do remember Joe and my brief hand-held short-lined flights in the HAWPCON09 parking lot, of various small AWES, to show them spin or flap in the wind, for whoever was curious. Its just not true that only Doug flew AWES at Chico, as he claims; nor would such a claim mean much even if true, since various AWES had been flown in years-past in many places.

What Doug did was get us front page coverage in the SF Examiner, and earlier a Popular Science cover (but with a concept rendering). His failing has been to only promote his own ideas when given a chance to pitch to Bill Gates and Eric Schmidt. If he had shown strategic leadership by representing us all, he could be leading a well funded AWE R&D program, with all of us working under him.

Doug can claim to have flown longest at Chico, while I flew WECS under a kite without depending on helium. The most important result to me was establishing a flying tradition to our conferences, something we have had to fight AWEC for ever since, but cannot be denied. It seems as if all major players should be able to bring some small working AWES toy to our conferences, with such large talented staffs. I also flew a toy Delta indoors over the audience as a windless demo of pumped sustained flight.



On Monday, August 18, 2014 6:17 PM, "Joe Faust joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13938 From: benhaiemp Date: 8/19/2014
Subject: Re: Who are experts in AWE? Joe Faust and Dave Santos as visionaries

Please JoeF can you enter View Discussion Transcript of NearZero in your datas and archives (before possibly losing it on web) . This paper will be an interesting subject of studies for conceptors, making the difference between good experts in their specialities and visionaries for a new energy world.

Other explains are not needed. This paper speaks by itself, showing thinking process. Deducing visionaries and good experts cannot work on the same level is quite easy.

PierreB 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13939 From: dave santos Date: 8/19/2014
Subject: Re: Who are experts in AWE? Joe Faust and Dave Santos as visionaries
Pierre,

We copied the NZ transcripts the same day we were purged, then we pressured a balky NearZero to post them, or we would. That worked, and by now (after two years) the Net has a permanent memory of the text. We also got help staying informed from remaining panelists during the two days we were blocked (before NZ suddenly pulled the plug on the whole charade).

The transcript is technically unremarkable except for being a rare moment when the Makani leadership dialoged with the wider AWE world, and did not seem too sharp. Joe and I merely offered the same ideas as better-developed on the AWES Forum. The remarkable part of this story to me is how brazen and unworthy the cooking of the NZ final survey result was, given the elite affiliations and of the machinators. Its clear the flawed result has not had the impact intended.

Please answer some of the many hanging questions posed to you, rather than drift into praising "visionaries". With regard to the (who-is-an-expert-?) topic, you might explain your logical basis for calling MikeB an AWE expert, when even he has denied it. A technical specification and detailed concept design for a WheelWind turbine is also overdue,

daveS


On Tuesday, August 19, 2014 11:08 AM, "pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13940 From: dave santos Date: 8/19/2014
Subject: 23 Kite Arches at WSIKF2014 (rotating arch note)
The sky filled with arches and they all flew all day without fuss; several thousand kite units in well-behaved dense-arrays. There was about a dozen trains of various descriptions. In the kite-making workshop we made over eighty three-kite stacks with families, which is not do this trick, but are rotated by shifting sandbags.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13941 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 8/19/2014
Subject: Re: Who are experts in AWE? Joe Faust and Dave Santos as visionaries


DaveS,

 

MikeB is a journalist, not an AWE expert you pretend I say. I confirm again and again as journalist his analysis of existing projects is quite exact: "all platypues instead cheetah" is even appropriated, AWE cheetah being not in any detailed project. And MikeB examined different projects, with details. For at least 20 times I tell it and you ask about it...You can take existing projects into all combinations they will do not work in viable way, and you know it. So you know also MikeB made correct assertions.

Concerning transcripts, the process thinking I describe is not in any "technically unremarkable" feature, but in the process itself. Makani's failure is for some reasons you invoke, but also for some other reasons you do not invoke. They fail by thinking into existing schemes in wind energy,"I put a single unit, then I multiply it" going towards disaster. And on transcripts this thinking process is quite apparent.

You don't make this error. Your main strategy looks good, but also with some focus on not important things making said strategy not quite apparent. And you mix  (generally, not in transcripts) said good strategy with analysis of conversion systems Doug has clearly and rightly definited: you want a sort of meta-kite exceeding its own inherent qualities.Bah! It is not so important since your "lifting" before "making energy" is the right strategy (for the same the word "lift" from JoeF (very great JoeF also in managerial strategy) in end of messages showing the main keyword of AWE). You look like "Frères Montgolfiers" inventing hot balloon with false theories and good intuitions. One time you have even advocated for Saphon "wind turbine". Can you now advocate again for Saphon?

Concerning "WheelWind" it is not the first time I evoke some problems like tangential transmission (DougS thinking such a transmission is not good) making low rotation speed,so less (I do not know how much) power.Morever I think there is a problem with the link between floating station (movement of waves) and the rotor (wind forces): and I tell it for at least 2 or 3 times.So for the moment I put WheelWind on side.

Now I have some proposition for 2 or 3 weeks later (I will precise again 2 or 3 days before), but I tell it now, for some preparation. I would like a discussion with RodR, yourself, JoeF, DougS, about Mothra, all  facing respective computers for feebacks,that during some hours. We will try some possibilities. Is it OK?

 

PierreB
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13942 From: Gabor Dobos Date: 8/19/2014
Subject: Re: Who are experts in AWE?
On 2014-08-18 11:31, pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy] wrote:
I don't think so.
You are a professional pianist and an amateur chemist. I am a chemist by
profession, and an amateur pianist. Probably, your skill in playing the
piano is as much better than mine as my knowledge of chemistry is
greater than yours


You wrote: Why not invent such a world? There is no "NOT" about it! It
happens every day! Everybody can seee that huge R&D work is needed.
There are today huge unsolved problems. But there were yesterday too,
and belive me, there will be also in tomorrow something We will simply
never reach omniscience! We have to apply what we have. There exist
professions outside of someone's own trade. Not accepting this is called
departmentalizm and guides us to a great NOTHING. Professional work is
needed and not tinkering.

Gabor Dobos
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13943 From: dave santos Date: 8/19/2014
Subject: Re: Who are experts in AWE? Joe Faust and Dave Santos as visionaries
Pierre,

Thank you for correcting my misimpression of your view. I wrongly thought you had classed MikeB as an AWES Expert, whose odd opinions therefore counted in technical circles. You have wrongly called me a journalist too, which I think misrepresents our Forum discussions where everyone is equal as technical collaborators (not journalists speaking to a broad public).

daveS


On Tuesday, August 19, 2014 2:08 PM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13944 From: Joe Faust Date: 8/19/2014
Subject: Re: Who are experts in AWE? Joe Faust and Dave Santos as visionaries
I have lived evidence that some visionaries and specific-domain
experts have worked together successfully. Vision and specific-domain
input are with non-empty intersection for most significant projects
affecting society. Daily the two departments at KiteLab Los Angeles
get along well; each level frequently bounces back and forth to alter
and fertilize the other level; challenging details are opportunities
for new visions; new visions are opportunities for new specific
constructions.
The body of the transcripts are available and could be called to
the front by court action, if needed upon some disappearance. Since
there is pending pre-action moves and since I am involved, the
breaking the copyright of the entity would not help matters; the
entity does not answer some easy professional questions as it is while
injury continues to gather.

~ JoeF
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13945 From: Joe Faust Date: 8/19/2014
Subject: Re: Who are experts in AWE?
Hey Gabor, let's not throw out "tinkering" completely!
Tinkering still has a place even in a highly professional world!
~ JoeF
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13946 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 8/19/2014
Subject: Re: Who are experts in AWE? Joe Faust and Dave Santos as visionaries

Visionary only in technical sense (not as dream for AWE, others make some dream about AWE far before), and towards AWE direction. My explication of actual failure is by a non idiomatic AWE thinking. To be concrete most players have split thought ("I think one unit,then a farm"), but not DaveS. Saül Griffith thinks bases are understood well, the plans of departure are known. DaveS does not think it (on transcripts), integrating more parameters comprising land used from the beginning, envisaging hybrid forms of AWE by a sort of idiomatic AWE thinking (that is normally impossible since AWE is only in project). So some collaboration is effectively not possible with well-etablished projects, at least in beginning.For most players the scheme is well determined, so being capable of final failure.Most searchers transpose their respective methodologies towards AWE which is not yet known, and that does not work. All that explains our list can seem static (no Watt, sorry James) while some team make 10 kW then finally fail.

 

PierreB
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13947 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 8/19/2014
Subject: Re: Who are experts in AWE?

Gabor,

I am not an amateur chemist since I do not like it. I know nothing about chemistry. What you said about me as pianist could be told before I made an opinion you disagree.

 

PierreB

   
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13948 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 8/19/2014
Subject: Re: Who are experts in AWE? Joe Faust and Dave Santos as visionaries

DaseS,


"You have wrongly called me a journalist too".Right. Thank you correcting my misinterpretation (comprising also the expression "yellow journalism" I wrongly used sometimes) of your technical analyses.

PierreB

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13949 From: Gabor Dobos Date: 8/20/2014
Subject: Re: Who are experts in AWE? -- multidisciplinarity and playing the
Dear Pierre,

I did tell you. Maybe you don't remember. No wonder. There were so many
people who congratulated you.

I said it at first in Berlin, when I congratulated you on your memorable
piano concert, and on your frenetic success. Later on, I pronounced my
wonder on your virtuosity also in a private letter. And it is my
pleasure to repeat my former opinion again, now.

Well, as I was a young boy I was taught to play the piano for 5-6 years
with a very-very modest success. Probably, I tried it for the sake of my
parents, but my zest as well as my talent for it were missing. I don't
remember the time when I played the last time, maybe I could not any
more. But my ability to enjoy music remained and I can make a
distinction with great probability between a good and a worse piano
play. Yours is excellent, but if someone asked me how excellent, I could
not tell. I am not an expert in it.

The former story is related to the question of AWE-experts too. One has
to determine the essential desired level of knowledge of an AWE expert,
in several trades, among others in chemistry, physics, meteorology,
electrical engineering, computer science, etc; and not only regarding
e.g. kites themselves and flight related sciences. It is not an unusual
demand, since e.g. there is no meteorology without a stable knowledge of
physical chemistry as well as of several other sciences. . This is
called multidisciplinarity.

Gabor Dobos

On 2014-08-20 01:38, Pierre BENHAIEM pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr
[AirborneWindEnergy] wrote:
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13950 From: Gabor Dobos Date: 8/20/2014
Subject: Re: Who are experts in AWE? --- tinkering
I agree! But it is something else. The keyword is "completely". In the early stage of a research the experimental devices are mostly created through tinkering. It's OK. But neither a Boeing nor an IFO must be "tinkered".

Gabor Dobos

On 2014-08-20 00:36, Joe Faust joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy] wrote:
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13951 From: Rod Read Date: 8/20/2014
Subject: Can't wait to see the next design
Obvious and proven AWE Ideas have been converging ...
tilting into wind, large inflated circular cross wind path driving, rope transfer, tension

efficient translation from wobbly thin moving air into rigid fast moving stuff

Really hope that somebody can translate all of these ideas into the worlds first
Auto tuning, circular, meshable, flying harpsicord generator / jellyfish

There's a language somewhere on the net where that makes sense.

I think like a swimmer, A Daisy wing needs to stretch it's arm out ahead further ...
The current model is always trying to tumble turn. mounting a Daisy petal on the fat end of an inflated cone..such as the mid point on 1 half of a surf kite spar ... tying the thin end of the spar to the trailing fat end of the leading spar... and repeating into a circle... will make a wonderful Daisy device.

Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13952 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 8/20/2014
Subject: Re: Who are experts in AWE? Joe Faust and Dave Santos as visionaries
Pierre, iterations. Advance over lessons. Be thankful for having the vision to put aside an iteration in order to give resource to a hopefully better iteration. Maybe instead of "fails" ... have experience that informs the Next.  Bring on the scene that which we will replace!  Find niche uses for arrangements that are not meeting some target first in vision. 
  ~ JoeF
expert ?  
May we have meta experts and micro experts in AWE in time, and across all the involved trades. 
visionary ?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/visionary

  May AWE universe have its visionaries!


And may there be some who carry some type of AWE-involved expertise

while radiating at times as an AWE visionary. 


May we not neglect sharp engineering, astute testing, scientific analysis, 

and excellent accounting. 


 


    
 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13954 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 8/20/2014
Subject: Fanbelting Groundgen

Fanbelting Groundgen

Are you wanting to drive groundgen with a loop or belt driven by lofted kited devices?

If so, you are invited to discuss and develop such in this topic thread. We have scattered notes in our forum related to such sector. 

~ JoeF

[corrected the spelling of the title]
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13955 From: dave santos Date: 8/20/2014
Subject: LTA or Air Inflated-Hub Daisy
Rod,

This is not a completely new AWES concept, but has novel aspects. A spinning "albacore" aerostat could be the inlfated Daisy you describe. Prior art tended to have blades circulating on a track around the girth of a non-spinning blimp. Helium is not necessary if the rig is light and a pilot -lifter is used. A solar or self-heated option is possible, but not ideal.

A teardrop air balloon's structural stability can solve open Daisy issues with launching, starting, stopping, furling, etc..and transfer torque (over short distance) or pump (by collective pitch or quick-furling). Large inflated pylons, such as we are specifying for Aerotecture Fall-Tent posts, could also serve experimentally for an inflated hub-Daisy. 

A Ram-Air Albacore is a promising design-option in our tool-kit. Ram-air parafoil blades are suited for quick cycling between inflated and furled, or always stay inflated and just bend back along the body like a whale pect fin. Large schools of robust inflated-hub Daisies could operate under a shared kite arch.

daveS

CC+ (with all the toppings)
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13956 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 8/20/2014
Subject: Paired Skybow Without Swivels

 CC 4.0 BY NC SA

Paired  skybows without swivels

Neither Jim Malbos nor Roy Mueller has shown paired skybows without swivels. Swivels provide a large part of involved challenges. 

Here is one arrangement without swivels where an upper positive-lifting skybow is integrated with a low negative-lifting skybow. Instead of swivel, a set of lateral wheels are used; the wheels are bridled to earth and to a set of lifter-kite systems, as the integrated paired skybows approximate neutral buoyancy before mass is considered; both the mass and the compression of the two skybows are supported by the lifter-kite systems, one at each end of the skybow set.  PTO at the wheel either by flygen or by loop to groundgen. 

 CC 4.0 BY NC SA

~ JoeF
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13957 From: Rod Read Date: 8/20/2014
Subject: Google get confused about what a kite is

http://kitesapp.co

share

Kites are messages you leave in specific places. You can leave kites all over the globe, so all your friends can see what you have to say.

You can say anything, from recommending great hotels and restaurants to letting your friends know where you went travelling.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13958 From: dave santos Date: 8/20/2014
Subject: Re: Google get confused about what a kite is
Google's code-base defines "kite" as follows-

https://code.google.com/p/kite/wiki/KiteFunction


On Wednesday, August 20, 2014 1:12 PM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13959 From: dougselsam Date: 8/20/2014
Subject: Re: Argument from Authority in AWE Engineering-Science
"What Doug did was get us front page coverage in the SF Examiner, and earlier a Popular Science cover (but with a concept rendering)." ***PopSci Centerfold (not a cover), page 58, 59 June 2008 Issue.  Photograph (not a rendering), sufficiently long exposure to make the rotors appear as silver discs.  (Everything you post is wrong...)  :o...
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13960 From: dave santos Date: 8/20/2014
Subject: Re: Argument from Authority in AWE Engineering-Science
Doug,

Thanks for correcting my balky memory of ST coverage in PopSci. So where were the cool Mike Sanchez renderings published? Was it PopMech that did the (non-ST) AWE cover, with a Makani or SWP concept? Are you ready for the AWE R&D reality-TV show that Joel Cruz is proposing? The pop side of AWE is but a small blur in the rear-view mirror of AWE technical subject-matter experts, so expect them to guess wrong about AWE trivia (and welcome factual correction).

If "everything (I) post is wrong" were true, then you would only need to believe the inverse and magically become an AWE Expert. Life is just not so simple as you suppose, so continue to study and prepare, to finally count in AWE. Its all about making whats next,

daveS


On Wednesday, August 20, 2014 1:39 PM, "dougselsam@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13961 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 8/20/2014
Subject: Re: Paired Skybow Without Swivels
http://www.energykitesystems.net/Skybow/index.html
Supportive drawing: 

Standard centering lifter systems or lifting-veering systems may be used. The upper skybow and lower skybow are integrated to form one loop; the bottom skybow is downing while the top skybow is lifting. Earth is still used as a compression beam.   The two wheels feature a limit line to keep control over the spread of the apparent feet of the skybow pair. The section of the paired skybow loop that stays over the wheels is formatted not as ribbon but as a circular cross-sectioned segment that rolls on the wheels; as the skybow rotates then the wheel rotates providing a PTO opportunity either flygen or groundgen per known mechanical means. The wheels have curved tread to soften the marriage with the skybow segments.  Limiting stops prevent creep of lower skybow to enter upper skybow realm; likewise for the upper skybow. Spreader limit line could be adjustable to tune the system.  Macro weathercocking may be provided by known means. 
 ~ JoeF
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13962 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 8/20/2014
Subject: Re: Paired Skybow Without Swivels
Pause to note that the sketch might mimic the appearance of kite-system held Darrieus blades (See Pierre's art on terrain-enhanced Darrieus blades http://www.energykitesystems.net/PierreBenhaiem/index.html   ) or of a single large flip wing held by the lifter system. And we are not here dealing with oscillator Sputnik of DaveS' world of kited wings.   But we do not confuse those adventures in this topic thread.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13963 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 8/20/2014
Subject: Re: Anurac
Publikationen | anurac

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13964 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 8/20/2014
Subject: Re: Fanbelting Groundgen
The long history of loop drive in kite systems is invited by all. 

Review is a gem here. 
Here is a recent entry into fanbelting groundgen by Leonid Goldstein: 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13965 From: dougselsam Date: 8/20/2014
Subject: Re: Fanbelting Groundgen
This is a wrong idea.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13967 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 8/21/2014
Subject: Re: Fanbelting Groundgen
Care to explain? Wrong for what?  Right for what? The idea of fanbelting groundgen in kited energy systems has been the topic of many patents and discussions; the idea is a gem, but is open to your study. Thanks for any lights you put on the gem. Some niche applications will probably use the method. Whether or not the method wins over others for a particular market will be told in future history books or web pages. 
~ JoeF
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13968 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 8/21/2014
Subject: Family-time language

A post was placed in forum Files in Off-topic 

for injuring the family-time language aura of the forum. 

The file for record is available. 

~ Moderator
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13969 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 8/21/2014
Subject: Jian Dai

Pub. No.:  WO/2014/101735  International Application No.:  PCT/CN2013/090245
Publication Date:03.07.2014International Filing Date:23.12.2013
IPC:
F03D 9/00 (2006.01), F03D 5/00 (2006.01), F03D 7/00 (2006.01)
Applicants:DAI, Jian [AR/CN]; (CN).DAI, Ning [CN/CN]; (CN)
Inventors:DAI, Jian; (CN)
Agent:BEIJING CHINA IP LTD.; Room C07, Tianyun Office Building No. 15 Anhui Dongli, Chaoyang Beijing 100101 (CN)
Priority Data:
201210566509.3 25.12.2012 CN
Title(EN) KITE POWER GENERATION APPARATUS AND POWER GENERATION CONTROL METHOD THEREOF
(FR) APPAREIL DE PRODUCTION D'ÉNERGIE ÉLECTRIQUE À CERF-VOLANT ET PROCÉDÉ DE COMMANDE DE PRODUCTION D'ÉNERGIE ÉLECTRIQUE DE CELUI-CI
(ZH) 一种风筝发电装置及其发电控制方法

CN2013090245 KITE POWER GENERATION APPARATUS AND POWER GENERATION CONTROL METHOD THEREOF
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13970 From: dave santos Date: 8/21/2014
Subject: Re: Fanbelting Groundgen
A continuous drive-loop from a turbine shaft was the transmission basis for KiteMotor1 [2007 KiteLab Ilwaco]. Rope-driving is quite a good old method. One session the knot in the loop caught in a fairlead and the turbine became a winch and wound the whole AWES down powerfully.


On Thursday, August 21, 2014 7:25 AM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13971 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 8/21/2014
Subject: Cable Wind Mill

Patent US4303834 - Cable wind mill


Terrain-enhanced laddermill?

May 10, 1979  Filed

Assignee: MIT         Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13972 From: dougselsam Date: 8/21/2014
Subject: Re: Fanbelting Groundgen
I said "This idea is wrong.", Joe asked: "Care to explain?"  Yes Joe, happy to explain.  (We've touched on this before I think)  The explanation relates to a question you posted a couple months ago, asking how much power is used to simply keep an AWE apparatus aloft.  This apparatus makes power by pulling a looped tether upward.  Another way of saying that is the apparatus transmits power by pulling itself DOWNWARD on a looped tether.  It must have a way to create that same amount of extra upward force pulling  itself upward.  So by pulling itself downward to transmit power to the ground, whatever power it makes ADDS to whatever power may be said to be "wasted" just keeping the apparatus aloft.  Let's say a given apparatus took 5 kW to keep it aloft, while producing 10 kW of work at ground level (electricity).  That's a total of 15 kW to produce 10 kW at ground level.  This apparatus might use an additional 10 kW, just to fight the downward pull reactive force against its upward pull on the looped tether.  (Numbers chosen for example only)  So this apparatus would take perhaps 25 kW in the air to get 10 kW to the ground, instead of taking 15 kW in the air, to get 10 kW to the ground.  If it used, say, torque, electricity, hydraulic pressure, or even a push, to get the power to the ground, it would not lose that power required to counter the reactive downward force on the apparatus generated by an upward pull on a tether.  Multiply the force on the tether times the speed of the upward tether travel to calculate the power lost.  This explains why we have the term "Profethor Crackpot", and why he wears a polka-dot bowtie... :)
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13973 From: Joe Faust Date: 8/21/2014
Subject: Re: Cable Wind Mill
Joining another terrain-based wing mill on loop, non AWES, but some are aweifying 
DE2152637 (A1)  -  FLAECHENTURBINE ZUR NUTZBARMACHUNG VON STROEMENDEM WASSER -INSBESONDERE GEZEITENSTROEMUNG
circa 1971. 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13974 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 8/21/2014
Subject: Re: Fanbelting Groundgen
Thanks, DougS.  We will study the explanation carefully.
[ ]   Related question:  Is your late-1970s laddermill a fanbelting groundgen?
Joining a priorly mentioned patent: 
Airship power turbine  US 4166596 A
where fanbelting groundgen is proposed.
Patent US4166596 - Airship power turbine

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13975 From: dougselsam Date: 8/21/2014
Subject: Re: Fanbelting Groundgen
"Rope-driving is quite a good old method." -  this is rope-pulling, not "rope driving".   Upward rope-pulling, as you note, tends to pull the apparatus down from the sky - not desirable for AWE.  ("Rope-driving would seem to be an oxymoron in this context, as in "You can't push a rope".)  AWE demands technology beyond Mom's clothesline, in my opinion.  I might also point out that this same problem would seem to manifest "laddermill", with its upward pull and upward tether travel for power transmission.  Speed x pull = power lost?  One more reason my early on-paper version of "laddermill" from the 1970's quickly morphed into "SuperTurbine(R)."Hello?  Operator?  May I thpeak with Profethor Crackpot Pleathe?"
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13976 From: dougselsam Date: 8/21/2014
Subject: Re: Fanbelting Groundgen
Joe asked "Is your late-1970s laddermill a fanbelting groundgen?" - Yes, that is one more reason SuperTurbine(R) SuperCeded my idea for an upward-pulling "aerial tramway" (later called "laddermill") of the 1970's.  But why listen to me?  I obviously have no idea what I'm talking about, right?:)
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13977 From: dave santos Date: 8/21/2014
Subject: Oilprice.com AWE Coverage
LTA Windpower gets a mention, along with the better known names. Typical AWE reporting mix-

Will Airborne Wind Turbines Soon Float Above Our Cities?
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13978 From: dave santos Date: 8/21/2014
Subject: HumanKite Superhero (pop culture kite icon)
Kite Freaks all agree that kite references only seem to proliferate in recent years, but maybe we're only imagining this trend. This pop kite case is of brilliant adult-humor in cartoon form; South Park-
---------------------------------------------------------
Superhero Alter-Ego

HumanKite: Kyle as the Human Kite

The Human Kite is Kyle's superhero alter-ego, who appears in the superhero arc. He is a member of Coon and Friends. Human Kite's imaginary superpowers include the ability to fly and shoot lasers out of his eyes.

Kyle Broflovski
 
 
image
 
 
 
 
 
Kyle Broflovski
Kyle Broflovski is one of the main characters, along with Stan Marsh, Eric Cartman, and Kenny...

View on southpark.wikia.com
Preview by Yahoo

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13979 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 8/21/2014
Subject: Re: Fanbelting Groundgen
Is your late 1970s laddermill a fanbelting groudgen system?
Thanks for that further explanation; we will be studying  the explanation. 

~ JoeF
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13980 From: dave santos Date: 8/21/2014
Subject: Re: Fanbelting Groundgen
Doug's physics of rope-driving-

- does not account for acceleration (tensile load velocity). His basic premise ignores F=ma, and his consequent conclusions all fail thereby. KiteMotor1 only began to pull itself down when the tensile load velocity approached zero by accident (stalled condition). In nominal operation the static lift of the system was a small fraction of the extractable power that varied upward with the design velocity of the drive loop.

- fails to understand that torque-drive in AWE has the same F=ma physics, and far more severe scaling-mass constraints than rope-driving.

- makes up wildly unrealistic numbers (like the power needed just to keep a ~10kg kite in the air (able to drive a 10kW rated output in a good wind).

- does not even seem to know that "rope-driving" is the traditional professional art of pulling a rope loop to transmit power (and the title of a classic engineering guide).

Rope-driving: a treatise on the transmission of power by means of fibrous ropes : Flather, John Joseph, 1862-1926 : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive
 

 

image
 

 
 
 
 

Rope-driving: a treatise on the transmission of power by...
Book digitized by Google from the library of the New York Public Library and uploaded to the Internet Archive by user tpb.

View on archive.org
Preview by Yahoo

 



Doug's antisocial profanity, technical nonsense, and paranoiac Professor CrackPot idee-fixe underline his lack of engineering progress to report.


On Thursday, August 21, 2014 10:23 AM, "dougselsam@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13981 From: dave santos Date: 8/21/2014
Subject: Kytoon-based "Edison Walking Machine"
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13982 From: Joe Faust Date: 8/21/2014
Subject: Re: Kytoon-based "Edison Walking Machine"
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13983 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 8/22/2014
Subject: Stuffing Encasements

Stuffing Encasements

           This topic thread invites notes and studies regarding stuffing encasements to obtain shape, spars, ribs, airfoils, blades, etc. that might have good used in AWES.  Stuff air, helium, hydrogen, ping-pong balls, soda plastic bottles, styrofoam shapes, popcorn, wrinkled paper, well-made stackable plastic bottles (air-leaking to allow altitude change, perhaps), aerogel constructs, advanced 3-D matrices of sparse crystal-like materials, water, steam, cups, ram-air stuffing of air, Rod Read's suggested http://tinyurl.com/imagesBUBBLEWRAP as a stuffing material,   etc.   And we know that in some stuffing results, splint-tension-cable tactics might enhance some structures. 

Start: 

 Symmetrically stackable bottle with vertical reinforcing aperture spanned by handle   US 20020077225 A1 by Douglas Spriggs Selsam

[I am considering using such element to stuff an encasement for the leading edge of a kite.  ~ JoeF]


Next note will be next!  Anytime in the coming future would be just fine. 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13984 From: dougselsam Date: 8/22/2014
Subject: Re: Fanbelting Groundgen
Doug's physics of rope-driving-...- does not account for ...His basic premise ignores ...his consequent conclusions all fail...- fails to understand that ... - makes up wildly unrealistic numbers...- does not even seem to know that "rope-driving" is the traditional professional art of pulling a rope loop to transmit power (and the title of a classic engineering guide).*** Sure Dave, I hope you feel better now.  I don't even know what a fanbelt is, or how a clothesline works, and my original version of "laddermill" from the 1970's absolutely PROVES I have never had any grasp of "rope-driving", right?  (I suspect it is really YOU who has NO GRASP of the actual physics involved.

I've built and run chain-drive turbines, and I know what happens - oddly, it was exactly what the veterans had warned would happen).  By the way, do you realize, when you write such nonsense, as though any 5-year-old doesn't understand the concept of a fanbelt, or "rope-driving", that it really just shows your own lack of a grasp of even the most basic reality?  I mean, seriously, growing up riding rope-tows at ski areas, let alone chairlifts, fanbelts on cars and lawnmowers, Mom's clothesline - get real!  - "Doug failth to grathp" - what a bunch of malarky!  What planet are U on?

Obviously then Dave S., you have a far superior understanding of "rope-driving" than I, and you seem to be advocating this method, so, more power to you.  If you get it to work well for AWE power transmission, I'll be your biggest fan.  I don't pretend to know everything, just a lot.  My take is an AWE system that is trying to climb down the tether as fast as it can bears an extra burden of lift, especially when winds become light, as they often do.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13985 From: dougselsam Date: 8/22/2014
Subject: Jeo F. and Dave S. good AWE ideas
I should note that both Dave S. and Joe F. have actually posted good and workable ideas on this list that fall within the "10 easy ways to do AWE" I keep mentioning.  (Really I think it is probably something like 100 easy ways to do AWE) - I mean, from my viewpoint, it's hard to imagine NOT being able to come up with several highly-workable concepts, any of which would likely outperform what the highly-publicized "teams" and "organizations" have been attempting.  (Look - a kite!  It pulls!  Wheee!)I can think of one such "Great idea - build it today"  idea Joe came up with, previously on my mental  list of "10 easy ways to do AWE", and even the notorious Dave S. has come up with two or three good methods on my list, that I can think of at this moment.  I surmise though, that they don't recognize the good ideas when they see them, against the plethora of bad ideas that abound.  Not being able to separate the wheat from the chaff, they therefore cite a good idea, then move on to more bad ideas.  Besides that, they never build anything to a serious enough extent as to expect decent performance, but seem to approach building wind turbines at the 5-year-old "construction paper and rounded scissors" level, which is not sufficient to show performance.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13986 From: dougselsam Date: 8/22/2014
Subject: Clueless
I believe most "teams" and organizations purporting to chase AWE do not have the faintest clue of even the most basic questions and options regarding the reality of AWE possibilities.  I don't see that anyone really "gets it" at all.  Funny, I guess.  There are certain most basic questions to answer as a start, and I don't see any evidence of anyone identifying or grasping what these most basic questions even ARE, let alone moving forward after answering them.  Meanwhile, it is conceptually simple to build decent AWE systems anytime anyone wants to, without any mental leaps, or anything hard to understand.It appears we've reached a point where "smart" people are discouraged from using their hands to the point that they have become lost, unable to do much.  They're left with empty (often bad) theorizing, while those who know how to build things are without the guidance of what to build.  Therefore there is a gap between those who can build things and the "dumbed-down" "smart people". The types of simple breakthroughs humanity has enjoyed in the past become less and less likely, as the "smart people" become further and further distanced from reality.
:)  Doug S.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13987 From: dave santos Date: 8/22/2014
Subject: Re: Fanbelting Groundgen
Doug,

There has been years of rope-driving AWES Forum discussion, as well sharing of experiments, so its strange you did not learn that the added tension requirement is resolved by moving the loop at a suitable speed, by Newton's F=ma.

The method is enhanced by depending on a main static kite line (for primary tension against surge) to host a finer driven-loop suspended separately. Then the driven-loop is free to do its own thing, including move at high load-velocity for high-power at relatively low tension. Keep in mind that kPower has developed the cheapest raw kite-lift and already explored AWES rope-driving. 

There is no conflict in lulls if the load is eased (by clutching), or the turbine simply stops passively before landing. In low wind, power extraction stops first, to maintain flight until "pay-wind" resumes.

Of course, since 2006, KiteLab "advocates" classic rope-driving only as an established baseline transmission method* to test against rope-pumping variants, and also the torque methods you advocate and can also muster for testing. There is no a-priori down-select advocated by kPower's testing ethos,

daveS

* Rope-driving was not only important industrially (before modern precision-gearing and belt-drives), but was used in cableway guise to run payloads up and down kite lines during the "Golden Age of Kites" (roughly 1820-1920). Examples include a famous shipwreck rescue concept and many toy "kite-messengers". We see today's KAP flyers drive-loops for camera work and we envision endless other applications of cableways in the sky.




On Friday, August 22, 2014 8:56 AM, "dougselsam@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13988 From: dave santos Date: 8/22/2014
Subject: Re: Jeo F. and Dave S. good AWE ideas
Doug,

What Joe and I advocate is for testing to sort out "good" from "bad" AWES concepts. We did not invent test-engineering, nor do we see it as "unable to separate the wheat from the chaff", as you seem to.

Everything else is just speculation. Please document your "10 easy ways to do AWE" now, rather than claim credit in vain for predicting what AWES emerges from the test-engineering side,

daveS


On Friday, August 22, 2014 9:15 AM, "dougselsam@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com