Messages in AirborneWindEnergy group.                           AWES14540to14589 Page 186 of 440.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14540 From: dave santos Date: 9/19/2014
Subject: Resolving AWES Forum troll complaints

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14541 From: benhaiemp Date: 9/19/2014
Subject: Can Dave Lang help to argue for or against some AWES?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14542 From: Joe Faust Date: 9/19/2014
Subject: Simulated de-powering of a LEI tube kite for power generation

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14543 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/19/2014
Subject: Re: Can Dave Lang answer Joe's Question

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14544 From: dougselsam Date: 9/19/2014
Subject: Re: Can Dave Lang answer Joe's Question

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14545 From: brooksdesign Date: 9/19/2014
Subject: Re: Can Dave Lang answer Joe's Question

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14546 From: dougselsam Date: 9/19/2014
Subject: Re: AWES train patent

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14547 From: dougselsam Date: 9/19/2014
Subject: Re: Can Dave Lang answer Joe's Question

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14548 From: snapscan_snapscan Date: 9/19/2014
Subject: A method to prevent torque induced contraction of Multi-Tether-Helic

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14549 From: dave santos Date: 9/19/2014
Subject: Re: Can Dave Lang answer Joe's Question

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14550 From: dave santos Date: 9/19/2014
Subject: Re: AWES train patent

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14551 From: dave santos Date: 9/19/2014
Subject: More Problems with ST Concept

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14552 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/19/2014
Subject: Re: Powered Flight (fresh start)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14553 From: Rod Read Date: 9/19/2014
Subject: Re: A method to prevent torque induced contraction of Multi-Tether-H

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14554 From: Joe Faust Date: 9/19/2014
Subject: Re: Can Dave Lang answer Joe's Question

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14555 From: dave santos Date: 9/19/2014
Subject: Launching and Landing Kite-Trains (review)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14556 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 9/19/2014
Subject: Re: Launching and Landing Kite-Trains (review)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14557 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/19/2014
Subject: AWES Torque Transfer via Tensegrity Tensairity Towers (TTviaTTT)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14558 From: dave santos Date: 9/19/2014
Subject: Re: Launching and Landing Kite-Trains (review)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14559 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/19/2014
Subject: Re: Launching and Landing Kite-Trains (review)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14560 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/19/2014
Subject: Re: AWES Torque Transfer via Tensegrity Tensairity Towers (TTviaTTT)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14561 From: dave santos Date: 9/19/2014
Subject: Re: AWES Torque Transfer via Tensegrity Tensairity Towers (TTviaTTT)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14562 From: Joe Faust Date: 9/19/2014
Subject: Re: AWES Torque Transfer via Tensegrity Tensairity Towers (TTviaTTT)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14563 From: dave santos Date: 9/19/2014
Subject: Re: AWES Torque Transfer via Tensegrity Tensairity Towers (TTviaTTT)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14564 From: dave santos Date: 9/19/2014
Subject: Re: AWES Torque Transfer via Tensegrity Tensairity Towers (TTviaTTT)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14565 From: snapscan_snapscan Date: 9/19/2014
Subject: Re: AWES Torque Transfer via Tensegrity Tensairity Towers (TTviaTTT)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14566 From: dave santos Date: 9/19/2014
Subject: Re: AWES Torque Transfer via Tensegrity Tensairity Towers (TTviaTTT)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14567 From: snapscan_snapscan Date: 9/19/2014
Subject: Re: AWES Torque Transfer via Tensegrity Tensairity Towers (TTviaTTT)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14568 From: dave santos Date: 9/19/2014
Subject: Re: AWES Torque Transfer via Tensegrity Tensairity Towers (TTviaTTT)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14569 From: dave santos Date: 9/19/2014
Subject: Long-Span Ropeway Similarity Case

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14570 From: snapscan_snapscan Date: 9/19/2014
Subject: Re: AWES Torque Transfer via Tensegrity Tensairity Towers (TTviaTTT)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14571 From: dave santos Date: 9/19/2014
Subject: Re: AWES Torque Transfer via Tensegrity Tensairity Towers (TTviaTTT)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14572 From: dougselsam Date: 9/19/2014
Subject: To BrooksDesign: U can change your settings

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14573 From: dave santos Date: 9/19/2014
Subject: Re: Powered Flight (fresh start)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14574 From: dave santos Date: 9/19/2014
Subject: kPower Board Notice

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14575 From: dave santos Date: 9/19/2014
Subject: Re: kPower Board Notice

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14576 From: dave santos Date: 9/19/2014
Subject: KiteGang flies Mt. Everest, AWE Next

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14577 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/19/2014
Subject: Re: AWES Torque Transfer via Tensegrity Tensairity Towers (TTviaTTT)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14578 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/19/2014
Subject: Taller Towers for Better Wind. $2 million by DOE for R&D

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14579 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/19/2014
Subject: Goodyear blimps

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14580 From: dave santos Date: 9/19/2014
Subject: Who is an AWE Engineer?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14581 From: benhaiemp Date: 9/20/2014
Subject: Progress in AWES R&D (utility-scale)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14582 From: stephane rousson Date: 9/20/2014
Subject: Cagnotte Voilier des airs / Vol en danger d'absurdité administrativ

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14583 From: dougselsam Date: 9/20/2014
Subject: Re: Who is an AWE Engineer? (The lies of Dave S.)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14584 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/20/2014
Subject: Re: Who is an AWE Engineer? (The lies of Dave S.)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14585 From: dave santos Date: 9/20/2014
Subject: Re: Progress in AWES R&D (utility-scale)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14586 From: dave santos Date: 9/20/2014
Subject: Re: Who is an AWE Engineer? (The lies of Dave S.)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14587 From: Joe Faust Date: 9/20/2014
Subject: Re: Progress in AWES R&D (utility-scale)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14588 From: dave santos Date: 9/20/2014
Subject: Engineering Credentials?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14589 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/20/2014
Subject: Wind power device with dynamic sail, streamlined cable or enhanced g



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14540 From: dave santos Date: 9/19/2014
Subject: Resolving AWES Forum troll complaints
Bothered by Net Trolls? The Net learns around all obstacles-

Troll (Internet) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14541 From: benhaiemp Date: 9/19/2014
Subject: Can Dave Lang help to argue for or against some AWES?

Instead of the last useless topics (...1 kg aloft...) some discussion with Dave Lang can be usefull, allowing us a better understanding of stakes in the simulations and elements of AWE choices.

I do not share some formuled propositions as simulations for toy world or similar. Everything depends where we put the cursor. Dave Lang's project is challenging for tether's work, DaveL being a world level specialist in tether. But the question can be: AWE is challenging by itself making a sort of equation with engineering's components needing experts like DaveL (but not me) and processes comprising simulations; with also other elements like economy comprising land/space used. These other elements can be identified also by non experts and pushing towards some different choice of engineering's sets fo components.

To be more precise SkyMill by itself appears as a performant AWES with controlled tether but... a device of some meters on a tether of some kilometers does not look as the good mean for a maximization of space. You must use km² of no fly-zone and probably no other land use. It is not all. In case of a farm each device must be very spaced out.And are space and land so free? Near cities? Is it really economically possible to produce only 1MW/ n km², n km cubed? 

A contrario a less performant AWES by itself can become more viable by taking account of environment. Can simulations contain criteria as the access to the grid, the political and economic stakes, the other uses of lands, the acceptance of the public, the ratio of power/ space regarding aerial circulation...?

 

PierreB    
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14542 From: Joe Faust Date: 9/19/2014
Subject: Simulated de-powering of a LEI tube kite for power generation
Date: Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 3:51 AM
Subject: Simulated de-powering of a LEI tube kite for power generation


roland schmehl has uploaded Simulated de-powering of a LEI tube kite for power generation The video shows a finite el...



                                             
roland schmehl has uploaded Simulated de-powering of a LEI tube kite for power generation





roland schmehl

The video shows a finite element simulation of the de-powering of a bridled Leading Edge Inflatable (LEI) tube kite. In this maneuver, the two steering lines are reeled out such that the angle of attack of the wing is decreased, which decreases also the total aerodynamic force on the wing. Because the bridle geometry changes and the wing has an arc-shape, the entire wing is deforming during this process.
The wing is discretized by 20000 membrane elements. The bridle system is modelled including the pulleys at some split points. The simulation was performed with the commercial software MADYMO, which is generally used for airbag deployment. This work was part of the MSc research of Joost Schwoll at the Faculty of Aerospace Engineering at Delft University of Technology.



You were sent this email because you chose to receive updates from roland schmehl. If you don't want these updates anymore, you can unsubscribe here.

©2014 YouTube, LLC 901 Cherry Ave, San Bruno, CA 94066



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14543 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/19/2014
Subject: Re: Can Dave Lang answer Joe's Question
One may answer with generalizations or with specific system exampling. 
Introduced qualifications and framing with assumptions may take answering 
to specific frameworks. 

Given a kite system  flying in earth atmosphere, what work is done in the system
to sustain 1 kg of the aloft masses of the system at at a given altitude; assume
the kite system to be steady in altitude in an ideal steady horizontal wind. Include 
the air (wind) as part of the kite system. Assume the lofted mass of the tether and wing set
to be 1 kg or more.  The question makes no presumption that there is or is not a numerical 
constant for an answer. Feel free to have a look at standard conditions of air that may 
be specified for exampling; similarly perhaps assume a fixed earth anchor set at sea level 
at the earth equator while choosing some altitude for the topmost wing set. Feel free 
to state refining assumptions not declared here to handle some exampling case. Work done
to sustain implies a power extant; if one answers using power, then one may calculate
work cumulatively for some specified duration of time. 

One AWES usefulness: Operating in calm to sustain masses aloft; operate the tethers with
powered actuators set on the ground to tug or tow the tethers and wing set just enough
to sustain the masses aloft. Calm kiting in toy recreation is famous for the scene where
a human works to pull a tethered wing to keep the wing and tether up to some desired 
altitude; work is done to achieve the result. Engineers will need to know these matters 
well to resolve some AWES scenes.  For such and other AWES concerns, the question
of topic is deemed useful by some researchers. 

One of my pet projects is a wing sub-kite coming off a loop of line where the loop
is bullwheeled by a motor at the ground and operated in calm perhaps indoors; 
the motor (perhaps my muscles) operates to pull the looped line at a groundstation
one way and then after some time pull the loop the other way in order to sustain
the masses of the upper part of the loop and the sub-kite at a fairly constant altitude. 
The motor's ratings to fit the specific loop and sub-kite flight needs might be 
designed by knowing well the question of topic. The motor would help to form
an apparent wind for reacting with the tether and wing in order to sustain each kg
of the lofted system. 

~ JoeF
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14544 From: dougselsam Date: 9/19/2014
Subject: Re: Can Dave Lang answer Joe's Question
If the question is "How little power can a 1 kg kite use to remain aloft?", the answer is "How big can you make that 1 kg kite?"  Proof?: "Lightest wind to keep it aloft?"  Meanwhile, I don't get the impression Dave Lang has any answers for you. (Would love to hear an actual answer from him)  A good rule of thumb for engineers in doubt: "better to remain silent and thought a fool, than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt."  To me, this question has illustrated the handicapped nature of the mental acuity on this list - any single actual question is completely baffling, and nobody has an answer or can even grasp the pertinent facts - wow, how disappointing.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14545 From: brooksdesign Date: 9/19/2014
Subject: Re: Can Dave Lang answer Joe's Question
I keep clicking on the "unsubscribe" tab below but can't seem to get it to stop this flooding of my email feed. Please make it stop!
-brooks
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14546 From: dougselsam Date: 9/19/2014
Subject: Re: AWES train patent
One more, of 100 easy ways to do AWE.  By the way, several versions of SuperTurbine(R) meet the requirements of many claims of this patent - not unusual.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14547 From: dougselsam Date: 9/19/2014
Subject: Re: Can Dave Lang answer Joe's Question
"Joe, Please state here for the record your question Doug is referencing. Restate it " *** Yeah restate it verbatim.  Dave S., just look it up. (facts)  Let's deal with the original question first, not some new, pretend, substitute question, modified to save face, after 2 weeks of me pointing out all the holes.  If you're going to change the subject, just admit it, and start a new thread.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14548 From: snapscan_snapscan Date: 9/19/2014
Subject: A method to prevent torque induced contraction of Multi-Tether-Helic

A method to prevent torque induced contraction of Multi-Tether-Helices by adding a center line/tubes or travel stoppers to counteract the axial component of the torque-tether forces.

When using multiple tethers spaced by struts to transmit torque (e.g. "rope ladders") a component of the tether force acts in axial direction and leads to contraction of the helix. To counteract this force the rotor would have to create the right balance of lift and torque at any given moment - which is hard to achieve.

By adding a center line which is connected to an independent source of lift the contraction force can be counteracted and the lift can be generated by a cheaper source of lift than the rotor itself.  This can be achieved either by connecting the struts to the center line with travel stoppers or by adding tubes or struts on the center line.

CC4.0 NC BY SA

Since Rod's videos show more than a thousand words and since his Daisy is the perfect rotor to test the method he will be providing a video visualizing the method and he will start to test it's feasibility.

Please let me know what you think and if any of you have seen or maybe even tested this approach!

Thank you

Christof Beaupoil
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14549 From: dave santos Date: 9/19/2014
Subject: Re: Can Dave Lang answer Joe's Question

Doug overlooks that a larger kite in principle harvests proportionally more sky than a small one (we assume no sweep here). Therefore, its able to harvest the required minimum power in a lighter wind, to maintain the same lift as the smaller kite on a higher wind.

There are also scaling laws and other physics forbidding "zero power" operation.

-----------------------
Yo Brooks,

Sorry for the annoyance.

Hope all is well.

See you in TX,

daveS


On Friday, September 19, 2014 7:40 AM, "dougselsam@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14550 From: dave santos Date: 9/19/2014
Subject: Re: AWES train patent
What Doug consistently overlooks is are the actual engineering challenges to creating an AWES the FAA can certify as airworthy. This requirement breaks down into many engineering sub-problems.

In the case of a large kite train, launching and landing is quite tricky, The patent holder mentions flying the train elements independently, which would be a high-complexity control requirement.

Doug can only claim AWE is easy, from lack of technical kiting and AE experience. In fact, this concept would be quite hard to perfect, although its certainly possible, given enough work.


On Friday, September 19, 2014 7:33 AM, "dougselsam@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14551 From: dave santos Date: 9/19/2014
Subject: More Problems with ST Concept
Doug has proposed that the solution to the SuperTurbine operating efficiently across a normal wind velocity gradient is to make the upper rotors larger, so that the lower rotors in poorer wind can keep up with the upper rotors (rather than be dragged along).

This is not a slam-dunk solution. Requiring large upper rotors cuts against the original goals of the design- 

-Upper rotor mass would grow exponentially.

-It would be a relatively less "high-rpm" device, with lower electrical efficiency.

-The drive-shaft would be operating thousands of rpm slower than true high-efficiency fast rotation ( font-size:13.3333339691162px;font-family:HelveticaNeue, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, 'Lucida Grande', sans-serif;font-style:normal;background-color:transparent;">

Engineering Prediction- the ST as proposed is not scalable enough to compete with other designs (including reeling baseline).
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14552 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/19/2014
Subject: Re: Powered Flight (fresh start)

How to design an aircraft - Learn basic aerodynamics - Aerofoil airfoil effect on wings - 1st step

Video
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14553 From: Rod Read Date: 9/19/2014
Subject: Re: A method to prevent torque induced contraction of Multi-Tether-H

Video
Rigidising a spaced ladder with torque and tension: http://youtu.be/lxlbwKTs3Hw
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14554 From: Joe Faust Date: 9/19/2014
Subject: Re: Can Dave Lang answer Joe's Question
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14555 From: dave santos Date: 9/19/2014
Subject: Launching and Landing Kite-Trains (review)
Kite trains (and stacks) are a traditional means to scale up kite capabilities powerfully. This increase complicates launching and landing operations. 

For small kite-unit train designs, the kites are hand-launched one-by-one as they come out of a box. This is not practical at larger scales without a crew or (non-existent) special equipment. Many historical experiments depended on laying the kites out downwind with a crewmember at each kite, and a full-on launch by skilled coordinated effort. Its a spectacular event to see a large train launch in one violent leap upward (across the kite window "power-zone"). The risk of fouled elements like bow-tie twist, and even a prompt death-hook crash, was high. Landing a train can be an even worse challenge. The winch can be over powered in rising wind and only a runaway train ends the session. Controlled landing of train is a rare feat.

The Forum has been the hotbed of modern train ideas like flying trains together or apart, with the kite-units able to fly independently. This is a theoretic High-Complexity AWE solution, by definition NOT "easy".
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14556 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 9/19/2014
Subject: Re: Launching and Landing Kite-Trains (review)


Multiplied unities make problems (land/space) in horizontal dimensions where kite-trains make problems (launching, landing, reliability) in vertical dimensions. None of them can become viable or reliable AWES. As scaling-up by single unity is limited, a whole set as farm or train is needed, working like a single unity.  

PierreB,

FlygenKite

http://flygenkite.com  
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14557 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/19/2014
Subject: AWES Torque Transfer via Tensegrity Tensairity Towers (TTviaTTT)

Following is CC4.0 NC BY SA  

AWES Torque Transfer via Tensegrity Tensairity Towers:


Have tensegrity tower beamed with tensairity (tapered splinted airbeams, perhaps) beams

used for torque transfer from flown kite-system rotors. 

    Merit spectrum for TTviaTTT is yet to be determined or tested. 

~ JoeF


 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14558 From: dave santos Date: 9/19/2014
Subject: Re: Launching and Landing Kite-Trains (review)
Pierre wrote: "None of them (trains) can become viable or reliable AWES"

How can your prove this fatalistic opinion. Its the opposite extreme from Doug's "easy" opinion.

This is an open question, subject to the amazing problem-solving skills of kite experts. I agree with Wubbo about the SpiderMill  (train) being feasible for AWE.

What cannot be disputed is that trains were routinely operated for decades all over the world during the Golden Age of Kites. I have confidence that the challenges can be solved by talented engineers.


On Friday, September 19, 2014 9:53 AM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14559 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/19/2014
Subject: Re: Launching and Landing Kite-Trains (review)
Pierre made a statement that has not yet been proved: 
He stated: "None of them can become viable or reliable AWES"
It will take only a single counterexample at any scale to disprove such statement. 
Anyone with a counterexample?

~ JoeF
 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14560 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/19/2014
Subject: Re: AWES Torque Transfer via Tensegrity Tensairity Towers (TTviaTTT)



---In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, <joefaust333@gmail.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14561 From: dave santos Date: 9/19/2014
Subject: Re: AWES Torque Transfer via Tensegrity Tensairity Towers (TTviaTTT)
All these sorts of ideas can be made to work marginally, but KIS seems to pick the winners.

A rotating structure made of fat bluff-body profiles would have large parasitic drag losses, especially as one goes higher.

Tensairity would be far higher capital-cost as a transmission, compared to the standard of rope driving.

Never mind Gordon, who critiqued torque so brilliantly as a non-scalable dead-end, in his classic book-

Structures: Or Why Things Don't Fall Down
 


On Friday, September 19, 2014 9:53 AM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14562 From: Joe Faust Date: 9/19/2014
Subject: Re: AWES Torque Transfer via Tensegrity Tensairity Towers (TTviaTTT)
Situated torque in an AWES may include torque to drive ground
generators; but let us not limit the space of site of torque.
For example, another site for torque in an AWES could be the shaft of
a large HAWT in an AWES. Further, leave open
structures in AWES Aerotecture that might use torque shafts (rides,
mixers, alternating shaders, viewing turnstiles, ..
~ JoeF
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14563 From: dave santos Date: 9/19/2014
Subject: Re: AWES Torque Transfer via Tensegrity Tensairity Towers (TTviaTTT)
Joe,

I walked up to Snelson's Tensegrity Tower at the Hirshhorn twenty years ago, and easily induced alarming (to Security) chaotic resonances with one hand. It seems to me that this effect would in practice concentrate rogue load peaks on single points in the structure, as a failure mode. Its not as brittle as a composite tube, but not as tough as pure rope.

Rope-driving remains the proven champ at bridging distance with power, if we must choose what to develop in RAD urgency. Tensairity spars are just fancier spars, under the inherent physics of scaling law. Could it be we already know how best  to apply rag and string? I felt sorry for the Solar Bell scaling dead-end, but maybe dispensable effort really must build these spar-dependent options to put them to rest. I am glad to be trained as a soft-kite guy. for going big.

Note that a kite arch is a tensairity-tensegrity cell, using the earth as the spar (the one great AWES spar scalable exception KiteLab identiified),

daveS


On Friday, September 19, 2014 10:23 AM, dave santos <santos137@yahoo.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14564 From: dave santos Date: 9/19/2014
Subject: Re: AWES Torque Transfer via Tensegrity Tensairity Towers (TTviaTTT)
It just worries me that we have to throw away still scarce human AWE effort in theoretic dead-ends, just for those who cannot see them.

Every expert kitemaker is familiar with the scaling limits of sticks in the sky. The admonition to "test everything" is more symbolic than literal. We do intend to test "lead-balloons", for example. In any case, Rod is our Sacrificial Lamb here; and his torque-ladder efforts should reveal the predicted operational and scaling barriers.

If a large AWES HAWT hub-shaft is wanted, the albacore-form balloon is a baseline design to beat. Note that Brooks had a concept for torque transfer via a chain of round balloons. We will miss him here, but he remains in kPower's sphere (as a brilliant self-made engineer (son of a NASA engineer)).


On Friday, September 19, 2014 10:45 AM, dave santos <santos137@yahoo.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14565 From: snapscan_snapscan Date: 9/19/2014
Subject: Re: AWES Torque Transfer via Tensegrity Tensairity Towers (TTviaTTT)
Challenge accepted :) That should be easy - since a balloon creates significantly more drag.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14566 From: dave santos Date: 9/19/2014
Subject: Re: AWES Torque Transfer via Tensegrity Tensairity Towers (TTviaTTT)
Snapscan,

I would never have chosen torque options as a good challenge. The real challenge is any scalable AWES that beats all others.

Extra weight means more drag too. Somewhere else in the system more wing is needed to lift it, so more drag.

The balloon can be buoyant. Frontal form drag is nicely offset by vectoring more flow into blades.

While the balloon has more skin-drag, the torque-ladder has high rotational form drag. These look to mostly cancel.

To win the challenge honestly requires side-by-side testing, and a strong personal down-select to torque dependence.

Nevertheless, good luck with your choices,

daveS


On Friday, September 19, 2014 12:04 PM, "snapscan_snapscan@yahoo.de [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14567 From: snapscan_snapscan Date: 9/19/2014
Subject: Re: AWES Torque Transfer via Tensegrity Tensairity Towers (TTviaTTT)
Joe, since I believe that you were referencing my post - just a side note: The Spaced Ladder does not qualify as Tensegrity since the cables/tethers will not be preloaded/prestressed and the structure itself is not mechanically stable/rigid.

The big plus is that it actually can we wound up like a rope ladder for start/landing.

/cb
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14568 From: dave santos Date: 9/19/2014
Subject: Re: AWES Torque Transfer via Tensegrity Tensairity Towers (TTviaTTT)
The torque ladder is tensegrity if Rod leaves out the side and central spars, and just leaves the the crossbars. The ladder would briefly pre-load (take out slack) at the beginning of a session. Note that Rod is trying to reduce the problems of pure tensegrity that he is discovering by hands-on testing.

The World Record Brisbane Bridge is a grim case of probable scaling-problems. The spans are quite small compared to the largest suspension bridges, and obviously would be a massive burden in AWES flight, for comparable max-loadings.


Tensegrity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 


On Friday, September 19, 2014 12:34 PM, "snapscan_snapscan@yahoo.de [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14569 From: dave santos Date: 9/19/2014
Subject: Long-Span Ropeway Similarity Case
Wire-rope weighs about ten times UHMPE of comparable strength, but working similarity-cases give a 
tangible idea of practical spans for AWES power transmission, for comparison with torque-ladder scaling.

A wire-rope aerial lift spanning 1930m: If not the world's longest ropeway span, its the longest in Japan-

Unpenji Ropeway - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

 

image
 

 
 
 
 

Unpenji Ropeway - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Unpenji Ropeway (雲辺寺ロープウェイ, Unpenji Rōpuwei?) is Japanese aerial lift line in Kan'onji, Kagawa, operated by Shikoku Cable. Opened in 1987, the line clim...

View on en.wikipedia.org
Preview by Yahoo

 

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14570 From: snapscan_snapscan Date: 9/19/2014
Subject: Re: AWES Torque Transfer via Tensegrity Tensairity Towers (TTviaTTT)
I thought you tested that method until your "turbine became a winch and wound the whole AWES down powerfully" :)
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14571 From: dave santos Date: 9/19/2014
Subject: Re: AWES Torque Transfer via Tensegrity Tensairity Towers (TTviaTTT)
cb,

No that incident was not real rope-driving study, only an accidental demonstration of self-winching down. Kite Motor1 (2007) was an extended hands-on study of rope-driving, however, rope-drivng is ancient, and our authoritative source of data is the classic-

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


On Friday, September 19, 2014 2:18 PM, "snapscan_snapscan@yahoo.de [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14572 From: dougselsam Date: 9/19/2014
Subject: To BrooksDesign: U can change your settings
You can change your settings so you never get an e-mail from any message in the group.  I have mine set so I only see messages if I open Yahoo and go to the group.  No e-mails, ever.  Way better than clogging up your e-mail box.  There;s also an option to reduce the frequency of e-mails - a daily summary  e-mail etc.  Joe Faust the moderator could probably tell you more.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14573 From: dave santos Date: 9/19/2014
Subject: Re: Powered Flight (fresh start)
Here's a second-approximation calculation of the minimum realistic power to fly a kilo, based on real-world data.

Gossamer Condor, in rounded numbers, has a gross-weight of 100kg, has an L/D20, and requires about 400W of mechanical power from its pilot.

Therefore 1kg of Condor requires about 4W to be sustained in flight. L/D 20 means a 5% drag loss overall.

Therefore 3.80W per kg is a second-approximation result of the minimum power to sustain a kilo in flight, "ideally" (no airframe drag, only basic kinetic deflection of air downward).

----------------- editorial opinion  -------------------

I strongly disagree with Pierre that such calculations are "useless". I find they generate liberating early knowledge for future design study. For example, the potential to fly human civilization aloft (by reverse-pumping in calm) is looking more reasonable, upon second approximation. We can do more, the more we know.





On Friday, September 19, 2014 9:13 AM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14574 From: dave santos Date: 9/19/2014
Subject: kPower Board Notice
Heads Up

I should have been advised of the dropping of the Perry lease. So I am ready to resign kPower CTO in protest over the loss of our shop space (next to Perry's house). Where are we supposed to work now? Should we move everything to NW? Can you get us into Pickle (a storage room even) right now? Ask Mitch for shop space, as a technical urgency, a basic nuts-and-bolts crisis. Its also still unclear if kPower will recognize art-prototype moral rights (v. knowledge value).  Tell Karen its a fixed condition of continued business together. The oil-sale option (to keep the lease going) was ignored. These are your calls; my offers have stood.

You have made two fine plays, but kPower is still sinking, so its time to jump. I'll hold on a bit longer, awaiting specific news of viability; also soon need final indications for kPower winter plan. we should be marching on Boulder right now, but 2000ft over Corpus for 1 hour would do.

dave

note- it might be cheaper for you to rent a few more years, than to buy a house near peak market. There will be a Austin housing crash again, to buy low with great choices...
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14575 From: dave santos Date: 9/19/2014
Subject: Re: kPower Board Notice
Whoopsie, I meant to email  the previous to kPower Austin Management, but hit the AWES Forum address instead.

This keeps kPower in the lead, worldwide, for transparent business processes :)

Sorry for any undue annoyance.


On Friday, September 19, 2014 4:06 PM, dave santos <santos137@yahoo.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14576 From: dave santos Date: 9/19/2014
Subject: KiteGang flies Mt. Everest, AWE Next
KiteGang is a "non-profit toy-company" seeking to uplift the world's children. Toy AWES are in the pipeline.


http://kitegang.org/Aboutus.aspx


Kitegang on Summit of Everest
 

 

image
 

 
 
 
 

Kitegang on Summit of Everest

View on www.flickr.com
Preview by Yahoo

 



A background link-

Kitegang -Dream by Kite
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14577 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/19/2014
Subject: Re: AWES Torque Transfer via Tensegrity Tensairity Towers (TTviaTTT)
CB, 
THANK YOU for terrific twisted DNA paper! 
 JoeF
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14578 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/19/2014
Subject: Taller Towers for Better Wind. $2 million by DOE for R&D

Taller Towers for Better Wind

By Randy LeonardPosted at 3:11 p.m. on Sept. 18, 2014===========================================I wonder if the studies will consider kite towers ... JoeF
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14579 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/19/2014
Subject: Goodyear blimps
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14580 From: dave santos Date: 9/19/2014
Subject: Who is an AWE Engineer?
Correcting gross misconceptions about who is an Engineer on the AWES Forum. Let the friendly standard be to recognize anyone working in AWE who meets the general criteria cited in dictionaries and the EPCD definition cited in Wikipedia-

Engineering - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

 

image
 

 
 
 
 

Engineering - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Engineering (from Latin ingenium, meaning "cleverness" and ingeniare, meaning "to contrive, devise") is the application of scientific, economic, social, and practic...

View on en.wikipedia.org
Preview by Yahoo

 

"The American Engineers' Council for Professional Development (ECPD, the predecessor of ABET)[1]has defined "engineering" as:
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14581 From: benhaiemp Date: 9/20/2014
Subject: Progress in AWES R&D (utility-scale)

A positive effect of progress in AWES is the progressive abandon of most tested-analysed systems by technological and economic criteria, being lacking reliability, possibilites of automated take-off and road marking, and using too much land/space.

Indeed  a narrower window of R&D allows a deeper analysis of studied system replacing the "all is possible in AWE"(since nothing or almost exists)  or "10 or 100 easy ways to make AWES".

From my own searches http://pagesperso-orange.fr/OrthoKiteBunch the idea of maximization can be kept, but the system needs no more testing (lack of reliability due to closeness of tethers and wings...). The "crosswind" http://flygenkite.com was not studied towards utility (the stationary (ses recent posts) http://flygenkite.com  being studied and tested). Some ideas like both airborned and sea-ground/borned in http://wheelwind.com can be kept, but not the whole system due at least to rim driven and too big rotor.

So some ideas from abandonned systems can be kept.  

In the same way (I take again a recent post) multiplied unities make problems (land/space) in horizontal dimensions where kite-trains make problems (launching, landing, reliability) in vertical dimensions. Adding torque systems (Serpentine (tm) due to too long shaft returning the difficult management of different winds,not way for take-off , Daisy, due to too large axis (drag, weight) ,low rpm, not way for take-off), Laddermill (unfeasible) with variant Spidermill ("crosswind" component adding unfeasibility to unfeasibility) ,carousels (heavy equipments, expensive and hazards  during management of kites)... None of them can become viable or reliable utility-scale AWES (even though some reel-in/out and crosswind flygen work better). Of course experiments and scientific work (aeroelasticity, deformation, tools for automation...) from universities remain useful and can be used for better systems.

So what is the window of R&D of possible AWES methods?

As scaling-up by unity is limited, a whole set as farm or train is needed, working like a single unity.Flygen configuration allows both management of take-off and road marking, and an equipment of production close to existing wind turbines. Stationary configuration allows more reliability and more maximization of land/space used. A single huge surface like Arch allows high density towards maximization of land/space used, and without hazards of multiple tethers or wings acting as fight kites...

 

PierreB 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14582 From: stephane rousson Date: 9/20/2014
Subject: Cagnotte Voilier des airs / Vol en danger d'absurdité administrativ
Attachments :
    Bonjour à tous (  You can translate with google  ) 

    Suite à une nouvelle interdiction de décoller  de la part de l’aéroport de Nice, 

    Il me reste la possibilité d’ effectuer le vol en décollant depuis une barge au large afin de respecter les directives  aéronautiques absurdes imposée par le contrôle de Nice .

    Aussi, je sollicite votre soutien actif, pour tout ceux qui peuvent nous aider à financer la location de la barge et les moyens logistiques nécessaire pour effectuer le vol dans des conditions pseudo confortable mais légale.

    J’ ai besoin de 7000 euros avant le 1 octobre , Je viens de réunir 1700 euros.

    Merci de nous faire parvenir vos promesses de dons, 

    J engagerai la dépense uniquement si la météo sera au rdv afin de réussir le vol d’essai dont mon laissez passer de vol se termine le 22 oct.

    J espere de tout mon coeur y arriver, si je ne réussi pas à pouvoir voler avant le 22 oct, je donnerai tout le matériel aux pilotes étrangers qui solliciteront de l'interet pour ce projet et faire en sorte que cette innovation soit portée par un pays qui soutienne l' innovation et non la bêtise.

    Je me tiens à la disposition des journalistes pour tout ceux qui veulent nous soutenir.

    Merci à vous tous.

    Ci joint le dossier de presse :


    --
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14583 From: dougselsam Date: 9/20/2014
    Subject: Re: Who is an AWE Engineer? (The lies of Dave S.)
    "Let the friendly standard be to recognize anyone working in AWE" *** There you go again, trying to redefine words to rationalize your previous lies.  Dave S., you just took my advice (again) (without giving me credit, as I subtly guide your thoughts) and used an example of dividing the power required to keep a specific airplane aloft by its weight to determine a practical "power to keep 1 kg aloft" number. 

    The fact that you have been going on miscalculating for a month, with units not even matching, below a high-school level, coming up with gibberish such as "It takes 10 Watts to remain aloft - final answer" while contradicting that erronous statement today with an actual example of 5 Watts, shows you are NOT an engineer. 

    What it is for you to keep up this desperate parade of lies is to continually try and mislabel your extreme ignorance as the pinnacle of wisdom.  Ignorance is not wisdom, and the inability to even understand units to know whether you have even FOUND an answer is NOT what engineers do.  Engineers do not sit and guess at formulas where the units do not match for a month on end.  Engineers do not ask illogical questions that have no answer.  Engineers have been taught how to make units match and how to logically find the answers to questions that can be answered on paper, and they can understand which answers cannot be found on paper, or which questions don't have a particular answer without more input parameters.

    To me it is sad to see a guy who wants to reply to any facts with an argument, citing the typos of others as a substitute for being able to refute simple facts.  You are not an engineer, as you have so amply demonstrated in your month-long junior-high-school-level flailing, combined with elementary-school level of "debate", dropping to the extreme juvenile level of repeatedly flagging typos as though they are actual significant errors of reasoning that you are refuting, in your month-long discussion of your own confusion over what is a simple problem that could appear in a freshman engineering quiz.

    You can't be confused by such a simple question for a month, throwing out wrong answers as fact, while calling yourself "an engineer".  I'm not sure why you feel you have to keep lying over and over about everything.  Do you think anyone is impressed that you suddenly want to call yourself "an engineer"?

    Let's review THE REASON for your latest LIE that you are now, suddenly, "an engineer".
    1) You challenged ME to find ONE ENGINEER who agreed with my casual noting that power to keep a mass aloft varied inversely with wing area over unit mass, trending toward zero as wing area trended toward infinity.
    2) Instead of grasping the simple answer, you seized on my use of the terms "zero" and "infinity" claiming such numbers were impossible.
    (REAL ENGINEERS use terms like 'trending toward zero" or "approaching infinity" as shorthand ways to illustrate a point - it is taken as understood that these numbers are not actually reached, but used for the sake of illustrating trends and identifyong asymptotic tendencies;
    3) I challenged you BACK (Take your OWN challenge Dave S.) to find ONE ENGINEER who DISAGREED with me.
    4) Knowing you would never FIND an actual ENGINEER who would refute my simple facts, YOU suddenly BECAME an INSTANT ENGINEER, as though by FABRICATING A NEW "Engineer"  IDENTITY FOR YOURSELF that HAD NOT EXISTED A FEW DAYS BEFORE, when you were ASKING FOR AN ENGINEER for an answer, that anyone on this list would not notice your nonexistent "Engineering degree" had materialized within the last 2 days in response to my challenge to find a SINGLE ENGINEER who disagreed with me.

    You are wrong wrong wrong in everything you say, you are MAKING UP this new "ENGINEER" thing out of DESPERATION of not being able to FIND an ACTUAL engineer to refute my simple statements of fact, and, as usual, you are just trying to LIE and LIE and LIE all day, every day, so that maybe SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE who is too stupid to see how stupid YOU are, might POSSIBLY believe you have, in the last 3 days, suddenly become "an engineer".

    My response is ":No you HAVE NOT refuted my challenge to FIND A SINGLE ENGINEER who disagrees with me, but instead, with such a BLATANT LIE, admitted defeat.

    Hint:  An "engineer" usually has "an engineering degree".  He can usually cite previous employment AS an engineer, with that title.  He doesn't publicize completely lame-ass calculations and then try to substitute a link to a freakin; Wikipedia article as though providing such a link is "proof he is an engineer".

    Nope, you can't just "redefine" the term "engineer" to make yourself into one, to show that you can find an engineer to refute my statement.  In fact, the very fact that you are TRYING to refute what is so simple and obvious is PROOF that you are NOT an engineer.

    Your level of reasoning is so childlike I find it amazing anyone could make such a fool of themself day after day with lie after lie.  You are truly amazing.  And not in a good way.  Have fun posting lies every day.  Your motivations to lie are very transparent and I would be surprised if you are fooling anyone.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14584 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/20/2014
    Subject: Re: Who is an AWE Engineer? (The lies of Dave S.)

    Doug, you shunted DaveS' full phrase and left off an essential qualification that he made in his proposed definition; you left off "who meets the general criteria cited in dictionaries and the EPCD definition cited in Wikipedia-"
          You are invited to reach simply to correct typos or calculation errors or conceptual errors using non-personal-attack tone and jabs. 
          Anyone may set up a definition on anything; users of this or that definition are free to do such at their need or pleasure. Hopefully participants will aim to build mutual understanding on tech matters by showing assumptions, definitions, and errata as noticed. 
          Tomorrow I turn "72" and I am thankful that I keep advancing in my own engineering knowledge and skills. During the early years of my education I took some basic engineering courses in the USC School of Engineering. A couple of things stuck about what makes a person an engineer in the terms of my instructors. One was the attitude to change the world for the benefit of others. Another was honesty in communications with a willingness to face the challenges of errors during the course of effort, as errors are ever part of the real world. Positive communication with others outside and inside an engineering effort was put forward as keystone. I do not recall the senior engineer professors ever promoting the word "lie" when honest errors are made.  Of course, it is possible that a person could deliberately falsify data to reach for unmerited perceived gains; such fact could lead societies of engineers to reject a fellow; and the courts may have their say when such occurs. 
           You might have your own personal definition of engineer; if so, promote such as you wish. Yours might screen out many people that are engineers by way of a definition held by others. No problem. Engineer by authority of DougS will win whatever it might win. 
           DaveS is an engineer in my world; You are an engineer in my world.  May we change the world to the better by applying our knowledge and skills. 

    ---In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, <dougselsam@yahoo.com
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14585 From: dave santos Date: 9/20/2014
    Subject: Re: Progress in AWES R&D (utility-scale)
    Pierre,

    A review of closely related nomenclature we have used in past years-

    -GigaWatt scale ( font-style:normal;background-color:transparent;">-dense-arrays (close-packing crosswind by cross-linking)
    -single control thread (one certified pilot process (in our case over many WECS in parallel)

    There is still an open question to you over what Wattage you estimate in the FAA-driven kitefarm window (600M high x 1200M wide reference-unit), and the % efficiency you estimate possible by kite methods to harvest that window,

    daveS


    On Saturday, September 20, 2014 12:46 AM, "pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14586 From: dave santos Date: 9/20/2014
    Subject: Re: Who is an AWE Engineer? (The lies of Dave S.)
    Thanks Joe,

    Another correction is that nobody is "redefining" what it means to be an AWE engineer, we are in fact defining it for the first time.

    AWE engineering really is a "newborn baby" for us to set new standards. Let each one us be judged by our efforts, which are hardly even begun.


    On Saturday, September 20, 2014 9:35 AM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14587 From: Joe Faust Date: 9/20/2014
    Subject: Re: Progress in AWES R&D (utility-scale)
    Perspective?  Differences!  
         From my viewing station to date: 
    1. There has been some serious early down selects followed by considerable spending of money: SkySails, KiteGen, Makani. Their investments are not going into branches of AWE other than into their chosen method.  The entire space outside their selected method may hold methods that by far might win over their selected method. The downselecting is no proof that their selected is robust or not compared to the wide space of methods not selected. Competition has hardly begun. Firm proofs are not available for discerning among methods.  The R&D space is an infant as regards utility-scale AWES. 
    ==
    2. An individual might be abandoning some AWES methods for his or her research and investment. Abandoning a branch of AWES by an individual is not in itself any proof that a winner is not residing in the abandoned methods.  
    ==
    3. Early bowing to a technical challenge by an individual simply leaves the game open to others to solve the challenge. A particular developer might be overwhelmed with a particular challenge and just quit exploring possible solutions; such quitting again just leaves the door open for others to resolve the matter. Quitting before the finish line is reached assures not finishing; staying in the solving mode keeps one open to solutions.  
    ==
    4. Mitigating the challenge of closeness of wings and tethers is a realm that is in its infancy. Abandoning the challenge assures non-mitigation. Though one researcher may choose to avoid further study of the challenge, others might take pleasure in continuing to face the challenge. 
    ==
    5. Narrowing one's R&D to a refined method allows analysis for such method to deepen, as you noted.  Those who narrow their study will likely provide others with results that may enhance the study of other remote methods. So, may there be teams with narrow focus!  Their effort will bless the AWE universe, even if a method outside their refined view will win in some market shared by both. 
    ==
    6. Someone deeming something "unfeasible" without proof may simply trigger a clever person into making such position untenable.  Proving something is often a considerable challenge.  Guessing, hunches, gut feels, etc. are important tools, but do not form proofs. Opinions by seasoned experts are not proofs, even if deep inside the expert there might be the ingredients of a proof.  But perhaps a proof of something held strongly is impossible; "held strongly" is not a proof. 
    ==
    7. Competition in SportAWE is hardly birthed; as such develops we may see ways to sharpen UtilityAWE. 


    ~ JoeF


    On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 12:46 AM, pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy] <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14588 From: dave santos Date: 9/20/2014
    Subject: Engineering Credentials?
    Sorry to the Forum for "feeding the troll" here:

    Doug,

    Allow me to tediously summarize my merit-basis as a working engineer, to correct your spiteful misrepresentations in that regard-


    - I have in fact worked professionally many times, over four decades, as an engineer. Clients include the NSF, DOE, science centers, schools, high-tech firms, etc..

    - KiteShip recuited me from Austin to work on ship kite control engineering (both principals flew in to woo me to the Bay Area). They gave me a fantastic training in large power kite technology, including introductions to Peter Lynn, Joe Hadzicki, and many other top kite engineers (incl. Makani's golden boys).

    - I led many architectural-engineering projects in Austin, winning several design competitions for landmark projects; winning many civic awards. My steel pavilion in the central park was the first Austin public structure engineered in CAD (working with a PE). 

    - I did not need formal engineering certification. Typically my public work was reviewed and sealed by my PE friends without change. I have monumental structural work all over the Austin park system approved this way.

    - My years of past work with the UTexas AE dept (incl. managing shop space and project work) paved the way for me to be invited to present the first AWE Seminar, in the dept lecture hall (on just two-day notice, in 2009, with strong attendance). 

    -I grew up as a shop-rat in technical aviation, and worked hands-on in many technologies as a youth. I have mastered metal, masonry, electronics, etc.., but winged objects are my special talent (including AWE toys flown in public all the way back in the 80's).

    -My extensive robotics work was personally honored by NASA and the Smithsonian in the '90s. 

    - This work was featured many places, like on the early Discovery and Learning Channels (Brooks* was a close collaborator, and we co-founded the famous Robot Group as an engineering collective). 

    -Ralph Mosher ("father of modern robotics") was a mentor, Forrest Mims III is an active mentor. DaveL and ALexB are active mentors. DaveC is key mentor in AWE. There are to many to list here.

    -I am a resident expert and volunteer curator in kite tech with the World Kite Museum.

    - I am a staff-engineer for kPower, as CTO, with a professional compensation package.

    -Wings like Mothra1, or working AWES like the KiteMotor series, do not just appear without engineering. I have made many creative contributions to AWE engineering over the years.

    -There is a growing list of current and pending AWES engineering work with academia.


    There is a lot more to add, but this is enough to well rebut your sour opinion. You also wrongly seize on trivial work errors that I myself had corrected (or DaveL or JoeF corrected) and call them "lies". I am unaware that you ever caught any error of mine by yourself (except for my misspelling Marshall Amp, and removing the second L from kPower's AWEfest amps fixed that). On the other hand, I correct your errors all the time. I consider you an engineer nevertheless, based on your wind products, even if you seem lost in AWE.

    It is best presumed everyone on the AWES Forum is an engineer (or aspiring engineer), under the criteria of an "expert-level" of knowledge discourse. A shabby distractive witchhunt does not cover for a lack of engineering progress in your own realm.

    daveS


    * I invited Brooks (an engineering genius) into AWE R&D and the AWES Forum, and we will continue off-Forum. Who have you ever brought into AWE by a soured spirit?
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14589 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/20/2014
    Subject: Wind power device with dynamic sail, streamlined cable or enhanced g

    Leonid Goldstein application for patent:

    Patent US20140232114 - Wind power device with dynamic sail, streamlined cable or enhanced ground mechanism