Messages in AirborneWindEnergy group.                           AWES14998to15047 Page 195 of 440.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14998 From: Joe Faust Date: 10/2/2014
Subject: Re: Lta windpower

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14999 From: Joe Faust Date: 10/2/2014
Subject: Re: Lta windpower

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15000 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 10/2/2014
Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15001 From: benhaiemp Date: 10/3/2014
Subject: Stationary AWES

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15002 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/3/2014
Subject: CC 4.x BY NC SA :: Trained Ringed Hub-less HAWT

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15003 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/3/2014
Subject: Re: CC 4.x BY NC SA :: Trained Ringed Hub-less HAWT

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15004 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/3/2014
Subject: Re: Stationary AWES

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15005 From: dougselsam Date: 10/3/2014
Subject: Re: Women in AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15006 From: dougselsam Date: 10/3/2014
Subject: Re: CC 4.x BY NC SA :: Trained Ringed Hub-less HAWT

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15007 From: dougselsam Date: 10/3/2014
Subject: Re: Stationary AWES

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15008 From: dougselsam Date: 10/3/2014
Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15009 From: dougselsam Date: 10/3/2014
Subject: Re: From beer can in the 1980s

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15010 From: Joe Faust Date: 10/3/2014
Subject: CC 4.x BY NC SA :: Groundgen Kite Train of Rectangular-framed Paired

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15011 From: dougselsam Date: 10/3/2014
Subject: 10 easy ways to do AWE: understatement of the year

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15012 From: dougselsam Date: 10/3/2014
Subject: Re: Rotating Parachute Systems (RPS)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15013 From: Joe Faust Date: 10/3/2014
Subject: Re: Women in AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15014 From: dougselsam Date: 10/3/2014
Subject: Re: WECs under arch

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15015 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/3/2014
Subject: Re: CC 4.x BY NC SA :: Trained Ringed Hub-less HAWT

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15016 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 10/3/2014
Subject: Re: 10 easy ways to do AWE: understatement of the year

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15017 From: Joe Faust Date: 10/3/2014
Subject: Re: CC 4.x BY NC SA :: Trained Ringed Hub-less HAWT

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15018 From: dave santos Date: 10/3/2014
Subject: Re: AWES Photo of the Week

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15019 From: dougselsam Date: 10/3/2014
Subject: SuperTwin(TM) in Mojave, CA

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15020 From: dougselsam Date: 10/3/2014
Subject: Re: Women in AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15021 From: dougselsam Date: 10/3/2014
Subject: Re: AWES Photo of the Week

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15022 From: dave santos Date: 10/3/2014
Subject: Re: 10 easy ways to do AWE: understatement of the year

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15023 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 10/3/2014
Subject: Re: AWES Photo of the Week

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15024 From: dave santos Date: 10/3/2014
Subject: Re: wholesale wind energy price now 2.5 cents

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15025 From: benhaiemp Date: 10/3/2014
Subject: Re: WECs under arch

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15026 From: Joe Faust Date: 10/3/2014
Subject: Re: Women in AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15027 From: Joe Faust Date: 10/3/2014
Subject: Re: WECs under arch

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15028 From: dave santos Date: 10/3/2014
Subject: Re: CC 4.x BY NC SA :: Groundgen Kite Train of Rectangular-framed Pa

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15029 From: dave santos Date: 10/3/2014
Subject: Re: Rotating Parachute Systems (RPS)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15030 From: dave santos Date: 10/3/2014
Subject: Re: From beer can in the 1980s

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15031 From: dave santos Date: 10/3/2014
Subject: Re: AWES Photo of the Week

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15032 From: dave santos Date: 10/3/2014
Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15033 From: dave santos Date: 10/3/2014
Subject: What is easy and what is hard in AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15034 From: dave santos Date: 10/3/2014
Subject: Re: SuperTwin(TM) in Mojave, CA [1 Attachment]

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15035 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 10/3/2014
Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15036 From: Joe Faust Date: 10/3/2014
Subject: Re: CC 4.x BY NC SA :: Groundgen Kite Train of Rectangular-framed Pa

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15037 From: dave santos Date: 10/3/2014
Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15038 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 10/3/2014
Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15039 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 10/3/2014
Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15040 From: dave santos Date: 10/3/2014
Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15041 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 10/3/2014
Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15042 From: dave santos Date: 10/3/2014
Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15043 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 10/3/2014
Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15044 From: dave santos Date: 10/3/2014
Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15045 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/3/2014
Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15046 From: Rod Read Date: 10/3/2014
Subject: Re: Stationary AWES

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15047 From: dave santos Date: 10/3/2014
Subject: Re: CC 4.x BY NC SA :: Groundgen Kite Train of Rectangular-framed Pa



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14998 From: Joe Faust Date: 10/2/2014
Subject: Re: Lta windpower
Intended linked patent by Paul F. Pugh
https://www.google.com/patents/US4486669
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14999 From: Joe Faust Date: 10/2/2014
Subject: Re: Lta windpower
​Paul F. Pugh seems to have been busy with cables that may play in AWES. 
SeeHere​
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15000 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 10/2/2014
Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ
Attachments :
    • Knowing the efficiency of autogyro-helico like driving a flygen for wind production (return of experience of SWP), alone, then embedded
    • In kite surface; ratio of kite area/rotors area; ways for grouping
    • Studying of wind flow for different distributions
    • Balancing (gravity, thrust) for flight, for take-off
    • Qualities of flight
    • Materials
    • The size and features (blades for wind production, lift, take-off) of rotors as units 
    • Gathering some scientific literature like joined documents about multi rotor or autogyro, and about (existing ?)  embedded rotors 
    • See possible advantages over WECS on leading edge (scaling law making more area to implement rotors, take-off),
    • See possible inconveniences under WECS on leading edge
    • Test, test, test
    • ...

     

    PierreB

    http://flygenkite.com ( rotor in kite for stationary system, rotor between lines for "crosswind")

     




     

     

    		   @@attachment@@
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15001 From: benhaiemp Date: 10/3/2014
    Subject: Stationary AWES

    "Crosswind" (reel or flygen) kites are well covered by universities and companies. There are limits in (huge) land and space used/power due to moving tether, and also in available altitude due to tether drag. Now AWES can obtain viability only by harnessing a thick layer of winds (200 m to 3,000 m and more) , inherent limits of "crosswind" kites blocking them.

    And safety concerns (visibility, reliability of flight) favor stationary AWES (motionless tether) as well as ratio power/ land and space used concerns.

    PierreB

    http://flygenkite.com

    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15002 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/3/2014
    Subject: CC 4.x BY NC SA :: Trained Ringed Hub-less HAWT

    CC 4.x BY NC SA
    Pilot-kite-lifted kite train of segment units of flygen ring generators driven by non-hub HAWT lift-based blades with AoA control by third line; two lateral lines hold dominate station-keeping of the unit ringed HAWT. Blades in each unit ring may be soft or hardened depending on purpose and environment in media of choice: air, water, or other fluid.  The blade plane is precisely normal to the segment local ambient wind. Some advanced embodiments may feature segment attitude control for keeping the blade operating disk exactly normal to the segment local ambient wind. Train unit count of the ring segments may be one or more up to very high counts. The global train may have occasional dedicated lifters; or at choice the AoA of the unit segment ringed HAWT may be controlled to have local non-normal disk setting to give lift at some loss of power take off (PTO). Think of centipede kite train with top-high lifter set where each segment of the centipede train of wings is a ringed flygen generator with hub-less blade part. Scale primarily by increasing lifter assembly and increasing count of working segments. Global system sets downwind as the wind changes direction. Electricity comes down the lateral holding tethers. 

    CC 4.x BY NC SA   Joe Faust into kPower  AWES IP Pool. 
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15003 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/3/2014
    Subject: Re: CC 4.x BY NC SA :: Trained Ringed Hub-less HAWT
    This topic-thread system fulfills the "stationary" call that Pierre B. just posted. 
    Side-by-side and field downwind depth of multiple trains of the system of this topic may form kite farm in various ways. 
    CC 4.x BY NC SA     Joe Faust into kPower IP Pool.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15004 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/3/2014
    Subject: Re: Stationary AWES
    Note that the AWES family of 
    post fulfills Pierre's "stationary" insistence; however, the AWES of message 15002 has true crosswinding blade works without having to march with global crosswinding. Hence, farming and airspace filling may mine maximally the airspace and landspace even while mining the vertical thickness of the airspace cylinder.
    ~ JoeF

     
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15005 From: dougselsam Date: 10/3/2014
    Subject: Re: Women in AWE
    They had a "women in wind" award a few years back for a couple of years.  Once both women had won the award, they didn't know what to do...  :)
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15006 From: dougselsam Date: 10/3/2014
    Subject: Re: CC 4.x BY NC SA :: Trained Ringed Hub-less HAWT
    SuperTurbine(R)
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15007 From: dougselsam Date: 10/3/2014
    Subject: Re: Stationary AWES
    ""Crosswind" (reel or flygen) kites are well covered by universities and companies."  *** If they have to SAY "crosswind", it shows they are lost. 
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15008 From: dougselsam Date: 10/3/2014
    Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ
    U just missed our local gyrocopter fly-in!  KBFFI

     
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15009 From: dougselsam Date: 10/3/2014
    Subject: Re: From beer can in the 1980s
    beercan rotors are old news Joe
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15010 From: Joe Faust Date: 10/3/2014
    Subject: CC 4.x BY NC SA :: Groundgen Kite Train of Rectangular-framed Paired
    CC 4.x BY NC SA     Groundgen Kite Train of Rectangular-framed Paired Airfoil Oscillators
    Globally stationary unit AWES is a kite train with firm upper leading pilot lifter set. The segment assembly consists of two wings traverse to the ambient wind; the two wings are in a rectangular frame; the windward side of the rectangle is one of the two wings of a segment; the downwind side of the rectangle holds the second wing. The two sides of the rectangle frame have an midpoint; at those midpoints is a connection with a tether of the global train; there are two main global tethers each of which are parallel approximately when choosing to have all segments of the global train be of same wing span (else tapered wing spans may allow non-parallel main tethers). The segment rectangle holding the two wings are activated by interaction with the wind and controls to into a rocking oscillation where one wing is driving down and its integrated paired wing of the frame is driving upwards; then the direction reverses. The seesawing rocking oscillation PTO is achieved with lines that drive a groundgen. The segments of the global train join their rocking oscillation PTO lines to increase the net tensions in the line that drives the ground-stationed generator.   Side-by-side integrated global trains may be had to give wide lateral fencing where holding tethers are multiplied from left to right like fence posting. Airspace saturation by such wide and tall fencing of oscillating units of the global train can occur; and downwind matric filling by second and further copies of such fencing may saturate the airspace downwind as well as laterally and vertically. Pitching of the two wings of each local train segment may be passively triggered or actively triggered. Note how the main two or more tethers station-keep unit train segment rectangles and provide the steady fulcrum rocking points for each rectangle frame of paired wings. Mutiple lateralized fencing mode will help steady against wobble of the rectangle frames. 


        Alternatively, the general theme above may be style as a flygen with PTO at the rocking fulcrum with electric generators placed at that rocking point; electricity would be sent to grid or load via the main tethers of the global train.  However, the mass penalty of flygen would reserve this option for special niche application. 

    CC 4.x BY NC SA by Joe Faust into kPower AWES IP Pool
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15011 From: dougselsam Date: 10/3/2014
    Subject: 10 easy ways to do AWE: understatement of the year
    OK I guess Dave S. is speechless now that I listed 10 easy ways in 10 seconds He said I couldn't list 10.  His other twisted accusations are also 100% wrong.
    I hate to waste the time replying to him, but someone has to stand up for the truth here.  10 ways is nothing - you could list 50 or 100 promising approaches.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15012 From: dougselsam Date: 10/3/2014
    Subject: Re: Rotating Parachute Systems (RPS)
    "a stack of those together and with lift at the top harness rotational energy output at the bottom"  It's called a SuperTurbine(R) and yes you can take rotational power from the bottom even though DaveS declares (his opinion as a fact) that it is impossible, due to "scaling".  DaveS I think your brain suffers from scaling - and calcification!
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15013 From: Joe Faust Date: 10/3/2014
    Subject: Re: Women in AWE
    ​​Upper wind power might dance a different tune than conventionals. Perhaps in AWE we might honor women:
    1. Wind resource specialists who have an eye for RAD.
    2. Communicators who advance RAD.
    3. Partners who support RAD by allowing time and attention by those who are not women.
    4. The women who are willing to test ride and test walk and test climb AWE aerotecture.
    5. Those women teachers who studiously recognize AWE in their course presentations. 
    6. Those women who pay for the RAD similarly to Mrs. Bell
    http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--_yJbHl2c--/18kxghzdentkxjpg.jpg
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15014 From: dougselsam Date: 10/3/2014
    Subject: Re: WECs under arch
    "The art of hanging WECs under arches was touched by Fry and Hise"
    Yeah this stuff was all old news back in the 1980's.  "Newborn baby"...
    Just because the current crop of idiots just "discovered" AWE, and are "on the internet" does not make the art "a newborn baby".  What's new is the number of idiots trying dumber and dumber methods.  One more aspect of the general dumbing-down of civilization.  Global warming anyone?  :)
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15015 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/3/2014
    Subject: Re: CC 4.x BY NC SA :: Trained Ringed Hub-less HAWT
    No, not ST. Notice that there is not the driveshaft to ground. Notice the ring generator and hub-less blading. Trains with multiple WECS are far prior to ST.  Notice the flygen aspect; not ST. 
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15016 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 10/3/2014
    Subject: Re: 10 easy ways to do AWE: understatement of the year

    "His other twisted accusations are also 100% wrong.":so obvious that answering is not needed.
    Yes there are 10 or more ways, all being stationary rotored systems. But there are also 1,000 or more ways for unworkable AWES: let us avoid them to concentrate on the real possibilities.

    PierreB
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15017 From: Joe Faust Date: 10/3/2014
    Subject: Re: CC 4.x BY NC SA :: Trained Ringed Hub-less HAWT
    Further: Also the full normal working blade plane  is not a feature of the slanted ST.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15018 From: dave santos Date: 10/3/2014
    Subject: Re: AWES Photo of the Week
    Doug,

    Yes, your Netiqutte continues as the worst in AWE, but Thanks anyway for your list, for a public record of your overall AWE thinking. There are interesting questions raised, like what happened to all the secret AWE solutions you claimed to have (no surprises made your list). Also, some options, like the LadderMill, are not "easy" in any practical sense. If say, FAA compliance, was "easy" to you, you should lead in such areas that are hard to everyone else.

    Your attributions are characteristically misleading; for example, you place your own name in your list as the most prominent in AWE, as now advocating over half of all ideas (when not too long ago, your rejected most AWE ideas, even fabric wings). You put your name here to ideas clearly invented by others, without caring to credit the more deserving names. This is not fair or accurate. In my case, I consistently advocate avoiding LTA dependence, based on my extensive LTA background, but you classify me mistakenly as an LTA adovcate only, in the weird listing. How do you get such simple things backwards? What is a "buoyant rotor" design? Did you mean buoyant ducts? "Damiano" means what?

    Have you ever explained how you reconcile scaling-law with the ST? You still seem to think (2014) driveshafts will scale high and powerful, with no power-parasitic flight demand. The mass of a large ST "tends to infinity", stated in your style of explaining engineering ideas. Also, not all roads lead to the ST, even in your listings, so that claim was hype, even by your reckoning.

    You overlooked many hot ideas that seem to beat anything you got (like DS-based AWE). Go ahead and list "50 more ways" in five minutes, as offered, although I doubt you really can, without many sloppy errors like your initial list. Good luck trying to crown your still unmatched personal claims in AWE with final success,

    daveS


    On Thursday, October 2, 2014 8:57 PM, "dougselsam@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15019 From: dougselsam Date: 10/3/2014
    Subject: SuperTwin(TM) in Mojave, CA
    Attachments :
      This is a photo of a SuperTwin(TM) installed this week in Mojave, CA, a couple miles from Mojave Airport, home of Spaceship-One


      		   @@attachment@@
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15020 From: dougselsam Date: 10/3/2014
      Subject: Re: Women in AWE
      As usual, the world has passed you by Joe.  The "women in wind" awards already went to women in bureaucratic positions.  Did you assume they were designing, building, or installing?  Not.  My girlfriend is in a couple Discovery Channel videos, helping me with SuperTurbine(R) AWE.  I gave her an award.  :)  Rather than worrying about your next version of the misplaced but appropriately-named "Germy awards", how 'bout worrying about getting an economically-viable AWE solution running?  The most basic, known fact, in wind energy: there is more wind the higher you go.
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15021 From: dougselsam Date: 10/3/2014
      Subject: Re: AWES Photo of the Week
      Doug,

      "Yes, your Netiqutte continues as the worst in AWE,...Your attributions are characteristically misleading" *** F U DaveS, I gave you 10 easy ways, and could list 100 more.  All your objections are artifacts of your not paying attention.  Why don't you give it a rest.  Nobody could ever have enough time to correct every demented accusation you make.  There is no such thing as successfully answering you, since you are "stuck on stupid" and cannot grasp any simple fact, but must degenerate into your incessant off-target nitpicking.  You accused, I overcame your accusation.  You were wrong, I was right.  Now GO AWAY, you moron.  And for your information, "netiquette" ends where people like you enter the picture - there is no polite way to deal with such an idiot.
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15022 From: dave santos Date: 10/3/2014
      Subject: Re: 10 easy ways to do AWE: understatement of the year
      Correction: I have never thought Doug couldn't list 10 ways to do AWE that he claims are "easy". In fact I pushed him to do so. Of course, he cannot show them to be "easy", because that is a false immpression.

      I am claiming he has no known competitive way to do AWE of his own, easy or hard, as others clearly progress, and the frustration causes him to act-out. Pierre is miffed that he negligently overlooked old AWES Forum discussion of the embedded turbine idea he thought was his big invention, so he and Doug have a similar problem, that their wild patent spending is not helping overcome.

      Maybe by working together on AWE R&D they can advance. Their working together on petty complaints is not major progress.


      On Friday, October 3, 2014 9:01 AM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15023 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 10/3/2014
      Subject: Re: AWES Photo of the Week

      DaveS,


      "Yes, your Netiqutte continues as the worst in AWE" : personal attack.
      "You put your name here to ideas clearly invented by others, without caring to credit the more deserving names. This is not fair or accurate." And this is not true.
      "Have you ever explained how you reconcile scaling-law with the ST? You still seem to think (2014) driveshafts will scale high and powerful, with no power-parasitic flight demand. The mass of a large ST "tends to infinity"...". The mass of any more and more big thing tends to infinity. ST is also a response in scaling-law by putting several small rotors instead of a single and globally heavier rotor for the same area.
      Please DaveS can you change your music, avoiding repeated false attacks, chameleon-like reports, partial considerations...If that is possible some progress can be realized by a better analysis of problems and solutions instead of trying to win in words.
       
      PierreB
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15024 From: dave santos Date: 10/3/2014
      Subject: Re: wholesale wind energy price now 2.5 cents
      AWE must megascale into superior upper wind to out-compete by cost in utility markets. The accomplishment the reeling teams represent is the first serious exploring of tapping the vast upper-wind resource.

      If AWE succeeds, reeling will be seen as the historic stepping-stone method to a new energy resource, rather than a dead-end. The historic dead-enders will be those who were not seriously prepared to fly high, reeling or not. Reeling is at least "easy" compared to all fancier ideas, if not the final perfection of AWE.

      Note: Most of the world is nowhere near 2 cents a kWhr, and high CO2 pollution of cheap base-load energy is a vast under-accounted cost.


      On Thursday, October 2, 2014 9:11 PM, "dougselsam@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15025 From: benhaiemp Date: 10/3/2014
      Subject: Re: WECs under arch

      In spite of being a stationary rotored AWES, such a system looks more or less unworkable. You have two different systems for a difficult management: pendulum effect of hoisted turbines; coordonating both ground contact and arch move.Facing all wind directions is quite difficult since you must direct both turbines and arch. So it is not surprising nobody has built it.

       

      PierreB
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15026 From: Joe Faust Date: 10/3/2014
      Subject: Re: Women in AWE
      Doug, 
            The topic involves an invitation. You now partly fulfill that invitation by mentioning someone who helped in one of your AWE devices. If you will, post a story of her actions for the record and extension of the process. Such recognition may be part of RAD. We may multitask here; no AWES project need be stalled by this topic thread.  

      AWE has some distinction from conventional wind industry; that distinction spawns this topic. Our community has honored a couple of women in the Wayne German  award.   This topic is more than distinct awards, but also about direct recognition in story.   I note Mrs. Graham's Bell play in kite and aviation history; her gifts and radiance give nutrition to some of today's RAD.​

      Mabel Gardiner Hubbard
      ​  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mabel_Gardiner_Hubbard ​


      ​We welcome contemporary Mabels into the RAD flow. 
      There may be hundreds of categories that may help our community recognize women who have and will be affecting RAD. 
      ~ JoeF
      PS: Meanwhile materialization and testing continue here at KiteLab Los Angeles. 

      ​
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15027 From: Joe Faust Date: 10/3/2014
      Subject: Re: WECs under arch
      Doug, though Fry and Hise "touched" arch-hung WECs, the art of arch kites for such purpose was not developed. There is a contemporary freshening surrounding arch kites; arch kites are in toddlerhood yet; there is an excitement about mega-arch kites (including doming and dome stacking, etc) that is new, not taught by Fry and Hise. 
      ~ JoeF
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15028 From: dave santos Date: 10/3/2014
      Subject: Re: CC 4.x BY NC SA :: Groundgen Kite Train of Rectangular-framed Pa
      Joe,

      How does the "rectangular frame" scale? It sounds rigid and massive.

      daveS


      On Friday, October 3, 2014 8:33 AM, "Joe Faust joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15029 From: dave santos Date: 10/3/2014
      Subject: Re: Rotating Parachute Systems (RPS)
      Torque over distance is not "impossible", but very "sub-optimal" as an AWE concept; by cost, mass, and performance. Gordon gives the famous torque critique for Doug to rebut.

      If torque is so great, let Doug prove it by scaling up in altitude and power. The "KiteLab" prediction is that he has already neared the practical scaling barrier with the Sky Serpent,

      Good Luck


      On Friday, October 3, 2014 8:50 AM, "dougselsam@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15030 From: dave santos Date: 10/3/2014
      Subject: Re: From beer can in the 1980s
      Doug,

      This is old news.

      I would be interested in any references older than my 30year-old versions (which all flew on wings and tethers), for the record,

      daveS


      On Friday, October 3, 2014 8:24 AM, "dougselsam@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15031 From: dave santos Date: 10/3/2014
      Subject: Re: AWES Photo of the Week
      Pierre,

      When I point out that Doug's Netiquette is the worst, it is a personal critique in direct response to typical comments like " U R  a complete IDIOT."

      If you know a better way to get Doug to be more polite, please do so, and I will not have cause to respond,

      daveS


      On Friday, October 3, 2014 9:39 AM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15032 From: dave santos Date: 10/3/2014
      Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ
      Pierre,

      The embedded turbine presented to the Forum in past years really does seem to overlap your inventive claim here, that you seek to patent. Now you can see exactly why this topic did not seem to contain any new inventive content (KiteLab report and photo as prior art case).

      Please put the question to rest: What inventive idea are you now claiming here (or do you concede the prior art is invalidating)?

      daveS


      On Friday, October 3, 2014 8:22 AM, "dougselsam@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15033 From: dave santos Date: 10/3/2014
      Subject: What is easy and what is hard in AWE
      Its amply shown that small AWES of many kinds are easily made (by skilled artisans) to do small jobs, like charging personal appliances and powering kite sports.

      Its similarly obvious that the hard aspect of AWE engineering is scaling up any idea to large grid-scale duty. Not only is a competent knowledge of aerospace-engineering (like scaling-laws) required, but the challenges of aviation safety and market economics are hard.

      Developing giant AWES remains a sort of Mt Everest of engineering, as SaulG, for one, correctly asserted: Not easy, but a seriously heroic quest.
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15034 From: dave santos Date: 10/3/2014
      Subject: Re: SuperTwin(TM) in Mojave, CA [1 Attachment]
      Congratulations on your progress.


      On Friday, October 3, 2014 9:14 AM, "dougselsam@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15035 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 10/3/2014
      Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ


      No relevant, as usual.


      PierreB
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15036 From: Joe Faust Date: 10/3/2014
      Subject: Re: CC 4.x BY NC SA :: Groundgen Kite Train of Rectangular-framed Pa
      The frame will not scale well as per cubic scaling law limitations. System scaling is via uping the count of unit segments in train and also by lateral fencing (trains side by side and integrated with additional fence "posts" (the main holding tethers). Have, say, one full fence section be 3 m wide, but then add to the right and left other sections, say 3 m section on left and 3 m section on right; now the span is 9 m, three trains integrated, four main "post" tethers.  Consider a 300 m wide train fence with 100 stationed unit  frames on the tall fence complex train. At the top have a lateral series of dedicated lifting integrated trains. Have smart awareness of global system parts' status.
          ~ JoeF
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15037 From: dave santos Date: 10/3/2014
      Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ
      Pierre,

      Please note that Joe and I have worked hard here to honor your demand for prior-art research of "turbines integrated in a soft kite". The normal cost for for prior-art searching is estimated at around 7-10 thousand dollars per patent, and we are serving you for free, but you seem unappreciative.

      As far as you were able to explain here, and given the research cited to you, there seems scant reason to think you have presented an inventive-leap for a valid AWE patent. If you decline to inform otherwise, this finding stands unrebutted,

      daveS


      On Friday, October 3, 2014 11:50 AM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15038 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 10/3/2014
      Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ

      Not relevant, as usual.
      In a previous post you wrote: "You will need better luck than KiteLab Ilwaco, whose in-plane turbine experiment sadly suffered from the choked-flow effect JoeF mentioned,...". Morever you do not know what the patent contains. Morever you do not read carefully my posts. So all your opinions are stacks of irrelevancies and incoherencies. I am busy for tests, so I will have no time more to reply to your ... 

      PierreB

       
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15039 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 10/3/2014
      Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ
      Attachments :

        DaveS,


        You wrote "Please note that Joe and I have worked hard here to honor your demand for prior-art research ..."

        Lies.My demand for prior-art research exists only in your imagination. You  confuse with my demand of search on scientific papers (with no relevant response), joining (and I join again and again) papers about some subjects as technological environment, but not about rotors-in-kite-AWES since I have no reference about. You confuse patents with scientific papers, proving you know nothing about them. Now I must test.

         

        PierreB

        http://flygenkite.com

        		   @@attachment@@
        Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15040 From: dave santos Date: 10/3/2014
        Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ
        Lets at least be clear about the phenomenon I observed and the terms applied. "Choked-flow" is the standard term for a stalled Venturi, but in our case, the same effect is qualitatively "stalled-flow", in that the wing is stalled (high-AoA). I had hoped for a big boost by "supercharging" with a kite-sail (~5x) but only got a small boost (~0.5x). As expected, the "feathered" turbine (low-AoA "autogyro" mode) did not produce a perceptable advantage over a HAWT placement, but others might design a better version than my first shot.

        Its true that we do not know of any hidden secret-sauce in your secret patent, so forgive the impression that such a secret may not exist, except in your AWE optimism. Good Luck if you found a break-through idea, and we eagerly await the disclosure of your invention, that a government-enforced ideology encourages you to keep secret, in opposition to our RAD ethos.


        On Friday, October 3, 2014 12:17 PM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
        Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15041 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 10/3/2014
        Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ

        No any level of relevance,

        A patent is not published just after filling. But I agree you have opinions on everything, comprising on what you do not know (i.e. everything).

         

        PierreB
        Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15042 From: dave santos Date: 10/3/2014
        Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ
        Joe and I really did think you wanted to know about all the prior art we could find, as due diligence, whether in patents, academic papers, or auditable public records like this Forum. That's the truth, and there was still more prior art to bring, if the question were still in doubt. Once again, you were misunderstood by us; but we tried in good faith.

        Are your really testing at night? That's cool; have fun.


        On Friday, October 3, 2014 12:35 PM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
        Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15043 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 10/3/2014
        Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ


        DaveS,

        You aggravate your case.

         

        PierreB
        Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15044 From: dave santos Date: 10/3/2014
        Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ
        Looking more closely at the flow that an in-plane turbine experiences, it seems reasonable that the sharp lip of the membrane disturbs the flow to the rotor-blade tips (by burbulation). The center of the hole has better flow, but this is not where a hub-rotor does its best work. So even though there is a "damming effect" boost expected, its largely canceled by the "sharp-hole effect". The LAGI concept seeked to mitigate the problem by forming faired Venturi inlets to the turbine. This should work better, but is not truly "in-plane". This would be an ideal problem to study in a wind-tunnel, to determine if the observed, explained, and disputed effects hold true in testing.

        If Pierre is testing, that is my consistent "case"; modestly victorious.


        On Friday, October 3, 2014 12:59 PM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
        Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15045 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/3/2014
        Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ
        This topic thread started with a posted many-point message; near the end of the message Pierre B. wrote: 
        "Thanks for your comments and observations. Making main features of AWES on a forum would be an interesting and new way for RAD."
         
        During the progress of comments and observations, there seems to have grown a mismatch about just what the topic is about, I sense.  Along the way laconic exclamations of irrelevant matter seemed blocking. To get clarity about just what was wanted to be discussed seemed to me to be a heavy run.  Efforts to review and read more carefully did not seem to help clarifying just what the topic of this thread was about.  The multitude of hooks in the leading first post could reasonably spawn a huge panorama of discussion notes. 

        Perhaps refining to new topic titles might help. Maybe smaller steps?  What could be some of the refined subtopics worthy of split-off discussions?

        ????
        • Ratio of wing area to tether length?
        • Stationary AWES versus wide swathing global cross winding AWES?
        • Sail-inset flygen rotors?
        • Free-air flygen rotors?
        • Wing-mounted flygen rotors?
        • Efficiencies of farming schemes?
        • Where is public-domain prior art found?
        • What leads technology? Do scientific papers tend to come after invention has been disclosed? When?
        • What scientific papers examined rotors? What among those papers respect shrouding, ducting, funneling, face insetting, ...
        • What prior art is related to Pierre B.'s concerns? What are his specific concerns? What might be said about what questions are not in his concern?
        • ??
        • ??
        • ?? (All are invited to discern refining topic that seem close to what might be in Pierre's concern.)
        Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15046 From: Rod Read Date: 10/3/2014
        Subject: Re: Stationary AWES

        So can we move on to making a forum section; combined crosswinding, where we talk about fixed planes of framework, thrusting up and down whilst improving flow to held underwing spinners etc.?
        Then move on to the section on fully mobile, multi sustaining, flying, tethered, mega structures.?
        Or just make them?

        Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15047 From: dave santos Date: 10/3/2014
        Subject: Re: CC 4.x BY NC SA :: Groundgen Kite Train of Rectangular-framed Pa
        JoeF,

        Why frame rigidly at all? Can't this work by a tensioned rope rectangle net? Square-celled nets are an ancient idea, and triangular and hexogonal patterns are close relatives. 

        The 1929 Dutch patent did rectangular cells without added spars. Its hard to exactly visualize your idea here, if framing sticks are a required detail,

        daveS


        On Friday, October 3, 2014 12:03 PM, "Joe Faust joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com