Messages in AirborneWindEnergy group.                           AWES16059to16108 Page 216 of 440.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16059 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/13/2014
Subject: Re: First Message from Gordon Spilkin

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16060 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/13/2014
Subject: Re: First Message from Gordon Spilkin

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16061 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/13/2014
Subject: Re: First Message from Gordon Spilkin

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16062 From: Rod Read Date: 11/14/2014
Subject: Re: Service Animals in AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16063 From: Rod Read Date: 11/14/2014
Subject: Re: Galvanic Corrosion Issue with Metallic Kite Anchors

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16064 From: Rod Read Date: 11/14/2014
Subject: Re: Flight Proficiency Requirements for AWES in Shared AirSpace

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16065 From: dave santos Date: 11/14/2014
Subject: Re: Service Animals in AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16066 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/14/2014
Subject: Cleansing, Water Showering, or Treating Water by Kite System

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16067 From: dave santos Date: 11/14/2014
Subject: Re: Cleansing, Water Showering, or Treating Water by Kite System

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16068 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/14/2014
Subject: Re: Galvanic Corrosion Issue with Metallic Kite Anchors

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16069 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/14/2014
Subject: Re: Galvanic Corrosion Issue with Metallic Kite Anchors

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16070 From: dave santos Date: 11/14/2014
Subject: Re: First Message from Gordon Spilkin

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16071 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/14/2014
Subject: Re: Alternative method in a reeling method

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16072 From: dave santos Date: 11/14/2014
Subject: Re: Galvanic Corrosion Issue with Metallic Kite Anchors

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16073 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/14/2014
Subject: Re: First Message from Gordon Spilkin

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16074 From: dave santos Date: 11/14/2014
Subject: Re: First Message from Gordon Spilkin

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16075 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/14/2014
Subject: AWES with One-Way Wings (OWWs)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16076 From: dave santos Date: 11/15/2014
Subject: Fw: NTS beim GreenTec Award - Jetzt abstimmen

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16077 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/15/2014
Subject: Re: AWES with One-Way Wings (OWWs)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16078 From: dave santos Date: 11/15/2014
Subject: Peter Lynn and Dave Gomberg on Anchoring

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16079 From: dave santos Date: 11/15/2014
Subject: Re: AWES with One-Way Wings (OWWs)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16080 From: dave santos Date: 11/15/2014
Subject: Re: AWES with One-Way Wings (OWWs)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16081 From: dave santos Date: 11/15/2014
Subject: Minimal kite-towed glider-launch

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16082 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/15/2014
Subject: Re: AWES with One-Way Wings (OWWs)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16083 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/15/2014
Subject: Re: Flight Proficiency Requirements for AWES in Shared AirSpace

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16084 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/15/2014
Subject: Re: AWES with One-Way Wings (OWWs)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16085 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/15/2014
Subject: Re: First Message from Gordon Spilkin

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16086 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/15/2014
Subject: Re: Peter Lynn and Dave Gomberg on Anchoring

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16087 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/15/2014
Subject: Re: First Message from Gordon Spilkin

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16088 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/15/2014
Subject: Re: Novel Kite Instability and Actuation Factor (Braid Theoretic Mec

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16089 From: dave santos Date: 11/15/2014
Subject: Re: Flight Proficiency Requirements for AWES in Shared AirSpace

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16090 From: dave santos Date: 11/15/2014
Subject: Re: AWES with One-Way Wings (OWWs)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16091 From: dave santos Date: 11/15/2014
Subject: Re: Peter Lynn and Dave Gomberg on Anchoring

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16092 From: dave santos Date: 11/15/2014
Subject: Re: First Message from Gordon Spilkin

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16093 From: dave santos Date: 11/15/2014
Subject: Re: Novel Kite Instability and Actuation Factor (Braid Theoretic Mec

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16094 From: dave santos Date: 11/15/2014
Subject: Re: Peter Lynn and Dave Gomberg on Anchoring

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16095 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/15/2014
Subject: Towable Vehicle

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16096 From: dave santos Date: 11/16/2014
Subject: Regulatory Chaos- Kites seen as work around for FAA drone restrictio

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16097 From: Rod Read Date: 11/16/2014
Subject: Re: AWES with One-Way Wings (OWWs)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16098 From: Rod Read Date: 11/16/2014
Subject: Re: Peter Lynn and Dave Gomberg on Anchoring

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16099 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/16/2014
Subject: Re: AWES with One-Way Wings (OWWs)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16100 From: Rod Read Date: 11/16/2014
Subject: Torque Rope ladder configuration

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16101 From: dave santos Date: 11/16/2014
Subject: Re: Torque Rope ladder configuration [1 Attachment]

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16102 From: Rod Read Date: 11/17/2014
Subject: Re: Torque Rope ladder configuration

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16103 From: dave santos Date: 11/17/2014
Subject: Kite Therapy links and notes

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16104 From: dave santos Date: 11/17/2014
Subject: Marionette Similarity Case

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16105 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/17/2014
Subject: Mitch Shipley's ElectraTow at Currituck Airport NC October 2011

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16106 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/17/2014
Subject: Re: Mitch Shipley's ElectraTow at Currituck Airport NC October 2011

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16107 From: dave santos Date: 11/17/2014
Subject: Industrial Kite Killers for AWES Sense-and Avoid Capability

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16108 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/17/2014
Subject: Re: Peter Lynn and Dave Gomberg on Anchoring



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16059 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/13/2014
Subject: Re: First Message from Gordon Spilkin
The Word docx file was out of reach for me. Google Drive made a PDF from the docx. Here is a link to the PDF which has part of one detail diagram cut off; if one has current Microsoft Office and opens the docx directly, then maybe the image will not be cut at the right side. 
There is more in Gordon's message than I put in the opening posted message of this topic. 

Hopefully images can be captured locally by senders in jpg format and then sent by email to me or put in our Photos section online. Then we can get it all up into the messages. 

~ JoeF
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16060 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/13/2014
Subject: Re: First Message from Gordon Spilkin
Hello Guys,
It took me almost 6 months to read through all 16,000 messages and I finally decided to join the club.
Thank you Dave S. and Doug for the endless entertainment. Perhaps the scheme I propose will satisfy
both of you. It combines multiple rotors and continuous operation (Doug) with cable drive and a
support kite (Dave).

Contrary to Doug’s claim, activating the cable drive does not impart additional drag on the system. The
load is redistributed between the drive side and the return side of the pulley. Additional drag only
occurs when the return side goes completely slack. To prevent this, a clutch in the drive system would
be actuated if the return tension drops below a safe value. The lifting kite should be sized so that there
is always tension in the return side. This setup is self‐correcting because higher winds will increase the
total tension in the cable drive while the faster turning rotors will increase the differential tension.
In this design, the problem of scaling up the size of the drive shaft is minimized because almost all of the
torque is in the short length between the bottom rotor and the transmission.

In the drawings below I offer three mechanisms for changing direction of the torque so that it operates
the cable drive. The flexible coupling can be specifically designed for operation in one direction and
efficiencies of up to 85% can be obtained. The efficiencies of the bevel gear and the pulley system are
higher but they both involve more weight and structural elements.

​
http://www.energykitesystems.net/GordonSpilkin/GS123partial.jpg
​
​

I am trying to develop the simplest method of combining multiple turbines with a cable drive. This
requires some sacrifice in efficiency.
􀁸 Operate at a fixed tether length since this will usually be at the maximum elevation allowed
where the winds are usually strongest.
􀁸 Use the cable drive as the tether to minimize cost.
􀁸 Use pairs of turbine trains which rotate in opposite directions to neutralize torque.
􀁸 The axis of the turbines is in line with the tether so that minimum rigid structure is required.
􀁸 Avoid crosswind operation so that multiple units can be closely spaced on the ground.
􀁸 Each unit is attached to a single point on the ground so that orientation to the wind can be
easily achieved.
The drive system shown below can be used to rapidly retract the device in case of wind conditions which
are too high or too low. The drive motor is stopped and is used to wrap the cable drive around the cage


Redeployment of multiple units is a more difficult problem. Perhaps a roving truck with and extended
lifting boom can be deployed.

​​



Based on Doug’s ST data, a system with 6 rotors (each 7 ft dia.) will produce approximately 2KW with
winds of 20 mph. I am confident that this system will produce a greater output due to increased wind
speed and more consistent winds at altitude. These gains will more than offset the inefficiencies due to
the transmission and the offset angle of the rotors to the wind direction.
Scaling of this system is feasible due to the short section of the drive shaft which sees high torque. The
major problem is the deployment of large lifter kites.
CC+ 4.x BY NC+ SA
Gordon Spilkin
Stamford Connecticut
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16061 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/13/2014
Subject: Re: First Message from Gordon Spilkin
Thanks. Something needs correcting with this now good link for the second image of the ;post.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16062 From: Rod Read Date: 11/14/2014
Subject: Re: Service Animals in AWE
In "Time to Eat the Dog, the Real Guide to Sustainable Living," Robert and Brenda Vale charge that a medium-size dog has a footprint of 2.1 acres compared with slightly more than one acre for a standard sport utility vehicle.

Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16063 From: Rod Read Date: 11/14/2014
Subject: Re: Galvanic Corrosion Issue with Metallic Kite Anchors
I was anchoring in an acid medium yesterday Doug.
How the hell did you guess that?
No bolts & the kite came to grief before the anchor... My fault.
At the bottom of the croft next door ...
(Croft site up for sale... considering it as a test site facility...any sponsors please...!)
I used a wooden fence post which had been supported by a second post due to disintegration and loose plugging in the ground.

It's kinda boggy. quite peaty, mostly undisturbed, very wet / beside marsh reeds...
(As another aside there was a small amount of methane bubbling when I stood on buoyant turf)


Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16064 From: Rod Read Date: 11/14/2014
Subject: Re: Flight Proficiency Requirements for AWES in Shared AirSpace
Set the standards in Europe.
All of the Ampyx power crew have been certified through these guys.

A EuroUSC representative recommended I study Ampyx approach the AWES problem.


Couldn't resist a response.

Thanks for your detailed response.
When I become commercial enough I will definitely attend a BNUC-S thanks.
In the mean time I will keep to flying below 60m with less than 20 kg.
As you point out... we have plenty of wind even at 60 m here on Lewis. :)

Thanks for clarifying the mass in the air concern. Safety has been a prime motivator in my designs.

I'm very familiar with the Ampyx Power device thanks. As much as it works very well, I believe I have very good reasons for not following that model thanks. Also, It's not actually powered in a thrust sense other than on a launching tether as per gliding. It's actually a kite too, but rigid. They employ a phased generation mode working on unwinding a winch and powered retraction basis... As "yoyo" generating kites go... It's my favourite.

There are many good safety reasons I don't pursue that model. Abundant single point failure modes, rigid escaped mass at high velocity, dependence on electronic control, air volume utilisation per generated watt, necessary altitude, radar smear, cubic mass scaling implications, control surface actuator wear, servicing implications and visually inconspicuous airborne parts ... are the first that come to mind.

I'm very into my AWES. I expect airworthiness certification of my structures will set a new standard for safe operational reliability.I believe soft kites will play a huge part in AWES development. Yes, rigid wings are more powerful per mass at their operating speeds.
Rigid wings feature minimally in my designs as driving surfaces at the outer circumference of inflated soft rings. Here they provide drag flutter avoidance over drive surface whilst being set on soft tension rigidised structure.

I look forward to further discussion with EuroUSC™ on the merits of various airframe structures for AWES, and on the many other airspace relevant topics I will need to be aware of before operating commercially.

Thanks again for your response

Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16065 From: dave santos Date: 11/14/2014
Subject: Re: Service Animals in AWE
Rod, 

The Vale's neoliberal agitprop is only a ruse to delay the historic call to "Eat the rich". The Vales and their ilk may be smart enough to trick the Scottish poor to eat their own dogs, but they are only clever enough not to print a book for Mexicans (who would use it to wipe in the corn field, while liberated dogs eat the waste (the Brit flush toilet has the bigger footprint). This is why Mexican dogs are traditionally not petted nor allowed to lick faces. Please tell us you did not vote to remain subject to royals in the Scot referendum as you prepare your dog-Wellington. 

In any case, I went car-free ten years ago to be a bike circus nomad along the Tex-Mex borderland, and only borrow car (rarely) or dog (which I craftily married into last Spring). I am also printer-free since the 80s, and won't publish books like a common Vale. Since childhood, rich at heart, I loved dogs so much my declared wish has been to become dog food upon my probable early daredevil's death (but I am scared to let them lick me while alive). If the Vales would go so far to feed themselves to kite dogs in the quest to levitate civilization, and reduce the human footprint en masse, by means of kite, but not move to Austin, then they could be cool also.

 The "Swift" solution to global crisis is to feed the rich to kite dogs, and buy AWES and Aerotecture kites for everyone else from the proceeds...

daveS


On Friday, November 14, 2014 2:55 AM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16066 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/14/2014
Subject: Cleansing, Water Showering, or Treating Water by Kite System
Cleansing, rinsing with water shower using kite-system method *
and a further water-cleaning method by using kite-system methods*

The water flow in the kite-assisted water shower may be adjusted by common means from misty to heavy flow of water with variations of flow pulse and texture. 
The water pressure is adjustable by lifting the water holder at a desired height above ground level or other site's level ( boat deck, raft deck, vehicle roof, etc.).  Simply adjust the height of the water holder on the kite-system lines. 

Needs that the method may meet: 
1. Rinse toxic chemicals off humans and animals by use of water showering. 
2. Hygienic shower by humans at home or at camping site.
3. Hot-day cooling off by being in a water shower, perhaps set to mist the pressured flow.
4. Hose cleaning of things. 
5. If very high pressure is needed, then a longer feed line from a higher-set water holder could be installed; such high pressures would not be safe for living tissue, but may be used in cleaning things or in manufacturing processes. 
6. Water-giving to plants may be effected by use of the system. 

One embodiment of the instructed method (many variations are included in this instruction and may be installed by those skilled in the arts) has a water holder hanging from a main kite-system line as a hung curtain; the holder may be black surfaced bag when solar-heating of the water is desired. Fly the water holder station to an altitude wanted; too high and the water pressure might be too great and injurious to living tissue; too low and the low pressure might not serve desires. Good effective water pressure is easy to obtain by placing the water holder at about 10 m above the ground when human showering is intended. A feeder water hose connects the water holder to a utility shower head. Adjust the flow rate for the showering operation as desired; various common shower heads for flow adjustment are commonly available.   One may arrange both hot and cold water holders (say black holder for solar heating and white insulated water holder for cold; then two drop hoses may go to the shower devices at the utility end.  Recharge the water to water holders in various ways (lower holders and refill is one way; using wind energy to pump water to the water holders could recharge the water holders with water on an occasional schedule or on a continuous basis). 

When wanted, the same kite system for the showering operation could hold the top of privacy curtains, the top of privacy tent, or the top of a fencing. 
The method allows the use of lighter-than-air kytoons or heavier-than-air wings in the kite system.  
A safety k-stop line from its dedicated anchor to the system's wing set would be used to prevent breakaway of wings and lines. 

Water holder which is set to a useful height above ground by the kite system may be set to its altitude by any of many methods easily specified by those skilled in the arts. Some of those methods are described hereon, but our general system instruction is not limited by this rehearsal: 
1. Reel-less system: Have water holder with water in the holder; have such on the ground; have the kite-system flying; walk down a main kite-system tether to near the water holder; attach the water holding bag or container to the main tether; then let the kite system tether be freed to lift the water holder to altitude; a tag line may be used to precisely keep the water holder at a precise altitude. 
2. Reeled method may use 1. method or differently attached water holder near system reel and pay out the water holder and hang hose until desired altitude is achieve for the water holder; a set of tag lines may be used to precisely keep the water holder at a desired precise altitude.
3. In either 1. or 2., an additional water-supplying system may be added for recharging the water to the raised water-holding bag or container. The water-supplying system for recharging the hold of water in the raised water holder may be powered from energy obtained from an airborne wind energy system (AWES) or powered by other means, perhaps human-muscle power, or any other power means to pump the water to the higher altitude.  Or a tag line may draw the water holder bag or container down for direct manual refilling of the bag or container.   In many applications, one filling will satisfy a need. 

A further instruction regarding treating the water by use of specialty drop hoses and/or combined specialty filters. By use of specialty hoses with filters hung from the aloft-held-by-kite-system water container, the water may be treated by the contents and design of the drop hose in order to have cleaner water or water mineralized as wanted or water fit for human drinking. Testing kits may be needed for certain uses; test the water for the quality needed in any certain process.  
1. Have a specialty hose that filters dirt and pathogens from soiled water. The specialty hose would filter the water being dropped from high to low altitudes. Have filters in the hose to fit the needs relative to the state of the aloft feed water. 
2. Have a specialty hose that is dedicated to being heated by solar radiation; the dropping water would be warmed or heated when conditions are ripe for such solar heating.
3. Have a specialty hose that will give potable water at the lower end, even if the aloft start water is not potable. 
4. Have a specialty hose that holds filtering contents that will produce potable water from sea water. 

Variations on the basic mechanical theme stated above are intended for the instruction. 
​
*​License:  ​
CC+ 4.x BY NC+ SA  AWE IP Pool       Dedication of theme: to my children.
~ Joe Faust      
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16067 From: dave santos Date: 11/14/2014
Subject: Re: Cleansing, Water Showering, or Treating Water by Kite System
Another instance where sound kite thinking only seems absurd. The kite is a serious means to hang things in places at times where nothing is better. A rain shower by kite would be just the thing for a parched crop that sprouted in a dry spell. Precious Water and Light form above by means of kite is such a diverse potential set of applications, that a full list would be to much to read. Note that we presume towing to keep things working in calm (the well-known energy-storage wind-intermittency issue).

Everywhere in dry regions the noble old groves are suddenly dying. It breaks one's heart. Kites could allow spot watering of old trees to save them from climate change and groundwater depletion. Suffice that we can only list a few ideas compared the the potential. Rescue by kite is an old idea. Modern search-and-rescue could use an cheap eye in the sky, a floodlight over rough terrain, and a beacon for the lost. Kites could spread drinking water bottles, food, and medical supplies widely on short notice, to save the lost.

Lets not ourselves get too lost in secondary niche applications, lest we prove Doug right that we did not know how to focus. Lets create a perfected wind-powered aviation with almost unlimited powers, because its needed now, and leave the kids something to figure out over time; all the wonderful uses.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16068 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/14/2014
Subject: Re: Galvanic Corrosion Issue with Metallic Kite Anchors

DougS comments hereon:

====================================


"Doug,I seems you overlook that industrial standards of anchor engineering are the topic here, not backyard wind tinkering norms." ***No the topic was Roddy out screwing around on his rocky island wondering what he could tie off to.  Like you used a city bulldozer to tie off to - or you could have decided to quit because of no anchor, and pretended to make it a new "research" project.  For a brief moment, your brain apparently actually worked, and you tied off to the nearest heavy object, or so you say.  You made another typo.  "It" has a "t" in it.  A comma needs a space after it.

 ~~ DougS
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16069 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/14/2014
Subject: Re: Galvanic Corrosion Issue with Metallic Kite Anchors

DougS comments hereon:

========================================


An easy anchoring method in soil is to auger a 9" hole 5 feet deep, insert a 5-foot galvanized agricultural anchor with auger tip at bottom of hole, pour in one 90-lb. bag of ready-mix concrete, then backfill using water with the dirt, and pack it as you go.  Wait a couple days before using.  Modify as appropriate.

~~ DougS
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16070 From: dave santos Date: 11/14/2014
Subject: Re: First Message from Gordon Spilkin
Gordon,

Yours is an obviously workable concept, but faces challenges in the power-to-weight competition [Costello 2013, KLG 2009], mega-scalability, capacity-density, and line-handling [KLG 2008-14]. Its a bit strange to settle on Doug's turbines, given all the Forum critiques you read (including a top AE expert, ChrisC, asking why anyone would willingly tilt turbines away from optimal HAWT orientation [?]). In any case, your concept, if well-prototyped and realistically simulated, would be a very welcome contender in the worldwide race to converge on optimal AWES designs.

daveS


------- notes ----------

The credit is not mine for the Pilot-Lifter concept, given many precedents. Pocock, two centuries ago, depended on it, and many since, but its surely even older. The method was merely on my testing list in 2006, and proved effective ever since for small to medium scale prototypes (being too lazy to cobble and code active controls until the platform design matures).

If asked my personal AWES design preference, its for multi-km scale single-unit integrated-arrays of pure rag and string (kixelated arches and iso-domes), driving legacy power plants retrofitted as kite hybrids, rated in GW; given the size and nature of the global need. As well, I hope to help comparatively test in fly-off all the major ideas in play, at all scales, with a really cool global community of serious developers.










On Thursday, November 13, 2014 9:04 PM, "Joe Faust joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16071 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/14/2014
Subject: Re: Alternative method in a reeling method

I add to the "alternative novel method" by instructing for the case where hills or mountains permit gravity-return of detached wings. When the site permits, have the detached wings use gravity to return the wings back for attaching to the loop of line that is continuously being drawn in one direction to drive groundgen. In first post note, the equipotentiality of level ground was seen as asset for returning wings that were let off at far downwind region; now, in this note, where applicable, high ground for receiving let-off wings is a further asset. Use the potential energy of the high point to return the wings for fresh service on the AWES loops.    *​License:  ​CC+ 4.x BY NC+ SA  AWE IP Pool **

~~ JoeF



---In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, <joefaust333@gmail.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16072 From: dave santos Date: 11/14/2014
Subject: Re: Galvanic Corrosion Issue with Metallic Kite Anchors
Doug,

The topic here is galvanic corrosion for industrial-scale AWES with a design life in decades, not Rod's topic.

I have studied civil engineered anchor tech for decades, and written many times on the AWES Forum on the subject, with many different technologies compared. Your anchor suggestion is good, but so are many other shared ideas (like gabions at events in public parks, where ground disturbance is prohibited, or roofer's tar-out tarps for super sand-anchors). You fail to make the case that formally civil-engineered anchoring will not be the industrial-scale standard (it surely will).

While I do make typos, I am also having trouble with my Yahoo mailer again, which is glitching text. Thanks for all typo corrections, but the complaint that you concoct false quotes is a serious ethical matter, rather than a "typo" question,

daveS





On Friday, November 14, 2014 11:55 AM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16073 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/14/2014
Subject: Re: First Message from Gordon Spilkin

DougS comments hereon:

====================

====================

"Doug did not invent the tiltrotor, as he...claims...design resembling tiltrotors...patented...May 1930"  *** The tiltrotor resembled my idea for a dual-rotor backpack helicopter, based on my hang-glider (that I knew actually worked).  I did not say I was the FIRST or ONLY inventor of anything resembling a tiltrotor Osprey.  At that time, with no interweb, a kid was unlikely to do a patent search.  All I knew was it was an original idea for me.  

As far as Gordon's nice drawings, they show exactly what I've considered at least 100 times, just in the past few years.  Hats off to Gordon for coming up with stuff that has a snowball's chance to actually work, as a reliable, economical wind energy system.  It seems like a step forward from mere "kite-reeling".  The problem shared with kite-reeling is the system must have double-lift:
1) enough lift to keep it in the air
2) redundant lift to counter the downward pull of the transmission belt
That downward pull is the one aspect that still bugs me.
The problems solved over kite-reeling are
1) continuous operation - no retraction cycle
2) working surfaces not traveling downwind.

As far as DaveS' repeated attempts to cast doubt on things I claim to have thought up as a kid, or more recently as an adult(?), all I can say is it was a MIRACLE that I actually thought to document my invention of what Ockels later called "laddermill" in the 1970's, and have it witnessed and notarized.  

I wish I would have publicized my opinion seeing the World Trade Center under construction in the 1970's that it was designed to have a jetliner crash into it and someday it would happen.  I was alarmed, I spoke up and tried to say something, knowing that
1) nobody would listen to me
2) nobody would remember that I had predicted it when it happened someday - what can I say?  Doesn't matter, nobody believes anything I say and I am used to it.  I will also tell you global warming is misinformation, and the next glacial period is imminent.  Believe it or not - you choose.  

Just to let you know how I think:  I don't just see one invention at a time.  I see a whole multi-dimensional spectrum of ideas simultaneously, on any topic.  I see through the cover and view all pages of the book at once.  It is hard to convince people of this, so I am glad I at least had one instance of inventiveness witnessed and notarized.  If I had not taken that step, (knowing someday, someone else would "invent" it and be called "a genius") the DaveS's of the world would be able to publicly deny that I had thought of that one first too.  Luckily he cannot deny my prolific inventiveness on that one,  If he had the brains he purports to have, he'd realize that was the TEENY tip of the iceberg. and that if I could have thought of that then, when almost nobody had AWE on their radar screen, imagine all the stuff I have come up with since!  I have every answer he purports to want to find.  It's like someone saying "have you seen my keys?"  You say "yeah, right here in my hand" and they ignore you and keep looking.

Thanks to Joe for publishing that 2003 note from Wayne German.
Funny how I recognized every twist and turn of that narrative of invention as my own exact thoughts in the 1980's, as I was taking my first CAD class and had to start drawing stuff.  All Wayne's ideas from that paper went thru my mind in about 5 minutes, as I sketched my first CAD drawing: a ship pulled by an arch-shaped parafoil kite.  

For some people, with the natural "inventor" bug, the ideas come too fast and furious to write them all down.  A real inventor is a natural problem-solver.  Wannabe inventors who "don't get it" are natural problem-creators.

it is amazing to me to see so many "teams" saying they are pursuing AWE with so little awareness or creativity - aren't most teams chasing pretty much the same configuration or at least the same theory of operation?

~ DougS
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16074 From: dave santos Date: 11/14/2014
Subject: Re: First Message from Gordon Spilkin
Doug,

This is Gordon's welcome to the AWES Forum. You keep hijacking such topics to brag about what seem to be fantasies, given the lack of known results. Be cool, and Gordon might partner with you to actually build something associated with your AWES approach. You would be in the game again, instead of only complaining and bragging. Gordon might be the right person to explain to you how a rope drive like he depicts won't pull itself down.

What marks Wayne's thinking is how he shared it. If you thought the same as our best thinkers first, but kept it to yourself, you can't expect credit. You will be judged by what you can offer, not what you can only claim you could have offered,

daveS


On Friday, November 14, 2014 12:59 PM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16075 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/14/2014
Subject: AWES with One-Way Wings (OWWs)
The following introduces a novel family of tethered-airfoil kite-system AWES that use loop tethers (one or more) and a series of wings that detach at the far downwind point of the loops (one or more); a brief look and one might think that one is seeing a conventional laddermill; but no, the following family of AWES distinctly entirely detach involved wings into free-flight; the return loop half of the AWES has no wings. Only the outgoing half of the loop set have working wings.  The wings of these AWES are denoted as OWWs standing for "One-Way Wings."  One such wing would be denoted as OWW. Plural: with the "s."   Note: An AWES in this special family may or may not use severe lifting kite system in addition to the basic OWWs that are kited on the loop or loops; severe lifting upper kite system would allow different designs of OWWs for effecting generation of electricity.  Note: The OWW AWES family differs from Selsam, Ockels, Bolonkin, and others, as those other systems keep the wings attached to the AWES. The novel emphasis on detaching the wings (thus OWW name) provides some potential advantages depending on the specific design. An AWES OWW system may fly one or more than one OWW; there could be hundreds of attached OWWs on the loop set, e.g.  Notice that groundgen shaft turns in just one direction. One may replace the electrical groundgen with other devices for doing practical works.

One-way wings (OWW, OWWs) fly finally downwind, perhaps following fancy paths (but need not) while driving a groundgen; but then at the far downwind lofty point at the far-from-system-anchor-set top of the driven loop set (one or more loops holding the OWWs) the OWWs deliberately leave the operating AWES. The OWWs will have completed their lifting and dragging of the loop set of the AWES; then the OWWs will deliberately detach from the AWES loop set; the OWWs will go into free-flight without immediate further interaction with the AWES parts.  

     Then depending on the wings' designs, those OWWs will have some kind of next play depending on purposes. Here are some purposes of AWES OWWs upon their detaching from the AWES flight system at the far end of a set of loops (one or more): 
  • Give free-flight experience to humans who may have been mounted in the OWWs. The experience may be of different sorts: 
    • Hang gliding (adventure, sport, commerce, personnel placement into activities, science, competition, recreation, ...)
    • Paragliding (see similar purposes in above line)
    • Sailplane flying ( see above for similar purposes)

  • The OWWs in free-flight might be so designed to glide all the way back to the AWES' anchor place for attaching to the loop set for another working session for the AWES generation purpose. 

  • The OWWs in free-flight migh have goods that would soar to far points for delivery of the goods. Such OWWs might be used just once or recycled for further services. Some OWWs might be programmed to self-destruct after fulfilling an objective. 

  • The OWWs in free-flight might have RATs that might work during gliding or fall in order to give energy for on board duty or duty after landing. One after-landing duty might be morphing itself and driving itself back to the AWES anchor for another AWES service cycle. 

  • The OWWs in free-flight might land soon at far points and collected for a group return to the AWES anchor area for another service cycle on the AWES loop set.  OWWs will be ending their life soon after detaching from the AWES loop set. For instance, some OWWs might be designed to detach and fly (or drop, a kind of flight) into a pool of hot lava, into an corrosive chemical pool, into a forest fire, or the like. Or the wing might be of such design that the materials of the wing would be used for food, fertilizer, making other things, ...  The OWWs might be carrying water or fire retardant or practical explosives for practical peaceful purposes. 

  •   Those skilled in the arts will find other uses of the AWES OWW method. 
AWES OWW systems may farm laterally, windwardly, or also vertically (stacking). They may also be based on massive kite arches or kite domes. The mechanics involve and method may be adopted to a media different from air, e.g., water or solar radiation, etc. OWWs may be very soft or any gradation of stiffness to fully rigid. OWWs may be LTA or HTA or have a mix of types of wings in one AWES.  For the OWW AWES that keeps using detached OWWs for further generation flight, the OWWs may be attached again to the working loops in various ways which need not be rehearsed herein, but would be known by those skilled in the arts. 
​
*​License for the above technology:  ​
CC+ 4.x BY NC+ SA  AWE IP Pool        Use personally, but when using commercially, negotiate with kPower, Inc. regarding thresholds and fair respects.
The OWW AWES family is dedicated to all the people who have come into my life but detached in some way to have further play; thanks for generating blessings while attached to my loopy life; may your free-flight further bless you and others.
~~JoeF
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16076 From: dave santos Date: 11/15/2014
Subject: Fw: NTS beim GreenTec Award - Jetzt abstimmen
Machine translated text-

On Saturday, November 15, 2014 4:20 AM, NTS X-Wind <york.walterscheid@x-wind.de
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16077 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/15/2014
Subject: Re: AWES with One-Way Wings (OWWs)

The president of the USHawks has given a first-order effort at illustrating part of the essence of one embodiment of an OWW AWES:

Scroll one messagedown from the first post:

US Hawks Hang Gliding Association • View topic - OWW HG Launch Escalator AWES
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16078 From: dave santos Date: 11/15/2014
Subject: Peter Lynn and Dave Gomberg on Anchoring
Obviously, kite experts have been anchoring successfully for a long time, despite many accidents. Even anchoring from cars is a century-old practice. Doug gives very dangerous advice in suggesting Ag anchors for DIY kite use. kPower tried these at kFarm, with poor results compared to our custom designs (documented on the Forum). Its a naive myth that kite anchoring is a settled engineering subject, or that kite engineers consider it too hard a subject to get right on the industrial scale (just hire the right engineers).

Former AKA president and large kite showman Dave Gomberg gives the standard kite expert warning-

"The only thing more dangerous than a big kite falling downwind is a big kite dragging a metal anchor behind it across the field."

Peter Lynn has warned as follows many times-

"Worst, and particularly unsafe, are stakes, screws and rods... The only injury I've ever sustained from single line flying is a broken thumb when a ground screw came out without warning, and the nearest to being offed ditto was when a 1.5m x 25mm dia. rod came out of the ground like a rocket ditto, creasing my hair as it went past. Lumps of metal flying through the air pulled by escaping kites just don’t bear thinking about.

The world's greatest kite engineer, Peter Lynn, is the right stuff. His unmatched anchoring experience and writing about anchoring represents the most qualified opinion available. One cannot just sink a metal anchor without regard for kite-dragging, or somebody could get killed. Soft anchors or suitable passive kite killers are de rigueur. Here is an upgrade model to the sand anchor design Gomberg sells-
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16079 From: dave santos Date: 11/15/2014
Subject: Re: AWES with One-Way Wings (OWWs)
Joe,

An alternative idea that seems simple and safe is to anchor a pulley in the ground and run a towline downfield. A lifter pulls the line and creates the tow force via the puley to launch the glider from the towline (glider and kite must stay well separated). The kite is then killed or hauled down to reset. One could "walk" the kite down with low force and bring the kite back to the pulley, without the bother of also resetting the line (whose ends alternate in use). Two pulleys spaced apart may facilitate separation in the air.

This seems like the simplest scheme ever for glider launch on flat land, and the kite can be far smaller than what is needed to dead-lift glider and pilot. It also seems safer than many other ideas. CC+ (Open-AWE IP Pool)

daveS


On Saturday, November 15, 2014 12:42 PM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16080 From: dave santos Date: 11/15/2014
Subject: Re: AWES with One-Way Wings (OWWs)
Whoops, small detail omitted: Wind speed needs to accounted for-

A tri-tether can boost towing speed and reduce the lifter's downwind pay-out rate, to make this work in normal wind (*sigh*)

CC+ Open-AWE


On Saturday, November 15, 2014 1:51 PM Dave Santos <santos137@yahoo.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16081 From: dave santos Date: 11/15/2014
Subject: Minimal kite-towed glider-launch
In this scheme, the glider launches from a release-pulley fixed on a V-tether whose arms originate from a fixed ground anchor and anchored ground pulley set crosswind. A power-kite pulls downwind on the V-tether via the ground pulley, cycled as described in Joe's thread.

By modulating the distances and angles rigged, and also using different kites as needed, its possible to optimally match tow-speed to wind and glider. A capstan-brake adds drag as needed to control excess tow speed. A glider may be more stable against lock-out if launched with a V-tether. This is a similar level of gear and capital cost to minimal scooter and electric winch rigs, but with renewable simplicity (as a rag and string AWES) on a wind day (save fuel and electric power for calm days).

CC+ Open AWE
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16082 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/15/2014
Subject: Re: AWES with One-Way Wings (OWWs)

The OWW AWES is primarily an energy producer method with very many secondary applications. A primary operation mode is continuous energy production.


http://www.energykitesystems.net/OWW/OWW002.jpg

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16083 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/15/2014
Subject: Re: Flight Proficiency Requirements for AWES in Shared AirSpace

Doug Selsam comments hereon:

========================


Questions for DaveS:
1) You often complain that patents exist, implying that patents are somehow preventing you from developing AWE.
The first question is:
(dinggggg...) What patents are currently holding back your AWE progress?  In what way?

2) You often discuss FAA regulations.  What FAA regulations are holding you back now, and how are they holding you back exactly?  What exactly are they preventing you from doing?  What progress are they stifling?  What system SHOULD you be running, but are NOT, today, because of FAA regulations?

3) You recently claimed to have solved the mystery of "what has been holding back AWE", saying it turned out to be "safety" issues (I've always maintained it's because nobody has a clue (Hello?  Earth to the "AWE community") , but anyway...).  
(dinggggg...) What safety issues are holding you back now?  How?   
What safety issues are holding back AWE in general (the other "teams")?  What safety issues, if solved, would result in immediate success for AWE?  How?

4) You claim to have tested more types of AWE systems than any team.
The fourth question is:
(dinggggg...)  What system that you have tested is most promising?  And why?

5) You claim to be an AWE expert.  (THE expert?)  You often talk of an impending "down-select" whereby some "consensus" will be "reached", whereby a current approach is deemed viable or useful in some way, and is therefore pursued commercially, and implemented widely.
The fifth question (set) is:
(dinggggg...)  
a) Which current method(s) does your expertise say are slated to become the "down-select"?
b) On what basis will the down-select choose that configuration?
c) Who will be the selector in said "down-select?
d) What will be the mechanism of said "down-select"?

DaveS wrote:  "The serious AWE efforts already face the challenge of full compliance with of FAA FARs. No one is waiting on naive critics  to give the go-ahead for developing flight proficiency. The general strategy of the serious developers is to cover all the bases as early as possible. This means current testing at 2000ft, even before the final architectural down-selects emerge in extended testing.  Many of us have been flying as high as we can safely justify for some years now, and 2000ft is no big leap, just the current frontier. Its an engineering race where AWE pioneers will take what the FAA allows; never mind Doug."
***Doug says: Just keep spellin' the name right.. :)
~~ Doug Selsam
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16084 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/15/2014
Subject: Re: AWES with One-Way Wings (OWWs)

Doug Selsam comments hereon:

=========================


You can have a dog fetch the wings and bring them back to the starting point for reattachment.  That is, if the dog can successfully negotiate the forest of spotted mushrooms...

~~ Doug Selsam


==========================

JoeF comments on the above comment:

     Thanks, DougS, that will probably be on explication at toy scale for one of the embodiments of the method. Good on you.  Let's hope that the energy cost of feeding the dog is less than the energy produced by using the wings the dog fetches for reattachment.  Maybe at toy scale: the dog might drag a sled and learn to put say 10 wings on the sled before returning to the reattachment point.

Best,

   ~~ JoeF
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16085 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/15/2014
Subject: Re: First Message from Gordon Spilkin

Doug Selsam comments hereon:

=========================



DaveS said: "What marks Wayne's thinking is how he shared it. If you thought the same as our best thinkers first, but kept it to yourself, you can't expect credit." 

*** Doug replies:  If I thought of it all first, then why are you calling the ones who thought of it later "our best thinkers" as though it is I emulating them?  Good, better, best?  hello?   If they are "our best thinkers," coming up with this stuff after kite-surfing had already become routine, then I must be a "greater thinker than our best thinkers" if I came up with it independently, before kite-surfing existed.  And in Huntington Beach (Surf City) no less.  

Really, any person could say kites could pull a boat etc. by the time kitesurfing was an Olympic Sport.   No new thinking involved there.  Extrapolating to the person being suspended by the foil takes a minute or two to occur to the non-comatose, and then regressing to the same bad AWE ideas everyone else seems to have, shows thinking solidly "in the box."   (Men live in prisons of their own making.)

I think the reality is that any halfway-inventive person considering a "tethered airfoil" pulling a boat, ends up going through the same thought process.  The first thing you think is "Why do we restrict the sail to a mast in the first place?"  And the second thing is, "What took so long for people to figure this out?  Then the rest all falls into place.
Then if you are nuts, you decide dual airfoils beaming microwaves to Earth is the newborn yet mature yet absurd-this-century down-select and try to make sure nobody can talk about any other ideas.
~~ Doug Selsam
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16086 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/15/2014
Subject: Re: Peter Lynn and Dave Gomberg on Anchoring

Doug Selsam comments hereon:

=========================


[[Moderator note: Rhetoric creative constructed quote, not direct quote follows next line.]]

"Doug giveth very dangerouth advice in thuggesting Ag anchorth for DIY kite uthe." 


*** As usual, DaveS cannot stop from TRYING to counter anything I may post, thinking if only he can somehow "overcome" truth-tellers like Paul Gipe and myself, it will somehow make him successful in AWE.  As usual, my position is that DaveS is wrong once again, as it is so easy to show that almost every word he posts is false information.  Well Dave, the anchoring system I mentioned is what GE Wind has used for decades for anchoring met towers.  (meteorological instrumentation towers) The last one I helped erect was 50 meters tall (150 feet), with 8 levels of guy wires, at 29 Palms Marine base, near Palm Springs.  Four (4) such anchors were all we used, total, with each anchor serving eight (8) guy wires.   It would take a LOT of force to pull an upside-down cone of dirt 5 feet deep out of the ground, which is what you would have to do.  I'm not sure what kite you have that could pull a 5-foot long anchor like that, embedded in concrete, but I think if it is good for a 150-foot tower with 8 levels of guy wires, it could probably handle whatever Roddy is mucking around with this week.

~~ Doug Selsam
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16087 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/15/2014
Subject: Re: First Message from Gordon Spilkin

Doug Selsam comments hereon:

========================


"strange to settle on Doug's turbines, ...why anyone would willingly tilt turbines away from optimal HAWT orientation [?])" 

*** because tilted rotors have lift AND make power simultaneously, that's why.  We also have data from our California Energy Commission-sponsored research showing decent output despite rotor tilt.  So slanted rotors could be an option.  It gets more power with at least some slant by removing downwind rotors from the wakes of upwind rotors.  Besides that, I'm not sure Gordon "settled" on anything per se.  He just said "Hey what do you guys think of this idea?"  As usual, DaveS , the "Expert", cannot resist denigrating me at every opportunity...  fun fun fun.

~~ Doug Selsam
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16088 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/15/2014
Subject: Re: Novel Kite Instability and Actuation Factor (Braid Theoretic Mec

Doug Selsam comments hereon:

=========================


JoeF said: "5.
​ It continues to be a puzzle why you do not know about the positive successes that are recorded concerning DaveS' AWES systems; the videos and descriptions are available for very many."
*** Doug Replies:  OK so why not list a link in your above statement rather than just saying the links have been provided?  Every time I check out a DaveS video it is something wiggling for 2 or 3 seconds, and that's about all I remember seeing.  Very disappointing.  Please show me the link you are referring to.

JoeF continues: "The links have been presented to you. Nearly two thousand pages by him on AWE weave descriptions of generating energy from kite systems."
*** Doug Replies:  I plodded through most of those 2000 pages - very redundant.  Mostly repeated sketches of a kite that looks like the Batman logo with legs.  Drawing is what kids do in the margins of their notebooks - Drawings do not make power.  Nice to see the effort, but the drawings prove nothing except that he can draw in 3D fairly well, which many people cannot. And he can draw a person that is actually in proportion, if he tries.  So there may be a trace of intelligent life, somewhere in that dense planetary cranium, but it is not making itself easy to identify.

JoeF continues: "Your declared excitement might be advanced upon careful appreciation of the effective work that he and others have achieved to date.  It is disconcerting to a scholar to see you say the equivalent of "no Watt" when Watts have been generated." 
*** Doug Replies:  OK, Joe, then for the elucidation of me and the rest of the class, perhaps between you and DaveS, you could post the link that you think is most impressive for showing DaveS' acumen in using wind to produce electricity.  Let's see the meter.  Show us those Watts, please.  Getting things to wiggle, or lighting an LED for a few seconds, etc. do not qualify as success in my book.  Stunts and demos are not the same as showing an economical solution.

  I've explained for years now: in wind energy, almost ANY object, surface, or contraption that the wind can move can be forced to, in some way, generate some amount of electricity for some period of time.  You could have a chair blow over and generate piezoelectric electricity when the chair hits the ground.  (Oh no, here goes Joe on another new "branch" of AWE - dropping chairs from kites onto piezoelectric mats, to generate electricity...)  That does not even SUGGEST, let alone indicate, let alone demonstrate, that you have invented an economical wind energy solution.  That is the sort of thinking that characterizes the "Professor Crackpot"s of the world.  He sees some tiny amount of power and thinks he has "cracked the code"...  Repeat: ANY object placed in wind can be made to move, and ANY such movement can be contrived to generate SOME electricity.    That is not even RELATED to whether the object being moved by the wind is a useful energy generation system.  

Did you know that ALL dirt, in EVERYONE's yard has a certain amount of gold in it?  Does that mean everyone has a viable gold mine?  Hardly.  In almost every case, you'd use more value trying to get the gold than the paltry amount would be worth.  Same with energy, just another form of prospecting.  First you need the resource, then the knowledge, then the proper equipment. 

Right now, as I type, we're cranking out about 5 kW here. 
This facility is about $300 ahead on our electric bill for the year. (And we leave LOTS of lights on - do not even care)  That means every message I have posted this year, and all activity here, has been 100%+ wind-powered.  So, impress me.  Please supply the best link you can come up with, and please pardon me for not knowing where to find them if you have already provided them.
 
​ JoeF says: "6. Since kite sectors of AWE are already at high perfection levels, it is a puzzle to see your prose seemingly miss the evident facts that are big and loud in the world."​ 
*** Doug Replies:  Joe, that is COMICAL!  "High Perfection"???   "loud to the world"???  If DaveS' successes are "loud to the world", or even significant, why is "the world" not commenting on it?  Where are the magazine articles?  Where is Gizmag, saying "DaveS got a foam thing to wiggle and JoeF says that is AWE"?  You guys are in your own little world.  

Please re-read what I wrote above.  Just because an apparatus can be forced to generate SOME electricity, for SOME time, in no way indicates it has ANY significance as a new energy source.  As I pointed out, ANY object in the wind that can move, can generate SOME electricity, in SOME way.  (The Good Professor seizes on this, without further thought)  Sure, an object moves, so tie a string to it, and connect a generator to a spool - it doesn't really prove much, except that effort was spent building it and SOME amount of electricity COULD be generated at SOME cost.  The question is, does it generate a USEFUL amount of energy for the amount of effort and material that goes into it?  If you spend a million dollars to generate 1 kW, that apparatus can NEVER pay for itself, even if it runs continuously, forever, with NO maintenance.  Do you realize that?  In fact, even the 10 kW turbine powering this facility would not be here if the government hadn't paid for it.  At 70 grand installed, it only makes a little over $1000 of electricty per year (poor return on investment - does not even keep up with inflation), and they DO wear out, and they DO require occasional maintenance, which can require a crane (expensive), depending.  This is the best 10 kW turbine option on the market, and it will never pay for itself.  At some point it will require a complete rebuild, at which point it may not be worth it, considering the cost, compared to how many MORE years of service one can expect, before the NEXT rebuild.  I guess what I'm telling you is, in the long run, this 10 kW Bergey turbine, that was here when I bought this place, could probably not make enough electricity to pay for itself even if it was FREE.  Even though it's making more than we even use, still, it's too expensive.  That's because, in the long run, the maintenance costs alone may exceed the value of the electricity produced.  Only an off-grid installation could rationalize the expense, from an economical standpoint.  (Calm down, Professor Crackpot - that does NOT mean remote locations are best for early testing of prototypes!  You already wasted a million dollars - don't bother trying to make it pay for itself - at that price, it never can)

Joe continues:  "When AWE is further mastered and perfected, the tethered-wing sector of AWE will still be factually available for applications needing tethered-wing systems."

*** Doug Replies:  I agree, the possibilities are huge and almost endless, if not endless.
:)

​~ Doug Selsam

===============================================
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16089 From: dave santos Date: 11/15/2014
Subject: Re: Flight Proficiency Requirements for AWES in Shared AirSpace
Doug,

This topic is about the need for AWES pilots to meet FAA requirements to operate, not patents. Please make a new topic rather than pose questions off-topic.

The quick answer is that Joe, Rod, and I (and open academia) have succeeded in preventing any patents from being a problem by revealing a mountain of prior art and creating key new art in public. We are proud of this accomplishment, which took a lot of hard work.

Refer to previous Forum messages to answer all your key questions, without bothering the busy pros to review for you. Its not like you can expect many favors, given your out-of-control insults in every direction. Do your homework,

daveS




On Saturday, November 15, 2014 3:52 PM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16090 From: dave santos Date: 11/15/2014
Subject: Re: AWES with One-Way Wings (OWWs)
That was a rare nice Doug-post. 

Go father and have the genetically-engineered unicorns tow the the magic energy kites into the sky. We can do this folks; Wubbo lives!


On Saturday, November 15, 2014 3:59 PM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16091 From: dave santos Date: 11/15/2014
Subject: Re: Peter Lynn and Dave Gomberg on Anchoring
Doug,

Your advice to use GE's met tower anchor standard for "whatever Roddy is mucking around with this week" is a bit odd.

Let Rod also benefit from the advice of Lynn and Gomberg, the two greatest kite showmen in history, and holders of the world record for largest kite. Let such safety warnings compliment your suggestions, rather than set-you-off,

daveS

PS Note that this topic did not even mention your anchoring notions; its to quote top kite experts in light of Rod raising the question. You wrongly tend to turn every topic into a Doug-complaint,

daveS 


On Saturday, November 15, 2014 4:13 PM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16092 From: dave santos Date: 11/15/2014
Subject: Re: First Message from Gordon Spilkin
Doug,

Gordon's scheme already includes pilot-lift, which is more efficient by power-to-weight* than our most-probable operating wind speeds (Baeufort 3-5). He can opt to orient his turbines squarely by simply adding a bit more cheap kite area. The blades would then not need to hinge to efficiently mix lift and power. He could add a few inches to a single turbine's blades for extra power by avoiding the wind shadow wake interference of a super twin of equal weight. All this is review.

Its true, I do not think Gordon should attach your name to Bolonkin (who is twice your age with an amazing life accomplishment as a rocket scientist) for ideas you claim that we have found to have prior art. Sorry if you feel this is unfair,

daveS

* see [Costello 2013]


On Saturday, November 15, 2014 4:16 PM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16093 From: dave santos Date: 11/15/2014
Subject: Re: Novel Kite Instability and Actuation Factor (Braid Theoretic Mec
Joe,

Please moderate Doug's messages to a new topic whenever they lack relevance to the actual topic (like this topological kite case). This will keep technical topics focused for future study. It would help to catalog Doug's special topics together for him, if he cannot manage this on his own; as long as you are moderating him for profanity anyway. Putting abusive posts by any party in an open quarantine file might be the most reasonable solution to long standing complaints.

Doug will not be able to claim censorship, and the AWE community will be freed from an unwarranted pattern of distraction from the technical topic at hand,

daveS


On Saturday, November 15, 2014 4:34 PM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16094 From: dave santos Date: 11/15/2014
Subject: Re: Peter Lynn and Dave Gomberg on Anchoring
Correction: I did in fact reference Doug's anchoring advice as dangerous for neglecting the specific safety concerns that kite experts properly raise. I stand by the opinion, and apologize for his hurt feelings; but safety trumps personal issues.


On Saturday, November 15, 2014 6:07 PM Dave Santos <santos137@yahoo.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16095 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/15/2014
Subject: Towable Vehicle

For those working with tilted-bladed kites, there are many interesting notes in the following patent application:

The patent is not primarily focused on energy production, but some flygen matters are involved. The notes address other matters that could interest some of us.


Patent US8646719 - Marine vessel-towable aerovehicle system with automated tow line release


http://www.energykitesystems.net/Patents/US20140246538/US20140246538studyclip001.jpg


 


Publication numberUS20140246538 A1
Publication typeApplication
Application numberUS 14/146,505
Publication dateSep 4, 2014
Filing dateJan 2, 2014
Priority dateAug 23, 2010
Also published asUS8646719, US20120091259
InventorsJohn William Morris, Charles A. Jarnot
Original AssigneeHeliplane, Llc
Export CitationBiBTeX, EndNote, RefMan
Classifications (8)

External Links: USPTO, USPTO Assignment, Espacenet - Bibliographic data

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16096 From: dave santos Date: 11/16/2014
Subject: Regulatory Chaos- Kites seen as work around for FAA drone restrictio
The FAA is futzing over the complexities of regulating drones, whose technology advances faster than than good policy. Fortunately airspace user groups are powerful advocates for their rights, and their lawsuits and protests will drive balanced UAS FARs over time.

This Nature article notes KAP as a work-around for restrictions-


The Hobbits fight back-
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16097 From: Rod Read Date: 11/16/2014
Subject: Re: AWES with One-Way Wings (OWWs)
That'll be farther... Even though it's my national animal...
I'm not going to be accused of fathering any unicorns...
Not even for AWE sake.

Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16098 From: Rod Read Date: 11/16/2014
Subject: Re: Peter Lynn and Dave Gomberg on Anchoring
As for the relevance of expensive anchoring.
Doug ... You just finished a rant stating a $70k turbine would never make it's money back.
How many $k / kN restrained ?
Over what dynamic range of tether tug?
For how long given continual varying input stresses?
Bags
I use old tonne gravel / rubble bags when at the beach.
The whole cone upside down plug graphic is a bit gimmicky ... as in reality failure will likely come with fatigue near the surface.

Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16099 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/16/2014
Subject: Re: AWES with One-Way Wings (OWWs)

Adding to OWW is the option of having the upper lifter option be AWES in itself driving upper tether loops to drive the lower conveyor, as wings on lower escalator tether loops will most often be in lower winds; let the upper winds be mined to drive upper loops to in turn drive the rotation of the lower loop set. Though such element subassembly is not new, the combination with the fore-posts remain the novel offering (ever vulnerable to prior art).

​
*​License for the above technology:  ​
CC+ 4.x BY NC+ SA  AWE IP Pool
~~Joe Faust
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16100 From: Rod Read Date: 11/16/2014
Subject: Torque Rope ladder configuration
Attachments :

5mm spinning main line rope
6mm 4:1 glue lined heat shrink to protect rope
Wristband barrel lock resisting step travel along rope
Step made of carbon tube

Step end plug details to follow
CC4.0+ nc+ by sa awes open pool

   @@attachment@@
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16101 From: dave santos Date: 11/16/2014
Subject: Re: Torque Rope ladder configuration [1 Attachment]
A nice trick is to wax the rope and fitting sliding surfaces, either by rubbing with a candle or hot-application. The wax liquefies as needed to abate rope chafe without undue mess.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16102 From: Rod Read Date: 11/17/2014
Subject: Re: Torque Rope ladder configuration

The purpose of the shrink wrap is to provide abrasion protection to the rope.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16103 From: dave santos Date: 11/17/2014
Subject: Kite Therapy links and notes
A few links to sample the advancing paradigm of Wind-Powered Medicine; with many more out there. The therapy memes range from self-help to serious-disability, from art and nature to sport, for better mental and physical health, by means of kites-





A similarity case with practical economic limitations that toy kites do not have- 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16104 From: dave santos Date: 11/17/2014
Subject: Marionette Similarity Case
JoeF has presented the Marionette Topic before, so this post is follow-on review and update notes.

Bondestam and others have created elaborate kite marionettes, for two decades at least. Payne and McCutchen invoked "marionette fashion" AWES control, such that we suddenly see our multi-line kites as flown from handles and bars as true technological marionettes [1]. We see extraordinary puppetry rigging techniques blending into  classic stage rigging and ship rigging pattern languages. Some bring into AWE deep experience from these rigging specialties. All this tradition is melding in the AWE cocoon, to soon spread wing and take to the sky with dramatic power, as we do the work required.

Industrial AWES might even take the outward form of vast "Unicorn Gardens" to charm the NIMBYs, without undue compromise to capacity, just as commercial jets have been painted to look like whales swimming the sky. Our due-diligence study of marionettes for RAD finds direct connections to other picturesque historic and engineering aspects of kite research, as the Wikipedia article shows [2].
---------------------

[1] "Control can be applied by servomotors aboard the aircraft or in a marionette fashion via lines from the ground."   Quote from classic AWES patent filed in 1975 by Charles McCutchen, Peter R. Payne
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16105 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/17/2014
Subject: Mitch Shipley's ElectraTow at Currituck Airport NC October 2011

Many parts to the video story.   Launching HG an PG.

See other parts in Ken's channel. 

Start: 

Mitch Shipley's ElectraTow at Currituck Airport NC October 2011 Part 1
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16106 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/17/2014
Subject: Re: Mitch Shipley's ElectraTow at Currituck Airport NC October 2011
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16107 From: dave santos Date: 11/17/2014
Subject: Industrial Kite Killers for AWES Sense-and Avoid Capability
The FAA imposes safety requirements on AWES that must be carefully addressed in order to earn flight approval. One of the most challenging requirements is effective "sense and avoid" flight modes. The "sense" part is covered by the PIC-VO team, who would make a fast "avoid" decision and activate the avoidance method. A simple kite-killer mechanism will drop a kite pretty fast, but technical approaches vary from simple direct actuation, via a tagline, to various radio-control servo link options over a large scale spectrum.

We can perform many AWES experiments with nothing more than a special kite-killer tagline to the ground, awkward as this might be, with up to 3000ft of line out (to fly at FAA-permitted 2000ft). A skilled flyer can manage this well-enough manually, with no open issues to the rigging needed, but the radio-control option becomes operationally favored as distance grows, and there are complex issues to account for.

Radio channel reliability is a combination of jamming and spoofing resistance with basic system reliability. The hardware must be weather- and shock resistant. Keeping batteries charged all the time while being ready to kite-kill anytime is a basic need. The kite-kill function might involve high actuation-force at the release mechanism. There is no standard way to do all this yet. Its up to us to bring solutions to maturity.

Small scale radio control experiments can proceed with hobby gear, but its an open question what the best industrial components are (radios, freq bands, charging means, servos and release mechanisms?. Can anyone point to a COTS supplier of an equivalent TRL-9 system? Banner and glider tow releases are a start...

CC+ AWE IP Pool
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16108 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/17/2014
Subject: Re: Peter Lynn and Dave Gomberg on Anchoring


DougS comments hereon:

___________________

"Doug, Your advice to use GE's met tower anchor standard for "whatever Roddy is mucking around with this week" is a bit odd." ***It's a simple way to make a strong anchor.  This is one more example of, no matter how mundane and simple any post of mine may be, on any topic, daveS cannot stop himself from attempting the appearance of somehow "correcting" whatever it was I posted.  It's kind of like a fly that keeps buzzing around your head...  weird.


~ Doug Selsam