Messages in AirborneWindEnergy group.                           AWES16159to16208 Page 218 of 440.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16159 From: dave santos Date: 11/22/2014
Subject: Re: Helium use, helium escape

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16160 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/22/2014
Subject: Re: Edmund Villarreal. VentAir Technologies. VAST 6 (TM)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16161 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/22/2014
Subject: Re: Helium use, helium escape

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16162 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/22/2014
Subject: Re: EnerKite - Technik und Team - KurzTrailer

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16163 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/22/2014
Subject: The HTA Kytoon for AWES

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16164 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/22/2014
Subject: Re: Beeson on Aerial Navigation

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16165 From: dave santos Date: 11/23/2014
Subject: Re: Helium use, helium escape

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16166 From: dave santos Date: 11/23/2014
Subject: Re: EnerKite - Technik und Team - KurzTrailer

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16167 From: dave santos Date: 11/23/2014
Subject: How Insurers are Forcing Rescue Kites into Sailboat Ocean Racing

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16168 From: dave santos Date: 11/23/2014
Subject: 1st Technical Kite Group Meeting (TKGM-1) Notes

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16169 From: dave santos Date: 11/23/2014
Subject: 2013 Berkeley Hack-the-Sky Debate

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16170 From: hardensoftintl Date: 11/24/2014
Subject: Re: 1st Technical Kite Group Meeting (TKGM-1) Notes

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16171 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/24/2014
Subject: Re: 2013 Berkeley Hack-the-Sky Debate

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16172 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/24/2014
Subject: Re: Edmund Villarreal. VentAir Technologies. VAST 6 (TM)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16173 From: dave santos Date: 11/24/2014
Subject: Re: 2013 Berkeley Hack-the-Sky Debate

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16174 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/24/2014
Subject: Re: Edmund Villarreal. VentAir Technologies. VAST 6 (TM)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16175 From: Rod Read Date: 11/24/2014
Subject: Re: Edmund Villarreal. VentAir Technologies. VAST 6 (TM)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16176 From: Rod Read Date: 11/24/2014
Subject: Re: 2013 Berkeley Hack-the-Sky Debate

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16177 From: dave santos Date: 11/24/2014
Subject: Re: Edmund Villarreal. VentAir Technologies. VAST 6 (TM)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16178 From: dave santos Date: 11/24/2014
Subject: Re: 2013 Berkeley Hack-the-Sky Debate

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16179 From: dave santos Date: 11/24/2014
Subject: AWE Crackpot Index

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16180 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/24/2014
Subject: Kite arches able to fly well in a wind and then in wind of full reve

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16181 From: dave santos Date: 11/24/2014
Subject: Re: Kite arches able to fly well in a wind and then in wind of full

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16182 From: snapscan_snapscan Date: 11/24/2014
Subject: Re: A method to prevent torque induced contraction of Multi-Tether-H

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16183 From: snapscan_snapscan Date: 11/24/2014
Subject: Re: 360 x 180 hemisphere winch guide and ladder torque demo

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16184 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/24/2014
Subject: Re: Returning with food and fuel

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16185 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/24/2014
Subject: Re: Returning with food and fuel

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16186 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/24/2014
Subject: "Gardoon"

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16187 From: Rod Read Date: 11/25/2014
Subject: Re: AWE Crackpot Index

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16188 From: Rod Read Date: 11/25/2014
Subject: Re: Kite arches able to fly well in a wind and then in wind of full

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16189 From: Rod Read Date: 11/25/2014
Subject: Re: A method to prevent torque induced contraction of Multi-Tether-H

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16190 From: Rod Read Date: 11/25/2014
Subject: Re: A method to prevent torque induced contraction of Multi-Tether-H

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16191 From: Rod Read Date: 11/25/2014
Subject: Tensed solar skin

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16192 From: dave santos Date: 11/25/2014
Subject: Re: AWE Crackpot Index

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16193 From: dave santos Date: 11/25/2014
Subject: Scaled-up aero-towed banners as AWES launching study

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16194 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/25/2014
Subject: Re: 2013 Berkeley Hack-the-Sky Debate

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16195 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/25/2014
Subject: Re: Edmund Villarreal. VentAir Technologies. VAST 6 (TM)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16196 From: dave santos Date: 11/25/2014
Subject: Re: Edmund Villarreal. VentAir Technologies. VAST 6 (TM)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16197 From: dave santos Date: 11/25/2014
Subject: Energy Harvesting Journal AWE Overview

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16198 From: dave santos Date: 11/25/2014
Subject: Re: Returning with food and fuel

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16199 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/25/2014
Subject: Some Early "Arch" Kites

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16200 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/25/2014
Subject: Re: Some Early "Arch" Kites

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16201 From: Rod Read Date: 11/26/2014
Subject: Re: A method to prevent torque induced contraction of Multi-Tether-H

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16202 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/26/2014
Subject: Re: A method to prevent torque induced contraction of Multi-Tether-H

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16203 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/26/2014
Subject: Interlude

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16204 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/26/2014
Subject: Re: Multi-rotor kite-lifted "Coaxial multi-turbine generator" by Ha

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16205 From: dave santos Date: 11/26/2014
Subject: Ken Caldeira's AWE v. Nuke Advocacy

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16206 From: dave santos Date: 11/26/2014
Subject: Re: Large field isotropic mesh simulation

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16207 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/26/2014
Subject: Re: A method to prevent torque induced contraction of Multi-Tether-H

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16208 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/26/2014
Subject: Re: Edmund Villarreal. VentAir Technologies. VAST 6 (TM)



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16159 From: dave santos Date: 11/22/2014
Subject: Re: Helium use, helium escape
Aerogels are open porous structures, so gas retention still requires a  gas-tight thin-film membrane layer. The operational problem is protecting large seams and surfaces from invisible damage. In the early Robot Group, we located leaks with a fancy helium detector, but it became clear that is not an ideally solved problem, neither is outdoor robustness in all conditions; except if money and time are in great supply. We have to decide between saving the poor or making toys for the rich, in choosing between kites and balloons. The Kytoon is an awkward hybrid, rather than a textbook synergy, as things currently stand.


On Saturday, November 22, 2014 9:41 AM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16160 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/22/2014
Subject: Re: Edmund Villarreal. VentAir Technologies. VAST 6 (TM)

Sep 28, 2014    video:  2:30 min

VAST 6 - Portable Airborne Wind Energy. For Home/Personal Use.


Web: ventairtechnologies.com - VentAir Technologies, Inc.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tags: VAT   VAST   Edmund    VAST 6™   VAST 6     VAST6    vents open to achieve kite retrieval     VentAir  vent air
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16161 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/22/2014
Subject: Re: Helium use, helium escape

We then look for the aerogels to smartly self-heal the clogging of its pores in most all conditions; perhaps the first clogging could be fed by the He itself. Maybe a solution will show that is low cost; it might arrive from a living scum.

  ~ JoeF
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16162 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/22/2014
Subject: Re: EnerKite - Technik und Team - KurzTrailer

Ein Drachen für den elektrischen Strom, rbb aktuell, Mittwoch, 23 07 2014

Video.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16163 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/22/2014
Subject: The HTA Kytoon for AWES

The HTA Kytoon for AWES

       Ram-air load the kytoon wing; let the leaks occur: no problem. Have it just difficult for the rammed air to escape, but escape slowly is just fine, as more ram air is immediately available.  During sun hours, let the air be a bit warmed by the color of the kytoon's cover.   The kytoon lives many sorts of lives, not just LTA.

      ~ JoeF
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16164 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/22/2014
Subject: Re: Beeson on Aerial Navigation
Upon some study, I suggest:
1. William Beeson in the instruction qualifies to be a member of the
FFAWE Club.
2. He allows for the tether that couples the four various wing types
to be of varied length. This allows the separated wings to be in
potentially different wind environments to allow controls to be
effected.
3. He seems to be one of the earliest members of FFAWE.
4. He is one of the early wing-suit instructors. Allowing influence
from his other patents, the wing-suit of this subject teaching could
be a gliding wing-suit, perhaps an early seed to the contemporary
wing-suit craze. Allow wing-suit to be perhaps part of the
safe-worker tools in advanced future AWES.
5. He mentions tacking, rising, lowering, and propulsion. He did not
reach electricity production, but he reached navigation.
6. He recognized using the wind over the FFAWE to store potential
energy for later use.

~ JoeF
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16165 From: dave santos Date: 11/23/2014
Subject: Re: Helium use, helium escape
A problem with self-sealing balloons is the added mass of the sealing medium (self-sealing innertubes are much heavier, so most bike racing avoids them). The microbe idea is interesting, but its hard to imagine a lifeform to seal pure helium; being an inert gas not sensed easily, nor providing any sustenance. Life-support media for the novel microbe would still mean unwelcome added mass.

Graphene, as a pure crystaline medium, should self-heal under the right conditions of heat, electrostatic charge, and free monomer particles. Sci-fi nanobots might someday be a means to maintain microstructure like thin-film gas envelopes. LTA seems to become ever more quaint as an aviation class faster than it ever gets better. I was attracted into LTA long ago by the almost magical flight possible, but not every technology lives up to practical hopes. Kites are a way to do AWE while happily avoiding LTA problems.


On Saturday, November 22, 2014 11:46 AM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16166 From: dave santos Date: 11/23/2014
Subject: Re: EnerKite - Technik und Team - KurzTrailer
This French Enerkite-KiteGen coverage linked off the video JoeF cited-

 


On Saturday, November 22, 2014 11:47 AM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16167 From: dave santos Date: 11/23/2014
Subject: How Insurers are Forcing Rescue Kites into Sailboat Ocean Racing
Here is a case of insurability driving kite innovation, just not exactly as the AWES Forum has long proposed, but in a weird and wonderful twist of irony-
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16168 From: dave santos Date: 11/23/2014
Subject: 1st Technical Kite Group Meeting (TKGM-1) Notes
Despite short notice, long travel distances, and bad weather forecast, seven of us gathered the WKM meeting room, and later moved to the beach for flying demos. We shared news and Net videos. The technical discussion was wide ranging, and there was a consensus that current progress in kites is amazing.  Far away players like Rod and JoeF were also lauded. We watched Rod's admirable isotropic mesh simulation and several kPower videos.

Cristian Harrel (Cleventine) was the new presence in the WKM sphere, and shared his AWES work using the Web to illustrate his comments. KAP and KiteSats were broadly covered, with specific aspects like local networks and communication link optimization discussed. Ken Conrad show-and-telled, then demonstrated KAP with a remote viewfinder cobbled from the NTSC eyepiece of videocam salvage. Ken's partner, Suzanne Sadow, is a cheerful kite pro, who added greatly to discusson and flying. Local kite records were discussed. Dave Colbert (Above It All Kites) has gathered about 100 of his large Delta-Conynes. Carl Williamson, (another local train-kite maker) endorses these for a world altitude record. Dave noted that he has wanted to fly his kites farther apart than previous stacks, where 6' spacing caused moderate interference.

We flew the new 22m2 PL pilot-lifters and 3m2 "Skin" powerkite, and did distance observations for FAA conspicuity validation (at two miles the kites still stood out grandly in the sky). Clev and I were excited to test the Peter Lynn single-skin power-kite. Its was by turns solid and squirrely, requiring a bit of practice to handle deftly; more or less in between NPW and four-line parafoil action. Flying conditions were perfect and the session ended in a glorious sunset with the "green flash" effect evident.

Holli Kemmer, the new WKM director, was pleased with the participation and many developmental leads to build on. Everyone agreed on future meetings, and a second TKGM is proposed for Seattle in Jan.., where a larger number of AWE players will be able to attend. AKA President John Lutter wanted to attend, but could only send his greetings and express support. Wayne German and Dan Tracy, were especially missed (having conflicting schedules).

There will be lots of follow-on work emerging from TKGM-1. Consider hosting other regional TKGMs wherever interested folks live, to get something new going.

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16169 From: dave santos Date: 11/23/2014
Subject: 2013 Berkeley Hack-the-Sky Debate
Perhaps we can find a recording of this debate (esp. to learn how Clive reasoned). Geoengineering is an open question in AWE, which, with many kite-related variants, is widely understood as potent geoengineering concepts. Ken is a well known advocate of US CA Bay Area AWE (NearZero/Makani/Joby/GoogleX circle). Earth Island is a new in AWE mindspace-
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16170 From: hardensoftintl Date: 11/24/2014
Subject: Re: 1st Technical Kite Group Meeting (TKGM-1) Notes
Interesting and quite gladdening, DaveS.
Regards.
John

"dave santos santos137@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  

Despite short notice, long travel distances, and bad weather forecast, seven of us gathered the WKM meeting room, and later moved to the beach for flying demos. We shared news and Net videos. The technical discussion was wide ranging, and there was a consensus that current progress in kites is amazing.  Far away players like Rod and JoeF were also lauded. We watched Rod's admirable isotropic mesh simulation and several kPower videos.

Cristian Harrel (Cleventine) was the new presence in the WKM sphere, and shared his AWES work using the Web to illustrate his comments. KAP and KiteSats were broadly covered, with specific aspects like local networks and communication link optimization discussed. Ken Conrad show-and-telled, then demonstrated KAP with a remote viewfinder cobbled from the NTSC eyepiece of videocam salvage. Ken's partner, Suzanne Sadow, is a cheerful kite pro, who added greatly to discusson and flying. Local kite records were discussed. Dave Colbert (Above It All Kites) has gathered about 100 of his large Delta-Conynes. Carl Williamson, (another local train-kite maker) endorses these for a world altitude record. Dave noted that he has wanted to fly his kites farther apart than previous stacks, where 6' spacing caused moderate interference.

We flew the new 22m2 PL pilot-lifters and 3m2 "Skin" powerkite, and did distance observations for FAA conspicuity validation (at two miles the kites still stood out grandly in the sky). Clev and I were excited to test the Peter Lynn single-skin power-kite. Its was by turns solid and squirrely, requiring a bit of practice to handle deftly; more or less in between NPW and four-line parafoil action. Flying conditions were perfect and the session ended in a glorious sunset with the "green flash" effect evident.

Holli Kemmer, the new WKM director, was pleased with the participation and many developmental leads to build on. Everyone agreed on future meetings, and a second TKGM is proposed for Seattle in Jan.., where a larger number of AWE players will be able to attend. AKA President John Lutter wanted to attend, but could only send his greetings and express support. Wayne German and Dan Tracy, were especially missed (having conflicting schedules).

There will be lots of follow-on work emerging from TKGM-1. Consider hosting other regional TKGMs wherever interested folks live, to get something new going.

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16171 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/24/2014
Subject: Re: 2013 Berkeley Hack-the-Sky Debate
DougS comments hereon:
===================:
I'd contrast the opening phrase: "Since the scale of the climate change crisis became clear" with this chart: 
http://notrickszone.com/wp- content/uploads/2013/09/73- climate-models_reality.gif

By now I would assume everyone has seen some version of this chart showing that actual temps are now below ALL projected models.  In other words, temps have been flat for most of the years we've been told to panic, and at this point, not a single "model" can be reconciled with the reality that temps seem to have stopped rising for the past several years.

The FIRST thing that anyone trained in science saw as a "red flag" many years ago, with regard to "the models" is that they all pretty much agreed!  Now when, in science, do you EVER see that much agreement, when the topic is prediction of an unknown, based on uncertain theories?  NEVER.  The very fact of that high level of agreement between so many "competing" predictions would seem to fly in the face of normal statistical probability.

That improbably (impossibly?) high level of "agreement" was a big telltale clue in itself, but now, now that ALL of these mutually-agreeing models have clearly diverged from reality, I would have to agree that "the scale of the climate change crisis became clear", except it seems that the writers of the paper are in denial that the clarity (what HAS become CLEAR) actually shows that the scale of climate change is lower than the models promised - low to nonexistent!  

So it seems that at this point the effort to promote panic over impending warming has reached a point of running on mere inertia, resonating only with people too busy, too indoctrinated, or too financially-motivated to take into account the factual divergence of the actual temperatures from "the models".  

One wonders how much longer it can go on?  Or has it reached the point of actually becoming a religion, as opposed to merely resembling a religion, where the evidence will NEVER matter, and never even be considered anymore?
:)

I will await the violent attempts to deny what I have said here from the predictable one, no doubt with heels most firmly dug into the slowly-evaporating bank of self-imposed climate ignorance.

~~~~ DougS
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16172 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/24/2014
Subject: Re: Edmund Villarreal. VentAir Technologies. VAST 6 (TM)
DougS comments hereon:
============================
VentAir:  Most people on this list might have trouble believing this, but as soon as someone like me sees even the NAME "vent air" we already know it is one more in an endless chain of "Professor Crackpot" ideas.

Clue 1) The name "Vent Air" - such "descriptive" names that use terms like "vent" and "flow" are simply symptomatic of designs that don't work.  Why?  I'm trying to figure that out, but, having seen it so many times now, you gotta understand, yes, you can literally tell from the name that it is a Crackpot idea.  I think maybe it has something to do with the arrogance that such a name brings to the table.  It kind of implies:  "Previous wind turbine designers neglected that AIR is used.  We actually UNDERSTAND that AIR has certain properties that the mainstream has not recognized, nor have they appreciated the need for that air to "VENT", (Or maybe never understood that it is AIR that makes up the Vent (wind)), but if only THEY were as smart as US, then THEY would have thought of "Vent Air"!
Finally - a turbine that understands how to vent the air!   Other names that this reminds me of are:
FloDesign, which implied that if only mainstream designers had understood that air must FLOW and been able to DESIGN something to take advantage of that ability to FLOW, they would be as smart as us.
FloWind - famous vertical-axis utility-scale turbines in the early 1980's - all broke when strong winds ruined their fantasy.  On and on.

Clue 2) When their presentation starts out showing flowers and trees and stuff - this is where they treat the viewer as a complete idiot, as though the viewer needs first to be shown how beautiful nature really IS, because only once they can be forced to appreciate NATURE, will they appreciate the advanced technology about to be revealed.  At that point they might as well include a tutorial on "global warming" - anything to avoid talking about the actual technology (or lack thereof).

A REAL improvement would get right to the meat of the matter, without the obligatory vista-painting to "set the scene".  In reality, every part of their presentation is designed to dodge the issue at hand (is their technology better?) and gloss it all over in favor of scene-setting to set the stage for mere unverfied hype.

Clue 3) They never discuss any salient aspect of the technology except showing that they are one more "kite-reeler".  They never acknowledge the plethora of competing kite-reeling efforts, nor do they even touch on what makes theirs "better".

Clue4) A brief mention of incorporating solar panels on their kite.  No explanation is given why the panels are not located on the ground instead, nor of the need to add a conductive tether, if I am understanding their proposal correctly that the solar panels would add to overall power output.  It would seem that such panels could add little comparative power as opposed to their added weight, implying the promoters have little faith in their actual reeling scheme.  So far any wind turbine incorporating solar panels in its structure or surfaces has not panned out.  It falls under the heading of "Pick a lane, Ace."

Anyway, judging from past experience, I would expect the most clueless among us to violently resist my truthtelling on this matter as he has so often in the past., actually in response to this very matter, brought up previously, and here for an encore presentation, so I guess, flame-shields up!  Put on your ignorance protection hazmat gear!  :) 

~~~~ DougS
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16173 From: dave santos Date: 11/24/2014
Subject: Re: 2013 Berkeley Hack-the-Sky Debate
Still no recording found of the Berkeley debate, but Clive Hamilton makes his case in the talk linked below regarding a small Lawrence Livermore National Labs clique prominently promoting geoengineering in a cozy tacit symbiosis with oil power-elites. In particular, Clive identifies Ken Caldeira (Cc:ed) as a key figure of a cliquish Livermore-Stanford culture (incl. Carnegie Institution's Department of Global Ecology at Stanford). Livermore's Lowell Wood ("brilliant" "Dr. Evil" as KenC playfully dubs him) and Edward Teller himself advocating sulphuric aerosol treatment of the stratosphere, so that petro-power could retain its status-quo.

Clive connects KenC to Bill Gates' emerging geoengineering agenda. In Open-AWE we know Ken as consistently close to the Makani promotion machine while claiming to speak for all of us. We note the Livermore-Teller Google-Makani connection via Astro Teller (Edward's nephew heading GoogleX AWE R&D)/ Even Miles Loyd figures as as a Livermore asset (no one sees Miles as a partisan AWE figure, but a pawn of the Makani brand of High-Complexity AWE). JoeF and I have followed this "Stanford-Livermore" cultural pattern firsthand in AWE, especially in the machinations to stage-manage AWEC 2010 (the infamous "stolen" conference), secret AWEC lobbying for privatized US airspace, and the Near-Zero AWE expert elicitation, whose final results were clumsily cooked to Makani's advantage. 

Even before knowing Clive's critique, we experienced Ken Caldeira playing troubling roles at the center of these trends (even personally approving, as a board-member/founder, NearZero censorship favoring Makani AWES High-Complexity architectural biases). This is an out-of-touch world with its own logic; where the sole DOE ARPA-E AWE funding pick is an obviously superfluous gift to Google's Makani venture investment (with more-deserving applicants like SkyMill (DaveL) overlooked).

Perhaps Ken could explain why there will be no US AWEC conference this year, even as GoogleX continues to pimp Makani, and EU continues to advance its efforts. Ken has declined to explain his backroom actions in steering AWE public policy, keeping open the NearZero and Carnegie Institute concerns we have posed. Clive's critiques are a consistent reminder of the dangerous mindset of unaccountable power-elites. Weirdly, KenC even publicly advises prospective students NOT to enter atmospheric science (PBS interview), as if his generation was the last one to count. In fact, atmospheric science has a large future, with ongoing revolutions to drive knowledge beyond Ken's imagining.

AWE and related ocean paravane "geoflow" variants differ from other geoengineering means in being potetially able to directly displace the oil economy, while also having the potential to "hack the sky". Makani is widely considered to have prematurely down-selected a dead-end AWES architecture (eg. all EU AWE teams have chosen lower-risk AWES architectures). This is not a technical debate this Livermore-Stanford clique encourages. We need open-AWE engineering-science to flourish without the sleazy back-room processes and technocratic biases of this cynical Bay Area neocon-neolib elite so starkly identified-
 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16174 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/24/2014
Subject: Re: Edmund Villarreal. VentAir Technologies. VAST 6 (TM)

It seems VAT is specializing in have the involved wing severely change form by venting

in order to have less line tension during the reeling-in non-productive phase.

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

~ JoeF
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16175 From: Rod Read Date: 11/24/2014
Subject: Re: Edmund Villarreal. VentAir Technologies. VAST 6 (TM)
Dunno Doug...
A wee layer of this solar skin
could add a bit of stiffening to an aerodynamic mid bridle strut on a single skin lifter kite
Thus allowing just enough power at altitude to keep a trim sail overhead, pointed the right way in all viable conditions...

brand new (hmmm well just a wee bit maybe)
cc4.0 nc by sa + open awes pool

Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16176 From: Rod Read Date: 11/24/2014
Subject: Re: 2013 Berkeley Hack-the-Sky Debate
Doug, Your graphic by itself didn't really present any data.
And weirdly all of the "predictions" seem to have been made in 1978.
Or they all started at different times but with historically different data sets....?
And what's on the Y? yearly increase... That'd be cumulative... Or a variance from a baseline?

Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16177 From: dave santos Date: 11/24/2014
Subject: Re: Edmund Villarreal. VentAir Technologies. VAST 6 (TM)
Doug misses that his own drive-shaft AWE scheme, and his decade of promotional hype, is even more crackpot than Edmund's weak scheme. No AWE expert is fooled by crackpot hype, nor requires a greater AWE crackpot to point it out.

What is the cure for AWE's crackpot claims? Let all the concepts that can field working prototypes be tested by best-practice test-engineering standards, so data determines who is real. Lets hope Edmund can migrate his obvious sales talent to sell the winning results of comparative testing. If only Doug had the expertise to promote a broad testing program to Bill Gates and Eric Schmidt, he might have avoided top-crackpot status, and led us all.




On Monday, November 24, 2014 2:21 PM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16178 From: dave santos Date: 11/24/2014
Subject: Re: 2013 Berkeley Hack-the-Sky Debate
Doug wrote- "I will await the violent attempts to deny what I have said here"

Meanwhile, we await your sharing any AWE engineering progress. Please debate climate change on a forum for that purpose.


On Monday, November 24, 2014 2:39 PM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16179 From: dave santos Date: 11/24/2014
Subject: AWE Crackpot Index
As long as we have "crackpot" complaints on the AWES Forum, lets be clear what is meant by who. I propose Doug unfairly applies "crackpot" to a long list of respected AWE players, by incorrect definitions of his own devising. Referencing the publicly established psychological profile of a crackpot (or crank) pasted below sets the record straight. Ironically no one who Doug has ever attacked as a crackpot in AWE circles seems to fit the actual profile so closely as he. 

From Wikipedia-

Common characteristics of cranks

The second book of the mathematician and popular author Martin Gardner was a study of crank beliefs, Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science. More recently, the mathematician Underwood Dudleyhas written a series of books on mathematical cranks, including The Trisectors, Mathematical Cranks, and Numerology: Or, What Pythagoras Wrought. And in a 1992 UseNet post, the mathematicianJohn Baez humorously proposed a checklist, the Crackpot index, intended to diagnose cranky beliefs regarding contemporary physics.[3]
According to these authors, virtually universal characteristics of cranks include:
  1. Cranks overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and underestimate that of acknowledged experts.
  2. Cranks insist that their alleged discoveries are urgently important.
  3. Cranks rarely, if ever, acknowledge any error, no matter how trivial.
  4. Cranks love to talk about their own beliefs, often in inappropriate social situations, but they tend to be bad listeners, being uninterested in anyone else's experience or opinions.
Some cranks lack academic achievement, in which case they typically assert that academic training in the subject of their crank belief is not only unnecessary for discovering the truth, but actively harmful because they believe it poisons the minds by teaching falsehoods. Others greatly exaggerate their personal achievements, and may insist that some achievement (real or alleged) in some entirely unrelated area of human endeavor implies that their cranky opinion should be taken seriously.
Some cranks claim vast knowledge of any relevant literature, while others claim that familiarity with previous work is entirely unnecessary; regardless, cranks inevitably reveal that whether or not they believe themselves to be knowledgeable concerning relevant matters of fact, mainstream opinion, or previous work, they are not in fact well-informed concerning the topic of their belief.
In addition, many cranks:
  1. seriously misunderstand the mainstream opinion to which they believe that they are objecting,
  2. stress that they have been working out their ideas for many decades, and claim that this fact alone entails that their belief cannot be dismissed as resting upon some simple error,
  3. compare themselves with Galileo or Copernicus, implying that the mere unpopularity of some belief is in itself evidence of plausibility,
  4. claim that their ideas are being suppressed, typically by secret intelligence organizations, mainstream science, powerful business interests, or other groups which, they allege, are terrified by the possibility of their revolutionary insights becoming widely known,
  5. appear to regard themselves as persons of unique historical importance.
Cranks who contradict some mainstream opinion in some highly technical field, such as mathematics or physics, frequently:
  1. exhibit a marked lack of technical ability,
  2. misunderstand or fail to use standard notation and terminology,
  3. ignore fine distinctions which are essential to correctly understand mainstream belief.
That is, cranks tend to ignore any previous insights which have been proven by experience to facilitate discussion and analysis of the topic of their cranky claims; indeed, they often assert that these innovations obscure rather than clarify the situation.[4]
In addition, cranky scientific theories do not in fact qualify as theories as this term is commonly understood within science. For example, crank theories in physics typically fail to result in testable predictions, which makes them unfalsifiable and hence unscientific. Or the crank may present their ideas in such a confused, not even wrong manner that it is impossible to determine what they are actually claiming.
Perhaps surprisingly, many cranks may appear quite normal when they are not passionately expounding their cranky belief, and they may even be successful in careers unrelated to their cranky beliefs
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16180 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/24/2014
Subject: Kite arches able to fly well in a wind and then in wind of full reve
​Kite arches able to fly well in a wind and then in wind of full reverse direction without changing anchor sets
Have kite arch of such design so that the kite arch flies well in a wind followed by flying well when the wind fully reverses direction, without changing the anchors and without changing the wings in the kite arch.  Note that the Rod Read attention on kited isotrophic domes use sub-kites with sub-kite tethers to the main load-lined dome-like net; such is a dome cousin to the present kite arch topic hereon. 
  • Some kite arches are not reversible in the sense described above. Some kite arches are able to fly when the wind is fully reversed in direction without any change to anchors or wings involved. 
  • There is a sub-class of kite arches that may handle a full-wind-direction change by having two load lines and then a placing of one the load lines in front or in the rear of a fixed load line. 
  • There is a sub-class of kite arches --the rotary flip-wing  ribbon SkyBow that have the ability to fly in wind or the full-direction-change of wind. 
  • There is a sub-class of kite arches that do not rotate, but have the ability of the first paragraph, but have the wing elements with sub-kite tethers anchor-based into the main arch load line. 
  • There is a sub-class of kite arches that fit wing elements to the load line without using sub-kite tethers, but have the ability of the first paragraph above. 
  • But notice that many kite arches do not have the ability of the first paragraph.  Note that a kite arch of severe Savonius or stark S-shaped rotary wings do not have the ability noted in the above first paragraph. 
     So, when exploring kite arches, one will be deciding whether one wants the kite system to have the ability of the first paragraph or not. 

When and where might such bi-directional kite arches be just what is wanted? 
    • Maybe in passes where the wind reverses direction each day and night on average?  
    • Maybe when the kite arch is so large that one does not want to change anchors or change element wings in the arch. 
This note above does not address how to fly the kite arches during the wind-direction change; that is a different topic.
~~JoeF
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16181 From: dave santos Date: 11/24/2014
Subject: Re: Kite arches able to fly well in a wind and then in wind of full
Some locations with strong coastal land and sea breeze reversals, but weak geostrophic winds, are suited to a two-way arch. Gap winds tend to alternate, even if one direction predominates. An AWES arch that only reverses would not be suited for the veering winds of normal weather systems, but could out-scale rotatable arches and enjoy a performance or economic edge over a fully isotropic dome.

We are exploring wind and AWES horizontal polarization cases, of a strong standard wind axis most often imposed by terrain factors, and the engineering trade-offs involved in optimizing to a polarized pattern.


On Monday, November 24, 2014 4:37 PM, "Joe Faust joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16182 From: snapscan_snapscan Date: 11/24/2014
Subject: Re: A method to prevent torque induced contraction of Multi-Tether-H
Rod did it! He built the first working prototype! Congratulations, Rod and thank you for putting the time in to build this (starts at 1:38):

360x180 hemisphere winch guide and torque transmission ladder

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16183 From: snapscan_snapscan Date: 11/24/2014
Subject: Re: 360 x 180 hemisphere winch guide and ladder torque demo
Thank you Rod! Great proof of concept for the Multi-Tether-Helices with center line method (starting at 1:39). Now all you got to do is attach this to your Daisy and you have yourself some real AWES :)

/cb
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16184 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/24/2014
Subject: Re: Returning with food and fuel

In 1888 some attention by Henry Loftie

was given to multi-blades on single line to use the flow energy to mine for energy (rotate, wiggle, turn) and fuel (fish) for use by others at remote times by various conversions:

Gang spoon-bait
Patent US418200 - Gang spoon-bait

Publication numberUS418200 A
Publication typeGrant
Publication dateDec 31, 1889
Filing dateOct 26, 1888
InventorsHenry Loftie

 

Export CitationBiBTeX, EndNote, RefMan
Referenced by (6), Classifications (1)

External Links: USPTO, USPTO Assignment, Espacenet


Tag: Train-kite tech, kite trains, convert flow energy to mechanical energy, fishing, fish, paravanes, paravane, lure, lures, vines, trees,


~ JoeF
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16185 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/24/2014
Subject: Re: Returning with food and fuel
Video of several tested paravanes: 

Fish Eye View of Fishing Lures
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16186 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/24/2014
Subject: "Gardoon"
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16187 From: Rod Read Date: 11/25/2014
Subject: Re: AWE Crackpot Index
Oh get a grip

Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16188 From: Rod Read Date: 11/25/2014
Subject: Re: Kite arches able to fly well in a wind and then in wind of full
The Peter Lynn single skin 4 line kite tested at the Technical Kite Group meeting is able to fly backwards.
It's not a two loadpath arch design... but it is a soft tensed out fabric ...pulled by 4 control lines and spread out bridling.
It arches front to back and side to side variously against inflation pressure and form resistance.

So to apply that spread loading bridle form geometry to a classic two loadpath arch ...Make it a 3 line arch... Add a lower catenary (shorter line smaller arch) underneath the mid of the two loadpaths. Set between this new line and the kixels or original loadpaths at various points along the length.

Keep the loadpaths and kite surfaces symmetric and it can work both ways.

Your most likely scenario for two way flow over a wide gap... Tides.
Easier in water
Make the kites or lines of heavier material to keep it arch down type.
Make the kites or lines of lighter material to keep it arch up type.

Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16189 From: Rod Read Date: 11/25/2014
Subject: Re: A method to prevent torque induced contraction of Multi-Tether-H
I have definitely got torque transmission around a tensed line.
At the moment in this vid you'll see that the struts are only limited in travelling 1 direction.
Most of the middle struts sit just a bit away from their stopper. So it's the end strut fixings that are most important here.

The strut outer lines do take up some of the main line tension needed to transmit the torque.
The central line is twisted as much as the helix.
A less stable more jerky transmission is observed under less tension...

More video to follow... when I get my proper camera back tonight hopefully.

Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16190 From: Rod Read Date: 11/25/2014
Subject: Re: A method to prevent torque induced contraction of Multi-Tether-H
Having the torque source able to move along the tensed line axis will enable proper use of each stopper.

That's the plan when I fit a daisy instead of a drill...

Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16191 From: Rod Read Date: 11/25/2014
Subject: Tensed solar skin
Tensed solar skin may currently be heavy and cumbersome as a lift membrane...

However we have recently proposed an isotropic mesh structure which has tensed line elements as it's structure...
Around the mesh nodes you could stretch 6 (or fewer depending on node) x  recently shown thin film solar product.

(one part around the node will usually be in shadow of lift kite)

The small amount of power can actuate mesh steering...

Obvious alternative...
Have a very small top side generator incorporated into the Daisy / torque spinning tether line swivel.

cc4.0 nc by sa + open awes pool
 
Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16192 From: dave santos Date: 11/25/2014
Subject: Re: AWE Crackpot Index
Rod,

This is about bringing in third-party references to more fairly determine if anyone deserves to be dismissed as a crank in AWE. The primary Wikipedia provided criteria of a crank is someone who denies broad community competence in a technical field (like aerospace).

Sorry if the topic bothers you, but as long as the AWES Forum has to deal with newcomers to AWE getting a crackpot label hung on them by a false definition, then the topic is active. I see nothing in Edmund's initial scheme as fallacious as Doug's ST thinking, where a Darrieus can sprout a rotating tower of off-axis rotors and be crudely hyped as the a-priori AWE solution ad-nauseum.

Its really a technical issue for you to "get a grip" on, if you can take the next step and scale-up your torque-ladder somewhat (200ft suggested as enough to reveal the scaling problem), to better predict if it can safely reach 2000ft and tap enough power to be economic, or at least test well next to the other options. The Daisy should also test against all the rigid wings and looping foils of equivalent weight. This is what Doug should be doing; actual testing, rather than over-claiming and calling so many of his peers "prof crackpot".

Test Engineering is what will sort the crank schemes forever out of AWE, not any kook who sees cranks everywhere in AE circles, claims to master books without opening them, claims to control minds, claims to be the greatest living wind inventor, but has almost nothing of technical use to share, under the banal pretext of commercial secrecy,

daveS


On Tuesday, November 25, 2014 1:53 AM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16193 From: dave santos Date: 11/25/2014
Subject: Scaled-up aero-towed banners as AWES launching study

Ongoing progress is evident in aero-towed banners, which now dwarf the tow-plane (65 x130ft). The key is well-damped flapping that keeps drag in check. The system is a good study for AWES launching scenarios, to get considerable wing area up into usable wind in light conditions-
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16194 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/25/2014
Subject: Re: 2013 Berkeley Hack-the-Sky Debate

DougS comments hereon:

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

Roddy said: "Doug, Your graphic...didn't...present any data...the "predictions" seem...made in 1978. 
 ***Doug Replies: Roddy just google "models versus reality" (I did not use quotes) or your own search term and click on "images".  Please don't call that chart "my chart".  There are many similar charts.  I just picked the first one that came up, as an example.

As usual, the game of "shoot the messenger: is just a way to delay receiving the ultimate truth, which at this point is:  The actual data has by far diverged from ALL of the models.  ALL of the models agreed (highly suspicious in itself, scientifically-speaking).  That is "science" (in quotes) placing ALL its bets on one horse.  That horse has stumbled.  

I remember during hurricane Katrina, bigwig climate "scientists" warning us that Katrina was just the beginning of increased hurricane activity.  They warned that from that point on, we WOULD suffer from increasingly horrendous and devastating hurricane seasons, increasing tornado activity, and increasing wildfires.  These were the REASONS we were supposed to PANIC.  And FURTHER, these same "scientists" offered the impending increase in hurricane activity as FUTURE PROOF that they knew what they were talking about.  They specifically said that we should watch to see how bad the NEXT hurricane season was to PROVE that they were right about "global warming".  That was THEIR STATED ULTIMATE TEST of their own veracity and they have now FAILED MISERABLY.

Result:  Hurricane and Tornado activity are at all-time LOWS since then, over several years now, and wildfire activity has lessened.  So to take their own offering of "proof", combined with any such graph of models vs reality you want to look up, BY THEIR OWN PREVIOUSLY-STATED STANDARDS OF PROOF, GLOBAL WARMING HAS NOW BEEN DISPROVED.  If anyone has any scientific training, this is indisputable, judging from both the divergence of the data from the models and the null stated truth-test of increased storm severity results. 

~~~~ DougS
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16195 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/25/2014
Subject: Re: Edmund Villarreal. VentAir Technologies. VAST 6 (TM)

DougS comments hereon:

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

DaveS said: "Doug misses that his...AWE scheme...is even more crackpot than Edmund's weak scheme."  ***Doug replies: Why is VentAir's venting scheme "weak", and "crackpot", in your opinion then? (By the way, thanks to JoeF for explaining the term "vent" in this context.)

DaveS said: "No AWE expert is fooled by crackpot hype" 
***Doug replies: You have defined yourself as "an AWE expert".  Now you say "No AWE expert is fooled by crackpot hype".  That implies you know which technologies will work and which are crackpot hype.  Great, so we are ready for your great "downselect".. You are the expert.  You are "not fooled by crackpot hype"  So tell us the answer then: HOW DO WE DO AWE?  What is the answer, Mr. "expert"?

DaveS said: "If only Doug had the expertise to promote a broad testing program to Bill Gates and Eric Schmidt, he might have avoided top-crackpot status, and led us all."
***Doug replies:  If you think I am the "top crackpot" in a field of "Crackpot Hype", then that would make me the leader of the field, right now!  

By the way, I found there is such a thing as going "too high on the food chain".  At that level, the paradigm is to remain "above details".  Such Titans can only refer you to underlings, and that includes Bill Joy and John Doerr of Kleiner Perkins, with whom I had the most interaction at that event.  They are too busy with their own jobs to get into nitty-gritty details of technology.  They have programs and people below them to supposedly analyze and select technologies worthy of pursuit, and if FloDesign is any example, they are not any more astute than anyone else, when it comes to selecting winners.

At some point, it always comes down to which "farmer with a welder" will come up with the winning formula. This is well-known by experts in wind energy.  It is no coincidence that both Paul Gipe and the former head of Engineering at GE Wind, Craig Cristenson both use that same phrase.  If you check into the first truly workable and simple design that got windfarms started in the 1980's, it was "the Danish Concept", first implemented by... a farmer... with a welder... in Denmark.

By the way, having a wall, pushed by the wind, then vents or valves open for the return travel, sounds familiar, with regards to typical Savonius schemes endlessly promoted but never actually built...

"I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man" -Daniel Boone

~~~~ DougS
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16196 From: dave santos Date: 11/25/2014
Subject: Re: Edmund Villarreal. VentAir Technologies. VAST 6 (TM)
Doug,

The reason AE experts are never fooled by crackpot hype is that they require valid test data to reach sound conclusions. The only presumption of what wins is the data-driven testing culture itself.

Let us know of any data that validates your prediction that "All roads lead to the SuperTurbine", in the context of a safe, economic, practical, scalable* AWES architecture,

daveS

* The AE teams accept the FAA 2000ft provisional ceiling as the current AWES engineering target.


On Tuesday, November 25, 2014 9:35 AM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16197 From: dave santos Date: 11/25/2014
Subject: Energy Harvesting Journal AWE Overview
An executive summary of AWE compiled by a German clean-tech consultancy, with notice of 2015 conference action-
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16198 From: dave santos Date: 11/25/2014
Subject: Re: Returning with food and fuel
Nice sampling of small paravanes in the form of fishing lures. Its evident that the best of these are true water kites and that powerful dynamically stable rotation and oscillation is quite natural (and static stability is arguably the more delicate metastable state).

A wonderful aspect of this video is the soundtrack, which reveals the strong sonic signals these swimming objects radiate. In murky water, the fish are drawn by powerful vibrations, spy realistic fuzzy motions, and then strike too fast to notice the close-up strangeness of these lures in time.

------------------------
Editor note: I futzed to find this topic thread a second time, as it did not reference paravanes or fishing. 


On Monday, November 24, 2014 7:56 PM, "Joe Faust joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16199 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/25/2014
Subject: Some Early "Arch" Kites
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16200 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/25/2014
Subject: Re: Some Early "Arch" Kites
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16201 From: Rod Read Date: 11/26/2014
Subject: Re: A method to prevent torque induced contraction of Multi-Tether-H
Reworked the test rig to allow proper step spacing ... All the steps now sit against the main line stoppers.
Have also expanded the red outer line lengths for 45 deg rotation between steps.

Better results.
http://youtu.be/Ijy1cVxP0u0

Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16202 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/26/2014
Subject: Re: A method to prevent torque induced contraction of Multi-Tether-H
Rope ladder torque concerns: 
[ ] Aspect ratio.  As the length of the rope ladder increases, the aspect ratio increases. 
[ ] As aspect ratio increases, there will be natural resonances that will play that were not evident as well when testing with lower aspect ratio samples. 
[ ] When the ladder struts are involved, the scaling laws will play certainly for costs to the system. 
[ ] In the case when a centerline of the rope ladder is made taut by an independent tensioner, the potential of slack must still be carefully weighed. Hockling statistics during tests will inform designers. 

~JoeF
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16203 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/26/2014
Subject: Interlude
In support of PierreB, DougS, DaveS, and others:

http://greatday.com/cgi-bin/X10/video.pl?4017h09G756v

​...
My collecting is to help build a garden
to support downselecting by anyone. 

Make it happen ... 

~JoeF​
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16204 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/26/2014
Subject: Re: Multi-rotor kite-lifted "Coaxial multi-turbine generator" by Ha
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16205 From: dave santos Date: 11/26/2014
Subject: Ken Caldeira's AWE v. Nuke Advocacy

Ken's prominent role in AWE has ranged from admirable (teaming up with Cristina in documenting the upper-wind resource) to willfully negligent (NearZero's biased and censored process). We don't expect Ken to debate critics directly (like Miller, et al; Max Planck Institute), but public pronouncements reveal his decided preference for nuke energy (and even chemical-based climate interventions; Rolling Stone 2011) over AWE. His AWE advocacy is narrowly positioned to favor GoogleX/Makani (formerly AWEC) investments (even skewing conference science). He has Bill Gates' ear, but is no believer that (Low-Complexity) AWE can be developed quick enough to avoid the need for massive increases in "safe" nuke power that he promotes (which itself does not exist yet).

-------------Notes----------------

Correction: The KenC quote cited recently originated from NPR, not PBS.

Comment: Full quote is pasted below. The evident fallacy is false dualism between AWE engineering-science and atmospheric science (integrally "climate science"), especially when megascale AWE's potential climate-feedbacks are studied, either as undesired impacts, or as urgent geoengineering means. KenC is an advocate of nukes* (with a Livermore Labs pedigree); consistent with not seeing climate science as relevant. The counter-argument is that AWE depends on advancing atmospheric science to make nukes redundant.

Ken Caldeira on NPR-

"For me the problem is clear," he says, "and the solution is in transforming our energy system. For young people coming into science today, my recommendation would be to work on developing improved energy systems. And I wouldn't advise people to go into climate science. I think it's fundamentally a solved problem."


* KenC; "continued opposition to nuclear power threatens humanity's ability to avoid dangerous climate change."
--------------------------------
The Rolling Stone link again-
--------------------------------
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16206 From: dave santos Date: 11/26/2014
Subject: Re: Large field isotropic mesh simulation
This seems to me the most compelling CAD AWE visualization ever, since it well expresses the emerging vastly-scalable low-complexity AWES paradigm, without prematurely down-selecting a WECS unit array basis. Lets hope Rod will build on this further to a polished presentation, including all flight modes, like substage WECS meshes that rise and fall independently. It will make a powerful impression if scale-objects like conventional HAWTs or buildings are added to the ground plane, and if the fly-through is done from a very low wide angle, to suggest vast looming scale (with a dramatic sky background). The lift force-vector arrows should be faded more, so as to not be confused with actual kite objects, but still figure.

Congratulations to Rod for a great AWES concept study, and future promise.


On Thursday, November 20, 2014 8:20 AM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16207 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/26/2014
Subject: Re: A method to prevent torque induced contraction of Multi-Tether-H

DougS comments hereon:

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

Nice to see someone realizing how easy it is to transmit torque, as outlined in SuperTurbine(R) U.S. Patent 6616402, Figs. 81-105.
It seems funny that we keep hearing one person claiming torque transmission from altitude is impossible.  He typically flags such  protestations as "shrill".  I'd envision something like: "Sadly, XXX fails to appreciate the ease of transmitting torque over a distance.  His shrill protestations of blah blah blah are blah blah blah...

Wah.

~ DougS
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16208 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/26/2014
Subject: Re: Edmund Villarreal. VentAir Technologies. VAST 6 (TM)

DougS comments hereon:

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

DaveS said: "Doug, The reason AE experts are never fooled by crackpot hype is..." 

***Doug replies: Laughable!  1000 images of Magenn, promoted by so many "experts" including even JoeF.  What was Magenn but Crackpot Hype?  What about the Dave North NASA "blimp lofting a wind turbine in the comparative vacuum of Mars"?  With far less than 1% of Earth's air density, was this realistic, or "Crackpot Hype"?  How many "experts" of various flavors have published and republished these images?  I'm thinking the AWE congference at Stanford used Magenn images in its promotion.  I'm thinking THIS VERY YAHOO group has prominently displayed the Magenn images.  In fact, images of Magenn were the predominant "face of AWE" for a few years running.  More recently we've examined a plethora of article claiming an AWE deployment powering a remote village in Alaska, except when we dig for details, it seems that no such installation actually even exists.   How many "experts" have parroted that theme by now, yet you can't go to Alaska and see it because it simply is not there.  

And so, I beg to differ on two counts, and this is where, as I have pointed out, it gets tough to correct errors when they compound to the point of several interdependent errors in the same sentence, going back to that "Have you stopped beating your wife" analogy:  It would seem that any true "expert" in AWE has yet to be identified in any universal sense.  We know DaveS promotes himself and JoeF as "AWE experts", and of course I've said I am the only AWE expert I am aware of, but it's more believable when someone besides the purported expert himself calls the person an expert.  

Anyway, it is LAUGHABLE to say "NEVER fooled by Crackpot Hype".  What if kite-reeling goes on for several more years and never results in any truly useful configuration?  Then what?  Who will be called "an expert" then?  And what will be defined as "crackpot hype"?  And who will have been fooled by that crackpot hype?

The whole sentence "experts are never fooled" is, in some sense redundant, since if someone is truly an expert, that implies they are above "being fooled".  But then again, maybe ALL of today's "AWE experts" are being fooled, because MAYBE almost everything you've seen so far regarding airborne wind energy is exactly that: "Crackpot Hype" - remove the "otH" and you're left with "crackpype", which it appears maybe some "AWE experts" are smoking, in a figurative sense at least... :)

~~~~ DougS