Messages in AirborneWindEnergy group.                           AWES16259to16310 Page 220 of 440.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16259 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/3/2014
Subject: Re: Professor Crackpot 2004: Where is it today? The flaw?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16260 From: dave santos Date: 12/3/2014
Subject: Re: Professor Crackpot 2004: Where is it today? The flaw?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16261 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/3/2014
Subject: Futurist Plays Big

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16262 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/3/2014
Subject: Re: Helium use, helium escape

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16263 From: dave santos Date: 12/3/2014
Subject: Re: Futurist Plays Big

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16264 From: Andrew K Date: 12/3/2014
Subject: Re: Professor Crackpot 2004: Where is it today? The flaw?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16265 From: Rod Read Date: 12/4/2014
Subject: isotropic mesh node position sensed steering

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16266 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/4/2014
Subject: Re: Professor Crackpot 2004: Where is it today? The flaw?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16267 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/4/2014
Subject: Re: Professor Crackpot 2004: Where is it today? The flaw?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16268 From: Rod Read Date: 12/4/2014
Subject: Re: isotropic mesh node position sensed steering

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16269 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/4/2014
Subject: Re: Professor Crackpot 2004: Where is it today? The flaw?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16270 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/4/2014
Subject: Re: Professor Crackpot 2004: Where is it today? The flaw?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16271 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/4/2014
Subject: Re: Professor Crackpot 2004: Where is it today? The flaw?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16272 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/4/2014
Subject: Re: *Arresting Loads or Damping by Kite System

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16273 From: dave santos Date: 12/4/2014
Subject: Re: Professor Crackpot 2004: Where is it today? The flaw?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16274 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/4/2014
Subject: Re: Professor Crackpot 2004: Where is it today? The flaw?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16275 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/4/2014
Subject: Re: Professor Crackpot 2004: Where is it today? The flaw?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16276 From: dave santos Date: 12/4/2014
Subject: Re: Professor Crackpot 2004: Where is it today? The flaw?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16277 From: Rod Read Date: 12/4/2014
Subject: Re: Novel Flight Method

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16278 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/4/2014
Subject: Re: Professor Crackpot 2004: Where is it today? The flaw?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16279 From: dave santos Date: 12/4/2014
Subject: Re: Novel Flight Method

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16280 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/4/2014
Subject: Re: Novel Flight Method

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16281 From: dave santos Date: 12/4/2014
Subject: Re: Professor Crackpot 2004: Where is it today? The flaw?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16282 From: dave santos Date: 12/4/2014
Subject: Re: Novel Flight Method

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16283 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/4/2014
Subject: Re: Novel Flight Method

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16284 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/4/2014
Subject: Re: Novel Flight Method

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16285 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/4/2014
Subject: Re: Professor Crackpot 2004: Where is it today? The flaw?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16286 From: christopher carlin Date: 12/5/2014
Subject: Re: Professor Crackpot 2004: Where is it today? The flaw?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16287 From: christopher carlin Date: 12/5/2014
Subject: Re: Professor Crackpot 2004: Where is it today? The flaw?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16288 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/5/2014
Subject: Re: Professor Crackpot 2004: Where is it today? The flaw?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16289 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/5/2014
Subject: What in Robert D. Hunt's patents might affect AWE?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16290 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/5/2014
Subject: Re: What in Robert D. Hunt's patents might affect AWE?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16291 From: Rod Read Date: 12/5/2014
Subject: Re: What in Robert D. Hunt's patents might affect AWE?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16292 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/5/2014
Subject: Re: What in Robert D. Hunt's patents might affect AWE?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16293 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/5/2014
Subject: Re: Latest Altaeros News?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16294 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/5/2014
Subject: Re: Latest Altaeros News?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16295 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/5/2014
Subject: Re: Latest Altaeros News?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16296 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/5/2014
Subject: Art of Innovating for AWES

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16297 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/5/2014
Subject: Re: What in Robert D. Hunt's patents might affect AWE?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16298 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/5/2014
Subject: Re: Professor Crackpot 2004: Where is it today? The flaw?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16299 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/5/2014
Subject: COA related to FAA

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16300 From: Rod Read Date: 12/5/2014
Subject: Re: Art of Innovating for AWES

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16301 From: Rod Read Date: 12/5/2014
Subject: Re: COA related to FAA

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16302 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/5/2014
Subject: Tatsuo Urasaki on Kite-flying Toy

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16303 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/5/2014
Subject: Re: Tatsuo Urasaki on Kite-flying Toy

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16304 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/5/2014
Subject: Tether segment devices that generate electricity upon tension change

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16305 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/5/2014
Subject: Re: Study of 2014 KiteGen power wing

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16307 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/5/2014
Subject: Re: Moderator reports

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16309 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/5/2014
Subject: Re: Tether segment devices that generate electricity upon tension ch

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16310 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/5/2014
Subject: Re: Moderator reports




Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16259 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/3/2014
Subject: Re: Professor Crackpot 2004: Where is it today? The flaw?

DougS replies hereon:

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


DaveS said: "Doug overlooks...and Doug is very confused." 

 ***Doug replies: This is perpetual motion on steroids.  The plane or submarine has turbines that extract energy from the relative flow during movement, to ultimately power that same movement.  

That's just like all the idiots who pester me in a weekly basis to tell me about their "new idea" of powering a car with onboard wind turbines that extract energy from the car's movement through the air.  Geez, talk about "Physics 101"!   I get tired of explaining it to people, usually using the "flying by pulling up on your shoelaces" case as an example.

And the submarine is supposed to descend by being heavier, though slowing its progress and limiting its distance by removing some of its potential energy using a turbine to extract energy, then when it finally gets to a destination, at a lower depth, it is supposed to use what to get back to the surface?  Ambient temps?  Nope, it's colder down there.  Energy saved from the turbines during the descent?  Nope, that's just one more "flying by pulling up on your shoelaces" version of perpetual motion.  Extraction of the descent energy using turbines is not 100% efficient, so you'd find yourself stuck at depth, with no way to ascend.   If that concept was valid, of using an onboard turbine, to extract energy, to power movement, that in turn powers that same turbine, we'd all be able to drive using no fuel just like Professor Crackpot thinks he can fly using no fuel.  

I think this falls into not only high school physics, but actually it forms a great example of, if you never paid attention in class, even if you got an F-, at least they hope you end up understanding that perpetual motion schemes like this will not work.  

If you learned nothing else in high school physics, at LEAST they HOPE you come away realizing that you never get more energy out of any system than is put in, and that energy has to come from SOMEWHERE.
~~~~ DougS
===========================
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16260 From: dave santos Date: 12/3/2014
Subject: Re: Professor Crackpot 2004: Where is it today? The flaw?
Doug,

Its a well established aeronautical practice to use RATs of various kinds for aux power (early Zeppelins had them). They are still current in modern gliders, as primary onboard power, and powered aircraft, as a back-up. No more than that is presumed here, by non-crackpot AWE experts.

Nobody working in aerospace reasons as you do, to see crackpots everywhere, but not engineering merit. In fact AE is quite successful, but true crackpots are not,

daveS

PS Its unclear if you finally understand just how the thermal-cycle airship concept works, while you are now nit-picking about RATs, as if to distract from your initial incomprehension, or just piling error upon error.


On Wednesday, December 3, 2014 2:11 PM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16261 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/3/2014
Subject: Futurist Plays Big

A futurist plays big:

Tackling tornados and hurricanes: The extractor

 

Posted on August 11, 2013 | 1 comment


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16262 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/3/2014
Subject: Re: Helium use, helium escape
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16263 From: dave santos Date: 12/3/2014
Subject: Re: Futurist Plays Big
Fun to see a science fiction author speculating about megascale emergency airborne weather modification and energy production by AWES much like those we are already actively developing at baby scale. Ian Pearson has a bit of H. G. Wells in him, and a lively aviation imagination. Add one more rare fictional vision in one of our core concept spaces. As noted before, the ITCZ is the ultimate place for this sort of tech. Kite freaks even now live a polymer-sky science-fiction lifestyle with fibers on-hand. We could snuff a small dust devil right from AWE's cradle.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16264 From: Andrew K Date: 12/3/2014
Subject: Re: Professor Crackpot 2004: Where is it today? The flaw?
Sorry, I have to agree with Doug here.

The aircraft described at fuellessflight.com is never going to work as
it is described.

Just to start the helium containing "pontoons" don't contain enough
helium (or vacuum) to lift a craft that big especially if it has to
carry vacuum vessels, compressors, motors to run the compressors and
maybe even payload.
Look at the pivot that allows the wings to fold, that's a heavy piece
of metal and for every pound of heavy you add to an airship you need
to add 15 cubic feet of helium.
That's lift at sea level, if you go to 10,000 feet the helium expands
four times so now you need 60 cubic feet per pound.
As the envelope expands to carry more weight the drag goes up so you
need more thrust which means bigger engines which adds to the weight.
You see where this is headed.

When I see an artist's concept like this with so many questionable
details I'm pretty sure they haven't got any real calculations.
I did look at their buoyancy numbers and they haven't made any
allowance for the helium expansion at altitude (about a factor of 18
at 20,000 feet).
If you want the helium to be at ambient pressure (as suggested by
their helium density number) than you need to start with 1/18th the
volume at sea level.
So their lift numbers are off by a factor of 18.

This does not inspire a lot of confidence.

I don't know what Mr. Hunt's background is, he may be a smart guy.
But he's missing some fairly basic concepts here.

Bringing up Fred F isn't really helping, he is an amazing salesman who
raised millions to pursue his ideas but I don't think a single one has
become a product.

Sceptically Yours

Andrew K
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16265 From: Rod Read Date: 12/4/2014
Subject: isotropic mesh node position sensed steering
Generally you want kites on a mesh to swell the net.
A tight net is more stable.

I mentioned previously sensing the mesh by local elastic entanglement under each node... Messy

so
A single skin kite where the bridle is spread by ring or x can be easily set, stable, and affected by disk spun steering on the node below... but this steers all points of wind... front and back would then necessarily affect steering to stall or over fly.

Front and back (and all) kites will only go so far backward downwind. So they're not really a problem. we want to make sure that the kites on the LHS and RHS of the wind window are pulling respectively to the LHS and RHS.

Then I thought about a few configurations of bearing systems where a small ring at each node (say 1 foot dia)  has a couple of thrust bearings holding an axle perpendicular to the plane of the mesh at the centre of the ring. This axle holds the kite single lift bridling point and also has a T piece set to the side bridles. A T piece would only have effect on the kite when the kite is facing into wind on the LHS or RHS of the mesh. With the kite normally aligning itself to wind...The lower side of the T would pull the closest to the slope / foot / edge of the wind window.. toward that edge. Thus expanding and tensioning the overall mesh.

Cross linking of course for kites which need opposite steering.

demo to follow.
cc4.0 nc+ by sa open awes IP pool


Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16266 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/4/2014
Subject: Re: Professor Crackpot 2004: Where is it today? The flaw?

DougS comments hereon
=================================


Dear Dave S.  I will show once again that everything you post is wrong.  (Pay attention, folks.)   You said: "Doug, Its a well established aeronautical practice to use RATs of various kinds for aux power (early Zeppelins had them). They are still current in modern gliders, as primary onboard power, and powered aircraft, as a back-up. No more than that is presumed here, by non-crackpot AWE experts." 

Doug replies:  OK so your position is now that the wind turbines on the Zeppelin are only for auxilary power?  I guess you didn't read the Hunt website,  The Hunt website states that the wind turbines power the whole scheme.  Here is the cut/paste for you to (mis)understand:

"When you combine the two forces of gravity (buoyancy that is an upward pull and gravity acceleration that is a downward pull) into a new hybrid aircraft, it can rise into the sky via aerostatic lift, using a lifting gas such as helium or by the lifting force of a vacuum, and then glide downward like a glider using the gravitation pull of the earth.  Before being able to glide, however, the aircraft must first change from being lighter-than-air to being heavier-than-air.  This weight change may be accomplished by bringing compressed air from the surrounding atmosphere into the aircraft to make the aircraft heavier to lose lift.             The Compression of atmospheric air into the aircraft requires an energy input.  The required energy may be generated by a wind turbine from the high velocity wind created while gliding downward and energy may be stored in the form of compressed air that is stored in high pressure storage cylinders.  The stored energy may be used later to change the weight of the aircraft by powering pneumatic motor driven compressors to compress air that is taken from the surrounding environment into the aircraft to add mass to the aircraft."

Compressed air powers a compressor to compress air, huh?  Sure.  This is MULTIPLE LAYERS OF PERPETUAL MOTION.   Let's look at this realistically: The craft goes down while wind turbines rob power to compress air for later use.  Somehow the craft magically travels back to its original high altitude carrying all that heavy compressed air, which is then used to power a compressor to compress air to bring the craft back down again.  I wonder if even DaveS can see the flaw in that logic:  If you already HAVE compressed air, why run that through a pneumatic motor to power a compressor to get the same thing back: compressed air?  This is SO STUPID!!!!  In fact it is hard to believe ANYONE could even BE this stupid.  But apparently, SOME PEOPLE can't see it - they (you) are fooled.  OMG it is really almost unbelievable that you could be so gullible.

What's more, the website admits it LOOKS like perpetual motion, but claims that it is not, referring to solar, geothermal, and other forms of energy, as though merely mentioning them out of context magically solves Hunt's perpetual motion problem.

But the site goes on to reveal Hunt's true crackpot nature, saying: "Just because scientists in the past failed to create practical devices that employ gravity does not mean that gravity cannot be used. Hunt has discovered how to harness gravity by the combined use of gravity’s dual properties – buoyancy to create an upward motion and gravity acceleration to create a downward motion – in an alternating cycle."

OK DaveS, that meets your Wikipedia criteria of a "crank"

But it gets worse!!@!@

Hunt is ALSO a crackpot wind turbine inventor:  Check out the following section that describes how his "improved" turbine uses DRAG - one of a thousand idiotic Savonius variants.  (Oh no, not again!!!)  I will just leave you with the following cut-paste and you can go on defending Hunt as a non-crackpot, revealing once again your complete lack of understanding of physics and engineering, LET ALONE aviation and wind energy.  Have fun - ignorance is bliss.  It appears at this point you are truly hopeless.  I mean truly a hopeless case.  I'm not exaggerating.  I'm amazed.  Once again I have reluctantly shown:   ~^"Everything you post is wrong"^~  Oh so so wrong.  You are showing with every further word that you are indeed a hopeless case!  There is literally no saving you!!!

New Vertical Axis Wind Turbine

           Robert Hunt is the inventor of a patent pending vertical axis wind turbine that is ideally suited for use by the new hybrid gravity powered aircraft. The wind turbine uses drag as the operating force. It alternates from an extremely high drag configuration to an extremely low drag configuration to more efficiently harness the power of the wind. This is accomplished by shutters that close to form a large sail area when pushed by the wind to create high drag to harness the power of the wind and then open to a very narrow surface area to cause low drag when rotating into the wind.

****LINK TO VERTICAL AXIS WIND TURBINE PAGE WITH VIDEO OF EARLY PROTOTYPE WIND TURBINE ****

(link does not work, par for the course)

~~~~ DougS

===============================Below are some moderator links:

Note: the missing page of the link featured at Hunt's site is available with historical views in Internet Archive; explore the various dates; there is a video, as well as versions of prototype for the drag turbine and its presentation pages. Click their upper date spots and then click the below calendar dates that indicate a version of the page was saved. The 2013 item seems to give a video of the drag turbine with low drag on the return sector.


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16267 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/4/2014
Subject: Re: Professor Crackpot 2004: Where is it today? The flaw?
Robert Hunt, Chief Technology Officer | RenewableOne, LLC

 

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16268 From: Rod Read Date: 12/4/2014
Subject: Re: isotropic mesh node position sensed steering
A bit like this quick model
http://youtu.be/_toVODqJ2ao

Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16269 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/4/2014
Subject: Re: Professor Crackpot 2004: Where is it today? The flaw?
Robert D. Hunt

 

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16270 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/4/2014
Subject: Re: Professor Crackpot 2004: Where is it today? The flaw?

A commenting person wrote:

"Mr. Hunt has received a great deal of attention in regard to his novel aircraft "the gravity-plane" that  flies powered by the heat energy stored in low altitude air then uses cold air at high altitude for heat rejection to compete a batch type of atmospheric power cycle of his invention. One of his long-term goals in life is to see the aircraft become reality and to fly."

Source-of-quote: http://deepheatpower.com/management.html

 

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16271 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/4/2014
Subject: Re: Professor Crackpot 2004: Where is it today? The flaw?
Hybrid airship - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16272 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/4/2014
Subject: Re: *Arresting Loads or Damping by Kite System

* Kite-system damping HG or PG landings may be done in many ways.     

 (Similarly, drones, powered aircraft, sailplanes may utilize a kite system for Safe-Splat operations.)


Here just one method with some sub-variations is mentioned now: 

Have kite system flying.   HG or PG flies to integrate itself with the kite system.
Choose next steps:
1. Consider designing total system so that HG or PG pilot may control the total integrated system to be slowly downed.
2. Consider HG or PG pilot climbing out of their wing and zip-lining down the kite-system tether to the system's anchor set.
3. Consider after integration a use of a pulley at integration point to let down vertically the pilot; then control kite system to let down the HG or PG wing.  Let down into a very small LZ.
4. Following the integration with the kite system, let the HG or PG pilot take an aloft nap. After the nap release from the integrated system and drop into gliding and soaring flight again; such cycles could be repeat. Various multiple HG or PG pilots could use the same main kite system for naps or lowerings.


Notice: Lowering the pilots could be rigged to produce electricity; the mass of the integrated HG or pilot will have upon aloft integration some potential energy; that potential energy could drive an electric generator or other good-works device.


​*​License: ​CC+ 4.x BY NC+ SA AWE IP Pool

~ JoeF

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16273 From: dave santos Date: 12/4/2014
Subject: Re: Professor Crackpot 2004: Where is it today? The flaw?
Note to Andrew K:

No one here makes an endorsement of the Gravity Plane concept, nor of every idea that Hunt offers.

What is happening is the long-standing problem of Doug unfairly smearing so many in AWE as "crackpots", and even ranging outside of AWE to bring his crackpot topic in; but making no actual productive contribution to AWE engineering. Whats clear here is that Doug did not even understand the basic principle he was attacking, which is infact marginally workable, never mind the many details (like conventional ballonets inside the airship hulls to adapt gas volume).

Please support the Forum goal here, which is to define AWE expertly. Otherwise, your tolerance of Doug's unhinged abuse of the crackpot theme only puts you in the same boat. When you are ready to share your refined AWE ideas, we will learn how acute an engineering mind you bring to the table (to then judge you by your cited criteria, as presented against Hunt, just as Doug is judged).

Good Luck with your positive AWES design work,

daveS




On Thursday, December 4, 2014 8:34 AM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16274 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/4/2014
Subject: Re: Professor Crackpot 2004: Where is it today? The flaw?

Doug S. comments hereon:

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


Andrew K. had commented: 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16275 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/4/2014
Subject: Re: Professor Crackpot 2004: Where is it today? The flaw?

Doug S. comments hereon:

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


Let's take a simplified version of Hunt's crackpot theory, using his example of a buoyancy-controlled undersea vessel.  For simplicity let's forget about horizontal travel, and just use a spar buoy that can flood or evacuate an air chamber to control buoyancy.

Starting at the surface, the vessel starts out buoyant, then floods a chamber, letting the air escape, or perhaps using energy from SOMEWHERE to compress that air into a tank.

The vessel begins to sink, converting the gravitational potential energy of its weight minus the weight of the water it displaces, multiplied by depth traveled, to kinetic energy.  

Now let's say it has an onboard water turbine that captures as much of that kinetic (falling) energy as possible on the way down, storing the energy somehow (compressed air?  from where? Another tank of compressed air?  Try a battery, Professor Crackpot!)

We know, as a start, that Betz pointed out it can only capture a MAX of 59% of that original potential energy.

Next, let's say the vessel has reached the bottom.  Now it needs to evacuate the flotation chamber.  Can it pump the original air back in?  Well, yes, but now under so much ambient water pressure, that air would take up only a fraction of the space, so what you REALLY have to do is actively pump water OUT, to form a vacuum in the flotation chamber.

How much energy will it take to pump the water out, to get the vessel back to the surface?  Well obviously it will take exactly the amount of gravitational potential energy you started with.  But Betz already told you you can only have captured a MAX of 59% of that original gravitational potential energy.

Nevermind the inefficiencies of storing energy as compressed air, even if you had 100% efficient energy storage, just that Betz factor alone guarantees you will NOT have enough energy captured from the descent to EVER make it back to the surface.  This craft could not even complete ONE CYCLE of this wishful-thinking perpetual-motion scheme.  Anyone onboard is dead, and the craft is lost.  Nice try Mr. Hunt.

So, on its face, the entire concept is an unworkable Rube Goldberg version of a perpetual motion machine that could never complete a single cycle.  But even worse, we have not even included friction or compression losses.

Hunt's message applied to cars would imply that a Prius could drive forever using no fuel because it has regenerative braking.

Some people do not comprehend any of this.  Those are the "wannabe" engineers, who are not even capable of participating in an engineering discussion, let alone dominating it.

~~~~ Doug Selsam

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16276 From: dave santos Date: 12/4/2014
Subject: Re: Professor Crackpot 2004: Where is it today? The flaw?
Doug,

The public definition of crackpot given by Wikipedia is not based on normal detail errors, which all engineers are prone to on occasion. Instead, a true crackpot is someone unable to function in an engineering culture productively, who makes grandiose claims to be uniquely right, but clearly is not. By this standard Hunt has you beat, given his long successful career compared to yours. You win if the contest is sheer hype (as self-proclaimed world's greatest living wind inventor).

Hunt was clearly able to earn his engineering degree, work on major projects, publish in respected journals, and still make mistakes, without being a crackpot. The consensus of LTA thinking in recent decades is that the "gravity airship" would work if properly engineered, but is not economic in world of cheap oil and fast transport.

Lets hope you do better in AWE design when you finally reveal your secret concepts,

daveS






On Thursday, December 4, 2014 10:32 AM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16277 From: Rod Read Date: 12/4/2014
Subject: Re: Novel Flight Method
The beautiful symmetrical dance form suggested by this scheme, ...
where two craft share a matched force on a line ... with all their focus on coming together and gliding past ...
using their energy for hauling in and letting go again to come back for another go at lifting oneself and the pair ever higher...

Beautiful but it reminds me of some other AWE form... Where did you get the inspiration...
Oh yes now I see it...

Was it the eternal courtship of Davs Santos and Doug Selsam?


Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16278 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/4/2014
Subject: Re: Professor Crackpot 2004: Where is it today? The flaw?

Doug S. comments hereon:

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


DaveS said: "Doug, The public definition of crackpot given by Wikipedia is not based on normal detail errors, which all engineers are prone to on occasion."
***Doug replies: Sorry DaveS., but 
Error 1) the Wikipedia definition you pointed to was for "crank", not "crackpot". (Why the reliance in Wikipedia in which anyone can post?)
Error 2) Hunt commits several fatal theoretical flaws.  His theoretical basis is completely wrong.  Far from a "normal detail error", the ideas are simply unworkable and wrong.  Just read his work.  He actually says he will use compressed air to run a motor, to run a compressor, to compress air!   And that is so he can make the ship heavier, even though it already HAD a tank of compressed air onboard.  This is so stupid that it would not even be believeable as fiction, that anyone would be stupid enough to say it! (and yet you defend it!  Amazing.)

DaveS further rambles: "Instead, a true crackpot is someone unable to function in an engineering culture productively, who makes grandiose claims to be uniquely right, but clearly is not."
***Doug replies:  Dave, let's just stick with the grandiose claims.  Hunt claims his Savonius turbine outperforms a regular turbine, and he is promoting a perpetual motion machine powered by a perpetual motion machine.  That is the definition of a Crackpot.

DaveS said "By this standard Hunt has you beat, given his long successful career compared to yours. You win if the contest is sheer hype (as self-proclaimed world's greatest living wind inventor)."
***Doug replies: Yes, keyword: "living" I have not been killed off yet like the others.

DaveS goes on: "Hunt was clearly able to earn his engineering degree, work on major projects, publish in respected journals, and still make mistakes, without being a crackpot."
***Doug replies: OK so you think someone promoting perpetual motion is NOT a Crackpot - sounds about par for the course.  "Par for the course, consider the source."  Hey, that rhymes!

DaveS continues:  "The consensus of LTA thinking in recent decades is that the "gravity airship" would work if properly engineered, but is not economic in world of cheap oil and fast transport."
***Doug replies: Really?  Can you provide some backup evidence of that?  Perpetual motion schemes are all the same, conceptually.  They only vary in the details.  They all purport to provide energy output without commensurate energy input.  Please explain how perpetual motion is valid in this case.  

YES a gravity-responsive ship that USES ENERGY INPUT to power the compressors is a perfectly valid concept.  Where HUNT deviates from reality is "fuelless".  Not that complicated.  You cannot power a craft by extracting power from that same craft's own motion, any more than you can fly by pulling up on our shoelaces!  Magnets, weights, blimps, gravity, liquids, gas, compression, temperatures: doesn't matter:  You only get out what is put in.  

Perpetual motion is not a workable concept, and if you don't know that, you are even more lost than I ever imagined.  Think of it like forensic accounting: If money out does not balance against money in, you have some sort of fraud, or a violation of law.  In physics, the same holds true of energy.  Energy in always equals energy out.  Otherwise U R a Crackpot.

DaveS blathers on: "Lets hope you do better in AWE design when you finally reveal your secret concepts, daveS"
***Doug replies: Well, thinking people often have ideas that they have not yet made public.  It does not necessarily rise to the level of "secret concepts", just that since I have been in this space since the 1970's,  many workable ideas have occurred to me, too numerous to even list.  Most of what one sees promoted as "innovations" are old news by far, to me.  Yes I have many great AWE ideas and several of them have been stumbled across on this list, even by you, but you cannot separate the wheat from the chaff, unable to distinguish between good concepts, bad concepts, and completely invalid concepts, so it all goes right over your head, so to speak. :)
~~~~ Doug S.
=============================
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16279 From: dave santos Date: 12/4/2014
Subject: Re: Novel Flight Method
Rod,

Joe surely did not draw on Doug to pose his "novel flight method(s)"*. Recall your complaint about "wasting everybody's time", which well applies to your last taunting post. 

Its really you and Doug who have the technical "courtship" going (with regard to torsion drives in AWES design). I really can't see where Doug and my AWES thinking ever overlapped on a technical level; nor are we culturally in harmony. I think he has completely missing the pro AWE boat, due to lack of due diligence compounded by mental illness. You are the best hope he has left to participate in the adult AWES race, in my opinion. Broad comparative fundamental testing will rank the Daisy-ST marriage against the pack, never mind my grim JGordon-based predictions.

Good luck with that, and perfecting your "get-a-room" and "courtship" jokes; but Doug's feeble baby, if its alive at all, is really yours, not mine,

daveS

* Productive competent aviation-thinking is one of Doug's worst blind spots.




On Thursday, December 4, 2014 1:13 PM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16280 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/4/2014
Subject: Re: Novel Flight Method

  

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16281 From: dave santos Date: 12/4/2014
Subject: Re: Professor Crackpot 2004: Where is it today? The flaw?
Doug,

Wikipedia makes clear that "crank" and "crackpot" are interchangeable synonyms, and uses them as such. It matters if Hunt is unfairly called a crackpot by you on the AWES forum, when he is not dysfunctional as the Wikipedia crank criteria require.  Hunt simply is not an AWE problem (his concept work is not even AWE per se.). 

Your crappy crackpot/crank topic is the actual problem here. The AWE engineering knowledge quest is the proper Forum focus. Go ahead and whine that you are censored here, merely because your posts are vetted for profanity you cannot control; yet you get far more slack than you give your "Professor Crackpot" victims. This is no place to malign unrelated strangers (like Hunt or that random MD from Palm Springs, without giving them fair chance to rebut).

Keep in mind your weak claim to be too busy to ever address scaling-law mass calculations for high-altitude drive-shafts, as you continue to post obsessively off-topic about imaginary crackpots. You are bluffing to claim secret AWE solutions, as the years go by, and we advance the engineering without you able to help,

daveS


On Thursday, December 4, 2014 1:37 PM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16282 From: dave santos Date: 12/4/2014
Subject: Re: Novel Flight Method
I would cut-away the hapless non-pilot, if this was a serious scenario. To see humor in Doug smearing so many folks as "Professor Crackpot", is rather insensitive. I spoke with Villarreal (smeared right before Hunt) the other day, and did not have the heart to inform him he had been trashed in public already. He is no crackpot (under Wikipedia definition), but eager to work with us and learn from us all...


On Thursday, December 4, 2014 2:29 PM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16283 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/4/2014
Subject: Re: Novel Flight Method

DougS comments hereon:

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

Hey Roddy:  Pretty funny.  Ha ha ha, good one.  :)

~~~~DougS

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

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16284 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/4/2014
Subject: Re: Novel Flight Method
kaimartin, 
Welcome to the party! Fun start on looking at various control challenges of the NFM. We have an invitation to advance the smarts that will maintain the desired tension in used tethers in the NFM during the climbing phase; there is an awareness that the environment of one wing will frequently be different from the environment of the the other wings or wing (in the two-wing arrangement). In n-gonal NFM, each wing will often have a different environment than the other n-1 wings of the n-gonal arrangement. The smarts will probably make balancing actions rather than duplicating the actions of the other wing(s); e.g. if one wing pitches up, it very well may be wanted not to pitch up the other wing, say in a 2-wing arrangement; also the smarts will inform the winch for rate of tether collection. We do not want to snap the tether or injure the wings by over-tension during the climb operation. 

A hint precursor to the NFM was my early exploration of using a LTA smallish balloon to carry up a parachute; then climb the rope really fast to climb off the ground; the balloon would not lift enough to lift much more than the parachute. Then pull down the line fast enough to inflate the parachute and climb up the line fast enough to have a net clearing of ground. Vertical climb! Adding a winch for fast line collection would bring success; run out of line or energy and all would simply parachute back down. Kiteboarders doing kite jumping is a cousin to this; fly a kite and then at certain motions or gusts, but lifted up and then glide or parachute back down. Ballooning spiders (they actually kite) use a system cousin to this matter. But these bootstrapping-types are distinct from the NFM which concentrates on n-gonal wings being on ground or water surface for start; then shortening the horizontal tether (mostly horizontal for the novelty, but can be oblique or even vertical). The tether may be gathered to one wing or both wings simultaneously. To effectively climb during the power phase, a threshold of tension would be needed to be maintained. 

A more accurate precursor experiment for NFM may be experienced nearly by the following experiment: Set out a kite on the ground with 100 m of line; connect another kite wing at the loose end of the line; then we have a line with a wing at both ends. Now set the wings with an attitude for takeoff. Then go to the center of the 100 m coupling line; set in the ground an anchored fairlead. Put the line through the fairlead and grab the line which then appears as a little loop. At "Go" pull the loop so the coupling line shortens the distance between the two wings. The two wings, if tether gather is adequate, will both kite climb. NFM does not use a ground anchor but rather powered winches in the wings (or in special cases inline with the coupling tether; in NFM all parts climb up when things are balanced for that effect. 

It is anticipated that the first HG explorers will practice launching themselves by pairing with an uninhabited low L/D parachute for obtaining bunny heights for glides for HG landing practice. Such method does not anchor to a scooter or tree or horse or bolder, etc. The winch will be in the HG; The mastery on such arrangement might be a step to go try the next arrangement, perhaps. One next would be using a longer tether and a higher L/D uninhabited canopy wing to pair against the inhabited piloted HG. A target of the second arrangement practice would be to train the smarts of the system and gain significant altitude, feather the paired wing, and bring the feathered wing into the mother-ship HG; then land the HG and intend to use the NFM system for another launch from land or water. Other targets may be the choice. Mastering the arts and perfecting the control smarts with just one pilot might be the natural precursor for the 2-gonal NFM two-pilot system. 

Perhaps before two pilots pair in a Buddy NFM launch off water, they would both be very familiar with using a paired uninhabited parachute or moderate L/D canopy wing. The two pilots mastering the simple direct first climb would consider detaching for individual glides before they would try more advanced skills. Advanced skills would include staying attached, slacking and letting out tether, turning about, and stepping for another climb cycle. Another advanced skill would be aloft re-coupling after full detaching; upon re-coupling perform a step of climbing using NFM. 

The 3-gonal arrangements has two lines to each of the three wings; the mechanics and control of the 3-gonal NFM for climbing with three HGs (or sailplanes or other aircraft). We anticipate 3-gonals using NFM to first be done totally uninhabited pumping jellyfish-like smart devices. The effective circumference tether shortens while all the n wings climb; then the wings glide back upon the projective path they just traveled while the perimeter tether slacks; such sets up distances in ready for another climb step. Pumping jellyfish might help sensing the dynamics. 

NFM is not lifting oneself by one's own bootstraps; rather NFM gathers a tether that has firm resistance at both ends of the tether. We are already familiar with towing a hang glider where there is resistance at both ends of the tether: ground winch or towing aircraft at one end while the HG is is at the other end of the tether. What NFM brings is an equivalent flying resistance moving toward a paired wing that also flies; both wings of a 2-gonal NFM are moving toward each other during the climb phase; both are climbing in the resultant; both wings may be equal players without costing a tow plane or ground winch. When power is obtain from wind or solar, then a 2-gonal NFM system may travel around the world in cycles of NFM launches, climbs, step climbs, relaunches. 

Kai Martin, as much as you wish, consider yourself as a charter member of the NFM Pioneers' Club. 

Best, 
JoeF
===================== NFM is very distinct from: 
https://ec.yimg.com/ec?url=http%3A%2F%2Fremiwatts.files.wordpress.com%2F2011%2F11%2Fremifloating_alygulamhusein_web.jpg&t=1564516410&sig=uGvjzqMHtjeKhH26ehUXfQ--~E 

https://ec.yimg.com/ec?url=http%3A%2F%2Fherbiepopnecker.com%2Fexamples%2Fflying%2F20a-02.jpg&t=1564516410&sig=163WRVa2rgOiiihaGdHZKw--~E 

By his own pigtail: https://ec.yimg.com/ec?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.boston.com%2Fbostonglobe%2Fideas%2Ftheword%2Fmunchausen.jpg&t=1564516410&sig=VW8LQ.ujLI4VQFlP20v34w--~E

In support of Kai Martin's mention:
Bootstraps and Baron Munchausen - Jan Freeman - The Word Blog - Boston.com

 

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16285 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/4/2014
Subject: Re: Professor Crackpot 2004: Where is it today? The flaw?

Doug comments hereon the topic he started:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


DaveS said: "Your crappy crackpot/crank topic is the actual problem here."

***Doug replies: So why do you keep arguing an off-topic topic?  "Crank" is a topic YOU introduced in your gleeful frenzy to argue with my helpful truth-telling.  I made one post, illustrating an example of a crackpot.  It didn't require your comment.  Obviously, in retrospect, the danger is you can't tell a perpetual motion scheme from a legitimate one and rush to defend the crackpot.  "Par for the course, consider the source".  What else would we expect, really?

Showing people how to recognize crackpot theories is important work.  Especially in a field so rife with crackpots as AWE, it is doubly important, and is doubly on-topic, in the sense that in engineering, it is good to always recognize the crackpot syndrome.  They carefully taught us the symptoms in engineering school, and taught us how to separate the wheat from the chaff.  (You missed that episode of life.)  The rules are pretty simple, and it is cut-and-dried.  No mystery.  One of the big telltale clues is perpetual motion, as in using compressed air to power a compressor to compress more air, thinking you will end up with more compressed air than you started with, or as in traveling endlessly, with no actual source of energy, that sort of thing.  The fact that you can't tell the difference and defend any crank based on just wanting to argue with me, and without being able to discern a crank from a valid theoretician, is not my problem.  It is definitely your problem.  Maybe you should try to find more perpetual motion schemes to defend.  You might be able to turn it into a career.  There are a lot of other stupid people out there.

~~~~ DougS

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


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16286 From: christopher carlin Date: 12/5/2014
Subject: Re: Professor Crackpot 2004: Where is it today? The flaw?
I don’t believe in perpetual motion machines. All I’m saying is that somebody has made a submersible that managed to get across the Atlantic. Whether it uses stored energy to do it I don’t know. Keep in mind you can keep a glider aloft almost indefinitely under the right conditions. It’s not a perpetual motion machine because it’s converting thermals to energy to stay aloft. Much the same may apply here. I think it’s probably possible to stay aloft indefinitely without fuel but there has to be an energy input somewhere.

Regards,

Chris
On 4 Dec 2014, at 18:32, joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy] <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16287 From: christopher carlin Date: 12/5/2014
Subject: Re: Professor Crackpot 2004: Where is it today? The flaw?
as I just said he’s finding energy to put into it which makes sense.

chris
On 4 Dec 2014, at 16:27, joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy] <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16288 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/5/2014
Subject: Re: Professor Crackpot 2004: Where is it today? The flaw?
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16289 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/5/2014
Subject: What in Robert D. Hunt's patents might affect AWE?
  1. First, find the * patents of Robert D. Hunt
  2. Second, sift the patents for AWE-affecting novelty. 
  3. Third, study and discuss findings. Aim to understand Hunt's perspective and analysis. Aim to see if his arguments hold any fundamental errors of physics; if any, discover if such matter is or is not essential to his final targets. Can his target still be reached without dependence on some error?
  4. Fourth, explore AWE applications using any AWE-affecting novelty in Hunt's works. 
  5. Identify if prior art covers whatever might be found up to AWES use. 

His patents:  [ *Disclaimer: I have not proved identify of the "Hunt" in the following patents; that is, just maybe more than one person is involved with same name. And I am not sure that I have captured all of his patents. ]
  • Pumping system for producing oxygen enriched water useful in the growing of aquatic life  US 4972801 A  Priority: Aug 15, 1988
  • Electric power and/or liquefied gas production from kinetic and/or thermal energy of pressurized fluids WO 2003081038 A1  Priority: March 21, 2002
  • Thermoelectric vaporizers, generators and heaters/coolers  WO 2003094249 A1  Priority: May 1, 2002
  • Dual solar energy conversion  WO 2004004016 A1 Priority: June 26, 2002
  • Turbines utilizing jet propulsion for rotation WO 2004008829 A3   Priority: Jul 22, 2002
  • Gas-lift power generation  WO 2004013491 A1  Priority: Aug 5, 2002
  • Article and method of lift energy generated by electrolysis at substantial depth  WO 2004033759 A3   Priority: Oct 10, 2002

  • Hybrid energy combustion engine system and method  WO 2004033887 A3   Priority: Oct 10, 2002
  • Potential energy of position power generation system and method   WO 2004064221 A8     Priority: Jan 13, 2003
  • Turbine or pump rotatable shutter with solar power  WO 2004079186 A3  Priority: Mar 6, 2003
  • High strength composite material geometry and methods of manufacture  WO 2005030483 A3  Priority: Sep 29, 2003
  • Solar thermal energy concentrating building material WO 2011024084 A8  Priority: Aug 26, 2009
  • Sprague gear transmission WO 2011083347 A1  Priority: Dec 15, 2009
  • Long stroke rotary free piston engine  WO 2011077178 A1  Priority: Dec 21, 2009
  • Exhaust actuated free-piston kinetic engine WO 2011128773 A1  Priority: April 13, 2010
Moderator's note: 
A similar approach to other thinkers is invited when some AWE matter is suspected within their works. Look for positive tech for RAD's sake. 

~~~~ JoeF
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16290 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/5/2014
Subject: Re: What in Robert D. Hunt's patents might affect AWE?
Aeration of water?
AWES may play to aerate water in many ways.  Use kite energy to pump
gases and pump water.
Consider Hunt's drive to aerate water by pumping oxygen at depth into
water in order to serve fish farming.
AWES may play in fish farming by pumping water.

* One way to aerate waters to enrich oxygen content of the water for
aquaculture is to have the water sprayed and fall through ambient air;
an AWES could be used to pump water to altitude and then drop sprayed
water from altitude into ponds and tanks.   *License for the AWES
method of aerating water for any purpose:   CC+ 4.x BY NC+ SA  AWE IP
Pool ~~JoeF

~ JoeF
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16291 From: Rod Read Date: 12/5/2014
Subject: Re: What in Robert D. Hunt's patents might affect AWE?
I always had the feeling that ripping a kiteboard through the water and throwing up a rooster tail was good news for the fishies.

Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16292 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/5/2014
Subject: Re: What in Robert D. Hunt's patents might affect AWE?
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16293 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/5/2014
Subject: Re: Latest Altaeros News?

SoftBank Invests in Altaeros Energies’ Buoyant Airborne Technology

"US$ 7 million in Altaeros"

$7,000,000.00 in support of the BAT development ... a flygen LTA kytoon-holding turbine, an AWES sort.

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


Thanks to Dave Santos for the lead on this news.

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


Will Altaeros be permitted to diversify its design into other AWES methods different from the donut direction?

~~ JoeF

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16294 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/5/2014
Subject: Re: Latest Altaeros News?

Disney's movie Big Hero 6 was viewed.

Very many frames showed the BAT.

Such publicity may be a strong asset for Altaeros

and now SoftBank.   Ride the image wave!


The movie images will be set into the minds of millions of people, including youth.


~ JoeF

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16295 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/5/2014
Subject: Re: Latest Altaeros News?

News Release hereon:

SoftBank Invests in Altaeros Energies'
Buoyant Airborne Technology


December 5, 2014
SoftBank Corp.
Altaeros Energies, Inc.

Tokyo, Japan and Boston, MA, December 4, 2014 — SoftBank Corp. (“SoftBank”) and Altaeros Energies, Inc. (“Altaeros”) today announced a definitive agreement under which SoftBank invests US$ 7 million in Altaeros to support the continued development and commercialization of its Buoyant Airborne Turbine (BAT) technology.

Founded at MIT in 2010, Altaeros is leveraging proven aerospace technology to lift wind turbines into strong, consistent high altitude winds beyond the reach of traditional wind towers. Operating up to 2,000 feet (600 meters) above ground, the Altaeros BAT generates over twice the energy of similarly sized tower-mounted wind turbines. The BAT is transported in standard shipping containers and does not require a tower, crane, or large underground foundation for installation, eliminating many of the logistical challenges faced by traditional wind turbines.

“Altaeros' airborne wind turbine technology is a new and promising renewable energy solution for remote islands and locations in Japan and the Asia-Pacific region,” said Masayoshi Son, Chairman & CEO of SoftBank. “We also believe in the BAT's potential to create new businesses by combining it with communication and surveillance technologies. We look forward to working with the Altaeros team.”

The BAT's significant increase in energy output, combined with its flexible deployment options, significantly reduces the cost of electricity for remote sites. In addition, the BAT can lift other equipment high into the air, delivering services such as telecommunications to its customers. The Altaeros BAT has a wide range of applications, which include island and remote communities; mining; oil & gas; agriculture; and disaster relief.

“We are honored to partner with SoftBank, one of the world's most respected companies, to work together to commercialize the BAT,” said Ben Glass, CEO and CTO of Altaeros. “Led by Chairman & CEO Masayoshi Son, SoftBank's track record of business innovation, its commitment to increasing the deployment of renewable energy, and its successful partnerships with other top clean energy startups make it the perfect partner for Altaeros.”

About Altaeros Energies, Inc.

Altaeros was founded in 2010 at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to commercialize the world's first airborne wind turbine. Altaeros has received funding towards its wind turbine technology development from a number of sources, including the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the National Science Foundation, the California Energy Commission, the Maine Technology Institute, the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center, Cleantech Innovations New England, the ConocoPhillips Energy Prize, and the Alaska Energy Authority. Altaeros has also received funding from RNT Associates, wholly owned by Mr. Ratan N. Tata, former Chairman of Tata Sons. Altaeros is headquartered at Greentown Labs, a leading clean technology incubator located in Somerville, Massachusetts. For more information, high-resolution photos, and a demonstration video of the BAT, please visit http://www.altaerosenergies.com(Open in a new window).

About SoftBank Corp.

SoftBank Corp. (TSE:9984), through its subsidiaries and associates, offers a comprehensive range of advanced mobile communications, fixed-line communications and Internet services around the world. With Sprint joining in July 2013, the SoftBank Group became a leading global carrier that now has over 100 million subscribers. Maximizing synergies across its Group companies worldwide, SoftBank aspires to realize lifestyle innovation through IT. SoftBank is also encouraging the adoption of clean and safe energy through its business activities. To learn more, please visit http://www.softbank.jp/en/corp/.

Image of Altaeros BAT (Sourced by Altaeros Energies Inc.)

Image of Altaeros BAT (Sourced by Altaeros Energies Inc,)


  • Releases, announcements, presentations and other information available from this page and elsewhere on this website were prepared based on information available and views held at the time of preparation and speak only as of the respective dates on which they are filed or used by SoftBank or the applicable group company, as the case may be. Such information is subject to change and may become out-of-date. Such information may also contain forward-looking statements which are by their nature subject to various risks and uncertainties that may cause actual results and future developments to differ materially from those expressed or implied by such statements. Please read legal notices in its entirety prior to viewing any information available on this website.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16296 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/5/2014
Subject: Art of Innovating for AWES
Art of Innovating for AWES

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Doug Selsam 
Date: Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 10:11 AM
Subject: The subject of innovation illustrated by a simple example
To: Editor
of U
pper
​ ​W
indpower

The other day at the hardware store, I noticed a new (to me anyway) style of
Sawzall® ​
(reciprocating saw) blade that has teeth on BOTH sides.
http://www.spyderproducts.com/toolpages/spyder-bore-blade/

My first thought was "What a GREAT idea" - you not only have a single blade with two kinds of teeth for different jobs, but your blades will last twice as long!  Wear out one side and you still have a new side to use!  What a great way to lower the number of blades sold - uh-oh -  I'm sure the competition is furious or at least worried, and will have to find a way to copy the innovation.

My second thought was of course "Why didn't I think of that?"  I mean, I spent a good portion of my life using
Sawzall®
s​
​.  I've worn out a few actually, the real U.S.-made Milwaukee brand no less. 

The next question though was maybe I DID think of it at some point and just forgot.  (Yeah, that's it - of course!)

But anyway, it slowly dawned on me, with this being about as SIMPLE of an idea (invention) as one could ever ask for, why did it take so LONG for SOMEONE to come up with it?  It seems that this may illustrate the rarity that we humans ever actually APPLY whatever intelligence we may have, versus merely repeating, in a rote fashion, what we have already been shown. 

I mean, think about it:  If it took 100 years of millions of people using reciprocating saws for someone to implement about the simplest, and useful, innovations one could ever hope to apply to any device, where does that leave us with regard to our innate capacity for innovation?  If you add it all up, there have been billions of hours of people using one-sided blades, then throwing the dull blades away, without anyone ever applying teeth to the unused side of the blade! 

So it brings up the question once again, which might explain why it is so difficult to find a workable AWE scheme in spite of so many people trying for so many years:  Do we humans even have ANY intelligence at all, or do we just THINK we have intelligence, while in reality we just stumble along doing what is already known, until someone rarely, perhaps even accidentally, adds a slight change?  Almost like ants randomly, mindlessly (as far as we know) "exploring", until one happens to stumble upon a food source.

Maybe I have this all wrong and there were double-sided
Sawzall® ​ blades in the year 1908, and I am just not aware of it and the idea was forgotten then resurrected.  All I can tell you is I've spent hundreds of dollars on
Sawzall®  blades over the years, and would gladly have spent half that amount in exchange for someone applying a single brain cell properly, to double a blade's usefulness.

 ~ Doug Selsam
==========================​




​Upper Windpower editor notes: 
           AWE world already has found workable AWE schemes.
New to AWE? Recommended: Review the workable AWE schemes that have already been described in the literature. 
The continuing art of innovating in AWE is the topic herein.  Discuss the "art of innovating for AWES" in itself. How might one innovate for improved AWES, for implementing workable schemes, etc.   Innovating by collaborative efforts? by solo efforts? by morphological analysis? by ________.    Do you have an idea on how to advance the art of innovating for AWES?
~ JoeF​

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16297 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/5/2014
Subject: Re: What in Robert D. Hunt's patents might affect AWE?

Doug S. comments hereon followed by a comment from JoeF:

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

Hey Joe:  We've already heard, from your "AWE expert" sidekick, that this whole topic, is off-topic.  I don't quite agree with that, since blimps flying around the world making endless free power at high altitudes, shares characteristics with many proposed AWE schemes.  

The way I thought it was relevant, was to illustrate how such airborne free energy schemes that SOUND reasonable at first glance, can, upon further examination, turn out to be not only inadvisable, but unworkable at all, since they violate the laws of physics.

So the lesson was meant as a word to the wary, and the term "crackpot" should perhaps be better interpreted as pertaining to the idea itself, (a crackpot idea), rather than focusing on the actual inventor, which is almost irrelevant.

Now we've seen that self-stated "AWE expert" try, as is typical, to change a technical discussion, which he is not qualified to participate in, to one more antagonistic discussion of personality, the chice is to floow his lead and agree to change the subject, or to hold his feet to the fire and maintain the subject at hand, which is whether the entire theory is suspect or invalid.  

What WAS a discussion aimed toward analysis of a particular technology has suffered an attempted hijacking toward a discussion of the lifetime accomplishments of the guy who came up with the idea.  One more shell-game.  One more attempt to distract and cloud the issue.  

This attempt to switch the subject, as usual, from a technical discussion to a personality discussion, or worse, a mental health discussion, even to the point of claiming that I am "mentally-ill" for flagging a blatant perpetual motion scheme, shows not only an inability to actually discuss the topic at hand, but the typical degeneration into mere name-calling, in a desperate attempt to, once again, "be right" while promoting ideas that are clearly wrong.  Normally when the dust settles in discussions like this, the person defending the perpetual motion scheme is the one who ends up dignosed as "mentally ill", at least from an engineering standpoint.  So I'm sorry but I think I have to hold my ground there.

Now he's got you onboard, subtly switching your own mental gears from sticking to the discussion at hand, of a particular idea, now long called "off-topic", to a 100% shift to a discussion of the promoter OF the technology, which, if the technology itself is "off-topic", can only be MORE "off-topic".

I'd suggest this falls under that heading of the worthlessness of endlessly examining the millions of possibilities, rather than staying focused and sticking to a topic and making it work, in that very nice daily motivation website you pointed us to a few days ago.

If we take Mr. "AWE expert" at face value, the whole topic, to start with, was said to be (with no doubt acknowledged) "off-topic", so going on to spend a lot of time examining the life story of a guy whose idea was already deemed by "an AWE expert" to be off-topic, makes no sense.  It's more about falling for this "expert's" attempt to divert your attention to a slightly DIFFERENT off-topic topic, than anything else.  I suggest you don't fall for it.  This is typical of when certain people are about to lose an argument, they will do ANYTHING to change the subject.  Let's not change the subject from a technical discussion to the discussion of a person.  Thanks for considering this line of reasoning.
:)  ~ Doug Selsam

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

Hi DougS,

      Please notice that I did not weigh in on the other topic, but to support as moderator the discussion as Hunt was being explored.   I was not ready to discount the topic as off-topic; usually I get more aware of the topic before discounting AWE relevancy.  Apparent wind on gliders is relevant to AWE.    Further, the fullness of Hunt might be needed to be aware of detail perspective about what energy conversions Hunt was suspecting for possible success of his gravity glider; Hunt's thermodynamic perspectives are not yet encircled by me, so I am not ready to close the door on that pointed topic.   The present topic about all of Hunt for possible AWE matter is indeed separate from the detail of his gravity glider item.   Having two separate topics is no problem.   If you do not want to know Hunt thoroughly, then that is acceptable; others might want to explore Hunt for possible AWE leads. Indeed, already kPower, Inc. has rights now over aeration of water by kite system as part of the aura effect of studying Hunt; it is guessed that rubbing Hunt will be part of an innovation process positing even further innovation.

      Please consider posting appropriately to each topic; the gravity glider is part of Hunt and has its topic already. The current topic hereon can go into each of Hunt's perspectives on energy conversions and applications. A fuller understanding of what drives Hunt to gravity glider might be obtained by careful appreciation of his various patents.  

     ~ JoeF



---In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, <joefaust333@gmail.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16298 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/5/2014
Subject: Re: Professor Crackpot 2004: Where is it today? The flaw?

DougS comments hereon:

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

Chris C said: "I don’t believe in perpetual motion machines... a submersible ...managed to get across the Atlantic."
*** Doug explains: There's never been a question that a buoyant object can skew horizontally while rising, nor that a heavy object can skew horizontally while sinking, nor that this cycle cannot be repeated to travel a long distance, as long as you have a source of energy input, such as an engine, or solar cells, for example.

ChrisC continued: "I think it’s probably possible to stay aloft indefinitely without fuel but there has to be an energy input somewhere."
***Doug further explains: Yes and in the case we're discussing, if anyone bothers to actually read it, the energy "input" comes from onboard turbines extracting the energy that ultimately powers the craft, from the craft's own movement.  It's just like putting a windmill on a car to make power FROM the car's movement, to power that car's movement.  Doesn't work.

Or cut to the chase and just pretend you can power a car's motor by extracting the required power from one wheel by using a generator.  It's all perpetual motion.  

Here is the trick that crackpots unwittingly use, time after time:  They add another system, adding unnecessary complication.  The added complication serves to camouflage the perpetual motion machine at the core.  

At the core of THIS crackpot scheme is a perpetual-motion up-and-down machine, camouflaged by a sideways detour, which changes the subject from whether you can really go up and down forever using no fuel, to whether you can travel sideways using flotation, which of course IS possible.  So they dodge the issue.  They change the question, and pretend they didn't, never missing a beat.  For feeble minds that can't properly think through it, the trick works.

So really it's a shell game.  The trickster focuses your eyes on horizontal travel, so you don't notice that the vertical travel that is the "engine" of this scheme, is a perpetual motion scenario.

You can google it and find plenty of links where the crackpot nature of this is debunked.  
Try googling "fuelless flight debunked":
http://cosmoquest.org/forum/archive/index.php/t-9937.html

~ Doug Selsam

 

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16299 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/5/2014
Subject: COA related to FAA

COA     (See links on that page for more information)

Certificate of Waiver

or Certificate of Authorization

COA is an authorization issued by the Air Traffic Organization to a public operator for a specific UA activity.


Want to operate an Unmanned Aircraft System   (UA  or UAS)

 in the National Airspace System (NAS)?

Registration of the aircraft and marking the aircraft may be required.


AWES teams may want to become at ease with the process of registering aircraft, marking the aircraft, and obtaining COA for flight activity.   Practice the process for a first effort. A second effort will probably be easier.


Not all aircraft or operations with aircraft require registration, marking, COA. AWES teams will want to know when the COA process is required and when such is not required.


For instance some cases where COA is not needed:

https://www.faa.gov/uas/publications/model_aircraft_operators/


Also,

     FARs on kite have some room for some activity prior to meeting thresholds of activity for kite and balloon systems.


~ JoeF


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16300 From: Rod Read Date: 12/5/2014
Subject: Re: Art of Innovating for AWES
I think in airborne development it's most often about what you can get rid of ...
Reminds me of the guy in the 80's who told matchbox makers he could save them a fortune if they gave him £1M
Eventually they did.
Only put 1 sand paper strike surface on the side of your matchboxes.
Previously everybody had always put 2 striking surfaces on matchboxes.

Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16301 From: Rod Read Date: 12/5/2014
Subject: Re: COA related to FAA

Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16302 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/5/2014
Subject: Tatsuo Urasaki on Kite-flying Toy

Tatsuo Urasaki on Kite-flying Toy

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

Challenge:

Mine the motion of the toy device to make electricity.

== Consider linear generator

== Consider loop line on toy to drive ground-stationed electric generator.

== Consider _____________________________

~ JoeF


Publication numberUS4240600 A
Publication typeGrant
Application numberUS 06/098,530
Publication dateDec 23, 1980
Filing dateNov 29, 1979
Priority dateNov 29, 1979
InventorsTatsuo Urasaki
Original AssigneeTatsuo Urasaki
Export CitationBiBTeX, EndNote, RefMan
External Links: USPTO, USPTO Assignment, Espacenet
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16303 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/5/2014
Subject: Re: Tatsuo Urasaki on Kite-flying Toy

  

Device is up for challenges. Already the toy goes up and down

using energy from the wind. The line is kept taut by a kite lifter system.

The toy device is a line traveler. Travelers may carry mass and drop

the mass to fulfill works. But how might the traveling device generate

electricity during up and down travels? Flygen or groundgen?

 

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16304 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/5/2014
Subject: Tether segment devices that generate electricity upon tension change

"Measurements have shown that up to 200% of the required steering power can be obtained from the change in the tensile force."   http://www.google.com/patents/US7971545

Watercraft having a kite-like element                          US 7971545 B2

SkySails' Stephan Wrage instructs on having part of the tether be responsive to tensile changes in order to generate electricity for the control systems of a kite system using just one main tether for a towing kite system.

The device is aloft near the wing.  

[[Notice that we have long discussed in-tether generators or groundgens that respond to deliberating oscilling tensions caused by either active or passive control of the wing for both short and long stroke operations. Here in the Wrage teaching, the device is dedicated to providing just the electricity for driving remote control servos to control the towing wing attached to watercraft. ]]


Publication numberUS7971545 B2
Publication typeGrant
Application numberUS 12/291,678
Publication dateJul 5, 2011
Filing dateNov 12, 2008
Priority dateSep 6, 2004
Also published asUS20090071388
Publication number12291678, 291678, US 7971545 B2, US 7971545B2, US-B2-7971545, US7971545 B2, US7971545B2
InventorsStephan Wrage
Original AssigneeSkysails Gmbh & Co. Kg
Export CitationBiBTeX, EndNote, RefMan
External Links: USPTO, USPTO Assignment, Espacenet
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16305 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/5/2014
Subject: Re: Study of 2014 KiteGen power wing

News on KiteGen


Giant kites on the horizon as energy researchers look skywards

Horizon Magazine - European Commissiontablet-logo

http://horizon-magazine.eu/article/giant-kites-horizon-energy-researchers-look-skywards_en.html

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16307 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/5/2014
Subject: Re: Moderator reports

Some significant changes in our AWES forum:

1. Permanent ban is occasionally needed.

2. Moderatorship has just been reduced by two moderators. Also owner level has gone from three to one.

3. An urge toward higher fidelity to Yahoo! group posting policies is at hand.

4. Please have no one-on-one local social chat in this forum. Please use private email for personal matters.

5. The forum founding is on RAD.  Please aim for high density sharing on the challenges of RAD.

6. There are ways to post without keeping the tailed former posts present. We have the former posts. Please practice posting without including the former posts. Rather, cut and paste just quotes that are directly close to the matter in your focus. This will save our members' time.

7. Recall that RAD respects media of water as well as air or other gases or fluids.

8. Recall that electricity may be prominent as the radiance from AWES, but that other energy formats and works may radiate from AWES. Applications of AWES may be good works of high variety.

9. Consider composing your shares in your email program to control edits, give self-pause for the composition; give yourself control over Internet errors, and give yourself draft-copy chance to edit before sending the sharing.

10. Please research and give helpful informative links. Aim to present respect for opposing perspectives. Argue from first principles when appropriate.

11. Inform the moderator of things you want for the forum. Thank you.


~ JoeF


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16309 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/5/2014
Subject: Re: Tether segment devices that generate electricity upon tension ch
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16310 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/5/2014
Subject: Re: Moderator reports
DaveS notes:

JoeF,
I did not wish my Hunt email to be posted on the AWES Forum, especially on the BS crackpot topic. I am done posting to the AWES Forum as long as it is abused to attack so many friends and strangers alike as "Professor Crackpot".
Good Luck and Bye to All,
daveS

===============
 DaveS, the tail was deleted. And the first post was deleted.

We will follow your Internet path on AWE carefully.
Best of Lift,
~ JoeF