Messages in AirborneWindEnergy group.                           AWES16766to16841 Page 230 of 440.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16766 From: Rod Read Date: 2/4/2015
Subject: Re: 22m2 Pilot Kite Kill Test Successful

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16767 From: Rod Read Date: 2/4/2015
Subject: Re: Parasail

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16768 From: Rod Read Date: 2/4/2015
Subject: Re: Dan Tracy kite controller

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16769 From: dave santos Date: 2/4/2015
Subject: Defining Loadpaths as Bridles; In-Plane Loadpaths as "Internal Bridl

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16770 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 2/4/2015
Subject: Repeller

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16771 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 2/4/2015
Subject: Re: Defining Loadpaths as Bridles; In-Plane Loadpaths as "Internal B

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16772 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 2/4/2015
Subject: Re: Fwd: Survey - status AWE 2015

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16773 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 2/4/2015
Subject: Re: Fwd: Survey - status AWE 2015

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16774 From: Joe Faust Date: 2/4/2015
Subject: AWE Industry Forum Future? Next-Gen AWE Forum ?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16775 From: dougselsam Date: 2/4/2015
Subject: Re: Bell's Classic Paper on Tetrahedral Kite Structure

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16776 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 2/4/2015
Subject: Re: Defining Loadpaths as Bridles; In-Plane Loadpaths as "Internal B

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16777 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 2/4/2015
Subject: Re: Defining Loadpaths as Bridles; In-Plane Loadpaths as "Internal B

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16778 From: Rod Read Date: 2/4/2015
Subject: Re: Fwd: Survey - status AWE 2015

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16779 From: Rod Read Date: 2/4/2015
Subject: Re: AWE Industry Forum Future? Next-Gen AWE Forum ?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16792 From: dave santos Date: 2/4/2015
Subject: Re: Bell's Classic Paper on Tetrahedral Kite Structure

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16801 From: dave santos Date: 2/5/2015
Subject: Re: Fwd: Survey - status AWE 2015

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16804 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 2/5/2015
Subject: Re: AWE Industry Forum Future? Next-Gen AWE Forum ?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16805 From: dave santos Date: 2/5/2015
Subject: Re: AWE Industry Forum Future? Next-Gen AWE Forum ?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16808 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 2/5/2015
Subject: Re: Fwd: Survey - status AWE 2015

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16811 From: dave santos Date: 2/5/2015
Subject: Getting Started with FAA AWES Certifications

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16812 From: dave santos Date: 2/5/2015
Subject: HWN500 AWE R&D Network

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16813 From: dougselsam Date: 2/6/2015
Subject: Re: Bell's Classic Paper on Tetrahedral Kite Structure

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16814 From: dave santos Date: 2/6/2015
Subject: Re: Bell's Classic Paper on Tetrahedral Kite Structure

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16815 From: dougselsam Date: 2/6/2015
Subject: Re: Bell's Classic Paper on Tetrahedral Kite Structure

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16816 From: dave santos Date: 2/6/2015
Subject: Re: Bell's Classic Paper on Tetrahedral Kite Structure

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16817 From: dave santos Date: 2/6/2015
Subject: Re as predictor of (kite) aircraft morphology

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16818 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 2/6/2015
Subject: Re: Re as predictor of (kite) aircraft morphology

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16819 From: dave santos Date: 2/6/2015
Subject: Re: Re as predictor of (kite) aircraft morphology

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16820 From: dougselsam Date: 2/6/2015
Subject: Re: Bell's Classic Paper on Tetrahedral Kite Structure

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16821 From: dougselsam Date: 2/6/2015
Subject: Re: Re as predictor of (kite) aircraft morphology

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16822 From: dave santos Date: 2/6/2015
Subject: Re: Bell's Classic Paper on Tetrahedral Kite Structure

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16823 From: dave santos Date: 2/6/2015
Subject: Re: Re as predictor of (kite) aircraft morphology

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16824 From: dave santos Date: 2/6/2015
Subject: Kiting as Aviation?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16825 From: dave santos Date: 2/6/2015
Subject: Iso-Lattice Test

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16826 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 2/6/2015
Subject: Re: Re as predictor of (kite) aircraft morphology

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16827 From: dave santos Date: 2/6/2015
Subject: Re: Re as predictor of (kite) aircraft morphology

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16828 From: dave santos Date: 2/6/2015
Subject: Re: Re as predictor of (kite) aircraft morphology

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16829 From: dave santos Date: 2/7/2015
Subject: The Looming Soft-Cellular Revolution

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16830 From: dave santos Date: 2/7/2015
Subject: Snowflake Kite as Small Iso-Dome Soft-Cellular Precursor

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16831 From: dave santos Date: 2/7/2015
Subject: Brush-Topology Kite-Farms

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16832 From: dave santos Date: 2/7/2015
Subject: Re: Brush-Topology Kite-Farms

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16833 From: dave santos Date: 2/7/2015
Subject: Musicaeriel

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16834 From: Rod Read Date: 2/8/2015
Subject: Too much power with Poor alignment = Breakage

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16835 From: dave santos Date: 2/8/2015
Subject: Re: Too much power with Poor alignment = Breakage

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16836 From: Rod Read Date: 2/9/2015
Subject: Re: Too much power with Poor alignment = Breakage

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16837 From: dougselsam Date: 2/9/2015
Subject: Re: Musicaeriel

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16838 From: dougselsam Date: 2/9/2015
Subject: Re: Re as predictor of (kite) aircraft morphology

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16839 From: dougselsam Date: 2/9/2015
Subject: Re: Re as predictor of (kite) aircraft morphology

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16840 From: dave santos Date: 2/9/2015
Subject: Re: Musicaeriel

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16841 From: dougselsam Date: 2/9/2015
Subject: Re: Musicaeriel



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16766 From: Rod Read Date: 2/4/2015
Subject: Re: 22m2 Pilot Kite Kill Test Successful

It may not yet be an optimised, beautifully crafted, smart functioning work.. but please don't shy away from sharing sketches, pictures, video tutorials etc.
It definitely works. The main idea is now disclosed. We can definitely collaboratively improve on it here. And more easily if we have a solid start point from your lessons.
Even if we just replicate results that's validated progress.
As ever, Thanks for the updates.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16767 From: Rod Read Date: 2/4/2015
Subject: Re: Parasail
Topology will likely depend on the performance characteristic you specify of your isomesh...

Where there are no internal mesh tethers to ground....
At a lifting node does a kite have to only be connected to only a single node? (as per a single line lift kite from a fixed point on the mesh with it's performance)
Or can a node lifter have it's feet separated and move around a cell? bringing the advantages of spread stability. (by means on the cell or from the ground or both)

A lightweight control on a single line kite can generate huge mesh node lifts if it has enough free range to swoop...Which implies wider mesh cells to avoid crashes... Neighbouring node kites swooping to meet would deform the overall mesh and node stability quite significantly.

A stack of spread foot kites would use more material for the same static lifting, It would be more complex to rig but more inherently stable lifting as a unit.

The number of mesh cells and therefore the smoothness of the dome curve will have implications on how thick the mesh ropes should be since the nodes are met at a flatter angle. More cells may imply a need for regular internal node tethers to ground.

Since cells can tessellate fractaly it may be that a mesh is made up from dispersed lifting cells in a mesh .. A lifting cell would thereby be sub divided into another mesh structure with lift nodes internally operated...Thus giving this overall single cell of the larger scale mesh many parts of lift from within
The perimeter of this type of lift cell would maybe be a good place to have node to ground tethers.   

Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16768 From: Rod Read Date: 2/4/2015
Subject: Re: Dan Tracy kite controller
That Kite controller is brilliant.
Everyone reading this should back it.

How about applying it to AWE?
My first sketch of what a daisy might be had an airborne ring with retractable kites come from it.
Lift a ring, set 3 of Dans kite controllers with kites on the ring. deploy the kites. either steering first to a stable deployment or just straight away kicking ass and spinning the ring round...
What are the advantages of this over the very simple ring spinning I do... Potentially Massive!
The kites can probably go at a much higher speed and stay stable.
The steering and line balancing is using an off the shelf kite.
The torque could be really large.

Someone please make and spin a flying ring of with Dan's or similar kite controllers. It will kick ass guaranteed.


Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16769 From: dave santos Date: 2/4/2015
Subject: Defining Loadpaths as Bridles; In-Plane Loadpaths as "Internal Bridl
Comments to Pierre's notes in the Parasail topic, in a new discussion thread-

Lets formally call our non-electrical mechanical force conductors "rope loadpaths". Rope loadpaths are our fundamental structure to collect loaded fabric forces. Scaling larger proceeds by adding fractal dimensions of thicker rope, in steps, like a cascaded bridle. 

Year-by-year in AWES dsign, we are defining a new engineering pattern language of complex tensile wind structure, upon ancient roots in rigging-arts. "Bridle" has a traditional meaning, now expanded in our modern view. What has not before been defined as bridling are the common internal loadpaths in soft kite structure. In effect, a sewn-on crows-foot reinforcement is a filled-in bridle. The formal definition of a bridle is seen as many-to-one loadpath load aggregation. Internal and external bridles are defined by placement inside or outside sailcloth

The fullness of geometric and topological AWES possibilities are still poorly known; but its exciting to work them out, to discover for ourselves and eventually master capabilities never before imagined ("newborn baby" hypothesis).
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16770 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 2/4/2015
Subject: Repeller

"repeller"


German AWE survey effort used "Repeller" to type flygen type of kite system. 

Contrast with "propeller"



carousel   or Fr.:  carrousel 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16771 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 2/4/2015
Subject: Re: Defining Loadpaths as Bridles; In-Plane Loadpaths as "Internal B
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16772 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 2/4/2015
Subject: Re: Fwd: Survey - status AWE 2015
Sample survey input: 

===========
Kite scientist, kite energy systems publisher, kite energy systems developer, kite technology historian, kite systems inventing, kite-patent research, kite-novelty discerner, 
===========
1, Kite energy systems' line lifters for ground-based electric generators for Ever-Up (TM) short-stroke production of electricity for serving small-village remote-station loads. 

2. Iso-mesh kite-dome stacks for GW ground production of electricity for city electric grids. 
=======

Etc.
Will you fill the survey?
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16773 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 2/4/2015
Subject: Re: Fwd: Survey - status AWE 2015

 

For me it is made since a few hours on the double basis of FlygenKite as tested system showing some features (and some weakness) of crosswind flight, and of utility-scale by studying high density (land and space use being related) of kites acting ground-based generators, mentioning also some analysis from Dave Santos (comprising high density). By reading the questions from survey, it appears elements like crosswind kites, automated control...look like some prerequisite, for some expected improvements. So why not filling survey detailing  "1, Kite energy systems' line lifters for ground-based electric generators for Ever-Up (TM) short-stroke production of electricity for serving small-village remote-station loads. " and "2. Iso-mesh kite-dome stacks for GW ground production of electricity for city electric grids." Dave Santos, Joe Faust, Ed Sapir, Rod Read (kPower) could detail progress from Mothra to iso-dome and provide a possible correct way to build AWE.

 

PierreB

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16774 From: Joe Faust Date: 2/4/2015
Subject: AWE Industry Forum Future? Next-Gen AWE Forum ?
Discussion is open for serving "forum" into the future for the AWE industry. 


Yahoo! Groups might fail. Some market notes show some concern.
We would want to save a searchable copy of the ~ 17,000 messages. 
Yours truly could vanish; so, an alternative stable permanent site is wished sooner than later; a recent medical results puts me in a group that has a median surviving term of 4 years (hence half of us less and half more than 4 years); so, I will be closing off some of my activity while keeping other parts of AWE activity.   

I am not a programmer or web wizard, just a low-computer-skilled web worker using easy tools. 
I am guessing that a skilled programmer could find a quick way to make a searchable copy of our messages without the ads or Yahoo-group crust. Not sure.    

At the moment, there is just one owner of this group and one moderator being the same. For securing the present group even before Yahoo Groups fails, I ask some two of our membership to step up soon to be "owner" of the group.   Notice that one error in management of a "delete group" button could delete all of our messages.   Give me a note  of your willingness to be part of the ownership of our present group. 

And what about the the next-gen forum?   Where?  How?  Managers? 

Ideas?

Best, 
   JoeF
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16775 From: dougselsam Date: 2/4/2015
Subject: Re: Bell's Classic Paper on Tetrahedral Kite Structure
DaveS said: "Doug, I made no such statements that I can see. These seem like your careless misunderstanding of nuanced facts. Please quote precisely, if you want to properly identify an error. I will be glad to be corrected if you can do that,"
***Doug replies:  OK Dave, below is the cut and paste of your post claiming Bell's triangular structure "in many modern aircraft".  Amazing that your post purports to flag how I am "incorrect" in so many ways, and "What a pain to have to correct" my "gross misrepresentations", with you being wrong the whole time.  This is why the only thing that comes close to your level of ridiculousness is Monty Python, but as always, truth is stranger than fiction, and you leave Monty Python in the dust with regard to how many absurd statements you can stack up back-to-back.  One would think you would tire of losing every argument you start and quit harassing me, but at this point it seems that nothing can stop your firehose of nonsense.  Your own words below:

"Doug is incorrect to suggest that it was "never borne out" that triangular kite cell designs are better than rectangular cell designs, as Bell promoted for kite aviation. In fact, triangular cells in stick kites became and remain far more common than rectangular cells (like the Conyne kite Doug seems to describe, which even predates Bell), and remain in play for technical kites (a new kite altitude world record is being planned around delta-Conyne train kites, as the best design option (rectangular cells are not even a close option). Doug is a very unreliable non-expert source of kite or broader aviation knowledge, for lack of diligent study and practice. He even has a hard time understanding kites as real aviation, or seeing biplanes as. What a pain to have to always correct his gross misrepresentations, or let nonsense stand.

Bell's triangular cell structure is in fact seen here and there in many modern aircraft, more so than vintage biplanes are now seen. Triangle wing struts and V-tails are common modern examples, and AWES soft-kite aviation platforms can similarly incorporate the basic triangle idea, even fully tensile versions of Bell's iconic forms.


---In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, <santos137@...
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16776 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 2/4/2015
Subject: Re: Defining Loadpaths as Bridles; In-Plane Loadpaths as "Internal B

DaveS wrote   : "The same line of parasails could be more simply and cheaply supported, far higher up, along a single arch line pulled by just two larger boats (winch-boat and control economy-of-scale). "

"The same line" can (for me) be defined as a loadpath, precisely as an internal (or a cross) loadpath. External loadpath could be a line from only one point (the same for each line from a bridle) of the wing to the ground via the main line.

The question for an iso-dome will be the right combination of cross (internal?) loadpaths or similar (with the same function) and external loadpaths.
In a precedent post I call (flying) elements with (respective) external loadpaths as conductors; perhaps main elements would be a better expression.

 

PierreB

 

 

 

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16777 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 2/4/2015
Subject: Re: Defining Loadpaths as Bridles; In-Plane Loadpaths as "Internal B

"The formal definition of a bridle is seen as many-to-one loadpath load aggregation. Internal and external bridles are defined by placement inside or outside sailcloth" (DaveS) already brought some definition of internal and external loadpaths.

 

PierreB

 

 

 

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16778 From: Rod Read Date: 2/4/2015
Subject: Re: Fwd: Survey - status AWE 2015

Consider yourself expert too Pierre please. Your schemes are inspirational.
As for short stroke, Rotary soft kites count as hela short stroke.
Describing one collected method for what we use is near impossible. I make
Burp Catchers, Glittery Gust Catchers,  Stairway, Daisy, torque ladders.. Weird named thingimies.
Pattern Language Development and / or Evolving awe genetic component interaction through mathematical model descriptors...
Is probably where we excell together.
Doooug S is keen at it too.

Our designs may not yet fit in with standard idea AWE..... Aye don't fret. You can kick ass with kites on your own schedule.
Re-tying re-rigging continues for me again tomorrow morning.. But a High pressure system overhead will slow tests right down in the next few days.
Fingers crossed for Getting results before the 9th.
At least my kites didn't suffer the fate of most stick turbines in this year's Lewis hurricanes.
😉
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16779 From: Rod Read Date: 2/4/2015
Subject: Re: AWE Industry Forum Future? Next-Gen AWE Forum ?

Joe, I'm willing to do whatever you request me to.
Really sorry to hear the severity of your prognosis. Keep flying long low and slow.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16792 From: dave santos Date: 2/4/2015
Subject: Re: Bell's Classic Paper on Tetrahedral Kite Structure
Doug,

Thanks for quoting accurately. 

I stand by the quote. Sorry you are unable to see the reasonable basis.  Listing many cases of triangular wing cells, from Bellancas and Cessnas to Joby and NASA concepts, iwas my failed effort to get you to understand that Bell's ideas live on, not just in kites. My main argument  here is that key Bell kite ideas apply to megascalable soft-kite structure, like the exciting iso-lattice concepts proposed.

Good luck developing even better ideas, by you own lights,

daveS


On Wednesday, February 4, 2015 12:54 PM, "dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16801 From: dave santos Date: 2/5/2015
Subject: Re: Fwd: Survey - status AWE 2015
This will be an interesting test of BHWE's technical impartiality, given its role in AWEC insider politics.

Personally, I don't intend to reply, except maybe in protest of BHWE, which has been unresponsive about explaining the AWEIA ban enforced at AWEC2013, or at least now allows JohnO to serve on the AWEC2015 organizing committee on the same basis as GuidoL. The same applies to AWEC2015 participation. Let the survey be skewed toward BHWE's insider circle's preconceptions, just as NearZero's survey served Makani, but no one was fooled. BHWE needs to be more transparent and fair, to lead on merit.


On Wednesday, February 4, 2015 3:43 PM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16804 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 2/5/2015
Subject: Re: AWE Industry Forum Future? Next-Gen AWE Forum ?

 

JoeF,

 

Some sections within http://www.energykitesystems.net/  or http://www.aweia.org/home/category/publications/ or  http://www.kpowertechnology.com/ could "save a searchable copy of the ~ 17,000 messages", at least in a first time, and as data.

"And what about the the next-gen forum?  ". The present AWE forum is the only AWE one working for years. So some level of continuity will be needed to assure the sustainability of a next-gen forum, hoping you will pursue AWE activities for a long time.

Perhaps ideas and concepts from present forum like "high density", "aggregate stability", some level of "passive control", "iso-lattice" and iso-dome", "maximization of land and space"... should be diffused in other AWE circles, increasing the basis of discussion.

 

PierreB

 

 

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16805 From: dave santos Date: 2/5/2015
Subject: Re: AWE Industry Forum Future? Next-Gen AWE Forum ?
Joe, 

Live intensely in joy and hope, to beat the odds. Don't worry about Forum data, it iswritten in our hearts and has also been harvested by many parties, even if Yahoo drops the ball. Now is the time to distill and crystallize the knowledge gathered, in new formats. The Forum has succeeded brilliantly under your leadership, and nothing can stop a great outcome. We have peered deep into a future of endless wonder, bringing it on,

daveS


On Wednesday, February 4, 2015 3:50 PM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16808 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 2/5/2015
Subject: Re: Fwd: Survey - status AWE 2015

"or at least now allows JohnO to serve on the AWEC2015 organizing committee on the same basis as GuidoL."

Yes. And by detailing ideas and concepts like iso-lattice-dome, land footprint..., and if possible by presenting a proof of concept or even a prototype.

 

PierreB

 

 

 

 

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16811 From: dave santos Date: 2/5/2015
Subject: Getting Started with FAA AWES Certifications
My meeting yesterday, with the Warm Springs UAS Test Range manager, went well. It helped that he is a kite surfer from the Hood River area, the very cradle of kite surfing :) The following is more requirements we must meet, in addition those in the UAS Test Range Flight Planning Guide, N-number registration, etc.; as shared recently on-Forum.

To fly an AWES under evolving FAA rules, there are legacy standard certification requirements to follow, and new rules emerging for UAS. Each AWES architecture will additionally have its own specialized operational rules, based on applicable safety-critical particulars. Its up to our user groups (like AKA, AWEIA, etc.) to define many of these particulars proactively (like FTS (flight termination system) capability).

Open AWE can make light work of complex requirements, if enough folks work together. Anyone is welcome to piggy-back on the kPower process, if they are seeking to fly the same or closely similar AWES (starting with a 44m2 Pilot-Lifter two-kite stack).

Starting links to information about basic aviation certifications- 

FAA form for Type Certification that an aircraft manufacturer (ie. AWES developer) must submit for each new type. If you are creating a new type, this one is for you-


Here is an overview of the Airworthiness Certificate every registered aircraft must maintain-


AWES Pilots will have suitable certification required, in accord with many factors-
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16812 From: dave santos Date: 2/5/2015
Subject: HWN500 AWE R&D Network
This is the emergent German-lead consortium conducting the AWE survey. Its hard to see how they can honestly compensate for natural under-reporting by non-Teutonic circles (their Dutch partners excepted), without creating a more welcoming transparent diverse enterprise culture. This is a very tight insider group, compared to the rest of the AWE world (with only the GoogleX circle more closed).
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16813 From: dougselsam Date: 2/6/2015
Subject: Re: Bell's Classic Paper on Tetrahedral Kite Structure
DaveS said: "Doug, you are unable to see... many cases of triangular wing cells, from Bellancas and Cessnas to Joby and NASA concepts... Bell's ideas live on, not just in kites." - daveS
*** Doug replies:  Nice try as always, DaveS, but I think you have failed to verify your assertion of triangular cells beyond kites.  It's not me who is "unable to see".  It is you who is trying to make a point that is simply not true. Here are my points of response to your assertions:
1) Lift struts on Cessnas etc., use symmetrical airfoils (for drag reduction), whereas cambered airfoils are normally used for lift unless we are talking about aerobatic stunt planes which often fly upside-down.
2) Lift struts on Cessnas have a very small "chord" compared to the wing.  If they were to function as "triangular wing cells", the chord of the strut would be approximately the same as the chord of the wing.  As it is, no lift-generating "cell" has been formed by the mere presence of a supporting strut.
3) The angled strut of the Bellanca tapers toward a zero chord at its intersection with the wing.  Bellanca's slanted wing is just an example of the occasionally-seen attempt to accommodate landing gear while keeping the propeller from ground contact, with a dip in the wing, as seen on the Corsair, and it is only a single case, not "many cases".  If it were an example of "many cases of triangular wing cells", the chord of the lower wing would remain constant.  The taper to a zero chord means it does NOT form a "triangular wing cell" - you can't have a "cell" without a "cell-wall".  Obviously, the Bellanca designers knew that a complete triangular wing cell would be inadvisable, due to high drag.  The designers of the Bellanca in fact AVOIDED a "triangular cell" structure by the taper of that lower wing to being a mere strut at the point where it meets the upper wing.  Why did the designers AVOID a triangular cell?  Because it would be a BAD IDEA.
4) The fact that the Bellanca is but a single example, and that single example does NOT have a full chord for its whole length, and is NOT a repeating structure, is proof that your assertion is wrong.  If the only example you can come up with is not even a complete example, that disproves your case.
5) The fact that a airplane wing struts are angled, even of they DID have a full chord, is not a repeating cellular structure.  It is just a strut helping to support the wing.  The struts are at an angle for obvious structural reasons.  There are no lift-generating cells, and no repetition of cells.
6) The Joby example, again, fails to prove your point:  First, it IS a kite, not an airplane, not general aviation, so it does NOT prove multiple cellular wing structure beyond kites, and second, it was merely an experiment, which has been given up on, and is no longer being pursued, probably because it turned out to be a bad idea.  Anyway, how can you cite use in a kite as an example of use beyond a kite?  You are making no sense.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16814 From: dave santos Date: 2/6/2015
Subject: Re: Bell's Classic Paper on Tetrahedral Kite Structure
Doug,

If you were an expert, you could also find winged triangular cells in many places in aviation. Of course, the big deal here is soft winged cells, which is why I think Bell is so relevant, but this is even farther from your understanding. Here are too more cases, even if you cannot see any such cases-

 Aeronautical designers care about even modest improvements in performance. During World War I, it was soon found that the diagonal (triangular celled) wing brace wires needed to be faired into airfoil sections, to reduce drag and improve handling (quicker turning, lower-stall speed). Even lift-strut designs often have aerfoil section multiples (V-strut and jack-strut). Similarly, Makani's designers faired Wing7's Y-bridle, creating a winged triangular cell. True, these examples vary enough in proportion to fool you, but the basic concept-of-operation Bell defined is present, of a triangular winged cell structure.

Go ahead and disagree, for lack of aeronautical expertise, that this still-growing list of specific cases has nothing to do with Bell's notions of triangular wing cell structure. Nor can you see that soft versions are a major advance in scaling up Bell's most brilliant intuitions in the paper cited here.

Good luck doing AWES design your own way,

daveS




On Friday, February 6, 2015 9:50 AM, "dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16815 From: dougselsam Date: 2/6/2015
Subject: Re: Bell's Classic Paper on Tetrahedral Kite Structure
DaveS said: "Doug, If you were an expert, you could also find winged triangular cells in many places in aviation....Here are too more cases, even if you cannot see any such cases-... diagonal (triangular celled) wing brace wires needed to be faired into airfoil sections, to reduce drag and improve handling...Even lift-strut designs often have aerfoil section multiples (V-strut and jack-strut). Similarly, Makani's designers faired Wing7's Y-bridle, creating a winged triangular cell. True, these examples vary enough in proportion to fool you, but the basic concept-of-operation Bell defined is present, of a triangular winged cell structure.
Go ahead and disagree, for lack of aeronautical expertise, that this still-growing list of specific cases has nothing to do with Bell's notions of triangular wing cell structure.
***Doug replies:  Well you said you would gladly admit you were wrong, but consider the source - you would never admit you were wrong anyway, but I think you have completely failed in your grasping-at-straws attempts to show examples of repeating triangular cell wings as often seen in kites, in general aviation.  And the makani example is, again, a kite.  And it is not a repeating pattern of triangular cells.  Even if it were, use in a kite, once again, does not even IMPLY use BEYOND a kite.  No more kite examples, please,  Let's see an airplane with a continuous pattern of triangular lifting cells, with each member contributing to lift, and each member being the full chord width.  I have never seen it and I do not think you can show such an example.  Yes, yes, yes, everyone knows a typical truss structure features triangles, everyone knows biplanes use guy wires and struts in repeating triangular arrays, and everyone knows both struts and guy wires can be faired.  That is not the same as what we are talking about.  That is just you grasping at straws in one more of a thousand feeble attempts to "win" some internet "debate".  I would not glorify such exchanges as this as being a "debate".  The reason actual wind energy experts will not entertain your invitations to "debate" is it is well-known that you are not capable of HAVING a real debate, but instead can be relied upon to endlessly argue by continually trying to redefine words.  Have fun.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16816 From: dave santos Date: 2/6/2015
Subject: Re: Bell's Classic Paper on Tetrahedral Kite Structure
You overlook that these optimally faired strut and brace structures generate useful lift and stability, just as Bell first showed. In fact, these fat foils are classed as optimal "slow speed airfoils" as NASA has defined them. They generate lift across a very wide AoA range.

All the General Aviation examples given do comprise repeated triangles, if that is your logical sticking point. Even the simplest case of a typical Cessna, the two lift struts form two symmetric cells (with the top wing and fuselage bounding the cells). Bell, in fact, flew single cells as well, and two cells is the simplest case of multiple cells.

You may not want more kite aviation examples, but you picked the wrong Forum; note the triangular cells in the Morse Sled mixed with SS wing sections; worth understanding as Bell proposed. Funny how you seem to see SuperTurbines everywhere ("All roads..."), but not triangular wing cells. Bell's legacy seems more useful-






On Friday, February 6, 2015 10:54 AM, "dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16817 From: dave santos Date: 2/6/2015
Subject: Re as predictor of (kite) aircraft morphology
Reynold's Number (Re) is a predictive factor in expert discussion of relative merits of aeronautical forms. Its the ratio of inertia to viscosity in aerodynamics, and aero-structure scaling-limits are hidden in its implications.

Hargrave-Bell cellular wing structure is well adaped to low Re-flight, hence its still current in slow-flier cases (ie. Doug's kite). While kites in most-probable-wind-speeds are low-Re, sweeping kites operate in higher-Re, so they progressively tend to look like fast aircraft the faster they are intended to sweep.

The aerospace student is taught to use the best aeronautical design concepts for a given Re. In this elite "Rocket Scientist" learning culture, the kite is unquestioned as aviation, whose flight physics are defined on a broad Re engineering continuum of scales and operating velocities. Re also allows hydrofoils and aerofoils to be compared, by accounting for density of the flow medium.


Student Bonus Question- Try and spot the Bell cellular wing concept in this modern powered aircraft (for a relatively low-Re regime)- 

North Wing · Aerofoil Control Bar UprightsAerofoil Control Bar Uprights

Reduce drag and improve fuel economy with our Aerofoil Control Bar Uprights.  The streamlined shape looks great and improves your wing's performance.

$200.00
Order Code: UPG46
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16818 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 2/6/2015
Subject: Re: Re as predictor of (kite) aircraft morphology

The problem I saw from my tests and estimations of rotor autogyro-style aligned in soft wing: for a good tip speed ratio (and correct lift and torque) the Reynold's Number (Re) of rotor must be high enough, involving some rotor diameter so some rotor mass.

 

PierreB

 

 

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16819 From: dave santos Date: 2/6/2015
Subject: Re: Re as predictor of (kite) aircraft morphology
An autogyro rotor blade does operate at higher Re, in rough proportion to its TSR (tip-speed-ratio in HAWT usage). This is a common design condition in propeller aircraft, where the wings are in a lower Re range, and the prop blade-tips in a higher. In fact, the Re number field varies strongly along the prop blade, and weakly over the whole airframe.

In its classical form, Re is a useful simple approximation in a real world that is too hairy to exactly characterize. Turbulence is a swirling soup of mixed Re flows. Your rotor-in-wing-plane would have increasing inherent local and wake turbulence with larger dimensions and higher velocities. Re hueristically predicts this already, without a full simulation.


On Friday, February 6, 2015 12:53 PM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16820 From: dougselsam Date: 2/6/2015
Subject: Re: Bell's Classic Paper on Tetrahedral Kite Structure
"You overlook that these optimally faired strut and brace structures generate useful lift and stability, just as Bell first showed." *** Nice try, as always, but no, I did NOT overlook that well-known fact that lift can be generated by almost any surface, including even the nacelle itself.  If a repeating triangular cell structure, as seen in kites. were the operating paradigm in aviation, the chords of all panels would be similar.  Please explain why you cannot provide an aviation example where the various panels have a similar chord, if your theory is correct.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16821 From: dougselsam Date: 2/6/2015
Subject: Re: Re as predictor of (kite) aircraft morphology
You have pretty much hit the nail on the head explaining one of several good reasons WHY the repeating triangular cellular structure is NOT used in aviation but IS used in kites: Reynolds number.  "Hello, may I speak with Mr. Reynolds, please?"  Also, nobody is keeping track of wasted fuel flying a kite.  And NO, streamlining the control-bar tubes on a hang-glider (often referred to as a "kite") does NOT rise to the level of a repeating triangular cellular structure of an airplane wing.  I don't think there is ANY hang glider pilot stupid enough to think he could rely on lift from the diagonal control bar down-tubes to keep him in the air, but if you are the first, I would like a copy of your final tragic video.  As in your other wannabe, stretch-the-truth-to-infinity examples, the chord is too small to make a difference, as you would find out just before your crashed into the ground.  This is GRASPING AT STRAWS.  Again.  It's hard to believe anyone could be serious keeping up this kind of nonsense.  Amazing how you can purport to lament the odious task of constantly correcting ME, when it is you who keep posting wrong things, and me correcting you.  Why don't you go find us an airplane with a repeating triangular cellular wing structure, where the panels have a similar chord, making it a REAL example, rather than providing multiple examples of you trying to stretch the truth so thin that it snaps, to seemingly "win" an argument that you have already lost.  :O..............
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16822 From: dave santos Date: 2/6/2015
Subject: Re: Bell's Classic Paper on Tetrahedral Kite Structure
Doug,

Safety is the "operating paradigm in aviation", not "repeating triangular cell structure", if you want to correctly express my consistent opinion over a lifetime. Kite safety is one of my special aviation expertises. My contribution to Bell's ideas is soft-cellular potential, regardless of exact cell geometry. I reserve Bell's classic cells to your Delta-Conyne, as the most apt modern application to mention to you.

See my parallel topic on Re if you want to see how the real-life survey of triangular wing cases provided you is in harmony with theory. Bell's own aircraft are the exact modern case you request, if you will gracefully allow Bell's earlier phone is also classed as a modern invention.

Don't pooh-pooh the thick airfoil sections of lift-struts and faired-brace-wires as wings. Sample link to a mountain of NASA low-Re thick foil research-


The fact that one can buy airfoil kits to add to slow-flier triangular airframe truss-work, for the recognized gains in performance, is consistent with theory,

daveS
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16823 From: dave santos Date: 2/6/2015
Subject: Re: Re as predictor of (kite) aircraft morphology
Doug,

You logical error is to ignore that kites are aviation; real aircraft, by either dictionary, academic, or fast evolving FAA definitions (An AWES is a UAS).

If you can finally understand kites as (generally) slow aviation, where the Bell cells are so common even you fly them, then you will understand me,

daveS


On Friday, February 6, 2015 2:19 PM, "dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16824 From: dave santos Date: 2/6/2015
Subject: Kiting as Aviation?

Are kites aircraft? Are kites really part of historic, current, and future aviation? Of course!

Wikipedia-

A kite is an aircraft consisting of one or more wings tethered to an anchor system.

"The human activity that surrounds aircraft is called aviation."
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16825 From: dave santos Date: 2/6/2015
Subject: Iso-Lattice Test
Today, in high turbulent winds, in the central square of Ilwaco, I flew a primitive iso-lattice comprised of a .5m2 triangle sail  bridled to a center-point, with three radiating pilot kites (mixed "pop-can" kites) on line sliders to three spaced out anchors. High wind + small kites = fast-motion; the lattice in gusty gale flew like a hot ideal gas, with brief moments of all-up nominal state.

It was comical setting up in the crazy wind, and I did not video the airborne chaos, busy enough unfouling a rigging error that allowed pilots to fight; but the pathetic newborn experiment was witnessed by local police, my wife, and passersby. Nowhere to go but up :)
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16826 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 2/6/2015
Subject: Re: Re as predictor of (kite) aircraft morphology
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16827 From: dave santos Date: 2/6/2015
Subject: Re: Re as predictor of (kite) aircraft morphology
Good insight Joe. Joined-wing aircraft are yet another cellular wing structure design class to cite, into higher Re.

The basic enabling improvement since Bell is to stagger the lifting surfaces so they do not interfere in higher Re regimes, all the way to supersonic, but one can still see the cellular ancestor DNA.


On Friday, February 6, 2015 7:50 PM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16828 From: dave santos Date: 2/6/2015
Subject: Re: Re as predictor of (kite) aircraft morphology
Area Rule is the trick to taking joined-wing triangular wing structure to higher Re. Even well below mach1, area-rule design is an edge, since we increasingly appreciate far-field effects. Another take on area rule is to avoid abrupt changes in cross-section. Similarly, in the fabric wing kite case, the rule-of-thumb is to not choke upper wing surfaces with an overshadowing wing, and the best classic box kites naturally staggered wing area inclined at their semi-stalled AoA-

 


On Friday, February 6, 2015 9:17 PM, dave santos <santos137@yahoo.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16829 From: dave santos Date: 2/7/2015
Subject: The Looming Soft-Cellular Revolution
Cellular "sticky" kites are ancient; the Chinese Centipede Kite is an iconic example. Hargrave picked up the idea in modern times in Australia, not far from the SE Asia heartland of kite cultures. Bell, we have recently reviewed, extended and articulated cellular ideas in a form we now extend into the latest soft-kite thinking, transcending sticky kite limits.

Soft-kites are likely the original kite, perhaps originating the Paleolithic era, in the form of a nomad's playsail (where multiple players held the corners of a skin in high wind). Flash forward to KiteShip's OL, a vast minimal surface, but not a multi-celled design. OL inventor, Dave Culp, speculated about "flying rope", as a soft multi-celled train resembling rope. Jalbert, for his part, invented the multi-celled parafoil, currently the dominant power kite basis [SkySails]. Our latest Isomega ideas naturally suggest vast Soft-Cellular kite architectures able to adapt to wind from any direction. We even know how to build these on the km scale; from Mortha-like components (rope load-paths and sails over an anchor-field). 

A lot of science stands ready to formally define soft-cellular kite theory. Already, we have identified Long-Range Topological Order, DeBye Thermodynamics, Embodied Computation, and other applicable concepts not found in previous kite engineering science [Springer AWE book]. We are close to being able to model "kite-matter", on the civilization scale, in noble terms like the entropy of an ideal gas, perhaps the ultimate thermodynamic engineering abstraction for AWE.

Now is our time to model the new Soft-Cellular thinking at toy scale, and in drawings and simulations, even as we still refine earlier schemes. We urgently need fresh creative talent to join the Soft-Cellular Revolution, given most current AWE players are down-select committed to non-cellular AWES. A good bet is to reach out to top minds in the new engineering-science communities, whose deepest ideas promise to drive kite design. The Isomega design space is almost pure CC+ Open-AWE IP-Pool, with no blocking IP. 

Wubbo Lives :)
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16830 From: dave santos Date: 2/7/2015
Subject: Snowflake Kite as Small Iso-Dome Soft-Cellular Precursor

Snowflake kites have been around several decades; noted here again as a relevant case of a cellular (quasi-) soft-kite. Imagine similar kite structure where an anchor circle is the rigid-frame, inflation-pressure is the vertical spreader, and the iso-lattice is all soft-kite. In theory, a passive shift of the lower sail margins downwind would enable flight in wind from any direction, without rotation, but special arrangements of sails need to be newly developed.

To give a crude impression of possible soft-cellular architectures, the snowflake below is one that my teacher Dean Jordan (KiteShip CTO) designed for the Starbucks video, to underscore how small the elite current soft-cellular kite world is. The World Kite Museum tasked me with cataloging original versions of these kites that hobbyist kitemakers first made (with various names, like star-kite, etc.). They fly well, with strong inherent stabilities, but also mysterious intermittent motions in gusts that a staked out soft-cellular iso-dome would never experience.

One is allowed to see Bell's legacy here ;) 

starbucks snowflake kite
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16831 From: dave santos Date: 2/7/2015
Subject: Brush-Topology Kite-Farms
Comb-topology as a partial-match for kite farms made of single-anchor kite units suggested a search on "brush-topology", which yielded the excellent site below. The final small step is to find existing hair-like topologies (planar-base with many-filaments, like in CGI character hair models). This will be the basic topological definition of the kind of "hairy" kite farms most AWES developers have been presuming, just as higher topological kite-order for farms will be based on condensed-matter models like bulk foams, gels, and crystals.

However stodgy or trendy the notion, Nature remains our best guide to novel design directions-
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16832 From: dave santos Date: 2/7/2015
Subject: Re: Brush-Topology Kite-Farms
This Autodesk Tutorial nicely lays out a topological modeling of hair, with very (kite-farm) suggestive aspects. The previously untamed dynamics of hair are seen reduced to a few simple mathematical rules that a computer can process. 

A new AWES architecture is suggested, that works like dense hair made of Culp's Flying-Rope, where constant collisions and tangles occur, but are worked out harmlessly by ongoing flow, like hair in wind-

 


On Saturday, February 7, 2015 12:36 PM, dave santos <santos137@yahoo.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16833 From: dave santos Date: 2/7/2015
Subject: Musicaeriel
DSM is very generous to kite projects. This company webpage features kite-based aeolian harp music, a nod to AWE, a connection to Vliegerop (PL Kites, NL), and a neat night-glow tether at the end of the embedded video clip. From the text-

"The kite as an instrument is the longest string instrument in the world, with a string length of up to 200 meters."

Musicaerial page link-
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16834 From: Rod Read Date: 2/8/2015
Subject: Too much power with Poor alignment = Breakage
Second test of the revised speedier Daisy

It was still a struggle to reliably get the ring leading edge to get to, and stay in the inflated shape.
I had stiffened the trailing edge, which has helped a little. But the leading edge needs more stiffening.

Need to put end caps on the kite stiffeners too... popped through on one.

The key to sustained inflation was when the lifter was recovering from a dive... The two operators could let the ring go and the whole set raised inflated and spun RAPIDLY.

Spinning didn't last much more than a few seconds as the ladder spar attached to the crank pedal snapped about it's middle. There would have been a large torque moment but also misalignment of the ladder to the crank won't have helped.
(we were dashing for the camera as it snapped... pants sorry)

Bit of re-working needed again... Gutted that I'm not able to submit solid test data now for the survey...
Hey ho.
It was more powerful than I had anticipated so that's a positive.

Also, that wee SSSL Peter Lynn lifter pulls like stink.



Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16835 From: dave santos Date: 2/8/2015
Subject: Re: Too much power with Poor alignment = Breakage
Its reasonable that your parafoils are just as powerful as expected, but torque-drive breakage directly implies Gordon and KiteLab predictions are correct, that an ever heavier torque-drive (or less kite) is needed to avoid breakage, and scaling-up cannot go far, under inviolate cubic-mass law.

We are counting on you to be promptly sensitive to where the scaling science is going. Do you have any sense yet that a torque-ladder will (or will not) safely and cheaply scale to even 200ft (KiteLab ST Minimal-Altitude Torque Challenge) with decent power? Had you built a smaller faster prototype first, you could generate objective scaling data, so its now up to your skilled intuition to somehow make a correct call, without baseline data (or read Gordon, and trust his wisdom).

Is the torque ladder the one AWES concept really what you propose to supply the BHWE survey; as supporting evidence that the German teams are dominant, by avoiding any dependence on torque? Maybe they will let AWEIA play some harmless role, in gratitude (just kidding, BHWE can depend on apathy about AWEIA principles). At least compare your data to the legacy rope-driving data, where even manila rope can trounce a carbon ladder.

Two options would be disruptive to the survey insiders; to completely overlook scalable soft arrays, such as you have helped pioneer, in theory; or to have such methods, as they are being developed in US, blow the survey results up. You may present a comfortable middle path for them, where they look good in contrast to efforts like the torque-ladder (or rotors-in-a-wing-plane), and easier raise major funding, while open-AWE is the killing-field for vain dreams. I hope not.

At least the truly scalable AWES methods will win out regardless, by whoever first manages to focus correctly on cost, safety, and power in 600m high airspace. Hoping you are on that team. Do not be afraid of a negative result that eliminates dead-ends for us all.


On Sunday, February 8, 2015 2:34 PM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16836 From: Rod Read Date: 2/9/2015
Subject: Re: Too much power with Poor alignment = Breakage

The 5m Torque ladder works well enough. 
The problem was not tracking the crank alignment. I had the bike tied to a gate and a fence post.
I have no intention to answer the 200ft ladder challenge yet.. Why bother wasting 200ft of generating space?
I'm confident however that a configuration can exist to support one.
Thanks for your predictions.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16837 From: dougselsam Date: 2/9/2015
Subject: Re: Musicaeriel
I don't remember hearing any followup on your AWE-powered concert in Fishkill, NY.  How did that go over?   Last I remember, you had solved a key technological hurdle by purchasing a guitar amp.  My question at that time had been "What, so the bands won't have their own amps?". (And of course the working AWE power systems would appear by magic, and the wind would magically blow hard on the big day)  I was pointing out that the AWE wannbes should worry about providing enough power to run a sound systems, rather than even pretend to provide the music equipment.  Imagine a ski-race promoter announcing an upcoming race, saying "and to prove it, we've just purchased a pair of skis!".  (cuz, ya know, racers don't have their own skis)  Anyway, after a few years of such announcements, well, to me at least, they all start to sound the same.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16838 From: dougselsam Date: 2/9/2015
Subject: Re: Re as predictor of (kite) aircraft morphology
DaveS. I don't think I have a logical error.  What is really going on here is you, as usual, trying to "redefine" your way our of an argument that you started and can't win.  Your original argument was to differentiate a triangular cel structure of lifting surfaces, as seen in kites, from the mere guy wires used to stabilize the wing structure of aircraft.  Now you want to redefine the whole scenario, claiming that kites ARE aircraft.  So you;re playing a shell game of constantly redefining every term you use inr eal time as though other people can;t see through that.  The ongoing theme is pretending YOU see something that the rest of us do not, which I see no evidence of.  Yes it is interesting to note the similarity of kites and aircraft.  Anyone with even 10% of a brain can see that.  But you're backtracking.  So a guy 100 years ago didn't quite grasp it right away - what would you expect, and so what?  He invented the tin-can telephone and the phonograph, right?  And I can see how, cuz when you use a metal lathe, you notice it making noises sometimes, and you can see the noises in the pattern of grooves on the workpiece.  Fantastic, Mr. Bell.  Now it is the 21st century.  Today we need someone as observant as Bell to make some power from the sky.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16839 From: dougselsam Date: 2/9/2015
Subject: Re: Re as predictor of (kite) aircraft morphology
Joe you are just egging him on.  Joining the wing tips to the tail etc. is not the same as wings being comprised of repeating pattern of triangular lifting sections.  Stretching the truth to til it snaps from abuse is not the same as winning an argument.  And despite all the efforts over the years to join the wingtips to the tail tips etc.,, somehow that idea has never made it into common use, anyway.
Here's how I see it:  If someone DID build a wing of a box truss configuration where the diagonal struts had the full wing chord and a cambered, lifting airfoil of full thickness, they would quickly realize that all those struts were not giving any additional lift over properly-spaced top and bottom surfaces (known as "wings"), and they would go back to minimal struts and guy wires, as seen in thousands of biplanes.  All those full-chord, full-airfoil, full-camber struts would contribute more weight and more drag, while probably yielding LESS total  lift.  And now, back to our AWE-powered concert...
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16840 From: dave santos Date: 2/9/2015
Subject: Re: Musicaeriel
Doug,

AWEfest in NYC area is still in the plan, but the Staten Island Park is considered a long term prize. We have to first validate the Gabion soution to operate over the landfill, and this will require a PE's seal.. Continuing to develop AWEfest in Austin this spring is the current plan, but we hold out hope that the Delft conference will allow a flying event for the public, with AWE-driven music.

Please start a new topic when you have nothing to add to a specific topic (Musicaeriel), and let us know of your own progress, which is perhaps the most overdue news in AWE,

daveS


On Monday, February 9, 2015 6:56 AM, "dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16841 From: dougselsam Date: 2/9/2015
Subject: Re: Musicaeriel
Oh, sorry, I thought it was already over.  Wasn't it supposed to be in 2014?  As I recall, the venue and approx date had already been decided and announced long ago.  That was why you had announced your purchase of a Marshall amp, right?   Did I miss something?