Messages in AirborneWindEnergy group.                           AWES16892to16942 Page 232 of 440.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16892 From: dave santos Date: 2/14/2015
Subject: Re: Optimization Fallacies in AWE?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16893 From: dave santos Date: 2/14/2015
Subject: Breaking Galileo's Scaling Law?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16894 From: benhaiemp Date: 2/14/2015
Subject: Better answers are needed

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16895 From: dave santos Date: 2/14/2015
Subject: Re: Better answers are needed

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16896 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 2/14/2015
Subject: Re: Better answers are needed

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16897 From: dave santos Date: 2/14/2015
Subject: Re: Better answers are needed

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16898 From: benhaiemp Date: 2/14/2015
Subject: Re: For Dave Lang

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16899 From: Rod Read Date: 2/14/2015
Subject: Re: Breaking Galileo's Scaling Law?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16900 From: dave santos Date: 2/14/2015
Subject: Re: For Dave Lang

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16901 From: dave santos Date: 2/14/2015
Subject: Re: Breaking Galileo's Scaling Law?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16902 From: dougselsam Date: 2/14/2015
Subject: Re: False Claims in an AWE Professional Context

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16903 From: dave santos Date: 2/14/2015
Subject: Re: False Claims in an AWE Professional Context

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16904 From: Rod Read Date: 2/15/2015
Subject: Re: Breaking Galileo's Scaling Law?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16905 From: dougselsam Date: 2/15/2015
Subject: Re: False Claims in an AWE Professional Context

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16906 From: dave santos Date: 2/15/2015
Subject: Re: Breaking Galileo's Scaling Law?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16907 From: dave santos Date: 2/15/2015
Subject: Re: False Claims in an AWE Professional Context

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16908 From: dave santos Date: 2/15/2015
Subject: 44m2 PLPL Stack-Kill Testing on the Pacific Coast

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16909 From: Rod Read Date: 2/15/2015
Subject: Re: Breaking Galileo's Scaling Law?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16910 From: Rod Read Date: 2/15/2015
Subject: Re: 44m2 PLPL Stack-Kill Testing on the Pacific Coast

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16911 From: dave santos Date: 2/15/2015
Subject: Re: Breaking Galileo's Scaling Law?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16912 From: Rod Read Date: 2/15/2015
Subject: Re: Breaking Galileo's Scaling Law?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16913 From: Rod Read Date: 2/15/2015
Subject: Re: Breaking Galileo's Scaling Law?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16914 From: benhaiemp Date: 2/16/2015
Subject: Re: Breaking Galileo's Scaling Law?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16915 From: Rod Read Date: 2/16/2015
Subject: Re: Breaking Galileo's Scaling Law?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16916 From: Muzhichkov Date: 2/16/2015
Subject: Re: Alternative to Laddermill

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16918 From: dave santos Date: 2/16/2015
Subject: Earth Spar capability- Anchor Fields for Domes (Iso-lattices) and Ar

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16919 From: dave santos Date: 2/16/2015
Subject: Re: Breaking Galileo's Scaling Law?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16920 From: dougselsam Date: 2/16/2015
Subject: Re: Breaking Galileo's Scaling Law?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16921 From: Rod Read Date: 2/16/2015
Subject: Re: Breaking Galileo's Scaling Law?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16922 From: Rod Read Date: 2/16/2015
Subject: Re: Earth Spar capability- Anchor Fields for Domes (Iso-lattices) an

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16923 From: dave santos Date: 2/16/2015
Subject: Re: Breaking Galileo's Scaling Law?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16924 From: dave santos Date: 2/16/2015
Subject: Re: Earth Spar capability- Anchor Fields for Domes (Iso-lattices) an

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16925 From: dougselsam Date: 2/16/2015
Subject: Re: Breaking Galileo's Scaling Law?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16926 From: dave santos Date: 2/16/2015
Subject: Re: Breaking Galileo's Scaling Law?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16927 From: David Lang Date: 2/16/2015
Subject: Re: Better answers are needed

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16928 From: dave santos Date: 2/16/2015
Subject: Re: Better answers are needed

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16929 From: Rod Read Date: 2/16/2015
Subject: Re: Earth Spar capability- Anchor Fields for Domes (Iso-lattices) an

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16930 From: Rod Read Date: 2/16/2015
Subject: Re: Earth Spar capability- Anchor Fields for Domes (Iso-lattices) an

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16931 From: Rod Read Date: 2/16/2015
Subject: Re: Breaking Galileo's Scaling Law?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16932 From: benhaiemp Date: 2/16/2015
Subject: Re: Earth Spar capability- Anchor Fields for Domes (Iso-lattices) an

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16933 From: David Lang Date: 2/16/2015
Subject: Re: Better answers are needed

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16934 From: dave santos Date: 2/16/2015
Subject: Re: Breaking Galileo's Scaling Law?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16935 From: dave santos Date: 2/16/2015
Subject: Re: Earth Spar capability- Anchor Fields for Domes (Iso-lattices) an

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16936 From: benhaiemp Date: 2/16/2015
Subject: Scalability and other concerns: SkyMill and Guangdong

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16937 From: dave santos Date: 2/16/2015
Subject: Re: Better answers are needed

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16938 From: dave santos Date: 2/16/2015
Subject: Re: Scalability and other concerns: SkyMill and Guangdong

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16939 From: Rod Read Date: 2/17/2015
Subject: Re: Breaking Galileo's Scaling Law?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16940 From: Rod Read Date: 2/17/2015
Subject: Re: Earth Spar capability- Anchor Fields for Domes (Iso-lattices) an

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16941 From: benhaiemp Date: 2/17/2015
Subject: Re: Earth Spar capability- Anchor Fields for Domes (Iso-lattices) an

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16942 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 2/17/2015
Subject: Re: Breaking Galileo's Scaling Law?



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16892 From: dave santos Date: 2/14/2015
Subject: Re: Optimization Fallacies in AWE?
DaveL,

Since you specifically asked me about feasibility of my concepts, I sought to equate feasibility to your experience; to whatever made you feel the space-elevator was feasible enough for you to study it, so I could claim the same merit criteria.

As for pitiful scaling, in my mind, I was recalling your use of the Fairy Aerodyne as an autogyro scaling model, which is close to a practical limit*, while soft-kites have already been made over 17000sqft by Osborne's community college sewing class. Furthermore, you seem fixed on single anchor AWES units, rather than multi-anchor architectures (3D lattices, arches, domes, etc.). You do not seem to be in the theoretic GW scale concept space.

Please correct any misimpression on my part regarding your actual opinion of space-elevators and SkyMill unit scaling.

daveS

* A possible exception is Billy Roesler's ribbon-wing rotor AWES concept, esp. if unreeled from the delta-pod tips from a low-mass hub.


On Friday, February 13, 2015 10:57 PM, "David Lang SeattleDL@comcast.net [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16893 From: dave santos Date: 2/14/2015
Subject: Breaking Galileo's Scaling Law?
Rod, your scaling comments: 

"Scaling 1 dimension e.g layering convenient sizes, as I've pointed toward before doesn't incur cubic mass penalties. How would you like to try fitting a group of rigid Makani wings in a ring...? And layering them..? Or stacking M600?
Why does an isotropic mesh need to be purely rag and string? hoisted with the likes of an SSSL? It doesn't. 
Isotropic mesh Optimisation and scalability may yet come from control mechanisms... Ground or air based."

My COmments-

Agreed, that quasi-1dimensional kiteline (and 2Dimensional fabric) scales best of anything we have. Dave Culp taught me this, and I have developed the idea considerably on the AWES forum. The lattice concept space includes layering, and I have defined specific layers in the context of cascaded lattices, for a maximal kitefarm flight envelope across wind and load conditions.

Stacking the M600 is a non-starter on many grounds. The complex kiteplane violates Fort Felker's "Law" that AWES cannot hope to compete in energy markets if they cost ~$500lb, like conventional aircraft. Only pure polymer in simple string and fabric form is able to hit Fort's target of $5lb aloft. Then its a fallacy to think anyone has worked out how to operate a train of M600s, but bet on the difficulties of single-point failures and safety to only be compounded. A far better design is a soft arch or dome with simple clean wings (without triple-flight-computers, com links, motor-gen electronics, back-up batteries, ballistic chutes, etc.). Stacking pigs is not a pure scaling strategy.

"Pure rag and string" quintessentially applies to SSSL. Dave Culp again, (with Peter Lynn in the close circle), identified soft SingleSkin as the theoretic Omega (when Peter Lynn was still only pushing "twin-skin" technology). The fallacy here is to think SingleLine is a scaling path, rather than a basic scaling limit. Only a multi-line architecture can naturally sprawl to even planetary-scale.

An isotropic mesh does not have to be pure rag-and-string, but can support almost anything (even pianos and fine dining, like Graf Zeppelin). The abstract formal prediction is that pure rag-and-string offers maximal power-to-mass, and mixing anything lesser just tends to degrade raw performance. This is no more than Dave Culp taught informally.

Passive stability is a "control mechanism", but its not clear that you are including such control as a scaling method (it is), nor distinguishing a dependence on complex mechatronic control (like Makani represents). The kPower position is to layer advanced control on optimzed passive control. Our Austin DNA gives us both paradigms at a high level of mastery, consistent with our scaling thinking being superior to poorly scalable thinking.

In conclusion, your ideas do violate Galileo's Law, just as you propose, but beware: Do the crime, and pay the price.



 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16894 From: benhaiemp Date: 2/14/2015
Subject: Better answers are needed

DaveS,


While you mention useful requirements to make AWE, some of your arguments are biased, preventing a real debate.

As last examples:

"Since you specifically asked me about feasibility of my concepts, I sought to equate feasibility to your experience; to whatever made you feel the space-elevator was feasible enough for you to study it, so I could claim the same merit criteria."

It is not an answer! 


"...only wonder how others, like you, can see scaling in AWE so differently ..." . It is no more an answer to DaveL writing "I have never heard ANY explicit description of how you are proposing to actually make electric power in your highly-preferred world of vast "soft rag and string arrays". ". The question is about making electricity, not about scalability of "soft rag and string arrays" of which DaveL does not mention (here) any consideration . So you make both a not answer and a falsely deducted opinion, preventing a serious AWE debate.

Note also DougS  losses his time to make corrections about the reality of some facts. And such a dialog (DS/DS) hides also the good and main ideas you develop.


PierreB
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16895 From: dave santos Date: 2/14/2015
Subject: Re: Better answers are needed
Pierre,

Its up to DaveL to say if the space elevator is "feasible", under his own use of the term. If such powerful tethers many thousands of miles long are in fact feasible in his top-expert opinion, then he may be disposed to see that practical soft kite structure can be engineered at least a few kilometers large.

Please accept that Forum technical sharing is imperfect. Honor the contributions, and let the petty annoyances be a test of your superior mettle,

daveS


On Saturday, February 14, 2015 10:15 AM, "pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16896 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 2/14/2015
Subject: Re: Better answers are needed

DaveS,

 

 

"Its up to DaveL to say if the space elevator is "feasible": on  the topic about " Optimization Fallacies in AWE?" ,or another topic, or another forum?

 

PierreB

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16897 From: dave santos Date: 2/14/2015
Subject: Re: Better answers are needed
The Space Elevator is a highly relevant similarity-case for reasoning about maximal AWES; both are advanced expressions of serious tether science. Its no coincidence that DaveL is top tether dynamics expert, in any technical tether application. Expect use to seek similarity-cases even far less apt than space elevators, as ChrisC taught us here. Then there is AlexB's megascale tether ideas, which are not limited to wind. These are our three top aerospace veterans, thinking "outside the box".

At least allow Space Elevator discussion here with the same forbearance you had for live piano at the 2013 conference :)


On Saturday, February 14, 2015 11:04 AM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16898 From: benhaiemp Date: 2/14/2015
Subject: Re: For Dave Lang

DaveS,


You identified well the basic architectural ideas for a scalable AWES: high density (trains, arches, domes...) , multi anchoring, inherent stability, soft wing (on this point I agree more and more after some analyses and tests)...

These features do not depend of the method for production of electricity. On videos we see generation by short strokes as you advocate in some posts. But other methods are possible with some other methods (reeling, torque), and within the same architectural basis.

Have you data about these tests (wind speed, the value and the duration of each stroke...) .

The traction seems to result of angular motion of kite line on power line when the kite goes away.  Since (please correct me) the intersection is on the middle, and not near the kite I think a big part of energy is not converted.


PierreB
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16899 From: Rod Read Date: 2/14/2015
Subject: Re: Breaking Galileo's Scaling Law?

Hi Dave S,
We agree on many principles yet,
You seem to misinterpret a lot of conversation.
Where I described scaling in 1 dimension by layering workable unit AWES. I wasn't referring to quasi 1d line.
I think you called it cascading.

There is contradiction in your opinion between lesser than pure rag and line "raw performance" and the plan to layer advanced controls.
Power is nothing without control the advert used to say.

I never thought single line as a scaling path thanks. What I advise is node aware control. As described previously.
A tiny bit of stiffening the right parts can make a huge difference. I think sssl would greatly benefit from this in terms of stability.

As for your conclusion... Whit? Try another fool.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16900 From: dave santos Date: 2/14/2015
Subject: Re: For Dave Lang
It is of course impossible for any turbine to capture all the power in wind, by the Betz limit. The PTO location is more a matter of matching optimal groundgen load velocity, not one inherent magic location. Study the rigger's triangle and understand it as an efficient basis for variable mechanical advantage (see diagram below for the classic static case).

A looping foil turbine does not waste much power by only tapping the "7-o'clock phase" surge. The rest of the loop is works to recover altitude and and build momentum. A considerable amount of elastic potential energy and kinetic energy is stored (conserved) in the cycle, and put into pumping the load.

I really look forward to testing looping foils against all other AWES, and find the power is just what any kite flyer experiences in power kites. There is a small loss of power-to-weight efficiency, and some capital cost for added pilot-lifter passive stability, but I believe its less loss and less cost than an active control basis. The COTS factor is quite wonderful as well, for low capital cost.




On Saturday, February 14, 2015 12:44 PM, "pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16901 From: dave santos Date: 2/14/2015
Subject: Re: Breaking Galileo's Scaling Law?
There is no contradiction.

Advanced control can be completely kept on the ground, using industrial machinery and passive sensing (like LIDAR based from the ground). The "pure-rag-and-string-aloft" maybe needs to emphasize the "aloft" criteria, which is not always stated (and does not mean any rag-and-string is required on the ground either, switching to steel rope and hardware). The only non-pure-polymer aloft exceptions I see as unavoidable are FAA mandated night obstacle lights, a simple radar reflector, and eventually ADS-B for NextGen integration. Total weight of these components could be just a few kilos, less than 1% of the total polymer of a large rig.

All this is review of previous Forum posts, as consistent CC+ Open-AWE IP-Pool thinking.


On Saturday, February 14, 2015 1:44 PM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16902 From: dougselsam Date: 2/14/2015
Subject: Re: False Claims in an AWE Professional Context
Doug wrote:"The timeline was specified as "weeks" Note that your use of "forever" can be specified in infinite "weeks", if math logic has any effect here.  *** No, once something takes more than a few weeks, the proper description becomes "months", "years", "decades", etc.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16903 From: dave santos Date: 2/14/2015
Subject: Re: False Claims in an AWE Professional Context
So, in your mind, all your USWindLabs marketing hype is "opinion", not lies, while others' statements are never "opinion", but "all lies". You cannot even state how long is "forever" is, in your product promotion. Under your weird personal standard for time accounting, you cannot give an honest answer, because it would equal (infinite) weeks, or "lies", in your view.

If you have any positive technical value to offer to the AWES forum on how to do AWE, it would be a welcome change.






On Saturday, February 14, 2015 8:06 PM, "dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16904 From: Rod Read Date: 2/15/2015
Subject: Re: Breaking Galileo's Scaling Law?

Nothing bar nothing lifts/kg just sitting in the sky like the SSSL.
It does however have other modes.
It's not an ever up solution yet.

A small bearing and one short rod.. I reckon you then have a much more passively stable unit lifter. It is improving all the time.  But controlling it from the ground without hardware aloft... No way.

I don't see how you're going to avoid " stacking pigs" if you insist on pure rag and line aloft.
Staked out ground control lines for lifter units on a mesh/net is going to get messy and slow acting.

The pl 4 line single skins... Now there's a lesson. Set them where you want with tonnes of lift. Setting is still tricky... But they can fly in less wind than sssl with active input.

This whole topic seems dominated by lift kites.. What did galileo say about the actual AWES bit in his musings/laws?
Fast and hard I bet.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16905 From: dougselsam Date: 2/15/2015
Subject: Re: False Claims in an AWE Professional Context
DaveS said: "So, in your mind, all your USWindLabs marketing hype is "opinion", not lies, while others' statements are never "opinion", but "all lies"." *** Doug replies: A slogan or tagline does not involve a timeline, does not promise a specific event or "series of" events at a specific time and place.  A slogan is not a specific promise.  People are allowed to have a slogan without being accused of lying.

You want to compare your statements to those of others?  You want to see what it would be like if others made the reckless statements you do?  OK, let's imagine Makani announced, in a given month of 2013, "a series of concerts", at a certain park, in a certain city, "powered by their AWE system", serving as "dress-rehearsals" for a larger concert in NYC, including "major stars", implemented by "flashmob". 

You would have been parroting their every word, repeating the hype relentlessly, then if NO concerts took place, NO "big stars", NO sound-system, NO AWE system, NO, flashmob, NO nothing at all, WE WOULD NEVER HEAR THE END OF IT.  You would still be complaining about it to this day!

Imagine if Cristina Archer had announced such a "series of concerts" that never transpired at all, nothing even close"  Her credibility would no longer be intact, now would it?  People would start saying: "What ever happened to Cristina Archer's "series of AWE-powered concerts", with the "big stars"?  Nobody would listen to anything she had to say after that.

What if I announced such a scheduled "series of concerts", powered by AWE systems demonstrated by a crowd of "AWE experts" that was supposed to show up at my house, during a given season?  What if I promised "big stars" and a culminating larger concert in NYC?  Again, we'd NEVER HEAR THE END OF IT from you.  You would be relentlessly castigating me for lying to this very day.

Now you've degenerated to ridiculous arguments such as "You cannot even state how long "forever" is", at which point, I do not even know what you're TALKING about.  You're out of steam - running on fumes - you've got nothing left!

Seeing you holding everyone else accountable for every public statement they make is fine, so let's just hold you to the same standards.  If we do imagine your reaction to someone else making the same ridiculous statements you have made, it is easy to see that their credibility would be "out the window" the first time they made such statements, yet you go on and on and on, making and ENDLESS series of ridiculous false statements, and expect to NEVER be held accountable for ANY of them.

The conflict I see is, on the one had, you wish to be taken more seriously than ANYONE, yet on the other hand, you INSIST on NOT being taken seriously AT ALL.  You would like to hold everyone else accountable for any and all statements ever made, while you yourself should be allowed to go on and on, every day, making ridiculous statement after ridiculous statement, always with some excuse that involves redefining words or just telling more lies to cover up the old lies. 

Your expectation is you can make as many verifyably false statements as you want, and never be questioned, that nobody should ever bring up again your false promises, whether they involve "big stars" at an AWE-powered concert in NYC, or people living and working over NYC in networks of ropes held aloft by kites, hoping the wind doesn't die lest all the people supported by said wind also die.

I think you need to make up your mind:  Should people take anything you say seriously, or is everything you write just a joke?  Is your writing to be taken as fiction or non-fiction?  I'd say it is verifiable at this point that it is all fiction.

DaveS said "You cannot even state how long is "forever" is, in your product promotion. Under your weird personal standard for time accounting, you cannot give an honest answer, because it would equal (infinite) weeks, or "lies", in your view.

If you have any positive technical value to offer to the AWES forum on how to do AWE, it would be a welcome change."

***Doug replies: Hey Dave, I have no idea what you are talking about above (how long "forever" is - sounds like "what the meaning of "is" is...) , but I used to contribute LOTS of technical value to this site, but since all you want to do is argue with it anyway, what's the point?
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16906 From: dave santos Date: 2/15/2015
Subject: Re: Breaking Galileo's Scaling Law?
Rod, wrote: "I don't see how you're going to avoid " stacking pigs" if you insist on pure rag and line aloft. "

You particular scaling suggestion. of stacking M600s, was my reference to "stacking pigs" as a scaling scheme. I would turn your puzzlement around and state that I do not see how I would ever get to stack M600s, even if I wanted. I am pretty sure its not even a viable AWES, even as a single kite unit. Lets be clear that I technically class any soft kite as pure-polymer ""rag". even though some wrongly biased power kiters who fly parafoils specifically dismiss NPW users as "rag-flappers", as an insult, and us NPW fans wear the tag as a badge-of-honor.

By "pig" I mean any rigid winged kite that scales too large, under Galileo's Law, to be an effective kite. Its still an open question if the SSSL beats the parafoil, which is no pig in my book, but the standard of performance. Testing will tell.  Maximal SS arches and Domes will in principle lift more that any SSSL. I do all these worthy types, but left Alameda Island especially to avoid Makani's "pigs".


On Sunday, February 15, 2015 2:13 AM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16907 From: dave santos Date: 2/15/2015
Subject: Re: False Claims in an AWE Professional Context
Doug,

In fact all those plans with Parks Depts, celeb musicians, and so on, really were initiated, and remain active. We really did face the Texas summer seasonal gap in wind, but you are professionally unable to make any allowance for that. Yes I was outvoted by other kPower team-members, but my intentions were as sincere as yours, but without exaggerations like an alternator to "last forever". We both fall short in specific areas, but only one of us cries "all lies", like a schizo paranoid.

This was just your latest weak pretext to complain as usual (to haplessly remind the world of your deep lack of inventive progress), but the bright side is that your standard bile is momentarily not focused on my friends. Its true that AWEfest is slower to develop than even you hoped, but you should be satisfied when it finally does gain traction, even if you had no positive role on offer.  I apologize to you for the AWEfest delay, and pledge to not give up. I will be returning to Austin soon, for a fresh push,

daveS


On Sunday, February 15, 2015 8:28 AM, "dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16908 From: dave santos Date: 2/15/2015
Subject: 44m2 PLPL Stack-Kill Testing on the Pacific Coast
The 2 FAA color-schemed 22m2 Peter Lynn Pilot-Lifters (PLPL) are now flying well for me, as a stack. The tail-kill method is working perfectly, even with a shakey pilot-in-command. I tried to take a kill-video to placate Rod, but had to take my roper's gloves off to work my phone's camera. I thought I could work the camera in one hand, and belay the rope single-barehanded, but did not have enough wraps on the climber's eight, so it was a fiasco trying to make a movie while holding a burning rope. I could not aim the camera and let the rope go, so the kill went an extra 30 feet into a bog-pond. This is great training, in public.

The Long Beach, WA, flying site (main beach entrance) was crowded with a holiday crowd, for whom the large kites were an astonishing spectacle. Even jaded local teenagers where duly impressed, "You put on quite a show" one said, high-praise in this Kite Mecca, which underscores the Lynn show-kite DNA these new work horses have. The new twist is the kPower tail-kill feature, which now empowers us to fly vast clouds of polymer without retract winches. The kill moment caused the crowd to gasp, so sudden and unexpected even compared to a rare runaway event (where a dragging kite tends to sail along inflated). I go back out today, to fly the stack (in part so it dries out), and maybe get Rod's video documentation. There are still-photos, with the tail-kill line visible, to post as well.

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

A small side notice: The other day, I flew a staked-out parafoil, for the first time (1m2 NTK powerfoil). It flew just as stable as hoped, landing and relaunching by itself repeatedly. I'll fly larger kites next, in this mode. Its a working scale-model for megascale arches, very simple to fly. Funny it took so long to try this, since the idea was from 2007.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16909 From: Rod Read Date: 2/15/2015
Subject: Re: Breaking Galileo's Scaling Law?
Flying pigs this is ridiculous.

How do you propose controlling a hugely scaled lift mesh say with multiple lifting points .... without hardware aloft?

Drooping lines from 1 mothra type is a different question.
Making a whole mesh volume swoop synchronously, isotropically, side to side will need hardware aloft too.


Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16910 From: Rod Read Date: 2/15/2015
Subject: Re: 44m2 PLPL Stack-Kill Testing on the Pacific Coast
Can't wait for the vid thanks!!

Spreading the tethers of a parafoil has an amazing stabilising effect.
I walked up a croft about 2 weeks ago holding the RHS line of a cheap parafoil ...
Whilst around 10 - 20 m away an 8 yr old held the LHS line.
She was running all over the place, but the kite was pretty much locked midway between us.


Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16911 From: dave santos Date: 2/15/2015
Subject: Re: Breaking Galileo's Scaling Law?
Rod asked: "How do you propose controlling a hugely scaled lift mesh say with multiple lifting points .... without hardware aloft?"

I did propose some hardware, (minimal- ADS-B, nav lights, and radar-reflector). Soft-shackles replace hard. "Polymer only" is simply a slogan less extreme than Doug defends, and I would not claim so commercially. Its a rhetorical, aspirational, and informally didactic statement. Swivels might be a bit of unavoidable "hard" ware aloft.

"Multiple lifting points" are handled by multiple halyards. I have long favored multi-actuation by industrial winches on the ground, such as are common in high-performance cranes and sea-going apps. These can be more durable powerful, cost-effective, and faster than any servo carried aloft. My confidence in ground control comes from UHMWPE internal speed of sound (of control latency from the ground to high-altitude) approaching diamond (~10km per sec), and also many similarity cases from classic kiting, like Pocock, Cody, or modern power kites. Even a low tensioned line will support control inputs traveling a few hundred miles-per-hour. The inherent dynamic frequency of mega-kites is very slow, so real-time response from the ground is quite prompt. Its also helpful to understand how passive control works aloft locally, that the fewer available stuck-states, the more natural self-recovery is. By spacing out a lattice carefully, self-interference is prevented.

One of the greatest advantages of direct ground control is avoiding com-link dependence for UAS safety. The FAA has already turned your logical query around [test range flight planning guide], and is asking would be UAS operators how they propose no critical com-link failures. My FAA Test Range contact agrees that kPower's direct control design philososphy is a-priori superior in terms of UAS safety, and really likes our passive data-link (25x spotter's binoculars on a tripod).

Most of this is review; a lot from the early Forum (all that art updated to CC+ Open-AWE IP-Pool).


On Sunday, February 15, 2015 12:13 PM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16912 From: Rod Read Date: 2/15/2015
Subject: Re: Breaking Galileo's Scaling Law?

All good yes...
So agreed,  it's minimal hardware aloft really

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16913 From: Rod Read Date: 2/15/2015
Subject: Re: Breaking Galileo's Scaling Law?

In future it's probably best we avoid using

rhetorical, aspirational, and informally didactic statement 

Just try to say what you mean

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16914 From: benhaiemp Date: 2/16/2015
Subject: Re: Breaking Galileo's Scaling Law?

In some previous posts DaveS put a major concept _ with some application for Mothra _  : using earth as rigid structure (being spar-style for arch), allowing increasing level of scalability (and control) of soft wing.  

Let us push this concept by studying the places of anchors for an iso-lattice-dome-style.


PierreB
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16915 From: Rod Read Date: 2/16/2015
Subject: Re: Breaking Galileo's Scaling Law?

Maybe we should have a better term like

Minimal inherently rigid rigging
Or
Energy rigidised material

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16916 From: Muzhichkov Date: 2/16/2015
Subject: Re: Alternative to Laddermill
Hallo Joe and everybody,

a laddermill has several disadvantages in this case: 
1. It's too hard
2. at the bottom the blades get too little wind and not effective (just make more weight)
3. long rope drive unreliable, especially in conditions natural disaster
My version hopefully solves all these problems.

Yoyo, as the most effective mechanical solution flying wind turbine, has several disadvantages:
1. Long pause during which no electricity is produced. The higher the work area the longe pause.
2. it follows a large drum on the ground and all the ground construction
3. requires the battery to the winding of the rope on the drum.
4. Big range of heights is difficult to choose an optimal aerodynamic shape
5. Because of this, Yoyo is optimal for range up to 500m

On the other hand, I found that the high-frequency oscillations can not be transferred mechanically to the ground, because they damp the sagging rope.
In my opinion, it is necessary to oscillate with an amplitude greater than the slack, but no more.

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16918 From: dave santos Date: 2/16/2015
Subject: Earth Spar capability- Anchor Fields for Domes (Iso-lattices) and Ar
Pierre wrote: Let us push this concept [Earth as megascale kite "spar medium"] by studying the places of anchors for an iso-lattice-dome-style."
 
Lets dub the concept an "Earth Spar" capability, even though Rod today objected to slogan-like coinages. This much is known for sure, for both domes and arches; that a circle of anchors (anchor-circle) is the essential minimum to establish a solid width-dimension, and that a central anchor is useful to aggregate forces for work. The center anchor can host rotation as naturally as single-anchor designs.

There is an other important "spar medium" we depend on, the pressure of wind inflation; with several variations (simple air-cell, wing-in-ground-effect, thermal boost, etc). The wonderful aspect of "air-spars" aloft is that the air medium itself is neutrally buoyant. A final spar effect is the centrifugal force of whirling rotors. All of these enable scaling far beyond conventional kite spar-mass aloft.
 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16919 From: dave santos Date: 2/16/2015
Subject: Re: Breaking Galileo's Scaling Law?
Rod wrote: "In future it's probably best we avoid using rhetorical, aspirational, and informally didactic statement. Just try to say what you mean"
 
I really do mean to propose that the ideal megascale AWES highest theoretic power-to-mass-aloft is "pure polymer", even if in practice you need some odd bits. Its also unclear if  Rod is attacking "RAD" itself (Rapid AWE Development), which is our Forum Motto. Is it not crystalizing what we mean, while also being "rhetorical, aspirational, and informally didactic"?



On Monday, February 16, 2015 12:25 AM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16920 From: dougselsam Date: 2/16/2015
Subject: Re: Breaking Galileo's Scaling Law?
I'd have to point out that "rapid" development is less and less likely, the more time is spent contemplating such concepts as "rhetorical, aspirational, and informally didactic"


---In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, <santos137@...
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16921 From: Rod Read Date: 2/16/2015
Subject: Re: Breaking Galileo's Scaling Law?

You're right Doug.
Especially where
didactic
adjective
1.
intended for instruction; instructive:
didactic poetry.

2.
inclined to teach or lecture others too much:
a boring, didactic speaker.

rhetorical
adjective
1.
used for, belonging to, or concerned with mere style or effect.

2.
marked by or tending to use exaggerated language or bombast

aspirational
Fine... As long as it doesn't mean releasing wind...
Aspiration means to draw in or out using a sucking motion. It has two meanings:

Aspiration can mean breathing in a foreign object (such as sucking food into the airway).
The term can also refer to a medical procedure that removes something from an area of the body. These substances can be air, body fluids, or bone fragments. An example is removing ascites fluid from the belly area.

Hmmm
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16922 From: Rod Read Date: 2/16/2015
Subject: Re: Earth Spar capability- Anchor Fields for Domes (Iso-lattices) an

Earth as a spar
Air as a spar
Centripetal acceleration as a spar
All great concepts none of which needs rhetoric in technical forum discussion.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16923 From: dave santos Date: 2/16/2015
Subject: Re: Breaking Galileo's Scaling Law?
The AWES Forum is living up to RAD, despite expressions like "pure rag and string" (and far worse). It does not hurt that our hacks get called unscientific names like "Mothra", or that we above all seek to share knowledge. Nowhere else in AWE is there anything close to this forum, certainly not within the closed-off stealth-ventures.

Keep in mind that rapid development in Aerospace is still a long game for pros (not driven by amateur language-critics). Let Doug and Rod show faster progress then, by avoiding "pure-polymer-aloft" (as a slogan or method, or its underlying logic; not even as a well-intentioned hint). If Rod would only speak plainly, and answer the engineering questions posed about torque ladder scaling (max dimensions, safety, operational handiness), so we are not left with only the slogan, "All roads lead to...".


On Monday, February 16, 2015 10:08 AM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16924 From: dave santos Date: 2/16/2015
Subject: Re: Earth Spar capability- Anchor Fields for Domes (Iso-lattices) an
Sorry Rod, I had to pose those concepts as I saw fit, based on both a classical and technical education, without reference to your mysterious objection. Are we talking about the same Hellenic virtue (Rhetoric)?

 


On Monday, February 16, 2015 10:17 AM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16925 From: dougselsam Date: 2/16/2015
Subject: Re: Breaking Galileo's Scaling Law?
And I must admit I've never heard the classic and obvious cubic/square scaling fact ascribed to Galileo.  I always just thought it was a simple observation that anyone familiar with 6th grade math would see the moment they decided to calculate the mass or volume of a 3-D object.  In my opinion, the endless urge to categorize every simple and well-understood fact as though it is a newfound or hard-to-comprehend mystery that nobody could possibly understand unless they rise to the level of a "Galileo" or a "DaVinci" is just the typical "too difficult to even comprehend" mentality that ends up with wind-energy wannabe's getting sidetracked into pursuing ideas like Flowdesign, which I tried to warn Bill Joy and John Doerr of Kleiner Perkins about, but they just plumb cotton-pickin' wouldn't listen, and so now "Flowdesign" instead become a VC firm and the turbine is now called Ogin Welcome to Ogin | Ogin

Hmmmm, ducted turbines, for those who actually practice wind energy, have always been seen as using too much material to "sweep" the area.  Yet the Ogin website uses the slogan "The New Shape of Energy".  Puzzling, since it is the same old shape as other ducted turbines, for the most part.  Any amateur can take a quick glance at their ponderous design and determine for themselves whether this extremely high use of material to sweep a little more area is a more efficient use of materials than simply extending the blades a little longer.

"The new shape of energy"?  OK how long before we can definitively debunk that statement?   I guess I have to give them the wiggle-room to claim it is "just a slogan", but the question will remain: Is it REALLY the new shape, or is it just an old, mostly failed idea, being pursued by a new crew? 

Well, for a good answer, take off your "professor" hat and throw your advanced degree out the window for a moment and just use your inner child's brain:  Imagine such a monstrosity built to the scale of a GE 1.5 MegaWatt (1000 Horsepower) turbine.  Imagine that now-ridiculously-gigantic ducting must be engineered to withstand a 120 MPH wind.  Seems like it would contain enough material to construct an entire windfarm, no?  Sheesh! 

See, you can outperform "the top minds in the world" too, (It's easy!) just remember one thing you have, that they apparently don't: common sense!   :)))

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16926 From: dave santos Date: 2/16/2015
Subject: Re: Breaking Galileo's Scaling Law?
Doug,

We have in fact credited Galileo with his Square-Cube Law many times on the Forum, especially with regard to poor SuperTurbine scalability.  It is in fact quite understandable by a sixth-grader, including its historical origin; like the linked version below, for kids. You praise yourself to the skies ("greatest living ..."), but seem oddly jealous of Galileo, da Vinci,  and the Wrights. The rest of the world has your greatness formula reversed, based on proven merit.

You also overlook the Forum finding that ducted turbines become performance-competitive near the Critical Mach Number, which might be just the thing for a an IFO diving from 15km high, or a very hot kiteplane sweeping, or maybe even on the tips of future HAWT blades. You only seem to reason about sub-critical Mach regime fantasy-turbines without differentiating carefully, and without ever seeing opinionated ST hype as a fantasy,

daveS


 


On Monday, February 16, 2015 11:08 AM, "dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16927 From: David Lang Date: 2/16/2015
Subject: Re: Better answers are needed
Ahem,

I stand by my Quote of the day from the wall of the Lawyer's office: If they have you beat on the LAW, argue the FACTS. If they have you beat on the Facts, argue the LAW. If they have you beat on both counts, then CHANGE THE SUBJECT.

DaveS, if you want to talk about something being "Pitiful" [as in your assessment of my engineering judgement, to quote you: "(to me, mysteriously pitiful)"], I will tell you what's Pitiful….it's this (original) thread, for which you subtly changed the focus from a request for you to provide a straight answer to a straight question (which might have been unflattering to your grandiose predictions) to a new focus, namely, my previous work on the Space Elevator with unfounded implications that I predicted its feasibility, all liberally embellished with your usual passive-aggressive commentary (Doug, I feel your pain :-)

I think I have had enough!

DaveL
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16928 From: dave santos Date: 2/16/2015
Subject: Re: Better answers are needed
DaveL,

Sorry for any offense. I did not mean you are "pitiful", only that your scaling-model, the 30m dia Fairey Rotodyne rotor, is very small compared Billy Rosseler or Dr. Beaujean's rotors (both men with credentials comparable to yours). Note I have no rotor concept of my own at this scale (no dog in the fight).

 If you do not find the Space Elevator "feasible" under your own definition, then its true, its not a comparative basis for you to similarly see feasible unit scaling far beyond your Fairey Rotodyne case.

Please at least note that Joe Hadzicki's crosswind cableway concept, as you reported it to us in 2004, was tested by me at kFarm, and performed well. You have to concede you found his concept presentation adequate to reason from, and cannot reject it as mine.

Lets all hope that SkyMill aoon emerges from the stealth shadows with convincing scaling potential (especially if all others tried and failed in that regard). Then we would see just what standard of engineering validation you currently stand for; superior to my confessed pitiful ability :)

daveS


On Monday, February 16, 2015 11:44 AM, "David Lang SeattleDL@comcast.net [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16929 From: Rod Read Date: 2/16/2015
Subject: Re: Earth Spar capability- Anchor Fields for Domes (Iso-lattices) an
That article is rhetoric itself.
an art that aims to improve the capability of writers or speakers to inform, persuade, or motivate particular audiences in specific situations
This is an open public forum.
People on Earth might think to Earth spar is a bad thing.. Like spar to fight two contenders.


Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16930 From: Rod Read Date: 2/16/2015
Subject: Re: Earth Spar capability- Anchor Fields for Domes (Iso-lattices) an
I have a classical watching comedy on tv education where rhetoric refers to talking pish.

Dave S said
This much is known for sure, for both domes and arches; that a circle of anchors (anchor-circle) is the essential minimum to establish a solid width-dimension, and that a central anchor is useful to aggregate forces for work. The center anchor can host rotation as naturally as single-anchor designs.

But you previously recommended a 3 point anchor system which could take wind from any direction. A triangle a circle... pah what's the difference but rhetoric.
Who cares?
I bet You do Dave S and you need to reply about it.


Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16931 From: Rod Read Date: 2/16/2015
Subject: Re: Breaking Galileo's Scaling Law?
I''ll be paying for some solid ground components tomorrow I hope.
I'll be fixing them to my solid generator soon as I can.
And flying the whole set (some solid parts aloft included) very soon too hopefully thanks.

As for the Dave S Torque ladder scaling questions posed below...

safety, torque ladder has it's risks. It's a moving tether for a start.
operational handiness, folds down neat and small, unfolds easily, great distance extension for a very lightweight torque transmission method.
Ultimate limits.... not got a clue yet as I still have to model that... but the current model is easy light enough for the power I'm currently shifting.

Hope that's plain enough.
 

Keep in mind that rapid development in Aerospace is still a long game for pros (not driven by amateur language-critics). Let Doug and Rod show faster progress then, by avoiding "pure-polymer-aloft" (as a slogan or method, or its underlying logic; not even as a well-intentioned hint). If Rod would only speak plainly, and answer the engineering questions posed about torque ladder scaling (max dimensions, safety, operational handiness), so we are not left with only the slogan, "All roads lead to...".

Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16932 From: benhaiemp Date: 2/16/2015
Subject: Re: Earth Spar capability- Anchor Fields for Domes (Iso-lattices) an

See a previous post from me about a circle of anchors.


"On Sunday, November 9, 2014 1:17 PM, "pierre.benhaiem@... [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16933 From: David Lang Date: 2/16/2015
Subject: Re: Better answers are needed
On Feb 16, 2015, at 12:27 PM, "dave santos santos137@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com DaveS,

do you claim to have familiarity with SkyMill's scaling rationale' ?

DaveL
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16934 From: dave santos Date: 2/16/2015
Subject: Re: Breaking Galileo's Scaling Law?
Rod,

Be ready to find out that the torque-ladder is subject to Galileo's Scaling Law, and its rigid spars in particular simply cannot scale greatly. I would put the safety-driven scaling limit at <3m spars, and the altitude limit not much more than 50m. Its not even close to beating rope-driving data for power-to-mass. Keep in mind you do not even have inherently high rpm possible with a Daisy, so efficiency must be low, under load-velocity law.

If Galileo's Law will hold true, the longer you wait to spot some convincing clue, the longer it will take you to adopt a better transmission basis. You have avoided the option of doing a smaller torque ladder to compare with the larger, which is already predicted to be suffering Galilean penalties. Building a larger version to find this out will be slow, expensive, and dangerous, make no mistake,

daveS


On Monday, February 16, 2015 2:33 PM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16935 From: dave santos Date: 2/16/2015
Subject: Re: Earth Spar capability- Anchor Fields for Domes (Iso-lattices) an
Rod,

Any simple polygon that can be inscribed on a circle can lay-out an anchor circle. This is geometry, not rhetorical "pish" "as seen on (your) TV".

Its true, the Wikipedia article on Rhetoric is itself rhetoric, as are many fine encyclopedia articles since Diderot. You cannot hope to convince the world to reject Wikipedia's rhetoric in favor of yours, unless you try far harder to master rhetoric (as classically defined). Wikipedia is naturally more convincing than confused rhetoric in favor of anti-rhetoric.

daveS


On Monday, February 16, 2015 2:39 PM, "pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16936 From: benhaiemp Date: 2/16/2015
Subject: Scalability and other concerns: SkyMill and Guangdong

Studying about feasibility of any AWES is difficult due to numerous parameters. SkyMill   ( http://www.awec2010.com/public/presentations/webster_scott.pdf ) and Guangdong ( http://www.gdgkfn.com/ ) are both yoyo systems and have both a tether moving up and down (by yoyo) but not crosswind, making some possibility for very high altitude. For a possible evaluation of potential of power the diameter of rotor can correspond in the diameter of fabric canopy .


Scalability can be  evaluated by the possible size of a single unity, but above all by the possibility to stack unities side by side or by train or both. Another concerns are the resistance of fabric after cycles of power (inflation of canopy) and depower ( deflation), UV, ice etc., and the mechanical contrainsts  of rotor alternating power and depower. Another concern is the precision of control associated in the level of needed precision of control (maybe not the same for both systems).


PierreB

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16937 From: dave santos Date: 2/16/2015
Subject: Re: Better answers are needed
DaveL,

As best as I can tell, the Fairey Aerodyne was presented as a rotor scaling model in your AWEC2010 presentation. Grant also patented a stacking (train) configuration, which is a known kite-scaling method. Beyond that, SkyMill's venture stealth maybe covers some publicly unknown scaling methods that you will probably not share openly here and now.

Please correct me, if this is the wrong picture,

daveS


On Monday, February 16, 2015 2:59 PM, "David Lang SeattleDL@comcast.net [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16938 From: dave santos Date: 2/16/2015
Subject: Re: Scalability and other concerns: SkyMill and Guangdong
Let me be clear that I was referring to SkyMill's 2010 presentation that Pierre linked as presenting the Fairey Aerodyne as a scaling similarity-case, and maybe unfairly presuming DaveL approved, as SkyMills lead technical person. Maybe DaveL instead wants to disavow this particular case, and has a far grander AWES rotor scale in mind, more like Rosseler or Beaujean proposed.


On Monday, February 16, 2015 3:59 PM, "pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16939 From: Rod Read Date: 2/17/2015
Subject: Re: Breaking Galileo's Scaling Law?

Make no mistake? I live by my mistakes.

I'm not ready to find out... What we have blatantly discussed previously... Don't be ridiculous... I learnt that.

Ok you've set an arbitrary guesswork limit. I say it can be beaten... But I'm unlikely to try. I have no attachment to pursuing torque ladder limits. Do you have some sort of performance data which could be usefully shared?

You're mistaking power and efficiency again.

Anyone is welcome to try Daisy style devices with other PTO methods.
Anyone is welcome to try torque ladder style devices with other AWES.

I recently "capped" the ends of the ladder system with a coned ring to improve stability and alignment.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16940 From: Rod Read Date: 2/17/2015
Subject: Re: Earth Spar capability- Anchor Fields for Domes (Iso-lattices) an
Machine performance,
Geometry,
Sciences,
Shouldn't be described with rhetoric here.
Fine if you're discussing them with politicians.

I'm no master of the art. My bluff is more bluster than bullsh1t.


Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16941 From: benhaiemp Date: 2/17/2015
Subject: Re: Earth Spar capability- Anchor Fields for Domes (Iso-lattices) an

"Earth as a spar" is a mean to reach some level of scalability-stability with a giant soft kite like Mothra where the rigid element (earth) is between the two anchors and works as compression element as a spar, and of course without adding some weight of a spar aloft.

For an iso-lattice-dome with a circle of anchors the topology is different: "earth as a spar" for a part, another part being tethers with their freedom.


PierreB

  
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16942 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 2/17/2015
Subject: Re: Breaking Galileo's Scaling Law?

Scalability can be reached by different means. SuperTurbine is a mean to reach some level of scalability, avoiding a single heavier turbine. Note that both ST and Laddermill-style are two Selsam' methods studied here, by RodR (ladder-torque), by me (ST and also Laddermill-style).

The DaveS' style "since you tell my method is bad, I tell your method is bad" is not the best way for a technical debate.

 

PierreB