Messages in AirborneWindEnergy group.                          AWES 17293 to 17342 Page 240 of 440.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17293 From: dave santos Date: 3/29/2015
Subject: Re: Serpentine Layout of AWES Kite Farm Traction Vias

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17294 From: dave santos Date: 3/29/2015
Subject: Re: Serpentine Layout of AWES Kite Farm Traction Vias

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17295 From: dave santos Date: 3/29/2015
Subject: Re: AWES iso-dome pumping model (flatfish mode)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17296 From: dave santos Date: 3/30/2015
Subject: AWEC Post-Mortem?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17297 From: dave santos Date: 3/30/2015
Subject: Re: Growing List of GW Unit-Scale AWES Concepts

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17298 From: dave santos Date: 3/30/2015
Subject: Fw: Small UAV Coalition March Newsletter

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17299 From: dougselsam Date: 3/30/2015
Subject: Re: AWEC Post-Mortem?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17300 From: dougselsam Date: 3/30/2015
Subject: Re: woeful marketing

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17301 From: dave santos Date: 3/30/2015
Subject: Re: woeful marketing

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17302 From: dave santos Date: 3/30/2015
Subject: Re: AWEC Post-Mortem?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17303 From: dave santos Date: 3/31/2015
Subject: Formalizing KIS (complexity metrics)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17304 From: dave santos Date: 3/31/2015
Subject: Dropline PTO Networks (Dropstitch and Thru-Cord models)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17305 From: dougselsam Date: 3/31/2015
Subject: Re: woeful marketing

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17306 From: dougselsam Date: 3/31/2015
Subject: Re: AWEC Post-Mortem?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17307 From: dave santos Date: 3/31/2015
Subject: Chinese credited with saving Peter Lynn from death by Megakite; he m

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17308 From: dave santos Date: 3/31/2015
Subject: Re: woeful marketing

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17309 From: dave santos Date: 3/31/2015
Subject: Re: AWEC Post-Mortem?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17310 From: dougselsam Date: 3/31/2015
Subject: Re: Chinese credited with saving Peter Lynn from death by Megakite;

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17311 From: dave santos Date: 3/31/2015
Subject: Correcting Doug

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17312 From: dave santos Date: 3/31/2015
Subject: Re: Chinese credited with saving Peter Lynn from death by Megakite;

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17313 From: Rod Read Date: 3/31/2015
Subject: Re: Formalizing KIS (complexity metrics)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17314 From: Rod Read Date: 3/31/2015
Subject: Re: Dropline PTO Networks (Dropstitch and Thru-Cord models)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17315 From: dave santos Date: 3/31/2015
Subject: Re: Formalizing KIS (complexity metrics)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17316 From: dave santos Date: 3/31/2015
Subject: Re: Dropline PTO Networks (Dropstitch and Thru-Cord models)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17317 From: dougselsam Date: 3/31/2015
Subject: Re: Dropline PTO Networks (Dropstitch and Thru-Cord models)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17318 From: dave santos Date: 3/31/2015
Subject: Re: Dropline PTO Networks (Dropstitch and Thru-Cord models)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17319 From: Rod Read Date: 4/1/2015
Subject: Re: Formalizing KIS (complexity metrics)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17320 From: Rod Read Date: 4/1/2015
Subject: Re: Formalizing KIS (complexity metrics)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17321 From: dave santos Date: 4/1/2015
Subject: Re: Formalizing KIS (complexity metrics)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17322 From: dave santos Date: 4/1/2015
Subject: Kite QM's remaining forum challenge (Entanglement)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17323 From: dave santos Date: 4/1/2015
Subject: General Electric Wind Division enters AWE R&D; backs SuperTurbine (T

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17324 From: dougselsam Date: 4/1/2015
Subject: Re: General Electric Wind Division enters AWE R&D; backs SuperTurbin

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17325 From: dougselsam Date: 4/1/2015
Subject: Re: Kite QM's remaining forum challenge (Entanglement)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17326 From: dougselsam Date: 4/1/2015
Subject: Re: Dropline PTO Networks (Dropstitch and Thru-Cord models)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17327 From: dougselsam Date: 4/1/2015
Subject: Re: Correcting Doug

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17328 From: dave santos Date: 4/1/2015
Subject: Re: General Electric Wind Division enters AWE R&D; backs SuperTurbin

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17329 From: dave santos Date: 4/1/2015
Subject: Re: Kite QM's remaining forum challenge (Entanglement)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17330 From: dave santos Date: 4/1/2015
Subject: Re: Dropline PTO Networks (Dropstitch and Thru-Cord models)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17331 From: dave santos Date: 4/1/2015
Subject: Re: Correcting Doug

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17332 From: dougselsam Date: 4/1/2015
Subject: Re: Chinese credited with saving Peter Lynn from death by Megakite;

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17333 From: dave santos Date: 4/1/2015
Subject: Re: Chinese credited with saving Peter Lynn from death by Megakite;

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17334 From: benhaiemp Date: 4/1/2015
Subject: Criteria

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17335 From: dave santos Date: 4/1/2015
Subject: Re: Criteria

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17336 From: Rod Read Date: 4/1/2015
Subject: Re: Formalizing KIS (complexity metrics)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17337 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 4/1/2015
Subject: Re: Criteria

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17338 From: dave santos Date: 4/1/2015
Subject: Re: Formalizing KIS (complexity metrics)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17339 From: Rod Read Date: 4/1/2015
Subject: Re: Chinese credited with saving Peter Lynn from death by Megakite;

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17340 From: Rod Read Date: 4/1/2015
Subject: Re: Formalizing KIS (complexity metrics)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17341 From: dave santos Date: 4/1/2015
Subject: Re: Criteria

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17342 From: dave santos Date: 4/1/2015
Subject: Re: Formalizing KIS (complexity metrics)



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17293 From: dave santos Date: 3/29/2015
Subject: Re: Serpentine Layout of AWES Kite Farm Traction Vias
Nothing stopping you from mixing the topologies? Good. Here's a Python script for trees in Rhino/Grasshopper :)

import uuid

def sanitize_id(id):
    return id.strip().replace(" ", "")

(_ADD, _DELETE, _INSERT) = range(3)
(_ROOT, _DEPTH, _WIDTH) = range(3)

class Node:

    def __init__(self, name, identifier=None, expanded=True):
        self.__identifier = (str(uuid.uuid1()) if identifier is None else
                sanitize_id(str(identifier)))
        self.name = name
        self.expanded = expanded
        self.__bpointer = None
        self.__fpointer = []

    @property
    def identifier(self):
        return self.__identifier

    @property
    def bpointer(self):
        return self.__bpointer

    @bpointer.setter
    def bpointer(self, value):
        if value is not None:
            self.__bpointer = sanitize_id(value)

    @property
    def fpointer(self):
        return self.__fpointer

    def update_fpointer(self, identifier, mode=_ADD):
        if mode is _ADD:
            self.__fpointer.append(sanitize_id(identifier))




On Sunday, March 29, 2015 12:38 PM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
There's noting to stop mixing the two topologies to varying degrees... Triangulated mesh "leaf level" field areas where power is available locally can twig feed a branch line collected on a trunk.
A hedge is more likely as a messy viral growth... than any singular tree with it's single point weaknesses.

Lets make a really strong leaf... instead of having fixed ideas of the node points on the ground, hold them to circular path around the centre of the field.

With field packing algorithms giving triangulated mesh pattern as described...
Choose the largest circular approximation (or hexagon) size available from within the given mesh.
Going up from the node points have spinning tube generators (or other tether using generation devices) of lengths so as they complement the form of a multi kixel wing over the field. Allow the spinners to rotate not only on their axis (tether line) but also move their PTO (line driving capstan) circularly around the centre of the field. Many inner rings and generator tethers per ring could have self weathercocking lift from a mesh form and keep on generating.

cc4.0ncbysa+ open awes

Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17294 From: dave santos Date: 3/29/2015
Subject: Re: Serpentine Layout of AWES Kite Farm Traction Vias
Seriously, a triangular mesh is a geometry, and its underlying topology is a multi-torus, which is not the optimal tree-topology required for an optimal fan-in structure. So go ahead and mix away, but what are all the added holes for?

Also, triangular (and hexagonal) cells do not as naturally totally fill typical square land plots like square cells, So keep square grids in mind as an option, if rectilinear land density drives design.



On Sunday, March 29, 2015 4:32 PM, dave santos <santos137@yahoo.com def sanitize_id(id): return id.strip().replace(" ", "") (_ADD, _DELETE, _INSERT) = range(3) (_ROOT, _DEPTH, _WIDTH) = range(3) class Node: def __init__(self, name, identifier=None, expanded=True): self.__identifier = (str(uuid.uuid1()) if identifier is None else sanitize_id(str(identifier))) self.name = name self.expanded = expanded self.__bpointer = None self.__fpointer = [] @property def identifier(self): return self.__identifier @property def bpointer(self): return self.__bpointer @bpointer.setter def bpointer(self, value): if value is not None: self.__bpointer = sanitize_id(value) @property def fpointer(self): return self.__fpointer def update_fpointer(self, identifier, mode=_ADD): if mode is _ADD: self.__fpointer.append(sanitize_id(identifier))




On Sunday, March 29, 2015 12:38 PM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
There's noting to stop mixing the two topologies to varying degrees... Triangulated mesh "leaf level" field areas where power is available locally can twig feed a branch line collected on a trunk.
A hedge is more likely as a messy viral growth... than any singular tree with it's single point weaknesses.

Lets make a really strong leaf... instead of having fixed ideas of the node points on the ground, hold them to circular path around the centre of the field.

With field packing algorithms giving triangulated mesh pattern as described...
Choose the largest circular approximation (or hexagon) size available from within the given mesh.
Going up from the node points have spinning tube generators (or other tether using generation devices) of lengths so as they complement the form of a multi kixel wing over the field. Allow the spinners to rotate not only on their axis (tether line) but also move their PTO (line driving capstan) circularly around the centre of the field. Many inner rings and generator tethers per ring could have self weathercocking lift from a mesh form and keep on generating.

cc4.0ncbysa+ open awes

Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17295 From: dave santos Date: 3/29/2015
Subject: Re: AWES iso-dome pumping model (flatfish mode)
Furthering the analysis, the flatfish strandbeest kinetic-kite mode is seen as a case of Edge Waves. The reason we are in this design space is to find the scale limits to tensile wind structure within the thin planetary atmospheric layer. Gravity progressively interferes with scaled-up HTA rotary structure, so even soft rotors finally cannot scale as much as this flatfish mode with wing-in-ground-effect and solar-boost. A maximal AWES flatfish could end up around 30km diameter, with its edge-wings undulating majestically in the Jet Stream. I think such structures could operate over populations (or even host populations in its stable center zone) in shared airspace, given how amazing the future tends to be :)





On Sunday, March 29, 2015 4:24 PM, dave santos <santos137@yahoo.com  
I thought Leading edge flap was more of a flipwing phenomenon..
given a vertical flipwing... To promote the inverting motion... Is the bottom more strictly bound than the top?
Allowing the contained momentum in the top to overshoot and reverse the foil..
I still don't get them... but i know they could be important if they can buzz, flap or hum at scale.

Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878





   @@attachment@@
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17296 From: dave santos Date: 3/30/2015
Subject: AWEC Post-Mortem?
AWEC has organized AWE conferences for several years now, but almost nothing is known about its inside history. Now its website has lapsed, and its members-of-record continue unresponsive to inquiries. Is AWEC dead and nobody told us? A quick review of its five-year history-

The Airborne Wind Energy Consortium popped up as US California non-profit (industry association) in 2010, just after the first 2009 conference. It took over conferences, led by Bay Area AWE ventures Joby Energy and Makani Power, and ultimately attracted control by EU players, Aympx and NTS, as Joby-Makani (mergered) dropped out. AWEC's governance model was consistently secretive, with executive participation based solely on cash contributions (stealth-venture pay-to-play model). AWEIA participation in AWEC was blocked, from the start.

AWEC never acted as a democratically transparent industry association in service to all AWE stakeholders; as required by its non-profit c-6 legal incorporation status. AWEC corporate members repeatedly monopolized the AWE conference planning process, while raising millions from dazzled investors; earning persistent complaints over the quality of academic knowledge-sharing (not posting virtually all conference proceedings) and fair-business (openly favoring its own members over all other parties), and specific neglect of vital aspects of conference R&D sharing (like a healthy AWES demo component for the hard-core engineers).

 At its worse (2010 Stanford) the AWE conference was fully captive to AWEC, which imposed
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17297 From: dave santos Date: 3/30/2015
Subject: Re: Growing List of GW Unit-Scale AWES Concepts
Four more GW AWES conceptual contenders, bringing the quick count to 18 distinct architectures already on record-
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17298 From: dave santos Date: 3/30/2015
Subject: Fw: Small UAV Coalition March Newsletter
Contains important aviation information for serious AWE developers, even though AWES are proposed by the FAA to be substantially exempted form many new UAS requirements (as long as we maintain safety)-


On Monday, March 30, 2015 2:44 PM, Small UAV Coalition <newsletter@smalluavcoalition.org
SMALL UAV COALITION  March NEWSLETTER
View this email in your browser
LETTER FROM THE COALITION:

GREG WALDEN
 

 
Dear Small UAV Coalition Supporters, 

The section 333 exemption process that was included in the FAA Modernization Act of 2012 was created to allow companies to be given permission to use small UAVs for commercial use in advance of the small UAS rulemaking.  Given that the NPRM was released only in late February, a final rule will most likely not take effect until late 2016 or 2017, so the section 333 exemption process will serve as the only lawful means to obtain authority to operate commercial UAVs.  Nearly 800 petitions have been filed while only 69 have been approved.  The process that is said to take up to 120 days has several companies waiting more 7 months for a decision.
 
The Small UAV Coalition applauds the FAA for the changes (FAA Press Release) they recently made in to help streamline the section 333 and Certificate of Authorization (COA) processes.  We are also pleased that three other changes that the Coalition has been requesting since last year were also implemented.
 
1.   A medical certificate is no longer required.  FAA will accept a valid U.S. driver license.
2.   A recreational or sport pilot certificate will be accepted, in addition to a private pilot certificate.
3.   The FAA has essentially adopted a policy of summarily approving petitions that are based on previously granted exemptions, thereby obviating an analysis of the equivalent level of safety, the public interest, and the regulations from which the a petitioner seeks an exemption, conserving FAA resources and eliminating unnecessary duplication.   
 
These changes are encouraging, but much more can be done to allow the expected anticipated growth of the industry and to allow the US to stay competitive with other countries who have already adopted policies to encourage the use of commercial UAVs.  On March 17, the Small UAV Coalition submitted a letter to FAA Administrator Michael Huerta. In the letter we recommended a number of other changes to improve and expedite the section 333 process, including: 
  1. Eliminate the need to obtain a COA in Class G airspace
  2. Allow operations to be conducted to 500 feet AGL and within 500 feet of a non-participating person, vehicle, or structure
  3. Allow operating UAVs from boats (which will be needed for bridge inspection)
  4. Remove the requirement to have a visual observer
  5. Allow operators to conduct research and development over private property owned or leased by the operator
  6. Provide an exemption that allows holder to operate multiple UAVs of the same type and model
  7. Allow UAS manufacturers to obtain an exemption for a specific UAS model on behalf of the operators
Some of these recommendations are based on the FAA’s sUAS NPRM.  We see no reason why the FAA cannot apply these provisions to the section 333 process now. 
The Coalition intends to continue to work with the FAA and Congress to facilitate the approval for companies operating in the US to safely use existing technology to operate UAVs in a variety of settings in furtherance of the public interest as well as contributing billions of dollars of expected revenue to our economy.

 
Small UAV Coalition in Riga
 

NPRM Update
The Small UAV Coalition is working with its members to respond to the FAA’s proposed rule for small UAVs released on February 14th.  If you are interested in responding as well, you must file your response by April 24th. Click here to read rule and make comments.

Senate discusses UAVs

The Senate Subcommittee on Aviation, Operations, Safety and Security held a hearing on Tuesday, March 24th to discuss the potential benefits of small UAVs and the current state of regulation. Paul Misner, Vice President of Amazon and a founding member of the Small UAV Coalition, urged the FAA to begin planning for future operations, such as those beyond the visual line of sight, so that the US does not fall further behind globally.  To learn more about the hearing, read Forbes’ article here

GoogleX's Dave Vos Keynotes ICAO RPAS Symposium Dave Vos, leader of GoogleX Project Wing, gave the keynote address at the International Civil Aviation Organization’s symposium on remotely piloted aircraft systems (RPAS).  In his address, Dave focused on the ways in which drones will allow us to fully utilize our airspace and transform our daily lives. 
 
Come Say Hello
The Small UAV Coalition is in attendance at most major UAV conferences. We welcome the opportunity to meet, answer questions, and talk about the industry with you!  Next up, we’ll be at the NAB conference in Las Vegas on April 13, the Silicon Valley Drone Show on April 29, and the Drones Data X conference on May 1.

Major News from Members
  • Sky-Futures received a section 333 exemption
  • 3DR announced an additional $50 million in funding

 
Small UAV Coalition at the NYC Drone Film Festival
What's happening in April?
•            Submission of the coalition's response to the NPRM
•            Submission of the coalition's response to the NTIA
•            Q2 Board meeting

 


Copyright © 2014 Small UAV Coalition, All rights reserved.
www.smalluavcoalition.org
unsubscribe from this list    update subscription preferences 

Email Marketing Powered by MailChimp
Share
Tweet
Forward


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17299 From: dougselsam Date: 3/30/2015
Subject: Re: AWEC Post-Mortem?
AWEC has organized AWE conferences for several years now...Now its website has lapsed, and its members-of-record continue unresponsive to inquiries. Is AWEC dead and nobody told us? *** Remember what I told you all, years ago, about wind energy would-be, wannabe, innovators: eventually, "They quietly go away"...
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17300 From: dougselsam Date: 3/30/2015
Subject: Re: woeful marketing
DaveS, as previously noted, you often combine so many erroneous statements into a single sentence that it could take all day to dissect and refute/explain them, so I won't bother.  Suffice it to say you are in error.  Thanks for spelling my name right - "any publicity is good publicity", as long as that condition is met, or so they say... :)
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17301 From: dave santos Date: 3/30/2015
Subject: Re: woeful marketing
Doug,

You did claim on the AWES Forum that you "overcame" Rudy's patent, but without ever explaining how. It may "suffice" you own whim to be unable or unwilling to ever explain, but it remains an open question here.

There are some major differences in Rudy's original patent from your later patent: Rudy did not add a Darrieus Rotor at the base, nor depend on a rigid driveshaft. As for whether the choice of fabric or rigid blades are best, Rod is clearly following Rudy's lead (fabric), consistent with classic kite culture, and the original "superturbine" of record is Rudy's. Give the man his due,

daveS



On Monday, March 30, 2015 6:54 PM, "dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
DaveS, as previously noted, you often combine so many erroneous statements into a single sentence that it could take all day to dissect and refute/explain them, so I won't bother.  Suffice it to say you are in error.  Thanks for spelling my name right - "any publicity is good publicity", as long as that condition is met, or so they say... :)
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17302 From: dave santos Date: 3/30/2015
Subject: Re: AWEC Post-Mortem?
Doug,

AWEC is only a case of an abused corporate shell abandoned like a stolen car, but the actual players have definitely not "quietly [gone] away". Joby merged its AWE capability into Makani, which is more prominent than ever as a wholly owned GoogleX "moon shot". NTS and Aympx just completed new funding rounds, and are on the move. BHWE has emerged as a replacement brand for AWEC, by the same insider faction. They are not gone at all.

USWindLabs, on the other hand, seems more inactive than any AWEC member (even Sky Windpower has fresher R&D work), so perhaps your dismissive "wanna-be" slam best applies to you. As for "nonresponsive", you cannot even be bothered to say just how you overcame Rudy's obvious prior invention of the "superturbine" concept,

daveS





On Monday, March 30, 2015 6:50 PM, "dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
AWEC has organized AWE conferences for several years now...Now its website has lapsed, and its members-of-record continue unresponsive to inquiries. Is AWEC dead and nobody told us? *** Remember what I told you all, years ago, about wind energy would-be, wannabe, innovators: eventually, "They quietly go away"...
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17303 From: dave santos Date: 3/31/2015
Subject: Formalizing KIS (complexity metrics)
From the start, both software and hardware engineers are taught KIS (Keep It Simple), as a prime design heuristic. The need for KIS grows with the inherent complexity of the problem, to create brilliantly engineered solutions that are safe, affordable, and manageable. Aerospace, in particular, has KIS as its top mantra.

The paradox of KIS was nicely formulated by Thorndale who stated in his famous Postulate of Commensurate Complexity: "“In order to increase both generality and accuracy, the complexity of our theories must necessarily be increased.”, which means, in practice, that an optimally simple design is often only possible by a very complex design process. Thus in AWE, the ultimate solutions could prove extremely elegant, but be well beyond the power of an overly simplistic approach to find them. Hence the huge mess required for all of us to "test everything", as a community.

Following Jeremy Calvert's suggestion (Kitebot), Low Complexity AWE represents a radical KIS approach, and there is no question that Makani represents the High-Complexity AWE opposite extreme. Its an open question just what minimal complexity is the ideal, and the optimum can be approached from either pole, and its a race between the two. Its of particular interest here to try to predict megascale AWES winners (from the 20+ case-base) based on (rather complex) complexity analysis, given the uncertainties of other approaches; like fickle LCOE calculations; or waiting for HALT results (after the design race has been decided by the best early down-select).

We have a few tools to understand and manage design complexity. Parts-Count is a common metric, State-Machines formally capture raw system complexity, and topological models like Cyclomatics, in software engineering, inform our own struggles in AWES design. Consider how various AWES architectures can be ranked metrically by Cyclomatic criteria (given that systems can be abstracted as pure computation, disregarding the hardware-software divide)-
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17304 From: dave santos Date: 3/31/2015
Subject: Dropline PTO Networks (Dropstitch and Thru-Cord models)
Over many years, Peter Lynn developed "Thru-Cording" for his world-record largest soft kites. These kites have been large double surfaces with a large network of thru-cords holding the upper and lower surfaces apart at a fixed distance. Carl Gu then presented to us Drop-Stitch material as a AWE resource; like thru-cording, drop-stitch is a network of threads that maintain the flattened shape of inflated wings and paddle-boards. Let "drop-" be understood to define lines that run vertically; which has not been common before in kiting. They have a useful horizontal iso-directional nature.

As we ever more deeply explore the megascale soft kite design space, a new core method seems to be Dropline PTO (power take-off) Networks where an upper kite layer pumps a network array of many droplines connected to workcells on the ground (gens, pumps, etc.). While the dropstitch and thru-cord models inspire the concept, the inventive leap is to see these lines as a iso-directional system of dynamic pumping units. We know how to process statistical aggregations of chaotic power inputs, via sprags and such, for smooth overall power output. Vast undulating kite surfaces could be tapped naturally by a suitable network of dropline PTOs.

CC+ Open-AWE IP-Pool
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17305 From: dougselsam Date: 3/31/2015
Subject: Re: woeful marketing
SuperTurbine(R) is a registered U.S. Trademark, to address just one of your misunderstandings.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17306 From: dougselsam Date: 3/31/2015
Subject: Re: AWEC Post-Mortem?
You are correct: I "cannot be bothered" to respond to your endless harassment of everyone and anyone who tries to make a difference in AWE.  Seems to me you correctly flagged AWEC as having "quietly gone away" (They don't respond?).  Your word for it is "Post Mortem". 

I'm a bit puzzled why everything seems like it has to be "an argument" for you, even when people try to express agreement with you.  I have given the Monty Python example ("I'd like an argument, please" - "No you wouldn't!"), to illustrate.  Obviously, it makes on difference.  People have patterns of behavior, good or bad, which can be quite persistent.  I guess I could repeat: "No you wouldn't!"
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17307 From: dave santos Date: 3/31/2015
Subject: Chinese credited with saving Peter Lynn from death by Megakite; he m
It was a good laugh with AirStudio about how PL might yet kill us all (not a bad a way to go). I recall seriously confronting PL (who was visiting KiteShip; and Makani, where his son Pete worked)) about a gruesome pinch-point on his best-selling kite buggy design. It was an easily redesignable design defect (of less risk to women; but he might hit one anyway (see link)). I handed him a scale drawing of the fix. He could only bubble over in comedic fury, and we got along fine; but I don't think the buggy ever got fixed.

Finally, a semi-coherent treatment by PL to ongoing safety concerns, in his latest newsletter; with cool new details, like keeping an open knife ready in one hand (like a  wary Mexican), while inside a mega-kite working on the thru-cords, just as a gust begins to lift-off the kite. But the knife did not save him; the Chinese did.

PL is a treasure-
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17308 From: dave santos Date: 3/31/2015
Subject: Re: woeful marketing
A registered TM, yes, but for what publicly seems to be Rudy's inventive leap and prior art, so maybe its morally OK to also call his version a superturbine, never mind the TM, as fair use by working scholars. The registered TM means you can sue, if you disagree, but you have to prove commercial abuse, which hardly exists. Its just like you using the LadderMill TM.



On Tuesday, March 31, 2015 10:29 AM, "dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
SuperTurbine(R) is a registered U.S. Trademark, to address just one of your misunderstandings.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17309 From: dave santos Date: 3/31/2015
Subject: Re: AWEC Post-Mortem?
These players do in fact respond to critique, over many years; but AWEC has also been very secret to almost everyone. Don't forget, KiteLab was  even inside early AWEC, under JoeBen's invite (just in time to witness the backroom debacle of lobbying US Congress to privatize airspace for AWEC).

The only new clue anyone outside has now is that the AWEC website lapsed. Maybe they will interact with you to report what's happening, if you are somehow the acceptable party. Let us know what they tell you.



On Tuesday, March 31, 2015 10:36 AM, "dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
You are correct: I "cannot be bothered" to respond to your endless harassment of everyone and anyone who tries to make a difference in AWE.  Seems to me you correctly flagged AWEC as having "quietly gone away" (They don't respond?).  Your word for it is "Post Mortem". 

I'm a bit puzzled why everything seems like it has to be "an argument" for you, even when people try to express agreement with you.  I have given the Monty Python example ("I'd like an argument, please" - "No you wouldn't!"), to illustrate.  Obviously, it makes on difference.  People have patterns of behavior, good or bad, which can be quite persistent.  I guess I could repeat: "No you wouldn't!"
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17310 From: dougselsam Date: 3/31/2015
Subject: Re: Chinese credited with saving Peter Lynn from death by Megakite;
Peter has a lot of great insights regarding the nanny-state and such inconveniences as "speed bumps" (one more oxymoron).  How many people are killed by speedbumps?  How many are killed driving to a job making speedbumps?  Delivering the asphalt?  How much cumulative minutes of peoples' lives are wasted on speedbumps?  How many lives are lost delivering new parts for cars damaged by speedbumps?  DFixing the cars?  How much cumulative lifetimes in total are speedbumps costing us?  Speedbumps are a symbol for so much of where we have gone wrong trying to "fix" what isn't broken.  It took us a million years to develop smooth transportation, on smooth surfaces, and only a couple decades to ruin it and make every drive through every parking lot a jolting, jarring, squeaking, creaking, (literal) pain in the ass. 

We ride our dirt bikes around here, and seldom wear a helmet.  Right on the streets.  This is a cool place, in many ways.  Live and let live.  I don't wear one skiing, though people say I "should"... Yes of course, before you let your kid go out and play, you really "should" spend a half-hour duct-taping him into a foam suit, and of course, he must wear a big, heavy helmet so he can break his neck from the weight if he slips and falls.  And speaking of helmets, what makes people think they have any business driving a car without a helmet?  Would Mario Andretti or Dale Earnhart Jr. drive without a helmet?  After all, what is going to protect your head if you accidentally hit a speedbump too fast?  You could get a concussion!   Then the ambulance could hit the same speedbump while they are "working on you" - "Woops!  Sorry we cut off your head!".  Come on people, stop living life and get "safe"!!!

I think we should have the spotted mushroom crew build a giant inflatable something-or-other under the guise of "test everything" and lash their ankles to it and wait for a good wind so they can demonstrate once more, the principles of safety in wannabe wind energy!  We can call it "Darwin's "downselect""... (When you say Buuuudweiser"...)
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17311 From: dave santos Date: 3/31/2015
Subject: Correcting Doug
Doug complained about: "(My) endless harassment of everyone and anyone who tries to make a difference in AWE"
 
In fact, I have consistently strongly supported a long list of heroes in AWE, while the bad apples seem limited to only a small handful, and I hope they work out the issues identified (mostly to do with stealth-venture ethics). The great figures I celebrate really have made a difference (not just "tried") include Joe Faust, Wubbo Ockels, Cristina Archer, Dave Culp, Peter Lynn, Joe Hadzicki, Dave Lang, Ali Fujino, Kay Buesing, Luc d' Armant, Reinhart Paelinck, Wayne German, Rod Read, Dan Tracy, and on and on. Then there are dozens of deceased pioneers I honor, from Pocock and Etzler, to Jalbert and Rogallo.

Its Doug himself who has most consistently attacked the general population of AWE, especially here on the AWES Forum, for years on end, without seeming to have any wind heroes but himself. I really hope Doug finally makes a positive difference in AWE, by trying harder.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17312 From: dave santos Date: 3/31/2015
Subject: Re: Chinese credited with saving Peter Lynn from death by Megakite;
Doug really misses the boat by only finding Peter Lynn to be about lamenting speed bumps, rather that the Oracle of Kite Tech. If speed bumps really matter, here is a real-world case that explains how-

Starting around 2001, our radical bike circus circle in Austin conducted seasonal bike migration into Northern Mexico, even as the violence rate along the border ramped-up on a par with Iraq. We became masters of a Cormack McCarthy world of ultra-danger, able to explore anywhere at will, by highly developed bike-nomad and wilderness scouting skills; but we also constantly saw the victims, and took their side in affairs. *

I fondly recall a little village along a secondary highway whose kids where being slaughtered by speeding cars and trucks. The govt did nothing, so the villagers spontaneously put in speed-bumps every few yards. From then on, the kids again could play safely in the road. The slower traffic allowed a vibrant social culture of small family businesses (even a "bike hospital"). This was a sort of Utopia to us bike nomads; the promise of a better future, thanks to speed-bumps.

Ed Sapir (kPower) was there, and can confirm this case. DIY speed-bumps are happening all over the world,  from the same tragic need. The critics of speed bumps have failed to properly account for the value to children of a safer play environment; and quality play is essential to the formation of a sound adult. Less essential is someone's right to drive a large vehicle fast around children, with faster ambulance response as a dubiious justification.

------------
*  These heroic bike rides continue to this day, but I relocated to the US NW for AWE R&D, with a whole new set of dangers.







On Tuesday, March 31, 2015 11:23 AM, "dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
Peter has a lot of great insights regarding the nanny-state and such inconveniences as "speed bumps" (one more oxymoron).  How many people are killed by speedbumps?  How many are killed driving to a job making speedbumps?  Delivering the asphalt?  How much cumulative minutes of peoples' lives are wasted on speedbumps?  How many lives are lost delivering new parts for cars damaged by speedbumps?  DFixing the cars?  How much cumulative lifetimes in total are speedbumps costing us?  Speedbumps are a symbol for so much of where we have gone wrong trying to "fix" what isn't broken.  It took us a million years to develop smooth transportation, on smooth surfaces, and only a couple decades to ruin it and make every drive through every parking lot a jolting, jarring, squeaking, creaking, (literal) pain in the ass. 

We ride our dirt bikes around here, and seldom wear a helmet.  Right on the streets.  This is a cool place, in many ways.  Live and let live.  I don't wear one skiing, though people say I "should"... Yes of course, before you let your kid go out and play, you really "should" spend a half-hour duct-taping him into a foam suit, and of course, he must wear a big, heavy helmet so he can break his neck from the weight if he slips and falls.  And speaking of helmets, what makes people think they have any business driving a car without a helmet?  Would Mario Andretti or Dale Earnhart Jr. drive without a helmet?  After all, what is going to protect your head if you accidentally hit a speedbump too fast?  You could get a concussion!   Then the ambulance could hit the same speedbump while they are "working on you" - "Woops!  Sorry we cut off your head!".  Come on people, stop living life and get "safe"!!!

I think we should have the spotted mushroom crew build a giant inflatable something-or-other under the guise of "test everything" and lash their ankles to it and wait for a good wind so they can demonstrate once more, the principles of safety in wannabe wind energy!  We can call it "Darwin's "downselect""... (When you say Buuuudweiser"...)
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17313 From: Rod Read Date: 3/31/2015
Subject: Re: Formalizing KIS (complexity metrics)

In terms of natural selection as we often favour... Complexity is cheap compared to mass.
You may add the caveat... As long as you have the means with which to simplify the code which describes the complexity... (code also includes manufacure control... (We need variable net knitting knotting robotics as in multi braid cable making))
In that way dna and parametric algorithm design both work as well as we know toward efficient effective structure.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17314 From: Rod Read Date: 3/31/2015
Subject: Re: Dropline PTO Networks (Dropstitch and Thru-Cord models)

The vibration / high frequency back end flapping of Peter Lynn's sssl under overpower conditions is not as strong as the total pull... But it can be felt /filtered from on the line at the anchor.
That's even with the bridles to the back sectio running with very little alignment to the main tether.
A top surface above Mothra of hundreds of sssl all pumping...  Interesting

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17315 From: dave santos Date: 3/31/2015
Subject: Re: Formalizing KIS (complexity metrics)
Rod,

How is complexity so cheap, compared to mass, in biology? Almost all biology en masse is viruses, bacteria, fungi, plants, etc., and the most complex bits, the larger brains, are very expensive if measured by key metrics (like energy consumption by unit volume, or time required to evolve). The same trend holds with computers, with the most complex being most expensive generally.

KIS in engineering generally predicts cheaper more robust design. Its only rather hard problems, like a real moon-shot, where only a comparatively complex solution will do. Most problems are best aced by KIS, like how to make and use a hammer. I have always thought AWE would turn out to be simple; closer to a hammer than an M600 (under Cyclomatic metircs). The complex part is to fullysee the M600 as less viable than its simpler siblings.

Because it was a KIS-driven idea, the AWES concept of using untailored COTS roll-stock membrane to make almost endless AWES wing at high velocity, to then simply hank onto COTS lines, long predates, on sounder ground, your current notion, not even half-baked yet, of the advanced machines that will weave complex AWES rigs like your torque-daisies. COTS-based KIS AWES will be flying high while custom AWES tooling becomes an career albatross for the unlucky pioneer, if my hopes and fears are both right. 

Be careful of believing all heuristic design rules were made to break in AWE. One can only get away with a few minor violations before deep failure results. Good design is very sensitive to its principles,

daveS



On Tuesday, March 31, 2015 12:39 PM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
In terms of natural selection as we often favour... Complexity is cheap compared to mass.
You may add the caveat... As long as you have the means with which to simplify the code which describes the complexity... (code also includes manufacure control... (We need variable net knitting knotting robotics as in multi braid cable making))
In that way dna and parametric algorithm design both work as well as we know toward efficient effective structure.


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17316 From: dave santos Date: 3/31/2015
Subject: Re: Dropline PTO Networks (Dropstitch and Thru-Cord models)
Yes, many modes are possible. TE oscillations in an SSSL may be unique to a cupped TE acting like a bluff-body, which is well known to cause strong wake oscillations. My first take, of an LE oscillation, seems both similar and distinct. The prize for dropline PTO arrays would be a wild bulk oscillation of the whole, but the major complicating factor is that these modes tend to be specific tunings of varied wings in varied wind conditions. If only we can figure out how the tunings can be self-adjusting by passive aeroelastic feed-back, and also do variable load matching on demand. Sound hard? Maybe not, if we master kite dynamics in terms of "simple" phonon-based quantum computing, which are physics friends are increasing supporting off-Forum, as we learn to speak their language (phonons, Debye temperatures, anyons, Planck units, Boltzmann distributions, etc.) 

A big open question is whether to promote large bulk waves to build from LE to TE (like a wind "fetch" for ocean waves), or to tap many smaller waves before they grow. The former option seems suited to anisotropic kite matter, and the latter to isotropic kite matter. A related question is whether to go for edge-waves or body waves, whether or not the rig is aniso- or iso-.

The SSSL kite is definitely a laboratory for these new AWES ideas.



On Tuesday, March 31, 2015 12:54 PM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
The vibration / high frequency back end flapping of Peter Lynn's sssl under overpower conditions is not as strong as the total pull... But it can be felt /filtered from on the line at the anchor.
That's even with the bridles to the back sectio running with very little alignment to the main tether.
A top surface above Mothra of hundreds of sssl all pumping...  Interesting


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17317 From: dougselsam Date: 3/31/2015
Subject: Re: Dropline PTO Networks (Dropstitch and Thru-Cord models)
I was wondering what happened to your "certain" prediction that Bose-Einstein quantum phonons (or whatever you think you are talking about) are the final AWE "downselect" (final answer? yes.).  I agree with Dave Lang:  I'm not seeing it as quantum anything, just because parts of a machine are synchronized in some way.  In fact, I'd say the longer you try to impress all 5 people reading this list with how many big words you can use, and pretend to have a mastery of the most cutting-edge physics concepts imaginable, and be applying them to make-believe machines, the less likely you are to ever get such a set of kites actually making any power.  I think all these big words are nothing but an excuse for you to never have anything working.  Of course, how could anyone demand a working model of your set of kites working together, if the very concept baffles even the top physicists, right?  Well... right?  How could we EVER get anything working when it is SO COMPLICATED?  Good excuse.  You get to pretend to be more of a genius that anyone can comprehend, issuing thousands of pages of indecipherable big-word gibberish, while never having anything actually amount to a hill of beans - pretty good.  Let me share one of my favorite big words: "Intergalactic". That one is sure to impress,  Just throw it in randomly (in a quantum sense, of course) every few sentences, and people will think you really know some shit.  "Metaphysical" is another good word to baffle small-word people.  "Gosh I don't quite understand what he's saying, but he sure knows what he's talking about.... er, ummm.... doesn't he?  :O..................
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17318 From: dave santos Date: 3/31/2015
Subject: Re: Dropline PTO Networks (Dropstitch and Thru-Cord models)
Doug,

You are no Dave Lang!

DaveL's correct position, as I understand it, is that established modern physics applies to kite physics, but he rightly demands to be shown just how it can serve practical AWES design (just as QM revolutionized electronics). I took this to be a wonderful challenge; not the first nor last time DaveL has greatly inspired me, and I am increasingly prepared to answer his challenge, having giving it a great deal of study over a few years. I'll continue to go into deeper detail to explain on the AWES Forum just how a flood of new kite ideas naturally emerge when you do the fancy physics homework, as well as master kites.

Of course you self-block from such understanding, given your willful refusal to do the homework. Its a very beautiful world being revealed, where aerospace standards like Re link profoundly to Planck Units (on my mind just now),  and endless other insights; the same stuff that inspired Einstein, and so many others. How sad this wonderful path to theoretic AWE means so little to you; except to ridicule in incomprehension; recalling Dylan's advice, "don't criticize what you can't understand".

Below is more background reading for you not to do, but maybe others are more diligent ;^)

daveS










On Tuesday, March 31, 2015 8:43 PM, "dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
I was wondering what happened to your "certain" prediction that Bose-Einstein quantum phonons (or whatever you think you are talking about) are the final AWE "downselect" (final answer? yes.).  I agree with Dave Lang:  I'm not seeing it as quantum anything, just because parts of a machine are synchronized in some way.  In fact, I'd say the longer you try to impress all 5 people reading this list with how many big words you can use, and pretend to have a mastery of the most cutting-edge physics concepts imaginable, and be applying them to make-believe machines, the less likely you are to ever get such a set of kites actually making any power.  I think all these big words are nothing but an excuse for you to never have anything working.  Of course, how could anyone demand a working model of your set of kites working together, if the very concept baffles even the top physicists, right?  Well... right?  How could we EVER get anything working when it is SO COMPLICATED?  Good excuse.  You get to pretend to be more of a genius that anyone can comprehend, issuing thousands of pages of indecipherable big-word gibberish, while never having anything actually amount to a hill of beans - pretty good.  Let me share one of my favorite big words: "Intergalactic". That one is sure to impress,  Just throw it in randomly (in a quantum sense, of course) every few sentences, and people will think you really know some shit.  "Metaphysical" is another good word to baffle small-word people.  "Gosh I don't quite understand what he's saying, but he sure knows what he's talking about.... er, ummm.... doesn't he?  :O..................
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17319 From: Rod Read Date: 4/1/2015
Subject: Re: Formalizing KIS (complexity metrics)

If you could post the dna sequence of a bacteria here please Dave S and we'll see how "simple" that is compared to a "grasshopper" Awes language definition.

How simple is the lump of rock which will handle your ground operations?

Complxity means the phone in my hand can do more computing in the next hour than I could achieve in... Lifetimes.

Yes overall simplicity = rollstock & unit replaceable modules
But efficiently available complexity = refinement, control and affordability

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17320 From: Rod Read Date: 4/1/2015
Subject: Re: Formalizing KIS (complexity metrics)

The genome size for bacteria ranges between 500,000 to 5 million base pairs, and the average is about 1 million base pairs (1000 kb). For example, E. coli is 5,000 kb, and Streptococcus is around 2,000 kb.

Comparable with my last definition .gh file was 13.1KB     

comparable.

On 1 Apr 2015 08:39, "Rod Read" <rod.read@gmail.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17321 From: dave santos Date: 4/1/2015
Subject: Re: Formalizing KIS (complexity metrics)
Rod,

Never mind comparing a brain with a pail of slime, and judging which costs more to sustain, biologically. A simpler engineering comparison is between your design for a torque ladder topped by a daisy compared to a single large looping parafoil of the same mass. Lets presume both of these to use equivalent pilot-lifter, and set aside for now which is more efficient, which testing will settle.

I propose the single looping wing is more KIS on several counts; starting with lower parts count, higher COTS index, more basic rigging topology, and so on. Its capital cost should be less by these advantages. You can argue that the daisy outputs smooth rotation, while the foil pumps, but I can argue that I have kept the tricky flying part simpler and cleaner, and that a pumping ground machinery is TRL9 (almost every car runs on pumping pistons).

It may seem like a close race via email, but flown over time a clear winner should emerge between the two, as the real advantages sort out in practice. Obviously the looping foil is easier to get started with, so kPower has made multiple versions, and its current 12m wing is about the same mass as your daisy, but note its far higher ratio of powerwing area and reduced tether drag in comparison. Does KIS as presented here win? A side-by-side test could give early clues, but we also get to see over time which really wins in the Open-AWE space.

In a larger context, still presuming comparable mass-aloft between AWES, we get to see if Makani-Aympx complexity wins over any of our low-complexity designs. We are both betting on KIS compared to them. I already see a strong trend for the single soft wing to dominate in the big contest (SkySails ahead of Makani-Aympx), again letting ongoing progress settle the doubts, but KIS is my bet to win big against all excess complexity, even within the low-complexity camp,

daveS





On Wednesday, April 1, 2015 12:52 AM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
The genome size for bacteria ranges between 500,000 to 5 million base pairs, and the average is about 1 million base pairs (1000 kb). For example, E. coli is 5,000 kb, and Streptococcus is around 2,000 kb.
Comparable with my last definition .gh file was 13.1KB     
comparable.
On 1 Apr 2015 08:39, "Rod Read" <rod.read@gmail.com


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17322 From: dave santos Date: 4/1/2015
Subject: Kite QM's remaining forum challenge (Entanglement)
Van Veem's 1990s identification of kite dynamics as formally chaotic was a signal achievement, but leapfrogged the task of interpreting the kite under Quantum Mechanics. The undisputed factual basis is that the physics community agrees QM rules the observable world; so its mainly a matter of penetrating study to see just how QM works in the case of kites. The basic method to see QM in kites is simple enough, with toy kites sufficing; one merely observes kite flight keenly to compare with long established QM predictions, as a sort of checklist. This leads to a seeing a physics wonderland hiding in plain sight, all the way to the latest Quantum Computing theories.

Lacking prior sources in kite literature, this observational method is how the kite itself slowly revealed to me its inherent QM nature, one precept at a time, and dozens of posts have documented these correlations to theory. In many cases, the effects seem useful to me (like deeply understanding line failure modes), and especially proved inspirational to help me rethink kite design in a modern light (based on non-dimensional comparison with semiconductor tech). The evolving posts remain open topics for anyone to critique or add to, but I left for last the treating the most "spooky" QM effect, Quantum Entanglement; so here goes-

Assume a kiteline in its tense state, stretched from ground to kite. The prediction under QM is that any measurement of the local state of the kiteline will highly correlate with any other location, in all fundamental parameters (phase, momentum, spin, polarization, frequency, etc.). By its precise definition, this is Quantum Entanglement, and it was there all along to be noted. This kind of kite entanglement * turns out to be an interesting model for better understanding entanglement in many other QM contexts, where the apparatus or context is less intuitive, but the principles are exactly the same.

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

* not to be confused with kite line entanglement under knot and braid theory
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17323 From: dave santos Date: 4/1/2015
Subject: General Electric Wind Division enters AWE R&D; backs SuperTurbine (T
Clear in retrospect, the claim, "All roads lead to the SuperTurbine (TM)", and the history of how conventional wind tech emerged and became common, as witnessed by the online wind forums, naturally lead to the same dynamic repeating in AWE R&D circles, hence this post.


Happy April Fools Day to the AWE world :)
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17324 From: dougselsam Date: 4/1/2015
Subject: Re: General Electric Wind Division enters AWE R&D; backs SuperTurbin
You have no idea how close to the mark you are.
:)
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17325 From: dougselsam Date: 4/1/2015
Subject: Re: Kite QM's remaining forum challenge (Entanglement)
No the principles are not the same.
The principle would be the same if 2 similar kites, say, a mile away from one another, mysteriously synchronized.  Possible perhaps, especially if one is downwind of another, but I don't think that's what you're talking about.  Even then, I doubt quantum physics is the significant factor.  You're talking about kites on the same line, interacting through that line.  The fact that objects attached to the same line might influence each other just reflects the simple Newtonian idea that they are physically attached to a line, so of course they influence each other.

Your head is inappropriately "in the stratosphere" or perhaps "la-la land", or some such "delusion-of-grandeur" state, which is not required to accomplish AWE, as far as I can see anyway.

How many top PHD physicists are required to succeed at AWE?
Answer: None

How many top PHD physicists could it take to still NOT succeed at AWE?
Answer: ALL of them.

How long could DaveS keep publicly issuing 10 pages of big, important-sounding words per day, and still not get anything working in AWE?
Answer: forever
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17326 From: dougselsam Date: 4/1/2015
Subject: Re: Dropline PTO Networks (Dropstitch and Thru-Cord models)
DaveS your problem is delusions of grandeur combined with the subconscious notion that if only you can keep making things sound complicated enough, that will continue to serve as an excuse to never make any significant power, while posturing as some sort of authority.  My facility has a zero electric bill because I, and other people like me, know what we're doing.  Yours does not, because you don't.  That is pretty simple.  You generate endless streams of big words that you pretend to understand, while we merely generate electricity.  Quantum physics is used in the power electronics to sort out our "wild AC" power and make it grid-compatible.  We don't suffer under the delusion that we need to knowingly employ quantum physics to make the raw power, and the electronics that DO use quantum physics are purchased off-the-shelf.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17327 From: dougselsam Date: 4/1/2015
Subject: Re: Correcting Doug
I beg to differ:  In my opinion, you hold the pretenders of AWE in high regard, while (usually) expressing disdain for anyone who accomplishes anything.  Dan Tracy being the exception that comes to mind.  Your respect for anyone involved is mostly in inverse proportion to their relevance and accomplishments.  Anyone who stands a chance of success, you are against.  Anyone who is clueless, you see as an indispensable ally.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17328 From: dave santos Date: 4/1/2015
Subject: Re: General Electric Wind Division enters AWE R&D; backs SuperTurbin
The bullseye scored here is to falsify the pretext that a WECS tech is fairly judged by whether it was ever lampooned as an April Fools' Joke on a wind forum; which was how you dismissed AlexB's latest brainstorm. You are both in the same boat now.

The insinuation that you have real deal cooking with GE seems like the same old SuperTurbine bluff. We will see.




On Wednesday, April 1, 2015 10:20 AM, "dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
You have no idea how close to the mark you are.
:)
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17329 From: dave santos Date: 4/1/2015
Subject: Re: Kite QM's remaining forum challenge (Entanglement)
Doug,

In fact, "2 similar kites, say, a mile away from one another, mysteriously synchronized" is a good kite QM case (long-range order), but only "mysterious" to the non-expert. The two kites stay in high correlation by being anchored to a common surface, so they tend to share most state-variables as the Earth underneath them rotates and orbits. Weather systems that arise similarly tend to correlate observable effects on kite state.

Therefore, under your proposed example, the QM of kites is well supported,

daveS 
 



On Wednesday, April 1, 2015 10:34 AM, "dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
No the principles are not the same.
The principle would be the same if 2 similar kites, say, a mile away from one another, mysteriously synchronized.  Possible perhaps, especially if one is downwind of another, but I don't think that's what you're talking about.  Even then, I doubt quantum physics is the significant factor.  You're talking about kites on the same line, interacting through that line.  The fact that objects attached to the same line might influence each other just reflects the simple Newtonian idea that they are physically attached to a line, so of course they influence each other.

Your head is inappropriately "in the stratosphere" or perhaps "la-la land", or some such "delusion-of-grandeur" state, which is not required to accomplish AWE, as far as I can see anyway.

How many top PHD physicists are required to succeed at AWE?
Answer: None

How many top PHD physicists could it take to still NOT succeed at AWE?
Answer: ALL of them.

How long could DaveS keep publicly issuing 10 pages of big, important-sounding words per day, and still not get anything working in AWE?
Answer: forever
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17330 From: dave santos Date: 4/1/2015
Subject: Re: Dropline PTO Networks (Dropstitch and Thru-Cord models)
Doug,

You are totally off topic once again, but regarding "delusions of grandeur" in AWE, your public claim to be the "greatest living wind inventor" is by far the most grandiose on record. I make no such claim, and these "big words" are not mine alone, but the standard terms of the respective sciences.

daveS
 



On Wednesday, April 1, 2015 10:43 AM, "dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
DaveS your problem is delusions of grandeur combined with the subconscious notion that if only you can keep making things sound complicated enough, that will continue to serve as an excuse to never make any significant power, while posturing as some sort of authority.  My facility has a zero electric bill because I, and other people like me, know what we're doing.  Yours does not, because you don't.  That is pretty simple.  You generate endless streams of big words that you pretend to understand, while we merely generate electricity.  Quantum physics is used in the power electronics to sort out our "wild AC" power and make it grid-compatible.  We don't suffer under the delusion that we need to knowingly employ quantum physics to make the raw power, and the electronics that DO use quantum physics are purchased off-the-shelf.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17331 From: dave santos Date: 4/1/2015
Subject: Re: Correcting Doug
Doug,

At least you concede that my hero list exists, rather than you being able to show that I in any way oppose "everyone and anyone", as you first accused. We even share a hero, but if you can only admire Dan Tracy, then its you who has the far more negative view of our global community, given your years of smearing so many figures with the addled Professor Crackpot label (most of those victims are on my hero list). Thanks for finally moderating your (years of) out-of-control profanity, at least,

daveS



On Wednesday, April 1, 2015 10:56 AM, "dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
I beg to differ:  In my opinion, you hold the pretenders of AWE in high regard, while (usually) expressing disdain for anyone who accomplishes anything.  Dan Tracy being the exception that comes to mind.  Your respect for anyone involved is mostly in inverse proportion to their relevance and accomplishments.  Anyone who stands a chance of success, you are against.  Anyone who is clueless, you see as an indispensable ally.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17332 From: dougselsam Date: 4/1/2015
Subject: Re: Chinese credited with saving Peter Lynn from death by Megakite;
That's probably a good use of speedbumps - nobody said they can't EVER be a good idea.  Come to think of it, we even have some speedbumps here on our rural dirt road, and it helps with dust control, but driving over speedbumps, in general, is annoying nonetheless.  I think maybe speedbumps have been over-applied in many commercial locations.  Speedbumps are like carpool lanes, which soon turn into "managed lanes", eventually becoming "toll lanes".  Annoying because they are over-applied beyond their actual usefulness.  (like all the big words you use)  It is all about ruining the simplicity of life, attempting to micro-manage every micro-decision, by every person.  (You must conform)  Essentially. it is all about slowly eroding freedom to "make the world safe for bureaucracy", which has become the thrust of modern existence.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17333 From: dave santos Date: 4/1/2015
Subject: Re: Chinese credited with saving Peter Lynn from death by Megakite;
Doug,

What's weird is how far you have personally gone to embrace and defend the US patent and trademark systems, without admitting that you are therefore the one here ""mak(ing) the world safe for bureaucracy".  Nor were you the one able to see in the speed bump a liberational tool for DIY self-determination, but instead merely acted as an off-topic sycophant of Peter Lynn's quirky neocon views, without any of his virtues in adding to the kite state-of-the art,

daveS  
 



On Wednesday, April 1, 2015 11:39 AM, "dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
That's probably a good use of speedbumps - nobody said they can't EVER be a good idea.  Come to think of it, we even have some speedbumps here on our rural dirt road, and it helps with dust control, but driving over speedbumps, in general, is annoying nonetheless.  I think maybe speedbumps have been over-applied in many commercial locations.  Speedbumps are like carpool lanes, which soon turn into "managed lanes", eventually becoming "toll lanes".  Annoying because they are over-applied beyond their actual usefulness.  (like all the big words you use)  It is all about ruining the simplicity of life, attempting to micro-manage every micro-decision, by every person.  (You must conform)  Essentially. it is all about slowly eroding freedom to "make the world safe for bureaucracy", which has become the thrust of modern existence.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17334 From: benhaiemp Date: 4/1/2015
Subject: Criteria

Can we define what are expected features for utility-scale AWES?

  • soft wing ?
  • rigid wing ?
  • scalable  (over existing wind towers) ?
  • stationary ?
  • groundgen?
  • flygen?
  • farm of unities
  • single multi-anchoring system?
  • maximization of wing?
  • maximization of space?
  • rotation?
  • eight?
  • loop?
  • Possibility of secondary use of land/sea?
  • Quanta Böse-Einstein? (for april 1st)
  • ...

PierreB
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17335 From: dave santos Date: 4/1/2015
Subject: Re: Criteria
Pierre,

We can expect all-of-the-above to be valid test parameters for utility scale AWE.

If you will allow modern Network Theory in your analytic toolbox, then you don't have to relegate BES an BEC to April Fools' Day, by Doug's flawed logic. This paper is a sample of how BES and BEC are increasingly understood to apply across many domains-


daveS





On Wednesday, April 1, 2015 1:51 PM, "pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
Can we define what are expected features for utility-scale AWES?
  • soft wing ?
  • rigid wing ?
  • scalable  (over existing wind towers) ?
  • stationary ?
  • groundgen?
  • flygen?
  • farm of unities
  • single multi-anchoring system?
  • maximization of wing?
  • maximization of space?
  • rotation?
  • eight?
  • loop?
  • Possibility of secondary use of land/sea?
  • Quanta Böse-Einstein? (for april 1st)
  • ...
PierreB
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17336 From: Rod Read Date: 4/1/2015
Subject: Re: Formalizing KIS (complexity metrics)
We've had these arguments on the forum already Dave S,
(apart from I didn't compare a brain with a pail of slime, nor judge which costs more to sustain, biologically)

You're missing the point I think.
Yes the wheel caught on. Does your bike use the same type of granite wheel as my van?
That would be more KIS.

Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17337 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 4/1/2015
Subject: Re: Criteria

DaveS,

 

Understanding BES or BEC without knowing Husserl (see Husserl Page) is understanding AWE without knowing wind energy. Please do you see any level of proto retentionality in noetico-noematic constitution in nodes making reverse links within such a network? If yes do you link it in some AWE requirements as launching, recovering or other? If yes in what way? Thanks.

 

PierreB

 

 

 

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17338 From: dave santos Date: 4/1/2015
Subject: Re: Formalizing KIS (complexity metrics)
Maybe I am "missing the point" of your denying KIS as a prime engineering heuristic. Is this not about your conviction that "rules (like KIS) were made to be broken"? Ditto, in your seeking to validate torsion transmission AWES (never mind Gordon)? Were you not disregarding cyclomatic topology (and data compression) in your own software metrical estimation?

I am not against your representing such positions, if you can somehow use them to beat KIS competition in AWES testing.





On Wednesday, April 1, 2015 2:48 PM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
We've had these arguments on the forum already Dave S,
(apart from I didn't compare a brain with a pail of slime, nor judge which costs more to sustain, biologically)

You're missing the point I think.
Yes the wheel caught on. Does your bike use the same type of granite wheel as my van?
That would be more KIS.

Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17339 From: Rod Read Date: 4/1/2015
Subject: Re: Chinese credited with saving Peter Lynn from death by Megakite;
AWE?

Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17340 From: Rod Read Date: 4/1/2015
Subject: Re: Formalizing KIS (complexity metrics)
I haven't denied KIS as a prime engineering heuristic... It is a prime... Mixed with other primes designs can reach full potential in every sphere.
I have never issued a "conviction" to that effect. I'm not on that mission thanks.
AWE is the mission here.
Get with the picture.
torsion transmission... you mean torque don't mix them up.
I did not disregard cyclomatic topology.... dna doesn't have FOR NEXT IF THEN LOOP statements built in as I remember.
You don't beat KIS, you use KIS, not as a weapon or holy mantra, but as an overall guide.
Recognise the obvious benefits of simple complexity.
Slime are comlex compared to what came before, without it we'd not exist.
Yes lets build basics... (as we have for centuries) and build on them (as we have for centuries)
Get with the times to be appropriate.
We have complex tech available to operate rules which make simple sheet perform more optimally.
You'd be an April May June etc FOOL to ignore that.

Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17341 From: dave santos Date: 4/1/2015
Subject: Re: Criteria
Pierre,

It doesn't even seem possible to "understand AWE without knowing wind energy", but I admire the life and work of Husserl (and his pupil, Heidegger) and see no inherent contradiction between their phenomenology and the appreciation of kite QM (Let Sartre disagree). 

Of course, Wittgenstein is my favorite kite philosopher from this era, since he actually formed as an aeronautical engineer and flew research kites. These are not, however, figures who I see as having much to inform regarding new kite physics, but please correct me if you can provide applicable quotes.

Thank you for somehow inferring some sort of connections between my specific approaches to AWES launching, recovering, etc. and the great Husserl; even if I can't understand how you came to this "criteria", 

daveS
 



On Wednesday, April 1, 2015 3:12 PM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
DaveS,
 
Understanding BES or BEC without knowing Husserl (see Husserl Page) is understanding AWE without knowing wind energy. Please do you see any level of proto retentionality in noetico-noematic constitution in nodes making reverse links within such a network? If yes do you link it in some AWE requirements as launching, recovering or other? If yes in what way? Thanks.
 
PierreB
 
 
 
 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17342 From: dave santos Date: 4/1/2015
Subject: Re: Formalizing KIS (complexity metrics)
Rod wrote: "dna doesn't have FOR NEXT IF THEN LOOP statements built in"

You can fix that, if its true. DNA is a Universal Turing Machine, so you can now program ("build in") these statements into DNA. I suspect equivalent statements do in-fact exist already in natural genomes.


Rod also wrote: "You don't beat KIS" 

Agreed. Recalling again d'Exupery, who was a test pilot as well as bard: "A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."
 



On Wednesday, April 1, 2015 3:42 PM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
I haven't denied KIS as a prime engineering heuristic... It is a prime... Mixed with other primes designs can reach full potential in every sphere.
I have never issued a "conviction" to that effect. I'm not on that mission thanks.
AWE is the mission here.
Get with the picture.
torsion transmission... you mean torque don't mix them up.
I did not disregard cyclomatic topology.... dna doesn't have FOR NEXT IF THEN LOOP statements built in as I remember.
You don't beat KIS, you use KIS, not as a weapon or holy mantra, but as an overall guide.
Recognise the obvious benefits of simple complexity.
Slime are comlex compared to what came before, without it we'd not exist.
Yes lets build basics... (as we have for centuries) and build on them (as we have for centuries)
Get with the times to be appropriate.
We have complex tech available to operate rules which make simple sheet perform more optimally.
You'd be an April May June etc FOOL to ignore that.

Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878