Messages in AirborneWindEnergy group.                          AWES 17846 to 17895 Page 251 of 440.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17846 From: Rod Read Date: 5/12/2015
Subject: Re: Viability

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17847 From: dave santos Date: 5/12/2015
Subject: Re: Privacy Law and Ethics: Does AWEC have a "reasonable expectation

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17848 From: dave santos Date: 5/12/2015
Subject: Re: Heuristic Gedanken Proof that a Pilot-Lifter does not sap a Loop

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17849 From: dave santos Date: 5/12/2015
Subject: Re: Viability

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17850 From: dave santos Date: 5/12/2015
Subject: Object-Oriented AWES Programming for AWES

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17851 From: dave santos Date: 5/12/2015
Subject: Eliminating Kite Bars and Handles

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17852 From: dave santos Date: 5/12/2015
Subject: Entrainment between Looping-Foil and Pilot-Lifter

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17853 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 5/12/2015
Subject: Re: Entrainment between Looping-Foil and Pilot-Lifter

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17854 From: dave santos Date: 5/12/2015
Subject: Re: Entrainment between Looping-Foil and Pilot-Lifter

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17855 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/12/2015
Subject: Dancing Kites

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17856 From: dave santos Date: 5/12/2015
Subject: Re: Entrainment between Looping-Foil and Pilot-Lifter

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17857 From: Rod Read Date: 5/12/2015
Subject: Re: Viability

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17858 From: dave santos Date: 5/12/2015
Subject: Re: Viability

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17859 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/12/2015
Subject: Benjamin Franklin

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17860 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 5/12/2015
Subject: Re: Viability

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17861 From: dave santos Date: 5/12/2015
Subject: Re: Viability

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17862 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/12/2015
Subject: Re: Viability

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17863 From: dave santos Date: 5/12/2015
Subject: Re: Viability

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17864 From: Rod Read Date: 5/12/2015
Subject: Re: Object-Oriented AWES Programming for AWES

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17865 From: Rod Read Date: 5/12/2015
Subject: Re: Eliminating Kite Bars and Handles

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17866 From: Christian Harrell Date: 5/13/2015
Subject: Re: Viability

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17867 From: Christian Harrell Date: 5/13/2015
Subject: Re: Object-Oriented AWES Programming for AWES

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17868 From: dave santos Date: 5/13/2015
Subject: Re: Object-Oriented AWES Programming for AWES

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17869 From: dave santos Date: 5/13/2015
Subject: Re: Eliminating Kite Bars and Handles

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17870 From: dave santos Date: 5/13/2015
Subject: Turing Equivalence of Passive and Active AWES Automation

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17871 From: dave santos Date: 5/13/2015
Subject: Re: Viability

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17872 From: Christian Harrell Date: 5/13/2015
Subject: Re: Viability

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17873 From: dave santos Date: 5/13/2015
Subject: Re: Viability

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17874 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 5/13/2015
Subject: Re: Viability

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17875 From: Rod Read Date: 5/13/2015
Subject: Re: Enerkite's New Flying Wing [1 Attachment]

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17876 From: Rod Read Date: 5/13/2015
Subject: Re: Object-Oriented AWES Programming for AWES

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17877 From: dave santos Date: 5/13/2015
Subject: Re: Object-Oriented AWES Programming for AWES

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17878 From: Rod Read Date: 5/13/2015
Subject: Re: Eliminating Kite Bars and Handles

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17879 From: dave santos Date: 5/13/2015
Subject: Re: Enerkite's New Flying Wing

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17880 From: Christian Harrell Date: 5/13/2015
Subject: Re: Viability

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17881 From: dave santos Date: 5/13/2015
Subject: Re: Eliminating Kite Bars and Handles

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17882 From: dave santos Date: 5/13/2015
Subject: Re: Viability

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17883 From: dave santos Date: 5/13/2015
Subject: Answering Christian's reeling question

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17884 From: dave santos Date: 5/13/2015
Subject: How to waste AWE investment on patent lawyers

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17885 From: Christian Harrell Date: 5/13/2015
Subject: Re: Viability

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17886 From: dave santos Date: 5/13/2015
Subject: Re: Viability

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17887 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 5/13/2015
Subject: Re: Viability

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17888 From: dave santos Date: 5/13/2015
Subject: Re: Viability

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17889 From: dougselsam Date: 5/13/2015
Subject: Re: Viability

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17890 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 5/14/2015
Subject: Re: Viability

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17891 From: dave santos Date: 5/14/2015
Subject: Re: Viability

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17892 From: dave santos Date: 5/14/2015
Subject: Summarizing kPower's Megascale AWES Concepts

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17893 From: dave santos Date: 5/14/2015
Subject: Peter S. Lynn [2004] on arch wings

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17894 From: dave santos Date: 5/14/2015
Subject: Negative-Feedback in Passive-Stability

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17895 From: dave santos Date: 5/14/2015
Subject: Transcending current Kite-Unit Scale-Limitations



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17846 From: Rod Read Date: 5/12/2015
Subject: Re: Viability
Using an IMU for control over extended periods means using a power source from high up. (probably AWE)
The power load of an IMU and microcontroller are less than the actuation (say servo)
A power conditioning circuit to handle the output of our RAT / Kitesat / xwind flygen / whatever
would want to store enough to provide for the most exceptional load - gen deficit circumstances... e.g. when falling in low wind but trying to steer to stay aloft for 2 hours.

I can't much be arshed with low level efficient langauges like c++
English is tricky enough for me.
I work in pretty conceptual pictures preferably.


Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17847 From: dave santos Date: 5/12/2015
Subject: Re: Privacy Law and Ethics: Does AWEC have a "reasonable expectation
Pierre,

I sincerely disagree. AWEC's secret history will remain a topic of interest. Years of questions remain unanswered. 

Let "manners" be your idea of a important complaint. My focus will remain to find out what happened. If Doug is also curious about AWEC, that's wonderful,

daveS



On Monday, May 11, 2015 11:15 PM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
No relevance, no technical contents, no sense of debate. DaveS' monologue for echo-chamber Doug qualifies.
 
PierreB
 
 
 
 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17848 From: dave santos Date: 5/12/2015
Subject: Re: Heuristic Gedanken Proof that a Pilot-Lifter does not sap a Loop
Pierre is mistaken guessing that a looping-foil under a pilot kite is somehow less stable than a looping-foil without a pilot. Also, Moritz never claimed to redefine what a "dancing kite" traditionally is, only borrowed an old term. A decade earlier, Martin Bondestam in particular prominently embraced the "dancing kite", in its traditional sense. This remains the standard meaning, and accurately represents the Dutch roll of a common kite, and the pilot-kite reacting to a looper.

Rod seems unaware of my activist stance on behalf of giant rights and thoughts, including a proper burial for Charlie O'Brian. In no way did I impugn giants by relying on them to rebut a false kite conjecture. Pierre and Christian should try the pilot-lifter method, if they can't otherwise automate loopers, and thus stand on the shoulders of kite-giants.



On Tuesday, May 12, 2015 12:35 AM, "pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
"Dancing kites" by Moritz Diehl's description has two identical wings and need an active control mechanism. The same for pilot-kite and looping-foil, adding needed balancing.
While pushing more passive control is a good basis to push inherent stability of studied system, active control will be needed for adapatibility to different winds, for launching and recovery, and that for all AWES.

PierreB
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17849 From: dave santos Date: 5/12/2015
Subject: Re: Viability
Christian badly misunderstands if he imagines just one design exists for loopers, such that a marine version requires much "redesign" (see drawings). If only Christian and Pierre would diligently test pilot-lifter use, their opinions would surely evolve. Test, test, test...

Lets see how long it takes for the latest proposed active control kite project to catch up with passive control methods. I would be pleased if Christian can define for the world a clean object-oriented AWES model to code in C++, since not even the EU PhD class has ever gotten so far.



On Tuesday, May 12, 2015 3:59 AM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
Using an IMU for control over extended periods means using a power source from high up. (probably AWE)
The power load of an IMU and microcontroller are less than the actuation (say servo)
A power conditioning circuit to handle the output of our RAT / Kitesat / xwind flygen / whatever
would want to store enough to provide for the most exceptional load - gen deficit circumstances... e.g. when falling in low wind but trying to steer to stay aloft for 2 hours.

I can't much be arshed with low level efficient langauges like c++
English is tricky enough for me.
I work in pretty conceptual pictures preferably.


Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17850 From: dave santos Date: 5/12/2015
Subject: Object-Oriented AWES Programming for AWES
Never mind the hardware nightmares in automating kites, where sensor uncertainty and actuation insufficiency is compounded by microcontroller limitations in the face of formal hyperchaos. Set aside the FAA need for real-time clean-room standard code. Pretend its time to properly architect an object-oriented kite software architecture programmed in an OOP language like C++.

So were is the stable domain ontology to properly define an AWES OOP architecture? Read every academic paper there is, and at best you find a preliminary ad-hoc attempts to define a narrow premature architectural down-select. How long will it take before this barrier is overcome? Maybe decades. Who on the Forum is ready to define a sound AWES ontology?

The prediction is that all current AWES software projects will bog down in bleeding-edge issues. Prototypes will fly and crash, hardware will become obsolete overnight, control paradigms will shift in fashion; rendering masses of badly documented code comepletly useless. The eventual winner will be like the starship that leaves last but arrives first, by superior technology.

What then is the value of trying? Those who try will learn what it really takes, and some will persevere. The trick is to learn from every crappy starship in turn without boarding, to be riding the last one.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17851 From: dave santos Date: 5/12/2015
Subject: Eliminating Kite Bars and Handles
The most annoying thing about kPower's 2m2 Peter Lynn Skin (SS) power kite is the handles. The kite is so light and packs so small that the rigid handles are the major mass and bulk of the system. The skin is a four-line kite, so one cannot just use soft hand-loops, like a two-line kite, to replace four-line handles. 

A solution turns out to be Ray Bethel's trick to make one's waist into a kite bar/handle replacement (so as to fly three kites in ballet mode). Thus one may secure the front two kite lines on either side of a waist belt, and fly the brake lines by hand from soft loops, with pulley-based tension relief to the belt (common with power-kite handles). The nicely spread load on the belt also eliminates the spreader bar on kite harnesses. A remaining easy requirement is ordinary kite-killer capability. The belt itself might serve as the bag.

Now one can carry awesome controllable power in a small soft pack.

CC+ Open-AWE IP-Pool
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17852 From: dave santos Date: 5/12/2015
Subject: Entrainment between Looping-Foil and Pilot-Lifter
Pierre questioned how a Looping-Foil and Pilot-Lifter passively synch constructively. The answer is that they must have similar natural frequencies (based on similar scale) and be interconnected, then they will "entrain"*, just as Huygens famous clocks centuries ago. 

Thus, the looper tells the pilot how to dance as the pilot tells the looper which way is up. Sweet kite physics, yet again. It is long predicted on this Forum that vast AWES lattices will passively entrain in coherent patterns suited for energy harvesting [KiteLab Group].

--------------------------
* wikipedia-
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17853 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 5/12/2015
Subject: Re: Entrainment between Looping-Foil and Pilot-Lifter

Accumulations of half truths make full lies.

 

PierreB

 

 

 

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17854 From: dave santos Date: 5/12/2015
Subject: Re: Entrainment between Looping-Foil and Pilot-Lifter
More background links supporting KiteLab AWES array concepts as presented here over the years. We are blessed with advanced theoretic engineering models to inform revolutionary kite design and testing. Note the inherent quantum chaos aspect. So much here is far beyond classical assumptions-






On Tuesday, May 12, 2015 11:53 AM, dave santos <santos137@yahoo.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17855 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/12/2015
Subject: Dancing Kites

Invited over time:  This topic for "dancing kites". 

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


Preamble adventure text:   http://tinyurl.com/dancingkites

Preamble adventure images: http://tinyurl.com/IMAGESdancingkites

Preamble adventure videos: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=%22dancing+kites%22

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



 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17856 From: dave santos Date: 5/12/2015
Subject: Re: Entrainment between Looping-Foil and Pilot-Lifter
Pierre, 

Just try testing actual pilot-looper interaction, if you really think explanations based on Wikipedia physics amount to "full lies".

Without testing or the best physics, how can you be so sure your more pessimistic AWES ideas are sound?

daveS






On Tuesday, May 12, 2015 12:54 PM, dave santos <santos137@yahoo.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17857 From: Rod Read Date: 5/12/2015
Subject: Re: Viability

Just to clarify, lifter control can be as little as 1 servo.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17858 From: dave santos Date: 5/12/2015
Subject: Re: Viability
One servo is the easy bit; the rest the control hardware is far harder, and the software even harder still.

Lucky for us a pilot flies rather well with no servos at all.



On Tuesday, May 12, 2015 2:21 PM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
Just to clarify, lifter control can be as little as 1 servo.


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17859 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/12/2015
Subject: Benjamin Franklin
Attachments :

    Collect AWES items related to Benjamin Franklin

    in this topic thread.  

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

    Start with an image of some of his maritime suggestions.

    Attached.


    		   @@attachment@@
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17860 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 5/12/2015
    Subject: Re: Viability

    Christian,

     

     

    Is it for users of kiteboarding and other power kites a mean to know some features of wing (speed air, speed ground, traction, trajectories...) in this particular case by electronic measures under sensors?  

     

    PierreB

     

     

     
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17861 From: dave santos Date: 5/12/2015
    Subject: Re: Viability
    Christian,

    Also please explain "elliptical kite power",

    daveS

    Search: "No results found for "elliptical kite power"."
     



    On Tuesday, May 12, 2015 3:42 PM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
    Christian,
     
     
    Is it for users of kiteboarding and other power kites a mean to know some features of wing (speed air, speed ground, traction, trajectories...) in this particular case by electronic measures under sensors?  
     
    PierreB
     
     
     
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17862 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/12/2015
    Subject: Re: Viability

    Elliptical-kite power is power embedded in a kite system that uses wings where the leading edge approximates the shape of a part of the circumference of an ellipse.  Such is sometimes contrasted with the power obtain from a wing of close shape, but is not elliptical for the leading-edge curve. Different lines for the projection of leading edges: straight line, circular line, parabolic line, catenary line ... compete with elliptical lines.  In the sport parafoil power kite market soaring parachute market, comparison of elliptical planforms are compared with rectangular planforms for the wings.


    Planform - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    Elliptical wing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 



    STARKLKY RECTANGULAR (not elliptical):

    \ ===


    Foil kite - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia     discusses the elliptical power kite some.

     
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17863 From: dave santos Date: 5/12/2015
    Subject: Re: Viability
    The problem is that "elliptical kites" of many kinds are so old varied and common, so if you search on "elliptical kite" you mostly get random types.

    If instead you write "elliptical power kite" or "elliptical parafoil", then the kite subject matter experts know exactly what you mean. Somehow you mean an elliptical planform power kite and Pierre's flygen might make a "revolutionary" combo, but that's also quite opaque and hyperbolic. What exactly is the new inventive leap you are claiming?






    On Tuesday, May 12, 2015 8:02 PM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
    Elliptical-kite power is power embedded in a kite system that uses wings where the leading edge approximates the shape of a part of the circumference of an ellipse.  Such is sometimes contrasted with the power obtain from a wing of close shape, but is not elliptical for the leading-edge curve. Different lines for the projection of leading edges: straight line, circular line, parabolic line, catenary line ... compete with elliptical lines.  In the sport parafoil power kite market soaring parachute market, comparison of elliptical planforms are compared with rectangular planforms for the wings.




    STARKLKY RECTANGULAR (not elliptical):
    \ ===

    Foil kite - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia     discusses the elliptical power kite some.
     
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17864 From: Rod Read Date: 5/12/2015
    Subject: Re: Object-Oriented AWES Programming for AWES

    Bit too much DOOOOOM predicted.

    were is the stable domain ontology.
    KITE UP   /   KITE DOWN
    Thought that was all you need for Mothra monitoring.
    That's 1 transistor worth.

    The prediction is that all current AWES software projects will bog down in bleeding-edge issues. Prototypes will fly and crash, hardware will become obsolete overnight, control paradigms will shift in fashion; rendering masses of badly documented code comepletly useless.

    Successful software is already deployed in AWES. Tech is as good as you make it. If you're on a faster open source space ship with software version 3.5.769 having learnt from all the other space ships you'd better stop and pick up hitch hiker giants along the way.

    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17865 From: Rod Read Date: 5/12/2015
    Subject: Re: Eliminating Kite Bars and Handles

    Even with my dancing prowess (like an electric octopus) 🐙
    A waist belt ain't gonna pull the moves a pair of handles and a skin can throw.
    Keeping the balance of hardly any brake is easy enough with practice even despite the crap handles.
    10yr old kid managed to fly one in near dark... His first kite last weekend.

    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17866 From: Christian Harrell Date: 5/13/2015
    Subject: Re: Viability
    Pierre,

    I think your tech would be perfect for running vital instruments, I still think using direct aerodynamic force would be the most effective way to produce kite power, but instruments are still critical for automation, lighting, furling, etc. Your rig would be ideal for running those instruments. I apologize for any confusion when I mentioned elliptical kite power. It's a coined term my team and I use we discuss looping, as the loop is not a perfect circle but an ellipse, we very much mimic and rely on orbital geometry. 

    Christian 
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17867 From: Christian Harrell Date: 5/13/2015
    Subject: Re: Object-Oriented AWES Programming for AWES
    Remember how kids used to play with remote control cars? Well, not so much anymore.. Now the build their own quadcopters, equipped with cameras and sensitive servos for as little as $50 USD! .. This tech is growing exponentially and it is critical to keep up. It would be silly to think its not worth innovating. The fact that this tech keeps getting better is exactly why innovation is so much fun. 
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17868 From: dave santos Date: 5/13/2015
    Subject: Re: Object-Oriented AWES Programming for AWES
    AWES flight software is in its infancy, and very primitive. Fort Felker [2010] is far more realistic about what it takes, and the mountain of perfected code simply does not exist yet. We are not talking about toys that crash harmlessly, but systems where folks could easily die.

    So where is a the real OOP AWES design? Its not just two simple state objects, like up or down, but hundreds of interacting objects in a complex chaotic environment. Its definitely not a quadcopter toy, which we had almost thirty years ago (at least in the Austin Robot Group).

    Fully autonomous AWES flight software is a perfect quagmire for the inexperienced. Watch how far novices get with an actual OOP AWES design. Meanwhile, the human-pilot supervised pilot-kite based AWES (with simple non-OOP autopilot aids) will stand as the baseline cost-performance comparison. Quality AWES OOP designs will emerge from pro programmers working with aerospace domain experts. At least anyone who wants to participate has years to study-up.



    On Wednesday, May 13, 2015 1:02 AM, "Christian Harrell christianharrell@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
    Remember how kids used to play with remote control cars? Well, not so much anymore.. Now the build their own quadcopters, equipped with cameras and sensitive servos for as little as $50 USD! .. This tech is growing exponentially and it is critical to keep up. It would be silly to think its not worth innovating. The fact that this tech keeps getting better is exactly why innovation is so much fun. 

    On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 11:33 PM, Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy] <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com


    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17869 From: dave santos Date: 5/13/2015
    Subject: Re: Eliminating Kite Bars and Handles
    Of course Ray Bethel is the greatest kite flier ever known, so his technique may not be suited for non kite-gods.

    Since kite bars commonly only steer the brake lines, with the front lines usually brought together at the center, the ability to add some waist input is a bonus from eliminating the spreader-bar.

    The real value of this idea-space is not its current state, but its potential. A "soft-bar" solution is up to us to desire and perfect...



    On Tuesday, May 12, 2015 11:49 PM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
    Even with my dancing prowess (like an electric octopus) 🐙
    A waist belt ain't gonna pull the moves a pair of handles and a skin can throw.
    Keeping the balance of hardly any brake is easy enough with practice even despite the crap handles.
    10yr old kid managed to fly one in near dark... His first kite last weekend.


    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17870 From: dave santos Date: 5/13/2015
    Subject: Turing Equivalence of Passive and Active AWES Automation
    The modern foundation of computer science is the theorem of Turing Equivalence, whereby equivalent computation capability can exist across many kinds of processors and languages.

    Given that comparable AWES outputs are being demonstrated that rely on either passive or active controls (or some mix), its proposed here that these contrasting approaches are essentially Turing Equivalent.

    Cybernetic Physics is the computer-science discipline that explores the computational basis of our passively-automated situated-agent kite designs. A point-by-point logical mapping between passive and active control is being revealed, under established computer science principles.

    In this light, it is proposed as a common fallacy in AWE that only active-controls are in principle suitable for AWES. Instead, a pragmatic combination of passive and active control paradigms seems more promising.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17871 From: dave santos Date: 5/13/2015
    Subject: Re: Viability
    Christian,

    If you acquire Pierre's unit for evaluation, please also score Dan Tracy's similar unit, right there in Seattle (linked below), and test them side-by-side, as reasonable due diligence. You could already have some in hand, but were hauling your boat in pouring rain when Dan slipped me three units in the Museum of Flight parking lot.

    Its still unclear if you have ever said just exactly what your claimed inventive leap might be (or if your solution is instead derivative). Your excitement over 3D printing, C++, and other details is great; but is no substitute for stating exactly are you propose to add to the AWE concept space, or what known concept you are emulating. So what is your specific AWES design basis?

    TIA for answering this big question clearly,

    daveS

    Note: these are much the same units flown on Dan's flygen AWES-






    On Wednesday, May 13, 2015 12:45 AM, "Christian Harrell christianharrell@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
    Pierre,

    I think your tech would be perfect for running vital instruments, I still think using direct aerodynamic force would be the most effective way to produce kite power, but instruments are still critical for automation, lighting, furling, etc. Your rig would be ideal for running those instruments. I apologize for any confusion when I mentioned elliptical kite power. It's a coined term my team and I use we discuss looping, as the loop is not a perfect circle but an ellipse, we very much mimic and rely on orbital geometry. 

    Christian 

    On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 8:25 PM, dave santos santos137@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy] <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com


    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17872 From: Christian Harrell Date: 5/13/2015
    Subject: Re: Viability
    Since the flygen is already open source, I think it will be best to research both devices and devise a solution that fits my purposes while consulting the experts in the field, I plan on keeping this (flygen) segment open source but I do think I have a bit to contribute. As we know, the final phase is automation, I like to keep that in mind throughout the design process, this makes it easier to incorporate the idea in the long run. The flygen will be excellent for carrying a gyroscopic sensor/ accelerometer 

    https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=gyroscopic+sensor+arduino&tbm=shop

    (coupled with a windmeter on the ground) while under manual control to help calibrate and graph different parameters for autonomous controls to come. This means we can gather valuable AWES data while we experiment with the kite-boat and learn about different kite flying styles and dynamics. 

    As far as our tech

    Our terminology is a bit different. A line (starboard) B line (port) De (Depower). As you know I dont care much for nomenclature, or conventional terminology, It often puts my thinking into a box, if I am to play with ideas and truly innovate new solutions, I need that mental freedom. If I am unclear on anything, just ask. 

    Anyway, like Ive said before, our system greatly simplifies flying. The B line rotates around the A line with our KiteEngine. As the center A line is pulled, the kite begins rotating clockwise (let out line and the kite flies counter clockwise), and the B line circles around the A line to avoid fouling the lines. By using this technique we can modulate the size, frequency and eccentricity of the kite orbit with one line. 


    Christian 
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17873 From: dave santos Date: 5/13/2015
    Subject: Re: Viability
    Christian,

    Expect to be constantly misunderstood if you neglected the homework of learning the language of aerospace, to instead just talk to yourself in coined words. Similarly, prepare to eventually learn how much is overlooked by willful ignorance of prior art and domain expertise in AWE. Its toubling that despite all your investment promotion, you truly have no major new concept to add yet, nor are you learning all you can from other developers by ever fully understanding engineering-speak. 

    You therefore could become an AWE con-man or crackpot, and not even realize it. Lets hope your investor is fairly informed of the grave biz risk of narcissistic optimism in AWE. kPower instead expects that the winning AWE solutions will only emerge by gathering the best ideas from many minds, not just our own. Lets hope you someday add something real to the collective tool-box.

    On a point of metric judgement, I will wager $1k that I can properly dig and set a large Mothra sand-anchor in under ten minutes, without hurry. The next time we set those anchors, we'll document for you the actual time I required, by video or third-party timing,

    daveS



    On Wednesday, May 13, 2015 11:25 AM, "Christian Harrell christianharrell@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
    Since the flygen is already open source, I think it will be best to research both devices and devise a solution that fits my purposes while consulting the experts in the field, I plan on keeping this (flygen) segment open source but I do think I have a bit to contribute. As we know, the final phase is automation, I like to keep that in mind throughout the design process, this makes it easier to incorporate the idea in the long run. The flygen will be excellent for carrying a gyroscopic sensor/ accelerometer 

    https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=gyroscopic+sensor+arduino&tbm=shop

    (coupled with a windmeter on the ground) while under manual control to help calibrate and graph different parameters for autonomous controls to come. This means we can gather valuable AWES data while we experiment with the kite-boat and learn about different kite flying styles and dynamics. 

    As far as our tech

    Our terminology is a bit different. A line (starboard) B line (port) De (Depower). As you know I dont care much for nomenclature, or conventional terminology, It often puts my thinking into a box, if I am to play with ideas and truly innovate new solutions, I need that mental freedom. If I am unclear on anything, just ask. 

    Anyway, like Ive said before, our system greatly simplifies flying. The B line rotates around the A line with our KiteEngine. As the center A line is pulled, the kite begins rotating clockwise (let out line and the kite flies counter clockwise), and the B line circles around the A line to avoid fouling the lines. By using this technique we can modulate the size, frequency and eccentricity of the kite orbit with one line. 


    Christian 




    On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 9:37 AM, dave santos santos137@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy] <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com


    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17874 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 5/13/2015
    Subject: Re: Viability

    Christian,

     

    Do you see automated instruments as an assistance to the manual piloting of kiteboarding or similar?

     

    PierreB

     

     

     

     
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17875 From: Rod Read Date: 5/13/2015
    Subject: Re: Enerkite's New Flying Wing [1 Attachment]
    I'm thinking a container ship would work better by kite if you first consider the ship deck dimensions in terms of a kite spreader bar from which to govern your network of kites by retractable deck mesh rigging upon which your framework of flying rigging, rolling retraction devices and generation equipment is set.
    Thus a whole setup can be rigged as 1 easy fit easily removable component (a bag of sausage wrapped rigging and kixel) easily parametrically custom fit to mount to deck shackles arrayed over the boat topsides. Using high areas for flying lines and low deck areas for mounting control actuators.
    Set by boat crane if preferred to remove crane component redundancies time at sea.
    Socks and wraps can easily be set over the furled networks for stowage or storm-wear.
    Imagine what you could control with a 300m wide spreader bar... That's how much control a container ship mounted network can let you fly.
    Launching a kite taking all of that size however would be a structural test of any hull. Kixel networks will fit hull dynamics much more reliably than a single line kite at that scale. However the scale of a deck mesh could easily assist launch of single line kites with spread bridle releasing keeping control of the whole kite wide until phased release of smaller bridle sets lead to a single massive rope.
    OPEN AWES POOL IP

    Rod Read

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

    07899057227
    01851 870878
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17876 From: Rod Read Date: 5/13/2015
    Subject: Re: Object-Oriented AWES Programming for AWES
    Dave S,
    Do you understand what OOP is?
    What's your specific grief with it?
    Have you any idea of maybe 1 or several ways how you'd go about it?
    OOOOOOPS
    OOP is not some unassailable logic mountain. It disnae hae to be as protracted and twisted as an AWES forum thread.

    Rod Read

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

    07899057227
    01851 870878
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17877 From: dave santos Date: 5/13/2015
    Subject: Re: Object-Oriented AWES Programming for AWES
    C++ is the OOP extension to C itself, which runs better if you are not going to define OOP dependencies.

    The presumption is that Christian was in fact proposing architecting an OOP system, but maybe he was not.



    On Wednesday, May 13, 2015 3:42 PM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
    Dave S,
    Do you understand what OOP is?
    What's your specific grief with it?
    Have you any idea of maybe 1 or several ways how you'd go about it?
    OOOOOOPS
    OOP is not some unassailable logic mountain. It disnae hae to be as protracted and twisted as an AWES forum thread.

    Rod Read

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

    07899057227
    01851 870878
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17878 From: Rod Read Date: 5/13/2015
    Subject: Re: Eliminating Kite Bars and Handles
    Attachments :
      OK there's the soft bar solution over a deck as-well but
      Check Ray Bethel out https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nr9KrqN_lIg
      He using 2 line kites with banana handles And he's got them dancing beautifully all over the place.
      They're big graceful smooth riding tail curling swoops... like watching ballroom dancing.
      That's much more complex than is needed for AWES... Roll the banana in left out right hardly a transistor of code.
      And not as extreme a turn as a skin kite gives... They can sit spinning an elipse in 1 spot in the sky... They don't drop.
      I'm sure Ray flies other kites like a karate toting ninja. Probably even with his hip wiggle.

      Rod Read

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

      07899057227
      01851 870878
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17879 From: dave santos Date: 5/13/2015
      Subject: Re: Enerkite's New Flying Wing
      This is a good thinking beyond the bow-anchor presumption KiteShip and SkySails were forced to accept. A minimalist compromise could be to still occupy vacant bow space, but run an optimal towpath line from the kite to the rail just forward of the beam. A net suspended over deck clutter could be a real asset. Using the whole boat as the kitebar for stabilizing a huge wing is a nice conceptual extension to using the ground as a spar medium, as kite arches and domes do.

      Open-AWE_IP-Pool



      On Wednesday, May 13, 2015 3:31 PM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
      I'm thinking a container ship would work better by kite if you first consider the ship deck dimensions in terms of a kite spreader bar from which to govern your network of kites by retractable deck mesh rigging upon which your framework of flying rigging, rolling retraction devices and generation equipment is set.
      Thus a whole setup can be rigged as 1 easy fit easily removable component (a bag of sausage wrapped rigging and kixel) easily parametrically custom fit to mount to deck shackles arrayed over the boat topsides. Using high areas for flying lines and low deck areas for mounting control actuators.
      Set by boat crane if preferred to remove crane component redundancies time at sea.
      Socks and wraps can easily be set over the furled networks for stowage or storm-wear.
      Imagine what you could control with a 300m wide spreader bar... That's how much control a container ship mounted network can let you fly.
      Launching a kite taking all of that size however would be a structural test of any hull. Kixel networks will fit hull dynamics much more reliably than a single line kite at that scale. However the scale of a deck mesh could easily assist launch of single line kites with spread bridle releasing keeping control of the whole kite wide until phased release of smaller bridle sets lead to a single massive rope.
      OPEN AWES POOL IP

      Rod Read

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

      07899057227
      01851 870878
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17880 From: Christian Harrell Date: 5/13/2015
      Subject: Re: Viability

      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17881 From: dave santos Date: 5/13/2015
      Subject: Re: Eliminating Kite Bars and Handles
      Attachments :
      Ray seemingly only flies the Kestrels Joel Sholtz made for him years ago, since that is what he does all day long, at festivals around the world, for decades now. I am sure he has-flown other kites, but I have never seen him do so.

      Part of his genius is to master his rig like any music virtuoso who relentlessly plays just one instrument. Beyond even that, he invented this style of flying, and the rig to do it. I think of Lee Sedgwick here too, the one who perfected the stunt-kite by adding the little stretcher spars that stiffen the 3D profile.

      In elite kite culture we mostly learn from our elders, in order to go beyond ourselves. It has been my privilege to know and learn from all three of these masters how better to think outside of boxes.
       



      On Wednesday, May 13, 2015 3:59 PM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
      OK there's the soft bar solution over a deck as-well but
      Check Ray Bethel out https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nr9KrqN_lIg
      He using 2 line kites with banana handles And he's got them dancing beautifully all over the place.
      They're big graceful smooth riding tail curling swoops... like watching ballroom dancing.
      That's much more complex than is needed for AWES... Roll the banana in left out right hardly a transistor of code.
      And not as extreme a turn as a skin kite gives... They can sit spinning an elipse in 1 spot in the sky... They don't drop.
      I'm sure Ray flies other kites like a karate toting ninja. Probably even with his hip wiggle.

      Rod Read

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

      07899057227
      01851 870878



      		   @@attachment@@
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17882 From: dave santos Date: 5/13/2015
      Subject: Re: Viability
      Christian,

      Yes, the Wrights in fact did need to master the engineering science of their day, corresponding at great length as equals with the leading aeronautical professors like Chanute and Langley. Please read the Wright's collected letters and journals to confirm they had fully mastered the ""correct" terminology" of their day, and that you guessed completely wrong.

      You seem to think your willful ignorance is a virtue, and that is upsetting, since it means to me you have very little chance to add to our knowledge, will probably waste your investor's money, and may even get someone hurt or killed.

      daveS



      On Wednesday, May 13, 2015 4:29 PM, "Christian Harrell christianharrell@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  


      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17883 From: dave santos Date: 5/13/2015
      Subject: Answering Christian's reeling question
      Christian asked: "f the B line rotates around the A line ( It would hardly worth be calling them port and starboard lines dont you think?) while the kite is in the air, how would you propose reeling in both of the lines to a stationary platform while performing maneuvers in the air? (No microcontroller or sensors are required.) "

      Answer: I have long proposed using BMX free-style detangler headsets for prototyping your sort of rig (if I understood the vague description properly). Hollow swivels also exist as COTS solutions. Many other tricks should work as well, without microprocessor, sensors, etc..
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17884 From: dave santos Date: 5/13/2015
      Subject: How to waste AWE investment on patent lawyers
      Christian wrote: "Its the attorney's job to research the prior art and I have great faith in their skills ."

      In fact, there is not a patent attorney on planet Earth even close to Joe Faust as the top authoritative savant on AWES prior art. It would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars for lawyer hours to catch up to Joe.

      Here on the Forum, after over five years, we have not found any current AWES patent claim we could not shoot down by producing hidden prior art, despite the best efforts of so many lawyers. We also can name effective work-arounds, should any AWES patent claim ever be upheld in court (none ever has).

      In AWE, "great faith" in patent lawyers is definitely a bad idea; but at least its way out of the box.
       
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17885 From: Christian Harrell Date: 5/13/2015
      Subject: Re: Viability
      Dave,

       black and white again.. 

      We will see who comes out on top in the end. Good luck to you. 
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17886 From: dave santos Date: 5/13/2015
      Subject: Re: Viability
      Christian,

      Well yes, it is quite black and white that the Wrights used correct engineering nomenclature in order to succeed.

      Please just be sure your team and investor faithfully get both sides of the differing opinions presented here (not just a grey muddle, but also the black and white aspects).

      Never mind who finally "comes out on top in the end" (probably GE); for now the top winners are all those who have the most fun while adding tangibly to collective AWE knowledge. Praying you soon make that list, especially by black and white criteria,

      daveS




      On Wednesday, May 13, 2015 5:18 PM, "Christian Harrell christianharrell@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
      Dave,

       black and white again.. 

      We will see who comes out on top in the end. Good luck to you. 







      On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 4:40 PM, dave santos santos137@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy] <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com


      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17887 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 5/13/2015
      Subject: Re: Viability

      "Its the attorney's job to research the prior art and I have great faith in their skills ."

      I agree for the relevance of patent offices, and that for several times . Yesterday I received an international search report with very relevant comments from a patent examiner mentioning prior art. Examiners of patent offices have no emotional load or particular intentions : they only make their job. Patent offices are the first references to analysis prior art, in AWE as in other fields.

       

      PierreB

       

       

       

       
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17888 From: dave santos Date: 5/13/2015
      Subject: Re: Viability
      Pierre,

      You may recall the patent system study referenced in recent years finding that patent examiners and attorneys can no longer keep up with the world's patent flood. Even more problematic is keeping up with non-patented prior art. JoeF is the best AWE patent expert on Earth, if you really want to find prior art to invalidate a claim.

      The reason that JoeF is superior to your patent examiner is precisely his passion and AWE domain expertise. He is not just doing a government job for money. Of course those who choose to pay into the patent system want to think they choose wisely, but money does not buy the best of human service, which is instead based on love.

      So show us what your patent examiner did for your money, and we will do better for free; out of a more socially generous spirit. Of course this means we deeply want AWE knowledge to belong to all, not just the rich able to afford patents. Its encouraging to recall how many patent holders mature in spirit, regret the patent effort, and release their IP to the world (like Rogallo in kites, and recently Musk, in electric cars).

      Everybody with idle AWE patents is invited to add them into the Open-AWE_IP-Pool, if they want to earn more certain royalties as a class, for best-in-industry low-cost IP licensing. The pool defense strategy thwarts coercion by isolated patent trolls, which overworked patent examiners and greedy lawyers allow to flourish. Maybe someday you and Christian will join the Pool,

      daveS



      On Wednesday, May 13, 2015 8:46 PM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
      "Its the attorney's job to research the prior art and I have great faith in their skills ."
      I agree for the relevance of patent offices, and that for several times . Yesterday I received an international search report with very relevant comments from a patent examiner mentioning prior art. Examiners of patent offices have no emotional load or particular intentions : they only make their job. Patent offices are the first references to analysis prior art, in AWE as in other fields.
       
      PierreB
       
       
       
       
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17889 From: dougselsam Date: 5/13/2015
      Subject: Re: Viability
      "I will wager $1k that I can properly dig and set a large Mothra sand-anchor in under ten minutes, without hurry."   *** try eating a piece of bread in under a minute with no water to drink.
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17890 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 5/14/2015
      Subject: Re: Viability

      "JoeF is the best AWE patent expert on Earth" : the same for DaveS.

      It is a good beginning for impartiality in examination of prior art.

       

      PierreB

       

       

       
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17891 From: dave santos Date: 5/14/2015
      Subject: Re: Viability
      Pierre,

      Having been so close to the early start-up, I have always both praised and critiqued Makani and have been very careful to praise the hard-working engineers. Corwin especially deserves praise for working so hard, and I blame the corrupted Silicon Valley venture culture that spawned Makani for killing him. I still imagine Makani could reform after the M600 fails to meet requirements. Anyone who thinks Makani only deserves either praise or condemnation, but not both, is uninformed.

      I thought the 2004 Peter S. Lynn report was Pete's not Peter, and do not know yet which the "S" refers to. Even if you have never confused them, many do. In this case, that 2004 prototype was never my reference here. I was referencing far earlier Lynn flygen experiments that father and son may even have done together. Lets seek to fairly give priority credit to whoever is earliest known, no matter who is disappointed,

      daveS





      On Thursday, May 14, 2015 1:15 AM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
      "JoeF is the best AWE patent expert on Earth" : the same for DaveS.
      It is a good beginning for impartiality in examination of prior art.
       
      PierreB
       
       
       
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17892 From: dave santos Date: 5/14/2015
      Subject: Summarizing kPower's Megascale AWES Concepts
      Keep in mind the following is proposed for testing along with any other megascale schemes that can perform a fly-off. What is pitched by kPower is testing broadly, not an a-priori down-select of any single concept-
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17893 From: dave santos Date: 5/14/2015
      Subject: Peter S. Lynn [2004] on arch wings
      This brilliant analysis helps explain how Mothra1 easily supported an aspect-ratio of 10-


      "Structurally Arch style wings are analogous to a cylindrical pressure vessel, by comparison rotor blades and conventional wings are analogous to square pressure vessels. Not surprisingly there is an approximately tenfold weight and cost difference. With a little analysis it is quickly seen that the aerodynamic deficiencies of the arch wing are easily compensated for by increased aspect ratio, at little structural cost. Indeed the utilisation of still higher aspect ratio arch wings would seem probable, increasing fuel efficiency over conventional aircraft. Such a wing is not directly possible on a conventional aircraft as like a paraglider it requires a considerable bridle length to efficiently transfer the lift force from the wing to the payload."

      http://web.archive.org/web/20050829141827/www.inet.net.nz/~cbrent/pete/
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17894 From: dave santos Date: 5/14/2015
      Subject: Negative-Feedback in Passive-Stability
      Continuing the theme of Cybernetical Phyics, a basic process in our evolving kite passive-control theory is negative feedback, whereby deviation of kite system from its desired state is corrected by progressively feeding back force information to the system from the deviation. Negative Feedback is the top principle of classic kite stability, whereby the pendulum mass, tail, bridle, or other kite part progressively corrects deviation caused by wind chaos.
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17895 From: dave santos Date: 5/14/2015
      Subject: Transcending current Kite-Unit Scale-Limitations
      The size limit to kite-units has been heuristically supposed to be in the range of 10,000m2, based on the validated sports field tarp similarity case. However, by means of kites as pick-and-place actuators, "the sky is the limit" as to how large a single membrane can be manipulated. A super-Mothra could be assembled by such kites better than by any other known means.

      In effect, a kite system can do the job of a giant airborne crane far beyond the scale of ordinary cranes, and far beyond the lifting capacity of the largest helicopters.

      Open-AWE_IP-Pool