Messages in AirborneWindEnergy group.                          AWES 17896 to 17945 Page 252 of 440.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17896 From: dave santos Date: 5/14/2015
Subject: Topological Classification of Kite Structure as a Simplical Complex

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17897 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/14/2015
Subject: Re: Aerotecture

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17898 From: Rod Read Date: 5/14/2015
Subject: Re: Enerkite's New Flying Wing

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17899 From: dave santos Date: 5/14/2015
Subject: Re: Enerkite's New Flying Wing

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17900 From: dave santos Date: 5/14/2015
Subject: Re: Aerotecture

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17901 From: Rod Read Date: 5/15/2015
Subject: Re: Enerkite's New Flying Wing

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17902 From: dave santos Date: 5/15/2015
Subject: Remembering Wubbo Ockels on the first anniversary of his death

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17903 From: dougselsam Date: 5/15/2015
Subject: Re: Remembering Wubbo Ockels on the first anniversary of his death

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17904 From: benhaiemp Date: 5/15/2015
Subject: Progress in AWE (utility-scale)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17905 From: dougselsam Date: 5/16/2015
Subject: Re: Progress in AWE (utility-scale)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17906 From: benhaiemp Date: 5/16/2015
Subject: Re: Progress in AWE (utility-scale)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17907 From: benhaiemp Date: 5/16/2015
Subject: Re: Progress in AWE (utility-scale)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17908 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/16/2015
Subject: Re: Progress in AWE (utility-scale)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17909 From: dougselsam Date: 5/17/2015
Subject: Re: Progress in AWE (utility-scale)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17910 From: dougselsam Date: 5/17/2015
Subject: Re: Progress in AWE (utility-scale)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17911 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 5/17/2015
Subject: Re: Progress in AWE (utility-scale)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17912 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 5/17/2015
Subject: Re: Progress in AWE (utility-scale)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17913 From: dave santos Date: 5/17/2015
Subject: Re: Progress in AWE (utility-scale)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17914 From: dave santos Date: 5/17/2015
Subject: Re: Progress in AWE (utility-scale)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17915 From: dave santos Date: 5/17/2015
Subject: Re: Progress in AWE (utility-scale)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17916 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 5/17/2015
Subject: Re: Progress in AWE (utility-scale)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17917 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 5/17/2015
Subject: Re: Progress in AWE (utility-scale)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17918 From: Rod Read Date: 5/17/2015
Subject: Launch from water

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17919 From: Rod Read Date: 5/17/2015
Subject: Daisy test day

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17920 From: Rod Read Date: 5/17/2015
Subject: Re: Daisy test day

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17921 From: dave santos Date: 5/17/2015
Subject: Re: Daisy test day

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17922 From: Rod Read Date: 5/17/2015
Subject: Re: Daisy test day

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17923 From: dave santos Date: 5/18/2015
Subject: Re: Daisy test day

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17924 From: benhaiemp Date: 5/18/2015
Subject: Re: Daisy test day

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17925 From: dougselsam Date: 5/18/2015
Subject: Re: Progress in AWE (utility-scale)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17926 From: dougselsam Date: 5/18/2015
Subject: Re: Daisy test day

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17927 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 5/18/2015
Subject: Re: Progress in AWE (utility-scale)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17928 From: dougselsam Date: 5/18/2015
Subject: Re: Daisy test day

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17929 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 5/18/2015
Subject: Re: Daisy test day

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17930 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/18/2015
Subject: Re: By A. Van Gries in 1937

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17931 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 5/18/2015
Subject: Re: Daisy test day

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17932 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 5/18/2015
Subject: Re: Daisy test day

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17933 From: dave santos Date: 5/18/2015
Subject: Re: By A. Van Gries in 1937

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17934 From: dave santos Date: 5/18/2015
Subject: Re: Daisy test day

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17935 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 5/18/2015
Subject: Re: Daisy test day

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17936 From: Rod Read Date: 5/18/2015
Subject: Re: Daisy test day

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17937 From: dave santos Date: 5/18/2015
Subject: Re: Daisy test day

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17938 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 5/18/2015
Subject: Re: Daisy test day

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17939 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 5/18/2015
Subject: Re: Daisy test day

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17940 From: dave santos Date: 5/18/2015
Subject: Re: Daisy test day

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17941 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/18/2015
Subject: Re: Wayne German in 2003

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17942 From: dougselsam Date: 5/18/2015
Subject: Re: Daisy test day

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17943 From: dougselsam Date: 5/18/2015
Subject: Professor Crackpot: On the Loose Again!

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17944 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/18/2015
Subject: Re: Daisy test day

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17945 From: dave santos Date: 5/18/2015
Subject: Re: Daisy test day



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17896 From: dave santos Date: 5/14/2015
Subject: Topological Classification of Kite Structure as a Simplical Complex
Kite topology has lately emerged as subject of interest in predicting comparative AWES qualities, like dynamic-stability of various architectures. Moritz's FreiburgU circle is studying bridle topology and kPower has been defining megascale lattice "kite-matter" AWES. So far this has been a pretty timid effort for lack of established models to build on. We have to hunt down all sorts of multidisciplinary knowledge that is well known in its academic specialty, but new to us.

Fortunately, we have Wikipedia to help our hunt, and Simplical Topology turns is the ticket to move kite topology forward-
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17897 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/14/2015
Subject: Re: Aerotecture
Advance aerotecture may well emply many inflatable parts. To tease the inflatable potential, see some eye candy: 
Aérosculpture -

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17898 From: Rod Read Date: 5/14/2015
Subject: Re: Enerkite's New Flying Wing
Even if you just use the forecastle top rail...
Say you made the top rail from hexagonal section then it's easy to mount control carriage tech as fancy or simple as you prefer.
You're more likely to want to pull a boat forward lets face it.


Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17899 From: dave santos Date: 5/14/2015
Subject: Re: Enerkite's New Flying Wing
Yes, its counter-intuitive at first, but as KiteShip perhaps first found, as long as the kite is only a small portion of the ship motive power and given that the whole hull acts as a single huge wing (keel/hydrofoil), with very low wing-loading, than the L/D is high. A sort of mirror case is the original Flexifoil kite, still in production after 35 years, with only an A-line bridle (popular kite culture's traditional A-line, not Christian's new "A-line" coinage); still a hot kite, but technical to fly compared to modern wings..

Shifting the center of kite traction aft will help make the transition to the kite dominating ship propulsion. A cool idea, given slower cruising speed, is fermentation and aging processes, to offset the economic disadvantage of slower passages made with cheap kite power.



On Thursday, May 14, 2015 2:06 PM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
Even if you just use the forecastle top rail...
Say you made the top rail from hexagonal section then it's easy to mount control carriage tech as fancy or simple as you prefer.
You're more likely to want to pull a boat forward lets face it.


Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17900 From: dave santos Date: 5/14/2015
Subject: Re: Aerotecture
Most aerotecture will naturally be inflated, along a continuum of from sealed helium envelopes to performance airbeams, ram-air, inflatables, and even single-skin sails. Its going to be a wild mix up there.

In Austin, we pioneered the genre of high-tech flying art robots in the '80s (Silicon Barrio and Robot Group) much like a blend of Festo and the French Aerosculpture JoeF just linked, but far crazier. I had finagled a miles-long 60lb roll of balloon heat-seal mylar from a Mexican factory, and we learned to make helium envelopes in biomorphic forms. I still have some left. We also integrated hordes of mutant dancing and musicial robots on the ground, in a complete kiddie-koolaid-acid-test, to promote core curriculum. Rather than bland EU royalty for an audience, we flew for Mexican kids on tours of Austin's Eastside schools, but also made the Discovery Channel and Learning Channel, which were very big audiences in those days.

Of course we had an old master to build on conceptualy, the Dutch artist Panamarenko, who was just a bit early for the current tech-driven revolution, so his shtick was to tear down his flying sculptures whenever they threatened to actually fly-





On Thursday, May 14, 2015 2:04 PM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
Advance aerotecture may well emply many inflatable parts. To tease the inflatable potential, see some eye candy: 
Aérosculpture -
 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17901 From: Rod Read Date: 5/15/2015
Subject: Re: Enerkite's New Flying Wing

skysails already have a kite span larger than the ship beam width... controlled at height using a long single line.

Short spread control only really helps with steady light wind launching.
In high seas spread control lines around a forecastle top rail will be pitching and rolling with the waves, thus needing extreme control.
A spread tether kite carries more risk of any single tether snagging or submerging.

Maybe boats are better suited to spreading out megascale arches as part of a team of anchor handlers.
As usual .... maybe the kites should be upside down in the tide for dense energy extraction.

Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17902 From: dave santos Date: 5/15/2015
Subject: Remembering Wubbo Ockels on the first anniversary of his death
This Sunday is the first anniversary of Wubbo's death. Like Corwin's Hardham's premature death, the loss of Wubbo has been very sad for AWE progress, as their successors have not been able to fill the gaps. Wubbo was cultivating Richard Branson's patronage of AWE R&D, but that avenue was closed by his loss, and instead Branson has been reeling from the fatal crash of his space-plane. For his part, Corwin had agreed for Makani to work more cooperatively with Open-AWE players (as he attested in Leuven, 2011), but that reform ended with him.

Poor Wayne German, apparently unaware Wubbo has passed, has lately been flooding his long contact list with unsettling messages to Wubbo, who was a ready friend to all AWE players, from the most elite to the newest student. The ghost of Wubbo deeply haunts the AWE community, and its a happy ghost indeed. Here is nice message from Wubbo to remember him by. "Wubbo Lives!" and "Happy Energy" are our victory cries- 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17903 From: dougselsam Date: 5/15/2015
Subject: Re: Remembering Wubbo Ockels on the first anniversary of his death
"Like Corwin's Hardham's premature death,...For his part, Corwin had agreed for Makani to work more cooperatively with Open-AWE players (as he attested in Leuven, 2011), but that reform ended with him." *** still unexplained, and nobody seems to care.  Weird on both counts.

"Poor Wayne German, apparently unaware Wubbo has passed, has lately been flooding his long contact list with unsettling messages to Wubbo"  *** Yeah those messages have been getting pretty whacky - again, seems to be par for the course...

At the current rate of progress, it seems like this field will be perpetually wide-open. (yawn)
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17904 From: benhaiemp Date: 5/15/2015
Subject: Progress in AWE (utility-scale)

Whereas players are more and more numerous , the general architecture is still to be cleared in a viable way to allow a decisive take-off.


PierreB
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17905 From: dougselsam Date: 5/16/2015
Subject: Re: Progress in AWE (utility-scale)
Trying to understand what you mean here (below), Pierre.  Are you saying there is no viable technology demonstrated yet? 
"Whereas players are more and more numerous , the general architecture is still to be cleared in a viable way to allow a decisive take-off."
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17906 From: benhaiemp Date: 5/16/2015
Subject: Re: Progress in AWE (utility-scale)

Doug, there is a huge reservoir of wind energy from 200 m to more than 10,000 m altitude anywhere in the world, and flying turbines could harness it better than HAWT. There is also depletion of fossils, problems with nuclear. So a day or another AWES technico-economic reality.

There are more and more universities, companies and other players in AWE, working on different fields. In my opinion environmental aspects (filling the space) of implementation are not studied enough.

These factors can question to them only the architectures at present privileged (reeling in first, with its recovery phase as a brake for scalability).

And while AWE knowledge increases, there is not yet a real take-off. 

Real start will be possible when actors will be convinced of viability around a general method.

At least it is the merit of the present AWE forum to discuss architectures other than reeling.


PierreB
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17907 From: benhaiemp Date: 5/16/2015
Subject: Re: Progress in AWE (utility-scale)

Correction: "So a day or another AWES will become a technico-economic reality."


PierreB
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17908 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/16/2015
Subject: Re: Progress in AWE (utility-scale)

Emphatically: 

           Already AWES are in a technical-economical (T-E) viable stream; the deal is this: One day that same viable stream will hold more and more types of AWES.  We work in this forum toward putting more AWES into that viable stream.  It is a great time to advance the AWES world which is already with T-E viable actors.   This ground has been covered in earlier posts. Some retort regards an emphasis on "electricity-making utility-scale" AWES that drives many players, not all; in such case we strive on towards getting AWES in place that will feed robustly utility grids with kitricity or IFO-electricity. Paravanes by Minesto are progressing toward feeding electricity to a significant grid.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17909 From: dougselsam Date: 5/17/2015
Subject: Re: Progress in AWE (utility-scale)
Pierre B said: "Doug, there is a huge reservoir of wind energy from 200 m to more than 10,000 m altitude anywhere in the world," *** yes Pierre, this we all know.  When can we move beyong restating the obvious?

"and flying turbines could harness it better than HAWT."
*** I'm sensing a possible oxymoronic statement there...  So why are we not using them yet, with all these great teams supposedly working on the challenge?

"There is also depletion of fossils, problems with nuclear."
*** The carbon does not leave the planet.  It can be re-used over and over.

"So a day or another AWES technico-economic reality."
*** English transation:  So one day or another AWE may become a techo-economic reality.

"There are more and more universities, companies and other players in AWE, working on different fields."

*** Yeah, that's the funny part.


"In my opinion environmental aspects (filling the space) of implementation are not studied enough."

***It is nice to hear someone stating an opinion rather than pretending to predict the future.


"These factors can question to them only the architectures at present privileged (reeling in first, with its recovery phase as a brake for scalability)."

***This is where I get lost in trying to understand your writing.


"And while AWE knowledge increases, there is not yet a real take-off."

*** Is knowledge really increasing?  Also, are you aware that using the word "take-off" constitutes a pun?


"Real start will be possible when actors will be convinced of viability around a general method."

*** It seems to me that many "actors" ARE convinced of viability of a general method, regardless of the reality, and maybe that IS the problem.


"At least it is the merit of the present AWE forum to discuss architectures other than reeling."  PierreB

*** If reeling were the answer, it seems we'd see something being powered by a reeling system by now.  Enough people have been trying it that something should be working by now.  I could be totally wrong, but my feeling is that reeling is limited in its effectiveness, and indeed resembles long-discarded non-AWE approaches to wind energy.  Still, I don't see much discussion of other methods on here, unless it is to denigrate them or pick on the practitioners.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17910 From: dougselsam Date: 5/17/2015
Subject: Re: Progress in AWE (utility-scale)

JoeF said: "Emphatically: Already AWES are in a technical-economical (T-E) viable stream;"  

*** Please give an example of a techno-economic viability in the current "stream" of AWE attempted methods.  (current stream - another pun?)


"the deal is this: One day that same viable stream will hold more and more types of AWES."   

***Is it more and more types that is needed, or any approach that is actually techno-economically useful?  Do we really need "a stream" or inadvisable methods, or would a single workable approach be better?


"We work in this forum toward putting more AWES into that viable stream."

*** Why say there is a "viable stream"?  Which approach has proven viable at this time?


"It is a great time to advance the AWES world which is already with T-E viable actors."

*** Which actors are you referring to?


"This ground has been covered in earlier posts."

*** Let's review for the students who weren't paying attention


"Some retort regards an emphasis on "electricity-making utility-scale" AWES that drives many players, not all; in such case we strive on towards getting AWES in place that will feed robustly utility grids with kitricity or IFO-electricity."

***Joe, Pierre can be forgiven for not having English as his native language, therefore we give him an extra margin of tolerance, knowing his English is far better than our French.  In your case, English is your native language and I wish if you are going to say something, you make it simple and easy to understand, not cryptic or seemingly mysteriously prophetic or apocalyptic.


"Paravanes by Minesto are progressing toward feeding electricity to a significant grid."

***Is this a fact or your opinion?  Should we hold our breath waiting for Minesto now? Yeah, everyone seems to think they are "progressing toward", the question is when will someone actually arrive at the destination rather than endlessly pretending to be "progressing toward" techno-economic success?  At some point we need more than just another website featuring another group portrait.


"a significant grid" - just the sort of language that refuses to even discuss anything in normal terms, as though endless dancing around language can obfuscate reality just enough to keep saying things that may not even make any sense, and expecting them to be taken seriously.  Where would we ever find a term like "significant grid", except here?  What is an "insignificant grid"?  If someone has success with AWE into a micro-grid or any grid, small or large, or in a standalone system, what is the problem with that?  Maybe you mean "significant power into the grid".  Even in such a case, if the cost is too high, it is not a "keeper".
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17911 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 5/17/2015
Subject: Re: Progress in AWE (utility-scale)

"*** Is knowledge really increasing? Also, are you aware that using the word "take-off" constitutes a pun?"

Yes for both questions.

 

""Real start will be possible when actors will be convinced of viability around a general method."

*** It seems to me that many "actors" ARE convinced of viability of a general method, regardless of the reality, and maybe that IS the problem."

What you are saying is exact within AWE circles (where reeling is generally favored, wrongly or rightly, probably wrongly*) , but (for me) inaccurate in general (even in wind) energy circles where AWE is not known, or not accepted as a viable possibility, it about is the method. A good sign for techno-economic AWE birth would be a favored article from somebody as Mike Barnard. So  about "when actors will be convinced of viability around a general method", understanding actors within general (or wind) energy circles.

 

PierreB

 

 

* intermittent power, strengths on materials; wings and tethers, due to the two phases; brake for scalability.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17912 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 5/17/2015
Subject: Re: Progress in AWE (utility-scale)

Correction: a favorable article (instead of) "favored article".

 

PierreB

 

 

 

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17913 From: dave santos Date: 5/17/2015
Subject: Re: Progress in AWE (utility-scale)
Pierre and Joe are right, AWE R&D progress pretty much at the decade-scale pace that aerospace veterans are used to. Most teams are not stuck, but only moving forward, and more teams emerge every year.

Naive AWE commentators overlook that the IFO AWE concept has already thrived for over a century, in the form powered aviation navigating wind currents to maximum advantage, saving many billions of pounds of jet fuel in our time. This is very similar to ships being towed by kites, which has been real MW scale AWE and will grow. Our many toy demos, charging, pumping, grinding, and even making waffles and music, only give us confidence as we carefully scale up electrical generation.

Naive observers seeking early value in AWE overlook the niche pro application of AWES test engineering, which is a wonderful career seeing what works in the sky. The first AWES are our handmade learning tools that usefully prepare us for quality product development. We see this future more clearly every day. Due patience and technical persistence are the sure sign of the true AWE pros.

For years Doug has done his best to debate (or just foment flame-wars*) from a position of helpless despair over all the wonderful work everyone else has done or is doing. He lost that debate long ago. The real AWE community is truly progressing, and well knows it.

---------------------
* He "came to the wrong place", as his Physics Forum Mentor concluded.




On Sunday, May 17, 2015 8:59 AM, "dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
JoeF said: "Emphatically: Already AWES are in a technical-economical (T-E) viable stream;"  
*** Please give an example of a techno-economic viability in the current "stream" of AWE attempted methods.  (current stream - another pun?)

"the deal is this: One day that same viable stream will hold more and more types of AWES."   
***Is it more and more types that is needed, or any approach that is actually techno-economically useful?  Do we really need "a stream" or inadvisable methods, or would a single workable approach be better?

"We work in this forum toward putting more AWES into that viable stream."
*** Why say there is a "viable stream"?  Which approach has proven viable at this time?

"It is a great time to advance the AWES world which is already with T-E viable actors."
*** Which actors are you referring to?

"This ground has been covered in earlier posts."
*** Let's review for the students who weren't paying attention

"Some retort regards an emphasis on "electricity-making utility-scale" AWES that drives many players, not all; in such case we strive on towards getting AWES in place that will feed robustly utility grids with kitricity or IFO-electricity."
***Joe, Pierre can be forgiven for not having English as his native language, therefore we give him an extra margin of tolerance, knowing his English is far better than our French.  In your case, English is your native language and I wish if you are going to say something, you make it simple and easy to understand, not cryptic or seemingly mysteriously prophetic or apocalyptic.

"Paravanes by Minesto are progressing toward feeding electricity to a significant grid."
***Is this a fact or your opinion?  Should we hold our breath waiting for Minesto now? Yeah, everyone seems to think they are "progressing toward", the question is when will someone actually arrive at the destination rather than endlessly pretending to be "progressing toward" techno-economic success?  At some point we need more than just another website featuring another group portrait.

"a significant grid" - just the sort of language that refuses to even discuss anything in normal terms, as though endless dancing around language can obfuscate reality just enough to keep saying things that may not even make any sense, and expecting them to be taken seriously.  Where would we ever find a term like "significant grid", except here?  What is an "insignificant grid"?  If someone has success with AWE into a micro-grid or any grid, small or large, or in a standalone system, what is the problem with that?  Maybe you mean "significant power into the grid".  Even in such a case, if the cost is too high, it is not a "keeper".
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17914 From: dave santos Date: 5/17/2015
Subject: Re: Progress in AWE (utility-scale)
Pierre wrote: "A good sign for techno-economic AWE birth would be a favored article from somebody as Mike Barnard."

AWE has had many "favored article(s)" by many leading voices, from Garrard-Hassan and Fraunhofer, to many of the world's leading newspapers, magazines, and websites. Mike Barnard is in fact becoming weakly positive (AWE documentary interview), but his naive initial pessimism, as the world's most rabid wind-tower advocate, remains his Net face.

Please be aware that Mike Barnard's poorly informed technical biases have not earned the respect of our A-List: Wubbo Ockels, Peter Lynn, Mark Moore, Dave Lang, Dave Culp, Dave North, Fort Felker, and on, and on. These are better "good sign(s)".

MikeB's established pattern of naive AWE technical speculation, Wikipedia sock-puppeting, and blog-censoring also reduce the number of AWE experts who respect him as highly. Expect folks to long be reminded of these contrasts every time MikeB is somehow equated with a real AWE expert, until he finally masters the domain knowledge, and sees the opportunity clearly; a slow process at best.



On Sunday, May 17, 2015 11:00 AM, dave santos <santos137@yahoo.com  
JoeF said: "Emphatically: Already AWES are in a technical-economical (T-E) viable stream;"  
*** Please give an example of a techno-economic viability in the current "stream" of AWE attempted methods.  (current stream - another pun?)

"the deal is this: One day that same viable stream will hold more and more types of AWES."   
***Is it more and more types that is needed, or any approach that is actually techno-economically useful?  Do we really need "a stream" or inadvisable methods, or would a single workable approach be better?

"We work in this forum toward putting more AWES into that viable stream."
*** Why say there is a "viable stream"?  Which approach has proven viable at this time?

"It is a great time to advance the AWES world which is already with T-E viable actors."
*** Which actors are you referring to?

"This ground has been covered in earlier posts."
*** Let's review for the students who weren't paying attention

"Some retort regards an emphasis on "electricity-making utility-scale" AWES that drives many players, not all; in such case we strive on towards getting AWES in place that will feed robustly utility grids with kitricity or IFO-electricity."
***Joe, Pierre can be forgiven for not having English as his native language, therefore we give him an extra margin of tolerance, knowing his English is far better than our French.  In your case, English is your native language and I wish if you are going to say something, you make it simple and easy to understand, not cryptic or seemingly mysteriously prophetic or apocalyptic.

"Paravanes by Minesto are progressing toward feeding electricity to a significant grid."
***Is this a fact or your opinion?  Should we hold our breath waiting for Minesto now? Yeah, everyone seems to think they are "progressing toward", the question is when will someone actually arrive at the destination rather than endlessly pretending to be "progressing toward" techno-economic success?  At some point we need more than just another website featuring another group portrait.

"a significant grid" - just the sort of language that refuses to even discuss anything in normal terms, as though endless dancing around language can obfuscate reality just enough to keep saying things that may not even make any sense, and expecting them to be taken seriously.  Where would we ever find a term like "significant grid", except here?  What is an "insignificant grid"?  If someone has success with AWE into a micro-grid or any grid, small or large, or in a standalone system, what is the problem with that?  Maybe you mean "significant power into the grid".  Even in such a case, if the cost is too high, it is not a "keeper".
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17915 From: dave santos Date: 5/17/2015
Subject: Re: Progress in AWE (utility-scale)
The most undeniable success of modern AWE is the rapid evolution of the parafoil power kite. An explosive fifty years of new kite-based sky, sea, land, and snow sports; the direct parafoil ancestors of SkySails giant ship-kites, itself still not a decade-old; represents a leap from about 10kW ratable power to  
JoeF said: "Emphatically: Already AWES are in a technical-economical (T-E) viable stream;"  
*** Please give an example of a techno-economic viability in the current "stream" of AWE attempted methods.  (current stream - another pun?)

"the deal is this: One day that same viable stream will hold more and more types of AWES."   
***Is it more and more types that is needed, or any approach that is actually techno-economically useful?  Do we really need "a stream" or inadvisable methods, or would a single workable approach be better?

"We work in this forum toward putting more AWES into that viable stream."
*** Why say there is a "viable stream"?  Which approach has proven viable at this time?

"It is a great time to advance the AWES world which is already with T-E viable actors."
*** Which actors are you referring to?

"This ground has been covered in earlier posts."
*** Let's review for the students who weren't paying attention

"Some retort regards an emphasis on "electricity-making utility-scale" AWES that drives many players, not all; in such case we strive on towards getting AWES in place that will feed robustly utility grids with kitricity or IFO-electricity."
***Joe, Pierre can be forgiven for not having English as his native language, therefore we give him an extra margin of tolerance, knowing his English is far better than our French.  In your case, English is your native language and I wish if you are going to say something, you make it simple and easy to understand, not cryptic or seemingly mysteriously prophetic or apocalyptic.

"Paravanes by Minesto are progressing toward feeding electricity to a significant grid."
***Is this a fact or your opinion?  Should we hold our breath waiting for Minesto now? Yeah, everyone seems to think they are "progressing toward", the question is when will someone actually arrive at the destination rather than endlessly pretending to be "progressing toward" techno-economic success?  At some point we need more than just another website featuring another group portrait.

"a significant grid" - just the sort of language that refuses to even discuss anything in normal terms, as though endless dancing around language can obfuscate reality just enough to keep saying things that may not even make any sense, and expecting them to be taken seriously.  Where would we ever find a term like "significant grid", except here?  What is an "insignificant grid"?  If someone has success with AWE into a micro-grid or any grid, small or large, or in a standalone system, what is the problem with that?  Maybe you mean "significant power into the grid".  Even in such a case, if the cost is too high, it is not a "keeper".
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17916 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 5/17/2015
Subject: Re: Progress in AWE (utility-scale)

Yes, and the knowledge of the level of scalability of such wings can determine success of e-AWE from a threshold of their expected size.

 

PierreB

 

 

 

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17917 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 5/17/2015
Subject: Re: Progress in AWE (utility-scale)

""These factors can question to them only the architectures at present privileged (reeling in first, with its recovery phase as a brake for scalability)."

***This is where I get lost in trying to understand your writing."

 

Even by exploring reeling, universities and companies take experience which will be useful for another method: wings, control...

 

PierreB

 

 

 

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17918 From: Rod Read Date: 5/17/2015
Subject: Launch from water
The problem of launching and landing really large kites from a ship is deck space.

Kites are stringy, snaggy, flappy, wide area, powerful, hard to handle and control at large scales.
Especially on the confined, structured, clutter prone area of a ships deck at sea.

How easily can a kite be launched from the water?
If it's LEI kite then easy... but LEI won't scale that well.
Is there a way we can inflate a large kite above the water surface?
Hows about dropping a rolled kite sausage off the front, reversing ship upwind whilst paying out tether, stretching the kite out to inflate with 2 rib tenders, launching from the water surface...

Or reverse the boat away upwind from a drogue (or use a pilot kite). the drogue pulls pilot kite 1 from it's bag, which pulls pilot 2, 3,4, large main kite

I think many pilot kites could do with better topside bridling configuration / load spreading for close linked sets.

Even if it is only single line single skin lifters you're using, the benefits of stability from 2 rib dingies holding steering lines could be huge.


Can a single skin kite be inflated by pulling back through water so that it lifts up into air to inflate? heavy tail seam...

open awes IP pool

Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17919 From: Rod Read Date: 5/17/2015
Subject: Daisy test day
Good not too variable breeze here today.
Had the Daisy flying for around 4 hours.
It's going really fast now... The front spar compression lines were set tense.

I broke the outer ring stiffener where I predicted I would... just where the kite spar crosses it.
A quick repair of the shortened batten has it butted to the kite stiffener pocket... This way there is no crossing of spars... Will reset all to this way soon... Or only crossing at a doubled point...
Still flew ok despite the broken state.

I don't think my sewing nor line tying is very even from the top ladder ring to the mount ring... There's a wobble observable in todays footage.

Most of the time it was unattended and flying well on the lowest regeneration setting.
When I started mucking about with regen settings ... quite often there would be a compression / collapse
I think collapse is usually initiated in the outer tip of an up going kite.
Could definitely do with releasing on the driver kites bank angle (e.g. so that the tips are more down wind and less prone to collapse)

Filled up around 1/4 of my battery. woop. well ok It's not that ace.
A pure soft Daisy is in my mind now a definite possibility...  and surely something to be strived for.

videos to follow

Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17920 From: Rod Read Date: 5/17/2015
Subject: Re: Daisy test day
OKAy...
I'm no ace with someone elses gopro...
Could get boring... skip to the good bits if it does
https://youtu.be/FkEcbQ69cHg

Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17921 From: dave santos Date: 5/17/2015
Subject: Re: Daisy test day
Nice work. The big questions are how to scale up without rigid parts, and how to boost load velocity. One idea is to create a loop drive PTO just above the Daisy (with the crown as a bull-wheel) that drives a groundgen placed below (downwind from the anchor), eliminating the upwind torsion transmission).

Open-AWE_IP-Pool

 



On Sunday, May 17, 2015 3:11 PM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
OKAy...
I'm no ace with someone elses gopro...
Could get boring... skip to the good bits if it does
https://youtu.be/FkEcbQ69cHg

Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878


On 17 May 2015 at 22:18, Rod Read <rod.read@gmail.com


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17922 From: Rod Read Date: 5/17/2015
Subject: Re: Daisy test day

Surely a pto downwind would limit scaling as it would have to track.
A pal (Chippie) suggested Maybe flying Daisy 🌼 as a kitesat ; more flat to the wind, under the line with pto over the lifter line.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17923 From: dave santos Date: 5/18/2015
Subject: Re: Daisy test day
Almost every detail  limits scaling in some  way, but the downwind PTO seems to me less scale limited than the torque-ladder its intended to replace. Also, in many places prevailing winds are fairly constant, and kFarm confirmed that manual weathercocking of Mothra is just as practical as traditional Dutch windmills, most of which were manually oriented.
From: Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]
Sent: ‎5/‎18/‎2015 1:12 AM
To: AWE
Subject: Re: [AWES] Re: Daisy test day

 

Surely a pto downwind would limit scaling as it would have to track.
A pal (Chippie) suggested Maybe flying Daisy 🌼 as a kitesat ; more flat to the wind, under the line with pto over the lifter line.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17924 From: benhaiemp Date: 5/18/2015
Subject: Re: Daisy test day

DaveS,


Do you mean a PTO like High Speed Load Motion : in the top there is pilot kite; in the middle there is PTO; and in the bottom there is Daisy? Is PTO conduct the generator in the same way as on video? If yes, what is Daisy job?

PierreB 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17925 From: dougselsam Date: 5/18/2015
Subject: Re: Progress in AWE (utility-scale)
"Pierre and Joe are right, AWE R&D progress pretty much at the decade-scale pace that aerospace veterans are used to. Most teams are not stuck, but only moving forward, and more teams emerge every year."
*** More flies land on a pile of doo-doo - does that make it a meal?

"Naive AWE commentators overlook that the IFO AWE concept has already thrived for over a century, in the form powered aviation navigating wind currents to maximum advantage, saving many billions of pounds of jet fuel in our time."
*** Oh yes, you are the only one who understands that airplanes have always had to take wind into account when planning a trip.  If AWE is that "advanced", your work is over.  Redefining words to seemingly make AWE "a century-old success".  Maybe you can show us where the department of energy documents "flying with the wind" as a source of energy generation.  Or... maybe we're back to you in your echo-chamber, agreeing with your own echo (again).  You've been pounding that weak non-point home in your echo-chamber for years now, as a purported escape hatch, every time you argue yourself into a corner.  Nevermind all the upwind trips.  Got anything new to add?

"This is very similar to ships being towed by kites, which has been real MW scale AWE and will grow."
*** Admirable to tow a ship by kite, and I hope it ever moves beyond hype and demos to an economically-sound practice - not the original stated goal of AWE as commonly understood, and it does nothing so far to achieve the original stated AWE goal of replacing those dreaded "windtowers" (to use more of your own echo-chamber vocabulary)

"Our many toy demos, charging, pumping, grinding, and even making waffles and music, only give us confidence as we carefully scale up electrical generation."
*** Of course, always another "toy" demo.  Don't ever try anything serious, right?  Well, except making waffles.  Now that is a game-changer.  Yum, I'm hungry!

"Naive observers seeking early value in AWE overlook the niche pro application of AWES test engineering, which is a wonderful career seeing what works in the sky"
*** So now having nothing that works IS success in AWE, right?  The "all-talk-format"?  In the upside-down world of the echo-chamber, endless failure = success, and being unemployed = "a career".

"The first AWES are our handmade learning tools that usefully prepare us for quality product development."
*** Sure there are people with learning tools, probably learning what NOT to do, but I don't see that your stuff falls into that category.  I don't see any articles out there on your "success" or devices.

"We see this future more clearly every day."  *** A wannabe AWE-Nostradamus in his echo-chamber.  If you can "see the future" why not just show us all "the answer"?  Or could it be that you really CAN'T see the future?

"Due patience and technical persistence are the sure sign of the true AWE pros."
*** Thank you.

"For years Doug has done his best to debate (or just foment flame-wars*) from a position of helpless despair over all the wonderful work everyone else has done or is doing."
*** "Naive obtherverth" mistake stirring the pot and asking pertinent questions with "helpless despair" and fomenting "flame wars".  When I ask pertinent questions, it is to encourage open thinking, stir up collaborative reasoning, and occasionally trigger a reality-check, rather than just accepting your echo-chamber thinking and commentary, which amounts to endless flawed circular reasoning and repeated redefinition of commonly-understood words.

"He lost that debate long ago."
*** Oh yeah, DaveS in his echo-chamber decides who and what are valid, when a discussion is "a debate" (always?), and who has "won" his self-pronounced debates.  The key factor is "Does DaveS agree with daveS?"  If so, we have his echo-chamber reality.  Show me an article, anywhere, by anyone, that shows you have anything specifically to offer to AWE at this point, or even know what you are talking about.  That is a lot of years of claiming to be at the leading edge to come up with nothing.

"The real AWE community is truly progressing, and well knows it."
*** (You forgot the word "he".)  Just as the bloopers document instances where powered-flight was NOT progressing, the myriad of attempts at AWE do not necessarily constitute progress, just busyness.  Glad to see people trying.
---------------------
"He "came to the wrong place", as his Physics Forum Mentor concluded."
*** If you will recall, the verdict from that Physics community was that you were full-of-it.  Think of me as a much-needed soundproof panel in your echo-chamber.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17926 From: dougselsam Date: 5/18/2015
Subject: Re: Daisy test day
Very nice - it would seem that torque is working.  Pay no attention to any Professor Crackpot-naysayers.  :)
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17927 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 5/18/2015
Subject: Re: Progress in AWE (utility-scale)

From DaveS in AWE: many tests (flying turbine, looping foil, Mothra etc.), some possible main rules as scalable soft wings and needed passive control, among other, and also AWE forum animation. Undoubtedly DaveS is sincerely involved in AWE for years and years. If it was not the case Doug would not continue to make some (reverse) echo in the chamber for years and years.

 

PierreB

 

 

 

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17928 From: dougselsam Date: 5/18/2015
Subject: Re: Daisy test day
" the downwind PTO seems to me less scale limited than the torque-ladder its intended to replace." *** Why not just admit it works?  "This contraption is great - now all you need to do is eliminate the working features, and convert it into an unworkable DaveS contraption, and you'll be all set."  Because in the upside-down echo-chamber, success = failure, whereas only complete failure = true success. 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17929 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 5/18/2015
Subject: Re: Daisy test day

Great job. In some video Rod you relate an output of roughly 1/3 from input due (?) to the current realization of torque-ladder or perhaps due to not coupled enough generator. But in my opinion it is not so important: what is not converted can stay as potential lift (if wings are piloted), so there is not really loss.

 

PierreB

 

 

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17930 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/18/2015
Subject: Re: By A. Van Gries in 1937
I am having considerable challenge finding biographical information on engineer Aloys van Gries. He published a huge book on aerodynamics. But that is about all I can find.  

Pointedly, so far, it seems that a researcher might need to distinguish between possibly two different noteworthy persons of the same exact name, apparently; I am still not clear.  It seems that a mayor of Bensheim, Germany, might not be our AWE person, as that person seems to have died in 1902; but our AWE guy seems to have applied for the AWE patent in 1935 and/or 1937; such dates seem in first blush to say I am exploring two different persons.    Bensheim archivist has given me four documents on their early mayor who died in 1902, if I am translating correctly.     

I do not want to use AWE time looking at a non-AWE person, so I will not post the archive documents on the mayor.   However, if someone who well reads German wants the four documents that are  about the probably-not-AWE-person of same name, please email your interest to me and I will give copy files of the four archived documents.   

~ JoeF
 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17931 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 5/18/2015
Subject: Re: Daisy test day

I do not beleive PTO downwind is the solution, that due to instability and discontinuous power Daisy has not.

 

PierreB

 

 

 

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17932 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 5/18/2015
Subject: Re: Daisy test day

Indeed a part of loss becomes lift or traction which becomes an element of laddrer transmission. Probably balancing between traction and torque could be studied.

 

PierreB

 

 

 

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17933 From: dave santos Date: 5/18/2015
Subject: Re: By A. Van Gries in 1937
A van Gries family genealogist should be happy to answer the mystery. Van Gries, as the first really modern  AWE visionary, definitely deserves to be better known by students of AWE.



On Monday, May 18, 2015 8:50 AM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
I am having considerable challenge finding biographical information on engineer Aloys van Gries. He published a huge book on aerodynamics. But that is about all I can find.  

Pointedly, so far, it seems that a researcher might need to distinguish between possibly two different noteworthy persons of the same exact name, apparently; I am still not clear.  It seems that a mayor of Bensheim, Germany, might not be our AWE person, as that person seems to have died in 1902; but our AWE guy seems to have applied for the AWE patent in 1935 and/or 1937; such dates seem in first blush to say I am exploring two different persons.    Bensheim archivist has given me four documents on their early mayor who died in 1902, if I am translating correctly.     

I do not want to use AWE time looking at a non-AWE person, so I will not post the archive documents on the mayor.   However, if someone who well reads German wants the four documents that are  about the probably-not-AWE-person of same name, please email your interest to me and I will give copy files of the four archived documents.   

~ JoeF
 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17934 From: dave santos Date: 5/18/2015
Subject: Re: Daisy test day
Doug requested: "Why not just admit [torsion] works?"


Its long been agreed on the Forum that torsion-drives work at low-altitude; in kites especially as Rudy's patent intended. The next question is how well torsion will scale. In the case of the Daisy, the bottom kites are flying only a meter or so above the ground. So, once again, a AWES fine toy, but not much more yet. I propose the crown bull-wheel option for comparative testing, because it might reuse the Daisy rotor. Its not enough to only admit all the AWES concepts can be made to work marginally. The crown bull-wheel can fly far higher into superior wind by just adding more string. Torque must compete with everything else in test engineering culture. If we ever get a really tall rotating tower driveshaft like Doug advocates, we'll test that too.



On Monday, May 18, 2015 9:32 AM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
Indeed a part of loss becomes lift or traction which becomes an element of laddrer transmission. Probably balancing between traction and torque could be studied.
 
PierreB
 
 
 
 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17935 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 5/18/2015
Subject: Re: Daisy test day

DaveS wrote: "The next question is how well torsion will scale. In the case of the Daisy, the bottom kites are flying only a meter or so above the ground."

If Daisy is 800 m diameter, altitude will be from 200 m to 600 m or so above the ground.

 

PierreB

 

 

 

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17936 From: Rod Read Date: 5/18/2015
Subject: Re: Daisy test day
Fine take the torque off of flying rings by band, You use more land footprint.... but just don't do it from the top end... that's nuts.
ref the bottled tornado pic below...
Taking power out the top is only fine if you have a tensed top net.
Wrapping a band over that if the hoops are on a lift line is a liability.

http://kitepowercoop.org

As for what kind of blade may be suitable for a 3d woven turbine like this.... inspiration could come from the LEAP engine team http://www.cfmaeroengines.com/engines/leap

Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17937 From: dave santos Date: 5/18/2015
Subject: Re: Daisy test day
Pierre,

If the Daisy is big enough, the sticks will too big to be safe and not crash. Everything depends on soft structure.

daveS



On Monday, May 18, 2015 1:28 PM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
Fine take the torque off of flying rings by band, You use more land footprint.... but just don't do it from the top end... that's nuts.
ref the bottled tornado pic below...
Taking power out the top is only fine if you have a tensed top net.
Wrapping a band over that if the hoops are on a lift line is a liability.

http://kitepowercoop.org

As for what kind of blade may be suitable for a 3d woven turbine like this.... inspiration could come from the LEAP engine team http://www.cfmaeroengines.com/engines/leap

Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17938 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 5/18/2015
Subject: Re: Daisy test day

There are wind shadows on 2/3 of stages, so keeping only 1/3 of stages. And how piloting this, avoiding touches between stages due to wind variations? And how is management of different winds in each of the stages? And take-off, and recovery? 

PierreB

 

 

 

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17939 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 5/18/2015
Subject: Re: Daisy test day

DaveS,

 

It is the answer for which I waited. Some means to build soft sticks or so?

 

PierreB

 

 

 

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17940 From: dave santos Date: 5/18/2015
Subject: Re: Daisy test day
"Soft stick" suffers from a logical contradiction in qualities, but the intent is clear. We have three flavors of of big-stick in megascale AWES theory- 1) to stake-out across the ground itself, the surface as a rigid quasi-stick, and 2) large-scale SS inflation creating over-all stiffness. 30) Airbeams of many kinds, as used for kites. These are not sticks as commonly defined.

Perhaps Pierre seeks a long blimp envelope as a "stick". I don't think such a stick is actually required, but if so, there it is.



On Monday, May 18, 2015 2:10 PM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
DaveS,
 
It is the answer for which I waited. Some means to build soft sticks or so?
 
PierreB
 
 
 
 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17941 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/18/2015
Subject: Re: Wayne German in 2003
The 2015 edition of Wayne German's document:   HERE
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17942 From: dougselsam Date: 5/18/2015
Subject: Re: Daisy test day
DaveS said "Its long been agreed on the Forum that torsion-drives work at low-altitude"
*** OK so just to clarify, when you say "It's been long agreed on the forum", you mean you agree with yourself while posting on the forum, right?  That is, you agree with your own echo, (reasoning by echo-chamber) and call it "long-agreed" on the forum.  Right?  DaveS agrees with DaveS?  We have to read between the lines lest we lose sight of your endless redefinitions and abuse of common English to sway everything to seemingly revolve around you and your half-baked, half-true, half-misunderstood ideas.

I don't remember anyone else giving much of an opinion on the matter, and the gist of your occasional anti-torque rants seem to be just a way for you to pick on my efforts since the SuperTurbine(R) concept does use torque.  Telling the bumblebee it can;t fly.  Mmm Hmmm.  (Wasn't it the good profethor who proved that?) 

Please bear in mind that a stated advantage of SuperTurbine(R) technology is to lower torque for the same power output, from a similar total amount of swept area.  Anyway, I think Roddy's device spun up pretty well, and has improved from his earlier attempts, and I don't see that your trying to throw away the main features that make it work, only to substitute Professor Crackpot ideas, would be fruitful.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17943 From: dougselsam Date: 5/18/2015
Subject: Professor Crackpot: On the Loose Again!
Wind Power Without The Mills

Thee? (see), Itth Bird-Friendly!

A good friend of mine, a PhD Chemist as a mater of fact, sent me this.  Then I talked with him on the phone.  He seemed to wonder how I could know the investors were going to lose their money - how did I know this idea was bunk?

I tried to explain "The Profethor Crackpot Thyndrome" and "Press-release science" to him, and how this has all the symptoms (It's bird-friendly!) but it's not easy.  In his field, the average person has no real opinions.  Amateurs don't normally try to enter the field of advanced Chemistry through the side-door claiming that, say, all those beakers and flasks are not needed.   I also tried to explain to him that we've already seen this idea a few times.  The last one was supposed to look like grass blowing in the breeze, when deployed in large numbers, remember?  Sayyy... what do you suppose ever happened to those fellows?  Have they "quietly gone away" yet?  Anyway, here you have it DaveS, another "wind-tower".

"Wind Power Without The Millth!  Wheeeeeee!!!!!...................
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17944 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/18/2015
Subject: Re: Daisy test day
Not to forget the "sticks" of tensed line that I gave focus about.  
==================
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17945 From: dave santos Date: 5/18/2015
Subject: Re: Daisy test day

Why not test Daisies with competing PTOs? Its an ideal demonstration just how well Gordon's torque-abhorrence and Galileo's square-cube principles hold up.





On Monday, May 18, 2015 7:36 PM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
Not to forget the "sticks" of tensed line that I gave focus about.  
==================