Messages in AirborneWindEnergy group.                          AWES 17996 to 18045 Page 254 of 440.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17996 From: dave santos Date: 5/24/2015
Subject: Re: Role of Advanced Physics in AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17997 From: dougselsam Date: 5/24/2015
Subject: Re: Windlift News

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17998 From: dave santos Date: 5/24/2015
Subject: Re: Semiology in AWE field

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17999 From: dougselsam Date: 5/24/2015
Subject: Re: Role of Advanced Physics in AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18000 From: dave santos Date: 5/24/2015
Subject: Re: Windlift News

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18001 From: dave santos Date: 5/24/2015
Subject: Re: Role of Advanced Physics in AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18002 From: dougselsam Date: 5/24/2015
Subject: Re: Windlift News

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18003 From: dougselsam Date: 5/24/2015
Subject: Re: Role of Advanced Physics in AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18004 From: dave santos Date: 5/24/2015
Subject: Re: Windlift News

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18005 From: dave santos Date: 5/24/2015
Subject: Re: Role of Advanced Physics in AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18006 From: dave santos Date: 5/24/2015
Subject: New student AWES R&D team in United Arab Emirates

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18007 From: dave santos Date: 5/24/2015
Subject: Addressable Point-to-Point Power Transmission across an Airborne Pol

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18008 From: Rod Read Date: 5/24/2015
Subject: Re: Windlift News

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18009 From: Rod Read Date: 5/24/2015
Subject: Re: Addressable Point-to-Point Power Transmission across an Airborne

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18010 From: dave santos Date: 5/24/2015
Subject: Re: Windlift News

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18011 From: dave santos Date: 5/24/2015
Subject: Re: Addressable Point-to-Point Power Transmission across an Airborne

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18012 From: benhaiemp Date: 5/24/2015
Subject: Re: Addressable Point-to-Point Power Transmission across an Airborne

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18013 From: dave santos Date: 5/24/2015
Subject: Re: Addressable Point-to-Point Power Transmission across an Airborne

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18014 From: dave santos Date: 5/24/2015
Subject: Formally Distinguishing Many-Connected from Discrete AWES Kitefarm T

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18015 From: benhaiemp Date: 5/24/2015
Subject: Re: Addressable Point-to-Point Power Transmission across an Airborne

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18016 From: dave santos Date: 5/24/2015
Subject: Re: Addressable Point-to-Point Power Transmission across an Airborne

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18017 From: dave santos Date: 5/24/2015
Subject: M600 Roll-Out

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18018 From: dave santos Date: 5/24/2015
Subject: M600 Cradle Fabrication; mystery Hawaii test AWES

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18019 From: dave santos Date: 5/24/2015
Subject: Re: M600 Cradle Fabrication; mystery Hawaii test AWES

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18020 From: dave santos Date: 5/24/2015
Subject: Re: Active Soft Matter Paradigm (advanced kite physics)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18021 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 5/25/2015
Subject: Re: M600 Roll-Out

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18022 From: dave santos Date: 5/25/2015
Subject: Re: M600 Roll-Out

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18023 From: dave santos Date: 5/25/2015
Subject: Basic Polymer Physics for AWES Engineering

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18024 From: benhaiemp Date: 5/25/2015
Subject: Re: Risks from soft and rigid wings

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18025 From: dave santos Date: 5/25/2015
Subject: Re: Risks from soft and rigid wings

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18026 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 5/25/2015
Subject: Re: Risks from soft and rigid wings

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18027 From: dave santos Date: 5/25/2015
Subject: Semisoft Sail-Wing

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18028 From: dave santos Date: 5/25/2015
Subject: Re: Risks from soft and rigid wings

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18029 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 5/25/2015
Subject: Re: Risks from soft and rigid wings

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18030 From: Rod Read Date: 5/25/2015
Subject: Re: M600 Roll-Out

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18031 From: dave santos Date: 5/25/2015
Subject: Re: Risks from soft and rigid wings

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18032 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 5/25/2015
Subject: Re: Risks from soft and rigid wings

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18033 From: dave santos Date: 5/25/2015
Subject: Re: Risks from soft and rigid wings

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18034 From: Rod Read Date: 5/25/2015
Subject: Re: Semisoft Sail-Wing

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18035 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 5/25/2015
Subject: Re: Risks from soft and rigid wings

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18036 From: dave santos Date: 5/25/2015
Subject: Re: Risks from soft and rigid wings

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18037 From: benhaiemp Date: 5/25/2015
Subject: Re: Risks from soft and rigid wings

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18038 From: Rod Read Date: 5/25/2015
Subject: Re: Risks from soft and rigid wings

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18039 From: dave santos Date: 5/25/2015
Subject: Re: Risks from soft and rigid wings

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18040 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 5/25/2015
Subject: Re: Risks from soft and rigid wings

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18041 From: dave santos Date: 5/25/2015
Subject: Re: Risks from soft and rigid wings

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18042 From: dave santos Date: 5/25/2015
Subject: Case-Based Reasoning (CBR) advancing Theoretic AWE (application of s

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18043 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 5/25/2015
Subject: Re: Risks from soft and rigid wings

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18044 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/25/2015
Subject: Ligament kiting Seagull Seahawk on May 23, 2015

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18045 From: dave santos Date: 5/25/2015
Subject: Re: Risks from soft and rigid wings



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17996 From: dave santos Date: 5/24/2015
Subject: Re: Role of Advanced Physics in AWE
Doug is now agreeing with my assertion that "best physics will win in AWE", even if not contributing any informed specifics (as usual).

Einstein is of course Doug's crude "straw man" here. Let Doug instead take on Planck, DeBye, Boltzmann, Gibbs, etc., etc.. Its even easy to ignore Einstein* by only presenting the quantum thermodynamics of others. Einstein himself affirmed that he would not have written his three papers on Specific Heat if he had known Gibbs' work; and Debye's Model does a better job than Einstein's at predicting our AWES polymer physics.


----------------------------------
* After all it was Bose by himself who devised BES, to which Einstein's name was added mostly for socio-historical reasons, and Einstein was an objector to how QM interpretations evolved.





On Sunday, May 24, 2015 6:45 AM, "dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
"Leave it to Doug to have foolishly argued against the tautology that "best physics will win in AWE"."
*** OK this is where you completely mischaracterize and misquote anything anyone else says:  No I did not "foolishly argue against" best physics, or as you now call it, "tautology".  In fact, I totally agree with "best physics".  Your mischaracterization of my words is:
1) a lie
1) a perfect example of your oft-cited "straw-man argument" complaint against everyone else.  Yi are incapable of arguing with what I actually said, so you lie and pretend I said something I did NOT say.  The straw man here is your suddenly claiming I actually took a position against "best physics".  Lets be clear, for the incurably comatose:  What I said was that "best physics" is so OBVIOUS as to not bear mention, a feeble attempt on your part to appear to have something relevant to say, when you actually have nothing whatsoever to say, so you play with word definitions.  You have no idea how to actually DO AWE, so you talk of "Einstein" and try appear to somehow gather the entire field of physics into your perceived corner, with name-dropping as your best effort, using "Einstein" as your "hail Mary" desperate grasp at predicting the future of AWE.  You hope that:
1) Whatever the answer is will of course depend on the best use of physics, which is obvious to any child;
2) You can then say "See, I told you so!"
Why not just "predict" AWE will use the flow of a fluid to generate energy?  There you go, you can play "Nostradamus" forever.

"The expert take is that the metrics will include highest-power-to-mass, widest wind range, highest effective altitude, greatest safety, lowest LCOE, etc."
*** Oh here we go again: "THE expert take" - wait, let me guess, "THE expert is DaveS in his echo-chamber, and THE expert "take" is whatever daveS says that agrees with what daveS says, right?  Only thing is, you can always find something daveS says that completely disagrees with somethung else daveS says, meanwhile, the best he can pin down a road to success in AWE is to say it will involve the use of physics.  Gosh daveS, nobody knew that.  Thanks for identifying the field of physics. 

"Doug seems unaware that the most press coverage in AWE highly correlates to excessive hype,"
*** Oh yeah, sure daveS, I've never mentioned that at all, have I?  You mean like how the rest of the world thought there was a wind-powered blimp powering a small town in remote Alaska last year?  Who informed you that it was hype and not true?   Me.  How did I know?  By the mere smell.  I happen to be a few steps ahead of you in recognizing wind energy hype.  As always "The answer is blowin' in the wind".  People like you read a tagline like that and think it's new.  Why try to describe me, using characteristics that apply to you?


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17997 From: dougselsam Date: 5/24/2015
Subject: Re: Windlift News
"Doug, To only point out the tired wind cliche by Design Concepts' webmaster is not "expert level" helpful, but more unfocused negativity toward the world."  *** I see, so YOUR endless negative comments toward everyone and everything are "useful" whereas I "do not recognize mere hype" and my comments "are not useful".  M'kay, as usual, daveS - what can anyone do but agree with you since you know everything and are always right?

"Concentrate on adding useful new info to AWE, rather than constant irrelevant complaints." daveS  ***OK daveS, I guess we'll just overlook YOUR "constant irrelevant complaints", right?

"PS Do you now understand Debye Temperature in the context of UHMWPE (as explaining the amazing thermodynamics of kite tug-force)? Its not enough to only complain against modern physics as if it was all just worthless cliche."
*** No daveS, since I DO understand empty hype, I would not spend one minute examining the veracity of your misuse of your misunderstood and misapplied buzzwords.  Like I flagged the AWE-powered village in remote Alaska as hype, I flag your empty abuse of langauge as orders-of-magnitude WORSE empty hype. At least a blimp turbine putting power into a small grid is possible, whereas the stuff you talk about is ridiculous nonsense that you only THINK you understand.  Just as the astute observer sees the consistent unworkability of "breakthroughs" announced in endless articles titled "Blowin' in the wind", even more apparent are the flailings and empty blather of the "Professor Crackpots" of the world who think they can B.S their way to stardom by invoking big words which they can only misapply in their ongoing ignorance masqueradiing as expertise.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17998 From: dave santos Date: 5/24/2015
Subject: Re: Semiology in AWE field
Doug,

In this case its Pierre posting how Semiotics relates to AWE, and I am mostly just adding supporting examples, not acting alone with a pet rant (like ProfC rants). 

One more semiotic case is how natural that Peter Lynn created SkyBanners venture to write messages on the sky by means of kites. Make no mistake, kite semiotics is a fine topic for AWES experts,

daveS



On Sunday, May 24, 2015 6:54 AM, "dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
"Doug, If you think AWE semiology is not a proper concern of the AWES Forum, you are in the wrong place."  *** You sound like a broken record, as usual.  A main aspect of your incurable version of "The Professor Crackpot Syndrome" is a fixation on mere words and their definitions.  Therefore you endlessly invoke larger and more obscure words, thinking that if only your fantasies can be made sufficiently incomprehensible, a case could somehow be made that you "know what you are talking about" or that you are contributing something new to the non-field of AWE.  So now we're on to re-defining words that merely talk about... defining words.  This is you in your echo-chamber, saying nothing, pretending to say something.  No you will never be able to "define" your way out of this paper bag you have crawled into.  Maybe you should get a job at a dictionary, where words definitions are the main thrust.  In the rest of the world, "a rose is a rose by any name".
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17999 From: dougselsam Date: 5/24/2015
Subject: Re: Role of Advanced Physics in AWE
"Doug is now agreeing with my assertion that "best physics will win in AWE", even if not contributing any informed specifics (as usual)." *** You are incurable.  You just can't STOP misquoting my positions, arguing with things I never said.  Dude, you are just amusing yourself playing with word definitions,  Any system in this universe, AWE or otherwise, OBVIOUSLY follows the laws of physics.  Any idiot knows that.  Your constant recent knee-jerk repeated invocation of the mere word "physics" is just your latest "flavor of the month" to pretend you are even saying anything at all, which you are not.  It is all complete empty blather.  Big words will not save you.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18000 From: dave santos Date: 5/24/2015
Subject: Re: Windlift News
Yes Doug, Its quite true that complaining over literary cliches by anonymous web copy-writers is not as helpful to us as Ed's finding the new WindLift photographs and a previously unnoticed designer team, and my adding observations about the hardware.

I have never been close to as negative as you, since I report wonderful specific AWES progress almost everywhere (USWindLabs glaringly excepted). Face the fact that you are the most negative AWE commentator of all, far surpassing MikeB and PaulG, who are quite moderate and open-minded skeptics, who even nobly disclaim to have expert knowledge in AWE, but await further technical results.



On Sunday, May 24, 2015 7:45 AM, "dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
"Doug, To only point out the tired wind cliche by Design Concepts' webmaster is not "expert level" helpful, but more unfocused negativity toward the world."  *** I see, so YOUR endless negative comments toward everyone and everything are "useful" whereas I "do not recognize mere hype" and my comments "are not useful".  M'kay, as usual, daveS - what can anyone do but agree with you since you know everything and are always right?

"Concentrate on adding useful new info to AWE, rather than constant irrelevant complaints." daveS  ***OK daveS, I guess we'll just overlook YOUR "constant irrelevant complaints", right?

"PS Do you now understand Debye Temperature in the context of UHMWPE (as explaining the amazing thermodynamics of kite tug-force)? Its not enough to only complain against modern physics as if it was all just worthless cliche."
*** No daveS, since I DO understand empty hype, I would not spend one minute examining the veracity of your misuse of your misunderstood and misapplied buzzwords.  Like I flagged the AWE-powered village in remote Alaska as hype, I flag your empty abuse of langauge as orders-of-magnitude WORSE empty hype. At least a blimp turbine putting power into a small grid is possible, whereas the stuff you talk about is ridiculous nonsense that you only THINK you understand.  Just as the astute observer sees the consistent unworkability of "breakthroughs" announced in endless articles titled "Blowin' in the wind", even more apparent are the flailings and empty blather of the "Professor Crackpots" of the world who think they can B.S their way to stardom by invoking big words which they can only misapply in their ongoing ignorance masqueradiing as expertise.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18001 From: dave santos Date: 5/24/2015
Subject: Re: Role of Advanced Physics in AWE
Doug,

A  fine value of advanced physics in AWE that you overlook is the fertile inspiration to new AWES engineering concepts, for example, the possiblity of filling the sky with periodic lattices of kite elements, under statistical mechanics.

Its not that science's "big-words" themselves are magic. The magic is only by understanding what they mean and how they might apply. No wonder you are stalled, if you have not done this homework.

Advanced physics is changing the world, and new kite ideas are part of this revolution. The obvious non-tautological aspect of "best physics will win" is to be able to say just what physics essentially applies, which cannot be done from your willful ignorance of "big words".

daveS



On Sunday, May 24, 2015 7:51 AM, "dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
"Doug is now agreeing with my assertion that "best physics will win in AWE", even if not contributing any informed specifics (as usual)." *** You are incurable.  You just can't STOP misquoting my positions, arguing with things I never said.  Dude, you are just amusing yourself playing with word definitions,  Any system in this universe, AWE or otherwise, OBVIOUSLY follows the laws of physics.  Any idiot knows that.  Your constant recent knee-jerk repeated invocation of the mere word "physics" is just your latest "flavor of the month" to pretend you are even saying anything at all, which you are not.  It is all complete empty blather.  Big words will not save you.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18002 From: dougselsam Date: 5/24/2015
Subject: Re: Windlift News
"Yes Doug, Its quite true that complaining over literary cliches by anonymous web copy-writers is not as helpful to us as Ed's finding the new WindLift photographs and a previously unnoticed designer team, and my adding observations about the hardware."
*** Wow, like we need "one more kite-reeler" team.  Where's the obligatory group photo of the grad students?  Sorry but I'm not impressed with a pic showing an off-the-shelf windsurfing kite about to crash into a streetlamp.

"I have never been close to as negative as you, since I report wonderful specific AWES progress almost everywhere (USWindLabs glaringly excepted)."
*** OK, so now you want to argue about who is "more negative"?  (I'd like an argument, please" - Monty Python)  If I flag blatant B.S., the "Professor Crackpot" in you will always defend the B.S., since you can't tell the difference.  To you, all chatter is equal, with veracity a low or nonexistent priority.

"Face the fact that you are the most negative AWE commentator of all, far surpassing MikeB and PaulG, who are quite moderate and open-minded skeptics, who even nobly disclaim to have expert knowledge in AWE, but await further technical results."
*** PaulG understands reality, which is why he was willing to test one of my early turbines, later describing it as "the most powerful turbine he had ever tested".  The "Professor Crackpots" of the world ALWAYS imagine that "negativity" of people who have even the slightest idea what they are even talking about is the main thing holding them back, since facts tend to hamper their endless crackpot delusions, and without any results, they hang on every word of what is said on the web, as though empty words can make or break their designs, or are even relevant at all.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18003 From: dougselsam Date: 5/24/2015
Subject: Re: Role of Advanced Physics in AWE
"Doug... The obvious non-tautological aspect of "best physics will win" is to be able to say just what physics essentially applies,"  *** Which you are unable to identify, instead falling into irrelevant "Professor Crackpot" recitations of big words you only think you understand.  Your endless reliance on a "buzzword-of-the-week" is laughable.  This week, the daveS irrelevant buzzword is "tautological".  Wow, I hope you are impressed with yourself. 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18004 From: dave santos Date: 5/24/2015
Subject: Re: Windlift News
Doug wrote: "PaulG understands reality, which is why he was willing to test one of my early turbines, later describing it as "the most powerful turbine he had ever tested""

Doug, you have endless troubles quoting properly. Surely PaulG did not refer to himself in the third person, nor was he very successful at testing (he he admits). His proper challenge to the AWE community is to let him know when it matures enough to provide standard metrics for performance, which is nothing like your silly objections to things like "big words"..
 



On Sunday, May 24, 2015 9:02 AM, "dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
"Yes Doug, Its quite true that complaining over literary cliches by anonymous web copy-writers is not as helpful to us as Ed's finding the new WindLift photographs and a previously unnoticed designer team, and my adding observations about the hardware."
*** Wow, like we need "one more kite-reeler" team.  Where's the obligatory group photo of the grad students?  Sorry but I'm not impressed with a pic showing an off-the-shelf windsurfing kite about to crash into a streetlamp.

"I have never been close to as negative as you, since I report wonderful specific AWES progress almost everywhere (USWindLabs glaringly excepted)."
*** OK, so now you want to argue about who is "more negative"?  (I'd like an argument, please" - Monty Python)  If I flag blatant B.S., the "Professor Crackpot" in you will always defend the B.S., since you can't tell the difference.  To you, all chatter is equal, with veracity a low or nonexistent priority.

"Face the fact that you are the most negative AWE commentator of all, far surpassing MikeB and PaulG, who are quite moderate and open-minded skeptics, who even nobly disclaim to have expert knowledge in AWE, but await further technical results."
*** PaulG understands reality, which is why he was willing to test one of my early turbines, later describing it as "the most powerful turbine he had ever tested".  The "Professor Crackpots" of the world ALWAYS imagine that "negativity" of people who have even the slightest idea what they are even talking about is the main thing holding them back, since facts tend to hamper their endless crackpot delusions, and without any results, they hang on every word of what is said on the web, as though empty words can make or break their designs, or are even relevant at all.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18005 From: dave santos Date: 5/24/2015
Subject: Re: Role of Advanced Physics in AWE
Doug,

I am in fact carefully citing specific thermodynamic science here, and in the past have been similarly careful and specific, whatever the branch of physics (chaos, cybernetical physics, micro-meteorology, condensed matter, etc.). Physics discussions date from the early Forum and really have developed nicely, with many interesting correspondences to AWE theory and practice cited.

For example, that Galileo's square-cube scaling law prevents your SuperTurbine from practical large-scale realization has been known for years now, and naturally explains why you are stuck under 50 feet altitude. At least the kite-reelers get to the better wind above any "rotating tower" (as you once put it), by just adding string. Vainly complaining about open physics discussion only further isolates you from the leaders in AWE,

daveS



On Sunday, May 24, 2015 9:08 AM, "dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
"Doug... The obvious non-tautological aspect of "best physics will win" is to be able to say just what physics essentially applies,"  *** Which you are unable to identify, instead falling into irrelevant "Professor Crackpot" recitations of big words you only think you understand.  Your endless reliance on a "buzzword-of-the-week" is laughable.  This week, the daveS irrelevant buzzword is "tautological".  Wow, I hope you are impressed with yourself. 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18006 From: dave santos Date: 5/24/2015
Subject: New student AWES R&D team in United Arab Emirates

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18007 From: dave santos Date: 5/24/2015
Subject: Addressable Point-to-Point Power Transmission across an Airborne Pol
Consider a large regular (crystalline geometry) polymer lattice suspended in free-space (as a kite-matter example). By selective tensioning of a path between any two points on the lattice (the remaining lattice left untensioned), the selected tensile-path thus becomes a conduit for (pumping) power transmission, as activated by the zero-point energy of minimal static tension. The energy transmitted is Gibbs (or Helmholtz) "free-energy".* Many other interesting physics dynamics apply here, including the near-total internal reflection of the energy in the quasi 1D path selected (anyon basis).

This is an elegant theoretic solution for redistributing power across a polymer grid from where power is locally most abundant to where it is most wanted. Its the sort of fundamental insight given by diligently adopting an advanced-physics view of kite tech, and helps formalize previous insights into the engineering potential of airborne lattices, as long presented on the AWES Forum.

Open-AWE_IP-Pool


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

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18008 From: Rod Read Date: 5/24/2015
Subject: Re: Windlift News

If the real problem here is with regurgitation of stale lyrical copy in AWE...
Then maybe you could use my AWE kites playlist it's now up to 246 quality tunes http://open.spotify.com/user/rodread/playlist/5cJFsqd0KZjAoqYTTJLV2H
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18009 From: Rod Read Date: 5/24/2015
Subject: Re: Addressable Point-to-Point Power Transmission across an Airborne

So.. When you pull a string one one end some energy happenes at the other...
Mind blown to shreds!

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18010 From: dave santos Date: 5/24/2015
Subject: Re: Windlift News
Rod,

The "real problem here" is poorly on-topic posting. The notice of Design Concepts in AWES design, and related details, is the proper content. There is no moderation of badly off-topic or empty postings, which could be filed apart, but not deleted (to thwart troll-censorship accusations).

Kite songs is a proper topic by itself, rather than an instance of WindLift News. 

daveS



On Sunday, May 24, 2015 1:10 PM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
If the real problem here is with regurgitation of stale lyrical copy in AWE...
Then maybe you could use my AWE kites playlist it's now up to 246 quality tunes http://open.spotify.com/user/rodread/playlist/5cJFsqd0KZjAoqYTTJLV2H
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18011 From: dave santos Date: 5/24/2015
Subject: Re: Addressable Point-to-Point Power Transmission across an Airborne
The inventive leap here is the many-connected topology, rather than just a collection of discrete channels. Yes, the single channel view is quite obvious while an addressable network view is more subtle. One can thus, for example, make a real tin-can telephone network to teach kids an advanced networking aspect that the single tin-can telephone omits (although ts still a fine two-way energy/information theory lesson).



On Sunday, May 24, 2015 1:23 PM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
So.. When you pull a string one one end some energy happenes at the other...
Mind blown to shreds!


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18012 From: benhaiemp Date: 5/24/2015
Subject: Re: Addressable Point-to-Point Power Transmission across an Airborne

Deformation of kite as link between giant single unity and lattice. http://www.awec2013.de/pdfs/Roland_Schmehl_Presentationl.pdf 


PierreB
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18013 From: dave santos Date: 5/24/2015
Subject: Re: Addressable Point-to-Point Power Transmission across an Airborne
Pierre,

Thanks for the link. I had not seen this presentation, but it fails to identify the concept presented here, since it only reflects TUDelft's choice of single kite topology whose power and control actuation channels are not intended nor act as a homogeneous network. The power channel (main tether) is obviously not networked, and the 2-channel actuation is one-way fixed-address. Nor would a kitefarm of many TUDelft units have the network properties presented here.

TUDelft is behind in developing novel airborne lattice concepts for AWES, which are far better understood (and clearly presented) by classic kite experts in places like this Forum,

daveS



On Sunday, May 24, 2015 2:14 PM, "pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
Deformation of kite as link between giant single unity and lattice. http://www.awec2013.de/pdfs/Roland_Schmehl_Presentationl.pdf 

PierreB
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18014 From: dave santos Date: 5/24/2015
Subject: Formally Distinguishing Many-Connected from Discrete AWES Kitefarm T
AWES architectures can be broadly classed by distinguishing topological characteristics. In particular, most teams advocate discrete topologies (single-anchor/single-tether/single-kite units), but KiteLab Group and kPower advocate also testing many-connected airborne polymer lattices (many-connected multi-anchor/multi-tether/multi-kiteunits). 

These links introduce a formal basis for the airborne topological connectedness spectrum being presented here on the Forum. Bridles tend to be many-connected, but as a fractal sub-dimension of the first-order AWES architecture; many-connected or not-
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18015 From: benhaiemp Date: 5/24/2015
Subject: Re: Addressable Point-to-Point Power Transmission across an Airborne

http://www.kitepower.eu/images/stories/publications/breukels10.pdf another link. Indeed I agree the whole lattice field (being abble to include some topology features as kite-farm within a single entity) is quite different of the whole field of kite deformation. However some common point can be elements of control of the complete wing, respectively using targeted deformations or targeted kixels.


PierreB
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18016 From: dave santos Date: 5/24/2015
Subject: Re: Addressable Point-to-Point Power Transmission across an Airborne
Yes, there is a connection to be seen. In the past the analogy between a single unit kite and a composite kite made of many units (Mothra) has been called a "meta-kite" here. Sadly, there seems to be nothing in TUDelft's program along these lines (excepting the Bell stick-kite, which hardly counts; but also the laddermill and spidermill, as partial many-connected topologies, from Wubbo's time).

Its already been noted here for years that Breukels' admirable simulations can be interpreted as predictive of mega-scale meta-kite dynamics; as well as TUDelft's wind tunnel tests where the parafoil was flown as an arch, but no sign that anyone in Delft is actively interested; again excepting Wubbo, in his time).

Its sad TUDelft, claiming to be the world's leading aerospace school, does not generate many hot new AWES ideas to test, but a valuable future role awaits them to eventually validate (or falsify) AWE ideas that first emerged from classic kite culture. The so-called "Kite Gods" are bursting with cool ideas to test (an embodied computation process), and in fact constantly experiment to accumulate mastery.



On Sunday, May 24, 2015 3:47 PM, "pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
http://www.kitepower.eu/images/stories/publications/breukels10.pdf another link. Indeed I agree the whole lattice field (being abble to include some topology features as kite-farm within a single entity) is quite different of the whole field of kite deformation. However some common point can be elements of control of the complete wing, respectively using targeted deformations or targeted kixels.

PierreB
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18017 From: dave santos Date: 5/24/2015
Subject: M600 Roll-Out

We are getting closer to a dramatic testing phase for GoogleX's scaled-up high-complexity flygen kiteplane. Time to request the FAA FSDO inspect and be present, and make public any safety-related mishap data. Time to line up Open-AWE spotters to position on Kilauea overlooking Parker Ranch-
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18018 From: dave santos Date: 5/24/2015
Subject: M600 Cradle Fabrication; mystery Hawaii test AWES
Interesting slide sequence, particularly the unidentified Hawaii test prototype that may signal a GoogleX pull-back to more basic kites-
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18019 From: dave santos Date: 5/24/2015
Subject: Re: M600 Cradle Fabrication; mystery Hawaii test AWES
Whoops, the mystery prototype was a 2008 Maui flight test slipped into the current photo mix, apparently backdated, but with a recent comment repeating the ~100hr operational testing claim, and seemingly disclosing the M600 Hawaii test program will run for a year-






On Sunday, May 24, 2015 5:37 PM, dave santos <santos137@yahoo.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18020 From: dave santos Date: 5/24/2015
Subject: Re: Active Soft Matter Paradigm (advanced kite physics)
Joe,

Biomembranes are a great kite-matter similarity case because they are so versatile and well understood. The common phospholipid unit turns out to be a quasi-kite that flys in a water pressure gradient, orienting itself stably and easily forming large unit groupings of "metakite-like" membrane. Phospholipids in diagrams even look just like little phosphate kites on lipid tethers and tend to form individual tethered pairs, like Wayne's tethered-foils. Endless more complex embedded channel proteins add vastly to the kite-like biological toolkit.

I was recently looking at non-biological molecules for kite ideas, and learned about wing-mill-like branches on some molecules that oscillate strongly to-and-fro at a given temperature, but as the energy increases further (gets hotter) the  begin to loop freely in turbine-mode. This is analogous to passive kite or airplane flight-mode transition from Dutch-roll/figure-eights to looping in circles. Inspired by this, kPower will be flying its negative-lift flygen kiteplane passively (and by active radio-control) under a pilot-kite, to test the prediction that spontaneous figure-eight modes will chaotically transition to loops and back, in gusting wind, while hopefully making nice power,

daveS



On Friday, May 22, 2015 8:07 AM, dave santos <santos137@yahoo.com  
"Soft materials are important in a wide range of technological applications."(bla bla blah?)
*** I'd say the topic of "soft materials" belongs in a kindergarten curriculum.  This is symptomatic of "The Professor Crackpot Syndrome", where any simple thing, understood by a 3-year-old (or less), turns into a  reason to make no progress - converting forward motion into "paralysis by analysis".
OMG, did you REALIZE, some materials are SOFT?  Say it isn't so!   :)
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18021 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 5/25/2015
Subject: Re: M600 Roll-Out

On one side a big rigid wing. On the other side a soft (by definition) tether. Perhaps the key of the success is to have a rope and a wing of the same nature.

 

PierreB

 

 

 

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18022 From: dave santos Date: 5/25/2015
Subject: Re: M600 Roll-Out
Pierre,

Strange design logic; that tethers are soft, so whatever is tethered should also be soft. Rigid gliders are very successful, but towed by soft tethers. Ships are rigid, but anchor with soft tethers (rodes). AWES can be done rigid or soft, but with no tethers at all (IFOs or Arches). Traditional windmills succeeded by reversing your formula; with soft sails on a rigid "tether" (tower). Even if tethers could be made magically rigid, that would not suddenly mean no soft wings should be attached.

Conventional aerospace logic of rigid v. soft is based on engineering scaling-laws, rather than any soft-only-with-soft heuristic. Like biology, typical results are blended structure of rigid and soft elements in proportions that vary widely across the scale spectrum. A historic trend to account for is that rigid wing structure will gain further applicability from ongoing progress in materials and flight reliability, no matter if tethers stay just as soft.

There does not seem to be "a key to the success" of AWES merely by a "a rope and a wing of the same nature", but rather many other keys that are already well known, but take time and hard work to develop, like KIS, test-test-test, etc.. If only aerospace design were as simple as soft-only-goes-with-soft logic,

daveS
 



On Monday, May 25, 2015 5:42 AM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
On one side a big rigid wing. On the other side a soft (by definition) tether. Perhaps the key of the success is to have a rope and a wing of the same nature.
 
PierreB
 
 
 
 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18023 From: dave santos Date: 5/25/2015
Subject: Basic Polymer Physics for AWES Engineering
Polymer physics is surprisingly exotic, if one looks closely. Not only are polymers a model for quantum loop gravity and other fancy theories, but polymers themselves are packed with advanced physics of direct engineering applications. We study this science here as a quest for better AWE knowledge, not as a marketing scheme for "fantasy turbines".

Elasticity itself is a huge physical subject. Ye-olde Hooke's Law turns out to be almost useless, since polymer elasticity only obeys Hooke approximately, in very narrow conditions. Modern thermodynamics is where polymer science turns weird, a century before QM turns everything weirder. Finally, in our time, especially with the kite as a serious scientific object, all the weirdness at least becomes tangible, something we can hack with.

Some key modern aspects of polymer science include the transfer of order and entropy, the nature of liquid-crystals, the internal speed-of-sound as the phonon speed-limit, just as the speed-of-light in photon science holds. Make no mistake, QM holds in superpolymers, from microscopic to macroscopic scales, but the hundreds of papers supporting such findings understandably overlook explicitly relating the science to kite applications.

The vast possibilities have been hard to foresee because polymer engineering has lagged in creating superfibers to play with. For a long time the best scientists were limited to polymer solutions of fairly short molecules, but still made revolutionary theoretic progress. Now that we have such amazing ideas, and actual material in our hands, its easier than ever to notice real wonders. The applicability of modern physics interpretations is only denied by cranks.

Returning once again to the original kite-related anomaly that motivated my wonder five years ago; my question was how a ship could tow a  second ship at ~10MW power transmission via a thin polymer cable that stays cool. The search for formal answers turned out to be a sustained physics adventure. If only everyone enjoyed such exploration.

Here are three links to modern polymer science. The top link is specialized toward the recent discussion of soft-matter and how stiffness is defined, with obvious advanced subtleties. The middle link is a quasi-random citation (I preferentially chose Mexican authors) of the polymer physical model extended to obviously exotic sub-atomic cosmology. The bottom link is general polymer science, but still reflects the revolutionary trends of advanced physics-
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18024 From: benhaiemp Date: 5/25/2015
Subject: Re: Risks from soft and rigid wings
  • Favoring soft wings (including rotors): crashes with lesser consequences due to lesser weight and speed. Example: kites we know, including power kites.
  • Favoring rigid wings (including rotors): stability by both weight and speed in spite of wind changes. Example: airliners staying stable in spite of Jet Stream or turbulences.

    PierreB 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18025 From: dave santos Date: 5/25/2015
Subject: Re: Risks from soft and rigid wings
Pierre,

Obviously both soft an rigid wings are very successful, often in the same aeronautical application space. You must carefully define the scale, winds, economic conditions, and many other factors, in order to properly decide just when a soft or rigid wing is clearly favored.

Its helpful to cite previous studies of the topic in AWE and aerospace, since this is a long-standing issue that many have contributed to. For example, the current topic on polymer physics linked to three sources, so the reader was not expected to simply accept my comments without appropriate engineering and historical contexts.

You are making broad factual assertions about aerospace science without connecting with the literature. Assembling a third-party bibliography to support your reasoning only helps (like the Persistence Length polymer-science framework supplied to you). The same concern applied to your analysis of AWES airspace capacity intensity,

daveS
 



On Monday, May 25, 2015 10:49 AM, "pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
  • Favoring soft wings (including rotors): crashes with lesser consequences due to lesser weight and speed. Example: kites we know, including power kites.
  • Favoring rigid wings (including rotors): stability by both weight and speed in spite of wind changes. Example: airliners staying stable in spite of Jet Stream or turbulences.

    PierreB 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18026 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 5/25/2015
Subject: Re: Risks from soft and rigid wings

DaveS,

 

This topic is open. So you can add some analysis, if possible by referencing it. For example you wrote "Assembling a third-party bibliography to support your reasoning only helps (like the Persistence Length polymer-science framework supplied to you)." In what knowledge (?) of "Persistence Length polymer-science framework" is able to help me to make some comparation between soft and rigid wings?

 

PierreB

   

 

 

 

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18027 From: dave santos Date: 5/25/2015
Subject: Semisoft Sail-Wing
There is a large hybrid sail-wing design space. No general fitness conclusion is yet warranted, except that birds have fine semi-soft wings. Note the easy furling with hot performance of this sail-wing, but with considerable complexity-
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18028 From: dave santos Date: 5/25/2015
Subject: Re: Risks from soft and rigid wings
Pierre,

Of course this topic (rigid v. soft wings) has been covered here for years, and also debated many times in our circles (primarily by claims like Makani or KiteShip, and everything in between. Yes, the Polymer Persistence Length article deeply applies, if you are able to reason by the dimensionless math across all scales.

Perhaps you missed the past Forum discussions, or found it all worthless, so you think that you must make a fresh start, and maybe never get to solid conclusions, by restarting from nothing. Now you argue against careful compilation of the prior record of this topic, on the pretext that its "open". Openness is no excuse for not carefully referencing one's technical presentations.

Roland fairly judges those who eagerly do not follow a high academic standard in AWE study as "hobbyists", but this is an expert forum, not a hobbyist chat room. The expert and academic standard are equivalent. Lets build on the past work as experts and scholars, rather than overlook the past, by lower social standards,

daveS



On Monday, May 25, 2015 11:53 AM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
DaveS,
 
This topic is open. So you can add some analysis, if possible by referencing it. For example you wrote "Assembling a third-party bibliography to support your reasoning only helps (like the Persistence Length polymer-science framework supplied to you)." In what knowledge (?) of "Persistence Length polymer-science framework" is able to help me to make some comparation between soft and rigid wings?
 
PierreB
   
 
 
 
 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18029 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 5/25/2015
Subject: Re: Risks from soft and rigid wings

DaveS,

 

What is the level of relevance of "Yes, the Polymer Persistence Length article deeply applies, if you are able to reason by the dimensionless math across all scales." in the present topic. If you prefer what is the link between "Polymer Persistence Length" and soft vs rigid wings? Please answer the question without calling upon references to the past which you do not moreover give. Note also your aggressive tone is only showing your gaps from the point of view of the scientific argumentation.

 

PierreB

 

 

 

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18030 From: Rod Read Date: 5/25/2015
Subject: Re: M600 Roll-Out

Looks like a kids lego project.
Not exactly designed for tether was it.
Eugh! Yuk!
Not that any of my work is exactly pretty. Even though Jaap from Ampyx called Daisy cute. Nice thanks.
Makani, you've created a monster nightmare.
Minesto got it right... If you want a big solid single unit creature... Keep it supported in a similar density medium... the sea. (think whale)
If you want to grow a massive safe seaborne island... Knit mangrove over coral..  In air that's a big flying net... (not yet seen in nature... Probably hard to reproduce... So was the wheel)


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18031 From: dave santos Date: 5/25/2015
Subject: Re: Risks from soft and rigid wings
Since the rigid v. soft topic is so well-known in AWE and old in aviation generally; and covers hundreds of messages just on the AWES Forum, with many references offered; so the (mostly KiteLab) expert predictions that emerged are noted again here, and the extended supporting reasoning can be found in the Forum archives-
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18032 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 5/25/2015
Subject: Re: Risks from soft and rigid wings

 "Both soft and rigid wings have optimal applications [which one?] according to specific conditions [which one?] .One must define these conditions to decide which wing is best."

Hollow sentences.

 

PierreB

 

 

 

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18033 From: dave santos Date: 5/25/2015
Subject: Re: Risks from soft and rigid wings
Pierre requested to know how the mathematical tools of polymer persistence length apply to the rigid v. soft wing debate. I can't really help with understanding Wikipedia content, which is supposed to be as clear as possible, but the justification for the citation is summarized as follows-

- Both rigid and soft polymer wings, and everything in between, involve standard polymer science.

The Persistence Length article uses macroscopic examples, like uncooked spaghetti, to show the lay-reader how the ideas apply. Sample-

"Imagine a long cord that is slightly flexible. At short distance scales, the cord will basically be rigid. If you look at the direction the cord is pointing at two points that are very close together, the cord will likely be pointing in the same direction at those two points (i.e. the angles of the tangent vectors are highly correlated). If you choose two points on this flexible cord (imagine a piece of cooked spaghetti that you've just tossed on your plate) that are very far apart, however, the tangent to the cords at those locations will likely be pointing in different directions (i.e. the angles will be uncorrelated). If you plot out how correlated the tangent angles at two different points are as a function of the distance between the two points, you'll get a plot that starts out at 1 (perfect correlation) at a distance of zero and drops exponentially as distance increases. The persistence length is the characteristic length scale of that exponential decay."
 



On Monday, May 25, 2015 12:40 PM, dave santos <santos137@yahoo.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18034 From: Rod Read Date: 5/25/2015
Subject: Re: Semisoft Sail-Wing

Blimey that short wee hull looked way over powered.
Massively complex sail gubbins though. Don't fancy explaining to the huge construction crew how we need to remake the rig because I stacked it in a gybe.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18035 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 5/25/2015
Subject: Re: Risks from soft and rigid wings

About  "Persistence Length polymer-science framework" instead of only "Persistence Length".

What about "polymer-science framework"? Is "polymer-science" about molecular structure of polymer? The same for "framework"? But perhaps "Persistence Length" can apply to the silk or the cotton, which are not polymers...

I look vainly for a meaning in "Persistence Length polymer-science framework"...

 

PierreB

 

 

 

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18036 From: dave santos Date: 5/25/2015
Subject: Re: Risks from soft and rigid wings
Of course cotton and silk are biopolymers. I did warn that Persistence Length is a more advanced physics topic (that won't make sense to a novice). One must start with just understanding what a polymer is generally, including the endless natural polymers-





On Monday, May 25, 2015 1:20 PM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
About  "Persistence Length polymer-science framework" instead of only "Persistence Length".
What about "polymer-science framework"? Is "polymer-science" about molecular structure of polymer? The same for "framework"? But perhaps "Persistence Length" can apply to the silk or the cotton, which are not polymers...
I look vainly for a meaning in "Persistence Length polymer-science framework"...
 
PierreB
 
 
 
 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18037 From: benhaiemp Date: 5/25/2015
Subject: Re: Risks from soft and rigid wings
I do not see cotton as biopolymer in Cotton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

DaveS your assertion "Of course cotton and silk are biopolymers. " is wrong of course, at least when cotton or silk are used as fibers (for kites, for sails as examples). See definition of polymer on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymer/ˈpɒlɨmər/[2][3]) (Greek poly-, "many" + -mer, "parts") is a large molecule, or macromolecule, composed of many repeated subunits. Because of their broad range of properties,"

Fibers and polymers are not the same. So your assertion as "Persistence Length polymer-science Framework" is on a false basis. But maybe as mathematician you beleive, by mixing wrong assertions, you produce the truth by wrong X wrong...


PierreB

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18038 From: Rod Read Date: 5/25/2015
Subject: Re: Risks from soft and rigid wings
Long molecule squidge factor hmmm probably is quite important ... to many many subjects whether it's defined as Persistence Length in whatever mathematical framework you can deliver to it...
It'll be much more relevant once we create the sheet, mesh, line, or other which comes from study being applied.
Great idea to keep a look out for the results though.
Generalised science reporting can be a much more fruitful trove of inspiration... e.g.
see the latest edition of science in action podcast http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02rbvw5
Paralysis patients with implants may be the best operators of of complexity by brain reading robot....
A new hydrophobic and hydrophilic combined printed sheet inspired by desert living beetles is able to recover tiny fog particulate very efficiently from the air. AWE extra application for sure
NASA flexible wing development is advancing (great news for Makani fans?)
Accurate satellite cover in Antarctica is tricky... long term AWE mesh deployment needs in high wind wide open space anybody up for it?
To avoid RAT drag for control solar improvement grating sheeting is highlighted (again productised after inspiration from beetles)

OOOh popular media... I must put some beetles on my AWE playlist


Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18039 From: dave santos Date: 5/25/2015
Subject: Re: Risks from soft and rigid wings
Pierre,

You should be noticing how incomplete your polymer starting knowledge is, which is only a problem because you are state so many misimpressions as facts. You are making me correct these factual errors, but it would be better if you caught these errors yourself, by basing your assertions on the best sources (and citing them).

Cotton is 90% cellulose, which is the most common plant biopolymer. In fact, advanced polymer physics was mastered by biological nature hundreds of million years ago, but human science still has not caught up.

Nature's scaling limit to semi-rigid wing structure, based on the biopolymer collagen, is comparable to the practical limit for good-flying stick kites. Here are nature's best efforts at large wings until humans came along, and we have barely surpassed one order of magnitude larger scale, fighting against square-cube law-






On Monday, May 25, 2015 2:38 PM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
Long molecule squidge factor hmmm probably is quite important ... to many many subjects whether it's defined as Persistence Length in whatever mathematical framework you can deliver to it...
It'll be much more relevant once we create the sheet, mesh, line, or other which comes from study being applied.
Great idea to keep a look out for the results though.
Generalised science reporting can be a much more fruitful trove of inspiration... e.g.
see the latest edition of science in action podcast http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02rbvw5
Paralysis patients with implants may be the best operators of of complexity by brain reading robot....
A new hydrophobic and hydrophilic combined printed sheet inspired by desert living beetles is able to recover tiny fog particulate very efficiently from the air. AWE extra application for sure
NASA flexible wing development is advancing (great news for Makani fans?)
Accurate satellite cover in Antarctica is tricky... long term AWE mesh deployment needs in high wind wide open space anybody up for it?
To avoid RAT drag for control solar improvement grating sheeting is highlighted (again productised after inspiration from beetles)

OOOh popular media... I must put some beetles on my AWE playlist


Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18040 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 5/25/2015
Subject: Re: Risks from soft and rigid wings

DaveS,

 

Your last links are about Paleontology, after polymers and fibers. So, by trying to correct your misconceptions, comprising about misquoted sentences from me, your general knowledge will increase, but probably by other misconceptions. What is your next step? Ethology? I think if you want learning, begin with few subjects you can master.

 

PierreB

 

 

 

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18041 From: dave santos Date: 5/25/2015
Subject: Re: Risks from soft and rigid wings
Sorry Pierre, if comparing successful biological flight with semi-soft wings, with sources, is somehow as wrong as claiming there are no biological polymers, and not providing sources (nor carefully reading sources provided).

For example, the following is not my analysis, but Wikipedia's, but it does speak to my knowledge of flight, scaling law, and kites, if not to you. The physical overlap is that these animals had to take-off and land at similar low velocities (comparable to kite winds) using polymer wings-

"Despite their size, there is little doubt that even the largest teratorns could fly. Visible marks of the attachments of contour feathers can be seen on Argentavis wing bones. This defies some earlier theories that modern condors, swans, and bustards represent the size limit for flying birds. The wing loading of Argentavis was relatively low for its size, a bit more than aturkey's,[5] and if there were any significant wind present, the bird could probably get airborne merely by spreading its wings, just like modern albatrosses. South America during the Miocene probably featured strong and steady westerly winds, as the Andes were still forming and not yet very high."





On Monday, May 25, 2015 4:58 PM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
DaveS,
 
Your last links are about Paleontology, after polymers and fibers. So, by trying to correct your misconceptions, comprising about misquoted sentences from me, your general knowledge will increase, but probably by other misconceptions. What is your next step? Ethology? I think if you want learning, begin with few subjects you can master.
 
PierreB
 
 
 
 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18042 From: dave santos Date: 5/25/2015
Subject: Case-Based Reasoning (CBR) advancing Theoretic AWE (application of s
Attachments :
    When ChrisC some years ago on the Forum astutely recommended to us to seek "similarity cases" when faced with AWES engineering uncertainty, it was a wake-up call, since I had long ago been active student of Case-Based Reasoning for intelligent agents (and many other AI paradigms), but failed to connect CBR to AWES R&D. The power of CBR is finding workable engineering solutions to novel problems from similar cases. Its an intelligence-boosting method anyone can use. JoeF is a natural AWE CBR savant.

    Since ChrisC's reminder, I have scoured human knowledge more systematically for similarity cases applicable to open problems in AWES design (still looking for long low-mass driveshafts). Pierre was just now taken aback at the CBR method, wondering how cases of extinct flying creatures could say anything about AWES wing choices. So its a good time to go more in depth about how CBR works, and why its so powerful, even without computers (traditional Law and Medicine are ancestral CBR examples). Similarity is how cases are selected from any large case-base, and the Net itself has become the universal case-base.

    I am confident that when AWES design finally finds its classic forms, that applied CBR will have provided many key ideas. Two papers linked below for an overview of CBR, but they don't cite Janet Kolodner, who inspired so many of us in CBR in the old days-

    Janet was a an Alpha-Geek Goddess, and her 1993 CBR textbook remains my favorite book of the few I still possess-

    • Kolodner, J. L. (1993). Case-Based Reasoning. Morgan-Kaufmann Publishers, Inc., San Mateo, CA.

    Inline image



    Note: Rod asked how I knew OOP design: CBR was just one of many AI schema programmed according to OOP principles, which was already quite popular by the '90's.
    		   @@attachment@@
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18043 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 5/25/2015
    Subject: Re: Risks from soft and rigid wings

    Half truths and truncated quotations make full lies.

     

    PierreB

     

     

     

     
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18044 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/25/2015
    Subject: Ligament kiting Seagull Seahawk on May 23, 2015

    IMG_1581.JPG
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18045 From: dave santos Date: 5/25/2015
    Subject: Re: Risks from soft and rigid wings
    Pierre,

     Truncated quotations are only normal, since full texts are copies, not quotes. What exactly do you claim are full truths in this topic? What are the half-truths? Your language is more folksy than technical.

    At least what is and what is not  factually a polymer has been corrected, but what else? I reread your opening posts, and think you really have carelessly ignored many years of exploration of this topic by many expert players. You could do better in using citations to make your cases, like separating "risks" into engineering risk and business risk, with many fine texts to cite.

    Lets all do better, 

    daveS 
     



    On Monday, May 25, 2015 8:43 PM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
    Half truths and truncated quotations make full lies.
     
    PierreB