Messages in AirborneWindEnergy group.                          AWES 18046 to 18095 Page 255 of 440.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18046 From: dave santos Date: 5/25/2015
Subject: Re: Ligament kiting Seagull Seahawk on May 23, 2015

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18047 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 5/25/2015
Subject: Re: Ligament kiting Seagull Seahawk on May 23, 2015

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18048 From: dave santos Date: 5/25/2015
Subject: Re: Ligament kiting Seagull Seahawk on May 23, 2015

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18049 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 5/25/2015
Subject: Re: Ligament kiting Seagull Seahawk on May 23, 2015

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18050 From: Rod Read Date: 5/25/2015
Subject: Re: Risks from soft and rigid wings

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18051 From: Rod Read Date: 5/26/2015
Subject: Re: Ligament kiting Seagull Seahawk on May 23, 2015

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18052 From: benhaiemp Date: 5/26/2015
Subject: Re: Ligament kiting Seagull Seahawk on May 23, 2015

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18053 From: benhaiemp Date: 5/26/2015
Subject: Towards more relevance in AWE debate

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18054 From: benhaiemp Date: 5/26/2015
Subject: Re: Towards more relevance in AWE debate

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18055 From: dave santos Date: 5/26/2015
Subject: Re: Ligament kiting Seagull Seahawk on May 23, 2015

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18056 From: dave santos Date: 5/26/2015
Subject: Re: Towards more relevance in AWE debate

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18057 From: dave santos Date: 5/26/2015
Subject: Re: Risks from soft and rigid wings

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18058 From: dave santos Date: 5/26/2015
Subject: Re: Risks from soft and rigid wings

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18059 From: dougselsam Date: 5/26/2015
Subject: Re: Towards more relevance in AWE debate

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18060 From: dave santos Date: 5/26/2015
Subject: Re: Towards more relevance in AWE debate

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18061 From: dougselsam Date: 5/26/2015
Subject: Re: Towards more relevance in AWE debate

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18062 From: dave santos Date: 5/26/2015
Subject: Living Kites

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18063 From: dave santos Date: 5/26/2015
Subject: Re: Towards more relevance in AWE debate

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18064 From: dave santos Date: 5/26/2015
Subject: Re: Towards more relevance in AWE debate

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18065 From: dougselsam Date: 5/26/2015
Subject: Re: Towards more relevance in AWE debate

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18066 From: dougselsam Date: 5/26/2015
Subject: Re: Living Kites

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18067 From: dave santos Date: 5/26/2015
Subject: Re: Towards more relevance in AWE debate

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18068 From: dave santos Date: 5/26/2015
Subject: Re: Living Kites

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18069 From: dougselsam Date: 5/26/2015
Subject: Re: Towards more relevance in AWE debate

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18070 From: dave santos Date: 5/26/2015
Subject: Re: Towards more relevance in AWE debate

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18071 From: dougselsam Date: 5/26/2015
Subject: Re: Towards more relevance in AWE debate

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18072 From: dave santos Date: 5/26/2015
Subject: Re: Towards more relevance in AWE debate

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18073 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 5/26/2015
Subject: Re: Towards more relevance in AWE debate

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18074 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 5/26/2015
Subject: Re: Towards more relevance in AWE debate

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18075 From: dave santos Date: 5/26/2015
Subject: Re: Towards more relevance in AWE debate

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18076 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 5/26/2015
Subject: Re: Towards more relevance in AWE debate

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18077 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 5/26/2015
Subject: Re: Towards more relevance in AWE debate

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18078 From: dave santos Date: 5/26/2015
Subject: Re: Towards more relevance in AWE debate

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18079 From: Rod Read Date: 5/26/2015
Subject: Re: Living Kites

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18080 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 5/26/2015
Subject: Re: Towards more relevance in AWE debate

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18081 From: Rod Read Date: 5/26/2015
Subject: Re: Towards more relevance in AWE debate

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18082 From: dave santos Date: 5/26/2015
Subject: Re: Towards more relevance in AWE debate

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18083 From: Rod Read Date: 5/26/2015
Subject: Re: Towards more relevance in AWE debate

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18084 From: Rod Read Date: 5/26/2015
Subject: open presentation

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18085 From: dave santos Date: 5/26/2015
Subject: Re: Towards more relevance in AWE debate

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18086 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 5/26/2015
Subject: Re: Towards more relevance in AWE debate

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18087 From: dave santos Date: 5/26/2015
Subject: Re: open presentation

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18088 From: dave santos Date: 5/26/2015
Subject: Re: Towards more relevance in AWE debate

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18089 From: benhaiemp Date: 5/26/2015
Subject: Re: Towards more relevance in AWE debate

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18090 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 5/26/2015
Subject: Re: Towards more relevance in AWE debate

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18091 From: dave santos Date: 5/26/2015
Subject: Re: Towards more relevance in AWE debate

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18092 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/26/2015
Subject: Re: M600 Roll-Out

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18093 From: dave santos Date: 5/26/2015
Subject: Re: Living Kites

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18094 From: dave santos Date: 5/26/2015
Subject: Ancient Kite Festival- Indonesia

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18095 From: dave santos Date: 5/26/2015
Subject: 2011 AWES Product Claims



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18046 From: dave santos Date: 5/25/2015
Subject: Re: Ligament kiting Seagull Seahawk on May 23, 2015
Wow, intelligent biopolymer; most advanced tether tech yet :)



On Monday, May 25, 2015 9:00 PM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
IMG_1581.JPG
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18047 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 5/25/2015
Subject: Re: Ligament kiting Seagull Seahawk on May 23, 2015

DaveS,

 

You wrote: "At least what is and what is not  factually a polymer has been corrected, but what else?"[I am not sure of it] then now "Wow, intelligent biopolymer" . Have you analized molecular structure of this wing or do you refer in "Seagull" word? Here "Seagull" can mean like a "Seagull" under the angle of its shape, but not as biopolymer.

Avoiding such conceptual confusions would be a first step to write towards a scientific way rather than conceptual approximations making full lies.

 

PierreB

 

 

 

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18048 From: dave santos Date: 5/25/2015
Subject: Re: Ligament kiting Seagull Seahawk on May 23, 2015
Pierre,

In fact I carefully noted the intelligent biopolymer was tether-tech, as if it was not obvious in context. You denied biopolymers even existed a few hours ago, and now your Gallic Pique has clearly overblown, 

daveS



On Monday, May 25, 2015 9:55 PM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
DaveS,
 
You wrote: "At least what is and what is not  factually a polymer has been corrected, but what else?"[I am not sure of it] then now "Wow, intelligent biopolymer" . Have you analized molecular structure of this wing or do you refer in "Seagull" word? Here "Seagull" can mean like a "Seagull" under the angle of its shape, but not as biopolymer.
Avoiding such conceptual confusions would be a first step to write towards a scientific way rather than conceptual approximations making full lies.
 
PierreB
 
 
 
 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18049 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 5/25/2015
Subject: Re: Ligament kiting Seagull Seahawk on May 23, 2015

"You denied biopolymers even existed a few hours ago,": Where?

 

PierreB

 

 

 

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18050 From: Rod Read Date: 5/25/2015
Subject: Re: Risks from soft and rigid wings

Is there a district claim in any of that literature stating polymer strings will outperform sheet or lattice molecular structure in all applications... Really doubt it.
Not to diss polymers... But lets first define our material needs and sell
the cheapest one that performs to spec.
Polymer or not.

Not all polymers are soft. Some are rigid. Some are even half and half. Some soft polymers even come togeter to form rigid structures.
http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2015/04/floppy-polymer-defies-convention-form-rigid-mof

Yes polymers are a massive class of cheap materials with fantastic ranging properties. But I know who the first person to argue against trying to 3d print them together in natural cell and layered forms is.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18051 From: Rod Read Date: 5/26/2015
Subject: Re: Ligament kiting Seagull Seahawk on May 23, 2015

Dave S and Pierre, please realise this conversation is needless noise pollution.
As for the defence of

In fact I carefully noted the intelligent biopolymer was tether-tech, as if it was not obvious in context. Still have no idea what you're on about there. To suggest Gaelic might be an impairment... That's inflammatory, insensitive, inappropriate.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18052 From: benhaiemp Date: 5/26/2015
Subject: Re: Ligament kiting Seagull Seahawk on May 23, 2015

I have to deny these false words:"You denied biopolymers even existed a few hours ago,"

So pollution comes from DaveS, but now also from RodR by noting "intelligent biopolymer was tether-tech". Indeed what is "intelligent biopolymer", and for what "intelligent biopolymer" should be "tether-tech"?


Unfortunately, due to gargling with scientific so called language DaveS goes against the necessary rigor for a good understanding of topics.


PierreB
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18053 From: benhaiemp Date: 5/26/2015
Subject: Towards more relevance in AWE debate

AWE is complex , so more relevance is needed. Doug daily and rightly criticizes DaveS for his lack of relevance by conceitedly using big words without any meaning, by misquoting,  by deforming words, preventing any debate. But removing DaveS' false words is as removing water from sea with a spoon...


PierreB 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18054 From: benhaiemp Date: 5/26/2015
Subject: Re: Towards more relevance in AWE debate

Correction (English language) on my precedent message: "But removing DaveS' false words is like removing water from sea with a spoon..."


PierreB
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18055 From: dave santos Date: 5/26/2015
Subject: Re: Ligament kiting Seagull Seahawk on May 23, 2015
Let me correct myself by restating as follows- that Pierre yesterday did not know that cotton and silk were (bio)polymers- "the silk or the cotton, which are not polymers". I meant that Pierre was denying these substances to be biopolymers.

My comment to Joe wryly referred to the person holding the HG in tether-mode as "biopolymer" in the sense that collagen is the primary biopolymer in the human body.
 



On Tuesday, May 26, 2015 2:15 AM, "pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
I have to deny these false words:"You denied biopolymers even existed a few hours ago,"
So pollution comes from DaveS, but now also from RodR by noting "intelligent biopolymer was tether-tech". Indeed what is "intelligent biopolymer", and for what "intelligent biopolymer" should be "tether-tech"?

Unfortunately, due to gargling with scientific so called language DaveS goes against the necessary rigor for a good understanding of topics.

PierreB
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18056 From: dave santos Date: 5/26/2015
Subject: Re: Towards more relevance in AWE debate
Pierre,

Please try harder to correct factual mistakes one-by-one, whether by me, Doug, or even you. Its not enough to only complain about technical errors, without saying exactly which errors you mean. For example, I corrected the mis-statement about cotton and silk not being polymers, and your rightly pointed out that the error was not the same as claiming there is no such thing as biopolymers. 

I still do not now what "half truths" you are complaining about, if you do not list them one-by-one, correcting as best you can. Nor do you seem to care that Doug's confirmed factual errors are far more common and not balanced by any useful technical content. Yes, I make mistakes, and thank you for the trouble to correct them more carefully, and thank you if you can increase your use of third-party references to support your views about engineering or business "risk" in AWES design,

daveS

PS To Rod: I think Doug crapping on Wubbo's remembrance post is a far worse than any possible complaint about me or Pierre disagreeing about whether the rigid v. soft wing topic was well-covered enough in the past for Pierre to cite some references.



On Tuesday, May 26, 2015 4:48 AM, "pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
Correction (English language) on my precedent message: "But removing DaveS' false words is like removing water from sea with a spoon..."

PierreB
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18057 From: dave santos Date: 5/26/2015
Subject: Re: Risks from soft and rigid wings
Rod asked: "Is there a district claim in any of that literature stating polymer strings will outperform sheet or lattice molecular structure in all applications[?]"

No. Such a claim is too broad, and the proper scope is case-by-case. For example, the cheapest poly twine I have found is a membrane ribbon rolled up, which is strong, but very crude. Its given away at home improvement stores to bind loads to cartops, and kPower uses it for the large scrap kite in its quiver.

To relate back to the topic, it has been conjectured on-Forum that the best pure polymer at its max working load is possibly more effective by mass than any AWES consisting of a lesser proportion of polymer diluted by resins (for rigidity) and any other "contaminants" (like flygens and metallic conductors); with testing to finally decide if this is so.
 



On Monday, May 25, 2015 11:17 PM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
Is there a district claim in any of that literature stating polymer strings will outperform sheet or lattice molecular structure in all applications... Really doubt it.
Not to diss polymers... But lets first define our material needs and sell
the cheapest one that performs to spec.
Polymer or not.
Not all polymers are soft. Some are rigid. Some are even half and half. Some soft polymers even come togeter to form rigid structures.
http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2015/04/floppy-polymer-defies-convention-form-rigid-mof
Yes polymers are a massive class of cheap materials with fantastic ranging properties. But I know who the first person to argue against trying to 3d print them together in natural cell and layered forms is.


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18058 From: dave santos Date: 5/26/2015
Subject: Re: Risks from soft and rigid wings
Pierre asked for help providing references bearing on this soft-rigid wing "risk" topic. TACO 1.0 presents the topic in terms of FAA aviation regulations where risk is primarily based on mass-velocity metrics. Rigid wings, by inherently higher mass-velocity risk compared to soft wings, face far more difficult certification processes (and added business risk).

Any help finding factual errors in the text is appreciated. Corrections will be made to the updated document-





On Tuesday, May 26, 2015 7:09 AM, dave santos <santos137@yahoo.com  
Is there a district claim in any of that literature stating polymer strings will outperform sheet or lattice molecular structure in all applications... Really doubt it.
Not to diss polymers... But lets first define our material needs and sell
the cheapest one that performs to spec.
Polymer or not.
Not all polymers are soft. Some are rigid. Some are even half and half. Some soft polymers even come togeter to form rigid structures.
http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2015/04/floppy-polymer-defies-convention-form-rigid-mof
Yes polymers are a massive class of cheap materials with fantastic ranging properties. But I know who the first person to argue against trying to 3d print them together in natural cell and layered forms is.




Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18059 From: dougselsam Date: 5/26/2015
Subject: Re: Towards more relevance in AWE debate
Please refrain from dragging me into your endless swirl, that never results in a flush.  Cotton contains cellulose, which is a biopolymer.  Cotton itself is not a biopolymer, but instead, a cotton fiber is a tube of many layers having various functions, that includes a high percentage of a biopolymer called cellulose.
So, it is one more inaccurate statement by DaveS to say cotton IS a biopolymer.

The real dynamic at play here is daveS shhowing what a genius he is by invoking one more "big word" - one more stab at substituting word definitions for helpful knowledge, trying to make every9one else look dumb by nitpicking words when it is obvious that Pierre knows fully-well that cotton is a plant fiber, as does any 3-year-old.  OK, five-year-old.

It is also ridiculous to accuse Pierre of somehow not understanding what cotton is.  One more distraction to make daveS SEEM like an expert... about... well, something.   I believe from the context that Pierre is fully aware of the biological origin of cotton, and the fact that it is a fiber.  Does anyone disagree with the obvious?  The only factor at play here is daveS, with JoeF dragged along for the ride (wheeee!), still can't seem to refrain from substituting redefinitions of words for progress in AWE. 

Calling a guy holding a kite-string a "biopolymer" is just more meaningless wordplay from the wordplay twins.  It doesn't get anyone anywhere.  It's just a new way to say (Monty Python) "Id like an argument, please!" ("No you wouldn't!").

Well, when you got nuthin', I guess there is an urge to substitute your "nuthin'" for "somethin'".  The question is, is anyone buying it?
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18060 From: dave santos Date: 5/26/2015
Subject: Re: Towards more relevance in AWE debate
Doug is contradicted by Wikipedia as to whether cotton is a polymer (90% cellulose). Wikipedia states cotton is a fiber of almost pure cellulose-

"Cotton is a soft, fluffy staple fiber that grows in a boll, or protective capsule, around the seeds of cotton plants of the genus Gossypium in the family of Malvaceae. The fiber is almost pure cellulose. "


If Doug were properly relevant to AWE debate, he could explain why his ST schemes are not scaling up after so many years of hype.
 



On Tuesday, May 26, 2015 8:06 AM, "dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
Please refrain from dragging me into your endless swirl, that never results in a flush.  Cotton contains cellulose, which is a biopolymer.  Cotton itself is not a biopolymer, but instead, a cotton fiber is a tube of many layers having various functions, that includes a high percentage of a biopolymer called cellulose.
So, it is one more inaccurate statement by DaveS to say cotton IS a biopolymer.

The real dynamic at play here is daveS shhowing what a genius he is by invoking one more "big word" - one more stab at substituting word definitions for helpful knowledge, trying to make every9one else look dumb by nitpicking words when it is obvious that Pierre knows fully-well that cotton is a plant fiber, as does any 3-year-old.  OK, five-year-old.

It is also ridiculous to accuse Pierre of somehow not understanding what cotton is.  One more distraction to make daveS SEEM like an expert... about... well, something.   I believe from the context that Pierre is fully aware of the biological origin of cotton, and the fact that it is a fiber.  Does anyone disagree with the obvious?  The only factor at play here is daveS, with JoeF dragged along for the ride (wheeee!), still can't seem to refrain from substituting redefinitions of words for progress in AWE. 

Calling a guy holding a kite-string a "biopolymer" is just more meaningless wordplay from the wordplay twins.  It doesn't get anyone anywhere.  It's just a new way to say (Monty Python) "Id like an argument, please!" ("No you wouldn't!").

Well, when you got nuthin', I guess there is an urge to substitute your "nuthin'" for "somethin'".  The question is, is anyone buying it?
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18061 From: dougselsam Date: 5/26/2015
Subject: Re: Towards more relevance in AWE debate
No sorry I am NOT contradicted by Wikipedia, but rather Wikipedia and I agree.  Cotton is NOT "a biopolymer", but rather, it CONTAINS or INCORPORATES a large percentage of a biopolymer (cellulose).

Further, Pierre, and EVERYONE ELSE already KNEW that cotton contains a biopolymer.  Your trying to strongly imply that Pierre somehow did not understand this simple fact, to make you appear "smart" by comparison (???) is RIDICULOUS.  NOBODY is buying it.  Sorry.

Which is it that you are trying to falsely claim:
1) That Pierre did not understand that cotton comes from a plant?
2) That he did not understand that a plant is alive "bio"?

The only erroneous statement in this whole swirl of nothingness is YOU claiming cotton IS  biopolymer, when the FACT is cotton INCORPORATES a biopolymer, but also contains other substances.

You can stop pretending that you know things that the rest of us do not by using big words now.  Cotton is cotton and everyone has a pretty good idea of what it is.  You are contributing nothing but the usual trouble.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18062 From: dave santos Date: 5/26/2015
Subject: Living Kites
JoeF long ago noted on the forum that many leaves in fact act as kites in a breeze. Leaf kites are widely theorized as the oldest kites, and the strings were biological fibers as well (each cotton fiber is a single cell, so the unique cellulose recipe contains DNA and all the other essential machinery of life). What about kites that are actually alive; able to grow and self-repair?

Its probable leaves and vines have been flown even long ago in the living green phase. The stormy petrel is a living kite by having its feet in water while floating above in kite-mode. Many water organisms anchor and "fly" in currents by wing-like forms. Thus the idea of a living kite is not far-fetched at all. JoeF's sharing of the guy holding up an HG ("intelligent biopolymer tether", wryly put) is just one more instance of the open imagination that the AWES Forum invites.

How far might the living kite idea extend? One could take a living (uncut) vine and attach a living (aeroponic or parasitic fed) leafy plant for a ready living kite. A plant could be bred or genetically modified to more extreme kite properties. In the fullness of evolution, intelligent living kites could emerge. We draw on mathematics and physics professor Rudy Rucker's vision of kite-like beings in his brilliant science fiction. Rudy has shown keen interest in our kite progress, and a living kite is no problem for him to imagine; either as a great writer or scientist-
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18063 From: dave santos Date: 5/26/2015
Subject: Re: Towards more relevance in AWE debate
Doug,

Read the Wikipedia quote carefully. It defines cotton as a fiber and identifies the polymer. Pierre was apparently referring to fibers in denying cotton and silk are polymers. What about silk? Wikipedia again-

"Silk is a natural protein fiber, some forms of which can be woven into textiles. The protein fiber of silk is composed mainly of fibroin"

Fibroin is a polymer. Maybe we can agree that Pierre should have made clear that he did not mean cellulose or fibroin by referring to cotton or silk fiber,

daveS
 



On Tuesday, May 26, 2015 8:48 AM, "dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
No sorry I am NOT contradicted by Wikipedia, but rather Wikipedia and I agree.  Cotton is NOT "a biopolymer", but rather, it CONTAINS or INCORPORATES a large percentage of a biopolymer (cellulose).

Further, Pierre, and EVERYONE ELSE already KNEW that cotton contains a biopolymer.  Your trying to strongly imply that Pierre somehow did not understand this simple fact, to make you appear "smart" by comparison (???) is RIDICULOUS.  NOBODY is buying it.  Sorry.

Which is it that you are trying to falsely claim:
1) That Pierre did not understand that cotton comes from a plant?
2) That he did not understand that a plant is alive "bio"?

The only erroneous statement in this whole swirl of nothingness is YOU claiming cotton IS  biopolymer, when the FACT is cotton INCORPORATES a biopolymer, but also contains other substances.

You can stop pretending that you know things that the rest of us do not by using big words now.  Cotton is cotton and everyone has a pretty good idea of what it is.  You are contributing nothing but the usual trouble.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18064 From: dave santos Date: 5/26/2015
Subject: Re: Towards more relevance in AWE debate
Doug is mistaken about cotton fiber not being in itself a biopolymer. Here is a French academic source for cotton science, the commodity fiber (not the whole plant) being properly identified as a biopolymer-

"The cotton fibre is a very complex biopolymer..."





On Tuesday, May 26, 2015 9:38 AM, dave santos <santos137@yahoo.com  
No sorry I am NOT contradicted by Wikipedia, but rather Wikipedia and I agree.  Cotton is NOT "a biopolymer", but rather, it CONTAINS or INCORPORATES a large percentage of a biopolymer (cellulose).

Further, Pierre, and EVERYONE ELSE already KNEW that cotton contains a biopolymer.  Your trying to strongly imply that Pierre somehow did not understand this simple fact, to make you appear "smart" by comparison (???) is RIDICULOUS.  NOBODY is buying it.  Sorry.

Which is it that you are trying to falsely claim:
1) That Pierre did not understand that cotton comes from a plant?
2) That he did not understand that a plant is alive "bio"?

The only erroneous statement in this whole swirl of nothingness is YOU claiming cotton IS  biopolymer, when the FACT is cotton INCORPORATES a biopolymer, but also contains other substances.

You can stop pretending that you know things that the rest of us do not by using big words now.  Cotton is cotton and everyone has a pretty good idea of what it is.  You are contributing nothing but the usual trouble.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18065 From: dougselsam Date: 5/26/2015
Subject: Re: Towards more relevance in AWE debate
" daveS blathers on: "Doug,...Wikipedia ...defines cotton as a fiber and identifies the polymer....
"Silk is a natural protein fiber,...composed mainly of fibroin...Fibroin is a polymer." daveS

*** How can you go on like this endlessly playing with word definitions in lieu of saying anything meaningful?  It is clear from the Wikipedia (what else?) reference you provided that your statements have been wrong:  Neither cotton nor silk ARE biopolymers, but rather both INCORPORATE biopolymers. 

You seem to now be trying to subtly (?) shift your original statement that cotton and silk were POLYMERS, to pretend you said they were FIBERS.  Nope, you said there WERE biopolymers, whereas they merely INCORPORATE polymers.  Yes cotton and silk are fibers.  Didn't we all learn that in 3rd grade?  Are you seriously making the pretense that it is only you who understood that cotton and silk are fibers of a biological origin?  Are you going on record that you actually believe that Pierre somehow is not aware of this?  Or are you buying yourself playing meaningless word games?  It is all a pretense that you somehow understand everything, while everyone else is baffled at simple 3rd-grade-level mundane trivia.

I'm really perplexed that someone could become so fixated on lying about other people say, then arguing with their own lies.  Talk about a straw-man argument - sheesh!  You are trying to use big words to imply that you know something that the rest of us cannot comprehend, which is obviously not the case.  I'd say you take "The Professor Crackpot Syndrome" to a whole new level - an order of magnitude increase in absurdity and useless flailing, posturing as a source of information, pretending others do not understand common everyday subjects.  What a waste of time.
 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18066 From: dougselsam Date: 5/26/2015
Subject: Re: Living Kites
"What about kites that are actually alive; able to grow and self-repair?"
***You mean like balloon-spiders?  Everyone knows this.  You are not adding anything new. Everyone knows leaves blow in the wind.  Try coming up with something meaningful.

"Thus the idea of a living kite is not far-fetched at all."
*** Who ever said it was?

" JoeF's sharing of the guy holding up an HG ("intelligent biopolymer tether", wryly put)"
*** Interesting how you pretend to categorize every statement with descriptive terms.  If you or Joe restate the obvious, redefining something as simple as a guy holding a hang glider as one more excuse to use more big words, such a mundane statement is then described as "wryly put" as though you in your echo-chamber complementing yourself (again) carries any meaning whatsoever. 

Statements by others are consistently described negatively.  Par for the course, meanwhile you continue to say nothing while pretending to be redefining reality for the rest of us.  Professor Crackpot on steroids.  Add all the power in all the leaves blown by the wind and you are way past powering all human activity.  Only problem is, it's all carried out by "bio-wind-towers" (trees), not AWE.  But if it were AWE, and you guys "redefine" wiggling leaves as "wind energy" then your work, as usual, is finished.  Redefining AWE as not relevant to its original stated purpose (again) gets you (seemingly) off the hook for coming up with nothing useful after all that posturing.  All empty blather.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18067 From: dave santos Date: 5/26/2015
Subject: Re: Towards more relevance in AWE debate
Doug fails to account for the French cotton scientists stating "The cotton fibre is a very complex biopolymer..." in combination with Wikipedia stating "Cotton is a ... fiber".

If Pierre meant that cotton (the fiber) and silk are polymers, he wrote the opposite. Doug never can say what has kept the ST from scaling; somehow preferring to argue in vain that cotton fiber is not a biopolymer.
 



On Tuesday, May 26, 2015 10:29 AM, "dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
" daveS blathers on: "Doug,...Wikipedia ...defines cotton as a fiber and identifies the polymer....
"Silk is a natural protein fiber,...composed mainly of fibroin...Fibroin is a polymer." daveS

*** How can you go on like this endlessly playing with word definitions in lieu of saying anything meaningful?  It is clear from the Wikipedia (what else?) reference you provided that your statements have been wrong:  Neither cotton nor silk ARE biopolymers, but rather both INCORPORATE biopolymers. 

You seem to now be trying to subtly (?) shift your original statement that cotton and silk were POLYMERS, to pretend you said they were FIBERS.  Nope, you said there WERE biopolymers, whereas they merely INCORPORATE polymers.  Yes cotton and silk are fibers.  Didn't we all learn that in 3rd grade?  Are you seriously making the pretense that it is only you who understood that cotton and silk are fibers of a biological origin?  Are you going on record that you actually believe that Pierre somehow is not aware of this?  Or are you buying yourself playing meaningless word games?  It is all a pretense that you somehow understand everything, while everyone else is baffled at simple 3rd-grade-level mundane trivia.

I'm really perplexed that someone could become so fixated on lying about other people say, then arguing with their own lies.  Talk about a straw-man argument - sheesh!  You are trying to use big words to imply that you know something that the rest of us cannot comprehend, which is obviously not the case.  I'd say you take "The Professor Crackpot Syndrome" to a whole new level - an order of magnitude increase in absurdity and useless flailing, posturing as a source of information, pretending others do not understand common everyday subjects.  What a waste of time.
 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18068 From: dave santos Date: 5/26/2015
Subject: Re: Living Kites
In the case of ballooning spiders, the silk biopolymer tether-kite part is non-living, but the anchor mass is living. Thanks to Doug for finally embracing JoeF's expansive definition of what a kite is, even if Doug's example is not an actual living kite as defined here. The general point is well taken that HGPG aircraft have living anchors.



On Tuesday, May 26, 2015 10:38 AM, "dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
"What about kites that are actually alive; able to grow and self-repair?"
***You mean like balloon-spiders?  Everyone knows this.  You are not adding anything new. Everyone knows leaves blow in the wind.  Try coming up with something meaningful.

"Thus the idea of a living kite is not far-fetched at all."
*** Who ever said it was?

" JoeF's sharing of the guy holding up an HG ("intelligent biopolymer tether", wryly put)"
*** Interesting how you pretend to categorize every statement with descriptive terms.  If you or Joe restate the obvious, redefining something as simple as a guy holding a hang glider as one more excuse to use more big words, such a mundane statement is then described as "wryly put" as though you in your echo-chamber complementing yourself (again) carries any meaning whatsoever. 

Statements by others are consistently described negatively.  Par for the course, meanwhile you continue to say nothing while pretending to be redefining reality for the rest of us.  Professor Crackpot on steroids.  Add all the power in all the leaves blown by the wind and you are way past powering all human activity.  Only problem is, it's all carried out by "bio-wind-towers" (trees), not AWE.  But if it were AWE, and you guys "redefine" wiggling leaves as "wind energy" then your work, as usual, is finished.  Redefining AWE as not relevant to its original stated purpose (again) gets you (seemingly) off the hook for coming up with nothing useful after all that posturing.  All empty blather.


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18069 From: dougselsam Date: 5/26/2015
Subject: Re: Towards more relevance in AWE debate
"Doug fails to account for the French cotton scientists stating "The cotton fibre is a very complex biopolymer..."  *** No, YOU failed.  Your previous Wikipedia reference explained that cotton contains a large percentage of a polymer, not that cotton IS a polymer.  As usual, you are playing with word definitions to pretend you know something the rest of us don't.  Not true.  Interesting how everyone else's statements are described as "failed" or "sadly", while you glowingly describe your own statements as "wry" (complementing yourself in your echo-chamber)

" in combination with Wikipedia stating "Cotton is a ... fiber"."
*** you seem unable to stop yourself.  Cotton is a fiber.  Is there ANYONE who did not know this?  Are you implying anyone would ever disagree with that statement?  You said "cotton IS a biopolymer, pretending Pierre just could not comprehend that cotton contains fibers of biological origin..  Guess what Mr. Genius?
To be 100% factual, cotton is NOT a biopolymer, but contains a biopolymer.  The French reference was simply shorthand for people who are not fixated on word definitions.  One more simple fact that seems beyond your comprehension and fixation on turning anything and everything into "an argument"..

"If Pierre meant that cotton (the fiber) and silk are polymers, he wrote the opposite."
*** Stop dissecting every word as though it makes you look smart.  Pierre understands what cotton is, just like the rest of us.  You seem to be the only one having a problem understanding it.

"Doug never can say what has kept the ST from scaling; somehow preferring to argue in vain that cotton fiber is not a biopolymer."
*** One more endless daveS knee-jerk fixation - every argument he starts "ends" when he goes back to that tired theme.  Yes daveS, cotton is not a biopolymer, but is instead a fiber that incorporates a large percentage of a biopolymer, if you insist on accurate statements.  If your fixation is on accuracy, why not try practicing accuracy yourself?
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18070 From: dave santos Date: 5/26/2015
Subject: Re: Towards more relevance in AWE debate
Doug still fails to account for the French cotton scientists stating "The cotton fibre is a very complex biopolymer..."  I agree with the French scientists that such usage is correct.

Once again, Doug avoids explaining why his ST claims are not on track after more than a decade. Otherwise there is widespread AWE progress. Even reeling schemes have reached 700m altitude at up to 100kw peaks, while the ST languishes. How the ST fell so far behind is a more relevant AWE debate than Doug contradicting cotton science (even though these are related facts).




On Tuesday, May 26, 2015 11:37 AM, "dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
"Doug fails to account for the French cotton scientists stating "The cotton fibre is a very complex biopolymer..."  *** No, YOU failed.  Your previous Wikipedia reference explained that cotton contains a large percentage of a polymer, not that cotton IS a polymer.  As usual, you are playing with word definitions to pretend you know something the rest of us don't.  Not true.  Interesting how everyone else's statements are described as "failed" or "sadly", while you glowingly describe your own statements as "wry" (complementing yourself in your echo-chamber)

" in combination with Wikipedia stating "Cotton is a ... fiber"."
*** you seem unable to stop yourself.  Cotton is a fiber.  Is there ANYONE who did not know this?  Are you implying anyone would ever disagree with that statement?  You said "cotton IS a biopolymer, pretending Pierre just could not comprehend that cotton contains fibers of biological origin..  Guess what Mr. Genius?
To be 100% factual, cotton is NOT a biopolymer, but contains a biopolymer.  The French reference was simply shorthand for people who are not fixated on word definitions.  One more simple fact that seems beyond your comprehension and fixation on turning anything and everything into "an argument"..

"If Pierre meant that cotton (the fiber) and silk are polymers, he wrote the opposite."
*** Stop dissecting every word as though it makes you look smart.  Pierre understands what cotton is, just like the rest of us.  You seem to be the only one having a problem understanding it.

"Doug never can say what has kept the ST from scaling; somehow preferring to argue in vain that cotton fiber is not a biopolymer."
*** One more endless daveS knee-jerk fixation - every argument he starts "ends" when he goes back to that tired theme.  Yes daveS, cotton is not a biopolymer, but is instead a fiber that incorporates a large percentage of a biopolymer, if you insist on accurate statements.  If your fixation is on accuracy, why not try practicing accuracy yourself?
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18071 From: dougselsam Date: 5/26/2015
Subject: Re: Towards more relevance in AWE debate
"Doug still fails"
*** Whereas daveS "wryly" comments...
" to account for the French cotton scientists stating "The cotton fibre is a very complex biopolymer..."
*** One more daveS lie:  I explained the French reference is simply shorthand for people without an unhealthy fixation on dissecting every word and redefining half of them.  The French were simply saving space, not intending to write an encyclopedia.  I'm sure, if you engaged them in a prolonged conversation, they would agree that, technically, your Wikepedia reference was correct to say that cotton fibers CONTAIN a biopolymer.
" I agree with the French scientists that such usage is correct."
*** It was shorthand.  What you've been trying to say is that the shorthand version is a complete explanation.  The more complete explanation is that cotton is 90% cellulose, depending on the reference cited, type of cotton, degree of refinement, etc.

"Once again, Doug avoids explaining why his ST claims are not on track after more than a decade."
*** Seems to me you've changed the subject again...

"Otherwise there is widespread AWE progress. Even reeling schemes have reached 700m altitude at up to 100kw peaks, while the ST languishes."
*** OK keep changing the subject.  As long as you now admit to having been wrong on the biopolymer thing.   I don't think anyone is buying your assertion that Pierre did not understand what cotton is.

"How the ST fell so far behind is a more relevant AWE debate
*** ST remains a far better answer than most highly-funded yet conceptually-lacking attempts at AWE.
*** "Teach a man to fish, and he will still ask you for another fish..." - Doug Selsam

corollaries:
"teach a man to fish, and he will deplete the oceans until there are no fish left"
"teach a man to fish, and he will sell you a radioactive catch, without anyone ever testing it."

"than Doug contradicting cotton science (even though these are related facts)."
*** Ah yes, "cotton science" - the new urgent topic of the day - and of course who can understand it, unlike the rest of us?  Why daveS, of course!  Nevermind that he is unable to reply to my simple explanation that cotton contains cellulose, rather than being 100% cellulose.  I can only conclude daveS is unable to distinguish between a 90% content and a 100% content, and is inappropriately fixated on adjusting word definitions, believing he is adjusting reality.  Good luck with that, daveS!  :)
 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18072 From: dave santos Date: 5/26/2015
Subject: Re: Towards more relevance in AWE debate
Why the ST is not on track really is a more relevant AWE debate than a mistaken belief that scientific papers are written in "shorthand".* Pierre's subject here is " Towards more relevance in AWE debate"

Doug quoted me and commented (***):
"Once again, Doug avoids explaining why his ST claims are not on track after more than a decade."
*** Seems to me you've changed the subject again...

------------
*
 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18073 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 5/26/2015
Subject: Re: Towards more relevance in AWE debate

DaveS,

 

This topic is about "Towards more relevance in AWE debate". Please dont forget it.

 

PierreB

 

 

 

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18074 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 5/26/2015
Subject: Re: Towards more relevance in AWE debate

Thanks Doug to illustrate well this topic by a relevant definition.

 

PierreB

 

 

 

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18075 From: dave santos Date: 5/26/2015
Subject: Re: Towards more relevance in AWE debate
Pierre is mistaken: Doug explaining why the ST is not scaling up, as hoped, is more relevant than wrong ideas about cotton and shorthand.



On Tuesday, May 26, 2015 1:30 PM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
Thanks Doug to illustrate well this topic by a relevant definition.
 
PierreB
 
 
 
 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18076 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 5/26/2015
Subject: Re: Towards more relevance in AWE debate

DaveS,

 

Please stop this waste of time. You are wrong, nothing more, nothing less.

 

PierreB

 

 

 

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18077 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 5/26/2015
Subject: Re: Towards more relevance in AWE debate

From "The cotton fibre is a very complex biopolymer..." : it is about cotton fibre. Another example for DaveS: in sea there are whales. But whales are not sea.

 

PierreB

 

 

 

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18078 From: dave santos Date: 5/26/2015
Subject: Re: Towards more relevance in AWE debate
Pierre,

You have show precisely where an error is, not just accuse, so error stands corrected. For you to complain about unspecified error is far less relevant to AWE debate than for Doug to directly explain why the ST is so overdue (even as he decries ordinary delay by newcomers like Altaeros).

Thanks for understanding both sides,

daveS





On Tuesday, May 26, 2015 1:42 PM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
DaveS,
 
Please stop this waste of time. You are wrong, nothing more, nothing less.
 
PierreB
 
 
 
 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18079 From: Rod Read Date: 5/26/2015
Subject: Re: Living Kites
Actually I think in terms of plants (not in the personal sense, like I'm vegetative brainwise) ...but...  wind stimulation helps to transfer sap between pockets of valved cellular ring and bag structures.
or something like that.
Just a shame trees are so stick like. and not so kite like.

Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18080 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 5/26/2015
Subject: Re: Towards more relevance in AWE debate

Irrelevant DaveS, please follow this topic. Thanks.

PierreB

 

 

 

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18081 From: Rod Read Date: 5/26/2015
Subject: Re: Towards more relevance in AWE debate
OK I've not read the last 6 or so messages because SHUT THE FU£K UP ALREADY
THIS IS NOT THE COTTON CELLULOSE INTERNET FORUM
Bell ENDS

Nothing remotely AWE was being discussed....  Gripe Gripe Gripe.
You learn some things about AWE practitioners here that you really don't need to.


Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18082 From: dave santos Date: 5/26/2015
Subject: Re: Towards more relevance in AWE debate
Pierre,

It was your choice to claim cotton and silk as non-polymers. Its nobody's fault but yours if you only meant silk fiber, but not cotton fiber. Even if you meant silk fiber only, its was still factually incorrect to say silk is not a polymer. Even small factual errors are best corrected, and you could gracefully admit your own error here and move on.

Its remains more relevant to AWE debate for Doug to explain just why the ST is not advancing after so many years. Similarly, you could explain why a small wheelwind working prototype (~1-10W) cannot be easily made, awaiting instead an investor. In fairness, I answer all questions about my technical work,

daveS



On Tuesday, May 26, 2015 1:55 PM, dave santos <santos137@yahoo.com  
DaveS,
 
Please stop this waste of time. You are wrong, nothing more, nothing less.
 
PierreB
 
 
 
 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18083 From: Rod Read Date: 5/26/2015
Subject: Re: Towards more relevance in AWE debate
I owe an apology for my previous outburst.
Then again... what followed
Dave S can you please please try and see how patheticly degenerate you have made this thread and forum with that last comment.?
Yes we are an open forum.
This is where we reflect upon relevance in AWE debate as per the topic heading.
REFLECT

Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18084 From: Rod Read Date: 5/26/2015
Subject: open presentation
Given our vast and varied takes on open AWE.
How will open AWE be represented at AWEC2015?
It will be more succinct and accessible than this forum ... it would be impossible not to be.
I hope to be displaying some of my own work by poster and in meetings...
I'd also like to ensure TACO is portrayed well.

Do you have a set/list of burning most salient points?

Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18085 From: dave santos Date: 5/26/2015
Subject: Re: Towards more relevance in AWE debate
Pierre,

How carefully we correct factual error in debate is on-topic. We cannot have a sound debate if factual error goes uncorrected.

Its also relevant to AWE debate what every serious player is doing. Its not a daveS problem if the WheelWind cannot be prototyped fast, small, and cheap, or if the ST is impractical. Go ahead and debate your personal complaints*, but the technical debates are real AWE issues,

daveS

* I have my own personal complaints about you and Doug, posted offline, but prefer to stick to AWE tech debates here.



On Tuesday, May 26, 2015 2:16 PM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
OK I've not read the last 6 or so messages because SHUT THE FU£K UP ALREADY
THIS IS NOT THE COTTON CELLULOSE INTERNET FORUM
Bell ENDS

Nothing remotely AWE was being discussed....  Gripe Gripe Gripe.
You learn some things about AWE practitioners here that you really don't need to.


Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18086 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 5/26/2015
Subject: Re: Towards more relevance in AWE debate

Pathetic! Cotton vs ST or wheelwind! What a great sense of AWE debate! DaveS' conclusion: ST does not work because it is said that cotton is not a polymer!!!. Great arguing!

 

PierreB

 

 

 

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18087 From: dave santos Date: 5/26/2015
Subject: Re: open presentation
Rod,

Very sadly, I withdrew my accepted abstract from AWEC 2015, in promised solidarity with JohnO and AWEIA. The organizers kept the 2013 exclusion in place, while retaining Guido as the single non-Dutch commitee member. Ed and I had been seeking equality between Guido and JohnO. You missed a lot fruitless exchanges with TUDelft over the issue.

Feel free to reference TACO and anything else I might have represented. Especially be sure to help the new figures attending, who face a chilly social climate from the dominant AWEC/BHWE/HWN/AWESCO sphere.

daveS



On Tuesday, May 26, 2015 2:30 PM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
Given our vast and varied takes on open AWE.
How will open AWE be represented at AWEC2015?
It will be more succinct and accessible than this forum ... it would be impossible not to be.
I hope to be displaying some of my own work by poster and in meetings...
I'd also like to ensure TACO is portrayed well.

Do you have a set/list of burning most salient points?

Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18088 From: dave santos Date: 5/26/2015
Subject: Re: Towards more relevance in AWE debate
No. My factual position is that the ST will not scale under Galileo's square-cube law, and that its mysterious if the WheelWind can only be prototyped once an investor pays. I am trying to get Doug and Pierre to respond to AWE technical debate

The polymer question was properly answered by the authoritative references provided. Doug and Pierre are hiding behind the issue, as a red-herring. The ST and WheelWind challenges remain.



On Tuesday, May 26, 2015 2:37 PM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
Pathetic! Cotton vs ST or wheelwind! What a great sense of AWE debate! DaveS' conclusion: ST does not work because it is said that cotton is not a polymer!!!. Great arguing!
 
PierreB
 
 
 
 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18089 From: benhaiemp Date: 5/26/2015
Subject: Re: Towards more relevance in AWE debate

One way of relevance: launching many and many"ideas" in AWE, hoping some of them will be effectives.

Another way of relevance: analysing tested methods, including different parameters such as land use, reliability..., then seeing possible variants.


PierreB
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18090 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 5/26/2015
Subject: Re: Towards more relevance in AWE debate

correction:"...will be effective".

 

PierreB

 

 

 

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18091 From: dave santos Date: 5/26/2015
Subject: Re: Towards more relevance in AWE debate
Thank you Pierre. Relevant AWE debate is about technical questions. This topic began by framing AWE debate relevance as if it was defined by a personal bias, rather than actual technical content. I look forward to continued debating in favor of widespread cooperative testing and diligent homework, as the golden path forward in AWE, against any lesser agenda.




On Tuesday, May 26, 2015 4:42 PM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
correction:"...will be effective".
 
PierreB
 
 
 
 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18092 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/26/2015
Subject: Re: M600 Roll-Out

Quoting:

The northwest side of the island is the Kohala district.  Waimea is the home of Parker Ranch and Hawaiian cowboys known as paniolo.  Local residents prefer the name Waimea but the town is also often labeled Kamuela on maps, so named by the Post Office long ago to distinguish it from other Waimea's in the state.  The town is 2,600 feet above sea level and located on a cool inland plateau.  It offers a different island experience because you are just as likely to see blue jeans and cowboy boots as aloha wear in town.  It isn't a big tourist town but there is some shopping and we've heard several good restaurants.  In the Parker Ranch Shopping Center you will find the Parker Ranch Visitors Center which has a small museum and shows a video-tape covering some of the history of the Ranch.

Source of clipped quote:  Sightseeing on Hawaii's Big Island creates unforgettable memories

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18093 From: dave santos Date: 5/26/2015
Subject: Re: Living Kites
Attachments :
    It should be possible to graft related plants with different morphologies into a more kite-like form like a viney variety with a big leaf variety. One might also pare a plant like a bonsai.

    What would be really cool would be a working version of Jack's magic bean-stalk into the sky, by means of kite principles-

    attached: beanstock kite concept





    On Tuesday, May 26, 2015 2:05 PM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
    Actually I think in terms of plants (not in the personal sense, like I'm vegetative brainwise) ...but...  wind stimulation helps to transfer sap between pockets of valved cellular ring and bag structures.
    or something like that.
    Just a shame trees are so stick like. and not so kite like.

    Rod Read

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

    07899057227
    01851 870878





    		   @@attachment@@
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18094 From: dave santos Date: 5/26/2015
    Subject: Ancient Kite Festival- Indonesia
    McKenna's Archaic Revival continues: Kite hacking from the stone-age in the space-age; the deep roots of AWE, the hummer as a windbelt WECS; even a paleo kite-messenger; note quite good flight performance of these mostly classic "Malay" leaf-kites, but many other varieties are known; 100% compostable-renewable, so we have not quite caught up- 
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18095 From: dave santos Date: 5/26/2015
    Subject: 2011 AWES Product Claims

    The main Popular Mechanics site has been scrubbed of these naive predictions, but they linger on South Africa's PM site. Actual progress is consistent with how long it takes for major new aerospace sectors to emerge and mature. Its a marathon race-



    Watts in the wind
    Small energy companies are designing flying turbines to harness wind power at low altitudes. Here are five leading start-ups.
    1. Magenn
    The helium-filled Magenn Air Rotor System rotates around a horizontal axis when buffeted by the wind, like a waterwheel on high. Electricity is sent down its tether to the ground, where it can be used immediately, stored in a battery or sent to the power grid. Magenn demonstrated a 10 kW prototype in 2008; a 100 kW version could be on sale by the end of this year.
    Length: 17,4 metres
    2. Joby
    The 12 turbines on Joby’s airborne system have dual functions: providing power for take-off, then generating it from the wind once aloft. The system flies in large circles perpendicular to the wind direction and covers eight times the swept area of a similarly sized ground turbine. Joby is currently testing 20 kW prototypes and hopes to create a 1-megawatt model by the end of 2013.
    Wingspan: 61 metres
    3. Ampyx 
    Ampyx’s PowerPlane is designed to fly figure-eight patterns, unreeling a tether at its ground station. The unwinding spins a drum at the station, creating electricity. When the cable is fully extended, the plane dives toward the ground, allowing the cable to be reeled in and the process to be repeated. A 10-kW prototype was flown in 2010; Ampyx hopes a 1 MW model will be airborne by 2013.
    Wingspan: 5,5 metres
    4. Sky WindPower
    Sky WindPower’s flying generator relies on four spinning rotors to produce energy, sending electricity to the grid through its tether. Power drawn from the ground station helps the craft reach its altitude; the blades then provide enough lift to keep the system hovering. The company flew a 6-kW prototype in 2007 and plans a 1 MW version by 2014.
    Rotors: 10,7 metres
    5. Makani
    An onboard computer steers Makani’s M1 in large circles that cut across the wind. Six small rotors at the centre of the aircraft generate electricity that is sent through the anchoring tether and into the power grid. Makani has completed a 10 kW prototype; the company plans to develop a 1 MW tester by 2013, which could be taken to market two years later.