Messages in AirborneWindEnergy group.                          AWES 18856 to 18905 Page 271 of 440.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18856 From: dave santos Date: 8/28/2015
Subject: Re: Latest Altaeros News?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18857 From: dave santos Date: 8/29/2015
Subject: AWES Freewheel Review

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18858 From: dougselsam Date: 8/29/2015
Subject: Re: Latest Altaeros News?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18859 From: dougselsam Date: 8/29/2015
Subject: Re: Mike Barnard curbed by IBM

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18860 From: Hardensoft International Limited Date: 8/30/2015
Subject: Re: Who is deciding AWEC2016 issues?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18861 From: dave santos Date: 8/30/2015
Subject: Re: Latest Altaeros News?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18862 From: dougselsam Date: 8/30/2015
Subject: Re: Latest Altaeros News?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18863 From: dave santos Date: 8/30/2015
Subject: Re: Latest Altaeros News?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18864 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 8/30/2015
Subject: Quantum Locking for Skybow Bearing?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18865 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 8/30/2015
Subject: Re: Latest Altaeros News?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18866 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 8/30/2015
Subject: Re: Latest Altaeros News?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18867 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 8/30/2015
Subject: Re: Latest Altaeros News?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18868 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 8/30/2015
Subject: Re: Latest Altaeros News?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18869 From: dave santos Date: 8/30/2015
Subject: Re: Latest Altaeros News?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18870 From: dave santos Date: 8/30/2015
Subject: Re: Pulsing-Tether PTO AWES Arts (short pulse/high-frequency vibrati

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18871 From: dougselsam Date: 8/31/2015
Subject: Re: Latest Altaeros News?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18872 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 8/31/2015
Subject: Re: Latest Altaeros News?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18873 From: dougselsam Date: 8/31/2015
Subject: Re: Pulsing-Tether PTO AWES Arts (short pulse/high-frequency vibrati

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18874 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 8/31/2015
Subject: Chaff strand

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18875 From: dave santos Date: 8/31/2015
Subject: What control laws govern classic single-line kites? (Yanbei Chen)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18876 From: dave santos Date: 8/31/2015
Subject: Life-Saving Kites using kPower PTO Method

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18877 From: dave santos Date: 8/31/2015
Subject: Re: Pulsing-Tether PTO AWES Arts (short pulse/high-frequency vibrati

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18878 From: dougselsam Date: 8/31/2015
Subject: Re: Latest Altaeros News?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18879 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 8/31/2015
Subject: Re: Latest Altaeros News?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18880 From: Rod Read Date: 8/31/2015
Subject: Re: What control laws govern classic single-line kites? (Yanbei Chen

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18881 From: Rod Read Date: 9/1/2015
Subject: more AWE scoring matrix attempts

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18882 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/1/2015
Subject: Re: more AWE scoring matrix attempts

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18883 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/1/2015
Subject: Re: more AWE scoring matrix attempts

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18884 From: dave santos Date: 9/1/2015
Subject: Re: What control laws govern classic single-line kites? (Yanbei Chen

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18885 From: dave santos Date: 9/1/2015
Subject: Re: Latest Altaeros News?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18886 From: Rod Read Date: 9/1/2015
Subject: Re: What control laws govern classic single-line kites? (Yanbei Chen

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18887 From: dave santos Date: 9/1/2015
Subject: Re: more AWE scoring matrix attempts

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18888 From: dave santos Date: 9/1/2015
Subject: Re: What control laws govern classic single-line kites? (Yanbei Chen

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18889 From: Rod Read Date: 9/1/2015
Subject: Re: more AWE scoring matrix attempts

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18890 From: dave santos Date: 9/1/2015
Subject: Re: more AWE scoring matrix attempts

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18891 From: dave santos Date: 9/1/2015
Subject: KITEnrg's Crosswind Tracking Concept in [Cherubini et al. 2015], and

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18892 From: Rod Read Date: 9/1/2015
Subject: Re: more AWE scoring matrix attempts

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18893 From: Rod Read Date: 9/1/2015
Subject: Re: KITEnrg's Crosswind Tracking Concept in [Cherubini et al. 2015],

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18894 From: dave santos Date: 9/1/2015
Subject: Re: more AWE scoring matrix attempts

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18895 From: dave santos Date: 9/1/2015
Subject: Re: KITEnrg's Crosswind Tracking Concept in [Cherubini et al. 2015],

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18896 From: dave santos Date: 9/1/2015
Subject: Tigner Tri-tether Patent DisclosureTimeline

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18897 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/1/2015
Subject: Re: KITEnrg's Crosswind Tracking Concept in [Cherubini et al. 2015],

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18898 From: dave santos Date: 9/1/2015
Subject: Concentric Tri-Tether AWES Solution

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18899 From: dave santos Date: 9/1/2015
Subject: Re: KITEnrg's Crosswind Tracking Concept in [Cherubini et al. 2015],

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18900 From: dave santos Date: 9/1/2015
Subject: Center-Pivot Irrigation COTS as AWES Rotating Crosswind-Track Basis

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18901 From: Rod Read Date: 9/1/2015
Subject: Re: more AWE scoring matrix attempts

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18902 From: Rod Read Date: 9/2/2015
Subject: Re: Concentric Tri-Tether AWES Solution

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18903 From: Rod Read Date: 9/2/2015
Subject: regen boat wanting a kite

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18904 From: dougselsam Date: 9/2/2015
Subject: Re: What control laws govern classic single-line kites? (Yanbei Chen

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18905 From: dougselsam Date: 9/2/2015
Subject: Re: Latest Altaeros News?



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18856 From: dave santos Date: 8/28/2015
Subject: Re: Latest Altaeros News?
"Everyone", in context, means everyone who is following Altaeros news, including you. There has been a delay.

A general fact is how common engineering and bureaucratic delay is, especially in the professional AE world.



On Friday, August 28, 2015 1:48 PM, "dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
Dave S. noted:   "Doug, Everyone seems to agree that Altaeros timelline for its Alaska trial slipped."

*** Who, specifically is "everyone"?  Where, specifically, do you get THAT information that "everyone" agrees that a "timeline slipped"?  Can you identify these people who you say/think that?

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

Dave S. noted:   "It was discussed on the AWES Forum."

*** By whom, and when?  Where is the source of factual information?

 ===================

Dave S. noted:   "My guess was normal engineering and/or bureaucratic delay."

*** So you admit you just made it up?  With no facts?  No actual source of information to back up your repeated harassment arguing about what you keep calling "a delay"?  Well that is exactly my point.  You are just making it up, and stating it as a proven fact.  Very transparent.  Now you are admitting it was your "guess".  Why argue about your "guess" pretending it is a fact?  Is that not a dishonest way to carry on a discussion?

===================
 
Dave S. noted: "If you predicted the delay on similar grounds, that's only reasonable -daveS"

*** There you go again, very slippery how you keep using the word "delay", attempting to put words in my mouth.  Not accurate.  I did not refer to "a delay".  You did.  Remember?  It is not my place to reschedule other projects.  And I did not "predict" anything.  I simply pointed out, in real time, last year, that there WAS NO BAT powering a remote village in Alaska, after hearing similar stories for the last 20 years, that were never true.  And there is no tooth fairy.  The reasons are all the same ones you have noted with regard to the configuration, combined with the fact that new wind energy systems are notorious for having problems, and there is no way a new and largely unproven wind system prototype is going to be successfully deployed in a remote arctic location.  Deployment in such locations is questionable even with the most highly-dependable and well-proven products.  I take one look at that contraption and imagine it in a 50 mph arctic wind - does not seem like it would be strong enough to withstand an Alaska winter to me.  Nobody in their right mind would deploy a first prototype in such a location.  It does not pass the smell test, for anyone who has any experience or knowledge in the field.  Anyway, at least you have finally admitted you made the whole thing up.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18857 From: dave santos Date: 8/29/2015
Subject: AWES Freewheel Review
AWES kinetic energy methods divide between rotary and reciprocating load motion. Given unsolved mass, cost, and operational scaling problems in transmitting powerful rotary motion over the distance scale between high-altitude wind and groundgens, most AWES teams work on reciprocating load motion, commonly called "pumping". 

A universal device to convert pumping force into rotary motion is called a Freewheel. Two major mechanism types are the ratchet and the sprag. These are found in many common machines, like bikes, cars, lawn mowers, and fishing reels. A car can have several freewheel mechanisms, from starter motor to generator, and between engine and transmission. The most advanced freewheel designs contain an internal spring to ease shocks, and these are now standard on new automotive alternators. There is no a-priori prohibition to reciprocating motion in a practical mechanical system, as is sometimes asserted. In fact, many rotary systems with complex multiple motions are prone to internal reciprocating loads (backlash), and freewheels rectify these unwanted hidden motions.

A would-be AWES developer needs to study the use of freewheels in the complex design space of matching kite load supply to application load demand. The freewheel part interacts with mechanical forces just as a diode interacts with electrical currents.  I have used a wide variety of freewheels from bikes, cars, and misc. salvage, and am confident these devices enable effective pumping AWES able  to compete in testing against any purely rotary AWES design. A particular virtue in kite-farm use is that many kite driven freewheels can semi-chaoticaly drive a common generator shaft, without close synchrony required. kPower is making AWES prototypes with up four freewheel inputs.
 
Most of this is review, but the Wikipedia Freewheel article has evolved since we last covered the topic. A new DIY trick idea is to wrap a drive belt  (as a fusee) with elastic return on a bike Freehub, with a high speed rim drive (belt or impinged wheel) to a generator( the wheel spokes are easily packed with concrete if flywheel mass is desired). The freewheel is a key bit of mechanical magic for low-complexity open-AWE developers-
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18858 From: dougselsam Date: 8/29/2015
Subject: Re: Latest Altaeros News?
daveS said ""Everyone", in context, means everyone who is following Altaeros news, including you. There has been a delay."

*** I object to what I believe is you re-characterizing reality:

1) What "everyone who is following Altaeros news" agreed with was that Altaeros HAD deployed a BAT in remote Alaska, powering a small town, because THAT is what the "Altaeros news" said.  The ONLY person saying anything diffferent was ME.  SHOW ME the "news story" saying there is NOT a BAT in remote Alaska.   We read many many articles, from magazines, newspapers, and websites, saying there IS a BAT powering a remote village in Alaska, and I've even seen articles this year still repeating it.  It was ONLY ME who said these stories WERE NOT TRUE.  And YOU are saying that "Altaeros news" says "there is a delay".  I am saying that is a false statement.  Please show us the SOURCE of  "Altaeros news" that says there is "a delay".

2) You have repeated YET AGAIN your assertion: "There has been a delay.", yet you STILL provide NO EVIDENCE of a "delay", which would consist of:
     a) A source for that information (who said there was a delay?)
     b) A reason given (why was the project "delayed"?)
     c) A makeup date (when will the project take place?)
Those are 3 key features of a delay, the 3 details that make the difference between a "delay" and something that just didn't happen.

The fact is, you have already ADMITTED that you JUST MADE IT UP, and your information source was A GUESS.  Therefore you are knowingly making three (3) statements that you know have a good chance of being false.
1) That there is "a delay".
2) That "Altaeros news" said there is a delay.
3) That "Everyone who follows Altaeros news agrees that there was a delay."
It seems incredible that you can go on just making up your own (not) facts like this.

The funny thing is, I don't see that anyone has checked a single fact on ANY of this - how do you even know what I said is true?  You are just taking my word that there is no BAT powering a remote village in Alaska, then making up the entire "delay" scenario out of thin air!  Why aren't you saying "There IS a BAT powering a remote village in Alaska"?  How do you know I'm right?  Where are your sources for ANYTHING you say?

daveS continues: "A general fact is how common engineering and bureaucratic delay is, especially in the professional AE world."
*** So now you are embellishing your unverified statements with generalities?  Can you address any facts with regard to this topic?

Please allow me to re-write your statement to reflect reality:
"A general fact is how common false press-releases and blatant disinformation is, especially in the professional wannabe AE world."

Yes AE is one of the few fields where you can have a "profession" as a "wannabe" participant, raising millions of dollars for half-baked ideas, that are then squandered with little or no results except bankruptcy or some version of "quietly going away".
 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18859 From: dougselsam Date: 8/29/2015
Subject: Re: Mike Barnard curbed by IBM
"You were yourself a repeat commentator on MikeB's site, with your own bit-part inside the story, daveS"
*** I was?  I believe you (on that one point) but I have no recollection of that.  What did I say?
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18860 From: Hardensoft International Limited Date: 8/30/2015
Subject: Re: Who is deciding AWEC2016 issues?
Well said, DaveS.
Roland, what do you say?
Guido, will the EU alone now replace the professed vision for a truly global one AWE Voice?
Lifts.
JohnO
AWEIA 
John Adeoye  Oyebanji   B.Sc. MCPN
Managing Consultant & CEO
Hardensoft International Limited
<Technologies  
It was the working pattern that AWE conferences alternated across the Atlantic, between the "Old" and "New World". The pattern broke down as AWEC corporate control shifted to Northern EU insiders, who apparently then abandoned AWEC, to then create conferences from a less diverse circle of close insiders. 

Its been revealed by PJ that the EU insiders have decided on yet another German conference (Freiburg), after the Dutch conference last year, and a Berlin conference before that. An American AWE conference is now years overdue, and US players where building a broad consensus on conference action. The EU insiders did not poll the wider community before preemptively moving to lock-in Germany once again.

The US players need to make the case for an American AWE conference in public, so that EU conference planners are aware of pre-existing interest, and take it properly into account. Its not in anybody's interest for conferences to be monopolized by a small inside circle.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18861 From: dave santos Date: 8/30/2015
Subject: Re: Latest Altaeros News?
Doug,

Well then, lets wait and see if Altaeros in fact never does an Alaska trial, proving the default delay hypothesis wrong.

daveS





On Saturday, August 29, 2015 9:45 PM, "dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
daveS said ""Everyone", in context, means everyone who is following Altaeros news, including you. There has been a delay."

*** I object to what I believe is you re-characterizing reality:

1) What "everyone who is following Altaeros news" agreed with was that Altaeros HAD deployed a BAT in remote Alaska, powering a small town, because THAT is what the "Altaeros news" said.  The ONLY person saying anything diffferent was ME.  SHOW ME the "news story" saying there is NOT a BAT in remote Alaska.   We read many many articles, from magazines, newspapers, and websites, saying there IS a BAT powering a remote village in Alaska, and I've even seen articles this year still repeating it.  It was ONLY ME who said these stories WERE NOT TRUE.  And YOU are saying that "Altaeros news" says "there is a delay".  I am saying that is a false statement.  Please show us the SOURCE of  "Altaeros news" that says there is "a delay".

2) You have repeated YET AGAIN your assertion: "There has been a delay.", yet you STILL provide NO EVIDENCE of a "delay", which would consist of:
     a) A source for that information (who said there was a delay?)
     b) A reason given (why was the project "delayed"?)
     c) A makeup date (when will the project take place?)
Those are 3 key features of a delay, the 3 details that make the difference between a "delay" and something that just didn't happen.

The fact is, you have already ADMITTED that you JUST MADE IT UP, and your information source was A GUESS.  Therefore you are knowingly making three (3) statements that you know have a good chance of being false.
1) That there is "a delay".
2) That "Altaeros news" said there is a delay.
3) That "Everyone who follows Altaeros news agrees that there was a delay."
It seems incredible that you can go on just making up your own (not) facts like this.

The funny thing is, I don't see that anyone has checked a single fact on ANY of this - how do you even know what I said is true?  You are just taking my word that there is no BAT powering a remote village in Alaska, then making up the entire "delay" scenario out of thin air!  Why aren't you saying "There IS a BAT powering a remote village in Alaska"?  How do you know I'm right?  Where are your sources for ANYTHING you say?

daveS continues: "A general fact is how common engineering and bureaucratic delay is, especially in the professional AE world."
*** So now you are embellishing your unverified statements with generalities?  Can you address any facts with regard to this topic?

Please allow me to re-write your statement to reflect reality:
"A general fact is how common false press-releases and blatant disinformation is, especially in the professional wannabe AE world."

Yes AE is one of the few fields where you can have a "profession" as a "wannabe" participant, raising millions of dollars for half-baked ideas, that are then squandered with little or no results except bankruptcy or some version of "quietly going away".
 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18862 From: dougselsam Date: 8/30/2015
Subject: Re: Latest Altaeros News?
"Doug, Well then, lets wait and see if Altaeros in fact never does an Alaska trial, proving the default delay hypothesis wrong. -daveS"

***Slippery as an eel, ever shifting his colors like a chameleon, daveS slithers sideways, dodging his previous statements while pretending he was right all along.  I gave you a year (1 year) of patient waiting, to see whether the specific machine announced in many many articles as powering a remote village near Fairbanks in 2014 were true, or would ever come true, in response to your 2014 announcement of a "delay".  Now after admitting you made the whole thing up, you want "forever" as your new deadline.

In response to my year of patience, you've now stated within the last few days:
1) that you just made up the whole "delay" story last year;
2) that "everyone who follows Altaeros news agrees that there is a delay".
Those two positions conflict - both cannot be true.  The "delay" was either "news", OR you just made it up, not both.

I believe you have NO SOURCE of information that there is no BAT powering a remote village in Alaska, EXCEPT ME saying it last year, and that there have been NO information published ANYWHERE about this project not moving forward LET ALONE any announcement of "a delay".
(This phenomenon is known as "they quietly go away", meaning the early announcements are seldom-to-never corrected, adjusted, or retracted when they fail to come true).

Therefore I am positing that this entire conversation revolves around you fabricating nonfactual statements.  Especially the latest statement that
"everyone who follows Altaeros news agrees that there is a delay".  What news?  You have shown us no such news.  Who is the "everybody" who could "agree" with "news" that does not exist?  How can you pack so many false statements into a single phrase?

You now admit you made up the whole "delay" story, but only after a year of being pressed for details, and your statement that "everyone who follows Altaeros news agrees that there is a delay" is false on two (2) counts.  First is the statement that "everyone agrees", since there is no evidence that anyone else is even talking about it, let alone agrees, let alone "everyone" agrees...  (sheesh!)  But the other part "who follows Altaeros news" is also completely false: you are unable to show a single piece of "news" regarding this project not moving forward at all, let alone a piece of news that mentions "a delay".

So your statement
"everyone who follows Altaeros news agrees that there is a delay"
is entirely fabricated, there was no news for "everyone" to follow, let alone agree with.

You FURTHER mischaracterize the facts with your new phrase "the default delay hypothesis":  First of all, nobody has declared that "delay" is "THE default hypothesis" except you.  Why even talk about a "hypothesis" when nobody has bothered to even check a single fact, starting with whether there even IS a BAT powering a remote village near Fairbanks.  You are working with zero facts, just making things up as you feel the need to get out of what you said the day, week, month, or year before.  You have derisively defended your stated certainty of "a delay" for a year, as though it could become part of your ongoing explanation for your lack-of-an-AWE-powered-concert the year before that, also a supposed "delay".  (History doesn't always repeat, but it rhymes.)  I see this as nothing more than a repeating pattern of fabricating "facts" as they suit you, going back years.

How does all this pointing out such fabrication of "facts" help to move AWE forward?  Well, it all goes to illustrate the importance,for the honest players out there, of not falling into "the syndrome" where fantasies, fabricated facts, and "press-release-science" are substituted for the knowledge, properly-applied creativity, hard work, and resulting progress required to move real projects, based on sound reasoning, forward. 

I'm saying "Here is the dangerous cliff these efforts typically fall off, here are the classic symptoms when you get too close to the edge, and here is where the danger line is where you would do well to imagine a safety railing so you do not also fall off."  Don't become the next "whale bumps".   :)
 


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18863 From: dave santos Date: 8/30/2015
Subject: Re: Latest Altaeros News?
Doug,

You are mistaken. A range of possible causes for Altaeros' Alaska delay were discussed in the Forum. I offered the same reasonable alternatives to your view,

daveS



On Sunday, August 30, 2015 1:58 PM, "dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
"Doug, Well then, lets wait and see if Altaeros in fact never does an Alaska trial, proving the default delay hypothesis wrong. -daveS"

***Slippery as an eel, ever shifting his colors like a chameleon, daveS slithers sideways, dodging his previous statements while pretending he was right all along.  I gave you a year (1 year) of patient waiting, to see whether the specific machine announced in many many articles as powering a remote village near Fairbanks in 2014 were true, or would ever come true, in response to your 2014 announcement of a "delay".  Now after admitting you made the whole thing up, you want "forever" as your new deadline.

In response to my year of patience, you've now stated within the last few days:
1) that you just made up the whole "delay" story last year;
2) that "everyone who follows Altaeros news agrees that there is a delay".
Those two positions conflict - both cannot be true.  The "delay" was either "news", OR you just made it up, not both.

I believe you have NO SOURCE of information that there is no BAT powering a remote village in Alaska, EXCEPT ME saying it last year, and that there have been NO information published ANYWHERE about this project not moving forward LET ALONE any announcement of "a delay".
(This phenomenon is known as "they quietly go away", meaning the early announcements are seldom-to-never corrected, adjusted, or retracted when they fail to come true).

Therefore I am positing that this entire conversation revolves around you fabricating nonfactual statements.  Especially the latest statement that
"everyone who follows Altaeros news agrees that there is a delay".  What news?  You have shown us no such news.  Who is the "everybody" who could "agree" with "news" that does not exist?  How can you pack so many false statements into a single phrase?

You now admit you made up the whole "delay" story, but only after a year of being pressed for details, and your statement that "everyone who follows Altaeros news agrees that there is a delay" is false on two (2) counts.  First is the statement that "everyone agrees", since there is no evidence that anyone else is even talking about it, let alone agrees, let alone "everyone" agrees...  (sheesh!)  But the other part "who follows Altaeros news" is also completely false: you are unable to show a single piece of "news" regarding this project not moving forward at all, let alone a piece of news that mentions "a delay".

So your statement
"everyone who follows Altaeros news agrees that there is a delay"
is entirely fabricated, there was no news for "everyone" to follow, let alone agree with.

You FURTHER mischaracterize the facts with your new phrase "the default delay hypothesis":  First of all, nobody has declared that "delay" is "THE default hypothesis" except you.  Why even talk about a "hypothesis" when nobody has bothered to even check a single fact, starting with whether there even IS a BAT powering a remote village near Fairbanks.  You are working with zero facts, just making things up as you feel the need to get out of what you said the day, week, month, or year before.  You have derisively defended your stated certainty of "a delay" for a year, as though it could become part of your ongoing explanation for your lack-of-an-AWE-powered-concert the year before that, also a supposed "delay".  (History doesn't always repeat, but it rhymes.)  I see this as nothing more than a repeating pattern of fabricating "facts" as they suit you, going back years.

How does all this pointing out such fabrication of "facts" help to move AWE forward?  Well, it all goes to illustrate the importance,for the honest players out there, of not falling into "the syndrome" where fantasies, fabricated facts, and "press-release-science" are substituted for the knowledge, properly-applied creativity, hard work, and resulting progress required to move real projects, based on sound reasoning, forward. 

I'm saying "Here is the dangerous cliff these efforts typically fall off, here are the classic symptoms when you get too close to the edge, and here is where the danger line is where you would do well to imagine a safety railing so you do not also fall off."  Don't become the next "whale bumps".   :)
 




Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18864 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 8/30/2015
Subject: Quantum Locking for Skybow Bearing?

Quantum Locking for Skybow Bearing?

The levitating superconductor

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18865 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 8/30/2015
Subject: Re: Latest Altaeros News?

Request:

     Table the matter on BAT

until some fresh news arrives about the BAT?


Open letter to Ben Glass,

Dear Ben,

        Your are invited to publish a timeline of facts regarding BAT.

Thanks,

Lift,

Joe F.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18866 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 8/30/2015
Subject: Re: Latest Altaeros News?


Stay Informed on BAT:

Subscribe to our newletter: Altaeros Newsletter

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18867 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 8/30/2015
Subject: Re: Latest Altaeros News?

BAT items to date from its company:


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

Recent News   Linking might be best from

the page:  Altaeros Energies - Press

 

7.2014 Wired UK, The floating wind turbine that thinks it's a blimp

06.2014 CNN, The CNN 10 Invenstions

5.2014 CNN, Meet the BAT, an airborne wind turbine

4.2014 Wired, Giant inflatable wind turbine to soar to 300 metres

03.2014 New York Times, 'Wind Industry’s New Technologies Are Helping It Compete on Price'

12.2013 Cleantech Group, ‘High Altitude Wind Power: A Race to the Top’

11.2013 GeoBeats News, ‘Floating Turbines Coming to Alaska’

5.2013 Reuters Team Interview with Altaeros Energies – Video

9.2012 SBIR Recipient from Department of Agriculture, NIFA

7.2012 Boston Globe Profile’s Working at Altaeros Energies is ‘Cool’

6.2012 EnergyMakers Interviews Co-Founder Adam Rein – Video

4.2012 Greentech Media Profiles Altaeros Energies Turbine Demonstration

10.2011 ConocoPhillips Awards Altaeros Energies Energy Prize

4.2011 Boston Globe, ‘Lighter than Air Design, and Light on the Wallet’

3.2011 New York Times Covers Altaeros Energies at MIT Energy Conference

Press Releases

Wind Energy Startup Altaeros Energies Raises Funding from Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and Suhail Bahwan Group.

SoftBank Invests in Altaeros Energies’ Buoyant Airborne Technology.

Altaeros Energies Poised to Break World Record with Alaska High Altitude Wind Turbine.

Altaeros Achieves Breakthrough in High Altitude Wind Power.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18868 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 8/30/2015
Subject: Re: Latest Altaeros News?

Thank you for your email. Altaeros Energies is a small team and we manage a high volume of emails per week. Unfortunately, we cannot respond immediately to all inquiries. We appreciate your understanding and patience.

Sincerely,

The Altaeros Energies Team
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18869 From: dave santos Date: 8/30/2015
Subject: Re: Latest Altaeros News?
Joe,

I am very uncomfortable that a tiny bit of Altaeros news became over-fixation on an old unsubstantiated cranky complaint that then only led to Altaeros' junk robo-email technically becoming spam. Let's stay focused on real RAD content (new knowledge sharing), and let the Altaeros' Alaska side-story emerge in due time. As  R&D pros, if we are to bother the Altaeros venture's principals, lets favor actual engineering questions, and not actively forward endless vague paranoid suspicions, lest we fail in our true intent,

daveS





On Sunday, August 30, 2015 3:55 PM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  

Thank you for your email. Altaeros Energies is a small team and we manage a high volume of emails per week. Unfortunately, we cannot respond immediately to all inquiries. We appreciate your understanding and patience.

Sincerely,

The Altaeros Energies Team
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18870 From: dave santos Date: 8/30/2015
Subject: Re: Pulsing-Tether PTO AWES Arts (short pulse/high-frequency vibrati
We know this so far- That higher frequency pumping vibrations requires higher base-tension of the transmission line. A corollary is that the strongest line supports the highest frequency. Elastic modulus is also a critical factor, and our polymer lines' modulus varies from low to high with increased tension, with high modulus as less dispersive. Another view of the problem is that a higher internal-speed-of-sound (c) is better for high-frequency pumping, and c also varies upwards with tension.

Its really an interesting problem space, with very little specifically published. The mechanism is that of the tin-can telephone-





On Friday, August 28, 2015 12:46 PM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
Consider the possible usefulness of the following compound tether: 
The aloft main long length of tether is made of very inelastic material;
then within the ground station hand reach: have an elastic segment of tether. 
Notice the movement of the lower end of the inelastic tether (which is the upper end of the elastic tether segment). That movement may be mined for PTO purposes.  Reeling is not involved in this focus. Consider placing the wing set in crappy turbulent air; the point of the lower part of the inelastic tether of such a system will move often; mine that motion. 
~ Joe F

===========================================
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18871 From: dougselsam Date: 8/31/2015
Subject: Re: Latest Altaeros News?
Dave S. noted: "Joe, I am very uncomfortable that a tiny bit of Altaeros news became over-fixation on an old unsubstantiated cranky complaint that then only led to Altaeros' junk robo-email technically becoming spam."

*** I have had postings rejected here, for using the word "fixation" recently.  I also believe using the word "cranky" is an inappropriate mischaracterization by daveS.  I really do not even understand the meaning of this post, altogether.  It seems that the typical process of "quietly going away" is somehow seen as confusing or mysterious.  Seems to me like they just never followed through on their stated project, never explained it, and would rather not discuss it.  Other theories?  Anybody have a phone to give them a call, or do they not answer, like so many similar companies?
=================
Dave S. noted: "Let's stay focused on real RAD content (new knowledge sharing), and let the Altaeros' Alaska side-story emerge in due time."

*** Oh, so now the world's-leading-most-famous-big-press-release AWE effort with no news for 1.5 years is "a sideshow"?  Why, because the answer is something they don't want to talk about and you don't want to hear?  Where then is "the real show"?  I picture the classic monkey with his hands over his ears here.  The entire point of questioning the many press-release articles detailing the BAT powering a remote village in Alaska IS to "stay focused on REAL content.  Keyword: "real". Yes, that is the point.
===================
Dave S. noted: "As  R&D pros, if we are to bother the Altaeros venture's principals, lets favor actual engineering questions, and not actively forward endless vague paranoid suspicions, lest we fail in our true intent, -daveS"

*** So you are afraid to even ASK anyone at Altaeros about their stated project in Alaska now?  This is how these companies subtly push people like you into a mental corner where you are so mystified by their "credentials", so overwhelmed by a plethora of press-releases, that to even ASK a SINGLE DETAIL of followup information after ALL THOSE ARTICLES is somehow, suddenly, with no real explanation, seen as a task to be avoided, as a mere "bother".  I think you are intimidated of their "credentials" and scared of the answer.  Yes, as long-stated by me, in a certain mindset, FACTS are a mere annoyance, to be avoided, or as daveS eloquently points out, a "bother".  Sure, carry on mired in fantasy - asking for facts is a "bother".

Interesting how daveS subtly weaves so many statements into his writing.  Without skipping a beat, he includes a description of himself as an "R & D Pro", characterizes asking Altaeros for details as "bother", miscategorizes acknowledging reality as "paranoid suspicions", implying that asking if the most well-publicized AWE project on Earth is even running at all is not an "actual engineering question", and culminates with the one honest phrase, conveying that asking for any real facts is to "fail in our true intent", which reveals what the "true intent" is: to promote deceptive wrong information rather than find out the real facts. 


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18872 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 8/31/2015
Subject: Re: Latest Altaeros News?

Doug S. noted: " I have had postings rejected here, for using the word "fixation" recently."


Moderator clarifies about that statement:   Doug, none of your message rejections were for using the word "fixation".  None.


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

About BAT:

Anyone interested in the questions about the status of BAT is invited to

1. Study the Altaeros web site very carefully.

2. Study carefully every news release put out by Altaeros.

3. Study carefully every news article that mentions Altaeros.

4. Call and talk to Altaeros.

5. Write to Altaeros.

6. For any possible public-record contracts: Obtain a copy of any public files on Altaeros.


I have personally not done the above.


My take:

a. Let BAT be whatever It might be whenever it might.

b. Let news authors contact Altaeros and let those authors do whatever they might over the involved story; let the errors be possibly corrected by some next news author. 

c. We past forum notes searchable by the keywords.

d. Spending so much bandwidth on each correctable sentence concerning the set of action or non actions by a company may not profit RAD. May we each use good judgment over how to spend our forum coin. Thanks.





Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18873 From: dougselsam Date: 8/31/2015
Subject: Re: Pulsing-Tether PTO AWES Arts (short pulse/high-frequency vibrati
daveS said: "We know this so far- ... The mechanism is that of the tin-can telephone-"

*** I beg to differ:  I think IF anyone ever DID make a pulsing AWE device (after all these years of talk talk talk about test test test) it might just... well... pulse, below the frequency of phonons, but above the frequency of the kite-reelers.
=============================

The question in my mind right now is, if THIS FORUM is supposed to be such a RICH RESOURCE for AWE information, actually THE RICHEST resource for AWE R & D info, then how do we rectify that supposed status with the following facts:

1) DaveS is still talking about a "tin-can telephone" as the leading model for his theories of operation, yet with nothing developed from that standpoint, all the while posing as an "R & D pro" testing more AWE methods than anyone in the world.

2) JoeF seemingly follows progress in the field of AWE, yet appears to have no info whatsoever on what are seen by the general public as THE leading AWE R&D efforts, such as Altaeros.  Like the next Magenn, (except not as bad as Magenn), the Altaeros inflated donut has become "The Poster-Child of AWE", or at least a neck-and-neck contender with the big-name propeller-driven-airplane for that title.

3) Between daveS AND joeF, since Altaeros' announcement back in early 2014 (or before?), these two guys have had a year-and-a-half (or more) to stay on topic and keep us informed of the ongoing details of the "Alaska project", yet we've heard absolutely NOTHING in that time.

Now, wouldn't you think, in a REAL FIELD of endeavor, with TRUE INTEREST in the details, such an announcement of the first AWE system to be put into actual operation providing power to a municipality would be THE MOST INTERESTING THING TO TALK ABOUT in the field of AWE?  I mean, what else IS THERE to talk about - a village being powered by AWE?  That is the biggest news in the history of AWE, right?  Certainly a weekly update would be warranted, or at LEAST a monthly update or a seasonal update.  Come on!  Get real!  Where is the AWE news here?

Except, if somehow the people supposedly keeping up on the AWE news  do not really take AWE news seriously, if they consider knowing whether a supposed project is even implemented as "a bother", then we know their true interest is not really progress in AWE at all, in terms of following real developments, but instead we can see their real, true interest is to spend year after year producing essentially no power, AVOIDING rather than pursuing the real stories regarding the most publicized projects, so they can spend the bandwidth discussing things like dropping notes from kites, providing shade using kites, and AWE systems operating on the "tin-can telephone principle".  I'd have to score that combined effort with a zero.

I've been baffled for the last year-and-a-half at the lack of any followup effort to try and see how the Altaeros effort was going.  If I were JoeF, seemingly interested in publishing all pertinent facts regarding AWE, especially the status of leading-edge research, I'd be taking steps to be in touch with at least the most publicized AWE projects.  I'd make it my business to stay in touch with at least someone who could relate the ongoing exciting details of such an important, groundbreaking effort.  Seems like a weekly update would be warranted - I mean, this WAS supposed to be quite an exciting development in AWE, right?  Don't we want to follow the details in real time?  Don't we, as "AWE R&D Pro's" need to know the status of the world's leading AWE R&D project within at least a couple weeks, let alone years?

But instead, what we see is a complete failure to find ANY details of the project over YEARS, finally culminating in calling such an effort to find out even the most basic fact of whether the project even happened at all, a "bother".  Rather than curiosity, we have the hands over the ears with daveS figuratively yelling "la la la la la I can't hear you!" and JoeF pretending he has had no way to get any real news on this AWE project for years on end.  Like the project is preserved as a "holy" past-prediction-of-the-future, in a plexiglass box, a "cone-of-silence" where nobody is allowed to know any details or even ask "So how is your project going?".  So there you have it: "facts not wanted".  Maybe you guys could find out the real details, regarding the world's most publicized AWE project, using either notes dropped from kites, or a tin-can telephone!  In lieu of that, try a real telephone.  :)
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18874 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 8/31/2015
Subject: Chaff strand

John F. W. Parry

Filed: Sept. 15, 1967


Patent US3715754 - Tethered chaff strand countermeasure with trailing end kite
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18875 From: dave santos Date: 8/31/2015
Subject: What control laws govern classic single-line kites? (Yanbei Chen)
As AWE developers, we make, fly, and observe practical kite systems by day, as we also deepen our kite science by formal study at night. The kite is a mighty engine of the future, with suitably exotic physics to explain its magic. The reference below bears on control theory, and SLK "passive-control" matches the criteria of a "coherent quantum control system".
------------------------------
Macroscopic Quantum Mechanics: Theory and Experimental Concepts of Optomechanics 
Yanbei Chen Theoretical Astrophysics 350-17, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California 

5.3.4. Measurement-based control versus coherent quantum control (bold added)

More broadly speaking, control theory deals with the dynamics of a composite system made up from a “plant” and a “controller”. The controller collects information about the plant (via observation), performs a calculation, and acts back onto the plant (via actuation). In classical physics, both the plant and controller satisfy classical equations of motion, the “observation” can in principle be perfect, but is usually noisy in practical situations. The dynamics of any one such composite system can be analyzed simply by solving the differential equations they satisfy. However, control theory provides us with a language to describe the behaviors of such composite systems, and then a set of tools to: (i) estimate the behaviors of the composite systems for large classes of controllers without having to solve individually the joint equations of motion, and (ii) qualitatively design the controllers in order to achieve a certain set of behaviors. 

We have so far discussed feedback control scenarios in which the plant is quantum, but the controller is classical — for this reason, the observation process has to convert quantum information into classical information via quantum measurement, thereby causing decoherence. This is an important class of control systems to study, because one might imagine classical computers with complex algorithms being used for controlling more complex quantum systems. 

However, one can also imagine using a quantum system for the controller — and in this way the observer will not have to convert quantum information into classical. Such control systems are referred to “coherent quantum control systems” [168, 169]. One can already consider optical cavities as quantum controllers, and one can consider trapping-cooling as coherent quantum control, while feedback cooling as quantum control. Hamerly et al. [170, 171] recently made an explicit comparison between measurement-based feedback control and coherent quantum control for cooling mechanical oscillators, and demonstrated the advantage of the latter. Coherent feedback of a mechanical oscillator has been experimentally demonstrated by Kerckhoff et al. [172]. Recently, Jacobs and Wang discussed the advantage of coherent control for driving the plant into a specific pure state within minimum time [173].

---------------
[168] Lloyd S 2000 Phys. Rev. A 62(2) 022108 URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA. 62.022108 [169] Nurdin H, James M and Petersen I 2009 Automatica 45 1837–1846 [170] Hamerly R and Mabuchi H 2012 arXiv preprint arXiv:1206.0829 [171] Hamerly R and Mabuchi H 2012 arXiv preprint arXiv:1206.2688 [172] Kerckhoff J, Andrews R, Ku H, Kindel W, Cicak K, Simmonds R and Lehnert K 2012 arXiv preprint arXiv:1211.1950 [173] Jacobs K and Wang X 2012 arXiv preprint arXiv:1211.1724
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18876 From: dave santos Date: 8/31/2015
Subject: Life-Saving Kites using kPower PTO Method
A novel application of kites in the waning Age of Sail was to rescue mariners shipwrecked on lee-shores in storms. The inventors worked out effective systems, but it proved hard to place an early system on the right doomed ship. Pocock lifted family-members to the top of a coastal cliff with a steerable kite. Typically, the human payload was suspended directly from the kite.

A new approach is to use a modern power kite with a kPower PTO mechanism*. This usefully isolates the mass from the wing, so the kite can stay higher in stronger smoother air. The kite can even sweep vigorously with a fast turn-rate, while the payload motion below is damped by its inertia, aerodrag, or tag-lines. Multiple kite units can form a "spider-rig" to sum their lift and create redundancy. An elastic snubber section high on the load-line buffers shock motions load and kite.

Many airborne rescue scenarios exist with fire, flood, and other disasters, that are currently flown by helicopter. A flexible effective kite method may serve where helicopters are unavailable, and may even be a preferred method for specific cases, especially where risking a human crew or readiness cost is prohibitive.

Open-AWE_IP-Cloud

--------------------
* a lazy-jack trick (soft version of a whipple-tree)
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18877 From: dave santos Date: 8/31/2015
Subject: Re: Pulsing-Tether PTO AWES Arts (short pulse/high-frequency vibrati
Doug wrote: "I think IF anyone ever DID make a pulsing AWE device (after all these years of talk talk talk about test test test) it might just... well... pulse, below the frequency of phonons, but above the frequency of the kite-reelers."


Despite so much Forum sharing and academic references to these topics, Doug somehow overlooks-
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18878 From: dougselsam Date: 8/31/2015
Subject: Re: Latest Altaeros News?

JoeF said "Doug S. noted: " I have had postings rejected here, for using the word "fixation" recently."

Moderator clarifies about that statement:   Doug, none of your message rejections were for using the word "fixation".  None."

*** OK well maybe the word was "fixation" referring to your strong interest in word definitions and redefining words.  And maybe I received a "verbal reprimand" by e-mail rather than an outright rejection.  But in any case, I was told that this word was "off-limits" in some way.  It went to illustrate a lack of impartiality with regard to who is sllowed to say what on this forum.


Joe contiued: "

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

About BAT:

Anyone interested in the questions about the status of BAT is invited to

1. Study the Altaeros web site very carefully.

2. Study carefully every news release put out by Altaeros.

3. Study carefully every news article that mentions Altaeros.

4. Call and talk to Altaeros.

5. Write to Altaeros.

6. For any possible public-record contracts: Obtain a copy of any public files on Altaeros.

I have personally not done the above."


*** Joe, I HAVE studied the Altaeros website, at least for a few minutes.  Not much there.  I did not see any recent reference to a project in Alaska.  I also called, about a year ago, the newspaper in Alaska that had published a BAT article, asking what the latest news was.  They were not aware of any follow-on activity, and actually had forgotten all about the article and essentially had no interest in the whole subject.  Just so you know.


It seems to me you are abdicating your role as the clearinghouse for up-to-date information on AWE progress.  You must spend an inordinate amount of time digging up hundreds of patents, even from the 1800's, and the forum has hosted links to Altaeros articles discussing a supposed deployment in Alaska.  Such would be the historical first of

1) an AWE system in full-time operation,

2) an AWE system powering a municipality.

To boot, your sidekick has been vehemently declaring that the project was "delayed" for over a year now.

After all this, you now say people who are interested should "study their website carefully"?

You also suggested a phone call.

I suggest you make such a phone call and get back to us with  the results.

OR

You could just tell us you are not really interested in AWE projects, especially the high-profile ones with many articles in the news, and that your real interest is just flying kites, and the many uses kites could potentially find, such as dropping notes and providing shade.  I guess the first question is "Are you even INTERESTED in the facts in AWE, or just repeating the hype, then moving on and "not asking too many questions". (?)

:)

DougS
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18879 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 8/31/2015
Subject: Re: Latest Altaeros News?

Doug,

1. You might have wanted to have placed the word "not" in your first response below. Indeed, the word was not "fixation" but the use of declaration that people were liars. In support of Yahoo! no-personal-attack policy and the adoption of such for this form, a poster may not be allowed to post declarations that persons are liars when proof is not available; the threshold is super high for this forum on that matter. A similar threshold would be wanted for other attacks posters' character.  This forum is not a place for someone to post personal attacks on others. No one is allowed to post personal attacks on other posters. The imperfect moderation combined with trust and the  limits of the program tense deletions against time-consuming placement of postings into pending-moderation processes. Once a message is posted, the message cannot be edited in place; only deletion removes the post, even though all members receiving email gets a copy.   Your posting efforts right now are on the costly delay-moderation path; the aim is to send back your message if you have openly judged the soul-character of others in a severe negative manner, exampled by the "lying" and the "liar" situation.  Untrue statements do not form a proof that a poster is a liar or that they are lying; you've been encouraged to forget the soul of persons and focus on the statements' veracity, soundness, truth-valve, meaning .. Perhaps try to see the poster's perspective and see if the values may be supported within the others' perspectives. Or do nothing and let things pass. Many positive alternatives are available.


2. Early BAT comments belie my personal interest in the technical aspect of BAT. I had enough indicated that the BAT was not novel; that pretty much ended my technical interest. Anyone was and is free to use lighter-than-air gas in a kytoon to hold flygen electricity-generating turbines.  If Altaeros put forward some novel mechanical solution, then my interest would perk up.   I had no need to call Altaeros; Ben had early been given welcome to post what they wish in the forum; little was posted.  I am not caring much for "popularity" in AWE, but for optional solutions that may be chosen by anyone in the world for niche applications. BAT will do its thing; there is no need in me to dig into their non-novel project. There results will ultimately be published; I will read the results and link such when possible.


3. My role?  I do what I can within my budget of time and energy.  Everyone in the world is welcome to use my productions for whatever purpose they wish.  I make no pretense of having accomplished any comprehensive coverage of anything or anyone or any project.  Indeed, quite the opposite:  I know there is a super amount of AWE that is not yet gathered and shared. All are welcome to play a part in bringing forward AWE matters and sharing such in the forum by link or direct post; it is a community-sized project.    Doug, you are invited to dedicate your time and resource to be an expert on Altaeros and their BAT; and then report say monthly on their doings, their tech, their progress, their lessons, their dreams, their investors, etc. Go for it. My role is to extend such invitations. What the AWE community does with such invitations is up to them.  Some teams are extremely quiet; other teams openly share a great deal; preferences differ.  My pay: one company in Europe was paying me $3.33 before PayPal transaction deduction for my work; that occurred for several years; that final company stopped the payment; my net regular collection is now zero for the work that I do in the publishing arena for AWE; my expenses for web site space for AWE is considerable. Operating in the hole is fine, as the hope is great that the publishing effort may be helping the world to find solutions through energy kite systems.   So, Doug, if you accept the administrative invitation to play a positive part to get AWE information into circulation, then my role will have played true to some extent.   TIA.


4. BAT is not at all any historical first AWE system.


5. I am interested in AWE projects. Please send in information if you know of an AWE project that has not been included in my coverage, so far.   The BAT has linkage enough for my purposes, so far, in my publications.


6. Once an entity or project is listed as existing in my publications, and once an invitation has been sent out for such entity to share, then much of the game is over here. The entity may be traced by others on the basis of awareness of existence. Reports may or may not come in for centralized broadcasting and discussion and study. News releases are interesting whether or not statements in them are true or not; discussions may follow news releases; corrections are potential occurrences.    Altaeros is free to correct any public statements they make; they are welcome to post to Upper Windpower or to this forum or in fresh news releases, etc.


7. To clarify for you my interest:  I am very interested in applications for energy kite systems. I will read and link hype. And I support questioning hype, especially in ways that tend to forward new applications for energy kite systems.  Facts remain interesting.  The fact of a dream is interesting; tell the dream! The fact of having a plan or intent is interesting; the fact of progress is interesting even if a slowing occurs in a scheduled plan.  Ask as many questions as seems effective.    But, Doug, avoid personal attacks in your question forming and in your statement forming; do that in some other space, not in this forum. TIA.  


8. Published hype stands as an historic record of expression. People are free to study the hype and ask questions concerning the hype. Hopefully people are spending their time and resource to effect good.


~ Joe F.



---In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, <dougselsam@gmail.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18880 From: Rod Read Date: 8/31/2015
Subject: Re: What control laws govern classic single-line kites? (Yanbei Chen

Coherent...
Not the message,
The argument,
Nor the implied link to the state of a kite.
Unless you're planning to make a supercomputer. (only in size)
Does any AWE string computer have functioning addressable memory yet?
Trying to control 1 single line kite from the quantum information on the end of a tight noisy string is beyond bonkers!

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18881 From: Rod Read Date: 9/1/2015
Subject: more AWE scoring matrix attempts
Maybe like my ideas... this paper has some bias built in too
Maybe it's 100% in the right

Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18882 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/1/2015
Subject: Re: more AWE scoring matrix attempts

Ah AWE !         So very much is missed. It remains a puzzle to me.  It feels like visiting a city and missing the nation that holds the city.   What would it hurt authors to travel the nation and enrich their work with more. Investors will do well to study the clues and linked branches found in the forum AirborneWindEnergy     and   EnergyKiteSystems.net     and  AWEIA

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

Rod's linked article's                                                      [[  Download PDF    ]]

Article outline


---In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, wrote :

Maybe like my ideas... this paper has some bias built in too
Maybe it's 100% in the right

Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18883 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/1/2015
Subject: Re: more AWE scoring matrix attempts

The article's conclusion mentions that various entities have "patenting diverse principles"  AND YET from USPTO: 2106-


“A principle, in the abstract, is a fundamental truth; an original cause; a motive; these cannot be patented, as no one can claim in either of them an exclusive right.” Le Roy v. Tatham,55 U.S. (14 How.) 


So, let one be watchful about principles as opposed to novel functional applications of principles to be found in various solutions. 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18884 From: dave santos Date: 9/1/2015
Subject: Re: What control laws govern classic single-line kites? (Yanbei Chen
Rod,

Of course we are considering an SLK AWES controlling itself under a simple quantum control theory, not manual control. The comparison is with an SLK AWES like Ampyx or Makani, which senses an inherently quantum environment, converts classical data to a classical computing process, then actuates the computed solution back into the quantum environment. The Chen reference presumes that both approaches work, under Turing Equivalence, but that the pure quantum system has inherent advantages.

There is no forced presumption that control must be centered on "the end of the line" in either case. Even so, there is probably enough information at the end of the line to control kite flight, under the holographic principle; so your special case is not "totally bonkers", just an interesting challenge. As for engineering an addressable memory in quantum computing, also feasible under the Turing Equivalence, and now merely up to a talented computer scientist to implement, given recent rapid advances in the field.

You do not say just why a toy kite needs classical addressable memory, rather than just further refining its inherent principles of embodied quantum logic. Anyhow, we have been consistently proposing to layer a classical supervisory autopilot on the kite (quantum device), so you get your memory requirement by default,

daveS





On Monday, August 31, 2015 11:05 PM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
Coherent...
Not the message,
The argument,
Nor the implied link to the state of a kite.
Unless you're planning to make a supercomputer. (only in size)
Does any AWE string computer have functioning addressable memory yet?
Trying to control 1 single line kite from the quantum information on the end of a tight noisy string is beyond bonkers!


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18885 From: dave santos Date: 9/1/2015
Subject: Re: Latest Altaeros News?
Doug,

The issue with "fixation" is your choice to spend so much time complaining on Joe and my posts that we do not view the AWE world as suspiciously as you do, not about the actual news (Mitsubishi entering AWE!). Topic after topic you pop with your same old idees-fixes. You naively imagine your problem is merely the use of the word "fixation", rather then actual fixations.

Try letting folks post in peace to enjoy the Forum as a technical sharing resource. Post your own topics or find a better activity if you have nothing helpful to contribute to others' topics,

daveS



On Monday, August 31, 2015 10:31 PM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
Doug,
1. You might have wanted to have placed the word "not" in your first response below. Indeed, the word was not "fixation" but the use of declaration that people were liars. In support of Yahoo! no-personal-attack policy and the adoption of such for this form, a poster may not be allowed to post declarations that persons are liars when proof is not available; the threshold is super high for this forum on that matter. A similar threshold would be wanted for other attacks posters' character.  This forum is not a place for someone to post personal attacks on others. No one is allowed to post personal attacks on other posters. The imperfect moderation combined with trust and the  limits of the program tense deletions against time-consuming placement of postings into pending-moderation processes. Once a message is posted, the message cannot be edited in place; only deletion removes the post, even though all members receiving email gets a copy.   Your posting efforts right now are on the costly delay-moderation path; the aim is to send back your message if you have openly judged the soul-character of others in a severe negative manner, exampled by the "lying" and the "liar" situation.  Untrue statements do not form a proof that a poster is a liar or that they are lying; you've been encouraged to forget the soul of persons and focus on the statements' veracity, soundness, truth-valve, meaning .. Perhaps try to see the poster's perspective and see if the values may be supported within the others' perspectives. Or do nothing and let things pass. Many positive alternatives are available.

2. Early BAT comments belie my personal interest in the technical aspect of BAT. I had enough indicated that the BAT was not novel; that pretty much ended my technical interest. Anyone was and is free to use lighter-than-air gas in a kytoon to hold flygen electricity-generating turbines.  If Altaeros put forward some novel mechanical solution, then my interest would perk up.   I had no need to call Altaeros; Ben had early been given welcome to post what they wish in the forum; little was posted.  I am not caring much for "popularity" in AWE, but for optional solutions that may be chosen by anyone in the world for niche applications. BAT will do its thing; there is no need in me to dig into their non-novel project. There results will ultimately be published; I will read the results and link such when possible.

3. My role?  I do what I can within my budget of time and energy.  Everyone in the world is welcome to use my productions for whatever purpose they wish.  I make no pretense of having accomplished any comprehensive coverage of anything or anyone or any project.  Indeed, quite the opposite:  I know there is a super amount of AWE that is not yet gathered and shared. All are welcome to play a part in bringing forward AWE matters and sharing such in the forum by link or direct post; it is a community-sized project.    Doug, you are invited to dedicate your time and resource to be an expert on Altaeros and their BAT; and then report say monthly on their doings, their tech, their progress, their lessons, their dreams, their investors, etc. Go for it. My role is to extend such invitations. What the AWE community does with such invitations is up to them.  Some teams are extremely quiet; other teams openly share a great deal; preferences differ.  My pay: one company in Europe was paying me $3.33 before PayPal transaction deduction for my work; that occurred for several years; that final company stopped the payment; my net regular collection is now zero for the work that I do in the publishing arena for AWE; my expenses for web site space for AWE is considerable. Operating in the hole is fine, as the hope is great that the publishing effort may be helping the world to find solutions through energy kite systems.   So, Doug, if you accept the administrative invitation to play a positive part to get AWE information into circulation, then my role will have played true to some extent.   TIA.

4. BAT is not at all any historical first AWE system.

5. I am interested in AWE projects. Please send in information if you know of an AWE project that has not been included in my coverage, so far.   The BAT has linkage enough for my purposes, so far, in my publications.

6. Once an entity or project is listed as existing in my publications, and once an invitation has been sent out for such entity to share, then much of the game is over here. The entity may be traced by others on the basis of awareness of existence. Reports may or may not come in for centralized broadcasting and discussion and study. News releases are interesting whether or not statements in them are true or not; discussions may follow news releases; corrections are potential occurrences.    Altaeros is free to correct any public statements they make; they are welcome to post to Upper Windpower or to this forum or in fresh news releases, etc.

7. To clarify for you my interest:  I am very interested in applications for energy kite systems. I will read and link hype. And I support questioning hype, especially in ways that tend to forward new applications for energy kite systems.  Facts remain interesting.  The fact of a dream is interesting; tell the dream! The fact of having a plan or intent is interesting; the fact of progress is interesting even if a slowing occurs in a scheduled plan.  Ask as many questions as seems effective.    But, Doug, avoid personal attacks in your question forming and in your statement forming; do that in some other space, not in this forum. TIA.  

8. Published hype stands as an historic record of expression. People are free to study the hype and ask questions concerning the hype. Hopefully people are spending their time and resource to effect good.

~ Joe F.


---In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, <dougselsam@gmail.com


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18886 From: Rod Read Date: 9/1/2015
Subject: Re: What control laws govern classic single-line kites? (Yanbei Chen
A gate latch is held on a tight kite line, with a string on the thumb release catch.
Another kite line or ring crashes into the latch and is caught.
The latch holds until reset open by pulling the thumb string to release the 2nd (signal) kite.
Do you see more than 1 transistor equivalent there? 

Does the whole system have to be some roboticised, self reconfiguring, self controlling, self aware, mega morphing energy state machine to realise your vision?
Can't wait to see it. Why hasn't anyone suggested we all do that before?

SLK AWES controlling itself under a simple quantum control theory
Where is this simple, proven, workable, done. Does this tie with the KIS principle?
KIS my arse.

Did it take
Yanbei Chen Theoretical Astrophysics 350-17, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California 
up to chapter ...
5.3.4.
to decide it was describing kites?
no


Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18887 From: dave santos Date: 9/1/2015
Subject: Re: more AWE scoring matrix attempts
The comparison tables are not scoring matrices (no tallied scores). This is not a model for a serious AE scoring matrix.

A key context for this review is funding by KiteGen (the lead author co-patents with Massimo). It is a slap-dash affair full of gaps and errors. For example, the merger several years ago of Joby's effort into Makani marked the end of Joby's box-wing concept development in favor of Makani's single-wing design (but with Joby motor-gens). This review presumes the Joby concept is still in play.

The interesting controversy over rigid v. soft wings is addressed: "It is unclear whether one of the two solutions will prove to be better than the other, but a trend is clearly visible in the AWE community: even though a lot of academic research is being carried out on soft wings, more and more companies are switching from soft to rigid wings"

In our Open-AWE circle, soft-wings have been persistently identified as the only available mega-scale unit option, and this fact seems to relegate rigid wings to marginal status. Open AWE even has modular soft-rigid hybrid concepts. The "trend" suggested correlates with weak soft-kite operational prowess by the few teams that switched from soft to rigid, trading the frying-pan for the fire. Soft wing start-ups continue to outnumber (and outperform) rigid wing ventures, but careful testing between soft and rigid AWES is the quickest way to put doubts to rest, rather than wait for market forces to reach similar conclusions.





On Tuesday, September 1, 2015 7:07 AM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
The article's conclusion mentions that various entities have "patenting diverse principles"  AND YET from USPTO: 2106-

“A principle, in the abstract, is a fundamental truth; an original cause; a motive; these cannot be patented, as no one can claim in either of them an exclusive right.” Le Roy v. Tatham,55 U.S. (14 How.) 

So, let one be watchful about principles as opposed to novel functional applications of principles to be found in various solutions. 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18888 From: dave santos Date: 9/1/2015
Subject: Re: What control laws govern classic single-line kites? (Yanbei Chen
Rod,

We are discussing the ancient self-flying kite as a pre-existing QM system, not something we have to newly invent. Chen is only one of many references offered here to lend support to seeing the kite in this new way. Van Veem's classic book is the foundational modern physics interpretation of kites for us to build on.

Chen need not name every macroscopic application instance of quantum control theory; the universal principles applytoo broadly,

daveS




On Tuesday, September 1, 2015 10:38 AM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
A gate latch is held on a tight kite line, with a string on the thumb release catch.
Another kite line or ring crashes into the latch and is caught.
The latch holds until reset open by pulling the thumb string to release the 2nd (signal) kite.
Do you see more than 1 transistor equivalent there? 

Does the whole system have to be some roboticised, self reconfiguring, self controlling, self aware, mega morphing energy state machine to realise your vision?
Can't wait to see it. Why hasn't anyone suggested we all do that before?

SLK AWES controlling itself under a simple quantum control theory
Where is this simple, proven, workable, done. Does this tie with the KIS principle?
KIS my arse.

Did it take
Yanbei Chen Theoretical Astrophysics 350-17, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California 
up to chapter ...
5.3.4.
to decide it was describing kites?
no


Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18889 From: Rod Read Date: 9/1/2015
Subject: Re: more AWE scoring matrix attempts
Well to be fair to them ... the article does reference Storm Dunkers Ram-air Wing Design Considerations for
Airborne Wind Energy chapter 31 of THE AWE book.
Where in Scalability, Storm notes...
Design Features for Large Ram-air Wings Fortunately, most construction techniques
are scalable at the component level, substituting stronger materials or simply
adding more stitches to withstand the necessary loads. Proven line spacing can be
maintained in the larger sizes (i.e. same ratio of square meters per line), only the
addition of more lines is required toaccommodate the increased wing area. Instead
of A, B, C, D and control lines, one may need A through E, F, G, H, or more and
control lines.

However, Storm's is a harsh, yet realistic article in it's longevity estimations....
That's what it's referenced for by the kitegen favouring "A review of the technologies" article.

The same article has this description  
Semi-rigid wings are also under investigation by the Italian
company Kitegen Research.They are composed of multiple
short rigid modules that are hinged to each other(Fig. 5f). The
resulting structure is lighter than straight rigid wings and more
aerodynamically efficient and durable than fabric kites.
Got to be careful how much you read there...

For what it's worth... I agree with both articles.
A Big, strong, cheap, soft, steady, controllable, modular lift mesh, with an ability to hoist and support - fast, hard, efficient, durable, continuous running, collectively and individually steerable modular sets of blades of a small size interlinked and collectively actuating a ground gen
 
I don't see anything that touches that.  That's a description of an iso-mesh hosting daisy chains.
If you have no idea what that is. Don't worry, it's not exactly promoted well. And for various reasons.
BUT YOU MUST LOOK IT UP if you are at all into AWES.


As for this drivel.....
Section3 provides a unified and comprehensive classification of
different AWES concepts, which tries to merge previously proposed
taxonomies.  In Sections 4and5, an up to date overview of different
devices and concepts is provided.
HA HA HA HA.....
Article has major flaws.
There are different concepts of moving-ground-station GG-AWESs
(Fig. 3) (So Wrong picture)
but no working prototype has been developed up to date (not that this article will admit)
and only one prototype is currently under development (that this article will admit)
What year is this? JULY 2015 according to the article. Horse shite!

Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18890 From: dave santos Date: 9/1/2015
Subject: Re: more AWE scoring matrix attempts
Rod,

I know some of these folks first-hand, and like you, they are doing the best they can. Its not cricket to imply they attempted a scoring-matrix but got horse-****e, in light of your own scoring-matrix, where your Daisy predictably* won hands-down. These good Italians at least never claim to have down-selected a winning AWES paradigm. A winning (or not) AWE-hobbyist paradigm is obviously easy to overlook by most non-hobbyists.

Better to study the more rigorous data-driven AE scoring-matrix models, as defining best-practice, without regard that they are not kite-specific. Its up to us as pros to match broad best-practice standards to our domain,

daveS

---------------
* under confirmation bias theory





On Tuesday, September 1, 2015 12:06 PM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
Well to be fair to them ... the article does reference Storm Dunkers Ram-air Wing Design Considerations for
Airborne Wind Energy chapter 31 of THE AWE book.
Where in Scalability, Storm notes...
Design Features for Large Ram-air Wings Fortunately, most construction techniques
are scalable at the component level, substituting stronger materials or simply
adding more stitches to withstand the necessary loads. Proven line spacing can be
maintained in the larger sizes (i.e. same ratio of square meters per line), only the
addition of more lines is required toaccommodate the increased wing area. Instead
of A, B, C, D and control lines, one may need A through E, F, G, H, or more and
control lines.

However, Storm's is a harsh, yet realistic article in it's longevity estimations....
That's what it's referenced for by the kitegen favouring "A review of the technologies" article.

The same article has this description  
Semi-rigid wings are also under investigation by the Italian
company Kitegen Research.They are composed of multiple
short rigid modules that are hinged to each other(Fig. 5f). The
resulting structure is lighter than straight rigid wings and more
aerodynamically efficient and durable than fabric kites.
Got to be careful how much you read there...

For what it's worth... I agree with both articles.
A Big, strong, cheap, soft, steady, controllable, modular lift mesh, with an ability to hoist and support - fast, hard, efficient, durable, continuous running, collectively and individually steerable modular sets of blades of a small size interlinked and collectively actuating a ground gen
 
I don't see anything that touches that.  That's a description of an iso-mesh hosting daisy chains.
If you have no idea what that is. Don't worry, it's not exactly promoted well. And for various reasons.
BUT YOU MUST LOOK IT UP if you are at all into AWES.


As for this drivel.....
Section3 provides a unified and comprehensive classification of
different AWES concepts, which tries to merge previously proposed
taxonomies.  In Sections 4and5, an up to date overview of different
devices and concepts is provided.
HA HA HA HA.....
Article has major flaws.
There are different concepts of moving-ground-station GG-AWESs
(Fig. 3) (So Wrong picture)
but no working prototype has been developed up to date (not that this article will admit)
and only one prototype is currently under development (that this article will admit)
What year is this? JULY 2015 according to the article. Horse shite!

Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18891 From: dave santos Date: 9/1/2015
Subject: KITEnrg's Crosswind Tracking Concept in [Cherubini et al. 2015], and
In [Cherubini] there is in fact mention of a key Open_AWE method, via a KITEnrg concept as elaborated in a 2012 patent, but whose basic operation derives from Joe Hadzicki's crosswind cableway concept, as Drachen reported in [Lang 2004], and kPower has tested in scale prototypes. The basic difference in the otherwise equivalent concepts is that to weathercock the system, KITEnrg proposes to rotate a railway, while kPower proposes to rotate a cableway, even just by simple belay, for lower capital-cost and larger scaling advantages.

Hadzicki is the legendary inventor of the Rev kite, and recently recognized kPower's work in a brief overview of AWE for Drachen's journal. JoeH and DaveL are friends to many of us. KITEnrg's Mario and Lorenzo are also friends, who happen to hold the current world's record for peak AWES power output. Future collaboration between these talents in the crosswind tracking concept space is an exciting possibility-
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18892 From: Rod Read Date: 9/1/2015
Subject: Re: more AWE scoring matrix attempts
Better to study the more rigorous data-driven AE scoring-matrix models, as defining best-practice, without regard that they are not kite-specific. Its up to us as pros to match broad best-practice standards to our domain
Absolutely agree . well put. I'll get back to that NASA one you posted soon. Ta.


There is no broad best practice standard when a paper proclaims...
"In particular, all existing AWESs have been briefly presented and classified."
That's not just a bold claim presented as all knowing of the field...It's horse shite. (I'm on a high horse, I should know)
Open hardware is very convenient to overlook especially when none of the uni establishments acknowledge the existence of this forum.

Where I describe...
A Big, strong, cheap, soft, steady, controllable, modular lift mesh, with an ability to hoist and support - fast, hard, efficient, durable, continuous running, collectively and individually steerable modular sets of blades of a small size interlinked and collectively actuating a ground gen
 and claim
I don't see anything that touches that.
I don't yet.
But neither do I down-select a winning AWES paradigm
More, I mix a consensus of what field practitioners agree upon.
Until I, they or you know any better...
I'm sticking by that claim however short lived it's validity may be.
Nothing better has been proposed.
Luckily it's an open description so..
I'll let you know when I can better it.

Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18893 From: Rod Read Date: 9/1/2015
Subject: Re: KITEnrg's Crosswind Tracking Concept in [Cherubini et al. 2015],
There's also mention (at the very end of the article) of
[123]TignerB.Multi-tethercross-windkitepower.USpatentapplication
US8066225;2008
http://www.google.com/patents/US8066225
Which sounds very like The Dave S  tri tether concept
You must have nicked it Dave

Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18894 From: dave santos Date: 9/1/2015
Subject: Re: more AWE scoring matrix attempts
The supposed grave-error may have been a forgivable stylistic omission (should have been- "As far as the authors know, all existing...").

Lets keep in mind that the Albannaich naturally resent Italians far more than visa-versa, since ancient times.






On Tuesday, September 1, 2015 2:50 PM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
Better to study the more rigorous data-driven AE scoring-matrix models, as defining best-practice, without regard that they are not kite-specific. Its up to us as pros to match broad best-practice standards to our domain
Absolutely agree . well put. I'll get back to that NASA one you posted soon. Ta.


There is no broad best practice standard when a paper proclaims...
"In particular, all existing AWESs have been briefly presented and classified."
That's not just a bold claim presented as all knowing of the field...It's horse shite. (I'm on a high horse, I should know)
Open hardware is very convenient to overlook especially when none of the uni establishments acknowledge the existence of this forum.

Where I describe...
A Big, strong, cheap, soft, steady, controllable, modular lift mesh, with an ability to hoist and support - fast, hard, efficient, durable, continuous running, collectively and individually steerable modular sets of blades of a small size interlinked and collectively actuating a ground gen
 and claim
I don't see anything that touches that.
I don't yet.
But neither do I down-select a winning AWES paradigm
More, I mix a consensus of what field practitioners agree upon.
Until I, they or you know any better...
I'm sticking by that claim however short lived it's validity may be.
Nothing better has been proposed.
Luckily it's an open description so..
I'll let you know when I can better it.

Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18895 From: dave santos Date: 9/1/2015
Subject: Re: KITEnrg's Crosswind Tracking Concept in [Cherubini et al. 2015],
Rod,

I think I did in fact disclose the tri-tether for AWE before Tigner was ever public. Tigner's idea is different*. He did not show how to crank a single central work-station. Hats-off to whoever is shown to have priority by careful checking rather than wishful guesswork.

In any case, the dynamic tri-tether concept existed in similar form for airship tethering, and is closely related to the rigger's triangle of forces. KiteLab found many specific existing instances, and maybe even some new uses,

daveS

-------------
* Tigner: 'In FIG. 3, Which shoWs a three-tether preferred embodi

ment, a kite 10 is attached to a secondary tether 11. The loWer 

end of the secondary tether is attached by a joint 20 to the 

upper ends of each of tWo or more primary tethers 12, each of 

Which is attached at its loWer end to a ground-based spool 13. 

The ground-based spools are distributed on the ground, sepa 

rated from each other by a distance. The kite ?ies a high-speed 

maneuvering pattern 14 approximately cross-Ways to the 

Wind, Whose direction is indicated by the arroW 100, causing 

the loWer end of the secondary tether to travel along a similar 

but smaller path 15. Since the distance betWeen the kite and 

each ground-based spool changes in periodic Way based on 

the geometry of the kite’s orbit, each of the tethers must 

unWind and reWind on its spool in a periodic fashion.'



On Tuesday, September 1, 2015 3:02 PM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
There's also mention (at the very end of the article) of
[123]TignerB.Multi-tethercross-windkitepower.USpatentapplication
US8066225;2008
http://www.google.com/patents/US8066225
Which sounds very like The Dave S  tri tether concept
You must have nicked it Dave

Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18896 From: dave santos Date: 9/1/2015
Subject: Tigner Tri-tether Patent DisclosureTimeline
When was Tigner's tri-tether variant published or otherwise publicly disclosed? Under the normal timeline, this would have occurred 18 months after initial filing, unless the applicant specially requested a sooner date. The early AWES Forum goal was to disclose all fundamental AWE art to the public domain, before patent claimants could monopolize it. This was a keen race in years past, and very few (if any) core AWE ideas got past us.

The good news for Open AWE is that Tigner's patent, regardless of legal priority or public disclosure status, does not seem to block use of AWES Forum tri-tether method disclosures, insofar as they differ substantially from each other, and both build on the same vast partial prior art. Secondarily, it would be nice to prove that Open-AWE could not have "nicked" Tigner in sharing its own original tri-tether explorations.

So when was Tigner's idea actually made public? The patent publication date was 2011, but the AWES Forum tri-tether audit trail began in 2009.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18897 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/1/2015
Subject: Re: KITEnrg's Crosswind Tracking Concept in [Cherubini et al. 2015],

1. We have also at-sea weathercocking solutions for hauling hulls crosswind on cables  or use veering-hulls hydro-turbine equipped.

2. We had a post  in 2012 in KitePatents for the patent:
  KitePatents

 

 
    
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18898 From: dave santos Date: 9/1/2015
Subject: Concentric Tri-Tether AWES Solution
Consider a tri-sail kite with a tri-tether leading outward to a peripheral anchor-triangle, and an inner tri-tether from the same clews, leading inward to a center-point. As the kite is blown downwind, the inner tri-tether to windward passively sets flying AoA. As the kite sweeps passively in its window, the outer tri-tether serves the PTO function. Higher polygonal versions and even simpler 4-line and 2-line versions are a large design space for the core concept of dual line-sets, one for control and the other for power extraction.

This is a self-flying mega-scalable "iso" AWES solution, accepting wind from any quarter.

Open-AWE_IP-Cloud
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18899 From: dave santos Date: 9/1/2015
Subject: Re: KITEnrg's Crosswind Tracking Concept in [Cherubini et al. 2015],
Lets also count Dr Beaujean and AlexB's concepts as "flying track" to set crosswind. KiteLab has explored flying crosswind cableways, as further case studies.



On Tuesday, September 1, 2015 4:57 PM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  

1. We have also at-sea weathercocking solutions for hauling hulls crosswind on cables  or use veering-hulls hydro-turbine equipped.

2. We had a post  in 2012 in KitePatents for the patent:
  KitePatents
 
 
    
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18900 From: dave santos Date: 9/1/2015
Subject: Center-Pivot Irrigation COTS as AWES Rotating Crosswind-Track Basis
The idea is that mature center-pivot Ag tech could serve to rotate an AWES cableway or rails crosswind. Primary anchoring forces would likely still be belayed across an anchor field, for maximal holding power, but the Ag tech is a ready means to rotate the unloaded ~km-scale industrial structure crosswind. This is not a new idea here, but we are revisiting crosswind mechanisms again.

The hot new bit may be to support a moving track capability with this center-pivot model, rather than earlier presumptions of a fixed line array of anchor-points along the arms (unlike the one-arm irrigation app, an AWE version would use a double-arm to cover the crosswind space).

Open-AWE_IP-Cloud
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18901 From: Rod Read Date: 9/1/2015
Subject: Re: more AWE scoring matrix attempts

Orite what's our problem with Italians? None that I know of. Especially in my case. That statement was worse than any omission.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18902 From: Rod Read Date: 9/2/2015
Subject: Re: Concentric Tri-Tether AWES Solution
That sounds great. However I'm having trouble imagining how the inner tri tether passively sets AOA.
Can you draw it? Or fly a cheap demo rig?


Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18903 From: Rod Read Date: 9/2/2015
Subject: regen boat wanting a kite
Fit with loads of battery. enjoy your sail.
come back to port and sell some cheap electricity.
(not likely anywhere near cost competitive but such a nice thought)

Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18904 From: dougselsam Date: 9/2/2015
Subject: Re: What control laws govern classic single-line kites? (Yanbei Chen
To me this is reminiscent of Savonius machines using maglev bearings.  The poor performance of the Savonius rotor is ignored in lieu of fixation on the "advanced" bearings.  The bearing characteristics are seen as so "overwhelming" that the lack of a suitable basic configuration is ignored.  But the reality is, the basic configuration is lacking, so the bearings won't save it.  Like a nicely-wrapped piece of doggie-doo with a beautiful bow.  Similarly, to merely mention a kite, without a good way to produce energy, and to wrap the word "kite" in the term "quantum mechanics" leaves one stuck on the starting blocks, not winning a race.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18905 From: dougselsam Date: 9/2/2015
Subject: Re: Latest Altaeros News?
Joe F noted: "BAT will do its thing; there is no need in me to dig into their non-novel project. There results will ultimately be published; I will read the results and link such when possible."

Doug S. replies:
888 that's the point: "results" were published ahead of time, so profusely, in so many venues, that a fictional scenario replaced Magenn as the popular face of AWE.  Publishing the true results here was the whole idea.


Joe F noted:  "4. BAT is not at all any historical first AWE system."


Doug S. replies:  88* patented, helium-filled concentrator, highly unique idea, a first-ever attempt out of MIT, the most visible AWE effort in the world.


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

Moderator notes for the above:

I am not clear what "888" and "88" mean.

We do not have historic validation if MIT had some earlier energy-kite attempt. I await for proof about MIT's total kite history before concluding when MIT's first kite-energy attempt was; perhaps this matter could become a dedicated topic thread. Yes.