Messages in AirborneWindEnergy group.                          AWES 20335 to 20384 Page 300 of 440.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20335 From: dougselsam Date: 6/21/2016
Subject: Re: Dassault Systemes' exaggerated wireless AWE concept

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20336 From: dougselsam Date: 6/21/2016
Subject: Re: Fanbelting Groundgen

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20337 From: benhaiemp Date: 6/21/2016
Subject: Re: L/D ratio of kite and corresponding wing

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20338 From: dave santos Date: 6/22/2016
Subject: Re: Fanbelting Groundgen

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20339 From: dave santos Date: 6/22/2016
Subject: Re: Quick Review of AWES Flight Stability by Passive or Active Contr

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20340 From: dave santos Date: 6/22/2016
Subject: Re: Dassault Systemes' exaggerated wireless AWE concept

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20341 From: dave santos Date: 6/22/2016
Subject: Re: L/D ratio of kite and corresponding wing

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20342 From: dougselsam Date: 6/22/2016
Subject: Re: Quick Review of AWES Flight Stability by Passive or Active Contr

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20343 From: dougselsam Date: 6/22/2016
Subject: Re: Dassault Systemes' exaggerated wireless AWE concept

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20344 From: dougselsam Date: 6/22/2016
Subject: Re: L/D ratio of kite and corresponding wing

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20345 From: dave santos Date: 6/22/2016
Subject: Re: L/D ratio of kite and corresponding wing

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20346 From: dave santos Date: 6/22/2016
Subject: Re: Quick Review of AWES Flight Stability by Passive or Active Contr

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20347 From: dave santos Date: 6/22/2016
Subject: Re: Dassault Systemes' exaggerated wireless AWE concept

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20348 From: benhaiemp Date: 6/23/2016
Subject: Re: Soft vs Rigid Wings

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20349 From: dougselsam Date: 6/23/2016
Subject: Re: Dassault Systemes' exaggerated wireless AWE concept

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20350 From: dougselsam Date: 6/23/2016
Subject: Re: Quick Review of AWES Flight Stability by Passive or Active Contr

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20351 From: dougselsam Date: 6/23/2016
Subject: Re: L/D ratio of kite and corresponding wing

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20352 From: dougselsam Date: 6/23/2016
Subject: Re: L/D ratio of kite and corresponding wing

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20353 From: dougselsam Date: 6/23/2016
Subject: Re: Quick Review of AWES Flight Stability by Passive or Active Contr

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20354 From: dave santos Date: 6/24/2016
Subject: Re: L/D ratio of kite and corresponding wing

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20355 From: dave santos Date: 6/24/2016
Subject: Re: Dassault Systemes' exaggerated wireless AWE concept

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20356 From: dave santos Date: 6/24/2016
Subject: Re: Quick Review of AWES Flight Stability by Passive or Active Contr

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20357 From: dave santos Date: 6/24/2016
Subject: Re: Soft vs Rigid Wings

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20358 From: dave santos Date: 6/24/2016
Subject: New SuperWing Design in Progress

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20359 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 6/24/2016
Subject: Re: Soft vs Rigid Wings

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20360 From: benhaiemp Date: 6/24/2016
Subject: Effect of flying mass

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20361 From: dougselsam Date: 6/24/2016
Subject: Re: Quick Review of AWES Flight Stability by Passive or Active Contr

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20362 From: Rod Read Date: 6/25/2016
Subject: Re: Effect of flying mass

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20363 From: dave santos Date: 6/25/2016
Subject: Re: Quick Review of AWES Flight Stability by Passive or Active Contr

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20364 From: dave santos Date: 6/25/2016
Subject: Re: Soft vs Rigid Wings

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20365 From: dougselsam Date: 6/25/2016
Subject: Re: Dassault Systemes' exaggerated wireless AWE concept

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20366 From: dougselsam Date: 6/25/2016
Subject: Re: Quick Review of AWES Flight Stability by Passive or Active Contr

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20367 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 6/25/2016
Subject: Re: Effect of flying mass

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20368 From: dave santos Date: 6/25/2016
Subject: Re: Dassault Systemes' exaggerated wireless AWE concept

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20369 From: dave santos Date: 6/25/2016
Subject: Re: Quick Review of AWES Flight Stability by Passive or Active Contr

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20370 From: dave santos Date: 6/25/2016
Subject: Re: Effect of flying mass

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20371 From: Rod Read Date: 6/26/2016
Subject: Re: Quick Review of AWES Flight Stability by Passive or Active Contr

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20372 From: dave santos Date: 6/26/2016
Subject: Re: Quick Review of AWES Flight Stability by Passive or Active Contr

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20373 From: Rod Read Date: 6/26/2016
Subject: Re: Quick Review of AWES Flight Stability by Passive or Active Contr

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20374 From: dave santos Date: 6/26/2016
Subject: Re: Quick Review of AWES Flight Stability by Passive or Active Contr

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20375 From: dave santos Date: 6/26/2016
Subject: Earth as a Kite

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20376 From: dougselsam Date: 6/26/2016
Subject: Re: Quick Review of AWES Flight Stability by Passive or Active Contr

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20377 From: dougselsam Date: 6/26/2016
Subject: Re: Quick Review of AWES Flight Stability by Passive or Active Contr

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20378 From: dougselsam Date: 6/26/2016
Subject: Re: Quick Review of AWES Flight Stability by Passive or Active Contr

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20379 From: benhaiemp Date: 6/26/2016
Subject: Re: Earth as a Kite

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20380 From: dougselsam Date: 6/26/2016
Subject: Re: Earth as a Kite

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20381 From: dave santos Date: 6/26/2016
Subject: Re: Earth as a Kite

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20382 From: dave santos Date: 6/26/2016
Subject: Re: Quick Review of AWES Flight Stability by Passive or Active Contr

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20383 From: Rod Read Date: 6/26/2016
Subject: Re: Quick Review of AWES Flight Stability by Passive or Active Contr

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20384 From: dave santos Date: 6/27/2016
Subject: "Forces" in AWE Physics? (Physics Hypertextbook usage)



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20335 From: dougselsam Date: 6/21/2016
Subject: Re: Dassault Systemes' exaggerated wireless AWE concept
You are correct - even I am not immune.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20336 From: dougselsam Date: 6/21/2016
Subject: Re: Fanbelting Groundgen
It is a close analogy to the light bulb joke.  You talk of re-aiming  the entire infrastructure of a "windfarm", (worse than rotating just a building) by creating a giant circular track, rather than re-aiming individual turbines (light bulbs).  Rotating a whole building to screw in a lightbulb would probably also be accomplished by such a giant circular track, if people were not astute enough to figure out that they could just rotate the bulb.  OK, enough nonsense.  Build it or not, I cannot waste any more of my time on trying to convince anyone of the obvious.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20337 From: benhaiemp Date: 6/21/2016
Subject: Re: L/D ratio of kite and corresponding wing

DaveS,



How do you explain such a difference between "Modern pararfoils achieve L/D

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20338 From: dave santos Date: 6/22/2016
Subject: Re: Fanbelting Groundgen
Doug makes multiple "nonsense" assumptions in trying to present a "light bulb joke" as an engineering similarity case. The joke is not a real case, nor does ir relate to drive belts, ropes, or chains. He conflates a separate topic- the rotating of equipment, with the lightbulb, (ignoring the actual similarity cases where large-scale rotation is routine, like irrigation circles. Its not "obvious" to anyone but Doug that belt drives like Leo's can't work, by Doug's flawed logic.

On the other hand, KiteMotor1 in 2007 worked by rope-drive principles, with a wind turbine driving the loop to the groundgen. This was demoed at two large public events. Such demos and the many non-lightbulb-joke similarity cases really are the better references. 




On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 6:30 PM, "dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
It is a close analogy to the light bulb joke.  You talk of re-aiming  the entire infrastructure of a "windfarm", (worse than rotating just a building) by creating a giant circular track, rather than re-aiming individual turbines (light bulbs).  Rotating a whole building to screw in a lightbulb would probably also be accomplished by such a giant circular track, if people were not astute enough to figure out that they could just rotate the bulb.  OK, enough nonsense.  Build it or not, I cannot waste any more of my time on trying to convince anyone of the obvious.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20339 From: dave santos Date: 6/22/2016
Subject: Re: Quick Review of AWES Flight Stability by Passive or Active Contr
Doug is unaware that JoeF really has brilliantly expanded the definition of the kite for kite experts. Doug apparently has no idea that the kite principle applies to soil kites (normally of metal or wood, but a suitable stone will work) and soils as granular mediums do have liquid properties that civil engineers  have to understand.

Doug would have better prospects in AWE R&D if he did appreciate the deeper kite principles Joe is teaching the pros.


On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 6:28 PM, "dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
Sorry Joe, I think you are out in left field with your penchant for redefining words.  You do not control what the definition of a kite is.  The rest of the world gets a vote too.  Walk into a kite store.  Ask to see their kites.  They will show you kites, not anchors, not string, not reeling devices, kites.  (And not rocks.)  Then they might recommend a certain line weight, or a specific set of lines, to use with a particular kite.  They might tell you how much pull you can expect, so you can figure an appropriate anchor, or suitable object to tie-off to.  That anchor or object is probably not going to be "a wing" unless you happen to be at an airport.  To declare that anything you tie a kite-string to is "a wing" is a definition you have come up with, your pet set of word definitions, that I believe has no real basis.  What you are doing, in my opinion, is redefining the word "kite" after hundreds if not thousands of years of previous use, to have a certain meaning, and deciding that all the past use of the word "kite" was in error, and that "a kite" is "really" always "actually" a set of interconnected wings.  Not just a wing tied off to the ground, but the ground "has to be" "a wing" too.  Not that there is any reason for it, just that you like to think of it that way.  You're basically trying to say that a single "kite" (old meaning) does not exist, and that "kites" can ONLY come in multiples, because after seeing that kites CAN be interconnected, you want to mandate that ALL kites MUST be interconnected with other kites.  Only halfway through the process of redefining the word "kite", you realized you had to switch and use the word "wing" when you mean the "old definition" of "kite" (what everyone else thinks a kite is) because otherwise people would ask "if a kite must consist of multiple kites, then what are the kites that make up THOSE kites, leading to every kite "really" being a infinite number of kites.  And at this point I'm sure you will jump right on that, as you have in private e-mails with me, and agree that every kite is "really" an infinite number of "kites".  Some might note that could be a way of applying differential calculus to a kite.  Not sure how you might split it up further by the time you get to each atom of a kite being "a wing" or "a kite" or whatever you might claim at that point, but to me it quickly degenerates into a "theater of the absurd".
I simply do not agree that, by being a moderator of a group on the internet, you are suddenly "the dictionary" and can mandate word meanings for the rest of the world.  A rock underground serving as a kite anchor is NEVER a wing, never a kite.  Underwater, sure, you could make a case for it.  Although others might call it "a floating keel", resistive hydrofoil, etc., - labels are available for anything we can imagine.  The soil is not "flowing" around the rock creating "lift", even though YOU say it is.  The rock is held down by the weight and friction of unmoving soil, not by a dynamic flow of soil under the rock creating low pressure amounting to upside-down lift based on a change of inertia.  I would suggest you might take a college course or two in engineering and maybe fluid mechanics, or get up to speed on aerodynamics if this is confusing for you.  Start with the definition of static friction versus kinetic friction, as just a start.  Sure, flowing soil, as in a landslide or liquefaction during an earthquake, or maybe quicksand (really mostly water anyway) could be treated as a fluid in some ways, but soil or bedrock for supporting structures or serving as anchors is specifically tested for NOT acting like a liquid.  The idea that this is even a discussion is, to me, just 100% absurd and not worth the time it has taken to type this.  Anyone can go off into their own little world and claim anything "is really" whatever they want to say.  It's whether the rest of the world agrees that remains an important factor too.  At this point I would like to note that most of these discussions amount to a comical "I'd like an argument please" type of situation.  Fun sometimes, but what does it really accomplish?  We say "I want to pursue AWE" so we get on the internet and think "Oh, participating in discussions on the internet can be part of accomplishing AWE."  But at some point beware:  when the discussion degenerates into nonsense, and from there into whether the nonsense is nonsense, I think we've gone off a cliff.  There "is no there there" when all we can do is discuss "what the meaning of is is".  Have a fun day everyone!  :)
~ Doug Selsam
==================================

JoeF replies: 
     Doug, it has been well noted in forum that one welcome to exercise the J-Model
or not.  The J-Model sits as an option for use by creative engineering.   It is clear that you do not want to exercise your explorations in energy kite systems using the J-Model for Kite; I have no problem with your choice.  

    Kite is better known today than ever; the improved set of insights has allowed the J-Model for Kite. When useful, the model is now available.  Pointing to non-users of the J-Model for Kite does not make less the potential good that may arrive from using the model. Within the model there can be statements that do not match statements constructed within some other model; such is natural logic, not proof of the utility of any certain model.  Any member or non-member is free to propose a model for "kite".  
    Readers may search the forum and akiteis for alternative perspectives.  
   To each human: "What is kite to you? 
    You put quotes over some phrases that are not my phrases. Please be careful about such presentation.
 ~ JoeF
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20340 From: dave santos Date: 6/22/2016
Subject: Re: Dassault Systemes' exaggerated wireless AWE concept
Competent aerospace engineers are in fact "immune" to poorly conceived concepts artistically rendered. 


On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 6:29 PM, "dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
You are correct - even I am not immune.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20341 From: dave santos Date: 6/22/2016
Subject: Re: L/D ratio of kite and corresponding wing
Pierre,

Peter Lynn is correct, that kite L/D varies mostly by AoA. This is because our kites typically work at higher than "average" AoA in aeronautical design, since we are not as concerned with fuel or battery endurance as conventional aircraft. The exception is when conventional aircraft "flare" (high AoA) for a landing, dissipating max power.

Once again, an over-emphasis on high L/D has been a primary error of many early AWE theorists who did not have a strong kite background. They do not expect that a large enough NPW can beat a race-wing in common conditions by merely using the same design mass for a larger area, but at lower wing-loading. Nor do they understand that drag-force is a valuable component to kite-power generally.

daveS


On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 6:48 PM, "pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
DaveS,


How do you explain such a difference between "Modern pararfoils achieve L/D


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20342 From: dougselsam Date: 6/22/2016
Subject: Re: Quick Review of AWES Flight Stability by Passive or Active Contr
A wing operates on the principle of lift.
Lift involves flow across an airfoil that creates a pressure differential between the top and bottom surfaces of the airfoil.  Pitch and camber serve to redirect this flow, and the resulting change in momentum of air creates a vacuum pulling upward on the top surface.  This reduced pressure on the top surface is the result we call lift.
An anchor in soil has none of these characteristics.
There is no flow of soil over an anchor creating lift.
The soil is not moving in relation to the anchor, and so there is no momentum change causing a vacuum.
An anchor operates by the mass of the soil or rock in which it is embedded, and static friction of the soil particles, that prevents any flow of soil that could result in lift.
Therefore an anchor in soil or rock should not properly be called a wing.
Consider a bolt epoxied into rock - a wing?  Please...
An anchor does not utilize any version of fluidic lift.
To say it does is fantasy.  And anchor just sits there, buried in unmoving soil or rock.
Only an anchor in the process of failing, in the process of becoming NOT an anchor, could be said to have any relative motion against the soil, and that motion results in less force, not more, as the anchor fails, eventually letting go and no longer serving as an anchor at all.
Not hard to see why so little progress is being made in some circles, when you consider the operative paradigms offered, now is it?  Sitting around all day, trying to come up with theories as to how many angels can dance on the head of an imaginary pin?  Redefining words in lieu of doing anything meaningful?
The idea that an anchor in soil acts as "a wing" is simply not true.
 ~ Doug Selsam 

=====================================================
In the J-Model for Kite, an anchor of a kite is a wing of the kite; in such model, such statement is "true".   The said model has been being used to reach opportunities for energy kite systems. Such even applies to epoxied bolts set in huge massive blocks of concret; when the flow is seemingly next to zero for such an anchor wing, then simply deal with such matter in calculations.  Anchor engineers dealing with anchor wings of a kite will do best to know just how much flow may occur under the life of the energy kite system for the kite's anchor wings. Many anchor wings of some kites are intended to have large flows; e.g., when the freight ship is the anchor wing (media: water and air) tethered to an aerial wing of the kite, then the ship (anchor wing) is intended to have huge flow of air and water about its hull (its airfoil/hydrofoil). 
     Again, Doug, it is no problem if you work RAD challenges using a different model.   Great. Please report by using whatever model you wish for "kite". 
 ~ JoeF
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20343 From: dougselsam Date: 6/22/2016
Subject: Re: Dassault Systemes' exaggerated wireless AWE concept
Keyword: "competent"
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20344 From: dougselsam Date: 6/22/2016
Subject: Re: L/D ratio of kite and corresponding wing
I'm wondering on what basis one could make the statement "Once again, an over-emphasis on high L/D has been a primary error of many early AWE theorists", considering the paucity of AWE success.  I wonder if the person promoting this can tell us in detail the examples he is referring to, and how success is now resulting from reducing the stated early over-emphasis on high L/D?  Any evidence for this theoretical statement?  Why does the person posting this feel that he is in a position to identify such a "primary error of early AWE enthusiasts?"  Is he saying that AWE enthusiasts have now moved beyond this "primary error"?  What AWE enthusiast has seen more success by lowering their emphasis on high L/D?  What does this higher success rate consist of?
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20345 From: dave santos Date: 6/22/2016
Subject: Re: L/D ratio of kite and corresponding wing
Doug,

Its not clear who you are quoting from where, ""primary error of early AWE enthusiasts"

Please start a new topic to discuss "enthusiasts", if that topic interests you.

daveS


On Wednesday, June 22, 2016 7:46 PM, "dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
I'm wondering on what basis one could make the statement "Once again, an over-emphasis on high L/D has been a primary error of many early AWE theorists", considering the paucity of AWE success.  I wonder if the person promoting this can tell us in detail the examples he is referring to, and how success is now resulting from reducing the stated early over-emphasis on high L/D?  Any evidence for this theoretical statement?  Why does the person posting this feel that he is in a position to identify such a "primary error of early AWE enthusiasts?"  Is he saying that AWE enthusiasts have now moved beyond this "primary error"?  What AWE enthusiast has seen more success by lowering their emphasis on high L/D?  What does this higher success rate consist of?
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20346 From: dave santos Date: 6/22/2016
Subject: Re: Quick Review of AWES Flight Stability by Passive or Active Contr
Doug seems unaware that common soils act as slow-motion low-Re fluids and that soil anchors using kite principles are well known, and they develop a pressure difference just like Doug defines a wing. JoeF is the master of this subject, and he has taught those able to follow his logic that even the Earth is a giant kite in Newtonian opposition to all conventionally identified kites anchored to the earth.

These anchor specialists support JoeF's position on kite identification and Doug's wing criteria of a pressure difference-





On Wednesday, June 22, 2016 5:07 PM, "dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
A wing operates on the principle of lift.
Lift involves flow across an airfoil that creates a pressure differential between the top and bottom surfaces of the airfoil.  Pitch and camber serve to redirect this flow, and the resulting change in momentum of air creates a vacuum pulling upward on the top surface.  This reduced pressure on the top surface is the result we call lift.
An anchor in soil has none of these characteristics.
There is no flow of soil over an anchor creating lift.
The soil is not moving in relation to the anchor, and so there is no momentum change causing a vacuum.
An anchor operates by the mass of the soil or rock in which it is embedded, and static friction of the soil particles, that prevents any flow of soil that could result in lift.
Therefore an anchor in soil or rock should not properly be called a wing.
Consider a bolt epoxied into rock - a wing?  Please...
An anchor does not utilize any version of fluidic lift.
To say it does is fantasy.  And anchor just sits there, buried in unmoving soil or rock.
Only an anchor in the process of failing, in the process of becoming NOT an anchor, could be said to have any relative motion against the soil, and that motion results in less force, not more, as the anchor fails, eventually letting go and no longer serving as an anchor at all.
Not hard to see why so little progress is being made in some circles, when you consider the operative paradigms offered, now is it?  Sitting around all day, trying to come up with theories as to how many angels can dance on the head of an imaginary pin?  Redefining words in lieu of doing anything meaningful?
The idea that an anchor in soil acts as "a wing" is simply not true.
 ~ Doug Selsam 

=====================================================
In the J-Model for Kite, an anchor of a kite is a wing of the kite; in such model, such statement is "true".   The said model has been being used to reach opportunities for energy kite systems. Such even applies to epoxied bolts set in huge massive blocks of concret; when the flow is seemingly next to zero for such an anchor wing, then simply deal with such matter in calculations.  Anchor engineers dealing with anchor wings of a kite will do best to know just how much flow may occur under the life of the energy kite system for the kite's anchor wings. Many anchor wings of some kites are intended to have large flows; e.g., when the freight ship is the anchor wing (media: water and air) tethered to an aerial wing of the kite, then the ship (anchor wing) is intended to have huge flow of air and water about its hull (its airfoil/hydrofoil). 
     Again, Doug, it is no problem if you work RAD challenges using a different model.   Great. Please report by using whatever model you wish for "kite". 
 ~ JoeF
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20347 From: dave santos Date: 6/22/2016
Subject: Re: Dassault Systemes' exaggerated wireless AWE concept
Fortunately, competent aerospace engineers have long been working in AWE, immune by training to all kinds of hype. At least technically incompetent marketers raise public awareness of AWE, with all their slick media "eyewash", paving the way for serious efforts still to come.


On Wednesday, June 22, 2016 5:25 PM, "dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
Keyword: "competent"
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20348 From: benhaiemp Date: 6/23/2016
Subject: Re: Soft vs Rigid Wings

About lifetime of soft wing.


http://www.epc2013.tlabs.ac.za/wp-content/blogs.dir/9/files/presentations/Stander_JN_Pressure.pdf p.6 mentions "design life ~ 15+ years" for "Inflatable and pressure rigidised aerofoils".


Generally soft kites or paraglider are expected for only some hundred hours.

Remember also Peter Lynn's 14 months for a soft kite.


What are factors for such differences of lifetime? Perhaps  material for pressure rigidised aerofoils is thicker, so more durable. Perhaps some fabrics are better. But perhaps there are other factors. We know a sail working as a flag is not durable.


My hypothesis is that a well determined and stable shape of a soft kite can be a factor of lifetime as there are not changes of shape during flight operation. For this and for other reasons Tensairity (R) can be a solution. An inflatable beam works as a rigid beam, so its lifetime can reach 15 ans. All these points are for discussion. Tensairity solutions | Lighter, stronger, better!

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20349 From: dougselsam Date: 6/23/2016
Subject: Re: Dassault Systemes' exaggerated wireless AWE concept
daveS states: "Fortunately, competent aerospace engineers have long been working in AWE, immune by training to all kinds of hype."
***DougS replies:  "Immune by training", huh?  And you guys pretending bolts epoxied into rock are "wings" are in a position to determine who is "competent"?  The problem is usually abandoning that training and thinking that the degree lets one just work by "feel" and many people's "feel" is inaccurate, doomed to fall into well-worn dead-end paths.  The history of engineers being wrong in wind energy is vast.  Look at Magenn, for example.  Do you think they never hired any engineers?  I can't tell you how many highly-credentialed professors and engineers I've seen making utter fools of themselves with everything from "whalebumps" to the endless drag-based turbines, Honeywell rooftop turbines, Magenn, etc. and a thousand other examples.  How many "competent" people used the Magenn image as representing AWE in general?  Competent?  Or asleep on autopilot, going with the flow of hype?

Almost every AWE concept you've seen introduced is probably not going to work out on basic principles, let alone finely-tuned engineering.  If you have 20 engineers and 20 grad students all chasing some concept that is destined to fail, which of them is "competent"?  The proof is in the pudding.  If highly-funded efforts with ample manpower promote and pursue unworkable ideas, at some point one must acknowledge that without successful results, the competence of some or all of the participants must be called into question.  One easy way to discern competence in the field of new wind turbines is to let the hype run its course and examine the results.  Do they ever get anything promising running?  Do their statements of future success ever come true?  The key concept seems to be nothing more complicated than truth versus fiction.  

daveS goes on: "At least technically incompetent marketers raise public awareness of AWE, with all their slick media "eyewash", paving the way for serious efforts still to come"
***.Yes "raising awareness" is the most common excuse given when known bad designs are nonetheless pursued, and it becomes obvious that the basic design is a non-performer.  "Technically incompetent" is best determined by results.  Some of us can see it ahead of time.  Others have to wait for it to happen.  And for a few, no amount of facts will ever convince them that they were wrong the whole time.  That is just how it is.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20350 From: dougselsam Date: 6/23/2016
Subject: Re: Quick Review of AWES Flight Stability by Passive or Active Contr
It is interesting how every reply to me has to start with some backbiting phrase such as "Doug seems unaware", etc.  (OMG if anyone seems "unaware", please...)

Here's what you wrote:
"Doug seems unaware that common soils act as slow-motion low-Re fluids and that soil anchors using kite principles are well known, and they develop a pressure difference just like Doug defines a wing. JoeF is the master of this subject, and he has taught those able to follow his logic that even the Earth is a giant kite in Newtonian opposition to all conventionally identified kites anchored to the earth.
These anchor specialists support JoeF's position on kite identification and Doug's wing criteria of a pressure difference-"

*** OK here are the real facts of the matter from Doug, and I am repeating myself here since you two have decided to forget how a wing actually functions.
A wing operates on speed through a fluid medium.  The kinetic motion of the fluid over the top surface must redirect itself to match the pitch and camber of that upper surface, with the lift based on a change in momentum of that fluid causing a vacuum on the upper surface.  Below a certain speed, the wing "stalls" and no longer acts like a wing.
There is no such flow of soil over a buried anchor.  To cite the idea of the anchor shifting position slightly over years as being sufficient motion to cause such lift is 100% delusional.  It is not factual.  It is many orders of magnitude off.  Any such movement is orders-of-magnitude-of-orders-of-megnitude below stall-speed, for example.  I don't think you could find a single responsible engineer to agree with it and if you could he would be wrong too.  But it gets worse:  When challenged regarding a bolt epoxied into rock being "a wing", Joe still maintains that bolt is a wing.  Of course the bolt doesn't have an airfoil, and any relative movement, let alone flow, is now down to zero in any sense:  You could likely come back in millions of years and find fossilized remains of the bolt, still sitting in the same spot.  No relative movement = no lift.  Not that complicated.
What amazes me is that I find myself here on this internet, actually trying to convince somebody miles away that a bolt epoxied in rock is not a wing with the rock flowing around it.
What if you had 10 bolts, epoxied into rock, with no kites?  Are the bolts still "wings"?  Is everything "really" a wing?  Joe has transitioned from "everything is a kite" to "everything is a wing".  I do not agree with it.  I have maintained for years now that what Joe offers with regard to theory is to attempt to redefine words that are already known.  I don't think he is adding any function, just mentioning known concepts and trying to give them new names.
I do not think this line of discussion is productive, nor worthy of my further attention.  Have fun writing your own private dictionary, or your own engineering handbook featuring your own set of "facts" and "principles", and please let me know when it garners any meaningful results.


---In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, <santos137@...  
A wing operates on the principle of lift.
Lift involves flow across an airfoil that creates a pressure differential between the top and bottom surfaces of the airfoil.  Pitch and camber serve to redirect this flow, and the resulting change in momentum of air creates a vacuum pulling upward on the top surface.  This reduced pressure on the top surface is the result we call lift.
An anchor in soil has none of these characteristics.
There is no flow of soil over an anchor creating lift.
The soil is not moving in relation to the anchor, and so there is no momentum change causing a vacuum.
An anchor operates by the mass of the soil or rock in which it is embedded, and static friction of the soil particles, that prevents any flow of soil that could result in lift.
Therefore an anchor in soil or rock should not properly be called a wing.
Consider a bolt epoxied into rock - a wing?  Please...
An anchor does not utilize any version of fluidic lift.
To say it does is fantasy.  And anchor just sits there, buried in unmoving soil or rock.
Only an anchor in the process of failing, in the process of becoming NOT an anchor, could be said to have any relative motion against the soil, and that motion results in less force, not more, as the anchor fails, eventually letting go and no longer serving as an anchor at all.
Not hard to see why so little progress is being made in some circles, when you consider the operative paradigms offered, now is it?  Sitting around all day, trying to come up with theories as to how many angels can dance on the head of an imaginary pin?  Redefining words in lieu of doing anything meaningful?
The idea that an anchor in soil acts as "a wing" is simply not true.
 ~ Doug Selsam 

=====================================================
In the J-Model for Kite, an anchor of a kite is a wing of the kite; in such model, such statement is "true".   The said model has been being used to reach opportunities for energy kite systems. Such even applies to epoxied bolts set in huge massive blocks of concret; when the flow is seemingly next to zero for such an anchor wing, then simply deal with such matter in calculations.  Anchor engineers dealing with anchor wings of a kite will do best to know just how much flow may occur under the life of the energy kite system for the kite's anchor wings. Many anchor wings of some kites are intended to have large flows; e.g., when the freight ship is the anchor wing (media: water and air) tethered to an aerial wing of the kite, then the ship (anchor wing) is intended to have huge flow of air and water about its hull (its airfoil/hydrofoil). 
     Again, Doug, it is no problem if you work RAD challenges using a different model.   Great. Please report by using whatever model you wish for "kite". 
 ~ JoeF
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20351 From: dougselsam Date: 6/23/2016
Subject: Re: L/D ratio of kite and corresponding wing
I believe I was quoting you.
You seem to be trying to pelt me with "topic" technicalities rather than responding to my response to what you wrote.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20352 From: dougselsam Date: 6/23/2016
Subject: Re: L/D ratio of kite and corresponding wing
Reading back, you used the term, "theorists" whereas I inadvertently paraphrased your statement, substituting the word "enthusiasts".  Same basic idea, in the context of this art.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20353 From: dougselsam Date: 6/23/2016
Subject: Re: Quick Review of AWES Flight Stability by Passive or Active Contr
daveS said: " JoeF is the master of this subject, and he has taught those able to follow his logic that even the Earth is a giant kite in Newtonian opposition to all conventionally identified kites anchored to the earth."

*** Doug replies:  I believe the above is inaccurate.  I do not believe the Earth suddenly becomes "a kite" just because someone is flying a kite from the Earth.  Is there wind blowing the Earth down, away from the (actual) kite?  No, the Earth is where it is by its own inertia.  The position of the Earth is not determined by wind in its own atmosphere.  If you removed the atmosphere, would the Earth fall toward the kite?  Nope, the kite would fall toward the Earth.  Equal and opposite?  Nope, be careful misapplying Newton's theory:  If you had two (2) kites, one on each side of the world, which one would the Earth fall toward?  Neither, they would both fall to Earth.  Earth would not fall toward either one of them.  If this is the best you guys can do toward offering a working theory for Airborne Wind Energy, (attempted redefinition of the Earth as a "kite" (but only if someone is flying a kite from the Earth))  I'd suggest you give it up, and try something easier for you to understand.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20354 From: dave santos Date: 6/24/2016
Subject: Re: L/D ratio of kite and corresponding wing
Doug has long had issues quoting accurately. "Theorist" does not mean "enthusiast" in aerodynamics.


On Thursday, June 23, 2016 9:59 PM, "dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
Reading back, you used the term, "theorists" whereas I inadvertently paraphrased your statement, substituting the word "enthusiasts".  Same basic idea, in the context of this art.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20355 From: dave santos Date: 6/24/2016
Subject: Re: Dassault Systemes' exaggerated wireless AWE concept
The facts remain that Doug himself, at his own level of competence, presented a beautifully rendered but unworkable AWES concept, but no one with actual aerospace experience was ever known to support it. The AWES Forum in fact easily identified the design flaws that Doug could not.




On Thursday, June 23, 2016 9:55 PM, "dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
daveS states: "Fortunately, competent aerospace engineers have long been working in AWE, immune by training to all kinds of hype."
***DougS replies:  "Immune by training", huh?  And you guys pretending bolts epoxied into rock are "wings" are in a position to determine who is "competent"?  The problem is usually abandoning that training and thinking that the degree lets one just work by "feel" and many people's "feel" is inaccurate, doomed to fall into well-worn dead-end paths.  The history of engineers being wrong in wind energy is vast.  Look at Magenn, for example.  Do you think they never hired any engineers?  I can't tell you how many highly-credentialed professors and engineers I've seen making utter fools of themselves with everything from "whalebumps" to the endless drag-based turbines, Honeywell rooftop turbines, Magenn, etc. and a thousand other examples.  How many "competent" people used the Magenn image as representing AWE in general?  Competent?  Or asleep on autopilot, going with the flow of hype?

Almost every AWE concept you've seen introduced is probably not going to work out on basic principles, let alone finely-tuned engineering.  If you have 20 engineers and 20 grad students all chasing some concept that is destined to fail, which of them is "competent"?  The proof is in the pudding.  If highly-funded efforts with ample manpower promote and pursue unworkable ideas, at some point one must acknowledge that without successful results, the competence of some or all of the participants must be called into question.  One easy way to discern competence in the field of new wind turbines is to let the hype run its course and examine the results.  Do they ever get anything promising running?  Do their statements of future success ever come true?  The key concept seems to be nothing more complicated than truth versus fiction.  

daveS goes on: "At least technically incompetent marketers raise public awareness of AWE, with all their slick media "eyewash", paving the way for serious efforts still to come"
***.Yes "raising awareness" is the most common excuse given when known bad designs are nonetheless pursued, and it becomes obvious that the basic design is a non-performer.  "Technically incompetent" is best determined by results.  Some of us can see it ahead of time.  Others have to wait for it to happen.  And for a few, no amount of facts will ever convince them that they were wrong the whole time.  That is just how it is.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20356 From: dave santos Date: 6/24/2016
Subject: Re: Quick Review of AWES Flight Stability by Passive or Active Contr
What Doug overlooks is the deeper physics, where the Earth really does react to a kite by Newtonian conservation of energy, with the expected pressure differential Doug identifies as lift. Doug seems to think the Earth is too big to react, but JoeF is once again correct, that there is a reaction, and its kite-like, including an identifiable lift-component.

Good theorists see subtle facts mere enthusiasts cannot.


On Thursday, June 23, 2016 10:00 PM, "dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
daveS said: " JoeF is the master of this subject, and he has taught those able to follow his logic that even the Earth is a giant kite in Newtonian opposition to all conventionally identified kites anchored to the earth."

*** Doug replies:  I believe the above is inaccurate.  I do not believe the Earth suddenly becomes "a kite" just because someone is flying a kite from the Earth.  Is there wind blowing the Earth down, away from the (actual) kite?  No, the Earth is where it is by its own inertia.  The position of the Earth is not determined by wind in its own atmosphere.  If you removed the atmosphere, would the Earth fall toward the kite?  Nope, the kite would fall toward the Earth.  Equal and opposite?  Nope, be careful misapplying Newton's theory:  If you had two (2) kites, one on each side of the world, which one would the Earth fall toward?  Neither, they would both fall to Earth.  Earth would not fall toward either one of them.  If this is the best you guys can do toward offering a working theory for Airborne Wind Energy, (attempted redefinition of the Earth as a "kite" (but only if someone is flying a kite from the Earth))  I'd suggest you give it up, and try something easier for you to understand.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20357 From: dave santos Date: 6/24/2016
Subject: Re: Soft vs Rigid Wings
Pierre,

Keep in mind paraglider lifecycle hours are very conservative. Many a well-cared-for wing looks and works like new at the rated life limit. Peter Lynn has been relentlessly upgrading his estimate of kite life-span based on new fabrics. kPower has been flying some kites heavily for ten years, and has yet to wear one out, but the kites are well cared for.

The latest AWE developer opinions are fairly consistent, that it will cost less to replace soft kites several times in an AWES than pay for one rigid wing of the same power over the same period. This is not even counting the likelihood that all current rigid wings will crash irremediably within days or weeks, given imperfect piloting, either automated or manual.

Keep in mind that aircraft fabric lasts many years, in use and parked outdoors, and designers of modern fabric-covered aircraft are mostly satisfied. Fabric on aircraft today is more often changed for aesthetic reasons than out of necessity. If an average house can be powered by the fabric area of a bed-sheet (within a large wing), the cost of regular replacement will obviously be rather low,

daveS


On Thursday, June 23, 2016 9:51 PM, "pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
About lifetime of soft wing.

http://www.epc2013.tlabs.ac.za/wp-content/blogs.dir/9/files/presentations/Stander_JN_Pressure.pdf p.6 mentions "design life ~ 15+ years" for "Inflatable and pressure rigidised aerofoils".

Generally soft kites or paraglider are expected for only some hundred hours.
Remember also Peter Lynn's 14 months for a soft kite.

What are factors for such differences of lifetime? Perhaps  material for pressure rigidised aerofoils is thicker, so more durable. Perhaps some fabrics are better. But perhaps there are other factors. We know a sail working as a flag is not durable.

My hypothesis is that a well determined and stable shape of a soft kite can be a factor of lifetime as there are not changes of shape during flight operation. For this and for other reasons Tensairity (R) can be a solution. An inflatable beam works as a rigid beam, so its lifetime can reach 15 ans. All these points are for discussion. Tensairity solutions | Lighter, stronger, better!
 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20358 From: dave santos Date: 6/24/2016
Subject: New SuperWing Design in Progress
This is first public notice of a 7500m2 SS wing design being developed by top soft-wing talent. Last week a call went out from kPower to a short list of domain experts, which received an active positive response. The unprecedented wing size is proposed to best-fit the FAA designated airspace according to short-line power-kite proportions. Such sail-area would develop above 10MW, and thus be the most powerful WECS yet. A good visualization is that 7500m2 is the area of a soccer-pitch, and that fifty such wings could power a large city like New York or London (which might remain with more recreational soccer area than kite).

CAD plans will enable confident simulation, cost estimating, and construction. The major challenge then becomes operational. Proof-of-concept focus will be to measure traction force and show flight control using massive drag-loads and "push-turns" (asymmetric tension release), with auto-kill at the end of travel. If the wing meets expectations, it would justify follow-on testing with large-scale groundgen gear. In order to scale, the new wing design borrows the kixel panel and rope-loadpath methods validated by Mothra, but will overall more resemble a giant conventional SS power kite.

 More details as they solidify...

Open-AWE_IP-Cloud
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20359 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 6/24/2016
Subject: Re: Soft vs Rigid Wings

DaveS,

 

Thanks for the indications. AWES are expected to work under very hard conditions 24h/24, each week, each month, each year. When fabrics are used there are strong and variable strengths on them due to deformations. But as the same fabrics are used to cover a stable shape (fabric on avion, fabric for inflatable structure) the strengths are roughly equal in the whole structure as the structure itself produces stabilized strengths by tension of fabrics around rigid structure or by pressure in inflatable structure,  so the lifetime becomes far higher. But it is only an hypothesis for discussion.  

 

 

 

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20360 From: benhaiemp Date: 6/24/2016
Subject: Effect of flying mass

http://ac.els-cdn.com/S1364032115007005/1-s2.0-S1364032115007005-main.pdf?_tid=554d868e-3a5d-11e6-8339-00000aacb35e&acdnat=1466808502_1ea8d446a5c5b554c98ed327f5032a70 

[[ Moderator add: or same:

http://tinyurl.com/PDFforReviewAWEtechs

]]


"7.1.Effect of flying mass In all AWESs, increasing the flying mass decreases the tension of the cables. Since Ground-Gen systems rely on cables tension to generate electricity,a higher mass of the air craft and/or cables decreases the energy production [107] and should not be neglected when modelling [109]. On the contrary,increasing the flying mass inFly-Gen systems does not affect the energy production even though it still reduces the tension of the cable. Indeed, as a first approximation,the basic equations of Fly-Gen power production do not change if the aircraft/cable mass is included and this is also supported by experimental data [108]."

Discussion?
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20361 From: dougselsam Date: 6/24/2016
Subject: Re: Quick Review of AWES Flight Stability by Passive or Active Contr
daveS says: "
What Doug overlooks is the deeper physics, where the Earth really does react to a kite by Newtonian conservation of energy, with the expected pressure differential Doug identifies as lift. Doug seems to think the Earth is too big to react, but JoeF is once again correct, that there is a reaction, and its kite-like, including an identifiable lift-component.  Good theorists see subtle facts mere enthusiasts cannot."

*** DougS replies: and bad theorists see whatever they want.  A good theorist has more to offer than constantly attempting to redefine words, calling anchors "wings" and planets "kites".  Such wordplay changes nothing.  A good theorist offers a path toward working solutions.  Just as I cannot fly by pulling up on my own shoelaces, the Earth cannot "fly" by being blown by winds of its own atmosphere.  No Virginia, the Earth is not a kite (sigh).  I would suggest that rather than constantly trying to become the next Einstein or Nostradamus of kites, you boys might try coming up with something that works.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20362 From: Rod Read Date: 6/25/2016
Subject: Re: Effect of flying mass

Still no idea how accurate that description is the Daisy ground gen type (which isn't considered in that document)
So understandably, Just a bit later on in the document is something my experimentation results seems to conflict with...

increasing the cable length or the elevation angle reduces the power output according to Eqs. (1), (2), (3)and (4). Considering a standard wind shear profile, the optimal flight altitude is found to be the minimum that is practically achievable[108] and [111]. However, results greatly change depending on the hypotheses and, for example, a reduction in cables drag might lead to optimal flight altitudes around 1000 meters [111].

Increased cable length by stacking...
A higher lifter. (to a limited point)
A higher stack on a longer ring ladder. (to a limited point)
Well that all increases power in my testing.
But I suppose stacking = a bigger kite with relatively less tether per surface.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20363 From: dave santos Date: 6/25/2016
Subject: Re: Quick Review of AWES Flight Stability by Passive or Active Contr
Doug absurdly overlooks the Earth is already a flying object. Arguments that it can't fly are moot since Copernicus.

Review of AWES flight stability control approaches is "something that works" for the active developers, whose prototyping is progressing by the ongoing accumulation of of this sort of practical knowledge.

JoeF really has advanced AWE theory by deep insights involving the sort of vivid imagination Einstein represented. Joe is most appreciated by those who have done the technical homework.












On Friday, June 24, 2016 11:50 PM, "dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
daveS says: "
What Doug overlooks is the deeper physics, where the Earth really does react to a kite by Newtonian conservation of energy, with the expected pressure differential Doug identifies as lift. Doug seems to think the Earth is too big to react, but JoeF is once again correct, that there is a reaction, and its kite-like, including an identifiable lift-component.  Good theorists see subtle facts mere enthusiasts cannot."

*** DougS replies: and bad theorists see whatever they want.  A good theorist has more to offer than constantly attempting to redefine words, calling anchors "wings" and planets "kites".  Such wordplay changes nothing.  A good theorist offers a path toward working solutions.  Just as I cannot fly by pulling up on my own shoelaces, the Earth cannot "fly" by being blown by winds of its own atmosphere.  No Virginia, the Earth is not a kite (sigh).  I would suggest that rather than constantly trying to become the next Einstein or Nostradamus of kites, you boys might try coming up with something that works.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20364 From: dave santos Date: 6/25/2016
Subject: Re: Soft vs Rigid Wings
Pierre,

We count on a "rope-loadpath" network in giant soft-kites to carry the large forces, just as rip-stop fabric works on the small scale. Its also been proposed that kite farms may have a quiver of kites of varied size and condition, and that kixels can be replaced as needed, resulting in a kite with no definite age. We look forward to large ropes being almost immortal if handled properly and covered with a protective layer that is renewed periodically.

daveS


On Friday, June 24, 2016 11:42 PM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
DaveS,
 
Thanks for the indications. AWES are expected to work under very hard conditions 24h/24, each week, each month, each year. When fabrics are used there are strong and variable strengths on them due to deformations. But as the same fabrics are used to cover a stable shape (fabric on avion, fabric for inflatable structure) the strengths are roughly equal in the whole structure as the structure itself produces stabilized strengths by tension of fabrics around rigid structure or by pressure in inflatable structure,  so the lifetime becomes far higher. But it is only an hypothesis for discussion.  
 
 
 
 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20365 From: dougselsam Date: 6/25/2016
Subject: Re: Dassault Systemes' exaggerated wireless AWE concept
daveS said: "The facts remain that Doug himself, at his own level of competence, presented a beautifully rendered but unworkable AWES concept, but no one with actual aerospace experience was ever known to support it. The AWES Forum in fact easily identified the design flaws that Doug could not."
*** DougS replies: I was honored to have talented artists enthusiastically rendering their interpretations of my ideas.  I did not draw them, just included them on my website.  Naturally, not every one of them can be taken as engineering blueprints.  Of course we questioned whether the structures of some were 100% realistic.  Nonetheless we presented all renderings because they were of high quality and entertaining, and they promoted thought of more refined versions.  Overall, the multi-rotor SuperTurbine(R) concept was independently tested during a research project funded by The California Energy Commission and found to be effective at multiplying the output of a turbine for a given diameter.  That is scientific proof that it works.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20366 From: dougselsam Date: 6/25/2016
Subject: Re: Quick Review of AWES Flight Stability by Passive or Active Contr
daveS stated (In his typical style): "Doug absurdly overlooks the Earth is already a flying object. Arguments that it can't fly are moot since Copernicus."

*** Doug replies: If I were to post using the same wording I would probably be censored.  What you are doing is the kind of thing you wrongly accuse me of on a regular basis, which is mischaracterizing my position.  As usual, you're relating a fantasy-world that only exists in your own mind - a world in which I have not heard that planets orbit the sun.  And that is the place from which you wish to establish your own credibility. I don't think it's working. 

All I am doing is describing simple reality - Earth is not flying like a kite just because someone, somewhere, happens to be flying a kite.  If you want to use the word "absurdly" in an accurate manner, you would flag your own and JoeF's statements to which you refer, using that word.  Instead, you attempt to convince the reader that "Doug" doesn't know the Earth is floating through space.  I guess the dreaded "Doug" (dreaded because he offers factual input) believes the Earth sits on the back of a giant turtle?  What is it exactly that you are implying I think now? 
Offering inaccurate statements, while attempting to refute factual input, and demonizing those who offer it, is not productive, and will not increase your chances of success in AWE.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20367 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 6/25/2016
Subject: Re: Effect of flying mass
That paper's "7.1." topical statement will not stand true. 

Counterexample: Have an AWES with its anchor as fixed in earth-joined generator. Have that system's flying mass be 1 kg.  Have the system be in 10 m/s wind. Have the resulting tension in the cable set be t.  Now alter the system to a flying mass 1000 kg in the same wind. The tension in the flying cable set will be more than t.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20368 From: dave santos Date: 6/25/2016
Subject: Re: Dassault Systemes' exaggerated wireless AWE concept
Doug,

Multi-rotors are well known to us in prior art, like our friend Rudy Harburg. They worked in the odd-duck cases discussed, going back centuries.

The study you cite did not evaluate an AWES at all, but only your tower-based design work. The scientific proof that a rigid driveshaft with rotors will not scale to high altitude came on the AWES Forum, invoking square-cube scaling law. No one else in aerospace has evaluated the SuperTurbine as an AWES. If you are unhappy with the finding, you can always seek a second opinion of the ST specifically as an airborne platform.

Mike Sanchez did in fact out-render Dassault's fantasy; he's available for more AWES imaginings, including better founded concepts,.

daveS


On Saturday, June 25, 2016 6:44 PM, "dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
daveS said: "The facts remain that Doug himself, at his own level of competence, presented a beautifully rendered but unworkable AWES concept, but no one with actual aerospace experience was ever known to support it. The AWES Forum in fact easily identified the design flaws that Doug could not."
*** DougS replies: I was honored to have talented artists enthusiastically rendering their interpretations of my ideas.  I did not draw them, just included them on my website.  Naturally, not every one of them can be taken as engineering blueprints.  Of course we questioned whether the structures of some were 100% realistic.  Nonetheless we presented all renderings because they were of high quality and entertaining, and they promoted thought of more refined versions.  Overall, the multi-rotor SuperTurbine(R) concept was independently tested during a research project funded by The California Energy Commission and found to be effective at multiplying the output of a turbine for a given diameter.  That is scientific proof that it works.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20369 From: dave santos Date: 6/25/2016
Subject: Re: Quick Review of AWES Flight Stability by Passive or Active Contr
You really did forget the Earth is flying thru space (!) and ignored your own definition of a wing in forming an uncomprehending objection to JoeF's insight.

Try and add something to the topic of AWES flight stability at an expert level, rather than naively promote pre-Copernican physics and then complain about looking silly..


On Saturday, June 25, 2016 6:50 PM, "dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
daveS stated (In his typical style): "Doug absurdly overlooks the Earth is already a flying object. Arguments that it can't fly are moot since Copernicus."

*** Doug replies: If I were to post using the same wording I would probably be censored.  What you are doing is the kind of thing you wrongly accuse me of on a regular basis, which is mischaracterizing my position.  As usual, you're relating a fantasy-world that only exists in your own mind - a world in which I have not heard that planets orbit the sun.  And that is the place from which you wish to establish your own credibility. I don't think it's working. 

All I am doing is describing simple reality - Earth is not flying like a kite just because someone, somewhere, happens to be flying a kite.  If you want to use the word "absurdly" in an accurate manner, you would flag your own and JoeF's statements to which you refer, using that word.  Instead, you attempt to convince the reader that "Doug" doesn't know the Earth is floating through space.  I guess the dreaded "Doug" (dreaded because he offers factual input) believes the Earth sits on the back of a giant turtle?  What is it exactly that you are implying I think now? 
Offering inaccurate statements, while attempting to refute factual input, and demonizing those who offer it, is not productive, and will not increase your chances of success in AWE.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20370 From: dave santos Date: 6/25/2016
Subject: Re: Effect of flying mass
The reason JoeF is correct is that in order to carry a larger load, a (kite) wing's AoA must increase to supply more lift, which also causes more drag, hence more tension on the tether.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20371 From: Rod Read Date: 6/26/2016
Subject: Re: Quick Review of AWES Flight Stability by Passive or Active Contr

Hmmm passively or actively stabilising the flight of the earth 🌍 as a wing.
BS
Mixed physics model metaphors.
Unless your wing is a galactic black hole size and you're considering the earth 🌍 as a charge particle of an air molecule.
Has anyone heard of a wing shaped black hole?
Orbits are not the same as flights.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20372 From: dave santos Date: 6/26/2016
Subject: Re: Quick Review of AWES Flight Stability by Passive or Active Contr
Rod,

Its easy to overlook the actual deep similarities when by accurately concluding its BS from your resolute hobbyist perspective.. The Earth is stabilized in flight by a complex interplay of forces. The same orbital math is in fact used for both airplane motions and planetary orbits (Lyapunov and Hamiltonian orbits). The earth and kite as a Wayne German tethered wing pair in the same moving airmass can be modeled by this math.

You and Doug simply give up on Joe's insight too quickly. Consider also the Earth in Solar Wind as having a minor but real Magnus effect, especially over eons, if you need a big force to impress. You both might as well lament Einstein for using BS trains and elevators in his brainstorming, or Carroll for using Alice in Wonderland to explore mathematical physics.

Let time tell whether those who compose playful paradoxes are more BS than those who can't see them,

daveS






On Sunday, June 26, 2016 2:30 AM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
Hmmm passively or actively stabilising the flight of the earth 🌍 as a wing.
BS
Mixed physics model metaphors.
Unless your wing is a galactic black hole size and you're considering the earth 🌍 as a charge particle of an air molecule.
Has anyone heard of a wing shaped black hole?
Orbits are not the same as flights.


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20373 From: Rod Read Date: 6/26/2016
Subject: Re: Quick Review of AWES Flight Stability by Passive or Active Contr

Dave S
My professional AWES option: Despite your insights, you talk an extraordinary amount of BS and irrelevant, distracting, self lauding nonsense. I don't believe you're the messiah.
The current best model has gravity as a bending of space time. You don't need to consider a model that complete yet. Especially when you don't have the facility to compute within that model.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20374 From: dave santos Date: 6/26/2016
Subject: Re: Quick Review of AWES Flight Stability by Passive or Active Contr
Sorry to be confused by your public self-identification as an Open-AWE hobbyist. If you are now redefining as a pro, you could use more poise.

Keep in mind modern physics is full of forces, particles, waves, and so on, that all have emergent "fictitious", "quasi", or "imaginary" versions that are fully meaningful to discuss. Gravity is just such a "fictitious" force, and its "BS" not to know that is what is meant.

As far as your meeting with Reinhart over the SuperWing, even Roland would agree that a self-professed hobbyist is welcome, especially as path to professional development in AWE. I especially encouraged Reinhart to visit you, and hope you can work together.





On Sunday, June 26, 2016 10:43 AM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
Dave S
My professional AWES option: Despite your insights, you talk an extraordinary amount of BS and irrelevant, distracting, self lauding nonsense. I don't believe you're the messiah.
The current best model has gravity as a bending of space time. You don't need to consider a model that complete yet. Especially when you don't have the facility to compute within that model.


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20375 From: dave santos Date: 6/26/2016
Subject: Earth as a Kite
This is a really cool topic, deserving of its own thread, for those who can see the fundamental identities being identified. So far the list of commonalities include-
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20376 From: dougselsam Date: 6/26/2016
Subject: Re: Quick Review of AWES Flight Stability by Passive or Active Contr
Let's do a thought experiment like Einstein:  Split the Earth in two.  Separate the two halves of the Earth, and have a guy (JoeF?) on one half, holding a tether connected to the other half.  What happens?  Well as it turns out the Earth has no defined structure, and is mostly a big flowing ball of liquid.  The two halves of the Earth start trying to turn into balls, spewing lava and gasses into space.  The guy standing on one half of the Earth expects the other half of the Earth to fly like a kite in the atmosphere between the two half-planets.  But the atmosphere does not have enough push to hold the two planets apart.  And why would it?  The gravity pulls the two halves of the planets together and they crush the guy thinking he is going to fly one half of the planet like a kite.  The two half-planets flow together and create a ball-shaped result, just as before, except now everything is rearranged.  Millions of years will pass before the Earth resembles anything like what it was before.  But there is one good thing that has happened:  A solution to "global warming" has been advanced, because flying kites is going to solve global warming, and the world's leading expert thought the Earth was really a kite, but now it has been shown that the Earth can probably not fly like a kite, because the atmosphere cannot hold it up, and because it has no structural form to resist or otherwise respond to such forces in a kite-like way.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20377 From: dougselsam Date: 6/26/2016
Subject: Re: Quick Review of AWES Flight Stability by Passive or Active Contr
"Let time tell whether those who compose playful paradoxes are more BS than those who can't see them,
daveS"
*** Ah yes, another "engineering delay", right?  As long as every answer is "in the future", you can claim the answers are whatever you dictate today, right?  And when it doesn't happen, you can claim it is "a delay", right?
And now that we've gone from "everything is a kite" to "the world is a kite" you'd like to excuse it by claiming it is merely "a playful paradox".   Walking it back, eh?
The funny thing is you guys think the nonsense you come up with is over everyone else's head. 
Like nobody else understands where you are coming from.
Like we just "don't get it" and you do.
It never seems to occur to you that you could just be wrong.
Transparently, naively, throwing theoretical spaghetti at the wall, hoping it trumps actual work in the field, so the whole challenge will be solved by your sitting at your computer insulting everyone who points out your errors and claiming they can't grasp your "advanced" concepts.
After 7 years of your combined theories, what are the results?
You have a guy standing in a field flying a kite.
JoeF walks up and tries to tell the guy the earth with him standing on it "is really the kite".
OK, now what?
What has happened except playing around with word definitions?
Have any forces changed?  Any structure?  Has anything new been introduced?
No, nothing has changed except literally in Joe's mind.
So I'd say the burden is on Joe to prove the entire Earth and everything on it (except the original kite I guess, right?) "is really a kite".  Start by showing how the tenuous atmosphere could lift the weight of the entire planet.  Then show how the Earth can hold an aerodynamic wing structure against its own gravity.
I don't seen any sense being made, nothing to advance the art.


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20378 From: dougselsam Date: 6/26/2016
Subject: Re: Quick Review of AWES Flight Stability by Passive or Active Contr
JoeF and daveS often use the excuse of being "off-topic" to prevent my posts from appearing online.  I am regularly scolded by them in their "you hold him and I'll hit him" version of a tag-team assault on reason.
My response is they only pull out the complaint of "off-topic" when it comes to me - the "rules" don't matter when it comes to them.
So with the term "off-topic" in mind, I am wondering how whether Roddy has described himself as a hobbyist or if daveS decides Roddy "is a pro" (like daveS?) , and the rest of daveS' post has anything to do with the supposed "topic" of

20374Re: [AWES] Re: Quick Review of AWES Flight Stability by Passive or Active Control

.By the way, if anyone should be considered an expert in "Fictitious forces in AWE", I think we've found the right person.  At least with regard to the 'fictitious" part.  I say that tongue-in-cheek (a wisecrack).  Meanwhile, certain people may label certain forces as "fictitious", but the forces they are talking about are really felt, and if not accommodated in the engineering, will result in failure of the machine.  It's all a matter of bookkeeping.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20379 From: benhaiemp Date: 6/26/2016
Subject: Re: Earth as a Kite
Sure. A rock is a kite. Earth is a rock. So Earth is a kite.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20380 From: dougselsam Date: 6/26/2016
Subject: Re: Earth as a Kite
I think this is 100% wrong.  Self-glorification, in my opinion.  Desperation.  Wanting to be seen as making a dent, while having nothing of note to offer.
We've seen Joe declare all blowing leaves are kites and qualify as airborne wind energy, and so many other things "are kites", I've told him he seems to be trying to somehow "prove" that "everything is a kite".  he denied that, but weeks later, suddenly "the world is a kite".  Reminds me of the song "The World is a Ghetto".  Sure, everything is a kite.  Atoms connect to other atoms and so are kites.  Planets sometimes orbit stars, and we'll let JoeF declare that the gravity "is really" a tether.  Atoms are nothing but a nucleus flying electron kites.  But according to Joe's declaration that "the world is a kite", the nucleus must "really" be a kite too, if the electron is a kite.  Since all atoms have some influence on the position of other atoms, then all atoms are kites.  The galaxy must be a kite too, because it pulls on other galaxies (well as far as we know - but wait - isn't it supposed to be pushing away on other galaxies as the universe expands?  I guess we''l either call that a religious question or ignore it, because it complicates our declaration that "everything is a kite.
OK now that "everything is a kite" what do we call what was formerly called "a kite"?  Nobody knows - some things are just over our heads...
Next:  We will "prove" everything is a rock.  Then "everything is an insect".  Coming soon: "everything is a drum".  "Everything is a car".  "Everything is a particle"  "Everything is a wave".  Everything is a star".  "Wait, how about "Everything is everything"?  Maybe it's just "Everything on this Yahoo Group, controlled by daveS and JoeF, is whatever they say it is because they ultimately control what is "allowed" to be posted on said group."  I'm thinking maybe "everything is an apple".  How about "everything is a camera"?  No wait, "everything is an airplane" - Earth is "really" "an airplane" because of the solar wind.  Wait, the Earth rotates in that wind, so like daveS says "it is a magnus effect something-or-other" why don't we say the Earth "is a propelller"?  We can declare ourselves "experts", and if there are two of us, we can constantly confirm that the other of us is "an expert" and verify each others' opinions!  Yeah, that's it!  And we can spend all day every day on the internet rewriting every applicable article to make it agree with the nonsense we post on the Yahoo group we control!  A formula for success!  Yesssss!


---In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, <santos137@...
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20381 From: dave santos Date: 6/26/2016
Subject: Re: Earth as a Kite
Doug is mistaken to think this about "everything is a kite". Its actually about what is a kite in the deepest sense. There is a mystery to the role of anchor in kite flying, and Joe has opened up the terrain. The first major insight of Joe's that led deeper was that every aircraft carries its own Earth deep inside, at its CG.

Its sad Doug can't just enjoy Joe's creative accomplishment in kite knowledge. Just complaining is the dead-end here.


On Sunday, June 26, 2016 2:52 PM, "dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
I think this is 100% wrong.  Self-glorification, in my opinion.  Desperation.  Wanting to be seen as making a dent, while having nothing of note to offer.
We've seen Joe declare all blowing leaves are kites and qualify as airborne wind energy, and so many other things "are kites", I've told him he seems to be trying to somehow "prove" that "everything is a kite".  he denied that, but weeks later, suddenly "the world is a kite".  Reminds me of the song "The World is a Ghetto".  Sure, everything is a kite.  Atoms connect to other atoms and so are kites.  Planets sometimes orbit stars, and we'll let JoeF declare that the gravity "is really" a tether.  Atoms are nothing but a nucleus flying electron kites.  But according to Joe's declaration that "the world is a kite", the nucleus must "really" be a kite too, if the electron is a kite.  Since all atoms have some influence on the position of other atoms, then all atoms are kites.  The galaxy must be a kite too, because it pulls on other galaxies (well as far as we know - but wait - isn't it supposed to be pushing away on other galaxies as the universe expands?  I guess we''l either call that a religious question or ignore it, because it complicates our declaration that "everything is a kite.
OK now that "everything is a kite" what do we call what was formerly called "a kite"?  Nobody knows - some things are just over our heads...
Next:  We will "prove" everything is a rock.  Then "everything is an insect".  Coming soon: "everything is a drum".  "Everything is a car".  "Everything is a particle"  "Everything is a wave".  Everything is a star".  "Wait, how about "Everything is everything"?  Maybe it's just "Everything on this Yahoo Group, controlled by daveS and JoeF, is whatever they say it is because they ultimately control what is "allowed" to be posted on said group."  I'm thinking maybe "everything is an apple".  How about "everything is a camera"?  No wait, "everything is an airplane" - Earth is "really" "an airplane" because of the solar wind.  Wait, the Earth rotates in that wind, so like daveS says "it is a magnus effect something-or-other" why don't we say the Earth "is a propelller"?  We can declare ourselves "experts", and if there are two of us, we can constantly confirm that the other of us is "an expert" and verify each others' opinions!  Yeah, that's it!  And we can spend all day every day on the internet rewriting every applicable article to make it agree with the nonsense we post on the Yahoo group we control!  A formula for success!  Yesssss!


---In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, <santos137@...


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20382 From: dave santos Date: 6/26/2016
Subject: Re: Quick Review of AWES Flight Stability by Passive or Active Contr
Correction: Doug's most abusive off-topic comments still go online. When they have no on-topic relevance, they go into an off-topic folder, rather than him just crap on every polite thread. Not a single word of Doug's is kept from the public, and his extensive Forum writings will stand forever as Doug's major written legacy in AWE.

The real issue with Doug is moderation norms. JoeF has allowed Doug more of his soured rants than any other public forum. When this Forum soon transitions to someAWE.org, Doug will have a stricter moderator to satisfy. Under those norms, Doug would have to say something pertinent about AWES Flight Stability or shut up. Doug gets a free ride here, because Joe is such a generous soul, having spent more hours than any of us dealing compassionately with Doug's severe Netiquette problems over many years.

Its not likely anyone can solve AWE without mastering flight stability principles at an expert level, like the Wright brothers. Internet censorship is a false issue for non-experts.


On Sunday, June 26, 2016 2:51 PM, "dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
JoeF and daveS often use the excuse of being "off-topic" to prevent my posts from appearing online.  I am regularly scolded by them in their "you hold him and I'll hit him" version of a tag-team assault on reason.
My response is they only pull out the complaint of "off-topic" when it comes to me - the "rules" don't matter when it comes to them.
So with the term "off-topic" in mind, I am wondering how whether Roddy has described himself as a hobbyist or if daveS decides Roddy "is a pro" (like daveS?) , and the rest of daveS' post has anything to do with the supposed "topic" of

20374Re: [AWES] Re: Quick Review of AWES Flight Stability by Passive or Active Control

.By the way, if anyone should be considered an expert in "Fictitious forces in AWE", I think we've found the right person.  At least with regard to the 'fictitious" part.  I say that tongue-in-cheek (a wisecrack).  Meanwhile, certain people may label certain forces as "fictitious", but the forces they are talking about are really felt, and if not accommodated in the engineering, will result in failure of the machine.  It's all a matter of bookkeeping.


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20383 From: Rod Read Date: 6/26/2016
Subject: Re: Quick Review of AWES Flight Stability by Passive or Active Contr
Dave S is neither 
Sorry to be confused by 
(Nor do I do the following)
your public self-identification as an Open-AWE hobbyist. If you are now redefining as a pro, you could use more poise.
(As he knows well I'm not. If I was, I could but I don't in this instance.)

Keep in mind modern physics is full of forces,
Stop right there, it's Strong, Weak or Electromagnetic, That's it. End of.

Alice in bloody wonderland, The shocking facts of a 150 year old book revealed... I'll spare you the waste of time web link.

Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20384 From: dave santos Date: 6/27/2016
Subject: "Forces" in AWE Physics? (Physics Hypertextbook usage)
Rod claims its somehow improper to call "forces" in Physics those forces commonly defined as "emergent" or "fictitious". Untrue. This chapter of the popular Physics Hypertextbook shows standard modern usage, including "force of gravity", which is long understood to be a "fictitious force" without requiring the full distinction in common use. Its clear from the treatment that "fitctitious" forces are a proper ontological class of the set of all forces. Rod seems to think only so-called "fundamental" forces should be allowed to be called forces, but ongoing unification in Physics could reduce the list of fundamental forces further.

Anyone who refers to gravity as a force in an AWE context is as correct as millions of other sound technical users of this phrasing who rely on the underlying distinctions as implicit-





* Not the same meaning as in Literary Fiction, which Doug mistakenly imagines.