Messages in AirborneWindEnergy group.                          AWES 20385 to 20436 Page 301 of 440.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20385 From: Rod Read Date: 6/27/2016
Subject: Re: "Forces" in AWE Physics? (Physics Hypertextbook usage)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20386 From: dave santos Date: 6/27/2016
Subject: Re: Quick Review of AWES Flight Stability by Passive or Active Contr

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20387 From: Rod Read Date: 6/27/2016
Subject: Re: Quick Review of AWES Flight Stability by Passive or Active Contr

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20388 From: Rod Read Date: 6/27/2016
Subject: Re: Quick Review of AWES Flight Stability by Passive or Active Contr

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20389 From: dave santos Date: 6/27/2016
Subject: Re: "Forces" in AWE Physics? (Physics Hypertextbook usage)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20390 From: dave santos Date: 6/27/2016
Subject: Re: Quick Review of AWES Flight Stability by Passive or Active Contr

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20391 From: Rod Read Date: 6/27/2016
Subject: Re: Quick Review of AWES Flight Stability by Passive or Active Contr

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20392 From: dave santos Date: 6/27/2016
Subject: 2nd AWE Textbook Note

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20393 From: dave santos Date: 6/27/2016
Subject: Re: Quick Review of AWES Flight Stability by Passive or Active Contr

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20394 From: dave santos Date: 6/27/2016
Subject: amateur kite-based aerotectural design

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20395 From: dave santos Date: 6/27/2016
Subject: Integrated Aerospace Dynamics

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20396 From: dave santos Date: 6/27/2016
Subject: Electro-Magnetic Kite

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20397 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 6/27/2016
Subject: Re: Earth as a Kite

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20398 From: dougselsam Date: 6/27/2016
Subject: Re: "Forces" in AWE Physics? (Physics Hypertextbook usage)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20399 From: dougselsam Date: 6/27/2016
Subject: Re: Quick Review of AWES Flight Stability by Passive or Active Contr

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20400 From: dougselsam Date: 6/27/2016
Subject: Re: Quick Review of AWES Flight Stability by Passive or Active Contr

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20401 From: dougselsam Date: 6/27/2016
Subject: Re: Quick Review of AWES Flight Stability by Passive or Active Contr

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20402 From: dougselsam Date: 6/27/2016
Subject: Re: Quick Review of AWES Flight Stability by Passive or Active Contr

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20403 From: dave santos Date: 6/27/2016
Subject: Re: Earth as a Kite

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20404 From: dave santos Date: 6/27/2016
Subject: Re: "Forces" in AWE Physics? (Physics Hypertextbook usage)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20405 From: dougselsam Date: 6/27/2016
Subject: Re: 2nd AWE Textbook Note

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20406 From: dougselsam Date: 6/27/2016
Subject: Re: Quick Review of AWES Flight Stability by Passive or Active Contr

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20407 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 6/27/2016
Subject: Re: Earth as a Kite

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20408 From: dave santos Date: 6/27/2016
Subject: Re: Quick Review of AWES Flight Stability by Passive or Active Contr

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20409 From: dave santos Date: 6/27/2016
Subject: Re: 2nd AWE Textbook Note

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20410 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 6/27/2016
Subject: Re: 2nd AWE Textbook Note

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20411 From: dave santos Date: 6/27/2016
Subject: Factual corrections

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20412 From: Rod Read Date: 6/28/2016
Subject: Re: Quick Review of AWES Flight Stability by Passive or Active Contr

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20413 From: Rod Read Date: 6/28/2016
Subject: Re: Factual corrections

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20414 From: Rod Read Date: 6/28/2016
Subject: Re: Quick Review of AWES Flight Stability by Passive or Active Contr

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20415 From: Rod Read Date: 6/28/2016
Subject: Sucked in to the yahoo AWE forum whirlpool

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20416 From: dave santos Date: 6/28/2016
Subject: Re: Quick Review of AWES Flight Stability by Passive or Active Contr

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20417 From: dave santos Date: 6/28/2016
Subject: Re: Sucked in to the yahoo AWE forum whirlpool

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20418 From: Rod Read Date: 6/28/2016
Subject: Forum moderation request

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20419 From: dave santos Date: 6/28/2016
Subject: Re: Forum moderation request

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20420 From: dave santos Date: 6/28/2016
Subject: What is not a kite?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20421 From: dave santos Date: 6/28/2016
Subject: Extending the Analogy between ElectroMagnetism and Phonon Physics (b

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20422 From: benhaiemp Date: 6/28/2016
Subject: "Control of Airborne Wind Energy Systems" is an open invited track a

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20423 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 6/29/2016
Subject: Re: Forum moderation request

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20424 From: dave santos Date: 6/29/2016
Subject: Passive or Active Control Precedence? (Chicken and Egg problem)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20425 From: dave santos Date: 6/29/2016
Subject: Re: Forum moderation request

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20426 From: dave santos Date: 6/29/2016
Subject: Re: "Control of Airborne Wind Energy Systems" is an open invited tra

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20427 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 6/29/2016
Subject: Re: Passive or Active Control Precedence? (Chicken and Egg problem)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20429 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 6/29/2016
Subject: POSTING is CLOSED. Consider transitioning to SomeAWE.org

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20430 From: stephane Date: 7/24/2016
Subject: Les projets, les succès.. l'aventure continue

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20432 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 8/1/2016
Subject: Lorenzo Fagiano posted video

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20433 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 8/1/2016
Subject: Archer's Radiance: source of some AWE data and AWE support

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20434 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 8/1/2016
Subject: Takeoff and landing system - Airborne Wind Energy and Tethered UAV

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20435 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 8/1/2016
Subject: Skypoint-e

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20436 From: dave santos Date: 8/1/2016
Subject: Re: Takeoff and landing system - Airborne Wind Energy and Tethered U



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20385 From: Rod Read Date: 6/27/2016
Subject: Re: "Forces" in AWE Physics? (Physics Hypertextbook usage)
Rod neither claimed that nor claims to know the inner thoughts of other reasonable persons heads

Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20386 From: dave santos Date: 6/27/2016
Subject: Re: Quick Review of AWES Flight Stability by Passive or Active Contr
Rod,

I have reviewed your objections in terms of third-party sources. The acceptable usage of emergent and fictitious forces simply as "forces" is covered in a separate topic. There is a huge discussion trail related to your useage of "hobbyist" in AWE, particularly this quote from your AWEC2015 abstract- ". Started by “hobbyist” engineers on shoestring budgets, Open AWE is now, open for business". In that discussion you do self-identify strongly, and you do not allow that Open-AWE had pro beginnings as well, before you came along. I don't why you can't see both sides of this point.

Getting back on-topic, its an amazing fact that orbital mechanics and flight stability mechanics exist on a continuum, with common mathematics (equations-of-motion). When aerospace scientists model a space mission from launch to landing, its within that integrated framework. This complex insight may be at odds with your common-sense objection, but it is correct.

daveS


On Sunday, June 26, 2016 11:17 PM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
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: 20387 From: Rod Read Date: 6/27/2016
Subject: Re: Quick Review of AWES Flight Stability by Passive or Active Contr
Here's a snippet of a recent quote from Sue Perkins "You weapons-grade plum."
Have you no memory of resolving that misinterpretation of yours previously? Apparently not.
10/10 for persistence. Bear in mind I have rated smells that way.
 Given some of the talk you've spouted, the rating seems apt.
Please find a way to justify this one last quote
"
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."

Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20388 From: Rod Read Date: 6/27/2016
Subject: Re: Quick Review of AWES Flight Stability by Passive or Active Contr
Stability is a great thing to aim for whether you're flying a kite, a plane or orbiting a rocket.

They're not all governed and run the same way though.

The Earth is not a kite. It's not held the same way or lofted by the winds around it. (Which tend not to all be going the one way)

Having a massive kite doesn't mean you're flying the earth up toward space... You're using a moving fluid medium bound to the earth itself to tense a line. 

yes a big wide kite can be stable... best if it's a fast acting mesh of many little weathercocking capable kites.

Don't worry folks, The earth is going to get carried away.
I can't guarantee the same thing for the UK.

Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20389 From: dave santos Date: 6/27/2016
Subject: Re: "Forces" in AWE Physics? (Physics Hypertextbook usage)
Rod,

So what was your intended point about the use/misuse of "force" in the AWES Flight Stability topic?

Thanks for any clarification,

daveS




On Monday, June 27, 2016 6:48 AM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
Rod neither claimed that nor claims to know the inner thoughts of other reasonable persons heads

Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20390 From: dave santos Date: 6/27/2016
Subject: Re: Quick Review of AWES Flight Stability by Passive or Active Contr
Rod,

You are part right. The Earth was a free-flying object not so kite-like, in the sense Joe and I define, until it was tethered, for example, by the first plant or animal to raise a wing surface on a stalk. Similarly, a typical kite is not acting as such when off its tether. A glider is kite-like in that its CG is "tethered" within.

Once the Earth is tethered to another kite, both activate into a kite-mode, by equal and opposed forces. While the geometric proportions obscure the idea of similarity, careful topological and vector analysis reveals the fundamental identities Joe and I found. Quasi-Particle physics also supports this pairing logic in unbiquitous Fermion/Boson statistics.

One Chinese version of how the kite originated has a worker's sunhat flying as kite spontaneously from a fence. Its a very proper philosophical question whether all such hats are true kites. You even began as an Earth-like kite suspended in your mother's womb, if you can grasp the new interpretive paradigm. Objections to the "Alice-in-Wonderland" scientific tradition are mostly cultural. The Einsteins of history have played freely with imagination free of the rancor their critics rode to oblivion.

Below is a link chosen because it nicely presents aerospace orbital mechanics as a unified continuum across fluid and relative vacuum, within the same common standard mathematical framework. Review the orbitals of aircraft motion, and associated maths, to fully draw the point-by-point correspondences,

daveS





On Monday, June 27, 2016 8:02 AM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
Stability is a great thing to aim for whether you're flying a kite, a plane or orbiting a rocket.

They're not all governed and run the same way though.

The Earth is not a kite. It's not held the same way or lofted by the winds around it. (Which tend not to all be going the one way)

Having a massive kite doesn't mean you're flying the earth up toward space... You're using a moving fluid medium bound to the earth itself to tense a line. 

yes a big wide kite can be stable... best if it's a fast acting mesh of many little weathercocking capable kites.

Don't worry folks, The earth is going to get carried away.
I can't guarantee the same thing for the UK.

Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878




On 27 June 2016 at 15:48, Rod Read <rod.read@gmail.com


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20391 From: Rod Read Date: 6/27/2016
Subject: Re: Quick Review of AWES Flight Stability by Passive or Active Contr

No
That's orbital mechanics and only orbital mechanics.
There is mention of atmospheric drag effects. No flights.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20392 From: dave santos Date: 6/27/2016
Subject: 2nd AWE Textbook Note
Most of us don't get to see drafts of the long awaited 2nd AWE textbook. All we get is the latest example of a familiar pattern of digital format obsession from TUD kite energy research, in a leaked email just sent out to contributors. 

The implicit "buried headline" is that the 2nd AWEC Textbook is still in process, despite a long unexplained silence. The big unanswered question in that regard is how Uwe Ahren was dropped as lead Editor (more generally, why NTS and related architectures were excluded from the AWESCO architectural down-select). As a close participant and presumed lead responsible for many of these mysteries (along with Moritz Diehl), Roland Schmehl could answer such questions, not just leave no doubt he thinks DOIs are a more essential issue. The rest of us simply use search strings to find the same docs and a whole lot more AWE prior-art, while understanding that historical science never depended on DOI's.

Over the years, as Wubbo's welcoming and open-minded influence has faded, TUDelft is leaving unanswered a growing list of open questions about its AWE program. For example, was the Saraceno Solar Bell program an outright hoax, a honest failure to meet Roland's originally specified engineering goals, or something else? Similar questions are piling up about AWESCO, what happened to AWEC when it came under TUD's sphere, and why US conferences mysteriously lapsed under this circle's secretive control (?).

Instead, TUD is better known in our mailboxes for technically meaningless emails urging on us uniformity of digital formats (also while studiously ignoring submission boycott over AWEIA and JohnO's wrongful exclusions). Especially onerous is the unjustified enforcement of proprietary digital formats, like PDF, while rejecting open-source formats, like HTML or LaTex-without-PD.  Ideally an Editor receives and presents knowledge regardless of format, for maximum participation and fidelity to original thought. At least AWESCO represents a clear historic experiment whether such a-priori social norms and technical down-select (downwind reeling) are the "right stuff".

So we look forward to the 2nd textbook for deep insights via maximal intellectual quality of its semantic and graphic content. Banal consistency over eclectic style is tolerable at least, but the closely-related problem of artificial pay-wall dependence is not. Good luck to all the contributors, and we all look forward to finally seeing the 2nd book emerge, flaws and all. If only the Editors were more generous with timely and transparent public answers requested, this notice would not center on the single frivolous digital format issue presented-

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: your AWEC 2015 publication
Date: 2016-06-09 11:07 am
From: Roland Schmehl <r.schmehl@tudelft.nl
To: Roland Schmehl <r.schmehl@tudelft.nl

 

Dear AWEC 2015 author, 

I would like to bring to your attention that your contribution in the
Book of Abstracts is now covered as an individual publication result on
the research repository of TU Delft which can be accessed at
http://repository.tudelft.nl/ [5] by choosing the option "research
repository".

Every abstract has an individual DOI (Digital Object Identifier)
assigned with which it can be permanently referenced. 

For example, the complete Book of Abstracts can be accessed through this
link 

DOI:10.4233/uuid:7df59b79-2c6b-4e30-bd58-8454f493bb09 [6] 

or the alternative short version (which is also official and permanent)

shortDOI:10/bjhs [7] 

To retrieve the DOI of your abstract you can simply search for your name
(recommended) or browse through this prefabricated search [8] (which for
some reason does not show all authors and co-authors).
 Take the uuid-code and copy paste it after 

DOI:10.4233/ 

and retrieve your permanent shortDOI from this website
http://shortdoi.org/ [9] 
 Please note that our library specialists recommend to use the complete
DOI for use in scientific publications.
 The shortDOI is recommended for use in social media. 

If you have contributed a chapter to the upcoming textbook [10] please
make sure that a reference to the AWEC 2015 abstract is included.
 In this case the bibliography part of your chapter will point to the
abstract as well as to the recorded lecture or deposited poster.
 I have described the proper referencing style in this recently added
page:
 http://awec2015.eu/2-uncategorised/21-how-to-cite-conference-results.html
[11]
 Best regards,
 Roland Schmehl 

-- 
-----------------------------------
Dr.-Ing. Roland Schmehl
Associate Professor
Delft University of Technology
Kite Power Research Group
Wind Energy Section / Faculty of Aerospace Engineering
Kluyverweg 1, 2629 HS Delft, The Netherlands
T +31 15 278 5318
M +31 61 495 6025
E r.schmehl@tudelft.nl
www.twitter.com/kite_power [1]
www.kitepower.eu [2] | www.awesco.eu [3] | www.awec2015.eu [4]
 

Links:
------
[1] http://www.twitter.com/kite_power
[2] http://www.kitepower.eu
[3] http://www.awesco.eu
[4] http://www.awec2015.eu
[5] http://repository.tudelft.nl/
[6] http://doi.org/10.4233/uuid:7df59b79-2c6b-4e30-bd58-8454f493bb09
[7] http://dx.doi.org/10/bjhs
[8] http://repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/search/airborne%20wind%20energy%20conference%202015?collection=research&amp;f[0]=RELS_EXT_isMemberOfCollection_uri_s%3A%22info%5C%3Afedora%5C/collection%5C%3Aconference%22
[9] http://shortdoi.org/
[10] http://awec2015.eu/call-for-book-chapters.html
[11] 



How to cite conference results?
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20393 From: dave santos Date: 6/27/2016
Subject: Re: Quick Review of AWES Flight Stability by Passive or Active Contr
The fact aero-effects are mentioned several times is because all space-craft have multiple such modes. For example the Space Shuttle glided back from orbit, and low-Earth satellites are subject to tenuous aero-forces. There is no discontinuous barrier in the sky. Even solar wind in deep space is real wind.

Orbital mechanics really is about flight (spaceflight). Airplane motions really are orbits around a central mass. We are all orbiting the Earth's center, solar-center, galactic center, and so on, if you want to more precisely account any aircraft's motion.

Kite orbits have long been considered as such. I particularly admire Rautakorpi's treatment-



On Monday, June 27, 2016 10:48 AM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
No
That's orbital mechanics and only orbital mechanics.
There is mention of atmospheric drag effects. No flights.


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20394 From: dave santos Date: 6/27/2016
Subject: amateur kite-based aerotectural design
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20395 From: dave santos Date: 6/27/2016
Subject: Integrated Aerospace Dynamics
Its no wonder a skilled sailor like Pocock revolutionized kite power, or that aeronautical pilots were the right stuff to become astronauts. The pilot of a boat, aircraft, or spacecraft has a similar job involving "performance, stability, and control"*, owing to the common dynamics of a six degrees-of-freedom vehicle unit.  Physicists understand that their basic equations of motion, as pioneered by Galileo and Newton, are universal, and span vehicle dynamics across water, air, the relative vacuum of space, and all states between. There are minor  historical differences in mathematical dialects, in superficial symbolic conventions, but its really all of a piece. 

It was thus only natural that "aeronautics" as a profession would slowly broaden to "aerospace" An aerospace pro is thus expected to be fluent in both conventional aircraft and spacecraft flight dynamics, mostly using the same mathematical tools. Its no coincidence that a "kite orbit" and a "planetary orbit" are both acceptable aerospace usage, describing common dynamics. Aerospace experts of course are still able to see the obvious differences lay-folk sees, but their training prepares them to see deep commonalities not seen by lay-folk. This is the secret to the Protean engineering success of aerospace.

One need not take an online MIT or Stanford course to figure this out. Its enough to be reading the relevant AWES Forum topics and the references provided to be able to note the similarities. For example, KiteShip, founded by Dave Culp, a formally trained naval architect/engineer, under the same shared basic equations of motion, naturally conceived of his brilliant OL SS kite in roles from kite-sailing, to AWE, to use as a space-based solar sail. This is the place on the Net where all these dots connect.

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

* From Wikipedia-
"Spacecraft flight dynamics is the science of space vehicle performance, stability, and control. It requires analysis of the six degrees of freedom of the vehicle's flight, which are similar to those of aircraft: translation in three dimensional axes; and its orientation about the vehicle's center of mass in these axes, known as pitch, roll and yaw, with respect to a defined frame of reference.
Dynamics is the modeling of the changing position and orientation of a vehicle, in response to external forces acting on the body. For a spacecraft, these forces are of three types: propulsive force (usually provided by the vehicle's engine thrust); gravitational force exerted by the Earth or other celestial bodies; and aerodynamic lift and drag (when flying in the atmosphere of the Earth or other body, such as Mars or Venus)."
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20396 From: dave santos Date: 6/27/2016
Subject: Electro-Magnetic Kite
A kite wing with a ferrous mass at its bridle point can sustain flight in wind from an electro-magnet modulated by sensor feedback to keep the kite at a fixed distance. The kite would be magnetically tethered, appearing "magically" to hold station with no visible tether, with the wind providing (fictitious) lift (force) :)  This idea would make a nice lab demo or toy, but does not promise to scale.

Open-AWE_IP-Cloud
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20397 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 6/27/2016
Subject: Re: Earth as a Kite

DaveS,

 

Your topic should be deleted by wanted moderation. "Earth as a kite" has nothing to do in AWE forum. The discussion you involve is sterile and ridiculous, allowing you to win in nonsense argument in each stroke. You should try to be focused on real AWE problems. 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20398 From: dougselsam Date: 6/27/2016
Subject: Re: "Forces" in AWE Physics? (Physics Hypertextbook usage)
I would say this ongoing pretense of revealing scientific breakthrough after scientific breakthrough, pronouncing ones self and one's buddy as introducing conceptual breakthroughs like an Einstein, is all just a cheap substitute for actually doing anything.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20399 From: dougselsam Date: 6/27/2016
Subject: Re: Quick Review of AWES Flight Stability by Passive or Active Contr
It's hard to believe that after 7 years of claiming to be at the forefront of airborne wind energy, you guys are still hung up on the word definition of what a freakin' kite supposedly "is".  Have you ever considered that kites and the Earth are simply as they are and you guys are merely engaging in meaningless wordplay, amusing yourselves while accomplishing nothing?  Ever considered whether redefining commonly-understood words may have its limitations as to usefulness or applicability?  Ever heard of deconstructionism?  You can decide any word has any meaning you want.  As long as you insist on playing with word definitions, you eventually render the entire language and all statements meaningless since you can always claim to have the authority to make any word mean anything you want.  So what?  It changes nothing.  It's a dead-end road. You aren't changing the world, you are not even changing language, since nobody is paying any attention anyway, for the most part.  Why not do some of the things you keep saying you are going to do, instead of pretending alternately to be Einstein or Merriam Webster?  Let's see that 50 kW laddermill announced a couple weeks ago, for example.  I hesitate to repeat the promise to carve a rock into a wing or whatever that was to "prove" JoeF's latest word definitions...
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20400 From: dougselsam Date: 6/27/2016
Subject: Re: Quick Review of AWES Flight Stability by Passive or Active Contr
Apparently the UK decided it didn't want to be a kite.  "Please let us down!"
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20401 From: dougselsam Date: 6/27/2016
Subject: Re: Quick Review of AWES Flight Stability by Passive or Active Contr
I would note that tethered wing pairs were known before Wayne brought them up at the first AWE conference in Chico and Oroville California.  I know I had always considered kite-sailing, flying kite-supported or blimp-supported yachts with keels in the water, etc.  Even a regular sailboat has the properties of a wing in the air (sail) and an an opposing wing in the water (keel and rudder), let alone the commonly-practiced sport of kite-surfing.  So to ascribe tethered wing pairs to Wayne is probably not accurate.  There is a whole world of thinkers out there.  This did not all start with Wayne.  What I remember Wayne for is microwave transmission of power to ground stations, which sounds like a dangerous thing to get started since it could be aimed at people if someone is having a bad day, and also that he got Cristina to agree that Jesus was going to solve the AWE puzzle, which I guess we are still waiting for.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20402 From: dougselsam Date: 6/27/2016
Subject: Re: Quick Review of AWES Flight Stability by Passive or Active Contr
I do not understand how daveS and JoeF can consistently publish off-topic posts while nitpicking the posts of others as being "off-topic".  JoeF and daveS, just go through all your own posts.  Read the "topic" line.  Check whether your posts match the "topic".  Like the daveS post that this post replies to, most of what you find is in fact "off-topic".  Therefore I believe this nitpicking others over being "off-topic" is quite hypocritical and unproductive.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20403 From: dave santos Date: 6/27/2016
Subject: Re: Earth as a Kite
Pierre,

Keep in mind the original idea is Joe's. You are simply mistaken to think his idea "has nothing to do in AWE forum". It is in fact wonderfully insightful for those able to see its scientific charms.

You might better argue that piano has no value at an AWE conference :)

daveS


On Monday, June 27, 2016 8:09 PM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
DaveS,
 
Your topic should be deleted by wanted moderation. "Earth as a kite" has nothing to do in AWE forum. The discussion you involve is sterile and ridiculous, allowing you to win in nonsense argument in each stroke. You should try to be focused on real AWE problems. 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20404 From: dave santos Date: 6/27/2016
Subject: Re: "Forces" in AWE Physics? (Physics Hypertextbook usage)
Doug,

This isn't about "scientific breakthrough" at all, but about correcting Rod's miss-impression about how physicists properly use the word "force", as in "force of gravity", but with the well-known fictitious-force classification implicit..

You would be right about Joe and me if we thought that citing the Hyperphysics textbook on a basic question was Einstein-level, but its not, Its just the normal process of correcting basic mistaken assertions you are well familiar with, which we can all agree does not require any Einstein,

daveSa


On Monday, June 27, 2016 9:38 AM, "dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
I would say this ongoing pretense of revealing scientific breakthrough after scientific breakthrough, pronouncing ones self and one's buddy as introducing conceptual breakthroughs like an Einstein, is all just a cheap substitute for actually doing anything.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20405 From: dougselsam Date: 6/27/2016
Subject: Re: 2nd AWE Textbook Note
Are you talking about "How NOT to do AWE" Volume II?
Subtitle: "We are very confused"?
Why would anyone write a book about something they can't figure out how to do?
And why would anyone else care?
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20406 From: dougselsam Date: 6/27/2016
Subject: Re: Quick Review of AWES Flight Stability by Passive or Active Contr
Funny, I've been waiting for you to get around to claiming all aircraft are "really" in orbit.  I guess that makes all kites, and everything else not bolted down (including us) "really" being "in orbit".  Then again, why let being bolted down stop you.  After all, the bolt "is really a wing" anyway, right?  Yeah I've always maintained when I go over a ski jump I am temporarily "in orbit", just that the orbit intersects the surface because I am going too slow compared to "escape velocity".  Still, I could briefly claim my trajectory as part of a potential orbit.  Hmm, well that is, as long as we do not demand an orbit actually do what an orbit does, which is go around the Earth.  Heck, who needs such rules and qualifications?  Isn't that just being "negative"?  Who says an orbit has to actually go around the Earth?  Nevermind all the space programs and satellites that will fail - why let those pesky facts and details get in the way of "progress"?
Only thing is, after you're through rewriting the dictionary so that everything "is really" a kite, what do you do?
I guess, on the one hand, since "the Earth is really a kite" then all energy we use "is really" airborne wind energy anyway.  So in that sense, at least by his own standards, JoeF  has successfully implemented airborne wind energy as "really" powering our entire civilization.  If he or anyone else were to take his statements seriously, we can all hang up our hats, mission completed, the world is now powered by AWE.  I mean, the world "is really" a kite, right?  On the other hand you might wake up, as from a dream, to find there has been almost zero progress in AWE since day-one, almost all hype, with zero (0) percent of our power coming from AWE, and in that sense, nothing has changed at all.  Which is reality?  Depends whom you ask.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20407 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 6/27/2016
Subject: Re: Earth as a Kite
What energy may come from unfolding the topic "Earth as a Kite" is today unseen. 
Exercising what is a kite system may be very good for eventual best AWES.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20408 From: dave santos Date: 6/27/2016
Subject: Re: Quick Review of AWES Flight Stability by Passive or Active Contr
Doug,

What you are missing is that there is a desirable ratio of on-topic to off-topic commenting. Perhaps others do post post off-topic, especially if you bait them, but at least they post on topic to a greater degree than you manage.

Its not expected that you have anything expert on-topic to add to an aeronautical topic like this one, unless you do the homework. This is not as unfair as you imagine, but maybe folks needed reminding how helplessly you post when cut loose, 

daveS


On Monday, June 27, 2016 8:16 PM, "dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
I do not understand how daveS and JoeF can consistently publish off-topic posts while nitpicking the posts of others as being "off-topic".  JoeF and daveS, just go through all your own posts.  Read the "topic" line.  Check whether your posts match the "topic".  Like the daveS post that this post replies to, most of what you find is in fact "off-topic".  Therefore I believe this nitpicking others over being "off-topic" is quite hypocritical and unproductive.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20409 From: dave santos Date: 6/27/2016
Subject: Re: 2nd AWE Textbook Note
Doug,

You seem to forget that many of the fine book contributors are progressing "by the numbers", reportin larger more powerful experiments for longer sessions, year after year.

You are only explaining why you are not writing a AWE book,

daveS


On Monday, June 27, 2016 8:44 PM, "dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
Are you talking about "How NOT to do AWE" Volume II?
Subtitle: "We are very confused"?
Why would anyone write a book about something they can't figure out how to do?
And why would anyone else care?
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20410 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 6/27/2016
Subject: Re: 2nd AWE Textbook Note
That a book (collection of chapters) is underway is part of the natural flow of progressive information sharing that has been occurring in the AWE world; no sector of AWE communications gives the full picture of the state of the art.  Our open forum lets us include all sectors that are facing energy kite systems.   May ever more books be written.  AWE teams are not comprehensively being covered by book writers, paper writers, and article authors; but when one remains open to all the sectors, then one has a good chance of seeing approximately how our energy kite community is doing. 
       
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20411 From: dave santos Date: 6/27/2016
Subject: Factual corrections
Joe,

As discussed in the past, if Doug is freed to post numerous factual errors at will, without respect for topics or RAD, I won't take the time required to correct him (nor will anyone else). I will with relief leave the AWES Forum in favor of his agenda, and go on to someAWE.org as the RAD sanctuary.

------- a few corrections, while dozens of fresh factual errors remain uncorrected ------

Doug mistakenly claimed there was a "50 kW laddermill announced a couple weeks ago". There was no such announcement.

Doug claimed "I've always maintained when I go over a ski jump I am temporarily "in orbit". The correct criteria of orbital motion is to complete at least one orbit, and ski jumping does not count. He overlooks that he is orbiting the sun "temporarily".

Doug is unaware that his claim "zero (0) percent of our power coming from AWE" has long been disproved, on multiple levels. For example, aviation has sought out high-altitude tailwinds for over a century, for about 5% displacement of fuel need, and this contribution of AWE is historically factual and technically significant. Glider sports use AWE. Kite sports too. Birds and insects as well, for millions of years.

Doug unfairly misrepresents Wayne's actual documented record, apparently unaware of his decades as an top AWE theorist, and his solid association as the lead developer of "tethered wing pair" concepts, (with Wilson as the grand-dad in this space). Wayne may have mentioned microwave transmission in passing, in Doug's random hearing, but its not at all one of Wayne's signature concepts, which Doug never seems to have studied in original form.
-----------------------------

One can go on correcting Doug like this almost line by line. Its not hard, just tedious. The real challenge is to see how Doug can ever live up to his own documented claims, which exceed in hyperbole anyone we have documented over the years.

At least AWE collaboration hums along off-Forum, and data mining will filter the sound knowledge presented from the addled despair,

daveS
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20412 From: Rod Read Date: 6/28/2016
Subject: Re: Quick Review of AWES Flight Stability by Passive or Active Contr

I think that we'd better rewrite the definition of the wee sailing jaunt organised by Magellan in 1519.
That was when the world 🌍 was first completely kite powered.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Magellan%27s_circumnavigation
Happy days.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20413 From: Rod Read Date: 6/28/2016
Subject: Re: Factual corrections

I think moving to a well moderated forum would make everyone raise their game. Please just do it. Lets move on.
No need to be sad.
We have created a wonderful reserve of knowledge here.
Lets make a better one.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20414 From: Rod Read Date: 6/28/2016
Subject: Re: Quick Review of AWES Flight Stability by Passive or Active Contr

I like the previously shared link kite analysis
https://dspace.cc.tut.fi/dpub/bitstream/handle/123456789/21950/rautakorpi.pdf?sequence=1
It defines kite mechanics well in a good framework.
But it's not defining orbits unless we redefine orbits.
Even a Daisy stacked network spinning... Well that's not orbiting. I used to have the engineering mathematical nous to be able to define in a precise shorthand notation a framework for what it is doing... Hoping others will attempt that. If not soon then I will have to relearn.
I know how it works.
I can change and improve how it works.
If you say it works by orbiting the earth 🌍 all the time... That's fine by your definition. Doesn't fit with my flat world 🗺 ideas.
Yep kites and planes are affected by gravity.
Does any of this thread relate to
Quick Review of AWES Flight Stability by Passive or Active Control?

For a
Quick Review of AWES Flight Stability by Passive or Active Control
Just say : Network kites are best.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20415 From: Rod Read Date: 6/28/2016
Subject: Sucked in to the yahoo AWE forum whirlpool

This forum wastes so much time ⌚
Please move to the moderated someawe.org

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20416 From: dave santos Date: 6/28/2016
Subject: Re: Quick Review of AWES Flight Stability by Passive or Active Contr
Rod,

Magellan did not fly a kite in the key sense of tethered flight, rather than sails on masts. There is a bound to the definition being defined. Doug is of course mistaken that what has been proposed is "everthing is a kite", unless that's his own definition. Then your example indeed counts, but you are going-on posting off-topic here. Reread my original post. Doug does not respect or understand the on-topic need either.

daveS


On Tuesday, June 28, 2016 1:34 AM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
I like the previously shared link kite analysis
https://dspace.cc.tut.fi/dpub/bitstream/handle/123456789/21950/rautakorpi.pdf?sequence=1
It defines kite mechanics well in a good framework.
But it's not defining orbits unless we redefine orbits.
Even a Daisy stacked network spinning... Well that's not orbiting. I used to have the engineering mathematical nous to be able to define in a precise shorthand notation a framework for what it is doing... Hoping others will attempt that. If not soon then I will have to relearn.
I know how it works.
I can change and improve how it works.
If you say it works by orbiting the earth 🌍 all the time... That's fine by your definition. Doesn't fit with my flat world 🗺 ideas.
Yep kites and planes are affected by gravity.
Does any of this thread relate to
Quick Review of AWES Flight Stability by Passive or Active Control?
For a
Quick Review of AWES Flight Stability by Passive or Active Control
Just say : Network kites are best.


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20417 From: dave santos Date: 6/28/2016
Subject: Re: Sucked in to the yahoo AWE forum whirlpool
Good idea Rod.

Anyone who can't post on-topic most of time under the RAD mission of this Forum should make the jump, and they will be kept on-topic more strictly.

The constant complainers who don't post AWE news and facts, but just complain, should avoid both Forums. They could try the NASA forum, and probably not bother anyone :)

daveS


On Tuesday, June 28, 2016 1:37 AM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
This forum wastes so much time ⌚
Please move to the moderated someawe.org


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20418 From: Rod Read Date: 6/28/2016
Subject: Forum moderation request
Joe,
Thank you for hosting a great party.
It's been wonderful. It's the most bonkers shambolic kind of mess. I had a great time dancing. Please take and use any goodies I left.

I'm shattered now and have to go.
I have a lot of AWES work to be getting on with.
It's best for AWES progress that I move now.

Please put me on your most severe forum moderation so as I'm not tempted to post again.
Cheers bru.
Love and best

Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20419 From: dave santos Date: 6/28/2016
Subject: Re: Forum moderation request
Rod,

Very sorry if the AWES Forum caused you unhappiness. No doubt your AWE work will progress brilliantly in any case.

It really is not a proper demand of Moderation to be prevented, a priori, from posting. Only the character of your posting should decide that.

Good Luck, and we'll all reunite as the AWE knowledge quest continues gathering momentum,

daveS


On Tuesday, June 28, 2016 7:02 AM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
Joe,
Thank you for hosting a great party.
It's been wonderful. It's the most bonkers shambolic kind of mess. I had a great time dancing. Please take and use any goodies I left.

I'm shattered now and have to go.
I have a lot of AWES work to be getting on with.
It's best for AWES progress that I move now.

Please put me on your most severe forum moderation so as I'm not tempted to post again.
Cheers bru.
Love and best

Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20420 From: dave santos Date: 6/28/2016
Subject: What is not a kite?
For clarification, the concise technical definition of a kite as it has evolved over years of our discussion, is-

          "a wing anchored by a string, flying in flow".

To qualify, a proposed kite must operate by these four elements. JoeF noted that a kite can be an anchor, and this insight integrated Wayne's tethered-wing-pair thinking, which logically extends to many kites, qua anchors, connected by strings, in complex flows. A current open question, to some, is whether all anchoring mediums are themselves kite-like, by a hidden symmetry of forces. This fine mystery should not be cause for naive despair.

We can confidently say, in a strict technical functional sense, what is not a kite. Do not be confused by the mundane idea that a typical kite in its bag is still a kite. We are formally concerned with the kite in action. Therefore, the ancient straw hat hung on a fence that flew upwards from its string in a breeze was a kite, but only when flying. Otherwise, it was a potential or past kite, under our definition. A kite is really only a kite when it acts as such.

While there is a lot of latitude in our definition, its still suitably constrained. Wing or string takes many forms. Don't be fooled by any over-narrow classification of kite elements. Be able to comprehend calmly JoeF's analogy that a glider in flight is in a deep sense a kite that carries its anchor at a ghostly bridle-point within (the CG), and the string is in this case is the intimate melding of anchor and wing itself. If one disturbs the ballast balance too much, flight ends; no kite. 

Comprehend that complex semi-solid media like soils actually have liquid properties (as any geologist knows) so the soil kite is real and the forces are fluidynamic, not strictly static. Think of glass, for example; a kite could fly in glass, but you would barely see it move over your lifetime. By noble tradition, we are expanding imagination, not mocking it. Comprehend that objects like a ball can act as a wing, like a baseball with spin. Comprehend the the potential of a flow field to make a seemingly non-winglike object act as a wing.

All this takes a lot of knowledge and experience to grasp. Above all, study and fly kites as much as possible to learn better what a kite is not. It naturally takes expertise to judge what is not a kite, under our technical functional definition.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20421 From: dave santos Date: 6/28/2016
Subject: Extending the Analogy between ElectroMagnetism and Phonon Physics (b
Our ongoing study of the kite has led from on insight to another. We now can now map the kite principle in phonon physics to its basic counterparts in electromagnetism, which allows us to inherit a lot of prior art, like Maxwell's Equations, for example. The best part is that we can perhaps confirm real differences at the limit of the analogy, to perhaps learn something toward grand-unification, which is nearing by the combined efforts of thousands of scientists over many years. The kite already helped form the ideas of Newton, Franklin, Wittgenstein, and so on.

A kite pair is a sort of dipole and the wind field pressure map is like moving electromagnetic field, and the waves are like EM waves. The Earth is Ground and the forces in the kitelines are currents of phonons, much like electrons. Pumping lines is like AC, and a continuous loop is like DC. Current can jump from kiteline to gear, to ground, and do work along the way, with waste heat accordingly. A high quality line, like an UHMWPE hawser towing a ship, is a superconducting analog. 10MW or so flows without any significant heating. And so on...

Thanks for any comments that add to or correct this emerging view of phonon physics by means of kite knowledge.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20422 From: benhaiemp Date: 6/28/2016
Subject: "Control of Airborne Wind Energy Systems" is an open invited track a

LinkedIn

Perhaps, for DaveS, a possibility to describe elements of passive control or inherent stability, where passive control finishes, where active control begins.

Indeed current projects are too much based on active control with the risk of electronical failure making a risk of crash without some needed level of passive stability.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20423 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 6/29/2016
Subject: Re: Forum moderation request

Done, Rod; when ready I'll unlock your email address!
The party will continue and grow; your good radiance
will continue to be celebrated, examined, analyzed, and melded into the AWE spectrum ...

Moderator
JoeF
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20424 From: dave santos Date: 6/29/2016
Subject: Passive or Active Control Precedence? (Chicken and Egg problem)
Pierre,

I lost place where you posed the question of which should come first, passive or active design, so am responding here-

Its common to start from either direction to engineer adequate control and stability. If this is a chicken-and-egg problem, at least we now know the egg came first, as the first Adam and Eve of the species had egg-laying ancestors. In aviation history, passive stability usually preceded active control.

My AWE preference is to design for passive stability (and passive dynamic stability) first, and layer active controls as needed. The intention is to out-compete teams who get mired in doomed software projects based on flawed passive design. The early competition is for safety, reliability, low-cost, and so on. I left the Makani sphere in 2007 in order to compete with their active automation dependence, which I did not see as viable until maybe 2030.

Lets all sympathize with talented overworked automation developers in AWE stuck with inherently unstable hardware, while others get to just watch pretty kites fly nicely by themselves. I would concentrate AWES automation at the upper layer of operational logic, covering areas like weather response and programmed maintenance.

daveS
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20425 From: dave santos Date: 6/29/2016
Subject: Re: Forum moderation request
JoeF,

Proposing, under the RAD Doctrine, that if Rod posts valuable AWES discourse, that you retain a public archive copy, or simply forward the worthy message along to the list, as if Rod was a normal moderation case,

daveS




On Wednesday, June 29, 2016 7:47 AM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  

Done, Rod; when ready I'll unlock your email address!
The party will continue and grow; your good radiance
will continue to be celebrated, examined, analyzed, and melded into the AWE spectrum ...

Moderator
JoeF
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20426 From: dave santos Date: 6/29/2016
Subject: Re: "Control of Airborne Wind Energy Systems" is an open invited tra
Sorry Pierre, I dropped LinkedIn a few years ago, since its business model is at totally odds with my values.

No one should regard LinkedIn as a worthy hub for open research. If you can get us visible access to this password-hidden content, I'll be glad to respond to technical aspects.


On Tuesday, June 28, 2016 12:50 PM, "pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
Perhaps, for DaveS, a possibility to describe elements of passive control or inherent stability, where passive control finishes, where active control begins.
Indeed current projects are too much based on active control with the risk of electronical failure making a risk of crash without some needed level of passive stability.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20427 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 6/29/2016
Subject: Re: Passive or Active Control Precedence? (Chicken and Egg problem)

DaveS,

 

You could produce a paper with Ahmad Hably for example since you had worked with him. The paper could comprise the study of some elements of stability with a lifting kite among other concerns. Introducing the debate about passive and active controls and also about scalability within universities and also AWESCO.

 

 

 

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20429 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 6/29/2016
Subject: POSTING is CLOSED. Consider transitioning to SomeAWE.org


From this post forward, all new posting will be blocked for all forum members. 

This is to support and encourage SomeAWE.org


We have a hefty archive of strong energy kite systems ideas and discussion that may be searched by members.    


When you try to post, the blockage will work. 

Be sure to save a copy of your posting effort.  Rather, consider posting in SomeAWE.org


The over 20,000 posted messages will remain a rich searchable resource.  

I hope someone archives the messages just in case Yahoo! stops support of the message set. 


Best to all of us during the coming transition to a rich development of AWES technology. 


Best to all, 

    Yours,

Joe Faust

Moderator
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20430 From: stephane Date: 7/24/2016
Subject: Les projets, les succès.. l'aventure continue
Bonjour à tous,

voici l’actualité chargée des projets  :

- Le Zeppy le ballon à pèdales( propulsion musculaire )  fera son dernier vol sur Nice pour nous changer un peu les idées et redonner une belle image de notre magnifique Baie des anges  avec un vol exceptionnel et unique au monde : à suivre sur :https://www.facebook.com/roussonstephane/?ref=bookmarks  
ensuite il rejoindra l’Angleterre pour terminer un programme TV avec Channel 4 et sera donnée partie  à une université de technologie. 

- je donne le Sous-marin Scubster www.scubster.com  aux Equipes universitaires européennes qui participent aux championnats internationaux : http://www.subrace.eu

la France n’ayant pas su nous aider alors que nous avions remporté plusieurs prix et démontré nos performances inégalées en matière de sous-marin humide. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvDUPV5miYM

- En cours le développement le concept d’ un système stratosphérique innovant pour la transmission de donnée web . 

- et bien sûr ma bataille au Tribunal Penal  pour récupérer les fruits de mon travail sur  le projet Horus ( Ballon captif de surveillance )  ou je dénonce au passage la grande arnaque des pôles de compétitivité qui mettent à mal la France en massacrant les petites entreprises et concepteurs sous prétexte d’aides pour sortir de la crise économique. 

Tout soutien pour le vol en Ballon Zeppy sur Nice sera bienvenu 

Bonnes vacances et à bientôt,

Stephane Rousson
tel : 0033(0)603838276
www.rousson.org
www.scubster.com
www.seaglider.fr
www.aeroceanographe.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20432 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 8/1/2016
Subject: Lorenzo Fagiano posted video

4

This "forum" is closed for the remainder of 2016. 

Some non-conversational notes may show to keep the space "alive"

for the Internet. 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20433 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 8/1/2016
Subject: Archer's Radiance: source of some AWE data and AWE support

Airborne wind energy



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

Note: Our "forum" is yet closed for conversation. 

This post is part of a lateral blog dimension of the space. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20434 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 8/1/2016
Subject: Takeoff and landing system - Airborne Wind Energy and Tethered UAV

Takeoff and landing system - Airborne Wind Energy and Tethered UAV



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

Note: While "forum" is closed

some blog posting may occur

to keep the space active for some AWE notes.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20435 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 8/1/2016
Subject: Skypoint-e

skypoint-e-home



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

While the "forum" dimension of this space is 

in "closed" pause, some blog posting from

Upper Windpower may occur to keep the space alive.

===================================
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20436 From: dave santos Date: 8/1/2016
Subject: Re: Takeoff and landing system - Airborne Wind Energy and Tethered U
Noting that kiteplane catapults only reliably initiate flight but still require a secondary means to gain altitude. ABB goes for accelerating the kiteplane on a track and climbing out with a motor-prop, while Alula accelerates an atlatl on a track that hurls the kiteplane even faster. It would be cool if the atlatl where passively powered by sudden decelleration of the carriage mass. Alula presumably would use step-towing to get to altitude. Alula's landing scheme is very optimistic, while ABB does not even disclose a placeholder concept.

An interesting problem these designs f is the hopelessness of launching downwind and the trickiness of launching upwind and turning downwind. Hence a crosswind launch is chosen. A new configuration is proposed here, that a crosswind cableway can do it all, from tow-launch to step-tow, then generate crosswind kite power, and retract back to to the moving cableway carriage.

Open-AWE_IP-Cloud


On Monday, August 1, 2016 7:20 PM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  


==================================================================
Note: While "forum" is closed
some blog posting may occur
to keep the space active for some AWE notes.