Messages in AirborneWindEnergy group.                          AWES 20590 to 20640 Page 305 of 440.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20590 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/1/2016
Subject: Consensus Challenges

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20591 From: dave santos Date: 9/1/2016
Subject: Re: ISEC

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20593 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/1/2016
Subject: Re: Magnetic Suspension Bearings

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20594 From: dave santos Date: 9/1/2016
Subject: Re: Consensus Challenges

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20595 From: dave santos Date: 9/1/2016
Subject: Re: Books, videos, etc., on how to design wind turbine blades?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20596 From: dave santos Date: 9/1/2016
Subject: Makani reported "rudderless" by Recode

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20597 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 9/2/2016
Subject: Re: Consensus Challenges

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20598 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/2/2016
Subject: Re: Magnetic Suspension Bearings

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20599 From: dave santos Date: 9/2/2016
Subject: Re: Consensus Challenges

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20600 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 9/2/2016
Subject: Re: Consensus Challenges

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20601 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/2/2016
Subject: Potential Positive Aspects of AWES, the "pros"

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20602 From: dave santos Date: 9/2/2016
Subject: Re: Consensus Challenges

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20603 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/2/2016
Subject: Criteria regarding AWESs

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20604 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/2/2016
Subject: Re: Criteria regarding AWESs

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20605 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 9/3/2016
Subject: Re: Criteria regarding AWESs

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20606 From: dave santos Date: 9/3/2016
Subject: Re: Criteria regarding AWESs

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20607 From: dave santos Date: 9/3/2016
Subject: Airbus RAT FlyGen shown safe in testing and certified for use over p

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20608 From: dave santos Date: 9/3/2016
Subject: Re: Airbus RAT FlyGen shown safe in testing and certified for use ov

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20609 From: dave santos Date: 9/3/2016
Subject: Speed-Flying Parafoil as AWES wing model

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20610 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 9/4/2016
Subject: Re: Airbus RAT FlyGen shown safe in testing and certified for use ov

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20611 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/4/2016
Subject: Re: Criteria regarding AWESs

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20612 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/4/2016
Subject: Re: Magnetic Suspension Bearings

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20613 From: dave santos Date: 9/4/2016
Subject: Re: Airbus RAT FlyGen shown safe in testing and certified for use ov

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20614 From: dave santos Date: 9/4/2016
Subject: Re: Criteria regarding AWESs

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20615 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 9/5/2016
Subject: Re: Airbus RAT FlyGen shown safe in testing and certified for use ov

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20616 From: dave santos Date: 9/5/2016
Subject: Re: Airbus RAT FlyGen shown safe in testing and certified for use ov

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20617 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/5/2016
Subject: Swivel matters for underwater AWES lines

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20618 From: dave santos Date: 9/5/2016
Subject: Engineering Consensus v. Community Structure in AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20619 From: dave santos Date: 9/5/2016
Subject: "Test-first"* System Identification Method in Aerospace Engineering

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20620 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/5/2016
Subject: Baird on load-releasing

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20621 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/5/2016
Subject: Re: Minesto news

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20622 From: dave santos Date: 9/5/2016
Subject: Re: Minesto news

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20623 From: dave santos Date: 9/6/2016
Subject: Re: "Test-first"* System Identification Method in Aerospace Engineer

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20624 From: Joe Faust Date: 9/6/2016
Subject: Mooring Dynamics

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20625 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/6/2016
Subject: A quaternion-based model for optimal control of an airborne wind ene

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20626 From: dave santos Date: 9/6/2016
Subject: Re: Mooring Dynamics

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20627 From: dave santos Date: 9/6/2016
Subject: Re: A quaternion-based model for optimal control of an airborne wind

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20628 From: dave santos Date: 9/8/2016
Subject: KiteFarm State-Machine System Identification

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20629 From: dave santos Date: 9/8/2016
Subject: Re: A quaternion-based model for optimal control of an airborne wind

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20630 From: Hardensoft International Limited Date: 9/8/2016
Subject: Re: Hamburg on Sept. 28, 2016

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20631 From: dave santos Date: 9/8/2016
Subject: Re: Hamburg on Sept. 28, 2016

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20632 From: dave santos Date: 9/10/2016
Subject: Megalifting by Kite as an early AWE commercial service

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20633 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/10/2016
Subject: Re: Megalifting by Kite as an early AWE commercial service

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20634 From: dave santos Date: 9/10/2016
Subject: Regional cleantech biz AWE awareness grows

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20635 From: dave santos Date: 9/11/2016
Subject: More Seismic-Metamaterial Progress (kite-lattice similarity-case)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20636 From: dave santos Date: 9/11/2016
Subject: Two New kinds of Interplanetary Kite Sailing?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20637 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/11/2016
Subject: Re: Two New kinds of Interplanetary Kite Sailing?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20638 From: dave santos Date: 9/12/2016
Subject: Re: More Seismic-Metamaterial Progress (kite-lattice similarity-case

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20639 From: dave santos Date: 9/12/2016
Subject: Ivy League Aeroelastic Metamaterial Research

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20640 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/12/2016
Subject: Re: Ivy League Aeroelastic Metamaterial Research



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20590 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/1/2016
Subject: Consensus Challenges

Post moved to a dedicated topic.  Moderator formed the topic title. 


=========================================
6:46 AM (12 hours ago)

AWE has many fields. So a consensus is not easy. Analysis step by step can help to find some agreement. Or a well studied system will be attractive enough to gather AWE players.

PierreB
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20591 From: dave santos Date: 9/1/2016
Subject: Re: ISEC
Fortunately for AWE, current tether materials like UHMWPE are proven capable to do our application. Even a century ago, steel piano wire <1/10th the strength by weight was enough to reach the Tropopause with less capable kites than today. On the other hand, the space elevator has always been far out of reach, needing to stretch  
Someone, Ted Semon,  managing a blog at ISEC for nine years signs away from doing the blog with some telling tether comments:

"What is the status of an earth-based space elevator?  In the most important area, tether strength, we’re still where we were nine years ago.  No one has produced a tether from new materials that matches, let alone exceeds, tethers made from conventional materials and until that happens, an earth-based space elevator remains a pipe-dream.  But research continues, and perhaps someday material like this will become a reality.  If and when it does, then perhaps I’ll restart this blog.  I still love the idea of a space elevator, but the reality is that right now (and for the foreseeable future), it’s just not possible to build one…
Two groups still continue to press forward with this idea however, the aforementioned International Space Elevator Consortium (ISEC) and the Japan Space Elevator Association (JSEA).  ISEC, under the current leadership of Dr. Peter Swan, is in very capable hands.  While they are not working with the materials science necessary to make a super-strong tether, they continue to investigate other areas in order to, in the very appropriate phrase from Ben Shelef, “increase our understanding of the space elevator“."
Clipped Aug 2016 from: The Space Elevator Blog
About Ted Semon
 

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20593 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/1/2016
Subject: Re: Magnetic Suspension Bearings
In the family: 
Polar energy air glide fishing swivel 
US 20110154716 A1  http://www.google.ch/patents/US20110154716
Randall Scott Turner
Filed: Dec. 24, 2009
 polar energy repulsion

The present invention solves these problems by

using non magnetic stainless steel, brass or like material and

incorporating ring magnets onto a middle rod With the mag

netic poles repelling each other acting as a polar air/energy

cushion Which has the least amount of friction betWeen mov

ing parts possible and does not require lubrication.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20594 From: dave santos Date: 9/1/2016
Subject: Re: Consensus Challenges
Pierre,

Consensus and re-analysis in AWE is, of course, growing naturally.. 

There are now multiple large teams in AWE, like Makani, Ampyx and AWESCO, operating by strong technical consensus. Any one of these teams is larger and more cohesive than the entire AWE field just a few years ago. With more consensus than ever, far more is coming.

It would have been unhealthy if everyone somehow agreed too early on one AWES architecture, and thankfully that was never a risk. The best engineers have always agreed on broad R&D best-practice, like the old mantra, "test, test, test,...". There sure is plenty to test, not just analise nor agree on a priori.

The thousand or so new engineers in AWE are rethinking AWE by just the sort of "analysis step by step" you mention. Lets expect many new analytic insights from these folks, and new leaders to create new consensus for the upcoming AWE industrialization phase.

daveS


On Thursday, September 1, 2016 7:13 PM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
Post moved to a dedicated topic.  Moderator formed the topic title. 

=========================================
6:46 AM (12 hours ago)
alt

alt
alt
alt
AWE has many fields. So a consensus is not easy. Analysis step by step can help to find some agreement. Or a well studied system will be attractive enough to gather AWE players.

PierreB
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20595 From: dave santos Date: 9/1/2016
Subject: Re: Books, videos, etc., on how to design wind turbine blades?
Hi Alfred,

No one we know is specifically designing fixed-pitch fixed-speed AWES, but its an interesting idea.

Our larger kite-based rotors are lighter and more flexible than normal turbine blades, so pitch for us greatly varies naturally. Adding mass at large scale to stiffen large blades becomes toxic to safety and performance. We do get a fixed-speed effect in gusty wind, as our flexible blades bend downwind. See the picture below for an effective flexible rotor that in combination with the geared generator is effectively speed limited.

If you are designing a very small system, like a ~1m2 rotor diameter, then, of course, you can make a practical fixed-pitch fixed-speed system with rigid blades. Try making lots of small crude tests to arrive at a good final design, and you won't need much math. Just look around and pick up turbine design knowledge across the Net, from endless sources.

Please let us know how your project turns out, and we will try to help if needed.

Cheers,

daveS

KiteSat based on a Ninja Star turbine by Brasington-

 


On Thursday, September 1, 2016 8:50 PM, alfred. vandijk <no_reply@yahoogroups.com  
Hi,

I know this forum is for airborne systems, but I think for this question that is irrelevant.

I am trying to design turbine blades for my (airborne) system. Can you give sources that help me do that, or give me the necessary info so I can do that myself?

I am looking perhaps for video lecture courses of great length and that go into great detail, books, research articles, places to ask questions, simulation software that is easy to use and interpret, and stuff like that.

I will probably be able to follow video lectures most easily.

I am not confident about my maths and physics ability so it would be extremely helpful if the material eased into that very gradually.

I like this 2012 research article:
Blade Design Optimisation for Fixed-Pitch Fixed-Speed Wind Turbines: Blade Design Optimisation for Fixed-Pitch Fixed-Speed Wind Turbines
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20596 From: dave santos Date: 9/1/2016
Subject: Makani reported "rudderless" by Recode
Indeed "rudderless" since Corwin passed, we had hoped Fort might somehow make a difference, by diversifying GoogleX AWE research. Lets hope Makani still manages to test the M600 decisively, to see if it could even lift off and fly one loop, before Alphabet pulls the plug-
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20597 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 9/2/2016
Subject: Re: Consensus Challenges

Dave,

 

I think a consensus is needed to agree what are the Pros (huge resource, low weight in material, large swept area...) and Cons (land use, reliability, efficiency, risks in kite-farms, launching...) for AWE, not still the method itself. The consensus should be possible after a scientific evaluation of criteria such as mentioned above. Test, test, test when the project is probably viable on the paper. For now I do not see, even on the paper,  any project being able to reach a large market without studying other complementary points as the cost of land and space use, the cost of maintenance, in order to make important changes of the initial project.

  

Pierre
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20598 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/2/2016
Subject: Re: Magnetic Suspension Bearings
Name spelling correction. Correct:  Randal Scott Turner
One "l" in first name. 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20599 From: dave santos Date: 9/2/2016
Subject: Re: Consensus Challenges
Pierre,

Keep in mind that many of us really do test lots of kite ideas directly, without paper plans nor a French standard of social consensus, but more as a sort of Zen process. This is the grand Asian kite tradition, in particular. From this perspective, we will only need formal plans once we scale up, but first we have to perfect the embryonic forms of AWE.

Please let us know when you find the scientifically consensual AWES design you propose, to compare both approaches,

daveS


On Friday, September 2, 2016 12:23 PM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre-benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
Dave,
 
I think a consensus is needed to agree what are the Pros (huge resource, low weight in material, large swept area...) and Cons (land use, reliability, efficiency, risks in kite-farms, launching...) for AWE, not still the method itself. The consensus should be possible after a scientific evaluation of criteria such as mentioned above. Test, test, test when the project is probably viable on the paper. For now I do not see, even on the paper,  any project being able to reach a large market without studying other complementary points as the cost of land and space use, the cost of maintenance, in order to make important changes of the initial project.
  
Pierre
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20600 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 9/2/2016
Subject: Re: Consensus Challenges

The consensus about criteria, not still about the method _ or the design_ itself as I precised. Please do not deform my words.

 

Pierre

 

 

 

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20601 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/2/2016
Subject: Potential Positive Aspects of AWES, the "pros"

At the recent tease of PierreB, this topic space could explore the realm of "potential positive aspects of AWES, the pros".    Another topic thread could explore the potential "con" aspects of AWES.   Some analysts might  agree or weigh an aspect differently from another.    What does it mean to be a "positive aspect" for AWESs? Interpreting the question with other phrases is invited as we grow this topic.  Measuring aspects? Definition of aspects when confusion or nuances challenge?   While AWE is young, agreement won't be as high as might occur when AWE matures. 

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


Pierre gave a teasing parenthetical short list that could prime this topic flow: 

"(huge resource, low weight in material, large swept area ...)"    

I assume his ellipses teases potentially other "Pros", so all members are invited to post possibly other positive aspects of AWES or develop the short introductory line items

Expanding offers: 


  • Huge resource
  • Low weight in material
  • Large swept area
  • ?
  • ?
  • ?
  • ... ?
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20602 From: dave santos Date: 9/2/2016
Subject: Re: Consensus Challenges
No one wishes to misconstrue your words. Whatever your intended contribution to the world's growing AWE consensus, lets just expect wonderful things. You have already made nice contributions in testing various ideas successfully. Of course our amazing toys are just a beginning, and only a future consensus will converge on the best methods; a matter of time...


On Friday, September 2, 2016 5:38 PM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre-benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
The consensus about criteria, not still about the method _ or the design_ itself as I precised. Please do not deform my words.
 
Pierre
 
 
 
 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20603 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/2/2016
Subject: Criteria regarding AWESs
By what rules or principles might a given AWES be evaluated or tested?

 criterion [krahy-teer-ee-uh n] noun, plural criteria [krahy-teer-ee-uh] , criterions. 

1. a standard of judgment or criticism; a rule or principle for evaluating or testing something.
=========================================================================

This topic spawns from caring for a question PierreB recently asked in another topic thread. 

=========================================================================
Have an AWES or energy-kite system. Aim to evaluate the system.   Or aim to test the system. Evaluating is probably not identical to testing; the topic thread might discuss the differences between evaluating and testing. The rules or principles may be different for evaluating than for testing. Will standards of judgment or criticism eventually mature in AWE?  What are AWE workers currently using as criteria to evaluate or test their systems/machines?  Should there be criteria distinct from criteria used to evaluate or to test towered wind turbines? Could AWE adopt standards, rules, principles being used in towered wind industry? What a criteria are used in contemporary wind industry? What of those standards of judgment won't sometimes apply to AWES? What criteria might be totally special to AWES?  Will criteria be altered to respect special branches of AWES?

=========================================================================
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20604 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/2/2016
Subject: Re: Criteria regarding AWESs
Some preambles?
  •  Each AWES team might report on the criteria they are using to evaluate or test their machines. 
    What lessons have been learned in such process? Recommendations?  TIA. 

  • What criteria will governments require to be reported upon for installed AWES?   What are governments requiring now about wind turbines proposed for installation?
  • ?  
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20605 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 9/3/2016
Subject: Re: Criteria regarding AWESs

Joe relevantly wrote: "Evaluating is probably not identical to testing; the topic thread might discuss the differences between evaluating and testing. The rules or principles may be different for evaluating than for testing.".

 

Indeed here the words are important. Here is some begining of thinking for further refinement. Tests concern the tested AWES in its technical features and its behaviour in real conditions. Evaluating concerns the look we carry on the AWES not only by its technical features but also by the expected environment.  Tests show the behaviour of the AWES by its different components in real conditions and are focused on the machine. Evaluating show the expected consequences of where and how the tested or not tested AWES is implemented. Evaluating can be made from tests but not only.

 

For example a flygen system is evaluated as more dangerous: such an evaluation does not come from tests, but from what is expected, assuming a failure and the possible consequences. Another example: expected land and space use evaluation can not come from tests, even if tests can help to precise it (for example by knowing the optimal elevation angle). Tests are about the reality of the machine. Evaluating is about what can be expected. So evaluating can contain some elements of probability, comprising the different risks, and for example the generally underestimated risk of tangle in a farm of unities that DaveS nicely designs as a "brush".

 

Please Joe could use your knowledge in maths to sketch a diagram of what could be tested as components, what could be evaluated as possible consequences (or other), what evaluations can come from tests, etc. 

 

Pierre
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20606 From: dave santos Date: 9/3/2016
Subject: Re: Criteria regarding AWESs
By engineering consensus, evaluation not supported by test data is a wrong approach. For example, to simply "evaluate" a flygen as "more dangerous", based on no real-world data to quantify just how dangerous a given flygen really is, does not help carefully solve the risk. Instead of resting on a priori evaluation, an aerospace engineering student is taught to generate or find the relevant data to quantify risk. 

In the case of a flygen, one starts with the mass and velocity and compares that to aviation regulatory safety classes defined by mass and velocity metrics, which are in fact well tested standards. But simply referencing well-tested parameters is not enough; the AE standard is to eventually fly  
Joe relevantly wrote: "Evaluating is probably not identical to testing; the topic thread might discuss the differences between evaluating and testing. The rules or principles may be different for evaluating than for testing.".
 
Indeed here the words are important. Here is some begining of thinking for further refinement. Tests concern the tested AWES in its technical features and its behaviour in real conditions. Evaluating concerns the look we carry on the AWES not only by its technical features but also by the expected environment.  Tests show the behaviour of the AWES by its different components in real conditions and are focused on the machine. Evaluating show the expected consequences of where and how the tested or not tested AWES is implemented. Evaluating can be made from tests but not only.
 
For example a flygen system is evaluated as more dangerous: such an evaluation does not come from tests, but from what is expected, assuming a failure and the possible consequences. Another example: expected land and space use evaluation can not come from tests, even if tests can help to precise it (for example by knowing the optimal elevation angle). Tests are about the reality of the machine. Evaluating is about what can be expected. So evaluating can contain some elements of probability, comprising the different risks, and for example the generally underestimated risk of tangle in a farm of unities that DaveS nicely designs as a "brush".
 
Please Joe could use your knowledge in maths to sketch a diagram of what could be tested as components, what could be evaluated as possible consequences (or other), what evaluations can come from tests, etc. 
 
Pierre
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20607 From: dave santos Date: 9/3/2016
Subject: Airbus RAT FlyGen shown safe in testing and certified for use over p
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20608 From: dave santos Date: 9/3/2016
Subject: Re: Airbus RAT FlyGen shown safe in testing and certified for use ov
The Airbus 380 RAT is rated a 90kW at a power-factor of 1. Under similarity-case logic that Chris Carlin [Boeing, ret.] taught us, here we have a flight-certified HAWT of considerable power fully operational across a wide range of flying conditions. The unit-WECS lifting requirement is here regarded as a separate modular function, which could in theory be a specialized high-altitude kite, but is in this case a common transport aircraft.

This high starting level of current HAWT capability is built on generations of aerospace test-engineering. Future perfection of AWES will build on more test-engineering. Informal armchair evaluation of AWES is fine, but does not create engineering consensus like proper testing.


On Saturday, September 3, 2016 10:24 AM, "dave santos santos137@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20609 From: dave santos Date: 9/3/2016
Subject: Speed-Flying Parafoil as AWES wing model
New sport speed-flying parafoils neatly fill the parafoil wing-loading performance curve between paragliders and parachutes. In power-kite sports, race-wings are comparable to speed-flying wings. In stunt parachuting, the smallest wings are the most extreme speed-wings of all. Ram-air wingsuits have the highest velocities of all, but at lower L/D. 

Speed-flying and race-wing foils are good AWES choices for a sweeping looping-foil suspended under low-velocity station-keeping pilot-lifter foils; thus two extreme variations of Jalbert's basic parafoil working together synergistically.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20610 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 9/4/2016
Subject: Re: Airbus RAT FlyGen shown safe in testing and certified for use ov

Here RAT FlyGen is a part of the Airbus. One risk for AWES of type Makani, FlygenKite, is the loss of the AWES with the relatively heavy and dangerous parts as RAT turning fast and damaging all it meets. This risk can be evaluated. If tests are needed to evaluate this risk, it is not a good sign because that shows there is an accident.


PierreB
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20611 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/4/2016
Subject: Re: Criteria regarding AWESs
Let K be an AWES. 
Let p be a particular parameter about K. Test for p's reliability r. 
Grade r for p at ten levels from 0 through 9. 

Have customers C1, C2, C3, C4.    Those customer will accept K if and only if p is tested according to some standard test method and from such test attains a specific grade or better. Let C1 require for p's r a grade of 5. Let C2 require for p's r a grade of 7.  Let C3 require for p's r a grade of 8.  Let C4 require for p's r a grade of 9. 
    Now K gets tested for its p and gets from the approved standardized test a grade for its r of 8.   Then C1, C2, and C3 clears K for purchase on the matter of r for p for K.  But C4 will not consider K for purchase for not having a 9 for r for p for K. 

    Testing was standardized; r was publicly defined. The grading categorizes the results of the test. Each customer evaluated their own needs and valued K for p's r with a clear-for-buy or a no-buy. 

=====================================
There may be host of parameters (ps) testable for Ks. 
The ps may be publicly defined. The tests for the ps may be standardized. Grading schedules may be standardized with respect to the results of the standardized tests. 
=====================================
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20612 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/4/2016
Subject: Re: Magnetic Suspension Bearings
Barish did not mention possibly using magnetic repulsion in his swivel exploration: 

He wanted swivel between the tethered canopy and the operational massive load. 

The filing by David T. Barish was in 1960. 
===========================================

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20613 From: dave santos Date: 9/4/2016
Subject: Re: Airbus RAT FlyGen shown safe in testing and certified for use ov
Pierre,

The FAA/ICAO framework ultimately determines acceptable risk, and a Makani AWES prototype is not an industrial roll-out, so they are regulated very differently. We have close active FAA connections in US AWE, and Makani is being held to the expected standards. Makani engineers are of course doing their best to avoid risk during the prototype phase. Contact them directly if you have practical suggestions. 

This Airbus RAT topic is not really about Makani prototype AWES shortcomings, but about the existence of a certified Airbus COTS AWES WECS similarity-case. Thanks for any specific new information you bring to the AWES Forum, in addition to your opinions.


On Sunday, September 4, 2016 4:47 PM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre-benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
Here RAT FlyGen is a part of the Airbus. One risk for AWES of type Makani, FlygenKite, is the loss of the AWES with the relatively heavy and dangerous parts as RAT turning fast and damaging all it meets. This risk can be evaluated. If tests are needed to evaluate this risk, it is not a good sign because that shows there is an accident.

PierreB
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20614 From: dave santos Date: 9/4/2016
Subject: Re: Criteria regarding AWESs
Consider the following customers, and how each needs a different AWES solution-
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20615 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 9/5/2016
Subject: Re: Airbus RAT FlyGen shown safe in testing and certified for use ov

DaveS,

 

You wrote both: "This Airbus RAT topic is not really about Makani prototype AWES shortcomings, but about the existence of a certified Airbus COTS AWES WECS similarity-case."  in the previous message and "Compare to non-tested "evaluation" of flygens as "dangerous"-Design News - News - Handle This RAT Carefully" as text of the head of the current topic, making some connection with " Criteria regarding AWESs" topic. Can you clarify your position of what is "really" about this topic, and what is not? 

Thanks to not confuse "new information" and "existence of a certified Airbus COTS AWES WECS similarity-case" which is in fact _ by mentioning "similarity-case" _ your opinion I do not share for the reason I just explained in my previous message.

 

PierreB
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20616 From: dave santos Date: 9/5/2016
Subject: Re: Airbus RAT FlyGen shown safe in testing and certified for use ov
Pierre,

This topic was in fact intended to break free of the mistaken a-priori idea that flygens are inherently dangerous, by presenting the actual state of the art by AE testing. Its unfortunate that the reference article made a weak joke, to "handle this RAT carefully", when what was literally meant was a standard testing process.

You can see why consensus is not easy when the a-priori "evaluation" logic you proposes is insufficient under the test-engineering ethos. There is not even consensus over the primacy of testing AWES elements like pilot-lifters to the same standards as Airbuses, by the same AE culture. This gap is best illustrated by the disagreement over Mike Barnard, who does not seem to care for AWE to be tested to the highest standards before drawing his pessimistic evaluations, versus Dr. Mark Moore, NASA LaRC, an data-driven AE professional.

There is in fact strong consensus within AE that proper evaluation is done by testing and leads to certified aviation tech. If you can cite strong counter-examples, where certified tech emerges without testing as the core evaluation method, that would create missing consensus for your evaluation standard for flygen safety. Citing references would help you support your opinion that flygens are inherently unsafe, just as diligent test engineering of RATs proved some flygens are already safe to use.

Diligent testing should result in large lifter kites lifitng RATs with comparable acceptable safety to an Airbus, despite lack of consensus over your proposed untested "evaluation" of flygens as unsafe,

daveS 






On Monday, September 5, 2016 7:52 AM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre-benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
DaveS,
 
You wrote both: "This Airbus RAT topic is not really about Makani prototype AWES shortcomings, but about the existence of a certified Airbus COTS AWES WECS similarity-case."  in the previous message and "Compare to non-tested "evaluation" of flygens as "dangerous"-Design News - News - Handle This RAT Carefully" as text of the head of the current topic, making some connection with " Criteria regarding AWESs" topic. Can you clarify your position of what is "really" about this topic, and what is not? 
Thanks to not confuse "new information" and "existence of a certified Airbus COTS AWES WECS similarity-case" which is in fact _ by mentioning "similarity-case" _ your opinion I do not share for the reason I just explained in my previous message.
 
PierreB
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20617 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/5/2016
Subject: Swivel matters for underwater AWES lines

Swivel matters for underwater AWES lines  

(some notes in the topic discussion will probably apply to swivel matters when the swivel is in the air for K):

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

An AWES (K) that has lines operating underwater may have aerial wings or paravanes or perhaps both. Underwater swivels have special challenges; those same swivels may find themselves also baking in the sun when out of water. Scale matters.    This topic could be a place for facing swivels meant for underwater lines in energy-kite systems (K). When teams advance prototypes there will probably be an engineer overseeing the choice of swivels; such workers are especially invited to this topic. Failure of a swivel might lead to production downtime, injury to other system parts and properties, and perhaps injury to persons. A swivel-using K will have a certain dependency on the swivels. Swivel-inspection schedules will be part of system cares. K designers will benefit by being aware of COTS swivels; what swivels meet the system needs?  What will happen when a swivel fails? How do swivels fail?

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

It may not be sufficient for a K design to simply forego line swivels by "design" when there is a risk of line torque from unwanted incidents. A build up of line torque from surprising rotation could become enormously hazardous. Guard against such torque by using line swivels. 

May incidents be carefully openly shared. 

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

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

Some preamble from John Plum and Harry B. Maris in 1944 in their patent Swivel, US2384490:

"In the towing by cable of various special nautical. devices, such as paravanes, otter boards, floats and mine sweeping equipment, various conditions of operation are encountered wherein sufficient torque is produced in the underwater tow cable to interfere with the stability and control .of the device being towed.

Moreover, the presence of high torque. in a towing cable is dangerous to personnel, for, if the cable should break, the torque therein will be suddenly released, and the free ends of the .cable will whip and fly about wildly, tending to flail anyone in the vicinity.

An important object of this invention is to provide an underwater swivel for insertion in,

the tow cable, or between the tow cable and the object to be towed, and which will. substantially eliminate or materially reduce the cable torque so as to permit the towed object to operate in a normal manner. Another object of the invention is the provision of. a lubricated anti-friction swivel provided with means for equalizing the pressure of the lubricant and the pressure of the water normally surrounding the swivel, thereby tending to prevent the ingress of water when the swivel is operating. at a great depth, or the escape of lubricant when the swivel is lying out of water, for instance, on a sun-baked deck."


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

Fishing (many scales, sorry for the pun) is one underwater K sector.


Minesto's paravane K documents mention swivel near seabed anchoring for its flight lines; if a swivel needs to transfer electricity and communications, then the swivel may be complex.

 "Swivel

The swivel, mounted on the foundation, is the anchoring

point for the tether on the seabed. As such, it is essential for

the system to ensure that the tether can move smoothly in

all directions, regardless of the tidal current’s direction. The

swivel also transfers electricity and communication signals to

and from the power plant."    

PDF: http://minesto.com/Resources/dgtechnical-data-sheet.pdf

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

A swivel placed inline means connecting the line to the swivel, perhaps twice; such introduces the challenges of the connecting method; line-system reliability will involve those connections and the swivel itself. Inspection would face the connecting arrangement as well as the swivel itself. Breaks, corrosion, hidden degradation?

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

Adventuring:

http://www.chinahisea.com/search?keyword=swivel


Explore:  http://tinyurl.com/MarineCableSwivelIMAGEmix

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20618 From: dave santos Date: 9/5/2016
Subject: Engineering Consensus v. Community Structure in AWE
Research linked below suggests that engineering consensus in fields like AWE emerges naturally by the creative chaos of weak community structure. As the researchers report, data-driven engineering consensus best comes first, and community structure follows. Many variations in engineering consensus and community are currently studied under the concept of the "Naming Game", after [Baronchelli, et al].

Anyone who has followed AWE R&D over the years has seen these same processes at work, with our engineering consensus duly emerging by accumulating test results, despite fragmentary community structure. This is just normal progress according to the engineering social science presented-
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20619 From: dave santos Date: 9/5/2016
Subject: "Test-first"* System Identification Method in Aerospace Engineering
Best practice in creative AE starts by rough-and-ready heuristic empiricism that follows the resulting data trails to high-value goals. Definitive system specifications naturally follow a posteriori. System Identification is the finding of a correct formal model by data-driven experimentation.

A representative definition of System Identification in AE by Dr. Majeed Mohamed, NAL Bangalore-
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20620 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/5/2016
Subject: Baird on load-releasing
Baird on releasing loads from energy-kite systems (K). 
First the K converts wind energy to lift the wing set and tether set of the kite system while the opposing anchor-wing set does its job; then the system converts wind energy into the potential energy of lifted load.   Then Baird explores ways to release the lifted load from the K. 

     His exploration is part of a long tradition.  We have in AWES forum considerable text on lifting payloads for various end purposes.   Recall that one purpose is to release batteries charged by flygens; another is to release lifted aerotecture workers or visitors.  
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20621 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/5/2016
Subject: Re: Minesto news
Minesto AB: Minesto to Attend Taiwan-Sweden Joint Business Council Meeting | Business Wire

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20622 From: dave santos Date: 9/5/2016
Subject: Re: Minesto news
By itself, Taiwan is a niche market for experimental energy technology. No doubt Minesto is playing to regional PRC and Japanese attention for possibly huge future investment, market, and manufacture. The big "if" is if Minesto has enough of a tech lead with the best energy paravane architecture.

The global ocean current resource is real, and the mighty Kuroshio Current is the biggest, even bigger than the Atlantic Gulf Stream, and runs past Taiwan all along the length of Japan, so the resource opportunity is large.


On Monday, September 5, 2016 9:01 PM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
Minesto AB: Minesto to Attend Taiwan-Sweden Joint Business Council Meeting | Business Wire
 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20623 From: dave santos Date: 9/6/2016
Subject: Re: "Test-first"* System Identification Method in Aerospace Engineer
A few more comments on AWES system identification-

Every AWES developer does some sort of system identification, but model quality varies greatly.

The most popular yet partial and misleading identification is to invoke the "blade tips only" of a conventional wind turbine as an AWES model. This completely overlooks that AWES practice far more dynamic, launching and landing regularly, and even operating in a separate higher airspace. Crosswind harvesting motion is about the only crucial equivalence of the blade-tip model. How ironic if economically optimized AWES design turns out to be more like a turbine rotor with the tips cut off, if low L/D unit-kite energy is cheap enough. The data will tell eventually.

By contrast, the "AWES as metamaterial" model grows from the common assumption of a kitefarm made up of many identical units, since a practical unit-kite, like a unit-solarcell, is far smaller than a unit-powerplant scaled to power cities. So the "brush" topology of single-line unit-kites in kitefarm form is a poor metamaterial, since its based on the HAWT kitefarm topology of each WECS unit on a single tower. The "blade-tips only" model is a very limited abstraction.

Once it is known that metamaterial science applies to AWES design, a large well-developed mathematical toolbox is available to optimize the kitefarm far beyond the blade-tip model. Optimized "kitematter" metamaterial promises to operate coherently with greater intensity, as one control process, as kitefarm airspace becomes layered with interconnection networks aloft. Further, its more apt to engineer backwards from the ~17TW global demand for sustainable energy using a metamaterial approach.

Here is a nice overview of System Identification science and art-
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20624 From: Joe Faust Date: 9/6/2016
Subject: Mooring Dynamics
Google search over phrase "mooring dynamics"
Image set over "mooring"   http://tinyurl.com/MooringIMAGES

Mooring engineering know-how is an energy-kite system realm. The rate of benefiting AWES that could arrive from masters of mooring dynamics applying themselves to RAD is an unknown.
===============================================
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20625 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/6/2016
Subject: A quaternion-based model for optimal control of an airborne wind ene
ZAMM - Journal of Applied Mathematics and Mechanics / Zeitschrift für Angewandte Mathematik und Mechanik

 



Original Paper 
A quaternion-based model for optimal control of an airborne wind energy system
 [Based on the plenary lecture presented at the 86th Annual GAMM Conference, Lecce, Italy, March 25, 2015] 

Authors:
Michael Erhard, 
Greg Horn,
Moritz Diehl 

Publication History

  • Version of record online:  5 September 2016
  • Manuscript Accepted:  8 June 2016
  • Manuscript Revised:  20 March 2016
  • Manuscript Received:  7 July 2015

  • Funded by

    • Eurostars. Grant Number: SMART
    • IUAP. Grant Number: P7 (DYSCO)
    • EU. Grant Numbers: FP7-TEMPO (MCITN-607957), H2020-ITN AWESCO (642682)
  •   5 September 2016
  • Manuscript Accepted:  8 June 2016
  • Manuscript Revised:  20 March 2016
  • Manuscript Received:  7 July 2015

==============================================
Our forum's moderator notes: 






 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20626 From: dave santos Date: 9/6/2016
Subject: Re: Mooring Dynamics
Thanks JoeF. 

Engineered sea mooring dynamics is a very close similarity-case for engineered moored kite units, including staked-out multi-line mooring configurations approximating unit lattice-kite forces within coherent lattice-waves. An object moored to relatively fixed media is an excitable spring-mass harmonic system in moving media. Moored power harvesting buoys are particularly close analogs to proposed kite metamaterial cells.

How wonderful to find so much existing data-applicable engineering mathematics for ongoing AWES system identification and comprehensive equations-of-motion.
Show original message

__,_._,__
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20627 From: dave santos Date: 9/6/2016
Subject: Re: A quaternion-based model for optimal control of an airborne wind
This is likely a sort of preview of a chapter in the 2nd Springer AWE book. Its a nice presentation of reeling AWES Optimal Control, but there are many major simplifications of the model described. Its worth reminding that "optimal control" here means a specific system control methodology, not that such preliminary optimal control in practice is necessarily "optimal", if ever. The quaternion representation adopted merely tidies-up the math, removing simple singularities that complex numbers otherwise create, but not real-world deterministic uncertainties that hide on complex planes. This is still only theoretic beginnings of pumping AWES control. Long term statistical validation of real-world control reliability remains in the future.


On Tuesday, September 6, 2016 2:02 PM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
ZAMM - Journal of Applied Mathematics and Mechanics / Zeitschrift für Angewandte Mathematik und Mechanik

 


Original Paper 
A quaternion-based model for optimal control of an airborne wind energy system
 [Based on the plenary lecture presented at the 86th Annual GAMM Conference, Lecce, Italy, March 25, 2015] 

Authors:
Michael Erhard, 
Greg Horn,
Moritz Diehl 

Publication History

  • Version of record online:  5 September 2016
  • Manuscript Accepted:  8 June 2016
  • Manuscript Revised:  20 March 2016
  • Manuscript Received:  7 July 2015

  • Funded by

    • Eurostars. Grant Number: SMART
    • IUAP. Grant Number: P7 (DYSCO)
    • EU. Grant Numbers: FP7-TEMPO (MCITN-607957), H2020-ITN AWESCO (642682)
  •   5 September 2016
  • Manuscript Accepted:  8 June 2016
  • Manuscript Revised:  20 March 2016
  • Manuscript Received:  7 July 2015

==============================================
Our forum's moderator notes: 






 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20628 From: dave santos Date: 9/8/2016
Subject: KiteFarm State-Machine System Identification
A common system identification of an AWES is as a single stand-alone kite unit. The presumption is that many such systems, each with its own active control thread, aggregate as a kitefarm. An alternative system identification of an AWES defines the kitefarm itself as the fundamental system unit. In this view, many kites are integrated into one overall control process, by interconnecting them just like horses are integrated into teams as a single control thread that a single human "teamster" can manage.

Another common assumption an AWES with one fixed configuration, like Makani's M600. Automation reliability has to reach economic near-perfection, as it tends to do given enough years. The alternative "low-tech" power-kite approach is a "quiver" of kites and lines that are changed as conditions change. This is like modern sailboat racing, where the sailors change sails as often as optimal for winning performance. Traditional sailing ships relied on reducing or adding sail area by setting, furling, or, dousing sails to match conditions.

Combining the two alternative approaches results in a unit-kitefarm concept that radically varies its overall sailplan to match seasonal and daily conditions. A heuristic comparison with the common many-single-configuration-units kitefarm assumption is that the radically varying concept maximizes power by greater flexibility and density. The trade-off is that the radical kitefarm must be "sailed hard" to maximise power. Just as a racing sailboat crew frantically matches conditions by rapid configuration changes, a unit-kitefarm with many possible configurations would be a very active scene of changing lines and sails as weather and load conditions change.

The control state-space of each approach is very different. The small-unit fixed-configuration state-space is quite simple, but complexity sums over the units, each with its own control. The unit-kitefarm, by comparison, is more complex state-machine, but only one is needed. Its an open question which system identification model will prevail under the evolving state-of-the-art, but both architectures are worth developing, in order to best choose between them with engineering confidence.

State-machine representation is one the best standard engineering system identification approaches-
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20629 From: dave santos Date: 9/8/2016
Subject: Re: A quaternion-based model for optimal control of an airborne wind



As in open-AWE discussion, a growing trend in Moritz's R&D circle is to apply topological analysis to AWES theory. Topology of a kite system is simply the connection structure that is constant under geometric deformation. So when you pack your power kite in its bag, you have radically changed its geometry, but not its topology. If kites tear, tangle, or break-away, their topology dramatically changes. 

Topological AWES design principles are lately becoming essential theory. Topology notably came up in AWESCO's scope-of-work webpage, where Moritz specifically solicited a PhD researcher in bridle topology. Open-AWE lattice concepts are in effect complex bridle topologies, so the two AWE R&D streams are converging nicely.

Topology makes another appearance in this paper [section 6.4, Topological constraints ]. Likely there are other topological references in other papers, and a lot more to come. In this case, the kite pumping cycle path in kite-window airspace is considered topologically, as another tiny step toward a fully developed topological kite theory.

I have had interesting email discussions in the past with the lead author, Michael Erhard, of SkySails, that were essentially topological-ontological. We fully agree on the ship-kite as the best energy-wing going, but differ on what AWES kitefarm topology promises to harness the ship-kite. AWES topology may be the most crucial theoretic issue in current global research.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20630 From: Hardensoft International Limited Date: 9/8/2016
Subject: Re: Hamburg on Sept. 28, 2016
Agreed, DaveS.
I had always expected the most successful Wiind Energy firms to see AWE as a logical extension.
I still wonder why it is taking so long for such likes to catch the vision.
 
John Adeoye  Oyebanji   B.Sc. MCPN
Managing Consultant & CEO
Hardensoft International Limited
<Technologies  
A counter-trend to the mysterious gap in AWEC conferences is for AWE to become especially featured in larger wind and green-energy events. WindEnergy Hamburg is the biggest wind energy event in the world and growing. AWE will be nicely represented by the experts listed. Thanks to HWN500 for founding this new public presence and expanding it in future years.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20631 From: dave santos Date: 9/8/2016
Subject: Re: Hamburg on Sept. 28, 2016
Hi JohnO,

One more sign of growing AWE awareness, now even in conventional wind energy. AWE has arrived. It helps that the Hamburg organizers apply a wider view than any single conventional wind player. Of course, main credit here goes to the AWE colleagues representing all of us. Lets all look forward to ever better events that finally bring us all together.

We know what keeps conventional wind on the ground, that AWE is a more a branch of aviation*, a very different industry from the tower business, with more demanding capabilities required to tap upper wind, which is a separate superior resource beyond towers. 

Long term, towers should become the wind curiosity at Hamburg, and AWE the mainstream :)

daveS

----------------
* "Energy Aviation"




On Thursday, September 8, 2016 4:28 PM, "Hardensoft International Limited hardensoftintl@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
Agreed, DaveS.
I had always expected the most successful Wiind Energy firms to see AWE as a logical extension.
I still wonder why it is taking so long for such likes to catch the vision.
 
John Adeoye  Oyebanji   B.Sc. MCPN
Managing Consultant & CEO
Hardensoft International Limited
<Technologies  
A counter-trend to the mysterious gap in AWEC conferences is for AWE to become especially featured in larger wind and green-energy events. WindEnergy Hamburg is the biggest wind energy event in the world and growing. AWE will be nicely represented by the experts listed. Thanks to HWN500 for founding this new public presence and expanding it in future years.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20632 From: dave santos Date: 9/10/2016
Subject: Megalifting by Kite as an early AWE commercial service
Electrical generation by kite gets far more attention, but direct mechanical work by kite also has a huge future. Of direct kite work, perhaps the most versatile and generic work is lifting. There has been recent great progress in lifter units and how to aggregate them. The technological opportunity seems nigh, well before electrical AWE will mature, since lift is a basic technical precondition. kPower has had a longterm focus on raw kite lift, which is seen as a competitive modular foundation for electrical AWE.

In past years we have reviewed all kinds of legacy lift technology, from helicopters to cranes, and envisioned kites as potential cheap substitutes for the same sort of lifts. There is quite a bit of historical validation of kite lifting from ancient to recent times. Early kite lifting was rather tricky, with the kite flown and moved with payload attached. Its apparently more practical to keep the lifting network static and haul the payloads up independently. Kites can also power lifting hardware from towers, cranes, and terrain.

We have not fully considered what the upper mass lifting limits of large numbers of lifter kites lifting together. On reflection, its obvious that kite-array megalifting in kilotons, megatons, and maybe even gigatons is possible, incredibly far beyond any previous engineered lifting precedent, limited only by vast atmospheric dimensions, and wind conditions. Flying cities was the first application idea we kicked around, and reverse pumping the Three Gorges Dam was considered. Were once kite technoligists playfully imagined building the pyramids by kite, now we can imagine lifting the whole pyramid. What unimagined geoengineering applications are possible, like piling up shrinking icecaps to conserve them?

In early commercialization, kite megalifting just needs to be somewhat cheaper and/or more capable than other lifting options. Just as Minesto is the single major commercial player in submarine energy kites, a major entrant in the raw kite lift business would enjoy an early market monopoly. This could be the natural early Open-AWE venture. Practice would likely consist of a hired crew and a large quiver of lifters to be ensembled anywhere in the world for custom megalifting. As many kites as needed would be flown for the payload to be lifted, transported, and lowered in place. 

"Raw Lift" rings like an apt trademark, hereby assigned along with any original kite lift art described to the Open-AWE_IP-Cloud. 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20633 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/10/2016
Subject: Re: Megalifting by Kite as an early AWE commercial service
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20634 From: dave santos Date: 9/10/2016
Subject: Regional cleantech biz AWE awareness grows
Here is an example of the sort of secondary media coverage that AWE startups increasingly attract around the world, such that we hardly can keep up citing anymore. The historic pattern is for optimistic buzz to anticipate capability still in R&D. While a given technology may fail to materialize, modern society is conditioned to pre-announced technological progress that succeeds relentlessly, hence so many generally optimistic presumptions. It may be natural that mass default optimism about AWE guessed correctly, without inside expert knowledge.

Here we see Oregon in the US Pacific NW imaging itself as leading in new cleantech, which is helpful to actually doing so someday. eWind is cited as the local Portland AWE startup, but this also the hometown of Wayne German and kPower and KiteLab Ilwaco work nearby at the coast, where eWind also tests, and this is also Boeing country, a top world center of excellence in AE just a three hour drive north. Nevertheless, AWE R&D leadership may succeed anywhere, but this region has special reasons to see itself as an early leader-
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20635 From: dave santos Date: 9/11/2016
Subject: More Seismic-Metamaterial Progress (kite-lattice similarity-case)
The recent paper linked below has drawn lots of fresh attention to the potential of large-scale seismic metamaterials. The same fundamantal overall metamaterial theory is proposed by kPower to apply to suitably designed large energy kite lattices, but in the kite case the idea is to create coherent lattice wave pumping with wind, while in the seismic case the idea is to damp or guide ground waves by an engineered lattice structure.

It should not be long before the AWE-metamaterial paradigm gains attention, if we can convincingly demonstrate the criteria are met in a iso-mesh dome topology. We already know how lattice waves naturally emerge in kite trains, such that traditional Chinese centipede kite train design incorporates an aero-mass damper pair on each unit-cell.

In both macroscopic metamaterial cases the unit-cells are analogous to electron-hole lattices in semiconductor design, and the phonon energy quanta are emergent quasi-particles in the lattices.*


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

* Electrons have been recently determined to be quasi-particle composites, resolving longstanding theoretic contradictions-
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20636 From: dave santos Date: 9/11/2016
Subject: Two New kinds of Interplanetary Kite Sailing?
The most fundamental idea of kite flight is as a classical embodiment of Newton Laws. After all, Newton was a kite freak as a teen, and his famous Laws then followed. Thus the kite principle is quite general, and works in diverse cases; in gases, fluids, and plasmas. Solar kite-sailing was proposed by KiteShip as an advance over simple solar sailing. The kite difference over an ordinary sail is as a wing-on-a-string.

Here we have two novel concepts for interplanetary sails that operate by magnetic fields. One scheme, Mini-Magnetospheric Plasma Propulsion, makes a magnetic wing out of a plasma-bubble, as a new kind of solar-sail; and the other scheme, the Magentic Sail, works against interplanetary magnetic fields. No rocket fuel required.

The kite principle emerges in the Magentic Sail case insofar as tensile attraction with "lift" angle applies, but both schemes may also involve extended conducting string reactive structure to create the magnetic or plasma-magnetic fields. These weird new kite concepts tend to lead us further along to seeing the pull of gravity/acceleration itself as kite-like. This extends JoeF's insight that a ballasted glider contains its own "kite-anchor" at its CG, by seeing the Earth as itself tethered to that mass, by an exotic kind of string, call it what you will.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20637 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/11/2016
Subject: Re: Two New kinds of Interplanetary Kite Sailing?
Magentic Sail typo for intended Magnetic Sail.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20638 From: dave santos Date: 9/12/2016
Subject: Re: More Seismic-Metamaterial Progress (kite-lattice similarity-case
A common descriptive nomenclature is essential to engineering practice, hence an early linguistic emphasis in innovative fields to create standard technical terms. In the paper featured here  [Miniaci et al] is proposing the same general concept as we arrived at to characterize the megascale 3D metamaterial kite lattices  that have been variously labeled here for the last few years. Miniaci's general metamaterial class name clearly encompasses our airborne metamaterial concepts, including the strong 3D megascale assumption. All large cellular kites and regular kite arrays fall in this class-

"3D Large-Scale Mechanical MetaMaterials (LSM3 )"

Its not predictable just what metamaterial class term will take hold (MegaMetaMat?), but it will likely be concise wording, maybe a clever acronym, but not have an odd-format character like the cubic exponent above. Its an exciting validation that at least we are sure we are all talking about the same general thing, and that the core metamaterial idea, explicitly expressed, may have originated here.



On Sunday, September 11, 2016 10:09 AM, "dave santos santos137@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
The recent paper linked below has drawn lots of fresh attention to the potential of large-scale seismic metamaterials. The same fundamantal overall metamaterial theory is proposed by kPower to apply to suitably designed large energy kite lattices, but in the kite case the idea is to create coherent lattice wave pumping with wind, while in the seismic case the idea is to damp or guide ground waves by an engineered lattice structure.

It should not be long before the AWE-metamaterial paradigm gains attention, if we can convincingly demonstrate the criteria are met in a iso-mesh dome topology. We already know how lattice waves naturally emerge in kite trains, such that traditional Chinese centipede kite train design incorporates an aero-mass damper pair on each unit-cell.

In both macroscopic metamaterial cases the unit-cells are analogous to electron-hole lattices in semiconductor design, and the phonon energy quanta are emergent quasi-particles in the lattices.*


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

* Electrons have been recently determined to be quasi-particle composites, resolving longstanding theoretic contradictions-
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20639 From: dave santos Date: 9/12/2016
Subject: Ivy League Aeroelastic Metamaterial Research
Apparently there are many more metamaterial references to find with close parallels to enery kite lattice dynamics. Here's a Harvard example to build on-
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20640 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/12/2016
Subject: Re: Ivy League Aeroelastic Metamaterial Research

Harnessing fluid-structure interactions to design self-regulating acoustic metamaterials 
Filippo Casadei and Katia Bertoldi

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