Messages in AirborneWindEnergy group.                          AWES 21195 to 21244 Page 317 of 440.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21195 From: dave santos Date: 11/10/2016
Subject: Re: Kramer Effect

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21196 From: Peter A. Sharp Date: 11/11/2016
Subject: Re: Kramer Effect

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21197 From: Peter A. Sharp Date: 11/11/2016
Subject: Re: Sharp Rotor, Power Generating Arch Kite

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21198 From: dave santos Date: 11/11/2016
Subject: Re: Sharp Rotor, Power Generating Arch Kite

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21199 From: dave santos Date: 11/11/2016
Subject: Re: Kramer Effect

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21200 From: Peter A. Sharp Date: 11/12/2016
Subject: Re: Sharp Rotor, Power Generating Arch Kite

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21201 From: Peter A. Sharp Date: 11/12/2016
Subject: Re: Kramer Effect

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21202 From: dave santos Date: 11/12/2016
Subject: Re: Kramer Effect

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21203 From: dave santos Date: 11/12/2016
Subject: Re: Sharp Rotor, Power Generating Arch Kite

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21204 From: dave santos Date: 11/12/2016
Subject: Mothra3 successfully completes its Maiden-Flight

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21205 From: dave santos Date: 11/12/2016
Subject: Virtual AoA of a rotating cylinder

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21206 From: dave santos Date: 11/12/2016
Subject: Re: Mothra3 successfully completes its Maiden-Flight

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21207 From: dave santos Date: 11/13/2016
Subject: Further convergence of material-science with advanced theoretic AWES

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21208 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/13/2016
Subject: Re: Further convergence of material-science with advanced theoretic

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21209 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/13/2016
Subject: Re: Further convergence of material-science with advanced theoretic

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21210 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/14/2016
Subject: Re: Forum headline images

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21211 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/14/2016
Subject: Jet Streamed Wing Set (JSW) Coupled with Out-of-Jet-Stream Wing Set

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21212 From: hardensoftintl Date: 11/15/2016
Subject: Re: Mothra3 successfully completes its Maiden-Flight

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21213 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/15/2016
Subject: Roberts and Blackler in 1980

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21214 From: Peter A. Sharp Date: 11/15/2016
Subject: Re: Virtual AoA of a rotating cylinder

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21215 From: dave santos Date: 11/15/2016
Subject: Re: Mothra3 successfully completes its Maiden-Flight

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21216 From: dave santos Date: 11/15/2016
Subject: Re: Virtual AoA of a rotating cylinder

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21217 From: dave santos Date: 11/15/2016
Subject: Re: Roberts and Blackler in 1980

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21218 From: dave santos Date: 11/15/2016
Subject: Topologically Protected AWES Nominal States

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21219 From: dave santos Date: 11/15/2016
Subject: Re: Virtual AoA of a rotating cylinder

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21220 From: dave santos Date: 11/15/2016
Subject: Hybrid Kite Lattice by Andrew Mitchell Luy

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21221 From: Hardensoft International Limited Date: 11/15/2016
Subject: Towards 2018

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21222 From: dave santos Date: 11/15/2016
Subject: Rod Read goes Pro

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21223 From: dave santos Date: 11/16/2016
Subject: Scaling Law Limits of Rigid Wing Kiteplanes based on Airliner Takeof

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21224 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 11/16/2016
Subject: Re: Scaling Law Limits of Rigid Wing Kiteplanes based on Airliner Ta

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21225 From: dave santos Date: 11/16/2016
Subject: Re: Scaling Law Limits of Rigid Wing Kiteplanes based on Airliner Ta

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21226 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/16/2016
Subject: Hydrokinetic turbine for low velocity currents

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21227 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/16/2016
Subject: Vertical-axis wind turbine with two-phase sails

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21228 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 11/17/2016
Subject: Re: Scaling Law Limits of Rigid Wing Kiteplanes based on Airliner Ta

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21229 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/17/2016
Subject: What would it take to see Google-Makani change AWES platform focus?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21230 From: Peter A. Sharp Date: 11/17/2016
Subject: Re: Vertical-axis wind turbine with two-phase sails

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21231 From: dave santos Date: 11/17/2016
Subject: Re: Scaling Law Limits of Rigid Wing Kiteplanes based on Airliner Ta

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21232 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/17/2016
Subject: Re: Vertical-axis wind turbine with two-phase sails

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21233 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/17/2016
Subject: Re: What would it take to see Google-Makani change AWES platform foc

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21234 From: dave santos Date: 11/17/2016
Subject: Re: Vertical-axis wind turbine with two-phase sails

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21235 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/17/2016
Subject: AWE in the students' mix

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21236 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/17/2016
Subject: STRATODYNAMICS

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21237 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/17/2016
Subject: Re: STRATODYNAMICS

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21238 From: dave santos Date: 11/17/2016
Subject: Re: STRATODYNAMICS

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21239 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 11/17/2016
Subject: Re: Scaling Law Limits of Rigid Wing Kiteplanes based on Airliner Ta

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21240 From: dave santos Date: 11/17/2016
Subject: Re: Scaling Law Limits of Rigid Wing Kiteplanes based on Airliner Ta

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21241 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/17/2016
Subject: Magnus Effect paper covering 1850 to 1985

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21242 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 11/18/2016
Subject: Re: Scaling Law Limits of Rigid Wing Kiteplanes based on Airliner Ta

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21243 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/18/2016
Subject: Re: What would it take to see Google-Makani change AWES platform foc

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21244 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/18/2016
Subject: Re: What would it take to see Google-Makani change AWES platform foc




Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21195 From: dave santos Date: 11/10/2016
Subject: Re: Kramer Effect
PeterS,

Of course no one we know is modulating Flettner Rotors suddenly, to test your hypothesis that no spike in Cl would occur. If you really think testing is needed to prove your case, thanks for doing so.

If it turns out that there is no Cl spike, I appreciate that correction to my theoretic-claim, which is based on seeing the Flettner Rotor as a wing case, subject to the same general physical laws.

daveS


On Thursday, November 10, 2016 1:09 PM, "'Peter A. Sharp' sharpencil@sbcglobal.net [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
Hi DaveS, 
“Ok, "max Cl varies in proportion to the rate of increase in AoA", which merely means there is a transient lift-force spike, but of course, no net increase in total energy (under conservation-of-energy law).
Therefore, even a Flettner Rotor exhibits the Kramer effect by any sudden acceleration in rotation, just as Kramer himself experimentally imposed a sudden rotation on a flat wing to produce the effect.”
You statement is not a known fact and so should be presented as a hypothesis, not a conclusion. Your hypothesis seems wrong because a Flettner rotor simply does not seem to benefit from the Kramer effect.
You could test your hypothesis easily by rapidly increasing the rpm of a cylinder. If your hypothesis is correct, then you would see a spike in lift which exceeded the lift of the Flettner rotor at its higher, end-point, rpm. But, to my knowledge, no researcher has ever noted such a spike. Maybe they missed it. But I doubt that because there is no mechanism by which a Flettner rotor can generate the Kramer effect. So you could start by showing precisely how the spike could occur in order to clarify your hypothesis. What is the mechanism? I say there is none.
It might be argued that a rotating cylinder can produce the equivalent of the Kramer effect by causing the air to stay attached to the cylinder by rotating the cylinder, which could be seen as the equivalent of a wing rotating (increasing its angle of attack). But if that is true, then there would be no additional mechanism by which a cylinder could once again increase lift by causing the air to stay attached -- because the air is already attached.
It could also be argued that a steadily spinning cylinder does produce the Kramer effect, but it does not do it as efficiently as a Sharp Rotor because the methods of inducing attachment are different.
But how could the Kramer effect and the Magnus effect be differentiated in that case of the steadily spinning cylinder? If there is no way to differentiate, then it becomes an explanation involving the Kramer effect is a complication with nothing gained in understanding. In that case,  the principle of Occam’s Razor applies: the simpler explanation is to be preferred; entities must not be multiplied without necessity.
I have launched many free-flight cylinders (Flettner rotors) by spinning them with rubber bands. If there is a spike in lift due to angular acceleration, I have not observed it. So even if it exists, it must be relatively small.
 
 
 


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21196 From: Peter A. Sharp Date: 11/11/2016
Subject: Re: Kramer Effect

Hi DaveS,

Of course no one we know is modulating Flettner Rotors suddenly, to test your hypothesis that no spike in Cl would occur. If you really think testing is needed to prove your case, thanks for doing so.

If it turns out that there is no Cl spike, I appreciate that correction to my theoretic-claim, which is based on seeing the Flettner Rotor as a wing case, subject to the same general physical laws.”

How absurd! You actually assume that is my responsibility to disprove your hypothesis, rather than your responsibility to test your own hypothesis. That is not how science is done.

You ignored my explanation of why no spike should occur: because there is no additional mechanism to create a spike, since a Flettner rotor is already benefitting from increased air attachment due to its rotation, which is the equivalent of a wing “rotating” (rapidly increasing its angle of attack).

Furthermore, given what I said, you failed to identify any additional mechanism by which a spike could be made to occur. That is not how science is done. If you can’t defend the physics of your argument against a simple, clear, contrary, physics argument, then why should anyone bother to take it seriously? You have failed to show any physical or theoretical evidence that your hypothesis has merit, so it is not worth testing.

,___

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21197 From: Peter A. Sharp Date: 11/11/2016
Subject: Re: Sharp Rotor, Power Generating Arch Kite

Hi DaveS,

“In any case, the Sharp Rotor does look like a Savonius variant, at least to me, at whatever angle.”

Looks can be superficial and deceiving. A Sharp Rotor will function even without any reverse camber at the trailing edge to create “buckets”. The same is true for the Donaldson rotor. So do you see “no buckets” as a variant of “buckets”? Do you see zero as a variant of one? Do you see black as a variant of white? How big of a difference do you require before you can see it? Try paying attention to function instead of form.

 

“ It will count for something if you succeed in convincing expert third-parties there is no functional relation, and not even anything like the Sharp Rotor in AWE, to class it with. Consider where you would put it on someAWE.org's AWE Mind Map.”

I have already told you that the Sharp Rotor is a variant of the Donaldson rotor, so that’s where it would be classified. But why in the world are you so concerned about how to classify it?

In any case, both the Donaldson rotor and the Sharp Rotor are “predominantly lift-producing rotors (high lift/low torque)”, as opposed to Savonius rotor variants which are “predominantly torque-producing rotors (high torque/low lift)”. So use those sub-categories for the classification of “cylinder-like, cross-flow rotors”.

 

“Good luck with eventually prototyping this idea, once you finish the prerequisites listed.”

Why the sarcasm and negative attitude toward a new kite idea? 

 

“We can be pretty sure the Wheel, and many other fundamental advances, did not require much semantic analysis to validate, while endless lesser inventions may never have enough. Under the testing ethos, analytics are suspect, as a virtue, and "the proof is in the pudding".”

It sounds to me like you are just looking for an excuse to justify your not doing analyses of your experimental devices. The “pudding” must include an analysis or there is no “proof”.

 

 

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21198 From: dave santos Date: 11/11/2016
Subject: Re: Sharp Rotor, Power Generating Arch Kite
PeterS,

There is no "sarcasm" intended. Everyone serious really does wish everyone luck in AWE, since its a collective quest. Its just hard to understand you until all your assertions are understood, like what a "Donaldson rotor" is.

If you can provide a third-party link, that helps to understand you in the wider engineering context. Recall how hard it has been to explain yourself to "hundreds" of your peers over the years, which linking to quality references should help.

Wish us luck too,

daveS


Search result- 'No results found for "donaldson rotor" wind'




On Friday, November 11, 2016 2:37 PM, "'Peter A. Sharp' sharpencil@sbcglobal.net [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
Hi DaveS,
“In any case, the Sharp Rotor does look like a Savonius variant, at least to me, at whatever angle.”
Looks can be superficial and deceiving. A Sharp Rotor will function even without any reverse camber at the trailing edge to create “buckets”. The same is true for the Donaldson rotor. So do you see “no buckets” as a variant of “buckets”? Do you see zero as a variant of one? Do you see black as a variant of white? How big of a difference do you require before you can see it? Try paying attention to function instead of form.
 
“ It will count for something if you succeed in convincing expert third-parties there is no functional relation, and not even anything like the Sharp Rotor in AWE, to class it with. Consider where you would put it on someAWE.org's AWE Mind Map.”
I have already told you that the Sharp Rotor is a variant of the Donaldson rotor, so that’s where it would be classified. But why in the world are you so concerned about how to classify it?
In any case, both the Donaldson rotor and the Sharp Rotor are “predominantly lift-producing rotors (high lift/low torque)”, as opposed to Savonius rotor variants which are “predominantly torque-producing rotors (high torque/low lift)”. So use those sub-categories for the classification of “cylinder-like, cross-flow rotors”.
 
“Good luck with eventually prototyping this idea, once you finish the prerequisites listed.”
Why the sarcasm and negative attitude toward a new kite idea? 
 
“We can be pretty sure the Wheel, and many other fundamental advances, did not require much semantic analysis to validate, while endless lesser inventions may never have enough. Under the testing ethos, analytics are suspect, as a virtue, and "the proof is in the pudding".”
It sounds to me like you are just looking for an excuse to justify your not doing analyses of your experimental devices. The “pudding” must include an analysis or there is no “proof”.
 
 


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21199 From: dave santos Date: 11/11/2016
Subject: Re: Kramer Effect
PeterS,

Science is not just done as you propose. For example, it took Eddington to test Einstein.

You did in fact pose your hypothesis (without stating it as such), which you do not intend to test either,

daveS


On Friday, November 11, 2016 2:33 PM, "'Peter A. Sharp' sharpencil@sbcglobal.net [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
Hi DaveS,
Of course no one we know is modulating Flettner Rotors suddenly, to test your hypothesis that no spike in Cl would occur. If you really think testing is needed to prove your case, thanks for doing so.
If it turns out that there is no Cl spike, I appreciate that correction to my theoretic-claim, which is based on seeing the Flettner Rotor as a wing case, subject to the same general physical laws.”
How absurd! You actually assume that is my responsibility to disprove your hypothesis, rather than your responsibility to test your own hypothesis. That is not how science is done.
You ignored my explanation of why no spike should occur: because there is no additional mechanism to create a spike, since a Flettner rotor is already benefitting from increased air attachment due to its rotation, which is the equivalent of a wing “rotating” (rapidly increasing its angle of attack).
Furthermore, given what I said, you failed to identify any additional mechanism by which a spike could be made to occur. That is not how science is done. If you can’t defend the physics of your argument against a simple, clear, contrary, physics argument, then why should anyone bother to take it seriously? You have failed to show any physical or theoretical evidence that your hypothesis has merit, so it is not worth testing.
,___


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21200 From: Peter A. Sharp Date: 11/12/2016
Subject: Re: Sharp Rotor, Power Generating Arch Kite

Hi DaveS,

https://www.google.com/patents/US2501442 

Rotatable Airfoil Kite

The 1950 kite patent by Jesse C. Donaldson. See figures 4 and 6 to see the 2-sided wing profile with internal volume.

 

https://www.google.com/patents/US3108770 

Note this 1963 variation of the Donaldson rotor by Charles D. Mullinix where no “buckets” (reverse camber) are used at all at the trailing edge. The lift at the leading edge of the wing provides the rotation. So there is very little similarity to a Savonius rotor. The Sharp Rotor can also be made without using any “buckets”. So it does not make sense to classify a Donaldson rotor, Mullinix rotor, or Sharp Rotor as a variation of the Savonius rotor.

 

 

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21201 From: Peter A. Sharp Date: 11/12/2016
Subject: Re: Kramer Effect

Hi DaveS,

“Science is not just done as you propose. For example, it took Eddington to test Einstein.

False analogy. Einstein made a prediction that could not be tested at that time by him, or anyone else. You can easily test your hypothesis.

 

“You did in fact pose your hypothesis (without stating it as such), which you do not intend to test either,”

Nonsense. You are again trying to shift the responsibility to me instead of testing/defending your own hypothesis.

But worse, you are assuming that it is possible for me to prove a negative, which is flawed logic. For example, it is not possible to use science to prove that there is no God -- because it is not possible to prove a negative. That point is basic in science.

 

Furthermore, I question the premise of your hypothesis.

“Ok, "max Cl varies in proportion to the rate of increase in AoA",…”

Does it? I believe that quote is from the Summary by Max Kramer in his 1922 paper on the effect of gusts on lift. His statement presumes all of the qualifiers that existed in his wind tunnel experiments using wind gusts. You are misinterpreting him by leaving out the relevant qualifiers.

My guess is that a more accurate statement of the Kramer effect would include the relative rate of increase in the angle of attack -- relative to the speed of the airstream. There is probably a range in which it occurs, and it probably does not occur outside of that range. Also important would be the location of the pivot point of the wing, which Kramer did not address because he used wind gusts to increase the angle of attack.

For example, if the pivot axis were located at or behind the trailing edge of the wing, an extreme acceleration of the leading edge upward to a position of 90 degrees would produce a very large downforce, like a flapping whale tail. So, at best, your premise is incomplete, and therefore flawed.

Even if the pivot axis is at the center of lift of the wing, an extremely fast angular acceleration of the angle of attack will cause the air to detach from the wing aft of the center of lift on the top of the wing, and detach from the forward, bottom part of the wing. So your premise does not include the relevant qualifiers and is therefore flawed.

Another problem with your hypothesis is that it presumes that cylinders have an angle of attack which can be increased by accelerating the spin rate. To my knowledge, there is no evidence accepted by aerodynamicists that cylinders have an angle of attack that can be clearly and consistently measured. So please show me your evidence that cylinders have an angle of attack that can be measured. If you cannot, then it seems that you based your hypothesis on fantasy physics.

 

 

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21202 From: dave santos Date: 11/12/2016
Subject: Re: Kramer Effect
PeterS, 

Sorry, but my busy personal schedule does not allow me to test our opposed hypotheses currently. Be patient, and I can prove your pessimism wrong that neither of us can test the question. We have in the past discussed the subtle physics of rotation, and we can revisit that topic for you.

We also disagree about whether Einstein could have in principle tested his own theory by traveling to an eclipse and using a telescope for photographic data. I think he was clearly an active coordinated person, as evidenced by his solo sailing hobby. Unfortunately we can't test your similarly pessimistic hypothesis that what Eddington did was beyond Einstein.

As for proving God exists, John defined God concisely as follows- "God is love". We all know that Love exists, therefore God exists too, as authoritatively defined. In fact, modern biology asserts all mammals have the same core emotions, and that "maternal love" (care) not only exists, but is required to mature and thrive. No wonder you could not prove God does not exist. As for proving a "negative"; in aerodynamics, negative lift can be shown experimentally at negative AoA. If that is not enough existence-proof for you, it is enough in AE practice at least.

daveS


On Saturday, November 12, 2016 1:05 PM, "'Peter A. Sharp' sharpencil@sbcglobal.net [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
Hi DaveS,
“Science is not just done as you propose. For example, it took Eddington to test Einstein.
False analogy. Einstein made a prediction that could not be tested at that time by him, or anyone else. You can easily test your hypothesis.
 
“You did in fact pose your hypothesis (without stating it as such), which you do not intend to test either,”
Nonsense. You are again trying to shift the responsibility to me instead of testing/defending your own hypothesis.
But worse, you are assuming that it is possible for me to prove a negative, which is flawed logic. For example, it is not possible to use science to prove that there is no God -- because it is not possible to prove a negative. That point is basic in science.
 
Furthermore, I question the premise of your hypothesis.
“Ok, "max Cl varies in proportion to the rate of increase in AoA",…”
Does it? I believe that quote is from the Summary by Max Kramer in his 1922 paper on the effect of gusts on lift. His statement presumes all of the qualifiers that existed in his wind tunnel experiments using wind gusts. You are misinterpreting him by leaving out the relevant qualifiers.
My guess is that a more accurate statement of the Kramer effect would include the relative rate of increase in the angle of attack -- relative to the speed of the airstream. There is probably a range in which it occurs, and it probably does not occur outside of that range. Also important would be the location of the pivot point of the wing, which Kramer did not address because he used wind gusts to increase the angle of attack.
For example, if the pivot axis were located at or behind the trailing edge of the wing, an extreme acceleration of the leading edge upward to a position of 90 degrees would produce a very large downforce, like a flapping whale tail. So, at best, your premise is incomplete, and therefore flawed.
Even if the pivot axis is at the center of lift of the wing, an extremely fast angular acceleration of the angle of attack will cause the air to detach from the wing aft of the center of lift on the top of the wing, and detach from the forward, bottom part of the wing. So your premise does not include the relevant qualifiers and is therefore flawed.
Another problem with your hypothesis is that it presumes that cylinders have an angle of attack which can be increased by accelerating the spin rate. To my knowledge, there is no evidence accepted by aerodynamicists that cylinders have an angle of attack that can be clearly and consistently measured. So please show me your evidence that cylinders have an angle of attack that can be measured. If you cannot, then it seems that you based your hypothesis on fantasy physics.
 
 


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21203 From: dave santos Date: 11/12/2016
Subject: Re: Sharp Rotor, Power Generating Arch Kite
Lets agree that it does not make sense to you to class these rotors by any similarity, essential or superficiall, but it does to others (like me) and that you do not share the scientific passion for classification, from Aristotle to Linnaeus, and to down to our day, including theoretic AWES study, for lack of understanding any value thereby.


On Saturday, November 12, 2016 1:00 PM, "'Peter A. Sharp' sharpencil@sbcglobal.net [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
Hi DaveS,
Rotatable Airfoil Kite
The 1950 kite patent by Jesse C. Donaldson. See figures 4 and 6 to see the 2-sided wing profile with internal volume.
 
Note this 1963 variation of the Donaldson rotor by Charles D. Mullinix where no “buckets” (reverse camber) are used at all at the trailing edge. The lift at the leading edge of the wing provides the rotation. So there is very little similarity to a Savonius rotor. The Sharp Rotor can also be made without using any “buckets”. So it does not make sense to classify a Donaldson rotor, Mullinix rotor, or Sharp Rotor as a variation of the Savonius rotor.
 
 


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21204 From: dave santos Date: 11/12/2016
Subject: Mothra3 successfully completes its Maiden-Flight
Late this afternoon Mothra3, a giant arch kite made up from five 22m2 pilot-lifter units (108m2), took off for the first time, in a nice breeze, and flew until dark. 

As usual for a first shakedown flight, there were minor operational glitches, and a lot was learned. In particular, not all the constraint lines were rigged, so one end-kite looped around the loadpath arch-rope, and needed unfouling, and the unit-kites danced a bit wildly. Its hereby confirmed that a full kite constraint network is desirable. The multi-kite kill-line network worked flawlessly for a progressive gentle first landing, with no actuation force required (just releasing the main arch passively). Raye Bohn helped, and his girlfriend, Sally, to photos/video, which will be shared soon.

Upcoming flights will validate hands-off launching from turtles (anchored packs) and heavy payload lifting, and eventually human aerotecture experiments and WECS arrays of various kinds.

Huzzah!
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21205 From: dave santos Date: 11/12/2016
Subject: Virtual AoA of a rotating cylinder
PeterS wondered how we were able to account, in practical understandable terms, a rotating cylinder (and quasi-cylinders), set cross-axis in flow, as a true type of wing. After all, how could anyone sensibly suggest what the AoA of a rotating cylinder is? That's the sort of fun problem we are used to solving. 

We solved the conundrum as follows: Just as scientists and engineers have long created, as needed, "virtual" "fictitious" or "imaginary" forces and quantities, we can reason that cylinder rotation in one direction corresponds to AoA of one polarity (pos or neg), and rotation in the other direction is AoA of the opposite polarity. Faster non-dimensional rotation corresponds to higher AoA. We call this "virtual AoA". One can measure it by Cl relative to conventional wings, and calculate equivalent values. Its not that hard to grasp.

The most famous and profound example of this sort modern engineering approach is the use as exponents of imaginary numbers, which our early AWES Forum discussions also moved down the field. We discovered that all the architectural-ontological uncertainty in High-Complexity AWE theoretics was hidden in the imaginary exponents in their differential equations; all sorts of important things, like missing failure-mode statistics.

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21206 From: dave santos Date: 11/12/2016
Subject: Re: Mothra3 successfully completes its Maiden-Flight
Attachments :

    Attached jpg shows Mothra3 soon after maiden launch, which was complicated by missing constraint lines. The collapsed white kixel (unit-kite) subsequently ignited, but the end kixel than looped around the arch line when its tag line got loose, and we struggled comically to unfoul that wrap. The main lesson today was not that all the kixels need to be more closely harnessed into one meta-structure, which we already knew, but that we need to develop a more deterministic launching process. We had used sand banked on the LEs to keep the kites from igniting prematurely, but the wet sand did not clear from the sand-outs in the wrapped kite, and formed a baggy sand-jam with a looped line, which had to be cleared by hand.

    Could not have done this without Raye's expert help, and thanks to Sally for taking the beautiful sunset picture, which underplays how monstrous this wing is. The rope loadpath looks like mere sewing thread. This is a monster, all right, and we were very lucky the wind velocity came down, having blown hard mid-day.

    Yes, sigh, 5 x 22m2 = 110m2, not 108m2 as written in the last post; however, figure that kite area is rarely strictly measured, and wiley Peter Lynn is the sort to design a 21.6m2 pilot as a "legal 22". If saintly JoeF had developed it, 112m2 would have been a good guess, as he would be sure no one was slighted, even unawares :)


    On Saturday, November 12, 2016 6:38 PM, "dave santos santos137@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
    Late this afternoon Mothra3, a giant arch kite made up from five 22m2 pilot-lifter units (108m2), took off for the first time, in a nice breeze, and flew until dark. 

    As usual for a first shakedown flight, there were minor operational glitches, and a lot was learned. In particular, not all the constraint lines were rigged, so one end-kite looped around the loadpath arch-rope, and needed unfouling, and the unit-kites danced a bit wildly. Its hereby confirmed that a full kite constraint network is desirable. The multi-kite kill-line network worked flawlessly for a progressive gentle first landing, with no actuation force required (just releasing the main arch passively). Raye Bohn helped, and his girlfriend, Sally, to photos/video, which will be shared soon.

    Upcoming flights will validate hands-off launching from turtles (anchored packs) and heavy payload lifting, and eventually human aerotecture experiments and WECS arrays of various kinds.

    Huzzah!


      @@attachment@@
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21207 From: dave santos Date: 11/13/2016
    Subject: Further convergence of material-science with advanced theoretic AWES
    The promise continues to be fullfilled to AWES researchers mapping empirical kite-engineering challenges to established science in multidisciplinary dimensions. The AWESCO project, for example, specifically includes a PhD researcher to explore kitewing (if not kitefarm) topology. Moritz himself seems to have been the first to invoke topology (if not topological protection) in AWE academic circles. Here on the AWES Forum, we found theoretic energy-kite lattices meet all formal criteria for "megascale metamaterials" (as do third-party seismic engineering cases). The following claim seems hereby justified; that virtually all the principles and effects studied in Condensed Matter Physics (a very broad field) apply directly to kite-based systems. Kite physics is neither simple nor incomprehensible. Just a few years ago we were first pondering what it meant that our AWES were phononic, and we have come a long way since.

    The abstract and diagram below is another recent example of hundreds that could be offered here as well, but is particularly good for newcomers to follow the keyword trail to get started (read Wikipedia esp) The diagram starkly depicts the similarity of the newly emerging science to our kite lattice concepts, being comprised of the same building blocks of lines, pulleys, and mass-points (as kites qua anchors, as JoeF instructs). We increasingly understand the kite in flight as a bosonic quasi-particle that is not just its body, but includes its entrained wake and tether-forces. Recall that we have already reviewed metamaterial papers about arrays of rotating masses acted on by fans. Complaints that kite, and especially kite latiices, are not subject to such physics, have subsided in proportion to the growing evidence that they are. 

    Here is a particularly resonant statement with topological AWE  (kite-lattice) analytics presented on the AWES Forum-

    "Moreover, the zero-frequency phonon modes feature adjustable momenta and are topologically protected as long as the lattice coordination is unchanged. Such protected soft (topological) modes with tunable wave vector may be useful in designing mechanical structures with fault-tolerant properties."

    Indeed, we are already well along this conceptual path in theoretic AWE.

    Sadly, this particular recent paper, whose abstract is below, is stuck behind a login-wall, but fortunately there are many other open papers from the last decade or so that similarly inform us in seeing "kitematter" as fully part of emerging cutting-edge material science-

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

    Phonon analog of topological nodal semimetals

    Hoi Chun Po, Yasaman Bahri, and Ashvin Vishwanath
    Phys. Rev. B 93, 205158 – Published 31 May 2016

    ABSTRACT

    Topological band structures in electronic systems like topological insulators and semimetals give rise to highly unusual physical properties. Analogous topological effects have also been discussed in bosonic systems, but the novel phenomena typically occur only when the system is excited by finite-frequency probes. A mapping recently proposed by C. L. Kane and T. C. Lubensky [Nat. Phys. 10, 39 (2014)], however, establishes a closer correspondence. It relates the zero-frequency excitations of mechanical systems to topological zero modes of fermions that appear at the edges of an otherwise gapped system. Here we generalize the mapping to systems with an intrinsically gapless bulk. In particular, we construct mechanical counterparts of topological semimetals. The resulting gapless bulk modes are physically distinct from the usual acoustic Goldstone phonons and appear even in the absence of continuous translation invariance. Moreover, the zero-frequency phonon modes feature adjustable momenta and are topologically protected as long as the lattice coordination is unchanged. Such protected soft modes with tunable wave vector may be useful in designing mechanical structures with fault-tolerant properties.

    Figure 2
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21208 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/13/2016
    Subject: Re: Further convergence of material-science with advanced theoretic
    Many of Po's papers are available for full reading:



    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21209 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/13/2016
    Subject: Re: Further convergence of material-science with advanced theoretic
    Thanks to Dr. Hoi Chun Po, he gives us a link to an older version of the paper you featured, DaveS:

    " on arXiv (url here) "
    See the link on the right of that page for format version desired. 
    [1410.1320] Phonon analogue of topological nodal semimetals

     



    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21210 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/14/2016
    Subject: Re: Forum headline images
    Mothra 3
     maiden flight. See forum 
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21211 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/14/2016
    Subject: Jet Streamed Wing Set (JSW) Coupled with Out-of-Jet-Stream Wing Set
    A family of specialized energy-kite systems:

    Jet Streamed Wing Set (JSW) Coupled with Out-of-Jet-Stream Wing Set (OJSW

    Have no tethers to the ground; the tether set (in the J-Model for Kite the tether set is a specialized type of "wing" set; we truncate the term just to tether set, a set of tethers that couple other wings of the "kite"; recall in such model "kite" is the whole machine with its wing parts; and recall that the wing parts may be crusty with specialized parts like sensors or controllers or sleeping quarters or energy-packet processing devices or other system parts.)

    Have wing set JSW in jet stream coupled by tether to opposing wing set OJSW that is outside the jet stream. The involved wing sets may have a count of one or several (even up to thousands) in formats known to AWE workers. 

    Have the two wing sets and tether set of the FFAWE kite system be controlled to keep the flight going while mining the dynamics of the said kite system for fulfilling practical purposes. 
    • Have versions that specialize in generating electricity. 
    • Have versions dedicated to transportation of people and goods. 
    • Have versions that sparkle with service to communications. 

    Scientists and engineers are invited 
    to open up the possibilities of FFAWE 
    that taps the difference between jet streams and winds outside the jet streams 
    while not having material tethers to the ground.  Describe the physics and involved control algorithms to effect continuous flight. 
    =================================

    Related:

    Consider:
    • Assembly
    • Landing options: 
      • Uncouple wings and glide wings to ground.
      • Gliding the total "kite" (per J-Model: the full system of tether-coupled wings) to ground.
      • Gliding total kite some distance and then uncoupled sets of wings for further separated-sector gliding.
    • Maintenance and repair during continuous flight. 
    • Multinational permits.
    • Flying FFAWE sections in and out of the jet streams.
    • Note the opportunities to have tether specially designed to achieve special dynamics to fulfill roles in the flight.
    The realm is in pre-birth stage awaiting pioneering science, engineers, builders, discoverers, pilots, system solutions, ...

    ~JoeF


    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21212 From: hardensoftintl Date: 11/15/2016
    Subject: Re: Mothra3 successfully completes its Maiden-Flight
    Congratulations.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21213 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/15/2016
    Subject: Roberts and Blackler in 1980

    http://www.energykitesystems.net/NREL/VariousSystems.SERIconf1980.pdf


    VARIOUS SYSTEMS FOR THE GENERATION OF ELECTRICITY

    USING UPPER ATMOSPHERIC WINDS

    Bryan W. Roberts and John Blackler

    Department of Mechanical Engineering

    University of Sydney,

    Sydney, N.s.w., 2006,

    Australia

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

    This paper started on page 67 of the conference proceedings: 

    SERI Second Wind Energy Innovative Systems Conference, volume II : December 3-5, 1980, :Broadmoor, Colorado Springs, Colorado / sponsored by U.S. Department of Energy; coordinated by Solar Energy Research Institute.


    tag: Sky Windpower, Bryan Roberts, 

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

    Thanks to NREL librarian for making PDF of this paper from the conference paper set.

    We yet seek copies of two other related AWE papers from that conference. The papers have not been found to be online yet. 

    [ ]  p. 93 : Feasibility Study for a High-Altitude-Wind-Power-Plant, W. Riedler, E. Horvath
    [ ] p. 113 : Hybrid Airship Tethered System, A. Wortman (AWD, Inc.)

    If anyone has a copy of the other two papers, please send to me for hosting in EnergyKiteSystems.net for the world.   Thanks. 


    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21214 From: Peter A. Sharp Date: 11/15/2016
    Subject: Re: Virtual AoA of a rotating cylinder

    Hi DaveS,

      PeterS wondered how we were able to account, in practical understandable terms, a rotating cylinder (and quasi-cylinders), set cross-axis in flow, as a true type of wing. “

    I said no such thing. You consistently paraphrase me incorrectly. I said show me the physical mechanism by which a spike in lift could be created, give that a rotating cylinder is already the equivalent of a conventional wing which is increasing its angle of attack. There is no additional mechanism, and you have failed to show me one.

    But worse for your hypothesis, there is certain to be a lag in increased lift rather than a spike of increased lift -- during the rapid angular acceleration of the cylinder -- while the airflow adjusts to its new positions of separation and recombination at the leading and trailing sides of the cylinder, respectively, that are required for increased lift at the higher spin ratio. (Both points must move lower on the cylinder.) So relative to the spin ratio, what you will get is a brief period of reduced lift, not increased lift. In other words, there will be a spike of negative lift, not positive lift, the exact opposite of what your hypothesis predicts.

     

    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21215 From: dave santos Date: 11/15/2016
    Subject: Re: Mothra3 successfully completes its Maiden-Flight
    Thank you so much, JohnO.

    Our solid Low-Complexity Open-AWE horse continues to advance in the increasingly feeble shadow of the over-promoted High-Complexity stealth-ventures. Hoping we can finally all fly together soon, as our methods take hold in new R&D streams, and we can finally afford the close international exchanges needed to really accelerate our field.

    We have two conferences announced for 2017; that general energy megaconference in France, with its strong AWE track, and an AWESCO-dominated conference in Southern Germany. Its uncertain whether either offers a good flying opportunity, for the hands-on training and close social-interaction that is the essence of our travel-based knowledge-sharing needs. Thankfully, the published knowledge we share here does not require close presence. Hurrah for the Net, without which we could not have advanced so.

    So 2018 may be our break-out year, when AWE conferences finally return to the happy grass-roots model of HAWPcon2009, and become a big-time world events, with a sky full of colorful prototypes, and all our longtime online colleagues singing together. Its taken quite a bit longer than we thought for things to get back on track, as  AWEC's insider-based usurpation seems to have finally collapsed for good.

    By 2018, Mothra3 should have racked up a long list of feats, lifting varied WECS arrays and pioneering aerotecture habitation, to compare favorably with the results of any AWE stealth-venture.

    Ever Upwards,

    daveS




    On Tuesday, November 15, 2016 6:26 AM, "hardensoftintl@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
    Congratulations.


    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21216 From: dave santos Date: 11/15/2016
    Subject: Re: Virtual AoA of a rotating cylinder
    PeterS,

    It really did seem that you had insisted there was no way to assign an AoA, literal or virtual, to a rotating cylinder in flow, to meaningfully compare against conventional airfoils. It also seems you object to freely made conjectures on grounds that they must be experimentally tested by the whoever makes them, excepting Einstein, who is regarded as uniquely unable to do so. I would also point out Einstein was in fact a passable violinist (as well as a solo dinghy-sailor), fully competent to play with Max Planck, a gifted musician and Einstein's physics mentor.

    Of course I try to paraphrase what you seem to be saying, so you can best judge if I understood you correctly, rather than have your assertions parroted. So far, only the one Maltese professor seems to have understood you properly, of the hundreds of scientists you have interacted with, so the odds were deeply against me, but I keep trying,

    daveS


    On Tuesday, November 15, 2016 9:10 AM, "'Peter A. Sharp' sharpencil@sbcglobal.net [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
    Hi DaveS,
      PeterS wondered how we were able to account, in practical understandable terms, a rotating cylinder (and quasi-cylinders), set cross-axis in flow, as a true type of wing. “
    I said no such thing. You consistently paraphrase me incorrectly. I said show me the physical mechanism by which a spike in lift could be created, give that a rotating cylinder is already the equivalent of a conventional wing which is increasing its angle of attack. There is no additional mechanism, and you have failed to show me one.
    But worse for your hypothesis, there is certain to be a lag in increased lift rather than a spike of increased lift -- during the rapid angular acceleration of the cylinder -- while the airflow adjusts to its new positions of separation and recombination at the leading and trailing sides of the cylinder, respectively, that are required for increased lift at the higher spin ratio. (Both points must move lower on the cylinder.) So relative to the spin ratio, what you will get is a brief period of reduced lift, not increased lift. In other words, there will be a spike of negative lift, not positive lift, the exact opposite of what your hypothesis predicts.
     


    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21217 From: dave santos Date: 11/15/2016
    Subject: Re: Roberts and Blackler in 1980
    A very nice snapshot of flygen AWES understanding in 1980, with two particularly interesting historical claims of an airship AWES concept from circa 1910 and a biplane kite AWES concept from circa 1930, but I did not see specific references to these early concepts, which may push back our known prior-art timelines for flygens. Perhaps JoeF can identify the original sources Roberts found.

    There are two general reactions to discovering ever more prior art in AWE. The pessimists despair that so many have thought along the same lines, but got nowhere, while the optimists celebrate that so many saw a future for AWE that is only now time to realize, due to greatly increased technical knowledge and means, and the now-urgent societal need to replace fossil fuels, and do so far better than wind towers and solar panels alone.



    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21218 From: dave santos Date: 11/15/2016
    Subject: Topologically Protected AWES Nominal States
    We are learning to discuss the physics of topologically protected states of matter,* as they seem to apply to kites, much like a baby first speaks awkwardly, then with rapidly increasing fluency. What are these wonderfully protected states, of such keen interest in many new tech fields, from AWE and seismic engineering, to quantum-computing?

    One of the simplest explanations I have come across is to imagine encoding data bits as zeros or ones with strips of paper, with fading ink or tearing-and-glue to chose from. If you use the ink, you must recopy the data to not lose it, but if you use tearing-and-glue to connect strips into, say, simple loops or mobius strips, you can robustly encode each zero or one. This sort of structural encoding is a topologically protected state of matter.

    Equivalently consider a kitefarm case where the R&D engineer chooses how to sustain the state of nominal operation. The "fading ink" option is to fly a bunch of power kites in a brush topology, with complex active digital controls to avoid fatal emergent topological defects, like braiding, knotting, and cut lines (breakaway). The AWES must constantly rewrite its memory. The topologically protected option is to create a lattice-kite many-connected topological structure where each kite is directly connected to its neighbors to keep the overall nominal state passively, without the burden of complex control.

    kPower and KiteLab's looping foils that do pumping work without complex control hold the current record for some years now of the longest AWE sessions (
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21219 From: dave santos Date: 11/15/2016
    Subject: Re: Virtual AoA of a rotating cylinder
    Starting a data search that might reveal whose conjecture is correct regarding the Kramer Effect for rotating cylinders in flow, this paper  came up first. Its seems to me to strongly imply a probable Kramer effect in the non-linearities computed and discussed, especially for turbulence, which is an an analog for dimensionless rotation rate variance under Galilean Relativity. It also helps show how the angle-of-rotation (theta) of a spinning cylinder correlates with AoA of a conventional wing, so engineering science already knew of the same sort of virtual-to-real AoA equivalence we figured.

    If all this is not quite proof either way of a Kramer Effect, or not, for variably rotating cylinders in flow, at least its a nice intro to related research. In any case, note the expected band gap structures in the graphs across the spectrum of spin-rat. A Kramer effect signal appears to me to occur at specific angles of theta, just as the effect is confined to limited AoA (<90deg) perhaps at slower rates of rotation and change, but that Thom Disc end plates attenuate the jumpiness of a simple cylinder. Just like in the conventional airfoil case, transitions in the von Karman vorticity seem to drive the jumps-



    On Tuesday, November 15, 2016 10:18 AM, "dave santos santos137@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
    PeterS,

    It really did seem that you had insisted there was no way to assign an AoA, literal or virtual, to a rotating cylinder in flow, to meaningfully compare against conventional airfoils. It also seems you object to freely made conjectures on grounds that they must be experimentally tested by the whoever makes them, excepting Einstein, who is regarded as uniquely unable to do so. I would also point out Einstein was in fact a passable violinist (as well as a solo dinghy-sailor), fully competent to play with Max Planck, a gifted musician and Einstein's physics mentor.

    Of course I try to paraphrase what you seem to be saying, so you can best judge if I understood you correctly, rather than have your assertions parroted. So far, only the one Maltese professor seems to have understood you properly, of the hundreds of scientists you have interacted with, so the odds were deeply against me, but I keep trying,

    daveS


    On Tuesday, November 15, 2016 9:10 AM, "'Peter A. Sharp' sharpencil@sbcglobal.net [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
    Hi DaveS,
      PeterS wondered how we were able to account, in practical understandable terms, a rotating cylinder (and quasi-cylinders), set cross-axis in flow, as a true type of wing. “
    I said no such thing. You consistently paraphrase me incorrectly. I said show me the physical mechanism by which a spike in lift could be created, give that a rotating cylinder is already the equivalent of a conventional wing which is increasing its angle of attack. There is no additional mechanism, and you have failed to show me one.
    But worse for your hypothesis, there is certain to be a lag in increased lift rather than a spike of increased lift -- during the rapid angular acceleration of the cylinder -- while the airflow adjusts to its new positions of separation and recombination at the leading and trailing sides of the cylinder, respectively, that are required for increased lift at the higher spin ratio. (Both points must move lower on the cylinder.) So relative to the spin ratio, what you will get is a brief period of reduced lift, not increased lift. In other words, there will be a spike of negative lift, not positive lift, the exact opposite of what your hypothesis predicts.
     




    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21220 From: dave santos Date: 11/15/2016
    Subject: Hybrid Kite Lattice by Andrew Mitchell Luy
    Interesting musing on kites and a hybrid-kite typology by a post-modern architectural haute-conceptualist that eerily echos our own historic progression in kite energy research, from Bell's sticky-cellular kites to Morse's sled as a unit-model to comprise soft-cellular kite lattices-



    Luy came up in my search while studying mathematical lattices, and it occurred to me that the geometric-kite figure can comprise lattices. The iconic kite form is actually a fundamental mathematical object of considerable ongoing interest. The Wikipedia geometric Kite page has developed explosively this year; something is going on :)



    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21221 From: Hardensoft International Limited Date: 11/15/2016
    Subject: Towards 2018
    Thanks , DaveS;
    I am also of the opinion that if the Lord tarries, the year 2018 holds some good promise.
    Further lifts.
    JohnO
    AWEIA
     
    John Adeoye  Oyebanji   B.Sc. MCPN
    Managing Consultant & CEO
    Hardensoft International Limited
    ; ; ; Company
    NIGERIA / AFRICA.

    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21222 From: dave santos Date: 11/15/2016
    Subject: Rod Read goes Pro
    Rod's worthy request for help on someAWE.org, and his latest compilation video-

    "As you know, I have been experimenting openly with rotary kite network AWES.

    The experimentation work has been exciting and revealing. Results have steadily improved to the point where, I’m now confident enough in the operation of small AWES that I am preparing to develop a marketable 500w rotary kite network and ground station generator.
    I chose Open Hardware because I believe we need AWES solutions on a global level. Funding an Open Hardware project is no easy task. I’m not asking for money. I’m asking for your sincere opinions. Preferably on a very short video clip. (Even as short as 5 seconds)
    Why a video? As part of an open ethos, I want to go to the public for funding. This project is for the public. Video of Your considered opinion (endorsement or otherwise) would add authenticity, gravitas and justification to my appeal. I want to provide an honest & balanced viewpoint on the value of this work. I am prepared to share critical videos as part of an appeal FAQ section.
    Funding so far has been thanks to my wife and 1 research contract. It’s time I made this work pay & become sustainable. For the upcoming product development “project Daisy Roots” I am going to set 3 funding target levels.
    1st £3,500 to cover the manufacturing of prototype equipment for Oliver Tulloch for his PhD studies in Strathclyde University.
    2nd an extra £18,000 will allow me to provide a venue touring AWES demonstrator service. Tours starting summer 2017.
    3rd an extra £17,000 (which will be match funded by a local business initiative), will allow me to start manufacturing full AWES systems on the Isle of Lewis.
    Crowdfunding projects which use video are far more likely to meet and exceed their targets. Videos which show interaction with an informed community attract more funding.
    Yes this is what I am going to ask you for.
    Please can you take some quiet time to film a short video of yourself with clear audio of your opinions on what I’m doing?
    With your permission, I would like to include your video, with attribution, in some of my appeal videos. I expect the appeal to last until no later than early January 2017.
    Your opinion really does matter to me & to AWES development.
    Thanks for your consideration."



    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21223 From: dave santos Date: 11/16/2016
    Subject: Scaling Law Limits of Rigid Wing Kiteplanes based on Airliner Takeof
    For years its been pointed out on the AWES Forum that GoogleX(Makani) and Ampyx face a grave scaling limit design crisis, based on Galileo's square-cube scaling law, and empirical data for large aircraft. In particular, airliner take-off velocity according to scale starkly reveals the problem. WindLift has fallen in the same scaling trap, and is left proposing thousands of kiteplanes offshore to produce unimpressive energy totals from the harsh sea environment, with its inherently high cost structure.

    Many millions of AWE R&D funds have been spent to test this basic scaling limit these naive designers ignored, and have never yet publicly acknowledged; that the larger a rigid-wing kiteplane is, the faster it must fly just to stay up, the higher its wing-loading, and the more vulnerable to crack-up on rough landing. Such aircraft cannot fly without sweeping their kite window constantly, in anything less than hurricane winds. E-VTOL is similarly challenged by scaling mass and thermal limits, and does not scale. These scaling barriers kick in at even fairly small scales. There are no practical rigid wing kites or E-VTOL drones at anything but toy scale.

    Here is the airliner takeoff velocity scaling data picture at a glance from a nice aerospace page-

    AircraftTakeoff WeightTakeoff Speed
    Boeing 737100,000 lb 45,360 kg150 mph 250 km/h 130 kts
    Boeing 757240,000 lb 108,860 kg160 mph 260 km/h 140 kts
    Airbus A320155,000 lb 70,305 kg170 mph 275 km/h 150 kts
    Airbus A340571,000 lb 259,000 kg180 mph 290 km/h 155 kts



    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21224 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 11/16/2016
    Subject: Re: Scaling Law Limits of Rigid Wing Kiteplanes based on Airliner Ta

    Hi all,

     

    KiteGen builds and studies Power Wing as a C-shaped semi-rigid wing. http://www.kitegen.com/en/2014/09/12/kitegen-power-wing/ Existing data I know are an area that is 120 m², a weight of 200 kg, and a lift/drag ratio being 28. So this wing would gather the lightness of a soft wing _ as it is tethered with its two ends, resulting to avoid a penalizing cantilever effect _ and the efficiency and lifetime of a rigid wing. It is discussed on http://www.someawe.org/topic/54/power-wing. Such a wing in its current size could be an element of the flying structure. So tests are awaited. Perhaps successful tests and simulations in different scales could launch more AWE R&D.

     

    Best,

     

    Pierre

     

     

     

    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21225 From: dave santos Date: 11/16/2016
    Subject: Re: Scaling Law Limits of Rigid Wing Kiteplanes based on Airliner Ta
    Hi Pierre,

    Massimo's wing design velocity range clearly falls between a rigid-winged kiteplane and a soft power kite, so his velocity numbers also fall in-between. It looks to me that he needs about 100kmhr velocity to initiate and maintain stable flight. What this means in practice is that Massimo's wing will hang uselessly from its stem at the surface waiting for for a gale-velocity wind to takeoff. His idea that blowers would work was badly mistaken. 

    This seems to explain why there is no progress for KiteGen to report since the new wing was rolled out. Even if the wing is somehow launched, its expected to crash violently, based on Sequoia's gross public underestimation of the flight automation problem. KiteGen will not see L/D25 due to tether drag and nominal load demand.

    Of course, kPower proposes all these AWES designs can be tamed by raising them under a soft-kite pilot-lifter layer, and has its own hot rigid wings that are raised and held up in this way. kPower proposes that this modular (lift and power) AWES architecture is the most pragmatic currently, and that the reliability of complex automation of rigid wings will not reach acceptable levels for a decade or two, and even then will not deliver a large enough unit scale for utility-scale service. The proposed most scalable AWES system-identification is as a megascale metamaterial, to displace the failed "tip-of-a-turbine-blade" paradigm.

    All of these rigid-wing AWES teams are failing to show due progress, despite ample time and funding, which hurts us all if their concepts were doomed from the start. Someone please let us know if testing does not confirm the dead-end open-AWE aerospace case scaling experience seems to predict.

    daveS


    On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 2:03 PM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre-benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
    Hi all,
     
    KiteGen builds and studies Power Wing as a C-shaped semi-rigid wing. http://www.kitegen.com/en/2014/09/12/kitegen-power-wing/ Existing data I know are an area that is 120 m², a weight of 200 kg, and a lift/drag ratio being 28. So this wing would gather the lightness of a soft wing _ as it is tethered with its two ends, resulting to avoid a penalizing cantilever effect _ and the efficiency and lifetime of a rigid wing. It is discussed on http://www.someawe.org/topic/54/power-wing. Such a wing in its current size could be an element of the flying structure. So tests are awaited. Perhaps successful tests and simulations in different scales could launch more AWE R&D.
     
    Best,
     
    Pierre
     




    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21226 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/16/2016
    Subject: Hydrokinetic turbine for low velocity currents

    Hydrokinetic turbine for low velocity currents  
    US 20120013128 A1


    Publication numberUS20120013128 A1
    Publication typeApplication
    Application numberUS 12/804,239
    Publication dateJan 19, 2012
    Filing dateJul 19, 2010
    Priority dateJul 19, 2010
    Also published asUS8421260
    InventorsJohn Hincks Duke
    Original AssigneeJohn Hincks Duke
    Export CitationBiBTeXEndNoteRefMan
    External Links: USPTOUSPTO AssignmentEspacenet

    Application filed by John Hincks Duke

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

    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21227 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/16/2016
    Subject: Vertical-axis wind turbine with two-phase sails

    Patent US5823749 - Vertical-axis wind turbine with two-phase sails

    Robert R. Green

    Publication numberUS5823749 A
    Publication typeGrant
    Application numberUS 08/756,729
    Publication dateOct 20, 1998
    Filing dateNov 26, 1996
    Priority dateNov 26, 1996
    Fee statusPaid
    InventorsRobert R. Green
    Original AssigneeGreen; Robert R.
    Export CitationBiBTeXEndNoteRefMan
    External Links: USPTOUSPTO AssignmentEspacenet

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

    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21228 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 11/17/2016
    Subject: Re: Scaling Law Limits of Rigid Wing Kiteplanes based on Airliner Ta

    In 50-100 m² range the mass/area ratio of a rigid wing looks to be about 10 times that of a C-shaped semi-rigid wing like Power Wing and 100 times that of a soft wing. But, as mentioned in http://openthunk.wikidot.com/tethered-free-flying-wing and with KiteGen data, the lift to drag ratio of an arch style wing is hardly lesser (28 for the Power Wing, 15 with tethers) than that of a standard wing.


    So the Power Wing looks to be a very interesting structural solution as the two tethers hold it with its two respective ends, avoiding cantilever penalty.


    Stable flight could be made with a far lower wind speed (some meters per second) than 100 km/hr. Other concerns like stability in flight are not still known.


    On its website KiteGen http://www.kitegen.com/en/2014/09/12/kitegen-power-wing/ indicates:

       "The road to the refinement and optimization of the Power Wings is still long and can be    compared to that covered by the blades of wind turbines (which are kind of wings, by the    way), with substantial resources committed to research and development and many            universities and companies involved, but the path to tropospheric wind machines of the        MW class is definitely traced."

     It sounds true. And after it I would be able to provide the general architecture of a viable airborne wind energy system.

     

     PierreB

     

     

    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21229 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/17/2016
    Subject: What would it take to see Google-Makani change AWES platform focus?

    What would it take to see Google-Makani change AWES platform focus?

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

    If Google-Makani decides to move to a very different AWES platform, 

    then what would it take and what could be some of the optional new acts?

    Brainstorm suggested for start. 


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

    • Hire ground-gen engineers. 
    • Hire an army of open-AWE workers. 
    • Field test 32 AWE methods at moderate scale. 
    • Hold a weekly internal conference to air new steps taken by any worker. 
    • ?


    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21230 From: Peter A. Sharp Date: 11/17/2016
    Subject: Re: Vertical-axis wind turbine with two-phase sails
    Attachments :

      Robert Green sold a lot of these windmills in various sizes. He’s a smart guy. They produce high torque at a low rpm since they are pure drag machines. They are not efficient, but they are relatively cheap, light, and easy to make. There are still some videos on the Internet showing how it works, but there used to be many more when he was still in business. Before his patent ran out, I believe that he assigned it to somebody else that I communicated with briefly, but that person didn’t seem to understand windmills very well. The Green Windmill is not competitive compared to some others, but it’s ingenious. It is not clear whether it might have any kite applications. One good thing going for it is that it is easy to understand. When I first saw it many years ago, I was concerned that it would not be durable. But Mr. Green assured me that his mechanisms have proven to be acceptably durable. The last I heard, he now he focuses on his steam engine designs.

       

       

      From: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com]
      Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2016 8:16 PM
      To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [AWES] Vertical-axis wind turbine with two-phase sails

       

       

      Patent US5823749 - Vertical-axis wind turbine with two-phase sails



      Image removed by sender. image


      Patent US5823749 - Vertical-axis wind turbine with two-p...

      A vertical axis wind turbine of the type having collapsible fabric sails (10) that reside on the rim of a horizontally disposed square rotor wheel (12,14) s...


      Preview by Yahoo








      Robert R. Green

      Publication number

      US5823749 A

      Publication type

      Grant

      Application number

      US 08/756,729

      Publication date

      Oct 20, 1998

      Filing date

      Nov 26, 1996

      Priority date

      Nov 26, 1996

      Fee status

      Paid

      Inventors

      Robert R. Green

      Original Assignee

      Green; Robert R.

      Export Citation

      BiBTeXEndNoteRefMan

      Patent Citations (1), Referenced by (27), Classifications (9),Legal Events (6)




      External Links: USPTOUSPTO AssignmentEspacenet

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

      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21231 From: dave santos Date: 11/17/2016
      Subject: Re: Scaling Law Limits of Rigid Wing Kiteplanes based on Airliner Ta
      Pierre,

      Pete Jr (son of Peter Lynn Sr) is a very smart guy, but 2004 was a long time ago. By 2007, when I got to meet him and his legendary father, in association with KiteShip, they were again thinking about soft-kites, in particular, single-skin soft-kites, which the father has greatly advanced the design of in the years since, making current leading large pilot kites and single-skin power kites.

      Why did Pete's admirable toy lead nowhere? We were all underestimating square-cube scaling law. Every kg of extra parasitic mass needs over 10W of lifting power just to stay up, and that power is unavailable for generation. It gets worse; what we completely overlooked is that as we scale up our wings, the "most probable wind velocity" (that Damon taught us to focus on) stays the same, and does not scale up. What this means is the dimensionless wind velocity goes down as the wing gets bigger. Its a double curse for large rigid wings. 

      Note also that these arch wings have "big ears" that do not contribute lift area, but instead only serve to hold open the wing, so the advantage over a cantilever wing is less than hoped. They do turn fast, which helps in kite-sport trick-riding styles. That is why complex bridling of parafoils, with a flatter higher-lift wing resulting, dominates in paragliding and land-based kite sports.

      So, at best, Massimo might somehow get his wing sweeping fast enough to fly for a few seconds, but it will be a desperate feat, with scant extra power to reel its tether out powerfully downwind, and it will not survive the crash that results, much less operate past its capital buy-back period. Let time tell who is right, but its been a long time already, and Massimo should know by now if your optimism that he has viable AWES basis is justified,

      daveS


      On Thursday, November 17, 2016 7:50 AM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre-benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
      In 50-100 m² range the mass/area ratio of a rigid wing looks to be about 10 times that of a C-shaped semi-rigid wing like Power Wing and 100 times that of a soft wing. But, as mentioned in http://openthunk.wikidot.com/tethered-free-flying-wing and with KiteGen data, the lift to drag ratio of an arch style wing is hardly lesser (28 for the Power Wing, 15 with tethers) than that of a standard wing.

      So the Power Wing looks to be a very interesting structural solution as the two tethers hold it with its two respective ends, avoiding cantilever penalty.

      Stable flight could be made with a far lower wind speed (some meters per second) than 100 km/hr. Other concerns like stability in flight are not still known.

         "The road to the refinement and optimization of the Power Wings is still long and can be    compared to that covered by the blades of wind turbines (which are kind of wings, by the    way), with substantial resources committed to research and development and many            universities and companies involved, but the path to tropospheric wind machines of the        MW class is definitely traced."
       It sounds true. And after it I would be able to provide the general architecture of a viable airborne wind energy system.
       
       PierreB
       
       


      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21232 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/17/2016
      Subject: Re: Vertical-axis wind turbine with two-phase sails
      Thanks, PeterS, for some history!

      1. I was seeing the kited sail opening; three tethers. Nearly a Culp kite. That is the Green VAWT involves the repeating of a launching and dowsing of a internal kite system; the launching of one sub kite system in the Green aids in the dowsing of another sub kite system in the Green global VAWT.

      2. Someone in the AWE community might see some opportunity in the Green machine for a means to control cycles of larger matters in crosswinding tethered wings.
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21233 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/17/2016
      Subject: Re: What would it take to see Google-Makani change AWES platform foc
      Sent to the desk of Upper Windpower was a suggestion that Google Makani might bring in 
      Vital Research #1 PRIORITY! | Windswept and Interesting

       


      And many others. 
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21234 From: dave santos Date: 11/17/2016
      Subject: Re: Vertical-axis wind turbine with two-phase sails
      We have long reviewed the related AWES drag-WECS class, including Bolonkin, Guandong, and Welty drogue line or loop concepts. The basic shared element to all these many variants possible is fabric drogues that haul downwind and are then collapsed into a low drag form to return up wind. Lifter kites or balloons are common enabling features. 

      Its not very sexy design-space, so no one but KiteLab Group seems to have actually experimented with these (under its "test everything" ethos), but they remain in play as a potential AWES operating principle, with KIS as the major virtue.

      -------------
      PeterS, please note your posts still have default jpgs attached that do not open, but proliferate in the Yahoo auto-tail bug.


      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21235 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/17/2016
      Subject: AWE in the students' mix

      A team including a University of Windsor engineering student used NASA technology designed for Mars to become the only Canadian-based team to win part of the U.S. Space Race startup challenge.

      In the article is


      "The team’s other idea is a wind energy kite system called Skyfish that could produce power in off-grid markets, he said. An estimated 1.3 billion people live without access to electricity and the kite pulls on the system to generate electricity and can be reeled in to start the electricity-making process again, Pundsack said."

       

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

      SKYFISH Wind Energy Kite for Producing Electricity in Emerging Market

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvckELYEAlI

      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21236 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/17/2016
      Subject: STRATODYNAMICS

      News Release     November 1, 2016

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

      FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
      November 1st, 2016

      CANADIAN START-UP, STRATODYNAMICS NAMED FINALIST IN GLOBAL NASA SPACE RACE COMPETITION 

      Gary Pundsack, CEO STRATODYNAMICS AVIATION INC. is proud to announce that the STRATODYNAMICS team are finalists in theNASA Space Race Competition with two separate National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) inventions. 
      In October, 2015, The White House announced its NASA Initiative to encourage the use of federally funded technologies by start-up companies. NASA in collaboration with Bethesda, Maryland based, Center for Advancing Innovation announced the finalists of the Space Race Challenge today. 

      ON THE CUTTING EDGE OF NEW FRONTIER AVIONICS & TRANSFERS-OF-TECHNOLOGY

      Building on CEO, Gary Pundsack’s 15+ years of experience in the renewable energy sector, STRATODYNAMICS will introduce SKYFISH: a compact wind energy kite system for producing electricity designed for the off-grid markets such as South Africa. 

      The second invention to be licensed to the group is NASA’s sensing and control technology for Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV’s). The technology will be utilized in HiDRON, an unmanned glider capable of high-altitude climate and atmospheric monitoring. The lightweight glider is a tool for climate change mitigation and daily weather monitoring that significantly lessens environmental impacts of current practices. STRATODYNAMICS was not only a finalist in the UAV category, they were named the over-all winner. 

      Today’s announcement is the culmination of 6 months of research, collaboration and marketing development performing within the rigorous CAI accelerator protocols. STRATODYNAMICS will spend the next few months completing commercial agreements and seeking funding. Commercialization of the lead project is targeted within two years. 
      For more information on Stratodynamics please visit: 
      www.stratodynamics.ca 

      For more information on the Space Race Challenge please visit: 

      http://www.space-race.org/challenge-winners/ 

      ​For media inquiries please contact Nick Craine: 

      ncraine@stratodynamics.ca 


      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21237 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/17/2016
      Subject: Re: STRATODYNAMICS
      Skyfish
      executive summary: 

      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21238 From: dave santos Date: 11/17/2016
      Subject: Re: STRATODYNAMICS
      Recalling that the initial Stratodynamics R&D involved Dave North and Mark Moore, NASA LaRC, working with local Virginia students, and that the most innovative aspect was the the machine vision monitoring of kite state using National Instruments' LabView. NI is an Austin company, leader in its engineering science prototyping and manufacturing automation sector. kPower of Austin has the longest experience with LabView (I was trained at NI with early versions, in the late 80s), and many other AWE development teams use it.

      This message Cc:s GaryP, Stratodynamics's founder, welcomed personally below.

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

      Dear Gary,

      We are a longtime online AWE developers' forum that follows all progress in the field, and we have long wanted someone to carry on the NASA LaRC developmental track. We welcome Stratodynamics to the field and have a lot of experience to offer, via overlapping projects and programs. There is a deep need to consolidate best-of-class features for small AWES, so please consider us in this role as potential partners to your venture, which could be the global business vehicle for technical and venture consolidation.

      Also, I am Mexican-American, and know a few other Mexicans in AWE, so who is your Mexican team-member? Mexico would be a handy place to beta-trial remote low-cost user adoption, with reduced airspace regulatory constraints.

      Cheers,

      dave santos
      kPower Austin


      On Thursday, November 17, 2016 12:20 PM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
      Skyfish
      executive summary: 



      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21239 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 11/17/2016
      Subject: Re: Scaling Law Limits of Rigid Wing Kiteplanes based on Airliner Ta

      The Power Wing looks promising and perhaps crucial. To know what it can, waiting for "test, test, test" by Dr. Fort Felker' term.

       

      PierreB

      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21240 From: dave santos Date: 11/17/2016
      Subject: Re: Scaling Law Limits of Rigid Wing Kiteplanes based on Airliner Ta
      Pierre,

      Don't expect too much from these players as the years pass them by. None of them have ever shared reliability data. You would only get real test data if they could do what they have claimed. 

      Fort did not invent the test-engineering ethos, and its ironic he has instead left public service to disappear into GoogleX's oversold moonshot factory, which is an abuse of the political "revolving door". All these players seem to me to have scaled beyond what is properly testable, for lack of critical insight into real kites.

      Don't make the mistake that real AWE testing is about the premature White Elephant prototypes. Proper testing requires building statistical validation at smaller scale first. These players have neglected optimal experimental design based on comparative testing between architectures. They are better promoters than problem solvers

      You changed the topic from the implications of airliner takeoff velocity data to something else altogether, so lets wrap this up. Please start a new topic on the AWES Forum if you are no longer commenting on the airliner data analytics as applied to rigid wing kiteplanes,

      daveS




      On Thursday, November 17, 2016 5:33 PM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre-benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
      The Power Wing looks promising and perhaps crucial. To know what it can, waiting for "test, test, test" by Dr. Fort Felker' term.
       
      PierreB


      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21241 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/17/2016
      Subject: Magnus Effect paper covering 1850 to 1985

      Substantial file:  14 MB  in PDF format

      http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a165902.pdf

      Magnus Effect An Overview of its Past and Future Practical Applications

      AD-A165902

      Naval Sea Systems Command

      Department of the Navy


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

      The study ends with a patent exposition from our Peter A. Sharp.   

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


      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21242 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 11/18/2016
      Subject: Re: Scaling Law Limits of Rigid Wing Kiteplanes based on Airliner Ta

      DaveS,

       

      Here I would try making some small critical analysis of a text in order to allow you a better understanding of what is on or off topic. 

      I wrote: "The Power Wing looks promising and perhaps crucial. To know what it can, waiting for "test, test, test" by Dr. Fort Felker' term."

      The Power Wing is a semi-rigid wing or a rigid wing. I read "Rigid Wing..." in the title of the present topic. Test, test, test comprise of course takeoff test. So this is fully in topic.

       

      But apparently you do not know what is on the topic, writing "Fort did not invent the test-engineering ethos, and its ironic he has instead left public service to disappear into GoogleX's oversold moonshot factory, which is an abuse of the political "revolving door"" or " Don't make the mistake that real AWE testing is about the premature White Elephant prototypes." . It is quite off topic, excepted if you look after the takeoff speed of an elephant, or if attacks here and there are seen as useful for the topic. Note you do not post on http://www.someawe.org/welcome because personal attacks are not possible.

       

      I mention also you make numerous statements _ as "he needs about 100kmhr velocity to initiate and maintain stable flight" or "So, at best, Massimo might somehow get his wing sweeping fast enough to fly for a few seconds" without any support, lacking the beginning of a scientific procedure, making noise about this complex topic.

       

      So as you like to have the last word on any topic, it will be so.

       

      PierreB

      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21243 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/18/2016
      Subject: Re: What would it take to see Google-Makani change AWES platform foc
      • Would SkyWindPower be interested in joining IP into the Google Makani collection to be part of a grand exploration of AWE methods?

      • Would PROJET EOLICARE bring challenge into the Google Makani mix?
      Could Google Makani consider dropping all stealth steps while also gathering most of the open-AWE workers into a grand scheme?   Populate an energy-kite campus with enthusiastic exploring engineers dedicated to finding key energy-kite architectures!  Daily broad-method testing?  Weekly large conferences on the campus. Simulate, model, test, analyze, compare, competitions ... over scores of methods!   Model, build, test hundreds of devices. Have the shops buzzing with builds. Use sensors and investigative tools over the many operations. Manhattan Project for determining some winning architectures. 

      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21244 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/18/2016
      Subject: Re: What would it take to see Google-Makani change AWES platform foc
      Picture the new era: 
      Extensive library of energy-kite matters. 
      Photography department capturing little and big steps. 
      100% safety-incident visibility in all the branches.
      Google-Makani gathering every nation's energy-kite IP for testing. 
      Joining Germany, Spain, Japan, India, China, Netherlands, nations of Africa, Australia, and more. Guide non-duplicative efforts. Let mechanical build shop serve the scores of efforts, not just one downselect.
      Have all information immediately available to all workers without delay. 
      Energy-Kite City (EKC) dedicated to bringing AWES to serve Earth!
      Talks, presentations, brainstorming session, ... 
      Problem statements; let the problems percolate throughout the EKC.
      Bring comprehensive coverage over related topics.