Messages in AirborneWindEnergy group.                          AWES 22210 to 22259 Page 337 of 440.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22210 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/9/2017
Subject: Resource THICKNESS

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22211 From: dave santos Date: 3/9/2017
Subject: Re: Resource THICKNESS

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22212 From: benhaiemp Date: 3/9/2017
Subject: Re: Soft vs Rigid Wings

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22213 From: dave santos Date: 3/9/2017
Subject: Re: Balloon Kite AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22214 From: dave santos Date: 3/9/2017
Subject: Re: Soft vs Rigid Wings

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22215 From: dave santos Date: 3/9/2017
Subject: AWE as Appropriate Technology

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22216 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 3/9/2017
Subject: Re: Soft vs Rigid Wings

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22217 From: dave santos Date: 3/9/2017
Subject: Re: Soft vs Rigid Wings

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22218 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/9/2017
Subject: Rainwater harvesting system

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22219 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 3/9/2017
Subject: Re: Soft vs Rigid Wings

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22220 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/9/2017
Subject: Re: Rainwater harvesting system

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22221 From: dave santos Date: 3/9/2017
Subject: Re: Soft vs Rigid Wings

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22222 From: dave santos Date: 3/9/2017
Subject: Re: Rainwater harvesting system

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22223 From: benhaiemp Date: 3/9/2017
Subject: Re: Soft vs Rigid Wings

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22224 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/9/2017
Subject: Re: Soft vs Rigid Wings

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22225 From: dave santos Date: 3/9/2017
Subject: Re: Soft vs Rigid Wings

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22226 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/9/2017
Subject: Airfoil for a Flying Wind Turbine

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22227 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/9/2017
Subject: Wind-powered vessel for removal of carbon dioxide from seawater

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22228 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 3/9/2017
Subject: Re: Soft vs Rigid Wings

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22229 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/9/2017
Subject: SPAR BUOY PLATFORM

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22230 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/9/2017
Subject: Moderator note

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22231 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/9/2017
Subject: Methods and systems for conserving power during hover flight

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22232 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/9/2017
Subject: PLASTIC OPTICAL FIBER FOR RELIABLE LOW-COST AVIONIC NETWORKS

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22233 From: dave santos Date: 3/9/2017
Subject: Re: Airfoil for a Flying Wind Turbine

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22234 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/9/2017
Subject: HIGH FREQUENCY BI-DIRECTIONAL AC POWER TRANSMISSION

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22235 From: dave santos Date: 3/9/2017
Subject: Re: Soft vs Rigid Wings

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22236 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/9/2017
Subject: Wiring Harness for an Aerial Vehicle

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22237 From: dave santos Date: 3/9/2017
Subject: Re: Methods and systems for conserving power during hover flight

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22238 From: dave santos Date: 3/9/2017
Subject: Re: Wiring Harness for an Aerial Vehicle

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22239 From: dave santos Date: 3/9/2017
Subject: Re: PLASTIC OPTICAL FIBER FOR RELIABLE LOW-COST AVIONIC NETWORKS

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22240 From: dave santos Date: 3/9/2017
Subject: Re: HIGH FREQUENCY BI-DIRECTIONAL AC POWER TRANSMISSION

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22241 From: dave santos Date: 3/9/2017
Subject: Indian Power Grids v Kites

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22242 From: dave santos Date: 3/9/2017
Subject: Re: Wind-powered vessel for removal of carbon dioxide from seawater

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22243 From: dave santos Date: 3/9/2017
Subject: Re: Moderator note

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22244 From: dave santos Date: 3/10/2017
Subject: Introducing Aerobatic Scaling Law for AWES

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22245 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/10/2017
Subject: Some patent search systems do not serve during maintenance

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22246 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 3/10/2017
Subject: Re: Soft vs Rigid Wings

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22247 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 3/10/2017
Subject: Re: Introducing Aerobatic Scaling Law for AWES

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22248 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/10/2017
Subject: Ph.D. thesis by Rogelio Lozano, Jr.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22249 From: dave santos Date: 3/10/2017
Subject: Re: Soft vs Rigid Wings

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22250 From: benhaiemp Date: 3/11/2017
Subject: Re: Soft vs Rigid Wings

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22251 From: dave santos Date: 3/11/2017
Subject: Re: Soft vs Rigid Wings

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22252 From: dave santos Date: 3/11/2017
Subject: Professional Life Cycle Engineering Analysis

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22253 From: benhaiemp Date: 3/11/2017
Subject: Re: Soft vs Rigid Wings

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22254 From: dave santos Date: 3/12/2017
Subject: Re: Soft vs Rigid Wings

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22255 From: dave santos Date: 3/12/2017
Subject: Crash Factor Theory

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22256 From: benhaiemp Date: 3/12/2017
Subject: Re: Soft vs Rigid Wings

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22257 From: benhaiemp Date: 3/12/2017
Subject: Re: Soft vs Rigid Wings

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22258 From: dave santos Date: 3/12/2017
Subject: Re: Soft vs Rigid Wings

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22259 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 3/12/2017
Subject: Re: Soft vs Rigid Wings



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22210 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/9/2017
Subject: Resource THICKNESS

For discussion:

"AWE beats conventional wind, as AWE can mine the THICKNESS of the resource. "


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

The atmosphere is THICK vertically. Conventional wind mines a very small low part of that verticality. AWE may mine wind from ground to high upper winds: from below towered blades, at towered blades, and then all the thickness of resource above the towered blades.  Ratio?  Assume conventional wind mining 200 m of the vertical resource.   Assume for this calculation AWE can mine 10 000 m of the vertical resource. The practice calculation neglecting air density, wind speed, wind steadiness, and temperature matters:  10 000 / 200 gives 50-to-1 ratio for the AWE winning position.   The speeds, steadiness, and coldness will advance that ratio to the benefit of AWE; air density takes some out of the merit.  Tuning this ratio of resource available for AWE over that available for conventional wind could be interesting; what the ratio is with greater accuracy will occur as studies face the question.   Add the site availability of AWE over conventional wind increase the AWE win position. 


Regulatory availability of resource THICKNESS will play its role in the unfolding of the AWE service. 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22211 From: dave santos Date: 3/9/2017
Subject: Re: Resource THICKNESS
Another way to put it is that surface wind is relatively 2D compared to upper wind, which is effectively 3D.  

Factoring in the exponential wind gradient, the rough comparison is that upper wind is about 1000 times more energetic than today's average turbines can reach (larger turbines are possible, but AWE may limit how economically competitive such turbines may be). Due to the energetic cost to maintain flight aerodynamicaly, we expect our AWES efficiencies to be about 1/2 those of conventional HAWTs, which still leaves AWE with a powerful theoretic advantage, of about 500 times more potential than towers.

Even upper wind under 2000ft, the current target under FAA guidelines, is about ten times more resource than average wind towers can tap, for about five times the practical potential.




On Thursday, March 9, 2017 11:20 AM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
For discussion:
"AWE beats conventional wind, as AWE can mine the THICKNESS of the resource. "

=====================
The atmosphere is THICK vertically. Conventional wind mines a very small low part of that verticality. AWE may mine wind from ground to high upper winds: from below towered blades, at towered blades, and then all the thickness of resource above the towered blades.  Ratio?  Assume conventional wind mining 200 m of the vertical resource.   Assume for this calculation AWE can mine 10 000 m of the vertical resource. The practice calculation neglecting air density, wind speed, wind steadiness, and temperature matters:  10 000 / 200 gives 50-to-1 ratio for the AWE winning position.   The speeds, steadiness, and coldness will advance that ratio to the benefit of AWE; air density takes some out of the merit.  Tuning this ratio of resource available for AWE over that available for conventional wind could be interesting; what the ratio is with greater accuracy will occur as studies face the question.   Add the site availability of AWE over conventional wind increase the AWE win position. 

Regulatory availability of resource THICKNESS will play its role in the unfolding of the AWE service. 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22212 From: benhaiemp Date: 3/9/2017
Subject: Re: Soft vs Rigid Wings
As temporary conclusion we can state that rigid power kites are more appropriate, their lifetime being far higher among other advantages and also disadvantages like crash risk. Concerning flexible kite, some suggestion: a complex including a polymer fabric (for mechanical resistance thanks to fibers) between two layers of the same polymer but as films (for the lifetime of the complete complex as the films hide and protect the fabric), possibly multilayered cross laminated UV stabilised film.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22213 From: dave santos Date: 3/9/2017
Subject: Re: Balloon Kite AWE
There is a lot of detail here to work out in real versions. The logical next step is to create small-scale prototypes, to refine the practical essence of what Gordon envisions. I like the lattice and rope-drive aspects but have concerns over the ST and LTA aspects. The hypothetical design issues have been discussed at length, and folks favor this or that, so its time to test all paper concepts, and let the results speak.

Notice to anyone who has a testable AWES idea, and can show it working as a minimal proof-of-concept "garage" prototype, this is a fast-track ticket to further support for serious prototypes. Purely paper concepts are still in the game, but in every case someone must adopt them and give them tangible form, because the AWE Quest is ultimately a physical outcome, and armchair theorizing is just a first step.

Good Luck to Gordon in the crucial next phases. Its a workable design to explore, with specific advantages and challenges.


On Wednesday, March 8, 2017 3:15 PM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22214 From: dave santos Date: 3/9/2017
Subject: Re: Soft vs Rigid Wings
Pierre,

You write: "...we can state that rigid power kites are more appropriate...". Yes, right-or-wrong, it can be stated, but who is "we"? Many serious players think soft kites are just as appropriate as hard kites to study for AWE, and that its premature to state that one or the other is "more appropriate" until the crash-data and economic data is in.

Where is the specific justification this technical conclusion by "we", for the documented record? What about scaling laws? How big and massive a rigid wing does "we" predict practical?

Your conclusions again await careful explanation. You wrote on someAWE- "it appears for me that SuperTurbine (tm) is a master component for any viable AWES. I will try to justify my statement later. ", and we are still waiting for a worthy justification.

daveS


On Thursday, March 9, 2017 1:12 PM, "pierre-benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
As temporary conclusion we can state that rigid power kites are more appropriate, their lifetime being far higher among other advantages and also disadvantages like crash risk. Concerning flexible kite, some suggestion: a complex including a polymer fabric (for mechanical resistance thanks to fibers) between two layers of the same polymer but as films (for the lifetime of the complete complex as the films hide and protect the fabric), possibly multilayered cross laminated UV stabilised film.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22215 From: dave santos Date: 3/9/2017
Subject: AWE as Appropriate Technology
The AWES Forum has always respected the values of  "Appropriate Technology". The Low-Complexity preference is closely related. Safety and affordability are top design drivers.

Part if the ambiguity in anyone declaring "...we can state that rigid power kites are more appropriate..." is the meaning "appropriate" already has in technology. The word is a value judgement, not an engineering metric.

Cheap proven soft power kites best fit the definition of "appropriate technology", esp for developing economies. This might change if any "rigid power kite" is ever proven to work as well as the power kites that currently dominate. Safety is another key human (and wildlife) factor hard wing advocates neglect to emphasize.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22216 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 3/9/2017
Subject: Re: Soft vs Rigid Wings

DaveS,

 You write: "we are still waiting for a worthy justification.". Who is we?

==================================================
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22217 From: dave santos Date: 3/9/2017
Subject: Re: Soft vs Rigid Wings
By "we" I mean anyone who read your post and was interested in how you would justify the claim.

So who did you mean by "we"?


On Thursday, March 9, 2017 2:41 PM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre-benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
DaveS,
 You write: "we are still waiting for a worthy justification.". Who is we?
==================================================
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22218 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/9/2017
Subject: Rainwater harvesting system

Kathleen found some purpose for AWT (airborne wind turbine) in the main theme of harvesting rain water in the open seas using rafts.    Google Inc. is involved.  


Rainwater harvesting system  


Page bookmarkUS9469383 (B1)  -  Rainwater harvesting system
Inventor(s):COOPER KATHLEEN EVELYN [US] +
Applicant(s):GOOGLE INC [US] +
Classification:
- international:B63B35/00; B63B7/00
- cooperative:
Application number:US201414254448 20140416       Global Dossier
Priority number(s):US201414254448 20140416
Also published as:
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22219 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 3/9/2017
Subject: Re: Soft vs Rigid Wings
Attachments :
    The same.
    ======================================
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22220 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/9/2017
    Subject: Re: Rainwater harvesting system
    Collecting rainwater at sea is ancient action. So, one would need to focus carefully on what may be novel in the patent. The energy-kite detailing takes up considerable amount of text space in the patent; I was getting the feeling Kathleen was wrapping the AWT of other patents into the rainwater patent.

    I came out wondering what would win:
    Simple catchment of rainwater at sea or using wave energy, wind energy, and solar energy to convert sea water to fresh water? Water is water. The patent has the fleet out there upon salty water; and delivery of fresh water seems to be the target purpose.

    And more wondering: Would kite systems flown at sea into the clouds bring fresh water down the tether faster or slower than simple catchment of rainwater at the raft projected catchment area?
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22221 From: dave santos Date: 3/9/2017
    Subject: Re: Soft vs Rigid Wings
    Pierre,

    It seems you did not know what "we" you meant.  It logically can't be "the same" "we" I refer to.

    You are not part of the "we" I refer to as awaiting on your ST justification on someAWE, nor  I am not part of your "we" that thinks rigid wing AWE is "appropriate". Your usage of "we" and "appropriate" seems more-or-less "the same" as the inaccurate "polymer", "fiber", "ripstop" usage. 

    You could have stated that it was your personal opinion that hard wing AWE is "more appropriate" than soft wing AWE is specific ways, and that you now understand the technical distinctions between "polymer", "fabric", and "ripstop", and thanked the peer effort that corrected the mistaken usage.

    For example, I thank JoeF for taking the trouble to point out I miss-spelled "choreographic" (omitting the "h"), and I apologize for the error,

    daveS




    On Thursday, March 9, 2017 2:56 PM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre-benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
    The same.
    ======================================
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22222 From: dave santos Date: 3/9/2017
    Subject: Re: Rainwater harvesting system
    The practice of collecting rain at sea is very ancient prior-art, as a means of bare survival. As a means to collect rainwater in quantity, its quite uneconomic, based on high costs of marine operations. To see Makani's Wing7 in this mix is just one more improbability. The parade of banal patents filed by Google's minions is sort of sad, if not actually threatening.




    On Thursday, March 9, 2017 3:31 PM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
    Collecting rainwater at sea is ancient action. So, one would need to focus carefully on what may be novel in the patent. The energy-kite detailing takes up considerable amount of text space in the patent; I was getting the feeling Kathleen was wrapping the AWT of other patents into the rainwater patent.

    I came out wondering what would win:
    Simple catchment of rainwater at sea or using wave energy, wind energy, and solar energy to convert sea water to fresh water? Water is water. The patent has the fleet out there upon salty water; and delivery of fresh water seems to be the target purpose.

    And more wondering: Would kite systems flown at sea into the clouds bring fresh water down the tether faster or slower than simple catchment of rainwater at the raft projected catchment area?


    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22223 From: benhaiemp Date: 3/9/2017
    Subject: Re: Soft vs Rigid Wings

    After a deeper analysis of different combinations, including laminated complexes with layers of film and ripstop, we can assert that the fabric-film lifetime remains far too low. Indeed with the time and humidity the external films become more porous, making failure due to the lack of cohesion of the whole. 

    It is the reason why we can prefer a robust uniform plastic film like the multilayered cross laminated UV stabilized film, even by considering its lesser mechanical properties (about 1/3 of ripstop with equal mass). By the same we suggest the implementation of bands in reinforcements by extra thickness of the same material in order to assure the cohesion. So a high lifetime could be reached (see above that we tested xf-film tarp for more than a year outdoors) but with a relatively heavier film. If this option of an uniform film is not appropriate enough, searches should go massively towards rigid wings.  
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22224 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/9/2017
    Subject: Re: Soft vs Rigid Wings
    PierreB, who is the "we" in your statements; clarification is invited; is it your local team?  Your answer will probably change the meaning of some of your statements; without the clarification, it may be difficult for the conversation to progress well.   Thanks. 
    Best, 
     JoeF
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22225 From: dave santos Date: 3/9/2017
    Subject: Re: Soft vs Rigid Wings
    Pierre,

    Please be clear. Where is the "deeper analysis" now claimed? Please show you understood the confused application of terms like "polymer" and "fiber" to be mistaken. You still do not say who "we" is, in a reasonable way*. You do not clarify if you mean "appropriate" in the sense of "appropriate technology", or just some odd sense of your own.

    At least AWE rigid wings have been researched by GoogleX, Ampyx, and so on, with massive funding and large teams, but its clear the soft power kite is still ahead in proven capability, from kite sports to ship-kites. You do not seem to apply "deeper analysis" to issues like the longer pay-back, lesser safety, more severe scaling limits, and other well-known rigid wing shortcomings, nor the even the pro-aerospace best-practice that soft and hard wings should be tested comparatively.

    Thanks for addressing these issues faithfully, as they deserve,

    daveS

    * Your odd use of "we" here, to pronounce your technical opinions now seems like the "royal we"; surely not "the same" "we" as anyone who read your someAWE claim, and patiently wait for you to justify it.













    On Thursday, March 9, 2017 5:33 PM, "pierre-benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
    After a deeper analysis of different combinations, including laminated complexes with layers of film and ripstop, we can assert that the fabric-film lifetime remains far too low. Indeed with the time and humidity the external films become more porous, making failure due to the lack of cohesion of the whole. 
    It is the reason why we can prefer a robust uniform plastic film like the multilayered cross laminated UV stabilized film, even by considering its lesser mechanical properties (about 1/3 of ripstop with equal mass). By the same we suggest the implementation of bands in reinforcements by extra thickness of the same material in order to assure the cohesion. So a high lifetime could be reached (see above that we tested xf-film tarp for more than a year outdoors) but with a relatively heavier film. If this option of an uniform film is not appropriate enough, searches should go massively towards rigid wings.  
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22226 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/9/2017
    Subject: Airfoil for a Flying Wind Turbine

    Airfoil for a Flying Wind Turbine  


    Page bookmarkUS2015184629 (A1)  -  Airfoil for a Flying Wind Turbine
    Inventor(s):VANDER LIND DAMON [US] +
    Applicant(s):GOOGLE INC [US] +
    Classification:
    - international:F03D3/00; F03D3/02
    - cooperative:
    Application number:US201314145550 20131231       Global Dossier
    Priority number(s):US201314145550 20131231
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22227 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/9/2017
    Subject: Wind-powered vessel for removal of carbon dioxide from seawater

    Wind-powered vessel for removal of carbon dioxide from seawater  


    Page bookmarkUS9227168 (B1)  -  Wind-powered vessel for removal of carbon dioxide from seawater
    Inventor(s):DEVAUL RICHARD WAYNE [US]; VANDER LIND DAMON [US] +
    Applicant(s):GOOGLE INC [US] +
    Classification:
    - international:B01J19/08; B63B35/44; B64C39/02; F03D9/00; H02P9/04
    - cooperative:
    Application number:US201414224021 20140324       Global Dossier
    Priority number(s):US201414224021 20140324 ; US201113288527 20111103 ; US20100409894P 20101103
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22228 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 3/9/2017
    Subject: Re: Soft vs Rigid Wings

    If you do not understand, please take a dictionnaire. Try to understand the ideas behind words instead of nitpicking. Ideas I present are sophisticated. If you do not understand them, try to learn the bases on internet. You will see after your analysis perhaps will join our deeper analysis.

        PierreB
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22229 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/9/2017
    Subject: SPAR BUOY PLATFORM


    Page bookmarkEP3090172 (A1)  -  SPAR BUOY PLATFORM

    Inventor(s):VANDER LIND DAMON [US] +

    Applicant(s):GOOGLE INC [US] +

    Also published as:
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22230 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/9/2017
    Subject: Moderator note
    All in the world and all members are invited to post sincere questions at any level of study about RAD matters. A question about RAD content put to one member usually may be answered by other members. The discussion is open to all at each post.  Avoid getting into people's personal lives and souls and minds; aim to deal with content. The forum is for RAD.  When innovative processes occur extant dictionaries will often prove inadequate to cover matters; the dictionary of RAD is being written in a dynamic evolving manner by participants; there will be overlap with other dictionaries and continuance, but new terms and/or new meanings will unfold. Each person will hold his or her own personal dictionary that never will match perfectly the dictionary within other persons. When willing, politely help this RAD-dictionary evolution by focus on the terms, concepts, and meanings. Some authors relish the chance to trace again and again a matter and realized the gift of challenge to learn even more during an effort of retrace. The image of not being able to step in the "same" river twice comes to mind.    Let questions be opportunities for furthering the AWE field. Consider posting only when RAD is substantially furthered in some way.   
    ~ Moderator
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22231 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/9/2017
    Subject: Methods and systems for conserving power during hover flight

    Methods and systems for conserving power during hover flight  

    Inventor(s):CHUBB ERIK CHRISTOPHER [US] +
    Applicant(s):GOOGLE INC [US] +

    Same also published as:
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22232 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/9/2017
    Subject: PLASTIC OPTICAL FIBER FOR RELIABLE LOW-COST AVIONIC NETWORKS
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22233 From: dave santos Date: 3/9/2017
    Subject: Re: Airfoil for a Flying Wind Turbine
    Its hard to see a specific airfoil as critical to the M600 if the whole platform is over-scaled. The primary concern is the apparent high wingloading. The wing does not become effective until it reaches a high velocity by diving, with scant altitude margin. Stall will be sudden and stall speed will be high, even with the flap. Its arguable that the M600 would do better with a larger chord lighter cheaper cruder wing, on all major counts, but would still be badly over-scaled, as a an E-VTOL flygen AWES.

    We may not be learning anything about successful AWES design, but perhaps a lot about design failure. How sad that the developers are unable to report freely on how the marketing and patent claims are turning out in practice. This gives room for bad design assumptions to live on in credulous minds.


    On Thursday, March 9, 2017 6:47 PM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  

    Airfoil for a Flying Wind Turbine  


    Page bookmarkUS2015184629 (A1)  -  Airfoil for a Flying Wind Turbine
    Inventor(s):VANDER LIND DAMON [US] +
    Applicant(s):GOOGLE INC [US] +
    Classification:
    - international:F03D3/00; F03D3/02
    - cooperative:
    Application number:US201314145550 20131231       Global Dossier
    Priority number(s):US201314145550 20131231
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22234 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/9/2017
    Subject: HIGH FREQUENCY BI-DIRECTIONAL AC POWER TRANSMISSION

    HIGH FREQUENCY BI- DIRECTIONAL AC POWER TRANSMISSION

    GOESSLING ANDREW [US]; CASEY LEO FRANCIS [US] +
    Applicant: GOOGLE INC

    Same also published as: 
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22235 From: dave santos Date: 3/9/2017
    Subject: Re: Soft vs Rigid Wings
    Pierre,

    You have it backwards.

    We have been citing multiple dictionary and Wikipedia definitions here, and of course will always continue to rely on them. Where is it that you are relying on such sources? We will gladly accept your usages if supported by such sources. The sources we have cited do not square with your usages, which are unsupported.

    We think we understand your view to be that rigid wings are better for AWE, even if your case is very undeveloped. That's not too hard to understand. Joe is right to wonder who agrees with you as "we", as someone on your "team". Perhaps someone you name can help explain your case more clearly, including dictionary meanings,

    daveS


    On Thursday, March 9, 2017 6:50 PM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre-benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
    If you do not understand, please take a dictionnaire. Try to understand the ideas behind words instead of nitpicking. Ideas I present are sophisticated. If you do not understand them, try to learn the bases on internet. You will see after your analysis perhaps will join our deeper analysis.
        PierreB
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22236 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/9/2017
    Subject: Wiring Harness for an Aerial Vehicle

    Wiring Harness for an Aerial Vehicle 

    VANDER LIND DAMON [US]; CHIN ERIC [US]; HALLAMASEK KURT [US] +
    Applicant: Google, INC. 

    Same also published as: 
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22237 From: dave santos Date: 3/9/2017
    Subject: Re: Methods and systems for conserving power during hover flight
    A typical Google/Makani patent that amounts to obvious known art. Here the kite principle and computer control are claimed as a inventive concept to hover with less power consumption.

    The fact remains that two centuries of kite/aviation patents and history leave very little room for actual inventive leaps, no matter how wealthy the financier.




    On Thursday, March 9, 2017 7:35 PM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  

    Methods and systems for conserving power during hover flight  

    Inventor(s):CHUBB ERIK CHRISTOPHER [US] +
    Applicant(s):GOOGLE INC [US] +
    Same also published as:
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22238 From: dave santos Date: 3/9/2017
    Subject: Re: Wiring Harness for an Aerial Vehicle
    Makani has hardly invented any new principles or components of an aviation wiring harness.

    What happens to RAD if get buried in junk patents? We may need to rethink how to spend our time if the AWE patent thicket threatens to suck us under. We started by fearing some party like Google could monopolize AWE by patents. The actual fear is that Google can rob us of our lives reacting to bad patents. The only apparent positive result is that a few folks made a nice income churning out Google AWE patents, but how boring to review them all.

     Yes, there are many fine old kite patents and a few genius AWE patents, but most of the new ones are pure junk, sadly.


    On Thursday, March 9, 2017 7:54 PM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  

    Wiring Harness for an Aerial Vehicle 

    VANDER LIND DAMON [US]; CHIN ERIC [US]; HALLAMASEK KURT [US] +
    Applicant: Google, INC. 

    Same also published as: 
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22239 From: dave santos Date: 3/9/2017
    Subject: Re: PLASTIC OPTICAL FIBER FOR RELIABLE LOW-COST AVIONIC NETWORKS
    Plastic or glass, fiber optic data cabling is not an inventive leap in AWE.


    On Thursday, March 9, 2017 7:32 PM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  


    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22240 From: dave santos Date: 3/9/2017
    Subject: Re: HIGH FREQUENCY BI-DIRECTIONAL AC POWER TRANSMISSION
    Not too long ago, this would have been an interesting disclosure, since we were pondering the same issues as Makani's team. Our theoretic conclusions tended to find flygen/motor-gen conductive-tether AWES as too heavy, expensive, scale-limited, and inefficient compared to groundgens. Virtually all teams but Makani-Joby agreed with AWES Forum analysis, and groundgens became the most standard approach. M600 class solid-state speed controllers, converters, and transformers are particularly massive and thermally limited. Now Makani's scheme is seemingly being empirically confirmed as a dead-end, a basic engineering finding years overdue for confirmation.

    There is a future for AC systems like this in large aerotectural AWES lattices, where AC grid lift can be added at will by more soft-kite area.


    On Thursday, March 9, 2017 7:46 PM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  

    HIGH FREQUENCY BI- DIRECTIONAL AC POWER TRANSMISSION

    GOESSLING ANDREW [US]; CASEY LEO FRANCIS [US] +
    Applicant: GOOGLE INC

    Same also published as: 
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22241 From: dave santos Date: 3/9/2017
    Subject: Indian Power Grids v Kites
    Previous Indian kite bans have failed. Kites are too much a cultural tradition to stop.

    The best solution is public safety education. Polymer lines are not a big risk, as electrical insulators. Aluminized Mylar balloons and kites, and metal poles used to fish kites from wires are more problematic.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22242 From: dave santos Date: 3/9/2017
    Subject: Re: Wind-powered vessel for removal of carbon dioxide from seawater
    Another grossly impractical Makani scheme, to remove CO2 from seawater, with Wing7 shown. Wing7 is rated at 20-30kW, and poor M600 may turn out to rate 0kW.

    A more scalable scheme would be to use ship-kites to distribute CaO (calcium oxide) from terrestrial deserts to the sea, as an antacid.

    Makani at sea was a compounded folly, since even land operations were marginal.



    On Thursday, March 9, 2017 6:47 PM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  

    Wind-powered vessel for removal of carbon dioxide from seawater  


    Page bookmarkUS9227168 (B1)  -  Wind-powered vessel for removal of carbon dioxide from seawater
    Inventor(s):DEVAUL RICHARD WAYNE [US]; VANDER LIND DAMON [US] +
    Applicant(s):GOOGLE INC [US] +
    Classification:
    - international:B01J19/08; B63B35/44; B64C39/02; F03D9/00; H02P9/04
    - cooperative:
    Application number:US201414224021 20140324       Global Dossier
    Priority number(s):US201414224021 20140324 ; US201113288527 20111103 ; US20100409894P 20101103
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22243 From: dave santos Date: 3/9/2017
    Subject: Re: Moderator note
    To anyone who objects to AWES Forum moderation and posting norms, please consider posting to the NASA or someAWE Forums, which need more life. This choice allows the greatest diversity of shared information in AWE.

    Good luck to all in contributing useful knowledge to the field of AWE. Many thanks to JoeF for doing his best for us all.


    On Thursday, March 9, 2017 7:16 PM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
    All in the world and all members are invited to post sincere questions at any level of study about RAD matters. A question about RAD content put to one member usually may be answered by other members. The discussion is open to all at each post.  Avoid getting into people's personal lives and souls and minds; aim to deal with content. The forum is for RAD.  When innovative processes occur extant dictionaries will often prove inadequate to cover matters; the dictionary of RAD is being written in a dynamic evolving manner by participants; there will be overlap with other dictionaries and continuance, but new terms and/or new meanings will unfold. Each person will hold his or her own personal dictionary that never will match perfectly the dictionary within other persons. When willing, politely help this RAD-dictionary evolution by focus on the terms, concepts, and meanings. Some authors relish the chance to trace again and again a matter and realized the gift of challenge to learn even more during an effort of retrace. The image of not being able to step in the "same" river twice comes to mind.    Let questions be opportunities for furthering the AWE field. Consider posting only when RAD is substantially furthered in some way.   
    ~ Moderator
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22244 From: dave santos Date: 3/10/2017
    Subject: Introducing Aerobatic Scaling Law for AWES
    We have listed many scaling laws in AWE, from soft to hard wings, electro-thermal limits, dimensionless veocities, etc. Presenting a new scaling law specifically to govern aerobatic flight, reasoned from first-principles-

    Whereas aeroabtic flight is a common requirement for hot kiteplanes, involving high-speed looping and figure-eights, and also the chance of turbulent upsets. These maneuvers involve high G-force with large stresses on the airframe. Consequently, true aerobatic aircraft are all rather small, to tolerate the forces. Larger aircraft are not aerobatic-certified. Two rare exceptions of large aircraft doing an easy aerobatic are a 707 and Concorde, and these only did barrel rolls at low G-force. AWES aerobatics are far more demanding.

    AWES like Makani and Ampyx, with wingspans comparable to a 737-200, are intended to do high G-force areobatics for long sessions at low altitude. This is far beyond any aviation precedent, and already starts marginal to the extent that simple scaling law predicts. What is a more exacting scaling scale to apply? Lets call it Aerobatic Scaling Law; similar to, but even more restrictive, than scaling law for Jumbo Jet Transports. What is the predicted maximum scale for an aerobatic kite-plane? Probably around the 20-30m WS of elite aerobatic gliders, and the maximum rated power potential is not very great, perhaps 100kW max (the kiteplane itself will need more kinetic wind power that extracted just to maintain flight).

    What is the major implication of aerobatic scaling law? In accord with basic square-cube law, rigid wings already scale the least, but even worse, the fast velocities require violent aerobatics in a tight unit-airspace. By comparison, large ship kites fly slower with less mass, and fly patterns less aerobatically, even just tacking back and forth sedately. Not only are large rigid wings more vulnerable to crashing, they may have higher crash velocity, and perhaps a higher crash rate. This is the general prediction of aerobatic scaling law for AWES. It remains to others to make more exact and detailed estimates of this law, and for AWES testing to reveal the effects beyond any doubt.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22245 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/10/2017
    Subject: Some patent search systems do not serve during maintenance

    "Error message:  Our backend search database is undergoing maintenance. We expect this to be finished shortly. Please come back soon."


    Tomorrow might be a better time to search. 


    20.01.2017
    Espacenet outages

    Regular maintenance outages: between 05.00 and 05.15 hrs CET, (Monday to Saturday).

     
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22246 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 3/10/2017
    Subject: Re: Soft vs Rigid Wings

    "We think we understand your view to be that rigid wings are better for AWE, even if your case is very undeveloped.".

    Who is "we"? DaveS  and inconditionally JoeF? And as moderator? Can DaveS produce some peer-reviewed paper with his team (we?). Thanks. 

     

     

     

     
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22247 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 3/10/2017
    Subject: Re: Introducing Aerobatic Scaling Law for AWES
    Attachments :
      We agree. So we suggest that searches should be made in order to make rigid kites lightweight, by working on structures and tensions.
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22248 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/10/2017
      Subject: Ph.D. thesis by Rogelio Lozano, Jr.

      University of Grenoble


      Ph.D. thesis by Rogelio Lozano, Jr.


      Abstract in English

      and

      Full thesis    (body is in English)


      THÈSE Pour obtenir le grade de DOCTEUR DE L’UNIVERSITÉ DE GRENOBLE
      Spécialité : Automatique-Productique Arrêté ministériel : 7 août 2006
      Présentée par Rogelio LOZANO Jr 


      préparée au sein GIPSA-Lab, Département Automatique et de Électronique, Électrotechnique, Automatique, Traitement du Signal


      Thèse dirigée par M., Mazen ALAMIR et codirigée par M., Ahmad HABLY préparée au sein GIPSA-Lab, Département Automatique et de Électronique, Électrotechnique, Automatique, Traitement du Signal Etude du vol d’un générateur cerfvolant.
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22249 From: dave santos Date: 3/10/2017
      Subject: Re: Soft vs Rigid Wings
      Yes. Anyone who has read your opinions here, like JoeF, should agree you seem to be favoring hard wings, to the extent I understood you.

      So who is the "we" that agrees with you in favoring hard wings as you do?


      On Friday, March 10, 2017 9:23 AM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre-benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
      "We think we understand your view to be that rigid wings are better for AWE, even if your case is very undeveloped.".
      Who is "we"? DaveS  and inconditionally JoeF? And as moderator? Can DaveS produce some peer-reviewed paper with his team (we?). Thanks. 
       
       
       
       
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22250 From: benhaiemp Date: 3/11/2017
      Subject: Re: Soft vs Rigid Wings

      Our FlygenKite, OrthoKiteBunch, WheelWind, Rotating Reel teams agree that in the end flexible kite would be better thanks to lesser cubic-square law penalty, lesser crash risk with lesser impact, public acceptability.

      But there is no existing fabric-film having both mechanical robustness and lifetime enough for AWE use 24 h/24. See some indications on http://www.kempsails.com/yacht-sails/sail-fabric.html.

      So searches for an efficient laminated complex or fabric for AWE use (24 h/24, several years) should be made.  

      If no, rigid wings is a practical but perhaps not viable enough option. Some searches can be made in order to find arrangements to limit cubic-square law penalty of rigid wings. 
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22251 From: dave santos Date: 3/11/2017
      Subject: Re: Soft vs Rigid Wings
      The fortunate truth is that for thousands of years sailors have succeeded with woven plant fiber sails, without claiming their sails did not serve well enough. If AWE was restricted to only these fibers, it could still serve us well.  Sailcloth is not the sort of material where a non-sailmaker can futz around on the Net and find something even better than the pros already use. AWE R&D is not that sort of search, instead, its about showing that the developer can actually wear out the cloth available long after it has already paid for itself in use.

      Good luck to Pierre believing that if he cannot find a better soft-kite material, then he will bet on rigid wings, even if he never wears out a single fabric kite.




      On Saturday, March 11, 2017 7:56 AM, "pierre-benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
      Our FlygenKite, OrthoKiteBunch, WheelWind, Rotating Reel teams agree that in the end flexible kite would be better thanks to lesser cubic-square law penalty, lesser crash risk with lesser impact, public acceptability.
      But there is no existing fabric-film having both mechanical robustness and lifetime enough for AWE use 24 h/24. See some indications on http://www.kempsails.com/yacht-sails/sail-fabric.html.
      So searches for an efficient laminated complex or fabric for AWE use (24 h/24, several years) should be made.  
      If no, rigid wings is a practical but perhaps not viable enough option. Some searches can be made in order to find arrangements to limit cubic-square law penalty of rigid wings. 
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22252 From: dave santos Date: 3/11/2017
      Subject: Professional Life Cycle Engineering Analysis
      The life-cycle of industrial materials is judged by established engineering standards. A common power generation basis is for carbon-based fuels to be burnt, and the carbon is released in the air. This is unsustainable. AWE proposes a superior carbon cycle, to make wings, hard or soft, from carbon-based feed-stock, and harvest wind-power. When these wings are worn-out, recycling is the ideal life-cycle. This is review in AWE; this life-cycle model has been studied and found promising by multiple parties with engineering expertise, particularly German studies, like Stefan Wilhelm's thesis-


      What is the major public uncertainty in AWES life-cycle analysis? Its not the UV life of fabric, which is well known, and does not prevent traditional economic uses like sails and architectural-fabrics. The major public uncertainty regarding AWES material life-cycle is hard-wing crash statistics, which the corresponding developers are covering up. Well informed AWES analysts nevertheless understand that current hard-wing survival is far behind fabric working life, and hard wing composites recycle poorly.

      What is the future? The graphene/carbon-nano-tube revolution is coming, and will revolutionize the durability of AWES fabrics. Even so, current fabrics are already predicted to pay for themselves quickly, for a low total LCOE of AWE. Developing the new materials is a separate engineering quest. AWE's R&D challenge is to find how best to use whatever material prevails in general engineering material science R&D.
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22253 From: benhaiemp Date: 3/11/2017
      Subject: Re: Soft vs Rigid Wings
      We try to produce a synthesis of problems from soft or rigid wings, that for a general use and improvement. Note that I use a fabric kite on http://flygenkite.com/         Our kite expert is going to analyse kite wear: as first observation the sewings are a little released. Our purpose is sharing tools for readers, not to denigrate someone.  
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22254 From: dave santos Date: 3/12/2017
      Subject: Re: Soft vs Rigid Wings
      Its not enough to fly the flygen AWES soft kite without a reference hard wing AWES, if the serious engineering question is "soft v rigid".

      The prediction is that  it will be revealing even just trying to put together and fly a hard wing AWES to compare with, even before careful comparison in testing.

      The soft  flygen's seams should still be holding after the hard wing has been destroyed, if crash-factor theory is correct. It should also have a higher capacity-factor, regardless of crashing, for an equivalent mass to the hard wing version


      On Saturday, March 11, 2017 11:44 PM, "pierre-benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
      We try to produce a synthesis of problems from soft or rigid wings, that for a general use and improvement. Note that I use a fabric kite on http://flygenkite.com/         Our kite expert is going to analyse kite wear: as first observation the sewings are a little released. Our purpose is sharing tools for readers, not to denigrate someone.  
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22255 From: dave santos Date: 3/12/2017
      Subject: Crash Factor Theory
      "Crash Factor Theory" jumps out as an engineering analysis deliverable, after years of study and discussion. CFT specifically emerges from the conclusion that the primary engineering challenge rigid wing AWES face is an unacceptably high "crash factor". 

      In general, an AWES rigid wing must work long enough to pay for itself. Whether or not it can is a complex combination of sub-factors. This is not just a matter of how many crashes per 100k hr (MTBCF). For example, the consequence (system-impact) of a crash is a function of crash-worthiness. A soft wing that pops back up instantly after a crash, without apparent damage, is the ideal. If damage is rare and easily repaired in the field, that's not so bad. If a crash tends to "total" the aircraft, with dangerous impacts, fire-risk, etc, that the worst case. That's Crash Factor Theory in-a-nutshell. 

      Failing to take Crash Factors into proper account can lead to mistaken design down-selects. For example, in 2009, Makani chose a high-risk rigid-wing flygen E-VTOL architecture that cannot survive a crash. Makani's current crash history, by leaked clues, seems to be at least one total crash per ~100hrs of logged AWES flight. This is disasterous. Power kites, on the other hand, last at least 2000hrs, and if torn, are taped in the field or sewn right back up in the loft. One can buy ~100 kites, of comparable power to a rigid wing, for the same capital. UV resistance factors are not nearly as important in AWES design as crash factors.

      An exciting test concept is to see how well ship-kites crash and recover. They are derived from sport soft wings (power kites and spinnakers), so they should do well. The rip statistics may be similar to a collection of smaller kites of equivalent-area. We expect load-paths to act as rip-stop. There are at least a dozen full scale ship-kites sitting on the shelf (COTS) available for crash testing. Hard or soft, we must crash our AWES many times to suss out all the crash-factors, before we sell and insure them.
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22256 From: benhaiemp Date: 3/12/2017
      Subject: Re: Soft vs Rigid Wings

      We think that a return of experience is also useful, allowing a better analysis of data. So reports of lifetime tests from AWE companies are welcome. Thanks.


      PierreB
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22257 From: benhaiemp Date: 3/12/2017
      Subject: Re: Soft vs Rigid Wings

      Ripstop and plastic films have different properties. Ripstop is robust and stops tear propagation as its name indicates. But its lifetime is low, mainly due to UV on thin fibers. Plastic films are less robust but have a higher lifetime. So a laminated complex could perhaps combine both qualities.

      Note that a polymer fabric is a fabric, not a polymer. Example: although ripstop is made with polyamide or polyester that are polymers, it doesn't mean ripstop is a polymer as it is not. In contrast a plastic film can be a polymer by itself.

      We hope that these precisions will bring clarity, especially for those who are not familiarized with these definitions, sometimes quoting Wikipedia without understanding the context.

      Laminated complexes are a sophisticated field of searches, so the approximation is not appropriate.

      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22258 From: dave santos Date: 3/12/2017
      Subject: Re: Soft vs Rigid Wings
      This is not the best topic to review basic textile engineering, but the terms are still being confused. Wikipedia is a good start, but no substitute for expert level knowledge in sailmaking and kitemaking. Such knowledge is acquired by years of apprenticeship with masters. We are fortuntate in AWE to draw on the very best masters, like Lynn, Montague, Culp, d'Armant, Reinhart, Jordan, Mueller, Brasington, 2kite, Griffith, and on and on. North Sails NZ, the makers of SkySails' wings, and the Weifang masters work at the elite level in soft wings.

      Pierre is mistaken on several points. Polymer fabrics and films are both considered "polymer" in common usage, according to the specific polymer(s) used. He seems to overlook that film laminates acquire ripstop-cabability by their embedded fiber load paths. Dry (non-prepreg) carbon fiber ribbons and UHMWPE fibers are typical. Similarly, Mothra tech of rope loadpaths perform the ripstop function. This is just an online forum, but a professional engineering context, its essential to distinguish terms-of-art precisely, like whether common ripstop-fabric or ripstop-capability is meant.

      Its not really possible to properly judge soft-kites as a non-expert. For example, a toy kite is designed to serve a season or two at the cheapest cost, but a serious power kite is more soundly built, because it has been tested carefully. Pierre thinks the pulled threads on a toy kite are evidence that it will not last, but a kite engineer instead redesigns the seam as needed. Rigid wings have their own professional standards. This would best be a separate topic.

      The professional engineering answer to "soft v hard" is to test both realistically and let the results decide which predictions best matched data.


      On Sunday, March 12, 2017 1:23 PM, "pierre-benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
      Ripstop and plastic films have different properties. Ripstop is robust and stops tear propagation as its name indicates. But its lifetime is low, mainly due to UV on thin fibers. Plastic films are less robust but have a higher lifetime. So a laminated complex could perhaps combine both qualities.
      Note that a polymer fabric is a fabric, not a polymer. Example: although ripstop is made with polyamide or polyester that are polymers, it doesn't mean ripstop is a polymer as it is not. In contrast a plastic film can be a polymer by itself.
      We hope that these precisions will bring clarity, especially for those who are not familiarized with these definitions, sometimes quoting Wikipedia without understanding the context.
      Laminated complexes are a sophisticated field of searches, so the approximation is not appropriate.


      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22259 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 3/12/2017
      Subject: Re: Soft vs Rigid Wings

      Too much confusion between riptstop and similarly-case of ripstop. And "Pierre thinks the pulled threads on a toy kite are evidence that it will not last, but a kite engineer instead redesigns the seam as needed. " is both a deliberate deception or thinking deformation and a mediocre belittlement as I never made such a think. Poor arguing as usual.