Messages in AirborneWindEnergy group.                          AWES 22315 to 22366 Page 339 of 440.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22315 From: dave santos Date: 3/24/2017
Subject: Re: "Blimp" is about to take a hit.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22316 From: dave santos Date: 3/24/2017
Subject: Re: "Blimp" is about to take a hit.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22317 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/24/2017
Subject: About 9 years ago looksee

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22318 From: dave santos Date: 3/24/2017
Subject: Small AWES Kite Pumping by COTS Rocking-Beam-to-Rotary-Shaft Transmi

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22319 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/24/2017
Subject: Re: Small AWES Kite Pumping by COTS Rocking-Beam-to-Rotary-Shaft Tra

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22320 From: dave santos Date: 3/25/2017
Subject: Re: Digital Morphing Wing

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22321 From: Joe Faust Date: 3/25/2017
Subject: Fwd: Energy Harvesting is Now a Megatrend - webinar reminder

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22322 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/27/2017
Subject: PAPA

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22323 From: dave santos Date: 3/27/2017
Subject: Re: PAPA

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22324 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/27/2017
Subject: Latest opinions of Dr. Peter Harrop

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22325 From: dave santos Date: 3/27/2017
Subject: Re: Latest opinions of Dr. Peter Harrop

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22326 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/27/2017
Subject: Gondola Lift

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22327 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/27/2017
Subject: Re: Latest opinions of Dr. Peter Harrop

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22328 From: dave santos Date: 3/27/2017
Subject: Re: Latest opinions of Dr. Peter Harrop

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22329 From: dougselsam Date: 3/27/2017
Subject: Re: Latest opinions of Dr. Peter Harrop

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22330 From: dave santos Date: 3/27/2017
Subject: Re: Latest opinions of Dr. Peter Harrop

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22331 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 3/27/2017
Subject: Re: Latest opinions of Dr. Peter Harrop

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22332 From: dave santos Date: 3/27/2017
Subject: Re: Latest opinions of Dr. Peter Harrop

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22333 From: dave santos Date: 3/27/2017
Subject: Role of prediction-uncertainty in AWE- Weather Forecasting

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22334 From: dave santos Date: 3/27/2017
Subject: Austin Wind Meetup (template- start your own local club)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22335 From: dave santos Date: 3/27/2017
Subject: Daidalos Capital's AWE investment team and strategy

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22336 From: dave santos Date: 3/27/2017
Subject: Re: Daidalos Capital's AWE investment team and strategy

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22337 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 3/28/2017
Subject: Re: Latest opinions of Dr. Peter Harrop

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22338 From: benhaiemp Date: 3/28/2017
Subject: Re: Latest opinions of Dr. Peter Harrop

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22339 From: benhaiemp Date: 3/28/2017
Subject: Re: Soft vs Rigid Wings

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22340 From: benhaiemp Date: 3/28/2017
Subject: R&D more focused

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22341 From: benhaiemp Date: 3/28/2017
Subject: Re: Crash Factor Theory

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22342 From: benhaiemp Date: 3/28/2017
Subject: Re: Crash Factor Theory

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22343 From: benhaiemp Date: 3/28/2017
Subject: Re: Introducing Aerobatic Scaling Law for AWES

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22344 From: dave santos Date: 3/28/2017
Subject: Re: Soft vs Rigid Wings

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22345 From: dave santos Date: 3/28/2017
Subject: Re: R&D more focused

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22346 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/28/2017
Subject: Re: Daidalos Capital's AWE investment team and strategy

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22347 From: benhaiemp Date: 3/28/2017
Subject: Re: R&D more focused

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22348 From: dave santos Date: 3/28/2017
Subject: Re: Daidalos Capital's AWE investment team and strategy

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22349 From: dave santos Date: 3/28/2017
Subject: Re: R&D more focused

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22350 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/28/2017
Subject: Re: Daidalos Capital's AWE investment team and strategy

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22351 From: dave santos Date: 3/28/2017
Subject: Re: Crash Factor Theory

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22352 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/28/2017
Subject: Re: R&D more focused

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22353 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 3/28/2017
Subject: Re: Crash Factor Theory

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22354 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/28/2017
Subject: Re: Latest opinions of Dr. Peter Harrop

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22355 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/28/2017
Subject: Re: Crash Factor Theory

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22356 From: dave santos Date: 3/28/2017
Subject: Re: Crash Factor Theory

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22357 From: benhaiemp Date: 3/28/2017
Subject: Re: Crash Factor Theory

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22359 From: dave santos Date: 3/28/2017
Subject: Re: Crash Factor Theory

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22360 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/28/2017
Subject: Re: Crash Factor Theory

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22361 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/28/2017
Subject: Re: Crash Factor Theory

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22363 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/28/2017
Subject: Re: Crash Factor Theory

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22364 From: dave santos Date: 3/28/2017
Subject: Comparing Pierre's evaluation criteria with Aerospace norms

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22365 From: dave santos Date: 3/28/2017
Subject: Re: Comparing Pierre's evaluation criteria with Aerospace norms

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22366 From: dougselsam Date: 3/28/2017
Subject: Re: Latest opinions of Dr. Peter Harrop



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22315 From: dave santos Date: 3/24/2017
Subject: Re: "Blimp" is about to take a hit.
"Blimp" seems safe as both a pop-term and LTA term-of-art, esp. for historic discussion. "Drigible" applies to any LTA with steerable propulsion. "Blimp" applies to dirigibles with a soft outer envelope whose rigidity is based on inflation pressure, including new semi-rigid variants. "Airship" applies to any dirigible sufficiently impressive in size, payload, range, etc.

Goodyear in fact is renewing its blimp-based brand-marketing tradition, including a modernistic inflatable hanger, for an updated blimp system. LTA tech may not prevail generally, but its doing OK in its established niche apps in marketing and special events.





On Friday, March 24, 2017 9:50 AM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
"Blimp"  is about to take a hit. 
Goodyear's retiring of its final blimp this month while keeping interest in semi-rigid dirigibles; Goodyear will be letting the longer term "semi-rigid dirigible" be masked by letting "blimp" feed some of the public mind in regard to the longer phrase "semi-rigid dirigible". 

AWES may tether blimps or semi-rigid dirigibles. Kytooning lives on!  Kytoon AWES are in service for surveillance and science. Many AWES workers have filed patents involved kytoon. 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22316 From: dave santos Date: 3/24/2017
Subject: Re: "Blimp" is about to take a hit.
Noting also that any dirigible in principle can tether to a crosswind-cableway and drive it, in wind, in "Kytoon Mode".

In rough terms, a generic blimp might generate around 100kW in a fairly strong breeze, but this would not be an economic proposition, based on inherent high LTA costs.


On Friday, March 24, 2017 10:48 AM, "dave santos santos137@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
"Blimp" seems safe as both a pop-term and LTA term-of-art, esp. for historic discussion. "Drigible" applies to any LTA with steerable propulsion. "Blimp" applies to dirigibles with a soft outer envelope whose rigidity is based on inflation pressure, including new semi-rigid variants. "Airship" applies to any dirigible sufficiently impressive in size, payload, range, etc.

Goodyear in fact is renewing its blimp-based brand-marketing tradition, including a modernistic inflatable hanger, for an updated blimp system. LTA tech may not prevail generally, but its doing OK in its established niche apps in marketing and special events.





On Friday, March 24, 2017 9:50 AM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
"Blimp"  is about to take a hit. 
Goodyear's retiring of its final blimp this month while keeping interest in semi-rigid dirigibles; Goodyear will be letting the longer term "semi-rigid dirigible" be masked by letting "blimp" feed some of the public mind in regard to the longer phrase "semi-rigid dirigible". 

AWES may tether blimps or semi-rigid dirigibles. Kytooning lives on!  Kytoon AWES are in service for surveillance and science. Many AWES workers have filed patents involved kytoon. 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22317 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/24/2017
Subject: About 9 years ago looksee

About 9 years ago: 

Scientists look high in the sky for power / Jet stream could fill global energy needs, researchers say

Keay Davidson, Chronicle Science Writer

 Published 4:00 am, Monday, May 7, 2007

=======================================================
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22318 From: dave santos Date: 3/24/2017
Subject: Small AWES Kite Pumping by COTS Rocking-Beam-to-Rotary-Shaft Transmi
Its increasingly easy to find nice "walking beam" pumping-to-rotary-motion transmissions. These are two good examples; a rocking-scooter and foot-pumped spin-mop. The scooter might deliver about .5kw, and the mop around 100w. The idea is to fly a suitable pilot-lifter with a suspended pumping-wing WECS that line-pumps the transmission, to drive an electrical generator at high rpm.

I have started a groundgen based on the Rave rocking scooter, and am looking out for a mop unit to adapt as well (my wife would not give hers up for AWE, but I did get "bench-test" it). There is no longer any doubt that anyone can hack together a small AWES by scrounging together common parts. Both of these product lines are sold by Walmart, and turn up in reuse streams like thrift stores and flea markets.

Make no mistake, experimenting faithfully at small scale is essential preparation to designing innovative large scale AWES. These mechanisms have COTS parts availability all the way to megascale. COTS is the essence of fast TRL9 industrialization.

Image result for rockboard scooter mini

The AWES part is a smooth rack and pinion and sprag affair, with the foot pedal as the walking beam, for very high-rpm potential, either direct-driving or rim-driving the gen.

Image result for spin mop
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22319 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/24/2017
Subject: Re: Small AWES Kite Pumping by COTS Rocking-Beam-to-Rotary-Shaft Tra
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22320 From: dave santos Date: 3/25/2017
Subject: Re: Digital Morphing Wing
There are only a handful of recent papers in Metamaterial science dealing with aerodynamic (aeroelastic) metamaterials. This is another key reference to recopy here-

Harnessing fluid-structure interactions to design self-regulating acoustic metamaterials 
Filippo Casadei and Katia Bertoldi 
School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Harvard University,  January 2014


======== review ========

This is the original 2014 AWES airborne-array system-identification as a metamaterial, which is the earliest documented aerodynamic metamaterial proposal we currently know of. Any prior mention is appreciated, but AWES Forum seems to be a birthplace in this concept space, and the leading theoretic and experimental domain-

Kite-Matter as a Meta-Material

dave santos <santos137@yahoo.com  
Digital Morphing Wing:
Active Wing Shaping Concept Using Composite
Lattice-Based Cellular Structures
Benjamin Jenett, Sam Calisch, Daniel Cellucci, Nick Cramer, Neil Gershenfeld,
Sean Swei, and Kenneth C. Cheung
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22321 From: Joe Faust Date: 3/25/2017
Subject: Fwd: Energy Harvesting is Now a Megatrend - webinar reminder

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Rod Read <rod.read@windswept-and-interesting.co.uk
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: IDTechEx Research <insights@idtechex.com
Reminder Of A Free Live Webinar by IDTechEx on Tuesday 28 March 2017

Energy Harvesting is Now a Megatrend

By Dr Peter Harrop, Chairman, IDTechEx

Space is limited - so if you haven't already done so please reserve your seat today!

Energy harvesting (EH) is the creation of electricity where it is needed. Unlike biofuels, the polluting form of off-grid renewable energy, it is emission free at point of creation of electricity. It is of long term as well as short term impact, not a bridging technology like biofuels.

Many "new" EH technologies are achieving or promising first sales such as electret last year, triboelectric invented only four years ago and dielectric elastomer forms. Applications can involve making vehicles much more efficient by regeneration: commercialisation in prospect for such things as energy harvesting tires, suspension, exhaust and boat motion each providing up to kW or more. An even bigger emerging sector is making clean electricity from ambient energy in remote locations, vehicles - land, water and air - and elsewhere. That can involve reinvented solar as solar roads (even on ships) and airborne wind energy (AWE) on ships, off-shore and on land. AWE is newly on sale as kite power systems with cleverer variants to come from 100W portable units to GW wind farms. IDTechEx stages the world's first conference on Energy Independent Electric Vehicles at TU Delft, Netherlands on Sept 27-28. Yes, energy harvesting in all its new forms is a megatrend transformational as everything from aircraft aloft for ten years to prosperity in developing nations. Internet of Things nodes will never be deployed in billions without it providing mW to W levels -fit and forget.

This webinar shares recent IDTechEx research carried out on the progress and potential of everything from triboelectrics to AWE and new EH impact including on wearable technology such as that based on e-textiles that are piezo + photovoltaic. Of course, these will be useful as sails and airships too. Only IDTechEx joins up the dots. Hear about:

• The technology choices expanded and reinvented.
• The applications and seismic impact on industries and economies.
• Some of the small companies we think could rocket to one billion dollars.
• Market forecasts.

We will be holding exactly the same webinar twice in one day. Please register for whichever session is most convenient for you.

Please note that your details may be shared with our sponsors.

Date: Tuesday 28 March 2017
Duration: 30 minutes plus 10 minutes for Q&A

WEBINAR #1: Europe & Asia-Pacific
9:30am (BST/GMT+1) London
10:30am (GMT+2) Amsterdam, Berlin, Rome
11:30am (GMT+3) Athens, Jerusalem
4:30pm (GMT+9) Singapore, Taipei, Beijing
5:30pm (GMT+10) Tokyo, Seoul
7:30pm (GMT+12) Canberra
Register for #1 now

WEBINAR #2: Americas
9:00am (Pacific DT) USA & Canada
10:00am (Mountain DT) USA & Canada
11:00am (Central DT) USA & Canada
12:00noon (Eastern DT) USA & Canada
5:00pm (BST/GMT+1) London
Register for #2 now

Contact Us

insights@IDTechEx.com
UK: +44 (0)1223 812300
US: +1 617 577 7890
Register at IDTechEx.com to receive free white papers, journal back issues and more
http://www.idtechex.com/users/ register.asp
 
To stop receiving emails from IDTechEx, please go to:
http://www.idtechex.com/users/ en/donotemail.asp?email=rod.re ad@windswept-and-interesting. co.uk
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22322 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/27/2017
Subject: PAPA

http://professionalaerialphotographers.com/

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

this topic thread would post items having to do with the website linked and its association.   AWES interface with PAPA is a realm on topic for this forum. Already the machinations used in KAP part of aerial photography.   Aerial photography includes other than KAP. Photography may occur from machinations placed on birds, rockets, gliders, free balloons, hang gliders, planetary satellites, free-falling aerially dropped objects, kite systems, drones, ... 

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

    
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22323 From: dave santos Date: 3/27/2017
Subject: Re: PAPA
A good start in the History link, with kites given due coverage by PAPA, but there is the gnawing sense that everything is changing so fast and radically that most previous assumptions are moot. As Hunter famously wrote, "as the going gets weird, the weird turn pro".

In the case of aerial-photography, as a longtime exclusive minor profession, soon pretty much anyone will be able to get professional results (with AI-driven camera work). There is a closing window of technical opportunity when equipment is so heavy and expensive that specialized pros are required. Just recently Drones have squeezed helicopters out for most aerial photo work. KAP is so cheap, but rather tricky to guarantee even for, say, a typical wedding assignment, that its not going to be a large profession, like windpower technician (current number one new job in Texas).

Consider this association as a sort of role-playing club, compared to heavy-duty professional associations like Medicine and Law. One might as well have fun declaring a land-based sky photography a faux profession. If kites come to power the world, with perhaps around 25 million technicians required, AWEIA will be the real-deal.


On Monday, March 27, 2017 10:07 AM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
=================================
this topic thread would post items having to do with the website linked and its association.   AWES interface with PAPA is a realm on topic for this forum. Already the machinations used in KAP part of aerial photography.   Aerial photography includes other than KAP. Photography may occur from machinations placed on birds, rockets, gliders, free balloons, hang gliders, planetary satellites, free-falling aerially dropped objects, kite systems, drones, ... 
=================================
    
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22324 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/27/2017
Subject: Latest opinions of Dr. Peter Harrop

To market a pricey report, Dr. Peter Harrop seems to posting lead summary notes addressing AWES markets and progress as he sees such. His various statements may well tease discussion. His today's summary can be read:


http://www.energyharvestingjournal.com/articles/10793/airborne-wind-energy-sense-and-nonsense


Read his way of slicing the AWES markets into two branches. Then see his comments about submarkets. 


I get the sense that his silky-smooth text will keep improving to grasp the changing AWE world while teasing readers to buy the reports.  The target deal: buy the report.  There is no giveaway as is found in our AWES forum herein where we are willing to post any market information members are willing to share openly. 


 And notice various early downselect conclusions about control and proximity to cities and airports. Such early conclusions risk having to be changed. 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22325 From: dave santos Date: 3/27/2017
Subject: Re: Latest opinions of Dr. Peter Harrop
JoeF,

Have you gotten any reply from these folks? I tried and got nothing back. Its unclear if this is nothing more than an isolated AWE business scheme that does not reply to feed-back, or if the analysts would eagerly partner in the wider community, but did not get the message,

daveS


On Monday, March 27, 2017 1:33 PM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
To market a pricey report, Dr. Peter Harrop seems to posting lead summary notes addressing AWES markets and progress as he sees such. His various statements may well tease discussion. His today's summary can be read:


Read his way of slicing the AWES markets into two branches. Then see his comments about submarkets. 

I get the sense that his silky-smooth text will keep improving to grasp the changing AWE world while teasing readers to buy the reports.  The target deal: buy the report.  There is no giveaway as is found in our AWES forum herein where we are willing to post any market information members are willing to share openly. 

 And notice various early downselect conclusions about control and proximity to cities and airports. Such early conclusions risk having to be changed. 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22326 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/27/2017
Subject: Gondola Lift

Gondola Lift

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gondola_lift

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

The lines lifted significantly up in the air carrying line-held gondolas might receive some exploration by AWE seekers. 

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

Some of my first notes: 

  • The cable-held gondolas are in the wind and affected by the wind. Designers most often choose to lower the wind effect by strategic shaping. Cableways may be shut down when wind is too much for the system to handle.  The wind affects the cables of the systems. Some of the engineering lessons in cableway gondola lift systems may interest kite arch systems. Indeed, one may see the gondola lift cableway system as a kite system with deliberate damping of lift and drag as regards the gondola's shape (the gondola being a wing in the kite system). 

  •  Extant cableways? Could they be used to hold WECs producing electricity via more than one strategy?   One strategy: have gondolas shaped and controlled to be driven by the wind for driving the cable to drive an electricity generator.   Another strategy: have the cables not moving, but then have held WECs at fixed stations to generate electricity.  Some cableways are used for their first purposes in only some months of the year and not in other months.  Some cableways are not used in some hours of the day; could those hours be used for WECs attached. 

  • Perhaps a cableway could be designed for a first-level purpose of supporting WECs for flygen or groundgen, and THEN secondarily used for material/person transportation? z

  • Cableways  (raised driven loops) may be part of some AWES launching and landing strategies. E.g., consider having a cableway carry afar a wing and tether be kited; some winching in of the afar wing could put the wing to upper altitude for use of upper winds.  

  • ?
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22327 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/27/2017
Subject: Re: Latest opinions of Dr. Peter Harrop
Received no contact, inquiries or no replies.  Notice the large set of reports being offered. There seems to be a kind of template being followed to construct text over realms that echo ideas found in the realms. I get the sense a team is learning as they look at growing fields and then forming "reports" to be sold at say, $5000 to $7000 per report or so. They note that a plus is their sending out people to the field around the world to get in the know of what is happening at hot pioneer fronts of a field. AWE is just one target field. 
     If I am seeing correctly, it seems IDTechEx is the core 

and 

The mass of the effort has AWE as one of the sideshows. 
Conferences and reports seem be the high ground of activity. 

Could helpful original analysis over AWE be available from the IdTechEx body of actors?   That question is sticking to my goggles as I see the promotional inertia coming from IDTechEx writers in the selling effort. 
The group has apparently no need to interview me, as I put all I have into AWES forum and EnergyKiteSystems.net  which is up for free viewing by the writers of the IDTechEx group.  The text from them seem like they have a high opinion of their own conclusions; I wonder who they might be using to check their AWE thoughts.    It also feels like they are willing to sell an evolving report structure that may be corrected at any moment when they get new information.  From afar, I wish them luck in their adventure and hope their products do good for AWE and earth. If the paywall stays, I probably never will read a word or their reports.   
     What may happen: investors might be fooled.   I hope not one investor gets fooled by anyone's text, not text here or there or anywhere. 

~ JoeF
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22328 From: dave santos Date: 3/27/2017
Subject: Re: Latest opinions of Dr. Peter Harrop
Posted to Dr Harrop separately-

Dear Dr. Harrop,

Joe and I review all things AWE for a decade now, and your involvement is naturally of interest. We are top AWE domain knowledge experts, so we think we can enhance the value of your work, if allowed, but of course, we would not pay dearly for information we share openly, seemingly in more comprehensive depth. We are unused to AWE tech content behind such a pricey paywall, and worry about how good it really is as an investment guide. No one we know in AWE seems to have been contacted by you for interviews.

Would you like to team up closely with the emerging industry, or do you prefer to remain outside? Feel free to ask us anything about any AWE player or topic, where your best knowledge might have critical gaps that your clients might need filled in, as you expand and update your work product. We also wonder if you might step up to serve in some leadership role in AWE, as the start-up M&A consolidation phase runs its course, and mid-cap enterprises emerge for major commercialization.

We also would welcome an IDtechex US AWE conference or conference track.

Yours,

dave and joe

------ misc --------

p.harrop@idtechex.com

Read more at: Dr Peter Harrop






On Monday, March 27, 2017 3:55 PM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
Received no contact, inquiries or no replies.  Notice the large set of reports being offered. There seems to be a kind of template being followed to construct text over realms that echo ideas found in the realms. I get the sense a team is learning as they look at growing fields and then forming "reports" to be sold at say, $5000 to $7000 per report or so. They note that a plus is their sending out people to the field around the world to get in the know of what is happening at hot pioneer fronts of a field. AWE is just one target field. 
     If I am seeing correctly, it seems IDTechEx is the core 

and 

The mass of the effort has AWE as one of the sideshows. 
Conferences and reports seem be the high ground of activity. 

Could helpful original analysis over AWE be available from the IdTechEx body of actors?   That question is sticking to my goggles as I see the promotional inertia coming from IDTechEx writers in the selling effort. 
The group has apparently no need to interview me, as I put all I have into AWES forum and EnergyKiteSystems.net  which is up for free viewing by the writers of the IDTechEx group.  The text from them seem like they have a high opinion of their own conclusions; I wonder who they might be using to check their AWE thoughts.    It also feels like they are willing to sell an evolving report structure that may be corrected at any moment when they get new information.  From afar, I wish them luck in their adventure and hope their products do good for AWE and earth. If the paywall stays, I probably never will read a word or their reports.   
     What may happen: investors might be fooled.   I hope not one investor gets fooled by anyone's text, not text here or there or anywhere. 

~ JoeF
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22329 From: dougselsam Date: 3/27/2017
Subject: Re: Latest opinions of Dr. Peter Harrop
We always get offers from these guys to buy their super-expensive reports.  Obviously targeting people with way too much "extra money".  By this point we on this list should realize the futility of trying to predict anything in the AWE realm.  If anyone ever comes up with anything workable, it will probably come out of left field and be a surprise.  Wind energy is not usually very fertile ground for outsiders to grasp, let alone make predictions over.  I wonder, had this group produced a "ten-year forecast" ten years ago, what it would have said. 

How about: "In ten years none of the promises you are seeing from any of the companies pursuing AWE will come true, no AWE systems will be in regular operation anywhere in the world, and even the kites-towing ships will have gone bankrupt."(?)  I guess it would have seemed pretty harsh, but here we are.  My backyard windmill is putting more power into the grid right now (12 kW - it is a windy day) than all the AWE systems in the world combined, I'm pretty sure. 

Even Dr. Harrop admits:
"Forecasting is hazardous at such an early stage with no significant sales so far. Nonetheless, investors and planners want something to assist their decision making. We therefore give a ten and twenty year forecast based on the take-off of conventional wind energy all those years ago and on our discounting of intentions of those interviewed given an understandable tendency of developers to miss plans so far."

The difference between AWE and the development of conventional wind energy is that working turbines of more than a MegaWatt had been successfully run for months at a time until they broke, decades before, so the general technology was understood, and the general configuration for success was known.  In the case of AWE, nobody can even agree on a definition.  One day it includes everything from planning aircraft routes to flying recreational kites.  The next day people are being castigated for experimenting at a small scale with "toys" and told to get serious because AWE means feeding TeraWatts into the grid. 

I'll tell you what:  I wouldn't pay 10 cents for a forecast regarding AWE from ANYONE.  Well, OK maybe ten cents, but not a penny more!  :)
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22330 From: dave santos Date: 3/27/2017
Subject: Re: Latest opinions of Dr. Peter Harrop
Doug wrote: "we on this list should realize the futility of trying to predict anything in the AWE realm".

Correction: This is the proper place to try to predict how AWE will progress as an aerospace field. Anyone here who thinks engineering prediction is futility came to the wrong place..

Lets encourage anyone to have their turn making an AWE forecast, and let eventual results prove who hit the target. We have documented hundreds of AWE forecasts, that run the gamut, and some will surely prove out. Thankfully, the most repetitive prediction on the AWES Forum for many years, "All roads lead to the Superturbine", has abated in apparent futility. So bring on the fresh predictions, folks, and fresh prototypes.

Dr Harrop's forecast is very general, that the AWE field is developing more or less like the many other amazing tech fields*. His assessment of a ten to twenty-year time frame fits KiteLab's time-frame from 2009, where ~2030 was seen as a major industrialization era. Meanwhile, the pioneering hands-on and theoretic players have their predicted grand adventure, and they need not buy Dr Harrop's presumably worthy report, since the AWES Forum itself is a far more comprehensive free review of the same world.

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




On Monday, March 27, 2017 6:54 PM, "dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
We always get offers from these guys to buy their super-expensive reports.  Obviously targeting people with way too much "extra money".  By this point we on this list should realize the futility of trying to predict anything in the AWE realm.  If anyone ever comes up with anything workable, it will probably come out of left field and be a surprise.  Wind energy is not usually very fertile ground for outsiders to grasp, let alone make predictions over.  I wonder, had this group produced a "ten-year forecast" ten years ago, what it would have said. 

How about: "In ten years none of the promises you are seeing from any of the companies pursuing AWE will come true, no AWE systems will be in regular operation anywhere in the world, and even the kites-towing ships will have gone bankrupt."(?)  I guess it would have seemed pretty harsh, but here we are.  My backyard windmill is putting more power into the grid right now (12 kW - it is a windy day) than all the AWE systems in the world combined, I'm pretty sure. 

Even Dr. Harrop admits:
"Forecasting is hazardous at such an early stage with no significant sales so far. Nonetheless, investors and planners want something to assist their decision making. We therefore give a ten and twenty year forecast based on the take-off of conventional wind energy all those years ago and on our discounting of intentions of those interviewed given an understandable tendency of developers to miss plans so far."

The difference between AWE and the development of conventional wind energy is that working turbines of more than a MegaWatt had been successfully run for months at a time until they broke, decades before, so the general technology was understood, and the general configuration for success was known.  In the case of AWE, nobody can even agree on a definition.  One day it includes everything from planning aircraft routes to flying recreational kites.  The next day people are being castigated for experimenting at a small scale with "toys" and told to get serious because AWE means feeding TeraWatts into the grid. 

I'll tell you what:  I wouldn't pay 10 cents for a forecast regarding AWE from ANYONE.  Well, OK maybe ten cents, but not a penny more!  :)
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22331 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 3/27/2017
Subject: Re: Latest opinions of Dr. Peter Harrop

Doug wrote: "we on this list should realize the futility of trying to predict anything in the AWE realm".

Good advice allowing avoiding false predictions.

 

 

 

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22332 From: dave santos Date: 3/27/2017
Subject: Re: Latest opinions of Dr. Peter Harrop
Pierre does not reference Dr. Harrop's predictions in agreeing with Doug that prediction "futility" is "good advice". Lets hope this is not another hijacking of a specific topic. Let those who oppose predictions like Dr Harrop's enjoy the other AWE Forums, where they are not shared.

False-prediction statistics are axiomatic under modern engineering uncertainty science*. Correct predictions require the possibility of failure. Dr. Harrop is to be lauded for making his predictions as best he can about how AWE will develop.

-----------
* Like Bayesian Probability Theory









On Monday, March 27, 2017 7:37 PM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre-benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
Doug wrote: "we on this list should realize the futility of trying to predict anything in the AWE realm".
Good advice allowing avoiding false predictions.
 
 
 
 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22333 From: dave santos Date: 3/27/2017
Subject: Role of prediction-uncertainty in AWE- Weather Forecasting
Predicting how tech will develop is what experts do. We can even predict here how prediction must persist in importance in AWE, even after optimal AWES designs evolve to test the early engineering predictions that investors acted on, with maybe just one big winner in a large field of losing bets. That's life.

Take weather prediction as an AWE necessity: Conventional wind towers are set up and left to weather whatever comes. AWES are aviation-aerospace systems, so naturally weather prediction is a key operational factor, just as pilots check the weather forecast. Yes, aviation weather predictions contain uncertainty, but on average, such predictions are proven essential to avoid storm-risk.

The role of professional engineering prediction overall in AWE is secure, even if many given predictions are not.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22334 From: dave santos Date: 3/27/2017
Subject: Austin Wind Meetup (template- start your own local club)
Here is the draft template for an Austin Texas Wind Meetup group being set up. If you live in a large enough city, consider creating a sister-group using local social media.

Children of the Wind: Advanced Wind Energy Tech
For those who love Wind and its technical aspects, traditional to modern, including wind turbines, sailing, kites, wind-toys, wind-sculptures, kite energy (Airborne Wind Energy- AWE), meteorology, atmospheric physics, aerotecture, and wind-lore. Help operate "hands-on" a real wooden windmill and modern industrial wind-turbine (Wind Power Museum-Lubbock), tap a power kite for electricity (kPower Austin), and follow rapid world-wide progress in wind tech in all its forms. Invited domain-expert speakers. Develop a wind passion or career with friends. Help save the world with wind power.
=========
A historical model: the Berlin Rocket Club, which was seminal, but did not survive National Socialist militaristic appropriation-
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22335 From: dave santos Date: 3/27/2017
Subject: Daidalos Capital's AWE investment team and strategy
Udo's small well-credentialed team includes two particle physicists, with Moritz as head of a "Scientific Advisory Board" (whose members are not listed). How we would love to read that board's deliberations, not just the "Trillion Dollar Drone" pitch. Megascale AWE may end up nothing like the popular conception of a drone, with scant market overlap. Standard drone tech has severe scale-limits and AWES based on such tech seem to only promise small-scale capability. Daidalos investment pattern seems focused on Northern EU AWE R&D (dependent on reeling but hedging on the soft- v hard-wing trade), without significant diversification globally. This may not be the most scientific investment bet, but at least the experiment runs on OPM.

In theory, the first significant investor to undertake global M&A of all the small merit players will have a huge commercial advantage. GoogleX, SABIC, and so on, might have gone this route, as well as Udo, who seems to have tied up his starting cash and not raised much new capital. Daidalos's early window-of-opportunity to lead the world is closing. It may be the Breakthrough Energy Coalition that finally pulls everything together for mid-cap AWE R&D across the current provincial barriers. Hurry up, Daidalos, and perhaps lead us all into the Coalition, but with a far wider view of the R&D challenge.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22336 From: dave santos Date: 3/27/2017
Subject: Re: Daidalos Capital's AWE investment team and strategy
AWES Bug Report- some how this post from 11/30/16 at 12:20 PM was just resent, without any deliberate action on my part.

JoeF, any idea what is going on? Did the post somehow get lost in Yahoo limbo?


On Monday, March 27, 2017 9:52 PM, "dave santos santos137@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
Udo's small well-credentialed team includes two particle physicists, with Moritz as head of a "Scientific Advisory Board" (whose members are not listed). How we would love to read that board's deliberations, not just the "Trillion Dollar Drone" pitch. Megascale AWE may end up nothing like the popular conception of a drone, with scant market overlap. Standard drone tech has severe scale-limits and AWES based on such tech seem to only promise small-scale capability. Daidalos investment pattern seems focused on Northern EU AWE R&D (dependent on reeling but hedging on the soft- v hard-wing trade), without significant diversification globally. This may not be the most scientific investment bet, but at least the experiment runs on OPM.

In theory, the first significant investor to undertake global M&A of all the small merit players will have a huge commercial advantage. GoogleX, SABIC, and so on, might have gone this route, as well as Udo, who seems to have tied up his starting cash and not raised much new capital. Daidalos's early window-of-opportunity to lead the world is closing. It may be the Breakthrough Energy Coalition that finally pulls everything together for mid-cap AWE R&D across the current provincial barriers. Hurry up, Daidalos, and perhaps lead us all into the Coalition, but with a far wider view of the R&D challenge.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22337 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 3/28/2017
Subject: Re: Latest opinions of Dr. Peter Harrop

Even Dr. Harrop admits:
"Forecasting is hazardous at such an early stage with no significant sales so far. Nonetheless, investors and planners want something to assist their decision making...."

Unlike what is said here or there, I reference Dr.Harrop, thinking it is a step to "realize the futility of trying to predict anything in the AWE realm" as Doug indicates.

Let us search and find instead of making hazardous prediction. There are too many  promises in AWE. There are too many speculations. Please a viable prototype to begin.  

 

 

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22338 From: benhaiemp Date: 3/28/2017
Subject: Re: Latest opinions of Dr. Peter Harrop
To illustrate my previous message: do not put the cart before the horse. Avoiding predictions that are made for 10 years and that are not verified. See how some AWEs method could be viable enough.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22339 From: benhaiemp Date: 3/28/2017
Subject: Re: Soft vs Rigid Wings

After some investigations about several combinations of synthetic and laminated fabrics  comprising plastic film + synthetic fabric in order to obtain both tear resistance and higher lifetime, we conclude that soft wings are not appropriate as power kites in AWE for electricity production. By the same if soft wings or blades were efficient curent wind turbines would have soft blades, but they don't. Perhaps soft kites can be suitable as static lifting kites. Some players and companies already concluded the same. And as indicated soft wings are also affected by scalability concern as shown on http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-39965-7_31  .


So R&D should focuse on rigid wings and rotors as they are both far more durable and efficient. 

Among interesting methods using rigid wings or blades some variants of SuperTurbine ™ should be more studied, as it can combine lightness thanks to the implementation of small rotors or rotating wings and reliability thanks to some level of inherent stationary flight.


 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22340 From: benhaiemp Date: 3/28/2017
Subject: R&D more focused

Ten years of serious R&D in universities and by companies, and not even a small promise of a reliable and viable AWES. But surely there are some real promises of what unlikely works. Eliminating them could be a mean to focuse more. If no thousands years of R&D would be not enough.

Among them:

  • Soft power kites as not efficient and durable (even in the present AWE "forum" serious AWE analysts conclude it)
  • Not maximizing the space used.
  • Not stationary flight or steady-state operation
  • Systems immediately crashing as the electronic control fails.
  • ?
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22341 From: benhaiemp Date: 3/28/2017
Subject: Re: Crash Factor Theory
Waiting for describing what is "Crash Factor Theory". What method is used to produce such a theory?
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22342 From: benhaiemp Date: 3/28/2017
Subject: Re: Crash Factor Theory
Waiting for the source of a crash/100 hrs.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22343 From: benhaiemp Date: 3/28/2017
Subject: Re: Introducing Aerobatic Scaling Law for AWES

A difficulty more for Makani and other "crosswind" kites is the dependence to the system of control in order to command and adjust the path. If the electronic control fails, due to software, due to  blackout or due to other factors, crashing is possible if not probable. And this difficulty increases as multiple wings work in the same swept disk.

So a stationary device flying even in case of electronic failure is more reliable.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22344 From: dave santos Date: 3/28/2017
Subject: Re: Soft vs Rigid Wings
Sky Windpower, SkyMill, Ampyx, Makani, and many others are examples of AWES research "focus on rigid wings and rotors". We are blessed that so many millions have been invested to make sure large rigid wings and rotors are in the test mix.

KiteShip, SkySails, KiteNRG, TUDelft, KPS, Windswept, and so on, are examples of a focus on soft wings and rotors. Storm Dunker is definitely a soft-wing expert in favor testing all kinds of wings.

kPower tests both soft and rigid wings, and predicts that crash resistance and scaling potential will be a decisive factors. Dr Harrop is not to be taken literally that AWES prediction itself is "hazardous". Large rigid AWES literally are most hazardous, and large soft kites are still hazardous. Scaling up AWE will be hazardous, no matter what.

Testing all kinds of wings in a well designed program will help determine whose predictions are most accurate. The kite textile experts, like Peter Lynn, have perhaps the most favorable opinion of soft wings. Non-experts in rigid wings seem to overestimate how "durable" they will be in long-term operations.




On Tuesday, March 28, 2017 2:01 AM, "pierre-benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
After some investigations about several combinations of synthetic and laminated fabrics  comprising plastic film + synthetic fabric in order to obtain both tear resistance and higher lifetime, we conclude that soft wings are not appropriate as power kites in AWE for electricity production. By the same if soft wings or blades were efficient curent wind turbines would have soft blades, but they don't. Perhaps soft kites can be suitable as static lifting kites. Some players and companies already concluded the same. And as indicated soft wings are also affected by scalability concern as shown on http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-39965-7_31  .

So R&D should focuse on rigid wings and rotors as they are both far more durable and efficient. 
Among interesting methods using rigid wings or blades some variants of SuperTurbine ™ should be more studied, as it can combine lightness thanks to the implementation of small rotors or rotating wings and reliability thanks to some level of inherent stationary flight.

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22345 From: dave santos Date: 3/28/2017
Subject: Re: R&D more focused
Pierre wrote: "not even a small promise of a reliable and viable AWES"

Pierre overlooks that sport kites are AWES, and they really are reliable enough to already be a thriving market. We are waiting for any sign that rigid wings can compete in sport kiting, like competing in races, for example. Scaling Law, price, and safety seem to keep the rigid wings out of contention.


On Tuesday, March 28, 2017 2:15 AM, "pierre-benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
Ten years of serious R&D in universities and by companies, and not even a small promise of a reliable and viable AWES. But surely there are some real promises of what unlikely works. Eliminating them could be a mean to focuse more. If no thousands years of R&D would be not enough.
Among them:
  • Soft power kites as not efficient and durable (even in the present AWE "forum" serious AWE analysts conclude it)
  • Not maximizing the space used.
  • Not stationary flight or steady-state operation
  • Systems immediately crashing as the electronic control fails.
  • ?
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22346 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/28/2017
Subject: Re: Daidalos Capital's AWE investment team and strategy
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22347 From: benhaiemp Date: 3/28/2017
Subject: Re: R&D more focused
Is there some reliable data about energy production of "sport kites" in 2016, that beside wind energy, solar, coal, nuclear power, oil, gas... ? I see it nowhere. The real energy guys will understand this question, unlike those who confuse wind energy and wind games.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22348 From: dave santos Date: 3/28/2017
Subject: Re: Daidalos Capital's AWE investment team and strategy
"OPM" in this context means "other-people's-money", as venture-capitalism parlance.


On Tuesday, March 28, 2017 7:42 AM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22349 From: dave santos Date: 3/28/2017
Subject: Re: R&D more focused
As reported on the AWES Forum, one can analyse a kite surfer jumping in terms of mass-velocity and Beaufort Scale to derive a farily good power estimate (videogrammetry). This is far better data than AWE stealth ventures provide.

Its unclear who the "real energy guys" are that would not understand this.


On Tuesday, March 28, 2017 8:14 AM, "pierre-benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
Is there some reliable data about energy production of "sport kites" in 2016, that beside wind energy, solar, coal, nuclear power, oil, gas... ? I see it nowhere. The real energy guys will understand this question, unlike those who confuse wind energy and wind games.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22350 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/28/2017
Subject: Re: Daidalos Capital's AWE investment team and strategy
Regarding your good bug report:

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/AirborneWindEnergy/conversations/messages/18245 Jun 19, 2015

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/AirborneWindEnergy/conversations/messages/19312  Oct 24, 2015      THIS is what just received an apparent duplication with a different time stamp: Nov. 30, 2016, WHICH indicates some deeper bug.     We get a review opportunity for some unknown cause!   
  
 The source code for the today's duplicative repost  and bug report has sender implicating your email as sender of both.   My inexpert guess is the email program you may be using is grabbing something and sending.   
    This bug is a first known instance of type in my awareness. I have no other clue about what may have happened. 

Online at forum is an option for posting.    Still, I recommend composing locally for safe keeping of work. Then copy and paste into the online at-forum composition tool; use the at-forum Send button. 








AWES Bug Report- some how this post from 11/30/16 at 12:20 PM was just resent, without any deliberate action on my part.

JoeF, any idea what is going on? Did the post somehow get lost in Yahoo limbo?
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22351 From: dave santos Date: 3/28/2017
Subject: Re: Crash Factor Theory
Pierre,

I am the source of the conjectured Makani crash statistic, based on specific clues and analytical norms provided, and subject to eventual comparison with public disclosure by Makani. "Crash Factor Theory" is not new. The USAF UAV reliabilty report treats crash factors in just the same way that AWES research can. "CFT" is offered as a working term-of-art for those expert in aviation reliability.

At least your posts are answered on the AWES Forum fairly fast, even if the "wait" bothers you. On someAWE you post and post, and wait indefinitely for any reply from the formidable list of members. Its quite a burden to be the primary source of answers to your AWE questions, year after year, and you seem so ungrateful for the special effort you put Joe and me through,

daveS


On Tuesday, March 28, 2017 4:39 AM, "pierre-benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
Waiting for the source of a crash/100 hrs.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22352 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/28/2017
Subject: Re: R&D more focused
Rough sketch math over converted wind energy in sport power kiting:
Let one hour of sport power kiting occur. The wind in that hour of activity is slowed by the reactions with the sport kiting event; the mass of the pilot and board is accelerated many times within the activity hour; the water is accelerated throughout the hour of activity.  The accelerations of the pilot mass, board mass, tether mass, and involved water mass arrive from using energy converted from the wind during that hour.  Let 1 hp be the sketch figure.  Operate at 1 hp for an hour. Find all the hours around the world that are occurring for sport power kiting; use that figure in the multiplication. Come up with a total amount of converted energy in sport power kiting.  Power kiters busy converting the wind's energy to effective good works include kite surfers. ice kiters, snow kiters, kite buggy pilots, kite boaters, kite jumpers, kite land sailors and skaters, kite kayakers, kite sailors,  ...    
2001 clipped comment by someone online: "According to a recent ISAF evaluation report for the inclusion of kitesurfing in the Olympics, the total numbers of kitesurfers worlwide is estimated at 1.5 million"  (sic, worldwide).
Sharpen the study as on wishes; adjust the hp and hours to fit collected data.  Power kiting converts the wind to do good works; the work chosen could be making electricity.  Size matters to fit chosen objectives from tiny to very huge. 

When some AWE patents involve hydroturbines driven by tractor kite systems, one could begin to feel excited about kited power wings making electricity. 
 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22353 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 3/28/2017
Subject: Re: Crash Factor Theory

 

"I am the source of the conjectured Makani crash statistic..."

Indeed my question embarrasses DaveS and JoeF and I am sorry of it.

 

 

 

 

 

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22354 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/28/2017
Subject: Re: Latest opinions of Dr. Peter Harrop
Dr. Harrop expresses some more opinions today: 
Posted on March 28, 2017 by Dr Peter Harrop Airborne Wind Energy: sophisticated technology, primitive marketing
Read more at: http://www.energyharvestingjournal.com/articles/10795/airborne-wind-energy-sophisticated-technology-primitive-marketing
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22355 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/28/2017
Subject: Re: Crash Factor Theory

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22356 From: dave santos Date: 3/28/2017
Subject: Re: Crash Factor Theory
We are not embarrassed by your questions. We do wish others would help answer you, to lift some of the burden. You do not seem grateful for the effort you demand, which would make it less burdensome to answer your questions when no one else will. Its also a burden how you try to change the topic to your emotional issues, like how sorry you are over imaginary embarrassment. Please start a new topic if you have nothing to add to CFT here.

Every expert makes informed conjectures. Post carefully on the AWES Forum mostly at an expert level (including textile engineering), in the service of RAD, including well-formed conjectures, and you should not need to apologize.


On Tuesday, March 28, 2017 9:14 AM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre-benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
 
"I am the source of the conjectured Makani crash statistic..."
Indeed my question embarrasses DaveS and JoeF and I am sorry of it.
 
 
 
 
 
 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22357 From: benhaiemp Date: 3/28/2017
Subject: Re: Crash Factor Theory

JoeF,


I thought that my question embarrassed you and DaveS as he wrote (to me): "you seem so ungrateful for the special effort you put Joe and me through" after my question about a reliable data for crash/100 hrs.

So I can deduce that happily you don't agree DaveS' "thinking". Yes or no?  
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22359 From: dave santos Date: 3/28/2017
Subject: Re: Crash Factor Theory
Pierre,

You are revealing why you are now alone on someAWE, with no one trying to answer you. Trust JoeF that a sincere engineering conjecture is not a "lie", even if it fails to prove-out. Lets patiently await Makani to disclose its crash-statistics, to settle doubt. You can stop all AWE experts from public posting by bad Netiquette, but not stop them conjecturing. I will be forced to stop posting wherever you go, if you cannot control yourself, but will still conjecture just the same.

At least I was inside of Makani via KiteShip, personally know the founders, and am well informed about aerospace MTBF metrics. Yes, I do have inside Makani informants, who report crashes have occurred, plus other clues cited. Go ahead and believe that my Makani conjecture will prove wrong, even despite GoogleX's own 2013 claim it would "crash at least five of the devices in the near future". This is not a prediction you could make, but its consistent with CFT,

Peace,

daveS

==== 2013 GoogleX quote ====

"as Google X’s director Astro Teller notes, Page said that X “could have the budget and the people to go do this, but that we had to make sure to crash at least five of the devices in the near future.”"



On Tuesday, March 28, 2017 9:48 AM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre-benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
And you DaveS' stop posting public lies like Makani's crash/100 hrs without any reliable source. Your scientific contribution is close to absolute zero. You have no scientific paper, no working prototype, no sense of open debate for ten years. You are only able to make personal attacks. Your contribution is only a pollution in AWE R&D. The best contribution you can make is stopping your malicious public action.
 
 
 
 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22360 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/28/2017
Subject: Re: Crash Factor Theory
Pierre, effort is not equivalent to embarrassment.

Efforts surrounding conjectures are time-honored. Conjectures are potentially proven true or false; no embarrassment need be involved. Some conjectures have a very long life. When a conjecture is removed for conjecture status, there may follow some further conjecture in the same topic realm.    
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22361 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/28/2017
Subject: Re: Crash Factor Theory

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22363 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/28/2017
Subject: Re: Crash Factor Theory

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22364 From: dave santos Date: 3/28/2017
Subject: Comparing Pierre's evaluation criteria with Aerospace norms
In a separate topic, Pierre happened to list criteria he uses to evaluate AWE work.* Aerospace criteria is proposed here as a better model. In summary, Pierre views certain engineering conjectures as "lies", like the informed guess that Makani may be close to one crash-per-hundred-hours as its MTBCF, he values "scientific" publishing, "working prototype(s), and "open debate".

Engineering conjecture is healthy and traditional, just as JoeF describes, even with incomplete data. The lack of "reliable sources" of AWE crash statistics is the fault of venture-capitalism stealth, not aerospace conjecture, where crashes are predicted.** The accusation of "lies" with no regard to any professional code-of-conduct*** tends only to waste time and harm the accuser.

Scientific publishing in aviation and aerospace only truly counts if the quality is high. Not every paper is a classic, like Tsiolkovsky's. Most are soon forgotten. Aviation and aerospace give unsurpassed honor to figures like Pocock, Cody, or the Wright Brothers, whose writings are worthy, yet secondary to their empirical engineering science. Classic papers are cherished. Tsiolkovsky did not have to prove his conjectures under any artificial deadline.

Working AWE prototypes are a more reasonable evaluation criteria, but Pierre does not seem to accept KiteSat, for example, as working, even if the AWEC2013 conference and Berlin media saw it work. In fact, almost everyone in early AWE has produced working prototypes. Those who never demoed nor published papers, can still be top figures, like Payne.

As for "open debate", the AWES Forum is open, currently unmoderated. someAWE is less open, especially to personal attacks. Its the stage-managed conferences where no passionate debate is welcomed, not over crash statistics, nor social dimensions like AWE militarization. The AWES Forum is the most open AWE debating forum in existence, for almost ten years. Let anyone create a more open AWE debating space.

In conclusion, the aerospace testing ethos ("test, test, test,...") will ultimately decide what merit there is in current AWE theory and practice. Pierre's AWE personal evaluation criteria are no substitute.

=====

* Pierre's criteria-

"...public lies like Makani's crash/100 hrs without any reliable source...scientific contribution is close to absolute zero...no scientific paper, no working prototype, no sense of open debate for ten years. "

** This began as, "what goes up must come down," but is extensively developed in modern CFT of transport and military aviation.

*** AWEIA's provisional code-of-conduct is based on the professional geologist's code, with close resource-extraction ethical affinities.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22365 From: dave santos Date: 3/28/2017
Subject: Re: Comparing Pierre's evaluation criteria with Aerospace norms
Thanks JoeF, for applying moderation again. Lets look forward to Pierre sharing his insights on someAWE without our interference.


On Tuesday, March 28, 2017 12:20 PM, "dave santos santos137@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
In a separate topic, Pierre happened to list criteria he uses to evaluate AWE work.* Aerospace criteria is proposed here as a better model. In summary, Pierre views certain engineering conjectures as "lies", like the informed guess that Makani may be close to one crash-per-hundred-hours as its MTBCF, he values "scientific" publishing, "working prototype(s), and "open debate".

Engineering conjecture is healthy and traditional, just as JoeF describes, even with incomplete data. The lack of "reliable sources" of AWE crash statistics is the fault of venture-capitalism stealth, not aerospace conjecture, where crashes are predicted.** The accusation of "lies" with no regard to any professional code-of-conduct*** tends only to waste time and harm the accuser.

Scientific publishing in aviation and aerospace only truly counts if the quality is high. Not every paper is a classic, like Tsiolkovsky's. Most are soon forgotten. Aviation and aerospace give unsurpassed honor to figures like Pocock, Cody, or the Wright Brothers, whose writings are worthy, yet secondary to their empirical engineering science. Classic papers are cherished. Tsiolkovsky did not have to prove his conjectures under any artificial deadline.

Working AWE prototypes are a more reasonable evaluation criteria, but Pierre does not seem to accept KiteSat, for example, as working, even if the AWEC2013 conference and Berlin media saw it work. In fact, almost everyone in early AWE has produced working prototypes. Those who never demoed nor published papers, can still be top figures, like Payne.

As for "open debate", the AWES Forum is open, currently unmoderated. someAWE is less open, especially to personal attacks. Its the stage-managed conferences where no passionate debate is welcomed, not over crash statistics, nor social dimensions like AWE militarization. The AWES Forum is the most open AWE debating forum in existence, for almost ten years. Let anyone create a more open AWE debating space.

In conclusion, the aerospace testing ethos ("test, test, test,...") will ultimately decide what merit there is in current AWE theory and practice. Pierre's AWE personal evaluation criteria are no substitute.

=====

* Pierre's criteria-

"...public lies like Makani's crash/100 hrs without any reliable source...scientific contribution is close to absolute zero...no scientific paper, no working prototype, no sense of open debate for ten years. "

** This began as, "what goes up must come down," but is extensively developed in modern CFT of transport and military aviation.

*** AWEIA's provisional code-of-conduct is based on the professional geologist's code, with close resource-extraction ethical affinities.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22366 From: dougselsam Date: 3/28/2017
Subject: Re: Latest opinions of Dr. Peter Harrop
Someone wrote:
"Lets encourage anyone to have their turn making an AWE forecast"
OK that someone forecasted that they would hold an "AWE-powered concert" a few years back, even to the general time and place, with the band supposedly already chosen, but it never happened at all.  Not even close.  One of the many missing pieces was the requisite  working AWE system.   Is that the sort of "forecast"   you are talking about?

, and let eventual results prove who hit the target.
OK so the results proved no target was hit in that case..

"We have documented hundreds of AWE forecasts, that run the gamut, and some will surely prove out."
Yup, that is exactly what I am talking about.  Looks like we agree that after 10 years we're still waiting for ANY of the "hundreds of AWE forecasts" to "prove out".

 Thankfully, the most repetitive prediction on the AWES Forum for many years, "All roads lead to the Superturbine", has abated in apparent futility.
Nobody has repeated that as many times as you, but it appears to be holding true.  Whether it is carousels, a stack of "daisy" rotors, rotating-reel, or the torque-ladder multi-rotor machines, all are versions of the general SuperTurbine topography and theme.  Now that all the simple configurations dreamed up without knowledge of wind energy are failing to gains traction, people are starting to see that stacked rotors may be the most promising path.

So bring on the fresh predictions, folks, and fresh prototypes."
Yeah why don't you show us a "fresh prototype" of the "Bose-Einstein" Flap-Stack you have advocated so many times on this yahoo group?  The world is still waiting to see a single working element, let alone a TeraWatt-scale power-plant as cited by you.