Messages in AirborneWindEnergy group.                          AWES 24576 to 24626 Page 383 of 440.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24576 From: benhaiemp Date: 12/27/2018
Subject: Re: Relation of Turn-Rate to L/D (LEI v. Parafoil)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24577 From: dave santos Date: 12/27/2018
Subject: Re: Reeling v. CrossWind Cableway: another critical juncture

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24578 From: dave santos Date: 12/27/2018
Subject: Re: Already bumped from the New Forum :(

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24579 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/27/2018
Subject: cb Christof Beaupoil someAWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24580 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/27/2018
Subject: Kite Energy Technology video discussion

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24581 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/27/2018
Subject: E-Kite video study

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24582 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/27/2018
Subject: Kitenergy KITEnrg

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24583 From: tallakt Date: 12/27/2018
Subject: Re: Already bumped from the New Forum :(

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24584 From: Peter Sharp Date: 12/27/2018
Subject: Re: Relation of Turn-Rate to L/D (LEI v. Parafoil)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24585 From: dave santos Date: 12/27/2018
Subject: Re: Already bumped from the New Forum :(

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24586 From: dave santos Date: 12/27/2018
Subject: Re: Relation of Turn-Rate to L/D (LEI v. Parafoil)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24587 From: Peter Sharp Date: 12/27/2018
Subject: Re: Relation of Turn-Rate to L/D (LEI v. Parafoil)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24588 From: benhaiemp Date: 12/27/2018
Subject: Re: Relation of Turn-Rate to L/D (LEI v. Parafoil)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24589 From: dougselsam Date: 12/28/2018
Subject: Re: Relation of Turn-Rate to L/D (LEI v. Parafoil)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24590 From: Santos Date: 12/28/2018
Subject: Re: Relation of Turn-Rate to L/D (LEI v. Parafoil)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24591 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/28/2018
Subject: Twist-Cord-Accumulator-Transmission (TCAT)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24592 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/28/2018
Subject: Re: Twist-Cord-Accumulator-Transmission (TCAT)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24593 From: Santos Date: 12/28/2018
Subject: Re: Twist-Cord-Accumulator-Transmission (TCAT)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24594 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/28/2018
Subject: Re: Airbus serious about Kites -- AirSeas

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24595 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/30/2018
Subject: Re: Twist-Cord-Accumulator-Transmission (TCAT)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24596 From: Peter Sharp Date: 12/30/2018
Subject: Re: Twist-Cord-Accumulator-Transmission (TCAT)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24597 From: dave santos Date: 12/30/2018
Subject: Re: Twist-Cord-Accumulator-Transmission (TCAT)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24598 From: dave santos Date: 12/30/2018
Subject: Re: Twist-Cord-Accumulator-Transmission (TCAT)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24599 From: Peter Sharp Date: 12/30/2018
Subject: Re: Twist-Cord-Accumulator-Transmission (TCAT)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24600 From: Santos Date: 12/30/2018
Subject: Re: Twist-Cord-Accumulator-Transmission (TCAT)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24601 From: Santos Date: 12/30/2018
Subject: Kite Scaling in a Gravity Field

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24602 From: Peter Sharp Date: 12/31/2018
Subject: Re: Twist-Cord-Accumulator-Transmission (TCAT)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24603 From: Peter Sharp Date: 12/31/2018
Subject: Re: Twist-Cord-Accumulator-Transmission (TCAT)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24604 From: Santos Date: 12/31/2018
Subject: Re: Twist-Cord-Accumulator-Transmission (TCAT)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24605 From: Santos Date: 12/31/2018
Subject: Re: Twist-Cord-Accumulator-Transmission (TCAT)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24606 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/31/2018
Subject: A close look

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24607 From: Santos Date: 1/1/2019
Subject: Re: A close look

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24608 From: dave santos Date: 1/1/2019
Subject: Paravane Energy Hotspots where Ocean Currents Cross

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24609 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/2/2019
Subject: Re: A close look

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24610 From: Peter Sharp Date: 1/2/2019
Subject: Re: A close look

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24611 From: dave santos Date: 1/2/2019
Subject: Re: A close look

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24612 From: Peter Sharp Date: 1/5/2019
Subject: Re: Twist-Cord-Accumulator-Transmission (TCAT)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24613 From: Peter Sharp Date: 1/5/2019
Subject: Re: A close look [1 Attachment]

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24614 From: Santos Date: 1/5/2019
Subject: Re: A close look

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24615 From: dave santos Date: 1/5/2019
Subject: Makani Hawaii Testing Mystery

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24616 From: dave santos Date: 1/5/2019
Subject: Kiwee1 reaches its funding goal, plus fresh Maddyness coverage

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24617 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/5/2019
Subject: Re: Kiwee1 reaches its funding goal, plus fresh Maddyness coverage

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24618 From: tallakt Date: 1/6/2019
Subject: Re: Kiwee1 reaches its funding goal, plus fresh Maddyness coverage

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24619 From: dougselsam Date: 1/7/2019
Subject: Re: Makani Hawaii Testing Mystery

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24620 From: Santos Date: 1/7/2019
Subject: Re: Makani Hawaii Testing Mystery

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24621 From: dougselsam Date: 1/7/2019
Subject: Re: Makani Hawaii Testing Mystery

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24622 From: Santos Date: 1/7/2019
Subject: Re: Makani Hawaii Testing Mystery

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24623 From: tallakt Date: 1/7/2019
Subject: Re: Makani Hawaii Testing Mystery

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24625 From: benhaiemp Date: 1/8/2019
Subject: Rotating Reel System

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24626 From: Santos Date: 1/8/2019
Subject: Re: Makani Hawaii Testing Mystery




Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24576 From: benhaiemp Date: 12/27/2018
Subject: Re: Relation of Turn-Rate to L/D (LEI v. Parafoil)

Thanks Dave.

"How did you keep it from falling as it looped?"

By the video! A short extract is repeated.

Really the turning kite was falling but very slowly. The two lines were tangled.


I (re)precise with this 0.7 m² kite the force was 60 N (6 kg) at the most with large crosswind flight, not more, while the force was 40 N with the small radius flight (2 or 3 kite span) like on the video.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24577 From: dave santos Date: 12/27/2018
Subject: Re: Reeling v. CrossWind Cableway: another critical juncture
A driveshaft turns out to be like many short cableway loops set sideways, fused in parallel. One sees the higher mass required, compared to a equally long cableway, owes to the requirement to resist compressive buckling forces that transiently focus on the circumference by slight misalignments The airborne cableway, on the other hand, compresses the air between its ends, which as a gas does not fracture.



 

There is a special case of a 
driven crosswind cableway loop
The shaft
Weirdly a shaft of tethers spun around the axis will work for kite power transmission. 
Who knew



On Wed, 26 Dec 2018, 17:52 dave santos santos137@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy] <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com wrote:
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24578 From: dave santos Date: 12/27/2018
Subject: Re: Already bumped from the New Forum :(
Who would have guessed that Discobot claiming it was "not a real person" was really a digital "Mechanical Turk", or rather, a Norwegian liar? Norwegians are not liars, as far as we all thought. 

The vintage badge icon image was chosen because the badge shapes closely matched. Further, maybe the evil AIs imposing badges on us humans reasoned we would not notice the slight graphical variation from Jewish yellow star badges, their little inside-joke. Only a Mexican "stinking badges" meme-master could spot the ruse, a tiny chink in the AI armor. Only trapping them in Yahoo would have worked.

Anyway, while gamified dynamics is at odds with traditional scientific sharing, maybe as AWE kicks in worldwide, a gamified social media culture might be the desperate last resort. Children clicking compulsively on candy icons could perhaps better control giant wings in the Polar Vortex than any AWESCO PhD algorithm (saving Earth by child-sacrifice, *sigh*).





 

That's cool. You're trying the new comms. 
Excellent theres a chance now humans can group your messages into coherent chapters. 
I was a wee bit concerened at first too.... Started making assumptions and being wrong for the right reasons... Lack of experience... But it works well... 
I find its not such an urgent... You must reply now format as Yahoo with email. 
I was initially a bit perterbed with badges and limits... It's not hard to wait. 

Think I Like your icon thingy. Had you pictured as more of a Vlad the Impaler.. 
(maybe thats who it is)? 

Joy and hope to the world of AWES

On Thu, 27 Dec 2018, 05:27 dave santos santos137@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy] <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com wrote:
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24579 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/27/2018
Subject: cb Christof Beaupoil someAWE

It has been a delight following the AWE adventures of Christof Beaupoil. 


Gathering a portion of the AWE flow of Christof Beaupoil:

Thanks for the years of quality contributions, cb.   And your continued awesome flow.  
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24580 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/27/2018
Subject: Kite Energy Technology video discussion

Kite Energy Technology

=====================================================
The artist for KITEnrg sketches various mechanical scenes and parts. 
What is shown?  What is glossed over?  Impact?  Comments?
Failure modes not sketched?
======================================================
Caption at video: 
"Connaught Energy
Published on Feb 23, 2014

Kite Energy Technology bought to you by Connaught Energy."

"Altitude Wind Generation"
======================================================
The second video of live real scene shows use of LEI wing
=======================================================


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

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

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24581 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/27/2018
Subject: E-Kite video study

E Kite het kite power systeem Ambitieprijs JTIP 2016

=====================================================
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24582 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/27/2018
Subject: Kitenergy KITEnrg
2018 December, their site showing: 

Sebastiano Sella is CEO of Kitenergy.
Franco Taddei is President and co-founder of Kitenergy.
Massimo Lucco Borlera is CFO of Kitenergy.
Prof. Mario Milanese is co-founder of Kitenergy.
Gian Mauro Maneia is Project Manager of Kitenergy
Stefano Milanese is co-founder of Kitenergy.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24583 From: tallakt Date: 12/27/2018
Subject: Re: Already bumped from the New Forum :(
Being so concerned that everyone is missing the boat on multiwing AWE is the wrong way to go about it. Better to see this as an opportunity and beat them (me?) at their own game. Just make a simple AWE producing, say, 5 kW (choose the largest number you dare) on average without nuking winds. That would definitely raise eyebrows. (This is not meant as sarcasm).

While i sympathize with your views on analysing the field before going for specific solitions, Im not sure if it is the only right way to go about it.

You can analyse the field or you can trust your gut feeling and try something. If you do the latter, you’ll end up with loads of new problems you didn’t know you had. After solving issues or «pivoting» your plan, perhaps the landscape is not quite like the one you analysed at first anymore. You might also discover new solutions to problems that you had not anticipated when doing an overview analysis.

I have a belief in «making things work» as a way of focusing on the most important issues standing between you and your goal. This allows you to progress faster.

I also believe that a balance between the two approaches is useful. The analysis should try to find reasons why one approach is not feasible or even impossible. But after some time, you risk building a house of cards without enough empirical evidence to support it.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24584 From: Peter Sharp Date: 12/27/2018
Subject: Re: Relation of Turn-Rate to L/D (LEI v. Parafoil)
Attachments :

    Hi Pierre,

    An option for you to consider is using your looping kite with a twist-cord-accumulator-transmission (TCAT) that I invented. DougS recently showed one of his videos of a multirotor kite transmitting torque to the ground via twisted cords. A TCAT uses twisted shock cords and a magnetic release catch, which is easy to make. The result is spinning a small generator at ground level at a high rpm, but spinning the generator intermittently at full voltage rather than continuously. So it works even in low wind speeds. This arrangement is not efficient, but it is dirt cheap. I have 3 or 4 videos of how a TCAT works on YouTube. Search YouTube for “tinkerbits”, my user name, if the concept interest you.

    PeterS

     

    From: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com]
    Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2018 10:26 PM
    To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
    Subject: [AWES] Re: Relation of Turn-Rate to L/D (LEI v. Parafoil)

     

     

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GflQyDDQec: 0.7 m² crosswind kite: 4 kg traction with a low radius, 6 kg traction with a larger radius. The low radius could allow using less space with reasonable losses in efficiency.

    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24585 From: dave santos Date: 12/27/2018
    Subject: Re: Already bumped from the New Forum :(
    Who can think "everyone is missing the boat" on multi-kites? I have named Dave Culp, Wayne German, Rod Read, and Wubbo Ockels as good examples, as well as invoking multi-kites of the Golden Age of Kites.

    Its a only a few naïve venture capitalists I think are badly missing the boat under the PR blanket of single-kite ventures like Makani and Ampyx, tending to fund me-too single-line topologies.

    We seen the fallacy of thinking that some demo of power at a given level, like 5kW, is a reliable signal to investment, at least since Dave Lang long ago thought 1kW would be a convincing feat.

    If networked kites are to prevail, its by superior foundational design principles. Whoever demos sound principles first may or may not succeed in the business. Take Culp, who demoed kite-stacks in the 70s at greater than 5kW performance. Makani bought him (KiteShip) out cheap, and does not explore multi-kites at all.

    I am working happily on multi-kite architectures at toy scale, without regard to a particular power demo aimed at investors. Only once I am happy with a refined design approach on tested merits, will I worry about a killer investment demo. Let any expert who can imagine many-connected topologies meanwhile. Sadly, Wubbo not longer can.




     

    Being so concerned that everyone is missing the boat on multiwing AWE is the wrong way to go about it. Better to see this as an opportunity and beat them (me?) at their own game. Just make a simple AWE producing, say, 5 kW (choose the largest number you dare) on average without nuking winds.. That would definitely raise eyebrows. (This is not meant as sarcasm).

    While i sympathize with your views on analysing the field before going for specific solitions, Im not sure if it is the only right way to go about it.

    You can analyse the field or you can trust your gut feeling and try something. If you do the latter, you’ll end up with loads of new problems you didn’t know you had. After solving issues or «pivoting» your plan, perhaps the landscape is not quite like the one you analysed at first anymore. You might also discover new solutions to problems that you had not anticipated when doing an overview analysis.

    I have a belief in «making things work» as a way of focusing on the most important issues standing between you and your goal. This allows you to progress faster.

    I also believe that a balance between the two approaches is useful. The analysis should try to find reasons why one approach is not feasible or even impossible. But after some time, you risk building a house of cards without enough empirical evidence to support it.

    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24586 From: dave santos Date: 12/27/2018
    Subject: Re: Relation of Turn-Rate to L/D (LEI v. Parafoil)
    The "twist-cord-accumulator-transmission" is in fact a very old mechanical principle, for examples, the Thessalonian Jinx string-disk toy and Roman catapults, and countless instances since. KiteLab Ilwaco did a toy-scale twisted string ST several years before Doug. 

    Its shaky to claim modern inventive priority for simple mechanical ideas, given how much hidden art there is.


     

    Hi Pierre,

    An option for you to consider is using your looping kite with a twist-cord-accumulator-transmission (TCAT) that I invented. DougS recently showed one of his videos of a multirotor kite transmitting torque to the ground via twisted cords. A TCAT uses twisted shock cords and a magnetic release catch, which is easy to make. The result is spinning a small generator at ground level at a high rpm, but spinning the generator intermittently at full voltage rather than continuously. So it works even in low wind speeds. This arrangement is not efficient, but it is dirt cheap.. I have 3 or 4 videos of how a TCAT works on YouTube. Search YouTube for “tinkerbits”, my user name, if the concept interest you.

    PeterS

     

    From: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups..com]
    Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2018 10:26 PM
    To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
    Subject: [AWES] Re: Relation of Turn-Rate to L/D (LEI v. Parafoil)

     

     

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GflQyDDQec: 0.7 m² crosswind kite: 4 kg traction with a low radius, 6 kg traction with a larger radius. The low radius could allow using less space with reasonable losses in efficiency.

    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24587 From: Peter Sharp Date: 12/27/2018
    Subject: Re: Relation of Turn-Rate to L/D (LEI v. Parafoil)
    Attachments :

      DaveS,

      Please show me your reference and I will be glad to show you the relevant differences.

      PeterS

       

      From: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com]
      Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2018 11:26 AM
      To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [AWES] Re: Relation of Turn-Rate to L/D (LEI v. Parafoil)

       

       

      The "twist-cord-accumulator-transmission" is in fact a very old mechanical principle, for examples, the Thessalonian Jinx string-disk toy and Roman catapults, and countless instances since. KiteLab Ilwaco did a toy-scale twisted string ST several years before Doug. 

       

      Its shaky to claim modern inventive priority for simple mechanical ideas, given how much hidden art there is.

      On ‎Thursday‎, ‎December‎ ‎27‎, ‎2018‎ ‎12‎:‎41‎:‎42‎ ‎PM‎ ‎CST, 'Peter Sharp' sharpencil@sbcglobal.net [AirborneWindEnergy] <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com

      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24588 From: benhaiemp Date: 12/27/2018
      Subject: Re: Relation of Turn-Rate to L/D (LEI v. Parafoil)

      Hi Peter,


      Thanks for the information.


      PierreB

      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24589 From: dougselsam Date: 12/28/2018
      Subject: Re: Relation of Turn-Rate to L/D (LEI v. Parafoil)
      Pulsating power to your generator means your system needs further development.
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24590 From: Santos Date: 12/28/2018
      Subject: Re: Relation of Turn-Rate to L/D (LEI v. Parafoil)
      True, all our AWES work needs further development. At least legs, wings, and pistons pulse usefully, to balance the claim pulsing is a prioi wrong.

      The actual topic here includes rotors like Daisy1. Pulsing analysis would be a nice separate topic.
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24591 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/28/2018
      Subject: Twist-Cord-Accumulator-Transmission (TCAT)

      We have in forum scattered remarks involving Peter Sharp's 

      Twist-Cord-Accumulator-Transmission (TCAT). 


      Invited:  [ ] Gather those notes in this topic thread. 

      [ ] Advance discussion over the TCAT; for various scales. 

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

      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24592 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/28/2018
      Subject: Re: Twist-Cord-Accumulator-Transmission (TCAT)
      On target then, I join a recent comment in another thread: 

      DaveS: "The "twist-cord-accumulator-transmission" is in fact a very old mechanical principle, for examples, the Thessalonian Jinx string-disk toy and Roman catapults, and countless instances since. KiteLab Ilwaco did a toy-scale twisted string ST several years before Doug. 

      Its shaky to claim modern inventive priority for simple mechanical ideas, given how much hidden art there is."
      =========================================

      So, it would be fun to gather illustrations of historical TCAT instances. 
      And then to explore similarity cases at all scales. 
      Explore material choices, triggers, timers, sensors, clutches, fatigue, rectification, failure modes, ... 
      Then, as the data mounts, comparisons with other transmission methods. 
      Then how and when to use small, tiny, or large or huge TCATs. 
      =========================================

      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24593 From: Santos Date: 12/28/2018
      Subject: Re: Twist-Cord-Accumulator-Transmission (TCAT)
      Recalling that a rubber band airplane is the closest TCAT similarity case, where the wind-up is slow but the prop turns fast. All the major features of our AWE prototypes are seen, like hockling into supercoil phases.
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24594 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/28/2018
      Subject: Re: Airbus serious about Kites -- AirSeas
      https://www.airseas.com

      Few clips: 
      "AirSeas is an industrial firm which had come out of Airbus group, dedicated to delivering automated power kites capable of towing commercial ships."

      "SeaWing is a revolutionary innovation it deploys, operates and furls 100% automatically."

      "SeaWing has been designed to facilitate a rapid installation on almost all commercial ships in operation today
      "Download 
      • Press release Airbus-Airseas (PDF, 0.7 Mb) 
      • Press-Book-Sept2018 (PDF, 2.6 Mb) 
      • ADEME leaflet - FR (PDF, 0.9 Mb)

      ======================================================
      PRESS RELEASE Airbus orders first ever automated kite for its cargo ship from AirSeas AirSeas’ pioneering system to improve transport efficiency Hamburg, 4 September 2018 - Airbus has placed a firm order with AirSeas during the international maritime trade fair SMM to purchase the first ever automated kite, named SeaWing. SeaWing is an automated kite based on parafoil technology used to tow commercial ships. Airbus is focusing on improving productivity and delivering aircraft faster and more cost effectively for its customers. SeaWing offers a new way of cutting shipping fuel costs by 20 percent and will reduce Airbus’ overall industrial environmental footprint by 8,000 tons of CO2 per year. Airbus owns a fleet of four RO-RO ships to transport aircraft parts around Europe and the USA. SeaWing combines aeronautical know-how with maritime technology to create a breakthrough in the maritime transportation sector. A simple switch launches or recovers the kite which unfolds, operates and refolds autonomously. The system collects and analyses meteorological and oceanic data in real-time. SeaWing adapts to this information in order to optimise its performance as well as ensure maximum safety. Vincent Bernatets, CEO of AirSeas, said: “We are very proud that Airbus has confirmed its confidence in the SeaWing system after seeing our test results first-hand on their own ship. This first ro-ro vessel installation opens the way for further pioneering deals on container ships, bulkers and ferries. We are glad we can start helping our customers to reduce ship emissions in order to preserve the environment.” Contact for the media communication@airseas.com www.airseas.com AIRSEAS 5 Rue Humbert Tomatis 31200 TOULOUSE  
      ========================================================






      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24595 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/30/2018
      Subject: Re: Twist-Cord-Accumulator-Transmission (TCAT)
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24596 From: Peter Sharp Date: 12/30/2018
      Subject: Re: Twist-Cord-Accumulator-Transmission (TCAT)
      Attachments :

        Hi DaveS,

        Thank you for citing your reference, per my request, so I can explain to you the relevant differences, as I promised.

        First the similarity: The principle of accumulating energy in a rubber band to spin a model airplane propeller is the same way a TCAT stores energy. They both use twisting elastic bands to store energy. Indeed, rubber band airplanes are one of the concepts that led me to invent a TCAT.

        But notice that a rubber band airplane does not use a wind turbine, a generator, or a magnetic release catch, and its purpose is not to generate electricity to charge batteries in low wind speeds.

        So three of a TCAT’s four main components are missing from a rubber band airplane, and a rubber band airplane does not have the same purpose as a TCAT. The only common element is the twisting rubber to store energy. Yet you believe that the rubber band airplane entirely anticipates the TCAT. That indicates that either you ignored that their different component mechanisms and purposes, or, that you are defining “invention” in such a way that differences between the component mechanisms and the purpose of the device are irrelevant.

        So I will state the obvious: Many devices are based on common principles, but that does not mean that they are the same. For example, many devices are based on using aerodynamic lift, but that does not make all of those devices (airplanes, kites, windmills, sailboats, race cars, etc.) essentially the same. There are a great many relevant differences between them in terms of their mechanisms and their purposes. Similarly, there are many devices that use the principle of storing energy in twisted cords, but that does not make all of the devices the same. Many are quite different from one another, using different mechanisms and for different purposes.

        Let me clarify why I call my TCAT an invention: The criterion I use when I claim to have invented something is that it would be very likely to be granted a utility patent based on its novelty and potential utility, and which are not obvious to one practiced in the art -- the criteria used by the Patent Office. I distinguish inventions from designs, like they do. Using that distinction, I see you insisting that a TCAT is merely a design, not an invention. So you must be using different criteria. Please state them.

        If you can state them clearly so as to show why the TCAT is not an invention, I suspect that I will be able to show you, according to your own criteria, that neither of us ever invented anything.

        PeterS

         

         

         

         

        From: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com]
        Sent: Friday, December 28, 2018 11:06 AM
        To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [AWES] Re: Twist-Cord-Accumulator-Transmission (TCAT)

         

         

        Recalling that a rubber band airplane is the closest TCAT similarity case, where the wind-up is slow but the prop turns fast. All the major features of our AWE prototypes are seen, like hockling into supercoil phases.

        Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24597 From: dave santos Date: 12/30/2018
        Subject: Re: Twist-Cord-Accumulator-Transmission (TCAT)
        PeterS,

        When "similarity case" is used on the AWES Forum (after Carlin, Boeing, ret.) its never a claim of "entirely anticipates".

        Even closer similarity cases are KiteLab and Doug's tested small prototypes with kites and turbines. In testing they naturally exhibited the periodic surge effect, by the cogging of their generators, that you later predicted.

        Another similarity case is the common French ornithopter toy, whose input is at the rear and output toward the front.

        No such cases "entirely anticipate" anyone's personal insights, we can agree,

        daveS



         

        Hi DaveS,

        Thank you for citing your reference, per my request, so I can explain to you the relevant differences, as I promised.

        First the similarity: The principle of accumulating energy in a rubber band to spin a model airplane propeller is the same way a TCAT stores energy. They both use twisting elastic bands to store energy. Indeed, rubber band airplanes are one of the concepts that led me to invent a TCAT.

        But notice that a rubber band airplane does not use a wind turbine, a generator, or a magnetic release catch, and its purpose is not to generate electricity to charge batteries in low wind speeds.

        So three of a TCAT’s four main components are missing from a rubber band airplane, and a rubber band airplane does not have the same purpose as a TCAT. The only common element is the twisting rubber to store energy. Yet you believe that the rubber band airplane entirely anticipates the TCAT. That indicates that either you ignored that their different component mechanisms and purposes, or, that you are defining “invention” in such a way that differences between the component mechanisms and the purpose of the device are irrelevant.

        So I will state the obvious: Many devices are based on common principles, but that does not mean that they are the same. For example, many devices are based on using aerodynamic lift, but that does not make all of those devices (airplanes, kites, windmills, sailboats, race cars, etc.) essentially the same. There are a great many relevant differences between them in terms of their mechanisms and their purposes. Similarly, there are many devices that use the principle of storing energy in twisted cords, but that does not make all of the devices the same. Many are quite different from one another, using different mechanisms and for different purposes.

        Let me clarify why I call my TCAT an invention: The criterion I use when I claim to have invented something is that it would be very likely to be granted a utility patent based on its novelty and potential utility, and which are not obvious to one practiced in the art -- the criteria used by the Patent Office. I distinguish inventions from designs, like they do. Using that distinction, I see you insisting that a TCAT is merely a design, not an invention. So you must be using different criteria. Please state them.

        If you can state them clearly so as to show why the TCAT is not an invention, I suspect that I will be able to show you, according to your own criteria, that neither of us ever invented anything.

        PeterS

         

         

         

         

        From: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com]
        Sent: Friday, December 28, 2018 11:06 AM
        To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [AWES] Re: Twist-Cord-Accumulator-Transmission (TCAT)

         

         

        Recalling that a rubber band airplane is the closest TCAT similarity case, where the wind-up is slow but the prop turns fast. All the major features of our AWE prototypes are seen, like hockling into supercoil phases.

        Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24598 From: dave santos Date: 12/30/2018
        Subject: Re: Twist-Cord-Accumulator-Transmission (TCAT)
        PeterS,

        I think you did not depend on us to envision the TCAT, but we had already explored the same idea years ago.

        Often, no on can prove inventive priority, not even the USPTO. We have watched them give up careful review and grant patents without any proof of priority possible.

        daveS



         

        PeterS,

        When "similarity case" is used on the AWES Forum (after Carlin, Boeing, ret.) its never a claim of "entirely anticipates".

        Even closer similarity cases are KiteLab and Doug's tested small prototypes with kites and turbines. In testing they naturally exhibited the periodic surge effect, by the cogging of their generators, that you later predicted.

        Another similarity case is the common French ornithopter toy, whose input is at the rear and output toward the front.

        No such cases "entirely anticipate" anyone's personal insights, we can agree,

        daveS

        On ‎Sunday‎, ‎December‎ ‎30‎, ‎2018‎ ‎12‎:‎01‎:‎50‎ ‎PM‎ ‎CST, 'Peter Sharp' sharpencil@sbcglobal.net [AirborneWindEnergy] <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com


         

        Hi DaveS,

        Thank you for citing your reference, per my request, so I can explain to you the relevant differences, as I promised.

        First the similarity: The principle of accumulating energy in a rubber band to spin a model airplane propeller is the same way a TCAT stores energy. They both use twisting elastic bands to store energy. Indeed, rubber band airplanes are one of the concepts that led me to invent a TCAT.

        But notice that a rubber band airplane does not use a wind turbine, a generator, or a magnetic release catch, and its purpose is not to generate electricity to charge batteries in low wind speeds..

        So three of a TCAT’s four main components are missing from a rubber band airplane, and a rubber band airplane does not have the same purpose as a TCAT. The only common element is the twisting rubber to store energy. Yet you believe that the rubber band airplane entirely anticipates the TCAT. That indicates that either you ignored that their different component mechanisms and purposes, or, that you are defining “invention” in such a way that differences between the component mechanisms and the purpose of the device are irrelevant.

        So I will state the obvious: Many devices are based on common principles, but that does not mean that they are the same. For example, many devices are based on using aerodynamic lift, but that does not make all of those devices (airplanes, kites, windmills, sailboats, race cars, etc.) essentially the same. There are a great many relevant differences between them in terms of their mechanisms and their purposes. Similarly, there are many devices that use the principle of storing energy in twisted cords, but that does not make all of the devices the same. Many are quite different from one another, using different mechanisms and for different purposes.

        Let me clarify why I call my TCAT an invention: The criterion I use when I claim to have invented something is that it would be very likely to be granted a utility patent based on its novelty and potential utility, and which are not obvious to one practiced in the art -- the criteria used by the Patent Office. I distinguish inventions from designs, like they do. Using that distinction, I see you insisting that a TCAT is merely a design, not an invention. So you must be using different criteria. Please state them.

        If you can state them clearly so as to show why the TCAT is not an invention, I suspect that I will be able to show you, according to your own criteria, that neither of us ever invented anything.

        PeterS

         

         

         

         

        From: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com]
        Sent: Friday, December 28, 2018 11:06 AM
        To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [AWES] Re: Twist-Cord-Accumulator-Transmission (TCAT)

         

         

        Recalling that a rubber band airplane is the closest TCAT similarity case, where the wind-up is slow but the prop turns fast. All the major features of our AWE prototypes are seen, like hockling into supercoil phases.

        Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24599 From: Peter Sharp Date: 12/30/2018
        Subject: Re: Twist-Cord-Accumulator-Transmission (TCAT)
        Attachments :

          Hi DaveS,

          You are now arguing over an irrelevant point, as usual. If you like, change “entirely” to sufficiently”. Please show me your definition of invention.

          PeterS

           

           

          From: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com]
          Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2018 10:55 AM
          To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: Re: [AWES] Re: Twist-Cord-Accumulator-Transmission (TCAT)

           

           

          PeterS,

           

          When "similarity case" is used on the AWES Forum (after Carlin, Boeing, ret.) its never a claim of "entirely anticipates".

           

          Even closer similarity cases are KiteLab and Doug's tested small prototypes with kites and turbines. In testing they naturally exhibited the periodic surge effect, by the cogging of their generators, that you later predicted.

           

          Another similarity case is the common French ornithopter toy, whose input is at the rear and output toward the front.

           

          No such cases "entirely anticipate" anyone's personal insights, we can agree,

           

          daveS

           

          On ‎Sunday‎, ‎December‎ ‎30‎, ‎2018‎ ‎12‎:‎01‎:‎50‎ ‎PM‎ ‎CST, 'Peter Sharp' sharpencil@sbcglobal.net [AirborneWindEnergy] <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com

          Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24600 From: Santos Date: 12/30/2018
          Subject: Re: Twist-Cord-Accumulator-Transmission (TCAT)
          My definition of invention is nuanced. For sure you honestly thought of TCAT in AWE context, and so have others. As for who truly deserves priority, nobody can know for sure. The best we can do is cite references for the earliest known case.

          The early Forum has TCAT related discussion for anyone to decide what was known then. Try a prototype yourself to see the surges of the drive me and maybe Doug observed, and you have predicted.
          Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24601 From: Santos Date: 12/30/2018
          Subject: Kite Scaling in a Gravity Field
          We have slowly learned many scaling factors apply in AWES design. Gravity imposes a special scaling law. As a kite structure grows, it's progressively more subject to Gravity effects, especially during aerobatics and turbulence. In zero gravity, like solar-sailing in space, kites can be vast structures limited only by self-gravity. In Earth gravity, kites barely scale, due to the "tidal" forces. Once again, soft kites are predicted to most scale, by lowest weight  to power (highest power to weight).
          Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24602 From: Peter Sharp Date: 12/31/2018
          Subject: Re: Twist-Cord-Accumulator-Transmission (TCAT)
          Attachments :

            DaveS,

            I told you that I suspected that I could use your criteria for definition an invention to show you that you never invented anything. It seems I was correct.

            You are claiming that nobody invented anything because nothing can be proven. That means, at least according to you, that you never invented anything. Well done.  

            If you still wish to claim that you invented the TCAT, show me your evidence.

            PeterS

             

            From: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com]
            Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2018 12:47 PM
            To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: Re: [AWES] Re: Twist-Cord-Accumulator-Transmission (TCAT)

             

             

            PeterS,

             

            I think you did not depend on us to envision the TCAT, but we had already explored the same idea years ago.

             

            Often, no on can prove inventive priority, not even the USPTO. We have watched them give up careful review and grant patents without any proof of priority possible.

             

            daveS

             

            On ‎Sunday‎, ‎December‎ ‎30‎, ‎2018‎ ‎12‎:‎54‎:‎56‎ ‎PM‎ ‎CST, dave santos santos137@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy] <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com

            Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24603 From: Peter Sharp Date: 12/31/2018
            Subject: Re: Twist-Cord-Accumulator-Transmission (TCAT)
            Attachments :

              DaveS,

              I see. You can’t state your definition of invention because it is nuanced? I do appreciate that you have considerable trouble with nuances, but give it a try anyway.

              You claim to have anticipated the TCAT, yet you show me no evidence. You tell me to go search for your evidence. Nonsense. You claim that others have anticipated the TCAT. So show me. Have you ever heard of the expression, “Put up or shut up”? Perhaps not?

              Here is my evidence:

              A Bird Windmill blade can be matched with a twist-cord-accumulator-transmission (TCAT) to charge small batteries intermittently in low wind speeds, even while driving its primary mechanical device. The torque of the twist cords does not disrupt the pitching of the blade.

              Here is a Bird Windmill blade operating a TCAT in a wind speed of 3 to 4 mph. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZHsJ5wdWHo&index=9&list=UUhYQYjRwGq2ija4KuNs7xbw 

              Here is a TCAT operating in a wind speed of 5 mph: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W85Yr1BwIsw&list=UUhYQYjRwGq2ija4KuNs7xbw

              Here is a demonstration of a TCAT with a magnetic release catch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsUUES--QGc&list=UUhYQYjRwGq2ija4KuNs7xbw&index=3

              Here is a demonstration of a TCAT spinning a 12 volt bicycle bottle dynamo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJl6qeSAAxY&list=UUhYQYjRwGq2ija4KuNs7xbw&index=7  

              The purpose of a TCAT is to capture energy from wind speeds that are too low for conventional wind turbines, and to do it cheaply enough to be worthwhile. If connected to a Sharp Cycloturbine, which has much higher torque the a Bird Windmill blade, and which is also very cheap, it should be possible to charge a battery in wind speeds below one meter per second. Intermittent pulses of electricity at full voltage and amperage are fine for charging a battery.

              A TCAT is inefficient because it’s output increase does not match the cubic increase of energy in the wind. And, there is very little energy in low wind speeds. But there are some instances where at least some energy can make a significant difference. For example, charging batteries for LED lighting or cell phones in remote villages or farms in developing countries.

              It may be possible to size the Sharp Cycloturbine (or an energy kite), the TCAT, and the generator such that, at a moderate wind speed, the TCAT begins to drive the generator continuously. Or, it might be best to use a TCAT with a small generator and combine it with direct drive for a larger generator, with the result wind turbines increase their normal range of wind speeds in the lower range. But that will require a lot of experimenting, which I may never be able to do.

              When combined with a Bird Windmill or a Sharp Cycloturbine (or some form of energy kite), a TCAT is a way to provide a small amount of battery charging for an extremely low cost. In some remote places off the grid and without other sources of electricity, that could be important. A TCAT is not intended to be a substitute, but rather an addition.

              A TCAT works best if the wind turbine has both strong torque and at least a moderately high TSR, such as a Sharp Cycloturbine.

              I look forward to hearing more of your empty claims, definitions, and excuses.

              PeterS

               

               

               

               

               

               

              From: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com]
              Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2018 6:52 PM
              To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: RE: [AWES] Re: Twist-Cord-Accumulator-Transmission (TCAT)

               

               

              My definition of invention is nuanced. For sure you honestly thought of TCAT in AWE context, and so have others. As for who truly deserves priority, nobody can know for sure. The best we can do is cite references for the earliest known case.

               

              The early Forum has TCAT related discussion for anyone to decide what was known then. Try a prototype yourself to see the surges of the drive me and maybe Doug observed, and you have predicted.

              Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24604 From: Santos Date: 12/31/2018
              Subject: Re: Twist-Cord-Accumulator-Transmission (TCAT)
              Nuanced enough to wish you your fair due, as judged by posterity. 

              Kitelabs had a bad hockling problem with twisted rope drives just like you describe. Kite tension was variable, and the hockles that formed during slack transients damaged the rope when tension resumed. Power seemed low generally. Improvements were not followed up as the wear problem seemed intractable.

              You will indeed be hailed as a primary inventor if you solve the wear problem.

              Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24605 From: Santos Date: 12/31/2018
              Subject: Re: Twist-Cord-Accumulator-Transmission (TCAT)
              True. I cannot prove I ever invented anything. I am confident others have invented and perfected AWE elsewhere in the universe.

              AWE is better worth developing to save the planet than as reason to claim unprovable inventive priority.

              Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24606 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/31/2018
              Subject: A close look

              Take a close look: Perhaps discuss the matter relative to PierreB's ground-placed rotated disk and  to cb's driven disk and Rod Read's Daisy and its driven disk.   Image is from Peter Sharp's video:  Sharp Cycloturbine Exp (4)    Peter Sharp has a single line driving a ground-level disk using a rigid wing. 



              Image clip still: 

              http://www.energykitesystems. net/SharpKites/ HorizontaldiskDrivenBySharpCyc loTurbine.JPG


              Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24607 From: Santos Date: 1/1/2019
              Subject: Re: A close look
              Recalls discussion of LeBreque U Maine.

              Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24608 From: dave santos Date: 1/1/2019
              Subject: Paravane Energy Hotspots where Ocean Currents Cross
              Oceanic Thermohaline circulation is perhaps the largest kinetic energy source available to us. Early discussion focused on anchoring from shore or sea-bottom to tap ocean currents. Recent posts turn analysis toward oceanic shear zones between two opposing currents where a tethered paravane (hydrofoil) pair might operate with a foil in each flow, while maintaining overall station.

              Perhaps the most intriguing cases are where one major ocean current crosses over another. Anyone knowledgeable about kite principles can see the advantages- a vast reliable concentrated energy, in a dense medium where giant soft paravanes would be neutrally buoyant, promising vast scaling potential. 
              Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24609 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/2/2019
              Subject: Re: A close look

              Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24610 From: Peter Sharp Date: 1/2/2019
              Subject: Re: A close look
              Attachments :

                Hi JoeF,

                Here is the video that shows more clearly what is happening:

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdDaRMr4dwg 

                This video is incorrectly labeled. This is a Bird Windmill blade, not a Sharp Cycloturbine. I had not yet discovered that the two windmills are distinct because they use different pitch control techniques.

                The centrifugal force created by the paper blade puts sufficient tension in the single shock cord so that it can transmit a pulling force to the periphery of the green gear so as to create sufficient torque to spin the generator using step-up gearing. The pulling force is stronger when the blade is downwind than when upwind because blade lift and centrifugal force combine.

                The limitation of this energy transmission technique, with respect to kites, is that the blade orbit needs to be relatively large relative to the distance between the blade and the gear, and the centrifugal force also needs to be reasonably high.

                When the Bird blade flies in a vertical orbit, which creates a hybrid of a windmill and a kite, the blade cords could be used to transmit energy to turn a wheel/crank, on one or both support poles, by creating torque. But the limitation I described still applies.

                ----

                Where this method of energy transmission might be useful for kites is if a free flying wing-and-blade (probably with a T configuration, with the top of the T radially outward) can be made to fly in circles around its anchor point. A vertical blade would use passive pitch control to generate thrust, which I have achieved. Lift would be provided by a horizontal wing using passive pitch control, which I have achieved. But I have not had time to combine the two, which is far harder to do.

                Even in that case, if successful, there would still be a major limitation: The kite would probably be limited to small scale (below 100 kW, and maybe much less) because centrifugal force is inversely proportional to the radius. For the kite to fly upwind, the centrifugal force must remain higher than the aerodynamic lift of the vertical blade that is propelling the kite.

                The advantage of such a kite, flying around its anchor point, would not be the great heights that other kites can achieve. It’s advantage would be its enormous swept area.

                So it would be a hybrid of a vertical axis wind turbine and a kite. The swept area could be very large while costing very little, and it could be made so as to easily solve the launch and retrieval problem. Probably, it would use a central tower and an expanding orbit as the kite line reeled out. So instead of flying in a circle only as a launching technique, the kite would continue to fly in a circle. I think that it can be done, but it will require a lot of development. It might produce very cheap energy.

                However, that kind of kite would be better suited to carrying a ram-air-turbine (RAT) rather than creating torque on a centrally located crank – because the RPM of the kite would be very low due to its large orbit diameter.

                PeterS

                 

                 

                 

                 

                 

                From: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com]
                Sent: Monday, December 31, 2018 7:57 PM
                To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: [AWES] A close look

                 

                 

                Take a close look: Perhaps discuss the matter relative to PierreB's ground-placed rotated disk and  to cb's driven disk and Rod Read's Daisy and its driven disk.   Image is from Peter Sharp's video:  Sharp Cycloturbine Exp (4)    Peter Sharp has a single line driving a ground-level disk using a rigid wing. 

                 

                 

                Image clip still: 

                http://www.energykitesystems. net/SharpKites/ HorizontaldiskDrivenBySharpCyc loTurbine.JPG

                Image removed by sender.

                Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24611 From: dave santos Date: 1/2/2019
                Subject: Re: A close look
                Attachments :
                  Here's La Breque's prior art in wingmill design-space:




                   

                  Hi JoeF,

                  Here is the video that shows more clearly what is happening:

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdDaRMr4dwg 

                  This video is incorrectly labeled. This is a Bird Windmill blade, not a Sharp Cycloturbine. I had not yet discovered that the two windmills are distinct because they use different pitch control techniques.

                  The centrifugal force created by the paper blade puts sufficient tension in the single shock cord so that it can transmit a pulling force to the periphery of the green gear so as to create sufficient torque to spin the generator using step-up gearing. The pulling force is stronger when the blade is downwind than when upwind because blade lift and centrifugal force combine.

                  The limitation of this energy transmission technique, with respect to kites, is that the blade orbit needs to be relatively large relative to the distance between the blade and the gear, and the centrifugal force also needs to be reasonably high.

                  When the Bird blade flies in a vertical orbit, which creates a hybrid of a windmill and a kite, the blade cords could be used to transmit energy to turn a wheel/crank, on one or both support poles, by creating torque. But the limitation I described still applies.

                  ----

                  Where this method of energy transmission might be useful for kites is if a free flying wing-and-blade (probably with a T configuration, with the top of the T radially outward) can be made to fly in circles around its anchor point. A vertical blade would use passive pitch control to generate thrust, which I have achieved. Lift would be provided by a horizontal wing using passive pitch control, which I have achieved. But I have not had time to combine the two, which is far harder to do.

                  Even in that case, if successful, there would still be a major limitation: The kite would probably be limited to small scale (below 100 kW, and maybe much less) because centrifugal force is inversely proportional to the radius. For the kite to fly upwind, the centrifugal force must remain higher than the aerodynamic lift of the vertical blade that is propelling the kite.

                  The advantage of such a kite, flying around its anchor point, would not be the great heights that other kites can achieve. It’s advantage would be its enormous swept area.

                  So it would be a hybrid of a vertical axis wind turbine and a kite. The swept area could be very large while costing very little, and it could be made so as to easily solve the launch and retrieval problem. Probably, it would use a central tower and an expanding orbit as the kite line reeled out. So instead of flying in a circle only as a launching technique, the kite would continue to fly in a circle. I think that it can be done, but it will require a lot of development. It might produce very cheap energy.

                  However, that kind of kite would be better suited to carrying a ram-air-turbine (RAT) rather than creating torque on a centrally located crank – because the RPM of the kite would be very low due to its large orbit diameter.

                  PeterS

                   

                   

                   

                   

                   

                  From: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com]
                  Sent: Monday, December 31, 2018 7:57 PM
                  To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: [AWES] A close look

                   

                   

                  Take a close look: Perhaps discuss the matter relative to PierreB's ground-placed rotated disk and  to cb's driven disk and Rod Read's Daisy and its driven disk.   Image is from Peter Sharp's video:  Sharp Cycloturbine Exp (4)    Peter Sharp has a single line driving a ground-level disk using a rigid wing. 

                   

                   

                  Image clip still: 

                  http://www.energykitesystems. net/SharpKites/ HorizontaldiskDrivenBySharpCyc loTurbine.JPG

                  Image removed by sender.

                    @@attachment@@
                  Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24612 From: Peter Sharp Date: 1/5/2019
                  Subject: Re: Twist-Cord-Accumulator-Transmission (TCAT)
                  Attachments :

                    DaveS,

                    Once again, you have failed to show me evidence that you anticipated the TCAT. The description of your experiment does not describe a TCAT. A TCAT is not a twisted-rope drive. That is not its purpose. You also failed to notice the differences in components. Where is your torque-sensing release-catch? Where is your step-up transmission? A TCAT functions as an energy accumulator and a step-up transmission, and uses a release catch. A rope drive does not function as an energy accumulator other than incidentally and to an inconsequential degree. So it has no need for a release catch.

                    You have claimed credit for anticipating the TCAT on the basis of having transmitted torque via a twisted cord. That is a false claim of priority. You have attempted to unfairly take credit for someone else’s work. That is unethical. If you were a scientist, your entire career would be in jeopardy.

                    The two different devices have glaring differences in purposes and components, yet you see them as essentially the same. How can that be? I suspect that you must have a perceptual/conceptual/ handicap when it comes to making comparisons. You seem incapable of seeing what is missing or different. Or, maybe you lack the ability to discern what is important and what is not. Either way, you exhibit a blind spot. I have noticed similar instances of your blind spot in the past. Please be aware that it may be the cause of your behaving unethically.

                    PeterS

                     

                     

                     

                    From: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com]
                    Sent: Monday, December 31, 2018 3:09 PM
                    To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: RE: [AWES] Re: Twist-Cord-Accumulator-Transmission (TCAT)

                     

                     

                    Nuanced enough to wish you your fair due, as judged by posterity. 

                     

                    Kitelabs had a bad hockling problem with twisted rope drives just like you describe. Kite tension was variable, and the hockles that formed during slack transients damaged the rope when tension resumed. Power seemed low generally. Improvements were not followed up as the wear problem seemed intractable.

                     

                    You will indeed be hailed as a primary inventor if you solve the wear problem.

                     

                    On Dec 31, 2018 2:00 PM, "'Peter Sharp' sharpencil@sbcglobal.net [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com

                    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24613 From: Peter Sharp Date: 1/5/2019
                    Subject: Re: A close look [1 Attachment]
                    Attachments :

                      DaveS,

                      You are attempting to discredit my priority by claiming that the Aeroflexor is prior art for the Bird Windmill. Priority depends upon a number of different dates. You cite no dates, so you have no evidence. The Bird blade was sold and was in the public domain about 10 years before the date of the Labreque patent. Your claim is false. You made no effort to check your facts. That is irresponsible. False claims about priority are unethical.

                      PeterS

                       

                       

                      From: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com]
                      Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2019 3:31 PM
                      To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: Re: [AWES] A close look [1 Attachment]

                       

                       

                      [Attachment(s) from dave santos included below]

                      Here's La Breque's prior art in wingmill design-space:

                       

                       

                      On ‎Wednesday‎, ‎January‎ ‎2‎, ‎2019‎ ‎05‎:‎11‎:‎40‎ ‎PM‎ ‎CST, 'Peter Sharp' sharpencil@sbcglobal.net [AirborneWindEnergy] <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com

                      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24614 From: Santos Date: 1/5/2019
                      Subject: Re: A close look
                      Let the historical record stand for any TCAT prior art, including clutches. The observation I offer here is that cogging resistence of common generators causes a rwisted line to release torque in bursts at the low end of wind range. Youu and Doug may have noticed this in your own testing. Others can try as well.


                      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24615 From: dave santos Date: 1/5/2019
                      Subject: Makani Hawaii Testing Mystery
                      Last August West Hawaii Today published the article linked below that reports Makani setting up and doing hover testing. By now there was supposed to be all-modes testing, but the story went silent. Our spotter has not reported any flying either. 

                      It still seems crazy that Makani would want to test such a dangerous aircraft in such a sensitive location. Are they stalled by some critical factor we have identified or some new technical barrier we know nothing of? Could they have already crashed and be covering up? 

                      The only clear impression is that no M600 prototype has yet triumphed by basic operational criteria, an outcome that would surely have touted in public by Makani PR.




                      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24616 From: dave santos Date: 1/5/2019
                      Subject: Kiwee1 reaches its funding goal, plus fresh Maddyness coverage
                      At 99% funded with four days left, the Old Forum is "calling the race". 

                      Congratulations to the Kiwee1 team-


                      See the linked video for more details of the production design.

                      ========

                      Crowdfunding page-




                      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24617 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/5/2019
                      Subject: Re: Kiwee1 reaches its funding goal, plus fresh Maddyness coverage
                      Launched on November 9, 2018
                      Finished on January 9, 2019 at 14:59
                      ======================================

                      28.409 $USD goal
                      28.256 $ USD at the moment
                      ===
                      $153 YET TO GO.
                      =========================
                      The system does not receive PayPal, it seems.
                      "If the project does not reach its goal, you will be refunded without charge to your bank account. For more details on how Ulule works, see the FAQ ."

                      ========================
                      So, if $153 USD does not arrive, then all funds are returned to those who donated.
                      ========================
                      DaveS predicts that within 4 days remaining, the needed funds will be donated and the funding of the project will occur.
                      =======================
                      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24618 From: tallakt Date: 1/6/2019
                      Subject: Re: Kiwee1 reaches its funding goal, plus fresh Maddyness coverage
                      This is great news. The goal has been reached now! Congrats to Kitewinder!
                      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24619 From: dougselsam Date: 1/7/2019
                      Subject: Re: Makani Hawaii Testing Mystery
                      Same with all of the most highly-funded and highly-publicized AWE attempts.
                      After ten years you have to start to acknowledge the pattern I've been telling you about from day-1:
                      "They quietly go away"

                      I have to say, a few years ago I was wondering if I had somehow missed something in my blanket dismissal of all these highly-publicized, highly-funded AWE attempts.  Hearing these claims of "500 kW", etc., I had some glimmers of doubt, thinking we might soon be seeing daily operation and significant power into the grid.

                      I mean, if you can generate a steady 500 kW, that's worth $20/hour.  The system could be making $1000 a week.  You'd be learning all you needed to know to run the next one, and for that reason it would be important to operate your system as many hours as possible to determine your wear patterns and failure modes.  Assuming you really have a workable system... 

                      Putting a wind energy system in actual full-time operation is the most important step in developing a new system.  Without establishing such a baseline period of experience, you really having nothing - who would buy an untested system, and why?

                      But the glaring "hole in the story" for all these supposed energy projects was that actual consistent daily generation remained perpetually "in the future".  There was never any real news, such as "last week, in location X, our system Y generated Z kiloWatt-hours, and here are the numbers by day".

                      Nope, it's always "next year".  Every time.
                      I can't think of any other "industry" where after ten years and a billion dollars, there is essentially nothing to show.

                      I think the Wizard of OZ said it best: "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain".
                      I've said from day-one, I don't see that anyone purporting to be interested in developing this field has any idea what they're doing.

                      What's more, I don't think most of them are even honest.  I think they just copy each other's empty statements.  If every company goes into this same mode of claiming high output in testing and promising consistent high output grid-feed operation "next year", then not doing it, who's expertise is lacking?  Who is responsible for the public statements always being false?

                      The supposed "news" often includes details of their HR department hiring supposedly competent people.  We're talking engineers, power electronics people, project managers, business people, etc.  So if  companies full of such "talent" inevitably follow such an easily-predictable pattern, whose fault could it be?

                      Are the "engineers" feeding wrong information to the "project managers"?
                      Are the "project managers" simply unable to plan and manage a project?
                      Are the "project managers" feeding the CEO's flse information?
                      Are the CEO's telling the publicity people false information?
                      Was the original "vision" of the "visionaries" lacking in vision?
                      This has to be someone's fault.  It didn't happen by itself.  Someone screwed up. Whose expertise is so lacking?  Or is it all of them?  Drinking their own Kool-Aid?

                      Where is the weak link in any of these projects so others can learn from what doesn't work?
                      It seems like at some point they should come clean and tell their version of why, in their view, it didn't work out.

                      Anyway, to me, the news is good:  Good, good good!   The "field of AWE", such as it is, remains wide-open, with no competition, at least from the most highly-publicized and highly-funded companies.
                      :)





                      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24620 From: Santos Date: 1/7/2019
                      Subject: Re: Makani Hawaii Testing Mystery
                      What does not seem true in AWE is that Makani has somehow gone away quietly by recently setting up it's test site in Hawaii. If they crash, that's not very quiet.

                      Anyone unsure of what Makani's engineering challenges are can review the Forum discussions. The only mystery is just what specific concerns are causing current delay.


                      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24621 From: dougselsam Date: 1/7/2019
                      Subject: Re: Makani Hawaii Testing Mystery
                      daveS said: "What does not seem true in AWE is that Makani has somehow gone away quietly by recently setting up it's test site in Hawaii. If they crash, that's not very quiet.

                      Anyone unsure of what Makani's engineering challenges are can review the Forum discussions. The only mystery is just what specific concerns are causing current delay."

                      *** DougS replies:  "Current"... "delay"...???  I don't see that this story has ever changed.  Sounds like a big DeJaVu of an endless "delay" to the point of any impartial observer likely assuming "mothballed" or "cancelled", to me.  When have they ever not been "recently" "setting up a test site in Hawaii"?  How many times can you swallow that same story?   It's yesterday's news, recycled.  How many times do you need to hear the same story before you become skeptical or at least suspicious that you're being handed a bunch of Malarkey? 

                      Besides noting your misspelling of "its", I would draw the reader's attention to your last word: "delay", above.

                      Remember the last time you spent what, a year or two defending a previous highly-publicized, highly-funded, poster-child AWE attempt that quietly went away, just at the point where they were to come through on their promises to power the grid "in the future", with you using the word "delay" and more specifically (without any justification) "engineering delay" to provide an uninformed, outsider-generated, 100% speculative, online excuse for the sudden radio-silence of that project? 

                      Like your AWE-powered concert that never happened that one, ill-fated summer so long ago?  "Delayed" forever, while you occasionally mention "Wubbo" or "a few plaintive notes" in trying to somehow dance around that (lack of) reality through internet wordplay?  When will these "delays" ever be called "failures", cancellations, or flagged as the meaningless blather of overenthusiastic, unrealistic wind energy wannabees??

                      Is it possible these "projects" constitute willful and intentional deception?
                      I remember leaning on the bar at the Ritz Carleton in Lake Tahoe at Techonomy 2010, talking to John Doerr and Bill Joy, the principals of Kleiner Perkins tech venture capital company, mentioning that they might want to consider funding my wind energy inventions.

                      "If it's better than ours" was the response.
                      "What's yours?" was my response.
                      "FloDesign" was their answer.
                      I was dumbfounded.
                      "But Flodesign is the laughingstock of the wind energy world" I told them.  "Ducted turbines are long-disproven as economical solutions, since they use too much material to increase swept area versus just making the blades longer!"
                      Well of course they wouldn't listen.  "Ours is different" they claimed.  "Nonsense" I maintained.

                      I spent quite some time after that razzing them by e-mail, trying to explain "swept area" and sending them photos of snowmaking machines, asking "how is your snowmaking machine coming along?  I guess I made the mistake of explaining how the previous poster-child ducted-turbine effort had ended up costing a gullible New Zealand $20 million dollars - Kleiner Perkins then sold their uninformed failure of a project to...guess whom?  New Zealand - this time for $55 million!!!


                      Meanwhile, all investors had to do was listen to wind people who knew what the hell they were talking about like me and Paul Gipe
                      and they could have saved a total of $150 million on just FloDesign (later renamed Ogin) alone!  I feel like my advice to KP just told them who would be a big enough sucker to buy their garbage.  And I think it was probably known to be a failure when sold to NZ.  Wow, sorry New Zealand.  I've learned to maybe sometimes keep my mouth shut.  No point facilitating ripoffs.

                      daveS, How about either sharing why you call the continued lack of information on Makani progress a "delay", or stop providing these gigantic, highly-publicized, highly-funded projects with unfounded, uninformed, 100% speculative, third-party, ass-kissing internet excuses through often-meaningless wordplay?  What's your evidence?

                      We have the most highly-funded and arguably highly-publicized AWE effort in history.
                      daveS has no idea what is happening with it.  All he can do is guess.
                      Maybe he should consult with "an AWE expert".   Where is one?
                      Maybe Dr. Peter Harrop can tell you.
                      I'm trying to think - don't reports like his typically feature such long-abandoned projects as though they are current?

                      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24622 From: Santos Date: 1/7/2019
                      Subject: Re: Makani Hawaii Testing Mystery
                      Doug seems to not account for normal engineering delay in AWE. The evidence of normal delay is abundant, while evidence of dishonest delay is absent.

                      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24623 From: tallakt Date: 1/7/2019
                      Subject: Re: Makani Hawaii Testing Mystery
                      First let me comment that when discussing Makanis progress there seems to be no new info available. The reason could well be that Makani does not see the need to share every detail of its operation due to PR concerns. You could disagree to this, but its a fair approach IMHO.

                      For a project of some complexity, you will need serious funding in order to build prototypes and valudate designs. You could disagree to whether the time is ready for going in depth. On the other hand, the people trying to build real complex prototypes (eg Makani, Ampyx, Kitemill), do not agree to this and rather feel that coming to some working solution is not impossible at the current state of the art.

                      If someone would succeed in commercializing such an AWE power plant, that would be a giant step for AWE. Other designs would probably benefit from this in terms of added general interest in AWE.

                      And people are sharing. Just look at the AWESCO conference. Look at AWE related patents (yes, patents are also a way of sharing).

                      The data you crave, proof that AWE is crashibg frequently and not delivering enough power - why would anyone want to publish that? It does nothing other than fuel your argument that the people with the $ built the wrong design.

                      I think you should expect there to be delays, lower than expected power output and crashes at this point. But generating statistics based on this makes no sense
                      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24625 From: benhaiemp Date: 1/8/2019
                      Subject: Rotating Reel System

                      The full text is now available on https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324135034_Airborne_Wind_Energy_Conversion_Using_a_Rotating_Reel_System .


                      It is a rotary system between a carousel and @Rodread's Daisy. 


                      To remember the ground ring is horizontal and its diameter should be roughly the same as the flying rotor diameter and the peripheral tethers lengths.


                      Disadvantage: a large ground ring.


                      Advantages: a better possibility to optimize the land/space use; take-off by using the ground ring rotation, the generator as motor.


                      Variants have been studied since, of which a divided flying rotor.

                      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24626 From: Santos Date: 1/8/2019
                      Subject: Re: Makani Hawaii Testing Mystery
                      Tallak,

                      The new definite information about Makani is that they are currently very delayed in testing compared to the timeline they provided to the Hawaiian press.
                       
                      Crash statistics are a basic traditional safety and reliability metric in aviation. It's accepted aviation ethics to share lessons accidents teach. 

                      Investors also deserve to know if undue crashing risk is inherent to a given AWES architecture.

                      daveS