Messages in AirborneWindEnergy group.                          AWES 24677 to 24726 Page 385 of 440.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24677 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/14/2019
Subject: Re: KGM-1's heroic journey continues

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24678 From: dave santos Date: 1/14/2019
Subject: Is AWE already solved?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24679 From: dave santos Date: 1/15/2019
Subject: Gliderbase Paraglider Search and Comparison

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24680 From: dave santos Date: 1/15/2019
Subject: Paradox of an Energy-Charged Glider

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24681 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/16/2019
Subject: Re: Paradox of an Energy-Charged Glider

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24682 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/16/2019
Subject: Re: Paradox of an Energy-Charged Glider

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24683 From: dave santos Date: 1/16/2019
Subject: New Forum mixed Review

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24684 From: dave santos Date: 1/16/2019
Subject: KitePower begins its marathon session

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24685 From: benhaiemp Date: 1/16/2019
Subject: Re: New Forum mixed Review

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24686 From: dave santos Date: 1/16/2019
Subject: Re: New Forum mixed Review

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24687 From: dave santos Date: 1/16/2019
Subject: Sample Hidden Post on New Forum

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24688 From: dave santos Date: 1/16/2019
Subject: Progress in Thin-Wing Design

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24689 From: dave santos Date: 1/16/2019
Subject: Innovations in foil wings continue (eg. flaplets)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24690 From: dave santos Date: 1/17/2019
Subject: New Forum Moderation Concerns

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24691 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/19/2019
Subject: Re: AWES tether has drag

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24692 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/19/2019
Subject: Practical Uses of Tether Drag

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24693 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/19/2019
Subject: Re: Kite Scaling in a Gravity Field

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24694 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/19/2019
Subject: Re: Studio Roosegaarde's AWE Vision

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24695 From: tallakt Date: 1/20/2019
Subject: Re: AWES tether has drag

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24696 From: tallakt Date: 1/20/2019
Subject: Re: AWES tether has drag

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24697 From: dougselsam Date: 1/21/2019
Subject: Re: New Forum Moderation Concerns

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24698 From: dougselsam Date: 1/21/2019
Subject: Re: KGM-1's heroic journey continues

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24699 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/21/2019
Subject: INTEGRATED TETHER AND MOORING WITH FLOATING PLATFORM FOR ENERGY KITE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24700 From: tallakt Date: 1/21/2019
Subject: Re: New Forum Moderation Concerns

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24701 From: Santos Date: 1/22/2019
Subject: Re: New Forum Moderation Concerns

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24702 From: Santos Date: 1/22/2019
Subject: Re: KGM-1's heroic journey continues

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24703 From: Santos Date: 1/22/2019
Subject: Re: KGM-1's heroic journey continues

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24704 From: benhaiemp Date: 1/22/2019
Subject: Re: New Forum Moderation Concerns

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24705 From: dougselsam Date: 1/22/2019
Subject: Re: KGM-1's heroic journey continues

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24706 From: Santos Date: 1/22/2019
Subject: Re: New Forum Moderation Concerns

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24707 From: Santos Date: 1/22/2019
Subject: Re: KGM-1's heroic journey continues

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24708 From: dougselsam Date: 1/22/2019
Subject: Re: New Forum Moderation Concerns

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24709 From: Santos Date: 1/22/2019
Subject: Re: New Forum Moderation Concerns

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24710 From: benhaiemp Date: 1/23/2019
Subject: Re: New Forum Moderation Concerns

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24711 From: benhaiemp Date: 1/23/2019
Subject: Re: New Forum Moderation Concerns

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24712 From: dougselsam Date: 1/23/2019
Subject: Re: KGM-1's heroic journey continues

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24713 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/23/2019
Subject: Re: KGM-1's heroic journey continues

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24714 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/23/2019
Subject: Re: KGM-1's heroic journey continues

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24715 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/23/2019
Subject: Re: KGM-1's heroic journey continues

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24716 From: Santos Date: 1/24/2019
Subject: Re: KGM-1's heroic journey continues

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24717 From: dougselsam Date: 1/24/2019
Subject: Re: KGM-1's heroic journey continues

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24718 From: Santos Date: 1/24/2019
Subject: Re: KGM-1's heroic journey continues

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24719 From: dougselsam Date: 1/24/2019
Subject: Re: KGM-1's heroic journey continues

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24720 From: Santos Date: 1/24/2019
Subject: Re: KGM-1's heroic journey continues

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24721 From: benhaiemp Date: 1/24/2019
Subject: Barnard's predictions

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24722 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/24/2019
Subject: Re: KGM-1's heroic journey continues

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24723 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/24/2019
Subject: KGM1 Project News

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24724 From: tallakt Date: 1/24/2019
Subject: Re: KGM-1's heroic journey continues

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24725 From: benhaiemp Date: 1/25/2019
Subject: Re: KGM-1's heroic journey continues

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24726 From: benhaiemp Date: 1/25/2019
Subject: Re: Barnard's predictions




Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24677 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/14/2019
Subject: Re: KGM-1's heroic journey continues
Hi all, some news: 
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/ update/urn:li:activity: 6490683317447462912 

We have finished all money, let's hope now that the phoenix will be reborn again!
We are working for create an easy "generator kit" for any little off-grid costumer.  
Ciao. 

Marco Ghivarello
GHIVA Progettaz. CAD
 
Sede Legale: Via Orbetello, 36 - 10148 Torino
Sede Operat: P.za Comunale, 6 - 10090 Rivalba (To)
Cell. 338.8005595 - Tel. 011.2205774 - P.ta Iva 09402900014
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24678 From: dave santos Date: 1/14/2019
Subject: Is AWE already solved?
The AWE resource is tremendous and desperately needed. There are now hundreds of known AWE researchers, prototypes, patents, and papers. A treasury of domain knowledge now exists, but also a haystack of competing claims in a fog of misconceptions. 

Its possible, likely even, that the optimal form of utility-scale AWE is already known; one of the many architectures in contention. Maybe Payne got it right decades ago. It seems less likely that AWE's fateful form is not already understood by someone somewhere.

If AWE is to be based on power-kite technology, that's a substantially solved technology.  The power kite embodies flight and power together. Nothing else is close. Less solved are issues like autonomy, mechanical transmission, and networked kites. 

Even if everyone knew just what direction to go, it would still take a lot of time to perfect AWE. Aviation and wind tower tech both figure in AWE, but the greater challenge is the aviation problem of persistent flight rather than what turbine design works best on a tower.

One thing is sure, that the growing global AWE community, and its work so far, is a formidable start to the challenges. Time will tell just who first clearly saw the path to AWE. It may be someone reading these lines, if so, Congratulations!


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24679 From: dave santos Date: 1/15/2019
Subject: Gliderbase Paraglider Search and Comparison
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24680 From: dave santos Date: 1/15/2019
Subject: Paradox of an Energy-Charged Glider
Consider a glider gaining altitude in a fast rising column of air. From the glider's perspective, its operating at its normal work load. From an outside perspective, its charging up with the potential energy of mass at altitude. The paradox is high altitude as a powerful kinetic charge on such a delicate object.

Altitude x mass is effectively a "gravity charge" in aviation.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24681 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/16/2019
Subject: Re: Paradox of an Energy-Charged Glider

Nice extension from our kited wings with payloads being driven to high altitude for a very energy-charged kite system.   Have 100 kg wing-payload point kited to 1 km altitude to have significant pocket of energy for use to do good works. 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24682 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/16/2019
Subject: Re: Paradox of an Energy-Charged Glider
Bringing forward some slightly mentioned former similarity matters: 
1. Glider or kite wing:  accumulate aloft water from air to increase the potential energy of the wings. 
2. Aloft growing of plants and animals using solar energy and atmospheric water with sometimes a net energy gain in the system. 
3. Catching insects, birds, pollutants, dust, virga water, sporadic debris, spent drones, etc. with a net increase in system potential energy of a kite system or glider system.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24683 From: dave santos Date: 1/16/2019
Subject: New Forum mixed Review
The promoted idea has been put to rest, that somehow this Old Forum was fatally flawed because its software lacked certain features, so that a New Forum was required. In fact both Forums have serious flaws and advantages, and two Forums are better than one.

Yes, there are many nice features to the New Forum, but also a tremendous burden of childish distractions, like a game-of-badges that moderators apparently could turn off, but don't. 

While it seems better that topics are more organized, human posting behavior does not keep up, and moderators play whack-a-mole trying to split topics for reasons that are more Netiquette than technical, so several topics continue on two threads, not one. One this forum, its far easier to follow everything with less navigation, if that is one's goal.

One New Forum moderator is a sock-puppet who will not divulge (his?) identity, but who interjects style lessons constantly while disregarding the same. Rod has fallen back into his moderation trap of censuring me and Doug as equal bad actors, when its Doug who pops up on my topics with his unique personal misdemeanors.

Perhaps the worst New Forum problem is the insistence that posting at a "ten year old" level is a higher virtue than welcoming complex AWE content in standard engineering or scientific nomenclature. No topic escapes this dumbing-down intent. Imagine an academic conference run this way.

I will continue with the New Forum a bit longer hoping improvement occurs, but it seems like its the SomeAWE story again, time to let the New Forum take its own course, and wish it well, but not as a substitute for what this Forum has accomplished.


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24684 From: dave santos Date: 1/16/2019
Subject: KitePower begins its marathon session
Predicting that line wear will be a problem unless the designers have incorporated a heavier line section at the fairlead for the pumping phase.

Storm winds might also figure. Perhaps KitePower has a quiver of wings to match marginal conditions.

Best of Luck to the Team.




Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24685 From: benhaiemp Date: 1/16/2019
Subject: Re: New Forum mixed Review

 "Rod has fallen back into his moderation trap of censuring me and Doug as equal bad actors..."

Doug also? Why Doug?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24686 From: dave santos Date: 1/16/2019
Subject: Re: New Forum mixed Review
Why Doug? Ask Rod himself what he finds wrong with Doug when he lumps us together. Guessing its to do with the sort of critique Luke provided.

Anyway, the strangeness on the New Forum continues. Threads keep breaking off, get locked and unlocked, messages are hidden and not hidden, and a crazy focus on Netiquette interrupts the most technical discussions.



 

 "Rod has fallen back into his moderation trap of censuring me and Doug as equal bad actors..."

Doug also? Why Doug?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24687 From: dave santos Date: 1/16/2019
Subject: Sample Hidden Post on New Forum
Example of a Post hidden away on New Forum, as flagged by unnamed parties-

"

I insist there is a close AWE community going back many years. Wubbo himself could talk about “we”, and we understood, without anyone needing to cry “weasel”. If someone states, “its predicted humans can reach Mars”, that is not cause to cry “weasel” and “who says?”. The problem may be between those who think AWE is an urgent global need for us as a team to solve, and those who compete for private business success in AWE.

Its an insidious abuse to interfere with technical discussion with English writing-lessons. After all, for most scientist-engineers, English is a second language, and by tradition we simply ignore weak written or oral expression, trying only to figure out the intended meaning, never crying “weasel”. We also keep in mind that not everyone can write everything out. Imagine Hawking posting as best he could and someone objecting to a lack of detail. Give him time, and he answered as well as anyone."

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24688 From: dave santos Date: 1/16/2019
Subject: Progress in Thin-Wing Design
Thin wings have long been attractive for their simplicity and potential high performance. Fabric wings and sails are existing thin wing cases, as well as small rigid thin wings in flying toys. This research takes on improving the thin wing with simple tabs along the LE of plain aluminum sheets. Old time followers of the Forum will recall similar turbulators on KiteLab LEs (in the form of holes as Joe Hadzicki first burned with a cigarette into Rev prototypes).




Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24689 From: dave santos Date: 1/16/2019
Subject: Innovations in foil wings continue (eg. flaplets)
Sample paper about "flaplets", with good summary of ongoing wing design innovation. Again, features that KiteLab Illwaco in particular applied to kite prototypes (including flaplets which we had no name for) in the quest for better soft wings. We are relentlessly puzzling out the amazing tricks biological wings evolved, to ultimately transform us to a fully airborne lifestyle, including AWE-




Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24690 From: dave santos Date: 1/17/2019
Subject: New Forum Moderation Concerns
New Forum moderation is deeply conditioned by implicit social values cooked into the new forum-ware. Accordingly, the bells-and-whistles power available to moderators tends to disrupt serious technical discourse, in favor of excessive social control. 

Its become clear New Forum moderation embraces a social-media ideal oriented far more toward casual non-experts, compared to the founding mission of this Forum, to focus on RAD (rapid AWE development), which does not bother with heavy social control. These two Forum cultures are not very compatible. 

Let the New Forum be the place where those who prefer its imposed social norms to have their community. Meanwhile, the Old Forum is not quite done yet with its RAD quest focus. Its great that there is a choice of Forums to cover the spectrum of AWE discourse.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24691 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/19/2019
Subject: Re: AWES tether has drag
Some tether-drag discussion is appearing HERE. "Theoretical drag of a Tether"

Points from the discussion: 
1. Some workers want simplified formula. However, the many sorts of drag may not be being addressed. 
2. The literature has various formulas; a robust collection of such may be made. 
3. Fig. 4, page 15 of PDF  Drag Power Kite with Very High Lift Coefficient.    "and tether drag contribution CD,te in dotted (........ )"
Storm Dunker
5. Rod Read aims to robustly explore tether drag in some sectors of networked kite turbines.

In discussion prose, sometimes the writer has something in mind that gets expressed via some generalizing statements that will have important exceptions that might not show up for some time.  E.g. "larger systems" could mean much more than the writer was thinking.  E.g. a very large kite system may have simple stub tethers or maybe have the wing be tether itself where one wonders just what happened to the "tether" of the kite system; recall ribbon and Mothra and Play Sail. 

When "strum" becomes part of the "good" of a kite system, then analysis may have different directions. E.g., strum may play parts in some power-take-off methods (PTO). 

Comments may be missing some of the points mentioned by Dave Santos with regard to upwind and downwind tethers. (see post prior to this post in this topic thread).  Network complex AWES holding upwind tethers may be missed in some generalizations.

Tether surface treatments, tether shapes. tether taper, complex tether (say, e.g. air-releasing tethers) may be missed in some discussions.   Affect of humidity on tether drag?  Affect of color (solar-radiation reaction)?

Perhaps we may stay open for positive useful purposes of tether drag.  "How to put kite-system tether drag to serve useful good practical works"     We might have a dedicated topic on such.  "Practical Uses of Tether Drag".

Pointedly, be ready to have formulas that "fit" specific scenes; and be ready to avoid simplistic application of such formulas for other distinct scenes.  Over-simplification, say a single formula for all cases, may bring serious errors, even errors that may affect safety of a particular AWES.   



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24692 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/19/2019
Subject: Practical Uses of Tether Drag

This topic thread is dedicated to the discussion of practical uses of tether drag in kite systems.  Included is the induced drag from tether positive or negative tether lift. Even in zero-lift tethers mentioned by Dave Santos in special instances (say tether sections fully parallel with air or water flow), there are special types of tether drag potential sources of service resulting in good practical works. 

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

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24693 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/19/2019
Subject: Re: Kite Scaling in a Gravity Field
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24694 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/19/2019
Subject: Re: Studio Roosegaarde's AWE Vision
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24695 From: tallakt Date: 1/20/2019
Subject: Re: AWES tether has drag
I can agree that oversimplification can be bad. Still a super simple approximation of drag can be very useful. Then more accurate calculations should be used where appropriate.

It seems with so many variables, real life testing is important.

Right now I see mostly variations on a straight line tether, inaccurate but it does give useful insight, OR, simulations performed by splitting the tether into segments. The latter may be more accurate, but with almost zero general insight to be made except for specific parameters.

My wish when starting that thread was to discuss if there was perhaps some useful formulations in between these two approaches
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24696 From: tallakt Date: 1/20/2019
Subject: Re: AWES tether has drag
For instance a straight line approximation function may state that drag of a tether as observed on the kite is proportional to tether length, C_l of the tether, speed of the kite squared, air density and diameter.

These are very valuable insights that would not be directly dediced from a simulation.

As a last note, the tether as a straight line is a fairly good approximation when discussing tether drag. At the tension where the tether is at maximum possible, I have always observed that the lines are mostly straight.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24697 From: dougselsam Date: 1/21/2019
Subject: Re: New Forum Moderation Concerns
My opinion on this:  Yes it looks like one more demonstration that people with no experience in wind energy, sitting at a computer, tossing around uneducated opinions, is unlikely to "solve" AWE.  What has it done so far?  A often-hostile gossip-fest?  Of course Santos has to have a cow over anyone trying to express any opinion on AWE without it being "cleared" by him or going through his "filter".  Given his insistence that Peter Harrop should not even dare to issue a report on AWE without running it by Santos first, he must be tearing his hair out over people now discussing AWE on the internet, without him being "in charge". 
Meanwhile, my experience on this forum has been that the "social values", if any, under which it has been "moderated", include forcing weak and stretched concepts of dubious validity on the rest of us, avoiding facts at all costs, promoting hero-worship of people who do not even practice AWE at all, suppressing the free flow of actual information on publicized projects, and pretending to redefine words and just censor posts, if it helps "enforce" those stretched "values" and concepts, just making things up to try and "win" "arguments" with little validity, and shutting out dissent through deleting posts of sincere and well-meaning participants.  When you are scolded and censored for even asking the status of the most highly-funded and highly-publicized AWE projects, what is left for a supposed AWE "forum"?  Arguing over which person who has never produced  any significant amount of AWE-generated electricity should nevertheless call themselves "expert"?  When nobody else does?  Meanwhile what I saw today on the new forum was two discussion categories "Flygen?" and "Groundgen"?  Hey I guess we're back to the "newborn baby" stage, right?  Flygen?  Groundgen?  What has been learned in the last ten years?  Flygen?  Groundgen?  Anyway I guess karma was destined to give Dave Santos a taste of his own medicine: nitpicking newbies with naive, politically-correct impulses, little-to-no-experience, with the ability and inclination to censor and scold attempts by well-meaning people to simply express their opinions, or, God forbid, provide facts, on a technical topic.  What goes around comes around.


---In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, <santos137@...
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24698 From: dougselsam Date: 1/21/2019
Subject: Re: KGM-1's heroic journey continues
This is "news"?  When will any "news" be more than some statement of someone saying they will create something newsworthy "in the future"?  When will "the future" ever arrive for any AWE project?


---In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, <joefaust333@...
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24699 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/21/2019
Subject: INTEGRATED TETHER AND MOORING WITH FLOATING PLATFORM FOR ENERGY KITE


WO2018102119 

International Filing Date:14/11/2017
Priority Data:
15/365,249
30.11.2016
US

INTEGRATED TETHER AND MOORING WITH FLOATING PLATFORM FOR ENERGY KITE

applicants:
 X DEVELOPMENT LLC [US/US]; 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway Mountain View, CA 94043, US
Inventors:
NORDSTROM, Charles; US
FELKER, Fort; US
 

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24700 From: tallakt Date: 1/21/2019
Subject: Re: New Forum Moderation Concerns
It seems the rest of us will have to grow in the new forum and maybe one day we could reach a standard of enlightenment to contribute to the «old forum».

In the meantime just you guys keep churning out those golden nuggets of wisdom, once we get there, we’ll be desperate to read all that information.

The sad endgame of course, it serms by doing a quick browse, is realizing that AWE was always an impossible dream, something proven time and again on the old forum.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24701 From: Santos Date: 1/22/2019
Subject: Re: New Forum Moderation Concerns
Tallak, 

Full review of Old Forum discussion upholds a super optimistic view of AWE as the best fit with facts. By comparison, there is far less basis for hope on the New Forum. For example, your own bias is that AWE requires active digital control. That has never been seen as a critical requirement here, but an option. New Forum leadership even thinks technical acronyms are a problem, thus are aviation, meteorology, engineering, and other such subcultures moderated, but these are cause for optimism.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24702 From: Santos Date: 1/22/2019
Subject: Re: KGM-1's heroic journey continues
Doug is overlooking a lot of progress in AWE, while not explaining (in a separate topic) why his USWindLabs has fallen so far behind.

We care about Marco and his team and look forward to their return, much as SkySails experienced. Same with Doug.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24703 From: Santos Date: 1/22/2019
Subject: Re: KGM-1's heroic journey continues
Let's be clear that all updates on the status of AWE players is proper news. What is not news is complaining over updates.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24704 From: benhaiemp Date: 1/22/2019
Subject: Re: New Forum Moderation Concerns

A viable AWES should have similar proportions in 3D in order to be able to maximize the used land/space.

A 1 km tether with a crosswind 30 m span wing lead to a tiny power/space use ratio. 

When this point will be understood some progress can be realized.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24705 From: dougselsam Date: 1/22/2019
Subject: Re: KGM-1's heroic journey continues
So far, many, if not most, forward-looking statements have turned out to NOT be "news" but rather, as eventually seen in retrospect, merely false statements.


---In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, <santos137@...
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24706 From: Santos Date: 1/22/2019
Subject: Re: New Forum Moderation Concerns
On the Old Forum, optimism over the airspace density issue PierreB raises is based on "short line" proportions of huge kite formations. True, the New Forum has so far had less cause for optimism, but as these details slowly trickle out, the optimism gap should close.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24707 From: Santos Date: 1/22/2019
Subject: Re: KGM-1's heroic journey continues
In this case the news is real and very sad, that one of our best teams is languishing. This topic is not about fake news discussion.

We pray for news of the Phoenix phase.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24708 From: dougselsam Date: 1/22/2019
Subject: Re: New Forum Moderation Concerns
The first sentence, below, is one more example of how daveS mixes the terms "forum" and *himself* or *himself and JoeF*.  This indicates that "the forum" is really intended as a vehicle for daveS or daveS and Joe only.
After that I pretty-much agree with him.

The only other thing I would point out is one more aspect of how things seen as simple and long-settled elsewhere, become endlessly-discussed sources of persistent confusion in AWE conversations:
The standard rule for use of acronyms or abbreviations in written communication is well-understood and taught in school:
The first mention spells out the whole name such as "The United States Patent and Trademark Office", followed by the abbreviation or acronym in parenthesis (USPTO).  Thereafter, one is free to use the abbreviation only throughout the rest of the written communication.  This is how articles in newspapers and magazines are usually written.   But it does get a bit more complicated:  Abbreviations so common that it is assumed "everyone knows" what they mean are used freely without writing out the whole term first.  This would include terms such as "USA" or "NY", "Mr.", "Mrs." "NW", "mm", and "PhD".  Obviously, whether a term is considered something that "everyone knows" depends on the subject matter and the context.  But if this becomes the main talking point of a discussion, you might be looking at "idiots" barely capable of even having a discussion, let alone anything else, nonetheless trying to have a discussion, but not succeeding.  Such a failure to be able to even discuss something might point to a failure of being able to actually do that thing too.  No matter what someone is trying to do, overthinking it while spinning one's wheels and missing the point is always a possibility.  What I see in AWE is people so confused, that even "how to have a discussion" is so incomprehensible as to often take up the whole "discussion".  Not a good sign.

---In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, <santos137@...
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24709 From: Santos Date: 1/22/2019
Subject: Re: New Forum Moderation Concerns
No, Doug is mistaken, the Old Forum contains a full record of Doug's pessimistic views on AWE and it's people, as well as the very optimistic opinions he disagees with. This is still the place for AWE optimism.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24710 From: benhaiemp Date: 1/23/2019
Subject: Re: New Forum Moderation Concerns

Doug's "pessimistic views on (some) AWE", above all about yoyo mode, are not yet refuted. Even in the "new forum" a topic about the yoyo mode (https://forum.awesystems.info/t/pumping-yo-yo-kites/243) doesn't arouse much interest, having now no reply in spite of the numerous links.

And Doug can be optimistic about some other AWES. 


Both AWES forums are used to make some counterpoint beside the theories which are a recognized authority.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24711 From: benhaiemp Date: 1/23/2019
Subject: Re: New Forum Moderation Concerns

Indeed on Yahoo forum both DaveS (for flight) and DougS (for generation) and others advocated passive control.

The active digital control could and should be used, but an AWES should continue to fly even in the event of a computer failure. If an AWES probably crashs due to a computer failure, it is not viable.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24712 From: dougselsam Date: 1/23/2019
Subject: Re: KGM-1's heroic journey continues
daveS said: "Doug is overlooking a lot of progress in AWE, while not explaining (in a separate topic) why his USWindLabs has fallen so far behind.  We care about Marco and his team and look forward to their return, much as SkySails experienced. Same with Doug."

***Doug replies:  Yeah yeah yeah, "Doug overlooks...", "Pierre fails...",  "Peter misses...", "Roddy ignores..." etc.... Oh, but make sure you stay "on topic"...

I'm starting to wonder if the real daveS still exists, or if we are just reading a machine emulation, where previous daveS patterns are noted then repeated.  I think I my have mentioned, I've been doing some real estate development?  Way more difficult than AWE, which can be relatively simple.

I have a main issue which is NOT just the progress made by any organization or person.
I'm talking about basic competence or functionality of people, basic honesty or integrity, or lack thereof, and how they relate to what we've seen for ten years now.

Yes I agree that I should be making more progress.  With many other projects, I'm trying to get the ones that generate reliable revenue done, so I can get back to what I love, whacky windmills that could change the face of the world of energy.  Thanks for the encouragement and for the "positive impatience" and good wishes to advance.

Here's the difference between my efforts and most of the rest:  I don't lie, I don't tell investors I'm going to do something, then not do it. I don't mislead the people who put their faith in me, and I don't announce future accomplishments as though they are already accomplished or certain to happen, then go silent when the scheduled projects are scheduled to bear fruit.  All my investors were paid back with interest years ago.  I don't owe anyone any money, and nobody is sitting around waiting for me to do what I say so they can ever get their money back.

If you are talked into putting money into some investment by highly-credentialed people: Degreed engineers, accountants, CEO's, project- and personnel- managers, all from the top schools, all promising huge advances, supposedly based on their collective expertise and skill, then, when after years of waiting, years of "keeping the faith", right when the progress is finally supposed to happen, they usually just stop communicating, that sounds more like a ripoff scheme than a legitimate business investment.  Images of Bernie Madoff come to mind.  "I tried contacting Bernie's office by phone but had no luck."  Substitute the long-overdue AWE project of your choice.

At some point, you have to wonder what the problem is, when you see the same pattern repeated over and over, by various, unrelated "teams".  The people came out of the top universities.  Investors assume such highly-educated and accomplished personnel can lay out a reasonable timeline of progress, and that they understand their chosen subject matter and skills well enough to give a reasonably-accurate assessment of their own likelihood of success.

One assumes the engineers have a handle on the engineering, the project managers understand where the project stands and where it is going, the accountants understand where the money is going, and the CEO's have a grasp of whether the whole thing is progressing as promised, let alone being even worth doing at all.

Now of course you would not expect EVERY team to get EVERYTHING right.  You'd expect a few failures.  Nobody bats a thousand, even the best of the best.  But what MOST people would NOT expect is for EVERY team to fail, for EVERY collection of such highly-educated personnel to make the same or similar, typical wind energy mistakes.  Out of all of the promises, where is a single AWE system feeding the grid today?

A normal person would not expect that such a high number of project managers could all get everything wrong about what are, in reality, very simple projects.  A normal person would not expect such a high number of such highly-trained engineers could all get the same engineering stuff wrong.  A normal person would not expect that every project's CEO could be so wrong about the viability or workability of supposed projects they were supposedly executing.

At some point, a normal person would likely wonder: "So which is it? 
Are these people incompetent,
or are they dishonest?"

Incompetent?  Dishonest? 
Are there any other possibilities I'm missing?
Insane?  Bonkers?  Out-to-lunch?  Just plain wrong?  I don't know, you tell me.

The thing is, for anyone who is not in some sort of coma, it's easy to debunk these "future news" statements of "accomplishments" ahead of the fact.  When Magenn entered the scene with big promises, raising millions of dollars from naive investors, a normal person like me could, and did, just categorically, at a mere glance, tell you that it was all BS, that the general design was long-disproven before it ever left the ground.  To me, there were only two (2) possibilities: Either the promoters were incompetent (did not understand the most basic engineering principles, the basics of wind energy, or even simple math.) or dishonest (the whole thing was really just a scam the whole time).

When daveS announced an "upcoming" "AWE-powered concert" at a certain park in the Austin, TX area, to take place in the summer when it was announced, I simply said "No you're not!"  Why?  The promoter had no AWE system to power such a concert available.  The whole idea was to power a concert using n AWE system.  But he had no such system.  So, once again "a normal person" would say "this has got to be either an idiot (incompetent?  insane?) or someone intentionally not telling the truth".

Same with Altaeros, coming from an MIT pedigree: When they announced a project to power the grid in a remote region of Alaska, even though the BAT publicized in so many publicity photos was obviously, visibly frail, any "normal" wind energy person (people who understand the brutal nature of wind energy) would say "no they're not!" because anyone with a clue could see it would be unlikely to stand up to strong winds, and such a location was bound to have strong winds.

There's a saying: "The difference between an idiot and a genius is, the genius knows his limitations" (substitute nutcase, insanity, etc. for "idiot", as you see fit).

When I was in like maybe 4th grade, age 9 or so, a friend and I would plan our "spaceship" that we "were going to build", and how we were going to build it.  See where I'm going with this?  I had never heard of what I later came to jokingly call "The Professor Crackpot Syndrome" at that time.  But we probably qualified.  See, we planned to pick up scrap metal on the side of the road every day as we walked home from school, then we were going to melt it down in the furnace at my friend's house where we could see the flames with room to slide in one of my mom's cookie sheets.  We would melt the scrap metal on the cookie sheets in the furnace, giving us sheet metal from which we planned to build our spaceship. 

Am I sounding like an AWE CEO yet?  I mean, sure there are a few holes in the plan.  Like mom's cookie sheets were aluminum, with a lower melting point than the steel we were finding on the side of the road.  And the furnace was steel, so it was obviously not hot enough to melt steel.  Details, details.  Besides, we really had no idea how to build a spaceship anyway.  Where would we get the engines?  How would we control it?  Who cares?   All we knew was we were tired of playing spaceship in my garage, using a barbecue and lawnmower as "the controls", and clearly needed a real spaceship for some real space adventures, so why not build it!?

Now you may think I'm joking or exaggerating when I compare us 4th -graders saying "we are going to build an operating spaceship from roadside scrap metal" with AWE efforts, but am I?  Take an early, and maybe the most-recognized, most publicized AWE system, the spinning sideways blimp powered by cloth savonius flaps, Magenn.  It turned a tiny generator through what, a bicycle wheel and fan belt? Chain? The least-effective of the known types of wind turbine, made more expensive by adding helium, and less-powerful, since the design included very little area in its narrow, flappy, working surfaces that were filled with wind and pushed downwind to spin the blimp..  It was called MARS, I think, right?  An outer-spce theme?

How is saying that MARS machine represented an economical energy breakthrough really any different than us 4th graders talking about building our spaceship?  I mean, both have major, glaring holes in the story.  But in both cases, pretending we are going to do it is fun!  So why not have fun, right?  (Especially when people will literally throw money at it?)

Now within a couple years I did end up building a canoe from plans in Popular Science.  It worked great and was idiot-proof to build - luckily for me.  Turned me and a friend into the champion 2-man canoe team at a YMCA ranch camp in the mountains.  And it was a spaceship of sorts - just with a range limited to water surfaces on a planet, and you had to paddle it. (Just ask JoeF, you can make a word mean anything you want!) 

But heck, I had only planned to fly the "spaceship" locally anyway.  Probably mostly just over the neighborhood in fact.  We were going to drop paper bags full of dust on this one kid's house... just like Magenn was going to solve global warming!  In both cases, any adult could have told you it wasn't going to happen.  Heck, even we as kids knew we were really just pretending.  Did Magenn know they were really just pretending?  Did you?  What about the rest?  How many are really just pretending?  How many actually know, deep-down, that they are really just pretending?



---In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, <santos137@...
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24713 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/23/2019
Subject: Re: KGM-1's heroic journey continues
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24714 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/23/2019
Subject: Re: KGM-1's heroic journey continues
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24715 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/23/2019
Subject: Re: KGM-1's heroic journey continues
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24716 From: Santos Date: 1/24/2019
Subject: Re: KGM-1's heroic journey continues
KGM-1 has done even better than USWindLabs, reaching far higher 0. There have been multiple AWE-featured social events, by several different teams, not just kPower, but yes, Wubbo's vision of a touring AWEfest remains for us to continue to grow. 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24717 From: dougselsam Date: 1/24/2019
Subject: Re: KGM-1's heroic journey continues
Oh boy, here we go again with the canned, predictable, almost robotic responses.  Mention the-concert-that-never-happened, and the answer is always the excuse, or dodge, of "Wubbo".  Never a simple admission of having announced something without any way to do it.  I'm so tired of hearing all these nearly-identical fake promises, I've already forgotten what KGM-1 even stands for, and really don't even care.  Why does AWE mean nobody ever has to do anything they say?  K stands for "kite".  Whoopee-doo. So whether daveS is talking about K-power, K-this, k-that, I don't even draw a distinction.  All a bunch of crap as far as I can see, so far anyway.  Happy to be proven wrong and watch a "K"-reeling effort succeed.  Or a kite-powered boat.  Or any "K"-anything, useful for any purpose.  Happy to see it.  Where is it?  So far, I'm a fan of kitewinder.  At least it has entertainment value. 


---In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, <santos137@...
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24718 From: Santos Date: 1/24/2019
Subject: Re: KGM-1's heroic journey continues
In fact, kPower continues to build AWES demonstrators to add capacity to the AWEfest starting infrastructure. Doug both does not give credit to AWEfest starting efforts, nor can he imagine the idea ever taking hold.

Let AWEfest stand for those who do not give up. KGM-1 will prevail as well. Wubbo lives. Let Doug prove better as an inventor than all those he disparages.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24719 From: dougselsam Date: 1/24/2019
Subject: Re: KGM-1's heroic journey continues
I can only note for the reader, what you see below is a typical example of how responding to any statement by daveS resembles trying to get a grip on a greased water-balloon.  Whenever I mention the years-ago announcement by daveS of an AWE-powered concert, a subject he brought up, a subject which he alone was responsible for, to be held at a specific park near Austin, during a specific summer, he instead tries to change the subject, tries to substitute any supposed future event of any kind, at any place, at any time, for the specific subject of his years-ago announcement of his "AWE-powered concert" as originally announced.  He mentions "multiple AWE-featured social events, by several different teams, not just kPower,", as though his concert did happen and not only that, it was one of many.  Yet it did not happen.  And was not one of many.  And "many" was not the originl topic.  So I guess he is "off-topic", right?  He wants to substitute any mythical event of any kind - just out of his imagination, for the actual topic under discussion, thinking nobody is sharp enough to catch it.  He mentions "Wubbo" as though to question daveS is to disrespect the dead.  Using someone else's unfortunate passing as some sort of personal weapon, or armor, against any obligation to respond to his own statements. He tries to deflect the question and thereby avoid the simple issue of fantasy versus fact in AWE.  I told you all the story of pretending we "were going to build a spaceship" in 4th grade, but knew, deep-down, we were just pretending.  I think this goes to the idea of knowing one's limitations.  Seems like in AWE, most statements are made without any such awareness.  I don't mean to pick out the daveS famous non-AWE-powered, non-concert, but it is just an example of how it seems there's an honesty-vacuum in AWE, where people will say pretty-much anything with regard to their future supposed accomplishments, then refuse to even discuss what they said as the appointed time arrives. Very strange.  It is, however, a subset of what we've always seen in wind energy with regard to newcomers making such rash statements: eventually, "they quietly go away"....  The "concert" is a perfect example.  Say it, then forget it.  Don't talk about it.  Change the subject.  OK fine, just so we know what to expect.


---In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, <santos137@...
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24720 From: Santos Date: 1/24/2019
Subject: Re: KGM-1's heroic journey continues
Doug, The problem is you want me to answer your off-topic issues here, on KGM's topic. Create an AWEfest topic if you want news in detail. Otherwise wait for news soon. 

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24721 From: benhaiemp Date: 1/24/2019
Subject: Barnard's predictions

Here is a link for some Mike Barnard’s 5 years old analysis: https://cleantechnica.com/2014/03/03/airborne-wind-energy-platypuses-instead-cheetahs/.  

5 years later none of examined companies has marketed any AWES.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24722 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/24/2019
Subject: Re: KGM-1's heroic journey continues

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24723 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/24/2019
Subject: KGM1 Project News

We join other posts that used other titles. No hyphen in the name of the project. 

Search our forum for both KGM1  and the misspelled "KGM-1".

 Also, search for 

Ghiva  

and

GHIVARELLO  


================================ fresh note: 

Patent: 

https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2018158789

SYSTEM OF CONVERSION OF WIND ENERGY TOWARD ELECTRIC ENERGY BY HIGH ALTITUDE GENERATOR

GHIVARELLO, Marco; IT


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24724 From: tallakt Date: 1/24/2019
Subject: Re: KGM-1's heroic journey continues
I find it strange to keep blaming the world for not making progress on AWE.

AWE is more difficult than one would think approaching it from being a newcomer to the field. Progress is hard and comes in small increments. I can agree to this. This is surely not news for anyone in the aviation business.

Even so, it's a far stretch to state that people are either ignorant or con-men. I believe we are seing lots of progress in the AWE field. Just even seeing that the Magenn (? a project I have only briefly read about but has little interest to me) is not active anymore, that in itself is a sign of progress, as such approaches are probably infeasible. The reasons why they are infeasible, perhaps you were able to point those out early in the process, Doug Selsam. I guess that makes you a brighter mind than the people at Magenn. Its true that any university education does not guarantee that you can come up with feasible solutions. Opposite, any untrained person might come up with a great concept. We should not forget still that in terms of larger numbers of people, the trained group is far more likely to succeed than the latter. Why not just try to keep that in perspective?

You state that rigid wing is proven infeasible? I have not yet seen such proofs. As of today, I believe rigid wing AWE may be feasible. I also believe that both rigid and soft wing AWE power generation might both be infeasible in the future?

By using maths, practical and economical analysis, you could state that a certain AWE configuration is feasible. The opposite is very difficult. Saying eg. that rigid wing AWE is infeasible if very difficult, because you are not taking into account invention. You don't know what someone else may come up with, to skew your analysis.

I wish, for the health of this forum, and for making it an interesting read for anyone dropping by, that we could move the discussion from bashing others ideas (or personal attacks) into just sharing the knowledge that we have amongst us.

A newcomer (being stubborn like myself and probably also like some other people on this forum) needs to figure out stuff for him/herself. Give them small nudges and useful experience to make their path as swift as possible. If they are pursuing a dead end, let them know, but don't assume that you _know_ that it is a dead end. That newcomer may discover something you missed, and find a way forward.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24725 From: benhaiemp Date: 1/25/2019
Subject: Re: KGM-1's heroic journey continues

From some observations and also Barnard's predictions, I could note that AWE is not viable, but the examined designs are not the whole AWE. So I prefer constate the AWE “cheetah” is not still ready.

But the time to produce THE viable design can be limited as investors might stop interested in AWE, in which case the research of the existing companies would turn to the (tethered or not) drones or/and aviation.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24726 From: benhaiemp Date: 1/25/2019
Subject: Re: Barnard's predictions

I could conclude that AWE is not viable, but the examined designs are not the whole AWE. So I prefer note the AWE “cheetah” is not still ready.
But the time to produce THE viable design can be limited as investors might stop interested in AWE, in which case the research of the existing companies would turn to the (tethered or not) drones or/and aviation.