Messages in AirborneWindEnergy group.                          AWES 24777 to 24826 Page 387 of 440.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24777 From: dave santos Date: 2/2/2019
Subject: Re: AirLoom News

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24778 From: dave santos Date: 2/2/2019
Subject: Re: KiteFarm Conductive Surface Methods

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24779 From: dave santos Date: 2/2/2019
Subject: Re: Liebreich on AWE on Twitter

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24780 From: dougselsam Date: 2/2/2019
Subject: Re: AirLoom News

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24781 From: dave santos Date: 2/2/2019
Subject: Re: KiteFarm Conductive Surface Methods

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24782 From: dougselsam Date: 2/2/2019
Subject: Re: KiteFarm Conductive Surface Methods

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24783 From: dougselsam Date: 2/2/2019
Subject: Re: KiteFarm Conductive Surface Methods

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24784 From: dave santos Date: 2/2/2019
Subject: Re: AirLoom News

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24785 From: dave santos Date: 2/2/2019
Subject: Re: KiteFarm Conductive Surface Methods

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24786 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 2/2/2019
Subject: Moving-Anchor Groundgen AWES (MAGA)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24787 From: benhaiemp Date: 2/2/2019
Subject: Re: Distinguish huge differences: torque-rope drive versus loop driv

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24788 From: dave santos Date: 2/2/2019
Subject: Re: Distinguish huge differences: torque-rope drive versus loop driv

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24789 From: dave santos Date: 2/2/2019
Subject: Caution: No one carefully fact-checking DougS on New Forum

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24790 From: dave santos Date: 2/2/2019
Subject: State-of-the-Art Race-Kite Tech (Ozone Example)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24791 From: dave santos Date: 2/2/2019
Subject: Amazing Soft-Kite Durability Case

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24792 From: Rod Read Date: 2/3/2019
Subject: Re: Distinguish huge differences: torque-rope drive versus loop driv

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24793 From: dave santos Date: 2/3/2019
Subject: Complexities of L/D Estimations in AWE, as higher-order factors

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24794 From: dave santos Date: 2/3/2019
Subject: Re: Distinguish huge differences: torque-rope drive versus loop driv

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24795 From: dave santos Date: 2/3/2019
Subject: Re: Complexities of L/D Estimations in AWE, as higher-order factors

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24796 From: dougselsam Date: 2/3/2019
Subject: Re: AirLoom News

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24797 From: dave santos Date: 2/3/2019
Subject: Re: AirLoom News

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24798 From: Rod Read Date: 2/3/2019
Subject: Re: Distinguish huge differences: torque-rope drive versus loop driv

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24799 From: dave santos Date: 2/3/2019
Subject: Re: Distinguish huge differences: torque-rope drive versus loop driv

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24800 From: dave santos Date: 2/3/2019
Subject: Re: State-of-the-Art Race-Kite Tech (Ozone Example)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24801 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 2/3/2019
Subject: Re: AirLoom News

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24802 From: dougselsam Date: 2/4/2019
Subject: Re: Distinguish huge differences: torque-rope drive versus loop driv

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24803 From: Santos Date: 2/4/2019
Subject: Re: Distinguish huge differences: torque-rope drive versus loop driv

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24804 From: Rod Read Date: 2/4/2019
Subject: Re: Distinguish huge differences: torque-rope drive versus loop driv

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24805 From: Santos Date: 2/4/2019
Subject: Re: Distinguish huge differences: torque-rope drive versus loop driv

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24806 From: Santos Date: 2/4/2019
Subject: Re: Distinguish huge differences: torque-rope drive versus loop driv

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24807 From: Joe Faust Date: 2/4/2019
Subject: Study a Rod Read 7L-24W AWES model

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24808 From: Joe Faust Date: 2/4/2019
Subject: Expedition by kite system

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24809 From: Joe Faust Date: 2/4/2019
Subject: Re: Expedition by kite system

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24810 From: Santos Date: 2/4/2019
Subject: Re: Expedition by kite system

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24811 From: Rod Read Date: 2/4/2019
Subject: Re: Distinguish huge differences: torque-rope drive versus loop driv

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24812 From: Rod Read Date: 2/4/2019
Subject: Re: Study a Rod Read 7L-24W AWES model

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24813 From: Santos Date: 2/4/2019
Subject: Re: Distinguish huge differences: torque-rope drive versus loop driv

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24814 From: Santos Date: 2/5/2019
Subject: Re: Study a Rod Read 7L-24W AWES model

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24815 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 2/5/2019
Subject: Re: Study a Rod Read 7L-24W AWES model

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24816 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 2/5/2019
Subject: Re: Study a Rod Read 7L-24W AWES model

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24817 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 2/5/2019
Subject: Searching the AirborneWindEnergy forum

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24818 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 2/5/2019
Subject: Re: Study a Rod Read 7L-24W AWES model

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24819 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 2/5/2019
Subject: Re: Study a Rod Read 7L-24W AWES model

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24820 From: dougselsam Date: 2/5/2019
Subject: Re: AirLoom News

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24821 From: dougselsam Date: 2/5/2019
Subject: Re: Distinguish huge differences: torque-rope drive versus loop driv

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24822 From: Santos Date: 2/5/2019
Subject: Re: AirLoom News

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24823 From: Santos Date: 2/5/2019
Subject: Re: Distinguish huge differences: torque-rope drive versus loop driv

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24824 From: dougselsam Date: 2/5/2019
Subject: Re: Distinguish huge differences: torque-rope drive versus loop driv

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24825 From: Santos Date: 2/5/2019
Subject: Re: Distinguish huge differences: torque-rope drive versus loop driv

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24826 From: dougselsam Date: 2/5/2019
Subject: Re: AirLoom News



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24777 From: dave santos Date: 2/2/2019
Subject: Re: AirLoom News
At least Doug seems to think his advocacy of massive driveshafts to upper wind do not deserve the "crackpot syndrome" insinuations he sourly makes toward virtually all other AWE concepts, not just electrical windings along a track. 



 

I'd say the magnets on each "kite" with what, windings all the way along a rail? is a bad idea.
That is using a lot of extra material to generate electricity.
I thought this was supposed to use less material
By the time your "kites" are restricted to a low-level rail with windings, what's the point?
Looks like one more discredited-Honeywell-style "move the magnets full-speed rim generator" mistake.
Yes Virginia, it really IS a syndrome..,.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24778 From: dave santos Date: 2/2/2019
Subject: Re: KiteFarm Conductive Surface Methods
Doug, Form a new topic when you have nothing specific to offer on-topic. 

In fact I just shared a great new kPower crosswind power kite rig, with a nice annotated flight-testphoto. You seem to have far less active experimentation than those you imagine are not continuing to do new work.

Go ahead and think that your best AWE community contribution is predictably opine creative visionary speculation is doomed, rather than share ongoing creative ideas of your own.



 

I think your wandering mind has wandered back into la-la land...
Where's your best AWE system?
Can we see it running?
Do you have any here-and-now AWE solutions?
Any useful ideas that could actually be implemented?
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24779 From: dave santos Date: 2/2/2019
Subject: Re: Liebreich on AWE on Twitter
Sorry Doug, MikeL's wonderful early promotion of higher efficiency lighting really did make a difference in Austin and many other places. The guy has a big negative carbon-footprint from his ethical idealism. Its your unfriendly unhelpful posting that seems like "too much time on (your) hands"

MikeL's deep love for nature and eco-activism is just the opposed eco mentality to yours, where you look at a natural mountain from your home and regret it does not have ski runs carved out.



 

In my opinion, anyone who spent a lot of time running around promoting CFL's is someone with too much time on their hands, unless their actual job was promoting them for some company.  Even then, they look stupid, don't operate well in the cold, are a mercury hazard, wear out, and still waste a large proportion of their power, compared to LED bulbs which use way less electricity, last way longer, and have improved color which just keeps getting better and better.  With something like over 70 outdoor bulbs to change around here, I am thankful for LED bulbs because you could spend a LOT of time on ladders continually changing that many incandescent or CFL bulbs, as I did when I first moved here, not to mention the cost of the electricity for LED bulbs is almost free compared to incandescent and way better than CFL's.  Looking back it seems that high-quality LED bulbs should have been developed long ago.  If this guy is WE news, well, I guess there is no news.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24780 From: dougselsam Date: 2/2/2019
Subject: Re: AirLoom News
Gosh daveS I think your post is "off-topic".
You posted about SuperTurbine but the topic is Air-head-loom.
You and Joe typically will censor people and delete posts for that.
Depending on your mood of course...
Nonetheless I will humor you:
You don't understand the versatility or best uses of the SuperTurbine concept, and are creating what seems to be one of your favorite things:  A "straw-man" argument, over some mythical super-massive driveshaft that exists only in your mind.
I would not build anything out of proportion for a realistic chance of working.
You apparently would.
My impression is that your years of comments regarding this topic miss the point, because you really don;t understand the proper or reasonable applications of the technology.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24781 From: dave santos Date: 2/2/2019
Subject: Re: KiteFarm Conductive Surface Methods
Expanding the concept challenge here- 

What is a practical way to grid-connect free-roaming groundgen vehicles at a kite farm, with or without ideas already presented? Note that we have discussed extension-cord handling in past years as the initial idea.



 

Doug, Form a new topic when you have nothing specific to offer on-topic. 

In fact I just shared a great new kPower crosswind power kite rig, with a nice annotated flight-testphoto. You seem to have far less active experimentation than those you imagine are not continuing to do new work.

Go ahead and think that your best AWE community contribution is predictably opine creative visionary speculation is doomed, rather than share ongoing creative ideas of your own.

On ‎Saturday‎, ‎February‎ ‎2‎, ‎2019‎ ‎10‎:‎28‎:‎09‎ ‎AM‎ ‎CST, dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy] <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com


 

I think your wandering mind has wandered back into la-la land...
Where's your best AWE system?
Can we see it running?
Do you have any here-and-now AWE solutions?
Any useful ideas that could actually be implemented?
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24782 From: dougselsam Date: 2/2/2019
Subject: Re: KiteFarm Conductive Surface Methods
See?  There you go with your predictable "off-topic" response.  How robotic.
Dave, seriously, airborne wind energy is not going to take the form of bumper-cars.
That is "on" your "topic" of using electric bumper cars or equivalent, as moving base stations.
All you need to do is develop a monopole electric bumper-car circuit!
My honest response to your post on your stated topic is, you have lost focus, and your idea is not reflective of reality, just one more diversion.  In my opinion you are generally and repeatedly trying to come up with AWE solutions or partial solutions with the "monkey-at-the-typewriter" approach, which I do not think is going to work.  If you want to do wind energy, you need to focus on what works and make it work better.  You're spending a lot of mental effort chasing nothingness.  Not sure whom you think is impressed with your daily injections of wannabe-scientific-theories-as-substitutes-for-workable-AWE-ideas, but after ten years which one is working out?  Wow after ten years you showed us one more picture of you flying a kite?  One more "theory".  One more instance of you doing some "halfway test", without generating any electricity?  One more instance of you complimenting your own work.  It's a recursive loop you're in.  A cat chasing its tail, lacking nowhere.  And yet you are trying, working with your hands, actually doing something.  But there is insufficient focus - you start an experiment, call it "great", then drop it without finishing it.  Calling yourself an AWE expert because you say you are an expert, and you can get JoeF to agree.  Calling your latest kite-flying attempt "great", without completing it.  Is there anyone else calling it "great"?  Well?  Is there?  Do the math, please. I think it would be "great" if you could complete an experiment instead of just leaving it hanging then moving on to your next "theory".  Without any results, as far as generating significant electricity, I think your scolding tone in general is inappropriate.  You should be far more humble given your results thusfar, in my opinion. I do not see what places you in a position to be so haughty and dismissive of the opinions of others who do generate at least some AWE power occasionally, or even just people who know a bit about wind energy.  You need to make something happen, or stop pretending.



---In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, <santos137@...  

I think your wandering mind has wandered back into la-la land...
Where's your best AWE system?
Can we see it running?
Do you have any here-and-now AWE solutions?
Any useful ideas that could actually be implemented?
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24783 From: dougselsam Date: 2/2/2019
Subject: Re: KiteFarm Conductive Surface Methods
Liquefy air into an onboard tank, like Gabor's jet-stream idea, then have the bumper-cars go to a special terminal to deposit their liquid-air into a system  that will use it to generate grid-power.  There, are you happy?  Two "great" ideas, combined!  Now, back to our regularly-scheduled program...
Why not complete your latest experiment?


---In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, <santos137@...  

Doug, Form a new topic when you have nothing specific to offer on-topic. 

In fact I just shared a great new kPower crosswind power kite rig, with a nice annotated flight-testphoto. You seem to have far less active experimentation than those you imagine are not continuing to do new work.

Go ahead and think that your best AWE community contribution is predictably opine creative visionary speculation is doomed, rather than share ongoing creative ideas of your own.

On ‎Saturday‎, ‎February‎ ‎2‎, ‎2019‎ ‎10‎:‎28‎:‎09‎ ‎AM‎ ‎CST, dougselsam@... [AirborneWindEnergy] <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  

I think your wandering mind has wandered back into la-la land...
Where's your best AWE system?
Can we see it running?
Do you have any here-and-now AWE solutions?
Any useful ideas that could actually be implemented?
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24784 From: dave santos Date: 2/2/2019
Subject: Re: AirLoom News
Doug, Its true that when a troll goes off-topic, others also are led off-topic, that's the psychological motivation for trolling. However, on this Forum, we have turned "Don't feed the Trolls" on its head, and we try to use sour despairing comments as a creative spring board for further factual sharing, and its worked well. Reread my posting here and you will see I was posting on-topic enough to justify side comment to you. Sorry for the off-topic bits.

In this case, to bring back the topic as we both posed, lets let ST claims be compared with AirLooms 15x cost savings claim, if there really is a Crackpot Syndrome in AWE.




 

Gosh daveS I think your post is "off-topic".
You posted about SuperTurbine but the topic is Air-head-loom.
You and Joe typically will censor people and delete posts for that.
Depending on your mood of course...
Nonetheless I will humor you:
You don't understand the versatility or best uses of the SuperTurbine concept, and are creating what seems to be one of your favorite things:  A "straw-man" argument, over some mythical super-massive driveshaft that exists only in your mind.
I would not build anything out of proportion for a realistic chance of working.
You apparently would.
My impression is that your years of comments regarding this topic miss the point, because you really don;t understand the proper or reasonable applications of the technology.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24785 From: dave santos Date: 2/2/2019
Subject: Re: KiteFarm Conductive Surface Methods
Doug, Well at least you seem to concede that my recent testing, consistent with my last few decades of testing flying concepts, is rather more than you seem to have going. Furthermore, I am adding to the AWE concept space here, even if you disapprove. Cheer up, the problem is interesting even if no application ever happens.

Of course you know that my direct electrical connection aim is superior to your liquid air scheme. You may have overlooked that I was specifically ruling out the bumper car electrical contact topology. If you think of any better similarity case, that's helpful. Also, why knock Gabor's AWE swarms? Swarms remain a top AE interest, a Nature loves swarms too. Its long driveshafts that Nature abhors.

Try forming your own posts with your own tries at fresh AWE inventiveness, if you hope to better anyone else's tries.



 

Liquefy air into an onboard tank, like Gabor's jet-stream idea, then have the bumper-cars go to a special terminal to deposit their liquid-air into a system  that will use it to generate grid-power.  There, are you happy?  Two "great" ideas, combined!  Now, back to our regularly-scheduled program...
Why not complete your latest experiment?


---In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, <santos137@...  

Doug, Form a new topic when you have nothing specific to offer on-topic. 

In fact I just shared a great new kPower crosswind power kite rig, with a nice annotated flight-testphoto. You seem to have far less active experimentation than those you imagine are not continuing to do new work.

Go ahead and think that your best AWE community contribution is predictably opine creative visionary speculation is doomed, rather than share ongoing creative ideas of your own.

On ‎Saturday‎, ‎February‎ ‎2‎, ‎2019‎ ‎10‎:‎28‎:‎09‎ ‎AM‎ ‎CST, dougselsam@... [AirborneWindEnergy] <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  

I think your wandering mind has wandered back into la-la land...
Where's your best AWE system?
Can we see it running?
Do you have any here-and-now AWE solutions?
Any useful ideas that could actually be implemented?
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24786 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 2/2/2019
Subject: Moving-Anchor Groundgen AWES (MAGA)

Moving-Anchor GroundGen AWES   (MAGA)

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

Spiced throughout our AirborneWindEnergy forum messages have been groundgen kite systems where the anchor part of the system is moving. Characterizing the anchor-movement style provides for various categories: water hull featuring the movement of hydro impellers, FFAWE featuring impellers in the chosen node, soil draggers, generators on axles of carts or cars or other ground vehicles, impellers on the board of kiteboarders, etc.   We've mentioned charging batteries on the anchor systems, doing other good works with the moving anchor systems, forming compressed air and depositing intermittently the gains, manufacturing liquid hydrogen and other products underway and depositing gains occasionally, ...     This moving-anchor AWES sector may be examined further.   See a special slant on this general topic space in the topic "KiteFarm Conductive Surface Methods". 

   

  Just how systematically a MAGA  (moving-anchor groundgen AWES) might move about 

may depend on purpose, site, and wind resource.   
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24787 From: benhaiemp Date: 2/2/2019
Subject: Re: Distinguish huge differences: torque-rope drive versus loop driv

DaveS wrote: "At least Doug seems to think his advocacy of massive driveshafts to upper wind do not deserve the "crackpot syndrome" insinuations..."


Should Doug present a reeling yoyo kite?
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24788 From: dave santos Date: 2/2/2019
Subject: Re: Distinguish huge differences: torque-rope drive versus loop driv
No, Pierre, the yo-yo is not Doug's specialty, the EU folks have it well covered. Doug should focus on proving his ST claims are better than all the ideas he calls "crackpot". Similarly, how about a WheelWind demo?
 


 

DaveS wrote: "At least Doug seems to think his advocacy of massive driveshafts to upper wind do not deserve the "crackpot syndrome" insinuations..."


Should Doug present a reeling yoyo kite?
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24789 From: dave santos Date: 2/2/2019
Subject: Caution: No one carefully fact-checking DougS on New Forum
Doug is posting numerous statements on the New Forum that have consistently been corrected here, that no one on the new forum seems able or willing to correct. For example Doug claims to have been censored by JoeF, but cannot provide any specific example (at most, only Doug's most profane and abusive posts are archived in their own public files, for anyone's future reference). Other factual errors include overlooking ship kite history (Culp first pulled a small ship in the 70s and SkySails did years of sea trials leading to a recent circumnavigation), and that KiteLab Ilwaco built and tested a real LadderMill (that Doug can even buy if he wishes, but it tended to twist when ladder-wings looped in turbulence). Doug's recollections of Wayne German are also very demeaning and unfair. No one has ever attacked Wayne so crudely, a true AWE visionary and friend who's peers included McCready and Rutan at Boeing Flight Research Institute. Doug's seeming quotes attributed to me do not have any verifiable reference and do not reflect my actual opinions. Same goes for Doug's derogatory characterizations of the thoughts of many others. Nothing new, except no one is bothering to fact-check Doug on the New Forum as carefully as we have long carefully done here. It will be interesting to see if the New Forum moderation somehow meets the challenge of numerous provably non-factual claims. Anyway, we still hope for Doug's success as an AWE developer, and hope he finds peace-of-mind.

Caveat Lector
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24790 From: dave santos Date: 2/2/2019
Subject: State-of-the-Art Race-Kite Tech (Ozone Example)
Every year or so, we look at the relentless rapid evolution of power kites. The parafoil remains a standard to compare other types against. Ozone's top-of-the-line version is a good benchmark, including for any novel AWES wing basis to compare against. It may be that nothing in AWE can beat the maturing sophistication of the design principles behind the latest wings, as the Ozone text on this linked page shows. Keep in mind that North's parafoils for SkySails have the power kite scaling far beyond anything else going, with up to 1000m2 claimed and shown workable (MegaFly). Only SS power kites promise more in due time.

https://ozone-uk.com/product/ozone-r1-v2/
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24791 From: dave santos Date: 2/2/2019
Subject: Amazing Soft-Kite Durability Case
We covered Ewa's epic flight survival before, but only now note that her PG parafoil involved was back up flying the very next week, just as soon as she could recover her fitness to fly. A rigid composite wing could not have fared so well as a rag-wing in the core of a cumulonimbus storm, in giant hail. with incredibly violent wind shear. Its not so surprising to kite experts the wing survived, but Ewa set the all time record for high altitude without oxygen assist, and fellow pilot landed softly, dead. 

We know by now to expect a soft kite would once again get a record, in yet another aviation category. Note the curious kite danger, compared to other flying methods, is not so much crashing as not being able to come down.

From the article-

"Ewa was in the very same glider that she had used on the day of the storm. Not only had she survived the ordeal, but her craft had come out of it still able to fly. Despite lightning, hail, colossal winds, and ice sheets, it was still usable."

The full somewhat melodramatic account-
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24792 From: Rod Read Date: 2/3/2019
Subject: Re: Distinguish huge differences: torque-rope drive versus loop driv
Can you please clarify your use of "massive" in the case of driveshafts? 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24793 From: dave santos Date: 2/3/2019
Subject: Complexities of L/D Estimations in AWE, as higher-order factors
Our friend, Corwin Hardham, a pioneering kite boarder and Makani Co-founder, died tragically in his prime, likely due to overwork (karoshi). In his brief time with us, Corwin taught AWE key hard-won lessons, including that LCOE of an AWES is the first-order predictive factor of commercial success*. Higher order factors are deceptive to reason over (more than 4 even becomes computationally intractable at present (so forget AI solving AWE anytime soon). For example, is insurability more important than high L/D (?). In principle, we can assert that best LCOE acts like causality; cause for the secondary effect of which L/D number is optimal. In transport aircraft, an L/D of ~20 currently wins. Any higher L/D must win market share slowly, as AE advances.

Many in AWE still believe high L/D is the first order factor, but even that simple claim rests on strange complexities. We have learned to be careful of common less subtle estimations of L/D tending to favor operationally unsuitable wing loadings. A hot glider with flaps applied for highest CL might as well be cheaper and not so hot, which means an "ugly" soft wing can achieve surprisingly high L/D. We keep in mind that a larger kite able to operate at lower wing-loading, for equivalent power, develops a higher L/D than otherwise, especially as most-probable wind velocity remains constant (dimensionless ratio of kite area to wind velocity). Slower flight equals higher L/D as long as its not because of overly high AoA (stall-angle).

For many such real-world considerations, fixed published measured L/D ratings are often wrong, especially according to actual wing loading conditions. The error factors tend to skew, favoring low L/D wings as doing better, and high L/D wings as doing worse, than simple prediction, based on real-world operational conditions. For example, the effects of a dirty wing surface and tether drag sap high L/D performance more than low L/D. Unlike free-flight, where an aircraft can pick a sweet-spot velocity, with kites, the wind often "chooses" what velocities must be flown, and therefore what L/D values occur, which can vary wildly.

Sink rate can be the first order factor in key AWES states, but usually in close relation to L/D, the two factors expressed as a Glide Number (G), which to interpret with kites, wind velocity substitutes for flight velocity. A lighter paraglider pilot flying the same wing enjoys higher L/D than a heavier pilot of same wing or conversely a smaller wing with same pilot get less L/D. Paraglider sink rate can be roughly equal to performance glider sink rate. Altitude can be an operational equivalent of higher L/D (higher wing virtually equals higher L/D over same wing lower). Altitude is potential energy (money in the bank). In the sky, a wing of lower L/D, but with higher altitude, can beat a lower wing of higher L/D.

There are countless aviation polar curves for the kind of complex relations noted here, but looking a set of polar curves does not instantly give insight into complex AWES flight envelopes, while becoming an experienced pilot develops an intuitive gestalt comprehension of these high-dimensional spaces (that a conventional wind turbine engineer. L/D is not a very predictive consideration, since we cannot know any magic value for it. Yes, L/D matters, but one must somehow account for many dependent complexities (wing loading, sink rate, altitude, etc.). Nevertheless, Corwin's lowest LCOE wins the urgent race to power the world by AWE. Thereafter, Wubbo's free-will AWES design utopianism can flourish.* 

-------------
* AWE's other tragic hero, Wubbo Ockels, argued we could eventually transcend LCOE materialism, letting the visionary engineer's fancy someday be the first-order design parameter.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24794 From: dave santos Date: 2/3/2019
Subject: Re: Distinguish huge differences: torque-rope drive versus loop driv
We use Doug's past specific proposal of a 1000ft driveshaft as the ST benchmark concept. When such a driveshaft is calculated, it must weigh many tons, especially for for the harvestable power expected of it. Compared to rope-drive power-to-mass, that's what is meant by "massive"; as relatively massive.



 

Can you please clarify your use of "massive" in the case of driveshafts? 

On Sun, 3 Feb 2019, 00:43 dave santos santos137@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy] <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com wrote:
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24795 From: dave santos Date: 2/3/2019
Subject: Re: Complexities of L/D Estimations in AWE, as higher-order factors
Adding mention of the further complex relation between L/D and flight stability and control-authority. Again, simple reasoning about L/D does not correct for such real factors.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24796 From: dougselsam Date: 2/3/2019
Subject: Re: AirLoom News
OK daveS, thanks for admitting you are the troll of this forum, and that you were off-topic and so you should hve JoeF delete your post so as the receive equal treatment.  The topic was "airloom news". (I couldcare less bout "off-topic" but it is one more dose of your own "always looking for some "netiquette" technicality to avoid facing the fact of making no power,, ever" medicine for you.   I've ready forgotten what "airloom" even is.  Complete crap, I'd surmise.  Oh yeah I remember now - yes complete crap like Honeywell failure and the latest ill-considered Swiss ladder of rings - in all cases the path of generation equals or exceeds the path length of travel for the working surfaces(!).  If that is a good idea, nobody has shown it yet.  But stuff like that is way over your head, as evidenced by your years of defending the tip-generator Honeywell fiasco as a good turbine.  You went into great detail, ruling out the idea that you ever had even one oar in the water.  Highly-committed to being wrong - nice.  Yes there is a crackpot syndrome in wind energy, and you are the poster-child.  Congratulations.  :)


---In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, <santos137@...  

Gosh daveS I think your post is "off-topic".
You posted about SuperTurbine but the topic is Air-head-loom.
You and Joe typically will censor people and delete posts for that.
Depending on your mood of course...
Nonetheless I will humor you:
You don't understand the versatility or best uses of the SuperTurbine concept, and are creating what seems to be one of your favorite things:  A "straw-man" argument, over some mythical super-massive driveshaft that exists only in your mind.
I would not build anything out of proportion for a realistic chance of working.
You apparently would.
My impression is that your years of comments regarding this topic miss the point, because you really don;t understand the proper or reasonable applications of the technology.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24797 From: dave santos Date: 2/3/2019
Subject: Re: AirLoom News
Doug,

AirLoom is the Laramie Wyoming player we have followed for years, and the news is that they have partnered with university engineering graduates and moved off-campus into a large warehouse. That is all news to us.

No, I cannot "admit" that I am the troll here, on my own topic. You could have just let us enjoy our news,

daveS



 

OK daveS, thanks for admitting you are the troll of this forum, and that you were off-topic and so you should hve JoeF delete your post so as the receive equal treatment.  The topic was "airloom news". (I couldcare less bout "off-topic" but it is one more dose of your own "always looking for some "netiquette" technicality to avoid facing the fact of making no power,, ever" medicine for you.   I've ready forgotten what "airloom" even is.  Complete crap, I'd surmise.  Oh yeah I remember now - yes complete crap like Honeywell failure and the latest ill-considered Swiss ladder of rings - in all cases the path of generation equals or exceeds the path length of travel for the working surfaces(!).  If that is a good idea, nobody has shown it yet.  But stuff like that is way over your head, as evidenced by your years of defending the tip-generator Honeywell fiasco as a good turbine.  You went into great detail, ruling out the idea that you ever had even one oar in the water.  Highly-committed to being wrong - nice.  Yes there is a crackpot syndrome in wind energy, and you are the poster-child.  Congratulations.  :)



---In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, <santos137@...  

Gosh daveS I think your post is "off-topic".
You posted about SuperTurbine but the topic is Air-head-loom.
You and Joe typically will censor people and delete posts for that.
Depending on your mood of course...
Nonetheless I will humor you:
You don't understand the versatility or best uses of the SuperTurbine concept, and are creating what seems to be one of your favorite things:  A "straw-man" argument, over some mythical super-massive driveshaft that exists only in your mind.
I would not build anything out of proportion for a realistic chance of working.
You apparently would.
My impression is that your years of comments regarding this topic miss the point, because you really don;t understand the proper or reasonable applications of the technology.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24798 From: Rod Read Date: 2/3/2019
Subject: Re: Distinguish huge differences: torque-rope drive versus loop driv
With controlled kite support you can make 1000ft of soft shaft self lifting. 
Power output, number of lines and diameter are your next key metrics to start determining flying mass. 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24799 From: dave santos Date: 2/3/2019
Subject: Re: Distinguish huge differences: torque-rope drive versus loop driv
Peak loads in gusty winds make the 1000' shaft require so much extra mass, compared to a rope-drive as the classic existing solution to compare against. Sure, go ahead and add extra kites; the kite is so capable, but still, there is a limit to how much kite can be cheaply and soundly applied to correct excess mass. And when there is wind shear, crutch-kites could even make things worse.

At least you understand the engineering case for sorting transmission methods by massiveness, given power-to-weight as a prime flight design issue, even if you would not want to describe an ST 1000' shaft as massive. 


 

With controlled kite support you can make 1000ft of soft shaft self lifting. 
Power output, number of lines and diameter are your next key metrics to start determining flying mass. 

On Sun, 3 Feb 2019, 18:33 dave santos santos137@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy] <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com wrote:
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24800 From: dave santos Date: 2/3/2019
Subject: Re: State-of-the-Art Race-Kite Tech (Ozone Example)
The R1 V2 Design Tech Talk video is worth watching both for its sweet summary of advances and if you have not seen how fast and beautiful foil kite foil boarding has so suddenly become. A further note is that this is really a 2016 design, then small improvements are made all along, until the next big leap in wing design occurs. RobW makes a great presentation here, but one small correction is that all the wing's aerodynamic loads must still pass thru the skin, but are just better distributed by the radical new internal "strap" architecture that has emerged in recent years.-

Ozone R1 V2 - Design Tech Talk






 

Every year or so, we look at the relentless rapid evolution of power kites. The parafoil remains a standard to compare other types against. Ozone's top-of-the-line version is a good benchmark, including for any novel AWES wing basis to compare against. It may be that nothing in AWE can beat the maturing sophistication of the design principles behind the latest wings, as the Ozone text on this linked page shows. Keep in mind that North's parafoils for SkySails have the power kite scaling far beyond anything else going, with up to 1000m2 claimed and shown workable (MegaFly). Only SS power kites promise more in due time.

https://ozone-uk.com/product/ozone-r1-v2/
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24801 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 2/3/2019
Subject: Re: AirLoom News

Doug, he did not admit what you say he admitted. 
Please form a new edit of your post sans the falsity; delete the post; then post your edited version; thanks in advance.  Or make a firm correction for the same. 
Moderator.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24802 From: dougselsam Date: 2/4/2019
Subject: Re: Distinguish huge differences: torque-rope drive versus loop driv
Well if it weighed a pound per foot it would only weight 1000 lbs.
If it weighed a few ounces per foot, you'd be looking at a few hundred pounds.
Anything made big is going to have a commensurate weight.
That is true of all structures, all designs, for most machinery.
I don't think you've shown, in ten years of denigrating the SuperTurbine concept, any specific mass vulnerability exceeding other AWE methods and proposed methods.  In fact, a main advantage is to sweep more area per unit mass due to the very cube-square law you keep harping on.  Combine that advantage with the higher native RPM, which allows a lighter driveshaft, and you have a simple, versatile, proven wind energy collection concept.  I don't see any indication that a half-mile of very strong rope for a hypothetical 1000-foot "rope-drive" from some large, slow propeller(?) would weigh any less.  With that long of a rope loop, you'd be back to a laddermill.  Which logically could lead right back to SuperTurbine, as it did in my teenage mind way back in the 1970's.


---In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, <santos137@...  

Can you please clarify your use of "massive" in the case of driveshafts? 

On Sun, 3 Feb 2019, 00:43 dave santos santos137@... [AirborneWindEnergy] <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com wrote:
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24803 From: Santos Date: 2/4/2019
Subject: Re: Distinguish huge differences: torque-rope drive versus loop driv
It's Engineering 101 mass scaling. A drive shaft must weigh far more than a rope of equivalent strength and working load because it must support compression forces. Further, a shaft will have low angular velocity in ST role compared to common linear velocity of classic rope drives.

Let Doug's non-availability of a shaft able to reach higher than the forty feet or so of the Sky Serpent, be compared to COTS rope availability.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24804 From: Rod Read Date: 2/4/2019
Subject: Re: Distinguish huge differences: torque-rope drive versus loop driv
This conversation thread is messed up.
Words are either being obfuscated or not clearly defining what each member is wishing to express. 
And I believe quite a bit of whats been said is wrong. Whether deliberately or not I would not like to guess. 
Bring something definitive to the table Dave. 
Study and dismiss this (very basic) model
7 layers of 24 kites on a pure soft rope network 
Transmits torque reliably. 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24805 From: Santos Date: 2/4/2019
Subject: Re: Distinguish huge differences: torque-rope drive versus loop driv
Here we are considering first a twisted rope, which Doug himself has modelled with string as an ST variant. The ST concept space covers the spectrum of torque rigidity. Doug has helpfully suggested 1lb per ft as a shaft mass assumption. 

A next question is how much power this lb of shaft can convey. My initial heuristic is that a lb of kayak paddle can transmit about 1hp. I leave it to others to refine estimations, but the ratable power of Doug's 1000ft shaft does not look high to me. Doug himself cites a need to build wind tech that is heavy duty, or one is crackpot.

Let Rod remain unsure what is true or relevant posting here, and console himself it won't be found on the New Forum he moderates.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24806 From: Santos Date: 2/4/2019
Subject: Re: Distinguish huge differences: torque-rope drive versus loop driv
Another way of looking at twisted rope drive is that a thicker heavier rope is more massive to provide more hockle resistance, and that a 1000ft rigid drive shaft is not really rigid, but more of a brittle rope.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24807 From: Joe Faust Date: 2/4/2019
Subject: Study a Rod Read 7L-24W AWES model
Study this model:
7 layers of 24 kites on a pure soft rope network 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24808 From: Joe Faust Date: 2/4/2019
Subject: Expedition by kite system
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24809 From: Joe Faust Date: 2/4/2019
Subject: Re: Expedition by kite system
Quoting. 

"The Inuit WindSled is a multi-part sledge the size of a lorry, complete with mounted tents and solar power panels, pulled through the ice using a mammoth 150 sq. m diameter kite. Credit: Inuit WindSled

A kite-blown science expedition to the interior of Antarctica has made the most southerly positioning fixes yet made with Europe's Galileo satellite navigation system."
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24810 From: Santos Date: 2/4/2019
Subject: Re: Expedition by kite system
We are seeing power kites enable utopian mobile homes to roam Antarctica and Greenland, crossing the world's seas, carrying wonderful research folks with all the comforts. The revolution is on.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24811 From: Rod Read Date: 2/4/2019
Subject: Re: Distinguish huge differences: torque-rope drive versus loop driv
So you're only willing to discuss torque rope on the forum you insist on dominating.
And the available statistics publishing the power so far transmitted without problem through far less mass at much greater distance and without any problem handling torsion...
Shhhhh
Don't worry, we won't let anyone know it works
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24812 From: Rod Read Date: 2/4/2019
Subject: Re: Study a Rod Read 7L-24W AWES model
Joe,
I find it impossible to very hard to search the yahoo forum...
Was this video not posted here before? 
Without recall, this is at best, a place where knowledge comes to die. 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24813 From: Santos Date: 2/4/2019
Subject: Re: Distinguish huge differences: torque-rope drive versus loop driv
No, it's Windy Skies' remedial writing lessons that put me off the New Forum.  Who is that person in AWE?  

Let all torque scaling law predictions be tested rather than claimed dominant a priori.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24814 From: Santos Date: 2/5/2019
Subject: Re: Study a Rod Read 7L-24W AWES model
This video covers a kite network concept that relates well to PierreB's Rotating Reels, to better match surface PTO plane to overall flying angle. Known issues include full scale operational practicality, low angular velocity and imperfect crosswind motion. Advantages are many-unit scaling and wind direction self-orientation. Once again testing is needed to settle doubts.

This video was new to my recollection of posting. If it was posted, it would likely be backed up by Wayback even if Yahoo starts losing data, which has not yet been noticed. I have never used the Yahoo Groups search engine, since my mailer search engine has everything in it's scope, and finds key art in well posed topics with ease.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24815 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 2/5/2019
Subject: Re: Study a Rod Read 7L-24W AWES model
Rod, 
    I'll start a new topic on "Searching the AirborneWindEnergy forum"
and anyone may post notes that advance the matter of searching the forum. 
From such work will come some summary tools that will aid researchers. 
-----------------------------------------------

Tip on topic: 
Proper names by designers, inventors, technician will help searching. When an idea is introduced, hopefully some unique tag may be designed by the poster. Such tag will help find things. 

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24816 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 2/5/2019
Subject: Re: Study a Rod Read 7L-24W AWES model
When studying the Rod Read 7L-24W AWES model sim video
I am with an inner urge to include thinking about carousels, e.g. KiteGen
and also such as THIS drawing   from CN 103375345 A
and other that will be noted by other posters as we study the present topic. 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24817 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 2/5/2019
Subject: Searching the AirborneWindEnergy forum

This topic thread is dedicated to tips on searching the AirborneWindEnergy forum. 

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

Anyone may post on this topic. Thanks. 

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


Start: 

1. In the online tool "Search Conversations"   there is more than one level to the tool. 

Just following a first-level use, there appears a page of results or no results; but on that page there is a checkbox for searching one's own posts only (this assumes one is signed into the online view); and a button text titled "Advanced Search".   


Pressing that Advanced Search button brings up several refining tools.   Author, Subject, Author, Date.  And a checkbox concerning possible special notice. 


Author: It is handy to know the author's name which might not be a full true name; watch for names of posters; the name they use as a member is attached to their posts.   Note that a real person might have more than one name showing as author; if one posted via direct email, then the name might be different from the Yahoo identity name.   I show up as joe_f_90032 and also as JoeF   and also as Joe Faust depending on email sendings versus posting online with active login.   


Explore those those. 


2. Then at a message, one is given a button to look at other posts made by the author of a message that is just being read.   E.g. "See more posts from joe_f_90032"   shows up upon reading a post by me. 

E.g., using the button for "more posts by Rod Read" I obtained a result and then made a Tiny URL for the collection given:   https://tinyurl.com/RodReadAIRBORNEWINDENERGY     That URL is just for the general author, and without refinements.   Service may truncate.   I've not yet full mastery of this tool. 


3. Also, explore:   

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/AirborneWindEnergy/photos/photostream


4. Authors are invited to post summaries for a topic or for a particular experiment, etc.   E.g. Summary of Rod Read's Simulation Videos.  In such a topic, Rod might list URLs for each sim video he has made public. 


5. DaveS mentioned recently how he searches his own computer over the forum's posts.    


6. My Gmail copies of posts of our forum:    I use Gmail Search over my collection and find things via tags. It is key that tag or title words be designed well by posters. 


7. The project of summarizing topics into folders at EnergyKiteSystems.net    will continue.  Others are welcome to present me with summaries that I may post there. Then URLs to the collections and summaries may be made.      


More notes by me and others about search and summarizations and the like are welcome.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24818 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 2/5/2019
Subject: Re: Study a Rod Read 7L-24W AWES model
In off-forum email from Rod Read: 

Lifting kite       
turbine force sim

May 16, 2017

Rod Read <rod.read@gmail.com

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24819 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 2/5/2019
Subject: Re: Study a Rod Read 7L-24W AWES model
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24820 From: dougselsam Date: 2/5/2019
Subject: Re: AirLoom News
Sorry to break it to you daveS, but some of us can see the "office-space" type of wannabe news in wannabe AWE for what it is.  How many times do you need to be fooled before you wake up?  I will go on record now to say, while I admire the quest to improve wind energy technology, I do not believe this airloom idea is ever going to take hold, and I honestly doubt one will ever be built.  Maybe it's just over my head, but I don't see any reason to believe "Wind Energy at a 15x cost advantage" is true.  So they are down to $0.002 per kWh?  Quite a starting claim to make.  Especially with no working prototype after years.  I've never heard anyone make such a claim in wind energy, ever.  Not even close.  There is "news" (non-fiction), and there is wannabe-news (fiction).  Some people can tell the difference.


---In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, <santos137@...  

OK daveS, thanks for admitting you are the troll of this forum, and that you were off-topic and so you should hve JoeF delete your post so as the receive equal treatment.  The topic was "airloom news". (I couldcare less bout "off-topic" but it is one more dose of your own "always looking for some "netiquette" technicality to avoid facing the fact of making no power,, ever" medicine for you.   I've ready forgotten what "airloom" even is.  Complete crap, I'd surmise.  Oh yeah I remember now - yes complete crap like Honeywell failure and the latest ill-considered Swiss ladder of rings - in all cases the path of generation equals or exceeds the path length of travel for the working surfaces(!).  If that is a good idea, nobody has shown it yet.  But stuff like that is way over your head, as evidenced by your years of defending the tip-generator Honeywell fiasco as a good turbine.  You went into great detail, ruling out the idea that you ever had even one oar in the water.  Highly-committed to being wrong - nice.  Yes there is a crackpot syndrome in wind energy, and you are the poster-child.  Congratulations.  :)



---In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, <santos137@...  

Gosh daveS I think your post is "off-topic".
You posted about SuperTurbine but the topic is Air-head-loom.
You and Joe typically will censor people and delete posts for that.
Depending on your mood of course...
Nonetheless I will humor you:
You don't understand the versatility or best uses of the SuperTurbine concept, and are creating what seems to be one of your favorite things:  A "straw-man" argument, over some mythical super-massive driveshaft that exists only in your mind.
I would not build anything out of proportion for a realistic chance of working.
You apparently would.
My impression is that your years of comments regarding this topic miss the point, because you really don;t understand the proper or reasonable applications of the technology.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24821 From: dougselsam Date: 2/5/2019
Subject: Re: Distinguish huge differences: torque-rope drive versus loop driv
You know daveS it gets very tedious fire-fighting your hostile/ignorant attempts to substitute your clueless assumptions for factual content.  Just googling carbon fiber driveshafts, the first return includes an automotive carbon-fiber racing-car driveshaft weighing less than 6.5 lbs at 55 inches, not far from 1 lb./foot.. Most of that weight is likely the hardware at the ends, so the actual weight of the carbon tube is probably less than 1 lb per foot.  Competition cars nowadays routinely exceed 1000 horsepower (747.5 kW), so I'd say your estimate is probably about 3 orders of magnitude off.  The real answer is probably more like 500 - 1000 kW than your "1 kW" estimate.  I have thick-walled 1-inch inner-diameter filament-wound carbon-fiber shafting here that I could probably carry 100 horsepower that weighs 1/4 lb. per foot.  I just went out to the shop and weighed it.  Whatever the exact numbers for any shaft, you're not even on the same planet, let alone "in the ballpark".  The one built for the California Energy Commission has a driveshaft that weighs less than 1 lb per foot, produced over 6 kW, never coming anywhere near challenging the strength of the driveshaft.  Facts - gosh how they get in the way of your internet postings.   Now I know you consider yourself an "expert", but in this area I think you obviously have a little learning to do.  Or not...  Happy "trolling"...


---In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, <santos137@...
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24822 From: Santos Date: 2/5/2019
Subject: Re: AirLoom News
Doug, 

Form your own topic about why you think AWE venture incubation buzz cannot be news. This topic is also news to UWyoming, at least. It's got you going.

It's not news that you have nothing helpful to offer this topic, and many other topics you complain about. Airloom will continue to make news to those who are interested.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24823 From: Santos Date: 2/5/2019
Subject: Re: Distinguish huge differences: torque-rope drive versus loop driv
Doug overlooks that his driveshafts do not turn as fast as a racecar shaft (low angular velocity) so they can't transmit such high power to mass, and his shaft has to be 1000ft long in wind, not ten feet, and must survive for years, not hours.

Let formal testing settle the question.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24824 From: dougselsam Date: 2/5/2019
Subject: Re: Distinguish huge differences: torque-rope drive versus loop driv
"Doug overlooks",  "Pierre fails", "Peter ignores"... the canned, robotic, repetitive responses of daveS..
Actually I did not "overlook" RPM, since it is a critical aspect of every turbine I design and build.  Sorry, but I'm like decades ahead of you, and of most AWE poseurs.
I was just throwing out an initial response to you, seeing if you would even catch the fact that RPM is a factor.  Which I figured you would because you have in the past.  It's always surprising to me when you (rarely) understand even the most elementary fact.  What are we up to, 3 or 4, after ten years?  Thanks for responding with at least a single actual fact.  But you're still off by maybe 2.5 orders of magnitude, still not even on the same planet, let alone ballpark, in your estimate.  You seem to want to substitute your uninformed, off-the-cuff opinion for my actual experience.  Here I am, having authored ARPA-E proposals in conjunction with the very top wind energy engineers combined with the top carbon-fiber driveshaft company, and you, little daveS sitting at his computer, are going to tell me, the guy who invented laddermill while you were probably still in diapers, how much power my driveshafts can carry.  What a joke.  I think your best move would be to admit you were so far off that your comment was meaningless - certainly it was 100% wrong, but expecting you to admit your own extreme inaccuracies does not seem likely at this point... You have just spewed complete nonsense.  I hope no young newbie reads your post and believes any of it.


---In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, <santos137@...
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24825 From: Santos Date: 2/5/2019
Subject: Re: Distinguish huge differences: torque-rope drive versus loop driv
I stand by my assessment of applicable scaling laws.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24826 From: dougselsam Date: 2/5/2019
Subject: Re: AirLoom News
daveS the whole point is this is not news, and I am publicly saying "it will never happen", ready to be proven wrong, but by now my track record on these things is pretty good while yours is, well...  I would respectfully submit that most of the empty AWE "predictions" we are so accustomed to reading have been turning out to have been false, for several years now.  People who care about AWE as something real and achievable, rather than just a ripe field for fantasy, have to start to notice whose predictions come true so as to ascertain good and bad sources of information.  There was a time when "everyones' opinions were equal", since very few projects had been conducted, the claims floating around were hard to pin down factually, and peoples' track records of being truthful were not yet established.  The statements mostly related to the future, so they could not be fully judged until years rolled by and "the future" became "the present".  Now, however, we've entered a completely new era.  Now, the current AWE hype-cycle is ten (10) years old.  A billion or so dollars have been spent (which I was first to notice).  Now that we are IN the previous "future", we can go back and see who said what and when, and compare it to what turned out to happen.  Now we all have the advantage I had a decade ago (seen all this stuff before) and are no longer restricted to "just believing whatever anyone says".  Anyone paying attention should be pretty jaded by now.  Reality bites.  In fact for anyone paying attention, the fact that some recent AWE "player" has just issued some new statement is almost a guarantee that whatever they said will never happen.  Yes the credibility really does seem, in my view, to be that bad.  I don't know - tally it up and see for yourself.  And like I say, it's not unique to "airborne" - it has always been part of wind energy. which, as I've been saying for ten years now, with wind being invisible so people can imagine their ideas doing pretty much anything, true or not, it is a magnet for crackpots, with AWE being a neodymium supermagnet.


---In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, <santos137@...