Messages in AirborneWindEnergy group.                          AWES 26039 to 26088 Page 412 of 440.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26039 From: Santos Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: Re: yahoo groups search lacking

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26040 From: Santos Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: Re: yahoo groups search lacking

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26041 From: benhaiemp Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: Re: yahoo groups search lacking

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26042 From: Santos Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: Re: yahoo groups search lacking

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26043 From: Santos Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: Kite vs Nukes (from "search" topic)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26044 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26045 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: Re: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26046 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: Re: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26047 From: dougselsam Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: Re: yahoo groups search lacking

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26048 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: Re: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26049 From: Santos Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: Re: yahoo groups search lacking

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26050 From: benhaiemp Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: Re: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26051 From: dougselsam Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: Re: yahoo groups search lacking

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26052 From: Santos Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: Re: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26053 From: benhaiemp Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: Re: Kite vs Nukes (from "search" topic)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26054 From: dougselsam Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: Re: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26055 From: benhaiemp Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: Re: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26056 From: Santos Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: Re: yahoo groups search lacking

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26057 From: Santos Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: Re: Kite vs Nukes (from "search" topic)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26058 From: Santos Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: Re: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26059 From: benhaiemp Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: Re: Kite vs Nukes (from "search" topic)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26060 From: Santos Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: Re: Kite vs Nukes (from "search" topic)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26061 From: dougselsam Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: Re: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26062 From: benhaiemp Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: Re: Kite vs Nukes (from "search" topic)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26063 From: Santos Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: Re: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26064 From: dougselsam Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: Re: yahoo groups search lacking

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26065 From: benhaiemp Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: Re: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26066 From: Santos Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: Re: yahoo groups search lacking

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26067 From: benhaiemp Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: Re: yahoo groups search lacking

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26068 From: dave santos Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: Re: yahoo groups search lacking

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26069 From: benhaiemp Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: Re: yahoo groups search lacking

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26070 From: benhaiemp Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: Re: yahoo groups search lacking

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26071 From: dave santos Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: Re: yahoo groups search lacking

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26072 From: benhaiemp Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: Re: yahoo groups search lacking

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26073 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: Re: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26074 From: dave santos Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: Re: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26075 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: Re: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26076 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: Re: Envisioning Practical Uses of Kite Systems

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26077 From: dave santos Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: Gipe'a AWES Testing Standard (quote and link)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26078 From: dave santos Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: Re: Gipe'a AWES Testing Standard (quote and link)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26079 From: benhaiemp Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: Re: Gipe'a AWES Testing Standard (quote and link)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26080 From: dave santos Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: Re: Gipe'a AWES Testing Standard (quote and link)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26081 From: benhaiemp Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: Re: Gipe'a AWES Testing Standard (quote and link)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26082 From: dave santos Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: Re: Gipe'a AWES Testing Standard (quote and link)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26083 From: benhaiemp Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: Re: Gipe'a AWES Testing Standard (quote and link)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26084 From: dave santos Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: Re: Gipe'a AWES Testing Standard (quote and link)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26085 From: dave santos Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: Re: Gipe'a AWES Testing Standard (quote and link)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26086 From: dave santos Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: NPW-based WindSled Progress (Polar Homesteading)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26087 From: dave santos Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: New Multi-Line Ground-Anchor Design

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26088 From: dave santos Date: 6/16/2019
Subject: Soaring Thermals by Passive Auxetic Control



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26039 From: Santos Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: Re: yahoo groups search lacking
Pierre, You confused nukes and kites here, when asked for a specific technical prediction about AWES.

The 2030 timeframe remains the least confused forecast.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26040 From: Santos Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: Re: yahoo groups search lacking
The 2030 timeframe for AWE to prove or not industrially was later made by Maritime analysts in an industry journal cited here. We concur.

What does GIEC say about AWE, Pierre? Did they predict anything about AWE?
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26041 From: benhaiemp Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: Re: yahoo groups search lacking
"What does GIEC say about AWE" : non-biomass renewables.
"Did they predict anything about AWE?": 2030 and 2050.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26042 From: Santos Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: Re: yahoo groups search lacking
Let's look closer at GIEC predictions about AWE. I missed the link to Pierre's source, if he provided it.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26043 From: Santos Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: Kite vs Nukes (from "search" topic)
Pierre, Are you referring to IPPC energy projections as "GIEC".

Not seeing AWE noted as a potential distruptive game-changer, but do see 2030-50 lines on projection graphs, with no AWE milestones intended

The boom in AWE R&D will only grow. Whatever kites end up doing compared to the nuclear power industry will be on a far larger scale than kites currently power. Projections that do not account for AWE may not predict as well as WoW's specialized critical-path projection.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26044 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and AWE

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and AWE

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

???????????????????????????????????????????????

GIEC

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

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

This topic thread could examine IPCC's intersection with AWE. 

==============================================
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26045 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: Re: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and AWE
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26046 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: Re: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and AWE
Distinctions: 
GIEC Guangzhou Institute of Energy Conversion (China)

GIEC Groupe International d'Experts sur le Climat (French: International Group of Experts on the Climate)


---In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, <joefaust333@gmail.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26047 From: dougselsam Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: Re: yahoo groups search lacking
daveS said: "Since 2011, there is expected progress in the key metric of peak power claimed."
***DougS replies: How is this "key metric" measured?  I thought you were against reliance on measurements (meters).  Are you now reversing your recently-stated anti-electric-meter-in-electric-power-generation-research stance? 

By the way, for your information, "peak power" is not the metric usually considered most relevant.  It's easy to make  system that will produce a high peak then burn out or break.  The more relevant metric is total energy capture over time, usually a year.  This is usually measured by a meter.  Notice the similarity between your word "metric" and your demon-of-the-week, "meter".  Just noting how many idiotic mutually-conflicting statements you exude on a daily basis.  Just so you know, "peak power" is for newbies. Controlling (limiting) peak power is the real deal.  Experts know, making power is easy, almost trivial, controlling it is the key.  Just goes to show you how far down the curve you are, while claiming to be a top expert, having generated no power in 12 years of supposed "research", the denigrating "overreliance on power meters", then talking about a "key metric" (measurement using power meters).  In summary, as usual, with all your words, you say nothing, and make no sense.  People reding your words should be aware of this.

I'm still trying to figure out what you say you are even predicting for 2030.  Sounds like you think 2030 will be the year when AWE is somehow either proven viable, or disproven forever.  Is that what you mean?  Who will be the judge?  Oh wait, let me guess, you.  Do you really imagine people like you will all suddenly agree on something and declare AWE disproven?  nd what meaning would it even have for you to declare anything at this point?  Especially when your statements are a proven inverse indicator to factuality by this point?

Maybe I missed it, but I have yet to understand WHAT you are predicting for the year 2030.  What exactly is your prediction, or don;t you really HAVE a prediction?  It sounds to me more like your incessant meaningless blather, where you actually HAVE NO prediction, and don;t WANT to express a prediction, because you are finding out the hard way that time indeed passes, and any prediction you provide will eventually be called into the light of day, and if specific, it will likely be wrong.  Seems like you want to take credit for whatever happens by the year 2030, without ever having made any specific prediction at all.  Typical of your nonsense.  The only meat to your supposed "prediction" is that the year 2030 will someday arrive.



---In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, <santos137@...
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26048 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: Re: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and AWE
https://archive.ipcc.ch/   former website may have matter for the AWE intersection with IPCC.   
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26049 From: Santos Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: Re: yahoo groups search lacking
Doug,

We took everyone's peak power claims on faith, same as we note your claims. We presume good faith statistically outweighs bad faith.

Change the topic if you need more explanation.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26050 From: benhaiemp Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: Re: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and AWE

Are you serious?

Here is the last message with the link to GIEC's report ( https://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_spm_final.pdf ) about global warning:

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/AirborneWindEnergy/conversations/messages/26037 .

Attention: nukes are not AWES!
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26051 From: dougselsam Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: Re: yahoo groups search lacking
No need to take my power output "on faith" (one more daveS lie, peppered so casually and habitually throughout his writings, without even a second thought), that's why I provide data and videos of meters. 

"As we note on your claims"?  What claims?  Noted by whom?  Who is "we"?  You?  What authority do you have to declare anything?  What are you even talking about???

Ah yes, the knee-jerk wannabe-authoritative stance taken by the internet wannabe-authorities of "off-topic". Is that really the best you've got?  Do you imagine in the year 2030, historians will credit wind energy development to self-limiting-perpetual-wind-newbies accusing people of being "off-topic" on internet chat groups???

How about telling us exactly WHAT you say your supposed "prediction" for 2030 even IS?

By the way, if you want to spend the rest of your life nit-picking people for being "off-topic", check the topic in the header.  Who is "off-topic?  You.

The topic was, the search function of this group does not work.  We still have no answer on that.


---In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, <santos137@...
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26052 From: Santos Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: Re: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and AWE
Yes, it is a serious debate whether Nukes deserve preferred investment over AWE to meet urgent ecological goals.

When AWE gets comparable R&D support, success is best ensured.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26053 From: benhaiemp Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: Re: Kite vs Nukes (from "search" topic)

Dave, your message suggests you don't understand what is a linked document as reference because generally you don't provide them even when the documents are requested (see on the new forum), or you cannot read.


I provide the link for my message itself a second time (the first time being for Joe Faust) in few minutes:  

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/AirborneWindEnergy/conversations/messages/26037

"Those with basic knowledge of energy avoid confusion between nuclear energy and nukes.


https://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_spm_final.pdf page 16: energy table including nuclear energy. In all scenarios GIEC advices a significant increasing of nuclear in order to limit CO² emissions, that beside increasing non-biomass renewables.


Non-biomass renewables comprise wind energy. And now wind energy is the affair of wind turbines.


I don't expect with your kites and your AWE "scientific principles" you will reduce CO² emissions but some AWE companies can have this goal."


But you are probably right as GIEC doesn't take account of your predictions about AWE. For the GIEC, by an implicit understanding, if AWE exists it would enter "non-biomass renewables" category.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26054 From: dougselsam Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: Re: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and AWE
But Pierre, don't you understand, daveS, who is against "power meters" this week (how convenient for him!), is going to show us how to spin a 1 GigaWatt generator using "kites".
This will take place over New York City, with technicians climbing around on ropes above the city, thereby operating the nuke-plant generators by "rope-drive", from the air, utilizing bose-einstein phonons from flapping arrays of "power-kite" meta-material, and the electricity will be affordable because these workers will not need to be paid, because, according to daveS, they will do it "for the honor" - not requiring food, clothing, recreation, transportation, lodging, a home, a family, or even personal hygiene.   He will explain how he will accomplish this, without "over-reliance on power meters", at some future point in time.  Maybe 2030.  No wait, let me guess, in the year 2030, daveS will still be making no sense whatsoever, Makani will still be "getting ready to get ready", "journalists" will still be using images of Magenn and Altaeros to illustrate their articles, Peter Harrop will still be claiming there will be a 100 kW product for sale "this year", and meanwhile, negative effects of the next mini-ice-age will be increasingly-impossible-to-ignore, and the discussion will be leaning toward reversing the carbon-taxes to "save the planet" through intentionally increasing atmospheric CO2 levels.  JoeF, daveS, and Wayne-what's-his-name will be running a mental hospital for aging "kite-Gods" on a government grant.


---In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, <pierre-benhaiem@... .

Attention: nukes are not AWES!
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26055 From: benhaiemp Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: Re: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and AWE
Doug, with the energy you waste to debunking Dave since 12 years, you could produce MW with SuperTurbine (tm)!
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26056 From: Santos Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: Re: yahoo groups search lacking
Yes, Doug, your claims are treated as credible, if not to the standard Gipe has set for AWE, of formal third-party certification.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26057 From: Santos Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: Re: Kite vs Nukes (from "search" topic)
Sorry Pierre, but I am having troubles with email on my phone.

Be patient. It's like when you thought you were being censored here, when you had email problems.

Thanks for repeating the link.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26058 From: Santos Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: Re: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and AWE
Doug, I am not against your "Harbor Freight" power meter standard, just rating Gipe's formal certification standard higher. 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26059 From: benhaiemp Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: Re: Kite vs Nukes (from "search" topic)
Did you get a phone transplant?
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26060 From: Santos Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: Re: Kite vs Nukes (from "search" topic)
No "transplant", just a poor mailbox interface. Some programmers can't even make Yahoo Groups work at all.

A strategy for growing AWE R&D support is to challenge Nuke R&D in a rigorous technical debate.

Then decision makers can allocate funds best-informed, giving AWE better probability than the "tiny" chance Pierre warns about.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26061 From: dougselsam Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: Re: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and AWE
Good point Pierre, I've had similar thoughts.  It's a waste of time, isn't it?
Debunking nutcases doesn't usually take this long.  It's a case of "watch how long you spend staring into the abyss, lest you get sucked into it."

---In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, <pierre-benhaiem@...
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26062 From: benhaiemp Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: Re: Kite vs Nukes (from "search" topic)
I am not even sure GIEC or nuclear energy experts know the existence of an AWE project.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26063 From: Santos Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: Re: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and AWE
Doug has not wasted his life critiquing AWE. We all needed his contribution of frisson to sharpen the Open-AWE technical case vs the down-selects of the VC players.

Doug's should prove to have been far more productive than if he had tried to make a 1000ft ST fly. Pierre is of course joking about Doug's self-thermodynamic output.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26064 From: dougselsam Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: Re: yahoo groups search lacking
daveS: I don;t have so much in the wy of "claims", more just photos and videos, and readings you can see on meters.  You don;t have to take my word for anything,
Your knowledge of the industry is very limited.  Paul Gipe doesn't have anything to do with setting any standards.  He's a free agent.  He doesn't set standards.  Surprisingly for me at least, not necessarily held in high regard in actual wind energy circles, depending who you talk to, although he has treated me well, and I consider him a friend.  He is not involved with AWE, and to my knowledge has never given even the slightest nod of approval for AWE.  He's a tower-mounted turbine pundit, who has tested a few small turbines, on a tower on some windfarm-adjacent  property he happens to own.  Long ago dismissed from the actual industry, he makes a self-described meager living, writing books and giving occasional talks.  You are impressed simply because, unlike you, he appears a reasonable person, capable of making sense, and not a complete wind energy perpetual beginner.  Because of his books, he has name recognition.  Other than that, it's one more case of "Pay no attention to the man behind the (pay)curtain."  Unless you want to.  His audience is know-nothings like you.  Real wind people already know everything he says.  That is his role: translating wind energy reality for idiots and newbies.  Making it understandable for know-nothings.  Warning beginners about crackpots like you.


---In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, <santos137@...
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26065 From: benhaiemp Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: Re: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and AWE
No. My "Are you serious?" concerns Joe's message above: "Distinctions: 
GIEC Guangzhou Institute of Energy Conversion (China)

GIEC Groupe International d'Experts sur le Climat (French: International Group of Experts on the Climate)".
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26066 From: Santos Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: Re: yahoo groups search lacking
Gipe specifically invoked wind industry certification standards. Nobody thinks he's the person to provide independent testing.

It's true that reporting is poorly predictive of AWE if it seems not even to know Upper Wind is a serious resource. Such sources do not invalidate WoW's analysis.

2030 is a realistic timeframe. Expect folks to see or not see progress based on their own progress.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26067 From: benhaiemp Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: Re: yahoo groups search lacking

 "Nobody thinks he's the person to provide independent testing"


Please Dave, provide a linked reference in order to support your statement. You can take as example my recent link to GIEC's report to know how to proceed.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26068 From: dave santos Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: Re: yahoo groups search lacking
Pierre,

Ok, maybe you think Gipe is a test engineer, rather than someone who reasonably recommends professional third-party certification testing. I thought nobody would make that mistake here.

As for your GIEC citation, it had nothing to do with AWE (!) Please chose any better AWE source example to ask others to follow. Sorry you had repeat that link twice, in any case.







 

 "Nobody thinks he's the person to provide independent testing"


Please Dave, provide a linked reference in order to support your statement. You can take as example my recent link to GIEC's report to know how to proceed.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26069 From: benhaiemp Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: Re: yahoo groups search lacking

Dave, I am waiting for the link supporting your statement. As I repeat you can take my link to GIEC's report as example.


GIEC 's report mentions models for 2030 as you do. AWE are in "non-biomass renewables"category (comprising wind energy)  as I repeated.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26070 From: benhaiemp Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: Re: yahoo groups search lacking


Dave, GIEC 's report mentions models for 2030, and you mention 2030 as year of reference for AWE. AWE and AWES are in "non-biomass renewables"category (comprising wind energy). I repeated.this several times.


I am waiting for the link supporting your statement. You can take my link to GIEC's report as an example. I also repeated this.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26071 From: dave santos Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: Re: yahoo groups search lacking
This is more about if GIEC had anything pertinent to say about AWE in the 2030 timeframe. They did not. WoW did a better job in 2011 at suggesting a reasonable timeframe for AWE than GIEC.

Let the French establishment naturally think more about Nuclear Power than AWE, because that's what they practice.



 


Dave, GIEC 's report mentions models for 2030, and you mention 2030 as year of reference for AWE. AWE and AWES are in "non-biomass renewables"category (comprising wind energy). I repeated.this several times.


I am waiting for the link supporting your statement. You can take my link to GIEC's report as an example. I also repeated this.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26072 From: benhaiemp Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: Re: yahoo groups search lacking

The GIEC sits in Geneva, in Switzerland, not in Francia. If AWE generates energy in 2030, it would be a tiny part compared to other sources like nuclear, coal, gas, all renewables...


Waiting for your link supporting your statement.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26073 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: Re: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and AWE

On the intersection of IPCC and AWE:

"reduce CO² emissions" by non-biomass renewables, hence "implicitly" (PierreB) "AWE."

So, the intersection is not empty.  That is, any AWE that reduces either anthropocentric or natural CO² emissions may be be respected in the IPCC concerns. 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26074 From: dave santos Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: Re: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and AWE
Agreed that the "non-biomass" category implicitly includes AWE, even if the writers apparently knew nothing about it. That's not the same as informed diligent AWE-focused analysis that separates out solar, hydro, etc..

These otherwise welcome governmental documents are a poor substitute for our specialized AWE literature and expertise, as a basis to make sound engineering timeline judgements.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26075 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: Re: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and AWE
Note that kite systems may affect pathways beyond just energy-generation.  

"Solar radiation modification (SRM) measures are not included in any of the available assessed pathways."

"wind energy and electricity storage technologies have substantially improved over the past few years (high confidence). These
improvements signal a potential system transition in electricity generation."  
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26076 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: Re: Envisioning Practical Uses of Kite Systems
  •  "restoration of natural ecosystems" by employing kite systems
  • reduce CO2-emitting transportation systems by use of transporation via use of kite systems.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26077 From: dave santos Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: Gipe'a AWES Testing Standard (quote and link)
Lets agree with Paul Gipe on the highest sort of standard for AWES performance testing. From 2014 archives of Gipe regarding kites-

"

What we in the wind industry are interested in are standardized results by a certified testing laboratory. These are performance tests to the IEC standard. For now, I am not interested in the durability tests, only the performance tests... to IEC 6400-12. I want to see data on actual kWh generated over a certain time period. As far as I can tell, kite promoters are a long way from providing that kind of data.

"

Gipe's standard linked-
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26078 From: dave santos Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: Re: Gipe'a AWES Testing Standard (quote and link)
We are five years closer to Gipe's goal to see kites tested to formal standards, which will increasingly figure in the 2030 timeframe.

Its gracious of Paul to not demand "durability" performance in his initial performance attainment milestone. By contrast, much of our AWES engineering debate is vitally concerned with no-crash survivability of rigid wings vs service-life of fabric, with economic LCOE a further hill for us to climb.

We expect Fraunhofer to continue as a key early player in these testing cycles.





 

Lets agree with Paul Gipe on the highest sort of standard for AWES performance testing. From 2014 archives of Gipe regarding kites-

"

What we in the wind industry are interested in are standardized results by a certified testing laboratory. These are performance tests to the IEC standard. For now, I am not interested in the durability tests, only the performance tests... to IEC 6400-12. I want to see data on actual kWh generated over a certain time period. As far as I can tell, kite promoters are a long way from providing that kind of data.

"

Gipe's standard linked-
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26079 From: benhaiemp Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: Re: Gipe'a AWES Testing Standard (quote and link)


Dave, you indicate you agree with Paul Gipe's purpose, quoting him. But you don't state about your thinking as mentioned on https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/AirborneWindEnergy/conversations/messages/26066 : "Nobody thinks he's the person to provide independent testing."

This point is of some importance because it questions someone's reputation. So you should precise if you keep your previous statement. If yes you should provide an appropriate link to prove this is true.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26080 From: dave santos Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: Re: Gipe'a AWES Testing Standard (quote and link)
Ok Pierre, maybe you think Paul should test AWES. I think Fraunhofer is a better choice. Paul should agree. He's not really a test engineer.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26081 From: benhaiemp Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: Re: Gipe'a AWES Testing Standard (quote and link)

You wrote: "Nobody thinks he's the person to provide independent testing."

Prove it with an appropriate link.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26082 From: dave santos Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: Re: Gipe'a AWES Testing Standard (quote and link)
No, Pierre, I concede you seem to think Paul really is someone to test AWES. There is no link to prove that to you.

At least understand that if Paul was faced with testing Makani's M600, he would at least lack critical aviation expertise. He's also now very old. It just seems odd to imagine him up to the job of testing to IEC 61400, only because he recommended that as a best-practice standard, much less rely on him to judge AWE as whole. Let him try, if you are right.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26083 From: benhaiemp Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: Re: Gipe'a AWES Testing Standard (quote and link)
Your complete message is: "
Gipe specifically invoked wind industry certification standards. Nobody thinks he's the person to provide independent testing.

It's true that reporting is poorly predictive of AWE if it seems not even to know Upper Wind is a serious resource. Such sources do not invalidate WoW's analysis.

2030 is a realistic timeframe. Expect folks to see or not see progress based on their own progress."

By the first and the second sentences you refer to "wind industry certification standards" to state "Nobody thinks he's the person to provide independent testing.". It is a serious questioned you have to prove. The AWE argument comes after in this message. 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26084 From: dave santos Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: Re: Gipe'a AWES Testing Standard (quote and link)
Repost of link (updated to 2019) to Gipe's proposed standard-

IEC 61400-1:2019 | IEC Webstore | rural electrification, wind power

Still can't imagine Gipe doing the testing.




 

Your complete message is: "

Gipe specifically invoked wind industry certification standards. Nobody thinks he's the person to provide independent testing.

It's true that reporting is poorly predictive of AWE if it seems not even to know Upper Wind is a serious resource. Such sources do not invalidate WoW's analysis.

2030 is a realistic timeframe. Expect folks to see or not see progress based on their own progress."

By the first and the second sentences you refer to "wind industry certification standards" to state "Nobody thinks he's the person to provide independent testing.". It is a serious questioned you have to prove. The AWE argument comes after in this message. 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26085 From: dave santos Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: Re: Gipe'a AWES Testing Standard (quote and link)
The best approach is to honor PaulG's intent, while noting critical AWE parameters current wind turbine standards do not address. So lets agree with Paul in favor of "standardized results by a certified testing laboratory" and resign ourselves that Paul himself not currently part of any such lab.

Many of us have long foreseen the importance of unique AWES wind-power performance factors, like airspace integration, crashworthiness, scaling potential, and so on, in effect as added standards honoring Paul's friendly reasonable spirit of certifiable testing for AWE.




 

Repost of link (updated to 2019) to Gipe's proposed standard-

IEC 61400-1:2019 | IEC Webstore | rural electrification, wind power

Still can't imagine Gipe doing the testing.


On ‎Saturday‎, ‎June‎ ‎15‎, ‎2019‎ ‎07‎:‎49‎:‎46‎ ‎PM‎ ‎CDT, pierre-benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy] <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com


 

Your complete message is: "

Gipe specifically invoked wind industry certification standards. Nobody thinks he's the person to provide independent testing.

It's true that reporting is poorly predictive of AWE if it seems not even to know Upper Wind is a serious resource. Such sources do not invalidate WoW's analysis.

2030 is a realistic timeframe. Expect folks to see or not see progress based on their own progress."

By the first and the second sentences you refer to "wind industry certification standards" to state "Nobody thinks he's the person to provide independent testing.". It is a serious questioned you have to prove. The AWE argument comes after in this message. 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26086 From: dave santos Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: NPW-based WindSled Progress (Polar Homesteading)
Power kite success continues like nothing else, even as futuristic tribal homesteads in legendary ice caps and remote oceans. Two prior historic quasi-Utopian models come to mind, Graf Zeppelin's round-the-world-tour and Mexican Revolution trains-as-villages. Kites have similar Utopian potential only just starting to develop. 

From Berlin to Antarctica, the 1960's NASA Power Wing is Back in the Sky. We have followed Ramon's growing success for years, using legacy kite tech that just gets better and better the more that is asked of it. Do not doubt simple kites confer great power to those who master them. Viva la Revolution!
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26087 From: dave santos Date: 6/15/2019
Subject: New Multi-Line Ground-Anchor Design
Attachments :
    Ongoing kPower testing focuses on crosswind arch AWES using power-kites. This post covers a redesign of the pilot-in-command control-anchor-point, from where kFarm state-of-the-art left-off in 2014. That component was based on a steel fencepost between the PIC's legs, guyed to windward; safe but ugly.

    The new design reduces hardware to just the anchor, a pulley, and rope enough for running and reins. The pulley is used to take kite power while allowing control input, like is sometimes done in kite sports from a body harness. The kite's dangerous power is anchored off in the ground, with the pilot safely upwind holding the reins. 

    In testing at Austin's Oak Springs Soccer Fields yesterday, with a 7m2 NPW, the rig worked right away, but with a few moments of oversteering and some difficulty balancing the reins with no grip-reference knots, to be added in the next test. The kite flew perfectly until a line broke. When a power kite is solidly anchored it most develops monster crosswind power. The light 200lb-test lines were replaced with 500lb-test.

    Detail by detail, AWES power-kite practices are rapidly evolving around the world. This direct-control-from-anchor AWES method is claimed for the Open-AWE_IP-Cloud.

    Pictures of kPower's rigs soon; meanwhile see attached graphic of the Inuit Windsled, showing the same classic method, but attached to a mega-sled rather than kPower's AWES earth anchor.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26088 From: dave santos Date: 6/16/2019
    Subject: Soaring Thermals by Passive Auxetic Control
    When a glider encounters a thermal, one or the other wing tends to kick-up first in reaction to the rising air encountered. This passive action tends to bank the glider away from the thermal core. Soaring agents, like birds and glider-pilots, bank against the initial roll signal, and succeeding roll tendency gradient, to stay in the thermal core.

    A popular metamaterial property of inverse Poisson Ratio is an Auxetic reaction inverse to simple linear reaction. A soaring wing designed as an Auxetic structure can in principle passively turn into a thermal, much as a classically intelligent soaring agent does.

    There are many possible ways to design an Auxetic soaring wing, but a prime idea is to couple Auxetic reaction to ailerons, not necessarily design the reaction monolithically into wing roots or spanwise wing-warping.

    It should be simple to design a proof-of-concept Auxetic soaring wing.