Messages in AirborneWindEnergy group.                       AWES3541to3590 Page 51 of 79.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3541 From: Doug Date: 5/11/2011
Subject: peripheral distractions: Pendulum Waves, Space Elevator Conference

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3542 From: dave santos Date: 5/11/2011
Subject: Re: ARPA-E Inquiry

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3543 From: dave santos Date: 5/12/2011
Subject: Heads Up ////Fw: ARPA-E Unsolicited Proposal

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3544 From: Grant Calverley Date: 5/12/2011
Subject: Re: Heads Up ////Fw: ARPA-E Unsolicited Proposal

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3545 From: dave santos Date: 5/12/2011
Subject: Re: Heads Up ////Fw: ARPA-E Unsolicited Proposal

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3546 From: Dave Lang Date: 5/12/2011
Subject: Re: Heads Up ////Fw: ARPA-E Unsolicited Proposal

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3547 From: North, David D. (LARC-E402) Date: 5/12/2011
Subject: Re: Heads Up ////Fw: ARPA-E Unsolicited Proposal

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3548 From: Grant Calverley Date: 5/12/2011
Subject: Re: Heads Up ////Fw: ARPA-E Unsolicited Proposal

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3549 From: dave santos Date: 5/12/2011
Subject: Re: Heads Up ////Fw: ARPA-E Unsolicited Proposal

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3550 From: christopher carlin Date: 5/12/2011
Subject: Re: Heads Up ////Fw: ARPA-E Unsolicited Proposal

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3551 From: Doug Date: 5/12/2011
Subject: Re: ARPA-E Inquiry

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3552 From: Dave Lang Date: 5/12/2011
Subject: Re: Heads Up ////Fw: ARPA-E Unsolicited Proposal

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3553 From: dave santos Date: 5/12/2011
Subject: Re: Heads Up ////Fw: ARPA-E Unsolicited Proposal

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3554 From: dave santos Date: 5/12/2011
Subject: How ALPA, AOPA, & EAA are leading resistence to low UAS safety stand

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3555 From: dave santos Date: 5/12/2011
Subject: ARPA-E Unsolicited Proposal Guidelines

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3556 From: DavidC Date: 5/13/2011
Subject: Re: ARPA-E Inquiry

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3557 From: Joe Faust Date: 5/13/2011
Subject: Re: ARPA-E Inquiry

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3558 From: dave santos Date: 5/13/2011
Subject: Makani Role ////Re: [AWECS] Re: ARPA-E Inquiry

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3559 From: DavidC Date: 5/13/2011
Subject: Makani Role ////Re: [AWECS] Re: ARPA-E Inquiry

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3560 From: dave santos Date: 5/13/2011
Subject: Re: Makani Role ////Re: [AWECS] Re: ARPA-E Inquiry

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3561 From: Pierre Benhaiem Date: 5/14/2011
Subject: Makani Role ////Re: [AWECS] Re: ARPA-E Inquiry

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3562 From: dave santos Date: 5/14/2011
Subject: Curious Ultra-High RPM Rotary Tether Finding

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3563 From: Doug Date: 5/14/2011
Subject: Re: ARPA-E Inquiry

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3564 From: harry valentine Date: 5/14/2011
Subject: Re: Curious Ultra-High RPM Rotary Tether Finding

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3565 From: Joe Faust Date: 5/14/2011
Subject: Re: ARPA-E Inquiry

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3566 From: Joe Faust Date: 5/14/2011
Subject: Re: Curious Ultra-High RPM Rotary Tether Finding

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3567 From: Dan Parker Date: 5/14/2011
Subject: Re: ARPA-E Inquiry

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3568 From: dave santos Date: 5/14/2011
Subject: Re: Curious Ultra-High RPM Rotary Tether Finding

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3569 From: DavidC Date: 5/14/2011
Subject: Re: ARPA-E Inquiry

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3570 From: dave santos Date: 5/14/2011
Subject: "Ideal" Research Design for ARPA-E

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3571 From: dave santos Date: 5/14/2011
Subject: NextGen ATC & Kite Farms

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3572 From: mmarchitti Date: 5/15/2011
Subject: Makani Role ////Re: [AWECS] Re: ARPA-E Inquiry

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3573 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 5/15/2011
Subject: Re: Makani Role ////Re: [AWECS] Re: ARPA-E Inquiry

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3574 From: Robert Copcutt Date: 5/15/2011
Subject: Re: Makani Role ////Re: [AWECS] Re: ARPA-E Inquiry

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3575 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 5/15/2011
Subject: Re: Makani Role ////Re: [AWECS] Re: ARPA-E Inquiry

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3576 From: dave santos Date: 5/16/2011
Subject: Power-Out Intermttency Notes

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3577 From: Doug Date: 5/16/2011
Subject: Power Storage Thread

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3578 From: Robert Copcutt Date: 5/16/2011
Subject: Re: Power Storage Thread

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3579 From: Doug Date: 5/16/2011
Subject: Re: Curious Ultra-High RPM Rotary Tether Finding

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3580 From: dave santos Date: 5/16/2011
Subject: Re: Curious Ultra-High RPM Rotary Tether Finding

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3581 From: Doug Date: 5/17/2011
Subject: Re: Curious Ultra-High RPM Rotary Tether Finding

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3582 From: dave santos Date: 5/17/2011
Subject: Re: Curious Ultra-High RPM Rotary Tether Finding

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3583 From: Doug Date: 5/17/2011
Subject: Re: Power Storage Thread

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3584 From: Doug Date: 5/18/2011
Subject: Re: Curious Ultra-High RPM Rotary Tether Finding

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3585 From: Joe Faust Date: 5/19/2011
Subject: Stalks: stiff and specialized non-tethers?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3586 From: Doug Date: 5/20/2011
Subject: Re: Stalks: stiff and specialized non-tethers?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3587 From: Joe Faust Date: 5/20/2011
Subject: Missing videos?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3588 From: Joe Faust Date: 5/23/2011
Subject: Powerbeamed Quad

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3589 From: dave santos Date: 5/23/2011
Subject: Re: Curious Ultra-High RPM Rotary Tether Finding

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3590 From: dave santos Date: 5/23/2011
Subject: The path to Leuven (AWEC2011)




Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3541 From: Doug Date: 5/11/2011
Subject: peripheral distractions: Pendulum Waves, Space Elevator Conference
1) (This is for Dave Santos, since he likes complicated stuff that "may" someday have a place in AWE:)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVkdfJ9PkRQ
reminds me of something, not sure what...

2) Upcoming Space Elevator Conference
http://spaceelevatorconference.org/default.aspx
For you tether freaks, they will discuss tethers...

:)
Doug Selsam
http://www.USWINDLABS.com
ever heard the expression:
"Go Fly a Kite"?
:)))
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3542 From: dave santos Date: 5/11/2011
Subject: Re: ARPA-E Inquiry
DavidC,
 
Thanks for stressing the need to persist in engaging the grant sources. I did grant-work for most of my youth, including DOE & NSF, with about a 90% application success average. The main competitive strategy used was to assemble the broadest & deepest talent pool possible to deliver excellence. Doug needs to understand his best funding chance is not to go it alone, but to allow his concept to be bundled with the dozen or so other strong contenders in our AWE circle. Dimitri is pondering being the collective grant writer for such an application. My reading is that ARPA-E is almost begging us for a way to diversify its "unbiased" Makani-only strait-jacket. Now is a good time for the Kahunas to get rolling.
 
I don't think AWE VCs & ARPA-E public servants have lived up to their own hype. Our smartest folks are clearly in the vital engineering & science camp. They have been quite overlooked by the biz press & popular media coverage devoted to PR driven VCs,
 
daveS
 
KiteLab Group
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3543 From: dave santos Date: 5/12/2011
Subject: Heads Up ////Fw: ARPA-E Unsolicited Proposal
Notes:
 
If you are a known US AWE player with some track record of productive action, you qualify to join this initiative. Foreign nationals can ally with a US partner to qualify.
 
Plan key experiments to deliver clear results that can be quantified side-by-side with others. 1/4 scale with a 500ft altitude target is good.
 
Don't get greedy when budgeting, as scoring should be highly dependent on capital efficiency (cost per installed watt, ROI, energy unit cost, etc.).
Comparative Field testing will be a major activity, perhaps at a NASA designated field.

We can take member proposals & rank them by a simple scoring matrix that reflects the overall criteria of ARPA-E (disruptive potential, etc.).
 
We can nominate an advising panel of the most trusted figures who do not have a direct stake (like Dave North, Joe Faust, etc) some of whom could get paid as "staff" rather than "projects". Joe, for example, consensually deserves a paid role to do what he has done for free for years (documentation).
 
Committees would handle specific areas of activity (like compliance with ARPA-E rules)
 
A well connected player with top formal talent like SkyMill would be a major budget item & a small player with no previous prototype (like, say, Dan'l) would get a mini grant to get started.
 
Success in meeting first round goals would qualify for next-round funds.
 
We can budget & apply for up to 20 million but typically expect half or less with a revised plan.
 
A CPA or MBA CFO with fiduciary responsibility will be a ~3% cost.
 
Calling ourselves a "Consortium" is kinda crass, but "cooperative" is maybe too soft. "Pool" is kinda cool. Group, collective, guild, association, etc., lets keep it an open item for now.
 
Lets conduct a totally open group process, to ensure trust, & design an impeccable research design that generates quality third party validation by, say, NASA &/or academia.
 
Three months is a reasonable timeframe to assemble & polish this proposal.
 
Volunteers with professional skills (budgets, grantwriting experience, etc.) should step up now.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3544 From: Grant Calverley Date: 5/12/2011
Subject: Re: Heads Up ////Fw: ARPA-E Unsolicited Proposal
Dave S,
I do kind of like your idea.  Its like a mini Advanced Projects Research Agency solely for AWE funded by ARPA-E.  I can see a select number of participating concepts getting enough funding to create some real test platforms.  Then having a group flying session at a site like NASAs Wallops Island. Good wind and restricted airspace.  The best couple of concepts then advance to phase II funding to do something bigger.
 
This is of course has the potential of becoming an organizational nightmare and I am not sure ARPA-E would buy into it as you are outlining. The risk is spending allot of time for something that gets tossed.  99 point something percent of all unsolicited proposals are tossed as a rule as there is no budget allocated for them. I already spent one summer of my life writing a proposal for ARPA-E. It is allot of work on the hope they would like it. Two of our reviewers liked us. One said it was the best of the Airborne wind projects he reviewed. The third reviewer shot us down because we did not have a wind industry expert on our board. Go figure, and that was with a letter of support from Boeing and other rotor craft expert board members.
 
However, the truth is ARPA-E has helped our SkyMill project allot.  It allowed us to think big.  Instead of being stuck with our small hobby budget, I started thinking what would I do if my budget was 2 million. It changed my mind set.  Now I am stuck with a 2 million dollar R&D mindset and a hobby budget.
 
Dave N, do you think a test space could be granted at Wallops for such a project with funding supplied by the DOE?  I think the test site and over all NASA supervision would be the keys to this proposal and would make the rest much more legit. I imagine there could be a turf war between NASA and the DOE over the AWE space.  However since Nasa has no money for it now, maybe it can be joint project with DOE money, NASA facilities and NASA tech help to get the ball rolling now. 
 
I think if NASA proposed such a AWE project to ARPA-E,  they might buy into in.  Both organizations want credit for renewable energy breakthroughs. NASA has no money and ARPA-E has no areospace expertise.  Put them together and it might just work.  It makes everyone look good.
 

Grant Calverley
360-378-6186

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3545 From: dave santos Date: 5/12/2011
Subject: Re: Heads Up ////Fw: ARPA-E Unsolicited Proposal
Grant,
 
The "organizational nightmare" is just a fact of life. ARPA-E does encourage "home-run" unsolicited submissions. The odds are great for winners (100%) ;*)
 
dave
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3546 From: Dave Lang Date: 5/12/2011
Subject: Re: Heads Up ////Fw: ARPA-E Unsolicited Proposal
In general, I have found unsolicited proposals to be the worst of the worst for gaining funding (they can be summarily tossed in the circular file with NO mechanism of reprisal or accountability).  Unless you perchance have a very close relationship and lots of positive vibs from those who have planted the idea in you to do this (and there may well be examples we have already witnessed of this too);  it is not evident to me from the sound of your recent interaction with ARPA-E that such a warm connection exists. Remember your connection with them at this point has been more or less adversarial.....I know governese-speak when I hear it - my guess is, if you showed at their doorstep you would not be warmly received! 

Unsolicited proposals pre-suppose discretionary budget which is usually NOT the case for .gov agencies these days. The .gov folks will usually have laid out their grant strategy for the year, and if they are in fact looking for ideas they will invite you to do their work for them, by issuing a Request For Information (RFI) - which is equally unproductive for most folks.

We already know how ARPA-E's  "head is screwed on" from the un-necessary and un-mindful assistance it gave to Makani (the bureaucratically safe "me-too" syndrome), when that $3M grant could have grub-staked at least 3 or 4 other promising AWE schemes, "forcing-hands" to either put-up-or-shut-up!  Such a stewardship as this latter could have gone a LONG WAY towards purifying the AWE morass.

Just my 2-bits worth

DaveL



At 7:35 AM -0700 5/12/11, dave santos wrote:
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3547 From: North, David D. (LARC-E402) Date: 5/12/2011
Subject: Re: Heads Up ////Fw: ARPA-E Unsolicited Proposal

DaveS, Grant et al,

 

I like this idea too and I’m willing to help out (although I’m not sure if I’m allowed to since I might be in one of the agencies being solicited). Although,  I’m really a newbie at trying to get Gov’t research funds for  projects (my background is in design and analysis). It’s a byzantine process that is not easy to understand as there are innumerable organizations within NASA, DOE, and other agencies that put out calls for proposals. I suppose you could try an unsolicited proposal, but I agree that it has much less of a chance vs. a solicited proposal.

 

Mark M. and I have already had a few conversations with the DOE (Fort Felker and others) and they are very open to the idea of a NASA/DOE collaboration in AWE. And nobody in any Gov’t agency as far as I know has staked out any “turf” in AWE. So maybe the ball is in my court as far as getting something going between NASA and DOE/ARPA-E on an AWE call for proposals for FY2012? And I’m not sure what pot of money would be used (probably ARPA-E since NASA would rather use their money to build ginormous rockets that nobody needs).

 

We are also working towards setting up an agreement with NASA’s Wallops Flight Facility for testing AWE prototypes. Wallops is interested, but there are a few issues to work through like their restricted airspace which is kind of carved up funny (only half of the main airfield and half of the UAV airfield are within restricted airspace….there’s lots of restricted airspace over the water if you’re willing to test in 30 ft. of water [SkyMill?]).

 

Regards,

Dave North
Aerospace Engineer
Space Mission Analysis Branch (E402)
Systems Analysis and Concepts Directorate
1 North Dryden Street, Building 1209, MS462
NASA Langley Research Center
Hampton, VA 23681-2199
Phone: (757) 864-7285
Cell: (757) 771-5367
Fax: (757) 864-1975
Email: david.d.north@nasa.gov

 

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3548 From: Grant Calverley Date: 5/12/2011
Subject: Re: Heads Up ////Fw: ARPA-E Unsolicited Proposal
Dave N.
 
I think it would be fantastic if you could talk to a few people at ARPA-E and see what they think.  It all starts with a call.  You or Mark Moore would have a much better chance of getting through and checking out what the options might be then any of us.  If FY2012 is booked, FY2013 will be here before you know it. If nothing else please share the findings of your AWE study and website with them.
 
With Wallops 1/2 a airfield is still way better then none. Also I seem to recall the wind is mostly offshore so any high altitude flights would be flown from the beach or field out over a very large restricted area out a sea. (safe for crashing and ditching but maybe not equipment recovery) I think Dave S. idea to keep them initially low < 500' is a good one for phase 1 test.  (the fly off and shake out phase)  Bring the beach chairs and sunscreen for a good show.

Grant Calverley
360-378-6186



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3549 From: dave santos Date: 5/12/2011
Subject: Re: Heads Up ////Fw: ARPA-E Unsolicited Proposal
DaveL,
 
In general you are right that unsolicited proposals get dumped in a bin, but here we have a strange direct request from Matt to seriously consider the option. There are also several major historic precedents where the option worked. The key seems to be how compelling the need & how excellent the proposal.
 
We all enjoy cooperation better, but we know how to lean heavy on public servants if cooperation isn't working. Even if they retaliate (let them try), they will be better to the next guy. Matt seems like the sort of "golden boy" legal careerist who can avoid feeling affronted to get a better outcome. He is just the acting head counsel, so he has to tip-toe. I'm eager to get out of the way if the bad-cop shtick isn't working, but in this case it got a reply even as others await in limbo.
 
What is proposed is a first-class AWE program with great research design & third-party validation. ARPA-E can ignore it at its peril, as the possibility of a high-profile "government failure" in AWE is real (think "China Wins: ARPA-E Blamed" headline) & these are the guys who will take the heat.
 
The key is to present the best dang proposal they have ever seen, which we are in a unique position to deliver,
 
daveS
 
 
 
 

From: Dave Lang <SeattleDL@comcast.net
 
In general, I have found unsolicited proposals to be the worst of the worst for gaining funding (they can be summarily tossed in the circular file with NO mechanism of reprisal or accountability).  Unless you perchance have a very close relationship and lots of positive vibs from those who have planted the idea in you to do this (and there may well be examples we have already witnessed of this too);  it is not evident to me from the sound of your recent interaction with ARPA-E that such a warm connection exists. Remember your connection with them at this point has been more or less adversarial.....I know governese-speak when I hear it - my guess is, if you showed at their doorstep you would not be warmly received! 

Unsolicited proposals pre-suppose discretionary budget which is usually NOT the case for .gov agencies these days. The .gov folks will usually have laid out their grant strategy for the year, and if they are in fact looking for ideas they will invite you to do their work for them, by issuing a Request For Information (RFI) - which is equally unproductive for most folks.

We already know how ARPA-E's  "head is screwed on" from the un-necessary and un-mindful assistance it gave to Makani (the bureaucratically safe "me-too" syndrome), when that $3M grant could have grub-staked at least 3 or 4 other promising AWE schemes, "forcing-hands" to either put-up-or-shut-up!  Such a stewardship as this latter could have gone a LONG WAY towards purifying the AWE morass.

Just my 2-bits worth

DaveL



At 7:35 AM -0700 5/12/11, dave santos wrote:


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3550 From: christopher carlin Date: 5/12/2011
Subject: Re: Heads Up ////Fw: ARPA-E Unsolicited Proposal
Dear Dave,

I know I've suggested it before but can't you get DFRC interested? They've got airspace( I think), they have winds, and they used to have people there who were really good at putting a good program together on a shoestring. Most of the truck streamlining you see today was pioneered and demonstrated by a small crew down there doing simple demos on the dry lake bed. Likewise solar powered airplanes and other interesting things.

Regards,

Chris 
On May 12, 2011, at 7:27 PM, North, David D. (LARC-E402) wrote:


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3551 From: Doug Date: 5/12/2011
Subject: Re: ARPA-E Inquiry
Hi David C:
You're right, I need a business partner.
What you call "negative energy", however, is me trying to give others a heads-up. I'm confirming what one person here has surmised: that the highly-connected and the already-highly-funded will get the grants. They are the ones with the money and time to waste on the paperwork. They are the ones that the reviewers will subconsciously find reasons to get behind, since it's always easier to go with the herd than to rise above it.

They just want to have an excuse when the idea doesn't work out: "Well they were funded by Google". They just need that excuse, and that excuse is not as easy to come up with if they ever went out on a limb and just found an independent inventor with a promising idea and funded that inventor.

Instead they expect that independent inventor to compete with Google in ability/desire to drown in paperwork in a hoop-jumping frenzy to convince people who are too busy to listen of simple facts. meanwhile that independent inventor has already run the gauntlet of paperwork to get the ideas patented. The patent depository is supposed to be our national treasure-trove of workable technology, and yet it is mostly ignored. They should be exploring all the relevant Official U.S. Patents and contacting the inventors, not passively demanding reams of paperwork that they will never read.

All I'm talking about here is facts. Like I try to warn people away from proven bad wind turbine designs, to save them repeating past mistakes, it can be a thankless task to warn people away from what they perceive as desirable.

Hey this is not about me, this is about "global warming" this is about "peak oil". This is about the impending doom of the human race, or so we're told. Do you believe all this, about the global warming? Do you believe the world will warm so much we all die, as we go forward?
Then you should take what I say seriously and not try to change the subject, which is clean energy breakthroughs that are here and not being pursued at all while they say they are working as hard as humanly possible on it.

How does this sound for future history?
"Well back in the early 21st century, when humankind almost blinked out of existence due to a lack of clean energy, there actually WAS a solution right in the patent literature, in magazines and even on Discovery Channel - and records show that it was in fact put in front of the agencies in charge of developing clean energy solutions, but a technical reviewer said the inventor didn't write a good enough "business plan". He was too busy inventing and filing patents and building prototypes and, well, running his business... (and posting on the web - ahem!) So the solution was never developed".

There, how does that sound in big-picture retrospect? Where's the excuse? Notice there isn't any excuse, other than blaming the ignored inventor. Is blaming someone who invented the solution a valid excuse for the end of the world? The guy with the solution was too busy inventing to write hypothetical business plans all day every day? Does it sound like anyone is serious about finding a solution? Maybe these people don't even really believe in global warming. Did you ever think of that? Maybe they know, deep down, that if they fail, nothing will happen, so that's why they "only work 8-hour days". Hey it's just a job - a paycheck and a retirement. That's why they don't really care about anything but making sure they will have another excuse. Because they know, deep down, they really don't need results. They just need an excuse. And so they go after what they really need. More excuses.

I mean, is this the end of the world or not? Remember the Manhattan Project? Did they "only work 8-hour days"? Because that's how important it was? mmmm-hmmmm... Do 8-hour days jive with an end-of-world scenario?
Is there something wrong with this picture?

Now let's get to the meat of what you say:
You say you are defending ARPA-E and your reason is they only work 8-hour days. Thanks for agreeing with me. You have provided a predicted excuse. "Only 8-hour days". There's no limit to the number of these excuses. "We were overwhelmed" "This has been a learning experience"... That's why I say:
"Almost Ready to Produce Another - Excuse", and you saved them the effort, producing "another excuse" FOR them. 8-hour days... who knew?
Probably no weekends too, huh? Because this is the most important thing mankind is doing, right? A world emergency. 8-hour days. uh-huh...

Please let's review the supposed context for all this:
We've got a "national emergency" - no wait, a "world emergency", of "Peak Oil", combined with "Global Warming", and we're told that the world as we know it is literally going to end if we don't solve these dual problems with a clean energy solution. The world is hoping the U.S. will solve the problem. ARPA-E is created as a "pull out all the stops" agency. "We are finally serious about exploring promising new solutions". And then you come along and get them off the hook:
"Well they only work 8-hour days".

Well OK fine then. They only work 8-hour days. Figure out how to spend your time.
Look up how many different or alternative turbine designs NREL has explored in all its years of existence, and with all those decades of multi-million dollar budgets, and the number is maybe 1 or 2, basically a couple of vertical-axis turbines that were already known to be not-so-great. That's a lack of imagination. "Too busy", "upcoming vacation", "gotta go to a conference", "We'll issue another solicitation for proposals in another year or two"... again, no end to the excuses.

I remember when my patents were first filed. I expected NREL to contact me when the application was first published, if not before, assuming they were all serious about this advanced turbine stuff, monitoring the patent system, and pursuing new ideas at least insofar as contacting the innovators. You know, like they were EAGER to TRY new things, not like they had to be convinced against their will...

However I grew to learn that no such outreach program exists. No program to monitor the patents and pursue new ideas therein is even on the radar screen. It's not proactive, but reactive.

And what I realized is that it's not a lack of money holding any of us back, it's our own lack of focus. I make more progress WITHOUT the grants. One can build small prototypes that prove a concept for a pittance. For less than the cost of submitting a grant proposal, you can probably build whatever you want to build and prove it in the same time you can beat your head against the wall trying to convince a bureaucracy, with page after page of forms. And if you DO ever get a real wind turbine model in production, you'll find that refining it is a full-time job. Customers will expect reliability, which is not as easy as it sounds to achieve. You never needed the grant, you needed to get a product out there and make it reliable.

Anyway, hey these guys at Kleiner seemed OK. They were nice enough guys. I'm just saying they are spending millions on wind energy ideas that I know are not the right way to go at all, and they don't seem to comprehend why the idea is a bad one if you talk right to them personally. And before that I saw them funding other ideas that my diligence says are not fruitful. And now I see ARPA-E acting just like their predecessors: a wall of bureaucracy too high to easily climb, and most likely not worth it to try. Money being wasted on a grand scale while the true solutions are completely ignored because the people promoting them are not already at the top of the heap.

OK gotta get back to work myself before I succumb to "the all-talk format" so common in this "industry".
:)
Doug Selsam
http://www.USWINDLABS.com
<brawk!
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3552 From: Dave Lang Date: 5/12/2011
Subject: Re: Heads Up ////Fw: ARPA-E Unsolicited Proposal
DaveS,

Such a proposal as you envision, if I understand it correctly, would reflect a consortium of ideas from many (ie the various interested  AWE protagonists), so by definition, such a proposal would not be putting forth a single AWE solution, but rather a potpourri of ideas presented in the context of a "study scheme" by which presumably the "AWE tree will be shaken" to sift out a "real" winner - thus the "deliverable" from such an exercise would be a good tree-shaking, rather than a thorough flight demonstration of a superior AWE scheme that could result if enough wisdom had been mustered for ARPA to have selected a'priori a winning method.

Such an amorphous contract "deliverable" is difficult for government agencies to deal with, unless the proposal convinced them that the end-item would in fact be just that, a study of AWE schemes.  It seems to me that if ARPA-E had any inclination towards such an approach, they would have taken that $3M makani grant, and would have done exactly that, especially since Google, in theory, is already providing the tree-shake-function on the makani scheme.

But, this is all speculative.....what isn't so speculative is how all the various AWE players would mesh into this proposal preparation, AND, even more problematically, how the  "grant spoils" would be divvied-up amongst the players.

DaveL

At 12:58 PM -0700 5/12/11, dave santos wrote:
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3553 From: dave santos Date: 5/12/2011
Subject: Re: Heads Up ////Fw: ARPA-E Unsolicited Proposal
DaveL,
 
You are right that we cannot just jumble a pastiche of poorly integrated ideas, but must focus on prime deliverables. Helping settle some basic open questions, like flying v. ground-based componemts, & high performance v. cheap low-tech, will greatly advance us.
 
There is a need for a basic science phase & the narrow venture starts are not the right culture for the job. Lets start with a blank canvas & envision an ideal program. We should enlist the AE schools. We can already count on some like WPI, UTexas, UWashingtonCaltech, & so on, to eagerly sign on to the "third-party validation" role. The role of the motley starts is to provide concepts-of-operation & prototypes to evaluate, with minimal funding assistence. The FAA & NASA are key players to include. The Drachen Foundation, Smithsonian Institution, & World Kite Museum are also participants with unique perspective.
 
The "grant spoils" should be as merit-based as possible, with either consensus or independent judging driving allocations. I personally think SkyMill has the objective lead in many key areas. The ideas should score lower which require higher capital cost & longer pay-back. KiteLab Group seems unique in openly seeking to go with whatever methods prevail (even high complexity) & not seeking an exclusive or excessive advantage over other teams. The only players who don't deserve participation as those who are not based on finding out the best ideas so much as on a hype-driven biz model. The participant should agree on a collective mission to find actual best practices,
 
daveS
 
 
 
 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3554 From: dave santos Date: 5/12/2011
Subject: How ALPA, AOPA, & EAA are leading resistence to low UAS safety stand
AWE is a branch of aviation. AWECS are UAS (Unmanned Aircraft Systems). As they undertake to outgrow surface obstruction status & begin operating in the US NAS (National Air Space) they will have to match existing flight safety standards or face determined pilot opposition. As you read the ALPA (Airline Pilots Assoc., International) white papers below keep in mind that AOPA(Aircraft Owners & Pilots Assoc.) & EAA (Experimental Aircraft Assoc.) will align with ALPA on most points.
 
 
PDF]

Unmanned Aircraft Systems - About ALPA

File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
1 • Air Line Pilots Association White Paper on Unmanned Aircraft Systems ... the Air Line Pilots Association's (ALPA's) position is that no UAS ...
www.alpa.org/portals/alpa/pressroom/inthecockpit/UASWhitePaper.pdf
[PDF]

Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) - Alpa
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
Jan 28, 2010 ... The much-publicized success of Unmanned Aircraft Systems ...
www.alpa.org/portals/alpa/pressroom/.../UnmannedAircraftSystems.pdf

[PDF]

UAVs are in your airspace, now. - About ALPA

File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
Apr 2, 2007 ... flying a Predator unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) in Temporary ...
www.alpa.org/portals/alpa/magazine/2007/April2007_UAVsinAirspace.pdf

ALPA Members – Please support our Calls to Action!

ALPA Members – Please support our Calls to Action! ... pertaining to the ...
www.alpa.org/.../ALPA-Members-Please-support-our-Calls-to-Action.aspx - Cached
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3555 From: dave santos Date: 5/12/2011
Subject: ARPA-E Unsolicited Proposal Guidelines
 
Its the expected house of mirrors, with at least three DOE branches accepting "USPs", but only one at a time & freshly minted each time. Some internal rivalry seems possible for a prize AWE submission that wildly outperforms ARPA-E's dud. At least we can shop for the ~smartest office.
 
The DOE generic USP pitch reads like a good fit for our situation, with support maybe even beginning within six months (if ever). Its true that being let in a side door is better than banging on the front door to no effect. Kafka & Orwell fans take note: DOE solicits unsolicited proposals.
 
 ARPA-E provides this link-
 
 
Notes:
 
Dimitri is going to sound out ARPA-E (Matt) further & report back to us.
 
The "adversarial" "combative" mode is focused on the issue of improper ARPA-E Makani stonewalling, not Matt's pleasant USP suggestion; these are separate threads to keep sorted apart.

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3556 From: DavidC Date: 5/13/2011
Subject: Re: ARPA-E Inquiry
Believe me, I am sympathetic. Your frustration is warranted. But you clearly suffer from inventor's disease: you are confusing how the world actually works from the way you believe it should work. There is both beauty and tragedy in this. The beauty is your vision, and your inspiration to make it real. The tragedy is the tremendous gap between what you legitimately want and what actually is.

The world moves slowly. But there are some crisis-driven exceptions: Sputnik, Yuri Gagarin, 1973 oil crisis, 9/11. Value-driven change, on the contrary, is sloooooooow.

The most successful gov't funding efforts I've witnessed employ lobbyists. By that I don't mean fat-cat wine and dine, under the table, free opera ticket lobbying. I mean that somebody got on a plane to the funding agency, multiple times, and got to know people. They spent some time, sometimes a couple of years, getting to know what the agency wanted, and then helped influence the "want" process, while at the same time tuning the proposal(s) to better suit the pick list. Even this approach is far from 100% effective, but the odds improve significantly.

VCs fund in herds, and they fund by target market. If you are outside their market they won't fund you, no matter how cool your technology is. You can beat them up all day about lost opportunities or how great your stuff is. That doesn't matter.

Makani put together a great team to attack a technology that is near and dear to all of us, Loyd's vision for crosswind kite power. Be nice to them, please. Some of them are surely listening, though not participating. Their experience will benefit all of us.

Cheers,

David


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3557 From: Joe Faust Date: 5/13/2011
Subject: Re: ARPA-E Inquiry
--- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, "DavidC" <david@... years, getting to know what the agency wanted, and then helped influence the "want" process, while at the same time tuning the proposal(s) to better suit the pick list. Even this approach is far from 100% effective, but the odds improve significantly.
=====================
That describes the steps of the JoeBen flow and also the SWP team pathing.
JoeF
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3558 From: dave santos Date: 5/13/2011
Subject: Makani Role ////Re: [AWECS] Re: ARPA-E Inquiry
DavidC,
 
The Makani/Google camp is clearly the quintessential elite AWE VC play. Our history during the last five years with this "stealth venture" does not well jibe with your "great team" opinion of them. I have followed them from the start, even from within the Alameda base (via KiteShip) as a fly-on-the-wall, with a lot of inside info still not yet public.
 
They clearly failed in early critical due diligence on several fronts. They did not start with any real aviation or aerospace depth, yet announced the definite intention to tap 10000m wind. Some sort of secret shake-up occurred as reality brought them down to well under 1000m. Staffing fell almost a half, with a lot of turnover & NDAs preventing any clear reading. They also failed to tightly control costs, opting for Maui based testing, renting airbases, & choosing extreme dependence on aerospace components & total automation. They have the highest inherent risk of any configuration, with bunkers, tunnels, & fire fighting as likely site requirements.
 
The high profile Media Arts PhD at the top dropped out without explanation, but a media/PR specialist is still the number three management position. We have seen a consistent pattern of hype & a pandering to the biz press, even as every known technical inquiry by our circles was rebuffed by a wall-of-silence. Even emails from top career aerospace pros like David Lang went unanswered.
 
They are not exactly the "Loydists" claimed: after all Loyd clearly wrote that generators where too heavy to be suited for flight, an intuition that is daily being borne out by events. Is there any "flygen" play doing well? TheEU teams have all taken the "minimal mass aloft" path & therefore hold the power records with obviously safer cheaper wings.
 
For my own part, in 2007 crosswind flight with passively stable rigs (autonomous flight, including self relaunch) was first nicely shown & has been replicated in many variations. KiteLab Group's cash investment is 1/1000 of Makani's, for more promising results. Makani is for good reason unresponsive to KiteLab's open call for a fly-off against its COTS based passively stable AWE: humiliation would be likely. You might offer some actual evidence for the "smart VC" opinion for us. Correct me if you can, but every venture the Squid Labs parent has ever undertook (with incredible fanfare) failed expectations. The smart VC will prove to be the one who picks a winning horse.
 
You are so right about Makani's experience benefiting us, but as a cautionary tale of hubris & squandered opportunity. They could have "owned" AWE by generous cooperation & been in great popular standing today. Google likely then would have continued its investment in them instead of seeming to pull the plug. They would not face the dreary prospect of being roundly beaten by an endless stampede of "low complexity" starts thriving on better conceptual foundations & peanut funding.
 
So you can see that Doug's & everyone else's jabs at Makani have basis & why there is not much support for them in the wide AWE circle. You are perhaps only the second person in five years to assert a strong positive view of them & the first was a paid agent from their camp.
 
My hope is that Makani & Joby will finally cooperate with the wider community as equals, rather than seeking dominance based on capital & hype. They do have some good people on staff & they could share vital experience, particularly failure-modes & incident reports,
 
daveS
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3559 From: DavidC Date: 5/13/2011
Subject: Makani Role ////Re: [AWECS] Re: ARPA-E Inquiry
daveS,

Good points all, except for the paid agent part. Overfinancing and hubris seem to go hand-in-hand. History is paved with the bodies of companies who were well-financed and then blew it on art and furniture. Your insight has value as a cautionary tale.

I've weathered six startups in my decades as a design engineer. A lot of the skin you see on the pavement is mine, though not in wind energy until recently. As a windy newbie, I give the entrepreneur the benefit of the doubt. Maybe after a bit longer I'll feel the same way you guys feel about Makani.

More important, as we all know, is getting this AWE baby launched. I am very interested in your comment about "flygen." But that awaits another, more appropriate thread.

Cheers,

DavidC




Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3560 From: dave santos Date: 5/13/2011
Subject: Re: Makani Role ////Re: [AWECS] Re: ARPA-E Inquiry
DavidC,
 
You wrote: "Good points all, except for the paid agent part."
 
The rejected point about a paid agent role (Dave Culp & a secretive KiteShip/Makani buyout deal) relates to obvious conflict-of-interest. The best standard for expert opinion is third party validation, with no conflict of interest.
 
The emotional bias of the big Google-excluded AWE community is obvious &, to our credit, freely confessed. Wayne German abides as a janitor with health problems supporting a family, as lucky kitesurfer kids party on Maui. You are in a good position to judge for yourself without such baggage, but you are starting from a rosy opinion of Makani.
 
The flygen issue has been perhaps the number one technical thread on this forum since the beginning. If you can make a case for it, that would greatly help balance our discussion. No flygen company seems willing to attempt that role in an open forum & no good data seems to support flygen superiority over groundgens. KiteLab has found flygens inferior in direct scale prototype testing (poor scalibility due to cubic mass penalty). The only trace of a possible case seems to be Pete Lynn (junior), an admirable engineer, asserting without details that mechanical transmission is problematic compared to electrical (on a physics forum). Pete was a key founding consultant to Makani & helped shaped their flygen bet.
 
Most of us are well familiar with the VC Valley-of-Death & how to cross it (control costs, agile engineering, etc.).
 
Good luck with the study of these issues,
 
daveS
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3561 From: Pierre Benhaiem Date: 5/14/2011
Subject: Makani Role ////Re: [AWECS] Re: ARPA-E Inquiry

In a precedent post I pointed the excessive tip speed of blades aloft for Makani M1 according to a configuration for 1 MW with wind speed is 9 m/s.It is not a critic towards Makani which researches are on a good field,but only a trial to see on what basis (wind speed) M1 can work with efficiency.

It is difficult to say an AWECS is better than another (as ground wind turbines are now on a single standard) because uses and parameters are quite different and various at least in regard to the worked altitude.So different AWECS can exist for production.

My idea is a commercial development of a low cost crosswind energy kite with manual control like FlygenKite (model airplane) can help launching AWE industries.Furthering automatic flygens under 500 ft like FlygenKite .For higher altitudes flygens are perhaps less adapted and one can prefer reel-out/in like KiteGen Stem if  solutions for smooth electrical production are found.For massive production farms of reel-out/in or KiteGen carousel or perhaps OrthokiteBunch .For jet stream Sky WindPower (flygen autogiro),or Sky Mill Energy (reel-out autogiro) or RotoKite (reel-out opposite kites working a little like a soft autogiro):indeed high wind speeds do not allow crosswind kites,and at stronger reason crosswind flygens.

PierreB

http://flygenkite.com

  

 

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3562 From: dave santos Date: 5/14/2011
Subject: Curious Ultra-High RPM Rotary Tether Finding
Weight to power efficiency of rotating tether mechanical energy transmission, such as Doug & SkyMill Italy have demoed, can be greatly increased by a higher rotation rate. If the tether can be rotated at ultra-high speed close to its aero-thermal limit (
 
Of course an aero-turbine of itself cannot turn so fast by wind, so some sort of step-up gearing is needed. This is a weird mechanism with a critical dependence on maintaining a narrow range of tether tension to operate properly, but should be possible with the right controls. I wonder if DaveL's tether software can model this exotic mode. There are probably some very odd dynamics to discover & the failure-mode is likely pretty interesting.
 
coolIP
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3563 From: Doug Date: 5/14/2011
Subject: Re: ARPA-E Inquiry
Hey David:
No I don't suffer from any "inventor's disease".
But maybe if you do suffer from I.D. you should try Viagra.

Hey, nice, another excuse for the agencies which is their stock in trade. "Inventors' Disease!" I've never heard of it!
But for excuse-makers, you've reached the pinnacle. When all else fails, "It's a disease".
"Why didn't you fund SuperTurbine(R)?" "Oh the inventor had inventor's disease"...
We learned in elementary school that the best excuse of all is a note from the nurse.

I'm inventing, patenting, building and testing prototypes.
That's not a disease, that's what these agencies say they will do.
They say it, while people like me DO it.

The ones with the disease are the ones who don't do what they say.
Again, I'm just trying to warn people of many simple facts in wind energy and thinking the agencies and their grants are your way out of "sitting in a chair doing nothing" disease.

They are not. Most likely they will keep you in that chair wasting say a half year's worth of otherwise productive energy. Do you run to the welfare office, or the unemployment office when you're looking for a job? No most people bypass the bureaucracy because they see it as a dead end.
But in something like this that sounds so sexy, like a moth being tricked to think a light bulb is the light of day, futilely banging into that light bulb, you will bang into the bureacratic grant process never knowing you are being enticed by a source that will not bear fruit for you but instead sap all your strength til you fall exhausted to the floor.

I was out last night flying a new kind of rotor. Took a few hours to make. Today it's windy and I'll try it again and adjust a few things. Just imagine if I were convinced I could not just do this with my hands, and instead had to construct an elaborate program and then get it approved by the government? Instead of just making blades in a few minutes, why I might hire an aerodynmicist to design them and some contractor to make them, and a year later I might be ready to learn what I can learn here in a day! Instead of taking them outside in our great wind resource, I might be convinced I needed to book time in a wind tunnel! I could be spending $1 million instead of $10 to learn the same thing.

By the way, the disease you may be referring to is officially called C.S.I.S. : (Can't Stop Inventing Shit). And the term C.S.I.S. is one more thing I invented!
:)
Doug Selsam
http://www.flyingwindturbine.com
P.S. Thanks for the compliment on having inventors disease. But the proper term is CSIS, not I.D.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3564 From: harry valentine Date: 5/14/2011
Subject: Re: Curious Ultra-High RPM Rotary Tether Finding
Beware of using gearboxes where high amounts of power (over 1MW) is concerned .  .  .  . gearboxes involve weight and expense
 
 
 
Harry
 

To: airbornewindenergy@yahoogroups.com
From: santos137@yahoo.com
Date: Sat, 14 May 2011 06:15:13 -0700
Subject: [AWECS] Curious Ultra-High RPM Rotary Tether Finding

 
Weight to power efficiency of rotating tether mechanical energy transmission, such as Doug & SkyMill Italy have demoed, can be greatly increased by a higher rotation rate. If the tether can be rotated at ultra-high speed close to its aero-thermal limit (
 
Of course an aero-turbine of itself cannot turn so fast by wind, so some sort of step-up gearing is needed. This is a weird mechanism with a critical dependence on maintaining a narrow range of tether tension to operate properly, but should be possible with the right controls. I wonder if DaveL's tether software can model this exotic mode. There are probably some very odd dynamics to discover & the failure-mode is likely pretty interesting.
 
coolIP


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3565 From: Joe Faust Date: 5/14/2011
Subject: Re: ARPA-E Inquiry

C.S.I.S., an invention by Doug Selsam       "Can't Stop Inventing Stuff" or something.

In AWE there is also:
CSIKES 
(cannot stop inventing kite-energy systems, invented by JpF, following Doug's lead.)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3566 From: Joe Faust Date: 5/14/2011
Subject: Re: Curious Ultra-High RPM Rotary Tether Finding
Consider the very shroud of a rotary cable or tube
as a stator with the cable as rotor
to have the tether itself as an electric generator.      JpF        May14, 2011    
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3567 From: Dan Parker Date: 5/14/2011
Subject: Re: ARPA-E Inquiry
Joe,
 
           You continue to amaze me as you constantly turn turn darkness into light.
 
                                                                                             Dan'l

To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
From: joefaust333@gmail.com
Date: Sat, 14 May 2011 15:32:18 +0000
Subject: [AWECS] Re: ARPA-E Inquiry

 

C.S.I.S., an invention by Doug Selsam       "Can't Stop Inventing Stuff" or something.
In AWE there is also:
CSIKES 
(cannot stop inventing kite-energy systems, invented by JpF, following Doug's lead.)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3568 From: dave santos Date: 5/14/2011
Subject: Re: Curious Ultra-High RPM Rotary Tether Finding
 
Harry is right about conventional gearboxes scaling poorly by weight & my use of "gearbox" is in the broadest sense; several methods of mechanical advantage do avoid gears. Also this particular idea is so far-out that its not (yet) serious. Joe's idea seems to be constrained by the low Re of the caracteristic dimension of the tether cross-section fundamentally limiting the top "tip" speed & resulting RPM.
 
I negelected to mention that this idea's best advantage is that one can greatly reduce the required tether tension for operation. High power-to-weight efficiency at low RPM is possible, but by a tether so tight that the amount of kite lift required is prohibitive.
 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3569 From: DavidC Date: 5/14/2011
Subject: Re: ARPA-E Inquiry
C.S.I.S.! I got it, duly credited.

It is nice to be able to flaunt my ignorance in this forum without getting shot down too badly.

Cheers,

DavidC


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3570 From: dave santos Date: 5/14/2011
Subject: "Ideal" Research Design for ARPA-E
Its well known that comparing apples & oranges is tricky, but we face much the same predicament in trying to judge AWE schemes. Even worse, if we were to merely compare oddball prototypes, it would be like comparing kumquats & crab-apples, when we really are trying to find & compare the best-in-class fruits.
 
We have to start fresh & develop an overall model of the AWE design space. DaveL made the first known start at classifying AWE schemes ( as proposed by kitemasters) & ranking them by a primitive scoring matrix. The Manhattan Project & Apollo Program faced much the same challenge & succeeded with the same basic method. The giant problem was broken up into tiny little problems & by a relentless testing & vetting the best small solutions were found & gradually combined until the overall problem was licked. This is how we can best proceed.
 
First, we must define the broadest parameters of scale, of operating conditions, of methods, etc. Ontology building is not easy, but it need not be perfect. The essential condition is that every known pet scheme exist as a constellation in the concept space. Second, we must find or test-&-generate spectrum data for every design dimension. Third, we must incrementally combine the best features of each dimension into systems, but its simply not possible to test every variant; we will have to judge what to test & make sensitive observations as to what direction to proceed. Our tool-kit is large & powerful. A comprehensive scoring matrix is indispensable. My favorite tool is side-by-side scale prototype testing with one small difference between the two (or more).
 
The final result would not likely be one winning design, but a family of solutions. The AWE art would still be primitive, but with clear paths blazed, the pioneering job done. ARPA-E would find this sort of research design process far more rational than its current random trickle of small proposals or a large collective circus.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3571 From: dave santos Date: 5/14/2011
Subject: NextGen ATC & Kite Farms
In controlled airspace, Air Traffic Control, um, controls, & piloting is subsumed. The trend toward increasing ATC integration over increasingly autonomous aircraft is clear. The current human PIC (Pilot-in-Command) site sUAS requirement will erode as automation proves itself as safe. Full-scale UAS will gradually master sense-&-avoid & solve radio-link risk. NextGen will come of age.
 
An attractive model for AWE in NextGen Airspace is for advanced ATC to directly control Kite Farms. This will reduce control layer uncertainty & latency & promises to best balance transport efficiency, safety, & energy production.  In a common instance, a large kite array might be allowed to wander downwind with any wind direction, with coordinated air traffic gracefully switching around within the empty tether scope. SDO will consist of many such maneuvers. Kite Farm ground operations would be similar to an industrial airport, supporting launch, land, & downtime, with site-based piloting limited to emergency back-up function.
 
coolIP
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3572 From: mmarchitti Date: 5/15/2011
Subject: Makani Role ////Re: [AWECS] Re: ARPA-E Inquiry
Actually the electrical production in KiteGen Stem suffers of two types of intermittence: one when the kite change the transverse direction, and the other when the cables have to be reeled in.
However, an efficient solution has been found, and is based on a supercapacitor buffer. It is also to be said that if you install several KiteGen Stem, the electrical production will be smoothed by combining the output of the plants. Finally, is it so important that the electrical production is smooth?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3573 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 5/15/2011
Subject: Re: Makani Role ////Re: [AWECS] Re: ARPA-E Inquiry
Nearly all schemes (except KiteGen Carousel and some schemes with autogyro) comprising crosswind flygens suffer of at least one type of intermittence:"one when the kite change the transverse direction...".For the other type of intermittence "when the cables have to be reeled in" effectively with "several KiteGen Stem,the electrical production will be smoothed by combining the output of the plants",so supercapacitor buffer can be reduced.

PierreB  




Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3574 From: Robert Copcutt Date: 5/15/2011
Subject: Re: Makani Role ////Re: [AWECS] Re: ARPA-E Inquiry
The big problem with all wind energy systems is that sometimes it blows
too fast and often it blows too slowly. This is the major issue, even at
high altitude. To overcome this problem we need systems to store in the
order of a week's average energy supply. Compared to this requirement,
the few minutes needed to rewind a winch are trivial. I have an idea
that could deliver this level of energy storage for a realistic price so
I am not at all concerned whether our AWE systems deliver smooth or
intermittent power.

Even without the new battery I am working on intermittent power delivery
is still not a problem. If your wind generator is connected to the grid,
the grid can supply the rewind power. If you are off-grid you need a
battery anyway - because it is not always blowing when you need the
power.

Robert.


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3575 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 5/15/2011
Subject: Re: Makani Role ////Re: [AWECS] Re: ARPA-E Inquiry
Temporary storage (some minutes) is not a big problem but is an element of global cost.An interesting advice from Stephan Wrage and Stephan Brabeck Wind energy plant with a steerable kite - Patent 7504741:
"The device according to the invention, in particular the two particularly advantageous embodiments described in the foregoing, can be further developed in the form of a device for converting into constant energy the cyclical energy produced by the energy converter, the device being one or more of the following: a flywheel, a pressure reservoir, a hoisting device for temporary storage of energy in a hoisted mass, at least one capacitor and/or at least one battery. In many applications, the energy provided by the device according to the invention and which is characterized by cyclical variation, on the one hand, due the cyclical alternation between veering out and hauling in the load cable, and on the other hand by variations in the tensile force or veering speed of the load cable, will not be suitable for feeding it directly into a local or public power grid, or suitable in some other way for being passed on or consumed in this varying form. For this reason, an important development of the device according to the invention is to convert the cyclical energy supply to a constant energy supply by various means. The different means for making the energy constant must be appropriately selected according to the specific application, form of energy and investment volume."

For bigger storage (a week),see also +++++ Des éoliennes marines ancrées sur une base en béton ... (first part in French language,video and comments on schema in English language) on underwater pumped storage.

AWE can become a major component of energy mix coupled with a good storage device:off shore AWECS with pumped storage could be studied.

PierreB 

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3576 From: dave santos Date: 5/16/2011
Subject: Power-Out Intermttency Notes
The problem of inherent Wind Intermittency v. Baseload is not our central AWE problem. Thousands of engineers with billions in investment are working on utility scale storage, so we need only await the winners.
 
Most intermittency is a trivial design issue. KiteLab's AWECS with a Seiko self-winding chronometer "ground station" produces super-smooth output from the wildest input. "Clockwork" is legacy tech.
 
Our problem is AWE power-cycle intermittency. Pierre is right that its mostly just a cost, but any cost is bad. If a generator is inherently only producing 60% of the time & motoring retract 40%, thats not great ROI compared to a continuously driven generator.
 
Running generators hot with lots of cycling loads, G-forces, etc, will greatly reduce reliability & life due to accumulating mechanical wear of the insulation in the coils. The best & most profitable generator regime is steady operation at just the right temperature.
 
Looping kiteplanes, as we have seen them so far, have high amplitude variation in power-out during the loop. The solution is counter-intuitive: the loop must be laid back downwind just as Dutch windmill rotors are tilted back (& also angled sideways to cancel G-Force asymmetry). One needs a lifter kite (incl. arrays) to hold up tilted-back loops & its the kite's "jellyfishing" that buffers the power signal. The reason for back-tilt is the surface wind gradient. Only a back-tilted loop experiences a level "apparent crosswind". The side angle needed allows the (struggling) rising kiteplane to see more apparent wind, while mostly just using free-fall force for the descending side.
 
Figure-of-eight patterns are best with a brief retract at the top of each ear of the eight. Pump-retract optimal frequency is at the fundamental harmonic of the kite-tether, based on biomimetic models.
 
coolIP
 
Please change topic headers when a Forum thread wanders to a new topic.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3577 From: Doug Date: 5/16/2011
Subject: Power Storage Thread
If you have an economical method of electric energy storage, you don't need to associate it with unknown technologies like AWE.
You are an instant billionaire.

You can find a ready market for your advanced energy storage system in UPS installations, then storing cheap night-time power for resale during the day. you'll be powering everything from flashlights to cel phones to computers to the entire grid!

I would contact EverReady in South Africa and see if they are interested. They also produce a working wind turbine.

The demand for such an energy storage system worldwide is HUGE. And in fact if you DID have such an effective energy storage system, it would make AWE that much LESS relevant since we would have so much more power from existing sources with all that night-time power that is now "thrown away" being available during the day.

This statement that "all we need" is a new energy storage system to simply "store a week's worth of power" (trivial of course!) and then AWE will be facilitated (we solved the only problem!) is just the reason why this nascent art will remain forever in the all-talk format as long as this mindset remains.

No Robert, you probably don't have such a means to store that much energy economically. That sounds like a fantasy. "Oh sure, I can easily sovle this intractable problem as soon as I reveal my enabling solution to this OTHER intractable problem!"

And if you do, congratulations as your invention will revolutionize the world, making electric vehicles suddenly affordable and economical, with the electricity produced at night by nukes that do not like to be powered down during times of less demand but are better left running at a single high output level that does not change.

In my "Tutorial for NASA" I warned against exactly this misplaced idea, that somehow one might "change the subject" of AWE, substituting "advanced power storage" for "producing wind energy", leaving the real work in developing the AWE system as suddenly trivial, and refocusing attention on a search for a better battery.

Well guess what? After you're done developing your better battery, the challenges of AWE will not have changed: you need something that works, and not only works, but works economically and reliably.

Again, this misguided diversion from the stated challenge of AWE to peripherally-related issues such as power storage is rife in the world of newbie wind energy "innovators". In fact I think I've heard it 1000 times in the world of regular wind turbines. "All the problems will just disappear as soon as my revolutionary power storage system is developed!" Yup at least 1000 times. The last one was a "urine battery". they get all excited about their breakthrough then when you check back in 10 years they are still at the same place - hypothesizing about their simple new battery and 100 other half-thought-through would-be solutions.

The issues with retraction cycles have to do with causing an even further reduced capacity factor, which is already a dealbreaker issue with any wind energy system, wear from reversing forces, unprecedented longevity for nonstop 24/7/365 reeling in and out, and complexity in general.

Just as in regular wind energy, these "solutions" and claims of solutions are predictable and repetitive. Gotta at least rise above the "history repeats itself" mode...
:)
Doug Selsam
http://www.USWINDLABS.com


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3578 From: Robert Copcutt Date: 5/16/2011
Subject: Re: Power Storage Thread
On Mon, 2011-05-16 at 14:46 +0000, Doug wrote:
Come on Doug, you KNOW that is not true. Your own super twin turbine is
a good idea yet you have struggled to achieve anything near its full
market potential. Most inventions are ignored with good reason. Most of
the rest are ignored even though they deserve attention. Most of the
remaining ones are stolen. Most of those still remaining are
undervalued. That leaves very very few inventors getting fair value for
their ideas. Most of those were already powerful businessmen when they
had their idea.

Thanks for that lead. I will definitely follow it up.

There is not that much thrown away and AWE has the potential to cost
less than any other primary generator technology. AWE will have an
important roll to play, as will storage, and grid extension, and the
smart grid etc.

I am putting some of my ideas about AWE into the public domain because
it seems to be the best way to proceed. However, it is not yet clear how
to proceed with the battery technology. You can believe what you like
but I am not saying any more until I have a plan.

You use a lead acid battery to start your car, a lithium one in your
mobile phone and alkalines in your remote controls. My idea is not
suitable for cars, only grid storage and UPS.

AWE and storage each on their own will deliver benefits. Together they
could deliver a revolution. Their is plenty of work for everyone to do
and I hope the spoils of success will be fairly distributed.


Yes, that was fun.

We are waiting to see your alternative. If the kite is retracted fast
enough the tether is under tension the whole time. The rapid retraction
also minimizes the time when power is being consumed rather than
generated. It IS complicated but there is no reason it cannot be done
and why the system should not be durable.

Robert.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3579 From: Doug Date: 5/16/2011
Subject: Re: Curious Ultra-High RPM Rotary Tether Finding
Yes a driveshaft carries more power at less torque at higher RPM, and a series of small rotors naturally spin the tether fast without a gearbox. The many small blades are the aerodynamic equivalent of many gear teeth. We've simplified it by making the turbine itself act as its own gearbox. That way the whole Superturbine(R) has only a single moving part. Steady-state rotation - who knew? :)
I'd share some characteristics of these long, fast driveshafts, but it would take all day of explaining.

A further advantage is that the small rotors sweep more area per unit mass than larger rotors.
Dave S. you have come a long way from declaring that a torque tube cannot possibly work. After a couple of years it looks like you are starting to see the Superturbine(R) as the potential AWE solution that it is, and has been, just waiting to solve the greatest challenge facing mankind today.

Then again didn't we just discover a lot of new oil and natural gas back where I grew up in New York State and also in Dakota?

Hey we got fresh snow in the mountains of Southern California yesterday, with more in the forecast, Undoubtedly due to "global warming" I have never froze my ass off like I have since I moved up here, even growing up near Buffalo, NY. Must be the dryness here. The locals say the climate has shifted back to the way it was 30 years ago.

Gosh darn I CANNOT BELIEVE how FREAKIN' WINDY it is here almost ALL THE TIME! Living in the sky! Looking down on clouds! No wonder every other house has a wind turbine!
:)
Doug Selsam
http://www.Selsam.com

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3580 From: dave santos Date: 5/16/2011
Subject: Re: Curious Ultra-High RPM Rotary Tether Finding
Doug,
 
My exact opinion of the SuperTurbine is unchanged, that the rotating tower method will have trouble scaling up to even a few hundred feet with good ROI. While the latest finding does add some hope to the idea of a rotating drive to higher wind, 100,000rpm is a far cry from 3000, & the practicality is not obvious. You have never seemed to understand how the tri-tether is the AWE optimal torque transmitting solution, as it uses the ground surface itself as the massive compressive structure, without flying it.
 
Also, reasoning about global warming from a single data point is not helpful to the science. If you can reasonably explain the drastic accelerating melting of glaciers & ice caps worldwide without  a global warming hypothesis, that would be very helpful,
 
daveS
 
 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3581 From: Doug Date: 5/17/2011
Subject: Re: Curious Ultra-High RPM Rotary Tether Finding
Hi Dave S.:
"Latest finding"?
You finally are penciling numbers for my concept, in the form of some ridiculous scenarios regarding a 100,000 RPM wind turbine, and it constitutes a "new finding"? New finding for whom? Dave please, whatever form of crack you are smoking, share with the rest of us!

Using the ground in compression for a cross-axis turbine was first introduced by Baily for his elongated turbine, and then by me for my cross-canyon Superturbine(R).

But let's be fair, a tower with guy wires also puts the earth in compression. A tower with guy wires - hey they are "tethers"! Tethers in wind energy - old news. Standard. As generic and common as it gets. In fact good luck putting up any turbine without using tethers, unless you want to pay way more for a freestanding tower.

Numerically, worldwide, perhaps most wind energy installations are anchored by tethers today! Wow and they didn't even clear it with our little AWE group, didn't claim a step toward AWE, but maybe it is... maybe we are almost practicing AWE today and don't even realize it! Regular wind energy people call it "flying" a turbine, as in "what are you flying?" (translation: what brand and model of wind turbine is held in its lofty position by your tethers? (guy wires).

My 10 kW wind turbine outside has been furling all day, when it's not hitting 11 and 12 kW. It's very windy here in the sky at 3600 feet today. It's hard to walk outside right now in fact and my tower seems to be leaning downwind (optical illusion I can only hope!).

A regular wind turbine on a guyed tower is VERY close to AWE.
Just not quite. But it is in the sky, producing power, held in place against the wind by tethers in tension with the ground in compression.
What you are talking about is fairly close to a guyed tower, without the tower, but the multiple tethers in a pyramidal configuration, using the "ground in compression" is the same. Old news from the known world of wind energy, as currently practiced.

Seeya!
:)
Doug Selsam
http://www.Maboomba.com

P.S. global warming: Today 98% of the U.S. has colder than average temps. I have frozen my butt off for months now. We have fresh snow in Los Angeles County in late May with more on the way. Yes the trend for 10,000 years has been warmer and warmer, with glaciers receding from 1 mile thick over NY, to a few isolated outposts in mountain tops. It should be no surprise that we can see some of this trend when comparing yearly data, but the pace of that receding is slower now than it must have been in the past for us to go from 1 mile thick to having green/brow Christmases half the time.

A look at the long term data will most ubambiguously show that the time for a return to the next ice age is... just... about... NOW!
So any continued warming is in our favor, and we should hope for as much warming as possible, since if it starts getting cooler, that is when civilizations start disappearing.

Warm "interglacials last on average for something like 10,000 - 12,000 years, and that is now about how old this interglacial is, so the math is not hard. It is time! Why would anyone look at that and be worried about global warming? I predict within our lifetimes they will be doing anything they can to promote warming!


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3582 From: dave santos Date: 5/17/2011
Subject: Re: Curious Ultra-High RPM Rotary Tether Finding
Doug,
 
We agree on the existing wisdom of wind tech. Please try & consider what the new ideas are (from others) to reach upper wind & enjoy them. The inverse finding of  the high-rpm  transmission efficiency (independent) finding is that your slow rotation design has low power-to-weight or high-tension requirement.
 
Peace,
 
daveS
 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3583 From: Doug Date: 5/17/2011
Subject: Re: Power Storage Thread
Well all I'm saying is that claiming to have the workable energy storage solution that the world so craves is quite a spectacular announcement to make.
I mean, lots of people SAY that.
If it is for real, can you build a working prototype at any scale?
If Superturbine(R) is lagging in development speed, it is my own fault, but the concept has been proven and independently tested.
You make a good point that just because an idea is good doesn't mean it magically develops itself without help, or that it's easy.
BUT such a breakthrough deserves whatever you can do to develop it.
:)
D.S.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3584 From: Doug Date: 5/18/2011
Subject: Re: Curious Ultra-High RPM Rotary Tether Finding
Hey Dave S.:
Look I've really had about enough of this nonsense.
The Superturbine(R) concept indeed sweeps the most area at the highest native RPM of any workable wind energy concept. Spin fast - yes that is what Superturbine DOES., That is the reason for its existence.
We've built hundreds of them, funded by the government, by ourselves, even had them in magazines and TV shows.

See, real wind energy people already KNOW that the goal is to produce steady-state high RPM rotation. That's why they use gearboxes, generators, ya know, stuff that WORKS. Reliably. For years. So you can have a business selling power.
We use many small rotors and so far have gotten away without gearboxes but will probably use them at some point since they WORK.

You know to listen to you go on and on trying to claim the fact that YOU are grasping a few clues toward real wind energy, that everybody else already knows as a "finding"... I cannot even believe you can go on like this. OK so after talking down Superturbine as an AWE solution for 2 years you are suddenly promoting it, with your new "finding" that it is best carried out at 100,000 RPM.
Dave, have you ever operated anything at 100,000 RPM? Do you understand how fast that is?

Dave, read my patents where they explain how more power can be transmitted through a less-substantial driveshaft by going with higher RPM. Duh.

Do you think this is not well-known driveshaft knowledge? It is the same is raising the voltage to lower the current and use thinner wire.

Other than that, having built hundreds of fast turbines with loong driveshafts, I can say the armchair-genius legend-in-their-own-mind would-be designers like you do not even know the first thing to expect from such a fast spinning driveshaft, having no experience with such. (hint: they (can) (often) tend to fly out of control!) (not as easy as we make it look!)

Still, you have publicly derided the concept here for so long now, "proving" mathematically in so many ways that it's "impossible", I suppose you think it's saving face to talk of some "new finding", but I haven't heard anything new.

The patent system may be a pain in the ass but I guess they had to come up with it because people like you will always come along, first calling new breakthroughs "impossible" until... they finally realize they've seen the answer, they have to frame it in some way to make it seem like instead of being wrong and then convinced they were wrong, that it was them who thought the whole thing up in the first place and the original inventor who "doesn't understand". Sorry Dave, I'm not buying it and I have to say your brand of hot air does get real tedious for me at times.

Dave S. you should have your own comedy channel. You are one of those people whom I like to think are impossible, yet you persist, endlessly making no sense, utterly without logic, just blathering on and on about complete nonsense - every day a new "theory" or "finding" - how do you do it? And why? What the heck could possibly be going on in that cranium? (or not) sheesh!

Wish it would warm up here in Southern California.
We got more snow last night.
I'm cold.

Global-warmingly yours,
Doug Selsam
shivering in SoCal...


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3585 From: Joe Faust Date: 5/19/2011
Subject: Stalks: stiff and specialized non-tethers?

AWECS have cousins that kiss the boundaries of AWE
without being AWE.  The WaveStalks and WindStalks
might find KES niche uses as sensors or more within a
large AWECS system or kitefarm.  Boundary sensors?
Windfield data-mapping?  Stalks do not spin, but waft, bend, wiggle,...

Selsam patents seem to feature (besides several other dynamic items) some spinning stalks;
such is not the topic of this thread, but such could form a another thread for spinning stalks.

http://tinyurl.com/WindStalk

http://tinyurl.com/imagesWindstalk

Thanks to SpiralAirfoil    for lead on WindStalk and WaveStalk.

Could you use some active sensitive hairs on your tethered airfoil?
Little stalks?  Could numerous small stalks give data upwind important to
operating a kitefarm?       

JoeF

 

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3586 From: Doug Date: 5/20/2011
Subject: Re: Stalks: stiff and specialized non-tethers?
typical bizzle-shizzle:

They can't decide how to collect the power - piezo? pumps?
They make the classic mistake of confusing power storage with wind energy.

I'd take one of their stalks, put airfoils on it and let it spin and outproduce their entire fantasy installation.
Good that people are thinking of alternatives, but I'm in doubt as to the efficiency of both the space used and the amount of materials needed.

As always, if this were a good idea, it would be easy enough to make one and prove it. But that will probably kill the idea, so the way o cash in on this idea is to delay actually making one as long as possible. Millions could probably be raised as long as nobody builds one and proves it to be extremely ineffective...

This general idea has been around for a long, long time, discussed several years ago on a yahoo group dedicated to working wind turbines.
Buy on the rumor, sell on the facts.
:)
Doug Selsam

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3587 From: Joe Faust Date: 5/20/2011
Subject: Missing videos?

All,
As your team produces video of AWE moments,
please include UpperWindPower in your notice lists. Thanks.

Right now we just posted the  288th video
as SpiralAirfoil teamed well and sent in notice of a fresh promo that features a kiteplane in reel in-out method:

http://www.energykitesystems.net/AWECommunityIntroVideos.html#DanP
Thanks, Dan.     We did not not have that video in list yet!   Good teaming.

JoeF

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3588 From: Joe Faust Date: 5/23/2011
Subject: Powerbeamed Quad

Is this a tease for SWP quad rotors to avoid conductive tethers?

Beam up. Then set in jet stream and beam down laser or microwave for grid sharing?

http://inhabitat.com/laser-powered-helicopter-breaks-world-record/quadrocopter-ed01/

Link reference, thanks to SpiralAirfoil.

 

 

 

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3589 From: dave santos Date: 5/23/2011
Subject: Re: Curious Ultra-High RPM Rotary Tether Finding
Doug,
 
The "rotating tower"" comcept is clearly not the freakish high-rpm effect this thread is about. The intent was to present an interesting idea perhaps not before considered. Please allow that aviation also has knowlege that "conventional turbine wisdom" lacks, & that AWE needs it to succeed. If the conventional turbine folks really knew how to fly high, they would already done so. AWE teams are now exceeding 1000ft easily & need only continue to scale.
 
My writings on the SuperTurbine are far from a mathematical proofs, but more a series of questions to answer. In summary, one might ask how much a 1000ft carbon tower such as you proposes would cost for what "nameplate" rating & RPM? Please make that another thread if you undertake to answer,
 
daveS 

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3590 From: dave santos Date: 5/23/2011
Subject: The path to Leuven (AWEC2011)
Hello all,
 
Today the AWEC2011 conference presentations start. There were many new faces & a sense of rapid progress at last night's social, with some discussions lasting well after midnight. Wishing everyone could attend these events, but at least the Europeans are finally getting their due.
 
More news later,
 
daveS