Messages in AirborneWindEnergy group.                       AWES4095to4144 Page 62 of 79.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4095 From: dave santos Date: 9/2/2011
Subject: Re: Ribbon shaped tethers

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4096 From: Darin Selby Date: 9/3/2011
Subject: The Selsam turbine for boat propulsion!

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4097 From: dest6a Date: 9/3/2011
Subject: Rereading Loyd ///Re: [AWECS] Re: L/D of 1

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4098 From: harry valentine Date: 9/3/2011
Subject: Re: The Selsam turbine for boat propulsion!

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4099 From: harry valentine Date: 9/3/2011
Subject: Re: Ribbon shaped tethers

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4100 From: dave santos Date: 9/3/2011
Subject: Re: Rereading Loyd ///Re: [AWECS] Re: L/D of 1

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4101 From: Doug Date: 9/3/2011
Subject: Re: The Selsam turbine for boat propulsion!

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4102 From: Pierre Benhaiem Date: 9/3/2011
Subject: Re: L/D of 1

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4103 From: Darin Selby Date: 9/3/2011
Subject: Re: The Selsam turbine for boat propulsion!

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4104 From: Doug Date: 9/3/2011
Subject: Short Version: Question for the guys from NASA

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4105 From: Joe Faust Date: 9/4/2011
Subject: 4T

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4106 From: Joe Faust Date: 9/4/2011
Subject: Unsticking designer blanks with binary triggers

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4107 From: Dave Lang Date: 9/4/2011
Subject: Re: Unsticking designer blanks with binary triggers

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4108 From: Doug Date: 9/4/2011
Subject: Re: 4T

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4109 From: Doug Date: 9/4/2011
Subject: Re: Building credibility

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4110 From: Joe Faust Date: 9/4/2011
Subject: Re: 4T

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4111 From: Joe Faust Date: 9/4/2011
Subject: Re: Building credibility

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4112 From: dave santos Date: 9/4/2011
Subject: ARPA-E Contest Fiasco?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4113 From: harry valentine Date: 9/4/2011
Subject: Re: 4T

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4114 From: Darin Selby Date: 9/4/2011
Subject: Re: 4T

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4115 From: dave santos Date: 9/4/2011
Subject: Re: 4T

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4116 From: Dave Lang Date: 9/4/2011
Subject: Re: ARPA-E Contest Fiasco?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4117 From: Joe Faust Date: 9/4/2011
Subject: Re: ARPA-E Contest Fiasco?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4118 From: Doug Date: 9/5/2011
Subject: Re: 4T

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4119 From: Doug Date: 9/5/2011
Subject: Re: 4T

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4120 From: Doug Date: 9/5/2011
Subject: Re: Building credibility

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4121 From: Doug Date: 9/5/2011
Subject: Re: ARPA-E Contest Fiasco?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4122 From: Dimitri.Cherny @ Yahoo Date: 9/5/2011
Subject: Re: ARPA-E Contest Fiasco?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4123 From: dave santos Date: 9/5/2011
Subject: Re: ARPA-E Contest Fiasco?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4124 From: Joe Faust Date: 9/5/2011
Subject: Re: ARPA-E Contest Fiasco?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4125 From: Joe Faust Date: 9/5/2011
Subject: Re: ARPA-E Contest Fiasco?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4126 From: Dave Lang Date: 9/5/2011
Subject: Re: ARPA-E Contest Fiasco?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4127 From: Joe Faust Date: 9/5/2011
Subject: Re: ARPA-E Contest Fiasco?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4128 From: dave santos Date: 9/5/2011
Subject: Re: ARPA-E Contest Fiasco?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4129 From: Bob Stuart Date: 9/5/2011
Subject: Re: ARPA-E Contest Fiasco?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4130 From: Pierre Benhaiem Date: 9/5/2011
Subject: Re: ARPA-E Contest Fiasco?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4131 From: dimitri.cherny Date: 9/5/2011
Subject: Re: ARPA-E Contest Fiasco?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4132 From: dave santos Date: 9/5/2011
Subject: "lying little weasel" rebutted

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4133 From: Pierre Benhaiem Date: 9/6/2011
Subject: Ratio power +/power - in reel-out/in

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4134 From: Doug Date: 9/7/2011
Subject: Re: ARPA-E Contest Fiasco?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4135 From: Doug Date: 9/7/2011
Subject: Re: Ratio power +/power - in reel-out/in

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4136 From: Dimitri.Cherny @ Yahoo Date: 9/7/2011
Subject: Re: ARPA-E Contest Fiasco?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4137 From: dave santos Date: 9/7/2011
Subject: ARPA-E Contest Design (Sailboat Racing Model)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4138 From: dave santos Date: 9/7/2011
Subject: ARPA-E AWE Contest Design (FAI Sporting Code)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4139 From: dave santos Date: 9/7/2011
Subject: ARPA-E AWE Contest Design (Aviation Safety)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4140 From: Joe Faust Date: 9/7/2011
Subject: Re: ARPA-E AWE Contest Design (FAI Sporting Code)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4141 From: dave santos Date: 9/7/2011
Subject: ARPA-E AWE Contest Design (Wind Energy Standards)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4142 From: Doug Date: 9/7/2011
Subject: GL Garrad Hassan AWE Report Release (Airborne Wind Energy gains cred

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4143 From: Doug Date: 9/8/2011
Subject: Garrad Hassan Links

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4144 From: Hardensoft International Limited Date: 9/8/2011
Subject: Re: ARPA-E Contest Fiasco?




Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4095 From: dave santos Date: 9/2/2011
Subject: Re: Ribbon shaped tethers
Robert (and Pierre),
 
This is a well-worn Forum topic, but review is good-
 
Ribbon cables do strum with excessive drag and tend to tear from any stress concentrating nick on an edge. An oval braid can be made to behave and is a popular choice. A round cable section with a twisted lay suppresses strum harmonics much like the spiral strake on smokestacks.
 
Spectra/Dyneema (UHMWPE) is the dominant professional kite tether material, with only carbon nanotubes expected to displace it. Nylon or Polyester line seems cheaper, but only really pays in cases of extreme poverty, or when more stretch is desired (Nylon), or excess line weight and thickness are tolerable (short lengths). You get just about the working load you pay for, but good line means less drag and weight, due to a thinner allowable section. Many fibers, like Kevlar and Vectran, are mostly sideshows, while S-Glass and natural fibers, though hardly used have some attractive qualities. Wire rope rules ROI for ground uses.
 
That's the quick overview. There is much more of this sort of information in Forum archives,
 
daveS
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4096 From: Darin Selby Date: 9/3/2011
Subject: The Selsam turbine for boat propulsion!

US Patent # 1,491,688
Power Generating Apparatus
Charles R. Ford
(April 22, 1924)

This invention relates to a power generating apparatus, designed primarily for use in propelling marine vessels, but it is to be understood that a power generating apparatus in accordance with this invention can be employed for any purpose wherein it is found applicable, and the invention has for its object to provide in the manner as hereinafter set forth, a power generating apparatus including and operated by a plurality of rotors driven by directed air currents for generating power which can be utilized for driving purposes, more particularly the propeller mechanism for a marine vessel.


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4097 From: dest6a Date: 9/3/2011
Subject: Rereading Loyd ///Re: [AWECS] Re: L/D of 1
You can lead a horse to water, but...
I wish you all well.

Dennis
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4098 From: harry valentine Date: 9/3/2011
Subject: Re: The Selsam turbine for boat propulsion!
That's a fore-runner of gas turbine engines that had not yet been invented at that point in time.
 
In the UK, Sir Charles Parsons installed multiple small props on to a single shaft, to propel a little boat at higher speed. The concept may still have merit today .  .  .  . Volvo Marine offers twin-counter-rotating props, mounted co-axially.
 
Marine versions of Selsam's super-turbine concept may be applicable to kite-pulled boats that generate electric power. There may be scope to adapt the concept to prop-driven aircraft propulsion .  .  . to develop a fast flying heavy aircraft, possibly driven by piston engine.
 
 
Harry

 

To: airbornewindenergy@yahoogroups.com
From: darin_selby@hotmail.com
Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2011 08:33:08 +0000
Subject: [AWECS] The Selsam turbine for boat propulsion!

 

US Patent # 1,491,688
Power Generating Apparatus
Charles R. Ford
(April 22, 1924)

This invention relates to a power generating apparatus, designed primarily for use in propelling marine vessels, but it is to be understood that a power generating apparatus in accordance with this invention can be employed for any purpose wherein it is found applicable, and the invention has for its object to provide in the manner as hereinafter set forth, a power generating apparatus including and operated by a plurality of rotors driven by directed air currents for generating power which can be utilized for driving purposes, more particularly the propeller mechanism for a marine vessel.



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4099 From: harry valentine Date: 9/3/2011
Subject: Re: Ribbon shaped tethers
Regardless of shape of tether .  .  . very important that birds can see them and fly around them.
 
 
Harry

 

To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
From: santos137@yahoo.com
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 17:15:35 -0700
Subject: Re: [AWECS] Ribbon shaped tethers

 
Robert (and Pierre),
 
This is a well-worn Forum topic, but review is good-
 
Ribbon cables do strum with excessive drag and tend to tear from any stress concentrating nick on an edge. An oval braid can be made to behave and is a popular choice. A round cable section with a twisted lay suppresses strum harmonics much like the spiral strake on smokestacks.
 
Spectra/Dyneema (UHMWPE) is the dominant professional kite tether material, with only carbon nanotubes expected to displace it. Nylon or Polyester line seems cheaper, but only really pays in cases of extreme poverty, or when more stretch is desired (Nylon), or excess line weight and thickness are tolerable (short lengths). You get just about the working load you pay for, but good line means less drag and weight, due to a thinner allowable section. Many fibers, like Kevlar and Vectran, are mostly sideshows, while S-Glass and natural fibers, though hardly used have some attractive qualities. Wire rope rules ROI for ground uses.
 
That's the quick overview. There is much more of this sort of information in Forum archives,
 
daveS

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4100 From: dave santos Date: 9/3/2011
Subject: Re: Rereading Loyd ///Re: [AWECS] Re: L/D of 1
Dennis,
 
Do not be discouraged that crude wings have a place in Loyd's world, its really just a question of his talent for balanced study over any narrow scheme. We get to choose whether to go ahead and make a "truck" now or wait a few years for the "sports car". Hot kiteplanes will be awesome as they become reliable.
 
There are many partisans of immediate high L/D AWE in our community for you to identify and collaborate with. You have only to lash together a hot RC glider to a moving root of some sort to begin validation of your vision by flight testing. Those of us who have been stuck on-hook with our tether-launched gliders in wind have already tasted this mode. Loyd himself played with hot kiteplanes, and he honestly reported both good and bad points.
 
You may have the unstoppable drive and can gain the skills to overcome the difficulties of high AWE L/D operations, so keep at it. Work with our friends; the Ampyx team, especially,
 
Horse-Led-To-Water
 
 
 
 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4101 From: Doug Date: 9/3/2011
Subject: Re: The Selsam turbine for boat propulsion!
The turbine idea shown is from the "beating a dead horse" school of turbine design, where the designer down not know that (according to Betz, who figured it out onj paper) one rotor can extract ALL the AVAILABLE energy from an open flow, so they add more (useless) rotors directly behind the first.

People still design turbines this way (beating a dead dead horse) to this day, never knowing better (FloDesign is one example)
In their extreme ignorance they even form a tube to make SURE no extra energy can enter the system, insuring (unknown to them) that each additional rotor can only slow the turbine, not add energy.

Speaking of the Betz coefficient, it is interesting to see a common term from actual wind energy even being (mis-) used on this forum. At this rate, someday soon, a few people here will begin to grasp the basics of (successful) wind energy!
:)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4102 From: Pierre Benhaiem Date: 9/3/2011
Subject: Re: L/D of 1

 

L/D of 1 is an interesting way since energy can be more regular than energy from crosswind motion.Morever:the control is simplified, and the risk of crash is descreased.A kite with L/D of 1 roughly 5 times bigger would produce the same average power which would be produced with a kite with L/D of 4 in crosswind motion.So it is a possibility.

PierreB

L/D of 1 is an interesting way since energy can be more regular than energy from crosswind motion.Morever:the control is simplified, and the risk of crash is descreased.A kite with L/D of 1 roughly 5 times bigger would produce the same average power which would be produced with a kite with L/D of 4 in crosswind motion.So it is a possibility.

PierreB
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4103 From: Darin Selby Date: 9/3/2011
Subject: Re: The Selsam turbine for boat propulsion!
Yes, I see that now.  The tube prevents side wind energy from entering the system.  The SuperTurbine is on an angle to the wind, thereby catching fresh wind for each prop.

To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
From: doug@selsam.com
Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2011 16:13:02 +0000
Subject: [AWECS] Re: The Selsam turbine for boat propulsion!

 
The turbine idea shown is from the "beating a dead horse" school of turbine design, where the designer down not know that (according to Betz, who figured it out onj paper) one rotor can extract ALL the AVAILABLE energy from an open flow, so they add more (useless) rotors directly behind the first.

People still design turbines this way (beating a dead dead horse) to this day, never knowing better (FloDesign is one example)
In their extreme ignorance they even form a tube to make SURE no extra energy can enter the system, insuring (unknown to them) that each additional rotor can only slow the turbine, not add energy.

Speaking of the Betz coefficient, it is interesting to see a common term from actual wind energy even being (mis-) used on this forum. At this rate, someday soon, a few people here will begin to grasp the basics of (successful) wind energy!
:)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4104 From: Doug Date: 9/3/2011
Subject: Short Version: Question for the guys from NASA
You guys announced an effort to survey the AWE space and assess the proposed technologies, or perhaps propose or develop new ones, based on a $75,000 grant. Is that right?

I had a $75,000 grant from the California Energy Commission.
We designed, built, mounted, tested, and proved a new wind energy technology.
Here's the final report:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2007publications/CEC-500-2007-111/CEC-500-2007-111.PDF

Question: Do you guys have a final report yet? Is it available online?
How, or when, do we see the results, for our $75,000?
:)
Thanks
Doug Selsam
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4105 From: Joe Faust Date: 9/4/2011
Subject: 4T

 

An AWE-bird species:

4T

 

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4106 From: Joe Faust Date: 9/4/2011
Subject: Unsticking designer blanks with binary triggers

Two actions on this table:

1. Have fun advance this collection.

2. Use the binary triggers to reach energy capture with AWECS

So far:

 Binary ways in AWECS:    Pulsation, oscillation, on-off tugs, pull-relax-pull, some-none, open-close, yes-no, light-dark, small-big, short-long, left-right, binary, up-down, out-in, large-small, engage-disengage, on-off, pitch-less-pitch, cycling, intermittent, buffeting, fluttering, vibrating, interrupt, valving, shunting, open-close, lock-unlock,  porous-non-porous, weak-strong, stiff-bendy, coil-recoil, taut-loose, smooth-rough, faster-slower, moving-non-moving, twirling-non-twirling, more-less, clockwise-counterclockwise, hard-soft, intake-outtake, expand-contract, inhale-exhale, grab-release, push-release, bend-release, fill-empty, connect-disconnect, expose-hide, tighten-loosen, sloshing, hot-cold, wet-dry, static-ground, touch-untouch, aileron up-then down, flap up then down, flip-flip, fore-aft, back-forth, give-take, push-pull, connect-disconnect, energize-off, power-depower, center-off-center, hole-no-hole, upwind-downwind, roll-unroll, ruddering, brake-release, friction on-friction-off, rotate-pause, reel in-let-out, bulbous-slim, telescope out-back-in, wide-less-wide, aspect-ratio increase-decrease,  twist-untwist, stress-relax, porous-not-porous, compress-decompress, flexing-relaxing, one-direction-then-another (any rotational amount differential), raise-lower, wax-wane, reel-unreel, ebb-flow, hard-soft, inflating-deflating, wave-unwave, increase-decrease, more amplitude-less amplitude, oneway-otherway, "cavex-de-cavex" , balance-imbalance, pump-release, over-under,  yank-pause, tensioning-retensioning, tension-compression, firm-flaccid, yo-yo, symmetrical-asymmetrical,  etc.  Use such binary opposites to produce  alternating tugs to drive a grounded electric generator. jitter-non-jitter, turn-unturn, swerve this way then that, veering/backing, bobbing, this phase and then that phase, switching on and off, behavior alteration, reel-in and reel-out, pay out and in, open pores and close pores, shift, shunting, shifting, tip left pull then pull right, lift and drop, jerking, spasmodic jerking, stretch/shrink, inflate/deflate, elongate/contract, ripple/smooth, wind/unwind, yo-yo out/yo-yo in, program/de-program, fast/slow, increase pressure in inflated member and decrease pressure in that inflated member, inhauling and outhauling, veer out and veer in,  reef and ____, play out and play in, haul in and haul out, furl and unfurl, able and disable, shortening and lengthening, undulations in tether tension with cycle short or long, compress and release, wet and dry, unpack and deploy, morph and unmorph, codec (compressor/decompressor), damped pendulum reaching threshold for trigger for flip-flop of directions, buckling and unbuckling, sleep-awake cycles, traction step and release step, power-cost, grab-release, increase area and then decrease area, power phase and cost phase, distort/release, stretch and shrink, buckle and unbuckle, weave and unweave, tangle and untangle, spread and close, flatten and unflatten, wrinkle and smooth, pulse and pause, snap and unsnap, clip and unclip, contact and discontact, place and remove, surge and slow, speed up and slow, accept and reject, capture and release,
             Add to this list:  Post or send message to editor at EnergyKiteSystems.  List grows formally at
http://www.energykitesystems.net/0/KITESA/FAQelectric/methods.html

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4107 From: Dave Lang Date: 9/4/2011
Subject: Re: Unsticking designer blanks with binary triggers
Joe,

What a list!!!!   Yes the world of contrasts and opposites presents opportunity in many endeavors......but.....I've got to say, I do think that our AWE future lay in "buckle/unbuckle" :-) :-)

DaveL





At 5:20 PM +0000 9/4/11, Joe Faust wrote:
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4108 From: Doug Date: 9/4/2011
Subject: Re: 4T
Couple the two top ends to close this otherwise continuous loop, and keep the direction of rotation constant, and you are back at "laddermill", which was seen by me as a kid in the 1970's as an improvement over the simple reel-in/reel-out multi-kite train that would be the first beginning notion that naturally occurs to a layman contemplating airborne wind energy for the first time.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4109 From: Doug Date: 9/4/2011
Subject: Re: Building credibility
Credibility for an industry is established when a concept is proven to be useful, with an example of the technology that solves a problem economically. Best-case scenario: you can buy an example and run it. I don't think there is much of anything "science" or "scientists" can do to help. They are paper-pushers who seek mostly to document and explain what has already become known.

Witness for example the use of airfoils in wind energy for 1000 years, with DaVinci designing a "flying machine" that yet ignored airfoils 500 years after the fact, and theories of lift being developed only in the last 100 years and still being debated today.

The only person who can establish the desired credibility is one who can roll up his (her) sleeves and make it happen.

Talk is cheap and we've certainly had enough talk to last a long time.
Let's take a simple example:
Say a guy declares: "I'm going to take a crap".
You say "We want to give that statement "credibility"."
He sits and grunts and strains, reads a magazine or two, and finally gets bored and next thing you know, he's out playing baseball with his friends, having a beer.
You say "Gosh he said he was gonna take a crap, but, with no stool sample, how can we give him "credibiliy"?

Well obviously, his statement will only have credibility if he sits back down and makes it happen, and as long as he is out playing with his friends at his traditional form of recreation rather than taking care of business and doing his business, he will have no credibility.

Of course if you brought in a doctor, he could assure you that this guy could not hold out forever, and at some point, Mother Nature could pretty much guarantee that he would in fact take a crap, (this is where the analogy falls apart) (get it? ANALogy?)(Kind of like ANALysis) (OK these bad jokes are wearing thin) but still, ultimately, credibility comes from doing what you said you would do.

So if you want to have credibility for Airborne Wind Energy, then do it or get off the pot, or just forget about AWE and go back to playing baseball, flying kites, or whatever it is you like to do for fun!

:)


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4110 From: Joe Faust Date: 9/4/2011
Subject: Re: 4T


Sketch was not meant to declare novel method, but to capture a method we know
and to tease the wonder of aggregate stability while teasing the question of what governance is doing about "tower" or not for AWE installations.

The full looping with top coupling that you documented in the 70s for one-way rotating is certainly in view by AWE Community;  such species and the 4T  should be in a fly-off at the same field some day.  The ROI for the two sorts will be interesting to behold, as there will be very many detail differences between the two system types.

4T versus SLM (Selsam laddermill) 

  • 4T can be short-stroke or moderate long stroke with reversing directions
  • SLM stays long stroke in one direction
  • 4T could feature AoA alternation via macro tether changes
  • SLM could feature AoA change at top for down drive.
  • 4T could have aerostatic kytoon in pilot helper position for each top. Or one helper that spread the tops of the trains.
  • SLM could have aerostatic kytoon in pilot helper position with special gear allowing the loop to bring through the airfoils.
  • 4T  has each train operate similarly, each with the two phases.
  • SLM has the upgoing wing set in one mode and the downgoing wing set in another mode.
  • SLM might invite super strong helper stay-top skyhook to allow even the down-going airfoils to drive strongly down, so that upgoing airfoils and downgoing airfoils are heavily driving; such option would have all airfoils up and down driving the one-way generation. Challenge and expense of such a helper system brings on a what is a full second sort of SLM laddermill.

Etc. ? help....?

 

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4111 From: Joe Faust Date: 9/4/2011
Subject: Re: Building credibility

I guess the unsaid thing is now to be said:

The paper system to which Jeroen B. points is to describe well not just theory but also the observations of done business.   And there has been a steady growing stream of hardware capturing energy from the winds with AWECS; so we are on our way and the credibility space now has real foundation.   Celebrate while going foreward and the credibility will advance ...

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4112 From: dave santos Date: 9/4/2011
Subject: ARPA-E Contest Fiasco?
The initially open ARPA-E AWE Contest design process, with input invited from the R&D community, was hijacked. In a familiar pattern, even with some of the same actors, a public AWE deliberation process quietly became a private effort to rig an outcome to favor certain players. A still largely unknown group (a secret list exists) got to participate, but Dimitri and PJ were seemingly at the fore. To their credit, Makani declined participation, and WindLift even blew the whistle on crass backroom contest scheming.
 
Not a single suggestion bearing on safety, fairness, or science was forwarded to ARPA-E! The only materials provided were a crude prize distribution formula and the still secret list of AWE players; all submitted in haste, with no public oversight. The self-appointed insiders badly failed a duty to properly represent our R&D community. I am upset that this harm was done in our names, but without our knowledge.
 
Its our job to fix this mess. Lets shine full light on the hidden dealings and correct the record, particularly noting to ARPA-E that the failed submission did not at all represent the great expertise offered. Lets make corrections, fill omissions, and add new merit. ARPA-E has put brakes on the railroaded process, adding another three months or so to complete contest design due-diligence, so we have time to make good. Under close public attention and with less haste, the high professional standards and openness can drive resubmission.
 
Please help going forward to keep AWE honest. If you have further input to the Contest Design development process, forward it soon; it will be respected.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4113 From: harry valentine Date: 9/4/2011
Subject: Re: 4T
Can the design be adapted to drive a crankshaft connected to a flywheel to maintain momentum as the airborne system reverses elevation? Such a system may involve less complexity at ground level.
 
 
Harry

  

To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
From: joefaust333@gmail.com
Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2011 20:56:07 +0000
Subject: [AWECS] Re: 4T

 


Sketch was not meant to declare novel method, but to capture a method we know
and to tease the wonder of aggregate stability while teasing the question of what governance is doing about "tower" or not for AWE installations.
The full looping with top coupling that you documented in the 70s for one-way rotating is certainly in view by AWE Community;  such species and the 4T  should be in a fly-off at the same field some day.  The ROI for the two sorts will be interesting to behold, as there will be very many detail differences between the two system types.
4T versus SLM (Selsam laddermill) 

  • 4T can be short-stroke or moderate long stroke with reversing directions
  • SLM stays long stroke in one direction
  • 4T could feature AoA alternation via macro tether changes
  • SLM could feature AoA change at top for down drive.
  • 4T could have aerostatic kytoon in pilot helper position for each top. Or one helper that spread the tops of the trains.
  • SLM could have aerostatic kytoon in pilot helper position with special gear allowing the loop to bring through the airfoils.
  • 4T  has each train operate similarly, each with the two phases.
  • SLM has the upgoing wing set in one mode and the downgoing wing set in another mode.
  • SLM might invite super strong helper stay-top skyhook to allow even the down-going airfoils to drive strongly down, so that upgoing airfoils and downgoing airfoils are heavily driving; such option would have all airfoils up and down driving the one-way generation. Challenge and expense of such a helper system brings on a what is a full second sort of SLM laddermill.
Etc. ? help....?
 

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4114 From: Darin Selby Date: 9/4/2011
Subject: Re: 4T
Did you guys notice how the curved arrow makes a cool smiley face?


To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
From: joefaust333@gmail.com
Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2011 13:47:14 +0000
Subject: [AWECS] 4T

 

 

An AWE-bird species:

4T

 


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4115 From: dave santos Date: 9/4/2011
Subject: Re: 4T
Harry,
 
Its true that a design dependent on two kite trains both behaving in a coordinated fashion is trickier than "isolated" trains equipped with elastic return and flywheel momentum to power a recovery phase and smooth output power. However, Joe's general intuition is sound, multi trains will pay, especially when, as you suggest, driving a crank by phased tugs.
 
The key idea does not stop at just two trains to drive a crank/flywheel/generator combo, but to make many trains do so, and ultimately drive the largest single COTS generators at near-gigawatt scale. With enough phased quasi self-sufficient trains in harness, power output is smoothed with less flywheel need,
daveS
 
PS Doug is always wrong in claiming scientists are paper pushers or charlatans. True scientists, by definition, are those who formulate theories about the world and test them.
 
Darin, please avoid the list for way off-topic chat, it causes over hundred recipients to lose time better devoted to AWE study-

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4116 From: Dave Lang Date: 9/4/2011
Subject: Re: ARPA-E Contest Fiasco?
DaveS,

If it sets your mind at ease, I can say, that even though my name seemed to have been included on some "secret list", it in no way meant that I (nor possibly others, or any, on the list) had any liaison with ARPA-E in these matters......

DaveL


At 4:30 PM -0700 9/4/11, dave santos wrote:
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4117 From: Joe Faust Date: 9/4/2011
Subject: Re: ARPA-E Contest Fiasco?

We have exciting work to do
to prepare a professional input to ARPA-E


There may be something missing in this log of effort to date, such as the work indicated by DaveS, Grant C., PJ, and Dimitri C. ; please inform me of missing text for posting to the collecting page: http://energykitesystems.net/ARPAEcompetition/index.html . 

One may use our AWE Community form search tool to achieve about the same as shown below.    If you see seemingly isolated short line, it is mine: ~JoeF   in an effort to follow our progress.

 
Duplicating  what is in our forum on the matter so far,  with unseen incompletions: 
(Click links to read full posts):

 


ARPA-E AWE Competition 2011
Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy

"In addition to targeted solicitations, ARPA-E funds discrete projects to accelerate the development of key energy technologies."

  • [ ] What was the initial communication from ARPA-E to the AWE community?    ~JoeF
  • Congress last December of 2010  or earlier gave ARPA-E the ability to fund prize competitions.  What is the evidence for this?   ~JoeF
  • Who else in ARPA-E  besides Matt Dunne is concerning with the AWE competition?   ~JoeF

 

 
Timeline:
  • December 2010: Congress does something that allows competition prizes to be awarded. [ ] Reference? 
    Toward prizes... from 2003: HERE. "innovation inducement prizes"  "The scientific and technological goals for federally-funded innovation inducement prizes include the full spectrum of research, development, testing, demonstration, and deployment."
     
  • [ ] What was the first communication from ARPA-E regarding the contest?
  • Matthew Dunne, counsel, converses with Dimitri
  • May 9, 2010:  "Although ARPA-E has not issued an AWT funding opportunity announcement,"   See: M3536 
  • May 9, 2011:
    • In one communication, there is not a mention of a competition. Does this have anything to do with the competition?
      Mr. Santos,
      Thank you for your email. I oversee ARPA-E's evaluation and selection of unsolicited proposals, so I can assure you that the same, unbiased merit review process is used for all unsolicited proposals. Selection determinations are not based on how "well connected" the applicant is. Accordingly, you may wish to consider submitting an unsolicited proposal for any potentially transformational and disruptive energy technologies.

      Kind regards,
      Matt Dunne
      Acting Chief Counsel, ARPA-E
       
  •  
    May 26, 2011     [[ This is  M3598 ]]
    Thanks to Dave Santos' sense of injustice and persistence, followed up by some
    conversation here, ARPA-E wants to sponsor and fund an AWE competition of "our"
    design. (This is one of those rare "be careful what you ask for"' moments in
    life.).

    I finally connected with ARPA-E's acting chief counsel, Matt Dunne. They will
    not provide development funds but were granted by Congress last December the
    ability to fund prize competitions. AWE would be their first. Normal ARPA-E
    funding restrictions apply - found on their website.

    The monkey is now on our backs to design the competition and define the prize(s)
    which could be cash, contracts, additional funding opps, etc.. They don't want
    to see our proposal until it's pretty well finalized. I suggested we could get
    it done before the end of the summer.

    They're also looking for a program manager for AWE... if you know of anyone
    suited for the position...

    I think we should start by defining what AWE system milestone(s) and
    characteristics would clearly distinguish commercially viable contenders, then
    come up with a way to have an independent third party (NASA?) verify the
    performance of the contenders.

    I'm hopeful that a public announcement of the competition by ARPA-E in early
    fall, will provide the legitimacy we've been waiting for which will push some
    investors off the fence and get them to take out their checkbooks.

    Let the discussion begin.

    - Dimitri Cherny
    Highest Wind LLC
    801.810.5709
    ARPA-E prize competition
    Thanks to Dave Santos' sense of injustice and persistence, followed up by some conversation here, ARPA-E wants to sponsor and fund an AWE competition of "our"...
    dimitri.cherny
    Offline Send Email
    May 26, 2011
    9:45 pm

    Re: ARPA-E prize competition
    Great News, Dimitri,   Dave Lang is clearly our most qualified & experienced candidate for an ARPA-E AWE R&D Manager & we could hand over the US...

    dave santos
    santos137
    Online Now Send Email
    May 27, 2011
    1:16 am

    Re: ARPA-E prize competition
    Hey Dave, just to be sure you read it correctly. ARPA-E will provide no money upfront. A prize or prizes (our choice and our design with their agreement) will...

    dimitri.cherny
    Offline Send Email
    May 27, 2011
    6:37 am

    Re: ARPA-E prize competition
    Requiring 95% flight time makes this more of a gamble on the weather or a hunt for locations than a technical contest. Given that takeoffs and landings are...

    Bob Stuart
    carcyclebob
    Offline Send Email
    May 27, 2011
    9:02 am

    Re: ARPA-E prize competition
    Hey Bob, For that phase of the contest I was thinking NASA's Wallops might be used. Maybe winds would only allow some lower percentage but I think we all get...

    dimitri.cherny
    Offline Send Email
    May 27, 2011
    4:51 pm

    Re: ARPA-E prize competition
    Well, I, for one, would not travel to the U.S. until the rule of law returns. Bob...

    Bob Stuart
    carcyclebob
    Offline Send Email
    May 27, 2011
    5:11 pm

    Re: ARPA-E prize competition
    I think we should be careful about rules that presuppose structure or operational details. For example, requiring 30 days of "continuous operation" might want...

    Doug
    dougselsam
    Offline Send Email
    May 29, 2011
    9:09 am

    Re: ARPA-E prize competition
    Some AWECS concepts without tether to ground: Buoyancy-changing <http://f1.grp. yahoofs.com/ v1/4MHiTfNLeV0Ob zHE0ket1Kq5duJLx yf-WE2fxgcmEg\ ...

    Joe Faust
    joe_f_90032
    Offline Send Email
    May 29, 2011
    3:29 pm

    Re: ARPA-E prize competition
    Dimitri, While I too applaud DaveS for rattling the ARPA-E cage, it is rather lame that ARPA-E laid $3M on Makani to go "do their thing" while the rest of us...

    Dave Lang
    lamedang
    Offline Send Email
    May 27, 2011
    10:09 am

    Re: ARPA-E prize competition
    Hey Dave, sounds like you need a beer. I agree it's pretty lame by comparison but it's still recognition by the US government that our nascent industry is...

    dimitri.cherny
    Offline Send Email
    May 27, 2011
    1:50 pm

    Re: ARPA-E prize competition
    ... Dimitre, Ha, well you're probably right about that, in fact I think it's about "Beer:30 pm" right now :-) Seriously though, I agree with you, "something is...

    Dave Lang
    lamedang
    Offline Send Email
    May 27, 2011
    2:25 pm
    dimitri.cherny
    Offline Send Email
    May 27, 2011
    3:54 pm

    ARPA-E prize competition in two phases?
    New thread to keep this cleaner. Ideally we'd like to get as many good AWE ideas some funding and then thin that field with more rigorous requirements....
    dimitri.cherny
    Offline Send Email
    May 27, 2011
    8:08 pm

    Re: ARPA-E prize competition
    We can make this work, but there are essentials to ensure. Science must not be compromised by venture or government externalities. Academia could provide the...

    dave santos
    santos137
    Online Now Send Email
    May 28, 2011
    6:19 am

    Re: ARPA-E prize competition
    I'm all ears. Go ahead and put some meat on those bones and show us what you mean. -Dimitri...

    dimitri.cherny
    Offline Send Email
    May 28, 2011
    6:51 am


    [ ] But maybe more time will be needed than the end of summer.   ~JoeF
    [ ] What will it take for the AWE community to finalize a fine description of a competition?    ~JoeF

     

  • Discussion begins in AWE community.  Many issues begin to be placed on the table.  ~JoeF
     
  • Three in AWE community seem to form an-apparently off-radar inputting-to-ARPA-E working group as AWE wider community seems to have not the bridge anticipated by some.    GrantC, PJ, DimitriC.      ~JoeF
    [ ] What are the full communications with ARPA-E so far?     ~JoeF
    [ ] Three is inadequate representation from a stakeholders list that is over 700 persons.    
    ~JoeF
    [ ] Are early ARPA-E contacts having any unfair influence over the design of the competition?    
    ~JoeF
     

  • ARPA-E AWE Competition (Academia)
    It is proposed that academia can best fulfill the essential third-party validation role in the upcoming ARPA-E AWE Evaluation Program ("contest"). The agency...
    dave santos
    santos137
    Online Now Send Email
    Jun 6, 2011
    6:13 am

    Re: ARPA-E AWE Competition (Academia)
    African : Unilag LASU OSUTECH NOUN ........   John Adeoye  Oyebanji   B.Sc. MCPN Managing Consultant & CEO Hardensoft International Limited An ICT,...

    Hardensoft Internatio...
    hardensoftintl
    Offline Send Email
    Jun 7, 2011
    6:02 am

    Re: ARPA-E AWE Competition (Academia)
    If academia is so smart, why don't they just design the winning system themselves? ... Also: Could a Delfts, for example, be unbiased since they are a player? ...

    Doug
    dougselsam
    Offline Send Email
    Jun 7, 2011
    8:17 am

    Re: ARPA-E AWE Competition (Academia)
    Doug, Academia can in fact "solve AWE" given time & support. Letting academia vett the venture concepts with ARPA-E support will go a long way to getting...

    dave santos
    santos137
    Online Now Send Email
    Jun 7, 2011
    9:30 am

    Re: ARPA-E AWE Competition (Academia)
    Sounds good Dave S. I hope you know that comment about the academic institutions inventing it themselves was tongue-in-cheek. But I DO remember running the...

    Doug
    dougselsam
    Offline Send Email
    Jun 8, 2011
    7:35 am
  • June and July 2011: Dave Santos enters some key points that seem important to the success of a competition. More:  ~JoeF
    July 6, 2011 or July 7: Dimitri said the dough is in the oven and baking.     ~JoeF
    July 7, 2011:   Complaints are stated in AWE community forum.    ~JoeF
  • July 7, 2011:    Dave Santos is preparing a more formal statement about related matters.    ~JoeF
  • July 7, 2011:   MattD invited to help bring this working file up to speed on related matters.  ~JoeF
  • July 8, 2011:   DougS suggests "output over time" be in the challenge. More: M3822   Nearly alternatively, he suggests strong excitement could arrive from a "concerted R&D" effort.      ~JoeF
  • July 8, 2011:  RobertC suggests early stage and later stage of a contest.   More: M3824
  • July 8, 2011:    "To summarize basic requirements already proposed, but badly neglected by the insider process:" M3817 Outline by DaveS 
  • ARPA-E Contest Concerns
    It was proposed on this forum that three months be a reasonable window to design for ARPA-E a superb AWE contest that would result in a bonanza of scientific...
    dave santos
    santos137
    Offline Send Email
    Jul 7, 2011
    3:39 am

    Re: ARPA-E Contest Concerns
    Missing data, links, comment, etc. are invited: http://energykitesy stems.net/ ARPAEcompetition /index.html ...

    Joe Faust
    joe_f_90032
    Offline Send Email
    Jul 7, 2011
    7:58 pm

    Re: ARPA-E Contest Concerns
    JoeF, thanks for collecting all AWE Contest information in an open format. To summarize basic requirements already proposed, but badly neglected by the insider...

    dave santos
    santos137
    Offline Send Email
    Jul 8, 2011
    2:12 am

    Re: ARPA-E Contest Concerns
    I must admit I am drawing a blank on what form any such contest could take. Normally I am full of ideas on any subject, but on this I come up with nothing. ...

    Doug
    dougselsam
    Offline Send Email
    Jul 8, 2011
    6:45 am

    Re: ARPA-E Contest Concerns
    Then again, even a number might not help. Choosing a big (to us) number, say a Megawatt-hour generated within a single 24-hour period, would favor the...

    Doug
    dougselsam
    Offline Send Email
    Jul 8, 2011
    7:15 am

    Re: ARPA-E Contest Concerns
    ... The X-prize may not have been the main factor, but it helped seed the formation of Virgin Galactic. One of the advantages of Cambridge is that high-flyers...

    Robert Copcutt
    robcopcutt
    Offline Send Email
    Jul 8, 2011
    9:35 am

    Re: X-prize madness
    Yes, it is no less than insanity to be BLASTING OFF into space, when we could be FLOATING to space. Have you studied what comes out of the tail pipe of the...

    Darin Selby
    rawcharioteer
    Offline Send Email
    Jul 8, 2011
    11:28 am

    Re: ARPA-E Contest Concerns
    Dave S., I gather from this that you think there is still a fighting chance of getting ARPA-E to see things your way despite your earlier message about it...

    Robert Copcutt
    robcopcutt
    Offline Send Email
    Jul 8, 2011
    9:21 am

     

  • July 16, 2011       ARPA-E AWE "Orteig Prize" Model
    A key clue has finally been released about the ARPA-E position in the private negociation: The Feds want us to model the AWE Contest after the Orteig Prize....
      Jul 16, 2011
    1:27 pm

    dave santos
    santos137
    Online Now Send Email

     

  •  
  • Sept. 4, 2010  See: M4112  for Sept. 4, 2010, continuation of AWE Community preparation for community open input to ARPA-E:
    The initially open ARPA-E AWE Contest design process, with input invited from the R&D community, was hijacked. In a familiar pattern, even with some of the same actors, a public AWE deliberation process quietly became a private effort to rig an outcome to favor certain players. A still largely unknown group (a secret list exists) got to participate, but Dimitri and PJ were seemingly at the fore. To their credit, Makani declined participation, and WindLift even blew the whistle on crass backroom contest scheming.
     
    Not a single suggestion bearing on safety, fairness, or science was forwarded to ARPA-E! The only materials provided were a crude prize distribution formula and the still secret list of AWE players; all submitted in haste, with no public oversight. The self-appointed insiders badly failed a duty to properly represent our R&D community. I am upset that this harm was done in our names, but without our knowledge.
     
    Its our job to fix this mess. Lets shine full light on the hidden dealings and correct the record, particularly noting to ARPA-E that the failed submission did not at all represent the great expertise offered. Lets make corrections, fill omissions, and add new merit. ARPA-E has put brakes on the railroaded process, adding another three months or so to complete contest design due-diligence, so we have time to make good. Under close public attention and with less haste, the high professional standards and openness can drive resubmission.
     
    Please help going forward to keep AWE honest. If you have further input to the Contest Design development process, forward it soon; it will be respected.     ~DaveS
     
  • v
  • v
  • v
Aspects being considered:   (please send notes)
  • National or international?  [MatD has considerable international rub and might address the potential of internationalizing the contest.]
  • Capitalization of worthy workers?  Capitalization-bias?
  • Role of academics?
  • Validators?   third-party validation role
  • Categories?
  • Technical descriptions?
  • Safety?
  • Launching and landing?
  • Testing
  • Analysis of a performance
  • COTS and aerostation quickies regardless of ROI?
  • Sites?
  • Observers?
  • What will success look like?
  • Prize descriptions?
  • Equity?
  • Getting the most value out of the taxpayers' investment over the AWE energy direction?
  • Flygen, aerostation, groundgen non-aerostation, flygen aerostation, non-aerostation flygen, compounds, traction power, ...
  • Wind luck?
  • Mass of entry?    Watts per kg?
  • Program manager for the competition?  Will the program manager be funded? 
    Is DaveL interested? Carlin?  P. Lynn?     SEE HERE.
  • Goals
  • Rules
  • Technical critique of rules before finalizing the contest description.   Consensus reached how?
  • Identification of conflicts of interest.
  • Name of contest?
  • Mission statement?
  • Worthy targets of performance
  • Avoidance of trivial performances
  • Cost of AWECS' energy?
  • What derivatives, ratios, measures?
  • Will participants dilute their best known tech in order to "fit" the rules?
  • AWE critical-path analysis
  • Engineering uncertainty
  • Scoring matrices
  • Milestones
  • Characteristics
  • Appeals?
  • Tethered systems.  Free-flight systems.   RAT systems?  Traction systems?
  • What to do for an inventor who has no funds to bring a seemingly technically worthy concept into the contest? Arbiters for technical merit?
  • Motivations for the contest?       M3610
  • Will the contest positively accelerate RAD or slow RAD?
  • Will training and aiming to meet contest rules hamper creativity or encourage creativity?
  • How will the taxpayers get the most for their buck from the contest?       Note2010round3million 
  • Will the total prize budget be less than or same as or more than what has been ARPA-E forwarded for AWE already? What has been ARPA-E forwarded to AWE players to date?  
  • Perhaps an early stage and later stage of the contest?
  • Eliminating historical bias
  • "Keep the rules simple and never forget that the final objective is cheap wind power."    RobertC
  • Team identification
  • Avoiding windluck bias.
  • Qualifying contestants
  • Scoring matrix
  • ROI
  • Data production
  • Direct fly-offs for leading performers at same site?
  • Environmental impact of contest and participant activity
  • Summary descriptions
  • Science
  • Safety
  • Fairness

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4118 From: Doug Date: 9/5/2011
Subject: Re: 4T
Well it is certainly an interesting idea. Caught my attention ina good way.
Perhaps a step toward more consistent output for reeling thrust-force systems.
I seem to remember though, that the reelers like to reel in faster than reeling out.
Real (as opposed to reel) economical wind energy has so far been shown to exclusively involve rotation across the wind.
:)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4119 From: Doug Date: 9/5/2011
Subject: Re: 4T
Hey Dave S.: U R funny :)
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4120 From: Doug Date: 9/5/2011
Subject: Re: Building credibility
Many many many oddball wind-energy schemes have been shown to make power in the ground-supported world. Just making power is easy! The two missing pieces are:
1) Economical output
2) high wind survival
These seem like mere academic words til you get there, then you see that these factors are more than just the main factors, they are pretty much the only factors.

I was reading about the history of aviation: People designing fairly modern steam-powered (bird imitation) airplanes back to the 1850's.
Reminds me of AWE today in some ways - we will get there eventually. Will it take 50 years?

I'm going to try to test a newly-constructed one today and hope to get a video.

:)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4121 From: Doug Date: 9/5/2011
Subject: Re: ARPA-E Contest Fiasco?
sorry to say, "I told you so..."
advice: don't waste your valuable time with morons
Don't try to climb a mountain by first strapping a 1000-lb weight to your back. You can control your own actions, good luck controlling theirs.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4122 From: Dimitri.Cherny @ Yahoo Date: 9/5/2011
Subject: Re: ARPA-E Contest Fiasco?
The only fiasco is in the mind of Dave Santos. It is clearly a messy and frightening place in there. 

Judge for yourself whether the prize competition submitted to the ARPA-E (below) is inclusive enough to help kickstart the AWE industry - the stated goal of this competition. 

The initial response from ARPA-E was "that's closer to what we were thinking".   We are now waiting for them to perform their due-diligence with "experts", partly culled from a list we provided them, before making changes to the above and/or deciding to fund the competition. 

-Dimitri
801-810-5709
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4123 From: dave santos Date: 9/5/2011
Subject: Re: ARPA-E Contest Fiasco?
Progress at last-
 
Finally we get a public admission of what Dimitri privately submitted months ago in our collective name.
 
As everyone sees, none of the essential safety, fairness, and science ideas presented on this forum made his cut.
 
We still await the exposure of the secret list-
 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4124 From: Joe Faust Date: 9/5/2011
Subject: Re: ARPA-E Contest Fiasco?

Starting some reply, but to be continued by others:

[ ]   Is the full correspondence that entered that framework submission available for AWE Community open review?

[ ]    One repeated concern is whether or not the submission of such outline was done as a private-single-citizen submission (or perhaps two or three) or was the submission presently as approved by a large consensus in the AWE community.  Without count yet, several of us believe that a community consensus was not reached and that a submission has yet to occur from a such larger-group effort.   There is still time for anyone to submit proposals to ARPA-E on the AWE matter.      Maybe helpful: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making

[ ]   Objections and special concerns already in group process were starting to show in forum. See the message list for such.  It seemed to some of us that we were just barely getting on a roll to sharpen a consensus-based submission.  A host of aspects just showed their names; the hard work to face the aspects was not done. Cautions were put up, that some core neglects could lead to nixing of AWE at the bud; gaining funds take a backseat to showing credible success, however that looked.  A kickstart could too easily kick AWE out of the running, if credible success safely presented did not occur.

[ ]  Could SkySails extant power production on one cargo-ship run already win?

[ ] Personally, I am trying to get a handle over the forced delay phrases; it feels like deliberate slowing down a movement. Though I guess others may feel differently about such.

[ ] ?   (more soon, and more from others?)

 

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4125 From: Joe Faust Date: 9/5/2011
Subject: Re: ARPA-E Contest Fiasco?
The expression of units did not pass our communities math-check
committee.

JoeF
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4126 From: Dave Lang Date: 9/5/2011
Subject: Re: ARPA-E Contest Fiasco?
DaveS,

It might help your cause if you pointed out explicitly the areas of Dimitre's submission that is grossly unfair, etc.

My own viewpoint is that such a contest in general is like telling an "unemployed  street person" that if they will show up nice and clean, in a new suit, haircut and shave, then they can get an interview for a possible job! :-)

As for safety, while we all agree that the contest should be safe, detail safety rules await a much more concrete declaration of intent from ARPA-E than we have seen so far.  In the case of the NASA Space Elevator contest, all that went down after NASA engaged the Spaceward Foundation (via stipend) to orchestrate the contests.....Spaceward (at that point "coin-driven" and quite happy to undertake the task) rounded-up up folks to do detail contest analysis/design.

This thing with ARPA-E seems very infantile in development at present; furthermore, due to the quite varied approaches that might be taken by different competitors, safety-enforcement may have to occur on a case-by-case basis via scrutiny by "ARPA-E sponsored" engineers. ARPA-E has to have a budget in excess of the "contest winnings themselves"  to pull this off with style and grace.

DaveL




At 10:23 AM -0700 9/5/11, dave santos wrote:
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4127 From: Joe Faust Date: 9/5/2011
Subject: Re: ARPA-E Contest Fiasco?

Will our submission be clear? Will we distinguish qualified machines? Will rules be played by non-AWECS productions?   Excercise:

http://energykitesystems.net/images/yesorno.jpg

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4128 From: dave santos Date: 9/5/2011
Subject: Re: ARPA-E Contest Fiasco?

DaveL
 
I have the advantage of a longer time pondering the implications of Dimitri's "contest design". The potential for unfairness has many openings; consider that -
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4129 From: Bob Stuart Date: 9/5/2011
Subject: Re: ARPA-E Contest Fiasco?
I was also alarmed at the flat requirement to stay airborne most of the time.  Would it not be better to specify the ability to stay airborne at, say 1/8 of the peak power production speed?  What happens if a storm tests some entries but not others?  This seems more a game of chance than it should be.

However, there is no perfect contest.  The world of yachting is still plagued with rule-beaters.  They seem as inevitable as weeds.  We can only hope they are not financially connected to the rule makers.

Bob Stuart

On 5-Sep-11, at 1:13 PM, dave santos wrote:


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4130 From: Pierre Benhaiem Date: 9/5/2011
Subject: Re: ARPA-E Contest Fiasco?
Different possible categories into onshore and offshore fields,into
different altitudes under 50 m,under 150 m,under 600 m,above 600 m
comprising jet-stream:

-oscillating (lever systems);

-reel and crosswind;

-reel without crosswind;

-static flygen;

-torsion;

-crosswind flygen;

-hydro AWECS...



PierreB




--- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, dave santos <santos137@... wrote:
invited from the R&D community, was hijacked. In a familiar pattern,
even with some of the same actors, a public AWE deliberation process
quietly became a private effort to rig an outcome to favor certain
players. A still largely unknown group (a secret list exists) got to
participate, but Dimitri and PJ were seemingly at the fore. To their
credit, Makani declined participation, and WindLift even blew the
whistle on crass backroom contest scheming.
forwarded to ARPA-E! The only materials provided were a crude prize
distribution formula and the still secret list of AWE players; all
submitted in haste, with no public oversight. The self-appointed
insiders badly failed a duty to properly represent our R&D community. I
am upset that this harm was done in our names, but without our
knowledge.
dealings and correct the record, particularly noting to ARPA-E that the
failed submission did not at all represent the great expertise offered.
Lets make corrections, fill omissions, and add new merit. ARPA-E has put
brakes on the railroaded process, adding another three months or so to
complete contest design due-diligence, so we have time to make good.
Under close public attention and with less haste, the high professional
standards and openness can drive resubmission.
input to the Contest Design development process, forward it soon; it
will be respected.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4131 From: dimitri.cherny Date: 9/5/2011
Subject: Re: ARPA-E Contest Fiasco?
You show-boating little lying weasel.
You and I and others fully discussed exactly this document on July 4th.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4132 From: dave santos Date: 9/5/2011
Subject: "lying little weasel" rebutted
Dimitri,
 
You surely did submit your idea of a contest design to ARPA-E without public (or my) review. When you belatedly send me your work-product, you asked it continue to be withheld from public notice. I did protest this harmful confidential style of yours from the start, at every opportunity. Your submission to the forum of your contest design was very slow in coming and seemed forced.
 
I do not understand where my critique of the first submission round justifies your name-calling. Where exactly is the "lying"? Below is the original message you refer to, that others may better judge-
 
daveShowboat ;^)


Please notice no mention is made of automation.  i.e. if someone wants to manually fly an AWE system to meet these goals, they're welcome to do so.


What about a prize sharing arrangement that pays to finance the poorest competitors (cooperative community set-up)? Can't we be very clever in designing a contest that solves all constraints?
* * * ARPA-E really wants nothing more than a simple X-prize style competition.  However, they have not said no to the three stages, as of yet.  I feel good that the phase-1 could include an awful lot of creative and some outright crazy ideas.

I know you're tempted to tell the entire community about what has transpired so far.  Please don't.   ARPA-E has most recently asked for a list of 'experts' that they can corroborate our competition design with.  Tomorrow we'll turn in a very complete list that PJ has been working on for a week.  Let's give them a month or so to perform their due-diligence and see what happens.  

daveS
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4133 From: Pierre Benhaiem Date: 9/6/2011
Subject: Ratio power +/power - in reel-out/in

Grant,DaveL,and all,

The curve on SkyMill Energy, Inc. shows a very good ratio between power reel-out phase (roughly 10 MW) and reel-in phase (roughly 2.5 MW).

The curve on Laddermill 2011: start of a new year of airborne ... shows roughly 12000 W/4000 W,but there is a crosswind component.Without crosswind component (which would not be so advantageous for harnessing jet-stream) it would be something like 2000 W/4000 W,so a negative balance.

So all things being equal a depowered autogiro would have by far a better ratio +/- than a depowered kite.

Possible explains (if it is not top  secret or too obvious _but not for me) ?

 

PierreB

 

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4134 From: Doug Date: 9/7/2011
Subject: Re: ARPA-E Contest Fiasco?
There is no such thing as "Watts per Hour" in this context.
You should leave out the "per hour" part, as "Watts" already inherently includes a "per unit time" factor.
(power being "energy per unit time")

If anything, rather than dividing Watts (again) by a unit of time, it should be MULTIPLIED.
Hence the term Killowatt-hour, as seen on your electric bill.
(No the dash in this case does not mean "subtracted", but instead "multiplied".

"Watts" should be capitalized. Named after James Watt, the inventor of the disco ball - er I mean steam engine.
This was covered in high school, though still not comprehended by most college graduates...
(Sounds to me like we wanna generate 1 kWh in 7 hours)?
:)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4135 From: Doug Date: 9/7/2011
Subject: Re: Ratio power +/power - in reel-out/in
The chart shows "net power" in kWh
This is wrong: power is expressed in Watts or kW
The correct term for this measurement of "accumulated power" is "energy". (power x time = energy), or "net energy"
next:
The net energy is overstated by a factor of 1000
The units shown are Watts, not kiloWatts, as labeled
Therefore the corrected version should read:
"Net Energy" (Not net power)
and the correct amount is 1 kWh, NOT 1000 kWh, and NOT 1 MWh
Did anyone here go to high school?
And you guys wanna be taken seriously?
sheesh!


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4136 From: Dimitri.Cherny @ Yahoo Date: 9/7/2011
Subject: Re: ARPA-E Contest Fiasco?
Thanks Doug. We had discussed all that and specifically chose those words as they seemed closest to describing what we were shooting for. In prize-1 for example, we want contestants to maintain net energy production of greater than 70 watts, continuously. However, realizing that wind speeds change and many AWE systems perform cycles and require energy to operate, we thought it best to do the averaging for each hour of operation (who knows what kind of crazy very long cycle devices someone may come up with? We don't want to exclude anything freaky that may eventually prove to be economically viable just because we haven't yet thought of it ourselves.) At the other end of the spectrum, we didn't want a system able to produce more than 1kWh in one hour (or in only seconds or minutes) and then loiter for the next six hours, to win a prize. The big nut to crack with AWE is long operational times with nearly continual energy production. We thought THAT wording would stop that type of gaming.

-Dimitri
801-810-5709
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4137 From: dave santos Date: 9/7/2011
Subject: ARPA-E Contest Design (Sailboat Racing Model)
 
Yacht racing rules have been mentioned as a model of how tricky it is to design a fair AWE contest. A lay person can easily conclude from the complexity of the rules that sailboat racing is inherently unfair, or that rules are a problem, but its just not so.
 
Most racing is done in "classes", with closely matched boats. In the strictest classes all equipment is identical; even sails come off the same production line. This is not a close model for an AWE contest. There are other classes where almost "anything goes", where you can show up with some new technology (like a kite) and win purely on that basis. Even in these classes, complex standard rules, as they have evolved over generations, apply. Expert human judges are depended on to interpret rules reasonably.
 
Sailboat racers spend very little time thinking their sport is unfair, but great effort is applied to making it fairer. The obvious lesson from sailing for an AWE contest is that rules must be well developed for the fairest outcomes. Sailing rules also reflect a well-developed safety culture, where unsafe performance is grounds for disqualification. Sailing is a great model for an AWE contest to create rules that work.
 
Follow the link below to check out the world of sailboat racing rules. Maybe Rolex will sponsor us if we take rule-making seriously ;^)

ISAF : Racing Rules of Sailing

 
 
 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4138 From: dave santos Date: 9/7/2011
Subject: ARPA-E AWE Contest Design (FAI Sporting Code)
AWE is a branch of aviation, thus our expert competition design can leverage a grand tradition-
 
Section | Fédération Aéronautique Internationale - FAI
General Section. Click here to download the 2011 edition of the General Section of the FAI Sporting Code as a PDF file (510 KB). Click here for more information ...
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4139 From: dave santos Date: 9/7/2011
Subject: ARPA-E AWE Contest Design (Aviation Safety)
Its our job to lead in promoting AWE safety. We do not need to painfully reinvent aviation safety norms for our contest design; we can just adopt existing regulations as an essential AWE contest prerequisite.
 
The existing system of FAA airworthiness standards, supervised inspections. and certifications is well suited to regulate ARPA-E AWE contest safety requirements. Every contest contender will naturally fall into existing regulatory categories for mass, velocity, altitude, etc.. Existing aviation groups, like the EAA, AMA, and AKA, can provide guidance and oversight to their member categories, for enhanced participation-
 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4140 From: Joe Faust Date: 9/7/2011
Subject: Re: ARPA-E AWE Contest Design (FAI Sporting Code)
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4141 From: dave santos Date: 9/7/2011
Subject: ARPA-E AWE Contest Design (Wind Energy Standards)
Many wind energy standards exist worldwide for how to measure power curves, judge power quality, and estimate annual energy production (AEP). The US based ARPA-E AWE contest can most appropriately define wind energy scoring rules from NREL's standards track- 

IEC Wind Turbine Standards

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4142 From: Doug Date: 9/7/2011
Subject: GL Garrad Hassan AWE Report Release (Airborne Wind Energy gains cred
Not that most of you have ever heard of this company, but Garrad Hassan is THE world authority on wind energy. Those involved in wind energy have just received notice that Garrad Hassan has released a report on Airborne Wind Energy.

Here are the details:

Market Report High Altitude Wind Energy
Released: August 2011

Fresh Winds at Great Heights: First market report on High Altitude Wind Energy issued by GL Garrad Hassan

The world's demand for safe and clean energy continues to grow, with renewable sources playing an every greater role. Wind power generation, having expanding offshore, is now not only looking out but up. International renewable energy consultancy, GL Garrad Hassan, has issued the first market report which analyses the burgeoning new industry of High Altitude Wind Energy (HAWE). HAWE systems are designed to tap into the high velocity, stable air currents that exist at altitudes anywhere from 200m to 20 km above the earth; a source for generating cheaper and more abundant electricity than current wind technology.
The report looks at the potential of high altitude winds as an energy source, the current technologies within the sector and their potential as mature systems. As well as assessing individual technologies and the companies developing them, the report addresses the technical and regulatory challenges faced by the industry and the likelihood of its success.

As this emerging industry has grown, a cottage like mentality with small entrepreneurs and inventors has flourished, with a diverse array of systems types at various stages of development. Small and real scale prototypes from many developers are currently in active development. The report identifies 22 companies that have already developed, or have announced their intention to develop, prototypes including: kites, kytoons and aerostats, and gliders or sailplanes with turbines or airfoils attached. In Europe and America, these developers are beginning to see an influx of investment from both private and governmental partners and the report looks at the potential for investor involvement at the nascent stages of this industry.
Technological Diversity

The basis for a HAWE system is relatively simple; a tethered object flying at altitude uses a mechanical system to harness the kinetic energy from the wind. The design of the object, the extraction mechanism and the tethering system, varies considerably among the many systems in development. The system might take the form of a kite, a parachute, or a rotating balloon, or a fixed wing, be tethered in parallel, on a floating platform offshore. GL Garrad Hassan's report looks at the prototypes, the potential of the major players and the challenges that need to be met for the technology to flourish.
Greater Wind Potential at 200m Plus

As altitude increases, wind velocity and consistency increases. Wind power increases with the cube of the velocity, so with the greater and greater velocities at greater and greater heights, the potential wind energy increases massively. This logic underlies the push to build turbines with higher towers. HAWE systems are expected to operate at heights of greater than 200m, with the focus being at altitudes above two kilometres. Data for extreme heights has been limited but GL Garrad Hassan examines the potential resource, the associated energy figures, and analyses the energy potential at altitudes of above 1km.
Offshore Potential

The wind industry continues to move offshore, with onshore locations often limited in regions with growing energy demand. High altitude systems seem promising in terms of offshore application as they could overcome some of the currently challenging hurdles. The report looks at the potential of HAWE systems in offshore regions, especially where water depth plays a role in the installation of conventional turbine systems. Challenges facing the systems and the current and possible regulatory environmental are analysed in terms of their future commercial applications; and the political and legal frameworks, across multiple regional energy markets, with the potential to affect high altitude technology application are outlined.
The Ground Floor of High Altitude

HAWE systems have the potential to take energy generation from wind into a new dimension; unlocking resources with far greater potential energy than so far realised. With investment bringing more visibility to the industry, and the first full scale systems soon on the horizon the GL Garrad Hassan report is a valuable tool for those seeking to gain an overview of this new market segment.

The market report can be ordered via Peter Frohboese at GL Garrad Hassan's German Office: Brooktorkai 18, 20457 Hamburg / Germany, Tel.:+49 40 36 14 9 -2748, Fax.: +49 40 36149 - 5920 or from highaltitudewind@gl-group.com.

Full copies of the report are available to accredited journalists. To obtain one of these please contact pr@gl-group.com.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4143 From: Doug Date: 9/8/2011
Subject: Garrad Hassan Links
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4144 From: Hardensoft International Limited Date: 9/8/2011
Subject: Re: ARPA-E Contest Fiasco?
I think it safe to now change this topic and move forward with our communications.
Best regards.
 
John Adeoye  Oyebanji   B.Sc. MCPN
Managing Consultant & CEO
Hardensoft International Limited
An ICT, Environmental Remediation & Renewable Energy Company
3rd Floor, 53 St. Finbarr's Road, Akoka-Yaba;
Lagos. Nigeria.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Disclaimer and confidentiality note
This e-mail, its attachments and any rights attaching hereto are, and unless the content clearly indicates otherwise, remains the property of John Adeoye Oyebanji of Hardensoft International Limited, Lagos, Nigeria. 

It is confidential, private and intended for only the addressee.
Should you not be the addressee and receive this e-mail by mistake, kindly notify the sender, and delete this e-mail immediately.
Do not disclose or use it in any way. Views and opinions expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender unless clearly stated as those of some other.