Messages in AirborneWindEnergy group.                       AWES4699to4748 Page 74 of 79.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4699 From: dave santos Date: 11/7/2011
Subject: FYI //Fw: [AWECS] ARPA-E AWE "Secret Agents"

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4700 From: Pierre Benhaiem Date: 11/7/2011
Subject: Towards a common report about AWE from EKS and AWEIA

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4701 From: Doug Date: 11/8/2011
Subject: Re: ARPA-E AWE "Secret Agents"

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4702 From: Andrew K Date: 11/8/2011
Subject: Re: Lighting of the tether for visibility

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4703 From: dave santos Date: 11/8/2011
Subject: Re: ARPA-E AWE "Secret Agents"

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4704 From: dave santos Date: 11/8/2011
Subject: Re: Towards a common report about AWE from EKS and AWEIA

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4705 From: dave santos Date: 11/8/2011
Subject: Re: Lighting of the tether for visibility

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4706 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 11/8/2011
Subject: Re: Towards a common report about AWE from EKS and AWEIA

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4707 From: dave santos Date: 11/8/2011
Subject: Elastomeric Performance Data (Elastic Tether Topic)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4708 From: dave santos Date: 11/9/2011
Subject: Supercoiling Techniques

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4709 From: dave santos Date: 11/11/2011
Subject: Request for Critique- Large Piloted Kite Arrays for Legacy Power Pla

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4710 From: harry valentine Date: 11/11/2011
Subject: Re: Request for Critique- Large Piloted Kite Arrays for Legacy Power

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4711 From: Bob Stuart Date: 11/11/2011
Subject: Re: Request for Critique- Large Piloted Kite Arrays for Legacy Power

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4712 From: dave santos Date: 11/11/2011
Subject: Latest Makani Press //Fw: Google Alert - airborne-wind-energy

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4713 From: dave santos Date: 11/11/2011
Subject: Re: Request for Critique- Large Piloted Kite Arrays for Legacy Power

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4714 From: roderickjosephread Date: 11/11/2011
Subject: Re: Request for Critique- Large Piloted Kite Arrays for Legacy Power

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4715 From: roderickjosephread Date: 11/11/2011
Subject: Re: Latest Makani Press //Fw: Google Alert - airborne-wind-energy

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4716 From: dave santos Date: 11/11/2011
Subject: Re: Latest Makani Press //Fw: Google Alert - airborne-wind-energy

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4717 From: dave santos Date: 11/11/2011
Subject: Universal Large AWECS Launching and Landing Method Identified

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4718 From: roderickjosephread Date: 11/11/2011
Subject: Re: Latest Makani Press //Fw: Google Alert - airborne-wind-energy

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4719 From: Pierre Benhaiem Date: 11/11/2011
Subject: Flygen and reel schemes

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4720 From: Pierre Benhaiem Date: 11/11/2011
Subject: Video for KiteLab

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4721 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 11/11/2011
Subject: Re: Latest Makani Press //Fw: Google Alert - airborne-wind-energy

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4722 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/11/2011
Subject: Re: Video for KiteLab

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4723 From: dave santos Date: 11/11/2011
Subject: "Artificial Moon"- Two Small FEG KiteLab Demos: NAV Lights and Perso

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4724 From: dave santos Date: 11/12/2011
Subject: AWE Balloon Mania from South Asia to South Austin

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4725 From: roderickjosephread Date: 11/12/2011
Subject: Re: Latest Makani Press //Fw: Google Alert - airborne-wind-energy

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4726 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/12/2011
Subject: Scratch energy

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4727 From: dave santos Date: 11/12/2011
Subject: Latest WindLift Video //Re: [AWECS] Scratch energy

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4728 From: Pierre Benhaiem Date: 11/13/2011
Subject: How taking account of occupied aerial space?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4729 From: dave santos Date: 11/13/2011
Subject: AWE Forum Designated as ARPA-E Point of Contact

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4730 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/13/2011
Subject: Early 1828 FF-AWE seed identified.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4731 From: dave santos Date: 11/13/2011
Subject: Re: How taking account of occupied aerial space?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4732 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 11/13/2011
Subject: Re: How taking account of occupied aerial space?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4733 From: dave santos Date: 11/13/2011
Subject: Re: How taking account of occupied aerial space?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4734 From: roderickjosephread Date: 11/13/2011
Subject: Re: AWE Forum Designated as ARPA-E Point of Contact

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4735 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 11/13/2011
Subject: Re: AWE Forum Designated as ARPA-E Point of Contact

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4736 From: roderickjosephread Date: 11/13/2011
Subject: Re: AWE Forum Designated as ARPA-E Point of Contact

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4737 From: roderickjosephread Date: 11/13/2011
Subject: Re: AWE Forum Designated as ARPA-E Point of Contact

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4738 From: dave santos Date: 11/14/2011
Subject: ARPA-E Dialog //Re: What is your goal DaveS ?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4739 From: dave santos Date: 11/14/2011
Subject: Re: Go ARPA-E! AWEIA is not AWEC

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4740 From: Doug Date: 11/15/2011
Subject: ARPA-E Dialog //Re: What is your goal DaveS ?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4741 From: blturner3 Date: 11/15/2011
Subject: Re: AWE Forum Designated as ARPA-E Point of Contact

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4742 From: dave santos Date: 11/15/2011
Subject: Re: AWE Forum Designated as ARPA-E Point of Contact

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4743 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/15/2011
Subject: WPI in Namibia

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4744 From: dave santos Date: 11/15/2011
Subject: Twin Kite Result- Enhanced Stability and Quicker Self-Relaunch

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4745 From: dave santos Date: 11/15/2011
Subject: ARPA-E Point of Contact

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4746 From: roderickjosephread Date: 11/16/2011
Subject: Re: AWE Forum Designated as ARPA-E Point of Contact

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4747 From: Dan Date: 11/16/2011
Subject: Rail Gun Capacitors and lightning Bolts

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4748 From: roberlumley Date: 11/16/2011
Subject: Clarify Mission of AWEC Forum / Stop the Hating



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4699 From: dave santos Date: 11/7/2011
Subject: FYI //Fw: [AWECS] ARPA-E AWE "Secret Agents"
Corwin,
 
Please give Google management the heads-up about the growing backlash from within our community and maybe they will budge on their unbalanced AWE R&D investment strategy. Note that Dave Lang (his comment copied below) is our most experienced aerospace scientist, even beyond Chris Carlin and Fort Felker. It would be great if we could get Miles Loyd's take on the controversy, if you will inform him for us. Lets do the debate in style.
 
You can also help us get good governance from ARPA-E by nobly  insisting on a "balanced portfolio" of concepts to compete against, so you can win  convincingly on a level field as a hero, rather than despised as the winner of a corrupt process.
 
Looking forward,
 
dave

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Dave Lang <SeattleDL@comcast.net font-weight:bold;">Subject: Re: [AWECS] ARPA-E AWE "Secret Agents"

We may be witnessing first-hand, the power of money and its concomitant  influence that has permeated the operation of our government, depriving all of fairness and equality!

I applaud Fort Felker of NREL for his sage advice to his fellow government agency regarding intelligent and optimally effective administration of public funds. It would seem that with the important national security aspect of alternative energy, that a country like the US should settle or nothing less than a highly objective, unbiased, scientific, and thorough examination of airborne wind energy solutions.

I for one, would be the first to gladly accept the outcome of such an investigation, even if it were to prove fatal to the project in which I am engaged. However, that said, I will find little satisfaction until all potentially worthy AWE schemes are identified and given their "day in court" to prove themselves.

DaveL



At 9:22 AM -0800 11/7/11, dave santos wrote:
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4700 From: Pierre Benhaiem Date: 11/7/2011
Subject: Towards a common report about AWE from EKS and AWEIA

AWE is an emergent technology and very few states in the world give funds.3 millions of dollars is a "small" subvention regarding other energies.I do not think critics against Makani will help other projects.

So I propose EKS and AWEIA making a report by studying different aspects of different projects and the allocation of evaluations in the form of notes from each redactor in following categories (then average notes),with one or two mentions from "expected" or "simulated" or "measured" : efficiency of conversion, goals and means to realize goals (see also specific uses),reliability, launching and recovery, ratios power/kite-like area,power/weight of materials, power/ground area (installation areas,global installation in case of farm,area comprising tethers according to wind rose), power/cost of materials, power/global cost,maintenance, initial costs of materials,periodic replacement of materials,capacity factors,what altitudes (under FAA limits towards jet-stream) specific uses (grid,off-grid,),market plan...

Such a document could be a mean allowing an approach on different AWECS and could be used by some organizations.Dave Lang has already realized a comparison with notes:the document is a good model for a more detailed investigation.The plurality of redactors could be a garantee of "objectivity". 

PierreB

http://flygenkite.com   

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4701 From: Doug Date: 11/8/2011
Subject: Re: ARPA-E AWE "Secret Agents"
Dave S.
I would try running in the other direction as fast as I could.
Solyndra ought to tell you that no matter how many fedollars are jettisoned, it will all be wasted anyway. Face it, the lights are on, but nobody's home.

By the same token, why should it concern you or any of us?
Imagine the Wright Bros., sitting around in an office fixated on why the railroad development fund refused to enable their vision for intercontinental jet travel.
They'd still be sitting there.

These things have to be accomplished a step at a time, like a stairway. The first thing you need to attract further development is something that works well, then people start getting interested.

If you wanna chase all that funding, nothing stopping anyone from filling out reams of paperwork. But in that same time you could probably get something up and running at a smaller scale.

Who was it that once said, "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's"?
Take it one step further: "Let Caesar keep What is Caesar's, stop bothering Caesar, and get on with it." (Caesar is sleeping! Shhhh)
I wonder if anyone will ever quote me on that in the future? :)

Just think if you had placed all that energy wasted so far complaining about the bureaucracy into building working models!
:)
I like your last movie by the way, even though it was short.
:)
Doug S.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4702 From: Andrew K Date: 11/8/2011
Subject: Re: Lighting of the tether for visibility
A data point:
The TCOM and GE tethered aerostats had strobe lights but the tether
itself was not illuminated.
Of course with the government being the operator all the land based
systems were installed in controlled air space (military bases) or had
controlled airspace created around the site.
I'm not sure what they did about the sea based systems which flew to 3,000 feet.

Incidentally the tethers had to carry enough three phase power up the
tether to operate the radar which ought to offer a similar hazard as
power coming down the tether.

Andrew King
King Technical Services
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4703 From: dave santos Date: 11/8/2011
Subject: Re: ARPA-E AWE "Secret Agents"
Doug,
 
I won't "run" from Washington, nor yet apply for ARPA-E funds. My initial interest is US citizen oversight of the Makani/Google contract. One can't design/build/test toy AWECS constantly; gov-watching is a welcome change of pace. After-all basic AWE R&D is a far greater test of perseverance than laying siege to petty government stonewalling.  I applied for many grants in the past, including NSF and DOE, and never found it that hard (can't remember ever not getting a grant, the trick is to have a superior application in a pack of dogs) or always very corrupt, just deadly dull after so many years, so i hope to leave it to others, for their learning experience.
 
Most of APRA-Es woes are teething problems of a new agency and will pass. They need to get over the defects of the DARPA Cold War model (esp. secrecy and selfish nationalism). A "balanced portfolio" of AWE studies will likely emerge in some form if enough of us bash away, so be ready. Maybe all that is needed is to get a great Program Manager, like Fort or DaveN, and we are off-to-the-races. Its also comedic to see an over-hyped agency badly miss the boat on the most promising AWE concepts (like dense arrays over hybrid plants, which will be suggested to them when they are finally thinking clearly). The ARPA-E mess really helps the AWE Movie with essential dramatic tension (Will poor Wayne ever get a ray of the sunshine he deserves?), although we will have to make up for lost time. Again, be ready when AWE R&D explodes into a sort of globally networked AWE Manhattan Project. We have to insist on international cooperation, an AWEIA core principle. Its up to us to self-organize for this.
 
You did not mention Google, a big fat pinata to bust open for all serious AWE researchers, but we must keep whacking,
 
daveS

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4704 From: dave santos Date: 11/8/2011
Subject: Re: Towards a common report about AWE from EKS and AWEIA
 
Pierre,
 
AWEIA EU branch has created a wonderful new report ("AWE Dossier") to add your ideas to. The WOW Italy circle, AWEIA's representative to the EU in Bruxelles, and a few others, have done a fantastic job. It is a living document that will continue to evolve and can do what you propose.
 
What is EKS????
 
daveS
 
PS Good critique of Makani and Google is mostly for their benefit. We all need a critical mirror, even them, and they could come to help us, like a repentant Scrooge. These are also archetypal narratives for the move; essential dramatic tension for the movie to work. Such a film might fund a lot of progress, its our collective IP. Doug and JoeF can be our Hollywood agents ;)
 
 

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4705 From: dave santos Date: 11/8/2011
Subject: Re: Lighting of the tether for visibility
The current KiteLab recommendation for a Nav marker is an open windsock 2m long by 50cm dia of white or red material. A radar reflector can be sewn in with aluminized mesh. A small RAT (ram-air turbine) generator to drive a zenon strobe (inside the sock as diffuser) and even a transponder. The Nav marker clips on and off the line as the AWECS is raised or brought down, alternating red and white units every fifty feet (in the US). One mile visibility is the US moored kite/balloon regulation, but two or three is far better.
 
Roy Meuller (Aerology Lab) will take custom orders on the socks, and simple electronics can be cobbled up for experiments, pending productization. Bike blinky lights and personal emergency strobes a suited for short sessions.
 
There was an amazing British scheme in some kite book for lighting large scale night operations, but i'll have to hunt for it. It involved an elaborate ground compass of lights, as well as lights aloft.

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4706 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 11/8/2011
Subject: Re: Towards a common report about AWE from EKS and AWEIA
DaveS,

"What is EKS????" EnergyKiteSystems.

Have you a link for "AWE Dossier"?

PierreB  
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4707 From: dave santos Date: 11/8/2011
Subject: Elastomeric Performance Data (Elastic Tether Topic)
Elastic flying line performance is a basis for many AWE concepts. For example, a power wing pumping hard on a low-stretch line to the surface can be hung under a Lifter on an elastic leader, sparing the lifter shock loads while also returning energy.
 
Resilin is door springs, etc.
 
Here is some cool "handbook" knowledge for elastic design. I had to look three times to believe how well the isolated biopolymers tested-
 
www.doitpoms.ac.uk/tlplib/optimisation.../modulus_strength.phpCached
The Young's modulus – strength materials-selection map is used in ... From doing this it can be seen that cartilage, viscid silk, resilin and skin have good values ...
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4708 From: dave santos Date: 11/9/2011
Subject: Supercoiling Techniques
Supercoiling is understood as a branch of Topology, as part of Knot Theory and its subfield of Ribbon Theory (All rich tradition, including the famous Mock Turtle.). Supercoiling is a biomimetic solution to storing long strings in a small volume, and a classic method for storing elastic energy. DNA supercoils compactly thousands of times smaller than its length, as just one bio-supercoiling example. The child's rubberband motor airplane uses supercoiled rubber to store and release elastic energy for flight.
 
Supercoiling is a simple basis for flexible AWE transmissions. An elastomer line stretched across two points can accept chaotic rotating input on one side and output smooth shaft power, doing the job of a massive flywheel. As noted in recent posts, a airborne supercoiling elastomer in rubberband-motor mode can be driven by multirotors as a AWECS, without massive driveshafts. Note the historic power of twisted rope in siege catapults and in the "Spanish Windlass". Supercoiling extends the operational range of twisted rope devices. Elastomer ropes in the form of modern bungees offer a high supercoiling-under-load cycle life, whereas ordinary rope is damaged by a single hockle. One can supercoil line without damage by staying below strain and abrasion limits.
 
Thus we have two great supercoiling concepts to play with; compact line storage or slack prevention to obviate reels, and twisted elastomers for buffered power transmission.
 
coolIP
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4709 From: dave santos Date: 11/11/2011
Subject: Request for Critique- Large Piloted Kite Arrays for Legacy Power Pla
Can anyone find a critical flaw* in the concept of  of vast piloted kite arrays to help drive the generator shafting of legacy powerplants? This Kite-Hybrid Powerplant scheme seems to me a clear winner in leveraging global generator capacity at the largest scale. The Hybrid kite energy idea is already working at personal, automotive, and even ocean-shipping scales.
 
Of course there is no end to peripheral details and local limiting conditions that all large scale AWECS face. Gigantic arrays do not exist yet and there are mecanical challenges to fining aggregated kite power to precise generator/grid demands, but basic solutions seem to exist end-to-end, with no deep implausibles or unknown principles to discover. Anybody who can point out overlooked specific problems is a valuable contributor. Current concept-detail solutions can always be improved.
 
Kitelab's scale kitefarms continue to (literally) grow and have always tested well. It seems clear from years of AWE array experiments that we can even flexibly tie all our diverse protypes together to work as one flight-control process with quality power out. Thus we could test all our WECS comparatively from one host array and smart-grid the output. When the ARPA-E Contest gets underway, feel free to join a cooperative aggregated-array entry (as AWEIA?) to win the top prize category. On another front, KiteLab is presenting an Unsolicited Proposal to ARPA-E, that they consider funding large-array Kite-Hybrid powerplant experiments. This work would preferably be conducted by academic AE and EE departments working in coordination with the open-source AWE world. ARPA-E rules allow for international partnerships.
 
 
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" Sagan
 
 
* besides that this is not the SuperTurbine (R)  ;)
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4710 From: harry valentine Date: 11/11/2011
Subject: Re: Request for Critique- Large Piloted Kite Arrays for Legacy Power
The airspace occupied by such technology would need to be off-limits to private/commercial aviation, even military aviation.

Another critique would be economics .   .   .   . Is this technology cost-competitive and viable in an unsubsidised market environment?


Harry

To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
From: santos137@yahoo.com
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 10:51:25 -0800
Subject: [AWECS] Request for Critique- Large Piloted Kite Arrays for Legacy Power Plant Hybrids (ARPA-E angle)

 

Can anyone find a critical flaw* in the concept of  of vast piloted kite arrays to help drive the generator shafting of legacy powerplants? This Kite-Hybrid Powerplant scheme seems to me a clear winner in leveraging global generator capacity at the largest scale. The Hybrid kite energy idea is already working at personal, automotive, and even ocean-shipping scales.
 
Of course there is no end to peripheral details and local limiting conditions that all large scale AWECS face. Gigantic arrays do not exist yet and there are mecanical challenges to fining aggregated kite power to precise generator/grid demands, but basic solutions seem to exist end-to-end, with no deep implausibles or unknown principles to discover. Anybody who can point out overlooked specific problems is a valuable contributor. Current concept-detail solutions can always be improved.
 
Kitelab's scale kitefarms continue to (literally) grow and have always tested well. It seems clear from years of AWE array experiments that we can even flexibly tie all our diverse protypes together to work as one flight-control process with quality power out. Thus we could test all our WECS comparatively from one host array and smart-grid the output. When the ARPA-E Contest gets underway, feel free to join a cooperative aggregated-array entry (as AWEIA?) to win the top prize category. On another front, KiteLab is presenting an Unsolicited Proposal to ARPA-E, that they consider funding large-array Kite-Hybrid powerplant experiments. This work would preferably be conducted by academic AE and EE departments working in coordination with the open-source AWE world. ARPA-E rules allow for international partnerships.
 
 
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" Sagan
 
 
* besides that this is not the SuperTurbine (R)  ;)
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4711 From: Bob Stuart Date: 11/11/2011
Subject: Re: Request for Critique- Large Piloted Kite Arrays for Legacy Power
I'd have to see a breakdown of the cost of kites, generators, and transmission lines to do the math on new construction vs renovation.  I suspect that it would pay to subdivide the copper from the generators into smaller units rather than gather the power of many kites into one shaft.  The transmission lines will already be optimized for a market.  However, it may be more important to locate the kites close to a hydroelectric storage facility, rather than rely on the flexibility of the fuel-fed generators.  Large scale kites would work well with large rigs to haul water uphill directly.  That might save some drought-hit existing reservoir installations very cheaply. A lake with kites and water also looks better than one with neither.  Maybe the first few should be angel-shaped, to give folks the idea.  

Bob Stuart

On 11-Nov-11, at 12:51 PM, dave santos wrote:
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4712 From: dave santos Date: 11/11/2011
Subject: Latest Makani Press //Fw: Google Alert - airborne-wind-energy
The Makani Power PR narrative trend is curious; Key founders Don Montague and Saul Griifith seem erased, and Corwin Hardham is pushed to the fore. The Google founders are more and more highlighted in the MP press coverage, even though Google seems to have long ago pulled the plug on follow-on funding (retaining a 30% equity stake). APRA-E funding apparently now carries the venture, making all US citizens "shareholders" (no actual equity). This is a very different picture from the company i directly witnessed and reported in its starting phase. It will be historically interesting to someday get the "tell-all" Makani story, never mind how its AWECS fares.

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Google Alerts <googlealerts-noreply@google.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4713 From: dave santos Date: 11/11/2011
Subject: Re: Request for Critique- Large Piloted Kite Arrays for Legacy Power
Harry,
 
Airspace issues are common to all large AWECS, but the sky is vast and many open opportunities exist to fly. Nuke plants have airspace already reserved, so the Kite-Hybrid idea actually has a big leg-up in one set of cases (decommissioning old nukes while retaining the generating capacity).
 
Bob,
 
The "numbers" for existing powerplants are widely available. Subdividing the copper goes against the establishedEconomy of Scale pattern in legacy electrical power plants. Distributed generation does make sense for future smart grids, but will require a lot of new capital investment that legacy plants have already made. Turning existing "big shaft" systems has the advantage that the shafts are already in place almost begging to be turned by something other than existing fuels. The hydro example counts as a Kite Hybrid use, as conserving water-base is crucial in many common cases. Coal plants depending on a dwindling coal source face a simlar need to conserve.
 
 So we can maybe find that these are not "killer objections" to the Kite Hybrid concept, but are perhaps the most acceptable trade-offs of any AWE scheme,
 
daveS

From: Bob Stuart <bobstuart@sasktel.net
 
I'd have to see a breakdown of the cost of kites, generators, and transmission lines to do the math on new construction vs renovation.  I suspect that it would pay to subdivide the copper from the generators into smaller units rather than gather the power of many kites into one shaft.  The transmission lines will already be optimized for a market.  However, it may be more important to locate the kites close to a hydroelectric storage facility, rather than rely on the flexibility of the fuel-fed generators.  Large scale kites would work well with large rigs to haul water uphill directly.  That might save some drought-hit existing reservoir installations very cheaply. A lake with kites and water also looks better than one with neither.  Maybe the first few should be angel-shaped, to give folks the idea.  

Bob Stuart

On 11-Nov-11, at 12:51 PM, dave santos wrote:


11-Nov-11, at 12:51 PM, dave santos wrote:
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4714 From: roderickjosephread Date: 11/11/2011
Subject: Re: Request for Critique- Large Piloted Kite Arrays for Legacy Power
I spent £100 GBP on rope, links and 50p on split rings today.
That covers my tying / locking the spinner in place. Way below traditional tower cost.

Once,
documented generation envelope control protocols
and parametric matching data sets exist for drive equipment converting kite arrays (pull / pulse / spin...) into fixed generator drive.. . yeah why not!

There's experimenting to go... but nothing unsurmountable with a good time constraint for motivation.

Winds light next week. bunch of pals getting excited about first test day.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4715 From: roderickjosephread Date: 11/11/2011
Subject: Re: Latest Makani Press //Fw: Google Alert - airborne-wind-energy
I have massive respect for Don Montague.
That man knows the wind. I have sailed many of his Gaastra and Naish efforts.

Hope he's not too tied down.

He CAN surely join your AWEsome kite ARPA-E dream team Dave

Getting further away from google again, and on another tack...
instead of google maps for live GIS Data,
We now have the option of http://www.giscloud.com/

16th Nov for those interested in high tech kit is GlobalSpec's Aerospace Technology ONLINE conference and trade show
power generation on the 7th Dec
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4716 From: dave santos Date: 11/11/2011
Subject: Re: Latest Makani Press //Fw: Google Alert - airborne-wind-energy
Rod,
 
All the Makani folks that i know personally (the Principals) are nice people, but the Google Factor predictably made them dance weirdly. Some of us have seen the dot-com social dynamics going back decades (starting with Atari), but kids still get trapped in the trope.
 
I share your respect for Don's kite work and character, not to mention Pete Lynn and Dave Culp. On these roots, with its millions, Makani could easily have opened up a world-wide kite-science R&D program, and been our natural leader,with grand results, by now. The AWE Movie would have suffered though, if everbidy has acted in the best way imaginable.
 
The mystery is why the company went so deep into high-risk aerospace dependence (without aerospace roots). Devil-lawyer NDAs keep everybody silent, so the best guess is that the soft-kite folks took easy cash and/or equity shares effectively as buy-outs, as the hard-wing flygen players somehow took over. Its going to be incredibly dramatic when the first giant kiteplanes crash in realistic endurance testing. Proper kites will rise from those ashes, and the Movie will have its happy ending, with poor Wayne German vindicated,
 
daveS

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4717 From: dave santos Date: 11/11/2011
Subject: Universal Large AWECS Launching and Landing Method Identified
 
Earlier posts introduced the concept of ferrying kiteplanes to and from airports in terms of major delivery and overhauls. This post expands the idea to include "daily" operations, plus more details.
 
Local and regional airports can host routine high volume large kiteplane launching and landing operations (by towing or self-power). The kiteplanes then commute into place, "docking" (anchoring) over generating plants or grid access points below. As needed given extended calms, storm forecasts, repairs, or maintenance, the energy aircraft "return to port". Energy Aircraft operations can be worked around the human commuter traffic "rush hours" or become SDO compliant under NextGen capabilites. Some mix of site-launch and airport-launch may be most practical.
 
Large arrays can be assembled in place over congested surface conditions without needing to ever land "on-site" at all. It may also work for tethers to be festooned on terrain or towers within reach (a few km), from generating points to airports, to even enable tow launch of predocked kiteplanes from a nearby airport.
 
coolIP
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4718 From: roderickjosephread Date: 11/11/2011
Subject: Re: Latest Makani Press //Fw: Google Alert - airborne-wind-energy
Hopefully nothing is that intractable that Makani need a crash to prove our case.

It takes big courage to admit wrong turning a $30m kite.
Not to mention a major business model overhaul.

Heck I'm nervous of the implications of showing up in front of my mates this Monday with a duff £200 toy

especially so if it goes well
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4719 From: Pierre Benhaiem Date: 11/11/2011
Subject: Flygen and reel schemes

FlygenKite  pursues trials and their analysis.Performances between flygen and reel schemes do not seem to be so different regarding ratio energy production/space and kite features.Thus production from Makani and Ampyx (high L/D rigid wing) should be equivalent.It's the same for FlygenKite and Windlift or KG Stem or KitePower (fabric wings).

Advantages for reel scheme:generator at ground,no needed conductive tether.

Advantages for flygen scheme:small generator,constant production,simpler management of automatic system.

So FlygenKite pursues its basic scheme,from model airplane to kite-farm feeding the grid,in the middle AWECS for energy production where and when grid is not available.

All main schemes should be worked until the realization;after we will better see what scheme for what use.

PierreB,

http://flygenkite.com

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4720 From: Pierre Benhaiem Date: 11/11/2011
Subject: Video for KiteLab

JoeF and DaveS,

Can you make a single Youtube video from KiteLab videos?It would be interesting to produce a panorama with the main KiteLab' s concepts:passive control,array,pilot-kite,conversion with crank...

PierreB,

http://flygenkite.com  
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4721 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 11/11/2011
Subject: Re: Latest Makani Press //Fw: Google Alert - airborne-wind-energy
The calculation of ROI should take into a account the ratio probability of crash and its consequences/unity of duration. 

PierreB
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4722 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/11/2011
Subject: Re: Video for KiteLab
The raw files are available to anyone to form transformative video productions. 
I am very low on video skills compare to people who have tools and background 
instruction on those video tools.   Composite efforts would be welcome.  However,
annotation may be a challenge for non-AWE video worker. 
JoeF
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4723 From: dave santos Date: 11/11/2011
Subject: "Artificial Moon"- Two Small FEG KiteLab Demos: NAV Lights and Perso
Thanks to JoeF for making a good page and video links for these two FEGS that show how easy nav lights or personal charging can be. Hoping Doug likes all the real flying; much more pending.
 
Pierre, your idea is good to make a grand montage of many clips, but how about pooling all our clips* into a super-video of DIY Kite Energy? Joe is right that these clips are available for creative use by all, but lets reserve copyrights for good non-profit fair-use. We can use revenue to fund cooperative efforts like AWEIA. The grave historic danger to AWE videography is really bad music, the sound must be as good as the visuals (Mary Poppins song as default), with real AWECS noise included.
 
Whoops, two more crappy videos-
 
 
 
 
* Everybody who has made nice small AWE experiments with cool visuals.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4724 From: dave santos Date: 11/12/2011
Subject: AWE Balloon Mania from South Asia to South Austin
 
Never mind the weakness of the newborn baby, it will grow. These three videos indicate a popular AWE trend is emerging. One is yet another Austin dreamer, making that town a weird AWE fountain of people and ideas (like PDX and Leuven). I have not even met half of them.
 
Once the best methods take hold, expect a major global fad. It may be that small airborne chargers soon become extremely common, but not exactly these designs-
 

Balloon Turbine for Battery charging - YouTube

www.youtube.com/watch?v=B11ZKLDdZvUOct 13, 2008 - 56 sec - Uploaded by minalprit
Uploaded by minalprit on Oct 13, 2008. Vartical Axis Balloon Wind Turbine ... Add to. Wind Solar Hybrid Systemby ...

Flying Balloon Power Generator video 2 - YouTube

www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_qyGCDIwzEApr 23, 2010 - 41 sec - Uploaded by ajayverma20553
Uploaded by ajayverma20553 on Apr 23, 2010. no description ... Flying Balloon Power Generator video 3by ...
 
 

Airborne Wind Generator Design - YouTube

www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_rhL5B14TYAug 5, 2010 - 1 min - Uploaded by JOHNINAUSTIN2004
Possibly the simplest way to put a wind mill into the air. Lifted by balloon, any type of balloon, and consisting of a simple ...
 
 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4725 From: roderickjosephread Date: 11/12/2011
Subject: Re: Latest Makani Press //Fw: Google Alert - airborne-wind-energy
Pierre, you always have good arguments and solid reasoning.

£0.30p/kWh UK =~ If it lasts 600 hours and I can get a kW out of it (not this model surely) it may well have made up the £200 it cost to put together.

Luckily there is no single point of failure in the design and if it busts it can be lowered and repaired.

Test sight is most likely near to the Cable and Wireless Microwave link off the island. So if you don't hear results for a while you can guess what's up.

There is huge scope for strength improvement over the prototype of course.

I totally agree with your reasoning on the need for software controls too.

Regards Rod
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4726 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/12/2011
Subject: Scratch energy
One of the wonders of a small world: How many videos on kite energy are out there unreported to a central point?
In three years: Only three videos were reported beyond DS to EnergyKiteSystems for listed in the video collection. 
The others you will see were found by the scratching editor.  It is been a bedtime wish that the over 800 kite-energy statkeholders
known would send in their videos and reduce the energy of scratching. My guess is that such reporting is yet a ways off into the future. 
Here is the most recent stumbled-upon scratched find: 


If your video is missing from the list, please report it. Thanks. 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4727 From: dave santos Date: 11/12/2011
Subject: Latest WindLift Video //Re: [AWECS] Scratch energy

Windlift Energy Conversion

youtube.comSep 26, 2011 - 4 min - Uploaded by ScalingupSTEM
is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 0929543. Any opinions ...

From: Joe Faust <joefaust333@gmail.com
 
One of the wonders of a small world: How many videos on kite energy are out there unreported to a central point?
In three years: Only three videos were reported beyond DS to EnergyKiteSystems for listed in the video collection. 
The others you will see were found by the scratching editor.  It is been a bedtime wish that the over 800 kite-energy statkeholders
known would send in their videos and reduce the energy of scratching. My guess is that such reporting is yet a ways off into the future. 
Here is the most recent stumbled-upon scratched find: 

Other 340 videos are listed: 
http://www.energykitesystems.net/AWECommunityIntroVideos.html

If your video is missing from the list, please report it. Thanks. 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4728 From: Pierre Benhaiem Date: 11/13/2011
Subject: How taking account of occupied aerial space?

A distinction between a kite-farm or an array of kite,and a single unity is necessary.

Kite-farm:the aerial space should be forbidden for the complete (rather a shape of parallelepiped allowing the planes to continue their road without detour) volume aera according to all wind directions and the length of tethers.

Single unity:it is difficult to etablish the point-by-point position of the tether.In the other hand to avoid a huge space occupation according to wind rose,the establishment of an agreement with air authorities would allow to determine the needed space which can be a quarter of kite-farm space,according to the current wind direction. It is yet an enormous space.

So the implementation of AWECS in no aerial traffic zone (with agreement for a forbidden space) should be studied,perhaps offshore.Indeed Skysails does not seem to have difficulties with their kites flying in a height of 200-300 m (600-900 ft).

What are your ideas about it?

PierreB

http://flygenkite.com

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4729 From: dave santos Date: 11/13/2011
Subject: AWE Forum Designated as ARPA-E Point of Contact
Matt,
 
Your best alternate point of contact is the AWE Forum (Cc:ed). Consider it as a sort of town meeting for ARPA-E to engage in its proposed "constructive dialog". We have been awaiting your input (like some answer to David Lang's post to you, or a response to Fort Felker's "balanced portfolio" idea).
 
Remember, you have been contacted not just by me, but by several other notable AWE researchers, about substantially the same concerns, and you seem non-responsive to all who share such concerns.  I will continue trying inform ARPA-E of specific concerns, and you can continue to be extremely unresponsive (except to allow yourself allegations of "conspiracy theories, misrepresentations and false statements, and, more recently, blackmail-like threats"). If anyone at ARPA-E has "tried to engage in a constructive dialog", they have not tried very hard.
 
Its not as if a government lawyer has much to offer a technical debate best left to experts. You did not even provide specific basis for your allegations, like what "false statements", were made so they can be corrected. This is a low standard of legal performance and public service. Futhermore, emotional inability to dialog with certain parties should not trump the "urgent" mission of ARPA-E. Time will tell whether insiders or critics had the greater truth.
 
Respectfully,
 
dave
From: "Dunne, Matthew" <Matthew.DunneIII@Hq.Doe.Gov November 12, 2011 9:11 PM
Subject: Re: From the DOE Inspector General

Dave,

Respectfully, I request that you designate an alternate point of contact for the group that you claim to represent. Various persons, including myself, have tried to engage in a constructive dialogue with you, but you have demonstrated a propensity for conspiracy theories, misrepresentations and false statements, and, more recently, blackmail-like threats that attempt to extract certain commitments from ARPA-E. This will be my last communication to you, pending receipt of a communication from an alternate point of contact. Again, we are willing to engage in a constructive dialogue with a representative of the industry association, and we look forward to having the opportunity to do so.

Kind regards,
Matt Dunne
Deputy Chief Counsel, ARPA-E





 
From: dave santos [mailto:santos137@yahoo.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2011 04:39 PM
To: Dunne, Matthew; Hartney, Mark; Corwin Hardham <corwin@makanipower.com
Cc: Joe Faust <joefaust333@gmail.com
Subject: From the DOE Inspector General
 
Dear Matt, Mark, and Corwin,
 
Concerns ongoingly raised about the ARPA-E AWE program are not imagined or isolated, but reflect the systemic weakness reported by the DOE IG (see link below). How Google's AWE venture, Makani Power (and its problematic technology), really came to be the exclusive favorite of ARPA-E Program Managers, resulting in badly skewed R&D, is still not known publicly, but the IG audit clearly confirms the dynamic for such failure.
 
Please understand the growing basis for objections to ARPA-E AWE programming; a pattern of technical imbalance, exclusiveness, non-responsiveness, delays, and opaqueness. We are increasingly compelled to complain as an industry group to IG and Congressional watchdogs, for lack of substantive information about how representative AWE technical data can ever be generated by the current ARPA-E status quo. 
 
Encouraging news that ARPA-E is addressing shortcomings would be very welcome, forestalling escalating complaints. Shifting to a proper technical dialog and real working relationship between domain experts will reverse the deep political unhappiness the Agency is creating in our field. Please hurry,
 
dave santos
KiteLab Group
AWEIA US
 
=====================================
 
blogs.nature.com/news/2011/.../us_energy_research_agency_over.ht...Cached
Aug 25, 2011 – The IG says ARPA-E lacked policies on monitoring and oversight of its ... The IG report may fuel concern in Congress over ARPA-E's high risk ...

US energy research agency oversight criticized in audit - August 25, 2011

With a proposed cut of 45% hanging in the balance in the US Congress, it’s a tense season for officials at the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E), the arm of the US Department of Energy (DOE) that specializes in funding high-risk high-payoff research on energy. Now an audit report from the DOE’s Inspector-General (IG) has added to their woes by criticizing ARPA-E over what it says is insufficient oversight and monitoring of awards made using the $400 million the agency received under the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (also known as the stimulus bill).
The IG says ARPA-E lacked policies on monitoring and oversight of its awardees, including on which costs were allowable, and on termination of awards that weren’t performing well. The audit uncovered a total of about $280,000 in charges by ARPA-E awardees that were paid but not allowable. The IG also complains that ARPA-E had no system to ensure technology transfer goals set by Congress were met.
In a written response attached to the report, ARPA-E Director Arun Majumdar (pictured) agrees with recommendations by the IG to develop new policies and procedures for monitoring, and points to new policies on allowable costs introduced in February 2011 and new requirements for awardees to meet technology transfer goals in April 2011.
However, the IG expresses concern in its report that the new policy may not prevent awardees from charging costs that would generally be unallowable under the Federal Acquisition Regulations that apply to grants and contracts awarded by the US government.
The IG report may fuel concern in Congress over ARPA-E's high risk projects. In a June report Congressional appropriators in the US House of Representatives directed ARPA-E to provide them with reports on each research project ARPA-E funds, “in order to better understand success rates for a program that specifically funds high-risk projects.” They added they would view termination of inadequately performing research projects as a sign of strength, not weakness.
The House report recommended funding ARPA-E at $100 million in 2012, $80 million less than it received in 2011, and $450 million less than US President Barack Obama had asked for. The Senate has yet to arrive at a number.


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4730 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/13/2011
Subject: Early 1828 FF-AWE seed identified.

Early 1828 FF-AWE seed identified.    
Paul Pry (pseudonymn for William Hath (1795-1840)

Tether has aerodynamic elements at both ends of tether as the system dynamically soars. In 1828 there was low understanding of wind strata; the tether could have been much longer to mine the difference of wind strata. Later in 1896 in book Parakites by Woglom, a fugitive similar system was described as being observed in 1895.   In 1967  Richard Miller would essentially describe the same mechanical system in book Without Visible Means of Support.  Low & Slow would continue focus. Dave Santos and Wayne German and then others would move the matter forward. Dale C. Kramer would take out an application for a patent for the system.  Faust would in 2009 AWE HAWP Conference would connect dots: Wayne German, Dale C. Kramer, Dave Santos, and self on the matter. In 2011 the system would be placed in the paragliding world as an option for development of the paraglider that would have high attention on single tether and high control for upper wing set w and lower wing set r  for advancing the Miller and Kramer and German  and Santos trans-continental flying. Faust brought in strongly the option of working the FF-AWE method so that net energy could be accumulated aloft and used aloft and perhaps sent to ground or other aircraft by various means (beams, transported charged batteries, altered chemicals, etc.) or just used for transport of the system and goods involved.    Here is an early 1828 seed conception: 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4731 From: dave santos Date: 11/13/2011
Subject: Re: How taking account of occupied aerial space?
Pierre,
 
NextGen airspace standards will provide us SDO* "trajectory control" of tethers and aircraft by 2025. Meanwhile we have many open opportunities to do our experimental kitefarms within existing regulations (remote locations, obstruction rules, waivers with NOTAM, restricted airspaces, shielded operations, etc.). The 2000ft max altitude assumption for our R&D, as proposed by the FAA, gives us plenty of airspace for most current work.
 
Dense-Array KiteFarms do minimize the inherent hazard to aviation, compared to single tether systems, by overall energy capacity.
 
SkySails did have a problem with a near-miss between their kite and an airplane, and they have become far more cautious...
 
daveS
 
* Super-Density Operations

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4732 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 11/13/2011
Subject: Re: How taking account of occupied aerial space?
DaveS,

"SkySails did have a problem with a near-miss between their kite and an airplane, and they have become far more cautious..."
SkySails should it deposit a request of authorization matched by the plan of the space occupied during every travel?

PierreB
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4733 From: dave santos Date: 11/13/2011
Subject: Re: How taking account of occupied aerial space?
Pierre,
 
SkySails should (and probably does) file NOTAM* whenever there is any doubt about air traffic, but the open ocean lower airspace is virtually empty, with no air traffic at all in most regions.
 
The mistake SkySails made during their near-miss was to operate too close to the cloud-base in active airspace, making "sense and avoid" almost impossible for the descending aircraft, which was barely able to avoid tragedy,
 
daveS
 
*Notice To Airmen
 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4734 From: roderickjosephread Date: 11/13/2011
Subject: Re: AWE Forum Designated as ARPA-E Point of Contact
It is strange.

With e-government and famous voter communication,

that a government research group methodology avoids public expert engagement on a research topic.

It's a big shame but, Sod them Dave. Yes ARPA-E would be the fast route to product development and sales, but tech dispersal, do ARPA do that for the world?

It's not the standard tech battle betamax vs VHS comparison...
You have a superior product and
the design will proliferate preferably.

I was secretly gagging to be on that dream team entry sheet.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4735 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 11/13/2011
Subject: Re: AWE Forum Designated as ARPA-E Point of Contact
DaveS,

For a good appreciation of AWE,and also for ARPA-E, a first realization of each main scheme should be needed but impossible to realize (examples flygen rigid wing (Makani),flygen soft wing (FlygenKite),reel-out/in soft kite one line (Tu DELFT),reel-out/in soft kite two lines (KG Stem),reel-out/in rigid wing (Ampyx),short-stroke passive control and array of kites (KiteLab),torsion (Rod, Superturbine)).

But for ARPA-E AWE = Makani (for most other governmental agencies in the world AWE does not exist).So at least one complementary scheme should be useful.What is the US scheme having features Makani has not?A scheme with ground-based generator,with reel-in/out method but different from kite-like (so different from Tu DELFT and KG Stem to allow a new level of AWE knowledge),a method for harnessing very high altitude winds like jet stream.Such a scheme could be SkyMill Energy, Inc. for also another reason:it is quite sure no tower can reach jet stream.Another scheme using an autogyro-like for lower altitudes and other goals like Highest Wind could help the realization of SkyMill Energy by both a closer possibility of launch on the market and common elements.

PierreB
http://flygenkite.com      
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4736 From: roderickjosephread Date: 11/13/2011
Subject: Re: AWE Forum Designated as ARPA-E Point of Contact
This is purely my opinion

ARPA-e is an arcane, myopic institution, interested mainly in protectionism through patent enforcement
ARPA-e has a weird disillusion that America needs to be separate and superior to the rest of the human race.


This is ARPA-e's opinion

By Dr. Arun Majumdar
In summary, let us take the lead from the President to out-innovate, out-build and out-educate the rest of the world. That is the best course of action for our nation to create a secure future for our children.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G81kwwM300g

So everyone agrees on what ARPA-E's  goals are.

I think the main difference, is our expectation of the outcome of those policies.

It's kinda like when BandAid released "Feed the World, ..." we bought it
Then the American artists released "We Are The World, ..." I .. I didn't like that one so much

Another lesson we can all take,  from nature this time,  Lay off the pies, Get some exercise.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4737 From: roderickjosephread Date: 11/13/2011
Subject: Re: AWE Forum Designated as ARPA-E Point of Contact
Not that I want to start a trans Atlantic battle

but this model is more honest, "yes it's the banks and govt that want to fund this."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-12900804

Whereas
http://arpa-e.energy.gov/Media/News.aspx
gives you the same sort of statement.... but

Washington, D.C. â€" U.S. Department of Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced today that up to $130 million from the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) will be made available to develop five new program areas that could spark critical breakthrough technologies and secure America’s energy future. Today’s funding opportunity announcement comes two months after ARPA-E announced six of its projects have secured more than $100 million in outside private capital investment â€" indications that the business community is eager to invest in truly innovative solutions to the country’s energy challenges.

but there's the small difference. On the DARPA site, DARPA has ownership of the projects. And PCI means Banks in English.

Who in their right mind is motivated to work hard, to give it all away to a big protectionist racket. (again purely my opinion)
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4738 From: dave santos Date: 11/14/2011
Subject: ARPA-E Dialog //Re: What is your goal DaveS ?
Dear PJ,
Joe Faust can confirm that for the last few years our common stated goal in the open AWE circles has been presented as "RAD" (Rapid AWE Development), owing to a global sense of urgency. A number of serious researchers joined in this effort, including retired aerospace vets, grad students, aviators, and other specialized talents. With little funding, usually from our own pockets, we laid down a sound science-engineering basis for AWE R&D. Essential to this has been an open international exchange of information, open debate, and a diverse "balanced" set of approaches. The results have been fantastic.
 
I personally don't apply for gov funding only because grant-writing is a serious distraction to creating open-source AWE knowledge before it can become troll-patents filed by VCs like Makani/Google. Even for those who do apply for funds, ARPA-E is not considered not a fair player. Dave Lang can correct me if needed, but SkyMill, with real aerospace depth and a working relation with Boeing, gets no gov support, while Makani, a bunch of kitesurfer buddies to the Google founders (who party in the White House), with non-AE backgrounds (Corwin's previous product was a water-ski kite!) sailed in as the exclusive ARPA-E AWE funding pick.
The good news is that all Americans now have a direct stake in Makani, so the millions invested can serve to decisively show just how Jumbo Autonomous Aerobatic E-VTOL AWE concepts compare to low-complexity low-capital cost options that EU funded teams and open circles champion. But this result can only happen if Matt and Dr. Hartney contractually require the technical results of Makani's trials to meet data standards like Fort Felker's. Otherwise Makani can just continue to surf its own hype, using ARPA-E support as an undeserved PR boost. For a year now Dr. H (a chemical engineer with a DC insider resume) has shunned the outside technical input needed to make sure the critical data was gathered. He did not even avail himself of Fort's deep in-government expertise, but allowed himself to be lobbied in style by the rich VCs who stage-managed AWEC2010. He seems to have referred the irritation of unwanted technical input to Matt, the ARPA-E lawyer.
With technical issues temporarily shelved, we now had a legal counsel in the loop fully understanding of concepts like negligence, incompetence, collusion, malfeasance, and so on. To the extent that such conditions where known and shown to exist, or even just the rank appearance of them, legal counsel would be obligated to advise his client to desist and to hew to the Agency mission and strict standards that his supervisory DOE IG represents. Sadly, Matt stonewalled us, blocked technical access, defended the Google side of things, and a year dribbled by. He was given lots of key information and lots of time to absorb it. The thinking was that Matt would be driven by his growing "guilty knowledge" to reform the Makani contract oversight process, but this never happened, so a complaint to the DOE IG became the logical next step.
This is what Matt terms "blackmail-like", a stubborn quest along proper channels for basic US government accountability by a few well-informed citizens. I think your fear of our killing ARPA-E is exaggerated. Its far more likely ARPA-E will continue far after our time. The open question is whether ARPA-E AWE can properly succeed in its stated mission with AWE by the current lopsided set-up.
Now Matt has raised the "C word" (Conspiracy), presumably in regard to complaints about how he, you, and Dimitri privately created some sort of AWE Contest project and secret list of AWE experts for ARPA-E employment (which Matt also declines to share). I have no idea if criminal conspiracy exists, nor do i make such a claim; not enough is known. I would hope Matt takes the standing complaints about AWE Consortium (AWEC) member collusion to create unfair business conditions seriously, as the evidence is available, and ARPA-E decision-making is affected.
Lets see what ARPA-E now comes up with in this "constructive dialog". The ball is in their court. If US AWE programming is put right promptly, there is no call to bring in the IG. We will defend ARPA-E as an expert community if a positive program emerges. Thanks PJ, for your tireless efforts. We may not agree on many issues, but we have enough sense and common ground to work together.
Sincerely,
daveS
 
PS We have a Moratorium on Military AWE R&D proposed via AWEIA, as well as constraints written into the Ethics Code Draft. ARPA-E is hardly seen as a peacenik player, rather its built on a Cold War model and intends to provide the DoD with whatever. Part of the public concern is that ARPA-E is in fact wrongly militaristic and zenophobic, but we can try to make them avoid these traps. Note Roderick's concern from UK, just posted.

From: PJ Shepard <pj@skywindpower.com antonella.spolaor@wow.pe
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2011 10:33 PM
Subject: What is your goal DaveS ?

Dave,
 
As you have said, you don’t apply for government funding. It looks like you don’t think that the government should fund ANY research in AWE.  Are the folks  in the House of Representatives that are out to kill ARPA-E, and along with it other much needed advances in alternative energy supplies that DOE is funding,  paying you to harass ARPA-E?
 
Reality check – the private sector is not going to fund AWE to commercial readiness because it is going to cost way too much to get there on the scale that is needed for AWE to play a significant role in providing the global energy supply.
 
If AWE is not funded by the DOE, you can bet that it will be funded by the DOD instead, that is IF AWE is to be given any government support at all. Is this what you and Wayne German want – to have all AWE in the U.S. controlled by the military?
 
If your goal is to seriously diminish AWEIA’s voice,to kill ARPA-E and the potential for future investment by the DOE in other AWE efforts including your own, the strategy you are pursuing could certainly help achieve this. Along with this will go any hope of funding another AWE conference that you would like to have subsidized so that everyone including you could attend at a lower cost.  Lower ARPA-E funding = lower funds for conferences, etc.
 
PJ
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4739 From: dave santos Date: 11/14/2011
Subject: Re: Go ARPA-E! AWEIA is not AWEC
PJ,
AWEC is incorporated as a lobbying corporation. Its based on a pay-to-play member model and works in secret. Makani is the dominant member. AWEC hijacked the public process for industry leadership begun at HAWPCON09 (Roger Cutler episode). AWEC made sure the 2010 stage-managed conference excluded non-members to the greatest extent possible by imposing a 600% conference fee increase, despite almost 80 million in claimed member capitalization. AWEC member company staff vetted competing low-complexity technology presentations (only China was allowed a low-complexity presentation and only Fort presented a sober analysis of the high-risk concept space). Speakers with no real technical value, like Dr. Hartney, padded the gutted presentation roster. AWEC was forced to back down from such academic manipulation by the 2011 conference EU hosts, so AWEC2011 proved to be a far more honest event. AWEC's top representative at the event, Richard Ruttercamp, claimed that AWEC had been reformed, that pay-to-play and academic manipulation was over, but you have convinced us that no such changes have been made. You are aware of key 501's, like Drachen Foundation, who would umbrella an affordable ARPA-E supported conference with AWEC (which cannot directly tap these funds, due to its lobbyist legal conflict-of-interest), but seem to have ignored that avenue. So we are bracing for yet another unaffordable censored Stanford conference.
 
AWEIA is everys industry association. Membership is open and free, and over a hundred members of varying participation are listed in JoeF's documentation. Professional ethics and scientific-engineering excellence are key AWEIA concerns. John Oyebanji has brought folks together far better than AWEC. As an advisor to AWEIA and a US member, my volunteer role is confined to advising and seeking well-studied consensus positions, rather than formal representation, which is JohnO's role. AWEC has never replied to JohnO's well-intentioned and respectful messages. AWEC is widely seen a bad actor by many AWEIA members, with many specific unresolved complaints. Makani is seen as the tacit force behind the problems. ARPA-E is seen as the willing dupe of a Makani-dominated AWEC. The AWE prize competition is seen a dangerous stupid idea depending on how well its done, as the real need is aerospace-quality data. If only we could just fly-off unsubsidized against Makani, under a well designed scoring matrix, even with their exclusive Google investment and ARPA-E bail-out, rather than await a flawed booby-prize contest without them. We do not know of anyone well qualified in AWE who is doing ARPA-E planning, we only know what Matt has given us, so naturally we expect a shabby result.
 
That is why you are not going to get a lot of "Go ARPA-E!" agreement in the open AWE circles. At least we agree that AWEIA and AWEC are quite different animals,
 
daveS

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4740 From: Doug Date: 11/15/2011
Subject: ARPA-E Dialog //Re: What is your goal DaveS ?
--- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, dave santos <santos137@...
******* Note the oxymoronic confluence of the three terms: "for the last few years", "rapid", and "urgency".

Years of hand-waving & happy-talk, blogging, chatting, posting, and posturing, press-releases, grants, conferences, government and big corporate "involvement" (renderings and unrealized projections), Honeywell, NASA, ARPA-E, etc., has not only produced nothing useful, there's nothing useful on the horizon, and to boot, despite all this alleged activity, there have only been a handful of true attempts to actually place anything in the air that produces power.

I hate to say "I told you so" but I've seen what the big names can do in wind energy innovation for decades now and the answer is "nothing". Just look at Honeywell's conventional turbine - nothing!

The main progress I've seen in wind energy has been growing the pedestal-fan model ever-larger with more sophisticated controls.

******Is this like Asimov's first law of robotics that says robots should be developed to "never harm a human"... ?
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4741 From: blturner3 Date: 11/15/2011
Subject: Re: AWE Forum Designated as ARPA-E Point of Contact
This list is a hostile place for ARPA-E to make contact with the AWE community. It is a great place for education about the art of AWE. It needs improvement as a place to promote AWE for all the interested parties.

I know that I am opening myself up for a flame. But the top two positive posters here are also the top negative posters. If Dave Santos and Doug Selsam are truly looking to improve the world through the promotion of AWE, then self filtering or softening their negative comments would be politically advantageous.

If ARPA-E wants to give millions to small/young AWE development via some kind of competition/grant system, then I for one say welcome in, have a seat, can I fetch you a drink, what are your goals and how can I help with them.

Yes, I know there is an annoying duplicity to that statement but I think it makes my point.

I have looked for other forums for the promotion of AWE and have not found much. So I am hoping this one will reach for it's true potential.

Brian
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4742 From: dave santos Date: 11/15/2011
Subject: Re: AWE Forum Designated as ARPA-E Point of Contact
Brian,
 
Keep in mind that ARPA-E badly needs critical debate* to succeed, and such open debate is at the heart of American greatness. You are right that this AWE Forum is unique. Critical debate is only one of many key virtues.
 
We could insist with one voice on an ARPA-E that is not afraid of open contrary opinions. You are probably right in suggesting a mentality of bureaucratic cowardice drives ARPA-E far more than a relentless focused quest to solve AWE, with strong opinions welcomed. It would be astounding if ARPA-E did join this "constructive dialog" it claimed to seek with the open AWE circles. There is plenty of friendly private ARPA-E contact with favored players (AWEC/Makani/Google), so you can rest assured that angle is very well covered. You can follow your own advice in approaching ARPA-E in a positive way and let us know how you do. The dead NASA AWE forum could be reactivated for a happy-talk-only format, as a real controlled experiment.
 
Ultimately both negative and positive messages are required, from all kinds of perspectives,
 
daveS
 
* especially technical debate
 
PS to Doug- RAD is alive and well, progress has been fast and fantastic in the last five years.

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4743 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/15/2011
Subject: WPI in Namibia
Perhaps full review?

WPI in Namibia 
Final Report: Kite Power for Namibia, Africa. Project Period: September 1, 2007 through August 31, 2010. 
http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncer_ abstracts/index.cfm/ fuseaction/display. abstractDetail/abstract/8602/ report/F
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4744 From: dave santos Date: 11/15/2011
Subject: Twin Kite Result- Enhanced Stability and Quicker Self-Relaunch
Attachments :
Most AWE experiments are quick and dirty detail-oriented tests rather than complete AWECS feats. This one focuses on narrow issues of multi-kite stability. I did not keep count of the state changes, but just summarize my impressions. Hopefully others can do a more careful job someday and validate the findings.
 
Thanks again to JoeF for the set-up-
 
============== text to the video ================
 
Twin triangular box kites were rigged on one line, one in the top "pilot" position, the other further down the main line connected to a tri-swivel by a short leader line. The rig was flown in several sessions in different conditions. To make an "accelerated" flight test as rough as possible, the kites were flown in a strong turbulent urban (empty lot) surface wind.
 
Twin kites are a minimal array and this testing found the basic effect of aggregate flight stability, but less so than more kites in an array. The upper kite seemed more stable than the lower, seemingly due to a "bowstring" effect jerking the lower kite more. A normal lock-out event that would crash a single kite was usually prevented by the second kite. Seldom did the kites synch in a loop and crash, rather, off-phase flight dominated. When they did crash, they always hopped right back up in a successive gust. The twins tended to self-relaunch sooner than one alone, as the first to rise took the other with it. Chaotic double-pendulum dynamic was damped, and the chaos greatly suppressed.
 
Over grass or sand surfaces, such kites would be fairly robust, and could be relied on to fly whenever wind is present. The kites sweep crosswind naturally in a good breeze, enhancing their lifting power. Fighter kites develop keel in a blow and stabilize, but these boxes go more and more nuts. Some sort of passive reefing or damping would be nice.
 
===========================================
 
 
(Note to Joe- the previous text was not spell-checked an went up online, my bad, will try to send "final" texts in future)


   @@attachment@@
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4745 From: dave santos Date: 11/15/2011
Subject: ARPA-E Point of Contact
Matthew Dunne, ARPA-E Legal Counsel
 
Dear Matt,
 
Your request for a different point-of-contact for US open AWE circles was promptly honored with the expectation that ARPA-E truly intended the dialog proposed. If the deep intent was not real dialog, but just an emotional response to sharp critique, then you also need to designate a new point of contact for ARPA-E, as you have clearly not succeeded well in the public AWE contact role. Similarly, Mark and Corwin are not functioning as ARPA-E points-of-contact to make sure the Makani Power trial is as rigorous and productive as possible. There are many others on both sides of the ARPA-E technical and managerial divides who can surely do a better job that we have in finding common ground.
 
Note that the unique AWE Forum community is a US-based initiative with a global presence. It is well-moderated to balance communication on a professional level with tolerance for passionate views, and tightly focused on securing positive results for all. We are waiting with excitement to see who ARPA-E finally selects as its in-house AWE experts, and the new phase of productive exchanges and great work that will result. We are all called to work as a team, despite sincere disagreements over current policy and technical issues.
 
Best regards,
 
dave santos
KiteLab Group
AWIA Advisory Boardmember
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4746 From: roderickjosephread Date: 11/16/2011
Subject: Re: AWE Forum Designated as ARPA-E Point of Contact
I've developed a great idea (oooh hark at me)
A standard shape twisted tube with legs made of panels which can be scaled and printed to be Arranged spirally wi th increasingly long tethers.
Will draw later.
Building a test rig today.
Anyone can print and build this.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4747 From: Dan Date: 11/16/2011
Subject: Rail Gun Capacitors and lightning Bolts
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4748 From: roberlumley Date: 11/16/2011
Subject: Clarify Mission of AWEC Forum / Stop the Hating

I feel that I am not alone in my concern for the direction this forum has taken. 

The post "AWE Forum Designated as ARPA-E Point of Contact" implies that we are an organization, and that dSantos was communicating on behalf of our organization.  It is my belief that the Yahoo AWEC forum is just that – a forum.  Not an organization.  Therefore, it is impossible for an individual (dSantos) to communicate on my behalf. 

I re-read the description of the forum.  http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/AirborneWindEnergy/.  I like this description.  This is why I joined the forum in the first place. 

But then I also researched http://www.aweia.org/ and http://www.energykitesystems.net/.  The crosslinks between AWEIA, energykitesystems, and Yahoo AWECS are pervasive.

And so it has become clear to me that while I do not believe the Yahoo forum to be an extension of AWEIA or energykitesystems, those entities do believe that the Yahoo forum is an extension of themselves.

I ask the owner of this forum AirborneWindEnergy-owner@yahoogroups.com to clarify the role of this forum.  If the role of the forum is as described on the home page, then I would like to remain a member.  However, if the role of the forum is an extension of either AWEIA or enegykitesystems, I would like to withdraw.  I do not share any values with those organizations.

Quite simply, I am tired of the Hateful postings.  And disgusted that I have been in any way associated with certain communications sent to third parties.

Regards,

Robert Lumley

KiteFarms

 

PS:  dSantos, I trust you will respect the clarification of the owner, and act accordingly.

PPS:  Yes, I am fully aware that most likely the owner and dSantos are the same person, in which case I will withdraw.

PPPS:  Yes, Yahoo AWEC is technically a "Yahoo group" not a forum.  But functionally it is a forum.