Yeah sure. Even 1000 years ago, wind turbines were automated, with automatic aim, automatic overspeed protection, even automated fire suppression if the automated brakes caught fire, all pre-davinci.
Designing wind turbines that need a constant attendant per turbine is right up there with using cloth sails on the list of common newbie ideas that are long-disproven or long outdated.

The idea that newer, more advanced wind energy systems that don't pencil out here, will find a happy in the uncivilized world is one I think I've heard 1000 times now. In fact I think every new wind turbine inventor who has a machine that sucks tries this desperate stab at rescuing/rationalizing their failed design at some point. (That and "it's bird friendly" because it barely works at all, hardly dangerous to anyone or anything).

It doesn't pencil out for the rich with lots of money and full access to machine shops and repair facilities, so maybe we can con some charity organization with money to waste, to waste their money on it and ship it to where nobody will ever hear about it when it breaks and can never be repaired. Oh no wait, the poor people will work extra hard and earn the money to send away for spare parts direct from professor crackpot! but wait professor crackpot cannot use his hands to create anything! he is paralyzed! And professor crackpot cannot run a business either. And he cannot produce a reliable product! So much for spare parts! Darn, the poor natives must try and fix it with local fibers and resins, or perhaps some scrap metal from some other crap that fell apart.

Meanwhile maybe someone in the third world will surprise everyone and develop their own flying wind turbine since it is such a simple idea.

Maboomba!

--- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, "jcalvert74" <jcalvert@...> wrote:
>
> If you remove the "automatically self deploying" requirement, there's actually a number of promising first steps out there, being pursued with shoestring budgets.
>
> An "automatic self deploy" requirement assumes that power must be cheaper than the wage of someone to manage a kite.
>
> That's true today, in the part of the world that discusses things like AWE in email forums. But it is not true in other parts of the world. And it may very well may not be for us either in 50 years.
>

Thanks Alex,
Those are three great places to start a list from.
You are right the simple cheap ethos is best. You recognise that we more than the simplest task. Each one of your points can be broken into many sub points, to answer the question how best to do the task.

Doug's solution so far is fast and hard, Mine's cheap and dirty, Daves is as considerately and cleanly as possible. I wouldn't even dare speculate as to the motivations or ethos of others though.

To avoid trying, I'll suggest divisions I'd propose to your order of labour priorities

1 .1 The lifter must comply with 1.1.1 1.1.2regulations
1.2 The lifter must be able to opperate within flight parameters 1.2.1 1.2.2
1.3 design standards the lifter 1.3.1 1.3.2 (links needed on this list)

Please everyone feel free to add in copying the list
I think Alex is right, if we all build a collective standard, everybody wins.

Over to you for 2.1

--- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, "Muzhichkov" <muzhichkov@...> wrote:
>
> If you don't mind, I'am also looking for the simplest and cheapest way to solve our task. And I also think that the task must be divided of several stones. The problem is to make right separation. My idea is that main stones must be following:
> 1. Stable lifter - a kite or ballon; or any other way, that can support any object in air (the higher the better). A stable position makes a sort of independens of this stone in the hole scheme. It also increases an altitude of airborne flight.
> 2. Fly transformer - any device that transformes a wind anergy in mechanical energy. I suppose all of us agree that transformation in electricity on the air is not profitable (at least for simplest device).
> 3. Ground based transformer. any device that transformes mechanical energy in to electricity. The last two stones are quit depend on each other but can be also undepended.
>
> Alex
>

How annoying and unhelpful. Your trolling is killing the value of this forum.
Sounds like you have some interest in a sub 500ft daytime only solution and you would like to slow competitors via misguided regulation. The regs are only premature because your not ready.

I suggest that your take a break from all your "BUILDING" and make a "BUSINESS" plan. In order for any AWE solution to be successful it has to have both. The regs are a big part of that.

Brian

--- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, "Doug" <doug@...> wrote:
>
> Spend your time getting something working, not glorifying your ego by conducting high-level negotiations over something you can't do anyway. Please, don't mess things up for those of us who might get something in the air that actually works sometime soon!
> You know what happens when you ASSUME.
> You are ASSUMING that you have any idea what form an AWE system might take, when there is no evidence that you do.
> Thanks.
> :)
> Doug Selsam

What on earth is going on?

It's a bit of a leap to go from "not automatically self deploying" to "needing constant supervision".

--- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, "roderickjosephread" <rod.read@...> wrote:

>
> What on earth is going on? 
> I really would like to understand the rational behind that decision.

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

You have to be able to read between the lines. Sure they've explored every option within their ability to identify what the options ARE. You have to expect people to THINK they have all the bases covered. That's a normal thing to think, even if it is not accurate. It's more of a business statement to get more funding than anything else. That doesn't mean there aren't 100 other ways, or even 100 better ways, that someone else can find.

If anyone has some sort of oscillating array that is a better way than Makani's attempts that at least really fly and really generate electricity, the answer is to build it and SHOW us that it's better. Innovators brag like professional wrestlers pre-match. Then you gotta get in the ring and make something happen.

--- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, dave santos <santos137@...> wrote:
>
> �
> Dear NearZero AWE Topic Moderators,
> �
> �
> The following assertions have been made�in your forum�by Makani/Joby regarding their conceptual�research and the state of AWE�studies generally-
> �
> >"We believe the space of design topologies has been well explored..."
> >
> >"This [preliminary calcs for each system] has been done. there is no publishing venue for the results however (try publishing that in APL*)"
> >�
> >"Sub-scale prototypes are useful for learning, but the industry is beyond that stage..."
> >�
> >"There are other system architectures not mentioned here, but they are almost all less efficient or cost effective in reasonably exhaustive mo that has been done to date."
> >�
> >* Applied Physics Letters
> �
> �
> Makani/Joby is respectfully requested to publicly reveal�how, and to what extent,�they analyzed, classified,�and tested "kite units crosslinked in flying formations" in their "space of design topologies" and how�such results quantitatively compared by land and airspace usage�with their chosen single-tether singe-kiteplane conceptual model. It must be noted that "sub-scale prototypes" remain a standard R&D method across all aerospace sectors, and AWE is not "beyond that stage".
> �
> If Makani/Joby shows they performed due-diligence underlying their assertions, or concede that they neglected or overlooked key�AWE design topologies that Kitelab Group and others have pioneered, it would greatly help�inform balanced AWE R&D investment.
> �
> Thank you for understanding the importance of settling this issue,
> �
> Sincerely,
> �
> Dave Santos
> KiteLab Ilwaco
>

You have to expect that, given a choice, who would want to put up with your nonsense? Stop worrying about what they are doing and worry about what you are doing. Joe: guilt by association?

--- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, dave santos <santos137@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Seth Nickell <snickell@...>
> To: santos137@...; joefaust333@...
> Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 1:40 PM
> Subject:
>
> Dave and Joe,
>
> After a lot of internal debate, we've removed you from the panel. The
> negatively-charged history between you and a number of the
> participants has reduced the overall quantity and openness of
> discourse. We've invited several of the non-US experts you suggested,
> and hope that they'll be able to represent similar viewpoints with
> less historical enmity.
>
> -Seth
>

Hey Brian:
I agree that my time here may be totally wasted, In your case my efforts are apparently wasted upon deaf ears. A decade of examining, researching, patenting, designing, building, flying (yes we call it that) and testing wind turbines, usually to destruction, not to mention manufacturing, repairing, and servicing, wind turbines and associated electronics, of course has no place here. I get that. This is a fantasy world where reality has little meaning, and few adherents.

My point is this:
The FAA is responding more to hype and troublemakers like Dave S., than to any real air traffic issues, at this time. One could fly 1000 times as many airborne wind energy systems as are currently in the air (probably NONE as of this moment) and still nobody would notice, still it would be no problem to the aviation world, as long as we stay out of the way, and deploy in remote areas where nobody cares. If a tree falls and there's nobody says anything about it, it made no noise, so stop worrying. (Related note: In the middle of the desert, with no cars around, you can roll through a stop sign and nobody will care.)

Let's take cel phones as an example. Imagine making rules about how cel phones should be made and used - whether they can be used in cars etc., BEFORE CEL PHONES EXISTED. Let's say it's the year 1950. And you have say a bunch of Dave Santos types jumping up and down, furious that nobody is looking at rules around his proposed mobile, digital smoke-signal apparatus. With no cel phone in existence, people are even tempted to take Dave seriously and include his mad ravings in their rules! And every other nutcase too! At that point nobody knows about texting or mobile web access, nobody has any idea how many or what type of people would be using cel phones, how big they might be, whether they could work in a car at all, what range they would have, whether they would have GPS or mapping capabilities, AND meanwhile, thousands of people were already being killed in accidents that did not involve cel phones.

Do you think the 1950's would have been a good time to write the rules on cel phones? Or does humanity normally wait until something has at least gotten on the map as something that has a known use and a known form before drafting regulations? If you have no idea what form an AWE system will take, and no current issues with air traffic, it makes no sense to start drafting legislation that could likely favor a certain configuration, and stifle development of something else that actually works. If you let bureaucracy get in the way, it will. Best to let sleeping dogs lie for now. The problem is we're now addicted to press-releases-masquerading-as-science, so we operate from a land of fantasy. That's why they still use pictures of Magenn to promote AWE - all fantasy all the time.

:)
Doug S.

--- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, "blturner3" <yahoo2@...> wrote:
>
> How annoying and unhelpful. Your trolling is killing the value of this forum.
> Sounds like you have some interest in a sub 500ft daytime only solution and you would like to slow competitors via misguided regulation. The regs are only premature because your not ready.
>
> I suggest that your take a break from all your "BUILDING" and make a "BUSINESS" plan. In order for any AWE solution to be successful it has to have both. The regs are a big part of that.
>
> Brian
>
> --- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, "Doug" <doug@> wrote:
> >
> > Spend your time getting something working, not glorifying your ego by conducting high-level negotiations over something you can't do anyway. Please, don't mess things up for those of us who might get something in the air that actually works sometime soon!
> > You know what happens when you ASSUME.
> > You are ASSUMING that you have any idea what form an AWE system might take, when there is no evidence that you do.
> > Thanks.
> > :)
> > Doug Selsam
>

Yeah Imagine the Wright Brothers, barely able to keep their craft in the air at all, proposing that the first customers should be people in developing countries, far from civilization and spare parts. Imagine them spending all their time talking to the railroad police about proposed rules for airplane traffic. (all airplanes must have a caboose and a caboose-man and must be capable of taking off from a railroad depot on schedule. All wheels must be solid 4340 steel, etc.)

---

Thanks Joe:

"each system must be moored to a single fixed ground location"

See it only takes them THINKING about making rules, to start shooting various designs in the foot. For those advocating multiple ground anchor points, congratulations: you have woken the sleeping giant that in its first waking paragraph has already trounced your dreams, without even knowing it. It's way too early for rules.

--- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, "Joe Faust" <joefaust333@...> wrote:
>
> Extending the message:
> http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/NewFAARulesForAirborneEnergySystems\
> _205848-1.html
> <http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/NewFAARulesForAirborneEnergySystem\
> s_205848-1.html>
>

Building blocks that could serve in an AWE system could still be tested under existing rules, I would think. If you are not flying an AWE system for example, but just the part that provides lift, or if your system is not connected to a generator, it is just one more whacky flying machine.

All these rules are scary to me. I picture a giant toddler stumbling through a city toppling buildings in his innocent clumsiness. Way too early to be talking about such specifics. The last thing you want is people with full authority, no understanding of wind energy, and no working reliable systems developed, crafting rules such as "must be tethered to one point". There, if "the answer" turned out to be a system tethered at 2 points, or 3 points, your dear bureaucracy just guaranteed in its first waking moment that such a workable system cannot be developed. If so, it only took them 1 paragraph to stop progress in its tracks. In my experience the bureaucracies, despite their best intents, can often cause more harm than good. Not their fault, just the way it is.

Example: small wind turbine rebates in California shut down:
1) rules made for what kind of turbines get what rebates
2) outside agency hired to approve turbine models for rebates
3) well-intentioned marketing idiots with no experience in wind energy overstate output of their "breakthrough turbine" by 10x
4) outside hired agency also has no experience in wind energy, believes inflated data (that violates well-known laws of physics and wind energy)
5) sales for future installations are conducted in large volumes, by huge sales teams, overwhelming the rebate system with millions of dollars in rebates
6) people with experience in wind energy flag the new turbine as a scam
7) The sales pitch evolves to "who cares if it makes any power - the government is paying for all of it!"
8) only a few installations take place and they mostly fail, with none producing anywhere near the promised power.
9) The public is left holding the bag, with deposits in and no legitimate product behind it.
9) The whole rebate system is shut down, and legitimate installers and manufacturersm having become dependent on the bureaucracy and its rebates, are also shut down.
Result? Small wind energy installations are slowed. Product introduction is slowed. Opposite to the intent.

Doug S.

--- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, "Joe Faust" <joefaust333@...> wrote:
>
> Extending the message:
> http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/NewFAARulesForAirborneEnergySystems\
> _205848-1.html
> <http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/NewFAARulesForAirborneEnergySystem\
> s_205848-1.html>
>

LOL. It took you long enough to find that Joe. It's been public for more than a year.

[[Dimitri, we had it already for a very long time on http://www.energykitesystems.net/Timeline/index.html We were waiting for you to post it in group. Hope all will discuss it! ~JoeF]]

Getting familiar with Stephan Wrage's 22 claims in this approved patent?

Well said. Sorry for getting short with you. All your posts I've read today have been excellent.

Brian

--- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, "Doug" <doug@...> wrote:
>[Etc.]

I agree, the term "boundary layer" must be taken in any given context, and can refer to a mile or a fraction of an inch. Aerodynamicists fine-tuning a blade design for small wind turbines are concerned with boundary-layer separation from the blade surface, which can be delayed by turbulators (rough strip ahead of separation point), whereas ozone-hole studies might consider the boundary layer as a mile or more.

--- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, dave santos <santos137@...> wrote:
>
> Brian,
> �
> Surface and planetary boundary layers vary from inversions capped�with a smooth�LLJ�to rollicking turbulence thousands of feet deep. There is no set thickness,�the layers�are (usually) vague�abstractions. Testing in surface turbulence and mastering that is smarter and faster�than only�testing in smoother upper�wind. Its just a statistical shift of occurrence frequency to sample the same sort of wind at different times and altitudes. The principles of chaos, fractal self-similarity, and dynamic-similarity across scale�will allow any lesson from 1500ft to also be learned at 500.
> �
> Why not fly a toy kite as often as possible in remote areas (like i do)�to learn the�planetary layer�for yourself?�If forced to, lets exhaust the lessons of�500ft�rather than�worry only higher altitude can advance the art,
> �
> daveS
>

Hey Dave:
I wish you would stop talking to me like I am some sort of complete idiot, that you need to explain that the FAA keeps the airways safe for us. That is a given. Please get off your high horse. With no energy-producing system running, you are at best an interested wannabe player/cheerleader/detractor in wind energy, and at worst a very bad troublemaker or even an unwitting saboteur.

Below is a cut-and-paste what the FAA has published so far, in response to people like you, who refuse to let sleeping dogs lie.
Note that these rules prohibit the oscillating arrays you currently promote, or arrays of anything else. Your previous pet theory of multiple anchor points (3?) is also prohibited. If you DO have anything running productively, even at a low height in your backyard, you'd better have it down by sunset, even if it is productive at that moment, even if it is in a storm, or even if it is in the middle of destroying itself, as experimental turbines often do in strong winds, and maybe you CAN'T shut it down, but it's flying at only 100 feet.
Basically, in their innocence and lack of understanding of wind energy, lack of understanding of what the systems might be like, in a couple of paragraphs they have already made development of an AWE system twice as difficult if not impossible. Certainly the systems YOU have been promoting are already completely prohibited - a single anchor point and no farm arrays - oh well back to your drawing board. Of course since deep down you know these ideas won't work anyway, or at least you will never really TRY them, you don't really care. In fact such "rules" actually HELP the do-nothing big-talkers, since they can then point to the rules they've cause to be implemented as a reason they can't really FLY anything. Congratulations all the way around. Let's all just shoot ourselves in the foot together!

Cut-and-paste with link below:

http://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2011/12/07/2011-31430/notification-for-airborne-wind-energy-systems-awes#p-24

In order to facilitate the timely manner in which AWES proposals are reviewed, AWES developers and operators are requested to limit temporary operations to the following:

(1) Airborne operations of AWES should be temporary in nature for testing and data collection purposes only;Show citation box

(2) Single AWES devices only (e.g.â€"no “farms” or multiple simultaneous testing);Show citation box

(3) AWES should be limited to a single fixed location (e.g.â€"no mobile ground facilities);Show citation box

(4) Testing is confined to heights at or below 499 feet above ground level (AGL);Show citation box

(5) Airborne flight testing of AWES will only occur during daylight hours; andShow citation box

(6) AWES will be made conspicuous to the flying public. (The sponsor of the AWES will provide the FAA with their marking and lighting scheme. FAA Advisory Circular 70/7460-1K (AC 70/7460-1K), Obstruction Marking and Lighting, currently does not address AWES, but may be used as a guide, as some portions may be applicable.)

--- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, dave santos <santos137@...> wrote:
>
> Doug,
> �
> The�true reason for aviation regulations is to protect life. Its no�scam. Flawed rules get fixed. It would be irresponsible to delay application of legacy aviation safety principles to AWE�until the fatalities begin. Good luck trying to convince the FAA that its too soon to worry; we have totally convinced them its time to act. Only airworthy AWE will be allowed to fly in regulated airspace, so get ready,
> �
> daveS
>

--- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, dave santos <santos137@...> wrote:

>Members of this list are close to mastering a new design-space of low-complexity AWES autonomy solutions based on passively staged state machines.

=======================
DaveS,
***** What is a passively-staged state machine?
***** What is a staged state machine?
***** What is a state machine?
Doug S.

Hey, that's Dimitri!
Congrats on getting it filed and published, Dimitri!
:)
Doug S.

--- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, "Joe Faust" <joefaust333@...> wrote:
>
> TETHERED GLIDER SYSTEM FOR POWER GENERATION Dimitri Chernyshov
> [Abstract]
> <http://www.google.com/patents?id=7hHWAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4>

Highest Wind Energy Glider^TM   534HIW Animation 960px.wmv   

Click for full patent. 

With the play teased by the above patent, we march forward for control, for energy transfer, and for other practical applications:

• An AWES may send out various wavelengths of radiation.
• An AWES may have radiation receivers tuned broadly for tuned for specific wavelengths.  
• An AWES may send radiations from one of its parts to another of its parts.
• An AWES may signal its positon to other aircraft by sending out signals.
• An AWES may be a species of aves (birds) that illuminates itself (radiate visible light).
• An AWES may be surfaced so as to be a display screen for still or video images for messaging, advertising, self-status reporting, decoration, celebration, education, management leadership in emergencies. giving status of sporting events, etc.
• An AWES may send energy via radiations to other aircraft, to ground receivers, to other elements in an AWE farm
• In AWES farms there may be ways to use radiation to inform servos of coming clear-air turbulence.
• Light may be sent into the air or into optical fibers.
• An AWES may: ___________________________________

Topic threads may open for specializing on particular radiation uses in AWES.

JoeF
================
AWES (energy birds)
aves (birds)

The signal for the intended click was missing.

Here is the link:

 

Could it be true here also that "He who pays the piper dictates the tune." And who could that be here? Just my sincere thoughts. Best of lifts. John Oyebanji 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. --- On Tue, 12/13/11, Dave Lang <SeattleDL@comcast.net> wrote: From: Dave Lang <SeattleDL@comcast.net> Subject: Re: [AWES] Basis for Makani R&D Claims? To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Davis" <sjdavis@carnegie.stanford.edu>, "kcaldeira@carnegie.stanford.edu" <kcaldeira@carnegie.stanford.edu> Cc: "Corwin Hardham" <corwin@makanipower.com>, "AWE" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com>, "dave santos" <santos137@yahoo.com> Date: Tuesday, December 13, 2011, 9:04 PM   Hi All, It is one thing for Makani/Joby to have been fortunate enough to have been graciously funded beyond most (if not ALL, AWE startup conceptions), and I am glad for them.....BUT, it is entirely ANOTHER thing for them to state, speaking as the "authority for the AWE community" that they have explored the "AWE design space" thoroughly and settled on the best scheme, that being of course their scheme! I (and likely many others currently doing work in AWE) have 40 years experience in every type of aerospace flight dynamics simulation and design work, and have been doing aerospace-industrial-strength time-domain simulation of but a single concept for the last 2-3 years, and have no allusions as to having thoroughly explored even my little niche of the pie. I wonder how many years of accumulated industrial aerospace experience the makani staff represents, say, compared to the sum of those outside of makani. Such statements are indicative of a lack of depth and experience in the aerospace/engineering discipline, and do a disservice to others! Confidence based on extensive experience and competence, I respect.....shear brashness and unfounded bravado, not so much! just my two-bits..... Dave Lang At 11:23 AM -0800 12/13/11, dave santos wrote:     Dear NearZero AWE Topic Moderators,     The following assertions have been made in your forum by Makani/Joby regarding their conceptual research and the state of AWE studies generally-   "We believe the space of design topologies has been well explored..." "This [preliminary calcs for each system] has been done. there is no publishing venue for the results however (try publishing that in APL*)"   "Sub-scale prototypes are useful for learning, but the industry is beyond that stage..."   "There are other system architectures not mentioned here, but they are almost all less efficient or cost effective in reasonably exhaustive mo that has been done to date."   * Applied Physics Letters     Makani/Joby is respectfully requested to publicly reveal how, and to what extent, they analyzed, classified, and tested "kite units crosslinked in flying formations" in their "space of design topologies" and how such results quantitatively compared by land and airspace usage with their chosen single-tether singe-kiteplane conceptual model. It must be noted that "sub-scale prototypes" remain a standard R&D method across all aerospace sectors, and AWE is not "beyond that stage".   If Makani/Joby shows they performed due-diligence underlying their assertions, or concede that they neglected or overlooked key AWE design topologies that Kitelab Group and others have pioneered, it would greatly help inform balanced AWE R&D investment.   Thank you for understanding the importance of settling this issue,   Sincerely,   Dave Santos KiteLab Ilwaco

Dave S.
All that wonderful experience is all the more reason for concern of incongruity, that you have yet to produce a decent AWE product or demo. Meanwhile, if you are spending your time "ratting out" those who are trying hard, and think restrictive rules weigh in your favor, by bringing others down to your level of inaction, that is all really unproductive. Parties at all levels do not seem to appreciate the taunts and meddling. Your assertions that whatever popped into your head on any given week is "the new final answer" are laughable. But the "clown" humor is wearing thin. Seems to me the best thing you could do to help AWE would be to take a vacation.
:)
Doug S.

--- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, dave santos <santos137@...> wrote:
>
> Doug,
> �
> The FAA�temporary AWE policies�cannot bother me�in the way they do you. They are a nice temporary KiteLab commercial advantage. I have done five years of nice high-flying and spread-anchor kite�tests before these rules, so i have done my homework and can relax.
> �
> Note that i am affiliated with the World Kite Museum here where i live (no coincidence), where historic kite arches and trains are collected and studied�and new versions developed and flown at regular events like the Washington State International Kite Festival (WSIKF). I have been trained in multi-kite formations, especially�arches and trains by the masters, like Ray Bethel, Chuck Blevins, Two-Kite Sam, Jim Patton, Iqbal Hussein, Ed Jensen, and many others. Kay Buesing, the museum director/founder personally hosts Kite Train and Arch Day (a unique decades old event)�and is the world authority�(i work under her as a volunteer kite curator and was cataloging a Bill Gobel kite train just yesterday). WSIKF is a week long NOTAM shielded event in remote airspace. Flyers are allowed to fly vast numbers of multikites�well over a thousand feet high, with approval of AKA on-site safety monitors. Many standing world kite records were/are made right here.
> �
> There are many allowable loopholes in the temporary regs. The major one is not to fly FEGs/WECSs, so as to stay within hobby regulations. Current members of the AKA even have a million in liability insurance. KiteLab Ilwaco has endless experiments to conduct that relate to the pilot/lifter functions and other operational methods. The professional ability to engineer�from scale prototype data�means the 200ft ceiling is plenty for any experiment banned higher up.
> �
> I am in active collaboration with the FAA on Kite Energy for over three years now (the guy who ratted out Makani apparent airspace�violations on Maui based on videogrammetry done on their TED talk promo vid). Some new policies come directly from our circle. Makani/Joby have also been trying to influence the FAA, but not as aviators, and some of the stupid details in the temp regs seem to have their�impractical hallmark�(like how redundant tethers are somehow less safe?). But no matter, these are temporary restrictions, and logic will prevail in airspace. I grew up in aviation, so the staus quo is like mother's milk.
> �
> The reason to remind you about aviation safety in what seems like an insulting tone is just the same as when you fly an airline and the flight attendants�show you, the great Doug Selsam,�how the seatbelt works. Foam at the mouth�back at them, and you�may be frog-marched off the plane by TSA, but on this open forum there is�little harm done. Be safe and have a nice day sir, ;*)
> �
> daveS
> �
> PS Anybody who would like to train in advanced multi-kite techniques, please note the KiteLab�Kite Pilot�school teaches all aspects. Over a dozen�serious AWE developers have attended, from as far away as EU, with a Nigerian delegation planned soon. The latest evolution of 3D aerial latticework is underway right now; come help pioneer the historic advent of� new"kite cloud" methods.
>

Doug, I am not sure how you arrive at your perspective; but the glass is partially full here. The yet-to-be-done calls us all forward.

The http://KiteLabGroup.com is a tip of the iceberg of some product, demo, and experimenting history by Dave Santos.

Also, the freely shared-published 700 pages of drawings has yet to be AWE-community-wide digested and disccussed. HERE  http://www.drachen.org/collections/dave-santos-journal   

Another unpublished 800 pages of drawings-notes are teasing.

In AWE SuperStore, first AWES product was by Dave Santos. People have been able to purchase product from him.

Though the CoolIP  has been fully open to all comers for posting essay, report, tech share, most yet is from Dave Santos.

He deserves a vacation, but non-stop daily for over many years now, he has forwarded AWE RAD on many fronts.  My guess is that he knows a special joy when anyone makes a positive step to the AWE skies.  His own working AWES span a wide variety of worked demonstrations over flygen and groundgen realms.

I'd like to see a collaborative AWES team composed of about 800 persons and funded by a cooperative of nations' governments' departments of energy. Part of the guide group of the working collaborative would include  some 20 persons or so: Please nominate persons for the first flexible guide group: ___________________________________________.

Dave,

The paper you are fretting about actually admitted it took a worst case
example. A more realistic estimate of the global potential for AWE comes
from looking at what actually causes the wind. Primarily it is solar
insolation. The sun heats the equator far more than the poles. Hot air
expands and rises. The sun also evaporates water. Water vapour is a lot
lighter than air so damp air rises. We know from rainfall figures fairly
accurately how much energy goes into evaporation. 40 PW according to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget

The sun's total insolation on the planet is 174 PW. Working out how much
of that is turned into wind is really complicated. Considering water
evaporation uses 23% of it and from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_insolation we can see there is a huge
variation in insolation between the tropics and the poles. I don't think
it is unreasonable that totally input into wind creation is also about
20%. That is 35 PW which is 2000 times the total of humanity's energy
budget.

Also, try estimating how much wind power is absorbed by trees,
mountains, waves etc. It must be of the order of 30 PW.

The paper only considered the jet stream. AWE up there is not likely -
ever. There is plenty of power below 2000 m. No need to fret about AWE's
prospects, or even its risk of influencing the weather. Deforestation
will already be having a bigger effect than AWE ever will.

Robert.

On Fri, 2011-12-16 at 14:52 -0800, dave santos wrote:
>
> It seemed like a bombshell finding by the Max Planck Institute, that
> the available power of upper wind was somehow vastly overestimated by
> Carnegie Institution scientists. The actual case looks less dramatic:
> The initial vast power calculation still seems roughly correct, on a
> theoretical instantaneous load basis, but did not attempt to estimate
> how fast the wind resource regenerates. Global wind is like a
> capacitor, and there must be a balance between load and supply, or the
> amount of stored energy is quickly depleted by excess load. There is a
> bit of uncertainty whether the power fraction of the major jet
> streams is being confused with the considerably larger power of the
> entire wind system, but this distraction will clear up.
>
> We have learned on this forum that bulk global wind is not just caused
> by heating, but is a shifting balance of planetary heating and
> rotational energy. This is called geostrophic wind, and it is modified
> by accidents of land and sea thermal distribution, surface and cloud
> albedo, seasons, mountain ranges, greenhouse gases, and other
> factors. My conjecture is that the seasonal time scale roughly
> predicts how fast global wind would regenerate if it was fully
> stopped; that a year or two of cycling would restore the wind to
> near-normal values. Crude power calculations are simple enough, like
> multiplying the force of the global average windspeed times the psi
> density of the atmosphere times the number of square inches of planet
> surface, but a full computational accounting of wind is intractable.
>
> We need a few new rough numbers to think further clearly; How many
> gigawatts can we tap to nicely offset anthropogenic windspeed
> increase? How many gigawatts can we bleed off without catastrophically
> slowing world winds (and ocean currents)? The wind is clearly
> superpowerful, so whatever the sustainable limit to AWE, it looks good
> for at least a terawatt or two. Tapping the global wind resource can
> even be synergistic, so as to directly add albedo and mitigate
> disastrous conditions like polar melting, superstorms, superdrought,
> and so forth, while also producing vast power.
>
> These are complex issues, easy to get wrong, so please help correct
> any errors above...
>
>
> __

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. --- On Thu, 12/15/11, M. Paunescu <Michael.Paunescu@NRCan-RNCan.gc.ca> wrote: From: M. Paunescu <Michael.Paunescu@NRCan-RNCan.gc.ca> Subject: Upcoming International Overview of Marine Renewable Energy Regulatory Frameworks To: "Energy-l" <energy-l@lists.iisd.ca> Date: Thursday, December 15, 2011, 6:50 PM Dear Energy-L Colleagues, Natural Resources Canada has recently launched a request for proposals for a study on marine renewable energy regulatory frameworks, i.e. offshore wind, wave and tidal, in six European countries (Denmark, Germany, Ireland, Netherlands, Portugal and the United Kingdom). The projected study aims to identify and examine responsible authorities and permitting processes concerning marine renewable energy projects and rights allocations. More specifically, the objective of the proposed study is to answer two questions: (1)     Who are the government authorities responsible for administration of which marine renewable energy permits and rights in each country? (2)     How does the permitting and rights allocation process work for each stage of marine renewable energy projects and what are the lessons learned from the permitting experiences in these countries? Lessons learned from these European experiences could be helpful in guiding marine renewable energy regulatory regime management elsewhere in the world. For more information, please visit http://www.merx.com, reference number 233993. The deadline for submitting a proposal is January 10, 2011, at 2:00 p.m. Canada's Eastern Standard Time (EST). With kind regards, Michael Paunescu Senior Economist Natural Resources Canada ___________________________________________________________________________________ - You are currently subscribed to energy-l as: hardensoftintl@yahoo.com - View energy-l Forum: http://lists.iisd.ca/read/?forum=energy-l - Membership options / Unsubscribe: http://lists.iisd.ca/read/?forum=energy-l ___________________________________________________________________________________ IISD is pleased to announce the launch of Sustainable Development Policy & Practice A Knowledgebase of International Activities Preparing for the UN Conference on Sustainable Development (UNCSD, or Rio +20) http://uncsd.iisd.org/ We also invite you to subscribe: http://uncsd.iisd.org/about-the-uncsd-l-mailing-list/#subscribe_uncsd-l to UNCSD-L and post: http://uncsd.iisd.org/about-the-uncsd-l-mailing-list/#postings_uncsd-l your UNCSD-related activities on this community listserv. - Subscribe / More Information: http://uncsd.iisd.org/about-the-uncsd-l-mailing-list/ - View UNCSD-L Forum: http://lists.iisd.ca/read/?forum=uncsd-l ___________________________________________________________________________________ - Subscribe to all other IISD Reporting Services' free newsletters and lists for environment and sustainable development policy professionals at http://www.iisd.ca/email/subscribe.htm

This will be useful. At the moment there does not appear to be an
authoritative reference on what the planet's renewable wind resource is.
I have been on look-out for a while and so far can only say it appears
to be in the range of 1 to 20 PW.

With all the work that has gone into pinning down how serious global
warming is there should be enough data to pin down the wind resource
more accurately too.

Robert.

On Fri, 2011-12-16 at 22:00 -0800, dave santos wrote:
>
> Ken Caldiera just wrote-
>
> "The study by the folks at MPI reaches erroneous conclusions as we
> hope to show shortly in a peer-reviewed setting..."
>
>