Messages in AirborneWindEnergy group.                     AWES5255to5304 Page 3 of 440.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5255 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/30/2011
Subject: Headline terminology challenge

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5256 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/30/2011
Subject: Public domain items from Charles A. Smith

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5257 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/30/2011
Subject: Filed January 19, 1976: Fry seems to be superturbining a driven teth

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5258 From: Dave Lang Date: 12/30/2011
Subject: Re: Basis for Makani R&D Claims?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5259 From: Doug Date: 12/31/2011
Subject: Re: Filed January 19, 1976: Fry seems to be superturbining a driven

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5260 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/31/2011
Subject: Doldrums Diamonds?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5261 From: Doug Date: 12/31/2011
Subject: Re: TETHER SHEATHS AND AERODYNAMIC TETHER ASSEMBLIES

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5262 From: Doug Date: 12/31/2011
Subject: first to fly?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5263 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/31/2011
Subject: Re: Filed January 19, 1976: Fry seems to be superturbining a driven

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5264 From: dave santos Date: 12/31/2011
Subject: Re: Basis for Makani R&D Claims?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5265 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/31/2011
Subject: Airborne nets

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5266 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/31/2011
Subject: Happy New Leap Year

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5267 From: dave santos Date: 12/31/2011
Subject: Re: Filed January 19, 1976: Fry seems to be superturbining a driven

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5268 From: Doug Date: 12/31/2011
Subject: Re: Filed January 19, 1976: Fry seems to be superturbining a driven

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5269 From: Dan Date: 1/1/2012
Subject: Yes, Happi New Leap Year

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5270 From: Doug Date: 1/1/2012
Subject: Superturbine(TM) India Patent Issues

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5271 From: roderickjosephread Date: 1/1/2012
Subject: Re: Physics of Rotating AWES Wings (Doug, RobertCo; Please forgive ;

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5272 From: dave santos Date: 1/1/2012
Subject: Re: Physics of Rotating AWES Wings (Doug, RobertCo; Please forgive ;

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5273 From: roderickjosephread Date: 1/2/2012
Subject: Re: Physics of Rotating AWES Wings (Doug, RobertCo; Please forgive ;

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5274 From: roderickjosephread Date: 1/2/2012
Subject: Re: Physics of Rotating AWES Wings (Doug, RobertCo; Please forgive ;

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5275 From: Doug Date: 1/2/2012
Subject: Re: Physics of Rotating AWES Wings (Doug, RobertCo; Please forgive ;

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5276 From: roderickjosephread Date: 1/2/2012
Subject: Re: Physics of Rotating AWES Wings (Doug, RobertCo; Please forgive ;

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5277 From: Joe Faust Date: 1/2/2012
Subject: Cannons, guns, missiles, and rockets in AWESs

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5278 From: Joe Faust Date: 1/2/2012
Subject: Re: Cannons, guns, missiles, and rockets in AWESs

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5279 From: Joe Faust Date: 1/2/2012
Subject: Re: Cannons, guns, missiles, and rockets in AWESs

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5280 From: roderickjosephread Date: 1/2/2012
Subject: Re: Cannons, guns, missiles, and rockets in AWESs

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5281 From: Bob Stuart Date: 1/2/2012
Subject: Re: Cannons, guns, missiles, and rockets in AWESs

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5282 From: roderickjosephread Date: 1/2/2012
Subject: Re: Cannons, guns, missiles, and rockets in AWESs

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5283 From: dave santos Date: 1/2/2012
Subject: Expert Level Kite Manual from 1430 Europe

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5284 From: roderickjosephread Date: 1/2/2012
Subject: Re: Tethered Avation ConOps (TACO) v0.8 (coolIP)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5285 From: dave santos Date: 1/2/2012
Subject: Re: Tethered Avation ConOps (TACO) v0.8 (coolIP)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5286 From: roderickjosephread Date: 1/3/2012
Subject: Re: Three K-Prize Categories (1/10, 1/4, and Full Scale) with User G

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5287 From: Dan Date: 1/3/2012
Subject: Biomimicry ?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5288 From: dave santos Date: 1/3/2012
Subject: Summary History of Spread Anchor Kite Systems

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5289 From: Doug Date: 1/4/2012
Subject: Re: Summary History of Spread Anchor Kite Systems

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5290 From: Doug Date: 1/4/2012
Subject: Re: Three K-Prize Categories (1/10, 1/4, and Full Scale) with User G

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5291 From: Doug Date: 1/4/2012
Subject: Re: Three K-Prize Categories (1/10, 1/4, and Full Scale) with User G

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5292 From: dave santos Date: 1/4/2012
Subject: Re: Summary History of Spread Anchor Kite Systems

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5293 From: dave santos Date: 1/4/2012
Subject: Re: Three K-Prize Categories (1/10, 1/4, and Full Scale) with User G

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5294 From: dave santos Date: 1/4/2012
Subject: Evolution and Theory of Cellular Kites

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5295 From: mk Date: 1/4/2012
Subject: Re: Cannons, guns, missiles, and rockets in AWESs

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5296 From: Joe Faust Date: 1/4/2012
Subject: Simple surface (single-surface)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5297 From: Doug Date: 1/5/2012
Subject: Re: Three K-Prize Categories (1/10, 1/4, and Full Scale) with User G

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5298 From: Doug Date: 1/5/2012
Subject: Re: Summary History of Spread Anchor Kite Systems

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5299 From: Joe Faust Date: 1/5/2012
Subject: Re: Summary History of Spread Anchor Kite Systems

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5300 From: dave santos Date: 1/5/2012
Subject: Re: Summary History of Spread Anchor Kite Systems

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5301 From: dave santos Date: 1/5/2012
Subject: Doug's Off-Topic Postings //Re: [AWES] Re: Three K-Prize Categories

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5302 From: dave santos Date: 1/5/2012
Subject: Re: [kitegen] BarretinaHyperlite

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5303 From: dave santos Date: 1/5/2012
Subject: Key Prior Art (Kite Anthems)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5304 From: Doug Date: 1/6/2012
Subject: Re: Summary History of Spread Anchor Kite Systems




Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5255 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/30/2011
Subject: Headline terminology challenge

High-altitude   wind   farm   constructed   in   SW   China  

That headline refers to conventional towers set on mountain having significant ASL. 
Not airborne based!
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5256 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/30/2011
Subject: Public domain items from Charles A. Smith
Charles Arthur Smith
Filed: Dec. 3, 1962
US 3229517

Public domain:
     Aloft unit that uses solar-energy converters and/or wind-turbine generating electricity for immediate use aloft for driving instruments or for charging of batteries: 



In the reading of the patent there are many interesting notes that may give some of us some helpful ideas. Stepped cabling? Use of lifters in low dynamic-pressure strata? Combining energy-generation types to assure operation of aloft instruments?  Tapered tension, tapered tethers, secondary and tertiary lifters?   And more. 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5257 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/30/2011
Subject: Filed January 19, 1976: Fry seems to be superturbining a driven teth
Doug Selsam, 
           It seems Fry holds SuperTurbine(R) tech in the important text (more important than the drawings): 
Charles Max Fry in US 4084102  (click imaged text for full instructions):

 

 Just let the tether slant and let the rotor take on any number of different forms, so long as it rotates about its longitudinal central axis, etc. 

In forum you once dismissed (if my memory is right) as Fry going Savonius and the like, but I read in Fry an awareness of rotor choice that is wider than such dismissal.     Fry has teaching of mechanical driving groundgen from rotating tether structure.   Fry rehearses solutions for over-power and for ratcheting individual rotors to care for varied airspeeds among rotors vertically stacked.    Fry's lifters allow LTA or combination with kytoons and kites, it seems to me.    It might be wishful thinking to dismiss Fry as locked into Savonius rotors by argument from graphics; open-coverage from text claims reaches past the limited coverage that graphics give. 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5258 From: Dave Lang Date: 12/30/2011
Subject: Re: Basis for Makani R&D Claims?
Hi All,

I should point out that while it is true that I
have been engaged very actively in simulating the
AWE scheme of my (personal) choice, and while I
have a respectable amount of aerospace experience
in doing things exactly like this, nevertheless,
I have not yet been involved in the demonstration
of a single Watt of power in flight! And therein
is an attribute that sets me apart from (and to a
degree below) those who have indeed done that
very thing, and in front-of-which which I can
claim no particular precedence-in-knowledge of
same.

DaveL





At 4:10 PM -0800 12/30/11, dave santos wrote:
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5259 From: Doug Date: 12/31/2011
Subject: Re: Filed January 19, 1976: Fry seems to be superturbining a driven
Joe:
Yes Fry was part of the prior art considered in the prosecution of my wind energy patents. And lots of other patents too. I always saw Fry as one more probably-workable idea. It was somewhat refreshing to see that there were a couple of wind energy inventors not "completely" brain-dead, though you might note that we don't see successful Fry designs out there (Anyone pursuing Savonius is usually ALMOST brain-dead). If anyone had started building them, maybe they would have progressed further, but the Fry proposed devices are very different from mine. It's funny what you realize about some of the pictures and concepts in patents, when you start actually building and running turbines. You find out some main effects you have to deal with are not predicted by ANYONE in ANY patent or anyplace else! Certainly Nothing Professor Crackpot will ever know about! And anyone who knows what they;re doing will not bother to tell Professor C. a heads-up, and if they did Professor C. "already knows everything" anyway! Wind energy is like oil-drilling: A dirty, dangerous, uncomfortable, nitty-gritty industrial activity, aboout which people merely imagining how things work from the sidelines will never have any idea.

The fact that the multi-million-dollar global-warming handwringers cannot be bothered to try such simple ideas, no matter how many years the ideas may sit there untested while the agencies pretend they've tried everything, shows that there is either little sincerity, little skill, little focus, or little motivation to try, really anything at all, in lieu of generating large amounts of meaningless words and paperwork. help - global warming - i can't move my hands - can't build anything - hey my hands are paralyzed because they are... attached... to this computer! Step away from the computer!
No, Fry did not have a SuperTurbine(R).
:)
Doug S.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5260 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/31/2011
Subject: Doldrums Diamonds?
Lift at the doldrums?    
[ ]  ITCZ   Intertropical Convergence Zone        
[ ]  AWES3004        
[ ]       wiki

 [ ]  How might that lift be mined for soaring records? 
 [ ]  Energy-production?
 [ ]  Travel?
 [ ]  The water-huggers with conventional sail do not like the doldrums. But are there in the doldrums region special opportunities for AWES, for new-aviation tether travelers?    What is the upperwind profile and lift opportunities over the doldrums?  
 [ ]  Can the changes, storms, calms, uplift be assets? 
[ ]  Are there special opportunities for nations at the ITCZ?
[  ]  Facing the storms?   How to stay operating in the upper ITCZ?


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5261 From: Doug Date: 12/31/2011
Subject: Re: TETHER SHEATHS AND AERODYNAMIC TETHER ASSEMBLIES
Joe:
It's not as bad as it seems at first glance: A patent application must include at least one proposed claim. It's just a rule. Normally the initial claims are unrealistically broad, and not expected to survive the examination process, but merely fulfill the need to include a claim at all. The real claims that will end up being allowed will be worked out over time.
Any input you have to an application is considered in the prosecution. Just use the application serial number in any communication and give your input. You have a lot of good information under your belt.
:)
Doug S.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5262 From: Doug Date: 12/31/2011
Subject: first to fly?
How 'bout "First To Fly"?
:)
**********************************************8
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5263 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/31/2011
Subject: Re: Filed January 19, 1976: Fry seems to be superturbining a driven
Thanks for reply having key notions to consider. 

However, maybe I was not clear. Trying again:
1. Graphics are known to be inadequate to express the full reach of some key claims.

2. The graphics of Fry tease narrow thought of Savonius.  Yet, such graphics are respected by Fry and the patent system as usually unable to express the full reach of a patent. 

3. The more important functional text claims of Fry about rotor-option reach seems to me to trump SuperTurbine┬« with a encircling hug of bladed radial rotors with understanding of the axis of rotation being aligned longitudinally with the working rotating tether structure.  I do not see his patent as limited to Savonius, but open to what is seen in SuperTurbine┬«.     Following Fry with a choice of bladed rotors with downwinding tether alpha angle under various lifters seems smooth.     

What in SuperTurbine® is not covered by Fry?
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5264 From: dave santos Date: 12/31/2011
Subject: Re: Basis for Makani R&D Claims?
Dave Lang,
 
You are too modest!
Perhaps you were not "hands on" involved, but your influential 2004 Drachen Foundation study inspired a lot of us to begin work. Virtually every idea contained therein has since been successfully built and tested as scale prototypes. Those watts are in a shared sense yours. I have vitally depended on your encouragement since 2007, with various working prototypes, and those watts also redound to you. It was an honor to assist with flight tests of a platform created in your Boeing-affiliated circle. While those preliminary flight dynamics trials were not set up to generate power, the flights were impressive, and the concept surely will yield good power as follow-on testing is supported.
 
You are generally seen as the most aerospace-experienced and domain-knowledgeable leader in US AWE, and its widely hoped you will be tapped to help lead a broad foundational R&D effort.
 
Thank you for your key role so far,
 
daveS

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5265 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/31/2011
Subject: Airborne nets
Nets       
Nets may be kite-system held aloft or near ground.  

Such nets may be used for what? 

Start: 
  • to arrest aircraft
  • catch free-falling humans.   
  • catch birds, 
  • catch aircraft that are in the wrong place
  • catch aircraft for sport landing
  • capture fog-water
  • capture particulates
  • capture fugitive kites
  • capture fugitive AWESs
  • provide a landing mode for soft-canopy string-controlled manned paragliders beyond the boundary layer of turbulent wind
  • provide foundation for transformation AWES with net nodes as sites for working turbines
  • block birds from crops
  • hold balloons until the balloons are needed for other tasks
  • entertainment catch net for human trapeze performers
  • catch net for exhibition stunt performers

  • ????? ___________ 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5266 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/31/2011
Subject: Happy New Leap Year
Flying from a kite platform

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5267 From: dave santos Date: 12/31/2011
Subject: Re: Filed January 19, 1976: Fry seems to be superturbining a driven
Based on Fry, Doug is clearly not the first to disclose the "rotating driveshaft in the sky", but can perhaps sustain claims to specific implementations, including multiple standard wind rotors along a shaft. Dave Culp explains that patents protect specific implementations far more often than wholly novel principles.

 
  
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5268 From: Doug Date: 12/31/2011
Subject: Re: Filed January 19, 1976: Fry seems to be superturbining a driven
Hi again Joe:
Fry is prescient in noting that many related possibilities exist.
What he didn't specifically say is, as such future related designs emerged, many of them could be patented in their own right, based on the specific disclosures of specific structures and functions, not covered in the Fry patent.

Here's another example:
I could say: "many rotating blade and kite assemblies are possible, any of which could achieve airborne wind energy". That statement could be part of a patent. The statement would predict future progress. It would not, however, preclude patenting that further progress. One would still expect further, more specific patents to emerge, stating more specific ways that "blades and kites", let's say, could indeed meet the prediction of my statement and enable future airborne wind energy.

Like I said, Fry was one of many inventors with relevant prior art, cited in my patent. The cited prior art all goes thru a fine-tooth comb with the examiners. You don't see my allowed claims reading anything like "a bunch of rotors on a stick", which of course I would love to get, but would never be able to. Just like any inventor, I have to show what is different about my contribution to the art. Just like any inventor, I hope to get very broad claims allowed, but must settle for more narrow ones.

You will note, you never saw or heard of a Superturbine(R) til I came along! The problem is not prior art such as Fry, that was disclosed in my original disclosure, discussed in my patent, and put through the gauntlet by the examiners. The problem is references that never make it to the examiners' attention. References that exist, but weren't part of the examiners' search. References that the examiners didn't know about and so could not take into consideration. That can be a problem, and people who care can provide the references and then let the examiners do their jobs.

Today I'm building a single-rotor turbine, for tower mounting. Why? Small wind turbines rotate most of the time (in windy locations at least), calculated to be like putting about 100,000 miles on your car every year. Yet, owners demand a "set-it-and-forget-it" level of reliablity, and are unwilling to do any maintenance, since ANY maintenance means dropping the tower, which means bring in a truck with winch, or a crane, and crew, to the tune of hundreds of dollars minimum, more likely thousands.

Failures requiring this level of service usually happen long before the customer has come anywhere NEAR breaking even on electricity produced versus system cost. The manufacturers are typically overwhelmed and months behind with warranty repairs, with the downtime being about the only thing that gets the turbine through its warranty period without totally destroying itself within the warranty period. Many installers get disgusted trying to deal with the manufacturers, and go out of business. Good luck finding anyone who even knows how to fix a broken system! It quickly becomes apparent to most owners that they will never have a trouble-free turbine experience, and that the turbine will never pay for itself. At that point it has become merely one more expensive hobby, masquerading as the answer to saving the world from global warming.

So, while the next generation of flying turbine is a huge challenge, a reliable, economical tower-based solution also remains elusive, at least when long-term survival of small systems is taken into consideration. There are basically no reliable small wind turbine models available, after all these years, and I've learned enough about making things extra-strong to support multiple-rotors and extra-powerful to handle all that extra power, as well as extra-effective in storm protection, again since furling with extra rotors is an extra challenge, and I'm thinking all I've learned makes building a reliable single-rotor turbine more of a slam-dunk. Everything I build is already ten times as strong as it would have to be for a single-rotor, which is about the level of extra strength you really need! As one crane operator for GE-Wind told me "When it comes to wind energy, the key is BEEFY, BEEFY, BEEFY!"

Believe it or not, there is NO reliable small wind turbine in production in the world. Lots of choices on the market, lots of inflated claims, with the difference in price determining if it will last 2 months or 2 years.
The biggest names litter the landscape and the landfills. We burned out another SuperTwin(TM) just a couple weeks ago, after over a year of trouble-free tower-time, thinking it was finally adjusted so we'd never see another burnout.

After the next adjustment we inadvertently burned out still more electronics further down the line, by accidentally hitting it with a power spike from a turbine running unloaded (which goes into overspeed and stores a huge power (both high voltage and high current) spike in the rotor's rotational inertia - oh yeah - woops!). Duh we must been distracted or something. OK now I've got it all worked out though... No really!

OK gotta go skiing, as it is a BEAUTIFUL New Year's Eve here in Sunny Southern California and it's about 70 degrees out and bright, and I can see the snow from here!
:)
Doug S.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5269 From: Dan Date: 1/1/2012
Subject: Yes, Happi New Leap Year
Joe,

Thought you'd appreciate this one.

Dan'l
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oj6zM9PBpUc&feature=player_embedded
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5270 From: Doug Date: 1/1/2012
Subject: Superturbine(TM) India Patent Issues
Just in from the post office:
India Patent # 248480
A FLUID CURRENT MOTOR FOR EXTRACTING ENERGY FROM THE WIND
Issue Date: July 18, 2011
Inventor:
DOUGLAS SPRIGGS SELSAM
:)
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5271 From: roderickjosephread Date: 1/1/2012
Subject: Re: Physics of Rotating AWES Wings (Doug, RobertCo; Please forgive ;
Rotational physics can be celebrated in comic fashion today as we go round the sun one more time. 
It was certainly celebrated that way in my house last night. I was taught a lesson on kite design by a kilt maker friend. How to properly sew cuffs for strength and attaching continuing folds of wings. 

The drive down to my family inspired  a new design of tensioned topline, dropped, ganged spinners. cool.
Boxing day inspired some designs for grappling arrest lines. Boxing and Grappling, I liked that.

Is knowing all the Einstein stuff going to offset the carbon still burnt in time spent learning it, as compared to saving carbon now?
Probably not because how on earth are we going to apply the extra detail without some phenomenally good machines... they sound pricey.

Happy New Year everyone.

Rod


I'd like to 


--- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, dave santos <santos137@...
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5272 From: dave santos Date: 1/1/2012
Subject: Re: Physics of Rotating AWES Wings (Doug, RobertCo; Please forgive ;
Roddy,
 
Our fancy new kite physics, as coolIP, is not more expensive, just more explanatory and inspirational. To reason about our AWE problems at the deepest possible level may even be essential to getting the highest performance. No one has shown it isn't. Our story is hopefully how the cheapest possible AWES KIS philosophy wins over naive fetishism for overly complex hardware and software solutions; that superior knowledge and practical skills far outclass superior capital investment.
 
Our business is to master rag and string in wind. It helps to know how liquid-crystal kite matter acts by tensile ballistic-conductance as a partial phononic Bose-Einstein condensate exhibiting macroscopic quantum behavior. This is the best explanation ever of the kite's anomalous high transmission-efficiency potential; to convey upper-wind momentum to a surface application. Furthermore, classic kite passive-stability flight-dynamics is embodied field-computing; kites are powerful cybernetic animats compared to ordinary computer-electronic robots. Rigged in AWESs, kites act pretty much like Maxwell's thermodynamic demon, outputting useful streams of high quality order from high entropy gas. Unlike the purely comedic Retro Entabulator, this funny stuff makes actual sense.
 
A toy kite and odd bits from the scrap-bin is all the investment needed to participate in this kite-physics intellectual revolution. How else would we so soon master our formally hyper-chaotic application domain?
 
 
Happy New Year to All,
 
daveS
 
 
  
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5273 From: roderickjosephread Date: 1/2/2012
Subject: Re: Physics of Rotating AWES Wings (Doug, RobertCo; Please forgive ;
Yeah, I love that description, thanks Dave.

I'll keep trying to evolve my designs with that high order state in mind as quick as I can.

Q. What is the difference between Santa's elf and my kite rocket line grabber?
A. One is a Subordinate Claus the other has subordinating claws.

a real subordinate clause states that joke may not be practically funny or even a true joke.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5274 From: roderickjosephread Date: 1/2/2012
Subject: Re: Physics of Rotating AWES Wings (Doug, RobertCo; Please forgive ;
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5275 From: Doug Date: 1/2/2012
Subject: Re: Physics of Rotating AWES Wings (Doug, RobertCo; Please forgive ;
Yes you are right Dave S. Approximating the Earth's surfaace as flat, and sticking with Newtonian physics for your rotating parts - woops in your case, non-rotating parts - is probably the best way to go. Your electronics can use some quantum effects such as tunneling, but you don't need to know about those, just use the parts, and your machines can be built using mostly caveman standards. Blades, for instance, can be tree limbs scraped into shape with sharp stones, as mine are. Oh wait, yours will be organically-grown, hand-woven flax fabric - no wait, hemp) All you need is one caveman smart enough to figure out how to make it all really work!
:)
Doug S.
(Oh yeah I make blade fabrication look easy - heck it IS easy! After a few hundred, or a few thousand blades. Anything is easy once you know how to do it! Hint: I do not measure much, just make them look right, just as I do not consciously make a math project out of crossing a busy street. The only thing that tugs at me is, I know there are far easier ways still, that will take a little experimentation to work out).
Oh yeah also, speaking of natural fibers, what about hemp? Maybe hemp is the answer to AWE? Hmmmm? What uses could hemp have for AWE? Hey, how 'bout using it to help think up the solution? ;)
duhh I think I'm really smart now! what was I doing again? Oh yeah, working on a windmill. Get back to work doug!

add Doug as an extra "vote" against
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5276 From: roderickjosephread Date: 1/2/2012
Subject: Re: Physics of Rotating AWES Wings (Doug, RobertCo; Please forgive ;
yeah hmmm, you sussed me Doug. you'll probably not be too surprised if I go into the details of some of my flashes of inspiration.
Roderick J Read

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5277 From: Joe Faust Date: 1/2/2012
Subject: Cannons, guns, missiles, and rockets in AWESs
Cannons, guns, missiles, and rockets in AWESs?
Launching?
Downing?
Modifying?
Packet placement?
Notice that the cannons, guns, or rockets may be ground-based, sea-craft-based, aircraft-based, or AWES based. 
====================

This topic thread may be a place for sharing notes on the use, design, appraisal, etc. of cannons, guns, and rockets in AWESs.  Links, drawings, charts, specifications, plans, experiences, photographs, safety-critical knowledge, etc. 

Starts in some prior posts have been made.
Those notes may be refreshed and forwarded within this thread. 

Brief recall of prior short notes posted:  
* Launch AWES from within forest floor into ambient upper winds. (please refresh and forward)
* Rod Read's kite-rocket line grabber.  (please expand)
* Russian AWES launcher experiment. (please refresh)\
* Vandalism by gun was mentioned (please expand; e.g., vulnerability of AWES types to vandalism by gun)

What have we?  
What has been instructed in the literature?   
What could be?
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5278 From: Joe Faust Date: 1/2/2012
Subject: Re: Cannons, guns, missiles, and rockets in AWESs

Flowing: 

Cannons, guns, missiles, and rockets in AWESs

  • Laser gun using energy gained in the AWES for  sending energy to targets for various reasons. 
  • Microwave gun using energy gained in the AWES to targets for various reasons. 
  • Light gun using energy gained in the AWES to targets for various reasons or for illuminating itself or other objects for practical purposes. 
  • Radio-signal guns on AWES giving information about the AWES or other data.  
  • Radar operations from the AWES
  • Radar operations on ground for AWES farms.
  • Shoot lines from one AWES unit to another AWES unit for various reasons: construction of aloft complexes, construction of cableways, aloft line replacement, etc. 

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5279 From: Joe Faust Date: 1/2/2012
Subject: Re: Cannons, guns, missiles, and rockets in AWESs
Netherlands.      Jan Westerink. 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5280 From: roderickjosephread Date: 1/2/2012
Subject: Re: Cannons, guns, missiles, and rockets in AWESs
Expansion on the use of rockets to grab kites...
Joe,  I tend to be inspired by toys, My rocket is much less military than my brother flies.

I have intended a ground based piece of safety equipment...

Inspired by

By firing a rocket recovery line across wind through spinning kite sets.

If the strong tail end of the line is anchored to the ground; aiming a rocket to fire the bolas on the lightweight line end into a runaway or otherwise unstoppable spinning kite set, would allow the anchor line to entangle the kite set. If the kites were to keep spinning they would bring themselves down to the anchor.

 --- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, "Joe Faust" <joefaust333@...
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5281 From: Bob Stuart Date: 1/2/2012
Subject: Re: Cannons, guns, missiles, and rockets in AWESs
I was just thinking about soda-bottle rockets using compressed air and water, and wondering how much higher you could get using the same air bottle running a helicopter.  However, even an inefficient rocket might be a good way to loft automatically launch a pilot kite.  Presumably, a simple rig could reel in the bottle and re-charge it automatically.  

Bob Stuart
Sent from The Country Formerly Known as Nice.

On 2-Jan-12, at 12:44 PM, Joe Faust wrote:


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5282 From: roderickjosephread Date: 1/2/2012
Subject: Re: Cannons, guns, missiles, and rockets in AWESs
Making a spud canon is an essential part of later childhood 
You can get all of the components from the plumbing shop and the supermarket.

apart from being able to lasso a kite set, It may be useful to remotely destroy kites.

Carrying self destruct systems with knives, detonators or other devices onboard gives instability, accidental activation and escape problems. therefore shooting a kite from the sky with SAM's or Rapier http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapier_(missile) 
may become useful...

However I think a friendlier (more easily approved) approach may be
a Scare crow or even better and it's a must see


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5283 From: dave santos Date: 1/2/2012
Subject: Expert Level Kite Manual from 1430 Europe
 
I finally got to read Clive Hart's great "KITES, An Historical Survey"; the late great Valerie Govig's personal copy held by the World Kite Museum. The book of full of rare sources, none more striking than the text of a Late Medieval kite manual by an unknown master given as-
 
Vienna, Osterreichische Nationalbibliothek, Codex 3064.
 
The old text goes into detail about kite design, construction, rigging, and especially flying, with methods like kite-buddies, pumping, walking-the-kite-down, giant kites, and even kite trains. This is still a suitable introduction to kites; the modern flier will feel an eerie timelessness to the instructions.
 
Then follows several hundred years of sketchier texts until Pocock's nineteenth century kite treatise masterpiece reestablishes the kite genre as such.
 
------------
 
Regarding Doug's shocking findings about modern small scale wind power robustness, lets note that Flemish windmills have clearly passed the test of time; many are centuries old and working well. The "Old West" Aeromotors of the American prairies are still going strong, many almost a century old still in use.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5284 From: roderickjosephread Date: 1/2/2012
Subject: Re: Tethered Avation ConOps (TACO) v0.8 (coolIP)
I've finally given the TACO a once over.
It's thorough.
I hope the stringency in standards won't overly affect RAD.
Openness is essential and does have to take priority over profiteering.
Simple standardised generic forms are needed next. 
They could already be useful for keeping ourselves in check.

Good effort Dave S
approved.

--- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, dave santos <santos137@...
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5285 From: dave santos Date: 1/2/2012
Subject: Re: Tethered Avation ConOps (TACO) v0.8 (coolIP)
Rod wrote- I've finally given the TACO a once over.
It's thorough. I hope the stringency in standards won't overly affect RAD.
 
 
 
TACO intent is to accelerate US RAD by providing early clarity in terms of the existing aviation world. Anyone who abhors this ConOps has many options (like crazy-dangerous AWES in Old Mexico, but with real tacos).
 
If only we can finally get US VC factions to agree that sidelined Big Investment will only enter the field once the confused AWE hype gives way to credible comprehensive testing. The "smart losers" of a sound cooperative vetting can rally around the winning AWE architectures and share the pie.

note- remember to trim those long previous-message tails ;*)
  
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5286 From: roderickjosephread Date: 1/3/2012
Subject: Re: Three K-Prize Categories (1/10, 1/4, and Full Scale) with User G
The LAGI competition opens today.
Our designs can be particularly matched to this kind of competition...
they are beautiful and graceful, they can match the skyscape of New York quite well.
I imagine a tower either end of the ridge suspending spinner sets as per my last drawing would help compliment the manhattan skyscraper look.

if anyone is interested.
http://landartgenerator.org/designcomp/

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5287 From: Dan Date: 1/3/2012
Subject: Biomimicry ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lswBDZuL-8w&feature=share

Instead of a backwards drag based system a forward leading attack lifter should be developed, this would shorten the tether(less weight) and yet gain the least amount of drag and weight, still acquiring max altitude. Please check the video link. thanks.

Dan'l

Condor config would be a good start.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5288 From: dave santos Date: 1/3/2012
Subject: Summary History of Spread Anchor Kite Systems
Numerous ancient images and accounts depict multiple tethers on kites. As a stability factor, these lines were often spread apart to varied extents, even if just by outstretched arms. The modern kite control bar's passive spread helps keep a power kite parked at zenith "no-hands". Old Asian and Pacific large kite systems often used pullers managing several tag lines, or taglines anchored separately (staked-out).
 
Clive Hart's "KITES: A Historical Survey" gives a few specific examples of early modern spread anchor kite systems. Such experiments flourished in the decades before powered flight matured, and are now poised to resume after a century of relative obscurity. We ignore here the systems operating from single points with multilines, like Cody's Warkites.
 
An 1873 French magazine sketch depicts an unattributed South American kite lifting design with three taglines managing a heavy load bag. The kite itself is a large framed rectangle with elaborate eddy flap and rear bridle pennants. Two side pullers hauled on the wing while a third puller had a tag line to the load.
 
A. M. Clark in 1875 patented what is obviously a PlaySail, a simple rectangular tarp with taglines spreading from it to four pullers, and a payload suspended under the sail. Clive rashly opines that this is "impracticable"; luckily no one told that to those Nebraska kids on YTube ("The Furry [sic] of the Wind"), who totally rocked.
 
Then comes Maillot's well documented "man-lifter" in 1885. Its uses a large circular kite with a rectilinear "tic-tac-toe" frame. Two side pullers controlled the "tack" of the wing as the center puller adjusted the overall AoA to direct the load up and down. A large main line lead upwind to a primary anchor.
 
Baden Powell's Levitor system comes next, with large Rokaku kites stacked from two spread anchors and central taglines to the central payload. Then follows a lost century of muddled reports, fool imitators, and so on, with odd examples of spread anchor kite systems in towed gliding, barrage kites, etc..
 
The kite spread anchor design space is once again hot, now as an AWES architecture. We understand the fundamental benefits of using the ground surface for control leverage, megascaling, and high airspace efficiency (high density arrays). We have a rich toolkit of methods. Some impressive experiments are planned for this year, but that's a future message thread...
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5289 From: Doug Date: 1/4/2012
Subject: Re: Summary History of Spread Anchor Kite Systems
Don't your FAA rules specify anchor at a single point? Maybe last week when you were touting the advantages of drafting rules ahead of the machines, multiple anchor points did not seem important? I'm getting a little confused here. The all-talk formnat seems like it's getting itself into a self-contradictory logjam.

Oh well, not producing anything just became easier: "We realized we need multiple anchor points to make it work, the week after we agreed to a rule prohibiting multiple anchor points."

Oh well that's what happens when you always know the answer...
I have little doubt at this point that AWE will be slowly made impossible due to our own ground-based and paper-based activity.
Congratulations on aquelching a perfectly viable new technology.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5290 From: Doug Date: 1/4/2012
Subject: Re: Three K-Prize Categories (1/10, 1/4, and Full Scale) with User G
Hi Dave S.
It is true that, for some people, thinking is not a waste of time. Others seem to do an awful lot of thinking that is completely illogical or amounts to nothing. Witness phlogistan.

And of course we've all seen examples where too much thinking is harmful. Like if a bunch of rules are made for an emergiung technology before it emerges, with the rules themselves helping to insure that the technology can never finish emerging.

I don't think it's accurate to call my attitude "pessimistic". That's what all wind energy veterans get, all day long, from the crackpots. Their machines don't work, but there's always an excuse ("We need a different generator that can achieve high voltage at low RPM", "We're planning on making our next machine stronger" etc.).

If any veterans point out any obvious previously-disproven aspects, rather than address the facts, the newbies tag the veteran with the label of "pessimistic", or produce other emotion-based dismissiveness, and the targeted concerns are thereby glossed over or ignored, free to rear their ugly head if the proposed machine ever flies.

It's been an ongoing online Yahoo Groups comedy for at least 10 years. Well it was, til they prohibited nonsense from the regular Yahoo Wind groups...

I had been starved for nonsense for a couple years til this new group came along. I tell the people over in the real wind energy groups:
"You think you have seen crackpots? You have not seen ANYTHING!! Imagine if instead of mostly sane people and a few nuts, you had the ratio reversed???"

:)
Doug Selsam
http://www.standardwindturbine.com

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5291 From: Doug Date: 1/4/2012
Subject: Re: Three K-Prize Categories (1/10, 1/4, and Full Scale) with User G
Pessimistic? That AWE will forever remain an open field? No that's actually great for me. It's reassuring that there's really no competition yet. I hope it stays that way. I'm counting on you Dave S. :)

I remember reading Shepard's patents 30 years ago, thinking "Uh-Oh somebody else has noticed that wind energy will be best carried out in an airborne fashion. Gosh any day now we'll see such obviously-workable flying wind energy systems emerging."

Then the years began to roll by. The years turned to decades. I've even been privileged to meet the Shepard family in the last few years - nice people (Hi P.J.!). The only remaining question in my mind is, with so many workable designs, why are no Shepard machines flying? This remains a mystery to me since I see no major technological hurdles. That's just one example of workable ideas not being pursued, while the big-talkers go on endlessly talking and trying nothing.

Now I see everyone from NASA (where have you been for the last 30 years NASA? Come up with anything that works yet?) to Honeywell (How's that laughingstock 10-times-as-expensive, 10-times-as-heavy, non-productive rooftop turbine working out lately?) announcing nonexistent "breakthroughs".

Another Preth Releath!

Never have I seen a field where so little in the way of results is expected. Then again there's religion, there's comedy, there's politics... OK I guess I get it. No results are expected from anybody, ever, no matter what, in AWE. This is simply a venue for stringing together meaningless words in an endless effort to prove we are smarter than each other. And this is probably being repeated across the web in various fields. Maybe what's wrong with the economy is we all decided we'd rather sit at a computers trying to prove how smart we are by typing, and we've all forgotten how to actually DO anything!

:)
Doug Selsam

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5292 From: dave santos Date: 1/4/2012
Subject: Re: Summary History of Spread Anchor Kite Systems
 
A temporary request like this one is akin to endless precautionary concerns that come and go, for example if a suspected aircraft part must be inspected or replaced based on some weak suspicion, then the issue goes away completely once resolved. Also, do not confuse the FAA's temporary AWE rules with those mature standards which will emerge after the evaluation process. There are many points in the temp regs that will prove temporary.
 
In the case of multiple tethers, a temporary ban on R&D clearly favors KiteLab Group, which managed five years of testing before the temporary rules conveniently blocked US competitors. We have active access to Italian and Mexican airspace (IACO has made no restrictions, 95% of the world is open).
 
The final end to your pessimistic view is when the FAA eventually finds that multiple tethers best prevent breakaway and allow for up to 100 times more efficient use of airspace. There will be special multi-line/spread-anchor standards akin to multi-engine regs. Kitelab Group will the first certificated under such rules, but meanwhile, in the US, can concentrate on many other great concepts, with no loss of R&D time.
 
Stop unfairly claiming that folks are only doing "talk"; the flight testing of new systems is a relentless daily routine. Yesterday's parafoil technical flying here was in a full gale, and the operational proficiency was the culmination of thousands of flight hours.
 
Other useful gaps in the temporary rules are the flying of ordinary hobby kites (very valuable training) and flying small-scale toy kitefarms under 200ft.
 
Expect to be badly confused if you don't do the homework. You have to understand aviation culture for regs to make sense. Your attention span seemingly does not even allow for reading TACO thru (where this issue is well presented), much less mastering the aviation.
 
 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5293 From: dave santos Date: 1/4/2012
Subject: Re: Three K-Prize Categories (1/10, 1/4, and Full Scale) with User G
Doug,
 
Your message never once referenced the actual subject topic; of small-scale experimental AWE classes linked to hobby avaition user groups. That idea is quite practical to help channel interest of large numbers of future enthusiasts, and to define safe contests.
 
Please start your own topic threads, since you are just "starved for nonsense". Specific forum topics should be respected as such,
 
daveS
 
PS As a separate topic of your own, perhaps you can offer some actual history of aviation safety regulations slowing progress (rather than representing progress, as they normally do).
 
 

 
  
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5294 From: dave santos Date: 1/4/2012
Subject: Evolution and Theory of Cellular Kites
Kites are often classed between flat kites and boxes, as well as between single and multi-kites. Although highly three-dimensional and/or multi-unit kites are ancient, Hargrave invented the modern box kite in the late 19th century, naming the individual box sails as "cells". We can also define multi-kite architectures such as stacks, trains, arches, and clouds as cellular.
 
Numerous box kite and kite train variations emerged in the golden age of manlifting and meteorological kiting. The box kite evolved directly into the early biplane. The most visionary box kite R&D was by Grahm Bell, whose "cellular kites", as he dubbed them, fully realized the modern tetrahedral spaceframe of identical units. Unfortunately the otherwise efficient structure was poorly adapted to fly. Bell crowded his wings into small cells and proved that even superior spaceframes do not scale well for flight; no brittle flying structure really does.
 
Far more successful box-cell kites tended to have fewer larger cells supporting projecting wings. The French Military and Delta Conyne kite variants represent a mature simplicity, stability and performance in the classic cell-kite lineages. Multi-sled and parafoil kites gave new life to cellular kite design by eliminating need for rigid sparred structure. Ram-air inflated structure progressively stiffens at higher speeds, maintaining a quality wing shape with no brittle-failure. Highly multi-cellular parafoils currently dominate the power kite space.
 
A "secret life of cell kites" is also occurring. Wholly new classes of cellular kites are bursting onto the scene. Hot niches include single-cell 3-D box kites like the Triangle Box, Pop Can, and so on. These types tend not to foul on ganglines and to self-relaunch easily. There is a lot of ferment in the soft Bag Kite design space. KiteLab's cellular arrays are another frontier.
 
Modern high-wind versions of popular kites are cellular arrangements of fabric holes, woven strips, or porous mesh panels. This stability effect owes to cross-linked cellular hole structure acting to damp rather than couple turbulence. Sub cells reduce a kite's total Re characteristic length, allowing larger "metakite" dimensions of equivalent lift at a lower fundamental harmonic. Similarly we understand how loosely cross-linked kites cancel chaos by an "aggregate stability" effect.
 
Some of the new cellular kites are tricky to define precisely (like our metakites). A major hobby-kite class goes by names like "Star Box", "Facet", "Flair",  or "Snowflake" kites. I just finished cataloging for WKM Bill Godel's personal creations along these lines. One sees winged-box and common flair kite DNA mutated into baroque assemblies that fly rather well (i was permitted to briefly test a Gobel masterpiece in a playful breeze).
 
The key to these designs is "textbook tensegrity" whereby a spar is guyed othogonally from its neighbors. In the case of kites, tensegrity guys are replaced by "flairs" of fabric that act as wings. A kite arch of diamond kites looks very different, but works by the same principle; each of its wings uni-sparred at a right angle to its gangline. Within this design pattern-language, it does not take a great leap to imagine vast flying honeycombs of wings arched across the wind. To only need isolated battens or ram-air airbeams allows megascaling of kite structures.
 
Multiple types of cell kites in fractal dimensioned multi-cell arrays may be the ultimate large-scale AWES architectures. The cellular principle, with its cloning and mutation dynamics, could be as fundamental to AWE as it is to biology.
 
coolIP
 
 
 
 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5295 From: mk Date: 1/4/2012
Subject: Re: Cannons, guns, missiles, and rockets in AWESs
What about a compressed air cannon to launch a power kite? Foam sabot that has a trigger to open it when working altitude is reached? Could allow launching in more confined spots and a flying recovery.

MK

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5296 From: Joe Faust Date: 1/4/2012
Subject: Simple surface (single-surface)
http://www.laboratoridenvol.com/projects/bhl/bhl.html 
Happy new year!
 
 And good news...! I finished the drawings and plans for my BarretinaHyperlite.
 
 The plans and additional information are here http://www.laboratoridenvol.com/projects/bhl/bhl.html
 posted in public domain for free study, copy, and development. In addition, the first prototype is being built by my friends at Adrenaline Paragliders headquarters in Yecla (South-eastern Spain). Is very close to finish!
 
 I think a new breed of simple-surface paragliders is emerging...
 
 I notice more news soon, with pictures of the first unit.
 
 Best regards,
 
 Pere
=====================tags:
BarretinaHyperlite   Barretina Hyperlite
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5297 From: Doug Date: 1/5/2012
Subject: Re: Three K-Prize Categories (1/10, 1/4, and Full Scale) with User G
Stay on topic? What a great idea.
Perhaps we should have a simple litmus test for nonsense here. We could start restricting who is allowed to post. We could set a minimum concept demo threshold of being able to make a given amount of energy in a given amount of time. If you demonstrate that your system can generate that amount of energy, in that amount of time, your opinion would be considered relevant, and you would be allowed to post. If not, not.
:)
Doug S.



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5298 From: Doug Date: 1/5/2012
Subject: Re: Summary History of Spread Anchor Kite Systems
Dave S.
So your position is that:
1) multi-anchor point systems are the (new) final answer to AWE;
2) Making rules now is (was) advisable;
3) The first rules prohibit multiple anchor points;
4) This is good since (you think)) it gives you an advantage for now?
5) You can always get the rules changed in the future if your newly-illegal concepts ever prove superior. (aim gun at foot, pull trigger)
You are a nut.
I think you should get a job.
:)
Doug S.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5299 From: Joe Faust Date: 1/5/2012
Subject: Re: Summary History of Spread Anchor Kite Systems
Some notes on "more than one line" to airborne aircraft to moorings that are soil moored, vehicle moored, free-falling mooring operating, powered-aircraft moored: 

1. The gliding kite that is the manned canopy paraglider hang glider has many lines to its system's mooring (the set of masses: pilot, harness, instruments). The many lines from the wing often are gathered to 8 or risers; then those risers are two spread sets attaching to the falling mooring of the kited wing. 

2. Balloons and blimps frequently have many lines to earthed anchors (heavy anchor, and some man-as-anchor for control lines) 

3. Large manned kites in hang glider training frequently use two lines by instructors to the kited wing. 

4. For safety, anchor lines of various sorts are used in kiting (kill lines, control lines, main-lift-reaction line).  Kiteboarders use two to five lines.  Kitebuggy use two or more lines. 

5. Sport kiting festivals see the two-line control kites, the two-line rotary ribbon kites, the two-line arch kites. 

6. Second anchor line for safe downing of large kites is often recommended. 

I hope someone enter comment to FAA to get multiple lines approved!     
Fugitive kites, even small kites are hazards to people and property.  
Secondary anchor lines for downing breakaways seems fundamentally important. 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5300 From: dave santos Date: 1/5/2012
Subject: Re: Summary History of Spread Anchor Kite Systems
Doug,
 
It very encouraging that you are finally beginning to absorb aviation rules, but you need to be more precise and accurate in attempting in to technically summarize the issues (to avoid a result like your NASA Primer on AWE earned)-
 
1) Multi-anchors are not new but ancient.
2) Aviation regs are already made. Airspace rules already apply to AWE. Making better rules is ongoing.
3) The latest FAA circular are not the "first rules" nor does it "prohibit" anything ("FAA requests"), nor even mention "multiple anchor points".
4) A "temporary ban" is possible, but purely hypothethical, and, yes, would favor those already expert in temporarily restricted methods. Gov-created advantage is not "good" in itself (unless one is selfish like, say, a patent troll).
5) Rule changes are common and often reflect exact aviation community desires. The LSA category is a great model (Kiteflying was even once banned in NYC Central Park, and kiters got the rule changed.). If you read more carefully, you know we are working internationally, so its not like the FAA can stop the world if they ever do start making unreasonable rules.
 
Engaging in childish name-calling on the "pro" AWE Forum is a sad substitute for more intelligent input!
 
daveS
 

 
  
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5301 From: dave santos Date: 1/5/2012
Subject: Doug's Off-Topic Postings //Re: [AWES] Re: Three K-Prize Categories
Doug,
 
So follow you own high standards for what is a good post (convincing demos of your AWES concepts), while also respecting the subject lines of others. Its totally troll-like netiquette to pop up sourly on subject threads that you have no intention to specificly address. No one is more consistently negative and insulting to the general AWE community on this forum, with so few new contributions. You can do better if you (please) try,
 
daveS

 
  
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5302 From: dave santos Date: 1/5/2012
Subject: Re: [kitegen] BarretinaHyperlite
This is a second confirmation that hot (L/D border:1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);height:0px;line-height:0;font-size:0px;" class="ygrps-yiv-2033751659hr">
From: Joe Faust <joefaust333@gmail.com
 
http://www.laboratoridenvol.com/projects/bhl/bhl.html


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5303 From: dave santos Date: 1/5/2012
Subject: Key Prior Art (Kite Anthems)
Life imitates Art; Tunes to Fly by-
 
"Little Kites"
 
Patti Griffin
 
The Sunday after, there
was laughter in the air
Everybody had a kite
They were flying everywhere
And all the trouble went away
And it wasn't just a dream
All the trouble went away
And it wasn't just a dream

In the middle of the night
We try and try with all our mights
To light a little light down here
In the middle of the night
We dream of a million kites
Flying high above
The sadness and the fear

Little sister just remember
As you wander through the blue
The little kite that you sent flying
On a sunny afternoon
Made of something light as nothing
Made of joy that matters too
How the little dreams we dream
Are all we can really do

In the middle of the night
The world turns with all of it's might
A little diamond colored blue
In the middle of the night
We keep sending little kites
Until a little light gets through
 
 
 
Let's Go Fly A Kite
Mr. Banks:
With tuppence for paper and strings
You can have your own set of wings
With your feet on the ground
You're a bird in a flight
With your fist holding tight
To the string of your kite

Oh, oh, oh!
Let's go fly a kite
Up to the highest height!
Let's go fly a kite and send it soaring
Up through the atmosphere
Up where the air is clear
Oh, let's go fly a kite!

Bert:
When you send it flyin' up there
All at once you're lighter than air
You can dance on the breeze
Over 'ouses and trees
With your first 'olding tight
To the string of your kite

Londoners:
Oh, oh, oh!
Let's go fly a kite
Up to the highest height!
Let's go fly a kite and send it soaring
Up through the atmosphere
Up where the air is clear
Let's go fly a kite!
 

 
Lyrics to The Kite:
[CHARLIE BROWN]

Little more speed, little more rope,

Little more wind, little more hope,

Gotta get this stupid kite to fly.

Gotta make sure it doesn't snag

Doesn't droop, doesn't drag

Gotta watch out for every little- WHOOPS

Little less speed, little more tack,

Little less rise, little more slack,

Gotta keep my wits about me now.
 
Gotta make sure it doesn't get the best of me

Till I get it in the air somehow.

Millions of little kids do it everyday

They make a kite and-'poof'- it in the sky.

Leave it to me to have the one fool kite

Who likes to see a little kid cry.

Little less talk, little more skill,

Little less luck, little more will,

Gotta face this fella eye to eye.

Now that I've seen you chasing moles,

Climbing trees, digging holes,

Catching your string on everything passing by

Why not fly?

Wait a minute,

What's it doing?

It isn't on the ground.

It isn't in a tree.

It's in the air!

Look at that.

It's caught the breeze now,

It's past the trees now

With room to spare...

Oh-

What a beautiful sight.

And I'm not such a clumsy guy.

If I really try

I can really

Fly a ki-
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5304 From: Doug Date: 1/6/2012
Subject: Re: Summary History of Spread Anchor Kite Systems
Dave S.
In my brief skimming of the latest nonsense, I noted a reference to AWE systems being restricted to only a single anchor point. I just told you about it as one might politely notify a blindfolded bicyclist that he was about to go over a cliff. :)

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