AFAIK, the standard flutter detector is still the test pilot, who backs off at the first sign of it and tells the fitters to get it out of their flight envelope before the next test.  There are design guidelines, and handy prophylactic features, but a coat of paint can throw things off.  

A couple remarks.

Well, if the title is going spare...
Can I have it?
Imagine the marketing potential, "Buy a Professor Crackpot original generator kite"... WOW

However, I'd have to have a solid licensing agreement on the use of the name from Doug.

I always wanted to be a mad scientist inventor.
I can do a really good vacuous transfixed glare.
But one trick probably doesn't earn me the title.

Dave Santos,
I fully trust and support your submission (TACO1.0) as a Response to FAA AWES Policy Notice and Information Request.

I believe this cooperative model has good intentions.
It is well reasoned, unbounded and forward thinking.

I sometimes struggle to believe you are not either a robot / a team of super computers / or a secret govt agency cloaking device...

but just this time ... I'm going to trust you to submit this response on my behalf. If the FAA cock up, I'll know you're a robot.

DaveS,

Thanks for your work to make of AWES a branch of the aviation across
FAA.With my agreement among others I presume.

PierreB

--- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, dave santos <santos137@... wrote:
before its posted to the US Federal Docket next week. You don't have to
be a formal member of AWEIA, since membership is open anyway; nor do you
need to be a US citizen, as the standards that emerge will impact global
stakeholders. This is a good way to make any essential technical point
without the hassle of a separate submission.

Dave S.
Thanks for putting a lot of effort into trying to pave the way for all of us. The only thing I might note is that you're implying that we all either agree with everything you've put together, or we "strongly object to working cooperatively with the FAA".

You don't leave any room for someone who understands that we need airspace rules, but is also perhaps not in 100% agreement with everything you're sending.

I remain convinced, because of many years in wind energy, seeing the hundreds and even thousands of (unworkable) "new ideas", now echoed in wishful airborne versions, that the current crop of "wannabe AWE" is not anywhere near "ready for prime-time" and in fact probably represents early false roads that will only be recognized later.

Crafting too many rules, that are too specific, now, risks inadvertently self-sabotaging our own efforts.

Additionally, I believe the level of actual AWE activity, in the sense of the number of experimental AWE systems that are actually run at heights that could concern the FAA, or affect aviation, in areas near airports etc. where anyone would even notice, are so EXCEEDINGLY small that they are an insignificant factor in aviation and can be ignored at this point in history.

I'll venture that on any given day, kiteflyers break FAA rules, and nobody notices or cares. Here in the desert, if you actually stop at stop signs, people would think you were a little off. Sure you slow down and show respect for the idea that it's an intersection, but completely stopping, for nobody, gets kinda silly after a while.

Not only that, but from what I've seen of the FAA comments, I get the impression that they either don't understand Superturbine(R), or they've never seen it, or they were talking about something else. There is no jacket in which the shaft rotates. I've had a lot of people who just glance at the pictures think that, and I ask them, if there were a continuous, non-rotating jacket, how could the propellers be attached through the jacket? Oh, and what good would the jacket do besides add weight?

Anyway, I guess you could summarize my opinion below, if you want to include it in your TACO. Hey is it time to eat yet? :)

"I remain convinced, because of many years in wind energy, seeing the hundreds and even thousands of (unworkable) "new ideas", now echoed in wishful airborne versions, that the current crop of "wannabe AWE" is not anywhere near "ready for prime-time" and in fact probably represents early false roads, that will only be recognized later.

Crafting too many rules, that are too specific, now, risks inadvertently self-sabotaging our own efforts.

One proposed rule I've seen, for example, specifies a single tether anchor point. Which would be fine, except if the key to AWE turned out to be multiple tether anchor points.

Additionally, I believe the level of actual AWE activity, in the sense of the number of experimental AWE systems that are actually run at heights that could concern the FAA, or affect aviation, in areas near airports etc. where anyone would even notice, are so EXCEEDINGLY small that they are an insignificant factor in aviation and can be ignored at this point in history.

Nonetheless, I hope that whatever rules are drafted will leave as much freedom as possible to develop what could possibly be a significant future power source for the U.S. and for the world."
:)
- Douglas Selsam
(Winner 2008 Popular Science "Invention of the Year"
for "Sky Serpent", a simple, easy-to-build, stable, flying wind turbine with 25 propellers.)

Claimsh

Start: 

  

Near our previous "world headquarters" in Fullerton, I considered us fortunate to be a couple miles from a 50,000 Watt transmitter-tower for the most popular radio station in the U.S., KFI. At least you knew you could find the signal! One day the signal stopped. The tower was right on the approach to Fullerton Airport, and a couple had flown their private plane into a guy wire near the top, and brought down the whole tower. Both people were killed and they had to build a new tower.

I'm sure it's not the first time. Funny but I never heard about a blight on the art of broadcasting. And why is it that nobody cares how many people are killed in tragic accidents in the U.S., as long as it is in cars - hey it's their own fault, right? And we all take a collective risk that beats the risk of using horses, right?

When we build a hydroelectric dam, we assume there could be fatalities in the construction. When we mine or drill for oil, we know people will lose their lives along the way. Apparently, we tacitly decide together that the benefits outweigh the losses. If AWE ever advances to the point that it has accidents or crashes that hurt anybody, at that point it will also hopefully start to become apparent whether there are any benefits to AWE (such as cheap electricity) that would outweigh the cost in both capital and lives that accompany any major thrust of human endeavor.

Tall structures are an increasing feature of our landscape, and aviation needs to figure out a way to handle it.
How 'bout if we make a rule that any airborne wind energy system must have kite-killing capability... then watch the answer turns out to NOT use kites at all! Remember that mandatory caboose and union brakeman on the Wright Flyer?

Hey I keep trying to point out, cloth sails in wind energy and aviation are old concepts that have been superseded, for the most part. But that might not stop me from trying a kite since they are fun and easy. I grew up making my own kites but have not tried it since I was in Indian Guides.

***********************************************************
A patent must describe the invention with sufficient detail that an average practitioner of the art can construct a working model from the information in the patent without undue experimentation.
***********************************************************

New channel
http://kitegen.com/kiteblog/

Continuing, some notes and opportunities on giving potential energy to wings aloft for launching and continuing flight during wind changes, lulls, or underpowering:   Launch by step towing 

Experience has shown belt drives to wear out too quickly in wind energy and not provide sufficient positive control for safety and also the efficiency is apparently low, so the result of many years experience is that belt drives are not used in wind energy. :)

That is neat!   Such will affect AWES energy-kite farms as various kite farms develop. 

Transcript I made by listening to the video of this topic thread.  The bold is a way to show MM's emphasis of voice.

For those not working on TACO: 

TACO is still cooking.   Many are in the kitchen. 

In some days the TACO will show among many public submissions to the FAA's document on AWES. 

...heard it on the radio yesterday...
:)

Seems as though the comment period extends past February 6, 2012. 

Bit last minute that Joe,

Shouldn't you try to justify your focus on low wind speeds, since power drops off exponentially, rather than directly?

TACO and now 16 other public submissions are up flying now.

Invited: 

Will AWESs be receiving N numbers from the FAA?

http://www.agaviation.org/content/about-agricultural-aviation

Yeah, 

Thanks Dave S

Is a propeller considered "crosswind"?
Like say the propellers of a SkyWindPower flying wind turbine module?
is SkyWindPower "crosswind", or do they have a category they call "stationary"?

Are they crafting rules around the Makani concept, assuming a kite moving across the sky, dragging a tether with it?
That, to me, is exactly the type of rulemaking ahead of the fact that could prove hazardous to the health of AWE.

Since AWE could be "the answer", such rulemaking now, in the ignorance of not having demonstrated a single economically-satisfactory system, or any true indication of what workable technology could be on the horizon, to cavalierly make rules about it at this stage could slow the development of the human race and could even be the beginning of what could stop the progress of humanity.

Let's see how many people die in car accidents across the globe today as the hand-wringers seek to define and rule a technology that is mostly a hypothetical concept whose true best future form is likely as yet unseen and yet to emerge.

Maybe if they make enough rules they can prevent our emerging art from ever "getting off the ground".

This rule you've described, with the streaming orange flags, reminds me of the old law that any motor vehicle operating at night must have a man with a lantern walking in front to warn people.

You see, safe operation of motor vehicles at night requires that someone walk in front of that vehicle. Today we know that walking in front of a motor vehicle at night is, in itself, a very unsafe practice!

Perhaps similarly to walking in front of a moving truck at night, having such debris on the tether might be identified as hazard #1, for all we know today.
:)
Doug Selsam

• William C. Vandegrift  instructs about RATs put to do tasks of very many sorts on a kite system.
   
  Patent number: 497393
  Filing date: Aug 29, 1892
  Issue date: May 16, 1893
  
    

I have to agree with Doug on this one. His example is further down my list of concerns though. As it's going, AWE will be required to operate in the same areas as ground based wind and everyone will have to "Take our word for it." that it will be better at higher altitudes 24 hours a day. And the most enthusiastic supporter of AWE on this list actually added a reinforcement of that being OK in his comments to the FAA because I brought it up. So much for the free sharing of information benefiting everyone.

Brian Turner