With some links bouncing or going to other non-AWES matters and some old-domain emails bouncing, I find that the new name and site for Dan Tracy is
-----------------
Related to him are other trade names and posts. Some earlier posts under a former name not being used by him: | 6556 | Kite Winches by the Pros
Kite
winches have very extreme demands to meet. Peter Lynn Sr.'s report
remains the best modern overview of the topic, and Dan Tracy's
admirable prototype is a hyper-baroque instance of the genre. Compare
with modern fishing reels and oceanographic winches- Peter... | dave santos
santos137@yahoo.com
santos137
| Jun 14, 2012
9:34 am | | 5415 | Pacific Power Sails Relocates to Seattle
Dan Tracy and
his Hawaii circle have been an admired presence in the AWE world
for...Cached You +1'd this publicly. Undo Apr 8, 2011 Maui engineer
Dan Tracyhas figured out a way to create a portable wind energy system using a kite... | dave santos
santos137@yahoo.com
santos137
| Jan 18, 2012
12:39 pm | | 4281 | Re: Pacific Power Sails
...how the drawing turns into a real flying machine. I wonder what Dan Tracy and Pacific Power Sails could do with $100,000. Something tells me...emergency light or water pumping?
|
|
| Group: AirborneWindEnergy |
Message: 6990 |
From: dave santos |
Date: 9/10/2012 |
| Subject: Re: Pacific Sky Power |
Bravo
Again- Pacific Sky Power still appears to be the first commercial
production of an AWT*. Altaeros needs to rework public claims in that
regard**.
*
KiteLab Ilwaco has flown and shared small custom AWTs for several years
(since 2007). JoeF even has a flygen AWT in LA that he got in 2009 (to
further answer Doug's "where?").
** "Altaeros Energies is an early-stage company working to bring the first airborne wind turbine to market." |
|
| Group: AirborneWindEnergy |
Message: 6991 |
From: Doug |
Date: 9/10/2012 |
| Subject: Re: Pacific Sky Power |
This is what I meant when I was saying a
working AWE product is trivial and anyone could do it if anyone wanted
to, or if anyone bothered. The big aerospace companies and ponderous
agencies are far too busy flying to meetings to hang a wind turbine
from a kite. If NASA, for example, had been serious with 100 G's to put
toward AWE, they couldn't have directed one percent of that money to
buy a couple of kites and some little generators and propellers? What
about Honeywell? Lockheed Martin? All these companies with fancy
renderings of 1950's-Heinlein-looking jet fighters flying as kites?
I'd say Pacific Sky Power are the only "player" in AWE. If they have an
airborne turbine that works and you can buy. That's my opinion. (It
looks like a decent wind would destroy it though...) Or maybe everyone
is (merely) a PLAYER (wannabe?)and these guys are the first WORKERS.
Then again this model might not actually sell, but at least it shows
how silly it is to stand around wringing our hands trying to figure out
how one could possibly pull power down from the sky.
One thing I figured out about getting grants:
Grants are only an ostensible step to commercialization. Really,
they're a delaying tactic that slows you down? More hungry for
validation from others, than for results from nature. Why did I need a
grant, to prove what I already knew? To impress people with agency
acronyms? To give myself a year's delay while I jumped through my own
self-constructed hoops?
If you have a workable concept, you should be able to develop some
product with the amount of energy it takes just to get a grant.
One problem is, like a good lawyer never asks a question he doesn't
already know the answer to, it's hard to get a grant for something
unless you are so sure it will work that you really don't need a grant
to prove it in the first place.
And if you get a grant, what's to say you have a realistic economical
solution to anyones' electrical generation problem? Versus just an
expensive curiosity? Let's face one fact: there are unlimited methods
to generate electricity too expensive to use, and only a few give us
power cheap enough to bother with. It all comes down to economics.
:)
Doug Selsam
http://www.selsam.com
|
|
| Group: AirborneWindEnergy |
Message: 6992 |
From: Joe Faust |
Date: 9/10/2012 |
| Subject: Re: Pacific Sky Power |
Maybe ---I do not know ---
there is a power shortage at the server regarding Pacific Sky Power, as the site just disappeared minutes after we started discussing the site.
Here is a Google cache of the Sept. 8, 2012, front page:
Hopefully the base web will return. |
|
| Group: AirborneWindEnergy |
Message: 6993 |
From: Joe Faust |
Date: 9/10/2012 |
| Subject: Re: Pacific Sky Power |
Another approach is the use of Web archives:
|
|
| Group: AirborneWindEnergy |
Message: 6994 |
From: dave santos |
Date: 9/10/2012 |
| Subject: Call for Open Disclosure of Near Zero AWE Policy Report to US Govern |
|
Near Zero is an a non-profit corporation
engaged in energy policy recommendations to the US Government. It is
presenting AWE findings at the AWEC2012 conference. JoeF and i were
summarily kicked off the NearZero "expert panel" at some partie's
mysterious behest, and then we were blocked from even following the
proceedings, so we are naturally concerned about the balance and
integrity of the result. A PDF, circulating privately, is being
withheld from us.
Ken Caldeira is closely associated with Near Zero, but declines to
"second guess" the exclusion decision and the secrecy (Thanks, Ken). We
asked to see the PDF, with no luck yet. This is a call for the PDF
to be made available publicly before the conference, so the open AWE
R&D community can consider what is being offered as the expression
of the following mission-
============== From Cached Content ======================
"Near Zero is a non-profit organization founded to increase the
frequency and value of dialogue between energy experts and those who
make and influence energy-related decisions in government and business.
Decision makers lack credible, impartial and timely sources of
information reflecting the range of expert opinion. What do the best
experts agree on? When they disagree, what is the source and extent of
the disagreement?
Working with decision makers and influentials to identify critical
energy issues, Near Zero will initiate, moderate and synthesize
transparent online discussions among the foremost experts from industry
and academia.
The result will be a rich, digital cache of actionable information to guide policy and investment decisions." |
|
| Group: AirborneWindEnergy |
Message: 6995 |
From: dave santos |
Date: 9/10/2012 |
| Subject: Major Italian Press AWE Coverage |
|
TGCom24, a major Italian media outlet posted the following on "10.9.12"
What study exactly is referenced?
------------------- Machine English Translation-----------------------
The Wind Could Electrify the Entire Planet
------------------------
Wind energy is sufficient to meet world demand, there are no limits geophysical
------------------------
The power of the winds could satisfy the hunger for energy around the
planet. A force clean, with near zero emissions, which could become the
primary source of electricity. This is the conclusion of a study
published in Nature Climate Change and led by the U.S. Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory. The high altitude may be an accomplice
decisive according to research place the turbines as high as it would
increase the efficiency.
In higher is better
E 'was calculated the degree of efficiency of wind turbines according
to the altitude at which they are positioned. The wind turbines placed
higher have a higher energy yield because the high-altitude winds are
generally faster and more consistent.
Scientists have used a climate model to estimate the amount of energy
that can be derived from both surface winds that those high altitude
considering only the limits geophysicists.
While the turbines positioned on the surface of the Earth could extract
a kinetic energy of 400 terawatts, with the power of high-altitude
winds that amount could rise up to the 1,800 terawatt. A huge amount
considering that the energy needs of our planet is estimated at 18
terawatts.
But to achieve this would require a widespread distribution and uniform.
Influence on climate change?
Experts have questioned whether at such high levels of extraction of
energy from the wind are possible climatic changes. As a result, if the
energy demand will remain at current levels, it is unlikely to happen.
What could stop the wind
The study found that there are no limits geophysical expansion of wind
energy. The only stop could result from economic or environmental
factors. |
|
| Group: AirborneWindEnergy |
Message: 6996 |
From: dave santos |
Date: 9/10/2012 |
| Subject: Near Zero's Cover-Up (AWE Report Politics) |
PJ,
Sorry, but you have been misinformed over Near Zero's process and product. I
just reviewed Near Zero's AWE report, and its terribly unbalanced. Key
AWE voices, like Joe Faust, were simply purged. All my contributions
were omitted. Meanwhile, Makani got three staff people to "vote" its preferences. Similar
self-serving distortions abound. AWEC members, and their contested VC cultural practices, really are wrongly favored.
This
report should be considered an attempt at serious aerospace fraud, from
my perspective, based as it is on willful secrecy, censorship, and
blacklist dynamics. Near Zero and its insiders clearly "shopped for
data" to confirm pet biases. Ken Caldeira must take some
responsibility. They could have mentioned our expert controversies to
decision-makers, instead of covering them up.
What
will it take now to shed public light on Near Zero's mishandling of
this? We will have to start with the expert opinions Near Zero
wrongfully scrubbed, and show how that affected the outcome. All
invited Expert Panel members need to be informed of what went down,
without notice to them. Mason Inman must be ready to answer complaints
at the conference.
Expect
the NIA and other key aerospace orgs and Gov agencies to take these
complaints seriously, because they are serious, and don't just emerge
for no reason.
Prediction-
Omitted input regarding specific strategic AWES architectures (eg. kite
arches) will prove to be vital to US Government technical
decision-makers (like perhaps. NREL's Fort Felker). Lets wait and see,
dave
PS
On another point, my three conference topic abstracts were submitted at
your request, very early in the process. I asked you to forward them to
the AWEC jury, and trusted you would. I will resend my original email,
if you need reminding.
|
|
| Group: AirborneWindEnergy |
Message: 6997 |
From: PJ Shepard |
Date: 9/10/2012 |
| Subject: Re: Near Zero's Cover-Up (AWE Report Politics) |
|
Dave,
In August you resent these
three conference topic ideas saying that these three were abstracts.
You were asked multiple times to clarify what you wanted to submit to
the review committee. You decided not to submit anything, not even an
abstract about the Mothra project work on which you and your team have
been diligently working.
Just before the due date, you conditioned your submittal decision
on getting Makani Power to rescind something that you claim they said,
that I hadn't seen that they had ever said. You then said that you
weren't making a submission because Makani Power did not respond in
time....,and yes, I've kept all of your emails on this subject in case
anyone else cares to see them.
-PJ
|
|
| Group: AirborneWindEnergy |
Message: 6998 |
From: Joe Faust |
Date: 9/11/2012 |
| Subject: The NearZero proved to be a bad player, truly egregious. |
The NearZero proved to be a bad player, truly egregious. Integrity went out the window. I was quiet, played politely. Boom. Summarily ousted. There is a deep loss for some yet unrevealed process of bias. Santos was ousted minutes before. The broom swept me out also. I then had my theories of the process, but it is guessing. The lame email explanation now shows such to be some kind of cover-up lie. The fiasco unfortunately might put the United States security in the future in jeopardy, if the NetZero process of push, hide, make small to win a Stanford-bias in early AWE is not uncovered, corrected, and supplanted with science over the full spectrum of AWES opportunity. Perhaps I am just naive, but this process was my first direct contact with hidden overlords in big time. Sad.
But we await for full disclosure when a serious investigation is done by neutral third party investigators, if ever.
Meanwhile the world wide opportunity for all people through the Internet may go on to advance the science of AWES, not favored VC and Stanford Old Boy bully processes. It is as though, if something is to happen, it must happen from a Stanford perspective. However, a larger game and opportunity exists: effect good science open to all people even those billions that do not carry a Stanford-approved degree.
Going on, I see a truly weak report by NetZero that respects about one percent of opportunity. Warning to investors: Stay away from NetZero and explore a much wider opportunity.
|
|
| Group: AirborneWindEnergy |
Message: 6999 |
From: Andrea Papini |
Date: 9/11/2012 |
| Subject: Re: Major Italian Press AWE Coverage |
| Group: AirborneWindEnergy |
Message: 7000 |
From: joe_f_90032 |
Date: 9/11/2012 |
| Subject: Re: The NearZero proved to be a bad player, truly egregious. |
The mix of names was a harmonious Freudian inclusion. The corporation NearZero became NetZero in my prose: LessThanZero might be the final outcome for that corporation. To have played as they have puts them out of the running for equitable preparation for the AWES Era, K3. What will matter is what flies economically to meet nice applications.
The future is open for anyone.
|
|
| Group: AirborneWindEnergy |
Message: 7001 |
From: dave santos |
Date: 9/11/2012 |
| Subject: Re: Near Zero's Cover-Up (AWE Report Politics) |
PJ,
That
was my submission (three topics), and i could have presented without
attending like others are. Guessing you never forwarded my topics to
the jury(?).
Am
enjoying the streaming conference feed, but sad to be once again
blocked, on some weird pretext, by AWEC from sharing progress,
dave
|
|
| Group: AirborneWindEnergy |
Message: 7002 |
From: dave santos |
Date: 9/11/2012 |
| Subject: Re: Fw: [AWES] The NearZero proved to be a bad player, truly egregio |
|
Ken,
Please also directly address Joe, the originator of this thread, who was also blacklisted by NearZero.
You wrote "... [Near Zero] objected to your way of expressing yourself."
What an unconscionable basis for AWE scientific and
engineering censorship, especially with major US policy recommendations
at stake. For the record, i object to much of your expression* too, but
will never censor anyone's technical contribution on such a flawed
rationale. In fairness to the blacklisted, can NearZero please
pinpoint the objectionable expression alleged? How exactly did Joe
Faust possibly offend?
Why should any "knowledge-baby" be thrown out with NearZero's emotional
bathwater? You provide one answer- they "know nothing about wind
turbines". No wonder they overlooked key content! In this case they
suppressed input on "crosslinked dense-arrays", "crosswind arches", and
certain other critical cutting edge AWE concepts. Your NearZero "know
nothings" obviously "favored" an impoverished list of (single aircraft-
single anchor) concept architectures, and blindly removed the best
expert input from outside their box. Then why is Steve Davis
listed as an AWE expert? Why are "financial" folks used for judging
aerospace methods?
What an incredibly shoddy AWE technical standard NearZero has set, that
you continue to uphold. Lets let academic umpires at Stanford look at
this; your mind seems made up and you ignore questions.
Really enjoyed your presentation, wishing you could appreciate our knowledge-sharing,
dave
PS Just make the still censored complete Expert Panel transcript public, and let everyone see how NearZero made sausage of it.
* The negligent omitting of any mention of AWE in NearZero's first
energy policy study, never corrected (i did ask), and especially your
conflicted participation in misleading Joby/Makani promotion efforts.
|
|
| Group: AirborneWindEnergy |
Message: 7003 |
From: Joe Faust |
Date: 9/11/2012 |
| Subject: Freshening their message: Sky Windpower |
Sky Windpower seems to be diversifying beyond AWES with powered quads for niche applications. But they maintain aspirations for jet-stream AWES with conductive tether.
Some recent video from their updated web: |
|
| Group: AirborneWindEnergy |
Message: 7004 |
From: Doug |
Date: 9/11/2012 |
| Subject: News Item: what wind people already knew |
| Group: AirborneWindEnergy |
Message: 7005 |
From: Robert Copcutt |
Date: 9/11/2012 |
| Subject: Re: Altaeros Seeks Engineering Intern |
|
Dave S,
Cristina Archer's talk today was interesting. I have tentative contacts
in Mauritius and Oman and both have excellent mid altitude wind
resources according to her data.
We were talking about the need for some LTA component to overcome low
wind speeds near ground. The most extreme data she presented showed at
least 5m/s at ground level and almost 15 m/s at peak. A kite optimised
for 15 m/s should be easily launched by 5 m/s wind. No need for balloons
or anything else that could get in the way once the launch has been
done.
Her data also showed that LLJs are indeed limited to certain areas of
the world and certain times of the year. Her data showed excellent wind
resources sometimes available at reasonable altitudes but it did not
show that it is worth developing a device that can launch an AWES when
wind at ground level has almost stopped.
She mentioned how extreme wind shear can sometimes break large turbines.
It is a warning for the AWE community too. Don't make those kites too
big. Bigger is harder to launch as well. I therefore support your talk
of arrays of fairly small kites. However, I think the optimum might be
to have each kite independent.
Robert.
|
|
| Group: AirborneWindEnergy |
Message: 7006 |
From: Robert Copcutt |
Date: 9/11/2012 |
| Subject: Re: The NearZero proved to be a bad player, truly egregious. |
It is interesting watching the various AWE players jostle for status.
The live comment window during the conference was a classic. The low
status players not able to attend finally given a chance to have a say;
but frankly, often abusing the privilege.
Status is rather import though. Here are 2 brief links that make the
point rather well.
http://www.johnniemoore.com/blog/archives/002844.php
http://www.johnniemoore.com/blog/archives/001874.php
It seems to me few know where they fit in the AWE hierarchy which is one
of the reasons progress has been so slow to date.
Watched a video yesterday about what they called the M-bomb. It was
tediously slow so I won't post a link. It said that we are approaching a
tipping point where we get huge scale decomposition of methane hydrate
in the Arctic. That could cause global warming on a truly scary scale.
Temperatures rising to over 100C! We need AWE to play its part, and
soon. Can we put the status struggles aside and just make progress?
Robert. |
|
| Group: AirborneWindEnergy |
Message: 7007 |
From: Joe Faust |
Date: 9/11/2012 |
| Subject: Re: The Near Zero proved to be a bad player, truly egregious. |
It appears that there is a space between "Near" and "Zero" in the name of the corporation or business. Near Zero |
|
| Group: AirborneWindEnergy |
Message: 7008 |
From: Joe Faust |
Date: 9/11/2012 |
| Subject: Open study of the Near Zero full report is invited. |
The full report will be a bully stick and may affect investors, government, and even developers. For such reason, regardless of the inequitable manner of its production, a study of the document would probably be something to do out in the open. Full report:
===================Enter this thread on the topic as you care. |
|
| Group: AirborneWindEnergy |
Message: 7009 |
From: Robert Copcutt |
Date: 9/11/2012 |
| Subject: Re: Altaeros Seeks Engineering Intern |
|
On Sat, 2012-09-08 at 14:10 -0700, dave santos wrote:
If you turn over every rock then that is all you will ever do because
there are millions of them. My objective is to develop an AWES that
generates cheap electricity. My judgement is that any rock labelled LTA
is a waste of time. If we are not selective about what we investigate
(and post on the forum) we never achieve our objectives.
Doug was recently commenting about how rarely government funded
development projects succeed. It seems to me that the problem is that
when funds are received there is immediately pressure to make something.
That something is primarily there to prove that the money has been spent
in trying to achieve the objective, and not wasted in the pub. The
trouble is that time to stop and think is never in the budget. Yet the
time to plan well is critical. Frequently experiments, or reading,
throws up the need to back-track, but few have the courage to do that
under the scrutiny of funders. Because Visventis is self-funded we can
totally remodel the steering arm based on the first test results.
What makes current practice worse is that the process of making things
causes far more pollution than thinking problems through. The way
product developments are funded really does need to go through a
revolution.
Robert. |
|
| Group: AirborneWindEnergy |
Message: 7010 |
From: dave santos |
Date: 9/11/2012 |
| Subject: LLJs are common and LTA not ruled out completely for AWE. |
Robert,
Sure
enough, Cristina today gave a whole presentation on LLJs, gave credit
to Wayne, and touched on every key point which i had recently raised to
try to prove LLJs are worth study. Cristina
even uses the word "common", in the LLJ context. I would even propose
to her that all her "low altitude maxima" zoo animals are technically
LLJs (having just re-reviewed LLJ definitions)
Cristina
should also be able to confirm that its not to uncommon for the
night-time inversion phases to be dead calm at the surface, with LLJs
just overhead. Indeed, KiteLab has observed this in testing, just as
Pocock describes (where a typical sailor sees wind at the masthead, but
not on deck. Often atmospheric data is statistically averaged, and
common surface flukeyness of a given low windspeed is as problematic at
launchtime as rarer dead calm.
But
the single balloon kytoon trick to initiate a vast cascaded launch does
not depend just on natural dead calm. One may have a kite field
surrounded by trees, or in a valley of some sort, with a need to get
just high enough to find wind. In such cases microLTA remains in a
complete design toolkit. Yes, one can come up with many other ways to
initiate lift, but all require somewhat (or a lot) more fuss,
complexity, and/or expense. LTA is like magic, and tiny amounts can
suffice. One tank of helium might last a kitefarm for years. It just seemed as if you were stating untested opinions by judging LTA as
manifestly useless and LLJs as unicorns.
A
really cool NASA idea is an electric airship that moors to charge, then
flys about freely on stored generated power. This LTA opportunity is
marginally possible on Mars, and quite attractive in other planetary
contexts. I was involved in early Mars balloon studies, and this is the
latest twist.
Please
lets leave LTA and LLJs on the AWE discussion table, worthy of
defending on specific merits, but rarely, if ever, end-all-be-all
factors.
daveS
|
|
| Group: AirborneWindEnergy |
Message: 7011 |
From: dave santos |
Date: 9/11/2012 |
| Subject: Rocks, Homework, and Status //Re: [AWES] Altaeros Seeks Engineering |
Robert,
You
raise good topics, but can you make your subject line always match your
point? It helps those who search these posts for info.
We
agree that you to be the fast player in our circle, and others will do
(or have done) more homework and rock overturning. Of course we do not
mean there are as many "rocks" to turn over as there are real rocks,
its just an expression for finding things not seen without an effort.
"Homework" is more direct- failure to master key knowledge and skills
is to fail utterly.
Regarding
your baiting of us chat-masters as "low status abusers", surely you got
it upside down. We did no harm, and had a real ball joking around,
based on our generally superior AWE knowledge and practical experience,
which is the truest measure of status. You seem to see high status in
other more superficial dimensions.
We
are still waiting for the Master Plan for AWE R&D you undertook a
couple of years ago. Lets use that as a metric for what you intend as
"fast progress". Ace that job, and you will share in our glorious
high-status AWE dynamic,
daveS
|
|
| Group: AirborneWindEnergy |
Message: 7012 |
From: John Oyebanji |
Date: 9/11/2012 |
| Subject: AWEIA International On Twitter |
|
Please follow us on Twitter @aweia_intl and do retweet!
Very best lifts.
JohnO
John Adeoye Oyebanji;
CEO, Hardensoft International
President-protem, Airborne Wind Energy Industry Association - AWEIA International |
|
| Group: AirborneWindEnergy |
Message: 7013 |
From: Bob Stuart |
Date: 9/11/2012 |
| Subject: Re: AWEIA International On Twitter |
Please plan on a significant percentage of people, especially busy
ones, who will never have an account on any social media. In my
experience, Facebook did more harm than good to my technical discussion
groups.
Bob Stuart On 11-Sep-12, at 11:45 PM, John Oyebanji wrote: |
|
| Group: AirborneWindEnergy |
Message: 7014 |
From: John Oyebanji |
Date: 9/11/2012 |
| Subject: Re: AWEIA International On Twitter |
Thanks Bob; Every medium has it's audience. I only posted a notice for all who might be interested and probably are already on that platform. Regards. John Adeoye Oyebanji;
CEO, Hardensoft International
President-protem, Airborne Wind Energy Industry Association - AWEIA International
From: Bob Stuart <bobstuart@sasktel.net
Sender: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 23:48:00 -0600 To: <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [AWES] AWEIA International On Twitter
Please plan on a significant percentage of people, especially busy
ones, who will never have an account on any social media. In my
experience, Facebook did more harm than good to my technical discussion
groups.
Bob Stuart On 11-Sep-12, at 11:45 PM, John Oyebanji wrote:
|
|
| Group: AirborneWindEnergy |
Message: 7015 |
From: dave santos |
Date: 9/11/2012 |
| Subject: Re: AWEIA International On Twitter |
Bob,
Yeah,
most working tech folks simply don't do pop social media, but
neglecting it is Luddite. So it is that AWEIA is undergoing a bit of a
make-over, thanks to an Util donation, with Nigerian web and
social-media services. John Oyebanji is working hard (unpaid for years)
to make this work.
Since
AWE is like magic, so who knows what might happen? AWEIA could get some
social-media giant with zillions of followers, like a portal or top
celeb, to "like", retweet, or whatever (i'm old-school), or maybe just
bootstrap virally like a rocket. All AWEIA
needs is a little love to do OK. Util has a specially hip Austin
dream-team to accelerate social momentum. so lets see what they can do
for AWEIA (note to Ed).
Long
term concepts to build AWE social momentum might be, like, Kites for
Oil, or "the sky for all", with AWEIA for a social hub, with
billions of friends,
daveS
|
|
|
