Messages in AirborneWindEnergy group.                           AWES8021to8073 Page 58 of 440.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8021 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/24/2012
Subject: The Boeing Company's IP includes Tillotson's solar AWES

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8022 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/24/2012
Subject: Re: Living and Working Aloft- Safety Netting Systems, Misc. Gear

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8023 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/24/2012
Subject: AWE board or educational card games?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8024 From: markusw_brb Date: 11/25/2012
Subject: Re: Progress in research

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8025 From: markusw_brb Date: 11/25/2012
Subject: Re: Progress in research

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8026 From: Bob Stuart Date: 11/25/2012
Subject: Re: Progress in research

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8027 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/25/2012
Subject: Re: Living and Working Aloft- Safety Netting Systems, Misc. Gear

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8028 From: Dan Parker Date: 11/25/2012
Subject: Re: Progress in research

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8029 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/25/2012
Subject: Re: Progress in research

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8030 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/25/2012
Subject: Constrained ground vehicle and groundgen

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8031 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 11/25/2012
Subject: Re: Constrained ground vehicle and groundgen

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8032 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 11/25/2012
Subject: Re: Constrained ground vehicle and groundgen

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8033 From: roderickjosephread Date: 11/26/2012
Subject: Stability of a tracking arch

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8034 From: dave santos Date: 11/26/2012
Subject: Re: Stability of a tracking arch

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8035 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/26/2012
Subject: Re: AWE board or educational card games?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8036 From: dave santos Date: 11/26/2012
Subject: State-of-the-Art Sailing Blocks ("sailing in the sky" bling)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8037 From: dave santos Date: 11/26/2012
Subject: Advanced Fall Protection for Living and Working Aloft (Fall-Tent Con

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8038 From: Uwe Ahrens Date: 11/28/2012
Subject: AW: NTS GmbH Economic Projection (LCOE kWhr < 2 cents)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8039 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/28/2012
Subject: NTS or X-Wind

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8040 From: dave santos Date: 11/28/2012
Subject: Re: AW: NTS GmbH Economic Projection (LCOE kWhr < 2 cents) [1 Attach

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8041 From: Reinhart Paelinck Date: 11/28/2012
Subject: AW: NTS GmbH Economic Projection (LCOE kWhr < 2 cents)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8042 From: Jane Rose Speiser Date: 11/28/2012
Subject: Re: Fwd: [AWES] AW: NTS GmbH Economic Projection (LCOE kWhr < 2 cent

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8043 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/28/2012
Subject: Welcome to this technology space: AirborneWindEnergy

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8044 From: dave santos Date: 11/28/2012
Subject: Re: AW: NTS GmbH Economic Projection (LCOE kWhr < 2 cents)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8045 From: Reinhart Paelinck Date: 11/28/2012
Subject: AW: NTS GmbH Economic Projection (LCOE kWhr < 2 cents)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8046 From: dave santos Date: 11/28/2012
Subject: Welcome Jane Rose Speiser (What did Massimo write?)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8047 From: dave santos Date: 11/28/2012
Subject: KiteGen Claim- "<.03 Euro per kWh"

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8048 From: dave santos Date: 11/28/2012
Subject: Living and Working Aloft (Fall Tent Safety Concept Drawing link)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8049 From: harry valentine Date: 11/28/2012
Subject: Re: KiteGen Claim- "<.03 Euro per kWh"

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8051 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 11/28/2012
Subject: RE: [AWES] KiteGen Claim-  "<.03 Euro per kWh"

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8052 From: renatore Date: 11/29/2012
Subject: Re: KiteGen Claim- "<.03 Euro per kWh"

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8053 From: Pierre Benhaiem Date: 11/29/2012
Subject: Some correction

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8054 From: roderickjosephread Date: 11/29/2012
Subject: Can promised future carbon offsets fund a cooperative ?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8055 From: roderickjosephread Date: 11/29/2012
Subject: invertable conic kite arch

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8056 From: roderickjosephread Date: 11/29/2012
Subject: Re: Can promised future carbon offsets fund a cooperative ?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8057 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/29/2012
Subject: Re: Can promised future carbon offsets fund a cooperative ?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8058 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/29/2012
Subject: Re: Can promised future carbon offsets fund a cooperative ?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8059 From: dave santos Date: 11/29/2012
Subject: Re: Can promised future carbon offsets fund a cooperative ?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8060 From: dave santos Date: 11/29/2012
Subject: Re: invertable conic kite arch

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8061 From: dave santos Date: 11/29/2012
Subject: AWE R&D Basket Fund Engineering Audits

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8062 From: dave santos Date: 11/29/2012
Subject: Rob's AWE Article in IEEE Spectrum

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8063 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/29/2012
Subject: Re: invertable conic kite arch

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8064 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/29/2012
Subject: Re: Launching groundgen AWES

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8067 From: dave santos Date: 11/30/2012
Subject: Even Fancier Kite Physics (Quantum Finite Automata)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8068 From: dave santos Date: 11/30/2012
Subject: AWES Defined in Formal Flight Dynamics

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8069 From: dave santos Date: 11/30/2012
Subject: Preventing Marketing Fraud in AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8070 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/30/2012
Subject: Re: AWES Defined in Formal Flight Dynamics

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8071 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/30/2012
Subject: Re: Preventing Marketing Fraud in AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8072 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/30/2012
Subject: TED: Roland Schmehl

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8073 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/30/2012
Subject: Re: TED: Roland Schmehl



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8021 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/24/2012
Subject: The Boeing Company's IP includes Tillotson's solar AWES
Tillotson assigns to The Boeing Company: Airborne Power Station
Click image for full patent.      Discuss claims, etc. 
  • Assignee: The Boeing Company
  • Brian J. Tillotson
  • US 8006933
  • Airborne Power Station
  • Note: In the description, it is clear that the kite balloon using kiting principles is included.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8022 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/24/2012
Subject: Re: Living and Working Aloft- Safety Netting Systems, Misc. Gear
Kite system to maintain an aloft aircraft landing platform

Use kite systems to maintain an aloft aircraft takeoff-and-landing platform. 

The aircraft to be landed may be kites, paragliders, hang gliders, powered aircraft, wingsuited humans, powered blimps, etc. 

A hang glider glider club might fly kite-system-held launch-and-landing platform.  (Notice the mass migration to the summit of Mount Blanc: 
http://vimeo.com/48679674    Just substitute a kite-system aerial platform for the "Mount" for a site of operations of taking off and landing. 

A cousin patent in this genre of application:
Click image for full patent.      Discuss claims, etc. 
Harry Clayton Belleville, of Oakland, California

Aircraft Landing
Patent number: 1874423
Filing date: Jun 22, 1929
Issue date: Aug 30, 1932
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8023 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/24/2012
Subject: AWE board or educational card games?


(AWE board or educational card game?  Spread the word by packaged games?)

 Who are the inventors related to this AWES clip?
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8024 From: markusw_brb Date: 11/25/2012
Subject: Re: Progress in research
--- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, "Joe Faust" <joefaust333@... Thank you for your answer unfortunately I need to finish the roadmap already by the end of the year so I won't be able to use the showcase in Berlin.
I will definitely look into the files and papers you linked in your post, thanks a lot I will let you know if I have more defined questions on it.

Markus
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8025 From: markusw_brb Date: 11/25/2012
Subject: Re: Progress in research
Thanks to everybody for your answers I know it's not so easy to predict the future but the purpose of this roadmap is not to show a future how it will look like but rather how it could look like. Therefore my task is to define all technologies that could be possible in the future to generate energy as a (partial) substitute for nuclear or coal energy. The most important part on the roadmap therefore is to show why a technology is not on the market yet on which technological difficult need to be solved in order to be able to commercialize it. Of course a lot of times the lack of investors is a reason why a technology is not on the market yet but for my visualization of the future this is not so relevant as it's more focused on technological steps in an ideal environment.

Thanks again for you help.

Markus
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8026 From: Bob Stuart Date: 11/25/2012
Subject: Re: Progress in research
Postulating an ideal environment for research, applying the results, and back-dating fifty years, we are now living in utopia.  I think you are doing more to estimate the damage caused by the 1% than to make useful projections about what sane management could accomplish.  Be sure to show your numbers to the Greens, as useful evidence.  
Societies become as complex as they can with the available brain power.  We can see the resulting structural difficulties to progress by watching ants.  They are just smart enough to usually find their way home.  Half of them accomplish nothing else.  If six ants are carrying a crumb to the nest, you will typically see one on top, one pulling each way, and the sixth, constituting a bare majority, pulling toward the nest.  Computers could make us effectively smarter, but it remains to be seen if we will use them for that, overall.

Bob Stuart

On 25-Nov-12, at 4:06 AM, markusw_brb wrote:
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8027 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/25/2012
Subject: Re: Living and Working Aloft- Safety Netting Systems, Misc. Gear
A further note about Mont Blanc
In August: Over 50 humans did free-flight kiting in the paraglider format to lift their bodies to land on Europe's top peak in one day: 

Working the winds of the atmosphere to lift all that mass produced a significant amount of potential energy that was then spent to glide their kites to lower elevations after they celebrated their toplanding accomplishments.      

Consider robot lifting of construction materials to high points by similar device. 
Consider returning with special ore or goods or recyclables. 
Consider using the potential energy to drive a blade onboard to charge batteries on the way down. 
? 
AWES sectors ....


JoeF
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8028 From: Dan Parker Date: 11/25/2012
Subject: Re: Progress in research
Bob Stuart,
Lovely analogy.
Dan'l
PS: Sow many lessons from nature's ways.

Dan'l To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
From: bobstuart@sasktel.net
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 07:11:41 -0600
Subject: Re: [AWES] Re: Progress in research
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8029 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/25/2012
Subject: Re: Progress in research
Markus::"how it could look...".

Well,
It could look like this:
Over 99% of energy used in the world could come from the wind; and 100% of that could come from AWE.

It could be so with hardly any further tech invention, maybe none.

Will that scene occur? No.

JoeF
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8030 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/25/2012
Subject: Constrained ground vehicle and groundgen
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8031 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 11/25/2012
Subject: Re: Constrained ground vehicle and groundgen

Indeed the search report refers as "y" the well known Dave Lang's preliminary study (Using Kites...) _  JoeF refers _ into Drachen's document (2004),as Buggy,mentioning "...The question becomes,can transient high tension periods be converted into real power?This can be achevied only if the kite is given velocity along the direction of the kite line,this being the direction of the tension.(...)".In this document Buggy is rated at 45 points,against "Reel" at 86 points.

 

So the basis of the scheme described in this patent is not new,but perhaps some additional details involve some novelty.

 

It is interesting to note after long studies about "Reel" or "Carousel",the authors take this way,proving at least two points:the choice of scheme is not stopped,and the fact it is not natural for kites to go from traction to conversion.

 

PierreB

http://flygenkite.com (also new details from a well known scheme as "flygen")    
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8032 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 11/25/2012
Subject: Re: Constrained ground vehicle and groundgen

In characterized part the first claim mentions the orientability of path according to wind direction.Search report is correct by citing previous art (which David Lang's study) making this claim (and other dependant claims) as "Y" (no inventive step) rather than "X" (no novelty),the reason being the object of the first claim can be considered as new,but obvious since orientability of kite systems is described in many documents.

 

PierreB 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8033 From: roderickjosephread Date: 11/26/2012
Subject: Stability of a tracking arch
In order to track the wind automatically,
the feet of an arch kite could follow a circular path. either a rail, rope, road etc...
By setting the feet of an arch kite on a circular path that has a larger diameter than the width between the arch feet, we may be able to improve stability and ability to track...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sw9WvJMwVlk&feature=share&list=ULsw9WvJMwVlk

and

http://youtu.be/1a56oPmtfTc 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8034 From: dave santos Date: 11/26/2012
Subject: Re: Stability of a tracking arch
Roderick,

Great work on toward gigascale AWES. You are on the best path yet, but the details are hard to all get right.

Yes an arch can weathercock a turret circle of any sort, if its center of pressure is aft of the center-point.

The scale fatness of the floating ring you show is very exaggerated. Even in fairly deep water, its far cheaper (and more weatherly) to use a ring of anchors to define a rigid ring based from the ocean floor. The boxy control and power modules are also too big to be scale, and of course would be more ship-like to handle seas. No rigid structure in these AWES can come close in scale to a megascale soft-kite arch, especially for economic reasons. A few large ships shown operating around the arch would indicate the vast scale possible. They would be the size of a cat next to a person, for a rough idea of the scale (1000' ship next to a 6000' wide arch).

The small windard arch and larger leeward arch could work together. The windward could jump leeward to morph toward the "shark gills" geometric configuration, which is near optimal biomimmetry.

Showing the arches able to rise further toward a sort of horse-shoe/omega form would show the launching progression to a form that naturally will "hunt" back and forth in powerful lateral cycles, as the (groundspan to height ratio) stability factor is reduced

daveS
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8035 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/26/2012
Subject: Re: AWE board or educational card games?
The first round was won by Selsam; he knew the text as from "Fry" (sic, and Hise) 
in US4084102 
The two inventors==Fry and Hise== advanced in their direction with another patent: 
US4165468 
The game might be to clearly disclose what advances
past the first patent they claim in the second patent. 


Clip from within:

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8036 From: dave santos Date: 11/26/2012
Subject: State-of-the-Art Sailing Blocks ("sailing in the sky" bling)
Annapolis Performance Sailing has the most obsessive selection of sailing hardware, much of which is ideal for technical kiting.

Blocks are a key rigging component for many AWES concepts. This covers a wide range of prices (one high-end block the size of your fist can cost 2000 USD), but Ronstan seems to offer the best mix of economy and innovation. Hollow center blocks with soft-shackles are an evident performance trend-


http://www.apsltd.com/c-417-blocks-and-accessories.aspx
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8037 From: dave santos Date: 11/26/2012
Subject: Advanced Fall Protection for Living and Working Aloft (Fall-Tent Con

A trend in fall protection for dare-devil stunts is to use a large volume of stacked cardboard boxes. Falls from 45 to 750m have been performed without parachute or injury. The biggest flaw to these DIY crash pads is the excess size of the box zone needed to make sure the fall ends on target. A lesser flaw is the vulnerability to rain.

An improved method is is to set up one or more box-stacks as "tent-poles", with safety-netting for a "tent-fly" draped over these poles. Thus a far larger area of safety can be secured with much less wasted material. Box stacks would be small enough to easily wrap in plastic to protect from weather.

A kite lifted human payload net can be guyed in place high over the "fall-tent". Properly rigged, there would be no way to fall outside of the protected zone. Falling directly on a box stack should be as safe as falling on the net between boxes. Suitable safety margins could be designed-in and formally validated by professional engineers.

coolIP


Hints- A helmet and neck supporter was used by the skydiver in a wingsuit. Nylon netting is the best shock-load choice. Needed decelleration distance is only a few meters, but adequate distance is critical at all points of impact. Sand anchors are cheap and effective to guy out the fall tent for a coastal case like Flying Plaza Rotterdam. 

Falling into boxes-
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8038 From: Uwe Ahrens Date: 11/28/2012
Subject: AW: NTS GmbH Economic Projection (LCOE kWhr < 2 cents)
Attachments :

    Hallo Dave,

     

    excuse my delayed answer but I have a lot on my desk and you are a very busy writer.

    Thank you for your offer to help us how we have to calculate our business.

     

    Because I guess you don´t know a lot about my vita I  would like to give you some information.

     

    First I made an apprenticeship as toolmaker at VW and learned the basics how to design, construct and develop machines.

     

    Then I went to the TU Berlin and made my engineer education in aerospace.

     

    My first job was at Johnson & Johnson to develop a design department and installed the first CAD System in Germany.

    Later I became the responsibility for the operation of the implant-business and installed the first CAD-CAM connection in our Berlin plant and was a member of the board.

     

    In 1989 I founded my first own company and had an IPO with it in 1999 (Founder and CEO).

    So I examined carefully how to develop and steer a company and also what a due diligence process means. The company still exists with expected revenues by around 36 Mio. Euro. for 2012.

     

    Since 2001 I am the speaker of the board for innovation, technology and industry of the Berlin chamber of commerce (IHK).

     

    In 2006 I moved to the supervisory board of my company to found NTS and to develop X-Wind-Technologies. In the first 5 years Guido and me worked only on regulations with our German authorities (9 local and 4 national administrations had to be convinced).

     

    End of 2010 we got the construction permit and operation license to build our test track.

     

    In 2011 we designed and constructed our first test track and since September 2012 after only 21 month we produced first time energy on our site (see picture in addendum).

     

    If you still believe I need further private lessons don´t let me know.

     

    By the way what is your vita besides of breeding shit-storms?

     

    As above mentioned I have a lot to do and I am not any longer able being a community author. If you like you can write about me but please make some basic researches before you produce further baseless rumors.

    Character assassination is (I hope so) also an offense in the Unites States of America.

     

    And please take me out of your recipient list.

     

    Best regards

     

    Uwe

     

     

    Von: dave santos [mailto:santos137@yahoo.com]
    Gesendet: Montag, 12. November 2012 20:03
    An: AWE
    Cc: Guido Lütsch; Uwe Ahrens
    Be    treff: NTS GmbH Economic Projection (LCOE kWhr < 2 cents)

     

    NTS proposes to deliver energy to the German market at a production-cost of less-than 2 cents per kWhr. We have seen such rosy predictions before by AWE venture starts seeking to raise investment funds, but no detailed calculations have ever been offered in support of such extraordinary claims.

     

    Can NTS show convincing detailed calculations behind its bold LCOE prediction? Such calculations must realistically account for well-known factors like-

    		   @@attachment@@
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8039 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/28/2012
    Subject: NTS or X-Wind



    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8040 From: dave santos Date: 11/28/2012
    Subject: Re: AW: NTS GmbH Economic Projection (LCOE kWhr < 2 cents) [1 Attach
    Dear Uwe,

    Thanks for sharing your vita. Nothing in it makes clear why you are the most qualified to be lead editor of the Springer AWE textbook, or if you are the sort of Werner von Braun AWE engineering science needs.

    Sadly our intended leader, Dr. Paul MaCready, "Engineer of the Century" died in 2007. He had begun work in AWE, and we expected far faster progress under his leadership.

    You did not provide any specifics about how NTS calculated an AWES LCOE kWhr < 2 cents. Nor is it expected NTS could show convincing calculations. Please share with us how your team came up with this number, with reference to the line items provided-

    Land Costs
    Financing Costs (payback period?)
    Labor Costs
    Aviation Liability Insurance
    Excise Taxes
    Maintenance Expenses (down-time, replacing kites, etc.)
    Small Generator Scale Inefficiency
    Decommissioning Costs (incl. lifecycle engineering risk of a new technology)

    Thanks in Advance,

    daveS
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8041 From: Reinhart Paelinck Date: 11/28/2012
    Subject: AW: NTS GmbH Economic Projection (LCOE kWhr < 2 cents)

    Dear all, Dave,

    I have not posted on this forum for a very long time; just trying to enjoy reading the posts after a hard days work.
    The last couple of months, however, it has progressed from being interesting, entertaining,... to a much more tensioned collection of posts. We all know structures are optimal under tension; but therefore our conversations do not have to be.

    In these times where everyone is trying to get some money to pay for the next couple of years of R&D, without a steady income, we should not waste time semi-arguing; defend our ideas to ourselves. These forumposts have cost every reader around 30 seconds to two minutes per post, all time we do not get back.

    Instead, we should be happy and grateful that someone is willing to invest his own time and take initiative on such a huge project as the Sprenger book, instead of criticizing the role of one of the lead editors. And invest our own time in contributing to this book; it is a real chance to get something out there that will be read by others than the small AWE community.The Sprenger book is going to be guided by the real scientific community, so just have faith that it will be a qualitiative collection of publications.

    When any of the developers in AWE want to share numbers, they will do so in such a publication, not on a public forum such as this one; definitely not as a defence in a personal attack. (I will not judge that; if one can manage these numbers I would very much applaud this)

    Good luck and good winds to everyone working on something at the moment,


    Reinhart



    To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
    From: santos137@yahoo.com
    Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 09:16:30 -0800
    Subject: Re: [AWES] AW: NTS GmbH Economic Projection (LCOE kWhr < 2 cents)

     

    Dear Uwe,

    Thanks for sharing your vita. Nothing in it makes clear why you are the most qualified to be lead editor of the Springer AWE textbook, or if you are the sort of Werner von Braun AWE engineering science needs.

    Sadly our intended leader, Dr. Paul MaCready, "Engineer of the Century" died in 2007. He had begun work in AWE, and we expected far faster progress under his leadership.

    You did not provide any specifics about how NTS calculated an AWES LCOE kWhr < 2 cents. Nor is it expected NTS could show convincing calculations. Please share with us how your team came up with this number, with reference to the line items provided-

    Land Costs
    Financing Costs (payback period?)
    Labor Costs
    Aviation Liability Insurance
    Excise Taxes
    Maintenance Expenses (down-time, replacing kites, etc.)
    Small Generator Scale Inefficiency
    Decommissioning Costs (incl. lifecycle engineering risk of a new technology)

    Thanks in Advance,

    daveS
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8042 From: Jane Rose Speiser Date: 11/28/2012
    Subject: Re: Fwd: [AWES] AW: NTS GmbH Economic Projection (LCOE kWhr < 2 cent
    hello Uwe,
            Many thanks for writing an exceedingly clear and unequivocable answer, both in style and substance,  that hopefully will clear the air--in both the troposhere and at lower altitudes,-- of the unecessary disturbances of authors such as D. Santos.
    cordially, Jane Rose Speiser



    Il 28/11/2012 17:37, Massimo Ippolito ha scritto:
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8043 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/28/2012
    Subject: Welcome to this technology space: AirborneWindEnergy
    Here are some of the flows welcome in this open-to-the-scientific-and-engineering-world place
    AirborneWindEnergy

    • Safety-critical notes, studies, papers ... that apply to tethered aviation. 
    • Essays on AWES matters. 
    • Chapters regarding aspects of kite energy systems
    • Full books, ebooks, PDF books, ... on AWES  topics
    • Discussion over matters of growing industries and arts to forward the science, craft, management, etc. of airborne wind energy conversion systems
    • Job notices for positions and opportunities in the AWE industry
    • Team-profiles and changes in personnel
    • Investment opportunities.  Announcement of public offers. 
    • Obituaries regarding people in the AWE industry. 
    • Experiment reports and analyses.
    • Images of AWES trials. Images of details of equipment involved in the trials. 
    • Supply of parts. 
    • Reports on the agreements with airspace agents of various nations. 
    • Studies over specific embodiments of schemes.
    • Detail fly-off reports that compare AWES types.
    • Detailed specifications of an AWES installation.
    • Disclosure of detail calculations that produce a claim that affects AWE industry at any level. 
    • History of an AWES. 
    • Discussion of claims of involved patents. 
    • AWE-kitricity consumer reports. 
    • AWE-pumping consumer reports. 
    • AWE-mass-moving consumer reports. 
    • AWE-traction consumer reports. 
    • Notes on sources of R&D funds. 
    • Investment advisories with support argument. 
    • Meeting notes. 
    • Conference proceedings. 
    • Book reports on books helpful to AWE progress. 
    • Incident reports. 
    • ...  
    • ... and other notes generally moving AWE into positive service. 
    Feel free to add line items in this topic thread that clue to what would be welcome in 
    this publishing space. The entire  world is welcome to study AWE through what gets 
    posted in this public space.  This space allows scientists to share their best, engineers to disclose their finest, 
    technicians to share their experiences, inquisitive minds to post pertinent questions, etc. 

    Shared lessons and information may save teams much time and expense. 
    Win by posting your best AWE. 
    Record core questions that may spur others into answering or research. 
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8044 From: dave santos Date: 11/28/2012
    Subject: Re: AW: NTS GmbH Economic Projection (LCOE kWhr < 2 cents)
    Reinhart,

    You seem to be promising that Uwe will provide the withheld NTS economic calculations in the Springer book. Don't forget most of us will not want to to be forced buy this book. Why any knowledge must be withheld from public forums is unclear.

    Sorry you are so upset by an effort to identify exaggerated claims being used to attract private investment. Understand how problematic this dynamic is for the rest of us. Magenn raised 8 million based on unsupported claims then folded. If academia somehow can prevent this sort of abuse, it has failed us so far,

    daveS
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8045 From: Reinhart Paelinck Date: 11/28/2012
    Subject: AW: NTS GmbH Economic Projection (LCOE kWhr < 2 cents)
    Dave,

    I do not seem to promise anything. The good thing about the Sprenger books is, the chance of your public library getting a copy does actually exist, so you are not "forced" to buy one. People in the scientific community make a living based on publications, publications that are published in a scientifically rated book / magazine; not on public forum posts.

    I am just upset about the way you are writing down names and publically convicting people on a forum; that is all. You could just as well have formulated it generally; under a topic called influence of factors X and Y on price/kWh; showing the prices claimed by people in the industry. And showing early kitelab calculations as well.
    Therefore I do propose opening such a topic, closing this one; without getting in a dogfight with ourselves.

    Good winds,

    Reinhart

    To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
    From: santos137@yahoo.com
    Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 11:24:32 -0800
    Subject: Re: [AWES] AW: NTS GmbH Economic Projection (LCOE kWhr < 2 cents)

     

    Reinhart,

    You seem to be promising that Uwe will provide the withheld NTS economic calculations in the Springer book. Don't forget most of us will not want to to be forced buy this book. Why any knowledge must be withheld from public forums is unclear.

    Sorry you are so upset by an effort to identify exaggerated claims being used to attract private investment. Understand how problematic this dynamic is for the rest of us. Magenn raised 8 million based on unsupported claims then folded. If academia somehow can prevent this sort of abuse, it has failed us so far,

    daveS
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8046 From: dave santos Date: 11/28/2012
    Subject: Welcome Jane Rose Speiser (What did Massimo write?)
    Hi Jane,

    Welcome to the AWES Forum. 

    Thank you for public input regarding NTS withholding its economic calculations. Sorry you find "unecessary disturbances of authors" in open circles. No one intends this.

    Your message contained a small mystery-

    "Il 28/11/2012 17:37, Massimo Ippolito ha scritto:", but with no text of what he wrote you.

    What was this message you chose to cut? It seems to have a direct relation to your comment...

    daveS
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8047 From: dave santos Date: 11/28/2012
    Subject: KiteGen Claim- "<.03 Euro per kWh"
    Dear Massimo and Jane,

    This is the same open-forum question for KiteGen as posed to NTS regarding its LCOE economic projection.

    KiteGen claims on its website the following-

    "A 100 MW Carousel power plant is estimated to deliver energy for less than 0.03 Euro per kWh"

    Can we please see the math this estimate was based on? What numbers were used for the following items (?) -

    Land Costs
    Financing Costs (payback period?)
    Labor Costs
    Aviation Liability Insurance
    Excise Taxes
    Maintenance Expenses (down-time, replacing kites, etc.)
    Small Generator Scale Inefficiency
    Decommissioning Costs (incl. lifecycle engineering risk of a new technology)


    Thanks in advance for sharing just how KiteGen made this calculation,

    daveS
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8048 From: dave santos Date: 11/28/2012
    Subject: Living and Working Aloft (Fall Tent Safety Concept Drawing link)
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8049 From: harry valentine Date: 11/28/2012
    Subject: Re: KiteGen Claim- "<.03 Euro per kWh"
    Hydro Quebec is selling hydroelectricity into New York State and Vermont, also the Boston area for 4.8-cents ($0.048 per kWh) per kW-hr.

    Many of us would like to see the calculations as to how wind power conversion can cost 0.03 Euro per kWh. 


    Harry

    To: m.ippolito@sequoiaonline.com; j.speiser@kitegen.com
    CC: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
    From: santos137@yahoo.com
    Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 15:48:16 -0800
    Subject: [AWES] KiteGen Claim- "<.03 Euro per kWh"

     

    Dear Massimo and Jane,

    This is the same open-forum question for KiteGen as posed to NTS regarding its LCOE economic projection.

    KiteGen claims on its website the following-

    "A 100 MW Carousel power plant is estimated to deliver energy for less than 0.03 Euro per kWh"

    Can we please see the math this estimate was based on? What numbers were used for the following items (?) -

    Land Costs
    Financing Costs (payback period?)
    Labor Costs
    Aviation Liability Insurance
    Excise Taxes
    Maintenance Expenses (down-time, replacing kites, etc.)
    Small Generator Scale Inefficiency
    Decommissioning Costs (incl. lifecycle engineering risk of a new technology)


    Thanks in advance for sharing just how KiteGen made this calculation,

    daveS
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8051 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 11/28/2012
    Subject: RE: [AWES] KiteGen Claim-  "<.03 Euro per kWh"


    We have no prove if yes or no NTS or KiteGen can reach values they claim,no more than for other AWE firms.By the same arguing we doubt the validity of such claims making a comparison with working technologies,we should also doubt all AWE claims about their potential in cheaper energy.
     

    PierreB
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8052 From: renatore Date: 11/29/2012
    Subject: Re: KiteGen Claim- "<.03 Euro per kWh"
    Hoping my english is understandable.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8053 From: Pierre Benhaiem Date: 11/29/2012
    Subject: Some correction

    During a moment crosswind kite scheme with hydro-turbine as convertor looks me a good solution,thanks to continuous power and simplified management, gathering advantages from both flygen and reel.

    But in fact only a small part is converted due to the proportion of (small) length of cable between the anchor and the hydro-turbine,and (long) length between hydro-turbine and kite.

    A good conversion is possible with a travelling scheme like Jong Chul Kim - Kite Energy Systems KES ,but for a stationary scheme,the installation should be a little too complicated and expensive.

    PierreB

    http://flygenkite

    http://wheelwind.com

    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8054 From: roderickjosephread Date: 11/29/2012
    Subject: Can promised future carbon offsets fund a cooperative ?
    Carbon Credit markets are shady and very loosely regulated.
    Can a cooperative can trade shares in promised future carbon offsets.

    Say we conceive a project,
    State in engineering terms the goals and realistic expected results in terms of tonnes of carbon emissions reductions  ...
    Can we sell those future credits now in order to fund the project? $9/tonne?

    The Realistic Nature of the project would no doubt have to be verified and the actual results checked in order that the scheme be legal...

    How much can be raised this way? (none legally?)

    If we didn't reach our target would we have to scrub co2 from dishes in restaurants?

    It's not only aluminium smelters want this..
    companies with a public face will soon want a piece ...

    quote.. 
    in recent years, some companies have backed away from offsets and RECs. In 2011, for instance, computer maker Dell announced that it had ended its purchases of RECs for the purpose of classifying its operations as carbon neutral. Nike and PepsiCo stopped buying RECs and carbon offsets in 2010. The reason: to focus on direct investments that will accelerate their use of alternative energy sources. That's great, if a company is savvy enough to know how to carry out such direct investments.

    Would WOW market an offset fund of a set number of shares per year?
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8055 From: roderickjosephread Date: 11/29/2012
    Subject: invertable conic kite arch
    If a mothra kite arch is made single skin
    so that sails are set over loadpaths.
    If you mount the 2 arch feet along an two pivoting arms, with the front
    line set nearest the pivot and the back most line set near the "hand"
    ...

    When the arch is place in a 2 way flow zone... tidal or a valley
    It may even be able to invert whilst flying to reorient itself with the
    change in current.
    especially so when it's made bouyant.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8056 From: roderickjosephread Date: 11/29/2012
    Subject: Re: Can promised future carbon offsets fund a cooperative ?
    Can we form a project to meet this standard to qualify for offseting?
    http://www.cdmgoldstandard.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/GSv2.2_Requirements.pdf 
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8057 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/29/2012
    Subject: Re: Can promised future carbon offsets fund a cooperative ?
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8058 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/29/2012
    Subject: Re: Can promised future carbon offsets fund a cooperative ?
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8059 From: dave santos Date: 11/29/2012
    Subject: Re: Can promised future carbon offsets fund a cooperative ?
    This is an excellent idea, but there is high ethical risk involved. If we as an industry were to market our potential carbon offets as a futures play, then we must succeed. A Gold Standard offset partner would help bring third party credibility to such an instrument. A corporation might be convinced to fund AWE R&D on the basis of claimed future offsets, but its a bold move. Its not likely that this quasi-Enron scheme is compatible with Kyoto yet.

    If we do succeed as world heroes, then this will have have been a great play. Otherwise, if the money is spent lavishly, and no viable utility-scale AWES results, we would be scoundrels. We need a bit more due diligence in showing a working TRS-9 technology without exotic financing. One thing is clear, raising millions in AWE on the strength of wild promises is less viable these days. The next rounds of investment will be more sober.

    Roddy, your Kite Power Cooperative could be a great vehicle for the AWE Basket Fund. Be ready to formalize it under Scottish/UK law, and make sure the participations (board) and presentations (PR) are representative of broad AWE R&D. The Offset Futures mechanism might follow. 
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8060 From: dave santos Date: 11/29/2012
    Subject: Re: invertable conic kite arch
    An invertable arch has been covered by us, especially in the context of gap winds that typically "breathe" both ways. Arch inversion is quite feasible, and is already seen in common sleds (arch on a bridle) which often invert during upsets, but continue to fly.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8061 From: dave santos Date: 11/29/2012
    Subject: AWE R&D Basket Fund Engineering Audits

    As Dave Lang noted, an essential precondition of allocating AWE R&D Basket Funds is a sound equitable process to rate engineering merit for funding. Fortunately, we don't have to invent such a process from scratch, since the engineering world has already developed formal frameworks suited to our situation.

    One the best developed is Integrity Engineering. This management philosophy uses engineering audits to inspect for weaknesses in engineering processes. Basket funding will be conditional on some sort of integrity engineering audit. Prepare your AWE venture to be "compliant, transparent, effective, and efficient" in its R&D culture-

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrity_engineering_audit
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8062 From: dave santos Date: 11/29/2012
    Subject: Rob's AWE Article in IEEE Spectrum

    Nice introduction to an engineering audience. To his credit, Rob covers a broader field than his own company. 

    One funny idea of his is that rigid wing AWE is simply more "advanced" and he "suspects" more competitively scalable, even though its Makani partisans tend not to be the aerospace types (who are mostly into soft wings), and rigidity itself is the scaling barrier. Near Zero happily seized on Rob's opinion in this to cook its results, but he is not into debating it. 

    Rob also once again presents the idea of military AWE uncritically, as if a global arms race based AWE would not be a scary thing (especially for the US, with its limited competitive manufacturing base compared to China). For better or worse, Rob will be remembered as the pioneer of militarized AWE.

    All in all, though, this article is sure to attract fine talent into our field-

    http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/the-benefits-of-airborne-wind-energy
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8063 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/29/2012
    Subject: Re: invertable conic kite arch
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8064 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/29/2012
    Subject: Re: Launching groundgen AWES

    Step towing is a method that may be used in launching AWES  to get wings into winds that are adequate for continued kiting. 
    Has Massimo considered this for KiteGen?
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8067 From: dave santos Date: 11/30/2012
    Subject: Even Fancier Kite Physics (Quantum Finite Automata)
    Control theory begins with Finite State Machines (FSM) acting as Deterministic Finite Automata (DFA). Uncertainty is addressed by Non-deterministic FAs (NFAs) like Probabalistic Autonoma (PA). Quantum Finite Automata (QFA) are the latest refinement of probability machines, based on Quantum Computing principles.

    The ordinary kite has so far met every prediction of QM and is now found to be an instance of an embodied phonon-based QFA. This is the most advanced explanation yet for why a conventional digital computer is not essential for basic AWES control (despite the popular myth). Rag and string programmed in an ancient "analog language" as a QFA can intelligently process wind. How cool is that?
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8068 From: dave santos Date: 11/30/2012
    Subject: AWES Defined in Formal Flight Dynamics

    This is the Classic Aerodynamics definition of AWES "QFA" operation -

    Statically Stable: Neutrally Dynamic Stabilty- Moments tend to return airplane to equilibrium, but oscillations do not decay.

    http://history.nasa.gov/SP-367/f130.htm
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8069 From: dave santos Date: 11/30/2012
    Subject: Preventing Marketing Fraud in AWE
    For years we seen high-profile AWE ventures use exaggerated claims to raise millions in investment that quickly melt away with no tangible contribution to our engineering science. We used to rationalize that such companies were acting as our cheerleaders, building public awareness, and so on. Now we see rampant use of false claims harming the honest chances of the wider community. The many millions wasted by government and private investors on shaky AWE promotions would have done far more good spent in academia and on strict merits competitions.

    Its up to us, the world AWE community, to curb the abuses, as the best-informed responsible parties. When specific ethical complaints against an AWE company are aired in the community, there should be an expectation that complaints be promptly answered by the company, in part so wrongful complaints are rebutted. Its been part of the pattern of fraud in AWE that individuals and companies haughtily deflect technical complaints on the pretense of grave emotional insult, while raking in as much cash as possible, only to then disappear. 

    When a AWE company (or individual) is publicly singled out in a peer-complaint with substance, it has a big choice to make. It can concede and correct the error, or it can stonewall. If it stonewalls, because the complaint is documented, the company management has entered a phase of guilty-knowledge, where continued abuse is more than forgivable unwitting incompetence, but legally actionable fraud.

    We need watchdogs and whistleblowers in AWE far more than we need grifters. Its our garden to keep weeded. so that we bring a good crop to market.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8070 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/30/2012
    Subject: Re: AWES Defined in Formal Flight Dynamics

    --- In AiAirplane Pitch Equilibrium
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8071 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/30/2012
    Subject: Re: Preventing Marketing Fraud in AWE
    Ever on the hot seat while RAD AWE flies: 

    In support of good science and engineering while bringing to market effective AWES for the world: 

    On the front page of the free online growing reference/textbook:

    This book on Airborne Wind Energy : 
    of about 1,500 file pages form an online growing textbook and reference on airborne wind energy 
    is intended for interactive and collaborative open free use 
    by researchers, engineers, technicians, scientists, energy professionals, and students. 
    Continued inputs by the interested community 
    to advance this book is invited.  

    Continual peer critique over the AWES science and arts
    is forwarded openly in the tech forum AirborneWindEnergy, a free join.

    The era of tethered aviation along with its kite energy sector deserves our best efforts. 

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

    Papers, chapters, reports, analyses, notes, etc. are invited from the AWE Community.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8072 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/30/2012
    Subject: TED: Roland Schmehl
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8073 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/30/2012
    Subject: Re: TED: Roland Schmehl
    In talk, he mentioned and showed something kin to