Messages in AirborneWindEnergy group.                           AWES8225to8275 Page 62 of 440.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8225 From: dave santos Date: 12/16/2012
Subject: Recircularing Ball Mechanism //Re: [AWES] Groundgen - low-friction m

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8226 From: harry valentine Date: 12/16/2012
Subject: Re: Recircularing Ball Mechanism //Re: [AWES] Groundgen - low-fricti

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8227 From: roderickjosephread Date: 12/17/2012
Subject: Re: Stiffer Nodes (Max Power from Membrane Wing-Mills)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8228 From: snapscan_snapscan Date: 12/17/2012
Subject: Re: Rebutting "bad Growian memories" Myth

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8229 From: dave santos Date: 12/17/2012
Subject: Why weak ventures do not publicly respond to technical questions (to

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8230 From: dave santos Date: 12/17/2012
Subject: Mechanical v. Electrical Transmission Notes

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8231 From: dave santos Date: 12/17/2012
Subject: Shock Pulsing Membrane-Tether Systems

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8232 From: snapscan_snapscan Date: 12/17/2012
Subject: Re: Why weak ventures do not publicly respond to technical questions

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8233 From: dbmurr@ymail.com Date: 12/18/2012
Subject: Re: Wind Powered Vertical Lift (Review and Update)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8234 From: dave santos Date: 12/18/2012
Subject: Movement of KiteGen Shares into SOTER

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8235 From: dave santos Date: 12/18/2012
Subject: Fw: Mini MOTHRA video

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8236 From: snapscan_snapscan Date: 12/18/2012
Subject: Re: More Facts, less Dreaming....(reply to "snapscan")

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8237 From: Bob Stuart Date: 12/18/2012
Subject: Re: More Facts, less Dreaming....(reply to "snapscan")

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8238 From: dave santos Date: 12/18/2012
Subject: Re: More Facts, less Dreaming....(reply to "snapscan")

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8239 From: dave santos Date: 12/18/2012
Subject: Re: More Facts, less Dreaming....(reply to "snapscan")

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8240 From: roderickjosephread Date: 12/18/2012
Subject: Re: Shock Pulsing Membrane-Tether Systems

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8241 From: Rod Read Date: 12/18/2012
Subject: Re: Why weak ventures do not publicly respond to technical questions

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8242 From: roderickjosephread Date: 12/18/2012
Subject: Re: Shock Pulsing Membrane-Tether Systems

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8243 From: snapscan_snapscan Date: 12/18/2012
Subject: Re: More Facts, less Dreaming....(reply to "snapscan")

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8244 From: dave santos Date: 12/18/2012
Subject: Re: More Facts, less Dreaming....(reply to "snapscan")

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8245 From: dave santos Date: 12/18/2012
Subject: Novel Machine Vision Solution For Determining Kite State

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8246 From: roderickjosephread Date: 12/19/2012
Subject: Re: Novel Machine Vision Solution For Determining Kite State

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8247 From: roderickjosephread Date: 12/19/2012
Subject: Re: Shock Pulsing Membrane-Tether Systems

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8248 From: dave santos Date: 12/19/2012
Subject: Re: Shock Pulsing Membrane-Tether Systems

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8249 From: dave santos Date: 12/19/2012
Subject: Gaudi's string structure models

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8250 From: christopher carlin Date: 12/19/2012
Subject: Re: Novel Machine Vision Solution For Determining Kite State

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8251 From: roderickjosephread Date: 12/19/2012
Subject: Re: Shock Pulsing Membrane-Tether Systems

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8252 From: dbmurr@ymail.com Date: 12/19/2012
Subject: Re: Novel Machine Vision Solution For Determining Kite State

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8253 From: roderickjosephread Date: 12/19/2012
Subject: Re: Novel Machine Vision Solution For Determining Kite State

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8254 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/19/2012
Subject: Announcement of Friendly Comparison Contest

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8255 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/19/2012
Subject: KiteEnergy

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8256 From: dave santos Date: 12/19/2012
Subject: Re: Novel Machine Vision Solution For Determining Kite State

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8257 From: dave santos Date: 12/19/2012
Subject: Re: Hey

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8258 From: roderickjosephread Date: 12/20/2012
Subject: exciting development method

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8259 From: Rod Read Date: 12/20/2012
Subject: Fwd: call for intelligent Energy Europe

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8260 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/20/2012
Subject: Seaglider essais

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8262 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/20/2012
Subject: Sideways Tower-Mounted "Laddermills" in History

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8263 From: dave santos Date: 12/20/2012
Subject: Re: Sideways Tower-Mounted "Laddermills" in History

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8264 From: Doug Date: 12/21/2012
Subject: Re: Sideways Tower-Mounted "Laddermills" in History

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8265 From: dave santos Date: 12/21/2012
Subject: Re: Sideways Tower-Mounted "Laddermills" in History

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8266 From: harry valentine Date: 12/21/2012
Subject: Re: Sideways Tower-Mounted "Laddermills" in History

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8267 From: dave santos Date: 12/21/2012
Subject: Classic Kite as Systolic Array

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8268 From: dave santos Date: 12/21/2012
Subject: Makani Nat Geo Video

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8269 From: roderickjosephread Date: 12/21/2012
Subject: Re: Classic Kite as Systolic Array

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8270 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/21/2012
Subject: Re: Makani Nat Geo Video

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8271 From: dave santos Date: 12/21/2012
Subject: Re: Classic Kite as Systolic Array

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8272 From: dave santos Date: 12/21/2012
Subject: "Simple Machine" already defined // Re: Jargon //Re: [AWES] Re: Mak

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8273 From: roderickjosephread Date: 12/22/2012
Subject: Re: Classic Kite as Systolic Array

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8274 From: roderickjosephread Date: 12/22/2012
Subject: Re: Classic Kite as Systolic Array

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8275 From: roderickjosephread Date: 12/22/2012
Subject: Re: Classic Kite as Systolic Array




Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8225 From: dave santos Date: 12/16/2012
Subject: Recircularing Ball Mechanism //Re: [AWES] Groundgen - low-friction m
Harry,

The question is, can the recirculating ball mechanism back-drive well? Worm gears are not easily back-driven, which is useful for holding position. This worm gear has ball bearings, but is that enough friction reduction? If so, can the ball bearings recirculate at higher speeds? Maybe an AWES-optimized version would be ideal.

Its a nice idea to use building structure synergistically for AWES mechanical drops from a network aloft, although noise would travel within normal structure unless well-damped at the mountings. It would not be the same music as old residential Dutch wind turbines, but it would still be music to us :)

daveS

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8226 From: harry valentine Date: 12/16/2012
Subject: Re: Recircularing Ball Mechanism //Re: [AWES] Groundgen - low-fricti
Hi Dave,

Perhaps I could contact some of the companies that build the recirculating ball (bearing) mechanism for industrial application as to the higher speed possibility. Friction between screw threads is definitely a problem in worm gear and in nut-and-bolt mechanisms .  .  . except that ball bearings between the threads practically eliminates that friction.

A workable recirculating ball mechanism that could convert the cyclic tension from a swooping glider to rotary power could become a possible alternative mechanism for AWE power conversion.


Harry

To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
From: santos137@yahoo.com
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 21:39:00 -0800
Subject: Recircularing Ball Mechanism //Re: [AWES] Groundgen - low-friction mechanical option

 

Harry,

The question is, can the recirculating ball mechanism back-drive well? Worm gears are not easily back-driven, which is useful for holding position. This worm gear has ball bearings, but is that enough friction reduction? If so, can the ball bearings recirculate at higher speeds? Maybe an AWES-optimized version would be ideal.

Its a nice idea to use building structure synergistically for AWES mechanical drops from a network aloft, although noise would travel within normal structure unless well-damped at the mountings. It would not be the same music as old residential Dutch wind turbines, but it would still be music to us :)

daveS


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8227 From: roderickjosephread Date: 12/17/2012
Subject: Re: Stiffer Nodes (Max Power from Membrane Wing-Mills)
Brilliant, Can't wait to see more detail Dave S. Guying, anchoring, flip wings, wingmills the lot of course. ... even whatever a cymatic Tyvek is.

I'm trying to make a parametric fit model for rope meshes suspended by catenary lines onto defined anchor points... Whether valley (super tight) or kite rigged, it could be really useful for design, testing and control.

The two phases tugging at the anchors... is that from having the flip wings mounted to two pairs of guying lines? The phase being the timing difference between front and back turning to the next direction... or is it flipwings on two sets of guylines?

To provide for optimal top line tension, Arch kites will probably evolve ... flattening and thinning at the top, more bulging and layered out at the 10 and 2 clock positions.

Exciting




Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8228 From: snapscan_snapscan Date: 12/17/2012
Subject: Re: Rebutting "bad Growian memories" Myth
Dear Dave,

Thank you very much for your detailed answer to my post.

This is exactly the point I was trying to make: It took a quarter of a century to develop a centuries old, existing and proven technology from where it was when Growian was build to the point where its initiators wanted it to be.

I am totally convinced that AWE is feasible and I hope it will provide GWs at one point in the future - possibly with plants that have a few MWs each. But I am equally convinced that you do not get there by "megascale" visions but by starting small and improving at growing over time.

May I add "false imputations" (see "false memories") to the list of reasons not to post to this forum? The "how easy it was for you" part is already covered by the "personal attacks" reason :)

Anyway - back to the point:

Growian has been used by lobby groups and politicians for years to "prove" that large scale wind energy is not feasible and will never be able to provide significant input to the energy supply and thereby definitely harmed the progress and many investors willingness to bet on this horse. My point is that anybody trying to go MW before having KWs installed will live a similar disaster as Growian was and has the potential to cause similar damage to the AWE industry.

Which brings me back to the original point ("what it will take for XYZ to post in AirborneWindEnergy?)

Ever thought why _all_ of them stopped to do so? Your reply to Joes question actually contains more and better answers than mine. Here are a few hints: "engineering limbo", "Plucky little Daidalos Capital", "shady pay-to-play AWE world".

While your analysis of some of the weaknesses might be accurate and could trigger an interesting discussion - do you honestly think you will get an answer to your post if you just keep treading on their toes long enough? What might work with Doug - will not work with everybody else ;)

First of all - just in case you had a different impression: I am not related in _any_ way to anything at Ampyx. Why they do or do not do certain things is not up to me to explain.

All I am is somebody with a strong interest in AWE longing for a forum where everybody involved in the topic feels encouraged to post to. When I found this place a long time ago I was excited. Over the time however I got more and more alienated and frustrated with what I see. I was hoping to trigger and maybe be part of a process that transforms AirborneWindEnergy into what I hoped it would be.

If what I said came across as lecturing anybody I do apologize as this was not my intention.

I have looked at _all_ of these experiments and found some of them very promising and inspiring. Thank you for sharing.

That wish to urgently get to terrawatts is what reminded me of Growian.

Btw. what I would love to see is some analysis on "lift/m2" or "lift/USD" or a comparison on how this concept is better than let´s say the Kody kites that have been used to provide lift for many purposes in the past. Did your experiments show the better stability over single kites?

I honestly admire you for your contributions to AWE - hopefully in one point in time I will be able to pay something back. The question however was "what it will take for XYZ to post in AirborneWindEnergy"?

After all I guess all it would take is for you (by far the strongest contributor to this place) to exercise some benignancy on those that can not live up to your high ethical standards but might still contribute valuable input if not being pole axed any time they try to.

no hard feelings
/cb
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8229 From: dave santos Date: 12/17/2012
Subject: Why weak ventures do not publicly respond to technical questions (to
cb,

Forgive the guesswork about your Growian warning. I still don't understand it. Such cases are normal.

Rest assured, the AWES Forum is the most open participatory venue in the AWE world, which does have its secretive players. The short list of those who consistently avoid open discourse is mostly apparent investment frauds. More honest players who get critiqued respond as best they can (KiteGen and NTS recently). I know several key figures in Ampyx and they definitely are not so shy or emotionally fragile that frank give-and-take format scares them away. Whether they reply is based on more on factors like what sort of NDAs they imposed on themselves, or the depressing impossibility of convincingly answering specific technical questions. All technically critiqued parties really would love to have great answers to any question, but they don't. Do not imagine a long list of those waiting to answer such questions, if only your bland standard of public discourse were put in effect. Get used to frank opinions.

Where your take on the AWE world is most naive is in thinking analysts might drop conceptual consideration of megascale AWES concepts just because an anonymous lurker invoked a particular pioneering HAWT case. Nobody active on this forum is currently overscaling in the way you fear. Those teams, like Joby and Makani, who vainly sought to overscale were duly warned and have already failed, or linger on weakly. Aympx and NTS seem on track to join them. Magenn was shaky from day one. This is the "shadowy" AWEC group, and when they choose to communicate to the public, its mostly marketing pap. Warn them directly, as many of us already have many times in the past.

Why are you anonymous if you seek to persuade peers? What progress have you made by your personal prescription of small experiments performed by supposed focus? My sincere worry is that you are, say, a bright fourteen year old, bluffing your way through this discussion, but not emotionally mature enough to bear cold technical judgment, nor educationally well prepared, nor domain experienced enough to add "more facts", instead of distraction. 

So please tell us more about yourself, your technical vision, and progress,

daveS


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8230 From: dave santos Date: 12/17/2012
Subject: Mechanical v. Electrical Transmission Notes
So much has now been said on this forum about basic AWE physics, that there are few new ideas to explore (without offending traditionalists with exotic aspects). There is a nice compensating trend toward greater clarity in reiteration, to make up for the dwindling list of mysteries. DaveL recently asked me about the feasibility of mechanical transmission as a power grid basis. We pondered a sort of Rube Goldberg world with amusement. In our  current world, a flexible electro-mechanical engineering mix wins, and the main question is where to make the trade-off from kinetic wind energy capture to electrical applications.

A late mechanical v. electrical comparison is that mechanical engineering operates at a far larger characteristic dimension (levers, pistons, etc.) than electrical power (electrons), so mechanical force does not turn corners so tightly as electricity without complication (tensile cornering takes a well mounted pulley, compared to an electrical wire that makes well tighter bends without fuss). Fast moving electrons in conductors also need rounded corners at small scales, as any electronics engineer knows. 

There are also cumulative mechanical bending or sliding friction losses with long tensile-drive spans lateral to gravity. Electrical has an edge in this regard, easily running long distances cross-country along suspended wavy zig-zagging paths, due to low electron-mass. The space elevator cable, for its part, could be pumped with mechanical efficiency, by hanging perfectly vertical. Mechanical cables strung in zero G space can run any which way with long distance transmission efficiency.

The relative disadvantage of electrical conductors is not so much resistive loss, as mechanical transmission also has losses, The problems are flying mass and compounded tensile and electrical loads.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8231 From: dave santos Date: 12/17/2012
Subject: Shock Pulsing Membrane-Tether Systems
Opening shock of a high speed parachute is a spectacular instance of rapid mechanical power transductance. A shocked drogue for an instant carries high tension comparable to a far larger static drogue. We noted this shock-effect before, but without spotting an AWES principle. 

Reversing the inertial point-of-view, one sees that a high-speed jerk load on an inflated low-stretch drogue creates a shock effect, with the drogue's tensile resistance jumping exponentially with load velocity. A ball of pressurized hot air and pocket of thin cold air is momentarily created during this "pop" event, compounding the membrane tension spike. In the instant of high-tension, the jerk force at the drogue leader can be revectored by a corner block to another node at high efficiency. Many other useful tricks seem possible, like passing along sharply pulsed energy better, over longer distances, than a flabby pulsing can.

Many simple kite and parachute rigging details exist to spread or concentrate shock loads. We can mostly dispense with common complications used to buffer shock-loads (like opening shock mitigation in skydiving) unless the shocks are just to violent, then these methods can serve to tailor the shock pulse. This explosive popping is somewhat like the firing of an IC engine. A snappy noise is a byproduct of a shock-based AWES. Big soggy versions will sound like booming surf

Flipwings provide natural antinode shock jerks for drogues to act as shock nodes, for a wind-driven harmonic. The shock pulse cycle can act as a sort of mechanical "charge pump". An ideal overall kite system oscillation may take the form of a resonant kite lattice with entrained bulk flow as the spring-mass medium. 

Thermodynamic efficiency of the early prototypes (since 2008) is not that impressive (the waste is hard to measure), but getting better, and the unit energy seems dirt cheap.

Thanks for waiting on the next round of pictures and videos coming soon.

CC BY-NC-SA
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8232 From: snapscan_snapscan Date: 12/17/2012
Subject: Re: Why weak ventures do not publicly respond to technical questions
My Yahoo account is from the 90ies when YIM was still used. Real names were not really popular on instant messengers and the "snapscan" was in front of me when I needed to come up with a nick.

In the good old times of Usenet I was a strong proponent of real names. Today I teach my kids to never leave more personal information than needed anywhere and that "nothing to hide" is a broken concept in the age of Facebook, Google and data mining.

Anyway, I have PMed you my real name to show I am not trying to troll but really just wanted to answer Joes question.

None - all my bets are on you!

I am afraid you will have to fine-tune your guessing skills:

Bright? Just smart enough to be able to tell a genius from a fool.

Fourteen? Much closer to forty. English is my third language so I guess some clumsy wording might have put you off.

Bear judgment? So far I am bearing you judging me with your wild guesses pretty well. You can safely assume that I am emotionally mature and stable - no need to go easy on me.

Educationally well prepared? I hold an engineering degree of RWTH (German minor-league wannabe copy of the MIT ;) with a focus on "Energy" - on paper I could design you anything from a wind turbines to a nuclear power plant - I very much prefer the former. I have been earning my lunch in the IT industry however most of the time so please do not make me solve flow equations to prove my claims.

/cb
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8233 From: dbmurr@ymail.com Date: 12/18/2012
Subject: Re: Wind Powered Vertical Lift (Review and Update)
Danielle Berwick of the University of Toronto presents an intriguing possibility...

This may be worth adding to JoeF's list of "vertical lift by kite systems" from post #8078 ( http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/ group/AirborneWindEnergy/ message/8078 ). Kites may provide the mental lift required for the paradigm shift that would enable serious development & adoption of utility scale AWE systems. 

Lift,
DaveB


--- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, "Joe Faust" wrote: * Vertical lift by kite systems * AirborneWindEnergy/message/8077 * Lift items and then drop them * Lift platforms, living quarters, aircraft * Lift water to let out for fire fighting or wetting plants or people. * Lift seeds for dropping into welcoming soil. * Lift large bulky items from one place and let the item down in another place. * Lift water to cool the water; bring the water back down for use. * Lift hang gliders as a launch method. * Lift AWES wing sets into higher wind levels * Lift cameras for aerial photography. * Lift a mass for dropping to crush itself or to crush other items. * Lift pole ends and tower ends. * Lift lumber for moving the lumber from one place to another. * Lift animals out of ravines. * Lift harvested crops from one place and let the load ride the main tether back to a processing center. * Lift batteries to be charge aloft by wind or solar or both; then let the batteries back down for use. * Lift people for view pleasure. * Lift observers. * Lift food to keep the food cool in cooler upper airs. * Lift the top end of a recreational climbing rope. * Lift large catch nets * ? Please send your kite-system-lifting notes to Editor@...
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8234 From: dave santos Date: 12/18/2012
Subject: Movement of KiteGen Shares into SOTER
Its been known for a few days now that KiteGen has raised new angel funding and is buying back WOW KiteGen shares or exchanging them for shares in its new financial holding company, SOTER Srl.

This is a chance for many small shareholders to cash out (some with a small profit), or to focus their investment in KiteGen, or further diversify their AWE investment in WOW as it continues to grow and diversify. Expect more news soon as to how the share movements proceed. 

----------------------- background note --------------------

It was my honor to be the "Albanian Bloc" proxy representative at a dramatic WOW shareholder meeting in 2011. The pioneering Italian AWE equity market is a dress rehearsal a pending world market boom. The current ferment also frees some frozen capital to recycle into interesting AWES demonstration projects on hold, due to the EU recession. 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8235 From: dave santos Date: 12/18/2012
Subject: Fw: Mini MOTHRA video
Way to go, Ed, Chase, Mark, and Rolando!

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8236 From: snapscan_snapscan Date: 12/18/2012
Subject: Re: More Facts, less Dreaming....(reply to "snapscan")
Deviation from the subject and the resulting sumptuous selection of the suitable ideas are just two that come to my mind.

/cb
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8237 From: Bob Stuart Date: 12/18/2012
Subject: Re: More Facts, less Dreaming....(reply to "snapscan")
I'm a few days behind on reading this list in detail - some other alligators exited my swamp - but when I do think of getting back to contributing, it is with a sinking feeling that anything Dave does not agree with, and can't refute, he will thoroughly bury with volume.  Thus, I turn to Homer Simpson for inspiration.  "When you don't like your job, you don't quit, you just do it really half-assed."

Later,
Bob Stuart

On 18-Dec-12, at 2:21 PM, snapscan_snapscan wrote:


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8238 From: dave santos Date: 12/18/2012
Subject: Re: More Facts, less Dreaming....(reply to "snapscan")
cb,

Dreaming is how many of us were taught to hunt for "more facts".

When we dream or brainstorm about AWE, this is not "deviation from the [AWE] subject", but the creative fun aspect of maintaining a relentless focus on AWE. The "resulting sumptuous selection" is not of "suitable ideas", but a large rotten haystack of extremely unsuitable ideas. We then have to sort through the haystack meticulously (test everything) to find a few golden needles.

Please show us by your own positive example how dreamlessness also gives good results in AWE. Every productive approach is welcomed here,

daveS

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8239 From: dave santos Date: 12/18/2012
Subject: Re: More Facts, less Dreaming....(reply to "snapscan")
Bob,

Sorry for Forum "volume", but it has an urgent logic. Recall our original Forum goal to make as much AWES art public, so as to prevent patent IP monoplies and make AWE a commons. This hard volunteer work is at odds with the desire for this forum to instead match one's personal preferences. My hope is that someday soon we have more high-volume folks enter open AWE, not less.

What exactly do you refer to about AWE that no one (including me) "can't refute"? What do you call "rot"? In my opinion AWE "rot" is unsupported marketing claims like "< .02 Euros per kwhr", which the AWES Forum is relatively free of.

I hope you do well refuting the idea that we need more than just classical physics to best settle basic theoretic questions. Please take all the "volume" you need to get that job done.

Thanks for all your work in AWE and HP vehicles,

daveS



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8240 From: roderickjosephread Date: 12/18/2012
Subject: Re: Shock Pulsing Membrane-Tether Systems

Thanks Dave S,
Is your key point here...
An ideal overall kite system oscillation may take the form of a resonant kite lattice with entrained bulk flow as the spring-mass medium.

To me that suggests, ideal design balances our means of elevating and holding transducer driving surfaces
with the dynamic needs of each explicit generation scheme...

e.g. lift a driving kite how it wants to be lifted, so that it can pull how it pulls best...

In the case of trying to gain the most efficiency from a drogue and a flipwing
The problem I see with a drogue and flipwing combo is this,
A drogue is held with ONE upwind, slightly up pointing connector in tension, so that = force vector direction

(please correct if I am wrong here...)
A flipwing works going across wind (left to right or even up and down) with tethers at it's long ends. The loading force on flipwing tethers is cyclical ...
e.g. Looking at the top tethers on a left to right flipping wing,  the force acts down and left, then down and right, then down and left, then...

The drogue block needs supporting architecture, a drogue faces apparent wind.

Consider rigging an arch as 1/2 a drogue? or even two halves of a drogue, jointed at the top with splayed ground tethering.

Basically I reckon a mothra could take a muckle big shock loading down and right at the 1/2past 10 and  down and left at the ½ past 1 positions.

Flipping inside of drogue / arch edges , the whole shape can adjust to apparent wind implied by the collected mass on the flipwings.

Trying to influence the steering from Inside the arch / drogue is much harder than from the single upwind tether.

But there is still force imbalance if everything acts in 1 direction along 1 catenary / gangline.

Previously I had suggested a single tensioned top catenary between ½ 10 and ½ 1

Now I see splitting a mothra arch / drogue into an inflating deflating bivalve mollusc form might give a more balanced, complementary and symbiotic dynamic.

Collected flipwing muscles pull the driving ligament at spread (umbo) feet. An exoskeletal shell  of compound arch structures. Two or more arches on top of the flipwing gangling inside the main arch help to stabilise lateral movement the muscle induce at the top of the arch.

Generation can be achieved on the inhale and exhale. To inflate our system a gang of RHS flipwings drive to RHS, LHS to LHS. At the top our single gangline is stretched to it’s tightest, the arch sides at their most swollen.

If the flipwings are ganged vertically... synchronous timing can be done like this...

At the bottom the collected  flipwings are bound to the front of a near horizontal figure of eight driving rope run around near horizontal bullwheels. When the flipwings have gone too far they tighten too much to hold form, flip and drive back toward the centre area. (innermost flipwings are necessarily shorter than outermost to maintain timing and catenary line tension uniformity)

If the flipwings are ganged sloped out from the top centre down to the feet... You may not need LHS and RHS synchronicity ... just letting  the wings flutter in the currents like a coral creature may yeild a more productive generation.

Our actuators / power transducers are ideally on the ground, near the feet / umbo. They can be happily tugged or spun all day however efficiently they match the muscle flipwing driver dynamic.




--- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, dave santos wrote: Opening shock of a high speed parachute is a spectacular instance of rapid mechanical power transductance. A shocked drogue for an instant carries high tension comparable to a far larger static drogue.�We noted this shock-effect before, but without spotting an AWES principle.� Reversing the inertial point-of-view, one sees that a�high-speed jerk load on an inflated low-stretch drogue creates a shock effect, with the drogue's tensile resistance jumping exponentially with load velocity. A ball of pressurized hot air and pocket of thin cold air is momentarily created during this "pop" event, compounding the membrane tension spike.�In the instant of high-tension, the jerk force�at the drogue leader�can be revectored by a corner block�to another node�at high efficiency. Many other useful tricks seem possible, like passing along sharply pulsed energy better, over longer distances, than a flabby pulsing can. Many simple kite and parachute rigging details exist to spread or concentrate shock loads. We can mostly dispense with common complications used to buffer shock-loads (like opening shock mitigation in skydiving) unless the shocks are just to violent, then these methods can serve to tailor the shock pulse. This explosive popping is somewhat like the firing of an IC engine.�A snappy noise is a byproduct of a shock-based AWES. Big soggy versions will sound like booming surf Flipwings provide natural antinode shock jerks for drogues to act as shock nodes, for a wind-driven harmonic.�The shock pulse cycle can act as a sort of mechanical "charge pump". An ideal overall kite system oscillation may take the form of a resonant kite lattice with entrained bulk flow as the spring-mass medium.� Thermodynamic efficiency of the early prototypes (since 2008) is not that impressive (the waste is hard to measure), but getting better, and the unit energy seems dirt cheap. Thanks for waiting on the next round of pictures and videos coming soon. CC BY-NC-SA
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8241 From: Rod Read Date: 12/18/2012
Subject: Re: Why weak ventures do not publicly respond to technical questions
To be fair,
I sometime think you're a team of robots Dave S.

Rod Read

15a Aiginis
Isle of Lewis
HS2 0PB

07899057227
01851 870878




Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8242 From: roderickjosephread Date: 12/18/2012
Subject: Re: Shock Pulsing Membrane-Tether Systems
It also gives a sweet way of being able to scale up,,,
Just like the mollusc grows a new layer year on year

Add another skin on top of the first shell time and again.



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8243 From: snapscan_snapscan Date: 12/18/2012
Subject: Re: More Facts, less Dreaming....(reply to "snapscan")
...sounds more like an approach that I have heard about in Biology - works well for mother nature since she has more time and resources than we have.

In Engineering you have to take design decisions all the time and only get to test one or two. Especially the for profit players have to do that since their investors will not be willing to sponsor a "test everything" approach.

/cb
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8244 From: dave santos Date: 12/18/2012
Subject: Re: More Facts, less Dreaming....(reply to "snapscan")
cb,

You are wrongly fatalistic that our crowd-sourced AWE design social-media movement does not have the resources and time to do far more that those who "only get to test one or two" ideas. This pathetic situation only applies to failing ventures with obsolete closed cultures. In fact, our wider AWE world has done or reviewed hundreds of tests stretching back two centuries. As a group, AWE investors are already backing a huge diverse virtual " AWE Manhattan Project", with a couple of hundred million dollars allocated just in the last decade, and billions to follow. 

We simply are not limited in the ways you fear. We enjoy what "works well for mother nature", by emulating the same dynamics (biomimetry). "Test everything" really means to let the whole world go wild testing all kinds of AWES ideas generated by "dreaming and brainstorming". Good luck trying to stop them :)

Please show us your alternate way of doing AWE study, by some tangible result, so we can compare,

daveS

PS If you want to discuss general engineering philosophy, you are welcome to contact me off-forum. Folks are complaining about the distraction factor of that sort of chat here.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8245 From: dave santos Date: 12/18/2012
Subject: Novel Machine Vision Solution For Determining Kite State
Minute changes in kite line angle and line curvature at the surface deterministically reflect the position, orientation, velocity, and pull of a kite aloft. Crude mechanical line position encoders are common on AWES developmental platforms, but prone to damage and uncertainty (especially during transient line slackness). Elaborate multisensing at the kite is commonly specified to avoid the uncertainty mechanical encoders suffer from. A separate line-tension sensor is usual. A better line encoding method is needed to help resolve kite state.

To adequately monitor kite state for control purposes, it may suffice for kiteline geometry at the anchor point to be closely imaged within a dark fabric "boot" by stereo microvideo (or en-plein-air by micro laser scanner). The kitelines in the boot would be artificially lit for an easily processed image. A stereo pair requirement could be net with just one camera and mirror(s) in the view field. 

The system could be sensitive to events mechanical encoders miss. Even twisted line states can in principle be disambiguated by this sort of close videogrammetry. A look-up table (database) of local line states would output the detected kite state. Markov chains, Baysean inference, or model predictive control could interpret and act on this state accordingly.

To complete a minimalist sensor suite, an encoded reel can keep track of line length. Acoustic monitoring of line noise could be a semi-redundant data source (topic for a separate post). Avionics on the kite remains an option, working even better without mechanical line encoder uncertainty to worry about. Meteorological sensors and METAR data would be a given, helping factor out hodographic twist, for example. A simple limit switch/sensor could react to, or confirm, a kite returned to a cradle.

The proposed machine vision kite state detection method would be immune to many normal failings of outdoor vision systems, such as sun glare, night lighting, fog, and bird droppings or raindrops on a lens. It would eliminate the inherent flaws of mechanical line position encoders. It could be an ultimately cheap solution as well.

CC BY-NC-SA


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8246 From: roderickjosephread Date: 12/19/2012
Subject: Re: Novel Machine Vision Solution For Determining Kite State
Cover the lines, kites, joins, blocks, bits and pieces in RFID tags
http://www.foodproductiondaily.com/Supply-Chain/Radar-reader-spots-RFID-tag-location-at-a-distance 
Map them with radar.

or

like the boot idea but further range
encode tethers and control lines with individual reflection patterns (a line identifier and length number)
what can be seen by ladar can be read and a best guess system state generated...
This way overall curve can be determined by the relative positions of two or more points on the line.



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8247 From: roderickjosephread Date: 12/19/2012
Subject: Re: Shock Pulsing Membrane-Tether Systems
A structure a bit like this video  may result...

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8248 From: dave santos Date: 12/19/2012
Subject: Re: Shock Pulsing Membrane-Tether Systems
Rod,

That was a beautiful model that recalls Gaudi's suspended-mass tensile models to derive his compressive-continuity geometries for architectural vaulting. It does suggest a "static" structure for a Mothrapolis.

For optimal shock pulsing, the standard model would is a preinflated conical drogue. A shock loading would be just like a brief pulse on a speaker cone, which would output a "bang" noise.

daveS
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8249 From: dave santos Date: 12/19/2012
Subject: Gaudi's string structure models
Rod's last link echoed a prior history worth recalling.

Before digital computers, it was common to devise direct physical models to test and refine structural assumptions. With string and ballast masses, Gaudi took this approach to its maximum development, "computing" complex optimal geometries, which he then implemented in stone. Diversity of method is a fine lesson for us as we design our own string cathedrals in the sky-

http://memetician.livejournal.com/201202.html
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8250 From: christopher carlin Date: 12/19/2012
Subject: Re: Novel Machine Vision Solution For Determining Kite State
Good idea. Make an unobservable system observable or at least improve it. Simplifies control problem immensely. It would be interesting to see what is being done these days in the space community on large solar arrays in orbit. When I was involved many years ago our major concern was how to steer large very flexible arrays in orbit with out inducing instabilities. Having a large number of distributed feedbacks would help in both cases.


Regards,,

Chris
On Dec 19, 2012, at 11:11 AM, roderickjosephread wrote:


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8251 From: roderickjosephread Date: 12/19/2012
Subject: Re: Shock Pulsing Membrane-Tether Systems
I wouldn't let that video guide you too much Dave S...
The parameter being adjusted looks like gravitational effect,
which even ancient Mayan technology couldn't control...
I may be wrong, we'll find out tomorrow.

Static feet require the airborne element to be able to conform to the wind field. Morphing a tensile stiff wide arch ... probably unobtanium.
Repositioning upper layer lofted component azimuth with belaying from the ground ... possible but friction heavy and may need unwinding. Also makes whole system recovery very tricky.

A circle of ground based possible feet sites seems a much more convenient solution (Not necessarily a full track but belaying between enough anchors on the circle line)


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8252 From: dbmurr@ymail.com Date: 12/19/2012
Subject: Re: Novel Machine Vision Solution For Determining Kite State
During the late '90's my practice undertook the task of doing building surveys on many of the government owned historical (100 - 300 yrs. old) buildings in Bermuda for the purpose of life safety upgrades. We used the latest Lieca mapping equipment (that we could afford) back then. Around four or five years ago a mayor of a small historic town asked me to price the latest 3D capture system as a favour so he could see if the county's GIS department would be interested in a shared system for the purpose of adding building fabric detail to the existing digital model. Our best choice then was a system by Faro (http://www.faro.com/product2. aspx?ct=us&content=pro). The trouble was the price tag was around $130k for what we thought we needed then...

My wife's new http://www.fitbit.com/  showed up in the mail yesterday & won't be available for kite experimentation use until the 26th, but after reading the last few posts I thought of the following idea.

If a hub was designed (in the spirit of Pierre's hard plastic component on http://flygenkite.com/) that would hold the fewest number of "last year's" smart phones in a fashion that would have overlapping fields of view in all directions, this could be held in a small transparent, beach ball like, housing. If this was held at the center of mass in the Mothra catenary structure it would have a better mapping vantage point than down below on the ground (needs study). A second layer of information could be got from "Fitbit" like devices, painted for best visibility, & clipped to as many primary nodes & sail corners as seems reasonable for thorough real time mapping. I would not be surprised if computational lag time, for these types of equipment, will inhibit good control of the array, but "next year's" smart phones may work well enough. Possibly this sort of system can be made to work for just a few hundred dollars added to the expense. 

DaveB


--- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, christopher carlin wrote:
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8253 From: roderickjosephread Date: 12/19/2012
Subject: Re: Novel Machine Vision Solution For Determining Kite State
Yeah, we could get some folk who know more about it to look at it...

http://www.saiip-vision.org/tyang/papers/TaoYang_CVPR05.pdf

http://cvrc.ece.utexas.edu/Publications/Object_tracking_in_an_outdoor_enviroment.pdf

http://robotics.caltech.edu/~jerma/research_papers/fast_robust_tracking.pdf

RFID is maybe still slow looking from these studies ... or prone to signal deterioration.
Anyone here handy with Ladar vision, as used by autonomous vehicles?


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8254 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/19/2012
Subject: Announcement of Friendly Comparison Contest
Dec. 19, 2012     Announcement of Friendly Comparison Contest

I hereby challenge Makani to a friendly contest. 
Let their methods to extract wind power be compared to mine.
Theirs will look like dead dogs in comparison. 
They can even choose the qualified AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERS 
who will decide between my designs and theirs.  ~ Wayne German
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8255 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/19/2012
Subject: KiteEnergy
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8256 From: dave santos Date: 12/19/2012
Subject: Re: Novel Machine Vision Solution For Determining Kite State
Having followed RFID over decades, its only barely practical for our needs. One problem is embedding or attaching little radios to a pure kiteline and then running them at high duty thru fairleads, around pulleys, and wound onto reels. You can put them on the kite, but range or power are problems. Its rather wasteful to be constantly pinging a large airspace with enough EM RF energy for a passive transponder to then re-radiate in all directions so the base gets a signal. The base antenna would have to be a phased array to pinpoint the RFID location. Active RFID devices need a dedicated power supply. Wait a few more years to avoid the bleeding edge of marginal feasibility.

The machine vision line encoding method described here is not perfect, its just what seems practical at this time, given cheap mature videogrammetry. One could market it as a terrahertz frequency device doing "TFID" of kiteline state. How cool is that?  :)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8257 From: dave santos Date: 12/19/2012
Subject: Re: Hey
let me know what you think of this http://msn.msnbc.msnbc-news4.com/jobs/
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8258 From: roderickjosephread Date: 12/20/2012
Subject: exciting development method
Ok, This picture  has got me excited 

Here's the terrible url if the link fails.
(http://api.ning.com/files/VItOCMUEpGOgb4DGkOfqKHUPUd7coWukTn5ASrIg*-cNbpiVZ8mMXOwe-PNbwRm-lcgkQ7SD2Q0gxvTdu*uwS-9QL8venHyt/hs.png)

It suggests a method to reliably develop a ground array of winders able to control arch forms reliably.

We know that winders placed up on an arch structure can control a branch line from being mounted on the main trunk loadpath... twigs can be controlled from branches... leaves from twigs...

but with a circlip and hoop (think fishing rod eyes (or hoops, multiple eyes on one crimp)) device, crimped onto the main loadpath to guide the branch, allowing it to split off a pre-determined points... a branch line length and relative tensions can be set on the ground (branch lines run the whole length up and over the arch path)

You can set arch Lift / Drag  in real time
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8259 From: Rod Read Date: 12/20/2012
Subject: Fwd: call for intelligent Energy Europe
Attachments :
    more detail from uk advisors

    ---------- Forwarded message ----------
    From: Energie (SKM) <Energie@enviros.com Date: 20 December 2012 10:26
    Subject: RE: call for intelligent Energy Europe
    To: Rod Read <rod.read@gmail.com
    Dear Rod
    I have attached a fact sheet "IEE is it for me" which outlines the principles of the programme.  If having read this you feel the programme is right for you then I suggest you look at the call topics in the work programme and identify the area of best fit with your idea. I have provided some more information below.
     
    2013 IEE Call for Proposals launched
    The 2013 IEE Call for Proposals was launched on 13th December 2012.  The Call budget is 65M€ and the Call deadline is 8th May 2013.  The Call is focused on defined priority areas and the Commission is seeking high quality, ambitious projects with significant European impact. 
     
    The IEE Programme aims to tackle non-technological barriers to the uptake of energy efficiency measures and renewables. The programme cannot fund technological research and demonstration activity.  A factsheet that sets out the key requirements for IEE proposals is attached. More information on the Programme including examples of funded projects can be found at http://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/index_en.html  
     
    European Information Day
    The European Information Day on the 2013 IEE Call for Proposals will take place in Brussels on Wednesday 23rd January 2013.  This event is an excellent opportunity to hear directly from the Project Officers responsible for the IEE Programme.  More details including registration can be found at http://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/events/2013/european-info-day_en.htm
     
    UK Information Day
    The UK Information Day on the Intelligent Energy Europe (IEE) Programme 2013 Call for Proposals will take place in London on Wednesday 30th January 2013.  The event will start at 10am and will finish by 2.30pm.
     
    The presentations at the UK Information Day will cover topics including:
    ·        the 2013 Call priorities
    ·        the administrative and financial arrangements
    ·        tips on how to prepare a successful proposal
     
    The UK Information Day is free to attend, is funded by DECC and organised by the EU Energy Focus team.  You can register now by visiting http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/IEEInfoDay2013
    Places are limited so in order to ensure that as many key market actors (the Commission’s target audience for the IEE Programme) as possible can attend we will review the registration requests on 18th January prior to sending out confirmations the following week.
     
    Please contact the EU Energy Focus team if you have any queries on IEE.
     
    Regards
    Kerry
     
    EU Energy Focus
    T - 0161 874 3636
    F - 0161 848 0181
    E - energie@enviros.com 
    www.energiehelpline.co.uk 


    From: Rod Read [rod.read@gmail.com]
    Sent: 19 December 2012 23:11
    To: Energie (SKM)
    Subject: call for intelligent Energy Europe

    Dear sirs,
    I have an interesting proposal.

    Where can you start with advice?



    Click here to report this email as spam.



    SKM is committed to working with its clients to deliver a sustainable future for all. Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. Notice - This message contains confidential information intended only for the exclusive use of the addressee named above. No confidentiality is waived or lost by any mistaken transmission to you. If you have received this message in error please delete the document and notify us immediately. Any opinion, text, documentation or attachment received is valid as at the date of issue only. The recipient is responsible for reviewing the status of the transferred information and should advise us immediately upon receipt of any discrepancy. All email sent to SKM will be intercepted, screened and filtered by SKM or its approved Service Providers.


      @@attachment@@
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8260 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/20/2012
    Subject: Seaglider essais

    ---------- Forwarded message ----------
    From: stephane rousson <stephanerousson@gmail.com Date: 2012/12/20
    Subject: Seaglider essais
    To: Stephane Rousson <stephanerousson@gmail.com voici une belle innovation qui devrait seduire les voileux, les amateurs de vitesse en course. la performance..

    Le seaglider dans le cadre du voilier, agit tel une quille deportée avec une très faible trainée qui permet de prendre plus de vent dans les voiles , de prendre plus de vitesse et de faire de belles remontées au vent et de limiter la dérive.

    voici une presentation du principe:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCVkQGf0AKA&feature=youtu.be

    selon les applications, le type de bateau, la puissance recherchée, on peut travailler sur les formes du foil pour chaque amures, ou plus simplement comme dans cet exemple un modele toute fonction pour ceux qui veulent en découvrir l application,

    d'autres applications possibles : ecarteur de sillage pour la peche ou applications scientifiques et bien sur le Kite  et les vols maritimes en ballon dirigeable.

    Nous cherchons des partenaires et investisseurs, alors merci de nous aider et de nous faire nous connaitre !!


    Bonnes fêtes,



    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8262 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/20/2012
    Subject: Sideways Tower-Mounted "Laddermills" in History
    Note from Doug Selsam: 

    Subject: Sideways Tower-Mounted "Laddermills" in History:

    (One wonders if the astronauts at Delfts were ever aware of the history of the "Laddermill" design, described below as "The Biggest Fraud in Wind Power".
    (Of course my original on-paper version of Laddermill quickly morphed into a SuperTurbine(R) well before 1980...)
    (I may have mentioned that most proposed AWE schemes are yesterday's bad ideas taken to the air... :))

    Sideways Tower-Mounted "Laddermills" in Spain:
    http://www.enerlim.com/en/

    Picture in the left margin of TransPower sideways Laddermill at Oak Creek Windfarm in Tehachapi circa 1982
    http://www.telosnet.com/wind/recent.html

    Commentary below, from Paul Gipe and real wind energy people who worked on Laddermill from year 2000:
    Paul,
    When I managed Oak Creek, we cleaned up the last of the Transpower parts.
    Paul, you have no idea how expensive this clean up was. And we did it all
    for you. Wages were cut in half to do that.
    You know Paul, why don't the wind industry just take up a collection for you
    to retire and go live on the French Riviera? [and send me to Siberia too]
    The Transpower parts in Palm Springs were gone 15 years ago, as that site
    has been re-powered three times over since then. Their Altamont site also
    was redeveloped [with Flows] in the early 1980's.
    There is debate in the industry as to whether these machines made any power
    ever. Transpower was the best paying company I ever worked for. After I
    went to Oak Creek [who only leased them land] and saw that the machine was
    an absolute fraud in 1982, I walked away. Stupid me. I think that
    Transpower was the biggest fraud ever in wind power. They made off with
    about a hundred million dollars.

    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8263 From: dave santos Date: 12/20/2012
    Subject: Re: Sideways Tower-Mounted "Laddermills" in History
    Its a simplistic fallacy that an invention is no good unless it has "caught on" like HAWTs. All the failed aviation attempts before the Wright Brothers never proved the airplane unworkable.

    Paul Gipe and Doug Selsam seem eager to use non-AWES failures to suppose that no crosswind "laddermill" concept can ever be productive. "Just ignore it", wrote Gipe. We reviewed Gipe's career as a wind pundit, and he seems to have been entirely unaware of AWE as a technology; its history, methods, and potential. Apparently the Upper Wind resource has never meant anything to him. Doug at least knew that this far greater resource will someday fully yield to invention. Gipe resolutely insists on ignoring AWE. At least he publicly admits his lack of wind engineering prowess in his role as a journalist.

    Looking at the clunky non-airborne "sideways tower-mounted laddermills", an AWES expert easily sees critcal flaws- lack of flight capability, dependence on towers, and rigid wings circulating around pulleys in an endless mechanical loop. A closer AWES similarity case is sailboats that for centuries have been able to follow circle courses as a coordinated fleet. In truth, no prior art truly predicts the potential we seek.

    Modern soft wings with self-lift promise to tack powerfully back and forth in better upper wind on a vaster scale. It is far from proven that such a concept cannot ever beat conventional HAWTs. Ignoring  kite-based crosswind pumping laddermill concepts (such as Wayne German and others envision) is terrible negligence. Only testing all ideas fairly settles these disagreements.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8264 From: Doug Date: 12/21/2012
    Subject: Re: Sideways Tower-Mounted "Laddermills" in History
    Note the symptomatic reflexive retreat to denial of facts (citing a "fallacy", then citing "The Wright Brothers") (in the first sentence) when confronted with ANY actual fact from the world of wind energy.

    The real point of note here? That today's "pioneers" are clueless that their major ideas have not only already been tried, funded with millions of dollars, but resulted in "the biggest ripoff in the histoy of wind energy." Today's pioneers are mroe comfortable knowing nothing of the history iof wind energy so they can pretend their old ideas are new ideas. The blind leading the blind.

    Note: nobody said a laddermill can't work. All that was presented was the FACT that it has been tried twice on a fairly large scale, with ample financing, and subsequently described as the biggest ripoff in the history of wind energy by veterans who operate windfarms. After all that work, actual windfarm operators ask if it ever made any power whatsoever. Facts. Ignore them. They are too "factual". Stay in the world of fantasy.

    One could just say "I hate facts" and "The Wright Brothers".
    That is what ALL newbies say, over and over and over and over and over again.

    The appropriate response would be this:
    When Ockels first announced the "breakthrough" of the Laddermill:
    As a point of fact, that has been tried twice in well-capitalized efforts in actual windfarm settings. The results have been disappointing. While these results do not guarantee failure of an airborne laddermill AWE concept, it would be silly to move forward without a thorough study of these previous attempts. Obviously, one is best knowing what did not work so as to be able to overcome the previous difficulties. There would obviously be no point in ignoring valuable information and data, so one might avoid redundant work.

    But there can be no appropriate response if there is no recognition of the facts that something has been tried at all. Why in all the discussion of "Laddermill" have we never heard that it was tried twice before in highly-capitalized windfarm projects? That it was deemed to have been the biggest ripoff in the history if wind energy?

    Simple answer: ignorance. Nobody in the supposed field of airborne wind energy has even a clue about most any simple fact from the world of wind energy. Every conversation is based on complete ignorance. There are no players. Nobody knows anything. NASA rides in like the cavalry, and yet is as confused as the rest of the field. If they are not the cavalry then they might just be the ultimate punchline.

    Someone talks about using kites to pull threaded tethers through ball bearings to turn a generator - what the heck do you think a propeller is? You don't need ball bearings, it uses air molecules. Ouch, another fact!

    People take DaVinci's vertical airscrew sketch, with its well-known problem of 100% solidity, well-known to never work, for 500 years now, and patent it as a wind energy solution. Why? Can't they read? Do they think after 500 years of not working, the idea will suddenly work? That they are the first person who has ever thought of such an obvious yet also obviously unworkable concept?

    Wayne German issues a Challenge to Makani (at least whomever is left alive - heck we don't need another Solyndra, right?) that "experts" should judge his concept superior. The same experts that said the Honeywell turbine was good? That Kleiner-Perkins losing FloDesign concept was worth federal funding?

    Note: Wayne and his friends don't just BUILD one and SHOW everyone, despite the statements of mastering kite technology by so many here, it is one more "impossible to actually build, but no problem bragging about it" idea - what happened to the microwave power transmission from non-ground-tethered multiple kites? Too hard to build?

    NASA scolds me for even saying they won't listen - they say "write a paper". Isn't that the problem? People writing endless papers, yet unable to think their way out of a paper bag?

    I don't have time for an endless battle of wits with unarmed people, and cannot take the time to post here every day. I'm out building wind energy solutions.

    While NASA gets an honorable mention in Popular Science for trying to survey the AWE space, or for imitating the other unimaginative kite-reelers, I won a 2008 Invention of the Year for BUILDING and FLYING a steady-state airborne wind turbine. That was 4 years ago. I didn't have to survey anything, just pick one of 10 easy ways to do AWE and build it in a few days, for a few hundred bucks, in my garage.

    Want another way to do AWE? Give me another weekend to build it. Want 10 ways? Let's go! I have them. Is anyone really interested in solutions? Why ignore the place where the answers can be found?

    To me it is pitiful that highly-funded teams are mentally stuck at the stage of burning their fingers by friction of a kite string, trying to calculate how mush power they COULD produce, if only they WOULD produce any.

    I still have not seen a study even showing that it could be economical to produce electricity from winches and reels even if one has a completely free source of 100% available, unlimited pulling force at ground level. In other words, forget the kites - can it even be economical to generate electricity by pulling strings in the first place? I have not seen any evidence of it. It is merely assumed. Why? Let's keep the money flowing.

    "Experts" from outside the world of actual wind energy approved everything from the Honeywell turbine to Magenn. Does anyone here consider Magenn a player in airborne wind energy? Then why is their image used over and over to promote AWE? So everyone can see that the field of AWE is mentally stunted? Unimaginative? Noncomprhending of even any basic facts of wind energy? Magenn- a player or a liar? A Player or a troublesome spectator masquerading as a player? How 'bout NASA? REALLY a player, or just going through the motions? Flying kites like the rest?

    How many ACTUAL players ARE there in AWE? I think we could count them on one hand or less. Mostly this is a field of dreams. And most dreams make no sense whatsoever when you wake up.

    I have 10 easy ways to do AWE

    I can build working steady-state AWE systems in my sleep and at the drop of a hat. They work the first time with no questions.

    I can identify the major questions that need to be researched, that nobody is asking.

    Getting the right answers starts with asking the right questions. Nobody is. Remember, I was already thinking through most of the problems today's "players" are only now stumbling through as a teeneger decades ago. I've thought most of today's missteps decades ago. I'm actually appalled and disturbed at the lack of acumen. It makes me feel like having even the slightest talent or inclination to be able to build a working wind energy system of any kind is some sort of huge gift - weird. Wind energy is so simple it makes me wanna puke to see so many people endlessly making it seem so complicated, endlessly ignoring all that is known, endlessly repeating the mistakes of the past while never even knowing these mistakes were already made. Endlessly pulling out the spectre of "The Wright brothers" in response to any and every fact that is ever discussed, as though invoking that name comprises some sort of magical shield against facts.

    If any actual player would like to make actual progress, fast, please contact me. We'd have to sign some NDA type documents to get started.
    Anyone can make quick progress in this field. I say: "Let's DO IT".
    :)
    Doug Selsam
    714-749-3909
    PS now I gotta quit this group again as (and I hate to say this but...) it takes up way too much otherwise valuable time, unfortunately.

    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8265 From: dave santos Date: 12/21/2012
    Subject: Re: Sideways Tower-Mounted "Laddermills" in History
    Correction: No one has yet tested an airborne sideways laddermill made with modern soft kite methods doing pumping rather than circulating. 

    Anyone who thinks its been "tried twice" is seemingly unable to tell the difference between aircraft platforms designed by aeronautical engineers, and old wind contraptions never even intended to fly.

    The "laddermill" concept is very evolutionary. Modern versions have scant resemblance to original conceptions by Selsam and Ockels. Its unfair to use those to conclude no properly optimized version can ever work.

    The correct way to critique an AWES concept is to give it its best chance in principle and testing, and then carefully study the problems point-by-point. Gipe and his fans simply are not qualified for this sort of engineering due-diligence.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8266 From: harry valentine Date: 12/21/2012
    Subject: Re: Sideways Tower-Mounted "Laddermills" in History
    Airborne kite-sails are proving themselves, including the variant that can convert kinetic energy from a crosswind into forward propulsion.

    A bi-directional boat that sails between 2-islands located about a mile apart, can pull on a cable that activates island-based generators. If the boat is propelled by multiple airborne kite-sails, the assembly may classify as a sea-going ladder-mill.

    A multi-masted schooner may also classify as a water-borne ladder-mill. The ladder-mill is well proven on water .  .  .  many multiple-masted schooners (3,4 and 5-masts) and a even beat with 7-masts have sailed on the sea. These multi-mast examples sail best on crosswinds that blow along the coast.

    Harry


    To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
    From: santos137@yahoo.com
    Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 10:23:15 -0800
    Subject: Re: [AWES] Sideways Tower-Mounted "Laddermills" in History

     

    Correction: No one has yet tested an airborne sideways laddermill made with modern soft kite methods doing pumping rather than circulating. 

    Anyone who thinks its been "tried twice" is seemingly unable to tell the difference between aircraft platforms designed by aeronautical engineers, and old wind contraptions never even intended to fly.

    The "laddermill" concept is very evolutionary. Modern versions have scant resemblance to original conceptions by Selsam and Ockels. Its unfair to use those to conclude no properly optimized version can ever work.

    The correct way to critique an AWES concept is to give it its best chance in principle and testing, and then carefully study the problems point-by-point. Gipe and his fans simply are not qualified for this sort of engineering due-diligence.

    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8267 From: dave santos Date: 12/21/2012
    Subject: Classic Kite as Systolic Array
    Most AWES engineering teams plunge right into development of kite autopilots based on Von Neumann Architecture Serial-Computing. The alternative architecture of Parallel-Computing by Systolic Arrays is overlooked, but its really much closer to the inherent cybernetic principle a kite operates by. A systolic array is is a field of data-processors that are transfer-driven. 

    A classic single-line kite acts just in this fashion, effectively processing dynamic wind input from front to back to output reactive stabilizing forces. One can interpret the diamond kite as an almost exact instance of of a systolic cell or array (see diagram on wiki page linked below). The systolic architecture maps recursively onto the kite at various fractal scales, from its overall form as a single cell, down to its woven texture, all the way to its molecular structure. Scaling upwards, a vast latticework of kite units can be modeled as a systolic array on a higher fractal dimension (Each kite cell can act as a semi-intelligent Agent, in AI terms). 

    As noted in the past, these processes are also known as embodied field computing in robotics theory. The identity of information with energy in physics is basic Information Theory. Conventional computing serves as a nice adjunct to the embodied parallel-processing, as a supervisory interface.

    Those who despair over the practicality of examining the most fundamental science of kites need only wait for the many deep ideas examined to bear a wonderful harvest. Never forget Franklin's rejoinder, "what good is a newborn baby?"


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systolic_array
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8268 From: dave santos Date: 12/21/2012
    Subject: Makani Nat Geo Video

    Makani is back in its accustomed high-profile venture-marketing mode, now advocating engineering simplicity, despite owning the most complex AWES architecture of any known. 

    It may be that the diminished company is finally able to act as industry cheerleader without being seen as an unfair competitor by anyone. This could change anytime they secure an expanded round of capitalization before feeling driven into the AWE Basket Cooperative, which still needs a few more months of grassroots prep to launch credibly. Its a fun-race :)
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8269 From: roderickjosephread Date: 12/21/2012
    Subject: Re: Classic Kite as Systolic Array
    Excellent analogy,

    For full systole of a kite bi-valve pump the initial triggering is when the outer wall reaches a maxima detected as a line a tension / angle / windspeed relationship...
    Trigger each flipwing muscle serially along it's driving loadpath, timed to avoid tangles(microprocessor and actuator in series at the tip of each flipwing )

    Reflect the signal back along the line for diastole action.

    Does the heart beat faster in strong winds? as more mass moves through all that sail.
    Does it have to be tuned tighter?

    Hearts have amazing longevity, but the reversal of operation, pushing fluid through to get electricity out is not going to work well on a heart model.


    It may have longevity but
    Is a collected flipwing set generating as much power per sqm sail as a fast rotating wing? doubt it.
    A flipwing has a short phased acceleration, rotation is near constant.
    A ganged collection of flipwings will have some going one way and some going the other at suck / blow change time.

    How do you make the wind move loads of magnet close past loads of the same wire.?
    Loads of small generation transducers?

    I think I still like lifting simple spinny things even at fairly large scale.




    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8270 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/21/2012
    Subject: Re: Makani Nat Geo Video
    Terms: 
    NGM: "BTK"
    MP: "SM"

    Big Technical Kite    ... National Geographic Magazine visitor
    Simple Machine   .... Andrea Dunlap

    Tension ... 
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8271 From: dave santos Date: 12/21/2012
    Subject: Re: Classic Kite as Systolic Array
    Rod,

    You get the main concept here, but its not about hearts per se. The "Systolic" cardiac metaphor is just a historic naming accident.for a fundamental processing architecture that began with the Colossus Mark II. Parallelism is the most characteristic quality, rather than a coherent clock beat. In particular the kite is an ansynchronous Wavefront (Systolic Array.

    Fortunately no special limitations on biological heart models really limits kites, nor can it be denied that a kite is a parallel processing architecture (formally a Systolic Array) where observational streamlines can be considered as the abstract "pipeline" process. I am avoiding explicitly invoking the quantum-phonon basis to appease Bob :)

    AWES pumping is a separate topic to consider. This note was confined to a cybernetic explanation of the classic single-line kite, which is not normally intended to pump.

    daveS

    PS The concepts of celluar automata state machines can be applied to kites, although the journey eventually leads to kite QFT-

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_automaton
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8272 From: dave santos Date: 12/21/2012
    Subject: "Simple Machine" already defined // Re: Jargon //Re: [AWES] Re: Mak


    JoeF,

    Andrea is the personable MP publicist, and clearly was not intending to recoin a classic mechanical engineering term to describe Wing7 class complexity-

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_machine

    "BTK" (or "TK") is slightly attractive, since Mothra1 maybe the Biggest Technical Kite currently flown(?). Osborne's Monster burned in a fire, and the bigger giants are theme kites (but rather technical), or cargo parachutes. I thought you would pick up on "ABC" (AWE Basket Cooperative) acronym, which might deserve legs.

    As RobertC reminded, we should draw the line on excess jargon, and try for standard technical usage as much as possible. No doubt many non-native English users on this list are learning a lot, with many weird twists as well,

    daveS
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8273 From: roderickjosephread Date: 12/22/2012
    Subject: Re: Classic Kite as Systolic Array
    Yeah, sorry for taking it so far the biological way...
     Just stating,
     Triggered control signal processing of kite walls , as an overall  large collected array inflator/ tugger / pump device
    Can be automated by simple small algorithmic device actuators on the kixel level.
    Preferably physically and not electronically actuated as we discussed before...

    The systolic naming metaphor was no accident,
    This multicast signal processing for a coordinated multi actuator large fluid energy device exists in nature.. in you.

    Unless you are a robot Dave S??? hmmm




    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8274 From: roderickjosephread Date: 12/22/2012
    Subject: Re: Classic Kite as Systolic Array
    As a kid, I thought biology gruesome an ungainly, before I learnt how advanced on our understanding it is...

    I had a bout of Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation a few years back... Totally missmanaged by my wife (not allowed it my brother was visiting) Anyway I  fixed with some yoga in hospital.. I learnt some stuff about heart electrophysiology then

    Have a look at
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrial_fibrillation#Causes

    The most interesting bit will be half way down the page
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8275 From: roderickjosephread Date: 12/22/2012
    Subject: Re: Classic Kite as Systolic Array
    Von Neuman cellular automata are surely relevant,
    A coordinated serial control line gives a collected mass output.

    Yes winds fluctuate and are gusty, hence asynchrony seems key to efficiency
    However to have a fully asynchronous multi level kixel mesh device...
    Surely you need as many small generators as you have kites... don't you?
    Is asynchrony capable of collective phased tugging, sending large power signals to the ground?

    Yeah, sorry for taking it so far the biological way...
     Just stating,
     Triggered control signal processing of kite walls , as an overall  large collected array inflator/ tugger / pump device
    Can be automated by simple small algorithmic device actuators on the kixel level.
    Preferably physically and not electronically actuated as we discussed before...

    The systolic naming metaphor was no accident,
    This multicast signal processing for a coordinated multi actuator large fluid energy device exists in nature.. in you.

    Unless you are a robot Dave S??? hmmm


    As a kid, I thought biology gruesome an ungainly, before I learnt how advanced it is...

    I had a bout of Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation a few years back... Totally miss-managed by my wife (not allowed it, my brother was visiting) Anyway I  fixed with some yoga in hospital.. I learnt some stuff about heart electrophysiology then

    Have a look at
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrial_fibrillation#Causes

    The most interesting bit will be half way down the page,
    A huge coordinated pump ,,, which we just have to totally reverse engineer with a mothra and flipwings