Messages in AirborneWindEnergy group.                           AWES9132to9181 Page 80 of 440.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9132 From: Doug Date: 5/4/2013
Subject: Re: Correcting Doug (Honeywell and Coy Harris)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9133 From: Joe Faust Date: 5/4/2013
Subject: Honeywell, assignee. Application approved.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9134 From: Doug Date: 5/4/2013
Subject: Re: Honeywell, assignee. Application approved.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9135 From: Joe Faust Date: 5/4/2013
Subject: Re: Honeywell, assignee. Application approved.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9136 From: Joe Faust Date: 5/4/2013
Subject: Re: Honeywell, assignee. Application approved.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9137 From: Joe Faust Date: 5/4/2013
Subject: Re: Honeywell, assignee. Application approved.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9138 From: Joe Faust Date: 5/4/2013
Subject: Re: Honeywell, assignee. Application approved.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9139 From: Doug Date: 5/5/2013
Subject: Re: Honeywell, assignee. Application approved.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9140 From: Doug Date: 5/5/2013
Subject: Re: Honeywell, assignee. Application approved.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9141 From: dave santos Date: 5/6/2013
Subject: Re: Correcting Doug (Honeywell and Coy Harris)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9142 From: dave santos Date: 5/6/2013
Subject: The Sword in the Stone (Test Equipment for AWE Due Diligence)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9143 From: Joe Faust Date: 5/6/2013
Subject: Wind Turbines? Try a Wind Kite

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9144 From: Doug Date: 5/7/2013
Subject: Re: The Sword in the Stone (Test Equipment for AWE Due Diligence)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9145 From: dave santos Date: 5/7/2013
Subject: Re: The Sword in the Stone (Test Equipment for AWE Due Diligence)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9146 From: Doug Date: 5/7/2013
Subject: Re: The Sword in the Stone (Test Equipment for AWE Due Diligence) pu

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9147 From: dave santos Date: 5/7/2013
Subject: Re: The Sword in the Stone (Test Equipment for AWE Due Diligence)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9148 From: Doug Date: 5/7/2013
Subject: Re: The Sword in the Stone (Test Equipment for AWE Due Diligence)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9149 From: dave santos Date: 5/8/2013
Subject: Encampment Report

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9150 From: Joe Faust Date: 5/8/2013
Subject: Re: Encampment Report

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9151 From: dave santos Date: 5/8/2013
Subject: Relativistic Phonons in Physics (Speed of Second Sound)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9152 From: dave santos Date: 5/8/2013
Subject: Makani Moves Against AWEIA

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9153 From: Joe Faust Date: 5/8/2013
Subject: Re: Cathy Zoi removed from Silver Lake Kraftwerk Team (?)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9154 From: Joe Faust Date: 5/8/2013
Subject: Re: Makani Moves Against AWEIA

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9155 From: dave santos Date: 5/9/2013
Subject: Kris's Latest Rope Drive Article for Low-Tech Magazine

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9156 From: dave santos Date: 5/9/2013
Subject: Tech Note //Fw: Kris's Latest Rope Drive Article for Low-Tech Magazi

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9157 From: snapscan_snapscan Date: 5/9/2013
Subject: Re: Kris's Latest Rope Drive Article for Low-Tech Magazine

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9158 From: dave santos Date: 5/9/2013
Subject: Makani Discloses a Development Plan

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9159 From: dave santos Date: 5/9/2013
Subject: Correction //Re: [AWES] Re: Kris's Latest Rope Drive Article for Low

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9160 From: Joe Faust Date: 5/9/2013
Subject: AWES directly power mechanical work

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9161 From: dave santos Date: 5/9/2013
Subject: BowString Effect between High-Altitude Kites for High Load-Velocity

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9162 From: Joe Faust Date: 5/10/2013
Subject: Re: AWES directly power mechanical work

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9163 From: Joe Faust Date: 5/10/2013
Subject: Here comes the sun and wind

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9164 From: Joe Faust Date: 5/10/2013
Subject: Re: AWES directly power mechanical work

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9165 From: Joe Faust Date: 5/10/2013
Subject: Re: AWES directly power mechanical work

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9166 From: Joe Faust Date: 5/10/2013
Subject: Re: AWES directly power mechanical work

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9167 From: Joe Faust Date: 5/10/2013
Subject: Call for your essay. Let the world review your good work.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9168 From: Harry Valentine Date: 5/10/2013
Subject: Aviation airborne wind turbine

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9169 From: dave santos Date: 5/10/2013
Subject: Zeppelin Bend Knot for mating Kitelines

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9170 From: Joe Faust Date: 5/10/2013
Subject: Re: Aviation airborne wind turbine

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9171 From: Joe Faust Date: 5/10/2013
Subject: Re: Aviation airborne wind turbine

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9172 From: Joe Faust Date: 5/10/2013
Subject: Re: Aviation airborne wind turbine

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9173 From: Joe Faust Date: 5/10/2013
Subject: Re: Zeppelin Bend Knot for mating Kitelines

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9174 From: Joe Faust Date: 5/10/2013
Subject: Re: Zeppelin Bend Knot for mating Kitelines

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9175 From: dave santos Date: 5/10/2013
Subject: How fast can bike wheels spin as experimental AWES rope-drive pulley

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9176 From: Bob Stuart Date: 5/10/2013
Subject: Re: How fast can bike wheels spin as experimental AWES rope-drive pu

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9177 From: Doug Date: 5/11/2013
Subject: Re: How fast can bike wheels spin as experimental AWES rope-drive pu

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9178 From: dave santos Date: 5/11/2013
Subject: Re: How fast can bike wheels spin as experimental AWES rope-drive pu

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9179 From: Bob Stuart Date: 5/11/2013
Subject: Re: How fast can bike wheels spin as experimental AWES rope-drive pu

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9180 From: Joe Faust Date: 5/11/2013
Subject: Re: How fast can bike wheels spin as experimental AWES rope-drive pu

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9181 From: dave santos Date: 5/12/2013
Subject: Re: How fast can bike wheels spin as experimental AWES rope-drive pu



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9132 From: Doug Date: 5/4/2013
Subject: Re: Correcting Doug (Honeywell and Coy Harris)
Hey Dave S. don't try to rewrite history. You promoted the Honeywell turbine while I predicted it would fail at the first strong wind. You promoted it BECAUSE it shared so many dumb features you promote, that you were convinced it must be OK or even good.

The specimen you saw and bragged about was in-fact non-operational(!) because, as Coy Harris told me after I called him to check on how full-of-it you were, it indeed failed at the first decent wind. This was very predictable for wind energy people.

You were hanging your hat on the Honeywell turbine being good, as evidence I didn't know what I was talking about. It is in fact you, who still have no clue about wind energy. The fact-checking proved that every statement you had made was wrong.

All experts or veterans in wind energy saw the common newbie "grasping at straws" design mistakes, such as a 100% solidity rotor for generating electricity, stretched cloth blades, and of course the one new feature introduced by Honeywell: the inside-out logic of placing the generators at the tips, which is neato (different) but works against all accumulated design logic. Why is it different? because nobody has been that dumb before. Literally. Oh and even those dummies abandoned the cloth blades halfway through the life/death of the model.

A telltale sign of idiot wind energy designer is when they promote some goofy, centuries-old design flaw as a "new" advantage, then later, quietly eliminate that exact new feature, that supposedly was better, as they realize it sucks.

Cloth blades: They realized they sucked so they got rid of them but the other newbie design flaws remained. The wannabe wind turbine designers simply take a perfectly good concept and start adding all the old features that were proven to not work, since they imagine themselves as innovators, but have no working knowledge. I guess I think I am explaining this to you Dave S. but I am wasting my time because you have proven so many times you cannot follow a logical trail of thought, which is why you are so flkusterbated.

In summary, you were promoting the Honeywell turbine as evidence that I knew nothing, because you said the Honeywell turbine was great, since it repeats some of the same typical newbie mistakes you repeatedly make, such as 100% solidity rotors and stretched cloth working surfaces. You were so impressed with the name Honeywell that you were sure your ignorance, combined with that brand name, would trump my actual (basic) working knowledge, but it didn't work.

I finally had to actually CALL Coy Harris to verify that he agreed that it sucked and failed at the first 50 MPH wind as I had predicted. I had to call Coy because I knew you were publicly misrepresenting his opinion, and a fact-check was needed, Finally I googled it and brought up the Consumer Reports article that explained how the Honeywell machine was entirely worthless, producing almost no electricity for anyone, right? Remember now?

No matter - we had established long before that that you make no sense whatsoever, know nothing about wind turbines, make rash statements based on a very typical newbie mindset, and are simply wrong about most everything you post here, especially when you waste your time trying to prove my ignorance through your ignorance. It will never work: your ignorance is not contagious - you can't make me catch it.

Let's review:
You said the Honeywell turbine was good, with 100% solidity, cloth blades, and a predictable failure to achieve sufficient overspeed protection. I said it was bad because I am part of a group of many veterans who have been debunking turbines for 10 years and can do it in our sleep. When checked for factuality, your own reference, Coy Harris, verified that the Honeywell turbine completely sucks and is non-operational for the exact reasons I originally cited, and a two-second search using Google told us that Consumer Reports verified the non-functionality that I had originally predicted.

So what was your point again? That you have too much time on your hands? That you lack focus? Or is it the continued refusal to take into account known paradigms in wind energy? Or that your lack of results drives you to continually harass people who CAN at least achieve limited working versions of AWE?

Whatever it is, it's not my problem. Have fun!
:)
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9133 From: Joe Faust Date: 5/4/2013
Subject: Honeywell, assignee. Application approved.

Tethered Autonomous Air Vehicle With Wind Turbines

Bibliographic data: US8109711  (B2) ― 2012-02-07


Tethered Autonomous Air Vehicle With Wind Turbines  


Page bookmarkUS8109711  (B2)  -  Tethered Autonomous Air Vehicle With Wind Turbines
Inventor(s):BLUMER ERIC [US]; THURSTON JOHN [US]; WINGETT PAUL [US]; GAINES LOUIE TIMOTHY [US]; SHEORAN YOGENDRA YOGI [US] +
Applicant(s):HONEYWELL INT INC [US] +
Classification:
- international:B63H1/38; F01D15/00; F01D15/12; F01D25/28; F03B13/00; F03B15/06; F03B17/06; F03B7/00; F03D11/04; F03D7/00; F03D9/00; F04D29/60
- cooperative:B64B1/50; B64C31/06; F03D1/00; F03D5/00; F03D7/0204; B64C2201/148; F05B2240/921; Y02E10/70;Y02E10/723
Application number:US20090349868 20090107 
Priority number(s):US20090349868 20090107 ; US20080082031P 20080718
Also published as:US2010013226 (A1) 

Abstract of  US8109711  (B2)

A wind turbine energy conversion device that can take advantage of the higher speed and more persistent winds at higher altitudes is hereinafter disclosed. The wind turbine energy conversion device includes an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) connected to one end of a tether (which may include multiple shorter tethers), the other end being connected to a terrestrial anchorage point. The UAV flies at altitudes where wind speeds can reach 40 mph or higher. The UAV comprises a flying wing with one or more trailing wind power turbines and flies airborne maneuvers designed to increase relative wind speed up to about four times the true wind speed.

First page clipping of US8109711 (B2)
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9134 From: Doug Date: 5/4/2013
Subject: Re: Honeywell, assignee. Application approved.
Nice Joe - was this a result of googling honeywell airborne wind turbine? Interesting that they have a patent filed. The claims look like placeholders: What is new about this idea? Placing the propellers at the rear? Seems like a typical decent approach, but adding nothing new really, whose main downside is the same problem a lot of us have: more good ideas than we have time to build and test. Wasn't it Honeywell who brought a Heinlein-esque rendering of what looked like a space-plane re-entry vehicle tagged as an airborne wind energy device to the Stanford conference? Funny how hardly anyone is building such simple devices.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9135 From: Joe Faust Date: 5/4/2013
Subject: Re: Honeywell, assignee. Application approved.
Yes, Doug. 
We have such in early post: 
Click through to see the artistic rendering. 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9136 From: Joe Faust Date: 5/4/2013
Subject: Re: Honeywell, assignee. Application approved.

Publication numberUS8109711 B2
Publication typeGrant
Application number12/349,868
Publication dateFeb 7, 2012
Filing dateJan 7, 2009
Also published as
US20100013226
Inventors
Eric Blumer
Louie Timothy Gaines
Yogendra Yogi Sheoran
John Thurston
Paul Wingett
Less «
Original Assignee
Honeywell International Inc.
U.S. Classification
415/2.1
7 More »
International Classification
F04D29/60
B63H1/38
F03D7/00
F03B7/00
F01D15/00
F03D9/00
F03B17/06
F03D11/04
F03B15/06
F03B13/00
F01D15/12
F01D25/28
Less «
Cooperative Classification
F03D7/0204
F03D1/00
F05B2240/921
B64C31/06
Y02E10/723
B64C2201/148
F03D5/00
Y02E10/70
B64B1/50
Less «
European Classification
F03D 7/02B
B64B 1/50
B64C 31/06
F03D 1/00
F03D 5/00
Less «
References
Patent Citations (94)
Non-Patent Citations (2)
Referenced by (2)

External Links
USPTO
USPTO Assignment
Espacenet
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9137 From: Joe Faust Date: 5/4/2013
Subject: Re: Honeywell, assignee. Application approved.
Related: 

HIGH VOLTAGE DC TETHER

www.google.com/patents/US20120043108
App. - Filed Dec 14, 2010 - ERIC BLUMER - HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC.
A high voltage direct current (DC) tether for an airborne wind turbine has a reduced weight compared to conventional tethers. The weight ..
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9138 From: Joe Faust Date: 5/4/2013
Subject: Re: Honeywell, assignee. Application approved.
Related:
Tethered aquatic device with water power turbine
US 20110095530 A1
ABSTRACT

A water power turbine energy conversion device and method of generating electric power that can take advantage of water current speeds is hereinafter disclosed. The water power turbine energy conversion device includes an unmanned tethered aquatic device (TAD) connected to one end of a tether (which may include multiple shorter tethers), the other end being connected to an anchorage point. The TAD comprises a hydrofoil wing-like structure with one or more water power turbines and performs waterborne maneuvers such as cross-current tracking to increase the relative water current speed of up to about four times the true water current speed.

Publication numberUS20110095530 A1
Publication typeApplication
Application number12/606,039
Publication dateApr 28, 2011
Filing dateOct 26, 2009
Priority date
Oct 26, 2009
Inventors
Eric Blumer
Paul Jones
John Thurston
Less «
Original Assignee
Honeywell International Inc.
U.S. Classification
290/43
3 More »
International Classification
F03B13/00
F03B15/00
Cooperative Classification
Y02E10/28
F05B2240/40
F03B17/061
Less «
European Classification
F03B 17/06B
References
Patent Citations (13)
Referenced by (1)

External Links
USPTO
USPTO Assignment
Espacene
Patent Drawing Etc. many more drawings. See the application for patent.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9139 From: Doug Date: 5/5/2013
Subject: Re: Honeywell, assignee. Application approved.
Funny - just about any co-ax cable reads on claim 1. Slow down Honeywell! Even regular house wiring from Home Depot contains fibers for strength. Wind energy has always drawn out the nutcases. But just because the machine is leaving Earth does not mean it can leave common sense behind.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9140 From: Doug Date: 5/5/2013
Subject: Re: Honeywell, assignee. Application approved.
Let me tell you guys what I have seen happen: We were discussing induction motors as generators online. The discussion went to ceiling fan motors which use a higher number of poles for slower rotation. Dave Blittersdorf owner of NRG systems which makes anemometry equipment (as though anyone here knows who I am talking about - he is a well-known figure in wind energy) - he applied for a patent on exactly what we were discussing on the list, an induction generator with 12 or more poles for a wind turbine - and he got it issued. The examiners never checked out the online group.

The insult was when the resulting issued patent was announced a couple of years later on that same Yahoo group. I immediately went back to the archives and pointed out that we had been discussing it 2 weeks before the filing date. The patent would be hard to enforce. We know it is invalid. But the bureaucracy rolls on.

It looks to me like Honeywell and a lot of other people are just throwing patents around without any regard to who really introduced the idea. The examiners are limited in their ability to find every reference. The result is a forest of mostly irrelevant and unenforceable yet possibly troublesome patents.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9141 From: dave santos Date: 5/6/2013
Subject: Re: Correcting Doug (Honeywell and Coy Harris)
Doug,
 
Please find where the Honeywell turbine was "promoted" by me (use search).
I will gladly concede any exaggerated opinions such as you claim was made,
since we agree the Honeywell is not a winner. 
 
Where we disagree is on the possibility that turbine shrouds might help prevent 
snarled lines, or that large diameter generators might be useful in some niche.
To my mind these small details are open questions.
 
We can also compare my language with USWindLabs shrill promotional style-
 
"All roads lead to the SuperTurbine (R)"
 
Thanks for being careful to cite key specifics when you critique,
 
daveS
 
PS What does Cory think of your SuperTurbine? We forgot to ask him when he was
interviewed, but surely he would like to collect one, in much the same spirit he happily
collected the Honeywell.
 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9142 From: dave santos Date: 5/6/2013
Subject: The Sword in the Stone (Test Equipment for AWE Due Diligence)
A common mistake by AWE developers is to follow a single narrow approach. Not only does this restrict foundational learning, but even promising concepts languish for lack of close comparative evaluation with contenders. Ever smarter investors increasingly ignore such misbegotten ventures, which are failing one-by-one. Our truest R&D challenge is optimization test-engineering, not just inventing pet ideas. Its well known the Wright brothers invented special test equipment, like the first wind tunnel, in order to be first in flight. Such developing of generic test equipment is an unusual priority in AWE, but KiteLab Austin (with Util/WOW support) is undertaking just that.
 
The most essential AWE "test equipment" is a kite field in a windy location, so we have secured a hay farm for dual-use trials. The anchor field supports varied single and multi-anchor experiments. Human factors, like short commutes, lodging, and dining, are key requirements this facility meets. Videogrammetry is now a standard data generator, well covered in earlier posts. Meteorological sensors, GPS, and so forth are standard as well. AWE is a rather complex operation, with many dimensions.
 
Measuring power is a key test parameter, so the design and building of permanent power test equipment is a current priority. The Forum has discussed John Borsheim's suggestion to use De Prony Brakes to measure AWES power outputs, so that misleading electrical generation issues are entirely avoided. We are now designing and building de Prony brakes from a spectrum of COTS vehicle brakes, from bikes to trucks, and COTS scales, to measure raw torque in foot-pounds. These test rigs are considerable capital projects to us, but will serve us for years to come, to evaluate systems as yet unimagined. John's cleverest idea is to mount a generator on a de Prony, to get both absolute and generated power data.
 
We have access to the wind tunnels of the UTexas AE Dept., but have not needed them yet; making do with side-by-side field tests and towing. On our wish list is a range of hydraulic tensometers, to measure load limits on kitelines, particularly the derating factors of worn and UV damaged lines. Electrical testing is important, especially for flygens, so we have basic test equipment available. John Borsheim and his test-engineering lab is available for all sorts of exotic tests, like altitude, vibration, salt-fog; you name it. He tests satellite hardware for major aerospace developers, which is an incredible level of professionalism for a one man company.
 
We hope to develop many of the special test protocols that the Fraunhofer Society needs to someday do in a grander manner, as expected* third-party validators to whole AWE field. Anyone who wants us to test AWES elements is welcome. Consider dedicated test equipment to be the "sword in the stone" that AWE's heroes must overcome.
 
 
 
* Fraunhofer has expressed interest in serving in this role.
 



.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9143 From: Joe Faust Date: 5/6/2013
Subject: Wind Turbines? Try a Wind Kite

Wind Turbines? Try a Wind Kite 

Posted by Dan Stone of National Geographic Magazine in Change Reaction on  December 13, 2012
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9144 From: Doug Date: 5/7/2013
Subject: Re: The Sword in the Stone (Test Equipment for AWE Due Diligence)
I will just address your first and last sentences:
1) citing "a common mistake" implies you know more than them, are more successful, and are in a position to judge whether their actions are a "mistake". This implies you have mastery of AWE and knowledge that the rest don't. I don't see this as factual. I'd say you are floundering with no direction, based on no success so far. To pick out projects that actually try something, and fault them for not trying everything, makes no sense. You don't seem to acknowledge that these teams making what you call "mistakes" seem to be far ahead of your own efforts(?). What puts you in a position to say who is making a "mistake", if you are not achieving anything better?

2)"Consider" - another command from you telling everyone how to think.
I've never seen anyone write in such a strange way - starting sentences with words like "expect" and "consider" - an order from Dave S. to "consider dedicated test equipment as the sword in the stone". As though you are the authority and the rest of us are idiots. Sure Dave. What about just using regular test equipment as needed? I find those multimeters from Harbor Freight work well for most actual wind energhy people, and sometimes they are on sale for less than $5. That assumes you have any voltage or current to measure in the first place. For recording the power output data, most of wind energy uses current and voltage sensors, sometimes power sensors, connected to data loggers. What do you think of that, or is that too simple? Or is it that, having no electricity to measure, you'd rather make it all seem 10 times as complicated as it needs to be?

Remember that joke about the definition of an intellectual being someone who uses more words than necessary to explain more than they understand? Well don't you think you fall into that category?

Ahhh where would we be without the Nostradamus of AWE...?

Dave S. I just want to relay a little something I have noticed over 10 years of debunking crackpot wind energy ideas. You can ignore it if you want, but it's definitely true: It is symptomatic of the crackpots to fixate on Deprony brakes. I know you think endlessly citing DeProny brakes places you on the cutting edge - they all think that. We have seen it 1000 times. Well OK at least hundreds of times. Like so much of what you come up with, it is typical newbie-talk. And the newbies, by definition, don't know how predictable they are, nor how all their statements have already been made by the crackpots who came before.

Don't ya hate it? Every time we think we're doing something new we find out we're just another statistic!
:)
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9145 From: dave santos Date: 5/7/2013
Subject: Re: The Sword in the Stone (Test Equipment for AWE Due Diligence)
Doug,
 
The reason so many developers betting all on a premature down-select is a "common mistake" is that the major winning architectures will be a short list. Those who keep an open mind can share the winner's circle. You often make the "losing idea" point about windpower on towers, but without allowing that wider conceptualizing and testing is a path forward. How strange you complain that my invitation to "consider" is a wrongful command. To me its like "Have a nice day". Emotional vulnerabilities should not unduly sour your tolerance of acceptable literary style.
 
KiteLab Austin does use Harbor Freight multimeters, but cannot endorse them, since several have died on us. My barely mention of "basic electrical test equipment" was quite appropriate. You would be surprised how freaky the power regimes are for multi-flygens like Makani's are. An O-scope and so forth is hardly overkill in developing the power electronics, nor is a logic tester for digital troubleshooting, since your complaint invites added comment.
 
Like you, my preference in developing wind power is to work small and then scale. We (KiteLab Group) are not making power to impress you, but to evaluate a wide field, and to build skills. My experience at KiteShip was an exception, since pulling ships is a convincing amount of power compared to your efforts. We will see who makes it to megascale, and lets all wish you luck.
 
That a professional Test Engineer of the stature of John Borsheim encourages de Prony brakes to measure power is enough for his fans to act on it. Go ahead and laugh at our respect for amazing teachers :) If we want to test a bunch of kites for raw pulling power, a generic generator makes less sense. Allow us to be more diligent than you are. My experience in "debunking crackpot wind energy ideas" may prove to be far longer and better informed than yours. This seems why you could not stump me on the phone (recall your question to me, where you forgot the Air 400 as an prime example of an alu encased gen). I look forward to further tests of our relative learning about wind tech, and hope you do too.
 
You never did answer specific critiques of the SuperTurbine in convincing fashion. Would you like to review them?
 
Considerately,
 
daveS
 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9146 From: Doug Date: 5/7/2013
Subject: Re: The Sword in the Stone (Test Equipment for AWE Due Diligence) pu
I was just pointing out that crackpots are the only people I usually hear talking about DeProny brakes with regard to wind energy. And they talk about them a lot it seems. Like chickenpox has a symptom of red spots, ya know? Of course that does not include you. Just so you know it's one more symptom. I think they like to see a lot of torque, then a high RPM, and imagine how much power they'd have if only they could get the torque and the RPM to happen at the same time! key word: imagine.

And I was pointing out that your tone is one of a teacher preaching to a bunch of children: "expect" this, "consider" that - issuing orders for how to think, as though you have distinguished yourself above the rest, already know how it will all play out, and are merely letting the rest of us learn what you already know, as an exercise.

Rather than issuing marching orders, like you are instructing your disciples on exactly the proper way to think, exactly what to "expect", etc., I'd feel more comfortable if you said "my current thinking is" or maybe a bit more humility (reality) "The best my deranged brain can come up with is..." or "Well I've got a lot more energy than focus, but if I get a bunch of kites to wiggle at the same time, could that have any similarities to a Bose-Einsten Condensate, or is it just me being deranged again? And I guess, if it did, so what?"
or how 'bout
"Well I guess I really DON'T know what I'm talking about, having never generated much electricity from the wind after all these years of big talk, but you have to admit, it's possible that, even so, I COULD stumble across something useful - ya never know!"

In reality, from what I've seen (my opinion), I wouldn't place you in the group of people who even quite "get it". Of course after 10 years of crackpots with 100% solidity drag-based machines using cloth working surfaces, falling back on the DeProny brake excuse, what do I know, right?

The things the crackpots have in common is they always brag about their future impact on the art, but never have any current results. usually they have never connected a generator to their machine, and don't really WANT to, lest it spoil their delusions, hence the talk of DeProny brakes, where they can cite one high torque number and another high RPM number and imagine the power if it could produce both simultaneouosly. Sound familiar?

As far as responding to your detractions of SuperTurbine(R), I have the patents which describe workable apparatus. I've brought a working demo which won a PopSci Invention of the year to the first Airborne conference. And I currently produce tower-mounted versions. That shows the concept works, and if I had more time I'd be working on better airborne versions - I hope I get there. There's nothing unworkable about it. The driveshafts are way stronger than they need to be so far.

Meanwhile, SuperTurbine(R) is a small subset of likely-workable AWE ideas that come to even my feeble mind, but I've learned to be patient and build things before telling everyone all about them since IP is valuable and spilling all yer beans all day long leaves no beans to grow your own beanstalk. Also if you have an idea that sucks, better to find out it sucks before bragging that people should "expect" this and that. We can all have bad ideas sometimes. The only way to find out is to test them.

I don't feel any need to defend SuperTurbine to you. That seems to be another major distinguishing characteristic of the crackpots: They think it is all about what you SAY your ideas can do, defending designs in words, impressive personalities and name-calling "Paul Gipe says this" and "Coy What's-his-name says that". Well I used to fall prey to that kind of thinking. I used to think what mattered was magazine coverage. But how many magazine "breakthroughs" have you read about by now that never happened? (Can you say "whale bumps"?) After several years of the wind beating my machines to death, I realized the central characters are not the pundits. There are two main players that count: you and the wind. Everything else is window-dressing until you have developed a reliable power plant.

You want the most powerful for its diameter, and reliable small wind turbine available today? I'd say the SuperTwin(TM) SuperTurbine(R) is now about there. We haven't had one burn out in over a year now and we're well into the windy season, with all systems go, for all SuperTwins being tested in this region.

Brawk!
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9147 From: dave santos Date: 5/7/2013
Subject: Re: The Sword in the Stone (Test Equipment for AWE Due Diligence)
 
Doug,
 
Please allow the potential value of many of those you rudely dismiss as "crackpots". After all, this is the same sort of value you bring. Hurray for you championing the SuperTurbine, despite its obvious status as one of the "freak turbines" that break with tradition. At least you will never face the same crude attacks you heap on AWE academics, and all others also struggling with petbAWES ideas.
 
You badly need the public lecturing-to the Forum provides, to balance deep biases you are unable to see. One of your obvious blind spots is lack of respect for the growing role in AWE of formal test engineering (like Fraunhofer and NREL wants to do). After all, your own efforts inevitably face the same third-party validation challenge we all do. The winners will be all those who fall in with the best test results (including aviation constraints). Do not be left out by your habitual negativity. We are living a once-in-a-lifetime dream.
 
Never forget, we are on the same team. Its sad you did not rise to the friendly invitation to show some demo at the Encampment (with financial support even). Make no mistake, the AWE "newborn baby" cannot possibly meet an impatient notion of quick easy scaling-up (esp. of only your ideas), but can only grow in its due time, based on a large positive collective intelligence,
 
daveS
 
PS We will not not forget RPM as a key measurable (Rotary Load Velocity). Thanks for the reminder.
 







   .
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9148 From: Doug Date: 5/7/2013
Subject: Re: The Sword in the Stone (Test Equipment for AWE Due Diligence)
Thanks for inviting me.
I just haven't built anything new lately that flies, but hopefully soon. Trying to tie up some loose ends so I can get to it.
I just got a new 1958 Ford f250 with a straight six
and a new 1969 Chevy CST-10 pickup with a 396 hotrodded out, original paint.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9149 From: dave santos Date: 5/8/2013
Subject: Encampment Report
 
 
Last weekend Encampment action shifted to Waco, Texas, for its charity kite festival. We missed Barry and Karen Ogletree, the WhataKite giant kite team, since Barry is recuperating from a sore vertebrae. The silver-lining is that we all got to meet the substitute kite master, Gary Moss, who is a skilled large kite maker. We flew a NPW and demoed a flip-wing by 2KiteSam for Gary under his show kites.
 
A curious technical issue arose as our designated large kite area was sporadically invaded by parents and kids flying toy kites; Gary was hyper-vigalant against the threat that the cheap thin lines of the toy kites could slice his larger professional kite lines, which is an interesting asymmetric threat that recalls Thai Chula-Pacpao kite fighting. 
 
This week went back to shop work during a calm, but now the wind is back.
 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9150 From: Joe Faust Date: 5/8/2013
Subject: Re: Encampment Report
In video, 2004 kite festival: Notice the travel bags, the effort, the international flavor, the energy. 
Look ahead when kite-energy festivals feature kite-system tasking and energy production.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmwnvoOe9vU
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9151 From: dave santos Date: 5/8/2013
Subject: Relativistic Phonons in Physics (Speed of Second Sound)
Its astounding that mechanical motion, heat, and sound, in all their variations, are the same thing (phonons). This integrated view tidies calculation and inspires fresh insights, especially in light of conceptual tools like thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, and so forth.
 
Some time ago a Forum debate began as to whether Einstein's Special Relativity had any serious bearing on AWES physics. It does, in interesting and potentially illuminating ways, as the following Wikipedia article suggests-
 
For review-
 
 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9152 From: dave santos Date: 5/8/2013
Subject: Makani Moves Against AWEIA
Finally, a crack in the Makani PR façade regarding non-AWEC circles. Makani is demanding that AWEIA remove Wing7 images from its website, which is fair enough (it was the innocent webmaster's fair-use choice). Makani must also take seriously the complaints against its many exaggerated marketing and engineering claims over the years. We have watched them dominate AWE mindshare based on the Google equity investment angle. Its time some of those claims were publicly retracted, in the same spirit that AWEIA should comply. This is also a sign of what to expect with Zoi on the Makani Board of Directors-
 




     ----- Forwarded Message -----
From: dave santos <santos137@yahoo.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9153 From: Joe Faust Date: 5/8/2013
Subject: Re: Cathy Zoi removed from Silver Lake Kraftwerk Team (?)

--Answer:
===============

Cathy Zoi is no longer with Silver Lake. She is now employed by C3 Energy and can be contacted through that organization.

 

http://www.c3energy.com/


===============
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9154 From: Joe Faust Date: 5/8/2013
Subject: Re: Makani Moves Against AWEIA

Mean times in AWES   

  • MTBF      mean time between failures
  • MTBCF   mean time between critical failures  AirborneWindEnergy/message/9152
  • MTBSA   mean time between system aborts
  • MTTR     mean time to repair
  • MTTF     mean time to failure
  • ?
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9155 From: dave santos Date: 5/9/2013
Subject: Kris's Latest Rope Drive Article for Low-Tech Magazine
Doug wanted to know more about power transmission by rope-driving, and now his wish is fulfilled.
 
Not sure if this latest link was posted here before, but its a wonderful rope-drive summary, with AWES design discussed-
 
Keep in mind that superior power-to-weight over electrical conductors especially favors rope-drives for AWES.
 
Note the finding that its the number of pulley stages that limits rope-drive efficiency, so our aerial systems, well clear of the ground, are not so disadvantaged. 10km is a reasonable stage length to dream about :)
 
Thanks to Kris for taking this topic on in his admirable style.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9156 From: dave santos Date: 5/9/2013
Subject: Tech Note //Fw: Kris's Latest Rope Drive Article for Low-Tech Magazi
Tech Note- Aerodrag also significantly limits rope-drive efficiency, especially in AWES use, but comparable rated thick electrical conductors appear to inherently suffer even more drag penalty, from the flight-efficiency viewpoint.




 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9157 From: snapscan_snapscan Date: 5/9/2013
Subject: Re: Kris's Latest Rope Drive Article for Low-Tech Magazine
From the article:

"In electrical distribution a double transformation is necessary: a transformation into electrical energy by a dynamo, and retransformation back into mechanical energy by an electric motor. This double transformation involves waste of power..."

For AWE - assuming that what you want is electrical power - none of the two transformations is relevant.

The first one (mechanical to electrical energy) happens in _any_ case even if you first use mechanical transmission. The second one back to mechanical energy is not needed.

/cb
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9158 From: dave santos Date: 5/9/2013
Subject: Makani Discloses a Development Plan
A quick review- Makani got an extension of its ARPA-E contract, but does not mention the announced US Army radar study.  The M30 is claimed as an actual developmental product, not just a prototype class. A twenty-fold scaling up in three years is hoped for in the M600 (no sign yet of the required staffing build-up). Its being claimed as an onshore system, which entails strict FAA compliance. The M5 is described as before.
 
 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9159 From: dave santos Date: 5/9/2013
Subject: Correction //Re: [AWES] Re: Kris's Latest Rope Drive Article for Low
Snapscan,
 
I stated my point ambiguously. A more correct version-
 
"The superior power-to-weight of rope-driving is an especial advantage (compared to electrical conductors) for flight"
 
Sorry for the confusion.
 
As often stated on the Forum, a corollary rope-driven AWES advantage is to directly power mechanical work (like pumped hydro), wholly avoiding any electrical stages.
 



   .
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9160 From: Joe Faust Date: 5/9/2013
Subject: AWES directly power mechanical work
Invited in this topic thread are notes toward AWES directly powering mechanical work without making electricity. Just "Reply" and set a note; the collection will grow in a tidy manner that way. In Forum, one has option to view messages by topic and topic tree; the replies to a leading post will show in the topic tree. 

Starting: 
  • Have AWES lines draw a cutting strand to cut logs, metal, ships, stones, etc. 
  • Have AWES lines drive mechanical water pumps to lift water to recharge reservoirs. 
  • Have AWES lines pull people, ships, boats, plows, logs
  • Have AWES lines lift objects and place objects. Let your imagination cover the multitude of pick-n-place. 
  • Have AWES lines rigged to launch gliders, sailplanes, hang gliders, paragliders. 
  • Have AWES lines to hold platforms for observation, skydiving launch, hang glider launch, ... 
  • Have AWES lines jiggle sifting tools used in mining, sorting, chemical processes, ... 
  • Have AWES lines rise and lower to help gravity drive cable cars around the earth, ... 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9161 From: dave santos Date: 5/9/2013
Subject: BowString Effect between High-Altitude Kites for High Load-Velocity
High mechanical load velocity is a key both to high rope-driving and generator-driving efficiency. Avoiding geared transmissions is desirable.
 
A simple way to pump a kiteline to the ground at very high velocities from high altitudes is to have opposed tethered kites move apart crosswind, drawing taut the line between them. This cross-line can pull at high-speed an attached load-line running to a generator, just as a bow works to speed an arrow. Crosswind arrays can pump multiple load-lines in alternating phases.
 
As reported before, at lower altitudes, a single kite's tether can be the "bowstring" line to drive the "arrow" line to the load. In effect, these tri-tethers are high-advantage mechanical transmissions made of just string. Wubbo's SpiderMill could exploit this trick, if so flown.
 
CC BY NC SA
 .
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9162 From: Joe Faust Date: 5/10/2013
Subject: Re: AWES directly power mechanical work
... continuing. 
And All are welcome. 

  • Have an AWES that has two sets of wings on separate tether sets that spread apart a droop line bridged between the two sets. Attach to the droop line center an object to be snapped off the ground or ship or other aircraft or water surface and sent skyward; as the two sets of wings are controlled to spread apart, then the droop line tends to be straightened; the object is moved at a speed depending on the speed that the droop line is tautened.  The object may be released during the hauling up.  Or the object may be kept captive awaiting further assignment.   This matter relates to some of the tech mentioned in  BowString Effect between High-Altitude Kites for High Load-Velocity.     Recall F=ma for a=F/m  from Newton.  We are open for specific scenarios for such droop-line works.  Some lifts by this method will want slow lifting; others will want fast; others will use slow and accelerated lifting. Slingshot or keep. 

  • Notice the reversal of the above:  An object on a droop line kept aloft by two branches on a two-headed AWES may lower the object for various reasons by bringing the two heads together.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9163 From: Joe Faust Date: 5/10/2013
Subject: Here comes the sun and wind
Sun and wind ..
A 48-min video has high focus on solar energy.  As one listens and watches, consider adding AWES into the story: 


Chase Honaker  might take some cues from the video.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9164 From: Joe Faust Date: 5/10/2013
Subject: Re: AWES directly power mechanical work
... continuing topic:                                           ( All are welcome.)

  • Have AWES lift and place solar panels on roofs, on hillsides, on the sides of existing buildings, ... 

  • Have AWES used in the replacement of solar panel operations. 

  • Have AWES used in the transport of solar panels from manufacturing site to installation arena. 

    ?
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9165 From: Joe Faust Date: 5/10/2013
Subject: Re: AWES directly power mechanical work
... continuing:       (All are welcome to the tech exposing.)

  • Have AWES deliver beverages into crowds at huge concerts.  Or emergency water or first-aid materials or personnel.  
  • Have AWES extract persons from crowded situations. 
  • Have AWES water-mist very hot refugee camps.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9166 From: Joe Faust Date: 5/10/2013
Subject: Re: AWES directly power mechanical work
...continuing.                (All are welcome to post notes on topic of working AWES in the case of not making electricity, but for benefits, fuel savings, clean works, etc.)

  • Deliver mail to homes using AWES complexes. 
  • Deliver pizza to home using AWES complexes. 
  • Re-seed burnt hillsides using seeds and young plants from AWES operations. 
  • Very high resolution digital photography of a region, property, etc. by use of AWES-moved cameras. 
  • Move harvested fruit to to processing points by use of smart AWES. 
  • Effective fishing using AWES. 

  • ?
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9167 From: Joe Faust Date: 5/10/2013
Subject: Call for your essay. Let the world review your good work.
Have your note or essay or paper peer-reviewed and viewable by the world! 
Publish here in this forum!
And let us place your work in the online Airborne Wind Energy book, 
which is with many chapters. 
Here is today's status of one part of the book: 

         See also FairIP
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9168 From: Harry Valentine Date: 5/10/2013
Subject: Aviation airborne wind turbine
Gentlemen,


You are all aware of the emergency power generation system on modern aircraft . .  . a wind turbine that 'pops out' at a certain air speed to maintain on board electric and hydraulic power supply. Of interest, there is a proposal for a towed passenger glider (or airship) that may either require a coaxial power cable between the 'tractor' unit and the towed unit, or a wind turbine driving an electrical generator being built into the unit.

A wind range of options are to be considered.


Regards,

Harry
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9169 From: dave santos Date: 5/10/2013
Subject: Zeppelin Bend Knot for mating Kitelines
A small party favor of the 2013 Encampment is this superior knot taught to us by kite master Gary Moss, for mating lines-



 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9170 From: Joe Faust Date: 5/10/2013
Subject: Re: Aviation airborne wind turbine
Have such RATs on AWES as tails, line-laundry, hung payload, or
integrated in the wings of the AWES wing set!
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9171 From: Joe Faust Date: 5/10/2013
Subject: Re: Aviation airborne wind turbine
Sorts invited with AWES being a combine of three sub assemblies: 
1, wing set
2. tether set (either in line or hung from lines (one or more)
3. resistive set (anchor relative to wing set; but resistive set might also be a wing set).  

Then we get sorts of RATs ordered by position in the AWES:
  • AWES line RAT
  • AWES tail RAT
  • AWES wing RAT
  • AWES anchor RAT
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9172 From: Joe Faust Date: 5/10/2013
Subject: Re: Aviation airborne wind turbine
In our Airborne Wind Energy forum there has been discussed various RATs in AWES with some illustrated: DaveS has illustrated several types of  RATS; DougS has shown a couple of RATs in AWES; MP team has been referenced where they show RATs integrated in the AWES wing; PierreB similarly; and Pacific Power Sails by DanT has RAT integrated in the AWES wing set; and the SWP team has demonstrated RATs integrated in the wing set of their AWES.      RATs :: ram-air turbines, mostly, so far: HAWT mounted someplace on the AWES. An AWES is a type of aircraft that is a kite system.   The AWE Encampment this year will continue to explore some AWES RATs.   When an AWES is towed by a powered airplane or by a powered ship or other powered vehicle, we still have the fundamental AWES (kite system) which may or may not incorporate RATs; when not, then the AWES itself becomes a turbine or energy conversion device driving generators or pumps or doing direct mechanical work.  
       Have a strong lifting AWES; draw down some of that lift by incorporating RATs.   We await SpiralAirfoil to be part of a tail RAT on a strong lifter, or as a line-mounted RAT on an AWES.   Etc.      A RAT that is HAWT in an AWES is already employing crosswind dynamics as Doug often points out; further moving the base wing set in global cross-winding paths while holding HAWT on wing or tail or line simply increases the apparent airspeed over the working blades of the RATs.  Where the best ROI will be in the variants is not clear yet.    

RATs in AWES reports are invited. 

JoeF
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9173 From: Joe Faust Date: 5/10/2013
Subject: Re: Zeppelin Bend Knot for mating Kitelines
Nice!

Bend knots     A bend knot is a knot used to join two lengths of rope. 
Breaking strength? History?  Setting? Tighten? Dress it? Undo? Jamming? Untying?
Comparison with options? What might bring failure?  Fit for purpose?  
 Testing studies for a bend or knot?  Wear of line when used in the bend or knot?
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9174 From: Joe Faust Date: 5/10/2013
Subject: Re: Zeppelin Bend Knot for mating Kitelines
Adopting the found disclaimer on knots presented in our forum: 

Disclaimer: Any activity that involves ropes is potentially hazardous. Lives may be at risk - possibly your own. Considerable attention and effort have been made to ensure that these descriptions are accurate. However, many critical factors cannot be controlled, including: the choice of materials; the age, size, and condition of ropes; and the accuracy with which these descriptions have been followed. No responsibility is accepted for incidents arising from the use of this material.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9175 From: dave santos Date: 5/10/2013
Subject: How fast can bike wheels spin as experimental AWES rope-drive pulley
A: Stock bike speed records top out at around 130mph. A few times faster is probably possible, with bearing overheating the expected limiting factor.
 
Notes-
 
Bike wheels are ideal for experimental polymer rope drives.
 
A rubber seating in the rim is suggested to baby the rope.
 
One can pack under the seating with fine line to create a custom contour.
 
It would be interesting to bench test a fine bike wheel to max velocity. Large road-bike rims offer fast rim-speed.
 
Power input is quite flexible by stock bike transmissions.
 
Freaks- A motorcycle hub might be laced to a bike rim suited to rope diameter, for a superduty hub. A penny-farthing bike wheel has an extreme diameter.
 




 
 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9176 From: Bob Stuart Date: 5/10/2013
Subject: Re: How fast can bike wheels spin as experimental AWES rope-drive pu
Bike hubs are available for standard ball bearings, so you can select high-precision replacements, and use coolant if you want.  Motorcycle hubs would have larger axles and lower speeds. 
"Bicycle" wheels were actually developed for aircraft experiments, around 1850, and remain a particularly elegant light-weight structure.

Bob Stuart

On 10-May-13, at 8:01 PM, dave santos wrote:
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9177 From: Doug Date: 5/11/2013
Subject: Re: How fast can bike wheels spin as experimental AWES rope-drive pu
Those new to wind energy often imagine the bearings as critical failure points. (And they are often fixated on bicycle wheels, like the Honeywell "solution in search of a problem" - that "Professor" probably had no idea that stretching cloth between spokes is the most typical and common newbie idea for a "clever new" wind turbine. They never do. They never check to see "am I just one more statistic? One more typical dummy? Making one more predictable typical dummy move?" Do they ever check to see if maybe lots of people already tried it? Not likely.

Oddly, over the years, I can't remember ever having a bearing fail. That sometimes included even removing the seals (which lets dust in). The things I see fail involve metal fatigue, or burning out the generator. Others often see thrown blades, especially with Chinese turbines.

Even though riding a bike at 300 mph sounds dangerous, I'm not sure if the bearings would even get warm or be challenged in any way.
In my experience the limiting factor for chain drives, belt drives, etc., at high speed, is centrifugal force, and keeping the line or chain from flying off the rim.

Having said all that though, it does seem like bike wheels could work well for rope drives.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9178 From: dave santos Date: 5/11/2013
Subject: Re: How fast can bike wheels spin as experimental AWES rope-drive pu
Bob,
 
It would be nice to know of that 1850 wheel work your mention, and how to cool bearings actively. We can look forward to -30 degree temperatures at high altitude favoring cool running,
 
 
Doug,
 
If wind newbies always talk about bike bearing speed limitations, you finally got us! Only you always invoke the Honeywell turbine as somehow endorsed or important.
 
As a long distance bike nomad in Mexico, bombing down mountain highways was always occasion to fear my high-time ovalized bearings might cook off soiled lube and go critical. Wind turbine bushings and bearings generally seem to be specified quite heavy compared to bikes, so its a poor comparison to reason from. Exactly which wheel part you predict will first fail at hundreds of miles-per-hour, you do not reveal.
 
Bikes must be closely maintained, since they are built so light. A fine bike requires about as much maintenance per mile as a whole car, due to this reality. Wind turbines are overbuilt for even less maintenance.
 
Note that Kris's Rope Driving article provides a great "lineshaft" case of power transmission side by side with rope-driving, and the rough ratio of practical distance (given cost, mass, etc.) is about 100 to 1 in favor of rope.
 
High speed rope drives are not to be confused with wind-turbines per se, except perhaps by newbies :)
 
daveS
 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9179 From: Bob Stuart Date: 5/11/2013
Subject: Re: How fast can bike wheels spin as experimental AWES rope-drive pu
I seem to recall the name of Sir George Caley in connection with the tension-spoked wheel, but my reference is long gone. James Starley was first with crossed spokes, to transmit torque from the hub on his  Penny-Farthings. 
Doug reminds me that small ball bearings are usually good for five-digit RPMs, which puts the rim above the speed of sound.  I think you would have other troubles first.  

Bob Stuart

On 11-May-13, at 7:52 AM, dave santos wrote:
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9180 From: Joe Faust Date: 5/11/2013
Subject: Re: How fast can bike wheels spin as experimental AWES rope-drive pu
--- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, dave santos wrote:
====================================

Footnote in wiki

^ In his notebook, dated March 19, 1808, Cayley proposed that in order to produce "the lightest possible wheel for aerial navigation cars," one should "do away with wooden spokes altogether and refer the whole firmness of the wheel to the strength of the rim only, by the intervention of tight strong cording … " See: J.A.D. Ackroyd (2011) "Sir George Cayley: The invention of the aeroplane near Scarborough at the time of Trafalgar," Journal of Aeronautical History [Internet publication], paper no. 6, pages 130–181. Cayley's tension-spoke wheel appears on page 152, "3.7 The Tension Wheel, 1808".
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9181 From: dave santos Date: 5/12/2013
Subject: Re: How fast can bike wheels spin as experimental AWES rope-drive pu
Bob,
 
You are right that bearings is not our biggest problem to solve, since we will use COTS. I think that keeping the rope securely in its groove during perturbations will be the key AWES trick to master. Re: Bearing size: Small bearings seem mostly to reduce overall mass, but perhaps do not inherently run far faster than larger ones (up to some scale limit). If not, the explanation is desired.
 
JoeF and Bob,
 
Nice reference work on modern spoked wheel design; Cayley was definitely the Tisiolkovsky of Aviation, with many pioneering ideas quite central to the challenges, but ironically, the spoked landing gear wheel ended up in standard use elsewhere.
 
There were far older precedents for tensile spoked wheels. The incredible Egyptian Chariot Wheels in Tuthanhamen's tomb act in tension, with the rims distributing compressive load. The spokes did not cross, but this feature is only needed when the wheel undergoes driving and braking loads like the Penny-Farthing, which chariot wheels did not. My favorite detail is the closely matched branching structure incorporated from the original hardwood branch (not evident in image below), much as English wooden ships from the Golden Age of Sail were refined from carefully matched "standard" branching oak limbs to comprise complex hull assemblies. Note too; Cayley was a bit fuzzy in disassociating tensile wheel design with wood per se.