Digest

Messages in AirborneWindEnergy group. AWES10812to10864

Page 113 of 440.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10812	From: Robert Copcutt	Date: 1/6/2014
Subject: Re: Engineering compromises of airborne wind energy systems

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10813	From: Robert Copcutt	Date: 1/6/2014
Subject: Re: NextGen ADS-B for AWES Use

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10814	From: Robert Copcutt	Date: 1/6/2014
Subject: Re: WPI Validates Low-Complexity Passive-Autonomy AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10815	From: Robert Copcutt	Date: 1/6/2014
Subject: Re: EU Announces 113.000.000,00 € "Call for competitve low-carbon

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10816	From: Rod Read	Date: 1/6/2014
Subject: Re: Engineering compromises of airborne wind energy systems

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10817	From: Robert Copcutt	Date: 1/6/2014
Subject: Re: kPower IP Pool License

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10818	From: David Lang	Date: 1/6/2014
Subject: breathe of Fresh Air (vs Hot wind)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10819	From: Robert Copcutt	Date: 1/6/2014
Subject: Re: Engineering compromises of airborne wind energy systems

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10820	From: dave santos	Date: 1/6/2014
Subject: Re: kPower IP Pool License

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10821	From: dave santos	Date: 1/6/2014
Subject: Re: NextGen ADS-B for AWES Use

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10822	From: dougselsam	Date: 1/6/2014
Subject: Re: Engineering compromises of airborne wind energy systems

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10823	From: Pierre BENHAIEM	Date: 1/6/2014
Subject: Re: breathe of Fresh Air (vs Hot wind)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10824	From: dougselsam	Date: 1/6/2014
Subject: Re: breathe of Fresh Air (vs Hot wind)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10825	From: dave santos	Date: 1/6/2014
Subject: Re: WPI Validates Low-Complexity Passive-Autonomy AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10826	From: David Lang	Date: 1/6/2014
Subject: Re: breathe of Fresh Air (vs Hot wind)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10827	From: Pierre BENHAIEM	Date: 1/6/2014
Subject: Paul Gipe about Makani

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10828	From: dave santos	Date: 1/6/2014
Subject: Making sense of Makani's Claims for Paul Gipe

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10829	From: Robert Copcutt	Date: 1/7/2014
Subject: Re: breathe of Fresh Air (vs Hot wind)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10830	From: Robert Copcutt	Date: 1/7/2014
Subject: Re: NextGen ADS-B for AWES Use

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10831	From: Robert Copcutt	Date: 1/7/2014
Subject: Re: Engineering compromises of airborne wind energy systems

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10832	From: Robert Copcutt	Date: 1/7/2014
Subject: Re: WPI Validates Low-Complexity Passive-Autonomy AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10833	From: dave santos	Date: 1/7/2014
Subject: Re: NextGen ADS-B for AWES Use

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10834	From: dave santos	Date: 1/7/2014
Subject: Re: WPI Validates Low-Complexity Passive-Autonomy AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10835	From: dougselsam	Date: 1/7/2014
Subject: Re: Engineering compromises of airborne wind energy systems

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10836	From: dougselsam	Date: 1/7/2014
Subject: Re: WPI Validates Low-Complexity Passive-Autonomy AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10837	From: dougselsam	Date: 1/7/2014
Subject: Re: Paul Gipe about Makani

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10838	From: dougselsam	Date: 1/7/2014
Subject: Re: breathe of Fresh Air (vs Hot wind)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10839	From: dougselsam	Date: 1/7/2014
Subject: Re: Making sense of Makani's Claims for Paul Gipe

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10840	From: joe_f_90032	Date: 1/7/2014
Subject: Re: NextGen ADS-B for AWES Use

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10841	From: dougselsam	Date: 1/7/2014
Subject: Re: NextGen ADS-B for AWES Use

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10842	From: joe_f_90032	Date: 1/7/2014
Subject: Re: NextGen ADS-B for AWES Use

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10843	From: David Lang	Date: 1/7/2014
Subject: Re: Engineering compromises of airborne wind energy systems

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10844	From: Robert Copcutt	Date: 1/7/2014
Subject: Re: Engineering compromises of airborne wind energy systems

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10845	From: Robert Copcutt	Date: 1/7/2014
Subject: Re: WPI Validates Low-Complexity Passive-Autonomy AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10846	From: Robert Copcutt	Date: 1/7/2014
Subject: Re: breathe of Fresh Air (vs Hot wind)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10847	From: Pierre BENHAIEM	Date: 1/7/2014
Subject: Re: breathe of Fresh Air (vs Hot wind)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10848	From: joe_f_90032	Date: 1/7/2014
Subject: FIT for AWE or not?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10849	From: dougselsam	Date: 1/7/2014
Subject: Re: Engineering compromises of airborne wind energy systems

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10850	From: dougselsam	Date: 1/7/2014
Subject: Re: Engineering compromises of airborne wind energy systems

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10851	From: Robert Copcutt	Date: 1/8/2014
Subject: Re: Engineering compromises of airborne wind energy systems

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10852	From: Robert Copcutt	Date: 1/8/2014
Subject: Re: Engineering compromises of airborne wind energy systems

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10853	From: Hardensoft International Limited	Date: 1/8/2014
Subject: Worth Re-echoing

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10854	From: Hardensoft International Limited	Date: 1/8/2014
Subject: Worth Re-echoing

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10855	From: joe_f_90032	Date: 1/8/2014
Subject: Energy Storage

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10857	From: dave santos	Date: 1/8/2014
Subject: Great AWE Debate

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10858	From: dave santos	Date: 1/8/2014
Subject: Paul Gipe declines to debate AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10859	From: Robert Copcutt	Date: 1/8/2014
Subject: Re: breathe of Fresh Air (vs Hot wind)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10862	From: dave santos	Date: 1/8/2014
Subject: Answering Doug's Latest Questions

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10863	From: joe_f_90032	Date: 1/8/2014
Subject: Re: Answering Doug's Latest Questions

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10864	From: Robert Copcutt	Date: 1/8/2014
Subject: Re: More AWE Encampment Tests (SkyBow, Race Kite, and FAA Conspicuit

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10812	From: Robert Copcutt	Date: 1/6/2014
Subject: Re: Engineering compromises of airborne wind energy systems

Rod,

Stumped by such a simple problem! Previous conversations on the AWES
forum covered this.

What matters with any WES is LCOE which is basically the lifetime cost
of each kilowatt hour generated. The generator and control system is a
major cost factor for AWE so it is the capacity factor on that which
matters. The capacity factor is
(actual kWh)/(kWh if at 100% power 100% of the time.)

Small HAWTS struggle to get anywhere near a Cf of 0.2 and the huge
turbines out to sea are really proud if they achieve 0.4. Kites are not
a large proportion of the total cost of an AWES so it makes sense to
have a quiver of different sizes. Big ones for light wind and small ones
for strong winds. Design the AWES so that kites can be changed quickly.

HAWTs are limited to about 200m. AWE can reach 600m without interfering
with air traffic. Winds are stronger there, and more consistent.

Those 2 factors mean a Cf exceeding 0.6 is quite possible for AWE. That
alone means an LCOE half that of HAWTs should be easy to achieve.

Another thing that Pierre has also forgotten is that the intermittent
generation of Yoyo systems is not a problem. If the AWES is connected to
the grid then the grid is not going to worry one bit whether the AWES
sometimes pushes power in and sometimes draws it out. The grid is plenty
big enough to absorb the fluctuations coming from each AWES. If you want
electricity off-grid then you need a battery anyway. The wind will never
be the exact strength needed to supply the power needed so energy
storage is always essential. Off-grid HAWTs (electricity generating
ones) are all connected to a battery that supplies power during quiet
periods. Those can be long so a significant battery is needed anyway.
That battery is not going to be bothered one bit by the oscillations of
power from a yoyo AWES.

Robert.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10813	From: Robert Copcutt	Date: 1/6/2014
Subject: Re: NextGen ADS-B for AWES Use

On Sun, 2014-01-05 at 12:03 -0800, dave santos wrote:

Why make it so complicated? The kite simply sends out a signal that
includes the fact that it is a kite. That extra little bit of
information will slow the system down by a whole 0.1%. The aircraft in
the area then know what is where and know not to try to fly under a
kite.

Why get so obsessed about faults and malicious damage? Jamming would
endanger aircraft anyway and we have the legal mechanisms to deal with
vandalism and terrorism anyway.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10814	From: Robert Copcutt	Date: 1/6/2014
Subject: Re: WPI Validates Low-Complexity Passive-Autonomy AWE

On Sun, 2014-01-05 at 08:07 -0800, dave santos wrote:
That is because we have had 3000 years, at least, to devise passive
automatons, and have failed to make any of significant commercial value.
The wind is turbulent. Anything on a string will eventually get tied in
a knot unless there is something with significant intelligence there to
stop it. Affordable computers have only recently become powerful enough
to prevent a kite from tangling its lines.

You might get away with hanging a HAWT under a mothra but it will still
take much more intelligent supervision than putting it on a tower.

I remain sceptical of that path to economical AWE.

Robert.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10815	From: Robert Copcutt	Date: 1/6/2014
Subject: Re: EU Announces 113.000.000,00 € "Call for competitve low-carbon

On Wed, 2014-01-01 at 19:08 -0800, dave santos wrote:
Interesting. The trouble is that landing EU money is very tedious hard
work. I went to a conference about getting Framework grants. There were
more government employees there than researchers! We were advised to
budget a full man-year of work to land a grant.

One of the things they usually require is a multi-national co-operative
team. Is someone else in the EU needs a UK partner I am available for a
conversation.

Robert.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10816	From: Rod Read	Date: 1/6/2014
Subject: Re: Engineering compromises of airborne wind energy systems

Apologies Robert,
Where I said "my local turbines" ,
please read local HAWT's on the horizon, not belonging to me.

I gave a simplified reply.. To dispell a too simple proposition.

Also, it shouldn't necessarily lead me to be misquoted... And if it does will more than likely trip the abuser.

Our true situation is that, as good as anyones idea may well be, We have to partner and cooperate to realise their beneficial potential.

That's an open offer on my part

Roderick Read
15a Aiginish
Isle of Lewis
HS2 0PB
kitepowercoop.org

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10817	From: Robert Copcutt	Date: 1/6/2014
Subject: Re: kPower IP Pool License

DaveS, it is not clear to me what kPower is trying to achieve here. All
a patent does is give the licence holder the opportunity to sue anyone
who tries to make a profit from their idea without permission. Anyone
can do any experiment they like on patented ideas without requiring
permission.

IP pools need extremely deep pockets to defend. Has this "we" you keep
talking about got that?

You have always previously evangelised open source. This seems to be a
U-turn with you now encouraging patents.

Robert.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10818	From: David Lang	Date: 1/6/2014
Subject: breathe of Fresh Air (vs Hot wind)

RobertC,

Thanks for your posts…they are a breath of fresh air amidst the shear ignorance and biased thinking that often surfaces on the AWE forum (hot wind :-).

The forum participants seem for the most part to be unable to comprehend that arm-waving conjectures about power production (or naive application of hopelessly simplistic formulas) are of virtually no significance. Nothing short of flight testing, or in absence of that, time-domain dynamic simulations of the proposed systems, will reveal anything like a realistic assessment of power production for an AWE design. Then if one wants to address Capacity Factor, yet another level of complexity must be introduced to the simulations by way of wind environment, namely the statistical characterization of the variation of wind speed with altitude and time (season).

I agree with you regarding Mike Barnard's journalistic efforts on AWE posing as some kind of a meaningful commentary. Rather, I observe him as a "journalist", who was looking for a niche in AWE, but who carries virtually no technical credentials and has failed to comprehend the deep technical aspects of this broad subject….hoping that the technical folks working in AWE will "fill in the blanks for him".

DaveL

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10819	From: Robert Copcutt	Date: 1/6/2014
Subject: Re: Engineering compromises of airborne wind energy systems

Hello Rod,

To be clear, the phrase that spurred me to action was,
"You have me there Mike,"

It implies that Mike made a valid counter argument to your previous
Email. He did not.

Robert.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10820	From: dave santos	Date: 1/6/2014
Subject: Re: kPower IP Pool License

Robert,

While I do not advocate seeking patents, many talented friends have "life-savings" in AWE patents (like Gaylord, GrantC, Doug, Pierre, Leo, AlexB, etc.). These hardworking folks deserve to at least recoup costs, and in some cases, the patents are quite impressive. CC IP holders also hope to get fair value for worthy ideas they create and develop. In aviation, the historic patent pool organized by the US gov is credited with breaking an investment log-jam. Nowadays, industry-initiated IP pools routinely serve the same function.

Yes, the AWE IP Pool may someday need big bucks to defend, but it will be only a marginal cost for a large profitable industry. The Pool concept actually reduces litigation, by creating a common framework. The fees are for eventual large institutional developers (GE, Google, Shell, etc.) who will choose to pay a low fee, rather than face litigation risk. The Pool offers statistical group protection against the worst trolls, and there is no safer bet in sight.

kPower is only fostering the early formation of the AWE IP Pool (which began as a KiteLab Group initiative), and proposes to turn over the AWE IP Pool the participating IP creators to manage democratically as a coop via the Kite Power Cooperative (UK). In our case, the proposal is to exempt small AWES developers from any fees (unlike, say, the Music industry suing ordinary college students).

I also thank you for revitalizing these topics (along with DaveL), and concur that the common goal should be a new phase of serious comparative simulation and testing across all teams, rather than marketing and social "hot air". Test, test, test, test, and test again (Fort Felker),

daveS

On Monday, January 6, 2014 12:31 PM, Robert Copcutt <r@copcutt.me.uk

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10821	From: dave santos	Date: 1/6/2014
Subject: Re: NextGen ADS-B for AWES Use

Robert asked: "Why make it so complicated? "

NextGen is handed to us as is, and we have to adapt or die to its complexity. Its our job to make the AWES angle work, and we can't over-simplify the challenges. If we are to ever fly to high altitudes, the whole tether must be datafied, and in the case of a break-away, surely the FAA wants us to proactively offer full trajectory info to the system.

Robert also asked: "Why get so obsessed about faults and malicious damage? Jamming would

endanger aircraft anyway and we have the legal mechanisms to deal with
vandalism and terrorism anyway."

Since 911, the FAA has become much more security obsessed, and I am responsive to this reality. Legal remedies do not count in the air. Once again, its up to our developer community to address security concerns proactively, rather than let critics or mishaps drive the agenda. I also see security as a competitive business advantage for low-complexity v. AWES dependent on radio links and critical software.

On Monday, January 6, 2014 11:53 AM, Robert Copcutt <r@copcutt.me.uk

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10822	From: dougselsam	Date: 1/6/2014
Subject: Re: Engineering compromises of airborne wind energy systems

Mike:
Glad y ou are still trying to help the world of AWE think their way out of a paper bag. i don;t think, however, it is valid for you to post on our list they say you don;t subscribe so we should e-mail you personally. For my part, I've wasted way too much time trying to educate people about wind energy. It;s bad enough to waste time posting here, but to reduce that wasted time to e-mailing one person at a time? Hey, if yuo want to post here, then pay attention to the replies you get here. telling us you will not read replies is drive-by behavior. We don;t care about your e-mail address. What the heck do you have to offer anyway, solutions? It seems to me all you;re really doing is trying to prove you are up to speed on AWE which you are not, and nobody else is either. If you understiood it you would be developing solutiuons. If your "understanding" is that it is impossible, you just don't know, period, so stop pretending to be some sort of expert. Knowing more than Dave S. doesn't make you an expert, sorry to say. You can have arguments with him about whether the Honeywell rooftop turbine is any good, and he will play the role of naive advocate of many such disproven notions, conveniently giving you unlimited opportunities to win arguments, but that gets you nowhere as you have seen by now. "A battle of wits with an unarmed man" doesn't prove anything.
The fact that you include Magenn but not Superturbine(R) indicates you are looking at the bad ideas and not the good ones. How could you purport to survey the field of AWE while ignoring the most promising designs? I guess you weren't in attendance at the first world conference on AWE, where I ran a demo of Superturbine(R) for a couple of days. Yes it ran unattended, since it utilized the solutions worked out over 3000 years, instead of ignoring them and trying to start at year 1000 B.C. all over again, re-discovering things like circular paths for working surfaces, etc., as though exploring new ideas. Most teams just keep doing this. Their approaches are ineffective and unimaginative. They ignore what has been learned over 3000 years. When one ignores, one practices ignorance.
I have to say, you really represent the direction of ignorance.
The fact that you would waste serious time even talking about most of these concepts indicates you are about as lost as the average person attempting to consider AWE. I don't see what is so complicated about it or what is stopping anyone from building and running AWE systems now. I'm done telling people how to do it without an arrangement to be working together in some way. It dawns on me that knowing how to do AWE is valuable - people really can;t figure it out! This seems impossible to me, but there you are, pretty much thinking you can "prove" it can;t work. Great, you prove it can;t work, while other idiots keep tryiong ways that will never work, and it will be all the more fun to actually make it work! Have fun analyzing the number of angels dancing on the head of a mythical pin that, apparently, nobody has any idea how to make, or even stumble across. I would have to characterize AWE as "Field of Morons". And they all think they are geniuses! I don't see that anyone has a clue, or is in any way serious about it. This is the funniest thing I have ever seen, besides "global warming". You people are pitiful. The world has a negative I.Q.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10823	From: Pierre BENHAIEM	Date: 1/6/2014
Subject: Re: breathe of Fresh Air (vs Hot wind)

A journalist is a media between technical folks and general people. He resumes what appears as technical features but is not strictly a researcher. A journalist speaking about Einstein'theory is not Einstein himself. So AWE technical folks, companies and players in AWE should give enough informations, as flights, as datas ..., allowing journalists making a correct report. If we take the advice of different journalists, generally we (AWE people) prefer to admit those against AWE have no knowledge in AWE. Does it mean that those who are pro-AWE have a better knowledge?

PierreB

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10824	From: dougselsam	Date: 1/6/2014
Subject: Re: breathe of Fresh Air (vs Hot wind)

Hi Dave L.
That's "sheer ignorance", not "shear ignorance".
"Shear Ignorance" is a great, yet underutilized, name for a hair salon.
:)
Doug S.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10825	From: dave santos	Date: 1/6/2014
Subject: Re: WPI Validates Low-Complexity Passive-Autonomy AWE

Robert wrote: "Anything on a string will eventually get tied in

a knot unless there is something with significant intelligence there to
stop it. Affordable computers have only recently become powerful enough
to prevent a kite from tangling its lines."

Reply: True enough. Nonshielded AWES affecting airspace management will be required by the FAA to have a Pilot-in-Command and Visual Observer, which is the needed intelligence (TACO 1.0). AWES flight automation is lagging, but will catch up. State sensors are still imperfect, while available CPU cycles seem adequate.

Robert again: "You might get away with hanging a HAWT under a mothra but it will still

take much more intelligent supervision than putting it on a tower."

Agreed; and not just one HAWT, but dense arrays of any kind of WECS. The grand concept is for Gigawatt-Scale farm units, and a professional flight crew is presumed. Active automation will be incrementally overlaid upon inherent passive stabilities (as supervised automation).

Robert: "I remain sceptical of that [passive-autonomy] path to economical AWE."

Reply: Inherent flight stabilities (including dynamic stabilities for power generation) is the path of classic kiting, which is clearly economic in its context. Legacy aviation also flies on inherent stabilities. Active control dependence may someday compete, but there are no products yet. Anyone can see that classice kites do self-fly. Lets agree that careful long-term testing and market success are the way to judge passive or active methods.

kPower testing is quite intensive (multi-sessions almost daily), and you should be able to duplicate our evolved results. KiteSats will be an early kPower/NewTech product. We are getting consistent 30-60hr passive-flight-control by sled kites (the full normal wind cycle at our kite farm), with reliable self-relaunch after calm. This seems like an early lead for passive AWES methods. Further third party testing will answer if the classic approach scales greatly (to km+ arch span scale). The kPower test team believes it will, based on our in-house experience with kites up 300m2, and Osborne-Lynn show kites up to 1500m2.

Note that self-oscillation in normal modes <1 greatly reduces the characteristic dimension for calculation (node-to-node distance), which recent analysis did not account for. A flapping Mothra would likely be 1/2 mode, with a central node (and two side nodes). Testing pending :)

On Monday, January 6, 2014 12:09 PM, Robert Copcutt <r@copcutt.me.uk

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10826	From: David Lang	Date: 1/6/2014
Subject: Re: breathe of Fresh Air (vs Hot wind)

Doug,

Notwithstanding your global indictments of "all AWE participant's" ignorance, there can also be observed "large differences in ignorance" across individuals in AWE (ie. an ignorance gradient), so maybe I did refer to an ignorance "shear" :-)

DaveL

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10827	From: Pierre BENHAIEM	Date: 1/6/2014
Subject: Paul Gipe about Makani

WIND-WORKS: Makani Kite Turbines Response : Paul Gipe seems to not take account of large sweeping crosswind as the "mysterious wind resource".

PierreB

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10828	From: dave santos	Date: 1/6/2014
Subject: Making sense of Makani's Claims for Paul Gipe

Dear Paul,

Just to let you know that Makani's power claims are measured and simulated power based on fast cross-wind sweeping (see Loyd's seminal paper Crosswind Kite Power, 1980). The wing in testing is flying at about 130mph (~8x "TSR", to translate into HAWT-speak), so that is the apparent-wind those four small turbines see. Even the small Wing7 prototype operates far higher than 100m (~300m at the top), and larger follow-on prototypes will go proportionally higher (~600m).

Makani published Wing7 results in the peer-reviewed 2013 Springer Airborne Wind Energy monograph (collecting many domain papers from many teams). Besides Makani, many other academic and professional AWE engineering teams have also designed, built, tested, and published in peer-reviewed venues, in accordance with Gasch's criteria.

Mike Barnard's AWE reporting is very poorly regarded by AWE domain experts (career aerospace and kite tech engineer-scientists) for its many novice errors and biases. He does not bother to cite any of the 500 or so academic papers on the subject. His uniquely pessimistic assumptions are not shared by any known aerospace engineer or kite expert in the field. He censors factual corrections from the expert community on his blog. He has been caught red-handed anonymously sock-puppeting his own propagandistic AWE references on Wikipedia, in gross violation of editorial rules. Mike does not come close to Gasch's standard in making his negative claims. You might want to reconsider Mike as your sole source of AWE citations, since there are so many quality academic sources with better data and analysis.

Extensive NASA and Boeing AWE affiliations obviously do not prove fraudulent marketing, but should be judged case-by-case on merits. You may have been unfair in answering your audience query as you did. We hope your AWE reporting will hew to journalistic best-practice, as you carefully study the emerging AWE field with an open mind.

TIA,

dave santos

KiteLab Group

CC: AWES Forum

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10829	From: Robert Copcutt	Date: 1/7/2014
Subject: Re: breathe of Fresh Air (vs Hot wind)

Pierre,

Everyone should only ever state things they know to be facts, or be
prepared to listen to others. We all have total responsibility to try to
get to the truth. Writing about a subject you know little about and then
not listening to the responses is totally unethical. Being paid for it
as a journalist makes it worse. The acceptance of such behaviour in the
modern world is why we are in such a mess. MikeB being anti AWE is not
the problem. The problem is he is refusing to make an effort to fully
understanding AWE and writes things designed to inhibit progress. That
should be a criminal offence.

Robert.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10830	From: Robert Copcutt	Date: 1/7/2014
Subject: Re: NextGen ADS-B for AWES Use

DaveS, you appear to be giving a mixed message. On the one hand you say
we must just accept the technology some company has developed and then
go on to say we must try to influence safety.

To secure the long-term future of AWE it makes sense to start
campaigning for a system that serves everyone. The system should already
be taking into account the different ability of different craft to
manoeuvre. A balloon cannot respond to a potential collision like a jet
can. A passenger airline has to take priority over a UAV.

The obvious idea is that each craft announces its position and velocity
vector. Surely it makes sense to add information about what type of
craft is sending the message. All a kite has to do is to add the
position of the ground anchor. Each transponder then needs milliseconds
to calculate where the tether is.

Robert.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10831	From: Robert Copcutt	Date: 1/7/2014
Subject: Re: Engineering compromises of airborne wind energy systems

On Mon, 2014-01-06 at 13:50 -0800, dougselsam@yahoo.com wrote:

OK Doug, live by your own standards and tell us where Guy has got his
facts wrong:-
http://guymcpherson.com/2013/10/presentation-in-boulder-colorado/

This blog makes a very credible case that the Earth could be hotter than
Venus before the end of this century.
http://arctic-news.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/act-now-on-methane.html

The other articles on that website together make an undeniable case for
global warm being incredibly dangerous and serious. I do not support all
of their calls for geo-engineering but they do not know about the
potential of AWE.

Robert.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10832	From: Robert Copcutt	Date: 1/7/2014
Subject: Re: WPI Validates Low-Complexity Passive-Autonomy AWE

On Mon, 2014-01-06 at 14:17 -0800, dave santos wrote:
By using an array of sensors that use completely different physics (eg.
light, radar, sound, motion) it is in principle possible to make the
kite both totally automatic and totally safe.

Active control is well advanced as this fascinating video demonstrates.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2itwFJCgFQ&feature=youtu.be&goback=.gde_71342_member_5818662756655591424#!
By solving the equations of motion for the system they can make sure
their quadcopters are always where they want them. A team like
D'Andrea's could write software to automate kites to a level where human
supervision is hardly ever needed.

Robert.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10833	From: dave santos	Date: 1/7/2014
Subject: Re: NextGen ADS-B for AWES Use

Robert,

The ADS-B vendor company website linked was for general user information only. NextGen Airspace is a vast public project, over ten years old, and due to revolutionize aviation capabilities by 2025. No one company drives it, instead the effort is across all the airspace user community, govt. agencies, academia, etc.

Proactive safety is the current airspace user model for various sectors of the aviation community [see TACO1.0]. AWE has its aviation veterans who will lead in this. That is what you are seeing naturally emerge (for some years now).

Thanks for helping correct MikeB's worst excesses,

daveS

On Tuesday, January 7, 2014 1:35 AM, Robert Copcutt <r@copcutt.me.uk

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10834	From: dave santos	Date: 1/7/2014
Subject: Re: WPI Validates Low-Complexity Passive-Autonomy AWE

Robert,

Complex sensor fusion is not easy in real-time for fielded systems in harsh enviroments. One of many problems is how to reason over conflicting inputs (like isolated sensor error). Shutting down the system when this happens is uneconomic. Sensors still only give a soda-straw view of reality. The more powerful the sensor (like machine vision, say), the more it can suffer from real world complexities (like sun glare, say). Impressive laboratory demos of cherry-picked video do not well predict the challenges of critical reliability in an open harsh environment. FAA certification of critical hardware/software for flight is a rigorous standard.

Not to say the challenges are impossible, just warning about the huge scope of the job and the time needed. No one is yet close to the required standard. Meanwhile, low-complexity (like KiteLab and WPI champion) allows us an early path forward, as complex automation slowly matures,

daveS

On Tuesday, January 7, 2014 2:17 AM, Robert Copcutt <r@copcutt.me.uk

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10835	From: dougselsam	Date: 1/7/2014
Subject: Re: Engineering compromises of airborne wind energy systems

Hi Robert:
(By the way, for the rest of you, Robert actually understands wind turbines)
I've spent a lot of time debating global warming, and can only spend so much time on it.
I guess you could ask yourself if the kind of people promoting it tend to tell the truth about things. What do you think about that question? Ever notice a trend? That liars consistently lie?
The reality is, global warming is part of a longer-term a sociological phenomenon of alternating panic over warming/cooling going back at least hundreds of years, documented.
The cycle in the press has been reliable over centuries, alternating every 30 years or so. This cycle follows the multidecadal oscillations of the arctic sea ice. "Oscillation" implies negative feedback, not positive.

The original scare story was that melted sea ice would let the exposed waters warm, resulting in a runaway condition. Knowledgeable people saw that as a false starting point, since if you look up "sea ice" and "insulator", you'll see that sea ice keeps the water below warm, and when it melts the warm water can then cool. Think about it for a minute. You have a frozen-over arctic ocean. That means it is sealed off from above. What comes from below? The heat of the Earth, and the heat of a constant influx of tropical waters. At some point, the arctic ocean warms in this insulated state, melting the ice, exposing the warm water below to cooling, and the cycle starts over.
All anyone had to do at the beginning of this whole scenario was to check if melted sea ice really allowed the waters below to warm. Nope, it allows the waters to cool, hence the term "oscillation". I know, by checking even a single fact, I have lost most people long ago. Such is the state of the world, Such is the state of the lack of intelligence by humanity, that people can confirm over and over again that wind energy should be taking place in the sky, with all the components sitting there waiting to be combined into a reliable airborne wind energy machine, and yet of all the people who purport to want to make it happen, none can envision how to actually DO it. Helpless people standing around in the ground wishing they could think their way out of a paper bag. Pretty funny.

And it is amazing to me how so many people can endlessly repeat the same "Professor Crackpot" syndrome of having no clue how to do airborne wind energy, and falling directly into the well-worn slots of wannabe-wind-energy inventors with the same old tired excuses : "We have to build it at utility-scale, but could never bve expected to power even a cottage first! A cottage is beneath us!", "We can beat Betz", "We like soft surfaces!" "We promote 100% solidity!" "We're a few years out", "We're exploring flapping!", and "We have a cycle that only makes power part of the time!". (Wow, a flapper that needs a recovery cycle? You are awesome!)
This is like watching 1000 people standing at the edge of the ocean at a super-fantastic surfing spot, except nobody is in the water. A couple people have ventured out using floaties, but had to be rescued. A couple "surfing teams" have given up. Most teams are using floaties only. "Floatie Power!"

"Floatie Energy Systems!" Whoopee-doo, any surfers out there? Or do we just have a few college kids on spring break who can't swim? None has used an actual surfboard yet. Most insist that floaties are the future, and will replace surfboards, but only on the scale of an oceanliner. So far, nobody can catch a wave, yet so many claim to be the top surfer in the world.

Robert, if you wanna be seen as a visionary, get ahead of the curve and explain to people how we're entering a period of global cooling. Like catching a wave, you have to start paddling ahead of the wave, to ride it.

With regard to AWE, well try using a surfboard instead of floaties!

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10836	From: dougselsam	Date: 1/7/2014
Subject: Re: WPI Validates Low-Complexity Passive-Autonomy AWE

Wow Dave S., without reading your entire post, I would have to say, sounds like much ado about nothing. What's the point of discussing endless peripheral details of nonexistent systems? How much power are your theories generating today? After years of trying now, what is the most promising idea so far? What, that you have built and run, so far, has made the most power?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10837	From: dougselsam	Date: 1/7/2014
Subject: Re: Paul Gipe about Makani

You guys are still fixating on what Paul Gipe says.
Guess what?
If you have something that works, it doesn't matter what Paul thinks.
It's not about Paul, it's about you.
Paul is Paul and will always be Paul, and it will have no effect on airborne wind energy.
Paul DOES, however, discuss surfing, and you might notice that all the top surfers use surfboards.

If you are not using a surfboard, maybe it's just that, well, you're not a surfer!

Hey wait, do they ever discuss floaties in surfing magazines?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10838	From: dougselsam	Date: 1/7/2014
Subject: Re: breathe of Fresh Air (vs Hot wind)

Hey, Mike doesn't get it.
He says airborne wind energy is impossible.
You are frustrated with that.
Why?
Because you can;t prove him wrong!
He is wrong, so let's prove it!
It's not about Mike Barnard.
Who is he? One more naysayer? So what?
he is a regular person, not a visionary, so what do you expect? You think every bystander will become a visionary ahead of the fact? What fun would innovating be without naysayers? Skeptics are what innovators thrive on!
Prove him wrong! Go ahead!
Oh, I forgot, you;re all sitting on your hands, paralyzed by a lack of direction... Oh well.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10839	From: dougselsam	Date: 1/7/2014
Subject: Re: Making sense of Makani's Claims for Paul Gipe

I would not bother trying to teach Paul Gipe anything about wind energy from your point of advanced ignorance, Dave S.
What if Paul Gipe didn't exist? Then what? Then hgow would you spend today? Show us how to do AWE, K? You told us how comprehensive your effort was. How advanced your knowledge base is. How many approaches you are trying, leaving no stone unturned, even if you turn over old, previously turned stones exclusively. Actually you have been bragging for years now. You are the smartest guy in the room, we know, so show us how AWE is done, K? The time you could go on blaming people like Paul Gipe for your own failures has passed. Let's see some results. Let's see some results that indicate you really DO have an understanding the rest of us don't.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10840	From: joe_f_90032	Date: 1/7/2014
Subject: Re: NextGen ADS-B for AWES Use

Some AWES will have great width and height as well as high-count tethers. The "mountain" that will be flying will announce its shape and position and rates of changes of those parameters. Avoid the AWES mountain, Miss Passenger Carrier; such carriers routinely avoid hitting moutains.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10841	From: dougselsam	Date: 1/7/2014
Subject: Re: NextGen ADS-B for AWES Use

Hi Joe:
Is this "mountains of high-count tethers" thing for sure?
It sounds quite certain, the way you state it.
Will these mountains be made of cloth kites, or what?
What do you know, that the rest of us don't?
:)
Doug S.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10842	From: joe_f_90032	Date: 1/7/2014
Subject: Re: NextGen ADS-B for AWES Use

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10843	From: David Lang	Date: 1/7/2014
Subject: Re: Engineering compromises of airborne wind energy systems

DougS,

I would not presume to teach you anything about anything….however….regarding global warming, all one needs to do is acquaint themselves with measured historical atmospheric C02 concentration and its correlation with corresponding global temperature oscillations to eradicate one's knee-jerk attribution of global warming concerns to "Professor crackpot hoaxes".

DaveL

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10844	From: Robert Copcutt	Date: 1/7/2014
Subject: Re: Engineering compromises of airborne wind energy systems

Hello Doug,

It is clear to me you did not follow the 2 links I posted. If you took a
fraction of the time it must take to write your Emails to do a bit of
research you would see why I am so concerned about AGW.

The fossil fuel and related industries (motor) dwarf every other
industry except maybe banking (which is another con). If you stopped
reading the publications the industry controls and looked at the real
science you would see that methane hydrates present a huge and immediate
threat.

The authors of the links I posted are fully aware of the multidecadal
oscillations. The world is NOT cooling, it is getting hotter at an ever
increasing rate.

The insulating properties of ice are irrelevant to AGW. That only
influences local temperatures. What matters is albedo. Ice reflects
about 90% of the sun's energy into space. Water absorbs 90%. Arctic ice
is disappearing fast which is a dangerous positive feedback.

Please look at the 2 links before wasting time replying.

Robert.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10845	From: Robert Copcutt	Date: 1/7/2014
Subject: Re: WPI Validates Low-Complexity Passive-Autonomy AWE

On Tue, 2014-01-07 at 06:00 -0800, dave santos wrote:
I never said it would be easy but it is certainly possible. As you have
pointed out yourself, AWE should not have to meet the standards of
passenger carrying aircraft. Numerous sensing modes are possible. Three
is probably a minimum. If one disagrees with the other 2 then schedule
the whole system for a service.

Robert.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10846	From: Robert Copcutt	Date: 1/7/2014
Subject: Re: breathe of Fresh Air (vs Hot wind)

On Tue, 2014-01-07 at 08:20 -0800, dougselsam@yahoo.com wrote:
Getting funding for AWE is already too hard. Mike B has conned Paul Gipe
and other influential people. Dishonesty needs to be stamped out.

DaveS has already taken on that task.

He has a loud voice and is particularly dishonest.

True, but we need to tighten the boundaries of acceptable behaviour.

I am working on it, don't worry.

Robert.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10847	From: Pierre BENHAIEM	Date: 1/7/2014
Subject: Re: breathe of Fresh Air (vs Hot wind)

Robert,

"Writing about a subject you know little about and then
not listening to the responses is totally unethical."

Where are the responses? I made a correction on a minor point.Please can you correct the articles from MikeB (he asks for corrections!), point by point?

"The problem is he is refusing to make an effort to fully
understanding AWE and writes things designed to inhibit progress."

If MikeB is a loud voice, counter-arguments, or rather arguments favoring AWE/vs Mike's articles can take also some importance. Some open debate about AWE is better than no debate.

PierreB

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10848	From: joe_f_90032	Date: 1/7/2014
Subject: FIT for AWE or not?

If FIT for AWE, what price?

FIT:: Feed-in-tariff or the like.

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

Starter:

Paul,

Our budding explorations have yet to know well AWES-electricity generation cost at any scale.
A going hope by some of us in AWE is that FIT will not be needed for AWES-generated energy, and that "kitricity"

price will beat front runners; we sense a game-change that will be disruptive over coal, natural gas, and nuclear, especially

as societies demand that environmental and health costs be weighed fairly on balance. However,

until such critical point we expect some AWE companies will aim to firm some FIT-enhanced-like contracts, especially

those enterprises that are developing their efforts on early down selects like using flying generator with conductive tether.

As soon as I believe that kite-energy will not survive competitively at open-market retail prices without FIT,

then I will leave the kite-energy project. I hope societies will charge coal, natural gas, and nuclear for their full-life costs.

So, in answer to your direct question: retail price, no FIT-price-fixing contract.

Cheers,

JoeF

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10849	From: dougselsam	Date: 1/7/2014
Subject: Re: Engineering compromises of airborne wind energy systems

Hey Robert:
Like I said I have wasted too much t9ime debating the warmist true-believers.
I predicted the current warming scare back in the early 1980's when they were still pushing a cooling scare. It is predictable because the cycle goes back hundreds of years of alternating panic. Be a lemming if you want. Yes, methane hydrates, tomorrow's fuel source, unknown to "science" just a couple decades ago. Robert, in case you haven't noticed, the Emperor has no clothes. Methane hydrates are not something new, they have always been there. What is new is our state of ignorance has progressed to the point that at least we know the hydrates exist. Go ahead and extrapolate any scare story you want. I remember a ski trip sponsored by NREL. It was June, a few years back. We were at Arapaho Basin Ski Resort, which is over 11,000 feet and super-steep. At that altitude, there was still skiing in June, still plenty of snow on the ground. So ths guy who works at NREL is almost like crying, explaining how soon, there would be no more skiing in Colorado, because there would be no more snow. I realized when I saw how upset he was that people can be told literally almost anythging and they will go and die for it. Likethose guys who come knocking on your door, or the ones they send to war, give 'em a ball and tell 'em which way to run. Robert: What if it gets cooler? What if the real danger is an impending ice age and they are telling you the opposite? Have you looked at the long term charts of temps? Our interglacial period is about 15,000 years old and 15,000 years is about how long interglacial periods last. Do the math, 15,000 - 15,000 = 0. It is time for a descent into the next ice age. If manmade global warming is real, it may be the only thing saving us from freezing, and we should be doing more burning. Life is currently buried, dead. The oil companies anbd coal companies bring Gaia back to the surface - back to life. What about that? What about the enhanced food production and reversal of desertification due to increased atmospheric carbon availability? Maybe we almost had the Earth die, and it's coming back now. It seems to me that while some peope want to control the whole discussionm the seldom even touch on real issues, and what if they are just.... wrong? They usually are! :)
"Sea ice" "insulator" - look it up...

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10850	From: dougselsam	Date: 1/7/2014
Subject: Re: Engineering compromises of airborne wind energy systems

Yeah I guess you don't read much on it: CO2 levels trail temperatures by a few hundred years. See, an alarmist will scream "Look, higher temps are ASSOCIATED WITH higher CO2 levels!" The scientist then asks "Associated how?" That's where the warmist refuses to answer and an honest person has to come in and point out that CO2 levels trail temps by a couple hundred years, indicating that the higher temps cause more CO2 to be released, which would be expected since warmer dirt gives up its CO2, creatures thrive and give off CO2, warmer water holds less dissolved CO2, and even some methane hydrates may begin to release some CO2. Yup, apparently, higher temps CAUSE higher CO2 levels. That;s what it looks like the evidence is telling us.
By the way, have you heard the new laws about car windows? they have to be provided with an IR barrier, Guess why? To lower air conditioning requirements by keeping the interior cool. So, and IR barrier keeps the interior cool, But it gets better: They say it is to fight global warming. But according to the greenhouse effect as stated by the alarmists, that car should be getting warmer, not cooler, since it has an IR barrier, just like all that bad bad CO2. So if you actually measure the temperature, and IR barrier cools the car. But it heats the planet. OK. Just sayin'... They can tell you anything and if you never check the facts you will have no choice but to agree. Melting sea ice is a negative feedback loop, hence the term "oscillation". The whole scare story as told so often but seldom scrutinized, is a hoax.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10851	From: Robert Copcutt	Date: 1/8/2014
Subject: Re: Engineering compromises of airborne wind energy systems

Doug, thanks for the compliment about understanding turbines. It comes
in part from reading thousands of your posts. You have real life
experience building turbines so your experiences are worth learning from
when it comes to turbines.

When it comes to global warming you have been totally hoodwinked by the
fossil fuel industry propaganda. I have an academic background that
gives me an excellent understanding of climate and have taken the
trouble to write a comprehensive web page about it.
http://www.copcutt.me.uk/globalwarm.php

Methane hydrates have been accumulating since life first evolved on the
planet. The meteor that hit the Earth 65 million years ago caused some
of them to decompose and that is what made the dinosaurs extinct. It did
that because it landed in a carbonate deposit which released large
quantities of CO2.

Humans have released more CO2 than that already. That means that if we
magically all disappeared tomorrow more severe warming would still
happen in the coming decades and centuries. That would decompose more
hydrates and the resultant extinction event in the 22nd century would be
more severe.

If we carry on with business as usual we will make Earth hotter than
Venus for a while. Venus is 462C all over. That is hotter than anywhere
on Mercury and way hotter than Mercury's average. Arguing that CO2 does
not cause warming is just stupid. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus

The ice core data goes back 800 000 years and shows regular oscillations
of temperature and CO2 more or less in step with each other. The
regularity is because the major controlling factor is a feature of
Earth's orbit. It is therefore inevitable that sometimes CO2 will lead
temperature and sometimes visa versa. The fact that we see oscillations
rather than a gradual change proves that Earth's climate is inherently
unstable. Humans have given it a short sharp jolt and we are now only
just starting to see the consequences that could get far worse for
hundreds of years to come if we fail to make an all-out effort to stop
it.

To explain the IR shields in cars look at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EffectiveTemperature_300dpi_e.png
which shows the spectrum of the energy from the Sun. The peak is at 400
to 500 nm. Compare that chart with
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Synthetic_atmosphere_absorption_spectrum.gif
and you will see there is not much stopping those wavelengths getting to
the Earth's surface.

Earth has to balance the energy coming from the Sun by radiating it back
out to space. The peak wavelength going out is 9000 nm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-body_radiation

Looking at the 3 links above you can see that an IR filter blocking
light at 800 to 1000 nm will have a cooling effect.

CO2's main absorption band is at 4000 nm so it causes warming. Get the
details right and all the arguments invented to denying global warming
start looking really stupid.

Robert.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10852	From: Robert Copcutt	Date: 1/8/2014
Subject: Re: Engineering compromises of airborne wind energy systems

Have the settings for this group been changed recently? Suddenly the
links in my Emails do not appear to be clickable. It gives Doug an
excuse not read them. Trying again below.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10853	From: Hardensoft International Limited	Date: 1/8/2014
Subject: Worth Re-echoing

Everyone should only ever state things they know to be facts, or be
prepared to listen to others. We all have total responsibility to try to
get to the truth. Writing about a subject you know little about and then
not listening to the responses is totally unethical. Being paid for it
as a journalist makes it worse. The acceptance of such behaviour in the
modern world is why we are in such a mess. MikeB being anti AWE is not
the problem. The problem is he is refusing to make an effort to fully
understanding AWE and writes things designed to inhibit progress. That
should be a criminal offence.

"

Robert Copcutt.

John Adeoye Oyebanji B.Sc. MCPN
Managing Consultant & CEO
Hardensoft International Limited
<Technologies color:black;font-family:serif;">___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Disclaimer and confidentiality note

This e-mail, its attachments and any rights attaching hereto are, and unless the content clearly indicates otherwise, remains the property of John Adeoye Oyebanji of Hardensoft International Limited, Lagos, Nigeria.

It is confidential, private and intended for only the addressee.

Should you not be the addressee and receive this e-mail by mistake, kindly notify the sender, and delete this e-mail immediately.

Do not disclose or use it in any way. Views and opinions expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender unless clearly stated as those of some other.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10854	From: Hardensoft International Limited	Date: 1/8/2014
Subject: Worth Re-echoing

"

Robert Copcutt.

Disclaimer and confidentiality note

It is confidential, private and intended for only the addressee.

Should you not be the addressee and receive this e-mail by mistake, kindly notify the sender, and delete this e-mail immediately.

Do not disclose or use it in any way. Views and opinions expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender unless clearly stated as those of some other.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10855	From: joe_f_90032	Date: 1/8/2014
Subject: Energy Storage

[[Moderator note: I find no reason why a post that should have been posted did not get posted; such anomalies are being reported in the moderator forum concerning the new 'neo" format by Yahoo! for its groups. The following Jan. 5, 2014, message is now posted; it is by Gabor in response to some of Doug S.' notes. Thanks for the heads up on this! Note: If the moderator deliberately holds a post, he will personally notify the member. The following post would not have been moderated as the member's email is configured to go right to public posting without moderation. I recommend that a message to the group for posting be a dedicated post without CC or BCC; that is make two sendings when one wants others to immediately get a private copy; keep one sending fully dedicated to just the group address.]]

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

-------- Original Message --------

Subject:	Energy storage
Date:	Sun, 05 Jan 2014 02:41:32 +0100
From:	Gabor Dobos

Hi Doug,

Happy New Year to you and to all members of this Forum.

I am glad to read your posts again. "We" (I mean this AWES- community) need somebody to debunk Professor Crackpot's idiotic ideas and to show viable routes instead. I am afraid, I was not the only one erroneous target.

Reading your posts (see e.g. On 2013-09-04 18:45, Doug S.wrote: "extreme level of ignorance in AWE" ), it seems so that we have another professor besides Professor Crackpot, namely Professor Ignorance, who has no doubts that what he has not heard about that doesn't exist.

If you are speaking about the "extreme level of ignorance" of others, then you have to speak about yours too, first of all. Our debate about liquid air contains several proofs of your behaving like Professor Ignorance formerly. I am happy to see that in the meanwhile you as well as this community have learned a lot. I think, due to the work of JoeF liquid air become known as a possible energy storage medium. Most of the reader of this Forum already know the unique possibilities of applying this scenario: the sustainable and waste-free, carbon-free technology, the possibility of enhancing the theoretical (so called: Carnot-)efficiency of the heat engines, recovery of waste-heat and folding up the heat-islands in our cities, capitalizing on High Temperature Superconductor technology, etc.

But your posts preserved your original sayings, that have denied my statements, like Professor Ignorance would do. Let's see a small collection, just to correct them for layman readers of the Forum. Forgive me my short notices, that are probably no more actual:

1.) On 2013-08-22 16:10, Doug wrote:

I say, it is not a disgrace not to know all the details of a multidisciplinary plan like this. "real wind people" ought to accept that there are also "real chemical, physical, meteorological etc people who are also proud of their profession. Neither of them, nor "real wind people" are omniscience. That is the reason of the need to cooperate. Today's but even more tomorrow's "real" wind power plants (that are developed today) can not be implement without the cooperation of several professions.

To be continued.

Gabor

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10857	From: dave santos	Date: 1/8/2014
Subject: Great AWE Debate

Paul Gipe replied cordially and privately at long length to my recent corrections and standards-critique of his and Mike Barnard's AWE journalism. He made a most helpful suggestion, that AWE R&D plan on meeting the IEC 6400-12 wind turbine performance certification standard.

Otherwise, his reply seemed to me very misinformed specious reasoning, as he moved the goalposts on AWE safely beyond peer-review literature, dismissing such literature, unread, in--toto; and he gushed that Mike Barnard had "eviserated" AWE (amazingly without any academic citations needed). PaulG does not just rely on MikeB, but dismisses AWE in unambiguous terms by his own opinions. On the positive side, PaulG assures that MileB will in fact make due factual corrections on his blog-site (breaking current stone-walling).

Paul asked for special permission to use my "Makani" message as content on his page, for his windy reply to presumably serve as a last word. So I challenged Him and Mike to a formal moderated AWE debate, as a reasonable condition for him using my message so (after all, anti-AWE "expert" journalists should be prepared to debate even without favors).

The Great AWE Debate, if PaulG will allow it, would be an open team-effort on both sides. The debate topic can be Mike's incendiary final conclusion, that the AWE concept simply falls apart under engineering review, True or False. There are universally respected figures in wind energy, like Coy Harris and Fort Felker, with no partisan stake in either AWE or Industrial Wind, that would be ideal judge moderators. The Net allows formal technical debate to draw together the best brains on both sides of a controversy, with extensive references as supporting evidence, and possibly major new popular interest in AWE.

===========My text to Paul===========

Thanx for detailed reply, will push for iec 6400 integration in AWE, but our field is like small wind in 70s, so due patience in order.

I challenge you and Mike to a formal moderated debate about AWE, in return for your request to reprint my letter regarding Makani as content on your site.

Thanks for the assurance Mike will make factual corrections. The AWE forum has already begun to list and document them, and you can help judge the fairness of disputed points. Lets hold all parties to the highest standards, critics and developers alike.

Dave

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10858	From: dave santos	Date: 1/8/2014
Subject: Paul Gipe declines to debate AWE

Citing a lack of time, PaulG declines to formally debate AWE. Mike Barnard is silent. Nevertheless, the open AWES Forum call for anti-AWE industrial-wind partisans, like Paul and MikeB, to formally debate AWE, remains on the table.

An interesting dynamic is that industrial wind will see AWE as a commercial threat, and that NIMBY communities may want AWE as an option.

========== reply to Paul's refusal to debate AWE ============

Paul,

Thank you that you had time for a prompt long reply to my message. So now you claim to be suddenly short of time. Lack of due-diligence time seemingly applies to you and Mike not doing the deep homework of mastering AWE domain knowledge, which requires considerable core aerospace and kite expertise. Your naive Makani Power assumptions (missing simple facts, like how the MP looping kiteplane naturally sweeps at high apparent-wind speed) underscores an obvious technical-haste problem. Soppy wind journalism harms us all.

Will anyone with your and MikeB's extreme anti-AWE R&D views ever find time to honor formal debating standards? Why won't MikeB do the Great AWE Debate? He clearly spends many hours on anti-AWE editorializing. To suggest your partisan blogs are a high-enough standard to avoid a need for open upper-wind debate*, seems like pure intellectual cowardice. Its MikeB whose views you might see "eviscerated", if only would stand bravely for his views, in fair debate.

Please still prepare for debate by careful study, as your time may allow, or endure the conviction in AWE circles that you never could have mustered a serious engineering debate against AWE. The AWE debate offer remains on the table, patiently awaiting you and Mike,

dave

* Note for your calculations that 1-2km altitude is the expert-consensus optimal target altitude [Archer, 2009, 2013], with a far higher inherent density and availability [widely measured] than tower-wind in our sights. Current small AWES prototypes are already quite higher than conventional wind allows.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10859	From: Robert Copcutt	Date: 1/8/2014
Subject: Re: breathe of Fresh Air (vs Hot wind)

Pierre,

Paul Gipe has written a lot about wind over a long period and has gained
wide respect. His dismissal of AWE and refusal to debate with DaveS is
deeply disappointing. It is a problem because of his fame. After careful
thought I have decided to write a book that will include a review of the
potential of AWE. Is it best use of my time to try to debate with PaulG
and MikeB, or should I get on with my book which will serve the same
purpose, but more slowly?

Robert.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10862	From: dave santos	Date: 1/8/2014
Subject: Answering Doug's Latest Questions

Hi Doug,

Sorry for the reply delay, but your messages got wrongly flagged to spam by my mailer again.

Give WPI credit for a low-complexity passive-autonomy working prototype along the lines Goela long ago envisioned.

Thanks for posing your latest questions to me,

daveS

============== Q&A ==============

Doug asked: What's the point of discussing endless peripheral details of nonexistent systems?

Reply: By closely reviewing interesting schemes (like yours), even if they do not really exist, we might learn something. Speaking of which, what is the SkyBar TM?

Doug: "How much power are your theories generating today?"

Reply: I cite modern aviation's century of consistent use of favorable tailwinds, even the Jet Stream, as the largest source of "AWE today". This true upper-wind energy directly displaces fossil fuel, and makes air travel far more economic. It amounts to a lot of current power for just one of my many favorite theories, only a few of which are mine. As for tomorrow, "the sky is the limit", as your own marketing implies.

Doug: "After years of trying now, what is the most promising idea so far?"

Reply: Test, test, test, test, and test again (Fort Felker). Comparative testing of all contending ideas, in particular.

Doug: "What, that you have built and run, so far, has made the most power?"

Reply: I must invoke my junior apprenticeship at KiteShip under Dave Culp and Dean Jordan. The design, of course, is DaveC's, and the power demonstrated was to pull small ships. A highlight an Ellison's 12meter America's Cup contender, which in training hopped up on a plane and zoomed along so alarmingly that the Kiwi defenders banned kites. The presumed power is consistent with comparable giant ship kites by SkySails, in the single-digit megawatt range.

The many small-scale AWES I designed and built for study in previous years were quite properly small-power, not in the ship-kite power-class. The new kPower prototypes grow day-by-day, if slowly, ony because it costs us around a dollar per watt of experimental hardware, and shared investment capital is still very limited. At least we are not scaling so fast that we neglect too much "peripheral detail" engineering.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10863	From: joe_f_90032	Date: 1/8/2014
Subject: Re: Answering Doug's Latest Questions

The SkyBar(TM)

http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/airbornewindenergy/conversations/messages/9102

My answer to Doug S indicated that there will be a SkyBar (tm) holding a group of strands of multi-rotors; the total will amount to a "mountain" that could not be moved to avoid an approaching Miss Passenger Carrier.

JoeF

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 10864	From: Robert Copcutt	Date: 1/8/2014
Subject: Re: More AWE Encampment Tests (SkyBow, Race Kite, and FAA Conspicuit

Doug,

It is not a clutch you need but a generator free of cogging and magnetic
hysteresis. An air-cored outrunner would be ideal.

Robert.