Messages in AirborneWindEnergy group.                           AWES13834to13886 Page 172 of 440.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13834 From: Rod Read Date: 8/15/2014
Subject: Re: more symbiotic development

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13835 From: Rod Read Date: 8/15/2014
Subject: Re: more symbiotic development

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13836 From: Pierre Benhaiem Date: 8/15/2014
Subject: Re: NREL's Baseline Analysis of Conventional Wind Energy Costs

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13837 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 8/15/2014
Subject: Re: Shade

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13838 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 8/15/2014
Subject: Re: Shade

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13841 From: benhaiemp Date: 8/15/2014
Subject: Re: Wind speed maxima (WSM) [1 Attachment]

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13842 From: dave santos Date: 8/15/2014
Subject: Re:

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13843 From: dave santos Date: 8/15/2014
Subject: Re: Rope laddermill

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13844 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 8/15/2014
Subject: Re:

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13845 From: dave santos Date: 8/15/2014
Subject: Re: NREL's Baseline Analysis of Conventional Wind Energy Costs

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13846 From: dave santos Date: 8/15/2014
Subject: Re: Wind speed maxima (WSM)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13847 From: dave santos Date: 8/15/2014
Subject: Re:

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13848 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 8/15/2014
Subject: Re: NREL's Baseline Analysis of Conventional Wind Energy Costs

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13849 From: dave santos Date: 8/15/2014
Subject: Re: NREL's Baseline Analysis of Conventional Wind Energy Costs

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13850 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 8/15/2014
Subject: Re: NREL's Baseline Analysis of Conventional Wind Energy Costs

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13851 From: dave santos Date: 8/15/2014
Subject: Re: NREL's Baseline Analysis of Conventional Wind Energy Costs

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13853 From: dave santos Date: 8/15/2014
Subject: Re: NREL's Baseline Analysis of Conventional Wind Energy Costs

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13854 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 8/15/2014
Subject: Re: NREL's Baseline Analysis of Conventional Wind Energy Costs

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13855 From: dave santos Date: 8/15/2014
Subject: Re: NREL's Baseline Analysis of Conventional Wind Energy Costs

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13856 From: Gabor Dobos Date: 8/15/2014
Subject: Re: NREL's Baseline Analysis of Conventional Wind Energy Costs

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13857 From: dave santos Date: 8/15/2014
Subject: NearZero Controversy Update

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13858 From: dave santos Date: 8/15/2014
Subject: Re: NREL's Baseline Analysis of Conventional Wind Energy Costs

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13859 From: dave santos Date: 8/15/2014
Subject: Argument from Authority in AWE Engineering-Science

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13860 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 8/15/2014
Subject: Re: Shade

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13861 From: dougselsam Date: 8/15/2014
Subject: Re: Argument from Authority in AWE Engineering-Science

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13862 From: dave santos Date: 8/15/2014
Subject: Re: Argument from Authority in AWE Engineering-Science

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13863 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 8/15/2014
Subject: Some AWES are operating at all points of the clock

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13864 From: dave santos Date: 8/15/2014
Subject: Re: Some AWES are operating at all points of the clock

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13865 From: Joe Faust Date: 8/15/2014
Subject: Re: Some AWES are operating at all points of the clock

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13866 From: benhaiemp Date: 8/15/2014
Subject: Who are experts in AWE?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13867 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 8/16/2014
Subject: Re: Who are experts in AWE?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13868 From: Rod Read Date: 8/16/2014
Subject: Re: Rope laddermill

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13869 From: dave santos Date: 8/16/2014
Subject: Re: Rope laddermill

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13870 From: Rod Read Date: 8/16/2014
Subject: Re: Rope laddermill

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13871 From: dave santos Date: 8/16/2014
Subject: Re: Who are experts in AWE?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13872 From: dave santos Date: 8/16/2014
Subject: Re: Rope laddermill

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13873 From: dave santos Date: 8/16/2014
Subject: Beyond AWE Debate and Marketing: Comparative AE Simulation and Fligh

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13874 From: dave santos Date: 8/16/2014
Subject: Emergent Expertise in AWE (sociology)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13875 From: Joe Faust Date: 8/16/2014
Subject: Re: Who are experts in AWE?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13876 From: Gabor Dobos Date: 8/16/2014
Subject: Re: Who are experts in AWE?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13877 From: Gabor Dobos Date: 8/16/2014
Subject: Re: Who are experts in AWE?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13878 From: Rod Read Date: 8/16/2014
Subject: Re: Rope laddermill

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13879 From: dave santos Date: 8/16/2014
Subject: Re: Who are experts in AWE?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13880 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 8/16/2014
Subject: Re: Who are experts in AWE?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13881 From: dave santos Date: 8/16/2014
Subject: Re: Rope laddermill

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13882 From: dave santos Date: 8/16/2014
Subject: Re: Who are experts in AWE?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13883 From: dave santos Date: 8/16/2014
Subject: Re: Rope laddermill

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13884 From: benhaiemp Date: 8/16/2014
Subject: Land/space used (beginning of comparison with TARS)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13885 From: Joe Faust Date: 8/16/2014
Subject: Re: Who are experts in AWE?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13886 From: dave santos Date: 8/16/2014
Subject: Re: Land/space used (beginning of comparison with TARS)



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13834 From: Rod Read Date: 8/15/2014
Subject: Re: more symbiotic development
Attachments :
    Machine printable 3d flying architecture on it's way.

    Rod Read

    Windswept and Interesting Limited
    15a Aiginis
    Isle of Lewis
    HS2 0PB

    07899057227
    01851 870878
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13835 From: Rod Read Date: 8/15/2014
    Subject: Re: more symbiotic development
    Attachments :
      Would spiral binding be applicable to line joins?
      Not easily without really strong spiral material and /or tough line clamps... (rope knuckle joins are already common on playground net equipment.)
      For a lightweight line joint a varied mix of spiral and material forms could provide for fixed and slide-able fixings.
      Do that by variously fitting spirals onto "Star point" shaped materials which cover the line joint and around the lines to be joined.

      Cogging the rotation of the spiral feed to eyelet leading edge or a feed dog movement could give automatic wrapping.
      Changing spiral diameter without altering pitch length could allow leading edges to be set away from the loadpath.

      Rod Read

      Windswept and Interesting Limited
      15a Aiginis
      Isle of Lewis
      HS2 0PB

      07899057227
      01851 870878
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13836 From: Pierre Benhaiem Date: 8/15/2014
      Subject: Re: NREL's Baseline Analysis of Conventional Wind Energy Costs
      
      I think actually nobody has the good way to harness HAWE. One among others reasons seems to be the study of an unity alone, then making farms with unities, instead thinking the whole system.More generally the analysis of too many elements are to be taken in consideration.
      DougS looks out good form.Morever arguments seem to hide some promotion of SuperTurbine. But on content what he explains is relevant: a good design to begin (but what is a good design?).(I would add identification of resource before.) And what DougS definites as good design is a design close to existing wind turbine design, as stationary and rotating conversion system, here tilted to generate some lift. I can agree for it but for other reasons: a stationary system can allow some conglomerations, making a stack of unities being able to maximize the swept area within airspace used, and avoiding risks of touching each over; with reeling systems that looks not possible. 
      And how explain that for an identical target (very high altitude winds) the scheme resulting is quite different for Sky Windpower and for Sky Mill:is it for a different use of TD Simulations?
      Another thing: AWE is a mix of aerospace AND wind energy. Aviation has its own history, wind energy has its own history. AWE should find a common point, forming an hybrid. So the "you know nothing in aviation" or "you know nothing in wind energy" are only the illustrations of the technical difficulties to gather these two fields into AWE.
      I agree with DaveL TD Simulations are used in a whole process of R&D. More: TD Simulations can determine the success of AWE, far more than making do-it-yourself in your garage. And the sense of open share DaveS, JoeF or ReadR indicate can result in taking into consideration criterions from people in aviation, in wind energy, in other energies, in climate sciences, in geopolitic...,to build appropriate AWE being able to be convincing then attracting for investors, while now there is no agreement about choice of method for AWES .And DaveL, with his huge knowledge in both TD Simulations and tether, can be a decisive key.
       
      PierreB   
       
       
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13837 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 8/15/2014
      Subject: Re: Shade
      This shady note joins the refreshing reminder by Rod Read in another thread where he suggests that hanging personal laundry on a kite-lifted web could provide clothes drying as well as shade.  Such direction is part of the larger branch of "Airing & Drying" suggested hereon. Manufacturing processes sometimes have items that need airing or drying or both. Included in such processes are painted goods and goods that are helped by curing in open moving air. Perhaps art that needs to be dried.  Indeed, hanging such items would reduce the amount of sun getting to the ground.  Have several lifted lines with such airing and drying operations and obtain a ground space that has less sun. Clever operators could find ways to change out loads using loops and pulleys.
         In some scenes such kited airing and drying might reduce the use of fossil fuels. 
      ~ JoeF
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13838 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 8/15/2014
      Subject: Re: Shade
      Some primitive shaders in the kite world  (just a beginning): 
      What is the shade/(flown mass) of this system: 
      Group getting serious on the shading percentage, not still not that serious: 
      http://www.demotix.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/a_scale_large/1300-6/photos/1333436.jpg

        Shade/mass

      For the "mass" include the tether set mass and any and all lofted mass including the mass of the wing set. 

      It is anticipated that super-low-mass materials combined with specialized nets will bring high shade/mass for a kite-energy systems. 

      A competition could be held where the highest shade/mass would win the prize. Maybe shade for one hour could be a trial rule in the sporting. 

      Notice that a shading surface that twists to change its projection will have less shading impact than if the surface persisted with maximum projection possible in the dynamic situation.   So, note in the following early example that the projection or shadow of the lofted parts cause an ever variable amount of shading. 

      http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-YJ8ywQ-I5Dc/UGjetJ2OoTI/AAAAAAAABqk/A5i3t8scPEc/s1600/P1010065.JPG

      Shady note, 

      ~ JoeF
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13841 From: benhaiemp Date: 8/15/2014
      Subject: Re: Wind speed maxima (WSM) [1 Attachment]

      DaveS,

       

      It is interesting C.Archer matches her research for practical indications making AWES more feasible, above all for systems like flygen-autogyro-like (SWP). Perhaps also some doubt about Jet Stream (after Max Planck Institute report) is also taken into account. Two things can be considered: power/area but also thickness of harnessed atmosphere.

      PierreB
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13842 From: dave santos Date: 8/15/2014
      Subject: Re:
      Pierre,

      An arch tolerates ordinary "quick" wind changes, which tend to be about 30 degree shifts back and forth. Larger wind changes typically occur over the course of a day, and are forecast, so there is no problem with them.

      Its also been shown by kite arch fliers that quite fast responses are possible by various sailing methods, for example, letting out the upwind side of a wind-shifted arch. Its even quite practical to cross couple the two sides so that the retreating side pulls the advancing side into the wind. Furthermore, a large arch can passively rotate around a center-point that holds all of the tension while side lines move at low force. This is review. Next, fully passive compliance mechanisms seem feasible and will be tested, but are not essential. You never did answer why it is OK for a car to require a turning control input, but an AWES must not. 

      Your lack of experience with flying kite arches matches your -520x result of first-order capacity-intensity theorizing. Thank goodness you and MikeB are unable to influence AWE R&D decision-making, but only represent the extreme of missing specific technical knowledge and skill. Those with far more AWE domain knowledge and skill (AE PhDs and kite masters) are far more optimistic, and cannot be stopped from progressing by fringe critics,

      daveS


      On Friday, August 15, 2014 12:13 AM, "pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13843 From: dave santos Date: 8/15/2014
      Subject: Re: Rope laddermill
      Cubic mass growth of the rigid ladder rungs is the critical scaling limitation. Other factors are minor by comparison. Line drag actually mitigates with scaling up.


      On Friday, August 15, 2014 1:59 AM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13844 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 8/15/2014
      Subject: Re:

      DaveS,


      Please less personal attacks,more electrical production.

       

      PierreB
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13845 From: dave santos Date: 8/15/2014
      Subject: Re: NREL's Baseline Analysis of Conventional Wind Energy Costs
      Pierre,

      You seem not to have followed the Forum carefully. We have fantastic large-scale wind experts in our circle,  like Coy Harris, Fort Felker, Chris Carlin and more, whose experience in industrial wind is far beyond Doug or MIkeB's. We have all the AE talent. Some figures bridge both worlds (like ChrisC).

      Its the AWE pessimists that have no AE depth and only limited direct wind experience. You need to catch up to both worlds, and then revisit your -520x level of expertise,

      daveS


      On Friday, August 15, 2014 5:59 AM, "'Pierre Benhaiem' pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13846 From: dave santos Date: 8/15/2014
      Subject: Re: Wind speed maxima (WSM)
      Correction to Pierre: 

      Cristina's atmospheric findings apply equally to all AWE architectures operating in her targeted airspace. MikeB goes too far in not seeing SWP at these altitudes, and you go too far in the other direction seeing SWP as uniquely addressed by WSM. In fact SWP's architecture, with its severe inherent scaling limitations, is not a top contender to power civilization; as Cristina clearly supposes upper wind to be able to do.

      What nonsense to suggest otherwise.


      On Friday, August 15, 2014 9:27 AM, "pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13847 From: dave santos Date: 8/15/2014
      Subject: Re:
      Pierre,

      Attacking your obvious lack of AE and kite-master qualifications is intended to be clinical, not personal. Expect relief as your qualifications advance. Sorry if I have ever made a purely personal attack (with no technical basis).

      Go ahead and continue you purely personal attacks (about "ego" for example), to set the low-bar, but you will not avoid withering critiques of your poorly based technical opinions by merely asking. Personal attacks is a non-topic to serious developers.

      Also keep in mind that peak electrical generation claims by teams like kiteNRG represent all of us. Its a deep fallacy to demand of any single player that they do it all. We honor many worthy figures (like DaveL) who make less power than you or me. I will not make an extra watt at your request, but will strive to correct your undue technical pronouncements,

      daveS



      On Friday, August 15, 2014 9:43 AM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13848 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 8/15/2014
      Subject: Re: NREL's Baseline Analysis of Conventional Wind Energy Costs

      DaveS,


      Your level of expertise in AWES seems to be under Near Zero requirements.

       

      PierreB
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13849 From: dave santos Date: 8/15/2014
      Subject: Re: NREL's Baseline Analysis of Conventional Wind Energy Costs
      Pierre,

      Do you really have no opinion of NREL's economic data to help you improve your calculations?

      You have completly lost the topic and fallen to into poorly based complaints. You seem unaware of the complete lack of AE or kite expertise in NearZero's circle, even lower than you own deep lack. I was definitely not the least expert chosen by NearZero, if you look at the participants. Try and get a public disclosure of why NearZero closed the panel and cooked its stupid result. Look also at the amazing legal disclaimers that followed the inside ouster of JoeF and me, in standing up to Makani hype.

      It is incredibly foolish to only judge AWE matters by the standard of a SteveD or MikeB, and never a MarkM or DaveL,

      daveS


      On Friday, August 15, 2014 10:19 AM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13850 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 8/15/2014
      Subject: Re: NREL's Baseline Analysis of Conventional Wind Energy Costs

      DaveS,

      You wrote:"You seem unaware of the complete lack of AE or kite expertise in NearZero's circle, even lower than you own deep lack."

      Here are the experts (see on http://www.nearzero.org/reports/AirborneWind ) you insult:"

      Experts

      Adam Rein
      Altaeros Energies
      Alexander Bormann
      Aeroix
      Allister Furey
      University of Sussex
      Andreas Reuter
      Institute of Wind Energy Systems
      Becker van Niekerk
      Parsec Aero
      Ben Glass
      Altaeros Energies
      Bruce Weddendorf
      Velocity Cubed
      Carlo Perassi
      Wind Operations Worldwide S.p.A
      Chris Purvis
       
      Corey Houle
      Crosswind Power Systems
      Corwin Hardham
      Makani Power
      Cristina Archer
      California State University, Chico
      Damon Vander Lind
      Makani Power
      Dimitri Chernyshov
      Highest Wind
      Douglas Amick
      Amick Global
      Eric Blumer
      Honeywell Aerospace
      Grant Calverley
      SkyMill Energy
      Guido Luetsch
      NTS Energie- und Transportsysteme GmbH
      Ian Alers
      SAAB Avitronics
      JoeBen Bevirt
      Joby Energy
      Ken Caldeira
      Carnegie Institution for Science
      Kurt Geebelen
      KU Leuven
      Lorenzo Fagiano
      Politecnico di Torino
      Mark Moore
      NASA Langley Research Center
      Martin Hoffert
      New York University
      Matt Bennett
      WindLift
      Michael Strobel
      Fraunhofer Institute for Wind Energy and Energy System Technology
      Moritz Diehl
      K.U. Leuven
      P.J. Shepard
      Sky WIndpower
      Pete Lynn
      Peter Lynn Kites
      Peter Lissaman
      Da Vinci Ventures
      Rob Creighton
      WindLift
      Robert Lumley
      KiteFarms
      Robert Wilson
      Oregon State University
      Sara Smoot
      Stanford University
      Saul Griffith
      Otherlab
      Sébastien Gros
      ERC Highwind
      Stephan Brabeck
      SkySails
      Udo Zillmann
      Daidalos Capital"
       
      Without comment.
       
      PierreB
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13851 From: dave santos Date: 8/15/2014
      Subject: Re: NREL's Baseline Analysis of Conventional Wind Energy Costs
      Pierre,

      No one on that list but Ken Caldeira is in "Near Zero's circle", so at worst, only he was insulted. By "circle" was only meant its governing board, directors, and staff. Any insiders that lobbied in private for a given AWE result are a shadowy penumbra circle we still await disclosure of. The list you copied is not NearZero's "circle" by anyone's stated definition but yours. You wrongly imagine SteveD to be a competent judge of who counts in AWE, and that NearZero's "formal" process was of high quality. "Experience is King" in kites and AE, as Peter Lynn rightly asserts, and NearZero's inner circle simply lacks it.

      Once again, you ignore that this topic (NREL economic) is to give you tools to improve your economic calculation; and not for you to make confused assumptions about NearZero. Focus on improving your economic predictions by adopting the higher standard DaveL suggested to you,

      daveS


      On Friday, August 15, 2014 10:55 AM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13853 From: dave santos Date: 8/15/2014
      Subject: Re: NREL's Baseline Analysis of Conventional Wind Energy Costs
      Pierre,

      This topic is not about imaginary insults, but to help you improve your comparative economic modeling in order to draw more accurate predictions.

      Let the record show that you did not address the topic constructively, but I tried to help by providing the NREL tools and data,

      daveS


      On Friday, August 15, 2014 12:09 PM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13854 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 8/15/2014
      Subject: Re: NREL's Baseline Analysis of Conventional Wind Energy Costs

      DaveS,

      I do not reply to a person rejected by AWE communauty through www.nearzero.org/ and insulting it, until you apologized and swear not to begin again any more.

       

      PierreB
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13855 From: dave santos Date: 8/15/2014
      Subject: Re: NREL's Baseline Analysis of Conventional Wind Energy Costs
      Pierre,

      Don't forget that JoeF was rejected also, for the same unwelcome technical opinions, and that only NearZero's inside staff is responsible for the rejection. We stand by our technical opinions, and have good relations with almost everyone in AWE.

      Thanks for not replying, unless its to improve your economic calculations with NREL analysis as an agreed baseline,

      daveS


      On Friday, August 15, 2014 12:35 PM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13856 From: Gabor Dobos Date: 8/15/2014
      Subject: Re: NREL's Baseline Analysis of Conventional Wind Energy Costs
      DaveS and PierreB,

      may I see more data and arguments or possibly calculations in your posts   instead of logical fallacy, namely appeal to authority?

      Gabor Dobos




      On 2014-08-15 19:55, Pierre BENHAIEM pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy] wrote:
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13857 From: dave santos Date: 8/15/2014
      Subject: NearZero Controversy Update
      Pierre reminds us of an interesting controversy over NearZero's AWE Expert Panel Discussion and Formal Survey in 2012.

      JoeF and I were purged from the panel on unspecified grounds, and our survey answers thrown out. We were making sound arguments in favor of broad comparative R&D against Makani corporate bias. Had our opinions been allowed, the large pack of Makani staffers would not have been able to get a favorable result (the illusion of a statistical majority in favor of rigid wing AWES funding over all other architectures). JoeF and I also stood strongly against premature down-select opinions, like the anti-"balloon" (LTA) finding, not because we favor LTA, but because we favor open R&D as best-practice to determine technological down-selects.

      Near Zero's cooked findings generally went like this-

       "They favored particular types of systems—those using rigid wings—and argued against funding those using balloons."

      NearZero is on notice that if it persists in representing its disputed process as sound to US gov decision makers, a legal complaint will be mounted based on the False Claims Act. NearZero has been sidelined as a dubious source of timely energy-tech knowledge, having gone quiet for almost two years now.

      Ken Caldeira (Cc:ed) is still awaited to shine a light on the shadowy Near Zero AWE review process. JoeF and I have an active complaint over NearZero secrecy before the Carnegie Institution for Science, which has a new director (the old director stone-walled the complaint). We will reach out to the new director in Sept, when he assumes office.

      NearZero's Mission claims-

      Near Zero is a nonprofit that aims to increase the frequency and value of dialogue among energy experts and to make this expertise more accessible to those who make and influence energy-related decisions in government, business, and NGO’s. The result will be a rich, digital cache of actionable information to guide energy policy and investment decisions.
      Credible, impartial and timely information reflecting the range of expert opinion.
      Working with decision makers, journalists and influentials to identify critical energy issues, Near Zero will initiate, moderate and synthesize transparent online discussions as well as expert elicitations among foremost experts from industry and academia.
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13858 From: dave santos Date: 8/15/2014
      Subject: Re: NREL's Baseline Analysis of Conventional Wind Energy Costs
      Gabor,

      Citing NREL data and models is not "appeal to authority" per se. Its only suggested as an improvement over Pierre's lack of economic calculations.

      I cannot outdo NREL as a source of baseline data. Of course NREL data could be just as flawed as any mistake you or I ever make,

      daveS


      On Friday, August 15, 2014 1:48 PM, "Gabor Dobos dobosg001@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13859 From: dave santos Date: 8/15/2014
      Subject: Argument from Authority in AWE Engineering-Science
      As Wikipedia supports, Argument from Authority in technical fields is valid in a broad statistical sense. For example, one can reasonably argue many AWE issues based on FAA or even NREL "authority", without confusing this practice with the classical standard of formal logical proof Gabor seems to expect.

      The lowest standard here is for Pierre to cite MikeB so strongly as an "AWE expert" to poorly support AWE pessimism, while disregarding wholesale the preponderance of optimistic AE and kite-master expert opinion.

      Domain experts confidently rely on the best heuristic logic available, which is not absolutely fool-proof, like mathematical logic, but depends on empirical success for final validation.


      Argument from authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13860 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 8/15/2014
      Subject: Re: Shade
      Non-kite-system shade industry probably has something to lend to those advancing shading by kite systems: 
      Start: 
      Fine Custom Awnings by Superior Awning

       
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13861 From: dougselsam Date: 8/15/2014
      Subject: Re: Argument from Authority in AWE Engineering-Science
      "The lowest standard here is for Pierre to cite MikeB so strongly as an "AWE expert""  If no AWE system in the world is running as I write this, who could be said to truly be an "AWE expert"? MikeB. makes a lot of good, valid points, with the lack of any working system seemingly validating Mike B.'s skepticism, making his skepticism seem accurate, which makes him seem like an "expert", the real deal is, MikeB. and pretty much everyone else doesn't quite "get it" yet.  I predict once AWE takes hold (assuming it does) everyone will say "Of course - what else?"  Almost like "Oh yeah, I knew that."  The closest thing I know to an AWE expert is me.  I was contacted by one other person who seemed to have a clue, a couple years ago.  If anyone really wants to get AWE going, I can come up with quite a few promising configurations and approaches.  My cel phone number is 714-749- tree nein oh nine, in California (Pacific Time Zone - Europeans please wait til the sun is up here.):)))
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13862 From: dave santos Date: 8/15/2014
      Subject: Re: Argument from Authority in AWE Engineering-Science
      Doug,

      For Forum purposes, let an AWE expert be someone familiar with the state-of-the-art, even in its prototype phase, just as,say, von Braun and Oberth were experts early in modern space rocketry, before Sputnik. Lets at least agree you are not an AWE expert by either your or my definitions. No more than that is claimed or required.

      MikeB freely admits not to be an AE or kite expert, which are obvious expert domains even by your narrow definition of expertise.

      Good luck forming a team to compete with "PhDs run amok"; everybody loves an underdog who succeeds, or at least tries and loses as a good-sport,

      daveS


      On Friday, August 15, 2014 6:16 PM, "dougselsam@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13863 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 8/15/2014
      Subject: Some AWES are operating at all points of the clock

      This topic thread is dedicated to showing that some AWES is operating at all times of the day, month, and year. Please post your notes supporting such operating.  That is, at any "now" there is somewhere an operating AWES. The space of intent does not include mental art or depiction on a running video, but rather material-mechanical operating AWES.  Post data, evidence, or argument supporting the proposition. 

      When one specific AWES may be down from converting winds' energies, there could be found some other AWES to be up and flying and converting some wind's energies to other forms of energy. 

      ~ JoeF

      PS:  Enjoy the flow. Feel the active AWES environment. Let the active AWES space encourage you to advance the designs; add to the AWES activity that even now is evident in every now. If any hearers of this do not yet see the veracity of the proposition, then stay near and keep trying to see, for it may be yours to see one day. 
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13864 From: dave santos Date: 8/15/2014
      Subject: Re: Some AWES are operating at all points of the clock
      Of course the systematic use of tailwinds in aviation is a perfect 24/7 AWE case under Joe's criteria, but critics get ammunition that its not very RAD to bother with such facts. We do not have adequate data from the stealth-ventures to come to a meaningful estimate of AWES uptime. It seems like Doug should be allowed the losing pretense that there is no AWE yet, rather than falling in his trap that the issue is vital. Let the AWE dawn creep in without any need to mark it closely.


      On Friday, August 15, 2014 7:50 PM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13865 From: Joe Faust Date: 8/15/2014
      Subject: Re: Some AWES are operating at all points of the clock
      That is a keen support for the proposition, DaveS; and those involved in that sector are continuing to perfect their AWE arts. 
      Kin to that sector are the active recreational, commercial, and industrial gliders of many sorts that are converting wind energy to advantages and fulfillment of target tasks. 
      At any instant get a snapshot of all the waterways of the earth and note if a power kite is being used; do the same for ice fields and snow ranges; see if there is at least one place on earth in any now where there is a power kite converting wind energy to other energy formats. 
      ===================
      There is a guy that for years serves a corner in the recreational wind-energy market; though he did not give total proof of his conclusion, I present his conclusion: 
      "However, to this day it's always been possible to find someone, somewhere, flying a Diamond kite!"  SourceHere  
      ===================
      The following has been tested: Randomly timewise, I go out to nature and look for an operating AWES; without fail I find an operating AWES supplied by nature. And more than one kind!   One of my favorite sectors is the spider realm where there are a great variety of wings used in the found operating AWES; some of the wings are full live spider bodies themselves; some are leaves tethered helping to convert the breeze to other energy formats; some are the bodies of other insects tethered and flying about. A growing confidence is that such AWES would be found operating if I chose any time point of the day or night or year. 
      ===========
        ~ JoeF
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13866 From: benhaiemp Date: 8/15/2014
      Subject: Who are experts in AWE?

      In the present forum some people self-proclam as expert. I do not consider myself as expert but as a person wanting learning about possibilities and difficulties in AWE fields. Here is a list of AWE experts recognized as such I give again:  http://www.nearzero.org/reports/AirborneWind . Among them climatologist Ken Caldeira, seeing a huge potential in airborne wind energy, says: “I would be reluctant to remortgage my house and invest the money in these companies, because I think the probability of them being able to compete in the marketplace at scale in, say, the next decade is pretty small,”. These persons or companies or organizations make R&D, providing data, arguments, calculations, prototypes allowing a journalist in wind energy such as MikeB to brush a picture in AWE. Could we have more debate with these experts? 

      PierreB
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13867 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 8/16/2014
      Subject: Re: Who are experts in AWE?

      On NearZero or on MikeB's blog or in AWEC2013, the discussions are on arguments about different systems, and without personal attacks,so without DaveS. So the discussions are constructive. On the present forum discussions fall towards personal attacks as soon as there is a technical disagreement. If someone criticizes a system, for example arch for unidirectionality, or DS flying plant for technico-economical impossibilities of both transfers from gliders to ground station and temporary storage, he knows nothing. By this way, MikeB,critizing all existing AWE projects, is the last to know anything. And let us imagine the contrary:if MikeB is telling Mothra-Arch is the future of energy, does he becomes a fine expert? There are some journalists speaking well of AWE: are they better than MikeB? What is the purpose of the present forum:kneeling down before Saint Arch? I should be considered the most eminent expert, proposing Mothra-Arch lifting a rhinoceros and other animals, becoming Noah's Ark .

      PierreB
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13868 From: Rod Read Date: 8/16/2014
      Subject: Re: Rope laddermill
      Thanks Dave,
      What dimensions would you estimate as the limit of a rope ladder system performance?

      Rod Read

      Windswept and Interesting Limited
      15a Aiginis
      Isle of Lewis
      HS2 0PB

      07899057227
      01851 870878
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13869 From: dave santos Date: 8/16/2014
      Subject: Re: Rope laddermill
      Rod,

      A dimension of around 10-15m seems like a practical working limit to rigid spars in kites. Any bigger and the mass becomes both too dangerous and too fragile. This dimension has hardly changed since carbon and aluminum spars replaced bamboo and spruce, since our tolerance for failure as dropped as the materials have improved. A similar attitude applies to the replacement of piano wire with UHMPE for tethers. We have gained a higher safety factor more than a larger scale.

      For safe testing of a torque-ladder, I would try rungs of about 30cm, and not test rungs more than 2m, especially if high-speed rotation is intended. We can expect pumping a simple line or driving a rope loop to win out for higher altitudes and larger forces.

      daveS


      On Saturday, August 16, 2014 7:00 AM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13870 From: Rod Read Date: 8/16/2014
      Subject: Re: Rope laddermill
      I agree a simple line is a much better driver.
      But i'd keep the ladder steps at 30-40cm step width max
      What I'd like to know (mostly through curiosity) is
      How many lengths of 30cm can we lift and at what rotary power transmission?
      Can it be as good or better than linked rings?

      Rod Read

      Windswept and Interesting Limited
      15a Aiginis
      Isle of Lewis
      HS2 0PB

      07899057227
      01851 870878
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13871 From: dave santos Date: 8/16/2014
      Subject: Re: Who are experts in AWE?
      Pierre,

      You are also not an expert by both Doug's or my Forum definition (nor are some NearZero "experts"), although I recognize your partial expert knowledge. An AE/kite expert should be able to estimate how much theoretic power is in the FAA constrained kitefarm airspace window and estimate what theoretic efficiency kites might achieve harvesting that window, but your do not provide such estimates.

      Go ahead and call for more debate to the NearZero list, and JoeF and I would happily participate. With no explanation, NearZero suddenly cancelled its AWE discussion just two days after purging Joe and me. Of course the AWE "debate-wihout-walls" only continues, and you currently have the lead for the pessimist side (MikeB and Gipe do not allow nor seek open AWE debate).

      daveS


      On Saturday, August 16, 2014 3:31 AM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13872 From: dave santos Date: 8/16/2014
      Subject: Re: Rope laddermill
      By "linked rings" you must mean "chain", and the weight to strength would not be better.

      Brooks Coleman had an interesting torque-drive concept of linked balloons, but such large-surface ideas would be best tilted upwind to avoid negative lift.

      Loyd's AWE tri-tether is three parallel lines driven in phase by a crankshaft, which looks worth testing with the rest.


      On Saturday, August 16, 2014 8:08 AM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13873 From: dave santos Date: 8/16/2014
      Subject: Beyond AWE Debate and Marketing: Comparative AE Simulation and Fligh
      While engineering debate is essential in AWE, and there is also a place for competing marketing claims, there is no substitute for a professional round of comparative AE simulation and flight testing to speed major investment and development.

      What's the problem? Most AWE concepts face embarrassing elimination; "game-over" for raising unqualified investment. Players with stupid concepts have scant talent to recycle into a major down-selected program. If any architecture advances, pessimists will look foolish to the whole world. Simulation and test engineering are elite disciplines which most early AWE ventures lack. There has been no leadership by powerful players like GoogleX. TUDelft might have led us, but we lost Wubbo.

      The solution is to keep beating the drum for broad simulation and testing, and patiently plan as the required critical mass gathers. AWE is not standing still, but gathering momentum. Be prepared.
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13874 From: dave santos Date: 8/16/2014
      Subject: Emergent Expertise in AWE (sociology)

      Wikipedia's article on "Expert" (expertise) contained a link to "Community of Practice", which refers to a sociology of emergent expertise. Technical expertise does not suddenly arise at the moment a major milestone is reached, but begins far earlier, both for the individual, and for the community.

      Our emerging AWE Community of Practice is well characterized by the social theory's tenets-

      Community of practice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13875 From: Joe Faust Date: 8/16/2014
      Subject: Re: Who are experts in AWE?
      1. NearZero non-expert process exercised (still extant) about the most crass cutting censorship that has occurred in AWE-related realms. The "expert" adjective used by NetZero data crunchers was done without any AWE-community-wide consensus certification process and the result shows some of the people on the list are so very far away from AWE expertise. Some expertise in some discipline does not fold over automatically to being  AWE expert, I would hope; have expertise in climate should not fold over to posit "AWE expert" I would hope, but just that ... some expertise in climate. I am an expert in some things, but does not win for me "Nuclear Energy Expert."   Without certification, the Pierre push to just lay down bowing to the list as a done deal is silly; Unless one wants a "Pierre Certification" as I would call it.   Many of us working in AWE have our own private personal means of certifying expertise in this or that discipline; we use our personal appraisal to help us make decisions about time use and study-application and communications.  The "expert" list by PersonWho is just that...limited certification by PersonWho.   I invite readers and workers in AWE to study the assets of each worker.   We in AWE works are now over 1,000 persons; it is fair to guess until proven otherwise, that each person has something positive to offer RAD; such all is welcome.   Meet each other:  http://www.EnergyKiteSystems.net/AWEstakeholders/index.html     Discover for yourselves who has what kind of expertise, if you wish. 

      2. AWEIA has not yet defined any certification process for declaring anyone an "AWE" expert.   No one has yet been certified as an AWE expert by AWEIA. If someone want the title of exper in AWE, perhaps they might start a thread on that topic in open forum.  "Am I, __(name)___, an AWE expert?"   He or she then may present evidence; others may debate the evidence or add argument to the proposition, or argue against expertise in AWE.   But spotty posts would not yet be something like AWEIA certification; I am doubting whether or not AWEIA would ever get into such generalized certification.   Differently, it is envisioned to have specialized skills certified, perhaps anchor technicians, perhaps line handlers, perhaps parafoil manufacturer, perhaps electrician, perhaps weather scientists, perhaps computer programmer in control, etc. There exists some certifying agents over some trades that will be serving AWES.  The generalized uncertified title of "AWE Expert" has little meaning yet.   Pressing "expert" from a phony list by an injuring data-fixing group set to support secret old-boys' foregone conclusion masquerading as valid data study would be a very low standard for moving RAD along; but if someone wants to fixate on a Pierre certification, non one will stop such; such processes might injure Pierre in some way; but the sharpening of what might be meant by "expert" could be a positive process.   I will wait for someone to be in the hot seat for some expertise in open discussion; let's see how that goes. 

      3. PierreB, you stated that someone in the forum has declared themselves as an AWE expert.  Please provide a raw quotation and post reference for the case; if such occurred, then maybe we can have a dedicated hot-seat over such declaration.  We could then sift over type of expertise that may be involved in the case. 

      ~ JoeF
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13876 From: Gabor Dobos Date: 8/16/2014
      Subject: Re: Who are experts in AWE?
      Building an AWE system is a multidisciplinary task. To do so, several kinds of expertise are needed. Besides flight science, aircraft, kite, etc. design, aviation, aerodinamics, physics, energetics, energy storage, chemistry, thermodynamics, meteorology, computer science, electronics, remote control, material science (composite materials, etc.) and several others are needed.

      Have you noticed at all that the cardinal task in AWE is not related to flying, e.g. staying aloft anymore, but rather some other parts of technology? (Just to rib  my friend DougS a bit: "real wind people" are not AWE experts by far...  :-) )

      Gabor Dobos


      On 2014-08-16 08:02, pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy] wrote:
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13877 From: Gabor Dobos Date: 8/16/2014
      Subject: Re: Who are experts in AWE?
      Universities are authorized to declare those  who fulfilled the official requirements to be an electrical or chemical engineer, physicist, etc., Who else has such authority besides universities?


      On 2014-08-16 19:54, Joe Faust joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy] wrote:
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13878 From: Rod Read Date: 8/16/2014
      Subject: Re: Rope laddermill

      Eh, no
      It's Rod
      I was on about ring to ring torque transfer like Daisy in ST mode
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13879 From: dave santos Date: 8/16/2014
      Subject: Re: Who are experts in AWE?
      Joe,

      I offer to be someone on the Forum claiming superior expertise to the one "AWE expert" not on Near Zero's list that nevertheless won a Pierre Certification (MIkeB). Even Wubbo never qualified (even if he qualified for space). Let us not despair; someday you and I may earn our Pierre Certification (not just a Germy) so lets redouble our efforts to master foundational AWE knowledge and practice.

      Gabor is logically excluded from ever again legitimately arguing from his own authority (on the need for multidisciplinary expertise in AWE, for example), nor cite any other "authoritative" sources in support of his theses; but has locked himself away in a prison of formal logic, and swallowed the key ;^)

      daveS


      On Saturday, August 16, 2014 10:59 AM, "Gabor Dobos dobosg001@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13880 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 8/16/2014
      Subject: Re: Who are experts in AWE?

      JoeF,

      I am "surprised" DaveS denigrates AWE experts in NearZero's circle and for you it is not a problem. And I quoted the list of AWE experts in NearZero's circle and it is a problem. Please can you carefully explain it? And please what is your "Pierre certification"? Thanks.

       

      PierreB

       
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13881 From: dave santos Date: 8/16/2014
      Subject: Re: Rope laddermill
      In that case your compressive structural medium is ram-air pressure, and it is far more scalable, since air has neutral bouyancy (and no brittle-failure mode), and its a different set of specific design and operational requirements for aspects like launchability and stability in turbulence.
       


      On Saturday, August 16, 2014 11:23 AM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13882 From: dave santos Date: 8/16/2014
      Subject: Re: Who are experts in AWE?
      Pierre wrote- "DaveS denigrates AWE experts in NearZero's circle" 

      I hold everyone on NearZero's AWE panel in high regard, with the partial temporary exception of Ken Caldeira, in his dual-capacity as a NearZero founder, and his inside role in the censorship JoeF also experienced. Note that I carefully define a NearZero "inner circle" for Pierre, to include Steve Davis, but exclude all us independent AWE panelists (including Joe and me). Pierre can ignore technical censorship by AWEC, MikeB, and NearZero, but its an interesting problem to be aware of.


      On Saturday, August 16, 2014 11:48 AM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13883 From: dave santos Date: 8/16/2014
      Subject: Re: Rope laddermill
      also keep in mind centrifugal forces to tension your torque geometry, which do not require a rotating ring wing with lots of tether drag (your present case), but are best developed by long massy wings (or ribbon-wing with delta-pod mass)

      keep in mind high-mass high-velocity aviation is a tough business to create, so these ideas are farther out; meanwhile the soft-kite low-hanging-fruit is RAD


      On Saturday, August 16, 2014 12:03 PM, "dave santos santos137@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13884 From: benhaiemp Date: 8/16/2014
      Subject: Land/space used (beginning of comparison with TARS)

      Land used by tethered-AWES is an under estimed determined parameter.

      A comparison can be made with Tethered Aerostat Radar System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia : "The mooring systems contain a large winch with 25,000 feet (7,600 m) of tether cable. Operational availability is generally limited only by the weather (60 percent standard) and routine maintenance downtime." and "For security and safety reasons, air space around Air Force aerostat sites is restricted for a radius of at least two to three statute miles and an altitude up to 15,000 feet (4,600 m)." 

      Three statute miles = 4,827 m (please correct me if it is wrong,and the same for other data). "Tethered Aerostats"  :  "When moored to the ground, large aerostats are anchored to a rotating mast so that they can freely weathervane in the wind.", and   Tethered Aerostat Radar System :"The normal operating altitude varies by site, but the norm is approximately 12,000 feet MSL." (12,000 ft = 3,657.6 m) ,ceiling being 4,600 m.

      So when the ballon is in 3,657.6 m in altitude, the angle of tether is 48°; and when the ballon is in 4,600 m in altitude, the angle of tether is 60°. I do not know if there is some rules concerning land used. Perhaps the balloon being above sea, such rules are not required.

      If there is no problem for land used an equivalence can be made with AWES using aerostat like Altaeros, subject to the drag and effects of turbine aloft, and the size of the turbine .

      But in all cases an equivalence cannot be made with crosswind AWES where altitude is far lower (angle of tether + - 30°), so the tether covering a greater area,being closer to the ground, when kite figures add a factor of risk, and when only wing's lift is used.

      In case of autogyro-like the angle of tether is the same (+ - 30°)but there are not risked figures, and stack of unities maximizing the worked space is more possible.

      The huge tractions are also a factor of risk.

      So further investigations in land/airspace used can allow to determine both what schemes and what sites could be chosen.

       

      PierreB

        
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13885 From: Joe Faust Date: 8/16/2014
      Subject: Re: Who are experts in AWE?
      Pierre,
      Things are getting a bit dizzy in this thread.
      1. It seems your are "surpised" about something that is confused.
      DaveS has high regard for most of the AWE workers listed in an
      "expert" list by a set of data researchers. Differently, because of
      deep unfortunate decisions and actions by the data researchers, there
      is foundation for proposing low regard for the decisions and actions.
      Being unscientific, being with crass censorship ... does not win
      positive kudos in the scientific community. NearZero is near zero
      in winning anything on scientific grounds as it fixed the pot before
      the cooking got started to favor unscientifically a desired result.
      For such reason, I have very low regard for the published result and
      the NearZero process on the AWE front. It is a further challenge for
      me to have you rubberstamp such a faulty process. I have suggested
      that there be a "Pierre Certification" recognized; that is, on the
      authority of Pierre, something is to be as said by Pierre; by the
      Pierre Certification the NZ list of "experts" is to be taken as AWE
      experts, even though no other proof of AWE expertise is extant besides
      Pierre rubberstamping an uncertified list. I cannot have such
      authority process be the end story of certification of AWE expertise;
      I am gaming for a more open, transparent process that will include
      justifications on specific merit related to AWE, probably with
      discernment of sector concerns rather than a broad brush that isn't
      backed with careful description and verification. Please consider
      distinguishing between NearZero's (NZ) inner management circle and the
      different group of people who can be simply listed in a list by
      managerial decision.

      2. Gabor, granting a degree and having a degree has a worth of
      declaration of clearing some degree requirements. An EE degree has
      worth. But a community of practicioners very well might reserve
      "electrical-engineering expert" title to a group of people that may or
      may not have a degree and also may be a small proper subset of EE's
      plus some outliers. Similarly for any discipline. Trade schools also
      give certificates of completion, but I am hard-pressed to allow a
      certificate of course completion to stand for "expert" status in a
      trade; something else is needed within the community of practice.
      Further, each person might have one's own sieve for "expert" status
      for one's personal reasons and use. Further, that I might have
      expertise in high jumping does not make me an expert in the broad
      field of high-level nuclear plant engineering. Someone with some
      smarts in climate may have zilch awareness of AWES technical matters
      besides commenting on the wind resource as such; he or she might not
      even have elementary awareness on the full spectrum of how AWES would
      use the resource in detail.
      If I were manager of the expert-granting space in the universe, I
      would urge people to meet each other and appreciate the positive
      assets of people. Authorities have a responsibility to have their
      sieves known, I guess (I would so want). By what criteria is an agent
      declaring a person as "expert" for something? How did the named person
      earn the title from that agent?

      ~ JoeF
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13886 From: dave santos Date: 8/16/2014
      Subject: Re: Land/space used (beginning of comparison with TARS)
      Pierre,

      So these tethered aerostats operate to 4600m, but the emerging FAA/ICAO regulatory framework initially limits us to ~600m, which is plenty for now.

      AWE experts therefore use the FAA derived model of modern antenna farms as our closest airspace similarity case. Keep in mind that NextGen will revolutionize current limitations of the aerostat model, at about the time (2025) AWE perhaps becomes suited to altitudes