Messages in AirborneWindEnergy group.                           AWES14640to14689 Page 188 of 440.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14640 From: dougselsam Date: 9/23/2014
Subject: Re: Micro-Disturbances in AWES Winds

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14641 From: dave santos Date: 9/23/2014
Subject: Re: Micro-Disturbances in AWES Winds

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14642 From: Joe Faust Date: 9/23/2014
Subject: Re: Reconciliations

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14643 From: dave santos Date: 9/23/2014
Subject: Re: AWES Torque Transfer via Tensegrity Tensairity Towers (TTviaTTT)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14644 From: Joe Faust Date: 9/23/2014
Subject: The Technology Behind Unnumbered Sparks

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14645 From: dave santos Date: 9/23/2014
Subject: Re: Who is an AWE Engineer? (The lies of Dave S.)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14646 From: dave santos Date: 9/23/2014
Subject: Re: Does this clutch exist yet

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14647 From: dave santos Date: 9/23/2014
Subject: Re: Reconciliations [1 Attachment]

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14648 From: Rod Read Date: 9/23/2014
Subject: Re: AWES Torque Transfer via Tensegrity Tensairity Towers (TTviaTTT)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14649 From: Joe Faust Date: 9/23/2014
Subject: Re: Reconciliations

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14650 From: Rod Read Date: 9/23/2014
Subject: Re: Does this clutch exist yet

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14651 From: dougselsam Date: 9/23/2014
Subject: Re: Reconciliations [1 Attachment]

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14652 From: dave santos Date: 9/23/2014
Subject: Re: AWES Torque Transfer via Tensegrity Tensairity Towers (TTviaTTT)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14653 From: dougselsam Date: 9/23/2014
Subject: Re: Reconciliations

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14654 From: dave santos Date: 9/23/2014
Subject: Re: Reconciliations

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14655 From: dave santos Date: 9/23/2014
Subject: "...I am Doug Selsam, World's leading wind energy inventor..."

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14656 From: Rod Read Date: 9/23/2014
Subject: Re: AWES Torque Transfer via Tensegrity Tensairity Towers (TTviaTTT)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14657 From: Baptiste Labat Date: 9/23/2014
Subject: Re: Reconciliations

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14658 From: Joe Faust Date: 9/23/2014
Subject: Re: Reconciliations

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14659 From: dave santos Date: 9/23/2014
Subject: NREL's Buried 70MW 5000ft "Cable Wing" Concept

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14660 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/23/2014
Subject: Re: NREL's Buried 70MW 5000ft "Cable Wing" Concept

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14661 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/23/2014
Subject: Re: NREL's Buried 70MW 5000ft "Cable Wing" Concept

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14662 From: dave santos Date: 9/23/2014
Subject: Re: NREL's Buried 70MW 5000ft "Cable Wing" Concept

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14663 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/23/2014
Subject: TWES circa 1982

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14664 From: dave santos Date: 9/23/2014
Subject: Re: TWES circa 1982

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14665 From: Baptiste Labat Date: 9/24/2014
Subject: Re: Reconciliations

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14666 From: Hardensoft International Limited Date: 9/24/2014
Subject: Re: NREL's Buried 70MW 5000ft "Cable Wing" Concept

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14667 From: dave santos Date: 9/24/2014
Subject: Horizontal LadderMill (Arch) Rotation Method

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14668 From: dave santos Date: 9/24/2014
Subject: Glider Tow for AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14669 From: Rod Read Date: 9/24/2014
Subject: Re: Horizontal LadderMill (Arch) Rotation Method

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14670 From: dave santos Date: 9/24/2014
Subject: Re: Horizontal LadderMill (Arch) Rotation Method

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14671 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/24/2014
Subject: Re: Reconciliations

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14672 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/24/2014
Subject: Re: Reconciliations

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14673 From: dave santos Date: 9/24/2014
Subject: Re: Does this clutch exist yet

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14674 From: dave santos Date: 9/24/2014
Subject: Complexity Metrics in AWES Design

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14675 From: dave santos Date: 9/24/2014
Subject: Re: NREL's Buried 70MW 5000ft "Cable Wing" Concept

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14676 From: dougselsam Date: 9/24/2014
Subject: Re: Reconciliations

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14677 From: dougselsam Date: 9/24/2014
Subject: Re: "...I am Doug Selsam, World's leading wind energy inventor..."

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14678 From: Rod Read Date: 9/25/2014
Subject: Re: Does this clutch exist yet

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14679 From: Rod Read Date: 9/25/2014
Subject: Re: Does this clutch exist yet

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14680 From: dougselsam Date: 9/25/2014
Subject: Re: Complexity Metrics in AWES Design

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14681 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/25/2014
Subject: Re: Complexity Metrics in AWES Design

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14682 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/25/2014
Subject: Re: Complexity Metrics in AWES Design

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14683 From: dougselsam Date: 9/25/2014
Subject: Re: Complexity Metrics in AWES Design

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14684 From: dave santos Date: 9/25/2014
Subject: Re: "...I am Doug Selsam, World's leading wind energy inventor..."

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14685 From: dave santos Date: 9/25/2014
Subject: Re: Complexity Metrics in AWES Design

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14686 From: dave santos Date: 9/25/2014
Subject: Re: Reconciliations

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14687 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/25/2014
Subject: Re: Reconciliations

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14688 From: Joe Faust Date: 9/25/2014
Subject: Re: Complexity Metrics in AWES Design

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14689 From: dave santos Date: 9/25/2014
Subject: Re: Reconciliations



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14640 From: dougselsam Date: 9/23/2014
Subject: Re: Micro-Disturbances in AWES Winds
"PILOTS...knowing about turbulence...imagine what they could tell us."
***Hang glider pilots here face more turbulence from noon to 6 PM, due to small-scale thermals.  This is the same time window of max production from our windfarms, due to large-scale thermal effects on atmospheric movement.
Just as a water-skier enjoys glassy water, hang gliders have a more comfortable ride in smooth air, provided they can still find enough lift to remain aloft.  Cumulus clouds = updrafts = turbulence.  Watch out for dust-devils.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14641 From: dave santos Date: 9/23/2014
Subject: Re: Micro-Disturbances in AWES Winds
Its quite true that a fast aircraft can "punch through" turbulence that causes a slow aircraft to be kicked around, but its not so simple.

We are talking about large expensive kiteplanes doing high-performance aerobatics near the surface for several years, that must survive to pay-back. Even without violent turbulence, we are talking about 10G forces at the bottom of the loop  (Makani case) or huge surge forces in crossing the kite-window power-zone (Ampyx case). Even dirty wings and props are enough to degrade critical performance. Makani's rotor vibration levels will be huge. These planes will jerk against their tethers violently (which itself will be full strum-energy). The larger the kiteplane, the more marginal its power-to-weight, and a design safety factor can quickly be overwhelmed by kite surge.

There are no giant aerobatic aircraft yet, much less that can operate reliably for hundreds of hours without inspection and maintenance. One crash, and a total loss results. Breakaway of a high-mass high-velocity kiteplane is most hazardous, as they can range far before crashing violently. Soft kites will be set as arches, with breakaway only resulting in killing the wing on-field. A soft kite crashes and hops right back up. At worst, fabric rips or rope parts and is quickly mended in the field. Soft kites can be changed for "storm sail" versions for winter use, and floaty summer versions, to better match conditions. The kiteplane school is "one size fits all". The FAA is going to allow soft kites earlier airworthiness certification, owing to superior conspicuity, and reduced mass-velocity hazard.

Roddy asks for pilot experience regarding turbulence. My father was a pioneer tornado chaser in P-51 Mustangs over the US MidWest (the first to ever photograph the radar hook-signature of a tornado), and I grew up flying beside him, in all kinds conditions. We have flown near hurricanes (very eerie) and many storms, and once experienced such extreme lee-wave turbulence from the Rocky Mountains (over Denver) that we issued a warning to ATC, and never again fully trusted the Cessna airframe involved. An AWES must operate with inhuman endurance in a wild sky, and peak-load surge events will happen sooner or later. The radical Martian Micro-Disturbance data will be found to be characteristic of conditions Earth common on Earth, and experienced sailors and pilots will not be surprised.


On Tuesday, September 23, 2014 5:46 AM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14642 From: Joe Faust Date: 9/23/2014
Subject: Re: Reconciliations
Attachments :

    ​Assume the hung systems hang from an extant tower
    at 100 ft AGL on earth.

    		   @@attachment@@
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14643 From: dave santos Date: 9/23/2014
    Subject: Re: AWES Torque Transfer via Tensegrity Tensairity Towers (TTviaTTT)
    Rod,

    I wish it were true that nobody needs to explore AWE's losing ideas, to put them to rest; and am in favor of recognizing those who do so by honest effort.

    As for the other comments you quote, I think they will hold up in simulation and testing, even if they suffer a bit as a pastiche.

    They are not "useless" to me. They even served your rhetorical purpose, in your own eyes.

    Lets see how torque fares in the real world then,

    daveS


    On Tuesday, September 23, 2014 1:48 AM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14644 From: Joe Faust Date: 9/23/2014
    Subject: The Technology Behind Unnumbered Sparks
    Enjoy (Rod leading)

    The Technology Behind Unnumbered Sparks


    [[tag: kite system aerotecture, shade control, sky art, AWES visuals, communications, art,]]
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14645 From: dave santos Date: 9/23/2014
    Subject: Re: Who is an AWE Engineer? (The lies of Dave S.)
    Doug,

    There was no three-dot ellipsis within the original search string cited. Your use of ellipsis outside the quote is not grammatical (see Wikipedia link below). Your quotes have been "cooked" again and again.

    The complaint still stands; that you mangle quotes to suit your biases. Especially if you propose to expose a "liar", you need to be very honest yourself, and present evidence "uncooked",

    daveS

    Ellipsis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
     


    On Tuesday, September 23, 2014 10:23 AM, "dougselsam@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14646 From: dave santos Date: 9/23/2014
    Subject: Re: Does this clutch exist yet
    Rod,

    You should be able to operate a clutch control input by tension, using a spring to hold the clutch control in open position until tension cancels the spring force...


    daveS


    On Tuesday, September 23, 2014 6:46 AM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14647 From: dave santos Date: 9/23/2014
    Subject: Re: Reconciliations [1 Attachment]
    Thank You, Baptiste, for finding for me the passage where Doug invoked parachutes in his argument (that my mail search failed to find). I really appreciate your help to correct errors made on all sides of this question.

    In the parachute case, Doug's logic was badly confused, in overlooking that a larger parachute weighs more than a small, therefore his assertion can be disproved for all parachutes above a certain dimensionless mass in proportion to the ballast mass-

    Doug: "There is no fact more basic to aviation. A small parachute falls faster than a large one, for example. It takes less energy to keep a large parachute aloft carrying the same weight as a small parachute."
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14648 From: Rod Read Date: 9/23/2014
    Subject: Re: AWES Torque Transfer via Tensegrity Tensairity Towers (TTviaTTT)
    There's nothing surer to loose favour than comparing a Lewis man to a fu(k1n  FL055Y  B45T4RD SH33P

    Rod Read

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

    07899057227
    01851 870878
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14649 From: Joe Faust Date: 9/23/2014
    Subject: Re: Reconciliations
    Have two parachutes P1 and P2. Have P1  have a projected area of 1 sq meter.  Have P2 have a projected area of 2 sq meter.  Have P1 have a mass of 2 kg and have P2 have a mass of 2 kg; achieve the projected area differences by choice of textile involved.  Have P1 and P2 be non-gliders with L/D averaging 0.  Have ballast mass be tight sphere of solid lead hung beneath each P1 and P2.  Each system has total flight mass of 3 kg.  Let the P1 and P2  be dropped in ideal still air from 300 m AGL with ground at sea level at the equator of earth with air at 80 deg F at 30 m AGL; assume for simplicity no temperature gradient from 300 m AGL to ground level. Note that P2 lags behind P1.  P1 ballast touches ground first. Note that P2 being larger than P1 did not necessarily mean that P2 had to be of greater mass than P1; indeed in this play the larger P2 has same mass as P1.  It takes P1 less time to reach the ground than P2; P2 takes more time than P1. Respecting the two different durations: P1 worked on the air for less time than P2.  The initial potential energy of both systems at 300 m AGL was the same; at reaching the ground, the 0 potential energy likewise was shared by both systems. The flights both used up the same amount of potential energy.  Momentum at impact of the two lead sphere would differ between the two, as sink rates would be different. The final impact velocity of the sphere in P1 system would be greater than the final impact velocity of the sphere in P2 system; likewise kinetic energy at impact would differ; again the faster moving P1's sphere would have the greater kinetic energy at impact.    What to say about the amount of work done on the air by the two flights; recall that work is not time dependent?  
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14650 From: Rod Read Date: 9/23/2014
    Subject: Re: Does this clutch exist yet
    Yeah... but this is tension from the spinning input shaft...
    So we could monitor that tension force and have it trigger an active clutch (electromagnetic, hydraulic, air...)
    But to use a standard clutch we need to connect the tension of the input shaft to the clutch release lever ... this would need thrust bearings in the axial force direction and circular running linkage directly to the lever...
    It seems really weird that there's no cone type where coupling is inhibited by a sprung bearing race... there must be something like this somewhere.

    Rod Read

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

    07899057227
    01851 870878
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14651 From: dougselsam Date: 9/23/2014
    Subject: Re: Reconciliations [1 Attachment]
    "Doug's logic was badly confused... A small parachute falls faster than a large one...carrying the same weight..." *** R U SURE you want to argue with such an obvious fact?  It is pretty apparent who is "badly confused" here.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14652 From: dave santos Date: 9/23/2014
    Subject: Re: AWES Torque Transfer via Tensegrity Tensairity Towers (TTviaTTT)
    Its up to you to bravely test torque methods for all of us, and I support career compensation for that role (Doug included). You need not be a "sacrificial lamb", but pull out if torque fails to advance in scaling, as predicted. Sacrificial lamb status is merely "sheep's-clothing" for you to remove as facts warrant, its a hypothetical fate. You are already (AllRoddy in Texas) the Scot Wolf of AWE, I say  (In Texas its a compliment to be the "black sheep" or "mighty as a ram", if you want to know where all the "lost-favour" goes :)


    On Tuesday, September 23, 2014 12:10 PM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14653 From: dougselsam Date: 9/23/2014
    Subject: Re: Reconciliations
    P2 requires less power to stay loft, therefore it stays aloft longer.  If one placed both P1 and P2 into the same updraft, it would take less updraft (power) to keep p2 aloft.  More surface area allows less power to keep 1 kg aloft.  Or 2 kg.  Or 3.
    Hey, are you guys serious that you're having trouble understanding that power to remain aloft varies inversely with surface area, for the same weight?  Why the heck do you think the parachute was invented?  How the heck do you think it works anyway, if not by increasing surface area to slow descent?

    OMG this conversation seems so lame to me - like if someone doesn't understand THIS, what COULD they understand?  Especially if they fancy themselves an aviation expert, a hang-glider expert, a kite-expert, or, God forbid, an "engineer" (still learning about making units match on both sides of an equation).

    Sheesh!  Talk about "back to basics" or "remedial education"!
    It almost seems impossible to me that there are people willing to HAVE such a conversation - it makes no sense!  NOBODY is this dumb.  I don't care if they are a babbling, highly-medicated inmate of an insane asylum, ANYBODY knows a parachute slows a fall, and can extrapolate that a bigger one slows it more for the same weight.

    And now, for the terminally confused, what weighs more, a pound of iron or a pound of feathers?
    :O............................................................................................................
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14654 From: dave santos Date: 9/23/2014
    Subject: Re: Reconciliations
    Doug,

    You overlook that a larger parachute, in the real world, weighs more than a small one. To get your unrealistic result, you have to ignore the higher mass of the larger parachute, even as you insist "same weight" of the payload. Another problem with your example is that a parachute has its own special dynamics. It needs enough payload-ballast to fall stably, or it flips and collapses, in the real world.

    Notice how you have defined your weightless parachute idea as being somehow "basic to aviation", 

    daveS


    On Tuesday, September 23, 2014 12:31 PM, "dougselsam@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14655 From: dave santos Date: 9/23/2014
    Subject: "...I am Doug Selsam, World's leading wind energy inventor..."
    The proposed standard for who is an AWE "working engineer" is quite reasonable compared to Doug's absurd claims of personal greatness.  Lets stick with reasonable standards.

    From Picken's Plan Website, Doug, in his own words-

    Tell us about your experience with alternative energy:
    I am the world's leading wind energy inventor, with more types of wind turbine patented than anyone in the world. I am best known for multi-rotor wind turbines. My research is funded by The California Energy Commission. I sell the most powerful wind turbine in the 1 kW class, The SuperTwin, which is the most economical choice in its class.
    http://www.DUALROTOR.com
    What excites you about this campaign?
    Somebody is doing something about it
    I am also doing something about it.
    Me and Pickens combined can do it.
    I am Doug Selsam, World's leading wind energy inventor.
    Just ask NREL or ask Paul Gipe, world's leading wind energy author, who can fly any turbine he wants, and he currently flies a SuperTwin.
    What do you want to do to help?
    My wind turbines capture 10 times the energy per unit mass...
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14656 From: Rod Read Date: 9/23/2014
    Subject: Re: AWES Torque Transfer via Tensegrity Tensairity Towers (TTviaTTT)
    I said Don't ...

    This is a technology which enables scaling of other components...
    Can the steps stay small? With enough lift tension yes
    Can we maybe consider doing away with a massively wide control for our lift arch idea? OOOOH
    Well with a ladder from a PTO post going to a spinner... imagine steering control arm spars able to rotate around the post
    Now that we have a ladder these arms don't have to be so wide if we want the stability advantages of an arch kite... Say Again Rod?
    OK
    Now that we have a ladder these arms don't have to be so wide if we want the stability advantages of an arch kite... How so Rod?
    Well use this sorta kite as the arch lift line provider (check out the video... it's a single line with just 2 lines linked on a bar to the back corner steering)
    Sits really solidly (could be more lift oriented right enough)
    Anyways where was I ?... oh yeah , control arms across wind from the ground PTO turret now have a more viable angle to control the lifter from without interfering with the spin set because of the ladder... Which means only 1 post in the ground, stable lift, and a connected spinner transferring torque to ground...

    Because of the large drag on the main line it runs below the steering lines which can be shorter and less tense.

    Ladders have an advantage over continuing using hoops lower down (or balloons as suggested ha ha ha ) in that there is less line drag.

    cc4.0 nc by sa

    Rod Read

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

    07899057227
    01851 870878
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14657 From: Baptiste Labat Date: 9/23/2014
    Subject: Re: Reconciliations
    To answer Joe question : the work will be the same, as it will be the product of the distance by the weight, which are the same in the two cases.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14658 From: Joe Faust Date: 9/23/2014
    Subject: Re: Reconciliations
    ​Baptiste, did you answer a different question that I did not ask?  My question was about "work done on the air" ​ while I think you are facing the work done by the falling masses of the two systems, which I agree with you about.   But what about the air molecules that are moved distances during the fall flight event? Those air molecules are displaced by forces because of the falling flight event.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14659 From: dave santos Date: 9/23/2014
    Subject: NREL's Buried 70MW 5000ft "Cable Wing" Concept

    The Plot thickens. Payne, a true hero of AWE, came up with a 70MW unit WECS, based on a 5000ft "cablewing", which is presented interestingly, but then casually dismissed, in the NREL paper link below that Joe found (page 8-9).

    Payne's own NREL paper is missing online; and unless Joe has a hidden link in his trove, we will have to raid NREL's dusty archives for SERI/TR-0-9173-1

    If Payne was onto AWE, a bonafide US government conspiracy stopped any action on the ideas, which is great for the AWE Movie script CC 4.0


    Oscillating Wind Energy 
    Conversion Systems 
    Peter South 
    Richard Mitchell 
    December 1983
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14660 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/23/2014
    Subject: Re: NREL's Buried 70MW 5000ft "Cable Wing" Concept
    Possibly related search paths:  (see the authors citing the primary article)
    Wingmill: An Oscillating-Wing Windmill (AIAA)

     
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14661 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/23/2014
    Subject: Re: NREL's Buried 70MW 5000ft "Cable Wing" Concept
    One of Peter R. Payne's oscillating element patents has been cited by: 

    REFERENCED BY
    Citing PatentFiling datePublication dateApplicantTitle
    US4184805 *Mar 9, 1978Jan 22, 1980Lee ArnoldFluid energy converting method and apparatus
    US4347036 *Nov 16, 1979Aug 31, 1982Lee ArnoldFluid energy converting method and apparatus
    US4348594 *Jul 14, 1980Sep 7, 1982Lipfert Donald EWind power generator
    US4354803 *Jan 9, 1978Oct 19, 1982Korionoff Jr Victor SSail power device
    US4524283 *Jun 16, 1983Jun 18, 1985Innovex OyEnergy converter
    US4561826 *Mar 10, 1983Dec 31, 1985Taylor Derek AVertical axis wind turbines
    US4730119 *Sep 24, 1986Mar 8, 1988Biscomb Lloyd ISail-driven wind motor
    US5275643 *Jan 25, 1993Jan 4, 1994Yoshio UsuiFog water collecting device
    US5324169 *Apr 9, 1993Jun 28, 1994Brown George LOscillating, lateral thrust power generator
    US6153944 *Nov 9, 1999Nov 28, 2000Clark; Robert O.Apparatus for generating electricity from flowing fluids
    US6273680 *Sep 19, 1997Aug 14, 2001Lee ArnoldExtraction of energy from flowing fluids
    US7493759Nov 10, 2005Feb 24, 2009The Regents Of The University Of MichiganFluid motion energy converter
    US7573143Dec 1, 2006Aug 11, 2009Humdinger Wind Energy, LlcGenerator utilizing fluid-induced oscillations
    US7626281 *Oct 19, 2005Dec 1, 2009Kyoto UniversityEnergy converter, flag type energy converter
    US7686583Jul 10, 2006Mar 30, 2010Siegel Aerodynamics, Inc.Cyclical wave energy converter
    US7762776 *Mar 14, 2006Jul 27, 2010Siegel Aerodynamics, Inc.Vortex shedding cyclical propeller
    US7772712Sep 4, 2007Aug 10, 2010Humdinger Wind Energy, LlcFluid-induced energy converter with curved parts
    US7781653Aug 30, 2008Aug 24, 2010Matthew Damon ReynoldsStringed instrument using flowing liquid
    US7821144Jul 20, 2009Oct 26, 2010Humdinger Wind Energy, LlcGenerator utilizing fluid-induced oscillations
    US7986051Sep 4, 2007Jul 26, 2011Humdinger Wind Enery LLCEnergy converters utilizing fluid-induced oscillations
    US8026619Feb 17, 2010Sep 27, 2011Humdinger Wind Energy, LlcGenerator utilizing fluid-induced oscillations
    US8100650Feb 23, 2010Jan 24, 2012Atargis Energy CorporationCyclical wave energy converter
    US8206106Nov 15, 2007Jun 26, 2012Windflo, LlcOscillating windmill
    US8302365Feb 25, 2010Nov 6, 2012Gee Anthony FPartially self-erecting wind turbine tower
    US8432049 *Jul 15, 2010Apr 30, 2013Sukho JUNGElectrical generator
    US8469663 *Jun 1, 2006Jun 25, 2013Reshydro LlcTransfer of kinetic energy to and from fluids
    US8539746 *Jan 20, 2010Sep 24, 2013Kite Gen Research S.R.L.Tether for tropospheric aeolian generator
    US8657575Aug 23, 2007Feb 25, 2014David C. MorrisOscillating fluid power generator
    US8684040May 22, 2008Apr 1, 2014The Regents Of The University Of MichiganReduction of vortex induced forces and motion through surface roughness control
    US20110088382 *Apr 3, 2009Apr 21, 2011Winfoor AbDevice and method for converting wind energy
    US20120013130 *Jul 15, 2010Jan 19, 2012Jung SukhoElectrical generator
    US20120034079 *Aug 24, 2011Feb 9, 2012Pterofin, Inc.Harnessing Flowing Fluids to Create Torque
    US20120036821 *Jan 20, 2010Feb 16, 2012Massimo IppolitoTether for tropospheric aeolian generator
    DE102009013161A1Mar 16, 2009Sep 23, 2010Hansbernd BerzheimHub-airfoil system e.g. video system and camera system, for controlling e.g. wind energy, in wind turbine, has energy convertors and energy storing device arranged under base of base body in closed housing
    EP1812709A2 *Nov 11, 2005Aug 1, 2007The Regents Of The University Of MichiganFluid motion energy converter
    WO1981001867A1 *Dec 28, 1979Jul 9, 1981L ArnoldFluid energy converting method and apparatus
    WO1982000321A1 *Jul 13, 1981Feb 4, 1982D LipfertWind power generator
    WO1998012433A1Sep 19, 1997Mar 26, 1998Lee ArnoldExtraction of energy from flowing fluids
    WO2009041819A2 *Sep 29, 2008Apr 2, 2009TencaDevice for generating power from wind flow or water flow
    WO2010053499A1 *Jul 22, 2009May 14, 2010David LabrecqueRotating flexible wing power system
    WO2011017594A1 *Aug 6, 2010Feb 10, 2011Newwindtech. LlcHydrostatic linear wind mill for wind energy harnessing applications
    WO2013106610A1 *Jan 11, 2013Jul 18, 2013Richard NeifeldFluid flow energy converter
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14662 From: dave santos Date: 9/23/2014
    Subject: Re: NREL's Buried 70MW 5000ft "Cable Wing" Concept

    Joe's reference list led to an apparently invalid flipwing patent (2013). This is KiteLab Prior Art (incl. same shape and proportions), with the root to this concept space being the traditional composite kite-hummer. Open AWE got here first and does it better-


    https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pdfs/US20140077501.pdf
     


    On Tuesday, September 23, 2014 6:11 PM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14663 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/23/2014
    Subject: TWES circa 1982

    Technical and Economical. Assessment on Tethered. Wind Energy Systems (TWES). A Subcontract Report. 0. Furuya. S. Maekawa. Tetra Tech., Inc. ... This report summarizes the work performed by Tetra Tech, Inc., for SERI under subcontract  


    http://wind.nrel.gov/public/library/twes.pdf
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14664 From: dave santos Date: 9/23/2014
    Subject: Re: TWES circa 1982
    Depending on who you ask, AWE is stuck in a time loop with no progress, or AWE really is advancing with each generation. 

    Its important to remember that the future has arrived, and our materials and controls have advanced greatly. We have new and better ideas and share them instantly all over the world. We have power kites even, the sport of bums and billionaires, and the money is flowing.

    The time-loop effect is more just an illusion, not a prison, as we break free on new wings...


    On Tuesday, September 23, 2014 6:59 PM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14665 From: Baptiste Labat Date: 9/24/2014
    Subject: Re: Reconciliations
    I agree I did not answer the question. So starting again

    The work of the weight will be the same, as it will be the product of the distance by the weight, which are the same in the two cases.

    Numerical application
    g=10m/s2
    H = 300m
    m = 3kg

    W = 9000J
    One can note this was as well the initial potential energy.

    If we now consider the whole system air + parachute + ground, the energy is conserved
    Ei = Ef

    If you consider the initial speed was zero, and that the kinetic energy is absorbed by the ground, the energy transmitted to the air is the initial potential energy  minus the kinetic energy.


    Epi = Ecf_parachute + Ef_air

    We have Ec=1/2m*V*V=m*m*g/(rho*S*Cd)

    Numerical application
    If we assume a drag coefficient of CD=1 and rho=1
    Ec1 = 90J
    Ec2 = 45J
    Note that
    V1 = 8m/s
    V2 = 5.5m/s

    So most of the energy was transfered to the air, and my first incorrect answer was not so far...

    W1=W2=9kJ (approx)

    Does it seem right?
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14666 From: Hardensoft International Limited Date: 9/24/2014
    Subject: Re: NREL's Buried 70MW 5000ft "Cable Wing" Concept
    "CAVEAT EMPTOR"
    JohnO
    AWEIA
     
    John Adeoye  Oyebanji   B.Sc. MCPN
    Managing Consultant & CEO
    Hardensoft International Limited
    <Technologies
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14667 From: dave santos Date: 9/24/2014
    Subject: Horizontal LadderMill (Arch) Rotation Method

    On the AWES Forum, we identified a LadderMill Variant where a horizontal ladder of kites works sideways across the wind, as an arch. This is potentially a very powerful improvement, since both sides of the loop act crosswind, but the obvious new challenge is how to rotate a LadderMill Arch to maintain crosswind function.

    We know a few methods to belay around an anchor circle or use tracks of some kind. Two new methods are suggested here-

    -Radial-Line Dome Rotation- A circle of radial lines meeting at a center airborne hub could allow mobile kite units to "shift-tracks", to move to those lines that are crosswind, while the other radial lines are left idle.

    -Inchworm Rotation- One side of the arch at a time could detach and fly to a new anchor point, like an inchworm. Two arches could operate from a common center groundgen and inchworm around. Upwind inchworming is feasible by kiteplanes fast enough to glide to windward.

    CC 4.x BY NC SA

    Notes:

    -kPower has validated Hadzicki's idea of towing a cableway crosswind by kite (with up to a 32m2 NPW).

    -AlexB envisioned a towed laddermill for transport around 2000, which he also saw could be driven by wind, so he is a probable inventor of the LadderMill Arch.

    Patent Drawing
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14668 From: dave santos Date: 9/24/2014
    Subject: Glider Tow for AWE

    In conventional glider towing, a winch or powered aircraft does the towing. An AWES kite glider, on the other hand, is expected to tow a load (IFO excepted) and and perhaps also be towed for launch. A typical glider has a tow-point in its nose, and can fly high-tow or low-tow relative to the tow craft. Low and high tow-points also exist in some gliding cases, for better high- or low-tow. An AWES glider has its tow-point on its belly, corresponding to the Bridle-Point of a kite (ie. as Aympx does, and winch- or bungee-launched model gliders).

    There are flight-mode sequences where it would be useful for the tow-point to shift, and shifting the bridle-point covers some of these. A more novel approach would be for the tow-point to roam over the airfame on a track or a slip-ring, both lengthwise, and spanwise. Tracks and bridle-shifting might be used together. Pulley bridles could balance tension just as Lazyjacks do on a sailboat. A symmetric-airfoil kite-glider also opens up novel flight-modes. These techniques, singly or combined, could allow a kite glider to operate equally well gliding or towing or towed, high or low, either inverted or not. This is the sort of kiteplane that might be ideal for SpiderMill or LadderMill Arch duty.

    CC 4.x BY NC SA

    https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aircraft/glider_handbook/media/gfh_ch07.pdf
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14669 From: Rod Read Date: 9/24/2014
    Subject: Re: Horizontal LadderMill (Arch) Rotation Method
    Not sure I understand that description. Any chance it could be explained to those who may have an understanding deficit?

    Double sided single skins on twin lines are cc4.0 by nc sa too I think

    Rod Read

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

    07899057227
    01851 870878
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14670 From: dave santos Date: 9/24/2014
    Subject: Re: Horizontal LadderMill (Arch) Rotation Method
    Two comparable land-based methods would be a radial star of tracks (radial cableways in the original kite-dome) with a station in the center, and a track that can rotate from at least one end ("inchworm" belay).


    On Wednesday, September 24, 2014 11:20 AM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14671 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/24/2014
    Subject: Re: Reconciliations
    Thank you, Baptiste. 
    For clarity some minor typos and some notes over your good reply might be helpful to students and readers visiting this thread and estimate.   
    1. I recommend that a parentheses be placed around the "1/2"  to guard against getting numerators mixed with denominators.  Thus getting:    (1/2)m*V*V for the kinetic energy Ec.   Here m :: mass.   Or go to the decimal style:   0.5mVV       Or   0.5mV2   ,   or  0.5mV^2         
    2. Epi  :: Initial potential energy
    3. Ei  :: initial energy 
    4. Ef  :: final energy
    5. Ecf_parachute :: Final kinetic energy of parachute
    6.Parachute :: canopy with ballast as an integrated unity
    7. Dimensions of the density of air or rho  is kg/(meters cubed). Assume this to be 1 kg/(cubic meter) which is off some from the scene, but fine for exampling the calculations.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density_of_air
    8. Caution:  Unit analysis  sometimes uses "m" for meters; so keep this distinction in our use of "m" for mass in the kinetic energy formula. 
    9. The "S" used in the Baptiste post is the projected area of the parachute in focus. The units are square meters. P1 has area of 1 m.   P2 has area of 2 m. 
    10. The stated "8 m/s" for the terminal velocity of the parachute P1 seems to be a rounding-off figure for square root of 60. Such rounding would normally match the style for both parachutes. So, to match the 5.5 m/s for parachute two P2, then P1 might be stated as rounded to 7.7 m/s.   Choices. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_velocity   (A for area is S in the Baptiste post)  We are using Velocity terminal for the P1 and P2 as 

    Mathematically, terminal velocity—without considering buoyancy effects—is given by

    V_t= \sqrt{\frac{2mg}{\rho A C_d }}

    where

      The units balance to meters/second for the terminal velocity; check such to gain confidence.

    When squaring the velocity, see the easy dropping of the square root operator. 


     11. The Cd or coefficient of drag in our scene has no units.  Baptiste probably wrote once CD while probably meaning the Cd as used in same discussion post.   Cd would be preferred.    

    12. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_coefficient

    13. While estimating we assume the round figure for the acceleration due to gravity as 10 m/s2  or 10 m/s^2 depending on the style of notation one is using for exponents.  Here m is for meters, not mass.  

    14. "rho" is spelling out of the name of the single Greek symbol for the density of the air in our present discussion. 


    15. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy    Baptiste exercised the conservation of energy to derive just what energy was imparted to the assumed still air. 


    16. We have assumed no gradient in the air for temperature or density of air or gravity. The assumption for such parameters was that they were constant.  This assumption is slightly off from what is actual in the environment.   We have assumed that the ballast and canopy are initially open and operate as as a point mass for the impact on the ground that gives us the approximate velocity. In actual refinement, temperature of air changes, air is not perfectly still, density of air changes with altitude, and the acceleration due to gravity is variable by altitude. Other fine assumptions are not noted. 


     

     
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14672 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/24/2014
    Subject: Re: Reconciliations
    Correction on line item "9." The units of area for the P1 and P2 are to be corrected to
    "square meters." Thanks. or m2 or m^2

    ~ JoeF
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14673 From: dave santos Date: 9/24/2014
    Subject: Re: Does this clutch exist yet
    How about a centrifugal clutch on the rotor-side? Once the rotor torque ladder tensions and then begins to spin, only then the clutch engages to the load. Centrifugal clutches are common, but the tensile-swivel mode is the unusual bit. If nothing else, centrifugal feed-back might work for some low-tech version, like a spring-balanced lever-mass to engage the clutch.

    Also, an elastic link at a swivel might engage a locking pin or clutch plate surface when tensioned.


    On Tuesday, September 23, 2014 12:30 PM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14674 From: dave santos Date: 9/24/2014
    Subject: Complexity Metrics in AWES Design
    Mechanical complexity of engineered systems is a broad subject, with direct impacts on performance and economics. Is the engineering complexity of contending AWES architectures predictive? Its long been proposed here that Low-Complexity AWE has the early market window, and can dominate from there; and that High-Complexity will belatedly be layered on the original KIS foundation. 

    Let Material Complexity be taken as the number of distinct materials in a device. In AWES design we see a broad spectrum of numbers. Low-Complexity AWE can be done aloft with ONE type of fiber for "rag and string" as TWO basic parts (!). High-Complexity AWE invokes a long list of ordinary and exotic materials in many unique parts, as suggested by preliminary cost analysis of E-VTOL AWE (TWES) that SERI published thirty years ago.

    Let Morphological Complexity be defined as the complexity of shape and interacting parts. Again taking a Low-Complexity kite, easily of simple geometry- delta, square, circle, etc., and a low parts-count complexity; rag and string at a minimum, with bits of spar and hardware, just as most AWE ventures are betting; then noting the thousands of parts, many unique and exotic, that Makani will require for its M600. Morphological complexity includes software complexity as well. One can object that a human pilot trumps all other complexities, but the FAA requires us all to have pilots for now, whether or not we use their brains for nominal operations.

    A scientific paradox is that simple means can make complex agents, by applied embodied cognition and morphological computing theory. We see in the classic kite a fully autonomous flying robot able to operate in a complex environment, whose wonderful cybernetic principles are poorly known. AWE is a cutting edge intelligent systems playground. Here is a sample of embodied-cognition and morphological-computing studies that have emerged steadily in Robotics, since Braitenburg at least, with a paradoxical finding consistent with our primitive kite-agent model, and suggesting a KIS edge-


    http://infoscience.epfl.ch/record/191280/files/auerbach_bongard_alife_2012.pdf
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14675 From: dave santos Date: 9/24/2014
    Subject: Re: NREL's Buried 70MW 5000ft "Cable Wing" Concept
    As far as Payne's 70MW wing goes, I "buy" it, given that UHMPE has come of age, and Graphene is not far behind. We can even today easily build giant cablewings 1/10 of the old mass assumption. Payne's mega-flapping is worth testing against all contenders, and let the results speak.

    It helps to see that tacking sails really are flapping, but at a slower frequency than common flapping, which we experience qualatatively as tacking. 

    A nice cable-wing design path is an arch of stable nodes and tacking anti-nodes, as a multi-celled sub-harmonic array, as suggested by Mothra observations of latent harmonics. CC 4.x BY NC SA  

    --------------------------

    Note that "cablewing" has precedence over "flipwing", as preferred generic usage, and flipwing will properly reference KiteLab lineages.

    JohnO- I heartily agree if the "caveat" here is not to spend one's savings buying wind patents, given so much prior art, daveS


    On Wednesday, September 24, 2014 5:46 AM, "Hardensoft International Limited hardensoftintl@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14676 From: dougselsam Date: 9/24/2014
    Subject: Re: Reconciliations
    The work is the same for both parachutes, but the p2, the larger chute, falls slower, (stays up longer) thereby using less energy per unit time, and energy per unit time is power.  So p2, being larger for the same weight, uses less power to stay aloft.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14677 From: dougselsam Date: 9/24/2014
    Subject: Re: "...I am Doug Selsam, World's leading wind energy inventor..."
    Thanks Dave S..I had forgotten how great I was!  Whenever I'm feeling down, I will just ask you to find me a more encouraging outlook.  This is good stuff.  Thanks for finding it!  :)
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14678 From: Rod Read Date: 9/25/2014
    Subject: Re: Does this clutch exist yet
    Centrifugal clutch wont do. I'm trying to avoid spinning kites being resisted until there is enough tension in the lift line..
    It's not normal... and after loads of searching seemingly nobody does it.

    easy to make a clutch that engages on tensioned shaft though cc4.0 nc by sa

    Anyway... i don't want one now    doh moment...
    I don't even need one as the motor gen I'm planning on using can be set to only resist or brake give certain conditions.

    I was mixing up my configurations... sorry... the plan for the spaced ladder prototype is a spinning central lift line...
    This avoids each step needing a bearing.
    So that lift line goes to the wheel NOT the axle as I was imagining. (it's right on the axis mostly... just not at the wheel.)
    If it was on the axle no power would be made and the operator would be spun..oooooops sorry.

    The chat of a clutch has mixed me up. A clutch is not necessary but if we do want one here...
    The kite ring or connection wheel is fixed or sliding on clutch input shaft
    The sliding motion or elastic movement of centre line near wheel actuates the clutch.
    simple.

    Apologies for time wasting

    Rod Read

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

    07899057227
    01851 870878
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14679 From: Rod Read Date: 9/25/2014
    Subject: Re: Does this clutch exist yet
    Fixing the kite ring tether wheel to a sprung splined shaft ... this shaft as input to clutch.
    As the wheel moves away from clutch it engages the clutch lever... oh bloody simples doh


    Rod Read

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

    07899057227
    01851 870878
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14680 From: dougselsam Date: 9/25/2014
    Subject: Re: Complexity Metrics in AWES Design
    You sound like a super-advanced genius.  So many big words.  With all that supposed brainpower, how come you don't make any electrical power?  :)
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14681 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/25/2014
    Subject: Re: Complexity Metrics in AWES Design
    Doug, from from posts in which you have been involved. 
    you were formerly reminded that DaveS has generated 
    electricity using kite systems, even for use to drive practical
    loads; he has been multiply published for such actions. 
    Yet during his experiments and testing, he frequently uses
    PTO using energy formats other than electricity 
    with the knowledge that the same flight systems could
    drive electric generators upon choice. Economy within the 
    experimental and developmental phases may lead to such
    habits. 
    ~ JoeF
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14682 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/25/2014
    Subject: Re: Complexity Metrics in AWES Design
    "from from" to be replaced by "from former"
    ... Thanks.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14683 From: dougselsam Date: 9/25/2014
    Subject: Re: Complexity Metrics in AWES Design
    "Doug,...DaveS ...could drive electric generators upon choice. ..~ JoeF"
    ***Nice Joe.  Lots of big words is no excuse for stagnation and zero results.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14684 From: dave santos Date: 9/25/2014
    Subject: Re: "...I am Doug Selsam, World's leading wind energy inventor..."
    You are welcome then, but be aware that such unmatched public self-claiming seems very unsupported and delusional, especially in the context of an ongoing lack of progress, and negative emotional attacks on almost all leading names in AWE, with extraordinary crudeness. That is your actual legacy status in wind R&D, unless you come up with something better. "Just ask Gipe or NREL."


    On Wednesday, September 24, 2014 10:14 PM, "dougselsam@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14685 From: dave santos Date: 9/25/2014
    Subject: Re: Complexity Metrics in AWES Design
    Doug,

    Joe is right, making electricity with wind is what we do, as a community, and you only need be professionally informed and patient to track the scaling progress. Keep in mind our engineering prototypes tend to cost a dollar or more per watt in hardware, but must constantly give way to the next design. If we work small, we work faster conceptually, and outsider ridicule is not a factor.

    The "big words" come from robotics and AI; fields some of us have long been active in, and seek to integrate into AWE, as well as AE "big words". We would use shorter words for you, but in many case they do not exist. You have to do the homework.

    Many fine workers in AWE share advanced qualities and interests. If you can only piss on such others, its not our fault,

    daveS


    On Thursday, September 25, 2014 9:35 AM, "dougselsam@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14686 From: dave santos Date: 9/25/2014
    Subject: Re: Reconciliations
    Doug is mistaken that a larger parachute is the "same weight" as a smaller (nor "massless" either).

    Such false engineering assumptions emerge from carelessly overlooking key real world constraints.


    On Wednesday, September 24, 2014 10:08 PM, "dougselsam@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14687 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/25/2014
    Subject: Re: Reconciliations

    DaveS, in common practical construction of parachutes, there is a tendency to have larger parachutes weigh more than small parachutes. However, it is possible to have a 2 m2 parachute of same mass as a 1 m2 parachute by careful use of materials.  Such possibility let me use a simplification in a question within this topic thread: 

    For a special case, JoeF in post https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/AirborneWindEnergy/conversations/topics/14613
    "Have P1 have a mass of 2 kg and have P2 have a mass of 2 kg; achieve the projected area differences by choice of textile involved."
    Doug might have in the thread appropriately worked with this premise.  Indeed, in real materials, it is possible to have a larger parachute of same mass as a smaller parachute by judicious choice of lines and textile; this is no encouragement to continue such stretch to extremes; but for the limited example, some simplification is made by having the two P1 and P2 be of same mass, but different projected area. 
    ~ JoeF

    ---In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, <santos137@yahoo.com
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14688 From: Joe Faust Date: 9/25/2014
    Subject: Re: Complexity Metrics in AWES Design
    DougS, for professional discourse: when given evidence of positive results, 
    what good comes from persisting in following with untenable statement of "zero result." ?
    When a colleague has shown positive practical results, then the "zero" insistence would 
    seem to be a destructive exclamation.    
         And the similar matter where you follow with "stagnation" even in the face of DaveS'
    open-source sharing of progress that is evidently the antithesis of "stagnation."  I trust
    you are making some effort to keep in mind the continual reports of progress that DaveS
    shares in the public arena.  
         The nomenclature of the robotics realm is embedded in DaveS' long involvement in 
    robotics. Folding such realm into AWES may well win unforeseen blessings to some AWE
    developments.  Part of his robotics history is on the Internet; some URLs not showing content
    in some searches still have old content showing in Internet Archive. 
         You are invited to explore how robotics might fold into your AWE interests. 

    ~ JoeF
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14689 From: dave santos Date: 9/25/2014
    Subject: Re: Reconciliations
    Joe,

    We agree that one way to make unworkable arguments "work" (like for the ST) is to ignore enough critical real-world conditions (like scaling-laws), A natural trend of greater mass of larger parachutes is the superior assumption here. Also ignored is that a parachute too big in proportion to its payload is unstable and collapses.

    Lets not allow anyone to claim unrealistic assumptions, just to save face, when far sounder assumptions are in our possession already,

    daveS 




    On Thursday, September 25, 2014 10:58 AM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com