Messages in AirborneWindEnergy group.                           AWES16563to16612 Page 226 of 440.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16563 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/19/2015
Subject: Scientist

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16564 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/19/2015
Subject: Wing set of a kite

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16565 From: dave santos Date: 1/19/2015
Subject: Trends in Windless Kiting

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16566 From: Joe Faust Date: 1/19/2015
Subject: Re: Trends in Windless Kiting

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16567 From: Joe Faust Date: 1/19/2015
Subject: Re: Trends in Windless Kiting

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16568 From: dougselsam Date: 1/19/2015
Subject: Re: Guangdong High-Altitude Wind Power Technology Ltd

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16569 From: dave santos Date: 1/19/2015
Subject: Re: Guangdong High-Altitude Wind Power Technology Ltd

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16570 From: dave santos Date: 1/19/2015
Subject: Re: Trends in Windless Kiting

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16571 From: dougselsam Date: 1/19/2015
Subject: Re: Guangdong High-Altitude Wind Power Technology Ltd

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16572 From: dougselsam Date: 1/19/2015
Subject: Re: Trends in Windless Kiting

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16573 From: dave santos Date: 1/19/2015
Subject: Laddermill Experiment Documentation

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16574 From: dave santos Date: 1/19/2015
Subject: Re: Guangdong High-Altitude Wind Power Technology Ltd

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16575 From: benhaiemp Date: 1/19/2015
Subject: Re: Guangdong High-Altitude Wind Power Technology Ltd

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16576 From: dave santos Date: 1/19/2015
Subject: Re: Guangdong High-Altitude Wind Power Technology Ltd

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16577 From: benhaiemp Date: 1/19/2015
Subject: Re: Guangdong High-Altitude Wind Power Technology Ltd

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16578 From: Rod Read Date: 1/20/2015
Subject: Re: Guangdong High-Altitude Wind Power Technology Ltd

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16579 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/20/2015
Subject: Re: Guangdong High-Altitude Wind Power Technology Ltd

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16580 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/20/2015
Subject: Marine laddermill project off the coast of Australia

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16581 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/20/2015
Subject: Evonik

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16582 From: Rod Read Date: 1/20/2015
Subject: First measurements from torque ladder testing

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16583 From: dave santos Date: 1/20/2015
Subject: Kite Polymer Factor (KPF) as predictor of AWES power-to-mass advanta

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16584 From: dave santos Date: 1/20/2015
Subject: Another New Kite Number- Kite Tensile Factor (KTF)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16585 From: dave santos Date: 1/20/2015
Subject: Re: First measurements from torque ladder testing

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16586 From: dave santos Date: 1/20/2015
Subject: Interchangeable WECS for ReelGens, and the ReelGen Race

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16587 From: dougselsam Date: 1/20/2015
Subject: Re: Laddermill Experiment Documentation

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16588 From: dave santos Date: 1/20/2015
Subject: Re: Laddermill Experiment Documentation

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16589 From: dougselsam Date: 1/20/2015
Subject: Re: Guangdong High-Altitude Wind Power Technology Ltd

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16590 From: dougselsam Date: 1/20/2015
Subject: Re: Laddermill Experiment Documentation

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16591 From: dave santos Date: 1/20/2015
Subject: Re: Guangdong High-Altitude Wind Power Technology Ltd

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16592 From: dougselsam Date: 1/20/2015
Subject: Re: Guangdong High-Altitude Wind Power Technology Ltd

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16593 From: dave santos Date: 1/20/2015
Subject: Re: Laddermill Experiment Documentation

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16594 From: dave santos Date: 1/20/2015
Subject: Re: Guangdong High-Altitude Wind Power Technology Ltd

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16595 From: dougselsam Date: 1/20/2015
Subject: Re: Laddermill Experiment Documentation

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16596 From: dougselsam Date: 1/20/2015
Subject: Re: Guangdong High-Altitude Wind Power Technology Ltd

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16597 From: dave santos Date: 1/20/2015
Subject: Re: Laddermill Experiment Documentation

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16598 From: dave santos Date: 1/20/2015
Subject: Re: Guangdong High-Altitude Wind Power Technology Ltd

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16599 From: dave santos Date: 1/20/2015
Subject: e-kite autopilot testing video

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16600 From: edoishi Date: 1/21/2015
Subject: Re: Trends in Windless Kiting

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16601 From: dougselsam Date: 1/21/2015
Subject: Re: Guangdong High-Altitude Wind Power Technology Ltd

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16602 From: dougselsam Date: 1/21/2015
Subject: Re: Laddermill Experiment Documentation

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16603 From: dave santos Date: 1/21/2015
Subject: Re: Laddermill Experiment Documentation

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16604 From: dave santos Date: 1/21/2015
Subject: Re: Guangdong High-Altitude Wind Power Technology Ltd

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16605 From: dave santos Date: 1/21/2015
Subject: More GoogleX-Makani Press

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16606 From: dave santos Date: 1/21/2015
Subject: Determining Airborne Lattice Constants of Megascale IsoDomes

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16607 From: dougselsam Date: 1/21/2015
Subject: Re: Guangdong High-Altitude Wind Power Technology Ltd

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16608 From: dave santos Date: 1/21/2015
Subject: Re: Guangdong High-Altitude Wind Power Technology Ltd

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16609 From: dougselsam Date: 1/21/2015
Subject: Re: Laddermill Experiment Documentation

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16610 From: dougselsam Date: 1/21/2015
Subject: Re: Guangdong High-Altitude Wind Power Technology Ltd

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16611 From: dave santos Date: 1/21/2015
Subject: Re: Laddermill Experiment Documentation

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16612 From: dave santos Date: 1/21/2015
Subject: Re: Guangdong High-Altitude Wind Power Technology Ltd



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16563 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/19/2015
Subject: Scientist


Scientist


And specifically "AWE Scientist"


Start of meditation:

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


Is one being a kite-energy scientist?



 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16564 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/19/2015
Subject: Wing set of a kite

Wing set of a kite      [kite :: W, T, R   where W is the wing set, T is the tether set, and R is the resistive set or anchor set which may in fact be a set of wings in a media of air or water or soil. A wing alone is not a kite; a kite requires a tether set coupling a resistive set.]


There will be technicians especially dedicated to the wing set of a kite.

The kite's tether set will be in special care of tether specialists.

The kite's anchor set will be under the care of anchor engineers, operators, etc.

Coordination between these specialists will be important. Oversight on the coordination will be essential.


Wings of a kite show in a great variety of sizes. A vast array of different materials show in the construction of wings of kites.  Wings might be replaced  in a kite with other wings, even while the tethers of a kite might not be replaced at the same time.  A wing bridles to the resistive system of the kite; during the bridle flight, a wing in a kite will have a L/D profile.


How many wings in your kite?

Types of wings in your kite?

Sizes of the wings in your kite?

Supply for the wings of your kite?

Log of use and status inspections of the wings of your kite?

Etc.


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16565 From: dave santos Date: 1/19/2015
Subject: Trends in Windless Kiting
Why bother with small kites for low or no wind, when our goal is vast utility power AWES? With awareness of scaling laws, we can quickly and cheaply make small prototypes that have many dynamic similarities to full-scale designs. Fast evolution at small scale informs optimal designs scaled up. In windless conditions, kite designs can be initially created and refined without the confusion of wind chaos. Low wind is a part of most kites flight regimes. Indoor flying is comfortable when the weather is foul. All kite flying is valuable training, and indoor hours count towards mastery.

The windless kite sport continues to grow from its beginnings thirty years ago, at Austin Robofests and school demos (does anyone know earlier cases?). The WKM Windless Kite Festival is now in its 14th year, and there are now several other festivals started worldwide, with two more just in this area alone (Milton Indoor Kite Fest- Feb 6-7; and Run-From-the-Rain Indoor Kite Fly, Ocean Shores, last Nov 1-2). This is a well established sport now, with national and world championships, and several star flyers.

The kites are all evolving fast. There were a couple of incredible German tiny kites, costing about 100EU ea, patterned after classic fighters, but trimmed as gliders, made with carbon whiskers and capacitor Mylar. They prove that a low aspect-ratio low wing-loading aircraft can achieve L/D 20+. They seem to exist in slow motion; one can almost walk circles around them as they slide almost horizontally along. I could not locate a web link yet. But all the kites are amazing performers, even if a few are outstanding

Several new small manufactuers are making fine indoor/UL kites. Patrick Tan makes the popular iflight kites-

Fortuna is a top new pick-

And I am trying to locate a very fine refinment of the fighter pattern, with a vented wing that creates a sort of canard leading edge flow conditioner, that obviously rivaled lighter kites (of more expensive material, but less subtle design). I see this wing slot feature becoming standard in future kite generations.

There is a common delta-kite variant used for windless flight, where the cross-stick is bowed below the kite. This helps give the kite a bit of pendulum stability, with no added mass. Indoor kites are trimmed as gliders, and some of the kites even have a ballast mass in the nose. The same kite flown outdoors in a breese would not want the ballast.

DIY kites, which used to be the only way to fly, continue to be popular, since making a simple version is fast and easy for newcomers. The standard designs are being refined. I learned about "matchstick bamboo" as a spar material, as used for certain window blinds, and that ordinary glue sticks are handy to glue slippery plastic film onto the matchstick frame.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16566 From: Joe Faust Date: 1/19/2015
Subject: Re: Trends in Windless Kiting
​I've always respected running with a kite system in full calm as part of the windless sport. And scaling to towing large wings in full calm ​has been part of my windless kite sport. Seems like the sport has ancient respectable roots. Tether rooted to a control stick permitted wafting a tethered wing in calm; still ancient.  Current decades of fancy dancing indoors or outdoors in calm seem simply to be an advanced evolute activity of an ancient activity. 
 ~ JoeF
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16567 From: Joe Faust Date: 1/19/2015
Subject: Re: Trends in Windless Kiting
When flying with natural wind that becalms, one is introduced to windless kiting as one reels in or causes the anchor to be moved in order to sustain flight of the kite's wing set.   Such windless kiting even sometimes occurred for meteorological kite systems.  
    Many high-start rigid wings are sport kited in calms. Manned and unmanned. Over a century old in the doing!  
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16568 From: dougselsam Date: 1/19/2015
Subject: Re: Guangdong High-Altitude Wind Power Technology Ltd
Well Dave, I had not posted for a long time, and your knee-jerk reflex  attempt to negate anything I post was predictable.  As usual, your harassment contains too many inaccuracies to respond to, and your degeneration into multiple personality attacks and amateur psychiatric diagnoses is off-topic, but shows way more about you than me.

I'd like to stick to the technical topic(s), if you don't mind.
1) Why don't YOU tell us what YOU think that video showed?  If you have something to correct me on, what is it, specifically?

2) Show us the results or even just some evidence that you tested a laddermill.  What is the point of just saying you tested one, without then discussing the results?  I mean, Delfts says it is 40 years in the future and apparently can't build one, so if you could, that must have been really something.  How crappy of an apparatus was it?  Just taking 5 minutes to build some weak attempt out of foam, that can't really work, and saying you therefore tested a concept, as though you tested the concept to exhaustion, really shows nothing, and proves nothing.  Are you implying that you have disproven the concept?  proven the concept?   Neither?  Then why bother?  So, what is it you believe you proved, and what is the evidence?  Do you have a pic or a video?  Given this "vast experience" at the bleeding edge of progress, what is your resulting prognosis for the concept?  Valid?  Promising?  What mistakes did you make and what  could you do better next time?  Or do you believe that you have now "proven" the concept not worth pursuing?  Enquiring minds want to know!  What good is cutting edge research without any results?
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16569 From: dave santos Date: 1/19/2015
Subject: Re: Guangdong High-Altitude Wind Power Technology Ltd
Doug,

Please read carefully-

I agree with Ed, that the Guangdong showed impressive function of the varidrogue canopy prototype. The inclusion of the graphic was not misleading to us, as domain experts familiar with shared progress. Otherwise, your demo with the yardsticks would count as deceptive, for not explaining your unloaded generator as less than a full demo.

So you missed my old laddermill experiment years ago, and its Forum discussion. Media and discussion also exists on the Wayback Machine. I still have the AWES in my possession, and you can test it for yourself. You are right that a laddermill "can be built anytime", but "too lazy" to never try. It is known to not be a promising design, in its original downwind form. Don't expect much excitement over once again proving you did not do your homework,

dave


On Monday, January 19, 2015 10:52 AM, "dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16570 From: dave santos Date: 1/19/2015
Subject: Re: Trends in Windless Kiting
Its true in a loose sense that towing and gliding in many forms is literally "windless kiting", however, we also understand that the windless kiting sport, as such, is a far narrower set of cases, with many new trends. Related classic methods, like simply running with a kite, do not amount to a new sport trend.


On Monday, January 19, 2015 9:46 AM, "Joe Faust joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16571 From: dougselsam Date: 1/19/2015
Subject: Re: Guangdong High-Altitude Wind Power Technology Ltd
Trying to keep you focused on the topic: Do you believe the parachutes were powering a generator? Yes or no? The words "misleading" and "deceptive" are yours, not mine.  My yardstick demo came long after other demos that were properly instrumented, with data taken by unbiased third parties.  From my viewpoint, my yardstick demo was just good, clean fun.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16572 From: dougselsam Date: 1/19/2015
Subject: Re: Trends in Windless Kiting
How 'bout a windless windlass?
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16573 From: dave santos Date: 1/19/2015
Subject: Laddermill Experiment Documentation
Its not like Doug welcomes the efforts of others, when they only disprove paranoid suspicions, but a Laddermill prototype really was built and flown over five years ago by KiteLab Ilwaco, and the work reasonably shared. This old Wayback Machine page at least shows the loop-of-kites part, with some notes, as KiteMotor4. Still looking for more lost media, like raw flight video archived, in particular showing the complete rig, with the base-station consisting of a net-reel made from a hamster-wheel and plastic plates.

This old KiteLab scale-prototype AWES (and many others) is available for further testing by anyone who seriously wants to fly the world's only known "classic laddermill". An upgrade would be to add swivel sections, to prevent twist when the line of kites tends to loop in gusts, but everyone is busy working on far better AWES concepts than this-
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16574 From: dave santos Date: 1/19/2015
Subject: Re: Guangdong High-Altitude Wind Power Technology Ltd
Doug,

I am confident the Guandong Varidrogues will in fact work as a WECS basis for reeling AWES ground-stations, just like many EU teams develop (this does not mean I favor reeling, but it does work at the current regulatory target altitude (~600m).

By contrast your ST promotion seems to be the deceptive side of this discussion, unless you can show higher altitude potential and significant power scaling potential for the ST, especially with as safe, cheap, and easy construction as the soft kite competitors.

Please move on to sharing your progress on the Forum, in your own topic threads, rather than only attacking innocent folks we hope to be friends with,

dave


On Monday, January 19, 2015 12:35 PM, "dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16575 From: benhaiemp Date: 1/19/2015
Subject: Re: Guangdong High-Altitude Wind Power Technology Ltd

Reel-in/out or yoyo, Laddermill, Guangdong use pull of kite to act a generator by reeling.

  • Reel-in/out for yoyo (power then recovery phases)
  • Continuous reel for Laddermill  (cyclic simultaneous power and recovery phases)
  • Reel-in/out//out/in or reciprocating reel or definition you want for the coupled version (reciprocating simultaneous power and recovery  phases) of Guangdong described also in US4124182 in 1978.

For these three arrangements recovery phase cannot be avoided. Laddermill is (at least) very difficult to implement. Reciprocating reel allows some level of continuous power, the generator turning alternately in the two directions (each changement of direction requiring some small temporary storage or compensation within several pairs working in gap).  This advantageous arrangement work more easily with wings as parachutes not using crosswing motion.

Parachutes can pull anything, so can act a generator. Guangdong descriptions and videos look plausible, some parachutes being used for power, some others as pilot kites.

I study and test some possible improvements.


PierreB.    
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16576 From: dave santos Date: 1/19/2015
Subject: Re: Guangdong High-Altitude Wind Power Technology Ltd
Note that original Laddermill concepts do not reel; but only drive a capstan/bullwheel mechanism by a continuous kite loop. True reeling AWES store line on the reel; winding and unwinding in operation. TUDelft confused matters by dubbing its reeling pumping AWES as "LadderMills", by a sort of branding logic, rather than naming with technical consistency.


reel
rēl/
noun
  1. 1.
    a cylinder on which film, wire, thread, or other flexible materials can be wound.


On Monday, January 19, 2015 2:09 PM, "pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16577 From: benhaiemp Date: 1/19/2015
Subject: Re: Guangdong High-Altitude Wind Power Technology Ltd

Thanks for the precision.


PierreB
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16578 From: Rod Read Date: 1/20/2015
Subject: Re: Guangdong High-Altitude Wind Power Technology Ltd
Peter Lynn sr told me he was involved with a marine laddermill project off the coast of Australia.
He was not impressed with the consulting engineering firm. (I dare not use his exact phraseology)
He was not impressed with the Australian working permit legislation.
He was not impressed with aspects of the implementation of the design and predicted it's method of demise.
That he allowed himself to become involved in the project is mildly encouraging.

Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16579 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/20/2015
Subject: Re: Guangdong High-Altitude Wind Power Technology Ltd
Guangdong High-Altitude Wind Power Technology Ltd. web pages MACHINE TRANSLATED (CAUTION):


=====================MACHINE TRANSLATIONS:
Combined ladder umbrella altitude wind turbine consists of two parts: air systems and ground systems.
Air system consists of one or several acting umbrella, consisting of a number of equilibrium umbrella;
Ground systems mainly by generators, winches (drum and reverse rotation of the motor) and universal pulleys;
Between umbrella, is connected by a lightweight high-strength cables and winches between acting umbrella.
Air system rises to a predetermined starting height, acting umbrella open command is received, the umbrella body open, under the action of the wind, acting umbrella run up and turn through the cable pulling winch drum, (in this case the reverse rotation of the motor is not running, the electromagnetic the clutch is in the disengaged state), rotation of the winch drum through the coupling, the brake / clutch device driven by rotation of the generator rotor, in order to achieve power. Up to a predetermined height or stroke after receiving the closing instructions acting umbrella, the umbrella body is closed at this time greatly reduce wind resistance, while the reverse rotation of the motor starts, the electromagnetic clutch is engaged state, hoist speed reverse, acting through cable pulling umbrella fast Run down; acting umbrella back to the starting height, winch stops, acting umbrella is opened again, begin a new round of increase in acting.
=================== MACHINE TRANSLATIONS:
@ Copyright Guangdong altitude wind energy Technology Co.
Prohibit unauthorized reproduced excerpts, copy or create mirror, if violated, legal liability.
Tel: 020-32210181 / 32210186
Fax: 020-32210183 technical support and reported impaired:
huangfulan@gdgkfn.com
Science Park Road, No. 182,
Innovation Building C2 District,
Guangzhou City, 501 Zip Code: 510663
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16580 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/20/2015
Subject: Marine laddermill project off the coast of Australia

Marine laddermill project off the coast of Australia          [ ] ???


Rod mentioned some project in another topic thread.  This topic thread is intended for focus on the marine laddermill project in which Peter Lynn had some interface.     We seek information from anyone on the matter.

====================================================
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16581 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/20/2015
Subject: Evonik

Evonik

and kite-gained energy put to work  ..

 Year: 2013 article:

Evonik Electric Kite Car Travels Across Australia on Just $15


Some photos:

""being juiced up by a mobile wind turbine"

Evonik Electric Kite Car Travels Across Australia on Just $15
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16582 From: Rod Read Date: 1/20/2015
Subject: First measurements from torque ladder testing
Not the most flawless or convincing test video ever...
But I generated 0.2 of something the phone app called "Watts".
Seems unlikely to be the standard Watt as they accumulated over time..
anyways....
http://youtu.be/zbrC4KYDu7w


Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16583 From: dave santos Date: 1/20/2015
Subject: Kite Polymer Factor (KPF) as predictor of AWES power-to-mass advanta
Its basic AWES engineering science that mass-aloft must be maintained by wind power (excepting LTA), and that this is a parasitic factor, reducing overall power available for output [Schmehl 2013, etc.]. Therefore, the power-to-mass ratio of an AWES defines a critical limit to overall efficiency.

Kite Polymer Factor (KPF) is proposed as a design measure of potential power-to-mass, based on what proportion of the mass aloft is working polymer. It is ideally presumed that the polymer is worked at its maximum working load in an optimal aero-design, for a most probable wind range. It is not a measure of which polymer is strongest, but a "purity factor" of how much working polymer to "junk" aloft (we presume UHMWPE as a current standard and graphene as the future).

Therefore, a pure "rag-and-string" AWES design aloft, being 100% polymer, has a KPF of 1. By comparison, a complex flygen kite plane, like Makani's, with resin filled composite, generators, servos, avionics, conductive cables, backup batteries, etc., etc., will have a lower number, more like KPF .5.

It is further proposed that a higher KPF is most predictive of higher AWES performance, at any given capacity-intensity or mass allowance, and that maximum KPF is required for maximum capacity-intensity. The old paradigm, of high L/D being the most predictive AWES performance factor (regardless of power-to-mass) is hereby declared less predictive, and obsolete. High KPF helps formally explain how drogue based AWES can compete with high L/D AWES, both by cost, and by power-to-mass.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16584 From: dave santos Date: 1/20/2015
Subject: Another New Kite Number- Kite Tensile Factor (KTF)
Let KTF be defined as the ratio of tensile-to-compressive (non-buoyant) structural mass-aloft of an AWES. Thus 100% soft-kites are KTF 1. Complex AWES kiteplane designs, like Aympx and Makani's, with cantilevered wings and pods, require considerable compressive structural-mass for rigidity, thus have a KTF <1 . 

Lower KTF is strongly predictive of poorer unit scaling potential, with KTF 1 at the other favored end of the spectrum. These new numbers are first-order approximations, with interesting higher order details to still account for, but the intent is to lay a clean mathematical foundation for AWE in accord with "classic kiting" domain-expert knowledge.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16585 From: dave santos Date: 1/20/2015
Subject: Re: First measurements from torque ladder testing
Its probable that the number displayed is Whr, and that the wattage will therefore be recovered by measuring the time elapsed...


On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 7:12 AM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16586 From: dave santos Date: 1/20/2015
Subject: Interchangeable WECS for ReelGens, and the ReelGen Race
Reeling AWES are pumping-cycle based, and several kinds of airborne WECS are available to drive the ReelGen. In the case of Aympx, a high performance sailplane does the pumping, and at the other end of the pumping WECS spectrum, Guandong's varidrogue also pumps. To the degree that the reelgen supports a wide range of load velocities, it can use assorted WECS, especially to match conditions. A quiver of WECS kites may even be the optimal AWES basis, both seasonally and in real time. This has been consistently asserted on the Forum over the years, in full detail.   CC+ Open AWE IP Pool

Several EU pioneers make early reelgens. Early AWE commercialization may be a WECS kite contest to drive the best-of-breed reelgen (primary reeling as a brief historic phase, like biplanes; next, competing WECS may dogfight over circle-tracks). The current reeling favorite is e-kite, with their industrial wind turbine backgrounds, but none of the other teams can yet be counted out in the ReelGen race.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16587 From: dougselsam Date: 1/20/2015
Subject: Re: Laddermill Experiment Documentation
Sorry but I do not recognize that as a laddermill.  What would you say your effort proved? 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16588 From: dave santos Date: 1/20/2015
Subject: Re: Laddermill Experiment Documentation
Its the bundle of nylon sled kites that were rigged in a laddermill loop. All those winders store the line between the loop kites. Of course it was not done to satisfy you (not even as "good clean fun"), but represents the "test everything" "quest for knowledge" ethos. It at least proves that not everyone in the world was "too lazy" to test the laddermill idea. Of course you object, for lack of anything better to share.


On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 2:24 PM, "dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16589 From: dougselsam Date: 1/20/2015
Subject: Re: Guangdong High-Altitude Wind Power Technology Ltd
"Doug, I am confident the Guandong Varidrogues will in fact work as a WECS basis for reeling AWES ground-stations, just like many EU teams develop (this does not mean I favor reeling, but it does work at the current regulatory target altitude (~600m)."
***Thanks for that, but it's all off topic.  What do you say their video actually shows?  That is the question I asked.  I did not ask how confident you are about reeling, or whether you favor reeling.  I only asked what you think the video shows.  You implied you saw something that I did not.  You implied I was wrong to ask what the video shows.  Questions are not wrong, answers are.

"By contrast your ST promotion seems to be the deceptive side of this discussion,"
***This discussion was about what a specific video shows, and has NOTHING to do with ST.  When was the last time you remember me promoting ST?

"unless you can show higher altitude potential and significant power scaling potential for the ST, especially with as safe, cheap, and easy construction as the soft kite competitors."
***Blah blah blah - on and on you go... Place ST at any height, just like any other system, but again, this topic is parachute drogues in a wannabe laddermill video, and has NOTHING to do with SuperTurbine(TM), but thanks for mentioning my second main AWE idea, ST, where all roads led, including laddermill.

"Please move on to sharing your progress on the Forum, in your own topic threads, rather than only attacking innocent folks we hope to be friends with, dave"
***I did not attack anyone.  I posed the question of what exactly we are seeing in the video. (?)  You seem to imply that we "saw" a working grid-tie system.  My take is we saw some parts, various components, probably not working together, attempting to illustrate what COULD be such a working system, except the various parts of the video were taken in different formats, using different cameras, possibly at various locations, at different times, some in color, some in black and white, some just animations, all strung together as though they all show a single working system.  Why don't all the parachutes open at once if it is a working system?  Wouldn;t a working system open all the chutes at the same time?  Any evidence the parachutes are not fixed relative to the kites?  That what you saw was just parachutes and kites on the same line?  There are unexplained transitions to animations at the exact moment one would expect the camera to pan out to showing droques pulling the cable attached to the power apparatus.  Why is that?  The unexplained transition to an animation at that exact moment suggests the drogues shown are not driving the apparatus shown.  You are just making all this stuff up out of thin air including repeatedly using the term "paranoid", which certainly does nothing to answer the question.  I'd substitute the term "aware" for me, and in your case, the opposite: "gullible".  Perhaps "noncomprehending".   Go ahead and be gullible if you want, but please stop calling names, and there is no need to try to force everyone else to be gullible too.  You have "gullible" covered.  No need to duplicate your fine effort in your all-important and neverending "fight for ignorance".
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16590 From: dougselsam Date: 1/20/2015
Subject: Re: Laddermill Experiment Documentation
Trying to reason with DaveS is like trying to grab a greased water-balloon - impossible.  No matter where you try to engage the balloon, it just disappears and reemerges somewhere else.   You say "test everything". You claim this picture:

proves you "tested" a "laddermill".
To me, to claim to have "tested" a concept, you have to do a good enough job of building it that the test has some meaning, some results.  As a start, you show whether the concept works or not.  Ideally you end up with a working configuration, but maybe you show something DOESN'T work - also valid and useful information, though the fact that ONE iteration does not work doesn't PROVE the concept invalid.  Especially if you do a bad enough job building something, OF COURSE it doesn't work!   That proves nothing!   I think you are delusional and mired in self-glorification, like rock stars and Hollywood people who start believing their own press-releases.  You claim to have tested the laddermill concept by building and testing a working version, but I'd protest: I don't think your effort was serious enough of an attempt to show anything.  It didn't show whether laddermill works or doesn't work, didn't create or measure any power.  You are saying you can substitute an elementary-school-level "arts-and-crafts" construction-paper-and-rounded-scissors, half-hearted, feeble, wannabe toy model for "testing a concept"  What's next, we have to slap your hand to stop you from eating the crayons and non-toxic library paste?   If you can point to anything that was shown or proven in this half-hearted effort I would love to hear it.  It's not a complicated concept to explain that if you really want to build and test something, you have to at least do a good enough job that you have something that either runs or not and shows some results.  Sorry but the pic you provided does not show a running laddermill, does not advance laddermill knowledge in any way I can see, nor give any indication of whether the concept works or not.  I think you would need to try a lot harder.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16591 From: dave santos Date: 1/20/2015
Subject: Re: Guangdong High-Altitude Wind Power Technology Ltd
Doug,

Your email is promoting the ST, as usual, and is pissing on the Guandong work. Guandong's AWES work is far less objectionable than your own work, by societal standards of marketing hype or technical merit. You must fly an ST against all comers and win, to redeem your voluminous claims, and slightly justify being insulting to strangers. Everyone hard-at-work actively testing does not deserve paranoid insinuations from the lazy. Don't you want to make friends with Guandong? The growing AWE community is full of good folks, and the progress is real,

daveS


On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 2:46 PM, "dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16592 From: dougselsam Date: 1/20/2015
Subject: Re: Guangdong High-Altitude Wind Power Technology Ltd
Let's stay on topic for a moment:  What do you say the video shows?
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16593 From: dave santos Date: 1/20/2015
Subject: Re: Laddermill Experiment Documentation
Doug,

Don't worry, the testing really happened. Somewhere, there is archived raw media, so be patient. If you are really eager to know how this AWES flies, I suggest you buy it and test it yourself, to whatever level of proof you need. Because you are the earliest known inventor, I will sell it to you at a discount ($500), other wise its going to the WKM AWES Collection, where anyone can study it,

daveS.


On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 3:12 PM, "dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16594 From: dave santos Date: 1/20/2015
Subject: Re: Guangdong High-Altitude Wind Power Technology Ltd
Doug,

The Guangdong video conveys the AWES concept by stitching together schematic diagram, with exciting bits of real video of their varidrogue canopy prototype operating. It obviously does not represent a completed product, and the usual rough edges were visible. There is no deception. This is how Pierre, Ed, Joe and I naturally saw it. You went nuts, as usual,

daveS




On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 3:15 PM, "dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16595 From: dougselsam Date: 1/20/2015
Subject: Re: Laddermill Experiment Documentation
I don't see how it makes any sense to repeat the "test, test, test" mantra, claim to test a configuration, then offer no lessons from the testing.  How can you say you tested something if there are no results to report? Why bother to pretend to test something if you can show no results?
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16596 From: dougselsam Date: 1/20/2015
Subject: Re: Guangdong High-Altitude Wind Power Technology Ltd
Actually it is YOU who went nuts.  Apparently you actually AGREE with me that the video does NOT show a working system.  I guess that subjects you to your own diagnosis of "paranoid" - (watch out, they are trying to "get you").  So there was no point in your replying to my original posting unless you wanted to say "The video does not show a working system but rather suggest through multiple disparate images, an idea for a system that may or may not actually work".  Or you could have just saved a lot of time and declared "I agree with Doug".
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16597 From: dave santos Date: 1/20/2015
Subject: Re: Laddermill Experiment Documentation
Repeat: The lesson was the twist problem;  the laddermill needs swivels or the line soon curls up as the small kites spin wildly in gusts. Go ahead and develop it further.

Of course the AWES "test, test. test" culture is not stupid enough to over-test less promising downwind designs like this one. At best we fly these marginal concepts just like your yardstick AWES, having fun without bothering with formal data. Complaining that someone played with the laddermill is your predictable nature. Kudos to you for your yardstick demo, and to Guangdong as well, even unconnected to a load; from the rest of us.

Don't be fooled by our toys; the serious players are all scaling up, and its dangerous hard work.


On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 3:54 PM, "dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16598 From: dave santos Date: 1/20/2015
Subject: Re: Guangdong High-Altitude Wind Power Technology Ltd
Everybody agrees the video did not show a working system, which was only obvious. The disagreement was over whether to naively belabor the weakness of newborn AWE, in insulting tones. You have unfairly dismissed Asian AWE before, in unfriendly language. 

An AWES expert-take is that this is an airborne WECS contender to match with a best-of-breed ReelGen, like e-kite.


On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 3:59 PM, "dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16599 From: dave santos Date: 1/20/2015
Subject: e-kite autopilot testing video
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16600 From: edoishi Date: 1/21/2015
Subject: Re: Trends in Windless Kiting
Daryl Yeh - Dreambird | Facebook

 

Not sure if one needs a facebook account to view this or not, if so sorry...

Windless kite in China, notice how slow it is able to fly, almost hovering... cool aesthetics too...
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16601 From: dougselsam Date: 1/21/2015
Subject: Re: Guangdong High-Altitude Wind Power Technology Ltd
"Everybody agrees the video did not show a working system, which was only obvious."  ***Oh so now "everybody agrees", and my observation that you formerly protested is now "obvious". 
 "The disagreement was over whether to naively belabor the weakness of newborn AWE, in insulting tones."
***No the "disagreement" did not exist.  You created the tone of a "disagreement" out of thin air, so you could remain the king of "insulting tones".
"You have unfairly dismissed Asian AWE before, in unfriendly language." ***Oh boy here we go again.  You are so desperate to try to win any "points", in any way, no matter how stretched, in your endless quest to argue, argue, argue.  Now it's about continents.  Can you ever stick to a topic?
"An AWES expert-take is that this is an airborne WECS contender to match with a best-of-breed ReelGen, like e-kite." ***Thanks for defining yourself as an "AWE expert" once again.  That would be like a surfing expert who can't swim.  What the heck makes you an expert?  Blah blah blah blah blah - no, that does not make you an expert, it makes you a big talker.  Have fun with your endless insult-fest in lieu of any actual expertise.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16602 From: dougselsam Date: 1/21/2015
Subject: Re: Laddermill Experiment Documentation
"Of course the AWES "test, test. test" culture is not stupid enough to over-test less promising downwind designs like this one." ***Delfts says laddermill is 40 years ahead of its time.  Ockels is celebrated for this design.  It remains one of the theoretically more promising concepts.  I don't think your toy showed anything except you were not interested in doing even a passably good job on it.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16603 From: dave santos Date: 1/21/2015
Subject: Re: Laddermill Experiment Documentation
Wubbo is celebrated here for his original SpiderMill concept. He is not celebrated for the LadderMill, which is your idea, but Wubbo was forced to abandon, as its inherent defects became clear; like performance-limiting downwind geometry and mechanical awkwardness. Between TUDelft's and my study, the old laddermill seems like a dead letter, but I offer my hardware to anyone who to refine further, as a fun curiousity at least.

The laddermill toy was of course built to normal kite standards; for example, the six kites are COTS sleds that fly well as intended. You have not even seen the base-station part, nor actual flight action, and guessed wrong that no lessons were gained. Of course you must complain about my prototype build, since your opening complaint that the whole world world was to lazy to try a laddermill is obviously false. That the prototype was not passably built is just as false, but no one can keep up with your runaway negative imagination toward everyone in AWE but yourself, and still do our productive work. When the KiteLab prototype is tediously and trivially shown to have been credibly built, you will just move on to another addled fantasy.

Its not like you ever did laddermill prototype at all ("too lazy" for once correct), much less better; rather than just complain uselessly, year after year. Up your techncial game or lose. You cannot just falsely accuse just about everyone, and complain ad nauseum. Thats what gets you moderated, again and again. Sorry my laddermill effort somehow upset you, rather than please you.


On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 7:52 AM, "dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16604 From: dave santos Date: 1/21/2015
Subject: Re: Guangdong High-Altitude Wind Power Technology Ltd
It was always obvious that Guangdong's video was not of an end-to-end system, but was to feature their varidrogue WECS tech, with the schematic slide filling in the concept without guile. Ed's original notice of the video clip is in this natural expert POV. A true AWE expert can tell this WECS in principle can drive thirdparty reelgens.

Only Doug can imagine that these facts were not obvious; that instead he was needed to once again insinuate wrongful deception where none existed. Nobody but Doug is fooled into making aspersions against folks we want as friends, and whose work we respect. The friendly overtures again have to occur off-Forum, as we are increasingly used to doing in this broken situation. We used to warmly welcome folks into the AWE community on this Forum, by seeing the good in fresh players, with technical completion to come in due time, as we came together for great cooperative work. Lets get back on that track.






On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 7:47 AM, "dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16605 From: dave santos Date: 1/21/2015
Subject: More GoogleX-Makani Press
More windy echo-chamber journalism about GoogleX/Makani, crudely cobbled from PR sources. There is no new information here, but we continue to see a growing general awareness of AWE, which is priming social momentum for whatever AWES architecture finally gains economic traction on merits, GoogleX or not-
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16606 From: dave santos Date: 1/21/2015
Subject: Determining Airborne Lattice Constants of Megascale IsoDomes
There are two kinds of scaling limits to megascale AWES lattices, like our emerging IsoDome concepts. The primary scaling limit is the structural limit of engineering materials in max wind loadings. Based on our similarity case-base, under perturbation theory (link below), ranging from megascale suspension bridges to possible space-elevators, plus basic calculations of max loads by area matched against published polymer working load specs, we can conclude that AWES lattices many kilometers across are feasible in principle.

The second kind of scaling limit is practical, predicting what we can manage to operate. This is the unit-part scaling limit, of how large a unit-part humans and machines can handle, to build a far larger whole, just as bricks are sized to the brick-layer, to then be formed into large structure. These dimensions, in any given case of periodic structure, are known as lattice-constants (link below).

The ocean-shipping towline case offers engineers a ready solution to the AWES max lattice-constant question: Large UHMWPE hawsers are handled by a combination of human crew and capstan winches, with various features like pulleys, fairleads, cleats, and so forth. This is TRL9 COTS. Polymer super ropes tend to weigh around 100kg per 30m, which keeps them directly handleable by crew. Much heavier, and crew would not be able to so easily connect and disconnect rope ends to mechanical interfaces. A related operational limiting factor is how much super-rope fits on standard large spools, which is on the order of a few hundred meters. This is our confident lattice unit-part scale assumption, to then refine to lattice-constant specifications. Note there are fractal subdimensions of load-paths, from the super-rope itself down to the thin fabric sail area, but we are focused here on the upper limits of tensile structure.

There are two primary lattice constants to define for IsoDome lattices, a vertical constant and a horizontal constant (An arch supports two horizontal constants, crosswind and windwise, by lesser symmetry). Open questions include what natural proportion of vertical and horizontal constant is optimal, but we can see how unit-part rope-segments of a few hundred meters each can combine to create powerful IsoDomes many kilometers across. 

An ultimate AWES may begin as a bunch of giant spools of many line-segments with spiced ends, of lattice-constant dimensions, and large pallets or rolls of many sails (kixels). Using forklifts, riggers would arrange the parts across a kite field and connect them by hand. Standard parts might even be routinely hot-swapped, while the whole vast AWES continues to fly.

CC+ Open AWE IP Pool
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16607 From: dougselsam Date: 1/21/2015
Subject: Re: Guangdong High-Altitude Wind Power Technology Ltd
You are so full of it.  All I did was point out what the video did or did not seem to show, in my opinion.  There were no insinuations of deception, no accusations, just pointing out the facts as I saw them, which is that the video showed some components, sort of working, in various formats, mixed with some animations.  All the insinuations of deception are ON YOUR PART, NOT MINE.  You have been just putting words in my mouth.  They are all YOUR words, not mine, YOUR problems, not mine.

A field that is almost 100% fantasy is well-served by at least a few people having their feet on the ground (so to speak) and discussing things from the viewpoint of reality.  This is similar to my pointing out how, despite 1000 press-releases, whale bumps are still not used in wind energy, or despite the myriad articles that are still being posted even recently, claiming a balloon-tunnel turbine is currently operating in remote Alaska, whereas experience and mere common sense tell me that none of these articles are true.  How did I "know" there was not really a flying turbine in Alaska?  I had no better information than anyone else.  What I have, that is apparently rare in this field, is common sense, and a sense of reality versus endless fantasy.  I've read enough clean & green press-releases to fill an encyclopedia.  The fact that you seem to not notice that they are almost all false is, again, your issue, not mine.  I think you can stop your harassment now.  It has no point and it leads nowhere.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16608 From: dave santos Date: 1/21/2015
Subject: Re: Guangdong High-Altitude Wind Power Technology Ltd
Lets finally agree then, that Guangdong is only congratulated here (by Pierre, Ed, Joe, and me) for sharing its video of an airborne WECS prototype, and the obvious fact that it did not show an end-to-end AWES demo is no rational basis for complaint. The constructive conclusion stands; that it would be interesting for EU reelgen engineers like e-kite to team up with Guangdong, to comparatively test against airborne pumping WECS, as developed by Aympx, KIteGen, EnerKite, KiteNRG, etc..




On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 12:09 PM, "dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16609 From: dougselsam Date: 1/21/2015
Subject: Re: Laddermill Experiment Documentation
"Wubbo is celebrated here for his original SpiderMill concept." *** False - nobody knows what a freakin' spidermill even is.  "He is not celebrated for the LadderMill, which is your idea" *** Yes he is, that is how everyone knows him, and Delft's current stated position is Ockels "was ahead of his time" by 30 or 40 years.  "but Wubbo was forced to abandon, as its inherent defects became clear; like performance-limiting downwind geometry and mechanical awkwardness." ***That is not what Delfts says - they say he was ahead of his time.  Of COURSE it would be harder to implement than just buying and flying an off-the-shelf kite - anyone can buy and fly a kite.  Anyone could add a powered reel.  They dropped the ball, that's all.  "Between TUDelft's and my study, the old laddermill seems like a dead letter, but I offer my hardware to anyone who to refine further, as a fun curiousity at least." *** I'd still love to see whatever it is you did to explore laddermill, and am still waiting after all these years to see any evidence, but I can't see that you've in any way "disproven" the concept, just shown that it is above your ability level to make a working model.

"The laddermill toy was of course built to normal kite standards; for example, the six kites are COTS sleds that fly well as intended." *** Well there is your first mistake - we are in the field of wind energy, not the field of kites.  Try building it to the standard of wind energy and maybe it would work. "You have not even seen the base-station part, nor actual flight action, and guessed wrong that no lessons were gained."  *** I haven't seen it because you have not shown it to me.  "Of course you must complain about my prototype build, since your opening complaint that the whole world world was to lazy to try a laddermill is obviously false." ***If you tried it unsuccessfully, thanks for trying, but I am not convinced you have disproven the concept.  "That the prototype was not passably built is just as false, but no one can keep up with your runaway negative imagination toward everyone in AWE but yourself, and still do our productive work."  ***Well fine then, don't build another one.  I am still not convinced you have disproven the concept.  "When the KiteLab prototype is tediously and trivially shown to have been credibly built, you will just move on to another addled fantasy." ***You mean like your "addled fantasy" that there is a balloon tunnel turbine operating in Alaska?

"Its not like you ever did laddermill prototype at all ("too lazy" for once correct), much less better; rather than just complain uselessly, year after year." *** As usual, you combine too many falsehoods into a single sentence to address them all.  What I have said is "WE" are all too lazy to build one, ME included.  I never said I was any different than the rest in that regard.   "Up your techncial game or lose." ***You are so full of it.  Lose to whom, you???  You couldn't even SPELL technical.  "You cannot just falsely accuse just about everyone, and complain ad nauseum."  *** I don't recall accusing anyone of anything - there you go again! "Thats what gets you moderated, again and again."  *** You couldn't even SPELL that's...  "Sorry my laddermill effort somehow upset you, rather than please you." *** Since I haven't seen it, hard to really say, but it is not that effort that "upsets" me, it is YOU endlessly nitpicking everyone else, and claiming to be Mr. Wonderful, CLAIMING to be "an AWE expert" yet without any ability to get anything running, claiming to have explored and disproven the laddermill concept by a single half-hearted attempt which, to me, proves little to nothing.  I guess you have reduced "test, test. test" to just "test, give up", then you think you're done.  I will stick with my assertion that laddermill as a concept has not been proven or disproven and has been barely explored, if at all.  Also, remember, there was a utility-scale sideways version (not airborne) built and run in Mojave/Tehachapi years ago.  It quickly broke.  But at least it was a serious effort.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16610 From: dougselsam Date: 1/21/2015
Subject: Re: Guangdong High-Altitude Wind Power Technology Ltd
"the obvious fact that it did not show an end-to-end AWES demo is no rational basis for complaint." *** Who is complaining besides you?
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16611 From: dave santos Date: 1/21/2015
Subject: Re: Laddermill Experiment Documentation
To touch on the LadderMill topic, let it be asserted that the SpiderMill is far more promising to study, although both were well worth flying to me. Doug incorrectly stated no one knows what Wubbo's SpiderMill is. In fact, Wubbo wonderfully presented it at the 2011 Leuven conference. We further discussed it at the formal banquet with Dave North (NASA LaRC) at the table (if Doug needs a witness).

The LadderMill AWES concept is a scalable pumping version of Eddy's classic branching kite train, based on kites branching from tri-swivels along a main line. I was honored to apprentice over a period of six years in this train method with the top master, Jim Patton, even flying beyond 500m high, and also assist Terry McPherson to fly his new world record 38 fighter kites branching from one line. Terry and Jim both know and agree with Wubbo's insight that these rigs can pump as SpiderMills, because I informed them so, direct from Wubbo telling me.

Before he died, Wubbo was delighted to see the the previous world record video linked below. Everyone involved with Wubbo's AWE legacy knows the SpiderMill configuration when they see it (excepting Doug). 

 


On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 12:34 PM, "dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16612 From: dave santos Date: 1/21/2015
Subject: Re: Guangdong High-Altitude Wind Power Technology Ltd
There is no complaint about Guangdong. The standing complaints are about your inability to function socially, as a cooperative supportive productive player in an engineering community. Deep complaints range from Dan'l to Clev. In between, DaveL and Rod's complaints stand out. You can resolve these complaints by contributing positive value in eyes of others, not just in your own estimation. 

Nobody but you needs to be told the generator graphic is natural narrative stand-in toward a future end-to-end system (just as your unconnected-load demo was understood, even without a helpful diagram). Mixing artist's concepts with partial video is OK in the friendly AWE community.


On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 12:36 PM, "dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com