Messages in AirborneWindEnergy group.                          AWES 18096 to 18148 Page 256 of 440.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18096 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/26/2015
Subject: Re: Semisoft Sail-Wing

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18097 From: Rod Read Date: 5/27/2015
Subject: Re: Living Kites [1 Attachment]

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18098 From: Rod Read Date: 5/27/2015
Subject: Relevance of warp and weft

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18099 From: Rod Read Date: 5/27/2015
Subject: implications wheel

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18100 From: Rod Read Date: 5/27/2015
Subject: rotary soft energy transmission enabled by fluid interaction

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18101 From: dave santos Date: 5/27/2015
Subject: Re: Living Kites

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18102 From: dave santos Date: 5/27/2015
Subject: Re: implications wheel

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18103 From: dave santos Date: 5/27/2015
Subject: MIT Review reports on Bladeless Wind "Turbine"

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18104 From: dougselsam Date: 5/27/2015
Subject: Re: MIT Review reports on Bladeless Wind "Turbine"

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18105 From: dave santos Date: 5/27/2015
Subject: Inflated Fairings for Kite Payloads (ie. control pods)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18106 From: dave santos Date: 5/27/2015
Subject: Rope-Horse and Jib-Boom Rigging for AWES (sailing similarity case)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18107 From: dave santos Date: 5/27/2015
Subject: Re: MIT Review reports on Bladeless Wind "Turbine"

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18108 From: dougselsam Date: 5/27/2015
Subject: Re: MIT Review reports on Bladeless Wind "Turbine"

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18109 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 5/27/2015
Subject: Re: rotary soft energy transmission enabled by fluid interaction

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18110 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/27/2015
Subject: Re: Spider silk

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18111 From: edoishi Date: 5/27/2015
Subject: Flag Tail and FAA markings

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18112 From: Rod Read Date: 5/27/2015
Subject: Re: rotary soft energy transmission enabled by fluid interaction

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18113 From: dave santos Date: 5/28/2015
Subject: Re: MIT Review reports on Bladeless Wind "Turbine"

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18114 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/28/2015
Subject: Re: MIT Review reports on Bladeless Wind "Turbine"

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18115 From: dave santos Date: 5/28/2015
Subject: Current Altitudes in AWE Testing

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18116 From: dougselsam Date: 5/28/2015
Subject: Re: Spider silk

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18117 From: dougselsam Date: 5/28/2015
Subject: Re: rotary soft energy transmission enabled by fluid interaction

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18118 From: Rod Read Date: 5/28/2015
Subject: Re: rotary soft energy transmission enabled by fluid interaction

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18119 From: dougselsam Date: 5/28/2015
Subject: Re: Current Altitudes in AWE Testing

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18120 From: dougselsam Date: 5/28/2015
Subject: Re: rotary soft energy transmission enabled by fluid interaction

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18121 From: dave santos Date: 5/28/2015
Subject: Re: Current Altitudes in AWE Testing

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18122 From: dave santos Date: 5/28/2015
Subject: Re: Spider silk

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18123 From: dave santos Date: 5/28/2015
Subject: Re: rotary soft energy transmission enabled by fluid interaction

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18124 From: dougselsam Date: 5/28/2015
Subject: Re: Current Altitudes in AWE Testing

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18125 From: dougselsam Date: 5/28/2015
Subject: Re: Spider silk

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18126 From: dave santos Date: 5/28/2015
Subject: Re: Current Altitudes in AWE Testing

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18127 From: dougselsam Date: 5/28/2015
Subject: Re: Current Altitudes in AWE Testing

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18128 From: Rod Read Date: 5/29/2015
Subject: how big a parabolic mirror?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18129 From: dave santos Date: 5/29/2015
Subject: Re: how big a parabolic mirror?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18130 From: dave santos Date: 5/29/2015
Subject: Re: Current Altitudes in AWE Testing

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18131 From: Rod Read Date: 5/29/2015
Subject: Ropey?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18132 From: dave santos Date: 5/29/2015
Subject: Re: Ropey?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18133 From: dave santos Date: 5/29/2015
Subject: Re: Spider silk

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18134 From: Rod Read Date: 5/29/2015
Subject: Re: Ropey?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18135 From: Rod Read Date: 5/29/2015
Subject: Re: Ropey?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18136 From: dougselsam Date: 5/30/2015
Subject: Re: Spider silk

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18138 From: dave santos Date: 5/30/2015
Subject: Re: Spider silk

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18141 From: dave santos Date: 6/1/2015
Subject: AB Dome Experiments by kPower (Aerotecture)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18142 From: Rod Read Date: 6/1/2015
Subject: What is your kite doing? response resolution improvements through sm

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18143 From: Rod Read Date: 6/1/2015
Subject: designing for embedded intelligence

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18144 From: gordon_sp Date: 6/1/2015
Subject: Re: More details of next-round Minesto Sea Trials

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18145 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 6/1/2015
Subject: FPV Kiting

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18146 From: edoishi Date: 6/1/2015
Subject: Re: AB Dome Experiments by kPower (Aerotecture)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18147 From: dave santos Date: 6/1/2015
Subject: Re: FPV Kiting

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18148 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 6/2/2015
Subject: Re: AB Dome Experiments by kPower (Aerotecture)



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18096 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/26/2015
Subject: Re: Semisoft Sail-Wing
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18097 From: Rod Read Date: 5/27/2015
Subject: Re: Living Kites [1 Attachment]
Save the plants!
I don't know what's more ethically questionable...
Your ill informed intent to engage in genetic engineering plants...
Or these folks trying to get spiders to spin nano tubes into space tethers...
http://www.technologyreview.com/view/537301/spiders-ingest-nanotubes-then-weave-silk-reinforced-with-carbon/

up beanpole rights!

Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18098 From: Rod Read Date: 5/27/2015
Subject: Relevance of warp and weft
The alignment of fabric fibres plays a crucial role in material response to edge tensions.

Very often in AWE we want smoothly adaptive forms, subtle curves, constantly evolving shape to give graceful performance.

But to scale we want the most mass produced cheapest material. Aligning cuts of tarp will mean wastage and the square warp and weft profile means decreased performance.

Is a day coming where we don't look to the traditional cheapest roll stock to source our fabric?

Will we be printing material from liquid onsite? (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/electroloom/electroloom-the-worlds-first-3d-fabric-printer?ref=nav_search)
High performance sails already do this over very costly molds... can we move toward spraying our sailforms out more cheaply and quickly.?

Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18099 From: Rod Read Date: 5/27/2015
Subject: implications wheel
I wonder if Makani has developed an implications wheel analysis of it's market proposition?
http://www.implicationswheel.com/land-airbus.html

Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18100 From: Rod Read Date: 5/27/2015
Subject: rotary soft energy transmission enabled by fluid interaction
Grouped rotary kites share a high load velocity circular load path.
High load velocity is held inside a rotating ring.
The ring is maintained by rotary action and the balance of the resultant kite blade paths.
Pre-tensioning between distanced ring sets maintains inter ring transmission efficiency into wind & down to the ground.

Quite yet what the optimal or even various parameters of most efficient operation within these configuration constraints are... is up for grabs.
I believe this can be achieved wholly with soft material and on a single skin basis.
And on a basis where it self unfurls using sectional shock cording on the main lift line to allow ring bridle expansion.
Setting the material axially tensed so that kite blade tips are preferentially released (by longer bridling) from the central axis before roots and ring material are released is a key to self inflation.
This also helps to ensure an appropriate crush and collapse of the inner ring parts before the blades are hauled inward in case of retraction and lessening wind.

cc4.0 nc by sa open hardware awes ip pool

Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18101 From: dave santos Date: 5/27/2015
Subject: Re: Living Kites
Well, on ethical grounds, we could GM ourselves with plant genes into living kites; but the GM vegetarian tigers might eat us.

One implication of the nanotube enhanced spider silk is that UHMWPE can be similarly enhanced. Current pure nanotube string is not yet living up to its predicted strength potential, since synthesis is still crude.





On Wednesday, May 27, 2015 2:09 AM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
Save the plants!
I don't know what's more ethically questionable...
Your ill informed intent to engage in genetic engineering plants...
Or these folks trying to get spiders to spin nano tubes into space tethers...
http://www.technologyreview.com/view/537301/spiders-ingest-nanotubes-then-weave-silk-reinforced-with-carbon/

up beanpole rights!

Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18102 From: dave santos Date: 5/27/2015
Subject: Re: implications wheel
The Implications Wheel seems to only be a Decision Tree dressed like a wheel (does not spin).

In fact, Squid Labs did model their ambitions graphically, and in spread sheets, with Makani and Instructables as just part of a vast boy-fantasy to conquer the world. These brainstormings hung in the Makani air base war room, with only the elite allowed in. I only got to inspect them by asking to go to the bathroom at a moment when no one was on the 2nd floor. Instead of heeding the call-of-nature, I wandered into the war room and spent as long as younger folks would leave an old fart in peace on the crapper, and aborted just in time (comically pretending to hitch up my pants), just as a search party came up to roust me. To this day I imagine some minion mutely wondering why my poop did not stink (it does). The books assembled as a strategic library also told a tale (clunky almost unused MIT/Stanford text books, displayed as trophies only). My one ninja failure was to never taste the microbrew up in the control tower, but security was tight (when I saw my one chance, Dave Culp himself prevented me, citing the AM hour).

In any case, there was no real magic in Makani's diagrams; the Squids consistently failed to change the world on technical merits, but exited their Makani and Instructables ventures ahead many millions (with Google and O'Reilly as buyers). The diagrams were pathetic enough (missing so many key variables) for me to report back to KiteShip that the Squids were oversold. How sad. So I took back my NDA from the files, and moved on, confident that the heart of AWES progress would occur beyond that circle.* Rather than seek a role as a token Makani dot.com senior-citizen I found it more interesting to go "work" with Wayne German that summer (lodging at PDX's legendary Clown House), and returned to bike nomadism with an AWES (KiteMotor1), ending up at the World Kite Museum, where I found the mother-lode of missing kite art in the collections. But I digress...

I would class the Implications Wheel with Instructables and Spotify as superficial data services not worth the loss of self-sufficiency, forced adverts and creepy user agreements, but hope Rod somehow finds otherwise in embracing these social-media (like the torque-ladder testing, its safer in the placebo groups).

-------------------------
* It may soon be evident if my allergic rejection of the Squid circle was justified, depending on whether the M600 triumphs or fails (a weak performance will likely be spun as success for the next few years). Note to Pierre that I do not give up on Makani reforming, since GoogleX will not run out of money crashing M600s.



On Wednesday, May 27, 2015 3:11 AM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
I wonder if Makani has developed an implications wheel analysis of it's market proposition?
http://www.implicationswheel.com/land-airbus.html

Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18103 From: dave santos Date: 5/27/2015
Subject: MIT Review reports on Bladeless Wind "Turbine"
Wind Towers are not really an AWE topic, but this article is a useful model of calm reasoned skepticism for overwrought (ProfC) wind tech criticism on the AWES Forum. WindMill prior art would sleeve on an airfoil to make the tower sweep like a windshield wiper.  Our pal John Dabiri (who we correspond with and Ed recently met with in Austin) ends the piece with a good quote. In AWE, we distinguish all these concepts form airborne-wind, as "wind towers"; this is no turbine-
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18104 From: dougselsam Date: 5/27/2015
Subject: Re: MIT Review reports on Bladeless Wind "Turbine"
"In AWE, we distinguish all these concepts form (sp) airborne-wind, as "wind towers"; this is no turbine-"
*** 1) You do not speak for all AWE, which is mostly a nonexistent art anyway, with many wannabe practitioners, but no serious electric power being produced (the original stated goal) after all these years.  Nonetheless, please do not say things like "In AWE, WE distinguish" as though everyone in AWE agrees with "Captain Argument".  In fact, it would seem that few people in AWE agree on much (except kite-reeling) and certainly you are more of a focal point for endless meaningless arguments, than for agreement.

*** 2) No actually, you DON'T distinguish between "all these concepts" and "airborne-wind", since this nonsense is VERY similar to your "bose-einstein" multi-flapper concept that you have declared in no uncertain terms is "THE answer".  Multiply into a "farm" like the last press-release version of this same concept we saw a couple years ago ("like grass blowing in the wind"), place it in the sky, add a dash of "Einstein" and you have a daveS miracle cure for all that ails mankind.  Spotted mushrooms optional.

*** 3) Only idiots need to spend a lot of time examining stuff like this as though it is a serious contender.  Nope, it actually IS "Professor Crackpot" rearing his empty head once again.  "The Good Professor" is always lurking in the underbrush.

*** 4) No Mr. vocabulary, this is NOT the same item you have been calling "windtowers" for the last couple of years.  The devices you call "windtowers" are used to elevate wind turbines, (actually called "towers", without the "wind"), or more often, you've used the term to derogatorily refer to wind turbines mounted on towers (the whole enchilada), therefore this is something completely different, since, as you point out, there is no turbine.

*** 5) You've stated that citing a "Professor Crackpot" character serves to scare away real professors from the forum.  Perhaps you should contact Hotels.com, since, by that reasoning, "Captain Obvious" may be "scaring away" real captains from the tourism industry. 

*** 6) It is amazing to see "MIT" endlessly cited in these go-nowhere examples of "press-release-science".  Has MIT "lost its Mojo"?  I thought they supposedly knew what they were doing!  Sheesh!
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18105 From: dave santos Date: 5/27/2015
Subject: Inflated Fairings for Kite Payloads (ie. control pods)
Lower mass, lower drag, and greater impact protection-
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18106 From: dave santos Date: 5/27/2015
Subject: Rope-Horse and Jib-Boom Rigging for AWES (sailing similarity case)
Low-Complexity AWE is essentially sailing-in-the-sky, so traditional sailing provides many effective ideas. Sailing has always favored crosswind power, so the trick for cheap simple powerful AWES is to endlessly self-tack a giant rig along a crosswind cableway limit cycle. For this purpose we can expect to draw on the Rope-Horse method and also use the downwind surface as a Jib-Boom medium. The Rope-Horse is funny name, since snobby yachtsmen abhor the word "rope". These methods are already well represented in the Open-AWE IP Pool; but offered here for review and further inspiration-
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18107 From: dave santos Date: 5/27/2015
Subject: Re: MIT Review reports on Bladeless Wind "Turbine"
MIT never lost its mojo: they are more formidable than ever, and really do a better job reviewing experimental wind tech than you.

It really is up to us AWE developers to continue to shape AWE's unique nomenclature. Yes, it is a tad derisive that AWE experts dismiss all kinds of wind towers as such*, but not nearly as derisive as your own use of language. Go ahead and propose your best choice of a term to cover all the wind tower concepts (including the non-turbines), and see what sticks in AWE circles.

-----------------
* because tower heights cannot tap the superior upper wind we seek to master.





On Wednesday, May 27, 2015 10:38 AM, "dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
"In AWE, we distinguish all these concepts form (sp) airborne-wind, as "wind towers"; this is no turbine-"
*** 1) You do not speak for all AWE, which is mostly a nonexistent art anyway, with many wannabe practitioners, but no serious electric power being produced (the original stated goal) after all these years.  Nonetheless, please do not say things like "In AWE, WE distinguish" as though everyone in AWE agrees with "Captain Argument".  In fact, it would seem that few people in AWE agree on much (except kite-reeling) and certainly you are more of a focal point for endless meaningless arguments, than for agreement.

*** 2) No actually, you DON'T distinguish between "all these concepts" and "airborne-wind", since this nonsense is VERY similar to your "bose-einstein" multi-flapper concept that you have declared in no uncertain terms is "THE answer".  Multiply into a "farm" like the last press-release version of this same concept we saw a couple years ago ("like grass blowing in the wind"), place it in the sky, add a dash of "Einstein" and you have a daveS miracle cure for all that ails mankind.  Spotted mushrooms optional.

*** 3) Only idiots need to spend a lot of time examining stuff like this as though it is a serious contender.  Nope, it actually IS "Professor Crackpot" rearing his empty head once again.  "The Good Professor" is always lurking in the underbrush.

*** 4) No Mr. vocabulary, this is NOT the same item you have been calling "windtowers" for the last couple of years.  The devices you call "windtowers" are used to elevate wind turbines, (actually called "towers", without the "wind"), or more often, you've used the term to derogatorily refer to wind turbines mounted on towers (the whole enchilada), therefore this is something completely different, since, as you point out, there is no turbine.

*** 5) You've stated that citing a "Professor Crackpot" character serves to scare away real professors from the forum.  Perhaps you should contact Hotels.com, since, by that reasoning, "Captain Obvious" may be "scaring away" real captains from the tourism industry. 

*** 6) It is amazing to see "MIT" endlessly cited in these go-nowhere examples of "press-release-science".  Has MIT "lost its Mojo"?  I thought they supposedly knew what they were doing!  Sheesh!
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18108 From: dougselsam Date: 5/27/2015
Subject: Re: MIT Review reports on Bladeless Wind "Turbine"
"MIT never lost its mojo: they are more formidable than ever, and really do a better job reviewing experimental wind tech than you."
*** OK, if you say so.  I would have imagined MIT could master AWE in a few weeks.  My illusions were shattered long ago.  That is OK, leaving the field perpetually wide-open.  If they are so sharp, why can't they flag idiots in 5 seconds like me?

"It really is up to us AWE developers to continue to shape AWE's unique nomenclature."
*** There is no such thing as an AWE developer.  And it is you who have insisted on following standard nomenclature.  Please give an example of "AWE's unique nomenclature".

"Yes, it is a tad derisive that AWE experts dismiss all kinds of wind towers as such*,"
*** See above - there are no "AWE experts", CERTAINLY not you...  Note: you previously denied being derogatory in your use of your own word: "windtowers".  Nothing new there: all we need to do, to find a counterpoint to what you said one day, is wait til the next day.  You come up with a different version of anything you say every day, often completely opposite to what you said the day before, usuallyt ryingt o weasel your way out of the last ridiculous statement by pretending yous aid something different than what you actually said, like pretending yesterday you had called cotton a "fiber" rather than admitting you had called it a "biopolymer" when confronted with the truth that it merely contains the biopolymer cellulose, rather than being 100% cellulose.

"but not nearly as derisive as your own use of language."
*** Thank you.  It's about time someone reflected the truth of endless idiots pretending to know anything about anything, with you as example #1.

"Go ahead and propose your best choice of a term to cover all the wind tower concepts (including the non-turbines), and see what sticks in AWE circles."
*** I'll leave the game of thinking you are making a difference by endless examination of vocabulary and constant redefining of commonly-known words to you.  I have no interest in such pointlessness.

-----------------
"* because tower heights cannot tap the superior upper wind we seek to master."
*** as far as you know.  What have you done in wind energy, higher than a standard wind turbine?


"History of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"
*** And when all else fails, make no mistake, daveS knows how to google a term and cut-paste the obligatory "Wikipedia" result.  Whoopee-doo.  Wikipedia: MIT - thanks daveS, for that amazing progress in AWE.  Thanks for showing us how computers on the internet work.  Thanks for informing us that there exists a Wikipedia article on MIT.  This is priceless stuff.  You're not only revealing yourself as a genius, but providing indispensable knowledge to the rest of us ignorant and helpless amateurs.  Oh wait - MIT can be traced back to 1861?  Now that changes EVERYTHING!

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18109 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 5/27/2015
Subject: Re: rotary soft energy transmission enabled by fluid interaction

Rod have you a video of it?

 

PierreB

 

 

 

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18110 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/27/2015
Subject: Re: Spider silk

Rod gave in a post the following link that I place in a related topic thread here for convenience:


Spiders Ingest Nanotubes, Then Weave Silk Reinforced with Carbon | MIT Technology Review

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18111 From: edoishi Date: 5/27/2015
Subject: Flag Tail and FAA markings
Attachments :
    The 8' x 12' American flag both stabilized the 22M kite remarkably well and attracted scores of patriotic vets on the super-not-so-secret x-military base in North Austin... 

    One observation based on the photo (which I saturated in photoshop) is that on an overcast day, the white markings almost disappear into the clouds compared to the orange.  Against a bright blue sky, the white pops...
    		   @@attachment@@
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18112 From: Rod Read Date: 5/27/2015
    Subject: Re: rotary soft energy transmission enabled by fluid interaction

    Basically describing a Daisy Pierre. The inflated ring in the videos turns the upwind ring closer to the ground.

    The energy movement description can be expanded to include a set of Daisy rings inflated in line all pulling cumulatively.

    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18113 From: dave santos Date: 5/28/2015
    Subject: Re: MIT Review reports on Bladeless Wind "Turbine"
    Doug,

    Wikipedia here merely has to count for more than your unsupprted opinion that MIT somehow lost its mojo.

    Go ahead and try to do better than Wikipedia, not just complain in vain,

    daveS
    From: dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]
    Sent: ‎5/‎27/‎2015 1:58 PM
    To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
    Subject: Re: [AWES] Re: MIT Review reports on Bladeless Wind "Turbine"

     

    "MIT never lost its mojo: they are more formidable than ever, and really do a better job reviewing experimental wind tech than you."
    *** OK, if you say so.  I would have imagined MIT could master AWE in a few weeks.  My illusions were shattered long ago.  That is OK, leaving the field perpetually wide-open.  If they are so sharp, why can't they flag idiots in 5 seconds like me?


    "It really is up to us AWE developers to continue to shape AWE's unique nomenclature."
    *** There is no such thing as an AWE developer.  And it is you who have insisted on following standard nomenclature.  Please give an example of "AWE's unique nomenclature".

    "Yes, it is a tad derisive that AWE experts dismiss all kinds of wind towers as such*,"
    *** See above - there are no "AWE experts", CERTAINLY not you...  Note: you previously denied being derogatory in your use of your own word: "windtowers".  Nothing new there: all we need to do, to find a counterpoint to what you said one day, is wait til the next day.  You come up with a different version of anything you say every day, often completely opposite to what you said the day before, usuallyt ryingt o weasel your way out of the last ridiculous statement by pretending yous aid something different than what you actually said, like pretending yesterday you had called cotton a "fiber" rather than admitting you had called it a "biopolymer" when confronted with the truth that it merely contains the biopolymer cellulose, rather than being 100% cellulose.

    "but not nearly as derisive as your own use of language."
    *** Thank you.  It's about time someone reflected the truth of endless idiots pretending to know anything about anything, with you as example #1.

    "Go ahead and propose your best choice of a term to cover all the wind tower concepts (including the non-turbines), and see what sticks in AWE circles."
    *** I'll leave the game of thinking you are making a difference by endless examination of vocabulary and constant redefining of commonly-known words to you.  I have no interest in such pointlessness.

    -----------------
    "* because tower heights cannot tap the superior upper wind we seek to master."
    *** as far as you know.  What have you done in wind energy, higher than a standard wind turbine?


    "History of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"
    *** And when all else fails, make no mistake, daveS knows how to google a term and cut-paste the obligatory "Wikipedia" result.  Whoopee-doo.  Wikipedia: MIT - thanks daveS, for that amazing progress in AWE.  Thanks for showing us how computers on the internet work.  Thanks for informing us that there exists a Wikipedia article on MIT.  This is priceless stuff.  You're not only revealing yourself as a genius, but providing indispensable knowledge to the rest of us ignorant and helpless amateurs.  Oh wait - MIT can be traced back to 1861?  Now that changes EVERYTHING!

     
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18114 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/28/2015
    Subject: Re: MIT Review reports on Bladeless Wind "Turbine"

    "Astro Teller, head of Google X, Google’s semi-secret research facility that acquired Makani in 2013, said in March that the company would soon begin tests of a full-scale, 600-kilowatt kite."

    From topic's article: the above quote. re: "March" of 2015.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18115 From: dave santos Date: 5/28/2015
    Subject: Current Altitudes in AWE Testing

    The bulk of serious AWE players are currently flying between 300 to 700m high, with Makani at the lower end, and the EU reeling teams and SkySails ship kites at the upper end. USWindLabs rules under 50ft.

    A smart take on AWE R&D is to consider the broad range of experimental conditions as a collective knowledge and experience resource. We are Team Earth :)


    ---------------------
    Doug asked me personally: "What have you done in wind energy, higher than a standard wind turbine?"   

    Doug,

    As stated before, I draw on childhood experience flying with my father, when it was still common to cut engine power, enter a shallow dive, and keep the propeller windmilling, which drives the magnetos (which actually charges the battery a bit, but more vitally provides spark for engine restart) . This IFO mode generally occurred between 2000-5000ft. Of course, this particular engineering similarity case seemingly only irritates you.

    As far as gaining experience with high altitude winds, flying as Jim Patton's kite-train apprentice to 1600ft was excellent training spanning several years. Shielded by WSIKF's week-long NOTAM, flying above one thousand feet is common for me, for some years now. I have introduced many AWE folks to flying to about 1000ft (like WOW board members). Flying at or just below 500ft with toy-kites in remote airspace is almost daily practice (in NW), respecting current FAA guidelines. I flew a pocket sled to almost 800ft in Leuven from the roof of Moritz's castle-like lab, and have flown small working "kitesat" prototypes, in years past (in obstacle-shielded flight) to 800ft, generating to drive a signal light. Most of my recent testing is for FAA compliance studies, like mastering instant killing of large kites for sense-and-avoid requirements; not the sort of AWE goal you ever credit, but still essential..

    My conceptual approach is simply opposite to yours, with opposite results. By flying as much as possible, I seek to acquire, over the years, thousands of kite flight hours up high, in order to be fully at home in those winds. Generating AWE becomes definitely easier the more one trains. Most serious kPower power experiments have been at about 200ft, as 1/10th scale of FAA ceiling. Now we have approval to fly to 2000ft at the Warm Springs UAS test range, starting after the Texas AWE Encampment. If we ask for airspace approval, we could pop a KiteSat up well higher for a world record AWE altitude, if that would finally make you happy.

    Of course kPower counts all altitude accomplishments in AWE as a collective win. Your basic fallacy is to think your own strategies and track record for reaching upper wind (and your criteria for complaining) are somehow better than the obviously better strategies and criteria of the rest of the world, which is moving up nicely. Lets hope someday you too fly higher than standard wind towers, as AWE R&D has for over a decade.

    daveS
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18116 From: dougselsam Date: 5/28/2015
    Subject: Re: Spider silk
    I really wonder about the validity of this "research":
    1) Why only 15 spiders?
    2) Where is the "control"?  We learn in 7th grade that a "scientific" experiment should have a "control" group.  In this case, I'd expect to see something more like: "We had two batches of 15 spiders each, one sprayed with nanotubes, and one just sprayed with water containing some dirt" or "some charcoal".
    3) Maybe 3 groups - one just sprayed with "just water"
    4) Maybe do a few trials instead of just one.  One trial could just be results due to some anomaly.
    5) What comes to mind is they have to measure the cross-sectional area of each fiber to get to a number for strength (?) - that is where a "control" group would be helpful, since the "data" is so dependent on the quality/validity of the measurement technique(s).  If the results were from the measuring technique, a "control" group would hopefully reveal this, possibly resulting in them realizing an error and never publishing this info, or publishing a result that the spray had no effect.
    6) To publish such results without including such elementary scientific norms as a "control" group seems to step over the line from science to possible hype, even to simply publishing something that is not true.
    7) Mojo anyone?  This is "from MIT"...
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18117 From: dougselsam Date: 5/28/2015
    Subject: Re: rotary soft energy transmission enabled by fluid interaction
    All roads lead to SuperTurbine(R).
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18118 From: Rod Read Date: 5/28/2015
    Subject: Re: rotary soft energy transmission enabled by fluid interaction

    I live on an island Doug. Where is this fabulous village called Superturbine?

    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18119 From: dougselsam Date: 5/28/2015
    Subject: Re: Current Altitudes in AWE Testing
    Doug asked me..."What have you done in wind energy, higher than a standard wind turbine?" ... flying... cut engine power, enter a shallow dive...propeller windmilling...  *** OK so the real answer is you have done zero AWE higher than your dreaded "windtowers", unless you resort to your standard crawling-under-a-rock debating technique of "redefining" words. 

    One of your favorites is to suddenly allow ANYTHING to be described as AWE as long as it is you doing it.  But you are not consistent.  One moment, every wiggling leaf or airplane traveling downwind is "airborne wind energy", but you never account for how wiggling leaves and airplanes traveling downwind are not tallied in recognized windpower stats. 

    Let's just imagine someone else claiming success according to the standards of a daveS:
    Let's imagine for a moment, daveS in typical fashion, attempting to hold, say, Makani, accountable for a claim that they had successfully operated at a 2-mile height.  When pressed, they say, "Well, we had a grad student taking flying lessons, and the instructor had him cut the engine and descend, whereby the prop was "windmilling".

    You'd laugh, right?  What if they just said "We have lots of grad students that fly kites and sometimes they have fllown them pretty high." - again, you'd laugh.  You'd rightly say "That is irrelevant - nice try - you guys are 100% full-of-beans and you're doing nothing but fooling around and fooling yourselves..   So I think it's time you held yourself to the same sort of ordinary standards you hold others to, and hopefully you can have a good laugh.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18120 From: dougselsam Date: 5/28/2015
    Subject: Re: rotary soft energy transmission enabled by fluid interaction
    I think you are establishing a branch office on your island. 
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18121 From: dave santos Date: 5/28/2015
    Subject: Re: Current Altitudes in AWE Testing
    No, Doug my "real answer" is not "zero", but stands as wriiten. Zero is your sour take only. I am pleased with global AWE progress and proud of my small (greater than zero) contributions. 





    On Thursday, May 28, 2015 8:56 AM, "dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
    Doug asked me..."What have you done in wind energy, higher than a standard wind turbine?" ... flying... cut engine power, enter a shallow dive...propeller windmilling...  *** OK so the real answer is you have done zero AWE higher than your dreaded "windtowers", unless you resort to your standard crawling-under-a-rock debating technique of "redefining" words. 

    One of your favorites is to suddenly allow ANYTHING to be described as AWE as long as it is you doing it.  But you are not consistent.  One moment, every wiggling leaf or airplane traveling downwind is "airborne wind energy", but you never account for how wiggling leaves and airplanes traveling downwind are not tallied in recognized windpower stats. 

    Let's just imagine someone else claiming success according to the standards of a daveS:
    Let's imagine for a moment, daveS in typical fashion, attempting to hold, say, Makani, accountable for a claim that they had successfully operated at a 2-mile height.  When pressed, they say, "Well, we had a grad student taking flying lessons, and the instructor had him cut the engine and descend, whereby the prop was "windmilling".

    You'd laugh, right?  What if they just said "We have lots of grad students that fly kites and sometimes they have fllown them pretty high." - again, you'd laugh.  You'd rightly say "That is irrelevant - nice try - you guys are 100% full-of-beans and you're doing nothing but fooling around and fooling yourselves..   So I think it's time you held yourself to the same sort of ordinary standards you hold others to, and hopefully you can have a good laugh.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18122 From: dave santos Date: 5/28/2015
    Subject: Re: Spider silk
    The controls in this case are all the previous scientific measurements of spider silk strength properties. All these scientists needed to report was new data results, which suggests far higher strength than spider silk previously measured by science. Then its up to third-party validation by other labs to be able to replicate the observations.

    Its both premature and kooky to think one spider experiment is proper evidence that MIT has lost its mojo. The Wikipedia article on MIT describes how the school is putting its core curriculum online for free to the world. This is a noble bid to expand MIT's classic mojo beyond anything in the past, never mind 15 spiders.



    On Thursday, May 28, 2015 8:31 AM, "dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
    I really wonder about the validity of this "research":
    1) Why only 15 spiders?
    2) Where is the "control"?  We learn in 7th grade that a "scientific" experiment should have a "control" group.  In this case, I'd expect to see something more like: "We had two batches of 15 spiders each, one sprayed with nanotubes, and one just sprayed with water containing some dirt" or "some charcoal".
    3) Maybe 3 groups - one just sprayed with "just water"
    4) Maybe do a few trials instead of just one.  One trial could just be results due to some anomaly.
    5) What comes to mind is they have to measure the cross-sectional area of each fiber to get to a number for strength (?) - that is where a "control" group would be helpful, since the "data" is so dependent on the quality/validity of the measurement technique(s).  If the results were from the measuring technique, a "control" group would hopefully reveal this, possibly resulting in them realizing an error and never publishing this info, or publishing a result that the spray had no effect.
    6) To publish such results without including such elementary scientific norms as a "control" group seems to step over the line from science to possible hype, even to simply publishing something that is not true.
    7) Mojo anyone?  This is "from MIT"...
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18123 From: dave santos Date: 5/28/2015
    Subject: Re: rotary soft energy transmission enabled by fluid interaction
    Keeping in mind that our pal Rudy invented the "superturbine", but as a novelty, not a utility-scale AWES basis. For Doug, this is where his road ended; that much is true.



    On Thursday, May 28, 2015 8:57 AM, "dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
    I think you are establishing a branch office on your island. 
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18124 From: dougselsam Date: 5/28/2015
    Subject: Re: Current Altitudes in AWE Testing
    " Zero is your sour take only." *** Yes we know:  If YOU say something negative about someone else, you describe it as "wryly", but if anyone points out anything that you perceive as negative toward you, it is "sour".
    Word-by-word, you endlessly try to weave your own private version of reality, always rewriting history, endlessly mischaracterizing anything and everything anyone else says, and restating everything you say as its exact opposite once proven wrong.  Very amusing.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18125 From: dougselsam Date: 5/28/2015
    Subject: Re: Spider silk
    "All these scientists needed to report was new data results, which suggests far higher strength than spider silk previously measured by science. Then its up to third-party validation by other labs to be able to replicate the observations."
    *** Keyword: "suggests".  That is not a properly conducted scientific experiment.  It would have been trivial to have a control group and measure that by the same method.  That is how science is kept honest.  Else, a simple measurement error may be all that is involved.  This is basic.  Like I said before, this is covered by 7th grade.  It is how science is normally done.  Of course, nothing normal makes any sense to you, and you always jump at the chance to defend bad science in your endless theme of "I''d like an argument, please".
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18126 From: dave santos Date: 5/28/2015
    Subject: Re: Current Altitudes in AWE Testing
    Doug,

    Its quite true that any of us is sour at times, but you are obviously the most globally sour figure in AWE history. I am definitely in the opposite happy party*, and think AWE progress in reaching wind above towers is sweet.

    I don't mind speaking for AWE at times, as you claim to speak for wind turbines on towers at times,

    daveS

    * It really is a treat to work in AWE.





    On Thursday, May 28, 2015 10:45 AM, "dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
    " Zero is your sour take only." *** Yes we know:  If YOU say something negative about someone else, you describe it as "wryly", but if anyone points out anything that you perceive as negative toward you, it is "sour".
    Word-by-word, you endlessly try to weave your own private version of reality, always rewriting history, endlessly mischaracterizing anything and everything anyone else says, and restating everything you say as its exact opposite once proven wrong.  Very amusing.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18127 From: dougselsam Date: 5/28/2015
    Subject: Re: Current Altitudes in AWE Testing
    "Doug, Its quite true that any of us is sour at times,"
    *** OK well, you are the only one using that term.  I suggest you use it to describe your own negative statements, instead of complementing yourself in your echo-chamber, saying things like "AWE experts" (meaning you of course) "wryly" make whatever negative statement you made.

    "but you are obviously the most globally sour figure in AWE history."
    *** Nobody uses the word "sour" on this forum except you.  Interesting that it always applies to someone else, never you.  Since you maintain that every leaf on every tree is wind energy and that every airplane that has ever flown is AWE, then I think you are exaggerating to say any of us on this forum is the most anything "in AWE history" - a typical example of how you are not consistent from one statement to the next. 

    *** We in wind energy are used to the crackpots blaming their own lack of output on us, calling us names in their desperation.  It's OK, we can take it.  Like a baby can be expected to cry - though it is irritating, you know it's just what babies do. 

    *** Like a tire that just can't escape a rut in the road, you just keep slipping into typical Professor Crackpot behavior.  No problem, you can't help it.  We understand.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18128 From: Rod Read Date: 5/29/2015
    Subject: how big a parabolic mirror?
    how big a miror would we need to be able to look at a kite affecting the air aroun it using Schlieren Flow Visualization ?
    http://www.npr.org/2014/04/09/300563606/what-does-sound-look-like


    Rod Read

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

    07899057227
    01851 870878
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18129 From: dave santos Date: 5/29/2015
    Subject: Re: how big a parabolic mirror?
    It would depend on the size of the kite. A miniature kite would only need a small mirror.



    On Friday, May 29, 2015 5:38 AM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
    how big a miror would we need to be able to look at a kite affecting the air aroun it using Schlieren Flow Visualization ?
    http://www.npr.org/2014/04/09/300563606/what-does-sound-look-like


    Rod Read

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

    07899057227
    01851 870878
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18130 From: dave santos Date: 5/29/2015
    Subject: Re: Current Altitudes in AWE Testing
    Doug wrote: "We in wind energy are used to the crackpots blaming their own lack of output on us, calling us names in their desperation. "
    -------------------
    Doug, 

    That's exactly how AWE is developing, but here its you who somehow blame your "own lack of output on us, calling us names in...desperation". Your lack of creative output has been obvious for years now, and we have endured years of your own desperate profane name-calling.

    You may not like our varied AWE outputs like we do, but a least we are trying, not just lacking; and we certainly have nothing to blame real wind energy folks for,

    daveS
     



    On Thursday, May 28, 2015 1:18 PM, "dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
    "Doug, Its quite true that any of us is sour at times,"
    *** OK well, you are the only one using that term.  I suggest you use it to describe your own negative statements, instead of complementing yourself in your echo-chamber, saying things like "AWE experts" (meaning you of course) "wryly" make whatever negative statement you made.

    "but you are obviously the most globally sour figure in AWE history."
    *** Nobody uses the word "sour" on this forum except you.  Interesting that it always applies to someone else, never you.  Since you maintain that every leaf on every tree is wind energy and that every airplane that has ever flown is AWE, then I think you are exaggerating to say any of us on this forum is the most anything "in AWE history" - a typical example of how you are not consistent from one statement to the next. 

    *** We in wind energy are used to the crackpots blaming their own lack of output on us, calling us names in their desperation.  It's OK, we can take it.  Like a baby can be expected to cry - though it is irritating, you know it's just what babies do. 

    *** Like a tire that just can't escape a rut in the road, you just keep slipping into typical Professor Crackpot behavior.  No problem, you can't help it.  We understand.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18131 From: Rod Read Date: 5/29/2015
    Subject: Ropey?
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18132 From: dave santos Date: 5/29/2015
    Subject: Re: Ropey?
    The URL  was not found on the server. A clearer description of topic is appreciated.
    From: Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]
    Sent: ‎5/‎29/‎2015 12:52 PM
    To: AWE
    Subject: [AWES] Ropey?

     

    How to do big AWE....
    Well maybe
    https://plus.google.com/photos/photo/111579908374957776413/6153649725367571106?pct=ab&pcv=6153649705554269841&sview=20
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18133 From: dave santos Date: 5/29/2015
    Subject: Re: Spider silk
    Correcting Doug: The spider silk study was not MIT research supporting a weird MIT loss-of-mojo fantasy, but Italian. Doug especially complained over an imagined lack of control data, but the scientists first took control samples before doping the 15 spiders with nanotubes and Graphene.  His double-error suggests Doug did not read the paper, as usual, before jumping to false scientific conclusions (his claimed "five second" test). 

    Quoting the scientists-

    "After 5 days reference dragline silk samples (RS) were collected. Subsequently, spiders were exposed to aqueous dispersions of graphene and single wall carbon nanotubes (SWNTs)"


    This enhanced spider-silk study is quite nice work, with rather amazing results, suggesting we will soon see nanotube synthetics based on this bio-model. We will see how well third-party results match over time. The original paper-








    On Thursday, May 28, 2015 10:52 AM, "dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
    "All these scientists needed to report was new data results, which suggests far higher strength than spider silk previously measured by science. Then its up to third-party validation by other labs to be able to replicate the observations."
    *** Keyword: "suggests".  That is not a properly conducted scientific experiment.  It would have been trivial to have a control group and measure that by the same method.  That is how science is kept honest.  Else, a simple measurement error may be all that is involved.  This is basic.  Like I said before, this is covered by 7th grade.  It is how science is normally done.  Of course, nothing normal makes any sense to you, and you always jump at the chance to defend bad science in your endless theme of "I''d like an argument, please".
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18134 From: Rod Read Date: 5/29/2015
    Subject: Re: Ropey?
    Ohhhh That's odd.
    I can't see an M600 being hauled up by a giant set of masts front and back now either

    Rod Read

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

    07899057227
    01851 870878
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18135 From: Rod Read Date: 5/29/2015
    Subject: Re: Ropey?

    Found it

    On 29 May 2015 22:29, "Rod Read" <rod.read@gmail.com
    		  @@attachment@@
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18136 From: dougselsam Date: 5/30/2015
    Subject: Re: Spider silk
    from pa ge4 :
    However, we
    cannot
    exclude t
    he presence of
    SWNT
    s
    and graphene on the fib
    r
    e silk surface as
    a result of spinning
    in an
    environment
    containi
    ng SWNT and graphene
    .
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18138 From: dave santos Date: 5/30/2015
    Subject: Re: Spider silk
    Yes, the scientists properly pose open questions, and it would be wonderful to produce novel superfibers by merely exposing the spinneret output to nanofiber. No doubt someone will perform microscopic studies next.

    The bosonic treatment of superfibers in the paper is state of the art. Good pioneering work, and MIT's mojo still safe.
    From: dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]
    Sent: ‎5/‎30/‎2015 9:00 AM
    To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
    Subject: Re: [AWES] Re: Spider silk

     

    from pa ge4 :
    However, we

    cannot
    exclude t
    he presence of
    SWNT
    s
    and graphene on the fib
    r
    e silk surface as
    a result of spinning
    in an
    environment
    containi
    ng SWNT and graphene
    .

    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18141 From: dave santos Date: 6/1/2015
    Subject: AB Dome Experiments by kPower (Aerotecture)

    Alexander Bolonkin's aerospace ideas combine visionary scope with a lifetime of practical engineering at the highest level. Alex is a worthy heir to Bucky Fuller in the development of airborne tensile structure concepts. kPower is under developmental license to work with Bolonkin's airborne ideas, which range from AWE electrical generation to transport and aerotecture. Due to historic rains and low wind at the Texas AWE Encampment, flying time was replaced by added lab time, including preliminary bench testing of AB Dome dynamics. AB Domes are proposed as general-purpose megascale (up to 10km dia.) inflated domes enabled by modern polymers.

    Two benchtop prototypes were set up to validate wind-driven ram-air inflation as an alternative to mechanical blowers. A similarity case from alpine camping is the effect a small upwind hole has on a mountain tent, where the tent inflates tautly, and snow even accumulates inside. It was found that a small inlet on the upwind side reliably (over dozens of cycles) enabled inflation of the small polyethylene domes. Just a tiny air current sufficed to maintain inflation, and in a modest breeze from an electric fan, the domes supported "massive" payloads on top. The domes progressively resisted collapse as wind increased, by added pressure. Videos pending uploading.

    An nice early application of this tech is the "fall tent" requirement of kPower's aerotecture platform. We now see how to set up a big tarp on the beach like a bubble, with pressure maintained by wind. We know how to make fabric inlets act as one-way valves, such that if a test pilot falls on such an air-dome, the valve flaps shut, helping resist the fall. Now all we have to carry is a large tarp in our kit, rather than the previous design calling for expensive inflated pylons and fall netting. One-way valves in all directions allow iso-operations (wind from any direction). The new work is available for third party license under the Open-AWE IP-Pool.

    AB Domes will come in endless variations; the following application paper link is just a sample. Its evident wind-driven inflation can help make the technology economic (perhaps NG combustion as a windless inflation choice)-
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18142 From: Rod Read Date: 6/1/2015
    Subject: What is your kite doing? response resolution improvements through sm
    Google is behind it and they want to know what people could do with it!

    Rod Read

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

    07899057227
    01851 870878
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18143 From: Rod Read Date: 6/1/2015
    Subject: designing for embedded intelligence
    Embedded intelligence is where architectural structure governs performance characteristics of desirable measurable parameters.
    http://newyork.aaschool.ac.uk/

    Tension governed shock cord pull auto furling for concurrent ring rotor systems ?
    Embedded intelligence ... I think so.

    Rod Read

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

    07899057227
    01851 870878
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18144 From: gordon_sp Date: 6/1/2015
    Subject: Re: More details of next-round Minesto Sea Trials

    One of the major differences between tidal energy and HAWE is that the water flow, although reversing, is always in the same direction.  Because of this, a permanent installation can be considered.  Unlike HAWE, the weight of the device is not a problem in a submerged system.  Two major systems have been developed.  The first are single turbine units secured to the ocean floor.  These units rotate 180 degrees when the tide reverses. (See http://www.verdantpower.com/rite-project.html)  The second is the crossflow unit developed by Minesto (http://minesto.com/deep-green/).  They claim that crossflow will travel up to 10 times the speed of a stationary unit.    Both these systems use a single turbine combined with a single generator. 

    I suggest that an array of turbines linked to a single generator would be a simpler and more economic device. A reasonable size would be say four shafts, each with four turbines mounted in a frame which rests on the ocean floor.  It is held in place by tethers, anchored to the ocean bed.  The turbine design is such that it will operate equally well when rotating in both directions and the device does not have to be moved when the tide reverses.  The shafts transfer power to the main driveshaft by means of bevel gears, belt, or rope drives so that a single generator is used.  This generator can be located above water level for ease of servicing.

    Comparing the array system with Minesto we have the following advantages:

    ·         *The footprint of the array is much smaller than the area required for Minesto to operate.

    ·         *Due to lower forces, the turbines can be of much lighter construction than the Minesto turbine.

    ·         *It is not necessary to “park” the apparatus 4 times a day when the tide reverses.

    ·         *No wing, nacelle, rudder or tether required.

    ·         *No control systems or software required.

    ·         *No electrical components under water.

    I realize that this configuration is probably covered in Doug’s or somebody else’s patent but I wonder why nobody has tried it.  Does anyone know of any group like AWE that covers ocean, tidal and/or wave energy?

    Is there an efficiency penalty when one constructs a symmetrical turbine which can operate in both directions?

    Is there an efficiency penalty when operating a cable or belt drive transmission system under water?

     

    Gordon S.

    		   @@attachment@@
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18145 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 6/1/2015
    Subject: FPV Kiting

    FPV Kiting

    1. Have First Person View (FPV) in a kite system to view land, sea, ice scenes.

    2. Have FPV in a kite system to view other parts of the AWES.

    3. Have FPV in an AWES to view air traffic, bird traffic, ...


    FPV Trade Association

    FPV Trade Association: Promote and Protect the Joy of FPV

     
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18146 From: edoishi Date: 6/1/2015
    Subject: Re: AB Dome Experiments by kPower (Aerotecture)
    Here is the video from today's test:
    http://youtu.be/3u8-kxa9GK4

     





    ---In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, <santos137@...
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18147 From: dave santos Date: 6/1/2015
    Subject: Re: FPV Kiting
    On the wildly positive side, the FAA wholly declined to class kites as UAS in its recent historic rulings, allowing us to operate under the old FARs, Part 101. A reasonable interpretation is that tethered FPV camera systems are allowed to us, since kites do not present the same inherent operational risks (pilot disorientation, loss-of-control, runaway, etc.) as free-flying drones. As long as we fly safely from our magic strings, we are free to go rather wild; while the common drones chafe at their red-tape fetters.

    Pocock was right, that we are as kings by means of kites.



    On Monday, June 1, 2015 6:58 PM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
    FPV Kiting
    1. Have First Person View (FPV) in a kite system to view land, sea, ice scenes.
    2. Have FPV in a kite system to view other parts of the AWES.
    3. Have FPV in an AWES to view air traffic, bird traffic, ...

    FPV Trade Association
     
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18148 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 6/2/2015
    Subject: Re: AB Dome Experiments by kPower (Aerotecture)
    US Hawks Hang Gliding Association • View topic - Safe-Splat