Both Peter Lynn and Mike Barnard produce fine analyses based on facts then extrapolations, as robust basis for fruitful discussions. What a change with regard to hazy theories and rotating (but without wanting producing any kW) words bitting their  tails!

In my opinion the main problem (for kite system) Peter Lynn raises is the particulary high level of efficiency of fuel for a cargo: "Fuel use per tonne km is perhaps 70 times better for a container ship than for a truck or train- they're VERY fuel efficient."

PierreB

FlygenKite - Kite wind turbine - Eolienne cerf-volant 

			FlygenKite - Kite wind turbine - Eolienne cerf-volant Airborne Wind Turbine in utility-scale.Eolienne aéroportée pour une exploitation massive des vents de haute altitude.
			View on flygenkite.com	Preview by Yahoo

JoeF wrote : "Perhaps some of the confusion that Pierre mentions about whether or not an AWES is a cross wind system or not could be clarified by the present proof process, and perhaps followed later by other proofs on associated matters."

Indeed I tried to see rotating wings as "crosswind kites" with constraint move. And DougS also mentioned "crosswind kites" terms as problematic , since conventional wind energy already works (and even more strictly) crosswind.

Probably "crosswind kites" are considered in opposition to " statics kites ". The same is not possible for a rotor of conventional turbine. So the double fonction of kite system (lift and convert) is well visible.

But instead of used formulae taking account of performances by wing area, I would prefer terms used in current wind energy as Betz coefficient by swept area as being the whole area contained in eight or circle figures or by rotation. Thus some maximisation concerns as space used would be clarified.

PierreB

Precision: "since conventional wind turbines already works (and even more strictly) crosswind."

  Beyond that, remember that atmospheric sulfur has been cited as likely causing "global cooling" by reflecting the sun's rays, so from that standpoint, burning sulfur is (supposedly) "good".  There are many angles to consider.  :)

Doug, ... so many subtopics within the topic!   Each subtopic may have its space. Shotgun treatment glosses over some potentially core matters. So, this note does not pretend to face all the mentioned subtopics, but eventually it is my aim to attend to your mentioned subtopics.   Here are some of the subtopics that I sense:

1. Proof processes.  Types.  Choices. Styles. Importance. Historical examples of relevance and impact.

2. Role of definitions in engineering, science, craft, AWE.

3. Assumptions. How one may not have an infinite preamble, but that some assumptions are needed. Does the set of assumptions bring contradictions or not?

4. Choice to avoid logical proofs.  Choice to engage in logical proofs.

5. Distinction between idealized scenarios and actual materialized practical scenarios.

6. Perspective appreciation.

7. Possibility of many proofs of some particular theorem. Elegance of proofs. Hierarchy of elegance of proofs.

8. What information is already available that might play in a given proof process?

9. Will having a particular theorem have usefulness?

10. Progress without explicitly having proved theorems.

11. One might "see" something clearly; such might amount to a holding of a personal theorem; such may not be in a form that is publishable in text. Such might not be sharable in a community. Yet, the holding person still "sees" a matter clearly.  Making the clarity communicated to others in a scientific community may well require sharable proofs.

12. Roles of different members of a scientific community.

13. That some attention on a topic does not necessarily mean that other topics are remote.

14. That some attention on a proof process does not necessarily mean that other practical AWE projects are neglected.

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

The above does not exhaust the glanced subtopics noticed so far in this topic thread.

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

During an effort on a proposition up for proof, one might arrive to the conclusion that the proposition cannot be proved; in such case, it may loom that the proposition might be true yet unprovable (at least in the prove methods known, so far). Or some success might be attained to show a proposition is surely false by proof.

The present topic: "Prove a particular kited wing as non-cross winding"

invites putting up a well-described "particular kited wing" and proving it is "non-cross winding".   Well, is that asking for some impossibility or not?  Maybe it can be shown that no well-described kited wing could be "non-cross winding".  The text presentation of the optional courses is not yet up and clear to me. Some persons might have their personal "see" moments and "see" some resolution on topic; their "seeing" is invited to be text described carefully to see if others may "see" from the persuasion of the text argument.  

If it can be shown that all kited wings are necessarily "cross winding" then the topic can be resolved quickly; as such proof would mean that the proposition that of some particular kited wing be non-cross winding has zero chance of being proved.   But, I have not the proofs either way yet.  And I do not "see" yet a resolution, but have some discomfort hunches that lead me to care.   The why of "care" does have practical importance for my cares to advance kite energy.   What exactly it means to cross wind or to not cross wind seems fundamentally important to guide design systems, construct systems, and experiment with kite energy systems.  

Is there a time when some kited wing is not cross winding?  Is there an elegant proof in the ether for the scene?  Aerodynamicists, logicians, kite engineers, ... are all invited to the challenge of proving the matter.

Doug, thanks for your time and effort. And I hear your exasperations too during the effort. Your perspectives are being studied.  Yet, there are differing perspectives. 

Yesterday, I accidentally had a PTO on a kited wing that was joyfully observed and heard. The kited wing was a tumbling wing set in a traverse-to-wind arch format. The upper part of the wing was moving downwind; the lower part of the wing was beating its way upwind while coupled with the upper part of the wing. In my crafting I left some wing just so the wing part rotated and hit the arch load line once per rotation; the hitting was tiny but just enough so that the wing part was bent just enough to be able to bend back to its  rightful place. The net result was a built-in PTO that slightly damped the rotation of the wing while putting some energy into the air in the form of sound or noise: flap, flap, flap.  Some of the PTO energy went into bending and heating the wing and the air.  I asked myself, was the upper part of the wing going downwind cross winding or not?  And I asked myself, was the lower part of the wing that was going windward cross winding or not?   My gut was telling me that, if even if I did not yet have words for it, that somehow  there had to be some cross winding involved; but how? Ah!  The wing during the rotation is "almost always" crossing the wind; perhaps just at the infinitesimal points of top and bottom there is not "crossing".   And observing full stall, I sensed that  in some sense kiting ended and no "crossing" was occurring, perhaps.   Things to explore carefully!   

Not sure. "Crosswind kite power" projects (Makani, Tu Delft and others) are studied on a basis of performances of wing, not by taking account of swept area, even less for space used. Expected following is a forest of tethers as a farm, with no really manageable space.

In contrast studying on a basis of swept area (with correction by trygonometry), then swept area within space used, so space used, is a door towards stationary and rotating wing which is more manageable.  

PierreB

Kite energy

Kite energy systems are machines performing practical works,
producing energy for tertiary uses,
or otherwise enhancing the universe. These special machines consist of cooperative sets: anchor set, tether set, wing set.
The anchor set may also be viewed as another wing set.  

The kite energy machines are studied in a very wide spectrum of sizes from molecular to earth-surround.

CrossWinding1940.JPG

Doug,

       Thanks for the focus on the topic. As the cooperative project continues, your posts bring up some points that seem to further the topic.  As statements are made, some new ideas arise; each statement is being checked for gems, branching to new topics of potential worth, refinements, and possible core proof points.  I will attend to your offered statements and offered proof; checking by you, me, and others of any offered proof is part of the scientific manner. Gremlins may live in offered proofs that make the offered proof not a proof; but in the process, perhaps someone will be able to fix an offered inadequate proof.   The work of checking is ongoing. My guess is that some polished sound proofs will surface.   Again, the proposition to be proved might not be provable; and then the question will arise: Is the proposition simply impossible or are is the proposition undecidable.    You have offered a short "proof" concluding that a particular kited wing described as non-cross winding; perhaps you presented a sound proof; the community checking process has yet to occur; for you, you might "see" a soundness in your offer; the flowering in scientific community on the matter will be when others check for soundness and also "see" a proof; we are not there yet.   Look for gremlins of different sorts; was some new aspect placed that forms a different topic than the proposition of topic? Is the logic sound? Has the proposition been faced essentially?  It would be neat if you have produced a tight short elegant proof that stands up to scientific community oversight.

Some of your points in discussion while approaching an offered "proof" remain interesting.

For instance, you have stated that I invented the term or phrase "cross winding" which maybe could be cool, if such were fact.  If you can prove that I invented the term, that would be neat.   However, since the term has prior use in aviation, then I highly doubt that I invented the term!  One strict instance of priority would prove that I did not invent the term.   I offer for community review a contending counterexample in the patent by Owen Finlay Maclaren and Leslie Everett Baynes of London, England, filed in England in 1940 and in the USA in 1941  Patent US2345405 - Aircraft alighting gear

			Patent US2345405 - Aircraft alighting gear v March 28, 1944. o. F. MACLAREN ET AL. AIRCRAFT ALIGHTING GEAR Filed Oct. 6, 1941 5 Sheets-Sheet l VO-FT %CZ0 77/? March 28, 1944. o MACLAR...
			View on www.google.com	Preview by Yahoo

Another point in your fine discussion is the concept of "travel" which I am struggling with. The proposition does not use the term "travel" and so the discomfort yet. My effort to set up a particular kite to be used in the proposition did not use the term "travel" and so I am spending some effort to see just how the term might play in or out of the pointed proof effort for the given proposition.  Frames of reference and the meaning of travel seem to play. Does a kited wing that is stationary to ground-fixed observers "travel" or not? Could such wing be said to be traveling relative to the wind that is interacting with the wing?  Certainly sectors of the wind that is streaming to the face of the kited wing are changing position relative to the wing; the wind sectors in the oncoming widn are traveling from upwind to downwind and from away from the wing toward the wing; if the wind is traveling, then perhaps it can be said that the wing is also traveling relative to the wind. I've still some sorting to do on this matter.  My guess for the moment is that a kited wing stationary relative to the ground and a vertical projection wall in an ideal steady horizontal macro wind is not traveling relative to the ground or the vertical projection wall, but is traveling relative to the wind.  The very travel of the wing relative to the wind has a resultant of lift and drag that provides a resultant of having the subject wing be stationary relative to the ground and the vertical projection wall.  

I've some notes yet to be posted that are still toward some of your good shares. And some other points. Pause for now.  Soon.

Thanks,

    Joe F.

The first post that describes the "particular kite wing" for consideration of whether or not such wing is "non-cross winding" used the word "accelerator" in error; I intended "accelerometer" to be the term. Thanks for respecting this correction notice about the topic.

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

Doug, you have returned to an emphasis that seems to match the first post where the topic depends on a choice of definition of "cross winding" for a wing in flight.  That is, it seems you agree that the proposition will be settled when a firm definition of "cross winding" is set, understood, and applied faithfully.  So, on that premise, some effort to set a definition of "cross winding" will be continued until a consensus is reached.

Toward that effort, it seems respectful to find out just how aviation has already been using the term "cross wind" and "cross winding" for various purposes.  Care will be taken to watch for nouns, verbs, gerunds, present participles in the matter. There may be several implicit and explicit definitions in the literature; and they may not all be the same; and some poor application of definitions may occur. This preliminary effort will take some study and time; the effort may be shared by anyone interested. Unfold aviation's of the terms "cross wind" and "cross winding" and any of its hyphenated forms. Explore adjectival, noun, verb, gerund, present participle uses or abuses. Abuses should reveal some challenges. Careful precise uses of the terms may enlighten. Just because the terms have been used does not mean errors of use don't occur; that is, a found use does not thereby automatically mean the terms have been well used.

Care for frames of reference will probably play strongly for reaching consensus. Practicing identifying active frames of reference for motion discussion may help. Does a falling rock hit the earth or does the earth hit the rock? And more!   

Frames of reference? What is to be held fixed while one determines velocities of a body? The vector velocity has its scalar quantity and its direction for reading that scalar quantity speed.  If the proposed wing is stationary relative to the ground and has zero speed relative to the ground, then the ground is the frame of reference in such musings.   Differently, if the frame of reference are the particles of air in the wind, then the macro wind might be taken as fixed; then the subject wing has a non-zero velocity relative to that wind and then can be seen as moving (and traveling ?) into the wind, as the wing keeps see new packets of air during the active flight of the subject wing (even though ground trace is static). The wing would drop to the ground if the wing was not so moving through the wind in such perspective.    So, it may well matter which frame of reference is chosen to settle the topic question.

Why care? Is the caring going to affect rapid airborne wind energy development (RAD) ? Maybe yes, maybe no. I have no proof that having clarity about cross winding matters will or will not nurture RAD; but I suspect that such clarity will help some kite energy systems workers see more effective PTO opportunities in their various kite systems.  I have been uncomfortable with the various laments about what is or is not a cross winding scene or configuration; just maybe clarity will reign with consensus about the matters; then a movement toward theorems with common understanding might better flourish.

So, this topic thread is not finished; several preliminary objectives seem to be invited.  It will take some time to clear the preliminaries before consensus over a conclusion about the topic question is reached. How will the AWE community use the term "cross wind" and "cross winding" and their negatives?

     Airborne Wind Energy | TU Delft Online    

			Airborne Wind Energy | TU Delft Online This course will provide an overview of developments in kite technology for propulsion and generating energy, with an opportunity to build and deploy an ener...
			View on www.online-learning....	Preview by Yahoo

PierreB 

Stairway to heaven: Fireworks artist creates stunning ladder in mid-air (VIDEO) Sky Ladder - Amazing Pyrotechnic Artwork

Sky Ladder - Amazing Pyrotechnic Artwork

			Sky Ladder - Amazing Pyrotechnic Artwork “Sky Ladder,” a pyrotechnic artwork by Cai Guoqiang, a Chinese contemporary artist currently living and working in New York City. Cai is best known for using...
			View on www.youtube.com	Preview by Yahoo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=12&v=8szVMKGIo34

"mystery and awe"     ~ Feynman

Sharing with those who are reaching for the frontier ...

Study and discussion of:

Patent WO2014199407A1 - Kite wind energy collector

			Patent WO2014199407A1 - Kite wind energy collector A wing with bi-mode operation is described, for passing from an arc shape to an undistorted plane shape and vice versa, composed of three or more pow...
			View on www.google.com	Preview by Yahoo

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

  Arc-to-plane cycles?

Some English translation of some particular Italian words are invited from anyone. Thanks.  Select the words that look confusion In the English documents.

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

Telling clip from one of the English language documents in file:

http://www.energykitesystems.net/PatentsAWE/WO2014199407/WO2014199407CLIP001.JPG

			http://www.energykitesystems.net/PatentsAWE/WO2014199407...
			View on www.energykitesyste...	Preview by Yahoo

Complete depower for Rotating Reeling  : holding  only by the central rope, peripheral ropes escaping, kite turning around. But Daisy configuration is different at least by ladder torque.

PierreB

* both Parotor and Daisy are concerned

Rotating Reeling 

			Rotating Reeling Airborne Wind Energy System harnessing high altitude wind energy for electricity production in utility-scale. Generators are settled in winches or within rin...
			View on youtu.be	Preview by Yahoo

			Patent US9085897 - Space elevator A freestanding space elevator tower for launching payloads, tourism, observation, scientific research and communications. The space elevator tower has a segme...
			View on www.google.com	Preview by Yahoo

 Its priority date: Feb. 21, 2007

Some questions: is "crosswind" implying  a movement of the wing with regard to the wind? And the contrary for"cross wind" (a movement of the wind with regard to the wing) ?

If yes as eventual (maybe not correct) example, the hollowed out center of a rotating body could be seen as a part cross winding, while the tip of wings would work crosswind.

Now generally in AWE universities or companies "crosswind kite power" does not appoint rotating kite as such. I evoked this question. So Joe's topic is welcomed for trying to solve it at least in a first simplified analysis.

PierreB

Thanks Rod (see Massive Depower) . Now I have to prepare full paper for AWEC2015 TU Delft .  I am in contact with some engineers but they will be available in autumn (current deadline for paper is mid September, so perhaps too soon for me).

For the moment I have an equation for kinematics . Equations for forces will perhaps come. Hoping including aerodynamics. Indeed as generators are settled in winches, as the conversion is on upwind part, the center of pressure is not more in the center of parachute as hub, but is moved towards the upwind side; on the other hand such a moving of center of pressure is compensated by the wing going also upwind and generating more pressure. So deeper analysis and active control on hangers of soft power blades will be required for a large unity.

After it towards some action for a real prototype.

Concerning traction of rotating wing (I put again the link: http://www.awelabs.com/wp-content/uploads/Rotary-Lift-AWES.pdf ) you raise an important concern. Indeed LeoG's paper considers traction. But Loyd's formula works for reeling (traction) as well as for what he names "drag"  because of slowing down by onboard propellers (i.e. flygen or his patented transmission).

For rotating wings as Daisy and Parotor (rotating reeling) I think both traction and torque are involved. A simulation would be welcomed.

PierreB

Rotating Reeling

Super, Doug, thanks for your time and care to state how you see it. Your effort won't go in vain, I intend. Your several steps bring up some important parts of some proof processes and tactics. Problem solving has many tools available; and as you urge, some of those tools may come into play in this proof project.

You mention "well-defined scenario" which may be a sound appraisal or not. There has been an effort to present a scenario, but the presentation may well be not well-defined; perhaps some work is still needed to bring the scene up more clearly.  I am not yet fully confident that the scene is "well-defined", yet I accept that you see the matter as set with a "well-defined scenario."    It would be grand if the scenario was well-defined; it might take some effort to establish that the scenario is or is not well defined.  I do not quit just because there are such challenges. The gut cause of the starting the topic just might be important to part of AWE's RAD.

As you unfolded how you see the matter, you mentioned that "there is no question about" "energy produced". Yet in discussion we do have some question about energy produced in the scenario; it was reviewed that some energy must be produced and used to keep wing where describe.  With such, I would hold that there remains some question about energy produced in the scene.  Pending the outcome of clarifying the energy matter, suppose it was agreed that energy was produced from the wind's interaction with the described wing; then we see the topic command and perhaps wonder upon such: Did the energy production arrive from cross-winding or non-cross winding?

Your way of seeing the matter let you posit a claim that may not be fact: "is that you can't define what the phrase means."    I hold that I can define the phrase; and it is evident that having a definition of the phrase will be core to facing the topic command.  It is also evident that the defining of the phrase is in committee work by any and all who wish to work on that committee; to face the topic command, a definition will be at hand for provers to use to form various proofs in the affirmative or in the negative.  I can define the phrase to have a resonating fit with aviation culture or not; the effort is to use the ability to define in order to have a definition that will meet consensus in the aviation community and be applicable to the topic scene. Feeding the ability to define will be using the results of the committee's research and summary.  You and others are welcome to propose definitions; I notice that Rod had a go on this matter; his effort needs to be brought into the committee with care and respect.   And, Doug, your proposals for definition of the phrase are welcome also into the committee's work.  I will be forming some proposals also. Ultimately, a definition for firming the preliminaries for this topic command will be posted. In whatever way some of us thought the topic command could be resolved very quickly, the unfolding non-quickly flow may seem disappointing; but I invite looking at the gems and roses along the project way; Pierre made some expression toward the support of the topic that seems to fit this invitation to gain value from the topic's struggles.

Doug, I invite you to distinguish between a stage of non-clarity and the perhaps different matter of continually changing or adjusting the meaning of some words in relation to others.  I hear your lament and guess. But I am seeing a neat pause to obtain a fixed definition of "cross winding" and "non-cross winding" for the project. The approach to the entry for project has apparent non-clear challenges; reaching for the clear definition to be used in the proof process is, I offer, far different from what you lament about continual adjusting.   No essential adjustment will be permitted for a fixed proof process; essential adjustment could simply cause a full second proof process distinct from the intended project.  Second projects could be fine, but distinction would be the respectful thing to uphold.   I am not wishing the topic command come out positive or negative or undecidable; since you brought up my wish sphere, I'll state it: I wish to face the command of topic soundly with the hope that a tool will become available for the AWES community to use as we face fulfilling practical tasks with kite energy systems or other AWES.   To have clarity over the topic command is estimated by me to have a productive flowering.

The scenario wing is not stationary with respect to the wind's particles. The distance between the wind's particles and the scenario wing is changing; the angular reference of wing parts and wind parts are changing. Heat and noise and lift and drag indicate that energy is being harvested and transformed in the scene. The wing interrupts the horizontal paths of the wind's particles; a resultant involves the some of the wind's particles to be on changed trajectories; accelerations are involved; it seems the wing is crossing the wind and the result of the crossing is a spectrum of results: heat, noise, lift, drag, new paths for wind particles. Lively scene, yet the wing stays put relative to the ground.

Your last paragraph demonstrates a good problem-solving tactics. Rephrasing, stating goals, identifying what may not be known, etc.   We have been generating some of such.  In rephrasing, one will have the challenge to assure equivalency. An equivalent rephrase of the topic command is not jumping into my mind just yet. Any proposed rephrase would be on the discernment hot seat to show equivalency. If I get a rephrase, I'll post the proposal.    As to what is not known, I offer that it is not yet known robustly what the aviation community means by "cross winding" on evidence that confusion is expressed here and there.

Best,

  ~ Joe F.

While you were typing the below, I had been facing some of such and typing at the same time, see posted.

Of course, I have respected your freedom to summarize and put forward your points. Indeed, I treasure your points and derive value for the project by your inputs.  Thanks again.   

It is evident that you struggle with my inputs also.  I am not clear if you are deriving any value from my inputs or not.

Let me assure you that the topic command is not a "fixation" on "word definitions", but a matter of whether or not a scenario has going "non-cross winding".  There is a implied given of a definition for cross-winding and non-cross winding; that the "given" was not explicitly given yet does not alter the topic.  It appears that the "given" will have to become explicit to forward the project.   Such giving is underway as described in my former post; meanwhile, you may explicitly supply a definition and then proceed with a proof; if your supplied definition does not match someone else's supply for the "given" then there could be a contest about equivalency of topic, which would be fine, as AWE may be advance at many fronts.

Your request that I try not to dissect what you offer is most challenging to me.  I aim to understand posters' participation. One tactic is to dissect feed back for checking to see if I am understanding the offered perspective. Your lament teases me to think that my understanding your perspective may not be important to you, but maybe you want me to just flat believe whatever you offer without understanding what you offer; if I sense a challenge or confusion or possible contradiction or possible inadequacy toward the project ... or some facet that could enrich the project ... in your offer, then I tend to highlight the facet to see such in fresh lights. Agreements are easy and supplied; it is when a disagreement is present that some work is invited; it is not a matter of "nitpicking" and "find a flaw", but a matter of positively understanding offers, common ground, differences. Correctable statements are ores from goldmines; clearing correctable statement helps to find more common ground or gold, I offer. If you think or feel something enough to make a statement in the process, then perhaps that something has some importance to play.  I suspect that in aviation literature some feelings combined with rash beliefs has produced some fuzzy and sometimes confused holding of cross winding matters; studying cross wind landing literature will bare some of the struggles and confusion. In AWE there seems to be a discomfort about cross winding matters.   If I reach for clarity over some of your statements that are brought in the topic process, but such statements prove to be non essential to the final proof offers, then still some lateral clarity could get on record for use in other topics. 

Here is what I am really trying to figure out about the configuration:  I want to know if the configuration is non-cross winding (or is cross winding).     It appears that you have a theorem that always there are at least two ways to phrase a question.   If such is fact that such a theorem applies, then any of us is free to seek and maybe find an equivalent phrasing of the topic question. Each proposed rephrasing would need to be equivalent to the topic command; proving the equivalency would be a neat project in itself; then after proving the equivalency, the topic task would remain; but in problem solving, after equivalency is shown, the new equivalent might somehow seem easier to resolve.   I have seen many times the touting of what you seem to have as a theorem, and generally I buy into the flow by assent, but I have not seen a proof that every question has at least two equivalent ways; but a proof might not be too far off: French and English translations, if shown to be equivalent could be an easy proof; but I suspect we are asking for more than just language phrasings. Until proven otherwise, I flow by assent with you that there is a equivalent rephrasing for the topic command; I have not knowingly put up such yet; anyone is welcome to offer such. Once a consensus on a definition of "non-cross winding" is at hand, then rephrasing of the topic command would be easy; and equivalency would be simple by simply using the definition.  Again, committee work.

Best to you and yours,

 ~ Joe F.

As just posted, I will supply a second phrasing when such comes to me and I have shown equivalency of the second phrasing. Meanwhile, you or others are welcome to put up a rephrasing and hopefully a proof of equivalency.  Yet still, one may continue with the first phrasing.   Both processes may go in parallel.

Best,

  Joe F

Doug, my main idea, for years, is the maximisation of space. 

Generally "crosswind kite power"  terms appoint a kite wholly moving by a path like Airborne Wind Energy 

			Airborne Wind Energy Airborne Wind Energy (AWE) Systems harvest wind energy by exploiting the aerodynamic forces generated by autonomous tethered wings, flying fast ...
			View on control.ee.ethz.ch	Preview by Yahoo

or like Advanced Controls Enable Airborne Wind Power Generation | RTC Magazine 

			Advanced Controls Enable Airborne Wind Power Gener... Just a few thousand feet above our heads blows a vast untapped resource that could supply civilization with ample quantities of cheap, clean and abundant energy.
			View on www.rtcmagazine.com	Preview by Yahoo

but not a rotating wing as lift (TSR several times wind speed) or drag (TSR < or = wind speed) device; however it is!

You often hint in the lack of relevance "crosswind kite power" terms as used by universities, that regarding the "real world" of wind energy for which crosswind is already a reality.

But I observe that you are not understood enough since new teams repeat the same, OR there is another thing to consider: in my opinion, it is in the (obvious but important to keep in mind) difference between:

1. not flying wind system
2. flying wind system (implying analysis of flying and producing)

then: 

1. a path controlled by computer as on the two examples, and
2. the forced path  by construction for rotating wing (and also current HAWT).

In 1.  as I often wrote , flight requirements result excess of used space regarding useful swept area (by itself and also by long moving tether).

In 2.  in spite of a lower efficiency (1/2) by wing area, one of positive features is the forced path, allowing an easier control, one other being in the possibility of maximisation of space. 

In temporary conclusion I think stationary-tilted-rotating-wing will be AWES basis configuration as stationary-horizontal-axis-three-bladed is the current basis configuration of existing ground-based wind turbines.

And more precise terms can allow a better understanding, so better purposes in R&D.

PierreB

Rotating Reeling

Thanks, Pierre, for some inputs on the project. Your questions and statements show to me that the committee work over just what usages are will become fruitful. The questions will spawn some answering, I bet. Verifying your question and the spellings will be a step to appreciate your questions, I think.

Then your statements invite work for the committee on the terms.  A gathering of references for what universities and companies are doing with the terms forms a sector of aviation's massage of the terms.  My first blush is your use of "generally" which has me not know securely; just how many exceptions there are may eat away at the "generally" dimension to the statement. Just what is a "rotating kite" in this context  may not be settled. Near the beginning of the forum there was a struggle over whether a single-tethered real kited wing was a turbine or not; I came away with "turbine" ... yes. Others may not have seen the same; in such light, I had that that same turbine was thus a rotating kite, albeit not as robustly starkly rotating as what others had in mind.  The Roto-kite having dancing two wings coupled came into discussions also. Grabbing elongated figure-8 paths and forgetting the cross winding involved in non-figure-8 kite systems while rashly calling one cross winding and the other not so by neglect, would tend, I think, to finally be a cause for confusion when technical descriptions are wanted. A world-level voting for classes and definition of classes has not been done. Still, when such voting may occur, the mechanical realities will not be washed away, but only a facilitation will have been constructed in order to achieve some objective.   The topic command using the word "prove" may invite concentration on the mechanics involved with as little dependency on voting or "generally" as possible, albeit a consensus will be needed to set distinctions; and thus the committee work on the definition of "cross winding" and its negative.  

Toward your first question, I've some preliminary response. If the wind is changing related position with the wing, then equivalently the wing is changing related position with the wind. Else: Let the ground be the fixed frame of reference; have the wing be unchanging in position relative to the ground; then a wind is seen as moving about the wing.   Differently, take the wind as the fixed frame of reference; then the wing is moving into and about the wind.  Full exploration of frames of reference would probably allow a useful source of definitions along the lines as might be suggested by your paragraph.   Working this out may joyfully join the committee work.

Soon,

   Joe F.