Messages in AirborneWindEnergy group.                          AWES 19517 to 19570 Page 284 of 440.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19517 From: Joe Faust Date: 1/3/2016
Subject: Re: Peter Powell

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19518 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/3/2016
Subject: Re: Peter Powell

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19519 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/3/2016
Subject: Re: Peter Powell

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19520 From: dave santos Date: 1/3/2016
Subject: Re: Peter Powell

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19521 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/3/2016
Subject: Re: Peter Powell

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19522 From: dave santos Date: 1/4/2016
Subject: Re: Prototypical AWE Wunderkind

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19523 From: dave santos Date: 1/4/2016
Subject: Velocity-Matching to Reduce Grabbing-Wear in AWES Running-Ropes

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19524 From: snapscan_snapscan Date: 1/4/2016
Subject: Re: Rod's Daisy-Stack wins Christof's "100-100-100" Challenge

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19525 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/4/2016
Subject: Re: Velocity-Matching to Reduce Grabbing-Wear in AWES Running-Ropes

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19526 From: dave santos Date: 1/5/2016
Subject: Re: Velocity-Matching to Reduce Grabbing-Wear in AWES Running-Ropes

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19527 From: dave santos Date: 1/5/2016
Subject: Re: Rod's Daisy-Stack wins Christof's "100-100-100" Challenge

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19528 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/5/2016
Subject: Re: Velocity-Matching to Reduce Grabbing-Wear in AWES Running-Ropes

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19529 From: dave santos Date: 1/5/2016
Subject: Re: Kite Physics Fundamentals (parametric oscillation)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19530 From: dave santos Date: 1/5/2016
Subject: Re: Velocity-Matching to Reduce Grabbing-Wear in AWES Running-Ropes

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19531 From: dave santos Date: 1/5/2016
Subject: Line-Grabber LadderMill Solution

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19536 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/5/2016
Subject: Miscellaneous mixed-topic responses

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19537 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/5/2016
Subject: Re: Miscellaneous mixed-topic responses

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19538 From: dave santos Date: 1/5/2016
Subject: Re: Miscellaneous mixed-topic responses

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19539 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/5/2016
Subject: TwingTec video

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19540 From: dave santos Date: 1/6/2016
Subject: Rack and Pinion AWES PTO Hack

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19541 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/6/2016
Subject: Re: Rack and Pinion AWES PTO Hack

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19542 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/6/2016
Subject: Aviation Week ... archive of 100 years

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19543 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/6/2016
Subject: Re: Aviation Week ... archive of 100 years

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19544 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/6/2016
Subject: By Michael McDonald of Oilprice.com

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19545 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/6/2016
Subject: Re: GoogleX-Makani renews its long-term lease on Alameda Island (San

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19546 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/6/2016
Subject: Re: Rack and Pinion AWES PTO Hack

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19547 From: edoishi Date: 1/7/2016
Subject: turbine install time lapse

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19548 From: dave santos Date: 1/7/2016
Subject: kPower Legal Notice to KPS and Makani Power Re: Asymmetrical Kite Pr

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19549 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/7/2016
Subject: AWE world of Henrik Hesse ?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19550 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/7/2016
Subject: ADM-Aeolus Mission and AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19551 From: dave santos Date: 1/7/2016
Subject: Damon Vander Lind exit?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19552 From: dave santos Date: 1/7/2016
Subject: Re: AWE world of Henrik Hesse ?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19553 From: dave santos Date: 1/7/2016
Subject: Re: ADM-Aeolus Mission and AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19554 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/7/2016
Subject: Asymmetry in kited wings

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19555 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/8/2016
Subject: Re: Asymmetry in kited wings

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19556 From: dave santos Date: 1/8/2016
Subject: Re: Asymmetry in kited wings

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19557 From: dave santos Date: 1/8/2016
Subject: Re: Asymmetry in kited wings

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19558 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/8/2016
Subject: Re: Asymmetry in kited wings

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19559 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/9/2016
Subject: Re: Asymmetry in kited wings

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19560 From: dave santos Date: 1/9/2016
Subject: Re: Asymmetry in kited wings

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19561 From: dave santos Date: 1/9/2016
Subject: FAA UAS Test-Range AWES Fight-Plan Template Draft

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19562 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/10/2016
Subject: Re: FAA UAS Test-Range AWES Fight-Plan Template Draft

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19563 From: dave santos Date: 1/10/2016
Subject: Re: FAA UAS Test-Range AWES Fight-Plan Template Draft

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19564 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/10/2016
Subject: Making of a CORE kite

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19565 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/10/2016
Subject: Building a Asymmetrical (Cruising) Spinnaker

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19566 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/10/2016
Subject: Ground and Sea Signage

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19567 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/10/2016
Subject: Highest Wind

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19568 From: dave santos Date: 1/11/2016
Subject: Re: Highest Wind

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19569 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/11/2016
Subject: New owner of TetheredWings.com

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19570 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/12/2016
Subject: Ping-pong balls



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19517 From: Joe Faust Date: 1/3/2016
Subject: Re: Peter Powell

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Powell_(kite)

Peter Trevor Power
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19518 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/3/2016
Subject: Re: Peter Powell
Attachments :

    Figure from one of his patents is attached.

    		   @@attachment@@
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19519 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/3/2016
    Subject: Re: Peter Powell
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19520 From: dave santos Date: 1/3/2016
    Subject: Re: Peter Powell
    Peter Powell was a key designer and popularizer of the modern "stunt" or "sport" kite. Out of the long obscure technical lineage of multi-line kites, PP made them into a global hit, enjoyed by millions (hence Rod, as "one-in-a-million").



    On Sunday, January 3, 2016 11:30 AM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
    Sadly, Peter Powell died today.
    The first kite I remember flying was a Peter Powell diamond. It left an indelible impression on me.


    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19521 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/3/2016
    Subject: Re: Peter Powell
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19522 From: dave santos Date: 1/4/2016
    Subject: Re: Prototypical AWE Wunderkind
    More or less the same story, the beginnings of which we covered before, of an entire family getting ME degrees, and the kid coming up with an LTA AWES concept more KIS practical than Altaeros, as based on COTS aerostat envelopes.

    The AWES Forum LTA caution stands; that its very unlikely LTA AWES will be soon be cheap enough, esp. for developing rural populations, given the reality of high helium cost and limited distribution of the massive gas bottles. Altaeoros faces the same steep barrier to widespread adoption, and hydrogen lifting gas is not a ready answer-




    On Sunday, January 3, 2016 9:18 AM, dave santos <santos137@yahoo.com
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19523 From: dave santos Date: 1/4/2016
    Subject: Velocity-Matching to Reduce Grabbing-Wear in AWES Running-Ropes
    In general, we want maximum velocity of our drive ropes, for maximum power-to-mass, but the art of driving ropes at several hundred miles-per-hour through the sky is mostly undeveloped. A key problem is grabbing a moving rope (or a moving mass grabbing a fixed or moving rope), since the grab creates a violent impact and/or abrasion on the rope. A slow-velocity legacy method is to grab the rope with a low mass grabber that has an elastic shock-absorption features buffering the shock-load, as ski-lifts and tramways require.

    For higher grabbing velocities, a potentially ideal grabber method is to spin-up pulley sheaves/rollers on the grabber to the relative velocity of the rope, then clamp-on a zero relative velocity, and gradually mix in the acceleration force. Done properly, excessive rope wear would be eliminated. This method would enable a large number of high-velocity rope-drive concepts (like LeoG and AlexB's). Another challenge is to maintain line tension at all times, since a slack line is very unpredictable, and this velocity matching method might well apply.

    Velocity-matching requires a means for the grabber to sense and match relative velocity. Electric rollers could naturally operate both in motor-mode and generator-mode, which opens up new capabilities that primitive grabbers lack. Inflated tire rollers are suited to many specific AWES transmission challenges, and the fact that cars depend on tires to transmit force effectively is strong validation. Just as cablecar grabbers are coated with ablative pitch to preserve their wire drive-ropes, tire-based grabbers could give up some material to keep their ropes in good condition.

    Open-AWE_IP-Cloud
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19524 From: snapscan_snapscan Date: 1/4/2016
    Subject: Re: Rod's Daisy-Stack wins Christof's "100-100-100" Challenge
    Dear Dave,

    My goal with the someAWE.org challenges is to drive some AWE development that would not happen otherwise and to prevent methods  from not being tested just because no VC driven project is betting on it - hence I try to exclude what has been done before - especially by the big players. Even though I doubt that any of them will show up to claim a price - but hey, Altaeros literally sits next door from me - so you never know :)

    It is certainly NOT my intention to exclude any kPower method! 

    I have just posted a draft of a new 1-0-1 challenge - please let me know if you feel that this excludes any of your designs and feel free to suggest an updated wording.

    I do appreciate your hint that a GoPro might not be sufficient incentive and have raised the stakes a little for the new challenge. This time it is a LulzBot TAZ 5!

    My long term game plan is actually to raise the bar and the price a little with every challenge and since this will break my budget sooner or later I will come back to your idea to source a larger prize by social media. 

    Enjoy!
    /cb
     
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19525 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/4/2016
    Subject: Re: Velocity-Matching to Reduce Grabbing-Wear in AWES Running-Ropes
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19526 From: dave santos Date: 1/5/2016
    Subject: Re: Velocity-Matching to Reduce Grabbing-Wear in AWES Running-Ropes
    Aircraft landing is an interesting similarity case to AWES rope driving with tires, since common landing speeds are well over 100mph, with large forces involved. Besides the similarities, there are key differences as well. A major difference is that an aircraft must come to a stop before running out of runway, so the tires are not spun up, providing a maximum braking cycle. Its proven cheaper and safer to replace tires often than to lose aircraft for simple lack of shortest stopping distance. A major AWES similarity may be to use multiple tires for a grabber, so that a single failure is not a major mishap. An AWES difference should be that spun-up tires will not wear out fast, nor blow out often.

    A few more observations: The automotive world runs on tires, which are one of the greatest modern inventions, and the operational rates of "burning rubber" and blow-outs have plummeted to low levels, while the total civilizational power transmitted by the pneumatic tire continues to explode. Grabbing UHMWPE rope will cause less wear than grabbing rough pavement. Rope grabbing is not the only tire use in AWES. A neat bonus in our kite work-cells is how easily tires in a drive-train are changed or disengaged compared to gears, by simply deflating to reduce diameter. Large mismatch tolerances are taken in stride, where gears require close tolerances. A worn tire is much cheaper and easier than a worn gear to replace.




    On Monday, January 4, 2016 9:02 PM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  


    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19527 From: dave santos Date: 1/5/2016
    Subject: Re: Rod's Daisy-Stack wins Christof's "100-100-100" Challenge
    Dear CB,

    Lets then look forward to a progressive series of AWE Challenges. The US DOE challenge was to have offered a prize of about 20 millions USD, on the theory that a struggling upstart could recoup its capital, and even well-funded players would respond to a large pot with lots of publicity. I do not accept that well-funded players like Makani, Ampyx, and KiteGen are not pressed to compete in challenges, on the grounds that they have somehow already validated their architectures. To weed-out hype-driven ventures is a big prize for the dark-horses.

    KiteLab Group and kPower solutions are excluded by your proposed contest rule requiring retrieval in the fashion Makani and SkySails have demonstrated. Years ago Low-Complexity Open-AWE identified the early opportunity to operate in large open fields where the extended pilot kite self-relaunches earlier than any reel-out launch could (given parasitic downwind travel loss), with less design complexity and capital cost. kFarm showed such operations are practical in combination with biomass crops (ie. hay), and will also work over prairie, trundra, sand, etc. These economic niches will not run out before retrieval automation reliability is finally perfected.

    So excepting full-retrieval to center, kPower has demonstrated hands-off all-modes operation, but the implicit question is why so many developers in AWE disregard human intervention, as if its better to shift work into a toxic factory making robots rather than sail-in-the-sky gloriously, as a sort of Utopian yachting. Born sailors love to handle ropes and sails, and even the classical high-tech hacking ethos was born on "the hands-on imperative". Its the same logic at work thinking 3D printing can already beat the master craftsperson inventor, whose great twilight advantage is a larger palette of superior engineering materials and techniques. 

    Makani has already won the challenge defined by short-session retrieval and hard-automation criteria, but only kPower has done 3 week sessions with no break-down, and intends to win the final AWES scale-up challenge by the operational and handling norms of megascale industrial rigging, where workers still "touch" ropes to operate several MW of machinery per person (commercial fishing). No one should touch Makani's high-voltage tether, nor get anywhere near its operating AWES; no-touch as no actual advantage. Open-AWE's designs fly at kite festivals within AKA safety guidelines, with giant cheap wings like Mothra in principle capable of supporting far more WECS capacity than Makani's Wing7, at far lower cost. 

    If Open-AWE does not have the capital advantage and public mindshare of the most-promoted AWE teams, at least we have Low-Complexity AWE engineering for a core competitive advantage. The final contests in AWE, official or de-facto, will be a full-blown AE fly-offs, with integrated simulation and scoring matrices, with premature High-Complexity AWE left exposed behind flimsy ideological assumptions. Perhaps UdoZ could structure the financing for the major AWE challenge speculatively, where the prize follows from the media revenue generated by large public interest, just as Grand Prix racing, major team sports, America's Cup, and so on, are highly profitable contests.

    kPower will compete as it sees its chances within the many constraints. The AWES Forum covered many hidden AWE contest issues in early years, like how to fairly level the playing field for players who lack "wind luck" (in a first-to-finish race, a superior design may easily lose to an inferior design with better flying opportunities). Good luck with the next exciting AWE Challenges, and thanks again for making things happen.

    daveS


    On Monday, January 4, 2016 2:02 PM, "snapscan_snapscan@yahoo.de [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
    Dear Dave,

    My goal with the someAWE.org challenges is to drive some AWE development that would not happen otherwise and to prevent methods  from not being tested just because no VC driven project is betting on it - hence I try to exclude what has been done before - especially by the big players. Even though I doubt that any of them will show up to claim a price - but hey, Altaeros literally sits next door from me - so you never know :)

    It is certainly NOT my intention to exclude any kPower method! 

    I have just posted a draft of a new 1-0-1 challenge - please let me know if you feel that this excludes any of your designs and feel free to suggest an updated wording.

    I do appreciate your hint that a GoPro might not be sufficient incentive and have raised the stakes a little for the new challenge. This time it is a LulzBot TAZ 5!

    My long term game plan is actually to raise the bar and the price a little with every challenge and since this will break my budget sooner or later I will come back to your idea to source a larger prize by social media. 

    Enjoy!
    /cb
     
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19528 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/5/2016
    Subject: Re: Velocity-Matching to Reduce Grabbing-Wear in AWES Running-Ropes

    From Upper Windpower "Letters to the Editor" is a set of questions from Doug Selsam about the first post of this topic thread:


    Hey Joe:

    I saw a post by you-know-who, that I found a bit perplexing, and so I have a couple of questions about it.  Regarding this opening statement:


    "we want maximum velocity of our drive ropes, for maximum power-to-mass, but the art of driving ropes at several hundred miles-per-hour through the sky is mostly undeveloped."

    I'm just trying to understand, 
    1) when he says: "OUR driving ropes", to whom does the word "Our" refer?
    2) What exactly is driving these supposed driving ropes "at several hundred miles-per-hour".  
    3) Is it "laddermill"?  If so, I thought Delfts nixed the idea of laddermill in leiu of "kite-reeling" using a single kite to pull a tether of fixed length attached to a metal drum...
    4) What wind energy system is, or is proposed, to operate at "several hundred miles-per-hour"?
    5) Which "teams" are using such driving ropes today?
    6) Who is running ropes over pneumatic rubber tires in AWE today?
    7) Where can we see drive ropes running over pneumatic rubber tires anywhere today?
    8) Why would we expect drive ropes at hundreds of miles-per-hour to stay on a tire?

    Old-fashioned rope tows for skiing used ropes running over steel car wheels with NO tires.  I'm not sure how an inflated car tire would hold a rope, versus the rope just slipping off to one side.

    To summarize:
    A) I do not know of any AWE team using high-speed drive ropes, let alone any effort associated with the person posting;
    B) I do not know of any high speed drive ropes, or drive ropes of any speed, being run over pneumatic rubber tires, in any application, anywhere in the world.

    So I begin by asking who "our" refers to, and end asking what is the reality-basis for this entire line of talking points regarding "our" drive ropes traveling "at hundreds-of-miles-per-hour" over inflated rubber tires?

    I'd have to say this sounds like one more "spotted mushroom fantasy".  The fast-and-loose abuse of language alone ("Our drive ropes") seems mired in fantasy, let alone the Dr.Seuss nature of the concepts.  Engaging a 100-foot-wide runway by a rubber tire is realistic, but a rope?  

    What happened to the bragging-ahead-of-the-fact self-glorifying description of the wonderful system being developed from two NordicTrack® machines?  All that beautiful baroque-style beyond-steam-punk woodwork?  All the systems that "will be" comparatively-tested using this fantasmagorical ingenious apparatus?  The world is waiting for this important breakthrough - where is it?

    Thanks
    :)   Doug Selsam
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19529 From: dave santos Date: 1/5/2016
    Subject: Re: Kite Physics Fundamentals (parametric oscillation)
    A crude collection of loose notes and links extending theoretic consideration of kite single-unit oscillation to kite lattice oscillations, toward formalizing GW-scale AWES concepts-

    ------------------------
    AWES lattice-wave theory is proposing that kite "rag and string" is a real-world case of "peculiar anyonic statistics of edge excitations in quantum information processing devices that are topologically protected from decoherence"*. 

    The anyonic kite-stuff interpretation is fertile, explaining many effects and suggesting solutions; for example, the short service life of a flogging sail can be modeled as a violently uncontrolled flux of anyonic creases and moving edge-concentrations. The apparent solution is to avoid flogging by jibing fabric sails in high-duty crosswind cycles, rather than tacking them. The "quantum information processing" part is quantum-analog passive control theory as the best theory-of-operation. "Topological protection" is the redundant many-connected structure of mathematical crystal lattice groups, with reduced kite breakaway statistics.

    * Iiacopo Carusotto "...is it possible to take advantage of the peculiar anyonic statistics of edge excitations in quantum information processing devices that are topologically protected from decoherence? Nobody knows yet..."

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

    The origin of SuperLattice physics by Hans Bethe in 1935, whose general features match kite lattice design and dynamics. Our superlattices consist of lifters, power-wings, and drogues with long-range order evident-

    --------------------
     A megascale source of lattice wave models is modern Seismology. A virtual FEA lattice is imposed on the geological space to analyse seismic energy propagation, and reanalysis of this lattice model can inform theoretic AWES lattices at realistic characteristic scale, rather than over-depending on meso- and microscopic crystal models for a case-base-


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

    Adopting lattice-wave kite farm mechanics greatly linearizes the problematic quasi-gaseous farm mechanics of close-spacing single-line-kite farm units. Heretofore, designers had to settle for lower control reliability and sparse unit spacing, with far lower power density by land area and reserved airspace, which are critical real-world metrics.

    Application of Gabor Atoms, Wave Atoms, and the like, is just current state-of-the-art of harmonic mathematical functions and their ontological interpretations.

    This paper nicely presents a wavelet basis for estimating aircraft aeroelastic dynamics-


    WikiP- "Gabor (in 1946) applied ideas from quantum physics to sound, allowing an analogy between sound and quanta. "

    I finally found where [Gabor 1946] stated his time-frequency representation (TFR) as following QM "rather closely", including "...replacing Planck's Constant h with unity...", which is precisely what I had been proposing for the last two years in my kite theoretic circles.

    We impose "analogy" to distinguish between atomic-scale QM defined by Planck's Constant, and the exact same statistical mechanics applied at macroscopic scale to our kite phonons, where we define our own Plank Units based on our domain's characteristic length scale and frequencies. To define our new constant in its most basic form applies the vertical atmospheric ("wind column") as the first-order fundamental limiting dimension.

    A logical ad hoc scale unit for current AWES is the wind-harvesting unit cell that fits below FAA designated 2000ft ceiling, allowing our lattice units to sprawl horizontally to planetary dimensions, and letting the vertical limit range toward 10km high (~tropopause), as NextGen airspace gradually opens up.

    Sample citation of wavelet analysis entering mainstream aeroelastic science-

    WAVELET ANALYSIS TO CHARACTERISE NON-LINEARITIES AND PREDICT LIMIT CYCLES OF AN AEROELASTIC SYSTEM RICK LIND, KYLE SNYDER AND MARTY BRENNER NASA Dryden Flight Research Center
    -----------------
    Wave Atoms and Sparsity of Oscillatory Patterns Laurent Demanet† and Lexing Ying‡ † Department of Mathematics, Stanford University, Stanford CA94305 ‡ Department of Mathematics, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712 June 2006, revised February 2007 


    Another view of Planck's Constant as fundamentally misinterpreted-


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


    We have gradually learned to formally interpret a kite airframe's complex inherent motions in a noisy wind field, with wake interactions as additional variables, in varied parametrical forms, as only marginally computable, but that combine as bulk constructive (promoting oscillation) or destructive (damping oscillation) forces.

    Like any other quasi-discrete physical object, since long before Newton, the kite's rag-string-stick mass intuitively model as a wavelet-based (TFR) Gabor Atom or Wave Atom packet. The kite dances by internal and external parameters of a unified oscillating and standing wave field. Particle-wave duality is evident, but like some famous visual illusions, our attention flips back and forth between interpretations. 

    External parametric influences on a flying kite-qua-particle define its Pilot-Wave field, showing flight to have a strong non-local causal basis, but still within classical principles. Besides common wind field turbulence streaming past the kite, the kite's wake also strongly determines the flight trajectory, as a form of "memory" in the pilot-wave field. The kite tether is also part of the pilot wave structure. In fact, real-world pilot waves come in complex packets. DeBroglie's 2-wave equations were just a first step to building on Schrodinger.

    By ongoing study, we are narrowing-in on just what physics equations best model the the kite as a hydrodynamic quantum analog; in particular Madelung's recasting of Schrodinger's Equation into Euler's hydrodynamic form and De Broglie's deterministic Pilot-Wave interpretation of QM. DeBroglie's scheme is a double pilot-wave. In the kite case, the kite is expressed as the original Schrodinger wave function, then DeBroglie mixes his realist pilot-wave in where the nihilist Copenhagen school only offers a probability function. Both views are mathematically consistent, but the pilot wave interpretation opens the door wider to new engineering-science, including megascale quantum-analog kite lattices.



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

    Information equals thermodynamics in Information Theory, as posed by [Shannon 1948]

    "In order to obtain the maximum power transfer from a generator to a load a transformer must in general be introduced so that the generator as seen from the load has the load resistance. The situation here is roughly analogous. The transducer which does the encoding should match the source to the channel in a statistical sense. The source as seen from the channel through the transducer should have the same statistical structure as the source which maximizes the entropy in the channel."

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

    Modern mathematics stands revealed as a set of partially isolated languages, where many things can be said, but not necessarily understood across the many dialects. We pick and choose our tools for the AWES architecture at hand, using normalization to match them up (Ostrogradsky Hamiltonians anyone?). The problem is to start from correct-enough engineering-design assumptions, or the math is GIGO. Lattice Wave oscillation dynamics of dense kite arrays is presented as a better starting assumption than sparse single-line/single-anchor AWES units, as has been the common assumption. A statistical-mechanics mathematical basis emerges from the lattice assumption.

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

    A new kind of giant disc wing was recently proposed by kPower for AWES iso-lattice, already constructable to the giant scale of conventional megascale decelerators [US Military, NASA, etc.], but constrained by a pattern of risers and fabric ribs into a thin flat (planar) geometry, for high L/D sweeping crosswind semi-chaotically at high velocity, developing high power. Ordered motion would be imposed by a second set of bridle lines radiating in-plane from the disc, to both tap the power and provide control actuation. Large cross-linked lattices of such wings could semi-passively self-synchronize for naturally coherent high-Q output.

    On Friday, December 4, 2015 12:40 PM, dave santos <santos137@yahoo.com
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19530 From: dave santos Date: 1/5/2016
    Subject: Re: Velocity-Matching to Reduce Grabbing-Wear in AWES Running-Ropes
    Doug has not (by his past admission to Brooks) closely followed years of AWES Forum posts, where answers to his questions were well covered. His proper course to catch up is to search the archives. Besides reviewing search-results carefully, he can read the classic Rope Driving manual, where high rope velocities were embraced by engineers over a century ago, and also recall how Leo Goldstein, Alex Bolonkin, Loyd, and others have in our time soundly identified rope load high-velocity as an important AWES engineering criteria (not just "you know who").

    One question was fresh and nicely on topic- "Who is running ropes over pneumatic rubber tires...(?)" kPower, of course, but for a commercial application example, commercial fishermen use crab-pot pullers like this one featuring tires impinging on the line, because it works so well-

    Image result for commercial crab pot puller


    I work daily on the intricate AWES with a tire-drive, that Doug graciously describes as the "wonderful system being developed from two NordicTrack® machines?  All that beautiful baroque-style beyond-steam-punk woodwork?" (more like "pre-steampunk"). It should be working this Spring, but the exact location (TX or NW?) and dates are subject to circumstance. If Doug is so impatient with the natural pace of progress, let him produce the superior AWES he has for years claimed he can cobble together in a weekend (and win CB's challenge), with or without tires grabbing a line.


    On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 12:55 PM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
    From Upper Windpower "Letters to the Editor" is a set of questions from Doug Selsam about the first post of this topic thread:

    Hey Joe:
    I saw a post by you-know-who, that I found a bit perplexing, and so I have a couple of questions about it.  Regarding this opening statement:

    "we want maximum velocity of our drive ropes, for maximum power-to-mass, but the art of driving ropes at several hundred miles-per-hour through the sky is mostly undeveloped."

    I'm just trying to understand, 
    1) when he says: "OUR driving ropes", to whom does the word "Our" refer?
    2) What exactly is driving these supposed driving ropes "at several hundred miles-per-hour".  
    3) Is it "laddermill"?  If so, I thought Delfts nixed the idea of laddermill in leiu of "kite-reeling" using a single kite to pull a tether of fixed length attached to a metal drum...
    4) What wind energy system is, or is proposed, to operate at "several hundred miles-per-hour"?
    5) Which "teams" are using such driving ropes today?
    6) Who is running ropes over pneumatic rubber tires in AWE today?
    7) Where can we see drive ropes running over pneumatic rubber tires anywhere today?
    8) Why would we expect drive ropes at hundreds of miles-per-hour to stay on a tire?

    Old-fashioned rope tows for skiing used ropes running over steel car wheels with NO tires.  I'm not sure how an inflated car tire would hold a rope, versus the rope just slipping off to one side.

    To summarize:
    A) I do not know of any AWE team using high-speed drive ropes, let alone any effort associated with the person posting;
    B) I do not know of any high speed drive ropes, or drive ropes of any speed, being run over pneumatic rubber tires, in any application, anywhere in the world.

    So I begin by asking who "our" refers to, and end asking what is the reality-basis for this entire line of talking points regarding "our" drive ropes traveling "at hundreds-of-miles-per-hour" over inflated rubber tires?

    I'd have to say this sounds like one more "spotted mushroom fantasy".  The fast-and-loose abuse of language alone ("Our drive ropes") seems mired in fantasy, let alone the Dr.Seuss nature of the concepts.  Engaging a 100-foot-wide runway by a rubber tire is realistic, but a rope?  

    What happened to the bragging-ahead-of-the-fact self-glorifying description of the wonderful system being developed from two NordicTrack® machines?  All that beautiful baroque-style beyond-steam-punk woodwork?  All the systems that "will be" comparatively-tested using this fantasmagorical ingenious apparatus?  The world is waiting for this important breakthrough - where is it?

    Thanks
    :)   Doug Selsam
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19531 From: dave santos Date: 1/5/2016
    Subject: Line-Grabber LadderMill Solution
    A major problem of the early laddermill designs was how to pass the kite-units around in the power-loop through the top and bottom positions. Building on TUDelft's "pumping" variant, kPower proposed that the ladder kite-units need not pass thru the chokepoints, but can rely on docking and line grabbing to work the loop (or pump a single line). Line grabbing tech is also featured in AlexB' AWES thinking, and has been further detailed in a parallel topic, where rubber tires might figure, as in commercial fishing line grabbers.

    Open-AWE_IP-Cloud
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19536 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/5/2016
    Subject: Miscellaneous mixed-topic responses

    Moderator note:

    Gems may be found spiced in mixed-topic postings.  Diamonds are found naturally mixed with non-diamond materials.

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

    Doug Selsam comments on this topic via note to editor of Upper Windpower:

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

    Doug Selsam comments: That was a very long post, filled with much detail.  Whether any of it makes any sense seems, to me, open to question.  Honestly, it seems like an attempted diversion from the recent topic of a challenge to make 100 Watts, land, and make 100 Watts again.

     We just saw an excuse given explaining why K-power and Kitelab group or whatever cannot possibly meet the challenge.  They supposedly cannot land in a certain spot.   Is this very long post just a desperate attempt to trump that supposed reality with more big words on the internet?  I realize some people can be temporarily impressed with such vast arrays of big words.  Several years ago,  someone whom you would assume knew better asked me "Do you think daveS is onto something?"  That was after a few of his quantum physics "lectures".  Well I guess the world will find out someday, "is he onto something"?  or not...  Maybe if enough time goes by, it will all be forgotten.

    Dave Santos noted: "We are slowly mastering the parametrics of our pumping AWES to ultimately harvest power effectively across a broad spectrum of wind and load conditions."

    Doug Selsam comments:***OK I'm just wondering how many years we have to read this sort of bragging about progress that is always supposedly occurring, but never seems to lead anywhere.  Is there anything that works yet that we can see now?  Must genius of this unprecedented magnitude always be relegated to future results?  Can it EVER manifest now?  Or is it just too much genius for our time?  Perhaps to much genius for any time?


    Dave Santos noted: "kPower is planning to test shunting SS wings next year,"
    Doug Selsam comments: ***OK Next year.  Does that mean 2017?  Is this before or after the baroque-beyond-steam-punk future-fine woodworking of the dual Nordic-Trak multi-concept testing materializes?  Is every AWE accomplishment always in the future?  Can we ever talk of something that HAS been accomplished?  Does the term "vaporware" have any applicability here?  Have we not all witnessed enough of these "future certain accomplishments" evaporate by this point that we can categorically flag them as empty bragging?  Does it not seem weird, in several cases, to read the same promises over and over, sometimes in many magazines and newspapers, then have to figure out for ourselves that nothing of the sort was ever really even fully-planned, let alone achieved, with not a SINGLE WORD of explanation from the often-highly-credentialed teams that made the promises and press-releases?  Can we start to say we see a pattern?  Are we ever allowed to "connect the dots", and, at some point can we admit that we are witnessing all the predictable and predicted characteristics of "a syndrome"?

    By the way, as an aside, and forgive me for forgetting, but so many years have passed - I sometimes wonder, similar to when I see excessive abbreviations and acronyms, who exactly IS "kPower" these days, and who exactly does "Kitelab Group" refer to as of 2016?

    I was amazed to see that Makani Power has now been chasing AWE for 1/10th of a century, still without a product flying today.  With "more money than God" and as many PhD's and grad students, (now including the former head of the National Wind Technology Center), as money can buy, how much longer do we think they will go on saying they are about to crack the code and outperform conventional wind energy technology, and yet have no product available for any use by any person?

    It seems to me that we're witnessing a phenomenon of more money and more academic talent does not necessarily lead to solutions.  I'm waiting for the unfunded team from grandma's garage to show everyone how to do AWE.  Let's keep our fingers crossed that someone gets a handle on all that free energy up there!  :)

    ~ Doug Selsam                                    January 5, 2016

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

    Moderator note: Please start new topics with fresh titles, so that topics may stay fairly focused. Thanks.   E.g., Place the study of a company in a dedicated topic thread.  Study kPower,Inc in a dedicated topic thread.   Study Makani Power in a dedicated topic thread.   Form a topic dedicated to tracing types of AWES progress that are in one's focus.     The present topic is about Kite Physics Fundamentals (parametric oscillation).  Thanks.

    Also, moderator has added writers' names. Please aim to have readers know well whose quote is being used. And then distinguish self with some tool that clearly tells the reader who the writer is. Thanks.


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

    Doug presents some quotes from a post and then comments on the quotes:  

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

    Dave Santos: "A major problem of the early laddermill designs was how to pass the kite-units around in the power-loop through the top and bottom positions."
    Doug Selsam: *** So if this was the thinking, why was the laddermill design so celebrated as a breakthrough by such highly-educated and highly-credentialed people?  If it was a "breakthrough", why was one never built?  What is the problem?  Why would someone call cables going around wheels a "chokepoint"?  That's all it took for them to abandon the same design they celebrated as a breakthrough just months earlier?

    Dave Santos: "Building on TUDelft's "pumping" variant, kPower proposed that the ladder kite-units need not pass thru the chokepoints, but can rely on docking and line grabbing to work the loop (or pump a single line)."
    Doug Selsam: ***Why would anyone call a retreat from laddermill to the same basic kite-reeling method everyone else in Europe was trying a "variant" of laddermill?  If it does not travel in a loop, why even refer to "laddermill"? 
    How does "docking" and "line grabbing" solve the "problem" of "chokepoints"?  Who has implemented "docking" and "grabbing" in a laddermill configuration?  Who has implemented "docking" and "grabbing" to pump a single line, why would they, and how could that work? 
     Which single-line pumping device shows the best promise for AWE now that so many have tried?  Where can we see one in daily operation now?
    =========================================
    [[Please open new topics with dedicated titles. Thanks. Moderator]]



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

    DaveS: "Doug asks good questions to old questions, with most answers given already, as old topics. No one ever "celebrated" the laddermill concept more than Doug, in his time."

    *** Doug Replies:  Nah, the whole reason Ockels was so celebrated was his eventual realization in his twilight years of the most simple and obvious AWE design in existence (besides kite-reeling) - the one that I thought of as a kid in the 1970's - the one Ockels aptly named as "laddermill".  It was so celebrated that they made Ockels a celebrity over it and started an entire university field of study, and could not let go of the name "laddermill" even though they gave up on building one because it would have been too hard. Sketches are easy, getting stuff to  work is hard. 

    daveS continues: "The "ladder" in laddermill was merely because the loop of kite elements looked ladderlike to Wubbo,"
    *** Doug Replies:*** Your grasp of the obvious is... well... obvious.  Did you really figure that out all by yourself?  How is it relevant to this discussion?  Do you really imagine there is anyone who did not understand where the name "laddermill" came from?  Sheesh!  Yes, it looks like a ladder.  More genius.  I always said it is a very clever name.  What's NOT clever is never attempting to build one out of sheer laziness and lack of building skills, even with a decent budget, then calling mere kite-reeling a "laddermill". A ladder with one rung, right?  Why not call it "stepstoolmill"?   (The childishly-simple idea of kite-reeling, the first thing any kiteflyer would think of, was the precursor to laddermill in my mind way back in the 1970's - I think it took about 10 seconds to move beyond kite-reeling and start thinking of a continuous loop.  I've always referred to it as the "grandma's clothesline" design.) 

    daveS continues: "its not an engineering issue, and we easily keep track of LM variants within our circles." 
    DougS replies: *** (note - daveS left out the apostrophe in "it's", one of many typos he thinks he never makes while castigating me for my occasional typo) OK so now its "LM" just to make sure anyone else reading this has no idea what you are talking about.  I say a reeling kite is NOT a laddermill variant.  The key feature of laddermill is it goes beyond the "duh" stage of kite-reeling, transitioning to continuous motion and multiple power elements.  

    daveS continues: "KiteLab Group built and tested a primitive LM and validated kite docking in 2008, and docking experiments continue with Rev kites, to make of them a standard tool for manipulating rigging above (like kite furling or killing)."
    Doug replies: *** back to your fantasy world - yes I have no doubt anything you claim to have "tested" is "primitive".  Seen a few of your two-second videos. Kite-docking - please forgive me for being: a) skeptical, and b) unimpressed.  Please show us your supposed laddermill.  Show me what is significant about your supposed "kite-docking".  Show the world your "standard tool for manipulating rigging" - what a joke.

    daveS goes on: "    The new development in laddermills is to apply line grabbers on COTS principles, including the tire tricks."
    *** DougS replies: Oh really, "THE new development"?  Show us please.  Show us the line grabbers.  Show us the tire-tricks.  Do you ever separate your fantasy world from your actual accomplishments?  What about that Airborne Wind Energy-powered rock concert you had scheduled and endlessly bragged about ahead of the (non)fact at a nearby park a few years ago?  

     daveS continued: "Corresponding prototypes emerge naturally, with due engineering cycle delay that Doug fails to account."
    ***DougS replies: Oh sure, "Doug fails", Roddy fails" everyone seems to "fail" except you!  And yet it is you who never have anything actually working except your endless talent for bragging and making false promises and statements!  By the way since you are nitpicking typos I might point out that your word "that" should read "for which".  Hey you know what?  Professor Crackpot can always find one more excuse - "due engineering cycle delay" is a ready excuse for "not knowing what you are doing".

    By the way I can definitely say this is a waste of time - I couldda gone skiing tonight!  Well technically I still can but it is getting rather late...

    I think it would be a great idea if I never posted here again and never responded to daveS again.  What a waste.  Oh well, hopefully I can learn, and stop beating my head against the wall. 

     [[Go for the diamonds, Doug. Stay in the energy-kite realms with your creativity!   ~ Moderator]]
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19537 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/5/2016
    Subject: Re: Miscellaneous mixed-topic responses

    DaveS noted about some content in this topic of mixed-topic responses:

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

    Correction to Doug- Shunting kite wings of many designs have been tested and shared publicly by KLG for over five years (for example, the stock spinnakers flown by kite last year "shunted" simply by normal gybing. The current state-of-the-art is PL SS power kites, which are "hot", but reverse direction well. Start a separate topic on shunting wing design and testing if this aspect interests you.
    ================
    DaveS noted about some of Doug Selsam's notes:

    Doug asks good questions to old questions, with most answers given already, as old topics. No one ever "celebrated" the laddermill concept more than Doug, in his time. The "ladder" in laddermill was merely because the loop of kite elements looked ladderlike to Wubbo, its not an engineering issue, and we easily keep track of LM variants within our circles.

    KiteLab Group built and tested a primitive LM and validated kite docking in 2008, and docking experiments continue with Rev kites, to make of them a standard tool for manipulating rigging above (like kite furling or killing). The new development in laddermills is to apply line grabbers on COTS principles, including the tire tricks. Corresponding prototypes emerge naturally, with due engineering cycle delay that Doug fails to account.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19538 From: dave santos Date: 1/5/2016
    Subject: Re: Miscellaneous mixed-topic responses
    I am sorry that Doug found the post on lattice-wave science, and its applicability to kite lattices, too long. My intent was to link the emerging ideas to the fine third-party references provided, but only for those who want to do the required homework.


    On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 8:25 PM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
    DaveS noted about some content in this topic of mixed-topic responses:
    ==============
    Correction to Doug- Shunting kite wings of many designs have been tested and shared publicly by KLG for over five years (for example, the stock spinnakers flown by kite last year "shunted" simply by normal gybing. The current state-of-the-art is PL SS power kites, which are "hot", but reverse direction well. Start a separate topic on shunting wing design and testing if this aspect interests you.
    ================
    DaveS noted about some of Doug Selsam's notes:

    Doug asks good questions to old questions, with most answers given already, as old topics. No one ever "celebrated" the laddermill concept more than Doug, in his time. The "ladder" in laddermill was merely because the loop of kite elements looked ladderlike to Wubbo, its not an engineering issue, and we easily keep track of LM variants within our circles.

    KiteLab Group built and tested a primitive LM and validated kite docking in 2008, and docking experiments continue with Rev kites, to make of them a standard tool for manipulating rigging above (like kite furling or killing). The new development in laddermills is to apply line grabbers on COTS principles, including the tire tricks. Corresponding prototypes emerge naturally, with due engineering cycle delay that Doug fails to account.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19539 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/5/2016
    Subject: TwingTec video

    Study and discuss statements and technology exhibited in a TwingTec

    self-introduction video:

    TwingTec Website Video

     
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19540 From: dave santos Date: 1/6/2016
    Subject: Rack and Pinion AWES PTO Hack
    Attachments :
      There is a rack and pinion mechanism in old camera tripods suited to cut out and made into a micro-power AWES PTO for use with pumping inputs. I made this prototype unit yesterday, in about two hours, from parts on hand. Note the adjustable return-stroke bungee with cleat, which is an instructive method to adapt the PTO to varied wind/kite conditions. The rack gives 1-to-8 stroke step-up and the DC generator is just an old tape recorder motor and has a 1-to-4 advantage belt and pulley drive stage. Up to about 4000rpm is expected in a fresh breeze from a small flip-wing, with video pending flight testing. Its a rather noisy machine, since the breadboard resonates with pinion-gear noise-

      Open-AWE_IP-Cloud

      WP_20160105_22_42_57_Pro.jpg





      		   @@attachment@@
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19541 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/6/2016
      Subject: Re: Rack and Pinion AWES PTO Hack

      Cool !

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

      Garden of rack and pinion images

      to tease scaling and alternatives for energy kite PTO

      HERE
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19542 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/6/2016
      Subject: Aviation Week ... archive of 100 years

      Aviation Week: Digital Archive Launched Today (Jan. 5, 2016), Chronicles 100 Years of Aerospace Achievements

      This topic thread may be considered a collecting place for noting items in Aviation Week that may affect energy kiting in some way.   Then, when any member wants to have more robust focus on some item, consider forming a dedicate topic with fresh title; then in that new topic, the item may be discussed by any members in depth. Purposeful kiting seems to have founded aviation and aerospace flows; and kiting continues to modify what happens in aerospace.  Some of us will rake Aviation Week for various sorts of AWES opportunities and ideas.

      Clip from their site: "Aviation Week & Space Technology launched its 100-year digital archive today in collaboration with Boeing, the sponsor of the archive. Both companies trace their roots to 1916.  The archive includes 4,500 issues and nearly 500,000 pages of articles, photos and advertising. It can be seen at archive.aviationweek.com."

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

      Starting the collection:

      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19543 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/6/2016
      Subject: Re: Aviation Week ... archive of 100 years

      Goodyear had many ads for their kite balloon. In some of the ads they derided early kites and captive balloons for "veering and yawing."   October 1, 1917, page 323, in an ad: "Neither was stable, nor free enough from veering and yawing."  Goodyear settled into designs that did not have so much veering and yawing. 

      My take for a gem: Hug veering and yawing for AWES foundations; design PTO to use veering and yawing. Let the veering and yawing (V&S) be mined; damp some of the V&S.   Hats off to V&S !


      PTO : power take off.

      AWES: airborne wind energy systems including energy kites (where a kite balloon is a type of kite system).

      V&S : veering and yawing.


      Any forum member might choose to start a topic rooted in this laconic post; form a specialized title for one's concerns.  
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19544 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/6/2016
      Subject: By Michael McDonald of Oilprice.com

      By Michael McDonald of Oilprice.com

      The Next Big Trend In Wind Energy? | OilPrice.com
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19545 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/6/2016
      Subject: Re: GoogleX-Makani renews its long-term lease on Alameda Island (San

      Google expected to bring up to 150 jobs to Alameda

      By Peter Hegarty

      Posted January 6, 2016


      ========================================================
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19546 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/6/2016
      Subject: Re: Rack and Pinion AWES PTO Hack
      Rack and pinion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

       
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19547 From: edoishi Date: 1/7/2016
      Subject: turbine install time lapse
      Cool industry made time lapse of a wind turbine's installation. The type of propaganda that plays into an AWE evangelist's script..
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19548 From: dave santos Date: 1/7/2016
      Subject: kPower Legal Notice to KPS and Makani Power Re: Asymmetrical Kite Pr
      Dear Kite Power Solutions and Makani Power,

      Asymmetric kites are a significant performance advance in AWES technology pioneered by KiteLab Group (KLG), kPower, and associates. For over five years asymmetric kites (aka "looping foils") for AWE have been publicly demonstrated (WSIKF) and extensively documented (AWES Forum, corporate websites, AWEC conferences), in many rigid-wing and soft-kite variants. The methods and designs are leading open source AWES IP, publicly and consistently claimed under CC models. 

      Please keep in mind that if you are basing your commercial AWES designs on the clear prior-art precedents, there is a reasonable standing demand for appropriate cross-licensing via the "Open-AWE_IP-Cloud" (AWE IP Pool). Please contact kPower CTO via santos137@yahoo.com for cooperative resolution of IP priority claims (with preferential licensing terms to early partners). If you are decline to fairly honor the asymmetric kite prior-art, desist from applying asymmetric AWES wings commercially.

      Thank you for due-diligence and fair intent in responding to this notice,

      dave santos
      kPower CTO

      Notes:

      This IP Legal Notice is copied to the public AWES Forum; the leading AWE Industry public-notice-source-of-record. 

      -------- Early video of a looping-foil by KLG -------

      -------- KPS and Makani asymmetric AWES wing disclosures --------

      From KPS Website-

      "By using asymmetric kites (our second patent filed) we are able to produce a very efficient wing that flies the circular path of the generation phase with very little energy required for actuating the wing control mechanism."

      Makani M600 Graphic-

      Image result for makani power

      press@google.com please forward this message to the appropriate Google staff.
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19549 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/7/2016
      Subject: AWE world of Henrik Hesse ?

      AWE world of Henrik Hesse ?

      Henrik, his coauthors, and those studying his AWE works are invited to discuss his kite-related works in this topic thread.

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

      Start teasers: 

       

      Model-Based Identification and Control of the Velocity Vector Orientation for Autonomous Kites CONFERENCE PAPER in PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN CONTROL CONFERENCE · JULY 2015 DOI: 10.1109/ACC.2015.7171088

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

      Talk:  Autonomous Pumping Cycles for Tethered Wings

       
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19550 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/7/2016
      Subject: ADM-Aeolus Mission and AWE

      ADM-Aeolus Mission and AWE

      This topic thread invites following the Aeolus Mission with an AWE eye.

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

      Preamble
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19551 From: dave santos Date: 1/7/2016
      Subject: Damon Vander Lind exit?
      Damon Vander Lind has in recent years been the lead engineer at Makani Power, noted for his keynote and other major presentations at AWEC conferences, and in the Springer AWE book. A curious anecdote of his was being hired at Makani in less than minute, by fellow grad school alums. He was never a candid accessible figure to the Open AWE community, clearly preferring elite "stealth venture" insider circles, while cultivating popular press soft-coverage of marketing claims.

      Not much of Damon has lately been seen in public, but his email address suddenly seems suspended. This may not signal anything dramatic, but its also possible that Damon has somehow moved on, right on the eve of M600 trials, which would be dramatic. The GoogleX/Makani social firewall is so absolute, the public seems not to have any point of contact anymore. Such isolation may driven by GoogleX legal counsel improperly imposing "willful ignorance" of "guilty knowledge" (like how GoogleX/Makani dominates Google Search on AWE, but not other search-engine results).

      Does anyone have a working Makani email address? Could JoeF please try forwarding today's notice regarding asymmetric AWES wings via his email account(s)? Maybe Damon took the step of blocking my address, based on my infrequent messages posing awkward questions to GoogleX/Makani's program (ie. open aviation safety-knowledge sharing v. design secrecy).

      Its time GoogleX/Makani fully opened up its knowledge culture. It is not operating in "philanthropic" fashion, as NatGeo incorrectly has reported, but as an unfair competitor, as convicted by EU prosecutors. Good luck to Damon, personally, whatever is going on...

      ----- the bounce ------

      Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:

          dvl@google.com

      Technical details of permanent failure: 
      Google tried to deliver your message, but it was rejected by the server for the recipient domain google.com by aspmx.l.google.com. [2607:f8b0:4001:c1d::1a].
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19552 From: dave santos Date: 1/7/2016
      Subject: Re: AWE world of Henrik Hesse ?
      Nice work by Henrik's team toward keeping AWES control based on the ground. Related Open-AWE thinking identified video tracking of the line-root at the anchor as theoretically technically superior to mechanical arm encoders. Kudos here for the team finding that two-line kite steering is in key ways superior to servo-steering with com-link uncertainties.

      A prime source of the discussed control delay and noise on a physical line is slackness caused by flight pattern dynamics and turbulence (sonic relativity where c effectively ranges from ~zero to ~40kmsec, in milliseconds as line-jerk events). The KIS solution is to buffer the delay noise with passive elastic retract energy (like the tip of a fishing rod provides). Lets see if Tony's work identified this aspect...

      The original bits above are claimed under the Open-AWE_IP-Cloud framework.


      On Thursday, January 7, 2016 10:51 AM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
      AWE world of Henrik Hesse ?
      Henrik, his coauthors, and those studying his AWE works are invited to discuss his kite-related works in this topic thread.
      =====================================================================
      Start teasers: 
       
      Model-Based Identification and Control of the Velocity Vector Orientation for Autonomous Kites CONFERENCE PAPER in PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN CONTROL CONFERENCE · JULY 2015 DOI: 10.1109/ACC.2015.7171088
      ======================================
       
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19553 From: dave santos Date: 1/7/2016
      Subject: Re: ADM-Aeolus Mission and AWE
      The rendered data should be breath-taking; good follow-on link to technical specifics-



      On Thursday, January 7, 2016 12:16 PM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
      ADM-Aeolus Mission and AWE
      This topic thread invites following the Aeolus Mission with an AWE eye.
      =======================================================
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19554 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/7/2016
      Subject: Asymmetry in kited wings

      Asymmetry in kited wings

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

      Ancient kited wings were asymmetrical about various physical lines, even if the maker wanted symmetry; the nature of material crafting cannot obtain perfect symmetry in wings about lines. But the default culture seems to apply "symmetrical" when the effort of craft is seemingly close enough to symmetry to satisfy the eye or balance scale.    Differently, large asymmetry may be crafted deliberately for various reasons.

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

      Jumping ahead and no doubt skipping some history that may be brought in by any poster, here is some instance of some asymmetry in kiting:


      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19555 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/8/2016
      Subject: Re: Asymmetry in kited wings

      TYPES of asymmetry in kited wings

      = mass distribution

      = area distribution

      = pressure distribution

      = control distribution

      = visual impact

      = duty distribution

      = purpose distribution

      = shape distribution

      = texture distribution

      = apparent wind differences

      = turbulence differences

      = insolation differences

      = temperature differences

      = moisture-content differences

      = magnetic differences

      = radiation differences

      = illumination differences

      = cost distribution

      = visibility distribution

      = porosity distribution

      = material-choice distribution

      = bridling distribution

      = color distribution

      ... [other means of asymmetry are welcome to be placed into the discussion]
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19556 From: dave santos Date: 1/8/2016
      Subject: Re: Asymmetry in kited wings
      Lets just be clear that even if nothing in the real world is precisely symmetrical, in normal AWES parlance symmetrical wings are those designed as such, and asymmetrical wings are those designed to exploit asymmetric geometry. Thus we distinguish without confusion the KPS, Makani, and kPower asymmetric wings from common symmetric wings.

      A deeper exploration of symmetry has emerged in modern physics, as "symmetry-breaking", with subtle implications for advanced kite design-




      On Friday, January 8, 2016 7:24 AM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
      TYPES of asymmetry in kited wings
      = mass distribution
      = area distribution
      = pressure distribution
      = control distribution
      = visual impact
      = duty distribution
      = purpose distribution
      = shape distribution
      = texture distribution
      = apparent wind differences
      = turbulence differences
      = insolation differences
      = temperature differences
      = moisture-content differences
      = magnetic differences
      = radiation differences
      = illumination differences
      = cost distribution
      = visibility distribution
      = porosity distribution
      = material-choice distribution
      = bridling distribution
      = color distribution
      ... [other means of asymmetry are welcome to be placed into the discussion]
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19557 From: dave santos Date: 1/8/2016
      Subject: Re: Asymmetry in kited wings
      We have mostly been pondering designed-in wing symmetry-breaking. Here is a paper by NYU Znang Lab on spontaneous symmetry-breaking of a symmetric rotor wing, reminding us that rotary motion itself creates handed asymmetry, even if the rotor wing itself is laterally/radially symmetric-


      ---------

      Another AWES wing symmetry case in AWE is the bi-facial rotor-blade symmetry of motor-gen rotors like Joby-Makani work with. By contrast,standard parafoils and rigid wings are not bi-facially symmetric, for optimal performance in one preferred orientation.


      On Friday, January 8, 2016 10:36 AM, "dave santos santos137@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
      Lets just be clear that even if nothing in the real world is precisely symmetrical, in normal AWES parlance symmetrical wings are those designed as such, and asymmetrical wings are those designed to exploit asymmetric geometry. Thus we distinguish without confusion the KPS, Makani, and kPower asymmetric wings from common symmetric wings.

      A deeper exploration of symmetry has emerged in modern physics, as "symmetry-breaking", with subtle implications for advanced kite design-




      On Friday, January 8, 2016 7:24 AM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
      TYPES of asymmetry in kited wings
      = mass distribution
      = area distribution
      = pressure distribution
      = control distribution
      = visual impact
      = duty distribution
      = purpose distribution
      = shape distribution
      = texture distribution
      = apparent wind differences
      = turbulence differences
      = insolation differences
      = temperature differences
      = moisture-content differences
      = magnetic differences
      = radiation differences
      = illumination differences
      = cost distribution
      = visibility distribution
      = porosity distribution
      = material-choice distribution
      = bridling distribution
      = color distribution
      ... [other means of asymmetry are welcome to be placed into the discussion]
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19558 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/8/2016
      Subject: Re: Asymmetry in kited wings

      Flight feathers (Pennae volatus) [1] are the long, stiff, asymmetrically shaped.

      Flight feather - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


      https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/99/Buteo_buteo_primary_secondary.jpg
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19559 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/9/2016
      Subject: Re: Asymmetry in kited wings
      In the video, consider asymmetry of apparent wind on a wing element perhaps developed from asymmetrical wind shadowing; notice the occasional large change of flight behavior by a wing element of the kite system. The shown are part of a kite tree where one main trunk tether founds the tether set of branched tethers. 
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19560 From: dave santos Date: 1/9/2016
      Subject: Re: Asymmetry in kited wings
      The bird kite video shows complex dynamics that we are progressively learning to unpack (more slow "progress", leading towards a revolution in kite knowledge). Yes, the turbulent wake of one bird or a gust structure can send another bird out of the zenith zone, but another mechanism is the chaotic double (or higher count) pendulum. Combining all the various dynamical effects creates a very life-like show.

      Each bird kite has a natural frequency of Dutch roll, but poorly phase-correlated with the others, as each kite is on its own leader-line. The main-line therefore is a semi-random "phonon-bath" of mixed harmonics. When the main-line harmonics chaotically interact with the leader-line harmonics, the bird kites react sensitively in a "dance". Occasionally, each kite gets enough of a jerk at just the moment the kite is rocking to one side or the other, and a fighter-kite-like surge to a side results, with the kite belatedly recovering after a large excursion across its window.

      There are multiple broken symmetries here, from a wake that hits only one side of a kite, that a delta-kite would tend to shrug-off compared to these bow-framed kites, to the constructive/destructive inference effects of multiple oscillators on a line network.


      On Saturday, January 9, 2016 9:26 AM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
      In the video, consider asymmetry of apparent wind on a wing element perhaps developed from asymmetrical wind shadowing; notice the occasional large change of flight behavior by a wing element of the kite system. The shown are part of a kite tree where one main trunk tether founds the tether set of branched tethers. 
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19561 From: dave santos Date: 1/9/2016
      Subject: FAA UAS Test-Range AWES Fight-Plan Template Draft
      This is a draft Flight Plan template for AWES testing at Warm Springs FAA UAS Test Site. Note that the FAA has exempted AWES from other UAS regs, current and proposed, keeping them under FAR Part 101 governing kites. Development of this template is toward proactive professionalizing of AWES operations to the responsible self-regulation standard demanded of airspace user groups-

      1) Conditions: VFR IFR DVFR
      2) AWES Identification:
      3) AWES Type/ Special Equipment: ADS-B and night-signals
      4) Station Keeping or True Airspeed: (Kts)
      5) Station Point or Departure Point:
      6) Launch Time: Proposed and Actual
      7) Operating Altitude:
      8) Route or Trajectory:
      9) Destination (if not Station Point):
      10) Estimated Flight Session Duration: Day Hr Min
      11) Remarks: NOTAM as filed
      12) Endurance Limit (fuel, charge):
      13) Alternate Landing Points (kill zone):
      14) Pilot-in-Command Contact Info:
      15) Number of Personnel: Ground and Aloft
      16) AWES Colors
      17) Alternate Contact Info:

      Above based on FAA Flight Plan template here-
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19562 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/10/2016
      Subject: Re: FAA UAS Test-Range AWES Fight-Plan Template Draft
      I am wondering if a firm declaration of vertical space obstruction would be part of the flight plan. All other aircraft would need to know that tether set of the flight system would be occupying airspace from ground up to top wing elements.   AWES are not compact points in the sky, but rather broad-volume airspace occupiers with respect to other aircraft.  The AWES airspace volume is fairly static compared to the moving volume of an untethered powered aircraft.   A cylinder of airspace might be declared as obstruction.  Tether set positions will change with wind and control within a vertical cylinder of airspace.  The slant of tether sets increase the radius of the involved airspace cylinder.      Airmen may be in habit of thinking of point objects in traffic; AWES are far from point objects.  
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19563 From: dave santos Date: 1/10/2016
      Subject: Re: FAA UAS Test-Range AWES Fight-Plan Template Draft
      Well, NextGen airspace will compute any quasi-static trajectory in relation to all others, so humans will not have to keep track very closely. That's the future (2025).

      This flight-plan scheme, on the other hand, is mainly meant to harmonize with the Test-Range manager's pilot experience and current needs, and maybe has no other practical role. AWES are just trying to fit in to the drone-mix and legacy general aviation, where many flight plans will be formal, and we don't want to cause surprises. Long term, the creaky NOTAM system is not highly optimal, and may need overhaul or phase-out as NextGen kicks in. Already, ADS-B is rocking the sky, and even some obstructions like cranes near airports have it in trial, with no NOTAM.

      We are just feeling our way forward, and this AWES flight planning exercise is tres experimental. We'll probably define wind rose cylinders in many cases, since a "common" event for a kite is a fairly quick 180deg wind reversal (as a vortical cell passes, or a sea-breeze flips to land-breeze, or a nearby slope updraft turns foehn, etc.). AWES flight plans will also be nice training aids, to judge how acculturated a novice pilot is to aviation discipline. I think they may catch on, but in a very specialized form, like for smooth shift-changes at a major kite-farm, as open flight plans.


      On Sunday, January 10, 2016 7:03 AM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
      I am wondering if a firm declaration of vertical space obstruction would be part of the flight plan. All other aircraft would need to know that tether set of the flight system would be occupying airspace from ground up to top wing elements.   AWES are not compact points in the sky, but rather broad-volume airspace occupiers with respect to other aircraft.  The AWES airspace volume is fairly static compared to the moving volume of an untethered powered aircraft.   A cylinder of airspace might be declared as obstruction.  Tether set positions will change with wind and control within a vertical cylinder of airspace.  The slant of tether sets increase the radius of the involved airspace cylinder.      Airmen may be in habit of thinking of point objects in traffic; AWES are far from point objects.  
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19564 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/10/2016
      Subject: Making of a CORE kite

      [EN] CORE Inside - Making of a CORE kite

       
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19565 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/10/2016
      Subject: Building a Asymmetrical (Cruising) Spinnaker

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

      Tip of the hat to world of crafting soft sails with an eye to AWES futures:

      ============== World of AWES will be having manufacturers of many items

      including kite system wing sails.


      Building a Asymmetrical (Cruising) Spinnaker - Part 1

       

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w02iSkkNqEQ    Part 2


      Building a Asymmetrical (Cruising) Spinnaker - Part 3

       
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19566 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/10/2016
      Subject: Ground and Sea Signage
      Attachments :

        AWES operation areas may involve signage. Airspace notices and instrument will be caring for air traffic matters. But people on the ground or using the seas will come upon AWES operations. Maps will be recording AWES areas. Travelers and seaman will consult their communication tools. But finally the ground trekking human and the water-traveling human will be approaching AWES energy kite farms. Fencing? But also signage. This topic thread invites long-term notes about signage for AWES working areas. There will electrical challenges, working-part challenges, tether challenges ...     Some building and safety departments have signage requirements that will be respected by the kite-farm designers. But what will be some of the art and wording on signs that will inform humans of the restrictions and safety concerns? 


        Start:

        See attached image of a sign.

        And

        http://www.fksa.org/albums/album223/kitesurf_sign_161.jpg

        and

        See attached

        and

        http://i3.cpcache.com/image/100598386_125x125.png


        		   @@attachment@@
        Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19567 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/10/2016
        Subject: Highest Wind

        Dimitri Cherny
        Marketing and management professional
        Current:
        Trident Technical College, Fifth Wheel Logistics
        Previous:
        Highest Wind LLC, IBM, Mercury Computer Systems


        Founder, Managing Director
        Highest Wind LLC
        December 2008 – March 2013 (4 years 4 months) Charleston, South Carolina Area
        Highest Wind was developing a unique wind energy system that harvests the winds 1000 feet above the ground to provide cost-effective renewable energy for rural organizations in low-wind locations - half our planet.


        Had involved in Highest Wind:

        Ursula Schwuttke

        Bruce Johnson


        ACTIVE WEB SITE ON HIGHEST WIND

        Highest Wind | Developing Economical Persistent Airborne Platforms

         =========================
        Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19568 From: dave santos Date: 1/11/2016
        Subject: Re: Highest Wind
        As usual with Dimitri, there are more questions than answers. His latest promotion recalls to mind how the US AWE community, with all its expertise, was not consulted for what Dimitri submitted (with PJ) as our representative(s) to ARPA-E (in response to a unique call for us all to plan AWE Challenge prize). Called to account, Dimitri disclosed a very poorly conceived and embarrassing "plan"*, and a show of anger. 

        We also still await validating evidence (even just clear functioning on video) of the many AWES Dimitri has claimed in the past. Five years in, Dimitri is somehow claiming to be a "first-round" investment in what sounds like ordinary kite capability, but marketed as a revolution of his own making. It needs to beat COTS open-source kite tech (like KAP prior art).

        Dimitri is Cc:ed in the hope he will better disclose his latest product (and also his old ARPA-E exchanges, PJ is also Cc:ed in the hope she will make public her ARPA-E trail, to save the bother of a FOIA request to fill out the record.

        ------------------
        * Below is what Dimitri purported as his whole unilateral submission to ARPA-E; clearly not the professional quality fly-off plan required. Dimitri never shared the his actual email trail. PJ was even more secretive, submitting her own personal list of recommended names, never yet publicly disclosed. It was a shock to find out they only represented their own naive schemes. Naturally ARPA-E balked at such weak submissions, and Makani was the only AWE player that ever got funded by them-

         
        Dimitri Cherny
        Marketing and management professional
        Current:
        Trident Technical College, Fifth Wheel Logistics
        Previous:
        Highest Wind LLC, IBM, Mercury Computer Systems

        Founder, Managing Director
        Highest Wind LLC
        December 2008 – March 2013 (4 years 4 months) Charleston, South Carolina Area
        Highest Wind was developing a unique wind energy system that harvests the winds 1000 feet above the ground to provide cost-effective renewable energy for rural organizations in low-wind locations - half our planet.

        Had involved in Highest Wind:
        Ursula Schwuttke
        Bruce Johnson

        ACTIVE WEB SITE ON HIGHEST WIND
         =========================
        Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19569 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/11/2016
        Subject: New owner of TetheredWings.com

        New owner of TetheredWings.com as of January 11, 2016, 3:00 PM PST

        is Wayne German.




        Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19570 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/12/2016
        Subject: Ping-pong balls

        A member suggested that there may be creative ways where ping-pong balls become part of some niche AWES; credit will be revealed after some depth has been obtained in this development; the direction came from one who has many AWES patents under his or her belt.  Another member open to suggestions is going ahead and letting others in on the fun by starting this specialized topic thread. From the exploration, various AWES may be graced in time.   Participate only up to your wishes, of course.   Let PPB :: ping-pong ball(s)    This may well may be more than fun!   Aim to serve RAD.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_tennis#Ball

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

        For rich adventure here, recall that working kite systems may produce electricity or perform other practical works among myriad options.

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

        We are right now 186 members in the forum. Hopefully each member will share at least one AWES PPB idea.

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

        Start:

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

        Stuff an airfoil-shaped encasement with pin-holed PPB. The air pressure inside the balls remains ambient while the wing changes altitude. The encasement constrains the shape of the stuffing.

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

        Metaphor for communicating among energy-kite workers:  PPB exchange activity; bounce progressive work from one to another in forum, on AWES field, in private correspondence, at conference, etc.

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

        Your turn. Each member is invited to the PPB party.  Advance AWE.

        I will be back to this topic thread from time to time.


        http://rlv.zcache.com/there_is_no_known_cure_for_being_awesome_ping_pong_ball-r66b01ae5b33f46b2b4563b2d721645d6_zvjn8_324.jpg?rlvnet=1