Messages in AirborneWindEnergy group.                          AWES 19879 to 19928 Page 291 of 440.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19879 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/21/2016
Subject: Opposite AWES?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19880 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/22/2016
Subject: Control of an airborne wind energy system with a Magnus effect

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19881 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/22/2016
Subject: Re: Control of an airborne wind energy system with a Magnus effect

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19882 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/22/2016
Subject: Re: Control of an airborne wind energy system with a Magnus effect

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19883 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/23/2016
Subject: Re: Control of an airborne wind energy system with a Magnus effect

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19884 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/23/2016
Subject: Re: Control of an airborne wind energy system with a Magnus effect

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19885 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/23/2016
Subject: How field show fair competition between two distinct AWES?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19886 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/23/2016
Subject: What in Tom Blees for AWES ?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19887 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/23/2016
Subject: Re: What in Tom Blees for AWES ?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19888 From: dave santos Date: 3/23/2016
Subject: Documenting collective AWEC Highwind IMTEK BHWE HWN500 AWESCO Confer

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19889 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/24/2016
Subject: What for AWES in this?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19890 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/26/2016
Subject: Arches, Bridges, Links

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19891 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/26/2016
Subject: Ocean Dead Zones :: Target for Kite Work?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19892 From: Rod Read Date: 3/26/2016
Subject: Re: Ocean Dead Zones :: Target for Kite Work?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19893 From: dave santos Date: 3/27/2016
Subject: Re: Ocean Dead Zones :: Target for Kite Work?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19894 From: Rod Read Date: 3/27/2016
Subject: Re: Ocean Dead Zones :: Target for Kite Work?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19895 From: Rod Read Date: 3/27/2016
Subject: Re: Ocean Dead Zones :: Target for Kite Work?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19896 From: dave santos Date: 3/27/2016
Subject: Re: Ocean Dead Zones :: Target for Kite Work?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19897 From: dave santos Date: 3/27/2016
Subject: Classic Kite under Galilean Invariance is a powered aircraft

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19898 From: dave santos Date: 3/28/2016
Subject: Jalbert invented the valved-parafoil

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19899 From: gordon_sp Date: 3/28/2016
Subject: Balloon Kite AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19900 From: dave santos Date: 3/28/2016
Subject: Re: Balloon Kite AWE [2 Attachments]

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19901 From: dave santos Date: 3/28/2016
Subject: Million-dollar AWE Scheme on Indigogo

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19902 From: dave santos Date: 3/28/2016
Subject: Million-dollar AWE Scheme on Indigogo

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19903 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/28/2016
Subject: Re: First Message from Gordon Spilkin

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19904 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/28/2016
Subject: Re: Million-dollar AWE Scheme on Indigogo

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19905 From: Rod Read Date: 3/29/2016
Subject: Re: Ocean Dead Zones :: Target for Kite Work?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19906 From: dave santos Date: 3/29/2016
Subject: Re: Ocean Dead Zones :: Target for Kite Work?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19907 From: dave santos Date: 3/30/2016
Subject: Re: Ocean Dead Zones :: Target for Kite Work?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19908 From: dave santos Date: 3/30/2016
Subject: Sea-Anchor/Kite Combination (sea-anchoring state-of-the-art)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19909 From: dave santos Date: 3/30/2016
Subject: Re: Ocean Dead Zones :: Target for Kite Work?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19910 From: dave santos Date: 3/30/2016
Subject: TwingTec's Product Announcement

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19911 From: dave santos Date: 3/30/2016
Subject: Overlooked LAGI AWES (SkyFill)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19912 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/31/2016
Subject: Re: more Minesto paravane farm details

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19913 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/31/2016
Subject: Re: Overlooked LAGI AWES (SkyFill)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19914 From: johndgaul Date: 4/4/2016
Subject: 2016 state of play for AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19915 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/4/2016
Subject: Re: 2016 state of play for AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19916 From: johndgaul Date: 4/5/2016
Subject: Re: 2016 state of play for AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19917 From: santos137@yahoo.com Date: 4/5/2016
Subject: Re: 2016 state of play for AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19918 From: johndgaul Date: 4/6/2016
Subject: AWE workshops in the UK

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19919 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/6/2016
Subject: Re: more Minesto paravane farm details

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19920 From: dave santos Date: 4/7/2016
Subject: Re: AWE workshops in the UK

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19921 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/8/2016
Subject: Re: E-volo’s 18-rotor electric V olocopter makes maiden flight

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19922 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/8/2016
Subject: Antonello Cherubini and his AWE Blog

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19923 From: dave santos Date: 4/9/2016
Subject: Rapid proliferation of SS power-kites and PGs

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19924 From: dave santos Date: 4/10/2016
Subject: Peter Lynn asks: Why do toy deltas outfly pro kites in light air?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19925 From: dave santos Date: 4/10/2016
Subject: Kite Shade Case (PL 2009)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19926 From: dave santos Date: 4/10/2016
Subject: Re: Rapid proliferation of SS power-kites and PGs

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19927 From: dave santos Date: 4/11/2016
Subject: Super-Kite Project?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19928 From: dave santos Date: 4/11/2016
Subject: "air-bearing-surface" and support vehicle super-kite ground-handling



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19879 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/21/2016
Subject: Opposite AWES?

Is this some kind of opposite-AWES?

Ever expend power sent up tether to keep wing set flying ...  
HERE.   for Drone Volt
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19880 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/22/2016
Subject: Control of an airborne wind energy system with a Magnus effect

Control of an airborne wind energy system with a Magnus effect 

Ahmad Hably, 

Jonathan Dumon, 

Garrett Smith

Ahmad Hably, Jonathan Dumon, Garrett Smith. 

Control of an airborne wind energy system with a Magnus effect.       

The 2016 American Control Conference, Jul 2016, Boston, United States. 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19881 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/22/2016
Subject: Re: Control of an airborne wind energy system with a Magnus effect
The system being explored by Omnidea is not to be confused with Magenn; the control and generation scheme is distinct from Magenn. 

Hopefully my description is accurate (correction invited): 

 Magenn :: Have LTA kytoon cylinders surfaced with spanwise wings for reacting with the wind to obtain rotation of the cylinder. The arrangement is a tumbling wing. The rotation of the tumbling wing is mined for generation of electricity aloft; the electricity is set to the ground via conductive lines. 

 Omnidea :: Have LTA smooth cylinder that does not autorotate, but rotates by aloft drive motor costing energy. Upon rotating the cylinder at cost, the driven rotating cylinder set traverse to the wind obtains a positive aerodynamic lift (which they call Magnus Effect) above the buoyancy from the LTA gas. The net aerodynamic lift is controlled by the driving motor but relates to the ambient and then apparent wind as the device climbs and tether is drawn out. It is the drawing out that drives a ground generator. Once the drawing out reaches its limits, then the aerial drive motor stops; the rotation slows; the Magnus Effect lift stops; the device settles to a lower altitude while the tension on the tether lowers; there is a cost to bring in the tether in preparation for another cycle. Another cycle begins with the costing aerial motor rotating the cylinder again.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19882 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/22/2016
Subject: Re: Control of an airborne wind energy system with a Magnus effect
In the subject arena, consider a third scheme: Cost aloft a formation of wings on the cylinder to get autorotation to get tumbling wing lift and Magnus Effect lift on top of the buoyancy; then at upper end of cycle, spend to close the wings on the cylinder; then finish as Omnidea does.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19883 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/23/2016
Subject: Re: Control of an airborne wind energy system with a Magnus effect
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19884 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/23/2016
Subject: Re: Control of an airborne wind energy system with a Magnus effect
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19885 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/23/2016
Subject: How field show fair competition between two distinct AWES?

How field show fair competition between two distinct AWES?
Will such occur at the conference?
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19886 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/23/2016
Subject: What in Tom Blees for AWES ?

What in Tom Blees for AWES ?

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

His book: 

Prescription for the Planet

http://www.thesciencecouncil.com/pdfs/P4TP4U.pdf

=========================================
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19887 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/23/2016
Subject: Re: What in Tom Blees for AWES ?
Counterpoints? 
Prescription for (Killing) the Planet
In some counterpoints, 
what can be found for AWES?
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19888 From: dave santos Date: 3/23/2016
Subject: Documenting collective AWEC Highwind IMTEK BHWE HWN500 AWESCO Confer
Despite it not even being known who the current Director, Board and Members are, AWEC continues its AWE conference malfeasance. An extended background discussion is in progress with AWEC/AWESCO over why there has been no US conference since 2012, while the same Northern EU circle mounts a string of lack-luster AWEC conferences. The latest complaint is how timely 2015 grassroots US planning for a 2016 conference was quashed by false AWEC information about AWESCO plans; which is why no US conference is planned this year. 

AWEC/AWESCO instead wants to impose yet another German conference for 2017. The insiders' pretext seems to be that Moritz's team has moved "to the center of (the AWE) research community" and somehow has "momentum". These are not objective nor acceptable rationale for the exclusive Northern EU circle (excluding even all EU teams that are Italian, French, English, Iberian, etc.) to control conferences by AWEC's ingrained secrecy. AWESCO has in effect drawn a Maginot Line in EU AWE not based on merit. This is false momentum on AWESCO's part. Leadership momentum in AWE should only be honestly earned.

Rather than unite us, as AWEC's Mission Statement requires, the AWEC has always deeply divided the AWE Community over its secretive pay-to-governance model (as still promoted on its long-neglected website). AWEC control over time shifted from Joby/Makani to EU directors with close ties to TUDleft, HighWind, and AWESCO, with an ever more secretive planning process that even excluded specific players without cause (like John Oyebanji of AWEIA) and manipulated conference content to favor Northern EU players (like exclusive advance planning for demo event). 

AWEIA's consistent position since the first AWEC2010 "hijacked conference" has been AWEC-reform, so AWE conferences are never again manipulated in secret by whatever front group somehow gains AWEC insider-status (HighestWind, BHWE, HWN500, IMTEK, AWESCO). Conference planning should once again become the inclusive transparent process that created HAWPcon2009 and the first AWEC conference. Its unknown if Moritz, who is currently organizing AWEC2017, will continue the secrecy and unfair John Oyebanji AWEIA exclusion, which would extend the anti-AWEC boycott of recent years. The boycott has clearly undercut the academic quality of AWEC's conferences.  To Wubbo's credit, AWEC2011, was considered the most open of AWEC conferences, but AWEC lost that moral influence with Wubbo's passing.

A detailed analysis of whether AWEC/AWESCO insiders really have the technical momentum they are claiming is left for another topic; but based on inherent cost-effectiveness, safety, reliability, scalability, and other key engineering metrics, the answer seems to be "no".

======= note on AWEC naming and affiliation =============

PJ is lately even denying that AWEC conferences take on the AWEC(year) naming format as just a coincidental acronym. In fact, this naming has always also been a factual identifier (a working trademark) of AWEC as the lead planner. This is why HAWPcon09 is not known as "AWEC2009" and every conference with AWEC in its name has been an AWEC event. Moritz is well aware of this, as shown by this typical description of AWEC's conference track from an IMTEK webpage, which is Moritz's current AWESCO Freiburg base-

"...With help of the ERC grant HIGHWIND running from 2011-2016 the control and optimization team starts moving to the center of this young research community, having organized for example the 2nd Conference by the Airborne Wind Energy Consortium (AWEC 2011). AWE is perfectly complementary to the team's dynamic system modelling, optimization and control work, but given the fact that no physical apparatus did yet exist, the group's activities had to include the hardware design and experimental validation of our control technologies..."
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19889 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/24/2016
Subject: What for AWES in this?

What in this may serve AWES?

[Disclaimer: About one hour video; something in this could alter one's AWE life. If you are fully satisfied with the AWE challenges already on your plate, then consider skipping this video. Anyone in long term finding an AWE application from the radiance of this video is welcome to report/discuss in this topic thread.]


Toy Models | Tadashi Tokieda
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19890 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/26/2016
Subject: Arches, Bridges, Links

Have two or more anchors to an AWES. There are links or bridges or connections from one anchor to the other anchors. We have the classic SLK (single line kite) that bridges anchor to wing (recall anchor may be seen as a wing set in a kite system). But in the space of "arch as bridge" onw may have open communications from anchor to anchor; one may open the assests of the available bridges. Vibrations, signals, waves, light, electricity, materials, fluids, animals, or people may rest at stations or move along the bridge or link or arch that obtains when a kite system involves bridges, links, arches from points to other points. Connected world!.  Power take offs (PTO) may occur in bridge or arch kite systems; pumping may occur. 

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

Rod Read explores: 


300 rotary lifters Kite Bridge

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

300 lift kite bridge

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

farther fetched bridge

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

far fetched bridge

=============================
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19891 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/26/2016
Subject: Ocean Dead Zones :: Target for Kite Work?

Ocean Dead Zones :: Target for Kite Work?

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

Locate an ocean dead zone. 

Put kites to work to bring the zone to life. 

How?

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

1. Use the wind's energy to lift and droplet drop the water. 

Oxygenate the water. 

2. Churn the zone's edges. 

3. Drag water across the edges of the zone.

4. ? 

Open question ....    



A Green Road Think Tank: Dead Zones In World's Oceans And Large Lakes Growing, Close To 2 Million Square Miles Globally
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19892 From: Rod Read Date: 3/26/2016
Subject: Re: Ocean Dead Zones :: Target for Kite Work?

Whisking
Hydrolysis
Scooping /prevention of pollutants
Vertical farming

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19893 From: dave santos Date: 3/27/2016
Subject: Re: Ocean Dead Zones :: Target for Kite Work?
The very slowness of dragging in water helps the kite maintain flight, its grunt-power directly converted to aeration work at high efficiency for potentially very long sessions over large distances.

We can envision a kite-towed hull aerating a shallow top water layer by some sort of enhanced splashing method, say like dragging a Pelton bucket to make a double rooster-tail of spray. A different approach better suited for deep water with stagnant stratification would be a towed submarine hull that gulps air at the surface then dives to release air at depth, which would promptly percolate up through the entire water column. Such a sub passively cycling up and down while pulled by kite would be extra-cool.


On Saturday, March 26, 2016 10:21 AM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
Whisking
Hydrolysis
Scooping /prevention of pollutants
Vertical farming


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19894 From: Rod Read Date: 3/27/2016
Subject: Re: Ocean Dead Zones :: Target for Kite Work?


Fast kite is more power =
Job done as priority.

A more energetically plausible conversion of surface vessel movement into aerated water via "rooster tail" would have a pulled vessel part funnel, channel & chute a thick mist into the air, while encouraging the vessel course in water.

The rooster tail from kite surfing is only part right.

The metric of best ocean oxygenation vs kite work done is likely to come from a quieter & continuous running device.

Should a noisy design prove superior it should be kept deep inside a definite dead zone thus limiting its applicability.

A screw channel underwater driven by rotary kite could continuously pull air down.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19895 From: Rod Read Date: 3/27/2016
Subject: Re: Ocean Dead Zones :: Target for Kite Work?

Apologies... I think
A screw channel underwater driven by rotary kite could continuously pull air down...
That's either wrong or
Only with complexity, by packets and wouldn't likely be efficient.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19896 From: dave santos Date: 3/27/2016
Subject: Re: Ocean Dead Zones :: Target for Kite Work?
Rod wrote: "Fast kite is more power = Job done as priority"

Reply: A fast kite is only more power by unit area, but kite jobs differ greatly in scale and load velocity.

Fast Kite v. Slow Kite to work dead-zones is the trade off between smaller more expensive kites (like a SkySails parafoil) and larger cheaper kites (like a KiteShip OL)..This is a complex trade.

The larger SS kite out-flies the parafoil in lowest flyable wind, perhaps especially in low "most probable wind velocities" common to dead-zones.. The hotter kite is favored to make a simple rooster-tail wake at the surface, if this the operating principle. The plunging aerating sub load better matches to the larger slower kite's greater "grunt power".

Another way to look at this is Pocock's observation that when his Char Volant came to a hill and slowed down, it felt more of the downwind wind velocity at the slower load-motion and this actually increased available power for the hill-climb. This was one of several counter-intuitive power-kite principles he first described (like even a kite tug angle slightly ahead of direct abeam can make good a course to windward).

Testing will settle this sort of trade-off option, but its a fair bet that Dave Culp's OL can scale so large it eventually will beat by far the largest practical "fast" parafoil for giant jobs, at least if slow load-motion is allowed. A rotary kite system like Rod's Daisy has a low rotary-velocity, the bigger the slower, that seems ill-suited to going deep by screwin air down somehow, but test away, if there are doubts in the engineering community.

Seeing NPWs and foils mixing it up at NABX is a good way to get sense of how the "poor-man" with a cheap NPW can keep up with the rich-man with a faster kite, when the wind is on the low-side. Novel bulk ocean aeration as a specialized app is where most of the engineering uncertainty lies.


On Sunday, March 27, 2016 12:23 PM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
Apologies... I think
A screw channel underwater driven by rotary kite could continuously pull air down...
That's either wrong or
Only with complexity, by packets and wouldn't likely be efficient.


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19897 From: dave santos Date: 3/27/2016
Subject: Classic Kite under Galilean Invariance is a powered aircraft
JoeF had a striking insight years ago that a classic SLK is fundamentally like a glider, in that the glider's center-of-mass acts just as an internal kite tether and anchor. Thus the glider descending in still air sees its apparent wind just as a kite sees "real" wind. By extension, a powered aircraft is the same sort of system, with its source of thrust creating its apparent wind.

No one before JoeF saw and expressed this so clearly. Before JoeF, the simplistic narrative was that the kite led to the glider which led to powered aircraft, superficially distinguishing methodological differences, without exploring the deeply integral physics. In many ways, the AWES Forum has really pushed the boundaries of basic aviation theory.

A next step in the progression of kite insights is to see the kite Earth anchor as the aircraft power-plant, under Galilean invariance of the kite's inertial reference frame. In this POV, considering the naturall wind field as the static reference frame, a kite's fundamental source of thrust is the Earth's rotation, as flywheel energy. This is, of course, an idealized view most true in an overall statistical sense, since the natural wind field has eddies, which duly cancel when taken as a whole.

The classic kite in this light is an aerotow system, with the Earth doing the towing. It may seem that finding these fundamental identities is merely armchair amusement, with scant applicability to practice, but the contrary is true; building the most theoretically comprehensive picture of kite physics drives progress in AWES design, in tandem with the most empirical expertise. The greatest modern kite designers are both keen physics students and maker-flyers. Deeper physics only enhances the practical aviation engineering imagination.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19898 From: dave santos Date: 3/28/2016
Subject: Jalbert invented the valved-parafoil
Its well known that Jalbert's open cell parafoil is prone to collapse by extreme turbulence or payload motion. Less well known is that Jalbert himself solved the problem, by patenting the valved-parafoil linked below. Why then are open-cell parafoils so dominant to this day? The pilot is able to avoid collapse by skilled response, while the open-cells allow the parafoil to be usefully deflated during pre-launch and post-landing, which effectively damps the otherwise too-hot wing, for easier safer handling.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19899 From: gordon_sp Date: 3/28/2016
Subject: Balloon Kite AWE
Attachments :

    References for the attached document:

    First Message from Gordon Spilkin - 19 messages starting at message #16044

    Universal Joints - Message #4382 

    		   @@attachment@@
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19900 From: dave santos Date: 3/28/2016
    Subject: Re: Balloon Kite AWE [2 Attachments]
    Hi Gordon,

    Welcome back. Hoping you soon get a prototype of your concept going, which will surely work, but "the devil is in the details". The idea of non-Savonius multi-rotors in AWE starts with Harburg. Multi-rotors-on-a-shaft go back centuries (to old poldermill variants and early steamboat design). Doug's idea was to extend the shaft all the way up into high wind, as a driveshaft, but your cable-loop design avoids the inherent high-mass that would require, where you mostly just add more string to go far higher. You may be underestimating how costly and bothersome lifting gas dependence is in aviation practice. 

    Another issue is that kite designers and fliers have not reached the practical limit to handling giant kites, so it seems unfair to claim "If manual launching and retrieval is used, then the size of the kite is severely limited." Just what size limit are you seeing, in square meters? You may be unaware of how large and how well thought out large kite operations are shown to be, and that autonomous systems hardly come close, not from high capital cost, but for lack of anyone bothering yet. The main large kite array enabling methods are cascaded-launch, where a few kites progressively lift more kites, or smaller kites lift larger kites in staged sequence; and kite-killers, where releasing main tension quite cheaply catches the largest kites by tagline.

    Thanks for contributing art to the Open-AWE_IP-Cloud !

    daveS

    PS note that docx and pdf are proprietary formats not all of us support. HTML and email-text formats are open-standards that the purist open-source hold-outs can read without paying. I could see your pdf, but not your docx, without buying MS's Office :(


    On Monday, March 28, 2016 1:30 PM, "gordon_sp@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
    References for the attached document:
    First Message from Gordon Spilkin - 19 messages starting at message #16044
    Universal Joints - Message #4382 
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19901 From: dave santos Date: 3/28/2016
    Subject: Million-dollar AWE Scheme on Indigogo
    A very odd mishmash of existing hype and fact, of recombined bits and pieces from many well-known concepts. Maybe JoeF can find a female Young S. Woo in LA, to confirm if this is a venture scam or a naive but sincere player in need of domain expertise-

    Young S. Woo       Young power Founder
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19902 From: dave santos Date: 3/28/2016
    Subject: Million-dollar AWE Scheme on Indigogo
    OK, these are real folks with a real patent, but with no apparent inventive leap, just awkward pastiches cobbled from prior patented concepts. Probably honest, but far behind the pack. Good luck to them-



    AWES   Airborne Wind Energy Systems
    Kite-energy systems at work ...

    .
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19903 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/28/2016
    Subject: Re: First Message from Gordon Spilkin

    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19904 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/28/2016
    Subject: Re: Million-dollar AWE Scheme on Indigogo
    Attachments :
      PDF copy of patent application filed in 2014 by Woo, et al.
      		   @@attachment@@
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19905 From: Rod Read Date: 3/29/2016
      Subject: Re: Ocean Dead Zones :: Target for Kite Work?
      On 28 March Dave wrote his ~authoritative reply.
      Is there anything you think could be open to interpretation in that reply? Ambiguous? wrong? woolly? misleading? unfounded? off topic?
      I do. But I'd only be willing to discuss it in reasonable way.

      Rod Read

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

      07899057227
      01851 870878
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19906 From: dave santos Date: 3/29/2016
      Subject: Re: Ocean Dead Zones :: Target for Kite Work?
      Sorry Rod, I thought you were advocating "fast kite" and "rotary kite" to do giant jobs, while I happen to think "bigger slower kite tacking crosswind" is favored; but let testing settle all doubts. We share the goal to get even with that bastard, dave santos, being half-Scot myself...


      On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 12:49 PM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
      On 28 March Dave wrote his ~authoritative reply.
      Is there anything you think could be open to interpretation in that reply? Ambiguous? wrong? woolly? misleading? unfounded? off topic?
      I do. But I'd only be willing to discuss it in reasonable way.

      Rod Read

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

      07899057227
      01851 870878
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19907 From: dave santos Date: 3/30/2016
      Subject: Re: Ocean Dead Zones :: Target for Kite Work?
      Another idea-

      Larges bags of air can be towed to the sea-bottom by sky-kite if a sea-bottom anchor with a pulley is employed. The bags could be semi-porous and left on the bottom to release air over time, fully dissolved. The kite power unit could could range back-and-forth between bag units to replenish them. Sea-currents could also be used to tow bags down, using sea-anchors for the motive power.

      This method would be superior with regard to methods that allow air-bubbles to reach the surface without dissolving, or methods that require elaborate towed structure, etc..




      On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 7:54 PM, "dave santos santos137@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
      Sorry Rod, I thought you were advocating "fast kite" and "rotary kite" to do giant jobs, while I happen to think "bigger slower kite tacking crosswind" is favored; but let testing settle all doubts. We share the goal to get even with that bastard, dave santos, being half-Scot myself...


      On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 12:49 PM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
      On 28 March Dave wrote his ~authoritative reply.
      Is there anything you think could be open to interpretation in that reply? Ambiguous? wrong? woolly? misleading? unfounded? off topic?
      I do. But I'd only be willing to discuss it in reasonable way.

      Rod Read

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

      07899057227
      01851 870878
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19908 From: dave santos Date: 3/30/2016
      Subject: Sea-Anchor/Kite Combination (sea-anchoring state-of-the-art)
      A kite promises to naturally pair with a sea-anchor (drogue), as the most minimal basis for flight over water, but who has practiced this? The applications might be epic. Kite state-of-the-art is well covered here, but what is current sea-anchor state-of-the-art?

      Those Kiwis; at it again!
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19909 From: dave santos Date: 3/30/2016
      Subject: Re: Ocean Dead Zones :: Target for Kite Work?
      Another interesting method would be to sink a "parachute-packed" sea-anchor to depth and deploy it to then kite-haul against, to draw down buoyant payloads. This may not be the best way to aerate low-oxygen water, but perhaps there are other applications for such a basic capability, like cheap large-scale submarine operations.


      On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 9:00 AM, "dave santos santos137@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
      Another idea-

      Larges bags of air can be towed to the sea-bottom by sky-kite if a sea-bottom anchor with a pulley is employed. The bags could be semi-porous and left on the bottom to release air over time, fully dissolved. The kite power unit could could range back-and-forth between bag units to replenish them. Sea-currents could also be used to tow bags down, using sea-anchors for the motive power.

      This method would be superior with regard to methods that allow air-bubbles to reach the surface without dissolving, or methods that require elaborate towed structure, etc..




      On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 7:54 PM, "dave santos santos137@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
      Sorry Rod, I thought you were advocating "fast kite" and "rotary kite" to do giant jobs, while I happen to think "bigger slower kite tacking crosswind" is favored; but let testing settle all doubts. We share the goal to get even with that bastard, dave santos, being half-Scot myself...


      On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 12:49 PM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
      On 28 March Dave wrote his ~authoritative reply.
      Is there anything you think could be open to interpretation in that reply? Ambiguous? wrong? woolly? misleading? unfounded? off topic?
      I do. But I'd only be willing to discuss it in reasonable way.

      Rod Read

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

      07899057227
      01851 870878
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19910 From: dave santos Date: 3/30/2016
      Subject: TwingTec's Product Announcement
      Another containerized AWES player, suggesting we might someday see a bunch of containers finally converge for careful fly-off comparison. Its wise to give the speculative claims by serious teams due time to be eventually judged by testing, since engineering delay is too easily confused with "no progress". The progress is real, but its tough slow going to pioneer a new aviation sector-
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19911 From: dave santos Date: 3/30/2016
      Subject: Overlooked LAGI AWES (SkyFill)
      This LAGI AWES submission slipped past us (we reviewed a handful of others in some detail). SkyFill takes the form of a lattice of many kite units turning a carousel; reminding us how natural AWE is to the modern imagination, with dozens of distinct artistic conceptions now known to us, almost as many as the engineering-oriented concepts we follow-
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19912 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/31/2016
      Subject: Re: more Minesto paravane farm details
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19913 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/31/2016
      Subject: Re: Overlooked LAGI AWES (SkyFill)
      Land Art Generator Initiative

       

      One might step through ALL of the proposals and find kite-system seeds directly or indirectly. 
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19914 From: johndgaul Date: 4/4/2016
      Subject: 2016 state of play for AWE

      Hello everybody!


      I'm new to the group, so please go easy on me :)


      I'm trying to get up to speed on the current state of thinking on AWE. I've just enjoyed watching the presentations from the 2015 Airborne Wind Energy Conference (http://www.awec2015.com).


      Are there any other places you'd suggest I could go to find out more, perhaps with critique of the various designs being developed by the bigger startups?


      Best regards from London, UK


      John

       
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19915 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/4/2016
      Subject: Re: 2016 state of play for AWE
      Welcome, John !
      You are welcome to explore the nooks and crannies of Index to EnergyKiteSystems

       

        Links from words reach files that cover matters that are frequently missed by other efforts. 
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19916 From: johndgaul Date: 4/5/2016
      Subject: Re: 2016 state of play for AWE
      Thank you. Yes, that is a useful index.

      What would be ideal is a research document aimed at investors in the AWE sector. I note that a company called daidalos capital (http://daidalos-capital.com) specialise in investing in the sector. Perhaps they've published something.
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19917 From: santos137@yahoo.com Date: 4/5/2016
      Subject: Re: 2016 state of play for AWE

      There are many more folks than Udo (Daidalos) investing in AWE, across many ventures. Some have won and lost millions already, but this is just a timid preamble to the wild ride ahead.


      JoeF's archives take time to digest, and "time is money" :)
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19918 From: johndgaul Date: 4/6/2016
      Subject: AWE workshops in the UK
      Hi all

      I'm going to organise some informal events in the UK for people interested in AWE, wanting to get involved and have some fun together making things, and who knows, maybe finding something new.

      Think Scrapheap Challenge, but with kites :)

      Check it out here!

      http://kitepowermassive.strikingly.com

      John


       
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19919 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/6/2016
      Subject: Re: more Minesto paravane farm details
      Minesto makes Deep Green play

       
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19920 From: dave santos Date: 4/7/2016
      Subject: Re: AWE workshops in the UK
      Looks good, JohnG, especially as a means to bring together the UK developer folks, which include Rod Read, Allister Furey, Robert Copcutt, Leo May, and so on. Be sure and read George Pocock, the Brit Father of AWE almost two centuries ago. The idea of an AWE-powered music and light festivals was championed by the late Wubbo Ockels, and its due time to catch on. Count on the world's AWE teams also participating if the events you plan build momentum.




      On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 4:15 PM, "johngaul@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
      Hi all

      I'm going to organise some informal events in the UK for people interested in AWE, wanting to get involved and have some fun together making things, and who knows, maybe finding something new.

      Think Scrapheap Challenge, but with kites :)

      Check it out here!

      http://kitepowermassive.strikingly.com

      John


       
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19921 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/8/2016
      Subject: Re: E-volo’s 18-rotor electric V olocopter makes maiden flight

      e-volo, Ascending Technologies, Intel Share a Triumph

      by DEAN SIGLER on 04/07/2016

      e-volo’s Volocopter VC200 made its first “manned” flight on March 30, 2016


      CAFE Foundation Blog - Information and discussion from the Comparative Aircraft Flight Efficiency (CAFE) Foundation.


      AWECS CONNECTION:  electric motors for aviation and reverse thinking
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19922 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/8/2016
      Subject: Antonello Cherubini and his AWE Blog

      Antonello Cherubini's blog
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19923 From: dave santos Date: 4/9/2016
      Subject: Rapid proliferation of SS power-kites and PGs
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19924 From: dave santos Date: 4/10/2016
      Subject: Peter Lynn asks: Why do toy deltas outfly pro kites in light air?
      Peter Lynn, in his April Newsletter-

      "How is it that these small cheap commercial kites can fly in less wind than any of our big expensive inflatable show kites and the best pilot kites can sustain in? Some of them are even a match for specialist light wind framed kites like Genkis and such. And to cut off an answer that may have been forming about now, it's NOT because they are lighter in relation to their size (the Charlie Brown 'ounces per square foot' metric). El cheapo deltas are not lighter for their area than ripstop nylon kites with carbon frames, and they are substantially heavier per sq. metre than conventional ram air pilots. "

      --------------
      Its not just that the dominant delta kite design emerged from South Texas (Gayla). The odd mystery is rather amazingly explained by Galileo-Einstein Sonic Relativity, whereby a smaller kite, in the same wind velocity as a larger kite, experiences a stronger apparent wind. 

      Imagine a shrinking pendulum (as relative time base, like Einstein's clocks)) that naturally swings faster the smaller it gets, according to its characteristic length determining frequency. Just so, for a shrunken kite design observed in relation to a constant wind, it takes proportionally less time for that wind to traverse the kite, which means a higher apparent wind, in non-dimensional terms, from the smaller kite's perspective ("blue-shifted"). 

      The two kites effectively operate in two different temporal reference frames with regard to the same wind (sonic "c"). Here is another profound physical result from a common toy, just as Euler delighted over.
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19925 From: dave santos Date: 4/10/2016
      Subject: Kite Shade Case (PL 2009)
      One of Joe's open topics, shade-by-kite, here created by Peter Lynn in Vietnam 2009-

      Click to enlarge

      Full scale image linked here-
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19926 From: dave santos Date: 4/10/2016
      Subject: Re: Rapid proliferation of SS power-kites and PGs
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19927 From: dave santos Date: 4/11/2016
      Subject: Super-Kite Project?
      It will take huge kites to solve current energy needs, perhaps even by hybridizing legacy power plant technology, so how big a unit power-kite is feasible? What would such a monstrous kite be like, and who would design, build, and fly it? At least the last part is easy; let Kiwis fly it.

      The largest power kites so far are the KiteShip OL and SkySails/North-NZ ship-kites, in the range of 300m2. Ironically, world-record "show-kites" are already larger, but optimized to maintain stable flight at the lowest force possible and not develop high power. kPower's Mothra demoed cheap (2000USD) scalable (300m2) loadpath-and-kixel construction, fully powered up in gale-force wind at tremendous tension, using just "contractor's pulling-rope" in-filled by fifty poly-tarps. Designer consensus is no inherent scaling barrier exists to creating far larger wings.

      The first kite ever was likely a paleolithic playsail made from a hide, and held by several people. NASA Power Wing and KiteShip OL mark a modern single-skin (SS) kite renaissance. Revolutionary new SS sport power-kite and paraglider designs are proliferating that approximate overall performance of comparable-area double-skin parafoils, at far lower capital-cost and flying weight. Single-skin soft-kites are proportionally (~2x) more scalable than double-skin. These and many other developments are a worthy foundation to develop new "super-kites".

      Maximum practical unit-power is constrained by operational factors. As Dave Culp first noted, the upper limit to kite size is bounded by engineering capability to actuate control. There is a ground-handling mass-limit beyond which kite skin is too easily damaged. Modular Lifter kites might serve as tenders to super-kites at the surface, just as tugboats handle ships in ports. A common task would be to lift a leading edge to initiate large-scale inflation and launch. We depend on existing megascale industrial rigging components located at the surface, not aloft; to allow us tremendous kite scaling beyond anything ever done before.

      The closest engineering similarity-case to super-kites is factory-ship trawl nets, which reach several acres in netted area. Sports field tarps are a land-based quick-response multi-acre membrane case, increasingly motorized. Several cases of dynamic mega-scale rigging, like ship-towing, log-yarding, mining cableways, giant crane operations, etc., all supportive of future kite feasibilty to handle mega line loads at the needed velocities over the km distances required. The novel civil engineering required is low-complexity, but on an epic scale; with the earth itself effectively rigged as the giant deck of a virtual kite-ship beyond all precedent.

      The theoretic super-kite scale limit of standard UHMWPE line and nylon fabric is the lower-stratosphere, but there are other critical design drivers, like regulatory limits. FAA proposes 2000ft as a target AWES ceiling, to not unduly conflict with legacy aviation; this sets a practical scale limit for today's designers. Presuming "short-line" power kite proportions suggests a 300m wingspan and 100m chord, to operate nicely within the upper half of the allowed airspace. Wing-in-ground-effect and the wind-gradient would help all-modes performance. Such a unit-kite of about 30,000 m2 would conservatively develop around 50MW or more, depending on wind velocity. A dozen or so of these unit-kites ganged on a cableway can match the largest generators.

      Who can design and build such super-kites? A dream-team would include Dave Culp, Peter Lynn, Luc d'Armant, Reinhart Paelinck, Michael Dekker, Stephan Born, Steve Brabeck, Joe Faust, Dean Jordan, Joe Hadzicki, Rod Read, and many more who follow the AYRS and AWES groups :)
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19928 From: dave santos Date: 4/11/2016
      Subject: "air-bearing-surface" and support vehicle super-kite ground-handling
      Tubes and blowers can create giant air-bearing surfaces (fluidized bed) upon which to easier handle large kites with low friction. Far larger kites can be ground-assembled than is practical by dragging about large masses of thin fabric. Other methods disclosed on-Forum include rollup-and-rotate and modular assembly aloft or in water (with hot-swap maintenance).


      Low surface pressure vehicle example, suited to roll over giant-kite fabric if the underlying surface is soft (turf, snow, sand, etc.). An installed boom crane could operate as a robot arm to fuss with kites-
      Low surface pressure vehicle Royalty Free Stock Photography

      Open-AWE_IP-Pool