Messages in AirborneWindEnergy group.                          AWES 24627 to 24676 Page 384 of 440.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24627 From: dougselsam Date: 1/8/2019
Subject: Re: Makani Hawaii Testing Mystery

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24628 From: dougselsam Date: 1/8/2019
Subject: Re: Makani Hawaii Testing Mystery

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24629 From: Peter Sharp Date: 1/8/2019
Subject: Re: A close look

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24630 From: benhaiemp Date: 1/8/2019
Subject: Using artificial intelligence (AI) to define the contours of a viabl

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24631 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/8/2019
Subject: Re: Using artificial intelligence (AI) to define the contours of a v

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24632 From: benhaiemp Date: 1/8/2019
Subject: Re: Using artificial intelligence (AI) to define the contours of a v

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24633 From: dave santos Date: 1/8/2019
Subject: Re: Makani Hawaii Testing Mystery

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24634 From: dave santos Date: 1/8/2019
Subject: Re: A close look

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24635 From: dave santos Date: 1/8/2019
Subject: Re: Using artificial intelligence (AI) to define the contours of a v

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24636 From: benhaiemp Date: 1/8/2019
Subject: Re: Using artificial intelligence (AI) to define the contours of a v

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24637 From: Santos Date: 1/8/2019
Subject: Re: Using artificial intelligence (AI) to define the contours of a v

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24638 From: dougselsam Date: 1/9/2019
Subject: Re: Using artificial intelligence (AI) to define the contours of a v

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24639 From: Santos Date: 1/9/2019
Subject: Re: Using artificial intelligence (AI) to define the contours of a v

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24640 From: dougselsam Date: 1/9/2019
Subject: Re: Using artificial intelligence (AI) to define the contours of a v

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24641 From: dougselsam Date: 1/9/2019
Subject: Re: A close look

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24642 From: dougselsam Date: 1/9/2019
Subject: Re: Makani Hawaii Testing Mystery

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24643 From: dougselsam Date: 1/9/2019
Subject: Re: Using artificial intelligence (AI) to define the contours of a v

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24644 From: dougselsam Date: 1/9/2019
Subject: Re: Using artificial intelligence (AI) to define the contours of a v

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24645 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/9/2019
Subject: Re: KitePower planning "Record" this Winter for Continuous Power End

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24646 From: Santos Date: 1/9/2019
Subject: Re: Using artificial intelligence (AI) to define the contours of a v

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24647 From: Santos Date: 1/9/2019
Subject: Re: KitePower planning "Record" this Winter for Continuous Power End

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24648 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/9/2019
Subject: Re: Using artificial intelligence (AI) to define the contours of a v

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24649 From: Santos Date: 1/9/2019
Subject: Re: Using artificial intelligence (AI) to define the contours of a v

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24650 From: dougselsam Date: 1/10/2019
Subject: Re: Using artificial intelligence (AI) to define the contours of a v

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24651 From: Santos Date: 1/10/2019
Subject: Re: Using artificial intelligence (AI) to define the contours of a v

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24652 From: dougselsam Date: 1/10/2019
Subject: Re: Using artificial intelligence (AI) to define the contours of a v

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24653 From: Santos Date: 1/10/2019
Subject: Re: Using artificial intelligence (AI) to define the contours of a v

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24654 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/10/2019
Subject: North Carolina University, new funds

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24655 From: dougselsam Date: 1/10/2019
Subject: Re: Using artificial intelligence (AI) to define the contours of a v

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24656 From: Santos Date: 1/10/2019
Subject: Re: North Carolina University, new funds

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24657 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/10/2019
Subject: Re: Latest Altaeros News?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24658 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/10/2019
Subject: Re: North Carolina University, new funds

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24659 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/10/2019
Subject: Re: Latest Altaeros News?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24660 From: dougselsam Date: 1/10/2019
Subject: Re: Latest Altaeros News?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24661 From: Santos Date: 1/10/2019
Subject: Re: Latest Altaeros News?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24662 From: Santos Date: 1/10/2019
Subject: Re: Latest Altaeros News?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24663 From: dougselsam Date: 1/10/2019
Subject: Re: Latest Altaeros News?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24664 From: Santos Date: 1/10/2019
Subject: Re: Latest Altaeros News?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24665 From: dougselsam Date: 1/11/2019
Subject: Re: Latest Altaeros News?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24666 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/11/2019
Subject: Thermodynamic kite by Guy H. Kennedy, Jr.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24667 From: Santos Date: 1/11/2019
Subject: Re: Latest Altaeros News?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24668 From: dougselsam Date: 1/12/2019
Subject: Re: Latest Altaeros News?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24669 From: Santos Date: 1/12/2019
Subject: Re: Latest Altaeros News?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24670 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/12/2019
Subject: Re: Latest Altaeros News?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24671 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/12/2019
Subject: Re: Latest Altaeros News?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24672 From: dougselsam Date: 1/12/2019
Subject: Re: Latest Altaeros News?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24673 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/13/2019
Subject: Re: Latest Altaeros News?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24674 From: Santos Date: 1/13/2019
Subject: Re: Latest Altaeros News?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24675 From: gordon_sp Date: 1/14/2019
Subject: Tether Tension Control

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24676 From: Rod Read Date: 1/14/2019
Subject: Re: Tether Tension Control



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24627 From: dougselsam Date: 1/8/2019
Subject: Re: Makani Hawaii Testing Mystery
@daveS I asked for evidence of a delay.  You have provided none.  Very predictable.  You said the same thing about Altaeros, even after (even) you had amply and accurately debunked their entire design.
Just repeating the word "delay" over and over for years has lost its meaning, and your credibility.
You seem to have a few, predictable, knee-jerk responses to pretty-much anything.
"It's an engineering delay" "Premature downselect"  "Rag-and-string", "Wubbo lives", "phonons",  "Bose-Einstein Condensate", "I am the leading AWE researcher",  " I am an AWE expert","Doug fails"  Pierre fails"
If you are an AWE expert why didn't you tell CB if he flattened his pitch, his machine would spin faster and  he would make more power but his machine would then fly apart, as I did?  Where were you when he needed "an expert"?
Here's a possibility regarding Makani:
We read some article briefly mentioning Makani supposedly preparing to test soon in Hawaii.
I would submit that the author of that article wrote it from searching the internet for information, stumbling across an outdated article, and repeating the outdated information as though it was new.
Yesterday's news.  Know-nothing articles on AWE by uninformed outsiders.
No huge, corporation with  highly-funded project to develop a new wind energy system is going to sit there for years not operating it after building it, assuming they really have something worth running, and capable of being run.
What I see is an inverse relationship between progress in AWE and the amount of funding.
Like... the Wright Brothers!
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24628 From: dougselsam Date: 1/8/2019
Subject: Re: Makani Hawaii Testing Mystery
daveS said:  "Tallak, The new definite information about Makani is that they are currently very delayed in testing compared to the timeline they provided to the Hawaiian press.  Crash statistics are a basic traditional safety and reliability metric in aviation. It's accepted aviation ethics to share lessons accidents teach. 
Investors also deserve to know if undue crashing risk is inherent to a given AWES architecture.  daveS"

*** DougS replies: 
daveS I have to protest. I believe you are speaking out of turn, completely making up your "facts" out of thin-air, with absolutely no idea what you are talking about.  None.  I believe you have zero (0) information, and are just trying to create the illusion of projecting personal knowledge and power over the internet, with nothing to back it up. 

When you use the word "definite", I take that as "most likely not".  Negative information.  Where does your "information" come from?  (Don't worry we know - from where the sun doesn't shine)  I'll bet the decision was made long ago not to attempt flying their contraption anymore, so it might be preserved for the "bloopers" in some future aviation museum.

You claimed to have "new definite information" but then you just go back to repeating your knee-jerk,  meaningless, canned response.

One major problem dealing with people just making things up, is holding you to a given subject long enough to prove you are just making things up without any information.  Like a chameleon that keeps changing color, you keep changing the subject.  You think if you keep changing the subject, nobody will be able to pin you down with regard to justifying what you said "yesterday". 

Lets go back to Altaeros, now that years have passed.  We heard you claim over and over, an "engineering delay".  So what is your position now, on that previous claim you made?  Accurate?  Or were you wrong?  What about "Oman" and "Mitsubishi"?  You said that was valid too.  Where's your "new definite information" regarding that?  What about their supposed wifi blimp project?

Of course, I don't expect you to actually be able to answer any pointed question...
Here's my take.  I said from day-one that I saw likelihood of success from the AWE projects currently being pursued.  All those "super-smart" people.  All those millions of dollars...
The most predictable outcome for a supposed "AWE project":
1) We could add wifi for very little weight penalty
2) We could power it using the AWE system
3) Well the AWE system isn't doing so well...
4) Well, we could eliminate the AWE system part, and power the wifi system from the ground!
5) After a decade of AWE research, we've figured out that a regular blimp can lift something.
6) Therefore we want to replace radio towers with blimps -
Because what, nobody ever thought of that before?
What's next: "We decided to replace the blimp with a tower"????

I think the internet has just turned a lot of otherwise-reasonable people completely insane.
AWE: a firehose of nonsense
AWE: an open season for scam-artists, with no penalty?
AWE: a hole-in-the-sky that you pour money into?
How about "a hole-in-your-head"?
Where's SkyWindPower?  As soon as the talk is over, the action is given up. That's probably a good model for Makani.
Can you say "mothballed"?  "Abandoned"? "Defunct"? Bored?  Given-up"?
If someone makes a promise, (especially a promise in doubt on its face)  then doesn't keep it, do you believe the next promise from the same source?
I don't.  Did you just fall off the turnip truck?



 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24629 From: Peter Sharp Date: 1/8/2019
Subject: Re: A close look
Attachments :

    DaveS,

    That stop-start stutter effect you mention, as when a twist cord drives a cogging generator, is not relevant. It is only slightly similar to a TCAT.  But there are big differences between it and a TCAT. A stutter effect will occur with almost any device where the starting friction of the driven device exceeds the running friction, and where the drive train has some flex. They are not TCATs.

    You still are unable to understand that a twist-cord-drive has a different purpose from an intentionally elastic twist-cord-accumulator. A twist-cord-drive does not function as a step-up transmission with a very high step-up ratio, but a TCAT does. A cogging generator is not the same as a magnetic release catch. A magnetic release catch is designed to produce very high resistance, and then break free so that the generator will briefly spin at a high rpm to deliver enough voltage to charge a battery. A twist-cord-drive to a cogging generator does not function that way. That is not its purpose.

    You have now repeatedly demonstrated that you are incapable of noticing those relevant differences even when they are explained to you again and again.

    You are again insisting that similarity creates identity. You are again ignoring the obvious differences.

    You have now repeatedly demonstrated that you have a huge perceptual/conceptual blind-spot when it comes to seeing differences between devices and the importance of those differences. You can see similarities, but you are blind to distinguishing differences.

    Maybe you go blind when it suits your purposes. I don’t know. But I’m genuinely beginning to worry about your bizarre inability to think. You might wish to pursue psychological testing just in case your blind spot is a symptom of a brain anomaly such as a stroke or senility.

    You are also confused. You are on the wrong thread. This is the thread for your false claim that the Aeroflexor is prior art for the Bird Windmill, which is actually prior art for the Aeroflexor.

    PeteS

     

    From: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com]
    Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2019 1:32 PM
    To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
    Subject: RE: [AWES] A close look

     

     

    Let the historical record stand for any TCAT prior art, including clutches. The observation I offer here is that cogging resistence of common generators causes a rwisted line to release torque in bursts at the low end of wind range. Youu and Doug may have noticed this in your own testing. Others can try as well.

     

     

    On Jan 5, 2019 11:39 AM, "'Peter Sharp' sharpencil@sbcglobal.net [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com

    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24630 From: benhaiemp Date: 1/8/2019
    Subject: Using artificial intelligence (AI) to define the contours of a viabl

    After years nobody is even able to predict if some AWES can be viable, and what AWE method could be successful. The discussions are the same about Makani and others. In my opinion there is progress in AWE R&D, comprising Makani, Kitemill and so on. But the time of utility-scale market is not still came. A lot of parameters shall be considered outside purely technical parameters. 


    Testing is a good think, but trying all architectures with variants can take years and years. And now a lot of AWES are tested. So a finer analysis is required.


    There is a significant and growing data comprising tests and theoretic scientific studies. So modelling, using artificial intelligence (AI), could be a mean to define the outlines of a viable AWES.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24631 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/8/2019
    Subject: Re: Using artificial intelligence (AI) to define the contours of a v

    Did you want to confine the following statement to some specific sector of AWES, as already there are many viable AWES being used in the world, and thus prediction is not even needed: PierreB remarked: "After years nobody is even able to predict if some AWES can be viable, ..."
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24632 From: benhaiemp Date: 1/8/2019
    Subject: Re: Using artificial intelligence (AI) to define the contours of a v

    Hi Joe,


    Indeed I confine my statement to electricity production in utility-scale, which is the most discussed sector in AWE circles comprising the present Airborne Wind Energy forum. 
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24633 From: dave santos Date: 1/8/2019
    Subject: Re: Makani Hawaii Testing Mystery
    Doug overlooks that Makani itself is the source here of its time frame, as reported by West Hawaii News. Makani really is delayed for specific reasons not yet publicly known. 

    A possible specific serious engineering issue, for example, is wildfire risk mitigation. Another is that the M600 flight is extra-marginal in thinner (2664ft elevation) warmer tropical air than its California maiden flights.

    This sort of specific engineering speculation is very different from imagining everyone in AWE is somehow willfully dishonest and/or incompetent.



     

    daveS said:  "Tallak, The new definite information about Makani is that they are currently very delayed in testing compared to the timeline they provided to the Hawaiian press.  Crash statistics are a basic traditional safety and reliability metric in aviation. It's accepted aviation ethics to share lessons accidents teach. 
    Investors also deserve to know if undue crashing risk is inherent to a given AWES architecture.  daveS"

    *** DougS replies: 
    daveS I have to protest. I believe you are speaking out of turn, completely making up your "facts" out of thin-air, with absolutely no idea what you are talking about.  None.  I believe you have zero (0) information, and are just trying to create the illusion of projecting personal knowledge and power over the internet, with nothing to back it up. 

    When you use the word "definite", I take that as "most likely not".  Negative information.  Where does your "information" come from?  (Don't worry we know - from where the sun doesn't shine)  I'll bet the decision was made long ago not to attempt flying their contraption anymore, so it might be preserved for the "bloopers" in some future aviation museum.

    You claimed to have "new definite information" but then you just go back to repeating your knee-jerk,  meaningless, canned response.

    One major problem dealing with people just making things up, is holding you to a given subject long enough to prove you are just making things up without any information.  Like a chameleon that keeps changing color, you keep changing the subject.  You think if you keep changing the subject, nobody will be able to pin you down with regard to justifying what you said "yesterday". 

    Lets go back to Altaeros, now that years have passed.  We heard you claim over and over, an "engineering delay".  So what is your position now, on that previous claim you made?  Accurate?  Or were you wrong?  What about "Oman" and "Mitsubishi"?  You said that was valid too.  Where's your "new definite information" regarding that?  What about their supposed wifi blimp project?

    Of course, I don't expect you to actually be able to answer any pointed question...
    Here's my take.  I said from day-one that I saw likelihood of success from the AWE projects currently being pursued.  All those "super-smart" people.  All those millions of dollars...
    The most predictable outcome for a supposed "AWE project":
    1) We could add wifi for very little weight penalty
    2) We could power it using the AWE system
    3) Well the AWE system isn't doing so well...
    4) Well, we could eliminate the AWE system part, and power the wifi system from the ground!
    5) After a decade of AWE research, we've figured out that a regular blimp can lift something.
    6) Therefore we want to replace radio towers with blimps -
    Because what, nobody ever thought of that before?
    What's next: "We decided to replace the blimp with a tower"????

    I think the internet has just turned a lot of otherwise-reasonable people completely insane.
    AWE: a firehose of nonsense
    AWE: an open season for scam-artists, with no penalty?
    AWE: a hole-in-the-sky that you pour money into?
    How about "a hole-in-your-head"?
    Where's SkyWindPower?  As soon as the talk is over, the action is given up. That's probably a good model for Makani.
    Can you say "mothballed"?  "Abandoned"? "Defunct"? Bored?  Given-up"?
    If someone makes a promise, (especially a promise in doubt on its face)  then doesn't keep it, do you believe the next promise from the same source?
    I don't.  Did you just fall off the turnip truck?



     
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24634 From: dave santos Date: 1/8/2019
    Subject: Re: A close look
    PeterS,

    It seemed your TCAT concept also had a "stutter" cycle ("stick-and-slip" cycling in engineering physics). That's the similarity found here as fairly obvious to anyone who evaluates twisted rope drives for AWE, that the burst of high rpm is favorable, but the accumulation downtime cycle of torque stutter is not.

    Good Luck if you think TCAT is an important overlooked principle in AWE,

    daveS



     

    DaveS,

    That stop-start stutter effect you mention, as when a twist cord drives a cogging generator, is not relevant. It is only slightly similar to a TCAT.  But there are big differences between it and a TCAT. A stutter effect will occur with almost any device where the starting friction of the driven device exceeds the running friction, and where the drive train has some flex. They are not TCATs.

    You still are unable to understand that a twist-cord-drive has a different purpose from an intentionally elastic twist-cord-accumulator. A twist-cord-drive does not function as a step-up transmission with a very high step-up ratio, but a TCAT does. A cogging generator is not the same as a magnetic release catch. A magnetic release catch is designed to produce very high resistance, and then break free so that the generator will briefly spin at a high rpm to deliver enough voltage to charge a battery. A twist-cord-drive to a cogging generator does not function that way. That is not its purpose.

    You have now repeatedly demonstrated that you are incapable of noticing those relevant differences even when they are explained to you again and again.

    You are again insisting that similarity creates identity. You are again ignoring the obvious differences.

    You have now repeatedly demonstrated that you have a huge perceptual/conceptual blind-spot when it comes to seeing differences between devices and the importance of those differences. You can see similarities, but you are blind to distinguishing differences.

    Maybe you go blind when it suits your purposes. I don’t know. But I’m genuinely beginning to worry about your bizarre inability to think. You might wish to pursue psychological testing just in case your blind spot is a symptom of a brain anomaly such as a stroke or senility.

    You are also confused. You are on the wrong thread. This is the thread for your false claim that the Aeroflexor is prior art for the Bird Windmill, which is actually prior art for the Aeroflexor.

    PeteS

     

    From: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com]
    Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2019 1:32 PM
    To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
    Subject: RE: [AWES] A close look

     

     

    Let the historical record stand for any TCAT prior art, including clutches. The observation I offer here is that cogging resistence of common generators causes a rwisted line to release torque in bursts at the low end of wind range. Youu and Doug may have noticed this in your own testing. Others can try as well.

     

     

    On Jan 5, 2019 11:39 AM, "'Peter Sharp' sharpencil@sbcglobal.net [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com

    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24635 From: dave santos Date: 1/8/2019
    Subject: Re: Using artificial intelligence (AI) to define the contours of a v
    PierreB,

    There are many AWES electrical-utility predictions on record; for example, the possibility to convert suitable existing electrical power plants to kite hybrids.

    As someone with a considerable AI background, computer technology, by itself, is not currently capable of predicting AWE winners reliably, the problem has too many complex dimensions to compute,

    daveS



     

    Hi Joe,


    Indeed I confine my statement to electricity production in utility-scale, which is the most discussed sector in AWE circles comprising the present Airborne Wind Energy forum. 
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24636 From: benhaiemp Date: 1/8/2019
    Subject: Re: Using artificial intelligence (AI) to define the contours of a v

    DaveS,


    Searchers can only explore part of AWE fields, but in compensation providing reliable and complete information on what they study, unlike discussions on AWE forums.

    Let us imagine how AWE could progress as posts would argue with orders of magnitude, not even accurate data such as scientific papers.

    Let us take an example on "scaling laws in AWES design" https://forum.awesystems.info/t/scaling-laws-in-awes-design/171: all the messages seem correct and interesting, but there is no orders of magnitude. In the end the consensus is not easy. With a software comprising data enough the orders of magnitude could stand out automatically.

    The technologic progress in China and some other countries comes from artificial intelligence for a large part. 
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24637 From: Santos Date: 1/8/2019
    Subject: Re: Using artificial intelligence (AI) to define the contours of a v
    Pierre, Just like AWE, AI is a frontier of knowledge. Your best bet is to approach Orange AI, which has new Macron funding. You will find that AWE is a great AI test problem for Orange, nowhere near realization.

    My prediction is that humans will solve AWE more or less as fast as AI evolves capable of solving AWE. Thereafter let AI take AWE even farther.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24638 From: dougselsam Date: 1/9/2019
    Subject: Re: Using artificial intelligence (AI) to define the contours of a v
    What is conspicuously absent, at least as far as what I've seen, is consistent power, including powering any facility or even house.  The first electric windmilI immediately powered a large house.  Where is one house powered by AWE after ten years and a billion dollars?  It strains the credibility of the ideas being pursued if, after this much time, "the news" remains consisting perpetually of promises of future ability to provide power, (just not now).  Seems to me nothing has changed.  It's always "next year".  Every year, it's "next year".  Every project has a website featuring a happy-looking group-selfie full of hungry mouths surrounding a kite or airplane of some sort.  How long can they keep raising enough money to feed everyone, based on a nice-sounding story, with still nothing powered by AWE, is the question.  We're not supposed to notice that this year is last year's next year.  And that last year was the next year of the year before.  And so on.  Meanwhile, "the news" reads the same every year: "next year we plan to do some testing".  What if the concepts being pursued are just not viable?  Anybody ever think of that?  And now that the mental resources of all the world's top geniuses is not doing the trick, maybe a machine can figure out what to do?
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24639 From: Santos Date: 1/9/2019
    Subject: Re: Using artificial intelligence (AI) to define the contours of a v
    If KiteMotor1, in public, was the first AWES to ever fly autonomously and bring power to the surface, then AWE started with cell-phone charging, and powering a house comes later. Let the AI decide if cell-phones count ;)
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24640 From: dougselsam Date: 1/9/2019
    Subject: Re: Using artificial intelligence (AI) to define the contours of a v
    Joe you are plying word games again: "mission-creep".
    Regarding the usual example promoted by daveS, of course people take into account currents when planning a trip, since the first canoe and probably before.
    That is NOT "airborne wind energy" as daveS has been scolding us over the years.  It's simply calculating how to use less energy.  It doesn't generate any energy, it just reduces use.

    Meanwhile you talk of everything from birds and hang-gliders, kites, leaves on a tree wiggling, all "being" "airborne wind energy".  Well I'll go a step further: The entire weather of the entire world "is" "AWE".  More power than all the nuclear arsenals in the world, many times over.  All we have to do is change the definitions of words.  Fun, huh?  There, are you happy?  Now, can we get back to the topic at hand?

    If you recall the main theme of AWE from day-one, from the first AWE conference in 2009, it has always been to take the actual industry of wind energy, meaning generating electricity, to the sky, with the idea that it would be less expensive than today's methods.  A name was needed, so it was given a name: AWE. 

    A name is a convenient handle to refer to something without having to explain what you mean from scratch over and over.  Redefining the name to refer to everything from leaves wiggling, to the weather itself, is just destroying the original name given to the concept, not solving the original challenge.

    Your incessant attempts to "dodge the issue" - the MAIN issue, to constantly mention what amounts to a giant excuse is not helpful.  All you're doing is removing the meaning of any attempt at communicating, the opposite of what this forum was supposed to be.  There's no end to how far playing your word-definition game can go.  As I've pointed out, internal combustion engines could be called wind energy - the pistons are drag-turbines, the wind is internally-created by generating high-pressure systems through heat.  So all cars "are" already "wind-powered".  There, are you having fun yet?  Amused?  Does anything about the world actually change by me renaming piston engines as "wind power"?  Do wind-power statistics suddenly change based on my playing your "redefining words" game?  Do people stop building wind turbines now, because I played with word definitions on the internet?

    When Wayne German wouldn't let anyone else speak, repeatedly interrupting anyone would might try to seriously speak at the first HAWP conference, alternately insisting that the only idea worth considering was his two inter-reeling aircraft generating electricity to convert to microwaves, beamed to a ground station, then reconverted to electricity, put into the grid, then trying to get others to agree that "Jesus" would be solving the challenge, the topic of that event was generating electricity.  Massive amounts, such as when daveS insists single-skin kites can repower 800 MegaWatt nuclear power plants. 

    Of course other outcomes not using electricity are possible, but the world is based on electricity.  What is virtually every AWE team trying to do?  Generate electricity.  Powering ships?  The approach itself is unrealistic.  As someone pointed out, container ships are the most fuel-efficient vehicles.  A better choice would be powering smaller boats such as sailboats and small-craft, then maybe fishing boats and yachts.  Container ships?  To start out?  What kind of crack are these people smoking anyway? 

    Spinnakers are partially self-elevating, so there you go: AWE-powered boats, already in use for hundreds of years.  Anyone with an ounce of common sense would be targeting smaller boats first to work out the details of more complete kite-power. You know the drill. If someone wants to grind grain directly instead, there's nothing stopping them.  They'd still need a working AWE system capable of providing mechanical power.  And I actually have several such schemes in mind, but the mere possibility of such apparatus in no way substitutes for the original goal of showing all those silly "wind-tower" people how they "should be" generating electricity. 

    Remember - how easy it was going to be?  Because of how "smart" all the people are (were)?  Remember? You can come up with any wordplay you want, but meanwhile where is the AWE system?  Want to use rope drives?  OK fine show us the factory that uses AWE without generators, just ropes.  You are mostly just playing games in my opinion. 

    I think the two of you, combined, don't have any workable AWE ideas, as evidenced by your and daveS' combined lack of any significant generation over 20 man-years, so you like the "excuse" of claiming leaves wiggling "is" "AWE".  It makes you feel better.  But Joe if you get in tune with the rest of the world, published wind energy statistics do NOT include fuel saved by jetliners, leaves wiggling, windsurfing, hang-gliding, sailplanes, insects migrating, the weather itself, or any of the other diversionary nonsense you keep trying to inject into what started out as a serious discussion that actually had a point. 
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24641 From: dougselsam Date: 1/9/2019
    Subject: Re: A close look
    PeterS replied to daveS "I’m genuinely beginning to worry about your bizarre inability to think. You might wish to pursue psychological testing just in case your blind spot is a symptom of a brain anomaly such as a stroke or senility."
    ***DougS wisely points out:
    After lately noticing how many severely crazy people there are, with no good explanation, I have another possible theory:  Toxoplasmosis.  Look it up.  It's a brain parasite protozoan hosted by outdoor cats, in whose digestive tracts it reproduces.  When rats eat the cat's poop, the eggs hatch inside the rat, and the toxoplasmosis protozoans migrate to the rat's brain, then rewire it so the rat has no fear of cats.
    Only thing is, these eggs can hatch inside any mammal including humans.  It makes humans unafraid of things too, like being unafraid of not making sense.  Statistics show that people who test positive for toxoplasmosis antibodies are, on average, more likely to have car accidents, more likely to dress sloppily, more likely to not care what others think of them, etc.  I've noticed the more daring the hang-glider pilot, the more chute deployments and crashes they have, the more strongly their house smells of cat feces.  The latest news is toxoplasmosis may be responsible for a significant percentage of schizophrenia.  What do you want to bet the AWE community has a high incidence of it?  A billion dollars wasted on a cat parasite!
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24642 From: dougselsam Date: 1/9/2019
    Subject: Re: Makani Hawaii Testing Mystery
    daveS said: "Doug overlooks that Makani itself is the source here of its time frame, as reported by West Hawaii News. Makani really is delayed for specific reasons not yet publicly known.  A possible specific serious engineering issue, for example, is wildfire risk mitigation. Another is that the M600 flight is extra-marginal in thinner (2664ft elevation) warmer tropical air than its California maiden flights.  This sort of specific engineering speculation is very different from imagining everyone in AWE is somehow willfully dishonest and/or incompetent."
    ***DougS replies:  Se there you go gin with your canned responses: "Doug overlooks". "Pierre fails", etc.
    Here is my reply to you:
    daveS "overlooks" that the article was published in August, 2018, said "“The crosswind kite — our power-generating kite — will fly loops in the sky and generate power,” Stirr, Makani’s flight testing program manager, said Tuesday with excitement in her voice. If all goes as planned, later this year the M600 will be their first power-generating kite to fly on Hawaii Island as part of their research project." Toward the end of the article we read, "She said this will most likely happen in the next month."
    OK that time has passed.  "Later this year" and "in the next month" are now "last year". 
    So the "statements of future accomplishments" in the article, as usual, never happened.
    And as usual, in spite of your constant claims of having observers reporting inside information to you, it seems that you are actually relegated to published news stories for your information.
    Sure, you can call it "a delay".  You could call their entire program "a delay".
    But let's go back and revisit the last time you said the exact same thing: Altaeros
    You kept up this same exact resistance to reality then.
    Nothing they said ever happened - none of it.
    I don't recall any followup from you.  I don't recall any apology.
    Go back and be accountable for your previous nonsense.  You made untrue statements under the color of authority (being an "expert") - where's the acknowledgement of your error?  Where's the honesty this discussion deserves?  Where is daveS saying he "failed" to see..., "failed" to appreciate.. reality?
    Folks, could you imagine daveS ever saying "Gosh Doug, you were right all along, and I was wrong - they never did anything they said they would do.  I guess they never really knew what they were doing, as you have always said."?  I mean, seriously, could you imagine him admitting he was totally full-of-it for years on end?  Not likely.  He moves on, trying to change the subject, but in the end he can only repeat the same thing he said last time. 
    Now it's a different project, but you have your pre-packaged, canned, knee-jerk response, same as before "It's an engineering delay!"  Oh OK we believe you this time.  (insert laugh track here)  I asked you for any specific evidence of "an engineering delay".  You just made it up, as before.  Now, bear in mind, the only way to prove whether someone was telling the truth about the future is to wait until that stated future arrives.  In this case, as we've come to see, that "future" has come and gone.  In 2018.  I did not start out as a Makani skeptic, even given my general skepticism of the whole kit-and-kaboodle of all these "teams".  In spite of some misgivings over their theory of operation, I figured out of the whole landscape of wannabe wind energy teams, they might actually have a chance, if any did.  I mean, come on, all those "super-smart people"!  But ten years later, to me its looking like the "same old same old".  "Next year".  Sure.  One crash away from throwing in the towel, that's my guess.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24643 From: dougselsam Date: 1/9/2019
    Subject: Re: Using artificial intelligence (AI) to define the contours of a v
    "charging a phone" the last dying gasp of wind energy wannabees...
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24644 From: dougselsam Date: 1/9/2019
    Subject: Re: Using artificial intelligence (AI) to define the contours of a v
    daveS said: "PierreB, There are many AWES electrical-utility predictions on record; for example, the possibility to convert suitable existing electrical power plants to kite hybrids.  As someone with a considerable AI background, computer technology, by itself, is not currently capable of predicting AWE winners reliably, the problem has too many complex dimensions to compute, daveS"
    *** DougS replies:  You'd probably need "an expert".  Where is one?
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24645 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/9/2019
    Subject: Re: KitePower planning "Record" this Winter for Continuous Power End
    Kitepower has started with long-duration testing of the 100 kW system at the Unmanned Fieldlab Valkenburg. The aim is to maintain the system operational at all possible weather conditions for hashtag#airborne hashtag#wind hashtag#energy generation. Checkout this beautiful long-exposure photograph of a kite with marker light tracing a complete pumping cycle (duration ~3 minutes). The precisely executed figure eight maneuvers demonstrate the maturity of the flight controller. More information at https://lnkd.in/e2PB8_Z The team of Kitepower is Johannes Peschel, Joep Breuer, Pietro Faggiani, Bert Buchholz, Benoit Python, Astrid de Jong, Isabelle E., Titus Ignatius Braber, Marcello Ghilardi, Dirk van Leersum, Erik van Heijningen, Bryan van Ostheim, Jacques van Haaster, Roger Coenen, Pepijn Marcus, Portioli Michele, Xander Gerrmann, Thomas te Braake, Henk Hutting and more.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24646 From: Santos Date: 1/9/2019
    Subject: Re: Using artificial intelligence (AI) to define the contours of a v
    Let's be clear when JoeF first soared by HG over 50yrs ago, that was already true AWE beyond Doug's unhappy reckoning. AWE will be judged by it's eventual unfolding as well, not just it's current state; going quite well actually.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24647 From: Santos Date: 1/9/2019
    Subject: Re: KitePower planning "Record" this Winter for Continuous Power End
    Here is another data metric we track, the growing session endurance of leading players. KitePower is going for a record.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24648 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/9/2019
    Subject: Re: Using artificial intelligence (AI) to define the contours of a v
    May any AWE sector be blessed by any tool, say AI. May workers in any AWE sector share their findings. Diversity of good from AWES in various sectors have the potential to affect neighboring AWE sectors. We need not ignore "AWE sector 23" just because "AWE sector 4" seems to be getting more posts about it. Doug, advance the AWE sector that interests you most; share what you will; maybe spend no energy snuffing AWE sectors outside your interest.
    =====================================   
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24649 From: Santos Date: 1/9/2019
    Subject: Re: Using artificial intelligence (AI) to define the contours of a v
    The AWE AI would know that the 2007 demo was no "last gasp".
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24650 From: dougselsam Date: 1/10/2019
    Subject: Re: Using artificial intelligence (AI) to define the contours of a v
    daveS said: "Let's be clear when JoeF first soared by HG over 50yrs ago, that was already true AWE beyond Doug's unhappy reckoning. AWE will be judged by it's eventual unfolding as well, not just it's current state; going quite well actually."
    ***DougS replies: OK come up with a new word for generating electricity by wind power then.  Where do you get this nonsense from?  "unhappy reckoning"?  Do yo two have anything to do with your time besides trying to characterize peoples' emotions on the internet while pretending to be working in the field of AWE?  You are not changing anything.  You are playing around with word definitions.  Words are only tools to describe reality, not reality itself.  I was hang-gliding in 1975.  Big deal, so were a lot of people.  Did not generate any electricity.  Does not mtter what words you use.  Reality is you're not generating any electricity.  Most people in AWE agree that is the goal.  It sounds like you don't get it, but in reality you are just continuing to try to cloud the space so nobody will pin you down as not doing AWE. OK fine, give us a mechanical system, with no electricity.  What have you got? "Well, Joe hang-glided 50 years ago!"  Sure daveS.  Sure.  And your dad did aerobatics.  Got it.  What about Otto Lillienthal?  How about John Glenn?  What about landing on the moon?  Like to change the subject much?  Now, back to wind energy:  You are the premiere AWE researcher in the world - yeah we've got it.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24651 From: Santos Date: 1/10/2019
    Subject: Re: Using artificial intelligence (AI) to define the contours of a v
    Doug forgets that wind power began long before electrical service, as any wind expert knows. Similarly, AWE begins it's evolution.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24652 From: dougselsam Date: 1/10/2019
    Subject: Re: Using artificial intelligence (AI) to define the contours of a v
    daveS said: "Doug forgets that wind power began long before electrical service, as any wind expert knows. Similarly, AWE begins it's evolution."
    *** DougS replies:  More complete nonsense from daveS.  Me, the one source of practical wind energy knowledge on this forum, after years of me explaining the 20 decades plus of wind energy development, and now daveS wants to pretend I forgot that electricity is newer than that.  One more intentionally-inaccurate statement.  Note the canned response "Doug forgets", (Pierre fails" etc.)  Like I actually said: If you have a system that doesn't use electricity, fine, let's see it!

    daveS, I would like to go back to your previous statements that Altaeros was experiencing "an engineering delay" years ago.
    How about an update on that statement?  Was it accurate?  How does that figure into your self-described "expert" status?  Can you please, as a self-described "expert", fill us in on the latest Altaeros news?  Where is the "delay" at now?  Has the cause of this "engineering delay" been resolved?  Can you please update us on their "Oman" project?  Can you tell us all about their announced partnership with Mitsubishi?  How is their retreat to Wifi going?  Deployed yet?  Operational?  What is the status of the BAT (Buoyant Airborne Turbine) at this time?  Thanks for your "expertise", and for following up on your previous statements..
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24653 From: Santos Date: 1/10/2019
    Subject: Re: Using artificial intelligence (AI) to define the contours of a v
    Doug seems unable to see engineering delay and failure as both common conditions. Let him quote properly in complaining about past posts he seems to mischaracterize.

    Of course there are many engineering failures and delays in any hard but ultimately successful technology.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24654 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/10/2019
    Subject: North Carolina University, new funds

    https://safety4sea.com/us-awards-25-million-for-next-generation-marine-energy-projects/


    "North Carolina State University of Raleigh, North Carolina will develop integrated numerical models and open water experimental prototypes for an energy-harvesting ocean kite system."


    ==========================================================
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24655 From: dougselsam Date: 1/10/2019
    Subject: Re: Using artificial intelligence (AI) to define the contours of a v
    "Doug seems unable to see..." "Pierre fails..."  Peter overlooks"
    How about: "daveS fails" to follow up on his many previous statements of "an engineering delay" regarding Altaeros, years go, and now Makani.  Not one iota of justification for your statements.  Not a single indication that you've been doing anything other than just making things up.

    daveS, you can go on as much as you want flagging supposed deficiencies in everyone else, but the real problem is you making unverified and likely untrue statements.
    How about sticking to one topic?  Let's try just one time of following through on your nonsense:
    What's the status of Altaeros?
    Where are they with regard to your previously oft-stated "delay"?
    I think you need to be held to sticking to your chosen topic after purporting to "correct" the rest of us..
    There has been plenty of time.
    What is the status today?
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24656 From: Santos Date: 1/10/2019
    Subject: Re: North Carolina University, new funds
    This is Dr Vermilion's Core Lab moving from Altaeros collaboration to new undersea paravane research similar to Minesto, but with multi turbines.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24657 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/10/2019
    Subject: Re: Latest Altaeros News?

    All, 
       Consider keeping all Altaeros news/reports into focused topic threads. Thanks. 
    ==================================================================
    444 Somerville Ave. 
    Somerville, MA 02143

    For general inquiries please contact: info@altaeros.com

    For press inquiries please contact: press@altaeros.com

    For career inquiries please contact: jobs@altaeros.com


    ===========================================
    Facebook
    ======================================
    LinkedIN
    ========================================
    Twitter
    ================================
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24658 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/10/2019
    Subject: Re: North Carolina University, new funds
    https://mees.uncc.edu/directory/christopher-vermillion
    Christopher Vermillion
    Chris Vermillion


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

    Education:

    Ph.D., Electrical Engineering - Systems, University of Michigan, 2009; M.S., Electrical Engineering - Systems, University of Michigan, 2005; B.S.E., Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering, University of Michigan, 2004.

    Research:
    • Flight dynamics and control of tethered wind energy systems
    • Hierarchical control theory and applications
    • Model predictive control
    • Vehicle control systems
    • Simultaneous plant and controller optimization
    • Human-in-the-loop control
    =============================================
    paravane, kite, energy harvesting, ocean, 
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24659 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/10/2019
    Subject: Re: Latest Altaeros News?
    https://www.youtube.com/user/altaerosenergies/featured
    =============================================
    Doug, did you call Altaeros?
    Faxed?
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24660 From: dougselsam Date: 1/10/2019
    Subject: Re: Latest Altaeros News?
    Joe posted:
    =============================================
    Doug, did you call Altaeros?
    Faxed?

    ***Doug Replies to Joe:  Hi Joe
    I listened to Dr. Peter Harrop's AWE Webinar today, in which he passingly mentioned the BAT as having been deployed in Alaska, (didn't sound too sure about it though?) but that his attempts to contact the company directly by phone, for any news, more recently, were unsuccessful. 

    Dr. Harrop did not mention the Oman, Mitsubishi, or "Supertower" Helium Blimp Wifi stories, so I'm guessing he was unaware of them. I was asking our resident expert, who purports to know such things.  I've seen enough wannabe wind endeavors come and go to understand what's happening.  I've debunked the very very very best attempts to fool mother nature.  I'd like the person who told us about this "delay" to follow up on his own statements.   Maybe you should ask him, since he made the statements.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24661 From: Santos Date: 1/10/2019
    Subject: Re: Latest Altaeros News?
    A review of Forum Altaeros discussion will show expert critique of the architecture found nowhere else. 
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24662 From: Santos Date: 1/10/2019
    Subject: Re: Latest Altaeros News?
    AWES projects cannot go away quietly. We discuss them regardless.

    Lacking open disclosure from Altaeros regarding their technical outcome, it's my seasoned opinion that they struggled by precise challenges as first specified here, including choosing a problematic duct design (compared with Oberth's 60's scheme of a turbine under an aerostat), as well as poor distribution and economics of helium dependence, and also poor scaling prospects for flygens and flying rigid rotors.

    By tradition in pioneering R&D, we charitably allow for engineering delay, and best judge failure on third-party facts. We always want to know more about what each AWE case teaches. Let's look forward to the full Altaeros story coming out someday.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24663 From: dougselsam Date: 1/10/2019
    Subject: Re: Latest Altaeros News?
    daveS said "A review of Forum Altaeros discussion will show expert critique of the architecture found nowhere else. "
    DougS replies:  Yes I did mention a few questionable aspects.  Thanks for noticing.  And I recall even you were able to figure it out too.  I thought: "for once he actually knows what he's talking about."
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24664 From: Santos Date: 1/10/2019
    Subject: Re: Latest Altaeros News?
    Just to be clear, Doug, I was only referring to my critiques. Where we differ is your sense of despair at watching AWE architectures sort out Darwinistically. kPower backs the race to a final winner, which seems to be emerging from power kite roots rather than the ST.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24665 From: dougselsam Date: 1/11/2019
    Subject: Re: Latest Altaeros News?
    daveS said: "Just to be clear, Doug, I was only referring to my critiques. Where we differ is your sense of despair at watching AWE architectures sort out Darwinistically. kPower backs the race to a final winner, which seems to be emerging from power kite roots rather than the ST."

    ***DougS replies:  Yeah I figured you'd have to explain the joke, given your missing sense of humor.  Of course, talking up your own "expertise" once again, since nobody else mentions it.  Only you noticed a donut used more envelope material to hold less helium, not me, not anyone else, right?  Only you could see how frail the resulting structure appeared, compared to the power in the wind, right?  Then why did you keep claiming "It's a delay"?  That suggests you knew you were providing wrong information.    As if any halfway-observant person could not flag the same deficiencies in the BAT design.  Which goes to show how unrealistic the entire field is.  I, for one, considered such a structure, again, like "laddermill", way back in the 1970's, and even as a kid saw those same deficiencies in the concept.  At the time I compared it to a hollow asteroid I had seen on Star Trek.

    OK so you have not really answered any of my questions specifically, as you have to keep pretending to be "right", but I think we've finally established that your attempts to "argue" with my simple observations of Altaeros having discontinued their supposed foray to power the grid in Alaska, years ago, using their BAT, were:
    a) wrong
    b) just made up by you.

    I think it's important to establish, factually, that you have been a source of disinformation, rather than accuracy, regarding what was supposedly a serious discussion about what was perhaps the most highly-publicized AWE project ever, at that time, just a few years ago.

    What's more, I'd like to establish that you not only were resistant to the simple facts regarding that project-the-never-happened, but attempted an ongoing "coverup" of the truth.
    How you can reconcile calling yourself an "AWE expert", while actively and persistently attempting to inject disinformation into what was supposed to be a factual, honest, and serious conversation about the most highly-publicized AWE effort - the poster-child of the entire "industry" at the time?

    One stark result is that you are now established as willing to "just make things up" to seemingly "win" arguments you start for no reason.  It seems as though discussions with you are best restricted to keeping things simple, one fact at a time, just to get over basic hurdles like willingness to work with the truth versus active injection of disinformation.  An unending fog of confusion, as best you can generate it, seems to suit your decade-long attempt to dominate a serious subject through any means, without contributing any AWE system generally seen as promising thusfar.  That is all.  I think it's important for someone to stand up for the truth once in a while, in a field so subject to wrong information and fantasy, but...  Time spent rectifying your disinformation here, is time not enjoyed on the ski slopes, so I will stop here - seeya!
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24666 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/11/2019
    Subject: Thermodynamic kite by Guy H. Kennedy, Jr.

    Guy H. Kennedy, Jr.

    US3957228A

    Priority: 1975-02-10
    ================================
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24667 From: Santos Date: 1/11/2019
    Subject: Re: Latest Altaeros News?
    Doug,

    Please try using specific searchable quotes when you think I make mistaken statements. If you do so, you'll be complaining less and helping more.

    My critique of Altaeros and your Sky Serpent are similar; an apparent engineering delay in correcting a suboptimal gas envelope choice, based on my aerospace LTA UAS background.

    Accept your own human shortcomings in AWE R&D as an engineering delay or failure case. At least Altaeros has tapped some power higher than any ST can seemingly reach, give them some due.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24668 From: dougselsam Date: 1/12/2019
    Subject: Re: Latest Altaeros News?
    daveS said: "Just to be clear, Doug, I was only referring to my critiques.:
    ***DougS replies: One more instance of your using the term "the forum" interchangeably with "Dave Santos", trying to create an illusion of some broad consensus, when the entire discussion becomes you and you only, not only shuttong out the opinions of others, but shutting out facts others bother to find out and bring back.  If someone like me bothers to make a phone call or two and report the resulting factual information back to "the forum", what happened then?  The facts I reported back to the forum were rejected by its self-described "expert".  The facts I brought were "corrected" as being wrong, by "the forum" - er um I mean by Dave Santos.  To this day he is still hanging on to his supposed "correction", still trying to rationalize it, still playing the game of calling his own statements "the forum" to make it seem as though his own statements are agreed to by many others, or that "the forum" itself amounts to more than a personal venue for Dave Santos to "assert" his fantasies and mistargeted hero-worship on the one hand, and to assert his resistance to facts and demonization of the people who provide facts, on the other.

    daveS goes on: "Where we differ is your sense of despair at watching AWE architectures sort out Darwinistically."
    DougS replies:  Dave Santos attempts, once again, to shift a discussion of technology, facts, and his own behavior, into mischaracterizing the emotional state of someone who stands up for facts.  Nice try, Dave Santos.  You and your internet protector, Joe, have tried every trick in the book to deny facts when presented:  "Off-topic", "unfriendly", "harranguing", "you need to find an exact quote", and if necessary for the purpose of fact-suppression, destroying factual posts rather than allowing them to appear on the "everything must go through Dave Santos" pretense of an open forum.,

    daveS continues: "kPower backs the race to a final winner, which seems to be emerging from power kite roots rather than the ST."
    DougS replies:  One more attempt to change the subject, one more attempt at self-promotion, one more attempt to appear important or even relevant, one more attempt to seem bigger than he is by calling himself "kPower", "the forum" "experts agree", etc.


    ---In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, <santos137@...
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24669 From: Santos Date: 1/12/2019
    Subject: Re: Latest Altaeros News?
    Doug, it's factual that Magenn, USWindLabs, and Altaeros all suffered from poor helium design and economics. To your credit, you have begun kite experiments; it's your only shot. LTA AWES players  like Altaeros are not able to make that turn. 
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24670 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/12/2019
    Subject: Re: Latest Altaeros News?

    January 2019 clip for Altaeros "Mission"   for discussion relative to AWES, kiting, and speculation: 

    "

    OUR MISSION

    Altaeros’ mission is to rapidly expand affordable, state-of-the-art connectivity to rural communities around the world. The Altaeros SuperTower uses the world’s first autonomous aerostat platform to deploy high-speed mobile broadband in rural markets at a fraction of the cost of alternatives. Each SuperTower replaces a network of 15 traditional cell towers and seamlessly integrates into the existing cell network.

    Altaeros was founded at MIT in 2010 and has raised funding from SoftBank Group Corp., Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, the Suhail Bahwan Group and Ratan N. Tata, and has received technology development grants from, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the National Science Foundation. The company operates out of Greentown Labs, the largest clean technology incubator in the U.S., located in Somerville, Massachusetts."

    ===================
    SuperTower:   ST    (possible confusion in AWE literature with ST: SuperTurbine (R). 
    "aerostat"  could, I suggest, be any aerostat; note that Altaeros' BAT is an aerostat; but Altaeros is evidently playing with other than the toroidal wing aerostat.   Indeed, from their "Mission" one may leave open that the wings involved for aerostat may be chosen from an uncountably infinite choice field. 
    Notice that an aerostat tethered in a flow is a kytoon, terming from the Jalbert era; various shapes of the kited wing as aerostat may be in the eyes of Altaeros. 
    ===================
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24671 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/12/2019
    Subject: Re: Latest Altaeros News?
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24672 From: dougselsam Date: 1/12/2019
    Subject: Re: Latest Altaeros News?
    daveS said: "
    AWES projects cannot go away quietly. We discuss them regardless."

    ***DougS replies:  Isn't that the exact point here?  Discussing them?  And your refusal to do so?  You actively disallow such discussion, for years on end.  You actively deny simple facts when presented, substituting your own offhand compulsion to falsely appear as the only source of true information, through just making things up, and not replying when asked for your source of information.  That is 180 degrees from what you just said: "we will discuss them, regardless".

    daveS goes on: "Lacking open disclosure from Altaeros regarding their technical outcome, it's my seasoned opinion that they struggled by precise challenges as first specified here, including choosing a problematic duct design (compared with Oberth's 60's scheme of a turbine under an aerostat), as well as poor distribution and economics of helium dependence, and also poor scaling prospects for flygens and flying rigid rotors."

    *** DougS replies:  One more intelllectual discontinuity from Dave Santos: He easily debunks the BAT design, as anyone could, while remaining in denial of the specific fact that the stated project therefore simply did not happen.  He points out why the design won't pass muster, then pretends the information that it indeed did not pass muster is wrong, saying the Alaska project has merely been delayed.

    daveS continues: "By tradition in pioneering R&D, we charitably allow for engineering delay, and best judge failure on third-party facts."
    *** DougS responds: So now you're attempting to recharacterize your previous denial of facts from phone calls as "charity"?  To whom, yourself?  Now making up false stories of continued progress is OK because it's "charity"?

    daveS goes on: "We always want to know more about what each AWE case teaches."
    ***DougS replies: So if "you collectively" (who are the other people?  Joe?  Is he speaking for you Joe?) "always want to know more", then why have you spent years rejecting the simple information collected by phone years ago, the whole time?  Why have you said the information was false?  Why have you instead substituted your own wrong information for the truth?

    daveS concludes: "Let's look forward to the full Altaeros story coming out someday."
    *** DougS replies:  I was "looking forward" to providing the true information I learned by phone from Alaska, without it being ridiculed and attempted to be replaced by made-up, wrong information.  The really funny thing is, after years of one story after another from Altaeros not materializing, with lonely little ole' me pointing it out after bothering to use the telephone to find out the truth, Joe actually asks me if I've tried using the phone to find out the status.  OMG.  How do you think this whole conversation started?  Me using the phone. 

    Joe, if you care about having a forum that reflects the true status of AWE, why are you not using the phone to find out such a true status of the most visible project?  Do you care?  Do you feel any obligation to help true information be included on "the forum"?   If daveS says he is "an expert" (in what exactly?) why wouldn't Dave Santos have taken a few minutes to make the same calls I made, in a fraction of the time he takes to write encyclopedic-length musings of questionable veracity?   Why would "an expert" in a given field be resistant to actual information from that field?  And why would the two of you go to such lengths to squelch a fact-based discussion of what was a (supposed) leading AWE contender, from MIT?

    OK daveS, if you say "let's look forward to the full Altaeros story coming out someday", when is "someday"? 
    What about letting even part of the story emerge years ago, when I tried to submit one piece of factual information toward that end?  Let's be clear, for your statements of "delay": to be true, the project would have to occur.  The stated Alaska project would have to resume.  If it did not resume, there was no "delay".  Without such a resumption, as far as I can see, you should be apologizing for making false statements, hampering the free flow of true information in AWE.


    ---In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, <santos137@...
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24673 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/13/2019
    Subject: Re: Latest Altaeros News?
    Doug, please consider bringing forward copied statements when forming claims; then new readers may be involved and good scholarship might unfold.   
     
    You might call Altaeros again and perhaps obtain their view about their past and current operations. 
    =================================================================
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24674 From: Santos Date: 1/13/2019
    Subject: Re: Latest Altaeros News?
    Thanks to Doug for calling Alaska to find out something about Altaeros' proposed trial. We hope for more information.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24675 From: gordon_sp Date: 1/14/2019
    Subject: Tether Tension Control

    In systems which use the tether to transfer the force from rotating elements such as turbines or sails, it is necessary to maintain tether tension above a certain level or there is a danger of hockling of the rotating elements.  In cases where a cable drive is used there is the danger of the cable wrapping around one of the pulleys. To prevent this we must find a way to maintain adequate tether tension in the case of lulls or wind gusts. The problem goes away when the rotating elements stop rotating, but this is not immediate because of their inertia.

    The simplest solution is to have a bungee cord attached to the tether at two points, parallel with the tether.  This could be located immediately below the lifter kite.  This bungee cord will be in tension and extended during normal operation but the main tension will be on the tether.  When the tether tension drops below a certain value, the bungee will contract and maintain the overall tension for a short period of time while the rotating elements stop turning.  Alternately a tension-compression spring (screen door spring) can be placed in the tether to serve the same purpose, but this will impose a weight penalty.  In both these systems the spring and the bungee are protected from overload because they only actuate at low tension.   An alternate location for the spring or bungee would be below the drive and generator where weight is no problem.  This would be awkward in most cases but would be suitable for the Kitewinder system where the generator is suspended in the air.

    I would be interested to know if this idea has been thought of before, or any other method of tether tension control has been proposed.

    Reference:  

    Message #23583 Peter Lynn

    Message #24593 Twist-Chord
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24676 From: Rod Read Date: 1/14/2019
    Subject: Re: Tether Tension Control
    Hi Gordon
    Bungee between the lifter and kite turbine lifting bearing is handy if you have a short term wind profile inversion
    e.g powered up windy turbine & calm lifter ...  I rarely find that. I tested it with inline bungee on the lift line once but no longer bother.
    Weirdly I do use it on my back line... From just above the lift bearing to ground anchoring downwind of the turbine. Keeping this line tight stops any imbalance or slack from throwing the back line into rotary parts... However even this is now unnecessary as I am tending to use a non rotary central line... And the bearing and backline can be separated without this method too...

    In the Daisy case, I'm hoping to test a launch/recovery method which could use a slack take up spring below the generator.. This could be useful where the turbine is hoisted by a returned line.. e.g top of turbine up to a block (pulley) higher on the lift line down through the lifting bearing, down through the stack centres, through the PTO hub onto the spring or more likely a winch. 

    This way whole stack launch and recovery is likely doable right from the ground station. 

    Rod