Messages in AirborneWindEnergy group.                          AWES2634to2684 Page 33 of 79.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2634 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/21/2010
Subject: Verticality ...or the thickness opportunity

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2635 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/21/2010
Subject: Re: Sea Level rise

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2636 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/21/2010
Subject: Re: AWEHSS

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2637 From: Dave Lang Date: 11/21/2010
Subject: Re: Sea Level rise

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2638 From: dave santos Date: 11/21/2010
Subject: Another Aerospace Giant Awakes (NASA)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2639 From: Doug Date: 11/21/2010
Subject: Re: Sea Level rise

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2640 From: hamish.macleod Date: 11/21/2010
Subject: Re: Sea Level rise

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2641 From: Doug Date: 11/21/2010
Subject: Re: AWEHSS

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2642 From: Dave Lang Date: 11/21/2010
Subject: Re: Sea Level rise

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2643 From: dave santos Date: 11/21/2010
Subject: Doug v. NASA

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2644 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 11/22/2010
Subject: Re: AWEHSS

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2645 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/22/2010
Subject: Re: AWEHSS [1 Attachment]

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2646 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 11/22/2010
Subject: Re: AWEHSS [1 Attachment]

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2647 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/22/2010
Subject: Tethered free flying wings

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2648 From: dave santos Date: 11/22/2010
Subject: Tetherless Dynamic Soaring FEG Method

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2649 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/22/2010
Subject: Non-conductive-tether TFEG

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2650 From: dave santos Date: 11/22/2010
Subject: Disambiguation- Pete (son) & Peter Lynn (father)/// Tethered free fl

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2651 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 11/22/2010
Subject: Re: Non-conductive-tether TFEG

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2652 From: Doug Date: 11/23/2010
Subject: Selsam Superturbine(R) Discovery Channel Video

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2653 From: dave santos Date: 11/23/2010
Subject: Doug v. NASA (what NASA really needs)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2654 From: Bob Stuart Date: 11/23/2010
Subject: Re: Host Countries - was Doug v. NASA

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2655 From: dave santos Date: 11/23/2010
Subject: Re: Host Countries (US FAA & Canada DOT)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2656 From: reinhartp Date: 11/24/2010
Subject: Re: Contests & Grants:Thanks for the support

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2657 From: Doug Date: 11/24/2010
Subject: Re: Contests & Grants:Thanks for the support

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2658 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/24/2010
Subject: Anne Quéméré

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2659 From: Muzhichkov Date: 11/24/2010
Subject: Re: Selsam Superturbine(R) Discovery Channel Video

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2660 From: Muzhichkov Date: 11/24/2010
Subject: Re: Doug v. NASA

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2661 From: dave santos Date: 11/24/2010
Subject: Re: Contests & Grants:Thanks for the support

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2662 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/25/2010
Subject: Conop and CONOP

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2663 From: dave santos Date: 11/26/2010
Subject: Re: AWE Concept of Operations (CONOPS) Project

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2665 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/26/2010
Subject: 1940s lessons?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2666 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/29/2010
Subject: KiteTech

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2667 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/29/2010
Subject: Re: Kite deployment by Jens Schupp

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2668 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/30/2010
Subject: AWEIA Community Founder's Circle

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2669 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/30/2010
Subject: Refrigerate food +

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2670 From: dave santos Date: 11/30/2010
Subject: Pilot-Centric AWE CONOPS Draft (2nd revision)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2671 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/30/2010
Subject: Control system for a windmill kite

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2672 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/1/2010
Subject: Could this be a call?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2673 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/1/2010
Subject: Extrapolate to Piloting KiteFarm

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2674 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/1/2010
Subject: PR at work

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2675 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/3/2010
Subject: Courts involved on kite energy dispute

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2676 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/4/2010
Subject: Re: Courts involved on kite energy dispute

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2677 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/4/2010
Subject: Boundary item by Lloyd Biscomb

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2678 From: dave santos Date: 12/4/2010
Subject: Bamboo Airframes (Past, Present, & Future)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2679 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/4/2010
Subject: High tether tension in focus

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2680 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/4/2010
Subject: Aeroflexor

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2681 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 12/4/2010
Subject: Re: Aeroflexor

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2682 From: dave santos Date: 12/4/2010
Subject: Re: Aeroflexor

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2683 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 12/4/2010
Subject: Re: Aeroflexor

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2684 From: Pierre Benhaiem Date: 12/5/2010
Subject: Re: Aeroflexor



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2634 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/21/2010
Subject: Verticality ...or the thickness opportunity
Though in AWE community we have notes on the table about advantages of upper winds: consistent, smoother, stronger, reliable, power laws, ...
the less mentioned dimension (and often neglected) is the thickness of the air space, that is, the potential of using thick strata of moving air for production of useful energy.   In comparison, the towered ground-hugging turbines are relatively two-dimensional, whereas AWECS have the opportunity to have workers at 300 m and also at 400 m and also at 500 m, etc.--all at once and over a single ground projection: three-dimensional relatively.  Very thick and fat opportunity!   Verticality!        Such vertical dimension might be worked into the call for attention on AWECS.
 
Lift to you and yours,
JoeF
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2635 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/21/2010
Subject: Re: Sea Level rise
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2636 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/21/2010
Subject: Re: AWEHSS

Toward that objective:
http://www.energykitesystems.net/AWECSclassification/index.html
All are welcome to make advances for the Classification Challenge, so that all potentials are set on view.

Lift,

JoeF
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2637 From: Dave Lang Date: 11/21/2010
Subject: Re: Sea Level rise
Doug,

I did comment on your ice-age graph, but you  seem to have chosen to ignore it :-/
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2638 From: dave santos Date: 11/21/2010
Subject: Another Aerospace Giant Awakes (NASA)
With all the AWE publicity in recent years most aeronautical & aerospace professionals became aware of the field. It was only a matter of time before major aerospace groups began to mobilize. Early news was the MOU between SkyMill & Boeing. Honeywell's concept was trotted out. It is supposed that Airbus has initiated study internally.
 
NASA was seen as lagging on the presumption of bureaucratic inertia. What was really happening at the Agency was a grassroots ferment as excited scientists began AWE thought-work without waiting for Admin to order the charge. Since at least last spring informal working groups began to form. One NASA team even has concept designs nearing public disclosure. The hot news is the launch of a NASA Wind Energy Airborne Harvesting System Study. Stay tuned for full details.
 
The global AWE community has unique knowledge, skills, & experience to contribute to NASA's landmark study. This is just a small start; the Aerospace Giants are only just beginning to stir...
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2639 From: Doug Date: 11/21/2010
Subject: Re: Sea Level rise
Sorry Dave L., I missed your response and searched but cannot find it, but would be interested to read it, as I know you are a "thinking man".
:)
Doug S.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2640 From: hamish.macleod Date: 11/21/2010
Subject: Re: Sea Level rise
Christ Doug. You ARE a Troll.

The small question you should be asking is, "what do the people who study this stuff for a living think?"

Not "what do you wanna-be AWE experts think about this random collection of data of dubious origin." WTF?

The BIG question you should be asking is, "what are we going to do when regional climates continue to change making historically wonderful places to live, too arid, or too cold, or too wet?"

- Dimitri
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2641 From: Doug Date: 11/21/2010
Subject: Re: AWEHSS
Hi Joe:
two comments:
1) If this is truly a NASA website, why is it not part of the NASA web domain?
2) They are copying YOU. I think YOU should get credit for being the first to organize such a directory of AWE participants.

I'm not sure what it is, but I have a problem with people coming along after the fact and trying to take credit for what others have done, and that goes especially for any government agency, since they have completely ignored this field for so long while posing as the most cutting edge thinkers in the world.

There is no entity that has slowed my progress more than the government labs and agencies, promising money and participation for new clean energy ideas, then not responding in any meaningful way to clear and promising, simple solutions, offered at great penalty of time and effort to them on the silver platters they demand.

Anyway, thanks much for the heads-up on this - I joined, and my membership is "awaiting approval".
I had to type in the word GE Ecomagination to join, which is also irritating, as they are similarly liars like the federal labs, having taken an inordinate amount of my time for absolutely NOTHING with their empty promises.

I'm recommending a class action suit by all entrants into the GE Ecomagination Challenge to insist that they actually DO provide the promised $200,000,000 to the ideas proposed in their contest. I am so tired of the big liars and their big lies while we small players beat our heads against the wall on low budgets, accomplishing all that they say is impossible.

:)
Doug Selsam
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2642 From: Dave Lang Date: 11/21/2010
Subject: Re: Sea Level rise
For the record....
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2643 From: dave santos Date: 11/21/2010
Subject: Doug v. NASA
Doug,
 
NASA actually has a first-rate track-record in aerospace, with truly great kite tech (Jalbert, Rogallo, Barish, etc.), so they are hardly late to the game. One sees a consistent stream of useful research over decades. The X-38 parafoil system is just one tiny recent example. Try & tap the Jet Stream without such folks. They did not steal from Joe & Wayne, but honored them by linking content. Joe might gladly share the chore of maintaining the industry database with NASA, & even be contracted. He certainly is not offended. Do not sow sourness into the mix if you really want to help. 
 
Much of what you wrote below about the NASA AWE effort is untrue, paranoid, & hurtful. Curb the web-rage & stop baiting the entire list. These are far more exciting times to be creating this technology than your constant complaints suggest.  Beware becoming the Hateful Troll of NASA's forums, who  never masters traditions of aviation, but only causes morale-sapping distraction. Just be Cool & allow those nice scientists who devote their lives to aeronautics & aerospace to discuss very technical issues in Peace, as you learn their wonderful fields, so you then contribute gracefully. Your best shot is to let your concepts get formally evaluated by NASA, alongside all others, without being offensive, if you can,
 
Pretty Please,
 
daveS


From: Doug <doug@selsam.com
 
Hi Joe:
two comments:
1) If this is truly a NASA website, why is it not part of the NASA web domain?
2) They are copying YOU. I think YOU should get credit for being the first to organize such a directory of AWE participants.

I'm not sure what it is, but I have a problem with people coming along after the fact and trying to take credit for what others have done, and that goes especially for any government agency, since they have completely ignored this field for so long while posing as the most cutting edge thinkers in the world.

There is no entity that has slowed my progress more than the government labs and agencies, promising money and participation for new clean energy ideas, then not responding in any meaningful way to clear and promising, simple solutions, offered at great penalty of time and effort to them on the silver platters they demand.

Anyway, thanks much for the heads-up on this - I joined, and my membership is "awaiting approval".
I had to type in the word GE Ecomagination to join, which is also irritating, as they are similarly liars like the federal labs, having taken an inordinate amount of my time for absolutely NOTHING with their empty promises.

I'm recommending a class action suit by all entrants into the GE Ecomagination Challenge to insist that they actually DO provide the promised $200,000,000 to the ideas proposed in their contest. I am so tired of the big liars and their big lies while we small players beat our heads against the wall on low budgets, accomplishing all that they say is impossible.

:)
Doug Selsam
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2644 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 11/22/2010
Subject: Re: AWEHSS
Attachments :
    Joe,

    Very great perspectives for AWEHSS.

    A classification allows a faster understanding of systems, advantages, disadvantages according their common main features,and that with a concise presentation.Studies of possible uses of systems will be easier. The joined presentation allows furthering insertion of other systems,corrections and improves of presentation. Links on websites or videos can be created.It would be interesting to keep steps before a conversion into PDF which could be a document for presentations towards organizations like NASA.

    PierreB






    		   @@attachment@@
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2645 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/22/2010
    Subject: Re: AWEHSS [1 Attachment]
    Attachments :

      Thank you, Pierre!
      The PDF attached has no edits by me.
      The tree format surely will be one of the leading favored presentations.
       
      In PDFs, I can form Internet links per word or symbol, if you supply the URLs. 
      Further versions, as you wish, can be formed.  
       
      I am envisioning various treed versions for various purposes.
      And even perhaps stepped versions that grow from one page to another view to yet other views.  Others will work in this direction as you are working.
       
      Be sure to send this to people that you think might want to contribute to the Classification Challenge committee.     
       
      [ ] Pierre, I need some help in understanding your phrase:
      "It would be interesting to keep steps before a conversion into PDF"
      Please give me your meaning in French and perhaps another version in English. Thanks.
      Did you mean that we could make the links to websites and videos on the tree presentation before we convert to PDF?       That will eventually be done.   
       
      In versions of classifications, when a company name is used, then I am wanting to be sure all companies are presented. 
       
      Thanks for continuing work on the classificatin challenge.
       
      I have not sent your version to anyone, but the PDF is linked from the working page for AWCCC at
       
      Your suggestions and directives are ever invited.
       
      Do you feel the version just presented holds free-freeflight methods?  Traction over land?  Combined methods that have flygen and groundgen in one system?  
       
      If AWECS is said without qualification, then I am aiming to face the scale challenge.  When a presentation is intended for the large-scale AWECS for satisfying grid needs, then title distinction would discern the matter.   
       
      If an AWECS is using mechanical energy for direct work like sawing, grinding, pumping fluids, pounding, charging flywheels, moving objects, etc, then no electrical generator is involved.
       
      Soon,
      JoeF
      		   @@attachment@@
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2646 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 11/22/2010
      Subject: Re: AWEHSS [1 Attachment]
      Joe,

      -The tree on the precedent post is a beginning.The idea would be:all companies and projects on the first and main page of classification which is built on criterions of the main features of structure and how AWECS work.

      -"Traction over land":see "mobile installations";a second tree (with ship) will be needed beside the first on the same first page:again completing the "doc"classification.

      -"Combined methods that have flygen and groundgen in one system?".If the generator is not on the ground but not also onboard it is flygen (for example on one of numerous realizations of KiteLab).

      -Technical precisions and applications on other pages."If an AWECS is using mechanical energy for direct work like sawing, grinding, pumping fluids, pounding, charging flywheels, moving objects, etc, then no electrical generator is involved";for example "pumping fluids"  and some others are often "reel-out" or "oscillating ...If no to add branches on the tree (like I made for "Twind").

      -"In versions of classifications, when a company name is used, then I am wanting to be sure all companies are presented.":You can join my "doc" version for eventual corrections and complements from companies or make the complements yourself (By "It would be interesting to keep steps before a conversion into PDF" I want to say the (always provisory)final document) .

      -"If AWECS is said without qualification, then I am aiming to face the scale challenge.  When a presentation is intended for the large-scale AWECS for satisfying grid needs, then title distinction would discern the matter." Why not to use colors on the main page,one for grid,one other for pumping,one other for battery,and other for "sawing, grinding, pumping fluids, pounding, charging flywheels, moving objects"?

      -So other criterions for complementary classifications can be:altitude (100-600 m,above,jetstream),piloting (automation,human,passive controle,place of steering device (on board for Ampyx,at ground for Stem)),technical precisions (see above) and applications...

      -Links in your database (if possible) after complements and corrections.

      -But an easily readable panorama of all projects on only one page according their main structural and working features can to be a way for presentation.

      PierreB
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2647 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/22/2010
      Subject: Tethered free flying wings

      In 2004 Peter Lynn was seemingly coming close to Richard Miller's mid-1960s dynamic soaring of free-flight using HTA coupled with HTA body while perhaps suggesting some twists and turn of his own.   Dale C. Kramer  has been furthering analysis of dynamic free-flight soaring of  two-kite-on one free-flight tether (no tether to ground).    In the 2004 essay of concepts

      http://web.archive.org/web/20050829141827/www.inet.net.nz/~cbrent/pete/

      there are many things that might be discussed.    We have paragliding pilots soaring, but not flying in the sense of Miller and Kramer.      The easy two-body kite with water paravane coupling has been the more easily reached event.    A let-go toy kite with appropriate tether dragging can fly out for long distances with the appropriate tether becoming mooring also for the system as the system travels with ground path that can be very long; instead of wrestlying with "appropriate design of tether" one may just design a lower-attached kite; letting things go, though may break may laws and regulations and cause damage to people and property, so this discourse is not a suggestion to let-go things in the air space without appropriate control of system-stopping and clearance of air space, etc. 

      Has Peter Lynn advanced on his 2004 essay?   I have no offer on that question; Peter might answer such.      

      And certainly for over 20 years Wayne German as also been contemplating tethered free flying wings.   In the 1970s we took pleasure in hang gliding circles and in Low & Slow to review Miller's earlier essay and description in Without Visible Means of Support book.   The recent company on LTA with HTA coupled by tether is in this family of concerns for AWECS.    Kramer confirmed to me in 2009 conference that he envisioned RATs on his coupled aircraft tethered free-flying wings. Scaling to the tons mentioned by Peter Lynn for wind-turbine purposes posits his essay into this AWECS forum.

       A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

      JoeF
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2648 From: dave santos Date: 11/22/2010
      Subject: Tetherless Dynamic Soaring FEG Method
      Joe touched on free-flight RAT gliders. There have long been small design studies of free-flying energy gliders with generator turbines. My approach in the late eighties was to ridge-soar in frontal mountain waves to make power. The glider composite structure was envisioned as an aluminum sandwich supercapacitor that instantly discharged every time trailing conductive whiskers did touch-&-go at the bottom of a constant looping flight pattern. No tether was involved. A far more powerful mountain flight mode for this sort of RAT glider has emerged: Lee-ridge based Dynamic Soaring (soaring without thermals), which allows RC gliders to reach speeds well over 400mph. We now have far better capacitors & batteries to consider for charge-discharge cycling.
       
      Reliability of such an AWECS will likely require decades to attain, but what a prize, to eliminate conductive tethers & tap the baddest wind-shears.
       
      coolIP
       
       
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2649 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/22/2010
      Subject: Non-conductive-tether TFEG

      Bouncing off DaveS'  tetherless dynamic-soaring FEG:

      That brings to mind a tethered AWECS flygen that aloft charges supercapacitor and then swoops down to drag whiskers to off-load charge to ground supercapacitors; then the TFEG swoops up again to mine the wind again.  No conductive tether, but a plain kite tether is used.  While the gathering is being done aloft, the ground supercapacitor spends its charge to store energy, say, pump hydro, or do work in order to empty the charge in readiness for the next swoop event.  

      JoeF
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2650 From: dave santos Date: 11/22/2010
      Subject: Disambiguation- Pete (son) & Peter Lynn (father)/// Tethered free fl
      Joe, Nice find,
       
      Pete Lynn, the son, wrote the linked piece, his working name is Pete, to distinguish from his dad, although its signed "Peter S". The experiment shown was assisted by Dave Culp, who gave me one of the left-over caged flygens for my West Coast stash, maybe even the one in the photo. I met Pete at Makani during a KiteShip visit & saw him again at HAWPCON09, where he smiled as i flew a 3.5m Peter Lynn parafoil next to Doug's Sky Serpent. It was some of Pete's emails around 2003 on a physics forum that seem to have triggered a lot of the current boom in research.
       
      Peter Lynn, the dad, is a very active AWE thinker; the latest clue, besides his great writings, is that TUDelft is flying a 50sq m Peter Lynn Parafoil (Drool). There is at least one other great dynasty in AWE, Billy & Corey Roesler.


      From: Joe Faust <joefaust333@gmail.com
       
      In 2004 Peter Lynn was seemingly coming close to Richard Miller's mid-1960s dynamic soaring of free-flight using HTA coupled with HTA body while perhaps suggesting some twists and turn of his own.   Dale C. Kramer  has been furthering analysis of dynamic free-flight soaring of  two-kite-on one free-flight tether (no tether to ground).    In the 2004 essay of concepts
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2651 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 11/22/2010
      Subject: Re: Non-conductive-tether TFEG

      What is the weight of a 900 m (altitude 600 m) conductive tether?And drag in respect to a non-conductive tether?

      PierreB
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2652 From: Doug Date: 11/23/2010
      Subject: Selsam Superturbine(R) Discovery Channel Video
      http://watch.discoverychannel.ca/daily-planet/december-2008/daily-planet-december-2-2008/#clip118301

      I tried posting this and others to that NASA(?) site but got a message that I, as a mere earthling, was not allowed to post. I thought the reason to join was to post videos. I tried writing to the e-mail address that let me know I had been approved, to submit the links to them, but have not heard back. It seems like the video selection there is pretty limited - hopefully they are just getting started.
      I'm still trying to figure out if this is really anything to do with NASA. Note the site is not part of a NASA domain. Anyone have any info?

      Here are links to 3 more videos:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ddliyfspmr4

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOGqURa1a8g

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P55HfnGR6kQ
      Doug S.
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2653 From: dave santos Date: 11/23/2010
      Subject: Doug v. NASA (what NASA really needs)
      Doug,
       
      Its rather obvious why NASA prefers technical AWE content over Discovery Channel clips. If you want to contribute the right kind of knowledge, submit an serious engineering study of your technology, & spare the scientists from popular TV content. Be very very careful not to come off as a desperate character who only promotes his own ideas & is simply unable to socially participate in any helpful less-partial way. It may be rather late. Be aware that you have already made a troubling impression on NASA folks by your behavior on this forum & they hardly need more of the same. Why would a sane person even seek to work with NASA people today after dismissing them so erroneously & contemptuously just the day before?
       
      The web-hosting mystery has an obvious explanation to anyone with US govt. experience. I remember a NASA engineer explaining how they kept hidden tool-boxes to build spacecraft in order to avoid procedures regulating the official tools. This is how great things still get done. Similarly, hosting this site outside of the official US.gov straitjacket is a decent work-around.
       
      daveS
       


      From: Doug <doug@selsam.com
       
      http://watch.discoverychannel.ca/daily-planet/december-2008/daily-planet-december-2-2008/#clip118301

      I tried posting this and others to that NASA(?) site but got a message that I, as a mere earthling, was not allowed to post. I thought the reason to join was to post videos. I tried writing to the e-mail address that let me know I had been approved, to submit the links to them, but have not heard back. It seems like the video selection there is pretty limited - hopefully they are just getting started.
      I'm still trying to figure out if this is really anything to do with NASA. Note the site is not part of a NASA domain. Anyone have any info?
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2654 From: Bob Stuart Date: 11/23/2010
      Subject: Re: Host Countries - was Doug v. NASA

      On 23-Nov-10, at 1:02 PM, dave santos wrote:


      That reminds me of what my boss in the aircraft accessory biz said.  In the U.S., if the FAA finds an infraction, they are like a traffic cop with a quota plus bonus system of pay.  In Canada, if the DOT finds some rule-bending, they work with the operator to end the infraction. They are even open to the possibility that the rule is dumb in some instances.  That didn't give us any leeway for hiding problems, but also no incentive to try anything sneaky.  It probably loosened up the prototype process.  OTOH, the US has a lot of room for homebuilt experimentation that may apply to some of our research.

      Bob Stuart
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2655 From: dave santos Date: 11/23/2010
      Subject: Re: Host Countries (US FAA & Canada DOT)
      Bob,
       
      There is no great difference between the world's aviation standards, as its truly an integrated global system. Folks may not know that the FAA is a total revolving-door for pilots. The agency is run by pilots & many ordinary pilots are FAA agents certified to do many essential regulatory functions like safety inspection & instruction to required standards. Folks also often miss how the dominant FAA pilot culture defends aviation interests as a whole. Thus JoeBen's "Privatized Airspace" initiative was promptly swatted down by the FAA, in service of pilots & aviation stakeholders as a class, but against GoGo Venture Capitalism interests.
       
      The strangest truth for lay-folk to grasp is that a pilot within the FAA framework is still the sovereign captain of their vessel. It is clearly taught to pilots to ignore any conflict with regulation in a safety emergency, in order to protect life. This is a fairly common event. For example, a pilot low on fuel in badly forecast deteriorating conditions can feel forced to land below "required" visibility minimums, rather than risk proceeding to an alternative airport. The system unofficially tries hard not to over-police, as the FAA would not function if it stupidly reacted to the common realities of the working pilot.
       
      The main motivation to bust pilots is when they act as an obvious persistent menace. I have not heard of an FAA "quota plus bonus system of pay" to catch infractions. Canada's DOT may just have less bad apples to control in a far less crowded airspace, & so can naturally afford to be more laid-back than the FAA.
       
      No one should think the biggest thing stopping them in AWE is aviation norms, especially when its inability or unwillingness to meet such standards that is the real issue,
       
      daveS


      From: Bob Stuart <bobstuart@sasktel.net
       


      That reminds me of what my boss in the aircraft accessory biz said.  In the U.S., if the FAA finds an infraction, they are like a traffic cop with a quota plus bonus system of pay.  In Canada, if the DOT finds some rule-bending, they work with the operator to end the infraction. They are even open to the possibility that the rule is dumb in some instances.  That didn't give us any leeway for hiding problems, but also no incentive to try anything sneaky.  It probably loosened up the prototype process.  OTOH, the US has a lot of room for homebuilt experimentation that may apply to some of our research.

      Bob Stuart
       
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2656 From: reinhartp Date: 11/24/2010
      Subject: Re: Contests & Grants:Thanks for the support
      Apparently the step to Dougs design and Kitepower was one step too far for GE, so they decided to go for the in-between solution... an inflatable wind turbine. Read more here :

      http://inhabitat.com/ges-ecomagination-challenge-unveils-5-winning-energy-solutions/2/
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2657 From: Doug Date: 11/24/2010
      Subject: Re: Contests & Grants:Thanks for the support
      Yes my patents cover inflating the blades, This is a workaround to the true solution that is in my patents, of inflating the blades.
      Not that complicated.
      Doug Selsam
      http://www.selsam.com
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2658 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/24/2010
      Subject: Anne Quéméré

      Anne Quéméré

      Change in a shape in one of the kites used in her Pacific traction efforts:

      http://pacific-solo.com/?p=1150

      http://pacific-solo.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Adrien-2010-67--300x200.jpg

      JoeF
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2659 From: Muzhichkov Date: 11/24/2010
      Subject: Re: Selsam Superturbine(R) Discovery Channel Video
      I also have some doubt about this site. In any case, somebody has invested some time and money to do it and obviously for some reason. What I finde good is a lot of good sorteâ articles. www.energykitesystems.net and so on are lack of such order.
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2660 From: Muzhichkov Date: 11/24/2010
      Subject: Re: Doug v. NASA
      I think we have to be carefull with such organisations. This group consolidate enthusiasts and real investigators and consolidation is our power. It costs much more than hypotetic investmens.
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2661 From: dave santos Date: 11/24/2010
      Subject: Re: Contests & Grants:Thanks for the support
      GE was unable to yet pick a true upperwind solution, this inflatable turbine shown is still a tower-based design. Still, KiteLab has developed dense-array lifter methods to raise aloft anybody's lightweight turbine solutions. Clearly the GE pick is a far lighter turbine than the norm. So GE is on the critical path to AWE.
       
      Good luck winning a patent battle for inflatable blades, there is vast prior art & its a very obvious idea (my own designs go way back). In this case the blades are single skin & only the shroud-like annulus is inflated.
       
      Is there not still an in-house judging round to the GE contest?


      From: Doug <doug@selsam.com
       
      Yes my patents cover inflating the blades, This is a workaround to the true solution that is in my patents, of inflating the blades.
      Not that complicated.
      Doug Selsam
      http://www.selsam.com
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2662 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/25/2010
      Subject: Conop and CONOP
      Conops is a genus of fly from the family Conopidae. The larvae of Conops are parasitic on bees, especially bumblebees. Adults feed on nectar.
      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conops See:
      http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Conops-flavipes-13-VII-2007-344.jpghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Conops-flavipes-13-VII-2007-344.jpg

      CONOPS - A Concept of Operations (abbreviated CONOPS, CONOPs, or ConOps) is a document describing the characteristics of a proposed system from the viewpoint of an individual who will use that system. It is used to communicate the quantitative and qualitative system characteristics to all stakeholders. ...
      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CONOPS

      These are distinct from con operations of the underworld.

      JoeF
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2663 From: dave santos Date: 11/26/2010
      Subject: Re: AWE Concept of Operations (CONOPS) Project
      Joe's cryptic message below was a response to an informal back-room debate over how AWE is likely to develop & what the real barriers are. A highly placed USgov aerospace scientist opined that a major hurdle overlooked by the majority of AWE starts is the absence of a credible path to AWE NAS (US National AirSpace) integration. Major players to account for are the FAA & powerful aviation stakeholders. For AWE to be accepted by these essential parties a CONOPS was suggested that lays out core operational issues with credible solutions to the barriers to acceptance.
       
      As a living document, the AWE CONOPS will begin rather simply, based on our best early judgments, & evolve in response to many challenges. There are two major areas to fully account for, the regulatory framework of aviation, & the demands of stakeholder groups like pilots & populations.
       
      So who wants to help? Here is a model of what a detailed CONOPS looks like-
       


      From: Joe Faust <joefaust333@gmail.com
       
      Conops is a genus of fly from the family Conopidae. The larvae of Conops are parasitic on bees, especially bumblebees. Adults feed on nectar.
      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conops See:
      http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Conops-flavipes-13-VII-2007-344.jpghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Conops-flavipes-13-VII-2007-344.jpg
      CONOPS - A Concept of Operations (abbreviated CONOPS, CONOPs, or ConOps) is a document describing the characteristics of a proposed system from the viewpoint of an individual who will use that system. It is used to communicate the quantitative and qualitative system characteristics to all stakeholders. ...
      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CONOPS
      These are distinct from con operations of the underworld.
      JoeF
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2665 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/26/2010
      Subject: 1940s lessons?
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2666 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/29/2010
      Subject: KiteTech

       KiteTech

      KiteTech Energy Systems, Limited

      John Russell Prewer; (GB).
      Bill Hampton; (GB).

       
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2667 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/29/2010
      Subject: Re: Kite deployment by Jens Schupp

      New link to replace former link:

      http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?WO=2010079365

      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2668 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/30/2010
      Subject: AWEIA Community Founder's Circle
       Be sure your team members are found; do you see anyone missing?  We are confident that the list is very incomplete. Those in your circle working on AWE challenges are invited to be a founding member.

      If you are not yet on our AWE community list, please send information to Editor@UpperWindpower.com 
        Nov. 30, 2010   
      AWEIA Founders' Circle closes at midnight Dec. 31, 2010, PST.

      Adams, Peter
      Ahrens, Uwe
      Akindeinde, Saheed Ojo
      Al-Musawwir, Shakira
      Amick, Douglas J.
      Archer, Cristina
      Ardoise, Guillaume
      Argatov, Ivan
      Asterita, Anthony J.
      Bardi, Ugo
      Barrs, Chris Carswell
      Bartlett, Bart
      Baayen, Jorn
      Bellacera, John D.
      Benhaïem, Pierre
      Benoit, William R.
      Benson, Tom
      Bernd Lau
      Bernhard Kämpf
      Betti, Gabriele
      Bevirt, JoeBen
      Bigge, Bill
      Bilaniuk, Nykolai 
      Biscomb, Lloyd I.
      Blumer, Eric
      Bormann, Alexander
      Borsheim, John
      Bourgault, Frédéric
      Boyce, C.O. Lee
      Brabeck, Stephan
      Braun, Hans
      Breen, Michael
      Breidenthal, Robert
      Breukels, Jeroen
      Brilliant, Larry
      Brovko, Samantha
      Brown, Mac
      Brown, Mike
      Busso, Marco
      Caldeira, Ken
      Calverley, Grant
      Canale, M.
      Cannon, M. Elizabeth
      Carcea, Daniele
      Carlin, Christopher M.
      Carpenter, Howard G.
      Carpenter, Richard   
      Carroll, Joseph A.
      Charpentier, Donald
      Chee, Wang Seng
      Chen, Franklin FK
      Cherny, Dimitri
      Chetwood, Laurie
      Chin, Eric
      Choi, Munho
      Chubb, Erik
      Clark, Trevor
      Clear, Charles
      Coleman, Brooks
      Coleman, Will
      Connally, Abe
      Corongiu, Marcello
      Cory Roeseler Inventor: (Research misspelling "Corey")
      Creighton, Robert
      Culp, Dave
      Czisch, Gregor
      Dawes, Chris
      de Bie, Rob
      De Groot, Stefan
      De Jong, Maxim
      Delaire, Steve
      De Wachter, Aart
      Dentamaro, Gaetano
      Diehl, Moritz
      DiPalo, Joseph A.
      Doerwald, Axel
      Doerwald, Bruno
      Dolan, Geoffrey
      Ducharme, Paul
      Dunlap, Andrea Swenson
      Eccles, David G.
      Ede, Felix
      Ehrenpreis, Ira
      Elkaim, Gabriel Hugh
      Fagiano, Lorenzo
      Fallwell, Michael
      Fantinelli, Davide
      Farris, William
      Faulkner, Angela
      Faust, Joe
      Fechner, Uwe
      Felker, Fort
      Ferguson, Frederick D.
      Ferguson, Jeffrey
      Ferretti, Guido
      Fisher, Ian
      Fischer, Werner
      Fitzpatrick, Kyle
      Forrest, Andrew
      Franetzki, Manfred
      Frayne, Shawn
      Freidin, Jonathan F.
      Fry, Charles Max
      Furey, Allister
      Gambarota, Lucien
      Garcia-Sanz, Mario
      Gebhardt, Christian
      Geebelen, Kurt
      Gentile, Chris
      George, Dale
      Gerlero, Ilario
      German, Wayne
      Ghandakly, Adel
      Ghorbani, Reza
      Gillis, Joris
      Glass, Ben
      Goeggel, Geoff
      Goubau, Alain
      Grenier, Albert J.
      Griffith, Saul
      Grimley, Thomas
      Hadzicki, Joe
      Hafstrom, Sig
      Hallam, Henry
      Hans Gr      ündel
      Hans-Jürgen Plach
      Hardham, Corwin
      Harper, Chad
      Hartney, Mark
      Harvey, Inman
      Hatcher, Jason
      Havosha, Uzi Ezra
      Hayworth, Jonny
      Hennessey, Michael
      Hise, Henry W.
      Hoffschmidt, Bernhard
      Houle, Corey
      Houska, Boris
      Huiszoon, Gerben
      Hunt, Robert D.
      Ibara, Allen
      Ilzhoefer, Andreas
      Inisrael, David
      Jacobson, Mark
      Janicki, Stephen J.
      Jianjun, Zhang
      Jordan, Dean
      Kanellos, Michael
      Keech, Andy
      Kim, Jong Chul
      Kingsley, Gordon Bruce
      Kistler, Manfred
      Kongsrud, Knut
      Koning, Diederik
      Kramer, Dale C.
      Krenciszek, Joachim
      Landry, Mark
      Lang, Dave
      Lansdorp, Bas
      Laska, Andrew
      Liao, Guojun
      Lind, Damon Vander
      Lind, Todd
      Lindholm, Karin
      Lois, Lambros VERIFY VITALITY
      Loyd, Miles L.
      Lubbers, Barend
      Luchsinger, Rolf
      Luetsch, Guido  VERIFY  Lütsch, Guido
      Lynn, Jr., Pete
      Lynn, Peter
      Macedo, Aleandro Soares
      Malraj, Manula
      Maneia, Gian Mauro
      Marcel, Clement
      Marchitti, Mario
      Marino, Sebastian
      Markus Fischer
      Massimo Ippolito
      Mathur, Uday
      Mazzocato, Decimo "Dudu"
      McBride, James
      McCutchen, Charles
      McKinley, Ryan
      McLaughlin, Scott
      Melkert, Joris A.
      Milan Habovcik
      Milanese, Mario
      Mirmont, Mathieu
      Mizzi, John V.
      Mohr Davidow Ventures
      Mokrian, Pedram
      Monette, Barry
      Montague, Donald Lewis
      Moore, Mark
      Morari, Manfred
      Mouton, William J.
      Mueller, Roy
      Murthy, Vinayaga
      Muscio, Francesco
      Musumeci, Paolo
      Muzhichkov, Alexander
      Nelson, Rob
      Neuhoff, Uwe
      Nicholson, Hamish
      Nicholson, Kit
      Noble, Joanna
      Noonan, Dennis
      Norwood, Asphodel
      O'Gairbhith, Colm
      Ockels, Wubbo Johannes
      O'Griffin, Mose
      Okyere, Eric
      Olson, Gaylord G.
      Osho, Olanrewaju (of Safety Alliance)
      Oyebanji, John
      Padmanabhan, Archan
      Paelinck, Reinhart
      Pardi, Luca
      Park, Chul
      Parker, Daniel
      Parker, Scott
      Payne, Peter R.
      Peddie, Mathew
      Perassi, Carlo
      Peter Knauer
      Pfeiffer, Wolfdietrich
      Pizarro, Anthony
      Plug, Hans
      Podgaets, Alexander
      Pompa, Jonathan
      Potter, Lynn
      Pouchkarev, Alexander
      Prewer, John
      Pri-Paz, Gal
      Radding, Zach
      Ragner, Gary Dean
      Ranalli, Shae
      Rautakorpib, P.
      Ray, Elizabeth Lynn
      Ramkim, Ryan
      Rein, Adam
      Renna, Riccardo
      Resnick, David
      Ricketts, Marc
      Rivard, Pierre
      Roberts, Bryan William
      Roeseler, Cory
      Roeseler, William "Billy"
      Roeseler, William G.
      Rolf Sauter
      Romanelli, Tommaso
      Ross, Jamie
      Ross, Uncle `Buck`
      Ruiterkamp, Richard
      Sainz, Jose
      Sanghi, Sanjeev
      Santos, Dave
      Sarigul-Klijn, Nesrin
      Schmehl, Roland
      Schmidt, Eric
      Schmidt, Theo
      Schneider, Abe
      Schulte, Jamie
      Schwoll, Joost
      Selby, Darin
      Selsam, Doug,
      Sergio, Ivan
      Shepard, Len
      Shepard, PJ
      Sherback, Michael
      Sieberling, Sören
      Silvennoinen, Risto
      Siracusa, Dante
      Sirohi, Jayant
      Smoot, Sara
      Spierenburg, Gertjan
      Spiliotopoulos, Ilias
      Stearman, Ronald
      Stefan Skutnik
      Stewart, Keith
      Stoll, Wilfried
      Stuart, Bob
      Taddei, Franco
      Terink, Edwin
      Thallemer, Axel
      Thomassen, Erik
      Thompson, David F.
      Tigner, Benjamin
      Tinney, Charles
      Tonchev, Georgi (aka George)
      Toselli, Simone
      Tracy, Dan
      Trein, Cristiano Augusto    
      Trinchero, Aldo
      Tryggvason, Gretar
      Ulrich Langenbach
      Upton, Kenneth William
      Valentine, Harry
      van den Heuvel, John
      Vander Lind, Damon
      van der Vlugt, Rolf
      Varrichio, Anthony
      Varrichio, Craig
      Vauthier, Philippe
      Vergnano, Gianni
      Verheul, Roland
      Visser, Dries
      Volsan, Zola
      Vu, Hung
      Wara, Michael
      Webster, Scott
      Wehrlin, Arne
      Weisbrich, Alfred L.
      Wendler, Wes
      Wilkins, Matthew
      Williams, Paul
      Wolfram, Catherine
      Wolstenholme, Thomas
      Wrage, Stephan
      Yum, Daniel
      Zaquini, Leonello
      Zhang, Hong
      Zhang, Jun
      Zou, Nanzhi
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2669 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/30/2010
      Subject: Refrigerate food +

      Fly the food to the heights to keep the food cold. Release the food as needed via a glide-down system. Sail or pulley-up food for new storage. It is cold up there!  Burr...    

      Needed, perhaps: advanced low-leak kite balloons using hydrogen.  

      Want ice?   Collect atmospheric water aloft or send up water to be frozen. Drop-glide the ice cubes back down for local use. 

      Are you just too hot and want a cooling?    Is the ground-hugging air just too hot right now?  Let the ever-up AWECS station be your destination; let the wind winch your hot body to the altitudes; enjoy the cool and fresh air with great view.  Take a rocking nap there too!   Enjoy a glide back home when rested.    Want exercise? Then climp up the tether or drop-line by muscle power.

      Sell viewing sessions to people in order to obtain funds for paying the AWECS pilot team? Give repeat lifts to those just wanting to get up in order to sky-dive down.   Either fly down free or ride the tether down.

      Pump cloud-seeding matter up the compound tether; spray as Ken C. directs to modify weather?

      Be in the lifting body; ride-pilot the wing for exericse and fun; let the system be driving a ground generator. Significant g forces will test the strongest athletes.

      What have we for using AWECS to directly compress air to recharge an air-car that runs on compressed air?

      Meanwhile, some CONOPS are being drafted for presentation to the FAA in the USA.    What similar progress is occurring in Russian, China, Japan, Europe, Africa, Indea, Spain, _____?       AWECS pilots are pilots too! And AWECS pilots aim to be great neighbors on the ground and in the sky.   

      How are we doing towards a world-around cableway that has no ground-going cables?  Nodes are upheld by working AWECS. Nodes rise and lower to move a cable-car along and around the world?   Also, energy gained might charge electric motor on the cable-car or be used to keep comfortable temperatures and pressures in the cabin.   Around the world travel without any jet fuel.  Sky Village Forever?

      UpperWindpower ™  invites vertical wind-farming art for open publication.  Meshes, fences, nets, matrices, etc.   Recall the protection of London by kite-balloons; such just hints at the beginnings of a huge cubic space wafting with wind-energy conversion complexes.  Even mine the chaotic turbulence aft of first turbines!   How thick might vertical wind-farms be?    Watt-hours per projected land area?

      May Haiti find its upperwindpower!

       
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2670 From: dave santos Date: 11/30/2010
      Subject: Pilot-Centric AWE CONOPS Draft (2nd revision)
      There are at least two draft AWE CONOPS (Concept of Operations) documents under development. The early draft below is "pilot-centric", given persistent barriers to autonomous aviation in US NAS (National AirSpace), & the need to fully integrate pilot stakeholder communities. These are living documents that grow & evolve as conditions warrant. Please comment or feel free to draft your own version or clauses.
       
      ========================================
       
      AWE CONOPS Narrative (DRAFT) 
       
      Tethered Aviation is an important branch of Aeronautics, with many applications. Aerostats, aerotowing, & kites are well known examples. Novel tether-based aviaition systems promise to enhance aviation capabilities, generate clean energy on vast scales, serve communications, spin-off industries, & create recreation. This New Aviation requires pilots, regulatory bodies, & populations to all come together, or it will fall short of its great potential.
       
      Pilots are the key stakeholder, as the historic natives of airspace. It will be pilots, following their norms & traditions, who lead in the safe effective development of Tethered Aviation culture. It will be pilots who take jobs in the new aviation industries to ensure that operations are always consistent with safe convenient shared airspace.
       
      The aeronautic & aerospace industries are tasked with designing systems that pilots accept & the FAA can certify as airworthy. Aviation interests must collectively make the case to stakeholder populations that Tethered Aviation will enhance life & be a "good neighbor".
       
      The general CONOPS validation process in the years ahead-

       
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2671 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/30/2010
      Subject: Control system for a windmill kite

      http://pericles.ipaustralia.gov.au/ols/auspatbeta/applicationDetails.do?applicationNo=2009238195

      on page is full patent applicaiton instruction document in PDF:  AU-A1
      Earliest priority date 2008-04-14

      Thread might discuss points in Roberts' instruction.

      Inventor:  Bryan William Roberts

       

      ---------------------JoeF
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2672 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/1/2010
      Subject: Could this be a call?

      Found this clip at the bottom of
      http://www.energykitesystems.net/Kites/RibbonBowArchRotators/index.html

      =================== clip:

      Consider replacing the ribbon with a torque tube while setting the two anchors with one downwind some; mount multiple autorotating HAWTs on the torque tubes. Have LTA severe lifting kytoons at left and right for lifting the complex. Have several rungs of the static ladder while the element rungs are fully dynamically rotating. Generators could be at the left and/or right ends of each rung.  Is this a call to Selsam and his SuperTurbine® 
       

      ========== End of clip.

      JoeF
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2673 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/1/2010
      Subject: Extrapolate to Piloting KiteFarm

      Clip: "It also has some innovative features, such as the ability to fly a pre-programmed route based on GPS coordinates."

      http://www.gearthblog.com/blog/archives/2010/11/take_your_own_aerial_photos_with_th.html

      Same URL via tiny format:  http://tinyurl.com/SenseAWECS

      Extrapolate notions to an AWECS pilot managing a vast kitefarm in shifts with other AWECS pilots.

      JoeF

       
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2674 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/1/2010
      Subject: PR at work

      The Sky's The Limit

      http://www.cnbcmagazine.com/story/the-skyas-the-limit/1284/1/

      Interesting art for kiteplane leads the article.

      Interesting note from Corwin Hardham for 2015.

      How all these various authors miss that the method mentioned 
      follows ages-known tech is a mystery to me; one minute of research
      would make known a great plenty of worthy matter.   

      JoeF
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2675 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/3/2010
      Subject: Courts involved on kite energy dispute

      Court Decision Could Bring Windmill Kite Patent Back Down to Earth 

       
       
       
       
       
       
      Hmmm?
      1. Could either party have posted something to this group? Were they prevented by advise?
      2. Maybe most of the claims in the patents are unenforceable when earlier patents are fully examined and appreciated. 
      3. Could the whole matter be a staging to give an appearance that novelty is fact when novelty might not be fact?
      4. There was a time when close collaboration existed...very close among some persons of both camps; and then a split; then the lawsuits; "stage" came to my mind.   Hey, since we can fight in court and get a settled decision, then maybe all others will believe that the involved patents are solid in novelty.  
       
      JoeF
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2676 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/4/2010
      Subject: Re: Courts involved on kite energy dispute

      What advice may have been given about bringing the discussion forward to the AWE Community? Maybe Baseload Energy (BE) or Sky Windpower (SWP) representatives will give a word on such to this group.  Such is invited.    The prior "joint venture" agreement is a matter distinct from public understanding of raw mechnaical claims that would affect all other parties.  All of the concern does not prove or disprove competitive merit of involved methods; but the attention on the matter might tend to lend importance to the methods involved whether mechanically deserved or not in comparison to other methods.  The tug-of-war might tend to give press and attention that brings its own profi to the parties; who will not notice that a struggle is occurring?    Is the struggle important? Apparently, the struggle is at least important to SWP and BE.  BE is not a member of the consortium that SWP involves.  BE has some of their own patents.  Roberts has a profound application for patent regarding control of AWECS.   How will things settle?

      Meanwhile, just what in Roberts' patent is valid and enforceable? Just what in the patent might be invalid and unenforceable?  Baseload Energy apparently has a story that could be very interesting to the AWE Community.  Court transcripts have not been seen yet by me; does someone have link or copy of such?      Will it matter to the AWE Community  how the BE-SWP settles? 

      U.S. Patent No. 6,781,254 makes claims. Whch claims, if any, are reciting prior art (either patented or practiced-known)?  Since the matter has been in the courts, perhaps this matter could become instructive for AWECS inventors.  Six claims are recited in the instruction.

       

      Patent is available in several forms: image, PDF, text.

       

       

       

       

       
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2677 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/4/2010
      Subject: Boundary item by Lloyd Biscomb

      Biscomb has faced fully airborne tethered windmill kite systems for generating useful energy in earlier patent [Tethered airfoil wind energy conversion system US Pat. 4309006 - Filed Jun 4, 1979 and  Multiple wind turbine tethered airfoil wind energy conversion system  US Pat. 4285481 - Filed Dec 7, 1979  ].       He also instructed in a method that sits on the boundary of tethered concerns where he plays with the tether, mooring, sail, and restraints on the sail at land and water interfaces.  He comes in with constrained flight and booms; he allows multiple sails and other scalables as follows:

      Sail-driven wind motor
      US Pat. 4730119 - Filed Sep 24, 1986

       Lloyd I. Biscomb

      Click image for full instruction:
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2678 From: dave santos Date: 12/4/2010
      Subject: Bamboo Airframes (Past, Present, & Future)
      There are several Giant Kite traditions world-wide based on bamboo spars & natural-fiber paper or cloth for skin. Clearly one might base an AWECS design on 100% compostable organic aircraft construction, using local materials, at lowest imaginable capital cost. Performance & lifespan would be less than CF (carbon fiber) & polymer rip-stop construction, but the native wings are so cheap & easy to repair & keep flying (especially compared to replacing CF spars after crashes). Dave Culp has noted one might power a village with just a "blue tarp".
       
      My old friends in Austin (since '84), the Ortiz (& Renteria) Family, regularly win the annual Zilker Kite Festival "Largest Homemade Kite" contest (oldest US kite fest) with bamboo. Typically, the night before the contest, they tape black construction plastic over a giant bamboo frame, roll it up, then three generations show up en-masse. Last spring the wind kicked up & their huge kite was overpowering them. I was demoing kite energy nearby with my gloves on & ran to help. As we all tugged on the line, i suddenly recognized them, under their sunglasses, as my old friends (Pablo! (Ortiz) Pio! Lori! (Renteria)) Is that you? I had not seen them in over 20 years & there we were thrown together by the magic of a giant bamboo kite, which we only just managed to bring down inside the crowd control fence. Another First Place trophy, which was given away to a child. It was the (dirt-cheap) family tradition that mattered.
       
      The following examples all hit the scaling limits of bamboo kites, roughly 15m x 15m. Proper working kites would be quarter-scale sized at Pocock, Cody, & Baden-Powell's empiric practical limit of about 8m to a side. They could then be aggregated in stacks, trains, & arches to quite high power ratings.
      Of the kites linked below, the Indian "Bat" is the simplest yet most aerodynamically advanced design & has great potential to be stacked, given the double center spars.

      The Hindu : Karnataka / Bidar News : Biggest kite ever in Bidar skies

      The Giant Kites of Sagami from Japan

      Introducing the Giant Kites of Guatemala - drachen.org

       
       
       
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2679 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/4/2010
      Subject: High tether tension in focus

      Beluga cousin?

      http://energykitesystems.net/images/HighTslowReelOut.jpg 

      FairIP, public commons: this waking flash of Dec. 4, 2010.

       
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2680 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/4/2010
      Subject: Aeroflexor

      http://physicsguy.org/downloads/FlexorTechnology.pdf

      Flexor Energy Company 

      This aeroflexor has a non-empty intersection with some of the concerns
      of some AWECS investigators.

      Attention DaveS' flipwing? 
      Attention flutter investigators!

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXWgAyZB090   This is IT      [[ED: That is the proper title of the video.]]

       

       
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2681 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 12/4/2010
      Subject: Re: Aeroflexor
      A possible good application for ANIMATION 2 about Wind Turbines on Mounts

      PierreB
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2682 From: dave santos Date: 12/4/2010
      Subject: Re: Aeroflexor
      NASA is looking at MWMs analytically & Flexor's physics-teacher (David LaBreque) founded company clearly helps the compelling case for this aero-device.
       
      KiteLab Group's Wing-Mills are the most advanced & powerful available & the Sputnik (TM) was the first-to-market AWE-specific product in 2008. Flexor's product (kit) may just be second-to-market, underlining the distruptive power of the idea.
       
      Pierre & JoeF are to be commended for championing this technology in many variations & for large scales. Augustine Trein is also one of the circle. Flexor is solid third party validation of basic Membrane Wing-Mill (MWM) proof-of-concept.
       
      Hopefully we can all team up to prove this technology as a large-scale AWE champ.
       
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2683 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 12/4/2010
      Subject: Re: Aeroflexor
      French application for a patent on 2/18/2008:INSTALLATION EOLIENNE SUR DEUX SUPPORTS NON SPECIFIQUES

      PierreB
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2684 From: Pierre Benhaiem Date: 12/5/2010
      Subject: Re: Aeroflexor
      French filling of application FR0800892 on 2/18/2008 (before Flexor's filling of provisional patent).I hope the links work.

      INSTALLATION EOLIENNE SUR DEUX SUPPORTS NON SPECIFIQUES    

      http://fr.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?CC=FR&NR=2927671A1&KC=A1&FT=D&date=20090821&DB=espacenet.com&locale=fr_FR

      Between all these technologies or ways for installation (DougS,JoeF,KiteLab,PierreB,Flexor...) there are common and different points.Flexor's main feature is the translation into a linear generator instead rotating generator;for soft wings between two anchors seeing JoeF' and KiteLab' technologies;for only one rotor between two mounts or buildings seeing PierreB' installation,then (after) Flexor';for multirotor between two mounts or building seeing DougS' and Selby' and others' installations and technologies...

      PierreB