Messages in AirborneWindEnergy group.                          AWES2735to2785 Page 35 of 79.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2735 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/17/2010
Subject: Nominate AWE founders who have gone before us

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2736 From: Doug Date: 12/18/2010
Subject: Re: Freedom of Tether Angle & Kite (Industry)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2737 From: Doug Date: 12/18/2010
Subject: Re: Nominate AWE founders who have gone before us

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2738 From: dave santos Date: 12/18/2010
Subject: A Noble Industry /// Formerly: Freedom of Tether Angle & Kite (AWE I

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2739 From: dave santos Date: 12/18/2010
Subject: Carbon Nanotube Health Hazard (darn!)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2740 From: Dave Lang Date: 12/18/2010
Subject: Re: Carbon Nanotube Health Hazard (darn!)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2741 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/18/2010
Subject: Re: Carbon Nanotube Health Hazard (darn!)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2742 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/18/2010
Subject: NASA asked if its study would cover FF-AWECS

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2743 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/18/2010
Subject: Re: KiteGen progress video

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2744 From: Dan Parker Date: 12/19/2010
Subject: Re: KiteGen progress video

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2745 From: Pierre Benhaiem Date: 12/19/2010
Subject: Impediments

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2746 From: Doug Date: 12/19/2010
Subject: Re: A Noble Industry /// Formerly: Freedom of Tether Angle & Kite (A

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2747 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/20/2010
Subject: Re: KiteGen progress video

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2749 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/20/2010
Subject: Timeline

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2750 From: Pierre Benhaiem Date: 12/21/2010
Subject: Inherent limit of global wind energy

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2751 From: Bob Stuart Date: 12/21/2010
Subject: Re: Inherent limit of global wind energy

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2752 From: dave santos Date: 12/21/2010
Subject: Re: Inherent limit of global wind energy (Bill & Ken/ AWE Impediment

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2753 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/21/2010
Subject: Distinction and thesis by Lorenzo Fagiano

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2754 From: Ugo Bardi Date: 12/22/2010
Subject: Re: Distinction and thesis by Lorenzo Fagiano

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2755 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/22/2010
Subject: Six

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2756 From: dave santos Date: 12/22/2010
Subject: KiteGen (TM)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2757 From: Ugo Bardi Date: 12/22/2010
Subject: Re: KiteGen (TM)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2758 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 12/22/2010
Subject: Re: KiteGen (TM)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2759 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/22/2010
Subject: Re: KiteGen (TM)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2760 From: Doug Date: 12/23/2010
Subject: Founders or Flounders? :)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2761 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/23/2010
Subject: FF-AWECS using two LTA kytoons

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2762 From: Dan Parker Date: 12/24/2010
Subject: Re: FF-AWECS using two LTA kytoons

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2763 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/24/2010
Subject: Re: FF-AWECS using two LTA kytoons

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2764 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/24/2010
Subject: Re: FF-AWECS using two LTA kytoons

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2765 From: dave santos Date: 12/24/2010
Subject: 1kw "Valentine" AWECS

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2766 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/24/2010
Subject: Unwrapped the gift and found ...

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2767 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/24/2010
Subject: Re: Windlift flight testing recent

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2768 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 12/24/2010
Subject: Re: Windlift flight testing recent

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2769 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 12/25/2010
Subject: Re: Windlift flight testing recent

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2770 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 12/25/2010
Subject: Re: 1kw "Valentine" AWECS

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2771 From: dave santos Date: 12/25/2010
Subject: Re: 1kw "Valentine" AWECS

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2772 From: dave santos Date: 12/25/2010
Subject: Re: Windlift flight testing recent

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2773 From: Massimo Date: 12/25/2010
Subject: Re: KiteGen (TM)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2774 From: Ugo Bardi Date: 12/26/2010
Subject: Re: KiteGen (TM)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2775 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/26/2010
Subject: K1, K2, K3

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2776 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/26/2010
Subject: Re: Early Investor's Guide to Gigawatt-Scale AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2777 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/26/2010
Subject: Giancarlo Zanetti

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2778 From: dave santos Date: 12/26/2010
Subject: Tigercomm's Joby PR (Pay-to-play (Privatized) Airspace v Airspace Ne

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2779 From: dave santos Date: 12/27/2010
Subject: AWE Airspace Excise Taxes & User Fees

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2780 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/28/2010
Subject: Free-flying balloons in planetary atmospheres

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2781 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/28/2010
Subject: Re: AWE Airspace Excise Taxes & User Fees

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2782 From: Bob Stuart Date: 12/28/2010
Subject: Re: Free-flying balloons in planetary atmospheres

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2783 From: dave santos Date: 12/28/2010
Subject: Re: AWE Airspace Excise Taxes & User Fees

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2784 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/28/2010
Subject: Re: AWE Airspace Excise Taxes & User Fees

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2785 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/29/2010
Subject: Ted Talk.... Ampyx Power




Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2735 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/17/2010
Subject: Nominate AWE founders who have gone before us

Honorary deceased nominees for AWE Founders' Circle
of airborne wind energy industry
(to be confirmed by vote of AWEIA International members at some future moment):

  • George Pocock
  • John Etzler
  • David Hammond Shepard
  • Francis M. Rogallo
  • Domina C. Jalbert
  • David Barish
  • Richard Miller
  • Paul MacCready who worked at what may have been the first radiative 21st century AWE industry conference years ago (there were meetings for AWE in the 1970s birth where the infant AWE industry went to sleep for a long nap ... with brief cries in the intervening years... and significant dancing and traction branchings)
  • Peter R. Payne
  • and many others.

    Please send nominees to Editor@UpperWindpower.com  or post such nomination on this thread. 

My view and rate of knowing indicates that present discussions on AWECS has yet to uncover all of what our fathers put on the table for our present consideration.

JoeF

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2736 From: Doug Date: 12/18/2010
Subject: Re: Freedom of Tether Angle & Kite (Industry)
Here you have the industry: The industry of typing endlessly complicated generalized descriptions of systems unlikely to ever be implemented.

Industry:
1) produces a product
2) contributes a percentage to GDP
3) returns value for money invested.

You can call anything you want "industry". Wiping off your countertop could be called "industry". A spider making a web, a bird building a nest - "industry" - you can use whatever word you want to describe anything and it doesn't get any system into the air, nor generate 1 watt.
BUT
kudos to Joe Faust for organizing all this, whatever it is!
I'd have to say it is a "field of research". I think that's more accurate than "industry". Or perhaps "field of endeavor".

If you want to use the word "industry" I'd qualify it with the adjective "nascent", meaning "soon to emerge", which of course, as a prediction, could turn out to be either true or false as time rolls on.

And I'm not kidding when I say that talking about it IS the only real industry here, at this point in time. That IS the literal fact. :)
Doug Selsam
http://www.selsam.com

--- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, dave santos <santos137@...
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2737 From: Doug Date: 12/18/2010
Subject: Re: Nominate AWE founders who have gone before us
I say Shepard is the real player here.
Shepard Shepard Shepard.
MacCready? Forget it! He's a pioneer in Gossamer Albatross technology, NOT wind energy AT ALL. Aerovironment contacted me a few times over the years asking about blades etc. It was apparent that they were complete newbies, with no knowledge of wind energy at all. When I tried to interest them in Superturbine(R) they told me that they ONLY pursue Dr. McCready's ideas, and apparently he not only had no ideas, but no clue, with regard to wind energy.

To this day, Aerovironment's turbines are unremarkable and not an economical solution, not better than what was, just a step down from the other brands, costing many times as much, for no truly novel features.
Go ahead and ask Aerovironment how much power their best system can make and how much it costs. No wonder they've taken wind energy off their website.

Wind energy is a VERY specific field and even top notch aerodynamicists from aviation must forget a LOT of what they think they know about wind energy, if they want to get up to speed, which few do.

Doug Selsam
http://www.selsam.com

--- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, "Joe Faust" <joefaust333@...
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2738 From: dave santos Date: 12/18/2010
Subject: A Noble Industry /// Formerly: Freedom of Tether Angle & Kite (AWE I
Doug,
 
Sorry you see no potential industrial value to the wonderful Art of rigging kites, but many on this list clearly do. This particular "passive-control" trick (decoupled tether-angle & kite) is quite powerful as it enables Super-Density AWE flight persistence with far less active-actuation. Persistence is an elusive high-value goal in heavier-than-air (HTA) Aviation.
 
All kites are wind-energy devices, since the very beginning thousands of years ago, as it takes energy to sustain HTA flight. Thus early AWE-enabled kite-fishing & kite-sailing contributed vitally to the Neolithic economics of canoe peoples along the SW Pacific Rim. The core definition of industry is not based on money, nor requires semblance to modern industry, but applies to any productive economic activity. Any anthroplogist or economist would agree that the DIY fashioning of the early kites was a primitive industrial activity.
 
In fully historical terms, & consistent with the lay-person's idea of "industry", the Chinese anciently applied kites as a military-industrial product (even as aerial bombers), later followed by the Japanese using kites to lift construction materials in temple construction. Pocock is perhaps the best historic example of modern AWE commercialization. He manufactured (as "Cottage Industry") & sold kite systems, even into the teeth of the Steam Age. Many commercial products in "wind-powered aviation" followed, down to the kite boom in our own day. Powered aviation was a spin-off industry. So it is that AWE is properly seen as an extensive & ancient industry. I an industrious full time in AWE, invest in purchasing mature AWE components from the global market, & have pioneering products for sale; so i know first-hand that AWE is quite industrial.
 
Doug, please stop diluting technical threads with off-topic opinions you have already beaten-to-death. Focus instead on adding to the process of AWE knowledge creation, on building the industry we clearly have going,
 
daveS
 
 

From: Doug <doug@selsam.com
 

Here you have the industry: The industry of typing endlessly complicated generalized descriptions of systems unlikely to ever be implemented.

Industry:
1) produces a product
2) contributes a percentage to GDP
3) returns value for money invested.

You can call anything you want "industry". Wiping off your countertop could be called "industry". A spider making a web, a bird building a nest - "industry" - you can use whatever word you want to describe anything and it doesn't get any system into the air, nor generate 1 watt.
BUT
kudos to Joe Faust for organizing all this, whatever it is!
I'd have to say it is a "field of research". I think that's more accurate than "industry". Or perhaps "field of endeavor".

If you want to use the word "industry" I'd qualify it with the adjective "nascent", meaning "soon to emerge", which of course, as a prediction, could turn out to be either true or false as time rolls on.

And I'm not kidding when I say that talking about it IS the only real industry here, at this point in time. That IS the literal fact. :)
Doug Selsam
http://www.selsam.com

--- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, dave santos <santos137@...

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2739 From: dave santos Date: 12/18/2010
Subject: Carbon Nanotube Health Hazard (darn!)

Environmental toxicity & recyclability of AWECS, particularly the delicate flying parts, is a major design consideration. There are major life-cycle health issues to "high-tech", from manufacturing  to composite-waste & E-waste. Comprehensive green solutions are required.

 

The link below is to very bad news for all us nanotube freaks waiting for the stuff to surpass UHMWPE; the stuff is very dangerous to anyone who handles it carelessly-

 

Nanotubes Highly Toxic


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2740 From: Dave Lang Date: 12/18/2010
Subject: Re: Carbon Nanotube Health Hazard (darn!)
This is one study that is 7 years old ('03 vintage). That was about the time I was deeply involved in simulating space elevator (SE) dynamics and going to ALL SE conferences. These conferences always had a contingent of CNT developers and aficionados. At that time it seemed there were  already more than one study on health issues plus many poised to be commence. So, I wonder if this (study quoted below) is the ONLY study that was completed....likely not!  As I understood it, CNTs are also a natural by-product of forest fires, and some researcher had come up with a factoid, that a single large forest fire released more CNT's into the atmosphere than would a single "crashing" SE tether.....

DaveL



At 1:01 PM -0800 12/18/10, dave santos wrote:
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2741 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/18/2010
Subject: Re: Carbon Nanotube Health Hazard (darn!)

Following anticipated safeguards in the manufacturing and recycling spaces,
what might be the solutions for encasing and veiling fibers and strings and cords made of CNTs?

Posted: February 15, 2006
Safety of carbon nanotubes can be dramatically improved 

Also on topic are some leads in the current article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_nanotube#Toxicity

JoeF

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2742 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/18/2010
Subject: NASA asked if its study would cover FF-AWECS

Will the NASA oversight review include glases at free-flight AWECS?

Having not towers and not tethers-to-ground within a world-around international system of free-flying tethered two-kite system (TTKS) might be an end-point of some visionaries' AWECS solution where the earth's upperwindpower is mined for the benefit of all people.  

http://energykitesystems.net/0/JoeFaust/AWE/twokitefreeflightAWECS.jpg

 

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2743 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/18/2010
Subject: Re: KiteGen progress video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2wwWLFGneY  
Tag: KiteGen 13 Dec. 2010
The video shows a 25-second peek at recent activity, apparently (not confirmed)
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2744 From: Dan Parker Date: 12/19/2010
Subject: Re: KiteGen progress video
Hi Joe,
 
            Looks like a real winner, It's beautiful.
 
   Dan'l
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2wwWLFGneY  
Tag: KiteGen 13 Dec. 2010
The video shows a 25-second peek at recent activity, apparently (not confirmed)
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2745 From: Pierre Benhaiem Date: 12/19/2010
Subject: Impediments

Joe provided a very interesting link on BilGatesAndKenCaldeira.See "I have spoken with several people in several companies and they all seem to think different things are the main impediment.

My understanding is that one of the big impediments is tether mass, and there are big tradeoffs with mass of the conductor and insulation versus how high up you can go. It might be that we would require something nearly magical to make such systems really work economically." See also DaveS' post about the danger of nanotubes:so tether mass (and drag) stays a big problem for very high altitude.

See:"The other thing we should recall is that if we were to meet future power demand by this source exclusively, we must intercept more than 1% of natural flows. I think when we get above a 1% change in a natural system, we need to be concerned about large scale unintended consequences. Remember, global warming is basically a 1% problem – 1% warming of our 288 K planetary temperature. (That is one reason why solar is so attractive – with solar we are talking about capturing 0.01 % of the energy that hits the ground.)"

PierreB

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2746 From: Doug Date: 12/19/2010
Subject: Re: A Noble Industry /// Formerly: Freedom of Tether Angle & Kite (A
Dave S.:
I'll go a step further:
This thread is about founders of a possible future industry, and who they are, or who they will be if such industry ever emerges.

Here are a couple of thoughts:

1) Who the founders of an industry were can only be determined AFTER the industry has emerged, not predicted in advance; without an industry having emerged yet, who can say whom the "founders" are?

2) No person who doesn't have anything to do with the development of any working system will, in retrospect, be considered a "founder";

3) Someone may come in with a working system and they will be the founders;

4) people endlessly talking about it, but not contributing to a workable solution will not, in the end, be considered founders of any industry;

5) Perhaps "would-be visionaries," "astute cheerleaders," or "early proponents" might better describe those who peripherally discuss the topic than "founders," just for the role of recognizing the resource and discussing the desirability of harnessing it, or even for postulating various ways to do it.

6) Could anyone have said who was "the father of our country" in 1750?

:)
Doug Selsam, (documented original inventor of laddermill in 1970's and only working demo flown at the first World Airborne Wind Energy Conference in Oroville/Chico).

--- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, dave santos <santos137@...
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2747 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/20/2010
Subject: Re: KiteGen progress video

http://www.energykitesystems.net/KiteGen/index.html 

Reporters are invited.       

Dec. 2010: "The Stem itself is a product with a wide applicability, but also a good step in the direction of the KiteGen carousel concept.  Our Carousel concept is the still misunderstood answer to most of the concerns that I can often read;"   Massimo                     SomeImageLeads 

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2749 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/20/2010
Subject: Timeline

A first rough very incomplete timeline file has been initiated.

Each AWECS team could give their own Timeline to this Timeline cause. 
And send additions and correction!      Who on your team is caring for such matter?

Be so invited to have someone on your team chronicle all progress and history of your efforts and experience. A copy of your timeline and updates are welcome to be posted in this forum and copy sent to Editor@UpperWindpower.com     

Just linked:    

http://www.energykitesystems.net/Timeline/index.html  
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2750 From: Pierre Benhaiem Date: 12/21/2010
Subject: Inherent limit of global wind energy

Extract from http://seekerblog.com/archives/20100311/ken-caldeira-and-bill-gates-on-\ (Joe provided this link some days ago).What is your opinion about it:

"The other thing we should recall is that if we were to meet future power demand by this source exclusively, we must intercept more than 1% of natural flows. I think when we get above a 1% change in a natural system, we need to be concerned about large scale unintended consequences. Remember, global warming is basically a 1% problem – 1% warming of our 288 K planetary temperature. (That is one reason why solar is so attractive – with solar we are talking about capturing 0.01 % of the energy that hits the ground.)"?

PierreB

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2751 From: Bob Stuart Date: 12/21/2010
Subject: Re: Inherent limit of global wind energy
We may be heading into a period when reduced winds are a general benefit.  While 1% is a nice first guess at how much of a resource can be extracted before checking for possible complications, it is very general.  We have a much higher percentage of land under cultivation, and now know how to shrink deserts as well as create them.  Farming has usually reduced overall land productivity in the interest of particular crops, but has only crashed a few, particularly  fragile ecosystems entirely.  On Tikiopia, almost the whole jungle is made up of useful plants.

Bob Stuart

On 21-Dec-10, at 4:02 AM, Pierre Benhaiem wrote:


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2752 From: dave santos Date: 12/21/2010
Subject: Re: Inherent limit of global wind energy (Bill & Ken/ AWE Impediment
Clearly AWE will be just one future fraction of the world energy supply. There is also the comparable resource of ocean currents using related methods. We also need to learn to live well on a far smaller ration of energy. So Ken's 1% warning is pretty thin stuff. We face a far sooner threat of political domination from elite AWE monopolies.
 
After being exposed to so much hype, Ken has clearly figured out for himself (smart guy) & Bill Gates that many large flygen claims (eg. 10,000m altitude; Makani) were not reality, that it is way too marginal a technology to soon reach high-altitudes. Ground-gens already allow an AWECS to easily fly far higher. Good for Bill Gates if he manages to gather a truer picture of the technological opportunities. Google is also seeing a clearer picture & could jump back into AWE investment on a different basis.
 
My take of the key impediment(s) to AWE - Call it "ACE" (Airworthiness, (Low) Cost, & Effectiveness, in no particular order).
 
 

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2753 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/21/2010
Subject: Distinction and thesis by Lorenzo Fagiano

"The name "KiteGen" has been coined at Politecnico di Torino, well before the foundation of KiteGen Research s.r.l., and it has been the name of the first research project, funded by Regione Piemonte and coordinated by Politecnico di Torino, aimed to investigate high-altitude wind energy using power kites."  Note in 2010 in the following linked final thesis of 2009.

Clipped quote from:  Lorenzo Fagiano in his Ph.D. thesis, which see.  9 Mb, PDF document.

He decided to face the possible confusion by using instead of KiteGen the term HAWE for high altitude wind energy.

Title: Control of Tethered Airfoils for High–AltitudeWind Energy Generation

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2754 From: Ugo Bardi Date: 12/22/2010
Subject: Re: Distinction and thesis by Lorenzo Fagiano
If you allow me a little note on this point, I remember that I had proposed the name "kitegen" to Massimo Ippolito a few years ago. Before, he had called his idea "Kiwigen" ("KIte WInd GENerator) - which sounded like something made in New Zealand or sold in the vegetable market. Ippolito agreed with me and from then on we started using that name. At that time, Mr Fagiano and his coworkers at the Politecnico di Torino probably didn't even know that such a thing as AWE existed.

Unfortunately, neither myself nor Ippolito placed a copyright on the name, so I see now that people are fighting for the rights of the name. Which is all right, after all, what is in a name? That which we call kitegen, by any other name, would fly so nice. Also, a kitegen is a kitegen is a kitegen.....

UB


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2755 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/22/2010
Subject: Six

Six modes of AWE synergy

  1. Forum     We are 80 formally registered in a public discussion program with rapid AWE development as an aim (RAD).  
  2. KiteEnergy        This is a private list used for very occasional e-mails that are short and sent using blind addresses.   Many of these persons choose to stay off of certain other lists as they grow their AWE interest.
  3. Founders' Circle ... closes midnight PST on December 31, 2010.  Let me know the name of anyone who seems to be part of the synergy that is founding the AWE industry internationally. Send team names to Editor@UpperWindpower.com   At the moment we are over 400 persons; contact and tag information will not be adjacent to the publication. Think stone wall with etched names for the people of year 7000 to stumble upon as they wonder about roots of the year 2011 AWE industry.    At the moment, this circle holds just over 400 persons
  4. Who's Who in AWE International?         (WWAWE)
          http://www.energykitesystems.net/WhoAWE/nominate.html   This tool may be used to enter historical or current information on those who have inputs to the growth AWECS. Recognition will be given by AWEIA International.      The e-book WWAWE will be published by UpperWindpower.   Nominating persons will not be disclosed.   Nominate someone, pehaps yourself!  
  5. Contacts:   We each have our private contact list.  These contacts help us  forward research and development of AWECS.
  6. Yet to gather persons:    AWE industry will have a footprint in nearly every village and city on earth to tap wind for a bit energy by use of tethered aviation technology at some scale from tiny to huge. 

JoeF

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2756 From: dave santos Date: 12/22/2010
Subject: KiteGen (TM)
Ugo,
 
This is general Copyright/Trademark law that holds in much of the world by treaty-
 
Copyright of KiteGen is still your protected property, as the Creator; there is no strict obligation to register a creation. Use as a Trade Mark authorized by the Creator is also automatically protected. If there is any doubt or need, one should publicly assert Copyright & Trademark & can register them. You may therefore still want to claim these rights & assign the name to the KiteGen group. Certainly the whole AWE community will respect & uphold your right. The capitalization we use- "KiteGen", could in theory be the protected version, & "kitegen" be tolerated as an occaisional generic term. As long as KiteGen is actively used in our trade it remains protected there.
 
So you may want to reverse your view that KiteGen should simply be public domain. Its far more useful to all of us for KiteGen to identify the Italian team known by the name,
 
daveS
 
PS Unless you disagree, this note can constitute a public notice that KiteGen is an established Trade Mark of your circle.
 

 
From: Ugo Bardi <ugo.bardi@unifi.it
 

If you allow me a little note on this point, I remember that I had proposed the name "kitegen" to Massimo Ippolito a few years ago. Before, he had called his idea "Kiwigen" ("KIte WInd GENerator) - which sounded like something made in New Zealand or sold in the vegetable market. Ippolito agreed with me and from then on we started using that name. At that time, Mr Fagiano and his coworkers at the Politecnico di Torino probably didn't even know that such a thing as AWE existed.

Unfortunately, neither myself nor Ippolito placed a copyright on the name, so I see now that people are fighting for the rights of the name. Which is all right, after all, what is in a name? That which we call kitegen, by any other name, would fly so nice. Also, a kitegen is a kitegen is a kitegen.....

UB





Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2757 From: Ugo Bardi Date: 12/22/2010
Subject: Re: KiteGen (TM)
Thanks for this note, Dave. Anyway, I think it makes no sense to squabble about the property of the name "Kitegen." The basic elements of the design are protected by patents and, of course, Massimo Ippolito is the man who created it - I just humbly suggested the name which has been used so far.


Ugo


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2758 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 12/22/2010
Subject: Re: KiteGen (TM)

Professor Ugo Bardi,

Kitegen or KiteGen is protected with patents,the name of the website,the name of the company...According to French laws for a trademark (marchio,marque in French language),one criterion is not the novelty like utility patents but the availability.See datas on

Recherche avancée."Kitegen" seems to be available.It is possible laws for other countries are identical.According to international rules (OMPI) under right of priority,after a first application (probably in Italia) you have a delay of 6 months to make applications for other countries without possible oppositions.

Pierre Benhaïem 

 



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2759 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/22/2010
Subject: Re: KiteGen (TM)
2005 Domain name: KITEGEN.COM Created on: 2005-09-09
Registrant Name: SEQUOIA AUTOMATION SRL
========================

Your dated items are invited:
http://www.energykitesystems.net/Timeline/index.html

Thanks,
JoeF
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2760 From: Doug Date: 12/23/2010
Subject: Founders or Flounders? :)
We've all seen the "blooper" film clips of early attempts at flight:
There's the multi-plane with several levels of wings, that folds in half.
And there's that dancing parasol that pumps up and down.
I guess the builders of the pushme-pullyou humping parasol considered themselves founders of flight at the time, what with their reciprocating drag-based cycle and foolproof reasoning, however today we only see this effort as a flounder, as opposed to the work of founders, which most people now agree are the Wright Brothers, following Otto Lilienthal, etc.

Just as it is easy to say today that people worried about global warming will be seen as visionaries in the future, rather than fools, the climate itself will have the last word.
And so it is with pre-naming "founders" of an "industry" ahead of the fact: without a true industry, there can be no founders named yet.
But whatever we are, I'm happy to be one at this point in time.

:)
Doug Selsam
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2761 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/23/2010
Subject: FF-AWECS using two LTA kytoons

No tether to ground:   
The FF-AWECS with two HTA kites  at ends of one tether is one family of tethered aviaiton; see former posts. Here we punctuate Wayne's differential LTA kites on one tether for FF-AWECS:

2010 May: "And my personal life-time's ambition is to make a craft that could fly anywhere by the difference in the velocities in the air at low and high altitudes. The wings could be made to be neutrally buoyant to where one could float at 5000 feet say and the other at 2000 feet."  ~~Wayne German.  Source.    

Free-Flight AWE method here above using two LTA kites on one tether; besides travel, energy excess may be mined turning the flying; the energy could be used in the system for living, entertainment, manufacturing, or power beamed to other aircraft or ground receptors.  This seems to be quite different from the R. Buckminster  simply floating cities.    Look forward to ever-up FF-AWECS being also permanent homes in the sky for some people.  Add solar-energy, swimming pools, aloft airport on the system, ...    No earthquakes felt, no floods, no aloft forest fires, ...            ~~JoeF

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2762 From: Dan Parker Date: 12/24/2010
Subject: Re: FF-AWECS using two LTA kytoons
Hi Joe,
 
           R. Buckminster Fullers floating spheres would need one masterful crew to avoid atmoquakes of wind diffentials, Where is W.A.L.L. E
 
                                                                                                                                                      Dan'l

To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
From: joefaust333@gmail.com
Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2010 01:25:32 +0000
Subject: [AWECS] FF-AWECS using two LTA kytoons

 

No tether to ground:   
The FF-AWECS with two HTA kites  at ends of one tether is one family of tethered aviaiton; see former posts. Here we punctuate Wayne's differential LTA kites on one tether for FF-AWECS:
2010 May: "And my personal life-time's ambition is to make a craft that could fly anywhere by the difference in the velocities in the air at low and high altitudes. The wings could be made to be neutrally buoyant to where one could float at 5000 feet say and the other at 2000 feet."  ~~Wayne German.  Source.    
Free-Flight AWE method here above using two LTA kites on one tether; besides travel, energy excess may be mined turning the flying; the energy could be used in the system for living, entertainment, manufacturing, or power beamed to other aircraft or ground receptors.  This seems to be quite different from the R. Buckminster  simply floating cities.    Look forward to ever-up FF-AWECS being also permanent homes in the sky for some people.  Add solar-energy, swimming pools, aloft airport on the system, ...    No earthquakes felt, no floods, no aloft forest fires, ...            ~~JoeF

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2763 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/24/2010
Subject: Re: FF-AWECS using two LTA kytoons

Wayne would operate the two aircraft at the opposing ends of the free-flight tether so as to sky-sail with tacking techniques; as needed the buoyancy of either kytoon would be adjusted during the driving sailing actions; he would sail at any time to any direction to any place on earth or other planet having atmosphere. Tethered aviation without fossil fuel!  Move as many people or as much material as desired to all points earth or sea.

Wayne's friend has this patent on a slightly different matter where one of the kites is actually a water kite, that is, the hull of the water boat as kite, which click through

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2764 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/24/2010
Subject: Re: FF-AWECS using two LTA kytoons

And Malcolm Phillips invested further to instruct: (click through image):

 

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2765 From: dave santos Date: 12/24/2010
Subject: 1kw "Valentine" AWECS
Some time ago Harry Valentine shared a global needs-assessment & market finding to us for a cheap simple effective 1kw AWECS. This is the precise feasibility window when such a system is workable ahead of the far larger systems to come.
 
So several folks on this list are collaborating on a "component-family" in this market space. Roy Mueller's Aerology Lab is making NAV Markers & NAV-marked (FAA Red/White) parafoils. Pierre's Orthokite is developing a hot piloted-parafoil FEG system. KiteLab Group is doing self-flying variants, with shared components, detail engineering, system integration, & testing. Dimitri has been asked to work on product & market development via the AWE Superstore. Ron of Wind World Kites is set up for supply-chain & customer management. Production, distribution, & customer experience with this "classic" system will inform rapid scaling of continuously improving designs.
 
Lets call the 1kw design space "Valentines", which is a nice name for systems that may really help people.
 
Rough Spec.-

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2766 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/24/2010
Subject: Unwrapped the gift and found ...

The colorful gift wrapping did not give a clue to what was inside the box.
Opening the box came after reading the top note, which read:

"You have been wanting to get outside to do some exercise; and you have a wish
to charge all the batteries around the house. So, I found this item in AWE SuperStore
for you!  You will be able to do some great exercise and fresh air while cooperating
with the wind. You and the wind will charge the many batteries."

Opening the box, here is what was found:
A sand anchor and a platform holding a Sprag clutch shafted to a generator; there was an electronic controller, a charger, and a place to plug in the rechargeable batteries. And a kite with its tether.

And some instrucitons: "Have the tether be set through the clutch as indicated in the diagram; launch the kite; once the kite is stable, sit on the platform and begin the fore and aft motion as pictured. You will be pulling in the kite  and driving the clutch; then you will let the wind pull the line through the clutch even while you resist some; back and forth, back and forth. You will be charging the batteries during the pull stroke; and the wind will be charging the batteries during the let-out stronke. Enjoy. Burn calories. Feel great. Reach better fitness. Reduce your electric bill. Be part of the reductionof fossil fuel use. Let the whole family do the same with this exercise-charging system."

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2767 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/24/2010
Subject: Re: Windlift flight testing recent

 Windlift Testing 3  
Testing of the Windlift Model 8 system performed on December 23, 2010 in Engelhard, North Carolina. The average windspeed during the test was 10 m/s (at 10 m height).

 

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2768 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 12/24/2010
Subject: Re: Windlift flight testing recent

It seems that the recovering phase is about 10 s and the power phase is 25 s.
If one listens, the sound seems that the average sound is higher during recovering phase.
It is also possible during recovering phase that the sound of the motor is high,
because of its speed of spinning; if the torque is low, then the expense energy can be lower.

What is your analysis of this recent test Joe Faust, Dave Santos, Dave Lang, Doug Selsam, Dimitri?

PierreB

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2769 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 12/25/2010
Subject: Re: Windlift flight testing recent
My last post is not maybe clear.
-Recovering phase:about 10 s,high and regular sound;if the torque is low (if during this phase drag of kite is limited) the expense energy is limited,but if not,the expense energy is very high.
-Power phase:the sound is not regular and the average of the sound seems to be lower than the sound during recovering phase.
For a good quality of produced electricity,a smoothing device (flywheel,hydraulic installation,supercapacitors...),is needed to compensate the irregularities of power during power phase,and also the needed energy during recovering phase.However a farm of reel-out could let a diminution of temporary storage,and also the not necessary storage in the case of a perfect global compensation of the two phases.

PierreB  



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2770 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 12/25/2010
Subject: Re: 1kw "Valentine" AWECS
DaveS,

Good idea.

The price of a conventional wind turbine of 1 kw is about 10 times 800$.

For such a price an AWECS with electronic system for automation is not (now) possible.An anchoring is needed because the traction of a 1 kw AWECS can exceed 1500 N.So a manual control is not possible.Two possibilities:manual radio control or passive control.

Methods:
-flygens with light brushless generators:Makani could provide it with propeller.If no,brushless motors for model airplanes can be used if the electronic parts let a use as generator (generally even with a bridge for conversion from AC 3-phases to DC the current is not enough good)
-lever systems:KiteLab',Joe Faust',orthokite systems can be realized with only one machine with little modifications.
-reel-out (in my opinion for greater systems).
-KiteLab' and Joe Faust' systems for passive control (with kitepilot for example) 


Two possible technologies:
- loading batteries (car,laptops,lamps...) with a needed strong current of charge,so batteries of type nimh or lifepo4 are needed for a complete charge with only one hour of flight,at least for dynamic AWECS
- pumping

Applications:
-green battery charger
-energetic autonomy for isolated places
-providing water (in some countries water sources are difficult for access)
-providing energy after some problems 

PierreB

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2771 From: dave santos Date: 12/25/2010
Subject: Re: 1kw "Valentine" AWECS
Pierre,
 
Some more notes-
 
For manual power-flying the control bar is easily connected to a cheap sand anchor, car bumper, etc., so the pilot only feels steering forces.
 
As we already discussed, the self-flying version could be electrically matched (same generator) to the manual version by flying higher &/or using a slightly larger turbine w/ gearing. The manual version needs a surge capacitor or larger battery to smooth power.
 
KiteLab has found FlyGens are favored in small low altitude systems of this size as mechanically simpler, but still a safe mass. Any bigger & the generator starts to be a menace. Any higher & the conductive tether grows too lossy & heavy. Crash padding & maybe even a (passive) safety-parachute is added to the generator to make it safer overhead.
 
Lever/reel systems are favored where the direct mechanical work is a better fit, or the mass of the generator would be too dangerous to fly over people. A 5-10kw system to follow would best make the switch.
 
daveS
 

 
From: Pierre BENHAIEM <pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr
 

DaveS,

Good idea.

The price of a conventional wind turbine of 1 kw is about 10 times 800$.

For such a price an AWECS with electronic system for automation is not (now) possible.An anchoring is needed because the traction of a 1 kw AWECS can exceed 1500 N.So a manual control is not possible.Two possibilities:manual radio control or passive control.

Methods:
-flygens with light brushless generators:Makani could provide it with propeller.If no,brushless motors for model airplanes can be used if the electronic parts let a use as generator (generally even with a bridge for conversion from AC 3-phases to DC the current is not enough good)
-lever systems:KiteLab',Joe Faust',orthokite systems can be realized with only one machine with little modifications.
-reel-out (in my opinion for greater systems).
-KiteLab' and Joe Faust' systems for passive control (with kitepilot for example) 


Two possible technologies:
- loading batteries (car,laptops,lamps...) with a needed strong current of charge,so batteries of type nimh or lifepo4 are needed for a complete charge with only one hour of flight,at least for dynamic AWECS
- pumping

Applications:
-green battery charger
-energetic autonomy for isolated places
-providing water (in some countries water sources are difficult for access)
-providing energy after some problems 

PierreB


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2772 From: dave santos Date: 12/25/2010
Subject: Re: Windlift flight testing recent
Pierre,
 
You are right that it seems there is a lot of loss in the recovery phase. The kite does not seem to be greatly depowering & fast winching-in is a very energetic drain. Its also very counterproductive to give up so much ground downwind for lack of lower gearing & from a airspace/footprint considerations. I thought from the earlier video that this Model-8 extracted power from a sprag in the base, as the short-lined kite fundamental harmonic was well tuned to the turret harmonic, but now, on long-lines, it seems the undamped turret is just thrashing around & needs either a dash-pot or a new geometry (fairleads set closer to turret axis).
 
Its been learned that the funding for WindLift is US Afgan War "Hearts & Minds" money. What a far-fetched idea, that one might help win a PR war by giving away expensive tricky bleeding-edge systems like this to remote villages, which would then be expected to somehow sustain operations culturally, economically, & technically. Clearly solar panels are a far more practical gift for sunny rural Afganistan.
 
So the list of US Govt. AWE funding to date- DoD/WindLift- 1 million USD, NASA Study- 100,000, DOE/Makani- 3 million. This a clearly a poorly-prioritized & uncoordinated set of efforts, but there will still be good lessons, especially from mistakes that need never be repeated,
 
daveS

From: Pierre BENHAIEM <pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr
 

It seems that the recovering phase is about 10 s and the power phase is 25 s.
If one listens, the sound seems that the average sound is higher during recovering phase.
It is also possible during recovering phase that the sound of the motor is high,
because of its speed of spinning; if the torque is low, then the expense energy can be lower.

What is your analysis of this recent test Joe Faust, Dave Santos, Dave Lang, Doug Selsam, Dimitri?

PierreB




Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2773 From: Massimo Date: 12/25/2010
Subject: Re: KiteGen (TM)
I confirm everything,
we have registered:
KITE GEN
KITE GEN CAROUSEL
KITE GEN STEM

the name "KiteGen" was suggested by Ugo Bardi during an e-mail exchange in 2005.
here follow the:
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: KITEGEN
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 13:10:20 +0100
From: Ugo Bardi <ugo.bardi@xxxxxx.it To: Massimo Ippolito <mippo@xxxxxx.it
Un'altra cosa. Rimango dell'opinione che "Kiwi" ricorda un frutto
neozelandese e che potrebbe dare origine a delle associazioni di idee fuori tema, specialmente per il lettore di linqua inglese che arriva sul concetto per la prima volta.

Comunque, dopo averci pensato un po',forse l'idea di parlare di "vele" non è appropriata. Sono aquiloni e chiamiamoli così. Io però introdurrei nel nome il concetto di "power" che mi sembra appropriato per quello che la macchina vuol fare. Ovvero, parlerei di "Kite Power Generator", dove il concetto di "kite" già implica l'idea di "vento" e quindi non c'è bisogno di dirlo esplicitamente. A questo punto, possiamo scegliere diversi acronimi, "KiteGen". oppure "Kite Power", o anche "KitePowerGen". "KiteGen" mi sembra ottimo: compatto e rende subito l'idea di che cosa si parla.
Volendo, si puo' dire anche KPG, che suona molto meglio di KWG.

Non so, che cosa ne dici?
CIao
Ugo


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2774 From: Ugo Bardi Date: 12/26/2010
Subject: Re: KiteGen (TM)
Oh, well, you see here history being made!!

U.



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2775 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/26/2010
Subject: K1, K2, K3

Rough draft:

  •  K1  Kiting giving birth to flight from early ages to Wright Brothers' kiting.
     
  • K2  Jalbert, Allison, Wanner, Rogallo, Barish, Paresev, towed manned kiting,  traction sports, kiting festivals
     
  • K3  The space race Sputnik-(1957)-charged introduced a synergy that resulted in increased manned kiting activity by NASA and associated companies and individuals, including hgh-speed moving moorings of tethered lifting bodies. This brought in a run of patents over the Wanner wing, Rogallo wing, Barish sailwing, Jalbert parafoil, and many versions of  what was then termed paraglider which wrapped flexible sail over frames (unlike the later use of the term paraglider). The free=flight governable parachutes increased in importance. The severe kiting in the Paresev program included release-for-glide weight-shift control (move payload mass relative to attitude of wing). Such kiting gave impetus to expanding uses of large kites, both with moving moorings and free-flight kites. Children of such investments and experience may be seen in the surge of hang gliding, traction-kiting sports, the 1970s AWECS bump, and even much of 2000s professional AWECS race. It may be said that a huge new golden age of kiting K2 was birthed by the communications of Domina C. Jalbert and Francis M. Rogallo moved along by political pressures and competitions punctuated with the need for freedom expressed in recreational manned kiting found in Igor Bensen, aqua-kiting, hang gliding, and gliding sky-diving. It is suspected that K2 will blossom to be a diamond Age of Tethered Aviation that will be perhaps a deserving winner of the K3 name; founders of K3 will be viewable in part in the AWEIA international's coming Founder's Circle collection of over 400 persons,  certainly less than the full community that will expand to tens of thousands.    The neat thing is that K1 and K2 remain alive and well even while K3 is being nursed by centers in  Belgium, Ireland, England, Netherlands, Russia, China, USA, Nigeria, Germany, France, Mexico, Italy, Spain, Japan, Korea,  and more ...
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2776 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/26/2010
Subject: Re: Early Investor's Guide to Gigawatt-Scale AWE
PR firms gradually get some AWECS calls: TigerComm in 2010: In their
own words on Dec. 24, 2010: "Tigercomm, a market-leading cleantech PR
firm," ... and "In 2010, the company also added clients such as the
Clean Economy Development Center, a cleantech deal incubator; top global
PV module maker Trina Solar; two organizations focused on expanding the
energy efficiency market; and Joby Energy, a high-altitude wind turbine
company." Such flows probably bring on a long series of PR spots where
one finds not link to http://EnergyKiteSystems.net where a fair
spectrum of options are launched. Perhaps pause for a special prayer
for 2011 investors that they may profoundly explore AWECS and decide
well where to place funds. JoeF
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2777 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/26/2010
Subject: Giancarlo Zanetti

Application in process:

Giancarlo Zanetti

http://energykitesystems.net/Zanetti/WO2010015720A2.pdf

Inventor/Applicant: Zanetti, Giancarlo
Priority data: 8 August 2008.
International filing date: 7 August 2009.
International Applicaiton Number: PCT/EP2009/060311

My notes:
Specialized pumping or Yo-yo method ...   "Active" phase and costing or "passive" phase.  Study has not been done to find what novelty the application might hold.  Others are welcome to discuss Zanetti's application.

My tip for the application was a link in an article:  NASA studies issues for very high altitude wind power generation and the latest on Kitegen's 3 MW prototype    Monday, December 20, 2010 12:23  where the author missed the opportunity to lead readers to the AWECS community generally. TWIND and KiteGen and NASA  received some play.   http://www.twind.eu/en/basis.php  has art that seems repeatly in part in the subject application.   Yes, there is a tight association with TWIND on the applicaiton.  So, the team is consideration several versions of Yo-yo methods.     

Related:
http://www.zanettistudio.com/business/site/index.php 

http://www.zanettistudio.com/business/site/index.php?page=contatti

JoeF

 


 

 

 

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2778 From: dave santos Date: 12/26/2010
Subject: Tigercomm's Joby PR (Pay-to-play (Privatized) Airspace v Airspace Ne

 Joe,

I changed the topic heading as Joby's concept for a jumbo-aerobatic E-flight/multi-flygen VTOL platform is not a promising gigawatt-scale AWE play compared to the far more scalable ideas. 

The news is how Tigercomm is distorting policymaker's perception of the entire AWE field in favor of one player's biz plan, Joby Energy. Joby's desperate notion to privatize for itself blocs of restricted airspace was swatted down by the FAA. KiteLab Group's informal polling of aviation stakeholders found no support for the idea. NASA even explicitly rejects the idea in a Draft ConOps. A full scale revolt by major aviation stakeholders would rise up against the entire AWE field if it became associated with privatized airspace. But greenwash lobbyists can still make a mess of the issue, if they keep at it with VC millions & pay-to-play ethics. Its up to those who understand aviation culture's ability to design safe shared airspace (Airspace Commons, "Airspace Neutrality") to counter Tigercomm's poorly informed behind-the-scenes machinations.

Joby Energy ongoingly declines to respond to KiteLab's questions about this & related AWE stakeholder issues,

daveS

From Tigercomm's website-

Getting Policymakers’ Attention

Joby Energy

The Challenge: Joby Energy was in the process of developing a visionary, high-altitude wind generation technology. The company was at a critical stage in its development. Founder and CEO JoeBen Bevirt sought government support for his cutting-edge technology, which requires restricted airspace within which to operate. Joby Energy chose Tigercomm to help it educate federal legislators and regulatory agency officials about the game-changing energy potential of high-altitude wind.

 

Tigercomm responded by:

  • Mapping the universe of government officials critical to the company’s success. Selecting and coordinating the work of a specialist government regulations firm to further Joby Energy’s business objectives.
  • Developing the communications and legislative plan to engage those policy makers.
  • Securing and staffing three briefing tours for JoeBen with decision makers at influential national media outlets, trade publications and research institutions – such as the Electric Power Research Institute.
  • Preparing JoeBen for a presentation before the U.S. House Renewable Energy & Energy Efficiency Caucus, including review of a slide deck and handouts to ensure message consistency. 
  • Reviewing and developing web content, while providing support and counsel in expanding the company’s online presence.

Results:

JoeBen was interviewed by CleanSkiesTV, and Joby Energy’s technology was mentioned in an E&E News’ ClimateWire story on the airborne wind industry, among other relevant trade publications. We also arranged face-to-face meetings with leading national energy outlets including Platts and The Energy Daily to build awareness of the company and its technology.
 
 

From: Joe Faust <joefaust333@gmail.com
 

PR firms gradually get some AWECS calls: TigerComm in 2010: In their
own words on Dec. 24, 2010: "Tigercomm, a market-leading cleantech PR
firm," ... and "In 2010, the company also added clients such as the
Clean Economy Development Center, a cleantech deal incubator; top global
PV module maker Trina Solar; two organizations focused on expanding the
energy efficiency market; and Joby Energy, a high-altitude wind turbine
company." Such flows probably bring on a long series of PR spots where
one finds not link to http://EnergyKiteSystems.net where a fair
spectrum of options are launched. Perhaps pause for a special prayer
for 2011 investors that they may profoundly explore AWECS and decide
well where to place funds. JoeF




Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2779 From: dave santos Date: 12/27/2010
Subject: AWE Airspace Excise Taxes & User Fees
 
Airspace is by tradition a Public Commons. There is great reluctance on the part of existing stakeholders to allow privatizing the resource as Joby Energy proposes. As an alternative, KiteLab Group suggests utility-scale AWE operations can best contribute to shared airspace by paying Excise Taxes on energy extracted & maybe even special Airspace User Fees.  Small scale AWE operating at low altitudes would be mostly exempted. These charges can offset FAA oversight costs, pay for NextGen infrastructure, & guarantee liability performance. The AWE industry might gain quick acceptance by subsidizing common airspace infrastructure benefiting all aviation stakeholders.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2780 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/28/2010
Subject: Free-flying balloons in planetary atmospheres

A free flying balloon moves with the flow, except when the balloon is rising for falling when not neutrally  buoyant.  In the fully neutral mode, wind turbines won't develop torque. However, during the rise and fall mode, a net wind occurs and wind turbines could generate some electricity. If the balloon was interacting chemically, photochemically, or photo-voltaically in a manner to cause buoyancy rise and fall alternatively, then perhaps the apparent wind could be used in some onboard AWECS.      Why this note?  Just came across a visionary: Graham Dorrington of the University of London in a short post: Up, Up, and Away: Exploring Titan by Balloon .    

http://www.eng.qmul.ac.uk/staff/staff.php?g.dorrington

Not sure if the note on onboard wind turbines respected the primary neutral zone of no effect for wind turbines.     Am I missing something?  Is he?  Or what?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2781 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/28/2010
Subject: Re: AWE Airspace Excise Taxes & User Fees

Towers cornering private property set up shield zone.  Responsibility to keep towers with navigation hazard lights, etc. persist.    Consider flying a kite while enjoying Singapore's SkyPark:

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/AirborneWindEnergy/links/Skypark_001293558585/

Every aircraft takes up  airspace while flying.   The total volume of airspace is time based; first here, then there, then there, then there; the total flight might be computed as hazard volume multiplied by the time of flight. VxT.      An AWECS does not travel far, if ground tethered sort, but it persists in time. We can be good neighbors; we all just need to know where one is Now.   Pay no excise tax; every user of airspace is costing others some immediate airspace. Passengers from LAX to London are using elemental airspace volume times the distance traveled; the VT is large.     The moving aircraft from LAX to London takes careful governance and watch. The relatively static AWECS  will cost less governance inasmuch as one can know that its block of airspace is THERE; and that the THERE does not move all that much.    Energy makers or passengers ...we will all be reaching for common benefits. The AWECS will not be sitting in the inverted airport wedding cakes, but off to the side.

JoeF 

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2782 From: Bob Stuart Date: 12/28/2010
Subject: Re: Free-flying balloons in planetary atmospheres
Unless there's a note about kite generators and layered winds, I'd guess that He is missing something.  It is not unusual to see artistic illustrations of balloon- borne people with scarves flying, or of sailing ships with square sails bellied out forward, while the pennants stream merrily back.  A century ago, they at least got that right.  

Bob

On 28-Dec-10, at 10:58 AM, Joe Faust wrote:


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2783 From: dave santos Date: 12/28/2010
Subject: Re: AWE Airspace Excise Taxes & User Fees
Joe,
 
It might be tempting to declare AWE airspace a tax-free resource, as in a far-right dream, but this only benefits owners of AWECS, without mitigating general losses or contributing prosperity to society as a whole. Aviation & energy production are wealthy clubs & well afford to pay existing taxes on vast profits. So the poor citizen, who does not fly or own aircraft, but has a citizen's birth-right to the airspace commons, might have their child attend school or enjoy cheaper healthcare partially subsidized by AWE excise taxes. What if the difference between a collapse of social services, & even civilization itself, or an era of sustainable prosperity for all is an equitable AWE Excise Tax? How better should NextGen costs, FAA oversight, & ongoing public AWE R & D be funded?
 
All mature energy sources have excise taxes (5% of producer's selling price typical), otherwise producing regions are simply looted, with environmental & social devastation. Any environmental downsides to AWE can be mitigated from taxes levied. One AWE side-effect is that intensive low altitude operations will create local rain & rain-shadows in patterns that leave some farmers harmed. Excise tax compensation can mitigate such takings. A wrongful death these days can cost around ten million USD & there is no AWE liability insurance available. The insurability guaranteed by an excise endowed fund can ensure that a financially weak AWE player in a freak-accident (even an unkown failure-mode) event does not leave victims or families uncompensated.
 
Watch the oft-cited barriers to AWE acceptance by pilot, FAA, & NIMBY (not-in-my-back-yard) forces evaporate when they see a rich new tax base emerge that more than offset all negatives.
daveS
 
PS Its Aispace User Fees that is the toxic idea to existing aviation, so banning these fees in favor of excise subsidy can be a bargaining point.
 
 
 

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2784 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/28/2010
Subject: Re: AWE Airspace Excise Taxes & User Fees
Admitted: That was my superficial glance: "as in a far-right dream"
...and thanks for the rich set of parameters to carefully consider.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 2785 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/29/2010
Subject: Ted Talk.... Ampyx Power