Messages in AirborneWindEnergy group.                  AWES27550to27599
Page 1 of 1.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27550 From: Joe Faust Date: 7/17/2019
Subject: Re: Predictions for the AWE branch of utility electrical generation

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27551 From: benhaiemp Date: 7/17/2019
Subject: The power consumption as the Magnus Effect Balloon or the Sharp roto

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27552 From: Joe Faust Date: 7/17/2019
Subject: Re: AWE Airborne Wind Energy --- multi-branched

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27553 From: benhaiemp Date: 7/17/2019
Subject: Re: AWE Airborne Wind Energy --- multi-branched

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27554 From: Santos Date: 7/17/2019
Subject: Re: Predictions for the AWE branch of utility electrical generation

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27555 From: Santos Date: 7/17/2019
Subject: Re: AWE Airborne Wind Energy --- multi-branched

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27556 From: benhaiemp Date: 7/17/2019
Subject: Re: AWE Airborne Wind Energy --- multi-branched

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27557 From: benhaiemp Date: 7/17/2019
Subject: Re: Predictions for the AWE branch of utility electrical generation

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27558 From: Santos Date: 7/17/2019
Subject: Re: AWE Airborne Wind Energy --- multi-branched

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27559 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 7/17/2019
Subject: Re: AWE Airborne Wind Energy --- multi-branched

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27560 From: Peter Sharp Date: 7/17/2019
Subject: Re: The power consumption as the Magnus Effect Balloon or the Sharp

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27561 From: Santos Date: 7/17/2019
Subject: Re: AWE Airborne Wind Energy --- multi-branched

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27562 From: benhaiemp Date: 7/17/2019
Subject: Re: AWE Airborne Wind Energy --- multi-branched

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27563 From: Joe Faust Date: 7/17/2019
Subject: Olivier NORMAND for KiteWinder

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27564 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 7/17/2019
Subject: Re: AWE Airborne Wind Energy --- multi-branched

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27565 From: benhaiemp Date: 7/17/2019
Subject: Re: AWE Airborne Wind Energy --- multi-branched

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27566 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 7/17/2019
Subject: Re: AWE Airborne Wind Energy --- multi-branched

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27567 From: dougselsam Date: 7/17/2019
Subject: Re: AWE Airborne Wind Energy --- multi-branched

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27568 From: benhaiemp Date: 7/17/2019
Subject: Re: AWE Airborne Wind Energy --- multi-branched

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27569 From: Joe Faust Date: 7/17/2019
Subject: WESC 2019 with 18 AWE presentations

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27570 From: dave santos Date: 7/17/2019
Subject: Re: AWE Airborne Wind Energy --- multi-branched

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27571 From: dougselsam Date: 7/17/2019
Subject: Re: AWE Airborne Wind Energy --- multi-branched

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27572 From: Santos Date: 7/17/2019
Subject: Re: AWE Airborne Wind Energy --- multi-branched

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27573 From: dougselsam Date: 7/17/2019
Subject: Re: AWE Airborne Wind Energy --- multi-branched

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27574 From: dougselsam Date: 7/17/2019
Subject: Re: AWE Airborne Wind Energy --- multi-branched

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27575 From: Santos Date: 7/17/2019
Subject: Re: AWE Airborne Wind Energy --- multi-branched

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27576 From: Santos Date: 7/17/2019
Subject: Re: AWE Airborne Wind Energy --- multi-branched

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27577 From: dougselsam Date: 7/17/2019
Subject: Re: AWE Airborne Wind Energy --- multi-branched

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27578 From: dougselsam Date: 7/17/2019
Subject: Big Bear from 15,000+ feet - pic

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27579 From: dougselsam Date: 7/17/2019
Subject: Re: Big Bear from 15,000+ feet - pic

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27580 From: Joe Faust Date: 7/17/2019
Subject: Re: AWE Airborne Wind Energy --- multi-branched

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27581 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 7/17/2019
Subject: Re: WESC 2019 with 18 AWE presentations

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27582 From: Joe Faust Date: 7/17/2019
Subject: Re: Big Bear from 15,000+ feet - pic

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27583 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 7/17/2019
Subject: An Iterative Learning Approach for Online Flight Path Optimization f

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27584 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 7/17/2019
Subject: A Path-Following Guidance Method for Airborne Wind Energy Systems wi

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27585 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 7/17/2019
Subject: Control of Vertical Take Off, Dynamic Flight and Landing of Hybrid D

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27586 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 7/17/2019
Subject: Flight Test Verification of a Rigid Wing Airborne Wind Energy System

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27587 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 7/17/2019
Subject: Locally Power-Optimal Nonlinear Model Predictive Control for Fixed-W

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27588 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 7/17/2019
Subject: On Wind Speed Sensor Configurations and Altitude Control in Airborne

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27589 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 7/17/2019
Subject: Wind Profile Classes for AWE Production Estimation

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27590 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 7/17/2019
Subject: Power Transmission for Rotary Airborne Wind Energy Systems

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27591 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 7/17/2019
Subject: Wake Interaction in a Farm of AWES using Large-Eddy Simulation

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27592 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 7/17/2019
Subject: Kitemill: from minutes to hours of autonomous operation

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27593 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 7/17/2019
Subject: Autogyro kite networks with torque transfer to ground-based gener

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27594 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 7/17/2019
Subject: AWES Trajectory Optimization using Ten-minute Wind Speed Profi ...

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27595 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 7/17/2019
Subject: The value of AWE in zero-emission electricity systems

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27596 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 7/17/2019
Subject: Aeroelastic CFD-FEM Study of a Kite for Power Generation

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27597 From: dougselsam Date: 7/17/2019
Subject: Re: AWE Airborne Wind Energy --- multi-branched

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27598 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 7/17/2019
Subject: Development of a Quadplane Airborne Wind Energy Demonstrator

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27599 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 7/17/2019
Subject: A Student-Driven Airborne Wind Energy Competition




Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27550 From: Joe Faust Date: 7/17/2019
Subject: Re: Predictions for the AWE branch of utility electrical generation
1. This topic thread is dedicated to prognostication for a branch of AWE that focuses on electrical generation that aims to supply electricity to electrical grids that would serve villages, or cities at levels that could be defined by those concerned. 

2. Who cares about predictions in this branch of AWE?  That question could form another separate topic; anyone is free to start such a topic.

3. We may start a topic for predictions over any branch of AWE or any sub branch or any aspect of AWE. 

4. Ask DaveS what branch of AWE is the focus of his predictions.  Then respecting his arena, consider in an appropriate topic some commentary; or open your own arena of defined predicting.  Without clearly knowing the domain of a comment, then the range may remain unclear. As some branches of AWE are right now robustly having serving product, then my guess DaveS had a special domain in focus other than the branches that are right now robust in service.

5. Why is any branch of AWE important?  A new separate topic may be started to face such a question over any specific AWE branch.  You may start a topic thread over Utility Electrical Generation by AWE as to its importance. Such matter does not fit the present topic.

Do you have any predictions fitting the present topic?



On Tue, Jul 16, 2019, 11:33 PM pierre-benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy] <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 

Who does care? Is "the branch of AWE" called "utility electrical generation" specifically important? And why?

What about the other
branches?
DaveS made a prediction for AWE success in 2030. But this prediction doesn't work.  Are you hoping this prediction will work better with branches?


Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (2)
AWES   Airborne Wind Energy Systems
Kite-energy systems at work .
Kited energy drones at work.
...

SPONSORED LINKS
.

__,_.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27551 From: benhaiemp Date: 7/17/2019
Subject: The power consumption as the Magnus Effect Balloon or the Sharp roto

Hi PeterS,


My observations and my question concerns the power consumption of AWES based on Magnus effect but also the Sharp rotor as they scale.


To begin some informations:

  • The chapter 12 of the AWEbook 2018 mentions in page 290 that experiments with a small-scale system (Magnus rotor radius = 0.047 m and length = 0.45 m) the motor power consumption " is much larger than the power produced by the system due, among others, to the significant effect of frictions. For larger scale systems, frictions become less important compared to aerodynamic forces." 



  • “Low C for the High Seas Flettner rotor power contribution on a route Brazil to UK Figure 1: One of the first rotor ships, the Buckau (left), and the present-day rotor ship E-Ship 1 (right) Source: wikipedia.org (accessed on 10 August 2012, right photo by Carschten). The Flettner rotor modeled here is 35 m tall and 5 m in diameter. Key to its aerodynamic performance are the lift, drag, and moment coefficients, respectively. They determine the lift force l, the drag force d, and the power pME that is needed to drive the rotor.The rotational speed ratio is set to α=3.5. The aerodynamical coefficients are set to cL=12.5, cD=0.2, and cM=0.2, respectively.

So for Magnus large scale systems the power consumption ratio would be relatively lesser.

Can we deduce the same for the Sharp rotor? A Sharp rotor of the roughly same diameter as the small Magnus cylinder (0.1 m) described above rotates in spite of expected more power consumption due to its small scale. That means a large Sharp rotor would have a higher efficiency thanks to a relatively lesser power consumption as self-rotating system as it scales up?

Thanks for your reply. If I am not clear enough I will reformulate the question.


PierreB 


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27552 From: Joe Faust Date: 7/17/2019
Subject: Re: AWE Airborne Wind Energy --- multi-branched
What are some branches of AWE?  There are very many. Count sub branches as branches to get even more for possible defining. Some branches may be identified by the good practical work intended.  Others may be delimited by the form of energy dominating the conversion of wind's energy: sound, potential, light, static electricity, heat, utility electricity, ...   Name the branch pertinent to one's comment to help clarity with audience. 


On Tue, Jul 16, 2019, 11:23 PM pierre-benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy] <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 

So by predicting AWE success in 2030 Dave is wrong a time more by changing what he called as AWE AFTER he was taught that his "prediction" was not consistent. Moreover now he didn't precise what he calls as a AWE branch, what are the other branches. Perhaps he confuses AWE with a tree. In this case precision about leaves and fruits would be welcome.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27553 From: benhaiemp Date: 7/17/2019
Subject: Re: AWE Airborne Wind Energy --- multi-branched
AWE has no branch. AWE is only airborne wind energy. And the purpose of wind energy is electricity generation.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27554 From: Santos Date: 7/17/2019
Subject: Re: Predictions for the AWE branch of utility electrical generation
Pierre, get the facts right. WoW did not misuse the two power kite data points to make a third power kite data prediction. The two branches are of the same tree. 

Try and design any better prediction logic rather than complain about one you do not understand.

It's the best prediction the data allowed. Very cool.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27555 From: Santos Date: 7/17/2019
Subject: Re: AWE Airborne Wind Energy --- multi-branched
Pierre, The prediction stands, you don't have to like it. Carlo understood it. No one but you is unhappy. You did not complain in 2011.

Do better if you can. Use whatever data you think better. Your complaint cannot change the past.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27556 From: benhaiemp Date: 7/17/2019
Subject: Re: AWE Airborne Wind Energy --- multi-branched
Dave,

If your AWE prediction stands for 2030, that means you don't see kite surf and kite ship as AWE because they already exist as I repeat. 
So welcome to AWE community.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27557 From: benhaiemp Date: 7/17/2019
Subject: Re: Predictions for the AWE branch of utility electrical generation
Dave,

If your AWE prediction stands for 2030, that means you don't see kite surf and kite ship as AWES in spite of they use power kite. 
Now I try a better prediction: in 11 years we will be in 2030.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27558 From: Santos Date: 7/17/2019
Subject: Re: AWE Airborne Wind Energy --- multi-branched
Your logic does not seem to invalidate WoW's analysis, but go ahead and do better yourself than WoW's curve aiming at 2030. Give Carlo credit too. Great engineer, deserves praise here.

What data and calculation will you use?
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27559 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 7/17/2019
Subject: Re: AWE Airborne Wind Energy --- multi-branched
Pierre, you are, of course, free to frame your universe any way that you wish.  
Others have the same freedom.  

You are free to hold that wind energy is only about making electricity. 
Others are free to hold that wind energy may be about pushing, pulling, lifting, making noise, pounding, grinding, hammering, transporting, moving, making hydrogen, plowing, saving the spending of fuels, generating light, generating heat, etc. 

And others are free to see that airborne wind energy has compartments, sectors, or branches that specialize in converting wind's kinetic energy to rotations and translations that solve practical human problems and needs. Electricity generation by an airborne wind energy AWE system is a high focus by many AWE workers; pulling hulls and other items is another sector or branch that has a robust following.   And lessons in one AWE sector or branch have been found to sometimes assist other sectors of AWE. 


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27560 From: Peter Sharp Date: 7/17/2019
Subject: Re: The power consumption as the Magnus Effect Balloon or the Sharp
Attachments :

    Hi PierreB,

    Your assumption that the Sharp Rotor, when driven at a high spin ratio by a motor, would require relatively less power as it gets larger – as is claimed for a Magnus cylinder – is probably true.

    However, there are two additional considerations. First, it takes a little more power to spin a Sharp Rotor at a high spin ratio than it takes for a Magnus cylinder. That is due to its “rougher” surface and larger surface area. Second, the Sharp Rotor requires no power up to a spin ratio of about 1. So the power to spin it faster than a spin ratio of 1 will equal the power required to spin a Magnus cylinder at a spin ratio somewhere between a spin ratio of 1 and 2. Then it will require more power than a Magnus cylinder beyond that crossover spin ratio.

    The same amount of total lift can be produced by using a much larger Sharp Rotor that is auto rotating, compared to a smaller Magnus cylinder. And there would be no need for a motor to spin the Sharp Rotor, so there would be no need for the extra weight, added complexity and danger of using electrical transmission wires.

    Consequently, it is not clear which type of rotor would be cheaper to build in order to produce the same amount of lift. For example, it might be roughly the same cost to build and fly 6 Sharp Rotors as to build and fly one Magnus cylinder. But complicated calculations will be required to make that determination, and the requisite information is not yet available.

    PeterS

     

    From: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com]
    Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2019 12:54 AM
    To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
    Subject: [AWES] The power consumption as the Magnus Effect Balloon or the Sharp rotor scales up

     

     

    Hi PeterS,

     

    My observations and my question concerns the power consumption of AWES based on Magnus effect but also the Sharp rotor as they scale.



    To begin some informations:

    • The chapter 12 of the AWEbook 2018 mentions in page 290 that experiments with a small-scale system (Magnus rotor radius = 0.047 m and length = 0.45 m) the motor power consumption " is much larger than the power produced by the system due, among others, to the significant effect of frictions. For larger scale systems, frictions become less important compared to aerodynamic forces." 

     



    • “Low C for the High Seas Flettner rotor power contribution on a route Brazil to UK Figure 1: One of the first rotor ships, the Buckau (left), and the present-day rotor ship E-Ship 1 (right) Source: wikipedia.org (accessed on 10 August 2012, right photo by Carschten). The Flettner rotor modeled here is 35 m tall and 5 m in diameter. Key to its aerodynamic performance are the lift, drag, and moment coefficients, respectively. They determine the lift force l, the drag force d, and the power pME that is needed to drive the rotor.The rotational speed ratio is set to α=3.5. The aerodynamical coefficients are set to cL=12.5, cD=0.2, and cM=0.2, respectively.”

    So for Magnus large scale systems the power consumption ratio would be relatively lesser.

    Can we deduce the same for the Sharp rotor? A Sharp rotor of the roughly same diameter as the small Magnus cylinder (0.1 m) described above rotates in spite of expected more power consumption due to its small scale. That means a large Sharp rotor would have a higher efficiency thanks to a relatively lesser power consumption as self-rotating system as it scales up?

    Thanks for your reply. If I am not clear enough I will reformulate the question.



    PierreB 

     

    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27561 From: Santos Date: 7/17/2019
    Subject: Re: AWE Airborne Wind Energy --- multi-branched
    What Pierre seems to miss is how shared dynamics of small and large power kites allowed their averaged numbers to serve as the best available predictive data for future industrialization timeframe.

    Carlo clearly understood. Let Pierre show how the 2011 effort can be redone better now.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27562 From: benhaiemp Date: 7/17/2019
    Subject: Re: AWE Airborne Wind Energy --- multi-branched
    Joe, 

    I see you try to help Dave because of his AWE prediction for 2030, while kite surf and kite ship already exist, as I repeated numerous times. So Dave doesn't consider kite surf and kite ship as AWES.  I salute your efforts although they are in vain. Indeed Dave agrees with me for how he sees kite surf and kite ship out of AWE field.


    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27563 From: Joe Faust Date: 7/17/2019
    Subject: Olivier NORMAND for KiteWinder
    Olivier NORMAND
    ==========================

    Olivier Normand - Kitewinder / #ForumCroissanceVerte
    video in French
    Caption: 
    "En déambulation dans le salon, certains entrepreneurs sont venus présenter leur activité et leur projet.
    Découvrez l'activité de Kitewinder, présentée par Olivier Normand."

    Google translation: 
    "While walking in the lounge, some entrepreneurs came to present their activity and their project.
    Discover the activity of Kitewinder, presented by Olivier Normand."

    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27564 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 7/17/2019
    Subject: Re: AWE Airborne Wind Energy --- multi-branched
    Pierre, 
           In all of the discourse, it puzzles me how you seem to miss that DaveS historically does consider kite ship and kite surf as sectors of AWE.    My take was that the 2030 prediction in context was speaking to utility scale for electric generation and that demonstrated power achievements by kite systems formed points over which extrapolation may occur in order to guess at how things for utility-scale electric generation might occur in actual industrialization.    Maybe needed was simply a clarification of context   in order to have mutual understanding about the prediction. 
        
         Of course, anyone is free to make a prediction about AWE for all its sectors/branches or for any one specific branch/sector.   We await your announced predictions about something; I am guessing your prediction will be about the status of in-place utility-scale electric generation for the year 2020 or 2021 or 2030 or 2050.  Not sure. Maybe your prediction will focus just on flygen AWES in utility-scale electric generation; not sure.  You are free to define the domain of your prediction when you publish or post your predictions. 
     

    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27565 From: benhaiemp Date: 7/17/2019
    Subject: Re: AWE Airborne Wind Energy --- multi-branched
    1. Dave's prediction: AWE success in 2030
    2. But kite ship and kite surf already exist and succeed
    3. So kite ship and kite surf are not AWE, or the prediction doesn't stand 
    Joe and Dave seem miss the fundamentals of logic.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27566 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 7/17/2019
    Subject: Re: AWE Airborne Wind Energy --- multi-branched
    Or Pierre may be unforgivingly missing a context that might have been helped with a tiny bit of clarification as to the branch of AWE intended for the prediction.  Our forum has been saturated with an understanding that the branch of AWE called kite surf is now running wildly robust in product and participation; such could give clue that the context and target of the prediction was about AWE for industrial utility-scale industrialization.  Has the clarification been made so that peace may reign in AWE chambers?

    Perhaps a different logic: 
    1. Someone predicted that a sector of AWE would be noticeably successful in 2030. 
    2. We know kite ship and kite surf already exist at a success level that is awesome. 
    3. So, kite ship and kite surf are AWE sectors, and the 2030 prediction is on record in context for utility-scale electrical generation. 
    4. And we may rest in peace that context and intention matter; we can get through this discourse struggle. 


    ---In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, <pierre-benhaiem@orange.fr> wrote :

    1. Dave's prediction: AWE success in 2030
    2. But kite ship and kite surf already exist and succeed
    3. So kite ship and kite surf are not AWE, or the prediction doesn't stand 
    Joe and Dave seem miss the fundamentals of logic.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27567 From: dougselsam Date: 7/17/2019
    Subject: Re: AWE Airborne Wind Energy --- multi-branched
    Joe what you're doing is degenerating language, deconstructing the very term you two claim to have coined for generating electricity from the wind. 

    If wiggling leaves on trees, taking a nap under a tarp attached to a house, using kites for hanging fishing-hooks, flying kites in general, hang-gliding, soaring in engineless gliders, routing of aircraft to minimize fuel consumption, kite-photography, placing a string across a river in past centuries, then there would have been no purpose for a High Altitude Wind Power Conference in 2009.  If flying a toy kite were "wind energy" why do we not find kids flying kites when we look up "wind energy"?  Same with kite-fishing.  If strategic routing of aircraft to save minimize fuel consumption  "is" "wind energy", why do we not find such statistic included in the total statistics on wind energy generated?

    What you two are doing is not very clever.  It's "fake clever".  It's confusing words with reality.  It's a practice as old as the hills: when you have nothing to offer, try to adjust words, or completely destroy (deconstruct) words, even words you claim to have coined yourself, to pretend you do have solutions.  Finding real solutions requires two (3) skills which you two do NOT have:

    1) the required understanding;
    2) the required creativity;
    3) the required skills.

    You two have none of these necessary characteristics.  You cannot build anything that produces any power, you have no workable ideas directed thereto, and if you did, you do not possess the skills to build and run such a device.

    Let's stop pretending here.
    What is going on is this:
    Between the two of you, there are no solutions offered.
    You two are baffled by wind energy and helpless to come up with a way to improve it.
    Neither of you, in 24 combined man-years and counting, has demonstrated any compelling wind energy generating invention, configuration, or concept.

    Yet you two have the URGE to supply a solution.
    So, with no solution to offer, in lieu of PROVIDING a solution, you instead attempt to deconstruct the very concept of airborne wind energy.

    DaveS talks endlessly of flipping, flapping, flopping, metamaterials, "kitematter", Bose-einstein condensates, etc., etc., etc., but cannot even manage to rotate the drivetrain of an electric bicycle like Roddy did in his own very creative entry to wind energy.  12 years of talk, zero results.  JoeF, you are even worse, pretending that finding some trash on the side of the road and taking a nap under it fulfills the goal of airborne energy.

    Migrating spiders are promoted as "AWE", not because they have anything to do with the goal of providing power to our civilization, but just as a dodge, a diversion, a fake pretense in a daily-shell-game of deception where you two have, in your own minds, deconstructed the original concept of wind energy taken to the sky, and instead offer anything you can possibly think of where the mere words airborne and wind could possibly apply, and PRETEND they are even relevant to our discussion, to essentially SHUT DOWN the discussion you started, based on your own failure to offer any solutions. 

    What you are both REALLY saying is you do NOT want to talk about airborne wind energy at all, but instead just want to posture as some sort of "authority" over a subject that is changed second-by-second, as-needed, for you two to continue to feign "expertise" in whatever you say the term is supposed to mean at any given moment.

    Let's pretend for a moment the subject is, oh, let's say "crosswalks".  Let's say someone organizes a "conference" nd maybe a "chat group" on the subject of "crosswalks", with the goal of promoting the development of electrically-lighted signals, markings, algorithms, lighted signals, talking signals for blind people, reflective paints, sensors, timing schemes -all the relevant factors.

    But then, imagine these same people who had the creative idea of organizing a "crosswalk conference" had no real solutions themselves, but wanted to pretend they did, for some strange reason.  Their skill set was actually limited to organizing a conference, setting up a chat group - mundane stuff that required no expertise in crosswalk design, yet the people had this "urge" to "pretend" to be "players" in the technical space of crosswalk design and implementation.

    Imagine further, in their technological frustration, these original crosswalk-conference organizers begin to DECONSTRUCT the very CONCEPT of a "crosswalk".  One of them begins to habitually go on and on about how people have been looking both ways for cars before crossing the street for over a century, and that every such random street crossing in history "is really" "a crosswalk", since "technically-speaking" a person did "walk" a-"cross" a street.  So now we have a "crosswalk" where there IS NO crosswalk.  Wow that was easy.

    Imagine the other one says next, if a religious person makes the sign of a cross while praying for the safety of pedestrians, THAT "is really" "a crosswalk" because there was "a cross" associated with someone walking from one side of the street to the other.  Maybe it gets adjusted further - any prayer using a cross-sign, for anyone walking, even if they stay on the same side of the street "is really" "a crosswalk" since there was "a cross" and the person "is really" walking.

    Encouraged by their self-perceived "genius" of their deconstruction efforts, like a delinquent child trying to "test the bounds of authority", the scoundrels continue to "test the bounds of vocabulary": One decides standing on the West side of the road at sundown, NOT crossing, "is really" "a crosswalk", because the person's SHADOW "crosses the road".  "Proving shade" "is really" "a crosswalk"...

    Next they decide an underground tunnel going beneath the street "is really" "a crosswalk", even though it makes a crosswalk unnecessary, still, from a vocabulary standpoint, they can stretch the definition of "crosswalk" to include even tunneling underground, just as JoeF has attempted to claim that buried concrete anchors "are really" "flying wings", and of course any "flying wing" "is really" "airborne wind energy" so suddenly "just talking about" an underground block "is really" practicing "airborne wind energy".

    Guys, words are just handles that make it possible to discuss things.  If you are willing to destroy the meanings of words, you destroy the discussion you were instrumental in helping to get started.  If your only skill-set is starting  discussion, let's not pretend your skill set includes finishing the discussion, when you are barely able to even participate in the discussion, let lone offer any true solutions.


    ---In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, <joefaust333@...> wrote :

    What are some branches of AWE?  There are very many. Count sub branches as branches to get even more for possible defining. Some branches may be identified by the good practical work intended.  Others may be delimited by the form of energy dominating the conversion of wind's energy: sound, potential, light, static electricity, heat, utility electricity, ...   Name the branch pertinent to one's comment to help clarity with audience. 


    On Tue, Jul 16, 2019, 11:23 PM pierre-benhaiem@... [AirborneWindEnergy] <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
     

    So by predicting AWE success in 2030 Dave is wrong a time more by changing what he called as AWE AFTER he was taught that his "prediction" was not consistent. Moreover now he didn't precise what he calls as a AWE branch, what are the other branches. Perhaps he confuses AWE with a tree. In this case precision about leaves and fruits would be welcome.

    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27568 From: benhaiemp Date: 7/17/2019
    Subject: Re: AWE Airborne Wind Energy --- multi-branched
    Joe, 
    I salute your first step in dispelling Dave’s incoherent prediction.  There is still a long way to go but you are on the right track.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27569 From: Joe Faust Date: 7/17/2019
    Subject: WESC 2019 with 18 AWE presentations
    Based on a note from Dr. Roland Schmehl (TU Delft),  I offer:
    June 17-20, 2019, saw AWE in Cork, Ireland, featured in 18 presentations, each 20 minutes in duration.     May we identify each of those presentations and openly study them over time. Thanks to each presenting agent for posting in AirborneWindEnergy forum here. 
        
    Roland, do you have a list of the 18 presentations? Thanks.   Anyone?  Were they all encircled by the mini-symposium headed by you?  "“Airborne Wind Energy” - Dr. Roland Schmehl (TU Delft)"


    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27570 From: dave santos Date: 7/17/2019
    Subject: Re: AWE Airborne Wind Energy --- multi-branched
    At least Pierre salutes JoeF for all he has done to dispel ignorance, not just mine.

    It will be nice to see how Pierre forms a better prediction than 2011.

    On ‎Wednesday‎, ‎July‎ ‎17‎, ‎2019‎ ‎11‎:‎12‎:‎47‎ ‎AM‎ ‎CDT, pierre-benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy] <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com> wrote:


     

    Joe, 

    I salute your first step in dispelling Dave’s incoherent prediction.  There is still a long way to go but you are on the right track.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27571 From: dougselsam Date: 7/17/2019
    Subject: Re: AWE Airborne Wind Energy --- multi-branched
    Imagine further, at this first "crosswalk conference", one nutcase shows up, interrupting everyone to insist his proposed method of tethering two people together and using microwave beams to get them across the street should be the only topic under consideration, until he suddenly shifts gears and tries to get the one person at the conference with an actual degree in pavement materials to agree that "Jesus" will insure the safety of all pedestrians.  (In which case, participants wonder, why are we at the conference at all?)

    In response to this extreme level of nonsense, the confused conference organizers, rather than wondering of this guy is OK upstairs, begin fawning and worshipping him as the leading thinker at what has quickly become "the conference against crosswalks".  They decide that a conference and chat group are not enough - they start a fake "trade association" that does absolutely nothing except occasionally complain about not being included in civil engineering conferences, and "elect" a guy in some third-world country not associated in any way with crosswalk design or construction, as a "pro-tem president" or their "trade association".  Every couple of years, for over a decade, they receive a short message from their "pro-tem" president, assuring everyone that "Jesus" in charge of pedestrian safety, ending his motivational message with the word "steps"...

    One of the two guys, during a certain summer, even gets to the point of declaring an upcoming "mass crosswalk-powered street-crossing festival" with live music and refreshments, but, having no crosswalk technology at hand, and unable to acquire any reflective paint, he can only answer any resulting questions with the mysterious word "wubbo" while promising that the concept of a mass-street-crossing will always live on, because of this strange word.

    For now, he insists, just jumping up and down while screaming, near any road, "is really" "a crosswalk", that he is in fact, "a crosswalk domain expert", and that someday, perhaps by the year 2030, Jesus willing, there should, hopefully, be some location, somewhere in the world, where people can cross the street safely.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27572 From: Santos Date: 7/17/2019
    Subject: Re: AWE Airborne Wind Energy --- multi-branched
    Let Doug's branch of AWE do better on merits than the power kite branch.

    Anyone who watches the History of Kitesurfing video sees what Doug has to beat, what he cannot bear to watch.

    May the best AWE branches continue to flower.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27573 From: dougselsam Date: 7/17/2019
    Subject: Re: AWE Airborne Wind Energy --- multi-branched
    "branch" of AWE is a dodge.  AWE is Airborne Wind-generated Electricity, not "Any Wind-exposed Endeavor" such as sleeping under a tarp that was slightly wiggled when the air happened to be moving.

    Today it's "a different logic"?  NO, let's go back to original logic:
    1) Someone predicted commercial success of AWE in 2030, not a "branch" of AWE;

    2) Kite surfing is very old news. Kite ships have been UNSUCCESSFUL, and in fact, so far crews do not want to bother with it, it has resulted in bankruptcy, AND it is a branch of sailing, not AWE.  It's one more dodge, one more example of "mission-creep", a predictable artifact of "giving up" on AWE, like the predictable Altaeros "giving up" shift to "providing wifi", running power UP the tether instead of down (USING power instead of generating power) (Well at least we're (not) doing SOMETHING!)  Sailing watercraft have been around for thousands of years and are not included in wind energy output statistics, so are not considered part of "wind energy" even though, as everyone knows, "technically-speaking", sailboats DO use wind, which DOES provide energy for them to move, nonetheless, the aggregate power of all the sailboats in the world are NOT included in wind energy statistics, any more than all the hydroelectric power in the world is NOT included in wind energy statistics, even though, "technically-speaking" all that water was originally elevated (airborne, providing energy...) by the power of wind.  There, now you two pretenders can add all hydroelectric power in the world to your endless list of topics that "are really" AWE.  All you needed was half-a-brain.

    3) Kite ship and kite-surf are NOT energy sectors, but instead transportation and sports sectors;

    4) Your "discourse struggle" is an act - a ruse - a self-inflicted pretense of a struggle, to allow both of you to go on feigning "expertise" in wind energy while having no specific skills in the art.  This pretense will apparently only end when you "rest in peace", since it does not look like you guys will ever stop pretending, nor offer an AWE solution, or even just a WE solution, of any kind, ever. 
    For AWE practitioners, it's an engineering challenge, but for you, it's a "discourse struggle" because trying to redefine a fake-future-news "discourse" is all you've got.


    ---In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, <joefaust333@...> wrote :

    Or Pierre may be unforgivingly missing a context that might have been helped with a tiny bit of clarification as to the branch of AWE intended for the prediction.  Our forum has been saturated with an understanding that the branch of AWE called kite surf is now running wildly robust in product and participation; such could give clue that the context and target of the prediction was about AWE for industrial utility-scale industrialization.  Has the clarification been made so that peace may reign in AWE chambers?

    Perhaps a different logic: 
    1. Someone predicted that a sector of AWE would be noticeably successful in 2030. 
    2. We know kite ship and kite surf already exist at a success level that is awesome. 
    3. So, kite ship and kite surf are AWE sectors, and the 2030 prediction is on record in context for utility-scale electrical generation. 
    4. And we may rest in peace that context and intention matter; we can get through this discourse struggle. 


    ---In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, <pierre-benhaiem@...> wrote :

    1. Dave's prediction: AWE success in 2030
    2. But kite ship and kite surf already exist and succeed
    3. So kite ship and kite surf are not AWE, or the prediction doesn't stand 
    Joe and Dave seem miss the fundamentals of logic.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27574 From: dougselsam Date: 7/17/2019
    Subject: Re: AWE Airborne Wind Energy --- multi-branched
    Show us your best electrical output using "power" kites, daveS.
    What, you can't?  Oh yeah, sorry, I forgot, you have no arms or legs.
    Or is the real problem "no brain"?
    Actually I was watching a video of a hang-gliding friend exceeding 17,000 feet altitude over Big Bear a couple days ago.  Freezing his ass off while we baked down here.  "Energy sector"?  Nope, sorry, air-sports sector...



    ---In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, <santos137@...> wrote :

    Let Doug's branch of AWE do better on merits than the power kite branch.

    Anyone who watches the History of Kitesurfing video sees what Doug has to beat, what he cannot bear to watch.

    May the best AWE branches continue to flower.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27575 From: Santos Date: 7/17/2019
    Subject: Re: AWE Airborne Wind Energy --- multi-branched
    Doug's ST work is lagging if its to be a main branch of AWE.

    His complaints about other branches are misplaced. Watching the kitesurfing video could teach him a lot, while his complaints keep him in despair.

    There are many kinds of AWE, but industrial scale electrical AWES are a pending branch for talented engineers to work out. Enjoy the challenge. Prove the doubts false.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27576 From: Santos Date: 7/17/2019
    Subject: Re: AWE Airborne Wind Energy --- multi-branched
    Doug, one request at time.

    Did you see the painting? You were wrong again in accusations.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27577 From: dougselsam Date: 7/17/2019
    Subject: Re: AWE Airborne Wind Energy --- multi-branched
    I guess you could e-mail it to me.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27578 From: dougselsam Date: 7/17/2019
    Subject: Big Bear from 15,000+ feet - pic
    Attachments :
      Hopefully this JPG image will be viewable.  I guess this is a test.
      Note, like all water in all lakes and rivers, often used to generate Hydroelectric power,
      this flight was technically powered by solar energy, and wind energy, but does not appear in power-generation statistics, and is not considered a branch of the energy industry..


      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27579 From: dougselsam Date: 7/17/2019
      Subject: Re: Big Bear from 15,000+ feet - pic
      And I do not see any image, no link, no anything but the text.


      ---In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, <dougselsam@...> wrote :

      Hopefully this JPG image will be viewable.  I guess this is a test.
      Note, like all water in all lakes and rivers, often used to generate Hydroelectric power,
      this flight was technically powered by solar energy, and wind energy, but does not appear in power-generation statistics, and is not considered a branch of the energy industry..


      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27580 From: Joe Faust Date: 7/17/2019
      Subject: Re: AWE Airborne Wind Energy --- multi-branched
      Fact: "airborne wind energy" AWE  was selected by Dave Santos and Joe Faust to cover the practical good works that kite systems and other non-powered systems flying in media could do; that in some parts of the world electricity generation and traction were high in the consciousness did not reduce the core technical mechanics blanketed by AWE. The many branches of AWE frequently fertilize each other.    The construction of a phrase and acronym AWE is an easy handle for carrying a cool core technology.   AWE is itself a sector/branch of media-flow-flight media; wind energy is a subset of a larger superset. AWE overlaps wind energy and water energy and plasma energy and soil energy, etc.   AWE goes beyond and above conventional wind energy. 

      So, Doug, somehow you have missed knowing the constructive fact at the root of the acronym "AWE."   Of course, you are welcome focus on just the branches of AWE you wish; no problem. But your choice need not move you to deny the fact of the root of the AWE acronym where many branches of activity were intended.   

      Doug, you are invited to the forum to add positively to the AWE branches that interest you. Abusing via the flow of "nothing" over others' somethings offers might be wasting your time; consider putting such energy into developing the branch of AWE that interests you.  Your non-factual disrespecting of participants' offers is not welcome; a different tack of keeping track of participants' offers to advance AWE would probably be more helpful to you and others; you would stay abreast of the offers and you would not be putting off participants for your posting that they had nothing when indeed they have had been giving and sharing something.  The hundreds of AWE offerings by others could be a garden for you to existentially respect; going to the "zero" language injures relationships and AWE opportunity, I hold. 

      =================================
      Back on this topic: Re: [AWES] Re: AWE Airborne Wind Energy --- multi-branched
      Have fun naming AWE branches.
      Start topics that focus on a branch of particular interest; consider exploring how a chosen branch may fertilize other branches, including the generation of electricity. A simple conventional toy kite flying in air generates some electricity, even if minuscule amount; advancing a kite system to generate more electricity is an endeavor that interests many in AWE; efforts in advancing electricity generation may inform simple toy kite flying; the family of AWE branches may cross-inform each other.     And perhaps explore complex AWE systems that hold at once many branches of AWE (say kite photography integrated in utility-scale kitricity systems perhaps holding a living quarters aloft for an AWE worker that occasionally drops a fishing line using kite fishing techniques). 
            Those participants who are highly focused on one branch of AWE may advance their interest by mining information from other AWE branches!  

      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27581 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 7/17/2019
      Subject: Re: WESC 2019 with 18 AWE presentations

      Roland Schmehl      answers (thanks, Roland):

      12:26 PM (2 hours ago)

      to meAirborneWindEnergy

      The info was distributed via

      https://www.awesystems.info/ events

      > under "Past events" WESC 2019

      as well as here 

      http://awesco-new.tudelft.nl/ post/2019-05-06-awe-at- wesc2019/

      > will soon migrate to http://awesco.eu/post/2019-05- 06-awe-at-wesc2019/

      14 of the presentations were part of 3 mini-symposia, of which 2 were chaired by me, and 1 was chaired by my colleague Dr. Axelle Viré. The remaining 4 presentations were dispersed in the regular conference tracks. 


      ---In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, <joefaust333@gmail.com> wrote :

      Based on a note from Dr. Roland Schmehl (TU Delft),  I offer:
      June 17-20, 2019, saw AWE in Cork, Ireland, featured in 18 presentations, each 20 minutes in duration.     May we identify each of those presentations and openly study them over time. Thanks to each presenting agent for posting in AirborneWindEnergy forum here. 
          
      Roland, do you have a list of the 18 presentations? Thanks.   Anyone?  Were they all encircled by the mini-symposium headed by you?  "“Airborne Wind Energy” - Dr. Roland Schmehl (TU Delft)"


      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27582 From: Joe Faust Date: 7/17/2019
      Subject: Re: Big Bear from 15,000+ feet - pic

      On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 1:20 PM dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy] <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
       

      Hopefully this JPG image will be viewable.  I guess this is a test.
      Note, like all water in all lakes and rivers, often used to generate Hydroelectric power,
      this flight was technically powered by solar energy, and wind energy, but does not appear in power-generation statistics, and is not considered a branch of the energy industry..


      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27583 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 7/17/2019
      Subject: An Iterative Learning Approach for Online Flight Path Optimization f

      An Iterative Learning Approach for Online Flight Path Optimization for Tethered Energy Systems Undergoing Cyclic Spooling Motion


      Mitchell Cobb, Kira Barton, Hosam K. Fathy, Christopher Vermillion


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

      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27584 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 7/17/2019
      Subject: A Path-Following Guidance Method for Airborne Wind Energy Systems wi

      A Path-Following Guidance Method for Airborne Wind Energy Systems with Large Domain of Attraction


      Gonçalo B. Silva, Luis Tiago Paiva, Fernando A. C. C. Fontes

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

      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27585 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 7/17/2019
      Subject: Control of Vertical Take Off, Dynamic Flight and Landing of Hybrid D

      Control of Vertical Take Off, Dynamic Flight and Landing of Hybrid Drones for Airborne Wind Energy Systems


      Davide Todeschini, Lorenzo Fagiano, Claudio Micheli, Aldo Cattano

      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27586 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 7/17/2019
      Subject: Flight Test Verification of a Rigid Wing Airborne Wind Energy System

      Flight Test Verification of a Rigid Wing Airborne Wind Energy System

      Paul Williams, Sören Sieberling, Richard Ruiterkamp

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

      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27587 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 7/17/2019
      Subject: Locally Power-Optimal Nonlinear Model Predictive Control for Fixed-W

      Locally Power-Optimal Nonlinear Model Predictive Control for Fixed-Wing Airborne Wind Energy

      Thomas Stastny, Eva Ahbe, Manuel Dangel, Roland Siegwart

      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27588 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 7/17/2019
      Subject: On Wind Speed Sensor Configurations and Altitude Control in Airborne

      On Wind Speed Sensor Configurations and Altitude Control in Airborne Wind Energy Systems


      Laurel Dunn, Christopher Vermillion, Fotini Katopodes Chow, Scott Moura

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

      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27589 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 7/17/2019
      Subject: Wind Profile Classes for AWE Production Estimation

       Wind Profile Classes for AWE Production Estimation

      Mr. Mark Schelbergen

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

      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27590 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 7/17/2019
      Subject: Power Transmission for Rotary Airborne Wind Energy Systems

      Power Transmission for Rotary Airborne Wind Energy Systems

      Mr. Oliver Tulloch

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

      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27591 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 7/17/2019
      Subject: Wake Interaction in a Farm of AWES using Large-Eddy Simulation

      Wake Interaction in a Farm of AWES using Large-Eddy Simulation

      Mr. Thomas Haas

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

      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27592 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 7/17/2019
      Subject: Kitemill: from minutes to hours of autonomous operation

      Kitemill: from minutes to hours of autonomous operation 

      Dr. Lode Carnel 

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

      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27593 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 7/17/2019
      Subject: Autogyro kite networks with torque transfer to ground-based gener

       Autogyro kite networks with torque transfer to ground-based gener       [ need complete title]

      Mr. Roderick Read Windswept & Interesting Ltd

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

      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27594 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 7/17/2019
      Subject: AWES Trajectory Optimization using Ten-minute Wind Speed Profi ...

       AWES Trajectory Optimization using Ten-minute Wind Speed Profi [need complete title]

      Mr. Markus Sommerfeld

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

      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27595 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 7/17/2019
      Subject: The value of AWE in zero-emission electricity systems

      The value of AWE in zero-emission electricity systems

      Mrs. Elena C. Malz 

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

      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27596 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 7/17/2019
      Subject: Aeroelastic CFD-FEM Study of a Kite for Power Generation

      Aeroelastic CFD-FEM Study of a Kite for Power Generation

      Prof. Shigeo Yoshida 

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

      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27597 From: dougselsam Date: 7/17/2019
      Subject: Re: AWE Airborne Wind Energy --- multi-branched
      Joe thanks for putting a lot of time into answering my post.
      The problem I see with what you wrote below is, words are only useful if people agree on their meaning.
      The term "wind energy" already HAS a commonly-understood meaning, in common usage.  The term "airborne" already HAS a meaning as well.
       
      "Airborne" is a modifier - an adjective, right?  Making "airborne wind energy" a subset of "wind energy".
      So when you try to say leaves wiggling on a tree "are" "airborne wind energy" it really makes no sense to anyone but you.  And even you are just playing word games in your head.  Wiggling leaves are something anyone can understand, but trying to claim it is a branch of the energy industry is just useless.

      Nobody attended the HAWP 2009 conference in hopes of a conference on leaves wiggling.  No, people were there to discuss, as we all know, generating electricity from the wind using the air itself to elevate the apparatus.  The idea, if you remember, was these people were so much smarter than experienced wind energy professionals, that they were going to pull a slam-dunk and put the entrenched tower-based idiots out of business in short order.  Pretty much all that needed to be done was to order a few simple parts and show those "windtower" people what's up. 

      But that didn't happen so you guys started to sound desperate.  Redefining words became the new game.  That way, even if nobody tried ANYTHING in AWE, you could STILL declare the field "mastered".

      Of COURSE anyone can always find alternative definitions of words to quickly make ANY conversation meaningless, like when you try to call underground concrete anchors wings, and then claim they are flying even though the kinetic energy from moving a millimeter per decade is to little to support flight. That's just JoeF talking to JoeF, having fun labeling diagrams in his head (let's see, anything marked with a W "is" considered a "wing"...) not communication for everyone else.

      If you want to stick with normal language use, to communicate with everyone, airborne wind energy is a subset of wind energy, which is generating electricity, or also pumping water.  Kite-sailing, sure it uses energy and the same people who fly kites try pulling ships when the electricity thing doesn't pan out, but it's hard to even agree that kite-ships are AWE versus maybe "airborne sailing" or "marine propulsion using airborne sails", because then kitesurfing is "airborne wind energy", then trash blowing in the wind, taking a nap under that trash, underground concrete - there is no limit, and you've destroyed the very term by over-expanding its meaning to mean EVERYTHING.
       
      Hydroelectric power:  Is it solar?  Because heat evaporated the water right?  Then again, wind also helped evaporate the water.  Then wind brought water to the hills, from where it flowed into the rivers and lakes, and that wind was airborne by other wind.  Every water molecule was airlifted into place, with gravitational stored energy given by the airborne wind.

      So according to the intergalactic hydro association:
      Hydro is generating power in every region of the country and is America's largest source of clean, renewable electricity. Hydropower accounts for 52 percent of the nation's renewable electricity generation and 7 percent of total electricity generation.

      That means you guys can RETIRE.  You were already successful without knowing it.  Because all that hydroelectric power "is really" "airborne wind energy".  Your work is done.  And it didn't take changing a thing in the entire physical world.  All we had to do was play word games!  Life can be so easy!

      --In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, <joefaust333@...> wrote :

      Fact: "airborne wind energy" AWE  was selected by Dave Santos and Joe Faust to cover the practical good works that kite systems and other non-powered systems flying in media could do; that in some parts of the world electricity generation and traction were high in the consciousness did not reduce the core technical mechanics blanketed by AWE. The many branches of AWE frequently fertilize each other.    The construction of a phrase and acronym AWE is an easy handle for carrying a cool core technology.   AWE is itself a sector/branch of media-flow-flight media; wind energy is a subset of a larger superset. AWE overlaps wind energy and water energy and plasma energy and soil energy, etc.   AWE goes beyond and above conventional wind energy. 

      So, Doug, somehow you have missed knowing the constructive fact at the root of the acronym "AWE."   Of course, you are welcome focus on just the branches of AWE you wish; no problem. But your choice need not move you to deny the fact of the root of the AWE acronym where many branches of activity were intended.   

      Doug, you are invited to the forum to add positively to the AWE branches that interest you. Abusing via the flow of "nothing" over others' somethings offers might be wasting your time; consider putting such energy into developing the branch of AWE that interests you.  Your non-factual disrespecting of participants' offers is not welcome; a different tack of keeping track of participants' offers to advance AWE would probably be more helpful to you and others; you would stay abreast of the offers and you would not be putting off participants for your posting that they had nothing when indeed they have had been giving and sharing something.  The hundreds of AWE offerings by others could be a garden for you to existentially respect; going to the "zero" language injures relationships and AWE opportunity, I hold. 

      =================================
      Back on this topic: Re: [AWES] Re: AWE Airborne Wind Energy --- multi-branched
      Have fun naming AWE branches.
      Start topics that focus on a branch of particular interest; consider exploring how a chosen branch may fertilize other branches, including the generation of electricity. A simple conventional toy kite flying in air generates some electricity, even if minuscule amount; advancing a kite system to generate more electricity is an endeavor that interests many in AWE; efforts in advancing electricity generation may inform simple toy kite flying; the family of AWE branches may cross-inform each other.     And perhaps explore complex AWE systems that hold at once many branches of AWE (say kite photography integrated in utility-scale kitricity systems perhaps holding a living quarters aloft for an AWE worker that occasionally drops a fishing line using kite fishing techniques). 
            Those participants who are highly focused on one branch of AWE may advance their interest by mining information from other AWE branches!  

      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27598 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 7/17/2019
      Subject: Development of a Quadplane Airborne Wind Energy Demonstrator

      Development of a Quadplane Airborne Wind Energy Demonstrator 

      Mr. Andreas Klein-Miloslavich

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

      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 27599 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 7/17/2019
      Subject: A Student-Driven Airborne Wind Energy Competition

      A Student-Driven Airborne Wind Energy Competition 

      Mr. Tim Hagemann