Messages in AirborneWindEnergy group.                       AWES4599to4648 Page 72 of 79.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4599 From: Darin Selby Date: 10/28/2011
Subject: Re: OT - Confusing a Clean Hydrogen Economy with Hydrogen LTA

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4600 From: dave santos Date: 10/28/2011
Subject: Note to Doug- Testing and study equals knowledge to share

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4601 From: dave santos Date: 10/28/2011
Subject: Nori Kite

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4602 From: Darin Selby Date: 10/28/2011
Subject: Re: Note to Doug- Testing and study equals knowledge to share

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4603 From: dave santos Date: 10/28/2011
Subject: Recycled Kites for AWE R&D

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4604 From: Darin Selby Date: 10/28/2011
Subject: Re: Nori Kite

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4605 From: Darin Selby Date: 10/28/2011
Subject: Re: Recycled Kites for AWE R&D

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4606 From: Darin Selby Date: 10/28/2011
Subject: Re: Recycled Kites for AWE R&D

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4607 From: Darin Selby Date: 10/28/2011
Subject: Re: AWE Forum Standards

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4608 From: Darin Selby Date: 10/29/2011
Subject: Re: Only Darin Should Decide to Spam

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4609 From: Bob Stuart Date: 10/29/2011
Subject: Re: Only Darin Should Decide to Spam

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4610 From: Doug Date: 10/29/2011
Subject: Re: Only Darin Should Decide to Spam

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4611 From: dave santos Date: 10/29/2011
Subject: Load Velocity and Kite Effectiveness (A legacy of Miles Loyd)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4612 From: dave santos Date: 10/29/2011
Subject: A Spider-Web for Spider-Trains

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4613 From: dave santos Date: 10/29/2011
Subject: Nori Seaweed Kite

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4614 From: roderickjosephread Date: 10/30/2011
Subject: Re: Load Velocity and Kite Effectiveness (A legacy of Miles Loyd)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4615 From: Darin Selby Date: 10/30/2011
Subject: Re: Not a Crucial Message

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4616 From: Doug Date: 10/30/2011
Subject: Re: "Trampoline" Rig AWECS

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4617 From: roderickjosephread Date: 10/30/2011
Subject: Re: "Trampoline" Rig AWECS

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4618 From: dave santos Date: 10/30/2011
Subject: Ideal Size for an Array Kite? (Rather Small)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4619 From: dave santos Date: 10/30/2011
Subject: BioKites Again (Biopolymer Suitability)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4620 From: Darin Selby Date: 10/30/2011
Subject: Re: "Trampoline" Rig AWECS

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4621 From: Pierre Benhaiem Date: 10/31/2011
Subject: "Betz limit" and optimized workspace

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4622 From: Pierre Benhaiem Date: 10/31/2011
Subject: "Betz limit" and calculation for an optimized workspace

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4623 From: Pierre Benhaiem Date: 10/31/2011
Subject: "Betz limit" and calculation for an optimized workspace

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4624 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 10/31/2011
Subject: Re: "Betz limit" and calculation for an optimized workspace

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4625 From: Doug Date: 10/31/2011
Subject: Re: "Trampoline" Rig AWECS

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4626 From: dave santos Date: 10/31/2011
Subject: Sweet DIY AWECS Hardware (Nordic Track mechanism and Double Drive sc

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4627 From: Dan Date: 11/1/2011
Subject: A fun Won

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4628 From: Doug Date: 11/1/2011
Subject: The Power of Rope //Re: [AWECS] Re: Single, Double, Tri-tether Power

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4629 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/1/2011
Subject: Re: A fun Won

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4630 From: dave santos Date: 11/1/2011
Subject: Original Flying Sphere by an AWE Forum Member //Re: [AWECS] A fun Wo

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4631 From: dave santos Date: 11/1/2011
Subject: Germany Turning from Nukes to AWE (onKite Study)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4632 From: Bob Stuart Date: 11/1/2011
Subject: Re: The Power of Rope //Re: [AWECS] Re: Single, Double, Tri-tether P

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4633 From: dave santos Date: 11/1/2011
Subject: Re: The Power of Rope //Re: [AWECS] Re: Single, Double, Tri-tether P

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4634 From: Bob Stuart Date: 11/1/2011
Subject: Re: The Power of Rope //Re: [AWECS] Re: Single, Double, Tri-tether P

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4635 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 11/1/2011
Subject: Re: Germany Turning from Nukes to AWE (onKite Study)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4636 From: Muzhichkov Date: 11/1/2011
Subject: Re: Germany Turning from Nukes to AWE (onKite Study)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4637 From: dave santos Date: 11/1/2011
Subject: Re: Germany Turning from Nukes to AWE (onKite Study)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4638 From: dave santos Date: 11/1/2011
Subject: Original Flying Sphere by an AWE Forum Member //Re: [AWECS] A fun Wo

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4639 From: dave santos Date: 11/1/2011
Subject: Advantages of Flying Spheres for AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4640 From: Dan Date: 11/2/2011
Subject: Interesting Joe!

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4641 From: Doug Date: 11/2/2011
Subject: Original Flying Sphere by an AWE Forum Member //Re: [AWECS] A fun Wo

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4642 From: Doug Date: 11/2/2011
Subject: The Power of Rope //Re: [AWECS] Re: Single, Double, Tri-tether Power

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4643 From: Bob Stuart Date: 11/2/2011
Subject: Re: Interesting Joe!

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4644 From: roderickjosephread Date: 11/2/2011
Subject: Re: Advantages of Flying Spheres for AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4645 From: roderickjosephread Date: 11/2/2011
Subject: Time for a new drawing

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4646 From: Doug Date: 11/2/2011
Subject: The Power of Rope //Re: [AWECS] Re: Single, Double, Tri-tether Power

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4647 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/2/2011
Subject: Re: Interesting Joe!

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4648 From: dave santos Date: 11/2/2011
Subject: Re: The Power of Rope //Re: [AWECS] Re: Single, Double, Tri-tether P



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4599 From: Darin Selby Date: 10/28/2011
Subject: Re: OT - Confusing a Clean Hydrogen Economy with Hydrogen LTA
Oh, your fabric is imported all the way from China, eh?  Wow, how exotic!  And what of the working conditions there to make this petroleum-based fabric?

From: darin_selby@hotmail.com
To: airbornewindenergy@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [AWECS] OT - Confusing a Clean Hydrogen Economy with Hydrogen LTA
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 16:37:18 +0000

er, excuse me, where do you get the fabric from that you make your kites out of?

To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
From: santos137@yahoo.com
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 09:26:37 -0700
Subject: Re: [AWECS] OT - Confusing a Clean Hydrogen Economy with Hydrogen LTA

 

Darin,
 
You are spamming the list with multiple off-topic posts. Of course we follow these sort of experiments with bioplastics, biofuels, etc., with due fear about hype and the loss of food production these technologies can entail. But these are not AWE subjects and they have their own forums. This unique AWE forum should not be so diluted.
So respect the topic (see subject header) and allow that concern over leaking and exploding hydrogen AWECS is rational, and always contribute on-topic knowledge. Everytime you post, consider the desire of many busy folks to focus on AWE. The Web is a big place with plenty of extra room for all pet topics, but this Forum should not be diluted or the focused folks will bail.
 
So to relate the potential of algae production to AWE potential, note that algae does not have anywhere near the same vast promise of bountiful cheap energy as AWE, even if every available resource were devoted to algae production. Distraction by algae equals loss of focus on AWE. Distraction predicts R&D failure. Show some AWE success to rebut this,
 
daveS

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4600 From: dave santos Date: 10/28/2011
Subject: Note to Doug- Testing and study equals knowledge to share
Doug,
 
Do not confuse dedicated AWE knowledge-sharing with lack of testing. Perhaps no one directly tests so many AWE ideas as i do. Prolific posting is not a barrier to me, instead, putting AWE knowledge on the forum is a relaxing change of pace during otherwise constant training, building, and testing (and more testing). There is a big back-log of new work to share.
 
Blame yourself first, if your progress is lacking. The FAA, NREL, DOE, Patent Office, and folks like me are not to blame if you can't show your rotating towers and other ideas to be the best solutions to AWE.
 
Prediction- AWE winners need not blame anyone for failure,
 
daveS

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4601 From: dave santos Date: 10/28/2011
Subject: Nori Kite
Darin,
 
You ask- "er, excuse me, where do you get the fabric from that you make your kites out of?"
 
As well covered in my forum posts, i use everything from natural fibers to oil-based fabric for kites and lines.
 
I have yet to use algae for kites (but will make a nori kite right after sending this), it seems better as a malnourished child's dietary suppliment. Let us know when good algae kite cloth comes available,
 
daveS

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4602 From: Darin Selby Date: 10/28/2011
Subject: Re: Note to Doug- Testing and study equals knowledge to share
On the contraire, I see Doug as a huge contributor, and not at all a failure with his ideas.  And I disagree that he is blaming anyone, just pointing out all the red tape and bureaucracy hoops he's having to jump through to get his ideas mainstream-accepted .   And, he's doing it in a lighthearted, tongue-in-cheek way.  Yes, Doug is already a winner with his 3D tangible products, contrary to some people's opinion .  

To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
From: santos137@yahoo.com
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 09:49:23 -0700
Subject: [AWECS] Note to Doug- Testing and study equals knowledge to share

 

Doug,
 
Do not confuse dedicated AWE knowledge-sharing with lack of testing. Perhaps no one directly tests so many AWE ideas as i do. Prolific posting is not a barrier to me, instead, putting AWE knowledge on the forum is a relaxing change of pace during otherwise constant training, building, and testing (and more testing). There is a big back-log of new work to share.
 
Blame yourself first, if your progress is lacking. The FAA, NREL, DOE, Patent Office, and folks like me are not to blame if you can't show your rotating towers and other ideas to be the best solutions to AWE.
 
Prediction- AWE winners need not blame anyone for failure,
 
daveS

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4603 From: dave santos Date: 10/28/2011
Subject: Recycled Kites for AWE R&D
Darin,
 
I consistently recycle kites to experiment with (secondhand and salvage) and try to wear them out (very hard). Do you remember the giant scrap kite i made a year or two ago? That's my hippy colors, for real.
 
I have never bought kite material, there is so much cloth to scavenge. My few cheap traction kites are preferably second-hand and they are made in China, but this is mainly the importation of labor, not the 20kg of total plastic mass (enough for anyone). Chinese labor conditions are similar to the "Mexican conditions" i work under, so what?
 
Sorry that the hydrogen concerns set you off. Lets give it a rest.
 
Peace Bro,
 
daveS

From: Darin Selby <darin_selby@hotmail.com
 
Oh, your fabric is imported all the way from China, eh?  Wow, how exotic!  And what of the working conditions there to make this petroleum-based fabric?

From: darin_selby@hotmail.com
To: airbornewindenergy@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [AWECS] OT - Confusing a Clean Hydrogen Economy with Hydrogen LTA
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 16:37:18 +0000

er, excuse me, where do you get the fabric from that you make your kites out of?

To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
From: santos137@yahoo.com
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 09:26:37 -0700
Subject: Re: [AWECS] OT - Confusing a Clean Hydrogen Economy with Hydrogen LTA

 

Darin,
 
You are spamming the list with multiple off-topic posts. Of course we follow these sort of experiments with bioplastics, biofuels, etc., with due fear about hype and the loss of food production these technologies can entail. But these are not AWE subjects and they have their own forums. This unique AWE forum should not be so diluted.
So respect the topic (see subject header) and allow that concern over leaking and exploding hydrogen AWECS is rational, and always contribute on-topic knowledge. Everytime you post, consider the desire of many busy folks to focus on AWE. The Web is a big place with plenty of extra room for all pet topics, but this Forum should not be diluted or the focused folks will bail.
 
So to relate the potential of algae production to AWE potential, note that algae does not have anywhere near the same vast promise of bountiful cheap energy as AWE, even if every available resource were devoted to algae production. Distraction by algae equals loss of focus on AWE. Distraction predicts R&D failure. Show some AWE success to rebut this,
 
daveS

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4604 From: Darin Selby Date: 10/28/2011
Subject: Re: Nori Kite
Where does that fabric come from?  Could it be from a centralized source?  And how is that 'natural fiber' fabric transported to your doorstep?  Is it organically-grown?

To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
From: santos137@yahoo.com
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 09:58:31 -0700
Subject: [AWECS] Nori Kite

 

Darin,
 
You ask- "er, excuse me, where do you get the fabric from that you make your kites out of?"
 
As well covered in my forum posts, i use everything from natural fibers to oil-based fabric for kites and lines.
 
I have yet to use algae for kites (but will make a nori kite right after sending this), it seems better as a malnourished child's dietary suppliment. Let us know when good algae kite cloth comes available,
 
daveS

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4605 From: Darin Selby Date: 10/28/2011
Subject: Re: Recycled Kites for AWE R&D

"Chinese labor conditions are similar to the "Mexican conditions" i work under, so what?"  
To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
From: santos137@yahoo.com
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 10:13:24 -0700
Subject: [AWECS] Recycled Kites for AWE R&D

 

Darin,
 
I consistently recycle kites to experiment with (secondhand and salvage) and try to wear them out (very hard). Do you remember the giant scrap kite i made a year or two ago? That's my hippy colors, for real.
 
I have never bought kite material, there is so much cloth to scavenge. My few cheap traction kites are preferably second-hand and they are made in China, but this is mainly the importation of labor, not the 20kg of total plastic mass (enough for anyone).
 
Sorry that the hydrogen concerns set you off. Lets give it a rest.
 
Peace Bro,
 
daveS

From: Darin Selby <darin_selby@hotmail.com
 
Oh, your fabric is imported all the way from China, eh?  Wow, how exotic!  And what of the working conditions there to make this petroleum-based fabric?

From: darin_selby@hotmail.com
To: airbornewindenergy@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [AWECS] OT - Confusing a Clean Hydrogen Economy with Hydrogen LTA
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 16:37:18 +0000

er, excuse me, where do you get the fabric from that you make your kites out of?

To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
From: santos137@yahoo.com
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 09:26:37 -0700
Subject: Re: [AWECS] OT - Confusing a Clean Hydrogen Economy with Hydrogen LTA

 

Darin,
 
You are spamming the list with multiple off-topic posts. Of course we follow these sort of experiments with bioplastics, biofuels, etc., with due fear about hype and the loss of food production these technologies can entail. But these are not AWE subjects and they have their own forums. This unique AWE forum should not be so diluted.
So respect the topic (see subject header) and allow that concern over leaking and exploding hydrogen AWECS is rational, and always contribute on-topic knowledge. Everytime you post, consider the desire of many busy folks to focus on AWE. The Web is a big place with plenty of extra room for all pet topics, but this Forum should not be diluted or the focused folks will bail.
 
So to relate the potential of algae production to AWE potential, note that algae does not have anywhere near the same vast promise of bountiful cheap energy as AWE, even if every available resource were devoted to algae production. Distraction by algae equals loss of focus on AWE. Distraction predicts R&D failure. Show some AWE success to rebut this,
 
daveS

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4606 From: Darin Selby Date: 10/28/2011
Subject: Re: Recycled Kites for AWE R&D

Can't give it a rest.  The point from the beginning was that algae oil, as I've shared with all of the links (did you get to look at them?), could lead to a neighborhood-run system that could give you and all of your kite buddies all of the algae-based polymer string to use with the decentralized looms, to make the fabric that is sewn on decentralized, kite-powered sewing machine.  
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 11:06:15 -0700
From: santos137@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: [AWECS] Recycled Kites for AWE R&D
To: darin_selby@hotmail.com

Darin (off forum),
 
You are now confusing environmental and labor conditions. The US invented this sort of pollution.
 
Lecture Doug (off forum) about these obvious topics.
 
Stop off topic junk/spam posting please!
 
daveS

From: Darin Selby <darin_selby@hotmail.com
 

"Chinese labor conditions are similar to the "Mexican conditions" i work under, so what?"  
To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
From: santos137@yahoo.com
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 10:13:24 -0700
Subject: [AWECS] Recycled Kites for AWE R&D

 

Darin,
 
I consistently recycle kites to experiment with (secondhand and salvage) and try to wear them out (very hard). Do you remember the giant scrap kite i made a year or two ago? That's my hippy colors, for real.
 
I have never bought kite material, there is so much cloth to scavenge. My few cheap traction kites are preferably second-hand and they are made in China, but this is mainly the importation of labor, not the 20kg of total plastic mass (enough for anyone).
 
Sorry that the hydrogen concerns set you off. Lets give it a rest.
 
Peace Bro,
 
daveS

From: Darin Selby <darin_selby@hotmail.com
 
Oh, your fabric is imported all the way from China, eh?  Wow, how exotic!  And what of the working conditions there to make this petroleum-based fabric?

From: darin_selby@hotmail.com
To: airbornewindenergy@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [AWECS] OT - Confusing a Clean Hydrogen Economy with Hydrogen LTA
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 16:37:18 +0000

er, excuse me, where do you get the fabric from that you make your kites out of?

To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
From: santos137@yahoo.com
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 09:26:37 -0700
Subject: Re: [AWECS] OT - Confusing a Clean Hydrogen Economy with Hydrogen LTA

 

Darin,
 
You are spamming the list with multiple off-topic posts. Of course we follow these sort of experiments with bioplastics, biofuels, etc., with due fear about hype and the loss of food production these technologies can entail. But these are not AWE subjects and they have their own forums. This unique AWE forum should not be so diluted.
So respect the topic (see subject header) and allow that concern over leaking and exploding hydrogen AWECS is rational, and always contribute on-topic knowledge. Everytime you post, consider the desire of many busy folks to focus on AWE. The Web is a big place with plenty of extra room for all pet topics, but this Forum should not be diluted or the focused folks will bail.
 
So to relate the potential of algae production to AWE potential, note that algae does not have anywhere near the same vast promise of bountiful cheap energy as AWE, even if every available resource were devoted to algae production. Distraction by algae equals loss of focus on AWE. Distraction predicts R&D failure. Show some AWE success to rebut this,
 
daveS

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4607 From: Darin Selby Date: 10/28/2011
Subject: Re: AWE Forum Standards
Dave, once again, I am requesting that you do not exclude the rest of the forum when you email me.  And please, no begging.  There is nothing that I can see in the last ten or so emails that was off-topic?  Everything that I've shared is pertinent information for furthering AWE.  For kite fabric to be delivered to our doorstep, it has to come from somewhere.  Are we yet courageous enough to find out where exactly that 'somewhere' really is?  And, when we do, will we like what we find?   

This is why I believe that decentralization is the key to lasting sustainablity.  And the cultivation of Oilgae is settin' the family unit free!  Flying a bioplastic kite that's designed with tensairity (to stay aloft even when it's not so breezy).  As far as I can see, renewable ALGAE BIOPLASTICS is quite the technological bounty.



Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 22:00:56 -0700
From: santos137@yahoo.com
Subject: AWE Forum Standards
To: darin_selby@hotmail.com
CC: bobstuart@sasktel.net; hardensoftintl@yahoo.com; joefaust333@gmail.com

Darin (off forum, since these are netiquette issues),
 
Please post new topics (like DIY algae kite line) with a proper subject instead of hijacking topics posed by others (especially mine, please, i am begging). If you can really make good string with algae, great, but please don't just make weak claims and opinions year after year and never deliver. Its harms aerospace scholars and pro engineers to lose time with distractions of unfocused wannabes. We must drop off the list until the list becomes loser-only. Prove you are a winner by having original findings and sharing truly on-topic info.
 
You may need psychological help if you have a compulsion (if you honestly "can't give it a rest") to spam 100+ folks with numerous weak off-topic posts. Today was your worst netiquitte ever! Were you ever taught by care-givers or teachers to be productive and polite to your community? Be considerate to the high AWE Forum standard. Make on topic posts that teach us. We follow the other green stuff, like the real Hydrogen Economy, from endless other sources.
 
Even Doug is far better at commenting on-topic, despite his cheap Global Warming denials and ski trip reports.To stay on-topic with your Doug appreciation, you could explain why Doug seems unable to make the power or tap the altitudes that all the pro teams like KiteGen, SkySails, WindLift, KiteEn, TUDelft, Makani, etc. do. Doug needs technical validation far more than emotional fans. Try Doug's simple idea for yourself to show us how his example helped you, or to see for yourself why its weak (i did). When you get a serious critique of your own technical ideas, address each point honestly, rather than jump off-topic. Find other forums to discuss off-topics and chat. I feel bad for those who had to wade thru so many non AWE posts. If only you could see AWE as exciting (not "dreary") from the perspective of the tech geeks. Study hard and you will. 
 
I am sorry if you have hidden personal issues causing the problems. Good luck in all you do,
 
daveS
 
 
PS Reread your message below. Yes i went to every dumb link. Its up to you to do this stuff if you can, we are all working hard on our own special areas. Luck to all!
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Darin Selby <darin_selby@hotmail.com

Can't give it a rest.  The point from the beginning was that algae oil, as I've shared with all of the links (did you get to look at them?), could lead to a neighborhood-run system that could give you and all of your kite buddies all of the algae-based polymer string to use with the decentralized looms, to make the fabric that is sewn on decentralized, kite-powered sewing machine.  
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 11:06:15 -0700
From: santos137@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: [AWECS] Recycled Kites for AWE R&D
To: darin_selby@hotmail.com

Darin (off forum),
 
You are now confusing environmental and labor conditions. The US invented this sort of pollution.
 
Lecture Doug (off forum) about these obvious topics.
 
Stop off topic junk/spam posting please!
 
daveS

From: Darin Selby <darin_selby@hotmail.com
 

"Chinese labor conditions are similar to the "Mexican conditions" i work under, so what?"  
To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
From: santos137@yahoo.com
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 10:13:24 -0700
Subject: [AWECS] Recycled Kites for AWE R&D

 

Darin,
 
I consistently recycle kites to experiment with (secondhand and salvage) and try to wear them out (very hard). Do you remember the giant scrap kite i made a year or two ago? That's my hippy colors, for real.
 
I have never bought kite material, there is so much cloth to scavenge. My few cheap traction kites are preferably second-hand and they are made in China, but this is mainly the importation of labor, not the 20kg of total plastic mass (enough for anyone).
 
Sorry that the hydrogen concerns set you off. Lets give it a rest.
 
Peace Bro,
 
daveS

From: Darin Selby <darin_selby@hotmail.com
 
Oh, your fabric is imported all the way from China, eh?  Wow, how exotic!  And what of the working conditions there to make this petroleum-based fabric?

From: darin_selby@hotmail.com
To: airbornewindenergy@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [AWECS] OT - Confusing a Clean Hydrogen Economy with Hydrogen LTA
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 16:37:18 +0000

er, excuse me, where do you get the fabric from that you make your kites out of?

To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
From: santos137@yahoo.com
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 09:26:37 -0700
Subject: Re: [AWECS] OT - Confusing a Clean Hydrogen Economy with Hydrogen LTA

 

Darin,
 
You are spamming the list with multiple off-topic posts. Of course we follow these sort of experiments with bioplastics, biofuels, etc., with due fear about hype and the loss of food production these technologies can entail. But these are not AWE subjects and they have their own forums. This unique AWE forum should not be so diluted.
So respect the topic (see subject header) and allow that concern over leaking and exploding hydrogen AWECS is rational, and always contribute on-topic knowledge. Everytime you post, consider the desire of many busy folks to focus on AWE. The Web is a big place with plenty of extra room for all pet topics, but this Forum should not be diluted or the focused folks will bail.
 
So to relate the potential of algae production to AWE potential, note that algae does not have anywhere near the same vast promise of bountiful cheap energy as AWE, even if every available resource were devoted to algae production. Distraction by algae equals loss of focus on AWE. Distraction predicts R&D failure. Show some AWE success to rebut this,
 
daveS

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4608 From: Darin Selby Date: 10/29/2011
Subject: Re: Only Darin Should Decide to Spam
Dave, instead of endless secretive chastising and micro-managing, please look at the information that I have presented, and see it for what it is, i.e. another crucial piece of the sustainable kite flying puzzle.

Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2011 00:57:59 -0700
From: santos137@yahoo.com
Subject: Only Darin Should Decide to Spam
To: darin_selby@hotmail.com

Darin,
 
Reminder-
 
Its wholly up to you to forward off-topic netiquette messages to the entire AWE forum (including those from its volunteer moderators). Everyone else who respects the technical mission of the Forum can't be expected to post off-topic just at your strange request. Off-forum off-topic messaging is normal and healthy between friends, and you could choose to accept this gracefully instead of spamming large lists.
 
Consider working solutions- Start a new forum or blog about your special issues and let who wants to follow that and/or set your spam filter to block all messages from me or the AWE Forum moderators.
 
The quality of your forum posts are ultimately your responsibility. You can clearly do better. Thanks for understanding and trying, 
 
daveS
 
 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4609 From: Bob Stuart Date: 10/29/2011
Subject: Re: Only Darin Should Decide to Spam
Opinions vary on what is crucial, and moderation is hard to apply  fairly to only some members, but too labor-intensive to apply to all.  Perhaps we should use just limits on the numbers and length of postings by any one member, unless asked for clarification.  

Bob Stuart

On 29-Oct-11, at 2:58 AM, Darin Selby wrote:
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4610 From: Doug Date: 10/29/2011
Subject: Re: Only Darin Should Decide to Spam
Would you guys shut up so the rest of us can get some sleep?
:)
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4611 From: dave santos Date: 10/29/2011
Subject: Load Velocity and Kite Effectiveness (A legacy of Miles Loyd)
Pocock first noted kite load-velocity dynamics, but Miles Loyd best described the issue for AWE engineering. Loading is measured all along a power-transmission load-path by tension times velocity. When a kite load on a tether is static, no work is possible. There must be some motion to loadings for power to be tapped. Kites require a slow load velocity relative to wind velocity for maximum power (grunt), while generators need a high load velocity to be cheap and small. A transmission of the right mechanical advantage matches the two ideal load velocities. Basic "skill-in-the-art" of tuning these loads is easy to aquire.
 
Miles Loyd's great insight was not "Crosswind Power" itself; a concept long known to sailors and also in AWE (Payne and McCutchen) that Loyd described mathematically and gave an English name to. Loyd's wonderful inventive leap was his patented mechanical transmission from a kiteplane to a ground generator based on three-phase crankshaft-to-crankshaft tri-tether pulsing. This was a brilliant solution to the problem he identified in his classic paper- the poor scalability of flying generators. Loyd also calculated and noted the effectiveness of traditional kites in this paper. Cheap low-complexity kites can do crosswind power with the highest overall L/D, the importance of which Loyd also well instructed.
 
These points bear remembering whenever Loyd is misleadingly invoked by Bay Area VCs as the exclusive patron saint of utility-scale flygens.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4612 From: dave santos Date: 10/29/2011
Subject: A Spider-Web for Spider-Trains
TUDelft is on a powerful track with its goal to perfect trains of sweeping kiteplanes (the Spider concept). The next logical scaling step will be to more safely and reliably host many such Spider-Trains in the smallest possible airspace by cross-linking them with a control-mesh kite layer across the tops. Call this the "Spider Web" AWE concept.
 
coolIP
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4613 From: dave santos Date: 10/29/2011
Subject: Nori Seaweed Kite
Attachments :
    Attached image is a marginal kite made from seaweed as proposed earlier. Will fly it when it dries, but seaweed seems to hold moisture as a gel.
     
    This is no replacement for a proper hemp kite, but the cotton bridle looks to be Mayan cotton...
    		   @@attachment@@
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4614 From: roderickjosephread Date: 10/30/2011
    Subject: Re: Load Velocity and Kite Effectiveness (A legacy of Miles Loyd)
    I see some of his stuff on google patents.
    Is there a version of this paper online it sounds fascinating.


    Loyd's wonderful inventive leap was his patented mechanical transmission from a kiteplane to a ground generator based on three-phase crankshaft-to-crankshaft tri-tether pulsing. This was a brilliant solution to the problem he identified in his classic paper- the poor scalability of flying generators. Loyd also calculated and noted the effectiveness of traditional kites in this paper. Cheap low-complexity kites can do crosswind power with the highest overall L/D, the importance of which Loyd also well instructed.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4615 From: Darin Selby Date: 10/30/2011
    Subject: Re: Not a Crucial Message
    Dave, instead of replying to my relevant posts about where the kite fabric could come from, instead, I, we on this forum must endure your endless corrections and bouts of power tripping.  

    You have yet to acknowledge anything that I've posted concerning the positive findings on safely using hydrogen as a fuel and as a lifting gas.  And that algae oil is a prime candidate for not only food, but also for fuel, and for making a useful polymer string...on site.    
     
    Instead, the constant judgement is that my posts are spam??  You have yet to share with me a valid reason for this accusation.  So, you can continue to turn a blind eye to the truth of the matter, that AWE must rely upon a centralized PETROLEUM source of kite fabric.  (Notice that the "on topic" word kite is used quite frequently in my posts.)  

    I wonder why very few people really post here?   Could it be because your responses come across as one who is an overbearing, controlling know-it-all?
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4616 From: Doug Date: 10/30/2011
    Subject: Re: "Trampoline" Rig AWECS
    Hi Darin:
    I've got more where that came from.
    Here's a pic of a Superturbine(R), called the FireFly(TM) that uses a driveshaft made from helically-oriented carbon fiber.
    http://www.speakerfactory.net/TURBINES/INNOVATIONS/7ROT-7FOOT-2GEN/PAGES/fireflydougbeachth.jpg

    Do you have a wind turbine with a driveshaft made from helical carbon fibers? Oh I didn't think so. Does NASA? NREL? ARPA-E? Dave Santos? Magenn? Makani? Nope, didn't think so.

    The astute observer might note that this 5-foot driveshaft aims toward the sky. And that the second rotor is partially airborne.
    The imaginative observer might posit that the length could be extended and more rotors added, increasing power while reaching higher into the sky.

    I've been building turbines with helical carbon fiber driveshafts for years now. Many many many of them. I know what works right with them, and what goes wrong.

    I had the FireFly(TM) with its helical carbon driveshaft explode in a storm the other day. That's often how wind turbines fail: exploding. In extreme wind events.
    Can you tell me why? Didn't think so. I don't think there is anyone who knows the first thing about the topics they think they are discussing here. If anyone did, the conversations would be much different. The factors discussed here are mostly irrelevant, while the relevant factors are not even recognized.

    I'd bring my friend Jack Shizzle into this, but you don't know him.

    :)
    Doug Selsam
    (uhhhh Roger that!)
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4617 From: roderickjosephread Date: 10/30/2011
    Subject: Re: "Trampoline" Rig AWECS
    Doug,
    Thanks for sharing the picture.
    They often save 1000 words.

    I would suspect a harmonic vibration along the length of your shaft as cause of destruction.
    Carbon can have very brittle failures.
    However we could all help pitch in ideas if you share another good quality picture of the breakage.

    Metallurgy was borne of aircraft catastrophes. And it is a fantastic tool for strengthening of developing designs.

    I think by adding a lifting kite to keep more tension in the shaft you will increase the frequency of these harmonics ... but also critically cut down on the amplitude...thus bending moments in the shaft. A bent hollow shaft transmitting torque, loads it's outer walls very unevenly. That's part why I'm planning on tying my spinner between valley ends.

    Got the first 16 strings from the trampoline to the swivel today, had to steal my kids kite lines, how guilty do I feel?... Not much, my 12m Naish Aero lines are getting stripped tomorrow.

    Thanks again Doug
    Rod
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4618 From: dave santos Date: 10/30/2011
    Subject: Ideal Size for an Array Kite? (Rather Small)
    Much of this AWE scaling analysis is review, now that we have studied these issues for years. Only a few insights are new; mostly relating to arrays. The trend over time is greater conceptual clarity and more engineering confidence.
     
    ====================
     
    The basic design trade-off to best sizing a kite is between operational and performance factors. Operational factors roughly divide between automated machine actuated processes, as yet poorly developed, and "ergometric" human factors, which represent a legacy standard.
     
    Strong trained adults, singly or in small teams, with simple tools, can directly handle kites on the order of a 10m "characteristic length" dimension. This happens to be close to the maximum modern sparred "sticky kite" size. Any bigger and the spars are either too floppy or too heavy for a broad range of conditions. Hang gliders are a good approximation of this scale. Soft kites can scale far beyond the handling power of a small crew, but the general natural handling scale is on the order of 20m characteristic dimension, or somewhat more. Improved soft-kite scaling, compared to sparred kites, is mostly due to less mass/velocity risk by the elimination of spars.
     
    The optimal size for array kites is smaller than optimal single kite size, so that a human crew or equipment can handle large numbers of them with less fatigue or lower peak load-cases. An array kite unit of about 1/2 maximum single kite handling size allows for handy operation of many kites composed in an array. This suggests a 5m characteristic dimension for a sticky kite or 10m for a soft kite, if one is to handle many kites per workshift. The limits to human line handling of a kite or kite array with power equipment is a few megawatts per person, based on ship towing and industrial fishing models.
     
    Flight conditions also drive kite scaling. Higher winds favor smaller kite units. Slower winds and thinner air generally drive scaling larger. L/D is a complex scaling issue, with highest L/D in a middle size range.
     
    Only integrated operational and performance research testing can answer more precisely what the ideal AWE scalings are. Maybe the best performance sizes are often smaller than the maximum ergometric size. Its an open question whether even the toy-scale might be optimal, given  a high enough Re and performance scaling limitations.  We know that the largest birds struggle near the upper limits of ideal bird scale, having to give up flight or being driven to extinction if much larger. A small goose is close to an optimal maximum for bird-flight performance.
     
    Airliner design offers special insight for AWECS unit scaling forecasts. Jumbo jets are close to a maximum structural scale and only grow so large due to the need to maximize piloting and operational logistics like travel marketing and airport hub congestion. The latest jumbos are only more efficient by passenger miles per fuel unit insofar as they are the best powered and constructed out of a generally aging fleet. The performance-optimal (power-to-payload) size of modern airframes seems close to the 707 scale. This more than direct human actuation can easily handle and suggests a scaling goal for the largest practical kiteplanes. Carbon nanotubes and graphene promise a rough doubling of current practical dimensioning, so there is still room to grow.
     
    The latticework of kitelines in a dense kite array may complicate design, but control as a single integrated system is simplified. The need for lines does reduce flight performance at any scale; otherwise lines megascale rather well. Kiteplane performance and operational scaling limits do not much limit the size of an array of aggregated units. The paradox is that a suitably modest kite unit scale enables the largest possible aggregation.
     
     
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4619 From: dave santos Date: 10/30/2011
    Subject: BioKites Again (Biopolymer Suitability)
    Its been ungracefully asserted that DIY algal-derived biopolymers are a "crucial" key to AWE, and that the AWE Forum and particular AWE researchers wrongly ignore or somehow slight this view. In fact, DIYable BioKites (and ScrapKites) has been a recurring forum topic since the beginning, and this post adds further detail.
     
    Industrial biopolymers are only slowly becoming cost-competitive with petropolymers, with cost/performance parity perhaps a decade or two away. Sadly high-performance polymer processing is not well-suited for the average DIY community, for reasons listed below. On the other hand, cottage processing of natural fibers is very ancient and workable still. This topic has been very well covered by us, including KiteLab Group's varied organic kites, but the latest news is that Noah Sapir, a biofiber expert (and WOWUS founder) proposes consideration of all sorts of agricultural waste fibers, such as banana or palm roughage, for the cheapest greenest wings imaginable. Yes, such fiber is "lower grade" compared to common kite materials, but it may offer the quickest payback with the least environmental footprint in some niches. Hemp, sisal, cotton, and the other common natural fibers remain traditional options where cost and greenness trump the modest performance and operational disadvantages (compared to synthetics).
     
    Its an open question whether its greener to recycle "lost" petropolymer streams, rather than to grow biopolymers from scratch. Three-quarters of all petropolymer currently ends up in landfills or oceans, and capturing some of this tragic waste for reuse in renewable energy is very hard to beat morally. Virgin biopolymer processing can involve far more embodied energy and cost, with no direct remedial effect. Again, KiteLab Ilwaco has extensively reported on its "scrap kites" made from the waste stream (from old tents, tarps, etc.). One can even make powerful wings from scrap cardboard. Insisting on virgin natural fiber or biopolymer may be "green overkill".
     
    Algae is a major biopolymer source with a great future, but for most communities there are far more common bio-sources available, like agricultural chaff, wood, grass, etc. Bioreactors range from natural ponds and bays in sunlight to manufactured tanks with mechanical and artificial light inputs, with a range of narrow advantages obvious disadvantages. At best, for a long time these will be niche AWE technologies for special cases.
     
    Polyethyline (PE) is currently the most attractive biopolymer as it is fully compatible with chemically identical petropolymer stock. Anyone could ferment the ethanol precursor, but this is better used in-family as "medicine". UHMWPE line does not look like a suitable technology for decentralized  DIY manufacture. The mechanical, chemical, and temperature tolerances are quite exacting and centralized production is the norm. This industrial production could become bio-based.
     
    Cellulose is the oldest bioplastic, but its best used in its natural fiber forms. Rayon is processed cellulose with some good properties, but not performance competitive with modern superpolymers. Polylactic acid (PLA) is a "major" high-performance biopolymer, but chemically incompatible with current recycling, even harmfully tainting recycling streams. We await maturation of this product before PLA is perhaps adopted for AWE.
     
    Hopefully this review corrects the mistaken impression that that highly processed biopolymers are being overlooked for AWE, even we cannot see them as crucial yet. Biofibers continue to be the DIY state-of-the-art. The seaweed kite flew today and i am pondering whether to now eat it...
     
    --------- green kite review gallery--------------
     
    A KiteLab PDX compostable demo kite made from organic paper, rattan, and cotton string-
     
     
    A large KiteLab Ilwaco ScapKite-
     
     
    A 7 foot wide KiteLab Austin recycled paper delta-
     
    (image did not paste)
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4620 From: Darin Selby Date: 10/30/2011
    Subject: Re: "Trampoline" Rig AWECS
    Doug, are you installing these for people in your area?

    To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
    From: doug@selsam.com
    Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 13:59:31 +0000
    Subject: [AWECS] Re: "Trampoline" Rig AWECS

     
    Hi Darin:
    I've got more where that came from.
    Here's a pic of a Superturbine(R), called the FireFly(TM) that uses a driveshaft made from helically-oriented carbon fiber.
    http://www.speakerfactory.net/TURBINES/INNOVATIONS/7ROT-7FOOT-2GEN/PAGES/fireflydougbeachth.jpg

    Do you have a wind turbine with a driveshaft made from helical carbon fibers? Oh I didn't think so. Does NASA? NREL? ARPA-E? Dave Santos? Magenn? Makani? Nope, didn't think so.

    The astute observer might note that this 5-foot driveshaft aims toward the sky. And that the second rotor is partially airborne.
    The imaginative observer might posit that the length could be extended and more rotors added, increasing power while reaching higher into the sky.

    I've been building turbines with helical carbon fiber driveshafts for years now. Many many many of them. I know what works right with them, and what goes wrong.

    I had the FireFly(TM) with its helical carbon driveshaft explode in a storm the other day. That's often how wind turbines fail: exploding. In extreme wind events.
    Can you tell me why? Didn't think so. I don't think there is anyone who knows the first thing about the topics they think they are discussing here. If anyone did, the conversations would be much different. The factors discussed here are mostly irrelevant, while the relevant factors are not even recognized.

    I'd bring my friend Jack Shizzle into this, but you don't know him.

    :)
    Doug Selsam
    (uhhhh Roger that!)
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4621 From: Pierre Benhaiem Date: 10/31/2011
    Subject: "Betz limit" and optimized workspace

    The terms "Betz limit" could seem not appropriate for AWECS (see posts from DaveL and DaveN) .Even if betz limit is not a scientifically correct base of calculation for AWE, we can simply hold as " Betz limit " the value 16/27 as efficiency,not as process.We could also simply use "efficiency" for a given swept area,but "Betz limit" is a too known expression for wind energy and could be a common element of comparison between wind towers and AWECS.

    AWECS is expected to be the best solution to harness High Altitude Wind Energy (HAWE). Winds at high altitudes are more persistent and powerful. Implementation of AWECS allows reaching HAWE without heavy towers and obtaining a high ratio power/mass of material. So the success of AWECS is predictable. However some bottlenecks can delay the market before a method of maximization of the workspace is really studied, what is the objective of the present paper. Indeed the optimization of the swept area within a workspace is a main element of ROI.

             Definition of workspace

    1-      a) Ground area                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            The

    ground area of implementation is calculated according to three criteria:1) the effective (small) area occupied by the installations;2) ground area meeting installations, this area being generally used for the measure of power density;3) but safety acceptance involve to count the area corresponding to the circular surface given by the length of tethers and reel operations according to their positions according to wind rose _ except for jet-stream _ (for example a tether of 1000 m corresponds to a maximal circular surface of 1000 m of radius more the length of reel operations),then a square containing it more safety margins. So the importance of safety surface at ground is an obstacle for implementation in habited zones, and a main element of cost for implementation offshore, and onshore only in inhabited regions like forests, deserts, or sometimes great farms.

    2-      b) Air space volume                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

    The air space volume is realized by a parallelepiped which the basis square contains the circular surface, and which the height is 1000 m , that without taking into account of safety margins. For an identical amount of peak energy worked volume of installation of an AWECS-farm can be compared in worked volume of a nuclear plant. So the ratio power/volume for AWECS  is enough good. But the space is not free.

    2-      c) Elements of calculation

    Tether angle and kites being assumed to be identical the main element is the whole vertical area in front of wind. To allow comparable measures between the different trajectories, the area, containing also the swept area, is contained into a rectangle or a square. When the value of swept area is close to the value of whole vertical plan, we assume the level of the maximization of it is high. A second important element is the maximization of the swept area itself which is realized according to the global kite(s) area and their ratio(s) CL/CD.A third important element is the real output of swept areas according to trajectories.

    PierreB

    http://flygenkite.com  
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4622 From: Pierre Benhaiem Date: 10/31/2011
    Subject: "Betz limit" and calculation for an optimized workspace

    The terms "Betz limit" could seem not appropriate for AWECS (see posts from DaveL and DaveN) .Even if betz limit is not a scientifically correct base of calculation for AWE, we can simply hold as " Betz limit " the value 16/27 as efficiency,not as process.We could also simply use "efficiency" for a given swept area,but "Betz limit" is a too known expression for wind energy and could be a common element for wind towers and AWECS allowing a better integration of AWE in general wind energy.For example a comparison between wind towers and AWECS gives an advantage for AWECS for criteria 1 and 2 for ground area within workspace,but an advantage for wind towers for criteria 3 which is simply no existing.

    Here are extracts from a recent study from FlygenKite for a method increasing by factor 3 or 4 the optimization of workspace for a single kite or of course rather a kite-farm.The report (5 pages,measured examples and estimations,and video) is available confidentially.

    "AWECS is expected to be the best solution to harness High Altitude Wind Energy (HAWE). Winds at high altitudes are more persistent and powerful. Implementation of AWECS allows reaching HAWE without heavy towers and obtaining a high ratio power/mass of material. So the success of AWECS is predictable. However some bottlenecks can delay the market before a method of maximization of the workspace is really studied, what is the objective of the present paper. Indeed the optimization of the swept area within a workspace is a main element of ROI.

             Definition of workspace

    a) Ground area                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            

    The ground area of implementation is calculated according to three criteria:1) the effective (small) area occupied by the installations;2) ground area meeting installations, this area being generally used for the measure of power density;3) but safety acceptance involve to count the area corresponding to the circular surface given by the length of tethers and reel operations according to their positions according to wind rose _ except for jet-stream _ (for example a tether of 1000 m corresponds to a maximal circular surface of 1000 m of radius more the length of reel operations),then a square containing it more safety margins. So the importance of safety surface at ground is an obstacle for implementation in habited zones, and a main element of cost for implementation offshore, and onshore only in inhabited regions like forests, deserts, or sometimes great farms.

    b) Air space volume                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

    The air space volume is realized by a parallelepiped which the basis square contains the circular surface, and which the height is 1000 m , that without taking into account of safety margins. For an identical amount of peak energy worked volume of installation of an AWECS-farm can be compared in worked volume of a nuclear plant. So the ratio power/volume for AWECS  is enough good. But the space is not free.

    c) Elements of calculation

    Tether angle and kites being assumed to be identical the main element is the whole vertical area in front of wind. To allow comparable measures between the different trajectories, the area, containing also the swept area, is contained into a rectangle or a square. When the value of swept area is close to the value of whole vertical plan, we assume the level of the maximization of it is high. A second important element is the maximization of the swept area itself which is realized according to the global kite(s) area and their ratio(s) CL/CD.A third important element is the real output of swept areas according to trajectories."

    "Figure-eight

    kite area

    0.7 m²

    ratio CL/CD of kite

    4

    kite span

    1.15 m

    length of 2 lines

    25 m

    angle of lines

    45°

    width of figure-eight

    8.2 m

    swept area on vertical plan (minimal estimation)

    15 m²

    area of the rectangle multiplied by the sine 45 °

    25 m²

    wind speed

    5 m/s

    measured simultaneous peak forces on 2 lines, without reel-out

    40 N + 10 N

     power during reel-out phase (estimation)

     37 W

     output of vertical swept area (on Betz limit) (maximal estimation) 

     5.57 %     

     output of rectangle containing whole vertical area (on Betz limit) 

     3.34 %

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    "

     

    Betz limit,so the optimization of workspace can be increased by factor 3 or 4 within a kite-farm.Confidential report and video are available.

    PierreB

    http://flygenkite.com

    NB:the output from AWECS is by far lower than output of wind towers,but the ratio power/mass of material give a decisive advantage for AWECS.And the cost of workplace is also dependant to the chosen place
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4623 From: Pierre Benhaiem Date: 10/31/2011
    Subject: "Betz limit" and calculation for an optimized workspace

    (Message posted again because of problem of layout)

    The terms "Betz limit" could seem not appropriate for AWECS (see posts from DaveL and DaveN) .Even if betz limit is not a scientifically correct base of calculation for AWE, we can simply hold as " Betz limit " the value 16/27 as efficiency,not as process.We could also simply use "efficiency" for a given swept area,but "Betz limit" is a too known expression for wind energy and could be a common element for wind towers and AWECS allowing a better integration of AWE in general wind energy.For example a comparison between wind towers and AWECS gives an advantage for AWECS for criteria 1 and 2 for ground area within workspace,but an advantage for wind towers for criteria 3 which is simply no existing.

    Here are extracts from a recent study from FlygenKite for a method increasing by factor 3 or 4 the optimization of workspace for a single kite or of course rather a kite-farm.The report (5 pages,measured examples and estimations,and video) is available confidentially.

    "AWECS is expected to be the best solution to harness High Altitude Wind Energy (HAWE). Winds at high altitudes are more persistent and powerful. Implementation of AWECS allows reaching HAWE without heavy towers and obtaining a high ratio power/mass of material. So the success of AWECS is predictable. However some bottlenecks can delay the market before a method of maximization of the workspace is really studied, what is the objective of the present paper. Indeed the optimization of the swept area within a workspace is a main element of ROI.

             Definition of workspace

    a) Ground area                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            

    The ground area of implementation is calculated according to three criteria:1) the effective (small) area occupied by the installations;2) ground area meeting installations, this area being generally used for the measure of power density;3) but safety acceptance involve to count the area corresponding to the circular surface given by the length of tethers and reel operations according to their positions according to wind rose _ except for jet-stream _ (for example a tether of 1000 m corresponds to a maximal circular surface of 1000 m of radius more the length of reel operations),then a square containing it more safety margins. So the importance of safety surface at ground is an obstacle for implementation in habited zones, and a main element of cost for implementation offshore, and onshore only in inhabited regions like forests, deserts, or sometimes great farms.

    b) Air space volume                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

    The air space volume is realized by a parallelepiped which the basis square contains the circular surface, and which the height is 1000 m , that without taking into account of safety margins. For an identical amount of peak energy worked volume of installation of an AWECS-farm can be compared in worked volume of a nuclear plant. So the ratio power/volume for AWECS  is enough good. But the space is not free.

    c) Elements of calculation

    Tether angle and kites being assumed to be identical the main element is the whole vertical area in front of wind. To allow comparable measures between the different trajectories, the area, containing also the swept area, is contained into a rectangle or a square. When the value of swept area is close to the value of whole vertical plan, we assume the level of the maximization of it is high. A second important element is the maximization of the swept area itself which is realized according to the global kite(s) area and their ratio(s) CL/CD.A third important element is the real output of swept areas according to trajectories."

    "Figure-eight

    kite area

    0.7 m²

    ratio CL/CD of kite

    4

    kite span

    1.15 m

    length of 2 lines

    25 m

    angle of lines

    45°

    width of figure-eight

    8.2 m

    swept area on vertical plan (minimal estimation)

    15 m²

    area of the rectangle multiplied by the sine 45 °

    25 m²

    wind speed

    5 m/s

    measured simultaneous peak forces on 2 lines, without reel-out

    40 N + 10 N

     power during reel-out phase (estimation)

     37 W

     output of vertical swept area (on Betz limit) (maximal estimation) 

     5.57 %     

     output of rectangle containing whole vertical area (on Betz limit) 

     3.34 %

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    "

    Betz limit,so the optimization of workspace can be increased by factor 3 or 4 within a kite-farm.Confidential report and video are available.

    PierreB

    http://flygenkite.com

    NB:the output from AWECS is by far lower than output of wind towers,but the ratio power/mass of material give a decisive advantage for AWECS.And the cost of workplace is also dependant to the chosen place
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4624 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 10/31/2011
    Subject: Re: "Betz limit" and calculation for an optimized workspace
    Attachments :
      More details,

      PierreB
      http://flygenkite.com



      		  @@attachment@@
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4625 From: Doug Date: 10/31/2011
      Subject: Re: "Trampoline" Rig AWECS
      No it exploded. I try not to sell systems that are still in the "exploding" stage. The exact failure mode was known and completely predicted. Remedies are known and already tested. Time to address it, while getting no help from any of the big talkers that have sapped so much of my time and energy is the tough part.
      :)
      Doug S.
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4626 From: dave santos Date: 10/31/2011
      Subject: Sweet DIY AWECS Hardware (Nordic Track mechanism and Double Drive sc
       
      Old exercise equipment is peculiarly suited as DIY AWE hardware. I have reworked several fine exercise machines to be driven by kites, but overlooked the classic but frumpy Nordic Track until now. As it turns out the machine contains a great double sprag mechanism on a De Prony style brake. This is an ideal transmission element for many kinds of AWECS experiements. One can use the brake to directly measure brake horsepower (just add a spring scale and calibrate reading the speedometer) or convert the brake drum as a belt drive to a generator.
       
      The double sprag is an ideal mechanical interface for many effective two line AWECS concepts. "Yo-yo" motion is converted to continuous rotation. There is even a small flywheel mass on the shaft to smooth the motion.
       
      ====================
       
      A cool gizmo being sold on late night TV, called the Double Drive screwdriver, turns continuously with an oscillating twist of the wrist. Can't wait until the waste stream delivers these for personal AWECS use. Until then, ratchet drivers with an added elastic return suffice.
       
      ====================
       
       
       
       
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4627 From: Dan Date: 11/1/2011
      Subject: A fun Won
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4628 From: Doug Date: 11/1/2011
      Subject: The Power of Rope //Re: [AWECS] Re: Single, Double, Tri-tether Power
      Points well taken.
      Now let's see if it's possible to actually answer the simple question I asked:
      I'll try again, and please focus on each word:
      Is there any known example of economical electric power generation using reels? (That means 4 cents/kWh = $40/MWh)
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4629 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/1/2011
      Subject: Re: A fun Won
      George Parks and Dave Santos had some prior works in this direction: 
      http://www.main.org/polycosmos/robotgrp/flysphr/flysphr.htm

      --- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, "Dan" <spiralairfoil@...
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4630 From: dave santos Date: 11/1/2011
      Subject: Original Flying Sphere by an AWE Forum Member //Re: [AWECS] A fun Wo
      The Japanese Defence Ministry's claim to have created the "world's first spherical flying machine" is not true. I developed Flying Spheres extensively with friend, George Parks, in Austin, during the early 90s, as a member of the legendary Robot Group.
       
      Score another one for the Peaceniks!
       
       
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4631 From: dave santos Date: 11/1/2011
      Subject: Germany Turning from Nukes to AWE (onKite Study)
      It was exciting when Germany recently resolved to phase out nuclear energy. This historic decision implied that AWE would be especially attractive to them. Germany is already a leader in the field, especially via SkySails, the best funded and first-to-market industrial scale AWE
       
      The Fraunhofer Institute in Germany is now investigating the potential of airborne wind energy in Germany as part of a study called “onKite” for the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU) of Germany.
       
      The Study seeks to determine how far airborne wind energy systems are developed, where research is still needed, and the future development of the airborne wind energy industry. The associated "Delphi Survey" has been launched but is restricted to peer-selected AWEC2011 presenters, with results to be made public. Others can surely forward input too.

      (http://www.iwes.fraunhofer.de/en.html)
       
      Projectstudy „onKite“
      Fraunhofer Institute for Wind Energy and Energy System Technology
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4632 From: Bob Stuart Date: 11/1/2011
      Subject: Re: The Power of Rope //Re: [AWECS] Re: Single, Double, Tri-tether P
      Elevators in buildings and mines are often regenerative.  It saves a lot of money on the power bill.

      Bob Stuart

      On 20-Oct-11, at 7:42 AM, Doug wrote:
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4633 From: dave santos Date: 11/1/2011
      Subject: Re: The Power of Rope //Re: [AWECS] Re: Single, Double, Tri-tether P
      Doug,
       
      Another great working rope precedent for you to study is cable car systems such as San Francisco's, with some runs of a few miles. Like Bob's examples, most of these sort of systems can in principle or practice regenerate power when loads return downward (worm-gearing is an exception). Its obvious to those knowledgeable in the art of AWE that cables are workable in future large-scale power transmission applications.
       
      While large-scale cable power transmission is well established, no one has yet provided to us an existence-proof of a successful "long distance" driveshaft. Multi-turbines on a rope, with phased collective-pitch, are the best bet for an AWE scheme in your concept space.
       
      daveS 
       
      PS The solution to the FireFly Turbine's self-destructing in spiralspring-mass chaotic peaks is to specify the shaft heavier. Sadly, this won't be a good fix for flyable versions.
       
      Also, when you next suspect that no one on the AWE list has your experience with exploding turbines, remember that the aerospace folks are well versed in major catastrophic failures due to defective engineering, having witnessed fatalities even. Let this experience to inform you as you push your flight envelope.

       
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4634 From: Bob Stuart Date: 11/1/2011
      Subject: Re: The Power of Rope //Re: [AWECS] Re: Single, Double, Tri-tether P
      Cableways are now used mostly by tourists on mountains, but they were a serious method of freight hauling when roads were more expensive.  http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2011/01/aerial-ropeways-automatic-cargo-transport.html  
      We could also look at drag-line mining, construction hoisting, and many fishing methods as being rope-powered.  It is an old, mature technology, but there are few applications for a long stroke device.  

      Bob Stuart

      On 1-Nov-11, at 11:50 AM, dave santos wrote:
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4635 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 11/1/2011
      Subject: Re: Germany Turning from Nukes to AWE (onKite Study)
      Is there a link to the "study called “onKite”" ?

      PierreB
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4636 From: Muzhichkov Date: 11/1/2011
      Subject: Re: Germany Turning from Nukes to AWE (onKite Study)
      I have not seen it also. Please post a link to any info about airbornes in Fraunhofer.
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4637 From: dave santos Date: 11/1/2011
      Subject: Re: Germany Turning from Nukes to AWE (onKite Study)
      Pierre and Alex,
       
      We maybe have to wait for a public onKite weblink; the Delphi Survey links are individually email-keyed to recipients, who are asked not to forward them. There is not too much to the survey, mainly its opinion polling of AWE concept popularity and developmental timelines.
       
      The exciting news is the survey's focus on estimating AWE concept Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs), which has been a forum topic in past years. Under TRL analysis (and Critical Path analysis), low-complexity AWE is favored, as it is waiting at-hand; while high-complexity AWE hardly exists and will long lag...
       
      A bit of old coolIP- Convert aging nukes to kites, reusing the legacy generators and no-fly airspace. Use kite revenue to properly decommission the plants safely,
       
      daveS

       
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4638 From: dave santos Date: 11/1/2011
      Subject: Original Flying Sphere by an AWE Forum Member //Re: [AWECS] A fun Wo
      Darin will note that JoeF has well educated us to his profound yet simple insight that all aircraft are kites. Whether its a glider, powered airplane, Flying Sphere, etc., the role of mass-energy and wings operates with common physics and load geometry. This is a key conceptual gift of Joe's to us and it recently led to a host of new AWE concepts.
       
      I thought my reply to Dan was on topic (Flying Spheres). Brooks can confirm that the Flying Spheres were often tethered in kite mode, and variants had motor/turbines to drive lights and beepers. These toys were true AWECS.
       
      Also, Dan never spams the list like Darin has, willfully and inconsiderately, again and again and again. The Forum tolerates a lot of abuse before moderation kicks-in. Darin can best focus on AWE, than rather than promoting a forum flame war. He really has gotten more respect than he gave his spam victims. Spammers don't easily earn respect.
       
      Darin should consider the merits of sending a polite private message to anyone whose posts he thinks are off-topic or spam.
       
      Darin wrote to the Forum-
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4639 From: dave santos Date: 11/1/2011
      Subject: Advantages of Flying Spheres for AWE
      1) Self Relaunch- The Flying Sphere Kiteplane rolls like a ball self-orienting for self relaunch.
       
      2) Snag Resistance- A Flying Sphere does not have any projections to snag on kitelines. Even a motor/generator turbine is well contained within the protective ring wings.
       
      3) High Structural Integrity- No cantilevered wings and a strong compression ball geometry allow for a lighter airframe.
       
      3) Favorable Flight Dynamics- Ultra-stable flight with plenty of balanced side area to fly sideways. 2-channel elevon control.
       
      4) High Wing Area with Reasonable L/D- Proper kites need lots of wing surface. Good ring wings have low induced drag. Care must be taken to minimize interference drag at wing junctions. The best Robot Group Flying Spheres had L/D 
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4640 From: Dan Date: 11/2/2011
      Subject: Interesting Joe!
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4641 From: Doug Date: 11/2/2011
      Subject: Original Flying Sphere by an AWE Forum Member //Re: [AWECS] A fun Wo
      Nice one Dave S.
      Reminds me of my band Metallix in Newport Beach, California, in 1982.
      See there were these kids at Newport Beach High School that apparently really liked our name and concept...
      :)
      "All wind turbines are kites."
      Doug Selsam
      PS "What are you flying?"
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4642 From: Doug Date: 11/2/2011
      Subject: The Power of Rope //Re: [AWECS] Re: Single, Double, Tri-tether Power
      What did I post this like 2 weeks ago?
      A blast from the past!
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4643 From: Bob Stuart Date: 11/2/2011
      Subject: Re: Interesting Joe!
      A website in Russian about a lifting-body blimp with solar cells on top.

      On 2-Nov-11, at 8:46 AM, Dan wrote:
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4644 From: roderickjosephread Date: 11/2/2011
      Subject: Re: Advantages of Flying Spheres for AWE
      Another of the Kids favourites ...
      http://www.hoberman.com/fold/Sphere/sphere.htm
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4645 From: roderickjosephread Date: 11/2/2011
      Subject: Time for a new drawing
      I'm looking into pulliing a wire loop, the length of the Braighe Wall. Feeding in rotation from spinner wheels tied back to a stiffening inner ring extending back to sea side.
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4646 From: Doug Date: 11/2/2011
      Subject: The Power of Rope //Re: [AWECS] Re: Single, Double, Tri-tether Power
      OK I knew it would be difficult to stay focused on the exact question.
      I knew that the ADHD mentality here would be unable to address, let alone answer, such a simple question.
      Predictably, it is "answered" with a lot of off-track, peripheral "almost" answers and distractions. The arrow splinters before reaching the target.

      No I'm not talking about elevator systems that must have a convenient place to dump the power of a descending elevator car, and so they use the grid they're already connected to anyway.
      Nope I'm not talking about chairlifts, not cablecars, no no no. They are not used for power generation. Any rotating machinery such as a lathe can occasionally dump some power into the system. Incidental "backward" flows of power are not what I'm asking about.

      These answers imply that somehow Otis Elevator is the next Edison, that it's only a matter of time before we realize that elevators can provide all our power needs. Not true. And did someone notice that the elevators produce power cheaper than power plants? I think not!

      My main point is, EVEN IF THE ORIGINAL ENERGY WERE 100% FREE, cables and reels have not shown themselves to be an economical, nor even a steady-state way to even transmit that power for economical grid use. I contend that there's no evidence for even the economics of maintaining the cables and reels, with regard to 4 cent electricity, regardless of how cheap that power was to start with.

      I'm NOT talking about "just anything that uses cables and reels".

      Now please go back and focus on the question:
      "Is there any known example of economical electricity generation using reels?"

      Focus on every word. ( I know it's hard)
      economical = 4 cents/kWh
      electricity
      generation
      reels

      :)
      Doug S.
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4647 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/2/2011
      Subject: Re: Interesting Joe!
      GOOGLE -MACHINE TRANSLATE CAUTION: 

      Recently, a Canadian company Solar Ship announced three models of the aircraft of the same name, each of which is a hybrid airship. In order to rise into the air, Solar Ship uses aerodynamic force of the wings rather specific form, and to travel by air airship equipped with an electric motor which is powered by an array of photovoltaic panels installed on the roof, like the HALE-D from Lockheed Martin. As the company claims, it will minimize the carbon emissions of the aircraft.


      Traditionally, as with any airship, Solar Ship filled with helium, though, as the software company, the ship can fly and when filling in ordinary air. This means that even if the airship was damaged membrane with leakage of helium, it will still be able to fly and, most importantly, it is safe enough to land. The electric motor acts as on-board battery and with solar panels on the roof of the airship

      The company notes that it has developed an airship design, which is heavier than air, has many advantages compared with the design of aircraft that are lighter than air. First, it eliminates the need for infrastructure organization mooring, making Solar Ship more practical to work in remote areas. Secondly, the airship can carry more payload. And finally, it is structurally more robust and agile, as well as resistant to wind and other weather conditions.

      Solar Ship has developed three different models of hybrid airships. The smallest model called the Caracal has a claimed capacity of 750 pounds and can fly a distance of 2500 km with a maximum speed of 120 km / h. Solar Ship Caracal is designed to work in remote areas difficult to reach by road, both commercial and military purposes. The ship can take off and land on short runways only 50 meters.

      The next model called Chui is focused on an ISR (intelligence, surveillance and search), and transportation.Using solar energy, the airship can carry up to 2,500 kg payload to a distance of 5000 km at a speed of 100 km / h.

      The third and largest airship Solar Ship Nanuq - a real heavy-duty truck, air only: it can lift into the air and 30 tons of cargo and deliver it to a distance of 6000 km at a speed of 120 km / h.

      ABOVE IS A GOOGLE-MACHINE TRANSLATION OF THE LINK OF THIS THREAD.

      We have started a collection place for solar-energy in AWE: 
      http://www.energykitesystems.net/CoopIP/SoarEnergyAWECS.html: 
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 4648 From: dave santos Date: 11/2/2011
      Subject: Re: The Power of Rope //Re: [AWECS] Re: Single, Double, Tri-tether P
      Doug,
       
      You missed the cool cable-power examples cited in Low Tech Magazine that Bob linked. Ropeways have been long used to generate power continuously, not just in regeneration phases. The modern industrial mining models meet every economic test, in fact the electricity is produced almost for free (gen capital cost only), as the ore ropeways would need to be braked anyway.
       
      Keep in mind the view of physicists, whereby energy transmission paths are commonly viewed as two-way (no arrow-of-time dependency). In this modern view of energy its quite natural to see in, say, a ski-lift, the potential to reverse the motion and get the same power out. The solar-cell/LED and motor/generator are devices that "work both ways". So its just Physics-101 to look at cable systems that use power as inspiration for similar systems "run backwards" to generate energy. Where were you going with this?
       
      Folks do quite well at resonding to your request for examples, so don't complain. Not only are precise existence proofs presented that cable has been effective in power generation, but also the effort to reply is conscientious. Keep in mind that SkySails is pulling a rated couple of megawatts thru kiteline, directly displacing bunker fuel. What SuperTurbine can come close?
       
      On the other hand you ignore the repeated request to provide examples of long flyable drive shafts. Unlike cable power, no such examples seem possible, just as the structural physics suggest ("nature abhors torsion"- Gordon).
       
      Sadly a turbine on a pole is not very kitelike, as it does not fly higher than the pole (poleborne), nor freely. For example, the pitch axis is simply frozen in place on the pole. Joe's insight only goes so far, don't abuse it.
       
      You asked what i am flying- Grinding with the flip kite as an AWE demo that took two minutes to "fab", but also a full range of kite types relentlessly to build observations and skills. Building many new prototypes with improved designs, in particular some hot soft turbines and some large arrays,
       
      daveS