Messages in AirborneWindEnergy group.                             AWES5908to5957 Page 16 of 440.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5908 From: Joe Faust Date: 3/28/2012
Subject: Re: Vertically shunting train of one wing or more in lifted reversin

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5909 From: roderickjosephread Date: 3/28/2012
Subject: Re: cooperative organisation considerations

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5910 From: dave santos Date: 3/28/2012
Subject: ARPA-E AWE Program Director Removed?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5911 From: Joe Faust Date: 3/28/2012
Subject: Re: Vertical Shunting Arches- A New AWES Architecture

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5912 From: blturner3 Date: 3/29/2012
Subject: Re: ARPA-E AWE Program Director Removed?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5913 From: Joe Faust Date: 3/29/2012
Subject: Re: Vertical Shunting Arches- A New AWES Architecture

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5914 From: Bob Stuart Date: 3/29/2012
Subject: Re: Vertical Shunting Arches- A New AWES Architecture

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5915 From: dave santos Date: 3/29/2012
Subject: New Ducted HAWT Sport ///Fw: [ayrs] Racing Aeolus

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5916 From: Doug Date: 3/29/2012
Subject: Re: mysterious interest in sheep

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5917 From: Doug Date: 3/29/2012
Subject: Re: Vertical Shunting Arches- A New AWES Architecture: catch a fish

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5918 From: Dan Date: 3/29/2012
Subject: Joe, thought you'd like this one.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5919 From: Joe Faust Date: 3/29/2012
Subject: Re: Vertical Shunting Arches- A New AWES Architecture: catch a fish

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5920 From: roderickjosephread Date: 3/30/2012
Subject: REAL cooperative organisation considerations

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5921 From: roderickjosephread Date: 3/30/2012
Subject: Re: Joe, thought you'd like this one.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5922 From: Bob Stuart Date: 3/30/2012
Subject: Re: REAL cooperative organisation considerations

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5923 From: Doug Date: 3/30/2012
Subject: Re: REAL cooperative organisation considerations

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5924 From: Joe Faust Date: 3/30/2012
Subject: RATs nurtured by Dickinson and Stark in 1918

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5925 From: dave santos Date: 3/30/2012
Subject: Re: Vertical Shunting Arches- A New AWES Architecture: catch a fish

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5926 From: dave santos Date: 3/30/2012
Subject: Re: cooperative organisation considerations (urgent cooperative oppo

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5927 From: Joe Faust Date: 3/30/2012
Subject: Re: Vertical Shunting Arches- A New AWES Architecture

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5928 From: Joe Faust Date: 3/30/2012
Subject: Re: Vertical Shunting Arches- A New AWES Architecture

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5929 From: Joe Faust Date: 3/30/2012
Subject: Jeremy A. Wiley is thinking about aerial transportation

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5930 From: Joe Faust Date: 3/31/2012
Subject: Mitch's Elektratow

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5931 From: Joe Faust Date: 3/31/2012
Subject: E. Novikov and SWPP

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5932 From: Joe Faust Date: 3/31/2012
Subject: Re: E. Novikov and SWPP

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5933 From: blturner3 Date: 3/31/2012
Subject: Re: cooperative organisation considerations (urgent cooperative oppo

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5934 From: Muzhichkov Date: 4/1/2012
Subject: Re: E. Novikov and SWPP

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5935 From: dave santos Date: 4/1/2012
Subject: Re: cooperative organisation considerations

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5936 From: Joe Faust Date: 4/1/2012
Subject: Re: E. Novikov and SWPP

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5937 From: dave santos Date: 4/1/2012
Subject: Trawling Technology as AWES Model

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5938 From: stefanoserra@ymail.com Date: 4/2/2012
Subject: New Post on KiteGen.com/en/

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5939 From: Joe Faust Date: 4/2/2012
Subject: Yo-Yo Method terms for reel-in phase?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5940 From: Bob Stuart Date: 4/2/2012
Subject: Re: Yo-Yo Method terms for reel-in phase?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5941 From: Dave Lang Date: 4/2/2012
Subject: Re: Yo-Yo Method terms for reel-in phase?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5942 From: dave santos Date: 4/2/2012
Subject: Re: Yo-Yo Method terms for reel-in phase?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5943 From: dave santos Date: 4/2/2012
Subject: Kite Arches for Crosswind Power

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5944 From: blturner3 Date: 4/3/2012
Subject: Re: New Post on KiteGen.com/en/

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5945 From: blturner3 Date: 4/3/2012
Subject: Re: Inverse Figure Eights?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5946 From: blturner3 Date: 4/3/2012
Subject: Re: Yo-Yo Method terms for reel-in phase?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5947 From: Doug Date: 4/3/2012
Subject: Re: Kite Arches for Crosswind Power

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5948 From: Joe Faust Date: 4/3/2012
Subject: Elucidate the obfuscated?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5949 From: Dan Parker Date: 4/3/2012
Subject: Re: Elucidate the obfuscated?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5950 From: dave santos Date: 4/3/2012
Subject: Re: Yo-Yo Method terms for reel-in phase?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5951 From: Dave Lang Date: 4/3/2012
Subject: Re: Elucidate the obfuscated?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5952 From: Joe Faust Date: 4/3/2012
Subject: Re: Elucidate the obfuscated?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5953 From: dave santos Date: 4/3/2012
Subject: Tarp Kite JPG and Links

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5954 From: blturner3 Date: 4/3/2012
Subject: Re: Yo-Yo Method terms for reel-in phase?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5955 From: blturner3 Date: 4/3/2012
Subject: Re: Kite Arches for Crosswind Power

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5956 From: Joe Faust Date: 4/3/2012
Subject: Re: Kite Arches for Crosswind Power

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5957 From: Joe Faust Date: 4/3/2012
Subject: AWES by Tweedale in 1909



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5908 From: Joe Faust Date: 3/28/2012
Subject: Re: Vertically shunting train of one wing or more in lifted reversin
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/kitepatents/message/39  
Fry and Hise. 

Fig. 9  mentioned: 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5909 From: roderickjosephread Date: 3/28/2012
Subject: Re: cooperative organisation considerations
Imagine if you were a crofter, who had a lack of imagination and therefore wanted to feed a sheep.
You'd burn some moor land so that grass would grow quicker than heather come spring.

This was happening yesterday in Lewis. The place was a mess. It's a disgraceful practice in my opinion and should be banned. There are clear government guidelines on how to go about it. With a whole host of agencies regulations to agree with.
It keeps a lot of people busy when some nugget crofter ignores the rules.

Why not, let's worry more about kite driving rules than sheep.
Maybe we can get enough energy to keep sheep underwater and out of sight... heaven.

Loads of people I talk to are interested in kite power, and we can't all be the inventor. 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5910 From: dave santos Date: 3/28/2012
Subject: ARPA-E AWE Program Director Removed?
We never got to know this poor Dr.Hartney, who in theory was the US Federal Government's lead person in AWE R&D, as the ARPA-E Program Director.
 
He was lobbied intensely at AWEC2010 (attending as a featured speaker) by the Bay Area insiders, as most of the rest us were locked out form access to the attending "government leaders" by the 600% fee jump. Somehow the Google/Makani camp got an exclusive ARPA-E subsidy, as players with deeper aerospace experience, like SkyMill, were locked out.
 
Dr. Hartney never replied to numerous inquiries about the Makani testing program, passing the buck to ARPA-E legal counsel, who stonewalls to this day. Video clearly seems to show Makani failed key milestones, but no final report has emerged. Now Dr. Hartney's gov email account seems to have been purged, as well as his bio page on ARPA-E's website. Someday the inside story will emerge, but ARPA-E AWE doings are very mysterious still. Note the Hartney Cc:, which bounces...
 
Try this broken Dr Hartney link for a redirect to a characteristic ARPA-E Bill Clinton promo-
 
arpa-e.energy.gov/About/Team/DrMarkHartney.aspxCached - Similar
Mark Hartney leads ARPA-E's Innovative Materials & Processes for Advanced Carbon Capture Technologies program. Prior to joining ARPA-E, Hartney served ...
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5911 From: Joe Faust Date: 3/28/2012
Subject: Re: Vertical Shunting Arches- A New AWES Architecture
Consider:  arch of trains ::  Consider a system that has two anchors spread far left and right of the power window; the arch is maintained by a series of elements where each element is not just one wing, but a train of kite wings; the whole is a series of trains that lift an arch.  Those trains might be stable lifters for some niche uses.   Also, those train elements that form an arch might be vertically-shunting trains for some niche uses.     JoeF    28Mar2012
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5912 From: blturner3 Date: 3/29/2012
Subject: Re: ARPA-E AWE Program Director Removed?
Here is the archive of that page.

http://web.archive.org/web/20100723163613/http://arpa-e.energy.gov/About/Team/DrMarkHartney.aspx

He seemed to be primarily dedicated to carbon capture. With wind as a sideline and Airborne wind however far under that.

Brian
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5913 From: Joe Faust Date: 3/29/2012
Subject: Re: Vertical Shunting Arches- A New AWES Architecture
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5914 From: Bob Stuart Date: 3/29/2012
Subject: Re: Vertical Shunting Arches- A New AWES Architecture
Gosh, it is even pretty.  Take that, Cape Cod!  
The Eiffel Tower was originally built as a viewing platform for a world's fair, and to get a building permit, Mr. Eiffel had to promise to tear his iron monstrosity down the next year.  Taste changes.

Bob Stuart

On 29-Mar-12, at 8:31 AM, Joe Faust wrote:
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5915 From: dave santos Date: 3/29/2012
Subject: New Ducted HAWT Sport ///Fw: [ayrs] Racing Aeolus
While its true that a ducted turbine is not directly performance competitive with a bare turbine of only slightly greater diameter, it has application niches. A new windsport linked below is racing Ducted HAWT Carts directly into the wind. The ducts are required under the safety rules. Look closely and you can see a fine polymesh across the ducts to further prevent accidents. Lets call that "Caging".
 
Similarly in AWE Ducted/Caged HAWTs may find a niche on operational grounds. A Ducted/Caged HAWT will resist common mishaps like snarling the turbine in kitelines. Launching and landing while being knocked about will be possible. The idea is that far better wind aloft can offset the tradeoffs of the duct, which can even act as a ring-wing for some lift. There is a severe mass scaling limitation to a Ducted HAWT, but it someday prove that large numbers of small HAWTs are a cost effective way to avoid the unit scaling limit. LTA Ducted HAWTs, however, seem like a far more problematic format.
 
A few of us on this list pioneered many of these cool "windtoy" concepts in the 1980s and early '90s, to now see them "suddenly" becoming full-blown sports. It gives us confidence our new AWE toys will take hold even more amazingly.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5916 From: Doug Date: 3/29/2012
Subject: Re: mysterious interest in sheep
Hard to hear the word "sheep" without getting excited. (Hey is it just me?) I agree, sheep grazing destroys the landscape.
Here in the high desert of SoCal, teams of Basques (ancient inhabitants of Spain) have been driving sheep across the great expanse of spring wildflowers etc. for at least decades. They get permits or something to graze on U.S. federal lands - something like that.

An old-timer told me that the Basque sheep-herders kept the sheep moving so the vegetation was preserved. But now, as he told me at least, Mexican sheep-herders have been replacing the Basques, and according to him, these new sheep-herders do not keep the sheep moving, and let them entirely devastate all vegetation before moving the herd along.

According to him, his area (Boron) had a much more diverse variety of vegetation before the Basques were replaced.

How does this relate to airborne wind energy? Well it all takes place adjacent to one of our test sites, in scenic Boron, California.
I do not expect many wildflowers this year because we have had little rain/snow this winter.

:)
Doug Selsam
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5917 From: Doug Date: 3/29/2012
Subject: Re: Vertical Shunting Arches- A New AWES Architecture: catch a fish
Well I hope for God sake that we can finally catch a fish with this new breakthrough!
:)
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5918 From: Dan Date: 3/29/2012
Subject: Joe, thought you'd like this one.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5919 From: Joe Faust Date: 3/29/2012
Subject: Re: Vertical Shunting Arches- A New AWES Architecture: catch a fish
Indeed, Doug, 
Using an arch of kite trains as a megaKite for hanging a walkway, one may see such inviting hundreds of recreational fishing persons enjoying dropline fishing at sea or over rivers or lakes.   Charge for the special positioning and adventure.  From the same lifted walkway, recreational bungee jumping may operate. At the higher part of the arch, there will be base jumping skydivers.  Some hang gliders will launch from the lifter archway.  The tensioned pulsations of the main arch tether may pump water to gain waterhead for later energy production.   Sell advertising space on the kite-element covers. Sell buttons and tee-shirts: "I played on arch of kite trains!"  When people are not so using the system, pulse the train elements and do serious energy production with the vertical-shunting arches.   More works could come from the megaKite arch of trains or the shunting kite arch.   Simple recreation viewing and photography come to mind. 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5920 From: roderickjosephread Date: 3/30/2012
Subject: REAL cooperative organisation considerations
Try to keep this thread on track please.

Discussion on possible business operational management makes sense if you care about what you do.

None of us stand alone, that is why we are in a forum.
Consider the case of music industry evolution.
The first cave minstrels had an appreciative audience, so they carried on.
We have many people who would appreciate our ability to string and play our instruments.
Cave minstrels turned into world touring mega-stars with entourages, record companies, groupies, roadies, A&R, radio stations, myspace, producers, dj's, remixers, press companies, journalists.... and on and on.

We are going to have to deal with other people if we want to grow effectively.
Is a cooperative structure a good model?
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5921 From: roderickjosephread Date: 3/30/2012
Subject: Re: Joe, thought you'd like this one.
Absolutely awesome
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5922 From: Bob Stuart Date: 3/30/2012
Subject: Re: REAL cooperative organisation considerations
Co-ops are major employers in North America, and Mondragon was able to thrive without help from the Spanish government, while capitalism is looking more like a house of cards every day.

Bob Stuart

On 30-Mar-12, at 2:53 AM, roderickjosephread wrote:
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5923 From: Doug Date: 3/30/2012
Subject: Re: REAL cooperative organisation considerations
Roderick:
I appreciate your effort to keep the discussion on track. I'm wondering if you are referring to my reply to your posting about grazing sheep? As I recall, it was you who started a thread that had absolutely nothing to do with wind energy or energy period, let alone airborne. Maybe I got it wrong? Wool fibers for kites?
:)
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5924 From: Joe Faust Date: 3/30/2012
Subject: RATs nurtured by Dickinson and Stark in 1918
Dickinson and Stark:  RAT in 1918 as an AWT.  
RATs have proliferated in aerial vehicles.   
The contemporary M.I.T. AWT AWES team has demonstrated a RAT.
Click through image for full patent:
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5925 From: dave santos Date: 3/30/2012
Subject: Re: Vertical Shunting Arches- A New AWES Architecture: catch a fish
Notes-
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5926 From: dave santos Date: 3/30/2012
Subject: Re: cooperative organisation considerations (urgent cooperative oppo
Roddy,
 
The good news is that Cooperative AWE is alive and well, and has for several years been the explicit credo of broad circles, with this forum as a general assembly space. AWEIA was founded in 2009 on a non-profit open cooperative model. KiteLab Group goes back to 2007 as an open commercial cooperative. AWEC was founded in 2010 on a quasi-open cooperative model (pay-to-play). Considerable informal cooperation exists between these players and many other cooperative-oriented academic and venture teams. Open knowledge sharing is the prominent cooperative activity, but there is less visible ongoing trend toward deeper cooperative action, even by players who seem only to compete.
 
All you really have to do is just integrate into this preexisting cooperative ecosystem. Its really much the same dynamic as many other issues newcomers raise- about what our web presence is, who knows what, who does this or that experimentally, whether to apply for funds (like Kickstarter) as individuals or share in groups, and so forth. Its a very different process to build upon what you find, than to start from scratch and be overshadowed by earlier starts. You are in a perfect situation to organize UK players cooperatively, and coordinate that group with the global cooperative scene. Please, lets all help build AWEIA in particular, on noble foundations.
 
After a slow start to the cooperative AWE community, things are now happening fast. An urgent cooperative project is to organize the NYC Land Art Initiative AWE submission. The site GIS files (topo-map layer) are ideal for you to overlay conceptual AWE CGI. We can win this major energy-art contest cooperatively, but the June deadline looms. Even if we lose (as if anyone has a better chance), early concept work in modeling a kite farm serves us all,
 
daveS

  
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5927 From: Joe Faust Date: 3/30/2012
Subject: Re: Vertical Shunting Arches- A New AWES Architecture
Yes, and thus a shunting sky net (SSN)!
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5928 From: Joe Faust Date: 3/30/2012
Subject: Re: Vertical Shunting Arches- A New AWES Architecture
... SSN is an layer element of a 3D thick shunting sky matrix (SSM). 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5929 From: Joe Faust Date: 3/30/2012
Subject: Jeremy A. Wiley is thinking about aerial transportation

{Though the graphics depict aerostats/kite-balloons, he claims that kites or other aircraft may be involved; I add that some eventual aerial cabled }

Jeremy A. Wiley is thinking about aerial transportation

Systems and methods for aerial cabled transportation
Application number: 12/465,712
Publication number: US 2010/0288872 A1
Filing date: May 14, 2009

Click through for full application-for-patent document:
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5930 From: Joe Faust Date: 3/31/2012
Subject: Mitch's Elektratow
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5931 From: Joe Faust Date: 3/31/2012
Subject: E. Novikov and SWPP
http://www.haswpower.spb.ru/en/

E. Novikov
Sailing high-altitude wind power plant (SWPP)
SWPP  Sailing high-altitude wind power plant
=================================

Discussion:
1. Lifted sail for yo-yo groundgen system. 

... your turn. Much to read yet. 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5932 From: Joe Faust Date: 3/31/2012
Subject: Re: E. Novikov and SWPP

Eugene Novikov

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

From the link was clipped the text, sans photo of Eugene Novikov:   

Contact phones: (812) 268-81-69, (812) 268-80-90, Office phone ...   [DOC]  methler-schnelsen.de/Article1_engl.doc

File Format: Microsoft Word - Quick View

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

Contact phones: (812) 268-81-69, (812) 268-80-90,

Office phone / fax: (812) 572-34-80

            Celestialenergy of Novikov

                     

When the question is about wind-power engineering,practically always it means the use of energy of surface air streams in a layerapproximately from 10 up to 60 meters above a surface of the ground. Thus it isknown, that high above the ground surface (100 meters and more) a wind power is6-8 times more, than near the ground surface. It is clear: the surface of theground, its relief and the subjects located on it, brake air streams, takingfrom them the energy. Besides, the thickness of an air stream which energy issucceeded to be used by means of existing wind-power plants, is limited byeconomically comprehensible sizes of these plants.

 

It is necessary to note, that existing wind-powerplants of rotary type, strictly speaking, are not ecologically clean energysources: they create noise at their work, vibrations and fluctuations of air ofultralow frequencies (infrasounds) not heard by the human ears, that affects negativelyon a health.

And if to take into account high cost andinstability of generated power of such plants, and also rather small their capacity,you should to consider: existing way of wind-power engineering is a deadlock, itcannot render the essential help in the decision of power problems in itstraditional form.

How to be?

Other energy sources also have serious disadvantages:exhaustible possibilities of resources, ecological danger, high cost, maldistributionof resources over regions of the world are known to all people.

However it is enough to remember: on altitudemore than hundred meters above the ground surface the untouched energy in theform of air streams having thickness of some kilometers and unlimited width islocated. This energy is present over the seas and oceans, over mountains anddeserts, over woods and swamps - everywhere where people live and where they donot live.

It is impossible to say, that expertsnever paid attention to this energy source. There are exotic projects in which theraising of traditional wind engines for some kilometers above the ground surfaceby means of balloons is offered and transmission of obtained energy to theground by means of electric cable.

Such plants, if they will be constructed,have a high cost and limited power because it is impossible to lift wind-powerplant high over the ground surface by means of balloons. It is much moreconvenient to make take-off of wind power by means of the balloon, formed itoptimum for this purpose, and to transmit energy to the ground surface inmechanical form through ropes, keeping a balloon above a surface of the ground.

In such plant the balloon should haveelongated and flat form as it carries out a function of a sail.

Let we name it: a "Sail".

Such sail is connected through ropes with drumslocated on the ground, on which ropes are reeled up or taken up from them.Drums are connected to electric machines.

When the sail leaves from drums and ropesare taken up from them, drums rotate, and electric machines connected to themdevelop energy.

After the sail will leave to the greatestpossible distance determined by length of ropes, it should be returned to its formerplace. Electric energy from an extraneous source will set to electric machines –and drums rotate in the opposite direction, ropes are reeled up on drums, and asail comes back. At taking - up of ropes from drums orientation of a sail inspace and trajectory of its movement are chosen due to change of ratio oflengths of ropes (that is differences of speeds of taking - up from variousdrums), so, that taking-off of wind energy by the sail was maximal. Atreturning of sail to a former place the orientation of it in space and  trajectory of its movement are chosen such dueto change of rate of ropes lengths that aerodynamic resistance to movement of asail was minimal. Thus a power consumption for returning of sail will beminimal - several times less than that energy which was obtained at a distance ofa sail from drums. The difference of these energies will be directed in anetwork of the consumer as a useful output of energy.

Some similar plants adjusted inappropriate way, can supply the consumer with a continuous stream of energy. Insingle plants accumulators of energy can be used for alignment of a stream ofenergy to the consumer.

What power can be obtained?

Modern materials allow to make a sail withlength about one kilometer and more. The plant with such sail can produce apower tens and (even!) hundred thousand kilowatt, what is quite enough forneeds of modern alternative power engineering.

The expediency of conducting of works ondevelopment of this energy source can be explained by following circumstances:

1. Economicexpediency of use of sail-wind-power plants (SWPP) can be practically provedusing comparatively small initial investments.
2. Using of SWPP requires very small capital expenses. Such plant can be deployedand folded in shortest terms.

3.   Dimensions and weight of SWPP in the folded condition arenot large, therefore charges for its delivery using transport in any point willbe insignificant.Production of SWPP can be concentrated on the enterprises
with the low production cost price.
3. SWPP can be located in areas which have no essential economic importance(tundra, swamps, mountains, deserts, glaciers, surfaces of seas and oceans).

4.   The use of SWPP makes the development ofinaccessible areas such as Far Nord, mountain areas, deserts, Antarctic, smallislands, oceans, economically expedient.

Eugene Novikov
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5933 From: blturner3 Date: 3/31/2012
Subject: Re: cooperative organisation considerations (urgent cooperative oppo
Cooperative AWE might be alive but it's not "Well".
Much improvement here would be a good thing. But I have neither talent or passion for it, so I will leave it to others.

Brian
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5934 From: Muzhichkov Date: 4/1/2012
Subject: Re: E. Novikov and SWPP
Hi Joe, thanks for your searching work! Till this moment I didn't seen any active russian inventors in HAWE.
Alex
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5935 From: dave santos Date: 4/1/2012
Subject: Re: cooperative organisation considerations
Brian,
 
You are right, the AWE cooperative scene could be far better, but its a very new community than did not even exist only a few years ago. The "well" part is that its already a paradise for anyone who can manage some of these basic conditions-
 
Right now we have a few dozen folks who meet this profile. For now, one must still hunt out affinity players and develop working relations. Soon there will be thousands of us. For a lot of folks, AWE requires a major lifestyle change, like migrating to locations far away to fly all the time.
 
The formal side of cooperation comes over time, as organizational demands evolve,
 
daveS

  
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5936 From: Joe Faust Date: 4/1/2012
Subject: Re: E. Novikov and SWPP

--- Thanks to Dave Culp of KiteShip  for giving the tip regarding Novikov.  
My searches did not show Novikov. 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5937 From: dave santos Date: 4/1/2012
Subject: Trawling Technology as AWES Model
Trawl nets are a highly evolved large-scale technology that operate on the kite principle. A typical trawl rig uses two paravanes, called Otter Boards or Doors, to maintain a wide "spread" of the net form a single boat. Ocean trawling is very destructive, but the construction details and rigging methods are a treasure of prior art, and the troubled trawling industry could move into AWE in a redemptive way. In particular, the net makers know how to create a rope loadpath network that maintains maximum strength of the materials, that lasts several years in extreme conditions. Kite Lab Ilwaco is based in a fishing port and is adopting these methods for kite farm reuse.
 
As this simulation video shows, the operation of the trawl is very technical underwater kiting, with many suggestive features for the design of large scale AWES systems. There are in fact no existing kites that duplicate in air the functionality of underwater trawl equipment. With such concepts for inspiration, we are learning how to maximize the amount of kite (for both lift and power extraction) that can be controlled from a single anchor turret-
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5938 From: stefanoserra@ymail.com Date: 4/2/2012
Subject: New Post on KiteGen.com/en/
Past, Present and Future Tests

New post about the test activities performed in the past and the ones planned in the near future.

http://goo.gl/DlzRf

Stefano Serra
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5939 From: Joe Faust Date: 4/2/2012
Subject: Yo-Yo Method terms for reel-in phase?
In the Yo-Yo method, the reel-in phase is a cost phase 
where the AWES is active in spending energy; 
such cost phase is far from "passive."  

The cost phase takes energy and time.  The time used in the cost phase is time where energy is not being positively produced.

Some developers are referring to the cost phase or reel-in phase as the "passive" phase, which I vote as being misleading. 

What say you?
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5940 From: Bob Stuart Date: 4/2/2012
Subject: Re: Yo-Yo Method terms for reel-in phase?
Perhaps "Reset" phase would convey both meanings for general discussions.  "Cost" is incisive for the engineer doing an analysis, but not obviously meaningful to the layman.

Bob Stuart

On 2-Apr-12, at 8:45 AM, Joe Faust wrote:
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5941 From: Dave Lang Date: 4/2/2012
Subject: Re: Yo-Yo Method terms for reel-in phase?
"Cost-phase", "Passive-phase", "Reset-phase", etc.......are just words!

If you do your simulation/experimentation homework, you will know fairly precisely what the impact of this phase is.   Any AWE "Yo-Yo" scheme  must address this phase at all levels of design/production assessments.  It is only when this phase has been explored no more deeply than in  "term-only" and/or in such a way as to obscure actual behavior that semantics become misrepresentative.

Ironically, the deceptive obfuscation of this vulnerable aspect of Yo-Yo schemes, is no where near as egregious as the deceptive obfuscation of entire concepts (need not mention projects here ? :-))

DaveL



At 9:05 AM -0600 4/2/12, Bob Stuart wrote:
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5942 From: dave santos Date: 4/2/2012
Subject: Re: Yo-Yo Method terms for reel-in phase?
Joe is right that "passive" is being claimed by some designs in a misleading way for marketing. So is "inherent stability" (Makani). The mode of semantic abuse is to seize on some minor internal passivity or stability, and gloss it as the general description of an otherwise very actively controlled and/or highly unstable AWES design. Its a dead-end ploy, as true inherent stability with passive cycling is such an advantage.
 
Re: Pumping cycles, Bob is right that "reset" phase is clearer than "cost" phase generally. I use "recovery" phase, after piston cycle usage. There is room for a lot of confusion in describing the many cycles possible in terms of energetic cost. The worst require the grid to give back a lot of power for a slow energetic reset. The best have a quick natural elastic recovery at very low resistance, with enough flywheel momentum in the transmission to output smooth power to the grid. There are endless combinations and variations between the two extremes.
 
I was an early promoter of the advantages of classic single-line kite "passive" flight control in AWES design (my presentation topic at HAWPCON09) and used "passive" in the same sense that HAWT designers use the term-
 

Yaw system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaw_systemCached - Similar
Jump to Passive yaw systems‎: The passive yaw systems utilize the wind force in order to ... Roller Bearing - Brake (Semi-active system): The nacelle is ...
I also commonly use "passive" in the context of self-oscillation of a power wing element by inherent unsteady aerodynamics v. "active" to describe power cycles requiring electromechanical controls (sensors, processors, actuators). Its the same usage for either overall flight control or embedded power modules, with care not to over-generalize.
  
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5943 From: dave santos Date: 4/2/2012
Subject: Kite Arches for Crosswind Power
Here are some notes toward a formal theory of operation for Kite Arches, extending Loyd's crosswind power concept to crosswind arches, and equating the flight characteristics with Culp's "staked-out" stability principle. Basic geometric proof, covered elsewhere, applies in showing that arched structures far outperform single tether AWECS by airspace/land-footprint scope to power ratio.
 
Miles Loyd famously coined the term "Crosswind Power" to describe crosswind sweeping wings like a HAWT blade or looping kiteplane, but the essence of Crosswind Power is broader than that, as every WECS requires a crosswind extent to operate. Crosswind Power is really a continuum, from high-speed sweep to static lift. A parachute decelerator works by spreading area across its apparent wind, and so is seen as the lower tech boundary of Crosswind Power. Decelerator-based AWESs exist, from spin-canopies to pulsing varidrogues. The lowly varidrogue is wrongfully objected to as more downwind than crosswind in operation, but a close look at virtually all AWES concepts reveals considerable depth-of-section downwind. There is seemingly no purely crosswind WECS.
 
The unique virtue of Kite Arch engineering physics is to resist cross-field forces by a balanced minimal geometry of catenoids, a set of curves. To compute an ideal compressive arch, merely hang a chain and use that catenary curve upside-down.
 
A Kite Arch essentially eliminates common tether drag, by being quasi all-wing. By contrast, a static single-line kite tether is fairly high drag, with some down force (negative lift). Worse, a looping single-tether kite inscribes a troposkein, the form encompassed by a jump-rope, "harvesting" high drag.
Vertical Shunting Arches is the latest Kite Arch method. A VSA inscribes a catenoid minimal-surface in the sky. Special magic emerges when mathematical perfection is approximated in the real world. Catenoids may prove to be the optimal wind harvesting geometry, using the least material for maximal output. KiteLab had been for years hanging WingMill arches from lifter kites and shunting or tacking them crosswind horizontally, also inscribing a catenoid.
 
Suddenly the Kite Arch emerges as a competitive AWES architecture, but there are key antecedents. We first note primitive arches from multi-line kites from traditional Polynesia, then into the 19th Century Kite Golden Age, with even manlifting accomplished (Baden-Powell), but it seems only in recent decades did the Kite Arch emerge as a well defined category. The first Kite Arch i learned about was my net friend Anders Ansar's Ribbon Arch, followed by Peter Lynn and Dave Gomberg's kite show arches flying multiple theme soft-kites closely together off a common gangline set crosswind. George Peters also did great work on Ribbon Arches, before Anders. 
 
The World Kite Museum then opened up to me a whole world of special Kite Arches, seemingly tracing from Ohashi's 1980s discovery that he could bend a certain kind of Kite Train (diamond kites) almost 180 degrees into an arch set crosswind, and it would continue to fly. Some unknown person at about that time seems to have figured out how the diamond kites could be fully integrated into the arch line, eliminating all the cross-sticks. Since then hundreds of kitemakers have made such arches, generally without tinkering with the design. Other arch variants emerged, from rotating SkyBows. In all cases Kite Arches set crosswind.
 
When Dave Culp at KiteShip first informed me in 2007 that "staking out" a large kite tames it, i did not make the connection  to Kite Arches. It was only last week that this mentally clicked into place. Not only is the Kite Arch a Crosswind Power device, but it incorporates a powerful kite stabilizing principle, that the ground surface itself is the most robust and stable kite structure possible. One even sees this principle in the common arched traction kite parked at zenith off its control bar. A fantastic advantage to Kite Arches is the ability to kill them in a controlled progressive linear fashion by slacking on side. The arch lays down from its windward point. By contrast, "kite killing" single tether AWES is always more complex or risks retract winch saturation.
 
Kite arches and trains naturally combine by setting the trains across the arches, from lower to upper. Multiple arches sum tremendous lift, while also stabilizing close-set trains from interfering. Fry and Hines naturally envisioned trains of WECS in their rigid wind power arch structure, set crosswind. We now see how a Kite Arch can do the job cheaper and better by going higher. A growing list of methods exists to rotate a Kite Arch to match wind direction-- Hauling and Belaying around an Anchor Circle, Anchor (ground) Vehicles, Giant Carousel, Giant Control Bar, Circular Track, Circular Cableway, Buddy Boats, etc.
 
In summary, there are many bulk advantages to Kite Arches. The challenges with arches are mostly in the details. An "anchor field" is a key arch requirement. Kites in a network can tangle badly if poorly designed and carelessly operated. The Bow-Tie failure mode is most characteristic of a high AR arch wing; deep-section bridling, foil section reflex, and/or tails constrain a wing arch from flipping; local swivel sections can recover a BowTie flip.
 
 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5944 From: blturner3 Date: 4/3/2012
Subject: Re: New Post on KiteGen.com/en/
Thanks for the update.

Brian
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5945 From: blturner3 Date: 4/3/2012
Subject: Re: Inverse Figure Eights?
In my previous thoughts on this subject I consider TUDeflt's direction the right direction. It seemed pretty obvious to me. Well actually, until you brought it up in this thread I had not considered that a kite with a natural tendency to point upward would prefer never pointing down enough that turning it the opposite way would require more work. But this makes sense. I think as you move to more high performance kites that the turning upward tendency will lessen and there would be little to no cost difference in which way you run your eights.

One could also level the output buy flattening the figure eight so that it is mostly crosswind with tight turns at each end. This would also decrease the wind gradient that the kite passed through keeping that from causing inconsistent output. however a quick turning kite might not be as light and efficient as a slow turning one.

I also think that perhaps a circle has the least amount of energy input for control. Of course it has pretty uneven power output. So to me that suggests an egg shape. This ignores the complexity of the twisting tethers.

Brian
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5946 From: blturner3 Date: 4/3/2012
Subject: Re: Yo-Yo Method terms for reel-in phase?
I think it should be called "reel-in" phase. You will likely end up with a formal name for each phase of each design and several informal ones.

4 stroke engine.
Intake, Compression, Power, exhaust.
Informal:
Suck, Squeeze, Bang, Blow. ;)

Brian
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5947 From: Doug Date: 4/3/2012
Subject: Re: Kite Arches for Crosswind Power
Traveling across the wind to make power could only considered a revelation by someone who was clueless as to the basics of wind energy. That was worked out over 2000 years ago. Can you say "The blind leading the blind"?
:)
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5948 From: Joe Faust Date: 4/3/2012
Subject: Elucidate the obfuscated?
DaveL:
 "egregious as the deceptive obfuscation of entire concepts"

Let's be courageous and elucidate the deceptive obfuscated concepts.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5949 From: Dan Parker Date: 4/3/2012
Subject: Re: Elucidate the obfuscated?
Hi Joe,
 
              wha, I'll need a dictionary with every email if this keeps up.
 
                                                                               Dan'l

 
To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
From: joefaust333@gmail.com
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2012 14:22:19 +0000
Subject: [AWES] Elucidate the obfuscated?

 
DaveL:
 "egregious as the deceptive obfuscation of entire concepts"

Let's be courageous and elucidate the deceptive obfuscated concepts.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5950 From: dave santos Date: 4/3/2012
Subject: Re: Yo-Yo Method terms for reel-in phase?
Brian,
 
"Reel-in phase" does not apply to all the short-stroke pumping designs that "recover" or "reset" by an elastic recovery of a spring and/or lever, and the like, without reeling. There is "reel" confusion as to what a "yo-yo method" is. In the past it has been applied very loosely, sometimes to opposed alternating kites, sometimes almost like a trademark. If what is meant is only "reel" systems, as Dave Lang defined them in 2004, then "reel-in phase" specifically applies, but there is still potential for confusion with all systems that just use reels for launching and landing, but not for a direct power cycle. Phases called, "retract", "reset", "recovery" and so on, are clearly more universal.
 
I have reconsidered the "tow" usage issue, and now think "winch-tow" is a proper useful descriptor, as long as no confusion is created by just saying "tow launch", which tends to imply a moving tow vehicle. "Winch launch" is very clear, and "step-tow" is a special case of usually pure winch launch, although a tow vehicle could be used.
 
We are slowly "writing the book" on proper precise AWE nomenclature. Sorry to all those who despair over such fussiness, but the end result will be great engineering expressiveness with a few choice words,
 
daveS
 

  
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5951 From: Dave Lang Date: 4/3/2012
Subject: Re: Elucidate the obfuscated?
Dan'l.....Ok Ok, I'll moderate my rhetoric in future posts :-)

Joe....yes let's be courageous :-/

DaveL



At 11:59 AM -0400 4/3/12, Dan Parker wrote:
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5952 From: Joe Faust Date: 4/3/2012
Subject: Re: Elucidate the obfuscated?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5953 From: dave santos Date: 4/3/2012
Subject: Tarp Kite JPG and Links
 
Better late than never; an in-flight picture of a real KiteLab Ilwaco "Advanced Tarp Kite"; made from a decrepit old blue tarp, but it still pulls like an ox at a nice high angle-
 
 
This is the "old" flight video of the same general Tarp Kite design, but in paper, showing the high flying angle better-
The pending round of testing is of large multi-tarp rope-loadpath versions.
 
JoeF's Tarp Kite/KiteArch achives-
 
http://www.energykitesystems.net/CoopIP/AdvancedTarpaulinKites.html
 
Many thanks to JoeF!
 
 
* Note to Joe: This link seemed missing from the tarp pages.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5954 From: blturner3 Date: 4/3/2012
Subject: Re: Yo-Yo Method terms for reel-in phase?
Yes, I was specifically thinking of systems were the power generation is due to the reeling action. It would not apply well to short-stroke or elastic systems.

Retract seems a good choice for many system concepts. I think that "reset" and "recovery" are a bit too broad for most systems, and their popular usage is often in reseting or recovering from a fault condition. I don't think I have ever heard reset used for a system with just 2 states. I looked up the definition and it mentions returning to zero for most usages.

An elastic system would be equivalent to a "return" spring.

Brian
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5955 From: blturner3 Date: 4/3/2012
Subject: Re: Kite Arches for Crosswind Power
Dave,
All things being equal, the more wind area you can sweep per pound material the better. I don't see that kite arches do well here.

The catenary increases the tension in the lines for the amount of lift vs a windward line. That means larger line is needed.

If we take a 7:1 L/D as a good amount of sweep and 1/2 wind speed as the reel out speed then the arch has 14 times higher reel speed. That is probably not good, but I guess it could be. I am not sure I see the same vision as you. It seems utterly uncompetitive.

Brian
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5956 From: Joe Faust Date: 4/3/2012
Subject: Re: Kite Arches for Crosswind Power

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5957 From: Joe Faust Date: 4/3/2012
Subject: AWES by Tweedale in 1909
His system may be open to some interesting variations. 

Charles Lakeman Tweedale
of England

Kite and Aerial Machine

Patent number: US 992086
Filing date: Oct 30, 1909
Issue date: May 9, 1911

Click image for full patent.   Discuss claims and challenges, etc.   
Discuss AWES prospects.