Skip to search.

Breaking News Visit Yahoo! News for the latest.

×Close this window

AirborneWindEnergy · AWES

The Yahoo! Groups Product Blog

Check it out!

Group Information

  • Members: 157
  • Category: Energy
  • Founded: Mar 13, 2009
  • Language: English
? Already a member? Sign in to Yahoo!

Yahoo! Groups Tips

Did you know...
Real people. Real stories. See how Yahoo! Groups impacts members worldwide.

Messages

Advanced
Messages Help
Messages 2641 - 2671 of 9255   Oldest  |  < Older  |  Newer >  |  Newest Start Topic
Messages: Show Message Summaries Sort by Date ^  
#2641 From: "Doug" <doug@...>
Date: Sun Nov 21, 2010 8:04 pm
Subject: Re: AWEHSS
dougselsam
Send Email Send Email
 
Hi Joe:
two comments:
1) If this is truly a NASA website, why is it not part of the NASA web domain?
2) They are copying YOU.  I think YOU should get credit for being the first to
organize such a directory of AWE participants.

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

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

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

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

:)
Doug Selsam

#2642 From: Dave Lang <SeattleDL@...>
Date: Mon Nov 22, 2010 12:33 am
Subject: [AWECS] Re: Sea Level rise
lamedang
Send Email Send Email
 
For the record....
Doug,

The cyclic history of atmospheric CO2 content follows your temp curve quite nicely, UNTIL the last 200 years, when the CO2 content has gone from an historical average of about 240 ppm (with cyclic fluctuations occuring fairly uniformly between 280 and 200 ppm - corresponding to the warming/cooling eras) TO its current peak of 375 ppm  and HEADED STRAIGHT UP (50 ppm of this increase occurring in the last 50 yrs).

SO, yes, if modern man hadn't been become enthralled with all the things he can do with FIRE and HEAT, we would likely be poised for the next ice age.....but to so state unequivocally, would be to ignore the role that CO2 seems to play in the atmosphere - I guess you could argue that point from now on, but the periodic +/- 40 ppm CO2 level variations sure correlate nicely with the historic temperature periods on your plot :-))!

DaveL



At 8:14 PM +0000 11/21/10, Doug wrote:
 
Sorry Dave L., I missed your response and searched but cannot find it, but would be interested to read it, as I know you are a "thinking man".
:)
Doug S.

--- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, Dave Lang <SeattleDL@...> wrote:
>
> Doug,
>
> I did comment on your ice-age graph, but you seem to have chosen to
> ignore it :-/
>
> DaveL
>


#2643 From: dave santos <santos137@...>
Date: Mon Nov 22, 2010 7:17 am
Subject: Doug v. NASA
santos137
Send Email Send Email
 
Doug,
 
NASA actually has a first-rate track-record in aerospace, with truly great kite tech (Jalbert, Rogallo, Barish, etc.), so they are hardly late to the game. One sees a consistent stream of useful research over decades. The X-38 parafoil system is just one tiny recent example. Try & tap the Jet Stream without such folks. They did not steal from Joe & Wayne, but honored them by linking content. Joe might gladly share the chore of maintaining the industry database with NASA, & even be contracted. He certainly is not offended. Do not sow sourness into the mix if you really want to help. 
 
Much of what you wrote below about the NASA AWE effort is untrue, paranoid, & hurtful. Curb the web-rage & stop baiting the entire list. These are far more exciting times to be creating this technology than your constant complaints suggest.  Beware becoming the Hateful Troll of NASA's forums, who  never masters traditions of aviation, but only causes morale-sapping distraction. Just be Cool & allow those nice scientists who devote their lives to aeronautics & aerospace to discuss very technical issues in Peace, as you learn their wonderful fields, so you then contribute gracefully. Your best shot is to let your concepts get formally evaluated by NASA, alongside all others, without being offensive, if you can,
 
Pretty Please,
 
daveS


From: Doug <doug@...>
To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Cc:
Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2010 2:04:38 PM
Subject: [AWECS] Re: AWEHSS

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

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

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

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

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

:)
Doug Selsam




#2644 From: Pierre BENHAIEM <pierre.benhaiem@...>
Date: Mon Nov 22, 2010 2:15 pm
Subject: re: [AWECS] Re: AWEHSS
benhaiemp
Send Email Send Email
 
Joe,

Very great perspectives for AWEHSS.

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

PierreB






> Message du 21/11/10 20:19
> De : "Joe Faust"
> A : AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
> Copie à :
> Objet : [AWECS] Re: AWEHSS
>
>  

>

> >>The objective of this system study is to assemble a complete picture of these systems to help establish a foundation for this future industry, and support the wide variety of concept approaches. << NASA

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

> Lift,

> JoeF



1 of 1 File(s)


#2645 From: Joe Faust <joefaust333@...>
Date: Mon Nov 22, 2010 4:03 pm
Subject: Re: [AWECS] Re: AWEHSS [1 Attachment]
joe_f_90032
Send Email Send Email
 

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

1 of 1 File(s)


#2646 From: Pierre BENHAIEM <pierre.benhaiem@...>
Date: Mon Nov 22, 2010 6:49 pm
Subject: Re: [AWECS] Re: AWEHSS [1 Attachment]
benhaiemp
Send Email Send Email
 
Joe,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PierreB








> Message du 22/11/10 17:03
> De : "Joe Faust"
> A : AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
> Copie à :
> Objet : Re: [AWECS] Re: AWEHSS [1 Attachment]
>
>  

>


> Thank you, Pierre!

The PDF attached has no edits by me.

The tree format surely will be one of the leading favored presentations.

In PDFs, I can form Internet links per word or symbol, if you supply the URLs. 

Further versions, as you wish, can be formed.  

I am envisioning various treed versions for various purposes.

And even perhaps stepped versions that grow from one page to another view to yet other views.  Others will work in this direction as you are working.

Be sure to send this to people that you think might want to contribute to the Classification Challenge committee.     

 http://energykitesystems.net/AWECSclassification/PierreB/CLASSIFICATIONforAWECSbyPBnov2010.pdf

[ ] Pierre, I need some help in understanding your phrase:
> "It would be interesting to keep steps before a conversion into PDF"

Please give me your meaning in French and perhaps another version in English. Thanks.

Did you mean that we could make the links to websites and videos on the tree presentation before we convert to PDF?       That will eventually be done.   

In versions of classifications, when a company name is used, then I am wanting to be sure all companies are presented. 

Thanks for continuing work on the classificatin challenge.

I have not sent your version to anyone, but the PDF is linked from the working page for AWCCC at

http://www.energykitesystems.net/AWECSclassification/index.html which is open to public.

Your suggestions and directives are ever invited.

Do you feel the version just presented holds free-freeflight methods?  Traction over land?  Combined methods that have flygen and groundgen in one system?  

If AWECS is said without qualification, then I am aiming to face the scale challenge.  When a presentation is intended for the large-scale AWECS for satisfying grid needs, then title distinction would discern the matter.   

If an AWECS is using mechanical energy for direct work like sawing, grinding, pumping fluids, pounding, charging flywheels, moving objects, etc, then no electrical generator is involved.

Soon,

JoeF



#2647 From: "Joe Faust" <joefaust333@...>
Date: Mon Nov 22, 2010 8:16 pm
Subject: Tethered free flying wings
joe_f_90032
Send Email Send Email
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

JoeF


#2648 From: dave santos <santos137@...>
Date: Mon Nov 22, 2010 9:50 pm
Subject: Tetherless Dynamic Soaring FEG Method
santos137
Send Email Send Email
 
Joe touched on free-flight RAT gliders. There have long been small design studies of free-flying energy gliders with generator turbines. My approach in the late eighties was to ridge-soar in frontal mountain waves to make power. The glider composite structure was envisioned as an aluminum sandwich supercapacitor that instantly discharged every time trailing conductive whiskers did touch-&-go at the bottom of a constant looping flight pattern. No tether was involved. A far more powerful mountain flight mode for this sort of RAT glider has emerged: Lee-ridge based Dynamic Soaring (soaring without thermals), which allows RC gliders to reach speeds well over 400mph. We now have far better capacitors & batteries to consider for charge-discharge cycling.
 
Reliability of such an AWECS will likely require decades to attain, but what a prize, to eliminate conductive tethers & tap the baddest wind-shears.
 
coolIP
 
 


#2649 From: "Joe Faust" <joefaust333@...>
Date: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:48 pm
Subject: Non-conductive-tether TFEG
joe_f_90032
Send Email Send Email
 

Bouncing off DaveS'  tetherless dynamic-soaring FEG:

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

JoeF


#2650 From: dave santos <santos137@...>
Date: Mon Nov 22, 2010 11:18 pm
Subject: Disambiguation- Pete (son) & Peter Lynn (father)/// Tethered free flying wings
santos137
Send Email Send Email
 
Joe, Nice find,
 
Pete Lynn, the son, wrote the linked piece, his working name is Pete, to distinguish from his dad, although its signed "Peter S". The experiment shown was assisted by Dave Culp, who gave me one of the left-over caged flygens for my West Coast stash, maybe even the one in the photo. I met Pete at Makani during a KiteShip visit & saw him again at HAWPCON09, where he smiled as i flew a 3.5m Peter Lynn parafoil next to Doug's Sky Serpent. It was some of Pete's emails around 2003 on a physics forum that seem to have triggered a lot of the current boom in research.
 
Peter Lynn, the dad, is a very active AWE thinker; the latest clue, besides his great writings, is that TUDelft is flying a 50sq m Peter Lynn Parafoil (Drool). There is at least one other great dynasty in AWE, Billy & Corey Roesler.


From: Joe Faust <joefaust333@...>
To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Cc:
Sent: Monday, November 22, 2010 2:16:15 PM
Subject: [AWECS] Tethered free flying wings

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


#2651 From: Pierre BENHAIEM <pierre.benhaiem@...>
Date: Mon Nov 22, 2010 11:20 pm
Subject: re: [AWECS] Non-conductive-tether TFEG
benhaiemp
Send Email Send Email
 

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

PierreB


> Message du 22/11/10 23:48
> De : "Joe Faust"
> A : AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
> Copie à :
> Objet : [AWECS] Non-conductive-tether TFEG
>
>  

>

> Bouncing off DaveS'  tetherless dynamic-soaring FEG:

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

> JoeF



#2652 From: "Doug" <doug@...>
Date: Tue Nov 23, 2010 4:19 pm
Subject: Selsam Superturbine(R) Discovery Channel Video
dougselsam
Send Email Send Email
 
http://watch.discoverychannel.ca/daily-planet/december-2008/daily-planet-decembe\
r-2-2008/#clip118301

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

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

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P55HfnGR6kQ
Doug S.

#2653 From: dave santos <santos137@...>
Date: Tue Nov 23, 2010 7:02 pm
Subject: Doug v. NASA (what NASA really needs)
santos137
Send Email Send Email
 
Doug,
 
Its rather obvious why NASA prefers technical AWE content over Discovery Channel clips. If you want to contribute the right kind of knowledge, submit an serious engineering study of your technology, & spare the scientists from popular TV content. Be very very careful not to come off as a desperate character who only promotes his own ideas & is simply unable to socially participate in any helpful less-partial way. It may be rather late. Be aware that you have already made a troubling impression on NASA folks by your behavior on this forum & they hardly need more of the same. Why would a sane person even seek to work with NASA people today after dismissing them so erroneously & contemptuously just the day before?
 
The web-hosting mystery has an obvious explanation to anyone with US govt. experience. I remember a NASA engineer explaining how they kept hidden tool-boxes to build spacecraft in order to avoid procedures regulating the official tools. This is how great things still get done. Similarly, hosting this site outside of the official US.gov straitjacket is a decent work-around.
 
daveS
 


From: Doug <doug@...>
To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2010 10:19:02 AM
Subject: [AWECS] Selsam Superturbine(R) Discovery Channel Video

 
http://watch.discoverychannel.ca/daily-planet/december-2008/daily-planet-december-2-2008/#clip118301

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




#2654 From: Bob Stuart <bobstuart@...>
Date: Tue Nov 23, 2010 7:50 pm
Subject: Re: [AWECS] Host Countries - was Doug v. NASA
carcyclebob
Send Email Send Email
 

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


The web-hosting mystery has an obvious explanation to anyone with US govt. experience. I remember a NASA engineer explaining how they kept hidden tool-boxes to build spacecraft in order to avoid procedures regulating the official tools. This is how great things still get done. Similarly, hosting this site outside of the official US.gov straitjacket is a decent work-around.

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

Bob Stuart

#2655 From: dave santos <santos137@...>
Date: Tue Nov 23, 2010 9:13 pm
Subject: Re: [AWECS] Host Countries (US FAA & Canada DOT)
santos137
Send Email Send Email
 
Bob,
 
There is no great difference between the world's aviation standards, as its truly an integrated global system. Folks may not know that the FAA is a total revolving-door for pilots. The agency is run by pilots & many ordinary pilots are FAA agents certified to do many essential regulatory functions like safety inspection & instruction to required standards. Folks also often miss how the dominant FAA pilot culture defends aviation interests as a whole. Thus JoeBen's "Privatized Airspace" initiative was promptly swatted down by the FAA, in service of pilots & aviation stakeholders as a class, but against GoGo Venture Capitalism interests.
 
The strangest truth for lay-folk to grasp is that a pilot within the FAA framework is still the sovereign captain of their vessel. It is clearly taught to pilots to ignore any conflict with regulation in a safety emergency, in order to protect life. This is a fairly common event. For example, a pilot low on fuel in badly forecast deteriorating conditions can feel forced to land below "required" visibility minimums, rather than risk proceeding to an alternative airport. The system unofficially tries hard not to over-police, as the FAA would not function if it stupidly reacted to the common realities of the working pilot.
 
The main motivation to bust pilots is when they act as an obvious persistent menace. I have not heard of an FAA "quota plus bonus system of pay" to catch infractions. Canada's DOT may just have less bad apples to control in a far less crowded airspace, & so can naturally afford to be more laid-back than the FAA.
 
No one should think the biggest thing stopping them in AWE is aviation norms, especially when its inability or unwillingness to meet such standards that is the real issue,
 
daveS


From: Bob Stuart <bobstuart@...>
To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2010 1:50:26 PM
Subject: Re: [AWECS] Host Countries - was Doug v. NASA

 

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


The web-hosting mystery has an obvious explanation to anyone with US govt. experience. I remember a NASA engineer explaining how they kept hidden tool-boxes to build spacecraft in order to avoid procedures regulating the official tools. This is how great things still get done. Similarly, hosting this site outside of the official US.gov straitjacket is a decent work-around.

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

Bob Stuart
 


#2656 From: "reinhartp" <rein-art@...>
Date: Wed Nov 24, 2010 9:25 am
Subject: Re: Contests & Grants:Thanks for the support
reinhartp
Send Email Send Email
 
Apparently the step to Dougs design and Kitepower was one step too far for GE,
so they decided to go for the in-between solution... an inflatable wind turbine.
Read more here :

http://inhabitat.com/ges-ecomagination-challenge-unveils-5-winning-energy-soluti\
ons/2/



--- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, "Doug" <doug@...> wrote:
>
> Hi to all from this list and other lists, who have take a few moments to cast
a vote for my "Shocking Sky Serpent" entry into the GE Ecomagination Challenge.
>
> Recent results of contests and grant proposals:
>
> 1) NREL: No thanks, that's a job for (the new) ARPA-E;
>
> 2) ARPA-E: No Thanks, we were overwhelmed with responses and it has been "a
learning experience" for us;
>
> 3) GE Ecomagination: Made it to the "GE 100" but was ignored after that "It
has beeen a learning experience" - hey where have I heard that one before? 
Let's make sure they really award $200,000,000;
>
> 4) Masdar Challenge: "We had an overwhelming number of great submissions"
translation: you are just another member of the herd - ignored.
>
> 5) Owens Corning App Challenge: I was a semi-finalist when they last contacted
me (I had not remembered even entering), they had asked for more material.  Best
case scenario for any entity that purports to "help" usher in progress: to give
the already overworked innovator one more assignment, almost always for no
result.  Sorry Owens Corning, I've reached my saturation point with regard to
more assignments.  Either you like what I have or you don't.
> :)
>
> PS here's a question to pursue: how many new wind turbine configurations have
been explored, by all the big official labs combined, in the last 30 years? 
(Could it be zero?) How much money have they taken in to explore new wind energy
technologies in that time?
>
> Why do I often sound cynical and unbelieving?  Well I guess it comes with age
and hearing years and years of talk with little in the way of progress.  I have
not seen any new turbine designs, only resurrections of old designs already
proven not useful.  Only actual progress is progress, not just talking about
progress, I guess that's the point I'm trying to make: to get people who may
make a difference focused on progress rather than empty talk.
>
> Doug Selsam
>

#2657 From: "Doug" <doug@...>
Date: Wed Nov 24, 2010 3:55 pm
Subject: Re: Contests & Grants:Thanks for the support
dougselsam
Send Email Send Email
 
Yes my patents cover inflating the blades,  This is a workaround to the true
solution that is in my patents, of inflating the blades.
Not that complicated.
Doug Selsam
http://www.selsam.com

--- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, "reinhartp" <rein-art@...> wrote:
>
> Apparently the step to Dougs design and Kitepower was one step too far for GE,
so they decided to go for the in-between solution... an inflatable wind turbine.
Read more here :
>
>
http://inhabitat.com/ges-ecomagination-challenge-unveils-5-winning-energy-soluti\
ons/2/
>
>
>
> --- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, "Doug" <doug@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi to all from this list and other lists, who have take a few moments to
cast a vote for my "Shocking Sky Serpent" entry into the GE Ecomagination
Challenge.
> >
> > Recent results of contests and grant proposals:
> >
> > 1) NREL: No thanks, that's a job for (the new) ARPA-E;
> >
> > 2) ARPA-E: No Thanks, we were overwhelmed with responses and it has been "a
learning experience" for us;
> >
> > 3) GE Ecomagination: Made it to the "GE 100" but was ignored after that "It
has beeen a learning experience" - hey where have I heard that one before? 
Let's make sure they really award $200,000,000;
> >
> > 4) Masdar Challenge: "We had an overwhelming number of great submissions"
translation: you are just another member of the herd - ignored.
> >
> > 5) Owens Corning App Challenge: I was a semi-finalist when they last
contacted me (I had not remembered even entering), they had asked for more
material.  Best case scenario for any entity that purports to "help" usher in
progress: to give the already overworked innovator one more assignment, almost
always for no result.  Sorry Owens Corning, I've reached my saturation point
with regard to more assignments.  Either you like what I have or you don't.
> > :)
> >
> > PS here's a question to pursue: how many new wind turbine configurations
have been explored, by all the big official labs combined, in the last 30 years?
(Could it be zero?) How much money have they taken in to explore new wind energy
technologies in that time?
> >
> > Why do I often sound cynical and unbelieving?  Well I guess it comes with
age and hearing years and years of talk with little in the way of progress.  I
have not seen any new turbine designs, only resurrections of old designs already
proven not useful.  Only actual progress is progress, not just talking about
progress, I guess that's the point I'm trying to make: to get people who may
make a difference focused on progress rather than empty talk.
> >
> > Doug Selsam
> >
>

#2658 From: "Joe Faust" <joefaust333@...>
Date: Wed Nov 24, 2010 4:11 pm
Subject: Anne Quéméré
joe_f_90032
Send Email Send Email
 

Anne Quéméré

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

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

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

JoeF


#2659 From: "Muzhichkov" <muzhichkov@...>
Date: Wed Nov 24, 2010 6:34 pm
Subject: Re: Selsam Superturbine(R) Discovery Channel Video
Muzhichkov
Send Email Send Email
 
I also have some doubt about this site. In any case, somebody has invested some
time and money to do it and obviously for some reason. What I finde good is a
lot of good sorteâ articles. www.energykitesystems.net and so on are lack of
such order.


--- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, "Doug" <doug@...> wrote:
>
>
http://watch.discoverychannel.ca/daily-planet/december-2008/daily-planet-decembe\
r-2-2008/#clip118301
>
> I tried posting this and others to that NASA(?) site but got a message that I,
as a mere earthling, was not allowed to post.  I thought the reason to join was
to post videos.  I tried writing to the e-mail address that let me know I had
been approved, to submit the links to them, but have not heard back.  It seems
like the video selection there is pretty limited - hopefully they are just
getting started.
> I'm still trying to figure out if this is really anything to do with NASA. 
Note the site is not part of a NASA domain.  Anyone have any info?
>
> Here are links to 3 more videos:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ddliyfspmr4
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOGqURa1a8g
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P55HfnGR6kQ
> Doug S.
>

#2660 From: "Muzhichkov" <muzhichkov@...>
Date: Wed Nov 24, 2010 7:09 pm
Subject: Re: Doug v. NASA
Muzhichkov
Send Email Send Email
 
I think we have to be carefull with such organisations. This group consolidate
enthusiasts and real investigators and consolidation is our power. It costs much
more than hypotetic investmens.

#2661 From: dave santos <santos137@...>
Date: Wed Nov 24, 2010 7:29 pm
Subject: Re: [AWECS] Re: Contests & Grants:Thanks for the support
santos137
Send Email Send Email
 
GE was unable to yet pick a true upperwind solution, this inflatable turbine shown is still a tower-based design. Still, KiteLab has developed dense-array lifter methods to raise aloft anybody's lightweight turbine solutions. Clearly the GE pick is a far lighter turbine than the norm. So GE is on the critical path to AWE.
 
Good luck winning a patent battle for inflatable blades, there is vast prior art & its a very obvious idea (my own designs go way back). In this case the blades are single skin & only the shroud-like annulus is inflated.
 
Is there not still an in-house judging round to the GE contest?


From: Doug <doug@...>
To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Cc:
Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 9:55:34 AM
Subject: [AWECS] Re: Contests & Grants:Thanks for the support

 
Yes my patents cover inflating the blades, This is a workaround to the true solution that is in my patents, of inflating the blades.
Not that complicated.
Doug Selsam
http://www.selsam.com

--- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, "reinhartp" <rein-art@...> wrote:
>
> Apparently the step to Dougs design and Kitepower was one step too far for GE, so they decided to go for the in-between solution... an inflatable wind turbine. Read more here :
>
> http://inhabitat.com/ges-ecomagination-challenge-unveils-5-winning-energy-solutions/2/
>
>
>
> --- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, "Doug" <doug@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi to all from this list and other lists, who have take a few moments to cast a vote for my "Shocking Sky Serpent" entry into the GE Ecomagination Challenge.
> >
> > Recent results of contests and grant proposals:
> >
> > 1) NREL: No thanks, that's a job for (the new) ARPA-E;
> >
> > 2) ARPA-E: No Thanks, we were overwhelmed with responses and it has been "a learning experience" for us;
> >
> > 3) GE Ecomagination: Made it to the "GE 100" but was ignored after that "It has beeen a learning experience" - hey where have I heard that one before? Let's make sure they really award $200,000,000;
> >
> > 4) Masdar Challenge: "We had an overwhelming number of great submissions" translation: you are just another member of the herd - ignored.
> >
> > 5) Owens Corning App Challenge: I was a semi-finalist when they last contacted me (I had not remembered even entering), they had asked for more material. Best case scenario for any entity that purports to "help" usher in progress: to give the already overworked innovator one more assignment, almost always for no result. Sorry Owens Corning, I've reached my saturation point with regard to more assignments. Either you like what I have or you don't.
> > :)
> >
> > PS here's a question to pursue: how many new wind turbine configurations have been explored, by all the big official labs combined, in the last 30 years? (Could it be zero?) How much money have they taken in to explore new wind energy technologies in that time?
> >
> > Why do I often sound cynical and unbelieving? Well I guess it comes with age and hearing years and years of talk with little in the way of progress. I have not seen any new turbine designs, only resurrections of old designs already proven not useful. Only actual progress is progress, not just talking about progress, I guess that's the point I'm trying to make: to get people who may make a difference focused on progress rather than empty talk.
> >
> > Doug Selsam
> >
>





#2662 From: "Joe Faust" <joefaust333@...>
Date: Thu Nov 25, 2010 6:52 pm
Subject: Conop and CONOP
joe_f_90032
Send Email Send Email
 
  • Conops is a genus of fly from the family Conopidae. The larvae of Conops are parasitic on bees, especially bumblebees. Adults feed on nectar.
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conops
  • See:
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Conops-flavipes-13-VII-2007-344.jpghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Conops-flavipes-13-VII-2007-344.jpg
  • CONOPS - A Concept of Operations (abbreviated CONOPS, CONOPs, or ConOps) is a document describing the characteristics of a proposed system from the viewpoint of an individual who will use that system. It is used to communicate the quantitative and qualitative system characteristics to all stakeholders. ...
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CONOPS
  • These are distinct from con operations of the underworld.

    JoeF


    #2663 From: dave santos <santos137@...>
    Date: Fri Nov 26, 2010 6:08 pm
    Subject: Re: [AWECS] AWE Concept of Operations (CONOPS) Project
    santos137
    Send Email Send Email
     
    Joe's cryptic message below was a response to an informal back-room debate over how AWE is likely to develop & what the real barriers are. A highly placed USgov aerospace scientist opined that a major hurdle overlooked by the majority of AWE starts is the absence of a credible path to AWE NAS (US National AirSpace) integration. Major players to account for are the FAA & powerful aviation stakeholders. For AWE to be accepted by these essential parties a CONOPS was suggested that lays out core operational issues with credible solutions to the barriers to acceptance.
     
    As a living document, the AWE CONOPS will begin rather simply, based on our best early judgments, & evolve in response to many challenges. There are two major areas to fully account for, the regulatory framework of aviation, & the demands of stakeholder groups like pilots & populations.
     
    So who wants to help? Here is a model of what a detailed CONOPS looks like-
     


    From: Joe Faust <joefaust333@...>
    To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
    Cc:
    Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2010 12:52:33 PM
    Subject: [AWECS] Conop and CONOP

     
    Conops is a genus of fly from the family Conopidae. The larvae of Conops are parasitic on bees, especially bumblebees. Adults feed on nectar.
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conops See:
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Conops-flavipes-13-VII-2007-344.jpghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Conops-flavipes-13-VII-2007-344.jpg
    CONOPS - A Concept of Operations (abbreviated CONOPS, CONOPs, or ConOps) is a document describing the characteristics of a proposed system from the viewpoint of an individual who will use that system. It is used to communicate the quantitative and qualitative system characteristics to all stakeholders. ...
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CONOPS
    These are distinct from con operations of the underworld.
    JoeF


    #2665 From: "Joe Faust" <joefaust333@...>
    Date: Sat Nov 27, 2010 3:50 am
    Subject: 1940s lessons?
    joe_f_90032
    Send Email Send Email
     
    #2666 From: "Joe Faust" <joefaust333@...>
    Date: Mon Nov 29, 2010 5:35 pm
    Subject: KiteTech
    joe_f_90032
    Send Email Send Email
     

     KiteTech

    KiteTech Energy Systems, Limited

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

     


    #2667 From: "Joe Faust" <joefaust333@...>
    Date: Mon Nov 29, 2010 5:47 pm
    Subject: Re: Kite deployment by Jens Schupp
    joe_f_90032
    Send Email Send Email
     
    #2668 From: "Joe Faust" <joefaust333@...>
    Date: Tue Nov 30, 2010 3:33 pm
    Subject: AWEIA Community Founder's Circle
    joe_f_90032
    Send Email Send Email
     
     Be sure your team members are found; do you see anyone missing?  We are confident that the list is very incomplete. Those in your circle working on AWE challenges are invited to be a founding member.

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


    Adams, Peter
    Ahrens, Uwe
    Akindeinde, Saheed Ojo
    Al-Musawwir, Shakira
    Amick, Douglas J.
    Archer, Cristina
    Ardoise, Guillaume
    Argatov, Ivan
    Asterita, Anthony J.
    Bardi, Ugo
    Barrs, Chris Carswell
    Bartlett, Bart
    Baayen, Jorn
    Bellacera, John D.
    Benhaïem, Pierre
    Benoit, William R.
    Benson, Tom
    Bernd Lau
    Bernhard Kämpf
    Betti, Gabriele
    Bevirt, JoeBen
    Bigge, Bill
    Bilaniuk, Nykolai 
    Biscomb, Lloyd I.
    Blumer, Eric
    Bormann, Alexander
    Borsheim, John
    Bourgault, Frédéric
    Boyce, C.O. Lee
    Brabeck, Stephan
    Braun, Hans
    Breen, Michael
    Breidenthal, Robert
    Breukels, Jeroen
    Brilliant, Larry
    Brovko, Samantha
    Brown, Mac
    Brown, Mike
    Busso, Marco
    Caldeira, Ken
    Calverley, Grant
    Canale, M.
    Cannon, M. Elizabeth
    Carcea, Daniele
    Carlin, Christopher M.
    Carpenter, Howard G.
    Carpenter, Richard   
    Carroll, Joseph A.
    Charpentier, Donald
    Chee, Wang Seng
    Chen, Franklin FK
    Cherny, Dimitri
    Chetwood, Laurie
    Chin, Eric
    Choi, Munho
    Chubb, Erik
    Clark, Trevor
    Clear, Charles
    Coleman, Brooks
    Coleman, Will
    Connally, Abe
    Corongiu, Marcello
    Cory Roeseler Inventor: (Research misspelling "Corey")
    Creighton, Robert
    Culp, Dave
    Czisch, Gregor
    Dawes, Chris
    de Bie, Rob
    De Groot, Stefan
    De Jong, Maxim
    Delaire, Steve
    De Wachter, Aart
    Dentamaro, Gaetano
    Diehl, Moritz
    DiPalo, Joseph A.
    Doerwald, Axel
    Doerwald, Bruno
    Dolan, Geoffrey
    Ducharme, Paul
    Dunlap, Andrea Swenson
    Eccles, David G.
    Ede, Felix
    Ehrenpreis, Ira
    Elkaim, Gabriel Hugh
    Fagiano, Lorenzo
    Fallwell, Michael
    Fantinelli, Davide
    Farris, William
    Faulkner, Angela
    Faust, Joe
    Fechner, Uwe
    Felker, Fort
    Ferguson, Frederick D.
    Ferguson, Jeffrey
    Ferretti, Guido
    Fisher, Ian
    Fischer, Werner
    Fitzpatrick, Kyle
    Forrest, Andrew
    Franetzki, Manfred
    Frayne, Shawn
    Freidin, Jonathan F.
    Fry, Charles Max
    Furey, Allister
    Gambarota, Lucien
    Garcia-Sanz, Mario
    Gebhardt, Christian
    Geebelen, Kurt
    Gentile, Chris
    George, Dale
    Gerlero, Ilario
    German, Wayne
    Ghandakly, Adel
    Ghorbani, Reza
    Gillis, Joris
    Glass, Ben
    Goeggel, Geoff
    Goubau, Alain
    Grenier, Albert J.
    Griffith, Saul
    Grimley, Thomas
    Hadzicki, Joe
    Hafstrom, Sig
    Hallam, Henry
    Hans Gr
    ündel
    Hans-Jürgen Plach
    Hardham, Corwin
    Harper, Chad
    Hartney, Mark
    Harvey, Inman
    Hatcher, Jason
    Havosha, Uzi Ezra
    Hayworth, Jonny
    Hennessey, Michael
    Hise, Henry W.
    Hoffschmidt, Bernhard
    Houle, Corey
    Houska, Boris
    Huiszoon, Gerben
    Hunt, Robert D.
    Ibara, Allen
    Ilzhoefer, Andreas
    Inisrael, David
    Jacobson, Mark
    Janicki, Stephen J.
    Jianjun, Zhang
    Jordan, Dean
    Kanellos, Michael
    Keech, Andy
    Kim, Jong Chul
    Kingsley, Gordon Bruce
    Kistler, Manfred
    Kongsrud, Knut
    Koning, Diederik
    Kramer, Dale C.
    Krenciszek, Joachim
    Landry, Mark
    Lang, Dave
    Lansdorp, Bas
    Laska, Andrew
    Liao, Guojun
    Lind, Damon Vander
    Lind, Todd
    Lindholm, Karin
    Lois, Lambros VERIFY VITALITY
    Loyd, Miles L.
    Lubbers, Barend
    Luchsinger, Rolf
    Luetsch, Guido  VERIFY  Lütsch, Guido
    Lynn, Jr., Pete
    Lynn, Peter
    Macedo, Aleandro Soares
    Malraj, Manula
    Maneia, Gian Mauro
    Marcel, Clement
    Marchitti, Mario
    Marino, Sebastian
    Markus Fischer
    Massimo Ippolito
    Mathur, Uday
    Mazzocato, Decimo "Dudu"
    McBride, James
    McCutchen, Charles
    McKinley, Ryan
    McLaughlin, Scott
    Melkert, Joris A.
    Milan Habovcik
    Milanese, Mario
    Mirmont, Mathieu
    Mizzi, John V.
    Mohr Davidow Ventures
    Mokrian, Pedram
    Monette, Barry
    Montague, Donald Lewis
    Moore, Mark
    Morari, Manfred
    Mouton, William J.
    Mueller, Roy
    Murthy, Vinayaga
    Muscio, Francesco
    Musumeci, Paolo
    Muzhichkov, Alexander
    Nelson, Rob
    Neuhoff, Uwe
    Nicholson, Hamish
    Nicholson, Kit
    Noble, Joanna
    Noonan, Dennis
    Norwood, Asphodel
    O'Gairbhith, Colm
    Ockels, Wubbo Johannes
    O'Griffin, Mose
    Okyere, Eric
    Olson, Gaylord G.
    Osho, Olanrewaju (of Safety Alliance)
    Oyebanji, John
    Padmanabhan, Archan
    Paelinck, Reinhart
    Pardi, Luca
    Park, Chul
    Parker, Daniel
    Parker, Scott
    Payne, Peter R.
    Peddie, Mathew
    Perassi, Carlo
    Peter Knauer
    Pfeiffer, Wolfdietrich
    Pizarro, Anthony
    Plug, Hans
    Podgaets, Alexander
    Pompa, Jonathan
    Potter, Lynn
    Pouchkarev, Alexander
    Prewer, John
    Pri-Paz, Gal
    Radding, Zach
    Ragner, Gary Dean
    Ranalli, Shae
    Rautakorpib, P.
    Ray, Elizabeth Lynn
    Ramkim, Ryan
    Rein, Adam
    Renna, Riccardo
    Resnick, David
    Ricketts, Marc
    Rivard, Pierre
    Roberts, Bryan William
    Roeseler, Cory
    Roeseler, William "Billy"
    Roeseler, William G.

    Rolf Sauter
    Romanelli, Tommaso
    Ross, Jamie
    Ross, Uncle `Buck`

    Ruiterkamp, Richard
    Sainz, Jose
    Sanghi, Sanjeev
    Santos, Dave
    Sarigul-Klijn, Nesrin
    Schmehl, Roland
    Schmidt, Eric
    Schmidt, Theo
    Schneider, Abe
    Schulte, Jamie
    Schwoll, Joost
    Selby, Darin
    Selsam, Doug,
    Sergio, Ivan
    Shepard, Len
    Shepard, PJ
    Sherback, Michael
    Sieberling, Sören
    Silvennoinen, Risto
    Siracusa, Dante
    Sirohi, Jayant
    Smoot, Sara
    Spierenburg, Gertjan
    Spiliotopoulos, Ilias
    Stearman, Ronald
    Stefan Skutnik
    Stewart, Keith
    Stoll, Wilfried
    Stuart, Bob
    Taddei, Franco
    Terink, Edwin
    Thallemer, Axel
    Thomassen, Erik
    Thompson, David F.
    Tigner, Benjamin
    Tinney, Charles
    Tonchev, Georgi (aka George)
    Toselli, Simone
    Tracy, Dan
    Trein, Cristiano Augusto    
    Trinchero, Aldo
    Tryggvason, Gretar
    Ulrich Langenbach
    Upton, Kenneth William
    Valentine, Harry
    van den Heuvel, John
    Vander Lind, Damon
    van der Vlugt, Rolf
    Varrichio, Anthony
    Varrichio, Craig
    Vauthier, Philippe
    Vergnano, Gianni
    Verheul, Roland
    Visser, Dries
    Volsan, Zola
    Vu, Hung
    Wara, Michael
    Webster, Scott
    Wehrlin, Arne
    Weisbrich, Alfred L.
    Wendler, Wes
    Wilkins, Matthew
    Williams, Paul
    Wolfram, Catherine
    Wolstenholme, Thomas
    Wrage, Stephan
    Yum, Daniel
    Zaquini, Leonello
    Zhang, Hong
    Zhang, Jun
    Zou, Nanzhi


    #2669 From: "Joe Faust" <joefaust333@...>
    Date: Tue Nov 30, 2010 5:30 pm
    Subject: Refrigerate food +
    joe_f_90032
    Send Email Send Email
     

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    May Haiti find its upperwindpower!

     


    #2670 From: dave santos <santos137@...>
    Date: Tue Nov 30, 2010 6:03 pm
    Subject: Pilot-Centric AWE CONOPS Draft (2nd revision)
    santos137
    Send Email Send Email
     
    There are at least two draft AWE CONOPS (Concept of Operations) documents under development. The early draft below is "pilot-centric", given persistent barriers to autonomous aviation in US NAS (National AirSpace), & the need to fully integrate pilot stakeholder communities. These are living documents that grow & evolve as conditions warrant. Please comment or feel free to draft your own version or clauses.
     
    ========================================
     
    AWE CONOPS Narrative (DRAFT) 
     
    Tethered Aviation is an important branch of Aeronautics, with many applications. Aerostats, aerotowing, & kites are well known examples. Novel tether-based aviaition systems promise to enhance aviation capabilities, generate clean energy on vast scales, serve communications, spin-off industries, & create recreation. This New Aviation requires pilots, regulatory bodies, & populations to all come together, or it will fall short of its great potential.
     
    Pilots are the key stakeholder, as the historic natives of airspace. It will be pilots, following their norms & traditions, who lead in the safe effective development of Tethered Aviation culture. It will be pilots who take jobs in the new aviation industries to ensure that operations are always consistent with safe convenient shared airspace.
     
    The aeronautic & aerospace industries are tasked with designing systems that pilots accept & the FAA can certify as airworthy. Aviation interests must collectively make the case to stakeholder populations that Tethered Aviation will enhance life & be a "good neighbor".
     
    The general CONOPS validation process in the years ahead-
    Input from all stakeholders
    Accommodation of major concerns
    Sign-off by stakeholders
    Adoption
     
    NOTES
    FAA mandate is to maintain a safe NAS & certify airworthiness
    Draft FAA UASs regs call for Pilot-in-Command & Visual Observer crews
    NOTAM is a partial solution allowing limited pioneering AWE R & D to occur
    Sheilded operations are a current opportunity
    Class G Airspace is the primary focus of AWE CONOPS
    FSDOs are the current arbiters of allowable experiments
    EAA & AOPA are key stakeholder representation
    ALPA is not a current stakeholder as commercial aviation will be well separated
    Local governments where operations impact are key stakeholder representation

     


    #2671 From: "Joe Faust" <joefaust333@...>
    Date: Tue Nov 30, 2010 11:46 pm
    Subject: Control system for a windmill kite
    joe_f_90032
    Send Email Send Email
     

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

    on page is full patent applicaiton instruction document in PDF:  AU-A1

    Earliest priority date 2008-04-14

    Thread might discuss points in Roberts' instruction.

    Inventor:  Bryan William Roberts

     

    ---------------------JoeF


    Messages 2641 - 2671 of 9255   Oldest  |  < Older  |  Newer >  |  Newest Start Topic
    Add to My Yahoo!      XML What's This?

    Copyright © 2010 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
    Privacy Policy - Terms of Service - Guidelines NEW - Help