Re: Invitation to NASA for a massively smart tool
I assume we have Mark to thank for this serious discussion. That is indeed welcome. It seems far more than coincidental that of all the different methods that have been proposed over the last thirty years that I have been privy to or directly involved with -- even as a Project Leader at the Flight Research Institute tasked with conceptualizing all such methods possible -- it is only just now that together we have hit on not only the best of all possible projects to pursue first -- Vertical Blinds (not Venetian Blinds my wife tells me, and I tried to get corrected, after our only true international conference that made attendance reasonably practical for all those who wanted to attend). Now we have also hit on a strategy that has enormous potential for everyone worldwide. Having forums like this that anyone and everyone can jump into to glean knowledge is a considerable blessing to all. And here I also recommend that in the future when we choose to have conferences via GoToMeeting, GoToWebinar, and/or GoToTraining as appropriate. The point is that if our conferences really are international or global we can communicate with and see each other around the world for no cost at all except to the presenters that would have to acquire those tools for the rest of us. No one would have to go anywhere and yet any or all of us could see each other. And if presentations overlapped it would not be a big deal because the presentations could repeat so all presentations could be seen when it is desired, without leaving home, paying for airfare, paying for a motel, or even juggling different time zones and losing all the time coming and going.
But I got off track. Developing an "automated aircraft/tether emulator for all worldwide" would be an unimaginable boon to any and all aircraft/wind turbine/tether systems designed, developed, tested, and quantified as worth investing in worldwide. It could and would be the best possible teaching tool for all these disciplines individually and collectively. Just like QT.Com (where anyone can develop and demonstrate considerable salable talents without ever going to college, this aeronautical tooi could do for aeronautics what QT.Com does for developing softare that can reside on cell phones, hand held units in general, or laptops or other computers. In this case, you can just program once and immediatly demonstrate great proficiency on any of those machines anywhere around the world. While their efforts and success in these efforts are amazing, and while it now enables anyone anywhere to show proficiency in thses areas without going to school at all, this new aeronautical development tool could do the same for aeronautics everywhere. And there MAY be some value in working in conjunction with QT.Com in making our aeronautical tool(s) interactive with theirs. After all, most all aeronautical systems are going to need computer automation of some sort to make them work. Why not be interoperable with theirs and simply inherit the vast number of people that are coming up to speed and developing programming talents using the technology they have thus pioneered. To outsiders this may seem like a monumental deal, but all that really may be required is some form of translation between what QT.Com has to offer and what our new aeronautical/wind turbine/tether emulation system might require or provide. AND I CERTAINLY WOULD NOT SELL THIS BIT OF SOFTWARE AS BEING MASSIVE. If Nokia, a cell phone company, can make such a find programming development system for everyone to use worldwide free of cost, and to become certified as skillful in using and taking on jobs in -- even in high school -- then we could do the same for aeronautics. THIS IS NOT NECESSARILY MASSIVE DEVELOPMENT WORK AT ALL. AT FIRST MOSTLY ALL THAT SEEMS TO BE REQUIRED IS MERGING DAVE LANG'S TETHER EMULATION SOFTWARE WITH AN EMULATOR FROM SUCH COMPANIES AS CATIA OR SOLIDWORKS.
The point is that in my estimation, in the hands of truly gifted programmers (such as I have known personally at Intel) -- not just data base manipulators -- this looks like a job that might only take man-weeks rather than man-years just to merge tether emulation with aeronautical emulation. And I suggest we sell NASA management on just that much for starters. Rather than selling NASA's management on just how massive this understaking might be, I would sell it for what it is initially: merely the merging of both aeronautical and tether emulation technology. This is not a monumentally large elephant we are trying to kill. This is just another stupid rubber duckie that should have been put to bed a long time ago -- and for all worldwide. Once that is done, then we should sell NASA's administration on merging with QT.Com . After all, even the means we all use to steer these emulations might themselves benefit from some QT.Com software written by a high school student that is God's gift to QT in the Ukraine for $75 dollars and a great big honorable mention in the hopes of landing more jobs.
Here the point is that by leveraging our own ability to help students around the world demonstrate and certify their talents, we now have unlocked for ourselves first and foremost, a world of talent that would kill to help us for a tenth as much money and often much faster and better -- as such -- and as we leverage ever more people around the world with the extremely exciting prospect to them of being able to do real work of any kind, my expectation is the we should find that we would have found that not only can we make a combine that would bring together aeronautical/wind turbine/tether emulation in one place, we could very likely find that we have just set snow balls in motion that could each now cause other combines to be generated for other purposes too as they all realize that once you reach "critical mass" things can really get hoppin' darn quick -- especially as you employ the talent that you just made employable in a very focused way. Rather than a thousand companies each springing up to make ever more cell phones and computers in what I would call "horizontal competition". Now with focus they could build on what others have done -- particularly software wise -- to make truly innovative products in unimaginably short time -- because one of the stipulations to joining this club is that anyone could use the massive libraries as they would continually grow, but in return what they develop would be gleaned for whatever libraries others might use to make other projects. In short, it would be a very wrong decision to keep this capability for America only when it would end up that that their talents would not be available for us to use in the best possible ways and thereby compound to every one's benefit.
But here again I have diverged. Please execuse me. I am just a little excited. You see I went underground with the most important and salient things I learned when at the Flight Research Institute researching all these prospects -- because I found prospects that the government would probably not likely resist pursuing that would enable them to fly anything anywhere and do any dastardly deeds, but also show anyone and everyone how to do the same to us -- as in nuclear and biological weapons that Home Land Security now says will likely be used to attack terrorists within 15 years from now.
Now the point (and the coincidence that I forgot to mention) is that we can develop Vertical Blind Technology with which to extract power from the Low Level Jets that fly over the Great Plains, Patagonia, and the Roaring Forties to mention a few. This is a recent topic that is just now getting warmed up. Professor Ockels work predates my own in this area by a decade or two and I kindly remember our discussions back them. His ladder mill and my Vertical Blind concept would be close in concept if his Ladder Mill were toppled over on it's side. Basically, the Vertical Blind concept is simply that dumb skinnyy rectangular wings ganged together as kites often are at the beach -- could all pull directly north or south and back again forever -- and generating electricity by causing a generator to spin back and forth -- provided winds (such as would be in the low level jets) would blow east or west.
What is really wonderful about this concept is it's utter simplicity, and the fact that it would use the most utterly simple of airfoils -- long rectangular wings. It could swoop (a technical term) across enormous expanses of the Great Plains. And what is most wonderful to me is that I cannot think of a single way that the Military could use this technology to threaten, harm, or kill anyone. So here I am thinking are any number of win, win, win, win, wins. (Unimaginably better than your basic "win - win" propositions.) Of course, the devil is in the details. And while it is my habit to expose enough cards to interest others, I keep the trump to retain a deciding stake in how things transpire.
The point is that if this looks like it could really "catch fire" I will disclose how this technology could be developed and mass produced and generate unimaginably more power per dollar invested than any other wind technology could possibly do. But now I want to see to what extent these disclosures might elevate people off of the couch.
And let's drop these damnable AWE and Airborne Wind Energy names that are really albatrosses around our necks in our small fraternity. Like I have said before, planes do have airborne wind energy systems. They are not related to KiteEnergy. They are used to generate just enough electricity to keep systems alive when all other onboard electricity systems fail. Since the systems that we are generating are related to KiteEnergy and not to Airborne Wind Energy systems or AWE at all, let's not dig ourselves down any deeper requring other people to use the same misnomers that others in our group happened to come up with when shooting from the hip one day. Again, as I have said before, no newbie is going to think of looking for our small fraternity under the Airborne Wind Energy or AWE headings. No new person would have any hope of guessing that it is under those names that our organization could be found. Rather than remaining transfixed and committed to such complete misnomers to new members, let's agree that KiteEnergy will be our banner. I have that domain name -- and even back at our one and only international conference I offered KiteEnergy.Com as the main name through which any or all of us could be found simply by clicking on our links. Again and again I have offered it since. My only real goal here is to leave a legacy that makes sense and would expedite others trying to find us.
It is exactly this same stupidity that keeps computers continually committed to old legacy technology that is long since antiquated because it's always supposedly too expensive to correct the mistakes that peope make at any one time -- even if it costs them a hundred times more in the long run. This is the time to choose right names rather than just letting newbies flail in their attempts to find us.
If there is no chance that we might even choose to say what we mean and mean what we say together then that should be my indication that I should not work with or disclose anything more regarding Vertical Blinds. My real hope is not that I will convince myself that I am wiser and better off taking my toys and going home, but the real truth is that if we cannot summarily dismiss such wrong decisions when they arise, then it should be painfully clear that nothing of greater consequence will likely come from people who tenatiously resist doing what should obviously be done in doing nothing more than choosing to hang up a reasonable shingle on the door for passersby.
Please understand. I am not really bothered or upset. But while I would like to work with all of you and show you what I have, I also need to believe that there can be some reasonable give and take. And really, I see none. This is a trifle, but is shows an unimaginable desire to remain unyielding despite what we all know is best long term.
Mark, if you have read all my ramblings, maybe you and I could work cooperatively to lay down a frame work for all. After all, I perceive that we have both been aeronautical architects and conceptual architects at that. Perhaps this makes most sense anyway. Rather than too many people quibling over too many incidentals maybe we should offer what we do our best to architect and then offer a line item vote so people can make clear what they want and when they want it.
-- Wayne German
WayneLGerman@... (any may respond to me directly)
--- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, "Joe Faust" <joefaust333@...> wrote:
> M: Mooring set T: Tether set
> A start would be to stitch Dave Lang's tether tech to two aircraft
> called "moorings" of a kite energy system. Displacements formatted in
> the tether or mooring would lead to mining kinetic energy of the media
> (relative to the KES parts) . Media:solid, air, water, soup, ...; one
> of the two mooring sets could be in one media while the other mooring
> set could be in a distinct media. Controls over the shape and attitude
> of each mooring or/and tether could smartly be executed to optimized
> displacements aimed at mining energies. Much design tools already face
> vehicles and devices that move through soil, water, and air. Two
> mooring sets coupled by a tether set complicates things and presents
> some work to do; turbulence impacting the mooring sets and tether set
> challenges, but has some averages and expectancies that may be played.
> As the two aircraft sets (moorings) are modified and coupled through
> tether-set actions, parts displacement may be mined; the energy changes
> would be respected and balanced through conservation sums. Each
> kite-energy system will have its description and be cost rendered.
> A hand-held toy kite system fits in the play of two mooring sets and a
> tether set. A huge 1000 m tall arch venetian-blind oscillatory KES
> driving a huge groundgen still is just a set of two moorings and a
> tether set. A hang glider fits the same schematic with the pilot
> body a moving falling mooring with its L/D while the wing above is the
> upper mooring; the two moorings are both aircraft coupled by the hang
> line from wing to the hang glider pilot. The OutLeader kite tugging
> the sailboat hull is also simply a KES with two moorings and a tether
> set; the hull is the lower mooring; the OutLeader Culp Kite is the upper
> mooring; the two mooring are in their respective media; the tether
> couples the two "aircraft" though one "aircraft" is a hydrocraft hull.
> A draggy-generator-filled railcar pulled by an upper kite set is also
> fitting the same schematic.
> Three coupled items (two M sets and a T set) along with attention over a
> displacement dynamic bring on KES. Each media with its turbulence play
> in the game. Allowing variables to play over known materials will
> posit stresses and strains during energy conversions; and each
> description will have its material list, wear history, costing
> functions. Comparisons of systems could play over various ratios.
> Soil has unexpected turbulence (rocks, pipes, rapid density changes,
> texture, roots, etc.) Water has its turbulence (temperture changes,
> flow direction changes, wave actions, etc. ). Air has its turbulence
> (gusts, helicities, moisture variability, temperature changes, direction
> changes, density changes, visibility changes, moisture content changes,
> electrical changes, ...).
> Play the KES video game around the world, at schools, in homes, in
> offices, at kite labs, at contests, etc.
> Thanks to Wayne German for the push for simulation and emulation of KES
> toward universalizing the opportunity to design KES and then compare.
> Will the tugged hydrogen-making hydro-aero KES at super scale win over
> huge free-flight international KES? Will lifted tall venetian-blind
> oscillators bring winning ratios? Watt-hr per kilogram of system
> material? Etc.
- Sounds cool Wayne, and with fewer major hurdles than your 2-separated-kites with onboard power-reels & generators, not attached to the ground, beaming the power to Earth via microwaves.
Please allow me to suggest: Why don't you build a working scale model of your flying blinds, since you describe this as "the best of all possible projects to pursue first"?
The Superturbine(R) concept emerged after consideration of the cross-wind "blades-on-a-clothesline" concept, and was seen as lower-hanging fruit, which it still is, given the ease with which they can be built and run.
The proposed software regarding airplanes & tethers, could be great but what if an emerging solution used no airplane and no tether?
I guess spending millions to develop software that may end up not solving the problem is a more likely use of public funds than building known working models.
I consider it a subset of "work avoidance" - prancing through the daisies entertaining our fantasies is always the most tempting pursuit. The subconscious motivation is therefore to discuss mainly ideas that will not work, or not work easily, since then one never has to build one, but can remain forever in the land of fantasy. As long as it's all a big mystery, it's fun fun fun. Pure entertainment. That's why we say "forget it unless it's over 20,000 feet" - that way we can stay in our armchairs. When you have to start building turbines that meet standards and produce power reliably, the fun turns to work. By the time you're working out overspeed protection and burning out generator after generator, it's 99% work.
"KiteEnergy" - sure, it's a great name and congratulations for owning the domain, but what if useful solutions emerge that do not feature kites or anything resembling a kite? What if the solutions resemble a gyrocopter? Well in that case kite energy will be one thing and airborne wind energy will be another thing. I thought we had all hashed this "name" thing out something like a year ago. But you make a good point that we need to remember to keep it searchable by likely attempted keywords.
If top solutions feature rotor blades that are autorotating because of the flow and and are either lifted or self-lifting or a combination, and if such is using a tether in order to brace those actions to effect the flight of the lofted bodies, then we have a kite energy system. A kytoon lifted serpent SuperTurbine (R) or a quad-rotor Roberts-Shepard arrangement are kite energy systems (KES).
The tradename play on "helicopter" at http://www.helicopter-kite.com/ features simply a raw kite which could be a feed for a kite energy system. The ribbon rotor kite is a player in the kite-energy space. The Savonious kytoon can be used as a kite energy system producing flygen or groundgen kitricity. So, if winners turn out to feature autogyro blades, they still are in kite energy. Wayne's quite simple site KiteEnergy.com would cover what you proposed. I like to have the word "Systems" to embrace the entire systems involved in generating works and conditioned energy to serve others for the myriad of tasks open to KES .