Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Kixel, kixels

Expand Messages
  • Joe Faust
    Up for glossary critique by group: kixel, kixels Unit element kite in kite array (like a pixel of an image display) .. originated by Dave
    Message 1 of 23 , Apr 6, 2012
      Up for glossary critique by group: 

               kixel, kixels              Unit element kite in kite array (like a pixel of an image display) .. originated by Dave Santos of KiteLab Group used in a bit more narrow sense:  AWES5662     
       Meditation:
      PixelOnWayToKixelForKiting
    • Robert Copcutt
      I am strongly opposed to the introduction of unnecessary jargon. Any idiot can think up a new word. We are completely inundated with new words and it makes
      Message 2 of 23 , Apr 6, 2012
        I am strongly opposed to the introduction of unnecessary jargon. Any
        idiot can think up a new word. We are completely inundated with new
        words and it makes picking up new disciplines that much more difficult.
        Adoption of new words should be strongly resisted until they have
        thoroughly proved their worth. In the spirit of open source we need all
        the help we can get developing AWE. Language barriers for new entrants
        need to be dropped not raised. My 1 p worth.



        On Fri, 2012-04-06 at 13:58 +0000, Joe Faust wrote:
        >
        > Up for glossary critique by group:
        >
        >
        >
        > kixel, kixels Unit element kite in kite array
        > (like a pixel of an image display) .. originated by Dave Santos of
        > KiteLab Group used in a bit more narrow sense: AWES5662
        > Meditation: PixelOnWayToKixelForKiting
      • dave santos
        Robert, you wrote:   ...   What is your evidence for such an absurd prejudice? It takes special idiots to think up our new words.   The probable reason
        Message 3 of 23 , Apr 6, 2012
          Robert, you wrote:
           
          "I am strongly opposed to the introduction of unnecessary jargon. Any idiot can think up a new word. "
           
          What is your evidence for such an absurd prejudice? It takes special idiots to think up our new words.
           
          The probable reason Kixel is "unecessary jargon" to you is that you are not designing AWES with them. What exactly would you call an identical addressable kite unit, one of many strung along rope loadpaths in matrix-arrays, in order to make up a "metakite"?
           
          You need not worry exactly what a a Kixel is, nor vainly hope to strangle a baby word in the cradle, before it can catch on. Instead focus on your own long awaited Vis Ventis AWES demonstrator, to join The Club, and also foucus on that AWE R&D Master Plan you called for, and then accepted the job of drafting.
           
          When you do come up with a new concept, feel free to coin an English neologism; most of us are open to that. Aspiring to be a language-proliferation policeman is better done on some other (French) forum :) *
           
          * Apologies to PierreB
           
           

           
              
        • Doug
          Pixel: unit element propeller in propeller array Rixel: unit element in rotor array Hixel: unit element in helicopter array Gixel: unit element in gyrocopter
          Message 4 of 23 , Apr 7, 2012
            Pixel:
            unit element propeller in propeller array
            Rixel:
            unit element in rotor array
            Hixel:
            unit element in helicopter array
            Gixel:
            unit element in gyrocopter array
            Dixel:
            unit element of Darrieus array
            Blutixel:
            unit element of blue tarp array
            Dogfoodbagixel:
            unit element of dog food bag array

            --- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, "Joe Faust" <joefaust333@...> wrote:
            >
            > Up for glossary critique by group:
            > kixel, kixels Unit element kite in kite array
            > (like a pixel of an image display) .. originated by Dave Santos
            > of KiteLab Group used in a bit more narrow sense: AWES5662
            > <http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/AirborneWindEnergy/message/5662>
            > Meditation: PixelOnWayToKixelForKiting
            > <http://tinyurl.com/PixelOnWayToKixelForKiting>
            >
          • Doug
            Words create no power. Words are only words. If mere words made power you would be the world s largest utility by now.
            Message 5 of 23 , Apr 7, 2012
              Words create no power.
              Words are only words.
              If mere words made power you would be the world's largest utility by now.
              :)

              --- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, dave santos <santos137@...> wrote:
              >
              > Robert, you wrote:
              > �
              > >"I am strongly opposed to the introduction of unnecessary jargon. Any idiot can think up a new word. "
              > �
              > What is your evidence for�such an�absurd prejudice? It takes special idiots to think up our new words.
              > �
              > The�probable reason Kixel is "unecessary jargon" to you is that you are not designing AWES�with them.�What exactly would you call an identical addressable kite unit, one of many�strung along rope loadpaths in matrix-arrays, in order to make up a "metakite"?
              > �
              > You need not�worry exactly what a a Kixel is, nor vainly hope to�strangle�a baby word in the cradle, before it can catch on. Instead�focus on your own long awaited Vis Ventis AWES demonstrator, to join The Club, and also foucus on�that AWE R&D�Master Plan you called for, and then accepted the job of drafting.
              > �
              > When�you do come up with a new concept, feel free to coin an English�neologism; most of us are open to that. Aspiring to be a language-proliferation policeman�is better done on some other (French)�forum :) *
              > �
              > * Apologies to PierreB
              >
            • Robert Copcutt
              ... If you read my last post again you will see that I never said I disliked the word kixel. It is the general trend of inventing words and acronyms that needs
              Message 6 of 23 , Apr 7, 2012
                On Fri, 2012-04-06 at 19:18 -0700, dave santos wrote:
                >
                >
                > The probable reason Kixel is "unecessary jargon" to you is that you
                > are not designing AWES with them. What exactly would you call an
                > identical addressable kite unit, one of many strung along rope
                > loadpaths in matrix-arrays, in order to make up a "metakite"?

                If you read my last post again you will see that I never said I disliked
                the word kixel. It is the general trend of inventing words and acronyms
                that needs to be moderated. Kids with low self esteem join gangs and
                invent words unique to the gang in the false believe that it makes them
                special. Some in this group are falling into the same ego-boosting
                trap.

                "hey look, aren't we special! We use a language no one else can
                understand"

                It is an illusion that alienates newcomers and we cannot afford to do
                that.

                >
                > You need not worry exactly what a a Kixel is, nor vainly hope to
                > strangle a baby word in the cradle, before it can catch on.

                Can't you see how wrong that is? What is the point in using a word
                others do not understand? Good science is about accurate communication
                of complex concepts. To do that everyone needs a clear definition of
                every word. Sometimes it is worth abbreviating a commonly used phrase,
                but there is a modern trend to invent new words and acronyms far too
                quickly. Maybe one day the Oxford dictionary will list your new word.
                What an ego boost! In the meantime beginners are put off by all the
                jargon.

                > Focus on that AWE R&D Master Plan you called for, and then accepted
                > the job of drafting.

                Don't worry, it is in progress. I suspect you won't like it because it
                will be biased towards what I think will work. It will talk about kite
                arrays, but not kixels.
              • dave santos
                Robert,   If Ben Johnson were alive, he would allow us Kixel , for just a laugh and a bottle of middling Port. Perhaps PierreB can get Kixel into French, if
                Message 7 of 23 , Apr 7, 2012
                  Robert,
                   
                  If Ben Johnson were alive, he would allow us "Kixel", for just a laugh and a bottle of middling Port. Perhaps PierreB can get Kixel into French, if only an Englishman despises it enough; Its been approved by the Academia of Spanglais, as i am a Fellow.
                   
                  Of course scientists and engineers invent language all the time, just like the literary-minded gangs (Scots, Irish, Etc.) that torment you. Yes, it would be awesome if tough gangs did adopt "Kixel", but that's hoping for way too much. Let's settle for your Oxford Dictionary plan to counter our low self-esteem problem.
                   
                  You ask: "What is the point in using a word others do not understand?" In the case of "Vis Ventis", only you can say for sure. "Cambridge Kite Gang" would also be cool, even if it is less vainly obscure; but this is your complaint, so up with dead language usage, and cast your stone at any would-be James Joyce that tries to corrupt AWE, so our numbers can grow even faster than exponentially :)
                   
                  daveS
                   
                  PS If only the damn computer scientists did not invent so many words, everybody would use computers!

                   
                    
                • Joe Faust
                  Still listening, but update on entry, so far: * kite array Distinguish from kite-farm. Distinguish from a unity. AWE4728
                  Message 8 of 23 , Apr 7, 2012
                    Still listening, but update on entry, so far:

                    •          kite array    Distinguish from kite-farm. Distinguish from a unity.        AWE4728
                      • Unit wings in a kite array or kite matrix are "kixels" (inspired by the pixel of a displayed digital image).
                      • kixel, kixels             
                        • Unit element kite in kite array (like a pixel of an image display) .. originated by Dave Santos of KiteLab Group used in a bit more narrow sense:  AWES5662       Article development
                          Meditation:
                          PixelOnWayToKixelForKiting        [ ] Discuss

                           
                        • an identical addressable kite unit, one of many strung along rope loadpaths in matrix-arrays, in order to make up a "metakite"
                        • Sensors in a kixel may report the conditions of that unit.
                        • Controllers may face the needs of a particular kixel.
                        • Maintenance crews may focus on a particular kixel.
                        • v
                        • v
                      • v
                    =============================

                    PS: 
                    If an item or method or process has a word name for it, then perhaps the matter is old news.  However, experience grows the depth of meaning and text.   Words are rarely static items; words have a history. Words grow/fade in use.   One day kixel will have a larger history; its use quotient will be large or tiny; the term's birth has just occurred.       There are whole articles in AWE that do not use the word "kite" even once, but such is rare; one day articles describing kite arrays may or may not use "kixel." When AWES are arrays using high-count unit wings, "kixel" will either be an efficient and used term or not; meanwhile "kixel" is a handle that invite some to explore the realms of arrays and matrices with wing elements that are operating with kite physics.     
                          An AWES Glossary combined with the Internet forms, perhaps, a game changer.    Beginners and advanced scientists, engineers, technicians, developers, and users are invited to use and grow: 
                    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 
                    There are interactive forms for adding terms when visiting the glossary.   Links and explanations of terms are invited; it is easy to participate.     Some niche term may be the tip of an iceberg that may solve some important need.   It takes a couple of clicks to search for terms and their meanings. The coming enlarged world of tethered aviation will push changes in languages.  A young term may trigger the growth of a twig, branch, trunk, or root system; or a young term might dwindle and disappear.  When extant terms suffice, then so be it. Non-dynamic non-evolving text systems might miss opportunities of novelty and solution.
                    • One key item on my wish list:  Strong translation of AWES terms to the many languages used by humans.   Personally, my present skill set seems to have me locked out of much of Chinese and Japanese creativity.

                      • Another wish list: Knowing that which I do not yet know, that which has no name yet, that which has no presence in any published resource, ...   
                      • My foster father, a former superintendent of Douglas Aircraft Company, Milton Clifford Davis, told me when I was in junior high school: "When entering a field, get to know the nomenclature."   It took be some time to get to know some of the depth of meaning of the term "nomenclature."
                    • roderickjosephread
                      Since we re still sorting this listing... I bagsy a big up ... looking back in the forum you ll probably find Rod Read first suggested machine array
                      Message 9 of 23 , Apr 7, 2012
                        Since we're still sorting this listing... I bagsy a big up ... looking back in the forum you'll probably find "Rod Read first suggested machine array addressing of kites in the same way VGA screen elements are addressed in computer displays."

                        woop wooop


                        --- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, "Joe Faust" <joefaust333@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > Still listening, but update on entry, so far:
                        >
                        > * kite array
                        > Distinguish from kite-farm. Distinguish from a unity.
                        > AWE4728
                        > <http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/AirborneWindEnergy/message/4728>
                        > * Unit wings in a kite array or kite matrix are "kixels" (inspired by
                        > the pixel of a displayed digital image).
                        > * kixel, kixels
                        > * Unit element kite in kite array (like a pixel of
                        > an image display) .. originated by Dave Santos of KiteLab Group
                        > used in a bit more narrow sense: AWES5662
                        > <http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/AirborneWindEnergy/message/5662>
                        > Article development
                        > <http://www.energykitesystems.net/CoopIP/QuasiPlanarIsotropismwithKixels\
                        > .html> .
                        > Meditation: PixelOnWayToKixelForKiting
                        > <http://tinyurl.com/PixelOnWayToKixelForKiting> [ ]
                        > Discuss
                        > <http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/AirborneWindEnergy/message/5973>
                        >
                        > * an identical addressable kite unit, one of many
                        > strung along rope loadpaths in matrix-arrays, in order to make
                        > up a "metakite"
                        > * Sensors in a kixel may report the conditions of
                        > that unit.
                        > * Controllers may face the needs of a particular
                        > kixel.
                        > * Maintenance crews may focus on a particular
                        > kixel.
                        > * v
                        > * v
                        >
                        > * v
                        >
                        > =============================
                        > PS: If an item or method or process has a word name for it, then perhaps
                        > the matter is old news. However, experience grows the depth of meaning
                        > and text. Words are rarely static items; words have a history. Words
                        > grow/fade in use. One day kixel will have a larger history; its use
                        > quotient will be large or tiny; the term's birth has just occurred.
                        > There are whole articles in AWE that do not use the word "kite" even
                        > once, but such is rare; one day articles describing kite arrays may or
                        > may not use "kixel." When AWES are arrays using high-count unit wings,
                        > "kixel" will either be an efficient and used term or not; meanwhile
                        > "kixel" is a handle that invite some to explore the realms of arrays and
                        > matrices with wing elements that are operating with kite physics.
                        > An AWES Glossary combined with the Internet forms, perhaps, a game
                        > changer. Beginners and advanced scientists, engineers, technicians,
                        > developers, and users are invited to use and grow: A
                        > <http://www.energykitesystems.net/0/KITESA/FAQelectric/glossary/a.html>
                        > B
                        > <http://www.energykitesystems.net/0/KITESA/FAQelectric/glossary/b.html>
                        > C
                        > <http://www.energykitesystems.net/0/KITESA/FAQelectric/glossary/c.html>
                        > D
                        > <http://www.energykitesystems.net/0/KITESA/FAQelectric/glossary/d.html>
                        > E
                        > <http://www.energykitesystems.net/0/KITESA/FAQelectric/glossary/e.html>
                        > F
                        > <http://www.energykitesystems.net/0/KITESA/FAQelectric/glossary/f.html>
                        > G
                        > <http://www.energykitesystems.net/0/KITESA/FAQelectric/glossary/g.html>
                        > H
                        > <http://www.energykitesystems.net/0/KITESA/FAQelectric/glossary/h.html>
                        > I
                        > <http://www.energykitesystems.net/0/KITESA/FAQelectric/glossary/i.html>
                        > J
                        > <http://www.energykitesystems.net/0/KITESA/FAQelectric/glossary/j.html>
                        > K
                        > <http://www.energykitesystems.net/0/KITESA/FAQelectric/glossary/k.html>
                        > L
                        > <http://www.energykitesystems.net/0/KITESA/FAQelectric/glossary/l.html>
                        > M
                        > <http://www.energykitesystems.net/0/KITESA/FAQelectric/glossary/m.html>
                        > N
                        > <http://www.energykitesystems.net/0/KITESA/FAQelectric/glossary/n.html>
                        > O
                        > <http://www.energykitesystems.net/0/KITESA/FAQelectric/glossary/o.html>
                        > P
                        > <http://www.energykitesystems.net/0/KITESA/FAQelectric/glossary/p.html>
                        > Q
                        > <http://www.energykitesystems.net/0/KITESA/FAQelectric/glossary/q.html>
                        > R
                        > <http://www.energykitesystems.net/0/KITESA/FAQelectric/glossary/r.html>
                        > S
                        > <http://www.energykitesystems.net/0/KITESA/FAQelectric/glossary/s.html>
                        > T
                        > <http://www.energykitesystems.net/0/KITESA/FAQelectric/glossary/t.html>
                        > U
                        > <http://www.energykitesystems.net/0/KITESA/FAQelectric/glossary/u.html>
                        > V
                        > <http://www.energykitesystems.net/0/KITESA/FAQelectric/glossary/v.html>
                        > W
                        > <http://www.energykitesystems.net/0/KITESA/FAQelectric/glossary/w.html>
                        > X
                        > <http://www.energykitesystems.net/0/KITESA/FAQelectric/glossary/x.html>
                        > Y
                        > <http://www.energykitesystems.net/0/KITESA/FAQelectric/glossary/y.html>
                        > Z
                        > <http://www.energykitesystems.net/0/KITESA/FAQelectric/glossary/z.html>
                        > There are interactive forms for adding terms when visiting the glossary.
                        > Links and explanations of terms are invited; it is easy to participate.
                        > Some niche term may be the tip of an iceberg that may solve some
                        > important need. It takes a couple of clicks to search for terms and
                        > their meanings. The coming enlarged world of tethered aviation will push
                        > changes in languages. A young term may trigger the growth of a twig,
                        > branch, trunk, or root system; or a young term might dwindle and
                        > disappear. When extant terms suffice, then so be it. Non-dynamic
                        > non-evolving text systems might miss opportunities of novelty and
                        > solution.
                        >
                        > * One key item on my wish list: Strong translation of AWES terms to
                        > the many languages used by humans. Personally, my present skill set
                        > seems to have me locked out of much of Chinese and Japanese creativity.
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > * Another wish list: Knowing that which I do not yet know, that which
                        > has no name yet, that which has no presence in any published resource,
                        > ...
                        > * My foster father, a former superintendent of Douglas Aircraft
                        > Company, Milton Clifford Davis, told me when I was in junior high
                        > school: "When entering a field, get to know the nomenclature." It took
                        > be some time to get to know some of the depth of meaning of the term
                        > "nomenclature."
                        >
                      • dave santos
                        Right On, Roddy, we are on to a major mega-AWES concept here, and the VGA analogy is apt.   We can even use Edo-style kite bridling to allow each Kixel s
                        Message 10 of 23 , Apr 7, 2012
                          Right On, Roddy, we are on to a major mega-AWES concept here, and the VGA analogy is apt.
                           
                          We can even use Edo-style kite bridling to allow each Kixel's AoA to be fine-tuned in flight. What you can't see in all the Edo pictures is the cool little fairlead address-map rigger's plate, at the common bridle point, that allows every part of the Edo to be individually tension-tuned without futzing for the right line. Of course, presetting our Kixels in a tied-off mode is still programming.
                           
                          coolIP
                           
                           

                           
                        • roderickjosephread
                          Dave S, Any chance you could present a few pictures of that rigging so as I can build an accurate tarp array model?
                          Message 11 of 23 , Apr 7, 2012
                            Dave S,
                            Any chance you could present a few pictures of that rigging so as I can build an accurate tarp array model?


                            --- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, dave santos <santos137@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > Right On, Roddy, we are on to a major mega-AWES concept here, and the VGA analogy is apt.
                            >  
                            > We can even use Edo-style kite bridling to allow each Kixel's AoA to be fine-tuned in flight. What you can't see in all the Edo pictures is the cool little fairlead address-map rigger's plate, at the common bridle point, that allows every part of the Edo to be individually tension-tuned without futzing for the right line. Of course, presetting our Kixels in a tied-off mode is still programming.
                            >  
                            > coolIP
                            >
                          • Robert Copcutt
                            ... Others doing something wrong does not make it right. New words are sometimes justified but too often it is just ego massage. ... A name is different from a
                            Message 12 of 23 , Apr 7, 2012
                              On Sat, 2012-04-07 at 09:38 -0700, dave santos wrote:
                              >
                              > Robert,
                              >
                              > Of course scientists and engineers invent language all the time,

                              Others doing something wrong does not make it right. New words are
                              sometimes justified but too often it is just ego massage.

                              >
                              > You ask: "What is the point in using a word others do not understand?"
                              > In the case of "Vis Ventis", only you can say for sure. "Cambridge
                              > Kite Gang" would also be cool, even if it is less vainly obscure;

                              A name is different from a word. We did consider calling it the
                              Cambridge something or other but that would have been misleading.
                              Cambridge only happens to be where we are making the first prototype.
                              The intention has always been to be a global open source project making
                              the cheapest functional AWES we can envisage.

                              > but this is your complaint, so up with dead language usage,

                              It acknowledges the partial Italian heritage of the founders and their
                              ideas.

                              >
                              > PS If only the damn computer scientists did not invent so many words,
                              > everybody would use computers!

                              The profuse invention of new jargon did indeed cause many to delay their
                              adoption of computers, and it continues to be a problem. That is why I
                              bothered to reply when Joe invited critique. It is a global trend that
                              needs to be resisted. Language does change and adapt but we need to work
                              to maintain as much stability as possible. It is a good thing Joe did
                              not invite critique on one of the more lame words suggested here. We
                              would then have a truly useless word embedded in AWES culture.
                            • Doug
                              wixel Wing element pixel restricted to rectangular arrays? rectangular arrays of working elements is a very old concept The ones I ve seen first include a
                              Message 13 of 23 , Apr 8, 2012
                                wixel
                                Wing element pixel
                                restricted to rectangular arrays?
                                rectangular arrays of working elements is a very old concept
                                The ones I've seen first include a rectangular array of rotors - forgot the patent number.
                                *wise steps to AWE: take what is known to work and use it;
                                *dumb step to AWE: promote what is known not to work, while building nothing...
                                *poor step to AWE: argue about vocabulary and invent new words
                                *poorest step to AWE: argue about whether one should be doing poor step above.

                                --- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, Robert Copcutt <r@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > On Sat, 2012-04-07 at 09:38 -0700, dave santos wrote:
                                > >
                                > > Robert,
                                > >
                                > > Of course scientists and engineers invent language all the time,
                                >
                                > Others doing something wrong does not make it right. New words are
                                > sometimes justified but too often it is just ego massage.
                                >
                                > >
                                > > You ask: "What is the point in using a word others do not understand?"
                                > > In the case of "Vis Ventis", only you can say for sure. "Cambridge
                                > > Kite Gang" would also be cool, even if it is less vainly obscure;
                                >
                                > A name is different from a word. We did consider calling it the
                                > Cambridge something or other but that would have been misleading.
                                > Cambridge only happens to be where we are making the first prototype.
                                > The intention has always been to be a global open source project making
                                > the cheapest functional AWES we can envisage.
                                >
                                > > but this is your complaint, so up with dead language usage,
                                >
                                > It acknowledges the partial Italian heritage of the founders and their
                                > ideas.
                                >
                                > >
                                > > PS If only the damn computer scientists did not invent so many words,
                                > > everybody would use computers!
                                >
                                > The profuse invention of new jargon did indeed cause many to delay their
                                > adoption of computers, and it continues to be a problem. That is why I
                                > bothered to reply when Joe invited critique. It is a global trend that
                                > needs to be resisted. Language does change and adapt but we need to work
                                > to maintain as much stability as possible. It is a good thing Joe did
                                > not invite critique on one of the more lame words suggested here. We
                                > would then have a truly useless word embedded in AWES culture.
                                >
                              • Doug
                                Nixels: Let s NOT use pixels . Topic: WECS solidity Timeline: 3000 years 100% solidity: 3000 years ago modern WECS solidity: about 2% pixels imply a high
                                Message 14 of 23 , Apr 8, 2012
                                  Nixels:
                                  Let's NOT use "pixels".
                                  Topic: WECS solidity
                                  Timeline: 3000 years
                                  100% solidity: 3000 years ago
                                  modern WECS solidity: about 2%
                                  pixels imply a high solidity
                                  high solidity WECS thinking belongs to the technology preceding Christ
                                  Maybe you think today is a good day to resurrect it?
                                  Whether you are talking about a helicopter, airplane, wind turbine working surfaces, they all operate on high lift, high speed, and low solidity compared to the working area.
                                  Maboomba!
                                  :)

                                  --- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, dave santos <santos137@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > Robert,
                                  > �
                                  > If Ben Johnson were alive, he would allow us "Kixel", for just a laugh and a bottle of middling Port. Perhaps PierreB can get Kixel into French, if only�an Englishman despises it enough; Its been approved by the Academia of Spanglais, as i am a Fellow.
                                  > �
                                  > Of course scientists and engineers invent language all the time, just like the literary-minded gangs (Scots, Irish, Etc.)�that�torment you. Yes, it would be awesome if tough gangs did adopt "Kixel", but that's hoping for way too much. Let's�settle for�your Oxford Dictionary plan to counter�our low self-esteem problem.
                                  > �
                                  > You ask: "What is the point in using a word others do not understand?" In the case of "Vis Ventis", only you can say for sure. "Cambridge Kite Gang" would�also be cool, even if it is less vainly�obscure; but�this is�your complaint, so�up with�dead language usage, and�cast your stone�at any would-be�James Joyce that tries to corrupt�AWE,�so�our numbers�can grow�even faster than exponentially�:)
                                  > �
                                  > daveS
                                  > �
                                  > PS If only the damn computer scientists did not invent so many words, everybody would use computers!
                                  >
                                • Joe Faust
                                  Kixels may be set in a an AWES array system that has net low solidity (even, say 2%) or have net solidity of 100%. The following clip is from HERE
                                  Message 15 of 23 , Apr 8, 2012
                                    Kixels may be set in a an AWES array system that has net low solidity (even, say 2%) or have net solidity of 100%. 

                                    The following clip is from HERE.
                                  • dave santos
                                    Solidity is a good AWES topic in its own right, overdue for an update-     The emerging understanding of AWES Solidity is to first-off relate it to the Kite
                                    Message 16 of 23 , Apr 8, 2012
                                      Solidity is a good AWES topic in its own right, overdue for an update-
                                       
                                       
                                      The emerging understanding of AWES Solidity is to first-off relate it to the Kite Window, to base calculated Solidity on the entire projected semicircle reachable by kite, and not just on a small disc in the Power Zone, in seeking to maximizing airspace and land use. Picture a half-inflated parachute laying on its side; that's 100% Solidity, and no HAWT can actually fill that geometry*. Keep in mind how Tether Length x Unit Area Squared applies, not just the Solidity Factor. Thus adding Tether Length exponentially encompasses far more area than an equivalent percentage increase in Solidity Factor.
                                       
                                      Next is our emerging clarity over the need for Variable Solidity to match power loadings and wind conditions, including turbulence. Furling and unfurling Solidity is a basic way to match or limit loads. Lowering the Solidity Factor (porosity) while increasing overall area is a useful stability factor. Our Megascale Array designs will require relatively low Solidity to keep bulk Re (as based on the Kixel characteristic length) low enough. This squares precisely with JoeF's low-solidity "Kixel Map" intuition.
                                       
                                       
                                      * HAWTs still rock, if you can make them big enough: Solidity isn't everything.
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                          
                                    • blturner3
                                      I looked at your arch drawing and yes I can t make out many of the details because of size and lightness of the drawings. But there does seem to be an effort
                                      Message 17 of 23 , Apr 11, 2012
                                        I looked at your arch drawing and yes I can't make out many of the details because of size and lightness of the drawings. But there does seem to be an effort to maximize solidity.

                                        Doug should be here at any moment to point out the thousands of years old trend away from high solidity. And he is right. Maximum solidity, Minimum solidity, reaching the Betz limit. None of them is an ideal ultimate goal of AWE. But all the principals do apply. It is optimizing them that is the trick.

                                        We seem to differ in some basic definitions. Solidity is not the part of the whole wind window. It is the portion of the area blocked or swept area that is constantly covered. Now that I think about it even that definition needs some work. Solidity is a 2D definition I believe. I bet we can find a good definition in a wind energy textbook.

                                        High solidity has diminishing returns and is plagued by another loss of the wind that completely goes around the system.

                                        The wind windows in a kite farm array would logically overlap to maximize land use.

                                        Variable pitch wind turbine blades vary the solidity quite effectively. As can a kite be built to be able to vary it's angle of attack. The multiple mounting points on a delta kite bridle accomplishes the same thing. I think your re-inventing the wheel at some level.

                                        Brian

                                        --- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, dave santos <santos137@...> wrote:
                                        >
                                        > Solidity is a good AWES topic in its own right, overdue for an update-
                                        >  
                                        >  
                                        > The emerging understanding of AWES Solidity is to first-off relate it to the Kite Window, to base calculated Solidity on the entire projected semicircle reachable by kite, and not just on a small disc in the Power Zone, in seeking to maximizing airspace and land use. Picture a half-inflated parachute laying on its side; that's 100% Solidity, and no HAWT can actually fill that geometry*. Keep in mind how Tether Length x Unit Area Squared applies, not just the Solidity Factor. Thus adding Tether Length exponentially encompasses far more area than an equivalent percentage increase in Solidity Factor.
                                        >  
                                        > Next is our emerging clarity over the need for Variable Solidity to match power loadings and wind conditions, including turbulence. Furling and unfurling Solidity is a basic way to match or limit loads. Lowering the Solidity Factor (porosity) while increasing overall area is a useful stability factor. Our Megascale Array designs will require relatively low Solidity to keep bulk Re (as based on the Kixel characteristic length) low enough. This squares precisely with JoeF's low-solidity "Kixel Map" intuition.
                                        >  
                                        >  
                                        > * HAWTs still rock, if you can make them big enough: Solidity isn't everything.
                                        >
                                      • Robert Copcutt
                                        The turbine industry has found that high solidity favours low winds and low solidity is better for stronger winds. I suspect we will find the same applies to
                                        Message 18 of 23 , Apr 11, 2012
                                          The turbine industry has found that high solidity favours low winds and
                                          low solidity is better for stronger winds. I suspect we will find the
                                          same applies to AWE.

                                          It has also been found that the weaker the wind the more it costs to
                                          harvest it. This will certainly be the case with AWE as well.

                                          It brings me back to the need for different kites for different wind
                                          speeds. The ideal low wind kite will have a relatively huge area of the
                                          lightest possible fabric. A simple tarp will not suffice because the
                                          corners where the tethers are attached will be too weak. It will be
                                          difficult to make this large kite aerodynamic - its L/D will be small.

                                          For medium and strong winds much smaller and more aerodynamic kites will
                                          be most economical and much better use of crosswind operation can be
                                          made.


                                          On Wed, 2012-04-11 at 14:44 +0000, blturner3 wrote:
                                          >
                                          > I looked at your arch drawing and yes I can't make out many of the
                                          > details because of size and lightness of the drawings. But there does
                                          > seem to be an effort to maximize solidity.
                                          >
                                          > Doug should be here at any moment to point out the thousands of years
                                          > old trend away from high solidity. And he is right. Maximum solidity,
                                          > Minimum solidity, reaching the Betz limit. None of them is an ideal
                                          > ultimate goal of AWE. But all the principals do apply. It is
                                          > optimizing them that is the trick.
                                          >
                                          > We seem to differ in some basic definitions. Solidity is not the part
                                          > of the whole wind window. It is the portion of the area blocked or
                                          > swept area that is constantly covered. Now that I think about it even
                                          > that definition needs some work. Solidity is a 2D definition I
                                          > believe. I bet we can find a good definition in a wind energy
                                          > textbook.
                                          >
                                          > High solidity has diminishing returns and is plagued by another loss
                                          > of the wind that completely goes around the system.
                                          >
                                          > The wind windows in a kite farm array would logically overlap to
                                          > maximize land use.
                                          >
                                          > Variable pitch wind turbine blades vary the solidity quite
                                          > effectively. As can a kite be built to be able to vary it's angle of
                                          > attack. The multiple mounting points on a delta kite bridle
                                          > accomplishes the same thing. I think your re-inventing the wheel at
                                          > some level.
                                          >
                                          > Brian
                                          >
                                          > --- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, dave santos <santos137@...>
                                          > wrote:
                                          > >
                                          > > Solidity is a good AWES topic in its own right, overdue for an
                                          > update-
                                          > >
                                          > >
                                          > > The emerging understanding of AWES Solidity is to first-off relate
                                          > it to the Kite Window, to base calculated Solidity on the entire
                                          > projected semicircle reachable by kite, and not just on a small disc
                                          > in the Power Zone, in seeking to maximizing airspace and land
                                          > use. Picture a half-inflated parachute laying on its side; that's 100%
                                          > Solidity, and no HAWT can actually fill that geometry*. Keep in
                                          > mind how Tether Length x Unit Area Squared applies, not just
                                          > the Solidity Factor. Thus adding Tether Length exponentially
                                          > encompasses far more area than an equivalent percentage increase in
                                          > Solidity Factor.
                                          > >
                                          > > Next is our emerging clarity over the need for Variable Solidity to
                                          > match power loadings and wind conditions, including turbulence.
                                          > Furling and unfurling Solidity is a basic way to match or limit loads.
                                          > Lowering the Solidity Factor (porosity) while increasing overall area
                                          > is a useful stability factor. Our Megascale Array designs will require
                                          > relatively low Solidity to keep bulk Re (as based on the Kixel
                                          > characteristic length) low enough. This squares precisely with JoeF's
                                          > low-solidity "Kixel Map" intuition.
                                          > >
                                          > >
                                          > > * HAWTs still rock, if you can make them big enough: Solidity isn't
                                          > everything.
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                        • Robert Copcutt
                                          ... Which is why I let 99.9% of the mistaken thinking I see on the internet slide by. However, sometimes when I think I can bring about useful change I speak
                                          Message 19 of 23 , Apr 11, 2012
                                            >
                                            > *poor step to AWE: argue about vocabulary and invent new words
                                            > *poorest step to AWE: argue about whether one should be doing poor
                                            > step above.
                                            >

                                            Which is why I let 99.9% of the mistaken thinking I see on the internet
                                            slide by. However, sometimes when I think I can bring about useful
                                            change I speak up.
                                          • dave santos
                                            We are faced with an over-simplistic conventional approach to solidity as it was taught to us in HAWT design. The shortcomings include-   -Overemphasis of
                                            Message 20 of 23 , Apr 11, 2012
                                              We are faced with an over-simplistic conventional approach to solidity as it was taught to us in HAWT design. The shortcomings include-
                                               
                                              -Overemphasis of solidity/sweep of the turbine disc area, while ignoring overall solidity/sweep of the entire kite farm airspace.
                                              -As Robert properly points out, failure to see that there is no one ideal solidity (or sweep) ratio across the wind spectrum.
                                              -Failure to account for factors that may drive solidity/sweep away from simplistic predictions. For example, a high solidity to maintain flight thru lulls can count for more, operationally, than ideal solidity at the working windspeed.
                                              -Failure to keep ROI foremost, in seeking abstract performance ideals like optimal solidity. Capital cost and lifecycle cost relate to factors like solidity, but look how many designers skip the holistic analysis.
                                               
                                              As agile engineers, we modify any existing concept when it stops moving us forward. We constantly refine or expand the previous standard of understanding, and do not let complaints from orthodox objectors hold us back. That is why we are free to define the new projected solidity/sweep area as the entire kite window*, rather than follow old HAWT norms, as the new view tends toward better maximizing kite farm performance over the previous idea.
                                               
                                              * Re: Overlapping kite windows- They violate the empirical principle, "if two kites can interfere, they will interfere". It will be a while before anyone has a system robust enough overcome this "classic kite reality".
                                               
                                              Note: Large open kite loop sweep patterns as represented by Makani/Joby clearly let a lot of wind pass thru the hollow center of the pattern untapped, missing the bulls-eye in the Power Zone. A quantification of such sweep/solidity efficiency needs to calculate this center bypass loss.

                                               
                                            • Doug
                                              Yeah a kixel: get yer kixels on route sixty-sixel... Kixel: An addressable kite graphic unit for showing pictures in the sky at kite festivals. The term
                                              Message 21 of 23 , Apr 12, 2012
                                                Yeah a kixel:
                                                "get yer kixels on route sixty-sixel..."
                                                Kixel: An addressable kite graphic unit for showing pictures in the sky at kite festivals. The term kixel suggests a new kite-based outdoor graphics display. There Dave you now have a job. Not sure what that has to do with AWE...
                                                In wind energy, the proper terminology for the addressable energy producing unit, after 3000 years, is "blade".
                                                :)
                                                Doug S.

                                                AWE: still learning basic wind energy terms, arguing about terms that may be extraneous, with little flying, and nothing producing...
                                                NASA: Nothing Airborne Still Analyzing?
                                                Or were they reeling in and out last I heard? With a multi-year plan to crash lots of kites?

                                                --- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, Robert Copcutt <r@...> wrote:
                                                >
                                                >
                                                > >
                                                > > *poor step to AWE: argue about vocabulary and invent new words
                                                > > *poorest step to AWE: argue about whether one should be doing poor
                                                > > step above.
                                                > >
                                                >
                                                > Which is why I let 99.9% of the mistaken thinking I see on the internet
                                                > slide by. However, sometimes when I think I can bring about useful
                                                > change I speak up.
                                                >
                                              • blturner3
                                                Yes ROI ROI ROI. I see differences in our viewpoints that has led us to different conclusions. It seems that your working to get the most from low wind speeds
                                                Message 22 of 23 , Apr 19, 2012
                                                  Yes ROI ROI ROI.

                                                  I see differences in our viewpoints that has led us to different conclusions. It seems that your working to get the most from low wind speeds that I have chosen to ignore. The whole point of going higher is to get away from those low wind speeds. low wind speeds are far more expensive to harvest. I believe there is an ideal target windspeed for a given turbine system at a specific location. I think we naturally tend to design for the locations that we are thinking of at the moment. The location in my mind seems to be windier and more remote than the one your thinking of.

                                                  You seem to be attempting to optimize ground space usage while keeping kites from having any possibility of conflicting. I believe that ground space is not that big an expense compared to the rest of the system, and that the control systems will mature to allow much closer spacing. We let kids drive on the public roads at some experience level. So will we let robot kites fly together.

                                                  As to the hole in the middle. Regular wind turbines are less efficient toward the middle of the hub. The tips do most of the work. I do think that some of your proposals make better use of this space but at the expense of less efficient use of the wind passing through this space. If this is better ROI or not is, in my opinion, an unproven point.

                                                  Brian

                                                  --- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, dave santos <santos137@...> wrote:
                                                  >
                                                  > We are faced with an over-simplistic conventional approach to solidity as it was taught to us in HAWT design. The shortcomings include-
                                                  >  
                                                  > -Overemphasis of solidity/sweep of the turbine disc area, while ignoring overall solidity/sweep of the entire kite farm airspace.
                                                  > -As Robert properly points out, failure to see that there is no one ideal solidity (or sweep) ratio across the wind spectrum.
                                                  > -Failure to account for factors that may drive solidity/sweep away from simplistic predictions. For example, a high solidity to maintain flight thru lulls can count for more, operationally, than ideal solidity at the working windspeed.
                                                  > -Failure to keep ROI foremost, in seeking abstract performance ideals like optimal solidity. Capital cost and lifecycle cost relate to factors like solidity, but look how many designers skip the holistic analysis.
                                                  >  
                                                  > As agile engineers, we modify any existing concept when it stops moving us forward. We constantly refine or expand the previous standard of understanding, and do not let complaints from orthodox objectors hold us back. That is why we are free to define the new projected solidity/sweep area as the entire kite window*, rather than follow old HAWT norms, as the new view tends toward better maximizing kite farm performance over the previous idea.
                                                  >  
                                                  > * Re: Overlapping kite windows- They violate the empirical principle, "if two kites can interfere, they will interfere". It will be a while before anyone has a system robust enough overcome this "classic kite reality".
                                                  >  
                                                  > Note: Large open kite loop sweep patterns as represented by Makani/Joby clearly let a lot of wind pass thru the hollow center of the pattern untapped, missing the bulls-eye in the Power Zone. A quantification of such sweep/solidity efficiency needs to calculate this center bypass loss.
                                                  >
                                                • dave santos
                                                  Brian,   We agree on the obvious fact that low wind hardly pays in terms of direct production. What thousands of technical kite flight hours have suggested
                                                  Message 23 of 23 , Apr 19, 2012
                                                    Brian,
                                                     
                                                    We agree on the obvious fact that low wind hardly pays in terms of direct production. What thousands of technical kite flight hours have suggested to me is the operational advantage of coping well with lulls between useful gusts. So while you "believe there is an ideal target windspeed for a given turbine system at a specific location", i think in terms of wind spectrums and kite systems able to handle non-ideal wind speeds in non-specific locations.
                                                     
                                                    Regarding cost  and specific locations, you "believe that ground space is not that big an expense compared to the rest of the system". I believe in systems so cheap compared to ideal market locations near cities and grids, that location is indeed a driving cost. Space wasting systems face a severely limited applicability. Makani's model requires tens or hundreds of acres as a total no-go zone for very small amounts of power, and my rough estimates predict real world land costs will often exceed the base cost of even their high-price AWES, except in the cheapest imaginable spaces without grids, where no one lives. I won't repeat the basic numbers here (see TACO 1.0), but if you have some better calculations showing land use (and airspace use) to be a negligible cost, then please share them.
                                                     
                                                    Its true that common rotors do little work toward the center, but the Makani/Joby geometry hits a deep new low in this regard, letting far more energy pass thru the center than they tap from the circle swept. All this hype about replicating the power of HAWT tips without any offsetting downsides is deeply misleading. Its a subtle point related to tensile v. cantilever structure just why a tethered kite accesses so much power in the center of its power zone pattern, while a HAWT does so away from its axis. Makani/Joby loops are large to counter the centrifugal forces of high-speed high-mass loops with wing lift; not the best use of lift, which is to make net power out,
                                                     
                                                     
                                                    daveS
                                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.