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

AWE Basket Investment Fund explained

Expand Messages
  • dave santos
    The planned AWE Basket Investment Fund is intended to spread R&D risk and create integrated test & evaluation across the diversity of AWES architectures. It
    Message 1 of 5 , Nov 13, 2012
      The planned AWE Basket Investment Fund is intended to spread R&D risk and create integrated test & evaluation across the diversity of AWES architectures. It would be the best possible AWE play for the largest institutional investors, as well as small investors.

      Social goals have been long discussed on the AWES Forum. With a grand basket deal, we can self-enforce best-practice in many areas. This includes agreed ethical standards, open-knowledge, environmental action, demilitarization incentives, energy-equity, and so on. By creating the most attractive AWES technology investment possible, we can afford to embed social goals as "vitamin-pills". Contrast with "poison-pills", as they are known in conventional business, designed to block shareholder activism. 

      We can design long-term equity-swaps/buybacks/etc. to make sure global AWE infrastructure becomes a commons for the benefit of all. A vast fortune in energy excise taxes can be targeted from the start at the highest societal aspirations; like subsidized universal education, health-care, and so on. We can also make sure the entire hard-working early AWE R&D community is fairly rewarded; with neither winner-takes-all, nor devil-takes-the-hindmost. We can self-limit private business monopoly. These are all vitamin-pills, toward a far healthier capitalism.

      How close are we to succeeding at this? We are quite close to a tipping point where a clear majority of AWE R&D teams are ready to work closely together, if funded as a basket. Of this group, a majority of folks are receptive to a socially progressive model. Holdout companies look overvalued and increasingly isolated, and will likely join rather than die. There is a lot to do, but progress is rapid. 


    • David Lang
      Hmm…DaveS, this may look good on paper, but, until you come up with a workable and equitable model for how these basket funds would be distributed amongst
      Message 2 of 5 , Nov 13, 2012
        Hmm…DaveS, this may look good on paper, but, until you come up with a workable and equitable model for how these "basket funds" would be distributed amongst the many players, I can't see it being functional. It appears that the "Util or WOW" organization is of meager enough scope at present to not really be "testing the waters" of such a concept.

        DaveL



        On Nov 13, 2012, at 12:59 PM, dave santos <santos137@...> wrote:

         

        The planned AWE Basket Investment Fund is intended to spread R&D risk and create integrated test & evaluation across the diversity of AWES architectures. It would be the best possible AWE play for the largest institutional investors, as well as small investors.

        Social goals have been long discussed on the AWES Forum. With a grand basket deal, we can self-enforce best-practice in many areas. This includes agreed ethical standards, open-knowledge, environmental action, demilitarization incentives, energy-equity, and so on. By creating the most attractive AWES technology investment possible, we can afford to embed social goals as "vitamin-pills". Contrast with "poison-pills", as they are known in conventional business, designed to block shareholder activism. 

        We can design long-term equity-swaps/buybacks/etc. to make sure global AWE infrastructure becomes a commons for the benefit of all. A vast fortune in energy excise taxes can be targeted from the start at the highest societal aspirations; like subsidized universal education, health-care, and so on. We can also make sure the entire hard-working early AWE R&D community is fairly rewarded; with neither winner-takes-all, nor devil-takes-the-hindmost. We can self-limit private business monopoly. These are all vitamin-pills, toward a far healthier capitalism.

        How close are we to succeeding at this? We are quite close to a tipping point where a clear majority of AWE R&D teams are ready to work closely together, if funded as a basket. Of this group, a majority of folks are receptive to a socially progressive model. Holdout companies look overvalued and increasingly isolated, and will likely join rather than die. There is a lot to do, but progress is rapid. 




      • dave santos
        DaveL, You are right that this Basket Fund is not yet a functional plan, but it does build on years of study and community discussion. As for your specific
        Message 3 of 5 , Nov 13, 2012
          DaveL,

          You are right that this Basket Fund is not yet a functional plan, but it does build on years of study and community discussion. As for your specific question- how to equitably distribute basket funds; an engineering peer-review process is proposed. I even asked Uwe this morning if we might somehow build on his AWE textbook peer review process. He also faces helping organize the AWEC2013 presentation committee peer-review. Why don't we build a collective blue-ribbon AWE peer-panel process to cover all bases? There are good models for open peer-review protocols.

          Carreer aerospace figures like you, ChrisC, and AlexB would be ideal peer-reviewers. Fort Felker, DaveN, Mark Moore, and others also have desirable qualities. Our Engineering academics are independent and well-trusted. Private corporate players like AWEC members could have their reps as well. Scoring matrices would tabulate measurable merits and expert opinions into actionable decisions. We have a lot of tools and details worked out, if we just bundle all the good ideas on the table.

          We can do better than Google founders, biz hacks, and shady promoters have so far done in allocating investment. Rotor-based AWES is a good case study for a change. We have an informal friendly consensus between two established players, Sky Windpower and SkyMill, to share in rotor-space R&D, with an academic player, Sirohi's Rotor Lab (UT and UMD connected) doing a bit of validation study, with Util help, plus a Boeing MOU and strong Sikorsky connection. We call this the "Rotor Club". Its not hard to imagine this sort of coalition could figure out how to harmonize AWES Rotor R&D as part of a bigger plan, and agree on how to share funds. The same goes for the other "clubs", like kiteplanes, soft wings, LTA, circular tracks, and such.

          The alternative is for us to drift along with no comprehensive plan until the next powerful but poorly informed player, like a government, major aerospace corporation, or the next billionaire finally steps into our self-imposed leadership vacuum. I doubt the terms then dictated would be quite so "workable and equitable" as we can do, if only we try. Even just having a partial plan puts us in the lead in a game that could boom viral at any moment. Some big hitters in the investment community are just waiting for us to get our act together, for the fog to clear,

          daveS

          PS We can incentivize needed early participation in the Basket Fund, and also early formulate patent pool and CC IP incentives.
        • Gaetano Dentamaro
          DaveL, I agree, WOW in itself has little (if anything) to contribute besides its trademark and goodwill at this very moment -- though things may change in the
          Message 4 of 5 , Nov 13, 2012
            DaveL,

            I agree, WOW in itself has little (if anything) to contribute besides its trademark and goodwill at this very moment -- though things may change in the foreseeable future, as DaveS is aware -- yet the major problem the AWES community is confronted with is still to agree on how to become "E pluribus unum". An early formulation of a patent pool and incentives for IP contributors is probably a good starting platform.

            --
            G.

            On 13/11/2012 23:59, dave santos wrote:
             
            DaveL,

            You are right that this Basket Fund is not yet a functional plan, but it does build on years of study and community discussion. As for your specific question- how to equitably distribute basket funds; an engineering peer-review process is proposed. I even asked Uwe this morning if we might somehow build on his AWE textbook peer review process. He also faces helping organize the AWEC2013 presentation committee peer-review. Why don't we build a collective blue-ribbon AWE peer-panel process to cover all bases? There are good models for open peer-review protocols.

            Carreer aerospace figures like you, ChrisC, and AlexB would be ideal peer-reviewers. Fort Felker, DaveN, Mark Moore, and others also have desirable qualities. Our Engineering academics are independent and well-trusted. Private corporate players like AWEC members could have their reps as well. Scoring matrices would tabulate measurable merits and expert opinions into actionable decisions. We have a lot of tools and details worked out, if we just bundle all the good ideas on the table.

            We can do better than Google founders, biz hacks, and shady promoters have so far done in allocating investment. Rotor-based AWES is a good case study for a change. We have an informal friendly consensus between two established players, Sky Windpower and SkyMill, to share in rotor-space R&D, with an academic player, Sirohi's Rotor Lab (UT and UMD connected) doing a bit of validation study, with Util help, plus a Boeing MOU and strong Sikorsky connection. We call this the "Rotor Club". Its not hard to imagine this sort of coalition could figure out how to harmonize AWES Rotor R&D as part of a bigger plan, and agree on how to share funds. The same goes for the other "clubs", like kiteplanes, soft wings, LTA, circular tracks, and such.

            The alternative is for us to drift along with no comprehensive plan until the next powerful but poorly informed player, like a government, major aerospace corporation, or the next billionaire finally steps into our self-imposed leadership vacuum. I doubt the terms then dictated would be quite so "workable and equitable" as we can do, if only we try. Even just having a partial plan puts us in the lead in a game that could boom viral at any moment. Some big hitters in the investment community are just waiting for us to get our act together, for the fog to clear,

            daveS

            PS We can incentivize needed early participation in the Basket Fund, and also early formulate patent pool and CC IP incentives.

          • roderickjosephread
            I attended an interesting webinar yeaterday (Developing the
            Message 5 of 5 , Nov 14, 2012
              I attended an interesting webinar yeaterday 

              (Developing the offshore wind supply chain)

               explaining a competition launched by the UK technology strategy board 

               

              An NGO of sorts. TSB run UK business led funding competitions with the DECC .

              There is 100%  feasibility study funding available for charitable research organisations willing to share their tech.
              You are not limited to one application.
              The pot is small; projects upto £150k  lasting one year.
              I'm certain that if I worked with someone else as a research charity, we could run a couple of projects in that time.

              We may all consider our projects at TRL higher than feasibility study...
              But it would be nice to have models built to demonstrate actual power scaling.



              --- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, Gaetano Dentamaro <awes@...> wrote:
              >
              > DaveL,
              >
              > I agree, WOW in itself has little (if anything) to contribute besides
              > its trademark and goodwill at this very moment -- though things may
              > change in the foreseeable future, as DaveS is aware -- yet the major
              > problem the AWES community is confronted with is still to agree on how
              > to become "E pluribus unum". An early formulation of a patent pool and
              > incentives for IP contributors is probably a good starting platform.
              >
              > --
              > G.
              >
              > On 13/11/2012 23:59, dave santos wrote:
              > > DaveL,
              > >
              > > You are right that this Basket Fund is not yet a functional plan, but
              > > it does build on years of study and community discussion. As for your
              > > specific question- how to equitably distribute basket funds; an
              > > engineering peer-review process is proposed. I even asked Uwe this
              > > morning if we might somehow build on his AWE textbook peer review
              > > process. He also faces helping organize the AWEC2013 presentation
              > > committee peer-review. Why don't we build a collective blue-ribbon AWE
              > > peer-panel process to cover all bases? There are good models for open
              > > peer-review protocols.
              > >
              > > Carreer aerospace figures like you, ChrisC, and AlexB would be ideal
              > > peer-reviewers. Fort Felker, DaveN, Mark Moore, and others also have
              > > desirable qualities. Our Engineering academics are independent and
              > > well-trusted. Private corporate players like AWEC members could have
              > > their reps as well. Scoring matrices would tabulate measurable merits
              > > and expert opinions into actionable decisions. We have a lot of tools
              > > and details worked out, if we just bundle all the good ideas on the table.
              > >
              > > We can do better than Google founders, biz hacks, and shady promoters
              > > have so far done in allocating investment. Rotor-based AWES is a good
              > > case study for a change. We have an informal
              > > friendly consensus between two established players, Sky Windpower and
              > > SkyMill, to share in rotor-space R&D, with an academic player,
              > > Sirohi's Rotor Lab (UT and UMD connected) doing a bit of validation
              > > study, with Util help, plus a Boeing MOU and strong Sikorsky
              > > connection. We call this the "Rotor Club". Its not hard to imagine
              > > this sort of coalition could figure out how to harmonize AWES Rotor
              > > R&D as part of a bigger plan, and agree on how to share funds. The
              > > same goes for the other "clubs", like kiteplanes, soft wings, LTA,
              > > circular tracks, and such.
              > >
              > > The alternative is for us to drift along with no comprehensive plan
              > > until the next powerful but poorly informed player, like a government,
              > > major aerospace corporation, or the next billionaire finally steps
              > > into our self-imposed leadership vacuum. I doubt the terms then
              > > dictated would be quite so "workable and equitable" as we can do, if
              > > only we try. Even just having a partial plan puts us in the lead in a
              > > game that could boom viral at any moment. Some big hitters in the
              > > investment community are just waiting for us to get our act together,
              > > for the fog to clear,
              > >
              > > daveS
              > >
              > > PS We can incentivize needed early participation in the Basket Fund,
              > > and also early formulate patent pool and CC IP incentives.
              > >
              >
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.