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

RE: [AWES] Civil War era Spiral-Driven/Supported Flying Machine

Expand Messages
  • Dan Parker
    Rod, I like books with facts. Dan l To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com From: rod.read@gmail.com Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 22:30:14 +0100 Subject: Re: [AWES]
    Message 1 of 18 , May 23 5:46 PM
      Rod,
       
       
                    I like books with facts.
       
                                                     Dan'l
       

      To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
      From: rod.read@...
      Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 22:30:14 +0100
      Subject: Re: [AWES] Civil War era Spiral-Driven/Supported Flying Machine

       
      Sorry If it was unclear... I wrote it on my phone, whilst in a softplay full of screaming kids and reading the conclusions section "Thinking fast and slow" by Daniel Kahneman
      must focus more

      Rod Read

      Windswept and Interesting Limited
      15a Aiginis
      Isle of Lewis
      HS2 0PB

      07899057227
      01851 870878



      On 23 May 2013 19:41, Doug <dougselsam@...> wrote:
       

      Dan'l:
      What evidence do you have for that statement?
      Can you point us to a source?
      :)
      Doug S.



      --- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, Dan Parker <spiralairfoil@...> wrote:
      >
      > Roderick,
      >
      > You are correct, the SpiralAirfoil is much better at receiving wind energy than it is at driving wind energy.
      >
      > Dan'l
      >




    • dave santos
      Dan l agreed with Rod-   Roderick, You are correct, the SpiralAirfoil is much better at receiving wind energy than it is at driving wind energy.   Doug
      Message 2 of 18 , May 24 10:10 AM
        Dan'l agreed with Rod-
         
        "Roderick, You are correct, the SpiralAirfoil is much better at receiving wind energy than it is at driving wind energy."
         
        Doug wrote-
        "Dan'l: What evidence do you have for that statement?
        Can you point us to a source?   :) "

         -------------- KiteLab Answer ---------------
         
        Dan'l's evidence is obviously empirical-anecdotal. The "turbine backdrive"  asymmetry he notes is a feature of the Reynold's Number (Re) spectrum. At the lower end of the spectrum, backdrivability is severely viscosity limited. At the Re upper end, inertial forces dominate, and backdrivability is good.
         
        Imagine a wheel stuck in a mudhole, spinning freely but in vain. The tire is like a low Re turbine unable to drive the viscous road medium effectively. Then imagine the vehicle being towed out of the hole, then the medium would gain purchase and torque would be transmitted. Its a "diode effect". The driving condition at low Re is most intuitive if the medium is seen as flowing past the turbine, under Galilean Relativity.
         
        Dan's turbines are in fact conic-spiral based, as low aspect-ratio (AR) sails. Conventional HAWTs are more helical, with high AR blades. Refined blades even transition from spiral to helical geometry from center to tip. Large area low AR spiral or helical turbines are favored in slow dense "dirty" flows where the massive spars can be buoyant. They can be backdriven as Archimede's Screws, in close fitting channels or tubes.
         
        Conclusion- KiteLab supports Dan'l's empirical observation and semi-technical usage of "spiral" and "airfoil". 
         
        ----------------- notes and links -----------------
         
        Doug please concede value in "AWE fans" (and experts) sharing this forum, and also allow credit to figures like Wayne for feats like alerting Cristina to LLJ's in her data. See the good in North and Dabiri as well.
         
        Once again, the Re link-
         
         
        "Airfoil" defined in Wikipedia applies to Dan'l's sails. Note dragonfly airfoil as valid case-
         
         
        An Archimedes screw is a Low Re device par-excellence-
         
         
      • Doug
        To Dave S., the screaming sports fan in the stands: Hey Ref - That player was offsides! Where s the flag?! The Ref sucks! If I was on that field I d show
        Message 3 of 18 , May 24 12:10 PM
          To Dave S., the screaming sports fan in the stands:
          "Hey Ref - That player was offsides! Where's the flag?! The Ref sucks! If I was on that field I'd show 'em how ta play the game!"

          There you go trying to make it all about personalities again.
          Because Dan'l was "agreeing with Rod" it removes any requirements for accuracy?

          The Archimedian screw has been around since, well, Archimedes. That was 2000 years ago. Since then it has been amply applied, as a partially-enclosed pump, for raising water to a higher level. It has never found a use when not at least partially-enclosed.

          Those screw-based water pumps were powered by what? Low-solidity wind turbine rotors. The Archimedian screw was then used to impart movement to water. The part that COLLECTED the fluidic energy was a low-solidity rotor, like we use today for lift, propulsion, and collecting energy.

          So, as far as I can see, people who are not IGNORANT figured out that the best use of a screw was pushing a fluid, whereas that same mechanism was powered NOT by another \Archimedian screw, but by a low-solidity wind turbine rotor. That has been well-for over a millennium.

          Nice of you to try and make an excuse for Dan'l, saying he has even anecdotal evidence, but anecdotal evidence is what ALL the crackpot idiots who refuse to look at history claim to have.

          In this case, I see no evidence of even anecdotal "evidence". All I see is people who have proven they know little, if anything, "just saying" that a non-enclosed Archimedian screw is "better at harnessing a flow than producing a flow", with notyhing to back it up, except "Rod said".

          Well then why have these screws always been used for PRODUCING a flow? Why have they never been used for COLLECTING energy? Is it because you two morons know something that everyone else missed in the past 2000 years? Why weren't Archimedian screws placed into the air, to power the Archimedian pumps, if they are better at collecting energy than imparting energy to a flow?

          Dave S., if you could make sense for even a moment, it would be refreshing. Meanwhile, I have to admit, your endless "fight for ignorance" is great entertainment!
          :)
          Doug S.


          --- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, dave santos <santos137@...> wrote:
          >
          > Dan'l agreed with Rod-
          >  
          > "Roderick, You are correct, the SpiralAirfoil is much better at receiving wind energy than it is at driving wind energy."
          >  
          > Doug wrote-
          > "Dan'l: What evidence do you have for that statement?
          > Can you point us to a source?   :) "
          >
          >  -------------- KiteLab Answer ---------------
          >
          > Dan'l's evidence is obviously empirical-anecdotal. The "turbine backdrive"  asymmetry he notes is a feature of the Reynold's Number (Re) spectrum. At the lower end of the spectrum, backdrivability is severely viscosity limited. At the Re upper end, inertial forces dominate, and backdrivability is good.
          >  
          > Imagine a wheel stuck in a mudhole, spinning freely but in vain. The tire is like a low Re turbine unable to drive the viscous road medium effectively. Then imagine the vehicle being towed out of the hole, then the medium would gain purchase and torque would be transmitted. Its a "diode effect". The driving condition at low Re is most intuitive if the medium is seen as flowing past the turbine, under Galilean Relativity.
          >  
          > Dan's turbines are in fact conic-spiral based, as low aspect-ratio (AR) sails. Conventional HAWTs are more helical, with high AR blades. Refined blades even transition from spiral to helical geometry from center to tip. Large area low AR spiral or helical turbines are favored in slow dense "dirty" flows where the massive spars can be buoyant. They can be backdriven as Archimede's Screws, in close fitting channels or tubes.
          >  
          > Conclusion- KiteLab supports Dan'l's empirical observation and semi-technical usage of "spiral" and "airfoil". 
          >  
          > ----------------- notes and links -----------------
          >  
          > Doug please concede value in "AWE fans" (and experts) sharing this forum, and also allow credit to figures like Wayne for feats like alerting Cristina to LLJ's in her data. See the good in North and Dabiri as well.
          >  
          > Once again, the Re link-
          >  
          > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_number
          >  
          > "Airfoil" defined in Wikipedia applies to Dan'l's sails. Note dragonfly airfoil as valid case-
          >  
          > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airfoil
          >  
          > An Archimedes screw is a Low Re device par-excellence-
          >  
          > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedes%27_screw
          >
        • Rod Read
          Well I ve used an Archimedes screw to propel my way into a bottle of wine tonight so lets see if this explanation makes any sense... (Totally agree... Rod
          Message 4 of 18 , May 24 3:02 PM
            Well I've used an Archimedes screw to propel my way into a bottle of wine tonight so lets see if this explanation makes any sense...
            (Totally agree... "Rod said" is an horrendous back-up argument)
            yes the auger shifts less viscous fluid better when it is encapsulated,
            you can.. probably.. think of the energy of the flowing air stream at a 10m radius around the spiral airfoil as encapsulation... it has a mean velocity parallel to the rotation axis.
            This air flow has minutely chaotic inertia trying to keep everything going that way past the device. So the air compresses and a bit of pressure backs up upwind as it squashes by, trying to get around this awkward thing in the way.
            The overall effect is that as the squashed air goes through it's all battering those blades around the whole time.... There is a focused force on the shaft that can be harvested

            granted it's pretty messy but it starts up quick

            Now lets reverse it on a calm day.
            Spin it up and there's no containment, air is going to spill, slip, recirculate and whirl about all over the place... all very technical terms at this time of night. but the air is free to go anywhere it wants away from the moving surface of the blade, when it crashes into similarly messed up air out away from the tips, there will be a quick truce, battles over lets cooperate like friendly lazy air molecules tend to do.
            Lets set up a boundary layer out here just far enough away from the blades and let the mess continue inside... There's no focus, you will detect very little air moving.

            Tested and destroyed a 75m skybow yesterday (Thank you RoyM) wonderful day out in strong lewis wind. What an extraordinary speed it went at. I was gob-smacked. Beefing up repair is coming along nicely. Changing to a stubby solid shaft.  I'll post full details .



            Rod Read

            Windswept and Interesting Limited
            15a Aiginis
            Isle of Lewis
            HS2 0PB

            07899057227
            01851 870878



            On 24 May 2013 20:10, Doug <dougselsam@...> wrote:
             

            To Dave S., the screaming sports fan in the stands:
            "Hey Ref - That player was offsides! Where's the flag?! The Ref sucks! If I was on that field I'd show 'em how ta play the game!"

            There you go trying to make it all about personalities again.
            Because Dan'l was "agreeing with Rod" it removes any requirements for accuracy?

            The Archimedian screw has been around since, well, Archimedes. That was 2000 years ago. Since then it has been amply applied, as a partially-enclosed pump, for raising water to a higher level. It has never found a use when not at least partially-enclosed.

            Those screw-based water pumps were powered by what? Low-solidity wind turbine rotors. The Archimedian screw was then used to impart movement to water. The part that COLLECTED the fluidic energy was a low-solidity rotor, like we use today for lift, propulsion, and collecting energy.

            So, as far as I can see, people who are not IGNORANT figured out that the best use of a screw was pushing a fluid, whereas that same mechanism was powered NOT by another \Archimedian screw, but by a low-solidity wind turbine rotor. That has been well-for over a millennium.

            Nice of you to try and make an excuse for Dan'l, saying he has even anecdotal evidence, but anecdotal evidence is what ALL the crackpot idiots who refuse to look at history claim to have.

            In this case, I see no evidence of even anecdotal "evidence". All I see is people who have proven they know little, if anything, "just saying" that a non-enclosed Archimedian screw is "better at harnessing a flow than producing a flow", with notyhing to back it up, except "Rod said".

            Well then why have these screws always been used for PRODUCING a flow? Why have they never been used for COLLECTING energy? Is it because you two morons know something that everyone else missed in the past 2000 years? Why weren't Archimedian screws placed into the air, to power the Archimedian pumps, if they are better at collecting energy than imparting energy to a flow?

            Dave S., if you could make sense for even a moment, it would be refreshing. Meanwhile, I have to admit, your endless "fight for ignorance" is great entertainment!
            :)
            Doug S.



            --- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, dave santos <santos137@...> wrote:
            >
            > Dan'l agreed with Rod-
            >  
            > "Roderick, You are correct, the SpiralAirfoil is much better at receiving wind energy than it is at driving wind energy."
            >  
            > Doug wrote-
            > "Dan'l: What evidence do you have for that statement?
            > Can you point us to a source?   :) "
            >
            >  -------------- KiteLab Answer ---------------
            >
            > Dan'l's evidence is obviously empirical-anecdotal. The "turbine backdrive"  asymmetry he notes is a feature of the Reynold's Number (Re) spectrum. At the lower end of the spectrum, backdrivability is severely viscosity limited. At the Re upper end, inertial forces dominate, and backdrivability is good.
            >  
            > Imagine a wheel stuck in a mudhole, spinning freely but in vain. The tire is like a low Re turbine unable to drive the viscous road medium effectively. Then imagine the vehicle being towed out of the hole, then the medium would gain purchase and torque would be transmitted. Its a "diode effect". The driving condition at low Re is most intuitive if the medium is seen as flowing past the turbine, under Galilean Relativity.
            >  
            > Dan's turbines are in fact conic-spiral based, as low aspect-ratio (AR) sails. Conventional HAWTs are more helical, with high AR blades. Refined blades even transition from spiral to helical geometry from center to tip. Large area low AR spiral or helical turbines are favored in slow dense "dirty" flows where the massive spars can be buoyant. They can be backdriven as Archimede's Screws, in close fitting channels or tubes.
            >  
            > Conclusion- KiteLab supports Dan'l's empirical observation and semi-technical usage of "spiral" and "airfoil". 
            >  
            > ----------------- notes and links -----------------
            >  
            > Doug please concede value in "AWE fans" (and experts) sharing this forum, and also allow credit to figures like Wayne for feats like alerting Cristina to LLJ's in her data. See the good in North and Dabiri as well.
            >  
            > Once again, the Re link-
            >  
            > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_number
            >  
            > "Airfoil" defined in Wikipedia applies to Dan'l's sails. Note dragonfly airfoil as valid case-
            >  
            > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airfoil
            >  
            > An Archimedes screw is a Low Re device par-excellence-
            >  
            > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedes%27_screw
            >


          • Doug
            Try this one: Aerodynamics of Wind Turbines [Hardcover] Martin O. L. Hansen (Author)
            Message 5 of 18 , May 24 9:59 PM
              Try this one:
              Aerodynamics of Wind Turbines [Hardcover]
              Martin O. L. Hansen (Author)
              http://www.amazon.com/Aerodynamics-Wind-Turbines-Martin-Hansen/dp/1844074382/
              List Price: $120.00
              Price: $84.89 & FREE Shipping. Details
              You Save: $35.11 (29%)

              --- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, Dan Parker <spiralairfoil@...> wrote:
              >
              > Rod,
              >
              >
              > I like books with facts.
              >
              > Dan'l
              >
              > To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
              > From: rod.read@...
              > Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 22:30:14 +0100
              > Subject: Re: [AWES] Civil War era Spiral-Driven/Supported Flying Machine
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > Sorry If it was unclear... I wrote it on my phone, whilst in a softplay full of screaming kids and reading the conclusions section "Thinking fast and slow" by Daniel Kahneman
              >
              >
              > must focus more
              > Rod Read
              >
              > Windswept and Interesting Limited
              > 15a Aiginis
              > Isle of Lewis
              > HS2 0PB
              >
              > 07899057227
              > 01851 870878
              >
              >
              > http://kitepowercoop.org
              >
              >
              > On 23 May 2013 19:41, Doug <dougselsam@...> wrote:
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > Dan'l:
              >
              > What evidence do you have for that statement?
              >
              > Can you point us to a source?
              >
              > :)
              >
              > Doug S.
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > --- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, Dan Parker <spiralairfoil@> wrote:
              >
              > >
              >
              > > Roderick,
              >
              > >
              >
              > > You are correct, the SpiralAirfoil is much better at receiving wind energy than it is at driving wind energy.
              >
              > >
              >
              > > Dan'l
              >
              > >
              >
            • dave santos
              Dan l,   Please remember to avoid messages with no AWE content (like a general opinion about books ). This is no longer a low-traffic list with only a few
              Message 6 of 18 , May 24 11:04 PM
                Dan'l,
                 
                Please remember to avoid messages with no AWE content (like a general opinion about "books"). This is no longer a low-traffic list with only a few followers,
                 
                Doug,
                 
                No one is endorsing Archimedes screws as a favored AWE solution; we just study them with the sort of interest one might give to the technical problems of a struggling sport team. This list is actually rather cruel about identifiable defects in any given scheme, rather than naïvely hopeful, as you seem to imagine. Everything must be tested; not even the SuperTurbine is given a free ride.
                 
                Thanks for the textbook suggestion. Sadly, conventional wind turbines are terribly unsuited for flight, which is the more complex engineering challenge for AWE developers to master. May you be at least a fan of Aviation, if not exactly "NFL", to opine about AWE :)
                 
                Here is a taste of modern aeronautical design, Mechanics of Flight, by Phillips-
                 
                daveS





              • Dan Parker
                David Santos, Thanks for trying to think for me, but not really needed, it s not over til the fat gal sings. Dan l Ps. here is a book that I think is just as
                Message 7 of 18 , May 25 8:04 AM
                  David Santos,
                   
                                         Thanks for trying to think for me, but not really needed, it's not over til the fat gal sings.
                   
                                                                                                                                                                        Dan'l
                   
                  Ps. here is a book that I think is just as suited for your natural bend. http://www.amazon.com/Becoming-Police-Officer-Insiders-Enforcement/product-reviews/0595380786

                   

                  To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
                  From: santos137@...
                  Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 23:04:27 -0700
                  Subject: Re: [AWES] Re: Civil War era Spiral-Driven/Supported Flying Machine

                   
                  Dan'l,
                   
                  Please remember to avoid messages with no AWE content (like a general opinion about "books"). This is no longer a low-traffic list with only a few followers,
                   
                  Doug,
                   
                  No one is endorsing Archimedes screws as a favored AWE solution; we just study them with the sort of interest one might give to the technical problems of a struggling sport team. This list is actually rather cruel about identifiable defects in any given scheme, rather than naïvely hopeful, as you seem to imagine. Everything must be tested; not even the SuperTurbine is given a free ride.
                   
                  Thanks for the textbook suggestion. Sadly, conventional wind turbines are terribly unsuited for flight, which is the more complex engineering challenge for AWE developers to master. May you be at least a fan of Aviation, if not exactly "NFL", to opine about AWE :)
                   
                  Here is a taste of modern aeronautical design, Mechanics of Flight, by Phillips-
                   
                  daveS






                • Doug
                  Ha ha ha Dsve S. - Allergic to facts Yes Dan l, please stay away from facts.(?) Books on wind turbine aerodynamics are on the forbidden reading list, in
                  Message 8 of 18 , May 26 5:52 AM
                    Ha ha ha Dsve S. - "Allergic to facts" Yes Dan'l, please stay away from facts.(?) Books on wind turbine aerodynamics are on the forbidden reading list, in the noble fight for ignorance.
                    I just heard a funny one:
                    An optimist, falling from a 10-story building, has the same statement at each floor: "Everything OK so far"...
                    :o.....

                    --- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, dave santos <santos137@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Dan'l,
                    >  
                    > Please remember to avoid messages with no AWE content (like a general opinion about "books"). This is no longer a low-traffic list with only a few followers,
                    >  
                    > Doug,
                    >  
                    > No one is endorsing Archimedes screws as a favored AWE solution; we just study them with the sort of interest one might give to the technical problems of a struggling sport team. This list is actually rather cruel about identifiable defects in any given scheme, rather than naïvely hopeful, as you seem to imagine. Everything must be tested; not even the SuperTurbine is given a free ride.
                    >  
                    > Thanks for the textbook suggestion. Sadly, conventional wind turbines are terribly unsuited for flight, which is the more complex engineering challenge for AWE developers to master. May you be at least a fan of Aviation, if not exactly "NFL", to opine about AWE :)
                    >  
                    > Here is a taste of modern aeronautical design, Mechanics of Flight, by Phillips-
                    >  
                    > http://www.amazon.com/Mechanics-Flight-Warren-F-Phillips/dp/0470539755/ref=pd_sim_b_2
                    > daveS
                    >
                  • Dan Parker
                    Doug, Why do you have to be that way, always taunting folk with nasti personal attacks upon character, it diminishes your currency. Dan l To:
                    Message 9 of 18 , May 26 8:52 AM
                      Doug,
                       
                                    Why do you have to be that way, always taunting folk with nasti personal attacks upon character, it diminishes your currency.
                                                                                                                                                                                         Dan'l
                       
                    • Doug
                      Hi Dan l You mean like Telling Dave S. he should start reading books on how to become a cop? Ha ha ha - that was a very funny instance of taunting folk with
                      Message 10 of 18 , May 26 1:05 PM
                        Hi Dan'l
                        You mean like Telling Dave S. he should start reading books on how to become a cop? Ha ha ha - that was a very funny instance of "taunting folk with nasti personal attack upon character" - welcome to the world of internet sarcasm! Seems like you are pretty good at it yourself.

                        You are probably right though, as P.J. Shepard once pointed out to me, "If you roll around in the mud with pigs, people will mistake you for one of them." Oink, oink.

                        I gotta say, I know she's probably right.
                        Meanwhile, I've tried to explain it.
                        First of all we have to be able to have a little fun with this, or what's the point, right? Do you think I haven't taken my share of good-natured ribbing over the years? Sarcastic jabs waiting for a witty retort? This is what makes the internet fun! Hey, it's all good! We smile and shake hands when we meet in real life, don't we?

                        I did explain how, after 10 years of debunking Professor Crackpot turbines, the crackpots all sound the same right? And I've tried perhaps hundreds of times to steer people in the right direction in a friendly way, but guess what we wind-energy-debunkers have found over and over again? The "Professor Crackpots" are the ones who can be counted upon to immediately steer ANY discussion of known factors in wind energy into a personal attack.

                        The Crackpots can always be counted on to find some nasty names to call the truth-tellers, then invoke the name "Wright Brothers", implying that their goofy non-performing monstrosity is somehow, with no facts to back it up, a breakthrough equivalent to the dawn of powered flight, which "proves" they "must be right" since the Wright Brothers also faced skepticism.

                        Now a moment's reflection will tell you that not every whacky idea is equivalent to the Dawn of Flight, that the Wrights were a once-a-century kind of unique phenomenon, but that doesn't stop the Crackpots from insisting that their non-workable, previously disproven nonsense is the next "Dawn of Flight".

                        Why? Well, they don't want to know about any information in the hundreds of books on wind turbine design, as a start. Knowing, or discussing, factual information on what's been learned in wind energy over the past 3000 years almost always immediately shoots holes in whatever "new" idea the good professor may be promoting at any given moment, and usually their latest "pet theory" has been disproven hundreds, if not thousands, of years ago, if they would just look it up.

                        Therefore, to bring facts related to wind energy, to a crackpot discussion of wind energy, is not welcome. The result is typical: the discussion turns to name-calling. The people with facts and experience are usually called "intolerant", "without vision", "stuck in the mud with old ideas", you know what I mean. By now you've heard it for years too.

                        But what you haven't seen after all these years now, is a single Watt produced by these name-calling Wright Brothers wannabes. They produce a lot of nasty names, just no power.

                        Now when you claimed to "like books with facts", you may have noticed that you were immediately castigated by our resident Crackpot-in-Chief, for bringing up two unwanted factors in the same sentence:
                        1) books
                        2) facts
                        To combine the two: saying you LIKE books WITH facts, was just too much for the head crackpot to tolerate, for even a moment.

                        Since you have been promoting a high-solidity rotor design for a few years now, then finally mentioned "books with facts", I tried to supply you with the name of a book that has the exact facts you need to understand that the original idea of a rotor indeed had 100% solidity, but that the spiral had been improved since then, by the addition of airfoils (whose name you cite without actually using them) so that much better performance may be obtained, using far less material, by reducing the rotor solidity to around 2%.

                        People act like this is just MY opinion. Nope, I didn't make it up. As a matter of fact, I started out just like anyone else, assuming the more surface area I could put out there, the easier things would be, and the better they would work. But of course, having access to "books with facts" I quickly overcame that naive beginner state. I think it took about 10 minutes, back in the 1970's, the moment I received my first "book with facts" called "Wind machines" in the mail.

                        Even someone as dumb as me is smart enough to realize that a multi-billion-dollar industry now powering a good fraction of our world, just might have a few things already learned, and that I might be better off at least checking what had already been determined, before going off half-cocked, thinking I had invented something new, only to find out later that I could have saved a lot of time by looking it up first. In a BOOK, with FACTS, like you say. Good call Dan'l. :)

                        So, you said you like books with facts, Dave S. says you are bad for saying you like books with facts, and you say I'm bad for responding to your statement that you like such books, with a book recommendation that is full of the exact facts you would need to debunk your own previously-disproven hypothesis, and grow to the next step, perhaps heading up a branch of the SuperTurbine(R) effort at some point when you realize it is really what you mean by SpiralAirfoil, but you just aren't quite there yet. But hats off to you for getting that close. You are almost there! IWILL be grateful for your help. You da man.
                        :)
                        Doug S.




                        --- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, Dan Parker <spiralairfoil@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > Doug,
                        >
                        > Why do you have to be that way, always taunting folk with nasti personal attacks upon character, it diminishes your currency.
                        > Dan'l
                        >
                        > To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
                        > From: dougselsam@...
                        > Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 [See related post.]
                        >
                      • dave santos
                        Dan l,   The loose rule of the Forum is that every post should contain some AWE content. To  only express your general opinion about books (however well
                        Message 11 of 18 , May 26 3:08 PM
                          Dan'l,
                           
                          The loose rule of the Forum is that every post should contain some AWE content. To  only express your general opinion about books (however well intentioned) or to query Doug about his character is not AWE content. Please post such messages in private.
                           
                          Doug at least is able to usually reference AWE in some way, even if his rude windy posts are very thin and repetitive in this respect. His book recommendation to you should have been taken in a thankful light,
                           
                          Doug,
                           
                          Your book recommendation was thanked by me, but you took no such note of the Fight Mechanics book intended to fill the "crackpot" gap in AWE knowledge that over-fixation with conventional wind knowledge represents. AWE is a branch of aviation.
                           
                          You will find, for example, that a proper pilot-lifter kite in a most-probable-wind intended to lift a turbine must have a large area with high solidity (lMothra arches are the cheapest form of bulk-lift, ever). Once you allow for this reality, you can lift a "conventional" low solidity turbine with a smaller blade area without a tower. The total area and solidity of the optimal combination is larger than a tower turbine of the same rating in the same wind velocity.
                           
                          Good luck with your diligent study of aviation, if you are ever to master AWE, or even just understand why so many curious ideas are still in play, pending testing,
                           
                          daveS
                           
                           
                          PS Please also trim your posts of previous text to reduce redundant content, as often before explained.
                           


                        • Rod Read
                          There are some genius machines, quick thinking solutions, and even AWE references in this one http://www.amazon.co.uk/Day-Louis-Got-Eaten/dp/1849393877 Read it
                          Message 12 of 18 , May 26 3:23 PM
                            There are some genius machines, quick thinking solutions, and even AWE references in this one
                            http://www.amazon.co.uk/Day-Louis-Got-Eaten/dp/1849393877
                            Read it this morning myself

                            Rod Read

                            Windswept and Interesting Limited
                            15a Aiginis
                            Isle of Lewis
                            HS2 0PB

                            07899057227
                            01851 870878



                            On 26 May 2013 23:08, dave santos <santos137@...> wrote:
                             

                            Dan'l,
                             
                            The loose rule of the Forum is that every post should contain some AWE content. To  only express your general opinion about books (however well intentioned) or to query Doug about his character is not AWE content. Please post such messages in private.
                             
                            Doug at least is able to usually reference AWE in some way, even if his rude windy posts are very thin and repetitive in this respect. His book recommendation to you should have been taken in a thankful light,
                             
                            Doug,
                             
                            Your book recommendation was thanked by me, but you took no such note of the Fight Mechanics book intended to fill the "crackpot" gap in AWE knowledge that over-fixation with conventional wind knowledge represents. AWE is a branch of aviation.
                             
                            You will find, for example, that a proper pilot-lifter kite in a most-probable-wind intended to lift a turbine must have a large area with high solidity (lMothra arches are the cheapest form of bulk-lift, ever). Once you allow for this reality, you can lift a "conventional" low solidity turbine with a smaller blade area without a tower. The total area and solidity of the optimal combination is larger than a tower turbine of the same rating in the same wind velocity.
                             
                            Good luck with your diligent study of aviation, if you are ever to master AWE, or even just understand why so many curious ideas are still in play, pending testing,
                             
                            daveS
                             
                             
                            PS Please also trim your posts of previous text to reduce redundant content, as often before explained.
                             



                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.