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

Re: [AWES] Re: Crosswind Anchors as "passive rigid structure that...imposes crosswind motion."

Expand Messages
  • dave santos
    Lorenzo,   Thanks for your interest in passive-control AWES progress. Now is a good time to update and review all the known cases of AWES based on inherent
    Message 1 of 14 , Jun 4, 2013
      Lorenzo,
       
      Thanks for your interest in passive-control AWES progress. Now is a good time to update and review all the known cases of AWES based on inherent flight stabilities, which, its true, have not been much subjected to academic peer review (except by the AWEC2011 presentation committee). Hundreds of Forum messages informally document work in this area.
       
      There are of course passively controlled LTA variants like Altaeros, but we are here considering heavier-than-air AWES here. Dan Tracy and Doug Selsam are two examples of very different designs shown to self-fly based on classic kite stability. These "existence-proof" AWES demos are fully independent of my work.
       I have been flying small AWES based on classic kite stability since 2007, in many variations. Many of these experiments are third-party documented from public events, press coverage, and via the World Kite Museum, as an institutional affiliation. Joe Faust possesses a flygen HAWT of my design. Even self-relaunch  (of sled and 3D kite based AWES) is well documented. While the experiments are at modest scale, they validate conceptual conjectures. This is the 2011 state-of-the-art-
         
      For establishing the kite arch concepts as AWES infrastructure, and crosswind cable-runways (with fixed GBG) other more recent cases will be presented en masse when time permits me to gather the references.
       
      Thank You again for taking an interest in these interesting areas of AWES theory and design,
       
      daveS
    • David Lang
      Lorenzo, Thanks for the sane comments from academia! I personally think that anecdotal reporting and YouTube snippets do not constitute appropriate
      Message 2 of 14 , Jun 4, 2013
        Lorenzo,

        Thanks for the sane comments from academia! I personally think that anecdotal reporting and YouTube snippets do not constitute appropriate peer-reviewable materials….ha, instead of sending a prospective investor a proposal accompanied by technical reports, just send them a YouTube link - see how far that gets you :-)

        Dave Lang


        On Jun 3, 2013, at 9:49 AM, "lorenzofagiano" <lorenzofagiano@...> wrote:
         

        Well, I'm in favour of open-access repositories, in fact everyone can access all the details of our recent works on the arXiv (http://arxiv.org/)

        I'd like to renew my question.. You say that "Passive-control autonomous AWES has long been an open method and topic ready for review by any peer in the kite-energy systems community", then I'd like to see some document giving the details of this idea, how it works, what are the performance, etc.

        Thanks,
        Lorenzo

        --- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, "Joe Faust" <joefaust333@...> wrote:
        >
        > One type of peer reviewing is occurring in open view here in this forum.
        > Scholars and scientists and engineers of any color are able and welcome
        > to review critically any AWES idea, project, analysis, claim, patent,
        > statement, essay ... for all to see. In this manner, every expert may
        > have an equal chance to comment on the science or art that is being
        > described.
        > The very posting here is surely a new era form of repository that is
        > fully open and accessible to seekers of progress in AWES. There is no
        > fee to pay to read. There is no fee to put an idea or project up on a
        > hot seat. Review is open to good thinkers, professionals, expert
        > amateurs, creative analysts. Post your criticism of an idea in good
        > faith without personal attacks. The cream will rise to the top.
        > Old-school venues will continue; that is fine. But to stay away from
        > broad peer review is now a means to risk narrow tunnel vision and
        > potential loss.
        > Repository of essays and papers is also freely availble at
        > EnergyKiteSystems.com No charge for archiving one's paper and images!
        > Access: excellent. Searchable: yes. PaytoRead: No.
        > Passive-control autonomous AWES has long been an open method and topic
        > ready for review by any peer in the kite-energy systems community. It is
        > fine to echo one's papers into old-school systems of repositories, but
        > to shy from going into the new school of open peer review and archiving
        > is to risk becoming invisible. The whole world may freely reach this
        > forum and its associated repositories.
        > Support this system with a donation when you see the light. Thanks for
        > the support of participation and for seeing the necessary need for
        > occasional financial donation. What? You did not know that PayPal
        > easy support is available? Subscribe/Donate
        > <http://energykitesystems.net/subscribe/index.html>
        >


      • dave santos
        Unsure that Lorenzo, Moritz, and Roland follow the AWES Forum directly; Dave Lang s message is recopied below, with a Cc: to the three academicians. ...
        Message 3 of 14 , Jun 4, 2013
          Unsure that Lorenzo, Moritz, and Roland follow the AWES Forum directly; Dave Lang's message is recopied below, with a Cc: to the three academicians.
          -------------------------------
           
          Academic peer review is not perfect, nor does it suffice us. I have personal emails from Ken Caldeira decrying "peer review failure" by the Max Planck Institute (re: Miller et al) regarding AWE climate science.
           
          A more-common failing of elitist academia is to overlook important developments occurring outside of academia proper, while embracing their own heroes. Thus Lord Kelvin, President of the Royal Society of England met with little academic opposition in declaring, "Heavier than air flying machines are impossible," even as two high-school dropouts, the Wright brothers, were about to prove HTA flight practical. It fell to a non-peer-reviewed source to first disclose the Wrights' accomplishment, a 1904 article by Amos I. Root published in the journal, "Gleanings in Bee Culture." As late as 1905, "Scientific American" was still belittling the dropouts with misplaced doubt.
           
          The same sort of blindness is happening today in AWE. Thus Dave Lang in 2004 proposed, in a non-peer-reviewed journal (Drachen Newsletter), that a self-stable classic kite (the sled) can do AWE, and even matrix-scored this idea as best of the small sample of AWES architectures considered. As an independent scholar, I was able to accept and act on this information years before formal peer-review of the passive-control idea per se (review which has yet to properly happen). My personal standard for AWES claims is to present easily falsifiable simple ideas, and refer to third party validating cases, whenever possible.
           
          It will be a welcome development as academic peer-review eventually catches up with recent rapid conceptual progress in AWE happening outside of the Ivory Tower. Meanwhile, the AWES Forum, YouTube, and so on, is in fact sufficing to attract angel investment to some worthy open-source players who have no more-ready means to communicate to the world. Stealth ventures and marketers are the worst at sharing deep technical knowledge openly, but somehow academics include them (Makani, Joby, Magenn, etc.) in published papers, with a seeming correlation to capitalization and pop culture mindshare ;)
           
          A trend toward closed peer-review in AWE is troubling, in that vague fears trump the potential of open peer-review to reach a better result. The Springer AWE Textbook will stand as a test case of whether closed peer-review avoided "Lord Kelvin Bias" in AWE (which is why Roland and Moritz, the book's academic editors, are Cc:ed this thread). The shortcomings of academic peer review must be acknowledged and understood, along with the advantages.
           
          .
           
          From: David Lang <SeattleDL@...>
          To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2013 10:29 AM
          Subject: Re: [AWES] Re: Crosswind Anchors as "passive rigid structure that...imposes crosswind motion."
           
          Lorenzo,

          Thanks for the sane comments from academia! I personally think that anecdotal reporting and YouTube snippets do not constitute appropriate peer-reviewable materials….ha, instead of sending a prospective investor a proposal accompanied by technical reports, just send them a YouTube link - see how far that gets you :-)

          Dave Lang

          On Jun 3, 2013, at 9:49 AM, "lorenzofagiano" <lorenzofagiano@...> wrote:
           
          Well, I'm in favour of open-access repositories, in fact everyone can access all the details of our recent works on the arXiv (http://arxiv.org/)

          I'd like to renew my question.. You say that "Passive-control autonomous AWES has long been an open method and topic ready for review by any peer in the kite-energy systems community", then I'd like to see some document giving the details of this idea, how it works, what are the performance, etc.

          Thanks,
          Lorenzo

          --- In mailto:AirborneWindEnergy%40yahoogroups.com, "Joe Faust" <joefaust333@...> wrote:
          >
          > One type of peer reviewing is occurring in open view here in this forum.
          > Scholars and scientists and engineers of any color are able and welcome
          > to review critically any AWES idea, project, analysis, claim, patent,
          > statement, essay ... for all to see. In this manner, every expert may
          > have an equal chance to comment on the science or art that is being
          > described.
          > The very posting here is surely a new era form of repository that is
          > fully open and accessible to seekers of progress in AWES. There is no
          > fee to pay to read. There is no fee to put an idea or project up on a
          > hot seat. Review is open to good thinkers, professionals, expert
          > amateurs, creative analysts. Post your criticism of an idea in good
          > faith without personal attacks. The cream will rise to the top.
          > Old-school venues will continue; that is fine. But to stay away from
          > broad peer review is now a means to risk narrow tunnel vision and
          > potential loss.
          > Repository of essays and papers is also freely availble at
          > EnergyKiteSystems.com No charge for archiving one's paper and images!
          > Access: excellent. Searchable: yes. PaytoRead: No.
          > Passive-control autonomous AWES has long been an open method and topic
          > ready for review by any peer in the kite-energy systems community. It is
          > fine to echo one's papers into old-school systems of repositories, but
          > to shy from going into the new school of open peer review and archiving
          > is to risk becoming invisible. The whole world may freely reach this
          > forum and its associated repositories.
          > Support this system with a donation when you see the light. Thanks for
          > the support of participation and for seeing the necessary need for
          > occasional financial donation. What? You did not know that PayPal
          > easy support is available? Subscribe/Donate
          > <http://energykitesystems.net/subscribe/index.html>
          >

        • Harry Valentine
          I ve come across many examples where peer review has failed . . . and private entrepreneurs and private inventors using private capital were able to achieve
          Message 4 of 14 , Jun 4, 2013
            I've come across many examples where peer review has failed .  .  . and private entrepreneurs and private inventors using private capital were able to achieve something very worthwhile.

            Harry


            To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
            CC: lorenzofagiano@...; Moritz.diehl@...; R.Schmehl@...
            From: santos137@...
            Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 13:38:56 -0700
            Subject: Limitations of Academic Peer Review //Re: [AWES] Re: Crosswind Anchors as "passive rigid structure that...imposes crosswind motion."

             

            Unsure that Lorenzo, Moritz, and Roland follow the AWES Forum directly; Dave Lang's message is recopied below, with a Cc: to the three academicians.
            -------------------------------
             
            Academic peer review is not perfect, nor does it suffice us. I have personal emails from Ken Caldeira decrying "peer review failure" by the Max Planck Institute (re: Miller et al) regarding AWE climate science.
             
            A more-common failing of elitist academia is to overlook important developments occurring outside of academia proper, while embracing their own heroes. Thus Lord Kelvin, President of the Royal Society of England met with little academic opposition in declaring, "Heavier than air flying machines are impossible," even as two high-school dropouts, the Wright brothers, were about to prove HTA flight practical. It fell to a non-peer-reviewed source to first disclose the Wrights' accomplishment, a 1904 article by Amos I. Root published in the journal, "Gleanings in Bee Culture." As late as 1905, "Scientific American" was still belittling the dropouts with misplaced doubt.
             
            The same sort of blindness is happening today in AWE. Thus Dave Lang in 2004 proposed, in a non-peer-reviewed journal (Drachen Newsletter), that a self-stable classic kite (the sled) can do AWE, and even matrix-scored this idea as best of the small sample of AWES architectures considered. As an independent scholar, I was able to accept and act on this information years before formal peer-review of the passive-control idea per se (review which has yet to properly happen). My personal standard for AWES claims is to present easily falsifiable simple ideas, and refer to third party validating cases, whenever possible.
             
            It will be a welcome development as academic peer-review eventually catches up with recent rapid conceptual progress in AWE happening outside of the Ivory Tower. Meanwhile, the AWES Forum, YouTube, and so on, is in fact sufficing to attract angel investment to some worthy open-source players who have no more-ready means to communicate to the world. Stealth ventures and marketers are the worst at sharing deep technical knowledge openly, but somehow academics include them (Makani, Joby, Magenn, etc.) in published papers, with a seeming correlation to capitalization and pop culture mindshare ;)
             
            A trend toward closed peer-review in AWE is troubling, in that vague fears trump the potential of open peer-review to reach a better result. The Springer AWE Textbook will stand as a test case of whether closed peer-review avoided "Lord Kelvin Bias" in AWE (which is why Roland and Moritz, the book's academic editors, are Cc:ed this thread). The shortcomings of academic peer review must be acknowledged and understood, along with the advantages.
             
            .
             
            From: David Lang <SeattleDL@...>
            To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2013 10:29 AM
            Subject: Re: [AWES] Re: Crosswind Anchors as "passive rigid structure that...imposes crosswind motion."
             
            Lorenzo,

            Thanks for the sane comments from academia! I personally think that anecdotal reporting and YouTube snippets do not constitute appropriate peer-reviewable materials….ha, instead of sending a prospective investor a proposal accompanied by technical reports, just send them a YouTube link - see how far that gets you :-)

            Dave Lang

            On Jun 3, 2013, at 9:49 AM, "lorenzofagiano" <lorenzofagiano@...> wrote:
             
            Well, I'm in favour of open-access repositories, in fact everyone can access all the details of our recent works on the arXiv (http://arxiv.org/)

            I'd like to renew my question.. You say that "Passive-control autonomous AWES has long been an open method and topic ready for review by any peer in the kite-energy systems community", then I'd like to see some document giving the details of this idea, how it works, what are the performance, etc.

            Thanks,
            Lorenzo

            --- In mailto:AirborneWindEnergy%40yahoogroups.com, "Joe Faust" <joefaust333@...> wrote:
            >
            > One type of peer reviewing is occurring in open view here in this forum.
            > Scholars and scientists and engineers of any color are able and welcome
            > to review critically any AWES idea, project, analysis, claim, patent,
            > statement, essay ... for all to see. In this manner, every expert may
            > have an equal chance to comment on the science or art that is being
            > described.
            > The very posting here is surely a new era form of repository that is
            > fully open and accessible to seekers of progress in AWES. There is no
            > fee to pay to read. There is no fee to put an idea or project up on a
            > hot seat. Review is open to good thinkers, professionals, expert
            > amateurs, creative analysts. Post your criticism of an idea in good
            > faith without personal attacks. The cream will rise to the top.
            > Old-school venues will continue; that is fine. But to stay away from
            > broad peer review is now a means to risk narrow tunnel vision and
            > potential loss.
            > Repository of essays and papers is also freely availble at
            > EnergyKiteSystems.com No charge for archiving one's paper and images!
            > Access: excellent. Searchable: yes. PaytoRead: No.
            > Passive-control autonomous AWES has long been an open method and topic
            > ready for review by any peer in the kite-energy systems community. It is
            > fine to echo one's papers into old-school systems of repositories, but
            > to shy from going into the new school of open peer review and archiving
            > is to risk becoming invisible. The whole world may freely reach this
            > forum and its associated repositories.
            > Support this system with a donation when you see the light. Thanks for
            > the support of participation and for seeing the necessary need for
            > occasional financial donation. What? You did not know that PayPal
            > easy support is available? Subscribe/Donate
            > <http://energykitesystems.net/subscribe/index.html>
            >


          • David Lang
            My comments were aimed at questioning what is being regularly bandied about in this news group as being an effective form of fulfilling AWE peer review
            Message 5 of 14 , Jun 4, 2013
              My comments were aimed at questioning what is being regularly bandied about in this news group as being an effective form of fulfilling "AWE peer review" needs. This forum is primarily a gab-fest; I hear primarily wild extrapolations proposed, "what if you did this?" or "maybe we could that?",  glorious tales of giant sheets flapping in the wind, things wiggling-n-wobbling in some phononically relativistic fashion, but I have seen little of this manifest itself as a written report or quantitative calculations that might critically be reviewed (note: such review not being restricted just to academia, but rather available to any interested person experienced in engineering). 

              BTW, my 2004 Drachen report was woefully incomplete (based on the schemes that have appeared since then), and naively representative of what little AWE information and development was available at that time (mainly Wubbo's version of the Ladder Mill, and Massimo's KiwiGen)….now, move ahead 10 years to the present….by now, those seeking others' critical peer review (or implying that they have in fact received said review), should be presenting their schemes in a documented form that explains in detail how their design works (launch, ops, recovery), how energy is harvested, and at least thumbnail calculations regarding energy harvest expectations.

              DaveL





              On Jun 4, 2013, at 2:09 PM, Harry Valentine <harrycv@...> wrote:

               

              I've come across many examples where peer review has failed .  .  . and private entrepreneurs and private inventors using private capital were able to achieve something very worthwhile.

              Harry


              To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
              CC: lorenzofagiano@...; Moritz.diehl@...; R.Schmehl@...
              From: santos137@...
              Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 13:38:56 -0700
              Subject: Limitations of Academic Peer Review //Re: [AWES] Re: Crosswind Anchors as "passive rigid structure that...imposes crosswind motion."

               

              Unsure that Lorenzo, Moritz, and Roland follow the AWES Forum directly; Dave Lang's message is recopied below, with a Cc: to the three academicians.
              -------------------------------
               
              Academic peer review is not perfect, nor does it suffice us. I have personal emails from Ken Caldeira decrying "peer review failure" by the Max Planck Institute (re: Miller et al) regarding AWE climate science.
               
              A more-common failing of elitist academia is to overlook important developments occurring outside of academia proper, while embracing their own heroes. Thus Lord Kelvin, President of the Royal Society of England met with little academic opposition in declaring, "Heavier than air flying machines are impossible," even as two high-school dropouts, the Wright brothers, were about to prove HTA flight practical. It fell to a non-peer-reviewed source to first disclose the Wrights' accomplishment, a 1904 article by Amos I. Root published in the journal, "Gleanings in Bee Culture." As late as 1905, "Scientific American" was still belittling the dropouts with misplaced doubt.
               
              The same sort of blindness is happening today in AWE. Thus Dave Lang in 2004 proposed, in a non-peer-reviewed journal (Drachen Newsletter), that a self-stable classic kite (the sled) can do AWE, and even matrix-scored this idea as best of the small sample of AWES architectures considered. As an independent scholar, I was able to accept and act on this information years before formal peer-review of the passive-control idea per se (review which has yet to properly happen). My personal standard for AWES claims is to present easily falsifiable simple ideas, and refer to third party validating cases, whenever possible.
               
              It will be a welcome development as academic peer-review eventually catches up with recent rapid conceptual progress in AWE happening outside of the Ivory Tower. Meanwhile, the AWES Forum, YouTube, and so on, is in fact sufficing to attract angel investment to some worthy open-source players who have no more-ready means to communicate to the world. Stealth ventures and marketers are the worst at sharing deep technical knowledge openly, but somehow academics include them (Makani, Joby, Magenn, etc.) in published papers, with a seeming correlation to capitalization and pop culture mindshare ;)
               
              A trend toward closed peer-review in AWE is troubling, in that vague fears trump the potential of open peer-review to reach a better result. The Springer AWE Textbook will stand as a test case of whether closed peer-review avoided "Lord Kelvin Bias" in AWE (which is why Roland and Moritz, the book's academic editors, are Cc:ed this thread). The shortcomings of academic peer review must be acknowledged and understood, along with the advantages.
               
              .
               
              From: David Lang <SeattleDL@...>
              To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2013 10:29 AM
              Subject: Re: [AWES] Re: Crosswind Anchors as "passive rigid structure that...imposes crosswind motion."
               
              Lorenzo,

              Thanks for the sane comments from academia! I personally think that anecdotal reporting and YouTube snippets do not constitute appropriate peer-reviewable materials….ha, instead of sending a prospective investor a proposal accompanied by technical reports, just send them a YouTube link - see how far that gets you :-)

              Dave Lang

              On Jun 3, 2013, at 9:49 AM, "lorenzofagiano" <lorenzofagiano@...> wrote:
               
              Well, I'm in favour of open-access repositories, in fact everyone can access all the details of our recent works on the arXiv (http://arxiv.org/)

              I'd like to renew my question.. You say that "Passive-control autonomous AWES has long been an open method and topic ready for review by any peer in the kite-energy systems community", then I'd like to see some document giving the details of this idea, how it works, what are the performance, etc.

              Thanks,
              Lorenzo

              --- In mailto:AirborneWindEnergy%40yahoogroups.com, "Joe Faust" <joefaust333@...> wrote:
              >
              > One type of peer reviewing is occurring in open view here in this forum.
              > Scholars and scientists and engineers of any color are able and welcome
              > to review critically any AWES idea, project, analysis, claim, patent,
              > statement, essay ... for all to see. In this manner, every expert may
              > have an equal chance to comment on the science or art that is being
              > described.
              > The very posting here is surely a new era form of repository that is
              > fully open and accessible to seekers of progress in AWES. There is no
              > fee to pay to read. There is no fee to put an idea or project up on a
              > hot seat. Review is open to good thinkers, professionals, expert
              > amateurs, creative analysts. Post your criticism of an idea in good
              > faith without personal attacks. The cream will rise to the top.
              > Old-school venues will continue; that is fine. But to stay away from
              > broad peer review is now a means to risk narrow tunnel vision and
              > potential loss.
              > Repository of essays and papers is also freely availble at
              > EnergyKiteSystems.com No charge for archiving one's paper and images!
              > Access: excellent. Searchable: yes. PaytoRead: No.
              > Passive-control autonomous AWES has long been an open method and topic
              > ready for review by any peer in the kite-energy systems community. It is
              > fine to echo one's papers into old-school systems of repositories, but
              > to shy from going into the new school of open peer review and archiving
              > is to risk becoming invisible. The whole world may freely reach this
              > forum and its associated repositories.
              > Support this system with a donation when you see the light. Thanks for
              > the support of participation and for seeing the necessary need for
              > occasional financial donation. What? You did not know that PayPal
              > easy support is available? Subscribe/Donate
              > <http://energykitesystems.net/subscribe/index.html>
              >




            • Joe Faust
              Merits are in both arenas; and there are fuzzy lines between arenas. The smart investor will review the entire field, I would guess. Future refined technical
              Message 6 of 14 , Jun 4, 2013

                Merits are in both arenas; and there are fuzzy lines between arenas. 
                 
                The smart investor will review the entire field, I would guess. 
                Future refined technical reports will often be founded on the less refined reports. If a sturdy refined report is made, one will be advised to see how far behind some of the matter might be, as progress may be occurring while the report was being written.  Let's keep tabs on all parts of the spectrum for RAD's sake. 

                    Investors, you are welcome to review and discuss matters with any stakeholder of the kite-energy community. 


              • Pierre Benhaiem
                Lorenzo, 1) I d like to see some document giving the details of this idea (Lorenzo Fagiano) 2) Thanks for the sane comments from academia! (Dave Lang) 3)
                Message 7 of 14 , Jun 4, 2013
                  Lorenzo,

                  1) "I'd like to see some document giving the details of this idea"
                  (Lorenzo Fagiano)

                  2) "Thanks for the sane comments from academia!" (Dave Lang)

                  3) "Academic peer review is not perfect, nor does it suffice us. I have
                  personal emails from Ken Caldeira decrying "peer review failure" by the
                  Max Planck Institute" (Dave Santos).

                  Now with 3) you have the prove of this idea...

                  PierreB
                • dave santos
                  DaveL,   No one on the AWES Forum has ever claimed it as a substitute for academic peer review; nor is the Forum accountable for predictable omissions of
                  Message 8 of 14 , Jun 4, 2013
                    DaveL,
                     
                    No one on the AWES Forum has ever claimed it as a substitute for academic peer review; nor is the Forum accountable for predictable omissions of AWE academic peer review.
                     
                    The Forum is to kick around ideas freely (a gift of "gabfest") very much in the same spirit your 2004 DF article did. Such expressions need not pander to strict notions of AWE peer review. Let the Springer AWE Textbook stand as the product of formal peer review.
                     
                    The Forum welcomes uncredentialed AWES developers who advance the state-of-the-art in the form of tangible hardware, falsifiable anecdotal observation, and sincere conjecture; who cannot pretend to conform to academic mannerisms. Its not to be expected such folks would even be recognized as "peers" by academic cliques.
                     
                    If only academia produced Wright Brothers by peer-review, open informal expression would not be so essential. The final test of time in AWE is what counts, not reasoning improperly from an appeal to (academic) authority. Lorenzo's most "sane" attitude in this regard is to keep an open mind about non-academic contributions being validated in due time by academic inquiry,
                     
                    daveS
                     
                     
                     

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