Hi Roddy! I’d have to steer you toward Jalbert Air-Apology Labs. They are the top “domain experts” - just ask them!
Next you could try Makani - they are the big player in the space - oh, wait - slightly outdated information…
Nah, just kidding.
The info is out there. Start with a book n wind turbine design. As Pierre says, most of the people who know are too busy to run around telling everyone how much they know.
Another saying, besides “give a man a fish and he will ask you for another fish” is "Those who know don’t talk, and those who talk don’t know… 
I’d say, overall, it’s not that complicated, at least insofar as grasping the basics. That is, until; Professor Crackpot gets involved. Then suddenly you spend your time explaining why all his goofy ideas about vertical-axis turbines are so wrong, and how he doesn’t understand basic terminology like lift versus drag wind energy devices!I’ll give you a simple example: Real wind energy people refer to “flying” a wind turbine. Instead of asking “What kind of wind turbine is installed at your house?” We simply say “What are you flying?” Anyone who runs wind turbine knows exactly what you mean by “flying” becuase you see it at startup when the blades go from plodding slowly around a circle, to jumping into action and suddenly picking up a LOT of speed. We say “OK now it’s flying”. Non-wind-turbine people have never experienced watching a turbine begin to “fly” so they don;t even know what you are talking about and want to just argue about it.
How would the teams congregate? I think its nice to have conferences. I dont agree with much of the stuff presented, and sometimes what others are working on is of little knterest to me. Still, I had a lot of fun and had many interesting conversations at AWEC. And its a place for companies to tell the world what they are up to.
My Question definitely lead you to provide a certain answer @dougselsam
WESC - The Wind Energy Science Conference
an International conference - just as the name described - Similar to the Torque conference but with a straighter name.
The thing is - These are real conferences with Real companies, Real geeks, Real experts in tiny niche domains, working on real turbines, real problems, real solutions…
And weirdly enough - there’s a real mini-symposium on airborne wind energy at both WESC and Torque.
But somehow you don’t notice it and we don’t challenge you enough on it’s very real existence.
Experts on AWES exist, They’re real. They maybe don’t cover the elements you want to be covered yet , quite often because the resource does not yet exist or is not yet well distributed enough to cover that part of AWES.
I think dismissing their efforts is a great dis-service to folks doing genuine good work within the best of their means. Those means and resources are often bound within senseless laws, poorly informed governance, misguided lobbying of politics and corrupt financing… Those in my book are far worse than not trying…
AWES scientists and engineers are trying. But yeah I agree - they could pull the finger out and get more rotary (Real crosswind) done
After 15 years of listening to this endless hype, all I can say is “Yeah, sure.”
There were a lot of wannabe astrophysics “experts” in Copernicus’ and Galileo’s time too, highly “learned” people who could accurately predict the next eclipse, etc. yet they were too dumb to even see what was rotating around what. And they wanted to kill anyone who DID understand it!
If there were a SINGLE awe system in regular use today, anywhere in the world, you might have a leg to stand on. EVen THAT simple question has no actual answer because of the “cone of silence” in place which actually tells you all you need to know. Imagine if electric cars were in the same position - 20 or 30 companies, all supposedly developing electric cars for 15 years, but not a single example of any one on the road in normal use today, anywhere in the world. You;d say it was absurd and that there was no such thing as a production electric car, only a few prototypes briefly driven in demo mode. As it is, all anyone can be expert in is how to waste your time pursuing AWE, because they can’t really get it to work. So if they are “experts”, they are only experts in how NOT to do AWE.
Herein lies one of my pet peeves on the internet: People typing the word “lead” when they mean “led”.
Let’s start with the word “lead” (pronounced “LEED” which means to be at the forefront, or “leading” somewhere, or “leadership” as a boss, etc.
The past tense of THAT version of “lead” (LEED) is “led”, as in “AWE scientists LED journalists and investors astray in saying they knew how to do AWE”
The reason people tend to substitute Lead (the metal) for Led (astray) is they both sound the same, so it is a typo. I see it all the time on the internet in “comments” and even in articles! I’m serious - I see it almost every day! bad, bad, bad. Now as far as “Led Zeppelin”, they were just being cute.
Ohhh Man I reelly shude half get that right being a Mr Read (not Red)
As for the EV cars analogy … please don’t let that be true.
Just over 100 years ago EV’s were outselling petrol cars.
Maybe AWES can become the “diesel” in this analogy.
Roddy you are especially vulnerable since the past-tense of read is read not red.
What I’m really more concerned with at this point is my spelling of “Pastence” which seems right, but looks wrong, so I’m at “past tense” which just seems weird - tense? As in “I’m felling a little tense”?
As in “Hey, the world’s only domain expert in AWE says that tether is too tense.”? Wait - should domain expert be hyphenated? Or only for certain people? If you have a field characterized by failure, who decides who is an expert?
To recap the previous messages I would say that:
AWE study leads me to read Rod Read.
Getting back to the subject, I believe there are two kinds of non-crosswind: false non-crosswind, illustrated by rotating devices whose blades actually work crosswind; and true non-crosswind illustrated by devices aligned in reeling mode, such parachutes pulling on the reel without going right or left.
Also getting back to the thread - Not Popular ?
@mingaero I’d argue non-crosswind (rotary) IS popular.
It’s newer - relatively just starting.
It was not so obvious how to make it work. Defining the dynamics is hard.
It does have a few organisations already chasing it.
There’s plenty interest in it now on academic, social and energy business circles.
All Roads lead to SuperTurbine™, which is JUST as much “crosswind” (or more) as most other methods, such as kite-reeling. It almost seems that these same people who don’t “get it” regarding SuperTurbine™ are the ones who can’t comprehend the meaning of the term they love so much, but which need not even be mentioned in wind energy in general, “crosswind”. Most effective wind energy devices are effective in direct proportion to the extent they are “crosswind”. That;s what makes SuperTurbine™ technology so compelling. The tether IS the turbine.
Let;s see, you have the wind turbine rotor, now proven over 2000 years, and we simply aim it upward a bit, then stretch it out and up, into the sky - how hard is that to understand? Maybe some people are straightjacketed by the groupthink of being so over-educated that all their creativity has been beaten out of them, to the point all they can understand is “A kite can pull on a string”. Oh well, it;s only been 15 years of ignoring what is right in front of them.
As long as the sky does not exceed a few meters in altitude…
I seen this thread develop. it seems the obvious answer is they need to be made popular? So will require something that can go toe to toe with the mainstream thoughts? Enough that it peeks a eyebrow?
Its got to start with people becoming aware it exist. The. letting them make up their own minds? If your providing a superior product then it’s more likely they buy in? People tend to like to set things up and get on with something else? It would be good to have a duel function. though I doubt may will stop to consider it? Busy as live are?
For me its integrating a new idea and product into their lives? From the psychological stand point? people are often comfortable with what they already know? It not always the case? But when it comes to new fangled gizmos? They tend to want to know what is, what it does and how it could benefits them? If was as simple as gifting the tech? There would be a lot more uptake on the design? A lot more exploration of wind as a whole? I hate to sound like a mandalorian? But, this is the way! For many it an access issue? How do you safely make it more accessible to the masses? It really don’t matter what shape the design takes? It matter you can reach your intended audience? They do like a good demonstration. Followed by a good explanation. It about the over all ascetics? If ascetics pleasing, you would have more takers? It all about uptake? more uptake, the more people will know about it. the more they will explore the design merits or demerits? The more chance of it getting out there?
Wow such nice 3d renderings. How much power did that output? 
Though seriously it looks quite interesting.
Yes Tallak, the nice thing about imaginary renderings is they produce ungodly amounts of imaginary power!
And thanks for your thoughts Jason.
Bottom line is, developing a new wind energy product involves a LOT of 100% perfection. Perfection in making power, and perfection in overspeed protection. One little miscalculation and the whole thing explodes or burns out.
These renderings are over ten years old. I bought several ranch properties here in this high-wind location, during the real estate recession, planning to make them all wind-powered. But I found myself too busy developing and managing the properties to continue my ongoing research, manufacturing, and sales of wind turbines. Meanwhile solar got so cheap I’m even looking at installing solar on a couple of these properties now.
Still, I really need to get back to developing wind energy breakthroughs.
It is really super-fun, with a lot of action, unlike solar that just sits there.
Q What don’t you like about solar, Doug? A: It just sits there - boring.
Q What DO you like about solar, Doug? A: It just sits there - boring.
Here’s a good exercise to test one’s intuitive understanding of wind power devices.
Welcome to the forum @scalablewindpower,
The video is interesting. A long time ago, I publicly played Prokofiev’s 2nd Concerto for piano and orchestra, as a soloist. There was an air flow that gave me a chill. However I wasn’t moving fast in this very difficult concerto. I should have put a propeller at the back: that’s what I’m going to do now with the 2nd Brahms and Bartok concertos.
Joking aside, this is a very good illustration of the use of crosswind (cross-not-wind?) blade/kite.
Great link, Thanks.
Welcome along @scalablewindpower .
We saw this one a while ago on the forum Random Engineering, Physics, ..., Concepts and Ideas - #84 by Tom
And I believe one of our (currently suspended) members innovated the similar -ve direction effect e.g. a craft which used a rotor to sail directly into wind
There’s no piano concerto without a good wind section! I put loads of flute and clarinet solos in my own piano concerto. Ravel is even more fun.
Ravel piano concerto in G, I presume, with its jazz influences. Left hand concerto is also quite impressive with its beginning with its contrafagotto solo.
What else should I say to stay on topic? Oh yes, the wind sections could be improved by directing the air currents from the concert hall towards the then modified wind instruments, and this with propellers like the one on the vehicle in the video.