Yahoo group moving

I never specifically “rejected” Laddermill, but just saw SuperTurbine™ as likely more efficient, simple, and straightforward. However I was quite excited when Wubbo came out with his version, and he had a catchy name for it. Then I was GREATLY disappointed that everyone involved turned out to have no ability and/or motivation to even try building a single laddermill prototype, that they would just go to buying and flying kites (kite-reeling) like the other 999,999 flies. Actually it totally “blew me away”, I mean, I had long seen the helplessness of modern people, especially in the all-talk-no-results world of improved wind turbines, but this was just unbelievable, with all those grad students, all the attention, resources, effortless instant assumed credibility, manpower, funding, etc. nobody could even build the most minimal prototype of laddermill using, say cocktail skewers, plastic bags, fishing line, ductape, and bicycle parts - whatever. No significant budget required. After seeing the fanfare devoted to laddermill, all those resources and enthusiasm, then nothing but excuses, like they had determined to have “a better idea”. Taking one giant step backwards…
Even though kite-reeling was so obvious it seemed unworthy of mention, while laddermill took kite-reeling to the next level and made it usable (steady-state). Well so we were supposed to believe everything they had said before was suddenly wrong, but they were still going to call it “laddermill”, still follow the guy who thought of it like the Pied Piper, while just going back to kite-flying? OMG! That’s when I just had to go with “idiots, idiots, idiots”. Hundreds of people unable to stay in the same page for even a single try - whoa!!! I’d say the only way to know if laddermill-type devices could work out is to try them. The way I see it, the first one might barely work, or not even work at all. Then someone sees a way to fix it and it barely works, then a few more adjustments and it works a bit better, etc. Lather, rinse, repeat. You don;t know ehere it could lead. That’s research. Even Einstein (supposedly) said “If we knew what we were doing they wouldn’t call it research:” There are multiple approaches to even a basic version. Nobody has tried any of them. Let me restate that: Nobody has BOTHERED to even try ANY of them. (Yet they kept the name for a while.) How could anyone know if they don’t try?! I don’t think it’s fair to “throw away” an entire design-direction of AWE possibilities, when out of thousands of flies - er um, I mean eager, enthusiastic people, (possibly even a few with actual talent) all the flies land on the same pile of s***. For one thing, to make that big of a deal over “laddermill”, as though it’s THE answer, then never even trying a single time, to me, shows a lack of basic intellectual integrity. It’s like their very first action was to lower themselves to the very bottom of basic honesty, like the “AWE-powered concert” of daveS, making huge, world-shaking claims, followed by absolutely nothing. To me it is weird that they still have a reputation at all. Just goes to show you, as in “The Wizard of Oz”, despite a lot of impressive-appearing fireworks, even the wizard himself ends up saying “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!” So no, I did not “reject” it, just saw other configurations “seemed” more promising, more straightforward, easier to build and run, but that doesn’t mean there is nothing to laddermill. No such thing has been proven. It just means nobody has bothered to check it out. I can come up with a hundred promising configurations that nobody thinks of and certainly nobody bothers to try. Reminds me of a time in 1982 when I ran the SuperTurbine™ concept by my fluid mechanics professor at U.C. Irvine, whom I really liked and went to talk with in his office on a regular basis. I was like, OK these rotors we’ve been studying, what about stacking them at spaced intervals on the same driveshaft and offsetting it from the wind direction to greatly multiply output of a turbine of a given diameter? It’s like the old saying, “we lose a little on every sle but make it up in volume”, SuperTurbine’s skewed rotors “lose a little power at each rotor, but make it up with as many rotors as you want to use!” OMG!. He seemed unable to even come up with any reaction at all. His only comment on any invention I showed him was “nice drawings”. It was as though the only thing professors could understand was making simple things seem complicated through jumping right into endless mathematical formulae. I was like, “great, given these formulae, and given we know the answers, what can we do with this knowledge? Let’s see what we can build with all this knowledge!!!” How can we take the building blocks we have and build something? No reaction. If it’s not in “the curriculum”, they are just empty-headed. It made me realize, just being really smart and understanding a technical topic well, doesn’t make someone creative. Just like you are probably not going to find the next Jimi Hendrix leading the U.S. Marine Corps marching band - different strokes for different folks. There are regimented environments, then there is creativity. Not always found in the same place.

KiteLab Ilwaco and kPower Austin, having built and tested two laddermill prototypes, one based on small sled kites, and another based on soft bucket-drogues, in actual flying discovered a twisting instability in the LadderMill to-and-fro kite trains. A swivel between every kite unit would mostly resolve the problem. This LadderMill work was documented on the Old Forum around both five and ten years ago.

All in all, the AWES community is justified in developing simpler more standard designs, like perfecting WECS rigs of TRL9 COTS power kites for shaft-power. The LadderMill may remain a historical curiosity for kite hobbyists to experiment with. Specialized versions might emerge, like a cargo-lifting LadderMill to haul water up to create clouds, or other niche apps.

Note that the Yahoo Group did not move due to advantages in having two Forums with complimentary virtues.

As discussed, we have been presented with no evidence of any such laddermill experiments. Perfecting kites for shaft rotation - sure, just saying soft kites are wonderful while hard kites are “bad” is easy enough. Saying it every day gets redundant. The idea is, rather than just making claims of a superior approach, demonstrate superior performance in spinning that generator. In 12 years, still not spinning a generator. Now you want 11 more years - for what? Empty talk is easy. Flying kites is easy. Show us the electrical power generation by soft kites you keep touting.

There is a list of laddermill testing documentation Doug overlooks, like the Old Forum post on Jun‎ ‎6‎, ‎2016, at ‎3‎:‎22‎ ‎PM, for starters. Other documentations of this and an earlier prototype will be found archived by the Forum.

The 2016 case was a “Welty Turbine” soft laddermill variant where kPower took stock Peter Lynn multi-bucket drogues rigged into a loop and flew them from a large experimental tensegrity pulley drum held up by a 9m2 pilot-kite, from Norman Elementary School, in East Austin, Texas. Ron Welty has been covered in other posts, and Ed Sapir actually ordered the bucket drogues from Gomberg Kites.

Doug does not want to buy the WECS that he thinks has “no evidence” of existence.

Here is the older laddermill rig made of toy kites, that flew outside the World Kite Museum. Note that I would not now call it “soft”, as the little sled kites have spars-


Here’s the old page on WayBack-

Who else would have tested two different laddermills while understanding how impractical the idea always was?

Forum AirborneWindEnergy went on “hiatus” status today. :boom:

Those in old forum who had posted 50 or more times are shown in a screen print from a database. Note detail: The second and third from top are to be combined to 7145 posts.

1 Like

Could you elaborate on what Hiatus means? In particular the duration of the Hiatus or is this the end?

Thanks. Not end. :upside_down_face: One may become a non-posting reader member by sending me one’s Yahoo identity email address. I will configure reading access. So, the space from here through the hiatus will have new posts readable; the posts will be those of DaveS, if he posts, and those of myself; there might be discussions between the two of us on some issues.

Santos and Faust still have posting access; together they posted 54% (approx.) of the total. Readers may become many. The general public (non-members) may not read the messages; that has been the case for many years; at some point midway in the run, the public was carved away from reading the messages

The space may otherwise be in the special “hiatus” for a good while; if Yahoo fixes its search tool, then the regular deal might open again.

The Yahoo search-tool results became incomplete a couple of years ago; Yahoo has not fixed the tool. However, I have laterally a mirror of the nearly 28000 messages with complete good search ability; if you have a special need, I’ll give you a list of message numbers pertinent to your quest, excepting some quests. :thinking:

I will be preparing a file of the messages that will be available to former members; I’ll announce the file in this present forum.

The just altered “about” notes:

Advance kite systems to do good works. Flight media includes water, air, plasma, soils, space, and other media, even sometimes in combination.
eAWE, skAWE, kbAWE, peAWE, gwAWE, etc. are welcome.*
Airborne Wind Energy Forum
__ AirborneWindEnergy*
NOTICE: From August 1, 2019, forward, the messages will be by two people: Dave Santos and Joe Faust.
Other members will have reading access only.

Special requests:


1 Like

Hi @JoeFaust,

The AWE Yahoo forum remains useful and should continue in some way. Perhaps there are some possibilities to improve search tool before any random intervention by Yahoo. I think about some classification per families of topics or/and by posters, or/and ideas you are developing.

All the best.

1 Like

Wow, this was completely unexpected.
I know I’ve often complained about how hard it is to find anything there, the unseablity and the high noise, but I’ve always respected the idea behind it very much. To have an open conversation and a ledger of all the ideas, for anyone to use and to prevent patents.
Please, if possible make the conversations publically visible again!
The two of you can have private conversations via email or in another group. Even here on the forum, if you wish so.
I’ve also got an archive from the yahoo group from about a year ago.

1 Like

Old forum post may not go fully public without each author’s permission. The posts are behind the Yahoo non-public format. A Yahoo member may apply to be a member; I will approve such applications for readership. Try it. To become a reader: Go to the forum and click to join. The Yahoo identity thing is forced by Yahoo.

Wasn’t the forum public before? Is this a change of terms from yahoo?

It was not “public”. It was open to any Yahoo member who joined that particular group. Anyone in the world that had a Yahoo identity could apply for membership in that group AirborneWindEnergy. It “felt” public to the 194 members that joined. I removed (not banned) 192 people who had been on the member roster. Join back after signing into Yahoo; go to
and join the group; I will configure reading access only, not posting access. Because of the structure of Yahoo Groups, the automatic note is that members can post; but moderator will individually configure other members for non-posting, but open to reading.

1 Like

Alright, that was a misconception on my part. I had always thought the forum was public, especially to prevent patents. Thank you for the clarification. I guess it should still do this job in the USA:

" Oral disclosures

Oral disclosures, such as lectures or nonconfidential discussions between the inventor and a third party, usually also count as prior art. The problem with oral disclosures is usually how to prove that they took place and what was disclosed exactly. In some cases a transcript or recording may be available. This can serve as evidence of what was orally disclosed, although establishing the date of the oral disclosure may still be difficult.

Note that the transcript itself also counts as prior art from the day it was published. Thus, if the patent application was filed after the publication of the transcript, it may be easier to use the transcript as prior art than to use the transcript as evidence of an earlier oral disclosure.

The USA regards oral disclosures as prior art only if they were made in the USA (35 US Code section 102(a): "known or used by others in this country , or patented or described in a printed publication in this or another country “). A therapeutic technique orally handed down from one generation to another by a tribe in South America can thus still be patented in the USA, despite it being publicly known (but not from a printed publication) for many years.”

If there is prior art to any patent in the forum it must be brought forth by a forum member anyways. And even then it only becomes relevant if someone wants to sue and the forum member with knowlege of the prior art and the party with intention of sueing find each other.

The has a huge body of disclosed AWE art; that is fully open to the broad public.

At the present moment, the moderator’s pending tool says: “There are no pending member requests.” That will change as soon as some Yahoo-connected person goes to the forum link and presses the “+Join Group” button and puts in a couple bits of information. Waiting. ShaneSoaring just joined. So, now 3; now 4 …
Edited: July 31, 2019: “now 5 …”
REASON TO BECOME READER: Sign up again or freshly in order to read among the 28,000 messages.

1 Like

Pierre, yes, thanks; some grouping will be made. The new search tool I have on the side local to my computer will let me identify special searches where I will post specific message numbers respecting the special searches.
The posts listing such links will be handy to those signed into Yahoo.

A new presentation project is underway. A first author will be in focus; then a second author, etc. []( front page has a link to some of the posted messages in AirborneWindEnergy forum. One aim is to let the whole world see posts by authors, not just members of the forum.
The initial effort:
Another initial effort:

1 Like

Received this email today:

Dear Group Moderators and Members,

We are notifying you about upcoming changes to Yahoo Groups, which affect how content is shared and group membership is managed. We know that our users are deeply passionate about connecting around shared interests, and we want to continue offering the best experience possible.

We extensively researched the Yahoo Groups usage and user experience. In doing so, we determined that the majority of our members use the Yahoo Groups email functionality to share content, rather than posting directly to website message boards.

To align our features with user preferences, effective October 28, the following changes will be made to Yahoo Groups:

Uploading of new content will be disabled on the Yahoo Groups website. All users can continue to communicate and share content via email using any email client.
All users will only be able to join Groups either through an invite from the Group Moderator or by submitting a request to join a Group, which requires approval by the Group Moderator.

Starting December 14, all previously uploaded content stored on the website will be removed and all existing public Groups will be made private. If you would like to keep any of the content you’ve posted or stored within your Yahoo Group, you have until December 14 to download it by accessing this link. More information about the upcoming changes can be found here.

Since most content sharing among Yahoo Group members now occurs over email, we believe it is the right time to make this change. Please be assured that while posted content will be removed, Yahoo Groups is not going away, and new Groups can still be formed, allowing users to join and connect with their communities and passions.

Yahoo Groups is an online extension of your real-life group of friends, interests, and communities, so we hope this change will streamline and improve your experience.

The Groups Team

1 Like

Funnyspeak by Yahoo: remove all posted content, cannot post, but groups still exist. ???
Result: No more group posting; content of past will be removed by Dec. 14, 2019. DOWNLOAD if one wants content. Group with each other by email.
The content posting for AirborneWindEnergy is continuing without Yahoo via content sent to or or and will be projected via structures beginning at

The core of yahoo groups have always been the mailing list. It’s just the mirroring to the web with the possibility to interact with the mailing list from the web that will be removed.