This looks like a kluge, but they seem to have convinced big money known for investing in innovation [Gates].

Less than 1/10 the cost of a turbine

Under 1/4 the cost to build a windfarm

1/3 the LCOE [levelized cost of electricity] compared to traditional wind energy

Can be built vertically or horizontally, either onshore or offshore

Easy to transport: a 2.5 MW Airloom fits inside a standard tractor trailer

Quickly manufactured: uses readily sourced materials and parts

Better for viewplanes: less mass, lower profile - preeliminates the whiners

https://airloomenergy.com/

They're slow to scale up, probably don't want to know what's in store.

On Thu, 9 Nov 2023 09:12:58 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

>This looks like a kluge, but they seem to have convinced big money known for investing in innovation [Gates].
>
>Less than 1/10 the cost of a turbine
>
>Under 1/4 the cost to build a windfarm
>
>1/3 the LCOE [levelized cost of electricity] compared to traditional wind energy
>
>Can be built vertically or horizontally, either onshore or offshore
>
>Easy to transport: a 2.5 MW Airloom fits inside a standard tractor trailer
>
>Quickly manufactured: uses readily sourced materials and parts
>
>Better for viewplanes: less mass, lower profile - preeliminates the whiners
>
>https://airloomenergy.com/
>
>They're slow to scale up, probably don't want to know what's in store.

Laughable. Put up a few sticks and some wire in your back yard and
raise a lot of money.

The offshore version will be extra funny. Maybe put the sticks on
floating inner tubes.

On 11/9/23 23:48, john larkin wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Nov 2023 09:12:58 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
> <bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> This looks like a kluge, but they seem to have convinced big money known for investing in innovation [Gates].
>>
>> Less than 1/10 the cost of a turbine
>>
>> Under 1/4 the cost to build a windfarm
>>
>> 1/3 the LCOE [levelized cost of electricity] compared to traditional wind energy
>>
>> Can be built vertically or horizontally, either onshore or offshore
>>
>> Easy to transport: a 2.5 MW Airloom fits inside a standard tractor trailer
>>
>> Quickly manufactured: uses readily sourced materials and parts
>>
>> Better for viewplanes: less mass, lower profile - preeliminates the whiners
>>
>> https://airloomenergy.com/
>>
>> They're slow to scale up, probably don't want to know what's in store.
>
> Laughable. Put up a few sticks and some wire in your back yard and
> raise a lot of money.
>
> The offshore version will be extra funny. Maybe put the sticks on
> floating inner tubes.
>

A bunch of slats, driven by wind to ride around on a closed-circuit
track. A ridiculous contraption indeed. It'd be funny if it wasn't
so sad that the general public has no idea about what energy is, and
no notion of the scales involved.

Jeroen Belleman

On Friday, November 10, 2023 at 4:13:03 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> This looks like a kluge, but they seem to have convinced big money known for investing in innovation [Gates].
>
> Less than 1/10 the cost of a turbine
>
> Under 1/4 the cost to build a windfarm
>
> 1/3 the LCOE [levelized cost of electricity] compared to traditional wind energy
>
> Can be built vertically or horizontally, either onshore or offshore
>
> Easy to transport: a 2.5 MW Airloom fits inside a standard tractor trailer
>
> Quickly manufactured: uses readily sourced materials and parts
>
> Better for viewplanes: less mass, lower profile - preeliminates the whiners
>
> https://airloomenergy.com/
>
> They're slow to scale up, probably don't want to know what's in store.

On Friday, November 10, 2023 at 4:13:03 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> This looks like a kluge, but they seem to have convinced big money known for investing in innovation [Gates].
>
> Less than 1/10 the cost of a turbine
>
> Under 1/4 the cost to build a windfarm
>
> 1/3 the LCOE [levelized cost of electricity] compared to traditional wind energy
>
> Can be built vertically or horizontally, either onshore or offshore
>
> Easy to transport: a 2.5 MW Airloom fits inside a standard tractor trailer
>
> Quickly manufactured: uses readily sourced materials and parts
>
> Better for viewplanes: less mass, lower profile - preeliminates the whiners
>
> https://airloomenergy.com/
>
> They're slow to scale up, probably don't want to know what's in store.

A single track? Running the wings around a pair of track would make their positions a lot more stable and predictable.

I'm not a mechanical engineer, but I've hung about with them from time to time and some of their reactions are predictable. This looks like a scam.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Fri, 10 Nov 2023 00:15:52 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

>On 11/9/23 23:48, john larkin wrote:
>> On Thu, 9 Nov 2023 09:12:58 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
>> <bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> This looks like a kluge, but they seem to have convinced big money known for investing in innovation [Gates].
>>>
>>> Less than 1/10 the cost of a turbine
>>>
>>> Under 1/4 the cost to build a windfarm
>>>
>>> 1/3 the LCOE [levelized cost of electricity] compared to traditional wind energy
>>>
>>> Can be built vertically or horizontally, either onshore or offshore
>>>
>>> Easy to transport: a 2.5 MW Airloom fits inside a standard tractor trailer
>>>
>>> Quickly manufactured: uses readily sourced materials and parts
>>>
>>> Better for viewplanes: less mass, lower profile - preeliminates the whiners
>>>
>>> https://airloomenergy.com/
>>>
>>> They're slow to scale up, probably don't want to know what's in store.
>>
>> Laughable. Put up a few sticks and some wire in your back yard and
>> raise a lot of money.
>>
>> The offshore version will be extra funny. Maybe put the sticks on
>> floating inner tubes.
>>
>
>A bunch of slats, driven by wind to ride around on a closed-circuit
>track. A ridiculous contraption indeed. It'd be funny if it wasn't
>so sad that the general public has no idea about what energy is, and
>no notion of the scales involved.
>
>Jeroen Belleman

And the good wind is not on the ground like this shows.

It's up high.

Yes, a scam.

On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 5:48:55 PM UTC-5, john larkin wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Nov 2023 09:12:58 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
> <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >This looks like a kluge, but they seem to have convinced big money known for investing in innovation [Gates].
> >
> >Less than 1/10 the cost of a turbine
> >
> >Under 1/4 the cost to build a windfarm
> >
> >1/3 the LCOE [levelized cost of electricity] compared to traditional wind energy
> >
> >Can be built vertically or horizontally, either onshore or offshore
> >
> >Easy to transport: a 2.5 MW Airloom fits inside a standard tractor trailer
> >
> >Quickly manufactured: uses readily sourced materials and parts
> >
> >Better for viewplanes: less mass, lower profile - preeliminates the whiners
> >
> >https://airloomenergy.com/
> >
> >They're slow to scale up, probably don't want to know what's in store.
> Laughable. Put up a few sticks and some wire in your back yard and
> raise a lot of money.
>
> The offshore version will be extra funny. Maybe put the sticks on
> floating inner tubes.

'Inspired by mathematics, optimization modeling, and kiteboarding, Mr. Lumley conceived of the Airloom one evening in a pub in Berlin after a wind energy conference. The Airloom has since been awarded numerous grants from the National Science Foundation and the state of Wyoming. US and international patents have been issued and more are in process.'

See Lumley under the 'Team' tab. He's obviously on a different plane.

On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 9:59:28 PM UTC-5, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> On Friday, November 10, 2023 at 4:13:03 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > This looks like a kluge, but they seem to have convinced big money known for investing in innovation [Gates].
> >
> > Less than 1/10 the cost of a turbine
> >
> > Under 1/4 the cost to build a windfarm
> >
> > 1/3 the LCOE [levelized cost of electricity] compared to traditional wind energy
> >
> > Can be built vertically or horizontally, either onshore or offshore
> >
> > Easy to transport: a 2.5 MW Airloom fits inside a standard tractor trailer
> >
> > Quickly manufactured: uses readily sourced materials and parts
> >
> > Better for viewplanes: less mass, lower profile - preeliminates the whiners
> >
> > https://airloomenergy.com/
> >
> > They're slow to scale up, probably don't want to know what's in store.
> A single track? Running the wings around a pair of track would make their positions a lot more stable and predictable.
>
> I'm not a mechanical engineer, but I've hung about with them from time to time and some of their reactions are predictable. This looks like a scam.

Gut feel is you can't make something powerful out of flimsy parts. There should be some kind of general finding by now of the per component withstanding power as a function of power delivered by the generator.

>
> --
> Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 8:20:53 AM UTC+11, a a wrote:
> The idiot Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> persisting in being an Off-topic troll...
> --
> Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:

A a seems to getting madder by the minute. I harvest four denunciations from a single post. Presumably when he gets even more florid he will be posting denunciations non-stop - his information provider will have to limit his access at that point, which would be nice.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 11:00:23 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 9:59:28 PM UTC-5, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > On Friday, November 10, 2023 at 4:13:03 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > This looks like a kluge, but they seem to have convinced big money known for investing in innovation [Gates].
> > >
> > > Less than 1/10 the cost of a turbine

<snip>

> > A single track? Running the wings around a pair of track would make their positions a lot more stable and predictable.
> >
> > I'm not a mechanical engineer, but I've hung about with them from time to time and some of their reactions are predictable. This looks like a scam..
>
> Gut feel is you can't make something powerful out of flimsy parts. There should be some kind of general finding by now of the per component withstanding power as a function of power delivered by the generator.

Wind speed is variable, and can get very high. Wind turbines can feather their blades to cope with very high winds. The circulating slats should be able to pack together and park in a shelter if the wind speed gets too high, but that didn't feature in the presentation.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Saturday, 11 November 2023 at 00:00:23 UTC, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 9:59:28 PM UTC-5, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > On Friday, November 10, 2023 at 4:13:03 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > This looks like a kluge, but they seem to have convinced big money known for investing in innovation [Gates].
> > >
> > > Less than 1/10 the cost of a turbine
> > >
> > > Under 1/4 the cost to build a windfarm
> > >
> > > 1/3 the LCOE [levelized cost of electricity] compared to traditional wind energy
> > >
> > > Can be built vertically or horizontally, either onshore or offshore
> > >
> > > Easy to transport: a 2.5 MW Airloom fits inside a standard tractor trailer
> > >
> > > Quickly manufactured: uses readily sourced materials and parts
> > >
> > > Better for viewplanes: less mass, lower profile - preeliminates the whiners
> > >
> > > https://airloomenergy.com/
> > >
> > > They're slow to scale up, probably don't want to know what's in store..
> > A single track? Running the wings around a pair of track would make their positions a lot more stable and predictable.
> >
> > I'm not a mechanical engineer, but I've hung about with them from time to time and some of their reactions are predictable. This looks like a scam..
> Gut feel is you can't make something powerful out of flimsy parts.

1. it distributes power handling over a large number of blades
2. I expect that high winds cause the blades to move away from vertical, reducing wind load.

On Monday, November 13, 2023 at 6:32:28 AM UTC+11, Tabby wrote:
> On Saturday, 11 November 2023 at 00:00:23 UTC, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 9:59:28 PM UTC-5, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > > On Friday, November 10, 2023 at 4:13:03 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > > This looks like a kluge, but they seem to have convinced big money known for investing in innovation [Gates].
> > > >
> > > > Less than 1/10 the cost of a turbine
> > > >
> > > > Under 1/4 the cost to build a windfarm
> > > >
> > > > 1/3 the LCOE [levelized cost of electricity] compared to traditional wind energy
> > > >
> > > > Can be built vertically or horizontally, either onshore or offshore
> > > >
> > > > Easy to transport: a 2.5 MW Airloom fits inside a standard tractor trailer
> > > >
> > > > Quickly manufactured: uses readily sourced materials and parts
> > > >
> > > > Better for viewplanes: less mass, lower profile - preeliminates the whiners
> > > >
> > > > https://airloomenergy.com/
> > > >
> > > > They're slow to scale up, probably don't want to know what's in store.
> > > A single track? Running the wings around a pair of track would make their positions a lot more stable and predictable.
> > >
> > > I'm not a mechanical engineer, but I've hung about with them from time to time and some of their reactions are predictable. This looks like a scam.
>
> > Gut feel is you can't make something powerful out of flimsy parts.
>
> 1. it distributes power handling over a large number of blades

So does an array of wind turbines.

> 2. I expect that high winds cause the blades to move away from vertical, reducing wind load.

Not enough. Wind turbine feather their blades, which is an active response. I proposed parking the slats in a shelter elsewhere in this thread, which is a similalry active response

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Fri, 10 Nov 2023 15:54:32 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 5:48:55?PM UTC-5, john larkin wrote:
>> On Thu, 9 Nov 2023 09:12:58 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
>> <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >This looks like a kluge, but they seem to have convinced big money known for investing in innovation [Gates].
>> >
>> >Less than 1/10 the cost of a turbine
>> >
>> >Under 1/4 the cost to build a windfarm
>> >
>> >1/3 the LCOE [levelized cost of electricity] compared to traditional wind energy
>> >
>> >Can be built vertically or horizontally, either onshore or offshore
>> >
>> >Easy to transport: a 2.5 MW Airloom fits inside a standard tractor trailer
>> >
>> >Quickly manufactured: uses readily sourced materials and parts
>> >
>> >Better for viewplanes: less mass, lower profile - preeliminates the whiners
>> >
>> >https://airloomenergy.com/
>> >
>> >They're slow to scale up, probably don't want to know what's in store.
>> Laughable. Put up a few sticks and some wire in your back yard and
>> raise a lot of money.
>>
>> The offshore version will be extra funny. Maybe put the sticks on
>> floating inner tubes.
>
>'Inspired by mathematics, optimization modeling, and kiteboarding, Mr. Lumley conceived of the Airloom one evening in a pub in Berlin after a wind energy conference. The Airloom has since been awarded numerous grants from the National Science Foundation and the state of Wyoming. US and international patents have been issued and more are in process.'
>
>See Lumley under the 'Team' tab. He's obviously on a different plane.

Fwiction.

RL

On Wednesday, 15 November 2023 at 07:14:06 UTC, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> On Monday, November 13, 2023 at 6:32:28 AM UTC+11, Tabby wrote:
> > On Saturday, 11 November 2023 at 00:00:23 UTC, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 9:59:28 PM UTC-5, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > > > On Friday, November 10, 2023 at 4:13:03 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > > > This looks like a kluge, but they seem to have convinced big money known for investing in innovation [Gates].
> > > > >
> > > > > Less than 1/10 the cost of a turbine
> > > > >
> > > > > Under 1/4 the cost to build a windfarm
> > > > >
> > > > > 1/3 the LCOE [levelized cost of electricity] compared to traditional wind energy
> > > > >
> > > > > Can be built vertically or horizontally, either onshore or offshore
> > > > >
> > > > > Easy to transport: a 2.5 MW Airloom fits inside a standard tractor trailer
> > > > >
> > > > > Quickly manufactured: uses readily sourced materials and parts
> > > > >
> > > > > Better for viewplanes: less mass, lower profile - preeliminates the whiners
> > > > >
> > > > > https://airloomenergy.com/
> > > > >
> > > > > They're slow to scale up, probably don't want to know what's in store.
> > > > A single track? Running the wings around a pair of track would make their positions a lot more stable and predictable.
> > > >
> > > > I'm not a mechanical engineer, but I've hung about with them from time to time and some of their reactions are predictable. This looks like a scam.
> >
> > > Gut feel is you can't make something powerful out of flimsy parts.
> >
> > 1. it distributes power handling over a large number of blades
> So does an array of wind turbines.

turbines handle much more power & winspeed per blade than this thing

> > 2. I expect that high winds cause the blades to move away from vertical, reducing wind load.
> Not enough.

I would not assume that

> Wind turbine feather their blades, which is an active response.

yup, which is less wind avoiding than letting vertical blades lift up to possibly 90 degrees max

> I proposed parking the slats in a shelter elsewhere in this thread, which is a similalry active response

We don't know the inventor's decisions. We can only propose options, yours and mine should both work.

On Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 5:14:25 AM UTC+11, Tabby wrote:
> On Wednesday, 15 November 2023 at 07:14:06 UTC, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > On Monday, November 13, 2023 at 6:32:28 AM UTC+11, Tabby wrote:
> > > On Saturday, 11 November 2023 at 00:00:23 UTC, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 9:59:28 PM UTC-5, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, November 10, 2023 at 4:13:03 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > > > > This looks like a kluge, but they seem to have convinced big money known for investing in innovation [Gates].
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Less than 1/10 the cost of a turbine
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Under 1/4 the cost to build a windfarm
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1/3 the LCOE [levelized cost of electricity] compared to traditional wind energy
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Can be built vertically or horizontally, either onshore or offshore
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Easy to transport: a 2.5 MW Airloom fits inside a standard tractor trailer
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Quickly manufactured: uses readily sourced materials and parts
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Better for viewplanes: less mass, lower profile - preeliminates the whiners
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://airloomenergy.com/
> > > > > >
> > > > > > They're slow to scale up, probably don't want to know what's in store.
> > > > >
> > > > > A single track? Running the wings around a pair of track would make their positions a lot more stable and predictable.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not a mechanical engineer, but I've hung about with them from time to time and some of their reactions are predictable. This looks like a scam.
> > >
> > > > Gut feel is you can't make something powerful out of flimsy parts.
> > >
> > > 1. it distributes power handling over a large number of blades
> >
> > So does an array of wind turbines.
> >
> turbines handle much more power & windspeed per blade than this thing.

How do you know that? And does it matter?

> > > 2. I expect that high winds cause the blades to move away from vertical, reducing wind load.
> >
> > Not enough.
>
> I would not assume that

I would. As drawn, the trackway looked flimsy.

> > Wind turbine feather their blades, which is an active response.
>
> yup, which is less wind avoiding than letting vertical blades lift up to possibly 90 degrees max.

Or letting them break off and get blown away.

> > I proposed parking the slats in a shelter elsewhere in this thread, which is a similary active response.
>
> We don't know the inventor's decisions. We can only propose options, yours and mine should both work.

My contention was that it is more likely to be a scam than an invention and shouldn't be expected to work.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Thursday, 16 November 2023 at 07:22:07 UTC, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> On Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 5:14:25 AM UTC+11, Tabby wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 15 November 2023 at 07:14:06 UTC, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > > On Monday, November 13, 2023 at 6:32:28 AM UTC+11, Tabby wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, 11 November 2023 at 00:00:23 UTC, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 9:59:28 PM UTC-5, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, November 10, 2023 at 4:13:03 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > > > > > This looks like a kluge, but they seem to have convinced big money known for investing in innovation [Gates].
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Less than 1/10 the cost of a turbine
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Under 1/4 the cost to build a windfarm
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1/3 the LCOE [levelized cost of electricity] compared to traditional wind energy
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Can be built vertically or horizontally, either onshore or offshore
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Easy to transport: a 2.5 MW Airloom fits inside a standard tractor trailer
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Quickly manufactured: uses readily sourced materials and parts
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Better for viewplanes: less mass, lower profile - preeliminates the whiners
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://airloomenergy.com/
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > They're slow to scale up, probably don't want to know what's in store.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A single track? Running the wings around a pair of track would make their positions a lot more stable and predictable.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm not a mechanical engineer, but I've hung about with them from time to time and some of their reactions are predictable. This looks like a scam.
> > > >
> > > > > Gut feel is you can't make something powerful out of flimsy parts..
> > > >
> > > > 1. it distributes power handling over a large number of blades
> > >
> > > So does an array of wind turbines.
> > >
> > turbines handle much more power & windspeed per blade than this thing.
>
> How do you know that? And does it matter?

Windspeed increases graetly as you go up from ground level. It's why turbines use tall towers. The track layout requires many towers, so will be much lower to the ground. Lower means less power per blade.

> > > > 2. I expect that high winds cause the blades to move away from vertical, reducing wind load.
> > >
> > > Not enough.
> >
> > I would not assume that
> I would. As drawn, the trackway looked flimsy.

In principle it's enough because the hanging blades can shed more wind load than a turbine on a tower. We don't know the implementation details.

> > > Wind turbine feather their blades, which is an active response.
> >
> > yup, which is less wind avoiding than letting vertical blades lift up to possibly 90 degrees max.
>
> Or letting them break off and get blown away.
>
> > > I proposed parking the slats in a shelter elsewhere in this thread, which is a similary active response.
> >
> > We don't know the inventor's decisions. We can only propose options, yours and mine should both work.
> My contention was that it is more likely to be a scam than an invention and shouldn't be expected to work.

It's fairly obvious it can work, the main question is the cost vs output.

On Tuesday, November 21, 2023 at 12:13:14 PM UTC+11, Tabby wrote:
> On Thursday, 16 November 2023 at 07:22:07 UTC, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 5:14:25 AM UTC+11, Tabby wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, 15 November 2023 at 07:14:06 UTC, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > > > On Monday, November 13, 2023 at 6:32:28 AM UTC+11, Tabby wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, 11 November 2023 at 00:00:23 UTC, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > > > > On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 9:59:28 PM UTC-5, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > > > > > > On Friday, November 10, 2023 at 4:13:03 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:

<snip>

> > > We don't know the inventor's decisions. We can only propose options, yours and mine should both work.
> >
> > My contention was that it is more likely to be a scam than an invention and shouldn't be expected to work.
>
> It's fairly obvious it can work, the main question is the cost vs output.

The single track version in Fred's link might work briefly. but it looks horribly flimsy. Scam projects to have to look as if they would work, but this one isn't exactly convincing.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney