Talk:List of airborne wind energy organizations

The tag asks for work on the introduction

"main" is most prejudicial in this nascent industry. "Organization" should not be confined to prejudicial slants. Generation is of several types. As the industry is barely born, the thrust is research; the future is not known yet on this windpower industry. The tethered aspect was hidden. Encyclopedic readers should be given an introduction that gives them access to what is going on with the subject organizations: using kite systems to do tasks. 68.126.126.159 (talk) 19:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree it is hard to define a limit but I think not everybody has its place in wikipedia. Maybe it is good to start with everybody in the talk page, then to agree on how to filter out. We might base this on workforce, significant publications. significant prototype.--Baptiste LABAT (talk) 21:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Baptiste LABAT. Wikipedia has its policies about noteworthiness as a key filter. Not every organization will be noteworthy to Wikipedia standards; some orgs are created, inactive, forgotten. Some orgs are out of operation and not directly affecting the growth of the nascent industry. Some orgs are actually inactive but are historically making large influence by the historical noteworthiness; causes for direct inactivity might importantly and noteworthily affect the growth of this industry; so will the article hold such as Magenn Power, Inc.??? Magenn Power is an organization with large history, but for a couple of years new activity by the org is impossible nearly to find, if any; so, how will such a noteworthy org be presented in the List? Include the org or not ...by what WP policy? 68.126.126.159 (talk) 21:55, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I think Magenn has its place, but maybe not here (it is already in 10 other articles). I think the added value of the article is as well to find out together which org is meaningful, which is not (yet, more, enough), so I can't really answer.--Baptiste LABAT (talk) 22:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Of course, if Magenn is in 10 other articles, then one would begin to think that perhaps Magenn is indeed WP noteworthy! and then would certainly be included in this article; by what knife would such a high noteworthy org be excluded? 68.126.251.10 (talk) 14:55, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

WP does not go after "truth" or private research declaration of discerned "meaning" by editors; our task would be to present a list of AWE-KiteEnergy orgs that have been shown to be noteworthy by a secondary trusted source; we are not the arbiters of which method is "good" or not; the industry itself has only a tiny retail or wholesale event history (Dan Tracy, Dave Santos); the article is a list, not an engineering research discernment project; within the industry experts are huge differences of opinions; a "list" cannot arbitrate or sit in judgement over such deep engineering and economic and political matters that will one day spell stark distinctions among organizations involved in AWE-KiteEnergy. Our task in this article is to present an informative list of orgs involved in this baby industry that has yet to show even itself clarity over methods. 68.126.251.10 (talk) 14:55, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

That a company declares that it is aiming at "utility" scale service does not mean that in fact it can deliver any better that the tiny org that is in fairly quiet prototyping at handy scale; the turtle able to play among many options just might find the key that could then be scaled to utility scale much better than early downselectors handling a poor method choice. Again list-making editors are not the ones to decide such matters. The tiny org may end up being 1000 times more important than early hype-saturated orgs. Let's aim at WP traditional policies and present the orgs that have been given some noteworthy attention by trusted parties beyond the walls of the orgs themselves.

If one charted "retail" sales as a parameter, then maybe three tiny orgs would list some pennies...and all others would be zero; pretending that retail sales at this point in time .. might be informative to readers would be silly. Same for "wholesale" amounts; such is just not happening in the baby industry yet. What is happening is the "funding" quantities; some orgs have been funded by private and angel and public funds... with no correlation known that funding speaks to the likelihood of success of down-selected method! One company has been funded and spent about 200 million dollars US by some noted evidence; the down-selected method is believed by some experts to be only a path that will not win the day for the industry; the effort will teach what not to do, say some experts. Funding is important for readers, but figures are hard to get when one does not know how much personal funds have been placed into an effort; differently, public funds can be known and traced, with some effort; and the public should known where its money is being spent. 68.126.251.10 (talk) 14:55, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for all your comments. I was first a bit depressed, to figure out what was the way of improving this list. I agree the filter I proposed were not the right ones. It should be based on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28organizations_and_companies%29 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:LISTCOMPANY. Any notable org (which should have an article in Wikipedia), may have its place here. Orgs which are not notable, can not have an article, but may have there place as well in a list as long as there is a source independent of the topic, which can establish they belong to the list.--Baptiste LABAT (talk) 13:23, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Table headers

I am planning to expand the table to all potential organizations (in the talk page), but I would like to get an agreement on the table headers first. The table headers are so far:

Organizations

Name	Location	Start year	Type	Workforce in 2013	Generation	Comment

Types are so far Association/Research group/Company/R&D/OEM/Communication, which will not allow to make classification. We might end up with having individuals as well. I think the category ("Type") is not well defined. Have you other suggestions?

In the comment, we can see that the important points are:

• Open source or proprietary?
• Mother company?
• Founders origin if spin off

Should we add columns to be able to sort on this?

From the potential list, we can see as well that some are doing IP only, some prototyping, some going to industry level. Should we add an estimation of the TRL (Technology Readiness Level?)?--5.49.213.125 (talk) 09:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

TRL would be great, but how will that be determined? WP is not to do original research; and a self-report by an org is not very trustworthy and could be a source of fooling investors; WP should not be involved in declaring TRL for any org, as that would be doing original guestimating over live entities with chance of large error; who would maintain a TRL meter for the article? Tempting offer and it would neat to know the TRL for any org's method, but such just is probably not feasible by WP to show fairly; however, if some third-party certification agent published a statement of TRL over some org's method and doings, then such could become a footnote in an article dedicated to that particular org. I do not seen how we can justify a TRL column in the sortable chart list of orgs. 68.126.251.10 (talk) 15:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Tracing spin-off traces can get very hairy and fuzzy. An org is ever with a start by someone or a group, but that someone is a spin off of someone else or something else, and then again a spin off of something else. First-tier generation would be a note about an org. Taking up a full column for the idea of spin-off trace may not be helpful; such notes seem to belong in an article dedicated to the org as a noteworthy entity itself, perhaps deserving of a separate WP article. Our "List" is not to show all possible notes about the orgs; properly a reader should be able to click to a dedicated article about a company; indeed a WP article on noteworthy entities would be a proper thing to have in WP; then we could simple link to the dedicate articles in WP for each org; someone needs then to start an article on each org. Notice that some orgs already have articles in WP, without prejudice to the worth or success potential of the org; maybe some articles were started early just because of pushy advertising spirits, not mechanical merit, etc. As WP editors we are not to decide many matters, but to reach for informing the public about noteworthy orgs, so dedicated articles should be made ASAP. 68.126.251.10 (talk) 15:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

• I vote that "Workforce for 2013" be dropped as a column header. There is no way that for 200 AWE orgs we are going to get verifiable data for 2013 by third-party reporting; and the 200 orgs just are not bothering to be audited for workforce count. And how is the count to be meaningful? Org teams are spread to a wide variety of people: students, family, listeners, consultants, tax agents, friends, partners, employees, associates, etc. The few numbers found by online research will be unreliable. Unless a certifying agent does a broad careful audit on the AWE-KiteEnergy industry, then numbers for such parameter will be next to worthless, and very possibly injurious to the infant industry. Daring boosters can skew such a figure without having technical merit! WP should not be in the business or original research. By evidence of editor time and input, there is no way volunteer editors here will produce trustworthy workforce figures; any such poor effort could injure the article as well as serve to injure the nascent industry. If any editor knows a way to get trusted figures for the workforce count so that a fair picture is presented, please tell. Thanks. 68.126.251.10 (talk) 15:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

List potentials:

• Beuth Hochschule für Technik Berlin
• California Institute of Technology, Caltech
• California State University, Chico
• California State University, Sacramento VideoSrProj | Discuss |
• Cape Peninsula University of Technology South Africa M3830
• Case Western Reserve University (CWRU)
• EAGLE
• Chalmers University
• Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel wiki
• ETH, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich
• Energieerzeugung mit Flugdrachen
• KiteSA KITESA KITES Kite Information and Technology Exchange Society
• Kite Power Coop. CEO: Rod Read
• K.U. Leuven Leuven Kite Power Group, Belgium
• ERC HighWind
• Kyoto University
• LiTH in Sweden:
• Loughborough University
• National Open University of Nigeria NOUN
• Nautilabs, project robokite--5.49.213.125 (talk) 08:39, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
• New York University. Zhang Lab
• Polytechnic Torino - Italy
• Purdue University
• Princeton University
• Rowan University
• EHAWK
• Royal Institute of Technology of Sweden
• Russian Academy of Sciences
• Research Institute of Mechanical Engineering Problems, St. Petersburg, Russia
• RMIT University
• Sheffield University
• Stanford University
• SwissKitePower | Team | GenLnk
• FHNW, University of Applied Sciences Northwestern Switzerland
• EMPA
• ETH
• Tampere University of Technology, Finland
• TU Delft Kitepower
• Technische Universiteit Delft
• TU Delft University, Netherlands
• ASSET Institute
• TU Kaiserslautern, Germany
• TU Munich, Windward Energy
• TU Munich, Green Wings
• TUM | Greenwing | unternehmertum
• Union H.S.: Tod Heiles
• University of Bari
• University of Cambridge
• University of Heidelberg;
• Ruprecht-Karl University of Heidelberg
• Interdisciplinary Center

for Scientific Computing (IWR)

• University of Grenoble
• University of Groningen
• University of Ibadan
• University of Joseph Fourier, France
• University of Limerick
• University of Maine
• University of Oulu
• University of Sussex
• CCNR
• University of Texas, Austin
• University of Wuppertal
• Uppsala University
• Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
• Washington State University
• WPI KPTeam
• Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI)
• The UPWIND Energy Research Group
• Consortia, holding companies,
• KiteLab Group (KG)
• NOKE Srl Not Only Karma Energy
• WOW Over 130 partners. WOW SpA, a holding company
• WOW W3 Investment Ltd.
• WOW - WIND OPERATIONS WORLDWIDE CORP.
• WOW America
• AWEC
• Daidalos Fund
• Upper WindPower
• Kite Energy, Wayne German, owner.

_________

• IP only
• FlygenKite
• AWE training, education, job preparation, pilot training
• Kite Pilot School

68.126.126.159 (talk) 20:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC) And:

• 2nd Generation Wind
• 3Tier

_

• Advanced Rotorcraft Technology
• AeroEolica
• AEOLICARUS Project
• Aeroíx
• Aerology Lab
• Airbine
• AirborneWindEnergy
• Airborne Wind Energy Labs, Leonid Goldstein — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.126.251.10 (talk) 21:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
• AirPlay
• Alstom (Switzerland)
• Altius Wind Energy
• Altaeros Energies
• Alula Energy
• Ampyx Power
• Assystems
• Atena Engineering Gmbh
• Austin Technology Incubator
• Avian Energy
• Baseload Energy
• Boeing
• CMNA | CMNA Power
• CyberKite
• Clipper WindPower
• Crosswind Power Systems
• Dave Lang & Associates
• DESERTEC project
• EAGLE
• Eco Hydrogen Limited
• EnergyBird
• EnergyKiteSystems
• Energy Potential AB
• EnerKite GmbH
• Fatronik
• Festo
• Flexor Energy Company
• Flight Research Institute (F.R.I.) of Washington
• Free Rotor
• German Airborne Wind Turbine
• Golden Spiral Turbine
• Hardensoft International Limited
• Hawaii Consulting Group
• HeliKites
• HeliWind
• Heli Wind Power ROTO Project
• HighestWind
• Honeywell
• Isentropic
• Joby Energy
• KiteEnergy
• KiteEnergySystems
• Kite For Sail, LLC Pacific Sky Power
• Kite Gen Research
• KITEnrg
• Kite Power
• KiteBot
• KiteGen
• KiteLab (Europe)
• KiteLab, Ilwaco, WA
• KiteLab, Los Angeles, CA
• KiteLab, Nigeria — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.126.251.10 (talk) 15:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
• KiteNav
• KiteMill
• Kitenergy (no double "e")
• Kite Power Solutions, Ltd.
• KiteSailing
• KiteShip
• KiteTech Energy Systems Limited
• KiteTug
• KitVes+
• k Power
• Laboratori D'Envol
• Laddermill
• LEDshift
• Magenn Power
• Makani Power (Google [x] purchased)
• Modelway
• NASA
• NTS Energie, Nature Transport System (NTS)
• NAWT
• Oméga Sails
• Omnidea
• OrthoKiteBunch (OKB)
• Pacific Power Sails
• Pacific Sky Power
• Pavana Dynamics (formerly Red Kite Wind Energy)
• Peter Lynn Kites, Ltd.
• Roderick Read
• Rolls-Royce Pic
• SAAB AB
• School of Tethered Flight
• Seaglider Stephane Rousson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.126.251.10 (talk) 17:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
• Seedwings
• Selsam
• Sequoia Automation
• Sikorsky
• SkyHigh, SkyHigh Fund
• SkyMill
• SkyMill Power
• SkyMill Energy
• SkyWind
• Sky WindPower
• SkySails
• SkySails Power
• Soaren
• SpiralAirFoil, Inc.
• SVMtec
• Tech Ranch Austin (AWE Biz Incubator)
• TEKS
• Tether Applications Incorporated
• Tethered Airfoil Research and Development group (TARAD
• Tethered Airfoils
• Tethered Aviation
• Tethered Flight
• Tethered Flight School
• Tethered Flight Technology Consortium
• Tethered Turbines
• Tethered Wings
• Twind®
• UpWind
• USWindlab
• Util
• Velocity Cubed Technologies
• VisVentis
• WindLift
• Wingship Heavy Industries Co., Ltd.
• April 2009: Establishment of Wingship Heavy Industries Corp. (WHI) a subsidiary company of Wingship Technology Corp. (WST) for production
• WindMapper Pro
• WindMueller Aerology Lab
• Windswept and Interesting Limited
• Windward Energy
• Xerces Blue
• ZapKites
• UEK Corporation
• Minesto — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.126.126.159 (talk) 22:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC) 68.126.126.159 (talk) 00:23, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Table column challenges

LABAT offered: "We might base this on workforce, significant publications, significant prototype."

• We are not original research judges. WP guards us against putting up our original research. Note that a single scientist of workforce of "1" may well end up being the most significant thing happening in this baby industry; but that is not our job to discern significance as "List" editors. In a dedicated article about such scientists, it can be noted that some third parties have written about how they appraise that scientist's offerings to the AWE-KiteEnergy world. 68.126.251.10 (talk) 15:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

• :About "significant publications" we need to walk carefully. There are several types of publications that play: popular news that runs any exciting hype, scientific journals in wind energy, core publications in the precise AWE-KiteEnergy sector, renewable energy publications, energy publications, etc. What is "significant" to one judge may not be "significant" to another judge. Again, in dedicated articles on orgs, each by themselves, there would be a place to note what various pubs had to say about the org. It would take a team of editors working hard on the "List" article to maintain fair note, if we had to deal with sorting by "significant" pubs. And because early hype by a few orgs, regardless of mechanical merit, there has been a huge distorted presence in pubs with large over-kill to the extent that millions of dollars may have been wasted that could have been spent on broad research instead of on possibly poor rash and early down-selected methods. 68.126.251.10 (talk) 15:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

• :Workforce reports will be numbers reported by the org itself. The number will not be trustworthy until some kind of third-party auditing exists. A symbol for "self-report" and a symbol or "third-party verified" would complicate the table. We do not have access to employee records or income tax reports, etc. An org agent might put up "57" with no audit trail in order to fool potential investors. As WP, it is important that our data be verifiable by trusted sources beyond the org itself. So, we might stop have the "Workforce" column; some senior WP editor might comment on this question. We are not to be original researchers putting up our guesses or putting up data that does not meet WP policies. 68.126.251.10 (talk) 15:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

In bold remove, I took out the column "Workforce in 2013" as we have not shown we can produce reliable data for such a parameter from trustworthy reliable third-party agents; and the task to get fair data is guessed to be monumental in cost; abuse of the figure could injure the industry; it is not our business to guess on such an important matter that could affect investments. If a team of seasoned editors wish to tell how such a parameter should be in a "List" article, then go for it. Who will produce "for 2014" etc. for each year? 68.126.251.10 (talk) 16:55, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

• : About "significant prototype" ... Who is to determine such a careful question. The baby industry is nearly 100% in research mode. Some projects are stealth, and some are not. A "big" prototype does not equate to "good for the eventual industry" as the item might just teach a big flop. A prototype by a loud-yelling project team does not mean that mechanically the prototype has mechanical success merit. A prototype made at handy sport or even toy size might become the most significant prototype; history will answer these "significance" questions; we as "List" editors have no business deciding "significance" and if we do, we may become liable for inserting untenable influence over fair trade; such action could be very damaging to the growth of orgs and the industry itself. The AWE industry itself in interface with society will work out successes that end up in projects that then later in hindsight will be held with some significance quotient. Experts in the AWE-KiteEnergy have essayed already how it is far too early to know what will become the technology leader in the sector. Again, in dedicated articles, a timeline for an org can be set where the org's actions and steps and prototypes and products may be delineated as facts. Significance is a parameter that is a hot-potato wrought with challenges that WP policies guide us away from. In dedicated articles, it can be reference that some third party judges a way to be significant; but WP itself is not to determine significance; facts of note advance noteworthiness. WP is not about "truth" or "fortune-telling" or "crystal-ball" guessing/reading. A quiet prototype by one individual in this new AWE-KiteEnergy sector might one day prove to become singulary successful at answering earth's need for mining the upper winds. 68.126.251.10 (talk) 15:47, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Types of AWE-KiteEnergy organizations

Offers, so far, as found in the sector:

• Academic research center
• AWES-KiteEnergy pilot-training school
• Non-academia R&D company with aims to make deals when proof is adequate enough that technology is ready
• Manufacturer of the core lines used in AWE-KiteEnergy
• Manufacturer of sails, covers, and wings used in AWE-KiteEnergy
• Manufacturer of pumps used in AWE-KiteEnergy
• Manufacturer of electric generators used in AWE-KiteEnergy
• Sector publishers. These focus on communications for the nascent industry.
• Associations that have members with a common mission for the AWE-KiteEnergy sector
• Investment companies that are pointedly targeting the AWE-KiteEnergy sector
• Companies that do original research toward a goal of being original-AWES manufacturers
• Companies that specialize in software for the control of AWES flight operations and kite-energy farms or "kite farms".
• ? (pause) 68.126.251.10 (talk) 16:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Generation types

Those AWE-KiteEnergy orgs have focus on one or more or all types of generation-of-energy. Mine the upper winds' kinetic energy and use that mined energy in certain ways. Orgs have a narrow or broader focus. What are the systems generating? What are the orgs generating? Are they generating results in several categories or just one or a few?

• Generating electricity aloft and sending the electricity to ground stations by various means. The means of sending the electricity varies among the organizations. Some have focus on conductive tethers. Some focus on using the electricity aloft for special tasks. "flygen"
• Generating driven loops or lines to drive ground-based electric generators. "groundgen"
• Generating driven loops to drive ground-based water pumps. Pumping of air into storage caverns forms the focus of some. "ground-based pumping"
• Direct-tasks: These orgs focus on mining the wind's energy for use in performing specialized direct tasks. Among the tasks are pulling objects, hulls, ships, boats, people, plows, cargo: "traction" is a popular direct task: pulling hulls, people, cargo, carts, railed carts, etc. Other tasks involve the above generation sectors: direct electricity, compressed air, lifting water to reservoirs for energy storage.
• Generating skilled pilots to operate AWES-KiteEnergy systems.
• Generating software to be used in controlling the flight operations of an AWES-KiteEnergy system in units or in farm lots.
• Generating cooperative relationships among factions of the industry.
• Generating databases to support the growth of the industry. Publications. Archives.
• ? (pause)

68.126.251.10 (talk) 16:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC)