Joe F. showed us diagrams for an
easy way to translate flapping to rotation. The mechanism amounts to a
crankshaft, with optional flywheel. I see a Fred Flintstone/BC comics
version, on the header to this group, and it is a photo, not a
rendering. It's great when things are actually built. Even better if they are ever run!
I don't
see anything stopping anyone from connecting a flapping kite and
completing a working model. I would be happy to see it work out, way
better than anyone could imagine. If it is going to work well, it
should be straightforward to build and run one. The principle seems
straightforward enough to at least function...
But it is often
more exciting to NOT build and run something, if one anticipates that
the actual build will yield results less impressive than the hype. The
Chinese developed a flapping windmill about 1500 years ago but it didn't
catch on. So far, in the 3000-year known history of wind energy,
flapping has not found a useful role.
Happy End of 2013. Is AWE
"ahead" of where it was a year ago? Probably not, in the sense of a
year ago, lots of misguided efforts were still seen as "promising",
whereas, as time goes on, it becomes more and more apparent that
contraptions that "seem like they should produce some energy" are a far
cry from the minimalist efficiency, simplicity, and reliability required
to produce power economically.
Two
years ago, Manaki was only "a year away" from selling a useful
product. Today their effort appears to be gathering dust, "on the back
shelf" somewhere. Where is that product? Well, just remember the
well-worn cycle of hype, empty promises, culminating in "quietly going
away"... Has Makani quietly gone away... already?
Well, what do
you expect when the newcomers use terms like "crosswind" as though any
other way has ever worked, like a newbie surfer talking thinking he
invented "crosswave" travel, or a sailplane pilot promoting as a new
concept that they neither go straight up, nor straight down, but instead
travel "across" updrafts. Crosswind? No, really? Say it isn't so!
:) (Crosswind was already old news, and already the only way to do
wind, 1000 years ago! Wait, make that 2000 years ago, if you don't
count the Chinese flapper that never worked out)
Imagine some
idiot talking about his "breakthrough" concept for soaring, a "new"
concept of "cross-updraft travel" - you'd think he was some version of
insane, combined with being so poorly-informed that you would assume he
had never even HEARD of an actual sailplane.
You'd say the person has
no business even discussing the subject, right? A complete lack of
exposure to aviation, right? Like, in any other setting, they might
qualify for institutionalization, right? Such talk would indicate a
100% lack of knowledge of the field where such has been commonly known
and practiced for over a century! Yet, as I like to say "You can't
make this stuff up!" Talk about entertainment! (If you like clown
acts...) We in wind energy have noticed for years, in the mind of
newbie wind energy wannabe inventors, there ARE NO standards!
We're
still occasionally hearing the typical line "We have no interest in
small versions - for us, only large versions are worth testing" - this
gives a seemingly-plausible reason to continue fantasy hopes that
concepts and contraptions imagined by beginners to "revolutionize" wind
energy need never be built or tested at any scale, but instead rendered
and promoted ad nauseum, accompanied by nebulous "threats" that someday,
a very large one will actually be built and run, at which point the
world will be awed, and suddenly tarps pulling on strings will begin
outperforming airfoils traveling across the wind, but only at a
MegaWatt, utility-scale, never, never, NEVER at a household scale... A
small version would not be worthy of the level of genius of current AWE
armchair-enthusiasts and would-be tarp-reelers. Nope, they'd rather
have BIG failures than mess around with proving their pet theories at a
manageable scale.
The current era amounts to a "shakeout" period
where many versions of "the good professor", which includes most teams,
begin their inevitable process of "quietly going away". They don't
issue press releases explaining "hey you know that "great" idea we
promoted last year? We can't get it to work out! We're starting to
realize it sucks, actually! Wow, were we dumb!" Nope, they never say
that. You never read that on Gizmag.com. Do any of them ever say "Wind
energy was too much of an intellectual challenge for us to grasp, let
alone contribute to."? No. Never. They would never admit that. They
don't say much of anything. Truth is too boring for press-releases.
People aren't interested enough to even read truth. They crave fantasy
and overstated hype.
Do you see press-releases from Honeywell
saying "Well, we've definitely proven that we can't grasp wind energy,
but at least we can build thermostats and spacecraft"? Does NASA issue a
press-release saying "We spent X dollars to contribute absolutely
NOTHING to AWE"? Does Aerovironment issue a press-release saying "We no
longer offer our "breakthrough" rooftop-mounted turbine because they
make less power than promised, and then break."?
By
the way, and for the record, I tried to contact Makani for the entire
past year and they never answered their phone once, never answered an
e-mail, and never called back. Not that it matters... Wow, imagine how
your "progress" might accelerate if you were sponsored by a big-name web
company! So where is that useful product that was supposed to hit the
market a year or two ago, anyway? Bbbbut they said..." (?)
The Well-worn Professor Crackpot cycle of "new" ideas' road to ruin:
ignore what's known =
exclusive (stated) targeting of large scale provides the best
"graceful" exit for the professor - you never have to build anything
that works, at any scale.
"Lack
of a sufficient budget" can conveniently delay building an extra-large
prototype for years. Should sufficient funding emerge, when the
extra-large prototype fails, one can simply blame some extraneous factor
as though it was unforeseen and easily overcome if only there were any
money left, then claim poverty due to spending all their money, and give
up, with an "excuse".
This
goes all the way back to the first megawatt turbine on Grandpa's Knob
in Vermont, which actually DID produce its targeted power, but as a
first build, especially at such a scale, had issues that precluded
long-term operation. Another example is "the Wind Turbine Company" who
promoted the long-sought "downwind 2-bladed utility-scale turbine with
teetering hub", but ran out of money after a single large prototype
threw a blade.
I
remember wanting to emulate Michael Laine and his "Space Elevator"
concept, til I realized the talk could go on forever without any useful
product, though such a useful product seemed possible, even without
taking it all the way into space.
Same
thing with Moller's flying car - it has been "1 year way from
commercialization" for at least 30 years so far, that I can remember.
Why not even a mini- or ultralight-version by now? Not even an RC
model? Meanwhile, others are building electric multirotor craft similar
to the Moller concept, while the original effort remains in perpetual
stall mode. Some projects seem to avoid success, even when it is within
reach!
I hope for a 2014 that sees generation of economic power from the sky!
2015? 16?... OK how 'bout 2030?
:)
Doug S.
= 1000/1e-5 = 1e8 
