On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 12:35 PM, dave santos <santos137@yahoo.com Here are a few (dozen) other latin-based names for kites. Cool stuff:

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papalote

Dave

"kite" in various languages

Really? Are you sure?

You guys are a long way from having to worry about meeting any such standards, really. The standards come into play long after the R&D.
That will take place after the shakeout where lift-based systems utilizing cross-wind motion to generate power directly become dominant, just as it was with land-based systems. Then someone will have to get one to actually work and offer a potentially economical energy solution. Then actual products for sale will have to be developed. Then as you work the bugs out of your working system, seeing why the systems fail, and correcting whatever can be corrected with each failure, you will try to keep your early customers happy while slowly getting your system to the point where it can be certified for the rebates etc.
Worrying about meeting these standards now is like a kid with dreams of a lemonade stand that can't even make or sell a single glass of lemonade, worrying about taking their company public. Very premature.
Why pick one aspect of real wind energy to worry about and ignore all the rest? If you have a better mousetrap the standards can change over time to accomodate it. I've already had influence on the standards just to accomodate multi-rotors and if you check closely, you will find my name in the new "small wind" standard as a contributor. They do listen and take every turbine style into consideration when drafting the standards, if you go to the meetings and speak up. That is after you have something working that makes power for people.
:)
D.S.

Vertical Axis Wind Turbines and Rooftop Wind 'Technology Breakthroughs'  Windletter - March 2008  
By Mick Sagrillo      at the AWEA site.

Very excellent article. However, Mick missed the opportunity to note that there
are  opportunities for tethered-lifted VAWT; his excellent essay had tunnel vision
on ground-based explosion of VAWT "breakthroughs." 

 "AWEified" VAWT and HAWT have a potential to one day win Sagrillo's respect.

 

 

 

Doug, Thanks for the bug report, the corrected statement reads- "Tethered AWE normally requires suitable reels & winches to handle lines."  daveS PS Re: Imploding reels: This problem is solved by various means.  A compliant drum that shrinks to relieve tension. South Asian kite-fighting reels that carry some thousand feet or more of line are commonly made with limber bamboo drum that compresses. A cushiony backing wound on a reel to underlay the working line works well. A solid core or thick walled drum. Many working reels are suitably robust & won't implode under design loads. Low stretch line. Spectra is pretty good, then polyester, but nylon's stretch palpably builds  elastic force. Low tension storage off of a capstan. Exactly as Robert suggested, & capital cost can be reduced by allowing cheaper flimsier storage reels.

Doug, You wrote- "standards come into play long after the R&D." In safety-critical fields standards research & development is essential early R & D. We are already neck deep in FAA standards compliance. Airworthyness & AWEA certifications are also big marketing advantages, including attracting investment. Insurability is a major issue. It is definitely smart to design to the best safety, reliability, & performance standards from the start, not as an afterthought. We are engaged in Rapid AWE Development (RAD), so its now time to address standards. You maybe underestimated how fast AWE is developing. Criminal liability law for defective products in the state of California is another key standard to drive product design planning. Don't let these standards bite you by being too slow. davS

I think that the solid cores are hazardous with any line material. They would all go on with the same working strain, and not be able to relieve it except by crushing the underlying layers into hexagon sections. Nylon would just show the effect first.

Bob Stuart
my Mac is down -
Only my mother and this MF ISP call me Robert :-)

Dave S. and Group,
 
         Very good. That is what I've been try'n to get my cranium wrapped around, just how to have the rotary energy of the turbine match up parallel with the down loop. Center balance point of kite perpendicular to loop, hmmm. Reel world testing will catch this fish.
 
                                                                                                                       Dan'l

---

To: airbornewindenergy@yahoogroups.com
From: santos137@yahoo.com
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 19:15:36 -0800
Subject: [AWECS] Single-Line Rotary-Power Demonstration

 

This is certainly a very positive development . . . using a single kite and single line to drive a crank. Such wind power technology will certainly have application in many locations around the world.
 
 
Well Done,
 
Harry

 

---

To: airbornewindenergy@yahoogroups.com
From: santos137@yahoo.com
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 19:15:36 -0800
Subject: [AWECS] Single-Line Rotary-Power Demonstration

 

Thanks Harry,  While this concept is now proven by crude experiment & simple versions will work OK, perfection involves the usual "devils in the details"-

On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 11:01 AM, dave santos <santos137@yahoo.com You can use the (very) old method for aiming Dutch grain mills, using
a small turbine set -edge-on to the wind (rotates forward/backwards as
it seeks the eye of the wind)--which system typically includes a worm
drive on the turret so doesn't allow feedback.

Dave

Hi Dave S.:
I think you should re-word the statement to:
"My vision of a hypothetical future working AWE system requires suitable reels & winches to handle lines..."

maybe the modifier
"Some other proposed schemes for harnessing wind energy from higher heights than tower-mounted turbines also requires winches & reels to handle lines".

What I see is you trying to define AWE in general, as basically using your proposed system. All your talk about sharing IP etc. seems to only involve everyone somehow agreeing to develop your ideas, meanwhile you're not even to the stage of using propellers yet - still over 1000 years behind in the art of wind energy, which we all know started out using kite-like membrane sails, and then grew beyond that beginner literalist stage as knowledge of the true art increased.

Other methods than yours do not seem to receive adequate acknowledgement, other than your pronouncements that they cannot work, in the face of demonstrations in person that they do, even at a comparatively tiny scale.

(Remember the standard excuse in AWE: our "system" could only work at 5 miles height, and that is too high to build it, so,,,, you'll just have to take our word for it...)

Think of other turbine styles: They work at any scale. Same with most other machinery. A car can be made at a tiny scale for example. Same with airplanes. Imagine someone proposing a boat - but no, "it can only be built at the scale of an ocean liner or it will never work." Someone asks you to make a rowboat-sized model first, just to show that your concept is for real. What do you do? Call them names? Or build a rowboat? How about a bathtub-scale toy boat? The question is, if your overall concept of a boat works, it can be demonstrated at any scale. The basic principle could certainly be easily proven, if valid, with a small system.

If this "industry" ever turns out to have a single working model, and it does not involve reels or winches to gather the power, what will you say then?
:)
Doug Selsam
PS we use winches to raise towers, hoping they are strong enough to handle the stress and repeating cycles.

Dave S.
You will never have a working system that generates electricity if you think this way. As a named contributor to the standard in question, it is a million miles away from where you are at.
You can keep listing excuses for never having a working system of any type forever. Veterans like Mick Sagrillo can be overcome with a single working model. Yes I have some good answers with regard to VAWT turbines as well, and yes they are applicable to airbourne applications for sure. I have the requisite IP in place, so yes let's develop it!
Let's look at all the ideas proposed, and pick what works, and develop it. Good idea.
Thanks for wanting to find the answers, and thanks for finding me!
:)
Doug S.

Doug, This reel & winch info is very generic; the tether is a most basic & common AWE tool. Its mistaken to see in it the redefining of AWE to a narrow pet idea (like torsion-tubes). "Propeller" is a mistaken term for a driven turbine. Any power kite beats a solid turbine by weight to power & robustness, as needed for flight. Inability to see scaling potential from small model behavior & scaling laws is a common variant of the "useless baby" fallacy. These points have been well covered on this list but bear repeating if you missed them. daveS

 
 Looping kite cranking ground generator from single line:Payne, 1975.         ds in 2010 proving demonstration adds that the axis of the crank be pointing to the center of the kite's circle's center. AWECS M1080 by ds ForCoopIP

Doug, Its a harmful fallacy to assert that attention to safety-driven engineering standards means one can "never have a working system that generates electricity". To repeat for you, I have developed several such systems (small scale) that work nicely, while also understanding the value of proven standards.  How pathetic, in 2010, to continue to deny the many successful (but primitive) AWE prototypes. Did you review TUDelft's 10kw demo yet? daveS

In a glider, let idled propeller be a turbine to drive generator to charge batteries.  

   
Foundation for regenerative soaring and sustainable soaring?  
Foundation for tethering such aircraft in wind for use of airborne turbine for generating electricity aloft?

Patent number:  US Pat. 2368630    Filed: Jun 3, 1943     Issued: Feb 1945   Stanley BizJak

Payne and McCutcheon in 1975 cited Bizjak as they tethered turbines
to focus on scaling up the method of driving bladed turbines to generate
electricity aloft as one of their instructions.  Such functions and methods
are in public domain.  At HAWP Conference 2009, Makani Power put
forward such a method of aloft generation. Joby Energy also did similarly.
The Payne and McCutcheon "self-erecting" instructions seem to have
taught flying up, turning off, mine from wind's kinetic energy some
mechanical energy for one more step of converting some of the converted
energy to useful electricity.   These methods are in public domain.

 

 

 

 

Spelling correction:    Charles McCutchen

 

 
two other use of autogyro for AWECS operations by Payne and McCutchen, 1975

I've sat in with this group a few times in the past several years.
You won't find them at SWCC.org - someone else got the domain first.
They've been around since about when I first got seriously into building wind turbines in the first few years of the 21st century.
Years of meetings and something like a million dollars have been spent so far to hold meetings that basically rubber stamp the IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission) standards.

Having spent all that money, the group has no test facility of their own, and no plans that I know of to test turbines themselves. The head of the group has been Mike Bergey, the leading manufacturer of small wind turbine systems that actually work reliably (Bergey brand), as opposed to the hundreds of brands that will basically fail in the first strong wind.
I have to say that this group has taken many years to generate a small amount of progress. For many years they would keep saying they sought to develop a standard for small wind turbines, to keep the rebates from all being misappropriated for scam turbines, unproven turbines, or turbines known to fail. After several years of hearing this, I wondered if they would ever get their long-sought standard in place. The group has no official authority, and most states do not recognize the group's certification for their rebate programs at this time. Some leading manufacturers seek no involvement with the group, so the group is not universal, and not a government agency per se.

The people in the group are all nice people, and one can tell they feel dedication to their mission. They do listen to everyones' interests and they do not ignore anyone's opinion, so they are pretty fair-minded I would say.

The original stated reason for the rebates however was to be a temporary boost so the manufacturers could get production up into sufficient numbers that turbine prices could fall to a reasonable level.

Such a period of several years has already passed. Turbine prices are up, not down. Further, the cost of the turbine itself has proven to be a small fraction of the total cost of selling, planning, installing and maintaining a complete system, whether on grid, or off-grid with batteries, including repairs, which entails a crew showing up with a truck and tilting down a tower. The Bergey machines are one of the few that stand a reasonable chance of running trouble-free without constant attention & repair. Even the Bergeys have issues when placed in certain challenging wind resources.

To this day there is no small wind turbine system that really offers a guaranteed completely trouble-free experience and low-cost electricity for all users at all sites.

Just a little background.
Let's take it to the sky!
:)
Doug S.

Dave (Culp), Good idea, the Dutch windmill fantail worm device is a Baroque Age "Braitenburg Vehicle", (the simplest cybernetic feed-back device), Wind-Punk Robotics.  I have been overawed studying the many perfections of the Flemish/English windmill traditions. They evolved fine airfoil sectioned slotted helical pitch blades covered with a furlable single skin lignin-carbon nanofiber (linen) membrane over a lignin-carbon nanofiber composite (wood) skeleton. At end of lifecycle these turbines ended as non-toxic compost. The blade tips even had a touch of negative AoA, very advanced. Some have run for centuries. Modern turbines have yet to regain many of these virtues. These windmills created quality jobs & big fine houses for the lucky millers who lived in the tower. The noise was music; these folks slept like babies bathed in a sonic status-reporting lullaby. This is a good Dutch windmill info link- http://tinyurl.com/2xlv33 Note the ultra-cool archimedes-screw water turbine on the same tilted shaft as a wind turbine! Its essentially the 1990 "sailscrew" direct-into-the-wind sailing device. Done right, AWE will be even cooler... ds PS Thanks JoeF for posting Payne patent drawing. --- On Sat, 2/6/10, Dave Culp <dave@kiteship.com wrote:

Dave S.
            Some great stuff there, way back when is back again, reality doesn't circle but it does spiral! Thanks for the great link.
 
                                                                                                            bookmarked, Dan'l
 

---

To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
From: santos137@yahoo.com
Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 11:17:45 -0800
Subject: Re: [AWECS] Single-Line Rotary-Power Demonstration

 

Free-flight AWECS (FF-AWECS) of the double-kite sort have some foundations.
Here is one from author James Means in his self-notes about a
a line break and the dynamic self-regulation of a kite systems
with an opposing lower-end kite, in this case--a very special sort
of lower kite: a draggy long string that was interacting with the air.
The lower draggy string kite had its own lift and drift, its own mooring
(the upper kite was the mooring for the lower string-kite; and the lower-string
kite was the mooring for the upper kite).   The lower string-kite consisted merely
of string.  The lower string-kite had its own airs different from the airs of the upper
kite.  The dynamic kiting dual-kite system became a means of traveling long
distance over the heads of structures, water bodies, people, animals, crops.

In today's meditation, one might think about smart logical control of the shape
of portions of the lower string-kite at segments in particular airs in order to
feed control changes of drag to the lower-kite in order to maintain the dynamic
soaring travel of the system.

 

From The Aeronautical Annual, 1896,
Devoted to the advancement of the neglected scienc, edited by James Means.

Safety note: Before releasing such a system, be sure to get clearance from
airspace governance.   Consider smart controls for the upper kite, lower kite,
and perhaps the coupling line shaping. If manned, consider wind strata,
system-defunctioning methods, parachutes, airspace permissions, protection
from the cold, keeping the lower kite flying above obstacles and wires, etc.
Extensive practice and modelling proabably would be a good thing.

Following FF-AWE travel is an AWE sector where the system actually mimes
the winds' energies in order to have excess gains of mechanical energy that
could be converted to rays or electricity for use aloft or sent to other
aircraft or ground receivers.   

In one classification system for AWECS,  FF-AWECS forms the tenth scale,
potentially materialized in the very small on up through large sizes.
The coupled two-kite types are just one of several sorts of FF-AWE.

 

 

 

Dear Dave S.:
I googled TUDelft 10 kW and could not find the demo to which you refer. Do you by chance have a link?
Also I would love to see videos of the working systems you have developed, including instruments showing output.
Thanks
:)
Doug S.

Jim, thanks for the SWCC post. We are very excited to be 'open for business'!

Doug, you seem to have SWCC and AWEA mixed together. The two groups are not associated.

AWEA - They produced the new AWEA Standard.

SWCC - New certification body that certifies small wind turbines to the new AWEA Standard.

On this point: most states do not recognize the group's certification for their rebate programs at this time.

We are seeing Certification to the new AWEA Standard being added as a new pathway to program eligibility in several key states...stay tuned, things are changing fast now that the AWEA Standard is out and SWCC is accepting applications.

Thanks,

Brent Summerville PE
Technical Director
Small Wind Certification Council (SWCC)
www.smallwindcertification.org

By any suitable means, lift the multi-rotors along the 1938 instructions
by Rome, Italy, instructor Alessandro Beldimano. 

http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=PKBeAAAAEBAJ

Joe: Great job collating these various references. Beldimano was a visionary and I am surprised his simple ideas were never pursued. He was joined by others such as Heronemus the naval engineer (Windship) who proposed side-by-side mounting of many separate, complete small turbines including generators. Advantages include lower blade mass per Watt and high RPM eliminating the gearbox. Disadvantages include many moving parts and small generators being less efficient and more costly per watt. Also, ducted turbines have proven to use excessive material for the duct, rendering them economically inadvisable.

Link to Heronemus Windship:
http://www.phoenixprojectfoundation.us/uploads/Phoenix_Project_Paper.pdf

My contribution to the multi-rotor concept was:
1) To reduce the entire array to a single moving part;
2) To use that same single rotating component (driveshaft) to support all the rotors.

I've talked at length with Harry Braun, former presidential candidate who runs the Phoenix Project that promotes the WIndship as a solution to our energy woes. You might note that Windship falls into the trap of combining two new technologies (multiple rotors and onboard hydrogen production as fuel) which is problematic since it complicates development of the wind turbine by diverting and diluting resources to developing multiple new concepts simultaneously, any of which might spoil the rest. My opinion is develop the turbine first and stay focused on a more narrow and achievable task.

Harry is on board conceptually with Superturbine(R) technology as an improvement over the original Windship concept, and we have both aired our views live on the Coast-to-Coast AM radio nighttime show, syndicated on 500 stations.

Later
Doug Selsam
http://www.selsam.com

The fly-gen     generator part   receiving special attention:
http://wstiac.alionscience.com/pdf/AQV4N1_ART06.pdf

Getting power generated per pound or kg  seems to be a target of the US Air Force.
Such advancing may well play into the plans of those in AWECS that intend to
have fly-gens or FEGs in high-end utility scale gen-aloft AWE 
It seems that the advances on the airborne generators
are arriving from down-sizing cryro-coolers and in advances in
high-temperature superconducting wires.

Personal Powered Ascender (PPA)

Perhaps PPA is a product that might be used in getting professional maintenance workers around tethers in AWECS.

Maintenance on Ever-Up AWECS may well use his battery-powered PPA.

Once using wind energy to raise a hang glider, perhaps ascend the tether or auxiliary line via PPA.

Consider charging those batteries with some of the energy gained from the AWECS.

One such product is the PowerQuick Ascender    http://www.powerquickinc.com/

A PPA is not the only way to get around the lofted lines in AWECS.  But it is one way.

Does this branch hold items for some of us:

Twind®
http://www.twind.eu/
See their links
AND
their 10 page PDF document. 
Increased interest in a single tether is shown .
Their calculations might be discussed.
Their refreshed approach past the double-ended first offer
is a single tether yo-yo varidrogue lifted with ellipsoidal aerostat.

Analysis is invited. 
What will occur in their first draft during heavy winds with that egg-shaped aerostat; my bet is they will tend to go for a severely lifting kytoon.

Since TU Delft has mixed their presentations on "laddermill" in such a way that a single kite and even simple trains as well as carousel have come under that term, we see TWIND reflecting the perhaps confusing arrangement of a  set of rung kites perhaps in endless loop drive or yo-yo cycles too.

JoeF

the AWE Sector file:
http://www.energykitesystems.net/0/Twind/index.html

"Twind technology is reliable, low costs and high power yield better than the traditional wind turbines. Twind technology can compete in terms of cost per kWh, with the conventional power plants"

mmmm hmmmm..... ;) (Wow they need work on their grammar too)

Could you imagine any of these bozos waiting until they have SHOWN higher power yield and lower costs than the status quo before making the CLAIM?
You can basically interchange the lies of any of these companies for the lies of any of the rest - they all act like they have a solid solution in hand, while they pay their electric bills like everyone else without working turbines, with nothing in the air at all, but more likely sitting in a warehouse somewhere, or it is only on paper.
lies lies lies yeah......
OK let us know when your first kWh goes into the grid TWind.
D.S.

Hello,

I want to introduce myself to the list:

I am studying electrical engineering at "Fernuniversität Hagen" in Germany. I work
at the university of applied science in Kiel.

I have good knowledge in:

- power electronics
- control engineering
- computational fluid dynamics (CFD)
- simulation of electrical and thermal systems with matlab and simulink
- development of safety critical realtime control systems
- renewable energies

I applied for a PhD job at TU Delft and will - hopefully - develop a kite control
system there within the next four years.

Best regards:

Uwe Fechner

(heavy snow outside in Kiel (northern Germany))

There are many reasons claims like Twind's can seem unjustified-

Dave S,


"may better reflect the source." Simply brilliant, teeee heeeee.
Dan'l

Application number: 11/259,269
Publication number: US 2006/0033340 A1
Filing date: Oct 27, 2005
Issued patent: 7210896 (Issue date May 1, 2007)

Wind energy device

 Norbert L. Osborn

Patent number: 5484257
Filing date: Feb 6, 1995
Issue date: Jan 16, 1996

 

New folder open for your CoopIP articles at any level of scholarship and for any level of visiting reader from newbie middle school exploring student to advanced scientist or expert engineer:

CoopIP

Short or long articles meant for cooperative intellectual property for AWE matters can be sent to

coopip@airbornewindenergy.com   for moderated publication.  We will add hyperlinks and do some editing; you may participate in furthering the same inputs on the dedicated pages in open-to-public pages.

 

One choice of the "any kind" of "aerial craft" certainly embraces the aircraft type called kite, kytoon, shaped-lifting aerostat, as well as blimps, and other aircraft.  The two guys understood that their explorations would be happy working in aerial craft.

Hi SpiralAirFoil (Sideways DaVinci Helicopter)
and Hi Dave S. (Forever "getting ready to get ready")
Guys: It is apparent to me that because you see no true path of hope for your own cited apparatus, you'd rather go "tee hee" about what real wind energy people say when they see the same thing they've seen for years: People introducing drag-based reciprocating turbine designs, claiming superiority over the status-quo, based on their own ignorance and nothing else. Certainly it is not based on working turbines. (Anyone can make any claim they want about what only exists on paper.)

And like silly teenagers when the parents come home unexpectedly, your reaction to observations of reality is silly giggling, as though you have one last gasp of credibility by making a snide comment or two, perhaps demonstrating a dubious display of intellect by having any sort of comeback at all. How many times in the past 10 years do you think we in wind energy have heard these same claims?

Let me re-iterate:
We have seen it all before, heard all the claims before.
They are redundant redundant redundant.
They are boilerplate boilerplate boilerplate.
They are cookie-cutter cookie-cutter cookie-cutter
They are predictable predictable predictable
They are inaccurate inaccurate inaccurate
They are 100% unfounded 100% unfounded 100% unfounded
They are hyperbolic claims entirely without factual basis,
with nothing to stand behind them nor verify them in any way.
If that is how you want to conduct your scientific/intellectual life, that is your choice.

All I've been doing is trying to give some fellow "curious" and "intellectually-engaged" people a "heads-up" from the actual world of wind energy, which has been the fastest-growing segment of the largest (actual) industry in the world (energy) for 30 years straight. That is me handing you value for free.

That people continuously place their innocent newbie designs that demonstrate a deep ignorance of all that has come before them in this real and actual industry, repeatedly placing their fantasy constructions up against what has been shown to actually work - contraptions that could never make significant power nor survive strong winds, and repeatedly state all of the (unknown to them) 100%-symptomatic and highly repetitive claims of superiority of their technology, demonstates their own symptomatic ignorance of reality, combined with an unfounded conviction of the superiority of what is mere fantasy, not progress.
Anyway, if there is one thing I should learn in this world, it is that some people will always be resistant to facts, and that spending too much time trying to change their minds is futile, so I will stop now.
Have fun everyone!
Thanks for listening.
:)
D.S.