Selsam industries

Our local AWE folder:

http://www.energykitesystems.net/0/Selsam/index.html

LTA lifter of torque shaft driven by a set of gyrokiting blades; 

some blades are positive gyrokiting; some blades are negative gyrokiting. 

Almost never would a blade in the gyrokite train be giving neutral gyrokiting. 

The torqued shaft drives the ground-station generator. 

With ever-up lifter, one might sense a high "let it be hands-off"  quotient. 

The LTA lifter could be replaced with a HTA lifter system of single element or 

multiple elements itself; or the upper hook could be the top of a mountain or building. 

Tiny systems. Large systems.     Discussions in forum may be reached by tags of 

serpent, superturbine [registered trademark in our field], DougS, Selsam. 

Note posted to GE general inquiry: 

"Now that GE is looking into fabric blades for conventional towered wind-energy turbines, it is hoped that GE will fully explore the potentials of airborne wind energy/kite-energy.  The potentials of energy gains from upper winds are greater than what the ground-hugging towers being used mostly today can achieve."

Have an idea for GE?  That have an idea-submission process; they follow a policy: 

http://www.ge.com/contact/submitted-ideas/index

Ever. Yes. 

============================== 

Gyro Hang Glider Tow

This is indeed an amazing resource thanks Joe and Dave - cheers Mark

"Superior power-densities in AWE are too often erroneously claimed for rigid-wings, crosswind motion, and/or high sweep velocities."

I agree. The ratio power/span or mass does not take account of swept area which is not optimized, so of land and airspace used. As for conventional wind turbine Betz'ratio should be indicated, agreeing that its importance descreases when implementations are farer offshore.Two values of Betz' ratio can be used: concerning swept area face to wind, and swept volume, AWE being in 3 dimensions.

"In fact, all AWES in the same wind field experience the same power-density, since wind unit-volume is the power-density constant, no matter if the AWES is "crosswind" or not." OK. So for a same land/airspace area a drag system could be more efficient _ perhaps 10% of Betz'limit on swept area for an umbrella-like with little area during recovering phase, perhaps 0% for an oscillating system (like a flag) working alternately upwind and downwind _ than a crosswind wing _ perhaps only 3% or less for a single system, better in farms: a rigid wing must travel more space to fly correctly and avoid higher structural strengths due to higher centrifugal force with lower radius of paths; and a soft wing is less efficient. But covering all the swept area with fabric is expensive due to the low time-life and the great quantity of fabric; adding the low expected output, in case of output.

The most promising scheme is of type stationary gyro-helico-kite like SWP but not under its actual forms: better swept area, better stability, less expected stress, better Betz'ratio. Serpentine can be perhaps good as semi-rigid, but not as tethered.

PierreB

Will any of the electric aircraft companies gain by recharging their batteries using AWE kitricity credits? Who will be the first to fly 100 km with kitricity?  500 km? 1000 km? There will be first. The race is on.

Volume of ______________________. 

                                ?

Each choice changes the analysis.

DaveS,

Power-density can be reached by a scalable configuration of autogyro-mode like Dr.Beaujean's AWES, but in feasible building.

PierreB

Hi Joe,

Volume is the half on a sphere where tether's length _ or the distance between the point between the two anchors and arch's top _ is the radius.
Worked area can be the travelled area, and the swept area the utile part of travelled area,according to specificities of wing used.

PierreB 

DaveS, 

       Is PierreB's "volume" identical to the "volumes" you use in the discussion?

~ JoeF

Indeed, 

as this quote from Lorenzo Chiesura indicates: 

"The variable is the choice of reference-frame in which the unit-volume constant if fixed". Here is the problem! On the precedent post I try to define volume used for tethered AWES or an arch by taking account of all directions of wind. But if only one direction of wind is used, volume used will be far less and defined by the shape of the arch (or another fixed system).

PierreB 

So, we have the http://www.energykitesystems.net/CoopIP/SelfLiftingTethers.html   to join.

Great.

And from your DaveS archive:

Archive is part of the history of "flying rope"   KiteMotor IV Soft Ladder-Mill  

n-pede

with n a positive integer.

monopede:   1-pede   (most common historically)

bipede       2-pede      (control lines?  arches of two anchors?)

tripede     3-pede       (three-line control?  Tag-line in bipeded main system?

quadpede   4-pede    (Wright Brothers control kite?  Revolution?  Arch with TE arch load line along with master load line? )

pentapede   5-pede 

...

centipede

...

129-pede dome kite?

Some updates posted, but more news is invited: 

http://energykitesystems.net/SAAB/index.html

I am not yet clear on relationships with SAAB and Minesto or even third parties

on some of the IP. 

Yes. 

http://www.energykitesystems.net/CoopIP/StringVariloopAWES.html

Old net page apparentlgy gone. 

Following is replacement link

Foshan to Build China 1st High-altitude Wind Power Project

I spent a couple minutes looking at this. My take is: More typical clean-energy lies, typical of the "Professor Crackpot" syndrome.  Of course it will make 100 MW, but somehow 100 kW remains "impossible" - completely out of reach.  Reminds me of Mothra - forget making small amounts of power.  That's irrelevant.  As we know, citing ridiculously high power for prototypes forms an instant excuse whey nothing ever happens: "We need millions of dollars!"  Yup, it's a definite syndrome.   How many times can people read the same nonsense and keep believing it?

Lie # 1:

the to-be-built project will form an annual power generation capacity of 100MW or so.  (looks at watch... "M'kayyyyy, any second now...)

Lie #2:

Compared with the fossil fuel and common low-altitude wind power projects, it is much lower in terms of both the construction and power generation costs.

Lie #3:

After the construction, the power generation here will be cost at CNY 0.22 per kilowatt-hours (KWH), compared with the province's average, CNY 0.36.