Messages in AirborneWindEnergy group.                           AWES11787to11836 Page 132 of 440.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11787 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/1/2014
Subject: Re: Design of rotors lofted in kite-energy systems

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11788 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/1/2014
Subject: Peter Olaf BROBERG; and Karl Alex Krister KARLING. WO1980001705

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11789 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/2/2014
Subject: Circa 1979. France. By Marc J. DEMOURY. FR2455685

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11790 From: dave santos Date: 3/2/2014
Subject: Joe Faust's Latest Patent Research

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11791 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/2/2014
Subject: EOLIENNE FLOTTANTE by Jean GUERIN. Circa 1980. France.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11792 From: Rod Read Date: 3/2/2014
Subject: Subliminal AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11793 From: dave santos Date: 3/2/2014
Subject: Current kPower Experiments in Ilwaco (KiteLab and SkyMasters)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11794 From: Rod Read Date: 3/2/2014
Subject: requested lifter and pipes set drawing

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11795 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 3/2/2014
Subject: re: [AWES] EOLIENNE FLOTTANTE by Jean GUERIN.   Circa 1980.   Fran

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11796 From: Gabor Dobos Date: 3/2/2014
Subject: Re: DaveS and DougS on Open Forum [1 Attachment]

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11797 From: dave santos Date: 3/2/2014
Subject: LiDAR for Imaging Kite-Farms in Real-Time

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11798 From: dave santos Date: 3/2/2014
Subject: Autonomous UAS Tutorial

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11799 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/2/2014
Subject: Circa 1935: Aloys Van Gries

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11800 From: Rod Read Date: 3/3/2014
Subject: Mothra two stroke power out

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11801 From: Rod Read Date: 3/3/2014
Subject: clamshell mix lift and spin kites

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11802 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/3/2014
Subject: Re: clamshell mix lift and spin kites

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11803 From: dougselsam Date: 3/3/2014
Subject: Re: DaveS and DougS on Open Forum [1 Attachment]

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11804 From: dougselsam Date: 3/3/2014
Subject: Re: Peter Olaf BROBERG; and Karl Alex Krister KARLING. WO1980001705

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11805 From: dave santos Date: 3/3/2014
Subject: Re: DaveS and DougS on Open Forum

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11806 From: dave santos Date: 3/3/2014
Subject: Re: Mothra two stroke power out

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11807 From: dave santos Date: 3/3/2014
Subject: Re: Peter Olaf BROBERG; and Karl Alex Krister KARLING. WO1980001705

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11808 From: dougselsam Date: 3/3/2014
Subject: Re: DaveS and DougS on Open Forum

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11809 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 3/3/2014
Subject: Re: DaveS and DougS on Open Forum

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11810 From: dave santos Date: 3/3/2014
Subject: Re: DaveS and DougS on Open Forum

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11811 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/3/2014
Subject: A collection page

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11812 From: dougselsam Date: 3/4/2014
Subject: Re: Peter Olaf BROBERG; and Karl Alex Krister KARLING. WO1980001705

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11813 From: dougselsam Date: 3/4/2014
Subject: Re: DaveS and DougS on Open Forum

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11814 From: dougselsam Date: 3/4/2014
Subject: Gabor's autonomous jet-stream sailplane is here

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11815 From: dougselsam Date: 3/4/2014
Subject: laddermill in a box

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11816 From: dave santos Date: 3/4/2014
Subject: Peter Lynn moves into Single-Skin Pilot-Lifter Kites

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11817 From: dave santos Date: 3/4/2014
Subject: Fort Felker's 2010 Challenge (aviation for five dollars a pound)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11818 From: dave santos Date: 3/4/2014
Subject: Re: Gabor's autonomous jet-stream sailplane is here

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11819 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/4/2014
Subject: Re: Peter Lynn moves into Single-Skin Pilot-Lifter Kites

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11820 From: dave santos Date: 3/4/2014
Subject: Re: laddermill in a box

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11821 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 3/4/2014
Subject: Re: Fort Felker's 2010 Challenge (aviation for five dollars a pound)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11822 From: dave santos Date: 3/4/2014
Subject: Oberth's AWES Documentation Found

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11823 From: dave santos Date: 3/4/2014
Subject: Re: Fort Felker's 2010 Challenge (aviation for five dollars a pound)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11824 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/4/2014
Subject: Re: Oberth's AWES Documentation Found

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11825 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/4/2014
Subject: Re: Oberth's AWES Documentation Found

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11826 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/4/2014
Subject: Re: Oberth's AWES Documentation Found

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11827 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/4/2014
Subject: Re: Oberth's AWES Documentation Found

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11828 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 3/4/2014
Subject: Re: Fort Felker's 2010 Challenge (aviation for five dollars a pound)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11829 From: Rod Read Date: 3/5/2014
Subject: Re: Mothra two stroke power out

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11830 From: Rod Read Date: 3/5/2014
Subject: Re: Mothra two stroke power out

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11831 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/5/2014
Subject: Re: Fort Felker's 2010 Challenge (aviation for five dollars a pound)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11832 From: dougselsam Date: 3/5/2014
Subject: Enhanced winds from a Mothra arch kite

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11833 From: dave santos Date: 3/5/2014
Subject: Re: Fort Felker's 2010 Challenge (aviation for five dollars a pound)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11834 From: dave santos Date: 3/5/2014
Subject: Re: Enhanced winds from a Mothra arch kite

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11835 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 3/5/2014
Subject: Re: Fort Felker's 2010 Challenge (aviation for five dollars a pound)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11836 From: dave santos Date: 3/5/2014
Subject: Re: Fort Felker's 2010 Challenge (aviation for five dollars a pound)



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11787 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/1/2014
Subject: Re: Design of rotors lofted in kite-energy systems
Doug, there is some early competition on the loop deal. See post to be made momentarily regarding 
 Peter Olaf BROBERG; and Karl Alex Krister KARLING, which I will put in a topic thread on its own. 

~ JoeF
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11788 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/1/2014
Subject: Peter Olaf BROBERG; and Karl Alex Krister KARLING. WO1980001705
Our trace page: http://www.energykitesystems.net/KitePatents/WO1980001705.html

WO1980001705  
Priority date: Feb. 13, 1979
Energy System
Inventors: Peter Olaf BROBERG; and Karl Alex Krister KARLING 
both of Sweden

https://www.google.com/patents/WO1980001705A1

Comments:

  • It seems that a sense of the 1977 Selsam tramway or laddermill  is visited within the instruction.
  • It seems that the twin wing push-pull method using one through rope is understood.
  • It seems that groundgen with rope transmission is rehearsed.
  • Notice that McCutchen and Payne had already filed for claims in 1975.
  • Notice that Miles Loyd's paper on crosswind kiting would come after the Broberg priority date. Those skilled in the arts had in toolkit that aerodynamic pressures would increase in moving wings traverse to the stream (foundation of boat sailing and conventional rotor-wind energy production.)     Notice that the inventors are fully aware of the special higher apparent winds when the wings are moving.
  • The text is shy of the word "kite" and uses "aerostat" for both LTA and HTA kited wings to give the buoyancy needed for the processes described.
  • "take-off of power" refers to mining some of the energy of the system for a conversion-of-energy process.
  • We do not yet have the timeline history of "conception" by the two inventors for their ideas.

Term attention: The inventors use "aerostatic" to include HTA wings, not just LTA aerostats.

.

They cited two patents:
  1. FR1050562 by Marcel CHABONAT     Title:  Installation pour l'utilisation de l'énergie du vent
  2. Willi Zeidler for DE437003
Loop embodiment with recognition that the down-going wings may be controlled to have "high extent" "negative" "buoyant force to do positive work for the purpose of the AWES.
See full text for mention of many embodiments.  https://www.google.com/patents/WO1980001705A1
Discuss this in AirborneWindEnergy public forum.


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11789 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/2/2014
Subject: Circa 1979. France. By Marc J. DEMOURY. FR2455685
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11790 From: dave santos Date: 3/2/2014
Subject: Joe Faust's Latest Patent Research
What an amazing trove of old EU AWE patents Joe has lately uncovered. We find the same basic AWES ideas again and again, with earlier versions seeming to emerge in endless mirrored regression as AWE's Joe-the-Hero delves solo deep into "lost" IP.

The Forum was created to document and share new AWES concepts before patent trolls could create monopolies. Now we confirm that Prior Art in the form of hundreds of expired patents is what really insures AWE will be open-technology (SaulG even concluded that there was too much prior art to make new AWE patents worthwhile, so he stopped filing, even with plenty of money to continue).

One can even see the seeds of emerging dominant AWES architectures, of highly scalable crosswind arrays capable of changing the world. Please don't spend your "life's savings" on AWE patents, since there is hardly a case where any true AWE inventor ever made a penny on patents. Money is far better spent keeping yourself solvent, and building your domain skills, as the field finally blossoms.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11791 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/2/2014
Subject: EOLIENNE FLOTTANTE by Jean GUERIN. Circa 1980. France.

FR2475148  by Jean GUERIN.            
EOLIENNE FLOTTANTE
Apparently filed: Feb. 6, 1980

[[We seek better-than-machine translations of various AWE patents. There are "gems" in the text of the documents; the drawings do not contain many of the treasures to be found in the text.]]

Our trace file on Jens GUERIN's patent: 

http://www.energykitesystems.net/KitePatents/FR2475148.html
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11792 From: Rod Read Date: 3/2/2014
Subject: Subliminal AWE

GROSSWINDKRAFTWERK

Not only a great looking patent.
That's such a great title from the recent Joe F EU patent finds.

Made me think, From nearly the same era Kraftwerk released "We are the robots"

What works the other way? Do you have a tracklist of songs which inspire your AWE?

I have this list on Spotify which I'd play at an AWE event to suggest AWE value

http://open.spotify.com/user/rodread/playlist/5cJFsqd0KZjAoqYTTJLV2H

Roderick Read
15a Aiginish
Isle of Lewis
HS2 0PB
kitepowercoop.org
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11793 From: dave santos Date: 3/2/2014
Subject: Current kPower Experiments in Ilwaco (KiteLab and SkyMasters)
KiteLab Ilwaco is currently testing an AWES consisting of a 1.2m2 Prism Snapshot Parafoil looping under a 2m2 SkyDog Sled. On Friday we flew the latest rig for a half-hour, to confirm basic operation; with nice 1m power-strokes at the PTO. We tightened the looping as intended, and never once scraped bottom. Since the wind was barely enough to fly (~8 mph), we did not load the PTO (except for its low retract-force)*. Both kites where COTS wings from our partner, Wind World (Ron Welty). Jerry Agee, of Ilwaco SkyMasters, assisted and witnessed.

We were pleased that the system recovered from intermittent turbulence (mostly due to low test-altitude) in every instance. Overall, the composite AWES flies like a normal kite, shrugging-off upset routinely. We are completely convinced of the basic robustness of passive autonomous AWES, especially compared to total dependence on complex active flight automation.

Master Kitemaker, Penny Jameson, also of Ilwaco SkyMasters, has been working on a variety of kPower experiments. She is working on FAA conspicuity markers. We successfully flight tested a new version that is not a highly tapered " windsock" drogue, but a fat barely tapered tube, for very low drag. The next step is to add slow-rotation as a feature, so the tube can flash red and white, by a longitudinal bi-color design (CC 3.0). We estimate 0);font-size:13.63636302947998px;font-family:HelveticaNeue, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, 'Lucida Grande', sans-serif;background-color:transparent;font-style:normal;">
Our circle of local kite freaks plans to aggregate all our lifters in a spider-like network to test aerotecture concepts. I bought 1200ft of 5000lb test crabline for 90 USD, to make the redundant-leg rope infra-structure to host the odd assortment of large kites. Mothra's sand anchors will hold the configuration in place. If all looks good, we intend to fly ourselves ever so carefully, with multiple safety measures (Penny has in fact already been flown up by giant kites; accidentally).

In three more weeks, the kPower R&D action will shift back to the 3rd Texas AWE Encampment.


* The general rule is that if an AWES works well, albeit weakly, in minimal wind, then in high wind, the monster power is there.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11794 From: Rod Read Date: 3/2/2014
Subject: requested lifter and pipes set drawing
cc3.0 nc by sa

Rod Read

Windswept and Interesting Limited
15a Aiginis
Isle of Lewis
HS2 0PB

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11795 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 3/2/2014
Subject: re: [AWES] EOLIENNE FLOTTANTE by Jean GUERIN.   Circa 1980.   Fran

ABSTRACT FR2475148:THE INVENTION RELATES TO A STRONGER WIND TURBINE AND POWERFUL THAN A SCREW. 
This patent describes a reel-in/out AWES.

 

PierreB
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11796 From: Gabor Dobos Date: 3/2/2014
Subject: Re: DaveS and DougS on Open Forum [1 Attachment]

Dear Dave,

Thank you for your kind help in improving my English. Sadly, sometimes I don't  correctly feel the nuances of English.

However I hope, everybody has understood the essence of my post to Doug regarding ethical questions. Namely,   his critique in most cases may not be authentic because of his obvious ignorance. The problem is that though for an expert his ignorance is trivial, a layman may not know who is right. It is really a great problem, since in an open forum there is no "Deus ex machina" telling what's what.

Not only Professors, but as well as other experts would do well to keep away from people like him. Of course, everybody can make errors. That is why scientific papers are corrected in a systematic procedure. I think, it is no problem in an open forum if somebody try to detect wrong statements. But it is a great problem if this self-made "judge" considers himself to be the  "word of God". Probably, in that irregular but almost every days case a board of renowned experts ought to  correct Dougs and others errors.

cheers,

Gabor
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11797 From: dave santos Date: 3/2/2014
Subject: LiDAR for Imaging Kite-Farms in Real-Time
Scanning LiDAR is emerging as an ideal sensor for monitoring entire kite farms aloft. Its able to pick out thin polymer lines and multiple layers of membranes invisible to radar. Sunlight immunity is well developed (except for a small blind-spot of the sun itself). The cheap processing power required for economic real-time operation is now available. A 1000m range is quite workable. The near-infrared wavelength avoids radar-interference and eye-safety issues. Power requirements are low. Prices are dropping fast.

The Austin Robot Group (Brooks and I helped co-found) got its hands on an early 3D LiDAR, with a scanning ruby-laser (borrowed from Motorola Austin), around 1990. We also played with scanning sonar, using these advanced sensors to experiment with high-level behaviors (flight-control neural-net training) for indoor flying robots that far predate Festo's comparable flyers. Paul MacCready was just a little too premature with his pioneering SODAR/LiDAR aviation work, in the early to mid- 80s, but we were all on the same critical path. AWE R&D teams currently developing videogrammetry for AWES can look forward to processing the synthetic video output of LiDAR, with enhanced performance (LiDAR is inherently 3D range data better than video stereo-pair range-finding).

Now we are entering a Golden Age of available quasi-magical technology. A single LiDAR system (with back-up) can in principle replace a multitude of individual AWES unit sensor-processor suites. There are many sources of LiDAR information now. This is just a representative intro link, with LiDAR imaging of utility-cables shown (as a similarity case to kite lines)-
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11798 From: dave santos Date: 3/2/2014
Subject: Autonomous UAS Tutorial

A wonderful window into artificial intelligence as applied to flight agents, with obvious implications for future AWES, by a typical Professor RockStar-
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11799 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/2/2014
Subject: Circa 1935: Aloys Van Gries
See our tracing file that holds our PDFs linked for convenience. 
[ ] Yet to decide: Does the Germany entry in 1935 hold the same mechanical content as the Great Britain patent text?    Anyone?  http://www.energykitesystems.net/AloysVanGries/index.html

Thanks to DaveS for the synergistic nudge to get both patents up for us all. 

~ JoeF
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11800 From: Rod Read Date: 3/3/2014
Subject: Mothra two stroke power out
The Open IP AWE group already have a huge controllable weathercocking lift kite and a dual stroke direction power generation system tested.

We have described many logical power tapping methods of the lift kite.
With large kites simple control options become interesting
A slight twist on the existing descriptions (we may have briefly said it before?..)
is to site the dual stroke input generator directly at the ground midpoint of where the lift kite feet connect by block and tackle to their belay set. A single rope out from the block and tackle runs through the dual stroke generator and into the block and tackle on the other foot.

As one foot lifts the other drops.

A deforming pull steering input control signal to the kite is magnified on the output foot tether line.

A bit like a transistor with the air as the supply voltage

cc3.0 nc by sa

Rod Read

Windswept and Interesting Limited
15a Aiginis
Isle of Lewis
HS2 0PB

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11801 From: Rod Read Date: 3/3/2014
Subject: clamshell mix lift and spin kites
a nicer looking mix of spin and lift

http://youtu.be/_rEboTZQqmc

A large lift kite, free to weathercock
hoisting a set of spinning tension lines

Rod Read

Windswept and Interesting Limited
15a Aiginis
Isle of Lewis
HS2 0PB

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11802 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/3/2014
Subject: Re: clamshell mix lift and spin kites
Nice!  
To assure relaunch and keeping of the LE up during gust-down events, a capture of upper wind via aggregate lift of train helper might rein the LE upwardly. Keep the horse in check for special events.

~ JoeF
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11803 From: dougselsam Date: 3/3/2014
Subject: Re: DaveS and DougS on Open Forum [1 Attachment]
Hey Gabor:
What we in wind energy have seen over the years is people come along with complicated scenarios in an attempt to solve simple problems.  The complicated scenarios usually contain many levels of ignorance, so many that one could spend all day discussing them to death.  If we are gullible enough to engage the person proposing the complicated scenarios in any sort of discussion, their "effort" (in their mind) becomes de-legitimizing the person who would dare actually analyze their proposeds cenario in any way other than simply agreeing that it is a huge breakthrough.  They submit their ideas for discussion, but if the results do not come back in agreement, they can't take it and must personally attack the person questioning their scenario.  They begin to think that the person questioning their proposed scenario IS the problem.  They forget ever trying to build what they said would work so well, and are diverted into thinking that "debating" the person who brought them the bad news will somehow "solve" the problem.
Take Dave S. as a typical example: He attaches some tarps from Harbor Freight together and calls it a newname and declares it a new answer for wind energy.  Nevermind that he is not even specific about how it will make any power, or if he has goiven any clues, that he is not going to actually run the machine and show anyone how much power it makes.  No, instead, he wants to "debate" Paul Gipe, or Mike Whatever, as though such a debatew ill change the fact that he is getting nothing running.  In your case you would be in this mode forever since anyone can talk about sailplanes flying into the jet stream with onboard windmills powering onboard compressors to liquify air into onboard cryogenic tanks, but pretty much nobody is going to build it.  So it's easier to call the people whoul would question such a scenario "ignorant".  No we are not ignorant.  We've seen what works and what does not and are tired of hearing people who have taken a few classes and still can't geet anything to work telling us how to do wind energy while calling us ignorant.  We hear it hundreds of times.  It's always the same.  Just remember who is making power from the wind and who is merely talking about it.  Instead of calling ME ignorant, who not work on proving even one part of your proposed scenario?  Debating me will not help you.  It is not me stopping your idea.  It's your idea stopping itself.
:)
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11804 From: dougselsam Date: 3/3/2014
Subject: Re: Peter Olaf BROBERG; and Karl Alex Krister KARLING. WO1980001705
Nice Joe in over a century of geniuses around the world, one other postulated a loop for continuous operation as a deviation from their "real" idea which is described as a "two-stroke" push-me/pull-you like Dave S. has been pursuing with the arch kite.  What is surprising is you don't see hundreds of such ideas.  If you are designing machinery, a fan belt is one of the first things most inventors gravitate toward, and a belt drive, chain drive, or cable drive (tramway) is one of the most common types of mechanical drives known.  What this patent does NOT do is show a way to actually get it to work.  It has an Achilles heel:  The cable passes right through the "aerostat".  No way is shown to accomplish the rotation of the cable, without rotation of the aerostat.  In my drawing there are TWO parallel loops, allowing the cables to rotate while the buoyant wings pivot between the lines.  To be valid, a patent must describe the inventor's best known way to do something "without undue experimentation".  Since this patent shows the aerostat magically passing right through the cable with every rotation, I would have to say it is not showing something that would actually work, although I agree with the principle that they SEEM to be trying to convey.  What is striking to me is the amount of time and energy required to desicribe something so simple.  They took up a whole patent to show mostly reciprocating aerostats, which would NOT give continuous motion, with a sidebar to an incompletely thought-through reference to a loop.  But if you build what they drew, as drawn, it simply would not work.  The aerostats would get tangled up.in the cable, which cannot pass through the aerostat even once, let alone with every rotation.  So, the looping embodiment of that patent shows a nonfunctional apparatus.
:)
Doug S.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11805 From: dave santos Date: 3/3/2014
Subject: Re: DaveS and DougS on Open Forum
Dear Gabor, 

Doug commonly makes up "facts" as he goes, so he is not depended on for correct opinions. For example, the tarps used in Mothra1, as a COTS tour-de-force, are not "Harbour Freight" brand, as Doug reports, but sourced direct from global wholesaler partners in a professional supply chain. The IFO concept is so far beyond Doug's comprehension (like Mothra), that he can only mock it, not technically critique it; much less contribute to it. 

What Doug failed to understand about Mothra tech is its conception as pure aviation; an inventive basis a for massive wind-powered lift applications like Aerotecture, by wings far larger than any in history. Rod easily sees even STs arrayed along a Mothra; but Doug's AWE vision is limited to isolated blimps or kites only, lifting single WECS units.

In no case is Doug's blindness to facts more disturbing than his "know-nothing" personal attacks on pure theoretic thinkers in AWE. Aerospace history is full of visionaries who posed ideas decades ahead of economic feasibility, and could not realize them alone (like Arthur C. Clarke's geosynchronous satellite). 

Never does Doug concede that his own semi-VAWT ideas have persistently failed to take any hold in conventional wind power, which makes him the most obvious example of failure by his own narrow criteria (of Gipe's Fantasy Turbine losers). Doug's pattern of wildly exaggerated claims and unjust personal attacks may yet earn him the "King CrackPot of Wind Power" title; for all time.

There is little doubt that your IFO vision can triumph over anything airborne Doug imagines. H2020 funding for IFO prototyping should validate basic workability far beyond non-airborne "rotating towers" that can never reach high altitudes as such. Count on the friendly support of anyone with aerospace career expertise; that your IFO ideas be given a serious testing program,

daveS




On Monday, March 3, 2014 6:50 AM, "dougselsam@yahoo.com" <dougselsam@yahoo.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11806 From: dave santos Date: 3/3/2014
Subject: Re: Mothra two stroke power out
Yes, its been generally assumed for many years that the mechanical workcell (for groundgen or equivalent powered machine) should center on the land cell, with the airborne rig rotating or tilting freely around this center. A few exception cases exist to the predominance of default-centered AWES; like fixed orientation to gap winds, or roaming surface-vehicles, or NTS-style track loops, etc..

Further, its axiomatic in arch AWES design that a center workcell still requires a secondary turret feature to orient I/O according to wind direction. This might be as elaborate as the multi-line troller fishing boat similarity case on a ring bearing (running a multitude of active lines), or as simple as a roller-fairlead with a swivel on a single mainline (esp. for small simple AWES).

Re: Virus STs under a Mothra- it looks like checkmate for this variant, given the huge parasitic down-force of the rotors; but I like how this ST Mothra adventure finally pushed your arch upwind in the land cell, where it can center its lift over the land cell center, which enables potent rigs. Its unclear how you propose to tap the peripheral land-cell arc of Virus quasi drive-shafts without some sort of elaborate circular railroad (a major added capital requirement).


On Monday, March 3, 2014 3:15 AM, Rod Read <rod.read@gmail.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11807 From: dave santos Date: 3/3/2014
Subject: Re: Peter Olaf BROBERG; and Karl Alex Krister KARLING. WO1980001705
Doug overlooks simple rope-driving as the ready "continuous" AWES drive means, to anyone skilled in the art. Ropedriving is the same prinicple as cableways are ancient yet still very effective (elevators, skilifts, mining, etc). These systems inherently scale in distance and power. Unlike "rotating towers", these continuous methods are airborne and work to high altitudes. AlexB mathematically formalized what DaveC of KiteShip empirically taught about the mega-power potential of UHMWPE rope-driving (up to GW scale in a single 8in rope driven fast).

The old loop-of-wings AWES approach seems dead, given the well-known bother of cycling wings at the bottom, and other inherent shortcomings (I made and tested a small ladder-mill in 2008, but it was almost unflyable due to bow-tie failures), so the fact we ~only~ know of three independent inventors does not win them any special genius status.

Doug is out-of-touch to imagine I represent a narrow down-select like ""two-stroke" push-me/pull-you". I have always stood for testing all kinds of AWES principles. KiteLab Portland's 2007 KiteMotor1 used a continuous COTS-string loop as its drive. It worked as designed, with minimal weight, cost, and drag. I also experiment with pumped lines, drive-shafts, multi-rotors, flygens and groundgens, soft and hard wings, etc.. 

Doug fails to understand the seeking of the broadest possible hands-on experience of AWE methods as a winning method.


On Monday, March 3, 2014 7:30 AM, "dougselsam@yahoo.com" <dougselsam@yahoo.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11808 From: dougselsam Date: 3/3/2014
Subject: Re: DaveS and DougS on Open Forum
Gosh I guess I forgot my acronyms - IFO?  Sorry I forgot what that stands for here. "Identified Flying Object"?  "In-flight opulence"? (overkill?) "In-Flight Operations"?
Well Dave S. thanks for honoring my request to stop peppering every post with "What Doug fails to understand".  This time you changed it to "What Doug failED to understand".  You changed the "s" into an "ed".  Thanks, I feel better.  And my apologies for mis-stating the source for your tarps.  But I would counter that you spelled "Harbor Freight" wrong: They don't use the British "u" in Harbor.  But this is the kind of argument that just shows you don't really even care about AWE, you just want to argue.  About anything whatsoever.  Anything.  Where you bought your blue tarps - great I got it wrong and so that proves everything else I say is wrong and everything else you say is right.  It doesn't matter where you got blue-tarps.  It doesn't even matter if they are blue.  And yes I do appreciate Roddy's renderings, but I think he's got maybe a few too many cables in there - too busy and too much air caught in the tangle, too few SuperTurbines(R) to take up the space, no stabilizing transverse framework as in the patents that cover such ST arrays, so the SuperTurbines(R) are too far apart and therefore do not cover the area very well, and of course they will pull downward instead of upward.  I'd recommend more rotors, closer spacing of rotors and shafts, along with stabilizing transverse frame members.  Staggering rotors between driveshafts is not the worst idea, since it could help avoid blade strikes.  But since the driveshafts are also tethers, the side-anchors, which define an arch kite, seem unnecessary, and they also prevent re-aiming without, as pointed out, constructing a track around the entire windfarm (like the crackpot physicists rotating the whole building to screw in a lightbulb).
Gabor: My apologies if you take my attempts at humor too seriously, but Professor Crackpot is supposed to be fun, as in "Hey Kidth!"  (Translation: "Hey Kids") "du huh huh!"  Just remember, he's a fictional character.  The only way he becomes real is if we act like him and respond when his name is called.
If I were you, I'd start with an RC sailplane with electric aux drive, and arrange it so the propeller can double as a wind turbine, and the motor can act as a generator.  Use batteries, and then play with the wind shear - either ground shear or some enhanced flow disparity due to natural landforms, and see how much power you can make and deliver to the ground.  As a start, you might at least develop a sailplane with enhanced range, or, especially with a full-size piloted version, even unlimited range!  Don't get me wrong, I do like your proposal for the liquified air idea.  Sounds cool and I see why it's appealing:  Send it up empty, so it is light-weight on the way up.  Then it uses what is available (air) to store energy.   It's just that the entire concept with all the added systems looks like it would get economically top-heavy long before you could ever hope to deliver a single economical kWh.  As I have pointed out, perhaps one of the most common ideas we've seen presented, over and over again in wind energy, is to replace the generator with a pump, or compressor, so then the energy can be stored as compressed air for later use.  These systems NEVER pencil out, let alone get built, so forgive me when I see so many more added components and subsystems, including special airports, cryogenic storage, and a special energy extraction infrastructure, in a special airport, at ground level.  I love the idea, but back to real life, companies like GE and Siemens have even recently eliminated the gearboxes, after watching us small-turbine builders who have been using SuperMagnets to make direct-drive alternators for at least 20 years now.  To  these real-life engineers who have to design things that people can afford and that will actually work, even a standard gearbox as used for decades in wind energy has become too much expensive and unreliable infrastructure between the blades and the generator.  So if even a gearbox between the blades and generator is being eliminated for economic and reliability reasons, that should be a good clue for people developing systems with 100 times the complexity.   I would actually be very happy to be proven wrong.  I'd LOVE to see our energy needs filled by automatic sailplanes liquifying air in the jet stream.  It is a very cool idea.  Just seems unlikely to me, but hey, who am I?  One person, with one opinion.  Take it for what it is, and be glad that someone can turn dry engineering talk into virtual cartoon characters to make it connect with the human mind a little easier.  Maybe your idea for liquifying air in the jet stream for energy storage will lead to some other idea that has less complexity and/or lower costs.  It was good to hear the idea at least.
:)
Doug S.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11809 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 3/3/2014
Subject: Re: DaveS and DougS on Open Forum

"...companies like GE and Siemens have even recently eliminated the gearboxes..." 

By soon GE and Siemens will eliminate too big rotors by taking numerous smaller rotors in the same shaft...

 

PierreB 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11810 From: dave santos Date: 3/3/2014
Subject: Re: DaveS and DougS on Open Forum
 Doug,

It really does matter where the tarps are bought, in order to meet Fort Felker's demanding challenge of a high TRL aviation basis for under five dollars a pound (AWEC2010). We only succeeded in meeting his challenge due to our supply-chain diligence. Production supply chains are of critical importance going forward. The plan is for the world's largest roll-stock processors to produce optimized kixel sails with essentially the same production lines as traps, for comparable affordability.

No AWES Forum error related to technical issues is too small to neglect correcting; so please be careful what you state as a fact, large or small,

daveS


On Monday, March 3, 2014 3:16 PM, Pierre BENHAIEM <pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11811 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/3/2014
Subject: A collection page
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11812 From: dougselsam Date: 3/4/2014
Subject: Re: Peter Olaf BROBERG; and Karl Alex Krister KARLING. WO1980001705
You are cracking me up Dave S.! ("What Doug Failth to underthtand")
Hey I like rope drives too, and I think a laddermill of some sort could still turn out to work.  I would actually like to build one.  Bad.  It's on the endless list of "must do yesterday" emergencies, I guess.
It really seems like there's nothing stopping some version from working at least fairly well.  It would take a lot of iterations to even start to get it right. Yes I guess collisions between the up and down parts would be the obvious thing to avoid.  That was one reason I mentally transitioned to SuperTurbine(R) from a laddermilll-like device, back in the '70's.  I will say though that at one time the veterans were telling us newbies that chain drives were noisy, got rusty, and didn;t work out that well.  Same for timing belts etc.  I had to learn the hard way.  I've still got a chain drive superturbine frame out there somewhere in the garage, but it had all the bad points the veterans warned about:  Noisy, rusty, and I forgot what else - but it sucked bad enough to say "Nah, I don't think so".  One successful turbine manufacturer told me his philosophy is to just change one thing about an already successful product.  Changing one thing is plenty, really.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11813 From: dougselsam Date: 3/4/2014
Subject: Re: DaveS and DougS on Open Forum
Why not just ask Fort Felker exactly how to do AWE?  Why take just a hint here and a hint there?  If he is the guy who knows, well, just ask him exactly how to do it!  As in details.  Or ask some other agency that knows everything.  Ask ARPA-E since they've spent millions trying AWE.  Ask them how to actually do it.  Or ask the 93% of scientists that concur on global warming, or climate change as the case may turn out to be (right or wrong, we intend to be right)  Wait, don't tell me none of these entities really knows what they're doing, when it comes to AWE!
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11814 From: dougselsam Date: 3/4/2014
Subject: Gabor's autonomous jet-stream sailplane is here
In the news: Titan Aerospace with their high-altitude solar-electric drone (quasi-satellite) was bought by Facebook. (Or are in talks to buy)
http://techcrunch.com/2014/03/03/facebook-in-talks-to-acquire-drone-maker-titan-aerospace/
With this vehicle, the ability to extract and store kinetic energy from jet stream winds can be tested.  I would contact the company and propose a research project, if they hadn't already thought of it.  Maybe the propeller could power more onboard stuff, even if flying back to Earth to use the energy on the ground did not prove economical.  If you meet with them, shave any beard, lose the polka-dot bowtie, and clean your glasses.  Try to  speak clearly, and don't spray food particles. :)))
:)
Doug S.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11815 From: dougselsam Date: 3/4/2014
Subject: laddermill in a box
I picked this up at an AWEA Windpower trade show:
http://www.capebouvardenergy.com.au/linear
Here are the "Professor Crackpot" aspects of what I see:
1) Redundant area sweep.  Wind turbines are not razor blades where a second pass immediately behind the first is in any way effective. In fact the second sweep would likely just block air from exiting the first pass. 
2) If you read their literature, they speak of a different pitch for the blades on the second (downwind) sweep, to take advantage of the slower wind they imagine on that second sweep.  They must have a Professor Crackpot onboard, since by simple volumetric flowrate principles, the same amount of air must be exiting the rear as entering the front, so the air speed through both sets of blades must be about the same. (blow into a tube - does more air enter than leave?  is the exiting air moving slower than the entering air?  If that were true, what happens to the "missing air"?
3) Compare to status quo:  Take 3 of their blades (or even just two), attach to a hub, and sweep about the same area, more efficiently, using a single moving part.  The idea is to improve on what is, not add many times the parts to underperform a standard rotor.
4) ??? This one strikes me as perhaps the biggest dealbreaker of all.  Can anyone guess what factor I'm thinking of?
:)
Doug Selsam
http://www.selsam.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11816 From: dave santos Date: 3/4/2014
Subject: Peter Lynn moves into Single-Skin Pilot-Lifter Kites

Its very exciting to see Peter Lynn intensely focused on perfecting single-skin (SS) power-kites and pilot-lifters, key concepts long advocated on the AWES Forum. In his last two newsletters, Lynn has brilliantly reviewed the logic driving the quest for these new kites, consistent with a broad trend in AWE away from expensive vulnerable poorly-scalable high-performance fly-by-wire kiteplanes, toward larger simpler cheaper soft-kites with passive flight stability.

The common insights spring from the same roots in the kite-show world and kite sports, and key AWE figures like Dave Culp, the original guru of giant single-skin ship-kites. There must also be some recent cross-fertilization, since Lynn uses many of the same conceptual phrasings we do (its unknown how actively Lynn follows the Forum, or if common ideas simply percolate up to him via his staff and many shared connections). Expect to soon see hybrid passive-control AWES of SS power-kites under SS pilot-lifters (KiteLab rigged) as perhaps the ultimate lowest-LCOE KIS AWES basis. Dave Gomberg (Gomberg Kites) and Ron Welty (Wind World Kites) are seeking to order the new PL kites in wholesale quantity, as the Chinese manufacturing partner makes them available.

There are many interesting details to the SS kite topic. PL notes a mystery as to how the leading edge nose of power soft-kites resists luffing so well. Its possible this effect is thermodynamic; that pressure heating of the bulk air-mass under the wing creates extra inflation pressure behind the nose unaccounted for in a purely Newtonian ballistic-kinetic transfer.

Enjoy the "best-of-the-best" writing about modern kite engineering by the acknowledged master-


http://www.peterlynnhimself.com/newsletter/March_Nl_14.html
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11817 From: dave santos Date: 3/4/2014
Subject: Fort Felker's 2010 Challenge (aviation for five dollars a pound)
Doug asked: " Why not just ask Fort Felker exactly how to do AWE? "

-------------------------------------------------------

This is an illogical suggestion. Fort posed his 2010 challenge because he did know how to reduce base aviation cost to Mothra levels, only that we needed to find a way.

Nobody then knew how to meet his challenge; we had to solve it. Mothra-tech cost 3-5 dollars a pound and can fly a pound of payload to target altitudes for a dollar or less in capital investment. No other aviation basis even comes close. Keep in mind that the COTS rope-loadpath-network arch is the real invention (low-cost tarp kites and multi-sail kite arrays were already well-proven).

We met with Fort and his staff after successfully testing Mothra, with a warm invitation to come back to Boulder to present AWES demos, which we plan to do soon. Its really up to all of us to show Fort how AWE is best done; and he will then light a fire under DOE.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11818 From: dave santos Date: 3/4/2014
Subject: Re: Gabor's autonomous jet-stream sailplane is here
Doug,

The Titan design is unsuited as an FF AWES for two major reasons-

1) Its a solar-airplane, and solar is far less dense an energy source than wind; the solar design cost is too high (better to put panels on the ground).

2) As a marginal solar airplane expressly designed to fly through the night burdened with current batteries, its not built for the aggressive DS capability an IFO requires.

Much better choices exist for IFO validation (model aircraft testing followed by emerging non-solar electric-sailplanes). Gabor need not be the developer, but can be proven right over time by third-parties. Its a double fallacy to insist an AWE thinker must personally act to your timeframe to be correct.

Note also that bowties and dandruff are only your unbalanced phobias. AWE professors are doing far better than you in landing funding and partners, with weird grooming complaints never an issue,

daveS



On Tuesday, March 4, 2014 7:02 AM, "dougselsam@yahoo.com" <dougselsam@yahoo.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11819 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/4/2014
Subject: Re: Peter Lynn moves into Single-Skin Pilot-Lifter Kites

SSSL                SSSL (SINGLE SKIN SINGLE LINE KITE)     (but branched bridling is understood)

  • No sticks
  • Sticked  (vast spectrum of wings for kites)
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11820 From: dave santos Date: 3/4/2014
Subject: Re: laddermill in a box

Megascale ( Linear Wind Generator is not even intended as an AWES contender; no surprise, its not a helpful study. Better similarity cases offer solutions.

---------------------------------------------------------

Recent DougS advice about beards and tech-venture success is also mistaken. Jobs and Woz were bearded longhairs, and virtually all the early Microsoft staff except Bill Gates had beards. Astronauts and sailors grow beards and develop funded AWE R&D. Beards signify a practical life of essence over banal superficialities.



On Tuesday, March 4, 2014 9:14 AM, "dougselsam@yahoo.com" <dougselsam@yahoo.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11821 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 3/4/2014
Subject: Re: Fort Felker's 2010 Challenge (aviation for five dollars a pound)

Both Mothra and flexible SuperTurbine(R) with pilot-kite go towards Fort Felker's challenge by being not expensive. But since years, as long as DaveS and DougS have a "dialogue" on the forum,ST does not fly at high altitude (but has some possibilities) and Mothra does not convert any wind energy. So both DougS and DaveS lose for R&D in AWE. Now the winner will be not in wind production but for arguing more and more.

 

PierreB
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11822 From: dave santos Date: 3/4/2014
Subject: Oberth's AWES Documentation Found
Thanks to Achmed Kahammas's AWE research, we are finally closing in on aerospace pioneer Herrman Oberth's original concepts for AWE, which are probably archived in detail at the Oberth Museum. We now can see Oberth envisioned an LTA lofted flygen with kite-train lift (quasi-kytoon). This is not bad for an old man musing about AWE forty years ago: Oberth lives up to his reputation as visionary engineer, but who knew that his AWE work was intended to displace nukes?

Translated text and image from Achmed's page that Joe linked to us-

"In Herrmann-Oberth-Museum in Pfinzingschloß is the historical model ofOberth'schen dragon power plant admire the famous German physicist and rocket pioneer 1977 has designed.
On the occasion of the 100th Birthday of Wernher von Braun on 23.03.2012 , the museum as part of the exhibition, from space mirrors to the dragon power plant 'Oberth energy concepts, already in the 1920s dreamed of years ago by a space mirrors, lighting of cities at night and warm, keep Arctic ports ice-free and the climate could change so that the Sahara would be habitable again. The concept for a desert plant designed Oberth already in 1947 .
With the dragon (kite) power plant, floating in the air and from a zeppelin held turbine, you could even then the jet streams can make it usable.
Because the Federal Research Ministry, however, calculated the Nuclear Research Centre Jülich in charge of evaluating new energy concept, and thus makes the goat the gardener, also Oberth plans are rejected, which he himself wanted to know explicitly understood as "an alternative to nuclear power"."


Oberth'sches dragon power plant model

Wikipedia-

The 1973 petroleum crisis inspired Oberth to look into alternative energy sources, including a plan for awind power station that could utilize the jet stream. However, his primary interest during his retirement years was to turn to more abstract philosophical questions. Most notable among his several books from this period is Primer For Those Who Would Govern.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11823 From: dave santos Date: 3/4/2014
Subject: Re: Fort Felker's 2010 Challenge (aviation for five dollars a pound)
Pierre,

Mothra lift is demonstrated to be cheap and scale easily. Its not demonstrated that the ST can be cheap, nor that it promises to scale to large-size and high-altitudes. Doug used Formula Racer drive shafts and helium lift. Kite lift would have been too dangerous already (frequent landing and launching), even at the small Sky Serpent scale, which did not even reach 20m high.

You seem wholly unaware of the ST scaling barriers, so do some study or testing. Go ahead and spend 2k USD on helium lift to see how far you are from Mothra cheap lift, already flown on the one metric ton payload scale (you will lift <1/25th as much as Mothra, by unit cost, and the gas will soon leak away).

Good Luck,

daveS



On Tuesday, March 4, 2014 4:28 PM, Pierre BENHAIEM <pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11824 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/4/2014
Subject: Re: Oberth's AWES Documentation Found
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11825 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/4/2014
Subject: Re: Oberth's AWES Documentation Found
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11826 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/4/2014
Subject: Re: Oberth's AWES Documentation Found
http://www.energykitesystems.net/Oberth/index.html
has been our growing trace file on Hermann Oberth. 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11827 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/4/2014
Subject: Re: Oberth's AWES Documentation Found
  His final book holds the "minimum" that he thinks should be in the awareness of those people who would govern.   AWE is in that "minimum" core. 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11828 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 3/4/2014
Subject: Re: Fort Felker's 2010 Challenge (aviation for five dollars a pound)

DaveS,

 

I wrote "...ST does not fly at high altitude (but has some possibilities) and ..."

You wrote "Sky Serpent scale, which did not even reach 20m high." , there is no contradiction;then "You seem wholly unaware of the ST scaling barriers, so do some study or testing." Read better my post and also other posts about some possibilities and directions to improve ST if it is possible (by me only if propellers can generate enough lift to hold the system without pilot-kite, but with little real chance due to required high wind speed). Concerning Mothra I do not see such possibilities for the arch beeing able to become a kite-system like some other existing (Tu Delft, Windlift) but without crosswind mode, and without a natural way as a simple pivot to face wind directions. You pursue writing about Megawatt scale and auto-congratulating about Mothra instead indicating some plausible way for conversion;but now it is not needed, the word AWES being redefined as a simple kite. Another word: an automatic piloting under softaware will required for Mothra as well as for other kite systems to: launching (taking the decision for landing according to wind datas analysed via sensors), landing (similar)  but also facing changes of wind directions (if possible). The maintenance of great quantities of blue tarp ( at least 5 or 10 times kite systems using crosswind mode) is a big post , and of course we have not spoken about conversion system. Scaling up FlygenKite would give better possibilities as both flying and generating, but would not be enough to compete with HAWT.

 

PierreB 

 

 






 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11829 From: Rod Read Date: 3/5/2014
Subject: Re: Mothra two stroke power out
Checkmate? What happened to the test and tweak every idea ethos?
more smoothing and tweaking gives
http://youtu.be/XG_l3QUWUPw

Rod Read

Windswept and Interesting Limited
15a Aiginis
Isle of Lewis
HS2 0PB

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11830 From: Rod Read Date: 3/5/2014
Subject: Re: Mothra two stroke power out
As for the side to side arch kite block and tackle expanding variant...
Here's an animation... I explain the workings and demo the motion but still need to add the block and tackle...
http://youtu.be/R2mQJYYuGoA

Rod Read

Windswept and Interesting Limited
15a Aiginis
Isle of Lewis
HS2 0PB

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11831 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/5/2014
Subject: Re: Fort Felker's 2010 Challenge (aviation for five dollars a pound)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11832 From: dougselsam Date: 3/5/2014
Subject: Enhanced winds from a Mothra arch kite
Put one up in front of a wind turbine or a row of wind turbines.  But not a whole windfarm.  As in Roddy's renderings, you can see the Moth push wind downward into the SuperTurbine(R) array.   A Moth could similarly focus more wind through one or more side-by-side turbines, but if employed for an entire windfarm it would have to be huge to work, because it would probably just cause turbulence for downwind turbines elsewise.  The arch kite becomes a shroud.  The downside would be if winds get strong, it gets caught in the blades, and if winds get weak, it gets caught in the blades.  The main advantage of wind energy over solar has always been the wind turbine only needs to actually cover maybe 3% of its swept area.  That is where the "duct & shroud crowd" "failth to realithe" that their duct or shroud will have to be engineered for 100 mph winds, making the turbine 30-50 times as expensive, because it requires 30-50 times the material.  No ducted turbine has ever panned out so far for this reason.  Professor Crackpot, nevertheless, is endlessly attracted to ducts and shroudth.  He always thinks he is the first to realize they exist.  See, he has insights that normal people without the polka-dot bowtie do not appreciate.  He is "a genius", whereas people building wind turbines and running windfarms know absolutely nothing about anything.  Since a duct or shroud is mostly just a way to increase swept area, would you rather cover 2-3% of the area by making the blades longer, or be forced to cover the entire area with 100% solidity?  Nonetheless, if there is a cheap way to duct a big turbine, a Moth arch might be a way to do it.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11833 From: dave santos Date: 3/5/2014
Subject: Re: Fort Felker's 2010 Challenge (aviation for five dollars a pound)
Pierre,

There is no way the ST relates to the "Fort's five dollar" topic here, unless you can show ST low cost by any actual facts.

If you mean that short (not ST) drive-shafts work aloft, KiteLab Portland already proved that, but the carbon-fiber shaft was not cheap, it was the single most expensive part (2007). In the seven years since, we have learned that rigid shafting is not needed, and would never scale anyway. Its a waste of Mothra-tech to marry it to an inferior overpriced WECS basis without bothering to test all the options comparatively. You are just guessing about what you think best (like WheelWind), seemingly not even able to do small experiments (like twisting rope to prove effective torque-transfer.

You also do not properly support the idea that flygens cannot compete with HAWTs. You simply don't have the knowledge to properly prove such a conclusion (no one does).

Good luck trying to prove otherwise, in actual testing, or by rigorous simulations,

daveS 

PS I still think you do not really care about Barnard's technical censorship in AWE journalism, but are afraid to admit it. I will continue to request you answer this point, since your ongoing posts constantly remind me (you even wrote you were through reading me; that I was on your SPAM filter. Please show you mean what you write.




On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 7:08 AM, "joefaust333@gmail.com" <joefaust333@gmail.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11834 From: dave santos Date: 3/5/2014
Subject: Re: Enhanced winds from a Mothra arch kite
Doug,

The reason that ducted-turbines may have a future in advanced AWE is that hurricane-force winds are common at high-altitudes, and suitable ducts pressurize the flow to remain sub-Mach within the high-speed turbine, as the kiteplane (say, an IFO) reaches some multiple of the wind velocity. The cross-over to ducts being favored is around 400mph for the overall kiteplane (NASA concepts for unducted many-bladed propellers push the speed-limit). 

In tethered AWE, shrouds/cages may also serve as anti-fouling guards, even at lower operating velocities (eg. wall-of-mini-turbines concept). The key is to get to superior upper wind, then AWE can break many of the rules of "turbine-on-a-pole".

Being limited to conventional turbine-on-pole reasoning leads you to many misconceptions about aerospace design. AWE Professors have the advantage over you of better facts, and far less neurosis about grooming and fashion,

daveS




On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 8:58 AM, "dougselsam@yahoo.com" <dougselsam@yahoo.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11835 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 3/5/2014
Subject: Re: Fort Felker's 2010 Challenge (aviation for five dollars a pound)

DaveS,

 

Fort Felker's challenge refers both to the low cost of wind turbine and the high cost of aviation. Manufacturing of ST takes elements within the field of wind turbine, even if an optimization should take account of elements from aviation to make it flying, if it is possible: in this case the cost will increase, and must include automatic control, landing, launching etc...

"You also do not properly support the idea that flygens cannot compete with HAWTs." AWE must be considered as safe enough to allow activities (fishing for example) under lines, or the benefit (massive production) must be high enough to counterbalance inconveniences. At least we should find the better possible scheme. Perhaps this scheme is a flygen like FlygenKite or even a reel-in/out like Ampyx or Windlift.

Indirectly Fort Felker indicates a successful AWES should be a mix of wind energy and aviation. So I do not think juxtapositions like ST + Mothra should be productive, cumulating difficulties.                                                

Concerning WheelWind the advantage is to allow support by both air and sea; but the difficulty is the needed "rim drive".

"...seemingly not even able to do small experiments (like twisting rope to prove effective torque-transfer." Yes some experiments are done but on several lines configuration  (see a file on a previous post) and also for a single line, not yet for rubber band.By intuition I do not think it is a real possibility for high lengths of line, but I examin it for now. I also study other schemes I will relate by soon.

 

PierreB





 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 11836 From: dave santos Date: 3/5/2014
Subject: Re: Fort Felker's 2010 Challenge (aviation for five dollars a pound)
Pierre,

The WECS method KiteLab Ilwaco proposes may best meet Fort's cost-unit-mass challenge is the membrane wing-mill. Based on hundreds of empirical experiments, it seems as if these wings are not only be the cheapest raw unit-power, but also the highest power-to-weight. More testing is needed to prove this properly. Looping parafoils is another contender for the tops WECS option, but the wholesale cost currently runs closer to 20USD per pound.

At least KiteLab is Fort's biggest fan in AWE, and takes his open-challenges most seriously, including living the "test-test-test-..." philosophy. Fort is a top pick to lead a major AWE R&D effort in coming years. You can't fault us for doing better than you to meet Fort's high standards.

The ST seems dead despite Rod's flirtation (get a room, hehe). Where is the progress? It just seems so flawed, that no one can make it work at larger scales, except as a fanciful "artist's concept". The same seems true of the WheelWind; you are not even able to make a toy version work (without lots of cash, you claim).

Prepare for serious testing of your (and Doug's) ideas alongside all major ideas, or be left behind,

daveS

PS Still no answer to whether you object to Barnard's use of censorship to block technical AWE corrections (or why your spam-filter doesn't work). 




On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 11:40 AM, Pierre BENHAIEM <pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr