Fun points, DaveS. However, the note about "real wind" has its own arena. Cross winding a Pierre Benhaiem FlygenKite (TM) has the turbine and support wing experience artificial "wind" that is distinct from the ambient "real" wind. And Gabor Dobos IFO and the like (RAT-infested sailplanes as sisters) dance near this topic.    The RATs on tethered kytoons doing tasks around the world mix in here also.

The following image is NOT hyperlinked, but is a screen grab of the 12 videos in YouTube in the Makani channel.   I put this up for the record to record and study the count of "views" of the various videos. 

Looks like the art of patenting very workable airborne wind energy devices, then doing nothing about it, is almost as old as wind-generated electricity itself.  The biggest mystery of airborne wind energy would seem to be the "human nature" part, where no matter how many workable ideas are published, patented, or  promoted, somehow, they just never get built or run.
Also odd to see simple, workable ideas from the antique realm, followed by so many unworkable or inadvisable ideas from the modern era.

Yes you can find lots of examples of "Spiral Airfoil" (an oxymoron, as currently used), going back thousands of years.

You just wrote: "It (sic) fair to exclude RATs from a wind record claim on grounds that the airflow created by an aircraft is not real wind."
This contradicts your previous, vehement statements that RATs are examples of AWE.

A RAT on a fuel-powered airplane is really just a complicated (rube goldberg?) way of powering a fan with fuel.  It does not constitute "wind energy" in the sense of using nature's wind to generate power.  As always you guys should be careful you don;t substitute redefining words already in wide usage, in lieu of making progress toward stated goals of AWE.  You could just point out that every power plant and vehicle in the world is powered by some version of "wind" (gas flow), even if artificially created, and thereby redefine yourself out of a job.  The whole world has been powered by wind for 100 years.  Just that the specific source of the wind is burning fossil fuels.  By "redefining", you could put a Caterpillar diesel genset on a C-130 and "set the record" for airborne wind energy.

you are a freakin' douchebag

There is no need for you to answer every post from me, nor to argue with every statement I make.  I am not wrong.  You did not show me wrong.  You showed yourself as wrong, and unable to restrain yourself from arguing with every statement I make even when it means being wrong yourself, which is every time.  I commented on this patented idea being antique and it looks like nobody did anything about it in its time.  The patent has long expired.  I did not say nobody had built anything like it ever since, though few have.  Still, if it was a good idea, and I think it was a good idea, there is no product based on it that anyone is using for generating useful electricity to this day.  The bog question is "Why is that?".  One answer might be people "talking", instead of doing things, which can be made worse by the internet.  The fact that "Joe has one" (I'll bet that is a real winner) is not related to my ironic observation that the art of patenting, then not building or running AWE systems is a very old art, almost as old as the very first electrical wind turbine.
The reality is, there's nothing the least but new about AWE.  The art is at about the same state as 80 years ago: a simple, relatively easy-to-understand and easy-to-accomplish dream that could easily be realized if anyone actually DID anything about it.

like I said, you are a douchebag

Attachments :

thanks, good luck to you too

I agree that lifting turbines using kites is a no-brainer starting point for AWE.  Probably too simple for most people to be interested.  No need to go to the extremes of Makani just to have something that works.  In wind, low tech is often better.  "Works" always trumps "doesn't work". "needs repair", etc.  Joe if you are based in the Los Angeles area, and you have such a device and want to bring one up here to fly, I have lots of room and lots of wind, and it is only an hour's drive to LA or OC if traffic is light. Feel free to come up anytime.  We just dragged the ground and it's flat with no weeds.  Further out there is El Mirage dry lake bed with no speed limit and you can land any plane and fly whatever you can get there.  That might be a good place to try a huge system.  Also other dry lakebeds and empty areas for testing are all around, and of course hundreds of miles of empty desert past that.

Wind-tunnel AWES explorations?

Wind tunnels, historically, have been a mixed bag for wind energy, with a lot of negative results.  For general airfoil testing, yes, wind tunnels get the job done.  For testing turbines themselves, not so much.  First you have an obvious size problem: Imagine a wind turbine hundreds of feet high to "test" a utility-scale turbine:  No wind tunnel that big has ever been built! 

But it gets worse:  Wind tunnels were designed for testing airplanes, which do not restrict the flow much.  Wind turbines, on the other hand, intentionally attempt to extract 59% of the energy, thereby slowing the stream a LOT.  The turbine basically blocks the wind tunnel.  Like Heisenberg;s uncertainty principle, the wind tunnel cannot accurately measure turbine performance since the turbine affects the wind tunnel so much.  So you end up with a pressure buildup ahead of the turbine which forces air through the turbine as it would not be in the real world, making crappy turbines look great.  In the real world, air mostly goes around wind turbines, which is why Professor Crackpot's attempts to beat the betz coefficient, or "rescue power lost between blades" by adding to already-optimum rotor solidity always fail. 

The reason for a wind tunnel is if you have no other way to simulate high speed air over surfaces.  Itls away to create a wind that would not naturally occur, to simulate, say 400 mph flight in the laboratory, but in the case of wind, all you have to do is go out the door, into an open field, to have a very realistic "wind tunnel".  There is not the same need to simulate wind for wind energy, since you already HAVE real wind.  Nothing like the real thing.  In real life, the wind speed is seldom if ever constant, just as high surf seldom involves a constant instantaneous local sea level.  Wind tends to roll through in waves, just like watching waves roll in at the beach.  So wind tunnel data for wind turbines is notorious for being overly optimistic.  Yes of course you can force air through a machine at a desired speed and get pretty much any data you want.   Consider a jet engine:  The last stages could be considered wind turbines in a wind tunnel.  Does that resemble an open flow wind turbine?  Hardly.

Academic types sometimes naturally gravitate toward the mere concept of wind tunnel testing, since it "seems" high tech, or advanced, or like something a proper academic properly ought to do, but it has shown limited usefulness in wind energy.  Most likely it will steer someone in the wrong direction. 

A few years back, there was a team of "researchers" out of Cal State Long Beach who had placed a Savonius turbine in a wind tunnel with great results.  They contacted the world of real wind turbines and announced their "breakthrough".  We tried to let them know in a gentle way that the Savonius had been long-disproven as a serious candidate for wind energy electrical generation, and that it was about the least efficient type of turbine known, while of course, as usual, being the most obvious turbine design that would occur to a first-timer who didn't understand anything about the actual art.  We also tried to inform them of the well-known problem of wind tunnels "forcing" air through any turbine, making it look better than it is, but it seemed to fall on deaf ears.  Of course, as you can imagine, the "researchers" got pretty hot under the collar when real wind people questioned the "high efficiency" of their Savonius wind tunnel results, but hey, they were on a roll.  They had a series of press-releases announcing their "breakthrough", (like whale bumps) but in the end, they became one more perfect example of "Professor Crackpot", complete with all the "proper" credentials, and even a wind tunnel!.  (The worse it gets, the worse it gets!)  Eventually, they "quietly went away".  I realize nobody reading this probably (apparently) cares or comprehends what I am saying here, but, oh well.  Come back and review it a few years in the future, after the next genius wastes a million dollars on wind tunnel testing for something that later fails in the real world.

Regarding airborne wind energy specifically, I'd say wind tunnels might be very useful for testing individual components, but for testing whole systems, airborne might fare even worse than regular wind energy with regard to wind tunnels, since airborne systems are usually, comparatively more spread out than regular wind turbines, with perhaps more variable behavior.  I did find truck testing was useful for adjusting a turbine design and recording a power curve though.  Many wind veterans tend to somewhat scoff at truck-testing, but it is still seen as far more realistic than wind tunnel testing.  With truck testing, you still have natural wind variability (the air is never completely still) and no air is "forced" through the turbine - it can go around, as in real life.

Today I have about a 25 MPH wind outside that varies... just like the natural wind!  I COULD try building a wind tunnel in the 100-foot-long attic of my shop, but why?  Mother nature was nice enough to place a very large "wind tunnel" right outside that accurately simulates real wind with all its variability.  It's called "The Cajon Pass", and it is a few miles wide, and a couple miles high.

There are a couple more such wind tunnels around here:  The Tehachapi Pass, and the San Gorgonio Pass (Palm Springs) which, together, produce a couple percent of all the electricity in California.

Thanks DougS for message. Appreciated. 

Thanks, DougS, for the question with its directed suggestion of selects. 

Massimo !!!

Massimo, 

Attachments :

wind turbine betz tip speed ratio.pdf
FR2975445A1.pdf

This topic has been a little open. JoeF adds a version with two wheels for balancing respective torques.On several posts DaveS invits me to build a prototype for tests. Here the link for joined patent FR 2975445  (A1)  -  AEROGENERATEUR A ENTRAINEMENT CIRCONFERENTIEL . The first and definitive search report is very good: no X, no Y (it is very rare among AWE patents).

Description also on http://wheelwind.com .

The main idea is to allow a light and big rotor supported by both line cascade and sea. It is the reason why transmission is circonferential, with two possibilities: generator at sea and moving rotor-suspentes; or annular generator, line cascade not moving.

So suggestions and technical critics are welcome about the first possibility for the moment:

• line cascade allowing some rigidity for the ring transmetting the torque...
• possibilities to make the rotor light...
• possibility for a slower rotor due to rolling the generator, and without too much losses in efficiency (the joined document shows in page 34 a schema on Tip Speed Ratio and Whirlpool Schmitz Power Coefficient)... 
• analysis of waves on floating generator and wind on the whole structure...
• weaknesses...
• ...

PierreB

 

JoeF remarks on points mentioned by Massimo.    March 27, 2014

Massimo [ M:  ] replies to JoeF [ J ] on March 26, 2014 is in blue.   JoeF remarks on the separate points are in black:

  J:   Thank you so much for joining the discussion, Massimo. Great.    I put in an email to "info" at KiteGen requesting a list of KiteGen patent assents, as my list is incomplete and yet confuses perhaps some patent assets of two other companies in Italy. I gave the link to the draft working list on which I am working to help get the message out.  Thanks for a simple list of patent numbers when convenient; thanks much!        

     I will aim to clarify some points and positions mentioned in your generous respons:

M:  Joe, our patents are internationally granted, with everything we wrote inside.

J:   I agree that any "granted" patents are "granted" and with "everything your team wrote inside those patents. However, "granted" does not mean that all claims are unassailable relative to novelty, inventive step, or non-obvious to those skilled in the arts. Claims may be contested. Careful study of claims from the actual text of the patents is the arena for such matter; hence I am still studying your patents, even while the list of patents is incomplete.  

     In our topic discussion on the history of the Reel Method, we are not dealing with actual text from your patents; so the discussion yet is not on the claims of your patents. Rather, some statements in discussion are the statements that are being faced.   Your reply does not seem to directly face the question of the history of the Reel Method. I was holding and still do that KiteGen patents cannot validly protect the Reel Method just because the Reel Method was already well taught in prior art, prior to KiteGen using the Reel Method in KiteGen explorations.   KiteGen uses the fundamental Reel Method as KiteGen advances the arts surrounding the Reel Method with detailed craft and probably some detail inventions, yet to be appreciated by me, a goal I set for myself; mastery of the claims in patent text will be required for such appreciation and all such will be preamble to discussions.
============   

M:   I know from DaveS you did a lot of work to reach the conclusion that the AWE IP is state-of-the-art, but this isn't true.

J:    The comment is confusing.  I trust that DaveS has understood quite the opposite about me; I have never reached the conclusion that the "AWE IP" is "state-of-the-art."  I will here try out some statement making on that point:

    1. Published AWE IP (intellectual property) in the form of patents granted and patent applications holds some valid inventions and holds also much claiming of invention that can be shown to be invalid relative to art priorly known by patents, exhibited arts, and by obviousness to those skilled in the related arts.  As ever, the arena holds a mix of valid claims an invalid claims.

    2. State of the art  includes the collective memory exhibited in published literature including patent literature, and the set of arts that are obvious to those skilled in the arts.  Current or recent statements and practices by perhaps newcomers in a fresh Era K3 period very easily may in its immaturity overlook matter that is already in the public domain discoverable by those who would delve into the collective memory. Mature Era K3 will respect a robust body of public-domain art applicable to AWES. Current explorations by AWE teams are doing some new things and some old things; and some solid invention claims will be protectable; hopefully the valid inventors will be rewarded appropriately, especially if their inventions win benefits for humans and earth's creatures.  
============

M:   I have the impression and feeling that the world around altitude wind power is still struggling to focus on the main winning concept. KiteGen did so early: all the possible ideas were extensively weighed before they appeared in other competitive initiatives. Every single KiteGen idea and potential initial ideas emerged through a scientific method able to help group creativity (within the "Leonardo" methodology: a EU-founded project).

J:      Mixed response here by me: I agree with first sentence, but have some counter on the second sentence.  I agree that the world around altitude wind power is still struggling to focus on some winning concept; I cannot write or state that there is any "the main winning concept" or method. What I see is that the movement of concept seeing and method seeing is still on the preamble side of seeing any winning concept; so little has yet been done in comparative building, operating, and flying. No "winning" is able without careful comparisons. We await fly-offs under various rules; we await third-party inspection of players and parameter in fly-offs. Self-aggrandizing simulations do not suffice. The preliminaries are still happening in isolated corners. The coming AWE Fest will only tease what is needed to approach grand comparing.
        The statement you wrote of "and potential initial ideas" is to be seen as just those ideas in your team's hold in the process you describe. It is to recognized that that pool of ideas was not comprehensive relative to the collective memory and robust public domain of arts or relative to ideas held by parties separate from the pool acting in your process. That is, there is strong evidence that the process in your camp did not wrap many concepts that might have been enclosed. Such is life and such is all good, as there is yet much to do to find some top "winner" in AWE.
============     

M:   The only concepts missing in our early analysis are the Magenn's roto-blimps and the Altaeros, because we still consider quite inexplicable the cognitive process that lead to such ideas.

J:   I bet the "early analysis" missed more than the Magenn and Altaeros!  I can only bet now on the following basis: 1. I do not have the "early analysis" in front of me to sift.  2. Clues from your statements about (wrongful) invention of the Reel Method put me on alert about a good chance of missing other core matters.  3. And I bet in chance because of the following: a) the KiteGen revealed literature does not seem to rake over many of the concepts in list: Mega-Scale AWES (which list includes KiteGen Carousel), which is known yet not to be a complete list. I await to sift the KiteGen "early analysis" text, if you please make such available; thanks.
      As to the cognitive process regarding Magenn flygen roto-blimp: flipwing axis torque mined aloft with gains sent to ground by conductor cable.  Altaeros: flygen supported by LTA kytoon (prior-art in public domain for the method).  Under rules, these two methods have yet to be in a fair contest. Prior patents and exhibited kiting arts and blimp arts would easily posit the two methods.
============

M:    A historic example: the Rotokite concept was born in KiteGen, but after a simulation, I throw both the idea and the notes in the wastebasket. My old associate, however, was upset about that. I unsuccessfully tried to explain to him the inconsistency of the idea, but he nonetheless asked, and obtained from us, the permission to patent the fancy concept alone, fortunately without KiteGen’s involvement, in order to save the tech honorability of the company.

J:   Rotating drogues pulling a main tether has the pulling available for doing works. In a large AWE community with alternative niche applications and niche opportunities to serve, there is hardly a feasible AWES that could not ultimately find some happy resting operation scene. Perfection of rotating wings inside a Reel Method is not a closed art.

============

M:      At the beginning of the adventure, I was in frequent contact with Shepard, Ockels, Lang, Lynn, Diehl, Furey, Griffith, frankly exchanging and discussing ideas in detail. The time spent talking together was fruitful and our intention was to join our efforts within a founded initiative. Unfortunately, it was a lost battle.

J:   There is still opportunity for a wide collaborative teaming under fresh initiatives.
============

M:     In our humble opinion, the best concept by far is the Carousel, followed by our Stem concept, a subsystem of the Carousel, as a single module. The Carousel, however, is such a huge machine that starting with it would be impractical, but it will be the natural evolution of the Stem, when technologically asserted.

J:   What might be specifications for a reasonably smallish version of the Carousel?

============

M:      Patents cannot interfere continuously with the big picture of the technology: at this time, details are much more important, in particular when a scaling up is planned. For example: a 95% pulley efficiency is unacceptable with a 3 MW machine, so the best method to handle the ropes has now become paramount. The same applies to the production cycle, the safety/security issues, the kinematic chain resistance and the control strategy.

J:    Wishing you the best solutions for the details! 

M:       As stated by DougS, pumping kite is so obvious, but isn't enough.
~ Massimo   [ M: ]

J:    Can we then say from your note that you agree that the Reel Method historically was taught prior to the start of KiteGen?

~ JoeF       March 27, 2014

Tags: Yo-Yo, pumping method, Reel Method, out-and-in method, cost phase and generation phase, reel out and reel in method,
============ 

Hi Massimo and all,

 

"Patents cannot interfere continuously with the big picture of the technology: at this time, details are much more important, in particular when a scaling up is planned." AWE is the only fields where hundreds of patents are filed or granted for numerous years, and where no production is realized.
So recent patents are expected to protect details while main aspects (reeling, or flygen, or other) are not yet confirmed in economic viability at least concerning expected realizations. As writes JoeF, reeling and other main schemes are not patentable by themselves. And now no AWES is on the market by far.The conclusion is imperative: a cooperative analysis is needed to define the scheme or some features being able to be marketed, that by defining the possible markets (AWES where? Offshore?For whom?...). By beginning defining challenges:

• land and space used: a big challenge due to necessary absence of inhabitant in the enormous zone covered by tethers in all the wind directions.
• reliability: launching, recovering etc.
• maintenance: real cost of materials and work
• ...

The time is not more saying things like "my AWES is the best". KiteGen says "my AWES is the best" ; KiteLab says "my AWES is the best" ; DougS says "my AWES is the best" ;I say http://wheelwind.com is the best... It is not possible. A consensus is necessary, followed by a workable prototype.

 

PierreB

PierreB: "A consensus is necessary, followed by a workable prototype."

What about a slightly different order: 

DaveS,

"...every kite is a WECS that converts wind energy into potential energy." Any assertion does not become true as it is repeated.
"Kite Sports are a solid modern success","Many friends live from kites, and some are sudden kite energy millionaires, as evidence of early economic viability. You argue the opposite." Deformation of my words:I do not write about Kite Sports.
"The reel method will be mostly just a historical curiosity." What are your arguments for such an assertion? 

 

PierreB

Welcome another department that is interested in the aerodynamics of AWES:

It is curious that in the seminal paper on cross wind kite power, Miles Loyd, with all that math and aerodynamics,  failed in suggesting the correct technological solution. I came to know of the reel method when I first met Massimo Ippolito in 2005. Before I may haveI heard/see the Sky Wind Power proposal that I do not think is feasible in industrial scale. Subsequently other proposal arrived, like Magenn, Makani and Altaeros, but they are not technological solutions to follow, because they will have an efficiency even lower than a traditional wind tower. 

Mario said "...but his premises were wrong since he , like pierre, was saying that "recent patent are not yet confirmed in economic viability ". A technitian have to know the potentiality of a particular solution." My exact sentence was "So recent patents are expected to protect details while main aspects (reeling, or flygen, or other) are not yet confirmed in economic viability at least concerning expected realizations."The potentiality depends on other parameters that the only technical concerns. Crosswind kite (more for reeling of which paths go up, but also for flygen) uses much land and space without inhabitants due to safety under moving tethers with high strengths; and the ratio power/land and space used for "expected realizations" is yet too low since the swept area is not optimized by far, that because of needed large figures due to flying issue;a smaller radius of figures (like for RotoKite) would use less space, but with a little less efficiency by kite-unity.The good compromise has to be found. My idea is the diameter of effective area swept by the kite should be so big as tether length.

  

PierreB