Messages in AirborneWindEnergy group.                           AWES12396to12446 Page 144 of 440.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12396 From: dougselsam Date: 4/8/2014
Subject: Re: Open exercise: Work to sustain 1 kg at an altitude

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12397 From: dougselsam Date: 4/8/2014
Subject: Re: The AWE kWhr Race

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12398 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/8/2014
Subject: Re: Open exercise: Work to sustain 1 kg at an altitude

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12399 From: dave santos Date: 4/8/2014
Subject: Re: Open exercise: Work to sustain 1 kg at an altitude

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12400 From: dave santos Date: 4/8/2014
Subject: SkyBow Pumping-mode

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12401 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/8/2014
Subject: Re: Open exercise: Work to sustain 1 kg at an altitude

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12402 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/8/2014
Subject: Re: The AWE kWhr Race

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12403 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/8/2014
Subject: Re: SkyBow Pumping-mode

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12404 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/8/2014
Subject: Re: SkyBow Pumping-mode

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12406 From: dbmurr@ymail.com Date: 4/8/2014
Subject: Re: SkyBow Pumping-mode

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12407 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/8/2014
Subject: Re: Open exercise: Work to sustain 1 kg at an altitude

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12408 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/8/2014
Subject: Re: SkyBow Pumping-mode

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12409 From: dougselsam Date: 4/8/2014
Subject: Re: Open exercise: Work to sustain 1 kg at an altitude

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12410 From: dougselsam Date: 4/8/2014
Subject: Re: The AWE kWhr Race

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12411 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/8/2014
Subject: Re: SkyBow Pumping-mode

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12412 From: Harry Valentine Date: 4/8/2014
Subject: Re: The AWE kWhr Race

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12413 From: dave santos Date: 4/8/2014
Subject: Re: Open exercise: Work to sustain 1 kg at an altitude

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12414 From: Baptiste Labat Date: 4/8/2014
Subject: Re: Open exercise: Work to sustain 1 kg at an altitude

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12415 From: Baptiste Labat Date: 4/8/2014
Subject: Re: Open exercise: Work to sustain 1 kg at an altitude

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12416 From: dougselsam Date: 4/8/2014
Subject: Re: The AWE kWhr Race

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12417 From: dave santos Date: 4/8/2014
Subject: Re: The AWE kWhr Race

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12418 From: dougselsam Date: 4/8/2014
Subject: Re: Open exercise: Work to sustain 1 kg at an altitude

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12419 From: dougselsam Date: 4/8/2014
Subject: Re: The AWE kWhr Race

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12420 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/8/2014
Subject: Re: The AWE kWhr Race

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12421 From: dave santos Date: 4/8/2014
Subject: Re: Open exercise: Work to sustain 1 kg at an altitude

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12422 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/8/2014
Subject: Altaeros, special question. M.D. on hot seat here on a detail.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12423 From: dougselsam Date: 4/8/2014
Subject: Re: The AWE kWhr Race

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12424 From: dougselsam Date: 4/8/2014
Subject: Re: Open exercise: Work to sustain 1 kg at an altitude

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12425 From: dave santos Date: 4/8/2014
Subject: Weaponized Kites (past and future)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12426 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/9/2014
Subject: Re: Altaeros, special question. M.D. on hot seat here on a detail.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12427 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/9/2014
Subject: EMPA video

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12428 From: dave santos Date: 4/9/2014
Subject: Kite Energy pushed onto Texas Grid by kPower

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12429 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/9/2014
Subject: Re: Kite Energy pushed onto Texas Grid by kPower

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12430 From: dougselsam Date: 4/9/2014
Subject: Re: Kite Energy pushed onto Texas Grid by kPower

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12431 From: dougselsam Date: 4/9/2014
Subject: Re: Weaponized Kites (past and future)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12432 From: dave santos Date: 4/10/2014
Subject: Re: Kite Energy pushed onto Texas Grid by kPower

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12433 From: dave santos Date: 4/10/2014
Subject: Re: Weaponized Kites (past and future)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12434 From: dougselsam Date: 4/10/2014
Subject: Re: Kite Energy pushed onto Texas Grid by kPower

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12435 From: dave santos Date: 4/10/2014
Subject: Re: Kite Energy pushed onto Texas Grid by kPower

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12436 From: dougselsam Date: 4/10/2014
Subject: Re: Weaponized Kites (past and future)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12437 From: dougselsam Date: 4/10/2014
Subject: Re: Kite Energy pushed onto Texas Grid by kPower

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12438 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/10/2014
Subject: Dec 27, 2007, filed: Kite type phone charger

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12439 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/11/2014
Subject: Re: Dec 27, 2007, filed: Kite type phone charger

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12440 From: dave santos Date: 4/11/2014
Subject: Re: Weaponized Kites (past and future)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12441 From: dave santos Date: 4/11/2014
Subject: Re: Dec 27, 2007, filed: Kite type phone charger

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12442 From: dave santos Date: 4/11/2014
Subject: AWE Article on physics.org

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12443 From: dave santos Date: 4/11/2014
Subject: Re: Kite Energy pushed onto Texas Grid by kPower

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12444 From: Harry Valentine Date: 4/11/2014
Subject: Wind Powered Maritime

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12445 From: dave santos Date: 4/11/2014
Subject: Re: Wind Powered Maritime

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12446 From: dougselsam Date: 4/11/2014
Subject: Re: Weaponized Kites (past and future)




Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12396 From: dougselsam Date: 4/8/2014
Subject: Re: Open exercise: Work to sustain 1 kg at an altitude
Zero work done.  Work = force x distance.  Force = weight, distance = 0, so work = 0.  If this is a flying wind turbine, the weight substitutes for tether tension, same as thrust on a tower-mounted turbine: no movement = no work done.  Does the tower of a wind turbine do "work" because it bears a thrust loading?  No, because no matter how high the thrust force, the distance traveled by the tower is zero.  What this means is that the same flying turbine delivers the same power no matter what its weight (as long is it doesn;t come down), and no matter whether the thrust is countered by weight or tether tension or some combination.  One more reason Mike Barnard's analysis is incomplete. 

With large enough blades, it would take very little work to keep 1 kG aloft using a powered helicopter system (no wind), just as a sailplane has a better and better glide ratio approaching infinite as the wings get bigger in proportion to the weight.

So the answer is zero for a wind turbine as long as it can hold its position.  The work being done is generating electricity and the thrust is enough to hold position, as a by-product.  For more information, the whole situation requires more than just weight and windspeed to completely characterize.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12397 From: dougselsam Date: 4/8/2014
Subject: Re: The AWE kWhr Race
Yeah when I was a newbie I figured everyone would appreciate the mere potential of my ideas.  I slowly realized though, the real numbers at some point are what people need to hear, and success does eventually come down to actual production.  I'd put my money on Altaeros right now for the most airborne cumulative energy generated, since they have a steady-state contraption that uses a real wind turbine and can be left to run overnight etc. without a dozen grad students running around a field going berserk and things crashing all over the place.
The again if Dave S. assertion that RATs and aux high-speed propeller-driven generators in airplanes (wind-powered APU's) constitute AWE can be taken seriously, they undoubtedly have the record, but then again if his assertion that jets flying with prevailing winds constitutes AWE, then pick your airline and pick a number - it will be a long time before that record is beat.  1 MegaWatt = something like 1500 Horsepower, within the range of high-performance auto and truck engines, less than a train engine.  Add up all the megaWatt-hours of all jets throughout history flying with the wind (50%?).
Personally I do not consider that AWE - way too much of a stretch for one thing, and not a new art for another.  That gets back to the idea that one can keep redefining words until any word can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean.  At that point, language has lost its meaning and is useless for conveying ideas.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12398 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/8/2014
Subject: Re: Open exercise: Work to sustain 1 kg at an altitude
The question comes up: Is the kite system LTA or not?  Are two cases to be faced? Case 1: Assume that the kite system is HTA.   Case 2: Assume the kite system is LTA.   
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12399 From: dave santos Date: 4/8/2014
Subject: Re: Open exercise: Work to sustain 1 kg at an altitude
Doug's zero-work conclusion is not factual.

In an ideal case, the work done to maintain a kilo of payload aloft (without volume buoyancy) is equivalent to the work to accelerate a kilo-mass at 1 gravity, which means a constant upward force of about 10N (Accelleration = m/sec/sec) to cancel gravity. The motion is Galilean-relative, of wind to kite, and the change wrought is to slow the average windfield velocity (relaltive to the kite-ground). This is real work, but I forget the final conversion to get watts.

The question then is what wing lifts the most relative to its own mass, which correlates with highest power-to-weight. Parafoils and sleds dominate, and arches are a scaling path, with
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12400 From: dave santos Date: 4/8/2014
Subject: SkyBow Pumping-mode
In a high crosswind, I was using a 100ft  measuring tape this morning, and paused to see what the tape would do. With both ends fixed (no swivel), the tape wound up tight first in one direction, then reversed, in steady 2-3 sec cycles. I felt a strong pumping force in the hand, a base static force, and a dynamic peak. Further experiments are in order...

This ultra-simple pumping method adds to our AWE engineering toolbox, and suggests many applications.

CC BY NC SA
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12401 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/8/2014
Subject: Re: Open exercise: Work to sustain 1 kg at an altitude
Thanks, Doug.       Others?
It seems Doug has chosen to focus on the force of gravity moving the 1 kg mass where the mass in the bounded question does not move up or down along the direction of force of gravity; in that light, DougS seems to give an answer of zero.       
       But the question was "How much work is done for the payload's altitude-keeping sake in that hour?" What if we look at the moving molecules that are deflected by the kite wings; those molecules relative to the wings have kinetic energy and interact with the wings with a net deflection that has a component that is vertical. The force of the wing in that vertical component moves molecules of air in that vertical component; so there is a force in the vertical direction displaces molecules with a vertical component; hence work is being done without which the 1 kg mass would drop in altitude.   We seek that amount of work done for the payload's altitude-keeping sake in that hour.  No work in the system and that 1 kg mass would be observed as not being kept at the said fixed altitude.  
~ JoeF
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12402 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/8/2014
Subject: Re: The AWE kWhr Race
DougS, ...good observations.     But get the full merit of your notes. Why not define the categories of AWE and have the records for that, similar to the first flow in your notes just shared.    Have a category for the AWE of RATs. Have a category for the AWE of jet-stream use by aircraft.  Have a category for electrical generation by LTA kite balloons.  Have a category for groundgen HTA kite-energy systems. Etc.   That categories may serve for helpful analysis would let the party continue.     Category of kite-carousel groundgen. Category of kited flygen with fixed soil-anchor.   
   
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12403 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/8/2014
Subject: Re: SkyBow Pumping-mode
The observed dynamic is seen on TV daily by millions of people where they see police events with the "Do Not Cross" tape. The tape is fixed at both ends, no swivels, but wrapped around posts, trees, cars, etc. The wind blows and the tape flies or flipwings or pitchwings in one direction; then when the load is enough, the tape stops rotating only to be teased to start rotating in the opposite direction. Such dynamic cycles. There is a moment of peak tension on the holding roots; there is a minimum tension that occurs. Yes, something to mine for energy!
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12404 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/8/2014
Subject: Re: SkyBow Pumping-mode

Caution tape flapping in the wind.


Next: Some good tape designs toward obtaining dynamics we want ...
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12406 From: dbmurr@ymail.com Date: 4/8/2014
Subject: Re: SkyBow Pumping-mode
Ah, now again with the correct subject line.
DaveS,

I see that possibility. Please view this drawing & its referenced links that describes similar actions. The two tether set-up gives more security to the aerostat and maybe better action in the system, but I open myself up to more failure modes as well...
These links start to explore failure modes,

db murray

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12407 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/8/2014
Subject: Re: Open exercise: Work to sustain 1 kg at an altitude
DougS was correct about what he was presenting (that did not face the question). He faced a different question which seems to be the work done by the force of gravity on the 1 kg mass; and since gravity did not move the mass up or down, then no work was done by gravity on that mass; so 0 seems factual for what he considered. 

DaveS second paragraph seems to have noticed that work had to be done somewhere somehow to have the result of maintaining the 1 kg at the steady altitude; such seems to address the question more directly. The game has the 1 kg mass hidden within the form of the wing; so the wind is not hitting any of the surfaces of the 1 kg. mass.   The wind is interacting with the wing; without such interaction the whole wing set including the hidden 1 kg would fall by the force of gravity and then work further would be done.   But the case is maintaining the 1 kg at the fixed altitude. Does it really matter the L/D of the wing set or does it really matter about the ambient wind speed; maybe those two parameter have no play? We just want to know the amount of work done someplace in the system without which work the 1 kg would not maintain the fixed altitude. Since the 1 kg would begin to fall toward the center of the earth because of the force of gravity if the sought work was not done someplace  in the system, then the amount of work seems to be addressed some by DaveS and perhaps my looking at the vertical component of force and displacement of the deflected air. 

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12408 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/8/2014
Subject: Re: SkyBow Pumping-mode
DBMurr, nice. 
We recall and include the discussion thread of 18 posts beginning: 

~JoeF

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12409 From: dougselsam Date: 4/8/2014
Subject: Re: Open exercise: Work to sustain 1 kg at an altitude
For a hovering helicopter, the answer depends on rotor diameter and weight.
The smaller the rotor diameter, the more power required to keep the machine aloft.  If you had a 6-inch rotor, it would probably take 10 HP to keep 1 kg aloft.  If you had a 60-foot rotor like a pedal-powered helicopter, the power to keep a kg aloft would be negligible.  You'd lose more energy to skin friction.  The math can be looked up, and I know a few professors (not crackpots) who could run such numbers in their sleep.  Pretty straightforward I think.  Actually it reminds me of the type of problems we had to solve in (yawn) Fluid Mechanics 101.  Knowing the diameter, you could calculate the answer for standard atmospheric conditions at sea level.  For a wind energy device, let's say a gyrocopter, however, no energy is used to keep the machine aloft.  Since it is making power, and that generation of power depends on maintaining its position, the machine does not lose any energy to keeping it aloft, any more than a GE 1.5 MegaWatt turbine loses any power to the thrust force of the tower.  The maintaining of altitude is a fortunate byproduct of making all that power, with the wind rotating the propeller.  As long as the vertical component of the thrust is higher than the weight, your machine stays aloft, and no power is lost from what is being produced.  If you don't believe this, perform the following thought experiment:  A stationary airborne wind turbine weighs 1 kg, but experiences a vertical component of upward pull sufficient to lift 10 kg.  (I'd rather use pounds since kilograms refer to a mass, not a pull, but you get the idea - we are on Earth, so we just say something "weighs" 1 kG even though that is not strictly the case)  Anyway, obviously this machine has no trouble staying aloft since the upward pull is 10 times the weight, right?  And the tether provides the remaining 9 kg of "downward pull".  So you may have a 9 kg weight on the ground with the tether tied to it.  Now take 1 kG of that 9 kG and start moving it up the tether.  Let me know when anything has changed.  Move it right up to the turbine.  Has anything changed yet?  Now take the whole 9 kg and move it up the tether, so you could say the turbine now "weighs" 10 kg.  The tension on the tether is zero.  What has changed?  The turbine acts the same regardless of its weight, as long as it can remain aloft.  The energy to keep it aloft has not changed, even though you multiplied the weight by 10x.
But that is a lot of explanation.  The short answer is, go back to your high-school physics textbook and confirm that energy = force x distance.  If the distance traveled is zero, the energy used can also be zero.  The power output of the wind turbine will not be affected by a higher weight, as long as it has enough lift to remain aloft.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12410 From: dougselsam Date: 4/8/2014
Subject: Re: The AWE kWhr Race
I neglected to point out that Altaeros is claiming a world record for height of a wind turbine above ground at 1000 feet.  This is a perfect opening for Dave S. to hassle the hell out of them, since propeller-driven APUs have obviously operated much higher.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12411 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/8/2014
Subject: Re: SkyBow Pumping-mode
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12412 From: Harry Valentine Date: 4/8/2014
Subject: Re: The AWE kWhr Race
Ingenious for Altaeros to have developed an inflatable, helium-filled airborne O-ring donut (or anus) with air flowing through the center . . . . then they put the turbine right at the center. 


To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
From: dougselsam@yahoo.com
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 15:33:55 -0700
Subject: [AWES] Re: The AWE kWhr Race

 
I neglected to point out that Altaeros is claiming a world record for height of a wind turbine above ground at 1000 feet.  This is a perfect opening for Dave S. to hassle the hell out of them, since propeller-driven APUs have obviously operated much higher.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12413 From: dave santos Date: 4/8/2014
Subject: Re: Open exercise: Work to sustain 1 kg at an altitude
JoeF,

Lets presume the airborne kilo you pose is payload as such, not inherent wing mass. Otherwise, you are ranking wings rather than answering the original theoretic question of work required to sustain a mass aloft, in Watts.

Doug is poorly versed in the physics of flight. Even charitably supposing he was somehow only referencing gravity, he completely missed the question. This bears on his long untenable claims to be a net factual help in AWE. I was the one to reference gravity, but as a numeric value for a more correct result.

Do not forget that the L/D of simple wings can be quite high at low wing-loading, so L/D differences mostly cancel-out with reference to aerodynamic work performed by a given wing mass. There is, however, a striking range of low to high capital-cost for unit lift, depending on what wing type is chosen,

daveS
On Tuesday, April 8, 2014 3:14 PM, "joefaust333@gmail.com" <joefaust333@gmail.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12414 From: Baptiste Labat Date: 4/8/2014
Subject: Re: Open exercise: Work to sustain 1 kg at an altitude
The air act on the kite with a force which is vector sum of drag D and lift L
The fluid velocity can be assumed to be horizontal.
A work can be define as the product of the force acting on the flow by the kite (-drag) by the fluid velocity v.
L=1g (vertical equilibrium)
glide_ratio = L/D
So the power extracted (minus sign) from the flow is P=-1/glide_ratio*g*v
Integrate (this constant) overtime to get work

You can find this in textbook (as Springer Airborne Wind Energy)

Assuming 5 as glide ratio, and 5m/s as stated, P = -10W, E = -0.010kWh




Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12415 From: Baptiste Labat Date: 4/8/2014
Subject: Re: Open exercise: Work to sustain 1 kg at an altitude
To be clearer the power is not extracted from the flow, but converted from translational kinetic energy to macroscopic rotational kinetic energy in the wake, or microscopic molecule agitation (temperature increase which is internal energy increase) and radiations (noise, black body)


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12416 From: dougselsam Date: 4/8/2014
Subject: Re: The AWE kWhr Race
I think they'd be better off with sideways movement (like McConney), rather than a ring, to accelerate anal-hair-flow through the rotor.  That ring looks like an awkward pain-in-the-ass to me.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12417 From: dave santos Date: 4/8/2014
Subject: Re: The AWE kWhr Race
No Doug, the loose altitude record is not my opening to critique Altaeros, but their strong militaritistic-orientation has been. If you are reading carefully, I say let them claim a narrow record.  Its you who most practices "hassle" for non-issues. If they weaponize or Big-Brotherize AWE, then I will complain.

To Harry I would point out that the inflated donut is a very poor LTA format, by lifting volume and drag, not to mention higher helium loss, compared to a standard COTS aerostat with a suspended HAWT. I am passionate about correct prediction of LTA performance on an expert basis, as a serious micro-LTA developer myself, for some thirty years now. Otherwise, let formal testing and market competition tell.

This is old Forum talk. What is new is that anyone is naive enough to think that kWhrs at this premature date really matters. The big AWE kWhr winner maybe does not even exist yet. A race must properly start to be won.
On Tuesday, April 8, 2014 3:39 PM, Harry Valentine <harrycv@hotmail.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12418 From: dougselsam Date: 4/8/2014
Subject: Re: Open exercise: Work to sustain 1 kg at an altitude
Yeah I guess I should modify my simplified answer as follows:  A heavier craft might require the spin axis to become more vertical to keep it aloft, which would reduce the swept area as seen by the wind, from a near-circle to more of an ellipse, thereby reducing the swept area as seen by the wind.  That would then reduce power to the rotor.  This can turn into somewhat of a brain-teaser. Good fodder for when you are laying awake unable to sleep.  I've thought about it a lot and always end up with "stop worrying about exact numbers and just build it", then I fall asleep.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12419 From: dougselsam Date: 4/8/2014
Subject: Re: The AWE kWhr Race
Oddly, I agree with most of what you're saying.  I also think a regular anal-hair-o-stat would be a better choice, and cheaper.  Also more durable.  Less potential problems with icing.  I doubt if Alaska was such a good choice for a first try, ya know?  Did you know they spent over a million dollars on that donut machine? (kind of makes me hungry for a donut!)
Still, we must collectively admit, if the race has not yet started, it is only us who have not started it.  It won't start all by itself!  Meanwhile, I'm sure McCarney could cough up some cumulative energy capture numbers, but I doubt if they are very impressive at this time.  If you subtract the energy they spend getting it up there, who knows if the the total number would even be positive.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12420 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/8/2014
Subject: Re: The AWE kWhr Race
Harry, 
nflated LTA rings to hold rotors for mining energy had been described in patents prior to Altaeros. Altaeros is a contemporary user of prior arts, but adding their tweaks for particular specifications. Altaeros might have some valid claim on exact "appearance" of lines or on detail parts; such would need careful study. Altaeros admits going for quick "safe" bet. The several earlier patent disclosures lets LTA toroidal--and the like centered turbines to be public domain art for both flygen and groundgen formats of same.  I hold that Alberto Kling, Mouton, Thompson, and others wrap LTA ring-and-rotor matters. Circa 1975-1980, 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12421 From: dave santos Date: 4/8/2014
Subject: Re: Open exercise: Work to sustain 1 kg at an altitude
Baptiste,

Thanks for the ideal-case approximation of 10W. L/D 5 was a good median assumption. It reflects that considerable drag is inherent and unavoidable, part of the total energetic cost of the payload system to maintain adequate flight stability in real windfield turbulence.

On a semantic point: Is not "flow" energy the same as "translational kinetic energy"? What is the difference?

daveS


On Tuesday, April 8, 2014 4:09 PM, Baptiste Labat <baptiste.labat@gmail.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12422 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/8/2014
Subject: Altaeros, special question. M.D. on hot seat here on a detail.
Altaeros bladed turbine:  M. Diehl would have it (from Ch.1 of the Springer book) that the machine is not a crosswinding device.   DougS, if I recall, would counter such a Diehl position by stating that the blades of such as Altaeros are indeed crosswinding.    It seems we have a cross here.   What say you?   I will enter the discussion also.   M. Diehl: "... do not exploit crosswind motion"   exampling the SWP autogyro hybrid. My posing narrows to the Altaeros; does the Altaeros exploit crosswind motion?   
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12423 From: dougselsam Date: 4/8/2014
Subject: Re: The AWE kWhr Race
Yeah I've always wondered why they never weaponized kites.  I get interest in SuperTurbine(R) from military sources all the time.  Major interest in the last few days as a matter of fact.  The military has mandates to adopt clean energy too, ya know...  And they like cool gadgets.  But in the end, no matter where you may find general interest, at some point you need a foolproof, weatherproof, bulletproof product.  Then anyone who needs it can buy it.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12424 From: dougselsam Date: 4/8/2014
Subject: Re: Open exercise: Work to sustain 1 kg at an altitude
What I will say here probably agrees with what you are saying here Baptiste.
Joe, the fact is it technically does not take any work to maintain 1 kg at a given height, as a 1 kg weight on a shelf proves.  Now if the shelf starts getting mushy, then maybe you have to start expending energy to maintain position.  In the case of air (or anal-hair, as we say when "catching air" over a jump), the amount of work you need to do to maintain 1 kg at a given height is dependent on the wing area.  The operative principle involves kinetic energy versus momentum transfer.  Remember how the bullet is lighter than the gun, so the guy holding the gun receives less kinetic energy, equal to 1/2 MV^2, than the guy receiving the bullet.  That's because the gun is way heavier.  The kinetic energy is not equally distributed, but MOMENTUM IS equally distributed.  Similarly with a kite lifting a mass, the bigger the kite, the more air is deflected downward.  The more air that is deflected downward, the less kinetic energy it needs for the momentum exchange to serve to maintain the weight at its current height.  Therefore, the energy per unit time (power) required to maintain 1 kg at a given height trends asymptotically toward zero as the surface area of the kite increases.  Same with a propeller, but it is moving so diameter is the operative parameter.  With an "infitely large", weightless propeller or kite, the power is essentially zero to maintain a weight at a given height, since the kinetic energy transferred approaches zero as the amount of anal-hair deflected approaches infinity.  .
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12425 From: dave santos Date: 4/8/2014
Subject: Weaponized Kites (past and future)
Doug wrote: "I've always wondered why they never weaponized kites. "

"They" did, long ago, but maybe future kite violence can be prevented. Kites were used in ancient China for aerial bombardment. Some Polynesians put sharpened spears on kites, which then crashed into ritual participants. Observation kites directed artillery. Barrage kites killed attacking pilots. Fighter kites with cutting string still kill innocent victims.

A hopeful factor against new adoption of weaponized kites will be the social stigma brought to bear, like the world outcry against explosive mines in the form of toys. Weaponized drones have genocidal potential, with or without green energy.

The AWE Military Moratorium remains on the open-AWE agenda, even if AWEC continues to ban the subject from conferences. Let the militarist think rotating towers can help kill enemies, as long as no one gets hurt.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12426 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/9/2014
Subject: Re: Altaeros, special question. M.D. on hot seat here on a detail.
Professor Moritz Diehl has been invited to this discussion; it might be some weeks before he completes something before he will hear of the invitation. 
Institute of Microsystems Engineering (IMTEK) 
University of Freiburg, 
So, his current absence from this topic thread is to respect the above. Thanks. 
~ JoeF
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12427 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/9/2014
Subject: EMPA video
Open for discussion: 

Strom aus den Wolken: Lenkdrache als Kraftwerk

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12428 From: dave santos Date: 4/9/2014
Subject: Kite Energy pushed onto Texas Grid by kPower
Earlier today at kFarm, with Ed and Jesse present, we ran the small looping foil for optimization study. For part of the tests, a small storage battery received an incidental charge from the kite-driven hand generator, as we evaluated rigging changes and tunings.

After the flight session (~6PM local time), on a sudden whim, we connected the battery's 5V 1A output to a new DC-DC upconverter to output 12V into the grid-tie inverter. All the LED indicator lights lit up, a multimeter displayed upconverted voltage, and the vintage power meter was observed to creep backwards a notch or two. Within 30 seconds the battery was drained of its small charge.

Not the flashiest demo ever, with quite low overall efficiency, and net energy in milliwatt seconds, but its almost surely the first electrons ever pushed onto the Texas grid by kites, and maybe even a world first.


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12429 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/9/2014
Subject: Re: Kite Energy pushed onto Texas Grid by kPower
First input to a utility grid reported so far for kitricity.  
Congratulations!
People should have an option on their electric bill to buy kitricity. 
Who will be the first customer on a utility grid to buy kitricity?

~ JoeF
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12430 From: dougselsam Date: 4/9/2014
Subject: Re: Kite Energy pushed onto Texas Grid by kPower
What kind of grid-tie inverter do you have that takes 12-V input?
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12431 From: dougselsam Date: 4/9/2014
Subject: Re: Weaponized Kites (past and future)
I think kites could easily be extremely destructive, but the military is interested in clean and green energy more for the same reasons everybody else is, just like they buy food for the same reason everyone else does.  Just because the military buys something doesn't make it "weaponized".  They are mostly just people who need the same things as the rest of us.  They have clean energy mandates, for one thing, and they like the idea of powering remote outposts, saving fuel, etc., just like real people.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12432 From: dave santos Date: 4/10/2014
Subject: Re: Kite Energy pushed onto Texas Grid by kPower
Doug,

in this case, "12V" is shorthand for the range of slightly higher open and charging voltages. The multimeter digital readout from the DC-DC upconverter was hopping between 11 and 19V. I do not presume what the full working input range of the grid-tie inverter unit is, but this is the model kPower got from Fry Electronics-


You consistently duck answering ST technical questions with crude insults, so its strange of you to depend on better treatment from all other AWE teams,

daveS



On Wednesday, April 9, 2014 8:46 PM, "dougselsam@yahoo.com" <dougselsam@yahoo.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12433 From: dave santos Date: 4/10/2014
Subject: Re: Weaponized Kites (past and future)
Doug,

Kite electricity is foreseen to drive rail-gun and beamed weapons; there is no real distinction between overtly weaponized kites, and weapons driven by kites. An army marches on its energy.

Its true that the world militaries consists of people like us, with a key difference: Nationalistic mythologies of redemptive violence backed up by overwhelming firepower. Those of us long in the Peace Movement, with expertise in energy and environment, are not as easily convinced like you are by military green-wash PR. Lets hope for the worlds militaries to transition into a honest heroic humanitarian force over time that meets believable metrics for sustainability.

Try seeing the world thru the eyes of those of us who choose gardens and bicycles to meet Union of Concerned Scientists' 5% goal of greenhouse gas emission. Modern militaries as such is the opposite extreme of nonsustainability. They are using green-wash PR to mask the inherent militaristic agenda; short-term tactical and eventually strategic advantage by renewable logistics. AI pioneer professor John McCarthy long ago warned us about green fascism along these lines.

Such nuances should be on your radar, not just the military green-wash,

Peace,

daveS

PS Hold out for "airborne unicorn gardens with giant polka-dotted mushrooms", as your best AWES Forum vision ever.
On Wednesday, April 9, 2014 9:01 PM, "dougselsam@yahoo.com" <dougselsam@yahoo.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12434 From: dougselsam Date: 4/10/2014
Subject: Re: Kite Energy pushed onto Texas Grid by kPower
Thank you DaveS. for answering my question of what inverter you used.
The link you provided shows:

DC Input Voltage Range

10.8V ~ 30V

I was not aware of such low voltage input grid-tie inverters.  Most of the larger ones have input ranges much higher such as a SunnyBOY, which typically start at 190-V and go up to 600-V, to allow reduced current levels, which saves money on copper wire.  I'd be more inclined to recognize this accomplishment if it took place directly, in real time, without using a battery.  Batteries naturally contain some energy, introducing some doubt as to if/how much power went from a kite to the Texas grid.  Keep at it, and maybe you can eliminate the battery for a more convincing demo.  Thanks again for informing me of such a cheap grid-tie inverter.  Most of the higher-capacity ones I'm used to cost over $1000.  Beyond that, Joe asked that we try to refrain from personal attacks.  I don't think there was really any need for you to go into your crap-flinging mode again over such a simple question.
:)
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12435 From: dave santos Date: 4/10/2014
Subject: Re: Kite Energy pushed onto Texas Grid by kPower
Doug,

Lets see if you really do refrain from gross insulting language in discussing AWES; the reminders of your years of abysmal Netiquette will then die away. You dragged us all lower by your outrageous attacks on so many friends, even up to the present, and now you complain over the mild reasoned rebukes.

The modest but symbolic feat described here, of pumping a few kite electrons onto the grid as a lark, was done without regard to your predictable disapproval, but to delight everyone else,

daveS
On Thursday, April 10, 2014 8:44 AM, "dougselsam@yahoo.com" <dougselsam@yahoo.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12436 From: dougselsam Date: 4/10/2014
Subject: Re: Weaponized Kites (past and future)
Thanks for your perspective Dave S.  I studied ice ages as a kid.  Even went to a special camp where we went on field trips to study geological ice age evidence.  We hiked along open shale faces in the Finger Lakes area, where one could light the natural gas flowing from certain spots with a match.  This was 40 years before fracking caught on.  Upstate NY Finger Lakes area is pretty much all shale, but with fracking banned there for now.  Still, there is enough natgas in this country to produce a lot of cheap electricty, for a lot of years.  That forms part of the competition for AWE.
Most folks are not aware that for the past half-million years, we've been in an ice age.  We still are in one now!  90% of the time we're in the glacial stage where NY is under a mile of ice.  For the past 10,000 years or more, we've been in a rare "interglacial", but as you can see from the following chart,
http://www.iceagenow.com/Temperature_Interglacials.gif
 this interglacial has already lasted longer than the rest.  So I'm not really sold on the CO2=bad concept.  A realistic view would suggest the strong possibility of descent into the next glacial period rather than runaway warming.  If they implement carbon taxes, at some point they will probably reverse and become carbon subsidies as temps fall, crops fail, and people shiver.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12437 From: dougselsam Date: 4/10/2014
Subject: Re: Kite Energy pushed onto Texas Grid by kPower
OK so I guess you really can't help yourself then, right?  You just HAVE to fling crap, no matter what, huh?  Well since you are both insulting me (while saying that is what I do) AND claiming a great accomplishment over what looks to me like a tiny stunt that is not convincing from a scientific standpoint, I have no choice but to conclude that you agree that your demo was not truly convincing.  Think about it.  How do people with perpetual-motion machines etc. "demonstrate" the vast potential of their pet ideas?  Throw in a battery, which can easily provide enough energy to get them through the demo, while they claim the batteries are "only there to provide a working voltage", that sort of thing.  It's the oldest trick in the book, actually, and the first thing a skeptic looks for.  If you want to stop acting like a little kid gleefully demanding a gold star for their latest crayon drawing, try running it without the battery, and take a video of the meter running backwards.  That would be a comvincing demo.   Or just ignore my suggestion and "shoot the messenger", as though that covers it.  Then skeptics can always point to your battery and rightly claim you did not really demonstrate anything with any sort of certainty.  It's not as though there has ever been any doubt that an inverter could push back into the grid, nor that any contraption might not produce an occasional watt or two.  Whatever you wanna do, however you want to interpret what I thought was a helpful suggestion, is up to you.  But thanks for opening my eyes to how small and chap grid-tie inverters are available.  The biggest problem with using grid-tie inverters designed for solar, in my experience (and a lot of other peoples' too) is that the sun doesn't suddenly get 10 times as bright as "full brightness" whereas in a strong wind of gust, your turbine caneasily produce many times the rated power, and many times the working voltage of the inverter, instantly ruining the inverter.  As I like to say, overspeed protection isn't the main thing, it's the ONLY thing (exaggerated statement to make a point, but people have no idea how true it is, until they start cooking inverters).
:)
By the way, the word "netiquette" seems dated.  Lets see, what I remember from the "netiquette" of the '90's:
1) Always ask permission from a "webmaster" before placing a link to their site, (just to make sure it's OK)  (Do you mind if I post a link to your site?  Hmmm, well I don't know...)  Like do you think I asked iceagenow.com if I could post a link to their site on here a few minutes ago?  Do you think they would have laughed, or called me a stupid pain-in-the-ass for asking? 
2) Or how 'bout "sending an unsolicited e-mail is illegal!  - you will go to jail!"  Oh my, they really had me going with that one...
Please Dave S., if ANYONE is asking for lessons in being polite on the internet, I think you might be the last person to ask, and a great example of exactly what NOT to do.  Come on, get real!  Sheesh!
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12438 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/10/2014
Subject: Dec 27, 2007, filed: Kite type phone charger

CN101471583A  Dec 27, 2007, filed

The invention discloses a kite type mobile phone charger comprising a kite, a lead wire, a wind power generation device, a conductive wire and a mobile phone charging device, wherein, the wind power generation device comprises a windmill and a wind power generator, and the wind power generation device is arranged on the kite and connected with the mobile phone charging device through the conductive wire which is packaged in the lead wire. The kite type mobile phone charger is particularly applicable to plateau regions with greater wind force, thereby solving the outdoor mobile phone charging problem.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12439 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/11/2014
Subject: Re: Dec 27, 2007, filed: Kite type phone charger
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12440 From: dave santos Date: 4/11/2014
Subject: Re: Weaponized Kites (past and future)
Doug,

Ice Age cycles are off-topic here.

The topic here is to fill a specific gap in your knowledge about weaponized kites, and the related topic of an AWE Military Moratorium comparable to efforts in biotech; not as an opening for you to promote fossil fuel use as an antidote for glaciation risk.

There are many other Forums for your Ice Age theories to be apt material, and specialized AWES topics where geoengineering and public carbon policy are closely topical,

daveS

PS Your lack of enthusiasm for ongoing AWE progress is understood in light of your fixed opinion that it would only tend to tip us into a Glacial. The passionate AWES developers are focused on AWE to alleviate short-term human misery and immediate environmental concerns like species and habitat loss. You have been very ineffective at convincing the AWE community that all urgent immediate concerns are not critical., and that the precautionary engineering approach is wrong.
On Thursday, April 10, 2014 11:08 AM, "dougselsam@yahoo.com" <dougselsam@yahoo.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12441 From: dave santos Date: 4/11/2014
Subject: Re: Dec 27, 2007, filed: Kite type phone charger
What a close race it has been against blocking AWE IP. This "kitesat" variant, specifically tied to cellular communications, was filed just three months after KiteLab Portland's (Clown House) KiteMotor1 achieved cellphone charging in public (with DaveC taking the first call).

This patent is "deemed (withdrawn)" by the examining authority.
On Thursday, April 10, 2014 9:04 PM, "joefaust333@gmail.com" <joefaust333@gmail.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12442 From: dave santos Date: 4/11/2014
Subject: AWE Article on physics.org

Upper Wind identified as a prime resource, Cristina as "Godmother" of AWE science, DamonV quoted, and Chase's documentary mentioned-


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12443 From: dave santos Date: 4/11/2014
Subject: Re: Kite Energy pushed onto Texas Grid by kPower
Doug,

How sourly you complain as all serious AWE teams advance day-by-day, while you are unable to share comparable progress.

You seemingly have not done anything positive in AWE for years now, but predictably pop up to "throw crap" anytime anyone else does. 

What kPower did the other day was only a baby-step; now watch the baby grow,

daveS
On Thursday, April 10, 2014 12:00 PM, "dougselsam@yahoo.com" <dougselsam@yahoo.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12444 From: Harry Valentine Date: 4/11/2014
Subject: Wind Powered Maritime
After searching the records of the biggest wind -powered ships, a few that could achieve 23-knots, airborne kites-sails has much to offer as has been the case with Kiteship and Skysails

With regard to VAWT's atop tall masts, using direct-drive via large U-Joints and transfer drives to propellers, very little in the way of suitable VAWT's presently available. Man decades ago, researcher Anton Flettner did install vertical-axis Magnus rotors on a boat  . . . . while the technology is workable, it is by no means optimal. 

There is the option of installing multiple 'egg-beater' VAWT's atop masts on deck . . . . all linked to a prop using gear-less parallel drive mechanisms and drive shafts that include U-joints. Most big ships use compressed air and a turbine to start large marine engines . . . . a battery of interconnected 'egg-beater' VAWT's would also require the air-starter. Their performance characteristics suggest that they could chop up birds. 

There are several wind-turbine maritime craft on the sea . . . using conventional 3-blades horizontal-axis technology along with gear drive, using co-axial counter-rotating shafts to neutralize torque reactions. The turbines are mounted atop a mast-tower. Needless to say, there is merit in switching to a co-axial, twin 2-bladed turbines on the same horizontal axis to increase performance. Maritime may actually provide a market niche for multiple turbines on the same shaft . . . . drive through U-joints to drive propeller.

Bridges that across channels that connect the Great Lakes (between Lakes Michigan and Huron, also at Detroit between Lakes Huron and Erie) restrict the maximum height of the wind turbines . . . with kites, possible to drop kite elevation so that they pass under the bridges.


Harry






Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12445 From: dave santos Date: 4/11/2014
Subject: Re: Wind Powered Maritime
Harry,

Turbines on boats have always been hard pressed to compete with simple sails by cost, weight, and raw performance. The same advantages to fabric sails exist with kites. Fabric rigs for boats and kites are the most scalable sailing means. As turbines advance, sails seem to advance even more. The new America's Cup rigs to help imagine the challenge of someday creating competitive turbines, as sails continue to relentlessly advance.

The key advantage of kites is reaching better wind at less capital cost. Operational cost is not lower, since kites must be flown by great skill and attention, but the superior power can pay. Kites only add sailing risk anytime bridges are higher than sails, and flying a kite under a bridge is a tricky feat to accomplish reliably in all wind conditions. Actually dousing the kite before passing under bridges will often be the safest option.

Its traditional sailing to dip the mast under bridges. This is commonly done by tipping the rig forward by paying out the backstay until the it rests on a bow pulpit, but many variations work. Here is a well known trick; to heel the sail boat to pass under low bridges-


daveS
On Friday, April 11, 2014 11:18 AM, Harry Valentine <harrycv@hotmail.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12446 From: dougselsam Date: 4/11/2014
Subject: Re: Weaponized Kites (past and future)
"Doug, Ice Age cycles are off-topic here." - *You brought up the subject.*