Messages in AirborneWindEnergy group.                           AWES13584to13633 Page 167 of 440.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13584 From: Joe Faust Date: 8/5/2014
Subject: Re: Tether-Optional IFO Glider-Ring DS AWES

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13585 From: dave santos Date: 8/5/2014
Subject: Mothra-WECS Biomimetic Similarity-Case (review and update)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13586 From: dave santos Date: 8/5/2014
Subject: Re: Tether-Optional IFO Glider-Ring DS AWES

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13587 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 8/5/2014
Subject: Re: Theoretic AWES Land Footprint and Airspace Use (review and updat

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13588 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 8/5/2014
Subject: Re: Theoretic AWES Land Footprint and Airspace Use (review and updat

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13589 From: dave santos Date: 8/5/2014
Subject: Re: Theoretic AWES Land Footprint and Airspace Use (review and updat

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13590 From: Harry Valentine Date: 8/5/2014
Subject: Australian and German Wind Energy shortfall

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13591 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 8/5/2014
Subject: Re: Theoretic AWES Land Footprint and Airspace Use (review and updat

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13592 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 8/6/2014
Subject: Re: Australian and German Wind Energy shortfall

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13593 From: Gabor Dobos Date: 8/6/2014
Subject: Re: Tether-Optional IFO Glider-Ring DS AWES

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13594 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 8/6/2014
Subject: Re: Theoretic AWES Land Footprint and Airspace Use (review and updat

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13595 From: dougselsam Date: 8/6/2014
Subject: Re: Industrial energy. Choices.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13596 From: dougselsam Date: 8/6/2014
Subject: Re: Kite-reeling & mental health

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13597 From: dougselsam Date: 8/6/2014
Subject: Re: Kite-reeling & mental health

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13598 From: dave santos Date: 8/6/2014
Subject: Re: Kite-reeling & mental health

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13599 From: dave santos Date: 8/6/2014
Subject: Re: Theoretic AWES Land Footprint and Airspace Use (review and updat

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13600 From: Baptiste Labat Date: 8/6/2014
Subject: Re: Kiderwind hackathon

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13601 From: dave santos Date: 8/6/2014
Subject: Optimal Kitefarm Airspace Use (myth and fact)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13602 From: dave santos Date: 8/6/2014
Subject: Re: Tether-Optional IFO Glider-Ring DS AWES

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13603 From: Joe Faust Date: 8/6/2014
Subject: Re: Industrial energy. Choices.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13604 From: dave santos Date: 8/6/2014
Subject: Re: Industrial energy. Choices.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13605 From: Joe Faust Date: 8/6/2014
Subject: Re: Kite-reeling & mental health

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13606 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 8/6/2014
Subject: Re: Optimal Kitefarm Airspace Use (myth and what fact?)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13607 From: Rod Read Date: 8/6/2014
Subject: Re: Mothra-WECS Biomimetic Similarity-Case (review and update)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13608 From: Rod Read Date: 8/6/2014
Subject: Re: Theoretic AWES Land Footprint and Airspace Use (review and updat

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13609 From: dave santos Date: 8/6/2014
Subject: Re: Optimal Kitefarm Airspace Use (myth and what fact?)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13610 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 8/6/2014
Subject: Re: Optimal Kitefarm Airspace Use (myth and what fact?)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13611 From: dave santos Date: 8/6/2014
Subject: Re: Australian and German Wind Energy shortfall

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13612 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 8/6/2014
Subject: Re: Australian and German Wind Energy shortfall

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13613 From: dave santos Date: 8/6/2014
Subject: Re: Optimal Kitefarm Airspace Use (myth and what fact?)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13614 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 8/6/2014
Subject: Re: Optimal Kitefarm Airspace Use (myth and what fact?)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13615 From: dave santos Date: 8/6/2014
Subject: kFarm testing of WheelWind

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13616 From: Gabor Dobos Date: 8/6/2014
Subject: Re: Tether-Optional IFO Glider-Ring DS AWES

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13617 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 8/6/2014
Subject: Re: kFarm testing of WheelWind

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13618 From: dougselsam Date: 8/6/2014
Subject: Re: Kite-reeling, der yo-yo principle, yah? Nah.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13619 From: benhaiemp Date: 8/6/2014
Subject: Testing dynamic soaring glider wind turbine (DSGWT) (un-tethered AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13620 From: dougselsam Date: 8/6/2014
Subject: Re: KiteGen as "sole professional actor" in AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13621 From: dave santos Date: 8/6/2014
Subject: Re: Tether-Optional IFO Glider-Ring DS AWES

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13622 From: dave santos Date: 8/6/2014
Subject: Re: kFarm testing of WheelWind

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13623 From: dave santos Date: 8/6/2014
Subject: Re: Kite-reeling, der yo-yo principle, yah? Nah.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13624 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 8/6/2014
Subject: Re: kFarm testing of WheelWind

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13625 From: dave santos Date: 8/6/2014
Subject: Re: kFarm testing of WheelWind

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13626 From: Joe Faust Date: 8/6/2014
Subject: Re: Kite-reeling, der yo-yo principle, yah? Nah.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13627 From: Joe Faust Date: 8/7/2014
Subject: Re: Kite-reeling, der yo-yo principle, yah? Nah.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13628 From: Antonella Dentamaro Date: 8/7/2014
Subject: Accenture Innovation Awards

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13629 From: dougselsam Date: 8/7/2014
Subject: Re: Kite-reeling, der yo-yo principle, yah? Nah.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13630 From: dougselsam Date: 8/7/2014
Subject: Re: Kite-reeling, der yo-yo principle, yah? Nah.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13631 From: dougselsam Date: 8/7/2014
Subject: Re: Accenture Innovation Awards

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13632 From: dougselsam Date: 8/7/2014
Subject: Re: Kite-reeling, der yo-yo principle, yah? Nah.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13633 From: dougselsam Date: 8/7/2014
Subject: Re: Tether-Optional IFO Glider-Ring DS AWES



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13584 From: Joe Faust Date: 8/5/2014
Subject: Re: Tether-Optional IFO Glider-Ring DS AWES
We had already put on the table a hybrid that kited the IFO to a high-altitude release where the following step would be the DSing of the IFO; the kiting would be a combination of ambient wind use and powered towing or step towing, depending on wind conditions.  Such would be a mixed system of tether and non-tether.

~JoeF
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13585 From: dave santos Date: 8/5/2014
Subject: Mothra-WECS Biomimetic Similarity-Case (review and update)
Shark "gill arches" (flaps and slits) are stacked kite arch models. The biofluidic principles of shark gills are the same as the proposed fluidics of a kite arch supporting WECS arrays. kPower successfully tested a turbine-WECS under a mothra with this concept [Sapir 2014].

Shark gills internals usually take the form of "gill filaments" but in the case of the Frilled Shark the gills are organized into papillae forms that closely suggest how turbine arrays (like daisies or looping foils) should be placed.

Rod, please note the closer model, and can you provide a rendering of a mothra arch with an array of thirty 300m2 ("blade" area in its disc path) looping foils and/or equivalent daisies placed in the same way? Its ok to stagger alternating discs for closer frontal density. Did you ever puff-out a mothra at the upper-corners ("muffin-top") to fill a ~600 x 2000 kite window?

Here is a review of the shark respiration similarity-case-

http://www.shark-info.com/shark-anatomy/respiration/shark-respiration.htm

Note below the bright red gill papillae of a living frilled shark around 20 and 30 seconds in the video page linked below-

Frilled Shark (Types of Shark) : Discovery Channel
 

 

image
 

 
 
 
 

Frilled Shark (Types of Shark) : Discovery Channel
Meet the frilled shark (Chlamydoselachus anguineus). The ancient, eel-like frilled shark resembles a real-life sea serpent.

View on www.discovery.com
Preview by Yahoo

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13586 From: dave santos Date: 8/5/2014
Subject: Re: Tether-Optional IFO Glider-Ring DS AWES
Joe,

The difference in the previous conception is that the tether and tetherless modes are not optional, but its also a good intermediate case of tetherness,

daveS


On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 5:24 PM, "Joe Faust joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13587 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 8/5/2014
Subject: Re: Theoretic AWES Land Footprint and Airspace Use (review and updat

I join a schema. It is not a beautiful rendering but it allows seeing the huge difference of land used between 15 HAWT facing the unidirectional wind
and Arch and its 30 looping units facing the unidirectional wind. I could put off reel-in phase from 240 kW/300 m² soft wing which corresponds in  ratio power/area for wings tested by some organizations.  And the real power of 30 looping units sould be far less due to the low size of path, excepted if it is possible to implement an ellipse-path. But of course some other AWE schemes can have a far better ratio power/land used, all other things being identical.Please correct me.


PierreB


   @@attachment@@
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13588 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 8/5/2014
Subject: Re: Theoretic AWES Land Footprint and Airspace Use (review and updat
Attachments :

    I join a corrected schema (wind direction is on the other side). It is not a beautiful rendering but it allows seeing the huge difference of land used between 15 HAWT facing the unidirectional wind and Arch and its 30 looping units facing the unidirectional wind. I could put off reel-in phase from 240 kW/300 m² soft wing which corresponds in  ratio power/area for wings tested by some organizations.  And the real power of 30 looping units sould be far less due to the low size of path, excepted if it is possible to implement an ellipse-path. But of course some other AWE schemes can have a far better ratio power/land used, all other things being identical.Please correct me.


    PierreB




    		   @@attachment@@
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13589 From: dave santos Date: 8/5/2014
    Subject: Re: Theoretic AWES Land Footprint and Airspace Use (review and updat
    Joe,

    I misplaced 100,000m2 of frontal area.

    The correct arithmetic is 

    2000 x 600m2 = 1, 200, 000

    1,200,000 - 10% = 1,080,000
    ---------------------------------------------

    Pierre,

    Thank you.

    I will review your AWES schema next,  which does not seem to optimize various factors already cited, but will be helpful to bridge the gap between our two models. Many of Rod's mothra studies also help make clear the ideas.

    Keep in mind that arches can be rotated by various documented means (kPower, etc), and unidirectional arches would still serve in many locations with consistent winds (trade winds, sea-breezes, gap winds, etc),

    daveS


    On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 6:07 PM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13590 From: Harry Valentine Date: 8/5/2014
    Subject: Australian and German Wind Energy shortfall

    The following articles may be of interest:




    Perhaps AWE technology may have an advantage, being able to access winds that blow at higher elevation

    Harry
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13591 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 8/5/2014
    Subject: Re: Theoretic AWES Land Footprint and Airspace Use (review and updat

    DaveS,

    "...your AWES schema... ". No, it is a rough schema according to your description of unidirectional Arch vs HAWT becoming unidirectional and as close each other as looping units. If the arch was multidirectional (perhaps some elephants will want turn the Arch AND the 30 units) it should be not more an Arch, probably smaller and +- front 30 looping units not implementable... 

     

    PierreB
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13592 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 8/6/2014
    Subject: Re: Australian and German Wind Energy shortfall

    Interesting links Harry. I put them on MikeB's blog Conservative Forces at Work: The Opposition to Wind power in Australia and you can see his reply.

    PierreB
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13593 From: Gabor Dobos Date: 8/6/2014
    Subject: Re: Tether-Optional IFO Glider-Ring DS AWES
    Hi DaveS,

    I probably don't understand yet the idea inherently. Will you please describe a steady state (a possible scenario) of this ring system, that is
    • the relative positions of the gliders composing the glider ring
    • the wind gradient or wind speed  anticipated at each glider
    • the airspeed of each glider
    • the mass and size of the gliders approximately
    • you wrote:"the tether and tetherless modes are not optional". How long a tether did you plan for between two adjacent gliders?
    • Some words about remote control of the ring system?
    • The forces between two glider?                                                                                                                                                                                                                    

    Thanks,

    Gabor



    On 2014-08-05 23:52, dave santos santos137@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy] wrote:
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13594 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 8/6/2014
    Subject: Re: Theoretic AWES Land Footprint and Airspace Use (review and updat
    Attachments :

      My AWES schema of land and space used is on Book of Abstract (PDF) - AWEC 2013 - Airborne Wind Energy ... p. 59 (p.61 with toolbar). I join the PDF before publication. Land and (air)space used are delimited by the length of tether in all directions, the top of the space being levelized in a same altitude. This schema can be used for crosswind and stationary multidirectional (why to precise it!!??) AWES. It is sure crosswind AWES make more safety concerns than stationary balloon like Altaeros.

      The difference with HAWT is very important, but probably less in case of implementation of big farms. With HAWT wind shadow is a main concern while AWES have the same concern and others like safety concerns due to the tether, due also to the flying member...

      On my precedent black and white rough schema only unidirectional DaveS' Arch is represented, that with supposed unidirectional HAWT to make a fair comparison.-520 X for land used, but -2600 X for space used (height of HAWT being 120 m, levelized height of Arch being 600 m).

      PierreB

       

      		   @@attachment@@
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13595 From: dougselsam Date: 8/6/2014
      Subject: Re: Industrial energy. Choices.
      "a natural kite system fulfills what a turbine is. I am not redefining anything here."  You ARE redefining words.  Show 1000 people a picture of a kite, ask them what it is.  Not one will say "that is a turbine".  The fact that kites wiggle does not make them a turbine.  That is a point that I've been trying to get across for about 5 years now.  Maybe someday you guys will "get it".  At this point though, it seems unlikely.
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13596 From: dougselsam Date: 8/6/2014
      Subject: Re: Kite-reeling & mental health
      "There are varieties of reeling arrangement. Each variety might
      need its own set of proofs."  ***Start with an unlimited pulling force at ground level.  Describe the reeling system that will convert that pulling force into economical electricity.
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13597 From: dougselsam Date: 8/6/2014
      Subject: Re: Kite-reeling & mental health
      "Your post mentions "power" while maybe you meant generate energy
      that could be used at a certain rate"  ***Power IS energy at a certain rate.  That's the definition.  I'm seeing now, you don't understand ANY definition.  The more you guys talk, the more it becomes apparent you don't understand the basics of engineering, in addition to the basics of language, and of course, the basics of wind energy.  Weird.  :)
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13598 From: dave santos Date: 8/6/2014
      Subject: Re: Kite-reeling & mental health
      Doug,

      So who misused "power" this time?

      Your boomerang-notion that a wrong physics statement indicates a fatal lack of understanding hits you in the head more than anyone. Recall you really thought it takes "zero" power to sustain a mass in HTA flight, and your aerospace knowledge is childlike. Your latest physics blooper-

      "Start with an unlimited pulling force "

      Nobody else starts with infinite power as a logical engineering premise. If you need help identifying the major case of tensile power application, consider that draft animals have served in this role for millennia, so kite power can be seen as a sort of giant wind power version, but neither is "unlimited",

      daveS




      On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 7:45 AM, "dougselsam@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13599 From: dave santos Date: 8/6/2014
      Subject: Re: Theoretic AWES Land Footprint and Airspace Use (review and updat
      Pierre,

      Yours is not the AWES schema proposed, but your best interpretation of what you imagine to be so. Rod's many arch schema are far more realistic. My basic kite-farm schema is found in thousands of drawings used as defensive-disclosure for open-AWE. I have drawn dense arrays in the FAA defined box in hundreds of versions; strange if you never saw any of these schema. The shark case was intended to help.

      See a 2011 version on this webpage background-

      http://www.kitelabgroup.com/

      You did not concede that a car is multi-directional even though "it does not turn by itself" (neither do computer controlled kiteplanes).

      In any case, we are getting closer to the truth, by patient effort,

      daveS




      On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 11:26 PM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13600 From: Baptiste Labat Date: 8/6/2014
      Subject: Re: Kiderwind hackathon
      Hi all,

      For your information, the KIDERWIND Hackathon is now scheduled from the 22nd to the 27th of September 2014

      ++
      Baptiste
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13601 From: dave santos Date: 8/6/2014
      Subject: Optimal Kitefarm Airspace Use (myth and fact)
      It has been supposed that the "correct" geometric shape of a kitefarm airspace is ~hemispheric ("dome" shaped), and not cylindrical [Benhaiem 2013]; that therefore no AWES can possibly tap most of the power at the top of the FAA allowable cylindrical airspace. This is incorrect.

      The fallacy is to presume that only a central anchor point is technologically feasible. In fact, kite flyers have always known that flying from an upwind point on the kite-field maximizes limited space. When an upwind anchor is considered, its easy to see kites can optimally reach the entire rectilinear bisection plane of the maximum cylinder. This is an order-of-magnitude improvement over the mistaken assumption.

      KiteLab Group [2008-14] identified the Anchor Circle and "muffin-top" Kite Arch as basic enabling concepts to harvest the entire airspace cylinder. Ideally, the arch is set from upwind points to span over the center plane.

      Rotation of a kite arch was shown experimentally by various means; anchor-belay, land-and-rotate, and cableway segments. Kite arches are rotated at kite festivals by dragging sandbags into place. Anchor tracks, rails, and vehicles are also known means to rotate a kite arch.

      The kite arch allows dense arrays of kite power elements to be integrated in dense-arrays. This is another order-of-magnitude advance over the pessimistic assumptions in [Benhaiem 2013].

      The preposterous -520x relative capacity-intensity result (AWES v windtowers) in [Benhaiem 2014] is based on the "dome" airspace fallacy (and other gross errors), and needs to be corrected.
       
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13602 From: dave santos Date: 8/6/2014
      Subject: Re: Tether-Optional IFO Glider-Ring DS AWES
      Hi Gabor,

      The glider ring occupies the entire "standard" DS circle path across a wind shear. No tether is required if the fuselages form a continuous train of gliders.

      Mass-velocity and wind-shear scale determine the aircraft scale. We can presume a wide scale range, from the aero-modeler to jumbo scale, but what scale is most effective is an open question.

      The winged-snake configuration allows more complex DS modes, even filling the sky with "flying spaghetti", in an ultimate realization.

      Hope this helps,

      daveS


      On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 2:57 AM, "Gabor Dobos dobosg001@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13603 From: Joe Faust Date: 8/6/2014
      Subject: Re: Industrial energy. Choices.
      Doug,
      Wrong question. Rather, ask 1000 tech engineers to carefully
      consider what a turbine is; then show them a flying kite system; then
      ask them to be very sharp on the matter and ask them if they see the
      kite system as a turbine. No redefining allowed. Some will come up
      with the correct answer; some will come up with a wrong answer. No
      need to redefine anything.
      Do you yet see a natural kite flying as an example of a turbine?

      Lift,
      JoeF

      On 8/6/14, dougselsam@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]
      <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13604 From: dave santos Date: 8/6/2014
      Subject: Re: Industrial energy. Choices.
      Joe,

      Doug proposes asking random folks about kite science to support his lack of kite expertise.

      Fact- All (SLK) kites loop as rising wind overcomes pendulum-stability, and symmetry-breaking occurs.

      Show 1000 AE pros a video of a looping-kite and ask them if it qualifies as a turbine, under a strict technical definition, to get a truer set of answers,

      daveS


      On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 7:36 AM, "dougselsam@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13605 From: Joe Faust Date: 8/6/2014
      Subject: Re: Kite-reeling & mental health
      Power does not have the units of energy;
      So, power is not energy.
      ~ JoeF

      On 8/6/14, dave santos santos137@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]
      <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13606 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 8/6/2014
      Subject: Re: Optimal Kitefarm Airspace Use (myth and what fact?)

      "It has been supposed that the "correct" geometric shape of a kitefarm airspace is ~hemispheric ("dome" shaped), and not cylindrical [Benhaiem 2013]"
      I do not think a plane will follow the shape of a dome. A flat surface in the top is more understandable for aerial circulation. 

      "Rotation of a kite arch was shown experimentally by various means; anchor-belay, land-and-rotate, and cableway segments. Kite arches are rotated at kite festivals by dragging sandbags into place. Anchor tracks, rails, and vehicles are also known means to rotate a kite arch." Blablablabla... 

      "The preposterous -520x relative capacity-intensity result (AWES v windtowers) in [Benhaiem 2014] ". A false assertion does not become true by repeating it again and again: it is not AWES, it is SANTOS'S UNIDIRECTIONAL ARCH WITH 30 LOOPING UNITS he describes on this topic.

       

      PierreB
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13607 From: Rod Read Date: 8/6/2014
      Subject: Re: Mothra-WECS Biomimetic Similarity-Case (review and update)

      Strangely enough, last night I was contemplating the biomimicary of gulping fish mouths.
      Looking at the jaw hinging as a good model of controllable generation point. A pumping humping kinda mothra. Fairly long of tail so it's a bit like the reed of a chanter.
      I devised a belay ring connection scheme with auto steering, where the sheeting control was reciprocated by its position on a generation track...
      Another mechanism which gives you the same motion uses a pivotal front foot, with a foot bar pump driver.

      Trying to get some pals to pick up abandoned tents at a festival on the mainland this weekend...  I may get to build a recycled tent mothra soon yay
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13608 From: Rod Read Date: 8/6/2014
      Subject: Re: Theoretic AWES Land Footprint and Airspace Use (review and updat

      I don't think you're going to impress Dave S drawing his  arch like that
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13609 From: dave santos Date: 8/6/2014
      Subject: Re: Optimal Kitefarm Airspace Use (myth and what fact?)
      Pierre's characteristic dismissal of unwelcome technical AWE knowledge, in this case the existence of kite-arch rotation methods: "Blablablabla...".

      In fact, kite-arch rotation is a wonderful process, if you love kites.

      Let the record stand that Pierre has not invalidated the long list of known kite-arch rotation methods respectfully provided. Also note that kPower has carefully validated kite-arch rotation methods on the Mothra1 scale, and that large kite festival arches are rotated without fuss.

      Pierra also neglects to formally account for the capacity-intensity virtues of dense-array methods in his -520x model, but his Ortho Kite Bunch concept evidences that dense-array qualities are known to him. (esp. imagined with an arch over the bunches, to tame them).

      -520x seems poorly defended by dismissing sound rebuttals as "blabla..."


      On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 12:05 PM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13610 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 8/6/2014
      Subject: Re: Optimal Kitefarm Airspace Use (myth and what fact?)

      I don't think you're going to impress investors in wind energy with this sort of not directional arch.



      PierreB
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13611 From: dave santos Date: 8/6/2014
      Subject: Re: Australian and German Wind Energy shortfall
      The wind power picture is curiously different in the US. Texas, an ultraconservative state, has led in US wind power deployment. Its been the neoliberal Obama federal administration that has disappointed with green crony-capitalism fiascos. Its AWE policy amounts only to a meaningless gift of millions to Google's Makani equity investment.

      Mike Barnard, of IBM after all, is too conservative to see AWE as a real option. We welcome his sea of "conservative" opponents in embracing AWE as a possible tower-killer. Make no mistake, the AWE we intend will kill tower farms by out-competing for the same sites and markets, from Germany to Australia.

      Good plan to keep MikeB busy vainly collecting anti-wind links, rather than pissing inexpertly on AWE R&D.


      On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 12:15 AM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13612 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 8/6/2014
      Subject: Re: Australian and German Wind Energy shortfall

      "Make no mistake, the AWE we intend will kill tower farms by out-competing for the same sites and markets, from Germany to Australia."

      MGM Lion Roar - YouTube

       

      PierreB
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13613 From: dave santos Date: 8/6/2014
      Subject: Re: Optimal Kitefarm Airspace Use (myth and what fact?)
      Pierre,

      kPower's investors know firsthand that large kite-arches can rotate, since we have impressively shown that they can. You are the lone AWE player who simply cannot accept that kite arches rotate. Otherwise rotating arches seem to handily win the theoretic AWES v conventional wind towers capacity-intensity debate.

      Never forget that kPower represents an investment in broad AWES testing, and arches are just one of many ideas explored in flight testing. kPower investors are attracted to the whole portfolio of tested concepts, not just one contender. KiteSat and a small looping-foil are under product development with New Tech Kites. 

      Good luck impressing you investors better *,

      daveS

      * Wheelwind "Option investments or sponsoring

      With the aim of the realization of a first working prototype of 10 kW."

       http://wheelwind.com/index.php?p=1_5_Partnership
       


      On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 1:05 PM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13614 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 8/6/2014
      Subject: Re: Optimal Kitefarm Airspace Use (myth and what fact?)

      DaveS,


      As the purposes of kPower are within open sharing in AWE,  I have no doubt you see Wheelwind or other systems not as competitor(s) but as device(s) for possible tests. So I am surprised your (kPower) investors do not contact me (or probably others) to facilitate testing. But the sense of open sharing in AWE should be probably open Arch, so rotating Arch (why not at MW scale with 30 looping units under the Arch). 

      PierreB 
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13615 From: dave santos Date: 8/6/2014
      Subject: kFarm testing of WheelWind
      Pierre,

      Don't expect a formal private invitation to test the WheelWind within kPower's proposed framework. The many Forum announcements of broad intent was sufficient notice.

      Here is a reminder of the basic deal publicly offered to all; get your concepts at least to the toy-scale prototype phase for qualification in kPower and KiteLab Group "AWE Fraunhofer Plan", for participation in an invested follow-on R&D phase of larger scale comparative study and fly-off.

      If you need help with a toy WheelWind prototype, to properly qualify for next-round action, you can contract kPower to make a small working model. Contact Ed to discuss terms.

      Additionally, all AWE players are invited to join the AWE IP Pool, Kite Power Cooperative, and AWEIA; and bring any kind of value (sweat equity and other in-kind contributions) to boost the collective business prospects.

      While public notices is all you get, you are of course welcome aboard the open-AWE movement, which is still rather informal,

      daveS
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13616 From: Gabor Dobos Date: 8/6/2014
      Subject: Re: Tether-Optional IFO Glider-Ring DS AWES
      Hi DaveS,

      thanks for the explanation. Of corse, IFOs never fly alone. There is a lead glider that has e.g. a lidar to detect windshears. That glider is followed by several others. It will be in fact really a "train of gliders", since gliders can be started from Europe to America with a "safety-determined distance" one after another. It is very expressive to call them a "winged snake" configuration, and I also like "flying spaghetti".  Both names will be very useful from a marketing point of view. But if there is no tether between the gliders then each of them has to be considered to be an individual device, I am afraid. That is, the scalability will not be influenced by the nomenclature. IFOs have to be optimized to the circumstances of the JetStreams, and the number of them is the means of scaling.

      In case of othoer circumstances, e.g. that of desribed in the paper of Sukumkar and Selig  see: http://aerospace.illinois.edu/m-selig/pubs/SukumarSelig-2010-AIAA-2010-4953-DS-OpenFields.pdf   the design has to be optimized again. A train of the previously mentioned gliders and its scalability  will not work well.

      But I agree: a multitude of optimized gliders will function well, - and we need besides also an expressive nomenclature.

      Best,

      Gabor Dobos


      On 2014-08-06 20:53, dave santos santos137@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy] wrote:
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13617 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 8/6/2014
      Subject: Re: kFarm testing of WheelWind

      DaveS,
      Feel reassured, I did not expect it.

      PierreB
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13618 From: dougselsam Date: 8/6/2014
      Subject: Re: Kite-reeling, der yo-yo principle, yah? Nah.
      "teams have generated electricity for use byusing the Yo-Yo Method"  *** More insanity.  No kite-reeling system remotely resembles a yo-yo, in its operation, nor in its form.  A yo-yo has a moving, spinning mass, which stores energy by its rotational inertia to climb the string.  A kite-reeling system has a stationary reel, an electric winch, like an elevator.  A kite-reeling system is not predominantly driven by rotational inertia, but is instead driven by a kite pulling, and by electricity.   The kite-reeling system does not move as a yo-yo does.  "The Yo-Yo Principle" more accurately describes the operation of Professor Crackpot's brain, than a kite-reeling system.  A kite-reeling winch system works on "the elevator principle".  That describes the up-and-down electric winch part, not the kite part.  Try "the inverse elevator principle"...  :)
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13619 From: benhaiemp Date: 8/6/2014
      Subject: Testing dynamic soaring glider wind turbine (DSGWT) (un-tethered AWE

      DaveS,

      I thank you for your attention for Wheelwind. I have some options to determine before really testing it.

      In the other hand a great and not too complicated opportunity to begin a new sort of  AWES is making and testing a piloted DSGWT by using a glider like it  www.youtube.com/watch?v=ByOB4luuvy4  then adding a turbine and battery. KPower as "open sky" could be a good framework.

       

      PierreB
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13620 From: dougselsam Date: 8/6/2014
      Subject: Re: KiteGen as "sole professional actor" in AWE
      A comedy, no doubt... consistent laughs!  :)
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13621 From: dave santos Date: 8/6/2014
      Subject: Re: Tether-Optional IFO Glider-Ring DS AWES
      Gabor,

      The glider-ring and glider-snake IFO variants correspond to a multi-cellular scaling strategy with federated control. By contrast, the control demands of a swarm of discrete IFOs is far higher; every single unit requires its own controls.

      Jet-stream vertical wind shear is quite narrow, and a DS ring or snake operates just like a hypothetical circle or line of unconnected IFOs, although the connected version can transfer forces along the chain, for novel flight modes,

      daveS

      PS As you know, kPower plans to test basic IFO concepts at the aeromodeler scale. We have a large electric glider to convert. Its folding prop and motor need to be replaced with closely-suited gen or motor/gen hardware...


      On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 4:10 PM, "Gabor Dobos dobosg001@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13622 From: dave santos Date: 8/6/2014
      Subject: Re: kFarm testing of WheelWind
      Pierre,

      Once again, you are misunderstood, owing to the culture-gap. This is the comment that made it seem like you expected some personal invitation-

      "So I am surprised your (kPower) investors do not contact me (or probably others) to facilitate testing."

      In English- "...Surprise represents the difference between expectations and reality,.." 
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surprise_(emotion)

      daveS


      On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 4:18 PM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com wrote:
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13623 From: dave santos Date: 8/6/2014
      Subject: Re: Kite-reeling, der yo-yo principle, yah? Nah.
      Doug,

      You are seemingly attacking made-believe quotes again-

      Google: No results found for "teams have generated electricity for use by using the Yo-Yo Method".


      On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 4:35 PM, "dougselsam@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13624 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 8/6/2014
      Subject: Re: kFarm testing of WheelWind

      DaveS,

      Surprise has the same sense in English or in French language.The tone of this message was a little ironical. I put again the message and mark ironical passages (the whole message excepted beginning) to help you for a better understanding.

      "As the purposes of kPower are within open sharing in AWE,  I have no doubt you see Wheelwind or other systems not as competitor(s) but as device(s) for possible tests. So I am surprised your (kPower) investors do not contact me (or probably others) to facilitate testing. But the sense of open sharing in AWE should be probably open Arch, so rotating Arch (why not at MW scale with 30 looping units under the Arch). "

      PierreB

       
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13625 From: dave santos Date: 8/6/2014
      Subject: Re: kFarm testing of WheelWind
      Pierre,

      The irony did not survive the language barrier. It seemed like quite a reasonable comment, that you would really be surprised, and then the garbled technical expression made it seem quite authentic.

      The fact is, you need a working prototype, not a failed attempt at humor,

      daveS


      On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 6:20 PM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13626 From: Joe Faust Date: 8/6/2014
      Subject: Re: Kite-reeling, der yo-yo principle, yah? Nah.
      Doug, some teams have used the title "Yo-Yo"
      to capture that a cycle pumping phase or productive phase
      provide energy to spend in the retrieving phase or costing phase.
      Such similarly to the Yo-Yo operation is the cause of the title or tag
      for reference. The groundgen spins and generates electricity or
      rotational energy in a flywheel in the production phase; then some of
      that stored energy is used to reel in the wing set (upon changing the
      attitude and shape of the wing set for lowering the cost
      substantially).
      Your forcing complete match to the yo-yo you described is
      unnecessary; match the historical culture of the use of the "Yo-Yo"
      term in AWE by seeing the related texts that show the mechanical
      principles involved in the cycling involved. It is sane to tag or
      title simply in order to transfer memory.

      ~ JoeF
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13627 From: Joe Faust Date: 8/7/2014
      Subject: Re: Kite-reeling, der yo-yo principle, yah? Nah.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Position_(vector)
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertia
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moment_of_inertia
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_moments_of_inertia
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceleration
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_acceleration
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_velocity
      http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/py105/Torque.html

      Common yo-yo (Not to be confused with a title of an AWES method which
      goes by several names, but sometimes "Yo-Yo method" in the the
      literature. Note: There has not yet been a vote in AWEIA about naming
      various AWES methods; all are ever encouraged to delve into the raw
      mechanics of an AWES method without letting titles short one from
      knowing a method well.)
      http://www.sciences360.com/index.php/the-physics-of-a-yo-yo-22507/

      Differently: For a start into the fuzzy world of the AWES efforts that
      sometimes use the title tag of "yo-yo", explore the general link:
      http://tinyurl.com/FuzzyAWESyoyo

      ~ JoeF
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13628 From: Antonella Dentamaro Date: 8/7/2014
      Subject: Accenture Innovation Awards
      TU Delft running for the Accenture Innovation Awards.


      Ps:
      Cogitato, mus pusillus quam sit sapiens bestia:
      aetatem qui non cubili <uni
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13629 From: dougselsam Date: 8/7/2014
      Subject: Re: Kite-reeling, der yo-yo principle, yah? Nah.
      "similarly to the Yo-Yo operation is the cause of the title" ***Joe, obviously they chose the name due to similarity, but I'm pointing out that, in my opinion anyway, an elevator is MORE similar to kite-reeling than a yo-yo is.

      And I think the requisite apparatus for a utility-scale kite-reeling operation might even use some (mostly?) off-the-shelf elevator components.  What I think should be done, if they are serious, is to put together, on paper, a design and list of components, including prices, and make a case for economic viability.  I may be really missing something, but my take is that such an economic analysis would come out lacking. 

      As always in wind energy, the question is NOT "Can this work to generate SOME electricity at SOME cost?", since virtually ANY scenario could generate SOME electricity at SOME cost.  That, by itself, doesn't help.  One must show the promise to generate a useful amount of electricity, at a competitive cost. 

      Most people would be willing to allow for future improvement, if an apparatus can at least show promise to get "in the ballpark" or "near the ballpark".  If running the numbers on a proposed technology does not get anywhere near the ballpark, and instead reveals a chain of inefficiencies, such as weak energy capture, a reduced capacity factor due to unproductive or negative energy production in portions of a non-steady-state working cycle, and issues with premature wear and complicated operation, then one might consider whether the technology in question is worth pursuing before putting millions of dollars toward it, when workable technologies abound, simply waiting to be exploited.
      :)
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13630 From: dougselsam Date: 8/7/2014
      Subject: Re: Kite-reeling, der yo-yo principle, yah? Nah.
      Wow Joe, what a list of definitions.  Maybe if you can come up with enough definitions, that will make some power, huh?  If not, redefine everything and try again.  Can mere word definitions generate power? :)
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13631 From: dougselsam Date: 8/7/2014
      Subject: Re: Accenture Innovation Awards
      I click on this link and find what we always see with proposed technologies that don't really work out:  They talk about the vastness of the wind resource.  As though that locks it in.  They all do that.  That;s all they've got.  It sounds impressive for people reading it for the first time.  After a few hundred times, not so much...  That's how it's always been.  The only actual encouraging facts they can present is "Gosh there is SO MUCH power available, in that amazing amount of wind, (if only we could get it!)"

      Yes, yes, lots of power available.  That has always been the case, and scarcely bears mentioning at this point.  The question is, can you DO anything with that VAST RESOURCE?  (besides generating endless pix of grad students flying a kite?)  Awards are a nice psychological shot-in-the-arm (or a distraction), but after the glow wears off, you're still back to the same question: Can your technology fundamentally work from an engineering and economic standpoint (fundamental analysis)?  Then, if so, can you really GET it to work?
      :)
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13632 From: dougselsam Date: 8/7/2014
      Subject: Re: Kite-reeling, der yo-yo principle, yah? Nah.
      "Doug, You are seemingly attacking made-believe quotes again-" - Dave S.: I corrected Joe's typo where he did not have a space between two words yesterday, after a cut-paste of his exact words, which may be why you did not find an exact google text match.  Beyond that, you definitely have "too much time on your hands".
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13633 From: dougselsam Date: 8/7/2014
      Subject: Re: Tether-Optional IFO Glider-Ring DS AWES
      Take a glider ring, and move the tethers toward the center as far as possible, and you have a gyrocopter rotor on a filament-wound carbon-fiber driveshaft.  Stack 'em and you are back to a SuperTurbine(R).  The reason I say "all roads lead to SuperTurbine(R)" is I've already been down all the roads, and that's where they all led.  They always end up at the same place.