JoeF,


There is no "Pierre Certification".

PierreB

Study of TARS can allow an interesting return of experience for any scheme in AWE, under and over 600 m.


PierreB

In the present forum,nobody takes the defense of denigrated searchers in NearZero's circle, considered literally as near zeros. So I take their defense by quoting them. It is true DaveS has good, perhaps decisive concepts like high-density within a single set having an inherent stability, Mothra-Arch being an illustration of it (advantages can be over disadvantage of needing a circular track _ see videos from ReadR _allowing wind orientation), but it is not a reason to denigrate searchers in NearZero's circle or others. HAWE has some experts (C.Archer, Ken Caldeira, identifying the resource or Alex Kleidon identifying the lack of resource in jet stream), but as Dougs says, there will be experts in AWES when AWES will work.Note here there is not "Pierre Certification" since it does not exist and since I am not an expert.

A word for GaborD: dynamic soaring is not well known by itself (excepted for scientists working about it and users), even less considering regenerative use within a plane, even less considering the resource by itself (how analyse it:strong gradients are in the zone of jet stream, but also near the ground, so in what is it HAWE?) and of course even less considering the whole plant.

PierreB

JoeF,

You wrote"NearZero non-expert process exercised (still extant) about the most crass cutting censorship that has occurred in AWE-related realms" and DaveS wrote on:"dave santos

Wubbo lives, and James Watt so.


PierreB

We met Bob this year at Leominster kite festival. Really nice guy. He was teaching myself and my boys loads about low wind...
Wind around 40mph here today.

Research about AWE is a little like a puzzle where all pieces must be in the good place. The present AWE forum works a little like research of gold:dust falls underwater and gold appears. Thanks to last dialogues with JoeF some technical details of insignificant appearance suddenly take now a good place within the puzzle. And  two or three old principles from DaveS and DougS appear to be a motor to place the pieces. So I thank them,waiting that things settle, going to make some tries to have some confirmation, and if it interests you, shall come back to you within one month or two,telling it into technical translation.  

PierreB

 View Discussion Transcript shows an interesting difference between DaveS's approach and other searchers's approach.

Some statements:

"I think that any concept will have to be scaled up through "farms" of single units, so inn my opinion it would be better to first devise the concept that works best for a single unit, and then scale that concept to mutliple units, instead of studying immediately concepts with multiple wings or aircrafts. (Lorenzo Fagiano)";

"A lot of this has already been done in both academia and private companies.  The work is good, the fundamentals are understood.  I do not believe the industry needs more studies of comparitive testing.  We need tests that remove specific risks and unknowns that remain. (Saul Griffith)(DaveS disagrees )";

"The classes are vague, but I believe the broad classes are covered (hovering non-aerodynamic lift based (balloons)), hovering lift based (auto-gyro, in which category I'd also put multiple-rotor craft), and (fixed wing (which can be soft or hard that exploits the aero-dynamics of cross-wind flight). (Saul Griffith) (DaveS disagrees)";

"“The categories were vague and did not reflect the full range of major options. No choice was allowed for hybrid systems (like, say, rotor and wing) or multi-unit flying arrays (trains, arches, and "clouds").” DaveS (Saul Griffith disagrees)"...

On some points,the discussion about experts on another topic is interesting. Here most searchers think AWE from an unity according to well-defined categories, then multiplying it in farm, by making two distinct steps. This type of approach seems quite correct in conventional appreciation of expertise.  DaveS's approach is quite different, deeper, thinking across the board, allowing taking account of parameters which are lost by compartmental thinking. Now I will give a short reply to Gabor, then stopping for some time, trying and studying.

PierreB

Dear Gabor,

My opinion is not important. Please imagine you speak towards investors in wind energy asking for DS, are you going to reply something like "there is some paper here or there"?

Concerning temporary storage and whole installation, technologic challenges are such that if they are resolved, that means we live in another energy world. Such a world has to be invented, but why not?...

PierreB  

Ring of Flip-wings (RoFW)         CC 4.0 BY NC SA  for the following: 

The following won't be a winner in utility-scale electricity production. Launching and landing could be a huge mess. During operation the aggregate forming a macro ring could get into catastrophic self-mangling in some loose arrangements; some mitigation against self-mangling would come from having sturdy ring on which are flip-wings.  Niche applications are expected.  

Special ring, a type of coterie in one format, needing lifting when not towered or terrain lifted: 

Have a special ring arrangement where the ring is made up of elemental flip-wing kites tethered to a central point for macro tethering which would be held by a lifter system (energy kite system or tower or tree or pole or mountain, etc.) Swiveling connectors make up the connection of one elemental flip-wing to the next around the ring.  Macro rotation of the ring would be incidental and not the source of electrical generation; but each flip-wing VAWT might have its own electric generator.  Each elemental flip wing in the ring drives away from the ring's center.  HTA or neutral buoyancy or LTA versions are included in the family of rings of flip wings. Think of bols that are segmented, but the segments are fully rotating flip wings in contrast to static bol experience (notwithstanding that bols may have macro rotation about their centers).  Segment wings are rotating from the donut hole upwind and to the exterior macro perimeter where the segment wing outside edge is then driven downwind.   The "ring" is really polygonal with sides of the polygon being rotating shafts for the elemental flip wings. Many variations of mounting various shapes of flip wings on a base circular ring are possible; many different power takeoff  (PTO) means are possible.  PTO could focus on sound or heat or light or electricity or a combination of energy formats; even direct drive of the macro holding shaft option could be mined with one or two or three PTO stations on the ring.

•  ~ JoeF    18Aug2014     CC 4.0 BY NC SA