Messages in AirborneWindEnergy group.                           AWES14240to14289 Page 180 of 440.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14240 From: Joe Faust Date: 9/7/2014
Subject: Re: Fog Drip Harvesting inspired by kites

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14241 From: dougselsam Date: 9/7/2014
Subject: Re: Kite Power Solutions Ltd

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14242 From: dougselsam Date: 9/7/2014
Subject: Re: Fog Drip Harvesting inspired by kites

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14243 From: dougselsam Date: 9/7/2014
Subject: Re: Kite power systems in automatic operation

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14244 From: dave santos Date: 9/8/2014
Subject: Re: Kite power systems in automatic operation

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14245 From: dave santos Date: 9/8/2014
Subject: Re: Kite Power Solutions Ltd

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14246 From: dave santos Date: 9/8/2014
Subject: Re: Fog Drip Harvesting inspired by kites

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14247 From: dave santos Date: 9/8/2014
Subject: Re: Fwd: [free-kitesim] ANNOUNCE: Fully working version of 4-point k

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14248 From: dennis stevens Date: 9/8/2014
Subject: Re: Potential-Energy of Airborne-Mass by Height (update and review)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14249 From: dave santos Date: 9/8/2014
Subject: Re: Potential-Energy of Airborne-Mass by Height (update and review)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14250 From: dave santos Date: 9/8/2014
Subject: Re: Potential-Energy of Airborne-Mass by Height (update and review)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14251 From: dave santos Date: 9/8/2014
Subject: Kite-Dome and Kite-Tower Integration by Tri-Tether

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14252 From: dennis stevens Date: 9/8/2014
Subject: Re: Potential-Energy of Airborne-Mass by Height (update and review)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14253 From: dave santos Date: 9/8/2014
Subject: Re: Potential-Energy of Airborne-Mass by Height (update and review)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14254 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/8/2014
Subject: Re: Potential-Energy of Airborne-Mass by Height (update and review)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14255 From: dave santos Date: 9/8/2014
Subject: Re: Potential-Energy of Airborne-Mass by Height (update and review)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14256 From: dougselsam Date: 9/9/2014
Subject: Re: Kite power systems in automatic operation

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14257 From: dougselsam Date: 9/9/2014
Subject: Re: Kite Power Solutions Ltd

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14258 From: dougselsam Date: 9/9/2014
Subject: Re: Kite Power Solutions Ltd

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14259 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/9/2014
Subject: Working principle of the TU Delft pumping kite power system

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14260 From: dave santos Date: 9/9/2014
Subject: Re: Kite power systems in automatic operation

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14261 From: dave santos Date: 9/9/2014
Subject: Re: Kite Power Solutions Ltd

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14262 From: dave santos Date: 9/9/2014
Subject: Seven Trillion Kilos Aloft (levitating civilization)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14263 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/9/2014
Subject: Re: Seven Trillion Kilos Aloft (levitating civilization)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14264 From: dave santos Date: 9/9/2014
Subject: Re: Seven Trillion Kilos Aloft (levitating civilization)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14265 From: dougselsam Date: 9/10/2014
Subject: Re: Kite power systems in automatic operation

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14266 From: dougselsam Date: 9/10/2014
Subject: Re: Kite Power Solutions Ltd

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14267 From: dougselsam Date: 9/10/2014
Subject: Re: Seven Trillion Kilos Aloft (levitating civilization)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14268 From: dougselsam Date: 9/10/2014
Subject: Re: Seven Trillion Kilos Aloft (levitating civilization)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14269 From: dennis stevens Date: 9/10/2014
Subject: Re: Seven Trillion Kilos Aloft (levitating civilization)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14270 From: dave santos Date: 9/10/2014
Subject: Re: Seven Trillion Kilos Aloft (levitating civilization)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14271 From: dave santos Date: 9/10/2014
Subject: Re: Kite power systems in automatic operation

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14272 From: dave santos Date: 9/10/2014
Subject: Re: Kite Power Solutions Ltd

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14273 From: dave santos Date: 9/10/2014
Subject: First Approximation Errors in AWE (and Physics)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14274 From: dougselsam Date: 9/10/2014
Subject: Re: Kite power systems in automatic operation

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14275 From: dougselsam Date: 9/10/2014
Subject: Re: Kite Power Solutions Ltd

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14276 From: dave santos Date: 9/10/2014
Subject: Application of Braid-Theory to Kites

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14277 From: Joe Faust Date: 9/10/2014
Subject: Re: Seven Trillion Kilos Aloft (levitating civilization)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14278 From: dave santos Date: 9/10/2014
Subject: Re: Kite Power Solutions Ltd

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14279 From: dave santos Date: 9/10/2014
Subject: Re: Kite power systems in automatic operation

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14280 From: dougselsam Date: 9/10/2014
Subject: Re: Kite Power Solutions Ltd

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14281 From: dave santos Date: 9/10/2014
Subject: Re: Seven Trillion Kilos Aloft (levitating civilization)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14282 From: dougselsam Date: 9/10/2014
Subject: Re: Kite power systems in automatic operation

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14283 From: dave santos Date: 9/10/2014
Subject: Re: Kite Power Solutions Ltd

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14284 From: dave santos Date: 9/10/2014
Subject: Re: Kite power systems in automatic operation

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14285 From: dougselsam Date: 9/10/2014
Subject: Re: Kite power systems in automatic operation

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14286 From: dave santos Date: 9/10/2014
Subject: Re: Kite power systems in automatic operation

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14287 From: Joe Faust Date: 9/10/2014
Subject: Re: Seven Trillion Kilos Aloft (levitating civilization)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14288 From: dave santos Date: 9/10/2014
Subject: Re: Seven Trillion Kilos Aloft (levitating civilization)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14289 From: dave santos Date: 9/10/2014
Subject: Re: Seven Trillion Kilos Aloft (levitating civilization)



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14240 From: Joe Faust Date: 9/7/2014
Subject: Re: Fog Drip Harvesting inspired by kites
Thanks, Doug. 
   

How shall we distinguish fog collecting from dew-encouraging and dew collection?

~ JoeF
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14241 From: dougselsam Date: 9/7/2014
Subject: Re: Kite Power Solutions Ltd
" What sets this team apart is its marine winch engineering depth"  ***What makes it the same is it is stuck on kite-reeling.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14242 From: dougselsam Date: 9/7/2014
Subject: Re: Fog Drip Harvesting inspired by kites
"How shall we distinguish fog collecting from dew-encouraging and dew collection?"  *** Dew diligence says ask Phineas Phogg
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14243 From: dougselsam Date: 9/7/2014
Subject: Re: Kite power systems in automatic operation
"average power-out reflects power deficit during the retract phase, with surge peaks during generation." *** I suspect the typical newbie attempt to substitute a power peak for average output.  Obviously, the existence of a retract phase, let alone one that uses power, severely hampers average output.  The retract phase would reduce capacity factor even if the wind always blew strong, the apparatus wouldn't be able to keep up.  Funny to witness the laddermill concept, which had already bypassed the single-kite in-out reeling stage, nonetheless eclipsed by what was obviously this predecessor idea.  Laddermill: "proven" not to work by refusal to ever build one.  Hey I'm just sayin', at this point, for anyone to even claim to be smart, actually interested in AWE, follow-through, or not lazy, does not jive with the evidence.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14244 From: dave santos Date: 9/8/2014
Subject: Re: Kite power systems in automatic operation
Doug,

Of course you "suspect the typical newbie attempt to substitute a power peak for average output", even though such paranoia "does not jive with [any] evidence". Its not like you ever bother to prove your suspicions, by careful review of the evidence, since you are the AE newbie in AWE, not TUDelft's PhDs. 

You seem again to  forget that KiteLab Ilwaco did in fact build and test a small LadderMill. The inherent performance defect, that it operates downwind, is what discourages further pro interest (a bothersome tendency to bow-tie was also noted).

Fortunately, the steady progress in AWE R&D has nothing to do with AE-newbie inability to perceive it,

daveS




On Sunday, September 7, 2014 9:54 PM, "dougselsam@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14245 From: dave santos Date: 9/8/2014
Subject: Re: Kite Power Solutions Ltd
Doug,

Once again, you seem to think AWE ventures are as "stuck" on details like reeling just as you are emotionally stuck with the ST driveshaft. The history of aerospace ventures shows that the survivors always make the jump to the more optimal designs. You would not have predicted the many design shifts aircraft manufacturers successfully made (monoplanes, jet engines, retractable landing-gear, etc.).

Winch expertise is not just critical to AWES reeling designs, but a general giant kite flying launching and landing challenge. kPower is proposing a partnership or merger to Kite Power Solutions to draw on its industrial winch expertise for testing many AWES architectures at large scale, with extraction-reeling as a baseline case.

Beware being stuck not competing even with EU reeling teams, by fantasizing them as "stuck",

daveS


On Sunday, September 7, 2014 9:05 PM, "dougselsam@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14246 From: dave santos Date: 9/8/2014
Subject: Re: Fog Drip Harvesting inspired by kites
A "Fog-Harvesting LadderMill" is an interesting app. 

The loop of kite units can be driven by the descending-side mass of water-saturated mesh units. The bottom station wrings or squeegees out the harvested water. One might set the entire loop in a cloud and use a hose to bring down the harvested water to a desired spot for immediate irrigation or fire-fighting, or reservoir storage.

CC 4.x BY SA NC


On Sunday, September 7, 2014 9:28 PM, "dougselsam@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14247 From: dave santos Date: 9/8/2014
Subject: Re: Fwd: [free-kitesim] ANNOUNCE: Fully working version of 4-point k
Thanks for the link, Baptiste.

Uwe (et al) do admirable work. I also hope to work with the sim, if its ready for beta use. On first reading of the paper, some questions came to mind (Uwe Cc:ed)
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14248 From: dennis stevens Date: 9/8/2014
Subject: Re: Potential-Energy of Airborne-Mass by Height (update and review)

You say “A kilo raised to 100m stores 2.72Whr…”  A Kilo weighs 9.8 Newtons, and when raised 100 M, has potential energy of 980 Newton-Meters.  980 Newton-Meters is the same as 980 Joules, which is the same as 980 Watt-Seconds.  Dividing 980 Watt-Seconds by 3,600 Seconds per Hour yields an energy of 0.272 Watt-Hours.  Your result is too high by a factor of ten.

I thought someone would catch that by now, but they didn’t.

Dennis

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14249 From: dave santos Date: 9/8/2014
Subject: Re: Potential-Energy of Airborne-Mass by Height (update and review)
Dennis,

We are plagued by order-of-magnitude (and greater) fingers-and-toes arithmetic errors here, so your help catching them is appreciated. In this case, lets adjust the height to 1km, for simplicity, and remember ~3W, for our rule-of-thumb. The corrected formula- 

       1kg raised 1km stores 2.72Whr


As most everyone stopped using hand calculators when math programs took over, we lost handiness. I am regressed in keeping a vintage slide rule handy (Aristo MultiLog), "just enough math to be dangerous", as Wayne German likes to put it (enough math for unlimited mistakes, as well),

daveS



On Monday, September 8, 2014 11:56 AM, "'dennis stevens' dstevens67@roadrunner.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14250 From: dave santos Date: 9/8/2014
Subject: Re: Potential-Energy of Airborne-Mass by Height (update and review)
Whoops, "3Whr" that is (for rule-of-thumb).


On Monday, September 8, 2014 1:39 PM, dave santos <santos137@yahoo.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14251 From: dave santos Date: 9/8/2014
Subject: Kite-Dome and Kite-Tower Integration by Tri-Tether
Kites have long been equated with towers, and stable kite-stacks (dense kite-trains) are the most tower-like of kite methods. A stack of maximal unit-kites scales powerfully. Let us coin the informal term "Kite-Tower" to categorize utility kite stacks. Put a Kite-Tower on a Tri-Tether to step-tow (circular phase steps).

The Kite-Dome concept was introduced in recent years as a radially-symmetric dense-array sail structure that accepts wind from any direction by tilting (without rotation). Simple toy-scale experiments (KiteLab Ilwaco) validated basic function while identifying a critical requirement to support the leading (windward) edge from collapse. Launching and landing have been open questions. Various options were noted.

A Kite-Tower on a Tri-Tether (or higher tether count) can serve as a Kite-Dome launching-landing system, and stably support the dome's leading edge. Tether legs are suitable halyard support for raising and lowering a Kite-Dome at will, and supporting its leading-edge. This is a complete massive lift basis to in-turn raise large WECS arrays or other vast payloads (like storage-mass).

The final result would resemble a leaning Italianate "Cupola e Torre", with the Kite-Tower even performing the architectural lantern role (for airspace conspicuity).

CC 4.x BY SA NC
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14252 From: dennis stevens Date: 9/8/2014
Subject: Re: Potential-Energy of Airborne-Mass by Height (update and review)

DaveS writes about using the geopotential energy of a kite system as it descends during lulls in the wind.  He speaks of raising one Kilo by 100 Meters, which I say (see below) establishes 0.272 Watt-Hour of potential energy.  Now…let’s see.  What if we raise 1000 Metric Tons by 100 Meters.  Now we have increased potential energy by 272 KWHr.  I have a little Audi TT roadster that weighs about a Metric Ton.  We could use a kite system to tow 1000 of them up a 100 Meter hill, and let them coast down the hill.  If we convert the resultant kinetic energy into electric energy (at 100% efficiency), and if we value a KWHr at 10 cents, then we could sell the energy for $27.20.  HUBBA DUBBA WINGDING!  $27.20, and all we need is the big kite and 1000 roadsters.  Or, maybe we could tow one roadster up the hill 1000 times.  AARG!

Dennis

 

You say “A kilo raised to 100m stores 2.72Whr…”  A Kilo weighs 9.8 Newtons, and when raised 100 M, has potential energy of 980 Newton-Meters.  980 Newton-Meters is the same as 980 Joules, which is the same as 980 Watt-Seconds.  Dividing 980 Watt-Seconds by 3,600 Seconds per Hour yields an energy of 0.272 Watt-Hours.  Your result is too high by a factor of ten.

I thought someone would catch that by now, but they didn’t.

Dennis

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14253 From: dave santos Date: 9/8/2014
Subject: Re: Potential-Energy of Airborne-Mass by Height (update and review)
Dennis,

Obviously, pumped-hydro storage is already an economic mass-by-height energy-storage medium (constrained by a shortage of sites), so your reducto-ab-absurdum argument is moot. Its necessary to imagine the inhuman scale of these ideas at their ultimate engineering and geophysical scales, without reference to quaint human-scale objects like roadsters. 

Keep in mind that energy storage often has a premium value: For example, one does not expect a UPS's stored kWhrs to be costed like electric utility kWhrs, but costed according to criticality. Allow that there will be synergistic profits in mass-aloft, from refrigeration (incl cryogenic energy cycling) to civilizational aerotecture.

Concede how improbable your roadster would seem, from a sufficiently primitive perspective,

daveS




On Monday, September 8, 2014 3:26 PM, "'dennis stevens' dstevens67@roadrunner.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14254 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/8/2014
Subject: Re: Potential-Energy of Airborne-Mass by Height (update and review)
Cents per kWhr

EIA - Electricity Data

 


DennisS'    10 cents seems to be a good figure for rough calculations for the USA.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14255 From: dave santos Date: 9/8/2014
Subject: Re: Potential-Energy of Airborne-Mass by Height (update and review)
Agreed, 10 cents kWhr is the correct rounded figure for the US currently, but this topic is not about comparing a futuristic energy storage with global market prices (like 20x Antarctica prices ~2.00USD kWhr).

We have no idea yet what the economics will be of future mega-mass aloft. Imagine how expensive an International Space Station battery kWhr must be, but the electrical engineers forged ahead anyway. A robber-baron fantasy energy-market view of AWE is not everything.

I am calculating kite-levitating civilization next, with height as buffer energy-storage, but by wattage and environmental impacts only, since actual costs vary greatly by willful cultural choices to spend whatever necessary to meet deep desirements (as Wubbo observed).


On Monday, September 8, 2014 4:24 PM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14256 From: dougselsam Date: 9/9/2014
Subject: Re: Kite power systems in automatic operation
"substitute a power peak for average output"....such paranoia "does not jive with [any] evidence"...prove your suspicions" ***So, right or wrong?
Does the system demonstrate an average output of 20 kW, or a peak output of 20 kW?  Or is the generator itself "capable of" a peak output of 20 kW?  By the way, one can usually run a motor or generator at several times its rated output - briefly - heating is the limiting factor.  One can see here how a conversation about facts, as mundane and routine as average output versus peak output is answered with a personal attack, as though that deflects the facts.  It doesn't.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14257 From: dougselsam Date: 9/9/2014
Subject: Re: Kite Power Solutions Ltd
you...think AWE ventures..."stuck" on...reeling...history ... shows... survivors ...make the jump to...more optimal designs. ***So reeling is non-optimal?
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14258 From: dougselsam Date: 9/9/2014
Subject: Re: Kite Power Solutions Ltd
"you are emotionally stuck with the ST driveshaft" *** As usual, we see the noncomprehending, attempting to substitute emotional insults for facts.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14259 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/9/2014
Subject: Working principle of the TU Delft pumping kite power system



Working principle of the TU Delft pumping kite power system


roland schmehl

This magnificent animation was generated by Dr. Jeroen Breukels for the presentation of our kite power system at the German TV show "Die grosse Show der Naturwunder" in September 2011. Watch the whole presentation with English subtitles here: Kite Power in "Die grosse Show der Naturwunder"
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14260 From: dave santos Date: 9/9/2014
Subject: Re: Kite power systems in automatic operation
Doug,

Merely read TUDelft's published papers, rather than suspect them falsely. I provided the reference to you.

If your practice of "intentional stupidity" draws a "personal attack", never forget, there is a long list of fine AWE folks you have personally attacked (with ProfC insults and worse) over five years, so take your own Forum medicine bravely.

You are an AE newbie, so read the academic papers carefully, and report due progress, to merit respect,

daveS




On Tuesday, September 9, 2014 6:33 AM, "dougselsam@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14261 From: dave santos Date: 9/9/2014
Subject: Re: Kite Power Solutions Ltd
Doug asked: "So reeling is non-optimal?"

One must state the context. Biplanes are "non-optimal" in several performance aspects, but they were an essential stepping-stone historically. Just so, Reeling has served the EU teams (and the rest of us) well to get flying and generate baseline data. Meanwhile, the ST driveshaft concept does neither, so Reeling has been more-optimal, in the pro-AWE context (if not most-optimal).

Please understand, it does seem you have long been "emotionally stuck" with the ST, for lack of well-supported technical arguments and progress, and given ten years of ST marketing hype. Greed and hubris are the emotional tarpits you seem mired in. The ST only seems dead, in the cold light of AE scaling-law. On the other hand KPS's engineering pros give no signs of being emotionally stuck on reeling, and can migrate without shame to whatever superior AWES architecture emerges.




On Tuesday, September 9, 2014 6:43 AM, "dougselsam@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14262 From: dave santos Date: 9/9/2014
Subject: Seven Trillion Kilos Aloft (levitating civilization)
Perhaps Dennis will kindly "peer-review" my math here, since its so easy to lose one's decimal place-

If every human of seven billion were allowed a metric ton of personal infrastructure to live aloft by means of kites, that's seven trillion kilos. The work of lift required is therefore about 70TW (1kg at 1G = ~10W). Add another 20TW for non-lift energy to maintain civilization.

This is well within estimates of the potential capacity of global winds, but with strong environmental impacts. The negative impacts should be far less than current mass-technology (esp. if we let the surface revert to wild habitat), and positive impacts might include crucial remedial geo-engineering.

Seven billion tons raised 10km contains 5.2 TWhr in potential energy, enough in principle for about three minutes of full power (in practice, global winds never pause, and the best airborne means to tap a falling mass are unknown).

Of course, this is only a first-approximation, and there are still many hidden factors, for example, the portion of lift available from thermal buoyancy.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14263 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/9/2014
Subject: Re: Seven Trillion Kilos Aloft (levitating civilization)
Force is distinct from power.
Force is distinct from work. 
Work is distinct from power. 
F=ma gives force units. 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14264 From: dave santos Date: 9/9/2014
Subject: Re: Seven Trillion Kilos Aloft (levitating civilization)
Thanks Joe; correct to "the power of lift required is therefore about 70TW (1kg at 1G = ~10W). Add another 20TW for non-lift power to maintain civilization."

1G acceleration of gravity here counts as the a in F=ma and the velocity is apparent wind flying, and ~200kmhr falling under load, I hastily suppose (dog needs walking), and lets try to keep this "model" simple to predict "Can civilization fly bymeans of kites?".

Here's the Wikipedia passage-

Mechanical power[edit]

Power in mechanical systems is the combination of forces and movement. In particular, power is the product of a force on an object and the object's velocity, or the product of a torque on a shaft and the shaft's angular velocity.
Mechanical power is also described as the time derivative of work. In mechanics, the work done by a force F on an object that travels along a curve C is given by the Line integral - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

 

image
 

 
 
 
 

Line integral - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In mathematics, a line integral (sometimes called a path integral, contour integral, curve integral, or curvilinear integral; not to be confused with calculating ar...

View on en.wikipedia.org
Preview by Yahoo

 

 


On Tuesday, September 9, 2014 6:51 PM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14265 From: dougselsam Date: 9/10/2014
Subject: Re: Kite power systems in automatic operation
"Doug, Merely read TUDelft's published papers," ***So you can't tell us the answer to the question, Mr. "expert"?
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14266 From: dougselsam Date: 9/10/2014
Subject: Re: Kite Power Solutions Ltd
"KPS's engineering pros give no signs...stuck on reeling,...can migrate without shame to...superior AWES architecture" ***So reeling sucks?  Why are they doing it then? 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14267 From: dougselsam Date: 9/10/2014
Subject: Re: Seven Trillion Kilos Aloft (levitating civilization)
OK Joe, we're back to high school physics now, right?  Force = mass x acceleration.  Work = energy = force x distance = m a d.  Congratulations, in a couple years, we'll be ready to graduate from high school!  Wow, this is cutting edge stuff, eh?  Any other revelations to share, to bring the rest of the class up to an 11th grade level?
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14268 From: dougselsam Date: 9/10/2014
Subject: Re: Seven Trillion Kilos Aloft (levitating civilization)
" the best airborne means to tap a falling mass are unknown" *** kite above with pulley, counteracting downward pull: even worse than kite-reeling.
Best way to tap a falling mass is you, standing directly below...  ;)
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14269 From: dennis stevens Date: 9/10/2014
Subject: Re: Seven Trillion Kilos Aloft (levitating civilization)

You write “Seven billion tons raised 10km contains 5.2 TWhr in potential energy…”  I gave you all of the required steps in Freshman Physics to make this calculation, but you got it wrong again.  “its so easy to lose one's decimal place- …”  It’s worse than that this time.  I think you turned the number upside down (reciprocal).  I recommend that you carefully follow those steps, and repeat your calculation.  I’ll tell you when I see the correct answer J

Dennis
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14270 From: dave santos Date: 9/10/2014
Subject: Re: Seven Trillion Kilos Aloft (levitating civilization)
Dennis,

You might have given the correct result as a favor to all, rather than deny them.

If you won't offer helpful correction, as requested, don't just hope for me to correct my own math, on your request. This is not a remedial math list, but a conceptual exploration of mass aloft. I "recommend", in turn, you not become Doug, who has no grand ideas lately, but proudly claims to hold in secret the right answers (the Alpha-on-a-hill was the reciprocal of a creative grand idea). Give us a real grand AWE idea, and I will happily correct trivial errors* for you. Correcting a math error is not really "Freshman Physics". Feynman's Lectures are proper freshman physics; and he also found many grand ideas,

daveS


* To get a powers-of-ten reciprocal error result in haste, simply crisscross zero with the right magnitude of decimal error :)







On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 8:42 AM, "'dennis stevens' dstevens67@roadrunner.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14271 From: dave santos Date: 9/10/2014
Subject: Re: Kite power systems in automatic operation
Its "Mister Expert" with a capital E.

I already opined to you that the TUDelft 20kW number is an average, having read the paper in the Springer AWE book. 

No AWE expert suspects "wind newbie" foul-play from TUDelft, without any evidence.


On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 6:45 AM, "dougselsam@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14272 From: dave santos Date: 9/10/2014
Subject: Re: Kite Power Solutions Ltd
Doug,

Correction: Reeling does not "suck", as an early AWE engineering baseline method. Its the ST that sucks, compared by the numbers (altitude, power, safety, cost, etc.)

daveS


On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 6:55 AM, "dougselsam@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14273 From: dave santos Date: 9/10/2014
Subject: First Approximation Errors in AWE (and Physics)
(This post is to play-hooky, rather than correct my own math)

In the murky struggle to first envision AWE as a revolutionary technology, the focus is on the bold conceptual leaps required of us as AWE's pioneer dreamers. Ace this, and we need not worry greatly about the mass of inevitable first-approximation errors best corrected by mass-society, in due time. After all, enough small errors tend to cancel by the law-of-averages.

----------- Case from the Net  ---------------

Einstein's Mistakes: The Human Failings of Genius 2008 Hans Ohanian

Chronology of Einstein’s Mistakes
  1. 1905 Mistake in clock synchronization procedure on which Einstein based special relativity
  2. 1905 Failure to consider Michelson-Morley experiment
  3. 1905 Mistake in transverse mass of high-speed particles
  4. 1905 Multiple mistakes in the mathematics and physics used in calculation of viscosity of liquids, from which Einstein deduced size of molecules
  5. 1905 Mistakes in the relationship between thermal radiation and quanta of light
  6. 1905 Mistake in the first proof of E = mc2
  7. 1906 Mistakes in the second, third, and fourth proofs of E = mc2
  8. 1907 Mistake in the synchronization procedure for accelerated clocks
  9. 1907 Mistakes in the Principle of Equivalence of gravitation and acceleration
  10. 1911 Mistake in the first calculation of the bending of light
  11. 1913 Mistake in the first attempt at a theory of general relativity
  12. 1914 Mistake in the fifth proof of E = mc2
  13. 1915 Mistake in the Einstein-de Haas experiment
  14. 1915 Mistakes in several attempts at theories of general relativity
  15. 1916 Mistake in the interpretation of Mach’s principle
  16. 1917 Mistake in the introduction of the cosmological constant (the “biggest blunder”)
  17. 1919 Mistakes in two attempts to modify general relativity
  18. 1925 Mistakes and more mistakes in the attempts to formulate a unified theory
  19. 1927 Mistakes in discussions with Bohr on quantum uncertainties
  20. 1933 Mistakes in interpretation of quantum mechanics (Does God play dice?)
  21. 1934 Mistake in the sixth proof of E = mc2
  22. 1939 Mistake in the interpretation of the Schwarzschild singularity and gravitational collapse (the “black hole”)
  23. 1946 Mistake in the seventh proof of E = mc2
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14274 From: dougselsam Date: 9/10/2014
Subject: Re: Kite power systems in automatic operation
"I already opined to you that the TUDelft 20kW number is an average" *** And since "everything you post is wrong", we know that is the opposite of reality.
Mr. "expert with a capital duh", please check the video:
Kite power systems in automatic operation
beginning at time = 1:19, see the bar-graph computer screen display showing an instantaneous power output that can vary between 20 kW and negative 10 kW (for reeling back in, using power).  To have 20 kW average output, you'd need more than 20 kW instantaneous.  The video shows instantaneous output varying between 7-18 kW.  So, as usual, you have no idea what you are talking about, whereas I have seen all this stuff a thousand times.  They are all the same.

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14275 From: dougselsam Date: 9/10/2014
Subject: Re: Kite Power Solutions Ltd
"Doug, Correction: Reeling does not "suck", as an early AWE engineering baseline method." *** You admit it sucks by calling it "early" and "baseline method".  It is a joke.  AWE is a 100-year-old senescent geriatric case, and the reelers are dying off faster than any progress being made.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14276 From: dave santos Date: 9/10/2014
Subject: Application of Braid-Theory to Kites
Braiding is an ancient mathematical craft. Modern Braid Theory is a branch of Topology with increasing influence in physics and engineering. Knot Theory, of course, has been on our kitemath radar for several years, with an update/review due soon.

In pondering comparative formal topologies of AWES architectures, the simple idea presented itself that multiple kites flown in parallel (like Ray Bethel or iQuad) are inherently capable of braiding (and twisting strands into rope). While common multi-line kites can only manage a few braid steps before losing control to line friction, with KCU (kite control unit) pods on each kite, very long braids are possible.

Granted, this not a likely threat to factory braiding as we know it, but rope-making and braiding is one more astounding feat on an ever-growing list of kite tricks. The feasibility of braiding or knotting engineered networks in the sky can be easily enough demonstrated. Epic fighter-kite battles already braid in the sky. My large ghost delta autonomously ties its tails every few hours. Usually, the kite's granny or square knots are untied by hand, but self-untie too, even after hours in the tied-state. At WSIKF2014, 2kiteSam confirmed that his kites' long show-tails often knot spontaneously, as we both witnessed an instance.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14277 From: Joe Faust Date: 9/10/2014
Subject: Re: Seven Trillion Kilos Aloft (levitating civilization)
The invitation is to aim in posts statements that show good physics, regardless of the grade level. And some standardized unit symbols, perhaps SI unit symbols.   Confusing work with power occurs in statements at many levels; having uncorrected statements in group may not support the quality of the group. One is welcome to correct one's own statements in topic threads even in years after a topic has started; correcting other statements that are not one's own could be welcomed by all parties; welcoming is a choice.  Upholding the correct dimensions of a parameter for big and small AWE ideas will tend to bring clarity and respect for our works. Dimensional analysis following heuristics can be done with some in our group better than others. Review lessons at many levels of expertise may be helpful to grow some future super contributor.  
   ~ JoeF
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14278 From: dave santos Date: 9/10/2014
Subject: Re: Kite Power Solutions Ltd
Doug,

Early baseline methods are essential stepping stones in successful engineering. A resolute incapacity to understand the "newborn baby" phase as essential is only your "intentional stupidity" (aka "willful ignorance"), which sucks worse than anything else in AWE.

Fact: the ST cannot match even early baseline performance data of reeling AWES. I can only "admit" the ST sucks, for lack of scalability to upper-wind, and will let reeling battle it out in testing, at altitude, against all actual contenders,

daveS




On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 11:58 AM, "dougselsam@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14279 From: dave santos Date: 9/10/2014
Subject: Re: Kite power systems in automatic operation
Doug,

What about rated wind? Are you proposing that old video represents rated wind, not just session luck? What about the kite choice?

Keep in mind TUDelft has flown many kites over many sessions in many winds. Are you reasoning with "intentional stupidity" from just one flight you choose at random to fit a blind bias?

daveS


On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 11:55 AM, "dougselsam@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14280 From: dougselsam Date: 9/10/2014
Subject: Re: Kite Power Solutions Ltd
"Doug, Early batheline methodth are eththential thtepping thtoneth in thucceththful engineering." ***So you're saying kite-reeling IS a bad idea then, right?  Not a good idea, but one that will be discarded as useless, right?
"A resolute incapacity to understand the "newborn baby" phase as essential is only your "intentional stupidity" (aka "willful ignorance"), which sucks worse than anything else in AWE."
***More daily insults from the champion of "the fight for ignorance" ha ha ha.
*** AWE is about as old as powered flight.  It is only the lack of progress that makes you still call it "a newborn baby".  AWE is NOT newborn, it is the interest of the people currently pursuing it that is "newborn".  AWE was very old when I first started doing patent searches on it in the early 1990's.  (Fry, Shepard, et al) How do you think it is so easy for me to have stated with no doubt so many years ago, which ideas and which teams will definitely not pan out?  I've seen all this a thousand times before.  What the reelers are proving is that it is a nonstarter.  As I may have mentioned, there are a million ways to get SOME power at SOME price from the wind.  So what?  The idea is to do it BETTER, not WORSE.

"Fact: the ST cannot match even early baseline performance data of reeling AWES."
*** wrong: ST is a simple yet versatile concept which, even in its simplest form, can run unattended for days, even as a first prototype, thrown together..

"I can only "admit" the ST sucks, for lack of scalability to upper-wind, and will let reeling battle it out in testing, at altitude, against all actual contenders,"
***You are so uninformed I could never address all your misinformation.
***How about admitting you were wrong about Delft's "20 kW output" being average versus peak, a few hours ago?  What do you think, this is my first rodeo?  ALL crackpots ALWAYS cite peak output as though it is an average output.  What else would you expect?  They just say anything to bolster their dream-world illusions.  I linked to the video showing you as 100% wrong, and of course you can't admit it, can't even acknowledge it.  Instead, you're either baffled, dumbfounded, or just plain deceptive and incapable of a fair debate, which is why the known wind experts tell me they would not want to "debate" you.

"daveS"  *** Mr. eggspurt.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14281 From: dave santos Date: 9/10/2014
Subject: Re: Seven Trillion Kilos Aloft (levitating civilization)
Joe,

Calculation and semantic errors are separate general topics, unless your are correcting specific errors here, in context. For some reason, you did not correct any specific error, but only expressed a general concern. A specifically corrected error goes away, and does honor to the corrector. Consider the "First Approximation Errors in AWE" topic as ideal for showing concern over trivial error generally.

Let the rest of the world be the proper safe haven from trivial errors made in the process of AWE ideation,

daveS


On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 12:31 PM, "Joe Faust joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14282 From: dougselsam Date: 9/10/2014
Subject: Re: Kite power systems in automatic operation
"Doug, Are you proposing that old video represents rated wind, not just session luck?" *** The video under discussion says 20 kW.  I stated it is peak.  You argued it is average.  I showed you were wrong,  Period.  Watch it again if you need to.  Not a complicated question, no point pretending there is anything "debatable".  Ding-dong.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14283 From: dave santos Date: 9/10/2014
Subject: Re: Kite Power Solutions Ltd
Doug,

You cannot get folks to agree with your false premises by misrepresenting them into agreement. My meaning is clear: Reeling is an integral aspect to kite technology in almost all its forms. Driveshafts are not.

Kite Power Solutions has an R&D edge with its industrial winch expertise. KiteShip was quite serious about marine winches, without pumping as a design factor. You do not have any corresponding expertise in giant low-mass driveshafts (which do not even exist). Your established AWE specialty is "intentional stupidity",

daveS




On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 1:25 PM, "dougselsam@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14284 From: dave santos Date: 9/10/2014
Subject: Re: Kite power systems in automatic operation
Doug,

The complexity here is your jealous troubled relationship to Wubbo. I looked at the video, and the trigger to your emotional complaint was Wubbo stating in passing that their demonstrator generates 20kW. We are better informed of TUDelft's accomplishnments by the Springer AWE book.

You are so desperate to malign Wubbo's memory that you cling to a programming error (to define 20kW as the limit of the display scale). In fact, the kite is clearly cable of more (as can be seen by the bar-graph jumping off-scale). A larger kite on the same groundgen would also work. Wubbo was not speaking dishonestly, the system really is capable of 20kW average, using better data. If only your read the papers, you could also account for the efficiency overhaul the TUDelft system has been undergoing.

Gipe's standard for deciding AWE power is to await independent validation to formal standards, if you want the pro opinion. Its "intentional stupidity" to go after a dead hero, rather than provide value,

daveS


On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 1:38 PM, "dougselsam@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14285 From: dougselsam Date: 9/10/2014
Subject: Re: Kite power systems in automatic operation
"Doug,...the trigger to your emotional complaint was Wubbo stating in passing that their demonstrator generates 20kW" ***Peak, not average.  You are wrong.  I am right.  You said average.  I said peak.  The answer is "peak". 

Nice try, as usual to make simple things seem complicated, attempting to disguise the fact that you are simply wrong, and to substitute more of your usual emotional insults for actual ability to debate, which you clearly do not possess.

You are just so freakin' HILARIOUS.  Every single wannabe-wind crackpot out there ALWAYS cites their peak power as though it is an average output.  I didn't have to watch the video again to see that.  All I was doing was confirming one more "statistic".  They are all the same.  YOU are all the same.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14286 From: dave santos Date: 9/10/2014
Subject: Re: Kite power systems in automatic operation
Doug,

What the wind newbies overlook is that rated-power of wind turbines is commonly based on (same as) peak power, and wind pros just make allowances for that fact. Wubbo was within his rights to state rated value, and is no wind newbie falsely claiming a peak to be an average. I doubt you can ever show any specific wind newbie claim to fit your attack, as usual.

My "expert guess" is specific to what I estimate TUDelft to be capable of today, not two years ago. Its an honor to defend Wubbo's memory against your unfair personal vendetta. Its no coincidence that Wubbo conceived of the SpiderMill to overcome original LadderMil limitations, and that you fixate most rabidly against those who bother to pop your fantasy-turbine bubbles,

daveS


On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 2:41 PM, "dougselsam@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14287 From: Joe Faust Date: 9/10/2014
Subject: Re: Seven Trillion Kilos Aloft (levitating civilization)
Correction proposed to a parenthetical equation:
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14288 From: dave santos Date: 9/10/2014
Subject: Re: Seven Trillion Kilos Aloft (levitating civilization)
I would prefer correcting the other side of the equation, since calculating wattage was my intent. Once again, am racing to go fly kites and walk dog before dark, so will ponder a fix later, unless someone else helps first...


On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 6:24 PM, "Joe Faust joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14289 From: dave santos Date: 9/10/2014
Subject: Re: Seven Trillion Kilos Aloft (levitating civilization)
ok,

9.81 m/s2 x 1kg = 9.81W 

which is the answer to the question posed a few weeks ago (how many Watts to sustain a kilo aloft by HTA means)

 


On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 7:17 PM, "dave santos santos137@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com