This is a likely and complementary technology. As pointed out it's probably best to keep to shortish span cases.
But consider the added functions this brings are
1) ground clearance and protection for larger diameter kite rings
2) setting arrays so that they can be gathered
3) increase of performance over older continuous compressing ladder cases.

Even though it stays short, this enables large kite function...
So yes this is research that we all want to see done.

You'll note the new advantages brought in this configuration by the
extension maintenance /spacer tubes.
This little bit of compression tube mounted over a tense line makes a large difference to the structures capability.

That's not well documented yet as far as I know.

Does anyone have useful descriptors for this arrangement?

Is there also an advantage that comes from drag introduced to the lift line low down in this case...? Spinning sets will be more aligned directly across wind.
Keeping drag higher up is probably a better scheme for line driving on massive scales... But there are likely useful applications in village plus scales....  Flying from a hilltop.

• Thinking an unity by ratio of performances/weight and cost of materials, then multiplying it according model of wind towers, seems being a natural way, but does not take into account of the ratio of wind power/land and space used (see my abstract on www.awec2013.de/pdfs/AWEC_2013_BoA.pdf p.59), which is between low (stationary AWES) and very low ("crosswind" kites). Crosswind reeling or flygen AWES look advantageous as unity, but are not as the whole.
• In some words: to much tether, not wing enough: seeing numerous systems with kilometers of tether for a small flying member.
• Dave Santos rightly mentioned on NearZero discussion transcripts :"No choice was allowed for hybrid systems (like, say, rotor and wing) or multi-unit flying arrays (trains, arches, and "clouds")." 
• Dave Santos's Mothra-Arch looks as the good basic architecture both by covering the window of flight in static configuration (by my words), and providing two anchors allowing a better stability and the possibility for a light structure carrying turbines    (by the WECS I propose).
• The proposed solution mixes inherent qualities of kite  (lightness,lifting...) _ Dave Santos rightly invokes _ and inherent qualities of rotors (electricity production) _ Doug Selsam rightly invokes _, the lift of both rotors and kite being the logical link.

• Wind turbines are integrated within the soft kite according to a tilted set of appreciably flat shape.

• Wind turbines (as autogyro-helico mode) provide both electricity production and lift, by a well known scheme BUT 

• their integration within soft kite allows both a far better global ratio lift/weight, and a separation of turbines in a single device instead a farm of unities where tethers make problems.

• The integration of turbines within the soft wing by a set of appreciably flat shape is far better than carrying them by known methods comprising WECS appreciably perpendicular in wing: better balancing, higher available area, also better for eyes, and far better for maneuvers. 

• Scaling-up is not a problem since numerous small rotors are implemented within arch. A single size will be studied, allowing reducing the cost of  R&D. 

• The distance between turbines takes also into account of interferences.

• Stationary configuration is safer, and allows a far better maximization of sweept area within land and space used.

• Stationary configuration allows a better lifetime for materials working with less stress.

• Flygen configuration easily allows a better road marking of both flying device and tethers regarding airspace rules.

• Flygen configuration allows take-off by helicopter-mode and automatising it.

• Turbines within arch can be settled on a very light frame thanks to the tension provided by the two anchors and the wind. 

• The arch being piloted by both the two winches (see also Roderick Read's drawings) rolling/unrolling sail (for take-off and piloting) and central tethers from the top part carrying turbines.

• Depower: the two ends of arch go up while the top is pulled towards the ground.

• Some automated used like fishing or farming allow improving ROI regarding land use.

• Challenges: the stability of the set during take-off will, by some different parameters like tension between anchors, lift by helicopter mode, and wind forces.Piloting with compensations of forces by deformations of soft kite and also rotors on helico (take-off) or autogyro (wind power) mode, rotors not containing collective pitch or so, avoiding costs of devices and maintenance.                                                                     

Thanks for your comments and observations. Making main features of AWES on a forum would be an interesting and new way for RAD.

Nice observation JoeF.


When I imagined (2011) a flat set with soft kite,rotor,kite,rotor..., I did not push farer, due to possible requirement of a heavy frame. With Dave's Arch things are quite different since the two anchors allow a stabilization of structure. During take-off the soft wing is rigid thanks to the two winches; and during flight both wind forces and the two anchors should allow soft wing not going over turbines. So a light frame carrying turbines is possible in all steps of work, during take-off or production.

Concerning the problems you evoke, on 3D the area of rotors is too small. An appropriate study should determine the part of both rotors and soft kite and their distribution. Simulations of wind circulation will be useful. Note an autogyro-like has a lift/drag ratio of 2 or 3 or 4, the same for soft kite, facilitating balancing. Variants are studied like rotors in the middle and soft kite arround. 

PierreB,

http://flygenkite.com

http://youtu.be/nc6ppJtRMmw?list=UUymxyOFpEjGPjIDRulEv1gA

Thank DaveS for the compliment.

The last video I post enters FlygenKite. So FlygenKite has two systems: the last with rotors and soft kite in the same plan, and the other flying "crosswind". In the update of http://flygenkite.com I make a comparison favoring the last stationary FlygenKite over "crosswind" FlygenKite for different reasons: maximization of land/space used instead of maximization of material, regularity of production, reliability, scaling-up... The variant looking more promising and shown on video 3D is a combination of stationary FlygenKite and Mothra-Arch, named (if you want) FlygenArch. Winches work also as trains allowing the arch facing wind.

WheelWind is also updated (but nothing yet on http://wheelwind.com ): small rotors within soft kite instead of a big rim driven rotor.The tilted position is also required avoiding compression due to mass in vertical position.Indeed launching it downwind is not obvious: it is the reason why I thought a watermotor can move the turbine.

But actually for me FlygenArch looks more promising by the important area, the rigidity provided by the two anchorings, and the possibility of control by winches in anchors. So I will work on stationary FlygenKite and FlygenArch.

PierreB,

http://flygenkite.com

http://youtu.be/nc6ppJtRMmw?list=UUymxyOFpEjGPjIDRulEv1gA

Some configurations of SuperTurbine (tm) under Arch has been discussed. Turbines embedded in soft kite in flat shape as shown on video and http://flygenkite.com allow a far better configuration since the top turbine is already tilted and strongly kept. The same for RodR's variant with rings.So a wide arch with simple turbines (being not visible thanks to their both altitude and incorporation in kite), or a fine arch with ST from the top to the swivelling tray settled in the center of the area covered by the circular cable, take-off with superimposed rotors.

But the next steps are: design of rotor, balancing between torque and lift according to the proportion of kite area, and also lift during take-off; study of deformation of kite by winches and central tethers compensating wind changes, study of air flow among turbines and soft kite then their deduced shape, study of control by helicopter (for some rotors) or autogyro (for some other rotors) modes, study of travel of winches on circular cable: much work for me, for you, for universities,and big field in simulations.

PierreB

http://youtu.be/nc6ppJtRMmw?list=UUymxyOFpEjGPjIDRulEv1gA

You got funny papers over there back then

McMasters worked on his own proposal while at college for a parachutelike hovering wind machine.

"I thought all that would do is let the cat out of the bag without getting a payback," Spector said of submitting it to the institute, an academic and hobby group. He wants his idea examined by the government or a company that could invest in it.

"Lee is a genuine character," McMasters said of Spector. "The guy is a good physicist. What comes across as seemingly wacky ideas actually have a lot of thought that goes into them. If 1 percent of my engineering students came out half as good as Lee, I'd be overjoyed."

But McMasters added with exasperation in assessing Spector's success at marketing his ideas: "He's got the common sense of a chicken." In response, the inventor says it is difficult to balance the need to publicize his ideas with the danger of losing rights to their design details.

Friday, December 15, 1995

Gaetano,

In first considering the resource, on Dr.Fort Felker 's model. On http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/weather/wjet1.htm  

"The nighttime, low-level jet stream isn't unique to the United States either. It's been detected in Canada, China, Australia, Argentina and western Europe."

So as your project is in Europe, LLJ are in western Europe, above RodR. But another possibility is taking high altitude wind anywhere.

I presented my second stationary FlygenKite  yesterday for www.energyglobe.info/ , my first "crosswind" FlygenKite has been

presented www.energyglobe.info/awards/details/awdid/63421/ before. And the problem is identical: the local is over the general, and LLJ as local resource is not easy to make understanding but try it.

Concerning business, yes if it is big enough to allow me leaving my work of agent, dedicating me to both piano and AWE. Dr.Fort Felker rightly wrote " Increased cost of project financing for immature technologiescan be fatal" : you have some experience of it, knowing a poor design cannot be far better even with much money and "improvements" like supercapacitors for reel-out/in.

But to make big business, I (you?we?) must convince universities, searchers, players, startups, organizations, investors that  FlygenKite (FlygenArch) is not a possibility among other (impossibilities), but the result of a study taking into account of the device by itself and the device within its environment (land/space used).

Here is a small plan of R&D:

• Choice and study of a single small turbine, the same from small to giant sets.
  Making a soft kite comprising several turbines, and being able to become a module of
  Arch. Making simulations: aeroelasticity, deformations,... according to wind features...                                     
   
  Lift, rotate and business.
  PierreB
  http://flygenkite.com

DaveS,

"...especially better configurations than the rotor disc aligned in the wing-plane." 

The rotor disc aligned in the wing-plane is the best natural configuration, since the frame carrying turbines is implemented within wing, and turbines are perpendicular in frame, above all by taking account of traction in the two ends of Arch. 

Morever it is the first time "the rotor disc aligned in the wing-plane" is presented in the forum, that on head of present topic. So if "embedded rotor" means "the rotor disc aligned in the wing-plane" (for me it is the case), there are not other sorts of it. If no we speak about different things. So I do not see how you can express "...especially better configurations than the rotor disc aligned in the wing-plane." since this configuration has never been related before, so you cannot have any return of experience.

But problems of air flow are possible, and advantages of air flow are also possible by playing with parameters like: the size of opening regarding rotor diameter; single integrated rotor or group of integrated rotors etc... 

PierreB 

http://flygenkite.com

FlygenKite  

Some correction on my precedent message ["and turbines are perpendicular in frame"] : "and axis of turbines are perpendicular in frame".

PierreB,

http://flygenkite.com

DaveS,

Some precision on my two precedent messages. Perhaps by writing "...especially better configurations than the rotor disc aligned in the wing-plane." you express something like *The disc of the rotor is parallel to the wing without being completely aligned*, that is possible for me. The precise expression can be *the rotor disc appreciably aligned in the wing-plane* and even *the rotor disc appreciably parallel to the wing*. All that are only details for some adaptations on a quite recognizable and new AWES design I propose as *turbines integrated in a soft kite*.

So instead mixing it with other sorts of "embedded rotors" making the vague debate, or asserting "...especially better configurations..." about possible details but not essential features, that making also the vague debate, why not building (it is what I make) some configurations I propose (single or group, size of opening, maybe a light gap between rotor and wing _ "appreciably") then adjusting them with some details rather than asserting without return of experience.

Note also a new design is not useful by itself but above all by the solutions it involves among some technological environment. So *turbines integrated in a soft kite* I propose looks advantageous,being combinated in the Arch you propose. 

PierreB

http://flygenkite.com

FlygenKite