Messages in AirborneWindEnergy group.                           AWES14390to14439 Page 183 of 440.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14390 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/14/2014
Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14391 From: dave santos Date: 9/14/2014
Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14392 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/14/2014
Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14393 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/14/2014
Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14394 From: dave santos Date: 9/14/2014
Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14395 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/14/2014
Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14396 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 9/14/2014
Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14397 From: dave santos Date: 9/14/2014
Subject: Via-Ferrata Model for Anchor Circle Operation (Arch Rotation)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14398 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 9/14/2014
Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14399 From: dave santos Date: 9/14/2014
Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14400 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 9/14/2014
Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14401 From: dave santos Date: 9/14/2014
Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14402 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 9/15/2014
Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14403 From: benhaiemp Date: 9/15/2014
Subject: Re: Via-Ferrata Model for Anchor Circle Operation (Arch Rotation)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14404 From: Rod Read Date: 9/15/2014
Subject: Re: Via-Ferrata Model for Anchor Circle Operation (Arch Rotation)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14405 From: Rod Read Date: 9/15/2014
Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14406 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 9/15/2014
Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14407 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/15/2014
Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14408 From: dougselsam Date: 9/15/2014
Subject: Re: Seven Trillion Kilos Aloft (levitating civilization)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14409 From: dougselsam Date: 9/15/2014
Subject: Re: SkyBow as ST prior art?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14410 From: dougselsam Date: 9/15/2014
Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14411 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/15/2014
Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14412 From: dave santos Date: 9/15/2014
Subject: Re: Seven Trillion Kilos Aloft (levitating civilization)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14413 From: dave santos Date: 9/15/2014
Subject: Re: Via-Ferrata Model for Anchor Circle Operation (Arch Rotation)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14414 From: dougselsam Date: 9/15/2014
Subject: "power to keep 1 kg aloft"

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14415 From: dave santos Date: 9/15/2014
Subject: Re: SkyBow as ST prior art?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14416 From: dougselsam Date: 9/15/2014
Subject: Re: Seven Trillion Kilos Aloft (levitating civilization)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14417 From: dave santos Date: 9/15/2014
Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14418 From: dave santos Date: 9/15/2014
Subject: Re: "power to keep 1 kg aloft"

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14419 From: dougselsam Date: 9/15/2014
Subject: Re: SkyBow as ST prior art?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14420 From: dave santos Date: 9/15/2014
Subject: Re: Seven Trillion Kilos Aloft (levitating civilization)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14421 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/15/2014
Subject: Re: "power to keep 1 kg aloft"

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14422 From: dave santos Date: 9/15/2014
Subject: Re: SkyBow as ST prior art?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14423 From: dave santos Date: 9/15/2014
Subject: Re: "power to keep 1 kg aloft"

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14424 From: dougselsam Date: 9/15/2014
Subject: Re: "power to keep 1 kg aloft"

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14425 From: dougselsam Date: 9/15/2014
Subject: Anyone understand my energy/momentum explanation?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14426 From: dave santos Date: 9/15/2014
Subject: Re: "power to keep 1 kg aloft"

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14427 From: dave santos Date: 9/15/2014
Subject: Re: Anyone understand my energy/momentum explanation?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14428 From: dave santos Date: 9/15/2014
Subject: Re: "power to keep 1 kg aloft"

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14429 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/15/2014
Subject: Re: Anyone understand my energy/momentum explanation?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14430 From: benhaiemp Date: 9/15/2014
Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14431 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 9/15/2014
Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14432 From: benhaiemp Date: 9/15/2014
Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14433 From: dave santos Date: 9/15/2014
Subject: Via "Polymer" Climbing

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14434 From: dave santos Date: 9/15/2014
Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14435 From: dougselsam Date: 9/15/2014
Subject: Re: "power to keep 1 kg aloft"

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14436 From: dougselsam Date: 9/15/2014
Subject: Re: Anyone understand my energy/momentum explanation?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14437 From: dougselsam Date: 9/15/2014
Subject: why does a sailplane have a larger wingspan?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14438 From: dave santos Date: 9/15/2014
Subject: Re: "power to keep 1 kg aloft"

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14439 From: dave santos Date: 9/15/2014
Subject: Re: why does a sailplane have a larger wingspan?



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14390 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/14/2014
Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ
Nearly 100% of wing face is rotor, framed sails:
Patent US464412 - ansboro

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14391 From: dave santos Date: 9/14/2014
Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ
The problem with that wind wall is that it depressurizes the space under the kite-arch, by being placed ahead of the arch (Dan Tracy went down this path and came back) Its also not a case of rotor discs aligned in-plane with the sail area.

Another place many AWES concepts with embedded rotors are found is in the thousands of defensive-disclosure drawings I have posted to the Net twice en-masse. Its a pretty obvious AWES design category, even if the optimal design solutions are subtle.


On Sunday, September 14, 2014 2:33 PM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14392 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/14/2014
Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ
Almost full plane of wing is facial rotor. Two or more rotors as face. 
Patent US2151349 - Kite

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14393 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/14/2014
Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ
WECS in wing face:
Patent US701106 - Kite.

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14394 From: dave santos Date: 9/14/2014
Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ
Fascinating old kite patent Joe, its a unique rotor in that its fully symmetric bladed, but balanced on its pivot is sensitive to initial conditions and rotates stately, with no high-speed blur. The choice of rotation is symmetry-breaking in physics.

Old kite tricks can lead to new applications; this example might inspire a visual indicator of some flow condition, aid anntenna/reflector aiming, better gimballing of payloads, etc..

CC 4.x BY NC SA


On Sunday, September 14, 2014 3:25 PM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14395 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/14/2014
Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ
Multiple embedded rotors:

Rein-deer kite

 Gaudencio A. Labrador

Patent number: 5056447
Filing date: Oct 13, 1988

 Patent US5056447 - Rein-deer kite

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14396 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 9/14/2014
Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ

I must correct you RoadR, for following reasons.

 

So http://youtu.be/gni0bNGYxd8  contains a vertical front of holes settled upwind: there is no integration; contains also vertical holes downwind (for the efficiency there is a problem of wind shadow due to the hall upwind), seeming to follow one by one the edge of flight (it is difficult to see where is wing since only frame is shown) ,being rather suspended (how?) than integrated, so the set not forming an appreciably plane surface I propose. The title "hoisting a wind hall" is an indication of non integration but juxtaposition.

Technically this design is quite inefficient since nothing or almost holds turbines if they exist. Sorry.

http://youtu.be/wA4rYK_Ztyc  shows SuperTurbines (tm) attached in a frame but rotors being not aligned with wing which cannot exist.So this design is quite impossible : if there is a wing (this is not so clear on the design) rotors of ST should rotate around the two sides of wing. Your rotors are in the same position (on vertical plan, the same for other concerned designs) as on

http://youtu.be/_bdPyQSMlM8 (pacific sky power) : so with ST configuration rotors behind prevent the existence of the wing itself or vice versa.Sorry again. 

http://youtu.be/CLlh9eRori8 shows suspended (but non integrated) ST according to a weak conception since the turbine in top is not well kept.Sorry again.

http://youtu.be/Uia9UqydEMQ  looks more pertinent. There are holes integrated into the wing. But for what? For flygen turbines? No, for fans with pulleys! "Question: is it possible to drive rope using fans with pulley parts mounted into the wing of a mothra? how efficient can that be?". Sorry again.

I can add there is a toy (I loss the reference) with a turbine in the same plan as soft kite, but it is not the beginning of an AWES.

Morever I registred some integrated turbines aligned in a soft kite on 09/02/2011 by NR8M1B9 (joined drawings, only kite and rotor, no arch, certificat later if you want), but this is without importance regarding your designs.

You should indicate the technical reasons of choice.

 

PierreB,

http://flygenkite.com

 

 

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14397 From: dave santos Date: 9/14/2014
Subject: Via-Ferrata Model for Anchor Circle Operation (Arch Rotation)
A simplest lowest-cost circle of anchors suffices to fly large kite arches, using rigging and climbing belay methods to rotate them (kPower 2012-14). A cheap easy upgrade is to make the anchor circle a Via-Ferrata, connecting the anchors with fixed runs of wire rope. This rigging approach streamlines belay operations with high safety. We had toyed with circle belay ideas in isolation, but can now borrow directly from the Via Ferrata model, just as we have our cableway model.

There are many small details to get right, for safe operations at high loadings, but the core rigging tech is high TRL.


Via ferrata - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14398 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 9/14/2014
Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ
Attachments :

    Joined file and certificat and also the link www.japantrendshop.com/FR-homekite-indoor-kite-p-1624.html

    of the toy being close to my design but being not the beginning of an AWES.

    It is interesting to see the evolution between joined file and now.

     

    PierreB,

    http://flygenkite.com

     



    		   @@attachment@@
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14399 From: dave santos Date: 9/14/2014
    Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ
    Pierre,

    The old KiteLab prototype is a flygen rotor embedded in-plane in a fabric wing, if want to cite prior art that has been tested already. I think Joe has a photo somewhere.

    Rod's pulley versions have the in-plane rotor, which fits the core idea in your subject-line (flygen or groundgen option is a secondary topic).

    Rod and my friend, Bob Cruikshanks, was flying a kite of his own design with a rotor in-plane at WSIKF2014, as a symbolic AWES.

    Its absurd to think the basic AWES idea, of a rotor in-plane in a wing, is not obvious. Its only the details that are open for inventive improvement,

    daveS








    On Sunday, September 14, 2014 4:19 PM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14400 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 9/14/2014
    Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ

    DaveS,


    "Rod's pulley versions have the in-plane rotor, which fits the core idea in your subject-line (flygen or groundgen option is a secondary topic)."

    For me no: the technical function is essential. If no the japan toy is even more pertinent, having a motorized propeller but not a wind turbine for electricity production.

    "Its absurd to think the basic AWES idea, of a rotor in-plane in a wing, is not obvious"

    I partially disagree because reasons of studying such configurations are not obvious, even if all designs look obvious after knowing them. When I make first designs some years ago I did not pursue, for not seeing advantages. But by combinating it with Arch I think AWE solution is not so far: without Arch a robust and heavy frame is needed, and take-off is difficult. With Arch you have both a great area for turbines maximizing land/space used, possibility of take-off without hazards of wing over turbines, urgent depower, tension of both ends as light frame.

    "Its only the details that are open for inventive improvement" . Yes, but AWE world is full of hundreds ,thousands (im)possible ideas. What idea is obvious? What is not?

    Perhaps it is not so important since, in my sense, rotors in-plane in an Arch can be the second chance of AWES after unities for farms showing limits.

     

    PierreB
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14401 From: dave santos Date: 9/14/2014
    Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ
    Pierre,

    I am accustomed to draw turbines under arches "in-plane" (curved-wing "plane") that can either be flygens or some other load basis. The basic geometry remains the same. Just so, Loyd's turbine-on-wing was groundgen, but Makani chose a flygen version of turbine-on-a-wing, and nobody makes a big fuss.

    This is just the easiest old sketch (page background) to link to, but thousands of other sketched versions exist, so its been an "obvious" path to me for years, flygens or not-

    http://www.kitelabgroup.com/

    daveS


    On Sunday, September 14, 2014 5:46 PM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14402 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 9/15/2014
    Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ

    DaveS,


    I have not seen any "AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integrated in a soft kite, the set forming a plane surface" (please take the set, not an isolated feature) in all patents, designs, previous art etc. you quote. Makani has turbines appreciably perpendicular in wing, and cannot scale too much. The same for Pacific... The method I propose _ with flying kites _makes a link (lift) between rotors (electricity production, lift) and soft kite (lift)  for a set allowing scaling up and limiting footprint, and according to a concept of combination allowing take-off, balancing, greater area. The same is not possible with suspended rotors according to a concept of juxtaposition.

    And by the same reasoning Mothra-Arch has huge previous art and is an obvious design, being even not an AWES until WECS are implemented. I am surprised JoeF has not quoted numerous patents and documents in kite festivals showing prior art in kite-archs.

    So "obvious" "turbines integrated in a soft kite, the set forming a plane surface" combinated in "obvious" "Mothra-Arch" can produce an "obvious" method of AWES. When this method will make AWES working, all people can tell: "yeah AWES is obvious, I thought about it for years"...

     

    PierreB

    http://flygenkite.com

     

    PierreB

    http://flygenkite.com

      
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14403 From: benhaiemp Date: 9/15/2014
    Subject: Re: Via-Ferrata Model for Anchor Circle Operation (Arch Rotation)

    Cable railway can also provide some indications: wheels of wagon above cable become wheels of winch under cable since the weight of wagon becomes the traction of kite. Making a crack under winch allowing its passage through the anchors.

     

    PierreB,

    http://flygenkite.com  
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14404 From: Rod Read Date: 9/15/2014
    Subject: Re: Via-Ferrata Model for Anchor Circle Operation (Arch Rotation)
    Can you help clarify here
    Where you have a line between the anchor circles ... not just a ring of fixed point loops presented on the ground ready to be clipped into.

    Do you propose  snatch block type pulleys  *

    Setting the pulleys on the 2 (or more) Y ends of via ferrata harness connection...
     clipping the single Y end to any kite foot point which needs anchoring...
    Running the pulleys along the line(s)  between the circle of anchors.

    Sounds good... but the obvious snags are...
    rising line between anchors makes it hard to pass an anchor.
    No anchor redundancy on each side... single point failure could wreck our kite.

    To fix these points... do you agree
    We'd likely have a short and long Y top to meet two loop anchor lines. One higher one lower set on the anchor "posts"
    Also as well as having cable pulling  at the posts to help shift stuck raised pulleys...
    We could also have yet another set of anchors ... 2 in between each anchor post gap ... Having a simple line which normally hangs loose the sole purpose being to limit the height to which the line can be lifted... to a radius around itself.

    Smoothing the motion out ever further means using the earth as a larger more continuously available direct force reactive compression member...
    the best smooth operation may be a circular trench with bag or wire gabion or even rail set to hold kite trolleys, which never experience lateral resistance .... This eventually removes human risks of swapping snatch blocks at posts... Tirfor cable pullers are amazingly strong but they're not fast... I've tightened fish farm cages together with them in small rolling seas... That's fine but any greater degree of freedom and force would be terrifying.

    If scaling up is going to be our priority, getting this wrong will be a major stumbling block...

    Anything better than an upside down suspension proposed... e.g. deep anchor sites with upward (anti gravity) catenary tied off along its length to a solid rail at surface level ... Kite permanently mounted on rail and free to roll with wind... kite exact settings can be tweaked with tensions between rail carts... Do you want a drawing?

    Having weight on the ground is ok-ish... This would be easy with carts on a heavy circular tube of water... Is there an irrigation symbiosis there?

    enough rambling for now.
    CC4.0 NC BY SA

    *(like a large kite pull down pulley which opens to expose the sheave to attach the line before the sheave is closed inside the block again.)

    Rod Read

    Windswept and Interesting Limited
    15a Aiginis
    Isle of Lewis
    HS2 0PB

    07899057227
    01851 870878
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14405 From: Rod Read Date: 9/15/2014
    Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ
    Again Pierre, I'm going to have to apologise for being boring here.
    (Dave S actually only remembered my video after prompting it's that bad... )
    You'll have to listen to what is said in those videos...
    Each one being an exploration of the technical feasibility of structures related to the presented graphic.
    and each being
    a freely shared resource for study and inspiration,
    a quest for answers and help

    Listen and read please possibilities for flat standard small turbine arrays arangements are mentioned

    Rod Read

    Windswept and Interesting Limited
    15a Aiginis
    Isle of Lewis
    HS2 0PB

    07899057227
    01851 870878
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14406 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 9/15/2014
    Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ

    Rod,


    "freely shared resource for study and inspiration". Yes, but I am also afraid that can be sometime a source of scattering. In this particuliar case the idea to link autogyro-like in soft kite came in 2011 from the fact that a system like Sky Windpower looks good but is too heavy and needs a too long tether regarding swept area. Later (1 month ago) I made the link between "turbines integrated in a soft kite, the set forming a plane surface" and Mothra-Arch for structural reasons I indicate. So we should sort out, simplify, correct about hundred designs, patent and ideas mixing interesting ideas but also misconceptions delaying some realization.

    However I am glad to see a beginning of convergences within AWE forum. The last discussion about via-ferrata (and also reverse cable railway) models for the circular cable allows pursuing on convergence. When a higher level of convergence will be reached, some more important realization will be possible, that instead of looking for " interesting" designs in all prices.

     

    PierreB

    http://flygenkite.com

     
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14407 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/15/2014
    Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ
    Many rotors embedded in wing plane in 1800s. Here is one:

    Commons:WikiProject Aviation/recent uploads/2013 December 27 - Wikimedia Commons
    v
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14408 From: dougselsam Date: 9/15/2014
    Subject: Re: Seven Trillion Kilos Aloft (levitating civilization)
    Doug wrote: "You asked me to explain simple high-school-level physics... "
    OK I will explain it again for about the 4th time:  A large wingspan can deflect more air downward than a small wingspan.  By pushing more air down, the longer wing can accomplish the required momentum transfer to keep 1 kG aloft by deflecting the air downward SLOWER than a fast wing.  Since the momentum is proportional to v, a wing twice as long can deflect, say, twice the air downward.  That means the deflected air can be deflected downward half as fast.  At half as fast, that downward air deflection results in 1/4 the energy transfer.  So if you double your wingspan you need 1/4 the power to keep the wing aloft, for the same weight.  So, for the same weight, the power used TRENDS TOWARD zero.  I guess now we have to explain not to take that literally - of course you will never accomplish an infinte wingspan, so the power will never actually REACH zero.  Just making sure you don't take THAT literally.  I'm sure my answer has some technical aspect, or emotional trigger-word that will be seized on to make me into a "bad person" or give me some negative label once again, so have fun with that, but there is your answer.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14409 From: dougselsam Date: 9/15/2014
    Subject: Re: SkyBow as ST prior art?
    "Its possible, I guess; but if any single statement of mine is shown true, the wishful-fantasy collapses."  *** Great you admit the challenge to find a single true statement.  :)  Your statement does not hold water in so many ways, and yet, as always, you spend way too much time taking everything literally and seizing on wordplay in lieu of reasoned discussion.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14410 From: dougselsam Date: 9/15/2014
    Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ
    This would rip the propellers apart.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14411 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/15/2014
    Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ
    Trains may have a top free end or have that end wrap to another anchor to form arch (train arch or ribbon arch or segmented arch).   Training and arching AWES as basic architectures are public-domain bases. Conversion of wind energy to other energy formats occurs in a simple train or arch; one PTO is to produce electricity aloft or on the ground; PTO may produce sound, motion, light, lifting actions, etc.  Complex arches may format downwind or traverse to the wind or both while forming tents or domes with various mesh sizes. Scale as one wishes. PTO as one wishes. LTA or HTA or a mix of both at one's choice.  Calm-kite arches, trains, and complexes by ground powering or powered-aircraft assistance. Embed auxiliary WECs as wished. Define project objective; design to meet objective; test; fulfill application perhaps PTO in energy format desired; perform cost analysis, safety analysis; test and see how things go. Bless life with effective arrangements. 
    Kite trains


    More, and see section on arches:

    Kites index 

     
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14412 From: dave santos Date: 9/15/2014
    Subject: Re: Seven Trillion Kilos Aloft (levitating civilization)
    Doug,

    In the past, you proposed "zero" was the answer, and now its "trends toward zero (forever)". To get this still wrong result you propose making a longer and longer and longer 1kg wing, as if scaling-law were not part of aeronautical physics (including ST driveshaft), but it is. There are other factors as well, like increased skin friction as a drag factor dissipating the potential energy. Even an "ideal" wing has a definite "greater than zero" value for the amount of power required to maintain level flight.

    You are still left with a version of "perpetual-motion" fallacy, rather than a correct answer. If flight physics is as crucial as "real wind guy" knowledge in AWE, your cup looks half-empty,

    daveS




    On Monday, September 15, 2014 8:25 AM, "dougselsam@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14413 From: dave santos Date: 9/15/2014
    Subject: Re: Via-Ferrata Model for Anchor Circle Operation (Arch Rotation)
    We are of course trying to avoid a full-blown railway (NTS-style) which is the presumed most expensive solution (especially elevated). Even earthworks and other track-tending measures would be nice to avoid.

    Yes, snatch blocks are an obvious method to scale a via-ferrata method, to avoid sliding metal-on-metal. Ground vehicles promise to play a role in moving around the circle while staying linked to the via-ferrata, as we scale beyond hand-methods in prototyping.

    We will be creating Via-Polymeratas [sic] in the sky as well, rather than tracks...


    On Monday, September 15, 2014 2:31 AM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14414 From: dougselsam Date: 9/15/2014
    Subject: "power to keep 1 kg aloft"
    I will say, Joe brought up a relevant TOPIC, even if the actual question was incomplete.  The topic of how much weight various components have, and how much power may be lost or used to keep the various components aloft, is obviously an important basket of considerations that will vary among the myriad of possible configurations.  An LTA setup would use zero power staying aloft, then those using deflected air would have various ways to do that, each with its own set of applicable considerations.  In some cases though, one might be able to say that a given configuration would not make any more power if it magically became weightless.  Overall though, for things that fly, everyone knows that how much power it takes to keep them aloft is usually a main consideration.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14415 From: dave santos Date: 9/15/2014
    Subject: Re: SkyBow as ST prior art?
    Doug,

    Stay on topic please. 

    The fact is that the SkyBow is prior art as a means to transfer upper wind-energy down to the ground by torque.

    You need to disprove this obvious statement-of-engineering-fact, or your claim fails, that everything-I-post-is-false,

    daveS




    On Monday, September 15, 2014 8:31 AM, "dougselsam@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14416 From: dougselsam Date: 9/15/2014
    Subject: Re: Seven Trillion Kilos Aloft (levitating civilization)
    As predicted, you are unable to accept a simple explanation that uses simplifying assumptions to make a point that could have enlightened you, and return to nitpicking details of those simplifying assumptions to (in your mind) "prove" I am a bad person, and further, that you know everything.  Funny how your reply gives no indication whether you understood my explanation, but instead goes immediately off-topic and into "insult-mode".  And bear in mind, this explanation is the essence of understanding wind energy, which is completely irrelevant to you, while you brag at being "an expert"  This is fall-down-laughing funny.   As usual, nice try, and thanks for confirming my prediction.  Most scientific rules and explanations use some simplifying assumptions.  Simplifying assumptions can be useful to crack through concrete craniums, but there may have trouble penetrating ultra-hard, ultra-high-density crania.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14417 From: dave santos Date: 9/15/2014
    Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ
    Pierre,

    I have always given credit for my many sources of arch knowledge (like DaveC, World Kite Museum, etc.), and do not file patents (which are an expensive selfish guess to have invented something novel). Best to let future third-party review decide if we have ever invented anything first. My focus is on open group study and testing, not credit (except to trace technical lineage of past work). You, on the other hand, believe that you have invented novel AWES ideas, and you believe in buying patents for those ideas. We are in total disagreement philosophically.

    Never forget your past claims about AWE economic viability, capacity density, etc.. You seem to me to be overconfident in making claims that you later drop. You must get to a level of expertise where you are not wildly swinging back and forth between basic options. The one constant path in AE engineering is by Fort's dictum to "test, test,..". Those who follow that path advance with steady resolve, and share the winner's circle,

    daveS






    On Monday, September 15, 2014 8:39 AM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14418 From: dave santos Date: 9/15/2014
    Subject: Re: "power to keep 1 kg aloft"
    Doug,

    So given all you know, how many Watts, minimum, in the ideal case, to deflect air downward, to keep a kilo mass aloft at constant height?

    We have provided one answer (~10W, based on "high-school physics"). You latest answer ("almost zero") is not near 10W, which is far more than "near-zero", in power engineering terms,

    daveS


    On Monday, September 15, 2014 9:05 AM, "dougselsam@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14419 From: dougselsam Date: 9/15/2014
    Subject: Re: SkyBow as ST prior art?
    Doug,SkyBow is prior art... to transfer torque...disprove this...fact, or...claim fails, that everything-I-post-is-false, daveS *** You said torque is impossible as a means of power transmission for AWE due to "scaling laws".  So make up your mind.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14420 From: dave santos Date: 9/15/2014
    Subject: Re: Seven Trillion Kilos Aloft (levitating civilization)
    Doug,

    I understood your "zero" and "near-zero" answers a versions of the crank-inventor perpetual-motion fallacy, based on your ignoring scaling-law. Never forget that a turbine sitting on a tower is not aviation, a subject where you are the newbie,

    daveS


    On Monday, September 15, 2014 9:15 AM, "dougselsam@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14421 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/15/2014
    Subject: Re: "power to keep 1 kg aloft"
    Doug mentioned HPA example. Some notes on an HPA scene. Assume a given HPA  in calm ambient air  requires 0.5 hp to maintain level flight at 10 m AGL near sea level. That HPA has a gross flight mass. Now add 1kg to the HPA. Depending on the HPA characteristics, it will take more than 0.5 hp to get the level flight in same conditions. Level flight is occurring over time; work/time is power.  A bit more work will be done per time (hence, a bit more power will be the scene) in the HPA to address the added 1 kg.  The pilot will work harder; the propeller will work on the air a bit more.  "Depending on the HPA characteristics" means that the quantity of work per time to address the added 1 kg to sustain the level flight will be distinct for a specific aircraft. L/D will matter from one HPA to another HPA.   A more efficient HPA will need less additional power to handle the additional 1 kg  than a less efficient HPA.  HPA academic teams have performed calculations in these matters; they cared greatly to carve off extraneous mass from the structure or pilot or both; get rid of 1 kg and the pilot may not have to work so hard to stay aloft.    Same if the thrust was provided by a line resisting wind in a kite system ...
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14422 From: dave santos Date: 9/15/2014
    Subject: Re: SkyBow as ST prior art?
    Doug,

    Torque is not "impossible", but impractical to scale-up due to engineering scaling-law. I have always allowed that torque works at small scale, and have even made and tested a small ST.

    What might be "impossible" (quoting your wording here) is for you to scale torque to 200ft high with decent output. That's as close as I need to come to stating "impossible", in this context,

    daveS


    On Monday, September 15, 2014 9:39 AM, "dougselsam@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14423 From: dave santos Date: 9/15/2014
    Subject: Re: "power to keep 1 kg aloft"
    Joe,

    My guessimate is that an HPA should be able to add a kilo for 10W, plus a modest drag penalty.

    An estimate of ~400W is too high, and needs reducing by applying a realistic drag factor.

    daveS


    On Monday, September 15, 2014 9:55 AM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14424 From: dougselsam Date: 9/15/2014
    Subject: Re: "power to keep 1 kg aloft"
    Doug, ... how many Watts, minimum, in the ideal case, ... to keep a kilo mass aloft at constant height? *** A loaded question, complex answer: 

    You could craft an improbably-delicate demo unit (like a "Gossamer Albatross" pedal-powered airplane) with construction so light that survival of even a single demo flight in nearly-still air is questionable, which would use a teeny fraction of the power to stay aloft as a smaller, more robust unit targeting max energy capture in higher winds. 

    But, just as "The Gossamer Albatross" would not be useful for passenger transport or even for any specialized use of general aviation, an AWE setup designed for using the least power possible to stay aloft would likely only work in very light winds and be useless (quickly destroyed) for actual power-production in windfarm-or-better wind resource at altitude that we purport to target. 

    So, your answer is, if low power use to stay aloft is the only goal, as with a pedal-powered airplane, you could use a teeny fraction of the power that would be required to keep a useful-for actual-energy-production system aloft -- one that targets maximum energy capture in a useful wind resource.

    The key is, as usual, is, are you trying to score "internet intellect" points online by making sure you endlessly target meaningless drivel, or are you trying to actually DO something.

    I will now go back to your statement of being "an AWE expert", and point out that, as such an "AWE expert", you have no need of basic explanations from the likes of me.  As an "expert", you should be explaining all this stuff, not asking such basic questions.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14425 From: dougselsam Date: 9/15/2014
    Subject: Anyone understand my energy/momentum explanation?
    I am curious whether anyone even read my latest explanation to Dave S. (and Joe F.) regarding momentum transfer versus energy transfer to keep 1 kg aloft by deflecting air downward.  If so, I am curious whether it was understood by anyone, and if so, did you find it helpful? 

    I answered Dave S. specifically (notwithstanding that he is "an AWE expert" so he should already know the answer), but what I'm curious about is, did anyone else understand my answer, find it useful, or have any comment on it? 

    I ask this because, since Dave S. himself predictably had no comment whatsoever on my actual answer, but instead immediately drifted off into more "personality" issues, it seems that replying to Dave S. alone has no purpose.  DIscussions with Dave S. reminds me of trying to drive a car when the steering wheel has fallen off, or maybe trying to grab a water-balloon with greased fingers.  Difficult if not impossible.

    Therefore, I'd like to know whether ANYONE read, understood, or found my explanation useful, lest I waste any more time in replies, if it is only Dave S. that I'm (not ) reaching.

    It takes a lot of thought to craft such answers.  So, my question is (as with the Def Leppard song) "is anybody out there"?  Is it worth going through such explanations, or are they falling on only deaf ears?  I guess a related question would be "How many people already knew the answer and nodded knowingly when reading the answer?", and also "Is there anyone who disagrees with my answer, or has anything to add to my answer?"

    Thanks in advance for any reply(s).
    :)
    Doug S.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14426 From: dave santos Date: 9/15/2014
    Subject: Re: "power to keep 1 kg aloft"
    Doug,

    Its Joe's question here to you. I think this question was already well covered recently. Your explanation is nonsense to me, and you said you would stop trying to "enlighten" me, so keep your word..

    Lets agree that the ~10W result does not match your answer, and move on,

    daveS




    On Monday, September 15, 2014 10:12 AM, "dougselsam@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14427 From: dave santos Date: 9/15/2014
    Subject: Re: Anyone understand my energy/momentum explanation?


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8E_zMLCRNg
     


    On Monday, September 15, 2014 10:52 AM, "dougselsam@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14428 From: dave santos Date: 9/15/2014
    Subject: Re: "power to keep 1 kg aloft"

    A well-crafted academic introduction to flight physics which answers the doubts over powered flight-

    http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/MET/Faculty/businger/courses/notes200/17SimpleFlight.pdf

    Note that the parakeet data example supports a figure close to 10Wkg continuous, plus moderate real-world drag penalty.





    On Monday, September 15, 2014 11:03 AM, "dave santos santos137@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14429 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/15/2014
    Subject: Re: Anyone understand my energy/momentum explanation?
    DougS, couple of notes toward your question and invitation: 
    1. Thank you for your time and talent embedded in your careful answering. 
    2. The nature of the forum includes that members and the visitors will face your answering on a schedule that will extend into years. That is, new visitors or new members who study our posts may occur sooner and more probably later. 
    3. Your answering will be reached by keyword searches. The extension to others gradually accumulates. You may never know how much your answering affect AWE or students grinding in other endeavors. 
    4. Sorting through your pointed work may very well take more time than you wish. 
    5. Conservation of momentum is appreciated by some who will visit your answer.  Conservation of energy... likewise.
    6. My habit and intent is to return to all of your answers to advance understanding of accurate and inaccurate application of physical theories. Sifting fuzzy prose is not always easy; identifying perspective and unwritten assumptions over fuzzy prose answers is for me a costly process; often a pause for lateral study has me return to your offers with more tools; things can seem to get sharper when some delay occurs. 
    7. The 180 members:   We do not know how many members are reading this or that.   Visitors: We do not know how many visitors are studying our posts. 
    8. Return to a topic at one's leisure.

    MEMBERS AND VISITORS,
                     Feel free to post on what interests you. Stay on topic or after search, start a fresh topic. All sincere questions related to RAD are invited.

    ~ JoeF
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14430 From: benhaiemp Date: 9/15/2014
    Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ

    DaveS,

     

    Patenting is also a good mean to improve presentation of said new  ideas, trying to analyse previous art then resolve problems.

    I conceive the present forum as a sort of funnel where one (if any) or two concepts are emerging, perhaps from a collective action. So tests, yes, but only that can be useful, and also to improve some scheme. Many schemes are to be abandoned.

    Since no AWES is marketed (Altaeros maybe?) an emerging AWES will prove some novelty, probably resulting in some known elements but by a better combination making it feasible. 

    Note today I test un small rotor (15 cm diameter) in front of a ventilator, alone, then embedded and aligned in a structure of 44 cm diameter with an opening of 17 cm diameter. I have not seen any difference. But probably the problem you mention exists since in conventional wind turbine the air disk should be bigger than rotor diameter. In the other hand measures of SuperTurbine (tm) does not show too much losses in spite of their nearness on a frontal plan. Perhaps some configuration in J.Dabiri's style... In this field data are to be found: test, test...

     

    PierreB,

    FlygenKite

    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14431 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 9/15/2014
    Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ

    Correction for me:" In the other hand measures of SuperTurbine (tm) do not show too many losses..."

     

    PierreB
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14432 From: benhaiemp Date: 9/15/2014
    Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ

    DaveS,

     

    Patenting is also a good mean to improve presentation of said new  ideas, trying to analyse previous art then resolve problems.

    I conceive the present forum as a sort of funnel where one (if any) or two concepts are emerging, perhaps from a collective action. So tests, yes, but only that can be useful, and also to improve some scheme. Many schemes are to be abandoned.

    Since no AWES is marketed (Altaeros maybe?) an emerging AWES will prove some novelty, probably resulting in some known elements but by a better combination making it feasible. 

    Note today I test un small rotor (15 cm diameter) in front of a ventilator, alone, then embedded and aligned in a structure of 44 cm diameter with an opening of 17 cm diameter. I have not seen any difference. But probably the problem you mention exists since in conventional wind turbine the air disk should be bigger than rotor diameter. In the other hand measures of SuperTurbine (tm) does not show too much losses in spite of their nearness on a frontal plan. Perhaps some configuration in J.Dabiri's style... In this field data are to be found: test, test...

     

    PierreB,

    FlygenKite  


     
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14433 From: dave santos Date: 9/15/2014
    Subject: Via "Polymer" Climbing
    Just as Via Ferrata mountain climbing allows for an exhilarating adventure made simple and safe, we can hope that climbing on kite-based polymer structure can create a comparable experience. After all, Helen Keller in flight felt clouds as "liquid mountains"; the comparison is deep.

    Here again, the irresistible trend of AWE-driven kite-sports displacing other sports, just as water-skiing was marginalized by kite-boarding. Kites are even eroding traditional sport-flying (paragliding #1 in growth).

    How liberating that one does not need a literal mountain for snow-sports or climbing. There is an invisible Mount Everest overhead waiting for the bold kite aeronaut to scale by wind and muscle. Via Polymer by kite is a very-extreme new form of climbing to ultimately master in easy safe form. What an incredible high is in our grasp.

    How can anyone be bored with AWE? Not only might we save the world (by mastering all "boring" detail), but have an epic time doing so. The hardest part is waiting on kPower Austin to announce the big PL lifters have arrived from China. At least there is plenty to do preparing novel aerotecture and via-polymer rigging for testing...
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14434 From: dave santos Date: 9/15/2014
    Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ
    Pierre,

    Patenting is inferior to normal engineering science publishing. The value is negative in the high fees, secrecy, wrongful monopoly, and so on.There is not one useful idea in any patent that could not be shared more nobly in the open intellectual world.

    It is wrong to abuse a captive bird to justify a birdcage. Go ahead and be the songbird in the patent cage, to test against the songs of free birds singing in the wild,

    daveS


    On Monday, September 15, 2014 1:33 PM, "pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14435 From: dougselsam Date: 9/15/2014
    Subject: Re: "power to keep 1 kg aloft"
    "I think this question was already well covered recently. Your explanation is nonsense to me"  *** Thanks for confirming: no point trying to explain anything to you.  My explanation encapsulated the reality, into a bite-size, easily-digestible chunk.  If I say "how much power is required to keep a 1 kg airplane aloft?" the answer would be "The required power would tend to vary inversely with the wingspan with a large wingspan requiring less power to stay aloft for the same weight."  Is this really difficult for a stated "expert" in aviation to understand?   The fact that this is "nonsense" to you reveals your stated "expertise" in aviation is lacking in the most basic fundamentals of airplane design.  When all else fails, please realize the reason for a large wingspan versus weight of a sailplane, compared to a powered plane of the same weight, is so it can remain aloft using less power.  I can really sit here and restate the obvious only so many times.  If you don't understand something this basic, there really is no hope.  I don't know what else to say.  Have you ever wondered why the person holding a gun is not injured by the gun the way the person at the barrel end is injured by the bullet?  It's the same exact reason: Energy transfer between two bodies is unequal, whereas momentum exchange IS equal.  Again, we must first understand high school physics before we can move on to college-level stuff.  This is about as basic as applied physics can get.  Sorry if you don't understand.  I tried.  :)
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14436 From: dougselsam Date: 9/15/2014
    Subject: Re: Anyone understand my energy/momentum explanation?
    DougS, ...your question and invitation:...Thank you for your time...answering.
    *** It seems not one person understood my answer.  Seems a waste of time. Gotta pick my battles better.  Thanks to you JoeF for your consistent good demeanor. :)
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14437 From: dougselsam Date: 9/15/2014
    Subject: why does a sailplane have a larger wingspan?
    I'd invite anyone to explain why a sailplane has a larger wingspan than a powered airplane of the same weight.  And why a bullet injures, whereas the gun's handle does not.  (hint: Both questions have the same root answer.)
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14438 From: dave santos Date: 9/15/2014
    Subject: Re: "power to keep 1 kg aloft"
    Doug,

    One can't just increase wingspan without applying scaling law in aeronautical design. It really is in vain that you try to prove that scaling law never matters, when its actually fundamental. Its what keeps the ST from reaching upper wind economically enough to compete with even primitive reeling AWES that already peak at 100kW at ~700m [KiteNRG].

    Study the flight principles tutorial (linked in previous mass-aloft topic thread) closely. Not only does it contradict you in a better-crafted style, but you can compare power data between the parakeet and swan to notice the scaling law curve kicking in. 

    Do AWE instead of trying to teach the world flight principles you have not yet mastered. Find a flight principles forum, and see if they understand you. I bet you cannot get a single aeronautical pro on your side. Its not called "powered flight" for nothing, as your zero-power hypothesis would require.

    daveS 


    On Monday, September 15, 2014 2:06 PM, "dougselsam@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14439 From: dave santos Date: 9/15/2014
    Subject: Re: why does a sailplane have a larger wingspan?
    To reduce induced drag relative to lift, within scaling law limits.

    It still takes the same minimum amount of power (~10W per kg continuous) to maintain level flight, plus drag loss.


    On Monday, September 15, 2014 2:20 PM, "dougselsam@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com