"Japan is predicted by initiated masters to soon play a major role in perfecting AWE"  ***predicted, just not now, right?  (yawn)  Nothing worse in wind energy to hear statements of who (in the future) (of course) "will" revolutionize the art (double-yawn).  Geez, never heard that one before - oh wait, except about 1000 times.  Predicted by indoctrinated manipulated unknowing slave-like lemmings...
Ya know, it occurred to me a few years back in this wind energy adventure, as I contemplated what causes people to lie, since that is 99% of offbeat wind energy.  Here's what I noticed, and it is not restricted to wind energy:
1) There's no territory more ripe for lies than the future
2) The most common lie is the person declaring what he himself will do in the future.  (the one thing he can actually affect)
meanwhile...
3) I've heard so many times one group or another is going to change the face of wind energy because "they are so smart".  Usually it is laughable, to hear that (again), while seeing that they are pursuing a known dead-end. After a while you get tired of trying to explain it to people and just laugh.

An albatross has a larger wingspan for its weight because more wing will deflect more air downward, so that air can be deflected down slower, which transfers less kinetic energy to that air for the same thrust, since kinetic energy is proportional to velocity squared.  So a larger wingspan means it uses less power to stay aloft for the same weight.  The albatross ideally likes to soar, using ZERO energy to stay aloft.  That is why the albatross has long wings, because as a wing tends toward infinite length, the power required to stay aloft approaches zero.  There is no specific amount of power required to stay aloft.  It is inversely correlated with wingspan or wing area in general, depending on configuration. 

There is no fact more basic to aviation.  A small parachute falls faster than a large one, for example.  It takes less energy to keep a large parachute aloft carrying the same weight as a small parachute.  The required power to keep a parachute aloft can be calculated by the force times the fall rate.  Try jumping off a cliff riding a small toy airplane and you will quickly realize the power of your gravitational potential energy, even being turned into kinetic energy at a dangerously-increasing rate. will be insufficient to keep you airborne, and as you are about to splat on the ground, you will say "Gosh Darn It, Doug was right!  I'm gaining a lot of kinetic energy, but it is still not enough power to sustain me against gravity because I don't have enough wingspan compared to my weiiiiiiigggggghhhhhhhht!!!!!!!!!!  Ahhhghgh!  Noooo!  I'm gonna splaaaaaat because I didn't know a larger wingspan could keep me airborne using less energy for the same weiiiigggggghhhhhht!!!!! Noooo, Mr.Billll!!!!!!"
"Ohhhhh and did I mention, I'm an "aviation expeeeeeert"?  And "an engineeeeeeeeeer"?  Shaaaaaaame on me!  I guess I have no excuuuuuuuuuse then, doooooo IIIIIIIIIII?"  SPLATT.

Aspect ratio plays a role but is not the main factor.  If aspect ratio was all that mattered, you could fly a ton, using a popsicle stick for a wing.  A higher aspect ratio reduces tip losses compared to lift, and is what makes a sailplane more efficient than a biplane, so in that sense it does end up contributing toward overall reduced power required, but the main thing is any way you have of deflecting MORE air downward, whether it is more wing span, more wing area, or a better airfoil, then you can deflect that MORE air downward slower.  Deflect twice the air downward, and you can deflect it half as fast. At half as fast, it has 1/4 the kinetic energy. Therefore even deflecting twice the air, you use a total of half the power, to stay aloft.  If you could magically have 10 x wing area, deflecting 10 x air downward, it would be deflected at 1/10 the speed for the same thrust, using 1/100th the power, so even deflecting 10 x the air you still use 1/10th the total power.  More wing is required to lift more weight.  You fall slower holding a bigger umbrella.  This is so basic I can't believe it needs explaining, but, by now, we know the drill.  Being allergic to facts must be a terrible thing to suffer.

There remain some challenges.   Note that P=W/t       with P for power and W for work and t for time.

On Sep 18, 2014, at 9:57 AM, "dave santos santos137@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
DaveS,

I have no idea what the hell you are talking about, but, when you finally master the advanced Physics 001 subtleties of "balancing units across the equal sign", maybe your next foray into engineering analysis can be to look into this and ferret out my "Hamiltonian skeleton in the closet" :-)….but if you can't find it, "not to worry", as Doug will surely be on it, and will divulge the foggy-flaws in "all that crap about time domain simulation" :-) :-)

(btw the equation document for my GTOSS simulation is open to all on the web)

DaveL
(humbly apologizing for succumbing to the troll virus that's going around :-)

Yes, in forum: 

"Lets try afresh to discover the minimal power requirement for realistic powered flight." *** You changed the question, which was "power to loft 1 kg?"
You guys have repeatedly stated this as a theoretical question that could be answered by a formula, and you actually calculated it at 10 Watts.  I think it's time for you to stop lying, stop posturing, and shut up.  You just keep shifting what you say and lying over and over.  I'm not buying it.  Everyone can see what you do, and it is really bad.  You've stated publicly that you are an engineer and you've given the equation to calculate the answer to Joe's naive question, and I am not going to sit here and watch you lie your way around your idiocy, which you have already amply demonstrated.  Too bad you can't find any "engineer" to refute my simple and factual explanation. If you want a reasonable practical answer, figure out how much ppwer a Piper Cub uses at stall speed and divide by the weight in kilograms and you will have your answer in 2 seconds.  Stop pretending to be a genius - you are a lying idiot, baffled by the simplest concepts, and I am not going to stand for it anymore.

Hey Dave Lang: Apparently, you're considered one of the few list participants with any actual requisite knowledge, background, or reasoning ability.  The call has gone out for you to share some of your wisdom, and explain the "theoretical minimum power required to maintain 1 kg aloft against gravity" (by the deflection of air under standard atmospheric conditions) - oh wait I guess atmospheric conditions would not play a role - just mass.  Mmmm Hmmm...

Anyway, I pretty much 'splained it so many times I'm not sure if I can come up with any more ways of saying it, and these guys (Dave S. and Joe F) - well at least (especially) DAve S - they don't seem to believe me, because after I explained it, they still kept asking.  (And arguing) (Well, now that Dave is trying to change the question, you can tell he really knows I am right, but anyway, let's play along with him pretending to ignore all I keep teaching him, and...
Can you PLEASE chime in with an actual up-to-engineering-snuff answer for these guys?  Please don't make me carry the whole load.  For a first pre-answer, I'd be interested to hear whether you think it is even a valid question in the sense that there even IS a definitive answer, which I maintain there is not.  Thanks.  Also, if anyone else who claims to be an engineer, or even just smart, or I will settle for non-comatose, like some of you EUROPEAN KITE_REELERS, or American reelers, or whomever, DON'T BE SHY:  GIVE JOE AN ANSWER!  WE WANT TO HEAR WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY!!! :))