Messages in AirborneWindEnergy group.                           AWES14690to14739 Page 189 of 440.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14690 From: dave santos Date: 9/25/2014
Subject: Re: Complexity Metrics in AWES Design

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14691 From: dougselsam Date: 9/25/2014
Subject: Re: Reconciliations

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14692 From: dave santos Date: 9/25/2014
Subject: Re: Reconciliations

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14693 From: dougselsam Date: 9/25/2014
Subject: Re: Complexity Metrics in AWES Design

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14694 From: dougselsam Date: 9/25/2014
Subject: Re: Reconciliations

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14695 From: benhaiemp Date: 9/25/2014
Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14696 From: dave santos Date: 9/25/2014
Subject: Re: Complexity Metrics in AWES Design

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14697 From: dave santos Date: 9/25/2014
Subject: Re: Reconciliations

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14698 From: benhaiemp Date: 9/25/2014
Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14699 From: Joe Faust Date: 9/25/2014
Subject: KiWiGen

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14700 From: dave santos Date: 9/25/2014
Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14701 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/25/2014
Subject: Re: KiWiGen

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14702 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/25/2014
Subject: Re: KiWiGen

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14703 From: dave santos Date: 9/25/2014
Subject: Re: KiWiGen

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14704 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/25/2014
Subject: Re: KiWiGen

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14705 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/25/2014
Subject: Re: KiWiGen

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14706 From: edoishi Date: 9/25/2014
Subject: Testing the Skin

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14707 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/25/2014
Subject: Re: KiWiGen

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14708 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 9/26/2014
Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14709 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 9/26/2014
Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14710 From: benhaiemp Date: 9/26/2014
Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14711 From: benhaiemp Date: 9/26/2014
Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14712 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 9/26/2014
Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14713 From: benhaiemp Date: 9/26/2014
Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14714 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/26/2014
Subject: Paper by Lorenzo Fagiano, et al.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14715 From: dave santos Date: 9/26/2014
Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14716 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/26/2014
Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14717 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/26/2014
Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14718 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/26/2014
Subject: Re: Paper by Lorenzo Fagiano, et al.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14719 From: dave santos Date: 9/26/2014
Subject: Correcting Looping-Foil and Arch Misconceptions

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14720 From: dave santos Date: 9/26/2014
Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14721 From: dougselsam Date: 9/26/2014
Subject: Re: Paper by Lorenzo Fagiano, et al.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14722 From: dougselsam Date: 9/26/2014
Subject: Re: Correcting Looping-Foil and Arch Misconceptions

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14723 From: dougselsam Date: 9/26/2014
Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14724 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 9/26/2014
Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14725 From: dave santos Date: 9/26/2014
Subject: ABB Switzerland connection with AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14726 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/26/2014
Subject: e-kite, the team

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14727 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 9/26/2014
Subject: Re: Correcting Looping-Foil and Arch Misconceptions

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14728 From: dougselsam Date: 9/26/2014
Subject: Re: e-kite, the team

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14729 From: dave santos Date: 9/26/2014
Subject: Re: Correcting Looping-Foil and Arch Misconceptions

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14730 From: David Lang Date: 9/26/2014
Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14731 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/26/2014
Subject: Re: Paper by Lorenzo Fagiano, et al.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14732 From: dave santos Date: 9/26/2014
Subject: Re: e-kite, the team

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14733 From: dave santos Date: 9/26/2014
Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14734 From: dave santos Date: 9/26/2014
Subject: Re: Correcting Looping-Foil and Arch Misconceptions

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14735 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 9/26/2014
Subject: Re: Correcting Looping-Foil and Arch Misconceptions

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14736 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 9/26/2014
Subject: Re: Correcting Looping-Foil and Arch Misconceptions

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14737 From: dave santos Date: 9/26/2014
Subject: Re: Correcting Looping-Foil and Arch Misconceptions

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14738 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/26/2014
Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14739 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/26/2014
Subject: Re: [AWECS] Lta windpower



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14690 From: dave santos Date: 9/25/2014
Subject: Re: Complexity Metrics in AWES Design
Its worth repeating for novices that complexity in kinematic robotics is traditionally roughly measured by counting mechanical degrees-of-freedom (DOF), and that this method also applies to AWES, but we have to define large-scale airborne DOF with care (since a slack string can be misleadingly modeled as a complex high-DOF chain, but its nominal working state might effectively be 1DOF).

-------------------------------------------

Thank you Joe, for helping correct Doug about value in AWE. The progress intended here is to begin to formalize what is meant by Low- and High-Complexity AWE (as first posed by software engineer, Jeremy Calvert), and to better make engineering predictions based on sound complexity metrics.

It really is astounding that AWE has such a wide spectrum of engineering complexity under serious development, and its going to be a wonderful spectacle to see this diversity contending at full scale, to test all predictions.



On Thursday, September 25, 2014 12:02 PM, "Joe Faust joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14691 From: dougselsam Date: 9/25/2014
Subject: Re: Reconciliations
"DaveS,... it is possible to have a 2 m2 parachute of same mass as a 1 m2 parachute..." ***Joe, don't waste your time.  Dave S. either pretends he can't understand "simplifying assumptions" useful in ENGINEERING discussions, or we're witnessing one more standard engineering practice (hypothetical question using simplifying assumptions) about which he has no clue. 

This is a typical DaveS feeble attempt to try and TWIST people's words to convince some unknown person stupid enough to believe him (?), that somehow he is in charge, knows everything, while everyone else is a complete idiot who is dumb enough to be swayed by such nonsense.  I scarcely believe there is anyone asleep and gullible to fall for such (lack of) reasoning, but I guess you never know... :)
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14692 From: dave santos Date: 9/25/2014
Subject: Re: Reconciliations
The best simplifying assumptions here are that parachute mass scales by dimension, and that a parachute does not justify "zero power" fallacies.

Joe is invited to agree, on merits.




On Thursday, September 25, 2014 2:33 PM, "dougselsam@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14693 From: dougselsam Date: 9/25/2014
Subject: Re: Complexity Metrics in AWES Design
DougS,... given...positive results, what good comes from... statement of "zero result."? ***Joe after years of crackpots hailing "DeProny brakes", while threatening to someday (gasp!) run a generator, I'm over it.  A buncha crap.  And tying a few tarps together is not a wind energy breakthrough.  This message is powered by wind.  So is everything else at this facility.  That's what we mean by wind energy, wind power, whatever you wanna call it this week.  There's a 30 mph wind outside and we're cranking out a solid 10 kW or more.  We in wind have suffered endlessly from irate crackpot after irate crackpot with nothing to offer except their lack of understanding and emotional antagonism to bolster their endless claims of either cutting edge research, or outright announcements of "breakthroughs".  We have yet to see one pan out, while many have become known laughingstocks in wind energy, such as the Honeywell machine Dave S. spent a couple months defending until he got bored with THAT particular set of ignorant lies and moved onto the next, with no end in sight.  The endless nonsense and bragging lies of dave S. meet most, if not all, the standard crackpot criteria, with "DeProny Brakes" being near the top of the list.  Of COURSE every NEW crackpot exhibits all the same symptoms as the ones who came before, while of course none will accept that fact.  At some point you have to just call a daffodil a daffodil.  This is a bunch of crapola, period.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14694 From: dougselsam Date: 9/25/2014
Subject: Re: Reconciliations
"The best simplifying assumptions here are that parachute mass scales by dimension,"  ***Joe's question: same mass, 2 different sized parachutes.  Dave S. if you TRULY can't understand the nature of that question, you're in even worse shape, mentally speaking, than I can readily believe or understand.  The idea is lightweight parachutes compared to the suspended mass, where the mass of the parachute itself can be essentially, ignored in an ENGINEERING question using an easy-to-understand, straightforward SIMPLIFYING ASSUMPTION.  The fact is that the parachutes of this size could be made from nearly massless trash bags or, for that matter, blue-tarp material.  It would obviously be EASY and STRAIGHTFORWARD to construct two (2) parachutes with suspended masses, both weighing EXACTLY THE SAME, with one parachute having twice the area as the other.  If you would like to insist that the mass Joe spoke of referred to the parachutes themselves, and that his VERY SIMPLE AND EASY-TO-UNDERSTAND  question somehow reflects an impossible situation, I invite you to turn yourself in to the nearest insane asylum, because "insane" is the only description I can think of for this latest rant of yours... (You and Wayne whats-his-name should check in together - the "buddy system"!)
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14695 From: benhaiemp Date: 9/25/2014
Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ

This is not an AWES,

 

PierreB
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14696 From: dave santos Date: 9/25/2014
Subject: Re: Complexity Metrics in AWES Design
Doug,

Surely you are the top "irate crackpot" in wind power history*. No one even seems to come close. No one but you has ever claimed more, nor ever been more obviously angry (and profane) in public wind discussion, day-after-day year-after-year. 

The most serious wind players only enjoy how well AWE is progressing, just as hoped, according to critical-path predictions. Promoting AWE study and testing is obviously more fun and respectable than only pushing extreme hype and ill-will, as you do.

This topic is about engineering complexity in AWE as a predictive metric, and you the off-topic-troll, as usual, seemingly helpless to add value to the specific ideas presented,

daveS







On Thursday, September 25, 2014 2:49 PM, "dougselsam@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14697 From: dave santos Date: 9/25/2014
Subject: Re: Reconciliations
Joe and I agree on the practical issues with scaling-up parachutes that an oversimplified argument can overlook. Doug is over-depending on unrealistic engineering assumptions like invisid air, massless wings, infinite area, etc., to cling to a sort of perpetual-motion (zero power) fallacy regarding engineered AWE flight.

Quoting JoeF (I would prefer "definite tendency", from direct experience)-

 "in common practical construction of parachutes, there is a tendency to have larger parachutes weigh more than small parachutes".


On Thursday, September 25, 2014 3:00 PM, "dougselsam@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14698 From: benhaiemp Date: 9/25/2014
Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ

On the present topic this looks as the most (if no the only one) relevant document in one place, but into a presentation of an array of multilevel kites which cannot work in my sense, being not manageable enough (take-off, hazards of collapses...). And a real invention makes the difference by providing a set of elements making it working in a manageable way. 

 

PierreB,

http://flygenkite.com  
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14699 From: Joe Faust Date: 9/25/2014
Subject: KiWiGen
KiWiGen     Kite Wind Generator
This topic thread is dedicated to discussing any KiWiGen topic. 
The literature on and from KiWiGen holds statements, many of which might become interesting to discuss. 
The literature includes patent applications, patents, papers, letters, online messages, news notes, and associated web pages. 
We had posted one of the core early papers of 56 pages. 
http://energykitesystems.net/KiteGen/2003meeting56pages.pdf
Yet we have not bared gems and challenges from that paper.
Over ten years have passed. The moves of WOW and the dance into KiteGen become part of the story eventually. 

No rush. Just when there is a KiWiGen item that interests one or more of us, this thread might be for recording
some insight supporting RAD.

One early date of movement for KiWiGen is in 2003. 

The Triaxial Acceleration Computer Acceleration Computer a
A special confidence over some tri-axis proprietary control software
seems to me to have bolstered the confidence of early KiWiGen team; they acknowledged some of the prior kite system arts, but not
all the prior art; blind spots could possibly be identified and discussed.  Clarifying the play of the control software in
the history of KiWiGen might inform other teams on ways to make progress. 

The interfaces with others, with government, with investors, etc. probably holds lessons. 
Trace the principals of early KiWiGen into the KiteGen years. 

What claims in patent applications for novelty might hold true? 
There was early urge for demonstrating in the small before going huge. How has such urge played?
Massimo Ippolito, Mario Milanese, and others near the KiWiGen are here invited to help firm the history, face questions,
and help to move lessons into RAD next steps. 

Time stamp notes as easy to help a KiWiGen timeline to be ever more perfected. 

~ JoeF
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14700 From: dave santos Date: 9/25/2014
Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ
Pierre,

You will need better luck than KiteLab Ilwaco, whose in-plane turbine experiment sadly suffered from the choked-flow effect JoeF mentioned, and off-axis rotor orientation that ChrisC thought ill-advised (in the ST concept). AWE autogyro rotors require hinged blades for top performance, and still trade away a large portion of harvestable power, compared to a HAWT of the same disc area.


Recall that you could not see at first how a Mothra kite-arch could ever host WECS, so kPower did a demo for you of a 4m turbine under an arch, but with the turbine set perfectly as a HAWT. There was no problem with manageability. We propose that a line of turbines set the same way under the TE is also very manageable, and develops better power, than rotors stuck in-plane.

Good Luck in testing your "plane surface" rotor version. It would be great if you could prove the critique mistaken, by testing against baseline designs, side-by-side,

daveS
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14701 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/25/2014
Subject: Re: KiWiGen
In the story is some reliance on the Ockels- TU Delft Laddermill. In that subspace is a 
O-Mill BV Laddermill development comp. Boekenroodeweg 45, 2111HK Aerdenhout, Netherlands.
Such O-Mill BV entity is invited to traced by someone or more. Thanks for full detail history.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14702 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/25/2014
Subject: Re: KiWiGen

Early KiWiGen "consortium" included some reliance on extant arts partly illustrated in the Laddermill patent and study team. Laddermill Patent Ned. 1004508. Nov. 1996 applications Europe and USA). Patent title: 

Wind energy converter using kites


What were the early first communication between Wubbo Ockels and the KiWiGen team?  Any lessons for the AWE community?

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14703 From: dave santos Date: 9/25/2014
Subject: Re: KiWiGen
Nice find, Joe; fills many gaps in our historical picture.

Noting the 2003 AWES train-track disclosure that perhaps place this obvious and important idea clearly in the public domain (before most KiteGen and NTS patents) Is this the case?

Track loop claims are in question, but KiteLab countered with defensive disclosure of straight cableways or tracks, crossing like airport runways, as prior art from aviation.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14704 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/25/2014
Subject: Re: KiWiGen
Using tracks in combination with various sails and wind-catchers is in much earlier wind power patents; that tethers are lengthened for tethered sails seems obvious over the prior public-domain wind power track arts. 
=============================
Early KiWiGen project notes had a focus on mechatronics
Mechatronics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14705 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/25/2014
Subject: Re: KiWiGen
I will keep an eye open for this more in the KiWiGen project: 
My first blush readomg comes up with a guess that the team was not appreciating drag. 
Not in the powering phase nor in the retract phase. 

And my first survey comes up with a guess that that were missing correct description of what they called "stall" for the return phase. 

Others might mull the text for these matters. 
=====================================
~ JoeF
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14706 From: edoishi Date: 9/25/2014
Subject: Testing the Skin
When I first unpacked the Chinese made Peter Lynn Skin Kite I wondered why it was a jumbled and snarled up mess that took 45 minutes to untangle... After a robust flight session in moderate winds I realized why... the test pilots at the factory were most likely totally skunked by this technical kite which may or may not be properly bridled.
  
Looking at this single skin kite it appears to be symmetrical, not only left to right, but also top to bottom. Only the bridle offers a clue as to how to fly it. The bridle is first of all very long. It is a four line kite. On each side respectively, the power line is tethered to the brake line. Unlike the NASA PowerWing and the KiteShip OL, the Skin's leading edge doesn't form a scoop.

The kite wants to launch, even bunched up on the ground and upside down, it is easy to coax enough wind into the kite to fill it and then lift it into the air. That's when it gets crazy! For one thing, it tends to collapse, folding in on itself. If it doesn't collapse, it wants to spin. But it doesn't want to unspin - so I would spin around to keep it up in the air (my 5 yr son loved that part).  Anyway, I was able to get it to fly fairly stably directly down wind.. To achieve this, I had to maintain tension on the brake line. Any error and it was prone to, for example, fly backwards uncontrollably ... I could not get it to sweep and its wind window was limited to about 15 degrees at best.

I realize that Mueller field is a swirly kite field even with a SE wind, but this was one weird (though fun) experience.  If anyone has any experience flying the Peter Lynn Skin and can offer me some tips, I would appreciate it.  I suspect a bridle adjustment would do wonders. I'm sure it is a great kite- or will be a great kite. It is feather light and super cheap. Peter Lynn's blog indicates many versions have been developed including some currently undergoing extensive exhibition testing in Mongolia...

Ed
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14707 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/25/2014
Subject: Re: KiWiGen
" rewinding the lines fast enough to glide the kite home"  is in the 2003 paper. 
Most likely the fast rewinding would not involve gliding, but rather kiting the wing or tandem wings.

The full quote:
Risk – The wing and the lines could fall down onto neighbour’s lands, due to the absence of wind 
Solution - the control capabilities achieved through elaboration of the input signal provided by the 
sensors allow rewinding the lines fast enough to glide the kite home. 

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14708 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 9/26/2014
Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ
Attachments :

    DaveS,

    Please can you provide (I think you cannot provide data) some references of ChrisC's study about ST and your own experiences?
    I made a first trial I related on a previous post: a 17 cm diameter rotor within a 45 cm diameter structure in front of a ventilator: I have no seen any difference between rotor alone and rotor within structure. But of course some trials in real situation are needed: now I try in-plane rotors within green tarp in different configurations: 1 hole, 1 rotor, and also 1 hole, one group of rotors. So if there is a problem, some configuration can probably avoid it.

    Concerning wind energy, (one on the two main features of an AWES) here conversion into electricity production, the joined document indicates in 3.2  (aerodynamic performance) that lateral spacing as close as 5% diameter is not a problem.

    Concerning airborne (the other main feature of an AWES) collective pitch (for helicopter) is expensive but not hinge (for autogyro). Morever perhaps hinge can be avoided by a design favoring in first electricity production, and after both lift and take-off by helicopter-mode, and for small rotors.

    The joined paper indicates small rotors are less expensive,even comprising connections (a little more expensive), but indicates also the cost and the weight of the frame supporting rotors, which can be far lesser in the configuration I propose by the two winches tightening the whole kite acting as a rigid frame.

    None of Kpower's designs comprising WECS can go towards manageable electricity production. The Arch taken alone is a good lifter but proposed WECS are not manageable:

    • Looping-units by passive controle under arch like you indicate does not allow automated landing in any way; piloting them will be possible for some hours, not more. Morever adaptations of wind changes look not possible. By implementing automated management you can reinvente "crosswind" kites with problems we know as no maximization of space (you can take only a small fraction of potential power under Arch with such a method). Kites are good lifters but bad rotors.
    • Wecs under Arch as shown by Kpower has followed problems: small area for WECS, bad balancing, no natural configuration for landing (Makani's method to reverse system and rotors for take-off is far too complicated and risked or even impossible with a big system with numerous suspended rotors). There is no concinnity of such a design being a juxtaposition instead a combination like I propose.

    PierreB,

    http://flygenkite.com

     

     

     

     

     
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14709 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 9/26/2014
    Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ

    Some correction: "There is no concinnity of such a design being a juxtaposition instead of a combination like I propose."

    From me:"Looping-units by passive controle under arch like you indicate does not allow automated landing in any way; piloting them will be possible for some hours, not more. Morever adaptations of wind changes look not possible. By implementing automated management you can reinvente "crosswind" kites with problems we know as no maximization of space (you can take only a small fraction of potential power under Arch with such a method)."
    What I mean: "crosswind" kites for AWES like systems from Tu Delft, Ampyx, Makani etc. are far better as looping-units by only passive controle which do not allow some automated way for landing and recovering, and for adaptations to wind changes more than some hours.So if we want avoiding problems from methods from existing companies (farm making a forest of tethers destroying efficient maximization of space), at least we should focus on manageable AWES.  

     

    PierreB
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14710 From: benhaiemp Date: 9/26/2014
    Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ

    Trying to analyse the reasons of some technological choice instead of making hundred designs, hoping one of them can be a solution (apparent nearness of the solution does not make the solution without analysing the reasons of choice) but in fact making a huge loss of time.

     

    PierreB
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14711 From: benhaiemp Date: 9/26/2014
    Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ

    Patent US2151349 - Kite  "to produce attractive effects", so it is not an AWES.

    In AWES we have wind energy and wind energy is not to produce attractive effects.

    PierreB 
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14712 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 9/26/2014
    Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ

    Patent US2151349 - Kite  describes a product for attractive effects. Its structure does not contain rotors integrated in plane-wind but added in kite in a different plan or a structure with only rotors. With such a structure it is not possible to obtain an AWES with a light frame by stretching kite part. Irrelevant.

      
    PierreB
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14713 From: benhaiemp Date: 9/26/2014
    Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ

    Patent US5056447 - Rein-deer kite ,Figure 10 being the only relevant document JoeF (Kpower's videos are not relevant for the reasons I indicated as drawings without analysis of technical choice, some element being here, but not some other element) provides, being both an AWES for electricity production and rotors integrated in the kite. But this arrangement in array (train) is difficult or impossible for automated landing, like other trains, and its study is yet too short: a lighter frame due to stretching kite is not yet studied.

    Note: to find a possible architecture in AWES is not to mention a not well clarified possibility among others but is by analysing the reasons and criteria of choice then study the technological features.If no the forum will be discussing without end about "possibilities" .

     

    PierreB

    http://flygenkite.com   
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14714 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/26/2014
    Subject: Paper by Lorenzo Fagiano, et al.

    Automatic Retraction and Full Cycle Operation for a Class of Airborne Wind Energy Generators

    09/2014;
    Source: arXiv

    ABSTRACT Airborne wind energy systems aim to harvest the power of winds blowing at
    altitudes higher than what conventional wind turbines reach. They employ a
    tethered flying structure, usually a wing, and exploit the aerodynamic lift to
    produce electrical power. In the case of ground-based systems, where the
    traction force on the tether is used to drive a generator on the ground, a two
    phase power cycle is carried out: one phase to produce power, where the tether
    is reeled out under high traction force, and a second phase where the tether is
    recoiled under minimal load. The problem of controlling a tethered wing in this
    second phase, the retraction phase, is addressed here, by proposing two
    possible control strategies. Theoretical analyses, numerical simulations, and
    experimental results are presented to show the performance of the two
    approaches. Finally, the experimental results of complete autonomous power
    generation cycles are reported and compared with first-principle models. 
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14715 From: dave santos Date: 9/26/2014
    Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ
    Pierre,

    CrisC is a retired Boeing engineer who, of course, did not study the ST formally, but posed the obvious question as to why anyone would deliberately design AWE rotors to be off-angle, given the loss of power and balance. This is basically the vibration/balance problem of autogyros before hinged blades were invented by Cierva, combined with the problem of loss of power, just any small turbine does that folds its rotor away from the wind in storms. These effects would only be worth "testing" by small children, as there is no doubt about the results. Repeating KiteLab's testing of a rotor in-plane in a wing for poor power output might be a good lesson for you. I do not expect you will get a different result than I did, but you don't need to take my result on faith if you test it yourself.

    You are very strangely unaware how easy it is to use an arch to raise and lower WECS. Even though we did an experiment for you (4m turbine under Mini-Mothra), you persist in the same pessimistic opinion. The prediction is that you will have a far harder time launching the WheelWind, when you finally attempt to make a small test, than it is to hoist up a WECS under an arch.

    One aspect you really seem to overlook is that an arch has a smaller (wind) frontal area than its plan-form, but the WECS layout we propose is not in-plane but like flaps-down on an aircraft wing. As such the frontal area for WECS arrays is large, just like the drawing linked to you on the old KiteLab page background. You make comments that seemingly overlook even the possibility of designed high-coverage frontal geometry that KiteLab/kPower has developed. There are methods in our repertoire to handle WECS in stages, to closely match wind conditions and load demand, but they are like active sailing at large scale, more than automatic or passive devices.

    Good Luck with your experiments,

    daveS







    On Friday, September 26, 2014 2:32 AM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14716 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/26/2014
    Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ
    Such kite is a type of AWES, though not an electricity-making-focused type of AWES. In AWES we mine wind energy and format that energy in various ways resulting in effects (attractive or not this person or that person). When electricity is the desired attractive effect, format the mined wind energy to accomplish that effect. All flying kite systems are AWES; some are arranged to this or that purpose; we do not dismember any particular flying kite system from AWES family just because it may not be in some particular subset of AWES. The utility-scale electrical subset of AWES might be the sole focus of this person or that person; no problem; the problem arises when some person nonfactualy  dismembers from AWES something that factually has rights to be a member of AWES.
        Indeed, even the shown kites of barrel rolling are indeed in actually use making some electricity, though very tiny and certainly not for utility use (minor static). 

    ~ JoeF
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14717 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/26/2014
    Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ
    The forum invites parallel multi-tasking. Deep analysis of a particular arrangement is invited. Proposed possibles are also welcome.  Work on what one thinks serves RAD best.  Not everyone will be working on the same page at once. Multiple topics are ever available.  Dreamers are welcome. High-craft focused people are welcome. Theoreticians are welcome. Mathematical physicists are welcome. Repair technicians are welcome. Rotor specialists are welcome. Newbie questioners are welcome. Just because a dream is posted does not force any particular person to work on such dream.  Put one's coin in the topics that one feels most effective.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14718 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/26/2014
    Subject: Re: Paper by Lorenzo Fagiano, et al.

    [1409.6151] Automatic Retraction and Full Cycle Operation for a Class of Airborne Wind Energy Generators

      See on the page's right side a link for a PDF of the paper.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14719 From: dave santos Date: 9/26/2014
    Subject: Correcting Looping-Foil and Arch Misconceptions

    Pierre, 

    Open-AWE has several years of flying looping-foils of many kinds (since 2007), in passive-control sessions up to three weeks. Since the start, they fly passively without "piloting" (without any manual or active-automation control) and also naturally stop by themselves before landing in lulls (or stop on demand by a kill line). They adapt passively to wind changes in single-line versions, and our arches have never had the inability to rotate that you seem to believe in. You also seem unaware that the kitefarm designs developed cover the entire frontal kitefarm window (to 200ft FAA ceiling).

    Recall how hastily you concluded your -520x result. You are not yet finished with wild underestimation about what is being done, and what is possible, but you still state your biases if they were proven fact, rather than extremely pessimistic guesses. I am eager to argue that your (poor) maximization of space assumptions overlook the state-of-the-art in AWES theoretic designs, and to remind you that we still await your calculation of how much total power is in the window to begin with, and how high an extraction efficiency is plausible to you, to compare with HAWT baseline data, and your pessimistic AWE beliefs.

    You also seem to regard airspace as scarce with no NextGen revolution in progress. Everything quoted below seems wrong to me, and easy to disprove,

    daveS


    Pierre wrote:"Looping-units by passive controle under arch like you indicate does not allow automated landing in any way; piloting them will be possible for some hours, not more. Morever adaptations of wind changes look not possible. By implementing automated management you can reinvente "crosswind" kites with problems we know as no maximization of space (you can take only a small fraction of potential power under Arch with such a method)."
     
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14720 From: dave santos Date: 9/26/2014
    Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ
    Pierre,

    There is no "huge waste of time" in AWE, since only about 1000 are active out of 7 billion world population. Furthermore, our proverb that "All kite flying is valuable" means that we do not waste time by flying, and those who fly the most, waste very little time. We are in school, and the lessons only seem wasteful. Even if you idea of in-plane turbines does not work as well as hoped, the diligent effort to find that out will serve you as the skill-building required for future triumph.

    Try not to swing back and forth between extreme pessimism and optimism, but steer a steady course with a cheerful heart; its a long voyage,

    daveS


    On Friday, September 26, 2014 10:54 AM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14721 From: dougselsam Date: 9/26/2014
    Subject: Re: Paper by Lorenzo Fagiano, et al.
    Maybe Lorenzo Fagiano can confirm whether required power to remain aloft generally varies inversely with wing area, for the same mass.  I assume he's "an engineer".  Maybe we should ask him for his opinion on that.  I skimmed this carefully-written paper, and my take is there is very little power being generated compared to the mass, cost, and complexity of the equipment being utilized.  I would question this entire approach.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14722 From: dougselsam Date: 9/26/2014
    Subject: Re: Correcting Looping-Foil and Arch Misconceptions
    "Pierre...you still state your biases if they were proven fact...Everything quoted below seems wrong to me, and easy to disprove," ***Pot, Kettle, Black   :)
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14723 From: dougselsam Date: 9/26/2014
    Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ
    "Pierre, There is no "huge waste of time" in AWE"  *** Time will tell who is wasting their time and who is not.  (I think I am right now - uh-oh...)  If many teams pursue the same losing strategy, that would be considered a big waste of time in retrospect, if it leads nowhere.  That would place whomever tries to warn them in a position to say "See, I told you you were wasting your time".  I'd say such a duplication of effort, in the face of such disappointing results, may be due to a lack of imagination at play.  People have been flying kites for thousands of years and not all the activity has led to advance AWE.  In fact, despite our enthusiasm, let's remember, nobody has yet shown AWE to be truly viable yet, despite 100 years of ideas, theories, drawings, patents, and actual attempts..
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14724 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 9/26/2014
    Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ

    AWES for electricity production have some specific concerns other AWES have not.


    PierreB
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14725 From: dave santos Date: 9/26/2014
    Subject: ABB Switzerland connection with AWE
    Noting a new corporate player in AWE, where LorenzoF is active (co-authoring the AWE paper for IEEE that Joe just linked).

    ABB is a serious wind player (but I wonder if Mims did not anticipate the laser pressure sensor)-


    ABB Corporate Research Center - Switzerland
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14726 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/26/2014
    Subject: e-kite, the team
    Welcome e-kite
    e-kite | "Wind energy takes a flight"

     


    e-kite wind power systems
     Alfred van den Brink
     Max ter Horst
     Coert Smeenk
     Bert Regelink
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14727 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 9/26/2014
    Subject: Re: Correcting Looping-Foil and Arch Misconceptions

    DaveS,


    By defining Arch as a large lifter you rightly develop inherent qualities of kite as lifter. But by trying using a kite as conversion system you make a major misconception. If you pursue in this way you will see an inherent passively controled kite with maximization of space is in fact a rotor. So probably by pursuing such a way you can reinvente the rotor. For what? For Watt?

    Looping-foil passively controled under Arch generate the same problems of maximization of land and space as "crosswind" kites produced by organizations like TuDelft, Ampyx, Windlift, Makani..., but with many more problems. How will you maintain kites in correct flying, how will you assure landing? By telling:"Please, Mr Wind, can you blow always by the same force and the same direction"?

     

    PierreB
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14728 From: dougselsam Date: 9/26/2014
    Subject: Re: e-kite, the team
    And now folks, for something completely different... :)
    "Wind energy takes a hike"  :)))
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14729 From: dave santos Date: 9/26/2014
    Subject: Re: Correcting Looping-Foil and Arch Misconceptions
    Doug,

    Lopping-foils and kite-arches are clearly not subjects you have expertise in, so you are just popping up on my topics as the troll, with no technical contribution to offer. Like with the engineering-complexity topic. And you merely pretend to teach flight principles, when better sources (we link) are common. 

    Note that my Pierre quote was properly made; the standard of fair critique (specifically technical) is higher than yours. You are in a poor position to be the "intentional stupidity" "LiarWatch" guy, if being the "greatest living wind energy inventor" never was true. Black is beautiful. The kettle and pot bubble on, but you are falling in the fire half-fried...

    daveS




    On Friday, September 26, 2014 11:29 AM, "dougselsam@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14730 From: David Lang Date: 9/26/2014
    Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ
    On Sep 26, 2014, at 10:38 AM, "dave santos santos137@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
    DaveS,

    How much power do you think is lost by the "hinged blade" aspect of autogyros?

    DaveL
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14731 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/26/2014
    Subject: Re: Paper by Lorenzo Fagiano, et al.
    The three authors are featuring the definition of two feedback parameters:
    1. velocity angle
    2. elevation angle
    for use in controlling retraction phase. 

    ~ JoeF
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14732 From: dave santos Date: 9/26/2014
    Subject: Re: e-kite, the team
    This is an interesting Dutch-based team, with career wind engineers from 2MW turbine design ("real wind people") who obviously disagree with Doug about reeling as a ready stepping-stone into the AWE game at 2000ft (and migrating to other architectures, if needed).




    On Friday, September 26, 2014 12:08 PM, "dougselsam@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14733 From: dave santos Date: 9/26/2014
    Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ
    DaveL asked: "How much power do you think is lost by the "hinged blade" aspect of autogyros?"

    I would believe it gains a bit (if test data agrees), but its an odd question.

    The hinged blade is to avoid excess vibration by allowing the blade AoA to be compliant. A flexible blade has the same general benefit. I think that the increased mass of complex rotor hubs (including hinges), especially at larger scale, robs power more-or-less at the 10W-per-kilo "whacko" formula :)

    The major power loss comes from tilting the rotor disc, with a reduced frontal harvesting area, and a less than optimal output trade between advancing and retreating blades. There must also be a small amount of extra internal friction and acoustic loss between a same-size autogyro v. a HAWT rotor.

    You have claimed that SkyMill has the best rotor expertise on tap, so let them correct these opinions, if needed.




    On Friday, September 26, 2014 12:18 PM, "David Lang SeattleDL@comcast.net [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14734 From: dave santos Date: 9/26/2014
    Subject: Re: Correcting Looping-Foil and Arch Misconceptions
    Pierre,

    Joe and I define all kites as WECS by a strict physics interpretation and great practical appreciation of the energy-of-flight.

    Let the naive world believe that a kite is not a WECS, by ignoring kite energy-of-flight (both potential and kinetic). We know that any extra kite-energy-of-flight can be used for many applications, just as a horse carries a rider (its still horse-power if the horse runs alone), The kite is such an inherent WECS, that Pocock, the child only needed to tie his toy kite to a stone, and watch it drawn along, and "wonder", just as Franklin, the child, was drawn across a pond. These are the birth stories of modern AWE, and the kites were ordinary toys acting as WECS.

    Strange that you cannot see our logic (its not a marketing claim),

    daveS


    On Friday, September 26, 2014 12:09 PM, dave santos <santos137@yahoo.com
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14735 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 9/26/2014
    Subject: Re: Correcting Looping-Foil and Arch Misconceptions

    DaveS,

    Thanks for your explain. Now I understand you want implement kites-WECS under a kite-WECS. But for what? Arch as kite-WECS is not enough? Are other kites-WECS needed? For Watt?

    Please can you stop your singing about patents ("marketed claims"). If you do not like patents, it is your affair, not more. Ethics is not about patents or not patents but for example to respect someone with another opinion as yours without deforming his arguments: on this point you should work your ethics.

     

    PierreB

      
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14736 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 9/26/2014
    Subject: Re: Correcting Looping-Foil and Arch Misconceptions

    From my precedent post:("marketed claims") corrected in ("marketing claims") for an exact quotation.


    PierreB
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14737 From: dave santos Date: 9/26/2014
    Subject: Re: Correcting Looping-Foil and Arch Misconceptions
    Pierre,

    Why would anyone create a hybrid concept like a WECS under a WECS? Its the same engineering logic seen everywhere- like Loyd's turbine-on-a-wing, a rocket made of several rockets (clusters and stages), pilot-parachutes on main-parachutes, turbo-props, etc.. Try to see your own FlyGen as a WECS under a WECS, to understand better: The FlyGen vitally depends on the energy harvested by the kite part.

    There is no censorship of kite patent opinions here. You are just as welcome to praise patents as others are to critique them. I will continue to warn about low-income individuals squandering life-savings on naive kite patents pre-invalidated by hidden prior art, that only a subject-matter-expert like JoeF really has a sound idea of It would be better for all no ideas were held hostage by patent systems, but shared freely with due credit. At least we know of no AWE patent seriously blocking us (Payne's are expired), so the main problem is for the poor inventor with many ideas, who believes in patents,

    daveS


    On Friday, September 26, 2014 1:17 PM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14738 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/26/2014
    Subject: Re: AWES for electricity production in utility-scale? Turbines integ

    ---In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, <pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 14739 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/26/2014
    Subject: Re: [AWECS] Lta windpower

    https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/US20110101692A1/US20110101692A1-20110505-D00000.png

     

    Kytoon WEC holding wing WEC holding rotor WEC, coordinating toward flygen of electricity using conductive tether ...