Messages in AirborneWindEnergy group.                           AWES16716to16765 Page 229 of 440.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16716 From: dave santos Date: 1/30/2015
Subject: SkyMill's Jetstream Ambition

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16717 From: dougselsam Date: 1/30/2015
Subject: Re: Bell's Classic Paper on Tetrahedral Kite Structure

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16718 From: dougselsam Date: 1/30/2015
Subject: "I'd like an argument, please"...

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16719 From: dave santos Date: 1/30/2015
Subject: Re: Bell's Classic Paper on Tetrahedral Kite Structure

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16720 From: Rod Read Date: 1/30/2015
Subject: Re: "I'd like an argument, please"...

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16721 From: dougselsam Date: 1/30/2015
Subject: Re: Bell's Classic Paper on Tetrahedral Kite Structure

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16722 From: dave santos Date: 1/30/2015
Subject: Re: Bell's Classic Paper on Tetrahedral Kite Structure

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16723 From: dougselsam Date: 1/30/2015
Subject: Re: Bell's Classic Paper on Tetrahedral Kite Structure

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16724 From: dave santos Date: 1/30/2015
Subject: Lieven Standaert's AWE-Airship Concept

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16725 From: dave santos Date: 1/30/2015
Subject: Re: Bell's Classic Paper on Tetrahedral Kite Structure

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16726 From: dave santos Date: 1/30/2015
Subject: Parasailor (TM) Parafoil-Spinnaker Hybrid

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16727 From: benhaiemp Date: 1/31/2015
Subject: Parasail

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16728 From: dave santos Date: 1/31/2015
Subject: Cody's Kite-Glider

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16729 From: dave santos Date: 1/31/2015
Subject: Re: Parasail

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16730 From: dougselsam Date: 1/31/2015
Subject: Re: Bell's Classic Paper on Tetrahedral Kite Structure

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16731 From: dave santos Date: 1/31/2015
Subject: Re: Parasail

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16732 From: dougselsam Date: 1/31/2015
Subject: Re: Parasail

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16733 From: dave santos Date: 1/31/2015
Subject: Re: Bell's Classic Paper on Tetrahedral Kite Structure

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16734 From: dave santos Date: 1/31/2015
Subject: Re: Parasail

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16735 From: benhaiemp Date: 1/31/2015
Subject: Re: Parasail

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16736 From: dave santos Date: 1/31/2015
Subject: AWE Patent Pool and Licensing Invitation

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16737 From: dave santos Date: 2/1/2015
Subject: Used sails as cheap kite wings- Open-AWE "secret"

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16738 From: Hardensoft International Limited Date: 2/1/2015
Subject: Fw: Submit your concept notes before February 12 for the powering ag

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16739 From: dave santos Date: 2/1/2015
Subject: Re: Parasail

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16740 From: Cleventine Date: 2/1/2015
Subject: Re: Parasail

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16741 From: dave santos Date: 2/1/2015
Subject: Towering Trains v. "Spawling Lattices"

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16742 From: dave santos Date: 2/1/2015
Subject: Minesto seeking permits for undersea kite farm

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16743 From: benhaiemp Date: 2/2/2015
Subject: Some parameters for an AWES at scale

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16744 From: dougselsam Date: 2/2/2015
Subject: Re: Bell's Classic Paper on Tetrahedral Kite Structure

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16745 From: dave santos Date: 2/2/2015
Subject: Re: Bell's Classic Paper on Tetrahedral Kite Structure

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16746 From: dave santos Date: 2/2/2015
Subject: Re: Bell's Classic Paper on Tetrahedral Kite Structure

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16747 From: Rod Read Date: 2/2/2015
Subject: does more line tension = more power out?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16748 From: dave santos Date: 2/2/2015
Subject: TUDelft Bell Terahedral Kite Study

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16749 From: dave santos Date: 2/2/2015
Subject: Re: does more line tension = more power out?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16750 From: Rod Read Date: 2/2/2015
Subject: Re: TUDelft Bell Terahedral Kite Study

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16751 From: dave santos Date: 2/2/2015
Subject: Re: TUDelft Bell Terahedral Kite Study

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16752 From: dougselsam Date: 2/3/2015
Subject: Re: Bell's Classic Paper on Tetrahedral Kite Structure

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16753 From: dougselsam Date: 2/3/2015
Subject: Re: Bell's Classic Paper on Tetrahedral Kite Structure

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16754 From: dave santos Date: 2/3/2015
Subject: Re: Bell's Classic Paper on Tetrahedral Kite Structure

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16755 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 2/3/2015
Subject: Dan Tracy | Kite Controller | Pacific Sky Power

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16756 From: dougselsam Date: 2/3/2015
Subject: Re: Bell's Classic Paper on Tetrahedral Kite Structure

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16757 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 2/3/2015
Subject: Re: Parasail

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16758 From: Joe Faust Date: 2/3/2015
Subject: Fwd: Survey - status AWE 2015

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16759 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 2/3/2015
Subject: Re: Parasail

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16760 From: Rod Read Date: 2/3/2015
Subject: Ring fracture from testing

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16761 From: dave santos Date: 2/3/2015
Subject: Re: Bell's Classic Paper on Tetrahedral Kite Structure

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16762 From: dave santos Date: 2/3/2015
Subject: Re: Parasail

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16763 From: dave santos Date: 2/3/2015
Subject: 22m2 Pilot Kite Kill Test Successful

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16764 From: edoishi Date: 2/3/2015
Subject: Dan Tracy kite controller

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16765 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 2/3/2015
Subject: Re: Parasail



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16716 From: dave santos Date: 1/30/2015
Subject: SkyMill's Jetstream Ambition
SkyMill Energy represents a PumpingMill concept, as Bas and Wubbo defined in 2005, but based on autogyro rotors as the unit-kite.  SkyMill is the rare AWE venture claiming to be targeting Jetstream winds, but is very guarded about its R&D, with no public details about current progress. Makani co-founder, Saul Griffith claimed to NearZero that Jetstream winds are simply too high to be effectively tapped, but overlooked the proven use of kite-trains, which access higher altitudes much as staged rockets do. Its therefore presumed SkyMill must do a train design to get high, and GrantC did in fact patent a pumping train of autogyro rotors, so there is long-term substance to SkyMill's architecture. Challenges include definite cubic-mass scaling-limits to known rotor units, operational modes (like getting to altitude), single-line low capacity-density (low topological order), safety, and so on.

We expect news anytime, since years are passing. SkyMill could be on-track if they have tapped major investment, perhaps in its Abu Dai or Boeing spheres, or they could be languishing in obscurity, in a field where only "loud" ventures seem able to gain traction.

Here are rare SkyMill statements and source-links, with the Jetstream ambition prominent-
-------------------------------------------

Imagine a world that has as much clean energy as it needs.

Our patented technology promises grid-scale, affordable, clean power generation from jetstream winds. This provides obvious advantage for half the world's population that lacks sufficient electric power and the economic growth that results. Equally important is the environmental potential to make burning coal for power economically obsolete. 

We are in conversations with public- and private-sector stakeholders to apply this technology to their benefit. 

To the benefit of potential partners, our story is deliberately low profile at this point. Further explanation is reserved for briefing conversations with qualified principals.  

SkyMill Energy, Friday Harbor, WA (Energy Generation/Renewables)
Wind is the planet’s largest concentrated source of renewable energy, yet 99.9% is above the reach of conventional wind turbines. SkyMill Energy is the only system with the technical capability to reach the ever-powerful JET STREAM winds. Validated by corporate and academic engineers in the US and India, SkyMill’s high altitude tethered rotary-airfoil economically taps this abundant resource. The Asian jet stream winds are stable and strong enough to provide continuous base and peak load power, and contain enough harvestable energy to cost effectively supply all India and China’s winter power needs.

The Cleantech Open - Blog Archive: June 2011

 

1. Jet-stream power

Skymill Energy is a small US/Indian company trying to harness the limitless high-altitude jet-stream winds that blow at over 200mph at over 30,000ft. Others have tried with tethered kites but Skymill think they have cracked the problem by using a remote rotary-lift aerial vehicle, like a helicopter, which is attached to a generator on the ground. The prize is fabulous: vast renewable energy, no pollution, straightforward technology and available materials. Skymill say it could produce power cheaper than coal and are backed by Boeing, former Nasa scientists and Indian technologists. Pilot trials begin in India next year.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16717 From: dougselsam Date: 1/30/2015
Subject: Re: Bell's Classic Paper on Tetrahedral Kite Structure
"Doug is incorrect"... "Doug is a very unreliable non-expert" ..."What a pain to have to always correct his gross misrepresentations" *** You have misquoted me.  Biplanes are proven in aviation, still in use, whereas no repeating triangular cells are found in aviation except the rare, mostly experimental instances of wheel struts combined with canards, etc. which have not gained traction in the market.  And you know very well from the context that I was referring to airplanes, not kites, since I was bouncing off your post that drew the same distinction.  Citing a V-tail on an airplane as a repeating triangular pattern of wings is not accurate.  It is just a watered-down regular-tail with less weight and less surface-intersection drag.  Add a horizontal top strut to make the V-tail a complete triangle, and repeat it, then you would have a point.  As it is, what you have posted is wrong, as far as I can see.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16718 From: dougselsam Date: 1/30/2015
Subject: "I'd like an argument, please"...
Does this Monty Python skit remind you of anyone?  :)
Argument Clinic - Monty Python's The Flying Circus
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16719 From: dave santos Date: 1/30/2015
Subject: Re: Bell's Classic Paper on Tetrahedral Kite Structure
Doug consistently neglects to count kites as aviation, where the triangle-cell is obviously alive and well. The reason has to do with the low "most probable winds" kites operate in, so low wing-loaded semi-stalled low-Re cells work, esp. by efficient low mass structure. Our breakthrough here is to see the string-triangle is also rigid in tension, and does not deform into diamond shape or irregular polygons.

As for seeing triangular cells elsewhere in aviation, any aviation expert can see them in small low-speed airplanes, as airfoil struts (like ordinary Cessnas). For a classic take halfway back to Bell himself, Bellanca may be clear enough for even Doug to discern the triangular cell geometry in play.

As for a fully modern case, designers are 3D printing wings built of internal tetrahedral structure, which is Bell's space frame invention with a faired wing skin. Note that Bell himself explored many configurations of aircraft, so Doug cannot claim just one version of the triangular cell is allowed by Bell for aviation use.

There are better examples than this that I have seen from Austin, which I will find later-




On Friday, January 30, 2015 10:51 AM, "dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16720 From: Rod Read Date: 1/30/2015
Subject: Re: "I'd like an argument, please"...
Can we end this email comedy sketch before the crimes against humour police show up?
Big foot landing on head at end is v suggestive of AWE...


oh no it isn't

Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16721 From: dougselsam Date: 1/30/2015
Subject: Re: Bell's Classic Paper on Tetrahedral Kite Structure
"Doug consistently neglects to count kites as aviation, where the triangle-cell is obviously alive and well....Doug cannot claim just one version of the triangular cell is allowed by Bell for aviation use."
*** You make the Monty Python crew look like a bunch of amateurs.  It's people like you that are the object of their parody, except I'm sure they never imagined a real life example could surpass their parody in absurdity.  So now I guess your new task is to find triangles that are:
1) transverse to the wind flow, and
2) covered and not even exposed to the wind flow
and pretend that the existence of triangle in a truss structures forming ribs in airplane wings equates to multiple lift-generating triangular cells oriented parallel to the wind flow.  Nice try, but rather than "win" your perceived "argument", you have merely changed the subject.  Do you think nobody notices?  You seem to imagine a phantom audience of complete dunces, swayed by endless attempts at redefinitions of any term, who cannot comprehend the difference between you playing word games and arguing about nothing, and a reasoned discussion of principles and  facts.
Bizarre, bizarre, bizarre.  I hope you are proud of the progress in AWE that you are making by your continued weak attempts to denigrate me.  Don't worry, everyone can see right thru it.  :O..............
Newsflash!  DaveS has identified the use of triangles in the internal structure of trusses in airplane ribs.  Nobody ever knew this before.  Thanks for opening our eyes to the structural use of triangles.  Who knew?  Congratulations DaveS.  I guess you really showed what a blithering idiot I am again, eh?  Nice work.  You get a gold star.  (I'd rather be blithering than blathering.)
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16722 From: dave santos Date: 1/30/2015
Subject: Re: Bell's Classic Paper on Tetrahedral Kite Structure
The serious argument is that Bell's tetrahedral ideas in this paper live on today, in aerospace (incl kites) and structural engineering as a whole. Indeed they do. In fact, Bell's legacy is only growing. If soft-cellular versions of Bells kites give us AWE, and Bell's space frames fill future wings, then Bell deserves credit. The fact that triangular celled wings live on, particularly in kites and small airplanes, is beyond dispute. Doug's legacy on this topic is to cite Monty Python helplessly.


On Friday, January 30, 2015 12:34 PM, "dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16723 From: dougselsam Date: 1/30/2015
Subject: Re: Bell's Classic Paper on Tetrahedral Kite Structure
DaveS said: "The fact that triangular celled wings live on, particularly in...small airplanes, is beyond dispute."  ***No it is not beyond dispute, and I am disputing it here.  The fact that diagonal struts in biplanes are shaped to reduce drag is not equivalent to the wings themselves being arranged in a triangular lattice.  It's one more example of grasping at straws in a feeble attempt to "win" a contrived controversy that does not exist anywhere but in the mind of the contriver.  Nice try. 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16724 From: dave santos Date: 1/30/2015
Subject: Lieven Standaert's AWE-Airship Concept
A blend of airship and AWES-
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16725 From: dave santos Date: 1/30/2015
Subject: Re: Bell's Classic Paper on Tetrahedral Kite Structure
The airfoil shaped struts common on small aircraft do comprise triangular wing cells. They are there for the same reason Bell proposed triangular cell aerostructure- to save weight compared to equally strong cantilever wings. They also really do beneficially add lift and drag, for slower landing speed. It is not "grasping at straws" to invoke sound aeroengineering. The grasping at straws here is your citation of Monty Python.


On Friday, January 30, 2015 2:14 PM, "dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16726 From: dave santos Date: 1/30/2015
Subject: Parasailor (TM) Parafoil-Spinnaker Hybrid
Strange freak of soft-wing evolution; the Parasailor looks like a marginal improvement at best, but may point to even more radical designs (like megascale kite variants that fly high)-
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16727 From: benhaiemp Date: 1/31/2015
Subject: Parasail

Parasailing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 

http://www.para-sail.com/PSC%20Manual%20-%20dbaNPII.pdf  .See détails and possible adaptations as AWES. 


PierreB

 

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16728 From: dave santos Date: 1/31/2015
Subject: Cody's Kite-Glider
A little-known very-daring 1905 kite-glider design by Cody that bridged his iconic kites to his powered aircraft; it went up as a kite and descended as a glider, with very little margin for error in balance and wind conditions, compared to his previous man-lifting train systems-
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16729 From: dave santos Date: 1/31/2015
Subject: Re: Parasail
Commercial Parasailing is the cheapest safest way to fly by kite. Its labor intensive (4 person crew recommended) but accessible (no elaborate training, no FAA hurdles). Ironically, in modern classic kiting, "man-lifting" is regarded with superstitious dread, and hardly any of us have ever flown from a tethered kite, but my mom has parasailed.

Parasailing is a parallel lineage of modern soft-kite aviation (with paragliding, parachuting, and traction-kites), with old roots in the conical parachute. The mature technology offers many lessons for general technical kiting, like human-rated safety and the use of winch-vehicles for towing. Like parafoils, parasail canopies are well matched to ordinary wind velocities, but with the highest inherent flight stability of any glider. Its virtually failsafe that the canopy will come down passively for a gentle landing, if wind or boat motion fails.

I have been looking into parasailing rigs in recent weeks; hunting for cheap used canopies while pondering what sort of flying habitat could be flown. State-of-the-art HLLD 600lb rated payload canopies and launch-bar winch-boats are available in Texas just a few miles from Cody's hometown of Birdville-

 


On Saturday, January 31, 2015 12:17 AM, "pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16730 From: dougselsam Date: 1/31/2015
Subject: Re: Bell's Classic Paper on Tetrahedral Kite Structure
Dear Mr. "I'd like an argument, please":  You are claiming diagonal struts are actually used as wings, comprising a repeating triangular wing structure.  The tone of your post is that I am a complete idiot, whereas you know everything.  Therefore I would prevail upon you to provide an example of such an aircraft to back up your claim.  Here is a link that does not confirm your thesis: Lift strut - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16731 From: dave santos Date: 1/31/2015
Subject: Re: Parasail
Attachments :
    Interesting evolutionary path towards living aloft, a Disney-backed parasailing technology developed the Skyrider Gondola. The activity ended when the inventor declined to renew a burdensome contract (scroll down the history link)-


    Skyrider poop-deck ergonomics hint at our aerotectural future-



     Skychairs are a similar but simpler aerotectural development that exists today-



    A hacked ad image; note skychair pasted up over its lines-

    Inline image

     


    On Saturday, January 31, 2015 10:39 AM, dave santos <santos137@yahoo.com
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16732 From: dougselsam Date: 1/31/2015
    Subject: Re: Parasail
    "Its virtually failsafe that the canopy will come down passively for a gentle landing," *** Hang-glider people tell us "don't ever let them talk you into a parafoil", citing canopy collapse below 250 feet as a potential deal-killer (and pilot killer).  They have told us it's safer to have a frame.  They have some sort of saying that rhymes frame with brain and lame or something - I forgot exactly, but that is what the local hang glider people tell us, even though there are paragliders sometimes launching from the same place as the hang gliders.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16733 From: dave santos Date: 1/31/2015
    Subject: Re: Bell's Classic Paper on Tetrahedral Kite Structure
    Doug,

    This topic is about Bell's paper, not you, but since you raise the issue, I don't think you are a complete idiot, just poorly educated in aeronautical matters. In fact Bell's triangular wing cell units do form a continuous morph spectrum to modern lift-strut aircraft, with the classic Bellanca example previously provided as an intermediate design. Nothing in the wing-strut link you provided contradicts this view. Note that a single Bell cell is symmetric and its mirrored diagonals directly correspond to the modern wing-strut in form and function. Only a non-expert would struggle to see this.

    Unlike you, I naturally see kites as real aviation (in agreement with the FAA, and as a recognized kite expert with an aviation background) the common Delta-Conyne is an modern example of triangular celled kite, still a top pick for beginners (WKM). In fact, you were using one here, in 2011 (as you predictably struggled with poor driveshaft scaling)-


    daveS


    On Saturday, January 31, 2015 11:19 AM, "dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16734 From: dave santos Date: 1/31/2015
    Subject: Re: Parasail
    Doug carelessly overlooks that the "virtually failsafe" comment referred to the parasail conical canopy only, and not to a parafoil as used in paragliding, or hang gliding (sports where conical canopies are used as reserves). That he choose an imaginary Hang-Glider bias* to misapply compounds his error. Doug's soft-kite opinions are quite unreliable.

    * Google- No results found for "don't ever let them talk you into a parafoil". 


    On Saturday, January 31, 2015 12:42 PM, "dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16735 From: benhaiemp Date: 1/31/2015
    Subject: Re: Parasail
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16736 From: dave santos Date: 1/31/2015
    Subject: AWE Patent Pool and Licensing Invitation
    Are your quality AWE patents in Limbo? Join the AWE Patent Pool to start getting royalties. Want to develop AWES confidently and affordably, with the best possible licensed IP protection? Contact Ed at kPower (edoishi@yahoo.com).

    Good source on historic Patent Pools-
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16737 From: dave santos Date: 2/1/2015
    Subject: Used sails as cheap kite wings- Open-AWE "secret"
    Since the days of Herreshoff, the great naval architect, yachting has been a US petite-bourgeoisie obsession, and legions bought what boat they could afford, fitted with finely made sails. Modern yacht sails evolved into synthetic polymer designs of a few key types across a wide scale range, interchangeable between boats of comparable rigs. Meanwhile, many yachts barely ever sailed, but mouldered at the dock as absentee lawyer-doctor owners slaved-away and grew old elsewhere.

    Decade after decade, the sails live on, stored in good condition, with just enough after-market value to avoid scrapping, but gradually accumulating in a few specialized warehouses, by the thousands. Today's pricing for used sails in good working condition (but stained or patched) is typically less than 50 cents a square foot (
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16738 From: Hardensoft International Limited Date: 2/1/2015
    Subject: Fw: Submit your concept notes before February 12 for the powering ag
    Please see below details of subject notice from the Global Wind Energy Council.
    Lifts.
    JohnO
    AWEIA
     
    John Adeoye  Oyebanji   B.Sc. MCPN
    Managing Consultant & CEO
    Hardensoft International Limited
    <Technologies
    Through Powering Agriculture, USAID, in partnership with the Government of Sweden, Duke Energy Corporation, the Government of Germany, and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation is calling on the private sector, development partners, developing countries and others, to support market-based, clean energy innovations for agriculture with the goal of catalyzing change and empowering farmers. Grants will range from $500,000 to $2 million dollars.
     
     
     

    		Groups
     
     

     
     

     
     

    		Global Wind Energy Council Group
     

    Trending discussions in:
    Global Wind Energy Council Group
     

     
     

     

     
    C3E Network for Women's Leadership in Clean Energy
     

    		Submit your concept notes before February 12 for the powering agriculture energy grand challenge!...
     
     

    		C3E Network for Women's Leadership in Clean Energy
     
     

    Through Powering Agriculture, USAID, in partnership with the Government of Sweden, Duke Energy...
     
     
    Call for Innovations
     

    Call for Innovations
    Powering Agriculture: An Energy Grand Challenge for Development is a multi-year initiative focused on promoting affordable, clean energy solutions for farmers and agribusinesses throughout the developing world. The Energy Grand Challenge supports...
     
     
     

    		View Discussion
     

     
     
     

     
    © 2015 LinkedIn Ireland Limited. LinkedIn, the LinkedIn logo, and InMail are registered trademarks of LinkedIn Corporation in the United States and/or other countries. All rights reserved.
     
    You are receiving Groups Digest emails. Unsubscribe
    This email was intended for John Oyebanji (Regional Representative at FundNopolis.com). Learn why we included this.
     
    LinkedIn is a registered business name of LinkedIn Ireland Limited.
    Registered in Ireland as a private limited company, Company Number 477441
    Registered Office: 70 Sir John Roberson's Quay, Dublin 2
     


    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16739 From: dave santos Date: 2/1/2015
    Subject: Re: Parasail
    Its a dramatic high-density parasail array, but a high-complexity high-cost version, since each kite unit needs its own winch-boat system. The same line of parasails could be more simply and cheaply supported, far higher up, along a single arch line pulled by just two larger boats (winch-boat and control economy-of-scale). Parasails on a crosswind arch line can be spaced even more densely than the photo. We should also note that parasails are a Single-Skin wing, and recall Guangdong's varidrogue trains as a current AWES similarity-case, suggesting parasails in trains need their mainline to run from axially from bridle-point to apex (not bridle-point to nose).

    Parasail-style canopy units can even provide distributed pilot-lift for megascale iso-lattices. Its possible that a round canopy operating along a lattice line on a tri-swivel will be more trouble-free than hotter kite types, or support more area in a given lattice spacing, but this must be validated by testing...


    On Saturday, January 31, 2015 1:55 PM, "pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16740 From: Cleventine Date: 2/1/2015
    Subject: Re: Parasail
    Seems to me that the advantage of kities lies in their ability to attain power at altitude. Why would one use a large sprawling lattice if a kite train can reach higher winds?
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16741 From: dave santos Date: 2/1/2015
    Subject: Towering Trains v. "Spawling Lattices"


    ChristianH: "Seems to me that the advantage of kities lies in their ability to attain power at altitude. Why would one use a large sprawling lattice if a kite train can reach higher winds?"


    Kites are like plants or human architecture; both tall and sprawling designs thrive. While kites can fly very high, we are forced to grow AWES capacity horizontally, if we are serious about replacing oil with kites within real constraints like the 2000ft ceiling the FAA is imposing on commercial AWES (for the next decade at least). Even with unfettered airspace, after NextGen is perfected (~2025), 5000ft is calculated as an optimal trade-off range between wind gradient advantage and carrying more line and kite higher [Archer].  The nature of LLJs over surface friction and common inversions also keeps us low, owing to the relative gap in the wind gradient just above a typical LLJ. Going horizontal crosswind is the basic means of scaling-up passive flight stability. The Earth itself is our stable rigid structure, and going too high in vertical proportion reduces inherent stability. The FAA will predictably favor the reduced risk of runaway of a many-connected horizontal AWES. 

    Nevertheless, towering trains are cool. Open-AWE is the active leader in AWES train concepts, and the World Kite Museum equally supports the practice of trains and arches. Advanced lattice topologies emerging on this Forum support both towering and sprawling geometries, just like a forest or city. Wubbo insisted we do not need a utilitarian rationale to go high with our AWES and Aerotecture, but can will to do so, in freedom and happiness; and so we will. Right now, working 2000ft up in a spawling energy lattice would be revolutionary. To live in the sky (at whatever altitude) may just be human destiny, and we are present here, right at the actual beginning, when suitable technical means first came together.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16742 From: dave santos Date: 2/1/2015
    Subject: Minesto seeking permits for undersea kite farm
    Its now up to public decision makers to permit Minesto to build the first underwater energy farm. A positive decision seems likely.

    For several years now, Minesto has been leading the way in public awareness of undersea energy kites. Among competing architectures, WPI favors surface floating reel-gens, while Minesto uses swim-gens, and anchors from the bottom. Previous "UWES"concepts include underwater turbines on poles, and buoyant submarine analogs of Altaeros' aerostat. Open-AWE is a hodge-podge of rigging ideas and COTS components. In principle, our AWES kites will "fly" nicely underwater upside down, with current forces comparable to wind forces (higher density balanced by slower velocity). Both floats and anchors might work together in an UWES, similar to fishing nets (but without harming fish, ideally).

    The ultimate configuration to tap ocean currents is an open question, but Minesto seems on track to be first-to-market with its architecture-
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16743 From: benhaiemp Date: 2/2/2015
    Subject: Some parameters for an AWES at scale
    • Ratios for land and space use : power/km² and power/km3
    • Ratio for mass aloft/power
    • Lifetime (including possibility of crash)
    • Ratio for power/mass/lifetime
    • Costs (R&D, implementation, maintenance, material)
    • Secondary use (farming, fishing)
    • Inherent stability (energetic system + possible pilot kite  , before some level of control) 
    • Safety
    • Very high altitude (at least LLJ)
    • Tests under FAA limits
    • Lights for signalisation
    • Bird friend
    • Control and management

    For all these points soft wings (with low L/D for power as well as for possible pilot kite) and generators at ground seem favored.

    Some comments: 


    • Ratios for land and space use : power/km² and power/km3 : stacks of not crosswind unities allow higher density. Crosswind unities have a better ratio power/ wing area but have a lower ratio power/km² and km3, sweeping far more than needed, and being difficult to manage in farms (moving tethers, wind changes, risks of touching). However some crosswind kites flying by a short radius can be studied, and also a giant kite pilot can work as both lifter and separator allowing some possibilities of crosswind kites for energy.
    • Ratio for mass aloft/power  : with not crosswind wings about 1/2 ton/MW, ten times less for crosswind wings.
    • Lifetime (including possibility of crash) : Peter Lynn's indication of 14 months showed an important lifetime (with possibilities of improvement of fibers and protections) for extensible fabric for pilot kite or kite with low L/D. Note a crosswind soft wing generates 5 to 20 times more power than a not crosswind wing but undergoes more strengths, needs less extensible fabric with less lifetime. 
    • Ratio power/mass/lifetime : far higher than rigid wings.Soft crosswind wings = (more or less) soft not crosswind wings (more mass but more presumed lifetime)
    • Costs (R&D, implementation, maintenance, material)
    • Secondary use (farming, fishing)
    • Inherent stability (energetic system + possible pilot kite , before some level of control) : soft wings with low L/D are favored.
    • Safety (lightness, slowness, possibility of quick depower _ with parasail by reversal)
    • Very high altitude (at least LLJ) : not crosswind : yes (less drag of tether); crosswind : no (drag of tether).
    • Lights for signalisation : easier with no crosswind wing
    • Tests under FAA limits : MW scale can be realized with high density of soft and no crosswind wings.
    • Bird friend (better with softness and slowness, so better with soft and no crosswind wings)
    • Control and management: less precise  than for rigid wing but globally more efficient by taking account of risks of crash, inherent stability, low speed for soft wing: so in the end precision for slow soft wing is not needed at a same level as for rigid wing.

    Guangdong and Dave Santos (advocating for high density of soft wings for years) gather most of these parameters in their analysis or realizations. All power kites for sales (comprising parasails) are soft wings. Myself advocated for high density for years (excepted for manual FlygenKite) but for systems with some theoretical difficulties of realization (OrthoKiteBunch needing too high active control, embedded rotors with too much mass aloft and of which some tests showed difficulties, WheelWind with theoretical problem of tangential transmission). So now I study different configurations with parasail-style (like Guangdong) or more or less similar  for testing.


    PierreB
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16744 From: dougselsam Date: 2/2/2015
    Subject: Re: Bell's Classic Paper on Tetrahedral Kite Structure
    You have attempted to shift the discussion toward kites again.  You stated that repeating triangular array of  wings is standard or common or well-accepted in aircraft.  I asked for an example.  You have not provided an example.  Instead, you continue to attempt to denigrate me by words, accusing me of having no knowledge of aviation.  Meanwhile you squirm in kite-land, trying to substitute the already well-known fact of such triangular lattices in kites, attempting to sidestep your previous statement that these repeating triangular patterns of wings are used in airplanes.  All I ask for is an example.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16745 From: dave santos Date: 2/2/2015
    Subject: Re: Bell's Classic Paper on Tetrahedral Kite Structure
    Doug,

    This discussion is about kite structure (and how it evolved into powered aircraft). Joby Energy's AWES prototypes are a close example of repeated triangular wing structure for you. Quote properly, if you can. Get used to not being respected as a authoritative source of aviation knowledge until you are able to catch up your study.

    Kites are in fact aircraft, as diligent study will reveal-


    aircraft

     (ˈɛəˌkrɑːft)
    n, pl -craft
    1. (Aeronautics) any machine capable of flying by means of buoyancy or aerodynamic forces.


    daveS




    On Monday, February 2, 2015 7:50 AM, "dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16746 From: dave santos Date: 2/2/2015
    Subject: Re: Bell's Classic Paper on Tetrahedral Kite Structure
    In Summary: 

    Bell's triangular winged space frame concepts are easy to find in vintage or modern aircraft, particularly in kites. In AWES R&D, Joby Energy proposed large wing structures that clearly derive from Bell's legacy (below), and kPower proposes soft versions, to overcome rigid-spar scaling limits that Bell and Joby faced. If the new soft-kite conceptual approach succeeds, it will be a tremendous vindication of Bell's ideas, as laid out in his classic kite-structure paper referenced here.

    A corollary issue is that common airfoil lift-struts do in fact comprise triangular wing structure as Bell defines it (including dynamics like dihedral effect), based on formal and functional analysis. Classic Bellanca aircraft and recent NASA/Lockheed Martin studies (link below) are offered as representative examples. 

    TUDelft's Saraceno Solar Bell is a recent literal homage to Bell's iconic kite structure, but Bell best remembered for the diversity of related forms he explored, his integrity and brilliance as a scientist-inventor, and as a vital role-model in AWE, whose legacy lives on


    hist

     



    On Monday, February 2, 2015 8:18 AM, dave santos <santos137@yahoo.com
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16747 From: Rod Read Date: 2/2/2015
    Subject: does more line tension = more power out?
    How much wind goes under a giant isotropic kite mesh?

    I guess if it sets taller at the front than it's fully more buoyant throughout than would otherwise be...

    Should the node point kites of an isotropic kite mesh use some mimimal power control method to develop maximum line tension?
    This would allow more "hosting" of lower AWES
    It would allow stronger torque transmission on internal tethering lines (If they are used)

    What happens to the wind field under a kite which is flat 8 x-winding?
    Much?

    Rod Read

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

    07899057227
    01851 870878
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16748 From: dave santos Date: 2/2/2015
    Subject: TUDelft Bell Terahedral Kite Study
    Its sad that TUDelft Kite Power did not diligently fulfill the initial human-habitat kite research goal initially announced, but instead allowed itself to get sucked into formal study of a known-obsolete kite design, with no human-factors value. Bell's kite aviation legacy is more deserving of advancing his best ideas, rather than perpetuating old design mistakes. Soft-cellular kites are the "Bell Way" forward.

    A tetrahedral kite that meets Saraceno's esthetic goal of a "flying building" 60m high, with people walking around, is in fact possible by soft-kite means, and the rigid-kite advice in bold text below did not work for Bell to reach 60m scale (Bell was forced to resort to larger frames for many-cells, just as a tree with many twigs needs bigger branches, for adequate support)-
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16749 From: dave santos Date: 2/2/2015
    Subject: Re: does more line tension = more power out?
    Yes, tense rope (at its working limit) offers more power-out at a given velocity. This hold true for torque drives as well.

    An isotropic mesh as we propose will develop wing-in-ground-effect, boosting lift; but one must not choke harvestable (venturi-boosted ideal) flow by excess solidity.

     A kite doing eights tends to deflect air down, in order to stay up.


    On Monday, February 2, 2015 1:17 PM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16750 From: Rod Read Date: 2/2/2015
    Subject: Re: TUDelft Bell Terahedral Kite Study
    Tentsile do it best...


    Rod Read

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

    07899057227
    01851 870878
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16751 From: dave santos Date: 2/2/2015
    Subject: Re: TUDelft Bell Terahedral Kite Study
    Yes, Hurrah for Tentsile, whose tents would be ideal COTS floors for a tetrahedral kite lattice, but Saraceno's impractical scheme is too derivative to be cool, so we will use Tentsile units in more original and functional designs (like Mothrapolis). Tentsile is in our Aerotecture circle already, we just need to cover wholesale cost of multiple units to get going...


    On Monday, February 2, 2015 2:09 PM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16752 From: dougselsam Date: 2/3/2015
    Subject: Re: Bell's Classic Paper on Tetrahedral Kite Structure
    It was very predictable that you would first imply a distinction between kites and powered aircraft, saying the repeated triangular wing structure is well-accepted in both kites AND aviation, then retreat to the fallback position that kites ARE aircraft, when pressed for an example of a general aviation aircraft using a repeated triangular wing structure.  You are merely playing with word definitions again.  It sounds like you're confirming that there are no examples of aircraft for general aviation using such a wing structure.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16753 From: dougselsam Date: 2/3/2015
    Subject: Re: Bell's Classic Paper on Tetrahedral Kite Structure
    DaveS said: "common airfoil lift-struts do in fact comprise triangular wing structure... Bellanca aircraft and recent NASA/Lockheed Martin studies (link below) are offered as representative examples." *** I reply: The term "lift strut" refers to a strut that strengthens or supports a lifting surface (wing), not to a strut that somehow "provides lift".  Wing struts are often streamlined in shape, or provided with fairings.  The airfoils used are symmetrical, and the chord is negligible compared to the chord of the wing.  If the strut were intended to produce aerodynamic lift, it would have a cambered airfoil and a chord comparable to the main wing.  The simple reasons such a configuration is NOT used in general aviation are:
    1) The intersection of such a strut with the wing, at an acute angle, would have a high amount of drag
    2) Such a strut, being at an angle from horizontal, would have less lift per unit length, weighing more, and generating more drag, per unit lift.
    3) For these reasons, the wings of a biplane are parallel, not slanted, not intersecting toward the tips
    A "NASA study" (rendering) is not equivalent to being "well-accepted in general aviation".  Let's remember, NASA has been known to publish renderings of things that would not even work.  A brief on-paper look at a concept (rendering) is not the same as being built, implemented, and accepted.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16754 From: dave santos Date: 2/3/2015
    Subject: Re: Bell's Classic Paper on Tetrahedral Kite Structure
    Doug,

    If I did make the grammatical error you claim, I cannot find it. Please quote accurately, if you want to become an expert. The fact remains, kites really are aviation, even if you cannot see it,

    daveS


    On Tuesday, February 3, 2015 8:17 AM, "dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16755 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 2/3/2015
    Subject: Dan Tracy | Kite Controller | Pacific Sky Power
    February 2015

    I just launched my new Kite Controller on Kickstarter. Here it is, hope all is well.
     
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16756 From: dougselsam Date: 2/3/2015
    Subject: Re: Bell's Classic Paper on Tetrahedral Kite Structure
    Thanks for admitting your inaccurate statement that triangular arrays of wings are widely accepted in general aviation.  I don't think it was a grammatical error though.  (As always, nice try)  So far as we know, such arrays are common in kites, but not used in airplanes.  As much as kites have in common with airplanes, they are not exactly the same.  Otherwise, kites would look pretty much like airplanes.  In fact I have wondered forever why kites do not look exactly the same as airplanes.  It seems that there must be reasons, or the two would look identical.  :)
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16757 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 2/3/2015
    Subject: Re: Parasail
    Consider a sprawling lattice that involves nodes that foot trains; consider repeated dome-lattice at altitude stations to tie the trains together for aggregate stability and space-density maximization and land-use efficiency. 
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16758 From: Joe Faust Date: 2/3/2015
    Subject: Fwd: Survey - status AWE 2015
    Attachments :

      ---------- Forwarded message ----------
      From: Stefan Wilhelm | HWN500 <stefan.wilhelm@hwn500.de

      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16759 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 2/3/2015
      Subject: Re: Parasail

      Indeed parasails and some other forms of kites can be elements (kixels) for iso-dome-lattice. One idea is to have both aggregate-stability and space-density, and some level of independence of elements. Other question: is the bridle linked to all elements or only to some main elements as conductors?

       

      PierreB

       

       

       

       
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16760 From: Rod Read Date: 2/3/2015
      Subject: Ring fracture from testing

      Test breakage report: http://youtu.be/PKkq3_FaZtI

      Mixed thoughts on how to progress the next test.

      The same setup with slightly longer tethering may have inflated and run sweetly... But not transmitted torque so strongly.
      Sticking the proven Daisy model up top could help with inflation.

      Choices.

      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16761 From: dave santos Date: 2/3/2015
      Subject: Re: Bell's Classic Paper on Tetrahedral Kite Structure
      Doug,

      I made no such statements that I can see. These seem like your careless misunderstanding of nuanced facts. Please quote precisely, if you want to properly identify an error. I will be glad to be corrected if you can do that,

      daveS




      On Tuesday, February 3, 2015 9:38 AM, "dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16762 From: dave santos Date: 2/3/2015
      Subject: Re: Parasail
      Pierre asked: "is the bridle linked to all elements or only to some main elements as conductors?"


      Answer: This will depend on the specific AWES design. The question is topological, and all kinds of branching and many-connected topologies are possible between diverse kite units and generators.

      There is some initial ambiguity as to what is meant by "bridle" in an iso-lattice (not kite unit bridles?), and whether "conductors" refers to electrical conductors.


      On Tuesday, February 3, 2015 1:07 PM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16763 From: dave santos Date: 2/3/2015
      Subject: 22m2 Pilot Kite Kill Test Successful
      Yesterday, on the US NW Coast, I tested tail-kill with a modified 22m2 Peter Lynn pilot. The kill was flawless, just like the 1m2 and 4m2 before. Took video, but it looks just like the 4m2 kill video. The big kill test will the two kite train (FAA colors) at 1900ft altitude. This should convincingly validate sense-and-avoid capability ahead of every other AWES  architecture. Each scaling step meanwhile is a chance to improve methods. The pin-tube release mechanism is superseded by simple belay from a climber's eight. The latest tail-kill is superior to the initial pin-tube side-bridle release; simpler, less risk of twisted lines, and balanced tail stability. The kite tail is not going away, but learning new tricks :)

      Today am on the Warm Springs Indian Reservation in central Oregon, preparing to meet the UAS Test Range Manager tomorrow, and do show-and-tell with the kPower hardware. It will be interesting to see how we fit kites into the UAS mix, for approval by higher-ups. Then its back to the coast for novel "train-kill" testing (at lower altitude than the Warm Springs Test Range will soon enable). FAA  test range approval processing takes 90 days (in theory). kPower's technical team will be active in Austin during that time, with a full-on return to Warm Springs this summer, assuming all goes well. The AWE conference in Holland is also on the calendar, but a serious flying opportunity is not yet certain. 
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16764 From: edoishi Date: 2/3/2015
      Subject: Dan Tracy kite controller
      Dan Tracy is back on Kickstarter with a new controller :
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16765 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 2/3/2015
      Subject: Re: Parasail

       

      The proposition "...some main elements as conductors" does not refer to electrical conductor. Here conductors, or rather main elements,are only elements connected to bridle, while other elements are not connected and take their form by themselves among other elements, but it is a question. For an iso-lattice several anchorings are needed but some bridles (cascads in 2 or more levels meeting the main line ) can be needed, and perhaps for only some main elements. Note many elements linked to a single bridle can be difficult for management towards ground stations (launching, recovery): so some configurations of bridle can be studied.

       

      PierreB