Messages in AirborneWindEnergy group.                           AWES16993to17042 Page 234 of 440.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16993 From: Rod Read Date: 2/19/2015
Subject: Re: Line-Clamping Bearing Holders

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16994 From: Rod Read Date: 2/19/2015
Subject: Re: The future of kite technology.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16995 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 2/19/2015
Subject: Aerial Kite-Based Tensed "Spars"

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16996 From: dave santos Date: 2/19/2015
Subject: Pierre's Rhetorical Complaint

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16997 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 2/19/2015
Subject: Re: Aerial Kite-Based Tensed "Spars"

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16998 From: dave santos Date: 2/19/2015
Subject: Re: The future of kite technology.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16999 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 2/19/2015
Subject: Re: Aerial Kite-Based Tensed "Spars"

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17000 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 2/19/2015
Subject: Re: Aerial Kite-Based Tensed "Spars"

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17001 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 2/19/2015
Subject: Re: Aerial Kite-Based Tensed "Spars"

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17002 From: dave santos Date: 2/19/2015
Subject: Re: Aerial Kite-Based Tensed "Spars"

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17003 From: Rod Read Date: 2/19/2015
Subject: Re: Pierre's Rhetorical Complaint

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17004 From: dave santos Date: 2/19/2015
Subject: Re: Pierre's Rhetorical Complaint

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17005 From: Rod Read Date: 2/19/2015
Subject: Re: Pierre's Rhetorical Complaint

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17006 From: dave santos Date: 2/19/2015
Subject: Paraglider flown as a kite

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17007 From: dave santos Date: 2/19/2015
Subject: Re: Pierre's Rhetorical Complaint

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17008 From: Christian Harrell Date: 2/19/2015
Subject: Re: Paraglider flown as a kite

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17009 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 2/19/2015
Subject: Re: Pierre's Rhetorical Complaint

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17010 From: dave santos Date: 2/19/2015
Subject: Re: Pierre's Rhetorical Complaint

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17011 From: dave santos Date: 2/19/2015
Subject: Flocking Paragliders and the latest Kite Farm

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17012 From: Christian Harrell Date: 2/19/2015
Subject: Take a look at these 3D printed Wings!

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17013 From: dave santos Date: 2/20/2015
Subject: eWind on the Move

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17014 From: dave santos Date: 2/20/2015
Subject: Re: Breaking Galileo's Scaling Law?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17015 From: dave santos Date: 2/20/2015
Subject: Re: Take a look at these 3D printed Wings!

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17016 From: dave santos Date: 2/21/2015
Subject: Re: New FAA sUAS Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17017 From: dave santos Date: 2/21/2015
Subject: Kite Powered Wheel Chair Sport/Therapy

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17018 From: dave santos Date: 2/21/2015
Subject: Prosfessional Air Sports Assoc. (PASA) "insane Air!"

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17019 From: benhaiemp Date: 2/22/2015
Subject: Re: Scalability and other concerns: SkyMill and Guangdong

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17020 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 2/22/2015
Subject: Re: Scalability and other concerns: SkyMill and Guangdong

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17021 From: dave santos Date: 2/23/2015
Subject: Re: Scalability and other concerns: SkyMill and Guangdong

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17022 From: dave santos Date: 2/23/2015
Subject: Dylan Thorpe's PhD AWE Thesis

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17023 From: dave santos Date: 2/23/2015
Subject: 2015 Texas AWE Encampment

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17024 From: Christian Harrell Date: 2/23/2015
Subject: Re: Dylan Thorpe's PhD AWE Thesis

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17025 From: dave santos Date: 2/23/2015
Subject: Re: Dylan Thorpe's PhD AWE Thesis

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17026 From: Christian Harrell Date: 2/23/2015
Subject: Re: Dylan Thorpe's PhD AWE Thesis

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17027 From: dave santos Date: 2/23/2015
Subject: Re: Dylan Thorpe's PhD AWE Thesis

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17028 From: dave santos Date: 2/23/2015
Subject: FAA Definition of "Frangibility" (and the Soft-Kite Case)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17029 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 2/25/2015
Subject: Re: Shade

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17030 From: dave santos Date: 2/25/2015
Subject: Re: Shade

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17031 From: dave santos Date: 2/25/2015
Subject: UHMWPE Data Sheet (Dyneema)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17032 From: benhaiemp Date: 2/25/2015
Subject: Re: Scalability and other concerns: SkyMill and Guangdong

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17033 From: dave santos Date: 2/25/2015
Subject: Mike Godsey: Meteorologist to GoogleX Makani (and Bay Area/Gorge/Baj

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17034 From: dave santos Date: 2/25/2015
Subject: Re: Scalability and other concerns: SkyMill and Guangdong

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17035 From: Rod Read Date: 2/26/2015
Subject: Radio telescope mount as solid analogue for isotropic expansion

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17036 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 2/26/2015
Subject: Re: FAA Definition of "Frangibility" (and the Soft-Kite Case)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17037 From: benhaiemp Date: 2/26/2015
Subject: Torque

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17038 From: dave santos Date: 2/26/2015
Subject: Re: Torque

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17039 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 2/26/2015
Subject: Rolamite in AWES

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17040 From: dave santos Date: 2/26/2015
Subject: Re: FAA Definition of "Frangibility" (and the Soft-Kite Case)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17041 From: Rod Read Date: 2/26/2015
Subject: Re: Torque

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17042 From: dave santos Date: 2/26/2015
Subject: Re: Rolamite in AWES



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16993 From: Rod Read Date: 2/19/2015
Subject: Re: Line-Clamping Bearing Holders
Well in that case to help explain more...

For the scale I work with at the moment
I'm basically looking for a way to clamp a line and present a flat face parallel to the plane of desired rod rotation ... Tangent to the tension line.
So I use these 1 way locks... They work ok But I can only easily build them onto the line in 1 direction.
If there was a snap together equivalent, which clasps around the line... That could be really handy.
See this video for explanation http://youtu.be/-8_TtRJScZk

Currently the lift line also spins so I don't need a bearing for each rod but that will become impractical.
For larger scale future devices a split sleeve bearing  and split bearing seems like it would be hard to implement. especially for high speed. e.g. having two sides of a ladder rung clamp a bearing onto the line as it pays out won't likely work.

A set of ladder rungs with bearings in would likely be kept over the tension line held in a rack at the bottom of the line...
Ready to deploy and attach to their set distance point on the tension line in order that they could transfer torque.
Yes that implies a spinning rack of rods at the head of the PTO mechanism / generator.


Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16994 From: Rod Read Date: 2/19/2015
Subject: Re: The future of kite technology.

Yeah i've just been let down by another local engineering firm passing my work over for a bigger contract all for the want of a welder
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16995 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 2/19/2015
Subject: Aerial Kite-Based Tensed "Spars"

This topic thread is offered for dedicated focus on aerial kite-based tensed "spars."  The topic finds mention seeds within other topic.  Those early mentions are invited to be newly presented, perhaps deepened, and then the topic furthered.

===========================

As an offer in the moment:

Consider a tensed kite tether in classic kiting; consider first just a situation of a single-wing kite system; let for the moment the wing be quietly lifting generally centered downwind. Examine the main tether and the involved tension. Now consider any segment of that tether as a "spar" for use in construction.

http://www.energykitesystems.net/Spars/AerialSpars/AerialSpar001.jpg

  Then extrapolate and similarly consider any kite-system aerial tensed line as a mother of potential spars of various lengths. Then open to a great variety of constructions using such spars.


~JoeF
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16996 From: dave santos Date: 2/19/2015
Subject: Pierre's Rhetorical Complaint

Pierre wrote: "DaveS has some good ideas but not a good rhetoric to present them. It is the reason why he has some problems with almost players like GuidoL, MassimoI, even some players in "our" AWE forum, or with organizations like Nearzero. His style " If you tell I am wrong I tell you are wrong" is not adapted for technical debate. So for example a very good idea like "earth as a spar" is welcomed as "two dogs as spar"."


Please note you wrote the above in the Galileo's Law topic, which is more off-topic than "two dogs". Its your fault the posting guideline is not respected in this case, not mine, for lack of effective rhetoric..

Lets agree I am often wrong, but I invite correction. Its strange you think I should not similarly point out technical errors by others; whether or not they helpfully point out my errors. My problem with GuidoL is more than rhetorical shortcomings. I abhor his continued secrecy regarding NTS track environmental impacts and AWEC pay-to-play leadership, and the unexplained banning of John Oyebanji and AWEIA at conferences (so I boycott, while you play piano). Massimo of course disagrees with my pointed critiques of his AWES shortcomings, for which he as no answers (but he actually compliments my writing style in posing the critiques.) Massimo does not seem to get along with anyone he does not pay to sing his tune, including you. What is so wrong with my imperfect rhetoric, in comparison?

You also have an odd sense of technical debate not being inherently two-way, and not being simply won by the best technical ideas. For example, if my looping-foil uses the earth as a spar medium to extract the pumping stroke, but others use rigid spars and do not use the earth, let the debating point be won on simple merit. Let Rod's comments stand or fall on merit as well.





 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16997 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 2/19/2015
Subject: Re: Aerial Kite-Based Tensed "Spars"

Using for anchor set the earth as a major spar for the kite systems, we go now further from the classic one-line case for mothering aerial line-based spars to the cases of two line from a wing system and then further to three and more lines. Partly illustrating:

http://www.energykitesystems.net/Spars/AerialSpars/AerialSpar002.jpg

 Use segments of any of the tensed lines as aerial spars for further AWES constructions.

~ JoeF
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16998 From: dave santos Date: 2/19/2015
Subject: Re: The future of kite technology.
Christian,

I have followed 3D printing your whole lifetime. In Austin, one of my young proteges currently prints sUAS airframes (but they are a bit heavy). 3D.com does not present anything I am unfamiliar with.

You badly misread my advice. Take bids for 3D printing (its not 100 an hr!). The shop rates stated ($50-100) are for skills like welding, machining, etc.. If have not mastered these skills, my advice allows you jump right into advanced lessons for less than a Mac book. Mac products are overpriced, to pander to those less comfortable with computers. I would not pay that price for a toy printer you claim is pro, but is not going to replace CNC anytime soon. My plan embraces both technologies, at lower cost and higher performance.

You seem to be advocating its unnecessary to master all the major historic arts and trades; just pay the price of a Mac book. Please accept I will continue to advocate mastering them all, and you must somehow out-compete with them all, to the extent you do not master them,

daveS




On Thursday, February 19, 2015 6:29 AM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16999 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 2/19/2015
Subject: Re: Aerial Kite-Based Tensed "Spars"

Aerial spars mothered from traverse lines

http://www.energykitesystems.net/Spars/AerialSpars/AerialSpar003.jpg

Form constructions using the generally traverse lines.

And then consider using the resulting triangles developed.

~ JoeF
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17000 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 2/19/2015
Subject: Re: Aerial Kite-Based Tensed "Spars"
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17001 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 2/19/2015
Subject: Re: Aerial Kite-Based Tensed "Spars"

Using the earth as compression spar as Dave Santos has kept on the table for us,

notice that any section of the shown arch may be in focus as a spar.


http://www.energykitesystems.net/Spars/AerialSpars/AerialSpar005.jpg


~ JoeF

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17002 From: dave santos Date: 2/19/2015
Subject: Re: Aerial Kite-Based Tensed "Spars"
Only slowly, in a fog, have we learned how to think of high-tension string. While a slack string is very floppy, a tensed string acquires "stiffness" in structure. We do not normally think of string as stiff.

Take a standard wire-rope braced spar, and see its as a single stiff whole; its rope content integrated in overall stiffness, just as our earth-spar and kite combos are.

As usual, JoeF is onto the next conceptual frontier, of quasi one-dimensional spars in the sky spanning km. The classical kite world vaguely alludes to aerial spars in the term "line-laundry". In fact the ancient laundry line replaced the ancient fence to hold up laundry to dry, both acting as spars.

Joe's concept also resembles a tensile linearly extended version of the hardware "bus" (like satellites or motherboards)To apply the new spar concept, think of any useful arrangement of objects along an aerial tensed line.


On Thursday, February 19, 2015 9:59 AM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17003 From: Rod Read Date: 2/19/2015
Subject: Re: Pierre's Rhetorical Complaint

Let the forum be about AWES.
This topic so far seems not to be.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17004 From: dave santos Date: 2/19/2015
Subject: Re: Pierre's Rhetorical Complaint
Rod,

This topic was broken out of the Galileo topic, because Pierre was off-topic, but he did properly reference reference hot AWE controversies like whether GuidoL and Massimo are entitled to avoid technical issues (even on the pretext of my bad rhetoric, which somehow does not muzzle Pierre).

Lately no one has posted more often than you, with no serious AWES content, whatever the topic. Correct me if I am wrong on this point. If you are consistent with your criteria, complain about JoeF's moderator reports. This is really a Forum moderation topic, whether my posting style on Galileo's Scaling Law in AWE is to blame for your "two dog" posting standard (as if dogs were even airborne creatures).

"Two dogs as spar": by invoking your idea here, your rhetoric stands invalidated; under Pierre's Law :) 

daveS




On Thursday, February 19, 2015 12:00 PM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17005 From: Rod Read Date: 2/19/2015
Subject: Re: Pierre's Rhetorical Complaint

Since we've still discussed nothing of AWE here. I'll continue... I've only had 1/2 a glass of wine but its enough to convince me that whatever the meaning is lost in that unintelligible spaghetti of a contrived communication.... I can't be bothered to find it.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17006 From: dave santos Date: 2/19/2015
Subject: Paraglider flown as a kite

This helps underscore the fundamental identity of the parafoil power kite, in all its guises-
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17007 From: dave santos Date: 2/19/2015
Subject: Re: Pierre's Rhetorical Complaint
Massimo's willful refusal to answer open questions regarding KiteGen's technology is a hot AWE topic.

In particular, KiteGen's new super wing is predicted by me to be almost unflyable (based on specifics), rather than a practical way forward. Pierre's take is that I am responsible for Massimo's unresponsiveness, based on my flawed rhetoric. I say that Massimo is more likely hiding technical challenges, and complaints about rhetoric are distractions.

Your beef is with Pierre, if you insist the rhetoric topic is off-limits (excepting yourself, in the context of breaking Galileo's Law (I figured you were into the Scotch, not just sipping wine, and stand corrected).


On Thursday, February 19, 2015 1:52 PM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17008 From: Christian Harrell Date: 2/19/2015
Subject: Re: Paraglider flown as a kite
Wow

It's always amazing to see the sheer power and strength of the wind. Combing with the study of stable aerial platforms such KAP and paragliding/Kitesurfing I think we are closer than ever to producing competent Mastless boats.  The "Seaglider" immediately comes to mind. 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17009 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 2/19/2015
Subject: Re: Pierre's Rhetorical Complaint

DaveS,

 

Please can you explain what is the link between "...certainly not at AWEC conferences (where even piano is more welcome) or MikeB's blog " and Galileo's Law topic ?

 

PierreB

 

 

 

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17010 From: dave santos Date: 2/19/2015
Subject: Re: Pierre's Rhetorical Complaint
PierreB asked:"Please can you explain what is the link between "...certainly not at AWEC conferences (where even piano is more welcome) or MikeB's blog " and Galileo's Law topic ?"

Sure. In this case its an inverse-link. Since the topics are  reasonably separate in my mind, I took your detailed complaint about my rhetoric away from the Galilieo thread. Similarly, the Wikipedia article will not allow you to theorize that GuidoL and Massimo are driven by my pathetic rhetoric.


On Thursday, February 19, 2015 3:04 PM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17011 From: dave santos Date: 2/19/2015
Subject: Flocking Paragliders and the latest Kite Farm
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17012 From: Christian Harrell Date: 2/19/2015
Subject: Take a look at these 3D printed Wings!
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17013 From: dave santos Date: 2/20/2015
Subject: eWind on the Move
eWind is a Portland Oregon ("PDX") based AWE start-up now deep into prototype development. Wayne German, the Visionary of SoarEN (lately advocating flying cities) is also PDX-based, and I started the first KiteLab Group branch there in 2007-
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17014 From: dave santos Date: 2/20/2015
Subject: Re: Breaking Galileo's Scaling Law?

Two representative links regarding square-cube law in aviation; the first is from an aeromodeler DIY perspective, and the other is a commercial transport perspective, where not much has changed in nearlyfifty years, as jumbo aircraft continue to slowly grow toward expected limits-

 


On Thursday, February 19, 2015 2:20 AM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17015 From: dave santos Date: 2/20/2015
Subject: Re: Take a look at these 3D printed Wings!
Its fair to note that the 3D printed part of this bell cellular kite is just spar junction connectors; but the spars and and sails not 3D printing. As a kite, its quite beautiful, but low-performing [TUDelft Solar Bell MSc thesis 2013]. Generally, injection molded parts like this simple connector are still made far cheaper and faster than by 3D printing, although the printer would have the advantage if few parts were needed, especially with fast-cycle developmental design changes. 3D printing in AWES R&D must still prove its importance by outperforming the status quo (the ~50 teams not yet using it). The open question is if the key moment is now, premature, or "never" :) to depend on this technology as critical technical and business enabler (as opposed to traditional fabrication).  At least Christian can represent the emerging technology in AWE, and we'll see how it goes. It would be cool if he can supply some part so useful we all want one.

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

When I searched on 3D printed wings, I could not find Zwicky's intricate work (as shared in kPower Austin circle, so I 'll ask him for photo links), probably because a far more popular class of printed wing skewed search results. 3D printing offers scant improvement over old-school angel-wings IMHO-




On Thursday, February 19, 2015 5:11 PM, "Christian Harrell christianharrell@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17016 From: dave santos Date: 2/21/2015
Subject: Re: New FAA sUAS Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Having now reviewed and pondered all 185 pages of the FAA sUAS notice, the great news is that AWES under 500ft AGL will remain subject to legacy part 101 rules (and the specific AWES directive issued in 2012). The primary authority in the US for kite standards will therefore continue to be the AKA. AWES developers in the US are urged to join the AKA, conform to existing safety norms, and also contribute to developing advanced rules for serious AWES, with higher inherent risks.

Small AWES developers should be aware of the legal window to develop systems for hobby-recreational use, and enjoy the freedoms offered. Commercial utility scale energy is not green-lighted, but creation of realistic small scale systems akin to model airplanes and trains is allowed. Thus a developer can start with a toy, perfect it without overly burdensome rules; then proceed into more strictly regulated applications.

The US kite community needs to speak with one voice to this FAA request for comments; to strongly support the exceptional exemptions from burdensome regulations that is proposed, (and give clear notice of a few specific hopes and concerns). We could hardly have hoped for more! However, its up to us to properly self-regulate, and any negligent pattern of deaths, injuries, or property damage could cause the FAA to intervene and restrict our kite operations. We must act as quasi-airmen, subject to aviation safety culture, understand our local airspace and other conditions, filing NOTAM as needed, and so on; and thus be ready to scale up in due time.

========== Impact on Makani ===========

Makani is obviously far beyond sUAS scale, but the proposed FAA sUAS rulemaking is still very much relevant to them, since so much new rulemaking is occurring applicable to all commercial UAS players.

A big mystery is how Makani will move forward to commercialization, since it cannot any longer incubate under 500ft, and the M600 is obviously a very dangerous jumbo UAS, subject to very strict regulations. They can go on for a while on exemptions and waivers, but will not be able to deploy commercially over land, as FARs read now. The technology is not at all prepared for off-shore duty, which would add years to their 2016 productization hype. Its probable that GoogleX will sell-off Makani "cheap"*, if they can just manage a minimal all-modes session capability (but no long-term endurance capability) on the Hawaiian Big Island.

-------------------
* Just like Flux was sold off-
 


On Wednesday, February 18, 2015 4:12 PM, dave santos <santos137@yahoo.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17017 From: dave santos Date: 2/21/2015
Subject: Kite Powered Wheel Chair Sport/Therapy
Interesting blend of kite therapy and traction action. Note that the flyer in video linked below is able to stay to windward, but his chair wheels are not optimized for turf, or more speed would develop. It would help to rig a lower tow point (like a semicircular toe-rail  with traveler) to really make "kite chairing" easy and safe. I suppose one can steer better by dragging an elbow on the tire to the side one wants to turn, but that kite handling does most of the steering work-


A modern off-road chair suited for kite adaptation-
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17018 From: dave santos Date: 2/21/2015
Subject: Prosfessional Air Sports Assoc. (PASA) "insane Air!"
A growing pool of  skilled Kite Pilots beginning to formalize-
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17019 From: benhaiemp Date: 2/22/2015
Subject: Re: Scalability and other concerns: SkyMill and Guangdong

http://www.google.com/patents/CN102392783B?cl=en and http://docs.google.com/viewer?url=patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pdfs/8b869c197bc60b5293ae/CN102392783B.pdf

 

CN102392783B (Guangdong) : " Rail type wind-driven power system".  See the circle of anchors _ mentioned in some previous posts _ as an interesting possibility for a farm of trains  (with or without rail) to both cover a great area and changes of wind directions. Here two means of stacking are combined: train of umbrellas and multi anchoring in circle.  Here scalability is reached by multiplying unities , forming a coherent entity .

By using SkyMill in a same way, such a scalability could be reachable. But is it really possible? For example the consequences are different during collision of rotors (end of the story) and parachutes (no risk of breakage but only risk of mess) ; and management, material, costs seem heavier; but lifetime probably higher...


PierreB
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17020 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 2/22/2015
Subject: Re: Scalability and other concerns: SkyMill and Guangdong
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17021 From: dave santos Date: 2/23/2015
Subject: Re: Scalability and other concerns: SkyMill and Guangdong
Guangdong's circular chain concept takes on KiteGen's Carousel and NTS's circle track, but all three have common flaws. The cost of an elevated track is high, without commensurate benefits. The topologically unstable kites in these schemes are crowded together by the contraints of massive machinery economics, with excessive kite fouling potential and single-point failure modes. On the other hand, Guangdong's chain may cut down on moving mass compared to KiteGen and NTS, and their generators are fixed in place (like original Carousel). Nevertheless, wire rope cableways (cheaper than chain) remain the ready Open-AWE option.

The patent sketches are very schematic, and could not work as drawn. Chains do not like to operate sideways over large distances and the generator sprockets would need to be spring compliant to a polygonal chain loop (not the unphysical circular chain shown). The kites are shown crowded, but would be well spaced in practice. The Guangdong architecture could in fact evolve onto an effective AWES design, and is at the very least one more vote for a mechanically integrated kite farm model.


On Sunday, February 22, 2015 1:55 PM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17022 From: dave santos Date: 2/23/2015
Subject: Dylan Thorpe's PhD AWE Thesis
RMIT University, 2011, this AWE PhD thesis somehow slipped past our notice, and the author somehow overlooked a lot of third-party work (outside of limited Delft and KiteGen connections). Not many surprises here in 2015, but Dylan's thesis was a quite a worthy effort, that sadly ended with a kiteplane crash on the second day of field testing. The extensive simulations and winch design work are admirable projects in themselves, but the AWES architecture selected counts as high-complexity, and the hot kiteplane is not a highly scalable path compared to soft-kite limits. It would be nice to know if Dylan had further results in the last few years, and where he stands now-
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17023 From: dave santos Date: 2/23/2015
Subject: 2015 Texas AWE Encampment
The following is finalized by kPower-

2015 Encampment action will jump around Texas. Austin area Encampment flying starts in March with small demos at the local Kite Festival (the oldest continuous US kite festival), experimental flight sessions at the UTexas Pickle Research Campus, Rock-the-Kite picnics in Mueller Park, and kFarm. There will be intensive AWES coastal flying at Corpus Christi, on the Gulf of Mexico (also the TX UAS Test Range operations center).

Many kinds of AWES demos will be flown, as well as pioneering aerotecture experiments. Kitesurfing and other kite sports will be on offer. Its hoped AWEfest will finally catch fire, given the ongoing gathering of talent, kites, and machines. Count on nomadic accommodations or shared housing, pot-luck eating, carpools, loaner bikes, or many conventional lodging and dining options. All kinds of kites and small boats to share as well. The encampment season ends when TX summer heat and low winds begin to dominate in June.

Please reply here with event suggestions, or contact me or Ed. Many details to follow, as plans gel...
 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17024 From: Christian Harrell Date: 2/23/2015
Subject: Re: Dylan Thorpe's PhD AWE Thesis

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17025 From: dave santos Date: 2/23/2015
Subject: Re: Dylan Thorpe's PhD AWE Thesis
Please do reach out, Christian, and offer all our regards. I followed his AWE trail after graduation, but it seems his modest public effort to promote AWES research did not catch on. JoeF did link him in 2013, so he did not pass entirely unnoticed by us.


On Monday, February 23, 2015 2:48 PM, "Christian Harrell christianharrell@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17026 From: Christian Harrell Date: 2/23/2015
Subject: Re: Dylan Thorpe's PhD AWE Thesis

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17027 From: dave santos Date: 2/23/2015
Subject: Re: Dylan Thorpe's PhD AWE Thesis
To be precise, what did not work for Dylan was the expert human piloting requirement of a hot kiteplane, but that was already a well-understood reality in wider AWE circles (esp. on the AWES Forum). Corollary logic is that imperfect flight automation is no panecea for essential safety and reliability. Makani's imperfect cover-up of a flying wing crash was a top example of a prior real-world case, by a large team with effectively unlimited funds. Dylan, as a lone player, heroically provided one more data point for this known AWES high-complexity rigid kiteplane critical failure mode (loss of positive control). At the end of his thesis quest, he felt the need for a slower simpler wing. His fine potential as an AWES solution developer is clearly not yet realized.


On Monday, February 23, 2015 3:02 PM, "Christian Harrell christianharrell@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17028 From: dave santos Date: 2/23/2015
Subject: FAA Definition of "Frangibility" (and the Soft-Kite Case)
The FAA has long required model airplanes to break into pieces harmlessly in the event of a crash, as "frangibility" (low density softness is another failsafe principle, as well as low-mass/low velocity design). The new FAA rulemaking proposal for sUAS extends the frangibility requirement. There is also an FAA frangibility standard for large scale aviation; according to Wikipedia:

Following a serious incident, in which a Boeing 747 hit a portion of the approach lighting structure at San Francisco International airport,[4] the FAA instigated the development of a concept for the frangible design of such structures.[5] A frangible object was defined as "an object of low mass, designed to break, distort or yield on impact, so as to present the minimum hazard to [people and property]". This characteristic is seemingly contradictory to the operational requirements for stiffness and rigidity imposed on this type of equipment.
In order to develop international regulation for the frangibility of equipment or installations at airports, required for air navigation purposes (e.g., approach lighting towers, meteorological equipment, radio navigational aids) and their support structures,[6] ICAO initiated the "Frangible Aids Study Group" in 1981, with the task to define design requirements, design guidelines and test procedures. This work has resulted in part 6 of the Aerodrome Design Manual, dedicated to frangibility.[7]
Design requirements were defined as follows: the structure should break, distort, or yield when subjected to the sudden collision forces of a 3000 kg airborne aircraft travelling at 140 km/h or on ground at 50 km/h. With this requirement formulated, impact experiments were carried out (1976–2000) on commercial and experimental approach light masts in the US, Sweden, The Netherlands, Finland, Norway and Canada, with light wing structures impacting the masts at velocities of up to 140 km/h. Based on the results of these tests, design criteria were formulated. The most important ones are: the support structure should not impose a force on the aircraft in excess of 45 kN and the maximum energy imparted to the aircraft as a result of the collision should not exceed 55 kJ, and: high speed, full scale testing is a proven method for verification of frangibility.

This specification seems feasible for AWES soft-lattices that could (either) tear-away from (or softly catch) a colliding aircraft, as a frangibility basis under FAA standards. Denser airspace operations could be enabled. (CC+ Open-AWE IP-Pool)
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17029 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 2/25/2015
Subject: Re: Shade

Reflection on some values of "shade"

  • Enable labor.
  • Enable rest.
  • Enable survival.
  • Lower light contrast to enable inspections.
  • Lower UV damage to people and materials.
  • Lower dust entry to works.
  • Block some wind that might otherwise disturb works.
  • Give privacy.
  • Reduce visibility that might otherwise distract others.
  • Shade sun.
  • Shade rain.
  • Shade wind.
  • Shade dust.
  • Shade visibility.
  • Shade animal intrusion.
  • Shade people intrusion.
  • Double action: Collect rain water for secondary uses.
  • Double action: Funnel air into electric turbine.
  • Give animals a safety option.
  • Double action: Reflect sunlight where more sun is wanted (drying, brighten dark spaces, signaling, ...)
  • Double action: Display data or message or image on the shading sheets or sails.
  • Double action: Have shading sheet be a PV device.
  • Double action: Have shading sails be in an AWES that is generating electricity or pumping fluids.
  • ?

~JoeF
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17030 From: dave santos Date: 2/25/2015
Subject: Re: Shade
A kite arch can be stationed upwind up-wind of the area to be shaded, to hold up a large horizontal shade-cloth billowing downwind (like a flag flying on its side). Wind flowing under the shade cloth would support it aloft.

While ordinary kites are geometrically constrained in matching sun and wind angles, there is a reliable shade zone in the umbra just under the kite. A utopian aspect to living-in-the-sky by means of kite aerotecture is the inherent capability to adjust temperature by altitude. Thus the hottest sun-drenched desert could be a perfectly temperate shady oasis (harvesting water from clouds as well) at a suitable altitude.

The principles of reflector telescopes can allow kites to redirect sunlight in any direction. A reflective ground-plane (like a modern solar-thermal farm) could  bounce sunlight upward to a selectively curved angled reflector kite that in turn sends the mighty sunbeam horizontally XC. Moving the mirrors and kites suitably covers most angles with just the two reflector stages. More stages in principle allow light to be sent in any direction, regardless of wind. A circle towed kite with ground-based servo mirrors can do the job in calm, as well (in theory, a circle-towed kite can rotate or wobble around a center-point within its projected area, while maintaining flight in calm, as crude rotor).

Abundant kite energy could cheaply excavate cool shady habitat, just like Australian miners adopted underground living to escape surface heat.


On Wednesday, February 25, 2015 8:29 AM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17031 From: dave santos Date: 2/25/2015
Subject: UHMWPE Data Sheet (Dyneema)
Excellent one page UHMWPE reference; besides amazing tensile values, non-toxicity, and many other virtues, note the amazing specific heat capacity and sonic velocity (comparable to diamond) that underpin the advanced theoretic thermodynamic effectiveness predicted for AWES based on the super-polymer-
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17032 From: benhaiemp Date: 2/25/2015
Subject: Re: Scalability and other concerns: SkyMill and Guangdong

Here the circle of anchors is implemented for the circle track  which is an expensive device, above all for a farm expected to have a front of about 1 km. So put the circular train aside and consider this farm with a circle of anchors being able to face (more or less) any directions of wind. Continuous power can be obtained with yoyo when one  half of devices generate power while the other half are recovered.


pierreB 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17033 From: dave santos Date: 2/25/2015
Subject: Mike Godsey: Meteorologist to GoogleX Makani (and Bay Area/Gorge/Baj
Makani's strict NDA-enforced stealth-venture (and PR hype) model is naturally imperfect. A steady trickle of leaked details paints for us an objective partial picture. Here we get a few more public factoids; for example, a rare specific flight session date. Notably, Mike Godsey makes the short list of known AWE-specialist meteorologists, and might figure in future developments. He does not appear to be under the NDA shadow-


"I do forecasts for entities ranging from GoogleX projects to Makani Power to America's Cup races...

Mike Godsey 
weatherflow.com 
windalert.com 
iwindsurf.com 
ikitesurf.com 
sailflow.com "
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17034 From: dave santos Date: 2/25/2015
Subject: Re: Scalability and other concerns: SkyMill and Guangdong
More generally than alternating "yoyo" inputs, the more WECS sub-units a (single circle-anchored) arch supports, the smoother and more reliable its multi-phased output can be. Given a fixed sub-unit, integrating more sub-units is a basic scaling path.


---------- misc. notes ---------

"Yoyo" is a confusing lay term in kite energy, sometimes equated to single reeling unit, and other-times to an alternating (double) reeling unit. 

If this topic continues into abstract scaling theory not directly about the companies Pierre paired here (but directly relevant to all companies), a new topic should begin.


On Wednesday, February 25, 2015 12:14 PM, "pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17035 From: Rod Read Date: 2/26/2015
Subject: Radio telescope mount as solid analogue for isotropic expansion
Just as the compressed arched bridge has tension suspension bridge as it's more efficient analogue...

I found a solid device, similar function to an isotropic mesh, yet constructed upside down.

Radio telescope mounts...
To convert into kite forms, where you have a compressible element... swap it for a line and a single lifter
Or have a more singular lift surface setable near the top.
 

Notice that these reflectors are very steerable.
Say we have a tension version, whereby the equivalent of the reflective surface is facing the ground.
The outer circumference is now being an anchor circle...
The reflector (now a control point) being at the centre of the ground circle, now has direct control access to any point on the "dish" above.
Imagine what can be done from the upper inner ring.
There's still enough width to maintain control over a very large kite indeed.
A tower of kite can be controlled to sway and pump on the ground.
A continuation of the dome as single multi pixel kite can be set.
A lift point can be set from the upper ring for ground tied generators.
A fluted conical extension can be raised above the top ring.

At what scale can this float if it sits in reliable flow and dyneema has a free breaking length of 378Km?
Which parts can be used for ground monitoring / signalling / habitation etc...

Very importantly (as Dave S just reminded or introduced us to...) what are the Frangibility aspects of this structure....?
Not only frangibility in terms of its own or an aircraft's resilience in crash  ...  Lets get spacey...
What are the frangibility benefits to humanity in living aloft? assuming asteroid, germ and other potential apocalypses...

Worth a ponder...
I'd like to get designing one of those


Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17036 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 2/26/2015
Subject: Re: FAA Definition of "Frangibility" (and the Soft-Kite Case)
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17037 From: benhaiemp Date: 2/26/2015
Subject: Torque

To begin two examples are evoked.

  • Flying Superturbine(R) Explained by Doug Selsam

     

      : the rope itself is twisted, transmitting  torque by its own elasticity: so some materials can be studied to see what are practical limits of length, with few rotors, with numerous rotors.
  • wind turbine with no tower

     

    where several ropes are used to transmit torque. Here both axial and tangential forces work. For almost porjects like Ampyx, Enerkite, Tu Delft working crosswind the tangential (useful) force is used (but there are losses by loss of relative Wind and loss by recovering).  Axial force is a parasitic force but it can be considered as useful, making the ropes like a rigid structure (but for it some power is used). By taking the point at the top, and the opposite point below, cosine must be high enough to allow acting the generator, supposing that the couple of the generator is high enough to force ropes to twist. Without precise evaluation I see a ratio height (of all stages) / diameter of the order of 2 or 3 at the most;. If the ratio is higher axial force will be two high, and tangential force two low...Please correct this message.

PierreB
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17038 From: dave santos Date: 2/26/2015
Subject: Re: Torque
Pierre,

You pose "torque" as if it was still not known by many AWE experts to be too unscalable under square-cube law or third-party experiments! The remaining expert way for you to judge AWES torque claims is to perform your own simple experiments and calculations in relation to non-torque transmission options.

A suitable scientific method is to compare your small scale torque drive data against a well-documented transmission standard like rope-driving. You will test the legacy of the great structural-engineer Gordon (ho both Bob and I independently recalled his famous declarations against torsion structure, as inefficient by mass). Bolonkin's calculations on the theoretic power of UHMWPE rope-driving in AWES design are ready for you to to compare to an equivalent torsion drive model (again by excess mass which is toxic aloft). At this point, you should at least have a physics-based theory-of-operation guiding your focus on torque (to logically invalidate Gordon's counter-theory).

Note that Rod has already found that torque is not suitable for the tether length range (~1km) early utility-scale AWES. Even Doug has not claimed any more than a ~300m scale. Either you are about to prove the standing predictions wrong (that long-distance torque-transmission is poorly suited to AWE), or its taking you a very long time to understand the flaws. In particular, excessive shear forces concentrate on the torsion shaft and cause destructive hockling, unless very large tension forces are maintained aerodynamically.

Like Doug and Rod, KiteLab was unable to make torsion scale, but found quasi-torsion solutions using looping foil, pilot-kite and spread anchors, which are available to test against. KiteLab also found safety to be a problem for large torque ladder operations,

daveS




On Thursday, February 26, 2015 9:20 AM, "pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17039 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 2/26/2015
Subject: Rolamite in AWES

Rolamite technology in kiting, kite energy, AWES: CC+ Open-AWE IP-Pool.


Start:

http://rexresearch.com/wilkes/1wilkes.htm#ps


Anyone is invited to report uses of rolamite technology in AWES.

==============================
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17040 From: dave santos Date: 2/26/2015
Subject: Re: FAA Definition of "Frangibility" (and the Soft-Kite Case)
The AWES Forum has of course been a venue for advocating crashworthiness, for over five years, in harmony with long-established aviation knowledge. So its not just insurers driving this, but a large community of aeronautical design experts, based on long understood safety principles and liability-cost mitigation (aviation insurance considerably drives total-cost-of-ownership (TCO) in "high-consequence" categories).

Its quite likely Makani's M600 and Ampyx's MW-scale concepts are not economically viable, for decades to come, based on an inherent lack of crashworthiness of high-risk capital-intensive down-selects; as decided by designers without suitable aviation backgrounds.

Old Forum posts remain a good guide to crashworthy design, including engineering methods not well documented elsewhere, like impact-padded slow-falling components (as well as promoting "conventional" frangibility and low mass-velocity). Note that the FAA definition of "frangibility" does not apply to large fast aircraft; that do in fact break into many small pieces when they crash, but not harmessly :(


On Thursday, February 26, 2015 6:43 AM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17041 From: Rod Read Date: 2/26/2015
Subject: Re: Torque

I haven't really got any findings or conclusions yet. But i'm happy that i have been able to make torque scale so far.
We need a definitive analysis of the ladder or joined ring dynamics before much can be said accurately about it.

I should know more by Monday as the wind might drop enough for a safe daylight test by then.
Line instability is my main worry.
Will be trying to drive through the crank again this time. Built a front forks dropouts gimbal mount for the motor... But the wheel software prefers ccw not cw with brake and power toward ground... Would still drive a simple element going cw but without so much control.
The crank centre will be set much closer to the post bearing and the frame lightened for easier alignment this time.
Wish me luck etc...

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 17042 From: dave santos Date: 2/26/2015
Subject: Re: Rolamite in AWES
The claim to be "the only elementary machine discovered this century" is typical (1966) PopSci hyperbole. Fifty years later, this predicted "revolution" never happened. One sees prior-art in many odd places, like cigarette machines, and classic magic tricks. We naturally use "rolamite" arrangements in our AWES, in the form of spring-loaded idlers and serpentine belts, but without owing credit to anything "tucked away in secret weaponry made by Sandia engineers"

Closely related mechanisms-

Image result for derailleur tensioner





On Thursday, February 26, 2015 10:56 AM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com