More
interesting diagnostic details: Makani pulled out the M600 to only do a
brief mock-up, then promptly returned to hangar. This may indicate an
major engineering problem that could not be solved in-place. The weird
mannequin was at-best a security scare-crow given this is not a manned
platform (while kPower's aerotecture test-dummy is a safety R&D
tool).
GoogleX's
AWES architecture is finally under a serious public microscope, since
much of the Bay Area has a line-of-sight view (not like testing behind
a Hawaiian volcano). No doubt weird sounds will carry to nearby
residences, to answer the noise question. I imagine the M600 will sound
much like a WWII flight formation, but with wild control variations.
The carbon-composite frame is a strong acoustic resonator, while so
many symmetric airfoil blades are extra noisy too.
|
| Group: AirborneWindEnergy |
Message: 18223 |
From: dave santos |
Date: 6/16/2015 |
| Subject: GoogleX after M600? |
Makani
(GoogleX) has two neighbors on the former airbase whose
core-competences happen to match broader AWE requirements. Natal Energy
is trying to develop a low-head hydropower tech which does not look any
better than legacy low-head, but does resemble kite analogs.
Wrightspeed hopes to corner the industrial electric vehicle market,
facing huge competition.
GoogleX
could quickly piece together utility-scale AWES experiments on more
"conventional" grounds, if the M600 does not meet expectations, with
contract engineering by such on-site companies. Since the start of
Makani, I have held out to the Google-funded AWE investment circle to
diversify its AWE R&D, but the venture-culture rejected the idea,
betting on a single architectural down-select. M600 success or failure
will put to rest or renew the idea of concept diversification.
If
conditions for GoogleX to reboot its AWES research does move forward,
lining up an engineering services supply-chain like Natel and
Wrightspeed, at one site, could be a big head start. Low-complexity
homegrown AWE might then take over the huge airfield, without the
public safety and noise barriers that an M600 farm represents. Worst
case would be GoogleX souring on AWE altogether if the M600 fails-
|
| | | |
| Natel EnergyTechnology
learn more The hydroEngine TM is a new hydropower turbine design with
exceptional cost savings in equipment and civil works. Natel runs an
extensive performance and |
| | Preview by Yahoo |
|
|
|
| |
| | | |
| WrightspeedWrightspeed
Wrightspeed's powertrains are engineered for vehicle manufacturers and
commercial fleet operators. They are not available for individual
end-users. ... |
| | Preview by Yahoo |
|
|
|
|
| Group: AirborneWindEnergy |
Message: 18224 |
From: benhaiemp |
Date: 6/16/2015 |
| Subject: Re: NTS in Aktion (video) [2 Attachments] |
I think Gordon does not refer in
a rotaring kite but refers in several crosswing kites as schown on both
his pdf and NTS' picture. Indeed the central generator is an
old solution from KiteGen leaving it for a circular track
providing more speed, as NTS makes. Several generators working at
high rpm are globally lighter than a single central generator working
at low rpm.
PierreB
|
|
| Group: AirborneWindEnergy |
Message: 18225 |
From: benhaiemp |
Date: 6/16/2015 |
| Subject: Re: Rotating Reeling in AWEC2015 |
If
the
rotating kite is highly tilted settling generators in winches (reeling
for power and on the side going upwind) is a better solution. If no,
settling enerators between ring as rotor and circular track (10)
as stator
is also possible (reeling only to smooth lines lengths, and power on
the side going downwind). Settling a single generator in the central
point of ring is also possible but not desirable due to its low
rpm. PierreB
|
|
| Group: AirborneWindEnergy |
Message: 18226 |
From: dave santos |
Date: 6/16/2015 |
| Subject: Re: NTS in Aktion (video) |
Its
an open question if traditional economy-of-scale, which favored giant
generators, will be replaced by large numbers of small generators. I
hope so (so the "fabric-of-tiny-turbine/generators" becomes economic).
Increasingly automated manufacture is relentlessly dropping the price
of small generators.
kPower
is meanwhile still aiming at turning legacy giant generators into
kite-driven hybrids, since the generator capital-cost is already paid
(IP Cloud).
On Tuesday, June 16, 2015 2:20 PM, "pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
I
think Gordon does not refer in a rotaring kite but refers in
several crosswing kites as schown on both his pdf and NTS' picture. Indeed
the central generator is an old solution from KiteGen leaving it
for a circular track providing more speed, as NTS makes. Several
generators working at high rpm are globally lighter than a single
central generator working at low rpm.
PierreB
|
|
| Group: AirborneWindEnergy |
Message: 18227 |
From: dave santos |
Date: 6/16/2015 |
| Subject: Re: Rotating Reeling in AWEC2015 |
The
rotating kite part will end up tilted at about 45deg in a basic DS
orbit, and we have mechanical solutions to transfer fast-line-pumping
(phase cycle) to one central generator at high load velocity (for high
rpm). It will take more testing to validate what works best, but the
exciting new idea here is to avoid bulk torque transmission in favor of
multiline pumping (if "Gordon's Law". holds), whatever the generator
mix.
On Tuesday, June 16, 2015 2:45 PM, "pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
If
the
rotating kite is highly tilted settling generators in winches (reeling
for power and on the side going upwind) is a better solution. If no,
settling enerators between ring as rotor and circular track (10)
as stator
is also possible (reeling only to smooth lines lengths, and power on
the side going downwind). Settling a single generator in the central
point of ring is also possible but not desirable due to its low
rpm. PierreB
|
|
| Group: AirborneWindEnergy |
Message: 18228 |
From: benhaiemp |
Date: 6/16/2015 |
| Subject: Re: Rotating Reeling in AWEC2015 |
Generators turning with ring can also
increase flywheel effect helping smoothing rotation of ring. And the
central point is used for line and hangers of parachute, and also for
package. In case of big plant each "small" generator can be within MW
range.
PierreB
|
|
| Group: AirborneWindEnergy |
Message: 18229 |
From: dave santos |
Date: 6/16/2015 |
| Subject: NASA announces Embry-Riddle winner to develop dual tethered stratosp |
Yet more AWE news along lines discussed for many years. Wilson, Faust, German, Kramer, and so on, will applaud; Wubbo lives-
|
|
| Group: AirborneWindEnergy |
Message: 18230 |
From: dave santos |
Date: 6/16/2015 |
| Subject: Early Review of AWEC2015 |
| Group: AirborneWindEnergy |
Message: 18231 |
From: benhaiemp |
Date: 6/16/2015 |
| Subject: Re: Rotating Reeling in AWEC2015 |
The weight of mobile stations
containing their respective generators is also usefull, making strength
opposed to kite push. Of course their weight is not enough, some
element of construction of track preventing escaping.
PierreB
|
|
| Group: AirborneWindEnergy |
Message: 18232 |
From: benhaiemp |
Date: 6/17/2015 |
| Subject: Re: Early Review of AWEC2015 |
"Its presenter Damon Vander Lind, Lead
Engineer, told IDTechEx, "It's nice to be doing something that will be
a spectacular success or a spectacular failure". Comments?
PierreB |
|
| Group: AirborneWindEnergy |
Message: 18233 |
From: Rod Read |
Date: 6/17/2015 |
| Subject: Re: Rotating Reeling in AWEC2015 |
Pierre thank you so much for making a model to describe your system of rotating reeling...
It makes a huge difference for helping understand the intended principle.
I understand that on the ground you intend to have a rotating (vertical
axis) component. From an inclined spinning kite ring you rotate the
ground ring. Then generate with arrayed tether points around the ground
ring. The extension tether of upwind going side pulling out is supposed
to out over compensate for the power needed to reel in on the downwind
going side.
Is that what you propose?
|
|
| Group: AirborneWindEnergy |
Message: 18234 |
From: benhaiemp |
Date: 6/17/2015 |
| Subject: Re: Rotating Reeling in AWEC2015 |
Rod,
I hope rotating reeling is clearly explained on AWEC2015 abstract and poster. The video showns how it is.
"I understand that on the ground you intend to have a rotating (vertical axis) component." Yes,
but by one option (angle of kite being high) there is no power by
vertical axis component, power being by winches on rotating ring
(as seen on video). By another option (angle of kite tilt being low)
power is produced by vertical axis ring, preferently the peripheral
part of ring going faster.
"From an inclined spinning kite ring you rotate the ground ring." Yes (see the previous answer).
"
The extension tether of upwind going side pulling out is supposed to
out over compensate for the power needed to reel in on the downwind
going side." No. It is a question of cyclic variations of peripheral (for conversion) lines lengths. In
first consider parachute with its hangers and line anchored in the
central station in middle point of ring area. When such a
parachute rotates, there is no cyclic variations of hangers and line
lengths due to central and single anchoring. It is the reason why they
provide reference angle of attack of parachute then Parotor (whole
kite). But it is different for peripheral lines anchored around the
ring: peripheral lines lengths from leading edge of kite
towards upwind part of ring are higher than lengths
in opposite side. These variations are used for power by reeling
out on the side going upwind. Concerning the side going downwind the
excess of line is reeled in by a spring (as on video) or by
motor. In case of power by vertical axis ring, winches are
used only to smooth lines, reeling in and out. Both generations are
also possible. One idea is to have an horizontal conversion system in ground to facilitate building and working in scale.
PierreB
|
|
| Group: AirborneWindEnergy |
Message: 18235 |
From: benhaiemp |
Date: 6/17/2015 |
| Subject: Re: Rotating Reeling in AWEC2015 |
Correction in my previous post: "Also
a possibility: both types of generators working together" instead of
"Both generations are also possible." .
PierreB
|
|
| Group: AirborneWindEnergy |
Message: 18236 |
From: dave santos |
Date: 6/18/2015 |
| Subject: Re: Early Review of AWEC2015 |
Damon is correct in stating AWE is a domain where "spectacular success or spectacular failure"
is within the historical range of AE outcomes. The weird part is for
him to emotionally conflate success with failure, as if already falling
into the abyss with weary ambivalence. Its no fun to fail, and crashing
large prototypes is not the professional norm in modern AE, but the
traumatic signal of failure.
In
character, GoogleX is blocking Damon's conference presentation from
being shared publicly. TUDelft has committed to corporate secrecy
demands over open-academic values, as a private-contract-research
dependent school, with GoogleX as a prime paying client. Insiders enjoy
both secret knowledge and large payments (Enerkite is also balking at
allowing its conference presentation to be publicly shared. The rest of
the sessions will be posted as releases are approved). AWEIA represents
open policies, like all AWE conference content to be public-by-default,
but is consistently blocked from conference organizing by the elite
inside circle.
On
the other hand, Open-AWE has the tremendous advantage of freely shared
knowledge over the public Net. A dramatic and serious contest has
emerged between two powerful cultures- stealth-capitalism v.
open-cooperation, with starkly different AWES architectures resulting.
I am faithful that Open AWE will prevail by greater merits; both
technical and ethical, and be a spectacular success, but we have to
work much harder and smarter, from greater passion.
On Wednesday, June 17, 2015 12:29 AM, "pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
"Its
presenter Damon Vander Lind, Lead Engineer, told IDTechEx, "It's nice
to be doing something that will be a spectacular success or a
spectacular failure". Comments?
PierreB
|
|
| Group: AirborneWindEnergy |
Message: 18237 |
From: dave santos |
Date: 6/18/2015 |
| Subject: M600 in hovering mode |
A
video clip was shown at AWEC2015 of the M600 briefly hovering while
constrained by preventer lines. Its known the platform was promptly
returned to hangar. The implication is some fault condition cut testing
short. No telling just what the problem was, if any, nor how serious.
Thermal overload, settling-under-power, or endless component failure
modes are plausible. Maybe it was nothing serious, and the brief flight
was a real milestone.
Its
worth noting that this first hover was in ground-effect, without the
added mass of the conductive tether, nor the severe thermal demand of
the extended launch sequence.
|
|
| Group: AirborneWindEnergy |
Message: 18238 |
From: joe_f_90032 |
Date: 6/18/2015 |
| Subject: Re: Soft Shackle Revolution |
| Group: AirborneWindEnergy |
Message: 18239 |
From: joe_f_90032 |
Date: 6/18/2015 |
| Subject: Re: Soft Shackle Revolution |
Lateral step: =========== Whoopie Slings
|
| |
| Whoopie Slings In
this video I show you how to make a pair of whoopie slings for your
hammock suspension. My method makes it easy for purchasing and
measuring by starting w... |
| | | Preview by Yahoo |
| ============ |
|
| Group: AirborneWindEnergy |
Message: 18240 |
From: benhaiemp |
Date: 6/19/2015 |
| Subject: stealth-capitalism v. open-cooperation |
DaveS wrote: "A dramatic and
serious contest has emerged between two powerful cultures-
stealth-capitalism v. open-cooperation, with starkly different AWES
architectures resulting. I am faithful that Open AWE will prevail by
greater merits; both technical and ethical, and be a spectacular
success, but we have to work much harder and smarter, from greater
passion."
Trying to see AWES
architectures resulting in capitalism mode (companies): there are all
sorts (flygen, yoyo) of single anchored prototypes, so not all sorts.
Common point is financing allowing prototype including some level of
automation. They are going from (too) simple concepts towards
(too) high level of expected automation to correct what design cannot. I n
open-cooperation, (associations) working is
about an architecture taking account of more parameters and
being able to have some level of inherent working before further
implementation of automated system which will be possible in capitalism
mode, money being required. There is dialogue within
open-cooperation (AWE forum), sometimes within stealth-capitalism
(AWEConsortium) but not yet within both.
The main problem in capitalism mode is pushing a single method to the end then seeing it is not viable.
The
main problem in open-cooperation is lack of money to push a possibly
viable method. For example now without serious financing or/and
partnership allowing a 100 kW range pilot-plant 30 m both span and
altitude working permanently I cannot really continue my
project on
Rotating Reeling .
In
AWE we see each mode is required but not enough taken alone. So a third
way can be making dialogue between companies (on what it is
possible) and associations allowing comparisons by technical and
environmental features. In a word trying to attract Google so that it enlarges its AWE portfolio.
PierreB |
|
| Group: AirborneWindEnergy |
Message: 18241 |
From: Rod Read |
Date: 6/19/2015 |
| Subject: Sewing a big enough kite |
One of the biggest problems faced when building a massive kite.
There is no sewing machine big enough to make it. Why? Because we rely on mechanical linkage arm for accuracy of position and timing our rotary and plunging needles. It's very accurate, but just like a wind turbine as it scales it gets prohibitively massive. What's the alternative? Separate into two working units a plunging needle and a rotary needle... however...
The
system needs to maintain needle alignment and timing whilst being
either side of the materials being sewn. The movement of the material
through the 2 units (or the 2 units over the material) must be
controlled and not interrupt the needle movement. So an
accurate positioning and relative movement system is needed, which can
precisely place 2 devices either side of a variety of materials. Methods. (a mix of the following is most probable) Laser, spotting the position of heads on a gantry can turn a hanger size building into a sewing machine. Laser
spotting the material and reading the pattern through the material from
the other side. This likely only uses 1 head adjustment whilst the
other head is fixed. If laser can be read through material then fine use it for rotary timing communication too. Otherwise use wifi / radio between 2 heads with encoded stepper drive on rotary and plunging systems. Magnet
and material grip location... Make a top side sewing buggy, around the
feet of the buggy magnets pull it to the rotary head table and feed dog
plates... maintain high speed comms on positioning data between
the two heads ... as material is puled through the buggy rolls.
Plunging needle alignment is programmed as per lens stabilisation
algorithms used in photography. If miniaturised then sewing scouts badges on jumper sleeves will be so much easier. Rod Read Windswept and Interesting Limited 15a Aiginis Isle of Lewis UK HS2 0PB 07899057227 01851 870878
|
|
| Group: AirborneWindEnergy |
Message: 18242 |
From: dave santos |
Date: 6/19/2015 |
| Subject: Re: stealth-capitalism v. open-cooperation |
Pierre,
There
is lots of money in principle available to Open AWE that gets diverted
by stealth capitalism logic, which is not properly the fault of
Open-AWE itself. For example, Google could have embraced Open AWE
instead of a specific Squid Labs stealth venture, if the key founding
people and their ideas had been just a bit different (like embracing
broad concept testing).
In
your own case, if you do not now have the money to refine an emerging
idea at modest scale as Open-AWE, I also fault stealth capitalism
values, in the form of the Patent System, which enforces a greedy
secrecy and imposes ruinous costs on the small inventor. The Open AWE
IP Cloud, as a counter-strategy, would have left far more money in your
pocket for this phase of the AWE development game.
Open
AWE overall is healthy (if scrawny) on its restricted money diet; a
real marathon runner to beat Google's fat baby in a de facto virtual
fly-off,
daveS
On Friday, June 19, 2015 1:48 AM, "pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
DaveS
wrote: "A dramatic and serious contest has emerged between two powerful
cultures- stealth-capitalism v. open-cooperation, with starkly
different AWES architectures resulting. I am faithful that Open AWE
will prevail by greater merits; both technical and ethical, and be a
spectacular success, but we have to work much harder and smarter, from
greater passion."
Trying
to see AWES architectures resulting in capitalism mode (companies):
there are all sorts (flygen, yoyo) of single anchored prototypes, so
not all sorts. Common point is financing allowing prototype including
some level of automation. They are going from (too) simple
concepts towards (too) high level of expected automation to
correct what design cannot. I n
open-cooperation, (associations) working is
about an architecture taking account of more parameters and
being able to have some level of inherent working before further
implementation of automated system which will be possible in capitalism
mode, money being required. There
is dialogue within open-cooperation (AWE forum), sometimes within
stealth-capitalism (AWEConsortium) but not yet within both.
The main problem in capitalism mode is pushing a single method to the end then seeing it is not viable.
The
main problem in open-cooperation is lack of money to push a possibly
viable method. For example now without serious financing or/and
partnership allowing a 100 kW range pilot-plant 30 m both span and
altitude working permanently I cannot really continue my
project on
Rotating Reeling .
In
AWE we see each mode is required but not enough taken alone. So a third
way can be making dialogue between companies (on what it is
possible) and associations allowing comparisons by technical and
environmental features. In a word trying to attract Google so that it enlarges its AWE portfolio.
PierreB
|
|
| Group: AirborneWindEnergy |
Message: 18243 |
From: dave santos |
Date: 6/19/2015 |
| Subject: Re: Sewing a big enough kite |
Professional
sailmakers long ago invented and ~perfected large sail lofts that are
in fact a single giant sewing machines. Sailmakers then invented sails
made with membranes and adhesives, without previous sewing-machine
constraints. Thus, there is nol barrier to making maxi-sails for
maxi-yachts ratable in MW, and these sails are combo adhesive-sewn
composites. Then KiteLab Ilwaco invented a kixel-loadpath concept
inspired by tall-ship rigs, with no sewing or gluing (some taping and
lots of knots) and easily assembled Mothra, in hours, on grass.
Conclusion?
We know how to build giant kites by three major validated techniques,
including an awesome new method especially designed for our megascale
kite needs.
On Friday, June 19, 2015 3:47 AM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
One of the biggest problems faced when building a massive kite.
There is no sewing machine big enough to make it.
Separate into two working units a plunging needle and a rotary needle... however...
The
system needs to maintain needle alignment and timing whilst being
either side of the materials being sewn. The movement of the material
through the 2 units (or the 2 units over the material) must be
controlled and not interrupt the needle movement.
Rod Read
Windswept and Interesting Limited
15a Aiginis
Isle of Lewis
UK
HS2 0PB
07899057227
01851 870878
|
|
| Group: AirborneWindEnergy |
Message: 18244 |
From: Rod Read |
Date: 6/19/2015 |
| Subject: Re: Sewing a big enough kite |
The manufacturers of the worlds largest parachutes have to make the parachutes in 3 or more sections...
Because they can't get a large enough sewing machine. |
|
| Group: AirborneWindEnergy |
Message: 18245 |
From: dave santos |
Date: 6/19/2015 |
| Subject: Daidalos Capital (news from AWEC2015) |
We
may be waiting quite a while for extended AWEC2015 content to be posted
online, meanwhile, I'll post kPower's thumb-typed notes:
Daidalos on its current position, and its new AWE marketing strategy-
Ed Sapir reports: "Daidalos
Capital has opened a second round of funding called "Daidalos Capital
AWE Fund II" In his talk Udo argued that if AWE could rebrand itself as
a drone business (to be called wind drones), skeptical investment money
would pour in because the drone market is "hot." He states, "Wind
drones can rightfully be called the trillion dollar drones. They are
also the only drones that can save the world."
Comment:
What we are seeing is that some early investors, like Daidalos and WOW,
are able to recoup early investment cash for follow-on investment
rounds, as their start-ups gain new funding sources. Still missing is
for the fund managers to create truly diversified investment offerings
to attract larger more risk-adverse investors by lowered risk options,
but this phase will emerge in due time.
|
| |
| | | |
| daidalos capital | Wind DronesTechnology
Airborne Wind Energy (AWE) is a radical new concept to harness wind
with the use of only a tether instead of a tower. Two main
technological concepts can... |
| | Preview by Yahoo |
|
|
|
|
| Group: AirborneWindEnergy |
Message: 18246 |
From: dave santos |
Date: 6/19/2015 |
| Subject: Re: Sewing a big enough kite |
Its
not just the size of the sewing machine, but also the practical
operational limit of how large a fabric unit can be handled in the
field by workers. Too large (~
The manufacturers of the worlds largest parachutes have to make the parachutes in 3 or more sections...
Because they can't get a large enough sewing machine.
|
|
| Group: AirborneWindEnergy |
Message: 18247 |
From: Rod Read |
Date: 6/19/2015 |
| Subject: Re: Sewing a big enough kite |
The link above is a claim (from Texas, so who knows the validity) on the worlds largest sewing machine. Hardly Barn size. A split device with rapid communication between the 2 functioning parts...
What implication might that have to AWE or indeed sewing in general?
In agriculture millions of tonnes of plastic sheeting are thrown away every year.
No normal sewing machine could attach ropes crossing the layers of sheeting in a field to convert it to kite matter.
Is a normal sewing machine able to rope climb or fly as two parts of a drone?
Would that be useful? Damn right it would.
Splicing and tying into tight active ropes is highly problematic.
Sewing and automatic needle work is in it's infancy.
Hook path retracting needles instead of straight punching might be suited to piercing the side braiding of rope.
cc ip open hardware awes pool
|
|
| Group: AirborneWindEnergy |
Message: 18248 |
From: Rod Read |
Date: 6/19/2015 |
| Subject: Re: Sewing a big enough kite |
Maybe Dave since you like massive sewing machines so much you could recycle old wind turbines ..
Turning the towers into the arms of your new mechanical wonder. Or you could instead realise the dimensional bonkersness of that argument in most other economic and engineering terms. |
|
|
