Messages in AirborneWindEnergy group.                          AWES 19110 to 19159 Page 276 of 440.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19110 From: dave santos Date: 9/23/2015
Subject: Re: Surface Acoustic Waves in Kite Lattices

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19111 From: dave santos Date: 9/23/2015
Subject: Megascale COTS Rope and Belt Tech

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19112 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/23/2015
Subject: Sam

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19113 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/23/2015
Subject: Re: Sam

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19114 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/23/2015
Subject: Re: Sam

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19115 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/24/2015
Subject: Re: Makani Update

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19116 From: dave santos Date: 9/24/2015
Subject: Re: Makani Update

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19117 From: dave santos Date: 9/25/2015
Subject: Giant Artificial Atoms (kite case)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19118 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/25/2015
Subject: Re: flying the skybow under a lifter kite

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19119 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/25/2015
Subject: Re: Butler Ames

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19120 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/25/2015
Subject: US 8800931

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19121 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/25/2015
Subject: Carnwath's flygen in 1948

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19122 From: dave santos Date: 9/25/2015
Subject: Re: US 8800931

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19123 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/25/2015
Subject: Re: Inside Minesto

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19124 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/25/2015
Subject: Curvature sensing tethered aircraft

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19125 From: Rod Read Date: 9/26/2015
Subject: Re: Curvature sensing tethered aircraft

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19126 From: dave santos Date: 9/26/2015
Subject: Re: Curvature sensing tethered aircraft

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19127 From: dave santos Date: 9/26/2015
Subject: KiteMill Prototype Testing (quad-rotor to kiteplane transition)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19128 From: dave santos Date: 9/26/2015
Subject: SkySails AWES OCP model

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19129 From: Rod Read Date: 9/26/2015
Subject: Re: KiteMill Prototype Testing (quad-rotor to kiteplane transition)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19130 From: dave santos Date: 9/26/2015
Subject: KPS's revamped website (new content)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19131 From: dave santos Date: 9/26/2015
Subject: Re: KiteMill Prototype Testing (quad-rotor to kiteplane transition)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19132 From: dave santos Date: 9/27/2015
Subject: AWES Lattice Wing Notes

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19133 From: Rod Read Date: 9/27/2015
Subject: Drones lattice reality

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19134 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/27/2015
Subject: Re: Inside Minesto

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19135 From: Rod Read Date: 9/28/2015
Subject: Re: KiteMill Prototype Testing (quad-rotor to kiteplane transition)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19136 From: dave santos Date: 9/28/2015
Subject: Re: KiteMill Prototype Testing (quad-rotor to kiteplane transition)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19137 From: dave santos Date: 9/28/2015
Subject: Re: Drones lattice reality

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19138 From: dave santos Date: 9/28/2015
Subject: Aerodynamic Scaling and Solidity

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19139 From: Rod Read Date: 9/28/2015
Subject: Re: KiteMill Prototype Testing (quad-rotor to kiteplane transition)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19140 From: dave santos Date: 9/28/2015
Subject: Matteo Milandri's University of Cape Town Master's Degree Dissertati

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19141 From: Rod Read Date: 9/28/2015
Subject: Re: Aerodynamic Scaling and Solidity

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19142 From: dave santos Date: 9/28/2015
Subject: Re: KiteMill Prototype Testing (quad-rotor to kiteplane transition)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19143 From: dave santos Date: 9/28/2015
Subject: Re: Aerodynamic Scaling and Solidity

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19144 From: Rod Read Date: 9/28/2015
Subject: Re: KiteMill Prototype Testing (quad-rotor to kiteplane transition)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19145 From: Rod Read Date: 9/28/2015
Subject: Re: Aerodynamic Scaling and Solidity

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19146 From: dave santos Date: 9/28/2015
Subject: Re: KiteMill Prototype Testing (quad-rotor to kiteplane transition)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19147 From: dave santos Date: 9/28/2015
Subject: Re: Aerodynamic Scaling and Solidity

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19148 From: dave santos Date: 9/28/2015
Subject: Re: Inside Minesto

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19149 From: Rod Read Date: 9/28/2015
Subject: Re: KiteMill Prototype Testing (quad-rotor to kiteplane transition)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19150 From: Rod Read Date: 9/28/2015
Subject: Re: Aerodynamic Scaling and Solidity

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19151 From: Rod Read Date: 9/28/2015
Subject: Re: Aerodynamic Scaling and Solidity

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19152 From: dave santos Date: 9/29/2015
Subject: Re: Aerodynamic Scaling and Solidity

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19153 From: dave santos Date: 9/29/2015
Subject: Re: KiteMill Prototype Testing (quad-rotor to kiteplane transition)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19154 From: Rod Read Date: 9/29/2015
Subject: Re: KiteMill Prototype Testing (quad-rotor to kiteplane transition)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19155 From: Rod Read Date: 9/29/2015
Subject: Re: Aerodynamic Scaling and Solidity

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19156 From: Rod Read Date: 9/29/2015
Subject: Makani AWEC2015 available now

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19157 From: Rod Read Date: 9/29/2015
Subject: how to turn a boat

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19158 From: Rod Read Date: 9/29/2015
Subject: radial pattern AWE bah rings can't fly, It'll never happen

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19159 From: Joe Faust Date: 9/29/2015
Subject: Fwd: Google's 600 kW AWEC 2015 presentation online



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19110 From: dave santos Date: 9/23/2015
Subject: Re: Surface Acoustic Waves in Kite Lattices
Yes, its an interesting combo to envision reverse-pumping of an airborne array by ocean waves. While calm wind and good waves together are brief phases, mixed conditions are common, and might pay. 

A potentially bigger opportunity is underwater lattices interacting with currents (internal quasi standing-wave). The flow would enable underwater lattice waves to be created that can be tapped for power. This might be a far more scalable and economic tidal power basis than better known concepts.

Perhaps a full combo of airborne, ocean surface-waves, and ocean currents would all contribute capacity to a comprehensive lattice. In years past we explored kite array concepts that rise and descend from the water. An update note is to pass on a comment by John Barresi that he likes to fly Revs in the air into the water, kite around underwater, and then pop back into the air, in one Protean process.



On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 8:49 AM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
Just in first glance of your post, the following came to mind for sharing: 
Have large dome AWES at sea; have its anchor set water-wave impacted; let those water-wave impacts trigger wave resultants in the air kite dome array that cause continual differentia that can be mined by the the flying dome elements.  Thus, water ocean waves would play a control role in generating capturable energies from the flying dome array. 
================================== 
 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19111 From: dave santos Date: 9/23/2015
Subject: Megascale COTS Rope and Belt Tech
Open AWES R&D counts on maximal COTS content at all scales. On the ground-side of operations, KIS R&D can rely on scrap pricing to acquire powerful standard components from industrial rigging and machinery. While commercial Fishing tech is a close model, land-based machines predominate, and we study both. Here are some current samples of megascale COTS elements, for re-use along our design critical-path. Someday AWE itself might drive the evolution of even larger COTS machinery-

---------------------------------
A powerful AWES could be built from current ropeway rigging tech, just add kites (ha-ha). Here a MW cableway builds a dam in Austria-


------------------------------------
The same low-cost mechanism kPower uses in small pumping AWES prototypes, modern giant belt recoilers handle high loads with low mass, and even provide progressive mechanical advantage (fusee principle)-
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19112 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/23/2015
Subject: Sam

Circa 2002???:   Kenneth Sam filed a patent for his tumble-wing SLK 

Publication dateJan 6, 1981
Filing dateMar 8, 1979
Priority dateAug 30, 1978


https://www.google.com/patents/US4243190


https://web.archive.org/web/20020404223214/http://www.ultimateflyingobject.com/#


" have invented an oval-shaped spinning device which can capture wind energy in a way I believe is infinitely superior to windmills. It changes its shape to accommodate strongest winds and it spins in lightest winds from any direction. Its sails are solar panels so wind and solar power are captured in one device so simple in design and so versatile it can be placed anywhere the wind blows, even on rooftops. And aesthetically , it will artistically enhance any landscape it occupies.

I have not yet tested this as an electricity generator. I offer only the rudiments. Somewhere out there is the expertise to make this happen. Contact me. Together, we can test my device and prove that it can offer the world a new and efficient way to get electricity without pollution.

This idea came to me when flying my patented UFO (Ultimate Flying Object) which flies like a kite in winds no kite can fly in. Like the generator I described above, it changes its shape to accommodate any wind speed, even hurricanes.

Sam da Vinci"


Sam died in 2003 at age 80. 

England


 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19113 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/23/2015
Subject: Re: Sam
Kenneth Sam's patent rehearsed more than SLK for his basic flywheeled flat tumble wing. He taught free flight, and powered flight. He instructed many different control tweaks to his kite or free-flight device. 
In his patent he did not reach the energy production space.  
The quote I gave was made later by Kenneth Sam where he began to see the potential for generating electrcity, even by both the turbine aspect and the PV aspect. 
============
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19114 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/23/2015
Subject: Re: Sam
Robust obituary: 
Ken's obituary

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19115 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/24/2015
Subject: Re: Makani Update

Some background regarding Makani Power:

Corey's Fishing News | Commercial Fishing in Alaska and the photography of Corey Arnold | Page 2

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19116 From: dave santos Date: 9/24/2015
Subject: Re: Makani Update
Don's Project KiteBoat has continued to post news-




On Thursday, September 24, 2015 12:40 PM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
Some background regarding Makani Power:
 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19117 From: dave santos Date: 9/25/2015
Subject: Giant Artificial Atoms (kite case)
By reasonable analogy, Udo proposes we call AWE tech "Wind Drones", to better attract investment, but if we want to sound cool instead, how about "Giant Atoms"? Who wants to invest in that?

An Artificial Atom is an engineered structure exploiting atomic principles. In electronics, charge "holes" in semiconductor crystals host electrons, just as natural atoms do, and channel current along periodic lattices. Natural atoms also host tiny phonons, thus any structural unit that similarly hosts phonons, at any scale, can be reckoned as a mechanical Artificial Atom (tuning forks, pendulums, strings, etc.). A kite with its parcel of phononic energy ("the wind in its sails") is classifiable as a Giant Artificial Atom (GAA). Artificial Atoms at all scales combine into quasi-crystalline arrays for powerful apps, and giant versions might change the world-
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19118 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/25/2015
Subject: Re: flying the skybow under a lifter kite
Rod, to be clear, by "radius too tight" did you mean radius becoming huge so that the arc was of a larger catenary?  Or did you mean that the arc became too loose and drooped to have a small radius? There seems to be two extreme conditions: 
1. The arc droops deeply. U ?
2. The arc curvature increases and the load line become more taut. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curvature       (        toward  |            ????

Best, 
Joe F.

 




---In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, <edoishi@yahoo.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19119 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/25/2015
Subject: Re: Butler Ames
Attachments :
   @@attachment@@
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19120 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/25/2015
Subject: US 8800931

US8800931

Planform Configuration for Stability of a Powered Kite 

and a System and Method for Use of Same 


 tag: Makani Power, Google, Inc. 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19121 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/25/2015
Subject: Carnwath's flygen in 1948

Patent US2494430 - Rotating kite


Among the teachings by James R. Carnwath in 1948 was on board wing of kite system: electric generators to provide electricity for operating on board devices. 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19122 From: dave santos Date: 9/25/2015
Subject: Re: US 8800931
Yet another Makani patent without a major inventive leap, much less any revolutionary impact. What is covered is a rear horizontal-stabilizer/elevator ("tail wing") that turns as one unit for transitioning from hover to forward flight and back. Obvious work-arounds, if such kiteplanes are even essential, include tilt-wings, small-stabilizer/large-elevators, tilt-fans, etc.. No Makani patent seems blocking on competitors (there are not even any imitators). The company is betting everything on a complex outlier AWES architecture, and the associated patent strategy is pro forma rather than the monopolistic competitive threat once feared from the Googlesphere, that never materialized. Pocock and Payne's remain the only obvious AWE superpatents*, and are public domain now.

-------------------------
* Classing Jalbert, Barrish, Rogallo, etc. as general kite superpatents, rather than AWE per se.



On Friday, September 25, 2015 1:10 PM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  

US8800931

Planform Configuration for Stability of a Powered Kite 

and a System and Method for Use of Same 


 tag: Makani Power, Google, Inc. 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19123 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/25/2015
Subject: Re: Inside Minesto

KIC kick-starts Minesto tidal

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19124 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/25/2015
Subject: Curvature sensing tethered aircraft

WO2015094641 (A1)  -  CURVATURE SENSING TETHERED AIRCRAFT


Tags: Makani Power    Google      

Also published as 

US9056677    Curvature sensing
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19125 From: Rod Read Date: 9/26/2015
Subject: Re: Curvature sensing tethered aircraft

Oh that's old tech Makani.
But at least there catching on.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19126 From: dave santos Date: 9/26/2015
Subject: Re: Curvature sensing tethered aircraft
There are lots of vacuous details and repetitions in this patent, but scant original AWES invention (maybe aux fossil-fuel engines count, but hardly as an essential advance). This patent is troubling because its trying to claim a large amount of obvious AWES prior art, like the use of a flight computer, including memory, and tiny technical defaults, like encoders on sensors. Such patents can be wielded as weapons with enough lawyering. 

The whole curvature-sensing angle is weird, except as a clumsy (patent-thicket) blocking-strategy that might not before have been explicitly stated by anyone, but is implicit in any pattern-flying AWES. There is a huge gap between Makani's happy marketing mythos and its hidden actions and agendas (even its 2015 conference presentation is not public). How much we will ever learn about Makani's inside engineering dramas is an open question, but if the M600 turns out to be the long-predicted debacle for this architecture (since 2009, based on high-risk, high-complexity, and basic scaling law), then the patents will stand as symptomatic public documentation. 









On Saturday, September 26, 2015 1:28 AM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
Oh that's old tech Makani.
But at least there catching on.


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19127 From: dave santos Date: 9/26/2015
Subject: KiteMill Prototype Testing (quad-rotor to kiteplane transition)
Definite progress, but the scaling challenges remain-
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19128 From: dave santos Date: 9/26/2015
Subject: SkySails AWES OCP model
A paper detailing SkySails control model; Michael Erhard of SkySails is joined by Greg Horn at Leuven and Moritz Diehl at Freiburg, reflecting the AWESCO constellation of R&D. The typical EU AWES reeling-architecture assumption* continues-


--------------
* By contrast, most US architectures "hold their ground" (do not reel downwind).
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19129 From: Rod Read Date: 9/26/2015
Subject: Re: KiteMill Prototype Testing (quad-rotor to kiteplane transition)

Funny how everyone loves the slanted into wind, ring of kites look.
Overlaying 20 frames of still shots is easier than sewing 20 kites together.
Much less effective probably... But nobody knows

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19130 From: dave santos Date: 9/26/2015
Subject: KPS's revamped website (new content)



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19131 From: dave santos Date: 9/26/2015
Subject: Re: KiteMill Prototype Testing (quad-rotor to kiteplane transition)
What we do know is the largest practical kite units tend to be more "effective" (less unit count, more economy-of-scale). We also well understand the trade-offs over Solidity Factor across varied conditions. The prevalence of kite-unit strobe-effect shots over actual multi-wing rotors may reflect operational constraints more than theoretic ignorance.



On Saturday, September 26, 2015 11:08 AM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
Funny how everyone loves the slanted into wind, ring of kites look.
Overlaying 20 frames of still shots is easier than sewing 20 kites together.
Much less effective probably... But nobody knows


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19132 From: dave santos Date: 9/27/2015
Subject: AWES Lattice Wing Notes
Lattice Wings are defined here as aerodynamic surfaces* embedded in large airborne lattices of (modern polymer) line. A close similarity case is multi-sailed boats, with a long rich history. Scaling advantages of aggregated wings in coordination are well established and a basis for megascale AWES farm units. Lattice Wing units like the "flipwing", trisail**, and squaresail (ie. Mothra) have already been extensively studied in open AWE and reported here. We continue to define Lattice Wing specifics as we refine lattice designs and theories, and plan and perform experiments. This is a vast design-space to explore.

A further basic Lattice Wing type is hereby noted- The common planar triangular net of string has six lines meeting at each node.  A hexagonal sail results by filling in the area around each node. The desired solidity-factor is up to the designer. A basic design principle is noted- Besides lateral tension of an SS surface, we remove billow in the center of our giant soft wings by means of fabric ribs/darts and added bridling. These flatter wings are hot, especially by power-to-mass, and still aggregate nicely. Collective AoA inputs can coherently modulate vast Lattice Wing AWES; with lots of power to tap by PTO arrays along the surface.

Open-AWE_IP-Cloud

------------
* Unit foils, from rigid to soft.
** Meaning here any triangular sail in many variations, not the narrower usage of traditional sailing.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19133 From: Rod Read Date: 9/27/2015
Subject: Drones lattice reality
Lets not be over simple about how complex an AWE lattice could be.
What a drone farm management could bring is impressive.
https://youtu.be/CCDIuZUfETc
This is a clean environment demo, but taking it outside will happen.

Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19134 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 9/27/2015
Subject: Re: Inside Minesto

Similar news

Minesto secures fresh wave of marine energy funding

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19135 From: Rod Read Date: 9/28/2015
Subject: Re: KiteMill Prototype Testing (quad-rotor to kiteplane transition)
What's the point there Dave S?
Can you restate what "we know" please and justify the terms with reference to what's been done and shown?.
Because you seem to contradict yourself in your next post... "Scaling advantages of aggregated wings in coordination are well established... solidity is up to the designer..."
What's the solidity factor of a multi sheet device you are hinting toward ? Is it a Mothra? That's not rotary for sure . Do you measure that solidity only on 1 overall scale or sheet to sheet level? How does it move? Each sheet will have vortex shedding and drag impacts on neighbours.
You pick and choose only parts of a total AWE design space argument.  Does an optimal proof solution incorporating all of the extremes of AWE possibility even exist?... That would take a fundamental and gargantuan mathematical study to show. It's time to distil your heuristic, nail your colours to the mast, tear holes in all of the ideas boiling around you to see which one holds the most steam.
AWE has to cope with designing for multiple objective optimisations. (plenty of boring youtube math videos exist for this. (Many with grasshopper evolutionary solvers involved)) The possible answer/design solution space, when making actual machines, to fit the acceptable levels of tolerance for multiple design objectives... Is a large space. There is scope for multiple AWE designs to co-exist.

Yes, you're right, AWE teams are not ignorant, They know this too...The ultimate & best ROI generating device probably looks like a large, multi wing, fast, continuous rotary device.

Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19136 From: dave santos Date: 9/28/2015
Subject: Re: KiteMill Prototype Testing (quad-rotor to kiteplane transition)
Rod,

Two separate points were made that are not mutually exclusive: We know about economy of (large unit) scale in aviation from transport aircraft practice, and how to tailor (unit) solidity factors from windmill design to conditions. The "we" referred to perhaps over-optimistically presumed this basic interdisciplinary knowledge of the reader,

daveS





On Monday, September 28, 2015 1:45 AM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
What's the point there Dave S?
Can you restate what "we know" please and justify the terms with reference to what's been done and shown?.
Because you seem to contradict yourself in your next post... "Scaling advantages of aggregated wings in coordination are well established... solidity is up to the designer..."
What's the solidity factor of a multi sheet device you are hinting toward ? Is it a Mothra? That's not rotary for sure . Do you measure that solidity only on 1 overall scale or sheet to sheet level? How does it move? Each sheet will have vortex shedding and drag impacts on neighbours.
You pick and choose only parts of a total AWE design space argument.  Does an optimal proof solution incorporating all of the extremes of AWE possibility even exist?... That would take a fundamental and gargantuan mathematical study to show. It's time to distil your heuristic, nail your colours to the mast, tear holes in all of the ideas boiling around you to see which one holds the most steam.
AWE has to cope with designing for multiple objective optimisations. (plenty of boring youtube math videos exist for this. (Many with grasshopper evolutionary solvers involved)) The possible answer/design solution space, when making actual machines, to fit the acceptable levels of tolerance for multiple design objectives... Is a large space. There is scope for multiple AWE designs to co-exist.

Yes, you're right, AWE teams are not ignorant, They know this too...The ultimate & best ROI generating device probably looks like a large, multi wing, fast, continuous rotary device.

Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19137 From: dave santos Date: 9/28/2015
Subject: Re: Drones lattice reality
What a fantastic demo, of a sUAS assembling an aerial lattice. The Forum has not failed to see this sort of thing coming, but is in fact are at the forefront of aerial lattice theorizing.

Congratulations to Federico and his team from TH Zurich on a very significant demo of line-handling by a UAS.



On Sunday, September 27, 2015 2:09 PM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
Lets not be over simple about how complex an AWE lattice could be.
What a drone farm management could bring is impressive.
https://youtu.be/CCDIuZUfETc
This is a clean environment demo, but taking it outside will happen.

Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19138 From: dave santos Date: 9/28/2015
Subject: Aerodynamic Scaling and Solidity
To further illustrate, in a theoretic AWES context, the separate but interdependent design factors of Solidity Factor (fixed or variable) and economic Unit Scale, the large modern transport wing and traditional tall-ship rig share the same principles. At low velocities, the variable Solidity Factor ranges higher, and visa-versa. The same relation is not very evident in the case of large  modern HAWTs, with a single Solidity Factor value for each design, but is evident in Dutch Windmill design where variable-solidity (furling) is standard. All three variable-solidity cases represent basic economy-of-scale advantages (up to structural scaling-law limits)-

Related image
Related image
Image result for dutch wind mill
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19139 From: Rod Read Date: 9/28/2015
Subject: Re: KiteMill Prototype Testing (quad-rotor to kiteplane transition)

Assuming that's right,
Why then say. ..  The prevalence of kite-unit strobe-effect shots over actual multi-wing rotors may reflect operational constraints?
Because it seems obvious to me, that a set of aoa controllable kites of unknown size limit, on linked probably variable dia spinning tensioned rings,... Fits the bill of largest unit and controlled solidity.
Control gets cheaper all the time, that can't be the operational constraint you hint toward. Especially when the start point cost is shown to be zero.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19140 From: dave santos Date: 9/28/2015
Subject: Matteo Milandri's University of Cape Town Master's Degree Dissertati
A nice effort along orthodox AWE academic lines-

" In the next five years, it is likely that the [AWES] topologies employed will stabilize and one or two approaches will emerge as most effective."
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19141 From: Rod Read Date: 9/28/2015
Subject: Re: Aerodynamic Scaling and Solidity

The other way of looking at this, each case represents a scenario where operation efficiency is superceded faster  sleeker wings

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19142 From: dave santos Date: 9/28/2015
Subject: Re: KiteMill Prototype Testing (quad-rotor to kiteplane transition)
The question of operational constraints on giant soft-turbines perhaps deserved a new topic-

Its hypothesized by me that the reason we do not already see larger rotating soft turbines than the big spinning bols in classic kiting has to do with the tricky initiation step where rotation and inflation need to coordinate closely. Part of the problem is the increased "tidal" distortion of gravity on a large heavier-than-air rotating structure. A separate issue is soft turbine designs that have many wings (Daisy concept) are currently configured such that local blade fouling inversions ("bow-tie" failures) are likely. At small-scale fussy manual recovery is tolerable, but more problematic operationally at large-scale. If the historic non-operational reality of large soft-rotors is doubted as evidence, the pessimistic hypothesis remains testable. Possible fixes include sequenced deployment from packs, but the rotors must operate mostly trouble-free to win acceptance-

Launching a circular Bol kite in rainbow colours Stock Photo



On Monday, September 28, 2015 11:26 AM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
Assuming that's right,
Why then say. ..  The prevalence of kite-unit strobe-effect shots over actual multi-wing rotors may reflect operational constraints?
Because it seems obvious to me, that a set of aoa controllable kites of unknown size limit, on linked probably variable dia spinning tensioned rings,... Fits the bill of largest unit and controlled solidity.
Control gets cheaper all the time, that can't be the operational constraint you hint toward. Especially when the start point cost is shown to be zero.


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19143 From: dave santos Date: 9/28/2015
Subject: Re: Aerodynamic Scaling and Solidity
Rod,

There are many possible interpretations, but the cases only show that variable solidity is an operational requirement, especially at larger scales where margins are finer and more critical. A common risk is to require a"faster sleeker" wing that does it all. An airliner must increase wing area to lower wing-loading at take-off and landing. A tall ship must reduce sail in storm. Modern tall-ships necessarily remain multi-sailed. A racing sailboat or kiter uses a quiver of wings, typically. 

These are fine operational similarity cases. The fun part is to test actual flying machines to sort out what predictions hold. Let soft mega-rotor AWES developers prepare to test side-by-side with everything else, and not require their operational hopes to be widely credible.

On another tack, there is a complex relationship between solidity and stability, at all scales, but not fully developed in theory. Scaling up drives engineering issues ever more economically- and safety-critical, independent of many a priori aerodynamic ideals. Our major similarity cases are cautious bets to reason from further, while remaining open to new thinking.

Bring on the new thinking,

daveS



On Monday, September 28, 2015 11:41 AM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
The other way of looking at this, each case represents a scenario where operation efficiency is superceded faster  sleeker wings


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19144 From: Rod Read Date: 9/28/2015
Subject: Re: KiteMill Prototype Testing (quad-rotor to kiteplane transition)
Try this! You're going to love it! promise!
Get a sequence of rings tied like this https://youtu.be/pvqccLPkkHk
Where each successive ring helps to hold the next open.
All of the models you propose are similar have massive long single point bridling, which is a very different dynamic proposition.
Heck in that old video there's hardly even a ring to inflate... it's only really the blades there... And that's a viable control proposition with just single blade AWE... doh... link them together and whole loads of the control overhead disappears... What's the problem?


Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19145 From: Rod Read Date: 9/28/2015
Subject: Re: Aerodynamic Scaling and Solidity
Every wing has it's operational limits.
A common risk is to require a"faster sleeker" wing that does it all.     No wing does it all.

An airliner must increase wing area to lower wing-loading at take-off and landing. As you accelerate upward the vertical wing loading is greater at take off. The variable area dynamic is to cope with lift changes at varied speed regimes.
A tall ship must reduce sail in storm. So as not to break the mast, because the ship can't take the loading of extra water drag and shock loadings...
Modern tall-ships necessarily remain multi-sailed. Where does the boat hull analogy come in as relevant now we're running fast and light?
A racing sailboat or kiter uses a quiver of wings, typically. and a fatboy needs more wing on the same day.

Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19146 From: dave santos Date: 9/28/2015
Subject: Re: KiteMill Prototype Testing (quad-rotor to kiteplane transition)
Rod,

Note carefully that I "advocate" all designs that muster for testing. Its only natural that we must split up efforts to field the cross-selection of AWES contenders, rather than down-select like a typical AWE start-up. A risk is to emotionally bond with pet AWES ideas that testing then vets.

You do seem to have solved the problem of local bow-tie failures of the wings in the latest Tornado design. If the question is what concerns I see; the low-rpm torque basis, high line-drag factor, rather high complexity, and nagging initiation/killing questions top my list. its not clear if terrain-assist and reverse-powering solves lull-cycling. Will the tornado reliably self-recover from frequent collapse? At least the simple looping-foil has been shown to self-recover consistently, over weeks of continuous test-session, but we are far from a final positive verdict for any specific design.

Lets try to more consistently start new topic threads right when the subject changes (from KiteMill in this case),

daveS





On Monday, September 28, 2015 2:12 PM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
Try this! You're going to love it! promise!
Get a sequence of rings tied like this https://youtu.be/pvqccLPkkHk
Where each successive ring helps to hold the next open.
All of the models you propose are similar have massive long single point bridling, which is a very different dynamic proposition.
Heck in that old video there's hardly even a ring to inflate... it's only really the blades there... And that's a viable control proposition with just single blade AWE... doh... link them together and whole loads of the control overhead disappears... What's the problem?


Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19147 From: dave santos Date: 9/28/2015
Subject: Re: Aerodynamic Scaling and Solidity
The airliner does lower wing-loading (load by area-unit) by opening up wing slat and flap surfaces, compared to landing in the same runway length with a highly-stalled "sleek" wing (which would be dangerous, even if marginally doable).

The sailboat rig happens to be very mass and area sensitive, owing to heeling moment, so its like the aircraft case in those design respects.





On Monday, September 28, 2015 2:39 PM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
Every wing has it's operational limits.
A common risk is to require a"faster sleeker" wing that does it all.     No wing does it all.

An airliner must increase wing area to lower wing-loading at take-off and landing. As you accelerate upward the vertical wing loading is greater at take off. The variable area dynamic is to cope with lift changes at varied speed regimes.
A tall ship must reduce sail in storm. So as not to break the mast, because the ship can't take the loading of extra water drag and shock loadings...
Modern tall-ships necessarily remain multi-sailed. Where does the boat hull analogy come in as relevant now we're running fast and light?
A racing sailboat or kiter uses a quiver of wings, typically. and a fatboy needs more wing on the same day.

Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19148 From: dave santos Date: 9/28/2015
Subject: Re: Inside Minesto
The prototype pictured looks effective, but its only about 3m WS, which is not so terrible unless this where millions have gone. Anyway, just as in the sky, underwater megascale energy harvesting will depend on soft-kite structure.

Noting a linguistic trend to call the paravane concept space "underwater kites" in this Wales echo-




On Sunday, September 27, 2015 8:05 PM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
Similar news
 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19149 From: Rod Read Date: 9/28/2015
Subject: Re: KiteMill Prototype Testing (quad-rotor to kiteplane transition)

Yes please before somebody starts claiming that a barycentric line orbital single kite is more stable with less line drag and higher speed... Oh crikey... Yes giving that conversation a break will only make sense.

Use large soft kites where they are appropriate... Enabling a lifted line.
Use fast kites where they are most appropriate... Energy output.

That "new" model has been out for ages.
You're mad to think there's a lack of speed around this wide diameter track.

The tested joined model rings didn't collapse.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19150 From: Rod Read Date: 9/28/2015
Subject: Re: Aerodynamic Scaling and Solidity

The highly sleek wing would just crash don't try it.

An airliner must increase wing area to lower wing-loading at take-off and landing.
Please rephrase what you said in that last sentence Dave S to correct the mistake.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19151 From: Rod Read Date: 9/28/2015
Subject: Re: Aerodynamic Scaling and Solidity

Set the info in terms of speed and efficiency effects of wing loading regimes

On 29 Sep 2015 07:12, "Rod Read" <rod.read@gmail.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19152 From: dave santos Date: 9/29/2015
Subject: Re: Aerodynamic Scaling and Solidity
"Wing Loading" is a traditional parameter independent of take-off or other flight sub-state. Even Google agrees-.

"Wing loading is a measurement that relates the mass of an aircraft or bird to the total wing area. The relationship between wing area and body weight is given in kilograms per square metre (or grams per square centimetre)."

Yes also that with slats and flaps extended, modern transport aircraft wing area effectively increases, much as bird wings also do...




On Monday, September 28, 2015 11:37 PM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
Set the info in terms of speed and efficiency effects of wing loading regimes
On 29 Sep 2015 07:12, "Rod Read" <rod.read@gmail.com


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19153 From: dave santos Date: 9/29/2015
Subject: Re: KiteMill Prototype Testing (quad-rotor to kiteplane transition)
Rod wrote: "Use fast kites where they are most appropriate... Energy output." 

Reply: Fast Load-Velocity is the ideal "energy output" physics. The low angular velocity of a Daisy or Tornado requires at least Pierre's mechanism of rotating reels for fast load velocity.

Large slow kites are like oxen; high power.



On Monday, September 28, 2015 11:05 PM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
Yes please before somebody starts claiming that a barycentric line orbital single kite is more stable with less line drag and higher speed... Oh crikey... Yes giving that conversation a break will only make sense.
Use large soft kites where they are appropriate... Enabling a lifted line.
Use fast kites where they are most appropriate... Energy output.
That "new" model has been out for ages.
You're mad to think there's a lack of speed around this wide diameter track.
The tested joined model rings didn't collapse.


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19154 From: Rod Read Date: 9/29/2015
Subject: Re: KiteMill Prototype Testing (quad-rotor to kiteplane transition)

Dave wrote some tripe as regular recently
Since the new standard is Google agrees

In physics, the angular velocity is defined as the rate of change of angular displacement and is a vector quantity (more precisely, a pseudovector) which specifies the angular speed (rotational speed) of an object and the axis about which the object is rotating.

Please don't ignore the and the axis part of that statement

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19155 From: Rod Read Date: 9/29/2015
Subject: Re: Aerodynamic Scaling and Solidity

Yes, and your point is?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19156 From: Rod Read Date: 9/29/2015
Subject: Makani AWEC2015 available now
What was all the fuss about?
Well done to Damon and Roland for getting the Makani Damon presentation on line at last.
https://collegerama.tudelft.nl/Mediasite/Play/639f1661d28e483cb75a9a8bdedce6f11d

Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19157 From: Rod Read Date: 9/29/2015
Subject: how to turn a boat
Maybe giant, circular, rotary ocean going craft / high mass flywheels aren't so daft...

https://www.facebook.com/Break/videos/10153586016862792/

Then again.

Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19158 From: Rod Read Date: 9/29/2015
Subject: radial pattern AWE bah rings can't fly, It'll never happen
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19159 From: Joe Faust Date: 9/29/2015
Subject: Fwd: Google's 600 kW AWEC 2015 presentation online
Dear Joe,

We have now got the OK from Google to publicly release the video
recording of Damon Vander Lind's keynote presentation:
https://collegerama.tudelft.nl/Mediasite/Play/639f1661d28e483cb75a9a8bdedce6f11d

All presentation videos of the conference can be viewed on this page:
http://awec2015.eu/presentations.html

Best regards,
Roland

----------------------------
Dr.-Ing. Roland Schmehl
Associate Professor
Delft University of Technology
Kite Power Research Group
Wind Energy Section / Faculty of Aerospace Engineering
Kluyverweg 1, 2629 HS Delft, The Netherlands