Messages in AirborneWindEnergy group.                          AWES 20081 to 20130 Page 295 of 440.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20081 From: dave santos Date: 5/9/2016
Subject: Vertical Space-Filling by Crosswind Power-Kite Wingspan: Simplest Me

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20082 From: dave santos Date: 5/9/2016
Subject: Re: Vertical Space-Filling by Crosswind Power-Kite Wingspan: Simples

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20083 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/9/2016
Subject: Re: more Minesto paravane farm details

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20084 From: dave santos Date: 5/10/2016
Subject: Re: Vertical Space-Filling by Crosswind Power-Kite Wingspan: Simples

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20085 From: dave santos Date: 5/10/2016
Subject: 4000USD AWE Market Report

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20086 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/10/2016
Subject: ACCIONA S.A.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20087 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/10/2016
Subject: Re: Kite

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20088 From: Doug Selsam Date: 5/11/2016
Subject: Re: Kite

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20089 From: santos137@yahoo.com Date: 5/11/2016
Subject: Re: Kite

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20090 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/12/2016
Subject: Re: more Minesto paravane farm details

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20091 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/12/2016
Subject: Year 2002 Lawrence Joseph Ellison and Oracle's traction kiting

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20092 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/12/2016
Subject: Kite Foil, Kite Foiling, Kite Hydrofoiling

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20093 From: Doug Selsam Date: 5/12/2016
Subject: Re: 20090 Re: more Minesto paravane farm details

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20094 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/12/2016
Subject: Maritime Journal notices AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20095 From: santos137@yahoo.com Date: 5/12/2016
Subject: Re: 20090 Re: more Minesto paravane farm details

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20096 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/12/2016
Subject: Re: 20090 Re: more Minesto paravane farm details

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20097 From: Rod Read Date: 5/12/2016
Subject: Re: 20090 Re: more Minesto paravane farm details

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20098 From: Andrew K Date: 5/13/2016
Subject: Re: Year 2002 Lawrence Joseph Ellison and Oracle's traction kiting

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20099 From: dave santos Date: 5/13/2016
Subject: Re: Year 2002 Lawrence Joseph Ellison and Oracle's traction kiting

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20100 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/13/2016
Subject: Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROEI) for AWES

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20101 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/13/2016
Subject: OCEAN WAVE ENERGY ABSORBING KITE SYSTEM AND METHOD

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20102 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/13/2016
Subject: A Kite by Hornzee-Jones

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20103 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/13/2016
Subject: (US09297926) Tornado data acquisition system

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20104 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/13/2016
Subject: ACTUATORS FOR CONTROL

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20105 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/13/2016
Subject: WO/2016/005621 BOAT

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20106 From: Doug Selsam Date: 5/14/2016
Subject: Re: Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROEI) for AWES

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20107 From: dave santos Date: 5/14/2016
Subject: Re: Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROEI) for AWES

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20108 From: dave santos Date: 5/14/2016
Subject: Re: Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROEI) for AWES

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20109 From: dave santos Date: 5/14/2016
Subject: Mechanical "Circuit-Breakers" to solve Kite Surge

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20110 From: dave santos Date: 5/15/2016
Subject: A decade of wonderful progress in AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20111 From: benhaiemp Date: 5/15/2016
Subject: Installing a lifting kite in loss place

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20112 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/15/2016
Subject: (GB2527736) Tethered aerial platform and aerial observation system

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20113 From: dave santos Date: 5/15/2016
Subject: MotorGen Array Self-Synchrony Model for Metamaterialized Atmosphere

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20114 From: gordon_sp Date: 5/16/2016
Subject: Re: 20090 Re: more Minesto paravane farm details

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20115 From: dave santos Date: 5/16/2016
Subject: Re: 20090 Re: more Minesto paravane farm details [1 Attachment]

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20116 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/16/2016
Subject: Re: "Gardoon"

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20117 From: dave santos Date: 5/16/2016
Subject: Golden Age of Flow Visualization has begun

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20118 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/17/2016
Subject: Long-line helicopter-based operations (LLHBO)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20119 From: benhaiemp Date: 5/17/2016
Subject: Re: Installing a lifting kite in loss place

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20120 From: dave santos Date: 5/17/2016
Subject: Re: Installing a lifting kite in loss place

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20121 From: dave santos Date: 5/17/2016
Subject: Re: 20090 Re: more Minesto paravane farm details

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20122 From: dave santos Date: 5/17/2016
Subject: DIY AWES Hacker's Delight- Bike Electronic Drivetrains

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20123 From: Doug Selsam Date: 5/17/2016
Subject: Re: 20090 Re: more Minesto paravane farm details

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20124 From: dave santos Date: 5/17/2016
Subject: Dancing Kite and Bouncing Droplet as QM analogues

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20125 From: Rod Read Date: 5/17/2016
Subject: Re: Installing a lifting kite in loss place

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20126 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/17/2016
Subject: Re: 20090 Re: more Minesto paravane farm details

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20127 From: dave santos Date: 5/17/2016
Subject: Re: 20090 Re: more Minesto paravane farm details

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20128 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/17/2016
Subject: AWE participation

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20129 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/17/2016
Subject: Re: Long-line helicopter-based operations (LLHBO)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20130 From: dave santos Date: 5/17/2016
Subject: Green anti-fouling options for Paravane Energy



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20081 From: dave santos Date: 5/9/2016
Subject: Vertical Space-Filling by Crosswind Power-Kite Wingspan: Simplest Me
Ranking AWES concepts in engineering complexity is an inexact art, since there are too many opposed critical dimensions to reconcile, like platform complexity (roughly numbering distinct parts) v. operational complexity (degree of reliable autonomy).

Perhaps the simplest possible megascale AWES concept yet is to take the generic power-kite and expand its wingspan to fill the FAA-specified 2000ft vertical airspace. The giant wing could then operate crosswind as Hadzicki proposed [Lang 2004], driving a cableway. This is far different from previous AWES designs, where the kite wingspan is only a small fraction of the vertical space allowed. In essence, the kite would alternate tacks with one wing tip at the surface, and the other at the airspace ceiling, with as little as just one tether exposed to aerodrag. An SS power-kite kite at the 2000ft WS scale in crosswind mode seems unbeatable by any smaller thicker wing, in wind harvesting potential.

A radical simplification is to fit COTS power kite design to available airspace, rather than depend on a non-existent exotic wing basis like other schemes. This is in accord with how sails fill sailing rig space as closely as possible in most-probable winds. The generic power-kite effectively scales across many orders-of-magnitude, just as the biological fish format does; so we can expect 2000ft WS power-kites really would fly, unit-ratable around 100MW. The key new idea here is expand the proven power kite optimally within available vertical AWES airspace, to sweep crosswind with the most power.

By any measure, this is one of the simplest and most powerful AWES schemes ever.

Open-AWE_IP-Cloud
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20082 From: dave santos Date: 5/9/2016
Subject: Re: Vertical Space-Filling by Crosswind Power-Kite Wingspan: Simples
Attachments :
    Attached is a graphic of Hadzicki's original buggy scheme from [Lang, 2004, DF], with FAA ceiling scale comparison and GW-class AWES array schematic.


    On Monday, May 9, 2016 9:59 AM, "dave santos santos137@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
    Ranking AWES concepts in engineering complexity is an inexact art, since there are too many opposed critical dimensions to reconcile, like platform complexity (roughly numbering distinct parts) v. operational complexity (degree of reliable autonomy).

    Perhaps the simplest possible megascale AWES concept yet is to take the generic power-kite and expand its wingspan to fill the FAA-specified 2000ft vertical airspace. The giant wing could then operate crosswind as Hadzicki proposed [Lang 2004], driving a cableway. This is far different from previous AWES designs, where the kite wingspan is only a small fraction of the vertical space allowed. In essence, the kite would alternate tacks with one wing tip at the surface, and the other at the airspace ceiling, with as little as just one tether exposed to aerodrag. An SS power-kite kite at the 2000ft WS scale in crosswind mode seems unbeatable by any smaller thicker wing, in wind harvesting potential.

    A radical simplification is to fit COTS power kite design to available airspace, rather than depend on a non-existent exotic wing basis like other schemes. This is in accord with how sails fill sailing rig space as closely as possible in most-probable winds. The generic power-kite effectively scales across many orders-of-magnitude, just as the biological fish format does; so we can expect 2000ft WS power-kites really would fly, unit-ratable around 100MW. The key new idea here is expand the proven power kite optimally within available vertical AWES airspace, to sweep crosswind with the most power.

    By any measure, this is one of the simplest and most powerful AWES schemes ever.

    Open-AWE_IP-Cloud


    		   @@attachment@@
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20083 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/9/2016
    Subject: Re: more Minesto paravane farm details
    Offshore Superintendent job with Minesto UK Ltd* | 5041413

     

    There is an "Apply" (for position) button on the page. 

    ================================================
    The announcement is copied here for the record, but to to page for the active button. 
    =================:::  News Release Announcement:

    Minesto is one of the world’s leading developers of innovative tidal power technology.

    Minesto UK Ltd is looking to employ a Offshore Superintendent.

    The company was set up in 2007 to commercialise a tidal energy converter initially invented by SAAB AB (the aircraft manufacturer). Known as ‘Deep Green’, Minesto’s device is an underwater kite designed to generate electricity by capturing power from low velocity tides and ocean currents. The company is on track to deliver its first full-scale Deep Green array. This array will be installed off the coast of Anglesey and scaled up to 10MW by 2020. Minesto is now setting up a UK subsidiary to deliver the Deep Green 10MW project.

    The European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) through the Welsh Government, has awarded Minesto over €13m for the commissioning of the first full-scale power plant Minesto enjoys continued commitment from both industrial shareholders Midroc New Technology and Nordic equity firm BGA Invest.

    With powerful investors, global potential and support from both the EU, Swedish and British governments we are now hiring world-class engineers. Minesto offers an inspiring technical challenge, an opportunity to take part in the product development cycle and the chance to really change the world. Are you interested? The successful candidates will be joining a pioneering team in an emerging renewable energy sector with exceptional international market potential.

    Minesto is an Equal Opportunities employer, specifically committed to gender diversity in the workplace and the equal treatment and acceptance of both males and females in an organization. Minesto opposes all forms of unlawful and unfair discrimination on the grounds of age, disability, sex, gender reassignment, sexual orientation, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief and marriage and civil partnerships.

    From the date of appointment to June 2018 this position will be part-funded by European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) through the Welsh Government as part of Minesto’s Deep Green Project (Ref. 80848).

    If you are interested for this position, please go to our website by the “Apply” button on this page, for the full job description and instructions for application.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20084 From: dave santos Date: 5/10/2016
    Subject: Re: Vertical Space-Filling by Crosswind Power-Kite Wingspan: Simples
    Short-lined power-kite practice is the seminal similarity case to filling the vertical AWES airspace with high TRL crosswind power-kites. KiteShip took me to NABX 2007 for immersion into elite power-kiting culture, where I was struck by how the low-budget single-skin (SS) NASA Power Wing (NPW) class generally kept up with the hot parafoils, and even excelled in the lowest winds. Dave Culp had come to base KiteShip on his NPW-inspired OL kite, as a radical simplification for ocean shipping. My NABX guru for the NPW was "AJ" Jackson (who tragically died expanding human capabilities, kitesurfing off Hatteras). AJ had perfected many unique NPW tricks, such as buggying into the registration tent, with the kite parked over the tent, which the foilers could not do (I extended AJ's idea of "indoor" kite flying, unreeling from a high-flying SLK deep into buildings, and back again, playing Theseus hunting Minotaur).

    DIY NPW kite-gods had worked out that the biggest cheap kite on the shortest lines was a potent buggy rig, and AJ's NPW lines were about the shortest; perhaps 15ft long, with another 25ft of bridle. The giant power-kites proposed here trend to this general proportion, where the bridle itself is most of the tether scope. Power-kite bridles are just long enough to "stake-out" along a crosswind cableway as a virtual kitebar, with just a bit of running tether needed to tack the kite back and forth. The new SS power-kites look ideal for this role, and a robust new form of kite-sailing seems feasible, where the kite flies right from the deck more-or-less right where a mast-rig would, but with no mast needed. Predictive numeric proofs of the advantages of this AWES rigging strategy should be straight-forward, given the empiric proof-of-concept.

    Thanks, AJ, (and KiteShip) for many wonderful lessons in so short a time. Such Heroes do not die in vain whose lessons are not forgotten.

    Pertinent discussion of a subtle power-kite line-length issue-





    On Monday, May 9, 2016 11:12 AM, "dave santos santos137@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
    Attached is a graphic of Hadzicki's original buggy scheme from [Lang, 2004, DF], with FAA ceiling scale comparison and GW-class AWES array schematic.


    On Monday, May 9, 2016 9:59 AM, "dave santos santos137@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
    Ranking AWES concepts in engineering complexity is an inexact art, since there are too many opposed critical dimensions to reconcile, like platform complexity (roughly numbering distinct parts) v. operational complexity (degree of reliable autonomy).

    Perhaps the simplest possible megascale AWES concept yet is to take the generic power-kite and expand its wingspan to fill the FAA-specified 2000ft vertical airspace. The giant wing could then operate crosswind as Hadzicki proposed [Lang 2004], driving a cableway. This is far different from previous AWES designs, where the kite wingspan is only a small fraction of the vertical space allowed. In essence, the kite would alternate tacks with one wing tip at the surface, and the other at the airspace ceiling, with as little as just one tether exposed to aerodrag. An SS power-kite kite at the 2000ft WS scale in crosswind mode seems unbeatable by any smaller thicker wing, in wind harvesting potential.

    A radical simplification is to fit COTS power kite design to available airspace, rather than depend on a non-existent exotic wing basis like other schemes. This is in accord with how sails fill sailing rig space as closely as possible in most-probable winds. The generic power-kite effectively scales across many orders-of-magnitude, just as the biological fish format does; so we can expect 2000ft WS power-kites really would fly, unit-ratable around 100MW. The key new idea here is expand the proven power kite optimally within available vertical AWES airspace, to sweep crosswind with the most power.

    By any measure, this is one of the simplest and most powerful AWES schemes ever.

    Open-AWE_IP-Cloud
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20085 From: dave santos Date: 5/10/2016
    Subject: 4000USD AWE Market Report
    Lets hope this wildly priced report not as useless as it looks, and that we can get a look soon, at no cost. The only factual teaser is mention of  "ACCIONA S.A., DeWind Co., Fuhrländer AG"
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20086 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/10/2016
    Subject: ACCIONA S.A.
    ACCIONA WINDPOWERED ANTARCTICA

    [[Posted on the page is an untenable overclaim; there have been zero-emissions sleds before the Acciona sled.   ~ JoeF]]
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20087 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/10/2016
    Subject: Re: Kite
    Synergy credits to Doug Selsam
    In off-forum struggle forcing the J-Model basis, a robust devil's advocacy by Doug was instrument in reaching the "refinement" in ideal version of J-Model to a infinity of "wings" in "kite". In private email I thanked him for the general synergy, but here is a chance to thank him for pressing matters.  It was a delight to see the J-Model basis hold up in the ideal.  A resultant material real version of the J-Model has a finite count of wings in any one kite when facing the finite quanta limits of material things; and thus the material version of the model does not seem to reach "infinity" of wings in a single "kite".    In the J-Model a wing is not a "kite."  But a "wing" may play roles of "tether" and "wing" simultaneously.     Facing sharp and even confusing attacks on an idea may be enjoyed for the potential good that may arrive out of the tension of discussion.   Thanks again to Doug for persevering in facing the J-Model for K.    
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20088 From: Doug Selsam Date: 5/11/2016
    Subject: Re: Kite
    Attachments :
      Thanks Joe, that was awful nice of you. :) ================================================== ==================================================


      [[Moderator bandwidth add herebelow is a tease for part of J-Model radiated from the Selsam synergy sessions:

      W_____________________________________________W (Wings anchoring Wings useing a tether which is also a wing). W___________________W________________________W W_______W____________W__________W__________W W___W____W____W_____W___W____W_____W_____W
      Etc. ]]
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20089 From: santos137@yahoo.com Date: 5/11/2016
      Subject: Re: Kite

      Thanks also, to you, Joe, for your years of patient niceness. Doug can rest content in faith that your AWE road leads to a super outcome for all...




      ------ Original message------

      From: Doug Selsam dougselsam@gmail.c...

      Date: Wed, May 11, 2016 10:23 AM

      To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com;

      Subject:Re: [AWES] Re: Kite


       

      Thanks Joe, that was awful nice of you. :) ================================================== ==================================================

      [[Moderator bandwidth add herebelow is a tease for part of J-Model radiated from the Selsam synergy sessions:

      W_____________________________________________W (Wings anchoring Wings useing a tether which is also a wing). W___________________W________________________W W_______W____________W__________W__________W W___W____W____W_____W___W____W_____W_____W
      Etc. ]]
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20090 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/12/2016
      Subject: Re: more Minesto paravane farm details
      Subsea & Foundation Specialist Engineer
      Subsea & Foundation Specialist Engineer. The Company. Minesto is one of the world's leading developers of innovative tidal power technology.


      Control Systems Engineer
      Control Systems Engineer. The Company. Minesto is one of the world's leading developers of innovative tidal power technology. The company was 
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20091 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/12/2016
      Subject: Year 2002 Lawrence Joseph Ellison and Oracle's traction kiting

      Oracle Flies Kite in America's Cup Test

      " Oracle drew attention to itself on busy Hauraki Gulf when it hung out a radical sail that flew from a tether above its masthead."

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

      Some key historical notes: 

      Peter Lynn Kites - Newsletter

       
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20092 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/12/2016
      Subject: Kite Foil, Kite Foiling, Kite Hydrofoiling

      This topic thread invites examination of AWE's realm of kite foiling where kite system anchor wing is a high performance hydrofoil set of one or more foils.  The systems have a wing set in the air and a wing set in the water. Exploration of the scheme for sport, fishing, generation of electricity, performing special works could be part of the flow here. Tiny to huge explorations would be equally welcome. Let the kite foiling sport be an open door to the large realm. Taking energy from the wind for recreational racing is just one sector of a potential working world of kite foiling. We have spotty posted messages in forum that touch upon the subject realm. 


      A 2015 tease: 

      2015 Kite Foil Gold Cup - French sailors fight well for position

      by Pressure-drop.us on 3 Aug 2015


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


      Consider geoengineering tasks for a large army of cross-winding racing kite foil machines.

      Consider rescue missions, ocean cleaning, ...


      Consider kite traction using hydrofoils to transport people and goods; get the hulls up off the waves.   


      Consider additional turbines incorporated in such kite systems.   

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


      Some topic tease: 

      http://kitehydrofoil.com/index.php/home.html


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

      Scaling challenges?

      Mission descriptions?

      Use of energy drawn from the wind in such kite systems?

      Think BIG. 

      Think small.

      =============================================
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20093 From: Doug Selsam Date: 5/12/2016
      Subject: Re: 20090 Re: more Minesto paravane farm details
      I'm curious what people on this list think about the chances for success of this project.
      Quote from Minesto's website:
      "The goal is to deploy a 1.5MW Deep Green array in 2017,
       then increasing to a 10MW array."

      Will we see this timeline met?  Will regular operation commence in 2017?  If so, any guess as to how long it will run before it is shut down for a significant duration?  Or do you think it will immediately become a reliable contribution to the grid upon startup?  Will they provide power economically?  Will the project ever result in a viable technology that becomes widely-implemented?
      The company is well-funded.  They say they've tested prototypes.
      The concept seems straightforward - somewhat similar to a well-publicized above-ground effort, with a possible advantage that remaining waterborne would seem far easier than remaining airborne.
      Anyone care to "place a bet"?  What factors weigh in favor of success?  What operational challenges do you think will emerge?  What factors might cause failure or "delays" of indeterminate duration?  Barnacles?  Stray fishing hardware?  Breakage?  A bad design?  Poor implementation?  If the stated goals are not met, will we hear an acknowledgement or explanation?  Or will they "quietly go away"?  Is anyone feeling a vision of the future regarding this project?
      If this were a roulette table, and you had twenty bucks to put down, would it be red or black?  What factors influence you to make this prediction?
      :)
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20094 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/12/2016
      Subject: Maritime Journal notices AWE

      Airborne wind energy technology - soaring into the mainstream?

      12 May 2016

      - See more at: Maritime Journal | Airborne wind energy technology - soaring into the mainstream?
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20095 From: santos137@yahoo.com Date: 5/12/2016
      Subject: Re: 20090 Re: more Minesto paravane farm details

      The sure bet is a fine learning experience in paravane tech. Thank goodness for all the wonderful efforts now underway.


      Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE device


      ------ Original message------

      From: Doug Selsam dougselsam@gmail.c...

      Date: Thu, May 12, 2016 9:07 PM

      To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com;

      Subject:[AWES] Re: 20090 Re: more Minesto paravane farm details


       

      I'm curious what people on this list think about the chances for success of this project.
      Quote from Minesto's website:
      "The goal is to deploy a 1.5MW Deep Green array in 2017,
       then increasing to a 10MW array."

      Will we see this timeline met?  Will regular operation commence in 2017?  If so, any guess as to how long it will run before it is shut down for a significant duration?  Or do you think it will immediately become a reliable contribution to the grid upon startup?  Will they provide power economically?  Will the project ever result in a viable technology that becomes widely-implemented?
      The company is well-funded.  They say they've tested prototypes.
      The concept seems straightforward - somewhat similar to a well-publicized above-ground effort, with a possible advantage that remaining waterborne would seem far easier than remaining airborne.
      Anyone care to "place a bet"?  What factors weigh in favor of success?  What operational challenges do you think will emerge?  What factors might cause failure or "delays" of indeterminate duration?  Barnacles?  Stray fishing hardware?  Breakage?  A bad design?  Poor implementation?  If the stated goals are not met, will we hear an acknowledgement or explanation?  Or will they "quietly go away"?  Is anyone feeling a vision of the future regarding this project?
      If this were a roulette table, and you had twenty bucks to put down, would it be red or black?  What factors influence you to make this prediction?
      :)
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20096 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/12/2016
      Subject: Re: 20090 Re: more Minesto paravane farm details
      Some preambling toward answering: 
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20097 From: Rod Read Date: 5/12/2016
      Subject: Re: 20090 Re: more Minesto paravane farm details

      Has there been any acoustic data? The Welsh would hate to scare a sea dragon.
      Whether or not the dragon can be measured as red or black. . .
      Filling the sea up with blades covered in antifoul. That would be a fail in my view.

      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20098 From: Andrew K Date: 5/13/2016
      Subject: Re: Year 2002 Lawrence Joseph Ellison and Oracle's traction kiting

      Thanks Joe, I missed this when it happened.
      What ever happened to this sail?
      I haven't heard anything about it since.
      Was there a practical issue with operating the sail or was it prohibited by the racing rules?

      I found a picture on the Sailing Anarchy site.
      <http://www.kitetug.com/news/200212sailingAnarchy/

      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20099 From: dave santos Date: 5/13/2016
      Subject: Re: Year 2002 Lawrence Joseph Ellison and Oracle's traction kiting
      Hi Andrew,

      Ironically, the defending Kiwis banned LarryE's kite in panic, but would likely dominate Cup history even more if they embrace it, given that North NZ makes SkySails' wings, and Peter Lynn is a native authority. KiteShip's OL ship kite did not get a public boost by being banned, and the company languished in the PR hype shadow of Google-Makani, on Alameda Island. 

      Nevertheless, kPower of Austin eagerly took up the OL as a key part of its AWE R&D, and continues to fly and test this excellent wing design. Dave Culp trained me at KiteShip in 2007 and served as a founding technical adviser of kPower, and is still actively offering expertise via the AYRS list. 

      We have long looked to LarryE as another billionaire ace-up-our-sleeve, as the most sail-savvy of his class, and very competitive with his peers, but we have not yet made any AWE proposal to him, since the elite megascale race so far has been mostly theoretic-analytical. The empiric engineering has advanced well by cheap small experiments. This is how the most seasoned AWE movers have long resisted premature acquisition and control by hungry large capital.

      You are welcome to work with the OL kite, with models on hand ranging from about 2m2 to over 300m2. It has been very extensively considered over the years on the AWES Forum,

      daveS


      On Friday, May 13, 2016 5:10 AM, "Andrew K aklist04@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
      Thanks Joe, I missed this when it happened.
      What ever happened to this sail?
      I haven't heard anything about it since.
      Was there a practical issue with operating the sail or was it prohibited by the racing rules?
      I found a picture on the Sailing Anarchy site.
      <http://www.kitetug.com/news/200212sailingAnarchy/


      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20100 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/13/2016
      Subject: Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROEI) for AWES
      Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROEI) for AWES

      Each kite system is potentially analyzable for EROEI. 
      May we become sharp on the the parameter ratio: ER/EI. 
      Knowing well just what is meant and how the energy is measured would affect the ratio.  The challenge is finally a fuzzy matter by virtue of incomplete analysis coupled with errors. There is a cost to know.  The challenges should not keep us from ever improving the process of knowing the ratio for various AWES. 

      This topic thread invites essays and notes regarding ER/EI for AWES of any scale or work target. Getting clear about assumptions and methods of knowing factors feeding the numerator and the denominator will probably be a struggle.   When AWES' ER/EI are sharp, then comparisons between systems in and outside AWE will be more meaningful and be of better service to decision makers.  Comparisons will probably be a struggle inasmuch as analytic bases will probably have important differences. 

      Preambles:

      What energies go into designing, making, having, maintaining, repairing, operating, de-commissioning, etc. an AWES. 
      What energies are delivered by the operation of an AWES? What of those energies do effective work?  
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20101 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/13/2016
      Subject: OCEAN WAVE ENERGY ABSORBING KITE SYSTEM AND METHOD
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20102 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/13/2016
      Subject: A Kite by Hornzee-Jones

      HORNZEE-JONES

      KITE POWER SOLUTIONS LIMITED

      Priority date: 07.10.2014 GB

      A Kite
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20103 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/13/2016
      Subject: (US09297926) Tornado data acquisition system

       (US09297926) Tornado data acquisition system 


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

      Kite system is used to collect data regarding a tornado. 


      =============================================
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20104 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/13/2016
      Subject: ACTUATORS FOR CONTROL

      0002576396 ACTUATORS FOR CONTROL OVER FLIGHT OF STRUCTURAL PROFILE OF WING FOR CONVERSION OF WIND ENERGY INTO ELECTRIC OR MECHANICAL POWER
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20105 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/13/2016
      Subject: WO/2016/005621 BOAT

      WO/2016/005621 BOAT

      ORTIZ VINOS, Ismael

      14.01.2016

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


      My note: The boat is designed to be an effective water-air "wing-anchor" in a kite system tracted by a kited air-wing subassembly. (J-Model for K way of describing). 
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20106 From: Doug Selsam Date: 5/14/2016
      Subject: Re: Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROEI) for AWES
      My take has always been that the cost of a system automatically tabulates the total energy input, in an approximate sense at least.  Energy and capital tend to be "fungible".  The cost of materials and labor tend to reflect, or at least parallel, the total amount of "energy input" automatically including things like, say, the gasoline burned by miners of the raw materials on their way to work.  Without specifically tabulating energy input, which would be difficult, the cost of the system carries that information without specifically having to break it down.  It's already inherently totaled.  Not only are energy and money fungible, they are somewhat interchangeable.  If the cost of oil doubles, the cost of gold, for example, would tend to go up as well, since the cost of the diesel required to get it out of the ground goes up.  Therefore, to the extent a clean energy solution is economically-viable, it likely has a good Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROEI).


      ======================================
      [ Moderator item: 
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fungibility ]
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20107 From: dave santos Date: 5/14/2016
      Subject: Re: Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROEI) for AWES
      AWE promises unprecedented EROI, once we diligently work out the operational challenges. In essence, one can take a barrel of oil to make a kite that in turn harvests many many barrel's worth of wind energy; and most of that barrel does not end up as CO2 pollution, but gets recycled.

      Its very misleading to judge our early AWE by its EROI, since our key product is not current market-energy, but forward-looking R&D knowledge. If we figure out how to power civilization with high-wind, the inefficient futzing of early developers with sub-optimal AWES, will be overwhelmingly offset. It will also be clear which AWE R&D efforts most contributed to eventual high-EROI.


      On Saturday, May 14, 2016 5:32 AM, "Doug Selsam dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
      My take has always been that the cost of a system automatically tabulates the total energy input, in an approximate sense at least.  Energy and capital tend to be "fungible".  The cost of materials and labor tend to reflect, or at least parallel, the total amount of "energy input" automatically including things like, say, the gasoline burned by miners of the raw materials on their way to work.  Without specifically tabulating energy input, which would be difficult, the cost of the system carries that information without specifically having to break it down.  It's already inherently totaled.  Not only are energy and money fungible, they are somewhat interchangeable.  If the cost of oil doubles, the cost of gold, for example, would tend to go up as well, since the cost of the diesel required to get it out of the ground goes up.  Therefore, to the extent a clean energy solution is economically-viable, it likely has a good Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROEI).


      ======================================
      [ Moderator item: 
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fungibility ]
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20108 From: dave santos Date: 5/14/2016
      Subject: Re: Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROEI) for AWES
      Correction to "EROEI" and misc. grammar; sorry-

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

      AWE promises unprecedented EROEI once we diligently work out the operational challenges. In essence, a barrel of oil can make a kite to in turn harvest many more barrel's worth of wind energy; and most of the barrel does not end up as CO2 pollution, but gets recycled.

      Its very misleading to judge our early AWE by EROEI, since our key product is not current market-energy, but forward-looking R&D knowledge. After we figure out how to power civilization with high-wind, the inefficient futzing of early developers with sub-optimal AWES will be overwhelmingly offset. It will also be clear which AWE R&D efforts most contributed to eventual high-EROEI.


      On Saturday, May 14, 2016 7:58 AM, "dave santos santos137@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
      AWE promises unprecedented EROI, once we diligently work out the operational challenges. In essence, one can take a barrel of oil to make a kite that in turn harvests many many barrel's worth of wind energy; and most of that barrel does not end up as CO2 pollution, but gets recycled.

      Its very misleading to judge our early AWE by its EROI, since our key product is not current market-energy, but forward-looking R&D knowledge. If we figure out how to power civilization with high-wind, the inefficient futzing of early developers with sub-optimal AWES, will be overwhelmingly offset. It will also be clear which AWE R&D efforts most contributed to eventual high-EROI.


      On Saturday, May 14, 2016 5:32 AM, "Doug Selsam dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
      My take has always been that the cost of a system automatically tabulates the total energy input, in an approximate sense at least.  Energy and capital tend to be "fungible".  The cost of materials and labor tend to reflect, or at least parallel, the total amount of "energy input" automatically including things like, say, the gasoline burned by miners of the raw materials on their way to work.  Without specifically tabulating energy input, which would be difficult, the cost of the system carries that information without specifically having to break it down.  It's already inherently totaled.  Not only are energy and money fungible, they are somewhat interchangeable.  If the cost of oil doubles, the cost of gold, for example, would tend to go up as well, since the cost of the diesel required to get it out of the ground goes up.  Therefore, to the extent a clean energy solution is economically-viable, it likely has a good Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROEI).


      ======================================
      [ Moderator item: 
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fungibility ]
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20109 From: dave santos Date: 5/14/2016
      Subject: Mechanical "Circuit-Breakers" to solve Kite Surge
      Any AWES must deal with gusty wind events where kite-surge acts with monstrous exponential force. Rather than design a system with enough structural safety-factor to handle peak gusts, its far cheaper and more efficient to build-in failsafe devices that act as mechanical circuit-breakers. Such devices are applied anywhere from wing to load.

      The most primitive method is the Weak-Link, as used in PG/HG towing. A well-calibrated fuse-like response is possible, but its a one-shot method that requires re-rigging after each event. This is a suitable solution for a kite-kill end-state. Another principle is to passively reduce AoA by elastic aft bridling, which absorbs and returns some buffered surge energy (capacitance), and automatically recovers nominal wing operation after a gust, but this entails more complex construction and maintenance. Depowering is also done as an active control loop, with many possible variations.

      Future AWES will necessarily include many levels of surge protection, with mixed automatic and supervised recovery. Engineers must still choose carefully where and how to place weak links in AWES structures, as the ultimate default surge-protection. A combined comprehensive approach to kite-surge seems inherent to large AWES engineering.

      Open-AWE_IP-Cloud
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20110 From: dave santos Date: 5/15/2016
      Subject: A decade of wonderful progress in AWE
      After centuries of historic gestation, kite energy is rapidly growing from "newborn baby" to a vigorous toddler. The last decade has seen wonderful progress, as documented on the AWES Forum.

      Dave Lang's 2004 Drachen Foundation report is the birth milestone when the world kite community became self-aware of AWE as its natural destiny. Around this time, several pioneering R&D teams popped up, and a couple of dozen current key players activated. Within a decade there were about fifty venture and academic teams up and running, with around a thousand known developers. A proliferation of AWES concepts emerged for analysis and testing, with many successful proofs-of-concepts.

      The AWE toddler is on-track to become a real brat in the next decade. All trend lines for technical kite performance are pointing up steeply. Billions of dollars of green energy R&D funding is in the pipe. Many more thousands of talented developers will join the AWE quest. Numerous fantastically adventurous experiments will fly on a grand scale. Power kites will continue to spread virally into new extreme sports and niche utility apps. 

      This process of panoramic advance of AWE from small beginnings, with many baby-steps required, is how all revolutionary new technologies eventually come to shake the earth.
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20111 From: benhaiemp Date: 5/15/2016
      Subject: Installing a lifting kite in loss place

      From Fig.3 of Payne's patent. In this configuration more the wings are far each other, more the wings sweep a large area. But more there is a loss space in the middle of the swept area. Installing a lifting kite in the loss place can be a way to maximize the space. The unspent energy of the wings is used to improve the torque.


      PierreB


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

      [[Moderator note:  It appears that the Payne patent's Fig. 3 was used as a starting figure to which PierreB seems to have drawn an additional sub-kite in the central region of the apparent cone mapped by the two wings that form the apparent conical space.  See Payne's patent: 

      https://www.google.com/patents/US3987987   

       Peter R. Payne, Charles McCutchen

      Self-erecting windmill

      Priority date: Jan 28, 1975

      ]]
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20112 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/15/2016
      Subject: (GB2527736) Tethered aerial platform and aerial observation system

       (GB2527736) Tethered aerial platform and aerial observation system 

      or

      WIPO

      Spillconsult Ltd.


      Priority date: 05.05.2014 GB

      GAIR STUART DAVID


      front page image
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20113 From: dave santos Date: 5/15/2016
      Subject: MotorGen Array Self-Synchrony Model for Metamaterialized Atmosphere
      This nano-scale similarity-case of synchronized molecular motors shares key dynamics with theoretic kite-matter arrays, but instead of electron flow, kite-matter is excited by wind (or pumping). The hexagonal molecular geometry found essential to this physics research matches to our kagome string lattices. MotorGen duality holds; molecular motors can operate as electrical generators (by lattice-waves or photoelectric effect), while AWES lattices can be reverse-pumped in a motoring modes that create wind. The same principle of passive synchrony by a large number of identical units cross-linked in crystalline order applies in both application domains. "Stator"-"rotor" layering functions are fundamental to both cases. Its great fun prototyping kite-matter specifically inspired by advanced solid-state physics, in endless variations.
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20114 From: gordon_sp Date: 5/16/2016
      Subject: Re: 20090 Re: more Minesto paravane farm details
      Attachments :

        One of the major differences between tidal energy and HAWE is that the water flow, although reversing, is always in the same direction.  Because of this, a permanent installation can be considered.  Unlike HAWE, the weight of the device is not a problem in a submerged system.  Two major systems have been developed.  The first are single turbine units secured to the ocean floor.  These units rotate 180 degrees when the tide reverses. (See http://www.verdantpower.com/rite-project.html)  The second is the crossflow unit developed by Minesto (http://minesto.com/deep-green/).  They claim that crossflow will travel up to 10 times the speed of a stationary unit.    Both these systems use a single turbine combined with a single generator. 

        I suggest that an array of turbines linked to a single generator would be a simpler and more economic device. A reasonable size would be say four shafts, each with four turbines mounted in a frame which rests on the ocean floor.  It is held in place by tethers, anchored to the ocean bed.  The turbine design is such that it will operate equally well when rotating in both directions and the device does not have to be moved when the tide reverses.  The shafts transfer power to the main driveshaft by means of bevel gears, belt, or rope drives so that a single generator is used.  This generator can be located above water level for ease of servicing.

        Comparing the array system with Minesto we have the following advantages:

        ·         The footprint of the array is much smaller than the area required for Minesto to operate.

        ·         Due to lower forces, the turbines can be of much lighter construction than the Minesto turbine.

        ·         It is not necessary to “park” the apparatus 4 times a day when the tide reverses.

        ·         No wing, nacelle, rudder or tether required.

        ·         No control systems or software required.

        ·         No electrical components under water.

        I realize that this configuration is probably covered in Doug’s or somebody else’s patent but I wonder why nobody has tried it.  Does anyone know of any group like AWE that covers ocean, tidal and/or wave energy?

        Is there an efficiency penalty when one constructs a symmetrical turbine which can operate in both directions?

        Is there an efficiency penalty when operating a cable or belt drive transmission system under water?


        		   @@attachment@@
        Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20115 From: dave santos Date: 5/16/2016
        Subject: Re: 20090 Re: more Minesto paravane farm details [1 Attachment]
        Hi Gordon,

        Your scheme is sound enough to work, but so is Minesto's. Technology is often a matter of open choices that are adopted for reasons other than strict necessity.

        Yes, hydrofoil rotors can be bidirectionally symmetric and work well enough at low velocity to be a legitimate option to unidirectionally optimized rotors that must pivot.These are complex trade-offs where either choice wins in specific contexts, or both choices are more or less equal in common practice, or some overlooked choice emerges to cancel all bets.

        The same picture holds for mechanical versus electrical distribution, especially underwater, where there is less engineering certainty. Skin friction of your long shafts underwater would be considerable, and the mass of steel is an economic driver apart from water better supporting large masses.

        Automated manufacture upends the old logic of economy-of-scale of generators, where small generators are suddenly easy to produce in large numbers, and can be run hotter by their superior thermal dissipation. These factors erode the supposed advantage of ganging rotors to one large generator.

        You are left with a career choice to compete with Minesto, which has advantages of an earlier start with ample capital and engineering backed up by Saab, which is not the recipe for failure Doug implies. You don't want to become the apt supporting example of Doug's fatalism over trying to solve the challenges. Finding investment to take on Saab seems to require an equivalent sponsor with industrial aerospace prowess.

        If you intend to persist in this design-space, the immediate path is clear enough, to start testing developmental prototypes to hopefully gather data that compels follow-on R&D. Too many skip this arduous phase to instead market fantasies. The fittest technologists are those who have survived a long process of actual trying, which creates the required expertise to succeed.

        daveS




        On Monday, May 16, 2016 8:08 AM, "gordon_sp@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
        One of the major differences between tidal energy and HAWE is that the water flow, although reversing, is always in the same direction.  Because of this, a permanent installation can be considered.  Unlike HAWE, the weight of the device is not a problem in a submerged system.  Two major systems have been developed.  The first are single turbine units secured to the ocean floor.  These units rotate 180 degrees when the tide reverses. (See http://www.verdantpower.com/rite-project.html)  The second is the crossflow unit developed by Minesto (http://minesto.com/deep-green/).  They claim that crossflow will travel up to 10 times the speed of a stationary unit.    Both these systems use a single turbine combined with a single generator. 
        I suggest that an array of turbines linked to a single generator would be a simpler and more economic device. A reasonable size would be say four shafts, each with four turbines mounted in a frame which rests on the ocean floor.  It is held in place by tethers, anchored to the ocean bed.  The turbine design is such that it will operate equally well when rotating in both directions and the device does not have to be moved when the tide reverses.  The shafts transfer power to the main driveshaft by means of bevel gears, belt, or rope drives so that a single generator is used.  This generator can be located above water level for ease of servicing.
        Comparing the array system with Minesto we have the following advantages:
        ·         The footprint of the array is much smaller than the area required for Minesto to operate.
        ·         Due to lower forces, the turbines can be of much lighter construction than the Minesto turbine.
        ·         It is not necessary to “park” the apparatus 4 times a day when the tide reverses.
        ·         No wing, nacelle, rudder or tether required.
        ·         No control systems or software required.
        ·         No electrical components under water.
        I realize that this configuration is probably covered in Doug’s or somebody else’s patent but I wonder why nobody has tried it.  Does anyone know of any group like AWE that covers ocean, tidal and/or wave energy?
        Is there an efficiency penalty when one constructs a symmetrical turbine which can operate in both directions?
        Is there an efficiency penalty when operating a cable or belt drive transmission system under water?
        Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20116 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/16/2016
        Subject: Re: "Gardoon"

        Hassan Mohajer continues: 

        http://www.patentsencyclopedia.com/app/20160123301


        ============================
        Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20117 From: dave santos Date: 5/16/2016
        Subject: Golden Age of Flow Visualization has begun
        Vortical wake interactions are now an open window to engineering. In the past, the best one could do is was study the foundational mathematical physics and complex clues in natural phenomena. The crude analytics and experimental set-ups barely served to design adequate sub-optimal solutions to relatively simple problems. In just the past few years we have watched the blossoming of numeric flow simulations based on unprecedented computer power. This revolution will lead to novel new aero- and hydro- systems altogether beyond past capabilities, like intelligent swarms with coherent dynamics even in turbulent fields, or almost ideal WECS performance at near-Betz efficiency.

        A nice kite-applicable tutorial based on new visualization capability-
        Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20118 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/17/2016
        Subject: Long-line helicopter-based operations (LLHBO)

        Helicopters may drape long lines and achieve various good works with such long lines.
        This topic thread invites discussion of historical, contemporary, and potential missions, specifications, and related issues for long-line helicopter-based operations. A large sector of such operations will have line and tethered objects kiting in ambient wind, apparent wind, and sometimes the wind of helicopter downwash. We have had some instances mentioned in forum: e.g.,:challenge of attitude control of helicopter-lifted basketed humans.  


        Start with a contemporary-article tease: 

        World’s Highest Helicopter Rescue

        Patrick Veillette, Ph.D. | Business & Commercial Aviation
        April 27, 2016
        ==========================================================

        Some "consider" notes: 
        • Consider the lift/drag of tethered objects during flight. 
        • Consider the lift/drag of tethered objects during winching in of the objects.
        • Consider how the tethered objects are air wings (kited wings) if they are in air. 
        • Consider how the tethered objects may be water wings (paravanes) if they are in water. 
        • Consider using helicoptered long-line in AWES launching, maintenance, installation, ...
        • Consider special kited wings for specially conceived missions for LLHBO. 
        • Consider trains, clusters, arches ... on the long lines. 
        • Consider generating light, electricity, or noise in the long-lined kited wings of LLHBO. 
        • Consider kited long lines fetched by helicopters to establish a LLHBO. 
        • Consider LLHBO releasing a long-lined complex that establishes a self-standing kited complex. 
        • Consider propulsion in the kited wings hung from LLHBO. 
        • Consider failure modes and safety in LLHBO. 
        • Consider how some AWES have LLHBO phase.  
        • Consider how more than one helicopter may be joined in LLHBO. 
        • ... ???
        Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20119 From: benhaiemp Date: 5/17/2016
        Subject: Re: Installing a lifting kite in loss place

        Thanks JoeF for the complete information.


        PierreB

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


        Thank you, PierreB. 


        Some further note close to topic: 


         Consider, perhaps, the potential interactions of the lifter line with the lines of the dancing wings.  Maybe explore the angle of the original lower-line with the various angles that the lifter sub-kite line could take.  Maybe consider the use of the lifter wing with non-flying of the dancing wings stored on the main line and then having the dancing wings deployed at altitude. Maybe explore means of bringing dancing wings back to storage position on the main lifted line.  Consider the length of the lifter wing's line compared to the lengths of the branch lines of the dancing wings. 

        Best, 

        JoeF
        Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20120 From: dave santos Date: 5/17/2016
        Subject: Re: Installing a lifting kite in loss place
        A similar design progression also starting from Payne's original orbital AWES scheme is seen in KiteLab and kPower's Looping-Foils, where one of Payne's looping kiteplanes moves up and center, optimised as a lifter-kite, and the other, optimized for speed, orbits the main line axis.  This is a simpler and proven COTS kite approach to get similar capability with passive control and less potential to foul in a stuck-state. 

        Such looping foils eventually flew at kFarm in up to two-week sessions, with numerous self-relaunching cycles. At the end of five years of developmental testing with dozens of variants, there was no inherent "stuck state" remaining. Testing continues to this day on larger AWES intended for practical use.

        Wubbo's SpiderMill is an extension of this design space, with Eddy Trains as the classic model. A rigorous way to classify these designs is by topological ordering, since the geometric variations are so diverse even within the same essential scheme.







        On Tuesday, May 17, 2016 8:28 AM, "pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
        Thanks JoeF for the complete information.

        PierreB
        ===========================================================

        Thank you, PierreB. 

        Some further note close to topic: 

         Consider, perhaps, the potential interactions of the lifter line with the lines of the dancing wings.  Maybe explore the angle of the original lower-line with the various angles that the lifter sub-kite line could take.  Maybe consider the use of the lifter wing with non-flying of the dancing wings stored on the main line and then having the dancing wings deployed at altitude. Maybe explore means of bringing dancing wings back to storage position on the main lifted line.  Consider the length of the lifter wing's line compared to the lengths of the branch lines of the dancing wings. 
        Best, 
        JoeF
        Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20121 From: dave santos Date: 5/17/2016
        Subject: Re: 20090 Re: more Minesto paravane farm details
        Clarification from Doug- He did not intend to suggest he thought Minesto would fail to overcome the general challenges he listed. My apology for supposing wrong.

        To answer his specific question if anyone "care(s) to bet" on Minesto (?), the shareholders and management of Saab have in fact already placed this bet, as primary investor.




        On Monday, May 16, 2016 10:44 AM, "dave santos santos137@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
        Hi Gordon,

        Your scheme is sound enough to work, but so is Minesto's. Technology is often a matter of open choices that are adopted for reasons other than strict necessity.

        Yes, hydrofoil rotors can be bidirectionally symmetric and work well enough at low velocity to be a legitimate option to unidirectionally optimized rotors that must pivot.These are complex trade-offs where either choice wins in specific contexts, or both choices are more or less equal in common practice, or some overlooked choice emerges to cancel all bets.

        The same picture holds for mechanical versus electrical distribution, especially underwater, where there is less engineering certainty. Skin friction of your long shafts underwater would be considerable, and the mass of steel is an economic driver apart from water better supporting large masses.

        Automated manufacture upends the old logic of economy-of-scale of generators, where small generators are suddenly easy to produce in large numbers, and can be run hotter by their superior thermal dissipation. These factors erode the supposed advantage of ganging rotors to one large generator.

        You are left with a career choice to compete with Minesto, which has advantages of an earlier start with ample capital and engineering backed up by Saab, which is not the recipe for failure Doug implies. You don't want to become the apt supporting example of Doug's fatalism over trying to solve the challenges. Finding investment to take on Saab seems to require an equivalent sponsor with industrial aerospace prowess.

        If you intend to persist in this design-space, the immediate path is clear enough, to start testing developmental prototypes to hopefully gather data that compels follow-on R&D. Too many skip this arduous phase to instead market fantasies. The fittest technologists are those who have survived a long process of actual trying, which creates the required expertise to succeed.

        daveS




        On Monday, May 16, 2016 8:08 AM, "gordon_sp@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
        One of the major differences between tidal energy and HAWE is that the water flow, although reversing, is always in the same direction.  Because of this, a permanent installation can be considered.  Unlike HAWE, the weight of the device is not a problem in a submerged system.  Two major systems have been developed.  The first are single turbine units secured to the ocean floor.  These units rotate 180 degrees when the tide reverses. (See http://www.verdantpower.com/rite-project.html)  The second is the crossflow unit developed by Minesto (http://minesto.com/deep-green/).  They claim that crossflow will travel up to 10 times the speed of a stationary unit.    Both these systems use a single turbine combined with a single generator. 
        I suggest that an array of turbines linked to a single generator would be a simpler and more economic device. A reasonable size would be say four shafts, each with four turbines mounted in a frame which rests on the ocean floor.  It is held in place by tethers, anchored to the ocean bed.  The turbine design is such that it will operate equally well when rotating in both directions and the device does not have to be moved when the tide reverses.  The shafts transfer power to the main driveshaft by means of bevel gears, belt, or rope drives so that a single generator is used.  This generator can be located above water level for ease of servicing.
        Comparing the array system with Minesto we have the following advantages:
        ·         The footprint of the array is much smaller than the area required for Minesto to operate.
        ·         Due to lower forces, the turbines can be of much lighter construction than the Minesto turbine.
        ·         It is not necessary to “park” the apparatus 4 times a day when the tide reverses.
        ·         No wing, nacelle, rudder or tether required.
        ·         No control systems or software required.
        ·         No electrical components under water.
        I realize that this configuration is probably covered in Doug’s or somebody else’s patent but I wonder why nobody has tried it.  Does anyone know of any group like AWE that covers ocean, tidal and/or wave energy?
        Is there an efficiency penalty when one constructs a symmetrical turbine which can operate in both directions?
        Is there an efficiency penalty when operating a cable or belt drive transmission system under water?
        Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20122 From: dave santos Date: 5/17/2016
        Subject: DIY AWES Hacker's Delight- Bike Electronic Drivetrains
        Open-AWE experimenters almost universally use bike parts for prototypes, as a ready and cheap universal mechanical pattern language at the human scale. A tech gap was that standard bike drivetrains required manual shifting, so automatic AWES operation only occurred with preset gear selection. Nobody bothered to DIY full bike drivetrain automation, as we were properly focused on the flying part, watching the classic bike drivetrain evolve in parallel. 

        After years of premature automatic bike drivetrains by specialty suppliers, the major brands and pros are finally embracing "electronic drivetrains", with servos replacing manual inputs to operate more-or-less standard high-end bike transmissions. Prices will fall, and used parts will accumulate, so we can confidently look forward to affordable maintainable systems in the 5kW range based on bike electronic drivetrains-
        Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20123 From: Doug Selsam Date: 5/17/2016
        Subject: Re: 20090 Re: more Minesto paravane farm details
        None of this answers any of the questions I posed.  I'm curious to see what other list members think of what has been put forward by Minesto.  Of course it is obvious that whoever has funded this effort has "placed a bet" on its success.  Kind of falls into "Captain Obvious" territory, right?  So I must have been referring to readers on this list, not Saab, right?

        What I asked was what the people reading this list think.  Will it work out or not?  Will it meet its stated timeline and/or power output?  If it fails will we see any acknowledgement?  Any predictions? 

        What obstacles does anyone see that might pose unforeseen difficulties?  Take it in the context of all the similar published promises, announcements, proposed projects, timelines, promotional articles, videos, talks, etc, of various clean energy breakthrough efforts, and tell us how you think this effort fits in.  As a recent president said: "fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.”

        I have stated that I see no particular deal-breakers or reasons this could not work.  That is not to say it falls into a sweet-spot of actual efficacy either - all I am saying is I see no reason it could not at least work.  But I also note that these things, even if simple in concept,  tend to be more difficult than people imagine.

        Energy breakthroughs do come along every so often, but they are relatively rare.  If nobody has any opinions on this, then so be it.  In the end, it is not Airborne Wind Energy anyway, but, while similar, also almost the complete opposite:  subsurface energy, perhaps best conducted upside-down, maybe standing on your head.  Or stand upright and do it in Australia.  :)
        Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20124 From: dave santos Date: 5/17/2016
        Subject: Dancing Kite and Bouncing Droplet as QM analogues
        The paper linked below helps explain how the dancing kite can be seen as a ready quasi-particle model under the pilot-wave interpretation of QM. Note the authors hit on many of the same identities as independently cited on the AWES Forum, for example, to replace Planck's constant with an "appropriate constant of motion", and boson-fermion analogues. Keep the dancing kite in mind as like a bouncing drop, with its wind-field and wake as the pilot-wave field. Besides the shared fundamentals as harmonic oscillators, each model also has deep unique aspects.

        Emerging kite-physics interpretations by a few domain experts are motivated by easily observed kite dynamics and key supporting references, such as [Van Veem 1996] identifying kites as formally chaotic systems. Objections to study of the kite thru an advanced physics lens have been emotional rather than specific. If nothing else, the kite is a cheap practical experimental medium for physics and engineering students to explore many advanced topics.

        ===============================
        Why bouncing droplets are a pretty good model of quantum mechanics

        Robert Brady and Ross Anderson 2014
        University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory

        Abstract In 2005, Couder, Proti`ere, Fort and Badouad showed that oil droplets bouncing on a vibrating tray of oil can display nonlocal interactions reminiscent of the particle-wave associations in quantum mechanics; in particular they can move, attract, repel and orbit each other. Subsequent experimental work by Couder, Fort, Proti`ere, Eddi, Sultan, Moukhtar, Rossi, Mol´aˇcek, Bush and Sbitnev has established that bouncing drops exhibit single-slit and double-slit diffraction, tunnelling, quantised energy levels, Anderson localisation and the creation/annihilation of droplet/bubble pairs. In this paper we explain why. We show first that the surface waves guiding the droplets are Lorentz covariant with the characteristic speed c of the surface waves; second, that pairs of bouncing droplets experience an inverse-square force of attraction or repulsion according to their relative phase, and an analogue of the magnetic force; third, that bouncing droplets are governed by an analogue of Schr¨odinger’s equation where Planck’s constant is replaced by an appropriate constant of the motion; and fourth, that orbiting droplet pairs exhibit spin-half symmetry and align antisymmetrically as in the Pauli exclusion principle. Our analysis explains the similarities between bouncing-droplet experiments and the behaviour of quantum-mechanical particles. It also enables us to highlight some differences, and to predict some surprising phenomena that can be tested in feasible experiments.
        Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20125 From: Rod Read Date: 5/17/2016
        Subject: Re: Installing a lifting kite in loss place

        Pierre,
        In Paynes drawing with 2x spinning & generating,... Lifting is probably best applied at the bifurcation point and set sufficiently high and forward so as to supplement not impede wind speed for the gen kites and also allow the gen kites path to align more flat to true wind.

        The specification of lift function needs addressed for every job. (topologically from the order of simplest single lift kite to even a layered lattice of lift kites focusing multiple lift lines). How reliable, stable and true in all modes, in all conditions any kite topology can claim to be is going to be highly contentious.

        If the full working spec of a controlled lift capable kite from say TU DELFT  is published,... Then its application to parametrically executed networked kite designs can get under way.

        What I'd really like to see is the control of a looping pulling soft foil, (non generating,  other than for local need)
        If this soft or any foil can be released progressively from a spun disk. It can scale its power. (albeit using less sky solidity and I'm aware you don't like to waste airspace)

        We've touched on the idea here before of of set of linked (almost daisy)  rings.. Soft kites doing shorter radius loops at the bottom.. Sharp fast massive loops at the top... Generation at the top... Why not.

        Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20126 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/17/2016
        Subject: Re: 20090 Re: more Minesto paravane farm details

        Here is one list reader's reply to some of the questions about Minesto posed:
        1. Minesto has already shown that their kite system works to generate electricity. 

        2. Minesto has a long series of progressive steps for their project; they have been learning along the way. 

        3. As an engineering group, they explored small models in laboratory conditions and adjusted things to overcome some challenges.  See the link I posted for studying Minesto's public history. We do not have access to their full in-house experimental history. 

        4. Generally this forum does not seem to be a betting house; AWE teams are going through stages of research and development where learning occurs. Testing for failure modes is traditionally a part of good engineering.  Rather, RAD is the purpose of the forum since its birth. AWE workers seem generally to be betting that kite systems in air and in water (and other media) will serve humans in important practical ways. 

        5. Timelines are ever adjustable, especially in new technical arenas. May AWE simply bet to targets as soon as possible!  Hopefully teams will adjust their timelines when they see things in improved light. The complex story behind missing a timed target may well be beyond general view. May each team be encouraged to stay on any game that has merit. I hope Minesto will surpass their timelines.  

        6. I predict that Minesto will continue on a positive path of upscaling, testing, and reporting that has marked their path to this time; I personally have had a wish that Minesto would simply post everything that they are doing. But that full disclosure is not occurring.    I predict that they will learn from various failures; hopefully they will detail the episodes in order to benefit others working with paravanes (AWES with water as main media). 

        7. It is a proper engineering exercise to anticipate challenges, difficulties, and potential failure modes. Minesto has been including such exercise in their movement toward eventual industrialization of their energy kite system. The AWE community would do well to run this exercise for the Modesto energy kite system as well as other energy kite systems; go for it!  Debris in the water? Sea life growths on any submerged parts? Intruding fish, shark, whale, SCUBA diver? Weakest links? Exclusionary activity zones? 

        8. The lessons in the Minesto experience may well play a part in some other AWE team's success stepping. 

        9. In the end and at the beginning, Minesto's use of the media water has been part of RAD. Jalbert has been a lead for such position. And it is clear that soil, water, air play their dynamic roles in kite systems that convert the kinetic energy of media to potentially practical good works. Most every AWE team has been facing soil, water, and air in their kite systems.  Minesto is facing soil and water in their energy kite system. The challenge to neophytes with regard to the name of the forum "airborne" is to slight mind stretch to include other media and combinations of media. Traditional kiting has ever included soil as an integral aspect of kite; water has increasingly been an integral part of energy kite systems.   Notice also the realm of energy kiting that may have wings in water while most of the tether set lines are out of the water anchored to bridges, ships, land, air wings, ...

        10. I predict that the SLK Minestoized paravane will have some niche utility in the renewal energy world. 

        Hello, Minesto, 
        feel free to post any or all of your energy kite experiences here for open discussion. 

        Best to your team, 
        JoeF
        Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20127 From: dave santos Date: 5/17/2016
        Subject: Re: 20090 Re: more Minesto paravane farm details
        Doug,

        Since the beginning, Forum discussion has been overwhelmingly optimistic about paravanes in general. Minesto and WPI represent worthy efforts that most of us probably do believe will "result in a viable technology that becomes widely-implemented", if not by Saab itself, as the bleeding-edge innovator. In effect, we are betting with our hearts, but don't expect much domain expert reaction to a "Captain Obvious" baiting approach to polling, based on roulette.

        Voting Yes (excepting criteria subject to normal engineering delay and market uncertainties),

        daveS


        On Tuesday, May 17, 2016 12:04 PM, "Doug Selsam dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
        None of this answers any of the questions I posed.  I'm curious to see what other list members think of what has been put forward by Minesto.  Of course it is obvious that whoever has funded this effort has "placed a bet" on its success.  Kind of falls into "Captain Obvious" territory, right?  So I must have been referring to readers on this list, not Saab, right?

        What I asked was what the people reading this list think.  Will it work out or not?  Will it meet its stated timeline and/or power output?  If it fails will we see any acknowledgement?  Any predictions? 

        What obstacles does anyone see that might pose unforeseen difficulties?  Take it in the context of all the similar published promises, announcements, proposed projects, timelines, promotional articles, videos, talks, etc, of various clean energy breakthrough efforts, and tell us how you think this effort fits in.  As a recent president said: "fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.”

        I have stated that I see no particular deal-breakers or reasons this could not work.  That is not to say it falls into a sweet-spot of actual efficacy either - all I am saying is I see no reason it could not at least work.  But I also note that these things, even if simple in concept,  tend to be more difficult than people imagine.

        Energy breakthroughs do come along every so often, but they are relatively rare.  If nobody has any opinions on this, then so be it.  In the end, it is not Airborne Wind Energy anyway, but, while similar, also almost the complete opposite:  subsurface energy, perhaps best conducted upside-down, maybe standing on your head.  Or stand upright and do it in Australia.  :)
        Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20128 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/17/2016
        Subject: AWE participation

        Recently showing interest in AWE. We join these to general AWE participation:


        Moritz Diehl

        Mahdi Ebrahimi Salari

        Christoph Hackl

        Roy Smith

        Lorenzo Fagiano

        Paul Thedens

        Sebastian Rapp

        Soeren Seberling

        Mikko Folkersma

        Elena Maiz

        Andrea Zanelli

        Fabian Girrbach

        Ni Yan

        Reinhart Paelinck

        Thomas Haas

        Jonas Koenermann

        Michael Erhard

        Florian Bauer

        Maximilian Ranneber

        Rachel Leuthold

        Colin Jones

        Corey Houle

        David Olinger

        Udo Zillmann

        Axelle Vire

        Johannes Peschel

        Ahmad Hodjat

        Milan Vukov

        Uwe Fechner

        Udo Frese

        Alexander Bormann

        Brend van Hunen

        Cristina Archer

        Joe Faust 

        =========

        Pierre Benhaïem

        baptiste.labat

        Bernd Lau

        Thomas Hårklau

        Roland Schmehl

        Storm Dunker

        Ralph Kennel

        Pietro Faggiani

        Stefan Wilhelm

        Antonello Cherubini

        Pim Breukelman

        David Ainsworth

        Ahmad Hably

        Rolf Luchsinger

        Alain Neme

        Gianni Vergnano

        Marco Fontana

        Rigo Bosman

        Garrett Smith

        David Schaefer

        Curran Crawford

        Kostia RONCIN

        Jean-Baptiste LEROUX

        Christoph Elfert

        Robert Lumley

        Ramiro Saraiva

        LÜTSCH Guido

        Olivier Normand

        Gonzalo Sanchez-Arriaga

        Ricardo Borobia

        Jan Hummel

        Alejandro Pastor

        Lode Carnel

        Ilona Bastigkeit

        Sebastian Pohlmann

        Hironori Fujii
        Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20129 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/17/2016
        Subject: Re: Long-line helicopter-based operations (LLHBO)
        Here is a "Banana" kiting a short long-lined tethered Bird Dog: 
        Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20130 From: dave santos Date: 5/17/2016
        Subject: Green anti-fouling options for Paravane Energy
        Rod cautioned his favorable Minesto opinion is subject to whether they adopt toxic polluting coatings to control fouling. Ecological marine anti-fouling treatments exist, like chili-pepper based coatings and the peroxide generating product linked below.

        There was some Forum mention long ago of using fish farming to anti-foul marine structures. One might park each farm unit in turn for cleaning by a mobile fish-pen that rotates constantly from unit-to-unit. With a high enough density of hungry fish, the work might move fast, and the double crop is very compelling.

        Open-AWE_IP-Cloud