Messages in AirborneWindEnergy group.                          AWES 20131 to 20180 Page 296 of 440.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20131 From: Doug Selsam Date: 5/17/2016
Subject: Re: DIY AWES Hacker's Delight- Bike Electronic Drivetrains

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20132 From: dave santos Date: 5/17/2016
Subject: Re: DIY AWES Hacker's Delight- Bike Electronic Drivetrains

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20133 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/17/2016
Subject: Re: Rise of the Sky Monkeys (Moab tribe)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20134 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/17/2016
Subject: Re: Rise of the Sky Monkeys (Moab tribe)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20135 From: dave santos Date: 5/17/2016
Subject: Re: Rise of the Sky Monkeys (Moab tribe)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20136 From: dave santos Date: 5/18/2016
Subject: AWEC and AWESCO?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20137 From: Hardensoft International Limited Date: 5/18/2016
Subject: Re: AWEC and AWESCO?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20138 From: Joe Faust Date: 5/18/2016
Subject: Fwd: Call for Papers - 'Electric Vehicles: Everything is Changin

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20139 From: dave santos Date: 5/18/2016
Subject: Re: AWEC and AWESCO?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20140 From: gordon_sp Date: 5/19/2016
Subject: REVERSE OSMOSIS USING HAWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20141 From: dave santos Date: 5/19/2016
Subject: Re: REVERSE OSMOSIS USING HAWE [1 Attachment]

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20142 From: dave santos Date: 5/19/2016
Subject: Re: 20090 Re: more Minesto paravane farm details [1 Attachment]

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20143 From: dougselsam Date: 5/19/2016
Subject: Re: Rise of the Sky Monkeys (Moab tribe)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20144 From: dougselsam Date: 5/19/2016
Subject: Re: AWEC and AWESCO?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20145 From: dougselsam Date: 5/19/2016
Subject: Re: Long-line helicopter-based operations (LLHBO)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20146 From: dougselsam Date: 5/19/2016
Subject: Re: 20090 Re: more Minesto paravane farm details

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20147 From: dougselsam Date: 5/19/2016
Subject: Re: 20090 Re: more Minesto paravane farm details

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20148 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/19/2016
Subject: Re: Long-line helicopter-based operations (LLHBO)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20149 From: dave santos Date: 5/19/2016
Subject: Re: AWEC and AWESCO?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20150 From: dave santos Date: 5/19/2016
Subject: Re: Long-line helicopter-based operations (LLHBO)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20151 From: dougselsam Date: 5/19/2016
Subject: Re: DIY AWES Hacker's Delight- Bike Electronic Drivetrains

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20152 From: dave santos Date: 5/19/2016
Subject: Re: DIY AWES Hacker's Delight- Bike Electronic Drivetrains

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20153 From: dave santos Date: 5/19/2016
Subject: Re: 20090 Re: more Minesto paravane farm details

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20154 From: dave santos Date: 5/19/2016
Subject: Re: Rise of the Sky Monkeys (Moab tribe)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20155 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/20/2016
Subject: SkySails SensorKites

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20156 From: dave santos Date: 5/20/2016
Subject: Re: DIY AWES Hacker's Delight- Bike Electronic Drivetrains

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20157 From: Rod Read Date: 5/20/2016
Subject: Re: DIY AWES Hacker's Delight- Bike Electronic Drivetrains

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20158 From: dave santos Date: 5/20/2016
Subject: Re: DIY AWES Hacker's Delight- Bike Electronic Drivetrains

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20159 From: dave santos Date: 5/20/2016
Subject: Re: SkySails SensorKites

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20160 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/20/2016
Subject: Minesto news

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20161 From: Rod Read Date: 5/20/2016
Subject: Re: DIY AWES Hacker's Delight- Bike Electronic Drivetrains

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20162 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 5/21/2016
Subject: Re: Minesto news

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20163 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/21/2016
Subject: Earthborne, Airborne, Earthborne and Airborne Energy-Kite Systems -

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20164 From: dave santos Date: 5/21/2016
Subject: Re: DIY AWES Hacker's Delight- Bike Electronic Drivetrains

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20165 From: dave santos Date: 5/21/2016
Subject: Re: Minesto news

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20166 From: benhaiemp Date: 5/23/2016
Subject: Re: Proof of concept for an Airborne Wind Energy System based on an

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20167 From: Rod Read Date: 5/24/2016
Subject: Re: Proof of concept for an Airborne Wind Energy System based on an

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20168 From: Rod Read Date: 5/24/2016
Subject: A problem with network collection approach

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20169 From: dougselsam Date: 5/24/2016
Subject: Re: A problem with network collection approach

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20170 From: benhaiemp Date: 5/24/2016
Subject: Re: Minesto news

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20171 From: dougselsam Date: 5/24/2016
Subject: Re: SkySails SensorKites

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20172 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/24/2016
Subject: Re: SkySails SensorKites

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20173 From: dave santos Date: 5/24/2016
Subject: Re: SkySails SensorKites

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20174 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/25/2016
Subject: Re: SkySails SensorKites

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20175 From: dougselsam Date: 5/25/2016
Subject: Re: SkySails SensorKites

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20176 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/25/2016
Subject: Re: SkySails SensorKites

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20177 From: dave santos Date: 5/25/2016
Subject: Re: SkySails SensorKites

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20178 From: dougselsam Date: 5/26/2016
Subject: Re: SkySails SensorKites

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20179 From: dave santos Date: 5/26/2016
Subject: Re: SkySails SensorKites

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20180 From: dave santos Date: 5/26/2016
Subject: How AWE is taking on the Bunker Fuel Curse



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20131 From: Doug Selsam Date: 5/17/2016
Subject: Re: DIY AWES Hacker's Delight- Bike Electronic Drivetrains
Attachments :
    What does "almost universally" mean, 2 or 3 instances in all of history? 5 kW systems using bicycle parts? 5 kW = 6.7 horsepower. Bicycle drivetrains are not suitable for that high level of power.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20132 From: dave santos Date: 5/17/2016
    Subject: Re: DIY AWES Hacker's Delight- Bike Electronic Drivetrains
    "Almost universally" in the Open-AWE context includes Rod, RobertC, Ollie, JeremyC, JoeF (the flygen I gave him) me, and others. Perhaps there is are DIY AWE person who simply avoids bike parts, hence my "almost". See dictionary.com def #1 at bottom.

    A strong rider can briefly pedal above 1kW, without breaking the bike. Bike parts in fact will easily handle 5kW, but start with a decent load-velocity wing input. Its natural with wind power to avoid the "road" shocks that determine common max-loadings of regular bikes. Maintenance cycles may be shorter by driving our machines hard, but our pioneering DIY efforts truly are more focused on rapid iterations of developmental prototypes, rather than seeking long life-cycle usage. 

    Many energy systems run at a fraction of peak rated power most of the time. When the time comes to define a production design, we can count on BMX chain and hardware to be usable within basic bike-building compatibility, to perhaps reach 10kW rated peak.

    Sorry if correct answers to your questions seem obvious in hindsight. Don't blame the person trying to help you.

    ----------------
    * common usage-

    universal

    [yoo-nuh-vur-suh l] 
     
    adjective
    1.
    of, relating to, or characteristic of all or the whole:
    universal experience.


    On Tuesday, May 17, 2016 1:58 PM, "Doug Selsam dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
    What does "almost universally" mean, 2 or 3 instances in all of history? 5 kW systems using bicycle parts? 5 kW = 6.7 horsepower. Bicycle drivetrains are not suitable for that high level of power.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20133 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/17/2016
    Subject: Re: Rise of the Sky Monkeys (Moab tribe)

    Leaving high aerotecture for emergency, sport, work mission via wingsuiting?

    Best of Wingsuit Proximity Flying 2015


    I hope that all utility ground wires and also kiting systems are well mapped and visible for avoidance.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20134 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/17/2016
    Subject: Re: Rise of the Sky Monkeys (Moab tribe)
    High line made visible to wingsuiter: 
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20135 From: dave santos Date: 5/17/2016
    Subject: Re: Rise of the Sky Monkeys (Moab tribe)
    Fantastic wingsuit progress, in one short century, toward the ancient human dream of flying bodily. Extreme sport heroes are bravely paying in blood to win this god-like power for all. 

    Our kite-based Open-AWE and aerotecture schemes aim to liberate human flight even further, at low cost, eliminating dependence on fueled aviation or mountains. An aerial basis for a revitalized global civilization is emerging very fast in our amazing times. 

    It seems natural that wingsuiting from vast habitable kite-matter structures will be so perfected that children will do it as freely as they ride bikes today. This heaven is already in reach for the pioneers who strive toward it. We have tasted ambrosia.

    Ancient Biblical prophesy in Thessalonians nears literal technological fulfillment; just add cloning of the dead and memory reconstruction-

    " ...we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with [our dearly departed] in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. Therefore encourage one other with these words." (and videos)
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20136 From: dave santos Date: 5/18/2016
    Subject: AWEC and AWESCO?
    Hi Roland and Moritz,

    Resolution is still pending between the collective need for inclusive global AWE conferences and the mysterious insider dynamics of AWEC. 

    The last certain public knowledge was that GuidoL was AWEC director, following RichardR, working in close coordination with AWESCO founders on a series of Northern EU conferences. Moritz, without explaining the break, you now disavow a current AWEC role in yet another Northern EU conference you are currently organizing, while still retaining the AWEC conference brand ("AWEC2017") originally created when AWEC peremptorily took over conference planning with a pay-to-play insider process opposed to the continuance of the HAWPcon 2009 open process.

    Surely the AWESCO circle you both lead knows exactly what has happened to its secretive AWEC partner, but both parties are so far unresponsive to the public questions. Meanwhile, everyone in AWE outside the controlling inner circles has no idea what is happening, and are unfairly left in the dark. Moritz, you asked that no conference be planned to conflict with your conference wishes, so everybody on the outside deferentially awaits your lead. 

    Please finally resolve the public AWEC mystery and impasse, to restore the required consensus and harmony for balanced globally rotating AWE conferences. There are several open proposals on the table, by the Open-AWE community, for concurrent and hybrid virtual conferences, awaiting your constructive response.

    TIA, and 
    "Wubbo Lives" :)

    dave santos
    kPower
    AWEIA founding circle
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20137 From: Hardensoft International Limited Date: 5/18/2016
    Subject: Re: AWEC and AWESCO?
    DaveS,
    If ever there comes a reply to this, I'll be glad to know.
    Lifts.
    JohnO
    AWEIA
     
    John Adeoye  Oyebanji   B.Sc. MCPN
    Managing Consultant & CEO
    Hardensoft International Limited
    <Technologies  
    Hi Roland and Moritz,

    Resolution is still pending between the collective need for inclusive global AWE conferences and the mysterious insider dynamics of AWEC. 

    The last certain public knowledge was that GuidoL was AWEC director, following RichardR, working in close coordination with AWESCO founders on a series of Northern EU conferences. Moritz, without explaining the break, you now disavow a current AWEC role in yet another Northern EU conference you are currently organizing, while still retaining the AWEC conference brand ("AWEC2017") originally created when AWEC peremptorily took over conference planning with a pay-to-play insider process opposed to the continuance of the HAWPcon 2009 open process.

    Surely the AWESCO circle you both lead knows exactly what has happened to its secretive AWEC partner, but both parties are so far unresponsive to the public questions. Meanwhile, everyone in AWE outside the controlling inner circles has no idea what is happening, and are unfairly left in the dark. Moritz, you asked that no conference be planned to conflict with your conference wishes, so everybody on the outside deferentially awaits your lead. 

    Please finally resolve the public AWEC mystery and impasse, to restore the required consensus and harmony for balanced globally rotating AWE conferences. There are several open proposals on the table, by the Open-AWE community, for concurrent and hybrid virtual conferences, awaiting your constructive response.

    TIA, and 
    "Wubbo Lives" :)

    dave santos
    kPower
    AWEIA founding circle
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20138 From: Joe Faust Date: 5/18/2016
    Subject: Fwd: Call for Papers - 'Electric Vehicles: Everything is Changin



     
     
    Logo
    		 
         
     
     
    Call for Papers
    "Electric Vehicles: Everything is Changing"
    November 16 - 17, 2016 | Santa Clara, CA, USA


    www.IDTechEx.com/EVUSA
    		 

     
     
    IDTechEx seeks your relevant submissions for presentation at its conference "Electric Vehicles: Everything is Changing" November 16 - 17, 2016 in Santa Clara, CA, USA. Our emphasis is different from other electric vehicle events. It will cover land, water and air vehicles from the viewpoint of how future technology is changing everything. What comes after today's over-expensive, under-performing and sometimes dangerous batteries, autonomy electronics, power electronics, rotating machines, range extenders and so on? What new things will be possible such as dynamic charging using airborne wind energy or triboelectric car tires?

    At the conference, we shall explain how there is complete replacement or elimination of traditional components in many cases and in others there is a merging of electrical components, most dramatically replacing dumb metal and plastic with load-bearing structures that double as electric and electronic circuits and storage. Tell us about new concepts, even speculative ones. For example, there will be a session on Electrically Energy Independent Vehicles EIV which are, mainly but not exclusively, solar cars, planes and boats now adding many other forms of energy harvesting. Our audience wants to see the future not your catalogue. You will be speaking alongside our global experts flying in from all over the world.

    In short, we shall cover a great deal that is not covered elsewhere and, before and after this two day conference, there will again be 24 optional masterclasses on the more advanced enabling technologies as well as on land, water and airborne electric vehicles. Can you offer a visit in the Santa Clara region to masterclass delegates?

    The 225 stand exhibition will again embrace energy harvesting/regeneration, graphene, 3D printing, new components, sensors, supercapacitors, printed electronics and more. Are you into extreme lightweighting or exceptionally efficient powertrains or advanced aerodynamics or hydrodynamics for these vehicles of the future? We need to hear from you. If you can display something or exhibit or give away samples that excite then that would be even better. Please send your submissions to Dr Peter Harrop at p.harrop@idtechex.com by 17 June 2016.

    Best wishes

    Dr Peter Harrop
    		 
     
     
     
    Contact Us
     
    Corinne Jennings, Event Manager
    +44 (0)1223 812300
    c.jennings@idtechex.com
    Conference
     
    Speakers
    Masterclasses
    Awards
    Exhibition
     
    For Attendees
    Why Exhibit?
    Exhibitors List

     
     
    Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin  Linkedin

     
     
     

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20139 From: dave santos Date: 5/18/2016
    Subject: Re: AWEC and AWESCO?
    JohnO,

    You are right to be included. Wubbo himself made you and AWEIA welcome at Leuven, breaking Joben's AWEIA exclusion policy; but with Wubbo gone, Guido and Roland again shut the door, wrongly citing petty provincial privilege over global solidarity.

    We have gotten non-public replies to open questions of public interest, but they tend toward self-justification, indignation, or petty ingratiation. For example, AWESCO currently feels "momentum" based on modest funding success and undisclosed factors (it has not produced a work-product yet). This is the bias apparently driving exclusionary decision making, like keeping conference control within the preferred AWESCO-AWEC circle.

    Moritz was been handed the six-year old AWEC conference controversy, which he did not directly create, but he somehow wants his conference to be "AWEC" branded, which used to require AWEC approval, without being an AWEC event per se.. Lets hold hope he will act as a reformer, as the de-facto leader AWESCO-AWEC circle. For all we know, AWEC might even be long-dead. What an incredible lack of due transparency this reflects!

    Wubbo would surely have prevented the undue social walls in the temple of science that his close successors raise and maintain,

    daveS


    On Wednesday, May 18, 2016 2:39 PM, "Hardensoft International Limited hardensoftintl@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
    DaveS,
    If ever there comes a reply to this, I'll be glad to know.
    Lifts.
    JohnO
    AWEIA
     
    John Adeoye  Oyebanji   B.Sc. MCPN
    Managing Consultant & CEO
    Hardensoft International Limited
    <Technologies  
    Hi Roland and Moritz,

    Resolution is still pending between the collective need for inclusive global AWE conferences and the mysterious insider dynamics of AWEC. 

    The last certain public knowledge was that GuidoL was AWEC director, following RichardR, working in close coordination with AWESCO founders on a series of Northern EU conferences. Moritz, without explaining the break, you now disavow a current AWEC role in yet another Northern EU conference you are currently organizing, while still retaining the AWEC conference brand ("AWEC2017") originally created when AWEC peremptorily took over conference planning with a pay-to-play insider process opposed to the continuance of the HAWPcon 2009 open process.

    Surely the AWESCO circle you both lead knows exactly what has happened to its secretive AWEC partner, but both parties are so far unresponsive to the public questions. Meanwhile, everyone in AWE outside the controlling inner circles has no idea what is happening, and are unfairly left in the dark. Moritz, you asked that no conference be planned to conflict with your conference wishes, so everybody on the outside deferentially awaits your lead. 

    Please finally resolve the public AWEC mystery and impasse, to restore the required consensus and harmony for balanced globally rotating AWE conferences. There are several open proposals on the table, by the Open-AWE community, for concurrent and hybrid virtual conferences, awaiting your constructive response.

    TIA, and 
    "Wubbo Lives" :)

    dave santos
    kPower
    AWEIA founding circle
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20140 From: gordon_sp Date: 5/19/2016
    Subject: REVERSE OSMOSIS USING HAWE

    REVERSE OSMOSIS USING HAWE

    SUMMARY

    Conventional RO compresses water using a high pressure pump and passes the water through a suitable membrane.  An alternate method is to use the hydrostatic pressure at depth in the ocean or lake to force the water through a membrane.  One method is described in US Patent #5,229,005  where a sphere is submerged, filled with RO water and then lifted out of the ocean.  I suggest an alternate method where the RO water is lifted out of a long tube which remains submerged.  This lifting of water can be performed by the pulling force of a kite operating in crosswind mode.  In this concept no electrical power or high pressure pumping is required which is a major cost of an RO system.

    DETAILS

    Small diameter tubes are capable of withstanding high hydrostatic pressure without collapsing.  If tubes are bundled in groups of 7 for example, then the chance of the tubes buckling due to the bending forces will be minimized.  The wall thickness of the tubes can be progressively increased as the depth increases to withstand the hydrostatic pressure.  At the bottom of each submerged tube we attach an RO module which can be a bundle of spaghetti tubes or a spiral wound cartridge.  Immediately above it is a series of valves in the tube like a reverse bicycle pump.  A plunger is lifted by steel wire or high tensile cable and a slug of RO water is discharged at the top.  The plunger oscillates back and forth with suitable valves to extract the water.  The cable in each tube lifts columns of water with each stroke and this lifting force is the only energy required.  The cables are combined by pulleys onto a single shaft which is rotated by the lifting force of the kite. (See drawing).  The pulley attached to the tether has a larger diameter so that the tension in the tether is about the same as is in each cable.

    A kite operating in crosswind mode performing figure-of-eights will provide the pulling force.  Each loop of the figure-of-eight will provide the lifting force.  In the crossover region the kite will rise higher so that the angle of attack is decreased to reduce the pulling force.  This process is not the same as yo-yo operation since the tension in the tether remains high during the cycle and only varies enough to overcome the osmotic pressure.  In this way the energy required to stretch the tether and cables on each cycle is minimized.

    Seawater RO requires a depth of 226 meters.  The weight of water in a 25 mm diameter tube this long is 110 Kg and so the total lifting force for 7 tubes is 780 Kg.  If the ratio of the tether pulley to the RO pulleys is 5:1 then the pulling force of the kite must be 780/5=155Kg.  If the RO pulley diameter is 0.64 m, then the tether pulley diameter is 3.2 m.  This means that the tether pulley only makes one turn for each cycle.   If each cycle lifts the columns of water 2 meters, then the kite must extend the tether by 2X5=10 meters in each cycle.  For higher wind speeds the cycle can be made shorter.  Since lake water, because of its low salinity only requires a depth of about 100 meters for RO, the numbers are much more favorable.

    Because the device will be situated on a ship or a barge, we can reorient it to face the wind.  Alternately the tube bundle and the pulley support structure can be designed to rotate.

    I can think of 3 methods of kite steering which takes advantage of the fact that the tether pulley only rotates once during each cycle:

    1.       If we employ a kite steering unit such as used by Enerkite then a single tether can be used.  In this case installation of a swivel in the tether will enable us to fly in elongated circles instead of figure-of-eights.

    2.       A parafoil with 4 control lines where the length of each control line can be adjusted in a fixed pattern for each cycle.  The 4 control lines will be attached to 4 tether pulleys which will be attached to the common shaft.

    3.       A parafoil with 4 control lines will be attached to 4 tether pulleys which will have varying diameters during each cycle. (Cams)

    Typical small RO installations produce water for a cost of $1.50/m3 of which approximately $0.50/m3 is energy costs.  I estimate that this method will save approximately half the equipment and operational costs and so we can produce RO water at 1/3 the cost of conventional methods.  We can scale up the system by using more tubes per bundle and larger diameter tubes, but this would necessitate employing a system like Skysails which would involve automatic launch and retrieval.

    Open-AWE_IP-Cloud

    Gordon Spilkin 5/19/2016

     


    		   @@attachment@@
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20141 From: dave santos Date: 5/19/2016
    Subject: Re: REVERSE OSMOSIS USING HAWE [1 Attachment]
    Excellent thinking Gordon! 

    Before your helpful elaboration we had barely noted RO in long lists of direct-work AWES concepts. This is a major app that would be very easy to prototype, but apparently no one has yet. Kites are doubly favored for energy-intensive work with an inherent low load-velocity ("grunt" power).

    Thanks for contributing vitally to the Open-AWE_IP-Cloud.


    On Thursday, May 19, 2016 9:08 AM, "gordon_sp@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
    REVERSE OSMOSIS USING HAWE
    SUMMARY
    Conventional RO compresses water using a high pressure pump and passes the water through a suitable membrane.  An alternate method is to use the hydrostatic pressure at depth in the ocean or lake to force the water through a membrane.  One method is described in US Patent #5,229,005  where a sphere is submerged, filled with RO water and then lifted out of the ocean.  I suggest an alternate method where the RO water is lifted out of a long tube which remains submerged.  This lifting of water can be performed by the pulling force of a kite operating in crosswind mode.  In this concept no electrical power or high pressure pumping is required which is a major cost of an RO system.
    DETAILS
    Small diameter tubes are capable of withstanding high hydrostatic pressure without collapsing.  If tubes are bundled in groups of 7 for example, then the chance of the tubes buckling due to the bending forces will be minimized.  The wall thickness of the tubes can be progressively increased as the depth increases to withstand the hydrostatic pressure.  At the bottom of each submerged tube we attach an RO module which can be a bundle of spaghetti tubes or a spiral wound cartridge.  Immediately above it is a series of valves in the tube like a reverse bicycle pump.  A plunger is lifted by steel wire or high tensile cable and a slug of RO water is discharged at the top.  The plunger oscillates back and forth with suitable valves to extract the water.  The cable in each tube lifts columns of water with each stroke and this lifting force is the only energy required.  The cables are combined by pulleys onto a single shaft which is rotated by the lifting force of the kite. (See drawing).  The pulley attached to the tether has a larger diameter so that the tension in the tether is about the same as is in each cable.
    A kite operating in crosswind mode performing figure-of-eights will provide the pulling force.  Each loop of the figure-of-eight will provide the lifting force.  In the crossover region the kite will rise higher so that the angle of attack is decreased to reduce the pulling force.  This process is not the same as yo-yo operation since the tension in the tether remains high during the cycle and only varies enough to overcome the osmotic pressure.  In this way the energy required to stretch the tether and cables on each cycle is minimized.
    Seawater RO requires a depth of 226 meters.  The weight of water in a 25 mm diameter tube this long is 110 Kg and so the total lifting force for 7 tubes is 780 Kg.  If the ratio of the tether pulley to the RO pulleys is 5:1 then the pulling force of the kite must be 780/5=155Kg.  If the RO pulley diameter is 0.64 m, then the tether pulley diameter is 3.2 m.  This means that the tether pulley only makes one turn for each cycle.   If each cycle lifts the columns of water 2 meters, then the kite must extend the tether by 2X5=10 meters in each cycle.  For higher wind speeds the cycle can be made shorter.  Since lake water, because of its low salinity only requires a depth of about 100 meters for RO, the numbers are much more favorable.
    Because the device will be situated on a ship or a barge, we can reorient it to face the wind.  Alternately the tube bundle and the pulley support structure can be designed to rotate.
    I can think of 3 methods of kite steering which takes advantage of the fact that the tether pulley only rotates once during each cycle:
    1.       If we employ a kite steering unit such as used by Enerkite then a single tether can be used.  In this case installation of a swivel in the tether will enable us to fly in elongated circles instead of figure-of-eights.
    2.       A parafoil with 4 control lines where the length of each control line can be adjusted in a fixed pattern for each cycle.  The 4 control lines will be attached to 4 tether pulleys which will be attached to the common shaft.
    3.       A parafoil with 4 control lines will be attached to 4 tether pulleys which will have varying diameters during each cycle. (Cams)
    Typical small RO installations produce water for a cost of $1.50/m3 of which approximately $0.50/m3 is energy costs.  I estimate that this method will save approximately half the equipment and operational costs and so we can produce RO water at 1/3 the cost of conventional methods.  We can scale up the system by using more tubes per bundle and larger diameter tubes, but this would necessitate employing a system like Skysails which would involve automatic launch and retrieval.
    Open-AWE_IP-Cloud
    Gordon Spilkin 5/19/2016
     
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20142 From: dave santos Date: 5/19/2016
    Subject: Re: 20090 Re: more Minesto paravane farm details [1 Attachment]
    Gordon,

    To simplify analysis of what the drag penalty would be for an undersea kite farm linked by driveshafts, we can confidently apply our 10MW ship model. Presume a kite farm whose shaft surfaces are equal in area and stream velocity to the ship's wetted hull. The initial impression this gedanken creates is that quite large farms in the GW range are possible with only a few tens, at most, of shaft drag loss. Had the general picture been less encouraging, a drive-shaft or drive-cable in an evacuated tube would have been the work-around option.

    A suitable COTS shaft exists in the form of oil-drilling pipe (Open-AWE_IP-Cloud),

    dave


    On Monday, May 16, 2016 10:44 AM, dave santos <santos137@yahoo.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: 20143 From: dougselsam Date: 5/19/2016
    Subject: Re: Rise of the Sky Monkeys (Moab tribe)
    And don't forget, according to Wayne, and he got Cristina to agree, Jesus is going to solve AWE.  That was 7 years ago.  I've been wondering what He is waiting for?  Why didn't He do it already?  Anyway it is nice to know that wingsuits mean the sky-monkeys working in kite-lattice arrays is a real thing, and that it will all result in the bible coming true, and we will therefore all enjoy eternal life.  It seems there is no end to the good news in AWE!  Meanwhile, I wish the wingsuit guys would stop splattering their guts all over the place.  According to my hang-gliding buddies, the wingsuits' glide ratio is too low, making it a dangerous stunt.  They had better hope for eternal life.  Seems like the concept still needs some work.  I'm guessing Jesus gets a lot of last-moment communication from that crowd.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20144 From: dougselsam Date: 5/19/2016
    Subject: Re: AWEC and AWESCO?
    I would not "get your panties in a bunch" over such trivia.  Try focusing on identifying a project that actually happens.  Without an AWE system in regular operation anywhere in the world, and with stated projects instead simply not materializing, with no explanation, how necessary is "a conference", really, anyway?  Flying across the world to sit in a darkened room so person after person can either explain how they are not sure what they are really doing, or promise "projects in remote locations" that never materialize?  That is an expensive hobby in itself!  The great and powerful Oz said it best: "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20145 From: dougselsam Date: 5/19/2016
    Subject: Re: Long-line helicopter-based operations (LLHBO)
    I do not think this picture shows "kiting".  I believe this picture shows "carrying".  The airplane is hanging from a helicopter, which is merely using a tether to carry the airplane.  This is industrial-strength powered transportation, using an engine burning petroleum.  I believe to call this "kiting" is incorrect terminology.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20146 From: dougselsam Date: 5/19/2016
    Subject: Re: 20090 Re: more Minesto paravane farm details
    Thanks for giving a vote:

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

    With regard to "engineering delay", you have a history of a strange relationship with the concept of "delay".  So far, if a stated project doesn't happen within its stated timeframe, if you don't like them, you simply announce the fact that their project didn't occur.  Then again, if it is a project you favor, you assign the word "delay".  Then I guess the question becomes, if a project does not occur and there is no explanation, at what point do you simply acknowledge it failed to materialize, versus employing what could be seen as a "weasel-word" (delay) to avoid acknowledging a stated project was simply abandoned without explanation?

    So, thanks for giving a vote, but the vote seems to contain enough "excuses-in-advance" that there would be no point at which anyone could ever ascertain whether it has come true.  If you like them, any failure to come through can be characterized from afar as "delay", with no endpoint to said "delay", even (especially?) with no explanation from the company.  Then again, if you don't like them, you've been known to flag such a typical a failure-to-come-through as simply what it is: not coming through while offering no explanation to those of us on the edge of our seats. 

    As far as "market uncertainties", I guess that means if electricity becomes so cheap and abundant that such new generation technologies are not needed?  Or could this mean that they just can't get a power purchase agreement in place?  Or does it include the idea that the concept is shown to work reliably at an industrial scale, but the system, and therefore the resulting electricity, are just too expensive for the concept to be considered a viable solution?

    So it would seem that all we can really expect is you will claim to have been correct if you like them, and if not, then... well, it's hard to imagine you saying you were wrong about something.  To judge from past experience, I would say you'll likely claim to have been correct no matter what.  (Another way of saying you really didn't answer the question?  Because of the "weasel-words"...)  So by your criteria, the only question we can answer with certainty is whether you like them, not whether their stated project ever succeeds or fails.

    I am asking this question about Minesto because I truly do not know whether they will fail or succeed, as opposed to some highly-funded concepts (example: Magenn) which are easy to flag as failures at first glance.  So I'm looking for opinions of others, and why they think success or failure are likely.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20147 From: dougselsam Date: 5/19/2016
    Subject: Re: 20090 Re: more Minesto paravane farm details
    Hi Joe:
    I agree that it is a positive sign that Minesto has generated electricity using at least one scale prototype.  That is promising, because it shows the concept can work.  Ironically, just having run a scale prototype places these guys ahead of many other efforts. 

    And of course we hope these guys will share their info, now that they "have us on the edge of our seats", anticipating an energy revolution by a certain date.  That is all good, so far.  Hope is good.  But as they say on Wall Street, "hope is not an investment strategy". 

    The reason I asked what people think the odds are about this underwater player enjoying their predicted future success is that so far, sitting on the edge of our seats in anticipation of such forward-looking statements, we've been disappointed that the projects seem to vaporize just about when they are supposed to emerge, with no explanation.  The companies seem to just go on in a "business-as-usual" mode, but without ever explaining to the large number of people anticipating news of the stated project, what happened to the projects so eagerly-awaited(?). 

    This outcome of "quietly going away" with no explanation has become so common that I think it's safe to say that it falls into "a syndrome".  So, while I see no evidence of Minesto embodying this syndrome, and it's nice to hope for the best in this instance, I'm still wondering if anyone is willing to place any sort of "odds" on the success of this particular project or effort, or even for the concept as a whole. 

    I'm bringing this up with regard to this particular project precisely because the idea seems potentially promising:  I do not see any reason why it does not at least have a chance, as opposed to some previous stated-projects-that-never-blossomed that were such poor concepts that it was easy to see they had no chance, though they had no trouble raising millions of dollars.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20148 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/19/2016
    Subject: Re: Long-line helicopter-based operations (LLHBO)
    Thanks, Doug. 
                 Each perspective holds some validity relative to their bases. No problem. In common parlance one would look up at that helicopter and say, "Look at that helicopter carrying that airplane! That is an example of industrial-strength transportation using a petroleum burning engine!"   There is no need to jump in the middle of that common parlance and bother the observers with technical kiting analysis. 
               
    But come to a technical energy-kite systems forum with non-common-parlance for reasons of creative mechanical analysis, then perhaps be ready for technical use of terms. In this topic thread that is just beginning about long-lines from helicopters, the example scene with a short long-line to a carried wing, one may use mechanical descriptions that follow Lang (wing at end of string) and also the J-Model for K to observe and describe that the unpowered carried wing is in a tensed coupled relationship with a powered wing; the two wings anchor each other and are kiting one another; the powered wing may be seen as a anchor to the unpowered wing; the unpowered wing may be seen as an anchor to the powered wing. As tension is in the coupling tether, the two wings with tether form an energy-kite system; the lower wing is being kited. Kiting is occurring in the photograph within the perspective of technical energy-kite systems.

         The lower wing's media's wind comes from: 1. Horizontal component of motion, 2. Vertical component of motion, 3. Ambient wind, 4. and the special downwash from the powered towing vehicle (the helicopter).   The kiting occurs; a bridle has been arranged so that the net kiting resultants are within purpose-fulfillment range. The lower wing has its L/D resultant from its deflecting of the net wind that impinges on its body. The kiting deflections convert the net wind into noise, heat, motion, electricity, ... 
      
         Now, from such first blush analysis, there may be hope for exploring the scene and its cousins. Bridle differently to get different results; let the prop of the unpowered lower wing spin as impeller to bring on energy for lighting LEDs on the lower craft, ... etc. 

    Kiting and carrying are occurring. 
     
    Best, 
     JoeF

    --In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, <dougselsam@gmail.com
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20149 From: dave santos Date: 5/19/2016
    Subject: Re: AWEC and AWESCO?
    Doug is mistaken to characterize JohnO's wrongful exclusion from AWEC conference planning as "trivia". If it was trivia, he would be better off not over-reacting, and share some useful knowledge instead.


    On Thursday, May 19, 2016 12:10 PM, "dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
    I would not "get your panties in a bunch" over such trivia.  Try focusing on identifying a project that actually happens.  Without an AWE system in regular operation anywhere in the world, and with stated projects instead simply not materializing, with no explanation, how necessary is "a conference", really, anyway?  Flying across the world to sit in a darkened room so person after person can either explain how they are not sure what they are really doing, or promise "projects in remote locations" that never materialize?  That is an expensive hobby in itself!  The great and powerful Oz said it best: "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20150 From: dave santos Date: 5/19/2016
    Subject: Re: Long-line helicopter-based operations (LLHBO)
    JoeF is once again correct, that a winged aircraft in the powerful downwash of a helicopter is in effect a kite ("a wing on a string in a flow"). That is the reason for the bridle armature and the weathercocking attitude. Doug misses obvious connections here, and apparently can't appreciate the usefulness of patiently reviewing similarity-cases, just as Chris Carlin, our top wind-tech pioneer/mentor taught us.


    On Thursday, May 19, 2016 1:09 PM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
    Thanks, Doug. 
                 Each perspective holds some validity relative to their bases. No problem. In common parlance one would look up at that helicopter and say, "Look at that helicopter carrying that airplane! That is an example of industrial-strength transportation using a petroleum burning engine!"   There is no need to jump in the middle of that common parlance and bother the observers with technical kiting analysis. 
               
    But come to a technical energy-kite systems forum with non-common-parlance for reasons of creative mechanical analysis, then perhaps be ready for technical use of terms. In this topic thread that is just beginning about long-lines from helicopters, the example scene with a short long-line to a carried wing, one may use mechanical descriptions that follow Lang (wing at end of string) and also the J-Model for K to observe and describe that the unpowered carried wing is in a tensed coupled relationship with a powered wing; the two wings anchor each other and are kiting one another; the powered wing may be seen as a anchor to the unpowered wing; the unpowered wing may be seen as an anchor to the powered wing. As tension is in the coupling tether, the two wings with tether form an energy-kite system; the lower wing is being kited. Kiting is occurring in the photograph within the perspective of technical energy-kite systems.

         The lower wing's media's wind comes from: 1. Horizontal component of motion, 2. Vertical component of motion, 3. Ambient wind, 4. and the special downwash from the powered towing vehicle (the helicopter).   The kiting occurs; a bridle has been arranged so that the net kiting resultants are within purpose-fulfillment range. The lower wing has its L/D resultant from its deflecting of the net wind that impinges on its body. The kiting deflections convert the net wind into noise, heat, motion, electricity, ... 
      
         Now, from such first blush analysis, there may be hope for exploring the scene and its cousins. Bridle differently to get different results; let the prop of the unpowered lower wing spin as impeller to bring on energy for lighting LEDs on the lower craft, ... etc. 

    Kiting and carrying are occurring. 
     
    Best, 
     JoeF

    --In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, <dougselsam@gmail.com


    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20151 From: dougselsam Date: 5/19/2016
    Subject: Re: DIY AWES Hacker's Delight- Bike Electronic Drivetrains
    It does not seem "obvious" to me that a drivetrain designed for 1/4 hp sustained and 1 hp peaks can survive long-term use in a 5 kW (6.7 hp) machine.  That seems like under-specifying a drivetrain by almost an order-of-magnitude.  A 5 kW wind energy system is not a toy.

    Also:
    Yes bike drivetrains seem compelling for home-hobbyists.  Sometimes you just have to use whatever you can get your hands on.  There is comfort in the familiar.  Just like everyone wants to start with a 12-Volt system because they've seen it in their car.  But I can also say from experience, using a chain drive for wind energy does not necessarily turn out the way you think it will.  Find a chain-drive wind turbine anywhere in the world.  Ask yourself if there might be a reason why.  Hmmmmmmm...  The reasons given by veterans include noise and rust, which I found out were real factors, not just theoretical.  And this was a slightly more industrial-gauge chain than used in bicycles.  I found there are other not-so-great factors as well.  In my case it was "OK, tried that - next!".  Geez, come to think of it, I still have that contraption sitting on the floor at a friend's shop!  Maybe it needs reviving!  Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20152 From: dave santos Date: 5/19/2016
    Subject: Re: DIY AWES Hacker's Delight- Bike Electronic Drivetrains
    Doug,

    It is a bit hard to understand at first, that if you take a bike transmission and run it real fast without shocks, then far higher power is possible (high load velocity). I forgot to mention Bob Stuart as a bikeguru in our bike-based AWES prototyping culture. If only you had done far more than one try with bike parts, you would have mastered the highest universal mechanical language available at human scale. This is the best preparation for AWE success, just as the Wright brothers were master bike mechanics. We are not talking about a low opinion of 12V DIY at all, but the core "right stuff" in aviation history.

    Isn't it wonderful?

    daveS




    On Thursday, May 19, 2016 5:27 PM, "dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
    It does not seem "obvious" to me that a drivetrain designed for 1/4 hp sustained and 1 hp peaks can survive long-term use in a 5 kW (6.7 hp) machine.  That seems like under-specifying a drivetrain by almost an order-of-magnitude.  A 5 kW wind energy system is not a toy.

    Also:
    Yes bike drivetrains seem compelling for home-hobbyists.  Sometimes you just have to use whatever you can get your hands on.  There is comfort in the familiar.  Just like everyone wants to start with a 12-Volt system because they've seen it in their car.  But I can also say from experience, using a chain drive for wind energy does not necessarily turn out the way you think it will.  Find a chain-drive wind turbine anywhere in the world.  Ask yourself if there might be a reason why.  Hmmmmmmm...  The reasons given by veterans include noise and rust, which I found out were real factors, not just theoretical.  And this was a slightly more industrial-gauge chain than used in bicycles.  I found there are other not-so-great factors as well.  In my case it was "OK, tried that - next!".  Geez, come to think of it, I still have that contraption sitting on the floor at a friend's shop!  Maybe it needs reviving!  Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20153 From: dave santos Date: 5/19/2016
    Subject: Re: 20090 Re: more Minesto paravane farm details
    Doug seems unaware that polling the AWES Forum is no solution to his problem that "truly (he does) not know whether they will fail or succeed". No one else does either, due to limited information. The concerns of engineering delay and market uncertainty are legitimate reasons not to know how Minesto will fare.

    The obvious conclusion stands that the investors and developers are the only true betting parties, just as only Doug is betting on his ST concept.


    On Thursday, May 19, 2016 12:15 PM, "dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
    Hi Joe:
    I agree that it is a positive sign that Minesto has generated electricity using at least one scale prototype.  That is promising, because it shows the concept can work.  Ironically, just having run a scale prototype places these guys ahead of many other efforts. 

    And of course we hope these guys will share their info, now that they "have us on the edge of our seats", anticipating an energy revolution by a certain date.  That is all good, so far.  Hope is good.  But as they say on Wall Street, "hope is not an investment strategy". 

    The reason I asked what people think the odds are about this underwater player enjoying their predicted future success is that so far, sitting on the edge of our seats in anticipation of such forward-looking statements, we've been disappointed that the projects seem to vaporize just about when they are supposed to emerge, with no explanation.  The companies seem to just go on in a "business-as-usual" mode, but without ever explaining to the large number of people anticipating news of the stated project, what happened to the projects so eagerly-awaited(?). 

    This outcome of "quietly going away" with no explanation has become so common that I think it's safe to say that it falls into "a syndrome".  So, while I see no evidence of Minesto embodying this syndrome, and it's nice to hope for the best in this instance, I'm still wondering if anyone is willing to place any sort of "odds" on the success of this particular project or effort, or even for the concept as a whole. 

    I'm bringing this up with regard to this particular project precisely because the idea seems potentially promising:  I do not see any reason why it does not at least have a chance, as opposed to some previous stated-projects-that-never-blossomed that were such poor concepts that it was easy to see they had no chance, though they had no trouble raising millions of dollars.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20154 From: dave santos Date: 5/19/2016
    Subject: Re: Rise of the Sky Monkeys (Moab tribe)
    Doug overlooks that hang gliding itself began as a dangerous stunt, only to become safe enough for his enjoyment, and that the Wright brothers themselves were faithful bishop's sons, so the idea of faith and aeronautical success are well correlated.




    On Thursday, May 19, 2016 12:09 PM, "dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
    And don't forget, according to Wayne, and he got Cristina to agree, Jesus is going to solve AWE.  That was 7 years ago.  I've been wondering what He is waiting for?  Why didn't He do it already?  Anyway it is nice to know that wingsuits mean the sky-monkeys working in kite-lattice arrays is a real thing, and that it will all result in the bible coming true, and we will therefore all enjoy eternal life.  It seems there is no end to the good news in AWE!  Meanwhile, I wish the wingsuit guys would stop splattering their guts all over the place.  According to my hang-gliding buddies, the wingsuits' glide ratio is too low, making it a dangerous stunt.  They had better hope for eternal life.  Seems like the concept still needs some work.  I'm guessing Jesus gets a lot of last-moment communication from that crowd.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20155 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/20/2016
    Subject: SkySails SensorKites
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20156 From: dave santos Date: 5/20/2016
    Subject: Re: DIY AWES Hacker's Delight- Bike Electronic Drivetrains
    More information regarding the power capacity of bike parts- The steady (hour session) output of an elite cyclist is about 500W, according to many sources. This is well over double Doug's assumption, and one does not see many drivetrain failures during races. Track cyclists are rated at about 2000W peak, and again, not many failures evident. 2000 is well over eight times Doug's number. The strongest bike chains are commonly supposed to be BMX, not due so much to a cyclist's steady power output, but to handle the shocks of rough riding. One can even choose titanium chain, to extend the power capacity. 

    Human cyclists are inherently very limited in how fast a cadence legs can pump, and the pumping cycle is not too smooth. An AWES that can turn a bike bottom bracket faster and smoother than any human can develop more power with the same bike part basis, but there needs to be shock-absorption. Doug has posted he need not read Loyd's short classic paper, Crosswind Kite Power, claiming the title alone was enough for him. If he had read it, he would understand how high kite load-velocity develops more power at a constant load by the higher velocity, which of course applies to bike transmissions. This is simply Newton's f=ma. 

    Doug should better apply his anti-chaindrive logic to his own preferred transmission basis, a composite driveshaft to the sky. Compared to that, bike parts are far more workable, with megascale COTS available to scale-up. The long and growing list of serious AWES bike-part/kite-string experimenters make a striking contrast to Doug and his outlier driveshaft, confined to low-altitude with higher mass-aloft. Chaindrives driven by kite-string develop far higher rpm with less mass-aloft than a shaft. Let testing settle the doubts.

    In dismissing current widespread bike based AWES experimentation by comparing with 12V wind turbine experimenters of his time, Doug overlooks a century of 12V wind-power success of turbines like the Jacobs' (the oldest US renewable energy company). These were serious systems for rural electrification long before today's industrial wind turbines, and Doug's own work remains in the small turbine heritage, but with modern power grid-tie electronics we all use to hop up output.

    Doug also slights folks as "home-hobbyists", forgetting the heroic "garage startup" tradition, the exemplary Wright brothers narrative, and his own ongoing home-based tinkering. Make no mistake, there is nothing wrong with using bike parts to do serious AWES prototypes, as really is "almost universal" in Open-AWE circles. Nor is 12V by itself problematic. 

    What counts most in AWE is making the key inventive leaps, and being able to prototype them, like the Wright brothers bike-mechanics themselves.









    On Thursday, May 19, 2016 6:28 PM, "dave santos santos137@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
    Doug,

    It is a bit hard to understand at first, that if you take a bike transmission and run it real fast without shocks, then far higher power is possible (high load velocity). I forgot to mention Bob Stuart as a bikeguru in our bike-based AWES prototyping culture. If only you had done far more than one try with bike parts, you would have mastered the highest universal mechanical language available at human scale. This is the best preparation for AWE success, just as the Wright brothers were master bike mechanics. We are not talking about a low opinion of 12V DIY at all, but the core "right stuff" in aviation history.

    Isn't it wonderful?

    daveS




    On Thursday, May 19, 2016 5:27 PM, "dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
    It does not seem "obvious" to me that a drivetrain designed for 1/4 hp sustained and 1 hp peaks can survive long-term use in a 5 kW (6.7 hp) machine.  That seems like under-specifying a drivetrain by almost an order-of-magnitude.  A 5 kW wind energy system is not a toy.

    Also:
    Yes bike drivetrains seem compelling for home-hobbyists.  Sometimes you just have to use whatever you can get your hands on.  There is comfort in the familiar.  Just like everyone wants to start with a 12-Volt system because they've seen it in their car.  But I can also say from experience, using a chain drive for wind energy does not necessarily turn out the way you think it will.  Find a chain-drive wind turbine anywhere in the world.  Ask yourself if there might be a reason why.  Hmmmmmmm...  The reasons given by veterans include noise and rust, which I found out were real factors, not just theoretical.  And this was a slightly more industrial-gauge chain than used in bicycles.  I found there are other not-so-great factors as well.  In my case it was "OK, tried that - next!".  Geez, come to think of it, I still have that contraption sitting on the floor at a friend's shop!  Maybe it needs reviving!  Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20157 From: Rod Read Date: 5/20/2016
    Subject: Re: DIY AWES Hacker's Delight- Bike Electronic Drivetrains
    Track Cycling is riddled with broken bike parts.
    Parts built as light as possible right on the edge of capability.

    My AWES - Bike input doesn't match how a bike is meant to be powered. 
    I overload the crank thrust bearings, Don't think it'll take long to wear out. (got about 100 miles of kite powered cycling done now.)

    Bike or not...a better fit COTS part is preferred in a tailor spec system.
    At the time, Bike just happened to give my system an extra usability dimension.
    The crank PTO track is too small.

    What counts most in AWE
    Isn't as important as what counts most in life.
    Just get on with it.

    The previous forum poster, was enraged when described as hobbyist but now cherishes the term...?

    Rod Read

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

    07899057227
    01851 870878
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20158 From: dave santos Date: 5/20/2016
    Subject: Re: DIY AWES Hacker's Delight- Bike Electronic Drivetrains
    Rod, 

    Agreed that competitive bike sports do break parts, but not enough to stop the sport, just keep it interesting. 

    The key point in Open-AWE conceptual R&D is that bike parts are quite reliable enough to be a wonderful prototype medium. We actually want to start light and break things*, and then beef up the weaknesses discovered in production designs. This is a fine alternative to over-priced custom prototype engineering using excess non-COTS mass, as has been common with well-funded programs. Bikes are our edge to "get on with it".

    While I do not self-identify as a kite hobbyist, but a determined kite pro, I will always defend hobbyists. Your original error, in my view, was to characterize us all in Low-Complexity AWE as hobbyists, when we have so many Lynns, Culps, etc. in our pro ranks. Please allow these very accomplished folks, who are so generous to hobbyists, to act and self-identify as the AWE pros they are,

    daveS

    ------------------
    * Dave Culp once told me, "If you are not breaking anything, then you are doing something wrong," which sounded familiar in the context of developmental engineering, but I don't see an original source in search-

    No results found for "If you are not breaking anything, then you are doing something wrong".


    On Friday, May 20, 2016 11:41 AM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
    Track Cycling is riddled with broken bike parts.
    Parts built as light as possible right on the edge of capability.

    My AWES - Bike input doesn't match how a bike is meant to be powered. 
    I overload the crank thrust bearings, Don't think it'll take long to wear out. (got about 100 miles of kite powered cycling done now.)

    Bike or not...a better fit COTS part is preferred in a tailor spec system.
    At the time, Bike just happened to give my system an extra usability dimension.
    The crank PTO track is too small.

    What counts most in AWE
    Isn't as important as what counts most in life.
    Just get on with it.

    The previous forum poster, was enraged when described as hobbyist but now cherishes the term...?

    Rod Read

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

    07899057227
    01851 870878
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20159 From: dave santos Date: 5/20/2016
    Subject: Re: SkySails SensorKites
    By the strange dynamics of modern green-energy R&D, SkySails recent bankruptcy seems just a reordering for growth. A huge surge of new green-energy R&D capital is looming and what counts most is core value. SkySails well-spent its first 100 million to establish itself as the "tow kite" leader, from amassing IP to logging extended offshore experience. kPower's current opinion, based on many critical factors, is that SkySails' ship-kite basis is leading the long AWE race against Makani, Aympx, KiteGen, and so on. A mid-cap investment now in SkySails could be as golden "buying Microsoft early" was.

    A disclaimer is that kPower has an informal email agreement with SkySails to help represent its future US market. kPower seeks for SkySails to be a similar future portal to EU and the world for complimentary US AWES tech. An ideal outcome is for major SkySails investment to enable bringing the talented ship-kite community together for R&D collaboration, including North Sails, KiteShip, kPower, Peter Lynn, and others. 

    The epic pending challenge is to scale the ship kite to its theoretic potential. Good luck to SkySails in soon raising the needed funds.


    On Friday, May 20, 2016 7:52 AM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  


    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20160 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/20/2016
    Subject: Minesto news

    Edlund confirmed as Minesto chief

    Martin Edlund
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20161 From: Rod Read Date: 5/20/2016
    Subject: Re: DIY AWES Hacker's Delight- Bike Electronic Drivetrains

    It was said of me...
    Your original error, in my view, was to characterize us all in Low-Complexity AWE as hobbyists, 

    This petty time-wasting point has been covered and was shown to be wrong.

    I didn't label all open or low complexity AWE as the work of hobbyists.

    Electronic bike gear changing...Nice.
    Is there a version with an open interface (mimicking the switch would do)
    Auto Controlling that combined with the resistance control could make my system much more adaptable. 
    You'd need to change Power supply to the gear changer to the bike battery for longer term deployment.
    Developing a control algorithm based on line tension, torque, speed, wind speed... Is all within the hobbyist possibly ...
    It would just take longer.

    It was said in this thread

    What counts most in AWE is making the key inventive leaps, and being able to prototype them,

    Building a better mousetrap isn't enough. We have near zero deployment of any AWES.
    Not even well funded ones.

    Making it better and getting on with it counts
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20162 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 5/21/2016
    Subject: Re: Minesto news

    As Minesto's turbine travels at relatively high speed (20 m/s), it could be suitable as such as a conversion system for AWE systems. 

    Besides it Minesto's system looks promising. The tether length is only 110-140 m for a wing span being 14 m. And maintenance looks easier.

     

    PierreB

     

     
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20163 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/21/2016
    Subject: Earthborne, Airborne, Earthborne and Airborne Energy-Kite Systems -
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20164 From: dave santos Date: 5/21/2016
    Subject: Re: DIY AWES Hacker's Delight- Bike Electronic Drivetrains
    Rod,

    Thanks for agreeing that new bike tech only adds to both hobbyist and pro experimentalism. We really have learned that a key aspect of AWE is matching power to load across a wildly broad spectrum, so that direct-drive without gearing is very limited for our purpose. I go even father and feel a quiver of kites may be needed even at large scales.

    If you did mention Open-AWE pros and hobbyists on an equal footing in your conference abstract, I missed it. My recollection was a bare hobbyist characterization, without mention of Open-AWE pros, who I think are far better than stealth pros, on average.

    From my pro perspective, the fact no one can yet point to an installed AWE plant in regular operation is merely how "newborn babies" sleep a lot and aren't able do adult work, rather than a real problem. After all, the Wright brothers, after first flying, packed up and did little for a couple of years, yet we can all agree they accelerated flight progress more than anyone, and the lapse was trivial. Furthermore, these days, its quite predictable that various teams are testing as often as practical without public notice, and could be operating intensively without your knowledge. Top pros also count kite sports as AWE, even if most sport hobbyists are not interpreting their activity so.

    Even though I fly various  experimental AWES a lot, my downtime to prepare the next prototypes predominates, and I would be lost to want to just settle on a primitive design to fly all the time, just to be able to claim greater-than-near-zero deployment. KiteSat sits on its shelf not because it does not work easily (it does), but because I am working on bigger fish for future action, and can meanwhile charge my phone without resorting to a kite field. Most of the pros think like this, focusing on future capability altogether beyond present metrics,

    daveS



    On Friday, May 20, 2016 11:06 PM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
    It was said of me...
    Your original error, in my view, was to characterize us all in Low-Complexity AWE as hobbyists, 
    This petty time-wasting point has been covered and was shown to be wrong.
    I didn't label all open or low complexity AWE as the work of hobbyists.
    Electronic bike gear changing...Nice.
    Is there a version with an open interface (mimicking the switch would do)
    Auto Controlling that combined with the resistance control could make my system much more adaptable. 
    You'd need to change Power supply to the gear changer to the bike battery for longer term deployment.
    Developing a control algorithm based on line tension, torque, speed, wind speed... Is all within the hobbyist possibly ...
    It would just take longer.
    It was said in this thread
    What counts most in AWE is making the key inventive leaps, and being able to prototype them,
    Building a better mousetrap isn't enough. We have near zero deployment of any AWES.
    Not even well funded ones.
    Making it better and getting on with it counts
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20165 From: dave santos Date: 5/21/2016
    Subject: Re: Minesto news
    Excellent point Pierre. Minesto's unit would make a nice COTS underwater element of a kite-sailing system. The old idea of a HAPA flying yacht capsule between sky kite and water kite would be well powered electrically.

    Feel free to claim such workable ideas in CC form (like the Open-AWE_IP-Cloud), if only to better contest possible "pirate" profit monopolization, weaponization, etc..


    On Saturday, May 21, 2016 8:06 AM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
    As Minesto's turbine travels at relatively high speed (20 m/s), it could be suitable as such as a conversion system for AWE systems. 
    Besides it Minesto's system looks promising. The tether length is only 110-140 m for a wing span being 14 m. And maintenance looks easier.
     
    PierreB
     
     
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20166 From: benhaiemp Date: 5/23/2016
    Subject: Re: Proof of concept for an Airborne Wind Energy System based on an

    Both Daisy and OTS are great tests. A question: is Daisy with rings or ladder more suitable for launching as there are only perpendicular elements in regard to tethers? The perpendicular elements could be superimposed in order to facilitate launching and landing.


    PierreB
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20167 From: Rod Read Date: 5/24/2016
    Subject: Re: Proof of concept for an Airborne Wind Energy System based on an

    Sets or single Driver blade elements and their ring segment could be introduced as a module to a continuously deployable ring of spinning tethers. Thus we can feed and remove extra spin driving equipment up and down a lift line.

    Being able to live deploy and reconfigure sets of rings and drivers and their path radius will be very useful.
    There are ways in which it can be done.

    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20168 From: Rod Read Date: 5/24/2016
    Subject: A problem with network collection approach

    When too many elements can all focus their energy to one point...
    https://www.google.com/url?rct=j&sa=t&url=http://dailybail.com/home/fire-breaks-out-at-worlds-largest-solar-plant.html&ct=ga&cd=CAEYACoTODk1OTg4Mzc0MjEzNzg4MTIyNDIcZGQ3OTQxM2VlNmRiZGEwZjpjby51azplbjpHQg&usg=AFQjCNGZ-jrXtTTFLYzxHbw5HIhy2Xu-Lw
    The lesson might be..  To have more cross bridled lift line tethering to share shear loading over a LINK network to more anchor points.

    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20169 From: dougselsam Date: 5/24/2016
    Subject: Re: A problem with network collection approach
    That solar mirror plant is hideous, no matter how far out in the desert they tried to place it.  I guess they could have located it even further from human view, over some more mountains, away from any Freeway, maybe out near Area 51 or something, but sooner or later development will reach every far-flung part of the desert.  And they need powerline proximity to export the power. 

    Believe it or not, living in the desert makes you appreciate the beauty of it.  You start to see how the open and Godforsaken desert is not ugly, on its own.  Not until people fill it with ugly junk.  The desert has its own kind of beauty.  No pesky trees in the way of a good view.  No fleas, no ticks, no mosquitos.  Plenty of rocks.  Think "Mars"...

    If you drive through that area on the 15 Freeway, approaching the Las Vegas region, that giant field of mirrors visually dominates a huge valley.  The focused sunbeams light up the air itself as they approach their point of concentration.  In an already-too-bright area, the illuminated air is visually disturbing.  Your eyes go "WTF?"  You can sense the danger that inadvertently cooks birds flying through the concentrated light area.  One look and you will agree that it is unlikely that more of these plants will be built.  It is just the darn ugliest thing you could ever imagine. 

    Actually, solar plants in general are butt-ugly.  That usually includes home rooftop solar, in my opinion.  Tons of fun until the roof starts leaking and you have to figure out what contractor can deal with both solar panels AND leaky roofing.  If they were serious, they would have roofing tiles incorporating solar, rather than placing redundant waterproof panels over inert roofing tiles.  Placing 21st century solar panels over 5000-year-old clay roofing tile technology is ironic at best.  The only solar arrays that look good around here are over parking lots where they double as shade-structures.  In summer, it is easy to discern that people preferentially park in the resulting shade rather than in adjacent sunny spaces.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20170 From: benhaiemp Date: 5/24/2016
    Subject: Re: Minesto news

    Thank you  DaveS.  Sometimes a method for building AWES can evolve as some important element is available.

    The present forum is particulary suitable to note evolutions in technology.

    Minesto's turbines could work, among other systems, for http://www.energykitesystems.net/JongChulKim/windship_AIAA.pdf .

     

    PierreB
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20171 From: dougselsam Date: 5/24/2016
    Subject: Re: SkySails SensorKites
    Wow they blew thru 50 million Euros already?  Sheesh!  We noticed in small wind a long time ago how more money was being wasted on a useless bureaucracy supposedly put in place to protect the public by "certifying" small wind products, than the value of all the power produced by all small wind turbines combined, many times over.  The result is most small wind turbine manufacturers went out of business, as Jacobs is about to.  Even though their turbines are known to be some of the best ever, they could not pass certification and sales suffered.  The small wind industry is effectively almost dead. 

    Similarly, statements of the ship-assisting kites saving 5% of fuel costs for a ship would seem to indicate that even a successful product would have a challenge paying back that 50-million Euros.  Well there is that well-entrenched "syndrome" that I will not name, a symptom of which is to deploy early models that are too big, and therefore too expensive, eventually dragging the company under before they have a product that gives more than it receives, at any scale. 

    It's ironic to see a sort of technology that promises freedom from bureaucracy (generate your own power) taken over by bureaucracy that dangles carrots of small amounts of free money to suck attempts to escape bureaucracy back into the mouth of the beast.  Got a new idea?  Apply for a grant!  Get stuck in a quagmire.  Or get mired in a quagstuck.  Developed a great product?  Make sure you get it "certified" by bureaucrats!  Well they've done their job, and most small wind turbine companies are now bankrupt.  But of course the bureaucrats all still have their "jobs".  It would be a miracle for wind to come in below the cost of solar, now that panels and associated electronics are so cheap.  Next, we'll discuss how to make your turbine last 20+ years with no maintenance like a solar panel...

    So now after wasting 25 cents for every single American, the boat-pulling kite people say they can use their kites to generate electricity.  What were they waiting for?  Well I would not put one more dime into that story at this point.  Enough is enough.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20172 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/24/2016
    Subject: Re: SkySails SensorKites
    Doug, isn't that "5%" supposed to be 50%.  If so, consider quoting and referencing; thanks. 
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20173 From: dave santos Date: 5/24/2016
    Subject: Re: SkySails SensorKites
    Doug badly underestimates how much it duly costs to develop AWE tech offshore at MW scale. SkySails pioneered admirably, over a ten year period, at low cost, by EU standards. It will take billions in R&D for utility AWE to mature, by more of the same sort of professional work and cost structure. There is a place for the backyard wind inventor, where 50 million seems like a lot, but SkySails was working far larger, at sea. Make no mistake, these are the top folks in EU AWE, and the money was hardly wasted in moving us all forward.


    On Tuesday, May 24, 2016 5:12 PM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
    Doug, isn't that "5%" supposed to be 50%.  If so, consider quoting and referencing; thanks. 
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20174 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/25/2016
    Subject: Re: SkySails SensorKites
    From: Doug Selsam
    To:  our forum herein
    Date: 25 May 2016 08:50:58 -0700
    Subject: Re: SkySails SensorKites
    Hi Joe:
    Yes one would hope for more than 5% fuel savings.  Here's the link where they claim 5% fuel savings on an average route:
    http://ec.europa.eu/ environment/life/project/ Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction= search.dspPage&n_proj_id=3074& docType=pdf
    ~ Doug Selsam 

    =========================
    =========================
    Joe writes something on the topic: 

    Thanks, Doug, for the 2006-2009 study reference. 
    The reader is encouraged to read the actual report and see the limits of the report. 
    The report describes scenes of 100% fuel-savings also. 
    The tight early average reported for a special scene was 5% fuel-savings average;
    yet reader is advised to explore the scenes that produce 0% and those that produce 
    up to 100% fuel savings from use of kite system for traction of ships. 
        Indeed there are scenes that go further:  hull systems that use no fuel while producing fuel!
    SkySails has on their current 2016 page a statement of 50%  (half) on good days and "10-15% in fuel every year." (sic, fuel savings).  
    http://www.skysails.info/ uploads/tx_tabreiter/gerdEN. png
       
    Commitment to kite system in balance with other economic constraints makes a difference in each scene. Size commitment. Routes.   Time. Experience.  Kite system.  Very careful specification of scene is needed to make sense of % reports. 
    ~ JoeF

    ============================== ===========
    Moderator note: Original message was approved via the Pending Messages system; the approval is on Moderator Activity log. But the Yahoo program may or may not post; it has been over an hour and the approval did not effect a post. So, this second effort is being made.
    ============================== =========-==
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20175 From: dougselsam Date: 5/25/2016
    Subject: Re: SkySails SensorKites
    Hi Joe:
    Yes one would hope for more than 5% fuel savings.  Here's the link where they claim 5% fuel savings on an average route:
    http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=3074&docType=pdf

    Thanks.  The 2006 report for WINTECC would need to be carefully read where there is note about even 100% fuel savings depending on the sector and conditions. Just noting the dated limited 5% for a specific run/test distorts the opportunity.  A reader would do well to study the report as you have linked.  The ten-year old document does not reflect the studies done by SkySails from their experiments. 

      Half = 50%.

    So, there are figures from no help from the kites in some scenes and up to 100% fuel savings in other scenes.   Size of system, run specifications, commitment to system, etc. will bring different results.  
    ~ JoeF
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20176 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/25/2016
    Subject: Re: SkySails SensorKites
    From the report: 
    "In favourable wind and sea conditions the Skysail kite could pull up to 17 tonnes and nearly account for the complete propulsion power of the vessel."
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20177 From: dave santos Date: 5/25/2016
    Subject: Re: SkySails SensorKites
    Shipkites in principle can measure-out at any percentage of ship-propulsion. Weather, route, crew, economics, and ecology are all in play in determining the numbers. Doug's number is not helpful to judge ship-kite potential, which SkySails has truly advanced, if not proven nor dis-proven. 

    Ship-kite research will continue toward reducing marine bunker-fuel use.  A ship-kite might soon be paired with a COTS energy paravane for testing. Ship-kites may be the dominant AWES basis on land as well. 

    Green Energy R&D is a high-stakes casino, with billionaires and states lining up to compete. A "small wind" player should expect to be left on the sidelines of the AWE big-wind game, or go big. Pick a team to fly with.




    On Tuesday, May 24, 2016 5:51 PM, "dave santos santos137@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
    Doug badly underestimates how much it duly costs to develop AWE tech offshore at MW scale. SkySails pioneered admirably, over a ten year period, at low cost, by EU standards. It will take billions in R&D for utility AWE to mature, by more of the same sort of professional work and cost structure. There is a place for the backyard wind inventor, where 50 million seems like a lot, but SkySails was working far larger, at sea. Make no mistake, these are the top folks in EU AWE, and the money was hardly wasted in moving us all forward.


    On Tuesday, May 24, 2016 5:12 PM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
    Doug, isn't that "5%" supposed to be 50%.  If so, consider quoting and referencing; thanks. 
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20178 From: dougselsam Date: 5/26/2016
    Subject: Re: SkySails SensorKites
    It was not my number.  I just googled it and recited the first number I saw that said average fuel savings of 5%.  Took 10 seconds.  I didn't make a study of it.  In my mind, the BASIC technology is already in common use by kitesurfing, so scaling it up would seem not so dramatic, more of an industrial chore that would naturally develop as the numbers proved undeniable.  I don't even know the difference between "kiteship" and "skysails", and I don't feel I need to.  To me it's a bunch of "handwaving and happy-talk" until someone shows it to be useful at a larger scale.  If kites pulling ships is advantageous, it should not be that hard to prove it.  It's a straightforward concept, not a conceptual head-scratcher.

    Of course I'm sure in "optimal conditions" the fuel savings could be much higher.  The lack of consistent "optimal conditions" is a main reason sailing ships were replaced by fuel-burning ships over a century ago.  Let's remember that "adverse conditions" are also common.  And calm conditions, storms, navigation hazards etc.

    If we compare this to "The Wright Brothers", imagine a company in a world already full of hundreds of thousands of recreational ultralights, but no commercial-sized powered aircraft, (so powered flight is already in common use, but only recreationally as a sport) and a new company comes in and says "we can build a really big ultralight" (like an airliner) so they spend $50 million Euros and go bankrupt after flying a giant ultralight around the world for 10 years without showing a compelling advantage.

    One might think they'd try scaling up more slowly and find a market in general aviation, developing, say, the first "Piper Cub" type of aircraft: bigger than an ultralight, and highly-useful, but not costing $50 million Euros.  Such a scaled approach makes sense since the theory is similar at any scale, but development at a smaller scale is way more realistically-affordable.  But no, some people are compelled to follow "the syndrome" where someone heard "go big or go home" and decided it applied to research prototypes.  Well I mean, when you have access to millions, why mess around, right?  I mean, we gotta save the planet!

    Seems to me the sailboat and yacht market would have been a better place to develop the already-known and widely-used technology of kites pulling watercraft.  That way the advantages or lack thereof become apparent at a smaller scale, wasting a lot less money.  And if it DOES prove advantageous, it can be shown quickly, and the resulting industry would be able to grow organically rather than just using up a lot of "other peoples' money".

    Isn't there some unlimited class of sailboat racing where a new technology like kite-sails would be allowed?  Wouldn't a far-better way to sail appeal to weekend sailors and yacht-owners?  I'd think one could start at a sunfish scale and either eclipse current mast-supported sails or not, then work up in scale until the idea started not working so well, if ever, otherwise most ships would eventually be forced to adopt propulsive kites just to remain competitive.

    A good idea is hard to hold back.  If the idea is not so good, it is hard to push forward.  Kind of like "pushing a rope".  By the time that rope is costing 50 million to push, well it MAY turn out that you have just developed a very expensive rope...   Not that I have all the answers to this well-proven-at-a-small-scale technology, but those are a few thoughts.  Seems like a great idea to pull boats using kites.  Not sure what the problem is.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20179 From: dave santos Date: 5/26/2016
    Subject: Re: SkySails SensorKites
    Stone Age Pacific kite canoes are an ancient root of kite sailing. Modern ship kites started from Ben Franklin's concept work, and actual kite yachting and buggying, starting from Pocock two centuries ago, but the tech has other roots. The cowboy rigger, Cody,crossed the Channel, and German small navy kite boat experiments, marking a middle period. 

    Then came parafoil derived kytoon experiments, and naval architects like Payne laid out basic AWE concepts, then pros like Dave Culp emerged from the Amateur Yacht Research Society to found KiteShip (that I trained with), and SkySails in Germany took up the century-old kite mast method, and contracted North Sails, a popular yacht racing sailmaker, to make the wing. Yachting sailmakers also make the KiteShip OL, and the America's Cup ban on kites is due to disruptive performance, and could end soon, to boost ratings.

    What Doug seems to miss is that today's kitesurfing is still kite-sailing. The spectacular on-going success of kite-surfing simply represents due progress in sailing. Its cheaper and higher-performance sailing than ever, and more folks are doing it than traditional sailing; even billionaires who do own maxi-yachts cannot resist it. KiteShip and SkySail AWE were born from the modern kite-sailing revolution, and ship-kites carry this DNA forward, no matter who does it.




    On Thursday, May 26, 2016 9:01 AM, "dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
    It was not my number.  I just googled it and recited the first number I saw that said average fuel savings of 5%.  Took 10 seconds.  I didn't make a study of it.  In my mind, the BASIC technology is already in common use by kitesurfing, so scaling it up would seem not so dramatic, more of an industrial chore that would naturally develop as the numbers proved undeniable.  I don't even know the difference between "kiteship" and "skysails", and I don't feel I need to.  To me it's a bunch of "handwaving and happy-talk" until someone shows it to be useful at a larger scale.  If kites pulling ships is advantageous, it should not be that hard to prove it.  It's a straightforward concept, not a conceptual head-scratcher.

    Of course I'm sure in "optimal conditions" the fuel savings could be much higher.  The lack of consistent "optimal conditions" is a main reason sailing ships were replaced by fuel-burning ships over a century ago.  Let's remember that "adverse conditions" are also common.  And calm conditions, storms, navigation hazards etc.

    If we compare this to "The Wright Brothers", imagine a company in a world already full of hundreds of thousands of recreational ultralights, but no commercial-sized powered aircraft, (so powered flight is already in common use, but only recreationally as a sport) and a new company comes in and says "we can build a really big ultralight" (like an airliner) so they spend $50 million Euros and go bankrupt after flying a giant ultralight around the world for 10 years without showing a compelling advantage.

    One might think they'd try scaling up more slowly and find a market in general aviation, developing, say, the first "Piper Cub" type of aircraft: bigger than an ultralight, and highly-useful, but not costing $50 million Euros.  Such a scaled approach makes sense since the theory is similar at any scale, but development at a smaller scale is way more realistically-affordable.  But no, some people are compelled to follow "the syndrome" where someone heard "go big or go home" and decided it applied to research prototypes.  Well I mean, when you have access to millions, why mess around, right?  I mean, we gotta save the planet!

    Seems to me the sailboat and yacht market would have been a better place to develop the already-known and widely-used technology of kites pulling watercraft.  That way the advantages or lack thereof become apparent at a smaller scale, wasting a lot less money.  And if it DOES prove advantageous, it can be shown quickly, and the resulting industry would be able to grow organically rather than just using up a lot of "other peoples' money".

    Isn't there some unlimited class of sailboat racing where a new technology like kite-sails would be allowed?  Wouldn't a far-better way to sail appeal to weekend sailors and yacht-owners?  I'd think one could start at a sunfish scale and either eclipse current mast-supported sails or not, then work up in scale until the idea started not working so well, if ever, otherwise most ships would eventually be forced to adopt propulsive kites just to remain competitive.

    A good idea is hard to hold back.  If the idea is not so good, it is hard to push forward.  Kind of like "pushing a rope".  By the time that rope is costing 50 million to push, well it MAY turn out that you have just developed a very expensive rope...   Not that I have all the answers to this well-proven-at-a-small-scale technology, but those are a few thoughts.  Seems like a great idea to pull boats using kites.  Not sure what the problem is.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 20180 From: dave santos Date: 5/26/2016
    Subject: How AWE is taking on the Bunker Fuel Curse
    The UK article linked below helps understand why KiteShip and SkySails proposed to displace marine diesel "bunker fuel" by means of kites. The brilliant work by these early AWE companies really has shown the promise of kites in this role, and the ship-kite may even evolve into the standard AWE unit wing work-horse, land or sea.

    Solving the ongoing bunker fuel problem will not be cheap or easy by any means, and ship-kites will continue developing as a serious mitigation option. The ship-kite AWES engineer faces grand challenges in scaling safely, and it will cost billions in R&D to mature the technology over the next few decades. Letting shipping continue to pollute as before, with no ideas to explore, is already the failed option.