Messages in AirborneWindEnergy group.                          AWES 21043 to 21093 Page 314 of 440.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21043 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/26/2016
Subject: Re: Electrical Cost Drivers of a modern Wind Farm applicable to AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21044 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/26/2016
Subject: Article by Prabu Sai Manoj Mandru

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21045 From: Peter A. Sharp Date: 10/27/2016
Subject: Rotary Kite Networks

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21046 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/27/2016
Subject: Re: TETHER SHEATHS AND AERODYNAMIC TETHER ASSEMBLIES

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21047 From: Peter A. Sharp Date: 10/27/2016
Subject: Photo - Google Photos; Stretch Kites

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21048 From: Peter A. Sharp Date: 10/27/2016
Subject: Re: TETHER SHEATHS AND AERODYNAMIC TETHER ASSEMBLIES

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21049 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/27/2016
Subject: Re: TETHER SHEATHS AND AERODYNAMIC TETHER ASSEMBLIES

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21050 From: dave santos Date: 10/27/2016
Subject: Re: Photo - Google Photos; Stretch Kites

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21051 From: dave santos Date: 10/27/2016
Subject: Re: TETHER SHEATHS AND AERODYNAMIC TETHER ASSEMBLIES

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21052 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/28/2016
Subject: History of planned site consents for exercising energy kties

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21053 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/28/2016
Subject: Harvesting of energy at high altitude by aloft Wind Turbine

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21054 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/28/2016
Subject: WIND ENERGY Renewable Energy and the Environment

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21055 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 10/28/2016
Subject: Re: Harvesting of energy at high altitude by aloft Wind Turbine

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21056 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/28/2016
Subject: SERI, 1982, resource study

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21057 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/28/2016
Subject: Giromill

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21058 From: dave santos Date: 10/28/2016
Subject: Re: History of planned site consents for exercising energy kties

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21059 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/28/2016
Subject: Re: History of planned site consents for exercising energy kties

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21060 From: dave santos Date: 10/28/2016
Subject: Re: History of planned site consents for exercising energy kties

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21061 From: dave santos Date: 10/28/2016
Subject: Re: SERI, 1982, resource study

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21062 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/28/2016
Subject: INNOVATION IN WIND TURBINE DESIGN ... 2011

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21063 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/28/2016
Subject: An extension of lifting rotor theory to cover operation at large ang

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21064 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 10/28/2016
Subject: re: [AWES] INNOVATION IN WIND TURBINE DESIGN    ... 2011

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21065 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 10/28/2016
Subject: re: [AWES] INNOVATION IN WIN D TURBINE DESIGN    ... 2011

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21066 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/28/2016
Subject: Gyrokite AWES sector

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21067 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/28/2016
Subject: Power Systems by Grant Howard Calverley

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21068 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/28/2016
Subject: Re: Power Systems by Grant Howard Calverley

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21069 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 10/29/2016
Subject: re: [AWES] INNOVATION IN WIN D TURBINE DESIGN    ... 2011

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21070 From: dave santos Date: 10/29/2016
Subject: Re: [AWES] INNOVATION IN WIN D TURBINE DESIGN    ... 2011

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21071 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/29/2016
Subject: SharkNose

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21072 From: dave santos Date: 10/29/2016
Subject: Re: SharkNose

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21073 From: dave santos Date: 10/29/2016
Subject: Re: [AWES] INNOVATION IN WIN D TURBINE DESIGN    ... 2011

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21074 From: dave santos Date: 10/29/2016
Subject: Re: [AWES] INNOVATION IN WIN D TURBINE DESIGN    ... 2011

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21075 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/29/2016
Subject: Laddermill page addition

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21076 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/31/2016
Subject: The ultimate in sailing is a rig without a hull

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21077 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/31/2016
Subject: The ultimate in sailing is a rig without a hull

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21078 From: dave santos Date: 10/31/2016
Subject: Re: The ultimate in sailing is a rig without a hull

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21079 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/31/2016
Subject: StratoSolar

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21080 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/31/2016
Subject: Re: StratoSolar

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21081 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/31/2016
Subject: Re: StratoSolar

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21082 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/31/2016
Subject: Re: StratoSolar

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21083 From: dave santos Date: 10/31/2016
Subject: KiWiGen Consortium circa 2003

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21084 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/31/2016
Subject: Re: StratoSolar

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21085 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/31/2016
Subject: Re: StratoSolar

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21086 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/1/2016
Subject: Re: StratoSolar

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21087 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/1/2016
Subject: Re: StratoSolar

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21089 From: benhaiemp Date: 11/1/2016
Subject: Re: StratoSolar

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21090 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/1/2016
Subject: IfA and its energy kite-system radiance

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21091 From: dave santos Date: 11/1/2016
Subject: Re: StratoSolar

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21092 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/1/2016
Subject: Re: A2WE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21093 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/1/2016
Subject: Range-Inertial Estimation for Airborne Wind Energy



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21043 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/26/2016
Subject: Re: Electrical Cost Drivers of a modern Wind Farm applicable to AWE
BOP :
   balance of plant

EBoP: Electrical Balance of Plant – that is substation, medium voltage cables, step up transformers (if any) and in some cases overhead line.

CBoP: Civil Balance of Plant that is roads, WTGs foundations, crane pads, trenches and other fancy stuff that could be requested by the specific customer/project.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21044 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/26/2016
Subject: Article by Prabu Sai Manoj Mandru

Airborne wind energy technology

Potential alternative for clean energy

by

Prabu Sai Manoj M

MSc Student

Kite power research group,

TU Delft

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

Two pages.  PDF. 

Author:  Prabu Sai Manoj Mandru 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21045 From: Peter A. Sharp Date: 10/27/2016
Subject: Rotary Kite Networks
Hi RodR,
Thanks much for your information, your kind words, and your offer to help in
some way. I appreciate that very much. I looked through most of your videos
again and I read through most of your paper. I had seen many of your videos
previously. As an aside, I also enjoy listening to your dialect. Skotch?
I really like your testing method of using an electric bike because it
provides a wide step up ratio and its almost ready to go right from the
start. Smart idea. You kites are beautiful. I congratulate you on your
excellent work on Daisy Kites. I appreciate your craftsmanship and your
designs. Impressive. I also like your explorations of transmitting torque
down a tether. Very interesting. I also like how you show some failed
experiments in some of your videos because they can be especially helpful in
understanding a technology. Good science.
I have a lot to learn about kites, so if you have any doubts about concepts
I present, it would be a great help to me if you would tell me about your
concerns. I need to learn from my mistakes.
If I can be of help to you in some way, it would be my pleasure.
PeterS
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21046 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/27/2016
Subject: Re: TETHER SHEATHS AND AERODYNAMIC TETHER ASSEMBLIES
https://www.google.com/patents/US20090289148
This link might be easier access for some students. 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21047 From: Peter A. Sharp Date: 10/27/2016
Subject: Photo - Google Photos; Stretch Kites

https://photos.google.com/photo/AF1QipNJjDEb3t8IEsMwnRA8ovppwZW8b-BRoISgnfXQ 

Hi All,

Here is a simple concept I invented a few years ago, called "Stretch Kites". However, I can't believe that it hasn't already been in use because it is so simple. As shown, the speed of the pull-cable is twice the speed of each individual kite. And it can easily travel at four times the speed of each individual kite by using a pulley wheel on both kites. Etc. That means that the pull-cable can be very light because it moves at a very high speed. Another advantage of stretch kites is that they move across the wind and partly upwind, so they don't lose power.

 

In contrast, most long-pull kites move upward and downwind to pull the tether, and that means they lose a lot of power. For example, if the wind is blowing at 6 meters per second, and the long-pull kite is moving downwind at about 1/3 of the wind speed, the available wind speed drops to about 4 meters per second. Since the energy in the wind is proportional to the cube of the wind speed, the available energy drops proportionally from 6 cubed down to 4 cubed. That is 64/216 = about 30% of what energy is available. That is a huge sacrifice of energy.

 

Stretch Kites have many variations. For example, a Mother Kite and Two Daughter Kites, one on each side of Mother, can create a long-oscillation-loop-cable that spins a pulley wheel on a generator shaft first one way and then the other at a very high speed, and with very little recovery time. The Mother Kite stays put while the Daughter kites both fly to the left, and then to the right. The Mother Kite supports two pulley wheels, one for each Daughter kite. The pull-cable from the left Daughter Kite goes around its pulley wheel on the Mother Kite, and then down around the pulley wheel on the ground mounted generator, than back up and around the other pulley wheel on the Mother Kite, and then to the other Daughter Kite. So as the Daughter Kites fly left and right, they spin the generator first one way and then the other. That eliminates most of the usual recovery time required by most long-pull energy kites. More options are possible. For example, the Daughter Kites could remain stable while the Mother Kite flew back and forth between them. That too would eliminate most recovery time.

Can anyone please refer me to previous conceptions of this concept? And can anyone please explain why it is not already in use, given its seeming advantages? Does it have some disadvantages that I don’t understand yet?

If no one can find any prior art, or serious disadvantages, then I'll call it "Sharp Stretch Kites" since, as an artist of sorts, I like to sign my work.

PeterS

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21048 From: Peter A. Sharp Date: 10/27/2016
Subject: Re: TETHER SHEATHS AND AERODYNAMIC TETHER ASSEMBLIES
Hi JoeF,
I've seen this patent before, and it worries me. To streamline a tether is
an obvious idea, so it doesn't seem patentable. How to do it without
inducing flutter is not. So I hope they tested this concept. They might need
to make sure that the center of pressure and the center of mass coincide. A
lot of inventors patent things without testing them because how the device
should work is so obvious. But sometimes it isn't. I didn't see where they
discussed how to suppress flutter, and that worries me.
A related idea is to turn the whole tether itself into a Bird Windmill blade
by adding multiple counterweights in front of the tether, staggered up the
tether. Not sure it would work without testing it, but it might.
PeterS
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21049 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/27/2016
Subject: Re: TETHER SHEATHS AND AERODYNAMIC TETHER ASSEMBLIES

Publication numberUS20090289148 A1
Publication typeApplication
Application numberUS 12/154,685
Publication dateNov 26, 2009
Filing dateMay 23, 2008
Priority dateMay 23, 2008
Also published asEP2321020A1, WO2009142762A1
InventorsSaul Griffith, Peter Lynn, Don Montague,Corwin Hardham
Original AssigneeMakani Power, Inc.
Export CitationBiBTeX, EndNote, RefMan
Patent Citations (18), Referenced by (24), Classifications (15),Legal Events (9)

External Links: USPTO, USPTO Assignment, Espacenet

---In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, <joefaust333@gmail.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21050 From: dave santos Date: 10/27/2016
Subject: Re: Photo - Google Photos; Stretch Kites
PeterS,

Your link is to Google password wall. Is there any public link? Sounds exciting,

daveS


On Thursday, October 27, 2016 4:00 PM, "'Peter A. Sharp' sharpencil@sbcglobal.net [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
https://photos.google.com/photo/AF1QipNJjDEb3t8IEsMwnRA8ovppwZW8b-BRoISgnfXQ 
Hi All,
Here is a simple concept I invented a few years ago, called "Stretch Kites". However, I can't believe that it hasn't already been in use because it is so simple. As shown, the speed of the pull-cable is twice the speed of each individual kite. And it can easily travel at four times the speed of each individual kite by using a pulley wheel on both kites. Etc. That means that the pull-cable can be very light because it moves at a very high speed. Another advantage of stretch kites is that they move across the wind and partly upwind, so they don't lose power.
 
In contrast, most long-pull kites move upward and downwind to pull the tether, and that means they lose a lot of power. For example, if the wind is blowing at 6 meters per second, and the long-pull kite is moving downwind at about 1/3 of the wind speed, the available wind speed drops to about 4 meters per second. Since the energy in the wind is proportional to the cube of the wind speed, the available energy drops proportionally from 6 cubed down to 4 cubed. That is 64/216 = about 30% of what energy is available. That is a huge sacrifice of energy.
 
Stretch Kites have many variations. For example, a Mother Kite and Two Daughter Kites, one on each side of Mother, can create a long-oscillation-loop-cable that spins a pulley wheel on a generator shaft first one way and then the other at a very high speed, and with very little recovery time. The Mother Kite stays put while the Daughter kites both fly to the left, and then to the right. The Mother Kite supports two pulley wheels, one for each Daughter kite. The pull-cable from the left Daughter Kite goes around its pulley wheel on the Mother Kite, and then down around the pulley wheel on the ground mounted generator, than back up and around the other pulley wheel on the Mother Kite, and then to the other Daughter Kite. So as the Daughter Kites fly left and right, they spin the generator first one way and then the other. That eliminates most of the usual recovery time required by most long-pull energy kites. More options are possible. For example, the Daughter Kites could remain stable while the Mother Kite flew back and forth between them. That too would eliminate most recovery time.
Can anyone please refer me to previous conceptions of this concept? And can anyone please explain why it is not already in use, given its seeming advantages? Does it have some disadvantages that I don’t understand yet?
If no one can find any prior art, or serious disadvantages, then I'll call it "Sharp Stretch Kites" since, as an artist of sorts, I like to sign my work.
PeterS
 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21051 From: dave santos Date: 10/27/2016
Subject: Re: TETHER SHEATHS AND AERODYNAMIC TETHER ASSEMBLIES
PeterS is right about both the obviousness of this patent and strum bedeviling practical line fairings, not to mention extra mass and cost. The general conclusions from five years ago about this patent seem to hold, although we hardly think of Makani anymore as a factor in AWE R&D, much less its patents. It seems the M600 is not to fly, even as a hail-Mary miracle or desperate fiasco, but is dying quietly.

Round braid kiteline continues to dominate in every sector of performance kiting, like world speed records. Use the thinnest line you can, for lowest line-drag and lowest mass, and go a bit slower, but far bigger, then line drag is relatively negligible.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21052 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/28/2016
Subject: History of planned site consents for exercising energy kties

What is the history of planned site consents for exercising energy kites?

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

Describe as best possible. Discuss. 


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

Before looking earlier, it sure seemed like the Chino Airport for the 2009 HAWP conference, there was a consent for exercising energy kites under a low altitude. Several people took advantage of the consent. 

A founder of KPS was there, so he might have known about the consent. Selsam was photographed making energy within the altitude limit; the photograph and story was published in public newspapers. 


Years later KPS is publishing a belief that may not hold.  The headline won't hold; the "planning" descriptor narrows things; and that may not hold.   What are the dates?  "11 July 2016 " seems attached to the claim.

"World’s first consent for kite power technology

October 5, 2016

Renewable energy consultancy, Natural Power, has secured what is believed to be the world’s first planning consent for a kite power technology test and development site."


======

What consents did Joby have, Santos have, B.W. Roberts for his first energy kite exercises, ???

What planned consents did Loyd and his son have?  What planned consents did the early German and U.S. kite stations have for their energy kites?   Did David H. Shepard run experiments and have any planned site consents?  What of the many festival consents that have approved energy-kite operations?  kPower, Inc. has some kind of planned consent for a major site; notes are in forum. 

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21053 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/28/2016
Subject: Harvesting of energy at high altitude by aloft Wind Turbine

Yatheesha R B, 

Anarghya A,

 Ranjith B S


Harvesting of energy at high altitude by aloft Wind Turbine


[International Journal of Advancements in Mechanical and Aeronautical Engineering– IJAMAE Volume 1 : Issue 4 [ISSN 2372-4153] Publication Date : 27 December,2014]
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21054 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/28/2016
Subject: WIND ENERGY Renewable Energy and the Environment

http://library.uniteddiversity.coop/Energy/Wind/Wind_Energy-Renewable_Energy_and_the_Environment.pdf


by Vaughn Nelson 

WIND ENERGY  

Renewable Energy and the Environment
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21055 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 10/28/2016
Subject: Re: Harvesting of energy at high altitude by aloft Wind Turbine

This concept seems to be close to Magenn Power concept.

 

PierreB

 

 

 

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21056 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/28/2016
Subject: SERI, 1982, resource study
http://www.osti.gov/scitech/biblio/5390948-1SGbEi/

View Full Text View Full Text      3 MB

SUMMARY Objective: This report assesses the upper atmospheric wind resource for the continental United States, Hawaii, and Alaska. Discussion: lhe document is intended for Solar Energy Research Institute contractors interested in tethered wind energy systems. The raw data were obtained from the National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colo. Conclusion: The probability distributions of velocity are presented for 54 sites, and detailed calm wind analyses have been undertaken for five of these locations. On the average, the wind lulls about one day per week for a period in excess of about 30 hours. The report shows that the average power density of this wind resource can be as high as 16 kW/m2 at northeastern U.S. sites. This power density is at a maximum around the 300-mb pressure level.

Application of US upper wind data in one design of tethered wind energy systems [electronic resource].

LANGUAGE
English.
IMPRINT
Oak Ridge, Tenn. : distributed by the Office of Scientific and Technical Information, U.S. Dept. of Energy, 1982
PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION
1 online resource (Pages: 133 ) : digital, PDF file.

Access

Available online

 Contents/Summary

SUMMARY
The upper atmospheric wind resource for the continental United States, Hawaii, and Alaska is assessed. The raw data were obtained from the National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colo. The probability distributions of velocity are presented for 54 sites, and detailed calm wind analyses have been undertaken for five of these locations. On the average, the wind lulls about one day per week for a period in excess of about 30 hours. It is shown that the average power density of this wind resource can be as high as 16 kW/m/sup 2/ at northeastern US sites. This power density is at a maximum around the 300-mb pressure level.

 Bibliographic information

PUBLICATION DATE
1982
NOTE
Published through SciTech Connect.
02/01/1982.
"seri/tr-211-1400"
"DE82012880"
Roberts, B.W.; O'Doherty, R.J.
Solar Energy Research Inst., Golden, CO (USA)
FUNDING INFORMATION
AC02-77CH00178
================================================
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21057 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/28/2016
Subject: Giromill
Giromill overview   
http://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/6046045
McConnell, R. D.
The Giromill is a vertical axis wind turbine having straight airfoils whose angles of attack are controlled so as to maximize wind energy conversion. Each airfoil is rocked during a revolution in order to maintain a constant positive angle of attack over one half revolution and a constant negative value over the other half revolution. McDonnell Aircraft Company completed a feasibility study of the Giromill in 1976. Their initial work was followed by model tests in a wind tunnel in 1976 and 1977. Presently the Pump Division of Valley Industries, Inc., is cooperating with McDonnell Aircraft to design, build, ....





January 1979


-------------------------------------
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21058 From: dave santos Date: 10/28/2016
Subject: Re: History of planned site consents for exercising energy kties
Site consent for AWES R&D is not a consistent picture. kPower, for example, likes to fly to about 500m at WSIKF, under its NOTAM, for example, with the branching Eddy/SpiderMill kite train master, James Patton, but normally flies without any consent needed to about 200m in the same remote generally empty airspace. Virtually every team flies in unique ad hoc conditions with consents by land owners/authorities. A few have special permits from EU aviation authorities, but the US FAA could really care less as long as we behave responsibly. There are no formal environmental restrictions anywhere for AWES, but Makani on Alameda Island has faced protests over disturbing nesting birds, and operates away from those sites. If there are accidents, and when the systems finally scale up in farms, with NIMBY factors, then consents will formalize.

Conclusion is that RAD is not being driven by the need for consent yet. Anyone who wants to test finds a way. KPS is blowing marketing smoke to claim a historic first in site consent, when the race is really about converging on winning AE architectures, and the consents will follow.


On Friday, October 28, 2016 7:03 AM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
What is the history of planned site consents for exercising energy kites?
========================================================
Describe as best possible. Discuss. 

========================================================
Before looking earlier, it sure seemed like the Chino Airport for the 2009 HAWP conference, there was a consent for exercising energy kites under a low altitude. Several people took advantage of the consent. 
A founder of KPS was there, so he might have known about the consent. Selsam was photographed making energy within the altitude limit; the photograph and story was published in public newspapers. 

Years later KPS is publishing a belief that may not hold.  The headline won't hold; the "planning" descriptor narrows things; and that may not hold.   What are the dates?  "11 July 2016 " seems attached to the claim.
"World’s first consent for kite power technology
October 5, 2016
Renewable energy consultancy, Natural Power, has secured what is believed to be the world’s first planning consent for a kite power technology test and development site."

======
What consents did Joby have, Santos have, B.W. Roberts for his first energy kite exercises, ???
What planned consents did Loyd and his son have?  What planned consents did the early German and U.S. kite stations have for their energy kites?   Did David H. Shepard run experiments and have any planned site consents?  What of the many festival consents that have approved energy-kite operations?  kPower, Inc. has some kind of planned consent for a major site; notes are in forum. 
 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21059 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/28/2016
Subject: Re: History of planned site consents for exercising energy kties
Thanks to Doug Selsam for catching my typo.
Correct: Chico Airport    

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

---In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, <joefaust333@gmail.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21060 From: dave santos Date: 10/28/2016
Subject: Re: History of planned site consents for exercising energy kties
Just five to ten years ago was a period of deep uncertainty over AWES test siting and airspace for AWES. A few absurd players were demanding rights to airspace they never were going to reach. AWEC was even seeking secretly to privatize US airspace for AWE, which the aviation world (AOPA, EAA) swatted down. The US FAA took due notice of AWE, studied informed input like TACO 1.0, and essentially grandfathered AWES under FAR Part 101, which are simply the decades-old kite regulations we grew up with.

So now we know what is expected of us, to self-regulate within the gloriously bare guidelines; to stay safe, yet dare to push the envelope bit-by-bit, as domain experts. This includes warning and reporting hazardous newbie practice, which relates to investor risk and future economic viability (closely based on final insurability; another open area of AWE to evolve).
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21061 From: dave santos Date: 10/28/2016
Subject: Re: SERI, 1982, resource study
What a remarkable "lost" major upper-wind study from 1982 in the context of "tethered wind energy systems". We continue to see Prof. Brian Robert's work emerge monumentally. This should be referenced by today's upper wind science papers?

So the big US gov DOE nuke labs were onto AWE, Loyd at Laurence-Livermore, and Roberts via Oak Ridge; but nukes and oil were too entrenched institutionally, and the US gov dropped the AWE ball, although a patchwork of recent small grants has emerged and will no doubt build.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21062 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/28/2016
Subject: INNOVATION IN WIND TURBINE DESIGN ... 2011


INNOVATION IN WIND TURBINE DESIGN 

Peter Jamieson

Garrad Hassan, UK

Format: PDF.   Pages: 297

2011


Book.

A John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Publication
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21063 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/28/2016
Subject: An extension of lifting rotor theory to cover operation at large ang

An extension of lifting rotor theory to cover operation at large angles of attack and high inflow conditions

Alfred Gessow, Almer D. Crim
naca-tn-2665
Apr 1952


===================================================
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21064 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 10/28/2016
Subject: re: [AWES] INNOVATION IN WIND TURBINE DESIGN    ... 2011

Analysis of mass scaling of components as blades, shaft, tower, gearbox, nacelle for ground-based wind turbines. This document can also be helpfull to analyse scaling of AWE systems.

 

PierreB

 

 

 

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21065 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 10/28/2016
Subject: re: [AWES] INNOVATION IN WIN D TURBINE DESIGN    ... 2011
Attachments :
    P.231 about Multi Rotor Systems:

    "Considering for example a 20 MW multi rotor system comprising 100 rotors each rated at 200 kW, providing the designs are fully optimized taking account of latest technology advances, there is a realistic prospect of saving up to 9/10 of rotor and drive train mass and cost as compared to a single 20 MW unit."

    PierreB
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21066 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/28/2016
    Subject: Gyrokite AWES sector

    http://static.rcgroups.net/forums/attachments/1/2/6/5/1/3/a1752215-110-gyrokite-2.jpg

    ====================================================================
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21067 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/28/2016
    Subject: Power Systems by Grant Howard Calverley

    Power Systems

    patent by Grant Howard Calverley
    ====================================
    "The present disclosure relates to power systems,
    particularly to tether based power systems.
    In particular, this disclosure relates to conversion of
    linear motion and tension in a tether to other usable forms of
    power."
    ============================================

     
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21068 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/28/2016
    Subject: Re: Power Systems by Grant Howard Calverley
    Two are named as patentees. 
    Correct to 
    Scott Webster
    and 
    Grant Howard Calverley
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21069 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 10/29/2016
    Subject: re: [AWES] INNOVATION IN WIN D TURBINE DESIGN    ... 2011

    P.83:

    "  4.4.10 Support Structure Scaling

    The support structure (tower) of a conventional wind turbine is similar to a blade in respect

     of being a wind loaded cantilevered beam and the tower can be expected to scale cubically

     for the same reasons. It may be noted however that with tower head mass scaling essentially cubically this will contribute to a buckling moment that increases as D4."
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21070 From: dave santos Date: 10/29/2016
    Subject: Re: [AWES] INNOVATION IN WIN D TURBINE DESIGN    ... 2011
    Peter Jamieson is a top wind power technologist distinguished by his strong grounding in industrial wind tech while keeping an open mind that wind tech of the future could be very different. This report is the apparently the engineering background for Garrard Hassan to have touted AWE to its global energy investment audience, but the limitations of what Jamieson knew in 2011 about AWES design is apparent. Nevertheless, as Pierre notes, Jamieson provides a nice theoretic introduction to concepts like the scaling potential multi-rotor units that airborne wind engineering has taken even farther. 

    For example, based on the same scaling-law analysis and advanced manufacturing logic, we have long envisioned as an Open-AWE concept on the AWES Forum the idea of a vast "fabric" of small rotors, both smaller than Jamieson envisioned (bird-sized are still not too low Re) and at a far larger count (potentially thousands of rotors as one "wind-wall" surface. Jamieson represents a good third-party conceptual reference in support of our far more radical approach to multi-rotors. We also analytically define the conventional unit-windfarm as a topological multi-rotor.


    On Friday, October 28, 2016 6:44 PM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre-benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
    P.231 about Multi Rotor Systems:

    "Considering for example a 20 MW multi rotor system comprising 100 rotors each rated at 200 kW, providing the designs are fully optimized taking account of latest technology advances, there is a realistic prospect of saving up to 9/10 of rotor and drive train mass and cost as compared to a single 20 MW unit."

    PierreB
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21071 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/29/2016
    Subject: SharkNose

    http://s3.amazonaws.com/flyozones3/pdf/PG/ozone_shark_nose_en.pdf


    Open-tech. Will the SharkNose play in wings used for energy kites beyond paragliders?
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21072 From: dave santos Date: 10/29/2016
    Subject: Re: SharkNose
    Ozone's "Shark-Nose" ram-air foil section mostly reflects the obvious evolutionary logic to center the intake at the stagnation-point, and then to refine the intake Venturi geometry by fairing it. Jalbert's original parafoil essentially was all intake and no nose at the LE, and this is still the case for standard pilot lifters at lowest manufacturing cost. All modern performance parafoils already place the intake under the "nose", and some wing makers, like Pansh, took the Venturi intake refinement even farther by a sort of internal funnel valve profile.

    Ozone seems to understand this patent is not enforceable, for lack of a precise functional advantage and geometric definition, and has released it to the public domain.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21073 From: dave santos Date: 10/29/2016
    Subject: Re: [AWES] INNOVATION IN WIN D TURBINE DESIGN    ... 2011
    Link leads to a nice 2015 paper on a 20MW lateral-plane multi-rotor unit-concept that we are able to interpret as a megascale metamaterial science case-




     


    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21074 From: dave santos Date: 10/29/2016
    Subject: Re: [AWES] INNOVATION IN WIN D TURBINE DESIGN    ... 2011
    Rod would do well to seek out Peter Jamieson to collaborate on large-scale AWES multi-turbine theory. Not only are Rod and Peter close in inspiration, but close physically, just 300 miles apart in Scotland.

    The essential AWE adaptation of Jamieson's work on multi-trubines is to substitute his steel space-frame assumption with a network of loadpath lines pulled into tension by multi-anchors and multi-lifterkites, resulting in a tremendous reduction in mass and initial capital-cost of the support structure. Vaster multi-rotor structures are paradoxically enabled by the smallest practical WECS units arrayed hexagonally, to comprise the thinnest (least massive) crosswind plane.

    AWES multirotor metamaterial study gets a headstart with the HAWT WECS case already developed, on a probable flygen basis; for lack of any clear groundgen solution yet. On the foundation laid, analysis would then easily generalize to compare other unit-WECS, like crosswind axis unit-wings with whatever groundgen solutions emerge.


    On Saturday, October 29, 2016 12:23 PM, "dave santos santos137@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
    Link leads to a nice 2015 paper on a 20MW lateral-plane multi-rotor unit-concept that we are able to interpret as a megascale metamaterial science case-




     




    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21075 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/29/2016
    Subject: Laddermill page addition

    A special top note has been placed on 

    LadderMill

    to respect the circa 1977 work by Doug Selsam. 
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21076 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/31/2016
    Subject: The ultimate in sailing is a rig without a hull

    THE AMATEUR SCIENTIST

    The ultimate in sailing is a rig without a hull


    Conducted by C. L. Stong
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21077 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/31/2016
    Subject: The ultimate in sailing is a rig without a hull

    THE AMATEUR SCIENTIST

    The ultimate in sailing is a rig without a hull


    Conducted by C. L. Stong
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21078 From: dave santos Date: 10/31/2016
    Subject: Re: The ultimate in sailing is a rig without a hull
    The Hapa concept predates modern kite-surfing and is a remarkable concept to this day. Here we see where the concept first reached a mass audience, via Scientific American, but few of us have ever seen this article. The Hapa as shown was rather unworkable with such awkward features, but several of us eventually worked out hot model HAPAs based on J-foils in the '80s and '90s, and Rousson further developed human-carrying kite and LTA variants.

    It had been common to write "HAPA" on the presumption it was a technical acronym, but this article makes clear the name was just a quasi-Polynesian coinage. 


    On Monday, October 31, 2016 9:39 AM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  

    THE AMATEUR SCIENTIST

    The ultimate in sailing is a rig without a hull


    Conducted by C. L. Stong
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21079 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/31/2016
    Subject: StratoSolar

    Airspace

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


    StratoSolar

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


    Stratosolar - Wikipedia
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21080 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/31/2016
    Subject: Re: StratoSolar

    Hybrid over the StratoSolar?  Consider forgetting the tethers to the ground; rather, consider shorter tethers to a wing system where the wings fly in various strata winds to effect a net staying of the StratoSolar platform; that is, have the hybrid be a kite system within the FFAWE realm. 
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21081 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/31/2016
    Subject: Re: StratoSolar

    PV - StratoSolar ?kites? could already be producing grid-parity solar energy - Renewable Energy Magazine, at the heart of clean energy journalism
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21082 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/31/2016
    Subject: Re: StratoSolar

         Consider having StratoSolar platform gift shade for ground-based human workers. 


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


    One of the involved patents: 

    http://www.energykitesystems.net/StratoSolar/US8985499B2.pdf
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21083 From: dave santos Date: 10/31/2016
    Subject: KiWiGen Consortium circa 2003
    So AWEC, in 2009, was not the first AWE consortium ever, nor the first to fall apart. The first was the "KiWiGen Consortium" in 2003, as documented in this fine historic view into what became KiteGen; the full proposal document confirming and filling in many details. The technical understanding of that time seems quaint now. 

    In 2003, the major AWE players were Wubbo's LadderMill project and Sky WindPower, with Magenn about to pop up and raise millions. Today we see so many design problems as obvious that were not obvious thirteen years ago. For example, the massive Carousel concept with tiny kites crowded on top makes no sense today, with so many concepts known without need for massive ground structure. The vintage LadderMill is similarly overshadowed by simpler more effective aggregation methods. Still, there was considerable merit in basic inspiration, if not practical solutions.

    The 53 page document includes many small clues to how things later developed, like mention of discussion with Naish, that apparently led to Don Montague forming the Makani circle that entered AWE in 2006. Mario Milanese is not noted, but was soon to figure as the most scientific and pragmatic Italian AWE developer. Wubbo's TUDelft team was in the Consortium, but relegated to minor status, with Wubbo himself labled only a "technical manager", with Massimo preferentially loading his own interests with executive power and the most funding.

    Various Italian partners listed in 2003 apparently did not continue in AWE, and KiteGen soon after emerged as a fully stand-alone venture, with wild claims to mid-cap valuation and a blocking IP monopoly (which many recalled, while Massimo denied, but Gaetano documented. KiteGen did maintain a founding monopoly on WOW's crowd-sourced capital, until SABIC came in).

    The legacy of KiWiGen is as a promising AWE effort that did not achieve its goals, but nevertheless was a milestone to ever better rounds of effort in today's far larger AWE R&D world-
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21084 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/31/2016
    Subject: Re: StratoSolar
    The other patent:



    ---In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, <joefaust333@gmail.com
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21085 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/31/2016
    Subject: Re: StratoSolar
    1. Informational: The two patents exist. The company exists. Such matter is to be known by those interested. 

         2. See my hybrid suggestion for some consideration.  FFAWE rather than tethers to ground. 

         3. Sharing information does not mean that the sharer believes some particular level of pro or con
    .
         4. During the study of other people's ideas, one might find something of value for the same field or some other field (aerotecture, high jump landing pits, weather modification, shade making, flying high-altitude airports, ... ).  Consider staying at the party to unfold something that might be feasible and positive. 

         5.  There is kiting involved.

         6. A particular topic or post does not cast decision of value over some other post or topic. 

         7. The topic is open for mechanical critique or extension. People 100% busy on some other matter would not then give any energy to the topic. 

         8. Detail mining the two patents for tiny or large gems may or may not be done by anyone; but if a gem is found or inspired from the matter, then the topic space is here for following posts.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21086 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/1/2016
    Subject: Re: StratoSolar

    Consider alternative format: Go for a format that undulates and then have mechanical PTO of such undulation even while the PV continues to generate. Double generation. Shade. Communications. Stratospheric habitation. Assist high-altitude alternative operations for earth and space. The advances in PV materials may affect the direction that E.J. Kelly explores with his concepts and proposals. 

    ==================================================================
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21087 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/1/2016
    Subject: Re: StratoSolar
    Consider looking carefully into the system of tethers. What might be done within the tether-set space?
    The tether set might be seen as climber's paradise. Maybe hang some nets to catch water from the clouds. Consider catching insects.  Have sleeper realms for people that want to sleep in the sky for retreat, meditation, health treatment.   Fly sub-kites within the tether-set space. Hold wings in lower troposphere  to work for electric generation. Mount the tether set for launching sky-dives, hang glides, transport gliders, ...   Cycle laundry for drying? Cableways for horizontal travel? 

    ====================
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21089 From: benhaiemp Date: 11/1/2016
    Subject: Re: StratoSolar

    On 4. Adding launching satellites into orbit.

    JoeF,


    Multidisciplinary AWE systems on kite basis is an interesting field you launch (no pun intended). Indeed as the use below large airborne systems can probably not to be quite the same as the use without them, some secondary (?) uses as farming (shade could be a possibility for study) or fishing can also be investigated. 


    WECs could be added or the solar kite could be used as a lifting kite above the flying wind energy conversion system. 
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21090 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/1/2016
    Subject: IfA and its energy kite-system radiance

    IfA and its energy kite-system radiance


    The Automatic Control Laboratory (Institut für Automatik, IfA)

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

    Automatic Control Laboratory

    ==================================================================
    Tracing, tracking, interfacing the energy-kite sinews of IfA could feed this topic thread as time marches forward. 
    ==================================================================
    "Copies of all IfA publications can also be requested."   (from them : )  )
    ===============================================
    Approach the topic in various ways. 
    Here is one way:   "kite" in there search tool. Then I made a link for such
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21091 From: dave santos Date: 11/1/2016
    Subject: Re: StratoSolar
    This is a bold concept, but very primitive in engineering conception. The soundest technical prediction is that modern airspace control can easily avoid conflicts between a StratoSolar plant and existing aviation.

    Kelly does not explain many basic design choices he makes; like why a StratoSolar platform should be square rather than rounded, nor why tethers are not spread out to closely control where the platform wanders, either nominally or in-extremis. 

    There is a major source of chaotic disturbance at 65k ft that Kelly is unaware of; in the form of a fairly gentle but giant breaking gravity wave in the upper statosphere, as dawn moves across the globe. This is an unstudied effect in the context of vast mattress-like balloon caught in tumbling thin-air. 

    Its not even yet clear if the Jet Stream would not drag down the platform by the tethers, since the lift created at high-altitude is so marginal. Especially for gravity-energy-storage, it seems this should be designed as a Kytoon able to exploit aerodynamic lift, or with lifting wings along its tethers, even if its basic state is as a pure aerostat. It may help the concept keep station if reverse electrical flow allows thermal lift boost in the pre-dawn hours.

    The technical gaps are serious, but nevertheless, this may well be a glimpse of future capability, including all our ideas for aerotecture and WECS. A fully developed technical vision of this application space is worth exploring.


    On Tuesday, November 1, 2016 8:29 AM, "pierre-benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
    On 4. Adding launching satellites into orbit.
    JoeF,

    Multidisciplinary AWE systems on kite basis is an interesting field you launch (no pun intended). Indeed as the use below large airborne systems can probably not to be quite the same as the use without them, some secondary (?) uses as farming (shade could be a possibility for study) or fishing can also be investigated. 

    WECs could be added or the solar kite could be used as a lifting kite above the flying wind energy conversion system. 
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21092 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/1/2016
    Subject: Re: A2WE
    A2WE | Publications

     
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21093 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/1/2016
    Subject: Range-Inertial Estimation for Airborne Wind Energy

    Range-Inertial Estimation for Airborne Wind Energy

    Alexander Millane, Henrik Hesse, Tony A. Wood, and Roy S. Smith


    Copy of the 2015 paper is readily obtainable by using the download link

    on the following page:  

    HERE     

    The system will send a PDF of 6 pages to your email box.

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


    Technical paper. 

    "An estimation approach is presented for an autonomous

    tethered kite system for the purpose of airborne

    wind energy generation. ..."