Messages in AirborneWindEnergy group.                          AWES 21347 to 21397 Page 320 of 440.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21347 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/1/2016
Subject: California Balloon Law

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21348 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/1/2016
Subject: Re: Google-Makani News

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21349 From: dave santos Date: 12/1/2016
Subject: Re: Sharp Rotor HAWT Kite with TCAT

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21350 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/1/2016
Subject: Re: Sharp Rotor HAWT Kite with TCAT

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21351 From: dave santos Date: 12/1/2016
Subject: A peek at Enerkite's new launching mast, and why more is not publicl

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21352 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/1/2016
Subject: Think reverse over Thomas A. Edison

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21353 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/1/2016
Subject: Hot Air Balloon Kite Surfing

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21354 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/1/2016
Subject: Kite Fishing Overview for Beginners

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21355 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/1/2016
Subject: How To Easily Attach Helium Balloon To Fishing Kite -ZTRAPON

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21356 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/1/2016
Subject: Fwd: [kitepatents] Hull

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21357 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/1/2016
Subject: Re: Forum headline images

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21358 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/1/2016
Subject: Re: Vestas Sailrocket 2 breaks world record in a big way

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21359 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/1/2016
Subject: Cyclogyro info collection gem

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21360 From: dave santos Date: 12/1/2016
Subject: Re: Sharp Rotor HAWT Kite with TCAT

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21361 From: dave santos Date: 12/1/2016
Subject: Re: Think reverse over Thomas A. Edison

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21362 From: dave santos Date: 12/1/2016
Subject: Re: Cyclogyro info collection gem

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21363 From: dave santos Date: 12/1/2016
Subject: Re: Fwd: [kitepatents] Hull

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21364 From: dave santos Date: 12/2/2016
Subject: WindLift a finalist at SXSW Eco Austin

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21366 From: dave santos Date: 12/2/2016
Subject: Re: hot air Balloons for energy kites-- a preliminary proposal

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21367 From: dave santos Date: 12/2/2016
Subject: Ampyx Offshore??

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21368 From: dave santos Date: 12/2/2016
Subject: Dynamic Topologies in AWES Operations

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21369 From: dave santos Date: 12/2/2016
Subject: Wind Powered Thermal Ballooning

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21370 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/2/2016
Subject: University of Freiburg energy-kite systems AWE news

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21371 From: dave santos Date: 12/3/2016
Subject: UFreiburg's new kiteplane launch/land hardware

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21372 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/3/2016
Subject: Re: Google-Makani News

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21373 From: Peter A. Sharp Date: 12/3/2016
Subject: UFreiburg's new kiteplane launch/land hardware

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21374 From: dave santos Date: 12/3/2016
Subject: Re: UFreiburg's new kiteplane launch/land hardware

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21375 From: dave santos Date: 12/3/2016
Subject: Optimal Tether Elevation Angle for AWES (not too high)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21376 From: dave santos Date: 12/3/2016
Subject: Delta-Wing Vortex-Lift (how the old NPW keeps up with the new Uniq)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21377 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/3/2016
Subject: Re: Delta-Wing Vortex-Lift (how the old NPW keeps up with the new Un

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21378 From: dave santos Date: 12/3/2016
Subject: Re: Delta-Wing Vortex-Lift (how the old NPW keeps up with the new Un

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21379 From: benhaiemp Date: 12/4/2016
Subject: Re: UFreiburg's new kiteplane launch/land hardware

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21380 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/4/2016
Subject: Lorenzo Fagiano

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21381 From: dave santos Date: 12/4/2016
Subject: Kite Sport similarity-case handles a wide wind range and load demand

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21382 From: dave santos Date: 12/4/2016
Subject: Re: UFreiburg's new kiteplane launch/land hardware

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21383 From: dave santos Date: 12/4/2016
Subject: Re: Lorenzo Fagiano

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21384 From: Peter A. Sharp Date: 12/4/2016
Subject: Re: Increasing elevation angle

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21385 From: gordon_sp Date: 12/4/2016
Subject: Re: Fwd: Hello from Kitewinder located in france

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21386 From: dave santos Date: 12/4/2016
Subject: Re: Increasing elevation angle

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21387 From: dave santos Date: 12/4/2016
Subject: Re: Fwd: Hello from Kitewinder located in france

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21388 From: benhaiemp Date: 12/5/2016
Subject: Re: Fwd: Hello from Kitewinder located in france

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21389 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/5/2016
Subject: Re: Fwd: Hello from Kitewinder located in france

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21390 From: dave santos Date: 12/5/2016
Subject: Re: Fwd: Hello from Kitewinder located in france

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21391 From: dave santos Date: 12/5/2016
Subject: Re: Fwd: Hello from Kitewinder located in france

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21392 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 12/5/2016
Subject: Re: Fwd: Hello from Kitewinder located in france

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21393 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 12/5/2016
Subject: Re: Fwd: Hello from Kitewinder located in france

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21394 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 12/5/2016
Subject: Re: Fwd: Hello from Kitewinder located in france

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21395 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 12/5/2016
Subject: Re: Fwd: Hello from Kitewinder located in france

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21396 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 12/5/2016
Subject: Re: Fwd: Hello from Kitewinder located in france

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21397 From: dave santos Date: 12/5/2016
Subject: Re: Fwd: Hello from Kitewinder located in france



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21347 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/1/2016
Subject: California Balloon Law

California Balloon Law - Wikipedia
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21348 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/1/2016
Subject: Re: Google-Makani News

Two separate companies have no association with each other:

Conventional wind: 

California wind-energy developer Champlin/GEI Wind Holdings LLC’s Na Pua Makani Power Partners LLC is the developer of the 25-megawatt Na Pua Makani Wind project near Kahuku.


The Google Makani company has no association with the above. 


============================
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21349 From: dave santos Date: 12/1/2016
Subject: Re: Sharp Rotor HAWT Kite with TCAT
Once again, PeterS has conceived a novel AWES concept that raises many interesting questions. We are familiar with his transmission choice as a sort of double-ended rubber-band motor, or as the principle of the torsion-catapult, where slowly wound-up ropes store energy that is suddenly released. Its a workable method whose virtue of a twisted line "accumulator" is simplicity.  The disadvantage is that the generator runs in spurts, rather than the ideal of constant working rpm (that variable wing number and area (kite quiver) might solve).

Gaylord Olsen's rotor-on-the-kiteline patent is a conventional HAWT rotor suited drive a kiteline in bursts. The Sharp Rotor HAWT is not as simple as Gaylord's conventional low-speed wind turbine, Each spinning cylinder "blade" has gyroscopic forces to account for. Based on Leading Edge Vortex (LEV) theory, a spinning cylinder also undergoing in-plane rotor rotation does not seem promising, because the Coriolis Parameter is reversed from optimal (the outer cylinder "blade tip" lags in proportion of cylinder rpm tip-speed).  It does not seem that  the LEV lift advantage is supported. Gaylord, on the other hand, shows a rotor with fly-wing AR, which would maximize LEV for high torque production.

Another prediction is that the Sharp Rotor HAWT will be higher-mass than a regular rotor of the same power rating.  The cylinders are bulkier than fine airfoil baldes, and the hoop frames add even more mass. KiteLab found that well designed AWES HAWTs can come to a stop passively before the system self-lands. Two-bladed rotors have the advantage of laying flat on the ground easier than three blades with extended axis.

This sort of design should still be built, to test predictions and serve as a fine study-model, even if its not the Darwinian market-winner of small-AWES design to charge batteries. The more we test all the small-scale possibilities, the better we will do solving the large-scale AWES tech challenges. It will be great to find out what PeterS finally proposes for large scale AWES design, once he has fully explored the varied possibilities.


On Wednesday, November 30, 2016 6:41 PM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
Hi JoeF,
Please post the attached drawing for me. Much thanks.
Just to refresh readers’ memories, a TCAT is intended to charge batteries. It uses a windmill kite to twist shock cords until the torque becomes high enough to overcome the resistance of a magnetic catch mounted on the drive shaft of a small generator. Then the twist cords spin a small, inexpensive generator at a high RPM. The generator spins at the same RPM whenever it is “on”, so the electricity is easier to regulate. As the wind speed increases, the generator is “on” more often. 
A TCAT is less efficient than a direct-drive generator of a wind turbine kite, or a generator driven by a circulating belt from a wind turbine kite. But it could be far cheaper. The far lower first cost could more than compensate for the lower efficiency, and therefore the cost of the energy could be substantially lower. 
The reason for using Sharp Rotors for the blades of the windmill is that they would develop high torque at close to zero RPM, which would make it easier to overcome the magnetic catch in light winds. 
Because Sharp Rotors produce only low torque, it would be easy to brake them in high wind speeds using a simple, sliding brake-disc that responds to wind pressure. 
If the HAWT Kite is made large, each blade would consist of multiple Sharp Rotors, separated by swivels, with each Sharp Rotor spinning at its own RPM.
Alternative: Instead of Sharp Rotors, conventional, streamlined blades could be used along with T-Rule pitch control, as I have previously described. I recently checked out if that type of pitch control works. I used a small, single-blade model and a fan. It does work as I recalled from my original experiment about 40 years ago. I used a tight cord and attached the base of the blade to that cord so that the blade was free to pitch. Once started, the blade continued to rotate while controlling its own pitch angle automatically. T-Rule blades could replace the Sharp Rotors, and no swivels would be needed because the mounting cord, as shown, would simply twist enough to allow the blades to pitch freely. Each blade would use a light cord to limit the amount of pitch during start-up so as to produce strong starting torque. If the blades were especially long, each blade could be divided into sections, with each section controlling its own pitch angle. That would create the equivalent of a twisted blade, but it would be far cheaper to make.
A Note: Note the similarity of the rod frame to the shape of an eggbeater Darrieus rotor. The frame could be modified to function as a Darrieus eggbeater rotor. In that case, the Sharp Rotors would be used to start it. They would be placed closer to the long axis of the eggbeater rotor so that the blades of the eggbeater rotor would have a TSR that was much higher. Also note that this particular eggbeater rotor would function as a predominantly horizontal axis windmill.
PeterS

http://www.energykitesystems.net/SharpKites/Sharp_Rotor_HAWT_Kite_with_TCAT.jpg
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21350 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/1/2016
Subject: Re: Sharp Rotor HAWT Kite with TCAT
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21351 From: dave santos Date: 12/1/2016
Subject: A peek at Enerkite's new launching mast, and why more is not publicl
Pulling together fragmentary clues from here-and-there: Enerkite has taken Moritz's rotary catapult launch concept to minimal proof-of-concept. Launch but not landing has been shown. In the image below from the Twittersphere, we see the launching mast on the EK30 base-station vehicle, but no video yet to study. It may be this launcher has already surpassed the practical scale that a rotary catapult can handle. Easily broken or strained kite airframes would indicate the scaling barrier. Baseline comparison launching/landing methods in UAS practice are straight-line catapult track launching with catch-net landing, and tow-launch and field landing. Mishap statistics across methods are key engineering data.

As usual, there is limited timely-transparency to the world community from the cozy TUDelft-AWESCO venture circle*. "Presentation" of the new launching system seems so far only to have been made at the WindEnergy Hamburg expo, as a marketing aid. A vulgar venture-capitalist ethos prevails over global AWE academic knowledge transparency. The worst-case final outcome is that TUDelft and AWESCO's AWE legacy falls into the chasm between the opposed value systems; neither winning business success, nor delivering top scientific results. 

How could such an elite PhD factory possibly fail? Perhaps class-distinction based on PhD status is a self-limiting process. When researchers and investors create an information non-disclosure firewall to "protect IP", they also seal themselves off from outside solutions. Pure merit has little short-term value to a venture model of credentialism monetized by marketing. The "not invented here" IP barrier is raised, and confirmation-bias sets in. The advantage shifts to merit-competition by outsiders.

Or maybe not. Its super exciting to see the AWESCO socio-techno-drama play out, and AWE is sure to succeed by contributions from all camps, no matter who finally puts it all together-



------------------------
* No one can even say just what happened to Airborne Wind Energy Consortium (AWEC), after its directorate function was captured within the Northern EU AWE inside circle. Are such questions "too political" as Moritz has opined; or are the insider interests the political problem? The success of this launching method, and many other AWESCO technical down-selects, should determine what politics had the most engineering-science merit.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21352 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/1/2016
Subject: Think reverse over Thomas A. Edison

Think reverse over Thomas A. Edison  , circa 1910, ? carousel ?

Patent US970616 - Flying-machine.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21353 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/1/2016
Subject: Hot Air Balloon Kite Surfing

Hot Air Balloon Kite Surfing
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21354 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/1/2016
Subject: Kite Fishing Overview for Beginners

Kite Fishing Overview for Beginners
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21355 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/1/2016
Subject: How To Easily Attach Helium Balloon To Fishing Kite -ZTRAPON


How To Easily Attach Helium Balloon To Fishing Kite -ZTRAPON

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

?


Sun guard wear?

Left or right?

Why all this?

The wrap?
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21356 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/1/2016
Subject: Fwd: [kitepatents] Hull
Danny M. Hull

Harold L. Hull

Remote Control Devices

(former application "Control of Airborne Devices")

Remote control devices
US 3338536 A

Publication numberUS3338536 A
Publication typeGrant
Publication dateAug 29, 1967
Filing dateNov 19, 1963
Priority dateNov 19, 1963
InventorsHull Danny M, Hull Harold L
Original AssigneeHull Danny M, Hull Harold L
Export CitationBiBTeX, EndNote, RefMan
Patent Citations (1), Referenced by (23), Classifications (6)

External Links: USPTO, USPTO Assignment, Espacenet

=====================
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21357 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/1/2016
Subject: Re: Forum headline images
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21358 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/1/2016
Subject: Re: Vestas Sailrocket 2 breaks world record in a big way
Link in opening post seems not to work. 
================================

Aerotrope
Aerotrope | Surface-Sensing Hydrofoil

 


Client: Bernard Shattock (inventor)

Project Period:  2002 - 2005 

Patent link in article

===========================   and

MAIN HOME SITE
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21359 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/1/2016
Subject: Cyclogyro info collection gem

세계의 사이클로콥터 개발
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21360 From: dave santos Date: 12/1/2016
Subject: Re: Sharp Rotor HAWT Kite with TCAT
This image shows a "diagonal axis"  HAWT ("DAWT") of Gaylord's, but its not the stubbly blades I recall, which maybe are someone else's kite patent. In any case, its a familiar placement of the HAWT under a pilot-lifter as PeterS, but without the TCAT PTO.

Image result for gaylord olson patent


On Thursday, December 1, 2016 5:34 PM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21361 From: dave santos Date: 12/1/2016
Subject: Re: Think reverse over Thomas A. Edison
Edison's flying machine is a similarity case to rotors with VAWT-style blades.

This is apparently not a competitive alternative to conventional rotors, for lack of any commercially successful instances, but a real picturesque curiosity.


On Thursday, December 1, 2016 7:02 PM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
Think reverse over Thomas A. Edison  , circa 1910, ? carousel ?
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21362 From: dave santos Date: 12/1/2016
Subject: Re: Cyclogyro info collection gem
Wow, what a cool graveyard of marginal cross-axis rotorcraft this otaku has scrounged together. It seems well confirmed that the upwind return-side drag forever relegates all such designs to low-performance relative to standard wings and propellers. At least this sort of freaky steampunk aircraft can be made to fly, recalling Wubbo's declaration that we can choose technology that is not just the most efficient, but makes us happiest.


On Thursday, December 1, 2016 7:45 PM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21363 From: dave santos Date: 12/1/2016
Subject: Re: Fwd: [kitepatents] Hull
A three-line reel similar to  the WWII target kite reel below, and even closer to Dan Tracy's two-line reel, this three-line T-bar also recalls the simple T-bars KiteShip used to test scale ship kites. Hw nice that multi-line reels have so much prior art.


Image result for wwII target kite




On Thursday, December 1, 2016 7:06 PM, "Joe Faust joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
Danny M. Hull
Harold L. Hull
Remote Control Devices
(former application "Control of Airborne Devices")
Publication numberUS3338536 A
Publication typeGrant
Publication dateAug 29, 1967
Filing dateNov 19, 1963
Priority dateNov 19, 1963
InventorsHull Danny M, Hull Harold L
Original AssigneeHull Danny M, Hull Harold L
Export CitationBiBTeX, EndNote, RefMan
Patent Citations (1), Referenced by (23), Classifications (6)

External Links: USPTO, USPTO Assignment, Espacenet
=====================
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21364 From: dave santos Date: 12/2/2016
Subject: WindLift a finalist at SXSW Eco Austin
Yet more Austin AWE news; this time WindLift came to town and AWE could have won the startup contest, except for them overtly representing the conflicted idea of a green militarism. kPower of Austin ignored this event, having already complained to the organizers that the SXSW phenomenon had become too mindlessly corporatist, in this case treating green-tech as more about making money than actually being green. I recall SXSW when it was a small cheap and actually hip, and now its a soulless monster-event brand.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21366 From: dave santos Date: 12/2/2016
Subject: Re: hot air Balloons for energy kites-- a preliminary proposal
Dear Alfred,

Engineering and societal barriers to hydrogen as a lifting gas only continue to grow. Its certain to leak and is a potent ozone-depleting and greenhouse gas. It becomes explosive with just small amount of air contamination. Its very corrosive (reactive) to many materials and chemicals. Everyone who has ever tried to use hydrogen since the Hindenburg has failed to solve these problems. Helium is hardly better, as a precious engineering element that is lost forever by leaking.

PeterS does not need to make a solar-thermal experiment* to confirm what has already been well tested; that solar-thermal is the most marginal lift of any balloon type normally studied. Even if this were not true, balloons are necessarily fragile, to reduce mass, and remain at risk by ordinary bad weather. For anyone who doubts these conclusions, there is a constant supply of naive experimenters to observe failing by the same old mistaken assumptions.

Its not a major wind-energy advantage to use lifting gas just to stay in the air during calm, if the AWES can simply land 500m below, and relaunch when wind returns, by means of kites, without all the "LTA-blues",

daveS

35yr LTA veteran technologist

------------
* Despite his apparent conviction that speculative opinions are supposed to tested by whoever makes them, or not be posed.




On Friday, December 2, 2016 9:10 AM, alfred. vandijk <no_reply@yahoogroups.com  
Your ideas are good for someone just beginning to think about the subject, or your brainstorming is good. I got discouraged after reading the HeiDAS study. They seemed to have achieved a reasonably good R-value for their envelope, but still had to input so much energy to keep it afloat and had such small lift that it didn't seem to be worth the effort. Their approach might have had some flaws though.

If you want to play with it, you can perhaps make a box, with 5 sides extremely well insulated and 1 side constructed of your envelope material (5 layers of ultra-thin mylar with a space of 16-50 centimeters between them?), and try to determine the R-value of the material by placing something hot or cold inside the box. Or you could try playing with fluid dynamics software.

Personally I'd just go with hydrogen.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21367 From: dave santos Date: 12/2/2016
Subject: Ampyx Offshore??
Below is an artist's concept of Ampyx's vision for offshore kitefarms based on its Power Plane. There is scant infrastructure savings evident, compared to floating HAWT towers, if each unit-platform is in effect a mini aircraft-carrier required to accelerate and decelerate each delicate glider-kite. Ampyx has not yet even shown it can operate all-modes on land, with a whole kite field to use, nor that it can actually achieve utility unit-scale far greater than a current 50kW demonstrator.

Marketing hype drives such AWES ventures in raising millions, not essential performance metrics, like inherent reliability. If premature AWES concepts are doomed by impracticality and low economic yields, at least they being proven unworkable by the many millions and and large team efforts devoted to them. A grand AWE venture-bonfire has been kindled. Like the legendary Phoenix, AWE seems destined to rise from its own ashes.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21368 From: dave santos Date: 12/2/2016
Subject: Dynamic Topologies in AWES Operations
Sailboat racing crews in open design classes typically change sails and spars to match conditions. The commonest case is to rig a spinnaker and spinnaker pole just for a downwind course. This is Dynamic Topology*, where the operational topology is not fixed, and a suite of sails** are a ready toolkit to apply as needed. Large kite traditions also validate the dynamic topology capability of human crews.

We have gradually come to discern how AWES engineers design on a topological spectrum ranging from relatively fixed to highly dynamic topology. Most early AWES designers have presumed a single fixed base, tether, and kite unit topology to match all conditions. Like maximizing sailing, aviation performance and reliability tend to require added topological complexity. Continuing the fixed-topology approach is to design-in every possible feature, but such a system becomes too "bloated" to properly function nominally. 

The dynamic topology AWES approach is to constantly change connections and components to closely keep the airborne platform aerodynamically optimized and "clean" of unwanted parasitic mass. Freely mobile surface anchoring vehicles are an especially dynamic topological input. Every significant change in anchor position is effectively a change in field topology. Even the least dynamic AWES topologies must have some dynamic aspects, like initial set-up, or upgrading components.*** Dynamic topology also accelerates design cycles.

Weather extremes are large and chaotic. Most-probable wind velocity is closer to sailing wind velocities than rigid-wing aircraft velocities. The short-term dynamic topology trade-off is that human labor is currently required for variable topology operationally. The early contest is between human labor(sky-sailors) practicing dynamic topology against fixed topology AWES with complex still-unvalidated flight automation dependency. In due time, advanced  AWE may automate variable topology (airborne docking, hot-swapping, etc.) on a grand scale, while simpler fixed topologies persist in small AWE systems.
-------------
* Loosely related to Dynamic Topology in CGI.
** Or quiver of kites.
*** Human evolution is a prime biological case of dynamic system topology, where the human hand came to readily operate diverse tools.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21369 From: dave santos Date: 12/2/2016
Subject: Wind Powered Thermal Ballooning
To meet PeterS halfway on the future of hot-air in AWE:

Solar gain is a default lift boost, but too weak and diffuse to be a primary lift source. Given an super-abundant power source like AWE, then maybe its practical to heat mass aerotecture lifting balloons.

Here's a neat energy cycle- AWE supplies a regional grid from a super windy place to a windless place. In the windless place, opportunistically, a brilliant hot air balloon culture takes to the air, using the AWE to create the heat. 

Taking mass high does not just consume energy, but stores energy. The more mass is levitated by AWE across the grid, the more baseload AWE power stored by gravity. Maybe the hot data-centers of the future will end up at high altitude, and balmy pleasure domes, buoyant by their own warmth; powered by AWE, either directly, or over large distances.

Open-AWE_IP-Cloud
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21370 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/2/2016
Subject: University of Freiburg energy-kite systems AWE news
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21371 From: dave santos Date: 12/3/2016
Subject: UFreiburg's new kiteplane launch/land hardware
While launching performance is not trivial, it seems the bigger challenge to Moritz's rotary catapult scheme is landing. The rotating arm must meet the returning kiteplane with perfect timing, while also retracting the tether at high speed. This process must eventually become reliable to better than one major mishap per hundred thousand session hours, in accord with long-standing UAS reliability metric applied in US military UAS development.

Harvesting Energy from Airborne Wind
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21372 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/3/2016
Subject: Re: Google-Makani News

The following article puts more attention on what we have reported: 

Google Patents Kites to Power and Steer Floating Data Centers

This further attention has two or three links to text on the same speculation. 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21373 From: Peter A. Sharp Date: 12/3/2016
Subject: UFreiburg's new kiteplane launch/land hardware
To simplify landing the kiteplane, Dr. Diehl's rotary launching device might
land the kiteplane by using a circular landing pad around the launching
device. The rudder of the kiteplane would be a single unit that could be
made free to pitch so as to no longer act as a rudder. That way, when
circling tightly during landing, the rudder would not react to the changing
direction of the wind and not pitch the direction of the kiteplane (cause it
to yaw). Centrifugal force would keep the fuselage about tangent to the
circular path of the kiteplane. Landing wheels would be needed. The
kiteplane would be landed under low-wind conditions most of the time since,
during high winds, it could simply face straight into the wind and remain
aloft. Takeoffs could be done the same way, in reverse. This landing
technique would minimize the effect of crosswinds during takeoffs and
landings.
In contrast, wind forces could swing the kite into its launching tower if
the kite was hanging from it rotating arm when the kite was upwind during
takeoffs and landings, and not moving fast enough for centrifugal force to
hold the kite outward, away from the rotating arm. There would be a
potentially dangerous transition zone during both takeoffs and landings.
As presently configured, if Dr. Diehl's rotating arm could also angle
upwards (does it?), it could fly the kite to a high altitude as a whip-stick
glider by imparting an upward flight path to the kite while it was circling
the rotating arm. This works because, with the tether attached to the tip of
the inward wing, centrifugal force will act to keep the kiteplane in the
same plane as the rotating arm. So when the rotating arm is raised upward,
the kiteplane will fly upward. That is because the rotating arms leads the
kiteplane when the kiteplane is flying as a whip-stick glider.
These comments are the result of my experiments with a Bird Windmill blade
when used as whip-stick glider moving in a horizontal circle, with the
tether attached to the tip of the inward wing. These experiments were done
under no, or low, wind conditions.
Another option, when using a circular landing pad, would be to mount a
propeller/motor on the kiteplane and let it takeoff and land using its own
power as it circled its launching device with the rotating arm.
PeterS
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21374 From: dave santos Date: 12/3/2016
Subject: Re: UFreiburg's new kiteplane launch/land hardware
PeterS,

Yes, its still easy to see ways to improve details of any AWES prototype, and such improvements do move the dial toward effectiveness and reliability, but the overarching question remains; how best to launch and land a kiteplane choosing from all the possibilities(?)

One answer is to apply Optimal Experimental Design. For example, you, Moritz, and anyone else would refine the rotary launcher/lander for the purpose of extended trials against all other methods (like, say, winch-tow from a robotic dolly, or cascaded launch starting from small pilot kites.

The barriers are mainly cultural. Academia tends to maintain a self-sufficiency of analytical discourse. The AWESCO program that this launching work is part of is especially inward focused. Of course aviation (esp. model aviation and incl. open AWE) has long explored the circular runway, tilts motion planes as needed, and participates in open informal technical speculation.

I enjoyed visiting Moritz's Leuven AWE lab in 2011, in the basement of a castle-like engineering school, where the blur of his first spinning kiteplane strikingly evoked Jules Verne's time-machine. Moritz is a nice guy who might welcome your participation in his AWES rotary-launch circle, so be sure to try him. He has not been too keen on the comparative AWE testing I advocate. Industrial Optimal Control is his domain expertise, not Optimal Experimental Design for AWE in AE fly-off form. 

daveS



On Saturday, December 3, 2016 12:47 PM, "'Peter A. Sharp' sharpencil@sbcglobal.net [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
To simplify landing the kiteplane, Dr. Diehl's rotary launching device might
land the kiteplane by using a circular landing pad around the launching
device. The rudder of the kiteplane would be a single unit that could be
made free to pitch so as to no longer act as a rudder. That way, when
circling tightly during landing, the rudder would not react to the changing
direction of the wind and not pitch the direction of the kiteplane (cause it
to yaw). Centrifugal force would keep the fuselage about tangent to the
circular path of the kiteplane. Landing wheels would be needed. The
kiteplane would be landed under low-wind conditions most of the time since,
during high winds, it could simply face straight into the wind and remain
aloft. Takeoffs could be done the same way, in reverse. This landing
technique would minimize the effect of crosswinds during takeoffs and
landings.
In contrast, wind forces could swing the kite into its launching tower if
the kite was hanging from it rotating arm when the kite was upwind during
takeoffs and landings, and not moving fast enough for centrifugal force to
hold the kite outward, away from the rotating arm. There would be a
potentially dangerous transition zone during both takeoffs and landings.
As presently configured, if Dr. Diehl's rotating arm could also angle
upwards (does it?), it could fly the kite to a high altitude as a whip-stick
glider by imparting an upward flight path to the kite while it was circling
the rotating arm. This works because, with the tether attached to the tip of
the inward wing, centrifugal force will act to keep the kiteplane in the
same plane as the rotating arm. So when the rotating arm is raised upward,
the kiteplane will fly upward. That is because the rotating arms leads the
kiteplane when the kiteplane is flying as a whip-stick glider.
These comments are the result of my experiments with a Bird Windmill blade
when used as whip-stick glider moving in a horizontal circle, with the
tether attached to the tip of the inward wing. These experiments were done
under no, or low, wind conditions.
Another option, when using a circular landing pad, would be to mount a
propeller/motor on the kiteplane and let it takeoff and land using its own
power as it circled its launching device with the rotating arm.
PeterS
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21375 From: dave santos Date: 12/3/2016
Subject: Optimal Tether Elevation Angle for AWES (not too high)
A persistent AWE myth is that somehow a high tether elevation angle is possible with a high power harvesting factor, in the hope of a more compact kitefarm and airspace. This naive logic naturally favors high L/D platforms that can fly at high angle.

Optimal AWES physics just don't work like that. The power-zone maxima of the kite-window is around 45deg elevation. A fine wing can fly near zenith, but with relatively little free-energy to tap. For max power, a wing must fly lower down and work the power-zone. Ask any power kiter.

The edges of the kite window are useful for depower-mode. AWES reeling circles are well aware that retraction-phase at the edge of the window reduces cycle-loss. Everyone reading this should be familiar the Springer AWE book's formal treatment governing max power at low tether angle. The AWES Forum has explored how kite stability features reduce flight angle, and that WECS themselves can act as stability features for lifter units, with an average flight angle defined between modules.

The best news is that low tether angle is not a major barrier to AWE. After-all, airplanes already land at an even lower angle over populations. Soon (~2025) NextGen airspace will enable far denser airspace. Most far out of all, 3D kite lattice need only have a low tether angles at its upwind margin, with vertical lines within. So while the need for a low tether angle cannot be fully eliminated, the average tether angle of a lattice can be quite high.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21376 From: dave santos Date: 12/3/2016
Subject: Delta-Wing Vortex-Lift (how the old NPW keeps up with the new Uniq)
The Asian Delta Kite is ancient, but lacked the turbulence-compliant wing spars of the modern delta kite perfected along the Texas-Mexico border (Pharr, TX; where Gayla Kite was founded, just five miles from my mother's hometown, Edinburg, TX, where the HG/PG World Record Encampment occurs). The Tex-Mex delta kite is now the dominant toy kite design worldwide. These cheap wings perform so well, they fly almost as well as expensive professional UL (ultra-light wind) kites. The AWES Forum has long explored delta kite dynamics, and conjectured about their vortex-lift capability. Lately we reviewed LEV (leading-edge-vortex) lift of biological wings (insects, birds, bats, seeds), and the low-Re regime confirms that vortex-lift is one of the delta kite's secrets.

I have been flying SS (single-skin) power kites almost every day in recent weeks, alternating between the delta planform NPWs and new oval planform Peter Lynn Uniq SS kites. The surprise conclusion is that the NPW is comparable or superior in performance to the Uniq, which apparently needs more time to evolve beyond NPW performance. The Uniq is a flatter thinner wing, so how is the NPW keeping up? The answer must be, in part, delta-wing vortex-lift. The NPW is itself evolving flatter and thinner and wider, and we may soon see a full synthesis of NPW and Uniq design; a very flat thin delta soft-kite planform.

Here is Wikipedia on Delta-Wing Vortex Lift, which is increasingly well understood and closely related to rapidly advancing LEV theory. It seems kite vortex lift will scale up, since constant wind-field velocity corresponds to lowered dimensionless velocity as kites are made bigger.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21377 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/3/2016
Subject: Re: Delta-Wing Vortex-Lift (how the old NPW keeps up with the new Un
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21378 From: dave santos Date: 12/3/2016
Subject: Re: Delta-Wing Vortex-Lift (how the old NPW keeps up with the new Un
The tiny url results led to this vortex-lift page with nice visuals and comments. Its evident that delta kite performance greatly depends on vortex lift, just as we always suspected. How cool that old open questions get resolved, and there is always more to learn.

The best news is that a thin delta wing at low AoA has very low drag (like the Concorde), with a wide range of power all the way to high AoA stall angles, with best stability (like the Concord landing). Long-wing performance gliders can't do stable stall power like a delta. 

What next? Delta HGs may make a comeback-





On Saturday, December 3, 2016 6:14 PM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21379 From: benhaiemp Date: 12/4/2016
Subject: Re: UFreiburg's new kiteplane launch/land hardware
See also https://arxiv.org/pdf/1608.01889v1.pdf  and Autonomous Tethered Take-Off and Flight for Airborne Wind Energy

 

PierreB
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21380 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/4/2016
Subject: Lorenzo Fagiano

Mentions in our forum for Lorenzo Fagiano:

Yahoo! Groups

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

and his C.V.: 

http://lorenzofagiano.altervista.org/docs/CVFagianoEnglish.pdf

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

Since September 2016:

Associate Professor of Control Systems Department of Electronics, Information and Bioengineering Politecnico di Milano, Milano, Italy.

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

Ever needing update in EnergyKiteSystems.net    

Lorenzo Fagiano
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21381 From: dave santos Date: 12/4/2016
Subject: Kite Sport similarity-case handles a wide wind range and load demand
A top design requirement for an AWES is effective operation across a wide range of wind velocities. Most concepts presume a single flying component expected to cope with a wide wind range by complex flight flight controls and beefed-up structure able resist peak high-velocity wind loads. However, most probable wind velocity is usually on the lower side of flyable velocities, and a lighter wing is greatly advantaged over a heavier wing suited for high wind, which must sweep desperately in fluky low wind, with little net-power to harvest. Sailing and kite sports instead rely on "sail changes" and "kite quivers" to adapt optimally to varied wind conditions. Kite sports are in fact the prime successful AWES case to inform the quest for utility-scale energy production.

Graphic below shows typical power kite manufacturer's product line of kite and bar sizes to cover a wide wind range. The idea is for the power kite user to have a full kite quiver, where the kite sizes overlap ranges. Kitelines also come in quivers. If the wind changes, a kite's depower/full-power range handles most session gust fluxuations. If one kite in a quiver somehow fails, a close larger or smaller size is substituted. This is a very popular and reliable system. A kite quiver lasts far longer than one wing used too hard. The same fabric weight tends to serve, since smaller kites have closer load-path seams. Repairs are fast, cheap, and easy. Human labor is required, but its good work, and kite performance is highly optimized.

A special case of a quiver system to handle wind variations is Revolution Kites. Revs have always had a vented LE*, so it was natural to vent them systematically with mesh panels so that they fly aerobatically more or less the same in stronger winds. The venting patterns are evolving fast, and its another instance of vortex lift, as the panels create a complex vortex-lift/vortex-stability field that ordinary solid wings do not, for stable flight and max power across a wider AoA range, as yet another design advantage compared to most rigid wings**.

Open-AWE embraces the quiver, being the closest player to low-complexity kite sport tech, of all the major R&D efforts (GoogleX is the farthest into high-complexity AWE). The kite quiver is naturally open-AWE's approach to optimize power output in varied winds for varied loads. Looking farther ahead to large-scale soft-kite AWES, the kixel quiver will tend to be less graduated, but with a wide depower capability by sail-area furling and AoA control, like elastic aft bridling to handle gust surge.

The full-blown sport-kite quiver concept applied to AWES design is part of Open-AWE_IP-Cloud


Image result for rev wind range kites

------------------
* At NABX2007, JoeH told me his Rev invention saga, of suddenly wanting to try an LE vent in a prototype Rev, so his brother burned a row of holes along the fabric with a cigarette, and the kite flew better. We have called such features "tubulators", and many traditional kites and many new kite designs have them. See the parallel topic on vortex lift.

** Transport aircraft have complex wings with slats and flaps to extend their operating velocity range, but their minimum velocity is still "hurricane" wind velocity, which is not "most probable" wind velocity.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21382 From: dave santos Date: 12/4/2016
Subject: Re: UFreiburg's new kiteplane launch/land hardware
Yes, we follow various AWES straight-line catapult experiments, like Lorenzo's Swiss version at ETH that PeterS links here, as well as a vast history of catapult aircraft launching (starting with the Wright Bros) and these cases clearly contrast with the rotary launch method Moritz at UFreiburg, DE, and Enerkite at Brandenburg, DE, are exploring; which has far fewer precedents.

We should eventually open a new topic to review all the straight line catapult experiments, but we did review the ETH video in detail.

ETH-





On Sunday, December 4, 2016 7:47 AM, "pierre-benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
 
PierreB


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21383 From: dave santos Date: 12/4/2016
Subject: Re: Lorenzo Fagiano
Lorenzo is really getting around. Its great to see him based back in Italy. Its time for Italy to once again step-up as an R&D leader in AWE, and Lorenzo seems like a key person to help make that happen.


On Sunday, December 4, 2016 8:00 AM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
Mentions in our forum for Lorenzo Fagiano:
=================
and his C.V.: 
=================
Since September 2016:
Associate Professor of Control Systems Department of Electronics, Information and Bioengineering Politecnico di Milano, Milano, Italy.
==================
Ever needing update in EnergyKiteSystems.net    
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21384 From: Peter A. Sharp Date: 12/4/2016
Subject: Re: Increasing elevation angle
Hi All,
This is an interesting issue. In principle, an elevation angle of zero
degrees can achieve any altitude due to the curvature of the earth. But of
course, the length and cost of the tether and the winding machinery needs to
be considered when determining the optimum elevation angle. So the next
question becomes: What is the best elevation angle to minimize the length of
the tether, while maximizing the wind gradient, for a given type of kite? It
seems to me that different kinds of energy kites will have different optimum
elevation angles.
To take an extreme example just to illustrate my point, a Bird Windmill
blade in a vertical orbit will have a nearly vertical elevation angle on
average if measured from the ground. If measured from the tops of the
supporting towers, it will have a nearly vertical, but negative, elevation
angle on average.
A long-pull kite may have an average elevation angle that stays within a
fairly narrow range above or below that average, whereas a Makani kite will
have a very wide range of elevation angles above or below its average due to
flying in very large circles.
So the question requires a nuanced answer that takes many factors into
account. There is no "one size (elevation angle) fits all", although there
may be general guidelines. Here is another example to illustrate that point:
Assume a pilot kite used as the base to fly an energy kite? In that case, an
elevation angle of zero degrees for the energy kite might be the best angle
if the pilot kite is already at a high altitude.
Here is a similar example: Use two large pilot kites, far apart, with a
wing-kite flying back and forth between them. The wing-kite will have a zero
elevation angle relative to its pilot kites. The best elevation angle for
the pilot kites may differ according to how many degrees of arc they are
apart.
Each type of kite may introduce unique differences that need to be
considered.
PeterS
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21385 From: gordon_sp Date: 12/4/2016
Subject: Re: Fwd: Hello from Kitewinder located in france

I would like to compare the Kitewinder system with my Balloon Kite concept, (message #19899) which describes a system with a dual tether/rope drive system, multiple turbines and a LTA lifter kite. 

·         The Kitewinder design employs a single turbine which must be quite large and turn slower than my multiple turbine system.  This results in a poor efficiency cable drive system unless gears are used to speed up the drive.

·         The single turbine is offset from the line of the tether.  This will cause the turbine to droop in conditions of low wind and might interfere with the cable during retraction.

·          A single turbine would cause transverse torque which may displace the drive line and rub against the walls of the pulleys.  A dual drive system neutralizes this torque.

·         The lifter kite is supported with a single tether and the only method of controlling the kite   would be some sort of kite steering unit which would increase weight and complexity.  With my dual tether/drive system, small adjustments in the lengths of each loop will stabilize the kite.

·         It is not clear what mechanism is used to retract the cable and the schematic even shows the turbine rotating during the retraction.  My concept of a cage retraction method could employ a separate retraction motor.

  The Kitewinder must be retracted during low and no wind conditions whereas my system may remain aloft.  An LTA system can be much larger than a conventional kite and still be able to be safely launched with a 3 man crew.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21386 From: dave santos Date: 12/4/2016
Subject: Re: Increasing elevation angle
Its not the case that "different kinds of energy kites will have different optimum elevation angles". Instead, standard power kites roam the kite-window as needed. They work the power-zone on demand, and back-off to the edge of the window to depower. It would be an odd design flaw if any power kite had a "different optimum
elevation angle" from the rest. Higher L/D kites do fly closer to the edge of the window, which gives them more depower, but the power zone is common to all power kites and located in the same general place. The intensity of the surface-wind gradient most determines where the power zone is.

For practical purposes, a power-kite's flying-window power-zone is taught like the kite-school image below. The reason that the max power elevation is not zero deg, as a naive analyist might guess, but well higher, as a wise heuristic, is because the surface-wind gradient is the common condition driving wind towers and kites to operate better off the ground. Flying in the high part of the power zone is wise for other reasons, like enhanced flight reliability. Under RAD, getting the practical fact right is what counts most. This is the general elevation reality of power kiting or AWE (averaged for multiple kite elements) that every power kiter knows, and every AWE expert should know as well-

Areas of the Wind Window




On Sunday, December 4, 2016 1:29 PM, "'Peter A. Sharp' sharpencil@sbcglobal.net [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
Hi All,
This is an interesting issue. In principle, an elevation angle of zero
degrees can achieve any altitude due to the curvature of the earth. But of
course, the length and cost of the tether and the winding machinery needs to
be considered when determining the optimum elevation angle. So the next
question becomes: What is the best elevation angle to minimize the length of
the tether, while maximizing the wind gradient, for a given type of kite? It
seems to me that different kinds of energy kites will have different optimum
elevation angles.
To take an extreme example just to illustrate my point, a Bird Windmill
blade in a vertical orbit will have a nearly vertical elevation angle on
average if measured from the ground. If measured from the tops of the
supporting towers, it will have a nearly vertical, but negative, elevation
angle on average.
A long-pull kite may have an average elevation angle that stays within a
fairly narrow range above or below that average, whereas a Makani kite will
have a very wide range of elevation angles above or below its average due to
flying in very large circles.
So the question requires a nuanced answer that takes many factors into
account. There is no "one size (elevation angle) fits all", although there
may be general guidelines. Here is another example to illustrate that point:
Assume a pilot kite used as the base to fly an energy kite? In that case, an
elevation angle of zero degrees for the energy kite might be the best angle
if the pilot kite is already at a high altitude.
Here is a similar example: Use two large pilot kites, far apart, with a
wing-kite flying back and forth between them. The wing-kite will have a zero
elevation angle relative to its pilot kites. The best elevation angle for
the pilot kites may differ according to how many degrees of arc they are
apart.
Each type of kite may introduce unique differences that need to be
considered.
PeterS
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21387 From: dave santos Date: 12/4/2016
Subject: Re: Fwd: Hello from Kitewinder located in france
Hi Gordon,

For balance then, consider the counter-case for Kitewinder as the advantaged AWES: 

Kitewinder is free of lifting gas dependence (fortunately for the kite option, keeping a WECS up in calm is not really essential). Kitewinder's HQ sled kite self-relaunches after coming down in calm (I own the same HQ kite, and all good sleds self relaunch). Testing would uncover a balloon AWES losing gas and failing to fly, while a sled kite continues to pop up after calms. Based on such a standard kite, Kitewinder is closer to being a COTS product, flaws and all, than mere idealized proposals. I have made and flown a few of just this sort of AWES. The details are not so hard to work out. Its desirable that a suspended turbine stop turning before it comes down in calm, for saftey. The sagging condition you expect could in fact promote rotor-parking as the system drifts down. A single rotor has the virtue of greatest simplicity aloft, since this is only a small system below the scale that scaling-laws drive a multi-turbine requirement. Step-up gearing at the surface or aloft could exceed rpm possible with just small rotors. More rotors v. just one with gearing option could be a fairly even trade, not a win-lose choice. Retraction-reeling is unnecessary for Kitewinder's small system, which can be walked-down easily. A simple kite-killer is far more efficient than adding a retraction motor.

Back-and-forth comparisons only go so far. Testing is better. You seem to be talking about a far bigger system than Kitewinder. Do you have updated plans or experiments?

daveS


On Sunday, December 4, 2016 2:52 PM, "gordon_sp@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
I would like to compare the Kitewinder system with my Balloon Kite concept, (message #19899) which describes a system with a dual tether/rope drive system, multiple turbines and a LTA lifter kite. 
·         The Kitewinder design employs a single turbine which must be quite large and turn slower than my multiple turbine system.  This results in a poor efficiency cable drive system unless gears are used to speed up the drive.
·         The single turbine is offset from the line of the tether.  This will cause the turbine to droop in conditions of low wind and might interfere with the cable during retraction.
·          A single turbine would cause transverse torque which may displace the drive line and rub against the walls of the pulleys.  A dual drive system neutralizes this torque.
·         The lifter kite is supported with a single tether and the only method of controlling the kite   would be some sort of kite steering unit which would increase weight and complexity.  With my dual tether/drive system, small adjustments in the lengths of each loop will stabilize the kite.
·         It is not clear what mechanism is used to retract the cable and the schematic even shows the turbine rotating during the retraction.  My concept of a cage retraction method could employ a separate retraction motor.
  The Kitewinder must be retracted during low and no wind conditions whereas my system may remain aloft.  An LTA system can be much larger than a conventional kite and still be able to be safely launched with a 3 man crew.


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21388 From: benhaiemp Date: 12/5/2016
Subject: Re: Fwd: Hello from Kitewinder located in france

Hi Gordon,


Indeed DougS' SuperTurbine ® (ST) is a master element for any workable AWES. ST is efficient, light enough, and scalable by multiplication of small rotors, avoiding moving and heavy elements like gearboxes and a big part of generators.


PierreB 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21389 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/5/2016
Subject: Re: Fwd: Hello from Kitewinder located in france

The just stated by Pierre B:

 "(ST) is a master element for any workable AWES" 


That statement has millions of active counter examples and millions of more potential counterexamples.  Indeed, I've seen only a few workable AWES that involved ST; and those were by DougS; all other known workable AWES did not have ST as an element; please note some workable AWES beyond DougS' that may have ST as a master element. TIA      Maybe something else was intended to be written.     ????

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21390 From: dave santos Date: 12/5/2016
Subject: Re: Fwd: Hello from Kitewinder located in france
JoeF is right. Pierre's ST claim is not at all supported by facts.

For example, kite sports are already a major workable form of AWES, but are not STs at all. The ST is a rigid driveshaft with multiple rotors, and this not a "workable AWES" in the sense that Pierre cannot hope to ever see one working at 500m, the current FAA-proposed airspace that leading teams are targeting. Non-ST power-kite derivatives, like the SkySails AWES, are the leading contenders in large-scale workable AWES design. 

The ST is just another toy-scale wind novelty, based on safety and scaling-law limits Pierre is naively disregards in making his claim. Let him try making any such claim in the next Springer AWE book, to test if academic peer-review regards it as a justified claim.




On Monday, December 5, 2016 6:45 AM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
The just stated by Pierre B:
 "(ST) is a master element for any workable AWES" 

That statement has millions of active counter examples and millions of more potential counterexamples.  Indeed, I've seen only a few workable AWES that involved ST; and those were by DougS; all other known workable AWES did not have ST as an element; please note some workable AWES beyond DougS' that may have ST as a master element. TIA      Maybe something else was intended to be written.     ????
 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21391 From: dave santos Date: 12/5/2016
Subject: Re: Fwd: Hello from Kitewinder located in france
Here is a fair challenge to Pierre's ST claim against Kitewinder's design, which is no ST, given its rope-drive and single rotor-

Let anyone try to make an ST to fly as high and make as much power under the same HQ sled kite as the Kitewinder. 

Predictions- No one will be able to show the ST scales up like rope-driving in "workable" form. A prior-art Harburg torque-ladder transmission would do better than the ST's rigid drive shaft (as Christoff and Rod's work shows), and rope-drives will scale far higher and more powerful in future AWES designs than any rigid driveshaft.

This topic is best devoted to encourage and applaud Olivier's Kitewinder on its virtues, rather than make petty claims for the ST as a missing "master element". Kitewinder is the new star of French AWE R&D without multi-rotors on a drive shaft.





On Monday, December 5, 2016 10:04 AM, "dave santos santos137@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
JoeF is right. Pierre's ST claim is not at all supported by facts.

For example, kite sports are already a major workable form of AWES, but are not STs at all. The ST is a rigid driveshaft with multiple rotors, and this not a "workable AWES" in the sense that Pierre cannot hope to ever see one working at 500m, the current FAA-proposed airspace that leading teams are targeting. Non-ST power-kite derivatives, like the SkySails AWES, are the leading contenders in large-scale workable AWES design. 

The ST is just another toy-scale wind novelty, based on safety and scaling-law limits Pierre is naively disregards in making his claim. Let him try making any such claim in the next Springer AWE book, to test if academic peer-review regards it as a justified claim.




On Monday, December 5, 2016 6:45 AM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
The just stated by Pierre B:
 "(ST) is a master element for any workable AWES" 

That statement has millions of active counter examples and millions of more potential counterexamples.  Indeed, I've seen only a few workable AWES that involved ST; and those were by DougS; all other known workable AWES did not have ST as an element; please note some workable AWES beyond DougS' that may have ST as a master element. TIA      Maybe something else was intended to be written.     ????
 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21392 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 12/5/2016
Subject: Re: Fwd: Hello from Kitewinder located in france

I see what can cause problem Joe. So I explain my statement. The transmission by torsion, as a main element of SuperTurbine (tm) and also Rudy Harburg' system https://www.google.ch/patents/WO1991014868A1?cl=en , is also studied by several players comprising RodR (Daisy), ChristofB (OTS) , me (Rotating Reel), Gordon (Kite Balloon AWE). And also after some analysis I reevaluated the original version with a thin shaft like Serpentine (tm) as a possibly (some scientific analysis would be useful to confirm or infirm it) unavoidable element of any workable AWES = any economically viable AWES. Actually there is no viable AWES, no AWES making useful production. So searches should be focused on what can work, not on what is theoretically possible but not workable in an economically viable meaning. Among the numerous schemes that are discussed very few schemes are plausible.

 

PierreB

 

 

 

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21393 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 12/5/2016
Subject: Re: Fwd: Hello from Kitewinder located in france

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.415.1691&rep=rep1&type=pdf  : Arnold Schwarzenegger, as the governor of California, is now interested in ST as a "just another toy-scale wind novelty".

 

PierreB

 

 

 

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21394 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 12/5/2016
Subject: Re: Fwd: Hello from Kitewinder located in france

Of course as maybe viable AWES there are well-funded companies like Makani, Ampyx, Skysails, KiteGen and some others that are not SuperTurbine (tm) or are not including it. If they are viable, they should be marketed now or soon. In the other hand Serpentine (tm) requires some deep scientific studies and also studies of different AWE schemes integrating it, and also derivated schemes (Rotating Reel, Daisy, Ots, etc...).

 

PierreB

 

 

 

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21395 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 12/5/2016
Subject: Re: Fwd: Hello from Kitewinder located in france

Congratulations to Kitewinder and Olivier Normand for their work to build a lighter rotor.

 

PierreB
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21396 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 12/5/2016
Subject: Re: Fwd: Hello from Kitewinder located in france

I agree with DaveS as KiteWinder is the current winner among all airborne wind energy systems. ST can also be efficient.

 

PierreB

 

 

 

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21397 From: dave santos Date: 12/5/2016
Subject: Re: Fwd: Hello from Kitewinder located in france
Pierre,

You misunderstand: To me, Kitewinder is just one of many "current winners", defined as making active positive progress. You now seem to see Kitewinder as the current winner, without ST attributes, so you are closer to my Kitewinder position than you started. 

We can't agree on whether the ST is "efficient". You have to define what your mean, My favorite efficiency metric is greatest power-to-weight to reach the highest workable altitude. By this criteria, the ST driveshaft AWES seems to be the least-promising of any scheme we discuss.

Its natural for us to disagree, based on our different backgrounds. Let the eventual technical outcome in AWE in due time settle which opposed conjectures were mistaken or correct. Note that the higher the elevation angle of the ST driveshaft, the more its a VAWT with HAWT rotors, which hardly seems apt...

daveS


On Monday, December 5, 2016 3:25 PM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre-benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
I agree with DaveS as KiteWinder is the current winner among all airborne wind energy systems. ST can also be efficient.
 
PierreB