Messages in AirborneWindEnergy group.                          AWES 21398 to 21448 Page 321 of 440.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21398 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/5/2016
Subject: Re: Fwd: Hello from Kitewinder located in france

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21399 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 12/5/2016
Subject: Re: Fwd: Hello from Kitewinder located in france

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21400 From: dave santos Date: 12/5/2016
Subject: Re: Fwd: Hello from Kitewinder located in france

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21401 From: dave santos Date: 12/5/2016
Subject: Transverse v. Longitudinal Mechanical Waves in AWES

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21402 From: benhaiemp Date: 12/6/2016
Subject: Re: Fwd: Hello from Kitewinder located in france

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21403 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 12/6/2016
Subject: Re: Fwd: Hello from Kitewinder located in france

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21404 From: dave santos Date: 12/6/2016
Subject: Re: Fwd: Hello from Kitewinder located in france

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21405 From: gordon_sp Date: 12/6/2016
Subject: Re: Fwd: Hello from Kitewinder located in france

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21406 From: benhaiemp Date: 12/6/2016
Subject: Re: Fwd: Hello from Kitewinder located in france

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21407 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/6/2016
Subject: Re: Fwd: Hello from Kitewinder located in france

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21408 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/6/2016
Subject: Exploring AWES using multiple rotors in the kite system

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21409 From: dave santos Date: 12/6/2016
Subject: Re: Fwd: Hello from Kitewinder located in france

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21410 From: dave santos Date: 12/6/2016
Subject: Re: Fwd: Hello from Kitewinder located in france

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21411 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/6/2016
Subject: Trolling in fishing and energy production

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21412 From: dave santos Date: 12/6/2016
Subject: Re: Exploring AWES using multiple rotors in the kite system

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21413 From: dave santos Date: 12/6/2016
Subject: Re: Trolling in fishing and energy production

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21414 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/6/2016
Subject: Re: Forum headline images

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21415 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/6/2016
Subject: Re: Exploring AWES using multiple rotors in the kite system

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21416 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/6/2016
Subject: Sharp Rotor Pumping Kite

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21417 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/6/2016
Subject: Re: Exploring AWES using multiple rotors in the kite system

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21418 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/6/2016
Subject: Re: Exploring AWES using multiple rotors in the kite system

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21419 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/7/2016
Subject: Safety

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21420 From: dave santos Date: 12/7/2016
Subject: Re: Safety

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21421 From: benhaiemp Date: 12/7/2016
Subject: Re: Exploring AWES using multiple rotors in the kite system

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21422 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/7/2016
Subject: Re: Google-Makani News

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21423 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/7/2016
Subject: eBay watch for energy kites

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21424 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/7/2016
Subject: Kitemill NEWS

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21425 From: dave santos Date: 12/7/2016
Subject: Re: Exploring AWES using multiple rotors in the kite system

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21426 From: dave santos Date: 12/7/2016
Subject: Re: Exploring AWES using multiple rotors in the kite system

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21427 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/7/2016
Subject: Re: Exploring AWES using multiple rotors in the kite system

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21428 From: dave santos Date: 12/7/2016
Subject: AWES Mechanical Transmissions Compared

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21429 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/7/2016
Subject: Lynn D. Richardson

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21430 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/7/2016
Subject: Robert W Fernstrum

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21431 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/7/2016
Subject: Elmo Edison Aylor

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21432 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/7/2016
Subject: Re: Exploring AWES using multiple rotors in the kite system

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21433 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/7/2016
Subject: Re: Exploring AWES using multiple rotors in the kite system

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21434 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/7/2016
Subject: Re: Exploring AWES using multiple rotors in the kite system

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21435 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/7/2016
Subject: Sky Serpent Array by Peter A. Sharp

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21436 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/7/2016
Subject: Re: Sky Serpent Array by Peter A. Sharp

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21438 From: dave santos Date: 12/7/2016
Subject: Re: Sky Serpent Array by Peter A. Sharp

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21439 From: dave santos Date: 12/7/2016
Subject: More Minesto coverage (with updated concept rendering)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21440 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/8/2016
Subject: Re: Sky Serpent Array by Peter A. Sharp

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21441 From: dave santos Date: 12/8/2016
Subject: Re: Sky Serpent Array by Peter A. Sharp

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21442 From: dave santos Date: 12/8/2016
Subject: Re: AWES Mechanical Transmissions Compared

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21443 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/8/2016
Subject: Re: AWES Mechanical Transmissions Compared

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21444 From: dave santos Date: 12/8/2016
Subject: Re: AWES Mechanical Transmissions Compared

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21445 From: Peter A. Sharp Date: 12/8/2016
Subject: Re: Sky Serpent Array by Peter A. Sharp

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21446 From: dave santos Date: 12/8/2016
Subject: Re: Sky Serpent Array by Peter A. Sharp

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21447 From: gordon_sp Date: 12/9/2016
Subject: Re: Sky Serpent Array by Peter A. Sharp

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21448 From: gordon_sp Date: 12/9/2016
Subject: LTA Lifting Kite for Launch Assist



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21398 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/5/2016
Subject: Re: Fwd: Hello from Kitewinder located in france
The "Disclaimer" was printed on that document: 

 DISCLAIMER 
This report was prepared as the result of work sponsored by the California Energy Commission. It does not necessarily represent the views of the Energy Commission, its employees or the State of California. The Energy Commission, the State of California, its employees, contractors and subcontractors make no warrant, express or implied, and assume no legal liability for the information in this report; nor does any party represent that the uses of this information will not infringe upon privately owned rights. This report has not been approved or disapproved by the California Energy Commission nor has the California Energy Commission passed upon the accuracy or adequacy of the information in this report.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21399 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 12/5/2016
Subject: Re: Fwd: Hello from Kitewinder located in france

Kitewinder is the possible current winner of the month. SuperTurbine (tm) is the possible winner as a catalyst of AWE thinking for decades, making it a possible winner as AWES or as a conversion system for an AWES.

 

PierreB

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21400 From: dave santos Date: 12/5/2016
Subject: Re: Fwd: Hello from Kitewinder located in france
Pierre,

Kitewinder is not a"current winner of the month" just because the AWES Forum has a "hello" topic. Olivier has been working sucessfully for quite a while, milestone after milestone. Please start another topic about how you pick AWE winners by the month or "for decades". Who won all the other months? 

Please accept this is not really an ST topic. ST proponents should form their own progress topics, not continue to hijack non-ST topics year-after-year.

daveS




On Monday, December 5, 2016 8:19 PM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre-benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
Kitewinder is the possible current winner of the month. SuperTurbine (tm) is the possible winner as a catalyst of AWE thinking for decades, making it a possible winner as AWES or as a conversion system for an AWES.
 
PierreB
 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21401 From: dave santos Date: 12/5/2016
Subject: Transverse v. Longitudinal Mechanical Waves in AWES
Ever since Loyd famously invoked "crosswind kite power" as essential AWE engineering, we have tended to define the problem as the kite flying in a transverse wave motion while a longitudinal pumping wave at the anchor-point is required. The reeling method thus sweeps the kite transversely in order to develop a slow longitudinal wave to drive the groundgen-winch. The kite's inherent high load-velocity is converted into low load-velocity at the ground, which is not ideal to directly drive generators at full power.

A mechanical wave solution appears by setting aside Loyd's geographic POV to instead imagine riding crosswind on the kite. From the new POV, inherently fast longitudinal load-motion becomes intuitive. This fast load-motion is tapped by crosswind PTO geometry. The upwind anchor becomes just a fixed harmonic node for the orbiting kite over the crosswind PTO. Picture JoeH's [Lang, DF, 2004] crosswind buggy scheme, but with the kite sweeping parallel to the cableway PTO, from an upwind anchor node (moving or static). This is the wave mechanical theory-of-operation of the kPower looping foil and PTO method.  LeoG  and PeterS have posed similar schemes.

Here is Wikipedia on mechanical waves (follow links to transverse and longitudinal wave pages), and a link to a looping foil and PTO video showing direct longitudinal load-motion, without the extended parasitic return-cycle of reeling-based pumping schemes. This is a key low-complexity method of the Open-AWE_IP-Cloud, now better understood in terms of classical wave mechanics. For the quantum-phonon (boson) view, the energy packet of each wave is the phonon-
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21402 From: benhaiemp Date: 12/6/2016
Subject: Re: Fwd: Hello from Kitewinder located in france

I thought Joe preferred ask a question about DaveS' statement as "The ST is just another toy-scale wind novelty". But no. So by only quoting "disclaimer" from California Energy Commission report http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.415.1691&rep=rep1&type=pdf he accredits the idea which this Energy commission works to evaluate toys, that on Kitewinder's topic.


PierreB
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21403 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 12/6/2016
Subject: Re: Fwd: Hello from Kitewinder located in france

Gordon evoked ST in order to improve Kitewinder as it scales. I agreed on this. If there are more messages about ST, it is because it is denigrated as a "toy" while it was reported by California commission. It appears that ST is wrongly denigrated in numerous topic comprising Kitewinder's topic.  

 

PierreB

 

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21404 From: dave santos Date: 12/6/2016
Subject: Re: Fwd: Hello from Kitewinder located in france
Pierre,

Use the topic heading as your guide, and consider Kitewinder as deserving a sincere hello. in detail.  What would have been more appropriate is for you to welcome Kitewinder as worthy French effort (with more actual progress to report than the rigid driveshaft ST). If you think the ST is unfairly dismissed, that's a good reason to start your own topic.. Gordon really should have started a new topic to feature his own approach. You are mistaken in thinking this is the topic to claim the Kitewinder should instead be an ST, just because of Gordon's cue.

In fact we need each concept prototype to be represented in characteristic form for comparative testing. The Kitewinder should be allowed to fly against an ST and all other contenders, not  just  dismissed for not being another design. ST advocates do not seem able to make one to reach just 100ft high, like the Kitewinder does so easily. Instead, ST believers depend on granidiose off-topic claims.

If you think you can make the ST fly at more than toy-scale, thats a good new topic. You were instead strangely proposing a personal AWE "winner" system as if Gordon had somehow opened the door for that. If you do create ST topics, please give our friend RudyH fair credit for prior art that inspired Doug.

Kitewinder is already workable, and will not be beaten by an ST of the same mass at the same height, if the ST is more hype than workable. Rope driving over considerable distances is proven. Flyable driveshafts over the same distances is not.

daveS








On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 7:34 AM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre-benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
Gordon evoked ST in order to improve Kitewinder as it scales. I agreed on this. If there are more messages about ST, it is because it is denigrated as a "toy" while it was reported by California commission. It appears that ST is wrongly denigrated in numerous topic comprising Kitewinder's topic.  
 
PierreB
 
 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21405 From: gordon_sp Date: 12/6/2016
Subject: Re: Fwd: Hello from Kitewinder located in france

Dave – Most of your comments are valid, but I disagree with your opinion of the LTA concept.  The only purpose of the balloon is to aid in launching the large kite.  The balloon size is just enough to compensate for the weight of the system.  With adequate winds, the lifting force of the kite is ten times that of the balloon and so the system can operate even if the gas leaks out.  The lifting force of the kite is necessary to counteract the differential tension in the cable drives.

The 10 Kw system I propose will require a 58 m2 balloon kite which would be difficult to launch if it was not LTA and would require expensive and complicated launching equipment.

Unfortunately I am not in a position to test this concept.  I am in the process of building a small model using model airplane propellers and plastic bevel gears.  I wish there were some AWE enthusiasts in Connecticut that I could work with.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21406 From: benhaiemp Date: 12/6/2016
Subject: Re: Fwd: Hello from Kitewinder located in france
Besides their energy system Kitewinder and Olivier Normand make a wonderful work to obtain lighter fiber carbon blades. I think JoeF already provided the link for the blade but I provide it again:  Première Hélice en Fibre de carbone pour kitewinder - kitewinder

 

This can be a major progress, as the system scales and also as lighter rotors could be implemented for Douglas Selsam's flying SuperTurbine (tm) (Serpentine). Airborne Wind Energy: Selsam Flying Superturbine Wind Turbine Driveshaft Tethers a Kite. Demo.


PierreB
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21407 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/6/2016
Subject: Re: Fwd: Hello from Kitewinder located in france
Anticipated is a new topic about how to design AWES that use multi-rotors. 
Further posts in the present topic should reflect 
polite "Hello" acceptance of KiteWinder from France. 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21408 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/6/2016
Subject: Exploring AWES using multiple rotors in the kite system

This topic thread invites the exploration of AWES that use or may use multiple rotors in the kite system. The type of kite system is open; describe system in focus for our readers; thanks. The kite system might be a one-wing kite system or a kite system with hundreds or thousands of wings. 


The rotors might be

== on main tethers of the kite system under dedicated lifting wing set

== on secondary tethers of the kite system

== embedded in wings of the kite system

== the very lifting wings of the kite system

== in various types of places in one kite system


Recall the profound depth of disclosed IP concerning multi-rotors in fluids. 

We have some forum posts holding notes on the present topic. 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21409 From: dave santos Date: 12/6/2016
Subject: Re: Fwd: Hello from Kitewinder located in france
Gordon,

The reason we don't agree about LTA AWE prospects may be my 35 years of  LTA experience.  I learned that LTA is a tricky  fringe technology a nonexpert cannot readily practice (investing in an expensive envelope, tank, regulator, and long-term supplier). Kitewinder can just order a cheap HQ sled that will fly many years, without ongoing expense. The same goes for fitting a driveshaft instead of a rope-drive. What such driveshaft is even available?

Consider it  compelling evidence that Kitewinder is naturally up and flying while the critics are so grounded. Be ready to change your mind about LTA  v kite practicality once you master both LTA and kite tech.  The good news is that the kite offers far more practical and cheaper capability, once you  dligently do the comparison.

If Peter Lynn can revolutionize kites from a remote New Zealand location, then Connecticut is hardly too isolated. You can only be stopped if you stick with a bad concept, and can't move on to a better one,

daveS




On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 9:33 AM, "gordon_sp@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
Dave – Most of your comments are valid, but I disagree with your opinion of the LTA concept.  The only purpose of the balloon is to aid in launching the large kite.  The balloon size is just enough to compensate for the weight of the system.  With adequate winds, the lifting force of the kite is ten times that of the balloon and so the system can operate even if the gas leaks out.  The lifting force of the kite is necessary to counteract the differential tension in the cable drives.
The 10 Kw system I propose will require a 58 m2 balloon kite which would be difficult to launch if it was not LTA and would require expensive and complicated launching equipment.
Unfortunately I am not in a position to test this concept.  I am in the process of building a small model using model airplane propellers and plastic bevel gears.  I wish there were some AWE enthusiasts in Connecticut that I could work with.


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21410 From: dave santos Date: 12/6/2016
Subject: Re: Fwd: Hello from Kitewinder located in france
Pierre,

Its true that Doug has needed lighter rotors (and shafting), but Kitewinder is hardly the only rotor prospect, (nor necessarily the best: KiteLab KiteMotor1 and 2 rotors may be the lightest and cheapest, in a serious comparison).

What Kitewinder, KiteLab, and the Wright Bros really represent is the ability to make one's own good rotors. Its mistaken to see tsuch DIY masters as  suppliers, rather than as role models for high-functioning self-sufficiency.  Even if you have to buy  our rotors, where do you expect to buy a custom driveshaft? ST proponents need to develop their own hardware, rather than beg from those they normally criticize,

daveS


On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 9:40 AM, "pierre-benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
Besides their energy system Kitewinder and Olivier Normand make a wonderful work to obtain lighter fiber carbon blades. I think JoeF already provided the link for the blade but I provide it again:  Première Hélice en Fibre de carbone pour kitewinder - kitewinder
 
This can be a major progress, as the system scales and also as lighter rotors could be implemented for Douglas Selsam's flying SuperTurbine (tm) (Serpentine). Airborne Wind Energy: Selsam Flying Superturbine Wind Turbine Driveshaft Tethers a Kite. Demo.

PierreB
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21411 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/6/2016
Subject: Trolling in fishing and energy production

Trolling in fishing and energy production

Explore the kiting systems and opportunities for power takeoff. 

The wing sets (lures and baits or turbines), the lines (conductive of electrical or mechanical energy), the anchors (hulls, wings, anchors, Earth, etc.) form kite systems or "kite" (J-Model for Kite).  Explore the PTO opportunities at the anchors, in the lines, and in the various wing sets.   Fish for energy. Fish for fish (globs of energy).    AWES Trolling ...    What have we? What might we have? 

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

Trolling (fishing) - Wikipedia


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

Start meditation: 

Yum Yumbrella Review | How to Rig the Yumbrella
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21412 From: dave santos Date: 12/6/2016
Subject: Re: Exploring AWES using multiple rotors in the kite system
Lets begin with Chris Carlin's (Boeing, ret.) questioning of  HAWT rotors designed to set off-axis to the wind to match a semi-vertical driveshaft  (ST), with shadowing  wake-interference as  an issue.  KiteLab, kPower, Kitewinder, and others have shown that rotors can easily be set square to the wind, suspended from pilot-lift, as well as side-by-side across the wind, with no shadowing wake-interference.

Multi-rotor arrays are a major scaling method in AWE. Its  wise to  diligently avoid the design problems cited by the experienced AE experts. Note that the Looping Foil is classed as a single blade rotor that can also, in principle, be ganged in arrays (kPower has a prototype looping foil array under construction).


On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 10:11 AM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
This topic thread invites the exploration of AWES that use or may use multiple rotors in the kite system. The type of kite system is open; describe system in focus for our readers; thanks. The kite system might be a one-wing kite system or a kite system with hundreds or thousands of wings. 

The rotors might be
== on main tethers of the kite system under dedicated lifting wing set
== on secondary tethers of the kite system
== embedded in wings of the kite system
== the very lifting wings of the kite system
== in various types of places in one kite system

Recall the profound depth of disclosed IP concerning multi-rotors in fluids. 
We have some forum posts holding notes on the present topic. 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21413 From: dave santos Date: 12/6/2016
Subject: Re: Trolling in fishing and energy production
We reviewed trolling in detail on the early Forum (KiteLab Ilwaco was specially established at a top fishing port to study trolling and trawling boat operations ).  For lack of any closer models, commercial fishing trolling and trawling are instructive similarity cases to kitefarm design. Consider the boat and its outriggers as the kitefarm anchor field and the underwater fishing array as an upside down kite array. The physics are similar in that the ballast-mass of the fishing gear is equivalent to kite-lift, and water moving under the boat is like wind.

This little trolling images evoke how kites can be rigged endless ways in dense arrays-

Image result for salmon trolling




On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 10:55 AM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
Trolling in fishing and energy production
Explore the kiting systems and opportunities for power takeoff. 
The wing sets (lures and baits or turbines), the lines (conductive of electrical or mechanical energy), the anchors (hulls, wings, anchors, Earth, etc.) form kite systems or "kite" (J-Model for Kite).  Explore the PTO opportunities at the anchors, in the lines, and in the various wing sets.   Fish for energy. Fish for fish (globs of energy).    AWES Trolling ...    What have we? What might we have? 
===============================

===========================
Start meditation: 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21414 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/6/2016
Subject: Re: Forum headline images
http://www.energykitesystems.net/ForumHeadlineImages/partial293HuntingSweep.JPG

 

Small part of page 293 of Dave Santos Journal started in year 2006. 
The caption for the partial page item clipped:   "hunting" sweep.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21415 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/6/2016
Subject: Re: Exploring AWES using multiple rotors in the kite system
The following Payne and McCutcheon patent Figure 3 reminds us of 1975 "kite"* that holds two or more wings. Therein we see Payne and McCutcheon showing two or more rotors in one "kite" system. 

US 3987987
Peter R. Payne
Charles McCutchen
Figure 3 clipped

* "kite" within J-Model for Kite consists of wings; some wings are "tether" role players; some wings are "anchor" role playing relative to opposing wings in the "kite". 


 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21416 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/6/2016
Subject: Sharp Rotor Pumping Kite

http://www.energykitesystems.net/SharpKites/SharpRotorPumpingKite.jpg


Hi JoeF,

Please post the attached drawing for me. 


The basic idea here is to use a nearly balanced, single-blade, horizontal axis rotor with a Sharp Rotor blade for easy starting in light winds. Then, as the rpm of the rotor increases, it becomes increasingly unbalanced so as to produce a strong, cyclic, pulling force for operating a deep-well water pump. The orbit diameter of the unbalanced rotor increases as the wind speed increases, so the rotor rpm does not exceed the Hertz limit of a deep-well piston-pump. The pulling force occurs when the rotor is at the bottom of its orbit. Once launched, operation is automatic. The system can be light because it relies on centrifugal force to create the cyclic pumping force. Once the orbit has expanded, the Sharp Rotor should orbit at about twice the speed of the wind.

Thanks,

        PeterS
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21417 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/6/2016
Subject: Re: Exploring AWES using multiple rotors in the kite system
http://www.energykitesystems.net/ForumHeadlineImages/partial307multirotors.JPG

 

Without consultation from DaveS, 
I opine that the partial page 307 of his journal (mentioned in former post) clipped
shows more than one rotor in a kite system.   Lifting wings holding up rotor WECs. 
JoeF              
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21418 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/6/2016
Subject: Re: Exploring AWES using multiple rotors in the kite system
Rod Read and his Daisy with multiple rotors: 
Daisy Airborne Wind Energy an Open Source Hardware

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21419 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/7/2016
Subject: Safety
PILOT PROFICIENCY

Sky Kings: Pilots Who Should Scare Us

Can certain clues help us spot risky pilots?

By John King August 22, 2014
==========================================================

AWES operators are pilots. 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21420 From: dave santos Date: 12/7/2016
Subject: Re: Safety
The article is a good typical example of aviation safety culture. AWE truly is energy-aviation, so these are "right stuff" principles. AWE's true professionals ensure adequate safety as they patiently scale up, while naive critics have loudly insisted progress should happen faster (or is not happening at all).  AWE is emerging only as fast as the safest engineers can diligently work. There are no short-cuts.

This quote illustrates for AWE novices the cultural divide between aviation safety culture and those who disregard it-

"Scary pilots are in a hurry. They begrudge the time for planning and preparation, which make up much of the real business of flying. They have to get going quickly. They have to get there fast.
By contrast, superior pilots have more professional detachment about being on schedule. Like a doctor, they realize that sometimes we need to tell ourselves, and others, things we don't want to hear. They use professional detachment, and separate the passenger part of themselves from the pilot part of themselves. They are willing to sometimes disappoint the passenger, because they consider their primary job is to keep everyone safe. The philosophy is: "We'll be late, but we'll be safe."
Scary pilots are "know-it-alls." They ignore the books and mentors and speed through training. They quickly advance to high-performance aircraft. They don't study, and don't listen, and blame instructors or the simulator for their own shortcomings.
Superior pilots are committed to the effort it takes to fly and stay alive. They are respectful of the subject matter, their instructors, the aircraft and its requirements, and the system. They are active in their pursuit of excellence. They expect quality of themselves and their instructors, and in the maintenance of their aircraft. They know the real business of flying takes time, devotion and commitment."


On Wednesday, December 7, 2016 7:44 AM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
PILOT PROFICIENCY

Sky Kings: Pilots Who Should Scare Us

Can certain clues help us spot risky pilots?
By John King August 22, 2014
==========================================================

AWES operators are pilots. 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21421 From: benhaiemp Date: 12/7/2016
Subject: Re: Exploring AWES using multiple rotors in the kite system
I studied a lot of AWE methods, comprising mine. So I have to revalue Selsam's patent Brevet US6616402 - Serpentine wind turbine as the fundamental basis not only as multirotor kite system, but also as viable AWES. This patent is for Airborne Wind Energy Systems what the studies of Albert Betz are for the understanding of wind turbines: the key.

PierreB 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21422 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/7/2016
Subject: Re: Google-Makani News
More speculation on same ship theme: 
Wind-Powered Google Ships Are Coming (GOOG)

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21423 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/7/2016
Subject: eBay watch for energy kites

eBay Watch 

for energy kites  ???       Post your finds

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

Found: 

pacificskypower1 on eBay
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21424 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/7/2016
Subject: Kitemill NEWS

Kitemill news is invited to this topic thread for view and discussion. 

Search forum for Kitemill    to find prior mentions of the company.

Home site:  Home - Kitemill

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

Recent: 

einNews:    

http://www.einnews.com/pr_news/357034764/crowdfunding-success-of-kitemill


========================================================
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21425 From: dave santos Date: 12/7/2016
Subject: Re: Exploring AWES using multiple rotors in the kite system
Our growing geometric and topological insight into AWES architectures allows us to see more in Payne and  McCutchen's  two-kite  AWES variant. It arguably starts as a single-rotor*, since the kiteplanes are identical and work on the same rotor-plane, but its the missing-link to today's looping-foil under a pilot-kite AWES concept's where the two kites diverge in motion and function. We can see these as critical-path steps toward Wubbo's SpiderMill AWES concept, as "monomer" building-blocks. The SpiderMill itself is now seen as a building-block toward even grander AWES metamaterial lattices.

P&C's original two-kite idea was not  very workable, since the kites would tend to interfere during transitional flight modes. The Eddy train precedents of the SpiderMill are more workable, as the existing cases proved, but the fully developed AWES multi-rotor lattice may prove the most robust of any concept. We are finally ready to start building and flying sophisticated AWES lattice scale-prototypes, now that the theory-of-operation has advanced sufficiently. If the progress on kite lattice concepts so far has seemed slow, its nevertheless a cutting-edge concept track compared to all the old-fashioned AWES concepts that have revealed their shortcomings. 

This multi-rotor approach is a major branch of Open-AWE thinking that early AWE stealth ventures all overlooked in their haste to down-select early winners. The major pending challenge is to prepare "multi-rotor" AWES lattices for direct fly-off against the venture picks.

Open-AWE_IP-Cloud

-----------------
* Note that kite orbits take various forms other than just simple rotation, but all kite orbits are rotations in phase-space, so the mathematical physics of a rotor extends to all periodic orbits. There is also tri-tether dynamics in play with all designs based on kiteline tri-junctions.






On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 9:34 PM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
Rod Read and his Daisy with multiple rotors: 
Daisy Airborne Wind Energy an Open Source Hardware
 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21426 From: dave santos Date: 12/7/2016
Subject: Re: Exploring AWES using multiple rotors in the kite system
Pierre,

It seems odd you do not credit Rudy Harburg as the main prior AWES art in multi-rotors along the kiteline axis.  All Doug added to Rudy's prior art is the substitution of a rigid-driveshaft instead of Rudy's torque-ladder transmission (which Rod and Christoff developed in working prototypes).

Whether Doug's driveshaft concept is in fact what you claim- "the fundamental basis not only as multirotor kite system, but also as viable AWES", is best examined in its own topic. Rudy, and others, deserve prior art credit here for multi-rotors that Doug adopted for his drive-shaft AWES.  Doug himself  duly recognized Rudy's prior art in his patent  filings. Rudy has generously released his  multi-rotor AWE IP to the public domain.

Thanks for fairly giving Rudy credit in future posts where such credit is due,

daveS


On Wednesday, December 7, 2016 11:45 AM, dave santos <santos137@yahoo.com  
Rod Read and his Daisy with multiple rotors: 
Daisy Airborne Wind Energy an Open Source Hardware
 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21427 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/7/2016
Subject: Re: Exploring AWES using multiple rotors in the kite system
[[Please start new dedicated topics to profoundly explore a particular AWES item. Thanks, Moderator]]

=========================================
Kitemill has interest in multiple rotors in their kite system: 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21428 From: dave santos Date: 12/7/2016
Subject: AWES Mechanical Transmissions Compared
This topic is to once again compare known options for mechanical power transmission from airborne WECS down to groundgens and other surface-work. The best known means to transmit power down is by kitelines themselves, as kite sports represent. AWES developers further identified rope-driving (rope loops) and pumping lines. A variant is  flexible belts. These are "soft" structure options working by purely tensile forces, with centuries of validation in industrial settings.

Another option that has been proposed is torque-based transmissions in the form of torque-ladders and rigid driveshafts. The open question, for lack of any existing lightweight long-distance torque transmission cases, is whether either torque option can beat tensile drives by cost and power-to-weight. A secondary question is how the torque-ladder or driveshaft compare with each other. Its not that hard to design an experimental comparison of the transmission options. A 500m altitude assumption fits current targets for kitefarm operations. An AWES transmission can run vertically if stayed to windward, so 500m is a good-enough test-distance. Various transmissions can be set up and compared side-by-side by key metrics like power-to-weight, capital-cost, reliability statisitcs, and so on.

KiteLab Group has studied and tested various transmission options at smaller scales. The findings require third-party confirmation, but pure kiteline transmissions seem to be the most workable option to scale up AWES to 500m. Many teams are already harvestinging around 500m high with kiteline power transmission. Torque-ladders rated to about 1kW  have been shown to reach 30m or so fairly well, but become quite dangerous as larger spars are required to go higher and stronger. Lets hope that someone will soon make the custom-composite R&D investment  to directly test how high powerful driveshafts can effectively scale, and how  cost and safety compares. The gap may be that AWES driveshafts  simply cannot scale well nor cheaply.  There should be a basic physics explanation for the observed outcome of comparision-testing.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21429 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/7/2016
Subject: Lynn D. Richardson

Lynn D. Richardson

Filing date: Mar 14, 1969

Patent US3582025 - Winged rotary kite

The disclosure includes multiple rotors ("plurality of blades") in the kite system. 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21430 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/7/2016
Subject: Robert W Fernstrum

Robert W Fernstrum

Filed: Mar 18, 1946

Helicopter Kite

Patent US2472290 - Helicopter kite


His kite held more than one rotor.   Multi-rotor. 

Oblique AWT or DAWT. 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21431 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/7/2016
Subject: Elmo Edison Aylor

Elmo Edison Aylor

E.E. Aylor

Filed: January 19, 1950

Rotor Kite

Patent US2675199 - Rotor kite


His kite had more than one rotor. 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21432 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/7/2016
Subject: Re: Exploring AWES using multiple rotors in the kite system
"The lowermost end of the shaft is connected to rotate a ground supported energy conversion device."
Multiple rotors are in the Fry and Hise disclosure. Driveshaft tether is rehearsed for driving ground-placed energy conversion device.   We have visited Fry and His in early forum posts. 
==============================
Charles M. Fry
Henry W. Hise

Wind driven, high altitude power apparatus

Filed: March 7, 1978
Link:
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21433 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/7/2016
Subject: Re: Exploring AWES using multiple rotors in the kite system
Filed application: July 27, 1937     
Dr. Ing. A. Van Gries rehearsed multiple turbines in a kite system. 
"It is important that the number of kites united to form a kite system shall be greater than the number of wind-driven machines."
Aloys Van Gries
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21434 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/7/2016
Subject: Re: Exploring AWES using multiple rotors in the kite system
We see him rehearsing multiple rotors embedded in a lifting wing element of a multiple-winged kite system: 
Have fun with his Figure 10 showing groundgen system for such.
Gaudencio A. Labrador
https://www.google.com/patents/US5056447

  
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21435 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/7/2016
Subject: Sky Serpent Array by Peter A. Sharp
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21436 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/7/2016
Subject: Re: Sky Serpent Array by Peter A. Sharp
In a significant way Fry and Hise has some priority over Harburg. 
Fry and Hise, circa 1978, 
Charles M. Fry
Henry W. Hise

Wind driven, high altitude power apparatus

Filed: March 7, 1978
Link:
Nice array, PeterS !!!

~ JoeF
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21438 From: dave santos Date: 12/7/2016
Subject: Re: Sky Serpent Array by Peter A. Sharp
Its clear PeterS's ST array concept would work. That is step-one in predicting how well it might perform economically, but cold economics is not necessarily destiny. LCOE for this sort of ST array concept includes high LTA operational cost and high composite-part cost.  Compared to rag-and string kites, ST composite rotors and driveshafts represent extra-mass without higher L/D, which compounds lift-cost. This AWES is far more mechanically complex  aloft compared to most schemes. So much rigid structure will not scale greatly, so gaining large energy markets seems a distant prospect .

Nevertheless, Wubbo taught us that we can choose whatever AWE design we want, never mind which prove most economic. The world really is a richer place for all the "fantasy turbines", as Gipe dubbed them. Its a philosophy of technical diversity and green superabundance. This AWES would be a really cool "steampunk energy" plant. I also find Doug's Airborne Unicorn Gardens concept inspiring. It may be that  visionary AWE utopia is the best salvation from otherwise certain extinction.

Wubbo Lives :)


On Wednesday, December 7, 2016 3:24 PM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
In a significant way Fry and Hise has some priority over Harburg. 
Fry and Hise, circa 1978, 
Charles M. Fry
Henry W. Hise

Wind driven, high altitude power apparatus

Filed: March 7, 1978
Link:
Nice array, PeterS !!!

~ JoeF
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21439 From: dave santos Date: 12/7/2016
Subject: More Minesto coverage (with updated concept rendering)
The buzz runs like this-

"Experience from offshore wind shows that developing mature and efficient technologies takes time. 
But once they reach that crucial tipping point, they can take off with astonishing speed."

The evident design change is to non-ducted low-AR bladed turbine that should be cheaper, more reliable, and fish-friendlier;
with lower rpm, but more torque. They  probably needed step-up gearing anyway, so its an easy trade to add more.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21440 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/8/2016
Subject: Re: Sky Serpent Array by Peter A. Sharp
Keep the hydro version of this in view!
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21441 From: dave santos Date: 12/8/2016
Subject: Re: Sky Serpent Array by Peter A. Sharp
Good recall, JoeF.

When we first examined the ST "Sky Serpent" years ago, and found the required driveshaft mass to be highly scaling-limiting aloft, it was suggested that this aviation disadvantage did not apply as severely underwater, that an ST could even be built of steel, and still be neutrally buoyant.

Call this concept the "Sea Serpent" :)


On Thursday, December 8, 2016 6:54 AM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
Keep the hydro version of this in view!
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21442 From: dave santos Date: 12/8/2016
Subject: Re: AWES Mechanical Transmissions Compared
Having laid out the basic classes of mechanical transmission proposed for AWES, the question arises  how to predict whether a tensile or torque basis is favored. Torque combines tensile and compression forces combined into shear-force, such as the shear-force scissors apply to easily cut materials.

A torque-based driveshaft is vulnerable to shear forces concentrated at any point along its length.  A typical proposed AWES driveshaft  runs upwards and downwind to airborne WECS elements. Such a shaft will sag downward by the combined forces of gravity and wind drag. Shear forces will concentrate toward the middle bottom-side of the driveshaft, where it will tend to fail. Adding additional structural mass to stiffen a long aerial driveshaft against gravity and wind is a losing strategy.

By contrast, a purely tensile ropedrive develops no concentrated shear force aloft, but distributes pure tensile force all along its length, like a suspension bridge cable. Tensile transmissions of equivalent power and reliability ratings have less  and less mass that driveshafts. No wonder power kites all have tensile transmissions, with no drive-shafts. There are driveshafts in aviation, but only over very short distances.

Advocates of AWES driveshafts  doubt that  AWES rope-driving is a workable which is fair-enough. Proper engineering R&D proves workability by testing, as well as  testing to validate supposed lower-mass and cost, and higher safety, and reliability of purely tensile rope-driving.


On Wednesday, December 7, 2016 1:39 PM, dave santos <santos137@yahoo.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21443 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/8/2016
Subject: Re: AWES Mechanical Transmissions Compared
Join post
which rehearses driven loops to groundgen. 

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21444 From: dave santos Date: 12/8/2016
Subject: Re: AWES Mechanical Transmissions Compared
A further thought on shear-stress of torque- 

A torque ladder's failure modes divide between line-failure and spar-failure. The shear-forces that concentrate toward the mid-point along of an airborne driveshaft will tend to either break a line or spar first, depending on which is weakest. In the lines, force concentrates on the underside, whie spars concentrate stress at their centers.


On Thursday, December 8, 2016 1:05 PM, "dave santos santos137@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
Having laid out the basic classes of mechanical transmission proposed for AWES, the question arises  how to predict whether a tensile or torque basis is favored. Torque combines tensile and compression forces combined into shear-force, such as the shear-force scissors apply to easily cut materials.

A torque-based driveshaft is vulnerable to shear forces concentrated at any point along its length.  A typical proposed AWES driveshaft  runs upwards and downwind to airborne WECS elements. Such a shaft will sag downward by the combined forces of gravity and wind drag. Shear forces will concentrate toward the middle bottom-side of the driveshaft, where it will tend to fail. Adding additional structural mass to stiffen a long aerial driveshaft against gravity and wind is a losing strategy.

By contrast, a purely tensile ropedrive develops no concentrated shear force aloft, but distributes pure tensile force all along its length, like a suspension bridge cable. Tensile transmissions of equivalent power and reliability ratings have less  and less mass that driveshafts. No wonder power kites all have tensile transmissions, with no drive-shafts. There are driveshafts in aviation, but only over very short distances.

Advocates of AWES driveshafts  doubt that  AWES rope-driving is a workable which is fair-enough. Proper engineering R&D proves workability by testing, as well as  testing to validate supposed lower-mass and cost, and higher safety, and reliability of purely tensile rope-driving.


On Wednesday, December 7, 2016 1:39 PM, dave santos <santos137@yahoo.com


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21445 From: Peter A. Sharp Date: 12/8/2016
Subject: Re: Sky Serpent Array by Peter A. Sharp
Hi All,
Please note that although I show multi-rotors with drive-shafts, torque
could be transmitted from rotor to rotor using various arrangements of cords
in tension. The Selsam patents show many of them. So the weight of
drive-shafts is not a concern for this design. The horizontal beams could
likewise be supported by multiple cords from the pilot kite so as to
minimize their need for stiffness and their weight. Please keep in mind that
this is merely a sketch of the basic concept, not a finalized drawing of a
prototype. It should be assumed that the design could be modified to meet
most requirements, such as light weight.
The reason for placing all of the rotors at a high elevation is to maximize
their power-to-weight ratio and their power-to-cost ratio. They will all
operate in wind speeds that are close to the same and close to the maximum.
Please note that even the shafts that connect two columns of rotors could be
converted to tension cords. Please note that even the rotors themselves
could be kites, as Rod Read has demonstrated. So this design could be
considered to be a Daisy Kite Array, or a Harburg Kite Array, just as easily
as a Sky Serpent Array.
If a Sky Serpent or a similar rotary system extends from a high altitude
down to a generator on the ground, the upper rotors will spin too slowly,
and the lower rotors will spin too fast, to generate maximum power (if all
of the rotors are identical). That is why I used a belt drive to transmit
energy from a high altitude to the generator on the ground. If all of the
rotors operate at a high altitude, they will produce much more power than if
they operated at all of the interim altitudes from high altitude to ground.
I suggest that is a basic principle that applies to most elevated rotors
suspended from kites. Keep the rotors at a high altitude, and transmit
energy to the ground using a belt loop.
Please also note that the pilot kite does not have to be buoyant -- that is,
if one assumes that launching and landing are not a problem. Adding light
legs to a Sharp Rotor would allow it to land during lulls and take off
again, reliably, on its own -- as long as the wind did not shift direction
too much while it was on the ground. However, I do see that as a problem,
and so I would prefer to use helium buoyancy until the problems of hydrogen
buoyancy are adequately solved -- or, until some appropriate launch and
landing systems could be devised for this type of system.
Please note that the array is essentially a two dimensional structure that
is not subject to the square/cubed law of scaling. Its size and power can be
increased by adding more of the same small rotors. So its swept area and
weight increase at almost the same rate. For example, use rotors capable of
producing 1 kW of power. Use 100 of them to produce 100 kW of power. That
might be, for instance, 4 columns of 25 rotors each.
PeterS
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21446 From: dave santos Date: 12/8/2016
Subject: Re: Sky Serpent Array by Peter A. Sharp
Attachments :
    PeterS,

    Here is the Harburg multi-rotor AWES prior art . Fry and Hise used stacked rotors, with a torque cable, and Doug added the rigid driveshaft, but also followed Harburg in using an "arrangement of cords in tension".. We attribute Rudy's prior art with gratitude, since he has generously released it to the public domain. 

    "Sky Serpent" can describe all sorts snaky kite train affairs, or it may be that Doug wants it as a trademark, but its confusing if unclear just which usage is meant in technical discussion.

    Its agreed that all small-unit WECS can be assembed quasi-2D arrays, but  simple single-stage to the generator seems to have a low scaling limit, and there would more complex fan-in stagings from vast numbers of tiny WECS to driving the largest generators (  
    Hi All,
    Please note that although I show multi-rotors with drive-shafts, torque
    could be transmitted from rotor to rotor using various arrangements of cords
    in tension. The Selsam patents show many of them. So the weight of
    drive-shafts is not a concern for this design. The horizontal beams could
    likewise be supported by multiple cords from the pilot kite so as to
    minimize their need for stiffness and their weight. Please keep in mind that
    this is merely a sketch of the basic concept, not a finalized drawing of a
    prototype. It should be assumed that the design could be modified to meet
    most requirements, such as light weight.
    The reason for placing all of the rotors at a high elevation is to maximize
    their power-to-weight ratio and their power-to-cost ratio. They will all
    operate in wind speeds that are close to the same and close to the maximum.
    Please note that even the shafts that connect two columns of rotors could be
    converted to tension cords. Please note that even the rotors themselves
    could be kites, as Rod Read has demonstrated. So this design could be
    considered to be a Daisy Kite Array, or a Harburg Kite Array, just as easily
    as a Sky Serpent Array.
    If a Sky Serpent or a similar rotary system extends from a high altitude
    down to a generator on the ground, the upper rotors will spin too slowly,
    and the lower rotors will spin too fast, to generate maximum power (if all
    of the rotors are identical). That is why I used a belt drive to transmit
    energy from a high altitude to the generator on the ground. If all of the
    rotors operate at a high altitude, they will produce much more power than if
    they operated at all of the interim altitudes from high altitude to ground.
    I suggest that is a basic principle that applies to most elevated rotors
    suspended from kites. Keep the rotors at a high altitude, and transmit
    energy to the ground using a belt loop.
    Please also note that the pilot kite does not have to be buoyant -- that is,
    if one assumes that launching and landing are not a problem. Adding light
    legs to a Sharp Rotor would allow it to land during lulls and take off
    again, reliably, on its own -- as long as the wind did not shift direction
    too much while it was on the ground. However, I do see that as a problem,
    and so I would prefer to use helium buoyancy until the problems of hydrogen
    buoyancy are adequately solved -- or, until some appropriate launch and
    landing systems could be devised for this type of system.
    Please note that the array is essentially a two dimensional structure that
    is not subject to the square/cubed law of scaling. Its size and power can be
    increased by adding more of the same small rotors. So its swept area and
    weight increase at almost the same rate. For example, use rotors capable of
    producing 1 kW of power. Use 100 of them to produce 100 kW of power. That
    might be, for instance, 4 columns of 25 rotors each.
    PeterS



    		   @@attachment@@
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21447 From: gordon_sp Date: 12/9/2016
    Subject: Re: Sky Serpent Array by Peter A. Sharp

    Peter – Great minds think alike!  See Message #19899 for a simpler system with only 2 sets of bevel gears and a large lifter kite.  Bear in mind that the lifting force of the Sharp Rotor must be more than 10 times the weight of the system to balance the differential force of the cable drive system. If the low tension side of the cable drive drops to zero, terrible things happen.  Dave Santos can attest to this.  Is there a way that you can estimate the lifting force of the rotor as a function of size and wind speed?  
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 21448 From: gordon_sp Date: 12/9/2016
    Subject: LTA Lifting Kite for Launch Assist

    My concept is a group of ganged tubes mounted on the top of a sled kite.  The rigidity of the tubes might eliminate the use the use of rigid members to keep the kite spread out.  Many plastics are manufactured in long tubes for shrink wrapping etc so the cost of these tubes are minimal.

    As I mentioned before, the only purpose of an LTA kite is to aid in the launching.  A neutral or slightly buoyant system can be extremely large and still be handled by two men.  For example, a sled kite with 7-2 ft dia. Tubes, 45 ft long will have an area of 630 ft2 (58m2).   This is considerably larger than an HD XXL sled kite. (114 ft2 (10.6m2)).  A 58m2 kite would be very difficult to launch without LTA assist.  I estimate that we require about 1000 cu. Ft. of gas for the above kite which is only 5.3 lb of Hydrogen or 10.5 lb of Helium.   A fresh batch of gas could be used for each launch.

    Lifting kites of this size are necessary to support turbines, oscillating kites, laddermills and cable drives if we expect to generate power in the 5-10 Kw range.  They have the added advantage that they may remain aloft in low or no wind conditions.  These kites may not be suitable for crosswind power due to the increased drag of the balloons.