Noting
that G. Sanchez also published this kite flight
dynamics paper in 2006, so his high expertise has deep roots. We
are finally seeing van Veem's kite chaos hypothesis more fully
developed by a third parties. Academic AWE theory is now on the
threshold of addressing complex kite dynamics experimentalists have
long observed, but no one had formalized.
| |
| Dynamics and Control of Single-Line Kites | The Aeronautical Journal | Camb... <div class="title"
Excellent theoretic work, supportive of self-stable oscillation
concepts, in accord with observations by those who fly
power kites diligently, and recalling many AWES Forum
postings. Bravo-
| Modeling and dynamics of a two-line kite |
|
|
I
hope they next add kitebar width and turret
rotation dimensions. Orbits from the initial
single-point anchor as modeled are not as self-stable. A wider bar
width adds stability, and there is a damping required between pumping
and weathervaning, to complete a self-stable AWES rig
design basis.
|
|
| Group: AirborneWindEnergy |
Message: 22537 |
From: dave santos |
Date: 4/18/2017 |
| Subject: AWE noted on EnergyandCapital.com |
Limited to Ampyx, unaware of wider AWE R&D, but its a starting point for renewable energy analyst, Jeff Siegel-
| |
| Investing in Airborne Wind Energy Companies Coal is dead. Could natural gas be the next victim to go down? If this wind energy company has its way, the answ... |
| | |
|
|
| Group: AirborneWindEnergy |
Message: 22538 |
From: dave santos |
Date: 4/18/2017 |
| Subject: More signs AWEC is dead; AWEIA is free to lead again |
AWEC's
website domains are lapsed, a clear sign the once-dominant
consortium is no longer functioning. Someone should check its US CA C4
incorporation status, to confirm the apparent demise. AWEC was always a
secretive clique, even in death. First dominated by Joby/Makani,
and later Ampyx and other EU insiders, starting in 2010, it took
over AWE conferences from early AWEIA Open-AWE world community,
monopolizing public AWE mindshare for
its favored stealth ventures, chosen on a pay-to-play
basis. This pay model was not sustainable as the ventures
struggled with technical merit-leadership shortcomings.
Gradually
AWEC's shadow abated. Insiders were non-responsive about
AWEC's decline, so uncertainty lingered as the AWEC
conference brand lived on in the hands of the EU insiders (even
now, as AWEC2017), stage-managed infomercialist conferences
diminished by ongoing boycott of AWEC, and no explanation on
offer of what happened to the AWEC parent organization.
Years of posts on the AWES Forum covered this story. Now the
AWEC websites have vanished, apparently for good.
AWEIA
has languished all-the-while, but if AWEC and
its venture-capital-driven ethos has definitely failed,
what an auspicious sign that AWEIA can now roar
back as AWE's original legitimate professional
association. JohnO has been a Moses leading AWEIA through the
wilderness, sorely treated by AWEC. The search is now on for his
successor, as he focuses on his Christian ministry in Nigeria. Rod and
Christof are nominated, but not confirmed willing. The
nomination call is still open. Fresh talent would be ideal, from
the large ranks of those who have joined AWE R&D in recent years,
to help AWEIA take its place once again as the open
stakeholder-oriented professional AWE association needed.
--------------- AWEC web domains in lapsed form-
| |
| Awe Consortium - Finding the right business services like a ninja! Finding the right business services like a ninja! |
| | |
|
|
| Group: AirborneWindEnergy |
Message: 22539 |
From: joe_f_90032 |
Date: 4/19/2017 |
| Subject: Re: More signs AWEC is dead; AWEIA is free to lead again |
The California corporation founded by Roger Cutler and Joeben Bevirt in 2010 is suspended.
C3289238 Agent of process: Roger Cutler
Details: See there a 2012 PDF, Statement of Information, April 30, 2012. PJ as secretary Exec. ... Joeben Process agent: Roger C. Financial officer: Judi Paap
================= See the 2010 filing PDF. First president was Roger C. First financial officer: Pierre Rivard First secretary: Roger C. ===================
|
|
| Group: AirborneWindEnergy |
Message: 22541 |
From: joe_f_90032 |
Date: 4/19/2017 |
| Subject: Re: More signs AWEC is dead; AWEIA is free to lead again |
The corporation is allowed to bring new life to itself. |
|
| Group: AirborneWindEnergy |
Message: 22542 |
From: dave santos |
Date: 4/19/2017 |
| Subject: Re: More signs AWEC is dead; AWEIA is free to lead again |
AWEC's board could resign in favor of a new board that reforms the C4
org along best-practices for industry associations, but none of AWEC's
founders ever seemed to have any interest in AWEC, except as a
strategic quasi-private asset, so no one would expect them to
change character now.
Perhaps
there is some way to revive a lapsed C4 like AWEC, by showing
the destructive malfeasance of the insider circle to a judge
or regulator. Critics have long wanted to reform AWEC, including
a merger with AWEIA, rather than kill it, but letting it die
quietly seems to be the intent of the founders. A resident of CA is
needed to inquire and perhaps revive AWEC along AWEIA best-practice
principles. The advantage of reviving AWEC is mostly symbolic, that the
AWE community did not just sit by and watch AWEC's
pathetic failure as putative AWE Industry Association,
but duly corrected it.
On Wednesday, April 19, 2017 10:17 AM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
The corporation is allowed to bring new life to itself.
|
|
| Group: AirborneWindEnergy |
Message: 22543 |
From: joe_f_90032 |
Date: 4/19/2017 |
| Subject: Re: Magenn Never Fooled Us |
| Group: AirborneWindEnergy |
Message: 22544 |
From: joe_f_90032 |
Date: 4/20/2017 |
| Subject: Thomas W. Bein |
| Group: AirborneWindEnergy |
Message: 22545 |
From: Joe Faust |
Date: 4/20/2017 |
| Subject: Traction realm for electricity generation |
|
Traction for groundgen seems to be being neglected in some AWE text.
Notice that in AWES forum we have not neglected this huge opportunity;
that is we have been rehearsing the pulling of ropes to drive generators,
the pulling of carts with axle generators, the pulling of water hulls
that hold hydroturbines.
This note realizes that traction is involved in the commonly
researched pumping cycle; but this note has focus on long-stroke
non-pumping traction opportunities.
This note is primarily a refresher reminder note. It hurt hearing
TedX talks on AWE that seemed to fully miss the long-stroke traction
realm. It is not just travel of hulls for freight that traction
serves through kite systems. kPower, Inc. has long supported
long-stroke traction opportunities; one sector is the use of many
long-stroke kite systems gathering traction forces to drive ropes to
remote legacy generators.
So, when writers or AWE speakers present AWE options, consider flygen,
pumping groundgen, and traction long-stroke groundgen. Those ... and
all the wonderful ways kite systems may put put to work to do direct
tasks that are not electricity generating.
~ JoeF |
|
| Group: AirborneWindEnergy |
Message: 22546 |
From: joe_f_90032 |
Date: 4/20/2017 |
| Subject: Kitemill - airborne wind energy |
| Group: AirborneWindEnergy |
Message: 22547 |
From: joe_f_90032 |
Date: 4/20/2017 |
| Subject: CN102654102 |
| Group: AirborneWindEnergy |
Message: 22548 |
From: dave santos |
Date: 4/20/2017 |
| Subject: Re: Thomas W. Bein |
An
unusual paravane patent in that it seeks harvest wave energy, not
current flow energy. Bein understands the kite principle and the scheme
looks workable, however, the fundamental aspects do not seem very
novel, which is often the case with kite ideas. Paravane patents in
general depend on the untested presumption that its not
obvious that well-known kite ideas also work with water-kites, but its
certainly obvious to us. Bein has many sound and promising features in
his conception, like the scaling path of multi-units in cellular
arrays. This patent is more of a third-party social validation of
wave-energy paravane ideas we and others have explored, rather
than blocking IP. One aspect that may be novel is how Bein proposes a
double-acting back-stroke, by bridling the kite surface front and
back, to run both ways. This is not done with sky kites,
since wave motions in wind are rarely like surface waves in water.
On Thursday, April 20, 2017 8:34 AM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
|
|
| Group: AirborneWindEnergy |
Message: 22549 |
From: dave santos |
Date: 4/21/2017 |
| Subject: Re: CN102654102 |
Interesting
blend of Twind/KPS double-unit pumping and laddermill-like kite train.
Documented challenges include dependence on double-units always both
working, with a 2x total unit failure rate and, just as bad,
the two ladders interfering directly with each other sooner or
later, which makes this an average scheme, since most schemes have
flaws.
There
is a long-term trend for kite patents to be more ambitious and slightly
better informed. There is comfort in
seeing familiar patterns iterate and refine, as our
experience and knowledge grow. Where once kite patents seemed a threat,
if someone like GoogleX minions hit on a blocking AWE
method, now they just seem like a lagging indicator of changing
public perception of AWE. There once were a few cases where
Open-AWE disclosure apparently barely edged out patent IP for
priority, but now it seems enough AWE knowledge is public domain
On Thursday, April 20, 2017 1:05 PM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
CN102654102
====================== Many drawings are included in the disclosure.
|
|
| Group: AirborneWindEnergy |
Message: 22550 |
From: dave santos |
Date: 4/21/2017 |
| Subject: Re: AWEfest 0.3 and Mothra2 at Texas AWE Encampment |
Yes,
JohnO, it would be nice to fly above the "fitful" winds of summer
of Texas. Someday, seasonal AWE may range up and down dramatically to
match load to conditions optimally.
If
only kPower had an ideally remote TX location meeting
airspace safety criteria. Since we work at partial-scale,
which enables faster exploration of ideas, the upper regions seem
farther away, as a sort of engineering exile. There is a lot of
R&D waiting for us higher up, even with
smaller-scale kites, to familiarize ourselves with operations at
altitude. Good wind at the surface means challenging wind higher up for
small kites, so its quite tricky to both work at small scale and at
high altitude, with realistic results. We settle for ~1/10th scale
flights and altitudes, as a temporary norm, while pining for more.
On Sunday, April 16, 2017 12:41 PM, "Hardensoft International Limited
hardensoftintl@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]"
<AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
'The
Texas AWE Encampment continues in and around Austin for another couple
of months, before summer heat and fitful winds set in.' Thanks, DaveS. This
brings to fore again the intermittency of Wind Power at low levels
which is why the steadier Upper Wind / Jet Streams beckon. Further lifts. John Adeoye Oyebanji Outgoing President, AWEIA
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Disclaimer and confidentiality note This
e-mail, its attachments and any rights attaching hereto are, and unless
the content clearly indicates otherwise, remains the property of John
Adeoye Oyebanji of Hardensoft International Limited, Lagos,
Nigeria.
It is confidential, private and intended for only the addressee. Should
you not be the addressee and receive this e-mail by mistake, kindly
notify the sender, and delete this e-mail immediately. Do
not disclose or use it in any way. Views and opinions expressed in this
e-mail are those of the sender unless clearly stated as those of some other.
From: "dave santos santos137@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Last
Sunday, on Mustang Island, kPower teamed up with Kelly and Ray Luna of
Austin to perform yet another rehearsal of AWEfest*. Kelly and Ray work
at HP and Dell, respectively, both love kites, and have been flying
seriously for several years. Ray had hacked a kite light show and
mobile music system. kPower provided the AWE capability via a
KiteSat. Curtis, Bobby, and a couple of others also participated.
Our
group was small, and the light and music were not yet fully integrated
with AWE, but it was a fine working session toward upcoming AWEfest
sessions in Austin. Folks got to know each other over BBQ, craft-brews,
and a small bonfire. They felt honored to be helping create Wubbo's
vision of an AWEfest, and the spectacle of LED and electro-luminescent
kites, visible for miles around, and the wild little party under them
really made the concept tangible to the new folks.
The
next day, Mothra2 was set up and flown in strong wind, and pretty much
thrashed us. Lyle Devore, a professional aerial photographer,
documented the session. We gained a wealth of operational and design
lessons to analyze and apply in future sessions. There were power-kite
lessons, misc kite demos. I did some kite land-boarding, but the sand
was a bit too soft for the tires and the sargassum clumps scattered
about. A storm blew thru on Tuesday night, the kites barely brought
down in time. The conditions on this coast are quite varied and extreme.
Year
after year, we learn a bit more and do a bit more, and its such a
thrill to create the AWE baby-steps eventually leading to great things.
The Texas AWE Encampment continues in and around Austin for another
couple of months, before summer heat and fitful winds set in. More
details soon...
------------------ *
A handful of AWE-driven public events count as AWEfest precursors, like
Enerkite's AWE waffles served at AWEC2013 Templehof fly-in, and parties
at kFarm 2012-14. AWEfest "0.3" is the closest approximation yet, solid
rehearsal progress toward a 1.0 touring event to properly meet Wubbo's
vision.
|
|
| Group: AirborneWindEnergy |
Message: 22551 |
From: Joe Faust |
Date: 4/21/2017 |
| Subject: Moderator note |
Well,
Pierre, springtime idea! Good. May someone do just such or
similar! PierreB suggested a kind of book formation of chapters
on particular topics.
The
Yahoo program does not allow rearrangement of messages in place. Also
not available is any editing a particular posted message besides full
deletion. Content of of a deleted message may be rewritten and posted
anew with changes; but the new message would be in sequence at the new
posting date. Each new post may be constructed as a chapter of a book,
if the poster wanted such format and development.
There are some workarounds. There are over 22,500 posted messages.
Some notes on topic: - Many messages have "tails" connected: repetitions of other posts in a topic.
- All
messages may be keyword or key phrase searched by use of Yahoo online
group search tool or by use of Google Search over the group
specifically. Excellent results appear. When a strategic search
is made, then a TinyURL may be formed to offer up a selection to others
in communications. This approaches making essays or chapters on
particular topics. Similarly TinyURLs made be made over the posts
of particular persons; in the online view Yahoo lets "other posts my
author" in a button; that can be used at any time or a TinyURL may be
formed.
- An
individual author may gather the paragraphs on a particular topic and
form an essay or collection; that collection or essay may be posted as
new post; careful description of how the gathering was made could
assist the reader in appraising the coverage of the collection. There
are many selections one might make. E.g., even electricity is not just
simple; there could be an interest in a particular scale among, say,
ten scales that have been being explored; and one might want to focus a
collection/essay just on aloft-use of electricity generated in
flygen. Or just mega-scale groundgen electricity generation.
- An
author could sift the messages for hydroturbines driven by traction
long-stroke kiting. The findings could be quoted and perhaps
summarized. The essay could be a new post in the forum messages or in a
file in Files in the forum.
-
- Notice
that there could be copyright challenges; large collecting of an
author's matters and reposting into products exterior to the forum
without permission could be abuse of an author's rights. I am not
expert on this matter, but I have seen some concern about such.
- Notice
that when a non-electric-generation technical matter is explored, there
still could be matter in the post where a creative worker could derive
synergistically technical concepts that could affect electricity
generation. E.g., say a post is about pickup-and-precision-place
materials by use of kite system; a creative technologist might explore
and share: 1) Pickup and place electric generators in kite farm
construction; 2) Pickup uncharged batteries and place them in aloft
holds for flygen charging; 3) Pickup charged batteries and place them
into trucks or boats for delivery to energy consumers; 4) Pickup end of
rope and then place that end to a catch where upon letting the catch
release, then the rope is driven by a gravity-drop deal to drive a
ground generator for making electricity; etc.) ...
- And
the reverse of the above: Have a focused message on electricity
production. Such disclosure or discussion may hold seeds for
non-electricity production applications, some of which could by effect
or consequence save the need for electricity.
- Summarily,
since any kiting system studied may hold seeds to advance electricity
production, the AWES forum does not shy away from
first-level-non-electricity- focus applications. And note firmly, that
posters are welcome to concentrate on their choice of topic within AWE;
others may support the discussion on that topic. So, it is
possible and available for a concentration on utility-scale electricity
production; it is up to the posters. Cross-fertilization of ideas
is ever available to be shown in the next posted message.
- Rework,
rewriting, rephrasing, revisiting, restructuring, reorganizing are neat
opportunities for workers. During the effort there is an opportunity to
see things that may not have been seen. During the effort there may be
seen holes that could be filled. Filling the holes may be noble
effort for RAD. There are such efforts available for all of us;
and the sharing of the effort in new posts could feed RAD. Go for
it, All !!!
|
|
| Group: AirborneWindEnergy |
Message: 22552 |
From: joe_f_90032 |
Date: 4/21/2017 |
| Subject: Re: Minesto news |
20 Apr 2017 Wales =======================
Partial quote: "Natural Resources Wales has approved the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and licence application for the scheme."
|
|
| Group: AirborneWindEnergy |
Message: 22553 |
From: joe_f_90032 |
Date: 4/22/2017 |
| Subject: Re: Honeywell, assignee. Application approved. |
WIPO serves a new link for:
| | Page bookmark | US8109711 (B2) -
Tethered Autonomous Air Vehicle With Wind Turbines |
|---|
| Inventor(s): | BLUMER ERIC [US]; THURSTON JOHN [US]; WINGETT PAUL [US]; GAINES LOUIE TIMOTHY [US]; SHEORAN YOGENDRA YOGI [US] + |
|---|
| Applicant(s): | BLUMER
ERIC [US]; THURSTON JOHN [US]; WINGETT PAUL [US]; GAINES LOUIE
TIMOTHY [US]; SHEORAN YOGENDRA YOGI [US]; HONEYWELL INT INC [US] + |
|---|
| Classification: | |
|---|
| Application number: | US20090349868 20090107 Global Dossier |
|---|
| Priority number(s): | US20090349868 20090107 ; US20080082031P 20080718 |
|---|
| Also published as: | |
|---|
|
|
| Group: AirborneWindEnergy |
Message: 22554 |
From: gordon_sp |
Date: 4/22/2017 |
| Subject: Re: LTA Launch Assist |
HOT AIR BALLOON LAUNCH ASSIST
As an alternative to LTA balloon assist I would like to
suggest that we use a hot air balloon to aid in the launch of large SS
kites. The size of the hot air balloon
need not be very large because the heating device will remain on the ground and
only the balloon will be lifted. As in
the LTA case a drop line will be anchored to the ground and when the kite
reaches a certain altitude the hot air balloon will be pulled out from under
the SS kite and will sink to the ground when it cools. Ideally we should burn hydrogen to heat the
balloon since the products are environmentally inert and the moisture vapor
formed will aid in lifting the balloon since water vapor is lighter than air. If we assume a 100 M2 SS kite then
the approximate weight of the kite, bridling and ~ 20 M of tether would be
about 20 Kg. The diameter of a balloon required
to lift approximately 40 Kg would be about 6.7 M. This assumes that the air is heated to 100
Deg. C.
We must develop a method to automatically launch very large
lifter kites automatically since manual operation of these kites is
dangerous. A suggested method is as
follows:
1.
Place the hot air balloon in position and stake
the dragline at a suitable position downwind.
2.
Spread the kite over the balloon and secure the
corners to the ground with short cables so that it is restrained from rising
more than a short distance from the ground.
3.
Inflate the hot air balloon and heat the air
until it lifts the kite so that the corner restraints are in tension.
4.
Simultaneously release the restraints on the kite
so that it rises into the air.
5.
When the dragline becomes taut the hot air
balloon will be pulled out from under the kite.
In order to ensure that the kite is stable during launch and
normal operation we could attach diagonal stays to prevent lateral movement of
the kite. During launch, the reeling rate of these stays
must be coordinated with the reeling rate of the tether. Similarly, when reeling the kite in, the
reeling rate of the stays must be coordinated.
The attached decision matrix shows my probably biased rating
of possible launch methods of large SS kites.
Since I am not an expert in kiting, the ‘weighting factors’ I have
assigned are probably not representative. In addition, I might have missed other
suitable launch methods. Thanks Rod for
steering me to decision matrices.
Open-AWE_IP-Cloud
Gordon Spilkin 4/22/2017 |
|
|
@@attachment@@
|
| Group: AirborneWindEnergy |
Message: 22555 |
From: dave santos |
Date: 4/23/2017 |
| Subject: Re: LTA Launch Assist [1 Attachment] |
Hi Gordon,
While
hot air balloons can in principle assist kite launch, the
challenges are serious. A large kite may weigh several hundred kilos,
so the corresponding hot air balloon would be as large and expensive to
operate as a typical sport version. Set up and inflation is slow
and less automatable compared to competing schemes like drones and
towed pilot-kites. Note that "LTA" includes hot air, not just lifting
gases like H and He. Rising wind and sudden gusts are the enemies of
conventional LTA launch and landing. Kite and LTA paradises are
somewhat antipodal.
There
does seem to be role for large kites to be partially buoyed up by warm
air underneath, if fact any wing developing lift develops a
favorable temperature gradient. We have pondered that a large SS
wing on the ground might be launched by blowing hot air under it, where
the wing itself acts as the hot air balloon, without need for an
adjunct balloon. We also noted that a sufficiently large valved
parafoil could be self-buoyant in sun, especially if patterned like a
solar balloon, but this effect is reversed at night, with the air
volume chilled predawn. Kites are more useful if independent of
sunlight.
One
again, the question depends on someone adopting the proposed scheme, if
only to test it. By that standard, towed launch and maybe
now drones, have the advantage of active research. The hot
air balloon launch method still awaits a proof-of-concept, not so much
from impossibility, nor a research oversight, but from a sort
of informed neglect by all those working on actively the competing
launch schemes. Open-AWE, however, welcomes all marginal schemes
as instructive and maybe significant, and represents the hope
someone will try every method ever wished.
daveS
On Saturday, April 22, 2017 9:00 PM, "gordon_sp@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
[Attachment(s) from gordon_sp@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy] included below]
HOT AIR BALLOON LAUNCH ASSIST
As an alternative to LTA balloon assist I would like to
suggest that we use a hot air balloon to aid in the launch of large SS
kites. The size of the hot air balloon
need not be very large because the heating device will remain on the ground and
only the balloon will be lifted. As in
the LTA case a drop line will be anchored to the ground and when the kite
reaches a certain altitude the hot air balloon will be pulled out from under
the SS kite and will sink to the ground when it cools. Ideally we should burn hydrogen to heat the
balloon since the products are environmentally inert and the moisture vapor
formed will aid in lifting the balloon since water vapor is lighter than air. If we assume a 100 M2 SS kite then
the approximate weight of the kite, bridling and ~ 20 M of tether would be
about 20 Kg. The diameter of a balloon required
to lift approximately 40 Kg would be about 6.7 M. This assumes that the air is heated to 100
Deg. C.
We must develop a method to automatically launch very large
lifter kites automatically since manual operation of these kites is
dangerous. A suggested method is as
follows:
1.
Place the hot air balloon in position and stake
the dragline at a suitable position downwind.
2.
Spread the kite over the balloon and secure the
corners to the ground with short cables so that it is restrained from rising
more than a short distance from the ground.
3.
Inflate the hot air balloon and heat the air
until it lifts the kite so that the corner restraints are in tension.
4.
Simultaneously release the restraints on the kite
so that it rises into the air.
5.
When the dragline becomes taut the hot air
balloon will be pulled out from under the kite.
In order to ensure that the kite is stable during launch and
normal operation we could attach diagonal stays to prevent lateral movement of
the kite. During launch, the reeling rate of these stays
must be coordinated with the reeling rate of the tether. Similarly, when reeling the kite in, the
reeling rate of the stays must be coordinated.
The attached decision matrix shows my probably biased rating
of possible launch methods of large SS kites.
Since I am not an expert in kiting, the ‘weighting factors’ I have
assigned are probably not representative. In addition, I might have missed other
suitable launch methods. Thanks Rod for
steering me to decision matrices.
Open-AWE_IP-Cloud
Gordon Spilkin 4/22/2017
|
|
| Group: AirborneWindEnergy |
Message: 22556 |
From: gordon_sp |
Date: 4/23/2017 |
| Subject: Re: LTA Launch Assist [1 Attachment] |
Hi Dave, I don’t understand why the kite is so heavy. A 50 M2 kite with 200 gm/ M2
fabric would weigh 10 Kg. Does the reinforcing
and bridling weigh that much? I am
referring to SS lifter kites. What is
the size and weight of Mothra?
My assumption is that a kite restrained by diagonal stays on
all four corners will not be affected by gusts of wind. I certainly would not use LTA methods for
landing a kite. Gordon
|
|
| Group: AirborneWindEnergy |
Message: 22557 |
From: dave santos |
Date: 4/23/2017 |
| Subject: Re: LTA Launch Assist |
Sorry
for the ambiguity. I was presuming ship-kite scaling maximums, as the
most established in practice by SkySails and KiteShip,
but accepting projections that 1000m2 unit kites are
currently doable, and kPower proposes 5000m2 should still be handable,
based on trawl nets and sports field tarp operations. This unit-scale
would require a considerable LTA capability to launch thru surface calm.
You
were citing a 100m2 wing without saying just why that scale was
selected, like maybe for a small remote power supply. We agree that the
power wing can be constrained by guy ropes to handle gusts, but I was
noting that hot air balloons on a tether are quite vulnerable
to gusts.
Maybe
vast AWES arrays will be thermally buoyant in the longer term, but
nobody seems to be experimenting in this
space. Winch-tow has a key early launching
advantage, in that a ground-gen can in principle reverse-pump
in motor-mode, without a separate launching system. Landing soft
kites is solved- they are killed and come down softly, easily pulled
into "socks" or packed in "turtles" or packs (sleeves, bags, etc).
I
must admit bias that I automatically like the idea of draping a kite
over a balloon to take it up, since I am an LTA developer since 1983.
Sadly, I must report that LTA is economically and performance
disadvantaged in most cases, even if quite historic and capable in
niche aviation roles. Lets not forget Wubbo proclaimed we could
have any AWES basis we want, as our capacity for free-will,
nevermind what is most utilitarian.
On Sunday, April 23, 2017 2:48 PM, "gordon_sp@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Hi Dave, I don’t understand why the kite is so heavy. A 50 M2 kite with 200 gm/ M2
fabric would weigh 10 Kg. Does the reinforcing
and bridling weigh that much? I am
referring to SS lifter kites. What is
the size and weight of Mothra?
My assumption is that a kite restrained by diagonal stays on
all four corners will not be affected by gusts of wind. I certainly would not use LTA methods for
landing a kite. Gordon
|
|
| Group: AirborneWindEnergy |
Message: 22558 |
From: dave santos |
Date: 4/24/2017 |
| Subject: Amazing COTS Wakeboard Cableway Tech for AWE R&D |
In
the 1960s, thirty years before kite-surfing emerged to almost wipe out
waterskiing behind boats, Bruno Rixen pioneered high-speed waterskiing
cableways that today are spreading all over the world as wakeboard
parks. Wake-park systems grew out of slower ski-lift tech
(which we have studied) and are even closer similarity-cases to
AWES cableway concepts, but power kites would replace the
wakeboarders to back-drive the system in groundgen mode, and the
entire cableway set "upside-down" with kites above, rather than riders
below. Many key AWES sub-requirements have been brilliantly solved:
Riders, each on their own tow-rope, engage and disengage the
moving cableway continuously, just like power-kites should also be able
to connect and disconnect freely, to modulate power and
perform maintenance, without operational interruption.
Yesterday,
I visited the Rixen cableway near Austin, Next Level Ride, and was
overjoyed to find COTS solutions to AWES cableway R&D needs. I
observed entranced, as up to eight riders circuited like quasi-kites,
joining or leaving the cableway without fuss. An operator affirmed
that the cableway is quite reliable, but daily inspection and close
maintenance is routine. The main concern is safety, with new riders
requiring close supervision. Its a more extreme sport than classical
waterskiing, with riders performing tricks on rail and jump
features. The loop was running at 20mph, but could do 40mph. It was
obvious this hardware is ready to adapt to scale-model AWES prototypes,
and will sale greatly, based on industrial cableway history. kPower
is actively exploring this path to multi-unit power-kite cableway
AWES with NLR and Rixen as partners.
Rixen
cableways are the wake park leader, with many special refinements,
like a double-cable, and an amazing connect-disconnect station with a
small secondary cableway, like an on-off ramp on a highway. There is
one other major cableway park system supplier, Sesitec, whose simpler
cheaper wake-park system gets the job done with less refinements.
Between these two German companies, almost 1000 parks are operational
or in planning world-wide, in an explosive growth phase of a
well-developed youth sport culture.
Lots
of great details online, with many more engineering insights provided
by visiting an operating cableway park. Follow all the
info links, and visit the park near you-
| |  | Ski Rixen Water Cable Tow System - How it works. This is a video that shows the basics of how a cable tow system works. Trying to explain it over the phone didn&... |
| | |
| Rixen Cableways | The history of Rixen Cableways Knowhow and professional consulting from the inventor and world market leader in water ski- and wakeboard- cable... |
| |
| |
| Sesitec.com - Home Sesitec - leader in cable wakeboarding. With innovative and high-quality products such as Full Size Cable, LakeC... |
| | |
|
|
| Group: AirborneWindEnergy |
Message: 22559 |
From: dave santos |
Date: 4/24/2017 |
| Subject: Re: Amazing COTS Wakeboard Cableway Tech for AWE R&D |
Seeing
Sesitec also relies on a double cable, and maybe cross-licenses Rixen.
Expect a proliferation of suppliers if the IP is freely licensed, since
most of the components are standard rigging. Only a few tricky bits of
hardware are specialized, all the large stuff can be fabricated almost
anywhere.
The
double cable is effectively a Torque-Ladder, that we know well from Rod
and Christof's AWE prototypes, but in the cableway case,
ladder torque only stabilizes power elements from looping around a
single line, while primary power is carried by the overall
drive-loop. Torque-ladder loops are the solution to many kite
cableway problems. Kite bow-tie failures in a ribbon
topology resolve by gentle pumping tension, as a torque-ladder
effect. KiteLab Ilwaco tested a Welty Loop laddermill on a single line,
that looped excessively, while Ron Welty had in fact drawn a ladder.
Selsam and Ockels also showed kite ladders with torque-ladder
stabilizing.
Noting
that wake-parks have several problems AWES would not have, like finding
or making a lake, and customer safety. Wake park towers would not be
needed for AWES, with the cable-loop at the surface, and kites above.
Reminding
that cableway AWES concepts a particular focus in Open-AWE, with
many new ideas, like applying COTS wake-park IP to AWE, in the
Open-AWE_IP-Cloud. Bolonkin is our primary formal IP citation.
Correcting previous post that wake cableway tech would "scale" up (not "sale").
On Monday, April 24, 2017 7:48 AM, "dave santos santos137@yahoo.com
[AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
In the 1960s, thirty years before kite-surfing emerged to almost wipe
out waterskiing behind boats, Bruno Rixen pioneered high-speed
waterskiing cableways that today are spreading all over the world as
wakeboard parks. Wake-park systems grew out of slower
ski-lift tech (which we have studied) and are even closer
similarity-cases to AWES cableway concepts, but power kites would
replace the wakeboarders to back-drive the system in groundgen
mode, and the entire cableway set "upside-down" with kites above,
rather than riders below. Many key AWES sub-requirements have been
brilliantly solved: Riders, each on their own tow-rope, engage and
disengage the moving cableway continuously, just like power-kites
should also be able to connect and disconnect freely, to
modulate power and perform maintenance, without
operational interruption.
Yesterday,
I visited the Rixen cableway near Austin, Next Level Ride, and was
overjoyed to find COTS solutions to AWES cableway R&D needs. I
observed entranced, as up to eight riders circuited like quasi-kites,
joining or leaving the cableway without fuss. An operator affirmed
that the cableway is quite reliable, but daily inspection and close
maintenance is routine. The main concern is safety, with new riders
requiring close supervision. Its a more extreme sport than classical
waterskiing, with riders performing tricks on rail and jump
features. The loop was running at 20mph, but could do 40mph. It was
obvious this hardware is ready to adapt to scale-model AWES prototypes,
and will sale greatly, based on industrial cableway history. kPower
is actively exploring this path to multi-unit power-kite cableway
AWES with NLR and Rixen as partners.
Rixen
cableways are the wake park leader, with many special refinements,
like a double-cable, and an amazing connect-disconnect station with a
small secondary cableway, like an on-off ramp on a highway. There is
one other major cableway park system supplier, Sesitec, whose simpler
cheaper wake-park system gets the job done with less refinements.
Between these two German companies, almost 1000 parks are operational
or in planning world-wide, in an explosive growth phase of a
well-developed youth sport culture.
Lots
of great details online, with many more engineering insights provided
by visiting an operating cableway park. Follow all the
info links, and visit the park near you-
| |  | Ski Rixen Water Cable Tow System - How it works. This is a video that shows the basics of how a cable tow system works. Trying to explain it over the phone didn&... |
|
|
|
| Rixen Cableways | The history of Rixen Cableways Knowhow and professional consulting from the inventor and world market leader in water ski- and wakeboard- cable... |
|
|
| |
| Sesitec.com - Home Sesitec - leader in cable wakeboarding. With innovative and high-quality products such as Full Size Cable, LakeC... |
|
|
|
|
|
| Group: AirborneWindEnergy |
Message: 22560 |
From: dave santos |
Date: 4/24/2017 |
| Subject: Re: Honeywell, assignee. Application approved. |
The
Honeywell kiteplane's aft turbine is favored for self-stable flight,
but has to avoid interfering on landing flared at high AoA. Makani
has made the opposite bet, with foreward turbines. Both variants may
have niche market advantages, if not a shot at industrial-scale
kitefarms. The kiteplane v rag-kite contest is in full swing, with both
sides lining up impressively, but only one will win the big game.
On Saturday, April 22, 2017 4:58 AM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
WIPO serves a new link for:
| | Page bookmark | US8109711 (B2) -
Tethered Autonomous Air Vehicle With Wind Turbines |
|---|
| Inventor(s): | BLUMER ERIC [US]; THURSTON JOHN [US]; WINGETT PAUL [US]; GAINES LOUIE TIMOTHY [US]; SHEORAN YOGENDRA YOGI [US] + |
|---|
| Applicant(s): | BLUMER
ERIC [US]; THURSTON JOHN [US]; WINGETT PAUL [US]; GAINES LOUIE
TIMOTHY [US]; SHEORAN YOGENDRA YOGI [US]; HONEYWELL INT INC [US] + |
|---|
| Classification: | |
|---|
| Application number: | US20090349868 20090107 Global Dossier |
|---|
| Priority number(s): | US20090349868 20090107 ; US20080082031P 20080718 |
|---|
| Also published as: | |
|---|
|
|
| Group: AirborneWindEnergy |
Message: 22561 |
From: dave santos |
Date: 4/24/2017 |
| Subject: Re: Honeywell, assignee. Application approved. |
Noting
also that Honeywell's configuration will be hard pressed to
take-off at high AoA without a tall undercarriage. Makani and Ampyx may
have passed over rear turbines for this reason, but Honeywell
still has hope for other known launch-land methods, all of which are
marginal in proportion to high mass-velocity by catapulting,
or absorbed by a short "perch", rather than a proper runway.
On Monday, April 24, 2017 4:10 PM, "dave santos santos137@yahoo.com
[AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
The
Honeywell kiteplane's aft turbine is favored for self-stable flight,
but has to avoid interfering on landing flared at high AoA. Makani
has made the opposite bet, with foreward turbines. Both variants may
have niche market advantages, if not a shot at industrial-scale
kitefarms. The kiteplane v rag-kite contest is in full swing, with both
sides lining up impressively, but only one will win the big game.
On Saturday, April 22, 2017 4:58 AM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
WIPO serves a new link for:
| | Page bookmark | US8109711 (B2) -
Tethered Autonomous Air Vehicle With Wind Turbines |
|---|
| Inventor(s): | BLUMER ERIC [US]; THURSTON JOHN [US]; WINGETT PAUL [US]; GAINES LOUIE TIMOTHY [US]; SHEORAN YOGENDRA YOGI [US] + |
|---|
| Applicant(s): | BLUMER
ERIC [US]; THURSTON JOHN [US]; WINGETT PAUL [US]; GAINES LOUIE
TIMOTHY [US]; SHEORAN YOGENDRA YOGI [US]; HONEYWELL INT INC [US] + |
|---|
| Classification: | |
|---|
| Application number: | US20090349868 20090107 Global Dossier |
|---|
| Priority number(s): | US20090349868 20090107 ; US20080082031P 20080718 |
|---|
| Also published as: | |
|---|
|
|
| Group: AirborneWindEnergy |
Message: 22562 |
From: dougselsam |
Date: 4/25/2017 |
| Subject: Re: Honeywell, assignee. Application approved. |
|
I would not count on Honeywell to produce
any wind energy innovations, considering their last showing. Just
the other day, a friend of mine went into typical "Professor Crackpot
Mode" with the oft-pondered "Couldn't you just make a wind turbine
rotor like a bicycle wheel with magnets around the rim?" Yup that
was what Honeywell thought too. I guess they never checked to see
how popular the bicycle-wheel idea was in the 1970's and that it never
went anywhere then, so why would it now? (bicycles are "green" so
a bicycle wheel must make a great wind turbine, right? Flawed
reasoning by association, with the real attraction being that the
person familiar with a bicycle is now a wind energy expert without ever
having to learn anything about it, and can now build a working wind
turbine from neighborhood junk with no budget, and that suddenly all
the old bicycles rusting in garages can save the planet. )
Twenty
years ago I would have seen this Honeywell airplane patent and been
scared: "Oh - no, they've cracked the code! There will be no more
wind energy inventing possible now that Honeywell has it all figured
out!" This is what I thought of SkyWindPower when Shepard first
started issuing press-releases from Australia a couple of decades
ago. In 2009 I was still waiting, still convinced SkyWIndPower
was really trying now and would have a product out soon. Now I
Iknow better. These things never go anywhere. Maybe in
another decade or two the rest of the crew will know better to.
It becomes a case of "been-there-done-that. As impressive as
these drawings are, I doubt if Honeywell will ever even build one, and
if they do it will probably go nowhere, to judge from past experience.
On
the topic of propellers in the rear, here is what I can tell you from
experience: It's tempting to want to ignore wind-shadow effects
on a wind turbine rotor, but what I've found is that any upwind object,
such as a fat tower, can cause severe buffeting for any rotor blade
passing through it's wake. Imagine going around in a circle
smoothly, then contrast that with getting hit in the head with a
baseball bat with every rotation. That's how passing through a
wake feels to a blade. Ouch ouch ouch ouch until it breaks or
rips the turbine apart.
But as long as one remains in the land
of 2-D patent drawings, one will never know about this. Drawings
and renderings always offer "perfect performance". Ever notice
how a paper drawing experiences no buffeting? A drawing of a
vertical-axis turbine does not include the extreme forces that will rip
it apart. A drawing of a propeller behind a wing does not show
the turbulent whacking that the blades will experience, especially when
the wing is at a high angle of attack. That is my take on
this impressive and elegant set of drawings. |
|
| Group: AirborneWindEnergy |
Message: 22563 |
From: dave santos |
Date: 4/26/2017 |
| Subject: Re: Honeywell, assignee. Application approved. |
Reminding
that there is no actual "professor crackpot" in AWE, based on standard
definition of each word. Its just an unfortunate insult with no
technical value that in the past has smeared many conscientious AWE
developers. Rim-drive turbines beyond do exist, as is proper in an
engineering civilization that explores every path it can. That wind
hackers made bike-wheel-based versions is as worthy as how children
learn by making their own toys, to present a positive interpretation of
such efforts. Bravo to Doug's friend for thinking creatively, and
not taking the crackpot slur seriously.
Doug
does share real hard-won wisdom: "I've found is that any
upwind object...can cause severe buffeting for any rotor blade passing
through it's wake."
In
particular, the rotor blades of an ST experience wake interference
not just from the drive-shaft, but also face severe issues with
rotor-disc shadowing unless the shaft is set more vertical, with wider
rotor-spacing. Acting as autogyro rotors, the blades also face severe
cyclic buffet, unless hinged like proper autogyros. At least
Honeywell's AWES concept sets their turbine squarely crosswind in the
wake of an airfoil, rather than obliquely along a bluff semi-vertical
driveshaft that cannot scale in practical form to reach upper wind
(beyond towers).
On Tuesday, April 25, 2017 10:07 AM, "dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
I
would not count on Honeywell to produce any wind energy innovations,
considering their last showing. Just the other day, a friend of
mine went into typical "Professor Crackpot Mode" with the oft-pondered
"Couldn't you just make a wind turbine rotor like a bicycle wheel with
magnets around the rim?" Yup that was what Honeywell thought
too. I guess they never checked to see how popular the
bicycle-wheel idea was in the 1970's and that it never went anywhere
then, so why would it now? (bicycles are "green" so a bicycle
wheel must make a great wind turbine, right? Flawed reasoning by
association, with the real attraction being that the person familiar
with a bicycle is now a wind energy expert without ever having to learn
anything about it, and can now build a working wind turbine from
neighborhood junk with no budget, and that suddenly all the old
bicycles rusting in garages can save the planet. )
Twenty
years ago I would have seen this Honeywell airplane patent and been
scared: "Oh - no, they've cracked the code! There will be no more
wind energy inventing possible now that Honeywell has it all figured
out!" This is what I thought of SkyWindPower when Shepard first
started issuing press-releases from Australia a couple of decades
ago. In 2009 I was still waiting, still convinced SkyWIndPower
was really trying now and would have a product out soon. Now I
Iknow better. These things never go anywhere. Maybe in
another decade or two the rest of the crew will know better to.
It becomes a case of "been-there-done-that. As impressive as
these drawings are, I doubt if Honeywell will ever even build one, and
if they do it will probably go nowhere, to judge from past experience.
On
the topic of propellers in the rear, here is what I can tell you from
experience: It's tempting to want to ignore wind-shadow effects
on a wind turbine rotor, but what I've found is that any upwind object,
such as a fat tower, can cause severe buffeting for any rotor blade
passing through it's wake. Imagine going around in a circle
smoothly, then contrast that with getting hit in the head with a
baseball bat with every rotation. That's how passing through a
wake feels to a blade. Ouch ouch ouch ouch until it breaks or
rips the turbine apart.
But as long as
one remains in the land of 2-D patent drawings, one will never know
about this. Drawings and renderings always offer "perfect
performance". Ever notice how a paper drawing experiences no
buffeting? A drawing of a vertical-axis turbine does not include
the extreme forces that will rip it apart. A drawing of a
propeller behind a wing does not show the turbulent whacking that the
blades will experience, especially when the wing is at a high angle of
attack. That is my take on this impressive and elegant set
of drawings.
|
|
| Group: AirborneWindEnergy |
Message: 22564 |
From: joe_f_90032 |
Date: 4/26/2017 |
| Subject: Re: KiteGen |
| Group: AirborneWindEnergy |
Message: 22565 |
From: dave santos |
Date: 4/26/2017 |
| Subject: Power-kite on arch-loop testing at Texas AWE Encampment |
Its
such a simple AWES rig concept, to set an arch-loop
cableway crosswind with a power kite on it. The idea is
that a power kite will self-oscillate as is, or by
passive-steering feedback forces by tag-lines. As the
power-kite dances to-and-fro, it pumps the arch-loop for power
harvesting. This is a new experimental space to compare with
looping-foils, a closely related "baseline" method.
Yesterday,
at East Austin Soccer Club's fields, a first-try arch-loop was rigged
with a power-kite and flown in light fitful surface breezes.
The power kite was an old Prism Stylus 1.8m2. This sort of test in
turbulent air relies on the fact that there are coherent derecho
gusts lasting several seconds, to test nominal function, as well as all
kinds of odd turbulence, to test stability and robustness.
Because top wind velocity was low, no load was put on the arch
loop.
All-in-all,
it was an encouraging session. Even with intitial guesswork tuning of
the geometry, the power kite repeatedly self-launched and landed, with
stable flight at the "zero-point" wind velocity, and the predicted
beginnings of powerful oscillations in gusts. Marginal wind is a most
chaotic kite energy level and there was an occaisonal roll-over of the
kite at the surface, that might or might not be a true stuck-state, if
waiting does not sort out twist.
Rigging
a pilot-kite to elevate the arch loop was tried, but the wind dropped
below minumum sustained flight velocity. Its expected that a fully
rigged AWES in stronger more consistent winds will load-pump
powerfully with good rhythm. Today's developmental session may
achieve that milestone. |
|
| Group: AirborneWindEnergy |
Message: 22566 |
From: dave santos |
Date: 4/26/2017 |
| Subject: Re: KiteGen |
Kitegen is upholding the ancient Italian tradition of "panem et circenses", as we await the fate of the Power Wing, here seen mis-en-scene, if not en-vol.
On Wednesday, April 26, 2017 11:06 AM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
|
|
| Group: AirborneWindEnergy |
Message: 22567 |
From: dave santos |
Date: 4/27/2017 |
| Subject: Re: Power-kite on arch-loop testing at Texas AWE Encampment |
Yesterday,
in blustery high wind, the power-kite on the arch-loop took all kinds
of severe turbulence, recovering from upset time and time again.
It flew stably most of the time, and developed fast load-motion in
bursts, but did not spontaneously pump rhythmically. Occasionally, the
bridling snagged on the crude arch-loop knots characteristic of
prototype rigs, a failure-mode that goes away in carefully refined
production kite designs.
The
finding so far is a simple arch-loop tends to
damp power-kite self-oscillation, which is good for a stable
"parked" state, but an added passive-feedback feature seems
necessary, and will be tested next. The practical theory is that a
suitable spring-mass oscillation dynamic can be discovered to
regulate sustained pumping, just like a pacemaker regulates heartbeats.
What
is already clear is that a power-kite likes to fly from a crosswind
arch-loop, and promises to deliver steady full power, as specific
oscillator design details are next worked out.
On Wednesday, April 26, 2017 11:35 AM, "dave santos santos137@yahoo.com
[AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Its such a simple AWES rig concept, to set an arch-loop
cableway crosswind with a power kite on it. The idea is
that a power kite will self-oscillate as is, or by
passive-steering feedback forces by tag-lines. As the
power-kite dances to-and-fro, it pumps the arch-loop for power
harvesting. This is a new experimental space to compare with
looping-foils, a closely related "baseline" method.
Yesterday,
at East Austin Soccer Club's fields, a first-try arch-loop was rigged
with a power-kite and flown in light fitful surface breezes.
The power kite was an old Prism Stylus 1.8m2. This sort of test in
turbulent air relies on the fact that there are coherent derecho
gusts lasting several seconds, to test nominal function, as well as all
kinds of odd turbulence, to test stability and robustness.
Because top wind velocity was low, no load was put on the arch
loop.
All-in-all,
it was an encouraging session. Even with intitial guesswork tuning of
the geometry, the power kite repeatedly self-launched and landed, with
stable flight at the "zero-point" wind velocity, and the predicted
beginnings of powerful oscillations in gusts. Marginal wind is a most
chaotic kite energy level and there was an occaisonal roll-over of the
kite at the surface, that might or might not be a true stuck-state, if
waiting does not sort out twist.
Rigging
a pilot-kite to elevate the arch loop was tried, but the wind dropped
below minumum sustained flight velocity. Its expected that a fully
rigged AWES in stronger more consistent winds will load-pump
powerfully with good rhythm. Today's developmental session may
achieve that milestone.
|
|
| Group: AirborneWindEnergy |
Message: 22568 |
From: joe_f_90032 |
Date: 4/27/2017 |
| Subject: Makani on Hardpoint Strain Reliefs |
================================
|
|
| | |