Attachments :

Perhaps discuss Honeywell's computer-simulation AWE entity:

Honeywell's Take on Wind Turbines
and the Flying Donut From MIT 

 

Consider 2 identical plots of land:
Field 1 produces biofuels - say corn-based ethanol
Field 2 is left fallow, or produces food.

Field 1: Carbon is sequestered from the atmosphere, incorporated into the plant. The resulting fuel is burned, returning the CO2 to the atmosphere. Net effect: no carbon added or removed.
(Note: this ignores all the oil burned for transport & manufacture, fertilizer, irrigation etc. that makes the farm work)

Field 2: Carbon is sequestered every year, returning the carbon to the ground from which it came. The amount of carbon sequestered is cumulative and probably ends up in the oceans as part of seashells & coral in the form of calcium carbonate.

End result:
Field 1:
The plot of land that formerly removed CO2 from the air on an ongoing basis is STOPPED from removing any more CO2, except on a completely symbolic basis, since the same CO2 is returned to the air every year.

Field 2:
The original plot of land that is left fallow or grows food continues to remove CO2 from the air.

So the effect of biofuels, far from being carbon neutral, is to remove land from its former duty as a carbon sink. Every field used to grow biofuels is a field that has been STOPPED from its normal job of sequestering carbon.

Is there something wrong with this line of reasoning? Is there a hole here somewhere? I think this really just illustrates that even (especially?) the promoters of this stuff do not believe it in the first place, or think it through, but are just trying to come up with GOOFY lines of reasoning to get preferential treatment and start entire industries on the basis of "facts" that are not facts at all and on "reasoning" that goes perhaps 1 level deep when really about 5 levels are needed to see the real effects.
Comments welcome - am I missing something here?

Doug Selsam
http://www.selsam.com

Flying Donut is exact my idea that i have in my head a couple of months. If the guys allready on the same way, I'll publish it soon on my site in details.
Main princip is that confuser can concentrate energy and give a possibility to decrease turbine and donut is an optimal form for inflatable construction with Venturi nozzle.
What me aslo attact is stabillity of construction.
What the other guys thinking?

I'v read Tesla could transfer electricity with help of one strand cable and this cable can be even not conductor.
In our case it can help to reduce a mass of thread.
Is it really works or just anouther one fairy tale?

Muzhichkov schrieb:
Tesla conducted great experiments with high-voltage, high-frequency
energy transmission (Tesla Coils). He even had plans for completely
wireless electricity distribution worldwide and attempted this locally.
It works, no fairy tale, but the practical rlarge-scale implications are
doubtful. In any case, today radio communications in many forms have
become more important and it would be difficult to screen this off from
massive wireless (or one-wire) energy transmission schemes. Finally,
people are more wary of the health risks of radio frequencies and would
hardly tolerate the strong fields generated by high frequency power
transmission.

Today's efforts go back soemwhat to Edison: direct current. High voltage
DC encurs less loss than AC, especially under ground or under water, as
no inductive losses due to the surrouding materials occur, only the
purely resistive losses of the conducting material. This isn't so
relevant for kites, but if the electricity from air-borne generators can
be transformed electronically to high voltages, thin wires would suffice
to carry the current to the ground. For DC or low-frequency AC however,
two conductors are definately needed. Or, poor conductors can be used,
i.e. steel wires. Good conductors like copper and aluminium are probably
not suitable as kite lines.

Theo Schmidt

Yeah I should have mentioned: Honeywell's flying wind turbine was the best of all! It looked like it came out of skunk works. A sleek, fast plane with an electric prop on the back. A 1950's Heinlein-esque sci-fi profile, looking like a research project that Chuck Yeager would have been happy to fly near Mach 1.

I walked in on the Honeywell presentation and was taken aback.
The Honeywell presenter was just in the process of explaining how easy the takeoffs and landings were, explaining that they had experienced no problems, speaking as though it had flown for so many hours that all questions were answered and it was a done deal.

Only thing was, then I started noticing that the pictures were just a little too perfect. I raised my hand and asked: "Is this real, or a rendering?"
"Oh, it's just a rendering"
"Oh" I said " The way you answered the last question about problems taking off and landing, it sounded like you were really flying these."
"Nope, just a rendering..."
It was a NICE rendering though.

NOTE:
The idea of mounting a rotor on a moving blade, so the rotor is "pushed" faster through the air, is an old idea (endless sketches from endless newbies & amateurs) - and like most of these "new" ideas in AWE, are only "new" to "newbies".
For people who have been in the field of whacked-out wind turbines for a few years, many of these ideas have been either well-explored and found lacking for one reason or another, or have clear issues on paper before ever being built.

Having said all that, and also acknowledging that the (other model) Honeywell rooftop turbine is a pile of known losing concepts, it did look like a nice machine and I will also say it should basically "work" - no real doubt that one can fly a kite like a glider or that one can then tour a rotor thru the air - as to whether that translates to economical performance giving 4-cent wholesale power is yet to be seen.
One might take 3 of the Honeywell turbines and put them on a hub and let them travel in circles, and you'd have the design that most newbies sketch on napkins. Maybe that's a start.
:)
Doug Selsam
A newbie every morning when I wake up! (thank you!) :)

"confuser" is a good name for it.
Do you mind if I use that? (from the mouths of babes...)
Duct, diffuser, funnel, shroud, concentrator - all have served the purpose of "confuser" - to investors that is! :)
Again, an idea that has been beaten to death in regular wind energy for many years and continues to this day. The last 2 "cons" (conferences?) I've been suckered into have been spent trying to explain to the top VC people in the world (Bill Joy, John Doerr, and Ira Ehrenpreis) that their pet ducted turbine project, Flodesign, currently funded for millions and also taking millions out of the taxpayer pockets) is probably going to be a more expensive way to use more material per kWh generated - a money loser. They are as impenetrable as any stone wall, and no amount of logic or factual history of multiple bankruptcies seems to make a difference - they have been "crackpot-ized" by another professor crackpot. (Note: any turbine using "flo" in the name automatically goes bankrupt - another typical newbie misstep! They all insist on making all the classic mistakes!

This dynamic of perpetual ignorance in the decision-making circles, willingly wearing the blinders gladly provided by any good "professor crackpot", makes all the stated policy goals of this nation meaningless and unattainable. It is only when the agencies start to examine their own patent system for answers and stop roadblocking those who would like to mnove forward with endless paperwork, that any progress will be possible.

Until then, advanced wind energy will just serve as a way for those with too much money to throw it away albeit with a passable excuse. Ira Ehrenpreis told me as much when he took a few minutes to explain how the idea itself almost does not matter - it's all about "playing the game" and having the right paperwork and figures presented - whether they are factual or not is immaterial.

Other than that, a donut DOES seem like an interesting AWE idea for the reasons you have stated. I know Homer Simpson would approve. "Donuts"... "Beer".
:)
Doug Selsam
http://www.selsam.com

Doug schrieb:
I think this one main disadvantage: most crops *do* require lots of oil in
industrial-type agriculture. Say you have a field of corn. You can eat the corn
directly, feed it to cattle, or make ethanol. In all cases a lot of oil is used.
None of the uses is carbon neutral. Producing food *would* be carbon neutral if
no "artifical" fertiliser is used and if the humans/animals who eat the food
also work the land, or the farm machines use their own biofuel, and if there are
no long or inefficient transport paths.


It is only cumulative if organic material is produced, e.g. peat and ultimately
coal, oil or gas (the rate of which is a million times or so slower than what we
use today) or if wood is produced and *not* burned or let to rot.


I can't quite follow your logic. In any case, the main criticism is that it is
immoral to produce fuel in places where people are starving when this land could
feed them. This even applies to biofuels which themselves require no fertiliser
and little work: they still remove land from food production. And to some types
of food production like palm oil, which ruin previous rain forrests in order to
produce luxury foods for westerners.

The only biofuels considered "ethical" are agricultural "waste" which is
produced anyway, sometimes grass, often wood, or new developments like algae
which could use land very efficiently.

Photovoltaics (and of course wind power much more) are over a hundred times more
efficient land-wise than biofuels, and you can *still* grow things or herd sheep
between or under the solar panels or wind-things.


They have other perspectives. They want to make money. Wind and especially solar
require investment money before the first Joule (Watt-second) is produced. (When
you buy a solar panel you are also buying the energy used to produce it, at
least a couple of years worth.) In times of high interest rates this is
unattractive in comparison to biofuels where there are less prior investments
and higher running costs. A profit can be made quite soon after the start; wind
and especially solar take a longer period until break-even. Carbon is no issue
until fair tarifs for carbon-accounting are implemented, then it might change.
But at present most countries are impeding any real progress. Take Brasil: the
green vote just got 20% a short while ago, this is not enough to change the
policy of massive sugar cane production for biofuel, cutting down forrests for
cattle or cattle fodder, and recently even a gigantic new programme for deep
offshore oil drilling. CO2? What me worry?

Theo Schmidt

Hi Muzhichkov,   Donut blimps have far less lifting-gas volume than the same amount of skin used to make a conventional LTA envelope. Leaking issue is also worse. A shrouded turbine does not pay for the extra weight. So hanging an unshrouded turbine under a conventional blimp is far cheaper, simpler, & more powerful.   Honeywell's flying wing with aft turbine is an improvement over Makani & Joby's configurations, with better inherent flight stability as proposed, but landing would require a solution; maybe tilting, folding, or parking.   Tesla could move small amounts of high-frequency high-voltage current along a dielectric surface, but there would be high corona loss. More charge could be conveyed by a conductor, along its skin, but there are still many limitations. Mechanical transmission to a ground generator seems more effective for the flight weight required.   Some of these issues have previous postings that are searchable.   What part of Russia do you live? Do you know of any other AWE activity there?   dave santos

The Honeywell configuration is not totally hopeless, as it is aimed at upper-wind & is a marked improvement over Joby/Makani's. The aft turbine placement is far less prone to foul the tether & does add stability. The creepy Nazi-military look is because these things are peddled as combat support tools. The idea that military UAV economics will produce cheap power is ridiculous. Doug, we have figured out that the elite VCs make fortunes blowing tech bubbles. It does not matter if the tech is doomed, they intend to cash-out before grandma's pension fund is left holding the bag. Our job is to pop these bubbles as they occur, they are not quality growth, & only hurt honest players. We no longer need VC cheerleaders (like back in 2007).

Ok, I put some info about my model in which I also used donut. Please wellcome on www.awenergy.ru (english translation is also avaluable) see Wind Bridle description.
By the way, is anybody knows how to contact Ben Glass (chef of Altaeros Energies ), who uses also donut form in his apparus?

Alexander

David,

Very nice, simple and true.

Dan'l

Hi Dave,

unfortuantly I don't know any person in Russia who make deal with AWE. But I just start to make an internet site awenergy.ru to consolidate people in Russia who interested in this them or may interest. I am graduate from Moscow Power engeniering institut (speciality turbines) and we have a lot of intelegent guys.
In article on my site you will see that volume of donut is not so smaller than blimp. Leaking is really a problem but there are some means to decrease it.
Hanging a turbine with a blimp may be cheaper but remind a fool cap and not a solid spaceship with good aerodynamic

Alexander

--- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, dave santos
<santos137@...

 http://www.altaerosenergies.com/  "under construction"

AltAerosEnergies

On page in open Internet shows a Gmail address on the righthand side.  

http://www.masschallenge.org/competition/team-pitches/altaeros-energies-airborne-wind-turbine

• ben.glass
• agoubau
• adammoose

Contact:
altaerosenergies@gmail.com
617 908 8464

103 Charter St. #5
Boston, MA 02133
United States

 AltAeros Energies  in our folder in the AWE Community space.

 Superquark 28.07.2010: panoramica su Kitegen

 

Yeah hello he is talking about Superturbine(R): versatile new paradigm in wind energy. :) propellers =

Just to go on record: I think the donut is a (possibly somewhat) reasonable idea.
Yes ducts and shrouds are normally verboten because of excess material use beyond the power gain. In this case the shroud has the second use of elevating the turbine. I don't think the idea is unreasonable.
For those who do not speak English well, that means I tend to like the idea, somewhat.
:)
Doug S.

Dave S:
Heck no I agree - like I said it looked like the nicest one of all. But a rendering is not a proven product.
I also know the VC people are sincere in their wish to nurture future success, just that their standards revolve around "forward looking statements" more than examining whether those statements are true.
"Reasoning that sounds good" is not always "good sound reasoning".
Doug Selsam
http://www.selsam.com

Joe found a jewel in Barnes' study (link below). Of course we always knew regenerative E-soaring would work (i studied the idea extensively in the nineties), but here is a substantial how-to guide full of nice surprises, like the classic 1926 Glauert quote, "consider the case of a windmill on an airplane".   The layout of Barnes' E-glider (twin aft top-mounted turbines) is even better than Honeywell's, as it can land without complication. The major missing insight is how such an aircraft can also act against a tether to generate electricity in plain wind, without thermal or slope lift.

Doug,   VCs are not philanthropists. Sure, they do lip-service to noble goals, but greed is the foundational value of the culture. Many would gladly stealth-fund innovative cluster-bombs, land-mines, & predator-drones for a sure profit. They really do work the dynamic of riding hype-bubbles & cashing-out early. AWE is an ideal field for this sort of action (as was Enron & the financial derivatives market). Even "nice guys" get involved.   Its a fascinating contest Ira has defined, between "defensible IP" suitable for VC shark investment v. the effort of this forum to make cheap AWE possible for everyone, with just prior-art & open-source knowledge. I think we will win, but its been a real race,   daveS

Doug,   Jalbert was quite clear that his vision of the ultimate AWE solution was "soft" aerostructure. He stated that the upper limit for solid structure in proper kites was about "12 feet". With the best carbon spars, KiteLab bumps Jalbert's limit up toward 30 feet. After that the stucture is just too heavy or vulnerable to fly right.   The SuperTurbine idea of multi-screws on a shaft is hundreds of years old & has never scaled. Rotating towers won't scale either. On the other hand, the Jalbert parafoil has already flown as by far the largest wing in history (Osborne's 17, 000 sq ft monster).   KiteLab predicts that the vertically-hung self-oscillating membrane wing-mill will prove to be everything Jalbert wished for in a simple highly-scalable "soft" power wing,   daveS

Hi everybody,
our attempts to "become the main price" in AW energy can lead to collapse if we shall nat make intermidiate winns. My offer is to develop a small turbine (like I put a picture on my awenergy.ru, unfortuantly there is no possibility to put a picture here). This turbine can be easy mounted on any rope (on balloon rope or kite rope). It can be a tiy for children with small light diods or also to amlify a radio signal, or like an energysupplier for videocam.
Any case its simplicity and cheapness can play goof role in popularization of AWEC and people with money will finally start to hear seriously about what we are here tolking.
I want to ask Doug attention while this device is most look like his turbines.

Alexander

http://www.awenergy.ru/index.php/en

Written by Àëåêñàíäð Ìóæè÷êîâ

Friday, 08 October 2010 08:41

 

http://www.awenergy.ru/images/stories/ggg.jpg 

Written by Àëåêñàíäð Ìóæè÷êîâ

Wednesday, 06 October 2010 12:07

Wind Bridle is my variant of wind airborne with optimal set of advantages and disadvantages (on my oppinien) that can be realise and stable produce a couple of energy.

It's an easy than air devise (EAD) with electrical generator on board. A donut-form shell with presse volatile gas inside make construction hard and give a possibility to realise Ventury nozzle in EAD. Composite insertion makes by winding method and makes all construction harde in nessesary places.

 AND MORE AT the web of
http://www.awenergy.ru/index.php/en

 

Dave S:
You are a real thinking man, I will give you due credit for that.
I might also point out that in the field of wind energy, there have always been bystanders throwing out sweeping proclamations, often regarding membrane sails, reciprocating motion, and such.

The REAL crackpots tend to combine SEVERAL inadvisable newbie "shoot-from-the-hip" "common-sense" erroneous notions into a single machine.
The credentials lead the professor to imagine his newbie notions are accurate without actually checking. No due diligence.

Example:
Flodesign turbine combines the following "professor crackpot" theories:
1) air leaks thru a rotor so it needs more blades (wrong)
2) guiding ducts are an efficienct use of material to get more power (wrong)
result? a ducted turbine with a high solidity rotor. Will it work? Yes. Is it economical? No.

The sweeping statement part is what places you in the good company of the "climate scientists" who warned us all that the past 3 years would entail the most severe hurricanes in history.
Nobody checks up on these predictions since our thoughts are guided by "the next lie" rather than examining "the last lie"...

So you, like these "climate scientists" will never be held accountable for your sweeping proclamations. Instead, your proclamations will serve to bring you temporary glory in the minds of some who will later be led onto a further lie from someone else, and therefore will never check and see if what you said comes true.

Unfortunately this is common and the way things seem to go.
Press-release-level thinking has substituted for real understanding and nobody is held accountable for any statement. No performance or results are asked for, or recorded. Those who lie the best get funded, make a few bucks, then quietly go away, blaming various components built by others etc. "If only that generator had been wound right"... etc.

Anyway OK you are on record (and hey you may be right)

"vertically-hung self-oscillating membrane wing-mill"

So now we know:
THE solution will use membranes, not hard airfoils
It will be vertically-hung
It will be self-oscillating

Anyway I know from years in other "real" wind energy groups on Yahoo, that the people making such sweeping statements typically make completely new and different sweeping statements with regularity, and somehow they never seem to come true. The years go by and nothing that is said ever comes to pass. Within months or years, the sweeping statements morph into something completely different. The only thing that doesn't change is the insistence that the crackpot is right - even if the theory completely changes over time and/or the facts completely reverse!

Sometimes the whole theory changes to an unrelated one, other times it just reverses and is given a slightly different name.

Take "global warming" - people mistake a thermometer for the stock market and assume that, long-term trends must always be up.
Then they witness years when the opposite occurs: Suddenly they shift their wording a bit - err... uh "climate change" - "You believe in "climate change" don't you?"

"Oh no, I believe climate always stays exactly the same". hah - gotcha! by a mere shift in vocabulary - gotta watch for that trick

They readjust the vocabulary so you are now a "denier" - now they've been reduced to "calling names" like a little 3-year-old, but the shift is so subtle you don't notice it.

So you see with a subtle change in wording, they're trying to rationalize their previous statement, while leaving room for it to be completely wrong, while yet claiming to have predicted the whole thing in the first place.

Finally if the climate cools for years, they will, unbelieveably, still claim victory: SEE we TOLD you the climate can change(as though anybody ever said it could not change). SURE it got cooler instead of warmer, but we were there on the cutting edge warning you that... that... well we were right! don't you see? We need more money because we are always right no matter what, even if we're completely wrong!

So if the climate cools, the people who warned us it would get warmer will be rewarded, and if high altitude wind energy does not turn out to involve membranes, vertically-hanging whatevers, or oscillating cycles, you can still say "I told you so"! and people will believe you, don't worry.

OK I guess class is over for today.
Thanks!
:)

Alexander:
A properly-designed turbine for extraction of energy will not benefit from additional rotors placed behind a first rotor. In fact the performance will suffer with extra rotors added in line. One might (gasp!) consult the literature on this. I know, I know - that's no fun...

The difference with Superturbine(R) is that the downstream rotors are PLACED OUT OF THE WAKE OF UPSTREAM ROTORS.
That involves proper spacing and an offset aim. A duct as you illustrate insures that the same wind will successively transit each rotor - no point in that. That's what I've come to call the "beating a dead horse" school of wind turbine design, somewhat like a flodesign.

"We'll get even more energy out of this wind than it even HAS to offer!" - (like extracting too much of anything anywhere - the next step is you've ruined the performance)

Think of it like ordering a pizza:
A light application of a small number of toppings is a proven tasty dish.
Add too many toppings and your pizza is suddenly a casserole or a "hot, thick salad" on a "wet tortilla".
In wind energy, add crackpot theories until what COULD have been a great turbine (K.I.S.S.) instead becomes a paperweight, boat anchor, or lawn ornament.

:)))))
-Doug Selsam
http://www.selsam.com

Hello everybody!
An ides is (if it's still doeasn't exist) to set a day of AWECS and to organise a competition between participants.
By tge way, in this weekend will be a kite day.

Alexander

Alexander,   You are reading our minds. Yes, this weekend is One Sky, One World global kite festival, lead by the World Kite Museum (near KiteLab Ilwaco)-   One Sky, One World Kite Fly For Peace | World Kite Museum It is proposed that this also be the date for an annual AWE Expo to feature demos & workshops. The Expo starts very informally this weekend at One Sky here, but hopefully will grow & travel worldwide. Wind is predicted to gust to 50 knts, Huzzah!   daveS   KiteLab Ilwaco

As for me "AWECS" is too comlicate to remember. Of cause, all the people who interest of it will understand what is about. But the main task of this Day is to attract attention of many people. I like the name "One Sky, One World...". My be in the same way, like "Sky Energy Day"?
It must be a show. And competition is also a part of show. Because show can attract a lot of people.
Classification is very important. I suggest dived all known models through specified types.
Because we are all around the world and internet consolidate us, this festival can go on in let say virtual world (with help of twitter, youtube and so on), but in the same time.
Anouther ideas?....

Dave S.:
As I've said many times:

1) reciprocating action is a sign of a losing turbine design - reversing stresses normally involve too much wear for years of service-free operation;

2) cloth sails, & flexible sails have been tried many times - in fact they dominated wind turbine deign for the first 2 thousand years, until the europeans added a framework with an airfoil profile 1000 years ago. The madly-flapping behaviour you cite is exactly what tears these sails to shreds while the solid-surface blades are durable. This has been slowly learned over thousands of years of wind energy from rotating turbines. 100 years ago when they first started including electrical generators, they realized that the low solidity rotors and consequent high speeds always required solid blades, usually of wood at that time.

Yes there is always a crackpot with another flapping design, but simple rotation always seems to win the day. Why? Stability. Once spinning, all stresses stay the same, for the most part. Wear is thus minimized. Also, using high-speed airfoils, one can sweep a large area using the least material, but you need the speed to do that, and that kind of speed requires hard airfoil surfaces for longevity.
Hey don't get mad at me - I'm just the messenger. This is reality, as found out by many trials, long before any of us were born.

You might note that all very large power plants use such stable spinning motion - it is called "spinning reserves" on the grid. Even in the internal combustion realm they learned long ago that a spinning turbine will last longer, make more power, more reliably for more years, than a reciprocating diesel or gas engine, for the same reasons.
Maboomba 2 U!
:)

Hi Joe and Group,

Have been successful in developing a set of light weight SpiralAirfoil wings. Very promising to go air born, and cost effective. Keep in mind fabric wings will have a uv/ waterproof coating. May have to reapply coating every other year or so. Time will tell.

Dan'l

Doug,   Both reciprocating & rotary motion work. KiteLab is happy to experiment with both & its torque-over-distance string methods are pretty cool. You are right about the virtues of rotary machinery, but why then dismiss the virtues of reciprocating action?   Birds do "madly flap" without falling apart. Similarly, KiteLab's dirt-cheap wingmills have now run a few thousand hours with barely noticeable wear. Reciprocating IC engines are a dominant technology & the prospect of driving COTS crankshafts with mere "flapping rags" has to explored under KiteLab's mission, which undertakes to test all major concepts directly.   Yanking on a line is an effective power transmission method, especially compared to driveshafts. The largest ships are towed on long UHMWPE tow-lines by many megawatts of tow force. No driveshaft example of comparable length & power has been cited. If it existed, it would surely not be airworthy.   Please ease up on the SuperTurbine pitch, in Jalbert's name even. Just show extraction of even modest power from upper-wind (higher than a tower & hopefully without a tower). Absent such a convincing AWE demo you risk being the type you always condemn, that claims but cannot deliver.   We all hope you succeed,   daveS

.

Active-Tether AWECS

Peter Drucker says that he has noticed that about the only time he sees something new, it involves a megalomaniac with a vision.  Perhaps we should all push as hard as Doug, in our own directions.  

Bob,   Its as true that sails are damaged by flogging as it is that birds "flap madly", but nicely, with just keratin structure. Sails are not designed to flap like a bird, but could be. Full battened sails, like the Hobie Cat or Chinese Junk rig's, are already well damped against damaging whiplash at the trailing edge.   The violent whiplash of sails is an omen of great power available. High-aspect wings like KiteLab Ilwaco's wing-mills do not experience sail whiplash, sweeping well below their whiplash damage critical speed. The tails they have recently grown do develop splendid whiplash toward their ends, but this is very cheap structure to maintain. Its even possible to put a high-speed turbine at the lash-end to thereby up-convert the diffuse bulk energy of the slower sweeping main wing.   This whole design space is very exciting. One can cobble a wing from scrap & have it flying in minutes. KiteLab is now extracting nearly ten times the power over early experiments, from the same wing area, by optimized design & careful tuning of the whole AWECS.   An update report is in the draft stage, with new video,   daveS

Yup that's what Superturbine(R) is: tension-based wind energy.
"The best part of waking up is Superturbine(R) in your cup!"

That (a tension-based structure) was what engendered the design all the way back in thge 1970's & early 1980's as the concept gelled in my head.
This talk of a megalomaniac & stuff is over the top.
Imagine a group of apes with a bunch of bananas, hanging just out of reach. Wooden crates are scattered about.
One (1) ape tries to get the rest to move a box under the bananas so they can all climb up on that box, and reach the bananas.
Is he a megalomaniac, or is he just pointing out what the rest of the apes would see if they were a little more evolved?
Is he smart or did he just notice something that SHOULD have been obvious? Is he a maniac or is he simply "right"?
Hey OK I am a maniac - isn't that a compliment these days? And could anyone really be just a maniac in the 21st century? Isn;t everything "mega" these days.
Uh-oh wait. This IS the 21st century - "mega" is a 20th century term. I think I am a GIGAlomaniac - hey does that make me a gigolo too? Good I always wanted to be a stud. :)
:)

How long did we ride horses til someone noticed that we could build an engine instead or wading through 3 feet of horse manure? That was only a few years ago. We are just climbing out of the stone age. That is something you should not forget!
When I say "all roads lead to Superturbine(R)" I am only pointing out that such a 1 moving-part solution that uses known technology to produce a working machine first-time, every time, should be being explored by the large interests who purport to want to leave no stone unturned to find a solution. I'm tired of carrying the entire burden myself while they talkl talk talk. I could use some help doing THEIR job, but instead they take time away from my effort while remaining in denial, while I try and explain toi them how they are wasting millions on proven losing designs, and lament the almost UNBELIEVEABLE fact that in 30 years with millions of dollars, the big labs with all that genius have not explored nary a single truly new idea in the past 40 years!
I think all this talk is getting old - leads nowhere, just takes time away from actually DOING it.
Think I gotta go up where there is some wind today.
Go check out the 20-acre compound I just bought up there, powered by a 10 kW wind turbine. (That's a thing that spins and makes electricity from the wind). You are all invited for a flyoff when I get set up. Lots of wind and open space, yet nearby to civilization.
Yup, there's wind up in them thar hills...
"step AWAY from the computer - no sudden moves - keep your hands where I can see 'em"...
:)
Doug Selsam

Dave S.:
Your point is well-taken and I agree. I think in the end, your point (at this point) is the same as my point, which is:
"Build it and run it or shut up."
if it works, it works,
No amount of renderings, conferences, or handwaving & happy talk will change what actually works.
We all need to stop talking and start building & deploying!
:)
Doug Selsam

All so-called "NEW" ideas in technology or in science are based on some kind of precendent.
 
 
Thomas Edison had worked as a telegraph operator and had seen wire heat up to the red glow when too much electricity passed through . . .  the basis for the electric light bulb.
 
Even Tesla transmitting sound along radio waves were based on a precedent . . . . nature generates her own radio waves.
 
So in wind energy . . . . all new ideas will in fact be based on some precedent in some area of aeronautics.
 
The idea of a megalomaniac coming up with something incredibly new and different in the world of science and technology that is without any precedent in science and technology is science fiction.
 
 
Harry

Drucker's point about the megalomaniac is that someone gets totally focussed on a project rather than spreading their energy around.  It is not always a negative thing, unless you want them to go on a picnic.  

Photos of stem story:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/kitegen/photos/album/1014586140/pic/list 

 

Let a "kite" be a collection of parts: line with two end-parts. The
three parts of the "kite" so interact with its environment so tension is
maintained on-average in the line. A minimal kite is just a line with
the line's ends (lines have shapes; consider a line loose in moving
turbulent water where at times part of the line is interacting with
high-vortex swirls while the other part of the line is in calm portions
of the stream; the bendy lift and drag on the vortex-captured parts of
the will pull on the other end which then will experience its local lift
and drag depend on particular shape of the that end of the end; the net
result will be tesnion in the line on-average; such a line kite occurs
naturally in nature every day as fibers drop into streams; such line
kites are part of the earth story).

Either mooring may be moving relative to its local interacting
environment. Or either mooring may be fixed in place relative to the
environment it finds itself.

Two general types of "kite" reveal from being controlled by a human kite
pilot or not. Control by a human kite pilot could be intimate or remote;
the degree of remoteness can vary greatly. A "kite" that is a random
leaf moored to a tree via a spider's remnant web line is almost always
not controlled even remotely by a human (however, a human could take the
effort and arrange such a "kite" into designed circumstance and therely
exerces a degree of remote control over what occurs).

A human person might mount either mooring or the line; a human person
could be a kite's mooring. In each case of the human's presence, the
human may or may be involved in the control of the "kite."

Mining a "kite" to do purposeful work is the task of AWECS developers.

The various combinations of choice provide a rich garden for creative
designing and exploration of AWECS at scales of operation from super
tiny in the microscopic zones to awfully gigantic in the galactic
arenas.

...

Thought I would share my today's waking reflection with some friends ...

JoeF



Local environments for the three parts of "kite" may be diferent for
each part or the same. And a part of "kite" could share at once more
than one type of material (say a hull that is partly in water and partly
in air). A local environment might be soil, plasma, water, air, glass,
soup, lava, etc.

On-average the tension in the moorings' connecting line does not
distinguish which mooring is winning the tug contest.

Gravity is ever present. The line of "kite" has its own gravity aura;
each mooring has its gravity circumstance.

Hey guys.
I know people on this list will know whether anyone has done the "fly a hang glider like a kite" thing, whether manned or unmanned.
I've got a new testing site in a high wind area with lots of open space. I've got lots of ideas for whacked-out stuff to try, some AWE, some just for fun, some for other purposes, that involve kites and propellers, wind turbines & such. Might be a fun place in SoCal for some kite people to have some fun and a fly-off is possible, if not exactly there, perhaps further out into the vast wasteland we call america (the desert).
Anyway, is flying ones'self like a kite in a hang glider anything anybody actually DOES? What's a good kite to be able to lift say maybe 100 lbs in a 10 mph wind?
Doug Selsam