Messages in AirborneWindEnergy group.                          AWES 23126 to 23176 Page 355 of 440.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23126 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/26/2017
Subject: Re: Air HES http://airhes.com/

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23127 From: andrew@airhes.com Date: 10/29/2017
Subject: Re: Air HES http://airhes.com/

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23128 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/29/2017
Subject: Re: Air HES http://airhes.com/

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23129 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/29/2017
Subject: Water X Prize

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23130 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/29/2017
Subject: Re: Air HES http://airhes.com/

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23131 From: andrew@airhes.com Date: 10/30/2017
Subject: Re: Air HES http://airhes.com/

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23132 From: andrew@airhes.com Date: 10/30/2017
Subject: Re: Water X Prize

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23133 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/30/2017
Subject: Re: Air HES http://airhes.com/

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23134 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/30/2017
Subject: Re: Water X Prize

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23135 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/30/2017
Subject: Re: Water X Prize

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23136 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/30/2017
Subject: Re: Water X Prize

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23137 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/30/2017
Subject: Re: Water X Prize

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23138 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/30/2017
Subject: Re: Water X Prize

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23139 From: andrew@airhes.com Date: 10/31/2017
Subject: Re: Water X Prize

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23140 From: andrew@airhes.com Date: 10/31/2017
Subject: Re: Water X Prize

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23141 From: andrew@airhes.com Date: 10/31/2017
Subject: Re: Water X Prize

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23142 From: andrew@airhes.com Date: 10/31/2017
Subject: Re: Air HES http://airhes.com/

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23143 From: andrew@airhes.com Date: 10/31/2017
Subject: Re: Water X Prize

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23144 From: Peter A. Sharp Date: 10/31/2017
Subject: Re: Air HES http://airhes.com/

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23145 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/31/2017
Subject: Re: Water X Prize

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23146 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/31/2017
Subject: Don Montague

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23147 From: andrew@airhes.com Date: 11/1/2017
Subject: Re: Air HES http://airhes.com/

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23148 From: andrew@airhes.com Date: 11/1/2017
Subject: Re: Air HES http://airhes.com/

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23149 From: andrew@airhes.com Date: 11/1/2017
Subject: Re: Air HES http://airhes.com/

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23150 From: gordon_sp Date: 11/1/2017
Subject: Lifter Kite Array Launch

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23151 From: andrew@airhes.com Date: 11/1/2017
Subject: Re: Air HES http://airhes.com/

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23152 From: andrew@airhes.com Date: 11/1/2017
Subject: Re: Air HES http://airhes.com/

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23153 From: andrew@airhes.com Date: 11/1/2017
Subject: Re: Air HES http://airhes.com/

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23154 From: andrew@airhes.com Date: 11/1/2017
Subject: Re: Air HES http://airhes.com/

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23155 From: andrew@airhes.com Date: 11/1/2017
Subject: Re: Air HES http://airhes.com/

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23156 From: andrew@airhes.com Date: 11/1/2017
Subject: Re: Air HES http://airhes.com/

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23157 From: Peter A. Sharp Date: 11/1/2017
Subject: Re: Air HES http://airhes.com/

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23158 From: andrew@airhes.com Date: 11/2/2017
Subject: Re: Air HES http://airhes.com/

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23159 From: andrew@airhes.com Date: 11/2/2017
Subject: Re: Air HES http://airhes.com/

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23160 From: andrew@airhes.com Date: 11/2/2017
Subject: Re: Air HES http://airhes.com/

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23161 From: andrew@airhes.com Date: 11/2/2017
Subject: Re: Air HES http://airhes.com/

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23162 From: andrew@airhes.com Date: 11/2/2017
Subject: Re: Air HES http://airhes.com/

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23163 From: andrew@airhes.com Date: 11/2/2017
Subject: Re: Air HES http://airhes.com/

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23164 From: andrew@airhes.com Date: 11/2/2017
Subject: Re: Air HES http://airhes.com/

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23165 From: andrew@airhes.com Date: 11/2/2017
Subject: Re: Air HES http://airhes.com/

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23167 From: andrew@airhes.com Date: 11/2/2017
Subject: Re: Air HES http://airhes.com/

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23168 From: dave santos Date: 11/2/2017
Subject: Re: Air HES http://airhes.com/

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23169 From: dave santos Date: 11/2/2017
Subject: Re: Lifter Kite Array Launch

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23170 From: dave santos Date: 11/2/2017
Subject: Re: Quick video from kitewinder

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23171 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/2/2017
Subject: Re: Alexander Muzhichkov

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23172 From: dave santos Date: 11/2/2017
Subject: Re: Leaving a free-flight kite system to kite-glide

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23173 From: dave santos Date: 11/2/2017
Subject: Precursors of Powered Flight and AWE timelines compared

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23174 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/2/2017
Subject: Re: Minesto news :

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23175 From: Muzhichkov Date: 11/3/2017
Subject: Re: Alexander Muzhichkov

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23176 From: dave santos Date: 11/3/2017
Subject: Re: Minesto news :




Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23126 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/26/2017
Subject: Re: Air HES http://airhes.com/
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23127 From: andrew@airhes.com Date: 10/29/2017
Subject: Re: Air HES http://airhes.com/
Globally, Cloud Power is the second energy source (~ 800 TW) after direct Sun and the first fresh water source worldwide.

http://www.barixa.net/AirHES%20-%20reincarnation%20of%20hydropower.pdf

Unfortunately, I spent 5 years and all my resources (~$35k) without serious success. I have no investors or PR support, I worked alone, wrote many theoretical articles, curried many experiments out, but could have not proved the obvious perspectives of this idea. All materials, articles, R&D data, calculation models, etc you can find from links on my site and also in Facebook with tag #airhes (mainly in Russian, but sometimes in English).

Anyway, I will be glad to discuss any ideas with you. 

Some works could be useful for kite generation also.


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23128 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/29/2017
Subject: Re: Air HES http://airhes.com/
Page 15 clip:
"The most technologically complicated element of AirHES is an aerostat, which constantly keeps
AirHES in the air, but it is really difficult to do in a village workshop, and moreover constantly to
fill this balloon with hydrogen or helium. Therefore, it will have to remove away! It is obvious that
ideal fresh water, which is everywhere over our head in the clouds, can be obtained from there only
if there is a wind that drives these clouds through the sails of the AirHES. But the same wind can
also hold the AirHES itself, if it is made in kite form."
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23129 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/29/2017
Subject: Water X Prize

Schedule

https://water.xprize.org/about/schedule

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

Teams that have apparently met the registration deadline:

https://water.xprize.org/teams


"The XPRIZE Foundation is excited to announce that 98 teams from 25 countries will be competing for the $1.75M Water Abundance XPRIZE powered by TATA & Australian Aid. Team members come from diverse backgrounds and are university students, startups, scientists, engineers and more."


At least one of our AWES members is a team member for the Water X Prize:   AirHES

(see topic thread on AirHES in our forum)


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

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23130 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/29/2017
Subject: Re: Air HES http://airhes.com/

Recall in early forum that we mentioned an alternative to hosing water from above:

glide packets of water/ice from the gathering point; send up empty containers. Let the mass of the collected water drive the gliding.  Glide the water to a reservoir; use the water in various ways including the driving of electric generators.     I have not exhaustively perused the AirHES documents to see if Andrew included the option of gliding packets of water from above.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23131 From: andrew@airhes.com Date: 10/30/2017
Subject: Re: Air HES http://airhes.com/
Yes, it was mentioned for example here http://www.barixa.net/AirHES.pdf (page 9, "3. cable car (reverse aerial lift). ")
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23132 From: andrew@airhes.com Date: 10/30/2017
Subject: Re: Water X Prize
http://barixa.net/AirHES_model_en.pdf

Our model shows that we could cover the XPRZE project demands by two orders of magnitude better, but anyway we have no sponsors or investors to build this prototype.
 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23133 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/30/2017
Subject: Re: Air HES http://airhes.com/

Thanks, Andrew.

The "3. ..." seems to focus on a material cable.

My mention regards free-flight of water/ice

whereupon the tetherless glider holding product water/ice

uses not hose and not cable

while delivering the water/ice to lower altitude destinations

for various purposes.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23134 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/30/2017
Subject: Re: Water X Prize

Andrew,


Re:

XPrize schedule:

May 30, 2017Deadline for Teams to Submit Design Documentation
January 2018Round 1 Testing


[ ] Did you submit "Design Documentation" per schedule?

[ ] What happens at "Round 1 Testing" ?

[ ] What funding/investing would enable a show of AirHES in January 2018 ?   You have published evidence of some hardware testing already.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23135 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/30/2017
Subject: Re: Water X Prize

Recently I've been "reducing" holdings and paper; I today stumble on an inked handwritten diary book from 1986 that I wrote; it has been decades since I've seen the little hardbound diary book. From my hardbound diary, partial entry on March 19, 1986, Wednesday, Feast of Saint Joseph:   [[Spelling errors and punctuation errors show in the orignial diary; e.g. desserts for desert; and it looks like an unclosed parentheses was involved.]] Part of page 2 is with text that I show below:



"I just had a flash ideation that seems at first to be possibly very fruitful for a universal water gathering device. The idea uses a kite that ascends to the vapor-filled skies (vapor air is lighter and rises usually unless there is an inversion (in which case I have other ideas).
    The kite is o that water is condensed (If soar energy is needed a kytoon could rise above clouds to collect the solar rags)    The water collecting kite would collect by one or several methods (condensation on filaments, refrigeration, high pressured ?).   The water could be brought low via the tow line which would be hollow; capillarity maybe employed.  Gravity will bring the water to the ground besides capillarity.  I need to explore how water can travel in small diameter lines from altitude. 
  Or radio control can fly the kite down. Or pint loads can be discontinuously let down the line. 
  One use of special interest to me is the gathering of water in the driest desserts where there is no water in the ground to evaporate, but there is vapor in the upper sky."


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23136 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/30/2017
Subject: Re: Water X Prize

Sorry,

 Correction from:  "The kite is o that water is condensed (If soar energy"

to

"The kite is so that water is condensed (If sollar energy"


thanks,

 JoeF

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23137 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/30/2017
Subject: Re: Water X Prize

http://www.ushawks.org/forum/download/file.php?id=8933

scan of the page 2 of the 1986 diary.


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23138 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/30/2017
Subject: Re: Water X Prize
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23139 From: andrew@airhes.com Date: 10/31/2017
Subject: Re: Water X Prize
Design documentation was sent - attached
Testing rules - attached (also you can find it on their site)
Direct hardware testing is absent. We can estimate only some indirect evidences - see Experiments https://cloud.mail.ru/public/Gs9t/jMH6yJfVF

  @@attachment@@
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23140 From: andrew@airhes.com Date: 10/31/2017
Subject: Re: Water X Prize
It's absolutely great - practically it is the same idea. Very pity that you did not published it - I would not spent so much money for useless patents... :)
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23141 From: andrew@airhes.com Date: 10/31/2017
Subject: Re: Water X Prize
About: What funding/investing would enable a show of AirHES in January 2018?

Practically in St.Petersburg it is already impossible till spring - now here is already snow sometimes. Theoretically it is possible if to start just now testing the kites calculated by model - need 1-2 people, proper Dyneema rope, good place with clouds, stable wind, temperature more 15 C, empty place around on land or sea (not to lose kites while dropping), ideally the high altitude for stable orographic clouds close to land, car for wheel winch...
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23142 From: andrew@airhes.com Date: 10/31/2017
Subject: Re: Air HES http://airhes.com/
If "free-flight of water/ice" then it is approximately 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23143 From: andrew@airhes.com Date: 10/31/2017
Subject: Re: Water X Prize
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23144 From: Peter A. Sharp Date: 10/31/2017
Subject: Re: Air HES http://airhes.com/
Hi Andrew,
Thanks for providing us with information about your project. Very
interesting. I applaud your efforts. Please direct us to the reports on your
failed experiments. I didn't find them. They may prove to be very valuable.
I did see the one photo of a small aerostat with a small fog net below it.
Were able to get any water out of clouds, and if that water reached
the surface of the earth by just dripping like rain?
Have you managed to generate any power at all using your proposed
method?
I haven't done research on this subject, so I don't yet know much.
But the subject interests me a lot. I invent for fun.
Respectfully, and please forgive my ignorance if I am wrong, but my
guess is that your basic approach will need to be changed. Your current
approach seems to require too much material and too much weight. For
example, instead of the cloud moving through a huge net, it would be much
smaller and lighter if a small net could be rapidly moved through the cloud.
The same amount of water could be collected more cheaply. That might be done
by flying a kite (perhaps buoyant) across the cloud while dragging a small
fog net through the cloud. Your current approach is analogous to capturing
wind energy by using a drag-type windmill instead of using a lighter and
more efficient lift-type windmill.
If irrigation water (but no energy) can be obtained from clouds,
that would be equivalent to saving the energy required to pump (from deep
wells) and transport (in long pipes) that same amount of irrigation water.
So it would be a form of "negawatts" (negative Watts). It could greatly
reduce the cost of piping the water. A kite anchored on one farm would serve
to irrigate an adjacent farm.
I didn't notice that you addressed the issue of the "capacity
factor". In other words, how often will suitable clouds be available? And
where do they occur most frequently? Like solar and wind, the best clouds
are likely to occur only in certain areas of the world, during certain
months of the year, and at certain times of the day. Some areas will have
more profitable conditions than others, so the best areas would be developed
first. But where are they?
A problem may be that most places with lots of clouds get lots of
rain already, and can use it for hydropower generation, which is already
being done. So cloud power may be mostly limited to places with clouds but
little rain. If I am wrong about that, please explain. At this point, I
expect that some of my comments and questions will be naïve.
Do you know if anyone has generated electricity using the water
flowing from fog nets that were mounted high in the air? Or, by using
collected water flowing down a hillside to a water turbine?
If a kite or aerostat flown from a hilltop can be used to collect
water from clouds, the water can then be collected in a reservoir and used
to generate power on demand by directing it through a pipe down the hillside
to a turbine and then to a collecting reservoir at the bottom of the hill.
So it may not be necessary to require a single flying system to both collect
water and to also generate electricity. Plus, the electricity would be worth
more if it could be generated on demand rather than just when clouds were
available.
Hills or mountains might therefore be the best locations for collecting
water from clouds to generate electricity. But if that is so, then a cost
comparison would need to be made between using conventional fog nets and
airborne fog nets. It might, for example, be much cheaper, per liter of
water, to suspend fog nets between two mountain peaks than to fly those same
nets. (The water would collect to form a vertical stream which could be used
to generate hydropower.) If so, then that would be likely to slow the
development of flying fog nets.
So it seems to me that the simplest and cheapest methods of
collecting water from clouds, and using it to generate electricity, should
be developed first. In other words, go for the low-lying fruit first, so to
speak. Then parts of the knowledge obtained in that process might transfer
to the much more difficult problem of flying the fog nets from low ground
way up to high clouds. For example, a very wide Sharp Cycloturbine pulling
small fog nets in a horizontal circle might be suspended from a cable strung
between two mountain tops. And many such windmills could be suspended, at
different heights, from the same cable. If that worked well, then a Sharp
Cycloturbine with small fog net might be suspended from an aerostat or kite.
Etc. In other words, I would want to try the "quick and dirty" experiments
first just to get any success at all, and then build on that. Energy from
clouds using fog nets might be feasible, but it might not be feasible using
flying fog nets that were static. It might be that you are trying to solve a
very advanced problem before solving some easier problems. I don't have the
answers, so I'm only raising some questions.
Here is a possible way to solve the problem of the excessive weight
of the water in the down tube from the fog net: Use what you list as a
"gravity tube".
My guess is that, to save weight, the water turbine will to need to
follow the fog net and remain almost directly under it. That could be done
at sea since both the kite and the barge with the water turbine would
usually align with the wind. The water would then be collected in very large
plastic bags shaped like sausages so that they could be towed to shore.
Water would not be allowed to collect in the down tube because that tube
would tip and create a down force on the kite. The water would flow almost
straight down (gravity tube). Most of the downward force on the kite would
be the friction of the water against the inside of the down tube. That
friction might be reduced by using a hydrophobic material. The down tube
would slant a bit to leeward of the fog net due to wind pressure on the down
tube. The water would have no head pressure, but it would have an extremely
high momentum. It would fall at hundreds of meters per second. A different
kind of water turbine might need to be developed.
The turbine barge could be maneuvered using batteries charged by the
water turbine, or it could use Sharp Cycloturbines (which can sail directly
upwind). The barge could be connected to the same buoy to which the kite
tether was connected, thus greatly reducing the energy needed to maneuver
the barge against wind pressure. The cable connecting the barge to the buoy
would be extendable to compensate for the angle of the kite tether and the
downwind distance of the kite from the buoy. Electricity would be sent from
the barge to the buoy, and then down to a sea-floor transmission cable. Many
such systems could connect to the same transmission cable, which would
extend to shore. This overall method assumes that the fog net would be
semi-stationary and so would its aerostat or support kite.
To hold the fog net aloft, I would first try using a "Sharp Rotor
kite" (not tested). A U-shaped frame made of carbon fiber would have a cord
connecting the two upper tips of the U. The two Sharp Rotors (cylinder-like,
with end caps) would be mounted end to end on that cord. Bearings would
allow the rotors to spin freely. Sharp Rotors spin themselves and create
high lift at a spin ratio of 1, and they could be filled with helium
balloons for buoyancy. They have three sides, each shaped like the top
surface of wings with high camber toward the leading edge and a small
reverse camber toward the trailing edge. A small motor can be used to spin
them at a higher spin rate to increase their lift by means of the Magnus
effect.
A vertical cord extends from the middle of the horizontal cord down
to the bottom of the U. That cord is tightened to pull down the middle of
the horizontal cord a short distance into a shallow V shape. That gives the
two Sharp Rotors a dihedral orientation which increases the kites stability
against side slip. This kite has not been tested, but it is likely to work.
It can provide buoyancy, high lift, and extreme lift when needed, plus some
maneuverability. My models of the Sharp Rotor have a L/D ratio of 2 to 1.
That may improve in larger sizes and with rotors with a higher aspect ratio
than my models. Sharp Rotors are useful because they do not vibrate as do
2-sided rotors (Donaldson rotors), and they do not have "dead spots" that
prevent auto-rotation, as do 2-sided rotors. They require a little more
power to spin them using a motor than do Flettner rotors (long cylinders
with end caps), but they can produce equally high extreme lift.
The fog nets would be mounted within the frame of the U, and below
the rotors. The fog nets would drain to the bottom of the U. The downtube
would be attached to the bottom of the U.
When the wind was pushing clouds through the fog net fast enough,
the kite would remain stationary. When the wind speed was too slow, the kite
would be maneuvered from side to side to capture more fog. The side to side
movements would be small relative to the length of the down tube, so the
floating barge would not need to follow the side to side movements of the
kite.
This system seems to solve the problems that I am aware of at
present, but I'm sure there are problems that I don't know about yet. I can
send you more information and drawings if this concept interests you.
I have another type of heavy-lift kite in mind that uses two of my
Sharp Cycloturbine VAWT to counter-rotate two, large, intermeshing
gyrocopter-type rotors. It would use pontoons to land on the sea. So no gas
for buoyancy would be required. Small fog nets would attach out near the
blades so that they could sweep a very large volume of fog for their size.
PeterS
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23145 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/31/2017
Subject: Re: Water X Prize

Copy/paste of Rules and Regs:


Water Abundance XPRIZE

Rules and Regulations, Version 1.0

August 30, 2017

THESE RULES AND REGULATIONS ARE AN ATTACHMENT TO THE COMPETITION GUIDELINES FOR THE WATER ABUNDANCE XPRIZE (‘WATER ABUNDANCE XPRIZE’ OR ‘WAXP’ OR ‘PRIZE’). EACH PARTICIPATING TEAM MUST COMPLY WITH THESE RULES AND REGULATIONS. FAILURE TO ADHERE TO THESE RULES MAY RESULT IN THE SUSPENSION OR DISQUALIFICATION OF THE TEAM BY THE JUDGING PANEL.


2


Contents

DEFINITIONS ................................................................................................................................. 3

ELIGIBILITY ..................................................................................................................................... 3

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES ............................................................................................................ 3

TESTING SPECIFICATIONS ................................................................................................................. 4

Round 1 Testing Location ......................................................................................................... 4

Round 1 Testing Procedure and Data Submission ...................................................................... 4

Round 2 Testing Procedure and Submission .............................................................................. 5


COMMUNICATIONS ........................................................................................................................ 5

COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS AND REGULATIONS ..................................................................................... 5


3



DEFINITIONS

a. Competition: The Water Abundance XPRIZE.

b. Team: A registered entity taking part in this Competition.

c. Solution: A physical system submitted by a Team for testing as their entry in the Competition.

d. Sponsors: TATA Group and Australian Aid jointly, sponsors of this prize.

e. Atmosphere: The Earth’s atmosphere at ground level in its natural condition.

f. Water Output (WO): The total amount of water extracted, in liters, from the Atmosphere during a specified

period.



g. Cost of the Solution (CS): The unit manufacturing cost of the Solution, in US dollars, when manufactured in

production volumes.


h. Operating Cost(CO): The annual cost of operation and maintenance of the Solution in US dollars.


i. Affordability Index(I): The projected annual cost of water extraction per liter of water collected over 10

years. This is calculated by dividing the Cost of the Solution (CS) by 10. The sum of this result and the


Operating Cost (CO) is then divided by the annual Water Output (WO).


I = ((CS / 10) + CO) / WO


ELIGIBILITY

XPRIZE believes that solutions can come from anyone, anywhere. Scientists, engineers, academics, entrepreneurs, and

other innovators with new ideas from all over the world are invited to form a Team and register to compete. To

participate, a Team may need to recruit additional experts and can add new members at any time throughout the

Competition.

Employees, consultants and contractors of XPRIZE, Sponsors, and each of their respective parent, subsidiary, and

affiliated companies and their immediate families (i.e., parents, spouse, children, siblings, grandparents, step parents,

step children, and step siblings) are not eligible to enter the Competition.



ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

The responsible party for each of these activities is listed below. This is not a comprehensive list; please contact XPRIZE if you have any questions about any activity.


Activity Responsibility

Design and development of the Solution:   Team

Transportation of the Solution to a test location and back: Team

Deployment and setup of the Solution before any test and removal of the Solution after the end of testing: Team

Cost of lodging, travel etc. for Teams Team

Solution inspection or verification before or during testing:  XPRIZE

Collection of test data from Teams for consideration by the Judging Panel: XPRIZE


4



TESTING SPECIFICATIONS

Round 1 Testing Location

Round 1 testing will be conducted at a location of the Team’s choosing which adheres to these Round 1 operating

conditions. These conditions must be present throughout the Round 1 Testing Procedure.



Criterion Range

Atmospheric Temperature 10° to 40° Celsius

Relative Humidity 10% to 90%

Round 1 Testing Procedure and Data Submission

Round 1 Testing will occur between January 10, 2018 and January 19, 2018 inclusive, local time (“Testing Window”).

Teams may perform testing during any part of this period, and may repeat their testing multiple times. The Test Results

(below) must be collected during a continuous 72-hour (three-day) period (“Test Period”) beginning and ending during the Testing Window.



Initial Data Submission

All Teams are required to submit the following documentation of their Solution and its performance:

a. Technical Documentation Technical documentation should include detailed information about the design of

Team’s Solution, the theoretical performance of Team’s Solution across the range of Round 1 Operating

Conditions specified above, and describe any remaining work needed to scale Team’s solution to be ready for

Round 2 Testing.


b. Test Results During the Test Period Teams must record the following data no less often than once every 10

minutes, 2 meters above the ground at the test location:



Air temperature

Relative humidity

Wind speed

Teams must also record, no less often than once every 10 minutes:

The total amount of water collected by Team’s Solution since the start of the Test Period

The total power consumed by Teams Solution since the start of the Test Period.




If Team’s Solution is powered by electricity you may use any source (such as mains power) for Round 1 testing,

since the cost to generate electricity from solar or wind sources can be determined independently. Power

consumption from certain sources may be difficult to measure; if you believe Team’s Solution’s power

consumption is difficult to measure, please contact XPRIZE for guidance at least one month before the start of

the Testing Window.


Teams may also submit additional test data if they believe it will help the Judging Panel evaluate Team’s

Solution.

The material for the Video Demonstration (below) must be recorded during the Test Period.


c. Video Demonstration Teams must submit a video demonstration of their Solution in two parts.


Provide a basic introduction of their Solution showing its design, construction, and operation. (10 minutes

maximum)

Demonstrate the operation of the Solution at its most active state during the Test Period (5 minutes

maximum)

Video footage surpassing the allotted time will not be viewed by the Judging Panel.



Judging Validation and Verification After the Initial Data Submission, the Judging Panel may contact Teams to

request additional information for verification. This may include additional design or operational information. The Judging Panel may also require the Team to perform one or more additional 72-hour Test Periods with additional data recording or monitoring conditions, including the presence of an XPRIZE representative.


Round 2 Team Selection The Judging Panel will select up to 5 Teams based on the Technical Documentation, Test

Results, Video Demonstration, and any additional validation and verification to proceed to Round 2 Testing.


Round 2 Testing Procedure and Submission

The Round 2 testing procedure will be published after the 5 Finalist Teams are selected. Teams proceeding to Round 2

will be required to execute the WAXP Competitor Agreement.


COMMUNICATIONS

All communications between Teams and XPRIZE must be made by email to Water.Abundance@xprize.org.

COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS AND REGULATIONS

All Teams and all Team members must adhere to all laws (including but not limited to) local, regional, national, and


international laws, orders, directives, ordinances, treaties, rules, and regulations for all aspects of the Competition. Teams are solely responsible for acquiring any appropriate licenses, waivers, or permits from the applicable regulatory bodies or other applicable third parties.



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23146 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/31/2017
Subject: Don Montague

Kitesurfing pioneers: the story of Don Montague


31 October 2017 | Kiteboarding

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23147 From: andrew@airhes.com Date: 11/1/2017
Subject: Re: Air HES http://airhes.com/
Dear Peter, thanks for your interest...

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23148 From: andrew@airhes.com Date: 11/1/2017
Subject: Re: Air HES http://airhes.com/
Vice versa. AirHES does not use Wind Energy. It uses Hydro potential like any HPP. Therefore wind is necessary condition for deliver of micro droplets inside cloud to slightly penetrated kite fabric or mesh, but it is mainly a harm factor - see "The general ideology of optimization of AirHES" in http://barixa.net/AirHES_model_en.pdf
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23149 From: andrew@airhes.com Date: 11/1/2017
Subject: Re: Air HES http://airhes.com/
Look, please, in model article here:

6 Cloud cover factor, CCF, %
It is estimated on the basis of meteorological data for the lower cloud layer. Approximately correlates with the level of precipitation. In general, over the planet it is 67% [16]. For a proper territory can be obtained from NASA satellite data [17].

The best zone is equator where this "capacity factor" is close to 100%.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23150 From: gordon_sp Date: 11/1/2017
Subject: Lifter Kite Array Launch


 

Background

In order to generate appreciable amounts of energy we require a large lifter kite area to support the turbines or oscillating devices required.  This lifter kite system is too hazardous to be manually launched.  Rather than a staged launching system I suggest the complete array be launched as a single unit in a way that the positions of all the linked kites are controlled so that they do not collide or interfere with each other.  This is achieved by controlling the position of the array by means of diagonal stays around the perimeter of the array.

Details

All the lifter kites are laid out on the ground with their leading edges tied down so that gusts of wind do not allow them to move.  The diagonal stays are attached around the perimeter and each stay has its own unwind reel.  The bridling and tether of each lifter kite is also connected to its own unwind reel.  All the reels are driven by stepper motors.  The winding speeds of all the tether stepper motors are programmed to move at the same rate so that during launch and operation all kites maintain the same elevation.  If the kite array is launched at say a 45 deg. Angle, then for any position of the array there is an appropriate length of the diagonal stays to maintain the array in a stable position.  The lengths of the diagonal stays at each elevation can be determined by geometry and be preprogrammed into the diagonal stay reel stepper motors.  In this way the whole system can be launched in a controlled way.

We require a launch assist method to raise the kite array to an elevation where the winds are strong enough.  I favor a system of LTA balloons (hydrogen, helium or hot air) located under each lifter kite.  When a certain altitude is reached, these balloons are restrained from rising higher by their own tethers and are retracted and stowed for the next launch.


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23151 From: andrew@airhes.com Date: 11/1/2017
Subject: Re: Air HES http://airhes.com/
It is not exactly so. For usual HPP we must have (1) cloud/rain and (2) mountain. Obviously that AirHES eliminates factor (2). You can get hydropower directly from cloud with considerably more hydro potential (~2-3 km instead of 100-500 m for dams maximally) and practically in any location. For example, the huge hydro potential you have close to equator in ocean, you cannot use for HPP, but can for AirHES. Ocean and low lands are ~ 90% and we lose all hydropower here without AirHES.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23152 From: andrew@airhes.com Date: 11/1/2017
Subject: Re: Air HES http://airhes.com/
No, I don't know such examples, but obviously that it is possible to do. Practically most of HPP uses water from the mountains where surface of this mountains is the same "mesh" accumulating water from clouds/fogs.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23153 From: andrew@airhes.com Date: 11/1/2017
Subject: Re: Air HES http://airhes.com/
Absolutely right. I name it as cascade AirHES - see http://barixa.net/Accumulation_AirHES_en.pdf

Cascade AirHES
Mainly this is an obvious solution, which nevertheless also offers significant advantages for AirHES over other sources of renewable energy.
As you know, one of the main problems for renewables is their irregularity (meteo dependence), and hence the need for further significant investments in energy storage. One of the best solutions for today of this task is a pumped-storage plant (PSP). By using a suitable hill, you can build a reversible hydroelectric power plant, which operates either the pump mode, or the regenerative mode. At the same time the efficiency of reversible hydroelectric units are generally much worse than conventional water turbines.
AirHES of cascade type can elegantly solve this problem, and at the same time solve the problem of the meteo dependence. If there is a suitable hill, but there is no a river, the AirHES can easily create this artificial "river" and the intermediate upstream by draining its water in natural (meteo dependent) mode NOT to the downstream, BUT to this intermediate upstream of the cascade hydropower plant. Then the lower hydroelectric power station and will play the role of accumulator (PSP) with usual hydraulic turbines, and coordinated work of the AirHES and this cascade conventional HPP will completely eliminate a meteo dependence. The pump mode in this case can be eliminated - Sun will operate itself as the pump by lifting the water up to the clouds.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23154 From: andrew@airhes.com Date: 11/1/2017
Subject: Re: Air HES http://airhes.com/
Yes, it is great solution "in situ", but it is also bound to location - but my idea to find a global solution that we can use for water and power supply anywhere, easy and even mobile.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23155 From: andrew@airhes.com Date: 11/1/2017
Subject: Re: Air HES http://airhes.com/
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23156 From: andrew@airhes.com Date: 11/1/2017
Subject: Re: Air HES http://airhes.com/
Dear Peter,
thanks a lot for all your suggestions but unfortunately I would like, but cannot now to continue my project - to tell the truth I have no money even to live, and I am very surprised that nobody does not help this R&D that can solve many global problems of so many peoples.
Yours AK
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23157 From: Peter A. Sharp Date: 11/1/2017
Subject: Re: Air HES http://airhes.com/
Dear Andrew,
Thank you very much for responding to my comments and for your
additional references. I looked at your pictures and videos of your
experiments. Very interesting. Thank you for your basic research. I have
some further questions if you would be so kind as to respond to them.
-- You began by using the pilot kite as the fog net. How well does that work
for fog collection, given the material and the angle of attack?
-- You switched to using a separate fog net. Was that for efficiency, or was
it to increase the stability of the pilot kite?
-- Is it practical to use a fog net to provide lift, given that the swept
area of the fog net is greatly reduced when it is at a moderate angle of
attack?
-- You initially folded the bottom of a nylon fog net to form a trough to
collect the water, but then switched to using a flexible, split hose. Why?
-- Why did you switch from using a pilot kite to a balloon?
-- Did you find that a kite tether can function adequately as a wick to
conduct water to the ground, even if it can't be used for hydropower?
-- At the equator, where you say there is the most fog, is there also enough
wind? My concern is the "doldrums". Would the trade winds on either side of
the equatorial region be better, given that they have an average wind speed
of roughly 7-8 m/s? There seems to be a lot of cloud cover in that region.
I'm thinking of Hawaii where low clouds are common, I believe.
-- Did your outdoor kite/balloon experiments succeed in bringing any water
from fog or clouds down to ground level?
-- What fog net material do you recommend as most efficient?
-- What are the unexpected problems you discovered?
-- What did you discover so far, both big and little things?
Your work is very valuable. Your experiments demonstrated a lot of
ingenuity. I applaud you.
I appreciate what you say about how some important renewable energy
research, such as yours, is not funded. I have the same problem with my two
windmills. Given global warming, such neglect is as bad as the denial of
global warming.
I recently suggested to Fog Quest (large, stationary nets between
poles) that cheaper fog nets might be possible by mounting small fog nets on
my cheap Sharp Cycloturbine so that the small fog nets sweep a very large
volume of fog for their size. The fog nets would move in a large, horizontal
circle at about 3 times the wind speed. That should lower the cost and
increase the efficiency of the fog nets.
PeterS
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23158 From: andrew@airhes.com Date: 11/2/2017
Subject: Re: Air HES http://airhes.com/
Dear Peter,
sorry in advance that I can misunderstand some questions - English is not my native tongue.
SY, AK

-- You began by using the pilot kite as the fog net. How well does that work for fog collection, given the material and the angle of attack?

I wrote a special work about Optimization of mesh where these questions are described detail both theoretically (on the base of proper MIT investigation and comparing with FogQuest data) and simulatically (on base of CFD experiments with XFlow modelling)


Of course, I understand that it is only first step, and really it demands on serious R&D with fog chambers and wind tunnel but it is impossible without normal scientific funding. However even this work shows that optimal mesh/fabric must be slightly penetrated (permeable) for air (to catch microdroplets) and at the same time have a proper aerodynamic coefficients (to provide a proper lifting).

I tried to interest by my investigations and my kite-fog-collectors the MIT, FogQuest and WasserStiftung, but without success.

Totally this task (the material and the angle of attack) is solved automatically in framework of complex model of AirHES - just need to fulfil a huge volume of calculation.


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23159 From: andrew@airhes.com Date: 11/2/2017
Subject: Re: Air HES http://airhes.com/
-- You switched to using a separate fog net. Was that for efficiency, or was it to increase the stability of the pilot kite?

Do you mean "kite_150730" I suppose? Just I tried different variants. Mainly the reason was that I have lost my own previous 6m2 kite and was forced to use the bought 9m2 kite from China (made by design of famous Peter Lynn) - its surface was covered and non-permeable therefore I was forced to use mesh additionally. BTW, it was only one case when I have gotten directly a little amount of real water from clouds.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23160 From: andrew@airhes.com Date: 11/2/2017
Subject: Re: Air HES http://airhes.com/
-- Is it practical to use a fog net to provide lift, given that the swept area of the fog net is greatly reduced when it is at a moderate angle of attack?

The mesh practically does not give lifting forces - Cy ~ 0. A attack angle is used for stabilization and for possible control of water capture efficiency. It seems strange, but the real mesh has not optimal SC and the inclining can increase water effectiveness. See appendix in article about Optimization of mesh.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23161 From: andrew@airhes.com Date: 11/2/2017
Subject: Re: Air HES http://airhes.com/
-- You initially folded the bottom of a nylon fog net to form a trough to collect the water, but then switched to using a flexible, split hose. Why?

Initially I have followed a design of the known fog collectors. They have a problem with dropping and blowing the droplets therefore they use a trough. Because my design is not vertical mesh, I supposed that my droplets will not drop, but will flow along inclined mesh or kite fabric by wind pressing with holding by capillary forces and it is easier to use a flexible, split hose (or even without hose, just a capillary drainage). I have checked it in my lab experiments - seems, it worked. Beside that this design gives better aerodynamic.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23162 From: andrew@airhes.com Date: 11/2/2017
Subject: Re: Air HES http://airhes.com/
-- Why did you switch from using a pilot kite to a balloon?

I have tried to switch from a kite to a kytoon (not a balloon) because I have lost several ones of my kites - the palace of one of my friend (who allowed me to carry out my experiments on the coast of Finland Gulf) is lapped in woods. I just have tried to save the experimental base when wind will drop suddenly... :)

Another problem that was in this place - it is close to air traffic glissade of Pulkovo airport - I could lift a kite at my own risk only up to 900 m, but really I lifted only up to 420 m maximum - it is only rare bottom clouds really, and getting water for rather short time is practically very difficult in this conditions.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23163 From: andrew@airhes.com Date: 11/2/2017
Subject: Re: Air HES http://airhes.com/
-- Did you find that a kite tether can function adequately as a wick to conduct water to the ground, even if it can't be used for hydropower?

I have supposed so on the base of my experiments. Obviously that it is not ideal solution and can be used only for the simplest water supply on the kite base - of course, better to use a hose... for only water supply it could be even just sewed from any light fabric and slip on the rope.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23164 From: andrew@airhes.com Date: 11/2/2017
Subject: Re: Air HES http://airhes.com/
-- At the equator, where you say there is the most fog, is there also enough wind? My concern is the "doldrums". Would the trade winds on either side of the equatorial region be better, given that they have an average wind speed of roughly 7-8 m/s? There seems to be a lot of cloud cover in that region. I'm thinking of Hawaii where low clouds are common, I believe.

Yes, the trade wind zone is also good place. At all, the best places for water supply by AirHES are islands without high mountains like Malta - many thousand islands cannot be inhabited only because there are no water there. By my calculations for Malta, for example, the AirHES for water supply could have payback period ~ some weeks.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23165 From: andrew@airhes.com Date: 11/2/2017
Subject: Re: Air HES http://airhes.com/
-- Did your outdoor kite/balloon experiments succeed in bringing any water from fog or clouds down to ground level?

First experiment "bal_130730" by indirect signs (changing tether angle with accumulation of water on altitude ~1500 m in real clouds) should have been successful, but break of rope in final stage did not allow to get the result directly.

Also I have written that I have drunk some sips from attached bottle after "kite_150730".
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23167 From: andrew@airhes.com Date: 11/2/2017
Subject: Re: Air HES http://airhes.com/
-- What fog net material do you recommend as most efficient?
-- What are the unexpected problems you discovered?
-- What did you discover so far, both big and little things? 

It depends on many factors of design - it was a reason to create of the complex model - to get the optimal design and parameters automatically by calculation and simulation. The material is not so important. Usual PE, PP, nylon, etc are availible and workable. More important the density (SC), diameter of fiber, attack angle... 

Some thoughts for future R&D I have written here https://bari-x-andrew.livejournal.com/38667.html

IMHO, obviously that the AirHES has no unsolved or unexpected problems on this stage. Theoretically all main problems are solved. The proper scientific team could build the workable prototypes with balloon, kytoon or kite design for 1-2 years. I am sure that it happens sooner or later, because it is the best way to solve a fresh water problem...
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23168 From: dave santos Date: 11/2/2017
Subject: Re: Air HES http://airhes.com/
Andrew has done great work on airborne water-collection, and is clearly the leader of this concept, which deserves far more developmental support. In past years we have reviewed many related aspects, starting with old Polynesian accounts of flying kites into low clouds with sea sponges attached and then squeezing the sponges for fresh drinking water. Kiters on the foggy US NW Coast are  familiar with condensate forming on their kites and how a parade of drops run down our kitelines, but this is only incidental harvesting. Too much wind blows the drops away, so an optimized designs are wanted to collect the water in quantity.

Foggy places with scarce water do exist in narrow zones along certain sea coasts with rising arid terrain, but the major opportunity with kites is to harvest cloud water at high altitudes over deserts. At sea, one can use reverse-osmosis powered by kite without cloud dependence. Considerable rain falls even in the Sahara but evaporates before reaching the ground. Harvesting clouds around 3km high and conveying the water to the surface either in a bag or tube would be a fine technology in such places. Ice production is also a natural opportunity in hot climates, but you have to go high.

Note that power production can be done by lowering a waterbag from a kite-borne pulley, using a groundgen, as well as by hydroturbine at the bottom of watertube. Many cases exist of running water down mountains in tubes for high-pressure hydropower. Pressure hose is rather heavy, but materials advances like graphene will improve the working potential. LTA is mostly impractical due to cost and operational challenges, but a common comparison in theoretic kite discussion.

We have in past years diligently explored many airborne water harvesting basics, and also the reverse cases of pumping/hauling water up to make clouds to carry water inland, or reflect sunlight to space, or just transport water to irrigate or fight fires. KiteLab Ilwaco has done many experiments lifting water to dump over targets, or to run down a hose for directed high-pressure streaming. Everything worked just as expected, and there seems to be a fine future for these sorts of kite apps. Just like Andrew and Joe, I have long had ideas about harvesting clouds in my notes, like a concept to "eat clouds with thermal airships", in other words, catch clouds in giant bags, which would promptly condense by cooling either by going higher or simply cutting off solar gain with aluminized membrane material or nightfall.

Better to explore original ideas conceptually and in modest experiments than to work on boring ideas with unlimited funding. Hold on to the creative paradise of the pioneer, even if proper funding does not appear in one's own time. Many great ideas start as seeds for successors to finally harvest.





 

-- What fog net material do you recommend as most efficient?
-- What are the unexpected problems you discovered?
-- What did you discover so far, both big and little things? 

It depends on many factors of design - it was a reason to create of the complex model - to get the optimal design and parameters automatically by calculation and simulation. The material is not so important. Usual PE, PP, nylon, etc are availible and workable. More important the density (SC), diameter of fiber, attack angle... 

Some thoughts for future R&D I have written here https://bari-x-andrew.livejournal.com/38667.html

IMHO, obviously that the AirHES has no unsolved or unexpected problems on this stage. Theoretically all main problems are solved. The proper scientific team could build the workable prototypes with balloon, kytoon or kite design for 1-2 years. I am sure that it happens sooner or later, because it is the best way to solve a fresh water problem...
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23169 From: dave santos Date: 11/2/2017
Subject: Re: Lifter Kite Array Launch
Gordon,

You are suggesting a powerful enabler of lifter kite arrays, to tame them with guy-lines. A fancy name for this idea is Topological Stability of Networked Kites. The dangers are formidable but manageable, and I think kite pros will ride up and down with arrays.

Cascaded or staged kite array launching is like stages in rocketry that enable higher orbits with more payload. In the kite case, a giant kite lifter array has some square-cube mass-penalty, and is prone to just lay on the ground in surface calm, while good wind blows at altitude, so how to get up there to get going is essential. Approaches involve either a massive tow or LTA/VTOL; such capability that is a sort of stage. Launching can be done in layered kite stages, starting with just a small "toy kite" reeled or towed up, to get things started.

Rather than stages being seen as more dangerous, they have been seen in previous discussion as hopefully safer, if you clear back from the initial manual launch and let ever-bigger stages proceed passively, one by one. The action is reversed in lulls, where lower stages land as needed, while unburdened upper stages maintain flight. Its supposed that a kitefarm can be done with or without cascaded stages, according to needs, and the danger will depend on all design and operational factors, not primarily recourse to stages or manual initiation. Kite pros hope "manual" operator/supervisor kite methods enjoy a brief golden age before total kitefarm automation eventually dominates.

The key idea is lifter kite arrays as the fundamental basis for vastly scalable AWE and Aerotecture, whatever the details. We watch with excitement as investment funding exhausts single unit-kite capabilites, while we prepare for kitematter to be flight-tested en-masse,

daveS


 


 

Background

In order to generate appreciable amounts of energy we require a large lifter kite area to support the turbines or oscillating devices required.  This lifter kite system is too hazardous to be manually launched.  Rather than a staged launching system I suggest the complete array be launched as a single unit in a way that the positions of all the linked kites are controlled so that they do not collide or interfere with each other.  This is achieved by controlling the position of the array by means of diagonal stays around the perimeter of the array.

Details

All the lifter kites are laid out on the ground with their leading edges tied down so that gusts of wind do not allow them to move.  The diagonal stays are attached around the perimeter and each stay has its own unwind reel.  The bridling and tether of each lifter kite is also connected to its own unwind reel.  All the reels are driven by stepper motors.  The winding speeds of all the tether stepper motors are programmed to move at the same rate so that during launch and operation all kites maintain the same elevation.  If the kite array is launched at say a 45 deg. Angle, then for any position of the array there is an appropriate length of the diagonal stays to maintain the array in a stable position.  The lengths of the diagonal stays at each elevation can be determined by geometry and be preprogrammed into the diagonal stay reel stepper motors.  In this way the whole system can be launched in a controlled way.

We require a launch assist method to raise the kite array to an elevation where the winds are strong enough.  I favor a system of LTA balloons (hydrogen, helium or hot air) located under each lifter kite.  When a certain altitude is reached, these balloons are restrained from rising higher by their own tethers and are retracted and stowed for the next launch.


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23170 From: dave santos Date: 11/2/2017
Subject: Re: Quick video from kitewinder
Bravo, Olivier!

Kitewinder's beta design is looking fantastic and has obvious potential to ignite a huge popular interest in AWE. No doubt your team's relentless diligence to refine the design is the magic needed.



 

Hy guys, we are doing great progress on kiwee. Still working on some mechanical and software details.
next time you can have a cloth look on how we reel in / reel out as well as set up phase .
Lot of work with producing those 20 machines for beta testing as you can imagine as well.



Olivier from Kitewinder
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23171 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/2/2017
Subject: Re: Alexander Muzhichkov

News note:

We are sorting out a link, but Alexander is announcing  some work regarding an AWE calculator.

We'll post the link when found.   He notes in email: "It's an online calculator for AWE"


http://www.enornis.com/

========================================
Repost:  
New 2017 : 

                Alex

keyword: enornis      Muzhichkow    

====================================================================
---In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, <joefaust333@gmail.com

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23172 From: dave santos Date: 11/2/2017
Subject: Re: Leaving a free-flight kite system to kite-glide
Here we see the utopian aviation legacy of Le'Empire de l'Air by Moulillard and Chanute as the "Father of Flight", realized by modern versions of the formidable French peasant, self-reinvented as avant-garde DIY daredevil test-pilots of esoteric aerotecture concepts, for our refined edification. What was the godlike task chosen? To walk in the sky, with little more than rag and stick and rising air.

The first attempt succeeded without the support glider losing control. The second attempt failed not just because the access hole was poorly reinforced or square (they likely were unaware of the de Havilland Comet square window flaw). The initiating cause was the second wing walker losing balance aftward faster than the pilot could weight-shift, which caused a violent stall, and blew the sail out. The glider seemed rather old and deteriorated, but the reserve chute was good. Quite a close call, since the chute could have easily fouled in the tumbling airframe wreckage.

All's well that ends well; this sketchy stunt is enough proof that what was intended was accomplished, without further risk needed. Onto the next crazy idea!





 

Leaving a free-flight kite system to kite-glide

http://www.zapiks.com/evasion.html


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

Comments:

The second round with the sail tearing could have been avoided by sewing reinforcements at the edge of the hole cut in the sail.


Some future workers or inhabitants of aerotecture or AWES may get off the AWES by skydiving using a free-flight gliding kite system.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23173 From: dave santos Date: 11/2/2017
Subject: Precursors of Powered Flight and AWE timelines compared
Nice website featuring the precursors to the Wright Bros, adding quite a bit to Chanute's classic compendium. I did not know Swedenborg as a pioneering aeronautical theorist.

What is clear is that the airplane was more or less fully envisioned over fifty years before it became practical. Those who participated were not cranks, but true pioneers, as we see in AWE. Lets hope that AWE advances faster, given a larger modern technical population and aerospace engineering knowledge base, with improved communication.







Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23174 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 11/2/2017
Subject: Re: Minesto news :
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23175 From: Muzhichkov Date: 11/3/2017
Subject: Re: Alexander Muzhichkov
http://www.enornis.com/webapplication/

WEB application for designing a flying wind turbine in a modular enornis scheme.

Version 1.1 

Capabilities:

  • theoretical estimation of the power of a flying wind generator;
  • calculation of power losses in the cable and the weight of the cable.

This product will be useful both for engineers interested in the topic of flying wind generators, so for investors assessing the profitability of the projects.

You are wellcome to test and leave comments about failures and what to make else


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 23176 From: dave santos Date: 11/3/2017
Subject: Re: Minesto news :
Its an interesting undersea scaling factor we have not noted before, that while water allows far denser kites to be buoyant than possible in air, the dead weight of concrete sea-bottom anchor is roughly only half of its above-water value.

The other meaning of this 1300 ton anchor specification is how massive utility-scale kite anchors must be, on land or underwater. We tend to ignore the major capital-cost significance of anchoring economics in our focus on the sky kite. At least anchors can give very long service, for low operation cost.

A possible anchoring supplement may be to locate a varidrogue  with a short travel path at the anchor, to absorb surge force, but recovering during low-force cycle phase, if a sufficient velocity gradient with height exists.