Messages in AirborneWindEnergy group.                          AWES 24978 to 25028 Page 391 of 440.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24978 From: Massimo Ippolito Date: 2/28/2019
Subject: Re=3a_=5bAWES=5d_Re=3a_KiteGen_Research_Hig_h_Altitude_Wind_Generati

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24979 From: Joe Faust Date: 2/28/2019
Subject: Loop Double-Arch One way Rotation Groudgen

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24980 From: Santos Date: 2/28/2019
Subject: Re: [AWES] Re: [AWES] Re: KiteGen Research Hig h Altitude Wind Gener

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24981 From: dougselsam Date: 2/28/2019
Subject: Re: Loop Double-Arch One way Rotation Groudgen

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24983 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 2/28/2019
Subject: Re: Minesto News

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24984 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 2/28/2019
Subject: Re: Loop Double-Arch One way Rotation Groudgen

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24985 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 2/28/2019
Subject: Re: Loop Double-Arch One way Rotation Groudgen

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24986 From: Joe Faust Date: 2/28/2019
Subject: United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS) ... and AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24987 From: Santos Date: 3/1/2019
Subject: Re: Loop Double-Arch One way Rotation Groudgen

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24988 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/1/2019
Subject: Re: Distinguish huge differences: torque-rope drive versus loop driv

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24989 From: Joe Faust Date: 3/1/2019
Subject: Torque Cables for Power Transmission

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24990 From: Joe Faust Date: 3/1/2019
Subject: Pressurized-gas power transmission in AWES ???

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24991 From: Santos Date: 3/1/2019
Subject: Re: Distinguish huge differences: torque-rope drive versus loop driv

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24992 From: dougselsam Date: 3/1/2019
Subject: Re: Loop Double-Arch One way Rotation Groudgen

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24993 From: benhaiemp Date: 3/1/2019
Subject: Re: Distinguish huge differences: torque-rope drive versus loop driv

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24994 From: Santos Date: 3/1/2019
Subject: Re: Loop Double-Arch One way Rotation Groudgen

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24995 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/1/2019
Subject: Re: Distinguish huge differences: torque-rope drive versus loop driv

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24996 From: dougselsam Date: 3/1/2019
Subject: Re: Loop Double-Arch One way Rotation Groudgen

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24997 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/1/2019
Subject: Re: Torque Cables for Power Transmission

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24998 From: Santos Date: 3/1/2019
Subject: Re: Distinguish huge differences: torque-rope drive versus loop driv

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24999 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/2/2019
Subject: Kite Networks for Harvesting Wind Energy by Roderick Read

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 25000 From: Santos Date: 3/2/2019
Subject: Re: Kite Networks for Harvesting Wind Energy by Roderick Read

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 25001 From: benhaiemp Date: 3/2/2019
Subject: Re: Kite Networks for Harvesting Wind Energy by Roderick Read

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 25002 From: Santos Date: 3/2/2019
Subject: Re: Kite Networks for Harvesting Wind Energy by Roderick Read

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 25003 From: benhaiemp Date: 3/4/2019
Subject: Re: [AWES] Re: KiteGen Research Hig h Altitude Wi nd Generation…

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 25004 From: benhaiemp Date: 3/4/2019
Subject: Re: [AWES] Re: KiteGen Research Hig h Altitude Wi nd Generation…

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 25005 From: Massimo Ippolito Date: 3/4/2019
Subject: Re=3a_=5bAWES=5d_Re=3a_KiteGen_Research_Hig_h_Altitude_Wi_nd_Generat

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 25006 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/4/2019
Subject: Re: [AWES] Re: KiteGen Research Hig h Altitude Wi nd Generation…

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 25007 From: benhaiemp Date: 3/4/2019
Subject: Re: [AWES] Re: KiteGen Research Hig h Altitude Wi nd Generation…

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 25008 From: benhaiemp Date: 3/4/2019
Subject: Re: [AWES] Re: KiteGen Research Hig h Altitude Wi nd Generation…

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 25009 From: dave santos Date: 3/4/2019
Subject: Re: [AWES] Re: KiteGen Research Hig h Altitude Wi nd Generation…

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 25010 From: dave santos Date: 3/4/2019
Subject: Not claiming to be "the top researcher in AWE"

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 25011 From: dave santos Date: 3/4/2019
Subject: Catapult's starting AWE Overview

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 25012 From: Massimo Ippolito Date: 3/4/2019
Subject: Re=3a_=5bAWES=5d_Re=3a_=5bAWES=5d_Re=3a_KiteGen_Research_Hig_h_Altit

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 25013 From: Massimo Ippolito Date: 3/4/2019
Subject: Re=3a_=5bAWES=5d_Re=3a_KiteGen_Research_Hig_h_Altitude_Wi_nd_Generat

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 25014 From: dougselsam Date: 3/4/2019
Subject: Re: Not claiming to be "the top researcher in AWE"

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 25015 From: dave santos Date: 3/4/2019
Subject: Re: [AWES] Re: [AWES] Re: [AWES] Re: KiteGen Research Hig h Altitude

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 25016 From: Massimo Ippolito Date: 3/4/2019
Subject: Re: [AWES] Re: [AWES] Re: [AWES] Re: KiteGen_Research_Hig_h_Altitude

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 25017 From: benhaiemp Date: 3/4/2019
Subject: Re: [AWES] Re: KiteGen Research Hig h Altitude Wi nd Generation…

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 25018 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/4/2019
Subject: Re: Not claiming to be "the top researcher in AWE"

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 25019 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/4/2019
Subject: Re: [AWES] Re: [AWES] Re: [AWES] Re: KiteG en Research Hig h Altitud

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 25020 From: dave santos Date: 3/4/2019
Subject: Re: Not claiming to be "the top researcher in AWE"

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 25021 From: dave santos Date: 3/4/2019
Subject: Re: [AWES] Re: [AWES] Re: [AWES] Re: KiteG en Research Hig h Altitud

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 25022 From: dave santos Date: 3/4/2019
Subject: Who is a current (and past) "top researcher in AWE"? (plus a Payne i

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 25023 From: Massimo Ippolito Date: 3/5/2019
Subject: Re=3a_=5bAWES=5d_Re=3a_KiteGen_Research_Hig_h_Altitude_Wi_nd_Generat

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 25024 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 3/5/2019
Subject: re: [kitegen] Re: [AWES] Re: KiteGen Research Hig h Altitude Wi nd G

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 25025 From: Rod Read Date: 3/5/2019
Subject: Re: [AWES] Re: [AWES] Re: KiteGen Research Hig h Altitude Wi nd Gene

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 25026 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/5/2019
Subject: Re: [AWES] Re: KiteGen Research Hig h Altitude Wi nd Generation…

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 25027 From: dave santos Date: 3/5/2019
Subject: Re: [AWES] Re: [AWES] Re: KiteGen Research Hig h Altitude Wi nd Gene

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 25028 From: dave santos Date: 3/5/2019
Subject: Re: [AWES] Re: [AWES] Re: [AWES] Re: KiteG en Research Hig h Altitud




Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24978 From: Massimo Ippolito Date: 2/28/2019
Subject: Re=3a_=5bAWES=5d_Re=3a_KiteGen_Research_Hig_h_Altitude_Wind_Generati
If you are not happy with the 8300h claim, you could answer the paper exposing the flaw, I've just asked to do so using the researchgate platform.

The dilemma: Demonstrate or be Committed to Design and Improve the Specifications

In order to overcome this lack of understanding, new prototypes and demonstrations are certainly required, but this is not a best practice in development, as immature prototypes consume time and resources when operated outside the appropriate logic of validation steps.
This technology deserves a special machine’s approach, and is similar to the aerospace approach, which is by far the best and most economical method to reach a successful result. A set of specifications applied to the sub-components and the relative interfaces must be first experimented with, validated and, finally, fixed.

A good example of this would be a rocket endo-reactor, which is a complex piece of technology that includes turbo-pumps for combustibles, and deals with cryogenic temperatures as well as full combustion temperatures. To test such developments directly aboard the rocket wastes an inordinate amount of time and expense for even minor failures. So, the best approach is to test and finalize the engine in a special ground-level fixture, suitable to reach the maximum thrust without flying, thus gaining operative data, control and experience.

KiteGen aligned a set of brand new components. Each one needed to be tested and optimized before any integration. The wing does not need to be flown in order to check the moto-alternator or its high-efficiency pulley. Testing validation of sensors, the radio link, the actuators, the tenso-structural resistance of the wing or the Cm, does not require continuous flight.

Flying and produce some energy is the easiest part of the activity, the first research prototype took me a couple of week of work to make it fully functional.

I was the first in the world to produce energy with this new concept in 2005, and the result was so encouraging that it confirmed the validity of the plan to investigate and develop the required technology with private funds and practices, defying conventional investment logic.
During the ten-year technological development of KiteGen, and building four different industrial prototypes, dozens of issues or ancillary problems emerged that threatened to compromise the entire project, but were resolved with commitment and technical knowhow. In the end, with great satisfaction.
The remaining need is no longer for research but simply for best engineering practices and a strong organization hiring the most qualified people and the commencement of batch production and deployment. An unconstrained plan could offer this technology, at full industrial scale, to our societies in less than two years, because there are no more show-stopper issues.




On 28/02/2019 21:56, dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy] wrote:
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24979 From: Joe Faust Date: 2/28/2019
Subject: Loop Double-Arch One way Rotation Groudgen
Attachments :
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24980 From: Santos Date: 2/28/2019
    Subject: Re: [AWES] Re: [AWES] Re: KiteGen Research Hig h Altitude Wind Gener
    Hi Massimo,

    What is most wanted from KiteGen is flight testing results for its big semi-rigid wing, no automation or generation needed, just successful flight video. Also, how will KiteGen launch into upper wind during surface calm?

    KiteGen has not yet shown these critical components to be resolved,

    daveS

    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24981 From: dougselsam Date: 2/28/2019
    Subject: Re: Loop Double-Arch One way Rotation Groudgen
    Not sure about the belt drive part, but the general reversing arch sideways laddermill configuration seems tempting with potential promise, to me anyway, in spite of the fact that so far, as tried close to the ground on towers in Tehachapi, it didn't work out very well.  Still that doesn't quite prove it can't be done better and work and maybe fly.


    ---In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, <joefaust333@...
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24983 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 2/28/2019
    Subject: Re: Minesto News
    Minesto signs MoU with the Government of Antigua and Barbuda
    Swedish marine energy developer, Minesto, has signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Government of Antigua and Barbuda. Through a ...
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24984 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 2/28/2019
    Subject: Re: Loop Double-Arch One way Rotation Groudgen
    Of the system sketched: Loop arch arcs are normal to the wind. 
    Differently: laddermill long parts are downwind and upwind.

    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24985 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 2/28/2019
    Subject: Re: Loop Double-Arch One way Rotation Groudgen
    Of the sketched AWES:   System allows all wings in the aloft loop to remain high aloft. 
    Differently, laddermill has wings high and low.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24986 From: Joe Faust Date: 2/28/2019
    Subject: United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS) ... and AWE
    United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS)  and AWE
    ================================================
    Aim of this topic thread: 
    Whenever UNOPS is involved in AWE, then some post might occur. All are welcome to search our forum for UNOPS when something is found in the world where UNOPS is involved in AWE.   Thanks. 
    ================================================
    =================================

    One interface, so far:  HERE related to Minesto
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24987 From: Santos Date: 3/1/2019
    Subject: Re: Loop Double-Arch One way Rotation Groudgen
    This is a prime concept space to revisit, based on newly validated dancing-kite rigging. In the past we called this loop architecture a "horizontal (crosswind) laddermill".

    The loop need not necessarily loop continuously, if passing kites around the ends is a barrier. The loop of two multi-kite arches is primarily a scaling method, in my view. It does not suffer from surface-track limitations.

    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24988 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/1/2019
    Subject: Re: Distinguish huge differences: torque-rope drive versus loop driv

    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24989 From: Joe Faust Date: 3/1/2019
    Subject: Torque Cables for Power Transmission
    This topic thread is meant for unbraced or unstruted lines used for power transmission. Braced complexes of struts and lines for torque transmission may be developed and discussed in other topic threads. 

    Such lines may be rods, aggregates, or coils. Such lines may be sheathed or unsheathed. Flexible shafts.  Flex shaft. 

    • Sheathed torque lines,  sheathed torque cables
    • Unsheathed torque lines. unsheathed torque cables
    • Sheathing torque lines, cords, cables, rods
      • lubrication
      • transfer of gases and liquids
      • heat

    • AWE uses of sheathed and unsheathed torque lines aloft and on ground for various services.   Consider niche AWES using main non-struted tethers for torque transmission.  

    • Aspect ratio:
      • Short torque cables
      • Long torque cables
      • Ultra-long torque cables

    • single-directional torque response
    • bi-directional torque response
    Some AWE items, so far:
    • Ribbon kite, Skybow
    • Selsam experiment video
    • AWE patent mentions
    • Some prior discussions on rope torque drive (without struts)
    • Twisting main-tethers in kite systems experiences
      • hockles
      • mangles
      • shearing
      • slack-time responses
      • ?
    • ?
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24990 From: Joe Faust Date: 3/1/2019
    Subject: Pressurized-gas power transmission in AWES ???
    Consider using pressurized gas or air for power transmission in niche AWES.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24991 From: Santos Date: 3/1/2019
    Subject: Re: Distinguish huge differences: torque-rope drive versus loop driv
    WP's page coming along nicely, but still omits our classic favorite, Rope Driving: A Treatise...

    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24992 From: dougselsam Date: 3/1/2019
    Subject: Re: Loop Double-Arch One way Rotation Groudgen
    Didn't I say sideways laddermill?


    ---In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, <joefaust333@...
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24993 From: benhaiemp Date: 3/1/2019
    Subject: Re: Distinguish huge differences: torque-rope drive versus loop driv
    And winch transmission, using reel-out/in yoyo method?
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24994 From: Santos Date: 3/1/2019
    Subject: Re: Loop Double-Arch One way Rotation Groudgen
    We had already defined the horizontal crosswind laddermill on the AWES forum. Doug is welcome to call it "sideways".

    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24995 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/1/2019
    Subject: Re: Distinguish huge differences: torque-rope drive versus loop driv

    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24996 From: dougselsam Date: 3/1/2019
    Subject: Re: Loop Double-Arch One way Rotation Groudgen
    Joe: Topologically, they are all cable loops driven by attached airfoils.  Exact orientations vary but are subject to adjustment, modification, etc.  Up-down, left-right - the exact orientation may hardly matter.  Still, they are all in the same family.  In my opinion, not enough imagination has been applied to the vast possibilities such a general topology could lead toward.    I think more effort in this general direction is warranted, and I like the drawing you contributed.  Now that I think of it, the original inspiration for my "buoyant aerial tramway" drawing was probably from sending paper notes, with a slit in the paper, up a kite string, as a kid, back when what started out as an Indian Guides project, led to our basement functioning as a kite-fabrication workshop..


    ---In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, <joefaust333@...
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24997 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/1/2019
    Subject: Re: Torque Cables for Power Transmission
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_drilling

    Ice drilling. 
    Material transfer.

    drill string

    Sheathed by ice ...
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24998 From: Santos Date: 3/1/2019
    Subject: Re: Distinguish huge differences: torque-rope drive versus loop driv
    Winch use is covered by fishing, tugboat, and crane cases, as mature industrial engineering specialties.

    Torque power over distance at low mass- no engineering cases.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24999 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/2/2019
    Subject: Kite Networks for Harvesting Wind Energy by Roderick Read

    https://windswept-and-interesting.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/KiteNetworksWandI.pdf

    Kite Networks for Harvesting Wind Energy 

    by Roderick Read

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

    Topic thread is intended for study and discussion of points in his essay.

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

    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 25000 From: Santos Date: 3/2/2019
    Subject: Re: Kite Networks for Harvesting Wind Energy by Roderick Read
    Rod did a great job all around, from design to testing to publication. Let's hope for his continued work.

    Are we able to see more 2nd Springer book chapters yet?
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 25001 From: benhaiemp Date: 3/2/2019
    Subject: Re: Kite Networks for Harvesting Wind Energy by Roderick Read
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 25002 From: Santos Date: 3/2/2019
    Subject: Re: Kite Networks for Harvesting Wind Energy by Roderick Read
    With Pierre and Rod's two chapters to go on, envision an AWES hybrid consisting of many PB carousels under a broad lifter iso-network, much as RR places many Daisies under one iso-network. 
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 25003 From: benhaiemp Date: 3/4/2019
    Subject: Re: [AWES] Re: KiteGen Research Hig h Altitude Wi nd Generation…

    Massimo,

    I can agree your approach. Indeed as example Dave Lang produced only simulations before integrating the tether component into the Appolo space program.

    In the way several AWE system could be studied, using artificial intelligence.

    But please could you provide realistic numbers in your documents? For example a semi-rigid wing with tether cannot have a L/D ratio of 28.


    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 25004 From: benhaiemp Date: 3/4/2019
    Subject: Re: [AWES] Re: KiteGen Research Hig h Altitude Wi nd Generation…
    Correction: ...several AWE systems ...


    ---In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, <pierre-benhaiem@...
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 25005 From: Massimo Ippolito Date: 3/4/2019
    Subject: Re=3a_=5bAWES=5d_Re=3a_KiteGen_Research_Hig_h_Altitude_Wi_nd_Generat
    Pierre,
    Big mistake adding tether and wing drag in KG-Carousel and KG-Stem architectures, it is a sign of poor understanding of the 3d dynamic of the flight.
    This is an issue can only affects Makani or Amphyx like architectures as all aircraft with a tail that impose the pitch.
    Here a first indication of the weakness of such approach:
    (This paper, must be considered independent because widely match KiteGen Research official positions, but not all)
    KiteGen already investigated all possible architectures with AI and inferential engines more than 10 years ago, I'm surprised because we were confident that these theoretical questions and their ambiguity would be resolved and consolidated without effort, thanks to the copious activity and third party production of scientific publications worldwide and the review processes triggered by the success of the first KiteGen prototype. Unfortunately, however, contradictions and ambiguity do still remain.

    On 04/03/2019 09:24, pierre-benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy] wrote:
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 25006 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/4/2019
    Subject: Re: [AWES] Re: KiteGen Research Hig h Altitude Wi nd Generation…

    Not answering for Massimo, 

    but a tethered wing may have an L/D of 28

    or 2 or 40 or 72.     

    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 25007 From: benhaiemp Date: 3/4/2019
    Subject: Re: [AWES] Re: KiteGen Research Hig h Altitude Wi nd Generation…

    Massimo,

    Some quote from your paper, page 21, concerning KiteGen Research: "- Rope doubled to solve safety and piloting issues adds more drag."

    Deducing a rope adds drag.

    So your previous indication: "Big mistake adding tether and wing drag in KG-Carousel and KG-Stem architectures, it is a sign of poor understanding of the 3d dynamic of the flight." is the opposite of what you indicated on your paper.



    Here is an old interesting paper, see the figure 8: http://www.kitepower.eu/images/stories/publications/lansdorp08.pdf  and Allister's comment on https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/AirborneWindEnergy/conversations/topics/518 :  

    “ Hi All


     While gliders can have L/D over 60, Bas Lansdorp did an analysis in one


     of his papers when he was at Delft showing that any advantage from L/D


     over 15 (if i recall correctly) is overwhelmed by cable drag. So paired


     with current tether material technology, once L/D of 15 is achieved you


     would be better off focusing on optimising other aspects of the wing's


     performance/cost.


     Allister »


    Another point:

    KiteGen already investigated all possible architectures with AI and inferential engines more than 10 years ago".

    Please can you report the details. Thanks.

    PierreB 

     



    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 25008 From: benhaiemp Date: 3/4/2019
    Subject: Re: [AWES] Re: KiteGen Research Hig h Altitude Wi nd Generation…

    I am not sure the attached Lansdord's paper is explicit about tether drag concern.

    Here is another link on https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324134936_Tether_and_Bridle_Line_Drag_in_Airborne_Wind_Energy_Applications,

    And here is the link for Tudelft publications on http://www.kitepower.eu/publications.html.

    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 25009 From: dave santos Date: 3/4/2019
    Subject: Re: [AWES] Re: KiteGen Research Hig h Altitude Wi nd Generation…
    Massimo wrote- "KiteGen already investigated all possible architectures with AI and inferential engines more than 10 years ago". PierreB seems to believe this claim might be substantiated by Massimo. It can't, sadly. One would have to properly encode (in a high-level semantic language like an extended predicate-calculus) a vast trove of aerospace knowledge into a working knowledgebase, a feat still way beyond the current AI state-of-the-art. Surely no working AI unwisely advised KiteGen to depend on SABIC, junk-patents, stem launch, side-slip, wings too massive to fly safely or fly at all in normal wind., and so on. Ultimately, KiteGen walled itself off from the bulk of (human) intelligence in AWE, in its vain quest for an early AWE venture monopoly. Italian AWE as a whole has been decimated by KiteGen's objective failure to deliver on exaggerated public claims.


     

    Massimo,

    Some quote from your paper, page 21, concerning KiteGen Research: "- Rope doubled to solve safety and piloting issues adds more drag."

    Deducing a rope adds drag.

    So your previous indication: "Big mistake adding tether and wing drag in KG-Carousel and KG-Stem architectures, it is a sign of poor understanding of the 3d dynamic of the flight." is the opposite of what you indicated on your paper.



    Here is an old interesting paper, see the figure 8: http://www.kitepower.eu/images/stories/publications/lansdorp08.pdf  and Allister's comment on https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/AirborneWindEnergy/conversations/topics/518 :  

    “ Hi All


     While gliders can have L/D over 60, Bas Lansdorp did an analysis in one


     of his papers when he was at Delft showing that any advantage from L/D


     over 15 (if i recall correctly) is overwhelmed by cable drag. So paired


     with current tether material technology, once L/D of 15 is achieved you


     would be better off focusing on optimising other aspects of the wing's


     performance/cost.


     Allister »


    Another point:

    KiteGen already investigated all possible architectures with AI and inferential engines more than 10 years ago".

    Please can you report the details. Thanks.

    PierreB 

     



    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 25010 From: dave santos Date: 3/4/2019
    Subject: Not claiming to be "the top researcher in AWE"
    Doug mistakenly wrote "DaveS you keep claiming to be the top researcher in AWE."

    I cannot objectively claim to be the "top researcher in AWE". Let such questions depend only on final outcomes. Its Doug who claims to be "the world's greatest living" wind tech inventor (on an old T Boone Pickens' web page promoting natural gas). If such silly claims require proof, as Doug insists, he needs to up his game.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 25011 From: dave santos Date: 3/4/2019
    Subject: Catapult's starting AWE Overview
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 25012 From: Massimo Ippolito Date: 3/4/2019
    Subject: Re=3a_=5bAWES=5d_Re=3a_=5bAWES=5d_Re=3a_KiteGen_Research_Hig_h_Altit
    Take-off during surface calm isn't a primary requirement.
    If a wind turbine installed on a specific land produce some energy, the KiteGen Stem can take-off. It means the specific capacity factor of an HAWT turn in the Take-off capacity of KiteGen.
    KG-Carousel instead has unlimited take-off capability.

    m.

     

    On 01/03/2019 00:01, Santos santos137@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy] wrote:
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 25013 From: Massimo Ippolito Date: 3/4/2019
    Subject: Re=3a_=5bAWES=5d_Re=3a_KiteGen_Research_Hig_h_Altitude_Wi_nd_Generat


    Tether Drag doesn’t affect the wing speed or the system AE.


    The reasons are quite easy to figure out:

    During the tests, we pushed a wing at 2400m and 65m/s observing no tether drag issues. This demonstrates KiteGen’s right to reject the overly simplistic analysis based on the “system drag” idea that combines rope and wing, which appeared for the first time in the Loyd patent, the validity of which is limited to tethered aircraft (A) equipped with a tail that drives and forces the pitch.

    Thanks to in-depth research and simulation, it has been established that the drag of the rope is irrelevant to wing speed and energy production. It is, instead, simply a geometric dynamic, conceptually affecting the path in airspace only (B). Tether drag only limits the crosswind motion distance that can be achieved in one stroke, before the wing has to change direction. This is a feature that could be successfully exploited by the control in order to extend the wind power spot.

    Issues related to transverse wave propagation on the rope. The wing is typically set to fly at 80 m/s. When the wing changes direction, a new displacement transverse wave acts upon the rope, while the axial wave is running at 270 m/s. Such a transverse wave is slow, due the air mass added to the rope’s linear density, taking several seconds to affect the entire rope. Thus, the wing has the freedom to fly for a few hundred meters before the rope bending will change its optimal angle toward the wind. The models adopted in literature expose an excessively tight time boundary or even a snapshot to track such behavior.

    Rope drag is applied axially to the wing, the same effect that gravity has on gliders, that obviously never slows the aircraft. The force vector representing the drag of the ropes binding the wing is only manifested axially, thus thrusting the wing as with gliders. (above picture B case)

    As Gustav Eiffel taught us, the Reynold number of the segment of rope near the wing reaches a high value where a new effect called the “drag crisis” takes place, greatly reducing it.

    The tether drag issue is speculation based on a fixed cylinder in a flow experiment setup, with a measured coefficient ranging between 1.2 and 1.5. The ropes are light in specific weight which means they are locally free to oscillate and rotate on the axis, dynamically losing air pressure accumulation, thus they cannot be compared to a typical fixed cylinder in a flow.    

    Larger scales create a lessening of the significance of the issue; this due to the rope section and Reynolds surface ratio, rope section is squared function of the diametre and the drag surface is linear, an advantage that grows dramatically with increasing scale.

    The scientific committee of KiteGen published an article trying to explain the limits and errors of the proposed models in the literature review, unfortunately no skilled audience.

    Furthermore, in order to gain more flight freedom, KiteGen patented ropes that were appropriately tapered in order to reduce the drag coefficient to 0.03, instead of the classic 1.2 of a cylinder immersed in a fluid that the ropes are immersed in as well. This patent applies to the domain of possible and potential future enhanced optimization of the technology.

    To repeat, as this is an extremely important concept, because the production of energy depends on the square of the flight speed,  the drag of the ropes is not added to that of the wing, which remains free to fly at the speed of its glide factor or aerodynamic efficiency.





    On 04/03/2019 21:22, pierre-benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy] wrote:
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 25014 From: dougselsam Date: 3/4/2019
    Subject: Re: Not claiming to be "the top researcher in AWE"
    OK daveS I was paraphrasing.  You've made ongoing claims indicating yourself producing more AWE research than anyone else.  I'm not about to try to dig up your exact wording.  People on this list remember the gist of what you've claimed, more than once.  I asked you some very simple and pertinent questions about the results of being "number-one" for ten years of "AWE research".  I asked what you've found as most promising, what's the most Watts you've generated - you know, the most basic followup questions anyone would ask.  I don't expect to get an answer, because as I told Barnard when you kept threatening to debate him, you have no interest in a fair exchange of any kind, and like a greased water-balloon, cannot be pinned down to ever actually follow up on any of your absurd assertions in a meaningful way.  So answer if you can, but I don't think you have the ability to answer any simple followup questions to your assertions in a meaningful way.
    You now have tried to 100% change your tune to "Let such questions depend only on final outcomes".  That's the bizarro-non-reality you try to impose on the rest of us - that what you said yesterday can be erased by what you say today.
    This has been my ongoing stance the whole time - keyword: "outcomes".  Great - got any?  Didn't think so.
    That is my entire point: AWE has become a black hole of false statements of mythical future accomplishments that seldom if ever materialize, where accomplishments of demonstrating reliable energy production exist only as mythical future accomplishments, never as actual accomplished accomplishments.
    People make unbelieveble claims, then promise how many homes they will power via the grid, by some date that is never met or even acknowledged as it rolls by. 
    Please fill us in on your highest output achieved, and best device demonstrated, after being so good, for so long..


    ---In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, <santos137@...
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 25015 From: dave santos Date: 3/4/2019
    Subject: Re: [AWES] Re: [AWES] Re: [AWES] Re: KiteGen Research Hig h Altitude
    kPower considers early take-off during surface calm to be an essential AWES capability; that any scheme that cannot do early take-off (and so many other "secondary" factors) is effectively out of serious competition. A carousel can do a towed pay-out launch, but carousel capital cost and mass is far higher than simpler towed-launch kite network designs, that do not require a giant wheel.

    Its as if the claimed KiteGen AI somehow selected BOTH the Stem or Carousel over "all" other possible AWES architectures, as if the features of the two discrete concepts somehow add together as Massimo presents them here.



     

    Take-off during surface calm isn't a primary requirement.
    If a wind turbine installed on a specific land produce some energy, the KiteGen Stem can take-off. It means the specific capacity factor of an HAWT turn in the Take-off capacity of KiteGen.
    KG-Carousel instead has unlimited take-off capability.

    m.

     

    On 01/03/2019 00:01, Santos santos137@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy] wrote:


    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 25016 From: Massimo Ippolito Date: 3/4/2019
    Subject: Re: [AWES] Re: [AWES] Re: [AWES] Re: KiteGen_Research_Hig_h_Altitude
    KPower is simply wrong. the most important factor in the sensitivity analysis is the CF. Who is Kpower? they have some right to talk?
    Most of the giant wheel is the linear alternator, cannot be avoided if you want convert energy. remember that we have the full well specified design of the Carousel.
    While is a straightforward concept provide the lowest LCOE in absolute.
    Is a dozen years that you maniacally talk of this topic and you are fully of wrong ideas yet, this is remarkable indeed.

    On 05/03/2019 00:30, dave santos santos137@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy] wrote:
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 25017 From: benhaiemp Date: 3/4/2019
    Subject: Re: [AWES] Re: KiteGen Research Hig h Altitude Wi nd Generation…

    Massimo,


    These explains are very interesting and new for me. So I cannot still fully understand. A deeper study would be required. Please can you provide some references towards available documents?


    "Tether drag only limits the crosswind motion distance that can be achieved in one stroke, before the wing has to change direction."

    So for example could we deduce that straight transversal strokes left-right (or top-bottom) like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1xKZuah7Z4 would allow eliminate tether drag (between two half-turns) more than figure-eight or loops? Or figure-eight and loops can be achieved with little tether drag if the wing moves with its tether, and not relatively to the tether?

    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 25018 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/4/2019
    Subject: Re: Not claiming to be "the top researcher in AWE"

    Doug,
          There are in my take of your post many personal attacks that pass the threshold of policy for moderation; please refrain from personal attacks; stick with essay sans such attacks. The inaccurate paper tigers formed in your prose are so many that it would load the forum to burn them all; just stop making the paper tigers.  Please do dig up "exact wording" when you have urge to criticize exact deals; thanks; such could make for meaningful discourse.  

           DaveS has had claims about the spectrum of his experiments, not "producing more AWE research than anyone else" as you wrote.  Consider taking the time to itemize all the variety of experiments he has reported; that could be a starting point for considering what he has done and what is underway in his research centers. That might be a good starting point to see how he might stack up against the spectrum of experiments done at other research centers.  In some perspective he may be "number one" and in some other perspective he may not be "number one."  Defining the screen or perspective would be something proper to put on the table.   So far, in my viewing of published knowledge, on the screen of variety of AWES, DaveS seems to be number one explorer.  Maybe you could prove me in error; I would welcome proofs for any AWE statement.   I cannot prove he is number one for variety of AWES, as I have not full view of everyone's AWE variety.    


    ---In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, <dougselsam@gmail.com
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 25019 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/4/2019
    Subject: Re: [AWES] Re: [AWES] Re: [AWES] Re: KiteG en Research Hig h Altitud

    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 25020 From: dave santos Date: 3/4/2019
    Subject: Re: Not claiming to be "the top researcher in AWE"
    Doug, you make quotable exaggerated claims of the sort you unquotably imagine others to make.

    As junior member of the legendary KiteShip team, with an MOU with SkySails, long-standing reasonable ship kite estimates of ~2MW stand as my group's achievement of AWE's most powerful demos. Launching, flying, and landing 300m2 Mothra in a gale was tangible airborne wind power sadly far beyond your direct experience. Expect me not to give up on ship-kite sized unit-kites driving large ground gens within the predicted 2030 timeframe, leaving you to fume meanwhile.

    Please try to prepare a scaled-up ST to fly-off against the ship kite groundgens in the development mix. That tested result will settle the truth of your personal claims. Personally, I don't think you can come up with a practical 1000ft drive shaft, but please at least try to honor your "all roads" claims, rather than just complain hopelessly about everyone else not dong enough.

    If you have an informed idea who has done the most small and large experiments of diverse AWES concepts, please state who, to give them due honor. I will be glad to agree if you can honestly name anyone with more varied expertise and experience in AWE and related fields.





     

    OK daveS I was paraphrasing.  You've made ongoing claims indicating yourself producing more AWE research than anyone else.  I'm not about to try to dig up your exact wording.  People on this list remember the gist of what you've claimed, more than once.  I asked you some very simple and pertinent questions about the results of being "number-one" for ten years of "AWE research".  I asked what you've found as most promising, what's the most Watts you've generated - you know, the most basic followup questions anyone would ask.  I don't expect to get an answer, because as I told Barnard when you kept threatening to debate him, you have no interest in a fair exchange of any kind, and like a greased water-balloon, cannot be pinned down to ever actually follow up on any of your absurd assertions in a meaningful way.  So answer if you can, but I don't think you have the ability to answer any simple followup questions to your assertions in a meaningful way.
    You now have tried to 100% change your tune to "Let such questions depend only on final outcomes".  That's the bizarro-non-reality you try to impose on the rest of us - that what you said yesterday can be erased by what you say today.
    This has been my ongoing stance the whole time - keyword: "outcomes".  Great - got any?  Didn't think so.
    That is my entire point: AWE has become a black hole of false statements of mythical future accomplishments that seldom if ever materialize, where accomplishments of demonstrating reliable energy production exist only as mythical future accomplishments, never as actual accomplished accomplishments.
    People make unbelieveble claims, then promise how many homes they will power via the grid, by some date that is never met or even acknowledged as it rolls by. 
    Please fill us in on your highest output achieved, and best device demonstrated, after being so good, for so long..


    ---In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, <santos137@...
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 25021 From: dave santos Date: 3/4/2019
    Subject: Re: [AWES] Re: [AWES] Re: [AWES] Re: KiteG en Research Hig h Altitud
    Yes, kPower has as much "right to talk" as anyone. Our first order AWES design criteria is highest-power-to-weight, as fundamental AE science. We find this criteria most true of COTS power kites and ship-kite derivatives, but not KiteGen's custom big wing, which looks to any power kite expert like it simply cannot fly in HAWT cut-in wind (as implied).



     

    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 25022 From: dave santos Date: 3/4/2019
    Subject: Who is a current (and past) "top researcher in AWE"? (plus a Payne i
    Attachments :
      My picks of current "top" folks- For all-out documentary research and knowledge-sharing across all AWE, plus a life in flight, Joe Faust is at the top of the list. For fundamental invention and practice in power kites, and knowledge-sharing, Dave Culp and Peter Lynn. Pray that Loyd may yet live, and he (and son) are formidable kiters. Same prayer for Dave Lang.

      Let anyone add here their best idea of current top AWE researchers. I put Rod, Pierre, Joe Hadzicki, Grant Caverly and Dan Tracy, very high in our community circle. Many others not being named here have done vitally important work, if not yet the full lifetime achievement of top Kite Gods. True worth in AWE depends on kites but not any single kite virtue. Key theoretic contributions, like Cristina Archer or Wayne German gave us, should be as highly valued as a technical milestones, like Culp first towing a ship by means of kites. 

      What a long a distinguished list of historical, legendary, and mysterious figures that as a whole made the kite such a vital technology of our time. It seems vain to claim just one figure as "top"; not even Pocock, the first modern power-kiter/developer, or Jalbert, for parafoil construction, or Payne, the probable first-correct AWES architectural visionary*. These ancestral ghosts fly in the sky in our AWES. Wubbo and Corwin had their finest work ahead of them, had they lived longer, and they particularly haunt us to succeed in their name.

      Anyone becomes tops in branches of kite art they create. There is so much still to create that the greatest kite researchers likely belong to the future.
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 25023 From: Massimo Ippolito Date: 3/5/2019
      Subject: Re=3a_=5bAWES=5d_Re=3a_KiteGen_Research_Hig_h_Altitude_Wi_nd_Generat
      Pierre,
      the goal of this Lansdorp08 paper of 2008 is to counterfeits our patent priority 2003, it is not interested to establish theoretical basis. There is also the tentative to assign the laddermill label to a pumping kite that is KiteGen's exclusivity. The bad faith is clear because no references to our works and patents despite the early collaboration KiteGen-Delft 2003.
      How can you give credibility to somebody trying to cancel KiteGen and rewrite genesis and evolution of a concept?

      Allister in this case is wrong, was cheated by bad literature, including the illicit validity-extension of Loyd patent that correctly cite the tether drag affecting the aircraft with tail and propeller.

      AI engines:
      If you have patience look at this 2014 movie, it is quite boring. but there is the graphic visualization of a Mahalanobis inferential engine piloting a wing of the Carousel. This inferential engine is based on a sparse matrix representing a multidimensional space and it is so smart that invented from scratch and  by itself the jibe and the sinusoidal envelope while is optimizing the power production. It is so remarkable that I think we can talk now of AC artificial creativity.
      it start at 3:30 before two animations to explain the context.
      I've already invited you to visit KiteGen in the past, so you can have a clear view of a professional approach toward industrial scale.
      I renew the invite
      M.
      ps.
      newbies will never end.
      all concepts depicted are KiteGen patents, unfortunately, just  from the drawing is clear that they miss to understand.


      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 25024 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 3/5/2019
      Subject: re: [kitegen] Re: [AWES] Re: KiteGen Research Hig h Altitude Wi nd G

      Massimo,

       

      I don't know what happened from the "early collaboration KiteGen-Delft 2003". Some other players claim also to be the inventor of the pumping kite. But the suggested technical means can be different. Only the technical aspect interests me.

      So I have a question concerning your recent message I just introduced on https://forum.awesystems.info/t/kitegen-research-high-altitude-wind-generation/331/12.

      Your pumping kite uses two tethers while Delft pumping kite uses only one tether. By the explain you provide, quoting Gustav Eiffel ("As Gustav Eiffel taught us, the Reynold number of the segment of rope near the wing reaches a high value where a new effect called the “drag crisis” takes place, greatly reducing it.") is the drag of the two tethers KiteGen pumping kite lower than the drag of the single tether Delft pumping kite?

      I know your video but I don't still know what we should observe in regard to your explains. Thanks.

       

       

       

       

       

      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 25025 From: Rod Read Date: 3/5/2019
      Subject: Re: [AWES] Re: [AWES] Re: KiteGen Research Hig h Altitude Wi nd Gene
      Massimo 
      Your technological achievements are legendary.

      I hope you don't mind me asking if you consider my main work as a direct derivation or infringement of your protected IP?

      As you'll see I also use rotary motion (like a carousel) however my axis is tilted and hollow, and my kites utilise the emergent stability of networking, you'll also see there was no need for control systems on the small prototypes.

      Thanks.

      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 25026 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 3/5/2019
      Subject: Re: [AWES] Re: KiteGen Research Hig h Altitude Wi nd Generation…

      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 25027 From: dave santos Date: 3/5/2019
      Subject: Re: [AWES] Re: [AWES] Re: KiteGen Research Hig h Altitude Wi nd Gene
      Attachments :
        Here we consider a key claim in AWE R&D; who actually came up with the problematic "Reeling AWES", which also figures centrally in Roland's 2007 patent, but Massimo is claiming several years priority. Massimo's status as "legendary" in AWE, as Rod puts it, includes not just supposed inventive leaps to validate, but also his melodramatic relations to WoW and other investors, and his Doug-like negativity toward general academic AWE research.

        For a kite simulation to have " invented from scratch and  by itself the jibe and the sinusoidal envelope"
        is akin to any basic algorithm showing an expected pattern, not an exhaustive AI study of AWES possibility. A faithful sailboat simulation will also spontaineously show "the jibe and the sinusoidal envelope". The Mahalanobis Inference Engine is a toy here. Missing from this "AI" case is a proper AWE knowledgebase to reason over, if an optimal design is wanted. 

        in fun, take a closer look at the KiteGen simulation that reveals the birth of a self-aware AI, if not its own self (see attached graphic).


         

        Massimo 
        Your technological achievements are legendary.

        I hope you don't mind me asking if you consider my main work as a direct derivation or infringement of your protected IP?

        As you'll see I also use rotary motion (like a carousel) however my axis is tilted and hollow, and my kites utilise the emergent stability of networking, you'll also see there was no need for control systems on the small prototypes.

        Thanks.

        On Tue, 5 Mar 2019 at 10:23, Massimo Ippolito m.ippolito@kitegen.com [AirborneWindEnergy] <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
        Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 25028 From: dave santos Date: 3/5/2019
        Subject: Re: [AWES] Re: [AWES] Re: [AWES] Re: KiteG en Research Hig h Altitud
        JoeF, not seeing M's starting "CF" usage, but "capacity factor" and "center of force" are two possibilities.

        As for Massimo's claim that a few seconds of tether slack during pattern-flying eliminate tether-drag, it seems that the drag returns in compounded form when the tether is snubbed-up again, and has to catch up to its tight alignment. Certainly, no power is transmitted to the ground during a slack-tether phase.



         

        Yes, kPower has as much "right to talk" as anyone. Our first order AWES design criteria is highest-power-to-weight, as fundamental AE science. We find this criteria most true of COTS power kites and ship-kite derivatives, but not KiteGen's custom big wing, which looks to any power kite expert like it simply cannot fly in HAWT cut-in wind (as implied).

        On ‎Monday‎, ‎March‎ ‎4‎, ‎2019‎ ‎10‎:‎15‎:‎31‎ ‎PM‎ ‎CST, joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy] <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com