Digest

Messages in AirborneWindEnergy group. AWES2584to2633

Page 32 of 79.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2584	From: Joe Faust	Date: 11/19/2010
Subject: USHHGA

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2585	From: dave santos	Date: 11/19/2010
Subject: Re: Proper AWE Debate

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2586	From: dave santos	Date: 11/19/2010
Subject: Multi-Agent AWE Control Architectures

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2587	From: dave santos	Date: 11/19/2010
Subject: Fw: BobK's Introduction

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2588	From: Dan Parker	Date: 11/19/2010
Subject: Re: Fw: BobK's Introduction

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2589	From: Joe Faust	Date: 11/19/2010
Subject: Tether matters

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2590	From: Joe Faust	Date: 11/19/2010
Subject: Re: Fw: BobK's Introduction

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2591	From: Pierre BENHAIEM	Date: 11/20/2010
Subject: Anchor

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2592	From: Bob Stuart	Date: 11/20/2010
Subject: Re: Anchor

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2593	From: Muzhichkov	Date: 11/20/2010
Subject: Re: Tether matters

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2594	From: Joe Faust	Date: 11/20/2010
Subject: Re: Anchor

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2595	From: Joe Faust	Date: 11/20/2010
Subject: Re: Anchor

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2596	From: Doug	Date: 11/20/2010
Subject: Re: Corrections

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2597	From: Doug	Date: 11/20/2010
Subject: Re: Proper AWE Debate

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2598	From: Doug	Date: 11/20/2010
Subject: Corrections [was: Re: [AWECS] Re: Proper AWE Debate]

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2599	From: dave santos	Date: 11/20/2010
Subject: Re: Proper AWE Debate

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2600	From: Pierre BENHAIEM	Date: 11/20/2010
Subject: Re: Anchor

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2601	From: Theo Schmidt	Date: 11/20/2010
Subject: Re: Anchor

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2602	From: dave santos	Date: 11/20/2010
Subject: Re: Tether matters

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2603	From: Joe Faust	Date: 11/20/2010
Subject: Arizona USA team

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2604	From: Dan Parker	Date: 11/20/2010
Subject: Re: Anchor

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2605	From: Joe Faust	Date: 11/20/2010
Subject: Umbrella ladder-based system

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2606	From: Joe Faust	Date: 11/20/2010
Subject: Bending-Torsion Airfoil Flutter

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2607	From: Joe Faust	Date: 11/20/2010
Subject: Free-flight AWECS using LTA coupled to HTA kite

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2608	From: Joe Faust	Date: 11/20/2010
Subject: OAWEA

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2609	From: Muzhichkov	Date: 11/20/2010
Subject: Re: Tether matters

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2610	From: Joe Faust	Date: 11/20/2010
Subject: Loyd's tri-member tether reciprocator

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2611	From: hamish.macleod	Date: 11/20/2010
Subject: Sea Level rise

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2612	From: Joe Faust	Date: 11/20/2010
Subject: David R Smith "suitable sails"

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2613	From: dave santos	Date: 11/20/2010
Subject: Re: Tether matters

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2614	From: dave santos	Date: 11/20/2010
Subject: Re: Loyd's tri-member tether reciprocator

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2615	From: Joe Faust	Date: 11/20/2010
Subject: Benjamin Tigner

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2616	From: Bob Stuart	Date: 11/20/2010
Subject: Re: Tether matters

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2617	From: Theo Schmidt	Date: 11/21/2010
Subject: Re: Corrections

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2618	From: Theo Schmidt	Date: 11/21/2010
Subject: Re: Corrections

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2619	From: Ugo Bardi	Date: 11/21/2010
Subject: Re: Corrections

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2620	From: Theo Schmidt	Date: 11/21/2010
Subject: Correction to Re: [AWECS] Re: Corrections

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2621	From: dimitri.cherny	Date: 11/21/2010
Subject: Re: Corrections

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2622	From: Ugo Bardi	Date: 11/21/2010
Subject: Re: Corrections

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2623	From: Doug	Date: 11/21/2010
Subject: Re: Anchor ANSWER

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2624	From: dimitri.cherny	Date: 11/21/2010
Subject: Re: Corrections

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2625	From: Theo Schmidt	Date: 11/21/2010
Subject: Re: Corrections

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2626	From: Joe Faust	Date: 11/21/2010
Subject: AWEHSS

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2627	From: Doug	Date: 11/21/2010
Subject: Re: Corrections

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2628	From: Doug	Date: 11/21/2010
Subject: Re: Corrections

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2629	From: Doug	Date: 11/21/2010
Subject: Correction to Re: [AWECS] Re: Corrections

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2630	From: Doug	Date: 11/21/2010
Subject: Re: Anchor

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2631	From: Theo Schmidt	Date: 11/21/2010
Subject: Re: Corrections

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2632	From: Joe Faust	Date: 11/21/2010
Subject: Re: Anchor

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2633	From: Doug	Date: 11/21/2010
Subject: Re: Sea Level rise

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2584	From: Joe Faust	Date: 11/19/2010
Subject: USHHGA

Welcome most recent member of AWEIA
U.S. Hawks Hang Gliding Association

and its founding president Bob Kuczewski, designer of Little Hawk and holder of historical Torrey Pines Gliderport record of flying four types of aircraft at the site in one day. Hang gliders with RATs are not the only way hang gliders will find roles in the era of tethered aviation and working kite systems (others include upperwind awareness, photography, site scouting, piloting, manufacturing skills, AWECS site maintenance, recreational power production, and more; time will tell.)

Welcome to the era of tethered aviation; you have flown in under the time line to be a founding member of AWEIA,

Joe Faust

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2585	From: dave santos	Date: 11/19/2010
Subject: Re: Proper AWE Debate

Doug,

I have never said your ideas "cannot possibly work". All serious AWE ideas "work", yours too, but how well? My questions about torsion-towers concerned scalibility, reliability, safety, etc., & you did not answer convincingly. I never did "declare with certainty that the first working systems to emerge will have the main characteristics of the systems (i) envision". You be the "certainty guy" ("All roads...").

Make no mistake, there are now many cool AWE prototypes. These are highly appropriate "working systems" for the current stage of technical evolution. The great ideas come from many people, not any one person. I happily test many ideas not mine. The bold claim is that the "low-tech" side of AWE will, as a group, outperform the overly complex, dangerous, & expensive designs by companies like Makani Power & Joby Energy. We see evidence almost daily (like Pierre's & HighWindHawaii's kites) that this prediction is correct, especially when you count the formidable EU kites, but give it a couple more years to really see. Try & get your design high enough to add to our club.

The unhelpful repetative "nothing working" critiques better fit Space-Elevator & Manned Mars Mission forums, but would still be deeply undeserved trollish distraction,

daveS

From: Doug <doug@selsam.com

Hi Dave S.:
Well at least I try and keep it playful most of the time.

While you say all ideas are considered here, you spend a lot of time declaring in no uncertain terms that my ideas cannot possibly work (your torque-tube issue).

You've also declared your certainty that the first working systems to emerge will have the main characteristics of the systems you envision.

In both cases I disagree with you, but agree with your free speech on this forum and welcome the debate.

In all cases I find that heated debate gets the issues out there.
This forum does promote thinking and ideas. Let nobody say someone should not give their opinion, nor be surprised when the response is healthy disagreement. For now, let's remember, the poster-child of this field of endeavor cannot be found making power anywhere in the world. Another pesky fact.

When someone has a daily working system that returns economical power for any purpose, in a reliable manner, then maybe the tone can get more serious.

Until then I stand behind my assertion that most of the energy going into this field still comes from ground level and is mostly misapplied, and most of the "wind" is merely "hot air".

When I say "stop blogging and start building" I guess I am talking to myself as much as anyone else.

I'm sorry but when you have come from a background of 10 years of reading preposterous posts from newbies with innocently idiotic ideas about wind energy (no longer allowed on the "real wind energy" forums), most of what we read here is simply taking these ill-advised schemes into the air - well if they don't work, then they don't work, and talk of taking them into the air is just one more level of silliness, unknown to the promoters.

So yes, this is a bad habit - blogging. It's 7:00 AM: the markets are open, and I need to get up to my new wind-powered test facility that has zero electric bills because of a working turbine that will likely be already making power when I arrive, and when I leave, and most of the time, without my even having to look at it or perform any actions for perhaps 5 years. That is a (barely economical with government incentives) wind energy system. Luckily for me it came with the house.

I think I gotta join bloggers anonymous! posters anonymous?
:)
-Doug Selsam
http://www.selsam.com

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2586	From: dave santos	Date: 11/19/2010
Subject: Multi-Agent AWE Control Architectures

A bit more reflection on how AWE flight automation will progress-

Early experimental AWE effectively treats the end-to-end system as a single intelligent "agent". It will be increasingly useful to define multi-agent control architectures. JoeF has initiated a classification project for AWECS. A valuable role of a formal knowledge-based ontology is toward semantically interfacing low-level control as agents in a complex kitefarm. One would program & debug the multi-agent kite-farm in a high-level language like CycL*, an extended predicate calculus.

An obvious place to first introduce a multi-agent model is for a "smart-reel" & a "smart kite" to each have distinct agency, but know how to cooperate. Thus one would change kites or reels according to need & expect the shifting agents to still work together thru a well-defined interface. Many failure-modes would then be logically "fire-walled". The reel might jam or the tether part & the kite would know how to land itself. The kite agent might "lock-up" in a default stable flight mode & the reel would know how to bring it in like a pro. A tether has quasi-agency, especially if thick or heavy, but there is no smart tether with actuation capabilities yet. Thus the tether is not initially a full agent, but a noisy communication interface between reel & kite, which would each carry custom protocols for the set of tether states & options. Similarly, the wind acts is as a high-complexity quasi-agent, or even a multi-agent, as an AWECS hunts for "cooperative" parts of the wind-field.

There will be many advantages to multi-agent control. Dense-array flocking behaviors naturally emerge if every kite agent has a few simple rules to follow. A mature AWE automation environment will include full human-agent models, not just the basic manual override of the early systems. One can expect advanced flight automation agents to resist human error & abuse, just as the latest airliners do not let a pilot deliberately crash.

Next: Defining the top-level AWECS ontology.

coolIP

* Cycorp, Inc.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2587	From: dave santos	Date: 11/19/2010
Subject: Fw: BobK's Introduction

Welcome to Bob, below forwarded as useful thinking,

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Bob Kuczewski <bobkuczewski@gmail.com

Hi Joe and AWEIA members,

Thanks for that thoughtful introduction. I don't know how much help I can offer, but I do have a bachelor of science degree in aeronautical and astronautical engineering from the University of Washington - 1983. Unfortunately, many of those skills have gone unused during my career, and instead I've been focused on software engineering and artificial intelligence (mostly neural networks).

However, my re-introduction to hang gliding has revived my aeronautical interests, and I've coincidentally found myself contemplating the use of tethered systems to take hang gliders - and their pilots - up to launch. We know that both lift and drag increase with angle of attack, and with unpowered systems, the increased drag decreases airspeed and thus decreases lift. So more thrust is required to maintain constant flying speed as the angle of attack (lift) increases. Free flying gliders have no "thrust" other than gravity which trades altitude for airspeed - defeating any lift which might have been gained. But with a tethered system, the thrust is effectively unlimited (up to the wind speed) since the tether can resist any reasonable amount of drag. A tethered system effectively removes drag from the equations. So it seems that a tethered system could allow higher angles of attack (greater lift) than free-flying systems because the drag effects of that higher angle are always negated by the tether. That led me to thinking that a tethered system could allow a pilot to effectively "fly" up the tether from the landing area to the launch area (even in sub-soarable conditions) by modulating their ascent speed and angle of attack - essentially flying like a kite up the line.

I don't know if that's practical (or even safe!!), but it's about the best introduction I can offer for my thinking on tethered systems. :)

Thanks again Joe for all you've done for hang gliding and for wind powered systems in general.

Sincerely,
Bob Kuczewski

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2588	From: Dan Parker	Date: 11/19/2010
Subject: Re: Fw: BobK's Introduction

Hi Bob Kuczewski,

Welcome aboard.

Dan'l

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2589	From: Joe Faust	Date: 11/19/2010
Subject: Tether matters

tethers

Ever your tether notes are invited.

JoeF

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2590	From: Joe Faust	Date: 11/19/2010
Subject: Re: Fw: BobK's Introduction

Welcome most recent member of AWEIA

U.S. Hawks Hang Gliding Association and its founding president Bob Kuczewski, designer of Little Hawk and holder of historical Torrey Pines Gliderport record of flying four types of aircraft at the site in one day (sailplane, hang glider, paraglider, RC model glider).

Hang gliders with RATs are not the only way hang gliders will find roles in the era of tethered aviation and working kite systems (others include upperwind awareness, photography, site scouting, piloting, manufacturing skills, AWECS site maintenance, recreational power production, and more; time will tell.)

Welcome to the era of tethered aviation; you have flown in under the time line to be a founding member of AWEIA,

Joe Faust

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2591	From: Pierre BENHAIEM	Date: 11/20/2010
Subject: Anchor

What is the needed mass of concrete for anchor for an AWECS of (for example) 100 Kw?Are other lighter means possible?

PierreB

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2592	From: Bob Stuart	Date: 11/20/2010
Subject: Re: Anchor

Concrete is a very energy-intensive option. Even in sand, a buried anchor will need less mass than a surface weight, and depending on local soil conditions, depth, and available rocks, the mass of the cheapest anchor will vary widely.

Bob Stuart

On 20-Nov-10, at 7:45 AM, Pierre BENHAIEM wrote:

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2593	From: Muzhichkov	Date: 11/20/2010
Subject: Re: Tether matters

There is a very important problem for tether, that may be not so noticeable in your climate: tether can be covered with ice by cold weather. But it can happen in any climate and place because at certain heigh always cold is. As a result, tether becomes much more heavy.

Alex Mu

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2594	From: Joe Faust	Date: 11/20/2010
Subject: Re: Anchor

Pierre,
May we broaden the question to other scales?

Anchoring a scaled AWECS will involve scaled anchor systems.
Defining a kite as a complex having wing, tether, and anchor (mooring) has "anchor" as core concern.

AWECS variety will see a variety of anchors

mobile anchors (occasional, persistent, free-flight, ...)
fixed anchors (based, surface, buried)
working anchors (productive) (plow, travel car or cart, polisher, tumbler, minesweeper, landscape leveler, ...)

Characteristics will vary: single, ganged, material, intended life,
Construction type: container, kite, rail, soil, water, aircraft, horse, human body, cart, fabric-webbing, dynamic, static, etc.
Monitoring the integrity of an anchor system will be a part of the cost of an AWECS. One will not want to be surprised by a catastrophic failure of an anchor system.
Safety-critical learning. Hopefully design may be advantaged by awareness of experiences. The AWE community will do well to report carefully anchor challenges and mitigations. Safety margins will respect wear, corrosion, vulnerability to vandalism, creep, cracking, loads, extremes, ...

------------------

At one scale in at least one instance, the drag of the tether may double as the system's anchor system; the tether plays the role of both tether and anchor. At another scale in cargo-ship travel, the ship is the moving anchor; just how to attach tether to the ship is an engineering challenge. Free-flight AWECS anchoring may be a human body or a second kite or a base aircraft.

Articles, links, support files, essays, notes, images, plans, specifications, supply, ...? We have space to hold offerings. Hug the anchor no less than the wing and tether!

JoeF

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2595	From: Joe Faust	Date: 11/20/2010
Subject: Re: Anchor

Any member may advance our group's Files or Links section.

Anchor start:

Anchoring AWECS

JoeF

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2596	From: Doug	Date: 11/20/2010
Subject: Re: Corrections

You assume that the heat flow at the pole is a net inflow.
Not true. Earth, like the sun, is a net heat emitter (hotter on the inside - heat flows from hot to cold). This is especially true at the poles, where earth radiates heat out into space. Look up "black body radiation".
The poles are earth's air-conditioning system. The poles cool the earth. Therefore insulating at the poles (ice) makes the world warmer. Your runaway effect is an erroneous notion. Exposed ocean at the poles emits more heat into the air and space by radiation and evaporation, than it collects from the sunlight, which impinges at a low angle and mostly reflects anyway.
Like I said Theo, anyone can parrot the party line. Few care to analyze for themselves on first principles.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2597	From: Doug	Date: 11/20/2010
Subject: Re: Proper AWE Debate

Yeah Dave you've castigated the only working AWE system that you've ever seen still running after 2 days, as unworkable.
And you recently declared that the system to emerge successfully would be an array of oscillating kites.

Here are excerpts from your most recent post for example:
"A bit more reflection on how AWE flight automation will progress"
Note the word "will", used as though you have written the script for the future.
What if none of what you consider "flight automation" is used at all?

Later in the same post:
"There will be many advantages to multi-agent control. Dense-array flocking behaviors naturally emerge if every kite agent has a few simple rules to follow."
Great Dave, but what if future systems don't use kites? What if future systems don't use kites in dense arrays? What if they don't use flocking behavior? What if they don't follow your (latest) rules?
I mean I cannot even read through your posts - they just go on and on and like the nutcases in the real wind energy groups, your whole approach constantly shifts to new topics, but is always "100% certain".
Silly. Sorry it is all just silly. You just don't know how silly it is. The way you state your ideas makes them laughable, when you could just say it in a way that you are not the (constantly shifting) Nostradamus of wind energy. We in wind energy have gotten used to promotions of unlikely ideas, expressed with certainty - the only real certainty we know from experience is most of these certain ideas will never be built and if they are they will quickly be destroyed by the first good wind. I can show you 10 years of posts that sound just like yours from 100 people, none of whom has ever made a wind energy system that has produced any usable power.
Doug S.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2598	From: Doug	Date: 11/20/2010
Subject: Corrections [was: Re: [AWECS] Re: Proper AWE Debate]

Yeah Theo here's the explanation:
1) Earth is hot inside, cold outside, heat travels outward.
2) Earth dissipates heat at the poles, cooling the ocean waters
3) When the ocean waters at the poles sufficiently cool, by being exposed to the air and space, sea-ice forms on top.
4) The sea ice insulates the water below, allowing the water below to slowly warm, as tropical waters slowly filter in from currents, and as the arctic water is warmed by the Earth below it.
5) After 30 years of warming waters, protected by their ice insulation above, the water is now warm enough to melt away its protective ice above.
6) The open water (now slightly warmer after 30 years of ice protection) is once again exposed to the air and space, and may now once again cool. This is the other half of the 30-year cycle.

Hence:
During the last 100 years there have been two general cycles of warming and cooling recorded in the U.S. We are currently in the second warming cycle. Overall, U.S. temperatures show no significant warming trend over the last 100 years (1). This has been well - established but not well - publicized.

Each year Government press releases declare the previous year to be the "hottest year on record." The UN's executive summary on climate change, issued in January 2001, insists that the 20th century was the warmest in the last millennium. The news media distribute these stories and people generally believed them to be true. However, as most climatologists know, these reports generally are founded on ground-based temperature readings, which are misleading. The more meaningful and precise orbiting satellite data for the same period (which are generally not cited by the press) have year after year showed little or no warming.

Dr. Patrick Michaels has demonstrated this effect is a common problem with ground-based recording stations, many of which originally were located in predominantly rural areas, but over time have suffered background bias due to urban sprawl and the encroachment of concrete and asphalt (the "urban heat island effect"). The result has been an upward distortion of increases in ground temperature over time(2). Satellite measurements are not limited in this way, and are accurate to within 0.1Â° C. They are widely recognized by scientists as the most accurate data available. Significantly, global temperature readings from orbiting satellites show no significant warming in the 18 years they have been continuously recording and returning data (1).

What you are TOLD is the EXACT OPPOSITE of the actual science. Actual science has ALWAYS KNOWN that ice insulates the water below.

Think back to third grade science class: remember how they explained that because ice expands, and hence floats, it prevents the whole pond from freezing in winter, preserving the life of fish etc.? Remember that?

But then some commie-camouflaged would-be do-gooder ignoramus tells you that ice makes the water below COLD and thet NO ICE lets the water WARM and YOU BELIEVE THEM AND NEVER CHECK THE FACTS.
That is Global Warming: the entire arguument hinges on false "facts" from the very inception of the explanation. The WHOLE ERRONEOUS NOTION hinges on "runaway melting" which is counter to reality.
"Runaway" needs a positive feedback; but instead, there is a NEGATIVE FEEDBACK. More ice = warmer water below.
Remember the purpose of an igloo.
What does an igloo do?
What is its function?
Thanks you.
Doug S.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2599	From: dave santos	Date: 11/20/2010
Subject: Re: Proper AWE Debate

Doug,

I have seen or know of several AWE demos that ran for more than a day. I would rate yours better if it had flown higher than 40 feet & was not so dependent on helium. The second day was a pitiful sight as cheap latex leaked the helium away. I did not consider it "unworkable", but helpfully suggested you invest in an outdoor urethane mini-blimp. This is hardly undeserved "castigation" like you dispense more than anyone.

Do not worry about how "AWE flight automation will progress", the computer science of it, & all the other aviation-specific challenges, if that is not what you are comfortable with as a regular wind-tower guy. Share what you know best & let the forum discuss flight methods freely. It was Squid Labs that first applied popular computer science flocking algorithms to "swarming parafoil smart bombs". These control topics are real & worth consideration. Its quite OK to "laugh", but also try to understand & make a contribution,

Nostra

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2600	From: Pierre BENHAIEM	Date: 11/20/2010
Subject: Re: Anchor

Joe,

Yes.Anchoring is a too neglected parameter:for an equal swept area strength on mooring can be more than 2 times superior than for a conventional aeolian tower.Morever on aeolian tower it is only an axial so horizontal force.Morever the direction of strength varies according the position of kite during eight or loop figure.So a buried anchor is probably not sufficient for permanent installations.On the photo of the Kitegen Stem prototype 3 MW it seems there are tons of concrete.

PierreB

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2601	From: Theo Schmidt	Date: 11/20/2010
Subject: Re: Anchor

Bob Stuart schrieb:

I have used ground screws. A screw weighing a few kg can be screwed into the
ground within a few minutes using a long lever and will support one or several
tonnes depending on size and ground. The tension and lateral holding forces are
smaller, but of similar scale. Here are the ones I used for a building:
http://www.krinner.com/en/schraubfundamente
These are meant mainly for buildings or solar installations but would work also
for kites, but there are other designs meant primarly for use in tension. The
former are however as easy to unscrew as screw, whereas the latter (and also
devices known as duck-bills or something) have to be broken out with great force
or dug out.

I can't resist this anecdote: in the early days working for Keith Stewart we
used "dog screws", like cork screws but about 40 cm long and 5 cm diameter,
quite different to the devices mentioned above. We attached rather large kites
to just a few of these and the always held until one day a kite did rip them
out, dragged the bundle across several fields, right over a house, across a main
run, and then finally snagging an intermediate voltage line, pulling the four
conductors together with a flash and blacking out the entire (very rural) area
for a few hours.

If you do want to use only weight, here is an indication: a small car weighing
half a tonne with rear wheel drive can parascend gently an adult on a gliding
chute even on snow. The power is a few kW. A standard Land Rover (two tonnes?)
can parascend violently an adult on a square parachute, including a long (0.5 to
1 km?) 15 mm polypropylene line, (rising up to 300 m altitude in a very short
time), on grass. The peak power would be over 100 kW. I observed the first and
did the second. I still have the handbook for this somewhere and could look up
the tension figures.

Finally, the cheapest solution is simply a few iron bars hammered in at 45
degrees in tandem or triple; see how it is done at a circus. If the pull
direction varies, you will have to construct a spider.

Cheers, Theo Schmidt

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2602	From: dave santos	Date: 11/20/2010
Subject: Re: Tether matters

Alex,

Icing is a very big issue for rigid wings, but fortunately ice is naturally shed by flexing fabric kites.

Ice on lines is a new item for us to consider. We can suppose that stretchy line like nylon will shed ice better than low-stretch line like polyester, kevlar, or UHMWPE.

Low temperature is also an issue for high altitude lines. Please let us know what works best in extreme cold & icing,

daveS

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2603	From: Joe Faust	Date: 11/20/2010
Subject: Arizona USA team

From new file:

http://www.energykitesystems.net/KitePatents/ApplicationUS20100013226.html

Tethered autonomous air vehicle with wind turbines
Eric Blumer of Scottsdale, AZ, USA
John Thurston, Mesa, AZ, USA
Paul Wingett Gaines, Phoenix, AZ, USA
Yogendra Yogi Sheoran, Scottsdale, AZ
Assignee: Honeywell International, Inc., Morristown, NJ, USA
Patent application filed: Jan. 7, 2009.
related U.S. Application data: Provisional application No. 61/082031, filed on July 18, 2008.

See full instruction for various multiplicities and arrangements of turbines, controls, and flight modes.

Possibly related article: http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/honeywells-take-on-wind-turbines-and-the-flying-donut-from-mit/ News note by Michael Kanellos: September 29, 2010.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2604	From: Dan Parker	Date: 11/20/2010
Subject: Re: Anchor

Hi Theo,

This may help
http://www.laconiaearthanchors.com/applications.php

Dan'l

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2605	From: Joe Faust	Date: 11/20/2010
Subject: Umbrella ladder-based system

Over time, critical analysis and discussion is invited:

http://awec2010.com/public/presentations/zou_jack.pdf

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2606	From: Joe Faust	Date: 11/20/2010
Subject: Bending-Torsion Airfoil Flutter

Over time, critical analysis and discussion is invited:

http://awec2010.com/public/presentations/sarigul_klijn_nesrin.pdf

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2607	From: Joe Faust	Date: 11/20/2010
Subject: Free-flight AWECS using LTA coupled to HTA kite

Click image for full instruction.

Composite air vehicle having a heavier-than-air vehicle tethered to a lighter-than-air vehicle

This is a bit distinct from the Richard Miller two-kite free-flight AWECS (see also Dale C. Kramer ).

The LTA buoy drifts with wind and the HTA kite functions to generate electricity. No tether to the ground; no ground site; could be nearly invisible to the neighbors. Energy is used onboard or beamed to ground, I propose; beam to needy receptors as the system travels around the world. I have not read the full instruction yet for novelty. Wind strata differentials will play here.

[Our tracking file will be:
http://www.energykitesystems.net/KitePatents/ApplicationUS20090302149.html]

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2608	From: Joe Faust	Date: 11/20/2010
Subject: OAWEA

OAWEA
Oscillating Airfoil Wind Energy Absorber

http://www.niac.usra.edu/files/studies/final_report/1010Woolsey.pdf

What is going on here?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2609	From: Muzhichkov	Date: 11/20/2010
Subject: Re: Tether matters

An electricity resisting can help in this problem because stimulate heating of tether (in case using of flying generator). Also can help a forced high frequency vibration. Alex Mu

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2610	From: Joe Faust	Date: 11/20/2010
Subject: Loyd's tri-member tether reciprocator

In US Patent: 4251040 Wind driven apparatus for power generation
by Miles L. Loyd

Loyd's mechanical energy transfer from kite-held turbines via compound macro tether holding three reciprocating sub-tethers to drive groundgen:

Loyd's macro tether holding the working three tethers was intended to be streamlined or faired:

Output shaft at ground could pump fluids or drive electric generator or do other mechanical works.

I think DaveS commented briefly in group messages about the reciprocating sub-tethers (?). This method instructed by Loyd is distinct from the Tri-Tether of Dave Santos; the two systems may one day compete in open-field fly-off.

The Loyd reciprocating tri-tether enclosed in faired shroud tether allows generator to be on the ground, allows non-electric-conductive tethering, and allows mechanical energy transfer that is distinct from fan-belt or loop methods.

Welcome would be experience reports on working instances of the Loyd reciprocating-tri-tether method (LRTTM).

[[My notes invite robust exploration of reciprocating duo-tether shrouded also in a macro shroud faired tether. (FRDTM) : ) Dancing tethers driving ground output shaft; first one, then the other, etc. JoeF]]

JoeF

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2611	From: hamish.macleod	Date: 11/20/2010
Subject: Sea Level rise

"City and state records show that the level of New York Harbor has risen by approximately 15 inches in the past 150 years. Gauges in the harbor have recorded the high tide mark rising by about 4 to 6 inches since 1960."

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=new-york-state-begins-planning

Now get back to work.

- Dimitri

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2612	From: Joe Faust	Date: 11/20/2010
Subject: David R Smith "suitable sails"

David R. Smith of New York, N.Y. in 1878 instructed a carousel scheme allowing "suitable sails" (and thus not restricted to any one drawing) to gain energy from the wind. Allow floating sails and what do we have from David R. Smith? See recent KiteGen carousel.
http://www.kitegen.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/carousel.jpg

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2613	From: dave santos	Date: 11/20/2010
Subject: Re: Tether matters

Alex,

A problem we had not considered is cyclic freeze-damage to tethers, fabric, & composite (fiber/resin) shells. Please let us know what "arctic" experience shows while we look for test data. Is aluminum skin superior to composite in freeze-thaw cycling? How well do common tents, sails, etc. last in cold use?

We knew hot generators & conductive cables would like cold. The defrost effect is a plus.

daveS

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2614	From: dave santos	Date: 11/20/2010
Subject: Re: Loyd's tri-member tether reciprocator

This is my favorite Loyd invention.

Its not really a direct competitor with the KiteLab tri-tether, as each is optimal at differing scale & frequency. Loyd's requires a turret & two crankshafts, & is "high frequency", best suited for smaller AWECS over short distances, & especially for vehicles by being single-point anchored. I tested Loyd's idea with crude bent wire crankshafts & found it very effective. Hope to use it in the future. The KiteLab tri-tether driven-tripod could scale to 10km a leg for gigawatt scale AWECS (like with a stack of Gigafly parafoils). It rigs with three anchor-pulleys & one crank, or three anchor-reels.

If these two designs were fly-off tested at the mid-ranges it would be a tie ;^)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2615	From: Joe Faust	Date: 11/20/2010
Subject: Benjamin Tigner

Click for full application:

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2616	From: Bob Stuart	Date: 11/20/2010
Subject: Re: Tether matters

Around here, the wind destroyed an advertising banner in weeks instead of years, but you can get a pro-rated 15 year guarantee on a fabric-covered arch-rib building. Most buyers expect at least two decades, assuming nothing flaps, of course. We get long periods of constant frozen conditions, without a lot of cycling. Interestingly, tests of paint deterioration find dew formation to be a major problem.

Bob Stuart

On 20-Nov-10, at 11:09 PM, dave santos wrote:

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2617	From: Theo Schmidt	Date: 11/21/2010
Subject: Re: Corrections

Doug schrieb:
Yes.

You are out by a magnitude or two. The outflux of geothermal energy is
on average about 0.1 W per square meter, the influx of solar energy even
at the poles 50 to 100 times that.

Cheers, Theo

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2618	From: Theo Schmidt	Date: 11/21/2010
Subject: Re: Corrections

Doug schrieb:
[...]

You've got it completely wrong, Doug. If it interests several people here, I can
take the trouble to try to write what really happens.

...
Of course it insulates. But this has little do do with it.

...
I think it is time you left this list, Doug. Name-calling is almost as bad a
breach of netiquette as wrong quoting or SHOUTING. :-)

There are lots of feedback effects both negative and positive which all interact
and can change direction. Runaway melting is only one of them.

Cheers, Theo

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2619	From: Ugo Bardi	Date: 11/21/2010
Subject: Re: Corrections

Theo, I have seen competent scientists lose days and days trying to explain climate science to incompetents. In the end, they just lost time that they could have used for something better.

This is not a scientific discussion, it is thinly disguised politics - don't you see? Shouting and name calling: you are a commie-camouflaged-do-gooder-ignoramus etc.... It is hopeless - these guys are impervious to facts. They only master the art of the gratuitous offence.

So, there holds the good old rule: don't feed the troll. A good idea, in my opinion.

Ugo

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2620	From: Theo Schmidt	Date: 11/21/2010
Subject: Correction to Re: [AWECS] Re: Corrections

Theo Schmidt schrieb:
...
Sorry, I made a mistake, too. The figure seems to be 500 to 1000 (on average),
i.e. 50-100 W/m2. I'm not sure if this applies right up to latitudes of 90° (the
poles), but certainly well into polar regions.

Cheers, Theo

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2621	From: dimitri.cherny	Date: 11/21/2010
Subject: Re: Corrections

Hello Ugo,

I agree it's frustrating and mostly pointless to argue with the Trolls, but at least here in America, I think that attitude among intellectuals has helped lead to the frightening rise in public ignorance (as we're experiencing) with 'beliefs' in pseudo-science and mysticism (of all sorts) at all time highs. While laying out a cogent fact-filled argument for a Troll is an exercise in futility, the less opinionated spectators in the audience will benefit greatly from exposure to a good argument (and a calm and composed arguer).

Unfortunately, with so many 'experts' feeling that same frustration and choosing to disengage from the 'debate' (however stupid it may be), the typical American only hears the opinions, rumors and mis-facts of those willing to shout loudest and longest - for whatever reason they might have to do so.

It's a scary time for democracy. The founding fathers never envisioned a time in which half of the voters could be so easily swayed by Trolls. Perhaps one-man, one-vote democracy is nearing its end as an effective way to move civilization forward.

- Dimitri

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2622	From: Ugo Bardi	Date: 11/21/2010
Subject: Re: Corrections

Dimitri, you may have a point, here. If you engage trolls in a discussion, they will normally disgrace themselves by showing their real nature - just as this one has done.

But, on the other hand, engaging in a debate with them is exactly what they want. If you go broadside by broadside, as in an old style naval duel, very few people will read the debate in detail. The impression that most people will gather from the exchange is that there is some kind of heated discussion and that both sides have their reasons.

But it is not a very good idea to give the impression that real science and political mishmash are at the same level. That is, actually, exactly what climate science deniers want to happen.

So, I believe one should simply ignore provocations. As I said, the good policy with trolls is not feeding them. It is good for the trolls as well, otherwise they get fatter and nastier all the time :-)

By the way, it is true that these are hard times for democracy.

U.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2623	From: Doug	Date: 11/21/2010
Subject: Re: Anchor ANSWER

The answer is you need one (1) 50-lb bag of ready-mix concrete to anchor several tons of tension.

Once again, I feel compelled to inject an actual FACT from the actual world of real, working wind energy systems.
My friend who installs meteorological towers (met towers) that carry the instruments that measure a wind resource, prior to the development of a windfarm (windfarm, what's that?), recommends the following for an anchor:

Step 1) auger a 9-inch hole in the ground, 5 feet deep;
Step 2) insert a 5-foot galvanized agricultural anchor or utility-pole anchor, with an auger tip, into the hole;
Step 3) mix the 50-lb bag of concrete with water and pour into hole so auger tip is embedded into the concrete;
Step 4) refill the hole using water and pack it good using a compactor;

The 50-lbs is all that is needed, for 8 levels of guy wire holding up a 160-foot tall tower, even on a mountain top, because it would have to lift an upside cone of soil above weighing a few tons to pull out of the ground.

Again you can make it complicated and yak about it all day, or just check the facts. But in this case, ask someone who knows, not a "scientist" or even an "engineer", (who would probably have to hire someone even to paint their house, let alone build it).

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2624	From: dimitri.cherny	Date: 11/21/2010
Subject: Re: Corrections

Ugo,

I was using the term "Troll" in a more general way to represent any trollish behavior, even out here in the real world (some popular American political commentators come to mind). Here in cyber-space, I agree, while Doug is a lot of fun to have a beer with, I read only a tenth of the drivel he writes when he gets into it with someone.

Coincidentally, I just checked in with one of my favorite bloggers and found that Doug actually has a point about experts being unable to accept new information.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/frontal-cortex

Now please Doug, don't use this one little factoid as the basis for a broad-sweeping attack on all experts in all disciplines. As Jonah suggests at the end, (and many experts already know about themselves)...

"But don't forget to think about your blind spots, about all those new patterns that you must struggle to see."

... for THAT is when the big innovations occur.

By the way Doug, I'm currently wearing the T-shirt you gave me. Everyone asks about it. Very eye-catching.

- Dimitri

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2625	From: Theo Schmidt	Date: 11/21/2010
Subject: Re: Corrections

Ugo Bardi schrieb:

In my case I'm not really a scientist, although having studied physics and
physical oceanography. I'm now an engineer and technician. I know what science
is, though. We did learn about ocean currents and such, but I've forgotten most
of it. Replying to Doug would give me a chance to brush up. But of course only
if people are interested, as I can't really spare the time.

Yes. Such calls come from people of the extreme right. In Switzerland (and Italy
and France :-( ) they have large followings but are not quite the majority. In
Switz. there are practically no climate warming sceptics, on the contrary the
parties on the right are trying to use this as a case for atomic power (which is
just as false as denial). It's a big discussion in Switz. and Germany right now.

...
True. I don't (yet) think anybody here is a complete troll. A skillfull troll
wouldn't make statements like the above and would write anonymously anyway. Some
people just have bad days or write emails when they've had a drink too many...

Cheers, Theo

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2626	From: Joe Faust	Date: 11/21/2010
Subject: AWEHSS

You are urged to register at the site you will reach regarding AWE DATA.
See launch page. NASA is on a roll! Post your data with us, of course, but
certainly also with the NASA study site. Join in the forums there. Post videos there!
AWEHSS

============
Thanks to DaveS for the bridge building, news note, and NASA handshaking.
RAD AWE is taking a big step in this NASA initiative. Congratulations to Mark D. Moore
============

JoeF

airborne wind energy harvesting system study AWEHSS
Growing glossary: (are your terms present as you wish? Send links, paragraphs, explanations)
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2627	From: Doug	Date: 11/21/2010
Subject: Re: Corrections

OK Theo so let me get this straight: You claim publicly that, with the inside of the Earth at thousands of degrees temperature, and with the surface relatively cool, that the net heat flow is INTO the earth, not out? Please explain how heat travels from cold to hot.
Then explain, with a constant net inflow of heat, how the earth has not already reached an infinite temperature?
Maybe you need some elementary science classes.

Also: with regard to polar ice, the sun is at a low angle and water reflects most of the light. Just as one experienced in wind energy cannot have a meaningful conversation with people with no experience in wind energy, thermodynamics can be a confusing subject.
This is why the public relations machinery attempts to reduce their "science" (really the opposite of science) to bumper-sticker slogans and one-sentence theorems.

The theorem of runaway ice melting is simply a stack of "false facts" starting with the false fact that melted ice allows the water below to warm, when in fact the ice above had been the only thing keeping the water warm in the first place. Can't spend the rest of my life trying to correct everyones' ignorance across the globe. Check the actual science.

Doug Selsam

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2628	From: Doug	Date: 11/21/2010
Subject: Re: Corrections

Ugo:
Impervious to facts? Look in the mirror.
Google: "sea ice" insulator

Let just reduced this to ONE FACT:
We have a pond;
The season is winter;
The pond freezes on top only. (the part most exposed to the sun).
you know this because you can walk on the ice and must be careful not to fall through to the water below, which is in contact with the warmer earth below, so it does not freeze.

Here is the question for you to answer:
T
Regarding the ice on the pond:
a) The ice insulates the water below from the cold, so the whole pond does not freeze, and the fish stay alive;
b) The ice makes the water below colder, so the whole pond freezes, and all the fish die...
Which is the correct answer?

I will wait for your answer to this ONE QUESTION. Please answer: a or b.

(And I am using a few capital letters because there is no bold font, or italics, or underlining available in this format, not to YELL or SHOUT.)

I would like to ask you to think back to third grade science class.
Recall how the teacher explained how when water freezes, it has the unusual property that it expands.
Recall how the teacher then explained how ice floats, because it is lighter than the water below, because of this unusual property of expansion of water upon freezing.

Next, please recall how the teacher explained how "lucky" we are that ice floats, because, as the teacher explains, if ice became MORE dense and sank to the bottom, like most materials would, then the whole pond would slowly freeze solid, from top to bottom.
The fact that the ice stays on top is what keeps the fish, frogs, salamanders etc. from freezing. The reason the fosh live to the next season is the ice is an insulator, keeping the water below WARM.
Remember?

Ice floats
Ice insulates the water below and keeps it from freezing.
Do I need to explain it again?

You have been misled.
It is YOU who have abandoned science in lieu of weak politically-generated false reasoning.
Just go back to your childhood, eliminate the complication that has been planted in your mind, and look at the (most simple) scientific facts only.

Ice INSULATES the water below, preventing further freezing. This has never been in question, scientifically speaking, and is indeed one of the first scientific facts we are taught as children. How "they" can get the "educated" to completely abandon their senses so easily is an interesting topic in itself.

Now to Theo: please recall your first thermodynamics class. What was the first fact you were taught in thermodynamics? The simplest concept to understand that took no formulae or math to understand?
It was that heat flows from hot to cold. Not from cold to hot.
The net heat flow from most planets is out, due to nuclear processes and residual heat from planetary formation. If you want to argue such a simple scientific fact as whether heat travels from hot to cold or vice versa, and suggest that I should not be allowed to speak such a simple truth I think you have entered the last refuge of one who knows they are wrong, which is to attempt to silence the truth teller. You cannot stop the truth.

Doug Selsam

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2629	From: Doug	Date: 11/21/2010
Subject: Correction to Re: [AWECS] Re: Corrections

OK so by now, the earth should be infinitely hot, and the hottest part should be on the outside. Just carry your statement to the next logical step.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2630	From: Doug	Date: 11/21/2010
Subject: Re: Anchor

Remember the scheme referred to by Wayne German where two units at different altitudes are tethered together, and no anchor is needed.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2631	From: Theo Schmidt	Date: 11/21/2010
Subject: Re: Corrections

Doug schrieb:
Yes, the core of the earth is reckoned to be extremely hot, say 7000 C or so,
and this decreases right to the surface, which has an average temperature of 15
C. The power 0.1 W per square meter flows from the interior to the surface, so
the earth is cooling down slowly, at a rate much much slower than anything to do
with climate change. Only 20% or so is original heat from when Earth was formed,
most is radioactive decay, so this is also diminishing. We are in complete
agreement, as I never said that heat was flowing into the earth. What I said was
that 50 to 100 W/m2 is solar radiation absorbed by the surface. Therefore the
geothermal energy going out is insignificant in comparison.

As you said yourself, it radiates heat away until an equilibrium is reached. The
radiation in is the whole visible spectrum (plus some UV), the radiation out is
infrared. This is the nub of the whole dicussion. It is not elementary grade
science, but college level, so anybody here confused is excused.

...
Maybe we better agree first what is "real science" and what is "actual science"
before continuing this rather impolite discussion.

Cheers, Theo

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2632	From: Joe Faust	Date: 11/21/2010
Subject: Re: Anchor

The various free-flight AWECS have free-flight anchors, if you will:

The LTA couple with HTA scheme has each end device of the free-flight tether as a relative anchor.
The Richard Miller / Dale C. Kramer two-kite scheme again has the tether ended with a kite; each kite is a relative anchor to the other. DaveS, JoeF, and WayneG have been forwarding the core Miller system with extensions for travel as well as for net energy production for use onboard or for transfer via batteries, or energy transfer via powerbeaming.
The free-flight AWECS that feature RATs onboard have the base free-flight vehicle as the base anchoring of the turbine onboard.

JoeF

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 2633	From: Doug	Date: 11/21/2010
Subject: Re: Sea Level rise

The last ice age ended 12000 years ago. The oceans were 400 feet lower then. The land area of New York was pushed below sea level by the weight of 1 mile of ice above.
Since then, 400 feet of ocean rise over 12000 years = average 1 foot rise every 30 years. The next factor is the well-known rebound of the land above, upward, now that the ice no longer pushes down. In many places the land is still rebounding. So unless you have more than a foot of rise in 30 years, nothing unusual is going on.
Additionally, I referred to a chart that clearly showed that on a timescale of hundreds and thousands of years, the time is clearly here for the next ice age, (due to orbital effects).
I have yet to hear a comment on this chart showing an impending ice age. I cannot see how anyone can look at this chart and say the danger is anything but impending cooling. As one site notes, if anything we might owe our CO2 a dept of gratitude for saving us from disastrous cooling.
Would anyone care to comment on these charts?

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/vostok/graphics/tempplot5.gif

http://www.fcpp.org/images/publications/ME036%20Graph%201.jpg

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/8/8f/Ice_Age_Temperature_Rev.png

http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibitgcc/images/historical02.gif

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQFfzeS1vHpkU-CfAiYRaZhH7L2EaUo16OlQ8QAbVCMQk7ChkeU

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:hIBmMS-SehK2MM:http://www.itpi.co.in/Resources/Climate_change/global_temperature_co2.jpg&t=1

Doug Selsam