Messages in AirborneWindEnergy group.                          AWES 26790 to 26839 Page 427 of 440.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26790 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 6/29/2019
Subject: Plasma aerodynamics and AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26791 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 6/29/2019
Subject: Re: Wikipedia on Dynamic Soaring

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26792 From: dave santos Date: 6/29/2019
Subject: Re: Wikipedia on Dynamic Soaring

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26793 From: benhaiemp Date: 6/29/2019
Subject: Re: Wikipedia on Dynamic Soaring

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26794 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 6/29/2019
Subject: Re: Giant Edo Kite in stable sustained flight

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26795 From: dave santos Date: 6/29/2019
Subject: Re: Wikipedia on Dynamic Soaring

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26796 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 6/29/2019
Subject: Re: Wikipedia on Dynamic Soaring

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26797 From: dave santos Date: 6/29/2019
Subject: Wisdom of the Shadoks in AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26798 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 6/29/2019
Subject: Re: Wikipedia on Dynamic Soaring

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26799 From: Peter Sharp Date: 6/29/2019
Subject: Re: Active Lift Turbine VAWT

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26800 From: Peter Sharp Date: 6/29/2019
Subject: Re: Active Lift Turbine VAWT

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26801 From: Peter Sharp Date: 6/29/2019
Subject: Re: Wikipedia on Dynamic Soaring

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26802 From: dave santos Date: 6/29/2019
Subject: Re: Wikipedia on Dynamic Soaring

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26803 From: dave santos Date: 6/29/2019
Subject: Re: Wikipedia on Dynamic Soaring

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26804 From: benhaiemp Date: 6/29/2019
Subject: Re: Active Lift Turbine VAWT

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26805 From: benhaiemp Date: 6/29/2019
Subject: Re: Active Lift Turbine VAWT

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26806 From: Peter Sharp Date: 6/29/2019
Subject: Re: Active Lift Turbine VAWT

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26807 From: benhaiemp Date: 6/29/2019
Subject: Re: Active Lift Turbine VAWT

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26808 From: dave santos Date: 6/29/2019
Subject: Re: DS Aeronautics Updated

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26809 From: dave santos Date: 6/29/2019
Subject: Re: DS Aeronautics Updated

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26810 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 6/29/2019
Subject: Cyclo-kite involves some DS ??

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26811 From: Peter Sharp Date: 6/29/2019
Subject: Re: Active Lift Turbine VAWT

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26812 From: dave santos Date: 6/29/2019
Subject: Re: Cyclo-kite involves some DS ??

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26813 From: dave santos Date: 6/29/2019
Subject: Minimal Kite Field on a Quarter Circle Path

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26814 From: Peter Sharp Date: 6/29/2019
Subject: Re: Cyclo-kite involves some DS ??

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26815 From: Peter Sharp Date: 6/29/2019
Subject: Re: Cyclo-kite involves some DS ??

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26816 From: benhaiemp Date: 6/29/2019
Subject: Re: Active Lift Turbine VAWT

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26817 From: Peter Sharp Date: 6/29/2019
Subject: Re: Active Lift Turbine VAWT

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26818 From: dave santos Date: 6/29/2019
Subject: Re: Cyclo-kite involves some DS ??

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26819 From: Peter Sharp Date: 6/29/2019
Subject: Re: Cyclo-kite involves some DS ??

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26820 From: benhaiemp Date: 6/29/2019
Subject: Re: Active Lift Turbine VAWT

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26821 From: dave santos Date: 6/29/2019
Subject: Re: DS Aeronautics Updated

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26822 From: dave santos Date: 6/29/2019
Subject: Re: Cyclo-kite involves some DS ??

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26823 From: Peter Sharp Date: 6/29/2019
Subject: Re: Active Lift Turbine VAWT

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26824 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 6/29/2019
Subject: Re: Cyclo-kite involves some DS ??

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26825 From: benhaiemp Date: 6/29/2019
Subject: Re: Active Lift Turbine VAWT

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26826 From: benhaiemp Date: 6/30/2019
Subject: Re: Active Lift Turbine VAWT

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26827 From: dave santos Date: 6/30/2019
Subject: Ocean Rodeo Aluula Kite Fabric latest strength advance (plus OR's tr

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26828 From: dave santos Date: 6/30/2019
Subject: New Kitefishing Kite Quiver covers Light Air to Gale Force Condition

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26829 From: dave santos Date: 6/30/2019
Subject: Trimming, Stabilzing, and Depowering Kites with Variable Holes

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26830 From: dave santos Date: 6/30/2019
Subject: Re: Trimming, Stabilzing, and Depowering Kites with Variable Holes

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26831 From: Peter Sharp Date: 6/30/2019
Subject: Re: Active Lift Turbine VAWT

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26832 From: dave santos Date: 6/30/2019
Subject: Re: Active Lift Turbine VAWT

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26833 From: benhaiemp Date: 6/30/2019
Subject: Re: Active Lift Turbine VAWT

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26834 From: benhaiemp Date: 6/30/2019
Subject: Re: Active Lift Turbine VAWT

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26835 From: benhaiemp Date: 6/30/2019
Subject: Re: Active Lift Turbine VAWT

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26836 From: dave santos Date: 6/30/2019
Subject: Re: Active Lift Turbine VAWT

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26837 From: dave santos Date: 6/30/2019
Subject: Toy Wind Trubines that beat Betz (review)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26838 From: gordon_sp Date: 6/30/2019
Subject: Improved Minesto

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26839 From: dave santos Date: 6/30/2019
Subject: Re: Improved Minesto



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26790 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 6/29/2019
Subject: Plasma aerodynamics and AWE

Plasma aerodynamics (PA) and AWE

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

When AWE might be or can be or is affected by plasma aerodynamics then this topic thread would welcome postings. 


Forum has some sporadic notes regarding plasma and kiting on earth, in near earth, in space, ....    

===========================================================
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26791 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 6/29/2019
Subject: Re: Wikipedia on Dynamic Soaring
Further, Earth is flying through solar wind and interstellar plasmas, and other radiation media. Wing Earth interacts with such flows. And there are kiting opportunities with Wing Earth as anchor and as opposing flying wing. Humans are just at the beginning of space kiting. 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26792 From: dave santos Date: 6/29/2019
Subject: Re: Wikipedia on Dynamic Soaring
The key reassurance is in the actual Lift science being thought about. Yes, in true science, there are always paradoxical Les Shadockisms to enjoy or not, like Einstein with a flashlight in an elevator at the speed of light. 

For those who want this to develop a more obvious kite-like VAWT model, there is solar wind Earth interaction. The Magentosphere forms the wing, and Earth's orbits and aero-magnetic DL makes it all like an ALT. No energy gain overall, under thermodynamics, but nice entropic complexity.



 

I’m reassured now. Dave will find a way to stop the Earth from falling through the judicious implementation of DS. It reminds me "Les Shadoks" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_Shadoks.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26793 From: benhaiemp Date: 6/29/2019
Subject: Re: Wikipedia on Dynamic Soaring
This is a fine idea. "Wing Earth as anchor" leads to a tethered Earth. An excellent scenario for the Shadoks  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_Shadoks .
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26794 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 6/29/2019
Subject: Re: Giant Edo Kite in stable sustained flight
Nation bonding, the AWES good of Edo kiting: 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26795 From: dave santos Date: 6/29/2019
Subject: Re: Wikipedia on Dynamic Soaring
Earth is tethered by gravity, and gravity string theory obviously applies. The kite analogy is very close. 

The Shadoks theme could be its own topic, in relation to all AWE ideas that are paradoxical and ridiculed.



 

This is a fine idea. "Wing Earth as anchor" leads to a tethered Earth. An excellent scenario for the Shadoks  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_Shadoks .
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26796 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 6/29/2019
Subject: Re: Wikipedia on Dynamic Soaring
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26797 From: dave santos Date: 6/29/2019
Subject: Wisdom of the Shadoks in AWE
kPower's AWE business plan was known to the French as early as 50yrs ago, but they only made a funny cartoon out of it-

"If there is one chance out of a 1000 to succeed, rush failing the 999 first tries."


In fact, at those odds, success follows a normal statistical distribution, centered on 500 tries, but that is not as funny to a French audience :)
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26798 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 6/29/2019
Subject: Re: Wikipedia on Dynamic Soaring
Doug: gem.  Thanks for the laughs and tears! Really. AWE would not be the same without you. 
     With a insightful view, you seem to notice the seeds that grow AWE branches. 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26799 From: Peter Sharp Date: 6/29/2019
Subject: Re: Active Lift Turbine VAWT
Attachments :

    Hi PierreB,

    This may help to explain: Please note that the blade causes the satellite gear to rotate around the stationary gear. In the animation, you can see that the blade and the satellite gear move in unison. That means that they are connected. The connection is the slide bearing out near the blade. So the satellite gear pulls the blade around with it. That is one way of describing how the Active Lift on the blade produces torque. The patent drawing is difficult to understand because it doesn’t show the details underneath the central hub.

    If the blades are replaced by rectangular blocks of the same size, the blocks will not create normal lift and thrust. But the blocks will still create some Active Lift (wind pressure acting to force the block downwind). So the VAWT will rotate due to Active Lift alone.

    Does that help to clarify?

     

    From: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com]
    Sent: Saturday, June 29, 2019 3:42 AM
    To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
    Subject: RE: [AWES] Re: Active Lift Turbine VAWT

     

     

    Hi Peter (your message 26766),

     

    You wrote: "... the blade does NOT move downwind relative to the central axis if the VAWT.  " 

     

    I would complete: but the blade moves downwind relative to the secondary axis yy' settled windward. We discussed it several times, and you provided me a usefull explain before by mentioning the tail vane. 

    So on the same line we have the tail vane settled downwind, then the central shaft on the axis xx' leading to the generator that uses tangential force from the blade, then upwind the secondary shaft on the axis yy' leading to the generator that uses (via the sattelite gear) active lift from the blade. Both axis are within the stationary wheel.

     

    You wrote: "...due to the gearing, the blade can force its satellite gear to rotate around the stationary gear, thereby creating torque to rotate the VAWT."

    I think you mean the active lift is converted in additional torque via the sattelite gear. Because the main torque goes towards the central shaft (like Darrieus VAWT makes) via the arm located under the central shaft.



    To resume in the last patent configuration the active lift of the blade goes to the secondary shaft yy' via the sattelite gear, while the tangential force from the same blade goes to the central shaft xx' via the arm located under the central shaft.



    My idea is that will work still worse, as the two axis yy' and xx' are within the same stationary wheel, as the two forces come from the same blade (and also how is it sure that yy' takes lift and xx' takes tangential force?). Resulting the downwind motion in regard to yy' by the active force will likely slow down the rotation that is normally assured by the tangential force like Darrieus VAWT does.

     
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26800 From: Peter Sharp Date: 6/29/2019
    Subject: Re: Active Lift Turbine VAWT
    Attachments :

      Hi PierreB,

      Version 3, as shown in the animation, does not make use of hydraulic fluid.

      PeterS

       

      From: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com]
      Sent: Saturday, June 29, 2019 5:38 AM
      To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: RE: [AWES] Re: Active Lift Turbine VAWT

       

       

      Hi Peter,

      Perhaps the last part of my previous message can be corrected if the shaft in the axis xx' is not in contact with the stationary wheel 3 during the rotation, even though they rotate with the same average angular speed and the same direction. Indeed some jolts from the active lift use via the satellite gear 4 could prevent rotation if xx' shaft is integral with the stationary wheel. 

      In all ways there would likely be a conflict of forces, not an addition of forces.

      Moreover the patent mentions the forces are induced by the hydraulic fluid: this part is not described. As there are two axis for two generators, there should be also two hydraulic installations: this is a lacking point.

       
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26801 From: Peter Sharp Date: 6/29/2019
      Subject: Re: Wikipedia on Dynamic Soaring
      Attachments :

        DougS, Yes, I agree. Also, some technical terms are more precise in their meaning than others. Some technical terms are somewhat general, so more needs to be said to make clear what they mean in a particular context. An example is the word “lift”.

        PeterS

         

        From: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com]
        Sent: Saturday, June 29, 2019 6:40 AM
        To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: RE: [AWES] Re: Wikipedia on Dynamic Soaring

         

         

        I was just watching a hang gliding video from the UK where the guy used the term "dynamic lift" for ridge lift (gliding in an updraft).

        So there's one more use of a related term, but in my opinion, while words are useful to categorize what we experience, I think the more important thing is to understand what is going on, rather than fidgeting over exactly what to call it.



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

        Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26802 From: dave santos Date: 6/29/2019
        Subject: Re: Wikipedia on Dynamic Soaring
        Doug's words do provide good cause for thought, like that talking is not flying. In JoeF and my cases, we start from flying, but not everyone must fly. Our efforts to describe and understand flight, as richly as the sensitive practice of it, does challenge us. 

        Let us enjoy every challenge. Let us fly and talk at the same time, or in alternation. That's what AWE as a whole does; some talk more, and others fly more, some do a lot of both, but its one overall community effort. Has Doug flown a power kite? Let him talk about that for a change.

        Lift,



         

        Doug: gem.  Thanks for the laughs and tears! Really. AWE would not be the same without you. 

             With a insightful view, you seem to notice the seeds that grow AWE branches. 
        Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26803 From: dave santos Date: 6/29/2019
        Subject: Re: Wikipedia on Dynamic Soaring
        Bring this back to the topic of DS, seabirds are the masters, and they do not talk; fortunately DS biophysicists do. Those rare human pilots who DS skillfully talk. Those who know little or nothing about DS also talk, and even complain about DS talk.

        The key point is that real DS exists in many variations, and that is the primal source of helpful talk to add to AWE knowledge. DS energy is pure AWE.



         

        Doug's words do provide good cause for thought, like that talking is not flying. In JoeF and my cases, we start from flying, but not everyone must fly. Our efforts to describe and understand flight, as richly as the sensitive practice of it, does challenge us. 

        Let us enjoy every challenge. Let us fly and talk at the same time, or in alternation. That's what AWE as a whole does; some talk more, and others fly more, some do a lot of both, but its one overall community effort. Has Doug flown a power kite? Let him talk about that for a change.

        Lift,

        On ‎Saturday‎, ‎June‎ ‎29‎, ‎2019‎ ‎11‎:‎48‎:‎16‎ ‎AM‎ ‎CDT, joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy] <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com


         

        Doug: gem.  Thanks for the laughs and tears! Really. AWE would not be the same without you. 

             With a insightful view, you seem to notice the seeds that grow AWE branches. 
        Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26804 From: benhaiemp Date: 6/29/2019
        Subject: Re: Active Lift Turbine VAWT
        Hi Peter,

        The patent describes the slide 8 which is represented in the figure 1. The slide 8 allows to use both active lift on the secondary shaft on yy' via the satellite gear 4, then tangential force on the central shaft on xx', via the arm 2.
        I think we see more details on the patent than on the animation, in spite of "it doesn’t show the details underneath the central hub." as underneath the central hub there is the connection by the arm 2 as we can guess by seeing the whole figure. The animation shows almost nothing, even not the tail vane and the wind direction.

        Concerning the second part of your message: "If the blades..." a similar result is obtained if the tangential force is not used, the arm 2 being removed, the central shaft xx' being removed. In some way that could confirm what you wrote as the Active Lift could rotate the turbine without another force but:
        1. Tangential force without Active Lift is better than the reverse
        2. Using both tangential force and Active Lift lead to losses of both (see the example of trying to make more power by reel-out of a flygen kite), and probably a conflict of forces resulting in jolts due to the Active Lift.
        Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26805 From: benhaiemp Date: 6/29/2019
        Subject: Re: Active Lift Turbine VAWT
        Hi PeterS,

        Version 3 shows almost nothing. And the patent mentions hydraulic fluid use. 
        There are a lot of different versions because the author tries to make ALT working, but it looks to be not possible by several physical principles of which the 3rd law of Newton (action reaction): ALT wants use reaction but using reaction = lossing action. In other words if the downwind motion is used to make power as ALT intends there is loss in action (wind force) leading to loss of torque.

        So it is not useful to see all possible variants a the physical principle doesn't work.  
        Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26806 From: Peter Sharp Date: 6/29/2019
        Subject: Re: Active Lift Turbine VAWT

        Hi PierreB,

        Here is another way to get a feel for how the ALT works. I’ll describe how to demonstrate Active Lift by itself without their being any wind.:

        Look at the patent of Version 3. Assume that the device in the drawing is real and that you can manipulate the parts and that you can walk around the device.

        Start by locking the tail vane in place so that it can’t move. Tie it to the ground, for instance.

        Then walk around the other side of the blade so that you are on the upwind side of the blade. Assume that there is no wind.

        Now press on the blade as if you were the wind pressure of Active Lift. Don’t press it to rotate. Only press it in the downwind direction (toward the tail vane).

        As soon as you press on the blade, the blade will start to revolve around the central axis of the rotor. The blade will try to pull your hand along with it even though you are not pushing it forward.

        That demonstrates how Active Lift can act independently of the normal tangential thrust of the blade, and can add to the torque produced by tangential thrust.

        PeterS
        Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26807 From: benhaiemp Date: 6/29/2019
        Subject: Re: Active Lift Turbine VAWT
        Hi PeterS,

        Right, but the problem is Active Lift + tangential force, not Active Lift alone, not tangential force alone.

        PierreB
        Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26808 From: dave santos Date: 6/29/2019
        Subject: Re: DS Aeronautics Updated
        Further Formal DS Identification- All real-world flying involves both DS and static lift components. Even ordinary soaring across characteristic lift and sink wind fields is strongly DS thereby. Pure static lift is only an abstraction. Its not permitted under modern observable physics.

        Its understood that a few dramatic DS modes are traditionally or informally taken or mistaken as the only modes, and that real flight without any DS effect exists. DS theory is progressing beyond its early primitive forms. We are moving toward DL-DS Field Theories, much like the rest of "particle" physics.





         

        More DS Notes-

        Flexing and stretching of an airframe (including tensile frames) by crossing gradients stores internal energy that is returned to DL-DS flight, as the airframe relaxes. All aircraft develop some thrust this way.

        DL-DS is not unique to free-flight as some seem to think. A bird or glider on a string can do DS if the string is managed so as not to interfere. All kites develop some DL in real wind, more so in favorable conditions.

        Gravity and Inertial Mass are big DS factors. 

        Gravity stores DS energy as potential energy of mass at altitude, which is returned in glide.

        An ideal or realtively massless aircraft model can still DS because of external inertial mass in wind and wake.

        High Re wind flow, dominated by inertial forces over viscous forces, favors DS over Low Re conditions.
        On ‎Friday‎, ‎June‎ ‎28‎, ‎2019‎ ‎02‎:‎53‎:‎56‎ ‎PM‎ ‎CDT, dave santos santos137@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy] <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com


         

        Add PierreB's Imaginary DS Mode (flying elephant) to the list (graphic attached), operating on the advanced engineering Imaginary (Complex) Plane.
        Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26809 From: dave santos Date: 6/29/2019
        Subject: Re: DS Aeronautics Updated
        Clarification-correction: " that FALSE BELIEF in real flight without any DS effect exists"



         

        Further Formal DS Identification- All real-world flying involves both DS and static lift components. Even ordinary soaring across characteristic lift and sink wind fields is strongly DS thereby. Pure static lift is only an abstraction. Its not permitted under modern observable physics.

        Its understood that a few dramatic DS modes are traditionally or informally taken or mistaken as the only modes, and that real flight without any DS effect exists. DS theory is progressing beyond its early primitive forms. We are moving toward DL-DS Field Theories, much like the rest of "particle" physics.



        On ‎Friday‎, ‎June‎ ‎28‎, ‎2019‎ ‎03‎:‎50‎:‎18‎ ‎PM‎ ‎CDT, dave santos santos137@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy] <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com


         

        More DS Notes-

        Flexing and stretching of an airframe (including tensile frames) by crossing gradients stores internal energy that is returned to DL-DS flight, as the airframe relaxes. All aircraft develop some thrust this way.

        DL-DS is not unique to free-flight as some seem to think. A bird or glider on a string can do DS if the string is managed so as not to interfere. All kites develop some DL in real wind, more so in favorable conditions.

        Gravity and Inertial Mass are big DS factors. 

        Gravity stores DS energy as potential energy of mass at altitude, which is returned in glide.

        An ideal or realtively massless aircraft model can still DS because of external inertial mass in wind and wake.

        High Re wind flow, dominated by inertial forces over viscous forces, favors DS over Low Re conditions.
        On ‎Friday‎, ‎June‎ ‎28‎, ‎2019‎ ‎02‎:‎53‎:‎56‎ ‎PM‎ ‎CDT, dave santos santos137@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy] <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com


         

        Add PierreB's Imaginary DS Mode (flying elephant) to the list (graphic attached), operating on the advanced engineering Imaginary (Complex) Plane.
        Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26810 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 6/29/2019
        Subject: Cyclo-kite involves some DS ??

        Spread in other topics are comments about whether or not Cyclo-kiting involves some dynamic soaring (DS).  Those comments are important to this dedicated topic thread; an aim is to gather those comments while furthering the topic. 


        In summary, PeterS leads a camp saying Cyclo-kiting does not involve any DS.

        DaveS leads a camp saying Cyclo-kiting does involve some DS. 

        Definitions of DS and of Cyclo-kiting are needed. Differences of definitions may matter profoundly on the outcome of an analysis over the question. 

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


        If a recent claim by DaveS is true: "All real-world flying involves both DS and static lift components." (post 26808), then if Cyclo-kiting is a real-world flying instance, then Cyclo-kiting involves some DS.   The scientific community might not go along with the "All" part of the DaveS claim.   


        ==================
        Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26811 From: Peter Sharp Date: 6/29/2019
        Subject: Re: Active Lift Turbine VAWT
        Attachments :

          Hi PierreB,

          There is no problem. In this case, Active Lift does not reduce the normal tangential thrust. So you can have either alone or both together.

          Keep in mind that the blade does not move downwind relative the central axis, so there can be no translational reduction of the true wind speed.

          The blade moves downwind only relative to the central gear that is offset to windward. So the blade is able to make use of the pressure of Active Lift without lowering the true wind speed acting on the blade.

          PeterS

           

          From: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com]
          Sent: Saturday, June 29, 2019 11:05 AM
          To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: RE: [AWES] Re: Active Lift Turbine VAWT

           

           

          Hi PeterS,

           

          Right, but the problem is Active Lift + tangential force, not Active Lift alone, not tangential force alone.

           

          PierreB
          Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26812 From: dave santos Date: 6/29/2019
          Subject: Re: Cyclo-kite involves some DS ??
          We can't expect compelling proof of Cyclokite DS one way or the other, except by testing. Many conjectures about kite physics will be found formally unprovable, like endless other conjectures in math and physics. Engineers at least still discover heuristic solutions. The albatross is our DS existence proof to depend on; DS flight is real and rather magical. AWES design may exploit DS to varying degrees. We already have ALT-on-a-wing DS case. 

          PeterS rightly proposes string-based ALT versions yet seems to assert "active lift" can never mix with "dynamic lift" (DS force) in a Cyclokite. Are they not the same, or "active lift" case a subset?

          Proposing again that basic kPower Tumblewing and basic Sharp Cyclokite are the same precise aircraft class being called Looping Foils, by the same principles of operation.



           

          Spread in other topics are comments about whether or not Cyclo-kiting involves some dynamic soaring (DS).  Those comments are important to this dedicated topic thread; an aim is to gather those comments while furthering the topic. 


          In summary, PeterS leads a camp saying Cyclo-kiting does not involve any DS.

          DaveS leads a camp saying Cyclo-kiting does involve some DS. 

          Definitions of DS and of Cyclo-kiting are needed. Differences of definitions may matter profoundly on the outcome of an analysis over the question. 

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


          If a recent claim by DaveS is true: "All real-world flying involves both DS and static lift components." (post 26808), then if Cyclo-kiting is a real-world flying instance, then Cyclo-kiting involves some DS.   The scientific community might not go along with the "All" part of the DaveS claim.   


          ==================
          Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26813 From: dave santos Date: 6/29/2019
          Subject: Minimal Kite Field on a Quarter Circle Path
          kPower often tests kites up to 8m2 from a quiet street heavily wooded on both sides, but open above. The street curves around gently over a 200m circumferential distance. The street tends to be like a wind tunnel, straitening wind flow in the aligned direction, and create useful wind shadow elsewhere. There is always a section and orientation to launch and land kites aligned with the wind.* Once up, the kites fly above the trees, in clear air. I've never had a mishap in the trees, but some close calls. Kite skills continue to improve with practice, and new lessons never seem to end.

          Quarter Circle Path is a possible minimal land-area kite field geometry for tow-launch and general long-line launches. Compare with conventional cross-runway airport layout.

          -----------
          * a slight slope favors prevailing SE breezes.
          Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26814 From: Peter Sharp Date: 6/29/2019
          Subject: Re: Cyclo-kite involves some DS ??
          Attachments :

            JoeF,

            Cyclo-Kite Definition: The Cyclo-Kite is a cross between a cycloturbine and a kite. It uses a single, counter-weighted blade with physical or virtual rocking arms. The blade has a crosswind axis aligned horizontally. The blade, which is constrained by long cords and suspended between two towers, moves at a fairly constant TSR of 2. The blade orbit diameter expands as the wind speed increases. The unique kind of centrifugal-spring pitch-control is called “bowstring pitching”. The blade’s orbit differs from that of a normal, circular blade path due to the combined effects of wind speed, gravity, Active Lift, and the elasticity of the blade cords. It does not require a wind gradient and works best when there is no wind gradient. The blade can also fly around a crosswind axis that is vertical (but then it does not qualify as a kite). The blade uses centrifugal force to produce power either by creating oscillating pull-strokes of a cord (aided by lifting a weight that acts as an energy accumulator) or by rotating a crank arm. It can produce power in additional ways -- such as by forcing a RAT through the air or by twisting the cords of a TCAT (twist-cord-accumulator-transmission). It is intended to be used primarily as a very cheap wind pump, but it can also be used to generate electricity or heat. The blade can be used alone or in combination with other blades to spin a common shaft fitted with one-way clutches. The blade is further stabilized by using “centrifugal T-Rule stabilization” which is another type of centrifugal spring.

            Those seem to be the defining features, if I haven’t forgotten anything.

            PeterS

             

             

            From: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com]
            Sent: Saturday, June 29, 2019 1:49 PM
            To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: [AWES] Cyclo-kite involves some DS ??

             

             

            Spread in other topics are comments about whether or not Cyclo-kiting involves some dynamic soaring (DS).  Those comments are important to this dedicated topic thread; an aim is to gather those comments while furthering the topic. 

             

            In summary, PeterS leads a camp saying Cyclo-kiting does not involve any DS.

            DaveS leads a camp saying Cyclo-kiting does involve some DS. 

            Definitions of DS and of Cyclo-kiting are needed. Differences of definitions may matter profoundly on the outcome of an analysis over the question. 

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

             

            If a recent claim by DaveS is true: "All real-world flying involves both DS and static lift components." (post 26808), then if Cyclo-kiting is a real-world flying instance, then Cyclo-kiting involves some DS.   The scientific community might not go along with the "All" part of the DaveS claim.   



            ==================
            Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26815 From: Peter Sharp Date: 6/29/2019
            Subject: Re: Cyclo-kite involves some DS ??
            Attachments :

              DaveS,

              Please describe in detail the test you are proposing.

              PeterS

               

              From: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com]
              Sent: Saturday, June 29, 2019 2:32 PM
              To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: Re: [AWES] Cyclo-kite involves some DS ??

               

               

              We can't expect compelling proof of Cyclokite DS one way or the other, except by testing. Many conjectures about kite physics will be found formally unprovable, like endless other conjectures in math and physics. Engineers at least still discover heuristic solutions. The albatross is our DS existence proof to depend on; DS flight is real and rather magical. AWES design may exploit DS to varying degrees. We already have ALT-on-a-wing DS case. 

               

              PeterS rightly proposes string-based ALT versions yet seems to assert "active lift" can never mix with "dynamic lift" (DS force) in a Cyclokite. Are they not the same, or "active lift" case a subset?

               

              Proposing again that basic kPower Tumblewing and basic Sharp Cyclokite are the same precise aircraft class being called Looping Foils, by the same principles of operation.

               

              On ‎Saturday‎, ‎June‎ ‎29‎, ‎2019‎ ‎03‎:‎49‎:‎23‎ ‎PM‎ ‎CDT, joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy] <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com

              Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26816 From: benhaiemp Date: 6/29/2019
              Subject: Re: Active Lift Turbine VAWT
              Hi PeterS,

              You repeat the same. Do you read my messages?

              PierreB
              Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26817 From: Peter Sharp Date: 6/29/2019
              Subject: Re: Active Lift Turbine VAWT
              Attachments :

                PierreB,

                Yes, I try to read your messages and figure out as best I can what you mean.

                Please tell me if you disagree with what I told you (please quote me) and why.

                PeterS

                 

                From: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com]
                Sent: Saturday, June 29, 2019 3:33 PM
                To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: RE: [AWES] Re: Active Lift Turbine VAWT

                 

                 

                Hi PeterS,

                 

                You repeat the same. Do you read my messages?

                 

                PierreB
                Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26818 From: dave santos Date: 6/29/2019
                Subject: Re: Cyclo-kite involves some DS ??
                PeterS,

                I am only proposing "que sera, sera" regarding whatever future no-Cyclokite-DS analysis or testing researchers ever do, perhaps along lines that Doug and others loosely propose here for testing the ALT, which I rest predicting must develop DL-DS forces in gradients. Except for my own looping foil tests, the hardware available for third-party testing, I plan or propose nothing further specific.

                Letting cross-axis wind science run its course as it will, my passionate focus is on harnessing the COTS-TRL9 power kite for AWE, including definite DS boost in surface gradient, as a natural positive power factor. Yes, I will continue to compare power kite data as a baseline to whatever else anyone brings to AWE, if they have data or not.



                 

                DaveS,

                Please describe in detail the test you are proposing.

                PeterS

                 

                From: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com]
                Sent: Saturday, June 29, 2019 2:32 PM
                To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: Re: [AWES] Cyclo-kite involves some DS ??

                 

                 

                We can't expect compelling proof of Cyclokite DS one way or the other, except by testing. Many conjectures about kite physics will be found formally unprovable, like endless other conjectures in math and physics. Engineers at least still discover heuristic solutions. The albatross is our DS existence proof to depend on; DS flight is real and rather magical. AWES design may exploit DS to varying degrees. We already have ALT-on-a-wing DS case.. 

                 

                PeterS rightly proposes string-based ALT versions yet seems to assert "active lift" can never mix with "dynamic lift" (DS force) in a Cyclokite. Are they not the same, or "active lift" case a subset?

                 

                Proposing again that basic kPower Tumblewing and basic Sharp Cyclokite are the same precise aircraft class being called Looping Foils, by the same principles of operation.

                 

                On ‎Saturday‎, ‎June‎ ‎29‎, ‎2019‎ ‎03‎:‎49‎:‎23‎ ‎PM‎ ‎CDT, joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy] <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com

                Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26819 From: Peter Sharp Date: 6/29/2019
                Subject: Re: Cyclo-kite involves some DS ??
                Attachments :

                  DaveS, I see. You want to test whatever in order to decide something as measured this or that. That sounds definitive. Go for it.

                  PeterS

                   

                  From: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com]
                  Sent: Saturday, June 29, 2019 3:55 PM
                  To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: Re: [AWES] Cyclo-kite involves some DS ??

                   

                   

                  PeterS,

                   

                  I am only proposing "que sera, sera" regarding whatever future no-Cyclokite-DS analysis or testing researchers ever do, perhaps along lines that Doug and others loosely propose here for testing the ALT, which I rest predicting must develop DL-DS forces in gradients. Except for my own looping foil tests, the hardware available for third-party testing, I plan or propose nothing further specific.

                   

                  Letting cross-axis wind science run its course as it will, my passionate focus is on harnessing the COTS-TRL9 power kite for AWE, including definite DS boost in surface gradient, as a natural positive power factor. Yes, I will continue to compare power kite data as a baseline to whatever else anyone brings to AWE, if they have data or not.

                   

                  On ‎Saturday‎, ‎June‎ ‎29‎, ‎2019‎ ‎05‎:‎27‎:‎26‎ ‎PM‎ ‎CDT, 'Peter Sharp' sharpencil@sbcglobal.net [AirborneWindEnergy] <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com

                  Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26820 From: benhaiemp Date: 6/29/2019
                  Subject: Re: Active Lift Turbine VAWT
                  Peter,
                  I agree your last message but the point you mention ("Keep in mind that the blade does not move downwind relative the central axis, so there can be no translational reduction of the true wind speed. ") was already discussed. On several messages I use yy' to designate the secondary shaft which is upwind and transmits the Active Lift to the generator, and xx' to designate the central shaft which transmits the tangential force to another generator, refering to the patent. 

                  So I (partially) agree "The blade moves downwind only relative to the central gear that is offset to windward." .
                  The blade moves downwind only relative to the axis yy' which is the center of the stationary wheel 3 (central gear) and which is windward. The central shaft xx' is also in the stationary wheel but is offset leeward, as I repeat numerous times. I refer to the patent. You refer to V3 but it looks to be the same (for this) in spite of light differences.

                  Using power is not free. By using Active Lift you loss tangential force, even if the blade moves downwind relative to yy'. 

                  PierreB
                  Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26821 From: dave santos Date: 6/29/2019
                  Subject: Re: DS Aeronautics Updated
                  Attachments :
                    On continued reflection, the magnetosphere is suited to interact with solar wind to produce "lift" (upward from Sun). After all, the field streams out at a kite-bridle angle and has a tail. We see these kite angles clearly with comet tails too, but each kind of quasi kite has its unique features.

                    The Sun is an irregular source of wind, so the magnetosphere would react with DL-DS effects. Earth may fly slightly higher during Solar Maximums, and lower in minimums, not just from simple radiation pressure, but from an electromagnetic-lift boost.

                    It looks like a kite and does not quack like a duck,


                    Inline image





                     

                    Clarification-correction: " that FALSE BELIEF in real flight without any DS effect exists"

                    On ‎Saturday‎, ‎June‎ ‎29‎, ‎2019‎ ‎01‎:‎11‎:‎48‎ ‎PM‎ ‎CDT, dave santos santos137@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy] <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com


                     

                    Further Formal DS Identification- All real-world flying involves both DS and static lift components. Even ordinary soaring across characteristic lift and sink wind fields is strongly DS thereby. Pure static lift is only an abstraction. Its not permitted under modern observable physics.

                    Its understood that a few dramatic DS modes are traditionally or informally taken or mistaken as the only modes, and that real flight without any DS effect exists. DS theory is progressing beyond its early primitive forms. We are moving toward DL-DS Field Theories, much like the rest of "particle" physics.



                    On ‎Friday‎, ‎June‎ ‎28‎, ‎2019‎ ‎03‎:‎50‎:‎18‎ ‎PM‎ ‎CDT, dave santos santos137@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy] <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com


                     

                    More DS Notes-

                    Flexing and stretching of an airframe (including tensile frames) by crossing gradients stores internal energy that is returned to DL-DS flight, as the airframe relaxes. All aircraft develop some thrust this way.

                    DL-DS is not unique to free-flight as some seem to think. A bird or glider on a string can do DS if the string is managed so as not to interfere. All kites develop some DL in real wind, more so in favorable conditions.

                    Gravity and Inertial Mass are big DS factors. 

                    Gravity stores DS energy as potential energy of mass at altitude, which is returned in glide.

                    An ideal or realtively massless aircraft model can still DS because of external inertial mass in wind and wake.

                    High Re wind flow, dominated by inertial forces over viscous forces, favors DS over Low Re conditions.
                    On ‎Friday‎, ‎June‎ ‎28‎, ‎2019‎ ‎02‎:‎53‎:‎56‎ ‎PM‎ ‎CDT, dave santos santos137@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy] <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com


                     

                    Add PierreB's Imaginary DS Mode (flying elephant) to the list (graphic attached), operating on the advanced engineering Imaginary (Complex) Plane.
                    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26822 From: dave santos Date: 6/29/2019
                    Subject: Re: Cyclo-kite involves some DS ??
                    Not quite, PeterS!

                    Let the world fly-off endless possibilities beyond what you hope one person like me can do. Having tried all kinds of ideas, I focus on the power kite now, that's my careful AWE down-select to recommend, over all other known AWE WECS. Recommend what you like too.

                    Good luck to everything else taking on the power kite as AWE's standard wing.


                     

                    DaveS, I see. You want to test whatever in order to decide something as measured this or that. That sounds definitive. Go for it.

                    PeterS

                     

                    From: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com]
                    Sent: Saturday, June 29, 2019 3:55 PM
                    To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: Re: [AWES] Cyclo-kite involves some DS ??

                     

                     

                    PeterS,

                     

                    I am only proposing "que sera, sera" regarding whatever future no-Cyclokite-DS analysis or testing researchers ever do, perhaps along lines that Doug and others loosely propose here for testing the ALT, which I rest predicting must develop DL-DS forces in gradients. Except for my own looping foil tests, the hardware available for third-party testing, I plan or propose nothing further specific.

                     

                    Letting cross-axis wind science run its course as it will, my passionate focus is on harnessing the COTS-TRL9 power kite for AWE, including definite DS boost in surface gradient, as a natural positive power factor. Yes, I will continue to compare power kite data as a baseline to whatever else anyone brings to AWE, if they have data or not.

                     

                    On ‎Saturday‎, ‎June‎ ‎29‎, ‎2019‎ ‎05‎:‎27‎:‎26‎ ‎PM‎ ‎CDT, 'Peter Sharp' sharpencil@sbcglobal.net [AirborneWindEnergy] <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com

                    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26823 From: Peter Sharp Date: 6/29/2019
                    Subject: Re: Active Lift Turbine VAWT
                    Attachments :

                      PierreB, Thanks for quoting me and once again telling me what you want me to notice. Thank you for being patient with me.

                      I believe that you are making an error. That error may explain why you having trouble understanding the ALT.

                      “I use yy' to designate the secondary shaft which is upwind and transmits the Active Lift to the generator, and xx' to designate the central shaft which transmits the tangential force to another generator, refering to the patent.”

                      In the patent drawing of Version 3 (2016), the secondary shaft yy’ does not exist. “yy’” is not a shaft. It designates the center of the stationary gear held in place by the wind vane, not a shaft. So “shaft yy’” cannot transmit torque to the generator. “yy’” is the center of rotation for the satellite gear. The stationary gear is mounted loosly on the central shaft just to keep it in place. It does not rotate with the central shaft.

                      There is no need for a second generator. Both tangential torque and Active Lift torque turn the central shaft of the rotor.

                      I don’t have the full patent; I only have the first page. So I can’t see where it mentions a second generator. Other versions might require a second generator, but Version 3 does not.

                      If the patent says that two generators are required, please quote the patent.

                      I hope that helps to clarify.

                      PeterS

                       

                       

                       

                       

                      From: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com]
                      Sent: Saturday, June 29, 2019 4:33 PM
                      To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: RE: [AWES] Re: Active Lift Turbine VAWT

                       

                       

                      Peter,

                      I agree your last message but the point you mention ("Keep in mind that the blade does not move downwind relative the central axis, so there can be no translational reduction of the true wind speed. ") was already discussed. On several messages I use yy' to designate the secondary shaft which is upwind and transmits the Active Lift to the generator, and xx' to designate the central shaft which transmits the tangential force to another generator, refering to the patent. 

                       

                      So I (partially) agree "The blade moves downwind only relative to the central gear that is offset to windward." .

                      The blade moves downwind only relative to the axis yy' which is the center of the stationary wheel 3 (central gear) and which is windward. The central shaft xx' is also in the stationary wheel but is offset leeward, as I repeat numerous times. I refer to the patent. You refer to V3 but it looks to be the same (for this) in spite of light differences.

                       

                      Using power is not free. By using Active Lift you loss tangential force, even if the blade moves downwind relative to yy'. 

                       

                      PierreB

                       

                       
                      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26824 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 6/29/2019
                      Subject: Re: Cyclo-kite involves some DS ??
                      Much thanks, PeterS, for your definition and added capabilities of the the Cyclo-kite.


                      PeterS: "The blade can also fly around a crosswind axis that is vertical (but then it does not qualify as a kite)."

                      JoeF: Peter, I'd still have Cyclo-kite flying the crosswind axis that is vertical as a kite system.   A kite system need not have its wings fly in any particular direction to qualify as a kite system; indeed a wing in a kite system may even fly down driven by negative lift (beyond the factor of falling via gravity).  The Cyclo-kite flying the crosswind axis keeps reacting with the wind and restrained by tether; part of the reaction is aerodynamic lift with the lift vector helping to keep tension in the tether set.  Kiting may occur in non-gravity field (or where gravity is neutralized from competing bodies of mass.     Is there something else that seemed to urge you to discount the Cyclo-kite from qualifying as a kite system?    
                      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26825 From: benhaiemp Date: 6/29/2019
                      Subject: Re: Active Lift Turbine VAWT
                      PeterS, 

                      If you read my messages you should know that I am always referring to the same patent WO2016207574A1. I sent this patent several times as I repeat. This is the last patent. It could correspond to V3 but V3 shows almost nothing as I repeat. The patent mentions two axis yy' and xx' on the description and the figure 1.
                      I repeat it n times. 
                      Below is the link of a previous message quoting some translated extracts of this patent which mention TWO GENERATORS.

                      https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/AirborneWindEnergy/conversations/messages/26751


                      What you wrote suggests you don't understand what is on the patent, perhaps due to French language, perhaps also because the principle is not understandable as it doesn't work. So here is another link towards the same patent in order to help you to see what is in the patent: https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2016207574A1/en?oq=WO2016207574A1 .

                      Some extract: 

                      "This secondary axis can drive an electric generator or some other mechanism such as a pump.

                      Similarly, the axis of rotation of the turbine can drive an electric generator or some other mechanism such as a pump. The secondary axis not coincident with the axis of rotation of the turbine recovers lift forces while the axis of rotation of the turbine recovers forces dithered.

                      These forces of lift and raster is generated on the rotor wings by the hydraulic fluid.

                      Halftone tangential forces are indeed conventionally recovered at the axis of rotation of the turbine via the connecting arm while normal lift forces are recovered via sets coulis- buckets / rods / planet gears at the minor axis that is not coaxial with the axis of rotation of the turbine."


                      Another extract:

                      " According to Figure 1, the three planet gears 4 are mounted on a same plate 12 centered on the geometrical center A of the stationary gear 3 and mobile in rotation about a secondary axis y, y 'passing through this geometrical center A.

                      The axis y, y 'of the turntable 12 can drive a not shown electric generator."

                      I repeat the last sentence several times: 

                      "The axis y, y 'of the turntable 12 can drive a not shown electric generator." 

                      "The axis y, y 'of the turntable 12 can drive a not shown electric generator." 

                      "The axis y, y 'of the turntable 12 can drive a not shown electric generator." 


                      It is clear enough: the secondary axis is yy', and the axis of rotation (central shaft) is xx'. Both lead to a respective generator. So THERE TWO AXIS, TWO GENERATORS.


                      In some way it is not surprising you don't understand what are the components because the principle of ALT VAWT is wrong. It is the reason why there are different versions and different patents. None works. I explained the reasons in many messages. So I will stop on the topic, as I repeat an repeat the same of which what is on the patent. Please note even Doug and Dave understood this concept probably doesn't work. 
                      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26826 From: benhaiemp Date: 6/30/2019
                      Subject: Re: Active Lift Turbine VAWT
                      Hi PeterS,

                      A link towards how a Darrieus turbine works is on https://scialert.net/fulltext/?doi=jest.2011.302.312.
                      See the two green arrows for the lift at 90° and 270°. From the text: "This lift force is perpendicular to the resultant wind direction but, more importantly, it always induces counterclockwise rotation of the turbine. This lift force is the force that is used to power the wind turbine.". 
                      So the lift force is already used, at least partially.

                      The only example of implemented Active Lift is the reeling kite during reel-out phase, using downwind motion, that with losses we know.

                      To use Active Lift for a VAWT would lead to deduce it from the lift which occurs during the rotation, particularly at 90° and 270°, but not at 0° and 180°  as there is no angle of attack. One of the two green arrows is a little in the direction of rotation (between 90° and 270°) while the other green arrow is a little against the direction of rotation between 270° and 90°. 

                      Resulting Using Active Lift for VAWT would perhaps be better between 90° and 270° when the blade goes downwind during the counterclockwise rotation, but would be worse between 270° and 90°, preventing the rotation. 

                      The solution is using HAWT.
                      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26827 From: dave santos Date: 6/30/2019
                      Subject: Ocean Rodeo Aluula Kite Fabric latest strength advance (plus OR's tr
                      Following on a New Forum Aluula Post with its OR video link and comment, here is the KiteForum.com Aluula discussion, with further speculation and nice details.


                      The OR Shift Bar shows how kite tuning can be done on the fly. "Sidewinder" is neat TM, originally rattlesnake slang. Bar innovations proliferate, retreat, advance again, and slowly get better, but at heart, any strong stick will do, like a car without luxury features, you still arrive. Make your own bars and pick up old racing bars cheap.


                      New Forum page-




                      Re: OR's sales rep wistfully thinking Aluula puts the LEI in parafoil performance range; unfortunately for OR's LEI business, the parafoil continues to advance just as fast or faster. Aluula can comprise any other power kite type or class (parafoil, SS).
                      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26828 From: dave santos Date: 6/30/2019
                      Subject: New Kitefishing Kite Quiver covers Light Air to Gale Force Condition
                      A "40-Hole" tournament version and four kites to cover the widest wind range of any known kite brand. The crossed-stick design shows once again how effective the simplest forms are. Holes add stability and reduce pull, as KiteLab extensively tested and analyzed over a decade ago.
                      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26829 From: dave santos Date: 6/30/2019
                      Subject: Trimming, Stabilzing, and Depowering Kites with Variable Holes
                      Following up on validations like kitefishing that holes in kites have useful properties, this post proposes Active Holes may be useful for variable stabilization and depowering of kites. Placement of holes is crucial to what effects result. When the holes are not needed and full power is wanted, they close. A tailored variable hole pattern and drawstring rig are presumed to be the favored design.

                      This method acts much like common half-moon slits in banners, and many shapes are design options. Depowering the center of a kite has the least effect on balance. Variable hole method adds flexibility to bulk furling ideas previously explored. A kites trim and tuning can also be adjusted by this variable control means. Holes could also passively operate like "safety valves" in surge.

                      Open-AWE_IP-Cloud
                      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26830 From: dave santos Date: 6/30/2019
                      Subject: Re: Trimming, Stabilzing, and Depowering Kites with Variable Holes
                      Withdrawing claim for center depower. Periphery states most determine yaw stability.



                       

                      Following up on validations like kitefishing that holes in kites have useful properties, this post proposes Active Holes may be useful for variable stabilization and depowering of kites. Placement of holes is crucial to what effects result. When the holes are not needed and full power is wanted, they close. A tailored variable hole pattern and drawstring rig are presumed to be the favored design.

                      This method acts much like common half-moon slits in banners, and many shapes are design options. Depowering the center of a kite has the least effect on balance. Variable hole method adds flexibility to bulk furling ideas previously explored. A kites trim and tuning can also be adjusted by this variable control means. Holes could also passively operate like "safety valves" in surge.

                      Open-AWE_IP-Cloud
                      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26831 From: Peter Sharp Date: 6/30/2019
                      Subject: Re: Active Lift Turbine VAWT
                      Attachments :

                        PierreB,

                        The patent words do not match the patent drawing. For example: In the Abstract they state that the blades are rigidly connected to wheel 3. But that makes no sense because wheel 3 is the stationary gear held to windward by the tail vane. If it rotates with the blades, Active Lift cannot work. They do not include other drawings to show connections to more than one generator or any connection to a hydraulic motor.

                        So I agree with you that the patent does not make sense, and the mechanism as described in the patent words could not work. I do not understand the words of the patent because they are not understandable. I don’t know the reason for that, but clearly, something is seriously wrong with the patent. The patent words do not match the patent drawing. In the quotes you gave me from the patent, there were nonsense statements due to some strange words. Maybe that’s due to the translation. I don’t know.

                        However, in contrast, the patent drawing does show a workable mechanism that behaves like the animation. My explanations of how the ALT works are based on the drawing and on the animation, not on the words in the patent. As far as I know, my explanations are accurate.

                        If you insist on understanding the ALT based on the words in the patent, I can appreciate why you are extremely frustrated – because it can’t be done.

                        I’ve read hundreds of patents and research papers about specific mechanisms, and in my experience, there is occasionally a discrepancy between the drawings and the words. So I rely more on the drawings than on the words. In the case of translations, the problem tends to be worse, so I tend to place even more emphasis on understanding the drawings rather than the words.

                        Based on the drawing and the animation, the ALT works as claimed on their website. I say that based on studying them carefully again and again to check things. But from your perspective, based on reading the patent, you have very good reason to conclude that the ALT could not possibly work. In my opinion, the patent words have misled you and have wasted your time. So I can appreciate that you would have no further interest in the ALT.

                        Something else occurs to me. Since the patent does not make sense, it might be considered to be an invalid patent if challenged in patent court. That would be most unfortunate for Lecanu and his associates.

                        PeterS

                         

                         

                        From: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com]
                        Sent: Saturday, June 29, 2019 8:52 PM
                        To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
                        Subject: RE: [AWES] Re: Active Lift Turbine VAWT

                         

                         

                        PeterS, 

                         

                        If you read my messages you should know that I am always referring to the same patent WO2016207574A1. I sent this patent several times as I repeat. This is the last patent. It could correspond to V3 but V3 shows almost nothing as I repeat. The patent mentions two axis yy' and xx' on the description and the figure 1.

                        I repeat it n times. 

                        Below is the link of a previous message quoting some translated extracts of this patent which mention TWO GENERATORS.

                        https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/AirborneWindEnergy/conversations/messages/26751

                         

                        What you wrote suggests you don't understand what is on the patent, perhaps due to French language, perhaps also because the principle is not understandable as it doesn't work. So here is another link towards the same patent in order to help you to see what is in the patent: https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2016207574A1/en?oq=WO2016207574A1 .

                        Some extract: 

                        "This secondary axis can drive an electric generator or some other mechanism such as a pump.

                        Similarly, the axis of rotation of the turbine can drive an electric generator or some other mechanism such as a pump. The secondary axis not coincident with the axis of rotation of the turbine recovers lift forces while the axis of rotat! ion of the turbine recovers forces dithered.

                        These forces of lift and raster is generated on the rotor wings by the hydraulic fluid.

                        Halftone tangential forces are indeed conventionally recovered at the axis of rotation of the turbine via the connecting arm while normal lift forces are recovered via sets coulis- buckets / rods / planet gears at the minor axis that is not coaxial with the axis of rotation of the turbine."

                         

                        Another extract:

                        " According to Figure 1, the three planet gears 4 are mounted on a same plate 12 centered on the geometrical center A of the stationary gear 3 and mobile in rotation about a secondary axis y, y 'passing through this geometrical center A.

                        The axis y, y 'of the turntable 12 can drive a not shown electric generator."

                        I repeat the last sentence several times: 

                        "The axis y, y 'of the turntable 12 can drive a not shown electric generator." 

                        "The axis y, y 'of the turntable 12 can drive a not shown electric generator." 

                        "The axis y, y 'of the turntable 12 can drive a not shown electric generator." 

                         

                        It is clear enough: the secondary axis is yy', and the axis of rotation (central shaft) is xx'. Both lead to a respective generator. So THERE TWO AXIS, TWO GENERATORS.

                         

                        In some way it is not surprising you don't understand what are the components because the principle of ALT VAWT is wrong. It is the reason why there are different versions and different patents. None works. I explained the reasons in many messages. So I will stop on the topic, as I repeat an repeat the same of which what is on the patent. Please note even Doug and Dave understood this concept probably doesn't work. 

                         
                        Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26832 From: dave santos Date: 6/30/2019
                        Subject: Re: Active Lift Turbine VAWT
                        Suffice it to say, in the Patent there is no breakthrough discovery or explanation of any novel aerodynamic principle, as "active lift". Its just VAWT blades desperately churning in more complex paths by a lot of gearing. Opposite of KIS engineering wisdom.

                        A larger bladed VAWT of the same mass will win by superior LCOE (kPower prediction).



                         

                        PierreB,

                        The patent words do not match the patent drawing.. For example: In the Abstract they state that the blades are rigidly connected to wheel 3. But that makes no sense because wheel 3 is the stationary gear held to windward by the tail vane. If it rotates with the blades, Active Lift cannot work. They do not include other drawings to show connections to more than one generator or any connection to a hydraulic motor.

                        So I agree with you that the patent does not make sense, and the mechanism as described in the patent words could not work. I do not understand the words of the patent because they are not understandable. I don’t know the reason for that, but clearly, something is seriously wrong with the patent. The patent words do not match the patent drawing. In the quotes you gave me from the patent, there were nonsense statements due to some strange words. Maybe that’s due to the translation. I don’t know.

                        However, in contrast, the patent drawing does show a workable mechanism that behaves like the animation. My explanations of how the ALT works are based on the drawing and on the animation, not on the words in the patent. As far as I know, my explanations are accurate.

                        If you insist on understanding the ALT based on the words in the patent, I can appreciate why you are extremely frustrated – because it can’t be done.

                        I’ve read hundreds of patents and research papers about specific mechanisms, and in my experience, there is occasionally a discrepancy between the drawings and the words. So I rely more on the drawings than on the words. In the case of translations, the problem tends to be worse, so I tend to place even more emphasis on understanding the drawings rather than the words.

                        Based on the drawing and the animation, the ALT works as claimed on their website. I say that based on studying them carefully again and again to check things. But from your perspective, based on reading the patent, you have very good reason to conclude that the ALT could not possibly work. In my opinion, the patent words have misled you and have wasted your time. So I can appreciate that you would have no further interest in the ALT.

                        Something else occurs to me. Since the patent does not make sense, it might be considered to be an invalid patent if challenged in patent court. That would be most unfortunate for Lecanu and his associates.

                        PeterS

                         

                         

                        From: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com]
                        Sent: Saturday, June 29, 2019 8:52 PM
                        To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
                        Subject: RE: [AWES] Re: Active Lift Turbine VAWT

                         

                         

                        PeterS, 

                         

                        If you read my messages you should know that I am always referring to the same patent WO2016207574A1. I sent this patent several times as I repeat. This is the last patent. It could correspond to V3 but V3 shows almost nothing as I repeat. The patent mentions two axis yy' and xx' on the description and the figure 1.

                        I repeat it n times. 

                        Below is the link of a previous message quoting some translated extracts of this patent which mention TWO GENERATORS.

                        https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/AirborneWindEnergy/conversations/messages/26751

                         

                        What you wrote suggests you don't understand what is on the patent, perhaps due to French language, perhaps also because the principle is not understandable as it doesn't work. So here is another link towards the same patent in order to help you to see what is in the patent: https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2016207574A1/en?oq=WO2016207574A1 .

                        Some extract: 

                        "This secondary axis can drive an electric generator or some other mechanism such as a pump.

                        Similarly, the axis of rotation of the turbine can drive an electric generator or some other mechanism such as a pump. The secondary axis not coincident with the axis of rotation of the turbine recovers lift forces while the axis of rotat! ion of the turbine recovers forces dithered.

                        These forces of lift and raster is generated on the rotor wings by the hydraulic fluid.

                        Halftone tangential forces are indeed conventionally recovered at the axis of rotation of the turbine via the connecting arm while normal lift forces are recovered via sets coulis- buckets / rods / planet gears at the minor axis that is not coaxial with the axis of rotation of the turbine."

                         

                        Another extract:

                        " According to Figure 1, the three planet gears 4 are mounted on a same plate 12 centered on the geometrical center A of the stationary gear 3 and mobile in rotation about a secondary axis y, y 'passing through this geometrical center A.

                        The axis y, y 'of the turntable 12 can drive a not shown electric generator."

                        I repeat the last sentence several times: 

                        "The axis y, y 'of the turntable 12 can drive a not shown electric generator." 

                        "The axis y, y 'of the turntable 12 can drive a not shown electric generator." 

                        "The axis y, y 'of the turntable 12 can drive a not shown electric generator." 

                         

                        It is clear enough: the secondary axis is yy', and the axis of rotation (central shaft) is xx'. Both lead to a respective generator. So THERE TWO AXIS, TWO GENERATORS.

                         

                        In some way it is not surprising you don't understand what are the components because the principle of ALT VAWT is wrong. It is the reason why there are different versions and different patents. None works. I explained the reasons in many messages. So I will stop on the topic, as I repeat an repeat the same of which what is on the patent. Please note even Doug and Dave understood this concept probably doesn't work.. 

                         
                        Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26833 From: benhaiemp Date: 6/30/2019
                        Subject: Re: Active Lift Turbine VAWT
                        Hi PeterS,

                        You wrote: "I don’t know the reason for that, but clearly, something is seriously wrong with the patent.". Because ALT for VAWT is not workable in any configuration.

                        This patent is conceived to be a significant improvement in order to make ALT work. But it also fails.

                        Some details: in the patent the axis xx' is within the stationary gear, and is the central shaft of the turbine but not the center of the stationary gear. The description goes with the drawing but not for all. In V3 the central shaft looks to be out off the stationary gear.  But it is not so important as none among them works.  The different versions and patents don't make sense between them. All failed to describe a coherent device.

                        As I mention in my previous message the active lift adds power (at the best) for the half part of the rotation, but withdrawn power for the other half part of the rotation. Indeed the active lift goes downwind and in the same times the rotation goes about downwind for a half, about upwind for the other half so in the rather opposite direction. ALT VAWT principle such as described in all versions is a quite false principle.

                        Dealing between stationary and downwind motion is not possible. The author tried many combinations. V3 is a little different from the patent but doesn't show anything about ALT (particularly if yes or not there are two axis with two generators). The author writes V1 and V2 doen't work. But V3 doesn't work more. None among the versions, none devices among the patents is workable.

                        There is no prototype and no prototype is expected.

                        Active lift works for reeling kite during reel-out phase.  
                        Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26834 From: benhaiemp Date: 6/30/2019
                        Subject: Re: Active Lift Turbine VAWT
                        Hi PeterS,

                        A positive point: you didn't invent it!

                        PierreB
                        Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26835 From: benhaiemp Date: 6/30/2019
                        Subject: Re: Active Lift Turbine VAWT
                        I agree Dave.
                        Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26836 From: dave santos Date: 6/30/2019
                        Subject: Re: Active Lift Turbine VAWT
                        Its still an interesting case! The sailboat diamond-course similarity case is helpful, because the sails are presumed to always be in trim and there is no gearing complication.

                        A sailboat can "circle" in a sort of VAWT mode by sailing around a diamond or hourglass path. The boat "reaches" optimally crosswind at the top and bottom of the hourglass, but  tacks up and down wind to make the course. This are not not as powerful cycles as always keeping a crosswind sailing course, with brief tacks to reverse, or 100% HAWT drive cycle.

                        If there were some hidden power in the ALT cycle, the sailboat case should be able to show it.



                         

                        I agree Dave.
                        Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26837 From: dave santos Date: 6/30/2019
                        Subject: Toy Wind Trubines that beat Betz (review)
                        Attachments :
                          As discussed a decade ago, a sufficiently long "screw" aligned with the wind will beat any Betz Limit calculated for its frontal disc area. Betz is simply a nice historical approximation, as aerodynamics has moved on to ever more realistic models.

                          This sort of cheap common turbine below can beat Betz. As the wind flows along the depth of the wind screw, more power is entrained. As covered in the past, its a strong wake vortex-effect, that entrains further energy from the wind-field than any disc-like rotor can. An ST can beat Betz the same way. Beating Betz means little; its a curiosity case for students.

                          The power-hack is to add a torque shaft and load to develop
                          Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26838 From: gordon_sp Date: 6/30/2019
                          Subject: Improved Minesto
                          Attachments :

                            Improved Minesto

                            I have thought of a much more convenient way of extracting tidal energy by moving turbines in a crosscurrent pattern.  This method is applicable to tidal rivers or estuaries where access can be obtained on both shores.

                            The turbines are located below a floating platform in the center of the river.  Two tethers are attached upstream and downstream on the river bed so that when the tide reverses, the appropriate tether will be used. The platform is dragged from side to side by winches on both shores. It is also tilted so that the turbines extract the maximum power from the tidal velocity and the dragging velocity.

                            Turbines are mounted in pairs in order to minimize cantilever effects.  There is adequate space between the leading and trailing turbine to minimize wake effects.  Turbine trains are in matched counter rotating pairs to neutralize torque effects.  Al turbines can be designed to rotate in both directions or alternately the platform can be rotated 180 deg. for tidal changes

                             All turbine shafts have pulleys and belts which connect to a single electric generator, and power is transferred to shore by means of a coiled electrical cable which is supported by one of the drag lines. There are no electrical components in the tethers or under water.

                            Advantages over Minesto:

                            ·         No electronic controls or guidance systems required.

                            ·         No underwater cables transferring energy to shore.

                            ·         Multiple turbines connected to a single generator.

                            ·         Turbines just below the water surface where the currents are fastest.

                            ·         Easy stowing by docking on one side and relaxing tow lines and tethers.

                            ·         Generator speed set by adjusting pulley diameters, rather than gears.

                            ·         Crosscurrent velocity can be adjusted to maximize power output

                             

                            Disadvantages:

                            ·         Friction of belts under water.

                            ·         Limited to locations where access is available on both shores.

                            ·         Higher power/weight ratio. Does this apply to floating bodies?

                             
                            Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26839 From: dave santos Date: 6/30/2019
                            Subject: Re: Improved Minesto
                            Worthy concept work, Gordon.

                            Minesto is not reckoned by many of us to be the best or cheapest way tp do paravane-energy. Instead, your design harkens back to successful floating water turbines of the early Industrial Age, and would indeed likely do better than Minesto in a direct industrial-scale comparison, by factors you identify. There are ways to make your design work in sea lanes and channels, with or without shoreline nearby.

                            Hang in there with your ideas; Minesto is showing the world  that tidal energy is workable, if not by the best architecture to start with, and priming new markets for any better design to follow on.

                            A scale-model plant of your concept would be cool; maybe even a cool camping power source,

                            daveS



                             

                            Improved Minesto

                            I have thought of a much more convenient way of extracting tidal energy by moving turbines in a crosscurrent pattern.  This method is applicable to tidal rivers or estuaries where access can be obtained on both shores.

                            The turbines are located below a floating platform in the center of the river.  Two tethers are attached upstream and downstream on the river bed so that when the tide reverses, the appropriate tether will be used. The platform is dragged from side to side by winches on both shores. It is also tilted so that the turbines extract the maximum power from the tidal velocity and the dragging velocity.

                            Turbines are mounted in pairs in order to minimize cantilever effects.  There is adequate space between the leading and trailing turbine to minimize wake effects.  Turbine trains are in matched counter rotating pairs to neutralize torque effects.  Al turbines can be designed to rotate in both directions or alternately the platform can be rotated 180 deg. for tidal changes

                             All turbine shafts have pulleys and belts which connect to a single electric generator, and power is transferred to shore by means of a coiled electrical cable which is supported by one of the drag lines. There are no electrical components in the tethers or under water.

                            Advantages over Minesto:

                            ·         No electronic controls or guidance systems required.

                            ·         No underwater cables transferring energy to shore.

                            ·         Multiple turbines connected to a single generator.

                            ·         Turbines just below the water surface where the currents are fastest.

                            ·         Easy stowing by docking on one side and relaxing tow lines and tethers.

                            ·         Generator speed set by adjusting pulley diameters, rather than gears.

                            ·         Crosscurrent velocity can be adjusted to maximize power output

                             

                            Disadvantages:

                            ·         Friction of belts under water.

                            ·         Limited to locations where access is available on both shores.

                            ·         Higher power/weight ratio. Does this apply to floating bodies?