Hey Joseph,
 
                  The Festo Material is wonderful, Great BIG Wow.
 
                                                                                 Dan'l
 

---

To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
From: joefaust333@gmail.com
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2010 15:57:50 +0000
Subject: [AWECS] Ted Talk.... Ampyx Power

 

Dave Santos,

Giancarlo Zanetti's patent WO2010015720 - esp@cenet description view describes a system like Dr. Jianjun Zhang' system.

Pierre Benhaïem  

The application for patent

Jianjun Zhang of Cupertino, CA (US).
Nanzhi Zou of Fremont, CA (US)
Wang-Long Zhou of Andover, MA (US).
Correspondence address:
Hamilton, Brook, Smith & Reynolds, P.C.
530 Virgina Road, P.O. Box 9133, Concord, MA 01742-9133 (US)
Assignee: Skywind, Inc., Andover, MA (US).
Applicaiton No.: 12/754,879.
Filed: April 6, 2010.
Relate U.S. Application Data:
Provisional application No. 61/215,201, filed on May 4, 2009, provisional application No. 61/215,202, filed on May 4, 2009, provisional application No. 61/215,204, filed on May 4, 2009.

Click image for full instruction and more drawings:

 

Hi Joe and AWE forum folks,

I've been reading the forum for a while, but have not joined in until now. Glad to join the conversation (Now maybe I can defend myself and my NASA colleagues when slurs against lazy, non-hardware building, bureaucratic NASA workers are thrown about!)

Regarding the patent below, when I first saw this at the AWEC in September, I looked about the room and saw a lot of rolling eyes. I myself was a little amused to see such a simple concept being presented right in the middle of all of the high-tech, super-duper automated-flight-control, Silicon Valley-designed, composite-structure, cross-wind concepts. But the more I work on AWE, the more I think that simplicity will be the key to a marketable, viable concept...at least at the beginning stages of AWE. And this concept certainly takes the cake for simplicity! It probably can use a mostly non-electronic, mechanical reel-in/reel-out control system. It's not a cross-wind machine (i.e. gives up a lot of performance), but maybe the ~30x loss in (ideal) performance can be made up with surface area with (very) large chutes and stacking. The material and manufacturing costs of nylon chutes has to be minimal compared to the high-tech machines. And no big deal for crashes, just relaunch.

It deserves a look anyway, along with all other concepts. Not that it has to be "blessed" by us, as the Chinese will probably overtake all of us in this field in short order ;-).

Regards,
Dave North
NASA Langley Research Center

DaveN,

       Consider extending that list to approach the trade against cross winders: 

• Large chutes  as you noted.
• Stackikng as you noted.
• Relaunch as you noted.
• Safety costs to be compared.
• Thick lateral use of airspace and land use in farming the units, whereas crosswind sweepers eat up much airspace.
• Thick downwind use of airspace and land use in farming the units, whereas crosswind sweepers must care for tether farming in a much different way.
• Groundgen allows easier access to generator or pump over flygens.
• Less downtime as the airspeeds will be less and the system will be less complex.
• Lower cost of element replacement
• When hydrogen and advanced envelopes replace HTA lifters, if such occurs, then ever-up is invited.
• ?

JoeF

MM: "You have to be able to use airspace without disrupting it for
other players."

Rather, it seems to me that any airspace occupant disrupts other
airspace players to some extant; the players just need to respect each
other. Model helicopters are not to fly at large-aircraft airports;
large helicopters are supposed to stay away from model-aircraft spaces;
there is a benefit for society for both players. Large transport
aircraft have their high airways and are not supposed to fly outside
confines without strong communications, as such might put them into
spaces hang gliders are using; hang gliders are to stay below 18000 when
in spaces otherwise permissible.

Any user of airspace should be able to be at the table to negotiate safe
equitable airspace use.

Some uses are for a static volume of airspace; other users are involving
moving volumes; in both cases a volume of airspace over time is used.
Two helicopter should not try to hover in the same place at the same
time. AWECS are of three sorts of airspace use: static volume that
begins at ground, moving volume that begins at ground, and moving volume
wholly aloft. AWECS can be good communicative airspace neighbors with
other players.

The permission-to-use-airspace equation should balance players via
societal benefits.

MM was published as having the now opionion the AWE won't be "THE"
renewable energy solution. He might be correct. However, it may be far
too early to decide that case correctly. AWECS using the ditributed
resource around the world one day just might become the awesome THE
solution.

JoeF

 

AeroEolica   
AeroEólica Energias Sustentáveis

Nunes Cardoso   

• Stationary High Altitude Wind and Photovoltaic Generator
• http://www.aeroeolica.com/quemsomos_ing.asp
• http://www.aeroeolica.com/index_ing.asp
• 
  

I do not see "tether" mentioned in their concept. Perhaps "stationary" implies tether. 

JoeF

Aero Drum Ltd.

http://www.rc-zeppelin.com/Contact/AeroDrum%20Photo%20III.jpg

http://www.rc-zeppelin.com/Contact.html

Mr. Alexander Mijatovic

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

JoeF

 

Other (mechanical this time) problem for safety:a thin nanotube tether
should work like a cheesewire.To imagine a not visible guillotine of 20
km (for an AWECS in altitude of 12 km)...

Pierre Benhaïem


--- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, dave santos <santos137@... wrote:
delicate flying parts, is a major design consideration. There are major
life-cycle health issues to "high-tech", from manufacturing to
composite-waste & E-waste. Comprehensive green solutions are required.
for the stuff to surpass UHMWPE; the stuff is very dangerous to anyone
who handles it carelessly-

Maybe one could come up with advanced concepts prior to understanding requirements.

A quote that is being multiplied on the Internet about AWECS:

MM: " "You can't come up with advanced concepts until you understand the requirements well, and frankly, I don't think anybody understands the requirements well.""  2010

Yes and no, pehaps. I personally do not feel tech-constrained by the fuzzy cloud of  unknown requirements.  At any moment some agent somewhere could choose to overly governance requirements that challege activity, while the advancing of concepts may have being going on full well for decades. 

Another tactic is to come up with advanced concepts and advanced working AWECS and let the writers of requirements adjust.   Play out the full implications by Payne's instruction and reach some fairly advanced AWECS, even before one faces many maybe-not-reviewed requirements pressed from various agents.    Get some advanced AWECS working and then ask requrirement agents if a sphere of requirement s can make room for the working AWECS.   Some rewriting of reqirements may need to be done to balance interests and benefits.  Bucky insisted that advanced concepts can arrive first and that a rule of thumb is that it takes society about 22 (##?) years to come around to implement and appreciate the priorly found advanced concepts.  Hello Etzler, Pocock, Miller, Payne, Shepard, Loyd! 

JoeF

 

JoeF,

I've been struggling with this issue for a while (as I'm sure everybody else developing AWE is too). Approach #1 is to just ignore the regulations and build the best (most efficient and marketable) AWE system and hopefully the regulators will see the light and change the regulations. This approach seems a little optimistic and naive b/c there are lots of powerful stakeholders that have influence over FAA rulemakers and they are unlikely to give up "their" airspace without a fight. Also, it is difficult to develop full-scale AWE prototype systems within the current FAA rules (CFR14 Part 101). Approach #2 is to try to develop systems that operate totally within FAA regs (part 101 or [maybe] part 77). This does not seem to be a good approach either b/c these rules are overly restrictive for AWE (150 ft. max alt , < 5 lbm kite with no NOTAM, 500 ft. w/ NOTAM). Approach #3 is to blow it all off and go to another country with few regulations or one that will be more progressive in their regulation re-writing to accomodate AWE. Also not w good approach b/c you may be giving up on the massive U.S. market (never a smart business move). Approach #4 is to develop AWE only for off-shore use (i.e. international waters) where ICAO rules may be more lenient. This may be a good approach, but since ICAO isn't a regulatory body, it's hard tell if your system will be accepted by everybody who may have a say in the matter.

I'm not sure what the answer is, but it may be a combination of some or all of the above. Definitely not just a technical challenge, it is a regulatory challenge too.

DaveN

Welcome Dave!
Glad to hear you've been working on AWE at NASA Langley for some time now.
Langley... Let's see - oh yeah, he was the gov-funded guy, provided with whatever he asked for, including a Navy ship with a catapult, to achieve powered flight, beat by two broke bicycle mechanics!
Yes, I'd LOVE to hear more about the AWE hardware you've built and tested at Langley to date.
Is it the official opinion of NASA Langley that:
1) drag-based turbines with a reciprocating cycle is most promising;
2) there's really no point trying any crosswind concepts anyway, since China will find the answer... ?
This is why fed lab employees no longer post on real wind energy discussions.
Of course I don't know any wind energy fedlab employees who would be promoting drag-based solutions, but you embody the mindset of a newbie making newbie statements.
Before I invented the original "laddermill" as a teenager in the 1970's, similar to umbrellas climbing a tether, but with at least a looping, rather than reciprocating cycle, the umbrella idea already seemed too obvious, primitive, and, with even a rudimentary understanding of the basics, weak in output, to even mention.
After all, we were using circular cycles even 3000 years ago, and throughout the subsequent history of wind energy, no machine with a reciprocating cycle has shown promise, and drag-based machines went out of style 2000 years ago as sailing progressed from square-rigged sails to lift-based crosswind craft.
So anyway, after superseding the reciprocating, pulling umbrella concept with the looping multiple umbrella-wing concept, that used at least SOME lift, it became apparent to me that the next step was to go "all lift,no drag" adopting the dominant "propeller" concept, placing a series of propellers along the tether which now transmitted power by torque. The result is the lowest-weight for the most power, with all surfaces producing continuous power, all the time.
Superturbine(R) is the patented result, and was demo'd at the first AWE conference for 2 days, built for a few hundred bucks.
If you guys are truly interested in being at the forefront of this field, you could do worse than to work with me and my patented designs. US Pat 6616402
I am here to help. This is America. We can do this!
:)
We have a great new facility too.
Doug Selsam
"All roads lead to Superturbine(R)"

--- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, "davednorth" <davednorth@...

Many years ago, BF Goodrich developed a rubber tube "torsion bar". If you pump a rubber hose with air pressure, torsional strength increases. It may be possible for a very long, lightweight, fiber-reinforced tube that is pressurized with air to point skyward . . . . with multiple propellers attached to it. Pressurizing an inflatible structure does increase its structural rigidity and torsional strength.
 
 
Harry

 

---

To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
From: m.ippolito@kitegen.com
Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2011 11:54:33 +0100
Subject: Re: [AWECS] Re: Chinese Leadership in KIS Gigawatt AWE?

 

Toward Harry's note:
http://www.energykitesystems.net/TwistMethod/index.html

Dave N:
As you astutely note, despite all the enthusiastic "green jobs" proclamations of the current regime, the gov regs collectively continue to function as the main impediment to basically anyone developing anything. Reminds me of Gulliver tied up, helpless, by an army of little busybodies. In this case we have an army of enthusiasts completely hog tied by bureaucratic entanglement, as long as they continue to sit in chairs building nothing and testing nothing, in fear that the kite police will show up wanting to weigh your kite, etc.

Add to this paralysis-by-analysis of endless speculation about every rule in every location, the idea that before something be built, an army of hired bureaucrats must go through a laborious process of concept validation and design approval, then an army of accountants must then agree that the company show a bulletproof "business plan" (almost sure to be NOT followed to completion (elaborate lies)) and nobody is building anything.

As though anyone has any energy left after that to build and test anything...

Here's the answer:
As in aviation, as well as regular wind energy, if you have a workable concept, you can build it at any scale (still respecting Reynolds number) and it will work and demonstrate the concept and even produce usable, economic power.

A wind turbine can be built at 400 feet diameter, or 4 feet in diameter, and it will work the same, with similar efficiencies and behavior.

Also, if one chooses a remote site, nobody is checking that your kite string is only 249 feet long - the law is applied when you start bothering neighbors, etc. I. E.: When someone complains.

To focus on all the reasons why this "cannot" be done is to give up before starting, which is exactly what most everyone is doing now and has done for 50 years.

To get something working, as Nike says, "Just do it".
Meanwhile you might inquire up the food chain to the top:
"Hey big guy, were you serious about developing advanced clean energy concepts, or not?"

Why not approach your commander in chief and get a real answer and maybe a commitment to enable development?

Would not a government serious about developing such advanced clean energy concepts have a facility stocked with materials and machine tools where innovators were set loose to try 1000 new ideas as fast as they can think of them?

Yes it all sounds like a fantasy to think they'd walk their talk, so all I'm saying is: Don't forget this country was founded on the value of the individual citizen over government; and we should not abdicate our responsibility to develop new ideas, thinking someone will do it for us, or even be cooperative in the effort. If all they do is slow things down for now, 'til something clearly useful is flying somewhere, that would be normal.
Doug S.

--- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, "davednorth" <david.d.north@...

We have heard that a drag-based generator is crude and inefficient,
but is it inherently uneconomic? It seems to use a lot of thin nylon
and a simple, stable control system instead of a small area of thick
nylon and a complex, risky control system. However, as a tension-
based structure, it seems likely to be an efficient use of material.
What it looses to the scale effects to a small, high-speed kite, it
may gain from the ease of recovering power from a line reel. This
sounds like a job for Estimator Man.

Bob Stuart

A recent report about the NASA AWE project.

<http://www.windpowerengineering.com/design/flying-wind-turbine-nasas-answer-in-the-air/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+WindpowerEngineering+%28Windpower+Engineering%29

I think there might have been a confusion of Daves on the prior post. Doug meant to address DaveN, I believe, not DaveS.  DaveN works at Langley.

Regarding DaveS' note though at "The patent-blocked torque-tube"   ... I find Charles Max Fry clearly teaching AWECS torque tube as one of his taught options; so torque transmission from kited systems  went into public domain for AWECS at least a couple of decades ago.

Click image for full Fry instruction:

 

 

the original work of Fagiano, were is easy to understand that kitegen is clearly linked to our organisation, is here:

http://www.awec2010.com/public/views/pages/publications.php
http://www.awec2010.com/public/img/media/fagiano.pdf

I think it isn't a good reference for Fagiano to change the contents of his master thesis and dissimulate the origin and the contest of a scientific work.
My concern is that he will pay in professional credibility.

M.

Few notes, please:

Did you mean "content" instead of "contest" ..

On point from Timeline: 

2009     PhD dissertation final:  Control of Tethered Airfoils for High–Altitude Wind Energy Generation, Advanced control methods as key technologies for a breakthrough in renewable energy generation.  Lorenzo Fagiano                       [[ED: Though "KiteGen" was known to be a trade name, an unfortunate overlook was installed in the dissertation via a generic use of the trade name without giving pointed credit to the founders of the KiteGen trade name. See earlier time points in 2003 and 2004 and 2005 and 2006.  In a paper co-authored by Fagiano and Ippolito and others in 2006, it was recognized commonly:
            "This paper illustrates a first study conducted at Respira Lab,
              a laboratory founded at Politecnico di Torino to design and
              build a new class of wind generator, indicated as KiteGen," 
2006    Control of tethered airfoils for a new class of wind energy generator, M. Canale, L. Fagiano, M. Ippolito, M. Milanese, 45th. IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, San Diego (CA), USA, 2006]]

I am just wondering if the perspectives played in the slip:  perhaps one team long going for actualization and the other going for understanding of control parameters for a dissertation focus; in the wash, perhaps a slip into making generic a rising trade name.   Perhaps a confirmation of KiteGen's priority from Fagiano could be brought forward to soften the understating of  "KiteGen"  trade name in the 2009 doctoral thesis.    In 2003 the renewable energy community was hearing from KiWiGen circle with strong reminders in 2004 and 2005, etc.; and then see other posts for the generation of KiteGen term use.

JoeF

 

Extract from Lorenzo Fagiano in his Ph.D. thesis, which see.  9 Mb, PDF document,link provided with the initial message by Joe Faust.

"Note from the author

I would like to point out here that the research activities that I've carried out during myPh.D. studies have nothing to share with the company named "KiteGen Research s.r.l.".The name "KiteGen" has been coined at Politecnico di Torino, well before the foundation of KiteGen Research s.r.l., and it has been the name of the first research project,funded by Regione Piemonte and coordinated by Politecnico di Torino, aimed to investigate high-altitude wind energy using power kites. This is the reason why I referred to this technology as "KiteGen" in my Ph.D. thesis. KiteGen Research s.r.l. gave no contribution to my research activities and to the related publications. In order to avoid confusion, I've decided to modify my thesis and to refer to the technology with the acronym "HAWE"(High Altitude Wind Energy).

October  19

th , 2010

Lorenzo Fagiano"

PierreB

 

In the unfolding story and reach for clarity, a distinction may have to be made between the corporation "KiteGen Research,s.r.l." and the 2005 (at least) KiteGen project name that was entering European Commission circles during funding efforts. The "coining" in different camp at Politecnico di Torino must have some kind of date. When collaboration on articles occurred to mix the flow and when coining in either camp occurred on "KiteGen" should become clear as sorting occurs. What date did the "coining" at Politecnico di Torno occur; and what date (as mostly chronicled in prior posts) did the KiWiGen morph to the KiteGen remarkable coining. Two flows of coining, but the timeline is not fully clear. Secondary coining may have been some kind of confusion. Clear timeline points from both camps might help to close the chapter.

I woke up this morning with a seeing of super lifters lifting a huge net
or matrix; from each node of the net was a downwind SuperTurbine tailed
perhaps with a minor tail lifter. The aft tail lifters were in a net
with nodes for some separation control. The whole system was an ever-up
super farm of SuperTurbines. Smarts allowed some control on
overpowering. But the system stayed up ...ever. The generators were at
the frontal net nodes; mined energy was sent down a conductive tether.
The waking dream easy simply is a use of your already patented matter
and would flow from one skilled in the arts you teach. Have not
run numbers on this or considered much more than what was just typed.

Seems the vision well uses landspace and airspace saturatingly
efficiently. The more the severe are the lifter results in the more
severe can be the SuperTurbine drag on the frontal net. Get the lifters
for the frontal net severe and get severe gains in energy production.
The more severe is the frontal net lifter, the less projected landspace,
as well. If there is any novelty in the just described vision, then I
morally and legally release such wholly to your absolute and forever
ownership to do with as you wish. If not, the waking vision is still
fun for me : ) Thanks for, you being you, Doug.

JoeF

Hello DougS,

Not sure why you jumped me about being a "newbie" in your previous post. Maybe you don't remember me. We met at the AWE conference in Sept. and had a good conversation about your work and inventions and also were in agreement about "too much talk, not enough prototype building". (Although, I think that there has been a lot of prototype building recently including you, Joby, Makani, TU Delft, Ampyx Power, SkyMill, KiteGen, SkyWindPower, Chinese, KiteLab, etc.)

Here's a little on my 26 year mechanical/aerospace engineering background (So you can dispense with the "newbie" crap). Worked as an engineer for Newport News Shipbuilding for 4 years designing nuclear powerplants for submarines and aircraft carriers. Worked as an engineer for Pratt & Whitney for 13 years designing combustors, turbines and nozzles for F100 and F119 engines (F15/16 and F22 fighters). Worked for Seimens Westinghouse Power Corporation for 3 years designing low-emissions combustors and turbines for 501F/G gas turbines (multiple patents on low-nox burners). Last 7 years at NASA as the lead configuration engineer and mockup engineer on the Constellation/Altair lunar lander project. BTW, the low-nox emissions hardware that I helped design for Seimens is in almost all 501F (200MW) and 501G (300MW) gas turbines and is out there as we speak dumping gigawatts onto the grid. So when it comes down to it, I'll bet the hardware I designed, tested, and is now in all of these turbines is producing orders of magnitude more electrical power than what your hardware is ;-) ! I may be a newbie to AWE (we all are), but not to the aerospace or power industry.

But enough with the personal jousting, I like sparring over technical matters much better! The reason I joined this forum is to exchange information about AWE with all of the good and well-intentioned folks who are part of the forum.

My previous observation about the Chinese drag solution was exactly what Bob Stuart just said in his post. That is, the pumping parachute concept is certainly low(er) in terms of aerodynamic performance than the cross-wind or turbine designs, but maybe the cost, scalability, and simplicity will outweigh the low-performance in the end. This is not NASA's official position, just my personal observation.

Regarding NASA's work (which is me and Mark M. in our spare time), most of what we have done is try to "get up to speed" on AWE work done to date with our survey of the work that is currently going on in the AWE field. We have started to try to get a handle on the performance characteristics of some of the prototype systems that are out there with some first-order calcs. We are trying to get an agreement with NASA Wallops on an "open" test site where any company could come and run tests inside of Wallop's airspace and test data could be taken and verified (we think this may help with the VC investment folks currently standing on the sidelines). We are also coming up with a few new concepts that combine some of the best traits of several AWE systems and that may fit within current FAA regulations. And contrary to your belief that we have huge amounts of money at our disposal, we are scrounging around for money just like most everybody else in AWE (except for Joby and Makani!). Human space flight seems to rule the roost at NASA, and they tend to steal everybody else's (aeronuatics) lunch money. NASA does not really have much of an AWE program now, but we are trying hard to get it going. And our intention is not to pick winners, or regulate work, it is to try to help out by focusing what little research $ that NASA may be willing to put on AWE on the issues that need solving. Hopefully, I can get a sense of what those issues and hurdles are by sharing info with you guys.

I agree with you that innovation and new designs should not be hampered too much by the current FAA regulations. I'm sure that when the inventors of the automobile were at it, they were not thinking about all of the horse and buggy rules that were on the books in the late 1800's. They also probably did not envision eminent domain laws that allow "buying" of private property for cutting massive 8-lane highways through farms, neighborhoods, lakes, etc.. It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future.

Sorry for the long post. Will try to keep them shorter.

P.S. As DaveS said, Langley was a cool dude. He was flying years before the Wrights, he just didn't do it with a "meat servo" (slang term I learned from Don Pettit, astronaut [non-pilot payload specialist, ha ha]).

Regards,
Dave North

Disclaimer:
The views and opinions expressed herein are my own and
do not necessarily state or reflect those of NASA or the
United States Government, nor do they represent the
official position of NASA.

I am just baffled that I have shown and flown a working system, and patented it, including a cylindrical tube comprising a geometric array of struts, with the further advantage that the struts be aerodynamic providing rotation on the darrieus principle and aspects are still being brought up as though new. This is all old news and needs to be implemented.
Doug S.

Dave S.
That note was to Dave N. Of NASA, not you.
Patents enable, not block, tech development. That's the reason for the patent system.
Doug S.

JoeF

It is an interesting thing that within NASA Dave North and Mark Moore are focused on different aspects of AWE (simplicity,nanotube technologies...).And contacts between NASA and Joe Faust' EnergyKiteSystems can let accelerations of realizations,without great amounts of money.

So it would be a good occasion to take a new way for the success of projects:I tell (if I want) what I have,what lacks.It can be a good method to see the project from beginning to end.A project can be good for some steps but can fail when other (?) technologies (electric cables,batteries etc...) are in the game.

It is the time to realize complete small (type of model airplanes) AWECS like for example flygens for batteries or grid connexion,reel-in-drag-high surface-low automation,reel-in-lift-low surface-high automation,water turbines,or complete KiteLab realizations...

Example:for my small project on Manual Flygen for loading batteries of model airplanes or laptops,I have:a stunt kite of type parafoil,a stick,some small brushed generators,propellers,some calculations Optimization of AWECS of type flygen ,batteries...What lacks:an efficient small brushless generator (around 0,15 kg maximum with a bridge for CC conversion) for 12 V and 5 A at around 5000 rpm; an efficient smoothing regulation for batteries etc.

Pierre Benhaïem

I presented (pdf 14 mo) a technical paper (pdf 287 ko) on AWECS and High Altitude Wind Energy at the World Energy Congress in Montreal 2010 september 12-16.It is the first presentation of AWE for such a World Energy Congress. 

 

Hi Pierre,

I liked your small-scale demonstration of a generator on a power kite so much that I suggested to three high school students that I am mentoring that they try to duplicate it as their technical school project. They decided to take on the challenge and have also decided to design and build the kite with radio control (kind of like what Makani and Joby are doing, but on a $150 budget). Our first tests will be more like yours with two-line, manually controlled kites.

Do you have a good suggestion for light-weight, small brushed motors? What did you use? I know there are several suppliers out there, but most seem to be moving over to brushless. We bought a few E-Flite motors and gear boxes, but they are cheap quality can-type motors with really bad efficiency. Also, any suggestions on off-the-shelf props that can be used (backwards) as turbines without too much loss. Not wanting to have the students design their own turbines, as this could be a whole other project.

DaveN

Hi DaveN,

I have also some exemplaries of TNT RC Stunt Kite-Acro Kite but power potential is limited (the price also).However you can experiment with it flygen system but also reel-in with or without crosswind when the line is unwound,that after installation of a generator beside the handle-winch (I have not yet made trials of it).Radio control can be a first step towards automation.

Furthering the object of Manual Flygen would be a commercialisation for a 50-100 W scale with a kit  (application for French patent in 2010  August 18th) for all sorts of existent soft or semi-rigid kites,for a sale price about 200 $ (kite+kit+regulator+battery).If I obtain 12 V from generator I can use available elements in the business.

Brushless generators should be better but I do not know a small set with both generator-bridge converter.And electronic of existent brushless motors is for a motor use.However I have tested Emax or Mystery with two sorts of bridge converter 3-phases:the current was a correct CC but I do not know if the quality is enough for a safe loading of battery and with the weight of the bridge,the set is not much lighter than a brushed motor.So I "work" on brushed motors.

The common problem is the following:a motor which works (for example what I know as better) at 12 V and 2 A  will deliver (as generator) 8 A for 12 V (too much A for 12 V).

PierreB  

  

 

Hi DaveN,

Propellers from thermic model airplane are not so bad.

For Manual Flygen I tested:Graupner super nylon 10x5 on Graupner brushed motor speed 600 9,6 V (195 g,no gear,max.efficiency as motor = 75 %,as generator the same);Master propeller 9x4 or Graupner super nylon 9x4,8x4,7x4 on Graupner speed 500 (158 g, max.efficiency = 67 % and much less from 6 or 7 V); Master propeller 16x10 on speed 600 FG3 (gear = 3:1).Efficiency of propellers (reverse position as wind turbine):from 40 to 50 % Betz limit in the good range of use (from 12 m/s to 30 m/s).

By soon I will complete trials with electronic devices for battery.For the moment I have a linear regulator for 6 V with 55 % efficiency,and a switching regulator with only 45 % efficiency.My motors-generators make 6 V but I would prefer a 12 V generator (with low value of A).

PierreB

 Hi PierreB,
 
                   Stepper motor as a genny, high voltage low amps.
 
                                                                           Dan'l

---

To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
From: pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 00:02:24 +0000
Subject: [AWECS] Re: Welcome Dave North

 

DaveS,

I'd really have to cogitate on this idea for a while. My initial reaction is that it would probably be better to keep the gas turbine power plants and the AWE power plants (if there ever is such a thing) separate and both dumping power onto the grid when it is most advantageous. I like to think of the electrical grid as a giant shaft spinning at 3600 rpm (3000 rpm in Europe) with suppliers (under the direction of the grid controller) dumping just the right amount of power into the grid (shaft) to keep it matched with power usage. The generators "lock in" at 3600 rpm acting like a gearbox between the power device (gas turbine, steam turbine, wind turbine, diesel engine, etc.) and the grid (shaft). So I don't think there needs to be hybrid gas turbine / AWE power plants. Just by the diverse types of power production being used by most regional power companies (coal/steam plants, natural gas combined cycle gas turbine plants, wind, hydr, etc.) the grid system is a "hybrid". AWE would just be another supply.

DaveN

DaveS,

Some more thoughts on this topic...The biggest problem with wind energy is its intermittent nature. Currently at a level of 1-2% production in the U.S. electricity production "portfolio", intermittent wind energy is kind of a nuisance to the grid operators. Utilities use wind energy now only because they can make more profits from wind vs. fossil because of government subsidy. The power production from wind turbines rises and falls very rapidly and unpredictably. Most utilities keep their coal and nuclear power plants fired up at optimum temperature at all times (base load). When they bring the wind energy onto the grid, they shunt the fossil heat energy into evaporator towers, lakes or some other heat sink. This is rather astounding b/c it means that they are cranking out just as much green house gas (and other pollutants) as they were without the wind power. Most people think that wind energy is terrific b/c it reduces green house emissions. However, the way it is being used by U.S. utilities, I don't think it is providing much environmental benefit. Gas turbines can respond faster than coal or nuclear plants, but they still keep them running at idle speed so that they are ready to come up to speed rapidly to respond to drops in the wind or rapid increases in demand.

AWE will be a little better because the capacity factor at high altitudes is higher, but the winds can still drop rapidly, so the utilities will still have to protect against this and will probably have to keep an equal amount of fossil (or nuclear) power on standby for rapid response.

So the biggest problem with wind energy, that I see, is being able to level out the power production and make the amount of power production very steady, reliable, and predictable. This means energy storage like giant or high speed flywheels, or compressed gas storage, or pumping of water to higher altitudes, or really good batteries. A marriage of hydro and wind power might be nice because the water can be pumped back uphill and stored as potential energy. Maybe the new fleet of electric vehicles (with their higher capacity batteries) is another possible storage source for wind energy. The car batteries could be used by the utilities (with payment to their owners) as a distributed battery for grid power leveling.

So all of you AWE developers, keep the storage problem in mind. Maybe a winning system will be one that can guarantee continuous power output 24-7-365.

DaveN

This is why I always design intermittent energy collectors to charge a storage device rather than produce electricity.  Usually, I think in terms of powering a water pump to a reservoir, which feeds a hydro generator.  A kite can have such a long stroke that it can use the riser pipe as a piston pump cylinder.  We might use a large kite to haul a skip of water up, filling it according to wind strength, and spilling some if the wind drops during a stroke.  A small kite, working in opposition, could haul the skip back down, and the big kite up-wind in a hurry, instead of relying on the weight of the skip.  

Most power transmissions have less than a 1:10 step-up per stage, but that is for economy and compactness.   Higher ratios or compound set ups still work fine with custom hardware.  There is no need to carry generators on a carousel to engage a giant ring-gear.  The ring gear can be on the carousel instead.  Giant chain drives or belt drives are also possible.  

DaveS,

I see now what you are saying about the possible cost savings of sharing the generator between the gas turbine and kite system. Seems possible, but kind of complex.

Dude, your thoughts about AWE are decades, if not centuries ahead of where my head is. I'm just trying to wrap my feeble brain around getting simple AWE prototype systems up and running. But, this is exactly why I joined the forum...to get exposed to and exchange ideas about a wide variety of AWE topics.

Thanks,
DaveN

BTW, I think we have may have something else in common. I attended UT at Austin in the early 90's. I think you're also from that neck of the woods. Austin rocks, literally.

Disclaimer:
The views and opinions expressed herein are my own and
do not necessarily state or reflect those of NASA or the
United States Government, nor do they represent the
official position of NASA.

DaveS,

What do you think of the train version of Carousel (see patent from M.Ippolito and also an old post from you)?

PierreB

dear all,
I'm suppling some more info on this topic in order to close this chapter as asked by Joe, and then I prefer join you in more exciting and pure technical exchanges.

I was the author, the promoter, the co-financier and the co-responsible of the project of Politecnico di Torino and partially funded by Regione Piemonte, the other co-resposible was prof. M.Milanese.
I haven't adopted the KiteGen name in this specific activity,  because it wasn't coined yet (Bardi did it few months after)
the title of the project was:
Controllo di aquiloni di potenza per la generazione eolica di energia
and the presentation date was:
11/03/2005
The claim of Fagiano is false, and is false that the Ph.D. studies have nothing to share with the KiteGen Research s.r.l. because are integrally based on the KiteGen patents and the lesson and the explications efforts of KiteGen/Sequoia collaborators.
I've just sent the copy of this project written in Italian to Joe, just to check.
For this reason I am surprised for the Fagiano attitude, that is mystifying the origin and the contest of his work, in the scientific domain, for his future, for publications acceptance this is an harmful reference.

Respira:
signed constitution accord: 14/12/2005
I'm (still) the technical director of the interdepartmental laboratory of Politecnico of Torino named Respira Lab.
51% property of regione Piemonte, 20% Sequoia automation, 10% Politecnico of Torino and others.
"RESPIRA" in Italian means: "Breathe" and the acronym means:   Renewable Energy Source Piedmont Implementation Research Advocacy
this lab was promoted and set up by the rector of the institute: Prof. Giovanni Del Tin (great person and technician, spectacular teacher and huge expert in energy issues).
I've provided a free license of my KiteGen patents to this lab for research and development of a KiteGen plant. 
Unfortunately the successor of prof. Giovanni Del Tin, the new rector of Politecnico of Torino Francesco Profumo (italian democratic party exponent) freezed the Respira initiative and all the planned funding efforts were diverted to hydrogen energy based projects, unfortunately for everybody Jeremy Rifkin comes in Torino and impressed a large footprint on this story.   
Now all the hydrogen project are in bankruptcy and finally is widely understood that is a totally fake direction for any energy application, even Steven Chu cancelled all supports to the hydrogen Economy.
I've wasted money and almost one year of my life, due these incredible events.

Thats all

Massimo Ippolito


 

DaveN,

your image of the grid as a shaft is perfect, and the energy users are obviously brakes on this shaft.
The grid physical properties match with this nice simplification:
frequency - Phase - Current capability - Voltage - anyway, it is almost perfect :-)
 Massimo