Messages in AirborneWindEnergy group.                                   AWES3039to3088
 Page 1 of 1.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3039 From: Pierre Benhaiem Date: 2/5/2011
Subject: AWE on World Energy Council website

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3040 From: dave santos Date: 2/5/2011
Subject: Dancing Kite as Oscilloscope

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3041 From: Joe Faust Date: 2/5/2011
Subject: Dynamometer

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3042 From: Doug Date: 2/6/2011
Subject: Sample Message from a REAL wind energy site

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3043 From: Doug Date: 2/6/2011
Subject: Re: Cyclic Trim Drag

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3044 From: dave santos Date: 2/6/2011
Subject: The New Aviation, USWindLabs, & the Chinese

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3045 From: dougselsam Date: 2/7/2011
Subject: Re: Dave Lang's Questions for Doug S.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3046 From: dave santos Date: 2/7/2011
Subject: Re: Dave Lang's Questions for Doug S.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3047 From: dougselsam Date: 2/7/2011
Subject: Re: The New Aviation, USWindLabs, & the Chinese

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3048 From: dave santos Date: 2/8/2011
Subject: Re: The New Aviation, USWindLabs, & the Chinese

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3049 From: Dave Lang Date: 2/8/2011
Subject: Re: Dave Lang's Questions for Doug S.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3050 From: Joe Faust Date: 2/8/2011
Subject: TU Delft KitePower on 20 Jan 2011

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3051 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 2/8/2011
Subject: Re: TU Delft KitePower on 20 Jan 2011

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3052 From: Dave Lang Date: 2/8/2011
Subject: Re: TU Delft KitePower on 20 Jan 2011

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3053 From: Joe Faust Date: 2/8/2011
Subject: Re: TU Delft KitePower on 20 Jan 2011

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3054 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 2/8/2011
Subject: Re: TU Delft KitePower on 20 Jan 2011

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3055 From: Joe Faust Date: 2/9/2011
Subject: Invitation to NASA for a massively smart tool

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3056 From: Joe Faust Date: 2/9/2011
Subject: Re: Invitation to NASA for a massively smart tool

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3057 From: Dan Parker Date: 2/9/2011
Subject: Re: Invitation to NASA for a massively smart tool

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3058 From: Doug Date: 2/9/2011
Subject: More Chinese "Small" Wind Turbine Failures - post from a wind energy

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3059 From: Doug Date: 2/9/2011
Subject: Re: Dave Lang's Questions for Doug S.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3060 From: Joe Faust Date: 2/9/2011
Subject: Windward-walker AWECS

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3061 From: dave santos Date: 2/9/2011
Subject: Re: More Chinese "Small" Wind Turbine Failures - post from a wind en

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3062 From: davednorth Date: 2/9/2011
Subject: Re: Invitation to NASA for a massively smart tool

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3063 From: dave santos Date: 2/9/2011
Subject: Requested Apology to Doug

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3064 From: Joe Faust Date: 2/9/2011
Subject: Autorotation WIPO patent application

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3065 From: dave santos Date: 2/9/2011
Subject: Invalidated by Prior Art /// Re: [AWECS] Autorotation WIPO patent ap

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3066 From: Joe Faust Date: 2/10/2011
Subject: Flash sharing

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3067 From: Joe Faust Date: 2/10/2011
Subject: Invalidated by Prior Art /// Re: [AWECS] Autorotation WIPO patent ap

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3068 From: Joe Faust Date: 2/10/2011
Subject: Lambros Lois

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3069 From: Joe Faust Date: 2/10/2011
Subject: Re: Lambros Lois

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3070 From: Doug Date: 2/10/2011
Subject: Invalidated by Prior Art /// Re: [AWECS] Autorotation WIPO patent ap

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3071 From: Doug Date: 2/10/2011
Subject: Another Post on more failed Chinese turbines here

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3072 From: Doug Date: 2/10/2011
Subject: Re: Requested Apology to Doug

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3073 From: dave santos Date: 2/10/2011
Subject: Re: Another Post on more failed Chinese turbines here

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3074 From: Pierre Benhaiem Date: 2/11/2011
Subject: Crosswind:kite speed,a possible goal for NASA?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3075 From: Joe Faust Date: 2/11/2011
Subject: Invalidated by Prior Art /// Re: [AWECS] Autorotation WIPO patent ap

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3076 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 2/11/2011
Subject: Re: Invalidated by Prior Art /// Re: [AWECS] Autorotation WIPO paten

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3077 From: Joe Faust Date: 2/11/2011
Subject: Re: Crosswind:kite speed,a possible goal for NASA?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3078 From: Joe Faust Date: 2/11/2011
Subject: DSM Venturing confirms itself in AWE traction with SkySails

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3079 From: dimitri.cherny Date: 2/11/2011
Subject: March 2011 Popular Mechanics AWE Article

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3080 From: Joe Faust Date: 2/11/2011
Subject: Re: March 2011 Popular Mechanics AWE Article

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3081 From: Joe Faust Date: 2/12/2011
Subject: Open source: RotoKite and Heli Wind Power

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3082 From: Joe Faust Date: 2/12/2011
Subject: Toward groundgen away from skygen

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3083 From: Joe Faust Date: 2/12/2011
Subject: Maybe had he just a longer line ...

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3084 From: Doug Date: 2/13/2011
Subject: Re: Crosswind:kite speed,a possible goal for NASA?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3085 From: Doug Date: 2/13/2011
Subject: Re: Another Post on more failed Chinese turbines here

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3086 From: Doug Date: 2/13/2011
Subject: Invalidated by Prior Art /// Re: [AWECS] Autorotation WIPO patent ap

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3087 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 2/13/2011
Subject: Re: Crosswind:kite speed,a possible goal for NASA?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3088 From: KITE GEN / Ippolito Date: 2/13/2011
Subject: Re: Crosswind:kite speed,a possible goal for NASA?



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3039 From: Pierre Benhaiem Date: 2/5/2011
Subject: AWE on World Energy Council website

Issue 2.5 - World Energy Council.

http://www.worldenergy.org/documents/congresspapers/155.pdf (287 ko) : paper about Airborne Wind Energy and High Altitude Wind Energy,World Energy Congress Montreal 2010 September 12-16 : for the first time such a subject is entered upon any sessions of World Energy Congress.

The next congress World Energy Congress - World Energy Council 2013 Daegu can be a good opportunity for teams like KiteGen and others

PierreB
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3040 From: dave santos Date: 2/5/2011
Subject: Dancing Kite as Oscilloscope

We see that kites embody fundamental harmonic physics by how they dance. The Loop & Figure of Eight power dance are fundamental waveforms.

Our AWECS will tune-up & play just like musical instruments, especially those that avoid flying massive compressive structure by balanced inertial, gyroscopic, & centrifugal forces.

The Pythagorean School would have gone totally nuts over this elegant video-


Intèrvals i corbes de Lissajous -Dima-VJ-
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3041 From: Joe Faust Date: 2/5/2011
Subject: Dynamometer

Dynamometer       
Pages: 40.    PDF document

"The goal of this project was to design and build a dynamometer for the WPI kite system that was previously built in 2006."

DESIGN OF A DYNAMOMETER FOR THE WPI KITE POWER SYSTEM
A Major Qualifying Project Report
Submitted to the Faculty
of the
WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE
In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
Degree of Bachelor of Science
In Aerospace Engineering
SUBMITTED BY:
C. Kuthan Toydemir
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3042 From: Doug Date: 2/6/2011
Subject: Sample Message from a REAL wind energy site
THIS IS A SAMPLE FROM A CONVENTIONAL WIND-TURBINE GROUP WHERE DougS answers Michael:
=================================================
MICHAEL WRITES:
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3043 From: Doug Date: 2/6/2011
Subject: Re: Cyclic Trim Drag
Dave S.
My designs and patents DO include tilting hubs. I guess to know that you'd have to be up to speed on them.
OK what questions by Dave Lang are you talking about? Can you re-post these questions please?

My main point is this: after 10 years of fielding virtually identical posts on the "real" wind energy lists, for virtually identical machines, using identical "theories of operation" as those posted here, I recognize the ones that work as opposed to the complete nonsense ones.

The stuff you talk about is as far into the complete nonsense as anything I've ever seen. The problem is this: As long as it is a battle of mere words, your words are equal to anyone's and there's no good way (for the average reader) to determine if your words represent the next breakthrough, a superior solution, or complete nonsense.

It really IS just like when the religious nuts show up at your door: they will ALWAYS be "100% right" in EVERYTHING they say. if you disagree, you are "bad". And at some point you realize they can never, and will never, make any sense, they don't in fact WANT to make any sense, making sense is not what they are about, and you must find a way to politely (or not) say buh-bye and get on with reality.

In wind energy, the crackpot-ism starts with lift-based vertical-axis machines like the Darrieus, proven to make less power using more materials less reliably, and goes down from there, to the drag-based vertical-axis machines, and finally to shrouded, drag-based vertical-axis machines.

By that point you are usually listening to claims about 100 times the reality, say a 4-foot machine on your roof eliminating your electric bill.

These roof-mounted 100% solidity machines are usually promoted for about 2 years before they finally go through the bothersome and irrelevant (to them) step of attaching a generator, whereupon they go through a few generators, cursing the fact that their machine cannot even turn one, blaming each generator manufacturer in turn until they finally give up or are driven bankrupt and taken to court by investors and state attorneys general.

Down on the totem-pole even from there are the people promoting oscillating cycles, ribbon working surfaces, spiral working surfaces, etc. These are the ones perpetually stuck in the land of meaningless words with an occasional "breakthrough" press release. These are the ones with actually nothing to offer - not even a good hoax or ripoff, since they cannot even come up with a fake version that could convince anyone, let alone a working model.

The bottom line in wind energy: There's ONE main determinant of whether any theory has legs, and it is called an electric meter. What does your electric meter tell us about your theories?
Doug S.
http://www.USWindlab.com/
a wind-powered facility
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3044 From: dave santos Date: 2/6/2011
Subject: The New Aviation, USWindLabs, & the Chinese
Doug,

This is actually a "New Aviation" forum, with Upper Wind energy a vast new resource to access. So of course the conventional wisdom of tower-based turbines is inadequate. Anyone unable to adapt to the aviation learning-curve risks being the "crack-pot" here. That you missed daveL's questions & can't be bothered to find them, while writing reams of repetative opinions, shows poor attention & regard. You have never answered many of my questions either.

Its the same old questions, for years now- How high can USWindLabs get for how much power & how much money? No one on this forum seems too impressed by "flying" at 38ft with so much mass & wasted helium. The only reason others did not fly AWE demos at HAWPCON09 is that the event was at an airport & we were told not to. But your demo was limited to such a low altitude that there was clearly no airspace issue. It was a good job you did getting front-page Bay Area publicity for the event.

If you can't provide a formal engineering proof of your concept's AWE merit, no matter, all you need is a demo able to fly high enough to clearly show that you are a viable Upper Wind contender. You can't hope to just claim tediously & convince, spare us any more such vain effort,

daveS


PS Your anti-Chinese bias from the backyard turbine space has no place on this forum. Most of the leading AWE R&D firms rely on high Chinese quality & value for their prototypes. Chinese AWE experiments are flying far higher than yours, so maybe there is poetic justice at work.

From: Doug <doug@selsam.com
 
Dave S.
My designs and patents DO include tilting hubs. I guess to know that you'd have to be up to speed on them.
OK what questions by Dave Lang are you talking about? Can you re-post these questions please?

My main point is this: after 10 years of fielding virtually identical posts on the "real" wind energy lists, for virtually identical machines, using identical "theories of operation" as those posted here, I recognize the ones that work as opposed to the complete nonsense ones.

The stuff you talk about is as far into the complete nonsense as anything I've ever seen. The problem is this: As long as it is a battle of mere words, your words are equal to anyone's and there's no good way (for the average reader) to determine if your words represent the next breakthrough, a superior solution, or complete nonsense.

It really IS just like when the religious nuts show up at your door: they will ALWAYS be "100% right" in EVERYTHING they say. if you disagree, you are "bad". And at some point you realize they can never, and will never, make any sense, they don't in fact WANT to make any sense, making sense is not what they are about, and you must find a way to politely (or not) say buh-bye and get on with reality.

In wind energy, the crackpot-ism starts with lift-based vertical-axis machines like the Darrieus, proven to make less power using more materials less reliably, and goes down from there, to the drag-based vertical-axis machines, and finally to shrouded, drag-based vertical-axis machines.

By that point you are usually listening to claims about 100 times the reality, say a 4-foot machine on your roof eliminating your electric bill.

These roof-mounted 100% solidity machines are usually promoted for about 2 years before they finally go through the bothersome and irrelevant (to them) step of attaching a generator, whereupon they go through a few generators, cursing the fact that their machine cannot even turn one, blaming each generator manufacturer in turn until they finally give up or are driven bankrupt and taken to court by investors and state attorneys general.

Down on the totem-pole even from there are the people promoting oscillating cycles, ribbon working surfaces, spiral working surfaces, etc. These are the ones perpetually stuck in the land of meaningless words with an occasional "breakthrough" press release. These are the ones with actually nothing to offer - not even a good hoax or ripoff, since they cannot even come up with a fake version that could convince anyone, let alone a working model.

The bottom line in wind energy: There's ONE main determinant of whether any theory has legs, and it is called an electric meter. What does your electric meter tell us about your theories?
Doug S.
http://www.USWindlab.com/
a wind-powered facility
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3045 From: dougselsam Date: 2/7/2011
Subject: Re: Dave Lang's Questions for Doug S.
--- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, Dave Lang <SeattleDL@... ***** (Doug S.'s answers start with asterisks)
OK all good questions:

I'll first start with the given:
Rated wind speed: 15 knots? Most small wind turbines are rated at 11 m/s or 12 m/s, which is about 27 mph and 29 mph, with many large commercial units advertising a rated wind speed in the 30's mph.

Why? Well because the power band of the wind resource in windfarm areas and windy areas dictates that a turbine designed for a rated wind speed of say 17 mph, (about 15 knots?) would be inappropriate in winds much stronger than rated speed.

In other words, a turbine must conduct overspeed protection as soon as it gets above rated speed. A turbine rated at 15 knots would be into overspeed protection above 15 knots. And in 30 knots, it could theoretically make 8 times its rated power. That would burn it out without some really effective way to dump almost ALL of the power as soon as the wind picks up to decent levels. Experience says to design for rated power at around 30 mph.

Add to this the fact that, ostensibly, we're chasing higher winds in the air, not lower winds, so a rated wind speed lower than terrestrially-based wind turbines would not make sense.

My field experience with my own machines says we'd need a 60 kW turbine, rated at 27 mph, to get your 15 kW at 17 mph. Theory says you'd need a 120 kW machine, since you're at around half the rated wind speed at 15 knots, with power being a cubic function of speed.

So, with a lot of well-earned respect for Dave Lang, I'd first have to point out that, with regard to wind energy, this question starts out, in its first sentence, laying the mere background, exposing the unfamiliarity with the most basic starting points for wind energy, "what wind speed to target as rated wind speed?".

In other words, this question is a newbie question, in the sense that anyone familiar with wind energy would even discuss a machine rated at 15 knots, which they would not. But, this is what we in wind energy deal with endlessly: questions from newbies that make no sense to start with, and take writing a book on the basics of wind energy to even get past the first sentence.

How many newbies imagine rated power generation rated at say 15 knots? Almost all of them. They are usually fixated on a high-solidity vertical-axis machine, often with extra non-rotating surfaces to focus the wind into the working blades, mounted on a building.

The idea of even knowing what wind speeds to target, rather than going from an emotion-based "here's a comfortable wind speed for me" or "I feel that this is an average wind speed for most areas" is lost on the newbies. They will often kick and scream about the "advantages" of their lower rated wind speed, citing how most of their chosen locations don't even HAVE a good wind resource (choosing urban buildings rather than windfarm areas and towers) as though, with wind energy in windfarms already challenged economically, this proves they've really thought it through.

Also, I should point out that, wind speed in general, including the rated wind speed, must be taken over an averaging interval. For commercial wind turbines, the averaging interval is 10 minutes, so you don;t see gusts in the average wind speed. For smaller turbines, the accepted averaging interval is only 1-minute. I happened to be one of the main voices adjusting the averaging interval downward for small turbines, which allows our smaller turbines to brag about slightly higher peak ratings, taking advantage of the higher readings during gusts.

So, if it's OK, can I adjust the question to comply with traditionally rated wind speeds for wind turbines? Can we adjust the question to a rated wind speed of 11 m/s = 27 mph?
*****15 rotors, 10-feet in diameter.
***** 100 feet - 120 feet
*****75 feet
*****rotor weight = 3 lb./rotor, driveshaft sections = 3 lb/rotor
hubs = 1 lb/rotor: 7 lbs x 15 = 105 lbs total weight
It would project skyward by its own stiffness, so it is always "launched"
****With hydraulic disk brakes, it would be shut down somewhere near 50 mph+, and survive 120 mph, like all commercial turbines.
****It would stand there, slowly bending in the silent calm.
**** The rotors themselves provide their own lift
***** $100 per rotor, $30 per hub, $120 per driveshaft section, $500 for the brake, $1000 for the gearbox, 1000 for the generator
2000 for the foundation, another 1000 for wiring and switches, total cost around $10,000

***** (9) Doug's added question, which is the one experienced wind turbine people would ask FIRST:
What is the method of overspeed control?
The machine would be stall-controlled for preliminary overspeed control, using an induction motor directly coupled to the grid, with hydraulic disc brakes for final overspeed protection.

Thanks
Doug Selsam
http://www.selsam.com

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3046 From: dave santos Date: 2/7/2011
Subject: Re: Dave Lang's Questions for Doug S.
Note that DaveL never asked what the "Rated Speed" would be, but chose a point of interest on the power curve with higher availablity wind, so its mistaken to accuse him of falling into the clueless newbie rated-speed trap.

Doug's numbers look mostly in the ballpark, but the bad news is how this design scales. A 200ft (2X) high rotating tower would have its frontal-area squared, but its weight cubed. Keep scaling up & very soon its beyond practicality, with the same scaling limits of conventional wind towers.

The Upper Wind Resource has been defined loosely as wind above what a tower can reach, rotating, or not. Sadly, other methods must be sought to open up the superior winds. We need to keep an open mind as to what will work best. This is no field for many of the one-trick ponies. KiteLab Group plans to survive the coming AWE shake-out by agile adoption of any leading method.


From: dougselsam <doug@selsam.com
 



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3047 From: dougselsam Date: 2/7/2011
Subject: Re: The New Aviation, USWindLabs, & the Chinese
Hi Dave S.:
Ah I see, now it;s the new aviation... so you're working on air transportation now eh? Is that just for today, to make your point? Tomorrow you'll claim to have the breakthroughs in wind energy again?

This is a wind energy forum that purports to explore how to do wind energy more cost-effectively by taking it into the sky, for the reason that the wind is stronger up there.
Interesting that you attempt to re-define the very purpose of the forum to legitimize a lack of knowledge of wind energy, combined with a refusal to acquire such knowledge.

This is the same attitude as most of the crackpots with their ripoff machines. No matter how tenuous their theory, they've always got to keep "being right" and no matter how long they go, they never admit they were wrong about anything, they just eventually go away without a sound.

I have no inherent bias against Chinese turbines. I just note what I see around me over and over again.
Can you show me a single unit of a Chinese brand of turbine that is in operation in this country today? I don't know of any. ALL of the Chinese brand turbines around here are not running, whereas most every American turbine is running. All I do is notice that every story like the one posted involves a Chinese turbine - they are the ones using yaw drives on small turbines and they are never fast enough to protect the turbine, nor is anything else in the overspeed-protection chain ever sufficient to do its job, so they are always failures.

Of course since you do not know anything about wind turbines, you would not know this, so you resort to your daily ad-hominem attack, trying to pick one more perceived fault of mine that might somehow lend credibility to your own lack of knowledge and results in wind energy.
The reason I posted this was to show that overspeed protection is the main (only?) challenge in wind energy, and it conveniently mentioned a turbine that I was able to identify as most likely Chinese by its failure mode.
This is indeed a good chance to illustrate how a statement that the Chinese will be first to have a good working system show a general lack of familiarity with wind energy as it exists.

I love Chinese people and even have been learning a teeny bit of Mandarin, but I am not going to take my turbine designs from China. I'll settle for ordering my magnets from there though, since they have good supermagnets at the best prices.

Again, no way to fill in all the facts for a newbie without re-writing the books they haven't read.
One day you give your reasons why my designs cannot possibly work, the next you deride the fact that I had to file patents, saying they block progress, and still another day you declare that you or someone else is the real inventor. How can they block progress if they are for stuff that doesn't work? How can someone else have invented what expert patent examiners have said I invented after going through the entire process? Know why I file patents? So if a Dave S. emerges trying to claim my work as theirs or someone else's, years after the fact, I have a documented leg to stand on. I guess it's worth the money, or I'd, again, have nothing but my words against your words.
And I build my designs so I'll have a leg to stand on if someone says they don't work, or can't work.

I'll advise myself right here and now to stop wasting my time responding to your detractions, as I've noticed that it is becoming quite a distraction from progress, and one of the first things an inventor realizes is to not waste too much time responding to naysayers as it is a thankless job that has no end, with very limited upside.
I hope I can maintain that
Doug S.
http://www.Selsam.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3048 From: dave santos Date: 2/8/2011
Subject: Re: The New Aviation, USWindLabs, & the Chinese
Doug,

Its wonderfully true, this Forum is about  a clean New Aviation, based on upper wind power. Transportation is not the urgent application, primary energy production is (Persistent airborne station-keeping is a practical New Aviation early app before transport).

Nobody needs to redefine AWE to best you in an argument, nor is this Forum as clueless in conventional wind as you think. Surely all the great turbine students & veterans on this Forum taken together outmatch your skewed knowledge of the subject.

Do not neglect your aviation studies if you would escape your own critique,

dave

PS You asked about "Chinese Turbines" operating in the US. Several US AWE players use Chinese power kites (& generators) to make AWE. Those that loop are can be classed turbines (like Ultra-Turbines (TM)). This pattern of quality Chinese product use will only strengthen. Its also predictable that conventional Chinese HAWTS will far surpass your experience of them.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3049 From: Dave Lang Date: 2/8/2011
Subject: Re: Dave Lang's Questions for Doug S.
Doug,

Thanks for the answers....educational, but NOT, "yikes! you mean one has to deal with "high wind" :-).

The reason I choose this condition was not to serve as a "rated power" - which itself is subject to ambiguity based on wind statistics.  For instance I can say that a SkyMill is "rated" at 3 mW in a 120 kt wind....but what does that really mean in terms of yearly output.....very little unless the statistical attributes of the local wind are rigorously accounted for!  I freely admit, it was likely "off" from the kind of operational "rating points" that conventional wind folks like to see.....even opening the door to a "Selsam newbie-rant" :-)  - rather - I thought a system of that capability could have immense value (if cheap enough to build and operate) for domestic off-grid folks as well as many "3rd world" applications. I wasn't looking for BIG power.  So if such an operating point presented the Superturbine with a "high-wind survival conundrum", then your answer to me could have been simply:

 -  "this is not a practical operating point", or,

 -   the "cost and complexity of high-wind protection" out weighs the benefit of such a system",

 -   anything but your standard  "ration of crap" about how dumb and obstinate the AWE folks are.

You are quite right. I am certainly a conventional wind energy newbie (maybe you would rather use dummy here :-))......but then, I am not plying the field of conventional wind energy.....that's where you seem to "be most at home".

I wasn't particularly interested in the details of how a Superturbine might protect itself, but rather whether it could do so cost effectively. High altitude wind folks are not so naive as to ignore the high wind survival problem (as though it were something that does not apply to them....it is hard to have been yanked around by a traction kite under an unexpected gust and not the sensitive to this). My guess is there are huge areas of design details related to hi-alt AWE for which your lack of knowledge would classify you as a "rank newbie" too (you might try  doing a rigorous engineering dynamic simulation of one of these systems :-)).

That said, I venture that every one of us who are doing serious simulation and development of high altitude wind schemes, are aware of the issue of excessive wind.....and will be even more so (if and) when we fly.  For example, when engineers design a landing gear for a carrier-based aircraft, do you think they turn a deaf ear to off-nominal landing conditions that must be survived, or, don't analyze what the "probability of failure" might be, and thus specify designs that will achieve an acceptable fleet  failure rate (hmm....seems that the HAWT engineers have done just that judging from the spectacular videos of turbine  fires and blade-parts slinging off to start domino-effect failures of adjacent turbines).

As for the Superturbine, my guess is, if the case for it is as compelling as you claim, it would have long ago obtained private funding to take it to operational production. VC's  (and/or their staffs) are not dumb, always looking to identify and jump-on the band-wagon of a hands-down winner.

DaveL





At 5:38 PM +0000 2/7/11, dougselsam wrote:
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3050 From: Joe Faust Date: 2/8/2011
Subject: TU Delft KitePower on 20 Jan 2011

Laddermill 2011: start of a new year of airborne wind energy development

Laddermill 2011: start of a new year of airborne wind energy development      Six minutes.


This video shows footage of our Laddermill test of 20 Januari 2011.  Results from the test showed that we can load our kite to 500 kgf, that we were able to reach over 23 kW of power, that our parking autopilot is able to keep the kite at zenith.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3051 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 2/8/2011
Subject: Re: TU Delft KitePower on 20 Jan 2011
Power phase seems to be about 12 kW.Recovery phase seems to be -4 kW,so the average is 8 kW/2 = 4 kW.

PierreB
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3052 From: Dave Lang Date: 2/8/2011
Subject: Re: TU Delft KitePower on 20 Jan 2011
Curious as to why they refer to this as a "LadderMill" since it bares no resemblance to Ockel's original "chain of kites"?

DaveL



At 12:32 AM +0000 2/9/11, Joe Faust wrote:
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3053 From: Joe Faust Date: 2/8/2011
Subject: Re: TU Delft KitePower on 20 Jan 2011


My wish is that the "laddermill" be reserved for the Selsam and later Ockels
rung-filled devices moving or not.   Stacks  might be accepted as the rungs
for the team that started with the runged endless loop concept.

In late 70s Selsam notarized the moving rung or stack.
The reduction to single reel-in-and-out "one-rung ladder" uses us the term by the Ockels arena
and sterilizes the term somewhat for a high-count runged ladder. 
But a working stack that is not a fan-belt or endless loop for "ladder" for Yo-yo or for other works
...say with rocking or tipping booms or for crosswinding flygens might still be seen as a ladder of multiple rungs.

Some media distance was gained for "Laddermill" and the project's momemtum is carrying over to seemingly non-ladder
explorations.    In the Classification Challenge that is ever open for evolution, the  various types of ladders will need to be
carefully defined.  Just how much the Ockels arena is leaving aside the multi-rung endless loop "laddermill"  might be
something they could declare.

There are one-way ladder AWECS and there are end-less loop ladders with flying elements going up and going down.
Will the carousel of ladders be a "ladder circus"?      Maybe "ladder" might be dropped as refined clear
descriptions of distinctive formats play. There will be arches with flying elements that are one-way stacks or ladders.

Fuzzy growth!   Though I keeping inviting all to advance the terms for the AWE Glossary,
there is very much yet to do by anyone interested.    All AWE stakeholders are invited to advance at least one term per year.

JoeF

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

 


 

 

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3054 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 2/8/2011
Subject: Re: TU Delft KitePower on 20 Jan 2011
In time:1) Selsam's chain of kite 2) The same by Pr.Ockels and TuDelft under Laddermill name 3) Tu Delft searches upon other systems (for example a reel/out) under the initial name Laddermill.

PierreB  
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3055 From: Joe Faust Date: 2/9/2011
Subject: Invitation to NASA for a massively smart tool

Invitation to NASA:

AWECS simulation, visualization, evaluation  tool

Wayne German has carefully described what could be:
massively expert program that would permit input of AWECS designs;
output would be 4D visualization and wide-spectrum evaluation.
Teams of physicists, aerodynamicists, AWECS developers, engineers, logicians,
expert-knowledge engineers, materials scientists, etc. would gather their best
to write a program and give the world a tool that would permit anyone anywhere
to format an AWECS and have such compared to others' efforts.  The program
would output matrials lists, costs ratios, efficiency ratios, fatigue estimates, etc.
The expert knowledge incorporated in the program would be the best the human
family could bring.     Then schools, research centers, inventors, etc. would have
a common platform for competing novelty, ingenuity, and fine engineering.

Upon NASA producing the tool, maintenance and upgrades might be handled
by some foundation (?).    

Creative AWECS designing could follow for all scales form micro AWECS to
international free-flight AWECS.

Evolved phrasing of this draft fetal suggestion and invitation is invited.
What could be the benefits to earth?   This suggested program would be much
more than a kite simulation toolbox 
http://tinyurl.com/KiteSimulationToolboxGENERAL
as the program envisioned would face inputs concerning extensive
kitefarms, mobile moorings, hybrid traction-hydro-turbine AWECS,
kite arches of scores of descriptions, lifted lattices, aerostat-involved AWECS,
boom-based groundgen AWECS, and much more.  Faced would be material choice
over a very wide catalog.  Every known mechanical AWECS-related novelty claim
would be laterally footnoted by the program in order to potential involve merit
and credit for innovation.  The program would worldwide advance by respecting
inputs; some kind of learning would occur by the program; when the program
sees something new and effective in someone's input, then the program would
grow.

How might this all be phrased and presented to NASA?  
Spend US taxes for something that will bring on the AWE Era in great fashion.

 

 

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3056 From: Joe Faust Date: 2/9/2011
Subject: Re: Invitation to NASA for a massively smart tool

TU Delft's new Ph.D. Jeroen Breukels:

 Presentation by Dr. Breukels on multi-body kite simulations

From such, go orders of magnitude up toward a huge option space of AWECS at all scales and economies. Involve environmental impacts, safety, airspace involvement, maintenance, pilotage, control, labor, time, grid, consumer, inspection, etc.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3057 From: Dan Parker Date: 2/9/2011
Subject: Re: Invitation to NASA for a massively smart tool
Hi Joe,
 
              Re: Invitation to NASA for a massively smart tool:
Very nice concept. wouldn't that be wonderful.
 
Dan'l  

=========================================
Moderator filler by JoeF with some FairIP:
KiteLab, Los Angeles, lateral sketch discussion with KiteLab, Ilwaco:


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3058 From: Doug Date: 2/9/2011
Subject: More Chinese "Small" Wind Turbine Failures - post from a wind energy
Here's another post (from a real wind energy group) regarding the leading Chinese brand of small wind turbine in the U.S., sold under the brand name "RE Driven". The post is (amazingly) from an RE Driven installer, warning everybody that they simply always break:

3a.
Re: ReDriven 20 kW turbine.
Posted by: "hgengineer" hgengineer@yahoo.com hgengineer
Tue Feb 8, 2011 7:47 pm (PST)
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3059 From: Doug Date: 2/9/2011
Subject: Re: Dave Lang's Questions for Doug S.
Dear Dave S.
It was quite predictable that no matter what design I answered you with (for Dave Lang's question), that you'd find fault with it, under your own terms - in this case it doesn't fly high enough. Take a clue from aviation - early designs fly low and work up from there.

As far as scalability, I think this could go on up to 1000 feet high +, in view of today's towers at say 250-feet carrying hundreds of tons atop.
My answer is that this is just one of a million design choices in view of the overall concepts. To take it higher we can say quadruple the length and add a blimp.

We can use smaller rotors and more of them, which are lighter for their swept area, and a far longer driveshaft, of lighter construction, and take our power at a higher RPM offered by smaller rotors, with the high RPM allowing rotational power transmission down the driveshaft at low torque.

Dave S., I've already pointed out how similar your endless taunts are to the crackpot posts on real wind energy sites:
A high percentage of complete nonsense, combined with a refusal/inability to stick to a subject after throwing flaming refuse.

So, I'd like you to stick with a subject.
I mentioned that if NASA thinks that a Chinese drag-based AWE system is likely to be the forst breakthrough, it shows that they are not familiar with wind energy since drag machines are known to be ineffective and Chinese turbines in the U.S at least basically always fail, or almost always fail, at the first strong wind.

You claimed I had a bias against Chinese turbines. That implies my observation that every Chinese brand turbine in the U.S. that I am aware of is not working. Now I've posted a cut-and-paste from a real wind energy discussion group: this happened to be a post today, maybe just your luck that the poster is an installer for the leading Chinese brand turbine, and yet, amazingly, the post is warning everyone that they always fail.

So here's what I'd like:
I'd like you to show us a Chinese brand turbine in the U.S. that is still in operation (not broken), delivering good performance, with a happy owner.
All you need to show us is one (1) example.
Otherwise I'd like an apology and a statement that you were wrong.
(that's the comedy part of this post - as though you could ever admit you are wrong about anything).
:)
Doug S.

--- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, dave santos <santos137@...
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3060 From: Joe Faust Date: 2/9/2011
Subject: Windward-walker AWECS
Attachments :
    Filler flash FairIP:
    The AWEC "Windward Walker" firms its grip to earth while mining upper winds for energy; then some of that energy is used in steps to walk the mooring upwind. Transport materials windward or laterally or let the tow of the flying body take the materials carrier downwind.  All-direction materials handling-moving AWEC.   Same for water; drogue alternation while wind mining; move hull directly windward in steps; control wings and drogue in favorable alternations.  Now to the next moment ...  ~JoeF   

    PS: New file: Welcome.
    		  @@attachment@@
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3061 From: dave santos Date: 2/9/2011
    Subject: Re: More Chinese "Small" Wind Turbine Failures - post from a wind en
    There are several logical problems with Doug's post to correct-

    Bad design is not a Chinese specialty, it transcends borders. Its wrong to advance an ethnic bias on this basis. Doug might as well knock far more famous US design failures, if he cares to be fair. He could even high-five the Chinese AWE kites many of use use for out-powering any of his machines.

    Backyard turbines have their own forums. We lose focus on the AWE Forum by excessive distraction from off-topic issues like a particular Chinese cheapo turbine. We need more on-topic knowledge of the highest quality.

    Doug does not even acknowledge the toughest questions. He should focus on proving whether a rotating tower is even truly airborne (& therefore aviation) & whether it can scale to upper wind. Maybe he can get someone respected by all sides, like Dan Fink, to help support his claims.

    The fact that Doug's SuperTurbine (R) design stands as a tower in calm & only gets partial lift in a breeze clearly disqualifies it as truly airborne. The fact that it suffers from cubic-mass scaling penalty, as a tower, means it cannot possibly scale to upper winds. The SuperTurbine's real competition is the dominant "pedestal fan" HAWT, not pioneering AWE.

    Despite Doug's constant insult to the contrary, this is a "real wind energy" group, especially as the peak measured wind power of top AWE experiments well exceeds Doug's "real" turbines.

    Lets go beyond crude anti-Chinese bias & everyone's personal shortcomings & concentrate on technical questions. Proving the SuperTurbine (R) is undeserving of Doug's excessive repetitive promotion will open up Forum space for many emerging more promising AWE designs to get attention.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3062 From: davednorth Date: 2/9/2011
    Subject: Re: Invitation to NASA for a massively smart tool
    Joe,

    I like the idea of an advanced AWE systems analysis tool that could model a lot of different concepts (ground gens, fly gens, soft kites, hard wings, multiple lifting bodies). Mark Moore and I have been talking about this for a while now and we think that this is one of areas in which NASA could help. There are others like Lang, Diehl, Breukels, etc. that are already doing serious modeling and simulation of aspects of AWE that maybe we could build off of.

    To capture every possible configuration is, of course, impossible, but maybe we can start out with specific tools (analysis modules) and then stitch them together for a system level analysis.

    We just need funding to start this. And right now there isn't much, and probably won't be as Congress seems to be gearing up to do some major spending cuts. Sorry to be so pessimistic :(

    DaveN
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3063 From: dave santos Date: 2/9/2011
    Subject: Requested Apology to Doug

    Doug,

    Please accept my apologies for my many mistakes that cause you to suffer. The quest for knowledge is error prone, as it starts from ignorance. Someday you can apologize too, insofar as you advance,

    daveS 

    TV dinner still cooling?
    Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3064 From: Joe Faust Date: 2/9/2011
    Subject: Autorotation WIPO patent application

    Fixing link that vanished.

    Document in PDF with 65 pages incluing drawings is now here:
    http://energykitesystems.net/KitePatents/WIPO/WorldApp2010039790.pdf
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3065 From: dave santos Date: 2/9/2011
    Subject: Invalidated by Prior Art /// Re: [AWECS] Autorotation WIPO patent ap
    Joe,

    This patent should be put to rest as soundly invalidated on this forum. This is at heart Billy Roesler's decades old idea of centrifugically opposed flygen wings. As a groundgen its also Boris Houska's "Dancing Kite" concept described in his 2007 Master's Thesis. Maybe there are lesser details here defensible under patent law, but the core concept is definitely not novel.

    We should mention prior art every time we feature weak but abusive VC minefield patents or there is a risk we will scare newcomers away from useful open domain solutions. Is it not our goal to make sure that open-domain AWE prevails & that patent trolls not be able to profiteer from renewables?

    daveS

    PS The hardworking small inventor who make real inventive leaps is not the target of the abusive AWE IP invalidation process.

    From: Joe Faust <joefaust333@gmail.com
     
    Fixing link that vanished.
    Document in PDF with 65 pages incluing drawings is now here:
    http://energykitesystems.net/KitePatents/WIPO/WorldApp2010039790.pdf




    Never miss an email again!
    Yahoo! Toolbar     alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. Check it out.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3066 From: Joe Faust Date: 2/10/2011
    Subject: Flash sharing

    Steps:

    1. Image seen without reading.

    2. Something in the image brought a "flash" that said: "Share this in case I pass in a minute; maybe there is something here for the AWE community."

    3. Post the image quickly at the forum.

    4. Breathe a sigh of relief for having shared.

    Still here. Now a bit more:

    I have not read the patent yet; and the contents of the patent might not matter for what the "flash" was speaking  while simply facing the image.  Here is the core of the "flash" that hit me a minute ago:  Alternate tension in AWECS tether by various means; at low tension, let the springs act to gather line; then at high tension of the AWECS' tether, the gathered line is tensed and forces the compression in the chambers for pumping or electric generation or other direct works.  Gang linear pump or gang liner generator or gang saw?    

    Here is hoping that the "flash" and post brings eventual blessing at some AWEC scale in some niche application.

    ~ JoeF
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3067 From: Joe Faust Date: 2/10/2011
    Subject: Invalidated by Prior Art /// Re: [AWECS] Autorotation WIPO patent ap
    Peter R. Payne and Charles McCutchen seems also to have presented turbines on autorotated kites brached at upper points:
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3068 From: Joe Faust Date: 2/10/2011
    Subject: Lambros Lois

    Labros Lois has instructed AWECS and conventional wind turbines.   What? This thread could hold Lois contributions.  Nuclear engineer.

    On spotlight for AWECS occurred in Popular Science, December 1976, where a Lambros Lois idea was illustrated roughly by by Ray Pioch for a paragraph
    "Buoyant wings turn wind enrgy into electricity "

    At the bottom of the magazine's page is the notation toward Lambros Lois and one of his AWECS patents.

    US Pat. 3924827
    Filed: Apr 25, 1975
    Issued: Dec 1975

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

    See further kite energy patent by Lambros Lois:
    http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=S6Q0AAAAEBAJ&dq=3924827
     US Pat. 4076190

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

    New York Times, Dec. 13, 1975  [Abstract only shown in link]

    Floating Wings Generate Power High Above Earth; Patents: Floating Wings Make Energy High Above the Earth 

    By STACY V. JONES Special to The New York Times ();
    December 13, 1975,  , Section Business & Finance, Page 37.
    Lambros Lois was "discussing its manufacture with several companies
    ========================================
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3069 From: Joe Faust Date: 2/10/2011
    Subject: Re: Lambros Lois

     

    His next AWECS patent:

    http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=8sY5AAAAEBAJ&dq=4076190

    Click through for full instrction:

    Patent number: 4076190
    Filing date: Mar 30, 1976
    Issue date: Feb 28, 1978
    ===============================================

    He later had a focus on further wind turbine matters.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3070 From: Doug Date: 2/10/2011
    Subject: Invalidated by Prior Art /// Re: [AWECS] Autorotation WIPO patent ap
    Haven't read thru it thoroughly but I might point out that many previous designs use autorotation, such as Shepard/Skywindpower, which I have always been a BIG fan and supporter of.
    As far as a tether to a central hub, the big boys that service today's industrial wind turbines refer to a rotating (large) blade as "swinging a rope".
    It's nice to see the kite-flyers begin to acknowledge that a rotating path can be accomplished simply, by the use of a central hub. What, no computer, no winches? How can this be?
    Can you say: "Re-invent the wheel"?
    Soon they will line up many kites side-by-side, then connect them together, make them stiffer, give them a decent hard surface to take the wear, and before long, they'll be calling them "blades" just like the big boys.

    Most every wind energy "inventor" starts at the beginning of the history of wind turbines (3000 years ago) with cloth sails and drag-based, literalist machines, and slowly head toward the present, discovering bit-by-bit through the school of hard knocks what they could have gotten from 1 or 2 books on the subject, all the while thinking they are exploring the future. Some get all the way up to the present, but most do not. So far none has gotten to "the future".
    :)
    Doug S.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3071 From: Doug Date: 2/10/2011
    Subject: Another Post on more failed Chinese turbines here
    OK guys I couldn't resist cut-and-pasting one more post showing how difficult it is to create a reliable wind turbine. The machines discussed in the post are local in Southern California, and the person posting is responding to a post of mine several months ago wherein I had ironically commented that we had put a man on the moon before we had reliable utility-scale wind turbines.

    Note: We're talking about 5 - 20 kW turbines that are pretty big - almost look like windfarm units from a distance, that are very expensive. Just the permits and foundation cost many thousands of dollars, then you get into wiring, inverters, etc, all of which will fry at the first truly strong wind. See below, and check out the whole thread. I used to drive by on my way to skiing, but now I live in this wind turbine-infested paradise where I can walk out my door and see 5 turbines powering my neighbors' homes with the ski trails visible in the distance! And it's near Los Angeles, yet we have skiing for 6 months out of the year! Who knew? Happy to be alive here! Smell that mountain air! (better than Dairy-air)
    :) - Doug S. (cut-and-paste of message from "real" wind energy group below)

    Re ReDriven 20kW turbine
    Posted by: "toom" toom@rambler.ru
    Wed Feb 9, 2011 11:44 pm (PST)

    http://www.windaction.org/news/20716

    From: Rory [mailto:amsoiltek@gmail.com]
    To: small-wind-home@yahoogroups.com
    Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2010 8:24 AM
    Subject: [s-w-h] ReDriven update

    Hey all,

    I just wanted to let everyone know that 2 of the 3 Redriven units that
    are
    in my area are down from high wind damage.
    Both are in Phelan, Ca and less than 1/4 mile from each other. The 5K
    unit
    lost one of it's blades don't know if any damage was done.
    The 2nd unit was a larger 10k and it is dismantled from the 2nd tower
    section up. Reason, blade loss.

    I'm going to try to interview the owners to fully find out what
    happened.

    Maybe if the owners are on this list they can chime in.

    Darlene owns the 10k unit as far as I know.

    My weather station recorded a max gust of 49mph at the 15 foot level.

    Rory
    From: dougselsam [mailto:doug@selsam.com]
    To: small-wind-home@yahoogroups.com
    Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2010 8:56 PM
    Subject: [s-w-h] Re: ReDriven update
    Rory:
    We have recently seen 3 turbines in a Vally on Route 138, near Phelan,
    a couple miles South of the intersection of Route 2 and Route 138. (On
    the way up to ski at Mt High in Wrightwood)
    I assumed they were Chinese turbines as I saw no tail, so I assumed
    they had active yaw and were therefore Chinese, destined to fail the
    first time the wind changed faster than the automatic yaw could change
    rotor aim.

    Wind turbines are one of the greatest engineering challenges known to
    mankind - note we went to the moon before we had good wind turbines
    powering the grid. They are usually fine as long as they are not
    installed where you will get strong winds ;)

    I have also heard the local Bergey dealers not happy for having lost
    important sales to machines with an expected lifetime of months rather
    than years, especially since bad experiences with wind turbines can give
    the whole industry a black eye.
    I'd definitely be interested in hearing more. Are these the turbines
    you are talking about? We were curious when we saw them.

    After all the million-dollar certifications, is any provision in place
    to monitor the results of which models actually work and which fail? If
    too many failures occur, is there any provision to de-list the turbines
    or even have a warning list of problem machines?

    Doug S.
    --
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3072 From: Doug Date: 2/10/2011
    Subject: Re: Requested Apology to Doug
    Thanks Dave S. that was very nice of you and I do feel better now.
    Well, except now I gotta try and find a new cause for my suffering!
    :)
    Doug S.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3073 From: dave santos Date: 2/10/2011
    Subject: Re: Another Post on more failed Chinese turbines here

    Doug,

    Your unhappiness with Chinese product underlines key differences between conventional & airborne turbine fields. Airborne turbines are aircraft, therefore far more dynamic in operations & delicate in construction. In particular AWE aircraft are kites & China dominates the global kite market with mostly quality products at the lowest cost. 

    Unlike wind towers, its best practice for aircraft to be landed & even protected indoors in high gale & storm conditions. Conventional turbine overspeed provision is thus obviated. Unlike wind towers, AWE aircraft     require human supervision or incredible automation. The big reason to put up with such severe disadvantages is to tap the vast upper-wind resource. Its has roughly 100x the power of the <1000ft surface zone wind towers are stuck at. AWE aims to reach the superior wind while avoiding tower capital cost. So while you have shown us how tediously the conventional windpower world clucks over Chinese turbine growing pains, much of the AWE R&D world advances on Chinese wings.

    daveS



     

    Need Mail bonding?
    Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3074 From: Pierre Benhaiem Date: 2/11/2011
    Subject: Crosswind:kite speed,a possible goal for NASA?
    Now kite speed is high but not enough:the record of velocity is 212 km/h
    .Usually good kites have not a ratio lift/drag above 4 or 5 ,even with
    small lines (see also Bas Landsdorp' searches on the global
    repercussions of tethers drag according to its length and angle) .Good
    paragliders can obtain 8 or 9.According to my own estimations the used
    kite on video of Laddermill could be about 4 .

    Mark' video is a great work for static and crosswind "flygens":maybe the
    cost of new materials and making like carbon nanotube tether and others
    could be shared with other fields of searches.

    However the ratio lift/drag (with of course other parameters) maybe
    could be a good goal to allow achieving a better output,like (tip of)
    blades of a conventional turbine.

    Precision:a low ratio (4 or 5) is not necessary a problem for reel-out
    (KitePower Laddermill,KiteGen Stem,Ampyx,Windlift ...) or for crosswind
    flygens (Makani,FlygenKite grid version) because the global swept area
    is identical.The only difference is more areas of cheaper kites...

    PierreB
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3075 From: Joe Faust Date: 2/11/2011
    Subject: Invalidated by Prior Art /// Re: [AWECS] Autorotation WIPO patent ap

    An effort by UK's  company Wind Power Limited with its device Aerogenerator might be seen as featuring a very stiffened tether flying wing-blade-kites in autorotation about a central hub perhaps itself tethered through a fluid to the bottom of a lake or sea or ocean.

    Video: HERE 

    Article: HERE 

    Home: http://www.windpower.ltd.uk/

    How does this resonate with those working with Rotokite , dancing kites (page 22),  and other rotary AWECS like instructed by Peter R. Payne  and Charles McCutchen and others?
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3076 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 2/11/2011
    Subject: Re: Invalidated by Prior Art /// Re: [AWECS] Autorotation WIPO paten

    -"Aerogenerator" seems to be a turbine of type Darrieus (where all power action is on external whole blades)

    PierreB
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3077 From: Joe Faust Date: 2/11/2011
    Subject: Re: Crosswind:kite speed,a possible goal for NASA?


    =========== 
     IPP: Capturing Wind Energy Through Airborne Platforms
     IPP :: Innovative Partnerships Program         Vid: Dec. 15, 2010
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3078 From: Joe Faust Date: 2/11/2011
    Subject: DSM Venturing confirms itself in AWE traction with SkySails
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3079 From: dimitri.cherny Date: 2/11/2011
    Subject: March 2011 Popular Mechanics AWE Article
    "flying wind turbines". Haven't seen it yet.
    - Dimitri
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3080 From: Joe Faust Date: 2/11/2011
    Subject: Re: March 2011 Popular Mechanics AWE Article

    I wonder how many entities they interviewed/researched for the March issue?
    http://energykitesystems.net/AWEstakeholders/index.html
    Taking bets?
    Will Popular Science  compete on the matter?

    ======= Online Popular Mechanics December 18, 2009
    Kite Power Could Finally Pull Global Shipping to the Green Side 
    If they can prove themselves on the water, new parafoils might change the footprint of the biggest greenhouse guzzler on Earth.
    By Joe Pappalardo

    ========= 1914  Popular Mechanics:   Large Man-carrying kite flies steadily     [[Mass-lifter AWECS]]

    ==== Ad in 1948 Popular Mechanics:    Army Kites and Balloons  (comes with own hydrogen generator...just dip in water)

    ==== May, 1992, Popular Mechanics:    Science on a String 

    ==== July 1926 Popular Mechanics:       Byrd 

    and more in Popular Mechanics.        PM-AWE flies!      

    Thanks, Dimitri,
    waiting to see the PM nod to AWE.

    JoeF
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3081 From: Joe Faust Date: 2/12/2011
    Subject: Open source: RotoKite and Heli Wind Power

    QUOTE:
    The Rotokite and Heli Wind Power projects are open source in all developing countries.
     In all other countries collaborations are requested whose returns will be used for the spreading
    of renewable energies and the research.   
    For additional information send an email to: gianni.vergnano _at_ sequoia.it

    ===   http://www.energykitesystems.net/0/XercesBlue/index.html

    ===========================================================
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3082 From: Joe Faust Date: 2/12/2011
    Subject: Toward groundgen away from skygen

    WO/2009/066334) POWER TRANSMITTING SYSTEM THROUGH CABLES
    FOR AIRBORNE WIND-TYPE POWER GENERATION
    AND SAIL WINCH-DRIVING APPLICATIONS

    http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?WO=2009066334 

    http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/images1/PCT-PAGES/2009/222009/09066334/09066334.pdf

    VERGNANO, Giovanni

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

    Discussion is open.

    The applicant aims to have AWECS with generator on ground and provides a means to bring upper windpower to the ground for conversion to electricity.  He mentions that the Sky WindPower exploration with flygen has the challenge of ever lifting the weight of the generator to the sky and ever having to have an electrically conductive cable.      Vergnano instructs somewhat like those instructors of earlier AWECS patented functions where mechanical energy is carried by the kite tether to the ground for driving the rotation of a rotary current generator or the oscillation of a linear current generator.

    JoeF
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3083 From: Joe Faust Date: 2/12/2011
    Subject: Maybe had he just a longer line ...

    Noted in Popular Mechanics in June 1928 issue is a recalling of  what might have been the introduction of aerotowing of a manned kite (Espenlaub and his glider as kite) 1927 at Rossitten glider meet.  Espenlaub was "trailer" to the 25 hp tug plane for launch to soaring.   I was just wondering about a "what if" here: What if Espenlaub had used a very long towrope and the tug pilot cooperated to co-soar with power off on the tug by using differential winds aloft.   Just a wondering ...  Free-flight AWE by a two-air-kite arrangement for serious travel is being discussed ...yes in EKS pages, but right now in KiteGen forum in Italian under the AeroKite thread, which have pleasure in visiting and perhaps contributing:

    Dropping the kite line June 1928 cover of Popular Mechanics   ... then some glider notes on page 888 for Motorless Ships of the Air           |     towrope, "flivver" , roots of aerotow Espenlaub

    The thread on the "Aerokite" at the KiteGen group:
    http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/kitegen/message/1423
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3084 From: Doug Date: 2/13/2011
    Subject: Re: Crosswind:kite speed,a possible goal for NASA?
    Many wind turbine blades have gone supersonic.
    They make bangs and vapor and look like they are on fire.
    So, to take your "kite" supersonic, harden and elongate the blades, flatten the pitch, and add a thin airfoil profile, and attach one end to a central hub for guidance. Now add at least one other, identical kite for counterbalance and voila! your "crosswind kite" can go supersonic.

    Next we will discuss how to "walk" at highway speeds, as the procedure is very similar:
    Attach your leg to a central hub.
    Add more "legs" to counterbalance the first "leg",
    adding enough legs for a smooth circle of feet, or, to cheat,
    (hey is this a new idea?) add a rim... (fewer "legs" required)
    Allow to spin freely at whatever speed is desired.

    So, perhaps NASA or an equivalent agency could look into this revolutionary concept of "rotary feet", which, if fully-developed, could allow walking at freeway speeds, or at least that might make a good press release. I say forget NASA - my (revolutionary) new "rotary" feet idea is ARPA-E material!

    Ever heard the expression "re-invent the wheel"?

    :)
    Doug Selsam
    http://www.selsam.com
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3085 From: Doug Date: 2/13/2011
    Subject: Re: Another Post on more failed Chinese turbines here
    Hey Dave S.:
    Thanks for another mischaracterization of my statements: today it's my "unhappiness with Chinese product". Please do not confuse my reporting of an observation to inform the uninformed (you), with my emotional state.

    I am very happy with the fact that the Chinese brand turbines do not work, as are all American manufacturers. We are probably all subconsciously and collectively keeping our fingers crossed that they will never quite "get it". So far they cannot even exactly copy U.S.-made turbines and get it right - the copies quickly fail. (Can you say "Harbor Freight Quality"?

    Again, no real point in a one-sided discussion where the other party has no facts (I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed man), but I am VERY happy with Chinese products such as bearings and magnets from China that, so far, have never worn out for me ever.
    :)
    Doug S.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3086 From: Doug Date: 2/13/2011
    Subject: Invalidated by Prior Art /// Re: [AWECS] Autorotation WIPO patent ap
    I've been impressed with this concept since I first saw it years ago.
    Note: hardened elongate blades attached to a central hub using no auxillary propellers.
    Doug S.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3087 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 2/13/2011
    Subject: Re: Crosswind:kite speed,a possible goal for NASA?
    "Now add at least one other, identical kite for counterbalance and voila! your "crosswind kite" can go supersonic."
    Would be it a rigid version of RotoKite or an autogiro system like Sky Windpower?

    The interest of kites is not only harnessing HAWE but also sweeping very large wind areas with little materials.

    PierreB
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 3088 From: KITE GEN / Ippolito Date: 2/13/2011
    Subject: Re: Crosswind:kite speed,a possible goal for NASA?