Virgin air ...

---

Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check.
Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta.

I'd say the modules already exist, to a large degree, for the mechanical aspects, using off-the-shelf engineering CAD software.
It will be the CFD aspect that is more touchy.

A few years back, Dr. Case van Dam of U.C. Davis, and I, collaborated on a grant proposal to do a suite of CFD studies comparing various spacing distances and offset angles for Superturbine(R) rotor arrays.
We planned to adjust rotor spacing and offset angle and compute the power. Blade profile, airfoils, and setting angle distribution, as well as RPM and TSR would be set somewhere near "standard" for this simulation, to reduce the number of variables.

But here's the thing: No matter how many things we simulate, we'd still have trouble getting above the back-of-the-envelope, shoot-from-the-hip calculations of simply treating each rotor as a (mostly) known entity or module, and then just take the cosine of the offset angle as the reduction in swept area of each rotor, and perhaps throw in a little fudge-factor for the rotor overlap, depending on the offset angle and rotor spacing. How much better could we do with all the super-computers in the world? Not much really, if at all.

In the end I realized that it would become another case of the cart pushing the horse: we already know rotors work, and we know about how well they work. And we know we can put a string of them together and they will work together, and common sense tells us that the offset angle and overlap will reduce power somewhat.

The approximate power, lift, and thrust, for these rotors is easily looked up and/or calculated.

So what set of tools could we even hope to put together that would tell us more than we already know? Basically, considering the primitive stage we're at, we'd have nothing to gain from such a CFD simulation except for being able to brag that we had gotten a major university with a great wind energy reputation involved with Superturbine(R). And maybe a computer confirmation of what we already know: it works.

And it may have slowed us down as much as helped us along. The only real advantage would have been to slow actual progress in lieu of generating impressive reams of paperwork. The upside may have been a glint of recognition from a credential-fixated world. It would have come down to mere appearances - more talking instead of walking.

All in all we've gotten to the point that we simply have no interest in dragging highly-credentialed agencies kicking and screaming through the actual exploration of new things.

Now let me be clear, Dr. Case Van Dam at U.C. Davis has seen Superturbine(R) arrays as quite interesting and perhaps promising - he has his finger on the pulse.

It's the hired-gun "technical reviewers" that seem to squelch any new ideas: They are paid to have no vision and to say no to ideas and yes to corny business plans full of lies. Result? Most funded ideas fizzle out as the lies manifest into reality and nothing emerges.

Solution? Well let's think "model airplane".
If you had a new airplane design, would you build a full-size model first? Or would you be better off making a radio-controlled scale model to prove the theory of operation?

Would it be faster to develop a suite of software specifically to design your new airplane, or would it in fact be much faster to build it and fly it at a smaller scale and see what goes wrong and fix it and build another til you got something that could fly? And would the result be more meaningful after you had flown a model, or simulated a full-size prototype?

I say don't let anything stop you from building a model, and if it is small at first that is perfectly OK and in fact better so you don't waste large amounts of resources getting it to even work at all.
:)
Doug Selsam
http://www.selsam.com

Dear Dave,

And by the way may be cheaper and, unless you're a really good at developing equations of motion and the detailed work involved, a lot more accurate and quicker to implement. A good mechanic with some engineering background  can build a scale prototype. It usually takes an army of PHDs ( or one very clever one) to build an adequate simulation of the sorts of systems we're talking about.

   M: Mooring set      T: Tether set

A start would be to stitch Dave Lang's tether tech to two aircraft called "moorings" of a kite energy system. Displacements formatted in the tether or mooring would lead to mining kinetic energy of the media (relative to the KES parts) .    Media:solid, air, water, soup, ...; one of the two mooring sets could be in one media while the other mooring set could be in a distinct media.   Controls over the shape and attitude of each mooring or/and tether could smartly be executed to optimized displacements aimed at mining energies.   Much design tools already face vehicles and devices that move through soil, water, and air.  Two mooring sets coupled by a tether set complicates things and presents some work to do; turbulence impacting the mooring sets and tether set challenges, but has some averages and expectancies that may be played. As the two aircraft sets (moorings) are modified and coupled through tether-set actions, parts displacement may be mined; the energy changes would be respected and balanced through conservation sums.    Each kite-energy system will have its description and be cost rendered.

A hand-held toy kite system fits in the play of two mooring sets and a tether set. A huge 1000 m tall  arch venetian-blind oscillatory KES driving a huge groundgen still is just a set of two moorings and a tether set.     A hang glider fits the same schematic with the pilot body a moving falling mooring with its L/D while the wing above is the upper mooring; the two moorings are both aircraft coupled by the hang line from wing to the hang glider pilot.   The OutLeader kite tugging the sailboat hull is also simply a KES with two moorings and a tether set; the hull is the lower mooring; the OutLeader Culp Kite is the upper mooring; the two mooring are in their respective media; the tether couples the two "aircraft" though one "aircraft" is a hydrocraft hull.    A draggy-generator-filled railcar pulled by an upper kite set is also fitting the same schematic.   

Three coupled items (two M sets and a T set) along with attention over a displacement dynamic bring on KES.   Each media with its turbulence play in the game.      Allowing variables to play over known materials will posit stresses and strains during energy conversions; and each description will have its material list, wear history, costing functions.  Comparisons of systems could play over various ratios.

Soil has unexpected turbulence (rocks, pipes, rapid density changes, texture, roots, etc.)  Water has its turbulence (temperture changes, flow direction changes, wave actions, etc. ).   Air has its turbulence (gusts, helicities, moisture variability, temperature changes, direction changes, density changes, visibility changes, moisture content changes, electrical changes, ...).   

Play the KES video game around the world, at schools, in homes, in offices, at kite labs, at contests, etc.

Thanks to Wayne German for the push for simulation and emulation of KES toward universalizing the opportunity to design KES and then compare. 

Will the tugged hydrogen-making hydro-aero KES at super scale win over huge free-flight international KES?   Will lifted tall venetian-blind oscillators bring winning ratios?    Watt-hr per kilogram of system material?    Etc.

 

Venetian blind Kite-Energy Systems

Meta-talking points:

• This thread invites disclosure and study of various "Venetian-blind KESs "
  
• Entry at AWE Glossary to date (ever open for advancing by anyone): 
  "Venetian Blinds Kite-Energy System   by Wayne German.   Vertically set wing elements.  Full disclosure has not been made yet.   Wayne German very briefly made a sketch at HAWP Conference 2009 and briefly said a few words about the matter.    Wayne's NDA damps discussion somewhat.  Cross-wind flying occurs in the VB-KES.
  
• Would the 1970s Selsam laddermill disclosure  fit into the branch of KESs called Venetian Blind?
  
• Would the later Ockels' laddermill rotating stack of kites fit into the branch of KESs called Venetian Blinds?  [Not Ockels' simple stack like in the sailing stack , but his endless loop of rungs that rotate ---The group is setting such focus to back burner in preference for fixed-sail stack and also reeling yo-yo methods.]
  
• Would the oscillatory endless loop of flying-wing elements set in arch-kite format  for groundgen and ground-sprag be a Venetian Blind player?
  
• DaveL's notes on specifying a KES.  Checklist.       Degrees of freedom .
  
• Getting familiar with Dave Lang's tether program.  
• GTOSS   Generalized Tethered Object Simulation System           
• Face Venetian Blind KES No. 1, No. 2, etc. 
•  How might we get Dave Lang  funded to lead a project to further simulation/emulation of KESs?   Any ideas on this? Could a team inclusive of Wayne German, Brooks Coleman of ZapKites , etc. be formed and funded?   Maybe join CATIA® team, Disney animator artists, Dave Santos, NASA ... collaboration of sensors, illustrators, physicists, engineerrs, kite system designers,  game designers... Maybe DSM of Dyneema (they just invested strongly in SkySails and would benefit from the tether and bridle sets) could get interested...maybe Google.org also?
  
• Getting familiar with CATIA®      CATIA is Dassault Systèmes Pioneer Brand     Site1     GenLink
  
• A body in a flow of a medium (soil, water, air, soup, etc.)  has dynamically changing  lift and drag resultants, has rotations, inertia, instantaneous velocities, accelerations, bridles (fixed or variable), etc. For brief "L/D body" is a title to cover the fullness of a body's conditions and reactions.   A KES has two L/D bodies couple by a tether set.  A tether set might be empty or with a cardinal number of 1 or 2 or 3, or more.   At the empty tether set, one might see a fusion of the two L/D bodies into one L/D body to find an integral aircraft like, say a sailplane flying without tether.   KES concerns generally come into party play when the tether set has at least one tether between at least two L/D bodies.     Anchoring to earth brings earth as one of the two L/D bodies in some KESs. Collaboration among Moritz Diehl and any others doing careful modelling of KES?   KES Simulation Team? 
  
• Preliminary Study on Kite Autonomy, Design, Model, and Control, November 2007 Masters Thesis of Gabriel Weilenmann and Frederick Tischhauser
  
• ?

JoeF 

Joe,

I assume we have Mark to thank for this serious discussion. That is indeed welcome. It seems far more than coincidental that of all the different methods that have been proposed over the last thirty years that I have been privy to or directly involved with -- even as a Project Leader at the Flight Research Institute tasked with conceptualizing all such methods possible -- it is only just now that together we have hit on not only the best of all possible projects to pursue first -- Vertical Blinds (not Venetian Blinds my wife tells me, and I tried to get corrected, after our only true international conference that made attendance reasonably practical for all those who wanted to attend). Now we have also hit on a strategy that has enormous potential for everyone worldwide. Having forums like this that anyone and everyone can jump into to glean knowledge is a considerable blessing to all. And here I also recommend that in the future when we choose to have conferences via GoToMeeting, GoToWebinar, and/or GoToTraining as appropriate. The point is that if our conferences really are international or global we can communicate with and see each other around the world for no cost at all except to the presenters that would have to acquire those tools for the rest of us. No one would have to go anywhere and yet any or all of us could see each other. And if presentations overlapped it would not be a big deal because the presentations could repeat so all presentations could be seen when it is desired, without leaving home, paying for airfare, paying for a motel, or even juggling different time zones and losing all the time coming and going.

But I got off track. Developing an "automated aircraft/tether emulator for all worldwide" would be an unimaginable boon to any and all aircraft/wind turbine/tether systems designed, developed, tested, and quantified as worth investing in worldwide. It could and would be the best possible teaching tool for all these disciplines individually and collectively. Just like QT.Com (where anyone can develop and demonstrate considerable salable talents without ever going to college, this aeronautical tooi could do for aeronautics what QT.Com does for developing softare that can reside on cell phones, hand held units in general, or laptops or other computers. In this case, you can just program once and immediatly demonstrate great proficiency on any of those machines anywhere around the world. While their efforts and success in these efforts are amazing, and while it now enables anyone anywhere to show proficiency in thses areas without going to school at all, this new aeronautical development tool could do the same for aeronautics everywhere. And there MAY be some value in working in conjunction with QT.Com in making our aeronautical tool(s) interactive with theirs. After all, most all aeronautical systems are going to need computer automation of some sort to make them work. Why not be interoperable with theirs and simply inherit the vast number of people that are coming up to speed and developing programming talents using the technology they have thus pioneered. To outsiders this may seem like a monumental deal, but all that really may be required is some form of translation between what QT.Com has to offer and what our new aeronautical/wind turbine/tether emulation system might require or provide. AND I CERTAINLY WOULD NOT SELL THIS BIT OF SOFTWARE AS BEING MASSIVE. If Nokia, a cell phone company, can make such a find programming development system for everyone to use worldwide free of cost, and to become certified as skillful in using and taking on jobs in -- even in high school -- then we could do the same for aeronautics. THIS IS NOT NECESSARILY MASSIVE DEVELOPMENT WORK AT ALL. AT FIRST MOSTLY ALL THAT SEEMS TO BE REQUIRED IS MERGING DAVE LANG'S TETHER EMULATION SOFTWARE WITH AN EMULATOR FROM SUCH COMPANIES AS CATIA OR SOLIDWORKS.

The point is that in my estimation, in the hands of truly gifted programmers (such as I have known personally at Intel) -- not just data base manipulators -- this looks like a job that might only take man-weeks rather than man-years just to merge tether emulation with aeronautical emulation. And I suggest we sell NASA management on just that much for starters. Rather than selling NASA's management on just how massive this understaking might be, I would sell it for what it is initially: merely the merging of both aeronautical and tether emulation technology. This is not a monumentally large elephant we are trying to kill. This is just another stupid rubber duckie that should have been put to bed a long time ago -- and for all worldwide. Once that is done, then we should sell NASA's administration on merging with QT.Com . After all, even the means we all use to steer these emulations might themselves benefit from some QT.Com software written by a high school student that is God's gift to QT in the Ukraine for $75 dollars and a great big honorable mention in the hopes of landing more jobs.

Here the point is that by leveraging our own ability to help students around the world demonstrate and certify their talents, we now have unlocked for ourselves first and foremost, a world of talent that would kill to help us for a tenth as much money and often much faster and better -- as such -- and as we leverage ever more people around the world with the extremely exciting prospect to them of being able to do real work of any kind, my expectation is the we should find that we would have found that not only can we make a combine that would bring together aeronautical/wind turbine/tether emulation in one place, we could very likely find that we have just set snow balls in motion that could each now cause other combines to be generated for other purposes too as they all realize that once you reach "critical mass" things can really get hoppin' darn quick -- especially as you employ the talent that you just made employable in a very focused way. Rather than a thousand companies each springing up to make ever more cell phones and computers in what I would call "horizontal competition". Now with focus they could build on what others have done -- particularly software wise -- to make truly innovative products in unimaginably short time -- because one of the stipulations to joining this club is that anyone could use the massive libraries as they would continually grow, but in return what they develop would be gleaned for whatever libraries others might use to make other projects. In short, it would be a very wrong decision to keep this capability for America only when it would end up that that their talents would not be available for us to use in the best possible ways and thereby compound to every one's benefit.

But here again I have diverged. Please execuse me. I am just a little excited. You see I went underground with the most important and salient things I learned when at the Flight Research Institute researching all these prospects -- because I found prospects that the government would probably not likely resist pursuing that would enable them to fly anything anywhere and do any dastardly deeds, but also show anyone and everyone how to do the same to us -- as in nuclear and biological weapons that Home Land Security now says will likely be used to attack terrorists within 15 years from now.

Now the point (and the coincidence that I forgot to mention) is that we can develop Vertical Blind Technology with which to extract power from the Low Level Jets that fly over the Great Plains, Patagonia, and the Roaring Forties to mention a few. This is a recent topic that is just now getting warmed up. Professor Ockels work predates my own in this area by a decade or two and I kindly remember our discussions back them. His ladder mill and my Vertical Blind concept would be close in concept if his Ladder Mill were toppled over on it's side. Basically, the Vertical Blind concept is simply that dumb skinnyy rectangular wings ganged together as kites often are at the beach -- could all pull directly north or south and back again forever -- and generating electricity by causing a generator to spin back and forth -- provided winds (such as would be in the low level jets) would blow east or west.

What is really wonderful about this concept is it's utter simplicity, and the fact that it would use the most utterly simple of airfoils -- long rectangular wings. It could swoop (a technical term) across enormous expanses of the Great Plains. And what is most wonderful to me is that I cannot think of a single way that the Military could use this technology to threaten, harm, or kill anyone. So here I am thinking are any number of win, win, win, win, wins. (Unimaginably better than your basic "win - win" propositions.) Of course, the devil is in the details. And while it is my habit to expose enough cards to interest others, I keep the trump to retain a deciding stake in how things transpire.

The point is that if this looks like it could really "catch fire" I will disclose how this technology could be developed and mass produced and generate unimaginably more power per dollar invested than any other wind technology could possibly do. But now I want to see to what extent these disclosures might elevate people off of the couch.

And let's drop these damnable AWE and Airborne Wind Energy names that are really albatrosses around our necks in our small fraternity. Like I have said before, planes do have airborne wind energy systems. They are not related to KiteEnergy. They are used to generate just enough electricity to keep systems alive when all other onboard electricity systems fail. Since the systems that we are generating are related to KiteEnergy and not to Airborne Wind Energy systems or AWE at all, let's not dig ourselves down any deeper requring other people to use the same misnomers that others in our group happened to come up with when shooting from the hip one day. Again, as I have said before, no newbie is going to think of looking for our small fraternity under the Airborne Wind Energy or AWE headings. No new person would have any hope of guessing that it is under those names that our organization could be found. Rather than remaining transfixed and committed to such complete misnomers to new members, let's agree that KiteEnergy will be our banner. I have that domain name -- and even back at our one and only international conference I offered KiteEnergy.Com as the main name through which any or all of us could be found simply by clicking on our links. Again and again I have offered it since. My only real goal here is to leave a legacy that makes sense and would expedite others trying to find us.

It is exactly this same stupidity that keeps computers continually committed to old legacy technology that is long since antiquated because it's always supposedly too expensive to correct the mistakes that peope make at any one time -- even if it costs them a hundred times more in the long run. This is the time to choose right names rather than just letting newbies flail in their attempts to find us.

If there is no chance that we might even choose to say what we mean and mean what we say together then that should be my indication that I should not work with or disclose anything more regarding Vertical Blinds. My real hope is not that I will convince myself that I am wiser and better off taking my toys and going home, but the real truth is that if we cannot summarily dismiss such wrong decisions when they arise, then it should be painfully clear that nothing of greater consequence will likely come from people who tenatiously resist doing what should obviously be done in doing nothing more than choosing to hang up a reasonable shingle on the door for passersby.

Please understand. I am not really bothered or upset. But while I would like to work with all of you and show you what I have, I also need to believe that there can be some reasonable give and take. And really, I see none. This is a trifle, but is shows an unimaginable desire to remain unyielding despite what we all know is best long term.

Mark, if you have read all my ramblings, maybe you and I could work cooperatively to lay down a frame work for all. After all, I perceive that we have both been aeronautical architects and conceptual architects at that. Perhaps this makes most sense anyway. Rather than too many people quibling over too many incidentals maybe we should offer what we do our best to architect and then offer a line item vote so people can make clear what they want and when they want it.

-- Wayne German
WayneLGerman@Yahoo.Com (any may respond to me directly)

Two points I should have said:

1. The "QT" that Nokia offers to program most anything worthwhile with just one set of software can be found at qt.nokia.com not qt.com as I said earlier today. I believe it to be the best single example of how one website can cover most anything worthwhile in a single discipline educationally, professionally, or in this case both. Take a look and you will see how everything is really well laid out and almost any hardware that one might wish to program can be programmed once and then simply directed to execute on any number of different hardware from cell phones, to laptops, and most anything useful in between. But what is so great is that most any function anyone would wish is here also to simply include. No one needs to develop the wheel over and over again. As a professional programmer I cannot say enough good things about what they have done on this website and how they have done it. Maybe just maybe the emulators that we are discussing developing -- aeronautical, wind turbine, and tether should be merged not only to execute stand alone, maybe they should be developed to be add ons to what this website provides and written in one of the languages that it makes available. That would ensure that something like 600,000 developers that now use QT would be available and know how to develop and program using the tools sets offered on the qt.nokia.com website. One thing that makes this particularly attractive is that this website also offers multiple levels of certifications and multiple branches of interest that programmers can be certified in. This means that while you might choose to hire a programmer in Egypt (perhaps due to the fact that people on average in Egypt earn less than $2 dollars per day) then even if they have no college, if they have the certification you can have good confidence they will know this qt toolset well and how to program your application with it. And with all the money you save why not hire nine of them and give birth to your project in a month -- rather than the nine months one programmer might take. (If you were a programmer you would know that I am being facetious. Being at the tail end of all projects programmers are often expected to perform such miracles to compensate for all other slippages that no one ever cares about until they all wait for the programmers to do their thing. This is my way of including some customary programmer's griping and complaining up front because if I didn't you wouldn't recognize me as a programmer now would you?)

2. All things considered Joe Faust is God's gift to Tethered Flight Technology. I don't know anyone who would have put himself out to such extent for the rest of us -- and all the while looking and acting so consistently congenial, friendly, and helpful that unsuspecting newcomers might think it's his real character.

Sincerely, though, Joe, God bless you. Not many of the rest of us think to do so also -- or nearly as often as we should. You are what keeps the rest of us going in coordinated directions without killing each other along the way -- just for the sheer spite of it all.

-- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, "Joe Faust" <joefaust333@...

2010 summer:  Gion and Simmerer came up with the idea for this record-breaking trip in summer of 2010.

 WindExplorer.           (the kite was used for traction; additional wind turbine helped to charge batteries)   
[Someone one day will use only kitricity to make a similar journey. That is, there will be electric vehicles  with batteries charged only from electricity generated from the use of kite energy systems. It is feasible today. Records will be set for pure-kitricity bicycles and cars.]

Hi Joe,

Veri nice, looks like it was a wonder filled summer down under. I love the human spirit.

Dan'l

Yes Joe, I used to describe the idea now called "Laddermill" as an endless loop of venetian blinds, back in the 1970's. Wooden venetian blind blades make great blanks for wind turbine blades. A working venetian "blind wind" turbine using lift must separate the blades sufficiently that they really won't look that much like venetian blinds in practice, but mostly empty space with the occasional blade traveling by. Remember, working wind turbine rotors have something like a 2% solidity, and that gets less and less as you approach the tips, where you need over a 99% air/blade ratio for good performance. So that's a "venetian blind with" 99 out of every 100 blades removed, traveling real real fast..

A cross-wind, horizontal-travel venetian blind turbine was built and tested decades ago in Tehachapi at Oak Creek windfarm, and it blew apart as far as I know.

A key factor is the 120 - 150 mph it would travel, even as a terrestrially-based system, and,
How long such a cable assembly traveling that fast could hold up to wear and turbulence?

Note: travel speed of a rotating blade at the hub approaches zero at any wind speed. That near-zero speed at the hub is your open door to low wear and high control. Consider the wheel, and whether this is another attempted re-invention thereof. Spin your venetian blind blades in a circle across the wind and you are back at the good- ole' propeller.

Doug Selsam
http://www.selsam.com

Sounds cool Wayne, and with fewer major hurdles than your 2-separated-kites with onboard power-reels & generators, not attached to the ground, beaming the power to Earth via microwaves.

Please allow me to suggest: Why don't you build a working scale model of your flying blinds, since you describe this as "the best of all possible projects to pursue first"?

The Superturbine(R) concept emerged after consideration of the cross-wind "blades-on-a-clothesline" concept, and was seen as lower-hanging fruit, which it still is, given the ease with which they can be built and run.

The proposed software regarding airplanes & tethers, could be great but what if an emerging solution used no airplane and no tether?

I guess spending millions to develop software that may end up not solving the problem is a more likely use of public funds than building known working models.

I consider it a subset of "work avoidance" - prancing through the daisies entertaining our fantasies is always the most tempting pursuit. The subconscious motivation is therefore to discuss mainly ideas that will not work, or not work easily, since then one never has to build one, but can remain forever in the land of fantasy. As long as it's all a big mystery, it's fun fun fun. Pure entertainment. That's why we say "forget it unless it's over 20,000 feet" - that way we can stay in our armchairs. When you have to start building turbines that meet standards and produce power reliably, the fun turns to work. By the time you're working out overspeed protection and burning out generator after generator, it's 99% work.

"KiteEnergy" - sure, it's a great name and congratulations for owning the domain, but what if useful solutions emerge that do not feature kites or anything resembling a kite? What if the solutions resemble a gyrocopter? Well in that case kite energy will be one thing and airborne wind energy will be another thing. I thought we had all hashed this "name" thing out something like a year ago. But you make a good point that we need to remember to keep it searchable by likely attempted keywords.
:)
Doug Selsam
http://www.selsam.com

Doug,

      If top solutions feature rotor blades that are autorotating because of the flow and and are either lifted or self-lifting or a combination, and if such is using a tether in order to brace those actions to effect the flight of the lofted bodies, then we have a kite energy system.  A kytoon lifted serpent SuperTurbine (R) or a quad-rotor Roberts-Shepard arrangement are kite energy systems (KES).

 The tradename play on "helicopter" at http://www.helicopter-kite.com/ features simply a raw kite which could be a feed for a kite energy system.    The ribbon rotor kite is a player in the kite-energy space. The Savonious kytoon can be used as a kite energy system producing flygen or groundgen kitricity.   So, if winners turn out to feature autogyro blades, they still are in kite energy.     Wayne's quite simple site KiteEnergy.com    would cover what you proposed.  I like to have the word "Systems" to embrace the entire systems involved in generating works and conditioned energy to serve others for the myriad of tasks open to KES .

JoeF

www.KiteEnergySystems.com

Re: [TKF List] Kite powered car


The next generation may be a K-car(tm) or Kar(tm) that strictly runs off of "kitricity" only.

That is, the K-car(tm) or Kar (tm) will not carry a mobile towered turbine for charging the batteries. And the K-car would not use traction kiting. But the kite would be used during parking pauses to generate electricity from upper winds to charge the K-car batteries. Better and smoother winds would be mined for energy. KiteEnergy or kite energy community is gathering to accomplish such matters for K-cars and many other needs. www.KiteEnergySystems.com Then there will not be a need to hug one side of the road or the other; and no need to have tether interference with other road traffic or roadside trees and objects. The K-car or Kar would be able simply to drive anywhere. While drivers are resting, just let the kite energy system (KES) recharge the batteries. The very Kar(tm) drive motor would double as the groundgen for the KES. Records will be set for Kars.

Discussion open.

I have not read the inside article yet.  This thread might address the cover points as well as the inside-article matters, as we become familiar with the contents.  Many dimensions of commentary are invited.

• The cover talking points:
• "Energy's Next Frontier"
• "Radical Power"
• "Flying wind turbines"
• Flygen with conductive tether imaged, but newbie viewer on average might not discern the matter's detail
• "Using four 35-ft rotors, the Sky Windpower generator would produce a megawatt of clean power"
• There is a black dot holding one exclamation point; this anchors the comment.
• On the left of the main image is a smaller FEG.
• In the image on the right is a set of three tethered devices. Comment on the three is invited.
  
• The inside article talking points:
• [I have not seen or read the article yet.]
• In a prior post, I had wondered just how comprehensive the coverage/interview preparation and disclosure would be.  Would PM touch the rich kite energy opportunity with all its potential?      My office received zero contact in PM's preparation.     Let's see ...
• _____________
• ______________
• _______________
• etc.

JoeF

Enlargement of a detail from the cover:

Are those meant to be quad-rotored flygens kited with conductive tether
to echo the main FEG figure of the art?

JoeF

The technical opinions of the editors of Popular Mechanics are about on par with Cosmopolitan.  They have run a serious article on anti-gravity trucks delivering to mult-story warehouses, and run an ad for subscriptions with a smiling male model about to drill out the device-mounting threads of a plastered-in electrical box.

Dan of SpiralAirfoi gives a news link related to the same WindExplorer:

Wind-powered car completes cross-continental journey 
by Darren Quick

Notice that the WindExplorer carries a towered wind-turbine and also uses a kite for some traction at runs that allow roaded kiting.      A similar effort one day will feature device that is a combine of solar power and charge from kite-energy systems. 

Soon we will see a cross-continent "kite-powered car" tour where all the electricity for travel is obtained from a carried AWECS or kite-energy system.  Who will be first for such?   Will a kite-energized car  "kite-car" or Kar be able to win a race over a solar-energy car?   Maybe such could be a big race: solar versus kite-energy.

Thanks, Dan.

JoeF

To add to the list of methods for tailed turbines, and tailed rotors:

The tailed rotor(s) could drive and endless loop that doubles as the tether. The loop might be shrouded.

The entire instruction in US Pat. 6616402 misses the tailed set of rotors, as that instruction stays with rotating the tether device in various was forward of the lifting bodies.  

The age-old kite tails that waft or spin or pin-wheel or rotate is what the kite-energy "tailed turbine" and "tailed rotor" is about.  Use the tailing logic to convert the wind's energy to drive generators aloft or on the ground or both. Let the tailing logic allow every stronger lifters while scaling the rotor(s).

Click each image for full different patents.

 

 

 

 Preliminaries:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SingaporeFlyer.JPG
• http://www.citybackpackers.com.sg/image/singapore_flyer.jpg
• http://www.premiumtours.co.uk/images/product/original/132_2.jpg
• http://www.melrosewheelchairs.com/images/sanjex-radial-spokes.jpg
• 
  

Click the following paragraph clip for full set of images and instructions.    
Details in claims are open for discussion.

 
by William K. Watson
Patent number: 4491739
Filed: Sep 27, 1982
Issued: Jan 1, 1985

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

JoeF

More detail shown in video:

http://tinyurl.com/PartlyKcarVIDEO

Hi Joe,
 
           I see know reason a series of wind turbines could not be set up along all road ways, when a vehicle goes low on power, drive up and recharge. Joe I did see the video and graphics breakdown. I just think those guy must have had a wonderful adventure, been a long time sense I went on an adventure like that, who knows maybe someday again.
 
                                                                                                                                         Dan'l
 
Good Sunday to you Joe.
 

---

To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
From: joefaust333@gmail.com
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2011 15:37:14 +0000
Subject: [AWECS] Re: WindExplorer

 

The upper winds are attractive for energy production.   Why?

===============DRAFT=====================

Upper wind energy is a vast new resource to access.

Upper winds: Smoother, more dependable, more consistent, faster,
more directionally stable, thicker, more distant from human operations, 
higher energy potential, beyond boundary layer wind gradient, fewer bats and birds,
less particulates, and  more placement opportunity!

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

Suggestions for the paragraph are invited.   What is missed in praises of upper winds? Tight phrasing?       All are welcome to use the text formed on any document anywhere.

JoeF

Polishing by accountants is invited toward this sketch:

 kitricity credits     
 Kitricity is fed into grids or storage systems; electricity consumers may buy electricity made by kites. Split electric bills might show: kWh from kitricity, kWh from coal or oil, kWh from hydro, kWh from conventional wind, etc.    One might buy future kitricity.    Kitricity credits might be brokered between energy brokers far from where the kitricity is produced; in such manner distribution need not be physical.

Perhaps FlygenKite in France could produce kitricity today; that energy might be fed into a local France grid and be traded --on paper--to a utility in Texas, USA; a customer in Texas would buy and use the kitricity credits.   Coal would take a step back in the net.

==========Better accounting phrasing is invited toward the above sketch that came to me this morning in my sleep.

 

Open for hot-seat critique and open for FairIP:

http://energykitesystems.net/KESbyJpF/widestackYoYo.jpg

 mvflyingwind   Video

 Two secondary school girls conclude:  HAWP is way to go.

Miss Patpitchaya Pichayavanic,
Miss Paspimol Kosichaiwat

 Paper.  Flying Wind Generator

A short segment about kite energy (ship propulsion) can be found in the movie Carbon Nation http://www.carbonnationmovie.com/ Link holds a trailer of the longer movie.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jabiru

http://tinyurl.com/JabiruVCT

Jabiru was name for test rig at Velocity Cubed Technologies, Inc. 
Velocity Cubed Technologies

http://velocitycubed.com/FirstGen.html  Some large-fil videos

http://velocitycubed.com/SecondGen.html

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

[Note: many kite-energy flying electric generators or flygens are in public domain awaiting fine engineering for success. Update story from Velocity Cubed Technolgies, Inc. is invited. ]

JoeF

Re: Phrasing suggestions: 1/3 the power at 30,000 feet (thin air)

Joe:
Change "thicker" to "thinner".

You'll only get ONE THIRD (1/3) = 33% the power for the same windspeed at 30,000 feet, as you would at sea level, since there is only 1/3 the air present at 30,000 feet to provide that power.

LINK:
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-altitude-pressure-d_462.html

Power curves are normally adjusted for the lower power at higher altitudes, for the same wind speed, due to far less air density.
For example a turbine tested at 5000 feet may have ~15% added to the resulting power measurements, on the basis of standardized "corrected to sea level" procedures.

Power falls off linearly with decreasing air density.
I doubt if most, or perhaps any, or the big-talker bumper-sticker-slogan, press-release-level-reasoning AWE fundraising propaganda out there includes even this first, and most basic, simple fact.

Let's say your whole chain of logic is based on making power at half the cost by taking it at 30,000 feet, but you did not include the 1/3 air density aspect: You'll overestimate output by 300% and your energy will cost 50% more instead of 50% less than the status quo.

Wind energy is a hard business, in which there is no escape from reality.

Doug Selsam
http://www.selsam.com

Thanks, Doug,

I intended by "thicker"  the vertical play-room of the airspace, not the air density; your note moves the description set to avoid "thicker" for such reason. Thanks. 

Density consideration for power certainly does play. As the air thins, all other parameters constant, less power is obtainable. 

Towered ground conventionals work a vertical band of air that is fairly limited.  Differently the playground of the KESs is with a very tall vertical band (thick band ...in terms of distance, not density).     So, I seek phrasing suggestions further on this point so the language does not confuse density  with the tall vertical playground asset.

With your synergy and yet needing more work:

==============DRAFT CHANGED TO: ====

*Upper winds: Smoother, more dependable, more consistent, faster,
 more directionally stable, more vertical installation space by far, more distant from human operations,   higher energy potential, beyond boundary layer wind gradient, fewer bats and birds,  less particulates, and  more placement opportunity!

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

There are "sweet spots" that respect wind velocity, steadiness, density, etc.   The flexibility of the KESs for placement in the airspace  to get into those system sweet spots forms one of the attractive aspects of AWECS or KESs.

 

==========More suggestions?