Maybe of interest?

UB


-------- Original Message --------

Subject:	LAUNCH: Energy Challenge - Innovative Energy Technologies and Deployment Models for Sustainable Development
Date:	Mon, 25 Jul 2011 15:11:44 -0400
From:	A. Malouf Ph.D. NineSigma Inc. <PhD@ninesigmainc.com
To:	ugo.bardi@unifi.it

NineSigma is contacting you on behalf of LAUNCH to make you aware of the LAUNCH: ENERGY CHALLENGE - Innovative Energy Technologies and Deployment Models for Sustainable Development.

NASA, USAID, The Department of State, and NIKE joined together to form LAUNCH in an effort to identify, showcase and support innovative approaches to global sustainability challenges. LAUNCH searches for visionaries whose world-class ideas, technologies or programs show great promise for making tangible impacts on society in the developed and/or developing worlds.

The goal of the LAUNCH: Energy Challenge is to identify 10 "game changing" innovations that have the potential to transform current energy systems, and help support a more sustainable future. LAUNCH invites proposals for innovative energy technologies, as well as energy-focused education, business, and financial strategies that have the potential to provide energy at a household, community, commercial, or industrial level.

NineSigma has identified you as a party with the potential to respond to this Challenge, or as a contact who might know of someone with expertise in these areas.

* This invitation is not a complete description of the project. More information is available in the Challenge document online at http://www.ninesigma.com/viewrequest.aspx?request=67440&utm_source=Email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=67440 (or click here to go directly to the web page). The final submission date for a Statement of Interest is September 9, 2011.

If after reviewing the full Challenge document you are interested in submitting a Statement or would like more information, please contact me by email and reference LAUNCH: ENERGY CHALLENGE (NS# 67440) in the subject line. Submit responses to: http://launch.org/challenge/energy?id=ns.

Sincerely,

Alfred Malouf, Ph.D.
Program Manager
NineSigma, Inc.
23611 Chagrin Blvd., Ste. 320
Cleveland, Ohio 44122-5540
PhD@ninesigma.com
Visit our blog: http://bloinc.ninesigma.com

To edit your profile and indicate only the categories of Requests you are interested in, register online at https://www.myninesigma.com/

This e-mail message is a solicitation to submit a response to the Challenge described above. There is no cost to you for this service. If you wish to no longer receive requests - presumed to be related to your area of expertise - click here to unsubscribe by email. For basic questions about NineSigma please refer to our FAQ at http://www.ninesigma.com/WhatWeDo/FAQs.aspx



---

---

As long as we can control flapping and loading, we should be able to look to the lifetimes of inflated roofs and other fabric structures.  A 20 year guarantee is not uncommon in that business, and I've seen 30 year old arch-rib and tarp buildings in good shape.

Bob Stuart wrote:
Diaphragm pumps would theoretically work with nearly 100& efficiency if the
diaphragm is reaonably flexible and the valves act quickly. Commercial units
with hand levers (e.g. bilge pumps) however often have very stiff diaphragms and
smaller motorised pumps work so quickly that friction and inertial losses are
probably significant. I can't find any figures because this is exactly what
doesn't seem to interest customers or manufacturers much.


Yes, anything this size and slow moving is likely to be quite efficient, albeit
at rather low power levels.


Doug wrote:
...
Inefficent pumps are one of the prime energy wasters in northern countries, as
there are hundreds of millions circulating pumps installed in domestic central
heating systems. These typically use 30 to 100 W electrical power 24 hours per
day whereas the actual hydraulic pumping power required is generally only a few
W, and not 24 h/d. These are generally centrifugal vane pumps with immersed AC
motor rotors and bearings. They are very reliable with very little wear but tend
to seize up up if not used for some time (which is one of the reasons that they
tend to rund all the time even when not in use). Similar smaller types use DC
motors and a magnetic clutch in order to avoid rotating seals. They are mostly
pretty inefficient. Efficient types do exist but are much more expensive if you
can find them at all. Pump manufacturers are at present optimising their
circulating pumps especially with electronic controllers and try to sell these
at about twice the price of the old ones. The efficiency is still far from what
is possible.

In large sizes efficiency is taken more seriously.

Obviously it is easy to build nearly 100% efficent pumps yourself using any type
of leakfree positiv displacement or similar. E.g. an articulated bucket wheel
where the size of buckets is small compared to the diameter of the wheel.
However such devices are huge compared to their power and hence impractical and
expensive. If the project can be deemed a work of art, pleasure, or neccessity,
there is some chance. One concept is called "playpump":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundabout_PlayPump

...
With pumps here is generally a tradeoff between size and efficiency, larger
being better. Unless lots of space is available free, transport isn't required
and the materials used are cheap, long-lived and recyclable, large devices cost
more.

This is exactly the reasoning of the power companies. Pumped storage is a
partner to large power plants running at full power day and night, summer and
winter. To some extent also to hydroelectric plants on rivers.

Robert Copcutt wrote:
I'm more with Doug on this one. The more decentralised small power units there
are, e.g. wind turbines, AWE, domestic solar plants and combined heat and power
(CHP), the *less* is the need for lots of storage, especially large centralised
storage, as the many widespread units tend to even out and the solar as well as
CHP units produce power mostly when needed. There *is* a need for decentralised
storage, efficent power grids and seasonal storage, e.g. with chemical or
biochemical means (wood being just one example). Several towns in Germany have
proved that they can operate throughout the year using entirely renewables.

The power companies favor large plants for reasons of economy of scale. Also
wind turbines are getting larger and larger and assembled in "farms". When a
storm blows over such an area, it is clear that more power is produced than can
be used anywhere nearby. I am not sure if this warrants building huge storage
schemes far away. It might be better to produce hydrogen or other
electrochemical storage materials or simply waste this surplus power. It depends
on the relative durations of such events.

Cheers, Theo Schmidt

When I was building aerostats (tethered balloons) at TCOM we used a
Teflon outer skin
.
The Dupont trade name is "Tedlar" and envelopes laminated with a
polyester scrim, a mylar gas barrier and a tedlar exterior would last
for 5 years or more.
I suspect the limiting factor for the fabric was the gas barrier
rather than the exterior.

The actual laminating process where the flourocarbon outer layer was
adhered to the mylar gas barrier was a trade secret, on the plant
floor the two fabrics were fed into a closed room and came out as one.

Andrew King
King Technical Services
Ann Arbor MI cell 904-3943
Consulting on technical challenges
Translating ideas into reality

Hi everybody! I present my new idea - Owl-turbine. It looks like owl eyes. 

Attachments :



---

---

Is teflon really the optimum UV barrier for AWE? In London a huge area
of teflon coated fabric was used to make what was called the Millenium
dome, now the O2 arena. It was built to last many years in storm winds
under UV, as well as self cleaning itself to maintain a decent
appearance. Those properties are not so valuable for AWE so the high
cost and mass of teflon, and weak UV blocking ability, make it a less
obvious choice.

Those helium balloons in all shapes and colours you can buy at fairs are
made using a very thin aluminium layer (probably vacuum deposited).
There are tough polymer layers either side to protect the Al layer. If
you are going to laminate 2 layers it takes little extra work to
laminate 3 or 4 layers. That way each layer can be totally optimised to
its task.

Start with the very high strength yarn. Deposit very thin Al layer to
block UV. Apply protective layer.

Another factor to consider is that each AWE station should have several
kites to suit the different wind strengths. A large light one for the
light winds and then progressively smaller tougher ones for the stronger
winds. That means there is less need to spend excessively on increasing
the lifetime of each individual kite.

Robert.

I was watching a program commemorating the last shuttle flight. One of
the comments was an observation that one lightning strike seems to
trigger others over a distance of several hundred km. What triggers
lightning is not yet fully understood so we need to assume that however
we build our kites they will increase the likelihood of static zaps.

The possibility of strikes leaving an insulating tether may be more of a
problem than advantage. If the air turbulence caused by the kite
attracts a strike and then it leaves the line near the ground it could
hit something we would rather it did not. At least using a conductive
line we have better control over where most of the current flows.

This, and other reasons I have mentioned before, like cost, mean I
favour using steel lines.

Robert.

I foresee our energy infrastructure getting more complicated, not less.
Large scale pumped storage will have its place but there is a shortage
of suitable sites.

The solution I am working on now is small scale AWE with a new cheap
battery for off-grid applications. The battery is essential because even
paired with PV there are times when there is no sun and no wind.

As the price of this system comes down it will become attractive to
people who want to decrease their reliance on the grid. A sort of UPS.

At the other end of the scale centralised energy storage will also be
needed because when a storm blows over a wind farm it shuts down to
protect the turbines and the electrics. My battery is suitable for that
too.

Hydrogen production is inefficient. I doubt it will become main-stream.
My profession for several years was fuel cell development.

Robert.

Alex,

Nice graphics. The magnus force is pathetically weak but fortunately
your concept, as drawn, does not rely on it.

Where are the generators? Getting their mass down to a level where you
can lift them is difficult.

Robert.

Off-the-shelf storage solutions are certainly indicated by the relative sizes of our industries, but there is also the chance to integrate collection and storage.  One example is to just give up on generating power directly even under ideal conditions, and optimize things for pumping water or air into storage.  This might take the form of a very long-stroke action, for which a kite is peculiarly suited.  One could set a kite to looping and pulling hard to raise a skip of water up a track between reservoirs, and then trim it to let the skip return to the lower reservoir.  

OK then let's say you HAVE a viable energy storage technology at hand:
What are you going to do with it?
Store the cheapest electricity you can find.
And that cheapest electricity is, as you point out, excess night-time nuke capacity and excess night-time capacity in general.
It's NOT due to transmission inefficiencies, unless you mean that we should be able to transmit it from the night side of the globe to the day side, which would be nice...

Now you can hypothetically SAY that THE GOAL of any storage technology is (or should be) to harness wind energy, but the market will dictate that the storage solution be applied wherever it makes the most economic sense, which will be storing night-time electricity for use in the day, no matter how much you may wish otherwise or say "it makes no sense".

If you have the storage technology for sale, you will sell it to whomever will pay the most for it, and that would be someone wanting to store night-time excess capacity for use in the day, before it would be a windfarm with some energy to store some days and none other days.

And if there is enough cheap energy stored at night to reduce the need for generation of any form in the day, it could make windpower less attractive, since the wind-generated electricity would then not be needed as much.

So while you may THINK you need cheap storage to make windpower work, and though you cite AWE, it's MORE true of regular windpower which, to read the AWE hype, is MORE intermittent than AWE (a main reason given for AWE is less intermittency).
So AWE, if it ever works as advertised, would make energy storage LESS necessary than with regular wind energy, since AWE supposedly REDUCES intermittancy.

But, with no useful AWE product, just hype and wishful thinking, it's tempting to talk about other technologies instead. You can get your AWE system working, or you can cite endless distractions such as crafting crafty contests and lamenting energy storage woes - no matter for AWE. Develop your storage technology and apply it first to night-time nukes, second to regular wind energy, THEN to AWE where it's less needed than for regular wind energy or for night-time excess capacity.

I know, I know, all those megawatts that the kiteflyers are generating and nowhere to put it! (handwringing) "What are we gonna do!?!?!"
Doug S.

It really based on Magnus effect. Of cause it must be calculated and porbe on model, but Magnus force grow with diameter of cylinder and friction on it surface.
Generator is downstairs. When a tappet ratates, it causes reciprocating moving of rope.

I think that the F1 engine design is driven by the displacement limitation, which demands high RPM and maximized valve area.  The highest-efficiency ship diesels are still very long-stroke designs.  Perhaps the old british way of reckoning horsepower for tax purposes actually improved efficiency, even as it discouraged racing conversions.

Robert Copcutt schrieb:
As soon as you are off-grid things become economical which don'r stand a
chance on-grid.

Just to wind up this thread on water-pumping, I fould a super booklet
which describes low-cost hand-pumping:

"Handpump technology" on http://www.rwsn.ch/documentation. At the
typical operating point of 75W and 5m water head, the efficiencies given
are between 45 and 83%.

Fascinating! I operated an electrolyser (solar powered) for a while for
making hydrogen at 30 Bar pressure. I think it's efficiency was about
50%. I used this to operate a vehicle with a 4-stroke engine, and the
total efficiency from sun to wheels was only 0.6%. I'd love to have an
affordable fuel cell battery.

Cheers, Theo Schmidt

dave santos schrieb:
...
It's no problem in small sizes where the compression and expansion can be
isothermal (100% theoretical efficiency). It's no problem in large sizes where
the compression and expansion can be adiabatic (I think also 100% theoretical
efficiency). The problem is that in between it is neither the one nor the other,
therefore you would lose more heat than you can regain, meaning putting more
power into the compression than available from expansion, not even considering
friction and volumetric losses.

The other thing is that efficent compressors and expanders (e.g. turbines or
piston engines) are more mecganically involved than the pumps we were discussing
for water, e.g. multi-stage.

Then there is also the safety issue: your pressure vessel is a tradeoff between
weight, cost and safety factor.

Theo Schmidt

It was Theo's link not mine. Take the stop off the end.
http://www.rwsn.ch/documentation

Robert.

Link without the period:

http://www.rwsn.ch/documentation

Reel-in/out (yoyo,linear) seems to be the winner scheme for AWE towards mass production:structural simplicity,easy and good transmission between tether and Conversion System,possibility to maximize the swept area by implementing farms as Pr.Milanese indicates.Reel-in/out becomes a standard:high altitude with Ampyx,KG stem,Delft,Rotokite (soft autogiro),Windlift etc.,jet-stream with Sky Mill Energy (autogiro).

It seems most searchers are not focused in the choice of the scheme because it is already made (reel).

But for a real development of wind energy and AWE,good technologic choices are not enough.

A ground wind turbine has a capacity factor of something like 25%. So 75%  should be stored,neglecting losses.AWE has a potential of about 50%,only 50% should be stored.But in regard to the huge potential of AWE,huge storage is needed,and the grid does not like big fluctuations because of wind irregularity.One can see storage must be too much to obtain an equivalent capacity factor of nuclear or coal plants.So we must also change our behavior to avoid technologic monsters and to use successfully irregular energies.

So another possibility for later.Meteo forecasts are more and more reliable.Why do not to imagine the creation of progressive wind and solar index to make lower the price of the kw/h.Such an index (for wind) would be leaned on Beaufort scale.

When (for example) an index of 6 is announced,the kw/h is by far lower,and the customers can plan the energy-consuming operations like charging electric car,using the washing machine...

PierreB

http://flygenkite.com (flygen scheme for small and average AWE,or for SkyWind Power _ autogiro)

 

 

Dale Kramer Lazair Electric, Amphibious, Soaring    
video at YouTube.

For the full caption on the page, there is a link for "more".   Considerable detail is in the full caption.

DaveS,

You can translate any lever scheme into a reel-out/in scheme and vice versa,the kite trajectory being identical and on average downwind.Long or short strokes are possible for a reel as for an oscillating motion.The main advantages (in regard to groudgen schemes) of reel is the simplicity of its structure and the limit of parasitic forces on it.You point the actual price:tether wear.

PierreB

http://flygenkite.com     

 

We distinguish with fuzzy-yet domains some short and lover lever systems:

• 1. Wafting lever
• 2. Wafting stalk or wing (Whale-tail, Selby, ...)
• 3. Downwind-dominant lever (WIP exploration)
• 4. Double lever or teeter-totter (Orthokitebunch)
• 5. Tracted merry-go-'round or carousel with long radial levers
• 6. Counter-weighted tipping boom (Faust-Santos)
• 7. Torque-tube driving generator or pump
• 8. Rotating levers (turbine blades of central hub HAWT types)
• 9.  ...

The "lover lever systems" spelling misstep might get us off topic; correction: "longer-lever systems"

Hi everybody,

my new idea about onboard wind turbine.
http://www.awenergy.ru/index.php/ru/-/49-hyperboloid/82-2011-08-04-19-41-17
A turbine is a common kite turbine like http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCPrW_fOAbg&feature=feedf
An idea is to connect turbine kite with lines like in Shuhov tower (hyperboloid)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperboloid_structure
I suppose, it can tranduce torque to electric generator (on picture red).

Open to public:  Messages and Links

Open only to logged-on members:  Files, Photos.

Example:

Links

Name	Creator	Actions
Project Sea Tree followed at EKS http://www.energykitesystems.net/ProjectSeaTree/index.html

The item that Dave have listed have been considered along the development of the KiteGen. In fact, to maximize the ratio between the active and passive phase, a sideslip manoeuver has been tested. Cables have been tested with special mechanical device as you can see here,http://fuoripista.webs.com/Immag0006.jpg

In any case some components need to be replaced, as the tires and brakes for cars.

Also in the carousel version there are passives phases, and also the cables are reeled in and out.

Hi Dave, I remember you spoke about that system, but I did not figure it out. May be if you link a scheme scheme could help.

On my side I tried to figure out the KiteGen carousel, in that link, http://fuoripista.webs.com/dalletorrieolicheagliaquiloni.pdf . However I'm not sure I did really grasp the way to overcome the two passive phases, from the broad reach to the next transverse, and from against the wind to the other transverse.

See you Mario

Has anyone tried one kite with two, widely separated sets of control lines and reels?  Flying the kite part-way across the gap and back would be an easy way to keep it pulling most of the time, in a light all-tension structure.  The first problem, of course, is in accommodating broad wind direction changes.  There are some locations, such as valleys, where that would not be much of a problem.  Other places might need a selection of kites and reels to choose from.  The next problem is how to handle one of the line sets when launching and retrieving.  I'd handle that by just using two kites, and having them hook up in the air to work as a unit once in location.  A set of them might then reconfigure in the air to accommodate wind directions.

R&D record 

Nice!

Beautiful video!

The two following flygen schemes are interesting:component crosswind-passive controle (for flight operation)-kitepilot,and two opposite kites-kitepilot.

PierreB
http://flygenkite.com

I agree,

PierreB
PS:some corrections on my precedent message:passive control,pilot kite.

A WIND-POWER UNIT AND A METHOD FOR GENERATING ELECTRICAL ENERGY
Priority data: August 16, 2007

Hans Bernoff

Home nation: Sweden

http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/images4/PCT-PAGES/2009/082009/09022979/09022979.pdf

 

Original document http://bd.patent.su/2379000-2379999/pat/servl/servlet0478.html

Translating with google http://www.awenergy.ru/info/servlet0478.html

An idea that I want to use in
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiOGOiuDX0s&feature=player_embedded
and also can be implemented in any apparatus that generates high frequency oscillating.
There are several advantages:
1. An airborne is one point (with some fluctuation). It takes just small region tom fly.
2. An airborne may be adjusted just for one altitude (doesn't have Laddermill)
3. No control system (like in Laddermill)
4. All time energy generating (doesn't have Laddermill)
3. Carbone tether ability to transfer energy much higher (with the same mass) than copper cable ability to transfers electricity.