Ha ha Joe, :) I saw the answer in a joke book after the one about how many people it takes to screw in a lightbulb.
Q: What technical hurdles remain for AWES?
A: All of them

Hey, that's the same answer as
Q: How many big lab "scientists" does it take to ignore Superturbine(R)?
A: All of them

OK that was the funny part
also
Q: How might those technical hurdles be overcome?
A: One step at a time, working your way up.

Note: Despite millions in research dollars by hundreds of teams for decades, there remains approximately 1 even halfway reliable brand of small wind turbine on a tower. The best engineering efforts of all the king's horses & men routinely fail when strong winds hit. Often it is a mini-twister that takes them out when wind directions change too fast for the spinning machine (precession, etc.).

It is not routine operation that must be designed for, but rather the most extreme wind event imaginable, which may happen in a week, or may take a year or more, but it WILL happen. Machines don't fail on nice productive days so much as during storms and extreme wind events. But you have to design for the extreme events or you won't be running on the next productive day.
:)
Doug S.

--- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, "Joe Faust" <joefaust333@...> wrote:
>
>
> What technical hurdles remain for AWES?
>
> How might those technical hurdles be overcome?
>

A PDF version is now archived for all.    We have deleted other items that Google served on their file that were other mechanical books. Our file is about 8 Mb and holds the full book.

I figure the FAA are looking for a construction method that takes failure into account.... so
In the case of a large kite array.
We choose preordained peripheral kites as weak points.
When the outer tethers on so many kites have broken, We lower the stack and run each component through maintenance checks dependant on the flying hours they have accumulated.

Assigning a lower factor of integrity (greater chance of failure)to peripheral components, and
Higher factor of integrity (less chance of failure) to the design of central stack bus tethers helps improve safe operation, whilst maintaining dynamic operation.

Make sense?

It's kinda like the wing-suit jumper I made for a party the other night... photo on facebook. oh my. silly season really took over. But I did get to socialise with a collection of fabric workers, steel fabricators and renewable energy phd students... all potentially very helpful.

I should get back to drawing.

--- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, "Joe Faust" <joefaust333@...> wrote:
>
> Rod Read in another topic thread:=======
> ... design for minor failures to allow gradual degredation of array
> performance.
> This alerts a need for inspection maintenance. And also helps avoid
> catastrophic single point failures.
> =======
> Maintenance triggers? When, where, how?
>

I think the first message shown would have to be a space invaders pixel alien descending.

  Doug is of course completely right.

We need to be robust and able to cope with extremes,

My key issue at the moment is creating a system (device based or human operated) for connecting sets of kite ring rigs.

Operators and the FAA would need to know,
how fast this could work, as well as,
complete algorithms for how we intend to launch, run and recover.

We should formulate state diagrams, taking into account, wide-field wind conditions, monitoring of array structural integrity, control and generation equipment.

Before operating, We all need specifications for the minimum number number of people and computers required to fly a set number of kites.
Specifications for acceptable line types and driver standards.
Specifications for electronic driver layout standards and backup systems.
Generator matching, following and tethering standards.

A lot of you already have some of the stuff. and FAA rules are a good place to find inspiration on similar concepts which need defined.

NASA has a couple of neat advances in the aerogel realm. 

Attachments :

Conditions d'emploi des aéronefs civils télépilotés : French rules for radio-controlled aircrafts

PierreB

dave santos schrieb:
...

> ... Of course there are some fancy physics to explain exactly why
> bare kite and line rocks, but a child can see and feel that the kite and
> line is lighter(flying weight), lower drag, and does not resistively
> heat up so readily as a motor and electrical conductor.
>
> Anyone who denies this is "in denial of what is already known" in AWE.
> Of course electrical transmission is very practical along the earth's
> surface and at small scales, where power-to-weight and safety does not
> dominate the engineering.

I don't think this is correct, you may be comparing apples with oranges.
Electrical power is voltage times current, so using a high voltage requires less
current, i.e. less copper or other conductor. Air is a pretty good insulator, so
large amounts of power can be transmitted with a light conductor. It may not be
safe, however.

Mechanical power is force times speed, so it is similar. You can use a light
line for transmitting lots of power if it moves fast. However there will also be
problems, e.g. vibration (waves).

Unless somenbody here has done some sums, I think it is too early to say which
system is more efficient. I suspect that the electrical system might win,
howver, as there are zillions of electrical power lines in use and very few
mechanical power lines, except for inherent ones such as with cable cars.

The real winner would however be chemical power. Manufacturing chemicals to
store and transmit power gives much lighter systems. Chemical energy is less
valuable than mechanical or electrical energy, however. Yet maybe future AWE
systems might manufacture chemicals and these will trundle up and done the kite
lines.

Cheers, Theo Schmidt

Honestly Roderick, I think most of the discussions here verge on insanity. It seems so silly to me to keep reading such endlessly and increasingly complicated ways to consider such a simple idea as getting wind power from the sky, when a working system that would at least work can easily be done using today's off-the-shelf components.

It is SO SO SO cart ahead of the horse, to keep reading increasingly complex yet harebrained tomes by those with mostly a gift for constructing long strings of words that become meaningless by their own weight, about specific characteristics of dubious huge fantasy systems when even a micro system that is useful for anyone has yet to emerge.

And Dave S., please don't waste more words trying to make a case that useful AWE products exist, or are available, or have even been demonstrated - they don't, and they haven't, and you know it.

I've been building and selling wind turbines for years. It doesn't matter what anyone SAYS, what crackpot theory they may have. If it is not a reliable producer of electricity when you need it, it is a joke. And if it cannot survive anything mother nature dishes out on any day, it is still a failure. And NO Dave S. I'm NOT accepting some idiotic off-topic statement that someone has towed a boat with a kite as an excuse for no working AWE electricity-generating products.

Take Honeywell as an example. Big name. Let;s all bow down in umbrage to their worthless rendering. How many idiotic press releases did we see for their AWE rendering when Honeywell is already a complete laughingstock in the real wind energy world for their building-mounted piece of crap that merely combines previously disproven bad ideas in wind energy with a new, merely silly and inadvisable idea? When it comes to wind energy, you have to be far more than smart, more than competent. You have to really "get it", and most people don't, most people apparently CAN'T. So if Honeywell cannot even make a decent regular small turbine without completely ruining their own product to where anyone who knows a single thing about wind energy regards it as a standing joke, what chance does their AWE rendering have? Answer? Zero. They have scored a zero once again. All the king's horses and all the king's men, lie and flail and fail again. We're so used to accepting lies as truth that in many peoples' minds Honeywell has a working AWE system complete with performance paramaters! Yet they have exactly nothing. And they are one of the big players that supposedly give this field credibility. Sheesh you can't make this stuff up!

If it can't be built and run at a small scale, it's unlikely to work at a large scale either.
All this stuff about the FAA, NASA, etc. is more self-glorification than anything else, but also has the component of misdirected energy that could go toward working out even the simplest system at any height, that actually had at least a FEW bugs worked out of it.

Yeah sure, I say to any generic AWE expert, you can't build even a tower-based wind energy system to save your life, let alone a flying system, let alone a useful flying system, let alone a useful flying system that can last, let alone a flying system that can operate autonomously, let alone a flying, economical, useful autonomous system that can last, let alone a flying, economical, useful, autonomous, long-lasting system that can be scaled up, yet you succumb to the temptation of self-glorification in repeated vain efforts to divert energies to arguing with bureaucracies that are completely unnecessary to even talk to at this stage of nothingness that this wish currently has attained.
Silly silly silly.
I've gotta go out and fix a windmill. It burned out the generator again. Too much power. shizzle.
Seeya.
Nice to see active minds looking at this but at some point it degenerates to all-fantasy, all the time.

--- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, "roderickjosephread" <rod.read@...> wrote:
>
> Doug is of course completely right.
>
> We need to be robust and able to cope with extremes,
>
> My key issue at the moment is creating a system (device based or human
> operated) for connecting sets of kite ring rigs.
>
> Operators and the FAA would need to know,
> how fast this could work, as well as,
> complete algorithms for how we intend to launch, run and recover.
>
> We should formulate state diagrams, taking into account, wide-field wind
> conditions, monitoring of array structural integrity, control and
> generation equipment.
>
> Before operating, We all need specifications for the minimum number
> number of people and computers required to fly a set number of kites.
> Specifications for acceptable line types and driver standards.
> Specifications for electronic driver layout standards and backup
> systems.
> Generator matching, following and tethering standards.
>
> A lot of you already have some of the stuff. and FAA rules are a good
> place to find inspiration on similar concepts which need defined.

In precedent posts I mentioned an evaluation of return (comprising Betz
limit) of AWES as only 5% of the vertical plan of wind.It seems little
in comparison with wind tower (50%) but not with a farm of wind towers
(10MW/km²) where the space between towers face to wind must be at
least 300 m,the space downwind being 500 m.Such a farm gets a double
vertical plan of wind about 100X1000x2= 200 000 m²,so a global return
not so different than 5%.

So with an altitude of 600 m instead 80 m power is x4 higher.

When economical features of AWES will become superior than that of wind
towers,a great development will can be expected.

Now some problems exist:fabric-kites are light but should be replaced
(as well as the tether) every year instead perhaps every ten years for
rigid-kites.For flygens the electrical cable must be thicker and lighter
(new materials are required);if no we must find an interesting
economical schema at low altitude.Automatic systems must prove their
efficiency, with retrieval when storms and lightnings are present,that
during several years.The usage will must allow a crash from time to
time;in full sea the kite will be recovered before nobody knows it;an
offshore implementation will can facilitate it.

To resume:improvments of materials,and precise study for the
installation.Important note:AWES should show a major economical interest
even at low altitude.

PierreB



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

>
>
> What technical hurdles remain for AWES?
>
> How might those technical hurdles be overcome?
>

AWES performances are generally studied as single systems.Nor in the
case of implementation of a AWES-farm these performances can by largely
affected by turbulences.A farm of conventionnal wind turbines requires a
huge espace between turbines x4 to x8 (x15 according to Pr Charles
Meneveau) times rotor diameter (this subject can also interest DougS):so
the density power is very low,much lower than for a single turbine.
Robert Whittlesey (California Institute of Technology), studies an
optimization of kite-farm by mimetism with bioimitation of shoals of
fish where a single turbine has lower performance but where a farm of
said single turbines have higher performances.

Nor AWES has great potential of flexible use allowing a far better
optimization of the whole kite-farm by using turbulences as advantages
instead a cause of forced loss of performances.

So could a field of searches upon the optimization of a whole kite-farm
be a goal of searches with a general dynamic approach instead (or
besides) approach on each single AWES?

PierreB

Joining your topic: 

Attachments :

WhLiDa_BB10.pdf

PJ:Robert Whittlesey (California Institute of Technology), studies an
optimization of kite-farm by mimetism with bioimitation of shoals of
fish where a single turbine has lower performance but where a farm of
said single turbines have higher performances.

AWES-farms could be implemented according to a similar way by the study of the grouping of migratory birds travelling with less fatigue by taking advantage of generated turbulences. 

PierreB
http://flygenkite.com

> Message du 11/12/11 13:22
> De : "Pierre Benhaiem"
> A : AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
> Copie à :
> Objet : [AWES] Using turbulences in a kite-farm
>
>  

>
> AWES performances are generally studied as single systems.Nor in the
> case of implementation of a AWES-farm these performances can by largely
> affected by turbulences.A farm of conventionnal wind turbines requires a
> huge espace between turbines x4 to x8 (x15 according to Pr Charles
> Meneveau) times rotor diameter (this subject can also interest DougS):so
> the density power is very low,much lower than for a single turbine.
> Robert Whittlesey (California Institute of Technology), studies an
> optimization of kite-farm by mimetism with bioimitation of shoals of
> fish where a single turbine has lower performance but where a farm of
> said single turbines have higher performances.
>
> Nor AWES has great potential of flexible use allowing a far better
> optimization of the whole kite-farm by using turbulences as advantages
> instead a cause of forced loss of performances.
>
> So could a field of searches upon the optimization of a whole kite-farm
> be a goal of searches with a general dynamic approach instead (or
> besides) approach on each single AWES?
>
> PierreB
>
>

Correction of my two precedent posts:Robert Whittlesey (California Institute of Technology), studies an
optimization of wind turbines (not kite-farm) by mimetism with bioimitation of shoals of fish...
 
PierreB
http://flygenkite.com

> Message du 11/12/11 17:14
> De : "Pierre BENHAIEM"
> A : AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
> Copie à :
> Objet : re: [AWES] Using turbulences in a kite-farm [1 Attachment]
>
>  

> PJ:Robert Whittlesey (California Institute of Technology), studies an
> optimization of kite-farm by mimetism with bioimitation of shoals of
> fish where a single turbine has lower performance but where a farm of
> said single turbines have higher performances.
>
> AWES-farms could be implemented according to a similar way by the study of the grouping of migratory birds travelling with less fatigue by taking advantage of generated turbulences. 
>
> PierreB
> http://flygenkite.com
>
>
>
>
>

> Message du 11/12/11 13:22
> > De : "Pierre Benhaiem"
> > A : AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
> > Copie à :
> > Objet : [AWES] Using turbulences in a kite-farm
> >
> >  

> >
> > AWES performances are generally studied as single systems.Nor in the
> > case of implementation of a AWES-farm these performances can by largely
> > affected by turbulences.A farm of conventionnal wind turbines requires a
> > huge espace between turbines x4 to x8 (x15 according to Pr Charles
> > Meneveau) times rotor diameter (this subject can also interest DougS):so
> > the density power is very low,much lower than for a single turbine.
> > Robert Whittlesey (California Institute of Technology), studies an
> > optimization of kite-farm by mimetism with bioimitation of shoals of
> > fish where a single turbine has lower performance but where a farm of
> > said single turbines have higher performances.
> >
> > Nor AWES has great potential of flexible use allowing a far better
> > optimization of the whole kite-farm by using turbulences as advantages
> > instead a cause of forced loss of performances.
> >
> > So could a field of searches upon the optimization of a whole kite-farm
> > be a goal of searches with a general dynamic approach instead (or
> > besides) approach on each single AWES?
> >
> > PierreB
> >
> >

>

http://dabiri.caltech.edu/research/wind-energy.html

--- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, "Pierre Benhaiem" <pierre.benhaiem@...> wrote:
>
>
> AWES performances are generally studied as single systems.Nor in the
> case of implementation of a AWES-farm these performances can by largely
> affected by turbulences.A farm of conventionnal wind turbines requires a
> huge espace between turbines x4 to x8 (x15 according to Pr Charles
> Meneveau) times rotor diameter (this subject can also interest DougS):so
> the density power is very low,much lower than for a single turbine.
> Robert Whittlesey (California Institute of Technology), studies an
> optimization of kite-farm by mimetism with bioimitation of shoals of
> fish where a single turbine has lower performance but where a farm of
> said single turbines have higher performances.
>
> Nor AWES has great potential of flexible use allowing a far better
> optimization of the whole kite-farm by using turbulences as advantages
> instead a cause of forced loss of performances.
>
> So could a field of searches upon the optimization of a whole kite-farm
> be a goal of searches with a general dynamic approach instead (or
> besides) approach on each single AWES?
>
> PierreB
>

Attachments :

The accompanying document from Pr Dabiri can be a source of many searches for the optimization of AWES-farms or arrays of kites.

PierreB

> Message du 11/12/11 17:15
> De : "Joe Faust"
> A : AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
> Copie à :
> Objet : [AWES] Re: Using turbulences in a kite-farm
>
>  

> Joining your topic: 

John O. Dabiri, professor of Aeronautics and Bioengineering   http://dabiri.caltech.edu/people/dabiri.html  

Explore all he has to say on farming.  And questions yet being explored? 

>

Another comment set: 

1. Is a kite a "farm" in itself?   Distinguish small farm, larger farm, huge farm. How independent is a part from the whole?

2. Consider a kite that has 1000 wing elements in it. (via arch, via train, via branched coterie, via lattice, via 3-D lattice, via bus cable, etc). 

3. MegaKite?  

4. Analogies from the solar-energy world where layers of collectors and collection from various wavelengths are explored?  Types of AWES in a mix?

5. Energy mined per land-use?

6. Energy mined per airspace (volume) use?

7. ROI and COP ?

8. Ability to repair parts and elements of a system while system stays flying and working?  Will this play a part in defining "AWES farm" versus individual AWESs?

9. When a component of a whole can fail without taking down the whole?   

10. Betz will rule the individual AWES and the individual AWES farm.

>

As I read the FAA proposal the limit of 500 ft and daytime only concerns me. If the UAV regs are any example we will be operating under these limits for the next 11 years. That will make a strong preference for AWE solutions that work well with these limits to the exclusion of ones that hit full stride at 1500 ft up. Or ones that have true all weather endurance.

Do you think we can fly using NOTAMs outside of these limits?

Brian

--- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, "dimitri.cherny" <dimitri.cherny@...> wrote:
>
> We were informed today that the FAA's proposed policy for the inclusion of AWE in the national airspace, will be published this week in the federal register, marking the beginning of the public comment period.
>
> I'm sure He Who Knows All can provide a link and further details.
>
> - Dimitri
>

Attachments :

FAA Airborne Wind Energy.pdf

Joined document on kite regulations,extract:" (b) No person may operate a moored balloon or kite between sunrise and sunset unless its mooring lines have coloured pennants or streamers attached at not more than 50-foot intervals beginning at 150 feet above the surface of the earth and visible for at least one mile."And an extract from document on AWES:"Although some of these AWES components could be covered by 14 CFR part101, Moored balloons, kites, amateur rockets and unmanned free balloons, some conceptual designs include hybrid concepts or utilize new innovative techniques that arenot as easily classifiable."

If we mix these sentences we can deduce AWES by night is possible with marking and lighting like for kites and for constructions (see Obstruction...).ROI of AWES under 500 ft (similar limits of altitude in France) can be interesting and can allow several years more to implement systems for higher altitude when technology will become mature (duration of tether and kite,limited weight of conductive tether...).

PierreB

> Message du 11/12/11 22:56
> De : "blturner3"
> A : AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
> Copie à :
> Objet : [AWES] Re: FAA proposed AWE inclusion policy available for comment
>
>  

> As I read the FAA proposal the limit of 500 ft and daytime only concerns me. If the UAV regs are any example we will be operating under these limits for the next 11 years. That will make a strong preference for AWE solutions that work well with these limits to the exclusion of ones that hit full stride at 1500 ft up. Or ones that have true all weather endurance.
>
> Do you think we can fly using NOTAMs outside of these limits?
>
> Brian
>
> --- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, "dimitri.cherny" wrote:
> >
> > We were informed today that the FAA's proposed policy for the inclusion of AWE in the national airspace, will be published this week in the federal register, marking the beginning of the public comment period.
> >
> > I'm sure He Who Knows All can provide a link and further details.
> >
> > - Dimitri
> >
>
>

I can also see the inverse case for analysing a whole array of kites as a single VAWT...
In this linked image . you see one stack being controlled to drive a base band around.

If instead of the one stack, you can imagine (keep it together Doug) 3+ stacks working the band around in unison.
It works much better as a system. because the upwind going stack is helped by the Left, Right and Downwind going stacks.
 

--- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, "Pierre Benhaiem" <pierre.benhaiem@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> http://dabiri.caltech.edu/research/wind-energy.html
> <http://dabiri.caltech.edu/research/wind-energy.html>
>
> --- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, "Pierre Benhaiem"
> pierre.benhaiem@ wrote:
> >
> >
> > AWES performances are generally studied as single systems.Nor in the
> > case of implementation of a AWES-farm these performances can by
> largely
> > affected by turbulences.A farm of conventionnal wind turbines requires
> a
> > huge espace between turbines x4 to x8 (x15 according to Pr Charles
> > Meneveau) times rotor diameter (this subject can also interest
> DougS):so
> > the density power is very low,much lower than for a single turbine.
> > Robert Whittlesey (California Institute of Technology), studies an
> > optimization of kite-farm by mimetism with bioimitation of shoals of
> > fish where a single turbine has lower performance but where a farm of
> > said single turbines have higher performances.
> >
> > Nor AWES has great potential of flexible use allowing a far better
> > optimization of the whole kite-farm by using turbulences as advantages
> > instead a cause of forced loss of performances.
> >
> > So could a field of searches upon the optimization of a whole
> kite-farm
> > be a goal of searches with a general dynamic approach instead (or
> > besides) approach on each single AWES?
> >
> > PierreB
> >
>

The turbine-spacing studies you refer to are in the "whale bumps" category: "professor crackpot" rearing his head once again. Press-releases have become the new "science" in the minds of many.

The spacing studies used vertical-axis turbines, not regular turbines that windfarms use, and was set up to get the results they wanted. You can ignore any such news as not truly factual in the sense one would assume, for a start, and not relevant to AWE anyway. Just one more distraction.

One more irrelevant, misstated topic, providing one more distraction from actually developing a working system. Not to say there's nothing to be gained by proper spacing, as migrating geese and Superturbine(R) rotors can sometimes enjoy, but the studies we're seen don't hit the mark.
:) Doug Selsam

--- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, "Pierre Benhaiem" <pierre.benhaiem@...> wrote:
>
>
> AWES performances are generally studied as single systems.Nor in the
> case of implementation of a AWES-farm these performances can by largely
> affected by turbulences.A farm of conventionnal wind turbines requires a
> huge espace between turbines x4 to x8 (x15 according to Pr Charles
> Meneveau) times rotor diameter (this subject can also interest DougS):so
> the density power is very low,much lower than for a single turbine.
> Robert Whittlesey (California Institute of Technology), studies an
> optimization of kite-farm by mimetism with bioimitation of shoals of
> fish where a single turbine has lower performance but where a farm of
> said single turbines have higher performances.
>
> Nor AWES has great potential of flexible use allowing a far better
> optimization of the whole kite-farm by using turbulences as advantages
> instead a cause of forced loss of performances.
>
> So could a field of searches upon the optimization of a whole kite-farm
> be a goal of searches with a general dynamic approach instead (or
> besides) approach on each single AWES?
>
> PierreB
>

I think without a compelling, useful system that shows promise at any height, any such negotiations / rule-making are way way way premature, and do not take into account the destructive potential for any regulations that "put the cart ahead of the horse" assuming ANYTHING about systems that have not been developed even to the point of a single, reliable, economical, or even continuously-operating model. Don't shoot yourself (or me) in the foot (or wing). Spend your time getting something working, not glorifying your ego by conducting high-level negotiations over something you can't do anyway. Please, don't mess things up for those of us who might get something in the air that actually works sometime soon!
You know what happens when you ASSUME.
You are ASSUMING that you have any idea what form an AWE system might take, when there is no evidence that you do.
Thanks.
:)
Doug Selsam

--- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, "blturner3" <yahoo2@...> wrote:
>
> As I read the FAA proposal the limit of 500 ft and daytime only concerns me. If the UAV regs are any example we will be operating under these limits for the next 11 years. That will make a strong preference for AWE solutions that work well with these limits to the exclusion of ones that hit full stride at 1500 ft up. Or ones that have true all weather endurance.
>
> Do you think we can fly using NOTAMs outside of these limits?
>
> Brian
>
> --- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, "dimitri.cherny" <dimitri.cherny@> wrote:
> >
> > We were informed today that the FAA's proposed policy for the inclusion of AWE in the national airspace, will be published this week in the federal register, marking the beginning of the public comment period.
> >
> > I'm sure He Who Knows All can provide a link and further details.
> >
> > - Dimitri
> >
>

DougS,

The loss of power density because of space between regular turbines is a real problem.It is possible that the current nominal value of about 10 MW/km² is overvalued (some studies give 2 MW/km²).So there is a field of experiments to know the real values.Pr.Dabiri gives an example with vertical turbines.The idea is interesting even though ROI of such implementation is not obvious.Another interesting thing is the used methodology;see Biological Propulsion Laboratory at CALTECH [Wind Energy ... and click on "here":you can see the power according to wind speed in real time.

You could use such a method with for example a Superturbine with 3 rotors,another with 6 rotors,a single turbine,a farm of Superturbine,a farm of single turbines...,and give the comparative values in real time,day after day.

PierreB 

> Message du 12/12/11 20:41
> De : "Doug"
> A : AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
> Copie à :
> Objet : [AWES] Re: Using turbulences in a kite-farm
>
>  

> The turbine-spacing studies you refer to are in the "whale bumps" category: "professor crackpot" rearing his head once again. Press-releases have become the new "science" in the minds of many.
>
> The spacing studies used vertical-axis turbines, not regular turbines that windfarms use, and was set up to get the results they wanted. You can ignore any such news as not truly factual in the sense one would assume, for a start, and not relevant to AWE anyway. Just one more distraction.
>
> One more irrelevant, misstated topic, providing one more distraction from actually developing a working system. Not to say there's nothing to be gained by proper spacing, as migrating geese and Superturbine(R) rotors can sometimes enjoy, but the studies we're seen don't hit the mark.
> :) Doug Selsam
>
> --- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, "Pierre Benhaiem" wrote:
> >
> >
> > AWES performances are generally studied as single systems.Nor in the
> > case of implementation of a AWES-farm these performances can by largely
> > affected by turbulences.A farm of conventionnal wind turbines requires a
> > huge espace between turbines x4 to x8 (x15 according to Pr Charles
> > Meneveau) times rotor diameter (this subject can also interest DougS):so
> > the density power is very low,much lower than for a single turbine.
> > Robert Whittlesey (California Institute of Technology), studies an
> > optimization of kite-farm by mimetism with bioimitation of shoals of
> > fish where a single turbine has lower performance but where a farm of
> > said single turbines have higher performances.
> >
> > Nor AWES has great potential of flexible use allowing a far better
> > optimization of the whole kite-farm by using turbulences as advantages
> > instead a cause of forced loss of performances.
> >
> > So could a field of searches upon the optimization of a whole kite-farm
> > be a goal of searches with a general dynamic approach instead (or
> > besides) approach on each single AWES?
> >
> > PierreB
> >
>
>

I just took a few minutes to put together a list of step-by-step, simple (obvious? I guess not to everybody) experiments that could lead to development of an AWE system. The quick list I assembled consisted of 17 separate experiments/projects that each explore one aspect, module, or building-block leading toward development of a reliable, automatically self-deploying, economical airborne wind energy system.

I don't see that anyone has conducted ANY of these basic steps that would lay the groundwork of preparing for development of a credible and useful AWE system, save the fact that two companies have at least attached a wind turbine to a kite and flown it, spending something like $20 million to do it, and then having to merge to stay solvent.

(Note: Hnaging a working wind turbine from a working kite could be done with a few thousand dollars or less, and personnel hand-picked from a Home Depot parking lot.)

If NASA, ARPA-E, or anyone else who can help put together a real effort to turn over the relevant stones at low cost and get to the nest step, please contact me and I will see how much I can share of this developing list of stepping-stone experiments leading to working AWE.

Thanks for listening!
:)
Doug Selsam

Pierre:
You are completely wasting your time considering things that are far far far above your head. Learn to make and operate a single wind turbine before concerning yourself, or anyone else, with your instant hypotheses regarding turbine spacing, number of blades, etc. which amounts to old news, and much-previously-discussed (endlessly beaten-to-death?) been-there, done-that, "yesterday's news", non-debate for those in the industry.
:)

-

Doug,

I know only one thing being able to be above my head:AWES.

PierreB 

> Message du 12/12/11 21:30
> De : "Doug"
> A : AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
> Copie à :
> Objet : [AWES] Re: Using turbulences in a kite-farm
>
>  

> Pierre:
> You are completely wasting your time considering things that are far far far above your head. Learn to make and operate a single wind turbine before concerning yourself, or anyone else, with your instant hypotheses regarding turbine spacing, number of blades, etc. which amounts to old news, and much-previously-discussed (endlessly beaten-to-death?) been-there, done-that, "yesterday's news", non-debate for those in the industry.
> :)
>
> -
>

If you remove the "automatically self deploying" requirement, there's actually a number of promising first steps out there, being pursued with shoestring budgets.

An "automatic self deploy" requirement assumes that power must be cheaper than the wage of someone to manage a kite.

That's true today, in the part of the world that discusses things like AWE in email forums. But it is not true in other parts of the world. And it may very well may not be for us either in 50 years.

If you don't mind, I'am also looking for the simplest and cheapest way to solve our task. And I also think that the task must be divided of several stones. The problem is to make right separation. My idea is that main stones must be following:
1. Stable lifter - a kite or ballon; or any other way, that can support any object in air (the higher the better). A stable position makes a sort of independens of this stone in the hole scheme. It also increases an altitude of airborne flight.
2. Fly transformer - any device that transformes a wind anergy in mechanical energy. I suppose all of us agree that transformation in electricity on the air is not profitable (at least for simplest device).
3. Ground based transformer. any device that transformes mechanical energy in to electricity. The last two stones are quit depend on each other but can be also undepended.

Alex

--http://www.greenoptimistic.com/2011/11/18/world-lightest-material-metal/
 
             Don't know if there is any more info here other then the fact it's sitting on top of a dandelion.
 
                                                                                                                                 Dan'l

 

 

Dear NearZero AWE Topic Moderators,

 

 

The following assertions have been made in your forum by Makani/Joby regarding their conceptual research and the state of AWE studies generally-

 

"We believe the space of design topologies has been well explored..."

"This [preliminary calcs for each system] has been done. there is no publishing venue for the results however (try publishing that in APL*)"

 

"Sub-scale prototypes are useful for learning, but the industry is beyond that stage..."

 

"There are other system architectures not mentioned here, but they are almost all less efficient or cost effective in reasonably exhaustive mo that has been done to date."

 

* Applied Physics Letters

 

 

Makani/Joby is respectfully requested to publicly reveal how, and to what extent, they analyzed, classified, and tested "kite units crosslinked in flying formations" in their "space of design topologies" and how such results quantitatively compared by land and airspace usage with their chosen single-tether singe-kiteplane conceptual model. It must be noted that "sub-scale prototypes" remain a standard R&D method across all aerospace sectors, and AWE is not "beyond that stage".

 

If Makani/Joby shows they performed due-diligence underlying their assertions, or concede that they neglected or overlooked key AWE design topologies that Kitelab Group and others have pioneered, it would greatly help inform balanced AWE R&D investment.

 

Thank you for understanding the importance of settling this issue,

 

Sincerely,

 

Dave Santos

KiteLab Ilwaco

What is the wiring of this NetZero 

Extending the message: 

Thank God. A public AWE forum from which Dave Santos will not be able to monopolize and alienate anyone with ideas he doesn't agree with.

--- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, dave santos <santos137@...> wrote:
>> ________________________________
> From: Seth Nickell <snickell@...>
> To: santos137@...; joefaust333@...
> Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 1:40 PM
> Subject:
>
> Dave and Joe,
>
> After a lot of internal debate, we've removed you from the panel. The
> negatively-charged history between you and a number of the
> participants has reduced the overall quantity and openness of
> discourse. We've invited several of the non-US experts you suggested,
> and hope that they'll be able to represent similar viewpoints with
> less historical enmity.
>
> -Seth
>

That discussion group was very private. 

Seth, 

--- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, dave santos <santos137@...> wrote:

>he is lucky this is a buffoonery and rudeness-tolerant forum.

*** Yes you are :) ***

>Makani/Joby single-tether/single-kiteplane concept�is not�space competative with KiteLab Group's dense array schemes�for intensive�airspace/land footprint utilization, by a whopping factor of about�100 to one.

*** You couldn't even SPELL competitive... :) *** (sure, they are bad, you are good)

>If Doug even�reads the recent�posts carefully, he certainly does not bother to�mount a careful detailed rebuttal that could convince�a scientific-engineering community like ours, but he should try.

1) *** I refuse to enter a battle of wits with an unarmed man :) ***
2) *** I already waste way too much time entertaining idiots :) ***
3) *** You seem to miss my whole point that, with the "smartest people in the world" unable to implement a single, reliable, working AWE system, despite the fact that such could be easily crafted from off-the-shelf components, means you are merely wasting your time trying to convince anyone of anything except "here is my system and please look at the instruments and data to see how powerful, reliable, and economical my working system is."

Anything else is just trying to convince idiots who have already proven THEY are idiots, of YOUR particular brand of idiocy. Just substituting one brand of idiocy for another - all a complete waste of time.

The common thread is a complete inability to get a reliable AWE system working despite its simplicity, no matter how many millions of dollars, no matter how many PhD's, no matter how many mega-important-sounding multi-letter acronym agencies and labs, "scientists", or even catastrophic end-of-world runaway-climate-disaster rescue scenarios are thrown at it.. :) ***

>John Dabiri is well aware of AWE and will make more major contributions.

*** Contributions of what to what? Nothingness to nothingness? You are stuck in the land of press-releases - can I share something with you? Clean energy and particularly wind energy press releases are almost 100% useless and mostly not even factual at all. They are people masquerading as "scientists", just grasping at a corner of the clean energy spotlight for their 15 minutes of fame. I and many others involved in wind energy have been watching such "breakthrough" press releases in wind energy closely for many years now and we have learned to deconstruct and categorize them when they are made. They usually begin with unsound reasoning and a complete lack of knowledge of the art, as even a starting point. You can check back years later and their inaccuracy / irrelevance is confirmed.

:)
Doug Selsam

Seth and all,

I do not know exactly how Seth's post is on the forum but there is a thing all on the list know very well:Joe Faust is not only a great expert in AWE and AWES but also a great manager with large open-mindedness and a big spirit of gathering of AWE community.Joe Faust never attacks some company or organization whether it is.

Criticisms from Dave Santos should be only inderstood as a mean to provoke the dialogue.

AWE field is vast (numerous schemes and variants with often specific applications according to chosen places for implementation),and Joe Faust gathers a huge amount of datas.

PierreB

> Message du 14/12/11 01:10
> De : "Joe Faust"
> A : AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
> Copie à :
> Objet : [AWES] Re: Internal Debate at NearZero
>
>  

> Seth, 

What historical enmity?  With whom?

Julius (1990, p. 100) defines historical enmity as 'the internal represenatation of past historical events with their attendant emotional after effects. It is the way in which we mentally capture and retain the perceived meaning of certain past interactions wtih others.'   Is that how you are using the phrase?       Is someone expressing huge emotions in the backroom that excited you to cut me from the panel?     Is the intent of the discussion to inform government and investors of AWE?  If so, do you want to inform them with a panel ruled by someone's emotions?   My posts stayed quiet and on tech.  What goes?  Is it deliberate that you seem to be forming at-odds camps in a young industry?  

>

I could not have done more to positively support every AWE participant of the panel over the years; I exhausted myself to lift up each person and corporation that I see on the tight panel at NetZero.org AWE discussion.    Not one word of discussion was sent to me prior to your knife cut.    So, I wonder what the heck is going on in that backroom that would cut my participation in the discussion; I am tempted to start guessing at motives, aims, tilts, etc., not a fun occupation; I will hold off speculation awaiting clear explanation toward an equity that AWE deserves at this important part of history. 

>

An AWE panel that cannot take Dave Santos in text?    He just put words on the page ... and all on topic!   

>

>

>

_______________________________
> > From: Seth Nickell snickell@...
> > To: santos137@...; joefaust333@...
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 1:40 PM
> > Subject:
> >
> > Dave and Joe,
> >
> > After a lot of internal debate, we've removed you from the panel. The
> > negatively-charged history between you and a number of the
> > participants has reduced the overall quantity and openness of
> > discourse. We've invited several of the non-US experts you suggested,
> > and hope that they'll be able to represent similar viewpoints with
> > less historical enmity.
> >
> > -Seth
> >
>

Correction: "Criticisms from Dave Santos should be only understood as a mean to provoke the dialogue."


PierreB

> Message du 14/12/11 02:05
> De : "Pierre BENHAIEM"
> A : AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, snickell@nearzero.org
> Copie à :
> Objet : re: [AWES] Re: Internal Debate at NearZero
>
>  

> Seth and all,
>
> I do not know exactly how Seth's post is on the forum but there is a thing all on the list know very well:Joe Faust is not only a great expert in AWE and AWES but also a great manager with large open-mindedness and a big spirit of gathering of AWE community.Joe Faust never attacks some company or organization whether it is.
>
> Criticisms from Dave Santos should be only inderstood as a mean to provoke the dialogue.
>
> AWE field is vast (numerous schemes and variants with often specific applications according to chosen places for implementation),and Joe Faust gathers a huge amount of datas.
>
> PierreB
>
>
>

> Message du 14/12/11 01:10
> > De : "Joe Faust"
> > A : AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
> > Copie à :
> > Objet : [AWES] Re: Internal Debate at NearZero
> >
> >  

> > Seth, 

> What historical enmity?  With whom?

> Julius (1990, p. 100) defines historical enmity as 'the internal represenatation of past historical events with their attendant emotional after effects. It is the way in which we mentally capture and retain the perceived meaning of certain past interactions wtih others.'   Is that how you are using the phrase?       Is someone expressing huge emotions in the backroom that excited you to cut me from the panel?     Is the intent of the discussion to inform government and investors of AWE?  If so, do you want to inform them with a panel ruled by someone's emotions?   My posts stayed quiet and on tech.  What goes?  Is it deliberate that you seem to be forming at-odds camps in a young industry?  

>
> >

> I could not have done more to positively support every AWE participant of the panel over the years; I exhausted myself to lift up each person and corporation that I see on the tight panel at NetZero.org AWE discussion.    Not one word of discussion was sent to me prior to your knife cut.    So, I wonder what the heck is going on in that backroom that would cut my participation in the discussion; I am tempted to start guessing at motives, aims, tilts, etc., not a fun occupation; I will hold off speculation awaiting clear explanation toward an equity that AWE deserves at this important part of history. 

>
> >

> An AWE panel that cannot take Dave Santos in text?    He just put words on the page ... and all on topic!   

>
> >

>
> >

>
> >

> _______________________________
> > > From: Seth Nickell snickell@...
> > > To: santos137@...; joefaust333@...
> > > Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 1:40 PM
> > > Subject:
> > >
> > > Dave and Joe,
> > >
> > > After a lot of internal debate, we've removed you from the panel. The
> > > negatively-charged history between you and a number of the
> > > participants has reduced the overall quantity and openness of
> > > discourse. We've invited several of the non-US experts you suggested,
> > > and hope that they'll be able to represent similar viewpoints with
> > > less historical enmity.
> > >
> > > -Seth
> > >
> >

>

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

After Dave S commented that there is nothing magical about 1500 ft vs 500 ft I went to check my facts.

OK, so I am making a few ASSUMPTIONS here. That its better to be comfortably out of the boundary layer when harvesting wind power because the wind is generally faster and less turbulent. That the boundary layer is above 500 ft most places. Perhaps not where Doug lives and I don't know about Dave S's testing grounds.

That the current regs prevent us from exploring the wind that is most promising and easiest to reach.

The boundary layer is predicted to end around 900 ft for the areas that I am interested in. (North of Topeka KS)

It seems to me that any large AWE solution would want to run at least that high regardless of what it looks like.

Brian