Great Dave S.
Please keep working to have rules drafted against your own designs, and remain fixated on the minutae of others' postings, as a recipe for success in AWE. Listen, people like me who tell the truth about wind energy have been attacked for many years by many dedicated crackpots. We will remain vigilant in trying to actually advance the art and science of wind energy and will go on warning newbies when they make classic mistakes. It's important work, because not EVERYONE out there is a nut case. Some people listen. Some people want to learn. There are a lot of people who may be future wind energy people who need to know the facts that only the veteran debunkers understand and/or are willing to communicate about.
Yes we're used to being called "pessimistic" every time we advise one more would-be inventor that their notions of, say, surfaces being pulled downwind then retracted in a cycle, for example, has been tried many times, never worked out, and is easy to show on paper why. This stuff doesn't need to be complicated unless people insist on making it complicated.
:)
Doug S.

Hi

Has anyone every considered using corona discharge to dissipate electrical charge into the atmosphere on purpose? The system I have in mind could be as follows:

One single conductor is used as a tether, isolated electrically from ground. High up at/near the kite (which is more than 5km high) is flygen and DC/DC converter. A very high voltage is applied between the conducting kite tether and some object that has very high corona discharge (sharp pointed conductors or something). Electrons escape from this object into the atmosphere allowing HV DC current to flow from the bottom of the kite tether, up and into the upper atmosphere.

A DC/DC converter on the ground simply extracts the energy from current flowing between the earth at 0V, and the conducting tether at a higher voltage. The greater the corona discharge, the greater current and hence power that can be transfered this way. No need for a second return conductor. Operating voltage can (and must be) very high, so conductor/tether loss is minimal.

The flygen+DC/DC could maybe even be an electrostatic generator?

Has anyone ever heard of atmospheric electricity? This might help to get the voltages high enough for sufficient corona discharge, or might be a second energy source augmenting the flygen? Apparently, the average voltage potential in the atmosphere is 100V/m (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_electricity). A kite of 5km AGL would then already have 500kV potential between the top of the kiteline and the ground before a generator is even added.

What are you're thoughts? Would such an idea work?

Regards

Wonderful voltages are often found in the sky before they become lightning.  The problem is that air is such a good insulator that you'd need a cloud of emitters.

L/D for wind turbine blades is usually between 100 and 200, according to a blade designer friend of mine.

Airplanes have a low L/D because of the drag of the fuselage, nacelles, lights, cracks and bumps, rivets, air intakes, control surfaces, and their intersection corners. Wind turbine blades have a high L/D because they are just a wing. A wind turbine is a super-clean, super-simple machine. Unless you start adding "whale bumps"! :)

Dave S.
You seem suddenly dismissive of reeling in-out systems. Seems to me it is not that long ago that you were touting their virtues. Didn't you have it down to a short oscillating cycle a few weeks ago? Wasn't that "the new and final answer to AWE"? Maybe my pointing out the detractive aspects of reeling systems, and the historical inadvisability of downwind/upwind cycle, drag-based, high-solidity systems could have had some relevance. Seems to me a lot of people still take them seriously though.

One thing we have to keep in mind: At any point, you know all the answers about any aspect of this stuff AND you are the final authority on AWE. I move that we give you a title like Michael Jackson being the self-titled "King of Pop" or Howard Stern, the self-titled "King of All Media", you can be the self-titled "King of AWE", or perhaps "The TACO King".

Step aside. Make way for the King!
Doug S.
Next question: Is the King really wearing any clothes?

VTOL operation is such a small part of the spec that it would be handled by about 15% extra power.  Inverted flight is quite feasible with cambered wings.

Could we have a poll of the list members, to see if any member regards any other, or themselves, as infallible?  

That was a tough hit, it seems to me. I've not ever seen text that
claims anyone or himself or herself as infallible in AWE. The one just
hit especially seems ever to move that more can and will be uncovered;
during the evolution a stream of statement seem to be part of the
progressive stream where things are pressed back some while others are
opined as moving forward. All our play seems to be invited; each of us
seems to play with some idiosyncratic style, hopefully not to be taken
as emphatically treating others as though there were some diminutive
status. My slant is with a broad wish that we might stay open-minded
as children and stand ready to have awe for advancing AWE. Ones with a
streaming of larger quantities of enthusiastic sharing will by such be
more vulnerable to attack---more windows to view into the ways, means,
and heart. Those not yet posting or posting little have not opened
themselves as much, it seems. Daring to evolve opinions during this
generative and creative stage of AWE---in an open-stream---manner seems
to me to be a gift to be treasured. Staying with attack on technical
questions and keeping personal vulnerabilities aside might forward the
AWE RAD game best.

Thanks, DaveS; maybe we can just run this poll the next time we are contemplating invoking moderation.  That has been a time-consuming failure, impossible to do fairly.  

Thanks, Dave, but I'm not in the same league with Wayne or Joe.  I'm just a guy who might someday need a kite system, has a bit of spare on-line time, and the beginnings of an appreciation for human relations, after a life of watching the best focussed technical talent get ignored.

Hi Dave S.
Good enthusiasm and sentiment, but I think it might be a bit premature to be celebrating "pioneers" since there has been no solution, really, yet. We're still like a pack of dogs barking at a fence we want to get over instead of digging under. The fence is still there and we are still unable to get over it.

Wayne German seemed like a likeable enough chap at the first AWE conference in Chico. My recollection was that he was promoting a 2-kite system without a ground anchor that would beam the power to the ground via microwaves. He seemed pretty insistent that this was "the answer" and was trying hard to get people to listen to him and take it seriously, as far as I recall.

One first wonders if even the microwave receiving ground station could be economical, even if the flying part, and the microwave power, were free. I mean, sure, let's get rid of all those ugly power lines, if this microwaves are indeed an economical way to transmit power. Thanks Wayne for cleaning up the landscape, now what about AWE again?

Not sure how it might work if it got cloudy, and I wouldn't want to be in the way if anything "went wrong", and I'd hate to have my retirement dependent on the resulting cashflow/expense structure, but I guess my point is this:
If we don't end up seeing these systems that, say, a Wayne German, or anyone else described, how is that person really a pioneer? I mean being called a pioneer for just describing an unworkable solution, rather than building it and proving it, is a bonus in the first place, but to gain the title for merely describing imaginary solutions that are never even implemented seems to be quite a stretch.

DO all the people that were standing on the shore describing various boat designs that were never used get credit for discovering America? What if they were insisting "If you don't use my crackpot boat design you will never get to America", or maybe "No you HAVE to use my design - it's the ONLY way!" - and yet their design was never used - ever - for anything - are they still a "pioneer"?

Hardly - they do not even get a footnote, because nobody has ever heard of them. The only reason people who don't have any results are regarded as "pioneers" by anyone right now (in this field), is this is still a "preaching to the choir" field, where there's basically little-to-no new progress really demonstrated lately, except perhaps Makani. With no ACTUAL progress, in the minds of some, mere imaginary progress suffices to be called "a pioneer".

Joe Faust, I WOULD call a pioneer since he has put together something that nobody else had, organizing an AWE database. I maintain that most of the real pioneers may be as-yet unknown, at this time. Certainly we should wait til we see real meaningful results, or let's say a successful business in producing power rather than promises, before we get overwhelmed with self-congratulations for producing nothing thusfar.
:)
Doug Selsam

Here is a current example of the FAA failing to see the world from niche viewpoints.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/08/us/faa-grounds-plane-leading-whooping-cranes-to-florida.html

Brian

Hi Again Dave S.
Ah yes, so sad I didn't get to know Wayne better - if only he were still alive today - what? You say he still IS alive? Oh good, well then I still have the opportunity to get to know him better someday. What is so sad again? Oh I get it, just you rambling yet again...

One misconception about patents: They are not about "hoarding" technology so much as recording one's invention so as to get credit for it. They allow the inventor to cooperate more effectively with serious business development people. Such business people like to have the patent protection so as to be able to invest in an idea most effectively. A competitor can become an ally overnight, based at least partly on patents.

Since you come up with a reason why all of my ideas "can't possibly work" anyway, I don't see how you could complain that I'm hoarding ideas. I do however lament that I have some fantastic AWE ideas, completely untouched upon, that I don't want to divulge without some patent protection. Why? Well if I don't file a patent, you might easily claim to have thought of it first! You could spend a year or so protesting that it could never work, then slowly morph over to it having been your idea in the first place after it proves itself.

The patent system is not all good, but at least it provides some protection from complete nonsense 24/7 and impossible people who can't be reasoned with.
:)
Doug S.
PS Sorry for this post but I did not want to deprive anyone whose daily entertainment includes an expectation of a debate between D.S. and D.S., but I reserve the right to make better use of my time in the future.

Dear Mr. Selsam,

Greetings to you.

I am a Patent Agent and Certified Patent Valuation Analyst. I had been handling your patent matter in 2005-06, when I was working with XXXXXXXXX

Now, one of my client wants to implement similar technology in Hilly areas, where population is low, wind is high and providing electricity from hydro or thermal is unviable. So, I thought if you have a valid patent in India then some mutually beneficial business can be worked out.

Kindly let me know your interest and status of your Patent and Technology.

Best regards,

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

http://networkedblogs.com/swi0T

Dan'l

Two joined-by-tether-wings in free-flight kiting.   Either one could have had onboard RATs. 

Hi all, Best L/D ratio for paraglider are about 8 or 9.Nor best L/D ratio for ram kites are only 4. Why there is such a difference?Profile? What Peter Lynn says about kite traction (Myth One,see below) is it also true for paraglider?Or kite working is quite different from paraglider working (and why not rigid kite working is different from glider working)? PierreB http://flygenkite.com   "Peter Lynn's Six Aerodynamic Myths of Kite Traction

Myth One. That the upwind performance (that is, lift/drag ratio) of kites is primarily a function of profile and aspect ratio. Wrong. The strongest determinant of L/D is angle of attack. Low angles of attack yield high L/D in an inverse relationship, profile and aspect ratio have comparatively little effect."

Correction:Best L/D ratios for paraglider are about 8 or 9.Nor best L/D ratios for ram kites are only 4.


PierreB

Midnight December 31, 2010, was a point that received some consensus for distinguishing

Their is no way that the FAA could have anticipated this use of airspace. Even though the use is valid, worthwhile and by all appearances safe. So the answer is NO by default. Grounding the flight creates a risk for the whooping cranes, an endangered species. If maintaining bio-diversity ranks below the minuscule risk of allowing the pilot to get paid, then I think that the FAA is purposely ignoring the big picture.
If this truly is the "land of the free" then the answer should be YES by default until reason is given for other action.

The FAA follows what I call "Flat earth safty" Where if the risk is beyond their horizon then it does not exist and it's not their problem. Others might call this behavior CYA

The FAA will let you build toys for free. To do anything real and new is expensive and unpredictable.

The FAA can't anticipate where new tech will take us, that would be impossible. The best policy in my opinion is to try and stay out of the way as much as possible. Innovation should not be illegal.

If you would like to refute my claims. Apply for a waiver to fly a megawatt scale kite continuously for a week at a production appropriate altitude. Include permission to sell the electricity produced.

Brian

I include that e-mail only as an example. It just happened to come in yesterday and it shows how having patents can be a major step, or catalyst, toward getting business going.

The next step is to realize that 99% of all contacts have good intentions but should be ignored since they won't actually do anything to help, but actually slow you down (as this activity is now).

Overall I have to say that one part of me is in total agreement with the shared IP thing. I do agree that for people who suffer from CSIS (can't stop inventing shit) that the idea of patenting everything you think of is daunting to say the least, impossible in reality. Then again, most of the concepts we muse about have either fatal flaws or a myriad of complicating details that we have not yet encountered. As long as the simulations remain exclusively in our brains, the results are often merely wishful thinking.

I was warned many times by, as one example, a friend who has made more money than anyone I know in small wind, who manufactured thousands of inexpensive turbines, making millions of dollars, without patenting anything. He was simply "first to market" with an affordable product that was cheap enough that when they failed, nobody had enough invested to make that big of a stink. People used their homes as equity-ATM machines (this was a few years ago) and my friend built himself a nice large home with cash. Today after the recession and many copycats on the market, he complains he can barely sell a turbine at discount to save his life, with shipping containers full of aging parts from China in his back yard.

He always maintained that patents were just gonna drag you down - just concentrate on the products. Move forward and don't let bureaucracies slow you down. Of course he had nothing to patent. His philosophy was to just make a standard type of product a little better in some way, so he took proven designs and modified them a bit to get to where he wanted to be.

His turbines, like most wind turbines, have two (3) major outcomes:
1) The site turns out to not have as much wind as thought, and the turbine doesn't help out much but looks cool. The installation last til the first truly brutal storm, which could be a couple of years.
2) The site has lots of wind and the turbine is quickly destroyed.
3) (most preferable) The turbine remains "next weekend's project" in perpetuity. These are the turbines that last the longest - who knows maybe years! Ahh the protective cocoon of the garage... The turbine safely on a shelf too high to reach, covered with an increasingly thick layer of dust.... heaven!

Anyway my advice to inventors, having a lot of patents under my belt now, is to at least consider developing an idea completely to the point of being a completely reliable product before filing patents. Why? Well you file for a basic idea thinking it's an emergency and people will do it first if you don't. The reality, I've found, is people are lazy and if they DO have any ambition or energy, they want to pursue THEIR ideas, not so much yours.

Then you've got these basic patents filed but when you start to actually perfect your product, you find out more info, get more ideas, find out what really works best and see new effects you didn't anticipate. You wish you had patented these new aspects but it is too late - now you have to keep filing continuation patents to protect your evolving systems.

This is all normal, but you should be aware of the process you set in motion when first filing a patent application. I agree that patents are not the final answer to anything, and there have been plenty of companies that have made lots of money without ever filing a patent.

Doug Selsam

The carbon-fiber driveshaft sections for this Sky Serpent demo:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2trVRNx-k8
were donated to me by Joe Hadziki of Revolution Kites in San Diego a few years ago. He also showed me how to make my own. Thanks Joe!
:)
Doug Selsam

Wait a minute I think it was DAVE Hadziki, Joe's brother that gave me the driveshaft sections. They were originally to be used for artificial legs but the order had been cancelled. Anyway I was glad to get some carbon-fiber shafting though of course we have been told, definitively, many times on this list, that a driveshaft (torque tube)cannot possibly work in AWE, by the highest authority - the King of AWE. With hopes dashed, I will yet keep struggling on.
:)
Doug Selsam

Hadzicki, Joe   

Imagine if you had the most reliable and cost-effective home wind energy system available, in the form of an AWE system that operated at a max height just below 250 feet. Now, what you have accomplished is to show that AWE can be the cheapest way to make wind-generated electricity, at one scale, for one use. Presumably you could quickly begin to accumulate a track record of reliability and safety. The system probably gets a decent amount of attention and, if you are lucky, a good reputation. Now you are in a good position to start asking for waivers and height extensions.

As it is now, we're in a "prove-it-to-me" position. You can't blame people for not taking us as seriously as we take ourselves. We currently suffer from the "it can only work at a huge scale!" aspect of the "Professor Crackpot syndrome". Perhaps half of all the "Professor Crackpots" over the years have held to this same desperate position: Their innovation will produce wind power at a lower cost than the status-quo, but can only be effective at a HUGE scale. This conveniently explains why they cannot outperform even off-the-shelf small turbines with a small version of their "revolutionary breakthrough system", now.

The reality is, their numbers don't pencil out, and the Professor Crackpot system is even likely unworkable as described, which is quickly revealed at a small scale. Likely the P.C. system, if built, would produce far less power than imagined, and not last even one day of decent winds without a major failure suggesting a major redesign. Since the numbers never work out at the small scale, the best approach from their point of view is to stay focused, verbally, on an unattainable scale.

If they can blame someone else for not allowing them to operate at the larger scale, the can go on for quite a while convincing people that they have a breakthrough, just no working product because of someone else (FAA, building inspectors, zoning department, Garrad Hassan, UL, CEC, etc.) who just can't understand the "advantages". There's really nothing new here. It totally fits the pattern we've seen in wind energy for decades now. Have fun! :)

Doug Selsam

David and group,

I am sorry for having to listen to the endless raving lunatic calling everyone a raving lunatic,that, camp at their computers never making anything, (cry cry cry), hypocritical hogwash. yet on another newsgroups he actually acts like an adult and can be quite professional, hmmmm?

"PS Dan'l should not have taken that shot at India," The area of India I was referring to is short on power i.e. that is why they want the turbines.

Again I am sorry.

Dan'l