It's a thorough if complex approach.
Very much of it's time.
Did anything ever come of it?
If only they'd had standard components and advice like... http://fabricarchitecturemag.com/articles/0110_ce_connection.html

 

Fabric structures, Rod: rich direction!

Dave,

No employees of AWEC member companies or non member AWEC companies or VCs are on the review committee. 

None of your suggested topics have been excluded. The four focus areas for this conference are

AWES Technology
Higher Winds Resource Research
Economics and Deployment
Regulatory and Policy Considerations

Regarding:

Here is a rough comparison between AWES and HAWT about efficiency
according to plane or blades area and weight.

Makani M4 and Ampyx Powerplane 10 kw are assumed to have a span of about
5-6 m,and have a weight (plane alone) similar to three blades of same
global diameter.

Rough swept area of turbine which diameter is 5 m:20 m².

Rough swept area of M4 which diameter of path is (only) 50 m (the
website gave a superior value) :700 m².The ratio L/D of M4 should be
something like 7 and cannot is really higher because of a too high speed
of tip blades of mounted-turbine.For Powerplane higher values are
possible since the generator is at ground (but with more difficulties of
management of two phases of reel-out/in).

Due to the whole wing travelling at high speed the output/power should
be by far higher,but due to the motion not purely crosswind [see
M.Loyd's paper indicating a real efficiency of 31% the "potential given
by the simplified analysis,that for the given example of a 576 m²
wing with (very high) ratio L/D of 20,wind speed 10 m/s,power 6.7 MW]
among other parameters,the output/power by plane or blades unities of
area is similar.Power from M4 is only a little more (average something
like 6500 W,wind speed being 10 m/s against 5500 W) that of 5 m HAWT for
a similar area of plane/blades.

Certainly the similar efficiency by plane/blades area of both AWES/HAWT
becomes an advantage for AWES harnessing more powerful winds.But due to
other difficulties like low efficiency by swept area,even in
kite-farms,very high land occupation (very low for the part at
ground/sea but huge by taking account of the length of tether),without
talking of reliability,a favourable economic development of
like-kite-AWES looks very difficult for high production.

It is the reason why investors are rather focused in offshore new
schemes of bigger and bigger floating turbines with less structural
stress (but at the same with a limit of potential size).

Nethertheless some elements from AWES like in first lift component can
make a major contribution to increase the size of the structure,allowing
light structures.

A kite seems to be a very good collector but a very bad converter (maybe
it is the reason why AWECS lost c (conversion) to become AWES...?!).

HAWE and AWES seem to be inseparable.Nor a potential advantage of AWES
(without talking about jet-stream AWES) is the possibility of its
implementation in deep sea.This possibility is at less more interesting
than HAWE itself which morever the gradient is not very high in sea
where low altitude winds are not much slowed.The other (the main)
advantage of AWES is the potential of huge swept area with less
materials.

So searches towards schemes having both efficiency of a rotor and swept
area of a kite,and probably being a rotor with blades, could succeed in
big systems where only one unity would provide the energy of an actual
farm of HAWT with less impact (less anchors).

PierreB

Dave,

In fact the AWES forum received the notice and flyer in advance of it being sent out to broader audiences today and within a few days of the first mailing to a few others.

My understanding in February was that those were three topics that you were recommending be explored at the conference. Obviously, the third item in your list below was a suggestion for a workshop, not an abstract. Are you saying  that you are submitting the first two of the three items as titles and abstracts for presentations you would like to make?

PJ

Attachments :

Dave,

Attached is the official AWEC 2012 flyer that was sent to Joe Faust on Tuesday morning. As you are both members of AWEIA and as Joe is the person who distributes to the Yahoo AWE community it was sent to him. You responded to the announcement within three hours of that. NIA distributed the flyer on Wednesday morning. No one received the flyer earlier than one week ago.  Unfortunately, some are just seeing it today for the first time.

The fact is that this conference organization got a very late start. Please reread my earlier email regarding who are not included as reviewers. Among the reviewers are Cristina Archer and Moritz Diehl and others from academia and government. It is your choice whether or not to submit or not.

One more thing.  Dr. Caldeira was very kind to offer you counsel, having learned from his own personal experience of having picked a fight in the blogosphere with another truly brilliant PhD about four years ago, which many of us watched  descend to a very low level. If you choose to ignore that counsel, and if any further emails from you are received containing disparagement of anyone involved in the organization of, as an attendee of, as a presenter to, or a sponsor of AWEC 2012, they will not receive a response.

Regards,

PJ

DaveS,

 

Where are "high L/D elements that sweep at high speed" on an arch?

 

Without response a 50.000 m² drag arch can be seen as generating the same power that a 10.000 m² wind turbine and less if return-phase is measured.

 

Note:irregularity of power due to trajectories causes a limit of said power probablybefore tether drag. 

 

PierreB

Also, consider using the kite arch as a huge aerial anchor.

 [Mothra Song (1966)]

What happens to a kite arch when the wind direction changes by 90 degrees?

Is there a particular advantage of an arch, per se, versus other possible geometries of anchor points and kites?

Weathervaning AWES kite arches (AKA): 

Joe,

what about Frei Otto's 1959 concept. His configuration may provide better possibilities for oscillating displacement points on the membrane structure than Buckminster Fuller's 1960 dome over Manhattan proposal.

daveB

Nice.
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m9c14msxiT1rzc6bfo1_500.jpg  

I'd like to share the statement released by the Armstrong Family after Neil's death.

"We are heartbroken to share the news that Neil Armstrong has passed away following complications resulting from cardiovascular procedures.
Neil was our loving husband, father, grandfather, brother and friend.

Neil Armstrong was also a reluctant American hero who always believed he was just doing his job. He served his Nation proudly, as a navy fighter pilot, test pilot, and astronaut. He also found success back home in his native Ohio in business and academia, and became a community leader in Cincinnati.

He remained an advocate of aviation and exploration throughout his life and never lost his boyhood wonder of these pursuits.

As much as Neil cherished his privacy, he always appreciated the expressions of good will from people around the world and from all walks of life.

While we mourn the loss of a very good man, we also celebrate his remarkable life and hope that it serves as an example to young people around the world to work hard to make their dreams come true, to be willing to explore and push the limits, and to selflessly serve a cause greater than themselves.

For those who may ask what they can do to honor Neil, we have a simple request. Honor his example of service, accomplishment and modesty, and the next time you walk outside on a clear night and see the moon smiling down at you, think of Neil Armstrong and give him a wink."

Otto Frei SuperTurbine Strusture:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jonhefel/2159404419/

The death of lunar exploration is sad.
What was achievable, has become impossible.
Do you think the guys who got us to the moon could have made a windmill fly?

My take, so far: 

Having heard recently that Joby and Makani did NOT merge, I called Joby Energy from their website today, and was told "Joby Energy is no more." The lady on the phone said they transferred their technology to Makani.

Rather sad.

---

 

Joby Energy

Yeah this is the segment of that well-worn path of would-be wind energy innovators syndrome, where they "quietly go away". It happens to all of them eventually. At least they weren't promoting a drag-based machine. Sad to see them go, but anyone involved is free to pursue AWE still.

I liken this approach of spending large sums, flying around to meeting after meeting, reams of paperwork asking for grants, great renderings, big announcements and meaningless press-releases, etc., as the "pushing a rope" approach to starting a business.

The largest company in the world today, Apple, started producing and selling computers as its FIRST activity. They made something in their garage that worked and people wanted them. "Hey nice prototype - can you make one for me?" The demand was a PULL, not a PUSH. The success was IMMEDIATE, not a future possibility if everything went as projected for a few years...

So, if you want to be successful in AWE, make something in your garage that works and let people know so they demand to buy one, and you are making money, with no debt, and you are on your way.
OR
Spend all your time chasing investment and grants, spend it all in slightly inappropriate ways, get deep in debt, get depressed and overworked from too much flying and too many meetings, lament the fact that you never get into the shop to actually DO anything, and give up.

I am sorry to see the company under that name go - they seemed pretty cool - but individually they can all press on. I had the impression these folks have so many irons in the fire, so to speak, they are not married to AWE, but have many other interests. Maybe one of them will have a revelation and restart something in AWE.
:)
Doug S.

... maybe not?

On Tue, 2012-08-28 at 14:22 +0000, Joe Faust wrote:
Interesting concept along the lines of something I have been
considering. Putting just one prop on each wing would significantly
increase efficiency. Conventional aircraft are limited in prop size they
can use because of the danger of them hitting the ground. This design
does not have that limitation, and bigger props are better.

To power it they would be well advised to make a hybrid. Loose some of
the batteries and add a gas turbine hooked to a generator.

Putting motor/generators into the air is still never likely to be viable
for AWES.

Robert. (back from a rejuvenating break)

Look at transmitting power via microwave link or laser. It can be done but has big safety/military use issues.

Article in Sun & Wind Energy

Wow an airplane like that would be a significant spinoff.
Reminiscent of my childhood dream of a backpack helicopter, and Moller's flying car.

Today I imagine small AWE systems almost like my backpack helicopter idea, and I realize I could fly a glider-version of a backpack helicopter here by flying it like a kite, with the ambient wind. As a former hang-glider (had one in 1977 for a few months, after which the guy I sold it to took it into some power lines) I'd like to try it, but what I glean from all the kite people is that going airborne in a tethered state is very dangerous for a person. So it would be nice to make an unmanned version and put a generator on it instead of a pilot.

I remember getting really excited about Moller's flying car in the 1970's or 1980's - his prototypes were working, and a commercial version was to be available "in a year or two". (Oh and all cars were supposed to be full hybrids by the 1980's.)

30 years later, Moller is still "a year or two away" from commercialization, and at some point we realize he will ALWAYS be 1 or 2 years from commercialization. (sigh)

I saw Moller developing the engine technology for his flying car and his spinoff was an exhaust company called SuperTrapp:
http://www.supertrapp.com/company/history.asp

Moller also began selling Wankel engines he developed to be high-powered and light weight, simple and reliable.

I saw Moller as a great role model except for one thing: His main target, the flying car, was always a year or two away from commercialization (last time I read that, a year or two ago, I just laughed - it has become meaningless), while his efforts had become splintered toward selling each step as a separate product. Good products, but where's our flying car? (We are now in the George Jetson future, right?) I didn't want that to happen to me.

But it has, to some extent. I developed a more powerful alternator for Superturbine(R), and, seeing that it made a great product on its own, I began selling just the SuperAlternator(TM), ( http://www.PM-ALT.com ) and now that sometimes distracts me from developing the actual SuperTurbine(R), or other flying wind turbines.

Nobody makes a grid-tie inverter for wind energy, so I had to come up with an electronic unit that protected the inverters (made for solar) from the voltage spikes a wind turbine can produce. Now I sell the WIndyGIRL line of inverter interfaces - One more distraction. Gotta get 3 more ready to ship to Australia at the moment.

Anyway, spinoffs are a great example of why research can still be valuable even if it doesn't reach its stated goal at all. Look at Velcro - developed as part of the space program - er um except for one thing: I read that Velcro was NOT in fact developed for the space program, they just used it.

Velcro: invented in 1948 by the Swiss electrical engineer George de Mestral. De Mestral patented Velcro in 1955, subsequently refining and developing its practical manufacture until its commercial introduction in the late 1950s. - (thank God for the space program!)

Oh well, I sold speakers out of a van for years to finance the early SuperTurbine(R) patents and prototypes, and those speakers also claimed to have been developed as part of the space program...

I think I better get out there and finish those WindyGIRLs and get them shipped to Australia. Maybe I'll have time for some AWE soon!
=:O

All wind power is crosswind - that revelation took hold 2000 years ago.
:)



I tried calling the phone number on Magenn's website: "not in service".
I've tried to explain how this works, starting with "the lies" and ending with "they quietly go away", but nobody listens to me... :)
I'm surprised it took them so long, with such a bad concept. Oh well, you know what P.T Barnum said. Also something about "those who refuse to learn history end up repeating it, in the air".
--- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, dave santos <santos137@...

This forum tried so much to bring all AWE players together for mutual progress and collective success. It was established as a technical rallying point for all involved in AWE R&D for a rapid advancement of the nascent technological field. Those who thought they were better off without the rest seem to be the very ones dying off now. Many thanks to those pioneers who have kept the faith.
Best lifts,
JohnO

---