Thanks Joe,

 

Short stroke with elastic return is a well experimented mode (JoeF,DaveS,Worcester Polytechnic ).

OrthokiteBunch combines orthogonal transmission and kite train which kites are the same distance to ground station to avoid different lengths of radius from usual kite train.

 

PierreB

Yes,

 

PierreB

Another copy of same, but here outside of the group space for easier access: 

Answers in between the message (I suggest Santos to keep the messages to which he replies)

DaveS,

 

Please do you have a description of "Wayne's Vertical Blind Affair"?

 

PierreB

OrthokiteBunch

 

That fantastic pic of Magenn jumped out at me.
(Looks like the cover of a book "How NOT to do Airborne Wind Energy"...) (or ANY kind of wind energy) - "bbbbut its the best pic we have! Aaaaand the only one people understand!"
Why not just write the whole book about Magenn?
swept area =
output =
cost =
reliability =

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

Comments in review: 

•  the connection line could be underground.  The single wing could be a single train of wings or a long Mothra segment. 
• The two anchor positions could be with a small or very large separation;
• Giving leader line to the shown Payne Fig. 1a  could widen the wind rose to be mined without relocation of an anchor. 
• Notice that this is not a Yo-Yo scheme; hence, the reeling challenge is lowered. 
• Generation may be at just one of the anchors or both, depending on needs and applications. 
• Upon calm, the arch with leader line to wing set could be "pumped" to stay aloft by reversing the generator to motor.

May be what you are proposing is a method for a low altitude launch. I think that SkySail launches the kite with the ship in motion, so that the kite can also use the apparent wind to gain the desired altitute. In fact, if I remember correctly, that method was taken into account for the carousel version of KiteGen, where you can easily use the apparent wind.

"Phase 2: RECOVER

 

"Phase 3: pull is the mirror of phase 1".

 

Not quite with a crank since tether fixation should be in the other end.But quite right with a piston in case of roughly horizontal trajectory one side to the other side of flight window where low pull of kite allows return.Morever perhaps the piston could work within a hydraulic installation assuming continuous power.The length of stroke should be something like 1/10 length of trajectory (see in Advantages in spite of overestimation of power) for a complete optimization with a very good kite:more is kite ratio L/D less is relative stroke length.Note that reel-in/out allows a similar configuration:the level of wear between reel (for tether) and piston (for piston) can be an element favoring piston,however with the restriction of its length,where from the double lever (with also some restriction due to risk of break) and alternating slack and tension of both 2 tethers down the main tether in the scheme OrthoKiteBunch.Please correct if needed.

 

So in the end this description shows a possible good way. 

 

PierreB

 

Completing for a better vizualization and evaluation.

Reel-in/out or spring piston pointed on kite force vector:the length of unwound rope or pulled rod is the same.This length is important and forced the kite to go upwind what it made downwind.

To admit in phase 2 the kite (being at the second side) can going faster upwind while the rod returns is to admit the winch recovers the rope (even if before a part of produced power allows recovering the rope by tension of spring) while the kite goes faster upwind towards the first side.It would be nice but unfortunately it is not possible.If no we will inform Windlift, KiteGen,TU Delft (reel-in/out) they can unwound rope while the kite continues going crosswind producing power:they will be happy.

However that would be maybe possible with far shorter strokes but with very low efficiency,swept area and kite speed being limited.In the other hand possible favor of short-stroke is passive control,but I prefer German's vision of kites travelling at (very very) high speed and checked by software.

In AWE things are not so simple.

PierreB

OrthokiteBunch (in this scheme it is more possible to make close to continuous power by loading one lever then the other,by reeling the slack tether becoming drive tether,that by alternating;similar reeling systems should be double spaced pulleys Joe Faust develops). 

   

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the AirborneWindEnergy
group.

File : /PATENTS/PierreBenhaiem/FR2955627B1.pdf
Uploaded by : benhaiemp <pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr Description : FlygenKite

You can access this file at the URL:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AirborneWindEnergy/files/PATENTS/PierreBenhaiem/FR2955627B1.pdf

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/web/index.html
Regards,

benhaiemp <pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr

We have made the PDF available in open Internet: 

http://energykitesystems.net/PierreBenhaiem/FR2955627B1.pdf :corresponding website: http://flygenkite.com

FR2949248 :corresponding website OrthokiteBunch

 

PierreB

Cousin tech to teachings by George Goeggel ? 
=================================== :

Werner's focus has, in part, some related comment regarding torque tube driving ground load: 

http://upriseenergy.com/

Real or rendering?
Swept area?
Why should anyone believe anything this company says?

I'd be interested if anyone on this list is capable of debunking this "press-release" turbine. It would be good practice.

Do you think they will ever build one? What are the odds?

Remember what I said in the first place: All "new" wind energy devices start out with a big ole' pile of lies, and go downhill from there, eventually slinking away, unseen, in the darkness. (wa~ wa- wa_)

The question contains the response.Photos look as rendering.Swept area is not given.The diameter of rotor seems to be under 10 m (32 ft),regarding its size next to the 4x4.A rotor of 10 m of diameter (swept area 78 m²) produces something like 3 KW with the given wind speed of 12 miles per hour by taking account of high efficiency of about 45%,so 200 W per house among the cited 15 houses the turbine should feed.With a capacity factor of 30% one obtains 60 W,only enough to watch TV.

 

But a rotor of 10 m of diameter like Wincon M22/10 (9.8 m exactly) is rated at 22 KW.So if we accept 50 KW is a correct value we can have 136 W.The announcement should be something like:with our turbine for 15 houses you and your mother-in-law can watch TV separatly all the time.

 

Note:the document from Sandia refers to a far greater 3 blades turbine which a different design.STAR refers to Sweep Twist Adaptative Rotor,but also the 5 blades rotor looks like a star,so there is some ambiguity about star.

 

 

PierreB

 



Dave S,
Your pals at NASA may want to get into large lifting devices right now. see http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2012/nov/HQ_M12-212_NIAC_Symposium.html 

I Love Pierre's work, Mixing ortho kite bunch with layers of mothra arches would make an images such as at...
1min 21sec into http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9y8LAcs-dA just with cross linked control lines

I'll get drawing... but...
I have to first work on setting distribution points along curves in Rhino today ... and consider the following funding competition webinar https://connect.innovateuk.org/web/9622500
It will be interesting to anyone considering working with UK partners.... I may be a bit radical for them though.

 

http://royalwindturbines.com/

See a pattern yet?

Another nascent SuperTurbine(R)...
"When I grow up I wanna be a SuperTurbine(R)!"
:)

Anyone care to debunk this vertical-axis wannabe SuperTurbine(R)?
(Inefficiency does not go away, just because you take it into the air!)

This video http://youtu.be/IRZwg5gJm-w may go part way to describing the ganged arch architecture some of us are aiming for.

I still have to add on 3 sets of loadpath lines, linking between the loadpaths, and kite steering lines... oh and the head kite...

Still and all even with all that missing, you may get an idea of what a mothra kite bunch would be like.

Missed the koop radio live, hopefully get it on the podcast soon.

Hey guys, Jonathan from Uprise Energy here.

Rendering. Concept has been engineered but not built (yet).

128 m2

I'd say our credentials speak for themselves. You can read some of the highlights at http://upriseenergy.com/about/ -- the PPC has also been endorsed by http://quartus.com

Here are some performance calc's for the PPC:

The formula for kinetic energy is KE = 1/2 (wind speed in m/s cubed) X (disc area in m2) X RHO (air density in kg/m3)(1.23) all divided by 1000 watts in a kW.
Area of a 42' rotor is = 128 m2
28 mph wind = 12.5 m/s v3= 1953
KE at 12.5 ms = (.5) (128) (1953) (1.23) /1000= 153 kW
The PPC captures 50kW = 32.6% (Betz limit of 59.3% = 90kW)
At full output I have not added any benefit of wind gust energy.
At lower wind speeds, I have. To compare KE to output at lower wind speeds, a factor for gust energy must be added to the KE of steady wind, otherwise the capture ratio would appear to be too high.

In a 12mph wind, with typical wind gusts, the machine will make 12-15kW or enough to power 12-15 avg US homes.

There are also a handful of technical articles in the blog section of our website http://upriseenergy.com/blog/ that should fill in the gaps as to how we effectively capture wind gust energy and the benefits.


If you have further questions or would like to contact me direct, you can email me: jonathan at upriseenergy dot com

I don't check the email that's attached to this account, so I probably won't see responses unless someone messages me on the above email.

Regards, JWK

Hello Jonathan,

 

Welcome to Airborne Wind Energy forum. 

 

So here speaking about ground turbines is not usual.

 

Thanks for the values you give.

12 mph = 5.34 m/s. 5.34 cubed is 152. So 1953 [= 12.5 m/s cubed] /152 = 12.85,so power is 50 KW/12.85 = 3891 W.If I take a goog capacity factor of 30% I obtain an average of 1167 W.For 15 houses,the result is 78 W per house,not so far that my first estimation (60 W) without any element for my knowledge.Feeding a house needs by far a higher value.I do not think some gusts will allow a far higher power value;if yes it is no more a wind of 12 miles per hour.

 

But it would be a good occasion for you to appreciate the huge potential of the emergent industry of Airborne Wind Energy harnessing more powerful winds at high altitude with a lighter material.

 

Regards,

 

Pierre Benhaïem

 

http://energykitesystems.org

http://aweia.org

http://flygenkite.com

 

 

 

Thanks for the advice Dave S
I am a bit lost in translation on a few points however...
Could you please clarify...

You mentioned power extraction being directly below the trailing
edges,...
Is that configuring each wing and / or the whole set as a shroud/
turbine duct?
If so ... I think another set of arches of kites exactly as shown would
have to go above this one...
That would allow us to suspend individual turbines in place.

I selected the individual Ram Air kites with wide bridling setting
points on the loadpath,
so that they would have inherent wide set stability and also to
implement group steering...
If each kite can be pitched to one side, The collective loadpath "leg"
will want to lift.
Using riser lines much like a paraglider to collectively trim each kite
should be possible.
This approach kinda combines a Mothra and an Ortho Kite Bunch...

Ram Air was probably excessive considering the BHL success.
I am sure sheet role material will play it's part in the most efficient
design,
BHL is certainly no sheet of tarp though.
Judicious design of automated cutting and seam work will undoubtedly
provide a better price per return in the long run.

A thought...
How high can a mothra fly stably above the collected tethering point?

Some Gaelic
Sgiath : Gaelic for wing, Niall : I only know it as a name.
motha: big, mothachail: conscious aware, mothar: loud shout
mothra seems to combine all that.

Must go back and do some better drawing


--- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, dave santos <santos137@... wrote:
Turbines or wingmills operate most powerfully there.
needed to make an arch kite, since the loadpath arches already run flat
enough. Consider a megakite patterned like one of the unit wings, but
bridled close to the ground, as a new variant. I intend to directly
bridle a 15m2 traction kite to two sand anchors to make a sort of low
shade roof, to see what that suggests.
schemes, like an apartment under each wing. Furling is another possible
rationale, although again, such lines would not be essential.
wing is distant from its neighbors- variable spacing is as easy as just
running sails on longer lines.
for a simpler cheaper production design. The BHL wing is a nice model
for a megascale arch kite, with the loadpath ropes running across the
flare vertexes. No other bridles required, and great airfoil profile
control.
means to launch and douse the megametakite, but note that sails on
independent bridles with extra DOFs (degrees-of-freedom) do not all
douse progressively so easily.
you need to figure out how you want the power-pumping lines run; either
to a turret center, or to the sides.

Small correction:12 miles per hour is 5.36448 m/s.So in the end average
power is 79 W per house.

I back up to AWE.

PierreB


--- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, Pierre BENHAIEM
<pierre.benhaiem@... speaking about ground turbines is not usual. Thanks for the values you
give.12 mph = 5.34 m/s. 5.34 cubed is 152. So 1953 [= 12.5 m/s cubed]
/152 = 12.85,so power is 50 KW/12.85 = 3891 W.If I take a goog capacity
factor of 30% I obtain an average of 1167 W.For 15 houses,the result is
78 W per house,not so far that my first estimation (60 W) without any
element for my knowledge.Feeding a house needs by far a higher value.I
do not think some gusts will allow a far higher power value;if yes it is
no more a wind of 12 miles per hour. But it would be a good occasion for
you to appreciate the huge potential of the emergent industry of
Airborne Wind Energy harnessing more powerful winds at high altitude
with a lighter material. Regards, Pierre Benhaïem
http://energykitesystems.orghttp://aweia.orghttp://flygenkite.com Message du 09/11/12 04:00
the highlights at http://upriseenergy.com/about/ -- the PPC has also
been endorsed by http://quartus.com
X (disc area in m2) X RHO (air density in kg/m3)(1.23) all divided by
1000 watts in a kW.
speeds, a factor for gust energy must be added to the KE of steady wind,
otherwise the capture ratio would appear to be too high.
12-15kW or enough to power 12-15 avg US homes.
of our website http://upriseenergy.com/blog/ that should fill in the
gaps as to how we effectively capture wind gust energy and the benefits.
you can email me: jonathan at upriseenergy dot com
probably won't see responses unless someone messages me on the above
email.
wind speed being 12 m/s;so a 50 KW turbine should produce about 4,370 W,
wind speed being 12 miles per hour (5.33 m/s) as claimed.
houses as claimed.
mother-in-law to share TV.
complete autonomy.Or a complete autonomy is possible for only one house.
area is not given.The diameter of rotor seems to be under 10 m (32
ft),regarding its size next to the 4x4.A rotor of 10 m of diameter
(swept area 78 m²) produces something like 3 KW with the given
wind speed of 12 miles per hour by taking account of high efficiency of
about 45%,so 200 W per house among the cited 15 houses the turbine
should feed.With a capacity factor of 30% one obtains 60 W,only enough
to watch TV.
is rated at 22 KW.So if we accept 50 KW is a correct value we can have
136 W.The announcement should be something like:with our turbine for 15
houses you and your mother-in-law can watch TV separatly all the time.
turbine which a different design.STAR refers to Sweep Twist Adaptative
Rotor,but also the 5 blades rotor looks like a star,so there is some
ambiguity about star.
this "press-release" turbine. It would be good practice.
devices start out with a big ole' pile of lies, and go downhill from
there, eventually slinking away, unseen, in the darkness. (wa~ wa- wa_)

Dave S,
I went through my youtube history....
5 months back I found this solid dude from TU Delft giving the world his all on wind energy.
http://youtu.be/J7vY3g4lflk 

Pretty sure this is the one you wanted where he describes the rotational power in terms of torque and speed ... as well as how that relates to rotor solidity

Article on Germa Developement.

http://www.gizmag.com/fraunhofer-nts-kite-wind-power/24843/

maybe it needs to be 5 times more scary ...
like this
http://youtu.be/ql6l3-GWO7I 

OK I will debunk this "new turbine".
Starting with the fact that most every "new" turbine starts with lies and slowly crawls away into the night.
Note: after reading all the hype, the "new turbine" is now admitted to be just that: HYPE-o-thetical. As in not real. As in a lie. Or several lies stacked together. It is NOT a new turbine at all! It's just an IDEA for a turbine, yet the website speaks of its features as though they are all included and it all magically "works" as stated.

It is nothing but a fantasy.

Why do they use 5 blades instead of 3? To add an extra 40% to the blade cost? To add unnecessary rotor weight? Or is it that they are new to the art, and make the common newbie mistake of seeing millions of turbines around the world with only 2 or 3 blades, thinking all those previous designers have just sort of "missed" the "advantages" of a high-solidity rotor? When I was a newbie suggesting more blades, a veteran asked me: "Do you think we have no idea what we are doing?" He was actually a bit annoyed that I would even ask a question about adding more blades. Several years and advanced textbooks later, I realized how dumb even asking that question was, let alone promoting a rendering of such as a new, superior solution.

Yeah there are always a couple of oddball turbines out there using too many blades. It's a band-aid to rescue turbines that are not designed properly in the first place. (too much generator cogging)

What about those unmentioned blade tip extra-add-ons? Shown but not mentioned. Are they one more critical aspect that real wind turbine designers have missed? Sure, make those tips as heavy as you can by adding shit on the ends! NOT! (but our tips counter tip losses!) (So why don't the experts use them?) hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm........

And how this magically self-deploys from a shipping container and automatically retracts when the wind gets too strong. How does it retract if it has guy wires going to anchors? Or is retraction in high winds just one more fantasy feature? Puff the Magic Windmill? What if the weather slowly gets windier and windier - can it self-lower during a 50 MPH wind?

Most 50 kW turbines are 50-feet in diameter, not 40 feet. At 40 feet you are probably at around 35 kW.

I could cite many more details, but then again there's no limit to how much time one can waste trying to debunk the constant fire-hose of wind energy lies. All in all, I will just predict with, in my mind, 100% certainty (my opinion) that this machine will never be built as described, and if anything of the sort is ever developed it will not have the features (lies?) bragged (lied?) about on this website.

Most likely it will turn out to be "just another website"...

At its core is not a bad idea - a wind energy solution in a shipping container. People talk about that idea all the time, yet you never see it emerge. Someone should make a real working version of that concept in my opinion, and it would be hard to not add solar.

"Credentials Speak for Themselves?" Really. In wind energy, it is well known that you must "Let the turbine do the talking". How many failed designs were promoted by those with "credentials"? (I hate to bring up that dreaded term, "Professor Crackpot"... Credentials are a dime a dozen, and I don't see any impressive ones here anyway. If you had credentials you wouldn't be using too many blades - think about it. Sorry but this one was easy to flag.

Let us know when you have one that does everything this website says. No wait - let us know when you have any working turbine at all.
:)
Doug S.

Dave S.:
As usual, your post makes no sense. You said you were going to try to debunk the turbine. Then your attention span lapsed and you went back to insulting me. Then you culminated by saying you hope that puts it all to rest. You never finished what you started to say, which was that you were going to try and debunk the turbine in question.

Why is debunking fantasy turbines good practice for AWE? Because it is still wind energy, and if you can debunk them on the ground or towers, you have at least a clue toward the next step, so you don't repeat past mistakes.

I think I have explained that enough. Some people will never get it, and they tend to endlessly announce that fact.

The endless unworkable newbie question:
"What does knowing about wind energy have to do with wind energy?"

I think that is the essence of it: workable newbies who want to learn, and unworkable ones who "already know everything".

I'm thinking maybe you don't dare try to debunk this turbine, as you stated you would, because maybe you don't know where to start, or that it shares too many features with your most unworkable ideas!

That is exactly the point, yet you are mystified at what relevance debunking turbines could possibly have, on a forum about what we want to believe are the post advanced and promising new turbine designs ever considered.

I guess designing the most advanced wind turbines in the world without any knowledge of the art of wind energy would be like going into a pro boxing ring without a single boxing lesson - wow that would be one hell of a wake-up-call, at least when you woke up...
:)
Doug S.

This is a great video. It summarizes most of what I've been saying all along, starting with the fact that wind energy is a 3000-year-old art (that we know of), and that learning the mistakes of the past prevents us from repeating them, teaching us how and why modern wind turbines work, after all those years of refinement and learning.

He's oversimplifying a few things:
The various numbers of blades in a rotor do not really all get the same exact amount of power. 2-bladed and 3-bladed are pretty much in a pissing match since the exact fit to the generator and electrical load can play roles, as well as 1000 other factors.

But farm pumpers with very high solidity rotors consisting of many blades do lose energy to wake vorticity. He doesn't mention that.
He can't fit everything into such a short video, so all in all it is a great explanation for newbies.
:)
Doug S.

Woops I forgot the main thing I was gonna say: This video also misses how bad the performance of the "plate" moving downwind really is. They barely scratch that surface (pun?).

First of all the kinetic energy exchange is proportional to relative velocity squared, and since traveling with the wind cuts the relative velocity in half, you have one quarter the force you would imagine, as a start. I think he sort of mentioned that in a roundabout way.

But it gets worse. Way worse. Way way way way way worse:
Swept area is calculated on the entire working area presented to the wind. so take his 5/27ths and cut it in half right away since half of the machine must return to be recycled.

Now some schemes have the plates folding back to present no area while traveling upwind - nice concept, but are there any working examples? I think not.

But if the plates must travel upwind against the flow to return to a working position, they eat up energy traveling at 1.5 times the wind speed, against the wind! That is a lot of lost energy! You're lucky if it can even turn at all - maybe it goes backwards!

But it still gets way worse:
We WERE talking about "swept area", but what about blade area?
Looking at it from the standpoint of blade area, if you have a rotor that has a 2% or 3% solidity, yet sweeping the full area effectively, versus a machine with a 200% solidity (only half the swept area even working, the other half fighting the first half) and then factor in efficiency of maybe 1/20th, your now talking about losing a few orders of magnitude of performance per unit blade area. As in about 1000 times less power, per unit blade area, between a lift-based machine and a drag-based machine.

Ah, what's a 1000:1 advantage? Who cares, right? Yeah yeah yeah, who cares about facts.

Just put up 1000 times as many turbines for the same output!
:)
Doug S.

AWE Glossary entry on page "e"

From Near Zero (very interesting) discussion transcript.

Corwin gives "A list of wing performances:
Zeta = [power generated]/ (0.5*[air density]*[ambient wind speed]^3*[area of wing])

Wing
Modern wind turbine: Zeta = 5.5
Wing 7: Zeta = 8
Wing 4: Zeta = 5-6
Wing 3: Zeta = 3-4
Best textile wing at Makani: Zeta = 1-2."

On old posts I estimated Modern wind turbine and Wing 4 to have an identical Zeta.Though aircraft corresponding to the tip blade should have a farer ZETA.As M.Loyds indicates crosswind for kite is not quite crosswind, so the efficiency is lesser (other known reason of lower efficiency being tether drag at high speed).

The occupied area of work (comprising swept area) is by far higher with AWE.Note the progress from Makani;now ZETA is 8.The challenge form Makani is to obtal a great aircraft with very high ratio L/D but not too high speed since tip turbines speed would too fast.

Complete intervention below,Corwin showing a great clearness.I learn a lot of indications from it.So I put it:

"Corwin Hardham | Makani Power