Messages in AirborneWindEnergy group.                           AWES7971to8020 Page 57 of 440.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7971 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/19/2012
Subject: Pucker line | Pinch line | AoA line for arch kite

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7972 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 11/20/2012
Subject: Re: Hard lessons from testing

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7973 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 11/20/2012
Subject: Re: Hard lessons from testing

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7974 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/20/2012
Subject: Stop it! Douse it! Kill it! Terminate it! ... ?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7975 From: dave santos Date: 11/20/2012
Subject: The Ground as an AWES Hub

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7976 From: dave santos Date: 11/20/2012
Subject: Re: Stop it! Douse it! Kill it! Terminate it! ... ?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7977 From: dave santos Date: 11/20/2012
Subject: Merit Audits for AWE Basket Fund

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7978 From: Dan Parker Date: 11/20/2012
Subject: Re: Stop it! Douse it! Kill it! Terminate it! ... ?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7979 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/20/2012
Subject: Multi-rotor kite-lifted "Coaxial multi-turbine generator" by Harbur

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7980 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/20/2012
Subject: Re: The Ground as an AWES Hub

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7981 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/20/2012
Subject: Kite autopilot discussion in AYERS

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7982 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/20/2012
Subject: Nanospinning at MIT

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7983 From: dave santos Date: 11/20/2012
Subject: More fancy kite physics

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7984 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/20/2012
Subject: Wax-Filled Nanotech Yarn Behaves Like Super-Strong Muscle

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7985 From: christopher carlin Date: 11/20/2012
Subject: Re: More fancy kite physics

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7986 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 11/20/2012
Subject: Re: More fancy kite physics

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7987 From: Rod Read Date: 11/21/2012
Subject: Re: More fancy kite physics

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7988 From: dave santos Date: 11/21/2012
Subject: Re: More fancy kite physics

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7989 From: dave santos Date: 11/21/2012
Subject: Re: More fancy kite physics

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7990 From: christopher carlin Date: 11/21/2012
Subject: Re: More fancy kite physics

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7991 From: dave santos Date: 11/21/2012
Subject: Re: More fancy kite physics

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7992 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/21/2012
Subject: Makani Power quarterly ... November issue 2012 Disuss points from

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7993 From: dave santos Date: 11/21/2012
Subject: AWES Fly-Off Program For Basket Investment Selection

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7994 From: Pierre Benhaiem Date: 11/22/2012
Subject: Re: More fancy kite physics

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7995 From: Andrew K Date: 11/22/2012
Subject: Re: More fancy kite physics

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7996 From: dave santos Date: 11/22/2012
Subject: Re: More fancy kite physics

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7997 From: dave santos Date: 11/22/2012
Subject: Correction //Re: [AWES] Re: More fancy kite physics

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7998 From: dave santos Date: 11/22/2012
Subject: Living and Working Aloft- Safety Netting Systems, Misc. Gear

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7999 From: dave santos Date: 11/22/2012
Subject: NTS GmbH AWES Claims made in Texas, May, 2009

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8000 From: christopher carlin Date: 11/22/2012
Subject: Re: More fancy kite physics

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8001 From: markusw_brb Date: 11/23/2012
Subject: Progress in research

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8002 From: Bob Stuart Date: 11/23/2012
Subject: Re: Progress in research

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8003 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 11/23/2012
Subject: Re: Progress in research

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8004 From: christopher carlin Date: 11/23/2012
Subject: Re: Progress in research

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8005 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/23/2012
Subject: Re: Progress in research

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8006 From: harry valentine Date: 11/23/2012
Subject: Re: Progress in research

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8007 From: dave santos Date: 11/23/2012
Subject: Kite Sensor-Fusion Paper

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8008 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/23/2012
Subject: Re: Kite Sensor-Fusion Paper

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8009 From: dave santos Date: 11/23/2012
Subject: More New AWE Papers and Reports

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8010 From: dave santos Date: 11/23/2012
Subject: German Standard for Corporate Social Responsibility

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8011 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/23/2012
Subject: Re: More New AWE Papers and Reports

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8012 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/23/2012
Subject: Re: More New AWE Papers and Reports

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8013 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/23/2012
Subject: Re: More New AWE Papers and Reports

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8014 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/24/2012
Subject: PopSci article by

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8015 From: harry valentine Date: 11/24/2012
Subject: Re: PopSci article by

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8016 From: dave santos Date: 11/24/2012
Subject: Megascale Suspension Bridges as engineering similarity model for Kit

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8017 From: dave santos Date: 11/24/2012
Subject: GroundSpan Factor

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8018 From: harry valentine Date: 11/24/2012
Subject: Re: Megascale Suspension Bridges as engineering similarity model for

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8019 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/24/2012
Subject: Re: GroundSpan Factor

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8020 From: dave santos Date: 11/24/2012
Subject: Re: GroundSpan Factor



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7971 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/19/2012
Subject: Pucker line | Pinch line | AoA line for arch kite
Basic arch kite has but a main arching loadpath line to two spread anchors. 
Consider an aft line generally parallel to the load-path line that is shorter than 
the main load-path line; name the shorter aft line perhaps: pucker or pinch or AoA line. 
The pucker line may control AofA or even left-right actions. 

JoeF
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7972 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 11/20/2012
Subject: Re: Hard lessons from testing

Roddy,

Perhaps another possibility.Kites must provide power and lift.Ring is only a mean of transmission.

Generally the angle of a kite making loops is 20° (low part) and 40 or 50°.With Makani the diameter of loop is a little more than 4 times rigid wing span,and a single wing is used.For a same span ram kite has more area.

When you pilot a kite making loops you must do cyclic piloting manovers to keep the kite flying,if no it falls.If the following point is confirmed wings from Makani would have an aerodynamic configuration allowing some passive control of circular path.But for for the moment a simplier mean can be perhaps possible.

To fly the kite with radio steering servos (the same than material for model airplane) allowing loops.

After what add the ring,being little larger (like the loop you choice) and lighter (using thin (2 or 3 mm) and flat (1 or 2 cm) carbon torus).Then fix the kite on the torus like you do with several kites,then you control it with radio.To optimize swept area 2 or three kites should be enough.

PierreB
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7973 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 11/20/2012
Subject: Re: Hard lessons from testing


"With Makani the diameter of loop is a little more than 4 times rigid wing span,and a single wing is used" but only on specifications (note that TSR between two ends of the wing goes from the simple to the double),the videos showing a value far higher.

 

If the problem of lift is solved Rod's ring scheme can become interesting,launching and recovery being able to be easier by implementation of open-close servos and devices allowing slide of rings and their kites along and trough their ropes used for transmission and linking said rings,so allowing the superimposition of rings,each ring being in contact with the following.

 

PierreB
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7974 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/20/2012
Subject: Stop it! Douse it! Kill it! Terminate it! ... ?
Planning ahead to close an operation safely ... 
reminding image: 

Methods in AWES?
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7975 From: dave santos Date: 11/20/2012
Subject: The Ground as an AWES Hub

Many of our best AWES ideas emerged early, but take years to understand in the simplest most direct way. The "GroundHub" POV below is a typical case. Once we do see clearly, the leap in progress is exciting.

================================

Many AWES schemes involve kites going around a carousel, circular track, or cableway. These can be seen as true turbines, in the sense that the ground surface itself becomes a megascale hub structure. This sort AWES "groundhub" has the golden advantage of megascalability, with no added mass aloft. Large hubs also favor direct generation of electricity by high-speed motion, by impinging the generator load at the rim*.

The problem is, this is a vertical axis hub, and we know that an ideal windpower axis is oriented along the wind direction like a HAWT. We have at several solutions at hand. The most common and trickiest idea is to fly kites along the circle in complex orbits, with phases for power and recovery of upwind distance. KiteLab developed Whipple-Tree approach with lines and pulleys to allow the tilting of the entire circle of kites to better face the wind, as a sort of autogyro. Its been shown that circling kites can be cross-linked by lines to integrate them, for reduced mishaps and control requirement. A kite arch spanned over a kite-turbine, or even an array of them, can allow kite turbine operation square to the wind.

A major variant is a generating ground-hub much like a classic rotary engine, but driven by radiating pumped lines from adjoining kite fields. All kinds of kite-pumping schemes (rotary or oscillating) can feed-in power in-phase. This maximizes the ground structure portion and minimizes need for steel and concrete structure. Land and airspace efficiency can also be maximized. Kite farms like this may be an optimal gigascale AWES configuration for true utility-scale generation.

coolIP

* To answer a recent Forum question- Impinging a load on a wheel rim is mechanically practical and efficient (gear principle). Powered land vehicles operate nicely by this principle. Ground hub ideas scale the wheel to unprecedented sizes, with impinged generators easily brought to bear.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7976 From: dave santos Date: 11/20/2012
Subject: Re: Stop it! Douse it! Kill it! Terminate it! ... ?
A seeming failure of training and instructor judgement. This student should not have been jumping in windy conditions. While still conscious, he should have quick-released (or reached up and pulled in) one side of the risers, to kill the chute.

Often a jumper is partly incapacitated ("wind knocked out") and even knocked unconscious, and depends on a runner to intercept the dragging chute and jump on its apex to kill it, preventing injury and a tangle of risers and bridlelines. As a kid growing up around skydiving, my favorite job was to kill chutes like this for pioneering sport skydivers.

Modern "square" chutes fly relatively fast, and a skilled jumper usually lands quite easily into far brisker wind than was safe with the crude round chutes like the one in this disturbing video, with its laugh track and poor guy still dragging two minutes later when the shot cut.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7977 From: dave santos Date: 11/20/2012
Subject: Merit Audits for AWE Basket Fund
In order to create a sound AWES Basket Fund, every participant needs to be fairly valued with respect to the assets it brings to the fund. The valuation process should meet professional engineering and accounting standards. A "Merit Audit" procedure is a key procedure to ensure as best as possible to investors that claimed value is real and verifiable.

A Merit Audit of an AWES group or individual would cover:

People- Applicable experience, education, skills, special accomplishments, etc.
Technology- Quality, IP (patents or CC), convincing demonstrations, test engineering orientation, etc.
Company- Culture, management, values, assets, trackrecord, etc.
Ability to flexibly collaborate across the Basket picks- Engineering and business agility
Defects, shortcomongs, barriers, etc.
ETC.

A scoring matrix can be designed to break value qualities down into a fine grained checklist that reveals the relative merits of the AWES players internally competing for Basket funds. Ventures with an overall weak value would not qualify as such, but might have components worth salvaging, like an engineering team, or some special asset (like a developmental test site). These parts could be recycled into the general venture. Merit will be found for larger collaborative R&D, as well as specialized efforts. The Basket should support a balance of these approaches. Hidden merit even exists in supporting some schemes to fail, in order to end engineering uncertainty over dead-ends.

Academic Peer Review is a key model to adopt. Professional Engineering and Accounting also have well developed standards to apply to a Merit Audit process. Sound Merit Audits are the answer to the question of how major Basket Fund investment can be equitably distributed.

coolIP
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7978 From: Dan Parker Date: 11/20/2012
Subject: Re: Stop it! Douse it! Kill it! Terminate it! ... ?
Ouche, that poor fellow, oh my goodness.

 
To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
From: joefaust333@gmail.com
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 16:53:01 +0000
Subject: [AWES] Stop it! Douse it! Kill it! Terminate it! ... ?

 
Planning ahead to close an operation safely ... 
reminding image: 

Methods in AWES?
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7979 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/20/2012
Subject: Multi-rotor kite-lifted "Coaxial multi-turbine generator" by Harbur
Click image for full patent.      Discuss claims, etc.
 
 Rudy W. Harburg
Patent number: 5040948
Filing date: Mar 26, 1990
Issue date: Aug 20, 1991


Commentary invited. 
  • Doug Selsam did cite Harburg.   Selsam emphasized "continuous central driveshaft."   The one figure in Harburg shows that the driveshaft is perhaps a non-continuous situation, perhaps.  

Coaxial multi- turbine generator  


Page bookmarkUS5040948  (A)  -  Coaxial multi- turbine generator
Inventor(s):HARBURG RUDY W [US] +
Applicant(s):HARBURG RUDY W [US] +
Classification:
- international:F03D1/00; F03D11/04; (IPC1-7): F03D11/00
- Euro:F03D1/00; F03D11/04; Y02E10/72N
Application number:US19900499170 19900326 
Priority number(s):US19900499170 19900326
Also published as:WO9114868  (A1)  
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7980 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/20/2012
Subject: Re: The Ground as an AWES Hub
http://www.energykitesystems.net/CoopIP/GroundAsAWESHub.html 
will collect commentary posted in group or directly to Upper Windpower. 
Some related commentary is already at the file. 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7981 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/20/2012
Subject: Kite autopilot discussion in AYERS
Kite autopilot discussion in AYERS
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7982 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/20/2012
Subject: Nanospinning at MIT

Making `nanospinning' practical 

Nanofibers have a dizzying range of possible applications, but they've been prohibitively expensive to make. MIT researchers hope to change that.
====================
Comment: 
Tiny tethers?    Yet aggregates of spun nanofibers could make for larger tethers.  
Surely DSM Dyneema  has watch for any competing tech. 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7983 From: dave santos Date: 11/20/2012
Subject: More fancy kite physics
This paper superbly lays out basic hyperchaos control dynamics, however, you must assume the AWES physics case to run backwards (regulated sinusoidal output from hyperchaoic input)-


Hyperchaos and hyperchaos control of the sinusoidally
forced simplified Lorenz system
Keihui Sun · Xuan Liu · Congxu Zhu · J.C. Sprott

http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/pubs/paper355.pdf
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7984 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/20/2012
Subject: Wax-Filled Nanotech Yarn Behaves Like Super-Strong Muscle

Wax-Filled Nanotech Yarn Behaves Like Super-Strong Muscle 

UT Dallas Team's Development Could One Day Power Robots, Micromotors, Intelligent Textiles

Nov. 15, 2012

Coil with paraffin with scale bar

=======================

Comment: 

Actuators in AWES may be made using UTD's tech. 

  • Wing control?
  • Wing morphing?
  • Tether dynamics?
  • Shade and unshade to cause contractions for energy conversion?
  • ?
  • ?
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7985 From: christopher carlin Date: 11/20/2012
Subject: Re: More fancy kite physics
Dave,

If you really understand what these guys are up to please explain it to me in simple terms. Last time I looked at Lyapunov functions was 50 years ago so I'm  a bit rusty. I suspect in s super analytic way what they're saying is you can stabilize a system using dither.

Regards,

Chris
On Nov 21, 2012, at 3:57 AM, dave santos wrote:
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7986 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 11/20/2012
Subject: Re: More fancy kite physics


DaveS,

 

Is it a the new direction of AWE after phonon-metachronic-waves...?

I know not more these two (or more) scientific fields.

Instead description of hundreds possibilities with scientific words,why do not trying building only one simple complete small working AWES (I have it)proving wanted features?

 

PierreB
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7987 From: Rod Read Date: 11/21/2012
Subject: Re: More fancy kite physics
Dutch roll kite trajectory resembles Lorenz modelling...
however I suppose one would have to state the standard x and y  Lorenz input as being left and right of downwind in our models....
where now the x and y are on the same axis ..
not sure how relevant this is, but weirder things happen.
with
modelling azimuth coordinate as one input
Tension - lift being another input / drag - thrust another / time another
maybe it comes true to Lorenz

I obviously have no idea however

Rod Read

15a Aiginis
Isle of Lewis
HS2 0PB

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7988 From: dave santos Date: 11/21/2012
Subject: Re: More fancy kite physics
Chris,

Dithering effects are a good example of the sort of phenomena we begin to formalize with dynamical systems theories.

Perhaps the simplest explanation of hyperchaos is the double pendulum. Even a single pendulum goes chaotic as it wavers near the top of its orbit, where its future becomes sensitive to the smallest inputs. Two pendulums in tandem go nuts even easier- thats hyperchaos.

A classic kite is a double pendulum. Its yaw axis is one pendulum mechanism, and its roll-axis another. That's already hyperchaotic, but windfield turbulence and tether dynamics just pile on more Lyapunov exponents. It becomes clear that classic control theory does not properly predict optimal control paths, and that any real-world kite flown long enough must crash.

But if you cross-link chaotic exponents in a suitable way, chaos cancels. I've called this method "aggregate stability". Dithering seems to be a related analogy.

What i am looking for is mathematical validation for specific kite conjectures, and empirically known facts, like the famous "Kite-Eating Tree Effect", to satisfy those academics who require a formally abstract model. The next step is to explore a new engineering of (partially) self-organized control of many degrees-of-freedom, a kite array that naturally pumps power in varied conditions much like a horse naturally changes gaits to match conditions.

This is tricky stuff. Its taken me decades of broad study to get just a foggy view of potential engineering breakthroughs,

daveS
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7989 From: dave santos Date: 11/21/2012
Subject: Re: More fancy kite physics
Pierre,

Sadly, there is no single "complete" mathematical physics toolkit for us. Even quantum mechanics is not developed enough. We have to borrow ideas from every branch- classical mechanics, thermodynamics, fluid-dynamics, condensed-matter, dynamical-systems, control-theories, and so forth. All of them have useful ideas to recombine into ever deeper understanding of optimal AWES engineering. It will be new folks who carry this work forward to glorious completion, we are too few and too early.

The good news is we get to play at the frontier of knowledge, letting the dancing kite lead the way,

daveS
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7990 From: christopher carlin Date: 11/21/2012
Subject: Re: More fancy kite physics
I assume somebody has written equations of motion for a kite. I've never had occasion to look them up. If not the place to start is to write them. I don't really see why a kite is any harder to stabilize or characterize than an airplane. 

I'd appreciate your thoughts.

Regards,

Chris  
On Nov 21, 2012, at 5:14 PM, dave santos wrote:
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7991 From: dave santos Date: 11/21/2012
Subject: Re: More fancy kite physics
ChrisC,

Kites and regular airplanes mostly share the same equations-of-motion, but a kite has added degrees-of-freedom (DOFs), in that the tether can jerk it in odd directions that an engine never jerks an airplane. The airplane is also in principle hyperchaotic*, but far less so, so its easier to keep the chaos at bay to the required reliability. The slower kite is far more subject to being perturbed by common wind turbulence than an airplane which just punches through with greater inertial stability. The kite spends more time near stall speed, and generally operates closer to the ground, which is a riskier way and place to fly.

We can tame kites to high reliability by merely staking them out every which way, like a wild animal, or harness them together in teams. We don't really have to master complex active controls, or close formation flying, to make an effective AWES,

daveS


* i forgot the pitch-axis as a third Lyapunov exponent in an earlier post. Kite and tether together are themselves an added complex pendulum to the kites local pitch/roll/yaw DOFs.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7992 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/21/2012
Subject: Makani Power quarterly ... November issue 2012 Disuss points from

Newsletters

11/20/2012 - Makani Power Quarterly Update

Earlier quarterlies:
07/17/2012 - Airborne Wind Tech Update from Makani Power
05/04/2012 - Airborne Wind Update
01/06/2012 - Progress Update from Makani Power
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7993 From: dave santos Date: 11/21/2012
Subject: AWES Fly-Off Program For Basket Investment Selection
The question was posed how a multi-billion AWE Basket Investment Fund can be properly applied. Peer-review, scoring matrices, and merit audits were covered.  

Another vetting tool explored in previous years is a refereed data-driven fly-off between contending AWES concepts. We noted principles for levelizing chance influences, like weather conditions and venture investment biases. 

In summary, a cooperative league of internally competing teams must work hard to give every AWES idea its impartial trial, and let data indicate winners. Even work on losing concepts reduces engineering and investment uncertainty for the basket, and should be valued. A balance of all the evaluation methods would make for a good process.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7994 From: Pierre Benhaiem Date: 11/22/2012
Subject: Re: More fancy kite physics

DaveS,

I beleive in your application chaos-quantum physics mainly concern the motion of the kites within a set,but I am not sure.This field is huge and like you say we have not enough tools.I can add we do not know if kites can be so different (from planes) to be relevant of such theories.And like JoeF writes on "EnergyKiteSystems.net
         is for those rapidly developing
airborne wind energy
anywhere at any scale.",time must be taking account.

So I propose to reverse the proposition to see it more clearly.

Dr.Fort Felker makes a link between wind energy and aviation.

So a question for Expert Christopher Carlin:is existing aviation concerned by the theories you mention,and if yes for what things (organization of trajectories for example?)?

Similar question for existing wind energy.

PierreB

 

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7995 From: Andrew K Date: 11/22/2012
Subject: Re: More fancy kite physics
Westinghouse (and I assume GE) have studied the physics of tethered aerostats.

A tethered aerostat is modeled like a kite with additional terms for
buoyancy and apparent mass (and a terrible L/D ratio).

My prof at U of Toronto James DeLaurier has a lot of papers on the
subject that go into the subject in detail.

Another name to look up would be Sam Jones who was TCOM's chief aerodynamicist.

Andrew King
recovered balloon builder.....
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7996 From: dave santos Date: 11/22/2012
Subject: Re: More fancy kite physics
Pierre,

It seems that the application of quantum physics to aerodynamics is so far unique the AWES Forum. No claim is made (yet) that the quantum kite view is useful, but it is a cool intellectual curiosity. Even a single kite is a quantum system. The phonons created are collective macroscopic excitations of the wind field, tether, and membrane molecules. These excitations roughly obey Bose-Einstein Statistics (BES), form as opposed Cooper Pairs, and so on.

The latest twist is an understanding of how most physicists have a hard time seeing macroscopic phonon quantum effects as such. The answer is that they spend so much time studying microscopic quantum effects that only emerge at cryogenic temperatures. Phonons at the kite macroscale, however, are Bosons large enough to ignore "room-temperature" thermal noise. The abstract quantum mechanics is the same, but phonons are a specialty physics topic, especially at the macroscale. Much of historic quantum physics was based on tiny visible light photons in situations like the centuries-old Double-Slit Experiment. But one could do the famous double slit experiment with macroscale photons by swinging a magnet overhead on a string to create actual photons on the scale of the swept circle. There are no inherent scale barriers in general QFT, the cosmic scale is fully quantum mechanical,

daveS
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7997 From: dave santos Date: 11/22/2012
Subject: Correction //Re: [AWES] Re: More fancy kite physics
Whoops; if you swing around a magnet on a string at, say, 1 RPM, the photons created are about 186,000 miles across!
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7998 From: dave santos Date: 11/22/2012
Subject: Living and Working Aloft- Safety Netting Systems, Misc. Gear
Next year will be big for Airborne Architecture experiments. Announced players range from TUDelft and the Port of Rotterdam (Flying Plaza) to Util LLC and KiteLab Group (Mothrapolis). AWE will elegantly power the new "Flying City" technology.

Safety is the primary engineering challenge. Lots of cool aerialist products and ideas at-

http://www.barry.ca/


http://www.barry.ca/netting-system/5-golden-rules-for-rope-and-netting-systems-design.htm
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7999 From: dave santos Date: 11/22/2012
Subject: NTS GmbH AWES Claims made in Texas, May, 2009

NTS Claims made in Houston at a CTSI affiliated tech conference-

NTS Energie- und Transportsysteme GmbH

Location:Berlin, DE
Speaker:Guido Luetsch
Title:Managing Director
Primary Industry:Wind Power
Executive Summary:The objective of the project is an innovative technology for the production of renewable energy by harnessing strong winds at a high altitude of 1.500 feet for less than 2 Cent/kWh. The concept assembles well known technologies: - Automatically steered kites and - Monorail-Systems into a base load power plant. NTS power plants have the capability to produce renewable energy for lesser costs than fossil fuels. As the wind blows about 80-90% of the time at 1.500 feet, the utilization rate of the high altitude power plant is at least three times higher than that of conventional windmills (20-30%). NTS shows for the first time a solution how to bring the kinetic energy of the strong winds at 1.500 feet to the ground.
Venture is:B-Round
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8000 From: christopher carlin Date: 11/22/2012
Subject: Re: More fancy kite physics
Dear Pierre,

I've been retired for some years so my point of view may be out of date. The simple answer I think is no certainly on the commercial side where certainty of operation is the paramount concern. On the military side where airplanes may operate post stall in violent maneuvers some of these ideas might be of interest but I doubt they're in use in current designs. Someone might be looking at them on the research side trying to understand their applicability. I find the fact that the research is coming out of China most interesting. One thing to keep in mind in the airplane business is that things usually take a long time to get from papers like this to implementation on a production system. I'd say long in this context is 10 to 20 years.

Regards,

Chris
On Nov 22, 2012, at 10:17 AM, Pierre Benhaiem wrote:
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8001 From: markusw_brb Date: 11/23/2012
Subject: Progress in research
Hello everybody,

I'm a student at the University of Brandenburg in Germany and have the task of creating a technology roadmap for new innovations on how to create energy.
Since AWE sounds like a very promising technology to me I need to go further into detail and describe in this roadmap what steps are needed until the technology will be ready for commercialization.

Therefore I'm hoping that one of the experts here can help me with a few questions I have regarding the technology.

1. What technological difficulties need to be solved to make AWE reliable and approximately when will they be solved?

2. When (which year) will AWE be ready for commercialization?

3. Are there different technological difficulties for the different AWE systems (e.g. Kite, airplane, Helium vessel)?

Thank you already for your help.

Markus
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8002 From: Bob Stuart Date: 11/23/2012
Subject: Re: Progress in research
This reminds me of a grant application I once worked on.  I spent all week trying to make sense of it, until I finally realized that in essence, it had just three questions:
What will you discover?
How much time and money will you need to find what you are looking for?
Are you willing to sign here, to say that you know those answers, but have not already done the research?

Presumably, Markus wishes to average our answers to #2,  but all I can say is that it all depends upon an economy which is in chaos.
I think that most of us will agree that the technological difficulties do differ with different systems.  

Bob Stuart

On 23-Nov-12, at 5:39 AM, markusw_brb wrote:
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8003 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 11/23/2012
Subject: Re: Progress in research


Welcome Markus,

I try to begin a short schema for a(n) (im)possible answer.

 

1. What technological difficulties need to be solved to make AWE reliable and approximately when will they be solved?
For kite systems difficulties concern above all a completely automatized management comprising flight control and launching and recovering,but also materials resisting to high constraints.These difficulties are linked to some economic issues concerning the global efficiency.

 

2. When (which year) will AWE be ready for commercialization?

It is not so difficult to make some demonstrators POC even for commercialization,for example Pacific Sky Power  (flygen stationary) or FlygenKite  (crosswind manually controlled flygen);but as permanent wind energy system at utility scale it is not possible to know exactly when (10,20,30 years or more or never?) AWES will be marketed.Between these two ends some niches are perhaps possible (systems for remove location). 

 

3. Are there different technological difficulties for the different AWE systems (e.g. Kite, airplane, Helium vessel)?

Yes,the difficulties are different according to systems which enter different categories:flygen (generator aloft:main difficulty being electric cable),groundgen (main difficulty being control),stationary (like autogyro),crosswind,rigid wing,soft wing,perhaps hybrid systems with support on ground...See different systems on http://energykitesystems.net and http://aweia.org

 

PierreB,

http://flygenkite.com

http://wheelwind.com

 

 

 

 

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8004 From: christopher carlin Date: 11/23/2012
Subject: Re: Progress in research
I would agree. You could probably field something today technically but it probably wouldn't be viable economically. I'd also offer the thought that new technology doesn't enter the world full blown. Rather it enters in small high cost/high benefit installations and evolves gradually into larger and larger systems at lower and lower cost. I could pick almost any industry as an example but take the commercial airplane. The earliest serious examples were in the 1920s. Perhaps tens of passengers, short range high cost. From that we've evolved to 747s and A380s. A mistake I've seen made many times is to think that technology will be introduced full blown initially. It's an unnatural approach much espoused by governments and large corporations. In practice it doesn't work.

Regards,

Chris   
On Nov 23, 2012, at 2:55 PM, Bob Stuart wrote:
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8005 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/23/2012
Subject: Re: Progress in research
Welcome Markus, 
                    Berlin will be holding a showcase of some of our AWE progress next September 2013.  What is your personal timeline for completion of your roadmap ?

                    AWE converts the wind's kinetic energy to other forms of energy. Commercialization is occurring at various scales in some AWE branches.  Your roadmap may face the challenge of defining the commercial scale in focus and type of work being done by an AWES.  Already some commercialization is occurring.   

Branches to AWE commerce: moving mass, pumping water, pulling things, generating electricity for immediate use, generating electricity for feeding into existing grids, or fulfilling special tasks.   Your roadmap might focus on one branch and not others; and you might consider choosing one scale within the one branch of AWE; the full spectrum of AWE is large; what will be valid statements in one branch at one scale may not apply to other branches or scales.     

Your choice to look at the coming new era of tethered aviation is exciting. Upper windpower is highly distributed and huge. Let us know of any refinements that you may make in your project focus.     You are welcome to study and use any of the files and papers, etc. you find HERE .

     JoeF

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8006 From: harry valentine Date: 11/23/2012
Subject: Re: Progress in research
Hello Markus,

I've worked for an energy company and for many years, I published technical articles on energy in many trade publications. There is much future potential in AWE technology and much ongoing research. Several people have built and tested various prototypes.

In my view, small-scale AWE could be ready for the commercial market within the next 2-years .  .  . these are various kite technologies that activate alternators that are located on the ground. This technology has application in many remote regions around the world, where a power output of 500-watts to 10kW would find application on farms and remote villages.

There are organizations also seeking to develop AWE technology capable of producing 1MW or greater output from a single AWE-driven alternator.


Best Regards,

Harry 

To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
From: markusweintraut@googlemail.com
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2012 11:39:13 +0000
Subject: [AWES] Progress in research

 
Hello everybody,

I'm a student at the University of Brandenburg in Germany and have the task of creating a technology roadmap for new innovations on how to create energy.
Since AWE sounds like a very promising technology to me I need to go further into detail and describe in this roadmap what steps are needed until the technology will be ready for commercialization.

Therefore I'm hoping that one of the experts here can help me with a few questions I have regarding the technology.

1. What technological difficulties need to be solved to make AWE reliable and approximately when will they be solved?

2. When (which year) will AWE be ready for commercialization?

3. Are there different technological difficulties for the different AWE systems (e.g. Kite, airplane, Helium vessel)?

Thank you already for your help.

Markus


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8007 From: dave santos Date: 11/23/2012
Subject: Kite Sensor-Fusion Paper

Bravo, Lorenzo!


[1211.5060] On sensor fusion for airborne wind energy systems
Abstract: A study on filtering aspects of airborne wind energy generators is presented. This class of renewable energy systems aims to convert the aerodynamic ...
arxiv.org/abs/1211.5060
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8008 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/23/2012
Subject: Re: Kite Sensor-Fusion Paper
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8009 From: dave santos Date: 11/23/2012
Subject: More New AWE Papers and Reports
Our Fall Harvest continues:

A French paper-

http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/73/37/23/PDF/2083-ff-007498.pdf

=============================

Frost and Sullivan "Closed" Content (someone please hook us up with copies)

Energy & Power Systems Alert. Harnessing Wind Energy Using Airborne Wind Turbines; Renewable Energy-Powered Hybrid Luxury Vessels; New Method for Efficient Ethanol Production 
This issue profiles harnessing wind energy using airborne wind turbines, renewable energy-powered hybrid luxury vessels, and a new method for efficient ethanol production.
Published: 28 Jan 2011 Technical Insights Alerts


Futuretech Alert. High-Altitude Wind Energy Generation 
This edition of Future Tech Alert profiles appications, technology drivers, technology challenges, and recent developments in high-altitude wind energy generation.
Published: 6 Apr 2012 Technical Insights Alerts

=============================

TUDelft has linked new papers mixed with those we knew. The Baayen-Ockels 2012 paper is paid access, sadly.


2012
A. Bosch, R. Schmehl, P. Tiso, D. Rixen: “Dynamic nonlinear aeroelastic model of a kite for power generation“. Submitted to AIAA Journal of Guidance, Control and Dynamics, 2012.
U. Fechner, R. Schmehl: “Design of a Distributed Kite Power Control System”. 2012 IEEE Multi-Conference on Systems and Control, Dubrovnik, Croatia, 3-5 October 2012. PDF
U. Fechner, R. Schmehl: “High level control and optimization of kite power systems”. 8th PhD Seminar on Wind Energy in Europe, Zurich, Switzerland, 12-13 September 2012. PDF
R. Schmehl: “Kiting for Wind Power”. Wind Systems, No. 7, pp.36-43, 2012. PDF
R. Schmehl: “Large-Scale Power Generation with Kites”. Leonardo Times – Journal of the Society of Aerospace Engineering Students 'Leonardo da Vinci', No. 1, pp. 21-22, 2012. PDF
J.H. Baayen, W.J. Ockels: "Tracking control with adaption of kites". IET Control Theory & Applications. Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 182-191, 2012. doi: 10.1049/IET-CTA.2011.0037
2011
S.G.C. de Groot, J. Breukels, R. Schmehl, W.J. Ockels: “Modeling Kite Flight Dynamics Using a Multibody Reduction Approach”. AIAA Journal of Guidance, Control and Dynamics. Vol. 34, No. 6, pp. 1671-1682, 2011. doi: 10.2514/1.52686
U. Fechner, R. van der Vlugt, R. Schmehl, W.J Ockels: "Efficiency of kite power systems in pumping operation". 7th EAWE PhD Seminar on Wind Energy in Europe, Delft, the Netherlands, 27-28 October 2011. PDF
R. Schmehl: "Die Kraft des Drachens, Antwort auf Leserbrief". Erneuerbare Energien, No. 9, p. 133, 2011. PDF
R. Schmehl: "Die Kraft des Drachens". Erneuerbare Energien, No. 8, p. 64-69, 2011. PDF
R. Schmehl: "Kite Power Technologie". Windnieuws, No. 2, pp. 22-24, 2011. PDF
E.J. Terink, J. Breukels, R. Schmehl, W.J. Ockels: “Flight Dynamics and Stability of a Tethered Inflatable Kiteplane”. AIAA Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 48, No. 2, pp. 503-513, 2011. doi: 10.2514/1.C031108
J. Breukels: "An engineering methodology for kite design". PhD thesis, Delft University of Technology, 2011.PDF
2010
A. de Wachter: "Power from the skies - Laddermill takes Airborne Wind Energy to new heights". Leonardo Times - Journal of the Society of Aerospace Engineering Students 'Leonardo da Vinci', No. 4, pp. 18-20, 2010. PDF
J. Breukels, W.J. Ockels: “Simulation of a flexible arc-shaped surf kite”. Manuscript, accepted for publication in AIAA Journal of Aircraft.
J. Breukels, W.J. Ockels: "A Multi-Body System Approach to the Simulation of Flexible Membrane Airfoils". Aerotecnica Missili & Spazio (AIDAA), Vol. 89, No. 3, pp. 119-134, 2010. PDF
J. Breukels, W.J. Ockels: "Simulation of a Three Dimensional Flexible Sail Wing with an Inflated Tubular Spar". Manuscript, submitted to Aerotecnica Missili & Spazio (AIDAA).
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8010 From: dave santos Date: 11/23/2012
Subject: German Standard for Corporate Social Responsibility

A good emerging set of standards for AWE to aspire to. Note that AWEIA and AWEC are provisionally committed to the GSA CoC-


http://www.tuv-sud.com/activity/focus-topics/corporate-social-responsibility
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8011 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/23/2012
Subject: Re: More New AWE Papers and Reports
In 2008 Altprofits had a generalized report that included comments on airborne wind energy: 
Clip:

Wind Farms
Based on their locations, the different types of wind farms are:

  • Onshore
  • Nearshore
  • Offshore
  • Airborne

Airborne Wind Farms

Airborne wind turbine is a design concept for a wind turbine that is supported in the air without a tower. A tether would be used to transmit energy to the ground, either mechanically or through electrical conductors. These systems would have the advantage of tapping an almost constant wind and doing so without a set of slip rings or yaw mechanism, without the expense of tower construction.

==============end of study clip of 2008. 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8012 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/23/2012
Subject: Re: More New AWE Papers and Reports
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8013 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/23/2012
Subject: Re: More New AWE Papers and Reports
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8014 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/24/2012
Subject: PopSci article by
Ben Franklin would be proud.
By David North (as told to Flora Lichtman)

Posted 11.08.2012 at 11:07 am
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8015 From: harry valentine Date: 11/24/2012
Subject: Re: PopSci article by
There is a worldwide application for such technology .  .   .  mainly at farms and villages in rural areas where there is no power grid.


Harry

To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
From: joefaust333@gmail.com
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2012 16:27:28 +0000
Subject: [AWES] PopSci article by

 

Ben Franklin would be proud.
By David North (as told to Flora Lichtman)

Posted 11.08.2012 at 11:07 am
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8016 From: dave santos Date: 11/24/2012
Subject: Megascale Suspension Bridges as engineering similarity model for Kit
The largest suspension bridge in the world is Japanese, and has a 2000m center span. Several other bridges are close in scale.

Imagine this validated loadpath geometry inverted skyward into a kite arch to fit nicely under the 2000' FAA AWES provisional ceiling. Instead of the live load of typhoons (handled by mass dampers) and dead load of the road trusses, aerodynamic lift and drag could comparably load arched cables (plus WECS loads). Instead of steel cables, UHMWPE would serve better. This is gigawatt AWES scale.

The Catalonian architect, Gaudi, pioneered upside-down suspended models to define optimal compression loadpaths. This AWES design idea is an equivalent use of the method, but for a purely tensile airborne structure. The engineering calculations are far more developed (and simpler in principle) than those for the AWES non-arch single anchor-point paradigm

By their spread tensile nature, suspension bridges clearly scale far beyond any other free-standing engineered structure (towers or domes). This new AWES similarity scaling model far surpasses the model of trawl nets several acres large.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_longest_suspension_bridges
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8017 From: dave santos Date: 11/24/2012
Subject: GroundSpan Factor
The kite arch method gives major gains in AWES scalablity and control compared to what single-anchorpoint kites can do. To quantify this factor for formal prediction of flight parameters, a mathematical definition is needed.

GroundSpan is proposed as the missing extent term. Let it be defined as the measured distance between two or more kite anchorpoints, or, in its dimensionless version, the ratio of GroundSpan-to-Height of a Kite (arch).

GroundSpan is intended to compliment WingSpan in specifying the overall "AirFrame" of an AWES, which typically includes  a surface media (land or sea).

===============

Notes-

GS/H = ~2 makes a reasonable kite arch at any scale. 

A control bar or the simple spread of one's arms, with a multiline kite, introduces a GS crosswind. 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8018 From: harry valentine Date: 11/24/2012
Subject: Re: Megascale Suspension Bridges as engineering similarity model for
Hi Dave,

A few years ago, I published a technical article re raising the hubs of tower-based turbines .  .  .  . using the bridge design from a viaduct in France .  . .   possible to push the hub centres to over 500m above ground level (of a valley). One drawback is that excess winds occur more frequently at these higher elevations .  .  .  .  one Japanese blade maker came up with the idea of a hinged blade with a counter-weight .  .  .  . each bald would "tilt back" and reduce its effective radius as wind speed increased.

In my view, there is great merit in combining elements of bridge design with wind power conversion.

Harry

To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
From: santos137@yahoo.com
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2012 10:45:15 -0800
Subject: [AWES] Megascale Suspension Bridges as engineering similarity model for KiteArch AWES

 

The largest suspension bridge in the world is Japanese, and has a 2000m center span. Several other bridges are close in scale.

Imagine this validated loadpath geometry inverted skyward into a kite arch to fit nicely under the 2000' FAA AWES provisional ceiling. Instead of the live load of typhoons (handled by mass dampers) and dead load of the road trusses, aerodynamic lift and drag could comparably load arched cables (plus WECS loads). Instead of steel cables, UHMWPE would serve better. This is gigawatt AWES scale.

The Catalonian architect, Gaudi, pioneered upside-down suspended models to define optimal compression loadpaths. This AWES design idea is an equivalent use of the method, but for a purely tensile airborne structure. The engineering calculations are far more developed (and simpler in principle) than those for the AWES non-arch single anchor-point paradigm

By their spread tensile nature, suspension bridges clearly scale far beyond any other free-standing engineered structure (towers or domes). This new AWES similarity scaling model far surpasses the model of trawl nets several acres large.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_longest_suspension_bridges
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8019 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/24/2012
Subject: Re: GroundSpan Factor
Discussion point for "groundspan"
1000/1=1000   ?
http://energykitesystems.net/images/kitesystems/groundspan2.jpg
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8020 From: dave santos Date: 11/24/2012
Subject: Re: GroundSpan Factor
In different flight modes and windspeeds, there is a favored balance of goundspan to height. Joe presents an interesting case of a GS/H of 1000 (or infinity, when the kite is on the ground), which looks like a typical parked AWES geometry. Then, by letting the arch rise to altitude at a lower GS/H, the stability factor would reduce in proportion to allow a self-initiated harmonic power mode. In ligher winds the arch could rise yet higher up the wind gradient into less marginal wind and oscillate more sensitively still with more sweep.