Messages in AirborneWindEnergy group.                           AWES8276to8325 Page 63 of 440.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8276 From: dave santos Date: 12/22/2012
Subject: Re: Classic Kite as Systolic Array

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8277 From: dave santos Date: 12/22/2012
Subject: Latest "AWE" (Kite Energy Documentary) Pilot Cut

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8278 From: dave santos Date: 12/22/2012
Subject: Preparing for "Big Science" AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8279 From: roderickjosephread Date: 12/22/2012
Subject: Re: Classic Kite as Systolic Array

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8280 From: dave santos Date: 12/22/2012
Subject: Re: Kites that breathe

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8281 From: carlgu Date: 12/23/2012
Subject: Merry Xmas...

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8282 From: dave santos Date: 12/24/2012
Subject: Scaling Laws for AWES Design

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8283 From: dave santos Date: 12/24/2012
Subject: Problems with "Fly HAWT Blade Tips Only" AWES Concepts

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8284 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/24/2012
Subject: Re: Problems with "Fly HAWT Blade Tips Only" AWES Concepts

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8285 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 12/24/2012
Subject: Re: Problems with "Fly HAWT Blade Tips Only" AWES Concepts

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8286 From: dave santos Date: 12/24/2012
Subject: Re: Problems with "Fly HAWT Blade Tips Only" AWES Concepts

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8287 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 12/24/2012
Subject: Re: Problems with "Fly HAWT Blade Tips Only" AWES Concepts

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8288 From: John Adeoye Oyebanji Date: 12/24/2012
Subject: Happy holiday

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8289 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/25/2012
Subject: Do you hear what I hear?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8290 From: dave santos Date: 12/26/2012
Subject: Cybernetical Physics- A Unifying Paradigm for AWES Design?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8291 From: Bob Stuart Date: 12/27/2012
Subject: Re: Cybernetical Physics- A Unifying Paradigm for AWES Design?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8292 From: dave santos Date: 12/27/2012
Subject: Toward Optimal AWES Design

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8293 From: dave santos Date: 12/27/2012
Subject: Classic Chaos Control Paper Formally Explains Kite Tail Stabilizing

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8294 From: dave santos Date: 12/28/2012
Subject: List of Dedicated AWE R&D Centers; Checklist for a Major Center

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8295 From: dave santos Date: 12/28/2012
Subject: Editorial- Traditional Venture Capitalism v. "Radical Transparency"

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8296 From: Steve E Date: 12/28/2012
Subject: Re: Physics of Rotating AWES Wings (Doug, RobertC; Please forgive ;^

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8297 From: dave santos Date: 12/28/2012
Subject: Welcome to Fraunhofer (plus questions about NTS AWES architecture)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8298 From: dave santos Date: 12/28/2012
Subject: NREL Wind Power Land-Use Study and Standards

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8299 From: Pierre Benhaiem Date: 12/29/2012
Subject: High and low complexity,modus operanti and materials

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8300 From: dave santos Date: 12/29/2012
Subject: Re: Physics of Rotating AWES Wings (Doug, RobertC; Please forgive ;^

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8301 From: dave santos Date: 12/29/2012
Subject: Re: High and low complexity,modus operanti and materials

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8302 From: dave santos Date: 12/29/2012
Subject: List of kite passive-stability factors, with intro and notes

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8303 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/29/2012
Subject: Re: Welcome to Fraunhofer (plus questions about NTS AWES architectur

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8304 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/29/2012
Subject: Re: Welcome to Fraunhofer (plus questions about NTS AWES architectur

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8305 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/29/2012
Subject: Re: Welcome to Fraunhofer (plus questions about NTS AWES architectur

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8306 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/29/2012
Subject: Re: List of kite passive-stability factors, with intro and notes

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8307 From: dave santos Date: 12/29/2012
Subject: MegaTrawler Similarity Case //Fw: For the AWES Book

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8308 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/30/2012
Subject: Search tool for online book

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8309 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/30/2012
Subject: Heat humid air by microwaves

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8310 From: dave santos Date: 12/30/2012
Subject: "SuperCharging" Conventional Wind Farms with Megascale Airborne Sail

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8311 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/30/2012
Subject: Re: "SuperCharging" Conventional Wind Farms with Megascale Airborne

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8312 From: dave santos Date: 12/31/2012
Subject: Re: "SuperCharging" Conventional Wind Farms with Megascale Airborne

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8313 From: dave santos Date: 12/31/2012
Subject: Airborne Wind-Dams

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8314 From: Joe Faust Date: 1/1/2013
Subject: Re: "SuperCharging" Conventional Wind Farms with Megascale Airborne

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8315 From: Joe Faust Date: 1/1/2013
Subject: Warming the ground locally?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8316 From: Joe Faust Date: 1/1/2013
Subject: Re: Warming the ground locally?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8317 From: Joe Faust Date: 1/1/2013
Subject: Re: Airborne Wind-Dams

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8318 From: Joe Faust Date: 1/1/2013
Subject: Laddermill and David Hammond Shepard

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8319 From: dave santos Date: 1/1/2013
Subject: Megascaling Rule- Conservation of Tensile Cross-Section across Fract

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8320 From: dave santos Date: 1/1/2013
Subject: Re: Warming the ground locally?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8321 From: dave santos Date: 1/1/2013
Subject: Re: Airborne Wind-Dams

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8322 From: Joe Faust Date: 1/1/2013
Subject: Re: Heat humid air by microwaves

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8323 From: roderickjosephread Date: 1/2/2013
Subject: Re: Airborne Wind-Dams

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8324 From: Joe Faust Date: 1/2/2013
Subject: Airborne Architecture

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8325 From: Joe Faust Date: 1/2/2013
Subject: FlipWing types?



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8276 From: dave santos Date: 12/22/2012
Subject: Re: Classic Kite as Systolic Array
Rod,

Outputting synchronous order from asynchronous inputs is simple enough. We see this when trees blow in the wind; each leaf is doing its own dance, but the bulk tree trunk waves as one. 

In AWES design, we have for several years known that a single shaft with a flywheel can be smoothly driven by asynchronous sprag/rachet inputs kicking at random. Synchronous speed can be maintained by modulating the load or power. Note the interesting flow of system information "upstream" when modulating load.

Wind should be considered as internal to our system concepts, with gusts very much like the nerve signalling noise in cardiac arrythmias. Our large latticework arrays contain the wind being processed.

We are glimpsing fresh new ways to understand future AWES designs on the megascale. The metaphors are templates for concepts that transcend the scaling limitations of single-anchor single-tether AWES unit arrays, just as single cell biota gave way to vastly larger multicellular life,

daveS
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8277 From: dave santos Date: 12/22/2012
Subject: Latest "AWE" (Kite Energy Documentary) Pilot Cut
"AWE", the kite energy documentary project, has uploaded its latest pilot to Youtube. Note the nice Util effort toward inclusion of all teams and ideas. This is a very rough version still, but the narrative style is clearly gathering force.

Chase, Ed, and Patrice are doing a great job. Chase is a talented young media pro. Patrice is a leading filmmaker. Gaetano is joining the project, to fill in the EU dimension, and add his career experience. The documentary will cover a very exciting New Year, with lots of new accomplishments pending.

If you have not yet been contacted, please consider yourself invited to contribute media or other value toward the eventual full-length production-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOVG3GtLIDg
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8278 From: dave santos Date: 12/22/2012
Subject: Preparing for "Big Science" AWE
Until now, kite energy has been a solely a small-scale R&D field, but this is about to change. Sooner or later AWES engineering science research will take on the character of "Big Science", with thousands of workers and huge budgets, along with geopolitical dimensions. A sense of vast globalized crisis, with terrawatt-scale needs, drives the logic of  AWE science bigness.

Its currently up to us to study the mixed history of Big Science and try to early-influence its role in AWE toward a positive outcome. The danger is well known, that "military industrial" neo-fascism may dominate. This need not be an inevitable outcome, if enough of us are vigilant and active against the danger. We may see abusive Big Science AWE plays by individual governments and large corporations that can be countered by a global networked science cooperative movement.

Perhaps the best model we have for acceptable Big Science is international scientific cooperation in civilian space programs. The follow-on commercialization may follow the history of international consortiums behind aerospace giants like Boeing and Airbus (mergers & acquisitions =
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8279 From: roderickjosephread Date: 12/22/2012
Subject: Re: Classic Kite as Systolic Array
ooops sorry feeling like a bit of a plonker.
only realised what I'd said later in town.
cranks and flywheels driving a single line or shaft, drawn it before enough times.
Early Merry Christmas one and all


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8280 From: dave santos Date: 12/22/2012
Subject: Re: Kites that breathe
Yes, weimdad, an elastic response is quite useful to absorb aero shock loads within load limits. The simplest kite instance is an elastic aft bridling to allow AoA reduction in gusts, but the shock0absorber principle is used many places. Its uncertain if such ideas are worth patenting given so much prior art along similar lines.

There is another sense in which kites "breathe", by using porous cloth, which has a damping effect. This is definitely a well known kitemaker's rule-of-thumb.

PS You message landed in my SPAM box, which was checked by accident. Perhaps many others missed your original post regarding an elastic ram-air method. Welcome to the Forum, if you are new. Skydivers, especially riggers, have a lot of direct experience to apply to AWE.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8281 From: carlgu Date: 12/23/2012
Subject: Merry Xmas...
Attachments :
    My dear friend,
     
    Congratulate to all of us for surviving the end of the world! Wish you all Merry X'mas in the new era...
     
    Sincerely yours, Carl Gu
    X'mas, 2012
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8282 From: dave santos Date: 12/24/2012
    Subject: Scaling Laws for AWES Design
    To correctly envision the largest possible unit scales for AWES, all applicable scaling considerations must be accounted for. Many scaling issues are operational; others are fundamental to the basic "Theory of Operation" of the AWES.

    Online educational pages linked below, called Physics Documents, by John Denker, nicely introduce engineering scaling considerations. Denker invokes a key heuristic- "Always Look for the Scaling Law." Loyd himself overlooked critical AWES scaling laws in Crosswind Kite Power*, and many AWE scientists and engineers are making badly mistaken assumptions by failing to apply important scaling laws.

    AWES's top scaling law came from Galileo, that mass (co-linear with volume) grows at the cube of dimension, while critical cross-sectional strength, only grows at the square. This supports the aircraft designer's axiom of "minimal mass aloft" and enables predictions about scaling up soft-kites filled with air v. rigid wings. Until we find a standard formal name, lets call this our "Volumetric Mass Scaing Law". We can also keep in mind a corollary rule, that excess mass aloft in an AWES is parasitic of net power available for other work..

    Here's a misc. scaling law, from Denker, of interest in the question of what advantage the largest practical kite has over smaller kites-

    "6-21 The energy in the pressurized gas inside a bubble scales like volume, i.e. like diameter cubed. "

    This means that the bigger ball of pressure the kite can create (and opposed volume of vacuum) the potential energy scales at the cube of diameter. This is an "economy-of-scale" that best applies to soft kites like Mothras, that by their quasi-2D character, postpone the basic volume-mass structural scaling law limit. 

    This volume-energy law effectively offsets the well-known rigid-wing advantage of high L/D, and formally supports the old KiteLab conjecture that rigid and soft wings have a roughly comparable power potential (by mass) at small to medium scales, but that purely tensile soft wings naturally scale well beyond rigid. 

    Note also a favorable thermal buoyancy factor to large soft kites, which Peter Lynn Sr. has observed with his megakites. This extra lift can be a combination of solar gain and ram-air heat-of-compression (and low-pressure cooling above the kite wing).

    The best validated AWES megascale architecture seems to be soft overall, at or even beyond the single km scale, perhaps with arrays of embedded or hosted rigid structures optimally below their scaling limit dimension (~100m). 


    Denker's page-

    http://www.av8n.com/physics/scaling.htm



    * For example, Loyd- Table 1: "Strength-to-Weight" ratio is misleadingly presumed constant across a large kite scale. The paper remains a classic despite inevitable small errors and major omissions (like noting zero downwind VL crosswind modes). Loyd makes many correct statements about scaling up wind power, especially the advantage of the largest effective unit scale, with cited references.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8283 From: dave santos Date: 12/24/2012
    Subject: Problems with "Fly HAWT Blade Tips Only" AWES Concepts
    Many AWES R&D teams publicly assert a familiar logic, that the secret is to fly the "blade tips only" of a conventional wind turbine, so as to avoid massive tower and hub costs. None of these claims is accompanied by admission of problems with this paradigm, some of which are-


    1) Control is greatly complicated when the passive stabilities of towers and hubs are eliminated. The engineering problem is moerely shifted to the expense and risk of high-endurance aerobatic flight. The schemes with two or three kiteplanes looping together are particularly at risk.

    2) Nowhere do the believers show how they calculated relative capital costs of concrete and steel against the costs of complex aerospace platforms. Fort Felker [2010] estimates aerospace costs by unit mass as one hundred times those of conventional wind towers.

    3) The simple argument that the blade tips, as 20% of the rotor diameter, do 80% of the work ignores some bad news. An AWES "blade tip" aircraft creates a new wingtip on the inside of its loop pattern, which means higher induced drag. The blade root/hub area is helping maximise extraction within its disc area, maximising power from the occupied airspace. Its pressurizing the blade tip upwind and depressurizes the tips the downwind side, boosting them for max power extraction.

    4) Tether drag greatly cuts into high-speed flight efficiency. A wind tower has no tethers to slow its TSR.

    5) As these "flying blade tip" concepts seek to access upper winds higher than towers, they overshadow such a huge land footprint (and airspace volume) that they become uneconomic most everywhere. At a glance, one sees how sparsely these configurations tap the wind in the vast space they occupy.


    The "Kitelab conclusion" from consideration of both sides of the "blade tips only" AWES concept is that this is a highly  misleading and flawed paradigm to design from.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8284 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/24/2012
    Subject: Re: Problems with "Fly HAWT Blade Tips Only" AWES Concepts
    The message
    is probably related to this topic thread. 
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8285 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 12/24/2012
    Subject: Re: Problems with "Fly HAWT Blade Tips Only" AWES Concepts


    Great analysis!

     

    ...6) Unlike HAWT kite flight is not completely crosswind,and there are variations of power inducing high losses (listen and see the variations of turbine sound and light on http://flygenkite.com ).

     

    Possible conclusions:1) anchored AWES using crosswind kite power being often seen as the better possibility of AWE,AWE is not a scale-utility solution excepted for some commercial niche ,OR ;2) scale-utility AWES is not a crosswind kite anchored,but perhaps a travelling AWES like hydro-turbine from Jong Chul Kim,or a stationary scheme like autogyro-mode,perhaps an hybrid scheme mixing airborne and seaborne...

     

    Merry Christmas,

     

    PierreB
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8286 From: dave santos Date: 12/24/2012
    Subject: Re: Problems with "Fly HAWT Blade Tips Only" AWES Concepts
    Joe,

    Wayne's Makani challenge and discussion of the general blade-tip model are mostly coincidence of timing, rather than closely related.

    A key difference is that Wayne has not challenged any team except Makani, but many teams, for years now, use the "blade-tip" explanation in public. Lets all concede the "blade tip" example is OK for a lay-person's metaphor for a sweeping energy kite, without going into the detail of why its a poor specific engineering similarity-case. Wayne's biggest objection to Makani is the flygen aspect, rather than its widely shared use of the blade-tip metaphor. 

    Regarding his challenge, Wayne has not disclosed a reference design. His general contribution is to ponder general ideas, without providing the sort of details that would make his challenge a workable game. Unless he can provide convincing design specifics (or real cases) comparable to what Makani has disclosed, such challenges are meaningless,

    daveS
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8287 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 12/24/2012
    Subject: Re: Problems with "Fly HAWT Blade Tips Only" AWES Concepts

    Effectively the message can be related to the mentioned topic but can also favours some like-autogyro schemes comprising that from Sky WindPower or Selsam's,and also quite different even opposite schemes with short-strokes described by DaveS.

    PierreB
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8288 From: John Adeoye Oyebanji Date: 12/24/2012
    Subject: Happy holiday
    Sincere wishes to everyone for a most merry christmas and the happiest year yet in 2013.
    Best lifts, always.
    JohnO
    John Adeoye Oyebanji
    CEO, Hardensoft International Limited
    FundNopolis Representative -
    Nigeria & West-Africa
    President-protem, Airborne Wind Energy Industry Association (AWEIA International)
    From: Pierre BENHAIEM <pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr
    Sender: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
    Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2012 23:21:10 +0100 (CET)
    To: <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
    Subject: re: [AWES] Problems with "Fly HAWT Blade Tips Only" AWES Concepts

     


    Great analysis!

     

    ...6) Unlike HAWT kite flight is not completely crosswind,and there are variations of power inducing high losses (listen and see the variations of turbine sound and light on http://flygenkite.com ).

     

    Possible conclusions:1) anchored AWES using crosswind kite power being often seen as the better possibility of AWE,AWE is not a scale-utility solution excepted for some commercial niche ,OR ;2) scale-utility AWES is not a crosswind kite anchored,but perhaps a travelling AWES like hydro-turbine from Jong Chul Kim,or a stationary scheme like autogyro-mode,perhaps an hybrid scheme mixing airborne and seaborne...

     

    Merry Christmas,

     

    PierreB
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8289 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/25/2012
    Subject: Do you hear what I hear?
    "with a tail as big as a kite!"

    Peace to all. 
    AWE
    KE
    .
    wing, tether, reaction
    Three wise components
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8290 From: dave santos Date: 12/26/2012
    Subject: Cybernetical Physics- A Unifying Paradigm for AWES Design?
    There has been considerable debate on the AWES Forum over what control and physical science paradigms best address our exploratory engineering needs. On one side we have classicists, who insist well established concepts suffice; on the the other we have revolutionists who draw inspiration from late-modern thinking, and even seek to discover bold new ideas from kites.

    Modern Science is a vast world, with many "schools" and branches. Cybernetical Physics has emerged as a reasonable middle-ground for reconciling classic and revolutionary AWE views. Without being stuck in the past or idolizing ultra-modernist kite physics, most of us easily accept Cybernetics and Physics as they co-evolved during the last seventy years into interdisciplinary Cybernetical Physics. The following article stays on solid ground (no megascale phonon qubits, etc.), but still addresses specific advanced AWES control issues; like chaos control, complex regulation, oscillation, and synchrony -

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybernetical_physics
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8291 From: Bob Stuart Date: 12/27/2012
    Subject: Re: Cybernetical Physics- A Unifying Paradigm for AWES Design?
    This looks like an excellent addition to simple, static engineering analysis.  All the imagination-stretching exercises can be applied directly, instead of needing to be translated back up to ordinary scales by analogy.  
    Another expansion of understanding for the practical engineer is to give up the notion of even nominal rigidity, and get in the habit of noticing the stress risers at every interface where the amount of strain changes.  This is less useful in kite work, with predominantly tension forces, but advanced sails are now made by laying tape into molds along the lines of stress.  It will be recalled the the yacht America, which is forever associated with a cup donated by Queen Victoria, won it by simply re-aligning the canvas for her triangular sails so they held their shape.

    Bob Stuart
    On 26-Dec-12, at 8:39 PM, dave santos wrote:
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8292 From: dave santos Date: 12/27/2012
    Subject: Toward Optimal AWES Design
    As 2012 ends, a long list of AWES experiments confirm at least marginal functionality. AWE is easy to do, but hard to perfect. The next historic phase of R&D is to down-select which of many ideas are best and optimize them. The engineering optimization process is to identify key design variables, and optimize for either minimum or maximum values. Test engineering the ultimate optimization tool, validating ideas evolved in analysis and simulations.

    Many AWE teams show a selection bias toward "obvious" variables to maximize (such as raw L/D or airborne electrical generation), to the neglect of more complex critical variables such as LCOE. Narrow technical backgrounds create a "hammer" bias, "to see every problem as a nail". The saddest teams, with millions in unwise investment,  haplessly shop for "solutions" outside their expertise, which is almost the opposite of careful optimization.

    Fortunately, we are a diverse R&D community, like a large garden, and many seeds of success are already growing. Optimization is the weeding and fertilizing needed to bring a fine AWES harvest.

    Here is a short-list of essential variables to simultaneously optimize for-
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8293 From: dave santos Date: 12/27/2012
    Subject: Classic Chaos Control Paper Formally Explains Kite Tail Stabilizing
    Modern Chaos Control has a twenty year history within Cybernetical Physics. The 1992 paper by K. Pyregas linked below is a classic text. While it does not explicitly mention kites, its obvious to any technical kite system designer that the ideas and methods are inherently applicable to highly effective and efficient AWES oscillation control. This work lays a formal basis to explain and predict many phenomena, including why adding a simple tail to a kite converts chaotic dancing and looping into stable flight. Many scattered ideas kicked around by us on the Forum are here elegantly presented and validated. This will prove to be one of our classic references in AWES design- 

    http://pyragas.pfi.lt/pdffiles/1992/pla92.pdf
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8294 From: dave santos Date: 12/28/2012
    Subject: List of Dedicated AWE R&D Centers; Checklist for a Major Center
    Before there can be true working Kite Farms, AWE R&D Centers will be the places where the pioneering experiments are done on an intensive extended basis.

    Lets define an AWE R&D Center as a dedicated location favorable for technical kite work, with quality-of-life as a key basis for serious ongoing research by professionals. Centers are forming around the world, with many more to follow. 

    At some point, large programs of comparative R&D will emerge to establish major locations that bring together the best folks in the world for the prolonged effort to perfect AWES design. Perhaps some far-sighted planner is already laying out the outlines of a true R&D "Mecca", with participation of local govenments and schools, plus business incentives. The opportunity is wide-open for a leadership play.

    A very partial list of current active sites-

    Kite Power Cooperative/ Isle of Lewis
    KiteGen/ Sommariva Perno
    KiteLab Austin/ Maxwell, TX
    KiteLab Illwaco/ Long Beach, WA
    Langley/ Wallops Flight Test Range
    Makani Power Alameda Island
    NTS GmbH/ Mecklenburg-West Pomerania
    TUDelft/ Valkenburg Naval Base


    Known potential sites-

    Padre Island, Texas- mild winter
    Staten Island (Freshkills Lanfill) US- Next to NYC
    WOW Calabria, Italy/ working airport
    Joby's Hawaii site
    Edwards AFB (USA)


    Updated List of Ideal R&D Center Characteristics-

    Good wind, with varied conditions

    Access to open water (for "offshore" study)

    Low local air traffic

    Good international travel and shipping access

    Low cost of living

    Skilled labor

    Living accommodations- hotels, dorms, kitchens, baths

    Socio-cultural assets- recreation, cafes, music, goods and services

    Regional academic partners- Higher learning and vocational, local grade schools

    Siting incentives, sponsors, underwriters

    Large airfield with clear wind approaches

    Utility vehicles, field machinery (anchoring and winching)

    Shop infrastructure- rigging, metal, electronics, etc.

    Good Net access, multi-media, conferencing, etc

    Competent facility governance, governing board, pro staffing
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8295 From: dave santos Date: 12/28/2012
    Subject: Editorial- Traditional Venture Capitalism v. "Radical Transparency"
    For years now in AWE R&D we have witnessed ad hoc competition between open-source culture and private investment ventures (often with military ties). The trend has been for "stealth ventures" to start strong and fade, as they quickly burn away capital, while the open-source side started weakly, funded out-of-pocket, and only grows. 

    This is the face of the Internet Revolution, where "openness wins, central control is lost"-

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


    The AWE race is far from over. Hold fast to transparency as a winning principle, as temptations for secretive centralized control continue.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8296 From: Steve E Date: 12/28/2012
    Subject: Re: Physics of Rotating AWES Wings (Doug, RobertC; Please forgive ;^
    I'd say this boy has been watching to much SciFi channel
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8297 From: dave santos Date: 12/28/2012
    Subject: Welcome to Fraunhofer (plus questions about NTS AWES architecture)
    Joachim Montnacher
    Project Engineer
    Fraunhofer IPA/ NTS Partner


    Hello Joachim,

    On behalf of the wider AWE community, welcome to Fraunhofer IPA, as a formidable R&D player. Everyone expects wonderful contributions by you and your team.

    There has been considerable public analysis of the NTS AWES track architecture, with many open questions NTS declined to address. Fraunhofer is a prime engineering partner with NTS, and therefore co-accountable for engineering issues identified. You are asked to help answer these questions. 

    A properly open aspect of this process relates to emerging AWES standards that a TUV would certify. Fraunhofer is called on to work openly and cooperatively with the world community of developers actively involved in standards creation.

    There are also many specific NTS-related engineering critiques and suggestions from open circles for Fraunhofer to review. Please feel free to contact me directly with any questions, or just reply to the public forum (Cc:ed).

    Thank You and good luck with ongoing testing,

    dave santos

    KiteLab Group


    Note- Please particularly address notes 2 and 3 below-

    ----------------Nov. 9. 2012 AWES Forum Open Message to NTS-----------------

    This is a start at publicly evaluating NTS's sustainability claims, in the form of preliminary notes and questions. Any effort by NTS to answer the questions is welcomed-
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8298 From: dave santos Date: 12/28/2012
    Subject: NREL Wind Power Land-Use Study and Standards
    Land-use is a major driving factor in utility-scale wind power, especially in highly constrained land markets. "Conventional wind" is a similarity model and starting baseline for analytic comparison with Kite Farms. By tapping wind up to 600m altitude, AWES should far outperform surface turbines in "capacity density", but with more complex land-use constraints, including high operational "temporary impacts", and added airspace dimensions.

    The link below is to a current NREL study of wind farm land-use, with an eye toward standards. A key finding for large US wind farms is a "capacity density range of 2-10 MW/km2"-
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8299 From: Pierre Benhaiem Date: 12/29/2012
    Subject: High and low complexity,modus operanti and materials

    DaveS and all,

    Often you qualify Makani's as high complexity method for AWES, in opposition to the school of low complexity you promulgate.

    Now the basis of Makani's modus operanti looks very simple to understand for everybody:crosswind wing power (with limits of efficiency we know) directed to mounted turbines.So its modus operanti can be considered as simple and clear.On the other hand Makani's used control systems and high-tech materials like carbon and building can be considered as complex,so complex and expensive (500$/pound) as classical aviation.Simplicity and complexities are on different plans.

    Your scheme tends to invert scopes for the low and high complexities:low complexity and mass for materials,only cloth or fabric and tethers;but high complexity (in fact the impossibility of evaluation inducing a not real project of AWES) for modus operanti,or for the understanding of it,at least for me. 

    So can you provide a schema of your system with some indications like:

    -solidity of the system (global area of kites/swept area);

    -power per unity of both area and mass;is L/D ratio an important factor for moving parts into the system?;

    -moving parts of the system;control of chaos:percentage of passive and active controls;what goals?complete optimization of kite power (like crosswind kite power) or any motion generating any power?;

    -how the generator converts energy;short strokes (in fact upwind and downwind short strokes),waves etc;please can you provide an animation of the mode of conversion?;

    -if possible evaluated LCOE,by taking into account of replacement of kites...

    After that it will be possible to imagine a working prototype .

    PierreB 

    http://flygenkite.com

     
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8300 From: dave santos Date: 12/29/2012
    Subject: Re: Physics of Rotating AWES Wings (Doug, RobertC; Please forgive ;^
    Dear Steve E,

    Welcome to the AWES Forum. 

    We are engineering a very sci-fi like future, even if most of the details are best framed classically. The post you copied was partly intended in fun, but also part of a larger dead-serious effort to cover virtually every aspect of AWES Physics, no matter how seemingly marginal to direct practical concerns. The challenge in that respect is to either spot factual errors, or add to the scientific content. It would be cool if anyone finally manages to respond in that spirit. 

    The post turned out to be a sort of psychological test as well. Your attempt at a humor is not as bad as some who emotionally freaked over it. You may have baited them into further outcry, which is not a valid purpose of the Forum. Try instead to make some contribution of knowledge, no matter how obscure the connection may seem. Almost all of the time, practical matters dominate here. We look forward to anything you bring us that teaches us something related to AWE, practical or "not".

    Who knew the Ozarks already had a sci-fi channel?  :)

    daveS


    PS Here is another twist to "relativity at a small scale" to add, that relativistic effects progressively affect electrons accelerated in orbits around more massive atomic nuclei (higher atomic numbers), driving fundamental properties like crystallization patterns and electrical conductance. This fact may even figure as an explanitory detail in the still active question of electrical v. mechanical conductance (v. mass aloft). Critics who a priori suppose there is no such thing as a microscopic relativity to account for, that "tiny" effects have no interesting relevance to macroscopic reality, and that we should only usefully think of "practical" facts, face a dreary reality.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8301 From: dave santos Date: 12/29/2012
    Subject: Re: High and low complexity,modus operanti and materials
    Pierre,

    You raise several questions; let me just answer the big overall question first-

    The High-Complexity/Low Complexity AWES categories were introduced into AWE by Jeremy Calvert of Kitebot. Fort Felker also covered the subject in his AWEC 2010 presentation, without calling it such. "High-Tech" v. "Low Tech" is common popular wording for the same spectrum. "Aerospace Complexity" is an established way of expressing the concept in aeronautics.

    As a crude measure of what is meant, "part count" is good. By part, we mean each different kind of part needed. The ultimate goal of "Low Complexity AWE" is to do AWE with "just rag and string aloft". Lets define "High Complexity AWE" to be standard Aerospace Complexity, dependent on complex computing, avionics like GPS, complex composite airframes, and the like.

    I disagree that it is only possible to imagine a low complexity "working prototype" once some formal schema is defined. The 40,000 year old returning boomerang is highly optimal in form and function, and has just one moving part. It was only formally understood by aerospace engineers in recent decades. This does not mean that low complexity AWE is not assisted by the most advanced thinking. The paradox is that true engineering simplicity naturally results from more complex thought than messy engineering complexity requires.

    Higher understanding is not necessarily the key factor. Instead, a relentless program of constant testing of every imaginable configuration of string and rag, with sharp observation followed by further testing, evolves effective devices. This is like genetic algorithms in computer science, where no formal theory is required within the computation for an optimized output to result (just a fitness function applied Darwinistically),

    daveS
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8302 From: dave santos Date: 12/29/2012
    Subject: List of kite passive-stability factors, with intro and notes
    Each kite degree-of-freedom (DOF) is a Lyapunov unstable-periodic-orbit (UPO) with an associated exponent that is chaotic when positive. The kite is like many dynamical systems, with major UPOs driving bulk dynamics, and other UPOs contributing nonlinear complexity. Multiple positive Lyapunov exponents are formally hyperchaos which drastically shorten the effective model-predictive control horizon. Eliminating maximal exponents much as possible with strong inherent stabilities makes reliable AWES control far easier. This is the "Low Complexity AWES School".

    The major DOF/UPO of a simple kite is its elevation, with the ground as literally the "ground state" of lowest energy, and major chaotic attractor ("What goes up must come down," in classic aeronautics.). Note that line extension is another DOF coupled in, but under deterministic control, as long as tension exists. The ontology only gets messier, but a dozen or so DOFs are easily found in even simple kite systems (Don't forget the wind's DOFs'. See Pyragas and OGY for chaos control theory background.

    So what are the aerodynamic stability factors that a kite designer can work with? Here is a partial list-


    General Stability Factors- 

           Compliant Damping- flexibility, porosity, visco-elasticity, minimal-mass, good-balance.

          Tether Tension Stability- maintained elastically (passive compliance) or by reeling and pay-out (active compliance).

          Form Stability- sticks or inflated shapes passively maintain geometry.

          Anchor Stability- ground or vehicle resistance to movement.

          Skin Stability- battened or stretched surfaces (including inflation pressure).


    Yaw Stability-

         Pendulum Stability- too much undamped pendulum force promotes chaotic instability.

         Rudder Stability- kite tails damp pendulum oscillation by Pyragas inputs.

         Snowplow Stability- differential wing tip drag with the leading wing developing more drag and the trailing wing "hides" from the flow.

         Arch Stability- kite staked out crosswind deterministically.

    Pitch Stability- 

         Fore and Aft Bridling Stability- Characteristic in kites.

         Elevator Stability- Same method as general aircraft.

         Wing Reflex Stability (TE kicked up and/or upturned nose to prevent diving).

    Roll Stability-

         Arch Stability- Scalable; cannot roll

         Cross-bridle Stability- Good roll protection but requires spreading force (stick or wind pressure)

    Bouyant or Ballasted Stability-

         LTA is passively bouyant. Ballast can stabilize a kite at the ground state.
         Neutral Bouyancy is an approximation for the lightest kites in low wind, with a thermal boost; not a stable.
         
    Lift Stability is the passive quality of a kite "pasted to the sky".

    Drogue Stability is the passive quality of being stretched downwind.

    Windfield Stability is a four dimensional constancy, which sometimes is approximated in natural wind.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8303 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/29/2012
    Subject: Re: Welcome to Fraunhofer (plus questions about NTS AWES architectur
    Energie gewinnen mit Lenkdrachen 
    PDF in German has a section titled as shown; scroll down the document. 
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8304 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/29/2012
    Subject: Re: Welcome to Fraunhofer (plus questions about NTS AWES architectur
    Similar matter:

    The energy of stunt kites    
    Research News Oct 31, 2012
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8305 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/29/2012
    Subject: Re: Welcome to Fraunhofer (plus questions about NTS AWES architectur
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8306 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/29/2012
    Subject: Re: List of kite passive-stability factors, with intro and notes

    OGY
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8307 From: dave santos Date: 12/29/2012
    Subject: MegaTrawler Similarity Case //Fw: For the AWES Book
    A tiny peek at the "alternative" AWES Textbook... which, unlike the primitive Springer AWE textbook, will have color pictures :)
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8308 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/30/2012
    Subject: Search tool for online book
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8309 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/30/2012
    Subject: Heat humid air by microwaves
    Humid air inside kytoon bladders heated by use of microwaves from remote tool...
    ~ Wayne German 

    Open for applications in tethered aviation and kite energy ...
    Discussion opened...
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8310 From: dave santos Date: 12/30/2012
    Subject: "SuperCharging" Conventional Wind Farms with Megascale Airborne Sail
    Capacity of an existing conventional wind farm can be greatly enhanced by setting a megascale kite arch to windward to divert the common LLJ layer downward to blow directly on surface-based turbine arrays. The kite arch would stay upwind, well clear of the turbines, as it naturally creates a downwash to scrub away surface turbulence with a strong coherent jet. The method might also favor single unit turbines in selected cases.

    This solves the AWES generation problem in a rather neat new way, and may be ideal to greatly boost offshore wind farm capacity during seasonal low wind. Existing wind capital investment would be leveraged, with the only added capital-cost a large cheap sail, its tackle, and anchoring, suggesting a nice quick pay-back. Airborne supercharging may be an "early-favored" hybrid before other more integrated megascale AWES solutions emerge.

    A key test will be to sample surface wind downstream of a Mothra to characterize the surface wind boost effect.

    CC BY NC SA
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8311 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/30/2012
    Subject: Re: "SuperCharging" Conventional Wind Farms with Megascale Airborne
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8312 From: dave santos Date: 12/31/2012
    Subject: Re: "SuperCharging" Conventional Wind Farms with Megascale Airborne
    Looks like a valid patent. While the idea of kites on tracks is long known and obvious, the idea of boosting modern wind farms with kites is "inventive". 

    Doug is right that venturi-supercharging has not worked out as (capital intensive rigid-structure) turbine ducts, but we also know that terrain on the scale of small mountains supports strong "gap-winds" and hot DS (Dynamic Soaring) conditions, and that a "kite mountain" of cheap fabric will create a similar effects. KiteLab Austin plans a scale model test of surface wind boosting with Mothra2.

    This Mr. Franklin Chen of Oakland sounds like our kind of guy, with a plausible patent to add to the AWE Basket Investment Patent Pool. The battered Bay Area is back in the AWE game, but as a groundgen player...


    ------------- spin-off concept ---------------

    DS hot kiteplanes from behind airborne wind dams. More later...

    CC BY NC SA
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8313 From: dave santos Date: 12/31/2012
    Subject: Airborne Wind-Dams
    The Wind-Dam concept began as "terrain-enabled" (terrain-suspended) rather than a true airborne technology. Our contribution to the idea is to extend it, as a flying machine, into true aviation.

    Lets define Airborne Wind-Dams as aerodynamically self-supported fabric barrier-walls that operate predominantly in drag mode. Recalling Loyd, Drag Force in AWES design is comparable to Lift Force; a key fact overlooked by many designers. This is a new category of aviation, with precedents in barrage kites. New materials and designs enable us to think megascale. Mothra rope-loadpath geometries already act in wind dam modes. The fundamental technology is cheap and simple, and can scale to 10km high by many more across, even within current UHMWPE performance specs.

    To dam (or divert) wind for energy is just a start. Many other barrier roles are worth pondering, such as guiding bird migrations around no-go zones, and  passive defense against drone warfare. Wind-dam structures could perform precise local weather modification, present CO2 absorbing media to wind flow on a megascale, and other novel uses. Someday dynamically deployed wind-dams might steer hurricanes away from cities or block atmospheric Tropical heat transfer to Arctic latitudes.

    A wind-dam creates an artificial mountain effect on wind flow, with a comparable micrometeorological field around itself. We can thus envision applying the same hot DS physics that already enable model gliders to exceed 400mph. Hot looping foils could range around the wind dam, popping powerfully in and out of the wind flow, just as they do with natural mountain ridges.

    ---------------------------------

    Lets claim as "obvious" in our open-circles any sky-kite idea "flown" underwater, ahead of patents claimed on such a basis.

    CC BY NC SA
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8314 From: Joe Faust Date: 1/1/2013
    Subject: Re: "SuperCharging" Conventional Wind Farms with Megascale Airborne
    Downing wind from upper layers to lower layers will involve heat of compression as oft mentioned by Bob Stuart in other scenarios.  The supercharged wind farms will have a "different air" impacting the turbines.  And local residents will know a different wind. 
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8315 From: Joe Faust Date: 1/1/2013
    Subject: Warming the ground locally?
    The topic DaveS has going on supercharging extant wind farms  gave clue to another sector of application of mega-scale working kite systems with respect to affecting ground winds: 

    Downing wind from upper layers to lower layers will involve heat of compression as oft mentioned by Bob Stuart in other scenarios. 

      A new topic thread  here is started, not to get that other topic off track.     That is, there may be some significant reasons for altering the ground layer's air's temperature or wind texture by the heat of compression and movement;. 

    • Could freezes be halted by such mechanism of large-scale kiting?  Use the heat of compression to an advantage locally. 
    • Or could large-scale kiting move stale airs, perhaps poisonous air from industrial accidents or natural out-gassings?   
    • Could an unwanted damp region be blow-dried by such kiting? 
    • Could oppressive unmoving ground airs be refreshingly stirred by the use of large kite systems?
    • Could huge pests be moved by spiked airs caused to be directed by large kite systems?
    • Could a kite festival's day be saved by bringing in higher-speed airs caused by the use of mega-scale upper kite systems?
    • ?
    • ?
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8316 From: Joe Faust Date: 1/1/2013
    Subject: Re: Warming the ground locally?
    This specific topic of "warming" and texturing the ground winds
    seems to be branching from the initiatives as follows: 
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8317 From: Joe Faust Date: 1/1/2013
    Subject: Re: Airborne Wind-Dams
    • http://tinyurl.com/WindDamsVARIETYimages   where kited wind dams are starkly absent, it seems, and thus novel up to recent few years.  

    • However, I tease one to consider an early David H. Shepherd airborne kite patent as using upper airfoil to dam wind for supercharging turbine set hung just below the airfoil.    Indeed RATs form a full sector of supercharging turbines from the use of aircraft movement or resistive set in a resultant wind.  For David Hammond Shepard's lofted combine:  See: http://www.google.com/patents/US4659940  
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8318 From: Joe Faust Date: 1/1/2013
    Subject: Laddermill and David Hammond Shepard
    We know of Doug Selsam's late 1970s notarized note and drawing of the vertical laddermill concept. 
    And we have astronaut professor Wubbo Ockels with his late 1990s entry to the concept space. 
    But undersung perhaps is David H. Shepard and his almost forgotten patent which is very different from his airborne wind-dam patent. 

    Here is his stark flying laddermill with distinct large-seeming pilot lifters to assure work:

    Apparatus for extracting energy from winds at high altitudes

     David H. Shepard, father of our group member PJ Shepard

    It is an interesting RAD study to trace the incoming impacts via the patents that have so far referenced this Shepard patent; see list below that would only grow as further patents cite this subject patent in future moments. 

    Click image for full patent.      Discuss claims, etc. 
            David H. Shepard seems to have cited earlier work: 

    Citations

    Cited PatentFiling dateIssue dateOriginal AssigneeTitle
    US3924827Apr 25, 19751975
    		APPARATUS FOR EXTRACTING ENERGY FROM WINDS AT SIGNIFICANT HEIGHT ABOVE THE SURFACE
    US3987987Jan 28, 1975Oct 26, 1976
    		Self-erecting windmill
    US4049300Mar 31, 1976Sep 20, 1977
    		Fluid driven power producing apparatus
    US4084102Jan 19, 1976Apr 11, 1978
    		Wind driven, high altitude power apparatus
    US4113205Jun 7, 1977Sep 12, 1978The Secretary of State for Defence in Her Britannic Majesty's Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandAerodynamic lifting mechanisms
    US4186314Jul 13, 1978Jan 29, 1980
    		High efficiency wind power machine
    US4309006Jun 4, 1979Jan 5, 1982
    		Tethered airfoil wind energy conversion system
            Referenced by
    Citing PatentFiling dateIssue dateOriginal AssigneeTitle
    US4859146Apr 5, 1988Aug 22, 1989
    		United sail windmill
    US4894554Sep 15, 1988Jan 16, 1990The United States of America as represented by the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space AdministrationCable suspended windmill
    US5040948Mar 26, 1990Aug 20, 1991
    		Coaxial multi-turbine generator
    US5646343Mar 10, 1995Jul 8, 1997
    		System and method for monitoring wind characteristics
    US5909859Mar 6, 1997Jun 8, 1999
    		Multi-rotor kite glider
    US6555931Sep 14, 2001Apr 29, 2003Omnific International, Ltd.Renewable energy systems using long-stroke open-channel reciprocating engines
    US6683697Dec 9, 1999Jan 27, 2004Millenium L.P.Information processing methodology
    US6914345Jun 23, 2003Jul 5, 2005Rolls-Royce plcPower generation
    US7075673Nov 6, 2003Jul 11, 2006EON-Net L.P.Information processing methodology
    US7184162Apr 15, 2005Feb 27, 2007Eon-Net L.P.Information processing methodology
    US7259887Apr 10, 2006Aug 21, 2007Eon-Net L.P.Information processing methodology
    US7317261Jul 25, 2006Jan 8, 2008Rolls-Royce plcPower generating apparatus
    US7474434Mar 16, 2007Jan 6, 2009Millennium L.P.Information processing methodology
    US7508088Jun 30, 2005Mar 24, 2009General Electric CompanySystem and method for installing a wind turbine at an offshore location
    US7570383Mar 16, 2007Aug 4, 2009Glory Licensing LLCInformation processing methodology
    US7619768Oct 31, 2007Nov 17, 2009Glory Licensing LLCInformation processing methodology
    US7672007Oct 31, 2007Mar 2, 2010Glory Licensing LLCInformation processing methodology
    US7709973Sep 18, 2008May 4, 2010
    		Airborne stabilized wind turbines system
    US7723861May 14, 2009May 25, 2010
    		Airborne stabilized wind turbines system
    US7750491Nov 21, 2007Jul 6, 2010RIC EnterprisesFluid-dynamic renewable energy harvesting system
    US7821149Dec 9, 2009Oct 26, 2010
    		Airborne stabilized wind turbines system
    US7830033May 3, 2010Nov 9, 2010
    		Wind turbine electricity generating system
    US7923854May 13, 2010Apr 12, 2011
    		Wind turbines direct drive alternator system with torque balancing
    US8026626Dec 29, 2010Sep 27, 2011
    		Axial flux alternator with air gap maintaining arrangement
    US8066225Jan 19, 2009Nov 29, 2011
    		Multi-tether cross-wind kite power
    US8109711Jan 7, 2009Feb 7, 2012Honeywell International Inc.Tethered autonomous air vehicle with wind turbines
    US8178992Aug 25, 2011May 15, 2012
    		Axial flux alternator with air gap maintaining arrangement
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8319 From: dave santos Date: 1/1/2013
    Subject: Megascaling Rule- Conservation of Tensile Cross-Section across Fract
    Leonardo noted that tree structure usually follows a simple conservation rule, that equivalent cross-sectional area is maintained at every branching scale. Thus tree-trunk cross-section equals branch cross-section equals twig cross-section. This is attributed to the tree's need for optimal strength and extension with minimal mass.

    This rule approximates optimal megscaling of soft kites. Starting with the main rope(s) of a kite as the the thickest "trunk", a continual branching progression of scaling jumps occurs all the way down to the thread or membrane thickness. The diffuse kinetic energy of the wind "fans-in" by degrees to the main ropes to match the concentrated kinetic energy of the anchor, resulting in maximal static force handling. A branching factor of 2 is the natural minimum, with the ideal number of branching steps determined by the ratio of the wind load on a twig to the total load on the trunk.

    This is how Mothra loadpaths are generally sized, with each major loadpath branching as smoothly as practical. Its rigger's art to choose COTS loadpath ropes to form a nearly ideal sequence, and especially to design the junctions to maintain full strength, avoiding knots or heavy expensive shackles with splices and soft-shackle methods.

    Unlike trees, with severe scaling limits imposed by cantilever tower structure, branching tensile networks seem to mostly avoid normal scaling laws. Two factors in particular help; that the cross-sectional strength of a rope grows at the square of bluff-body drag, and that the energy of the airmass processed by a wing grows at the square of membrane area. 

    These advantages and the ready methods help predict soft-kite megascaling feasibility, even though more study remains to find the technological limits. Many subtleties to the fractal branching system are noted in trees- Leaves fail first to unload wind peaks. The progression of flexible compliance and statistical load averaging ensures that the trunk rarely fails before its branches.


    CC BY NC SA
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8320 From: dave santos Date: 1/1/2013
    Subject: Re: Warming the ground locally?
    Luckily the open thermal field around a large kite is not very extreme in amplitude, nor does it necessarily have a net heating effect on the ground.

    After all, the normal temperature gradient with altitude (~ -3 deg. F per 1000ft) means cooler air above is being deflected down. An air ram device like a parafoil can also be designed to radiate heat upward (alu-coated bottom and transparent top) and then vector cooled air down. Kite shade also offsets heating (by day only; by night kites might act as a weak greenhouse, abating frost even).

    Worst case, we can still maintain a "natural" ecosystem below, shifted toward a dryer warmer or wetter cooler climate according to the local patterns set up. We should be able to control the worst effects of kicking up dust and other undesirable effects.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8321 From: dave santos Date: 1/1/2013
    Subject: Re: Airborne Wind-Dams
    Laurie Chetwood's initial wind dam is a "blocked" venturi; its fabric wall is too square to the wind to get a proper venturi acceleration effect. A 30 deg. inflow cone is considered near ideal in traditional aeronautics, which is not very dam-like. Can such "windsock" proportions pay with large fabric WECS? Perhaps a "trumpet horn" geometry is the trick.

    We have considered wind dams made up of a "fabric of turbines", as a flygen scaling method. The mysterious Salient White Elephant, an anonymous blogger with many AWES ideas, has a similar wind-dam wall concept, but its not airborne.

    Wind-dam launching, depowering, and dousing are important considerations. A lifting kite component can serve in a pilot role, simplifying the dam component job.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8322 From: Joe Faust Date: 1/1/2013
    Subject: Re: Heat humid air by microwaves
    Wayne clarifies: 
    "I wasn't contemplating humid air as much as steam itself which would be more efficient and allow for scuttling craft immediately over water by spraying the gas envelope with cold water from a lake or ocean. That would cause a steam envelope to collapse and have nothing but water inside the envelope in no time. "


    --- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, "Joe Faust" wrote:
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8323 From: roderickjosephread Date: 1/2/2013
    Subject: Re: Airborne Wind-Dams
    I Think you could add to this statement...
    Lets claim as "obvious" in our open-circles any sky-kite idea "flown" underwater, ahead of patents claimed on such a basis

    It's often obvious you want to match the energy of airborne devices to corresponding like water devices,
    just scaling hydrodynamic and aerodynamic energy profiles to match....

    So for sailing devices that match airborne kite energy to waterborne kite energy

     imagine this sailing device... (a bit like that French kite and wedge system.) matching an air kite to a kite "keel"
    Sailing to the left
    a torpedo shape hull device with an airborne arch kite tied to it thus (LHS front foot at the torpedo tip, back foot behind and downwind ... trailing RHS front foot forward of the torpedo rear tip,  rear RHS foot to downwind edge of torpedo) This twisting of the kite to the wind encouraging venturi effect...
    Below this torpedo a smaller waterborne arch is tied similarly twisted off the oncoming water.
    The whole configuration is like a sailing ring (maybe a rigid ring version would work without the torpedo)

    similarly matching a lifting kite profile to a drogue or dragging water kite characteristics forms a consistent working platform
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8324 From: Joe Faust Date: 1/2/2013
    Subject: Airborne Architecture
    http://www.energykitesystems.net/AirborneArchitecture/index.html

    ... ever the invitation is open 
    for proceeding to effective and safe operations 
    in the sky on earth and within the atmospheres of other planets 
    by the use of kiting principles joined to other technologies ...
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8325 From: Joe Faust Date: 1/2/2013
    Subject: FlipWing types?
    Flipwing types or flip-wing types: 

    1. One type of flip wing or flipwing moves rapidly and rotates pitch-wise in a less-than whole rotation in one direction and then stalls and flips to drive in an opposite direction. Say up and then down and up and then down.  Or, say, left and then right and then left, etc.  This type can be a part of a kite system, but does not make good for the main lifting wing of a kite system, unless the kite system is say off a pole or bridge where it does not matter which is up or down ... a never-crash main wing. More like flagging, but can be tuned to drive far and then reverse direction of drive. Or short-stroke parts of a larger complex kite system.   These can drive an oscillating tether to do work.  These may play in some AWES.  These have subvarieties; one flips over and quites; another flips and returns before full rotation. 

    2. Another type of flip wing or flipwing rotates, say up and keeps going in the same rotational direction until the trailing edge becomes a new leading edge and drives again in the same rotational direction.  This type can maintain a rotation about a central axis. This type of flip wing can be the main wing of a kite.  These can lift to hold WECS.  These may rotate a shaft. These may be sections of kite arches or kite trains.   This type is the main focus of the discussion group: FlipWings  and may play in some AWES.

    3. ...(other posters might identify other flipwings)...