Messages in AirborneWindEnergy group.                           AWES8480to8529 Page 67 of 440.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8480 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 1/23/2013
Subject: Re: [AWES] Forum Welcome-Wagon  (Makani names Cathy Zoi as Board Di

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8481 From: dave santos Date: 1/23/2013
Subject: Efficiency Definition Review and Arch Turbines Status ///Re: [AWES]

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8482 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 1/23/2013
Subject: re: Efficiency Definition Review and Arch Turbines Status  ///Re: [

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8483 From: dave santos Date: 1/24/2013
Subject: "...the success of AWES depends on..." (?)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8484 From: Joe Faust Date: 1/24/2013
Subject: Drop Stitch Fabric

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8485 From: dave santos Date: 1/24/2013
Subject: "Makani has built and proven a 30 kW prototype AWT"

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8486 From: dave santos Date: 1/25/2013
Subject: How the AWE Cooperative Model will Succeed (Kite Power Coop)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8487 From: dave santos Date: 1/25/2013
Subject: Mondragon Corporation as AWE Cooperative Model

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8488 From: dave santos Date: 1/25/2013
Subject: Optimal Mothras

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8489 From: Rod Read Date: 1/25/2013
Subject: Re: Optimal Mothras

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8490 From: Rod Read Date: 1/25/2013
Subject: Re: How the AWE Cooperative Model will Succeed (Kite Power Coop)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8491 From: dave santos Date: 1/26/2013
Subject: CC IP, Programmable Matter, and Lattice Gas Automata

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8492 From: dave santos Date: 1/26/2013
Subject: Rubber-Band Turbines

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8493 From: Joe Faust Date: 1/28/2013
Subject: Re: Rubber-Band Turbines

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8494 From: weimdad Date: 1/28/2013
Subject: Re: Rubber-Band Turbines

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8495 From: dave santos Date: 1/28/2013
Subject: Welcome weimdad //Re: [AWES] Re: Rubber-Band Turbines

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8496 From: Joe Faust Date: 1/28/2013
Subject: Re: Rubber-Band Turbines

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8497 From: Joe Faust Date: 1/28/2013
Subject: Re: Rubber-Band Turbines

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8498 From: dave santos Date: 1/28/2013
Subject: Powering Ag Challenge Deadline- Feb 28

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8499 From: weimdad Date: 1/29/2013
Subject: Welcome weimdad //Re: [AWES] Re: Rubber-Band Turbines

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8500 From: Joe Faust Date: 1/29/2013
Subject: Re: Powering Ag Challenge Deadline- Feb 28

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8501 From: dave santos Date: 1/29/2013
Subject: Re: Powering Ag Challenge Deadline- Feb 28

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8502 From: dave santos Date: 1/29/2013
Subject: Re: Welcome weimdad //Re: [AWES] Re: Rubber-Band Turbines

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8503 From: weimdad Date: 1/29/2013
Subject: Welcome weimdad //Re: [AWES] Re: Rubber-Band Turbines

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8504 From: Joe Faust Date: 1/29/2013
Subject: Welcome weimdad //Re: [AWES] Re: Rubber-Band Turbines

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8505 From: dave santos Date: 1/29/2013
Subject: AWE Experimental Design for Venture Capitalists

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8506 From: dave santos Date: 1/30/2013
Subject: Morthrapolis Updates V.03 //Re: Airborne Architecture

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8507 From: dave santos Date: 1/30/2013
Subject: Latest AWE Product (flipwing ghost-delta rig)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8508 From: dave santos Date: 1/30/2013
Subject: Better Twin-Kite Rig for Controlled AWES Experiments

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8509 From: roderickjosephread Date: 1/31/2013
Subject: Re: Latest AWE Product (flipwing ghost-delta rig)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8510 From: Joe Faust Date: 1/31/2013
Subject: Angus J. Tocher

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8511 From: Joe Faust Date: 1/31/2013
Subject: Boost for graphene: Graphene Flagship

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8512 From: dave santos Date: 2/2/2013
Subject: Geoengineering with Megascale GeoFlow-Deflectors

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8513 From: Joe Faust Date: 2/2/2013
Subject: Re: Geoengineering with Megascale GeoFlow-Deflectors

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8514 From: Pierre Benhaiem Date: 2/2/2013
Subject: What environment for AWE?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8515 From: dave santos Date: 2/2/2013
Subject: Re: What environment for AWE?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8516 From: Joe Faust Date: 2/2/2013
Subject: Re: What environment for AWE?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8517 From: dave santos Date: 2/4/2013
Subject: Jerker Line Systems as AWES Carousel or Track Alternative

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8518 From: dave santos Date: 2/4/2013
Subject: Review- Polymer v. Electrical Conductor Transmission

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8519 From: Joe Faust Date: 2/4/2013
Subject: Duvoisin explains his new Eco-Balloon concept to the FAI Executive B

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8520 From: Joe Faust Date: 2/5/2013
Subject: Of course some AWES lofted technicians will need to sleep some ...

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8521 From: Joe Faust Date: 2/5/2013
Subject: Launch loop

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8522 From: dave santos Date: 2/5/2013
Subject: Drafting AWES Test Protocols (Fraunhofer Case)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8523 From: Joe Faust Date: 2/5/2013
Subject: Re: Drafting AWES Test Protocols (Fraunhofer Case)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8524 From: dave santos Date: 2/6/2013
Subject: Fw: Airborne Wind Energy (AWE) Due Diligence by Silver Lake Kraftwer

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8525 From: dave santos Date: 2/6/2013
Subject: Makani LCOE Claims compared to Aviation Operating Cost Similarity Mo

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8526 From: snapscan_snapscan Date: 2/7/2013
Subject: Re: Makani LCOE Claims compared to Aviation Operating Cost Similarit

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8527 From: dave santos Date: 2/7/2013
Subject: Re: Makani LCOE Claims compared to Aviation Operating Cost Similarit

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8528 From: dave santos Date: 2/7/2013
Subject: Shockwaves on Tethers as a Failure-Mode

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8529 From: dave santos Date: 2/7/2013
Subject: State of the Art FlyGen Cables (?)




Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8480 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 1/23/2013
Subject: Re: [AWES] Forum Welcome-Wagon  (Makani names Cathy Zoi as Board Di


DaveS,

 

 

DaveS,

 

We probably agree that Makani (I would add other groundgen crosswind AWES) has limits preventing it to reach the efficiency of conventional wind turbines _ above all the last generation of offshore floating tilted turbines _ in spite of the fact that"Makani is a good AWES for now" ,this expression containing also a real limit (for now only).   

"...(never mind Mothras)."  On several posts I (among other players) tried to find some sets on Mothras' basis,thinking Arches have great potential concerning the maximization of space and the simplicity of management.A great step one was realized;the next step should be making electricity.On Rod's videos,there are some designs about kite's motion (I am not sure if the motion is an adaptation for different wind directions or a mean to produce dynamic power).

 

It is the time to build a complete AWES on Mothras'basis,and for now as beginning.

Could you score such a construction?

 

PierreB

 

                     

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8481 From: dave santos Date: 1/23/2013
Subject: Efficiency Definition Review and Arch Turbines Status ///Re: [AWES]
Pierre,

When you compare "efficiency" of AWE with conventional turbines, always remember that high-altitude wind is the key most powerful efficiency factor that tower turbines lack. Of the many other efficiency factors, economic efficiency is the most powerful predictor of economic success. This is review for us, but maybe news to some new Forum members.

We are of course more concerned with vast future potential (the Goal) than the many passing "nows". AWE has "newborn baby" weakness and Makani is just the most public and premature architecture of any, which is not really "good for now". The real "good for now" are the more mature architectures developing nicely in their obscure wombs,

daveS
 

PS Regarding making electricity from kite arches: Please be patient with the KiteLab arch test program, which is only adding generators according to a careful plan, rather than for quick marketing buzz. We now know we can lift about a ton with Mothra1. Doug Selsam has agreed to let Mothra "lift all his turbines" sometime soon, but there are a few details to resolve. 

First, Doug must create new turbines, since he does not have a lot on-hand. The plan is to carve a stack of lumber into many rotors and maybe use DeProny Brakes for power-rating the flying part, like real Test-Engineers. We are also waiting for Util/WOW to (soon) approve Doug's costs.

Second, KiteLab and Mothra1 were caught in a freak flood in Ilwaco, and everything needs to be washed and dried. This unexpected "flood test" slowed us down a bit, but will turn out to be a nice proof of Low-Complexity robustness. Ed may be testing small HAWTs over Austin under MiniMothra, but we never hurry just just to hurry in Austin (Slacker Capital of the Known Universe).


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8482 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 1/23/2013
Subject: re: Efficiency Definition Review and Arch Turbines Status  ///Re: [


DaveS,

 

The main advantages of AWE over conventional wind turbine are both ratio power/weight and harnessing high-altitude winds,disadvantages being less    efficiency by unity of swept area and huge land and space uses.Implementation far offshore where space is unlimited seems advantageous,but the cost of electrical cable is very high.Implementation near the big towns is yet more advantageous but AWE must replace aviation (double economy of oil),that for another context where massive economies of oil is urgent.The success of AWE is linked to a transformation of the economic space.

 

PierreB


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8483 From: dave santos Date: 1/24/2013
Subject: "...the success of AWES depends on..." (?)
Pierre,

What factors AWE success depends on is a complex question. I agree with most of your points, but, as a sailor, find Offshore AWES to be the most risky of all, the Ocean is a sleeping monster. Its not the cost of undersea power cabling that stops us; after all submerged trunk cables already cross great wind to wealthy green-power markets, like under the Baltic Sea, so tapping into such handy networks will not be the major expense.

Its also premature to suppose that AWE cannot come close to, or even surpass, conventional HAWT frontal-area efficiency. These are conjectures to prove mistaken, if we are smart enough. Keep in mind that highly disturbed surface wind limits HAWT performance as surely as a rough road slows down a sports car. A vast arch, in its own ground-effect, funneling smoothed wind into close-spaced airborne rotor arrays (with as little as one diameter, or so, spacing), might beat ground HAWTs in real aerodynamic efficiency.

Wubbo made a wonderful point about AWE at AWEC2011, regarding the question of how high to design our AWES for. He proposes that the limit is actually determined by our desires, that there is something in the Human Spirit that transcends mere utility, and to bet on that inner poetic force to predict and will ourselves into a Utopian AWE future, as high as we please. Don't let a Dutch astronaut beat your French imagination.

Ironically, its the simplest principles, masterfully applied, get us to Wubbos Paradise first (KIS). Idolatrous fetishistic over-dependence on aerospace complexity (ie. Makani/Joby) just slows us down. Right now, you seem torn between these two contradictory impulses. Take into account that the sexy high-tech AWES prototypes are mainly effective at marketing to naive investors, while the simpler Ugly Duckling systems are definitely more effective, by the numbers, and will be the eventual Black Swans,

daveS




 




Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8484 From: Joe Faust Date: 1/24/2013
Subject: Drop Stitch Fabric
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8485 From: dave santos Date: 1/24/2013
Subject: "Makani has built and proven a 30 kW prototype AWT"
What does it reasonably mean to have "proven" an "AWT" (AWES)?

The minimum proof test is a proof-of-concept, where the technology is at least shown to be working realistically, never mind proving other key-proof parameters, such as reliability or economic viability.

The following is Makani's latest public claim (Jan 7 Press Release)-

         "Makani has built and proven a 30 kW prototype AWT"

We know Corwin publicly conceded, just before his mysterious tragic death, that the prototype had never flown a realistic end-to-end all-flight-modes session. The carefully edited Makani promo videos gave quite the opposite impression, with only small clues revealing the truth to expert eyes.

So what is meant by a Makani claiming a "proven" prototype? This looks to me like the same old hype; more unfair competition by misleading claims for more investment millions from sources like Google and Soros. Nobody else is making such exaggerated claims, its just not right, and we all know it.

What next? We await Cathy Zoi's experienced response to unfair trade complaints, and hope she will tell us plainly what sees as the role of Soros AWE investment for the many outside R&D efforts around the world. Must we soon challenge Makani formally before governement authorities, or will she enact overdue reforms and rebuild bridges? Will Soros wisely diversify his AWE play or crush us thoughtlessly, on the basis of the misleading claims? Will those who make these claims end up rich, even as they fail us all?

Where will it end? Its looking more and more likely that a spectactular Soros-funded failure of an M600 prototype will be the implosive last straw for this curious venture, when they could instead have lead us all in a large-scale engineering-science program of proper due-dilgence validation of the preferred AWES concept-space. Its really quite an exciting story, with lots of suspense...


Cc: Makani copy.




Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8486 From: dave santos Date: 1/25/2013
Subject: How the AWE Cooperative Model will Succeed (Kite Power Coop)
Rod Read has taken the big step of forming the Kite Power Cooperative, a an AWE R&D business cooperative for us all. What does this mean, and why is it so exciting?

Research by Claudia Sanchez Bajo and Bruno Roelants found that "cooperatives have on average performed better than traditional for-profit corporations." "Cooperatives seem on average to last longer and be more responsive to the needs of customers and the communities in which they operate, because their shared ownership and participative management generally makes labor more flexible while reducing the incentives of upper management to maximize short term performance at the expense of the long term."

"The Rochdale Principles are a set of ideals for the operation of cooperatives. They were first set out by the Rochdale Society of Equitable Pioneers in Rochdale, United Kingdom, in 1844, and have formed the basis for the principles on which co-operatives around the world operate to this day. The implications of the Rochdale Principles are a focus of study in co-operative economics."

"In the Statement on the Co-operative Identity, a co-operative is defined as "an autonomous association of persons united voluntarily to meet their common economic, social, and cultural needs and aspirations through a jointly owned and democratically controlled enterprise." Co-operatives "are based on the values of self-help, self-responsibility, democracy, equality, equity and solidarity. In the tradition of co-operative founders, co-operative members believe in the ethical values of honesty, openness, social responsibility and caring for others." *

AWEIA is committed to cooperative progress, and will strive to coordinate AWE private ventures with the cooperative opportunities. Util LLC also embraces the AWE Cooperative model, and proposes to pioneer the licensing of CC IP under cooperative priniciples. This means Util will be the first IP player to ever publicly recognize and help compensate AWE CC IP creators. Roddy will be pleased to know that Util (via Ed Sapir) has approved funds for an initial CC IP R&D project with the Kite Power Cooperative, within Util's AWE Microcapital Program (AMP). The details will be announced soon.

Its not too late to join the Kite Power Coop as a founding member, and help organize it. KPC has a great prospect to be the top player in global AWE, based on the superiority of modern cooperative principles.

http://kitepowercoop.org/



* mixed text sourced from Wikipedia
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8487 From: dave santos Date: 1/25/2013
Subject: Mondragon Corporation as AWE Cooperative Model
Can an AWE Business Cooperative scale? How would it work?

With almost 90,000 workers and 15 billions in annual revenue, the Mondragon Coop is the 17th largest commercial enterprise in the EU-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8488 From: dave santos Date: 1/25/2013
Subject: Optimal Mothras
Roddy,

Its very exciting to see your latest Morthra 3D work, with almost daily progress. Your video collaboration style is quite AWESome. Some working notes and suggestions-

The best place to put any WECS (flipwing or turbine) under a kite arch is right at trailing edge of the lifting surface, to create maximal high-pressure low-pressure differential wind-fields. Think of the WECS arrays as working like Flaps on an airplane wing, and also as the power-depower function of a traction kite's "brake-lines". Animate the WECS to fold up like "zero-flaps" to depower the array and also help the arch still fly in lulls. 

Consider creating "conventional" two and three-bladed HAWT rotor 3-D models to use in showing comparative array concepts, since we don't know yet how flipwings v. rotors will test out. Doug's lumber rotors are two-blade, of course.

When you animate the tacking flipwings, have each semi-captive parafoil above sweep a little figure-eight in opposition. A continuous or tarp-kixel fabric arch seems suited to smooth turbine operation at lowest cost. Modelling a ribbon arch, add some extra length the the TE (slightly curved ribbon if laid flat). Its very important to closely model ideal single-tarp kixel geometry, with tuning inputs supported, since the flat tarp is such cheap universal power. You then of course clone them, and trim them by kixel sections, into an optimal Mothra design. 

Please model Mothra1 more or less accurately, as a key Util-supported task, using the photos, videos, and drawings as sources. The black center body is 30 feet long by 8 across, the blue tarps are nominally 5x5 and the clear are 10x10 ft., so they tile evenly. The rear "power" sail and FAA colored drogues and wing tips are important features.

SuperMothra is next, a ~2000m2 contender for World's Largest Kite, to be built this Spring, using Mothra1's pattern language. WOW, Util, USWindlabs, KiteLab Group, and the Kite Power Coop will team for this. It could fly over Lewis, as we are still planning encampments, so let us know.

If arranging rows of arches like shark's gills, as a SuperMothra concept, put a short row of WECS under the TE of each arch course. Fill the sky with that. 

Remember the idea to use irrigation circles from satellite images as a ready surface texture-map for kite farm cells, with a pure-sky cylinder around it all (faded at horizon). The first cut at texture-mapped surroundings had trees around the horizon taller than the arch.

Great work, and thanks a million,
 
daveS

CC BY NC SA


==========================
I am sorry for the Yahoo "CSNBC Jobs" Spam Virus 
that hijacked the Contact List for this mail account. 
Please accept this apology for any trouble caused.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8489 From: Rod Read Date: 1/25/2013
Subject: Re: Optimal Mothras

Great advice thanks.
I'll keep plugging away at the parametric model. Some fairly fundamental changes to it today. I'll do what I can... But to be honest... I'm going a bit square eyed with it. Changing a single line would be a struggle at this time of night.
There are some very helpful and interested people on the grasshopper 3d forum.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8490 From: Rod Read Date: 1/25/2013
Subject: Re: How the AWE Cooperative Model will Succeed (Kite Power Coop)

Encouraging indeed!
Loads of formalising still to be done.
I can't take all the credit. And I certainly haven't done the most work towards the successful cooperative outcome.
I enjoy what I'm doing.
Can't ask for much more than that.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8491 From: dave santos Date: 1/26/2013
Subject: CC IP, Programmable Matter, and Lattice Gas Automata
A powerful new concept of Engineered MegaMaterial emerged on this forum to describe the sorts of 3D airborne latticework of string and membrane that we invented to harvest energy and other applications. This increasingly looks like a game-changing technology on a planetary scale.

We were compelled to avoid utility patents on this spidery IP, due to the slowness, expense, uncertainty, and coercion involved, relying instead on open source CC IP, based on copyright, and moral rights. We came to understand our creative design process as a kind of computer programming, which has established protections under copyright law, but it would not do if we will be alone in seeing that kite rigging is a programmable computation basis.

Fortunately, materials and computer science already strongly supports us in this view-

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

Another conceptual front for our latticework has come to light; "lattice gases", which is an old extension of cellular automata into aerodynamics; so old we would today name the subject "lattice fluids", as the gas-fluid continuum has become better known. The interesting aspect is that lattice gases are a compact means to compute Navier-Stokes Equations for Low-Re flow fields, and that flow features are modeled as automata-

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

We were long aware that our state machines are nicely modeled as programmable cellular automata. Our linked arrays in wind flow are more or less exact real-life instances of the Game of Life. Walking the dog at dusk yesterday, a dimly outlined V-formation of geese flew over, with the same cellular automata dynamics uncannily apparent-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's_Game_of_Life

What a vast intellectual wonderland the "simple" kite has led us to. Since Chanute, we have vainly thought a complete theory of kiting was at hand, but now we find that goal just seems to trail off into infinity...
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8492 From: dave santos Date: 1/26/2013
Subject: Rubber-Band Turbines
The toy rubber-band airplane is an interesting device in our AWES context. An elastomer line functions much like a storage-capacitor, storing elastic energy by supercoiling naturally, without the kinking damage of (hockling) over-torquing less elastic lines.

Notice that, in principle, the toy can be driven at high-speed by wind, as a looping kiteplane, and its rotor would then wind the rubber-band, as a WECS. As it orbits, the rotor would take energy from the flow during the high-speed diving phase, and give it back during the slower climbing phase. The gravity signal amplitude in the cycle is smoothed out.

Smoothed power can be extracted at the end of the rubber-band opposite the rotor. This leads to back to our old insight that a simple rotor and ruuberband under a pilot-kite can comprise the WECS, with the work-load at the ground, solving basic flight-stability/control. We have only explored this "bungee AWES" idea in passing, but need to test it as a simple extension of Doug's SuperTurine thinking.

Its a bigger leap to see that a simple passive rotor on a rubberband can be designed to perform a self-induced AWES spin-cycle, winding up a rubber band for a pumping tug, and unwinding at low-drag in a recovery-phase. For example, memory polymer can enable a simple passive rotor in its working phase to progressively reduce and even reverse pitch for its recovery-phase. The rotor's working pitch would slowly recover as the "phase memory" recovered, and the rotor would repeat the pumping cycle.

CC BY NC SA
 




Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8493 From: Joe Faust Date: 1/28/2013
Subject: Re: Rubber-Band Turbines
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8494 From: weimdad Date: 1/28/2013
Subject: Re: Rubber-Band Turbines
Now make it self launching and the lifters be self adjusting for chaotic winds. The drive shaft to the generator as tether makes it lighter and simpler. I've been working on similar concepts and this all seems quite exciting.




Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8495 From: dave santos Date: 1/28/2013
Subject: Welcome weimdad //Re: [AWES] Re: Rubber-Band Turbines
Hi weimdad,

Welcome to the Forum. Perhaps you could introduce yourself, and your related efforts, to better help each other (open cooperative model). There is a lot of knowledge now compiled by us about self-launching and self-trimming kite systems, if you are looking. 

The twisted-line-transmission method is mostly associated with Doug Selsam, with hundreds of messages covering it. In that broad context, this thread narrowly explores a known advantage of elastomer lines; better hockling tolerance.

The bonus fun side is perhaps using a COTS rubber-band airplane toy to do AWES turbine-on-a-wing proof-of-concept studies, a job that otherwise cost Google/Makani/Joby many millions, with uncertain results, due to lack of direct comparative testing. What if AWES architectures could be confidently down-selected by just playing with toys?

Feel free to open up precise sharing or questions about your ideas and problems in this design-space.

Cheers,

daveS
KiteLab Group
 




==========================
I am sorry for the Yahoo "CSNBC Jobs" Spam Virus 
that hijacked the Contact List for this mail account. 
Please accept this apology for any trouble caused.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8496 From: Joe Faust Date: 1/28/2013
Subject: Re: Rubber-Band Turbines
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8497 From: Joe Faust Date: 1/28/2013
Subject: Re: Rubber-Band Turbines
Close to topic: 

The hockling of cables: a problem in shearable and extensible rods
D.M. Stump*
Department of Mathematics, The University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Qld 4072, Australia
Received 17 August 1998; in revised form 11 December 1998
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8498 From: dave santos Date: 1/28/2013
Subject: Powering Ag Challenge Deadline- Feb 28
Please join this "Kite Ag" project seeking to meet the Powering Ag Challenge by USAID, Sweden, and Duke (as previously announced and linked).

Bring skills, ideas, and connections to the Forum on how best to spend 1.5 million USD to develop Kite Ag over a three year period. We have studied this a lot. Here is our current understanding-

----------------Rough Kite Ag Notes .01------------------------ 

Ag Kites Concept- 

Modern agriculture is energy-intensive, almost wholly dependent on fossil fuels, and it marginalizes poor isolated populations by economic exclusion. Kites are a potentially ideal means to help solve ag fossil-fuel dependence, starting with small struggling communities in specific remote cases. Over time, small Kite Ag can extend to displacing fossil fuels in large scale agriculture.

Similarity Case 1- Kite-sports are wind powered, and directly displace fossil fuels (kiteboarding replacing water-skiing. Current Power Kites derived from traction-kite sports are easily adapted to directly support or replace small engines, draft animals, and human muscle in small agriculture, at low cost. Even simpler kites are made from scrap material, and can do an amazing amount of work. 

Similarity Case 2- Kites have recently towed explorers and their provisions across Antarctica, Greenland, the Sahara, and the Gobi, wholly replacing fueled vehicles, and draught-animals with a superior technology. In grueling isolated conditions, kites are ultimately more reliable, due to inherent simplicity and freedom from fuel or feed supplies.

Major Ag Kite Applications-
 
Irrigation- Standard reciprocating and rotary pumps can be driven with minimal modification. Fossil fuel units can be converted to kite-hybrids, as well as water hauled by well-pulleys or on wagons.

Plowing- A substitute for tractors and animal labor. Simpler traditional plows can be drawn by kite crosswind (for back-and-forth operation and conservation furrows). Notes- the plowshare must be a symmetrical type, to take traction-force from either side. A simple "tacking" plowshare is a likely method. A "kite-tractor" vehicle could tow a full variety of  ag devices. Electric-tractors can be charged by kite-energy systems.

Harvesting- Crops like hay or root crops that are not too time sensitive (that can await favorable wind) and/or have unusual harvest demands (harvesting giant coconut trees of Kerala is a high risk climbing occupation). Time sensitive harvests could proceed by stored kite-power of biochar-hybrid power.

Threshing and Milling- A cheaper faster means to apply wind power, which has a long history in Ag Processing application. Existing mills can be driven in many cases.

Farm-to-Market- Fuel-less bulk haulage from remote farms to distribution networks can work well in the right setting. 

Pest Control- Bird scaring during the final ripening phase of grains and fruits is possible with hawk-like kites. Improved methods offer better coverage and usefulness during even calm periods (by a small towing reel).

Small Scale Rural Electricity- To support ag with information access and improve quality of remote rural life. Lighting, radio, medical support, and charging phones, notebook computers, etc. could be done with the same sort of kites used in direct ag apps.

General Notes-

Kite applications are favored by carefully prospecting for opportunities. Subtle factors of terrain, latitude, season, and so on, must be taken into careful account.

DIY Tech- COTS kites are inherently low cost (by installed Watt), but DIY kites are practical for even lower costs, for populations at the lowest economic scale.

Kites to Turbines- With far lower capital-cost than conventional wind power, but a higher attention requirement (kite-piloting or kite-system supervision), kites offer poor communities a path to begin wind power, generate value to finance wind towers (where towers are favored)

Hay Farming Affinity-

Biochar-

Maritime Uses- Kites operate in water currents much like they do in air (slower for equivalent power). In many cases the same kite flown above can be "flown" submerged, with minor differences in power handling. Applications include reliable self-powered ferryboats across rivers to support remote ag. Fish Farming-  Kites can oxygenate water and drive waste filtering (into compost). A kite-towed mussel-raft would enhance production, by boosting feeding and oxygen availibilty.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8499 From: weimdad Date: 1/29/2013
Subject: Welcome weimdad //Re: [AWES] Re: Rubber-Band Turbines
Thanks for the warm welcome Dave. I've exchanged a few emails with Doug a few years back. I am not an engineer but an old skydiver who was on the drop zone when the first kite-like parachute was jumped, the Barrish sailwing. I always enjoyed the subtle turbulence at 500 feet and 2,000 feet and felt there was potential for capturing energy even higher.

25 years ago I had some ideas and in 2006 I put together 2 concepts for capturing high altitude energy and was hired by a company to explore them more fully but by the end of 2007 the economy tanked and the company's cash cow industry collapsed and I went down with it.

The two areas of interest were/are:

1) Ground based generator with governor, tether/drive shaft braided Vectran type rubber band line twisting, self-launching, self adjusting kite and a mini balloon as pilot assist and something like Doug's spinning windmills suspended beneath as the drive shaft driver. The main issues I felt to figure were chaotic wind adjustments and I believe Hurricane Charley solved it for me when the last things standing in Homestead were palm trees. The palm leaves (kites) simply adapt to the wind by inverting and returning. Palms are not rigid trees but made of fibers.

2) The other system is a ground based generator connected to a flywheel that is spun by the repetitive launching and retrieving of a self-launching, weather chaos adapted kite. Think of the lawn mower starter with recoil. My first job was to collapse parachutes on the drop zone so I learned it is a simple matter of making one line shorter to collapse it. Same thing with the kite, retrieve that line first at altitude, then let it out near the ground to equalize the area for re-inflation and relaunch, all automatically. Repeat. Up down, up down. If the winds stop completely the system lays on the ground or floats on the water with the mini balloon always ready to catch the next breeze to begin the self launching sequence of gradually larger kites until the main system is back flying.

Both of these ideas have probably been explored and I'm not sure what I can contribute to the group but as a generalist I've tried to seek out an all fiber, light weight, flexible, self adjusting to weather, simple design, self launching, mass produceable, mass manufactured, container distributed, simple, non-contraption, easily maintained off shore/on shore anchoring and electrical connection system.

Let's make it all happen.

Weimdad



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8500 From: Joe Faust Date: 1/29/2013
Subject: Re: Powering Ag Challenge Deadline- Feb 28
I was presuming you were including marine aquaculture the agricultural arena for applying kite systems. 
Land-based Ag   and Sea- or Lake-based aquaculture  hold opportunities. 

At sea, some kite-energy systems' foundational anchors, rings, bridles, etc. may play directly to be parts of aquaculture farms. 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8501 From: dave santos Date: 1/29/2013
Subject: Re: Powering Ag Challenge Deadline- Feb 28

JoeF,

Yes, Aquaculture is in our minds, and we will include it as a subtopic, with care not to upset the obvious sponsor presumption of a land-agriculture focus, 

daveS

PS In the notes, under the empty "Biochar" topic; what is meant is co-generation of biogas power during calm on a hay farm. The left-over biochar would be a valuable soil-building mulch and carbon sequester. Perhaps "Kite/Biogas Cogeneration" is the right heading.




Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8502 From: dave santos Date: 1/29/2013
Subject: Re: Welcome weimdad //Re: [AWES] Re: Rubber-Band Turbines
Hi weimdad,

What year did somebody jump a Barrish Sailwing? We only knew of paraglider testing. I also grew up on DZs collapsing chutes for dragging skydivers in high winds (Pelican Land, Z-Hills, etc.).

Your intuition that useful power can be extracted from simple parachutes in a collapse-retract cycle is good. We know that both lift and drag make more-or-less equal power with kites (Loyd), and we need lift mostly to get up, then a simple drag cycle can suffice to extract power. This a "Low Complexity" approach, early favored.

How did you select Vectran as the best torquable fiber? Its not stretchy compared to rubber, so hockling would seem to be a damage risk,

daveS
 


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8503 From: weimdad Date: 1/29/2013
Subject: Welcome weimdad //Re: [AWES] Re: Rubber-Band Turbines
Lee Guilfoyle 1965 Lakewood Sport Parachute Center, NJ Parachutes Inc was the first sailwing. Lee is still jumping at Skydive Tampa at 79 years young. http://www.flickr.com/photos/lee_guilfoyle/200939334/ I jumped with Jerry Irwin, Dave DeWolfe and Johnny Crews from Pelican Land and made quite a few jumps at Z-Hills.

I picked Vectran because I don't know any better. Whatever will be used for the future Space Elevator from nano technology developments might be better. Twisting into a "burl" like knot on the drive shaft/tether would just be stored energy until it is used by the generator as long as it would not shred.



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8504 From: Joe Faust Date: 1/29/2013
Subject: Welcome weimdad //Re: [AWES] Re: Rubber-Band Turbines
Wow!   Thanks for link.   Nice set of Barish free-flight kiting systems used for gliding parachutes in the case then in 1965 with those photos. 


David Barish         (Just one  r )   Collage from a site http://www.free-flight.org/history.htm     The free-flight kite resistive set is a human in these systems.   Lengthen the lines and format the resistive set to operate with advanced wing behavior, and then use wind differentials while operating control over the upper wing set and the wing-formatted resistive set ... and get into the FFAWE club by adding some rubber-band RATs or just accept the traveling that could be done.   

Levopter is continuing news notes on its site.   FFAWE travel from west coast of Africa  to landlocked nations in Africa's interior using Levopters. 


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8505 From: dave santos Date: 1/29/2013
Subject: AWE Experimental Design for Venture Capitalists
Its been appalling to witness how poorly AWE's venture capitalists have performed basic engineering science, opting instead for fictionalized marketing versions, leading to investment fraud and business failure. Even AWE's academic players mostly neglect broad direct experimentation, and stagnate in overly narrow explorations.

Its really not that hard, guys; modern "controlled" experimental method was well understood and applied even 300yrs ago-

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

--------sample from the page-------------------


History- Controlled experimentation on scurvy

In 1747, while serving as surgeon on HMS Salisbury, James Lind carried out a controlled experiment to develop a cure for scurvy.[1]

Lind selected 12 men from the ship, all suffering from scurvy. Lind limited his subjects to men who "were as similar as I could have them", that is he provided strict entry requirements to reduce extraneous variation. He divided them into six pairs, giving each pair different supplements to their basic diet for two weeks. The treatments were all remedies that had been proposed:

    * A quart of cider every day
    * Twenty five gutts (drops) of elixir vitriol (sulphuric acid) three times a day upon an empty stomach,
    * One half-pint of seawater every day
    * A mixture of garlic, mustard, and horseradish in a lump the size of a nutmeg
    * Two spoonfuls of vinegar three times a day
    * Two oranges and one lemon every day.


The men who had been given citrus fruits recovered dramatically within a week. One of them returned to duty after 6 days and the others cared for the rest. The others experienced some improvement, but nothing was comparable to the citrus fruits, which were proved to be substantially superior to the other treatments...


--------------------------------------------
Of all AWE players, the KiteLab Group network has been closest to the ideal of testing everything for essential data. Good Experimental Design does not require major funding, credentials, complex instrumentation, or lots of luck.

Thanks to Dave Lang for encouraging persistent experimental AWES work.  Fort Felker is also of this school- "Test, test. test, test; and test again"







==========================
I am sorry for the Yahoo "CSNBC Jobs" Spam Virus 
that hijacked the Contact List for this mail account. 
Please accept this apology for any trouble caused. 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8506 From: dave santos Date: 1/30/2013
Subject: Morthrapolis Updates V.03 //Re: Airborne Architecture
This is the third initial "report" on current Airborne Architecture progress by the Mothrapolis team. All suggestions and new participants welcomed.


----------------Misc. Airborne Architecture Notes V.03-----------------

SuperMothra materials-budget approved for this year (~2000m2). AWE is the primary funded demonstration, with Airborne Architectural experimentation as a low-cost bonus application.

Rod Read of Kite Power Coop doing the CAD work. This will speed layout & assembly compared to Mothra1 manual methods.

Ed continuing scale-tests with MiniMothra. Payload operations are being modeled according to the concept study linked here-

http://energykitesystems.net/AirborneArchitecture/images/Mothra2scalestudy.jpg

Initial Safety Fall Net tests planned soon. Two light-pickup cargo nets acquired for 1/40 scale tests. Bowling balls dropped from ~3m will serve as mock falling bodies.

Inflated Drop-Stitch material identified as a promising custom air-beam medium for Flying Plaza concept truss structure. KiteLab has direct Chinese supplier/developer partner via Carlgu's connections.

AWE Encampment format in planning (intensive extended site work). Two sites in US, and two in EU are under review. A tour may be emerging. The Airborne Architecture app will follow on the priority AWE trail.

Chase's AWE documentary production calender fits Super Mothra demos-

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/757755978/awe-documentary

Flying Plaza Rotterdam still unresponsive to proposed Airborne Architecture R&D safety collaboration, by personal authority of Artist Tomas Saraceno, according to TUDelft. A protest was lodged with TUDelft ASSETover its unexplained acquiescence to a knolwledge-hoarding dynamic, which was wrongly blamed on Port of Rotterdam "sensitivity" (Port of Rotterdam has no knowledge of such a issue, but SKOR "art politics" is still an open question).

Portland-based Marc Ricketts' "Architecture of the Air" founder is invited into the Airborne Architecture circle. He is a master kite designer and AWES patent-holder. Many of his recent large canopy designs look almost ready to fly as-is.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8507 From: dave santos Date: 1/30/2013
Subject: Latest AWE Product (flipwing ghost-delta rig)
This is just sample marketing, a limited trial-offer for a custom version FlipWing AWES flying set at 2KiteSam "buddy cost". Save by making your own, or wait for eventual mass-production versions at perhaps $50 USD for the flip wing. Depending on a broad spectrum of wind force, this nine foot wing is a 10-1000W range device, with ~100W estimated rating in moderate breezes-

http://www.energykitesystems.net/KiteLab/Ilwaco/FlipwingGhost.html

A repeat-link to the video of the wing in action-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jiUQ8Kh-4w

Application work-cells are separate products, from stock pumps to custom generators to be announced soon...
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8508 From: dave santos Date: 1/30/2013
Subject: Better Twin-Kite Rig for Controlled AWES Experiments
KiteLab Ilwaco has long depended on flying nearly identical kites side-by-side to compare performance of design changes. Parallel testing in the exact same wind conditions avoids errors and uncertainty of sequential testing in always changing conditions.

The Twind AWES concept is an example of a matched kite pair that is dynamically connected. Due to multiplied critical failure points, its not seen as an ideal working design, but it has the properties of a simple balance scale, which is a classic scientific instrument.

A fusion of the two ideas leads to a simple but quite sensitive experimental method for optimizing the static and cycling traction of AWES concepts. Two originally identical test kites are cross-linked, with a tiny tuning or detail change made to one. Whether the change is beneficial or harmful to traction work is clearly indicated by the differential tug-of-war of the linked kites (as well as flying angle, and other key observables, like stability).

This is a neat sort of embodied genetic algorithm, where one subtle change at a time is tested for clear adaptive advantage. The good changes are then made to the "control" kite, to re-balance the rig for the next change to test. Take care not optimize into a dead-end "basin attractor".

To futher enhance the test method, trade sides with the elements to cancel even tiny random asymmetries. Its still important to test for long periods in varied conditions, even with an improved experimental design.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8509 From: roderickjosephread Date: 1/31/2013
Subject: Re: Latest AWE Product (flipwing ghost-delta rig)
I would really like to see what happens when two vertically aligned
horizontal strings have a set of 10 of these flipwing kites between them
...

And what happens when you tie the trailing edges of the flipwings at the
same distance spacing that they are spaced mounted on the two lines.

The flipwing has a fair effect on the ghost lifter kite tether.

Slinging and linking this line of linked flip wings to another load path
below an arch trailing edge load path ... Can we get kixels steering on
the arch to initiate the flip (or vice versa)

you could certainly use the enhanced sinusoidal tug vectoring at the
feet to power the kixel steering
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8510 From: Joe Faust Date: 1/31/2013
Subject: Angus J. Tocher
Angus J. Tocher

Welcome newest member to AirborneWindEnergy: Angus Tocher. 

His team is most busy with towered applications, yet he sees that his Rogallo wing array concentrators may be taken to the upper winds by way of kite-system arts. 

One also may get a sense that he has been familiarizing himself with loadpath-hold of arrays of Rogallo wing units. 

~ JoeF
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8511 From: Joe Faust Date: 1/31/2013
Subject: Boost for graphene: Graphene Flagship
http://www.graphene-flagship.eu/GFfiles/130124_PresseText_A4.pdf 

Prediction: AWES will gain from the flagship. 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8512 From: dave santos Date: 2/2/2013
Subject: Geoengineering with Megascale GeoFlow-Deflectors
Its uncertain if we should deliberately geoengineer on the planetary scale, but if a desperate need arises, it will help to know how. As we have worked out AWE, we discovered a powerful "wind-dam" method capable of manipulating planetary-scale geo-flows in the sky and oceans. Lets call them (Geo)Flow-Deflectors, since not just wind flow, but also water currents apply; and since they will mostly steer flows, rather than block them outright.

Megascale flow-deflector structures will be capable of vectoring bulk flow at will, to perhaps steer hurricanes, break droughts, and conserve polar conditions. They can handle oil spills, mix ocean layers to mitigate dead zones, dredge up deep calcarious sediments to buffer acidity, sieve plastic waste from gyres, and so on, in hybrid combinations. The techniques could buy time for nature to adapt to permanent climate change or a long slow recovery.

Wind dam tests work just as expected (Mothra1 tail-sits stably as a wind dam), offering high confidence that giant versions are workable. To handle incredible megascale loadings, just add rope. Therefore, we more or less already know how to make and fly vast flow-deflectors as high as 10km and even thousands of kilometers long. Because the structural basis is quasi one- and two-dimensional (rope and fabric), its the cheapest lowest-mass solution, enabling the largest scales. 

The deflective barrier effect can be as porous and elastic as needed. If used on a crisis-by-crisis basis (like steering a super-storm from a collision course), the relatively short life cycle of the membranes (~5,000hrs) can accomplish many missions before recycling (the rope loadpaths might last decades). Temporary uses reduce risk of unforeseen ecological effects by permanent deployments. While use over land is possible, offshore deployment based on ocean shipping would enable flexible global response, with minimal interference effects.

Avoiding disturbing wildlife is a priority, or the geoflow-deflection can never be reckoned as fully successful. Whales, dolphins, and birds are of top concern. If the "dam solidity" and velocity ( font-size:13.600000381469727px;font-family:'times new roman', 'new york', times, serif;background-color:transparent;font-style:normal;">Support ships would control the flow-deflectors, but stay well clear of fouling with megascale forces, as they could be easily dragged under or pulled aloft. Instead, the applied control principles of a particular operational similarity case, Jujutsu, is proposed-

"" can be translated to mean "gentle, supple, flexible, pliable, or yielding." "Jutsu" can be translated to mean "art" or "technique", [Jujustu] represents manipulating the opponent's force against himself rather than confronting it with one's own force." (Wikipedia)

This is a clear case of a folkloric chaos-control theory, where sensitivity to an initial condition is exploited to reduce actuation force demand. This seems to be the only way to actuate planetary-scale flow-deflectors, using techniques from fluidic computing and kiting (like push-turns). As a default, the deflector should self-kill in a fail-soft mode, if its actuation shipping loses control.

Winds and currents could be canceled or reinforced in complex maneuvers. Laminar currents would be steered by scooped dams. Vortical currents might best be steered by Bernoulli Lift, warpping around the "back" of a deflector. Obviously, our meteorological computing will have to be as powerful as possible to soundly predict causal effects.

Mothra methods offer a "divide-and-conquer" capability to assemble or disassemble deflectors in place. Shipping deployment similarity models include rear-loading whaling and trawl-nets, as well as trans-ocean cable-laying. Vast flow-deflectors can be handily stored hanging in cold oxygen-poor deep-sea layers, immune to rapid bio-fouling and UV.

This overview is a small start in defining megascale geoflow-deflector tech. Numeric simulations and small scale experiments (using surface winds and small eco-systems like tidal-pools) are logical next steps.

CC BY NC SA


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8513 From: Joe Faust Date: 2/2/2013
Subject: Re: Geoengineering with Megascale GeoFlow-Deflectors
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8514 From: Pierre Benhaiem Date: 2/2/2013
Subject: What environment for AWE?

In spite of the progress in number of players AWE does not really take off,and conventional wind turbines raise the same problems of heaviness of installation and dismantling.

For AWE on ground USA,Russia,Canada have great areas but Europe is too much populated.

Offshore and farshore offer possibilities but the huge quantities of copper for the long cables of connection towards cities cancel the advantages of the lightness of the infrastructures of AWE.

Morever the management of both huge and variable power is difficult.

So AWE should progress within a technico-economic environment quite different from that of the conventional wind turbine.

Some ways,comprising crazy ways:loading batteries for electrical cars then transports towards coast by electric boat,towns in the middle of sea,port facilities on the open sea, scientific bases...

PierreB

http://flygenkite.com

http://wheelwind.com

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8515 From: dave santos Date: 2/2/2013
Subject: Re: What environment for AWE?
Pierre,

Based on the airspace studies that several teams have done, we can locate megascale AWE just as close to populations as existing aviation operates (TUDelft, Ampyx, KiteLab Group; using FAA and ICAO FARs). There are several essential conditions however- safety, low-noise, and dense-arrays. Many AWES concepts fail to meet these requirements, but the best ones do!

We get to pick the most ideal situations to pioneer AWE, which does seem to include exotic niches like Antarctica, or tropical islands, but also many opportunities near large populations, there is no site shortage to begin with. The technology will spread into tougher markets, as it is perfected. Conventional wind power is so different, operationally, that its not a sound model for AWE siting concerns. AWE may win on both NIMBY and technical siting availibility.

Those who think AWE is developing too slowly just need to accept that the growing circle of creators are working just as fast as they can, and that's very fast. Those who think AWE might not succeed need understand how urgently it needs to succeed, in case nothing else does. It will succeed because we undertook to solve it,

daveS

PS Fortunately for remote electrical generation, copper transmission lines are not needed; aluminum is much cheaper for the same rated capacity. Copper is more essential in motors and generators; that's where the demand is.
 



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8516 From: Joe Faust Date: 2/2/2013
Subject: Re: What environment for AWE?
To play toward AWE siting solutions will be the rope-transmission tech
which has received some key attention by a master tech historian, just published today LowTechMagazine



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8517 From: dave santos Date: 2/4/2013
Subject: Jerker Line Systems as AWES Carousel or Track Alternative
We had partly reinvented the ideas behind Stangenkunst and Jerker-Line networks, but thanks to our amazing friend, Kris de Decker, of Low Tech Magazine, we now have a trove of prior art, a complete design pattern language, for how to create large kitefarms of many kites driving a central generator. 

We would drive our jerker-line networks "backwards" in a fan-in mode. Jerker-lines clearly beat the scale-limited high capital cost and inherent fouling risk of giant kite carousels and elevated kite vehicle tracks. While the historic jerker-line similarity cases were generally low powered (20-50hp typ), there is no mechanical detail that does not scale greatly, as related urban cable car and ski-lift systems in the MW range also indicate. Cable loop systems remain a kite farm contender, but jerk-lines clearly can do hard work for many decades of service.

The key kite method to master is synchronized sweeping, but we know how this is to be done. Its also wonderful to contemplate how flexible and robust a kite farm can be, by flying the "fleet" of kite cells in endless combinations, changing sails, and bringing units on- and offline. A single massive generator at the center would enjoy full economy-of-scale and run consistently across a wide wind range. Adding an aux pony generator would be nice too.

One old reference in particular teaches us the art. Find the link on the Jerker Line Systems Part Two reference list-
 
Surface Machinery and Methods for Oil-Well Pumping", H.C. George, Bulletin 224, Bureau of Mines, Department of Interior, 1925.

That these sorts of legacy mechanical networks can be driven by kites is CC BY NC SA

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8518 From: dave santos Date: 2/4/2013
Subject: Review- Polymer v. Electrical Conductor Transmission


We don't know BobS's result yet, but our our famous friend, Russian scientist-dissident AWE theorist, Alex Bolonkin, provides us a "fifth" reference* on poymer cable v. electrical conductor transmission potential. 

High speed rope-driving is an extreme case of the famous Newtonian formula- f=ma . I heard the "Nuke Plant rated power (GW scale) over a ship-hawser" comparison from Dave Culp, of KiteShip, who calculated separately. My own crude example is that a common cotton sewing thread can convey about a horsepower or more at 200mph. 

Since the 1980's we have had a true superfiber- UHMWPE. A few other fibers come close, but none has so many good properties (non-toxic, recyclable, UV resistant, etc). We must once again master traditional high-speed rope-driving, but in the sky-

Bolonkin on the subject (edited slightly)-

"Cable Transmission of energy from a wind rotor at high altitude to an electric generator on the ground.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8519 From: Joe Faust Date: 2/4/2013
Subject: Duvoisin explains his new Eco-Balloon concept to the FAI Executive B
AWES community, 
   ... herebelow sharing a note about: Pierrick Duvoisin and his balloon advancements.

I personally add an invitation to explore aerogels for insulation. Ever-up kytoons is one of my hopes.
Lift, 
    JoeF


Dear FAI News Readers,                                       Feb. 3, 2013

Following their meeting this weekend in Lausanne, the FAI Executive Board members visited Château d'Oex and the annual International Balloon Festival.

During their visit, the Board were fortunate enough to meet Pierrick Duvoisin, a passionate balloon pilot, many times world champion and holder of four FAI World Records. Pierrick explained his latest 'Eco-Balloon' project, which he believes will change the nature of ballooning in the future thanks to the dramatic energy-saving design and performance.

Whereas hot air balloons normally use a balloon envelope with a single layer of fabric, the Eco-Balloon has two separate envelopes, one inside the other, creating an insulating layer of air between the two, much like a pane of double glazing does in the window of a house. This layer dramatically reduces the heat loss from the balloon, leading to a reduction in the amount of fuel needed to keep it in the air. While the fabric that Pierrick uses is very similar to that of a standard balloon, he has succeeded in developing a process of adding an aluminium coating to it to further improve its insulation qualities while at the same time eliminating condensation problems that double-envelope balloons had suffered from in the past.

Pierrick proved his concept when he constructed a small 1600 m3 hot air balloon in 2009, primarily designed for test purposes. The balloon was such a success that it was difficult to believe it could perform alongside much larger balloons while using much less fuel - in fact, Pierrick has seen his fuel requirements drop by a factor of 3 to 4; if a flight in a conventional balloon required 40 kg of gas, Pierrick could count on 10 kg being sufficient.

Pierrick has since constructed a more standard sized 4000 m3 balloon and is confident that with it he will be able to break current ballooning world records. But this is not his primary goal; he is intent on proving that the balloon is no longer a concept but instead a very real alternative for the future of ballooning. Pierrick will tour Canada in early 2014 to prove the balloon's capabilities in a cold environment and in a country large enough to accommodate long flights.

Videos of the 'Eco-Balloon' are available at www.aeromedia-concept.ch/the-story-of-building-an-eco-ballon-the-film/

Kind regards, 

Faustine CARRERA | Communication Manager
FAI - Fédération Aéronautique Internationale 

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8520 From: Joe Faust Date: 2/5/2013
Subject: Of course some AWES lofted technicians will need to sleep some ...
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8521 From: Joe Faust Date: 2/5/2013
Subject: Launch loop
Something for AWES?

Updated page: 


Missing items are invited. 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8522 From: dave santos Date: 2/5/2013
Subject: Drafting AWES Test Protocols (Fraunhofer Case)
The Fraunhofer Society seems uncontested as an acceptable and willing third-party comparative AWES architecture validator. This progress puts us at the starting gate of a large funded test project of multi-year duration. What next? 

A sound draft of a Controlled Experimental Design is needed to help define the scope of validation work. Planning can then be completed, especially budgets and timeline. Test Siting is a big logistical question, with Germany likely favored by Fraunhofer's staffing pattern.

Major due-diligence AWES testing is not a new topic, so the misc. notes below are just ongoing gathering of requirements on an iterative spiral. Please make suggestions ASAP, to add to an initial working prospectus pending to Fraunhofer, for their review and further elaboration.


Notes-

-AWES tested at separate places and times make engineering comparison far less certain than "side-by-side" testing. Not only do wind conditions differ, but small variations in set-up, instrumentation, and test practices create uncertainty. Therefore, for definitive results with limited resources, a single site for extended controlled experimental testing is favored.

-AWES Test Cells (stations on a kite field) should be rotated for equal time in each cell, cancelling small differences created by surrounding conditions. Wind-tunnels also vary, so rotation of AWES at a single tunnel is better than two separate wind-tunnel results.

-Discovery priority is established online with social media as the third-party. AWES testing could even be shared in real-time online, as a revolution in transparent agile-engineering.

-The many brief field tests never have validated essential AWES reliability. Extended endurance testing, with varied hostile conditions, is required. Accelerated testing of components is good, but does not replace extended field testing.


-Only small AWES exist as high TRL production models. These should be tested as products, with consumer input gathered.

-Scale model testing requires special protocols. All applicable scaling laws must be accounted for. Comparative testing of large-scale architectures should be within equivalent model scales.

-Operational testing is a key parameter. Testing should account for excessive O&M needs.

-Economic analysis is a key parameter. Complex models are required to predict true economic performance. Labor cost should be fairly compared with labor-saving automation.

-Videogrammetry is now cheap, with many high-performance options (high-speed, multi-spectral, stabilized platforms, etc.). Video also validates endurance, as a "security camera" auditable trail.


-A balanced stakeholder committee needs to finalize the goals and details of a testing program. Consensus and transparency are core requirements for a successful AWES validation program.

-Non-conflicted investment (open to any validated solution) is needed. This can come from any player not directly associated with a proprietary design interest (gov, NGO, or private institutional investor).

-Contending innovators have a direct expert role in making their concepts work in testing. Weak implementers need help to have their ideas get a fair trial. Fraunhofer will have to balance these sorts of contradictions.

-Numeric simulations are a key activity. Defining the computing environment is an open topic. Building the AWES simulation models and testing parametrically will be a major job comparable to field-testing.

-Analytic tools like AWES critical-path study and a complex scoring matrix have been discussed. Fraunhofer needs to review earlier work, to build on.

-Safety standards and regulatory compliance are key validation parameters. FAA/ICAO FARs and many other standards apply.

-(DOE standard) TRL scores of contending AWES products and concepts is a specific validation output format. 

-Narrative reports cover unquantified special details (like niche advantages). 

-Rankings lists are also desired deliverables (ranking by ROI, capital-cost per installed-Watt, O&M factors, etc.)
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8523 From: Joe Faust Date: 2/5/2013
Subject: Re: Drafting AWES Test Protocols (Fraunhofer Case)

AWES Architecture Validation
It does what it says it does!

See differently: AWES Certification.

Validating an AWES' characteristics and performance is distinct
from certifying that an AWES meets certain defined standards. 

  • AWES Architecture Validation   (It does what it says it does!)

 

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8524 From: dave santos Date: 2/6/2013
Subject: Fw: Airborne Wind Energy (AWE) Due Diligence by Silver Lake Kraftwer
Its unknown if Makani ever forwarded our messages to Cathy Zoi. To make sure, this one went directly to her Silver Lake Kraftwerk address, and also is the heads-up to the whole Kraftwerk energy investment team.

Forum Copy-

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8525 From: dave santos Date: 2/6/2013
Subject: Makani LCOE Claims compared to Aviation Operating Cost Similarity Mo
Of any AWE venture, Makani has the developed the most complex aviation architecture. One of many dubious Makani claims is how cheap they "estimate" their AWT designs will produce power. Can their "stealth company" veil be pierced to come to a plausible independent prediction?

The M600 is comparable to a small business jet in cost and complexity, even if its wingspan is greater. It does not have a conventional fuel cost, nor expensive jet engines, but the carbon composite construction, complex unproven avionics, high land utilization (~1km2) and so forth, make for a typically expensive modern aircraft. A small business jet costs between 1-2k USD per hour to operate (conservatively, without fuel cost added in).

Makani consistently claims it will beat average electricity pricing.Electrical energy on the US market is close to 10 cents a kWhr or 100 USD per MW hour.  A Makani M600 at its rated power would gross 60 USD per hour. How in the world did Makani estimate it will produce comparable aviation reliability (also claimed) at <1/10th base operating cost of conventional aviation? There is no sign of any aviation-cost breakthrough.

A plausible explanation is that a "pump and dump" business dynamic is at work, where venture hype sustains an artificially high appearance of value. In numerous cases a would-be innovator begins honest, but is slowly driven into fraud territory by the psychological pressure to succeed. Makani has long walked a legal tightrope in its promotions, and is known to have internal confidence problems.

So what's going on now? It seems that Silver Lake Kraftwerk did not see Makani weaknesses (or worse, maybe did not care). Makani likely failed to report its technical challenges honestly. Perhaps Google has off-loaded all or part of its original 30% equity stake. Something like this would be required for the Makani founders to retain majority control; or they may have already lost it, but at a pumped-up price. 

Silver Lake itself may be drawn into playing a Makani pump-and-dump AWE investment trap, as capital fund managers instinctively propping up a weak holding. Lets hope they instead rely on the early investment diversification being presented to them from our open circles. Makani could even wake-up and diversify, if they don't wait until the bubble pops.

Makani's is a very dramatic AWE start-up story, full of mystery and suspense. How will it all end?


-----------From Makani's current FAQ----------------------

"What will the cost of energy be from a Makani AWT?

The cost of conventional wind power is highly variable because it is site-dependent. Due to the low incidence of very good wind sites, Makani estimates that the cost of energy will generally be about half the cost of conventional wind. At a typical onshore site, the cost of wind energy is about $0.10/kWh. At particularly good wind sites (for instance sites located in the middle of Kansas, where there is powerful wind and easy access to the grid) wind energy is already cost competitive with coal, around $0.04/kWh on a windy day. Conventional offshore wind farms, however, typically have a cost of energy closer to $0.20/kWh. In Kansas, Makani’s cost of energy would be slightly less than that of conventional wind.  However, at a typical onshore site or offshore it would be less than half the price."
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8526 From: snapscan_snapscan Date: 2/7/2013
Subject: Re: Makani LCOE Claims compared to Aviation Operating Cost Similarit
Did you ever have a look on how this cost breaks down and which part might not be applicable to a flying wing with no combustion engines,less avionics in a "static" flight mode (fewer take offs and landings?). I assume this would result in significantly lower maintenance labor and parts costs.

/cb
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8527 From: dave santos Date: 2/7/2013
Subject: Re: Makani LCOE Claims compared to Aviation Operating Cost Similarit
Snapscan,

No similarity case is perfect, but try and find a better cost model for us than ordinary aviation. Review Fort Felker's aviation similarity analysis from AWEC 2010, for a classic in AWE thinking.

My understanding of aircraft operating costs is from direct lifetime observation in General Aviation, so i know that, besides fuel, major costs for Makani's aircraft will be similar and high (like aviation (or maritime) insurance) and many minor differences just cancel out.

Lets consider your points one-by-one- 

-No combustion engine maintenance (done in a hanger), but compare this advantage with primary electrical maintenance done at sea (like dealing with salt corrosion and cleaning bird poop from motor windings).

-What is "static flight mode"? Makani aerobatic flight (~10G cycles) on a jerking tether is more dynamic than normal avaition. Hovering is most challenging from a thermal read-line perspective.

-Fewer take-offs and landings per flight hour sounds good, but Makani's architecture critically depends on never banging too hard into its heaving sea perch. Inspecting the composite airframes ultrasonically or by x-ray at sea won't be cheap.

-In low fitful winds, Makani faces landing a lot, or motoring wastefully. This cost ordinary aircraft avoid.

-"Less avionics" ignores that Makani's autonomous aerobatics requires better avionics than any previously. They will be fully redundant, since no pilot is available to take over. Makani avionic requirement will cost billions to perfect, and operating cost will be very high for a long time.

-"Lower maintenance labor, and parts costs"- Maintenance labor at sea is generally twice or more land cost. No one makes the motors/props/tethers/etc. that Makani needs, so the non-COTS cost penalty will be severe. Makani's part count includes a lot system complexity on the base (winching, and support electronics).

I can see no sign of the order-of-magnitude reduction in Makani operating cost, to make a profit, compared with the standard aviation similarity case. Don't forget 100hr inspections typically required by FARs, which if applied to Makani mean constant visits at sea.

No outside aviation expert (including those on this list) has ever stepped up to defend the plausibility of Makani's aviation claims (Mark Moore tried, but folded). Privately, the aviation experts i have consulted with think the Makani claims are bonkers. ChrisC wrote on the forum "what are they smoking".

Perhaps the most damning signs are anecdotal- that no Makani founder, exec, or engineering chief has ever had the aviation depth to make such marketing claims credible (like a MacCready). A few lower staffers had some good aviation experience, but they are gagged by NDA agreements, and mostly move on. 

Thanks for defending Makani's architecture and marketing claims, since it helps negate their refusal to ever engage in open technical debate.  The similarity case seems to still hold. The next step, a detailed operational cost study, looks like a waste of time (except for Makani), but we can go there if you want, to give folks a taste of detailed cost-engineering.

daveS



 




==========================
I am sorry for the Yahoo "CSNBC Jobs" Spam Virus 
that hijacked the Contact List for this mail account. 
Please accept this apology for any trouble caused.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8528 From: dave santos Date: 2/7/2013
Subject: Shockwaves on Tethers as a Failure-Mode
Our advanced low-stretch tethers seem to have a unique vulnerability to shock-wave formation. The conjecture is- if the line is tensioned near its max working load, and there are high-energy harmonics on the line, rogue shock waves can form to crash into kite and anchor-nodes, and cause a line to fail well below its measurable static load. An elastic line absorbs shock peaks before they do damage.

I lost a small (1m2) single-line parafoil last year in a US NW Coast gale to a shock wave on the line (its still a hundred feet high in a tree). The kite was going nuts and the 400lb rated UHMWPE line, in good condition, was "jangling" wildly, but a padded belt around my waist made the 50lb estimated gust surge pulls quite manageable. A specially powerful gust hit the kite, and the jumpy line suddenly parted right at the hand winder knot on the belt. 

Its well known that an ordinary knot weakens a line greatly, but there was more going on here, since this line was so over specified. There was no excessive tug before the line parted. It was rather clear the line had not parted by "static force" alone, but a sudden shock effect focused at the anchor-node seemed to be to blame. UHMWPE has a low melting temp, so the failure mode may have been a sudden local heating resulting in the break (rather than a break in progress releasing heat). The knot was a stress-concentrator node itself, and knot failures by shockwaves may be common. A corollary prediction here is that knots in stretchy line have a lesser weakening effect.

Rogue shockwave line failure is predicted to follow a certain classic pattern. The at-risk line is low-stretch, tension is high, and the harmonics on the line are energetic and chaotic enough to combine by chance into rogue peaks exceeding the breaking strength. The longer the line, the more energy it can store harmonically to focus on a node. If the line is being rapidly pumped, complex phase-shifts arise favorable to random shock wave formation. Wind turbulence on the line also destabilizes normal dynamics. Risky nodes are stiff and sharply discontinuous.

There is a luck factor to rogue waves, which can occur even in moderate "improbable" conditions. Shock waves can also hammer at a node, for accumulated damage. The node itself, say a composite airframe, might be directly damaged. Good shock absorption design is possibly essential to future AWES. Fishing poles are a good reference model for harmless shockwave absorption, but high efficiency line pumping is the competing trade.

This is another poorly understood topic in AWES design suitable for careful study...
 




Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8529 From: dave santos Date: 2/7/2013
Subject: State of the Art FlyGen Cables (?)
Whats the best stuff to use for flygens? This 2006 article well-painted the promising future for putruded carbon core wound in aluminium-

http://www.compositesworld.com/articles/composites-connect-with-the-world-of-cabling

The first-featured developer, CTC, "tanked heavily on bankruptcy news" a few years ago, but 3M seems on track to profitably deploy its "Aluminum Conductor Composite Reinforced (ACCR) cable" on a large scale.

http://solutions.3m.com/wps/portal/3M/en_US/EMD_ACCR/ACCR_Home/TechnicalInfo/Tests/

How best to do a two-wire conductor by this approach? The carbon core is semi-conductive and electrically isolated by s-glass from the alu conducting jacket, which could be a double-helix (two-wire) ribbon.