Fluid turbine chains

Liking Dave Lang's term "turbine chain" with a bit of excitement:

Proposed family for air, water, or other fluid flows:
A turbine chain family could have as children:  multi-rotors, multi-drag variChutes, muti-SpiralAirfoils(tm), multi-flipperWings, ... 

Arrangements and emobodiments for subclasses:
1.  Torque shaft or chain:  Turbine beads on a torque tube,  sturdy pre-twisted  torque cable streaming from an upstream mooring (moving or not).  

2. Non-torque chain of beaded turbines that are using individual generators, perhaps with contra-rotating blades, etc.

3. Non-torque chain of beaded turbines where no electric generation is occurring at the blades, wings, or drogues while the downstream tension is let out in the yo-yo scheme or various rocker or boom schemes.

       Perhaps hang turbine chains from

• bridge
• tail of lifter kytoon
• as working generating markers every 50 ft on AWECS main tether
• stern of barge, raft, sailboat
• tail of kite
• cross-valley cable

Use various means to bring fresh stream to individual beads. Snaking occuring as seen in Doug Selsam's turbine chain as rotor shadow, gusts, field helicity, gravity  ... result in rough sinusoidal undulation.   In flying turbines in water, a using of downing downstream chain terminus can force fresh stream to the chained turbines.  Occasional posts, buoys, buoyant balloons, lifting kytoons, etc. along a long turbine chain can be set to work with gravity catenaries to cause fresh stream to meet turbine elements of long turbine chains.

Below is a typical (what we call anyway) scam turbine that we in the actual wind energy industry routinely make fun of (if possible) or try to warn newbies away from. It is a 100% solidity vertical-axis rotor, working mostly on the drag principle, with a reciprocating cycle for each blade (upwind then downwind).

http://www.maglevwindturbine.com/

These machines come along every year. They always tout the same "advantages" but they never become aware of their distinct DISadvantage:
They simply don't make much, if any, usable power.
Usually the promoter is "in the process" of actually connecting it to a generator. After that, there is a year or more of stalling where the PhD's involved try to figure out why they can't get any power out of their superior machine. Then they fade away, sometimes chased by lawyers or the law itself if they have been selling "territories".

These machines we have come to learn are 100% hype. They always mention some irrelevant detail as the reason they will eclipse the existing low-solidity rotor technology with their 100% solidity rotor.
These promoters are claiming less land use, more power, etc., but they never explain how that could be...

See, only thing is, everything they say is hypothetical, based on their extreme ignorance, with no facts to back it up. Sound familiar? Sure they are going to replace those big heavy blades, with what? Something way bigger and way heavier that doesn't even work? Rotating walls a mile high as opposed to a few slender and (comparatively) cheap blades? Engineered for the same 120 mph extreme wind events that the slender blades are, right? And what, now they have to add more gearing and 8 times the swept area for the same power, and this is an advantage?

This general type of turbine is known for being able to visibly rotate and never make any usable power. An expensive lampshade. Visually compelling perhaps but if your eye can discern the perhaps 30-times more material to sweep the same area, and that they are sweeping 3.14 times their intercepted area to boot, you can see, without seeing it run or testing it, that this design is a huge loser. If we had to rely on them, our civilization would come to a halt.

Over and over and over again, we in wind energy deal with this.
Taking such designs into the air is most likely not an answer.

What is their advantage? They are using magnetic levitation for their main bearing! Wow, cuz you know that the amount of power lost to a ball bearing is what has been holding back wind energy all these years, right?

Just a little tidbit of been-there, done-that from the world of wind energy.
:)
Doug Selsam

Don't forget the Shepard patents
Doug S.

Yeah and if you get to the point where you have something that is usable, for propulsion, it will probably involve "propellers". :)

Dear Joe:
Yes I invented the laddermill. And I drew up the concept and had it witnessed and notarized. However I did not publicize it, or publish it in any way at the time (1970's). Therefore, the Ockels patent does not infringe me as far as I can see and is not invalidated since I kept the losing design to myself, seeing a much better version was possible that simply spun. In short, I paid attention, and I "got it". Nobody had to drag me kicking and screaming through the facts. I just read the pamphlet and acted on it.
The reason I did not patent it was that it had simply been the first idea that had occurred to me in my state of childhood kite-flying ignorance, having not read much, if any, scientific literature on wind energy, at that time.

I quickly realized that this design had severe challenges of line-twisting, icing, etc., but more importantly, as I have been trying to explain, it was a drag-based turbine with with each blade traveling in a reciprocating cycle. Therefore it was never going to make even a fraction of the power of blades traveling across the wind. I realized right away that what was needed was a stack of many levels of rotating kites, and that attaching these rotating kites at the center guided their movement and countered centrifugal force. Of course at that point it is just following progress in aviation in general to see that the blades (kites) needed to be most optimally slender and provided with shaped airfoils, like gyrocopters.

So in essence the reason I didn't patent the "laddermill" or even give it a cute name is that it immediately revealed its weaknesses, while suggesting a machine that was many times more efficient.

In short, laddermill would have been a waste of time to pursue because it was a piece of crap, using kites traveling upwind and downwind, not able to make much, if any, usable power. That's where I was at in the 1970's having read a pamphlet or 2 on the known art of wind energy. You might note that despite the design now having been publicized for 10 years, you don't see any working laddermills out there.

I might point out for those who might be interested that a sideways groundhugger laddermill WAS tested in Tehachapi at Oak Creek windfarm back in the 1980's and it was a failure. I have heard of it and maybe seen pictures but don't know the details. To be successful you have to move past losing designs that clearly have fatal flaws and get on to what works and stick with it til you get it up and running. Thanks for asking.

Doug S.

There may be opportunity to adapt Doug's (and Ockels) laddermill concept to a terrain enhanced wind engine. There are mountain gorges in many parts of the world and through which powerful (unidirecitonal) updrafts blow. The top end of the laddermill may be secured by suspension cables to the valley walls on either side of the gorge . . .  a solid and secure mounting system would replace the balloon or kite-balloon.
 
 
Of interest, the CEO of New York Power Authority wishes to increase wind power generation in the Empire State. There are several suitable valleys and gorges in the Catskill Mountains and in the Adirondack Mountains where strong winds to blow.
 
 
Harry

 

---

To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
From: doug@selsam.com
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 15:49:12 +0000
Subject: [AWECS] Re: Terming Selsam's late 1970s device and validity of Ockels patent?

 

http://www.alternative-energy-news.info/floating-geodesic-solar-molecules/

Dan'l

***Please see my asterisked relies below - Doug S.

Harry:
Happy for your enthusiasm for my original (first childhood) design now called "laddermill" but I think you should read my post a little more closely:
I explained how the laddermill design is inefficient and problematic. I explained how a land-based version has been tried in the 1980's and failed. I explained how the Superturbine(R) technology is what emerged from the original "laddermill" idea, as a solution to the inherent problems in laddermill and a vast improvement. I explained how laddermill is such a loser that I didn't even bother to patent it. I explained how after 10 years of hype, there is no working laddermill. This is where people have to understand the difference between fantasy and reality. I have a great solution for terrain-enabled wind energy and that is Superturbine(R) in its various forms which even include a cross-axis version. :)
Doug S.

I agree with Dave S. that as far as I was aware, kite-sailing is considered part of high altitude wind power for now. Obviously we are getting into mere semantics here but I would be happy to hear Dave Culp speak. Or anyone else who has a working technology. At least he has something that actually works. At some future date, when there is a plethora of both operating kite-sailing technology, and flying wind turbines, then it might be time to form 2 different groups. For now, with everything being so hypothetical, I am grateful for the cross-pollination.
Doug S.

Doug,
Requesting some explanation of "cross-axis version" ...
Thanks for any fuller picturing of that phrase. Thanks.
JoeF

Tug is solidly in the heart of AWE:

1. Tug water hulls of every which sort for travel.

2. Tug water hulls that might be full of hydroturbines to generate
electricity.

3. Have a base rider that rides on a cable which cable is anchored at
its far ends. The rider holds any number of kinds of generators
reacting with cable or water or both. Kite tug the cable rider one way
for a mile; then reverse and kite tug the cable rider the other way.
Each way is a powering stroke; at reverse time we do not have a power
moment.

4. Kite tug a line which line at ground is sawing wood or metal or glass
or stone as the line is structured at that work point as a cutting line.

5. Kite tug water hull that is equipped with water turbine for charging
batteries or ultracapacitors which charge will be used in harbor or
other auxiliary uses as needed.

6. Set up ground rails from city A to city B. Kite tug railed passenger
cabs from city A to city B.

7. Have a Wayne German aerial cable way and kite tug cabs of people and
goods along the restrained cableway.

8. Kite tug soil plows and soil kites.

9. Kite tug line through two separated ground pulleys; have in line at
ground a generator that is driven by the line going through its grabs;
drive the kite first one way for a mile and then another way for a mile;
power stroking either way with momentary pause non-powering at the ends
of the mile.

10. Kite tug carts that have generator in wheel axles.

...and much more. KiteTug is AWEsomely present in AWECS.

Goodyear had a wing that was inflated; the shape was maintained with thousands of interior strings connecting the two surfaces of the wings. That was back when...    With advancing materials, where could this tech direction go?    Could we have superpressurized turbine blades that are made of flexible membrane  bladder material with blade shape controlled by interior strands and carefully controlled weaving?   And fill the blades with hydrogen or helium or the like.  Smart embedded battens may be helpful.    Could not this direction for rotating blades be scalable in proportion to parafoil and OutLeader scaling for AWECS?

Selsam has in his main patent full reference to various inflated airfoils.    The Superturbine(R) of Selsam has embodiments that refer to inflatable blades as option.

Some preamble pages toward this topic:

• Robert Ross for Goodyear  http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=VlJjAAAAEBAJ 
• http://www.roadabletimes.com/roadable_experi_inflatewin.html
• http://www.vertigo.aero/airbeams/
• http://www.vertigo-inc.com/aiaa/AIAA-01-2068.pdf         Pages: 8.
• http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=yCN_AAAAEBAJ&dq=7185851  and the cited patents listed and linked.  There is reachable an extensive branching patent tree on inflatable wings.  
• ?

The Selsam

Superturbine(R) 

has roots in early kite experiences.   Many of us have seen the Superturbine (R) in real life operation under some balloon lifters at its downwind terminus. However, many options are understood and instructed by Douglas Selsam from heavy lifting aerostats, to heavy lifting kites, kytoons, simple bouquet of spherical balloons for handiness, as well as the use of helium or hydrogen inflated turbine blades for the multi-rotor concept.  The foam and skinned blades are not the only emobodiment.   And some might think Doug is aside of kites, but far from that he has been with kites throughout his life. He invented a ladder of airfoils kite lifted. But more to the point at the moment is a photograph of Doug holding a generator being spun by a sport or toy scale early Superturbine (R) using delta kite as top lifter of the multi-rotors:

Detail enlarged.

Inflated structures excel at large dimensions and light loads. As effective wind speed and loading go up, enough material is required that compression surfaces and struts are not prohibitively heavier. I would definitely separate any helium lifters from the turbines, rather than integrate them.

Bob Stuart

Well Dave here's how it is:
Guess what your engineering challenge is in turbine design?
Guess what the main challenge is?
It is overspeed protection.
Whatever kite, rotor, or whatever you put in the air, whether from a tower, or self-suspended, will have to deal with high winds and gusts at some point. That is when you will have to face the cubic power curve because once mother nature gets ahold of your machine that can take the lighter winds and efficiently turn them into electricity, you have a monster on your hands in higher winds.

I have a whole big pile of burnt-out stators here from trying to get turbines fine-tuned to give up power production at the top end of the power curve in response to that cubic power curve. It is not the would-be designer in his fantasy world of his armchair and computer, or perhaps crayons and paper, who gets to decide arbitrarily if his machine has to deal with the cubic power law. It is the fact you have to deal with. It is reality. It is 1/2 MV^2 X the windspeed one again, since the volumetric flowrate of these 1/2MV^2 particles increases linearly with windspeed.
There are 2 places where all the hypotheteization in the world will do you no good:
1) Making power - you can't fake it, and even if you nail it, you're only half-way there
2) Overspeed protection: without it all you have is a turbine that is ruined every time it encounters a very strong wind, (which seem to arise in direct proportion to how well you DON'T have your overspeed protection worked out.)

Why does Superturbine(R) exist?
And yes you are right there are scaling limits to propellers, since their weight grows as a cubic function (L x W x H) of diameter whereas swept area grows as a square function (pi r^2). This means that a rotor gets less power per unit mass in direct proportion to its size. Additionally, smaller rotors spin faster, eliminating the need for gearing. You may read all about it in my patents.

These are the reasons for Superturbine(R). I would have to say you aren't even paying attention to what my patents say, nor paying attention to any of all that I have worked out.

So in your fantasy world you have my propellers too big and crashing and hopefully nopody gets killed - wow how about if that is your big kite instead? Where do you get that? I am the one advocating many comparatively tiny propellers, whereas you are silly enough to be talking about Manhattan being the place to fly your giant kite machines.

With regard to your statement that the real wind turbine world could learn a lot about membrane technology from the kite folks: I guess you have really not digested what I have explained: The wind turbine world STARTED OUT using EXCLUSIVELY MEMBRANES (cloth sails), and that ibncludes the first propellers as still seen in the Greek islands. It took 1000 years to slowly make the blades narrower and narrower as airfoils improved and speeds increased. Soon they were adding resin to the cloth for strength, and the blades got so efficient that they took up only a small amount of the area of the circle, and were basically not much wider than the origibal spar for the slow, comparatively inefficient sails.

Sure we have a couple of stubborn examples of real wind turbine people who continue to advocate sails for blades. The main question is why would you add all that extra area just to cut performance?
The last shakeout for the clothe sail kitelike blades was in the 1960's and '70's. It was slowly recognized that the cloth tatters in wind and sun and that regular blades actually use less material than just the spar for a sail that will have too much thrust-loading in strong winds. Wind turbine design is all about removing, not adding material. You are just slinging bits and pieces of the fact that you aren't even paying attention. If you have something to tell the big wind people about your sails that require a spar stronger than their blades, why not contact G.E. or Vestas? After all, they could certainly benefit from such superior knowledge as you opbviously have. I mean you sound like you REALLY know what you're talking about. There are many windfarms going in all over the world that could certainly benefit from your advanced knowledge and save a lot of money using sails instead of blades!
Realistically I think you owe it to mankind to immediately get ahold of the big wind people and set them straight.
But you are instead "too busy for that" right?
Or maybe, as long as you stay in the fantasy world that:
1) you have to deploy high in the air, but can't get a permit;
2) Manhattan would be a good place to deploy (sure nobody worried about danger from the sky there)...
Things like that make it so you will always have an excuse to never have a working model, therefore you are relegated to perpetually trying to show by blogging that every known fact in wind energy is somehow wrong simply on the basis that you have not gotten even far enough along to have faced any of these physical realities.

The exact reason I am citing examples of the groundhugger scam turbines that don't work is so people can see that the fantasy know-it-all denial-of-reality turbines always start out with drag-based reciprocating-cycle turbines that try and fill too much working area with sheet metal or cloth sails, bring progress backward 3000 years while they tout in their ignorance the next big step in wind energy. We are asked to ignore the primitive, naive, and innocent nature of the designs on the basis of some special feature, whether it be magnetic bearings or whether it be that the machine can somehow support itself without a tower.
That is all
Class dismissed
D.S.

Well Dave here's how it is:
Guess what your engineering challenge is in turbine design?
Guess what the main challenge is?
It is overspeed protection.
Whatever kite, rotor, or whatever you put in the air, whether from a tower, or self-suspended, will have to deal with high winds and gusts at some point. That is when you will have to face the cubic power curve because once mother nature gets ahold of your machine that can take the lighter winds and efficiently turn them into electricity, you have a monster on your hands in higher winds.

I have a whole big pile of burnt-out stators here from trying to get turbines fine-tuned to give up power production at the top end of the power curve in response to that cubic power curve. It is not the would-be designer in his fantasy world of his armchair and computer, or perhaps crayons and paper, who gets to decide arbitrarily if his machine has to deal with the cubic power law. It is the fact you have to deal with. It is reality. It is 1/2 MV^2 X the windspeed one again, since the volumetric flowrate of these 1/2MV^2 particles increases linearly with windspeed.
There are 2 places where all the hypotheteization in the world will do you no good:
1) Making power - you can't fake it, and even if you nail it, you're only half-way there
2) Overspeed protection: without it all you have is a turbine that is ruined every time it encounters a very strong wind, (which seem to arise in direct proportion to how well you DON'T have your overspeed protection worked out.)

Why does Superturbine(R) exist?
And yes you are right there are scaling limits to propellers, since their weight grows as a cubic function (L x W x H) of diameter whereas swept area grows as a square function (pi r^2). This means that a rotor gets less power per unit mass in direct proportion to its size. Additionally, smaller rotors spin faster, eliminating the need for gearing. You may read all about it in my patents.

These are the reasons for Superturbine(R). I would have to say you aren't even paying attention to what my patents say, nor paying attention to any of all that I have worked out.

So in your fantasy world you have my propellers too big and crashing and hopefully nopody gets killed - wow how about if that is your big kite instead? Where do you get that? I am the one advocating many comparatively tiny propellers, whereas you are silly enough to be talking about Manhattan being the place to fly your giant kite machines.

With regard to your statement that the real wind turbine world could learn a lot about membrane technology from the kite folks: I guess you have really not digested what I have explained: The wind turbine world STARTED OUT using EXCLUSIVELY MEMBRANES (cloth sails), and that ibncludes the first propellers as still seen in the Greek islands. It took 1000 years to slowly make the blades narrower and narrower as airfoils improved and speeds increased. Soon they were adding resin to the cloth for strength, and the blades got so efficient that they took up only a small amount of the area of the circle, and were basically not much wider than the origibal spar for the slow, comparatively inefficient sails.

Sure we have a couple of stubborn examples of real wind turbine people who continue to advocate sails for blades. The main question is why would you add all that extra area just to cut performance?
The last shakeout for the clothe sail kitelike blades was in the 1960's and '70's. It was slowly recognized that the cloth tatters in wind and sun and that regular blades actually use less material than just the spar for a sail that will have too much thrust-loading in strong winds. Wind turbine design is all about removing, not adding material. You are just slinging bits and pieces of the fact that you aren't even paying attention. If you have something to tell the big wind people about your sails that require a spar stronger than their blades, why not contact G.E. or Vestas? After all, they could certainly benefit from such superior knowledge as you opbviously have. I mean you sound like you REALLY know what you're talking about. There are many windfarms going in all over the world that could certainly benefit from your advanced knowledge and save a lot of money using sails instead of blades!
Realistically I think you owe it to mankind to immediately get ahold of the big wind people and set them straight.
But you are instead "too busy for that" right?
Or maybe, as long as you stay in the fantasy world that:
1) you have to deploy high in the air, but can't get a permit;
2) Manhattan would be a good place to deploy (sure nobody worried about danger from the sky there)...
Things like that make it so you will always have an excuse to never have a working model, therefore you are relegated to perpetually trying to show by blogging that every known fact in wind energy is somehow wrong simply on the basis that you have not gotten even far enough along to have faced any of these physical realities.

The exact reason I am citing examples of the groundhugger scam turbines that don't work is so people can see that the fantasy know-it-all denial-of-reality turbines always start out with drag-based reciprocating-cycle turbines that try and fill too much working area with sheet metal or cloth sails, bring progress backward 3000 years while they tout in their ignorance the next big step in wind energy. We are asked to ignore the primitive, naive, and innocent nature of the designs on the basis of some special feature, whether it be magnetic bearings or whether it be that the machine can somehow support itself without a tower.
That is all
Class dismissed
D.S.

Robert,   You are quite right that many known techniques will effectively deal with overspeed/surge.   The tree example you gave is a wonder of such ideas such as the leaf furling & clumping. I have been stymied by TJ's challenge to get tree windpower out effectively as the whole branch system is a bunch of self canceling mass dampers such that the trunk barely oscillates in strong wind, compared to a free wing.   Conclusion: While there are many essential qualities (like safety) an AWE system must have, & surge management is one, the biggest engineering challenge is WEIGHT TO POWER-OUT. Conventional high L/D turbines grow far too heavy with scale by cubic mass law.   daveS

The Selsam concept may be a good choice to operate in a mountain gorge, the type that begins as a valley at the entrance except that the valley floor rises to high elevation. The boundary layer effect will literally "pull" winds into the entrance of a gorge, where powerful (mainly uni-directional) updrafts may then occur. A terrain enhanced superturbine may be mounted atop a series of towers or suspended by cables from the valley walls. The driveshaft of the superturbine concept (in this application) could drive into a ground based generator. 

There would be the engineering challenge of supporting an extended length superturbine at various points up a suitable gorge . . . the central driveshaft could carry several thousand horsepower.
 
Harry

 

Tip-top turbine
Wind drive autorotating hollow blades. Rotation forces air out of the hollow blades and out the tips; the flow sucks air through chamber. Place another turbine blade set in that chamber to drive an electric generator perhps set at ground level. System could be tower based or kite based using hollow tether to bring the flow to a ground generator.

In small or large this tip-toss turbine arrangement might find some practical uses near the ground or aloft high.

This known mechanism has been investigated and instructed. This note is presented without appraisal or prejudice.

Some people have investigated the tip-toss flow in regards to affects on tip vortices and behavavior of blades used in towered turbines even with electric generator aloft being driven directly by the primary blades' rotation.

Consider also just wanting a suction process where the aloft rotating blades are toss out gases from the tips of the wind-driven loft blades while the suction is used in various ways near the tether's or tower's base.
====================================

Harry,   Yes, torque tubes tensioned against terrain are the most promising "utility scale" niche for the Selsam Turbine concept. A torque-tube can be cable cross-braced off terrain against buckling. This is an applied spiral tensarity effect (called guys or stays ;^)). TEWP systems far too massive to fly properly as AWE are feasible. At some increased scale cableways begin to beat a TEWP tube transmission.   The "big" problem with cubic apparent-wind overspeed of hot turbines can be solved by passive aero-spoilers on blade tips that fold out progressively with increasing rpm, much like a Watts governor. Surely some turbine folks already have similar tricks long figured out.   ds

It is my bet that we will be seeing some kytooned lifted Superturbine®    events.  Superturbine ®  Word  Mark         SUPERTURBINE
Goods and Services IC 007. US 013 019 021 023 031 034 035.
G & S: Co-Axial Multi-Rotor Wind Turbines.
FIRST USE: 20060318.
FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20060318
Standard Characters Claimed
Mark Drawing Code (4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK
Serial Number 78461117
Filing Date August 3, 2004
Current Filing Basis 1A
Original Filing Basis 1B
Published for Opposition  December 27, 2005
Registration Number 3118147
Registration Date July 18, 2006
Owner (REGISTRANT) Selsam, Douglas Spriggs INDIVIDUAL UNITED STATES 2600 Porter Ave., Unit B Fullerton CALIFORNIA 92833
Type of Mark TRADEMARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE
 

To fill in potentials, I wonder how much energy could be mined from:

Instead of a torque tube on downwind multi-rotors, have the Tip-Toss Turbine (TTT (tm)) from COOIP be the blade set freely autorotating and let a hollow tensional tether that slip-ring holds each blade--as beads on string--develop the depressed air pressure and thus the instreaming air from in front of the root interior turbine that runs the generator. As the holding snake need not carry torque then the mass of torque tubes need not be installed. Doug, you are invited to explore the TTT for a "TTT Superturbine (R)" Every other blade could be oppositely rotating for an exploring of a comparison of all blades rotating in one direction,as long tensional air-carrying snake tether would not be carrying any strong torque. These snakes could be hung from main lifted tether to a kytoon or aerostat or bridge or terrain or sky-cableway or as tail of a huge kite, etc. The blades of TTT are hollow or have enough hollow to permit good tip tossing of air.

COOIP

Blowers by auxiliary power to balance blade speed for torque for
generator shaft speed control is slightly different than the pure
depression or suction from tip-tossing from the centrifugal motion of
the air inside of blades. The suction can be used for remote electric
generation as an option, but other uses of the suction can be
envisioned. Of course the study of all past meditations and uses of the
basic mechanism is not under by head yet, not at all. But while doing
so, and while not seeing the topic in group yet, I started the post. As
yet, I do not see anyone in the literature mentioning such as vacuuming
a hut, powering minor hand airtools, clearing bad gases from a
manufacturing process, running air-art by the remote suction, drying
processes; and I do not see yet any attention on the full rainbow of
scales. And I have not seen the process AWEified yet.

Final efficiency for niche purpose is not in view for the expected
scores or niche purposes that one day might be developed by someone. I
expect that one day there will be experts at each scale from micro to
Free-Flight where tipLoss turbines will play some part. The topic is
presented without appraisal or prejudice, as stated. Experts are free
to be creative in discussion. Newbies and novices are free to parallel
the thread's study. Any sincere exploration will probably put up on
the table something that will help to clarify interests and dynamics.

Scheduled release of the centrifugally-moved air along an autorotating
blade for separation control in the boundary layer has been studied some
with and without auxiliary blowing; any studies that have been done are
not yet in my toolkit. And I have not yet tried the tipLoss flow.

Wish I had more for you on this; the fundamental mechanics is not new.
Just how the mechanism might live in corners of AWE is not seen by me.
Up for sending out flying seeds? Entertainment smoke? Moist air in a
dry region? Sized fertilizing particulates? Advertising odors? Smoke
signals coding important messages? Causing special tones to be formed?

I do not see anything yet for near-market in tipToss turbining (TTT).
Next week maybe!!!

JoeF

Yeah it seems that the one thing Dave S. and I can agree on is it is OK (and somewhat fun) to disagree.
Let's try in the most gentleman-ly and suitable-for-framing way to get the following across:
I will now address Dave S.'s torque-tube criticism of Superturbine(R):
Please show in some logical mathematical or physical way how Superturbine's driveshafts in all their embodiments including open-weave cylinders comprising darrieus blades are inadequate to the task.
I don't feel it is up to me to answer critiques that are not developed to the point that there is anything to answer.
So far I have shown a machine that works and Dave S. seems to be saying that "the bumblebee can't fly".
That is all I see. When my driveshafts start failing, Dave S. can make that argument, but so far there is no reason shown to doubt the adequacy of the "torque tube" approach.

As I explain in my patents, smaller rotors spin faster and weigh less, eliminating the gearbox. Next, a driveshaft can be lighter in direct proportion to the RPM, since faster RPM carries more power at less torque. It seems that the advantages of Superturbine technology are not being appreciated for what they are in some cases. So far of all the engineering challenges we face, and there are a lot, the ability to carry torque is simply not among them.
Anyway I will try to be more civil in tone since some have asked for that.

However I will say that I don't have too much more time for this since as I point out, this activity is many years old for me - we have dealt with the unwashed masses promoting high-solidity, slowly-turning or upwind-downwind oscillating machines for years.
If they really believe they have a superior solution, they should explain mathematically exactly how it is superior, or be able to demonstrate it. Otherwise it is all just empty talk. Can we spend all day responding to empty talk that really makes no sense when fully analyzed? Can we make progress with real machines if we spend all our time discussing hypothetical machines that may or more likely, may not be above what Wil. E. Coyote comes up with in the cartoons?
Not likely.
Most of these schemes have a lot more in common with The Bugs Bunny Roadrunner Hour than they are aware or would ever want to admit: The extraction of a single abstract observation, extrapolation from that observation, in disregard for all other pertinent facts.
For example, many cite "the air leaking through" regular blades of a regular, modern, low-solidity rotor. Sure this would be true if it weren't spinning, if it were still. This would be true if the airfoils had not evolved for 1000 years to be able to extract large amounts of lift from a small profile. This would be true of the blades weren't spinning way faster than the wind itself, creating their own operating environment and determining the angle of attack almost independent of the wind itself. But, since these surrounding circumstances do not exist, all these designs that address this phantom problem are incorrect at best and outright lies and investor or customer ripoffs at worst.

And yet I have heard highly-degreed "scientists" talk about today's wind turbine in exactly these terms on national press: talking about how they could be improved if only the designers had the wisdom of the ignorant yet highly-credentialed pundit. If only the people who know how to make power, and do it for a living, would listen to the people who can't make any power at all! It's all just Monday-Morning Quarterbacking!

And in the case of innovators who could be steered straight to avoid wasting their time, wasting others' time, and to avoid giving a bum steer to the populace in general, it is tempting to think that the learned could ever convince the self-imposed ignorance of someone who refuses to listen to the voice of experience and insists on making all the beginner mistakes that revisit 3000 years of turbine evolution on a microcosm scale, insisting on learning every tough lesson themselves instead of just taking in the facts that have already been accumulated in the art.

At the same time, we won't come up with anything new if we refuse to discuss new ideas that may at first seem improbable.
Hence, the open forum. Enjoy it while it is still allowed.

Dave Culp, I would recommend for you that your technology is achievable NOW and what are you waiting for?
Is there no model of boat that could have your product developed for it NOW rather than at some future date that will never really get here but always slowly move forward into the future?
Is that what innovation is about? Coming up with "almost" solutions, but always with some reason why it can't quite be done now?
Airbourne turbines that "would work" if only we could get permits and fly them at 30,000 feet without any problems or hassles? Why not develop low-power or low-height versions that actually work at a lower height, even if only on a windy day? Would that not be better than just talk?
Note though that a Superturbine(R) powering your underwater propeller might be something to look at for powering a boat by wind: see U.S. 6616402.
Anyway that is why I sell a SuperTwin(TM) now: It was something I could build in my garage, on a low budget, without having to try and convince anyone by blogging it to death - just a product that works. It is hard to argue with something that works although (ahem) certain people will always try :)

Also: Let's not assume that a magazine like "Nature" is somehow superior to us. Mistaking the mantle of authority for factual source is not the way to innovate. For example, what good is all the civility in such a magazine if it spends years promoting global warming as the world slowly freezes? If they push the Al Gore's "severe hurricane"-type proclamations while hurricanes become the mildest in recorded history? How about Scientific American calling the Wright Bros a fraud? Who are the real scientists after all? The real scientists are the ones who can make new things that work. Most degreed imposters are merely the government-funded mop-up crew, who begrudgingly come up with new formulas to describe what the tinkeres and backyard mechanics get to work, after it is already powering their computers. Do you assume that "science" gave us the wind turbines we use today? No, we used airfoils for 900 years during which time wind turbines were the main industrial power source for Europe before there was a "theory of lift" developed by "scientists".

I wish everyone an exceptionally beautiful day! And let's remember, The Royal Society declared for years that stones could not fall from the sky as the ignorant villagers brought meteorites they had found for examination and all the Muslims traveled to Mecca to touch the black stone that fell from the sky and Abraham found. (yup that's why they go there, to worship a stone that fell from the sky) - in fact it would have been natural to assume that chucks of Nickel-steel falling from the sky were gift from the Gods since steel was a better material for so many uses. Would the iron age have even happened yet, without these meteorites that official "Science" was in denial of for so many years?
Doug Selsam
:)
P.S.: Here is what you're dealing with: "Doug may not make super classy AWE posts, but many of mine have been."
OK, sure. Dude, nice posts... where's your machine & data?

---- dave santos <santos137@yahoo.com

OK I am gonna ask this one more time:
It is one thing to tell me that McConney etc. HAVE working prototypes now, that operate NOW and have power output data NOW.
That is nice to hear.
Very tantalizing.
But could you please provide a link to some way to believe this?
I mean, is there something we can click on to verify this fact? A power output scatter plot? A movie that shows a voltage and amp meter? A statement of power out by a team member? I want to believe you and see no reason why this could not be true, but I have seen no evidence in the form that we in (ahem) wind energy are used to see.
So just to avoid confusion:
I am not asking for mere statements of brand names
I am not asking for nebulous or nonspecific statements
I am asking for evidence
I am asking for data
I am asking for ONE link that shows anyone making usable power of any type with an airborne system.
Thank you :)
Doug Selsam

Well true to form Dave Santos cannot resist arguing with any significant statement I make:
I warn that the biggest engineering challenge in wind energy is not making power, it is protecting your turbine from overspeed once you have energy capture mastered.
Dave S. counters that the biggest challenge is making power, in coming up with a machine lightweight enough to do the job.
OK then Dave S., let me re-iterate:
AFTER you have gotten a machine light weight enough that can also make the power you want THEN your challenge will be what happens to this lightweight and highly-efficient machine when the windspeed doubles.
THEN you will have to deal with the cubic power curve.
You stated in another recent post, in your repetitive denial of every salient fact I bring up, that you are better off ignoring the cubic power curve that the industry hinges upon.
Wanna know where that comes from?
That is typical newbie talk.
You THINK you can ignore the cubic power curve since, when not making any power anyway, facts are just fantasy.
You THINK you can ignore the proven main challenge of wind energy, overspeed protection, because you haven't gotten that far yet.
Note that rather than coming up with a reason why what I said is not accurate, you simply declare that what I said is not true, substituting your own declaration. I don't think that is a sensible debating style.
Please explain WHY you will not face the challenge of overspeed protection once you have a light enough machine to fly and make power?
Without an explanation that is believeable, you are not countering my point. And my point was simply to warn what has already been learned in the real world of wind energy. Why would you want to deny that? Why would you not say "WOw maybe he is trying to let me know what my next step will be ahead of time?"
You are once again exhibiting complete denial of virtually ALL the known facts of wind energy. The rules of thumb upon which the industry has grown for 3000 years.
Let's just get it down as recorded:
You are in denial that:
1) the power in wind is a cubic curve with relation to speed
2) that overspeed protection is the biggest engineering challenge in wind energy...
Meanwhile you might note that in the field of wind turbines as they exist, the way turbines are categorized is by their method of overspeed protection. Other than that they are all similar.
They sink or swim by what they do when the first storm hits.
Companies survive or go bankrupt based not on power production, but on reliability and ability to service the warranty on the turbines.
Look up Kenetech for a famous example: Once the leading wind turbine manufacturer in the U.S., Kenetech went bankrupt when it turned out that they were testing their turbines in the Altamont Pass, and the lighty-built turbines worked fine in the Altamont Pass, but Tehachapi and other locations turned out to be slightly more punishing and then machines had a high failure rate and so the company went bankrupt trying to service the warrranties. See, what will happen when you get your kites in the air with all the computer-controlled spools with cables reeling in and out at 60 mph, is 2 things:
1) potential customers will want to see a ROI;
2) you will have to indemnify the turbines with a warranty;
3) you will have to have yor turbines certified by an independent wind energy certifying authority before you can get large projects indemnified;
Good luck with denying overspeed protection as the major engineering challenge.
It is you who will have to answer when your machines break. Easy to ignore when it is all talk, right? Well when the phone rings and it is another failed turbine you will be singing a different tune, I promise. It is only after your lightweight turbines are failing regularly that you can see that you need to address the biggest challenge in wind energy. Oh wait I get it - if you insist on being thousands of years behind the curve it won't matter? Nope, it has always been the issue: Turbines in Europe, using oiled wooden bearings and brakes, were famous for bursting into flames if the rotor got out of control. Ah but who cares, right? That doesn't impact your ability to blog nonsense all day.
Of course Kenetech was a bit further along than waving a blade around in a crowded room and producing drawings of hypothetical turbines. But when it came down to whether they had a truly viable technology, it was overspeed protection that was their true challenge, one they did not meet, and so the company failed. This is true of all wind turbines. The "making power" part is routine and mostly a textbook exercise - a book which has not been read by most would-be innovators.
Ok gotta run - heck I have a turbine in a crate that needs to be shipped! I hope its overspeed protection turns out to be adequate for the long haul - what a cliff-hanger! Oh well it is a subtle art and one in which a difference of a degree or two can mean the difference between a machine that survives forever and one that burns out or rips apart!
Doug S.

What you ask isn't likely, Doug. Half a dozen privately/angel funded startups have in fact produced--and exhaustively measured--power as you specify ( I am on the advisory board for several; have worked as a salaried employee for another--you witnessed presentations from at least 3 fully-funded corporate entities in Chico). However, they aren't likely to publish their data any time soon; perceiving the market space as potentially crowded, and IP as potentially valuable (well duh. As I recall the patent office still has its doors open, and even the likes of GM, GE and Boeing have been protecting their intellectual property these past couple of centuries. Greedy bastards--so buy stock). Early commercial tower-based turbine biz was the same way if you'll recall.

The major question isn't whether it's possible to produce power in this way--or even whether the investment community will get involved--the answers are yes (on the order of $50 million has been raised from private investors, worldwide). The real questions are whether such systems can produce power cheaply enough to overcome their inevitable teething problems. The answer is probably yes, but surely not definitely. There remain huge unknowns; mostly political. From a worldwide perspective, small and micro AWE such as is routinely discussed here aren't necessary to drive this beast; there are major players already in the space (Boeing, Google, TU Delft; both the Netherlands and Italian governments, to name a few), there will be many more as the recession eases and petroleum prices continue to increase.

Bottom line, there is room for all to play; kites aren't going to take market share away from tower-based turbines this year or next--but very likely will, one day. The question is when.

Dave

PS: you may know this and be just tongue in cheek, but Makani isn't spelled McConney. They are from California, not Ireland.

I am getting the impression that this post has an attached drawing that I am not able to see. How do I see the drawings from posts online?
Doug S.

I wonder what voltage was used. Upping the voltage 10x could bring the two systems on par, except that the step-up transformer will add weight.

Considering that the pull of the kite has to be supported by the rope, this mechanical strength might as well also be used to transfer energy by mechanical means. Thus my vote is for mechanical energy transfer.

Mechanical energy transfer as in pull up, reel in also means you only need a simple rope, whereas electrical will always need two conductors, creating expensive/complex ropes/cables. Unless anyone can figure out how to use Tesla 1 wire high voltage, high frequency power transmission, I think mechanical will always be an order of magnitude more power per weight, much cheaper, much simpler and much more scalable.

Now maybe I missed the point in assuming reel-out, reel in mechanical transfer. Can someone let me know what is meant by phononics (or just link the previous message) if you don't mind?

Doug,   Your accusations of rampant technical ignorance on this list seem mostly based on flawed reading. Please try & catch up on old posts you have yet to read & patiently reread the posts that so provoked your anguished complaints. For example, handling surge is well covered. I'll repeat old explanations with you off-list to spare others tedium.   Convince yourself that AWE is real by making your own, its not that hard. Don't expect folks to adequately meet your peculiar demands anymore than NREL did. Please keep future posts concise, if possible. Lets concentrate on adding critical new knowledge to the AWE adventure.   Thanks in advance,   DaveS   PS Your own writings well cover the cubic-mass limitation of conventional turbines on towers. The logic applies even more to flying turbines & the "super turbine" is not exempt. In fact, dependence on torque tubes is a severe cubic scaling wall & cableways are the standard solution. That your multi rotor only develops a fraction of what the same rotors are capable of, if mounted square to the wind without masking, suggests the super turbine has an uphill battle supplanting existing turbines. But don't give up trying for better solutions to tap upper winds on a far larger scale.   Correction- A spar stayed off terrain is not Tensarity (no air), but a battened sail is.

Chris,   Lets not factor in mass-aloft penalty of transformers & flying generators yet. Some ideas like piezo do raw high voltage. KiteLab's toy flygen is only low voltage DC, not at all suited to show the limits of current practical electrical transmission, but utility transmission experience does.   Corona discharge limits high voltage transmission by well known values. Thermal breakdown & surge impedance also limit electrical transmission by calculable amounts. Note that a kite arch can well separate two conductors & skip insulation needed by a two conductor monotether.   Data for practical tug force by unit weight is found in applications, like ship towing, which have begun use of advanced polymer tethers.   ds

All, the reason that Makani doesn't have more data available is because it doesn't work effectively enough to be feasible, too many bugs. Anybody with any mechanical background can look at that and say...(well my wife says I need to hold my tounge more), anyway the word contraption comes to mind.

Spacecannon


---- Dave Culp <dave@kiteship.com

Hi Dave Culp: Thanks for replying. What you say is all well and good but unfortunately it only qualifies as anecdotal. We veterans know that the reason for not showing power output is normally embarrassment at the low numbers. No numbers across an entire "industry" means an industry with no numbers good enough to show. I maintain there is still no evidence that anyone is making any significant power in this field. It is one thing to talk of an "industry", to drop impressive names of big corporations. Such hype and namedropping is specifically what I said I was not looking for. What does it take to show power being generated? About $100 worth of instrumentation.

Please see this Youtube video of a Superturbine(R) with output measured and the meter shown on camera:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AA6YVWYyRvc

Sure if the turbine made no power we could wait and make excuses forever: "We need more funding, we need a $5 million wind tunnel, we couldn't get a permit..." but when you actually HAVE something to show, you can't resist showing it, and you will find a way.

(I need an office! We need to hire some people! We gotta have someone work on the website! We need to hire a full-time blogger!)
***That is enough to go to Harbor Freight and buy an amp meter
***See what I mean about hype? Change the subject? Impress me with dollar signs?

***Here's a wind energy company that blew through $25 million with a "superior technology" yielding no result. Article by Paul Gipe, world's leading wind energy author.
http://www.wind-works.org/articles/vort_closure_hend.html

I am just trying to make sure we keep our feet on the ground here. The real wind energy world has shown that there is no substitute for data and performance and that it is easy to throw away large sums of money to yield nothing substantial. We have heard all the same hype from day 1 from a hundred scammers and it carries no meaning except that you feel sorry for the hypsters. Someday you will thank me or agree.

Google has contacted me about funding my company. Last I left off I was talking to a guy named Dr. Jeffrey Greenblatt at Google, and they were trying to decide whether to give us a grant or invest in our company. Then they seemed to lose interest. BP has also contacted me. Beyond petroleum? They also seem to suffer from attention deficit disorder - although I am hard-pressed to find anyone who doesn't claim to suffer from that these days in this world full of ready-made excuses. Time will tell whether any of these folks are serious. Meanwhile we can't let the big talkers slow us down. We have laid the groundwork for this future industry and will continue our development of useful products and expand our patent portfolio around the world. I've recently been invited to a conference on how to change the world with such luminaries as Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates. Hopefully some of these deep-pockets entities will soon move beyond the all-talk format with regards to participating in Superturbine(R) technology which shows the potential to solve some of the main problems currently facing the world.

Thanks :)
Doug Selsam
USWINDLABS.com
~brawk!~

I'm pretty sure that quotation is misattributed. Perhaps Tesla or Morse? Even the Wright Bros are on record with the opinion that if commercial air travel ever became possible, the passengers would be content to lay on the wings. As for grudges regarding which lines of development to follow, the Smithsonian was so pissed at the Wrights for upstaging Langley that the Flyer went to the UK. Science is only fun if we are questing, not getting our egos identified with something learned along the way.

Perfection in design is when a layman sees a breakthrough protoype, and exclaims "That's Obvious!"

Bob Stuart

Franklin: "Monsieur, à quoi peut bien servir l'enfant qui vient de naître ?" (Sir, what's the use of a newborn baby ?)

TRITON DEMONSTRATION EVENT IRVINE, CA
THURSDAY, JANUARY 21, 2010

Location: Marriott Hotel
18000 Von Karman Avenue
Irvine, CA 92612

Our event will be held in Suite 211
__________________________________________________________________

Agenda

1:00 pm – 1:30 pm Arrival and registration, refreshments will be served

1:30 pm Introduction to the Triton Sonic Wind Profiler

2:15 pm Hands-on demonstration of Triton installation

3:00 pm In-depth review of Triton that will cover --
• Design and operations
• Siting issues
• Performance correlation
• Applications, including examples from Triton operators
• Demonstration of SkyServe Satellite Wind Data Service

4:30 pm ¬– 5:00 pm Refreshments and informal networking

If you or your colleagues have not yet confirmed your attendance, please contact Julien O'Reilly at julien.oreilly@secondwind.com or at 617.776.8520 ext.35 as soon as possible to reserve your space, as space is limited

Amazing how much resistance and explanations complete with anecdotal stories can be generated in response to one simple question: Show me any evidence".
We are used to it in wind energy. New entries with superior designs seldom have any evidence. Most have yet to even attach their superior machine to a generator. They are vicious when pressed for performance data. They hate being held to normal standards.
Most every new turbine coming down the pike uses these same tired lines. "We believe we will have data soon to support our projections" is now it is normally worded. Or of course there is always "We can't tell you the numbers as it is proprietary and under development". There are lots of ways of saying you don't have anything really working yet - hey it's OK, I was just asking, that's all...
But we have heard it all before: The Ben Franklin Baby quote, the Wright Bros. (I use that one a lot myself, being an inventor) - what about Edison's lightbulb and the thousand filaments? Just because these few now-proven inventors got their ideas to work is not indicative that every would-be innovator from then on can simply invoke their names and have their idea work too. That is a non sequitur. Success by name-association? Please, be serious. I KNOW wind power will work GREAT at ALL ALTITUDES. All I asked was evidence that anyone has it working now up past where a tower can reach.
Note: I never said it was impossible (since I have working prototypes)
I never even said it was hard.
I never even suggested that nobody was making any power or couldn't make any power. Just that I have seen no evidence, and I was asking to be pointed to such evidence, that's all. Like someone asking where is the nearest 7-11. (Ohhhh, another 7-11 skeptic eh? Well we have an anecdote for you, and some names to call you to boot!" (Suddenly I'm thinking this town obviously has no 7-11)
And I as an inventor am the last one to say "don't try" something or that something that is obviously physically possible can't work - that would be silly.
All I did was ask for some evidence that it IS working already. I've asked for evidence before.
When we get namecalling and accusations and complicated stories back when we ask for evidence of performance, well, we in wind energy already know the drill.

Quoting Shakespeare: "Methinks thou doth protest too much"

:)
Doug Selsam
USWINDLABS
~brawk!~

Oh, was "the birth of modern aviation" the hot-air balloon? That would fit. The original French is a tip-off.

I was perhaps confused, and offering a mistaken correction, but otherwise not trying to hassle you. The other stories were for general edification and illustration of the hazards of creativity. I just read "Look me in the eye" by John Elder Robson, with his adventures in and out of engineering.

Best,
Bob Stuart