Messages in AirborneWindEnergy group.                           AWES8681to8730 Page 71 of 440.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8681 From: dave santos Date: 2/24/2013
Subject: Anchors and Arches Notes

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8682 From: roderickjosephread Date: 2/25/2013
Subject: Re: Anchors and Arches�Notes

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8683 From: Bob Stuart Date: 2/25/2013
Subject: Re: [AWES] Re: Anchors and Arches�Notes

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8684 From: dave santos Date: 2/25/2013
Subject: AWE Capitalism 201 (Pooled IP Securitization)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8685 From: roderickjosephread Date: 2/25/2013
Subject: Re: AWE Capitalism 201 (Pooled IP Securitization)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8686 From: dave santos Date: 2/25/2013
Subject: Re: AWE Capitalism 201 (Pooled IP Securitization)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8687 From: David Everett Date: 2/26/2013
Subject: Seawater Battery for Offshore Wind Turbines

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8688 From: Bob Stuart Date: 2/26/2013
Subject: Re: Seawater Battery for Offshore Wind Turbines

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8689 From: David Everett Date: 2/26/2013
Subject: Re: Seawater Battery for Offshore Wind Turbines

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8690 From: Doug Date: 2/26/2013
Subject: [AWES] Re: Anchors and Arches�Notes

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8691 From: roderickjosephread Date: 2/27/2013
Subject: Roland Schmehl TUDelft kite power test photos

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8692 From: roderickjosephread Date: 2/27/2013
Subject: Re: Roland Schmehl TUDelft kite power test photos

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8693 From: Doug Date: 2/27/2013
Subject: Re: Roland Schmehl TUDelft kite power test photos

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8694 From: Doug Date: 2/27/2013
Subject: Subject: Re: [AWES] Intellectual property matters

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8695 From: Doug Date: 2/27/2013
Subject: Re: Mothra and Superturbine

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8696 From: Joe Faust Date: 2/27/2013
Subject: Re: Roland Schmehl TUDelft kite power test photos

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8697 From: Joe Faust Date: 2/27/2013
Subject: Re: Roland Schmehl TUDelft kite power test photos

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8698 From: Uwe Fechner Date: 2/27/2013
Subject: Re: Roland Schmehl TUDelft kite power test photos

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8699 From: dave santos Date: 2/27/2013
Subject: Re: Mothra and Superturbine

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8700 From: Joe Faust Date: 2/27/2013
Subject: Adrien Emery

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8701 From: roderickjosephread Date: 2/27/2013
Subject: Subject: Re: [AWES] Intellectual property matters

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8702 From: Joe Faust Date: 2/27/2013
Subject: Lima, Peru: Opportunity for water-fetch-from-air AWES ?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8703 From: Pierre Benhaiem Date: 2/27/2013
Subject: Crosswind kite power vs conventional wind turbine

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8704 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 2/27/2013
Subject: Re: Crosswind kite power vs conventional wind turbine

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8705 From: Joe Faust Date: 2/27/2013
Subject: Re: Adrien Emery

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8706 From: Doug Date: 2/27/2013
Subject: Re: AWE & Stricken Cruise Ships

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8707 From: Doug Date: 2/27/2013
Subject: Re: Ball-bearing gears - possible AWE application

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8708 From: Pierre Benhaiem Date: 2/28/2013
Subject: Re: Crosswind kite power vs conventional wind turbine

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8709 From: pierre.benhaiem Date: 2/28/2013
Subject: World Energy Congress 2013, Daegu, Korea,Paper Submission

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8710 From: dave santos Date: 2/28/2013
Subject: Stick-Slip Pumping to Haul a Loop Cableway

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8711 From: dave santos Date: 2/28/2013
Subject: Re: Crosswind kite power vs conventional wind turbine

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8712 From: dave santos Date: 2/28/2013
Subject: Dr. Beaujean on the Ultimate AWES

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8713 From: dave santos Date: 2/28/2013
Subject: Hay BioGas and Kite Hybrid Progress

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8714 From: dave santos Date: 2/28/2013
Subject: Wind Power Hybrid Plants growing in numbers...

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8715 From: dave santos Date: 2/28/2013
Subject: Pick-and-Place Payloads with Multi-Line Kites

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8716 From: Joe Faust Date: 2/28/2013
Subject: Re: Pick-and-Place Payloads with Multi-Line Kites

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8717 From: Bob Stuart Date: 2/28/2013
Subject: Re: Hay BioGas and Kite Hybrid Progress

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8718 From: Doug Date: 3/1/2013
Subject: Re: Pick-and-Place Payloads with Multi-Line Kites

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8719 From: Bob Stuart Date: 3/1/2013
Subject: Re: Pick-and-Place Payloads with Multi-Line Kites

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8720 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 3/1/2013
Subject: Re: Crosswind kite power vs conventional wind turbine

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8721 From: Doug Date: 3/1/2013
Subject: Another Nutty Professor - should we believe him?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8722 From: dave santos Date: 3/1/2013
Subject: Re: Crosswind kite power vs conventional wind turbine

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8723 From: dave santos Date: 3/1/2013
Subject: Re: Pick-and-Place Payloads with Multi-Line Kites

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8724 From: dave santos Date: 3/1/2013
Subject: Re: Another Nutty Professor - should we believe him?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8725 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 3/1/2013
Subject: Re: Another Nutty Professor - should we believe him?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8726 From: dave santos Date: 3/1/2013
Subject: Flap-Valve as Aero-Diode to Tap Vertical-Lapse of the ITCZ

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8727 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 3/1/2013
Subject: Re: Crosswind kite power vs conventional wind turbine,vertical move

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8728 From: dave santos Date: 3/1/2013
Subject: Re: Hay BioGas and Kite Hybrid Progress

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8729 From: dave santos Date: 3/1/2013
Subject: Groundgen Assertion Correction //Re: [AWES] Crosswind kite power v

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8730 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 3/1/2013
Subject: re: Groundgen Assertion Correction   //Re: [AWES] Crosswind kite po



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8681 From: dave santos Date: 2/24/2013
Subject: Anchors and Arches Notes

 Pierre,

Notes about your kite arch questions-
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8682 From: roderickjosephread Date: 2/25/2013
Subject: Re: Anchors and Arches�Notes
I agree, if work is to be extracted form an arch by means of foot pumping...
The arch foot and pumping energy conversion system should be sited directly above a fixed anchor point.

It'll be more efficient and robust.

Remember, our anchors, (even if they grow massive,) are not very damaging to their environment. And they're cheap. Can I have 20 please?
They are resisting an upward sideways force. A sunken filled mesh tonne bag (like a quarry bag) does the job perfectly...

To establish a ground anchor 1: remove topsoil, 2:dig hole, 3: line hole with water porous bag, 4:fill bag with excavated material, 5:replace topsoil
Probably best to bring the bag handles together at ground level and re-lay topsoil around the handle join.

An offshore vertical anchoring vector might be matched by lifting non porous seawater bags above surface level.
Horizontal anchor vectoring may even be run to the shore.

The reason to have a taught rope rail loop between anchors at arch foot level is foot transit safety. Always being able to hold onto anchoring is a must.
It's probably best if this ground loop component is largely "over engineered."
A foot belay system complements this idea.  And can run in parallel (metaphorically and physically) with a rope rail loop.
Kit like this robot capstan would make the job a breeze.

The more anchor sites there are / the more finely set to wind a pumping arch will be / also the easier it will be to move an arch around, because the foot will lift less between anchor sites.   

It may be that foot controls give a foot enough upwind lift and/or downwind drag to drive past the rise in a rope ring between two anchors.
Imagine what's needed for an arch foot to go downwind. It wants little vertical lift and more drag low down. e.g. feed out to raise the back catenary (for less overall lift), rotate the back catenary winching point inward (toward the circle centre) with respect to the trolley it is mounted on. (drags back at that foot)

To drive a foot forward tighten up the rear catenary for overall lift, sheet in (toward the centre) at the foot on the side to go upwind, release the sheet (outward) on the stationary side. The arch should deform to lift the foot upwind.

If you have reached the anchor site, fix the trolley position there. otherwise, re-cleat onto the line to stay in place.

However, when an arch hosts other non foot pumping AWE architectures.  If we can steer around a ground loop by the foot steering methods described above.
Weather cocking the generator surfaces to optimal crosswind alignment could be easily automated, fast and elegant.

Anchoring, follows the same fractal relationship rule that governs kixel tether size is slimmer than, patch mesh tethering, is slimmer than catenary line mesh.
A tree is thickest at the trunk.

CC BY NC SA
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8683 From: Bob Stuart Date: 2/25/2013
Subject: Re: [AWES] Re: Anchors and Arches�Notes
Are we trying to re-invent everything here?  Let's look at how guy wires are anchored for radio towers, and then use enough for the range of vectors we want.  I think you'll find giant screws to be the most economical method in many kinds of soil.  Moorings are another well-developed technology, with proven solutions for every type of ground.  I'm surprised that they are not used with guy wires to augment the foundations of conventional turbines offshore.

Bob Stuart

On 25-Feb-13, at 5:54 AM, roderickjosephread wrote:
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8684 From: dave santos Date: 2/25/2013
Subject: AWE Capitalism 201 (Pooled IP Securitization)
Monetizing AWE IP will occur various ways. A classic financial strategy to spread risk, achieve economy-of-scale, and accelerate investment, is to pool patents and copyrights (including trade marks). Setting up an IP pool is a complex undertaking well described in the FAQ linked below.

We are more-or-less on-track to create a formally securitized AWE IP pool (for high-risk investors) in the next year or so, with positive intent confirmed with many AWE IP holders. We could use more MBA-level expertise to work in sweat-equity mode on this.

http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/wp-content/uploads/QA-IP-Securitization.pdf
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8685 From: roderickjosephread Date: 2/25/2013
Subject: Re: AWE Capitalism 201 (Pooled IP Securitization)
That scheme reads more like avoidance, cloaking, phoneyism, and protectionism than corporate responsibility...
Sounds perfect. very refreshing.
Who would the sponsor company be in our case? kitepowercoop / kitelab other?

Is there a minimum size for a patent royalty securitization?
A: Because of certain fixed costs, the securitization transaction achieves greater financial efficiency with
size. Although there could be exceptions, it is likely
that a transaction smaller than 25 million USD in
initial principal amount would be uneconomical.


certain fixed costs: cappuccino at lawyers desks.?

It sounds fine and safe for IP that IS making pots of money.
We are still TRL and R&D...
What will a ratings company make of us lot?

Securitization of intellectual assets,
being relatively new to the securitization market, has always involved in-depth due diligence with respect to the assets in the securitized pool, and prudent legal structures with redund
ant safeguards against credit and event risk. Because IP securitizations must of necessity be built upon in-
depth examination of the intellectual assets, they
are arguably among the safer types of securitizations being issued. For all of these reasons, it is possible that the securitization of intellectual assets will be restored to favor in the investment and rating agency community sooner than the more commoditized consumer assets such as subprime mortgages, home equity loans, credit card receivables, and car loans.

especially worrying is the case, financiers want to recover their losses...
a restoration of capital to the financial guarantee firms which have
traditionally wrapped structured debt to make sure that they are
adequately recapitalized as a result of the losses suffered from their
exposure to the subprime market.

Are we to pay for their greed?

I still need convinced.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8686 From: dave santos Date: 2/25/2013
Subject: Re: AWE Capitalism 201 (Pooled IP Securitization)
Rod,
 
Every IP pool is different, but generally they are a helpful fix for well known innovation barriers.

In this case, We, the AWE IP Pool developers, intend to hew to best-practice social ethics emerging in CC IP, as well as pioneering fair-value of CC IP. Patent and Trademark IP would be conventional in its securitzation, but mostly come from small-holders rather than giant corporate trolls. "Software Copyright" would be a specific IP tool applied to embodied kite logic. Its a hybrid of established and new capitalism.

With Doug smelling Bolshevism, and you suspecting Robber Baronage; a certain balance has being struck; its just the best of all possible worlds ;)

daveS
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8687 From: David Everett Date: 2/26/2013
Subject: Seawater Battery for Offshore Wind Turbines
Sorry if this has already been posted.  A battery for offshore wind turbines that uses seawater; seemed applicable to this group:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmwmroCiDss

Dave E.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8688 From: Bob Stuart Date: 2/26/2013
Subject: Re: Seawater Battery for Offshore Wind Turbines
Thanks, Dave. 

For those with limited time, this is 2 Membranes.  The charging side concentrates sodium, and rejects chlorine.  Discharge produces hydrogen and sodium hydroxide.  It might be big and cheap as a flow battery, but  you sure need a market for the nasty by-products.  Nothing is said about efficiencies.  
There's sodium hydroxide in Fantastik brand cleaner, and you can use it to destroy aluminum cans if you need a bit of hydrogen for something.  

Bob Stuart

On 26-Feb-13, at 12:11 PM, David Everett wrote:
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8689 From: David Everett Date: 2/26/2013
Subject: Re: Seawater Battery for Offshore Wind Turbines
Just in case anyone's interested in hearing more about this:




On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 11:08 AM, Bob Stuart <bobstuart@sasktel.net

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8690 From: Doug Date: 2/26/2013
Subject: [AWES] Re: Anchors and Arches�Notes
For Met tower guy wires
auger a 9 inch hole 5 feet deep
mix 1 bag of concrete and pour in hole
drop in 5-foot long galvanized agricultural auger-tip anchor used for tensioning wire in grape vineyards
fill hole with dirt and water packing the soil tight as you go up
Wait a few days before using
my information is these never pull out
they are used on 50 meter towers with 6 levels of guy wires
It would have to lift a huge cone of soil to come out
plus
the pull is partly sideways
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8691 From: roderickjosephread Date: 2/27/2013
Subject: Roland Schmehl TUDelft kite power test photos
http://www.twitpic.com/tag/EnergyKite/realtime 

Great to see these test site photos from Roland.

Roland Schmehl @kite_power
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8692 From: roderickjosephread Date: 2/27/2013
Subject: Re: Roland Schmehl TUDelft kite power test photos
http://kite-and-friends.de/traction/hohenwind/ Enerkite in press

also check out work by Adrien Emery
http://adrienemery.com/2012/10/25/enph479/
another good steering and monitoring setup
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8693 From: Doug Date: 2/27/2013
Subject: Re: Roland Schmehl TUDelft kite power test photos
Those are impressive pics.
Interesting to see it described as "20 kW"...
What does that really mean for the power customer?
In real wind energy this would imply an output into the grid or batteries of a somewhat steady-state output of 20 kW, in relatively constant, strong winds. If the wind is gusty, you would of course expect output to vary with the wind speed. Finally, how much of that power is really available after the reel-in/reel-out mechanism?
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8694 From: Doug Date: 2/27/2013
Subject: Subject: Re: [AWES] Intellectual property matters
Yeah well Roddy you may notice that some people insist on throwing away everything that is well-known to work, trying to substitute what came before, that DIDN'T work.

For years we've seen this: would-be inventors who sre not up to speed on what actually works, advocating already disproven schemes.

Whether it is someone advocating a flapping wind energy device, in spite of the fact that flapping machines were tried and failed 1000 years ago, and that a wind energy industry exists with thousands of experts, none of whom advocates a flapping anything (except maybe a flap!) or someone who advocates throwing away the patent system after so many years of tens of thousands of dedicated people working out how to fairly reward inventors - you are looking at the same dynamic either way - and it should be no surprise that the same person can be seen advocating the throwing away of ALL useful knowledge accumulated over the last several thousand years, whether it be the technology itself, or the patents that help to nurture and protect new technology.

Throwing away thousands of years of accumulated knowledge is indeed de rigeur in today's world. That is part of the effort to endlessly dumb down the population in some ways - keep it simple! Of course to invent something new, you have to advance, but advancing does not mean throwing away all accumulated knowledge. Instead, that knowledge should be used and built upon. Centuries of machinery design have resulted in a lot of knowledge. It is foolhardy to ignore it.
:)
Doug Selsam
http://www.selsam.com

--- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, "roderickjosephread" <rod.read@...
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8695 From: Doug Date: 2/27/2013
Subject: Re: Mothra and Superturbine
While a kite arch could lift a side-by-side array of SuperTurbines(R), this discussion indicates that such an arch, if it has two greatly-separated anchor points, would introduce aiming challenges that would not exist using a more conventional lifter kite.

Aim in real time is (usually) a major requirement in wind energy. Automatic aim is good (normal). Passive automatic aim is even better.
To go from passive automatic aim, to no aim at all, would reduce the available sites to unidirectional wind resources during optimal conditions. Even then, using this location as an example, our wind resource is predominantly unidirectional, but today the wind is coming from the "wrong direction" and that is not unusual.

The other thing that is not unusual is for the wind to change direction, pretty quickly sometimes. And if a dust-devil comes through, I can look out and see two turbines a couple hundred feet apart, spinning fast, both pointed in opposite directions!

My latest suite of hard-won and carefully thought-through patents covers arrays that do not aim (stationary arrays), among other things, but a ground-supported non-aiming system can survive having the wind quickly change direction, or come from the "wrong" direction, or from multiple directions.

To have an airborne wind energy system that cannot aim in real time (pretty quickly) might mean the apparatus would be subjected to surprise crash landings. Some of these non-aiming airborne ideas seem to require "optimal conditions" at all times. A problem with some of these ideas would emerge when conditions are less than optimal, which is most of the time in many cases!

If substituting "component B" for a "component A" in an airborne wind energy system adds new difficulties that require still further added components, just to get back to the original, simple functionality of using "component A", perhaps the substitution is the beginning of going down an inadvisable path.
:)
Doug Selsam
http://www.selsam.com

--- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, "roderickjosephread" <rod.read@...
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8696 From: Joe Faust Date: 2/27/2013
Subject: Re: Roland Schmehl TUDelft kite power test photos
From your lead: 
... a tasked kite system: 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8697 From: Joe Faust Date: 2/27/2013
Subject: Re: Roland Schmehl TUDelft kite power test photos
Related video:  Berck sur mer 2012 Manlifting 
showing some rigging details... 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8698 From: Uwe Fechner Date: 2/27/2013
Subject: Re: Roland Schmehl TUDelft kite power test photos
Well, we have a generator with 18.5 kW nominal electrical power, but the electromechanical
system was never optimized for efficiency, therefore only something like 3 kW average electrical
power is produced. We hope to improve that to 4 kW by tuning the control systems.

A detailed efficiency analysis will hopefully be published in the airborne wind energy book that
shall be published at the end of this year.

Best regards:

Uwe Fechner (Yes, I am also on one of the pictures!)

Am 27.02.2013 16:51, schrieb Doug:
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8699 From: dave santos Date: 2/27/2013
Subject: Re: Mothra and Superturbine
Doug,

The working ideas to rotate an array of Superturbines are-

1- a row of generators on the ground that can wheel around like an irrigation circle, or

2- a central turret with outriggers to create the suitable geometry.

3- an intermediate cableway to carry forces to the side(s).

Let the all the ideas be tested, including tacking wings
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8700 From: Joe Faust Date: 2/27/2013
Subject: Adrien Emery
Thanks to Rod's lead: 
Adrien Emery
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8701 From: roderickjosephread Date: 2/27/2013
Subject: Subject: Re: [AWES] Intellectual property matters
Centuries of machinery design have resulted in a lot of knowledge.
And I don't want to waste a bit of it.
We want to use as large a scope of research as we can collect in devising a collective solution.

Centuries of machinery design
has also left us with a changed climate and the means to study and re-design for that fact.

It took millennia of social design before homo erectus learned fire, wheel, clothes, fishing hook, water channel.

Sail has transformed radically in my 37 years. The advances seem to be accelerating.
No ancient civilisation has had the machines we have now....
Nobody knows how much power can be held and worked in a wind dam.
I intend working toward finding out. I'll let you and the forum know ASAP when I get an answer.

I'm far from being alone, fed up with patents... Open Source culture is massive.
Large scale communication change is available and starting. see electronic forums as an example.

Patents are only one grievance.. the speed and unaccountability of democratic governance... that'll be next on my hit list.

Lets just sort the energy thing first eh. since we understand the potential of the problem.
Don't worry about me wasting my time.
I'm sure people are convinced your way and will help your scheme. I like it.

Tech design philosophy... I'm trying to keep plenty in mind... and the dishes and converting my loft... It's what a househusband thrives on.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8702 From: Joe Faust Date: 2/27/2013
Subject: Lima, Peru: Opportunity for water-fetch-from-air AWES ?

UTEC - Potable Water Generator 


The low rainfall, but high humidity
and the need for potable water, 
may be a formula for a special kite system tasking to collect water from the air for the residents.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8703 From: Pierre Benhaiem Date: 2/27/2013
Subject: Crosswind kite power vs conventional wind turbine

Specifications from Makani (for other crosswind kites the result would be roughly the same) for some comparisons with rough calculations (please correct)  below :

M30                                                         Span:8 m                                                    "Rated power:30kW                                       Full rated wind speed:11.5 m/s        Operational altitude range:40-110m  Circling radius:40 m"

A conventional wind turbine which radius is 35 m has a swept area of 3850 m²,and can produce (same wind speed being 11.5 m/s) 2 MW with not high efficiency of 60% of Betz limit 59%.

Without wing,the circling radius would be something like 27 m,so 2289 m² are not swept.The swept area of the wing,as the best part of the (tip of) blade,is 1560 m².So the power should be something like 810 kW.

810 kW is 27 times 30 kW,and 2289 m² are not used.

Why the efficiency of crosswind kites is so low,regarding the great size of area swept by the kite?It is not exactly a crosswind flight, there are variations of power,but perhaps another reason;a huge part of power is lost with tension of tether instead by producing useful power,and that both for flygen and yoyo.Explains?

So a very important progress is required to close tip blade efficiency,if it is possible,that for Makani or other crosswind kites.

If it is not possible really breakthrough in AWES will be needed.

PierreB

http://flygenkite.com 

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8704 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 2/27/2013
Subject: Re: Crosswind kite power vs conventional wind turbine

Precision:3 rigid wings vs 3 blades,efficiency being now 1/9:it is better but a bad value.The tether generates aerodynamic losses,and maybe (?,see precedent post below)  losses with tension preventing a little the motion of the kite.In an old post Dave Santos indicated the advantage of a root of a conventional wind turbine,that to better direct flows.

My idea is,after some studies,no AWES can now compete with conventional turbines,if there is a possibility later.Such a possibility would be specific,new architecture,like for example the project from Pr.Beaujan.

So AWE is not for tomorrow,at least as utility -cale.

 

PierreB

http://flygenkite.com


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8705 From: Joe Faust Date: 2/27/2013
Subject: Re: Adrien Emery
Contact!  Good.   Welcome, Adrien.

He just added an eighth video: 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8706 From: Doug Date: 2/27/2013
Subject: Re: AWE & Stricken Cruise Ships
Yeah and I saw a video online of a multi-billion-dollar plan to right the ship using big hollow steel outrigger floats welded onto the sides of the ship. And a huge anchor infrastructure built into the sea-floor. Seems like a "how many scientists does it take to screw in a lightbulb" joke to me.

I'm thinking, why not just use HPPPBI?
What is HPPPBI? Come on - you seriously don't know?
High Pressure Ping Pong Ball Injection! What the heck is the matter with these bozos?
Wait - what about HPMHMJ? Hand-placement of millions of hollow milk jugs?

OK OK OK we will treat this professionally and use professionally-produced hollow bladders. Produced by a major aerospace contractor for billions of dollars. No wait produced for millions, sold for billions. Ahhhhh Roger that.
You get the idea.

I hate to say it but righting this ship and floating it away doesn't seem like "rocket science" so much as "how much can we bilk an insurance company for?"
This seems like a task for low-tech solution using, you know, plastic bags, blue tarps - disposable stuff that is cheap and good enough for one use.

Wait - what about using Mothra, (or even Mithra), to right the ship?
Now there's a task just waiting for Mothra!
(Ah Mothra! He is angry with Godzilla. Run!
"ZillaGodZillaGodZillaGod...
Oh No, there goes Tokyo - - Godzilla!")
Anyway it seems like if the kite world is looking for a great demo for the power of lifter kites, righting that ship would be a fantastic "Superman Moment" for kites!


--- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, "roderickjosephread" <rod.read@...
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8707 From: Doug Date: 2/27/2013
Subject: Re: Ball-bearing gears - possible AWE application
Yeah people keep saying this. Well maybe, but, it could be another "been-there, done-that" moment in wind energy:
OK let me explain it again in a new way:
The air molecules are your super-low-friction ball bearings.
The threads are represented by the airfoils of a propeller (airscrew).
The pitch is super-flat so there is a LOT of rotation per amount of linear air travel.
Result:
No up and down travel, no return cycle needed, steady-state high-speed rotation using a single moving part that sweeps an area with only 2-3% solidity and will run constantly for years without attention. Add rotors to taste. No matter where you start, if you finally start to see the right direction, all roads...
can sometimes seem...
to lead toward...
Superturbine(R).
:)
Doug Selsam
http://www.selsam.com
(How the HELL are you going to beat something as simple and effective as a propeller, with any sort of humping, pumping, push-me-pull-U? - I mean SERIOUSLY)

--- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, harry valentine <harrycv@...
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8708 From: Pierre Benhaiem Date: 2/28/2013
Subject: Re: Crosswind kite power vs conventional wind turbine
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8709 From: pierre.benhaiem Date: 2/28/2013
Subject: World Energy Congress 2013, Daegu, Korea,Paper Submission
Dear all working on Airborne Wind Energy and High Altitude Wind Energy,
 
Here http://daegu2013.kr/eng/paper/paper1.jsp (World Energy Congress 201 Daegu korea  Call for papers) are the links for Paper Submission (deadline March 31,2013). 
 
I participated* in the previous World Congress 2010 in Montreal. Such a congress can be interesting to replace AWE in the energy mix and maybe find solutions, or give up some other.
 
Regards,
 
Pierre Benhaïem
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8710 From: dave santos Date: 2/28/2013
Subject: Stick-Slip Pumping to Haul a Loop Cableway

Consider a line of sailors that haul on a line with united power, each one working up the line with a grip-tug-release-recover cycle. Exactly so, a large number of pumping kites one a line can together create a steady aggregated AWE output.

This method has particular advantages-

-a nice continuous rope-driving motion can achieved without the messy design issues with circulating kites.

-each kite unit returns down the line as along a rail, very reliably, without a complex control requirement.

-The problem of mixing a large number of of semi-synchronous power inputs into one is done with "string alone", rather than elaborate transmission machinery.

-great flexibility is possible to match load and flying conditions.

CC BY NC SA
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8711 From: dave santos Date: 2/28/2013
Subject: Re: Crosswind kite power vs conventional wind turbine
Pierre, you wrote- "no AWES can now compete with conventional turbines"

Small AWES of a few watts are already competitive with equivalent "toy" HAWTs, in my opinion (like Dan Tracy's product).

Never forget that kites are far cheaper than towers (lower capital cost), and reach better wind (superior resource). Megascale AWES will someday eclipse conventional wind power, which does not scale well. AWES will compete with conventional wind on a time-scale too slow to satisfy the most impatient critics.

Its mistaken to use Makani as an example of what AWE's true limits are. Makani's design wastes most of the power its rigid wing develops by excess-mass aloft, tether and high form drag, conductive losses, and many other design errors. It cannot possibly scale well,

daveS

PS "Crosswind Power" is a rather misleading term, since there are many ways to extract it that are not Payne's classic turbine-on-a-wing configuration (that Loyd featured). Its better to use "cross-wind power" only as a concetual abstraction, and refer to each specific AWES less ambiguously.




 




==========================
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: 8712 From: dave santos Date: 2/28/2013
Subject: Dr. Beaujean on the Ultimate AWES
KiteLab Group has long agreed-

"Ultimately, the only solution in scaling up wind power to hundreds of megawatts is to...look at kite-sail ideas. We need a revolution in wind turbine design. High Altitude must be the future." 

Joseph Beaujean
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8713 From: dave santos Date: 2/28/2013
Subject: Hay BioGas and Kite Hybrid Progress


Biogas is not glamorous, but has vital roles in both climate science (as GHG and ODS, if disregarded) and energy production (in a sustainable carbon-neutral cycle). Starting in 1958, cesspool gas was tapped for cooking in the PRC. Since then generating power with landfill-gas has become a standard civil-engineering practice. 

Flash forward- KiteLab Austin now has a working Hay Farm as an AWES test site (with an anchor-field installed) Last year we validated dual-use (kite-hay) compatibility. Kites, switchgrass, biogas, and biochar have all been discussed on the Forum before. Now is the time to to actually test another round of these ideas, at small scale.

While biogas is diffusely sourced and rather limited in quantity, it looks like an ideal storage medium to supply continuous baseload power from working Hay and Kite Farms. There are numerous natural-gas and biogas compatible engine-generator sets on the market. Its quite possible to adapt these units, or make one's own version, to accept kite power to make electricity when the wind blows, but burn biogas when the wind is calm. We can set up a small experimental plant without too much fuss.

A supply of hay can be kept on the farm as non-explosive fuel storage (explosive biogas is best used directly). The main hybrid-design job is to automate the mechanical clutching between kite and combustion engine, and managing the gasification cycle. Hay bales act as "stove pellets", entering an enclosed preheat oven, and gassing off the fuel for combustion. The left-over biochar is a superb carbon sink and soil builder.

Peat Farms and other natural crops (non-irrigated, no fertilizers or pesticides needed) may have a similar sustainable cycles as net carbon-sinking biogas-kite power hybrids.

CC BY NC SA


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


Cautionary Tale- Ten years ago many of us in Austin experimented with DIY veggie-oil diesel, which was kinda cool, but not ideal. At one point a massive DIY biofuel production plant fell out of the back of one of our nomadic circus buses onto the highway, along with barrels of finished fuel and methanol. By great luck, no one was hurt. (I warned them, *sigh*.).
 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8714 From: dave santos Date: 2/28/2013
Subject: Wind Power Hybrid Plants growing in numbers...
Many early AWES farms will serve remote communities, and follow this emerging wind-hybrid economic model-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_hybrid_power_systems
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8715 From: dave santos Date: 2/28/2013
Subject: Pick-and-Place Payloads with Multi-Line Kites
Its a fine kite problem, how to lift and set masses like a crane, but with an ordinary multi-line power-kite. 

Besides holding semi-static kite loading, multi-lines foremost send control information, as differential loads on the lines, from the ground-based pilot up the kite. A payload must not interfere. We have pondered a second set of lines, from kite to payload, as a pulley Whipple-tree for Morthras to vary AoA independent of payloads, but that is not real pick-and-place versatility.

Here is a new easy way to pick-and-place payloads with just two or three pulleys-

Rig a short pulley-based Whipple-tree off of the multi-lines, some distance from the kite, to carry the payload as an equalized-suspension. Multi-line control signals now pass without interference past the payload. 

CC BY NC SA
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8716 From: Joe Faust Date: 2/28/2013
Subject: Re: Pick-and-Place Payloads with Multi-Line Kites

In the mix of "placing" may be added the serialized placing
or relay:
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8717 From: Bob Stuart Date: 2/28/2013
Subject: Re: Hay BioGas and Kite Hybrid Progress
I've been following the gasification list even longer than this one, and there are still a lot more experimenters than small consumer-ready units.  Installations big enough for a full-time employee have a pretty good record.  The great advance since WW II cars and trucks running on wood chunks is the cyclone separator, to keep tar out of the engine.  The science of combustion has advanced, but fuel uniformity is still very important, as with most liquid-fuel engines.  However, gas generators take some time to warm up, and are usually unable to run at less than 25% of full capacity.  Gas bags can be used for temporary storage - they are merely flammable, not explosive. There still seems to be a need for a big flywheel or something else to smooth any kite-BioGas Hybrid with a single generator.  I would not want to be riding herd on such a plant without plenty of storage.

Like wind, gas can be used directly to pump up a hydro power reservoir, which is very good at both storage and power fluctuations.  The Humpfrey pump just uses water as the piston, energized by regular charges of gas and air, sparked off to match the natural wave frequency in the pipes.  Tar in the gas is easily tolerated that way.

Bob Stuart
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8718 From: Doug Date: 3/1/2013
Subject: Re: Pick-and-Place Payloads with Multi-Line Kites
May find use in forestry and timber harvesting.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8719 From: Bob Stuart Date: 3/1/2013
Subject: Re: Pick-and-Place Payloads with Multi-Line Kites
I'd be inclined to put up enough kite to keep tension on three lines gathered to a point over where the crane is needed.  The kite operator just needs to keep his array pulling at over the needed force, and the crane operator gets a stationary point to work from.  Winching the three lines can give a traveling crane and control the height with easy precision as long as the kite array is pulling hard enough to keep the tripod tensioned.  

Bob

On 1-Mar-13, at 8:38 AM, Doug wrote:
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8720 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 3/1/2013
Subject: Re: Crosswind kite power vs conventional wind turbine

DaveS,

 

I completely agree with the term "crosswind" and the expressions "crosswind kite power" or other expressions with "crosswind".The idea of kite harnessing more power by flying "crosswind" is well understood by M.Loyds (in first!),and KiteGen,Makani,Ampyx,

EnergyKite..., all companies using "crosswind kite power".Morever the definition of a conventional wind rotor working "crosswind" is also correct,even more exact because a rotor works completely "crosswind".

 

But I do not doubt there are some mysterious wind systems working "cross-wind",or "cross/wind"... 

 

The point I raise has nothing to do with possible errors from Makani,because the difference of efficiency between conventional rotor and "crosswind kite" is too high (for an identical swept area) to call upon such possible errors.

 

So my idea is to look after possible both inherent and improvable problems for crosswind kite power:that indicated by M.Loyds (not quite crosswind,drag tether...),perhaps induced drag there is not for such a level for a classical rotor with finer blades,certainly a better rotor aerodynamic to harness wind power,perhaps lost energy by tether...

 

 

PierreB

 

    
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8721 From: Doug Date: 3/1/2013
Subject: Another Nutty Professor - should we believe him?
Hi Guys:
Well by now you know how funny I think it is when I hear academics who are not wind energy professionals make predictions, such as if a researcher at Honeywell, Kleiner Perkins, Aerovironment, or NASA says they have developed, or will develop, a superior wind turbine, or an airborne wind energy system. And it's funny when they announce "breakthroughs" for regular turbines, like "whalebumps" or that more recent bozo who had a big press-release moment when he placed vertical-axis turbines (that no professional would ever use) so their wakes would (supposedly) interact favorably (probably got the idea from SuperTurbine(R)). It is sad when science gets so watered-down and lackluster.
Well here's a "physicist" who is apparently the first to notice wake effects in a way that none of the stupid people developing windfarms for all these years have ever thought of, and this helpful physicist is breaking the news to wind energy professionals that windfarms only put out 1/14th the amount of power they thought(?) Like nobody really knows how much power a windfarm makes by now? That it's still just an "estimate"? Yeah sure maybe nobody has actually measured a windfarm's output, right? OK here it is:

Harvard research suggests wind power capacity of large-scale wind farms overestimated

Research from Harvard applied physicist David Keith published this week in the journal Environmental Research Letters suggests that the generating capacity of large-scale wind farms has been overestimated.

Keith’s research looks at “wind shadows” created by turbines in which air has been slowed down by drag on the turbine’s blades. Although wind farms strike a balance between putting as many turbines onto the land as possible while spacing them enough to reduce the impact of wind shadows, Keith’s research shows regional-scale wind patterns matter more as wind farms grow larger.

According to the research, the generating capacity of wind power installations larger than 100 square kilometers may peak between 0.5 and 1 watts per square meter, as opposed to previous estimates that ignored the turbines’ slowing effect on the wind and put the figure between 2 and 7 watts per square meter.

Amanda Adams, a former postdoctoral fellow with Keith and currently an assist professor of geography and earth sciences at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, said providing estimates of wind source availability can be difficult.

“One of the inherent challenges of wind energy is that as soon as you start to develop wind farms and harvest the resource, you change the resource, making it difficult to assess what’s really available,” she said.

Keith said the research should not stop the pursuit of wind power, but the geophysical limits may be meaningful if “we really want to scale wind power up to supply a third, let’s say, of our primary energy.”

He added that while the theoretical upper limit to wind power “is huge,” the practical limit to wind power, once all the real-world constraints, is less clear and should be a topic for future research.

Read more wind energy news
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8722 From: dave santos Date: 3/1/2013
Subject: Re: Crosswind kite power vs conventional wind turbine
Pierre,

Our communication problem is how general the "crosswind concept" is. Even a varidorgue opening and closing depends on geometric crosswind motion, and it can even have more crosswind motion than downwind motion (short-stroke "grunt" as it pops open). There are no AWES concepts that are fully crosswind (except for crosswind anchor-vehicle tracking), nor any that have no crosswind motion in operation (except for the hapless Magenn).

This is why i get confused by anyone who claims to have sorted AWES into two sets- crosswind and non-crosswind. Almost all AWES cases are an integral mix to me, and Loyd's example design (after Payne) was just one of many possible architectures he could have used to make his point,

daveS
 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8723 From: dave santos Date: 3/1/2013
Subject: Re: Pick-and-Place Payloads with Multi-Line Kites
Bob,

Yes, a "tri-tether" (static multi-line) with a stable lifter kite component is a fine basis for a crane system (as we have explored in past years). You need at least two or three anchor points, or a coordinated anchor-vehicle, for that.

In this case, with just a single static anchor point, its a truly minimalist design based on a different sort of kite (multi-line power kite). The mastered kinematics will be wild, to sweep the kite and swing the load very dynamically. Only a strong anchor, three pulleys, and some added line are needed. Power kites are now so cheap and common, its nice to find new jobs for them (like Kite Ag). The use of the pulley Whipple tree as an Analog Computer element (logic comparator network) excites me, how formal logic is embodied so elegantly.

These two kite crane methods do not directly compete. The new method is only two-axis, but that is enough to do jobs like basic earth moving or filling Bambi Buckets and lift them higher to an aqueduct or reservoir (a tag-line and/or trip-line to the load might help).

The new method is related to the dangerous man-lifting method where the kite flier is tethered from behind and lifted aloft while flying a power kite (Dean Jordan almost killed this way when his helmet slipped over his eyes).

Note that a small "cross-tree" or "hardware-plate" fitting at the payload-kiteline interface might be optimal CC BY NC SA,

dave
 




==========================
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: 8724 From: dave santos Date: 3/1/2013
Subject: Re: Another Nutty Professor - should we believe him?
There is not much doubt, based on solid heuristics, that Keith's numeric "wind-shadow" simulation result will match well with large HAWT farm data. Its really a rather trivial result, rather than actually "nutty".

Its more evidence for how the various capacity limitations of wind towers can be overcome by tapping wind beyond towers with AWES. Neither Doug nor Keith managed to make that point.

The misplaced attack on Kieth is a characteristic example of "nutty" contempt for academia and the quest for scientific knowledge.
 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8725 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 3/1/2013
Subject: Re: Another Nutty Professor - should we believe him?

A good new for AWE!

 

PierreB
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8726 From: dave santos Date: 3/1/2013
Subject: Flap-Valve as Aero-Diode to Tap Vertical-Lapse of the ITCZ
One-way flap-valves for parafoil ram-air inlets are gaining in popularity (eg. HQ Hydra). There is a far larger AWES application possible for the flap-valve mechanism in large kite meshes.

Imagine a kite skin that is composed of flap-valves. It would act as a one-way gate to flow. In a turbulent wind field, the valves can sort scrambled flow into a coherent force polarity. A simple way to make a valved-skin is with a back-up mesh covered with fabric flaps on one side. The mesh supports the flaps in closed mode, and the flaps open freely when the flow reverses. A similar case is a kite with an elastic aft-bridle to comply with gusts.

A particular megascale application opportunity is to tap the Intertropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ). While its horizontal flow is often weak, its vertical instability is full of energy. A megascale tent-like dome made of an open mesh of flap-valve surfaces could self-sustain flight and aggregate wind-power. The thermals within its area would propel it upward, while the down-drafts would by-pass. The lattice must span the characteristic dimension of the turbulence cells to ensure the presence of lifting air. Note that with rising air, the greatest Drag-to-Weight ratio is favored. The lifting force is already in the flow.

This idea has slowly emerged to try to solve ITCZ AWES design challenges. Its rather grand to be able to contemplate an airborne lattice-work that thrives in a stormy vertical convection fields by the simplest of embodied logic.

CC BY NC SA 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8727 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 3/1/2013
Subject: Re: Crosswind kite power vs conventional wind turbine,vertical move

"...nor any that have no crosswind motion in operation (except for the hapless Magenn).",and also Chineese umbrella as drag yoyo system.

 

I agree:crosswind is possible according to different configurations including flygen,groundgen reel or lever or varidrogue or piston,and with large or short strokes.Crosswind motion adds lift component;kite motion from the bottom up (or vice versa) has also lift and produces traction.

 

Other thing,for all groundgen kite systems,conversion is produced by its downwind motion.So if the kite travels from bottom to top while there is a downwind motion due to conversion,the absolute position of the kite can be a little more upwind than the initial position.

 

So here is maybe a possibility for an arch like Mothra:piloting from the bottom up during power phase then sitting down _ with gravity _ by trailing edge during retrieval.

 

But "crosswind kite power" seems have some inherent (and perhaps improvable) limits.

 

I think we must have a critic eye (like Robert Creighton has for his own system) with all systems we study,before making some choices according to wanted uses.

 

 

PierreB 

 







 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8728 From: dave santos Date: 3/1/2013
Subject: Re: Hay BioGas and Kite Hybrid Progress
Bob,

Thanks for the excellent summary of bio-gasification.

My warning about explosive gas storage relates to air-contamination over extended periods. Relatively small amounts of air in a gas store render it progressively more explosive. Air tends to be drawn into neutral pressure storage of gases lighter than air, as a sort of enhanced osmosis around the lower parts of the enclosing media.

We agree that short term storage of "fresh" biogas is safe enough to be practical. I like the idea of simple more-compact hay storage as the safest longer term biofuel storage, to bridge long windless periods. A hay tarp is cheaper than a gas bag...

daveS

PS The Humphrey Pump is a cool app of biogas!
 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8729 From: dave santos Date: 3/1/2013
Subject: Groundgen Assertion Correction //Re: [AWES] Crosswind kite power v
Pierre, you wrote- "[For] all groundgen kite systems, conversion is produced by its downwind motion."

This is not true! 

A cross-wind trolley can power a ground-gen quite well, with no downwind motion required. There are endless ways to do this crosswind geometry. KiteLab has already shown many AWES groundgen methods with zero downwind motion (starting with KiteMotor1).

There is something very confused about how you are making these troubling assertions.
 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8730 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 3/1/2013
Subject: re: Groundgen Assertion Correction   //Re: [AWES] Crosswind kite po

DaveS,

 

"A cross-wind trolley can power a ground-gen quite well, with no downwind motion required."Please precise,or provide a schema. 

 "[For] all groundgen kite systems, conversion is produced by its downwind motion."YES  ,"its downwind motion" being the motion of conversion system,so the motion of the whole system,both kite and conversion,excepted the anchor.

 

A kite must move _ and with the conversion system _ to produce power.If it does not move the kite produces only traction (force),not energy or power.And the ground conversion system (reel,lever,crank,piston,what you want) allows production of energy only during global downwind motion of the whole system,with or without crosswind kite move.Note that a kite flies downwind regard to the user _ if you prefer the anchor _ so,the same for both kite and conversion system.

If you read again my precedent post you can see that the kite can be in a more upwind position due to its travel in the window of flight,in spite of the (global) downwind motion of the conversion system.So also avoiding the confusion between downwind and upwind motion within the window of flight and between downwind and upwind motion due to the two phases of conversion.

Concerning KiteLab take us the example of tripod:short strokes with (within global motion) downwind motion,upwind motion,downwind,upwind...,with probably low conversion due to...upwind (against wind)  phase with not or little depowered kite.But generally I have some difficulties to find any example of most probably efficient way of groundgen conversion.The most understandable conversion system I find within KiteLab is the flygen carrying the turbine on its line.

 

PierreB