Hello Bob,
Thank
you for your quick and useful answer. There is nothing to hide by using
PDF format. It is only the force of habit. The conventionalities
of this community are somewhat different than those I have got
accustomed to before.
Regarding
our topic, I agree with you in most cases. Being a chemist, I have a
different opinion concerning energy storage than the usual one. Today,
everybody is waiting for a breakthrough in the development of
batteries. I think this breakthrough has already been reached by
several research teams. The commercialization needs several
years, certainly. I think bateries of about 5 kWh/kg gravimetric energy
density will be available. These batteries can solve our problem of
airborn energy storage as well as the desired effective range of
electric vehicles.
I am afraid "an engineer" will be not enough
to make a correct estimate. I think it has to be a multidisciplinary
project, with contribution from experts of several professions. Every
part of a correct estimate has to be worked out by an expert of the
given trade. By the way, we already have a preliminary calculation. The
whole budget of a 20MW net output power pilot plant is about 60
MUSD/6 years, inclusive R&D work.
Since we are both
going to make our discussion public, I will post a copy of your
questions with my answers below as follows:
(Please forward it to the kite list.)
Hello Bob,
let us see your questions and my answers:
I see your deadline is long gone.
Yes, the deadline is gone, financing unsolved, - my invention became a public property.
Do you have a new business plan?
The
fundamental data of the hypothetical project did not change. The
strategy of the possible implementation has changed because of changing
patenting issues and IP protection. Formerly, I made a Viability Study,
summarizing these data and the possibilities, containing about 90
citations from the patent- and scientific literature, as well as
economic data like investment costs, time scale, payback period, the
R&D work needed for the implementation, the possible sources of
acquiring several components of the whole device, etc. The concrete
business plan (as usual) will be worked out based on these data and the
preferences of the investors or rather the future shareholders..
To find an energy difference of "several hundred times" do you start measuring at an altitude of 1cm?
Well,
this is a typical question, and on the one hand I agree that it is
right to ask it. To explain the "other hand" part, I used to tell an
example as follows. I am a chemist by profession, and I need
atomic/molecular weights for my everyday work. Of course, I know
several methods to determine these data, which are of prime importance
in chemistry, but I measured a molecular weight personally all together
once during my whole practice (in the past 40 years). I accept and
apply the data measured formerly by others without any doubt, and it
works.
This
situation is analogous to your question. Perhaps you will accept this
analogy and will not want me to start measuring at an altitude of 1cm
by my own hands. For me, the paper (at the following link: http://at.yorku.ca/c/a/s/p/15.htm) of Professor Sachs, the doyen of the German flight science is totally enough when he says that:
„It
is shown that the minimum shear wind gradient required for dynamic
soaring with modern sailplanes is of a magnitude that exists or is even
significantly exceeded in shear wind regions associated with jet
streams. ….. Thus, it is shown that the performance characteristics of
modern sailplanes are sufficient for performing dynamic soaring in the
shear wind region associated with jet streams. …. The jet streams are
continually monitored and forecasts are provided. Thus, it is well
known where they occur. Therefore, they can be easily found and
utilized." (In:
Periodic Optimal Control for Dynamic Soaring in the Shear Wind Associated with Jet Streams
by Orlando da Costa, IABG mbH, Einsteinstraße 20, D-85521 Ottobrunn, Germany, Coauthors: Gottfried Sachs
ICNPAA-2006: Mathematical Problems in Engineering and Aerospace Sciences, June 21-23, 2006
Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Budapest, Hungary )
Though
the topic of applying Dynamic Soaring for energy harvesting from
windshears, especially from Jet Streams has huge literature, and
professionals agree that it can be done by means of today’s technology,
I agree, much more data is needed. Meteorologists have a colossal work
for the next 20 years, similar to what they have accomplished in the
past 20 years. They have to measure and construct windshear maps or
rather windshear-probability maps, like they have done wind maps for
energetic use of surface winds.
So,
my answer is: NO, I am not going to start measuring at an altitude of 1
cm. But it seems that it will be done by others. Furthermore, there are
huge amounts of public meteorological data, which can be downloaded
from the net. Though the resolution of these data does not seem to be
high enough, preliminary tests of re-evaluation of these data seem to
be interesting in respect to some local possibilities of the
un-tethered technique.
Is the un-tethered format just a patent dodge?
Though
I never thought it so, you can say it is a dodge, but a very artful
one. I have to say right now I don't know and don't feel the fine sense
of the English word "dodge". But its Hungarian translation has not only
a pejorative sense but also an appreciation of creative thinking and of
the inventive solution.
Or can you suggest real advantages?
When
I was a young boy, my father (like fathers usually do) made for me
kites of several types. I always enjoyed flying these kites. But the
best thing was later having a model-glider with a rubber motor, and not
having to bother with the tether. I think that such a trivial advantage
may be very important and needs no further explanation. The advantages
depend of course on the reference. E.g. tethered flying devices are
advantageous compared to the surface ones because of the smaller
fluctuation and higher intensity of high-altitude-winds. Un-tethered
versions have at least one more advantage. Namely, they don’t have to
stay aloft around one place and wait for the wind; they can scan large
areas and find the most intensive winds.
There
are also several further advantages. Last but not least, I would like
to mention one that is probably the most important. As you know, the
(air)speed of the plane during dynamic soaring may reach many times the
wind speed gradient. The video of the following link: http://youtu.be/WaQB16ZaNI4 shows
a model plane in 45mph wind reaching a speed of 392 mph, nearly nine
times the wind speed. Looking at the energetic considerations, this
would be equivalent to a terrestrial wind power plant, with its rotors
rotating as if in a wind of 45 m/s instead of the usual 5 m/s.
Naturally, all the energy comes from the wind, so the law of the
conservation of energy is not violated. Simply put, a plane moving at a
certain speed flies through a greater amount of air in each moment than
if it was stationary. The greater amount of air means a greater amount
of energy available for extraction. So, the law of conservation of
energy is not violated and at the same time, the extraction of the same
amount of energy at a higher speed allows devices of a smaller size.
This fact is the explanation of several further very surprising
capabilities of our IFO-s.
using proven components to transfer energy?
Well,
this is the most critical problem of the idea. Prompt energy transfer
would be the best solution for forwarding energy to the ground. There
are several possibilities in principle, e.g. several kinds of
radiation, e.g. infrared or microwave radiation, lasers, etc. These are
intensivelyy researched, for military applications. If energy
harvesting and forwarding it to a ground station does not proceed in a
synchronized way, the surplus energy has to be stored onboard,
temporarily. The invention itself grants a great degree of freedom to
the user in choosing the method of energy storage. Practically any kind
of physical, chemical, electrical or other solution may be used.
Currently, huge R&D work is going on all over the world in this
topic. Since the implementation of the "IFO" - concept needs several
years of development, we have enough time to find the best one for us.
It doesn't matter which one of them wins. Each of them can be applied
in the IFO.
I
have only stayed as a member of Linkedin because it isn't as bad as
Facebook, but have never found it to be anything but a waste of time.
Do you have any theories on how it might help anyone, overall?
I
agree with your opinion regarding Linkedin and Facebook. Also, I waste
too much time with it. There is no help, I am afraid. But the contacts
are important. It is simpler to discuss a problem with a real person,
than investigating the literature, though the latter also has to be
done after the discussion. Not to mention the checking and rechecking
of each others work. (Which is what we are currently doing.) From this
point of view, personal relations have indispensable significance.
Sadly, or fortunately (whichever you prefer) there is nothing else
instead… Which is why I would appreciate you joining my network on
Likedin.
Best wishes,
Gabor Dobos
08 of Jun 2013
