Right.You confuse small AWES with big kites. Mothra is only a big kite, not an AWES.

 

PierreB

DaveS,

 

See my comments on Barnard's blog about SWP. I am surprised by your attention towards SWP after taking Airborne Wind Energy Consortium as pushing-ball. But it is a good surprise to see you abandoning Mothra to approach serious methods.So I confirm you to follow Professor Robert's helicopter-autogyro method in different aspects comprising SuperTurbine, WheelWind and others.

 

PierreB

There is no record having DaveS state as you, DougS, have declared : "has gone on record many times claiming transmission of torque by a driveshaft is not possible."  That would be a severe misrepresentation of his declarations.  

Seeing advantages and disadvantages then definiting how an AWES can be used.For it a form of description can be useful. I propose to make a form for each studied AWES, that with common tens of compartments (prototype yes or no, flygen or groundgen or other, expected scalability, maintenance, cost, reliability, piloting, wind energy aspect, aviation aspect...). Each form could be used by Rod for H2020 after approval by both DaveS and DougS.

 

PierreB  

In another topic thread, PierreB gave us a link to an essay on autogyros. Thanks, Pierre!

Hey Joe:
I'm not going to spend the time going through messages to find his exact words, because endless analysis of such statements is perhaps the most nonproductive aspect of this group.  Anyone who has read Dave S.' postings regarding SuperTurbine(R) knows very well that he consistently flags the inability of a SuperTurbine(R) driveshaft to successfully transmit torque to the ground.  Then hee endlessly states that somehow I have failed to show it can scale.  I don't care what he thinks.  Itls a waste of my time to respond to him.  Just look at the ridiculous "debates" these people have all day on here.  All it consists of is going over who said what nasty thing to whom and when.  It does not matter what Dave S., Paul Gipe, Mike Barnard, Pierre in France, or anyone say about anything here.  It's all just a bunch of noise.  The discussions with Dave S. have absolutely no significance.  It is all just a bunch of bragging and blather.  People poking each other with sticks, pretending there is a serious discussion, while discussing mostly only ridiculous scenarios.  It's bad enough to suffer years of Dave S. declaring over and over that the SuperTurbine(R) can never pan out because of an inability for the driveshaft to handle the torque, but it is that much worse to now start denying that he ever said it.

DougS, 

To avoid discussing endless make maths from www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JFXg0HYSU8 :

• Length of tether
• Diameter of rotors
• Power with one rotor
• wind speed
• knowing losses due to wind shadow
• knowing losses due to torsion according to the angle of tether...

Make also the difference between rigid and flexible shaft. After that seeing other configurations with several tethers.

 

PierreB 

Attachments :

CALL FOR COMPETITIVE LOW.docx

DaveS and RodR,

Here are two files: a pdf for "proof of concept" (intermediate deadline 2014-04-01;deadline 2014-10-01) and another for the same and for "low competitive carbon" (deadlines 2014-09-03 and 2015-03-03) taken on their website and seeming more relevant among numerous others.

By itself the work on forum is not enough to make an application. So in all cases RodR could contact universities.For "proof of concept" RodR can meet some discussed schemes to go towards tests and measures with some university. The same for  "low competitive carbon". Note that all european universities choose reel/in-out as AWE scheme: so for "proof of concept" the forum can bring more by mentioning other schemes.

 

PierreB

Sorry but waiting for my coordination works will take too long and be too sparse. I am currently away on the mainland away from my desk with my chief sponsor. Fitting shoes on kids as part of my main job of househusband.
Maybe a more likely corporate coordinator can be found

Roderick Read
15a Aiginish
Isle of Lewis
HS2 0PB
kitepowercoop.org

For H2020 we can also apply as individuals by electronic submissions, avoiding the difficult work of ccordinator.

 

PierreB

DaveS,

 

For registration H2020 online submission asks for the name of organization (Airborne Wind Energy Industry Association,if you allow it)
and its Business Registration, Number Registration, Date Registration Authority.

 

PierreB

Dear Dave,

You wrote to me:

„You will not get us very interested in "secrets", unless to share them promptly with the world. The World has enough good people to now allow for an "honor economy".

You probably remember our first correspondence. Though we also count on CC IP, FairTrade law, Moral Rights, etc., for fairness, I was very skeptic regarding your new economy. To tell the truth, I have doubts even now. But I appreciate your belief in it, and you and your fellows' aim to do something better than one can see in the world.

Well, I have no great secrets, most of them are technical trivialities. Maybe, triviality is exactly the barrier that keeps them from spreading. Just to show that I take your words seriously, let's see some trivialities regarding energy storage, IFO, liquid air, etc. Using your words, I „share them promptly with the world” . (This sounds to be too lofty for me, but I don't care it in this case.)

First of all I have to say that the role of liquid air was somewhat overexposed in this forum. Originally,  I have chosen it as an universal demonstration means but not as the best solution in all respects.  It's usefulness cannot be overexposed thinking of the totally environment friendly technology that it makes possible. Furthermore, cryotechnique is a possible route to enhance the efficiency of our thermal power plants. As it is well known, the main reason of the problems is the lack of basic materials that are resistant to the high temperature overheated water-steam, which hinders further increase of the steam-temperature. But there is also another approach. By applying liquid air, the cold heat sink temperature of the thermal power plant can be lowered significantly, in this way enhancing the Carnot-efficiency. I think it was good to call your attention to it.

On the other hand, there is an endless amount of air around the IFO, therefore it is one of the ideal choices of energy storage medium that can be used onboard.

Sadly, it possesses relatively low gravimetric energy density. But exactly this drawback is what makes it an ideal means to demonstrate the idea of forwarding energy from high altitude to the ground discontinuously, let's say 'in quanta', without any tether or pipeline.

It was/is a large surprise for me that thought I have received a lot of (mostly unfounded )  opposing opinions, there hasn't been much discussions about the real weak point of this solution, namely the weight of the air liquefaction machine. Though there are data that the NASA developed light weight air liquefaction machines for airborne applications (inerting of fuel tanks of airplanes with nitrogen) as well as for use in space. These devices are almost useful for our purpose, but they are not commercially available today. It is one of the significant developments that could be catalyzed by using my IFOs at an industrial scale. There is a good chance of solving the problem since besides using light-weight and composite materials (which are not unusual in the airplane industry), the motor-generators that are currently heavy devices can be eliminated by direct coupling the shaft of the prop to the driving shaft of the air liquefaction machine.But Joe's IFO-Kite hybrid is a feasible solution of the problem already today.

But let's go further with thinking of the possible energy storage mediums. There are large amounts of the following substances available in the air: O2, N2, H2O, CO2. And we have energy, of course. There are several compounds that can be produced onboard  the IFO using these basic materials. Some of them are as follows:

Substance   E (kWh/kg)

• Air (l)     0,11 

• CO2  (s)        0,158

• Li-batteries 0,2 - 0,3

• NH3             6,25

• CH3OH        6,3

• Graphit       9

• Li metal        12

• CH4           15,46

• H2             34,2  

You can see that some of them are of very high energy density, while their chemistry has been well known for a long time. Using them, there is a real chance of developing  IFOs that are capable of fulfilling intercontinental energy harvesting flights in the Jet Streams. It is already more then a dream. We are evaluating these possibilities. Some of the results are very promising.

Gabor (Dobos)

DaveS, PaoloM,

What do you think for two or three (or more) applications meeting several schemes and an analysis of them, but with an unity within an application. For example for the topic "proof-of-concept" the initial question could be something like "Is an AWES viable economically, and for what use?".

 

PierreB

DaveS,

 

I agree,so let us TuDelft or another european organization make the application(s) in AWE. So I do not intend to file alone upon pure AWE, but why not about Airborne Seaborne Wind Energy System ( http://wheelwind.com ) for which I give you a free ticket to join. 

 

PierreB

DaveS,

 

In your Forum players disagree about methods and no method is detailed enough to make a valid submission. So a collective submission is quite impossible and I shall not take the responsability to assume it.

 

PierreB 

I'm using a "new topic" because my computer is not allowing me to "reply" to any messages.  If I try to reply, the colored areas become lighter and no action is possible on my Yahoo screen.  My opinion of Yahoo Groups is they keep making it worse, harder to follow a thread, and it's getting impossible to use.
Companies should stop trying to "improve' things that already worked well.  We don't need a new model of simple things that already work, every few months.
For Pierre asking for hard numbers for SuperTurbine(R), I would refer you to the California Energy Commission-sponsored project:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2007publications/CEC-500-2007-111/CEC-500-2007-111.PDF
For Dave S. suggesting improvements to SuperTurbine(R), thanks, your suggestions are already in the patents, for the most part, or you may occasionally stumble across a basic idea I already thought of as a kid back in the 1970's, but at some point it gets impossible to document every thought on one's head and still get anything done.
For Joe defending Dave S. consistent driveshaft denial, driveshafts and torque-transmitting structures are what they are and Dave S.' opinion is irrelevant.  He has no authority.

I do not see any reason the McConney planes could not be successful.  I do not consider the configuration optimal, but I also do not see any reason they could not work as a wind energy system.  The problems I predict are:
1) Generator heating issues: Making a turbine more powerful for its diameter challenges the heat dissipation capabilities of the generator.
2) More power to outboard generators - they don't all see the same windspeed.
I could go on with a more detailed analysis, but I'd just be publicly solving all their problems and improviing their product online for free, and whether they would listen or not, I'd likely get no credit for improving their products. 
I'd say the biggest elephant in the room question with McConney is what exactly happened to their founder?  Also, why do they no answer their phone?  Why do they have no product for sale?  When I was a kid, people would talk about how big corporations would buy up ideas they wanted squelched, so they could put them on a shelf.  Just sayin'...
:)

DougS on the link it is the rigid horizontal version, not flexible Serpentine.

 

PierreB

Study of his patent is invited. 

Pierre:  The CEC-sponsored project was conducted for the exact reason to inform people who say the technology does not work, can not work, etc.  It put hard numbers to 7 rotors, compared to an industry-leading turbine at the time, using the same blades, at the same diameter.  The result was we got the same power using 7 rotors as 6 regular turbines using the same blades, a pretty good result showing SuperTurbine(R) does not lose that much efficiency due to rotor overlap and tilt.   What a bystander would think of as a "rigid" version or a "flexible" version is in the mind of that bystander only, as it is just a matter of driveshaft length.  What seems rigid at a short length is a noodle at a longer length.  What we tested could be thought of as a representative section of a larger version with a longer shaft.  It is a simple concept and it was comparatively easy to get the hard numbers for it.  We did not even need to liquify any air, nor fly into the jet stream.  Nonetheless, it took time and energy away from building working production models.  Be careful chasing grants and documentaries: you can waste all your enthusiasm and energy just to make a show, and then you still have to develop a product, or wait forever for a sleeping world to adopt and perfect what you have shown them.  Thanks for asking.
:)

OK I don't want to have to point out again that Dave S. states that the SuperTurbine(R) achilles heel is his imagined inability of the driveshaft to transmit torque.  Just go back a couple messages, and read it for your self.  There is no reason to discuss it anymore, or deny that he said it.  He's said it for years now, and he's is still saying it.
As stated before, my computer is not allowing a "reply", only a "new topic" today, but it hardly matters since the continuity of any thread is lost by the new sucky Yahoo format anyway.
You're right Dave S., I do not concede any point whatsoever to you, since in my opinion your conversations are based on your own fantasies and not reality, and I should not be taking the time to respond.

DougS,

 

Yes, but it is more difficult to make tethered Serpentine enough straight. In your video of flexible Serpentine, the tether-shaft is curved from the pilot-kite to the generator. The curve makes losses (how much I do not know,parameters being the angle of curve, the tension of line...). But if each rotor generates enough power (like rotor for autogyro mounted on flapping hinge) the whole shaft could be enough straight to make a rotation without too many losses. A Gyrokite flies at a low angle (30 °) perhaps due to the low efficiency of blades; but by implement several rotors _ without the body since the rotor directly makes the line rotating _ on the same line, it would be possible to have a rough idea of transmission. Another mean suggested by DaveS is a rubber band as tether, but in my opinion not for the whole shaft but only the low part.  

 

PierreB

Flexible shafts http://www.sswhite.net/ready_flex_with_casing.htm extract:"This is the maximum continuous torque (in-lb or N-m) that you will be transmitting through the shaft, will determine the diameter of the shaft required for your application."

 

 

PierreB

Hi Road,

 

http://www.sswhite.net/unidirection_metric.htm .Length seems to be 70 cm. Of course we have not measured or simulated  lenghts for SuperTurbine (roughly 70 m or more,until 700 m end even 1000 m for utility-scale). But if we make a comparison between diameters 3.2 mm and 6.2 mm, the capacity of torque is roughly 10 times for 6.2 mm. So a contrario we can deduce (?) for a length of 100X or 1000X the diameter of the rope should be something like respectively 0.6 m and 6 m for the (little) given torque of 2.6 N/m, imposing some configuration with several more external ropes like Rod studies or on some embodiments of DougS's patent. 

To DougS: all is in the patent, yes but the patent is like a composer's work, nothing until its public performance.

To DaveS: increasing mass of ST does not follow cubic law since instead a big massive rotor there are numerous smaller rotors for a lesser mass.

PierreB