Messages in AirborneWindEnergy group.                           AWES12345to12395 Page 143 of 440.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12345 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 4/4/2014
Subject: Re: AWE Encampment Changes

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12346 From: dougselsam Date: 4/5/2014
Subject: Re: AWE Encampment Changes

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12347 From: dougselsam Date: 4/5/2014
Subject: Re: Reversible Dynamics (passive and active flapping)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12348 From: dougselsam Date: 4/5/2014
Subject: Re: Reversible Dynamics (passive and active flapping)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12349 From: dougselsam Date: 4/5/2014
Subject: Re: Reversible Dynamics - not

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12350 From: dave santos Date: 4/5/2014
Subject: Re: Reversible Dynamics - not

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12351 From: Harry Valentine Date: 4/5/2014
Subject: AWE and Transportation

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12352 From: Massimo Ippolito Date: 4/5/2014
Subject: Re: Reversible Dynamics (passive and active flapping)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12353 From: dave santos Date: 4/5/2014
Subject: Re: AWE and Transportation

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12354 From: Harry Valentine Date: 4/5/2014
Subject: Re: AWE and Transportation

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12355 From: dave santos Date: 4/5/2014
Subject: Re: AWE and Transportation

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12356 From: dave santos Date: 4/5/2014
Subject: Re: AWE Encampment Changes

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12357 From: Harry Valentine Date: 4/5/2014
Subject: Re: AWE and Transportation

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12358 From: dave santos Date: 4/5/2014
Subject: Re: AWE and Transportation

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12359 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/5/2014
Subject: Transport person by breeches buoy

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12360 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/5/2014
Subject: Re: US Navy SUPSALV

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12361 From: benhaiemp Date: 4/6/2014
Subject: Re: DaveS and DougS on Open Forum

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12362 From: dougselsam Date: 4/6/2014
Subject: Re: Reversible Dynamics (passive and active flapping)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12363 From: dougselsam Date: 4/6/2014
Subject: Re: Reversible Dynamics - not

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12364 From: dave santos Date: 4/6/2014
Subject: Re: DaveS and DougS on Open Forum

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12365 From: dougselsam Date: 4/6/2014
Subject: Re: DaveS and DougS on Open Forum

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12366 From: dougselsam Date: 4/6/2014
Subject: Re: DaveS and DougS on Open Forum

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12367 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/6/2014
Subject: Re: US Navy SUPSALV | China water kiting fetches ping

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12368 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/6/2014
Subject: Tumbling, rumbling, polishing, mixing, ...

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12369 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/6/2014
Subject: Re: Tumbling, rumbling, polishing, mixing, ...

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12370 From: dave santos Date: 4/6/2014
Subject: kFarm Poster

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12371 From: benhaiemp Date: 4/6/2014
Subject: Can hydrogen make AWE economically viable?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12372 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/6/2014
Subject: AWE is already economically viable, but not in all scales or in all

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12373 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/6/2014
Subject: Re: Can hydrogen make AWE economically viable?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12374 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/6/2014
Subject: Re: Can hydrogen make AWE economically viable?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12375 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 4/6/2014
Subject: Re: AWE is already economically viable, but not in all scales or in

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12376 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 4/6/2014
Subject: Re: Can hydrogen make AWE economically viable?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12377 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/6/2014
Subject: Re: AWE is already economically viable, but not in all scales or in

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12378 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 4/7/2014
Subject: Re: AWE is already economically viable, but not in all scales or in

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12379 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/7/2014
Subject: Re: Can hydrogen make AWE economically viable? | EUS AWES

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12381 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/7/2014
Subject: Re: AWE is already economically viable, but not in all scales or in

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12382 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/7/2014
Subject: Re: Alaeros Energies

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12383 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/7/2014
Subject: Re: AWE is already economically viable, but not in all scales or in

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12384 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/7/2014
Subject: Re: Can hydrogen make AWE economically viable? | EUS AWES

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12385 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/7/2014
Subject: Re: Can hydrogen make AWE economically viable? | EUS AWES

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12386 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/7/2014
Subject: Extraction

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12387 From: Gabor Dobos Date: 4/8/2014
Subject: Re: AWE Encampment Changes

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12388 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/8/2014
Subject: Performance reports

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12389 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/8/2014
Subject: Re: Performance reports

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12390 From: dave santos Date: 4/8/2014
Subject: The AWE kWhr Race

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12391 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/8/2014
Subject: Re: Performance reports

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12392 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/8/2014
Subject: Re: Performance reports

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12393 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/8/2014
Subject: Open exercise: Work to sustain 1 kg at an altitude

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12394 From: dave santos Date: 4/8/2014
Subject: Theatre Fly System Rigging as AWES Similarity-Case

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12395 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/8/2014
Subject: Re: Open exercise: Work to sustain 1 kg at an altitude



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12345 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 4/4/2014
Subject: Re: AWE Encampment Changes
Correction of my precedent post."Its pretty clear you have not yet fed grids on such a scale either." Match between DaveS and DougS: DaveS wins the competition for "having the last word". Who wins the competition to have produced most kWh last year?


PierreB
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12346 From: dougselsam Date: 4/5/2014
Subject: Re: AWE Encampment Changes
Thank you Pierre.  Dave S. seemingly has "the last word", by refusing to ever concede a point.  Therefore, many people refuse to debate him, because they are only interested in a fair debate.  (Would you play tennis with someone who jumped over the net screaming, then ate the ball?)  He claims to have a meter to measure his power to the grid, so let me go check mine.  OK it says the turbine that came with the house has put 47,984 kiloWatt-hours into the grid.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12347 From: dougselsam Date: 4/5/2014
Subject: Re: Reversible Dynamics (passive and active flapping)
I explained how Professor Crackpot loves flapping attempts at energy capture, among the many common losing ideas in wind energy.
I explained how he is drawn to complicated drives, as in Dr. Suess or Rube Goldberg. (crank powers chain powers belt, and so on.)
I explained how Professor Crackpot is unaware if the need to use the least material to sweep the most area.
I explained how Professor Crackpot prefers reciprocating motions over steady rotation, because it allows his machines to quickly wear out and fail.
I explained how the good professor is naturally drawn to wind tunnels, to "prove" what cannot be shown in the real wind.
I explained how such use of wind tunnels is long and consistently known to force air through any drag machine, making even a Savonius post numbers that would seem to rival real wind turbines.
I explained how these invalid numbers are then publicized in press-releases.
I explained how, if one tallys the accuracy of such "press-release-science", over time, one sees that the "inventions" always fall flat and go away, never actually replacing regular turbines, despite the inaccurate claims made.
If anyone cannot see what I am talking about by now, they never will.
The only things missing at thus point (so far as we know) are the beard, bowtie, and eyeglasses in need of cleaning.  Further research might confirm those as well, if anyone has the time to dig further.
:)
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12348 From: dougselsam Date: 4/5/2014
Subject: Re: Reversible Dynamics (passive and active flapping)
I'm flattered that anyone believes the battle with the wind hinges on whether "Doug fails to understand" something, but please remember, I bring facts to the table as a mere messenger, not the author.  Therefore I deserve little credit, other than for listing here, the typical characteristics of what I lovingly call "press-release-science", or even "The Professor Crackpot Syndrome", since it IS such a well-worn syndrome:
1) using too much material, to sweep a given area, with high solidity
2) flapping motions rather than steady rotation
3) chain drives
4) belt drives
5) complicated (Rube Goldberg, or Dr. Suess-like drivelines.
6) being drawn to use a wind tunnel
7) thereby finding false data for high-solidity machines due to tunnel blockage
8) publishing the false data in press-releases claiming to outperform real turbines.
9) beard, bowtie, and dirty glasses (unconfirmed at this point)
10) they quietly go away.
:)
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12349 From: dougselsam Date: 4/5/2014
Subject: Re: Reversible Dynamics - not
Sorry for the previous redundant post - thought Yahoo had lost the first one.  The reason fluid mechanics specifically is NOT reversible, (the way solid mechanics such as billiard balls may "appear" to be, on a short timescale) has to do with entropy and "the arrow-of-time".  If fluid mechanics were reversible, a wind turbine would have the same shape "wake", both ahead of it and behind it.  Instead it has a bubble upwind, and a long trailing wake downwind.  Just stop and think about it for a moment.
Next, if flows were reversible, leading edges would be the exact same as the trailing edges (which I happen to have patented as a reversible blade, by the way, and they work, but not quite as well as a regular blade)  (Did someone say I don't know what a leading edge is???)  The reason the leading edge is rounded, and the trailing edge is tapered, is specifically and exactly because fluid mechanics are NOT reversible.  Take this experiment:  Set up your shop-vac as a blower.  See how far away from the nozzle you can feel a strong wind blowing out.  Now "reverse" the situation.  Plug the hose in on the suction side.  See how far out you can feel how much wind blowing back into the nozzle now!  It should be apparent that the situation is not reversible, as a couple feet away from the suction nozzle you will feel nothing, whereas that same couple feet away from the blowing end, you will feel a strong flow.  We're not talking about rocket science here, folks.  Well, I guess we are, but it's one of the simplest aspects of rocket science.  Suction rockets anyone?
:)
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12350 From: dave santos Date: 4/5/2014
Subject: Re: Reversible Dynamics - not
Doug,

You miss even the most obviously reversible dynamics of flow; for example, if you reverse time of an ideal laminar flow, it remains laminar, only the direction of motion flips. Far more subtle is to imagine time reversal for turbulence, but in principle a complex inflow and wake can fully or substantially time reverse. A "backwards" airfoil would work well if presented with the correct reversed wake, but this is an improbability in crude practice. One would want to account for all energy flows (like IR, say) to closely model time reversibility dynamics.

The real reason to ponder these gedanken is to liberate our AWE engineering imaginations. Reversible dynamics has been discussed on Forum before, and remain a fertile source of inventive inspiration. A biomimetic time-reversed fish tail was the inspiration for the original KiteLab soft wingmill, and the dragonfly served as a similar inspiration to Festo educators.

Reversible power or time dynamics is also important for conceptually exploring AWES that motor or generate with the same foils. This is real engineering science for you to appreciate, not complain about,

daveS




On Saturday, April 5, 2014 8:36 AM, "dougselsam@yahoo.com" <dougselsam@yahoo.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12351 From: Harry Valentine Date: 4/5/2014
Subject: AWE and Transportation
AWE technology has proven itself in maritime transportation, courtesy of companies such as Kite-ship and Sky-Sails. Their application is very compatible with ships that sail along with the trade winds.

In the maritime sector, there is great interest in reducing fuel cost . . . and wind power is a definite option.

Many decades ago on the Great Lakes, some ship owners converted steam-powered boats to schooners, so as to carry great payload . . . after removing the coal bunkers, boilers and steam engines.

At the present day, maritime moves much tonnage on the Great Lakes . . . . and diesel fuel prices have been rising. There are several wind farms located around the Great Lakes.

I've been asked to prepare a presentation on wind power propulsion on the Great Lakes . . . many boats are under 300-ft long by 50-ft wide. 

- A rail built around the bow could secure a multi-line kite that could pull from either port side, star board side or directly from the bow. In my view, securing the force generated by the kite cables, low down on the hull and close to the water would reduce the need to carry ballast . . . and also stabilize the ship

- A kite would allow the ship/boat to carry more containers that a schooner . . . . containers placed high on deck would block wind from reaching lower areas of the sails . . . . high mounted sails on extreme-height masts would be problematic

- Kites may 'fly' ahead of the boat . . . be lowered to pass under bridges at Strait of Makinac, also near Detroit.

- May be able to install VAWT's on deck . . . to drive a propeller shaft and propeller 

- Selsam's super-turbine technology mounted to a mast a possible option to drive propellers   

- May be possible to combine kite power with wind-turbine power on the boats.


Harry
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12352 From: Massimo Ippolito Date: 4/5/2014
Subject: Re: Reversible Dynamics (passive and active flapping)
Doug, I fully agree with you.

But Festo is claiming something new and quite surprising, I consider Festo a serious company and so the data exposed. And a curiosity about their finding is due.
They show a better efficency vs. a small turbines with very low winds, were a turbine produces pretty null power, the Festo setup produce the double of that pretty null power.
Then when the wind reinforce is clear that the small turbine gain efficiency over the Festo concept.

Now imagine that Festo will be able to produce and sell a very cheap and light flapping kit, they could propose, I guess, a 10W auto-orienting device with 6000h to be mounted on the rooftop, and when the wind is stronger the flapping will be limited to avoid crashes.

then their concept could evolve in a flapping flying kite, with the same idea and ratio?
Perhaps. 
M.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12353 From: dave santos Date: 4/5/2014
Subject: Re: AWE and Transportation
Harry,

Nice ship-kite application scenario, since a hypothetical operational obstacle to kite shipping is a kite fouled around the propeller shaft far out at sea, and too long wait and high expense for a tug or divers to arrive and clear. The Great Lakes would be ideal for quick shipping assistance.

It may be that a pure ship kite system beats any wind hybrid, if the kite can show superior power and affordability. Many ships would not be suited for kites at all, for many odd reasons, but the right kite niches (eg. downwind gravel barge, eco cruise ship) might be golden. The kite definitely stows better and leaves the deck clear. A simple rope bridle and pulley is the minimum gear required to attach to port and starboard rails for smaller ships.

daveS

PS For Doug; "Shunting" is a sailing term for the special form of tacking or jibing done by Proas. Rather than tack the bow, bow and stern reverse. Similarly, one can tack wingmills by the bow, or shunt them, according to the specific design.
On Saturday, April 5, 2014 9:48 AM, Harry Valentine <harrycv@hotmail.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12354 From: Harry Valentine Date: 4/5/2014
Subject: Re: AWE and Transportation
Hi Dave,


You've raised a good point about avoiding wind-propeller hybrids . . . . they do involve a loss of efficiency . . . and there is a problem matching the prop to the wind turbine. Propellers and turbines only deliver peak efficiency over a relatively narrow range of RPM and fluid flow-rate.

Of interest, there are companies converting boats into barges, to increase payload capacity . . . . a tug pushes and navigates the barge. 

Schooners did operate very successfully on the Great Lakes, until low diesel fuel prices of another era became competitive on larger boats.

There may be a learning curve adapting a boat to a kite-powered barge . . .  long boat may need steerable keel so as to co-ordinate with steerable rudder . . . . easy to tack-sail short boat through narrow channel . . . . more challenging as boat length increases.


Thanks for your input,

Harry


To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
From: santos137@yahoo.com
Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2014 10:25:31 -0700
Subject: Re: [AWES] AWE and Transportation

 

Harry,

Nice ship-kite application scenario, since a hypothetical operational obstacle to kite shipping is a kite fouled around the propeller shaft far out at sea, and too long wait and high expense for a tug or divers to arrive and clear. The Great Lakes would be ideal for quick shipping assistance.

It may be that a pure ship kite system beats any wind hybrid, if the kite can show superior power and affordability. Many ships would not be suited for kites at all, for many odd reasons, but the right kite niches (eg. downwind gravel barge, eco cruise ship) might be golden. The kite definitely stows better and leaves the deck clear. A simple rope bridle and pulley is the minimum gear required to attach to port and starboard rails for smaller ships.

daveS

PS For Doug; "Shunting" is a sailing term for the special form of tacking or jibing done by Proas. Rather than tack the bow, bow and stern reverse. Similarly, one can tack wingmills by the bow, or shunt them, according to the specific design.
On Saturday, April 5, 2014 9:48 AM, Harry Valentine <harrycv@hotmail.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12355 From: dave santos Date: 4/5/2014
Subject: Re: AWE and Transportation
Harry,

There is a misunderstanding here. All ships have screws (propellers), and I am not proposing kites are incompatible, but in fact are synergistic, since one can in principle generate aux ship power with modern diesel-electric power-plants, by towing with kites.

I was warning against combining too many diverse wind gimmicks on one ship, with possible negative synergies. For example, a classic sailing mast rig gets in the way of kite-sailing,

daveS
On Saturday, April 5, 2014 10:38 AM, Harry Valentine <harrycv@hotmail.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12356 From: dave santos Date: 4/5/2014
Subject: Re: AWE Encampment Changes
Sorry Doug, Pierre asked for evidence of kWhrs last year only, not padded by what "came with (your) house". Good luck on your next try. Doug, Pierre; Please start a new thread to conduct your contest. This topic is about the AWE Encampment.

---------------- back on topic ---------------

The flying has been fantastic for several days; strong mostly warm wind and bursting flowers. 

Flying race-kites from a ground-anchor pilot-station is a novel thrill, so much surging power at one's fingertips beyond the load limits of flesh and light vehicles. We have a new design to tap high-altitude ( mass, etc.).

On kFarm's gravel drives, we practice kite landboarding with tiny NPWs in high wind, very twitchy moderate power between crazy peak gusts. A quiver of station SLKs are flown as long as the wind is blowing. One learns to launch hobbled kites* after calm so fast and easy, even while cooking meals or talking on the phone. Often a sled seems to magically disappear when it self-relaunches unnoticed, and laughs. Light cleanup, maintenance, and repair are daily kFarm routines.

The Zapata World Record Encampment for glider sports is about to start to the South, and the aspirants will be tracking right overhead. This is the outer rim of the Bermuda High coursing north between weakening Canadian Fronts. This is one of the World's major bird migration corridors, and large vintage aircraft drone overhead musically, operating from a nearby airport. Plus kites, the sky is alive with flying things.


* Kites laying out but secured from spontaneous launch.


On Saturday, April 5, 2014 7:41 AM, "dougselsam@yahoo.com" <dougselsam@yahoo.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12357 From: Harry Valentine Date: 4/5/2014
Subject: Re: AWE and Transportation
OK Thanks

A kite-powered lake boat will use a rail around the forward section of the hull . . . . no lines across the deck. No masts on deck . . . no sails other than the kite(s)

One option is to install kite power to a barge . . . . a large kite will pull the barge, instead of having a tug push and navigate. Rudders will have to be retrofitted.

For on-board power, a kinetic turbine under the boat may be able to generate enough power for on-board power applications  


Harry

To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
From: santos137@yahoo.com
Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2014 11:08:39 -0700
Subject: Re: [AWES] AWE and Transportation

 

Harry,

There is a misunderstanding here. All ships have screws (propellers), and I am not proposing kites are incompatible, but in fact are synergistic, since one can in principle generate aux ship power with modern diesel-electric power-plants, by towing with kites.

I was warning against combining too many diverse wind gimmicks on one ship, with possible negative synergies. For example, a classic sailing mast rig gets in the way of kite-sailing,

daveS
On Saturday, April 5, 2014 10:38 AM, Harry Valentine <harrycv@hotmail.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12358 From: dave santos Date: 4/5/2014
Subject: Re: AWE and Transportation
A full rail is not strictly needed to attach kites, just a few hard-points can suffice, like bow and forward beam mooring points. A large light soft UHMPE rope at about 3 kilos per meter need not cause much trouble if periodically draped on decks or hatches. Light netting would serve to keep the bridle from snagging deck gear. 

Actuation and launching-landing operations are big issues. Austere minimalism is the KiteShip style, with more involved human sailing and standard components (like tugboat winches), and SkySails a more complex semi-automated approach, but neither dominates by available economic evidence.

Building on your suggestion, an outboard water turbine, turbine towboat, kite tugboat, or similar add-on AWES components can integrate with kite traction to complete a hybrid ship conversion.

We have guessed before that the propulsion screws of modern diesel-electric shipping would generate a low reverse voltage if towed by kite, and that this could provide aux power, to allow full engine shut down. A boat can be retrofitted with better screws for dual use (akin to Makani's dual-mode symmetrical rotor blade foils).
On Saturday, April 5, 2014 5:11 PM, Harry Valentine <harrycv@hotmail.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12359 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/5/2014
Subject: Transport person by breeches buoy
Similar: Move persons and goods from one kite system to another kite system. Consider relays of various sorts.  
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12360 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/5/2014
Subject: Re: US Navy SUPSALV
http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/AI-CH620_SEARCH_G_20140328082709.jpg 
Graphic of the ping-locator underwater kite operations ...
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12361 From: benhaiemp Date: 4/6/2014
Subject: Re: DaveS and DougS on Open Forum

The opposition between DaveS and DougS exists for years. DaveS wrote "Pierre asked for evidence of kWhrs last year only..". Can DaveS and DougS bring report of their production in electricity with their respective machines (for DaveS Mothra and other tried AWES, for DougS flexible Serpentine) year after year:2013, 2014?

PierreB 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12362 From: dougselsam Date: 4/6/2014
Subject: Re: Reversible Dynamics (passive and active flapping)
Key phrase: "is claiming".  This is newbie talk.  Cramming a high-solidity turbine into a wind tunnel can get you any false numbers you want.  All press-release-breakthrough turbines claim "better low wind performance", instant evidence that they don't even know what wind speed range to target.  Low winds are well-known and long-proven to be not worth chasing due to lack of power content.  All such non-solutions inevitably claime bird-friendliness as well.  Heard that excuse 100 times.  The key to wind power is low material usage per unit swept area and steady-state crosswind motion.  These facts are so apparent to anyone practicing wind energy that they do not even merit comment.  The Festo machine is irrelevant and, to real wind people, actually not even worthy of comment.  It is a joke.  Have fun!
:)
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12363 From: dougselsam Date: 4/6/2014
Subject: Re: Reversible Dynamics - not
Obviously, you are incapable of conceding a point, incapable of engaging in the endless debates you seem to try to create.  Unbelievably, virtually everything you say is wrong.  You give me no credit for taking the time to unequivocally correct your erroneous statements, and instead go on embellishing your defense of the most ridiculous and uninformed ideas, by adding more ridiculous and uninformed ideas.  The worse and more disproven any notion is, the more vehemently you defend it.  Most such uncurable newbies advocating bad technology have a single pet theory that they will defend to the death regardless of any fact.  In your case, you endlessly defend ANY and ALL bad ideas.  I've never seen anything quite like it.  Great entertainment, but what a waste of time.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12364 From: dave santos Date: 4/6/2014
Subject: Re: DaveS and DougS on Open Forum

Pierre,

Focus on adding knowledge, rather than creating distraction.

The AWE story is not about you goading Doug to claim backyard wind turbines somehow count as AWE, nor that small-scale AWES prototypes should only be rated by raw production, rather than by the many design ideas they explore (like safety, cost, handling, etc).

Wait until a professional test engineering fly-off process provides meaningful data between contending architectures. Note that the WheelWind is the least ready of any concept for serious testing, and this topic of yours is consistent with such lack of preparation,

daveS

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android


From: pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr <pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr To: <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com Subject: [AWES] Re: DaveS and DougS on Open Forum
Sent: Sun, Apr 6, 2014 8:01:26 AM

 

The opposition between DaveS and DougS exists for years. DaveS wrote "Pierre asked for evidence of kWhrs last year only..". Can DaveS and DougS bring report of their production in electricity with their respective machines (for DaveS Mothra and other tried AWES, for DougS flexible Serpentine) year after year:2013, 2014?

PierreB 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12365 From: dougselsam Date: 4/6/2014
Subject: Re: DaveS and DougS on Open Forum
A watered-down SuperTwin(R), mounted on a van outside at a mere 12-dfoot height, runs through an inverter that shows 929 kWh.  Its been running continuously for a long time, through major storms, with no issues, which is difficult to achieve, but with this model, it is now routine at the most punishing sites we could find.  I'm not sure what time period that reflects, whether the inverter has reset, etc.  I should keep better track of the numbers, but when it's windy and you can see many kilowatts being produced, and the electric bill for the whole year is from zero to 300 bucks, I don't worry, because I know we're pretty much covering our useage.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12366 From: dougselsam Date: 4/6/2014
Subject: Re: DaveS and DougS on Open Forum
Yeah Pierre, wait for that professional fly-off.  Hold you breath, K?  Or that AWE-powered rock festival.  Wait for any fantasy nonsense.  After all, nobody could ever measure power output without some improbable staged event that is not going to happen, right?  The claims of workability are false as are the claims of upcoming events to prove those false numbers.  People need to actually get things working, then show output.  None of it is dependent on future proposed events that are unlikely to even take place as promised.  When is the big AWE-powered concert again?
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12367 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/6/2014
Subject: Re: US Navy SUPSALV | China water kiting fetches ping
China has stated their device has picked up a ping; design of their device has not been found yet; anyone?
  The Chinese search ship Haixun 01 operated a detector. Source of ping has not been confirmed. 
Is the Chinese device also a water-kited sensor or not?
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12368 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/6/2014
Subject: Tumbling, rumbling, polishing, mixing, ...
Replacing work done by electricity is one part of the cause for this topic. New opportunities is another. . If fossil electricity is being used for a certain work, and if that work may be done well by use of kite systems operating, then perhaps some dent may be made to the better. 
This topic thread is invited to focus on "tumbling" by kite system use. Have a tumbler and place materials in the tumbler.  Have the kite system rotate the tumble.  Some of this is review, but some new. Gather and unfold the old and new. Draw from prior kite applications and bring such to advance tumbling solutions. 
    Many operations may benefit from slow or fast tumbling; there may be no need for rectifying the speeds of tumbling. Tumble by direct mechanical means without involving electrical circuits, electric motors, etc. 
Notice that tumbling may be done aloft or at the ground or both. 
     Identification of operations that are currently using fossil electricity for tumbling would be part of this topic. Identifying remote opportunities for tumbling where human and animal power are used for tumbling and where electricity may be scarce or expensive, etc., would be part of the tumbling sector for AWES. 
     There are tumbling tasks that could wait for the wind. No hurry, perhaps.     And some tumbling may be combined with other AWES work targets. 
CC BY NC SA,  kPower, April 6, 2014

Start: 
1. Tumble wet clothing aloft for drying the clothing. Or textiles. Fluff dry using natural airs. 
2. Tumble scrap glass until fine sand is made. Use the product for new melts, bricking, additives for other products, etc. 
3. Tumble select stones for making smooth gem treasures. 
4. Tumble to mix chemicals. 
5. Tumble to make food items.
6. Tumble to deburr machined parts. 
7. Tumble to give amusement ride or to spur exercise. 
8. Tumble office papers until the identification of message is totally removed. Use the fibers to make kite cover papers. 
9. Tumble larger rocks to get small rocks. 
10. Tumble ingredients for cement works. 
11. Tumble coins or other items using sized meshes to sort sizes of the things. 
12. 
13. 
14. 
Etc. 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12369 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/6/2014
Subject: Re: Tumbling, rumbling, polishing, mixing, ...
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12370 From: dave santos Date: 4/6/2014
Subject: kFarm Poster
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12371 From: benhaiemp Date: 4/6/2014
Subject: Can hydrogen make AWE economically viable?

One major problem for pure AWE is the huge space required due to the low angle of tether and on all wind directions. Even above seas AWE can prevent some activities like fishing for safety requirements. So safety requirements could be the same with the use of hydrogen.  A long use offshore would allow some means to make it in a reliable way.Produced electricity is converted in hydrogen with automated systems to invent or apply. Possible applications of hydrogen for almost AWE schemes comprising inflatable wings flying crosswind, gyrocopter, Superturbine(ST) with aerostat in the top, FlygenKite with an inflatable wing... With a low cost hydrogen would allow a tether close to verticale line allowing a far lesser space/land used.Hervé Kuhlmann, technical director of Dirisoft for search in dirigibles says (reverso's traduction form French):""It will be inflated in the helium, but propelled by electric engines fed by four fuel cells with hydrogen. It is true that the presence of hydrogen on board can call back of bad memory, the accident of Hindenburg in 1937. But it is nevertheless the ideal gas to inflate balloons, and  it will stand out one day."

PierreB                       

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12372 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/6/2014
Subject: AWE is already economically viable, but not in all scales or in all
AWE is already economically viable, but not in all scales or in all sectors. Examples have been given in forum for study; more can be given.  
The future will see more sectors at more of the ten scales become economically viable. 
The most simple pure AWE has been economically viable in some scales in some sectors for thousands of years.  Any particular scale of AWE or any particular sector of AWE or any particular application of tethered energy-conversion kite system might not be economically viable relative to particular markets; defining just what scale and market and application would be important to set the scene for a qualified discussion. What is in focus for one researcher/developer might not be the what is in focus for another researcher/developer. Blocking out sectors and scales of AWE while calling one's idiosyncratic sector and scale as the "pure" of AWE won't sit well for the large picture.  It is fine for someone to concentrate on a chosen scale and sector or even on a particular system bounded by specifications or parameters, but such concentration does not dictate the merits of non-chosen sectors of AWE ro scales of AWE.   "Pure" is probably a poor term; better might be to define carefully the bounds of something in focus; define scale, method, market, application, etc., and then see about the economical viability status of THAT defined space. 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12373 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/6/2014
Subject: Re: Can hydrogen make AWE economically viable?
Pierre, 
1. Some "pure" sectors and scales of AWE are already economically viable. {"pure" is not well defined).
2. My vote is that hydrogen in many ways will increase play in AWE. 
== Every-up AWES
== Aloft generation of hydrogen
== Hydrogen as product of some AWES.  Move the hydrogen to use points. 

~ JoeF
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12374 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/6/2014
Subject: Re: Can hydrogen make AWE economically viable?
Typo correction to : "Ever-up AWES"  for AWES that stay up when wind is calm: 
1 HTA Ever-up AWES
2. LTA Ever-up AWES
3. Complex AWES that combine LTA wings and HTA wings in one system to achieve "ever-up" or less status. 

Thanks, 
 ~ JoeF
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12375 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 4/6/2014
Subject: Re: AWE is already economically viable, but not in all scales or in

Pure or tethered AWE.

 

PierreB

 






 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12376 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 4/6/2014
Subject: Re: Can hydrogen make AWE economically viable?

JoeF,

 

In my post, "pure" = "tethered". And the sector is the sector mainly discussed in AWE:electricity production in utility-scale.

 

PierreB
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12377 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/6/2014
Subject: Re: AWE is already economically viable, but not in all scales or in

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12378 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 4/7/2014
Subject: Re: AWE is already economically viable, but not in all scales or in

JoeF,

 

Pure AWE by my expression is a way to define tethered AWE. For example flexible Serpentine is within AWE, the same with a rigid shaft , and also ASWES are semi-AWES. So pure AWE is AWE without any rigid structure, no more, not less. 

On my post I try to analyze if and for what reason hydrogen can make AWE economically viable. I think it is not productive to mask this analysis by writing "What is in focus for one researcher/developer might not be the what is in focus for another researcher/developer. Blocking out sectors and scales of AWE while calling one's idiosyncratic sector and scale as the "pure" of AWE won't sit well for the large picture." Or you should exprime the same argument face to daily DaveS's"Giga-scale" obviously referring in potentially electrical production in utility-scale, as almost posts comprising mine about hydrogen.Does the daily allusion in "Giga-scale" block "out sectors and scales..."?

The basic problem is not to imagine all the possible AWE with endless enumerations,but to try knowing what are raised problems in utility-scale electric production (is it necessary to specify it every time?) then trying to find solutions (lesser space used,reliability,efficiency,maintenance...). The reintroduction of the hydrogen can be a possibility to discuss.

 

PierreB 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12379 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/7/2014
Subject: Re: Can hydrogen make AWE economically viable? | EUS AWES
Tethered e-utility-scale (EUS) AWES and hydrogen: 
1. Hydrogen used for LTA wings 
2. Hydrogen as the product of generation following electricity production.

For "1." aloft generation of hydrogen for recharging near ever-up wings has been described. Effective use of such tactic has yet to occur for EUS AWES. Advanced materials will tend to invite development of this technology.  A goal of 24/7/365-20 years of EUS AWES using ever-up hydrogen-LTA holders of e-turbines forms one vision direction. The other is groundgen of electricity from LTA hydrogen-using wings in various AWES methods: Yo-yo, cross-winding carting or pulley-gen, or fan-belt drive from rotors lifted. 
For "2:" we have many describers with grand EUS schemes, some in patents. 

Testing both sectors at small prototype scale might be occurring in some stealth teams.
Up for anyone: sport-scale prototyping and testing. 

~ JoeF
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12381 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/7/2014
Subject: Re: AWE is already economically viable, but not in all scales or in

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12382 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/7/2014
Subject: Re: Alaeros Energies
Altaeros set to break world record with 1,000 foot-high floating wind turbine
 By Loz Blain                         Published:  April 6, 2014
500 ft AGL.  Aiming for 1000 ft AGL?
 
[[A member of this forum wanted to "let" them have the record, 
despite wind turbines having operated much higher, even under tether  to generate electricity in other teams.   The Altaeros public relations might get distance by just :letting" authors celebrate with headlines that are fact fuzzy. One direction: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tethered_Aerostat_Radar_System      If humans already have wind turbines at 15,000 ft AGL or more, then it seems off to ignore such facts. Patents have long described the simple: sending energy down from turbines operated on kite balloons. It would seem that MIT academics would want to keep away from fuzzy facts in headlines. ]]
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12383 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/7/2014
Subject: Re: AWE is already economically viable, but not in all scales or in
Tethered Balloon Handbook (revised), 1968, Goodyear Aerospace Corporation
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12384 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/7/2014
Subject: Re: Can hydrogen make AWE economically viable? | EUS AWES
From the 1968 Goodyear report on tethered balloons: 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12385 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/7/2014
Subject: Re: Can hydrogen make AWE economically viable? | EUS AWES
Then between the two world wars: motorized kite balloons: 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12386 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/7/2014
Subject: Extraction
http://www.energykitesystems.net/Extraction/index.html
Other notes on topic will always be welcome. 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12387 From: Gabor Dobos Date: 4/8/2014
Subject: Re: AWE Encampment Changes
PierreB,

You want to know who the champion is in the race of kWh-s and not that of watts. But both are informative.

Many kWh-s can be produced by means of a small equipment over a long time. In this case, it is the measure of reliability. (Or perhaps the free time of the owner...) Or the same can be produced by means of a promising but unstable large equipment in a short time.

I am also curious about DaveS' and Doug's results, but not just theirs. I would much appreciate knowing who is the absolute winner of this race or both races today.

JoeF,
perhaps you can help me?
 
Thanks,

Gabor
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12388 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/8/2014
Subject: Performance reports
Any AWES team in the world is invited to post their systems' performance in this ongoing topic thread. Watts, and  kWh ?  Describe system and measuring tactic.   Thanks to each reporting team.  Thanks to Gabor for the nudge that started this focused topic thread.  Notice that traction posits power performance no less than production of electricity or performance of other works. Kites pulling a ship is no second-class system citizen in AWEville. SkySails Marine is an equivalent player here and probably form the winner for kWh that Gabor just asked about, but maybe not the winner of W (did the Mothra sand-toss launch give a W peak that wins on the W meter?).    
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12389 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/8/2014
Subject: Re: Performance reports
AWE Teams, on the kWh reporting, please state the time period for the accumulation; day, week, month, year. Thanks.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12390 From: dave santos Date: 4/8/2014
Subject: The AWE kWhr Race
Gabor wrote: "I would much appreciate knowing who is the absolute winner of this race or both races today. "


"Today" is premature, in the sense that the best engineers are testing prototype AWES systematically for general performance like safety and reliability, much as airliners are diligently tested without passengers. No one has been impractical enough to seek or claim cumulative AWE generation records. The data is naturally almost non-existent. This is a horse race about to start.

What can be vaguely supposed is that SkySails is the leader in non-electrical AWE watts to date, and KitEnergy, TUDelft, and EnerKite are close rivals in electrical output to date. Most certain is that Doug's claimed kWhrs are not AWE.

Open-AWE is on-track to be a competitive player as a kWhr Race heats up in the next few years, but our test-engineering concerns are properly far broader than a simplistic wattage contest. Of expert-interest is who will soonest earn FAA airworthiness certification, which may predict who takes the early AWE Market kWhr lead.

--------------------------

Note that an industry-wide or Doug-specific AWE kWhr race is a separate subject that Pierre carelessly initiated on an AWE Encampment thread. Please respect message subject lines.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12391 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/8/2014
Subject: Re: Performance reports
Also, when reporting W, please consider describing the duration of the occurrence; was the W a simple peak or are you reporting a handsome W that was sustained for what duration?   A singularity peak W could be that which destroyed a system momentarily; but a W that was sustained for a significant duration without system destruction would be informative.   We have interest in both destructive and non-destructive power performance occurrences.   Thanks.    
    Notice that if a system lifts one pound from ground to 500 ft AGL in a certain time, then one may calculate the work done by the system in that time and thus have figures to calculate the watts for the event.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_(physics) Note that the wiki on work uses "W" for work which is not the same as the unit symbol for watts in W.   Context could keep things clear. 
~ JoeF
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12392 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/8/2014
Subject: Re: Performance reports
This topic recognizes the comments made by DaveS in a different topic: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/AirborneWindEnergy/conversations/messages/12390
He seems to agreed that the SkySails Marine traction events hold the best kWh accumulation; but we do not have the time period for an accumulation by SkySails.    
     Electricity may be produced by water turbines integrated with ship hulls driven by tracting kited wing sets. Anyone doing such yet? 
     Electricity sector, lifting sector, tracting sector ....  perhaps when enough reports are posted, summaries in each sector could be made for W and kWh .    And the historical growth of a particular system will be interesting for W and kWh.   And we will care for peak W  as well as non-destructive sustained W. 
~ JoeF
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12393 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/8/2014
Subject: Open exercise: Work to sustain 1 kg at an altitude
Neglecting the wing set's mass and drag and just looking at additional "payload" for the problem: 
A kite system maintains the lifting of a 1 kg payload at a constant altitude during a constant wind for one hour duration. Assume absolute steadiness of that constant altitude. Assume the "payload" mass is hidden in the wing-set forms so we can assume no additional parasitic drag for the payload. How much work is done for the payload's altitude-keeping sake in that hour?  We do not face the work to get the 1 kg payload to the altitude; rather, we face only an hour of keeping that 1 kg mass payload sustained at the one constant altitude. Assume the altitude in focus is 500 ft above sea level at the earth's equator. Assume the wind is steady at 5 m/s at the wing set.  Then what is the peak W (watts) and then the kWh  for that hour for the bounded concern?
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12394 From: dave santos Date: 4/8/2014
Subject: Theatre Fly System Rigging as AWES Similarity-Case
We have found tremendous inspiration for AWES design in well-developed engineering domains like aerospace, sailing, fishing, mining, and climbing, and continue to discover useful similarity-cases. We get data on human-factors, economics, detail-engineering, and other critical issues.

Theatrical rigging is an amazing trove of prior art suggestive of how a Low-Complexity* kite farm with a large varied quiver of kites and rigs might operate year-round in almost all conditions, rather dramatically, much as a Fly System-



Hint- Consider the theatre-derivative conceptual AWES as an upside-down Fly System.


* Low Complexity AWE defined as "rag-and-string", plus a few basic fittings. The paradox is that these simple means can nevertheless be aggregated into fairly complex kite systems.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 12395 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/8/2014
Subject: Re: Open exercise: Work to sustain 1 kg at an altitude
Is the L/D of the wing set needed to solve the question?   

~ JoeF