Messages in AirborneWindEnergy group.                           AWES15098to15147 Page 197 of 440.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15098 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 10/4/2014
Subject: Re: What is easy and what is hard in AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15099 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/4/2014
Subject: Re: TT :: Torque Tether AWES Family

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15100 From: dave santos Date: 10/4/2014
Subject: Re: What is easy and what is hard in AWE [1 Attachment]

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15101 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 10/4/2014
Subject: Re: What is easy and what is hard in AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15102 From: dave santos Date: 10/4/2014
Subject: Re: What is easy and what is hard in AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15103 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 10/4/2014
Subject: Re: What is easy and what is hard in AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15104 From: Joe Faust Date: 10/4/2014
Subject: Re: What is easy and what is hard in AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15105 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 10/4/2014
Subject: Re: What is easy and what is hard in AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15106 From: dave santos Date: 10/4/2014
Subject: Re: What is easy and what is hard in AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15107 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/4/2014
Subject: Re: What is easy and what is hard in AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15108 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 10/4/2014
Subject: Re: What is easy and what is hard in AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15109 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 10/4/2014
Subject: Re: What is easy and what is hard in AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15110 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/4/2014
Subject: Re: What is easy and what is hard in AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15111 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/4/2014
Subject: Re: What is easy and what is hard in AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15112 From: Joe Faust Date: 10/4/2014
Subject: Re: What is easy and what is hard in AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15113 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/4/2014
Subject: Re: What is easy and what is hard in AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15114 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 10/4/2014
Subject: Re: What is easy and what is hard in AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15115 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 10/4/2014
Subject: Re: What is easy and what is hard in AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15116 From: dave santos Date: 10/4/2014
Subject: Re: What is easy and what is hard in AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15117 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 10/4/2014
Subject: Re: What is easy and what is hard in AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15118 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 10/4/2014
Subject: Re: What is easy and what is hard in AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15119 From: dave santos Date: 10/4/2014
Subject: Re: What is easy and what is hard in AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15120 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 10/4/2014
Subject: Re: What is easy and what is hard in AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15121 From: dave santos Date: 10/4/2014
Subject: Re: What is easy and what is hard in AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15122 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 10/4/2014
Subject: Re: What is easy and what is hard in AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15123 From: dave santos Date: 10/4/2014
Subject: Looping Parafoil FlyGen

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15124 From: dave santos Date: 10/4/2014
Subject: Re: What is easy and what is hard in AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15125 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 10/4/2014
Subject: Re: What is easy and what is hard in AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15126 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/5/2014
Subject: Re: TT :: Torque Tether AWES Family

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15127 From: Joe Faust Date: 10/5/2014
Subject: Fwd: Tune In to Watch How History Was Made

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15128 From: dave santos Date: 10/5/2014
Subject: Re: What is easy and what is hard in AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15129 From: dave santos Date: 10/5/2014
Subject: Driving the Largest Generators with AWE (GW scale concepts)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15130 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 10/5/2014
Subject: Re: What is easy and what is hard in AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15131 From: dave santos Date: 10/5/2014
Subject: NASA UAS Airspace Integration (update)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15132 From: dave santos Date: 10/5/2014
Subject: Re: What is easy and what is hard in AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15133 From: dave santos Date: 10/5/2014
Subject: Geared Stages to Harmonize ST Rotors to Wind Gradient

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15134 From: Rod Read Date: 10/5/2014
Subject: multiple blade hosting arrangement advantage on fixed position

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15135 From: Rod Read Date: 10/5/2014
Subject: Re: Geared Stages to Harmonize ST Rotors to Wind Gradient

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15136 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 10/5/2014
Subject: Re: What is easy and what is hard in AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15137 From: dave santos Date: 10/5/2014
Subject: Re: Geared Stages to Harmonize ST Rotors to Wind Gradient

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15138 From: dave santos Date: 10/5/2014
Subject: Re: What is easy and what is hard in AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15139 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/5/2014
Subject: Re: Driving the Largest Generators with AWE (GW scale concepts)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15140 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/5/2014
Subject: Re: Geared Stages to Harmonize ST Rotors to Wind Gradient

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15141 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/5/2014
Subject: Re: Geared Stages to Harmonize ST Rotors to Wind Gradient

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15142 From: dave santos Date: 10/5/2014
Subject: Re: Geared Stages to Harmonize ST Rotors to Wind Gradient

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15143 From: Rod Read Date: 10/5/2014
Subject: Re: Geared Stages to Harmonize ST Rotors to Wind Gradient

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15144 From: dougselsam Date: 10/6/2014
Subject: Re: 10 easy ways to do AWE: - Done talking to Dave S.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15145 From: dave santos Date: 10/6/2014
Subject: Re: Geared Stages to Harmonize ST Rotors to Wind Gradient

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15146 From: dougselsam Date: 10/6/2014
Subject: Re: What is easy and what is hard in AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15147 From: dave santos Date: 10/6/2014
Subject: Re: 10 easy ways to do AWE: - Done talking to Dave S.



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15098 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 10/4/2014
Subject: Re: What is easy and what is hard in AWE

I join a rough schema of ST embedded. Consider ST is more interesting with small numerous rotors (less material) . So kites are implemented to hold the first rotor of one set, to hold the end of axis of precedent set, and to separate ST avoiding touching each other. Each kite has a generator working also as motor during take-off. In the end the torque works for limited lengths while the whole length can be very large.

PierreB

http://flygenkite.com

   @@attachment@@
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15099 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/4/2014
Subject: Re: TT :: Torque Tether AWES Family
Single low-diameter rope or cable for torque transfer of aloft rotational 

energy? Several teams have explored the small-diameter tether for torque-

tether (TT) transfer of aloft-initiated torque to ground driving of electric 

generator. We have also the review of the Selsam video that Pierre again 

posted.  Another video we have years ago viewed of a team that did 

similarly.  Indeed most recreational kite flyers know about tethers gaining in 

twist which twist leads to line storage challenge, twisted-up bridles, hockels, 

etc.  The realization that torque may be in a tether is not new; putting that 

torque to use to drive ground electric generators is in public domain. 
But some discussion seem to neglect that torque tethers may come in other 

than a single line; that is we may have a torque tether set that forms an 

near-ethereal torque tube that forms the global tether of a kite system; we 

advance to two lines for control of a stunt kite; those two lines acting as a 

torque tube has been experienced by kite pilots; add spreaders of different 

sorts into the two-line torque tube and somewhat prevent some early 

collapse to what amounts to places of single-twisted-line torque tube  which 

loses most of the leverage held when spreaders keep the wider two-line 

torque tube going. 
    Well, add spreaders in a two-line torque tube that lift and drag, say like in 

a centipede kite system; the tension in the two-line torque tube grows from 

topside realms to the lowerside realms of the centipede kite system; the 

higher tension and the segment spreader wings tend to delay the centipede 

from getting into twists that collapse the wider torque tube.    Now consider 

having a centipede train kite of four tethers that seat at the perimeter of  

rotor segments; the resultant torque tube consists of four spread tethers 

kept spread by the rotor assembly. Such follows the teachings of 1990 

Harburg; the gross centipede becomes a rotating torque tube that has a 

diameter of the rotors; the upper hold to lifter kite subassembly is a swivel 

that permits the torque tube to rotate and drive a ground-stationed arm set 

that drive the shaft of an electric generator.  Selsam later rehearsed such 

rotor-spreaders in a sparse wide torque tube (aside from his "driveshaft") 

where the "driveshaft" was not present; what was not nomenclatured by 

Selsam was that his set of tethers kept spread by various types of rotor 

segments was still a torque tube, albeit a tether torque tube, which 

mechanically was still a driveshaft, but of a variety of driveshaft different 

from a solid pipe or rod or tight cable. All such was essentially illustrating art 

taught in Harburg. 
    The huge KiteGen Carousel essentially forms a huge-diameter tether 

torque tube that drives arms on the ground that drive the central tight shaft 

of an electric generator; essentially such is simply a variety of the Harburg 

sparse torque tube, but with spreaders being the long arms only at the 

ground.  We have inverse similarity cases in entertainment joy riding 

machines where the arms of a carousel are driven and hung kited people-

holder cars are swung about in a circle; pier amusement parks feature such 

rides. Early aviation used some of these things to test aircraft designs. Swing 

in a circle an airfoil to get apparent wind.  The set of hung tethers form the 

surface of a near-ethereal torque tube.  Simple reversal gives an AWES family 

of TT AWES. 

Explore large-diameter sparse-line torque tube tether sets. Consider a 10 m diater sparse-line TT using spreaders that are rotors. Let such TT rotored centipede drive the ground arms that drive an electric generator or grain grinder.  Harburg was not the first, but a strong teacher of such rotating TT centipedes or segmented dragons; Selsam later taught similarly; Massimo Ippolito in the Carousel was wider armed and kept the the torque tube spread by use of the controlled kited carouseled wings, etc.   How effective can large-diamter TTT be? Tether Torque Tubes made of sparse lines? How key will be the long levers driven by rotors that kept the spread diamter of the sparse torque tubes?   Built, test, observe, wonder, compare; report challenges and collapses.   Keep the tension in those TT lines, perhaps by robust pilot lifter trains that gain stability and traction by aggregate means. 

As Pierre extended: 
Lift, Drag, and Rotate. 
But perhaps: 
Lift, Rotate, Drag, Torque, Turn the GroundGen Shaft, 
~ JoeF
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15100 From: dave santos Date: 10/4/2014
Subject: Re: What is easy and what is hard in AWE [1 Attachment]
Pierre,

Good example. The easy part was doing a drawing.

The hard part is eliminating the many known defects identified with large-scale drive-shafts;, rotors in different wind speeds on the same shaft, off-axis rotors, rotating not just a simplekite arch but a pair of  shafts and groundgens, and so on. Kite arches aloft will either tend to pull the STs together, if too flat, or will  tend to rub against the shaft by vertical ears pushing out. Most of the best frontal wind bypasses the turbines as you drew them, Paired STs mean double some failure mode rates. This odd concept beats all other AWES ideas only if torque really is the better transmission than conductors, rope-driving, or rope-pumping (Gordon proven wrong).

Good luck solving what is hard in AWE,

daveS




On Saturday, October 4, 2014 12:02 PM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15101 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 10/4/2014
Subject: Re: What is easy and what is hard in AWE


"...rotors in different wind speeds on the same shaft" . In my description the shaft is segmented from kite to next kite.
Bypassing involves a distance between each set of turbines, as I indicated."The easy part was doing a drawing." : yet easier part
is criticizing.

PierreB

http://flygenkite.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15102 From: dave santos Date: 10/4/2014
Subject: Re: What is easy and what is hard in AWE
Agreed, its far easier for me to criticize a crude ST drawing for lacking specific solutions, than it will be for you to include the solutions.

So you now propose gearboxes along an ST shaft to remove just one defect so easily identified. Notice that increased cost, weight, and complexity will only grow harder in honestly addressing the critiques.

Keep going then, and address all easy ST criticisms, which are so hard to solve no one has seriously ever attempted it yet.


On Saturday, October 4, 2014 1:03 PM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15103 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 10/4/2014
Subject: Re: What is easy and what is hard in AWE

DaveS,

"So you now propose gearboxes along an ST shaft to remove just one defect so easily identified. " Where do you see a gearbox? Perhaps in your pocket? I do not propose any gearbox. So criticizing seems yet too difficult for you.

 

PierreB

http://flygenkite.com

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15104 From: Joe Faust Date: 10/4/2014
Subject: Re: What is easy and what is hard in AWE
I am not sure, is this correct: Pierre is modifying to have flygen-helicopter in a modified ST while dropping the torque tube ST basis. Is that correct, Pierre?  If so, then DaveS' critiques on ST might be having target that is not the Pierre modification.       ???
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15105 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 10/4/2014
Subject: Re: What is easy and what is hard in AWE

 "I am not sure, is this correct: Pierre is modifying to have flygen-helicopter in a modified ST..."

Yes Joe. The axis is segmented, allowing a higher length. In each stage is a kite comprising the first embedded turbine (with generator-motor) from the upper group of turbines while it holds the end of the axis of the lower group. Also some possibility for kites big enough to hold several ST avoiding touching each other, but with possible problems. 

 

PierreB

http://flygenkite.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15106 From: dave santos Date: 10/4/2014
Subject: Re: What is easy and what is hard in AWE
The same critique of hard problems of added mass, cost, and complexity apply to flygens instead of airborne gearboxes to reconcile different rotation rates, plus added problems conducting the electricity down, which Pierre did not show. He seems to enjoy mocking that no one can critique all he omits by engineering incapacity. Pierre's ST belief faces a tough time if others critique well enough to show real problems, despite his low personal opinion of their abilities. After-all, it does not take an AE PhD to list major problems with this scheme. Even Doug has not pronounced it "easy". Pierre must work hard to validate this difficult concept, but its not at all likely he will.


On Saturday, October 4, 2014 1:38 PM, "Joe Faust joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15107 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/4/2014
Subject: Re: What is easy and what is hard in AWE
Pierre's mod had 
"Each kite has a generator working also as motor during take-off."
Such modification into a powered helicopter for take-off results in a non-ST. And that mod seems to produce a flygen which again is a non-ST.  
~ JoeF
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15108 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 10/4/2014
Subject: Re: What is easy and what is hard in AWE

"If so, then DaveS' critiques on ST might be having target that is not the Pierre modification.       ???"

No Joe,

DaveS wrote "So you now propose gearboxes along an ST shaft to remove just one defect so easily identified. Notice that increased cost, weight, and complexity will only grow harder in honestly addressing the critiques." , so making criticizing on my proposition about a non existing gearbox.

 

PierreB,

http://flygenkite.com

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15109 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 10/4/2014
Subject: Re: What is easy and what is hard in AWE

So for DaveS gearbox = flygen.

PierreB

http://flygenkite.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15110 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/4/2014
Subject: Re: What is easy and what is hard in AWE
OK, if I hear you rightly now, then you are taking ST as units topped by a specialized motor-generator wing; the motor-generator wing gathers the torque of a ST unit (which unit may consist of several rotors on a driveshaft) and generates electricity.  All that comprises one ModST which itself becomes a new unit for training to like units vertically and then also fencing laterally.  The global AWES then is made up trains which cars a swivel-separate flygen modST; such trains may integrate side by side with similar trains to form a huge lateral fence.  The electricity of each modST flygen is then sent to ground grid.  The system avoids torque-to-ground, but only uses torque in aloft segments.   So, such AWES takes the tight torque driveshaft in little amounts guarded into the unit modSTs; torque does not go from one train car to the other.  It seems that lateral fence is needed to have a bracing or resistive root in order to allow torque to occur in the segmented swivel-isolated unit modSTs. Two or more trains integrated laterally could provide the resistive base to allow torque to occur, somewhat like my suggestion to you on pairing the ocean WindWheels. Full free swiveling does not allow torque to work; the generating top kite with motor-generator of each modST unit needs to be braced with something if the ST group is to torque the generator; hold the generator positionally stable by bracing against the wind and bracing against laterally-integrated sister train. 
~ JoeF
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15111 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/4/2014
Subject: Re: What is easy and what is hard in AWE
Not sure why you say "No, Joe" 
as we are saying the same, I estimate: 
That the target of gearboxes is missing the target of your proposal, 
as you seem not to have gearboxes.   That is, if a critique is about gearboxes
that do not exist in the proposal, then two different targets are being discussed,
not just one target. 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15112 From: Joe Faust Date: 10/4/2014
Subject: Re: What is easy and what is hard in AWE
My rehearsal about lateral duplicates of the train may not have been what you sketched, Pierre; your drawing shows downwind duplicates. 
In other topic I have outlined both types of matrix building:: have both downwind integrated duplicate trains while also having sister lateral duplicate integrated trains. This arrangement of dense matrix construction could apply to the trains of cars of modSTs units that have the top kite being the motor-generator center.    Thick use of the airspace. No torque to ground; just electricity, but torque in little units in each car of the trains. The top kite of each modST is playing the role of the ground-based Harburg generator for the generator part.   Your helicopter mode for launch and calm handling would be powered by electricity from the grid or some battery local to the AWES complex. 
~ JoeF
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15113 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/4/2014
Subject: Re: What is easy and what is hard in AWE
Yet, in summary, the modST flygen trains
fences, dense matrix
still face the scaling challenge of any flygen that is set to generate electricity aloft. The mass of the generator forever costs the system. Though I explore flygen for niche applications in some scales, I am yet a believer that flygen won't win the utilityAWES need; rather, groundgen is my guessed winner, so far. Harburg, Fry and Hise, Loyd, and many others aim at groundgen. Selsam aimed at groundgen in his ST; the flygen modST is not ST.   Using earth as spar and brace and resistive set is yet too inviting in the groundgen family of solutions.
~ JoeF
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15114 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 10/4/2014
Subject: Re: What is easy and what is hard in AWE

JoeF,

Your description of what I present looks correct for me. The groundgen stage can be regarded as ST (other stages?). It is an alternative possibility if  problems of torque are too high for a long distance, what remains to demonstrate.If only one stage is implemented both the end of axis and upper rotor are held by kite integrating them, generator working also as motor (or being only a motor for take-off eventually only for upper rotors, while ground generator stays the main generator, eventually working as motor for take-off eventually for lower rotors) for take-off. The space between ST is big enough to avoid touching: kites as holders help for spacing. Of course I do not still foresee the feasibility or viability.  

 

PierreB

http://flygenkite.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15115 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 10/4/2014
Subject: Re: What is easy and what is hard in AWE

No Joe,

DaveS is wrong by criticizing a non existing gearbox in my proposal, period.

 

PierreB
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15116 From: dave santos Date: 10/4/2014
Subject: Re: What is easy and what is hard in AWE
Pierre,

You make us guess just how you are claiming to solve critical AWES problems by methods you do not disclose clearly. It does not help to mock honest guesswork in trying to understand you. If its so hard in AWE to know just what you mean, you at least share some blame.

Better to share test your results, even when they cannot give hoped outcomes. Hold Doug to the same standard, rather than be satisfied with his marketing claims,

daveS


On Saturday, October 4, 2014 2:43 PM, "Joe Faust joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15117 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 10/4/2014
Subject: Re: What is easy and what is hard in AWE

Flygen is needed at least for lights of road marking on flying device and also on tether. Flygen is useful for take-off as helicopter. In my opinion flygen is also the best (if no the only one) configuration for utilityAWES for reasons I mentioned on previous posts (stationary flight, more possible maximization of space, continuous power...).

PierreB

http://flygenkite.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15118 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 10/4/2014
Subject: Re: What is easy and what is hard in AWE

DaveS,

"You make us guess just how you are claiming to solve critical AWES problems" No, please read my posts before criticizing.

 

PierreB
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15119 From: dave santos Date: 10/4/2014
Subject: Re: What is easy and what is hard in AWE
Its not wrong to criticize the idea of an airborne gearbox, whether or not Pierre needs one. I thank him for making his design clearer. Large flygens is my next guess at what he is proposing, which have severe scaling-law limits like gearboxes, and electrical complications. I don't see what Pierre finds funny if the flygen idea is worse still.

JoeF, there are clear opportunities for small flygens, since they mostly evade excess mass required for large machine scale. Nothing is handier than a small flygen, and vast arrays of small flygens manufactured cheaply enough might make turbine-sails economic.


On Saturday, October 4, 2014 3:23 PM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15120 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 10/4/2014
Subject: Re: What is easy and what is hard in AWE

"Its not wrong to criticize the idea of an airborne gearbox". I would quote DougS:"You are ...". 
"I thank him for making his design clearer". JoeF understands it and made formally correct explains.But it is regrettable that you influence JoeF while it should be the opposite.

 

PierreB





 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15121 From: dave santos Date: 10/4/2014
Subject: Re: What is easy and what is hard in AWE
Pierre,

JoeF does have a large positive influence on me, and AWE generally. If he understands you better, that's great.

I still do not see that you are proposing exactly how to solve scaling problems by putting STs and flygens together. That seems like a double problem, rather than a synergy. There is good reason Makani does not think it can reach 2000ft AGL by flygen. Your hope for mass VTOL launch also seems naive. The rotors cannot be optimal for both critical modes, and worse, how do you even stand up a tall ST VTOL into launching position?

Maybe the fault is not mine if presenting a compelling large-scale AWES design is too hard for you. Joe is more generous in supposing you have something serious in mind (we don't need to agree on guesswork). This topic is about how hard it will be for anyone to validate a large-scale AWES design to reasonable aerospace standards. Its hard enough for the pros, so good luck trying, and don't worry so much about my opinions, but about your final results,

daveS


On Saturday, October 4, 2014 4:19 PM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15122 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 10/4/2014
Subject: Re: What is easy and what is hard in AWE

DaveS,

"There is good reason Makani does not think it can reach 2000ft AGL by flygen.". You probably want tell :"There is good reason Makani does not think it can reach 2000ft AGL by gearbox." "I still do not see that you are proposing ": try to understand before telling irrelevances.Your pocket contains imagined gearbox from what I present, chameleon-like report etc. So now I see your pocket as your new AWES method, besides oscillating Böse-Einstein, besides passively controlled looping-units under arch, besides flipping, and probably with the same (lack of) efficiency. Why did not you present so brillant projects in AWEC2013? Perhaps for the next AWEC with your magic pocket...

 

 

PierreB
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15123 From: dave santos Date: 10/4/2014
Subject: Looping Parafoil FlyGen
Pierre's FlyGen AWES (comparable to Peter Lynn's flygen concept) can be converted to loop passively by attaching a pilot-kite to the parafoil wingtip. A bungee section and swivel on the pilot-kite leader is needed, as well as a rotary contact swivel at the anchor.

The flygen turbine would sweep powerfully at high speed, without need for constant manual piloting. It would even cascade-relaunch after calm, initiated by sled pilot-kite self-relaunch.

CC 4.x BY NC SA
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15124 From: dave santos Date: 10/4/2014
Subject: Re: What is easy and what is hard in AWE
Pierre, 

I stood corrected about your no-gearbox design, but you still face solving severe flygen-scaling problems in your concept. Makani cannot reach very high due to inherent flygen problems. No need to guess, their concept is far better presented.

If gearboxes would actually serve as well or better than flygens in your especially hard AWE design, that's the last laugh :)

daveS




On Saturday, October 4, 2014 5:47 PM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15125 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 10/4/2014
Subject: Re: What is easy and what is hard in AWE

"If gearboxes would actually serve as well or better than flygens in your especially hard AWE design, that's the last laugh :)" Gearboxes are not in my design but you do not understand it , making no difference between a gearbox and a flygen.

 

PierreB
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15126 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/5/2014
Subject: Re: TT :: Torque Tether AWES Family
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15127 From: Joe Faust Date: 10/5/2014
Subject: Fwd: Tune In to Watch How History Was Made

​Preparation for an AWE X-PRIZE​    ....???

 

XPRIZE   | MAKING THE IMPOSSIBLE POSSIBLE  
XPRIZE Foundation

 
You’re Invited to the 10th Anniversary Celebration for the Ansari XPRIZE for Suborbital Spaceflight!
 
Tune in to watch XPRIZE Founder and CEO, Peter Diamandis, and the visionaries who made history and revolutionized private spaceflight.
 
ANSARI XPRIZE 10th ANNIVERSARY WEBCAST
Saturday, October 4, 2014 at at 1:00 pm (PT) / 4:00 pm (ET)
 

If you have technical problems, please contact bugs@xprize.org
 
 
GUESTS INCLUDE:
 
Anousheh Ansari
The first female private space explorer and benefactor of the Ansari XPRIZE for Suborbital Spaceflight
 		   Richard Branson
Founder of Virgin Group with Virgin Galactic’s revolutionary SpaceShipTwo (VSS Enterprise)
 
Chuck Beames
Executive Director of Paul Allen’s Stratolaunch
 		   Mike Melvill
SpaceShipOne’s pilot for the first record-breaking flight
 
Brian Binnie
SpaceShipOne’s pilot for the prizewinning flight
 		   Burt Rutan
Visionary Aerospace Engineer of SpaceShipOne
 
 

 

Facebook Twitter Google+ LinkedIn Flickr YouTube
 

You are currently subscribed to the XPRIZE Foundation as joefaust333@gmail.com
subscribe | xprize.org | privacy policy | update preferences
Copyright © 2014, XPRIZE Foundation. All rights reserved.

 

XPRIZE | 800 Corporate Pointe, Suite 350 | Culver City, CA 90230 		 







This email was sent to joefaust333@gmail.com
why did I get this?    unsubscribe from this list    update subscription preferences
XPRIZE · 800 Corporate Pointe, Suite 350 · Culver City, California 90230 · USA


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15128 From: dave santos Date: 10/5/2014
Subject: Re: What is easy and what is hard in AWE
Pierre,

Its quite true, I do not "understand" your basis for optimism about flygens to solve the ST problem of turbines across different wind speeds, but I do understand the ST is a hard for anyone to fix, even you (its only shown fixed by testing).

At least we have two ideas going. My gearbox fix has several advantages over your flygen fix- 1) Higher rpm rotation of the shafts is possible, for higher power transmission efficiency than slower rotation. 2) No secondary transmission system aloft, avoiding separate generators, conductors, and other electrical components. 3) Its a pure groundgen solution. Added gearing is likely lighter, simpler, and cheaper than flygen dependence.

Maybe you do know more, somehow; but do not always communicate what you know effectively, so you are misunderstood. It seems to me like flygens and driveshafts are a negative synergy, but you claim to know better. Congratulations, if you really have found an "easy" AWE scaling path, that at least Joe understands, in your view. I am glad for any AWE success, even if it makes no sense to me,

daveS




On Saturday, October 4, 2014 6:13 PM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15129 From: dave santos Date: 10/5/2014
Subject: Driving the Largest Generators with AWE (GW scale concepts)
It seems that AWE must scale to drive the largest generators in the world, rated to nearly 1GW, in order to deliver the cheapest clean energy in abundance. We know that the largest unit-scale of kites is rated far less right now (~2MW), and it would take many kites to fully drive a single giant generator.

We have a dozen or so proposals regarding how to aggregate enough kite power. The KiteGen Carousel and NTS elevated track concepts involve large-scale structures to host many kites. Other GW concepts are proposed offshore, like Beaujean's and Pierre's large spin-baskets, which require novel generator elements that do not exist. Other ideas include fleets of IFOs and other "loose" aggregations of many AWE units.

Only KiteLab Group (kPower Partner) has proposed that existing power plant generators can be converted to (or newly built as) Low-Complexity kite hybrids, with only kitefarm-unit anchors as ground structure, and simple low-cost cableway drives from the kitefarm units converging on the giant generators, with the kite and legacy power sources mixed to closely match baseloads with wind availability. The concept has been public for years, and no mechanical or civil engineer who has reviewed the scheme has yet found any barrier or gap in the technology required. In principle, the best kites and WECS to emerge in testing can be used, without dependence on any less optimal method.

Can anyone suggest a simpler more practical GW AWES vision than KiteLab proposes? Is there any overlooked fatal engineering problem to point out? Thanks for any critique!

CC 4.x BY NC SA
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15130 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 10/5/2014
Subject: Re: What is easy and what is hard in AWE

DaveS,


"My gearbox fix has several advantages over your flygen fix- 1) Higher rpm rotation of the shafts is possible, for higher power transmission efficiency than slower rotation. " Yesterday gearbox (as your false reading of my post) = flygen. Today (your) gearbox 

 

PierreB

  
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15131 From: dave santos Date: 10/5/2014
Subject: NASA UAS Airspace Integration (update)
We see government-scale progress toward NextGen, but at a glacial pace. NASA is the the tech-lead and the FAA is the referee; while the US Congress and a hornet's nest of drone interests are howl for faster implementation. AWES R&D has large windows of UAS regulatory opportunity to incubate under broader Aircraft Experimental Rules, and make AWE a key part of the developing NASA conceptual mix. Its now up to the AWE community to field sufficiently compelling demos, so the favorable techno-politics can carry us farther.

Here is an update of NASA's ongoing UAS Integration Work; the tip of a technical iceberg-

NASA - Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15132 From: dave santos Date: 10/5/2014
Subject: Re: What is easy and what is hard in AWE
Pierre,

Please reread the topic- I am not "hiding" my erroneous guess, but "stood corrected" immediately. It was a natural mistake, especially if gearboxes are better than flygens, both as desperate ST design fixes. If I guessed a better (or equal) fix than you imagined, that's undue cause for annoyance.

I still don't think the ST is solved either way, but predict it will never test as well to altitude as rope-driving, which already exists in pumping and continuous loop AWES versions. Good luck proving your latest scheme is "easy", unless you really meant to present a super-hard AWES concept. I still don't see the mass E-VTOL mode you propose.

Please start a new topic when you have a better developed presentation ready, or properly relate it to the easy-hard AWE topic here,

daveS


On Sunday, October 5, 2014 11:52 AM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15133 From: dave santos Date: 10/5/2014
Subject: Geared Stages to Harmonize ST Rotors to Wind Gradient
This ST problem is that the top rotors have the best wind, and the bottom rotors have less wind. If you make the top rotors bigger, as Doug proposes, the mass increases at the cube of the increased dimension, and rpm slows. Pierre's optimistic fix is short ST stages with FlyGens and electronics conditioning the power as it moves down.

This is not a hopeful ST fix described here, but an explanation for Pierre how gearboxes along an ST can in principle harmonize local rotor speeds across the wind gradient (which he seemed unable to envision). Gearing at each hub is the approach with the advantage that the driveshaft sections can have even higher rpm (for higher transmission efficiency) than even small rotors achieve. Gearing in multi-rotor stages can harmonize the gradient mismatch, but not drive the shaft faster than the rotors. The mechanical advantage would wastefully step-down rpm all the way down; higher rpm is wanted. Perhaps a high-speed lower driveshaft, with no rotors along it, is as good as it gets for AWES torsion transmission.

Pierre proposed low-rpm generators as an option to ease low-rpm ST problems. Sadly, such generators tend to be heavier and bulkier (pancake format) than normal generators with gearing. Famous HAWT gearbox problems of past decades have eased as better gearing has evolved, and both geared and non-geared WECS are on the market, with no definite winnner.

Its hard to see that Pierre's ST flygen can do better (power-to-weight) than an ST geared transmission (in an already "super hard" ST AWES design space).
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15134 From: Rod Read Date: 10/5/2014
Subject: multiple blade hosting arrangement advantage on fixed position
If you want to transmit power from multiple spinny things...

Say we apply just way too much lift... What can we do?

You can rigidise a frontal frame to host your multiple WECS.
Those WECS are now in a pattern of your choosing all pointing to wind.
And this pattern is key.

What can a shallow arch of small spinning wheels do?
They can each impart enough to a line to pull it along really powerfully as a whole.

You don't need each one being a huge bull wheel as the whole formation is the softer turning radius. Each spinner on the frame induces a minimal line angle change with it's tension on the line.

Ensure enough lift to maintain a rigidised front for ground generation ... job done.

You don't want to have more lift yet do you? Oh for goodness sakes. Well fine spin a kitchen sink too if you like.

cc4.0by nc sa

Rod Read

Windswept and Interesting Limited
15a Aiginis
Isle of Lewis
UK
HS2 0PB

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15135 From: Rod Read Date: 10/5/2014
Subject: Re: Geared Stages to Harmonize ST Rotors to Wind Gradient
Dave S
ST is not a hard design space!
You just need the right design language, and I encourage everyone to start speaking grasshopper files.
Doug's proposal for the top of an ST type is building a Daisy near the top.
He never drew or suggested one in a patent but, it's kinda an ST type.
And Doug likes them.
So you could too.

Rod Read

Windswept and Interesting Limited
15a Aiginis
Isle of Lewis
UK
HS2 0PB

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15136 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 10/5/2014
Subject: Re: What is easy and what is hard in AWE

As easily understandable each (groudgen then flygen) stage has its own rpm, adapting itself to wind gradient.


PierreB
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15137 From: dave santos Date: 10/5/2014
Subject: Re: Geared Stages to Harmonize ST Rotors to Wind Gradient
Rod,

Keep in mind that my reasonable position is that ALL large-scale AVIATION is a "hard" design space. You seem to think the ST is an exception. Its not. The irony is that, as Gordon explains the curse of torsional shear, the ST cannot scale large and lightly-built, so in sense you are right, only small easy STs are possible. If anyone ever tries a giant ST (not likely by AE pros), a large dose of "hard" reality is predicted.

At least Doug now has you and Pierre to keep the ST in the AWE race, to test the grim predictions for truth such that anyone can understand. I feel like a coward in clinging to rope-driving and COTS parafoils, just because of proven work at the highest power-to-weight and cost-to-power. Yours is more heroic role, even if only a few ever appreciate the sacrifice, to make the ST science question, as raised by USWindLabs, publicly settled. We really do need a lot of coarse ferment to develop the precious distillate of perfected AWE.

Good Luck showing "easy" to km3 GW scale,

daveS




On Sunday, October 5, 2014 1:18 PM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15138 From: dave santos Date: 10/5/2014
Subject: Re: What is easy and what is hard in AWE
The "hard" part is keeping weight cost and complexity down of the electrical components. Its not "easy" to have all the flygens outputting different voltages aloft to then bring down as a single voltage, and also have a speed-controlled E-VTOL mode circuitry. You have to have a complex flying electrical grid to do that, comparable to a Makani electrical system, but in the ST case without the high rpm efficiency-boost of a high-speed turbine-on-a-wing in proper alignment. You also must maintain the high driveshaft mass in flight at ~10W per kilo, which only the ST concept must lift.

Its "understandable" if you never get this design worked out, because its so "hard",

daveS


On Sunday, October 5, 2014 2:49 PM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15139 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/5/2014
Subject: Re: Driving the Largest Generators with AWE (GW scale concepts)


There are the at-sea traction kite trains pulling hydroelectric turbines on green-energy hulls; scale to supersize as one wishes.

~ JoeF
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15140 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/5/2014
Subject: Re: Geared Stages to Harmonize ST Rotors to Wind Gradient

When "ST" is mentioned, are we distinguishing the thre types Selsam teaches?  Pierre seems to concentrate on the central-hard-driveshaft sort; and DaveS seems to do so also. But Selsam taught the non-central-driveshaft type that is line-tensional only where the tether torque tube is at the exterior of rotor spreaders like Harburg earlier taught; the rate of scaling penalty is not felt as fast in the second type that seems not to arrive in the ST discussions. Selsam also offers in Serpentine rotor spreaders for the central-drive-shaft-less version that are inflatable and LTA, if wanted; firm top lifter system is shown in Selsam's second version of Serpentine that has no hard central driveshaft.  Readers coming later to the notes on ST may be receiving a neglect of look at the Serpentine embodiments that have no central driveshaft.    Selsam has also the third type that combines exterior latticeworks and tensionals with a central driveshaft.  All three types are Serpentines. \

~ JoeF
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15141 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/5/2014
Subject: Re: Geared Stages to Harmonize ST Rotors to Wind Gradient
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15142 From: dave santos Date: 10/5/2014
Subject: Re: Geared Stages to Harmonize ST Rotors to Wind Gradient
Rudy patented the string version with no rigid drive shaft, and Doug echoed the idea, as well as echoing Fry's rigid driveshaft. We need not be confused about ST prior art sources. Its also clear we spend more Forum time on ST discussion than any other single idea, because Doug presents it so monomaniacally, not because its seen inherently superior by any AE assessments.

It seems reasonable to define the fundamental ST as torque-based AWE*, with turbine rotor(s) set on a driveshaft oblique-to-the-wind. This accounts for the SkyBow case of an Archimedes' Screw as a morph on one extreme, Rudy's stick and fabric rotor-stack as the the intermediate case, and Doug's composite blades as the other extreme ST case.


* Self-standing rotating-towers excluded as not-airborne.


On Sunday, October 5, 2014 4:46 PM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15143 From: Rod Read Date: 10/5/2014
Subject: Re: Geared Stages to Harmonize ST Rotors to Wind Gradient

Keep in mind that my reasonable position...
I intend to keep my research in mind thanks Dave.
Which component of a Daisy has torsional shear?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15144 From: dougselsam Date: 10/6/2014
Subject: Re: 10 easy ways to do AWE: - Done talking to Dave S.
"Doug, Anyone who has followed the AWES Forum could name far more than ten ways, including you." -DaveS. ***I listed 10 ways - you R wrong.
You said it was impossible to name 10 easy ways to do AWE.  You said it over and over, for years.  The whole time, I thought "What is wrong with this guy?"

I named 10 easy ways.  It was super-easy.   I never said they were secret.  I said even you and Joe had named a few. 
Now that I named them, of course, you try to WEASEL your way out of your challenge.
Your objections:
1) They are not all my ideas (I never said they were - I said they were NOT)
2) I haven't PROVEN they are "EASY" - that would require that I had DEVELOPED 10 easy ways, which is OBVIOUSLY YOU trying to CHANGE THE QUESTION. (as usual)  (talking to you is like trying to hold onto a greased water-balloon - impossible - I'm DONE TRYING.)

Dave S., Yes I DO have MANY MANY MANY MORE good ways to do AWE that I have not talked about - with people like you around to twist everyones' words, it is dangerous to spill all your ideas, lest one be forced to respond to your nonsense over all of them.  Besides, why not save a few ? - I'm already too busy.

I will conclude this message by pointing out that, in my opinion, you are A DISHONEST PERSON.  I AM NO LONGER RESPONDING TO ANY OF YOUR POSTS.. YOU HAVE PROVEN BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT THAT YOU HAVE NO INTEREST IN AN HONEST OR PRODUCTIVE CONVERSTION, AND I AM DONE WITH YOU.  NOT worth the time to respond to you.  Can't do it anymore.  Finished.  Do not expect any more replies from me to ANY of your posts, EVER.

To the rest: Please do not interpret my not responding to DaveS as him "winning" whatever arguments he wants to start.  My silence should not be interpreted as agreement.  I simply cannot waste any more of my life on his disagreeable, uninformed, trouble-maker, busy-body, nonsense.  I have to draw the line somewhere.  Enough time wasted.  I hope that explains my position.  My silence should be interpreted as the sound of me laughing behind the scenes, not as having no response.  I wish the best for whatever legitimate efforts remain over time.  :))
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15145 From: dave santos Date: 10/6/2014
Subject: Re: Geared Stages to Harmonize ST Rotors to Wind Gradient
The same shear force causes the Daisy to contract in a twist when torque exceeds the tension required to keep extended. Granted, this is not as suddenly catastrophic as a brittle rigid torque shaft failure, but still causes collapse and probable line damage as the twist progresses and repeats.

Let's call it Gordon's Law, that "Nature abhors torsion", if experiments always confirm his predictions. Both BobS and I especially remember Gordon's insistence on this exact point when we read his classic 20+ years ago. Twisting v pumping one's own arm, one easily notes the large difference in power-transmission capability. Add rope, for action at greater distance, to compound the twisting problem.


On Sunday, October 5, 2014 11:00 PM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15146 From: dougselsam Date: 10/6/2014
Subject: Re: What is easy and what is hard in AWE
Congratulations Pierre, you have just named another one of 1000 easy ways to do AWE.  :)  -Doug S.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 15147 From: dave santos Date: 10/6/2014
Subject: Re: 10 easy ways to do AWE: - Done talking to Dave S.
Doug: "...I DO have MANY MANY MANY MORE good ways to do AWE that I have not talked about..."

We need not agree that scaling up the common AWES ideas you listed is "easy".

Lets look forward to someday seeing your secret AWES designs. Meanwhile, Open AWE can only discuss, develop, and test ideas that are publicly shared.