Messages in AirborneWindEnergy group.                          AWES 18601 to 18652 Page 266 of 440.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18601 From: benhaiemp Date: 7/31/2015
Subject: A moderator please!

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18602 From: benhaiemp Date: 7/31/2015
Subject: Re: A moderator please!

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18603 From: benhaiemp Date: 7/31/2015
Subject: Re: A moderator please!

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18604 From: benhaiemp Date: 7/31/2015
Subject: Re: A moderator please!

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18605 From: dougselsam Date: 7/31/2015
Subject: Re: Tip Speed Ratios of large AWES Rotors?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18606 From: dougselsam Date: 7/31/2015
Subject: Re: Mechanical Kites by Zhang

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18607 From: Joe Faust Date: 7/31/2015
Subject: Hong Zhang's paper for study

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18608 From: Joe Faust Date: 7/31/2015
Subject: Sail, Play Sail, Fly (canopy), Captive Canopy, TAK, Mothra versions

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18609 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 7/31/2015
Subject: Air HES http://airhes.com/

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18610 From: Joe Faust Date: 7/31/2015
Subject: Re: Air HES http://airhes.com/

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18611 From: Joe Faust Date: 7/31/2015
Subject: Re: Air HES http://airhes.com/

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18612 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 7/31/2015
Subject: Re: Sail, Play Sail, Fly (canopy), Captive Canopy, TAK, Mothra versi

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18613 From: benhaiemp Date: 8/1/2015
Subject: Re: Torque

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18616 From: Rod Read Date: 8/1/2015
Subject: stacking wings . . Decaplane

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18617 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 8/1/2015
Subject: Re: Sail, Play Sail, Fly (canopy), Captive Canopy, TAK, Mothra versi

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18618 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 8/1/2015
Subject: Re: Sail, Play Sail, Fly (canopy), Captive Canopy, TAK, Mothra versi

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18619 From: dougselsam Date: 8/2/2015
Subject: Re: stacking wings . . Decaplane

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18620 From: dougselsam Date: 8/2/2015
Subject: link to some very old kite pix

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18621 From: Rod Read Date: 8/3/2015
Subject: Enerkite hit new crowd funding target

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18622 From: Rod Read Date: 8/3/2015
Subject: kps £3m investment from shell and department of energy

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18623 From: benhaiemp Date: 8/3/2015
Subject: Re: kps £3m investment from shell and department of ene rgy

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18624 From: Joe Faust Date: 8/3/2015
Subject: AWES foundations: the sum of the most small.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18625 From: roderickjosephread Date: 8/3/2015
Subject: AWES opinions

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18626 From: benhaiemp Date: 8/3/2015
Subject: Re: AWES opinions

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18627 From: benhaiemp Date: 8/4/2015
Subject: About " Crosswind Kite Power"

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18628 From: Rod Read Date: 8/4/2015
Subject: Re: About " Crosswind Kite Power"

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18629 From: benhaiemp Date: 8/4/2015
Subject: Re: About " Crosswind Kite Power"

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18630 From: Rod Read Date: 8/4/2015
Subject: Scoring Matrix

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18631 From: benhaiemp Date: 8/4/2015
Subject: Re: About " Crosswind Kite Power"

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18632 From: benhaiemp Date: 8/4/2015
Subject: Re: About " Crosswind Kite Power"

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18633 From: gordon_sp Date: 8/4/2015
Subject: Bill Gates - AWES

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18634 From: benhaiemp Date: 8/4/2015
Subject: Re: About " Crosswind Kite Power"

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18635 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 8/5/2015
Subject: Re: AWES foundations: the sum of the most small.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18636 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 8/5/2015
Subject: Re: AWES foundations: the sum of the most small.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18637 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 8/6/2015
Subject: Re: AWES foundations: the sum of the most small.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18638 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 8/6/2015
Subject: Prove a particular kited wing as non-cross winding.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18639 From: dougselsam Date: 8/6/2015
Subject: Rolls Royce Sailing Cargo Ship

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18640 From: dougselsam Date: 8/6/2015
Subject: Re: Prove a particular kited wing as non-cross winding.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18641 From: christopher carlin Date: 8/7/2015
Subject: Re: Rolls Royce Sailing Cargo Ship

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18642 From: benhaiemp Date: 8/7/2015
Subject: Re: Rolls Royce Sailing Cargo Ship

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18643 From: Joe Faust Date: 8/7/2015
Subject: Re: Rolls Royce Sailing Cargo Ship

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18644 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 8/7/2015
Subject: Re: Prove a particular kited wing as non-cross winding.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18645 From: benhaiemp Date: 8/7/2015
Subject: Re: AWES foundations: the sum of the most small.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18646 From: benhaiemp Date: 8/7/2015
Subject: Density

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18647 From: benhaiemp Date: 8/7/2015
Subject: Cost of fabric

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18648 From: benhaiemp Date: 8/7/2015
Subject: Re: Cost of fabric

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18649 From: dougselsam Date: 8/8/2015
Subject: Re: Prove a particular kited wing as non-cross winding.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18650 From: dougselsam Date: 8/8/2015
Subject: Re: Rolls Royce Sailing Cargo Ship

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18651 From: dougselsam Date: 8/8/2015
Subject: Re: AWES foundations: the sum of the most small.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18652 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 8/8/2015
Subject: Re: Prove a particular kited wing as non-cross winding.



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18601 From: benhaiemp Date: 7/31/2015
Subject: A moderator please!
On   someAWE - someAWE :"

 

 
  1. Civility is paramount - Treat others with respect, kindness and generosity.
  2. Strictly on topic - No discussion of anything other than AIRBORNE wind energy.
  3. Respect the laws of physics – No discussion of anything that would require the laws of physics to be changed or that requires technology that is not likely to be available in our lifetime.
  4. Share - Although someAWE is not limited to open source projects: open communication and publishing under an Open license is encouraged."

Good purposes. Why not a moderator for the present AWE forum? Funny topics as "Doctor Crackpot Syndrome" or " Böse-Einstein-Quanta-Enthalpy-acronyms-straw man arguments-yellow journalism-unfair discussing..." could be on respectively two separate topics, to keep there for laughing while removing the noise in technical debate.


PierreB
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18602 From: benhaiemp Date: 7/31/2015
Subject: Re: A moderator please!

DaveS wrote:"In any case, I leave the Forum to you and Doug to call folks liars as only you both do,"


It is a both a lie and a straw man argument (by amalgam): I qualify some DaveS' arguing as lies, folks'arguing generally.


So a moderator please!


PierreB

FlygenKite - Kite wind turbine - Eolienne cerf-volant 

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18603 From: benhaiemp Date: 7/31/2015
Subject: Re: A moderator please!

(Precedent corrected message)


DaveS wrote:"In any case, I leave the Forum to you and Doug to call folks liars as only you both do,"


It is  both a lie and a straw man argument (by amalgam): I qualify some DaveS' arguing as lies, not folks' arguing generally.


So a moderator please!


PierreB

FlygenKite - Kite wind turbine - Eolienne cerf-volant 

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18604 From: benhaiemp Date: 7/31/2015
Subject: Re: A moderator please!

My excuses DaveS,


I have just realized that your words ("In any case, I leave the Forum to you and Doug to call folks liars as only you both do,") were in a private communication. So I am probably contaminated by your methods.


So a moderator please!


PierreB
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18605 From: dougselsam Date: 7/31/2015
Subject: Re: Tip Speed Ratios of large AWES Rotors?
DaveS continues: "More Corrections for Doug: -"Loyd" is the correct spelling (willfully ignoring Loyd really is a mistake).
*** OK fine he left out one "L" - sorry, I thought it was a typo, which you like to nitpick others about.  (You nitpick others about typos while being perhaps the leading offender).  Here's the reason I ignore Loyd:  Everything he wrote is 100% obvious to me, starting with the word "crosswind".  Anyone who knows anything about wind energy understands that "crosswind" is "how it's done", not only that, "crosswind" has been the only good way to do it for over 2000 years.  To us, anyone who has to mention "crosswind" is just a beginner, trying to understand the basics that the veterans are so used to that it doesn't even bear mentioning.  It would be like saying "walking using your feet" - most people who know how to walk already use their feet, or "plumbing based on water pressure" - elementary, par for the course, and anyone who talked that way would be looked upon as strange.

DaveS continues in his "I'd like an argument, please" mode: "-In the context of this topic (TSR of large AWES Rotors), load drag really counts."
***DaveS, please stop and concentrate for a moment here, OK?  You compared the L/D of the Makani wing, WITH generator loading, to a regular wind turbine blades L/D over 100, which describes the condition of the blade itself and which DOES NOT include generator drag, but only aerodynamic drag.  I pointed out that, since Makani drives their generators using additional propellers, a comparison such as you made is NOT valid.  I really don't get what part of that you don't understand, but that's what happens when one even engages beginners who think "crosswind" is some new concept in a discussion at all.

DaveS goes on: "-Max unloaded L/D of a turbine blade is merely off-topic, no disagreement as such."
*** It was YOU who cited L/D of a regular wind turbine blade, noting it is over 100.  That refers to a blade itself, and actually, if you really want to know in detail, it refers to the blade in a loaded state, at its normal working TSR, but does NOT include the loading of the generator.  I'm sorry if this is all new to you, or (obviously) too complicated for you to understand, but you have no idea what you're talking about, and your "argument" is just a load of nonsense.

DaveS haughtily continues: "-Sexist jokes as such are in fact "no longer funny" (same with your many past off-color jokes. Add to the topic instead)."
*** DaveS, it must be the nerd in you who could not get that joke, which is NOT sexist in any way, so don't get all excited that you have some new politically-correct valid gripe to fixate on.  I guess you really ARE going to make me "explain the joke" (sheeesh!):
OK, now pay attention:  Say you are at an RC car raceway, and you note, hey, this is a DUDEFEST, all guys, mostly overweight, with beards, 100% nerds as a matter of fact.  Most probably don't even have a girlfriend.  So you walk up to one of the badly-dressed, bearded, overweight patrons and ask: "Why did you get into RC racing?"  He says: "Why for the chicks, of course!"  Guess what?  He's JOKING!  The joke is THERE ARE NO CHICKS!  And if there ever are, probably not that attractive.  I was contrasting that tendency with Joe's fantastic Hang-gliding Dial soap commercial, where he had a trail of beautiful girls running with him as he hang glided - the funny part of the joke was that this never happens in real life.  You don't usually have large numbers of beautiful girls following you at nerdy events.  (Notwithstanding, there ARE a few girls who hang glide, they aren't THAT bad-looking, and there are also married couples who like to fly tandem, but overall, it is more of a dude-thing.  But really, like I said, by the time you have to explain a joke...
Hide message history
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18606 From: dougselsam Date: 7/31/2015
Subject: Re: Mechanical Kites by Zhang
DaveS says: " (the stark contrast with Doug's littering claim is apt. Zhang and Mao really know what they are doing)"
*** Doug replies: What the heck are you talking about now?  Sheesh!
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18607 From: Joe Faust Date: 7/31/2015
Subject: Hong Zhang's paper for study
Kite Modeling for Higher Altitude Wind Energy
by Hong Zhang
The paper is available in many formats. 
==============================
Open access to the paper for study by members of the AirborneWindEnergy community. 
All are welcome to study the paper in open Internet discussion here in this AWES forum.
================================
How to cite the paper in your own papers: 
H. Zhang, "Kite Modeling for Higher Altitude Wind Energy," Energy and Power Engineering, Vol. 5 No. 7, 2013, pp. 481-488. doi: 10.4236/epe.2013.57052.
================================================
Our friendly discussion over the paper is intended to advance airborne wind energy, kite energy systems, working-kite systems, energy-generating kite systems, wind energy by kite systems, ... 
=================================================
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18608 From: Joe Faust Date: 7/31/2015
Subject: Sail, Play Sail, Fly (canopy), Captive Canopy, TAK, Mothra versions
Soft (or nearly so)
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18609 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 7/31/2015
Subject: Air HES http://airhes.com/

Study and discussion of Air HES

is the topic of this discussion thread.

===========================
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18610 From: Joe Faust Date: 7/31/2015
Subject: Re: Air HES http://airhes.com/
The fundamental concept was already in the kite energy literature. 
However, Russian patent application in 2012: 
https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2013157991
KAZANTSEV, Andrey Nikolaevich     is applicant. 

My summary of method: 
Collect cloud or atmospheric water to give both water and the water head (potential energy); use the potential energy of the aloft water to drive works or electric generator; use the water for drinking and other purposes.   ~ JoeF

Note: HPP  is found also, as HES. 

Note: Some of our AWE notes have uses of upper-air gained water in aerotecture activity also. (drink aloft, swimming pools, chemical operations, manufacturing operations, hygiene, ...)
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18611 From: Joe Faust Date: 7/31/2015
Subject: Re: Air HES http://airhes.com/
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18612 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 7/31/2015
Subject: Re: Sail, Play Sail, Fly (canopy), Captive Canopy, TAK, Mothra versi
Step: 
Dave S. had already shared his demonstration of flying a tarp from a single gang line: 
(pre-Mothra stepping): 
Tarp Flying from a Gang-Line

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18613 From: benhaiemp Date: 8/1/2015
Subject: Re: Torque

Dave Lang,


Effectively a rigid wing in Airbus 380 size looks huge in absolute. But it is possible it is not enough for utility-scale AWES due to the length of tether as a main factor of space used (no problem where space is really free).

DaveS wrote about km-range soft kite, and for me it makes sense (as you wrote:"e. not forgetting that, "truth can be delivered from any source"") until there is some proof of serious obstacle for such a level of scalability.


PierreB


Rotating Reeling


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18616 From: Rod Read Date: 8/1/2015
Subject: stacking wings . . Decaplane
a stack of 10 rigid wings...
Maybe Makani can scale after all...
https://youtu.be/SxDJkP9cB88

Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18617 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 8/1/2015
Subject: Re: Sail, Play Sail, Fly (canopy), Captive Canopy, TAK, Mothra versi

Nearly "soft"":
Arch from windsurf sails

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18618 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 8/1/2015
Subject: Re: Sail, Play Sail, Fly (canopy), Captive Canopy, TAK, Mothra versi
scalable arch with windsurfer sails

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18619 From: dougselsam Date: 8/2/2015
Subject: Re: stacking wings . . Decaplane
Superplane!
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18620 From: dougselsam Date: 8/2/2015
Subject: link to some very old kite pix
This post is quite likely redundant, but just in case, here is a link to a slide-show that features several 100-year-old+ kites.  A couple of them are lifting people.  Just click on the arrows left and right of the screen to scroll from photo to photo.  A few ads will be inserted every so often.  :)  DougS.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/29404960@N00/420987911/in/photostream/
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18621 From: Rod Read Date: 8/3/2015
Subject: Enerkite hit new crowd funding target
Good news for Enerkite.
They've hit a new target in a next round of crowd funding.
https://www.fundernation.eu/investments/enerkite#updates

Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18622 From: Rod Read Date: 8/3/2015
Subject: kps £3m investment from shell and department of energy
http://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-guardian/20150803/281681138590244/TextView

Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18623 From: benhaiemp Date: 8/3/2015
Subject: Re: kps £3m investment from shell and department of ene rgy
Kite Power Solutions Ltd

 

Kite Power Solutions, wind energy but cheaper

 

PierreB

FlygenKite - Kite wind turbine - Eolienne cerf-volant 

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18624 From: Joe Faust Date: 8/3/2015
Subject: AWES foundations: the sum of the most small.
An AWES or practical kite system is the sum of its most small realms interfacing with all else. 
It cannot be otherwise.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18625 From: roderickjosephread Date: 8/3/2015
Subject: AWES opinions

an AWES development questionnaire for August 2015

If you have trouble viewing or submitting this form, you can fill it in in Google Forms.

AWES opinions

Gathering AWES architecture opinion.
    Which Airborne Wind Energy (AWE) architecture will scale most economically soft or hard?
    e.g. Will large, slower, soft AWE be cheaper to run per kWh than smaller, faster, hard AWE?
    Should competing AWE architectures should be tested in a funded direct flyoff?
    Or should market forces dominate to choose a winning architecture?
    definite funded flyoff main event
    		definite market forces will show best designs
    Can single tether AWES be operated safely?
    Within an economically insurable level of risk.
    Not a problem. Safe!
    		Never going to trust single lines.
    How important is continual output from AWES?
    e.g. are phase pumping AWES outputs easily mitigated or not?
    Output as constant as possible is essential
    		Phased charging to grid or group farming is fine.
This content is neither created nor endorsed by Google.
Report Abuse - Terms of Service - Additional Terms
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18626 From: benhaiemp Date: 8/3/2015
Subject: Re: AWES opinions

I fill it, maybe with some mistakes: I precise I choose "soft kite scale more economically".


But I do not think this will give more than a simple opinion.

Please correct me if I am wrong but for 2 or 3 years the last main groudgen projects I see on AWE forum are:


 

 

 

 To test really: we must have:

  • different scales of proof of concept
  • simulations by PhD or similar. 
  • then real complete prototype with automated operations comprising launching and landing.
  • tests of prototype and publication of results.

Evaluation and comparison can be possible only if studying reaches the last step. The two or three last steps require serious investments. After some comparisons will be possible with "crosswind" reeling or flygen, which are far more studied methods.


PierreB

Rotating Reeling

FlygenKite - Kite wind turbine - Eolienne cerf-volant

 

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18627 From: benhaiemp Date: 8/4/2015
Subject: About " Crosswind Kite Power"

There are a lot of discussions about "crosswind kite" concept, and also some disagreements. These disagreements involve technical choices, not only choice of terms as such. So a better definition can involve a better understanding for useful R&D.


http://homes.esat.kuleuven.be/~highwind/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Loyd1980.pdf "Crosswind Kite Power"

is the most referenced paper about kite energy in universities (Tu Delft, Grenoble, Leuven...) and companies (Windlift, Ampyx, Makani...).


This paper provided traditional definition of a kite making (not purely) crosswind energetic figures as loop or eight-figure.Its axis is the whole motive tether working also (not purely) crosswind. 


Certainly conventional wind turbines can be seen as working crosswind, even more strictly crosswind since blades are quite perpendicular in flow. But there are not kites and do not fly as such.  Their axis is horizontal (what prevents any flight) and montionless.


Autogyro-like (rigid autogyro, soft Daisy, rigid  SuperTurbine (R), soft Parotor...) have blades or wings working (not purely) crosswind as a crosswind kite does, and are kites, having lift and tether. However rigthly or/and wrongly there are not seen as "crosswind kites". What are differences? Is it a difference in level or in nature?

Concerning rigid autogyro or SuperTurbine (R) their respective axis are tilted and motionless. Their blades work (not purely) crosswind from near zero speed to tip speed.

Concerning Daisy or Parotor their blades or wings work (not purely) crosswind from root , above zero speed, to tip speed. If they have only two wings and if one replaces (very large for the example) root by respective short tethers, they become dancing "crosswind kites" in traditional definition.

Concerning Parotor and Rotating Reeling its axis becomes a wide ring of peripheral (regarding root as hub) tethers for conversion towards a ground based turning ring as rotating multi anchoring as carousel. 


All these work (purely for HAWT, not purely for AWES) crosswind. So to differentiate "crosswind kites" in traditional definition I propose "single anchored crosswind kite-tether".


PierreB

FlygenKite - Kite wind turbine - Eolienne cerf-volant 

  
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18628 From: Rod Read Date: 8/4/2015
Subject: Re: About " Crosswind Kite Power"
Fair point, the term crosswind is used far too loosely.
I will try and tighten up my descriptions for accurate analysis and discussion.

Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18629 From: benhaiemp Date: 8/4/2015
Subject: Re: About " Crosswind Kite Power"

Some typo corrections of my previous post:"But they are not kites and do not fly as such." and " However rigthly or/and wrongly they are not seen as "crosswind kites". Complete message with these corrections + wrongly instead of "righly or/and wrongly" + minor corrections:


There are a lot of discussions about "crosswind kite" concept, and also some disagreements. These disagreements involve technical choices, not only choice of terms as such. So a better definition can involve a better understanding for useful R&D.


http://homes.esat.kuleuven.be/~highwind/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Loyd1980.pdf "Crosswind Kite Power"

is the most referenced paper about kite energy in universities (Tu Delft, Grenoble, Leuven...) and companies (Windlift, Ampyx, Makani...).


This paper provided traditional definition of a kite making (not purely) crosswind energetic figures as loop or eight-figure.Its axis is the whole motive tether working also (not purely) crosswind. 


Certainly conventional wind turbines can be seen as working crosswind, even more strictly crosswind since blades are quite perpendicular in flow. But they are not kites and do not fly as such.  Their respective axis is horizontal (what prevents any flight) and montionless.


Autogyros-like (rigid autogyro, soft Daisy, rigid  SuperTurbine (R), soft Parotor...) have blades or wings working (not purely) crosswind as a crosswind kite does, and are kites, having lift and tether. However wrongly they are not seen as "crosswind kites". What are differences? Is it a difference in level or in nature?

Concerning rigid autogyro or SuperTurbine (R) their respective axis is tilted and motionless. Their blades work (not purely) crosswind from near zero speed to tip speed.

Concerning Daisy or Parotor their blades or wings work (not purely) crosswind from root , above zero speed, to tip speed. If they had only two wings and if one replaces (very large for the example) root by respective short tethers, they become dancing "crosswind kites" in traditional definition.

Concerning Parotor and Rotating Reeling its axis becomes a wide ring of peripheral (regarding root as hub) tethers for conversion towards a ground based turning ring as rotating multi anchoring as carousel. 


All these work (purely for HAWT, not purely for AWES) crosswind. So to differentiate "crosswind kites" in traditional use I propose "single anchored crosswind kite-tether".


PierreB

FlygenKite - Kite wind turbine - Eolienne cerf-volant 


 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18630 From: Rod Read Date: 8/4/2015
Subject: Scoring Matrix
how would you fill this scoring matrix in?
By my reckon...
Stacked daisies are about 100 points ahead of Makani


Rod Read

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

07899057227
01851 870878

   @@attachment@@
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18631 From: benhaiemp Date: 8/4/2015
Subject: Re: About " Crosswind Kite Power"

Temporary proposition:

  • "Crosswind kites" becomes "airfoils kites" (see Airfoil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

     

  • Among "airfoils kites" : rotating (implicitly crosswind) kite (of type autogyro, with predefined path by building)
  • Among "airfoils kites" : single anchored crosswind kite-tether (with not predefined path by building, as a loop (Makani) or eight-figure (Ampyx, Tu Delft, Enerkite and others).

Both rotating kite and crosswind kite-tether have two categories for each as respectively stationary (ST, Daisy, Parotor, Sky Windpower...) and reeling (SkyMill), and  fixed radius (Makani, FlygenKite) and reeling (Ampyx,  Tu Delft, Enerkite...).


PierreB

Rotating Reeling


 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18632 From: benhaiemp Date: 8/4/2015
Subject: Re: About " Crosswind Kite Power"

Precedent post with some corrections:


Temporary proposition:


Formerly "crosswind kites" among a larger class as "airfoils kites" (see Airfoil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

 

Among "airfoils kites" : 

  • rotating (implicitly crosswind) kite , of type autogyro, with predefined path by building
  • single anchored crosswind kite-tether, with not predefined path by building, as a loop (Makani) or eight-figure (Ampyx, Tu Delft, Enerkite and others).

Both rotating kite and crosswind kite-tether have two categories for each as respectively stationary (ST, Daisy, Parotor, Sky Windpower...) and reeling (SkyMill), and  fixed radius (Makani, FlygenKite) and reeling (Ampyx,  Tu Delft, Enerkite...).


PierreB

Rotating Reeling 

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18633 From: gordon_sp Date: 8/4/2015
Subject: Bill Gates - AWES

"We need hundreds of companies working on thousands of ideas, including crazy-sounding ones that don’t get enough funding, such as high-altitude wind and solar chemical (using the energy of the sun to make hydrocarbons)"


Bill Gates August 3, 2015
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18634 From: benhaiemp Date: 8/4/2015
Subject: Re: About " Crosswind Kite Power"

"Tethered airfoils" (terms also from WayneG, or LorenzoF) instead of "airfoils kites" .

Tethered airfoils include  both formerly "crosswind kites" (Makani, FlygenKite, Windlift...) and tilted rotors (ST, Daisy, Parotor, Sky Windpower...), all working more or less crosswind.


PierreB

Rotating Reeling


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18635 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 8/5/2015
Subject: Re: AWES foundations: the sum of the most small.
And what does one face at the very small? The story is unfinished. Humans are facing subatomic structures the list of which is incomplete. Wavelengths may be very small too, but the full waving reach may be super huge. Without the fine one finds not the large. Some theologians find but One that is all in small as well as all in immense ... at once.  Else we face sums of small. A tether-anchored wing doing practical works disappears upon subtracting its very small structures. It well then may profit some to attend to quanta and strings, if AWES is to be mastered in high glory.   Quantum mechanics may well be a fine sister in the family of concerns of the energy-kite scientist.

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18636 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 8/5/2015
Subject: Re: AWES foundations: the sum of the most small.
Whatever is going on in the very small is essential to AWES. 
In resonance with such we have some inroads from Dave Santos in former shared posts in this forum.  
     Recent reminder and a resources, Dave S. states: 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18637 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 8/6/2015
Subject: Re: AWES foundations: the sum of the most small.

Hearing within an AWES? Tension couples the atomic structures with the macroscopic events within an AWES. Moments and more moments!  Signals throughout!  The spiders know this.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-959Pj0P9-3M/TyQDuJcDEJI/AAAAAAAAB1U/hcZFPvBm9Ow/s1600/9.jpg

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18638 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 8/6/2015
Subject: Prove a particular kited wing as non-cross winding.

Prove a particular kited wing as not cross winding.


How would such a proof go?


Suppose a wing is placed in a steady horizontal wind. Constrain the wing by tether. Suppose the bridling and shape of the wind was so perfectly balanced with respect to the steady horizontal wind that the wing undergoes no change of position relative to a ground reference and the assumed fixed-position ground anchor for the tether that constrains the wing.  The wing is without wobble; the wing is not climbing or descending; the wing is not veering one way and then some other way. The zenithal ground projection is without motion; similarly there is no movement of the wing's projection on any other plane. An accelerometer on the wing would sense no accelerations of the wing. The assumed wing is not positively or negatively rotating. Observes from any vantage see no positive pathing of the wing.  The wing seems fixed in the air by observers fixed on the ground. The wing is facing air particles coming from an unmoving steady cylinder of air.  Assume one describes and then accepts a finite diameter horizontal spatially constant stream tube of air that is facing the subject kited wing.   Shall we define that such a kited wing is doing no cross winding?    Following some common agreement on a definition, we may build some proof based on definitions.  

     We will also need a definition for when some cross winding occurs. Perhaps cross winding begins to occur if the system's wing-held accelerator registers a non-zero acceleration.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18639 From: dougselsam Date: 8/6/2015
Subject: Rolls Royce Sailing Cargo Ship
I ran across this article that Rolls IS BUILDING a new type of container ship that has sails to augment the engines, then saw the date: 2013...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-07-10/rolls-royce-revives-age-of-sail-to-beat-fuel-cost-surge-freight

Seems like a typical example of green-energy press-release-science, since when I tried to find any followup information on the web, I couldn't find anything else on it since 2013.  One more case of "dropping the ball"?  Has the Rolls Royce sailing ship "quietly gone away" already?  Anyone know anything about this alleged breakthrough?  The renderings sure look cool... (?)  :)
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18640 From: dougselsam Date: 8/6/2015
Subject: Re: Prove a particular kited wing as non-cross winding.
Joe it sounds to me like you've invented a new term: "crosswinding".  Before that, "crosswind" was an adjective that could be used to modify a word like "travel", meaning the travel was across the direction of the wind.  It WAS a simple concept.  Why try to muck up a simple concept?  If you are a sailor and want to go fast you generally travel across the wind.  In wind energy, same thing.  No a wiggle doesn't count.
Beyond that, you obviously went way beyond describing something that is NOT traveling across the wind.  And beyond THAT, why do we "need" such a definition?  And "build a "proof"?  Proof of what?  And for what reason do we need to "prove" whether something is traveling across the wind?  If a structure is making power by significant travel across the wind, it is pretty obvious, and if not, well, not.  Do you have to "prove" if a car drives by?  Is this why the good professor has trouble crossing the street, and needs a 3-year program and 20 grad students to engineer the algorithm to cross the same street that a 4-year-old can negotiate without comment?  To sit around tying to figure out if the slightest wobble could possibly be "defined" as a new word "crosswinding" (which reads like it refers to the windings on a generator or motor, or a way to wind a kite-string to keep it from getting tangled) seems pointless to me.  Again, a fixation on word definitions doesn't add any new information or new approaches to wind energy.  I really don't see the point of what you're trying to accomplish with that post.  And no, if a kite wiggles, that is not traveling "crosswind", it is just a wiggle or a wobble.  If it travels across the wind, then that is crosswind travel.  And if a car drives by, it drives by.  It is not "bydriving", it just drives by.  Don't step in front of it or you will get hit.


---In airbornewindenergy@yahoogroups.com, <joefaust333@...
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18641 From: christopher carlin Date: 8/7/2015
Subject: Re: Rolls Royce Sailing Cargo Ship
Interesting I poked around a bit. B9 has a website and a few high powered people involved but it’s very hard to see whether it’s died or not. The drop in the price of oil won’t have helped but their argument on sulphur emissions is very interesting. For anyone interested in this look up WIndstar cruises. They operate and have done so for about 20 years a small fleet of similar size ships equipped with a modern fore and aft rig. I have had the pleasure of many cruises on them as a passenger. My observation is that they’re great fun but the economics don’t work well. Wear and maintenance on the rig and sails is expensive. On average the wind will work but if you’re trying to maintain a course and schedule you don’t get the most out of it. Fear of overpowering and breaking things limits your ability to really use the wind as you would like. 

B9’s proposed rig using unstayed masts appears to me to be structurally impractical. Masts would appear to me to be made of unobtanium, my intuition could be wrong. Yachts up to about 40 feet have been built with unstayed masts but the mast is conical with a relatively broad base and only 40 or 50 feet long. There is a real problem scaling sailing ships above say 5000 tons. The rigs get over 200 feet high and so can’t go under bridges and again as the rig gets tall the basic beam problem of the mast increases.

No question you can build a 5000 tonner and operate it. The question is will it be economical. I don’t see how you could build a viable 100,000 tonner with fixed masts,

Regards,

Chris  
On 6 Aug 2015, at 19:50, dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy] <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18642 From: benhaiemp Date: 8/7/2015
Subject: Re: Rolls Royce Sailing Cargo Ship
See also Peter Lynn Himself - Kite Power For Commercial Shipping

 PierreB
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18643 From: Joe Faust Date: 8/7/2015
Subject: Re: Rolls Royce Sailing Cargo Ship
​Links are support for Christopher C.'s welcome post. ​

​
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18644 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 8/7/2015
Subject: Re: Prove a particular kited wing as non-cross winding.

Interesting comment, Doug.  Your points have much meat in them for chewing and digesting.  And, of course, proofs in text may often need some careful establishing of assumptions and definitions, else confusion may grow.  If some new term is needed, then careful construction of such term is appropriate; and parties in the proof process will need to have careful agreement about such construction, else the parties will be on different pages or different topics, perhaps not even realizing the distance between the two parties.  


Doug, I think I posted "cross winding" and not "crosswinding" but I could go with either, even recognizing that the compound is used in different industries for different reasons. For the proof process, some careful definitions and spellings should be agreed upon within context. This care is natural to the scene of forming text proofs on something of a technical nature. Skipping the care could bring holes in the potential proof.  Whether or not the gerund "cross winding" will be core in the proof sought is something yet to know. The topic seems to require a clarity about the gerund or gerund phrase, as bespoken in the topic's announced title in "non-cross winding".  If a system has no "cross winding" then the condition "non-cross winding" would seem to be evident.


The why of the proof process includes forming foundations for kite energy. Rash assumptions may leave out distinctions that might otherwise be fruitful.  Perhaps in the proof exercise we might better appreciate possibilities in kite energy systems.  Perhaps some of the confusion that Pierre mentions about whether or not an AWES is a cross wind system or not could be clarified by the present proof process, and perhaps followed later by other proofs on associated matters. Eyes might see more clearly when some proofs are present. Nodding yes in a group does not mean the "yeses" are actually facing the same matter.


And, of course, a wobble may be explored relative to accelerometers and causations of the wobble. With the assumption that the wind in the scenario is fine tuned to be steady and horizontal, then a wobble would become starkly important.   A wobble in this scene is not from a gust, as "steady and horizontal" may be assumed to have no gusts to form a wobble.   So, if a wobble is noted, then one looks for causes; one cause might be from a control input.  Yes, in practical winds we have not the pure absolute steady state that is assumed in the preliminary proof effort.  It seems then that a wobble would be an instance of the wing going cross wind. A wobble in this scene then might be an instance where power might be mined. Just what is a wobble?  In the proof effort, there might be a need to well know just what will be admitted as a "wobble" and what will not be admitted as a wobble.  


While in rough draft in this proof effort, in common practical kiting, some energy may be mined from a wobbling kite wing, as there are accelerations present that may be damped by use of a power-take-off system (PTO).  AWES that specialize in wobble as source of PTO might be classed as Wobble AWES.  But, of course, as yet in this discussion, I offer, we do not well know just what a "wobble" is or is not, so some preliminary work needs to be done on defining "wobble."


The topic is about proving some kite as not cross winding.  Discarding the project just because some care for terms takes some energy might throw out the good baby with the grey water.  Having some care for terms is not a given "fixation"; indeed, the care could be just a natural technical sector of the proof project. Haste may not bring forward a sound proof.   The topic seeks a strong sound proof that some given kited wing exhibits non-cross winding.   "winding" here is offered as movement of the air particles (or water, etc.) that impacts a kited wing during practical AWES kiting; the movement is assumed to form horizontal steady streamlines of particle movements until there is impact or interface with the involved kited wing.


Thanks, Doug, for some attention on the topic. I have not faced all the points in your first response, but will attend to such in another  post soon in this topic thread.   The notice that some good professor may pause to well know something in particular is accurate; indeed, some good professors look extremely closely as some matters; and it is not infrequent that the world is blessed by such careful work, as when something is well known, then such seems to open the door to a brighter world.  Knowing well the polio virus seems to have blessed the world.   The wheel is still not fully known, but progress has been made by getting to know the wheel better and better.  Once scientists know what a black hole really is or is not ... and whether or not such exists or not, then the human world will be brighter.   The project at hand in this topic is a piece of the pie.


~ JoeF
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18645 From: benhaiemp Date: 8/7/2015
Subject: Re: AWES foundations: the sum of the most small.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18646 From: benhaiemp Date: 8/7/2015
Subject: Density

Density is a crucial point for reaching viability. Tether length is a concern.

http://www.awec2015.com/images/posters/AWEC25_Benhaiem-poster.pdf  describes a method to reach a high density by the implementation of a single km-range rotating soft wing acting winches on a turning ring. But are such dimensions _ far above known kites _ really possible to control?

http://www.awelabs.com/wp-content/uploads/AWES_Farm_Density.pdf  describes another method to reach a higher density within a farm of multiple individual AWES. What is happening when control fails?

Other methods are discussed on present AWE forum, and investigated by KPower.


PierreB
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18647 From: benhaiemp Date: 8/7/2015
Subject: Cost of fabric

Today I saw some rough prices:

  • kg of polyethylen: 1 $
  • m² of nylon Ripstop: 1 $
  • m² of tarp (50 gr/m²): 0.075 $

By taking account of replacement/year the difference between nylon Ripstop and tarp is high enough to consider if there is some possibility of building with tarp of similar. This subject has already been evoked, but a new examen can be useful.


PierreB

Rotating Reeling

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18648 From: benhaiemp Date: 8/7/2015
Subject: Re: Cost of fabric
white canopy tarpaulin fabric, View tarpaulin fabric, YSH Product Details from Linyi Yongsheng Textile Co., Ltd. on Alibaba.com

300t&40d Ripstop Waterproof Nylon Taffeta For Parachute Fabric - Buy Parachute Fabric,Waterproof Nylon,Ripstop Nylon Taffeta Product on Alibaba.com 

 Nylon Ripstop Sail Boat Fabric - Buy Sail Boat Fabric,Ripstop Fabric,Nylon Fabric Product on Alibaba.com

Generally nylon Ripstop price (1 $/m²)  is 10 times tarp price (0.1 $/m²). Morever there is no limit of width for tarp.


PierreB 

 

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18649 From: dougselsam Date: 8/8/2015
Subject: Re: Prove a particular kited wing as non-cross winding.
Hi Joe
Thanks for your well-considered response.
I don't see how "proving" a "wing" is "not" "cross winding" is of any value to AWE at this stage.
What I'm seeing is a continued urge to somehow reduce everything to empty words, thereby reducing the effectiveness of any effort to mere philosophical musings.
If nobody is willing to implement the myriad of easy approaches to AWE, then so be it.  Meanwhile, I guess the "industry" has been reduced to empty promises that are never fulfilled, and pointless conjecture on "the number of angels on the head of a pin".
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18650 From: dougselsam Date: 8/8/2015
Subject: Re: Rolls Royce Sailing Cargo Ship
Wow, Peter Lynn, The "Mike Barnard" of sailing ships... Who wouldda thought?  That article has a lot of solid thinking in it, whether it is 100% prescient (spot-on) or not.  The guy really has a brain.  And he seems to know about a lot of topics, not "just flying kites".  In spite of all his great points, I could still see kites pulling ships, or at least boats of SOME size, having at least some niche use, like a ferry on a crosswind route in a consistently windy area, for example.  Or a boat flying a SuperTurbine(R) as I delineated in my first AWE patent years ago.   I would think it depends on the use of the ship and the route chosen.  And I don't think schedules would necessarily suffer if there is an alternate drive system in place.  The system I outlined would have an onboard electric drive, chargeable by the SuperTurbine(R), where the propeller could be run by turbine and/or the batteries and the motor/generator, which could also charge the batteries when in port.  But, ya know, nobody listens to me... :)
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18651 From: dougselsam Date: 8/8/2015
Subject: Re: AWES foundations: the sum of the most small.
Joe I think this "quantum physics" question under consideration comes down to whether synchronized macroscopic units are a "quantum physics" phenomenon, or whether they are "just synchronized".  The cylinders and valves of a car engine are accurately timed.  Is that quantum physics?  Are the pistons a "bose-einstein condensate"?  I think the original proposition was a long stack of flapping wings working together to drive a generator on the ground, that sort of thing, and if they could be synchronized, that it would become a "bose-einstein condensate".  Notwithstanding the abysmal record of flapping (or wiggling, or wobbling) wind energy devices, I'd settle for "reminiscent of a bose-einsten condensate" or "somewhat in the fashion of a bose-einsten condensate" or even "sharing some characteristics with a bose-einsten condensate", but who knows.  I guess first someone would have to get such a system working, then perhaps it could be determined whether it rises to the level of being a manifestation of quantum physics.  More likely I'd say it might share certain characteristics without actually BEING a quantum phenomenon.  But who am I to say, without seeing the system working and knowing the method of synchrony. 

Beyond that, to back away from the original claim, and merely cite that a structure is made of atoms, which "we" describe using quantum physics, is meaningless in the sense that it is not new information:

A pile of dirt is based on quantum physics by that standard.  So the people who drive dirt-hauling trucks are quantum physicists...

Hiding under a pile of words as a refuge from ignorance and inability, or unwillingness, to get anything working.

To say an AWE system is made of atoms, and so it operates on the principles of quantum physics, is really just changing the subject, or diluting the original claim to the level of being meaningless, like promising an AWE-powered rock concert with major stars, and delivering, years later, 3 guitar notes from a transistor radio instead: not the original topic, but a change of subject. 

That would be like saying the B9 ship was true because you waited a couple years then went out on a kiteboard for a minute or two.  Green energy seems to be one subject where truth is often sidestepped in favor of empty promises in an atmosphere of endless hype.  What I see really, is that continued fixation on word definitions, as though mere words can substitute for working systems.  Making simple ideas sound so complicated that only a genius that doesn't yet exist coould possibly understand it seems one more excuse for not producing any power.  "Well how could we possibly have such a system working?  After all, it's quamtum physics!"  Oh, OK then, you're off-the hook. 

Saying "everything" is the same as saying "nothing".  Like a leaf blowing by, anything COULD BE, by some stretch of word definitions, be "called" AWE.  There has to be a meaningful point of focus.


---In airbornewindenergy@yahoogroups.com, <joefaust333@...
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 18652 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 8/8/2015
Subject: Re: Prove a particular kited wing as non-cross winding.

Doug, give it some time: One day you might "see" how a proving process may benefit RAD. When clear theorems are present, such may be efficient building blocks in the grand scheme of AWE. Shying away from the hard work of finding theorems and clearly expressing the proofs of those theorems may be a personal choice; not all AWE workers are be theorem provers; there are many facets to the arts, sciences, and engineering faces of AWE; Doug, you are not personally asked to be involved in every aspect of AWE. However, the generalist part of you might reach to be aware that proof processes may reveal things formerly hidden; and some reveals may well open novel avenues for solving concerns.


For instance, in open forum on this topic thread, we seemed to have discovered that the proof process needs to know better what the heck "wobble" may be and how it may play in showing a particular wing is non-cross winding or not.   One tactic is to have a trial definition of "wobble" and see if that trial definition leads to contradictions; if contradictions arise, then an altered definition may be needed.  For such, I offer a trial definition: A wobble of a wing is an unsteady movement from one direction to another direction 180 degrees to the first direction.

But now I am in need to know just what "unsteady" may mean.  What is "steady" and what is "unsteady" as regards to movement of wings.  Bounds? Thresholds?    


Gut feelings may play in proof processes, though the gut feelings are not part of the proof anticipated. My gut feeling is that only ideal kited wings may be configured to be non-cross winding; and real material kites wings will never be found to be non-cross winding. But practice will come to define thresholds and boundaries  in order to classify AWES; that is, a certain quantity  or range of quantities will be defined for sorting through systems while one seeks effective practical AWES.   The gut feeling would thus have it that all practical material kited wings are cross winding to some extent; but such a broad swath does not immediately distinguish the systems that cross wind starkly more than other systems.

.