Messages in AirborneWindEnergy group.                          AWES 19929 to 19979 Page 292 of 440.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19929 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/13/2016
Subject: Re: more Minesto paravane farm details

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19930 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/13/2016
Subject: Seagull Surprise Incident report

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19931 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/14/2016
Subject: Kite System Base for Servant Remote-Controlled Drones

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19932 From: Joe Faust Date: 4/14/2016
Subject: Walk-along Tumbling Wing Arch Kite

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19933 From: dave santos Date: 4/14/2016
Subject: Enavate moving into the fast lane

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19934 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/14/2016
Subject: Re: Walk-along Tumbling Wing Arch Kite

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19935 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 4/14/2016
Subject: Centrifugally Stiffened Rotor

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19937 From: dave santos Date: 4/14/2016
Subject: Re: Centrifugally Stiffened Rotor

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19938 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/14/2016
Subject: Re: Centrifugally Stiffened Rotor

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19939 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/14/2016
Subject: Re: Centrifugally Stiffened Rotor

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19940 From: santos137@yahoo.com Date: 4/14/2016
Subject: Natural Power to help Kite Power...

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19941 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 4/15/2016
Subject: Re: Centrifugally Stiffened Rotor

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19942 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/15/2016
Subject: Communicating with each other about AWES matters

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19943 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/16/2016
Subject: Re: Strong Fibers

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19944 From: benhaiemp Date: 4/16/2016
Subject: Re: Centrifugally Stiffened Rotor

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19945 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/16/2016
Subject: Re: Centrifugally Stiffened Rotor

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19946 From: Joe Faust Date: 4/16/2016
Subject: Re: Centrifugally Stiffened Rotor

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19947 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 4/16/2016
Subject: Re: Centrifugally Stiffened Rotor

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19948 From: dave santos Date: 4/16/2016
Subject: Re: Centrifugally Stiffened Rotor

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19949 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 4/16/2016
Subject: Re: Centrifugally Stiffened Rotor

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19950 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/16/2016
Subject: Re: Centrifugally Stiffened Rotor

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19951 From: dave santos Date: 4/17/2016
Subject: Re: Centrifugally Stiffened Rotor

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19952 From: dave santos Date: 4/17/2016
Subject: Paragliding to the lower stratosphere

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19953 From: Hardensoft International Limited Date: 4/17/2016
Subject: Re: Documenting collective AWEC Highwind IMTEK BHWE HWN500 AWESCO Co

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19954 From: dave santos Date: 4/17/2016
Subject: Re: Documenting collective AWEC Highwind IMTEK BHWE HWN500 AWESCO Co

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19955 From: dave santos Date: 4/18/2016
Subject: TumbleWing Experiments

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19956 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 4/18/2016
Subject: Re: Centrifugally Stiffened Rotor

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19957 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/18/2016
Subject: Re: TumbleWing Experiments

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19958 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 4/18/2016
Subject: Re: Centrifugally Stiffened Rotor

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19959 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/18/2016
Subject: Re: Centrifugally Stiffened Rotor

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19960 From: dave santos Date: 4/18/2016
Subject: Re: Centrifugally Stiffened Rotor

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19961 From: dave santos Date: 4/18/2016
Subject: Constructive wake interactions in flutter energy harvester arrays (C

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19962 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 4/18/2016
Subject: Re: Centrifugally Stiffened Rotor

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19963 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/18/2016
Subject: Re: Centrifugally Stiffened Rotor

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19964 From: dave santos Date: 4/18/2016
Subject: Re: Centrifugally Stiffened Rotor

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19965 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/18/2016
Subject: Re: Centrifugally Stiffened Rotor

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19966 From: dave santos Date: 4/18/2016
Subject: Re: Centrifugally Stiffened Rotor

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19967 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/18/2016
Subject: Centrifugal force (or is it a force?) matters

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19968 From: dave santos Date: 4/18/2016
Subject: Re: Centrifugal force (or is it a force?) matters

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19969 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/18/2016
Subject: Re: Centrifugal force (or is it a force?) matters

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19970 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 4/19/2016
Subject: Re: Centrifugally Stiffened Rotor

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19971 From: dave santos Date: 4/19/2016
Subject: ThothX Tower (semi-airborne)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19972 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/19/2016
Subject: Re: Centrifugally Stiffened Rotor

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19973 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/19/2016
Subject: Re: Centrifugally Stiffened Rotor

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19974 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/19/2016
Subject: Re: Centrifugally Stiffened Rotor

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19975 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/19/2016
Subject: Re: Centrifugally Stiffened Rotor

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19976 From: dave santos Date: 4/19/2016
Subject: toward better HALE CSR platform design

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19977 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/19/2016
Subject: Re: Centrifugally Stiffened Rotor

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19978 From: dave santos Date: 4/19/2016
Subject: China's living tradition of kinematic kites

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19979 From: dave santos Date: 4/20/2016
Subject: Paramotoring to the Tropopause (parafoil high-altitude capability ca



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19929 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/13/2016
Subject: Re: more Minesto paravane farm details

Minesto places order for marine energy turbine

GOTHENBURG, Sweden
04/13/2016
By Michael Harris 
========================================================
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19930 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/13/2016
Subject: Seagull Surprise Incident report

Incident report:


Date: April 12, 2016,

Site:  Santa Monica, CA beach at Pacific Ocean Park area

Prior experiences:  Seagulls occasionally take a brief interest in some kited wings.

Kite system of concern for incident

The kite system's two anchor wings consisted of two people (mixed-media air-and-sand wings), a birthday girl and a dad of the birthday girl.


The kite system's arch load-line-held wing was a 3 cm by 15 cm piece of white food container Styrofoam shaped and prepared for operating with the load line as axle (tech detail placed into public domain a week or so ago). The load line was super-fine monofilament with very low visibility. The wing was slightly shaped to encourage rotation in one direction only; the shaping gave rigidity when the apparent wind hit the broad faces of the wing during rotation. Wind station stops were not used.


Surprising experience:
A resting flock of seagulls were anout 150 m away from the flight of the subject kite system.
As soon as the tumbling wing rotated, the birds were excited. Once the tumbling wing was flying well, the seagulls launched and came over to explore the tumbling wing. Some opened their beaks and were seemingly ready to grab the wing. In groups and singly about 100 of the seagulls came close to the wing and seemingly wanted to get more involved with the wing.   One seagull got caught in the load line; the bird was forced to land; fortunately after the kite system was also downed by the entanglement, the slack in the load line and change of position of the bird did result in a release of the bird; the bird flew off.

GUESSED CAUSE:
I think the birds have been trained at piers and fishing boats to fetch thrown fish and fish parts out of the air. I think the tumbling wing appeared to the birds as something to eat. Seagull feeding frenzies are not uncommon.  
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19931 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/14/2016
Subject: Kite System Base for Servant Remote-Controlled Drones

Kite System Base for Servant Remote-Controlled Drones


In some service sectors it will be advantageous to have untethered remote-controlled drones to operate from a kite-system homing platform which could be a minimal as a loop-and-hook system. While aloft at mothership kite system, the RC drones could refresh, repair, recharge, download data, wait for assignment, perhaps double function into wind-energy production, ...     [open to design options and application choices, and open for scaling and development]

kPower, Inc.

Contact kPower, Inc. for licensing relationship for the involved technology.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19932 From: Joe Faust Date: 4/14/2016
Subject: Walk-along Tumbling Wing Arch Kite
The following has no prior art found:

Walkalong Tumbling Wing Kiting 

Each hand of the walking operator holds one of the two anchoring ends of the arching tether. The tether holds one or more tumbling wings using the arching tether as the through-wing axle doubling as bearing part.  Faster walking increases the speed of the apparent wind over the tumbling wing.  The pilot gets exercise by walking and also by holding the tether at a spread. The pilot is to stay aware of pathway safety.  The walkalong tumbling wing kiting may feature energy production, energy conversion, and other practical applications (advertising, entertainment, education, polishing, sound making, ...    Also, instead of the recently disclosed through-wing load line axle method, one may have other swivel and slip ring methods for holding and allowing the autorotation of the tumbling wings. 

Without forming slope, but only forming apparent wind by walking:
have arch-kited tumbling wing.   Indoors or outdoors!   If outdoors and there is wind, then walk generally into the wind. 
Indoors in calm air: Walk in any direction.   

Notice that this novel activity does not have the operator going zig-zag rambunctiously as has been popularly the case by the free-glide walkalong tumbling-wing gliders.  Walkalong tumbling wing gliders require pilot to form an incline slope for obtaining slope lift flow to keep the glider up flying. Differently, the walkalong tumbling wing kiting does not need the formation of a slope (hands slanted, cardboard tool, ... ). 

This walkalong tumbling wing kiting method is released to public domain for non-commercial recreation and sport and educational uses. Commercial uses: contact kPower, Inc. for very reasonable licensing of the method.    The method includes the industrial uses even when arch anchors are powered or moved by other means other than human walking. 

JoeF
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19933 From: dave santos Date: 4/14/2016
Subject: Enavate moving into the fast lane
Enavate is yet another TUDelft AWE start-up in the same low-kW reeling AWES design-space. The start-ups are all tapping into H2020 and Curie Foundation largess, but its a shame the engineering science is so duplicative and narrowly limited in paradigm and scaling potential. What happened to conceptual Wubbo's boldness? 

On the positive side, the TUDelft architecture is undergoing a thorough multi-track development with plenty of funding, so that future comparative fly-off validation will have solid contenders rather than question-marks. Enavate has been incubating since 2014, and intends to market a 20kW AWES in the next few years. Particular technical challenges apply to all TUDelft-Leuven derivatives, of complex control, launching/landing, reliability, safety, and economic viability. Best of luck to the hard-working engineers exploring this AWE path-
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19934 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/14/2016
Subject: Re: Walk-along Tumbling Wing Arch Kite
A novel variation:
 Walk at zero speed in calm air. That is: stand still. Pilot operates a pumping action that forms an apparent wind that results in the active kiting of the held tumbling wing. Have the two hands holding the two anchors of load line held tumbling wing. One end of the arch load line is in the left hand; the other end of the load line is in the right hand. Then perform rotations of the hands, so that the left and and right hand simultaneously trace circular or elliptical paths in planes parallel to each other and normal to the ground. The motions of the hands pump the tethered tumbling wing. When the tumbling wing is shaped and oriented for rising flight in forward walkalong kiting, then the paths of the hand would be close and up and then out and then down and then close to body again.

 One may reverse anchoring tether points to orient oppositely; then the motion would be close to chest, then down and then out and then up at the outer reach and then up and then in close and down again. One application besides education and entertainment: physical therapy for the hands, arm, and shoulder. Reverse orientation of the pumping of the kite system. The tumbling wing kited will autorotate during the motions of the hands. 

 All the above may be altered to have the feet be the holders of the load line. Or a foot and a hand. Or the hands of two distinct persons; each person holds one of the ends of the load line (think jumping rope where two distinct persons hold the ends of the jump rope. Indeed, following some care for mass and balance, a jumping rope may be modified to hold tumbling wings for the above describe pumping motions; one result could be a specialized dynamic jumping rope; sound-making could be designed into the tumbling wing arrangement. The lift and drag of the tumbling wings on a jumping rope will alter experiences. 

 One variation among many could be the having to two people pump the held jumping rope with the mounted tumbling wings where flygen electric generators mine part of the tumbling wing rotating to power devices, say LED lamps, music recordings, voiced messages, etc. For commercial uses: negotiate with kPower, Inc. for easy licensing. For recreational, education, and sport uses there is no licensing required. 

One form of micro hang gliding is done using the hand-held arched tumbling wing arrangement. Walk or run into the wind or in a firm direction in calm; get the tumbling-wing arch kite lifting. Then leap in a manner that has the pilot fall through the air while the tumbling-wing arch kite retards the fall of the pilot's mass. The result will be some micro hang gliding. Each hand holds one end of the arched load line which in turn holds the tumbling wing (s).  The arrangement may be biplaned or triplaned.   An alternative is to hand hold a spar; have the load line anchored at the two ends of the spar; this gives option for a longer load line and opportunity for more wing segments on the load line. 
 JoeF
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19935 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 4/14/2016
Subject: Centrifugally Stiffened Rotor

Hi all,

 

After some discussions I am going to read about Centrifugally Stiffened Rotor (CSR) on https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/Moore_EternalFlight.pdf and on http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20160001625.pdf . This concept seems to gather all positive features to be suitable for AWES in utility-scale. Dear Mark after a first reading I saw a possibility with Rotating Reel Conversion System, but after a second reading, and as mentioned on papers, generators aloft configuration in Makani-Google* style looks more appropriate. I study (I have a first sketch) some configurations allowing to fill a very large swept area, by keeping reasonable dimensions of wings-blades.

It is interesting that Pr. Moritz Diehl investigating "dancing kites" (a sort of CSR ?) will organize AWEC2017. This can be very inspiring, like  contributions from AWESCO, Makani-Google and others.

 

PierreB

 

 

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19937 From: dave santos Date: 4/14/2016
Subject: Re: Centrifugally Stiffened Rotor
Hi Mark and Justin,

Here is the classic AWE CSR reference, which MIT seems to have broken the link to :(

William Roeseler "Billy"   

There may be related Boeing references to locate. The kite world of course idolizes Billy, a career Boeing engineer, and his son Corey (Cc:ed), as historic originators of kite surfing (in the Columbia River Gorge, the late Corwin Hardham of Makani as a notable figure of that pioneering scene). 

In Open-AWE studies we have many CSR similarity cases reviewed, from Zeppelin airship fabric rotors to Dr. Jayant Sirohi's UTexas Rotor Lab work with flexible rotors, as well as Brooks Coleman's asymmetric RC control-line wings (his dad was a key Space Shuttle engineer). We even have working CSR prototypes in various kite forms ("daisies", "looping foils", "tumble-wings", etc.) covering a broad design space, but sharing the core CSR principle.

Great to see NASA advancing the concept Billy founded in 1966. Its camel's nose in the Agency tent for major AWE research. Justin, good luck with your thesis, and count on us if we can help in any way.

Cheers,

dave santos



On Thursday, April 14, 2016 2:46 PM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
Mark,  
Thank for your answer.
 
CSR concept should be taught in universities involved in AWE, and realized as AWES prototypes. A massive implementation of CSR rotor-wing satellites can help also to build AWES. I begin to learn about CSR and to study some possible configurations. Please is there a database about CSR, comprising Justin's publications?
 
Thanks,
 
Pierre
 ========================== 
 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19938 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/14/2016
Subject: Re: Centrifugally Stiffened Rotor
Download PDF of Billy's early thesis:


=============================

Another note. 


http://www.copters.com/aero/centrifugal_force.html

 




 

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19939 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/14/2016
Subject: Re: Centrifugally Stiffened Rotor
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19940 From: santos137@yahoo.com Date: 4/14/2016
Subject: Natural Power to help Kite Power...
  @@attachment@@
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19941 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 4/15/2016
Subject: Re: Centrifugally Stiffened Rotor

CSR of NASA, as described on http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20160001625.pdf, has several features which make it particularly suitable as AWES. It is not the same for other CSR.

 

 

"This concept introduces a completely new aerial vehicle structure,which uses the best features of fixed-wing and rotorcraft designs."

Tensegrity is achieved in a very elegant and efficient style: masses of fixed-wings are settled in the tip of their respective tethers. Fixed-wings have a high aspect ratio thanks to low bending moment (please corrections if it is not correct). So this CSR can reach a dynamical structural stability with a very large span, and a low global weight. Besides an excess of weight of fixed-wings by adding a propeller in Makani style is not really a problem, as its mass allows an improvement of centrifugal force and stiffness.If rotors are stable enough the maximization of a large swept area becomes a possibility.

 

Pierre
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19942 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/15/2016
Subject: Communicating with each other about AWES matters

Communicating with each other about AWES matters

has aspects.

1. Drawings.

2. Drawings with words.

3. Videos,silent 

4. Videos with narration.

5. Photographs.

6. Loaned or given material devices. 

7. Notes. 

8. Essays. 

9. Logical arguments. 

10. In-person conferences where all the above may have a place to play. 


We also use 

= symbols 

= words

= abbreviations

= units of measure

= numbers 

= mathematics

= logic

= coding

= emotions

= references

= links


While communicating we each flow in some sort of style and tone. 

Ordinary human needs play their part in sculpting how we communicate our AWES matters. 


Sometimes we pause and and reflect our evolving understanding of another's perspective on a matter, so the other may check if more clarification is needed. Sometimes we skip over this clarification process and have conversations where mutual understanding misses on a point or several point. 


There are varied philosophies operating in our community. Communicating ideas seems to be a fuzzy activity ever with challenges. Training probably affects how an AWES community member communicates. We are a community with a wide range of differing assets that we bring to our communication efforts. Building a community nomenclature for non-standard objects, methods, processes, and entities seems to be a ever-open process. 


Within an essay hopefully the author(s) will make clear the meaning of their words, symbols, abbreviations, units, and drawings. When a non-standard use of a word is utilized, then hopefully a careful definition is given for the readers.  


Our subject won't be fully served by tools close to our concerns; we form words, symbols, and understandings that supply what may be missing in extant common tools. 


Glossary of engineering - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


This is an open topic. When a matter about communicating in AWE matters comes to the front of someone's attention, then perhaps this topic thread could serve. 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19943 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/16/2016
Subject: Re: Strong Fibers
Attachments :
    Carbon nanotube - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    		   @@attachment@@
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19944 From: benhaiemp Date: 4/16/2016
    Subject: Re: Centrifugally Stiffened Rotor

    More I study this CSR more I see it as the winner for an economically viable AWES in utility-scale, perhaps in all scales. Indeed this design gathers the best of wings and rotors, of rigid (wing) and soft (tethers between wings and the central module) by building a dynamic tensegrity structure, between crosswind flight and rotation. One interesting feature (among others) is the link between the wing and the tether following it, allowing a lesser bending moment on the wing.


    Perhaps one key of this main design is the initial conception as a vehicle for eternal flight. So as AWES it could gather possible huge swept area and low land and space use, high L/D ratio and lightness. So here the scalability is seen for the whole vehicle (tethers and wings) , and is more easily realizable than upscaling of a single rigid wing.


    Congratulations to Dr. Mark D. Moore and his team in NASA to have found the key to produce a viable AWES. I join again links: https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/Moore_EternalFlight.pdf and http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20160001625.pdf.


    In my opinion a consensus should be made about this design, in a way allowing to accelerate R&D and  production.


    PierreB
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19945 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/16/2016
    Subject: Re: Centrifugally Stiffened Rotor

    Some comment: 


    The CSR concept depicted is a powered kite system having three powered winged anchors at the outside tip of the on-tether wings; the three sub-kites share a common hub anchor. As the tip wing is powered and is driven to fly in a circle, then the wing on the tether body notices apparent wind at the wing's stations; the apparent wind at each station along the tether-integrated wing is distinct reducing continuously as the station is closer to the central hub anchor payload construction. The three branches are essentially three arch kites with a ribbon wing as the long high-aspect ratio wing. The tether of each branch that is not integrated with a ribbon wing is nevertheless wing also of the branched sub-kite arch kite.We have some experience with arch kites where the apparent wind is not the same along the stations of the arch.   The CSR drawing shows the three arch kites as being quite straight, but physically really the three branches of tether-wing will not be a straight line, but an arch. 


        The tether-embedded wing and the tether sans additional wing will have challenges of oscillations brought into play from many sources (inputs from the tip driver, wake of other branches, reflections from the hub anchor, ...).   Control of those oscillations to avoid destructive wave amplitudes will be a robust challenge. Tip-driven helicopters have a history; tower-placed tip-driven wind turbines have a history. Ribbon arch kites have a history.  These histories are fertile grounds for informing the CSR concept. Flutter arts and science will play in the study of CSR.  Tether dynamics will inform those studying the CSR concept. There will be compression 

        

        Mastering arch-kite AWES will inform CSR, as the CSR is a compound of three arch kites.  We have already powered anchors to arch kites (rigid or ribbon). Roeseler introduced tip-driven ribbon rotors that match the essence of the topic CSR.  The CSR concept seems to imply making the three arch-sub-kite branches very long; the control challenges over the harmonics to be found in each branch will increase with the length of the branches.  The CSR uses power to lift the payload hub; the payload hub mass could be substituted with a tether to the ground to drive pumpingly a ground-based generator.   Another option would be to format drag sub-kites below the hub to format counter-rotating to drive a hub electric generator while sending the produced electricity to the ground. If just the tip drivers are the source of apparent wind, then net gains won't happen, but only costs; say, more solar energy would be used than electricity could mechanically be produced. The CSR as AWES won't be producing more electricity energy than the energy costed to tip-drive the three branches.    My first blush: Moore may be onto a way to fly the powered aircraft of CSR using energy from fuel or sun or nuclear energy, etc. and have a powered-kite-based aircraft of three powered arch sub-kites.  But I do not yet see cause for enthusiasm for having powered sub-kites as a foundation for generating electricity; conversion of solar energy to tip drive wings of a turbine to obtain electricity would be a challenge route; the solar energy converted to wanted electricity would excite me first.


    http://energykitesystems.net/Roeseler/index.html


    JoeF
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19946 From: Joe Faust Date: 4/16/2016
    Subject: Re: Centrifugally Stiffened Rotor
    Apology for the incomplete sentence in prior post: 
    "There will be compression". 
    Delete that. Thanks. Such was an unfinished comment about the various waves that will be occurring in each of the three arch sub-kites of the CSR. 
    JoeF
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19947 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 4/16/2016
    Subject: Re: Centrifugally Stiffened Rotor

    The control system of wings is a key for this promising concept mixing rotor and steered wings. 
    Please Joe can you present calculations of mentioned sources supporting your statement of "challenges of oscillations" ?    For a system like Makani where a single steered wing is held by a tether linked to the ground, are there also challenges of oscillations? Are there more oscillations with three wings?  Are there less oscillations when the wing(s) is (are) linked to the ground? In what "additional wing" is a solution for these supposed oscillations? For a time oscillations seem to be a problem, as usually oscillations are a good way of power generation...

     

     =====

    JoeF commented: "The CSR as AWES won't be producing more electricity energy than the energy costed to tip-drive the three branches." ????


    PierreB notes:  As AWES, steered wings of CSR work as steered crosswind kites generating electricity as described for many systems including Makani. Propeller with generator aloft à la Makani seems to be the simplest means of conversion for this system. "...to drive pumpingly a ground-based generator" and you lost the benefit of dynamic stability among other problems.

    ===================== 


    JoeF commented:   "...the control challenges over the harmonics to be found in each branch will increase with the length of the branches."  

    PierreB asks:  Please Joe, can you support that statement?

     

    ======================

    Have you also elements to assert this:

    ====== JoeF noted: "CSR is a compound of three arch kites"===== ?

     What would be the degrees of curve(s), and under what forces?

     ============


    JoeF commented: "The CSR drawing shows the three arch kites as being quite straight, but physically really the three branches of tether-wing will not be a straight line, but an arch." 

    PierreB remarks: Dr. Mark D. Moore would be happy to learn it. A great step for R&D...  

     

    ~  PierreB 

    [[Moderator placed some format leads and spaces and coloring ... to distinguish quote sources.]]

     

     
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19948 From: dave santos Date: 4/16/2016
    Subject: Re: Centrifugally Stiffened Rotor
    Pierre,

    JoeF is merely mentioning the well-known aeroelastic challenges inherent to long wings, but is not the source of formal calculations in this concept space. There is a lot of math to satisfy your questions starting in the Wikipedia article linked below, and in the papers starting with [Roeseler 1966], which of course support Joe's statements.

    The bad news for this particular concept as a practical AWE basis is that an efficient tip-speed is limited by Mach number (< ~0.8) so that a CSR disc cannot be very large and still develop enough centrifugal force to properly stiffen an super-light wing. It will serve as a niche method, like perhaps the atmosat app.

    Note that Mark Moore is not in fact leading a NASA CSR team, but is an advocate of the work. Todd Hodges is the principal investigator.

    daveS






    On Saturday, April 16, 2016 5:42 PM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
    The control system of wings is a key for this promising concept mixing rotor and steered wings. 
    Please Joe can you present calculations of mentioned sources supporting your statement of "challenges of oscillations" ?    For a system like Makani where a single steered wing is held by a tether linked to the ground, are there also challenges of oscillations? Are there more oscillations with three wings?  Are there less oscillations when the wing(s) is (are) linked to the ground? In what "additional wing" is a solution for these supposed oscillations? For a time oscillations seem to be a problem, as usually oscillations are a good way of power generation...
     
     =====

    JoeF commented: "The CSR as AWES won't be producing more electricity energy than the energy costed to tip-drive the three branches." ????

    PierreB notes:  As AWES, steered wings of CSR work as steered crosswind kites generating electricity as described for many systems including Makani. Propeller with generator aloft à la Makani seems to be the simplest means of conversion for this system. "...to drive pumpingly a ground-based generator" and you lost the benefit of dynamic stability among other problems.
    ===================== 

    JoeF commented:   "...the control challenges over the harmonics to be found in each branch will increase with the length of the branches."  

    PierreB asks:  Please Joe, can you support that statement?
     
    ======================
    Have you also elements to assert this:
    ====== JoeF noted: "CSR is a compound of three arch kites"===== ?

     What would be the degrees of curve(s), and under what forces?

     ============

    JoeF commented: "The CSR drawing shows the three arch kites as being quite straight, but physically really the three branches of tether-wing will not be a straight line, but an arch." 

    PierreB remarks: Dr. Mark D. Moore would be happy to learn it. A great step for R&D...  
     
    ~  PierreB 
    [[Moderator placed some format leads and spaces and coloring ... to distinguish quote sources.]]
     
     
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19949 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 4/16/2016
    Subject: Re: Centrifugally Stiffened Rotor

    JoeF had commented: "The CSR drawing shows the three arch kites as being quite straight, but physically really the three branches of tether-wing will not be a straight line, but an arch."


    PierreB comments: 

    In the initial configuration CSR is in free "eternal" flight, so there is no tether linking the hub to the ground, so perhaps no loads to make archs. In my opinion this CSR presents many new features in the details. So it is still difficult to make staterments about possible problems: a deeper analysis is needed. But it is possible to see main positive features in the conception, knowing problems can be seen and solved later, probably by the control system.

    PierreB

      

     

     

     

     
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19950 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/16/2016
    Subject: Re: Centrifugally Stiffened Rotor
    In the next few days, I aim to address your questions over my comments about the CSR concept presented in the linked document.

    This present post will just face one of the matters presented in this commentary clip:
    ====================================================
    JoeF commented: "The CSR drawing shows the three arch kites as being quite straight, but physically really the three branches of tether-wing will not be a straight line, but an arch."

    PierreB remarked: Dr. Mark D. Moore would be happy to learn it. A great step for R&D...
    ====================================================

    1. The drawing is of a powered aircraft. Prime movers costing energy are set at the tip of three branches rooted at a central hub. The aircraft is assumed to be operating in the air media. As the prime mover at the tip drives forward assumptively normal to a radius of the disk, then a tension in the tether that couples the tip prime mover to the central hub body at the center of the implied operating disk. There are two other like branches with tip drivers costing energy. Assumptively the three tip drivers set up tension in their respective tethers in a controlled manner so that the central hub either stays in one fixed position relative to the earth or moves to positions as desired by adjusting the contributions of each of three branches radiating from the central hub.

    2. As the tether between a tip of one of the three branches and the central hub is not rigid, then when tension is in that tether is joined to the driven motion of that tether through air, there will be aerodynamic drag on that tether. Adding airfoil forms (wings) on that tether will add lift and drag to the complex tether. Those forces of lift and drag are distributed along the tether. It would take an infinite centrifugal force to keep that complex tether straight; since the aircraft is intended to be materially real, then there will not be supplied such an infinite centrifugal force. Hence, the branches' approximately radial complex tether will not be straight but settle to some arch line, not catenary (because the drag forces will not be evenly distributed).

    3. My guess is that Dr. Mark D. Moore would easily recognize that loaded tensioned flexible tethers cannot be straight; this matter is elementary and is no great step for R&D.  It might be helpful to slightly alter the related document's drawing to give hint to the lift and drag forces that will cause the approximately radial tethers to be non-straight. My guess is that he already knows this matter; that is, my guess is that there is not something new hereon for him to learn.   Mark may speak for himself on this point.

    4. Now some clarification that the three branches of the Eternal Flight CSR concept powered aircraft is a powered kite having three sub-kites in its three branches:  Have "kite" be wings coupled with tensed tethers; the wings are variously anchors to each other as the involved wings interact with some media.  Examining a branch of the Eternal Flight CSR, see the tip driver as a wing (in this case that wing will be powered to drive in some direction). Then have that tip wing tethered to the central hub which here is seen as acting as an anchor wing coupled with the tip wing. As the tip wing moves, then a tension is set up in the coupling tether; the fundamentals of "kite" are fulfilled. That additional wing is embedded to form a complex tether simply makes the "kite" non-simple; the branch "kite" has then at least three wings. Since the branch kite's tether forms an arch (non-straight) and is "sub" to the whole aircraft, then reference to the branch kite as "sub-kite" seems appropriate.  Since the whole powered aircraft consists of three arch sub-kites, and motions are obtain by powered means, then the whole aircraft may be appropriately called a powered kite.

    5. Powering a wing of a kite is not new. A child with a single-line kited wing amounts to being a powered wing himself or herself.  A prime mover may be set in a powered kite as part of a wing or as part of a tether, but when part of a tether, then the prime mover becomes another wing in the kite.

    I will address other tabled points in the coming days.

    Best to all,
     JoeF
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19951 From: dave santos Date: 4/17/2016
    Subject: Re: Centrifugally Stiffened Rotor
    Attachments :
    Joe is correct that the wings of the CSR can be interpreted as kite arches for the purpose of analysis. An arch does not have to be bowed overall (eg. a "flat arch"*). A kite arch is a system that includes a top and bottom load path. A similar force-map maintains the CSR wing extended, but with centrifugal force acting like the ground force that keeps a standard kite arch in place. 

    As long as this distinction is noted or obvious, the comparison is sound. In both cases its a span stiffened in extension, and the ideal geometry is a catenary curve, which can appear flat, with invisible loadpaths internally or in air/ground media. One could go further along Joe's insight and identify the CSR concept as an upside-down arch in negative gravity, with negative lift; to more precisely distinguish it from its non-rotating relative.

    -----------

    * Flat arch in architecture

    Inline image



    On Saturday, April 16, 2016 11:40 PM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
    In the next few days, I aim to address your questions over my comments about the CSR concept presented in the linked document.

    This present post will just face one of the matters presented in this commentary clip:
    ====================================================
    JoeF commented: "The CSR drawing shows the three arch kites as being quite straight, but physically really the three branches of tether-wing will not be a straight line, but an arch."

    PierreB remarked: Dr. Mark D. Moore would be happy to learn it. A great step for R&D...
    ====================================================

    1. The drawing is of a powered aircraft. Prime movers costing energy are set at the tip of three branches rooted at a central hub. The aircraft is assumed to be operating in the air media. As the prime mover at the tip drives forward assumptively normal to a radius of the disk, then a tension in the tether that couples the tip prime mover to the central hub body at the center of the implied operating disk. There are two other like branches with tip drivers costing energy. Assumptively the three tip drivers set up tension in their respective tethers in a controlled manner so that the central hub either stays in one fixed position relative to the earth or moves to positions as desired by adjusting the contributions of each of three branches radiating from the central hub.

    2. As the tether between a tip of one of the three branches and the central hub is not rigid, then when tension is in that tether is joined to the driven motion of that tether through air, there will be aerodynamic drag on that tether. Adding airfoil forms (wings) on that tether will add lift and drag to the complex tether. Those forces of lift and drag are distributed along the tether. It would take an infinite centrifugal force to keep that complex tether straight; since the aircraft is intended to be materially real, then there will not be supplied such an infinite centrifugal force. Hence, the branches' approximately radial complex tether will not be straight but settle to some arch line, not catenary (because the drag forces will not be evenly distributed).

    3. My guess is that Dr. Mark D. Moore would easily recognize that loaded tensioned flexible tethers cannot be straight; this matter is elementary and is no great step for R&D.  It might be helpful to slightly alter the related document's drawing to give hint to the lift and drag forces that will cause the approximately radial tethers to be non-straight. My guess is that he already knows this matter; that is, my guess is that there is not something new hereon for him to learn.   Mark may speak for himself on this point.

    4. Now some clarification that the three branches of the Eternal Flight CSR concept powered aircraft is a powered kite having three sub-kites in its three branches:  Have "kite" be wings coupled with tensed tethers; the wings are variously anchors to each other as the involved wings interact with some media.  Examining a branch of the Eternal Flight CSR, see the tip driver as a wing (in this case that wing will be powered to drive in some direction). Then have that tip wing tethered to the central hub which here is seen as acting as an anchor wing coupled with the tip wing. As the tip wing moves, then a tension is set up in the coupling tether; the fundamentals of "kite" are fulfilled. That additional wing is embedded to form a complex tether simply makes the "kite" non-simple; the branch "kite" has then at least three wings. Since the branch kite's tether forms an arch (non-straight) and is "sub" to the whole aircraft, then reference to the branch kite as "sub-kite" seems appropriate.  Since the whole powered aircraft consists of three arch sub-kites, and motions are obtain by powered means, then the whole aircraft may be appropriately called a powered kite.

    5. Powering a wing of a kite is not new. A child with a single-line kited wing amounts to being a powered wing himself or herself.  A prime mover may be set in a powered kite as part of a wing or as part of a tether, but when part of a tether, then the prime mover becomes another wing in the kite.

    I will address other tabled points in the coming days.

    Best to all,
     JoeF





    		   @@attachment@@
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19952 From: dave santos Date: 4/17/2016
    Subject: Paragliding to the lower stratosphere
    In accord with calculations, here is an existence proof that a parafoil can fly up to high altitude with enough payload allowance to haul up a strong UHMWPE tether, as a kite. This suggests a single PG wing can effectively double the single-line kite altitude record lately set by large delta kites. Old kite train records run double or more of the modern single-kite records, so this new data-point supports proposed feasibility to fly trains far higher yet, to about 60,000ft, which is atmosat space.

    Another aspect of this case is once again* it is shown that humans and kites can survive within thunderstorms; just about the scariest place imaginable. Lightning, hail, turbulence, cold, lack of oxygen, or falling; so many ways to die, and yet its perhaps the most sublime place in such close reach. Nigeria is proposed as the natural place to pioneer a flying program into ITCZ super-storms, in correspondence with JohnO's circle. The odd fact is how soft kites tend to hop-up-and-fly spontaneously. Often the biggest problem is to come down. Existing high altitude balloon gondolas could be used under high-altitude kites, to solve the human-factors.

    Ewa attains goddess status by this tremendous experience-


    ------------
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19953 From: Hardensoft International Limited Date: 4/17/2016
    Subject: Re: Documenting collective AWEC Highwind IMTEK BHWE HWN500 AWESCO Co
    It will be nice to have PJ react to this more so as she informed on the AWEC2016 plans for Europe leaving 2017 for the USA.
    We wait.
    JohnO
    AWEIA International
     
    John Adeoye  Oyebanji   B.Sc. MCPN
    Managing Consultant & CEO
    Hardensoft International Limited
    <Technologies  
    Despite it not even being known who the current Director, Board and Members are, AWEC continues its AWE conference malfeasance. An extended background discussion is in progress with AWEC/AWESCO over why there has been no US conference since 2012, while the same Northern EU circle mounts a string of lack-luster AWEC conferences. The latest complaint is how timely 2015 grassroots US planning for a 2016 conference was quashed by false AWEC information about AWESCO plans; which is why no US conference is planned this year. 

    AWEC/AWESCO instead wants to impose yet another German conference for 2017. The insiders' pretext seems to be that Moritz's team has moved "to the center of (the AWE) research community" and somehow has "momentum". These are not objective nor acceptable rationale for the exclusive Northern EU circle (excluding even all EU teams that are Italian, French, English, Iberian, etc.) to control conferences by AWEC's ingrained secrecy. AWESCO has in effect drawn a Maginot Line in EU AWE not based on merit. This is false momentum on AWESCO's part. Leadership momentum in AWE should only be honestly earned.

    Rather than unite us, as AWEC's Mission Statement requires, the AWEC has always deeply divided the AWE Community over its secretive pay-to-governance model (as still promoted on its long-neglected website). AWEC control over time shifted from Joby/Makani to EU directors with close ties to TUDleft, HighWind, and AWESCO, with an ever more secretive planning process that even excluded specific players without cause (like John Oyebanji of AWEIA) and manipulated conference content to favor Northern EU players (like exclusive advance planning for demo event). 

    AWEIA's consistent position since the first AWEC2010 "hijacked conference" has been AWEC-reform, so AWE conferences are never again manipulated in secret by whatever front group somehow gains AWEC insider-status (HighestWind, BHWE, HWN500, IMTEK, AWESCO). Conference planning should once again become the inclusive transparent process that created HAWPcon2009 and the first AWEC conference. Its unknown if Moritz, who is currently organizing AWEC2017, will continue the secrecy and unfair John Oyebanji AWEIA exclusion, which would extend the anti-AWEC boycott of recent years. The boycott has clearly undercut the academic quality of AWEC's conferences.  To Wubbo's credit, AWEC2011, was considered the most open of AWEC conferences, but AWEC lost that moral influence with Wubbo's passing.

    A detailed analysis of whether AWEC/AWESCO insiders really have the technical momentum they are claiming is left for another topic; but based on inherent cost-effectiveness, safety, reliability, scalability, and other key engineering metrics, the answer seems to be "no".

    ======= note on AWEC naming and affiliation =============

    PJ is lately even denying that AWEC conferences take on the AWEC(year) naming format as just a coincidental acronym. In fact, this naming has always also been a factual identifier (a working trademark) of AWEC as the lead planner. This is why HAWPcon09 is not known as "AWEC2009" and every conference with AWEC in its name has been an AWEC event. Moritz is well aware of this, as shown by this typical description of AWEC's conference track from an IMTEK webpage, which is Moritz's current AWESCO Freiburg base-

    "...With help of the ERC grant HIGHWIND running from 2011-2016 the control and optimization team starts moving to the center of this young research community, having organized for example the 2nd Conference by the Airborne Wind Energy Consortium (AWEC 2011). AWE is perfectly complementary to the team's dynamic system modelling, optimization and control work, but given the fact that no physical apparatus did yet exist, the group's activities had to include the hardware design and experimental validation of our control technologies..."
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19954 From: dave santos Date: 4/17/2016
    Subject: Re: Documenting collective AWEC Highwind IMTEK BHWE HWN500 AWESCO Co
    Thanks JohnO,

    Perhaps Moritz would agree to a creative compromise to reconcile the two camps. I would be satisfied if JohnO, on behalf of AWEIA, was included in conference proceedings on a par with Guido's repeated inclusion on behalf of AWEC. After all, Moritz posed no objection to Wubbo eagerly including JohnO at AWEC 2011.

    Even better, why can't we have concurrent conferences in Seattle and Freiburg, integrated by Net streaming? This would both expand global participation in AWE and mitigate travel CO2 impacts and associated high costs. Future AWE conferences might all be global events.

    It seems AWEC's unexplained neglect of US conferences in recent years is now Moritz's to correct or extend, so I also now hopefully await his judgement, trusting in his obligation to basic fairness to all sides,

    dave


    On Sunday, April 17, 2016 2:28 PM, "Hardensoft International Limited hardensoftintl@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
    It will be nice to have PJ react to this more so as she informed on the AWEC2016 plans for Europe leaving 2017 for the USA.
    We wait.
    JohnO
    AWEIA International
     
    John Adeoye  Oyebanji   B.Sc. MCPN
    Managing Consultant & CEO
    Hardensoft International Limited
    <Technologies  
    Despite it not even being known who the current Director, Board and Members are, AWEC continues its AWE conference malfeasance. An extended background discussion is in progress with AWEC/AWESCO over why there has been no US conference since 2012, while the same Northern EU circle mounts a string of lack-luster AWEC conferences. The latest complaint is how timely 2015 grassroots US planning for a 2016 conference was quashed by false AWEC information about AWESCO plans; which is why no US conference is planned this year. 

    AWEC/AWESCO instead wants to impose yet another German conference for 2017. The insiders' pretext seems to be that Moritz's team has moved "to the center of (the AWE) research community" and somehow has "momentum". These are not objective nor acceptable rationale for the exclusive Northern EU circle (excluding even all EU teams that are Italian, French, English, Iberian, etc.) to control conferences by AWEC's ingrained secrecy. AWESCO has in effect drawn a Maginot Line in EU AWE not based on merit. This is false momentum on AWESCO's part. Leadership momentum in AWE should only be honestly earned.

    Rather than unite us, as AWEC's Mission Statement requires, the AWEC has always deeply divided the AWE Community over its secretive pay-to-governance model (as still promoted on its long-neglected website). AWEC control over time shifted from Joby/Makani to EU directors with close ties to TUDleft, HighWind, and AWESCO, with an ever more secretive planning process that even excluded specific players without cause (like John Oyebanji of AWEIA) and manipulated conference content to favor Northern EU players (like exclusive advance planning for demo event). 

    AWEIA's consistent position since the first AWEC2010 "hijacked conference" has been AWEC-reform, so AWE conferences are never again manipulated in secret by whatever front group somehow gains AWEC insider-status (HighestWind, BHWE, HWN500, IMTEK, AWESCO). Conference planning should once again become the inclusive transparent process that created HAWPcon2009 and the first AWEC conference. Its unknown if Moritz, who is currently organizing AWEC2017, will continue the secrecy and unfair John Oyebanji AWEIA exclusion, which would extend the anti-AWEC boycott of recent years. The boycott has clearly undercut the academic quality of AWEC's conferences.  To Wubbo's credit, AWEC2011, was considered the most open of AWEC conferences, but AWEC lost that moral influence with Wubbo's passing.

    A detailed analysis of whether AWEC/AWESCO insiders really have the technical momentum they are claiming is left for another topic; but based on inherent cost-effectiveness, safety, reliability, scalability, and other key engineering metrics, the answer seems to be "no".

    ======= note on AWEC naming and affiliation =============

    PJ is lately even denying that AWEC conferences take on the AWEC(year) naming format as just a coincidental acronym. In fact, this naming has always also been a factual identifier (a working trademark) of AWEC as the lead planner. This is why HAWPcon09 is not known as "AWEC2009" and every conference with AWEC in its name has been an AWEC event. Moritz is well aware of this, as shown by this typical description of AWEC's conference track from an IMTEK webpage, which is Moritz's current AWESCO Freiburg base-

    "...With help of the ERC grant HIGHWIND running from 2011-2016 the control and optimization team starts moving to the center of this young research community, having organized for example the 2nd Conference by the Airborne Wind Energy Consortium (AWEC 2011). AWE is perfectly complementary to the team's dynamic system modelling, optimization and control work, but given the fact that no physical apparatus did yet exist, the group's activities had to include the hardware design and experimental validation of our control technologies..."
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19955 From: dave santos Date: 4/18/2016
    Subject: TumbleWing Experiments
    Acting on JoeF's suggestion of the Tumblewing AWES concept, I took a EPP foam wing for an RC park trainer and strung an arch tether along its span. To give the wing penetration-mass for DSing, a steel bolt in a turnbuckle sheath was mounted in the center, allowing center-of-mass to be tuned fore and aft. Some tape here and there to fix components in place, and the wing was ready to try. A bit of fiddling with the nose-mass, and the wing flew balanced as a glider. There was no wind, so the first test was merely to loop the wing manually like a jump-rope, which it did nicely, except at lowest rpm inverted at the top of the loop, where it tended to tuck into a dive. A horizontal-stabilizer empennage surface was added, and this cured the fault. 

    Next day, winds were light, especially at my wooded location. Stringing one end to a tree, and holding the other end by hand, to promote looping, it was possible see and feel the tumblewing surging in weak puffs, but there was just not enough breeze to sustain looping. The park wing was designed to fly at around 20mph, so would need maybe 5mph of sustained wind to loop at that that velocity. Rainy weather suspended testing. In an open space in good wind soon, this wing should whiz. Fully tuning it at the surface, flying from posts or trees, it will then fly under an arch line kite to be tapped for power. No doubt it will really pump, but there is an open question whether I set the air foil correctly. The assumption was that of a glider DS-looping backwards, with the foil right-side up, but a Darrieus rotor set horizontally would a have reversed foil camber. 

    ---------
    JoeF has a photo of the wing, sent from my phone, which my notebook mailer does not see, but the goal is a good working video clip.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19956 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 4/18/2016
    Subject: Re: Centrifugally Stiffened Rotor

    DaveS and JoeF,

     

    Please where are your calculations supporting your statements about NASA CSR? Please do not answer by mentioning any Wikipedia article about aeroelasticity, or some prior art. "The devil is in the details" as Pr. Dave Lang rightly often mentioned.

     

    As CSRAWES diameter increases, the centrifugal force descreases by unity of weight. Even if centrifugal force is low, the path can be very large is a same way that for other crosswind kites, but, in my opinion, with more possibilities to fill the space thanks to its configuration. Even a low centrifugal force can provide some level of dynamic stability, but simulations about control system should be completed. A low centrifugal force is not a proof of no possibility of scalability towards large diameters. Please present your calculations, helping NASA in their R&D!?!?  If no your negative conclusion about CSRAWES is not supported. NASA CSR should be evaluated as a rotor but also as a crosswind kite system. 

     

    Did Dr. Mark D. Moore tell you he is an advocate of this work? Please where are your sources? 

    http://www.dii.unina.it/images/seminari/Moore.pdf  and other documents present Dr. Mark D. Moore as

    "Centrifugally Stiffened Rotor HALE Concept Principal Investigator", being "

     

    • 1985 – 2015 Principal Investigator, Project Leader at NASA AMES and NASA LANGLEY ", not an advocate.  Todd Hodges name appears on http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20160001625.pdf, after "PI Name & Affiliation", but not necessarly as "Principle investigator" of CSR , excepted if you have informations I do not have. Andy Hahn name appears also after "Task Monitor".

     

    PierreB
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19957 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/18/2016
    Subject: Re: TumbleWing Experiments
    We may be having two species of 
    "tumbling wings" where one has axis of rotation generally stable in position while another species having axis of rotation changing greatly position while a looping happens combined with some tumbling. 
    Discerning this question awaits video of the various species and perhaps discerning text. 

    Here is the photo that Dave Santos mentioned in the prior post:

    http:/www.energykitesystems.net/DaveSantos/KitedLoopingWing/LoopingWingApril2016DaveSantos.jpg
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19958 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 4/18/2016
    Subject: Re: Centrifugally Stiffened Rotor

    JoeF commented: "That additional wing is embedded to form a complex tether simply makes the "kite" non-simple; the branch "kite" has then at least three wings."


    PierreB remarks: In the initial design the three wings make three satellites. And in CSRAWES version there are three wings generating power on the same loop, instead of a single wing. This looks as an advantage to fill a ring of swept area of large diameter.

     

    PierreB
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19959 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/18/2016
    Subject: Re: Centrifugally Stiffened Rotor
    Pierre, please provide the exact quote of DaveS' that may have you ask the perhaps rhetorical question: Pierre wrote: "Did Dr. Mark D. Moore tell you he is an advocate of this work?" Thanks in advance. I spent some significant search for "advocate" in this matter and could not find what you might be using to found your question. ........................ Of course, "advocate" is probably found to be a broad concept admitting of soft and hard applications.


    Oh! I see in private emailing that DaveS wrote:
    Mark is a "Monitor" but also clearly a public advocate (which is no insult).
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19960 From: dave santos Date: 4/18/2016
    Subject: Re: Centrifugally Stiffened Rotor
    Pierre,

    JoeF merely noted an obvious CSR design issue that the published literature well reflects- that long flexible wings are strongly subject to aeroelastic effects. its naive to expect JoeF to provide you with fresh mathematical calculations when you can read the original sources in the old papers [Neilsen, WInston, Roeseler, etc.]. If you do not yet understand basic aeroelastic oscillation science (covering the "dancing kite", as well), the Wikipedia article really is a fine start. You can then calculate your own confirmations of Joe's point, as an exercise.

    Mark Moore is a leading public advocate of several advanced aerospace concepts. In particular, he advocated CSR at [NASA NIAC 2014, Eternal Flight as the Solution for "X"] ;  strong advocacy the slide set of Mark's you yourself linked confirms. Checking his sources shows Todd Hodges to be the PI for CSR work presented, and Mark is a NASA Task Monitor of the work, as well as a ready advocate.  Hope this helps resolve the confusion,

    daveS




    On Monday, April 18, 2016 3:42 PM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
    Pierre, please provide the exact quote of DaveS' that may have you ask the perhaps rhetorical question: Pierre wrote: "Did Dr. Mark D. Moore tell you he is an advocate of this work?" Thanks in advance. I spent some significant search for "advocate" in this matter and could not find what you might be using to found your question. ........................ Of course, "advocate" is probably found to be a broad concept admitting of soft and hard applications.

    Oh! I see in private emailing that DaveS wrote:
    Mark is a "Monitor" but also clearly a public advocate (which is no insult).
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19961 From: dave santos Date: 4/18/2016
    Subject: Constructive wake interactions in flutter energy harvester arrays (C
    Energy harvesting is another way to look at the common aeroelastic oscillations JoeF noted as a CSR design issue. Rather than damping away oscillation, the goal becomes to maximize aeroelastic effects, to tap for energy. This work by Matthew Bryant is further support that AWES arrays can be engineered for constructively interaction of the kite units, which builds on similarly striking results by Zhang Lab NYU and Dabiri Lab Stanford-



    Abstract

    This study experimentally demonstrates that a closely spaced array of aeroelastic flutter energy harvesters can exploit synergistic wake interactions to outperform the same number of harvesters operating in isolation. The fluttering motion of each energy harvester imparts an oscillating vortex wake into the flow downstream of the device. Wind tunnel experiments with arrays of two and four flutter energy harvesters show that this wake structure has significant effects on the vibration amplitude, frequency, and power output of the trailing devices. These wake interaction effects are shown to vary with the stream-wise and cross-stream separation distance between the harvesters. Over a defined range of separations, an advantageous frequency lock-in between the devices arises. When this occurs, the trailing harvesters can extract additional energy from the wake of upstream harvesters, causing larger oscillation amplitudes and higher power output in the trailing devices. Experiments to characterize this variation in power output due to these wake interaction effects and to determine the optimal spacing of the energy harvesters are presented and discussed. Smoke-wire flow visualization is used to examine the wake structure and investigate the mechanism of the array interactions.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19962 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 4/18/2016
    Subject: Re: Centrifugally Stiffened Rotor

     Message 12 https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/AirborneWindEnergy/conversations/messages/19948 :

    "Note that Mark Moore is not in fact leading a NASA CSR team, but is an advocate of the work. Todd Hodges is the principal investigator".

     

    I put again the link "http://www.dii.unina.it/images/seminari/Moore.pdf " presenting "Dr. Mark Moore", quoting "

     "1985 – 2015 Principal Investigator, Project Leader at NASA AMES and NASA LANGLEY" ,

     

    quoting "Centrifugally Stiffened Rotor HALE Concept Principal Investigator:".

     

    According to this paper Dr. Mark D. Moore is the Principal Investigator of the CSR. I hope the correction of DaveS' assertion is clear.

    ===========================================================


     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19963 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/18/2016
    Subject: Re: Centrifugally Stiffened Rotor
    Maybe some clarification is due on counting "wings" in the Eternal Flight CSR.   Then counting "wings" in some proposed CSRAWES.
    First: Eternal Flight
    I accept that we might be counting "wings" in a different manner; that is OK, as long as we disclose how we are counting.   My preamble respected the tip-driving body as one "wing" for one of the three branches depicted.  Looking still at just one branch of the three branches of the global powered aircraft, there is the tether-embedded wing; and then there is the central hub body which I count as a third wing relative to one and each of the three branches of the global aircraft of topic. So, I was noting that each branch has involved three wings. Each branch has those three wings, but the hub wing is used in common by three branches and thus has a multiplicity of use and is just one hub and so can be counted as just one wing.  Then the total aircraft would have 7 wings.

    Counting wings in CSRAWES would depend on the specific design of the CSRAWES.  In my scheme, if the ground of earth was an anchor, then I would count that anchor as a wing of the system.  If the CSRAWES reduced the central hub to simple joining of line tethers.

    I am holding out that there is not just one direction of design for some CSRAWES.   A clear description of some CRSAWES would be needed for me to say how many wings are involved using my scheme of counting. The family of CSRAWES may have many members; creative designs may unfold over the coming years.

    Best,
    JoeF

    ---In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, <pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19964 From: dave santos Date: 4/18/2016
    Subject: Re: Centrifugally Stiffened Rotor
    There is indeed a discrepancy between what the Italian source Pierre found and NASA CSR report. The NASA report cites Todd as the PI and Mark the TM, while the Italian webpage assigns Mark a PI title. Pierre can always write Mark personally, if he thinks this is a real issue, and report back to us what the actual picture is.

    Its possible that Mark and Todd are PI's of separate grants, with the PI title often being just the official contact for a given grant in a team situation. In any case, both Mark and Todd are worthy advocates of the CSR concept.


    On Monday, April 18, 2016 6:20 PM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
    "Note that Mark Moore is not in fact leading a NASA CSR team, but is an advocate of the work. Todd Hodges is the principal investigator".
     
    I put again the link "http://www.dii.unina.it/images/seminari/Moore.pdf " presenting "Dr. Mark Moore", quoting "
     "1985 – 2015 Principal Investigator, Project Leader at NASA AMES and NASA LANGLEY" ,
     
    quoting "Centrifugally Stiffened Rotor HALE Concept Principal Investigator:".
     
    According to this paper Dr. Mark D. Moore is the Principal Investigator of the CSR. I hope the correction of DaveS' assertion is clear.
    ===========================================================

     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19965 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/18/2016
    Subject: Re: Centrifugally Stiffened Rotor
    Mark Moore might clarify things.
    Money came in for the CSR topic; three graduate students formed some kind of team; there may be a principal investigator for the three-student team under the principal investigatorship of Mark.  Mark may not be "leading" the student team; perhaps one of the student team is the leader of that student team. Mark might let the leading of the team be a team leader.  So, there might be two principal investigators, one in NASA and one in the supported student team related to the same project!    So, there might not be anything to correct.    
       ~ JoeF


    ---In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, <pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19966 From: dave santos Date: 4/18/2016
    Subject: Re: Centrifugally Stiffened Rotor
    Apparently both Todd and Mark have acted as PI on the CSR concept. Perhaps they have alternated the position, since a principal investigator is normally a singular position.

    Here is the source of the Italian text-





    On Monday, April 18, 2016 6:31 PM, dave santos <santos137@yahoo.com  
    "Note that Mark Moore is not in fact leading a NASA CSR team, but is an advocate of the work. Todd Hodges is the principal investigator".
     
    I put again the link "http://www.dii.unina.it/images/seminari/Moore.pdf " presenting "Dr. Mark Moore", quoting "
     "1985 – 2015 Principal Investigator, Project Leader at NASA AMES and NASA LANGLEY" ,
     
    quoting "Centrifugally Stiffened Rotor HALE Concept Principal Investigator:".
     
    According to this paper Dr. Mark D. Moore is the Principal Investigator of the CSR. I hope the correction of DaveS' assertion is clear.
    ===========================================================

     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19967 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/18/2016
    Subject: Centrifugal force (or is it a force?) matters

    This topic thread invites a study of "centrifugal force" in itself, whatever "it" is. 

    • Fun question: What has the been chance of highest kite flying with SLK, one wing, same arrangement in both cases:  noon flying or midnight flying?
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19968 From: dave santos Date: 4/18/2016
    Subject: Re: Centrifugal force (or is it a force?) matters
    The difference between centrifugal and centripetal force is merely the choice of rotating or inertial reference frame, as two faces of the same dynamic. The Newtonian argument that one force is real and the other(s)* (are) not is just an antiquated ontological bias. They are equivalent reference frames, "real" or not.

    -------------
    * including Coriolis and Euler Forces


    On Monday, April 18, 2016 8:15 PM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
    This topic thread invites a study of "centrifugal force" in itself, whatever "it" is. 
    • Fun question: What has the been chance of highest kite flying with SLK, one wing, same arrangement in both cases:  noon flying or midnight flying?
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19969 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/18/2016
    Subject: Re: Centrifugal force (or is it a force?) matters
    Corecting "been" to "best"

    Fun question: What has the best chance of highest kite flying with SLK, one wing, same arrangement in both cases:  noon flying or midnight flying?
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19970 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 4/19/2016
    Subject: Re: Centrifugally Stiffened Rotor

    Joe,

     

    The free NASA CSR is presented. A version AWES of it is sketched. As you rightly mention wings and tethers cannot be straight under wind loads, some studies can be made. You see an arch, I see rather a sort of reversed cone. Perhaps in initial NASA CSR the most interesting feature is the connection of a tether to the chord of a wing, allowing lighter wing because of less bending moment in wing. If this configuration is also possible as CRSAWES where wind loads are probably higher than centrifugal force, this feature could be interesting. In this case an almost similar configuration would be Makani's with several wings within the ring of swept area. I note also your present variant I study, as this design can be a source of inspiration to found a geometry for a better density. Thanks for your study and studies to come.

     

    Pierre


    [[Moderator note:  I am not seeing any linked or attached "sketched" file. ]]

     

     
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19971 From: dave santos Date: 4/19/2016
    Subject: ThothX Tower (semi-airborne)
    High altitude wind energy is one of the claims made for this concept. Very improbable that flywheels could stabilize this tower filled with lifting gas as proposed, but its still an interesting idea. Factual errors in the literature include overly pessimistic limits to "elevator cables"* and guylines, while making wildly optimistic claims about hurricane resistence, etc.- 


    The final part of the 20km-tall space elevator platform recently patented by Thoth Technology of Pembroke, Ont. is shown in this artist's concept.

    * Standard elevator cables are wire-rope around a sisal core. Comparably strong UHMWPE cables would be over 10 times lighter.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19972 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/19/2016
    Subject: Re: Centrifugally Stiffened Rotor
    The sketch does not exhaust the possibility space related to CSR.
    ==================================================
    Many of us may have made the centrifugal stabilized paper or balsa wood glider.

    My drawing has some text on it that aims to respect the approximate inverted conical
    shape of the global surface that results from the spinning winged branches or arms
    of the powered version as well as a version of CSRAWES. Similarly the global cone surface
    is approximately formed in the shown Leeming spinning glider. 
    =============================
    For more centrifugal arms in a paper glider:
    How To Make a Paper Helicopter That flies - How To Make a Helicopter

    ==============================
     
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19973 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/19/2016
    Subject: Re: Centrifugally Stiffened Rotor
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gVPLAjkcmA
    Kite system with falling anchor
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19974 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/19/2016
    Subject: Re: Centrifugally Stiffened Rotor
    "Throw a disc, catch a ball!
    Flat ball is a unique sports toy that transforms from a flying disc to a ball when thrown!
    Its variable time-delay feature provides a surprise transformation which adds fun to gameplay or just having a catch!
    Flat ball transforms from a  flying disc to a ball"

    Above is a quote adverting a toss toy that centrifugally goes toward flat when the toss-powered spin is adequate. Upon slower rotation caused from drag over time during flight, the centrifugal force is not enough to overcome some memory springing that draws the shape toward a sphere. The centrifugally stabilized rotors are evident during a portion of the flight when the winged system is tossed with adequate spin induced by the energy from the human engine. 

    The ad title: "

    Click to view larger image and other views
    • Outdoor-Flying-UFO-Frisbee-Flat-Silicone-Throw-Disc-Deformed-Ball-Kids-Fancy-Toy
    • Outdoor-Flying-UFO-Frisbee-Flat-Silicone-Throw-Disc-Deformed-Ball-Kids-Fancy-Toy
    • Outdoor-Flying-UFO-Frisbee-Flat-Silicone-Throw-Disc-Deformed-Ball-Kids-Fancy-Toy
    • Outdoor-Flying-UFO-Frisbee-Flat-Silicone-Throw-Disc-Deformed-Ball-Kids-Fancy-Toy
     

    Outdoor Flying UFO Frisbee Flat Silicone Throw Disc Deformed Ball Kids Fancy Toy

    "


    and
    Flying UFO Frisbee Flat Silicone Throw Disc Deformed Catch Ball Fancy Toy
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19975 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/19/2016
    Subject: Re: Centrifugally Stiffened Rotor
    https://www.google.com/patents/US6972498
    This and related towered-turbine technology may speak to the CSR realm. 
    Note that propeller and impellers upon spinning have centrifugal force putting the blades into tension. 
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19976 From: dave santos Date: 4/19/2016
    Subject: toward better HALE CSR platform design
    Specific suggestions toward better HALE CSR* platform design, building on previous thinking-
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19977 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 4/19/2016
    Subject: Re: Centrifugally Stiffened Rotor

    Concept : Icarus, Maple Seed & Beetle Wing-type Parachute.

     bytom.devrieze.tovdesign

     
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19978 From: dave santos Date: 4/19/2016
    Subject: China's living tradition of kinematic kites
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 19979 From: dave santos Date: 4/20/2016
    Subject: Paramotoring to the Tropopause (parafoil high-altitude capability ca
    Paramotoring is powered paragliding, and the unofficial altitude record is almost 30,000ft, by Bear Grylls, a top modern adventurer. Fuel weight is a severe constraint to foot-launched altitude efforts, so terrain and weather conditions are also exploited, nevertheless, its clearly feasible to visit the lower stratosphere with only a back-pack's worth of kite and gear.

    These cases are of high current interest to discussion off-Forum about HALE AWE (details soon), where a central question is whether soft wings will go as high (or higher) as rigid-sparred wings have. Amazing soft-wing feats are making it look likely that soft wings will cheaply attain altitudes that required billions to attain by rigid* wing UAS.

    -----------
    * A distinction has emerged in discussion between the use of "rigid" for rigid skin (shape-conformance) and rigid spars (cantilevered structure).

    --- sources ---

    Wikipedia- 
    • A highly publicized altitude record attempt was made by Bear Grylls on 14 May 2007 at 0933 local time over the Himalayas using a parajet engine invented by Gilo Cardozo and a specifically designed Reflex paraglider wing invented by Mike Campbell-Jones of Paramania. Gilo, who also flew in the attempt, had engine problems that ended his climb 300m short of the record. Bear went on to claim an altitude of 8,990m (29,494 ft), though satisfactory evidence of this claim was not submitted to FAI, and therefore it was not ratified as a world record for this aircraft class."
    "