`
Messages in AirborneWindEnergy group.                          AWES 22621 to 22671 Page 345 of 440.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22621 From: Joe Faust Date: 5/12/2017
Subject: Quasi-Steady Model of a Pumping Kite Power System

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22622 From: Joe Faust Date: 5/12/2017
Subject: Inflate inflatables with AWES using double-action airpump

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22623 From: Joe Faust Date: 5/13/2017
Subject: AWE Sectors and Scales

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22624 From: Joe Faust Date: 5/13/2017
Subject: Ronald Cohen

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22625 From: dave santos Date: 5/13/2017
Subject: Re: Quasi-Steady Model of a Pumping Kite Power System

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22626 From: dave santos Date: 5/13/2017
Subject: Fluidic Logic and Kite Principles

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22627 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/14/2017
Subject: Re: [AWES] Romancing the Thread: the Story of Dyneema®

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22628 From: gordon_sp Date: 5/15/2017
Subject: Stabilized Lifter Kite

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22629 From: dave santos Date: 5/15/2017
Subject: Re: Stabilized Lifter Kite [1 Attachment]

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22630 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/15/2017
Subject: Re: Stabilized Lifter Kite [1 Attachment]

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22631 From: dave santos Date: 5/15/2017
Subject: Re: Stabilized Lifter Kite [1 Attachment]

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22632 From: snapscan_snapscan Date: 5/16/2017
Subject: Makani M600 making some Airborne Wind Energy

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22633 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/16/2017
Subject: Re: Makani M600 making some Airborne Wind Energy

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22634 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 5/16/2017
Subject: Re: Makani M600 making some Airborne Wind Energy

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22635 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/16/2017
Subject: Re: Stabilized Lifter Kite [1 Attachment]

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22636 From: dave santos Date: 5/16/2017
Subject: Re: Makani M600 making some Airborne Wind Energy

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22637 From: dave santos Date: 5/17/2017
Subject: Re: Makani M600 making some Airborne Wind Energy

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22638 From: dave santos Date: 5/17/2017
Subject: Maxim's Flying Machine and GoogleX's M600

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22639 From: dougselsam Date: 5/17/2017
Subject: Re: Makani M600 making some Airborne Wind Energy

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22640 From: Joe Faust Date: 5/17/2017
Subject: Southwest Windpower (SWWP)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22641 From: dave santos Date: 5/18/2017
Subject: Hacking Power Plants with AWE (reducing internal aero-drag of idle g

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22642 From: dave santos Date: 5/18/2017
Subject: Re: Makani M600 making some Airborne Wind Energy

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22643 From: dave santos Date: 5/19/2017
Subject: Re: Makani M600 making some Airborne Wind Energy

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22644 From: dave santos Date: 5/19/2017
Subject: Smart Vehicle Tech and KiteFarm Operations

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22645 From: Joe Faust Date: 5/19/2017
Subject: Hall, Johannes

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22646 From: Joe Faust Date: 5/19/2017
Subject: Assumption questioned: "can not withstand the same force"

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22647 From: dougselsam Date: 5/19/2017
Subject: Re: Southwest Windpower (SWWP), Altaeros

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22648 From: dave santos Date: 5/19/2017
Subject: Re: Assumption questioned: "can not withstand the same force"

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22649 From: Joe Faust Date: 5/19/2017
Subject: Cabrinha issues safety alert for 2017 control systems

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22650 From: Joe Faust Date: 5/19/2017
Subject: Re: Cabrinha issues safety alert for 2017 control systems

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22651 From: dave santos Date: 5/19/2017
Subject: Re: Assumption questioned: "can not withstand the same force"

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22652 From: dougselsam Date: 5/20/2017
Subject: Re: Makani M600 making some Airborne Wind Energy

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22653 From: dougselsam Date: 5/20/2017
Subject: "Rapid" in RAD?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22654 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/20/2017
Subject: Re: Safety

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22655 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/20/2017
Subject: Re: Minesto news

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22656 From: dave santos Date: 5/20/2017
Subject: Re: Makani M600 making some Airborne Wind Energy

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22657 From: dave santos Date: 5/20/2017
Subject: Re: "Rapid" in RAD?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22658 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/20/2017
Subject: Sharp Intermeshing VAWT; Sharp VAWT with Flyball Governor; Sharp VAW

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22659 From: dave santos Date: 5/20/2017
Subject: Re: "Rapid" in RAD?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22661 From: Joe Faust Date: 5/21/2017
Subject: FAA rule regarding registration of recreational drones struck down.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22662 From: dave santos Date: 5/22/2017
Subject: Re: Makani M600 making some Airborne Wind Energy

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22663 From: dave santos Date: 5/22/2017
Subject: Fw: ICYMI: Appeals Court Rules UAS Registration Unlawful

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22664 From: dave santos Date: 5/22/2017
Subject: High L/D AWES Design Principles Review and Update

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22665 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/22/2017
Subject: Re: FAA rule regarding registration of recreational drones struck do

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22666 From: dave santos Date: 5/22/2017
Subject: A few new Minesto details

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22667 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/22/2017
Subject: Re: Sharp Intermeshing VAWT; Sharp VAWT with Flyball Governor; Sharp

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22668 From: dave santos Date: 5/22/2017
Subject: Re: A few new Minesto details

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22669 From: dave santos Date: 5/23/2017
Subject: 1st R.E.A.C.H. Report to H2020 reveals KitePower's AWE Miltarization

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22670 From: dave santos Date: 5/23/2017
Subject: Kitewinder's KiweeOne product nears release

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22671 From: Peter A. Sharp Date: 5/23/2017
Subject: Sharp Intermeshing VAWT; Sharp VAWT with Flyball Governor; Sharp VAW




Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22621 From: Joe Faust Date: 5/12/2017
Subject: Quasi-Steady Model of a Pumping Kite Power System
1st Rolf Van Der Vlugt
2nd Anna Bley
3rd Michael Noom
4th Roland Schmehl

Quasi-Steady Model of a Pumping Kite Power System

One source of the paper is within Research Gate
​Another source of the paper:  HERE


​The presentation slides of same title (not the paper) in 2013: HERE.


​One note: 
R. van der Vlugt, A. Bley, M. Noom, R. Schmehl: "Quasi-Steady Model of a Pumping Kite Power System". Submitted to Renewable Energy, 2017. arXiv:1705.04133 [cs.SY]
=============================



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22622 From: Joe Faust Date: 5/12/2017
Subject: Inflate inflatables with AWES using double-action airpump
Practical task: 
Pump air into an inflatable object. 

Method using double-action COTS pump and a kite system.

One method: 
Rig a rocking arm connected to the shaft of the pump. 
Have a kited wing set to fly far left and then far right with the working tether drawing the rocking arm left and then right in cycles; air may be pumped in the left stroke and in the right stroke. 

One type of double-action pump:

There are other double-action pumps that may be driven by kite systems. 

Also, single-action pumps and rotary pumps of various sorts may be driven by kite to do good works. 



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22623 From: Joe Faust Date: 5/13/2017
Subject: AWE Sectors and Scales
AWE Sectors   (one kind of sectoring)
  • Hobby AWE
  • Recreational AWE
  • Sport AWE
  • Educational AWE
  • Enterprise AWE
  • Commercial AWE
  • Industrial AWE
  • R&D AWE
  • Scientific AWE
  • Communications
  • Employment
  • Sales
  • Safety
  • History
  • Regulations
  • Operations and Maintenance
AWE-Sector Scales
  • Nano AWE
  • Micro AWE
  • Tiny AWE 
  • Handy-personal AWE
  • Home AWE
  • Village AWE
  • City AWE
  • Region AWE
  • State AWE
  • Nation AWE
  • Transnational AWE
  • Ocean AWE
  • Whole Earth AWE
  • Solar System AWE
  • Intragalactic AWE
  • Galactic AWE
  • Universe AWE
  • Imaginative AWE
AWE :: airborne wind energy is where fluid kinetic energy is converted and put to practical good works using kite systems.   Kite :: complex of tethered wings where anchors, tethers, wings are types of wings variously in static or dynamic arrangements.

This forum invites rapid development of kite systems doing good works.  Whatever sector or scale interests you, this forum is a place for sharing your ideas, projects, progress, questions, lessons, safety notes, incidents, successes, learnings from deliberate or unexpected fails, AWE job opportunities, photos, videos, drawings, sketches, AWE histories, ...

One good work getting much attention is the formation of electricity for use within or exterior to the kite system; that is one of hundreds of good works feasible by using kite systems. 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22624 From: Joe Faust Date: 5/13/2017
Subject: Ronald Cohen
Ronald Cohen 
Ronald H. Cohen
 His patent application has an AWE section where an extensive collection of AWE methods are rehearsed briefly.  



(EN)
 DEEP WATER WIND ENERGY CAPTURE SYSTEM
(FR) SYSTÈME DE CAPTURE D'ÉNERGIE ÉOLIENNE EN EAU PROFONDE
Abstract:front page image
(EN)The Inventive Subject Matter is a System for harvesting wind energy and natural wave energy. The harvesting can be performed on a body of water. The body of water can be an ocean or lake. The harvesting can be performed autonomously and create portable energy for ships or other purposes.
(FR)La présente invention concerne un système de collecte d'énergie éolienne et d'énergie houlomotrice naturelle. La collecte peut être effectuée sur un plan d'eau. Le plan d'eau peut être un océan ou un lac. La collecte peut être effectuée de manière autonome et elle peut produire une énergie transportable destinée à des bateaux ou à d'autres fins.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22625 From: dave santos Date: 5/13/2017
Subject: Re: Quasi-Steady Model of a Pumping Kite Power System
This is not the first paper to make quasi-steady model AWES assumptions, since that is a natural abstractional trend, but its one of the best efforts to date. This paper advances numeric AWES simulation by introducing gravity effects, which should soon lead to definite mass scaling-limit predictions for the design spectrum from rigid to soft wings. Previous models neglecting gravity effects were only approximately realistic for small AWES, and did not offer scaling predictions. Empiric giant kite designers have a consensual "gut" sense of gravity-driven scaling limits, by a growing case-base. In most AWES classes, kites have not reached ultimate scaling limits in either practice or theory (although Makani's M600 and Ampyx's AP4 ambitions may aready represent rigid airframe scaling overreach).

Regarding TUDelft's extensive AWE publishing record, 2007 was the peak year, with a deep dip 2015 (by which time a third-world TRL9 AWES had been hoped for)  but a new paper flood pending, and major new reeling prototypes in the pipe. The worry is that the TUDelft institutional lineage, absent Wubbo's boldness, has overly fixated on reeling architectures, when other more radical architectures, like Wubbo's SpiderMill (his dying vision), should have been duly explored in parallel. TUDelft's  ongoing AWES research is an increasingly big bet placed on just one horse...





On Friday, May 12, 2017 8:41 AM, "Joe Faust joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
1st Rolf Van Der Vlugt
2nd Anna Bley
3rd Michael Noom
4th Roland Schmehl

Quasi-Steady Model of a Pumping Kite Power System

One source of the paper is within Research Gate
​Another source of the paper:  HERE


​The presentation slides of same title (not the paper) in 2013: HERE.


​One note: 
R. van der Vlugt, A. Bley, M. Noom, R. Schmehl: "Quasi-Steady Model of a Pumping Kite Power System". Submitted to Renewable Energy, 2017. arXiv:1705.04133 [cs.SY]
=============================





Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22626 From: dave santos Date: 5/13/2017
Subject: Fluidic Logic and Kite Principles
One of the many established engineering intersections with kite design is Fluidic Logic. After all, the classic kite is a cybernetic platform, and fluidic logic is its control basis. Fluidic logic is being extended into flight dynamics, as seen in the Wikipedia article linked below, even as we continue to explore AWES versions. In general, we seek self-stable flight with regulated flip-flop oscillation cycles, as "quasi-steady" dynamic stability. Most classical fluidic logic gates are encased, but many of our flight logic operations are in the wing near-field free-space, and depend on invisible wake effects.

The article concludes with validated fluidic flight control advantages that kites can also embody-

"Tests show that air forced into a jet engine exhaust stream can deflect thrust up to 15 degrees.[citation needed] In such uses, fluidics is desirable for lower: mass, cost (up to 50% less), drag (up to 15% less during use), inertia (for faster, stronger control response), complexity (mechanically simpler, fewer or no moving parts or surfaces, less maintenance), and radar cross section for stealth. This will likely be used in many unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), 6th generation fighter aircraft, and ships."


.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22627 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/14/2017
Subject: Re: [AWES] Romancing the Thread: the Story of Dyneema®

Two years ago:

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

DSM Dyneema acquires Cubic Tech and extends Dyneema® brand into high-performance fabrics

Urmond, NL, 13 May 2015 15:30 CEST

DSM Dyneema, the inventor and manufacturer of Ultra High Molecular Weight Polyethylene (UHMwPE) fiber, branded as Dyneema®, today finalized the acquisition of Cubic Tech Corporation. This privately owned company, based in Mesa (Arizona, USA), has specialized for more than 23 years in the custom design, development and production of innovative high performance ultra-lightweight flexible laminates and fabrics — most of them based on Dyneema. Cubic Tech is focused on high-end solutions in applications as diverse as racing yacht sails, equipment and apparel for sportswear, outdoor and future soldier programs as well as emergency medical equipment. Terms of the acquisition will not be disclosed.

The acquisition of Cubic Tech reinforces the position of Dyneema as one of the leading brands of ultra high performance materials. It broadens DSM Dyneema’s product portfolio, provides it with downstream knowledge complementary to its own in the processing of UHMwPE fiber, tape and production of uni-directional (UD) fabrics, and enhances the company’s innovation pipeline. The acquisition of Cubic Tech accelerates DSM Dyneema’s entry into the performance apparel markets and will add important new revenue streams and developments in existing markets as well as creating access to several new applications.

Adding Cubic Tech to its portfolio also strengthens DSM Dyneema’s commitment to be a leader in offering sustainable solutions, enabling the replacement of traditional materials with new and innovative products that are lighter, stronger, more durable, and which have reduced environmental impact.

“The acquisition of Cubic Tech is an important part of our strategy to create, and bring to market, products and services that improve the quality of life while enabling our customers to operate their businesses more successfully,” says Gerard de Reuver, CEO of DSM Dyneema. “We have worked closely with Cubic Tech as a valued customer for many years, so we know that the two companies have a shared passion for innovation. I believe Cubic Tech’s way of working, its solutions-oriented and tailored approach to developing products for its customers, is in the spirit of the DSM Dyneema philosophy ‘With you when it matters.’”

Cubic Tech’s technology has been developed and refined over two decades of research and development, originating with the development of racing sails used in the America’s Cup in 1992.

“Cubic Tech’s philosophy is very akin to our own, with a fundamental belief in extremely lightweight and strong constructions,” Jeff Turner, VP Strategy of DSM Dyneema, added.

“It is therefore a natural extension of the Dyneema value proposition. Cubic Tech has some exciting technology, and with the addition of DSM Dyneema’s application development, operational excellence and marketing competences we expect to accelerate these developments into new areas for DSM Dyneema. We also provide the stability and strength that Cubic Tech’s customers seek in order to take their projects forward.”

Cubic Tech will be fully integrated into DSM Dyneema and all employees of Cubic Tech are being invited to stay on after the acquisition.

tag: cuben fiber, 

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22628 From: gordon_sp Date: 5/15/2017
Subject: Stabilized Lifter Kite
Attachments :

In order to extract considerable amounts of energy from high altitude wind, we require large lifter kites to support the turbines, oscillating devices and other non crosswind methods of generating energy.  In particular we require higher lifting forces for the cable drive system I propose.  These large lifter kites are difficult and dangerous to launch and land manually.  I therefore propose an automatic system where the kite can be launched by a single person.  The idea is to secure the kite and prevent lateral movement by means of diagonal stays.  These stays are transferred by pulleys to a central point and are controlled by a single drive located at the tether winding reel.


  @@attachment@@
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22629 From: dave santos Date: 5/15/2017
Subject: Re: Stabilized Lifter Kite [1 Attachment]
Hi Gordon,

It sounds like you are on to a practical giant kite handling method, but for some reason your PDF did not open on my machine, neither in the mailer nor the group site, while other PDFs* open right up. Maybe JoeF can help.

Looking forward to seeing your concept as laid out in the attachment,

daveS

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

* Loyd's classic paper hosted at KULeuven opens blank lately, seemingly their server error. Anyone have a back-up copy or link?



On Monday, May 15, 2017 9:47 AM, "gordon_sp@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
[Attachment(s) from gordon_sp@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy] included below]
In order to extract considerable amounts of energy from high altitude wind, we require large lifter kites to support the turbines, oscillating devices and other non crosswind methods of generating energy.  In particular we require higher lifting forces for the cable drive system I propose.  These large lifter kites are difficult and dangerous to launch and land manually.  I therefore propose an automatic system where the kite can be launched by a single person.  The idea is to secure the kite and prevent lateral movement by means of diagonal stays.  These stays are transferred by pulleys to a central point and are controlled by a single drive located at the tether winding reel.



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22630 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/15/2017
Subject: Re: Stabilized Lifter Kite [1 Attachment]
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22631 From: dave santos Date: 5/15/2017
Subject: Re: Stabilized Lifter Kite [1 Attachment]
Gordon,

Yes, you have hit on a powerful AWES architecture, with strong theoretic promise. Your "diagonal stays" are equivalent to a "crosswind arch-loop". The history of this thinking is more-or-less as follows- Baden-Powell introducted diagonal stays for his man-lifting system in the 19th Century "Golden Age of Kites". Payne and McCutchen, Hadzicki, Goldstein, me, and others have also pondered variants. World record giant kites by Lynn and Gomberg have side tag-lines for stability. Dave Culp taught the same stability principle in terms of a "staked-out" kite. A kitebar set crosswind is the physical basis for power-kite auto-zenith. The AWES Forum has explored many such related aspects.

Ongoing interest in this concept space supports eventual comparative testing against contenders like Makani's flygen and EU reeling schemes. The general "diagonal stay" advantage is to use the kite-field surface as a virtual spar, to offer yaw stability without excess mass aloft. Side anchors can be belayed around an anchor circle at high force, based on ship-towing practice. The center turret is optional if the bulk motion of the dancing megakite is tapped via the "diagonal stays", which also provide stability. As wind direction shifts, the receding windward side can help haul the leeward side windward, via the surface crosslink. These are easy ideas to rig and fly at small scale, to inform future large-scale designs,

daveS


On Monday, May 15, 2017 10:06 AM, dave santos <santos137@yahoo.com  
[Attachment(s) from gordon_sp@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy] included below]
In order to extract considerable amounts of energy from high altitude wind, we require large lifter kites to support the turbines, oscillating devices and other non crosswind methods of generating energy.  In particular we require higher lifting forces for the cable drive system I propose.  These large lifter kites are difficult and dangerous to launch and land manually.  I therefore propose an automatic system where the kite can be launched by a single person.  The idea is to secure the kite and prevent lateral movement by means of diagonal stays.  These stays are transferred by pulleys to a central point and are controlled by a single drive located at the tether winding reel.





Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22632 From: snapscan_snapscan Date: 5/16/2017
Subject: Makani M600 making some Airborne Wind Energy
Thought you might like to see:

https://youtu.be/An8vtD1FDqs

Congratulations to the Makani team!
/cb
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22633 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/16/2017
Subject: Re: Makani M600 making some Airborne Wind Energy

Corwin's dad John Hardham swelled with pride;
see comment at 

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22634 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 5/16/2017
Subject: Re: Makani M600 making some Airborne Wind Energy

Great new!

 

PierreB

 

 

 

 

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22635 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/16/2017
Subject: Re: Stabilized Lifter Kite [1 Attachment]
Notice some diagonal stays in Rod Read's adventure. 
Some affinity to present topic 
but in a Rod-Read direction

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22636 From: dave santos Date: 5/16/2017
Subject: Re: Makani M600 making some Airborne Wind Energy
Quite a thrilling spectacle! How wonderful that we have multiple AWES architectures developing around the world, scaling up boldly for a most dramatic race.

Makani leaves us guessing about key facts. Was more power generated than used in the looping cycle? How close to thermal overload was the E-VTOL climbing hovering and diving modes? Did the flight end in a crash? How will Makani LCOE ultimately compare with, say, SkySails ship-kite derivative AWES?

Makani's  five month delay in offering this meager level of detail suggests extensive private deliberation over a mixed outcome. Noting that Hawaii proved after all not to be a desirable test site, in favor of local CA desert. The cold December air was both usefully higher lift at equivalent velocity and better motor/gen cooling.  A predicted scaling penalty should now be measurable between Wing7 and M600 power-to-weight.

All in all, a fine effort by Makani, but safety, reliability, and economic factors continue as critical challenges.




On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:17 PM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre-benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
Great new!
 
PierreB
 
 
 
 


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22637 From: dave santos Date: 5/17/2017
Subject: Re: Makani M600 making some Airborne Wind Energy
More observations from clues available-
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22638 From: dave santos Date: 5/17/2017
Subject: Maxim's Flying Machine and GoogleX's M600
Looking for the top historical similarity case to the M600 in prior aviation history, Maxim's Flying Machine looks closest (edging out Langley). These cases duplicate the early scaling-up of a bold pioneering flying concept, with ample funding, if not decisively founding a new aviation era, which the Wrights get most credit for. The M600 concept seems to need a decade or two of continued aerospace reliability and cost-cutting progress.

An interesting early parallel with low-complexity AWES design* is that the Flying Machine was constrained by remaining attached to surface rails, only rising a foot or two, as a passive-control (dynamically self-stable) flight automation basis.


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

* Low-complexity AWES design tends toward self-stable configurations of "rag and string only", without total dependence on digital flight controls.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22639 From: dougselsam Date: 5/17/2017
Subject: Re: Makani M600 making some Airborne Wind Energy
If it took them 10 years to get to this, then 5 months to release a video, I am thinking it is not a good sign.
I've seen all these symptoms so many times before.

1) Releasing a video, intended to impress, of getting a "breakthrough" wind energy system to merely rotate, without generating net power, is one major such symptom.

2) And all the kids taking selfies, especially all the girls going "oh oh oh" remind me more of a politically-correct community-college project than industrial-level, git-er-done, aerospace or energy R & D.  Serious industrial-level R&D projects are usually much more low-key and down-to-business, not so full of emotion and idle bystanders.

3) The amount of time it took to get to this, and the amount of idle time now passing between such "press-release-breakthrough" moments seems excessive compared to the simplicity of the concept, the level of funding, and the comparatively faster progress being made by regular utility-scale wind energy, which has cut costs in half during the time since this group first started announcing their "breakthrough" approach.

4) The amount of time (months) between the single known flying event, and the press-release, seems long compared to any credible timeline based on rapid development.

5) Bringing a known wind energy authority onboard:  Developers of new wind technologies lacking in results often seek the participation of known names in wind energy to lend credibility where it is otherwise lacking.  Paul Gipe is one example: He is regularly tapped as a potential team member or verifying authority for new wind energy technology development projects.  Why?  His name comes up right away from a google search for wind energy.  The fact that he is an author and a speaker, not a technologist at all, does not seem to matter.  The fact that Paul is not an engineer and has never developed a wind turbine does not seem to matter:  He has a name, and if you have no real knowledge or product to give you credibility, you look for other badges of credibility, such as a name.  If the guy is a major figure of authority in wind energy, that is seen as a huge coup.  Investors will be impressed.  Whether he is going to be effective and is truly suited to make a difference, time will tell, right?  I'm not holding my breath that a high-level bureaucrat will suddenly be successful as a game-changing breakthrough technology innovator.

Summary:
What are symptoms of real energy solutions?  High power output at low cost, and reliability.

What are the symptoms of imaginary energy solutions?
Press-releases always ahead of the data, promises, promises, promises, never met by the promised time, substitution of impressive famous personalities and emotion for results, videos that start out explaining how much energy there is "out there", if only we could harness it, and end with a machine merely rotating and not actually producing usable energy.

This reminds me of the time I read a press-release from (now defunct) Southwest Windpower announcing ten-million dollars in funding from G. E. Capital.  It was supposed to be the announcement of a positive development, but I saw it as the unrecognized-by-most kiss-of-death:  The small-wind market was too small:  they would never be able to repay that funding, so I saw it as the beginning of the end, which it was.

I don't see anyone making progress any faster than this group, but that's not saying much.  I still would have to weigh in as saying that my opinion of this test flight is that it is too little, too late, and represents failure more than success.  Sorry to seem like a wet blanket, and of course I could be 100% wrong, but that is my take at this time.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22640 From: Joe Faust Date: 5/17/2017
Subject: Southwest Windpower (SWWP)

In in the wiki: 

"Southwest Windpower closed for business in the first quarter of 2013.[2]

The remaining Skystream assets were acquired by Xzeres wind in July 2013."


"A Skystream 3.7 has been tested as an airborne wind turbine in an Altaeros helium-filled balloon.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22641 From: dave santos Date: 5/18/2017
Subject: Hacking Power Plants with AWE (reducing internal aero-drag of idle g
One of many AWE concepts under study worldwide is how to convert conventional power plants to AWE hybrids. This is a complex problem whose solution offers tremendous advantages. The idea is that whatever mechanical AWE kitefarm design proves-out will be able to drive existing generators and grids. We have reviewed all the mechanical stages of COTS parts between the kitefarm cableway and the generator shaft, and how to well-regulate the dual-power inputs under varied wind and load-demand.

This post presents an engineering trade-off case between a fixed-shaft gas/steam turbine and a clutch-isolated turbine. Ideally, a clutch disengages the idle turbine, removing its aero-drag, while the wind power clutch engages and drives the generator unburdened. Depending on a specific power-plant, from a home back-up generator to the largest power plant, and its generator shafting design, inserting a clutch on a fixed turbine/gen shaft may not be economic or practical, so what options are there?

A possibly novel alternative is to pump-down a rough vacuum inside the idle turbine, virtually eliminating high internal aero-drag. The idle turbine would then just act as supplemental flywheel momentum rolling along in wind-mode. Economic and engineering case factors will determine just when this sort of performance refinement pays. Expect many more such detail engineering refinements to ponder and test in coming years, across the entire AWE concept space.


Open-AWE_IP-Cloud
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22642 From: dave santos Date: 5/18/2017
Subject: Re: Makani M600 making some Airborne Wind Energy
Doug overlooks that the creation and maturation of new aerospace technology takes decades. Makani's staff engineers have pushed the normal aerospace R&D timeline heroically; poor Corwin even worked himself to death to make sure this architecture is an early contender against ship-kite derivatives (which are closest to TRL9). Perhaps the slowest AWE developer is Doug himself, after over forty years head-start. Is that also "not a good sign?" Let Makani have its forty years like its first ten, and they may indeed revolutionize wind tech.

The primary AWE milestone here is Makani providing a new iconic public image of AWE, much as Magenn or USWindLabs did before Makani. These efforts help prepare the world for AWE, no matter what specific engineered form ends up winning. The 2011 WOW/KiteLab critical path analysis, based on peak-power claims, and pointing to ~2030 mass-industrialization, remains on track. Makini is hereby conjectured to have reset the AWE peak-power record during its diving phases.


On Wednesday, May 17, 2017 5:42 PM, "dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
If it took them 10 years to get to this, then 5 months to release a video, I am thinking it is not a good sign.
I've seen all these symptoms so many times before.

1) Releasing a video, intended to impress, of getting a "breakthrough" wind energy system to merely rotate, without generating net power, is one major such symptom.

2) And all the kids taking selfies, especially all the girls going "oh oh oh" remind me more of a politically-correct community-college project than industrial-level, git-er-done, aerospace or energy R D.  Serious industrial-level R&D projects are usually much more low-key and down-to-business, not so full of emotion and idle bystanders.

3) The amount of time it took to get to this, and the amount of idle time now passing between such "press-release-breakthrough" moments seems excessive compared to the simplicity of the concept, the level of funding, and the comparatively faster progress being made by regular utility-scale wind energy, which has cut costs in half during the time since this group first started announcing their "breakthrough" approach.

4) The amount of time (months) between the single known flying event, and the press-release, seems long compared to any credible timeline based on rapid development.

5) Bringing a known wind energy authority onboard:  Developers of new wind technologies lacking in results often seek the participation of known names in wind energy to lend credibility where it is otherwise lacking.  Paul Gipe is one example: He is regularly tapped as a potential team member or verifying authority for new wind energy technology development projects.  Why?  His name comes up right away from a google search for wind energy.  The fact that he is an author and a speaker, not a technologist at all, does not seem to matter.  The fact that Paul is not an engineer and has never developed a wind turbine does not seem to matter:  He has a name, and if you have no real knowledge or product to give you credibility, you look for other badges of credibility, such as a name.  If the guy is a major figure of authority in wind energy, that is seen as a huge coup.  Investors will be impressed.  Whether he is going to be effective and is truly suited to make a difference, time will tell, right?  I'm not holding my breath that a high-level bureaucrat will suddenly be successful as a game-changing breakthrough technology innovator.

Summary:
What are symptoms of real energy solutions?  High power output at low cost, and reliability.

What are the symptoms of imaginary energy solutions?
Press-releases always ahead of the data, promises, promises, promises, never met by the promised time, substitution of impressive famous personalities and emotion for results, videos that start out explaining how much energy there is "out there", if only we could harness it, and end with a machine merely rotating and not actually producing usable energy.

This reminds me of the time I read a press-release from (now defunct) Southwest Windpower announcing ten-million dollars in funding from G. E. Capital.  It was supposed to be the announcement of a positive development, but I saw it as the unrecognized-by-most kiss-of-death:  The small-wind market was too small:  they would never be able to repay that funding, so I saw it as the beginning of the end, which it was.

I don't see anyone making progress any faster than this group, but that's not saying much.  I still would have to weigh in as saying that my opinion of this test flight is that it is too little, too late, and represents failure more than success.  Sorry to seem like a wet blanket, and of course I could be 100% wrong, but that is my take at this time.


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22643 From: dave santos Date: 5/19/2017
Subject: Re: Makani M600 making some Airborne Wind Energy
Here we see a start to the echo-chamber effect when GoogleX shares major "moonshot" news. Recharge's content is behind a login wall, so anyone please report any new info if they sign up.

Note that Doug is not critiqued for being far slower to develop his AWES concepts than Makani, only encouraged to cheerfully accept how slow others necessarily work. The Rapid AWE Development (RAD) ethos has two realistic limitations- we must stay safe, and the AWE timeline follows its own "newborn baby" pace, not anyone's wishful impatience.





On Thursday, May 18, 2017 12:08 PM, "dave santos santos137@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
Doug overlooks that the creation and maturation of new aerospace technology takes decades. Makani's staff engineers have pushed the normal aerospace R&D timeline heroically; poor Corwin even worked himself to death to make sure this architecture is an early contender against ship-kite derivatives (which are closest to TRL9). Perhaps the slowest AWE developer is Doug himself, after over forty years head-start. Is that also "not a good sign?" Let Makani have its forty years like its first ten, and they may indeed revolutionize wind tech.

The primary AWE milestone here is Makani providing a new iconic public image of AWE, much as Magenn or USWindLabs did before Makani. These efforts help prepare the world for AWE, no matter what specific engineered form ends up winning. The 2011 WOW/KiteLab critical path analysis, based on peak-power claims, and pointing to ~2030 mass-industrialization, remains on track. Makini is hereby conjectured to have reset the AWE peak-power record during its diving phases.


On Wednesday, May 17, 2017 5:42 PM, "dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
If it took them 10 years to get to this, then 5 months to release a video, I am thinking it is not a good sign.
I've seen all these symptoms so many times before.

1) Releasing a video, intended to impress, of getting a "breakthrough" wind energy system to merely rotate, without generating net power, is one major such symptom.

2) And all the kids taking selfies, especially all the girls going "oh oh oh" remind me more of a politically-correct community-college project than industrial-level, git-er-done, aerospace or energy R D.  Serious industrial-level R&D projects are usually much more low-key and down-to-business, not so full of emotion and idle bystanders.

3) The amount of time it took to get to this, and the amount of idle time now passing between such "press-release-breakthrough" moments seems excessive compared to the simplicity of the concept, the level of funding, and the comparatively faster progress being made by regular utility-scale wind energy, which has cut costs in half during the time since this group first started announcing their "breakthrough" approach.

4) The amount of time (months) between the single known flying event, and the press-release, seems long compared to any credible timeline based on rapid development.

5) Bringing a known wind energy authority onboard:  Developers of new wind technologies lacking in results often seek the participation of known names in wind energy to lend credibility where it is otherwise lacking.  Paul Gipe is one example: He is regularly tapped as a potential team member or verifying authority for new wind energy technology development projects.  Why?  His name comes up right away from a google search for wind energy.  The fact that he is an author and a speaker, not a technologist at all, does not seem to matter.  The fact that Paul is not an engineer and has never developed a wind turbine does not seem to matter:  He has a name, and if you have no real knowledge or product to give you credibility, you look for other badges of credibility, such as a name.  If the guy is a major figure of authority in wind energy, that is seen as a huge coup.  Investors will be impressed.  Whether he is going to be effective and is truly suited to make a difference, time will tell, right?  I'm not holding my breath that a high-level bureaucrat will suddenly be successful as a game-changing breakthrough technology innovator.

Summary:
What are symptoms of real energy solutions?  High power output at low cost, and reliability.

What are the symptoms of imaginary energy solutions?
Press-releases always ahead of the data, promises, promises, promises, never met by the promised time, substitution of impressive famous personalities and emotion for results, videos that start out explaining how much energy there is "out there", if only we could harness it, and end with a machine merely rotating and not actually producing usable energy.

This reminds me of the time I read a press-release from (now defunct) Southwest Windpower announcing ten-million dollars in funding from G. E. Capital.  It was supposed to be the announcement of a positive development, but I saw it as the unrecognized-by-most kiss-of-death:  The small-wind market was too small:  they would never be able to repay that funding, so I saw it as the beginning of the end, which it was.

I don't see anyone making progress any faster than this group, but that's not saying much.  I still would have to weigh in as saying that my opinion of this test flight is that it is too little, too late, and represents failure more than success.  Sorry to seem like a wet blanket, and of course I could be 100% wrong, but that is my take at this time.




Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22644 From: dave santos Date: 5/19/2017
Subject: Smart Vehicle Tech and KiteFarm Operations
The age of the COTS smart car is beginning, and the core robotic vehicle capabilities have broad industrial applications. In fact, in many modern factories, robotic vehicles have already supplanted the classic fixed production line conveyor. 

For giant soft-kite AWES land operations*, manual and automated vehicles are anticipated requirements (KiteLab, kPower). We already see specialized vehicle use to handle giant sports-field tarps and giant tents, but not yet automated. A theoretic scale model for kite vehicles is human kitemaster roving actions on the kitefield. An ideal kite handling vehicle would be capable to move, deploy, and recover kites in all-modes operations. Generally, this is a mobile pick-and-place problem, with large open architectural choices, like mobile-gen (generator on a ground-vehicle) for example. High-traction holding preformance by large mass and anchor-field belay are characteristic.

Several emerging COTS smart vehicle technologies seem promising for AWES operations. A kitefarm can be structured with subsurface wires to constrain autonomous vehicle path-following. Machine vision (LIDAR or Radar) is suited for both watching kite flight and capturing the surface state. GPS and other sensing capabilities are supported. Already, COTS megascale mining vehicles, and other megascale machinery, are becoming increasingly autonomous. Perhaps some such vehicle platform will soon be adapted for proof-of-concept testing, as AWE R&D funding continues to grow.

Open-AWE_IP-Cloud

-----------
* Ship Kites are already vehicle-based.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22645 From: Joe Faust Date: 5/19/2017
Subject: Hall, Johannes













Aeroelastic Analysis of a Morphing Wing for Airborne Wind Energy Applications
Aeroelastic Analysis of a Morphing Wing for Airborne Wind Energy ... gust load alleviation capability of camber-morphing airborne wind energy (AWE) ...






Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22646 From: Joe Faust Date: 5/19/2017
Subject: Assumption questioned: "can not withstand the same force"
Assumption questioned:
Canopy wings versus rigid wings is a topic that has invited some to assume that canopy wings in AWES "can not withstand the same force" (e.g., Johannes Hall in his recent masters thesis) as rigid wings in AWES.   

This topic thread aims to discuss such an assumption.
Here the assumption is not made, but rather there is here and invitation to find out what it might mean to declare such an assumption and then to find out just what game is being played when one considers "withstand the same force". 

E.g., give a force F.   Face that F with a canopy wing in a kite system.  Then face that F with a rigid wing in a kite system.   The immediate game in this example has both wings face F.   Well, immediately then, both wings face F. 
  • That is, the canopy wing faced the same F as the rigid wing.  Well then, both wings did not fulfill the subject assumption of "can not withstand the same force".   THEN, the assumption in Hall thesis would be destroyed. 
Using an assumption that brings contradiction may well lead to many technological losses and missed opportunities.

Of course, this first post is just a brief introduction to the topic.   Definitions of terms will be needed to clarify what people may mean when the subject assumption is declared.  Does wing area play here?   Does wing mass play? Does longevity play here? Does life cost play?  Etc. 



 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22647 From: dougselsam Date: 5/19/2017
Subject: Re: Southwest Windpower (SWWP), Altaeros

JoeF provided the following Wikipedia quotes:

"Southwest Windpower closed for business in the first quarter of 2013.[2]

The remaining Skystream assets were acquired by Xzeres wind in July 2013."

"A Skystream 3.7 has been tested as an airborne wind turbine in an Altaeros helium-filled balloon.

Doug replies
And SWWP's other turbine models were picked up by a company from India, but they were unable to make the models work as a business.  I have the remnants of one 3 kW model here given to me when I replaced one of theirs with one of mine.  They worked great as long as it didn't get too windy... The reason they self-destructed?  Pesky factors well-understood by wind energy people,

Altaeros:  OK now we're approaching two years since their latest announcement of working with Mitsubishi and Oman.  When do you suppose we'll hear about their project?  Success?  Or will they "quietly go away"?  Will this turn into one more "story without an ending"?
Remember this article?  LINK:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-08-27/mitsubishi-heavy-invests-in-altaeros-airborne-wind-technology


---In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, wrote :


In in the wiki: 

"Southwest Windpower closed for business in the first quarter of 2013.[2]

The remaining Skystream assets were acquired by Xzeres wind in July 2013."


"A Skystream 3.7 has been tested as an airborne wind turbine in an Altaeros helium-filled balloon.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22648 From: dave santos Date: 5/19/2017
Subject: Re: Assumption questioned: "can not withstand the same force"
JoeF is correct to point out Hall's Imprecise usage of "kite" here does not apply to large soft-kites, like ship-kites, which do in fact withstand far greater forces than any AWES rigid wing, existing or proposed. As a ready similarity-case, the MegaFly parafoil canopy opening-force fully-loaded is least an order-of-magnitude beyond supposed Makani and Ampyx max loadings.

Otherwise, Hall's MSc Thesis caontains many interesting things for us to study further.


On Friday, May 19, 2017 9:43 AM, "Joe Faust joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
Assumption questioned:
Canopy wings versus rigid wings is a topic that has invited some to assume that canopy wings in AWES "can not withstand the same force" (e.g., Johannes Hall in his recent masters thesis) as rigid wings in AWES.   

This topic thread aims to discuss such an assumption.
Here the assumption is not made, but rather there is here and invitation to find out what it might mean to declare such an assumption and then to find out just what game is being played when one considers "withstand the same force". 

E.g., give a force F.   Face that F with a canopy wing in a kite system.  Then face that F with a rigid wing in a kite system.   The immediate game in this example has both wings face F.   Well, immediately then, both wings face F. 
  • That is, the canopy wing faced the same F as the rigid wing.  Well then, both wings did not fulfill the subject assumption of "can not withstand the same force".   THEN, the assumption in Hall thesis would be destroyed. 
Using an assumption that brings contradiction may well lead to many technological losses and missed opportunities.

Of course, this first post is just a brief introduction to the topic.   Definitions of terms will be needed to clarify what people may mean when the subject assumption is declared.  Does wing area play here?   Does wing mass play? Does longevity play here? Does life cost play?  Etc. 



 


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22649 From: Joe Faust Date: 5/19/2017
Subject: Cabrinha issues safety alert for 2017 control systems
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22650 From: Joe Faust Date: 5/19/2017
Subject: Re: Cabrinha issues safety alert for 2017 control systems
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22651 From: dave santos Date: 5/19/2017
Subject: Re: Assumption questioned: "can not withstand the same force"
A core value of Hall's thesis to again remind us of ongoing progress in Fluid Structure Interaction (FSI), which is the most realistic computational approach to kite flight. AWE is right at the frontier of the new "multiphysics". Here are some links relating FSI to the Swedish-Swiss academic team. The morphing-wing emphasis seems to apply equally across the design spectrum, that all AWES wings need passive or active compliance by faired surfaces. A rigid wing does not start with any advantage over a soft wing in flexing optimally.

Note that our FSI wish-list includes dynamically stable inherent oscillation for pumping AWES.













On Friday, May 19, 2017 10:08 AM, "dave santos santos137@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
JoeF is correct to point out Hall's Imprecise usage of "kite" here does not apply to large soft-kites, like ship-kites, which do in fact withstand far greater forces than any AWES rigid wing, existing or proposed. As a ready similarity-case, the MegaFly parafoil canopy opening-force fully-loaded is least an order-of-magnitude beyond supposed Makani and Ampyx max loadings.

Otherwise, Hall's MSc Thesis caontains many interesting things for us to study further.


On Friday, May 19, 2017 9:43 AM, "Joe Faust joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
Assumption questioned:
Canopy wings versus rigid wings is a topic that has invited some to assume that canopy wings in AWES "can not withstand the same force" (e.g., Johannes Hall in his recent masters thesis) as rigid wings in AWES.   

This topic thread aims to discuss such an assumption.
Here the assumption is not made, but rather there is here and invitation to find out what it might mean to declare such an assumption and then to find out just what game is being played when one considers "withstand the same force". 

E.g., give a force F.   Face that F with a canopy wing in a kite system.  Then face that F with a rigid wing in a kite system.   The immediate game in this example has both wings face F.   Well, immediately then, both wings face F. 
  • That is, the canopy wing faced the same F as the rigid wing.  Well then, both wings did not fulfill the subject assumption of "can not withstand the same force".   THEN, the assumption in Hall thesis would be destroyed. 
Using an assumption that brings contradiction may well lead to many technological losses and missed opportunities.

Of course, this first post is just a brief introduction to the topic.   Definitions of terms will be needed to clarify what people may mean when the subject assumption is declared.  Does wing area play here?   Does wing mass play? Does longevity play here? Does life cost play?  Etc. 



 




Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22652 From: dougselsam Date: 5/20/2017
Subject: Re: Makani M600 making some Airborne Wind Energy
DaveS noted: 
"Note that Doug is not critiqued for being far slower to develop his AWES concepts than Makani, only encouraged to cheerfully accept how slow others necessarily work. "

DougS now replies:
         I am not the largest company in the world, with the most money, making huge unfulfilled promises for the last several years.
How many years must "rapid" wait?
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22653 From: dougselsam Date: 5/20/2017
Subject: "Rapid" in RAD?
DaveS noted: 
"Doug overlooks that the creation and maturation of new aerospace technology takes decades."

DougS replies;
I wonder if you could specifically define what you mean by the word "rapid" in your acronym "RAD".?


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22654 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/20/2017
Subject: Re: Safety
Kiteboarding incidents hold potential lessons for those who convert the wind's energy into useful works. 
Here is a recent incident in California

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


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22655 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/20/2017
Subject: Re: Minesto news
Big buoy is involved in the research and testing stage: 

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22656 From: dave santos Date: 5/20/2017
Subject: Re: Makani M600 making some Airborne Wind Energy
Doug asked: "How many years must "rapid" wait?"

Answer: "Rapid" must not "wait", but "go-go-go!"  In aerospace revolutions, decades really is normal "wait". The M600 is RAD enough in its concept-space.


On Saturday, May 20, 2017 12:13 PM, "dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
DaveS noted: 
"Note that Doug is not critiqued for being far slower to develop his AWES concepts than Makani, only encouraged to cheerfully accept how slow others necessarily work. "

DougS now replies:
         I am not the largest company in the world, with the most money, making huge unfulfilled promises for the last several years.
How many years must "rapid" wait?


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22657 From: dave santos Date: 5/20/2017
Subject: Re: "Rapid" in RAD?
"Rapid" progress in AWE aerospace R&D, especially scaling-up, is defined in a multi-decade timeframe, just as "rapid" in geological time can seem long. At best, we can cut off a few years off R&D by trying harder, but its inherently a long game. Also, the "RAD" acronym is catchy, and "rapid" was the initial best fit. Its not as bad or confusing as Doug seems to think.

From Free Dictionary-

"rapid
(ˈræpɪd)
adj
1. (of an action or movement) performed or occurring during a short interval of time; quick: a rapid transformation.
2. characterized by high speed: rapid movement.
3. acting or moving quickly; fast: a rapid worker. "




On Saturday, May 20, 2017 12:15 PM, "dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
DaveS noted: 
"Doug overlooks that the creation and maturation of new aerospace technology takes decades."

DougS replies;
I wonder if you could specifically define what you mean by the word "rapid" in your acronym "RAD".?




Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22658 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/20/2017
Subject: Sharp Intermeshing VAWT; Sharp VAWT with Flyball Governor; Sharp VAW

Sharp Intermeshing VAWT; Sharp VAWT with Flyball Governor; Sharp VAWT -- Cable suspended Rotor with AT


Hi JoeF,

Please post the attached document about the “Sharp Intermeshing VAWT”; the drawing of the “Sharp VAWT with Flyball Governor”; and the drawing of the “Sharp VAWT – Cable Suspended Rotor with AT”.


The Sharp Intermeshing VAWT (2 or more blades per rotor) introduces a new VAWT principle that has the potential to make VAWT more efficient than HAWT. It might eventually have some application to kites.


The Sharp VAWT with Flyball Governor (2 or more blades per rotor) may be of interest because it transmits torque using cords under tension, like some rotary kites. It demonstrates how to use a long line of super-light VAWT strung between two guyed towers so as to capture a large amount of wind energy cheaply. Such VAWT could also be stacked vertically while using cords to transmit torque between them and to the generator on the ground. If stacked, then two-bladed rotors would be offset from each other 120 degrees to create the equivalent of a helical VAWT. The effect is to smooth out the rotor drag pulses and the torque pulses.

The Sharp VAWT – Cable Suspended Rotor illustrates how wind turbines may become increasingly “kite-like” in order to reduce weight and cost. Two guyed towers could support a long, tall wall of these VAWT between them.

These VAWT types can scale up. 
Thanks for your help. I hope that you enjoy these concepts, and that they eventually spark some new kite ideas.

PeterS    


http://www.energykitesystems.net/SharpKites/TheSharpIntermeshingVAWT.pdf
http://www.energykitesystems.net/SharpKites/SharpVAWTwithFlyballGovernor.jpg
http://www.energykitesystems.net/SharpKites/SharpVAWTcablesuspendedrotorwithAT.jpg 


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

Thanks, Peter, 

May kited "sharp aweifications" occur!


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


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22659 From: dave santos Date: 5/20/2017
Subject: Re: "Rapid" in RAD?
Rapid AWE Development progress is not just ongoing improvements in practice, but also reflected in the fast growing number of developers. In just the last ten years in AWE, the number of listed participants has grown almost 100x, and we have fallen behind recording the new blood. This is explosive growth in the engineering talent pool. Investment capital has kept up equivalent growth, and there are far more teams, papers, and prototypes year after year. By any normal new-tech growth measure, RAD is on-track.




On Saturday, May 20, 2017 2:23 PM, "dave santos santos137@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
"Rapid" progress in AWE aerospace R&D, especially scaling-up, is defined in a multi-decade timeframe, just as "rapid" in geological time can seem long. At best, we can cut off a few years off R&D by trying harder, but its inherently a long game. Also, the "RAD" acronym is catchy, and "rapid" was the initial best fit. Its not as bad or confusing as Doug seems to think.

From Free Dictionary-

"rapid
(ˈræpɪd)
adj
1. (of an action or movement) performed or occurring during a short interval of time; quick: a rapid transformation.
2. characterized by high speed: rapid movement.
3. acting or moving quickly; fast: a rapid worker. "




On Saturday, May 20, 2017 12:15 PM, "dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
DaveS noted: 
"Doug overlooks that the creation and maturation of new aerospace technology takes decades."

DougS replies;
I wonder if you could specifically define what you mean by the word "rapid" in your acronym "RAD".?






Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22661 From: Joe Faust Date: 5/21/2017
Subject: FAA rule regarding registration of recreational drones struck down.

FAA rule regarding registration of recreational drones struck down.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22662 From: dave santos Date: 5/22/2017
Subject: Re: Makani M600 making some Airborne Wind Energy


It seems Makani will continue to test at its US Southwest site. Hawaii was never a practical option. Larry Page expressed commitment to crash several M600s if required, and considerable site infrastructure commitment evident in the video. The command center's narrow room indicates its a trailer, but its hard to imagine this road show moving much.

If the test site can be located, spotter presence can reduce the public need to guess about progress. I have been searching satellite imagery around Edwards AFB and China Lake Navy Test Range, without a match yet. Its possible the Nellis AFB area is being used. The constraints are fairly tight- the site is very flat, but without a lake playa, its of a certain soil color, of a characteristic scrub flora, with definite man-made terrain markings, but no major facility. One hot clue is what seems to be an old rocket-sled track seen in one video shot, which would strongly indicate Edwards or China Lake.

The tether was at a fixed length, so the tarp footprint in front of the test-perch was for staging, and a full length tarp underlay the grounded tether. There are many small mysteries still, like differing propellers in some shots. As expected, the noise is evidently far more than conventional HAWTS, but muted in editing. The loops were rather larger than desirable, from an airspace density perspective, I think there is a bit of side-slip at the bottom of the loop, when the aircraft is flying on its pylons as wings, its primary wing bridled only for crosswind orientation. A key unknown number is how long max-throttle can be sustained without thermal damage. Early ram-air cooling design was replaced with lower-drag low-pressure draw from aft outlets, which may have given up thermal margin.

No NOTAM yet found for Dec 16, 2016, but its easy to overlook old NOTAM in long lists, Makani may be using an alias, and the test site may be restricted airspace, with no NOTAM required. It seems fairly conclusive that only a crash can explain the absence of more video footage, with no landing and celebration shots. A high-speed crash would have left a lot of debris to remove to a waste disposal site. A landing crack-up might have left a repairable platform. We know of multiple M600s in the pipeline, but they cannot just be crashed promptly, so the engineering pressure is surely building. Its been long enough that new testing may be pending, in the hope of better survival.

As usual with Google, hyped claims verge on false, without crassly crossing the line of honesty. Let the record show that KiteShip was really "the world's first commercial scale energy kite" (followed by SkySails), nor is this really "the first time all the (M600) systems are talking together", since the reeling modes and reeling perch are absent, and may be a critical current engineering barrier, given narrow thermal time limits. Even as a marginal AWES, this is still an exciting historical milestone. If only the lessons were fully public, rather than informed conjecture.

There is a Makani semantic deliverable for Low-Complexity AWE- "Safety Constraint Lines", which the M600 eliminates at grave peril, but low-complexity design embraces, with safety as the top design-criteria. A pilot-lifter kite supporting the looping M600 from above might ensured a soft recovery.


On Saturday, May 20, 2017 2:05 PM, "dave santos santos137@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
Doug asked: "How many years must "rapid" wait?"

Answer: "Rapid" must not "wait", but "go-go-go!"  In aerospace revolutions, decades really is normal "wait". The M600 is RAD enough in its concept-space.


On Saturday, May 20, 2017 12:13 PM, "dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
DaveS noted: 
"Note that Doug is not critiqued for being far slower to develop his AWES concepts than Makani, only encouraged to cheerfully accept how slow others necessarily work. "

DougS now replies:
         I am not the largest company in the world, with the most money, making huge unfulfilled promises for the last several years.
How many years must "rapid" wait?




Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22663 From: dave santos Date: 5/22/2017
Subject: Fw: ICYMI: Appeals Court Rules UAS Registration Unlawful
Ironic shift in the sUAS lobbyist world, from fear of too-much to too-little FAA regulation. The fact is that legacy model-aircraft rules generally continue to be effective. The hobbyist self-regulation model does adapt to new capabilities. sUAS pros just need to operate safely, without extra rules-

On Monday, May 22, 2017 8:32 AM, Small UAV Coalition <newsletter@smalluavcoalition.org
ICYMI: Appeals Court Rules UAS Registration Unlawful
View this email in your browser
ICYMI: Appeals Court Rules UAS Registration Unlawful
Tweet
Forward
Share
Share

Small UAV Coalition Calls for Reasonable FAA Authority to Ensure Safe UAS Integration 


WASHINGTON, DC – May 19, 2017 – Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit vacated the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) registration rule for recreational unmanned aerial system (UAS) operators on the grounds that it violates a provision of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 that prohibits the FAA from promulgating “any rules or regulation regarding a model aircraft.”

The viability and growth of the UAS industry is contingent on the safe and responsible integration of UAS technology. This is only possible if all operators – commercial and recreational alike – understand their responsibilities and remain informed of the evolving standards around UAS technology. Today’s ruling generates uncertainty by eliminating a tool developed to maintain accountability and enable streamlined communication between the FAA and recreational UAS operators.

The FAA must have appropriate authority to maintain reasonable oversight of UAS operations, including management of a national UAS registry, which is the first step to identifying UAS operating in the national airspace. A lack of reasonable authority will inhibit safe integration and ultimately obstruct commercial UAS operations, putting the United States at risk of falling behind global competitors who are increasingly embracing the benefits of UAS. The Small UAV Coalition looks forward to working with lawmakers and regulators to ensure that the FAA has the authority necessary to facilitate the safe, widespread, and expeditious integration of UAS into the national airspace (NAS).

For more information on the Small UAV Coalition, please visit www.smalluavcoalition.org, contact press@smalluavcoalition.org, and follow @smallUAVs on Twitter.
 
# # #
@smallUAVs
smalluavcoalition.org
newsletter@smalluavcoalition.org

Copyright © 2017 Small UAV Coalition. All rights reserved.

Our mailing address is:
1333 New Hampshire Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20036

Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list






This email was sent to santos137@yahoo.com
why did I get this?    unsubscribe from this list    update subscription preferences
Small UAV Coalition · 1333 New Hampshire Ave, NW · Washington, DC 20036 · USA

Email Marketing Powered by MailChimp


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22664 From: dave santos Date: 5/22/2017
Subject: High L/D AWES Design Principles Review and Update
A common idea in AWE has been to seek the highest L/D kite-wing possible, but the trap is to choose a high velocity L/D wing without regard for low most-probable wind velocity, tether-drag, and the like. High speed mass is a vulnerable condition. In marginal turbulent wind, such a fast wing is hard-pressed to sweep reliably even just to maintain flight. Then there is the trap of a long reeling return cycle, which is a large source of drag both by giving away apparent wind velocity downwind and hauling back up wind. Even gliding back upwind expends potential energy stored as altitude. Excess flying mass creates high lift-drag of wingtip vortices. Some basic design choices to avoid these traps.

A pure crosswind load motion along a crosswind cable or track converts the aerodrag into static drag, which needs no thermodynamic work to oppose. Such crosswind motion is called a beam-reach in sailing, and reaching is the most efficient point of sail. Combine pure beam-reach motion with the largest lowest-wing-loading possible alleviates problems of high-velocity wing. The design tradeoff is that a ground-based mechanical transmission is needed for equivalent peak load-motion, but if this is better than crashing, the transmission wins. A subtle wing-design paradox is that at sufficiently low wing-loading at a slower load velocity allows a simpler cheaper wing to achieve high overall L/D. This is how the lightest kites achieve L/D
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22665 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/22/2017
Subject: Re: FAA rule regarding registration of recreational drones struck do
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22666 From: dave santos Date: 5/22/2017
Subject: A few new Minesto details
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22667 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 5/22/2017
Subject: Re: Sharp Intermeshing VAWT; Sharp VAWT with Flyball Governor; Sharp

Here is a posted note from DaveS:


Power-to-weight is the most important efficiency-performance metric in aviation design. "Disc" (swept area) efficiency is more appropriate to fixed wind turbines, since mass resting on a tower is less critical than mass kept aloft.

It seems as if the intermeshed VAWT pair depicted has the same overall solidity, rather than a true doubling of downwind solidity. In any case, no VAWT blade aligned in upwind or downwind phases is helping, but adding drag. Differing predictions that this is the "most efficient wind turbine" or that a parasitic VAWT drag factor reduces power-to-weight, compared to a HAWT rotor, awaits testing.

JoeF has a good HAWT flygen with a light rotor, for a power-to-weight baseline case of perhaps 5-10W from a two-blade rotor weighing maybe 50gr. Lets hope someone will prototype AWES VAWTs, to test theoretic claims on all sides.
    ~~ DaveS

====================
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22668 From: dave santos Date: 5/22/2017
Subject: Re: A few new Minesto details
The embedded water-kite video is a treat. A favorite moment shows the spunky little paravane kick up a roster-tail as a wingtip briefly breeches. The R&D team is seen still diligently working small, the fastest scale to learn many things. Such patient exhaustive small-scale trials ease pioneering scaling challenges. The best news is that almost anyone, even kids, can play like this. This is how revolutionary invention advances from "newborn baby" toy-play to full utility, in fine due time. Minesto seems to be doing everything right for an early industrial lead in energy paravanes. Future water-kite competition must come from even more playful thinking and prototyping at small scale. Technological evolution unfolds like biological evolution, where tiny mammals outplayed huge dinosaurs, who became small again, as birds, to perhaps someday rule again. "Small is beautiful".

On ‎Monday‎, ‎May‎ ‎22‎, ‎2017‎ ‎09‎:‎08‎:‎01‎ ‎PM‎ ‎CDT, dave santos santos137@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy] <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com  
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22669 From: dave santos Date: 5/23/2017
Subject: 1st R.E.A.C.H. Report to H2020 reveals KitePower's AWE Miltarization
Another window into the TUDelft KitePower program, notably openly confirming military aspirations for AWE in an European Commission context*. This helps explain why their AWEC conference planning circle, year-after-year, without comment, has rejected AWEIA's call for public discussion of AWE militarization and an AWE Military Moratorium. The moral decision to militarize AWE had apparently already been made internally, autocratically, and belated open discussion would just have been self-embarrassing. This is not the first AWE militarization effort (WindLift), but its the most mainstream, and may signal the beginning of a kite-based arms race that might have been prevented, had Wubbo lived, and open societal discussion prevailed. AWEC2017 could still raise the AWE Militarization topic to deserved attention, or once again bury it.

------------
* From the report- "Kitepower secured pilot projects with the Studio Roosegaarde („Social design lab for interactive art, fashion and architechture“, Netherlands) and the Dutch Ministery of Defence."

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22670 From: dave santos Date: 5/23/2017
Subject: Kitewinder's KiweeOne product nears release
Kitewinder continues to refine its AWES design for production. The anachronistic Cody kite has been replaced by a parafoil pilot-lifter. There are many nice details that its similar ancestor, KiteMotor1, by KiteLab PDX in 2007, did not have, like pay-out reeling launch. Lets hope Kitewinder can achieve a low-price for thier attractive 100W 12V device, so it becomes the first popular AWES product in history.

Note that drive-loop AWES like these do not just pull themselves down, as Doug predicted, but run quite well as long as the load-motion force is less than total tension.


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 22671 From: Peter A. Sharp Date: 5/23/2017
Subject: Sharp Intermeshing VAWT; Sharp VAWT with Flyball Governor; Sharp VAW

Hi DaveS,

You said about the Sharp Intermeshing VAWT concept:

"It seems as if the intermeshed VAWT pair depicted has the same overall solidity, rather than a true doubling of downwind solidity."

Nonsense. You are measuring the solidity ratio of the intermeshing middle section incorrectly. State your method and your calculations.

The solidity ratio of the intermeshing middle section is the sum of the separate solidity ratios. So if the separate rotors have a solidity ratio of 0.2, the intermeshing middle section will have a solidity ratio of 0.2 plus 0.2 equals 0.4.

The optimum solidity ratio of the original two rotors might be more like 0.15 so as to insure that the operating tip speed ratio of the Intermeshing VAWT stayed above 3.0.

 

" In any case, no VAWT blade aligned in upwind or downwind phases is helping, but adding drag."

Nonsense. “Phase” in this context refers to 180 azimuth angle degrees of blade travel, either to windward or to leeward. Lift-type VAWT blades, due to their circular orbit, are always traveling either to windward or to leeward -- except for the very brief transition points at the most-upwind and most-downwind points. So your statement claims that no lift-type VAWT blades can convert any energy -- except at the two very brief points where the blades are moving directly across the wind. But obviously, they do.

When VAWT blades are briefly heading directly upwind or downwind, they do create only drag and no lift. That is obvious. But the losses due to that drag are typically small for a well-designed VAWT with good streamlining. Consider this analogous flawed-argument: The solidity ratio of the HAWT blades near the hub is typically far too low to be efficient, so HAWT are inefficient. The premise is true, but the conclusion is not. That is because the losses near the hub are minor as compared to the major gains near the blade tips, due to the very large difference in swept area. You are incorrectly assuming that a minor disadvantage of VAWT is a major disadvantage of VAWT.

 

"Differing predictions that this is the "most efficient wind turbine" or that a parasitic VAWT drag factor reduces power-to-weight, compared to a HAWT rotor, awaits testing."

Nonsense. There are no “differing predictions”. If you insist that there are, then identify them and cite your references. As yet, there is only my prediction. If you wish to present a differing prediction for a Sharp Intermeshing VAWT, then please do so, along with your supporting reasoning and calculations.

Your statement is based on an illogical argument, which is this: Because most VAWT have more sources of drag than HAWT, and that because most VAWT rotors weigh more than most HAWT rotors, therefore VAWT cannot achieve a higher coefficient of performance than HAWT. That is like saying that because women are, on average, smaller and slower than men; therefore women are not able to bear children better than men. Women have characteristics that men do not have. VAWT have characteristics that HAWT do not have. Your false conclusion does not follow from your true premises. The VAWT disadvantages simply do not preclude VAWT from converting more energy than HAWT. If you insist that they do, then please present your reasoning in detail and cite your evidence.

New VAWT advantages continue to emerge. Intermeshing may be a new one. Those VAWT advantages can be translated into higher performance than HAWT. That is in spite of the disadvantages that most VAWT have. The advantages that VAWT have over HAWT could be stated negatively as the inherent disadvantages, faults, or limitations of HAWT. There are many. Can you list them? If not, then that would suggest that you have not evaluated the differences between VAWT and HAWT impartially.

You call for the testing of my theoretical prediction. But that is what theoretical predictions are for…!? So your recommendation is redundant. That is like telling someone who has written a shopping list that they should go to the store.

I have noticed that you immediately call for testing concepts or devices I present when you don’t understand them. But if you don’t understand what is being tested, you won’t be able to interpret the test results. For example, assume two Sharp VAWT (Cp = 0.45) are combined to create an Intermeshing VAWT with a predicted Cp of 0.60. Testing determines that the Cp is 0.50. Is my hypothesis supported, unsupported, or indeterminate? Explain your decision.

Your immediate call for testing implies that you assume that theory has little value until tested. Theory and testing are two sides of the same inseparable, scientific coin. Both are equally valuable and mutually indispensable. Without theory (specifically, an hypothesis, which is a prediction based on a theory), there is nothing to test. Theories also serve to provoke refinements or replacements of themselves. In other words, they raise new questions and possibilities, and they encourage skepticism about existing assumptions. In science, that is valuable, even without testing.

Most likely, the next step in evaluating an Intermeshing VAWT would be to run a simulation using intermeshing fixed-blade VAWT for simplicity. That is because Sharp VAWT are extremely difficult, and extremely expensive, to simulate due to their passive pitching. Then a wind tunnel test using fixed-blade VAWT models could be done to confirm the simulation if it produced sufficiently positive results. However, the extra width of an Intermeshing VAWT might preclude wind tunnel testing due to anticipated blockage effects. Testing wind turbines can be a lot more difficult than most people realize. And it can be quite expensive. Even simulations can be quite expensive. So going directly from theory to physical testing is seldom a practical strategy. In other words, to immediately call for (physical) testing is usually naive. And to call for testing before even understanding the theory to be tested is nonsensical.

PeterS