Messages in AirborneWindEnergy group.                          AWES 24374 to 24424 Page 379 of 440.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24374 From: dougselsam Date: 12/13/2018
Subject: Re: Review: Turbine-on-a-wing Reanalysis (and second "Betz-beater" c

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24375 From: benhaiemp Date: 12/13/2018
Subject: Re: Review: Turbine-on-a-wing Reanalysis (and second "Betz-beater" c

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24376 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/13/2018
Subject: Re: KPS results from Glasgow?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24377 From: Santos Date: 12/13/2018
Subject: Re: KPS results from Glasgow?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24378 From: benhaiemp Date: 12/14/2018
Subject: Daisy with rigid blades

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24379 From: dougselsam Date: 12/14/2018
Subject: Re: KPS results from Glasgow?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24380 From: dougselsam Date: 12/14/2018
Subject: Awesome, Roddy

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24381 From: benhaiemp Date: 12/14/2018
Subject: Re: KPS results from Glasgow?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24382 From: Rod Read Date: 12/14/2018
Subject: Re: Daisy with rigid blades

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24383 From: benhaiemp Date: 12/14/2018
Subject: Re: Daisy with rigid blades

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24384 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/14/2018
Subject: Re: KPS results from Glasgow?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24385 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/14/2018
Subject: Re: KPS results from Glasgow?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24386 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/14/2018
Subject: Re: KPS results from Glasgow?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24387 From: dougselsam Date: 12/15/2018
Subject: Re: KPS results from Glasgow?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24388 From: dougselsam Date: 12/15/2018
Subject: Re: Daisy with rigid blades

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24389 From: Peter Sharp Date: 12/15/2018
Subject: Re: Daisy with rigid blades

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24390 From: Rod Read Date: 12/16/2018
Subject: Re: Daisy with rigid blades

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24391 From: Rod Read Date: 12/16/2018
Subject: Re: Daisy with rigid blades

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24392 From: dave santos Date: 12/16/2018
Subject: Re: KPS results from Glasgow?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24393 From: dave santos Date: 12/16/2018
Subject: Re: Reply to Doug's post// Re: [AWES] Re: W = m * g (NASA syntax) v

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24394 From: dave santos Date: 12/16/2018
Subject: Re: Review: Turbine-on-a-wing Reanalysis (and second "Betz-beater" c

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24395 From: benhaiemp Date: 12/16/2018
Subject: Re: Daisy with rigid blades

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24396 From: Peter Sharp Date: 12/16/2018
Subject: Re: Review: Turbine-on-a-wing Reanalysis (and second "Betz-beater" c

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24397 From: Peter Sharp Date: 12/16/2018
Subject: Re: Daisy with rigid blades

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24398 From: Santos Date: 12/16/2018
Subject: Re: Daisy with rigid blades

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24399 From: Santos Date: 12/16/2018
Subject: Re: Review: Turbine-on-a-wing Reanalysis (and second "Betz-beater" c

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24400 From: Peter Sharp Date: 12/16/2018
Subject: Re: Review: Turbine-on-a-wing Reanalysis (and second "Betz-beater" c

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24401 From: Santos Date: 12/16/2018
Subject: Re: Review: Turbine-on-a-wing Reanalysis (and second "Betz-beater" c

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24402 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/16/2018
Subject: Re: Review: Turbine-on-a-wing Reanalysis (and second "Betz-beater" c

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24403 From: Peter Sharp Date: 12/16/2018
Subject: Re: Review: Turbine-on-a-wing Reanalysis (and second "Betz-beater" c

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24404 From: Santos Date: 12/16/2018
Subject: Re: Review: Turbine-on-a-wing Reanalysis (and second "Betz-beater" c

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24405 From: Santos Date: 12/16/2018
Subject: Re: Review: Turbine-on-a-wing Reanalysis (and second "Betz-beater" c

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24406 From: Rod Read Date: 12/17/2018
Subject: Re: Daisy with rigid blades

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24407 From: Santos Date: 12/17/2018
Subject: Re: Daisy with rigid blades

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24408 From: Rod Read Date: 12/17/2018
Subject: Re: Daisy with rigid blades

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24409 From: dougselsam Date: 12/17/2018
Subject: Re: KPS results from Glasgow?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24410 From: benhaiemp Date: 12/17/2018
Subject: Re: Daisy with rigid blades

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24411 From: dougselsam Date: 12/17/2018
Subject: Re: Daisy with rigid blades

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24412 From: dougselsam Date: 12/17/2018
Subject: Re: Reply to Doug's post// Re: [AWES] Re: W = m * g (NASA syntax) v

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24413 From: Peter Sharp Date: 12/17/2018
Subject: Re: Daisy with rigid blades

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24414 From: Peter Sharp Date: 12/17/2018
Subject: Re: Review: Turbine-on-a-wing Reanalysis (and second "Betz-beater" c

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24415 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/17/2018
Subject: kiteKRAFT

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24416 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/17/2018
Subject: Re: KPS results from Glasgow?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24418 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/17/2018
Subject: Re: kiteKRAFT

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24419 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/17/2018
Subject: Re: kiteKRAFT

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24420 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/17/2018
Subject: kiteKRAFT

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24421 From: Santos Date: 12/17/2018
Subject: Re: Reply to Doug's post// Re: [AWES] Re: W = m * g (NASA syntax) v

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24422 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/17/2018
Subject: kiteKRAFT

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24423 From: dougselsam Date: 12/18/2018
Subject: Re: Reply to Doug's post// Re: [AWES] Re: W = m * g (NASA syntax) v

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24424 From: dougselsam Date: 12/18/2018
Subject: Re: Daisy with rigid blades



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24374 From: dougselsam Date: 12/13/2018
Subject: Re: Review: Turbine-on-a-wing Reanalysis (and second "Betz-beater" c
Thanks for that, Joe.  The question was whether there is a multiplied or compound Betz coefficient for Makani, limiting output more than a single application of the Betz limitation.  I guess if you had an "expert" handy, you could just ask them, right?  And they would know the answer, right?

Anyway, thinking further about this configuration, it occurred to me that, while the main larger wing is going to be extracting energy from the main flow, subject to Betz, the smaller propellers, being pushed through the air "sideways", are giving back energy to the wake of the larger rotor.  Since they are each subject to Betz on their own scale, they might be losing about half of the energy they're being pushed with(?), using that energy to push the air in the wake sideways.  If true, this would tend to cancel the wake vorticity caused by the main wing, by pushing the wake air back in the same direction s the main wing is traveling, so not sure of the total result.  Does the result inhibit wake expansion or add to it?  Does the power injected back into the wake help the flow, making that power once again available to the main wing?  I guess you might need "an expert" to answer such questions.  Well since Makani hired the head of the National Wind Technology Center, and a certain someone claims to not only be "an expert" but to be in e-mail communication with said former head of the NWTC, (as anyone can be, including me) maybe that chain of knowledge can be applied to that "expert" providing an answer to this question.  I won't hold my breath (at least not beyond the Betz coeffcient) but go ahead and ask "the expert".

---In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, <joefaust333@... filtered #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038 {font-family:Wingdings;panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;} #ygrps-yiv-1733687269 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542 filtered #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038 {font-family:"Cambria Math";panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} #ygrps-yiv-1733687269 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542 filtered #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} #ygrps-yiv-1733687269 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542 filtered #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038 {font-family:Consolas;panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;} #ygrps-yiv-1733687269 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542 filtered #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038 {font-family:Verdana;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;} #ygrps-yiv-1733687269 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038 p.ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038MsoNormal, #ygrps-yiv-1733687269 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038 li.ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038MsoNormal, #ygrps-yiv-1733687269 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038 div.ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038MsoNormal {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman", serif;} #ygrps-yiv-1733687269 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038 a:link, #ygrps-yiv-1733687269 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038 span.ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;} #ygrps-yiv-1733687269 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038 a:visited, #ygrps-yiv-1733687269 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038 span.ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;} #ygrps-yiv-1733687269 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038 p {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman", serif;} #ygrps-yiv-1733687269 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038 code {font-family:"Courier New";} #ygrps-yiv-1733687269 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038 pre {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";} #ygrps-yiv-1733687269 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038 tt {font-family:"Courier New";} #ygrps-yiv-1733687269 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038 span.ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038HTMLPreformattedChar {font-family:Consolas;} #ygrps-yiv-1733687269 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038 p.ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038attach, #ygrps-yiv-1733687269 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038 li.ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038attach, #ygrps-yiv-1733687269 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038 div.ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038attach {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial", sans-serif;} #ygrps-yiv-1733687269 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038 p.ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038bold, #ygrps-yiv-1733687269 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038 li.ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038bold, #ygrps-yiv-1733687269 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038 div.ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038bold {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial", sans-serif;font-weight:bold;} #ygrps-yiv-1733687269 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038 p.ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038green, #ygrps-yiv-1733687269 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038 li.ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038green, #ygrps-yiv-1733687269 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038 div.ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038green {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman", serif;color:#628C2A;} #ygrps-yiv-1733687269 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038 p.ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038replbq, #ygrps-yiv-1733687269 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038 li.ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038replbq, #ygrps-yiv-1733687269 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038 div.ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038replbq {margin:3.0pt;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman", serif;} #ygrps-yiv-1733687269 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038 p.ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038ad, #ygrps-yiv-1733687269 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038 li.ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038ad, #ygrps-yiv-1733687269 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038 div.ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038ad {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman", serif;} #ygrps-yiv-1733687269 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038 p.ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038underline, #ygrps-yiv-1733687269 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038 li.ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038underline, #ygrps-yiv-1733687269 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038 div.ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038underline {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman", serif;} #ygrps-yiv-1733687269 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038 span.ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038yshortcuts {} #ygrps-yiv-1733687269 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038 p.ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038ad1, #ygrps-yiv-1733687269 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038 li.ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038ad1, #ygrps-yiv-1733687269 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038 div.ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038ad1 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman", serif;} #ygrps-yiv-1733687269 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038 p.ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038ad2, #ygrps-yiv-1733687269 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038 li.ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038ad2, #ygrps-yiv-1733687269 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038 div.ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038ad2 {margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:7.5pt;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman", serif;} #ygrps-yiv-1733687269 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038 p.ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038underline1, #ygrps-yiv-1733687269 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038 li.ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038underline1, #ygrps-yiv-1733687269 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038 div.ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038underline1 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman", serif;text-decoration:underline;} #ygrps-yiv-1733687269 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038 span.ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038yshortcuts1 {font-family:"Verdana", sans-serif;font-weight:bold;} #ygrps-yiv-1733687269 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038 span.ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038yshortcuts2 {font-family:"Verdana", sans-serif;font-weight:normal;} #ygrps-yiv-1733687269 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038 span.ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038EmailStyle34 {font-family:"Times New Roman", serif;color:windowtext;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;} #ygrps-yiv-1733687269 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038 .ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;} #ygrps-yiv-1733687269 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542 filtered #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;} #ygrps-yiv-1733687269 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038 div.ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038WordSection1 {} #ygrps-yiv-1733687269 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038 filtered #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038 {} #ygrps-yiv-1733687269 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542 filtered #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038 {font-family:Symbol;} #ygrps-yiv-1733687269 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542 filtered #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038 {font-family:"Courier New";} #ygrps-yiv-1733687269 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542 filtered #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038 {font-family:Wingdings;} #ygrps-yiv-1733687269 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542 filtered #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038 {font-family:Wingdings;} #ygrps-yiv-1733687269 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542 filtered #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038 {font-family:Wingdings;} #ygrps-yiv-1733687269 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542 filtered #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038 {font-family:Wingdings;} #ygrps-yiv-1733687269 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542 filtered #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038 {font-family:Wingdings;} #ygrps-yiv-1733687269 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542 filtered #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038 {font-family:Wingdings;} #ygrps-yiv-1733687269 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542 filtered #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038 {font-family:Wingdings;} #ygrps-yiv-1733687269 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038 ol {margin-bottom:0in;} #ygrps-yiv-1733687269 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542 #ygrps-yiv-1733687269ygrps-yiv-245063542ygrps-yiv-1075332038 ul {margin-bottom:0in;}
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24375 From: benhaiemp Date: 12/13/2018
Subject: Re: Review: Turbine-on-a-wing Reanalysis (and second "Betz-beater" c
Betz measure helps to find then optimize the potential of
"2D land-to-power

3D airspace-to-power".
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24376 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/13/2018
Subject: Re: KPS results from Glasgow?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24377 From: Santos Date: 12/13/2018
Subject: Re: KPS results from Glasgow?
Thanks JoeF,

Let's always welcome anyone's opinion on what expert level AWE knowledge consists of, that's a serious topic.

 I think most AWE experts would expect KPS to do better than Doug suggests, if slower than he wants.

"Expert" prediction- KPS passes bird review. Plenty of testing next year.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24378 From: benhaiemp Date: 12/14/2018
Subject: Daisy with rigid blades
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24379 From: dougselsam Date: 12/14/2018
Subject: Re: KPS results from Glasgow?
First of all I think it's ridiculous for daveS to keep calling himself an "expert".  To me, it holds no water.  It's circular reasoning.  Reminds me of cult leaders telling people they are really Jesus.  How do you know he is really Jesus?'  Because He says he is, that's how!  Sure.  It seems, to me, utterly classless, irritating behavior, dripping with desperation, destroying its own credibility on its face.  Show me one other person in wind energy who keeps insisting that they are "an expert".  OMG, who the heck acts like this?  How can you take this sort of behavior seriously?  Honestly, it reminds me of some little kid having a temper tantrum in a restaurant, while his parent (Joe) refuses to get him under control.

Second of all, if anyone were an expert, they would be interested in the progress of various stated projects.
If you two guys spend so much time repeating, "re-printing" or providing links, to every detail, in every "press-release" from these projects, or third-party article, you should be interested in following up on the results.
Otherwise, you're just acting as a rubber-stamp, repeating what always turns out to be false.

If Joe is the greatest AWE archivist, the first thing he should notice is that these press-releases and third-party articles contain what, so far, always turns out to be false information.  People like "Dr. Peter Harrop", as one example, as well-intended as his reports may be, offer the same: repetitions of false statements from biased, self-interested sources. These third-party commentators do not have the background to form an informed or accurate opinion on AWE, and repeating their articles here is not discussing any "news", just giving people who know nothing about it some sort of undeserved credibility.  Obviously, we have more accumulated knowledge here than any of these peripheral part-time commentators.

Third of all, any "expert" or person even paying the slightest attention for the past decade should by now be aware that every stated project to power X hundred homes has never done so, and never provided any followup explanation - as I told you all years ago, the typical outcome is, they simply "quietly go away".

What's been happening here instead, ever since I was allowed to actually ask a pertinent question on this year's big project to power X number of homes, is daveS just makes up "answers" out of thin air, obviously without taking a single step to find out what any real answer might be.  That's not an "expert".  That's just some person who doesn't know, and more importantly who doesn't want to know, and who doesn't want anyone else to find out the factual outcome of this latest poster-child-project for kite-reeling.  The "AWE forum" doesn't want to discuss the same projects it announces, once the empty, fantasy-based, "announcing" phase has transitioned to the factual "results" phase.

I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to insist that daveS has no business pretending to answer a pertinent question when he has no idea what the answer is.  (That's not an expert) As usual, he pretends to know everything while not even bothering to find out anything.  You guys are, in my opinion. too lazy to really function as a 100% effective information clearinghouse for AWE, even while doing a good job in many ways, since, just as a couple of phone calls to Alaska confirmed a previous instance of a company not following through on all the press-releases, a minimal inquiry to Scotland could probably give us a decent idea of what's really been going on there. 

But you guys would rather go the easy way, just repeating  false statements meant to raise funding (less work), rather than making any inquiries or doing any research.  Or, if daveS would not attempt to "jam the frequency" with his typical knee-jerk 100%-made-up nonsense, maybe we might hear from someone who actually knows, such as even someone from KPS. 

In the previous instance regarding Alaska, if you remember, daveS was in a similar "say anything while knowing nothing" mode.  Remember "It's an engineering delay"?  Then we go back to just repeating the next public-relations positions, projects with Oman, Mitsubishi, internet wifi repeaters, etc.  OK now that was all years ago.  Any interest in following up on any of that?  Yeah, didn't think so.


---In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, <santos137@...
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24380 From: dougselsam Date: 12/14/2018
Subject: Awesome, Roddy

All you needed was some decent blades!  Enough with the "cute" stuff.  As I've been saying for ten years, soft kites are not so great for "working surfaces".  Too slow. 

And torque seems to work out fine, to bring power to a groundgen.  Both of these facts run contrary to what the resident self-proclaimed "expert" here, has been insisting for years.


One might notice the 3 recent youtube videos of the Superturbine-type torque-drive groundgen systems by me, Roddy, and Chris, have made decent power, while requiring zero outside funding, zero office-space, zero interns, zero pre-project press-releases, zero computers, and can be demonstrated and run by a single person, requiring no helpers, who could even leave for part of the day, and come back to a running system.


One person mentioned a "2 kW" system will "power a house".  Experience shows you need a "10 kW" wind turbine, in a good wind resource, to power a normal house.  That's because no system is always running at peak output - far from it.  Often they are not running at all.  Even windfarms have a lot of calm.  So you need excess capacity, plus storage or a grid-connection.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24381 From: benhaiemp Date: 12/14/2018
Subject: Re: KPS results from Glasgow?

At the same time I just saw Edgar Morin's tweet: "We need to evaluate the experts", https://twitter.com/edgarmorinparis/status/1073622218549145606.

For that an expert is needed...
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24382 From: Rod Read Date: 12/14/2018
Subject: Re: Daisy with rigid blades
Yes it's progress in terms of output... 
But performance 
Better watch to the end of this one... 

I killed a good & cheap kite because I was too lazy to reinstate an overdrive button. I killed it earlier in the day when I used a lame lift kite again.

Luckily I didn't get myself killed walking round the back. 

Lessons learnt this time... I hope...
Walking a rotor around 90deg is a good way to depower. 
Must organise myself a bit more.. Don't rush the anemometer. 
And make it shit loads better next time 

Thanks Pierre 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24383 From: benhaiemp Date: 12/14/2018
Subject: Re: Daisy with rigid blades

Thanks Rod for this instructive video.

Indeed in the end Daisy accelerated then collapsed. It appears that the last rings collapsed just before the loop with rotating blades. So perhaps a stall mean could be implemented such as a brake on the bicycle wheel, then look after aerodynamic means.

1000 W in AWE involve serious risks during tests. Now new means as computers, and also investors, perhaps a team, are required to mitigate these risks as Daisy scales.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24384 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/14/2018
Subject: Re: KPS results from Glasgow?
KPS, 
      What have your for public discussion? 
TIA, 
 Joe
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24385 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/14/2018
Subject: Re: KPS results from Glasgow?
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24386 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/14/2018
Subject: Re: KPS results from Glasgow?


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24387 From: dougselsam Date: 12/15/2018
Subject: Re: KPS results from Glasgow?
Nice try Joe
Wish that was an answer to details regarding the supposed on-grid testing this past season.
"Rebrand" looks to me like maybe it means work on their website?   I'm kind of thinking if there was any good news, any significant power produced, they'd be telling the world about it.  I'm really puzzled, given the supposed power claims we've heard in past years regarding kite-reeling.  Maybe someone with some actual information will chime in at some point.


---In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, <joefaust333@...
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24388 From: dougselsam Date: 12/15/2018
Subject: Re: Daisy with rigid blades
Like I told Chris, put good blades out there at the right angle and you're going to get some performance, at which point the machine may fly apart.  That's OK - that's how we learn.  If the machine hangs together, the next thing is, you may smoke your generator.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24389 From: Peter Sharp Date: 12/15/2018
Subject: Re: Daisy with rigid blades
Attachments :

    I think that the Rod’s video showing the collapse of the torque transmission train of hoops may reveal a serious limitation of the concept.

    The good blades on a large hoop produce a strong torque in a strong wind. For any such train of hoops, there will be a maximum torque that they can handle based on the tension between the hoops and the stiffness of the hoops.

    The problem, as I see it, is that the train of hoops must remain under enough tension to prevent the torque from twisting the hoops relative to each other, or collapsing the hoops.

    If the hoops twist much relative to each other, that will pull them towards each other and may also twist the connecting lines into a rope or start to distort and unbalance the hoops. So higher torque may require larger diameter hoops, or thicker hoops, or hoops spaced more closely. Those all increase weight.

    What seems critically important is the ratio of the tention to the rotor torque. The rotor drag, along with the pilot kite, produces the tension required to transmit the torque. The solid blades on only one rotor seems to have produced a lot more torque than multiple rotors with soft blades, while also reducing rotor drag. So there wasn’t enough tension between the hoops, or the hoops weren’t stiff enough.

    A simple solution might be to use a larger pilot kite to provide enough tension to match the increase in torque. But the hoops still might not be stiff enough. So I would think that the first step would be to replace torque with RPM so as to handle higher power. That means using smaller rotors that spin as fast as possible. That will increase the drag of the connecting lines, so there will be a tradeoff.

    I think that basic indoor experiments need to be done to determine the relationships between the variables.

    Personally, based on my tinkering with transmitting torque between hoops, my guess is that hoops cannot transmit enough torque, and that there will be a scale effect where the weight of the hoops rises faster than the torque they can transmit. So the concept, based on using hoops and lines, may be limited to small scale.

    Doug’s use of a flexible shaft and small diameter rotors may end up being lighter relative to the power that can be transmitted.

    PeterS

     

     

    From: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com]
    Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2018 9:54 AM
    To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
    Subject: Re: [AWES] Daisy with rigid blades

     

     

    Like I told Chris, put good blades out there at the right angle and you're going to get some performance, at which point the machine may fly apart.  That's OK - that's how we learn.  If the machine hangs together, the next thing is, you may smoke your generator.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24390 From: Rod Read Date: 12/16/2018
    Subject: Re: Daisy with rigid blades
    Attachments :
      Hi Peter S,
      Thanks for the comments on Daisy performance.
      I agree and disagree with your observations and conclusions.

      Yes there are serious limitations to consider in torque transmission capability. 
      Yes You can reliably kill a torque tube transmission by overtwisting or overloading. 
      Everything can break but let's find out where in this case of this tensile torque tube transmission method.

      The twisted state, which kills torque transmission, occurs when any 2 consecutive rings are allowed to twist
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24391 From: Rod Read Date: 12/16/2018
      Subject: Re: Daisy with rigid blades
      Very interesting to note that it wasn't the smallest rings which broke....
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24392 From: dave santos Date: 12/16/2018
      Subject: Re: KPS results from Glasgow?
      The well known logical fallacy Doug is suffering is that absence of evidence of recent KPS activity means to him evidence of absence of activity. Time will tell if KPS was progressing technically, or not, as actual evidence emerges.

      “The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.”

      ― Carl Sagan 



       

      Nice try Joe
      Wish that was an answer to details regarding the supposed on-grid testing this past season.
      "Rebrand" looks to me like maybe it means work on their website?   I'm kind of thinking if there was any good news, any significant power produced, they'd be telling the world about it.  I'm really puzzled, given the supposed power claims we've heard in past years regarding kite-reeling.  Maybe someone with some actual information will chime in at some point.


      ---In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, <joefaust333@...
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24393 From: dave santos Date: 12/16/2018
      Subject: Re: Reply to Doug's post// Re: [AWES] Re: W = m * g (NASA syntax) v
      Doug claims his methodology is to cause fires by cooking batteries (releasing hydrogen gas in presence of spark-risk), rather than use charge controllers. That's very unwise. There was quite a bit of gusty wind at HAWPcon09, so how Doug should have minimized fire/explosion risk was to disconnect his batteries, for lack of a proper load (like music and lights). Disconnected batteries was the system state I observed, but Doug seems to insist he preferred risk of overcharging, with fires as an inherent hazard known to him by direct experience.

      Every developer in AWE should at least become expert about their own architecture. Moreover, there is quite a number of wonderful experts with broader knowledge and experience. Doug claims to not even bother reading Loyd. The expertise found in our literature, including on this Forum, is essential to our progress. Doug overlooks that I am considered a domain expert by various strong criteria, including my 2006 recruitment to Bay Area AWE R&D, 2009 presentation of the UTexas AE seminar, specialist participation at conferences, and thousands of hours of kite testing, including diverse AWE experiments. I am particularly expert in aspects of AWE that are Doug's blindspots, like the particular scaling limits that prevent him tapping upper wind with a driveshaft, and deep aviation knowledge and experience beyond tower-based wind power practice.

      Good luck to Doug in resolving his AWE challenges, as expertly identified.







       

      daveS asked: "Thanks, I overlooked any prior disclosure. Suggesting that the batteries would best have been deep discharge. What was the overcharge prevention?"
      DougS replies:  If you watch my latest video carefully, you'll see the interior ceiling of the van is a burned, tattered mess of hanging cloth and brown stains.  I don't normally use even a charge controller for testing, to keep things s simple as possible.  You can use new deep-cycle batteries, new industrial batteries, or, going down the spectrum, even old car batteries which are often free.  Considering you just need a voltage to run the turbine into to take data from a test vehicle, and are not worried actually storing any energy while testing, you don't care if you use old, worthless batteries that present a voltage without really having much holding capacity left.  Sometimes they explode, hence the tattered ceiling.  To look at what's left of the ceiling, you can figure out that I've done a lot of valuable testing from that vehicle.  None of this has changed in the last decade.  It's always been the same.  I started out thinking "Yeah, I'll have to get a charge controller soon." but old batteries are cheap or free, and the worst that happens is more damage to the cloth ceiling of the test vehiccup.

      I've had other people gasp at the fact of no charge controller, trying to tell me "you HAVE to have one!"  Well, no, actually you don't, and here's why:  We're usually not just letting it run for days on end while truck-testing.  We're usually testing for short bursts going up and down a given straightaway, taking the average of data from both directions (like at the Bonneville salt flats) to make sure the data is not influenced by a headwind, or tailwind.  We can optionally connect a "load tester" to burn off any excess stored energy between runs, if the voltage starts staying persistently high.  I've also used headlights to burn off power.

      When we use this vehicle as a stationary tower for a SuperTwin, as it has been for the last 7 years, everything usually runs through an inverter.  Now I can tell you right now, the more information I provide to ignorant people who "just want to argue", especially people insisting they are some sort of "expert" (when nobody else calls them an expert), the more extraneous partial-facts they will pull out of their asses to try to argue further that somehow I don't know what I'm doing, while they do. 

      I'd just take all your previous statements of having examined my setup, combined with all the statements of not knowing anything about the setup, and realize there is no basis for any further discussion of it, so when you think of 10 more extraneous half-understood reasons to argue with me further, or to try and catch me in some "gotcha" moment, please consider that it is not worth anyone's time to hear more meaningless blather on the subject.  I'd concentrate on why you "never bothered" to bring a blimp to test your supposed "demos" at HAWP 2009.
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24394 From: dave santos Date: 12/16/2018
      Subject: Re: Review: Turbine-on-a-wing Reanalysis (and second "Betz-beater" c
      The wake of a turbine-on-a-wing does is not "swept away by the true wind" in any way that reduces total drag. Rather, the sub-wake, and its added drag, is just part of the overall helical wake that the true wind field carries away as a whole, roughly as Taylor hypothesized-

      Taylor's hypothesis - AMS Glossary

      Make no mistake, a turbine has the same inherent drag factors (including its Betz Limit prediction), even when mounted on a larger turbine blade. Fractal math is applicable to self-similar structure like turbine-on-a-turbine, but we have to work out the problem accordingly.

      Experts in a pioneering domain do not agree on every point; they debate advanced conjectures, and the better expert opinion prevails in due time.



       

      A looping foil is a turbine (a wing with angular velocity), subject to Betz Limit. You oddly propose that turbines-on-a-looping foil escape Betz by some principle maybe only known by Makani (a Secret Sauce theory)

      Having been inside of the early Makani venture (via KiteShip) and having closely followed them ever since, I do not know who exactly would ever be able to find an aerodynamic principle unknown to the aerospace field (excepting Dave Culp's soft kite work). Never forget that no one in early Makani had an aerospace background (again, Culp closest, as a Marine Engineer) up to the architectural down-select based on Loyd, which Loyd himself did not think was the optimal architecture.

      Fortunately, the M600 is nearing its definitive fate, settling whether there was any "secret sauce" (there was not).





      On ‎Sunday‎, ‎December‎ ‎9‎, ‎2018‎ ‎10‎:‎29‎:‎40‎ ‎AM‎ ‎PST, 'Peter Sharp' sharpencil@sbcglobal.net [AirborneWindEnergy] <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com


       

      Hi DaveS, This quote is probably wrong:

      “We also have noted that a turbine-on-a-looping-wing is a turbine-on-a-turbine, which compounds Betz Limit loss*.

      The reason that it is probably wrong is that the secondary turbine, the ram-air-turbine (RAT), is moving across the wind. So the air that it slows, and which usually accumulates behind the rotor to enforce the Betz limit, is swept away by the true wind coming from the side of the RAT. I have found only one paper on that subject, an old Russian paper, which found that the efficiency of the RAT could be over 80%. So I think that topic needs to be more carefully considered. The Makani kite data probably contain the answer to this question, but they are not available.

      PeteS

       

       

       

      From: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com]
      Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2018 9:03 AM
      To: Yahoogroups <airbornewindenergy@yahoogroups.com

      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24395 From: benhaiemp Date: 12/16/2018
      Subject: Re: Daisy with rigid blades

      Hi Rod,


      The figure 22.18 (AWEbook 2018 chapter 22 about rotating reel (abstract on

      https://repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/object/uuid:619d2a55-7690-4bf6-bf07-ab8db919fce9?collection=research)) mentions the transferable aerodynamic moment as function of the relative distance between rotor centers and the rotor size ratio. As expected it drops as the distance increases, or the axial force (lifting kite) must be higher. In this system there is no intermediate hoops. Perhaps some theoretical study would allow knowing what is the length limit of the hoops system in regard to the transferable torque.
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24396 From: Peter Sharp Date: 12/16/2018
      Subject: Re: Review: Turbine-on-a-wing Reanalysis (and second "Betz-beater" c
      Attachments :

        DaveS,

        You seem to have missed the point. The question is whether the true wind, by removing the slowed air from behind the tip-rotor, will increase the power of the tip-rotor. You did not speak to that issue.

        PeteS

         

        From: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com]
        Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2018 10:33 AM
        To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [AWES] Review: Turbine-on-a-wing Reanalysis (and second "Betz-beater" case)

         

         

        The wake of a turbine-on-a-wing does is not "swept away by the true wind" in any way that reduces total drag. Rather, the sub-wake, and its added drag, is just part of the overall helical wake that the true wind field carries away as a whole, roughly as Taylor hypothesized-

         

         

        Make no mistake, a turbine has the same inherent drag factors (including its Betz Limit prediction), even when mounted on a larger turbine blade. Fractal math is applicable to self-similar structure like turbine-on-a-turbine, but we have to work out the problem accordingly..

         

        Experts in a pioneering domain do not agree on every point; they debate advanced conjectures, and the better expert opinion prevails in due time.

         

        On ‎Sunday‎, ‎December‎ ‎9‎, ‎2018‎ ‎11‎:‎04‎:‎33‎ ‎AM‎ ‎PST, dave santos santos137@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy] <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com

        Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24397 From: Peter Sharp Date: 12/16/2018
        Subject: Re: Daisy with rigid blades
        Attachments :

          Hi Rod,

          You stated: “Power to weight  this was 2kg airborne outputting 1000W    

          500W/kg is a very good start for a small system”

          Yes it is, and I applaud your progress. But you are still operating close to the ground where small-scale wind turbines can operate. The power to weight ratio will continually decrease as you go higher. My concern is that your system may become too heavy for the power it can transmit to the ground, so it will cost too much for the power it can produce.

          Have you made any estimates about that yet?

          PeterS

           

           

          From: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com]
          Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2018 6:36 AM
          To: AWE <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com

          Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24398 From: Santos Date: 12/16/2018
          Subject: Re: Daisy with rigid blades
          Great work, Rod, we all agree.

          Problems with fine rigid blades really kick in around 3m length. There is then tangible personal danger even in medium wind, and crash breakage is likely. Relative performance loss in this initial scalage becomes noticable.

          Scaling bigger still compounds high-mass high-velocity risk. Accidents become regulatory cases. Soft-kite architectures with slower velocities but relatively higher load velocities are hoped to scale safer and better.

          There is also the fact that probable wind velocity does not increase as much as bigger heavier hot wings will need. Common Lewis cold season wind velocity is rare most places. Only much higher altitudes compensate, but practical torque distances are too short.

          At current scale, your architecture works, but scaling will not be cheap and easy. How do you intend to proceed?
          Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24399 From: Santos Date: 12/16/2018
          Subject: Re: Review: Turbine-on-a-wing Reanalysis (and second "Betz-beater" c
          PeterS,

          The issue was addressed, that the Taylor hypothesis seems to hold, that the secondary turbine wake is not "blown away" apart from the primary wake, but remains embedded.
          Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24400 From: Peter Sharp Date: 12/16/2018
          Subject: Re: Review: Turbine-on-a-wing Reanalysis (and second "Betz-beater" c
          Attachments :

            DaveS,

            Nonsense. Simply the tip-rotor moving in a circle removes the air from behind the tip-rotor. And the true wind, coming from the side of the tip-rotor, adds to blowing it away. That is obvious and indeputable. What is not obvious is whether that results in an increase in power of the tip-rotor.

            PeterS

             

            From: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com]
            Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2018 2:33 PM
            To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: RE: [AWES] Review: Turbine-on-a-wing Reanalysis (and second "Betz-beater" case)

             

             

            PeterS,

             

            The issue was addressed, that the Taylor hypothesis seems to hold, that the secondary turbine wake is not "blown away" apart from the primary wake, but remains embedded.

             

            On Dec 16, 2018 3:31 PM, "'Peter Sharp' sharpencil@sbcglobal.net [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com

            Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24401 From: Santos Date: 12/16/2018
            Subject: Re: Review: Turbine-on-a-wing Reanalysis (and second "Betz-beater" c
            The Taylor frozen field assumption is Galilean Relativity for flow fields. It could seem like "nonsense", just as Galileo was misunderstood.
            Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24402 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/16/2018
            Subject: Re: Review: Turbine-on-a-wing Reanalysis (and second "Betz-beater" c
            Hmmm? 

            There is always air behind a rotor operating in the air. 
            New air feeds the space where old air was.
            Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24403 From: Peter Sharp Date: 12/16/2018
            Subject: Re: Review: Turbine-on-a-wing Reanalysis (and second "Betz-beater" c
            Attachments :

              DaveS,

              Super nonsense. Show me a simulation of the airflow.

              PeterS

               

              From: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com]
              Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2018 4:07 PM
              To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: RE: [AWES] Review: Turbine-on-a-wing Reanalysis (and second "Betz-beater" case)

               

               

              The Taylor frozen field assumption is Galilean Relativity for flow fields. It could seem like "nonsense", just as Galileo was misunderstood.

               

              On Dec 16, 2018 5:15 PM, "'Peter Sharp' sharpencil@sbcglobal.net [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com

              Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24404 From: Santos Date: 12/16/2018
              Subject: Re: Review: Turbine-on-a-wing Reanalysis (and second "Betz-beater" c
              The "frozen" part of Taylor flow is a bit misleading. The flow field continues to evolve even as it travels in bulk. JoeF invokes high Re flow. Taylor flow applies across low to high Re.
              Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24405 From: Santos Date: 12/16/2018
              Subject: Re: Review: Turbine-on-a-wing Reanalysis (and second "Betz-beater" c
              PeterS

              Look at all rotary wakes. None will show a "blown away" component. Thanks for any images supporting your idea.
              Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24406 From: Rod Read Date: 12/17/2018
              Subject: Re: Daisy with rigid blades
              Hi Pierre, Peter and Dave

              Pierre...

              The figure 22.18 (AWEbook 2018 chapter 22 about rotating reel (abstract on

              https://repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/object/uuid:619d2a55-7690-4bf6-bf07-ab8db919fce9?collection=research)) mentions the transferable aerodynamic moment as function of the relative distance between rotor centers and the rotor size ratio. As expected it drops as the distance increases, or the axial force (lifting kite) must be higher. In this system there is no intermediate hoops. Perhaps some theoretical study would allow knowing what is the length limit of the hoops system in regard to the transferable torque.


              Yes, even in that figure for β =30°  and  δ =45 °, to maintain validity of operation and optimal transfer you want the ring to ring spacing to be short compared to diameters.
              I like to think about it more in practical handling terms (kinda like circular covers (used to be called manhole covers) for under pavement access... Circular because the lid can't fall through the hole) If you keep the tethers shorter than the diameter... How will they ever get to an over twisted state?   In reality, there is almost always enough tension to afford more tether length.
              The possibility of a state with no tension, is why I don't like to work with rung to rung torque ladders using straight beams.  Straight parts can always find a way to snag on lines if they are loose.

              The interesting thing in this test was how well the small rings handled power transmission. Their alignment, however, was quite easily kicked out on imbalanced line tensions. However, there is nothing to stop the design from having small rings run all the way up the axis concentrically inside stacked driving rings. This will likely help maintain alignment.

              Peter...
              The power to weight ratio will continually decrease as you go higher. My concern is that your system may become too heavy for the power it can transmit to the ground, so it will cost too much for the power it can produce.  
              Interested to see where you get that proposition from. My usual scaling method is network layering. e.g. stick another rotor on top. 
              So using the same stacked torque transmission tube on the lower end, with the same diameter... the main problems are maintaining alignment (removing wobble is not hard considering how unbalanced my system was.) and maintaining the ability to cope with the torque. The wee rod hoops held ok for 1 rotor...They were far from an optimal shape. Concentric and triangulated frame structures in the ladder will make much stronger and more weight efficient troque transmission. In the test, tied spokes help but these really were flimsy hoops.
               
              I think the limit on my stack deployments really lies in the lift kites I use. The torque transmission is fine considering the amount of lift tension available in the driver kites. 
              I really want a stack of controllable lift kites networked ... Please Santa I have been really good

              oh that reminds me 
              Santos...
              Great work, Rod, we all agree.

              Problems with fine rigid blades really kick in around 3m length. There is then tangible personal danger even in medium wind, and crash breakage is likely. Relative performance loss in this initial scalage becomes noticable.

              Scaling bigger still compounds high-mass high-velocity risk. Accidents become regulatory cases. Soft-kite architectures with slower velocities but relatively higher load velocities are hoped to scale safer and better.

              There is also the fact that probable wind velocity does not increase as much as bigger heavier hot wings will need. Common Lewis cold season wind velocity is rare most places. Only much higher altitudes compensate, but practical torque distances are too short.

              At current scale, your architecture works, but scaling will not be cheap and easy. How do you intend to proceed?

              Thanks Dave,
              Why go to 3m lengths already? You said it yourself next sentence... That kinda scaling has issues.
              Yes we want super sleek soaring planes but, lets not run before we can walk. Above 1kW, the old AWES adage is true, this AWES NEEDS control. It's already too dangerous. I can crash these at any scale.
              Tying 27 X $10 control addressable foam planes to a net for scaling is much more our style... (hint for Christmas... Santa(Santos I know it's you)...pleeeeese!)
              With all that control a lift kite may be avoidable but the top net is a good safety, separation and guidance feature.

              If in the worst case on Thursday, the kite chopped my head off and it smashed through my neighbours window and spilled their cats food bowl over ... I'd hope there would already be grounds for an accident (because it wasn't actually my intention) investigation group to be interested and maybe report to regulatory bodies. (assuming the kite didn't chop the bodies heads off too)
              Oh yeah where was I ?
              I report all my testing to the CAA via HIAL @ SYY airport ... about 1.5 miles away across the beach.

              Practical torque distances too short.... Yet again... has ANYONE got ANY further research on this, please? (Please Santa this isn't actually on my list as much as it would be nice I know it would be very hard for an elf to make and I really want loads of wee planes and I didn't swear in reply.)

              I intend to proceed a bit more sensibly than before.. (old fogey now)

              Oh did you see the tip bending on the wings by the way...oh ... gush
              That was just lovely.
              wow
              Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24407 From: Santos Date: 12/17/2018
              Subject: Re: Daisy with rigid blades
              My reasearch into long-distance torque similarity cases found torque tubes used in dam gates and drilling rigs. The latter case goes the distance, but the geology supports the geometry, and both cases are heavy steel. The lack of better cases is presumed due to the inherent challenges of torque structure mass over distance.
              Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24408 From: Rod Read Date: 12/17/2018
              Subject: Re: Daisy with rigid blades
              The drilling rig analogy I too had discounted similarity due to geological support... Lift Line tension is a bit of a guide but best not to assume it will always be there.
              Dam gates torque tubes.... Must admit I have no idea what ... have you got a link to the device in question ? I'd love to know more
              Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24409 From: dougselsam Date: 12/17/2018
              Subject: Re: KPS results from Glasgow?
              daveS said:  "he well known logical fallacy Doug is suffering is that absence of evidence of recent KPS activity means to him evidence of absence of activity. Time will tell if KPS was progressing technically, or not, as actual evidence emerges.

              “The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.” ― Carl Sagan "

              DougS replies:  Here you go again:  "Mr. Expert".  Now to ask about a project is to "suffer a well-known logical fallacy".  OK dave, sure, let's put a "cone of silence" over every project so you can pretend they are all going swimmingly, K?
              Do "experts" try as hard as they can to avoid relevant information?
              Do "experts" advocate all interested parties place their hands over their eyes and ears and say "la la la la la I can't hear anything!"?
              Does an interested "expert" explicitly attempt to paper over the most relevant questions, consistently calling into question the very act of calling things into question?
              Does an "expert" insist an entire field remain perpetually in a land of make-believe?
              Hey daveS:  Remember saying the purpose of kite-reeling was to "set a baseline"?
              OK well, where is it?  DO you care, or was that just your pseudo-expert "talking point" for that day?

              When we had this latest fusillade of promises shoved down our throats, where everyone was forced to step back in abject admiration of some stated "future accomplishments", are you saying we should have no followup curiosity to even ask about it when the time comes that these promises referred to?  Why?  Why would any "expert" not want to know about the results of another project?  What happened last time you tied to pull this nonsense?  What I remember is statements of  500 kW system powering homes by feeding the grid this past summer with a couple additional months at each end.  So it's almost winter now.  The question is an obvious one.  Over and over again I've patiently waited until the times these projects have promised impressive results.  And for my patience I'm told to shut up by "the expert".  Doesn't sound like much of an expert to me.

              I'd like to introduce the concept of a "negative expert": someone espousing supposed "expertise" that consistently leads in the opposite direction of progress in a field.  Joe, having been a math major, should understand this idea, based on simple 6th grade math: a negative times a positive is a negative.  So if someone advises wrong means toward a positive goal, or if they disadvise correct means toward a positive goal, they exhibit "negative expertise".

              If they insist a project that is not happening, is in fact happening, that is negative expertise.
              If they demonstrate a clear pattern of repeatedly avoiding any relevant information about a key demonstration project, attempting to silence anyone who dares even ask a question about a given project to demo a given technology, that's a negative attitude toward positive information gathering, which is what we might expect from a "negative-expert".

              What a real "AWE expert" would promote is to find out relevant information, not try to advocate a coverup.  Information =
              Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24410 From: benhaiemp Date: 12/17/2018
              Subject: Re: Daisy with rigid blades
              Perhaps another point. The radial force due to the bank angle could be better with the previous adjusted soft blades, or with an appropriate pitch control of the rigid blades in order to assure more expanding force.
              Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24411 From: dougselsam Date: 12/17/2018
              Subject: Re: Daisy with rigid blades
              Roddy from day-1 I've seen you wasting a lot of effort due to listening to this guy.
              If he always knew what he was talking about, you might see some evidence of it after a decade.
              I would not waste your time on "negative expertise".  Just move on.


              ---In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, <rod.read@...
              Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24412 From: dougselsam Date: 12/17/2018
              Subject: Re: Reply to Doug's post// Re: [AWES] Re: W = m * g (NASA syntax) v
              daveS said:"Doug claims his methodology is to cause fires by cooking batteries (releasing hydrogen gas in presence of spark-risk), rather than use charge controllers."

              DougS replies:
              No that is not accurate.  I did NOT say that.  Your statements is incorrect.  Wrong.  Untrue.  You just made it up.  As I predicted, any details I helpfully provide to counter your previous untrue statements, constitute an open door for you to make further inaccurate statements.  There is no end to the process unless I just flat stop responding to you.   We have NEVER caused  fire of any type, at any location, using any system, in the many years I've been running wind energy systems.  A battery blowing its top is not a fire. 

              daveS goes on: "That's very unwise. There was quite a bit of gusty wind at HAWPcon09, so how Doug should have minimized fire/explosion risk was to disconnect his batteries, for lack of a proper load (like music and lights). Disconnected batteries was the system state I observed, but Doug seems to insist he preferred risk of overcharging, with fires as an inherent hazard known to him by direct experience."

              DougS replies: You've previously stated that there were no batteries.  So if you did not see batteries, how could you have seen if anything was connected to them?  You keep changing your story.  There was not enough wind at HAWP2009 to worry about overcharging batteries.  Take it from me: I built and ran the system.  One day I'm "wasting helium".  Years later I'm falsely accused of not only starting fires, but "claiming my methodology is starting fires"  Those are wrong statements.  Untrue.  Wrong.  False.  Not supported by facts.  Disinfornation.  Negative "expertise".

              I was suddenly "bad" because self-described "expert" daveS doesn't know when a charge controller is needed or is not needed.   I do in fact have quite a bit of experience running wind energy systems, both grid-tied, battery-charging, and hybrid, and I know when a charge controller is needed.  A charge controller protects batteries.  If you don't care about some old batteries, you don't need one.

              daveS continues: "Every developer in AWE should at least become expert about their own architecture. Moreover, there is quite a number of wonderful experts with broader knowledge and experience. Doug claims to not even bother reading Loyd."

              DougS replies:  The moment I heard you guys gushing about "crosswind", Loyd, and "The Germy awards" I realized (my opinion) there was nobody there who knew much of anything relevant, and that we should expect little progress from anyone in attendance.  So far that seems to be true.

              dave S goes on: "The expertise found in our literature, including on this Forum, is essential to our progress. Doug overlooks that I am considered a domain expert by various strong criteria, including my 2006 recruitment to Bay Area AWE R&D, 2009 presentation of the UTexas AE seminar, specialist participation at conferences, and thousands of hours of kite testing, including diverse AWE experiments. I am particularly expert in aspects of AWE that are Doug's blindspots, like the particular scaling limits that prevent him tapping upper wind with a driveshaft, and deep aviation knowledge and experience beyond tower-based wind power practice."

              DougS replies:  So far you have been wrong about many statements you've made on here.  Many of your statements are revealed as factual or not, only with the fullness of time, since they refer to your predictions, and the future promises of others.  Let's just take one big example:  The Altaeros BAT "powering a remote village in Alaska".  I said it simply wasn't happening.  You cited an "engineering delay"  Which one of us was correct?  Which was incorrect?  How does that make you an "expert"?

              daveS concludes: "Good luck to Doug in resolving his AWE challenges, as expertly identified."
              Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24413 From: Peter Sharp Date: 12/17/2018
              Subject: Re: Daisy with rigid blades
              Attachments :

                Hi Rod,

                My thinking is this: Start by using as many rotors as you intend to fly aloft, and then size the transmission rings so that the rings nearest the generator can handle the maximum torque and RPM of those rotors. They will be sized and spaced accordingly. But the necessary tension must be determined. And then the pilot kite is chosen to produce that tension, plus a margin of safety, such as 2 to 3 times the necessary minimum tension. What seems necessary is to do ground testing so as to collect the basic data so you can make calculations. A long line of transmission rings can be tested by using a falling weight to produce and measure the torque and a spring scale to measure the necessary tension. The transmission line can be full-scale or model scale. Once the torque limit is established, then then number of rotors can be determined. Then no more rotors can be added. Adding more rotors would exceed the allowable torque.

                The higher the rotors, the more transmission rings will be required, and the higher the total weight. So the higher the rotors, the lower will be the power to weight ratio. As compared to a loop belt transmission, transmission rings are very heavy, and they have a far lower power-transmission limit.

                ---------

                Something critical here is the need for instant overspeed control. Wind turbine designers have learned that determining a quick, reliable, and automatic overspeed control method is the first and most important step. You are designing a wind turbine that is lifted by a pilot kite. There are lots of ideas for wind turbines that do not translate into practical devices because the inventors did not figure out how to achieve quick, reliable, and automatic overspeed control. So the first big wind destroyed their wind turbines. It is not yet clear that you can develop a fast enough overspeed control. Putting a brake on the generator shaft might work, but it might increase the torque so much that all of the transmission rings would need to be much larger or much closer together, thus greatly increasing the weight. Walking the pilot kite sideways is likely to be way too slow. You might need to figure out how to feather all of your rotor blades in response to excessive centrifugal force like some wind turbines do for overspeed control.

                ----------

                One of the problems that ground testing needs to explore is the problem of drive train sag. The higher the rotor is, the longer the line of transmission rings will be, so the heavier it will be, and the more that the transmission line will develop a sag.

                The pilot kite will need to be very large to produce enough tension to overcome that sag. If the sag is not sufficiently overcome, the rotors will be tipped too much toward horizontal to develop much power. So we need to know the necessary size of the pilot kite to produce the tension necessary to do two things: 1) remove the excessive sag in the transmission line, and 2) provide enough tension so enable the transmission rings to work properly without twisting too much relative to each other.

                The sag in the transmission line of rings could be a serious problem. It’s probably not a problem that you have encountered so far because you are using a very short experimental set-up, even though the pilot kite flies up high. Sag will put some of the transmission rings at an angle to each other. That will loosen the uppermost lines between the rings. How much looseness can be tolerated? If the wind speed drops, the sag will greatly increase. That will greatly increase the angle between the rings. What happens then? Will the increase in that sag angle between rings be balanced by the reduction in torque? Or will the sag cause the rings to twist too much relative to each other and collapse the drive train? This is where ground testing measuring a long line of transmission rings can be important.

                PeterS

                 

                 

                From: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com]
                Sent: Monday, December 17, 2018 2:06 AM
                To: AWE <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com

                Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24414 From: Peter Sharp Date: 12/17/2018
                Subject: Re: Review: Turbine-on-a-wing Reanalysis (and second "Betz-beater" c
                Attachments :

                  DaveS,

                  Yes, look at all the images, photos and simulations of rotary wakes. Note that they extend directly backward from the rotor as long as the wind direction doesn’t change. None show the wake being blown sideways.

                  But those are stationary rotors. We are not talking about stationary rotors. We are talking about tip rotors. There are no images of rotary wakes behind tip-rotors that I am aware of. If you are, then please show me.

                  PeterS

                   

                   

                  From: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com]
                  Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2018 6:51 PM
                  To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: RE: [AWES] Review: Turbine-on-a-wing Reanalysis (and second "Betz-beater" case)

                   

                   

                  PeterS

                   

                  Look at all rotary wakes. None will show a "blown away" component. Thanks for any images supporting your idea.

                   

                  On Dec 16, 2018 7:29 PM, "'Peter Sharp' sharpencil@sbcglobal.net [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com

                  Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24415 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/17/2018
                  Subject: kiteKRAFT
                  kiteKRAFT

                  https://stories.xpreneurs.io/kitekraft-e6a90712e402

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

                  =========================== Team: 
                  • Max Isensee
                  • André Frirdich
                  • Markus Schütz
                  • Florian Bauer
                  • Christoph Drexler
                  • Andreas Graf.  
                  Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24416 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/17/2018
                  Subject: Re: KPS results from Glasgow?
                  Ask AWE-related questions; form a new-title for a topic thread, if after search one finds no prior topic thread.    
                       
                  Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24418 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/17/2018
                  Subject: Re: kiteKRAFT
                  Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24419 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/17/2018
                  Subject: Re: kiteKRAFT
                  5. Research Publications

                  The innovations of the kiteKRAFT technology are a result of yearslong
                  research conducted at the Technical University of Munich (TUM). Listed
                  below are our publications, which present many of our research
                  results. You can dig deeper into the science behind power generating
                  kites and learn why our approach has so many advantages.

                  Florian Bauer. “Multidisciplinary Optimization of Drag Power Kites”.
                  Dissertation. Technical University of Munich. Planned publication in
                  2019.

                  Florian Bauer, Daniel Petzold, Ralph M. Kennel, Filippo Campagnolo,
                  and Roland Schmehl. “Control of a Drag Power Kite over the Entire Wind
                  Speed Range”. Submitted to: AIAA Journal of Guidance, Control, and
                  Dynamics. November, 2018. download: Preprint-PDF.

                  Florian Bauer and Ralph M. Kennel. “Design Sensitivities of Drag Power
                  Kites”. In: 8th Energy Colloquium of the Munich School of Engineering
                  “Advances in Energy Transition”. Ed. by Thomas Hamacher.
                  Garching-Hochbrück, Germany: Technical University of Munich, Munich
                  School of Engineering, July 19, 2018, p. 108. doi:
                  10.14459/2018md1449240. url:
                  http://www.mse.tum.de/veranstaltungen/mse-kolloquium/kolloquium-2018/.
                  download: Abstract-PDF, Poster-PDF.

                  Florian Bauer and Ralph M. Kennel. “Fault Tolerant Power Electronic
                  System for Drag Power Kites”. In: Journal of Renewable Energy
                  (Hindawi) 2018 (Apr. 16, 2018). doi: 10.1155/2018/1306750. url:
                  https://www.hindawi.com/journals/jre/2018/1306750/. download: Preprint
                  Paper-PDF, Full Paper-PDF.

                  Florian Bauer, Ralph M. Kennel, Christoph M. Hackl, Filippo
                  Campagnolo, Michael Patt, and Roland Schmehl. “Power Curve and Design
                  Optimization of Drag Power Kites”. In: Book of Abstracts of the
                  Airborne Wind Energy Conference 2017. Ed. by Moriz Diehl, Rachel
                  Leuthold, and Roland Schmehl. Freiburg, Germany: Albert Ludwigs
                  University of Freiburg and Delft University of Technology, 2017, pp.
                  72–73. isbn: 978-94-6186-846-6. doi:
                  10.4233/uuid:4c361ef1-d2d2-4d14-9868-16541f60edc7. url:
                  https://repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/object/uuid:c40f14fc-b4ba-498a-84c4-f2b745b4417b.
                  Conference video available from: http://www.awec2017.com download:
                  Slides-PDF.

                  Florian Bauer, Ralph M. Kennel, Christoph M. Hackl, Filippo
                  Campagnolo, Michael Patt, and Roland Schmehl. “Drag power kite with
                  very high lift coefficient”. In: Renewable Energy (Elsevier)
                  118.Supplement C (2018), pp. 290–305. issn: 0960-1481. doi:
                  10.1016/j.renene.2017.10.073. url:
                  http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148117310285.
                  download: Preprint-PDF.

                  Florian Bauer, Christoph M. Hackl, Keyue Smedley, and Ralph M. Kennel.
                  “Multicopter With Series Connected Propeller Drives”. In: IEEE
                  Transactions on Control Systems Technology 26.2 (March 2018), pp.
                  563–574. issn: 1063-6536. doi: 10.1109/TCST.2017.2679071. url:
                  http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7888441/. download: Preprint-PDF.

                  Florian Bauer, Christoph M. Hackl, Keyue Smedley, and Ralph M. Kennel.
                  “‘Virtual’-power-hardware-in-the-loop simulations for crosswind kite
                  power with ground generation”. In: 2016 American Control Conference
                  (ACC). Boston, USA, 2016, pp. 4071–4076. doi:
                  10.1109/ACC.2016.7525561. url:
                  http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7525561/. download: Preprint-PDF.

                  Florian Bauer. “Airborne Wind Energy – The Future of Wind Energy?” In:
                  IDTechEx Show! Energy Harvesting & Storage. Santa Clara, USA, November
                  18–19, 2015. url:
                  https://www.idtechex.com/events/presentations/airborne-wind-energy-the-future-of-wind-energy-007459.asp.
                  download: Slides-PDF.

                  Florian Bauer, Christoph M. Hackl, Keyue Smedley, and Ralph M. Kennel.
                  “Crosswind Kite Power with Tower”. In: Airborne Wind Energy. Advances
                  in Technology Development and Research. Ed. by Roland Schmehl. Green
                  Energy and Technology. Springer, Singapore, 2018, pp. 441–462. isbn:
                  978-981-10-1946-3. doi: 10.1007/978-981-10-1947-0_18. url:
                  https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-981-10-1947-0_18.

                  Florian Bauer, Christoph M. Hackl, Keyue Smedley, and Ralph M. Kennel.
                  “On Multicopter-Based Launch and Retrieval Concepts for Lift Mode
                  Operated Power Generating Kites”. In: Book of Abstracts of the
                  International Airborne Wind Energy Conference 2015. Ed. by Roland
                  Schmehl. Delft, The Netherlands: Delft University of Technology, 2015,
                  p. 92–93. isbn: 978-94-6186-486-4. doi:
                  10.4233/uuid:7df59b79-2c6b-4e30-bd58-8454f493bb09. url:
                  https://repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/object/uuid%3A378559a9-499e-49dd-a357-d7521a338254?collection=research.
                  Conference video available from: http://www.awec2015.com/.

                  Florian Bauer, Christoph M. Hackl, Keyue Smedley, and Ralph M. Kennel.
                  “Multicopter-Based Launching and Landing of Lift Power Kites”. In:
                  Airborne Wind Energy. Advances in Technology Development and Research.
                  Ed. by Roland Schmehl. Green Energy and Technology. Springer,
                  Singapore, 2018, pp. 463–489. isbn: 978-981-10-1946-3. doi:
                  10.1007/978-981-10-1947-0_19. url:
                  https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-981-10-1947-0_19.

                  Korbinian Schechner, Florian Bauer, and Christoph M. Hackl. “DC-link
                  Control for Airborne Wind Energy Systems During Pumping Mode”. In:
                  Book of Abstracts of the International Airborne Wind Energy Conference
                  2015. Ed. by Roland Schmehl. Delft, The Netherlands: Delft University
                  of Technology, 2015, p. 39. isbn: 978-94-6186-486-4. doi:
                  10.4233/uuid:7df59b79-2c6b-4e30-bd58-8454f493bb09. url:
                  https://repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/object/uuid%3A114710f1-b5ba-4d03-88f5-c5db05f1583b?collection=researchConference
                  video available from: http://www.awec2015.com/.

                  Korbinian Schechner, Florian Bauer, and Christoph M. Hackl. “Nonlinear
                  DC-link PI Control for Airborne Wind Energy Systems During Pumping
                  Mode”. In: Airborne Wind Energy. Advances in Technology Development
                  and Research. Ed. by Roland Schmehl. Green Energy and Technology.
                  Springer, Singapore, 2018, pp. 241–276. isbn: 978-981-10-1946-3. doi:
                  10.1007/978-981-10-1947-0_11. url:
                  https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-10-1947-0_11.

                  Florian Bauer. “QtPLC: A C++11 Qt PLC library for a Preempt-RT real
                  time Linux based distributed control system for airborne wind energy”.
                  Master thesis. Technical University of Munich. 2013. download:
                  Document-PDF.
                  Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24420 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/17/2018
                  Subject: kiteKRAFT
                  kiteKRAFT

                  =================================
                  Discuss kiteKraft over time  .. 
                  Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24421 From: Santos Date: 12/17/2018
                  Subject: Re: Reply to Doug's post// Re: [AWES] Re: W = m * g (NASA syntax) v
                  What I saw clearly was the unconnected leads. That's not a big deal, quite excusable. The real ST problem is scaling up. That's the expert view.
                  Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24422 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 12/17/2018
                  Subject: kiteKRAFT

                  kiteKRAFT

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

                  https://stories.xpreneurs.io/kitekraft-e6a90712e402

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

                  • Max Isensee, 
                  • André Frirdich, 
                  • Markus Schütz, 
                  • Florian Bauer, 
                  • Christoph Drexler
                  • Andreas Graf.
                  Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24423 From: dougselsam Date: 12/18/2018
                  Subject: Re: Reply to Doug's post// Re: [AWES] Re: W = m * g (NASA syntax) v
                  Where exactly did you see "unconnected leads"?  Where were they?  How long?  What color?  What was it they were disconnected from?  Did you now "see" the batteries in the back, or were there "no batteries" like you said previously?


                  ---In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, <santos137@...
                  Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 24424 From: dougselsam Date: 12/18/2018
                  Subject: Re: Daisy with rigid blades
                  Stealing a saying from pro football ("Winning is not the main thing, it's the only thing."), I've warned all the newbies here: "Overspeed protection is not the main thing, it's the only thing."

                  (Imagine, in a field of wheelbarrows, you've developed  formula-one race car - except it has no brakes, nor steering!  You thought it was only about having a powerful engine.  Brakes?  A mere annoyance!!)

                  Imagine telling the cave-man carving his first wheel, that the real challenge will be brakes - he'd tell you you were nuts!  He's still just trying to get it to roll.  He doesn't know any better at that stage.  He'd just tell you he's not planning to use it near any hills - like wind-newbies saying "we'll just shut it down when severe weather is possible (the most productive times)  Sound familiar?

                  The established wind turbine industry categorizes a turbine model on the basis of what types of overspeed protection it has.  The power part is a given - relatively easy.  They don't usually fail in a good, productive wind.  It's the big winds and severe weather events that present an existential challenge.  Most have multiple layers of overspeed control:  The first layer, for which the turbine style is usually named, handles "normal" increases in wind speed.  The second layer is more for emergencies when the first layer is not enough, and the turbine must be stopped or destroy itself.

                  For AWE especially, there's also unexpected turbulence, such as dust-devils and related turbulence phenomena.  The wind can quickly change directions, and/or quickly stop altogether, then reverse, then reverse again, or have a downdraft, etc.  And when the wind is weak or medium, when a kite will alternately fly, then land, or drag itself across the ground sideways: there's power to be harvested, and you need the machine already spinning to take advantage of any gusts.  The kite will not be enough in light winds.  But there's always the possibility of using a pole or other support for the upper end.  One thing about wind energy innovation:  The better you get your system working, the more it resembles a standard turbine!  Almost like it "wants" to become one.  Shhhh, don't tell anyone!

                  Roddy, well-done.  Here's a funny one for you:  Congratulations on transitioning forward in time, from a 2000-year-old rotor technology. 


                  Welcome to the present!  :)))  (Or at least beyond ancient Roman times)

                  There guys, your daily dose of the ABC's of wind energy for beginners.