dougselsam July 15, 2019
Great DaveS
I grew up with a tiller in my hand too, and had built my own boat by age 11, from plans in Popular Science Magazine..
Nope still haven't read "Loyd" and don't really care.
Just like I don't need to read papers saying there are planets outside the solar system since I always assumed there must be. And I've also always assumed their must be many rogue planets with no stars - latest estimates have now exceeded the number of visible stars, and still growing. The biggest question I've always had is why science by the supposed smartest people in the world has to catch up with what a little kid thinks.
Joe Faust July 15,2019
Dave Santos' young self-portrait dougselsam July 15,2019
No, flying seeds did not supersede tower-based wind turbines millions of years ago. Nobody overlooked anything, it's just one more agonizing daveS /JoeF attempt at posturing and trying to appear involved with developing AWE by attempted adjustment of vocabulary, without introducing any solutions after 12 years of supposed cutting-edge wind energy research. Again.
Dave Santos
Doug is mistaken about "who has kept their story straight". The 2011 Critical Path Analysis, including its kitesurfing data point, remains "our story" about the industrial AWE timeframe, still "straight" eight years going.
benhaiemp July 15, 2019
Hi PeterS,
For now I will try to detail what is on the patent, then a little later the animation on V3.
My idea is they find or state a principle and try to apply it on several variants with apparent problems.
You wrote, taking their statement: "The Betz limit does not consider that potential energy (the wind pressure on the rotor) because Betz assumed that that potential energy could not be utilized."
I think this statement is not correct as Betz's law states about all the wind energy which can be utilized. Betz's law is among other physical principles. The wing pressure on the rotor can be an energy which cannot be utilized. If the wing pressure is utilized the third Newton's law (action/reaction) is violated. If the wind pressure is lesser because it is partially utilized, the power will be also lesser as the wind pressure is a force against which the tower-based turbine resists as the price of the wind power.
You indicates: "For VAWT, at least in principle, the Cp could be higher than the “Betz” limit for VAWT (.61 to .64).".
In my opinion the only way to exceed Betz's limit is by the renewal of the wind for a large turbine in three dimensions, a little like for a wind-farm.
About the patent, I think your statement about the not rotating stationary gear held by the tail vane 11 is likely correct. But the axis xx' rotates. And also the secondary axis yy' rotates according to the patent and by the turnplate 12 you call as a large disk, although the abstract is not quite explicit. So the axis xx' rotation is not dependent of the turnplate 12 or the stationary gear 3. So we can deduce that xx' rotates only by the arms 2. But such a construction doesn't seem work because of the different configuration when the wind direction changes as my drawing shows if it is correct.
And the patent states that lift force goes towards the generator in yy', while the tangential force goes towards the generator in xx'. This sorting seems unlikely.
And if there is no generator in yy' the "active lift" will not occur if even it occured in yy'.
These points were likely be thought by the author. But it is difficult to escape from a physical law.
If we carefully study V3 we likely see another problem whatever mechanism is implemented. Is it necessary?
27505Re: [AWES] Re: Active Lift Turbine VAWT
Doug, "windsurfing" is not an acronym. It based on a sail on a "mast" with a "boom" mounted on the board (Wikipedia).You spend a lot of time writing about wind crackpots. Watch the KiteSurfing video instead for a change. They all know the difference between windsurfing and kitesurfing; you didn't know, it seems. This really is modern AWE, as a newborn baby. DonM and CorwinH went directly to Makani from KiteSurfing. Wind towers are not AWE.
You are falling behind in wind knowledge by just crying "crackpot" all the time, and not mastering the homework.
benhaiemp July 15, 2019
Dave wrote: "Pierre overlooks that the 2030 timeframe is only for industrial AWE at megawatt scale, not kitesurfing as a stepping-stone."
Kite for ship like SkySails or other do, is an existing megawatt scale use of power kite that DaveS daily reminds, advocating the power kite for AWE.
And kitesurfing is a current sport using power kite.
So Dave's prediction for AWE success in 2030 cannot concern both kite for ship and kitesurfing as they are involved respectively in current megawatt scale (by Dave's daily words) and sport power kites.
So Pierre (me) is right. And Dave is not consistent. As a result his predictions for AWE success in 2030 are not consistent.
Dave Santos July 15, 2019
Pierre, Do not unfairly judge a Scatter Plot by cherry-picking kitesurfing or ship kite data points one-at-time. That does not invalidate the method and its calculated curves.
Let us know of any better previous projection than the 2011 WoW case by any other player. Show us your better effort, eight years later. What data do you reason from, and how, and what predicted timeframe results?
It took Carlo and me about an hour to copy the data points from the Net, set up the scatter plot, then Carlo's engineering software calculated the curves.
Scatter plot
Hi PierreB,
Yes, I got the French patent and the sketch you made.
PeterS
benhaiemp July 15,2019
DaveS,
You consider kite for ship and kitesurfing as AWE branches, and your AWE success prediction for 2030 has no value because they already exist, comprising in mega scale (kite for ship) as you daily remind.
Or you don't consider kite for ship and kitesurfing as AWE branches, then you are contradicting what you daily state.
In all cases your AWE success prediction for 2030 is not consistent and is only nonsense.
Dave Santos July 15, 2019
Pierre, "nonsense" to you, but not Carlo, the professional engineer. Time will tell whose analysis was better. Let's see yours.
Peter Sharp July 15, 2019
Hi PierreB,
“You wrote, taking their statement: "The Betz limit does not consider that potential energy (the wind pressure on the rotor) because Betz assumed that that potential energy could not be utilized." I think this statement is not correct as Betz's law states about all the wind energy which can be utilized.”
Yes, it does, for a HAWT, but not for a VAWT with Active Lift. Lecanu shows that the Betz limit is not a universal law because it does not apply to all types of wind turbines. (Other researchers have shown that the “Betz” limit for VAWT is a little higher than for a HAWT.)
You are assuming that the only energy available to a VAWT is from tangential thrust of the blades. Lecanu states that your assumption is not correct, and explains his argument mathematically. He also shows an animation of a mechanism that could capture additional energy and convert it into torque. He shows how to extract energy from each blade’s lift vector acting toward and then and away from the center of the rotor. Doing so does not diminish the tangential thrust (as you have claimed). Doing so does not slow the wind any more than usual for a fixed-pitch blade. So the “Betz” limit for a VAWT does not preclude additional torque from Active Lift.
If you reject the basic principle of Active Lift, then the workability of the mechanism is irrelevant, and there is no point in discussing it. For a number of reasons, the patent drawings do not make sense to me either.
PeterS
benhaiemp July 15, 2019
You wrote: "If you reject the basic principle of Active Lift, then the workability of the mechanism is irrelevant, and there is no point in discussing it.".
I would agree if I was sure to be correct about the principle, beleiving that Betz' limit cannot be exceeded. The patent seems show some non workability I represented some elements on the drawing. Such an irrelevance (about how the turbine faces the wind changes) can be a sign of a non-applicable principle, and therefore a verification of its inapplicability, above all when several versions have problems. So I use a method of cross-checking.
benhaiemp July 15,2019
A light correction: "The patent seems show some non workability I represented with some elements on the drawing."
benhaiemp July 16, 2019
Hi PeterS,
I had not found scientific papers mentioning a Cp of 0.61 or 0.64 for VAWT. In the real world VAWT are far to reach even Betz's limit.
Betz's law lies on other physical principles and Betz's limit cannot be exceeded.
However if the device is very large and is in three dimensions some renewal of wind could occur, but it is another concern.
Using the pressure on the turbine would violate the third Newton's law (action/reaction): using the pressure to make power leads to less pressure, involving in less power (a little like for reeling kite).
As a result the different versions V1 and V2 don't produce the expected result as mentioned by the author. The last and often discussed patent shows a mechanism which cannot facing the wind as its direction changes (please see my drawing with the current position 1, then two suppositions for the position 2 of which none works. There are also other concerns.
So I don't think it is necessary to go further, at least for me.
dougselsam July 16,2019
Within 2 messages I see "Pierre Overlooks" and "Doug is mistaken", wheres both Pierre and Doug (me) are actually talking about YOU being "mistaken" and YOU "overlooking" your own word abuse.
Like trying to grip a greased-water-balloon, one cannot even hold you to your own ever-shifting word definitions.
1) You claim that you and Joe are responsible for the term AWE, with regard to a sought-after term to describe taking "wind energy" (generating electricity from the wind,already a huge industry that provides 5% of our electricity today, and growing) into the air for support instead of tower,
but,
2) when someone wants to USE that term, and point out that there is ZERO AWE existing since ZERO% of our electricity is generated by AWE, as opposed to tower-supported wind turbines, YOU suddenly CHANGE what you CLAIM to have previously DEFINED as AWE, to include virtually anything that pops into your head:
Water collection from dewdrops at the Dewdrop Inn, "good works!", leaves wiggling, windsurfing, towing ships using kites, spiders migrating, you and Joe supposedly "lifting things", on and on and on with your mostly "steam-punk" unlikely fantasies that ignore the electrification of the world's industries, pretending instead that airborne wind energy will usher in a new era of factories and processes directly-driven by wind energy, without using electricity, simultaneously claiming that you will somehow spin the generators of aging nuclear plants using power kites. THAT is what I mean by "keeping your story straight". You DON'T EVEN HAVE A STORY. Everything you say one day falls part the moment the NEXT day rolls round and you completely change everything you said the day before. It seems you only motivation in the entire subject of AWE is to become an irritating force for creating ARGUMENTS - one day you're going to magically keep a million-horsepower (GigaWatt) machine rotating at a steady 1800 RPMs using a big kite, with NO explanation of HOW, even though you can't even INTERMITTENTLY spin a 100-Watt generator today, the next the world is suffering from an "OVER-RELIANCE ON POWER METERS, as though such a "diagnosis" relieves you of any requirement for producing any electricity AT ALL.
I just have to say, and this goes way beyond AWE per se, is it is amply evident that you will NEVER participate in the actual art of AWE if you have not by now, you are COMPLETELY FULL OF IT, and NO, Pierre did NOT overlook ANYTHING, and I am NOT MISTAKEN, but rather it is YOU who is mistaken AND overlooking EVERY relevant factor in AWE, desperately trying to somehow pretend that you are even INVOLVED in AWE, while people like Pierre and me simply ask pointed questions to try and discern and clarify what is REALLY going on in AWE, or indeed wht YOU even men by any of your daily false statements. I would have to say, your forum is really just a venue for you to be the "in-house" troll, giving you a place to endlessly argue about your disturbingly unrealistic impressions of wind energy, which is just far easier (for you) than ever DOING anything about it.
dougselsam July 16, 2019
Peter, while it would be impossible to stop all creative urges to rescue the VAWT concept, unless someone like me introduces some truly new approach that requires such a turbine style, the detractive aspects of VAWTs are so overwhelming that slightly increasing their performance, no matter how, but especially by making them more complicated and less reliable, will not bear fruit.
It's like you walk into an investor conference claiming that playing roulette in Vegas is a better investment technique, and when people try to point out that gambling is a good way to LOSE your money, you talk about techniques for playing a slightly better game of roulette. It doesn't matter if you play the best game of roulette possible, the odds are in favor of "the house", and it doesn't matter how you play the game of collecting wind energy from a vertical-axis windmill, they
1) spin too slowly;
2) sweep 3.14 times their intercepted area;
3) require too much material;
4) Do not align their blades with centrifugal force;
5) reverse the forces on the blades twice with every rotation
ETC., ETC., ETC.
What Part of YOU NEVER SEE ONE IN A WINDFARM DESPITE MANY ATTEMPTS
don't you understand?
The factors against VAWT's are so overwhelming, no slight improvement will help, especially if it ADDS to the previously-mentioned problems (even more material required, even less reliability resulting).
The only way vertical-axis will become useful in wind energy will be with a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PARADIGM which I have yet to introduce. For now, forget VAWT's. The modifications you're talking about, as creative and interesting as they might sound, are just not enough, but instead, should be recognized as LIPSTICK ON A PIG. - Yer buddy, Doug :)))
Dave Santos July 16, 2019
Yes Doug, we stand on any fair quote with regard to your complaints, or forget making anyone care.
The surf kite and ship kite are two scales of the same kind of awesome power. If you and Pierre have anything better, the world will thank you.
Enjoy the video if you want to understand why the power kite folks are stoked.
You can learn this wind tech if you try. We'll keep the door open to you.
benhaiemp July 16, 2019
DaveS agrees that kite surf and kite ship are not AWES since he just produced an AWE success prevision for 2030, and both are already existing.
Dave Santos July 16, 2019
Doug is a bit confused.
A VAWT with a roulette wheel for it's hub would make money, not lose it.
Peter Sharp July 16, 2019
Hi DougS,
Thank you for your criticisms of VAWT. I look forward to seeing the superior VAWT you invented.
PeterS
dougselsam July 16, 2019
I understand you are joking daveS, but your response nonetheless illustrates an important point:
Yes sure, Doug, Pierre, Roddy, Peter, and anyone who would stand up to your nonsense is "confused", "overlooks", "in error" etc., etc., etc.
What do these repetitive statements from you amount to? Personal attacks. You start out every such reply with a personal attack on the other person's state of mind. They can't just disagree with you, the must be "confused" (their brain isn't working right) since, with you being always right, no matter how ridiculous your daily error-filled diatribe, the only explanation for any contrasting opinion MUST be a malfunctioning brain on the part of the other person. No matter HOW MANY TIMES you are the one in error, no matter HOW MANY ridiculous and provably-wrong statements YOU make, somehow its everyone else who is "in error", "confused", "overlooks", etc. Well daveS, if that's what makes you happy, great for you, but it's just one more instance of the complete fantasy-world you try to enforce on the rest of us.
dougselsam July 16, 2019
You won't even believe your eyes when you see it, Peter! :)))
dougselsam July 16, 2019
You sound like a broken record. blah blah blah blah blah.
How the hell are you planning to spin a million-horsepower generator at a steady RPM using a kite, daveS?
You brag a lot, and make a lot of unsubstantiated claims, but can never even complete a thought, let alone a project.
Dave Santos July 16, 2019
If you are not confused, stop worrying so much about roulette only losing. The house wins, that's clear.
Dave Santos July 16, 2019
AWE in 2030 will have needed kite surfing and ship kites. These are better data than Pierre offers to predict success.
The average between the two data points marks the curve of ongoing success. No better data exists.
Jalbert and Rogallo were successful, but so will The future of AWE succeed. There is no contradiction.
The power kite is success.
Dave Santos July16, 2019
It's in Doug's patent IP, a VAWT at the base of an ST, in one version.
Dave Santos July 16, 2019
Conventional mechanical engineering will prove to agregate power kite AWE to GW scale gen drive, that's the prediction. It's been well covered here.
Doug has not proven it's impossible. It's more likely inevitable. Let him try a power kite to see it's future better.
Peter Sharp July 16, 2019
Hi DougS,
Glad to hear that. I think VAWT have a great future. Are you waiting for something, such as a patent?
PeterS
dougselsam July 16, 2019
It would seem that it is Dave Santos who is "confused", repeatedly claiming to be nearing the point of powering a million-horsepower generator at a steady rotation of 1800 RPM + slip, using a "power-kite".
How are you planning to accomplish this achievement, daveS? Why not start by showing us you can do it with a 100-Watt generator. Oh I get it, 100 Watts is "too hard" but a billion Watts - no problem.
Well as they say, tell a bigger lie and people will believe it. Or at least you will. Do you believe your own lies, or are things so confused up there in your head you don't really know?
There is no plan, and nobody has shown a way to use a kite to spin a generator at a steady speed yet, or even keep it spinning at all, versus the old pull-retract (non-) "answer".
It is YOU who is "confused", "in error" and all that malarkey, NOT the rest of us.
I suggest you take a retirement and spend the rest of your years watching insects, spiders, wiggling leaves, and taking naps under pieces of trash, then when anyone asks what you're doing, you can just tell them you're working on airborne wind energy, because today, bugs = AWE.
benhaiemp July 16, 2019
So we are glad that Dave joins our AWE community. Indeed by predicting AWE success in 2030, Dave considers no longer the already existing kite surf and kite ship as AWES. In this he stands now on the majority side of the AWE community.
dougselsam July 16, 2019
Peter thanks for asking. I'd rather show people a working model than just shoot my mouth off.
We'll see when I can get to it.
As the VAWT concept stands today, it has no future.
Armchair inventors love them, people who build and run real wind energy systems see clearly what the problems are.
benhaiemp July 16, 2019
Dave,
Welcome to our AWE community.
Dave Santos July 16, 2019
It is confused if Doug thought I claimed what he thinks.
My claim is the power kite worldwide is doing great, and the ST is not. The power kite is more than just my experience.
It's about the kite, not trolls. The kite always wins.
Dave Santos July 16, 2019
AWE success at industrial scale around 2030. That's not just me, but Carlo and WoW.
Yes, kitesurfing success now at around 10kW.
Pierre's work is not the last success either.
KiteSat, Kiwee, P40, lots of early success, baby success.
Enjoy the great AWE adventure to 2030, a dream that is coming true.
Dave Santos July 16, 2019
You mean AWEIA is welcome?
benhaiemp July 16, 2019
It is the same.
benhaiemp
Dave, kiteboarding already succeeds at industrial scale. And kite ship is already tested in mega scale. But you are waiting and dreaming for 2030, considering they are not AWES.
So welcome to AWE commmunity.
Who is KiteSat?
Dave Santos July 16, 2019
What community do you mean? ST?
The power kite communities welcome folks too. They think the smallest and largest kites are the same energy. The AWE critical path is as broad as all power kites, and the future is unlimited.
Dave Santos July 16, 2019
Sorry Pierre, that's not what I think. Quote me in context. That's what I think.
The 2011 critical path effort is still better than any example you offer.
Make your prediction for utility-scale AWE, if you can do better.
Dave Santos July 16, 2019
Bringing discussion back on topic.
There are many winning AWE methods, like aviation fuel saving by tailwinds, but the 2030 timeframe has been cited for TRL9 full scale kitefarm introduction, primarily based on early power kite progress data as best as was available.
Pierre will be providing a new analysis soon, of winning AWE methods, by whatever logic and data he selects.
Let do even better than WoW in 2011.
benhaiemp July 16,2019
So if what I said was not what you think, you think kite surf and kite ship are AWES. But in the same time you predict AWE success for 2030. You are so confused. And if it is what you think our AWE community (SuperTurbine (tm), AWEC, AWESCO, Tu Delft, Windswept and interesting, Makani, Tu Delft, Kitepower (not Kpower)...) can no longer accept you.
benhaiemp
I already stated that Dave's prediction of AWE success for 2030 is not consistent as mega scale kite ship and industrial kite boarding are existing and Dave sees them as AWE.
Dave Santos July 16, 2019
As long as you think kite boarding and ship kites are AWES too.
Let 2030 decide if there was more to be happy about.
Joe Faust July 16, 2019
Branches of AWE are many; in high focus by many in AWE is the generation of electricity.
Other branches of AWE may also receive high focus by some AWE workers. Those who
wish to work just in one branch of AWE are welcome to this forum for advancing discussion
about their chosen branch. There is room in this forum for all AWE branches to advance.
Notice that if 95% of participants stay advancing branch, say B4, those worker need might
benefit from technical matters from the 5% activity involving B1, B2, B3, B5, B6, ... etc. Branches of AWE are many; in high focus by many in AWE is the generation of electricity.
Joe Faust July 16, 2019
Each branch of AWE will have its own special history.
Respect for each history may remain an honorable path.
Students of the various branch histories may note lessons obtained from other branches of AWE.
The separate AWE branch histories may be the target of prognosticators any day of any week or year; hopefully the effort is done after careful thought and study. Those making predictions may gain in respect in correlation to how well they predicted matters. Fun game: predicting.
There are sub branches to the various branches of AWE; some sub branches will during some era having little following, while in some other era gain in popularity. Branches and sub branches of AWE are probably important to those investing in the particular branches or sub branches. May it be so.
Paying attention to one branch of AWE does not mean that the other branches of AWE are not AWE; rather, all the AWE branches remain branches of AWE.
Joe Faust July 16, 2019
What are prognosticators saying about the branch of AWE
called utility electrical generation?
Dave Santos July 16, 2019
There is a broad AWES Family Tree that various sources have noted.
There are many shared qualities across the family, and many unique qualities too. It's all successful in it's way.
It's all AWE if it flies and works by wind. Every flying rig is a system, an AWES in principle.
benhaiemp July 16, 2019
So by predicting AWE success in 2030 Dave is wrong a time more by changing what he called as AWE AFTER he was taught that his "prediction" was not consistent. Moreover now he didn't precise what he calls as a AWE branch, what are the other branches. Perhaps he confuses AWE with a tree. In this case precision about leaves and fruits would be welcome.
benhaiemp
Who does care? Is "the branch of AWE" called "utility electrical generation" specifically important? And why?
What about the other branches?
DaveS made a prediction for AWE success in 2030. But this prediction doesn't work. Are you hoping this prediction will work better with branches?