Thanks for the report, Dave. I was wondering if we would get some live AWEC2011 news filtered down here. Let us know if you spot anything interesting.

DavidC

Same Show, Different Year.
Saw lots of old friends.
Made some new contacts.
Handing out T-Shirts
Maybe I'll see you there today.
:)
Doug Selsam
http://www.selsam.com

Full message:    http://www.aweia.org/AWEIAwelcome2011.pdf

A GOODWILL MESSAGE TO:

 THE AIRBORNE WIND ENERGY CONFERENCE 2011

HOLDING AT IRISH COLLEGE, LEUVEN BELGIUM (May 24 -26)

FROM:  John Adeoye Oyebanji  (NIGERIA)

President Protem , Airborne Wind Energy Industry Association (AWEIA - INTERNATIONAL)

DELIVERED BY: David Santos Gorena -Guinn (USA) – Chief Technology Officer, KiteLab Group.

 

Discussion is open:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/kitepatents/message/613
Sky Windpower applies to extend IP with claims, which see.
Discussion notes at auxiliary posting space is invited as well as here following.

AWEIA virtual members are invited to help advance the statements to be placed in the table:

http://www.energykitesystems.net/Wind/upperwind.html

An anticipation is that many changes in the cell entries will be made.  Do you see something that you would change?

JoeF

Thanks to Dave Santos' sense of injustice and persistence, followed up by some conversation here, ARPA-E wants to sponsor and fund an AWE competition of "our" design. (This is one of those rare "be careful what you ask for"' moments in life.).

I finally connected with ARPA-E's acting chief counsel, Matt Dunne. They will not provide development funds but were granted by Congress last December the ability to fund prize competitions. AWE would be their first. Normal ARPA-E funding restrictions apply - found on their website.

The monkey is now on our backs to design the competition and define the prize(s) which could be cash, contracts, additional funding opps, etc.. They don't want to see our proposal until it's pretty well finalized. I suggested we could get it done before the end of the summer.

They're also looking for a program manager for AWE... if you know of anyone suited for the position...

I think we should start by defining what AWE system milestone(s) and characteristics would clearly distinguish commercially viable contenders, then come up with a way to have an independent third party (NASA?) verify the performance of the contenders.

I'm hopeful that a public announcement of the competition by ARPA-E in early fall, will provide the legitimacy we've been waiting for which will push some investors off the fence and get them to take out their checkbooks.

Let the discussion begin.

- Dimitri Cherny
Highest Wind LLC
801.810.5709

Here's the first time we flew this demo unit, 18 rotors elevated by a kite, here at Selsam Innovations / USWINDLABS.

We didn't want to waste a lot of government money or bother any scientists, so we made the 3' rotors from yardsticks from Home Depot. The driveshaft is a $3 rope, also from Home Depot. Total flying turbine budget: $20.

Link to Video of Maiden Flight
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JFXg0HYSU8

Continued Video of Maiden Flight with more explanation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnhIo7KU_lI

It doesn't take a lot of funding to prove simple concepts.
:)
Doug Selsam
Selsam Innovations / USWINDLABS
14045 Mission St.
Oak Hills, CA 92344
714-992-5594
714-749-3909
Doug@Selsam.com
http://www.Selsam.com

Who is that crazy guy in the video? It is always enjoyable to see what the people behind the posts really look like.

Superturbine(R) is indeed tres cool. The video does it justice, and the kite and torque rope seem like a natural combination. If the wind blows any stronger, you will indeed be able to measure it in knots.

Did you really use yardsticks for blades? That's a hoot.

So what is your finished cost for everything, ROM. You were generating 1.3 kW? Kite, rope, yardsticks, mounts, bearings, generator, plywood board...

Cheers,

DavidC

I would have loved to have posted the video, but Mr. Selsam curses and insults the audience.

Hey Dave, just to be sure you read it correctly. ARPA-E will provide no money upfront. A prize or prizes (our choice and our design with their agreement) will be given to the "winners" of a competition (also of our design with their agreement). Matt specifically said "you are the AWE experts so you determine what constitutes a winner of a fly-off". This will be more like the X-prize than anything else.

Therefore I see no reason for everyone to individually submit proposals. Instead, collaboratively we must develop a set of milestones and characteristics that clearly separate a commercially viable AWE system from other things.

To that end, i will get the discussion started by putting on the table my personal milestones.
1. 30 days of continuous flight (95% flight time allowing for weather etc.).
2. No system components replaced or repaired during those 30 days.
3. Demonstration of at least two cycles of "hands off" launch and landing during those 30 days.
4. Energy production during those 30 days equal to some fraction of the system components cost -TBD.
5. Net-Energy gain during those 30 days.

To me, that sounds like a good milestone on the way to a commercially viable AWE system.

Further notes will post in this thread.

First note:

Mon,Tues,and Wed. of this week for me have been filled to the brim
with experiences at the Anaheim, CA, AWEA Windpower 2011 conference as
the only press-passed person from the AWE world. HUGE! My guess is I
covered only 10% of the booths. I introduced AWE to each contact, left
business cards, and confirmed to the sources that they would get some
space in the EnergyKiteSystems spaces. Such was my first conventional
windpower conference; it will take some time for me to discern matters
seeded by the experience.

One of my first belief points seems to match what Ockels noted in
Belgium: lowering energy price point from conventionals will continually
challenge AWE with respect to the windpower pie piece. Further, the
positive aspect of conventionals growing is that subsystems will be well
advanced for integrating with AWE energy capture; AWE need only bring
forward the energy from high-wind tether-tactic capture.

Soon,
JoeF

Requiring 95% flight time makes this more of a gamble on the weather or a hunt for locations than a technical contest.  Given that takeoffs and landings are required anyway, I'd change that requirement to the ability to perform in a  fairly wide range of wind conditions, and to be retrieved during a storm, rather than having to be landed as a precaution.  Depending on their location, contestants could set their own wind speed range; the rules would specify the ratio between upper and lower limits.

Note #2:

1. Airborne Wind Energy: Selsam Flying Superturbine Wind Turbine Driveshaft Tethers a Kite. Demo.
2. Flying Superturbine(R) Explained by Doug Selsam

News clipped:    (boundary interest to AWE; Joby's interest continues for a powered aircraft and its AWECS)

CAFE Symposium Celebrates 'Dawn of Electric Flight'
The CAFE Electric Aircraft Symposium, held at the end of April, was packed with so many new airplanes and concepts that it was like seeing 30 college lectures in two days, as the information came fast and furious. In the opening remarks, CAFE President Dr. Brien Seeley dubbed the 2011 event "the dawn of electric flight," citing there has been "exponential growth" since the first symposium in 2007. Experimenter Editor Pat Panzera was there to see it all and filed a two-part report that covers the cool new planes that are competing in the Green Flight Challenge and EAA's Electric Flight Prize, as well as promising new technologies which will reach far beyond aviation.
Read Part 1  
Read Part 2 

Doug, thanks for your post, and sharing this very important wind generator with the world!  I feel like I just watched a little bit of history in the making!   Would you please post a quick sketch of your set-up?  How are the yardstick blades constructed?  And a little bit more about the generators and how the torque rope is made.  Thanks again for 'paying it forward', and openly sharing your work.   

---

To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
From: david@carmein.com
Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 13:23:44 +0000
Subject: [AWECS] Re: New Flying Superturbine(R) Kite Tether Video

 

And none too soon.  We could have had this electric flight focused upon way back in Edison's time.  Just like Porsche had his electric motor hub car at the turn of the century.  The allure for power and control by using petroleum was obviously too great.  Now we're coming to the other side of it all, to realize that we had it all worked out between the works of Edison and Tesla!  Yes, we're comin' back around, a little torn and tattered, and greatly enhanced by our collective experience. 

---

To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
From: joefaust333@gmail.com
Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 16:29:44 +0000
Subject: [AWECS] CAFE continued electric focus

 

Yeah, I didn't watch much of that clip.  Doug, there is one overwhelming reason to be patient and respectful of  idiots who can't appreciate simple technology.  They are a huge majority, and thus have the power to ruin anything if they feel insulted.

Hey Dave, sounds like you need a beer.

I agree it's pretty lame by comparison but it's still recognition by the US government that our nascent industry is being taken seriously (or at least it will look that way to investors). At the very least this is a "reason to call" all the investors we've already met with and get the conversation restarted.

Since we can define the contest, we can set the bar as high or low as we think necessary to TRULY support the development of an "industry" not just a single winner.

For example: that milestone I described is likely far in the future and requiring hundreds of thousands if not millions in development costs to achieve (especially if we believe Makani and Joby used their funds wisely).

Perhaps that milestone is phase-2 in this prize. Perhaps phase-1 is something much more attainable by many developers but still thins the field to separate practical and serious design efforts from others. Perhaps phase-1 of the contest provides a few hundred thousand to a dozen companies who can then work on attaining phase-2. That would support ARPA-E's desire to kick start a new industry much better than your space elevator example. If government workers get recognition for the success of the programs they support, I would think they'd be tickled to make this as incisive as possible - not just a single winner.

-Dimitri

--- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, Dave Lang <SeattleDL@...
@@@ they'd like to get the prize competition defined and set up and announced this year. Sounded like our construction of the program will take longer than anything else. As this is the first time they will do this type of contest, I think we have an opportunity to frame it in a way that could be different from the space elevator contest, the x-prizes, and other "limited winners" type contests. More like "European rules"' game boards.

@@@ For the time being Matt Dunne, acting chief counsel. However, as I mentioned, they're seeking a program manager for AWE. It would be best if it were someone we know. When our prize competition plan is complete to our satisfaction, we will start more intensely interacting with more ARPA-E people.

@@@ don't know any of that yet, bit it's up to us to put a stake in the ground and then defend the reasons for it's position. Let's take first steps first and figure out the phases of the ideal prize contest to be most inclusive of the most AWE ideas. Then determine an ideal amount we'd each be almost satisfied winning.

Dave S.:
Thanks for the great report.
Hope you have a fantastic time in Europe!
:)
Doug S.

Hey Bob,

For that phase of the contest I was thinking NASA's Wallops might be used. Maybe winds would only allow some lower percentage but I think we all get the point - these things have stay in the air a month or more to be commercially viable.

Though I suggest we don't say anything about automatic operations. Some people think the evolution of AWE will require human-controlled vehicles. No reason a team with a handful of operators couldn't compete over a month.

Interesting idea of adding wind speed operations ranges. The best AWE would certainly have a broad flight envelope. Though we might not have to explicitly define that. Systems with narrow wind ranges may just wash out over the month for not staying aloft enough or not producing enough energy. This is supposed to be a "fly-off" so these things should be required to fly a good long time. Good point for discussion.

-Dimitri

Well, I, for one, would not travel to the U.S. until the rule of law returns.

New thread to keep this cleaner.
Ideally we'd like to get as many good AWE ideas some funding and then thin that field with more rigorous requirements. Perhaps two phases of this competition would accomplish that. Matt Dunne said the "prizes" could be cash, contracts, further funding opps, etc..

Perhaps a phase-1 competition sets the bar at a level at which serious contenders of any size and funding could be able to win. Maybe something as simple as a tethered flying vehicle designed for AWE, shown able to maintain stable flight in a range of wind speeds (as Bob suggested), via any type of controls - manual, automatic, whatever and proven to fly some number of hours and to produce some reasonable amount of power but not continuously. Nothing else. Methods of launch and landing would not be of concern for this phase. Maybe this phase focuses mostly on airworthiness.

Competitors able to show this would be at the functional level of all the well funded AWE developers and would get some hundreds of thousands to continue development and compete for phase-2 - the big kahuna - a month in the air (as described earlier).

Let's try that on for size. Would Doug's recently demonstrated kite-lifted sky serpent qualify? Certainly Makani and Ampyx (though they couldn't compete, being Dutch). Did Joby produce energy? WindLift and Magenn would qualify (but are they still Canadian?). Anyone else?

So maybe that bar is just high enough for the rest of us?
Or is that too high?

-Dimitri

Doug,

Nice video.Interesting concept.What is the rpm of turbines,without tether,and with tether?


PierreB
http://flygenkite.com

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M35Dl_qwGGs

PierreB

http://flygenkite.com

I'm all ears. Go ahead and put some meat on those bones and show us what you mean.
-Dimitri

Hi PierreB:
Thank you and let me return the compliment: your video is also very good, showing a simple AWE machine that looks like it works well, without a lot of expense or complexity.

Our Flying demo consisted of 18 wooden yardsticks from Home Depot, carved into wind turbine / gyrocopter rotors. The RPM was actually quite fast, though the video froze the rotation making it look slow or stopped. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JFXg0HYSU8

Unloaded, these rotors at a 3-foot diameter and a 10:1 TSR would be calculated to spin at around 1800 RPM at 18 mph. Certainly they spun fast enough to disappear into a smokey blur to the naked eye, though the camera was often able to pick them out individually.

We did not have the generator electrically-connected to anything, so it was unloaded. The main thing slowing the RPMs from 1800 RPM would have been the rotor angle being offset from the wind direction.

We just wanted to show that a steady-state AWE demo machine could be built and elevated by a kite for less than $20, because of a persistent misconception that huge budgets are necessary to get a model into the air and making some juice.

:)
Doug Selsam
http://www.selsam.com

P.S. Manning the camera was Jon Ricker, principal of MassMegawatts, in town for the Windpower 2011 Trade Show / Conference in Anaheim.

Hello,

I was very pleased to meet Dave.

I just want to add one piece of information: I was very impressed of the presentation
from OMNIDEA from Portugal, see:
http://www.omnidea.net/hawe/schematic_hawe.html

They use the magnus effect and horizontal, inflated rotating cylinders to create a lift during the reel-out phase and no lift during the reel-in phase.

If you compare this to the kite-power system, that we develop, you have two advantages:
- the system is (probably) inherently stable, that means, no (or only a very simple)
  autopilot is needed
- you can stack multiple of these inflated cylinders more easily than kites (less problems with start and landing.

And they got 2 million EUR funding, just when they started. That was astonishing.

Best regards:

Uwe Fechner
TU Delft, NL

Yeah Sorry about that. My first reaction to seeing myself was "who is that raving lunatic in the video?" but, hey that's live TV for ya... Unfortunately there is no second chance for a first take of a first flight. Still, besides the lunatic holding the generator and narrating, there is enough there to see that a steady-state AWE system of some sort is easy enough to have up and running as long as the wind holds. Of course when the wind dies it all comes crashing down and splinters into little bits upon high-speed rotor/ground contact... The camera didn't turn on properly for that shot which hurled quite a cloud of dust and wood chips into the air! Disposable flying wind turbines!
:)
Doug S.

I think we should be careful about rules that presuppose structure or operational details. For example, requiring 30 days of "continuous operation" might want to take into account a system that launched and retracted every time the wind got strong then weak again.

On the other hand, "launch and landing" might be an oxymoron for a system that doesn't launch or land, but always stays up, perhaps elevated by the wind when the wind blows, but is still elevated by some other means when the wind does not blow.

That's one example.
Another example: specifying "kites", "tethers" when such may not be included in some system that nonetheless works.

This is a persistent problem trying to reconcile bureaucracy and rules with cutting edge innovation and disruptive technology! Think about it: how do you construct rules for stuff having largely unknown characteristics?

Imagine a competition for high-speed cross-country travel in the 1800's, perhaps specifying the wheel separation to fit standard tracks, not knowing that the airplane was just around the corner!

I say, let's try and keep things as generic and open as possible, not presuppose anything that could unconsciously preclude a best working system.

Just my 2 cents

:)
Doug Selsam

Hey sorry about that. It was supposed to be funny - I was sort of joking around. I don't really have a British accent either. Please take my limited and feeble attempts at humor with a grain of salt, No insults intended unless the humor is shared. I like to think I insult myself as much as anyone else as it is just all good clean fun! Cursing - yes - I didn't have a "bleep" for the swear words. :O
:)

It happens.  Not like i haven't done it.  

 Doug and group,
 
 
                 Hmmm, as far as I am concerned, your attitude is an embarrassment, I hope other people of the world do not think all US Americans are as childish tacky and ego driven as yourself. Grow up and be professional for a  welcomed change. I believe I've seen this set up before. http://www.energykitesystems.net/0/SpiralairfoilAirbourneDivision/2009Sep7DanParker.jpg        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6xL621tEPI 
 
                                                                                                                                         Dan'l

---

To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
From: pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr
Date: Sat, 28 May 2011 12:52:37 +0200
Subject: re: [AWECS] New Flying Superturbine(R) Kite Tether Video

 

This evening I had the pleasure to meet Dave Santos who was in Sommariva Perno where the 3MW KiteGen is being built. We talk about technical aspects of high altitude wind energy exploitation. He was curious about the sideslip manoeuver with which the kite loose lift and whose cables can be reeled in. In the official video, http://kitegen.com/video/kitegen_stem/kitegen_stem.flv , that is a combination of artificial and real images, it is shown that manoeuver made by a demonstrator, the Mobile Gen. The Kitegen concept, either carousel or stem, can be seen also in this brochure www.fuoripista.webs.com/dalletorrieolicheagliaquiloni.pdf .

We discussed about the power limit of the single kite. There is a combination of efficiency, surface and wind speed that gives the kitepowerfactor. Efficiency can be raised by using a rigid kite in chord, while preserving flexibility in span, for making the sidelip manoeuver. There are researches to study the use of the carbon fiber material, a solution that KiteGen team is looking for.

We also talk about patents, the attitudes and politics about that. From one side patents is a tool that can protect the intellectual job, the good research; from the other side, when patents are controlled by the big corporations, they can be a tool to block ideas or for economic speculation. A simple answer is not easy to offer. However a free platform for technological exchange can be set up when there is a give and take at the same level.

Finally we discussed about financing the high altitude wind. My concern is that we have to be very cautions in creating eccessive enthusiasm and expectations, that can be a boomerang for the technology. From one side there is the speculative attitudes, like the new economics dotcom bubble, that in the raising phase can give a lot of money to whichever idea. From the other side, as WOW company has followed, there is a clear and precise project that an investor can see and check for its validity. In fact WOW raised a good amount of money thank to the open days where investors could speak with the KiteGen team, thank to the conferences and to a lot of documentation that were made available to the investors.

Some AWECS concepts without tether to ground:

Buoyancy-changing

Dual Kite

Auxiliary onboard RATs

Good to hear of progress re the 3MW KiteGen .  .  .  . I know of a damn good location in North America where larger versions of the technology could operate .  .  .  . some 1600 offshore islands along the Eastern side of Hudson Bay.
 
 
Harry

 

---

To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
From: marchitti@hotmail.com
Date: Sun, 29 May 2011 20:57:49 +0000
Subject: [AWECS] Meeting with Dave Santos in Sommariva Perno

 

Not much of a market around there, although I've heard talk of some hydro power proposals for the local rivers.

Hi Dan'l:
I fear that spending the last 10 years halfway between Disneyland and Hollywood has left its mark. Oh well I just like to have fun. To me Dan'l:
It is so silly that so many people spend so much time and so much energy talk-talk-talking about this AWE stuff and doing nothing, or next-to-nothing.
Yes your drawing looks like you copied my earlier drawings - what's your point there? Anyone can use a pencil. Anyone can copy.
Your video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6xL621tEPI
Shows a non-operating turbine laying on the ground with another toy - a Teddy bear? Well, um OK. If it's a motion picture, why does it show no motion?
Again, sorry if it is ME causing your embarrassment.
At least, even if it is not running, even if it substitutes an ineffective, high-solidity, drag-based rotor for a proper low-solidity rotor with airfoils, at least you have built SOMETHING.
That's better than most...
:)
Doug S.

Thanks for the report Uwe
I'm not sure I've got the correct URL, when I go to
<http://www.omnidea.net/hawe/concept.html I see a biplane kite with what looks like conventional airfoils,

I'm a little skeptical about Magnus lift anyway.
Although there's no question that the physics works I'm not convinced
that the effect makes sense economically.

It is true that you can vary the lift by varying the rotation rate but
you can also vary the lift of a conventional wing by changing the
angle of attack which requires less machinery than a drive train to
rotate a cylindrical body.

Another problem is that a cylinder is much higher drag than a proper
foil so by the time you've figured in the increased drag plus the
rotary drive train weight and cost you're not left with a compelling
advantage over a traditional wing.

Andrew King
King Technical Services
Ann Arbor MI 408-1286
Consulting on technical challenges
Translating ideas into reality

Kite type:   Visible-tether kites   (VTK)
Kites that feature tethers that are visible to human normal eyes in dark room  or dark sky

Note: Making kite tether sets noticed by other aircraft is a challenge beyond the present type of just making tethers visible to the human eye. 

The visibility of the tethers (full set, partial set, full line, partial line) might occur from one or more of several processes, arrangements, specifications, or materials.   The visibility might be temporary, permanent, controllable, fixed, constant, oscillating, colored, color variable, method variable, method mixing, message giving, variable, binarily available, etc. Much game here!    

The tether set might have a count of one or more lines.  Invited are specifications of how to make tethers visible in the dark.

Making lines visible to human eyes in the dark of night?

• Reflection methods
• Optical fiber methods
• Chemoluminescent methods
• Phosphorescent methods
• Black-light methods
• LED ropes
• ?

Plans, photos, studies, applications, etc. are invited. Discuss.

Some starting links:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphorescence
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_light
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_fiber
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemoluminescent
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflectivity
• http://image.rakuten.co.jp/1stdogcafe/cabinet/ddd141.jpg
• http://img2.topfreebiz.com/o2011-4/cache/led-rope-515587171.jpg
• ?

Click image for full patent.

 ====Click for full patent:

===== Click for full patent:

==Click image for full patent:







 

Doug, thanks for your wise council, for it is the doers who solidify their ideas into a workable fashion who are justified.  Some of the people in this chat room want to pick apart a person because they said something a little wrong!  Who hasn't?  It was like the man made a touchdown sayin' "CAN'T TOUCH THIS!"  I say this is an astounding invention that really only needs some lightweight "V"-shaped landing stands hanging down every so often to keep the ruler blades from ever hitting the ground.

---

To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
From: doug@selsam.com
Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 13:53:02 +0000
Subject: Re: [AWECS] New Flying Superturbine(R) Kite Tether Video

 

Fry and Hise were not the first for turbines torquing tether to drive generator in a fluid media, but their Jan. 19, 1976, is very AWE set:

 

Hi Joseph,
 
             Very kewl indeedy! Thanks Joe.
 
                                                       Off to paint a wht. House.
 
                                                                                      Dan'l
 

---

To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
From: joefaust333@gmail.com
Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 03:04:09 +0000
Subject: Re: [AWECS] New Flying Superturbine(R) Kite Tether Video