Digest

Messages in AirborneWindEnergy group. AWES3844to3894

Page 57 of 79.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3844	From: dave santos	Date: 7/16/2011
Subject: Distributing WOW America Investment

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3845	From: Joe Faust	Date: 7/16/2011
Subject: A year ago in 2010, NASA Joe Shaw

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3846	From: dave santos	Date: 7/16/2011
Subject: ARPA-E AWE "Orteig Prize" Model

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3847	From: Joe Faust	Date: 7/16/2011
Subject: Bowling for "300"

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3848	From: Pierre Benhaiem	Date: 7/17/2011
Subject: Re: Rigid v. Soft Wing Debate Again:search of new materials

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3849	From: Pierre BENHAIEM	Date: 7/17/2011
Subject: Re: Rigid v. Soft Wing Debate Again:search of new materials

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3850	From: Robert Copcutt	Date: 7/18/2011
Subject: Re: AWECS of type flygen and possible problems with thunderstorms

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3851	From: dave santos	Date: 7/18/2011
Subject: Re: possible problems with thunderstorms

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3852	From: Muzhichkov	Date: 7/18/2011
Subject: Re: possible problems with thunderstorms

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3853	From: Joe Faust	Date: 7/18/2011
Subject: Re: AWECS of type flygen and possible problems with thunderstorms

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3854	From: Joe Faust	Date: 7/18/2011
Subject: Re: Rigid v. Soft Wing Debate Again:search of new materials

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3855	From: Joe Faust	Date: 7/18/2011
Subject: Graphene gel

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3856	From: Pierre BENHAIEM	Date: 7/18/2011
Subject: Sound of M10

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3857	From: Joe Faust	Date: 7/18/2011
Subject: Re: Sound of M10

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3858	From: Joe Faust	Date: 7/18/2011
Subject: Re: Sound of M10

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3859	From: Robert Copcutt	Date: 7/18/2011
Subject: Re: possible problems with thunderstorms

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3860	From: dave santos	Date: 7/18/2011
Subject: Re: possible problems with thunderstorms

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3861	From: Joe Faust	Date: 7/18/2011
Subject: Re: Atmospheric electricity mining

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3862	From: dave santos	Date: 7/19/2011
Subject: Re: Atmospheric electricity mining

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3863	From: Joe Faust	Date: 7/19/2011
Subject: Re: Atmospheric electricity mining

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3864	From: Joe Faust	Date: 7/20/2011
Subject: Lindbergh Foundation

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3865	From: Pierre BENHAIEM	Date: 7/20/2011
Subject: Re: Rigid v. Soft Wing Debate Again:search of new materials

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3866	From: dave santos	Date: 7/21/2011
Subject: Re: Rigid v. Soft Wing Debate Again:search of new materials

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3867	From: North, David D. (LARC-E402)	Date: 7/21/2011
Subject: Re: Rigid v. Soft Wing Debate Again:search of new materials

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3868	From: dave santos	Date: 7/21/2011
Subject: Re: Rigid v. Soft Wing Debate Again:search of new materials

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3869	From: dest6a	Date: 7/21/2011
Subject: Re: Rigid v. Soft Wing Debate Again:search of new materials

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3870	From: North, David D. (LARC-E402)	Date: 7/21/2011
Subject: Re: Rigid v. Soft Wing Debate Again:search of new materials

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3872	From: Joe Faust	Date: 7/21/2011
Subject: Foam folder of links

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3873	From: Joe Faust	Date: 7/22/2011
Subject: Conventiona windpower print magazine notes Windlift

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3874	From: dave santos	Date: 7/22/2011
Subject: Re: Rigid v. Soft Wing Debate Again:search of new materials

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3875	From: Joe Faust	Date: 7/22/2011
Subject: Welcome Project Sea Tree and Dennis W. Stevens

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3876	From: dest6a	Date: 7/22/2011
Subject: Re: Rigid v. Soft Wing Debate Again:search of new materials

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3877	From: Joe Faust	Date: 7/22/2011
Subject: Re: Rigid v. Soft Wing Debate Again:search of new materials

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3878	From: dave santos	Date: 7/22/2011
Subject: Re: Rigid v. Soft Wing Debate Again:search of new materials

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3879	From: Pierre Benhaiem	Date: 7/23/2011
Subject: Participation of AWEIA at the Zayed Future Energy Prize?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3880	From: Theo Schmidt	Date: 7/23/2011
Subject: Re: Pumping water to higher heights

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3881	From: Bob Stuart	Date: 7/23/2011
Subject: Re: Pumping water to higher heights

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3882	From: Pierre Benhaiem	Date: 7/23/2011
Subject: A new interesting method of storage

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3883	From: Doug	Date: 7/23/2011
Subject: Re: Participation of AWEIA at the Zayed Future Energy Prize?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3884	From: carlgu@gmail.com	Date: 7/24/2011
Subject: From Kitesurfing Manufacturer...

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3885	From: Pierre BENHAIEM	Date: 7/24/2011
Subject: Re: From Kitesurfing Manufacturer...

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3886	From: Doug	Date: 7/24/2011
Subject: Re: Pumping water to higher heights

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3887	From: Joe Faust	Date: 7/24/2011
Subject: Re: From Kitesurfing Manufacturer...

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3888	From: Carl Gu	Date: 7/25/2011
Subject: Re: re: [AWECS] From Kitesurfing Manufacturer...

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3889	From: Joe Faust	Date: 7/25/2011
Subject: Re: From Kitesurfing Manufacturer...

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3890	From: Carl Gu	Date: 7/25/2011
Subject: Re: [AWECS] Re: From Kitesurfing Manufacturer...

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3891	From: Doug	Date: 7/25/2011
Subject: Re: From Kitesurfing Manufacturer...

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3892	From: dave santos	Date: 7/25/2011
Subject: Lifetime Kite Flight-Hours// re: [AWECS] From Kitesurfing Manufactur

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3893	From: Robert Copcutt	Date: 7/25/2011
Subject: Re: Pumping water to higher heights

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3894	From: Uwe Fechner	Date: 7/25/2011
Subject: Job offer C++ developer at TU Delft (kite and winch control software

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3844	From: dave santos	Date: 7/16/2011
Subject: Distributing WOW America Investment

The problem is how to best distribute pending major investment in AWE R&D.

It was hoped that the ARPA-E contest, NASA, & similar third-party expertise could form a basis for a rational allocation of investor provided research funding, but there seems to be no short-term possibility of this role.

We are left with an internal peer-review model that includes traditions such as restrictions on conflict-of-interest. WOW America is therefore urgently convening a Technical Advisory Board to determine how funding should be allocated to the AWE community.

The ideal board member has a resume like Chris Carlin or Dave Lang; decades of broad aerospace experience and excellence. This would be a paid position, but may require a period of "sweat equity" effort.

Certain priniciples are likely to apply. Duplicative programs will have to merge or a winner determined. Best financial & management standards with full auditability will be desired. Continued funding will substantially depend on meeting clear performance milestones in a prompt economic fashion.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3845	From: Joe Faust	Date: 7/16/2011
Subject: A year ago in 2010, NASA Joe Shaw

http://www.flcmidwest.org/2010regionalmeeting/Shaw.pdf Slide 11

Send you notes to Joe Shaw robert.j.shaw@nasa.gov

Has NASA bridged to the over 700 stakeholders?
http://energykitesystems.net/AWEstakeholders/index.html

How are things a year later: today?

JoeF

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3846	From: dave santos	Date: 7/16/2011
Subject: ARPA-E AWE "Orteig Prize" Model

A key clue has finally been released about the ARPA-E position in the private negociation: The Feds want us to model the AWE Contest after the Orteig Prize. Orteig was a wealthy hotelier, not a research designer. The problem with this model goes beyond a weak science & engineering harvest, it could once again be deadly, given the real dangers of the new tethered aviation.

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

Critique From Wikipedia-

"Although advancing public interest and aviation technology, the Prize occasioned expenses many times the value of the prize. Moreover, lives were lost by men who were competing to win the prize. Six men lost their lives in three separate crashes. Another three men were injured in a fourth crash. During the spring and summer of 1927, 40 pilots would attempt various long-distance over-ocean flights, leading to 21 deaths. For example, ten lives were lost in August 1927 in the Orteig Prize-inspired $25,000 Dole Air Race to fly from San Francisco to Hawaii. 1927 saw a number of aviation first and new records. The record for longest time in the air, longest flight distance, and longest overwater flight would be set and all would exceed Lindbergh's effort. However, no flyer gained the fame that Lindbergh did for winning the Orteig Prize."

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

Its all our professional expert duty, within & outside government, to resist this sort of flawed outcome in favor of one far better (the AWE open forum contest design). Its unclear if ARPA-E is even getting the needed safety message from our elusive reps, but lets hope so.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3847	From: Joe Faust	Date: 7/16/2011
Subject: Bowling for "300"

Someone, please send URL of the 300th collected AWE video.

Be a spectacular winner of the position 300

in the collection

http://www.energykitesystems.net/AWECommunityIntroVideos.html 299 at the moment.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3848	From: Pierre Benhaiem	Date: 7/17/2011
Subject: Re: Rigid v. Soft Wing Debate Again:search of new materials

A point against soft wing is it low UV (and chemical) resistance due to its thinness and its lack of opacity.The duration of paragliders (polyamide + silicon) or towing kites is not more than 500 h:for AWECS (where a permanent work is needed, contrary (?) to Skysails applications for example) it is only one or two months.

On the other hand for an equal power the weight of a rigid wing is something like 10 times that of soft wing _ and 10 times is also the weight factor between conventional turbine and rigid AWECS _ and during working the risk of crash is upper to that of the plane for several reasons:full time of work (the same for soft wing), loops or eight-figures in repetition where during each figure the wing gets closer to the ground (it is not the case for a plane).Finally stability of tethered rigid plane is not proved and existing kite industries do not show so many examples of well working rigid kites.As ChrisC and DaveS remark the system must be stable in all conditions including turbulences and complete electronic failure.

So specific AWECS materials for soft wings could be a field of search to improve UV and chemical resistances,keeping the lightness.In a precedent post Massimo indicated his search for aluminium-shaped kites wich L/D is improved,but the neutrality of materials against UV and chemical agents is so important at least.

PierreB

http://flygenkite.com

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3849	From: Pierre BENHAIEM	Date: 7/17/2011
Subject: Re: Rigid v. Soft Wing Debate Again:search of new materials

Note:on the precedent post comparison of crash risk is between tethered rigid AWECS and plane,but it can be understood between rigid and soft AWECS with advantage for soft wing.The consequences of a fall are lesser for soft wing:no breaking of wing,slow fall.Also the probability of fall is lower because of its inherent stability as kite.

On FlygenKite system masses are under the kite,so a part of stability is assured.

PierreB,
http://flygenkite.com

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3850	From: Robert Copcutt	Date: 7/18/2011
Subject: Re: AWECS of type flygen and possible problems with thunderstorms

Having lived in an area with some of highest lightning strike densities
in the world I have learnt to have great respect for its power. I have
been within 200m of strikes and even at that distance it is an
experience you never forget. Even non conducting tethers will collect
dirt and conduct better than air. Tethers of any type will attract
lightning and even a mild strike will break them. Health and safety
legislation is increasingly used by control freaks to massage their egos
so any lightning accidents involving AWE could be bad news for our
cause. There is therefore no option but to be alert for the build-up of
static and to land the kites before the activity gets to dangerous
levels. Fortunately there are experts with websites who can help us
predict strikes.
http://www.blitzortung.org/Webpages/index.php
http://ukweatherworld.co.uk/forum/category-view.asp
http://www.estofex.org/
http://www.lightningwizard.com
etc.

Robert.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3851	From: dave santos	Date: 7/18/2011
Subject: Re: possible problems with thunderstorms

There has always been a lot of discussion of lightning hazard on this forum, but the review is worthwhile.

Yes, lightning will be a common hazard in the exposed round-the-clock AWE operations we propose. KiteLab Ilwaco has twice encountered a less dangerous electric hail with St. Elmo's fire, resulting in one breakaway.

Robert is right that even a plastic non-conducting line can become conducting, especially by salt vapor and wet. We do not have data to establish what level of risk a plastic line in good condition has, but its seemingly far less than the well documented wire-line hazard.

Here is a current KiteLab Lightning Hazard Mitigation Protocol-

1. Avoid conducting line designs.
2. Use redundant lines to reduce runaway risk.
3. Bring airborne elements down well ahead of a storm (add kill-lines).
4. Use every forcasting resource.
5. Be vigilant of "pop-up" storms. Any nearby lightning is a red alert.
6. Ground fixed surface equipment to code standards.
7. Bleed off static charge aloft with TE "whiskers".
8. Use an electroscope (DIY metal foil or FET) to monitor charge build-up.
9. Keep away from surface equipment during lightning hazard.
10. In salty air, perform periodic fresh-water rinsing of kites and lines.

By following these methods the lightning risk becomes very low.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3852	From: Muzhichkov	Date: 7/18/2011
Subject: Re: possible problems with thunderstorms

Continuing the theme of danger: a kite can also accumulate static electricity and upon landing there can be a quite strong discharge.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3853	From: Joe Faust	Date: 7/18/2011
Subject: Re: AWECS of type flygen and possible problems with thunderstorms

Perhaps keep a file open to explore AWECS that operate simultaneously

1. conversion of upper wind's energy

2. convrsion of solar energy

3. collection and capture of atmospheric potential difference with ground

4. draw-down of static electric

.... just say'n ...

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3854	From: Joe Faust	Date: 7/18/2011
Subject: Re: Rigid v. Soft Wing Debate Again:search of new materials

Outdoor trampoline mat fabric? What is it and how does it compare with other UV-resistant fabric? Normally the mats are more porous than what is usually wanted for kite wings.

?:
http://www.lancertextiles.com/trampoline-fabric/

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3855	From: Joe Faust	Date: 7/18/2011
Subject: Graphene gel

Thanks for lead from SpiralAirfoil on this news note about some progress with graphene: graphene gel where water gets involved to prevent graphene complexes from reverting to graphite.

Graphite + water = the future of energy storage

Kitricity worth increases as storage of energy advances. Graphene gel just might increase the value of what we are doing in AWE.

My brief flash question: Will graphene gel make a mark in "wet" fabrics that might be used in kite wings to get the assets of graphene fabrics?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3856	From: Pierre BENHAIEM	Date: 7/18/2011
Subject: Sound of M10

2 minutes after beginning one can hears on Why Design Now?: M10 Kite-Power System a regular sound of turbines.Nor the power curve on Flights shows a power variation between about 3 KW and 9 KW.My idea is there is a constant tension (volts) and a variable current (Ampere).It should be possible to do it with the ground station at ground (I can not do it with FlygenKite which the noise (tension and rpm are variable) is variable. What do you think of it?

PierreB
http://flygenkite.com

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3857	From: Joe Faust	Date: 7/18/2011
Subject: Re: Sound of M10

Why Design Now?: M10 Kite-Power System

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3858	From: Joe Faust	Date: 7/18/2011
Subject: Re: Sound of M10

Could sound engineers filter so separate sound tracks are available, one for wind on wing, one on rotating turbine/generator?

Here is a payout winch kiting launch of rigid hang glider; no RAT onboard and crosswind figure eights are avoided!

Towing Foot Launch Collection Rigid Wing.mpg

In future, with long tether and very wide figure of eights or circles, a human onboard an AWECS may be able to take the g forces; small radius figures would wipe out the human.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3859	From: Robert Copcutt	Date: 7/18/2011
Subject: Re: possible problems with thunderstorms

Dave S,
We need to consider that the line will only ever represent a very small
proportion of the total distance that the lightning has to travel.
Whether the line is conductive or not will make little difference to the
probability of a strike. A non conductive line would make it difficult
to measure the build-up of static at the kite. Using a conductive line
it should be possible to measure the potential between the winch - line
- kite combination, and earth. A suitable spark gap would earth the
static if its potential got too high. I therefore think conducting lines
are preferable. I also think washing the lines is a waste of time
because within minutes they will again be coated with enough dust to
seed a lightning path. Just my 2 p worth.

Robert.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3860	From: dave santos	Date: 7/18/2011
Subject: Re: possible problems with thunderstorms

Robert,

The surface charge transferred along a dielectric line is constantly bleeding off static charge from the kite. An electroscope responds nicely to the varying charge as common cumulous fly over. Adding conventional static discharge whiskers on a wing is quite easy for more discharge.

Lets test your interesting predictions. I will measure resistence of new kiteline and expose it for comparison. For a more ambituous but still simple experiment; conductive and nonconductive line will be tested by electroscope in proximity to a telsa coil, with a videogrammetric record of the spark field. Probably the lightning researchers in Florida who deliberately trigger lightning already have the needed data.

Lightning mostly follows a famous zig-zag geometry between vast charge fields, tacking along major features like rain and dust plumes, and even potential plasma tubes formed by vortical filaments, etc. My prediction is that a conductive line should be measurably more dangerous than the plastic line in forming a leader strike, as it shortens the spark gap with a lesser resistence section. Certainly the conductive line is far more deadly in contacting a high voltage power line. Its also possible a lightning path might tend to jump off the polymer line more readily to strike elsewhere. The wake of a kite is a probable charge path to consider.

Note that any addition to our best line, UHMWPE, to make it more conductive, is at a weight hit to its currently unbeatable performance.

At least we can proceed knowing that lightning is a managable risk. I forgot to mention the lightning strike scopes common in airplanes that map strikes in real time. These fairly cheap devices will make kite farm decision making much better,

daveS

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3861	From: Joe Faust	Date: 7/18/2011
Subject: Re: Atmospheric electricity mining

Two notes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_electricity

http://www.rexresearch.com/plauson/plauson.htm (lead thanks to AlexM)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3862	From: dave santos	Date: 7/19/2011
Subject: Re: Atmospheric electricity mining

Plauson's invention is not an effective atmospheric electricity harvester, but a crude dirty nuclear reactor depending on radium to create the constant ionization to create a trickle current. Plauson's scheme squanders lifting gas merely to make the device look like real AWE.

This popular topic always hits the same wall; atmospheric charge energy is measurably far more fickle and diffuse than wind by several orders of magnitude (but you must still design for uselessly brief lightning strikes). Otherwise you would see vehicles with practical antennas motoring around in the static electric field. You would also see lightning damage comparable to what tornados and hurricanes do. Its inverse cubic mass scaling that allows bits of paper to fly to a nearby comb, but dooms large-scale use.

Solar is not so bad in itself, but it still does not seem to add to AWE usefully, given the superior power of wind by collector area, solar daylight/cloud limitations, and need to aim solar area independent of wind direction. There is not enough altitude gradient advantage to make flying solar economically advantaged. Solar farms already work well enough on the ground. Adding solar to a kite just burdens it and raises cost. Piezo is also disapointing, compared to the mature bulk methods of generating wind energy, due to its high-frequency/small-scale-unit limitations.

A relentless focus on simply, safely, and cheaply converting upper wind momentum to ground generator momentum seems by far the safest engineering bet in AWE. Unlike the fringe ideas, we are seeing the power experimentally for some years now.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3863	From: Joe Faust	Date: 7/19/2011
Subject: Re: Atmospheric electricity mining

A recent fringe scavenging method might play one day in some AWEC subsystem (not intended to compete with the main wind capture function):

http://inhabitat.com/high-tech-antenna-harvests-electromagnetic-energy-from-thin-air/

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3864	From: Joe Faust	Date: 7/20/2011
Subject: Lindbergh Foundation

When seen rightly and well, AWE will become the focus of the Lindbergh Foundation and its grants. Have courage all AWE intrepid aviators to apply to the Foundation; your AWE efforts are very green, very aviation based, and full of blessings for the world to come. And certainly AWE is part of the wildness that Charles Lindbergh knew.

http://www.lindberghfoundation.org/docs/index.php/awards-a-events/lindbergh-award

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3865	From: Pierre BENHAIEM	Date: 7/20/2011
Subject: Re: Rigid v. Soft Wing Debate Again:search of new materials

The difficulty seems obtaining both light and UV-resistant fabric.

PierreB

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3866	From: dave santos	Date: 7/21/2011
Subject: Re: Rigid v. Soft Wing Debate Again:search of new materials

Pierre,

The good news is that there are many great new and old fabrics, and they continue to get better. Peter Lynn has reported the leap in flying hours performance from around 500hrs to 5000hrs in just a few decades. We know that alumized coatings enable over a decade of outdoor UV life for fabric covered aircraft that fly several hundred kph. A sub-micron alu vapor coat would really weatherize at low weight/cost. We have essentially inert teflon based alternatives and graphene next. We can even return to natural fibers with just a moderate hit in performance. If one allows fading, stains, and patching, kites can live far longer than rated.

All in all its a new golden age.

dave

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3867	From: North, David D. (LARC-E402)	Date: 7/21/2011
Subject: Re: Rigid v. Soft Wing Debate Again:search of new materials

We (NASA LaRC) are experimenting this summer with wire cut EPP foam arc kites with various different coatings. EPP is relatively cheap, can be recycled, and very tolerant of “unscheduled landings” and we believe can perform fully-autonomous re-launch from a water surface. The EPP holds a very nice profile tolerance compared to the not very good profile tolerance of a ram air kite. We are able to produce foils with good thickness-to-chord ratios (8%) and aspect ratios of up to 20. Our goal is to improve L/D from 3-8 for current ram air kites to maybe 10-12 which would improve specific power output (power/kite area) by up to a factor of ~8.

The EPP foam is a solution that is mid-way between a soft wing and rigid wing that has benefits of both.

We are building a servo motor controlled kite flying system that can measure kite speed, trajectory, line forces, and line speed and should be producing data within a few weeks.

We are also doing some experiments with a simplified optical tracking system that uses only one or two (cheap) cameras for flight control. No control system instrumentation onboard the two-line kite (no GPS, no IMUs, no gyros, no telemetry).

Stay tuned. Will keep you all informed of progress.

Dave North

NASA Langley Research Center

From: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of dave santos
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2011 9:09 AM
To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [AWECS] Rigid v. Soft Wing Debate Again:search of new materials

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3868	From: dave santos	Date: 7/21/2011
Subject: Re: Rigid v. Soft Wing Debate Again:search of new materials

DaveN,

Yes, EPP foam is wonderfully crashworthy and its easy to insert a carbon tube for extra stiffness (stock tube sleeve-sets for tapered COTS spars). Bonding a fabric skin to EPP is harder, but it can simply be stretched on. A foam/spar/skin composite is super for a versatile triple load-path structural system, with the spars easily replaced and skin patched. Even EPS foam becomes robust in this sort of composite. This is KiteLab's basic construction method for high L/D powerwings deployed under soft pilot-lifters,

daveS

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3869	From: dest6a	Date: 7/21/2011
Subject: Re: Rigid v. Soft Wing Debate Again:search of new materials

When you talk about low-density foam, paper or cloth wings, I say you will not harvest serious amounts of energy from kites. To do so, requires large air loads, such as those from 10g to 40g maneuvers. There is no way to avoid the high air loads when one extracts large amounts of energy from kites (such as the energy from one unit of kite wing area equal to that from 400 units of HAWT rotor area.) Where have you seen aerobatic sailplanes capable of 8 to 10g maneuvers that use cloth wings? But even manned sailplanes limited to 10g because of the pilot, are not good enough. Carbon sailplanes (using RC) for dynamic soaring (DSing) are capable of 40g maneuvers or more. That's what is needed.

Dennis

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3870	From: North, David D. (LARC-E402)	Date: 7/21/2011
Subject: Re: Rigid v. Soft Wing Debate Again:search of new materials

Dennis,

We are using unidirectional fiberglass strands bonded to the surface of the foil to transfer aero loads (normal to surface) into the skin of the top surface of the foil in the ¼ chord region. These loads are transferred out to the wing tips and then into the flying lines. This type of structure in an arc kite is extremely efficient in terms of weight because it is a catenary structure (no bending moment). All loads are dumped in unidirectional fibers which have an extremely good strength-to-weight ratio.

Dave North

From: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of dest6a
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2011 3:22 PM
To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [AWECS] Rigid v. Soft Wing Debate Again:search of new materials

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3872	From: Joe Faust	Date: 7/21/2011
Subject: Foam folder of links

All members are invited to post links (if needed, open sub-folder under the main folder):

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/AirborneWindEnergy/links/EPP_foam_and_EPS_foam__distinguish__001311291307

in our Links section.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3873	From: Joe Faust	Date: 7/22/2011
Subject: Conventiona windpower print magazine notes Windlift

Historic notice:
Windpower Engineering, July 2011, print magazine's column: Windwatch had feature article "Clever controls let this wing pull power out of the wind", page 8-9. Article used terms: airfoil, wing, FPGA, system, levelwind, drum, , National Instruments CompactRIO, sensors, ..." but stayed away from using term "kite" or AWE or AWECS. "The airfoil, a sort of flying wing, pulls two tethers wrapped around drums which turns a generator."

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3874	From: dave santos	Date: 7/22/2011
Subject: Re: Rigid v. Soft Wing Debate Again:search of new materials

Dennis,

Most of us agree that rigid carbon wings moving at high speed are wonderful, but it will take a decade or more for ultra-reliable flight automation to evolve to allow these wings to survive long enough to pay back the high capital-cost.

Meanwhile we will make lots of power just as "NASA" (DaveN, etc.) informs us, with softer wings using tensile load-path networks. Soft wings are already pulling ships, so the concern about soft-wing power is fortunately not being confirmed, rather its hard wings hard-pressed to show such results. Meanwhile the hybrid option of semi-rigid fast moving wings, in stable orbits, hung under soft slow moving wings, with inherent stabilities, is fully workable.

daveS

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3875	From: Joe Faust	Date: 7/22/2011
Subject: Welcome Project Sea Tree and Dennis W. Stevens

Welcome Dennis Stevens,

On http://energykitesystems.net/AWEstakeholders/index.html

we take pleasure in adding e-book linking to Project Sea Tree and Dennis W. Stevens.

Links are active. Discussion is open. Dates of activity place Dennis in the founders' circle for AWE. Dennis is a seasoned inventor, analyst, and author--among other lights.

Great,

Lift,

JoeF

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3876	From: dest6a	Date: 7/22/2011
Subject: Re: Rigid v. Soft Wing Debate Again:search of new materials

How fast will the soft wings go? How much power will they generate relative to HAWTs operating at the Betz limit? I think the driving force toward high-speed, high-performance wings is enormous.
Dennis

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3877	From: Joe Faust	Date: 7/22/2011
Subject: Re: Rigid v. Soft Wing Debate Again:search of new materials

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3878	From: dave santos	Date: 7/22/2011
Subject: Re: Rigid v. Soft Wing Debate Again:search of new materials

Dennis,

This is an old topic on this forum, but review is good. Joe may have link page on this question.

The parafoil speed record is around 120mph (Flexifoil) and fabric covered wings have gone several hundred mph (Early WWII warbirds). Much higher performance is possible if we merely continue to improve materials and methods.

You are right to suggest a focus on performance, in which case the reasonably good soft wing may have superior early safety, power-to-weight, and ROI (return-on-investment).

We will certainly adopt rigid airframes as they prove suitable,

daveS

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3879	From: Pierre Benhaiem	Date: 7/23/2011
Subject: Participation of AWEIA at the Zayed Future Energy Prize?

JohnO, JoeF, DaveS, MassimoI, GaetanoD, GrantC, DaveL, DouglasS and all,

The www.zayedfutureenergyprize.com is very important and difficult to obtain and seems to be for available technologies (last year Vestas was the winner).

"The new categories for the Zayed Future Energy Prize are:

- SMEs & NGOs
- Lifetime Achievement for an Individual
- Large Corporations"

AWEIA could participate as NGO.

As AWE is not yet an available industry the hope to win is limited (although AWEIA can be seen as a leader) but it can be a good opportunity to elaborate a global strategy for AWE by covering the whole domain:from pocket crosswind flygen FlygenKite as recreation (lighting with turbine) or for walkers (charging batteries), towards GW scale (KiteGen research) and harnessing jetstream (Skymill Energy),through KiteLab Group and SELSAM and other).

PierreB

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3880	From: Theo Schmidt	Date: 7/23/2011
Subject: Re: Pumping water to higher heights

Doug schrieb:
Pumped hydro is of course economical at a large scale if you are a power
company and especially if it is connected to existing reservoirs. The
efficiency is 70-80%. The power density is good but the energy density
is not that great. There are quite a few such plants here in Switzerland
and more are being built. The power companies are very successful in
"greenwashing". They claim the the schemes will be neccessary for
storing solar and wind power. In reality they are laundering electricity
from atomic and coal generation which nobody wants, e.g. in the middle
of the night. They decide about every 15 minutes whether the price of
electricity warrants pumping up or generating. They are making money but
wasting electricity (20-30% loss).

At a small scale pumped water is more inefficient because commercial
small pumps and tubines are quite poor. You could make something
yourself like a bucket chain, but it would be quite large for little
power, little energy, and cost quite a lot, therefore be uneconomical
compared e.g. to something like batteries. I'm at present pumping well
water for toilet flushing at an overall efficiency of only a few
percent. This is because I can't find commercial pumps whose best
operating points match what I need, the pumps are inefficient anyway,
and the toilet valves need too much pressure. So I would have to build
the pump and the valves or even both myself, but this would cost me many
times the cost of electricity saved.

Cheers, Theo Schmidt

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3881	From: Bob Stuart	Date: 7/23/2011
Subject: Re: Pumping water to higher heights

Thanks, Theo. That's one more troll lurking under the hoops I hope to jump someday. I'd been thinking that diaphragm pumps/motors might be reasonably efficient on small scales. Do you have a few numbers on various commercial units? They can also be made from old tires, with a couple of disks, a crank and connecting rod, and home-made reed valves. I'd been thinking of a long connecting rod with spherical bearings, and a crankshaft with wide, angled throws so that the stroke could be adjusted to match the wind.

TIA,

Bob

On 23-Jul-11, at 6:54 AM, Theo Schmidt wrote:

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3882	From: Pierre Benhaiem	Date: 7/23/2011
Subject: A new interesting method of storage

Video on BBC News - 'Wind bags' tested in Nottingham under energy plan

See also University of Nottingham Invents New Way to Store Wind Power Under ... Extract:"
According to Powermag, Garvey says that storing the equivalent of 2 GW for four days will require 7 million cubic meters of air storage. "The optimal dimensions for energy bags are around 20 meters in diameter and each has a volume (when full) of about 4,000 cubic meters," he says. "For 7 million cubic meters, we would need 1,750 of these bags. The seabed area covered by these would be less than one square kilometer and the total surface area of bag material would be 2.2 million square meters."

Like the best energy storage technologies, the process is simple in concept. However, it requires a new, much larger fleet of offshore wind turbines to become economic."

So this method could be a good complement for high-scale off-shore AWECS.

PierreB

http://flygenkite.com

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3883	From: Doug	Date: 7/23/2011
Subject: Re: Participation of AWEIA at the Zayed Future Energy Prize?

I have found the following activities to be time-wasters:
1) contests
2) conferences
3) grant proposals
Either you have a product or you don't.
Either you have a wind generator that is useful on its own accord, or you are flailing.

Your biggest resource is your time and focus, and these contests and conferences steal this most valuable resource from you, under the guise that it will help.
Sometimes it seems that the main thing holding up progress is "people who are going to help". "Going to help" is common. Actually "helped" is rare.

No contest, no conference, no grant money, assuming you win any of these, is going to really help. First of all you probably won't win, just become exhausted and need a vacation after trying really hard.

Some inane politically-correct-sounding, completely boring and mundane idea that is too complicated for anyone to understand will win over your simple solution anyway, and all that effort goes down the drain. If you DO win you will find yourself building last year's idea when in your mind you have already moved forward, but you must now build what you had said in the proposal.

All you have to do is look at the results of all these contests and grants and conferences: results? ZERO.

It doesn't take money, it takes an idea that works, and just enough funding to build it. Then you refine it and you sell it. Else you have nothing anyway.

Just look at it realistically: think up a system that works, and build it.
Or get distracted: shift your attention from designing machines to designing contests. Doesn't matter you are still lost, and now you are no longer designing machines but instead designing contests. Seduced into deviating from your chosen path. That is your life's endeavor slipping away from lack of focus.

Believe me I know - been there, done that! Just trying to pass along what I've learned.

I think I wasted about 2 weeks on the last Zayed contest. And 2 more for the GE Ecomagination contest. And the ARPA-E contest. And the NREL solicitation... etc. etc. etc.

These are like a row of casinos begging you to come in and waste all your retirement money, but instead they are government-run idea casinos that will steal all your time and energy so the bureaucrats running them can draw a paycheck. Instead of directly stealing your money it is bureaucrats with one more way to get paid with your tax dollars. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

There is always a distraction, then there is the real challenge that persistently remains before us at all times:

Make a reliable system that produces more energy at less cost than existing turbines - oh yeah THAT contest! Wow a naturally-occurring contest that doesn't require anyone to run it! All it needs is someone to WIN it!

And geez, to read the press releases, several teams have ALREADY won the contest. I know I read years ago, in several press releases, that Magenn had it all worked out. So if all we read is true then why are we still trying when Magenn has it all solved anyway? Oh and I think several other teams have it all solved too, from their press releases. So why keep trying, it's all finished!

Oh wait you're telling me that all these press releases are complete bullshit? Hey maybe the contests are too! Beware you are walking through a minefield of bullshit!

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

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3884	From: carlgu@gmail.com	Date: 7/24/2011
Subject: From Kitesurfing Manufacturer...

Hi Everyone,

I am working at a major kite surfing brand / factory, I feel excited to see so many people here interested in this AirborneWindEnergy group.

Should you have any questions / concerns about our kitesurfing products related to this AWE tech, I will be more than glad to discuss with you in further details.

Cheers, carl

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3885	From: Pierre BENHAIEM	Date: 7/24/2011
Subject: Re: From Kitesurfing Manufacturer...

Welcome Carl,

Many questions!In precedent posts one of the questions was about UV-resistance of ram air kites (for ground use) and it seems it is not enough (500 h ,the same for a paraglider) for a constant use (it is OK for an occasional use of microenergy AWECS like Manual FlygenKite ). But perhaps is it different for kitesurf in regard to UV-resistance and certainly to salt water?And the ratio lift/drag (normally lower than ground kites _something like 5 to 8 _)?

PierreB
http://flygenkite.com

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3886	From: Doug	Date: 7/24/2011
Subject: Re: Pumping water to higher heights

I see what you mean now. On a small scale using off-the-shelf components, pumped hydro storage is probably way less efficient.

I know you can buy decent small hydroelectric systems, such as Harris Hydro, if they are still making those, that work well for some, but I'm not sure about the total efficiency of a pumped hydro system using those, if, as you say, the uphill pump lacks efficiency.
Does an efficient small pump exist? One would think so...

Discussions of energy storage for wind go like this:
1) We want to store our 4-cent/kWh - 10-cent/kWh wind power, so we need a method of storage, to make wind energy more viable.
2) Our method of storage would have the following characteristics: low cost and high efficiency
3) We then realize that IF we HAD the storage technology, the first place to use it would be where it is most economical, which would be storing even cheaper (2-cent/kWh) night-time electricity for daytime use. (as pointed out)
4) With all that new cheap power, there is no longer any need for wind power during the day OR night.

Lesson:
be careful what you wish for.
:)
Doug Selsam
http://www.USWINDLABS.com
~<brawk!

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3887	From: Joe Faust	Date: 7/24/2011
Subject: Re: From Kitesurfing Manufacturer...

Welcome Carl,

Thanks for the wide invitation.

Personally, I have been waiting to see your company place a small hydro
turbine on kiteboard bottoms to let the kitesurfer charge his or her
GoPro camera batteries.

Best of lift to you and yours,

JoeF

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3888	From: Carl Gu	Date: 7/25/2011
Subject: Re: re: [AWECS] From Kitesurfing Manufacturer...

Dear Pierre,

Thanks for your feedback. Your question hits the right point: For regular kites canopy materials, it doesn't need such strong UV resistance, which is different from kite energy system's requirement.

Since the best known kite canopy materials (Teijin, from Japan) can't also meet this new industry's requirement, it should be necessary to work with the canopy suppliers for a new / special high UV-resistent canopy material. This will open another new topic...

Except for this canopy material UV concern, the control line (usually Dyneema, or UHMWPE fiber lines) should be good enough from UV-resistance aspect. Maybe we also need a special UV coating over the current control lines though.

Let me know your thoughts.

Cheers!

2011-07-25

Carl Gu

发件人： Pierre BENHAIEM

发送时间： 2011-07-24 22:22:46

收件人： AirborneWindEnergy

抄送：

主题： re: [AWECS] From Kitesurfing Manufacturer...

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3889	From: Joe Faust	Date: 7/25/2011
Subject: Re: From Kitesurfing Manufacturer...

Carl,

Has your team considered adding kits that permit kiteboarders to
use their kites for flygen or groundgen operations? Enhance the entire
trade! Rapid expanded use of same product base!

Lift,

JoeF

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3890	From: Carl Gu	Date: 7/25/2011
Subject: Re: [AWECS] Re: From Kitesurfing Manufacturer...

This sounds interesting to me, but I am not actually
in the position to confirm this. I will try to talk my boss later and see if they have
the same interests as I do...maybe I will send you a private e-mail
for this later.
Cheers!
2011-07-25
Carl Gu

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3891	From: Doug	Date: 7/25/2011
Subject: Re: From Kitesurfing Manufacturer...

I think the Hindenburg had a solution for UV: Aluminum-based paint.
Paint in general could certainly help - anything that can remain adhered and block UV, but the leading edge will erode.
:)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3892	From: dave santos	Date: 7/25/2011
Subject: Lifetime Kite Flight-Hours// re: [AWECS] From Kitesurfing Manufactur

Carl,

Perhaps you can help reassure folks that well-engineered kite fabric will seemingly serve far more than the 500 hours Pierre is thinking. This alarmingly low number reflects what kite experts estimated a generation ago for nylon hobby kites (Dean Jordan. etc, in Kitelines). Its also a number close to what paragliders are rated to, due to the extremely conservative human-flight safety standard; but often a well cared for paraglider still looks and flies almost like new when retired.

In the case of old kites, they often faded quickly and became dingy looking and a few did fall apart due to bad sticthing and materials. Most were retired with lots of life left. I torture test these old kites, with minor patching as needed, and they mostly seem to serve almost indefinitely. Extended outdoor testing (a kite long lost in a tree top, then tested) by Peter Lynn in NZ, including regular hurricane force gales and high UV, suggests 10,000 hours is possible with careful choice of the best advanced kite fabrics.

My estimate in 2007 was for 5000 flight hrs feasible if one cared for the kite well (UV resistant polyester). I find Peter Lynn's new finding credible. We also have cruising sail experience and even old sailing standards where sails did a few years duty at a time. Aircraft get over decade of fabric life outdoors. Parachutes survive extreme opening forces for hundreds of cycles. New architectural fabrics are rated for decades. A lot of this is review of forum info, to correct any unwarranted pessimism of those who missed the topic.

So perhaps you can add your considered estimate of lifetime kite flight hours,

daveS

--- On Mon, 7/25/11, Carl Gu <carlgu@gmail.com

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3893	From: Robert Copcutt	Date: 7/25/2011
Subject: Re: Pumping water to higher heights

Doug,

Your points 3 and 4 do not make sense. I am working on AWE because it
has the potential to produce lots of cheap power with very little
pollution. Night time electricity is cheap because limited grid capacity
means the producers want to encourage night time usage rather than
daytime. Also nuclear plants are difficult to turn down. AWE has the
potential to cost less than the polluting systems used today - nuclear
being one of the polluters. The problem with AWE is that the wind does
not always blow; so we need the storage, lots of it.

Robert.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 3894	From: Uwe Fechner	Date: 7/25/2011
Subject: Job offer C++ developer at TU Delft (kite and winch control software

Hello,

we are looking for a full-time Software- Developer/ Electrical engineer:

http://www.academictransfer.com/employer/TUD/vacancy/10572/lang/en/

If you are interested, you can apply online using the web-form or
sending me or Roland Schmehl a private eMail until the 5 August 2011.

Regards:

Uwe Fechner

www.kitepower.eu

----------------------------------------
Uwe Fechner, M.Sc.
Delft University of Technology
Faculty of Aerospace Engineering/ASSET
Kluyverweg 1,
2629 HS Delft, The Netherlands
Phone: +31-15-27-88902