Messages in AirborneWindEnergy group.                           AWES7267to7316 Page 43 of 440.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7267 From: Doug Date: 9/28/2012
Subject: Re: This emerging Industry

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7268 From: Doug Date: 9/28/2012
Subject: PhD's in Wind Energy

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7269 From: dave santos Date: 9/28/2012
Subject: Re: PhD's in Wind Energy

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7270 From: Doug Date: 9/28/2012
Subject: Re: PhD's in Wind Energy

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7271 From: dave santos Date: 9/28/2012
Subject: What's really killing so many small wind turbines, and how is it con

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7272 From: John Oyebanji Date: 9/28/2012
Subject: Re: PhD's in Wind Energy

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7273 From: Doug Date: 9/29/2012
Subject: Re: PhD's in Wind Energy

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7274 From: John Oyebanji Date: 9/29/2012
Subject: Re: PhD's in Wind Energy

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7275 From: Joe Faust Date: 9/29/2012
Subject: Arch of trains

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7276 From: Joe Faust Date: 9/29/2012
Subject: Re: Arch of trains

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7277 From: dave santos Date: 9/29/2012
Subject: How AWES will easily survive storms

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7278 From: dave santos Date: 9/29/2012
Subject: Professional Standards for the AWE Industry (Peer Review of Policy S

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7279 From: dave santos Date: 9/29/2012
Subject: AWE "Basket" Investment Strategy

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7280 From: roderickjosephread Date: 9/29/2012
Subject: Re: AWE "Basket" Investment Strategy

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7281 From: Joe Faust Date: 9/29/2012
Subject: Re: AeroEólica

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7282 From: Rod Read Date: 9/29/2012
Subject: Re: Arch of trains

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7283 From: Naveed Syed Date: 9/29/2012
Subject: Some Clarification on Wind Alternators

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7284 From: dave santos Date: 9/29/2012
Subject: Re: Some Clarification on Wind Alternators

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7285 From: Doug Date: 9/30/2012
Subject: Re: Some Clarification on Wind Alternators

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7286 From: Doug Date: 9/30/2012
Subject: Re: How AWES will easily survive storms

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7287 From: Doug Date: 9/30/2012
Subject: Re: AeroE�lica

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7288 From: John Oyebanji Date: 9/30/2012
Subject: AirborneWindEnergy: DaveS vs DougS

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7289 From: dave santos Date: 9/30/2012
Subject: Re: How AWES will easily survive storms

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7290 From: Joe Faust Date: 9/30/2012
Subject: Overspeed Protection

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7291 From: Joe Faust Date: 9/30/2012
Subject: Sorting kite arches by wind-direction dependence

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7292 From: Joe Faust Date: 9/30/2012
Subject: Article: "EnerKite sets new benchmarks in Airborne Wind Energy"

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7293 From: Joe Faust Date: 9/30/2012
Subject: Re: Article: "EnerKite sets new benchmarks in Airborne Wind Energy"

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7294 From: roderickjosephread Date: 9/30/2012
Subject: Re: Overspeed Protection

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7295 From: Bob Stuart Date: 9/30/2012
Subject: Re: Overspeed Protection

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7296 From: dave santos Date: 9/30/2012
Subject: Re: Arch of trains

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7297 From: Naveed Syed Date: 9/30/2012
Subject: Re: Some Clarification on Wind Alternators

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7298 From: dave santos Date: 9/30/2012
Subject: Re: Sorting kite arches by wind-direction dependence (plus "Kite Dom

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7299 From: Joe Faust Date: 9/30/2012
Subject: Re: Sorting kite arches by wind-direction dependence (plus "Kite Dom

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7300 From: Joe Faust Date: 9/30/2012
Subject: Re: Sorting kite arches by wind-direction dependence (plus "Kite Dom

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7301 From: Joe Faust Date: 9/30/2012
Subject: Re: Sorting kite arches by wind-direction dependence (plus "Kite Dom

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7302 From: Joe Faust Date: 9/30/2012
Subject: Re: Sorting kite arches by wind-direction dependence

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7303 From: dave santos Date: 9/30/2012
Subject: Re: Sorting kite arches by wind-direction dependence (plus "Kite Dom

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7304 From: John Oyebanji Date: 9/30/2012
Subject: Link to AWEIA

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7305 From: Doug Date: 9/30/2012
Subject: Re: AirborneWindEnergy: DaveS vs DougS

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7306 From: roderickjosephread Date: 10/1/2012
Subject: Re: Sorting kite arches by wind-direction dependence (plus "Kite Dom

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7307 From: Rod Read Date: 10/1/2012
Subject: Re: Arch of trains

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7308 From: dave santos Date: 10/1/2012
Subject: Makani preparing Wing 8 for hoped end-to-end all-modes sessions.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7309 From: Joe Faust Date: 10/1/2012
Subject: Re: Arch of trains

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7310 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/1/2012
Subject: Re: Makani preparing Wing 8 for hoped end-to-end all-modes sessions.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7311 From: dave santos Date: 10/1/2012
Subject: Re: Arch of trains

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7312 From: Joe Faust Date: 10/1/2012
Subject: Re: Arch of trains

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7313 From: Joe Faust Date: 10/1/2012
Subject: London Array, 1 GW under construction

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7314 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 10/1/2012
Subject: Re: Arch of trains

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7315 From: Joe Faust Date: 10/1/2012
Subject: LEP

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7316 From: roderickjosephread Date: 10/2/2012
Subject: Re: Arch of trains



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7267 From: Doug Date: 9/28/2012
Subject: Re: This emerging Industry
John: Well said - and yes that is a pun.
I have been trying to let the AWE people know that the holes they drink from have been urinated into for 2000 years, and do not contain fresh water. They continue to drink from these holes at the price of millions of dollars, and even though I've tried to warn them, time and time again, and it seems that you would want to blame the bad taste on me.
By the way, I would rather urinate into a well from which I have drunk, than drink from a well in which I have urinated. I'm actually not AS worried about urinating into a well from which I have already drunk.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7268 From: Doug Date: 9/28/2012
Subject: PhD's in Wind Energy
This article discusses a town's bad experience buying an EW50 50 kW (small) wind turbine that immediately broke:
http://www.seacoastonline.com/articles/20100511-NEWS-5110385

This article is about a small "windfarm" in Nome Alaska which failed due to this same EW50 turbine model.
http://www.adn.com/2009/07/29/880587/nomes-new-wind-farm-is-shut-down.html

This article explains how this failure-prone turbine model was developed as the golden standard, by which to compare all turbines, by PhD's from labs around the world like NREL, calling the EW50 "the most tested commercial-scale wind turbine"
http://www.obliquedesign.com/entegritywind/site/story.html

Bear in mind a few things:
1) There was nothing mysterious about this relatively small turbine - very straightforward.
2) It was developed over decades
3) I read about it year after year, usually in association with the big labs
4) Two municipalities have recently had bad experiences with it.

Here's what they said in Kittery, Maine:
Councilor Frank Dennett said he wasn't happy about having to sell the equipment, but in hindsight it should not have been approved in the first place. "That's what you get when you listen to Ph.D.s," Dennett said. "Lesson learned. Once burned, twice cautious."

Hear that? BURN it into your brain:
"That's what you get when you listen to PhD's"
That is the voice of someone who has "been there, done that".
Wind energy is a brutal art and very few people can handle it at all.

What does all this go to show:
Put government people in charge of anything and they will find a way to screw it up! Grasp what is going on here: They have been trying to perfect this one super-simple, small, very basic model of turbine for something like 20 years and they are still having lots of failures. They have been working on this model of turbine since it was actually considered "windfarm" in size, while today's windfarm turbines are 50 times as big, and yet they are still trying to "work the bugs out of it".

I can tell you I've been "working the bugs out" of one turbine model for years and I never planned it that way. (finally I actually DO have the bugs worked out, along with quite a collection of bent parts and burnt stators) It's just that the reality of what Mother Nature throws at these machines is more than most people consider going in. It's only those with a lot of dedication and perseverance who end up with models that are not completely problematic.

There are very few regular wind turbine models that are not disasters waiting to happen. It is not easy to build a reliable regular-old wind turbine. Just so you know - the challenge of AWE is far greater than most.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7269 From: dave santos Date: 9/28/2012
Subject: Re: PhD's in Wind Energy
Doug wrote- "...PhD's from labs around the world like NREL, calling the EW50 "the most tested commercial-scale wind turbine"

I can only find this claim made by the Entegrity company marketers. No PhDs. What PhDs are you (and the hapless Kittery rube) talking about?



PhD's know machines break down and prefer statistics to isolated anecdotes. The right PhD could have warned Kittery about this sort consumer risk (buying repurchase agreement from a failing company)
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7270 From: Doug Date: 9/28/2012
Subject: Re: PhD's in Wind Energy
Dave S. Can you believe I was bored the other day and was wishing I had something to argue with you about? Geez and now that you "would like an argument please" (like on Monty Pythin) I'm already bired with it. I wish there was someone on here who knew anything that I could really debate with. These debates are just silly, really.

OK so you want me to come up with a list of people with PhD's that have worked on this turbine or recommended it to Kittery, Maine? Dave S. if you were a wind energy person you would be saying "Oh yeah we've endlessly heard about that same model, year after year, in research paper after research paper..." - but you are not familiar with wind energy, so sorry, you just are left wondering what the conversation is about, thinking that merely me saying it must mean not only that it is not true, but that it must be 100% wrong. That is your defense mechanism, trying to save your ego, by blaming your lack of knowledge on me. It's OK - we wind people have been doing this for years before you came along and we know the game.

Like I was saying, I've been involved with the industry for about a decade and I've heard about this model of turbine the whole time. It's always referred to in reverential and deferential tones, as though to say "If only you mere mortals could ever comprehend a turbine like this".

I actually always believed the hype, and hoped I could ever develop a model as "good" til I happened to stumble across the first article, googled a second article, and realized once again:
It is almost (but not quite) impossible to make a reliable electric wind turbine.

There are only a few companies that have proven they can do it. The results are not trouble-free, but at least are manageable and do not fail catastrophically.

I only point this out so people considering AWE realize that even the best minds we have today can barely and only sometimes get a turbine to operate the way they want on a tower, and that is with many successful examples that can be copied verbatim. That is how hard wind energy is, so if you want to take it into the sky, be ready for a real difficult challenge.

:)
Doug Selsam
http://www.selsam.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7271 From: dave santos Date: 9/28/2012
Subject: What's really killing so many small wind turbines, and how is it con
While HAWT overspeed in gale conditions can threaten a loaded generator, its not impossible for a designer to come up with an effective solution. All sorts of aerospoilers, governors, mechanical furlers, thermal relay shut-offs, and what-nots have been used, but anomalous burnouts of generators (power MOSFETS, embedded controllers, etc.) still occur.

Consider all the other common sources of electrical failure present- non-linear grid loads, rogue power harmonics, electrostatics (St.Elmo's fire), vibration, and so on. We can say that hot operation predisposes a generator for failure by other proximal causes, that most failures are combinations of adverse conditions.

In WECS aerodesign we can mostly disregard load-side electrical issues as "not our job". There are legions of skilled electrical engineers to deal with these issues, especially for large grids and high-volume products. Sadly, homestead or community windpower often lacks this expertise. A lot of these failure causes evade diagnosis in places like Kittery Maine.

That some hick blames PhDs for this sort of thing only distracts our focus from real AWE technical issues.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7272 From: John Oyebanji Date: 9/28/2012
Subject: Re: PhD's in Wind Energy
I think we are coming together somehow.

To quote Doug:
"I only point this out so people considering AWE realize that even the best minds we have today can barely and only sometimes get a turbine to operate the way they want on a tower, and that is with many successful examples that can be copied verbatim. That is how hard wind energy is, so if you want to take it into the sky, be ready for a real difficult challenge"

Taking Wind Energy airborne beyond towered heights is the challenging task being undertaken here in Airborne Wind Energy Industry. We appreciate the difference and the challenge and we are being most diligent and meticulous to ensure we do it in the safest and most cost-effective manner.
All are invited.

John Adeoye Oyebanji;
CEO, Hardensoft International
President-protem, Airborne Wind Energy Industry Association - AWEIA International
From: "Doug" <doug@selsam.com
Sender: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 23:08:29 -0000
To: <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [AWES] PhD's in Wind Energy

 

Dave S. Can you believe I was bored the other day and was wishing I had something to argue with you about? Geez and now that you "would like an argument please" (like on Monty Pythin) I'm already bired with it. I wish there was someone on here who knew anything that I could really debate with. These debates are just silly, really.

OK so you want me to come up with a list of people with PhD's that have worked on this turbine or recommended it to Kittery, Maine? Dave S. if you were a wind energy person you would be saying "Oh yeah we've endlessly heard about that same model, year after year, in research paper after research paper..." - but you are not familiar with wind energy, so sorry, you just are left wondering what the conversation is about, thinking that merely me saying it must mean not only that it is not true, but that it must be 100% wrong. That is your defense mechanism, trying to save your ego, by blaming your lack of knowledge on me. It's OK - we wind people have been doing this for years before you came along and we know the game.

Like I was saying, I've been involved with the industry for about a decade and I've heard about this model of turbine the whole time. It's always referred to in reverential and deferential tones, as though to say "If only you mere mortals could ever comprehend a turbine like this".

I actually always believed the hype, and hoped I could ever develop a model as "good" til I happened to stumble across the first article, googled a second article, and realized once again:
It is almost (but not quite) impossible to make a reliable electric wind turbine.

There are only a few companies that have proven they can do it. The results are not trouble-free, but at least are manageable and do not fail catastrophically.

I only point this out so people considering AWE realize that even the best minds we have today can barely and only sometimes get a turbine to operate the way they want on a tower, and that is with many successful examples that can be copied verbatim. That is how hard wind energy is, so if you want to take it into the sky, be ready for a real difficult challenge.

:)
Doug Selsam
http://www.selsam.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7273 From: Doug Date: 9/29/2012
Subject: Re: PhD's in Wind Energy
Hi John
It's always exciting to get an e-mail from Nigeria. I had another one this morning - from a "Mr. Victor"... perhaps you know him?

It occurred to me that I'm saying two things that appear opposite:
1) AWE is incredibly easy
2) AWE is incredibly hard

I should clarify:
1) It can be incredibly easy to get systems up and working - in so many ways!
2) It will be incredibly hard to get them to survive, as it is incredibly hard to get any wind energy installation to survive.

Hint: they usually fail in strong winds, not light winds.
:)
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7274 From: John Oyebanji Date: 9/29/2012
Subject: Re: PhD's in Wind Energy
Thanks Doug.
I look forward to the Superturbine® going #airborne.
JohnO
John Adeoye Oyebanji;
CEO, Hardensoft International
President-protem, Airborne Wind Energy Industry Association - AWEIA International
From: "Doug" <doug@selsam.com
Sender: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2012 14:28:14 -0000
To: <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [AWES] Re: PhD's in Wind Energy

 

Hi John
It's always exciting to get an e-mail from Nigeria. I had another one this morning - from a "Mr. Victor"... perhaps you know him?

It occurred to me that I'm saying two things that appear opposite:
1) AWE is incredibly easy
2) AWE is incredibly hard

I should clarify:
1) It can be incredibly easy to get systems up and working - in so many ways!
2) It will be incredibly hard to get them to survive, as it is incredibly hard to get any wind energy installation to survive.

Hint: they usually fail in strong winds, not light winds.
:)
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7275 From: Joe Faust Date: 9/29/2012
Subject: Arch of trains
arch of trains    
 A kite system that is an arch kite with its wing-segment elements as trains of wings.

Examples?
World records?
AWEifications?

One of the two trivial cases is a staked-out two-anchor single wing with a train consisting of just one wing element. 
The other trivial case is the empty set. 
Next less challenging case is the the spread two-anchor one-segment where the segment is a train of wings. 

We go beyond the trivial cases to high-count segments in an arch; each segment is a train of wings of high count. 
(Another trivial case occurs here where the load-path of arch anchoring is not arching tether, but the arch of the surface of the earth where the high-count segments are anchored conventionally.)   The non-trivial case has its special interest; that is, where a lofted arch load-path line set becomes the holder of roots of individual trains of wings.  The load-path line set may be traverse to the wind or windward or at any oblique angle to the wind (this clues one to the potential of simple second-floor arrays that massively fill broad areas of sky); but we deal herein only with the simpler cases without the massive projected area infill.
 
With each leader-lined train rooted on a load-path arch (say, two-anchors set at any angle to the wind and not needing to change when wind direction changes). then one is challenged to mine the wind's energy from such arches of trains.   

But first we seek demonstrations of arches of trains with experience remarks.  (and Rod Read illustrations : )  We have in group some Faust early illustrations of arch of trains, but some RR touches would spice the world.)  Launching, stopping, landing, morphing, controlling, ...     Because of material and construction intensity, simple toy kite trains for the units on the arch might be the way.   Veering trains? Two-line trains?    Failures and impact on sharpening the tech?
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7276 From: Joe Faust Date: 9/29/2012
Subject: Re: Arch of trains
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7277 From: dave santos Date: 9/29/2012
Subject: How AWES will easily survive storms
A bit of review:

AWE is a branch of aviation for the purpose of wind energy. As such, procedures for storm survival are well established and generally involve avoidance. If an aircraft is in the air, it can land ahead of a storm. Going around or above weather is also common, when practical. On the ground, aircraft are tied-down or put in hangars. 

Advances in weather prediction and sensing allow confidence that storm conditions are not surprise events. The FAA legal requirement for a Pilot-In-Command and Visual Observer means personnel are present to perform storm avoidance. Even "pop-up" storms give a pilot crew enough warning. Aviation practice has clearly established these methods are effective, and overall fleet losses to storms are very low.

Secondarily, a tethered aircraft in wind is a form of "sailing in the sky". Once again, professional operational traditions apply. Sailors keep a "weather eye" and reduce sail ahead of bad conditions. Modern methods like roller-furling make this sort of procedure quite easy. Sailors also traditionally head to port before a storm. AWES will do the same.

The idea that an advanced energy aircraft can sit on a perch abandoned and neglected in all conditions, as if it was a conventional wind turbine, only applies to marginal AWE concepts imagined by non-aviation designers. There is no economic way to build a well preforming aircraft as heavy as a conventional wind turbine is built, just to reliably survive storms fixed atop a pole.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7278 From: dave santos Date: 9/29/2012
Subject: Professional Standards for the AWE Industry (Peer Review of Policy S
John Oyebanji
President Pro-Tem, 
AWEIA International

Dear John,

As the founding AWEIA President, you are increasingly called on to rule on questions of importance to the early industry. A recent case was to support an AWEIA EU Chapter position against prejudicial public statements against AWE by a EU national wind energy association officer. These rulings are of course provisional, but also historic. Insofar as you rule with wisdom, your rulings can stand in perpetuity.

This is a draft request from AWEIA USA Chapter membership that you find in favor of strong Open Peer Review Standards for AWE academic work intended to impact Public Policy. This is also an open call for comment, posted to the AWES Forum as the forum-of-record for AWEIA. Adopting this standard brings us in line with other professions and academic fields. Once established, the standard will evolve with the growth of the industry.

Enacting open peer review is a proper reaction to the Near Zero NGO undertaking AWE policy recommendations with an opaque process, no domain-expert peer review, and disputed results. A clear AWEIA professional standard will be binding-in-principle on Near Zero, under Stanford's Code of Conduct, and help bring pressure for reform of weak academic standards imposed on AWE public policy development. You have been monitoring this situation closely for some time now, and are well informed of particulars.


Please give this request high priority and consider issuing a prompt positive provisional ruling. Open Peer Review will help ensure future policy recommendations and major science findings are accurate and reliable,

Sincerely,

Dave Santos

AWEIA Advisory Board
AWEIA USA Chapter Member

Cc: Near Zero Board Member, Ken Caldeira, and Principal Scientist, Steve Davis.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7279 From: dave santos Date: 9/29/2012
Subject: AWE "Basket" Investment Strategy
The upper wind energy resource is real, with potentially huge demand. There are dozens of AWE R&D teams. How does an interested investor proceed? There are no standards. Where is the hidden value? Most teams are not even ranked by any metric. How can small investment be protected from market churn, from random business failure?

The answer is called a basket fund, where a broad mix of the best early tech picks is funded by a broad mix of investors. Such a fund is best managed cooperatively, with transparency, critical reflection, and a strong learning culture. Its a modern social enterprise based on crowd-sourcing. It aggregates critical mass. 

Its also a bit like Fantasy Football; if you were an AWE basket fund manager, what mix of teams would you pick? My personal strategy would be to pick every academic team, every shop-rat outfit, and hardly any promotion-driven players. Such a basket would be dirt cheap and sure to contain big winners.

Who knows how to set up such a fund? We have to figure it out for ourselves. How to structure the high performance financial engine for recycling equity is a wild topic. A patent pool and CC licencing mix looks doable. The technical vetting of basket picks by a rigorous scoring matrix makes sense. We really need great managers to pull it all together.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7280 From: roderickjosephread Date: 9/29/2012
Subject: Re: AWE "Basket" Investment Strategy
Sounds like a good mix.
There are a host of ways you could go about this,
Depends, How you intend to invest in the companies (share stakes,cooperative involvement...) , how many investors you expect to attract and How they will contribute.
How you intend to balance dividends and returns reinvestment.

You can set up an investment club yourself with a good rule book, but if you're looking for something a bit bigger... don't take my advice as word.

Friend of a friend knows some VC's who like a crazy like us....
Must chase that up
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7281 From: Joe Faust Date: 9/29/2012
Subject: Re: AeroEólica
The two priorly given links break. 
Here is their front page:
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7282 From: Rod Read Date: 9/29/2012
Subject: Re: Arch of trains
With a bit of help from David Aberdeen of surfplan, I might have a nice workable drawing for you soonish

Rod Read

15a Aiginis
Isle of Lewis
HS2 0PB

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7283 From: Naveed Syed Date: 9/29/2012
Subject: Some Clarification on Wind Alternators
Hello,

I just wanted to find out some information on wind alternators and the correlation with their weight. I was looking at Makani's design for the 1MW plane and they are using 8 brushless dc motors. I was wondering at what speed these would have to be to generate the equivalent of 1MW of power. Also, I'm assuming because they will be using high speed they will weigh less. If someone can clear these things up for me I'd appreciate it. I've only seen heavy low speed wind generators and I'm assuming those used in high altitude situations will weigh less and cost less. Sorry if this is a very amateur question.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7284 From: dave santos Date: 9/29/2012
Subject: Re: Some Clarification on Wind Alternators
Hi Naveed,

The generators required for Makani's large AWES concepts simply don't exist. They will be very difficult to engineer, given mass-scaling and thermal-scaling trade-offs. That's why similar units in any application are not to be found. In every case, far larger units mean power-to-weight goes way down. Hovering flight becomes impossible at larger scales.

Small AWES flygens do fly OK, with more power-to-weight and better cooling. Cautious large scale concepts keep the largest most-massive generators as groundgens to always run at optimal temperature.

Hope this helped,

daveS
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7285 From: Doug Date: 9/30/2012
Subject: Re: Some Clarification on Wind Alternators
Naveed:
It all comes down to cooling. A small alternator (or motor) can produce huge amounts of electricity in short bursts, but for steady-state operation, the buildup of heat limits your long-term output. Too much current will cook your alternator.

Higher voltages help by lowering current. You only have a window of a couple-hundred degrees in which to operate before the insulation on your windings cooks.

To make a lot of power from a generator, you need a lot of weight in either a large, air-cooled alternator, or a smaller, liquid-cooled generator, with the weight penalty and complexity of the cooling system.

Your scaling observations are accurate, as is the observation that higher RPM is good and not having to support the generator by air could be good.

Add it all up and those are a lot of reasons why one would want a way to combine the output of many smaller rotors, that spin at higher RPM so you can have a smaller generator, and you can place that generator on the ground.

That was the same line of reasoning that took me toward the SuperTurbine(R) concept way back in the late 1970's/early 1980's.

Since then I can see there are many easy ways to do AWE.
:)
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7286 From: Doug Date: 9/30/2012
Subject: Re: How AWES will easily survive storms
You have lifted this idea from the Professor Crackpot Newbie book of "knowing it all" by knowing nothing, about wind energy. Just make it up as you go along. Every newbie has that same answer when asked about overspeed. Once again you present a caricature of newbie thinking, compolete with the authoritative, know-it-all tone we've seen so many times over the years with each new professor C. who stumbles down the pike.

The biggest problem in wind energy is no problem for you because you have the typical newbie solution to overspeed "We'll just shut 'er down if it gets windy!" Really, how, if it is that windy, do you shut 'er down? Oh you have perfect forecasting, we forgot. You just know in advance what the wind will do and shut down yoru machine way ahead of time. Simple! That might work for a prototype if you are not on a deadline (which everyone is). Every professor crackpot thinks they can ignore what those with experience have learned is job 1 in wind energy: overspeed protection.

Why? Strong winds provide the best opportunity to finally make some power instead of going bankrupt after sitting in a month of calm, for example. There's no way your business can withstand shutting down every time the threat of winds over speed X occurs. Your machine has to be able, in real time, to operate in winds up to say, as an example, 70 MPH, which is normal at hub height on a productive day in Palm Springs for instance, but if a gust of a couple MPH faster comes along, the machine has to have a way to NOT collect that extra power, and today's land-based turbines should actually already be dumping almost all the power by the time the wind is at 70 MPH.

There has to be a way to shut down the system in winds of any speed. The idea that you will just shut down the whole system on any day when there is a danger of winds over a certain speed is exactly opposite to how the industry works.

Yes if there is some ridiculous major storm about to hit, one might shut down the whole windfarm in advance, but overall, storms provide opportunity for productive output, and the machines have to be able to respond in real time by first overspeed protection, then a failure-avoidance emergency mode such as automatically-deployed tip brakes, etc.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7287 From: Doug Date: 9/30/2012
Subject: Re: AeroE�lica
Hey Joe
Amazing how many items you find! Here's my "troubleshooting" on what I think I see in the pictures:
1) Too little swept area to capture enough energy to be economical;
2) The endless press-releases of "future" giant blimps seem promising, but the resulting actual blimp or airship seldom, if ever, actually emerges. With today's computer rendering, and the internet, a dream can be shared across the world, but it may still be only a dream. The economics of airships must be very close to the edge of feasibility, or we would have seen many more by now. Wish we had more.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7288 From: John Oyebanji Date: 9/30/2012
Subject: AirborneWindEnergy: DaveS vs DougS
I wish Doug were also an aeronautic expert as much as DaveS.
For #AirborneWindEnergy, I will well listen to Doug, but I definitely will walk away with DaveS (again) for now.
Further Lifts,
John O
John Adeoye Oyebanji;
CEO, Hardensoft International
President-protem, Airborne Wind Energy Industry Association - AWEIA International
From: "Doug" <doug@selsam.com
Sender: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2012 13:42:16 -0000
To: <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [AWES] Re: How AWES will easily survive storms

 

You have lifted this idea from the Professor Crackpot Newbie book of "knowing it all" by knowing nothing, about wind energy. Just make it up as you go along. Every newbie has that same answer when asked about overspeed. Once again you present a caricature of newbie thinking, compolete with the authoritative, know-it-all tone we've seen so many times over the years with each new professor C. who stumbles down the pike.

The biggest problem in wind energy is no problem for you because you have the typical newbie solution to overspeed "We'll just shut 'er down if it gets windy!" Really, how, if it is that windy, do you shut 'er down? Oh you have perfect forecasting, we forgot. You just know in advance what the wind will do and shut down yoru machine way ahead of time. Simple! That might work for a prototype if you are not on a deadline (which everyone is). Every professor crackpot thinks they can ignore what those with experience have learned is job 1 in wind energy: overspeed protection.

Why? Strong winds provide the best opportunity to finally make some power instead of going bankrupt after sitting in a month of calm, for example. There's no way your business can withstand shutting down every time the threat of winds over speed X occurs. Your machine has to be able, in real time, to operate in winds up to say, as an example, 70 MPH, which is normal at hub height on a productive day in Palm Springs for instance, but if a gust of a couple MPH faster comes along, the machine has to have a way to NOT collect that extra power, and today's land-based turbines should actually already be dumping almost all the power by the time the wind is at 70 MPH.

There has to be a way to shut down the system in winds of any speed. The idea that you will just shut down the whole system on any day when there is a danger of winds over a certain speed is exactly opposite to how the industry works.

Yes if there is some ridiculous major storm about to hit, one might shut down the whole windfarm in advance, but overall, storms provide opportunity for productive output, and the machines have to be able to respond in real time by first overspeed protection, then a failure-avoidance emergency mode such as automatically-deployed tip brakes, etc.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7289 From: dave santos Date: 9/30/2012
Subject: Re: How AWES will easily survive storms
Doug,

Pilots do in fact decide not to fly in marginal conditions, rather than die. They have unions and regulation on their side.

Real kite systems have "kite killers". No matter if the wind sneaks up, a kite killer mechanism works anyway.

How come you never lament being an aviation and kite newbie? You endlessly browbeat others as newbies but never notice how weak your flying background is. You should be studying instead.

You never noted my review of contributing factors to HAWT electrical burn-out. It seemed to well exceed your own grasp of the subject. I did not trivialize the subject.

In our case we are least both conventional utility wind newbie students, since your known work is with small turbines.

dave
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7290 From: Joe Faust Date: 9/30/2012
Subject: Overspeed Protection
What is each AWES team doing about OSP matters?   
[ ] Your notes, papers, links, and reports are invited. 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7291 From: Joe Faust Date: 9/30/2012
Subject: Sorting kite arches by wind-direction dependence
Kite arches relative to wind-direction dependence: 
1. Dependent  
2. Non-dependent   (omnidirectional ?)

The kite arches dependent on wind direction may concern with site issues, anchor-movement issues, overspeed protection (OSP) issues.  Static-positioned anchors and mobile-positioned anchors provide special concerns.

The non-wind-direction-dependent arches may concern with tangle issues, control issues, and OSP issues.

Merits and challenges within each category of kite arches sorted by dependence or independence of wind direction for AWES applications may be explored. 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7292 From: Joe Faust Date: 9/30/2012
Subject: Article: "EnerKite sets new benchmarks in Airborne Wind Energy"
Article: "EnerKite sets new benchmarks in Airborne Wind Energy "

Interviews

EnerKite sets new benchmarks in Airborne Wind Energy

Location:    27th September 2012  To: 27th September 2012


[[Note: Article translation or authoring seems to misspell company name with s or the author also seems to be generating a neologism with "energkites" as a generic term for the devices used by company EnerKite.  This all might be caused from translation form one language to English.   Thanks to DaveS for lead to link. ]]
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7293 From: Joe Faust Date: 9/30/2012
Subject: Re: Article: "EnerKite sets new benchmarks in Airborne Wind Energy"
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7294 From: roderickjosephread Date: 9/30/2012
Subject: Re: Overspeed Protection
I'll mostly be steering, and spilling wind with elastic collapse...
However alot of other options and systems are applicable to my current test.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7295 From: Bob Stuart Date: 9/30/2012
Subject: Re: Overspeed Protection
To solve a similar problem, where I wanted to limit the force provided by a cantilevered fin, I modified a section of the main spar near the root to be similar to two pieces of a common steel tape measure.  They can be arranged back-to back, or as a single S section, as long as they are stiff up to a given load, but then change into a flat shape that can handle large, wind-spilling deflections and still recover elastically.  The recovery force can be fine-tuned to give more working time than a standard tape measure section would.  
This principle can be extended to inflated spars and many other parts.  I'm indebted to J.E. Gordon for pointing out the ways that grasses can survive being trodden upon.  He also notes that leaves, when overloaded in high wind, turn into rather slippery, but stable cone shapes instead of flapping.  
Bob Stuart

On 30-Sep-12, at 3:15 PM, roderickjosephread wrote:
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7296 From: dave santos Date: 9/30/2012
Subject: Re: Arch of trains
Keep in mind the kite precept that "If if can tangle, it will." At some point the close-set trains would cross and either twist up or saw each other's line. The solution is simple; add cross-lines as needed. Even just one arch cross-line along the top would tend to draw double-crossings apart (single-crossing events would be prevented by top arch).

It is amazing how many common kite designs temporarily self-foul, but if there is a gentle restoring force built-in, the fouling will work itself out. A top arch line across the trains would add such as restoring force to interfering trains.

Once one goes down the path of arch lines, it makes sense to put lift directly along them, rather than only use trains, which after all require a more elaborate unit-kite construction. Perhaps where this is headed is a sort of train made of many tandem arches, but it ceases to look train-like. We have been calling these sorts of augmented arch configurations "meshes" or "nets". 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7297 From: Naveed Syed Date: 9/30/2012
Subject: Re: Some Clarification on Wind Alternators
Thanks Doug,

I have read about the idea to have a helicopter style generator elevated above 25000 ft connected to a tether to make electricity from the high altitude winds. I'm assuming a smaller generator would not overheat at the colder air temp in those altitudes? Also, was this idea ever tested or is it just another theory?
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7298 From: dave santos Date: 9/30/2012
Subject: Re: Sorting kite arches by wind-direction dependence (plus "Kite Dom
We can say definitively that a normal arch must rotate to follow major change in wind direction (greater than common veering of about 90deg.). Decorative festival arches are easily turned by dragging their sandbag anchors about. Mothra1 has a belaying-winch cableway on one side to turn it, and this worked, but we hardly used or needed it. Many wind shifts are best accommodated by slacking the windward anchor. The surprise method we discovered was to land the arch (very easy by design), unshackle it, roll it up from both ends into the "Torah Scroll", rotate-in-place the rolled-up kite, then unroll it to its new orientation, shackle to new anchors, and relaunch (again very easy). The whole process only took a couple of minutes for the 300m2 arch, and was very safe and manageable, avoiding high actuation force and obviating the capital equipment to handle high force.

The term "Kite Dome" has been proposed for omnidirectional "arched" kites that accept wind from any quarter. They are distinct from single-arches, as they have a radial cupped geometry and a minimum of three anchors. The main design trick is to support whichever is the upwind lip or lips from luffing, using standard solutions. A nice refinement will be kixels rigged to tilt into trim position by common array drawlines, without having to tilt the whole dome
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7299 From: Joe Faust Date: 9/30/2012
Subject: Re: Sorting kite arches by wind-direction dependence (plus "Kite Dom
"Normal arch"  seems to be applicable to those kite arches that fix wing elements generally parallel to the main arch load path. 
"Dome" kite arches  seem to the beginning of "second floor"  arrangements where the new floor becomes a place for attaching aerial anchors of other flying elements. 

Pause on a "non-normal" and "non-Dome" and just two-anchor omnidirectional fairly-easy kite arch that needs no anchor movements at terra firma when wind changes about the frull wind rose:   The key regards flying-unit lead lines.  Stake out two spread anchors; have a load-path arch line longer than the straight distance between the two spread anchors.  At mid arch line attach, say 10 separated single-wing-sub-kite systems with a non-tangle spread schedule along the main arch load-path line. Let the wings fly.  See the main arch line rise. Let the wind rotate during the hours to all points of the wind rose. The arch will stay aerial; the sub kite systems will stay flying. The two anchors of the load path need not be altered.  As this kind of arch kite system is not seen much, it is not mathematically "normal" in the population of kite systems; but it has a regular right to survive in the kite culture.   I've looked for images of examples of such  two-fixed-anchor omnidirectional kite arch, but is is not new, except its description is hard to find.   Pausing here might help the sparse attention on it. Such a system is an constructive element of some "Dome" arrays or meshes.  DaveS has mentioned "leader lines" in some text that is close to this matter.  But the prior post insistence on three anchors is stressing me to have this pause comment and description.   The trivial omnidirectional two-fixed-anchor system is the single-line kite whose tether bifurcates to two spread anchors; the anchors need not be moved when the wind changes to any direction; such load-path line looks more like a triangle than an arch; just add more single-line kites to the load-path line to get the "polygonal" arch (term used by DaveS and Rod Read) for cousin matters.   DaveS points out the tangle prcept which would play on the scheduled distance apart of the roots of the single-line sub kite units placed on the omnidirectional arching load-path doming line; two anchors suffice and they can be fixed; let the wind blow from any direction ... and still no need to change the position of the anchors.  

I have proposed an earth-surrounding load-path line with one line to soil that goes up to a circle line that goes around the earth to which are connected single-line kite sub units. The net common west to east flows will on average sometimes permit the earth to be so surrounded. Until that is achieved, what records might be achieved for two-fixed-anchor kite arches holding those leader-lined sub-kite units set apart enough not to tangle with each other?   Who will reach the 10 km achor-spread first? The 100 km anchor spread?  The 1000 km anchor spread?   The Los Angeles to Delaware anchor spread?     And what "AWEifications" might climb aboard the "two-fixed anchor omnidirectional kite arch systems" ?    
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7300 From: Joe Faust Date: 9/30/2012
Subject: Re: Sorting kite arches by wind-direction dependence (plus "Kite Dom
Here is a non-self drawing just found: 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7301 From: Joe Faust Date: 9/30/2012
Subject: Re: Sorting kite arches by wind-direction dependence (plus "Kite Dom
But that author apparently did not appreciate that he did not have to instruct "perpendicular to the wind" for anchor set.

His caption note:
"Tether Anchor: One final option is to anchor a strong line perpendicular to the wind and then attach several kites into this "tether" with shorter lines. This is another way to maximize the amount of sail you fly in a limited space. Increased safety is another benefit."

The "perpendicular" to wind was unnecessary restraint. The wind may change to any direction and the anchors need not be changed.
His drawing looks like the spread was not enough to prevent tangle. But that could be fixed.

JoeF
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7302 From: Joe Faust Date: 9/30/2012
Subject: Re: Sorting kite arches by wind-direction dependence
Wind-direction-dependent kite arches of the ribbon sort come in two main variety: 
Flip-wing (rotating ribbon)
and
Non-rotating. 

Here is a non-rotating ribbon arch kite wind-direction dependent kite arch example:
When such a "ribbon" is segmented, we get "normal" kite arches with left-right spar lined with load-path.

Here is a rotating ribbon wind-direction dependent kite arch: 

Move one achor if the wind changes enough. 
These matters are to show contrast with the fixed-two-anchor wind-omnidirectional kite arch described in above post where wing left-right spar sense need not be parallel with the main arch load-path. 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7303 From: dave santos Date: 9/30/2012
Subject: Re: Sorting kite arches by wind-direction dependence (plus "Kite Dom
JoeF,

This is a fantastic design space; not exactly what we mean by AWE, but suddenly we know how to build almost anything across the sky, "cheap, fast, and in-control", so long as the wind blows.

Your original sketch for this thread did show the trains set very close along the arch loadpath, but its true that the arch line could be tens of kilometers, and the trains well separated. You are saying that any kind of spider-work fixed in the sky can be kept up by trains that fly regardless of wind direction. Trains allow greater lift than single unit kites, so its a scalable method. How about classing it as a "lifter-train" method? As suggested, one can also put single lifters on leaders all over a string loadpath network. Ed has been flying this sort of arch in Austin lately, as training. 


So any sort of arch, dome, or matrix can be lifted by distributed lifters, which do all the required rotating with wind direction. Lets not forget to consider dynamic anchor fields as a sort of many legged mirror world. Could we make giant tumbling structures even? It seems so, if one masters the magic hidden in "rag and string".

What delightful madness, to imagine the infinite possibilities of combining all known kite methods 8^)

daveS
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7304 From: John Oyebanji Date: 9/30/2012
Subject: Link to AWEIA
Thanks, Pierre.
The aweia.org website is still under reconstruction. While it is expected back up soon, Michael Ojabo - the developer is here copied to at least put up an informative notice of work-in-progress.
Regards.
JohnO

Quoting Pierre:

"
John,
The link to
http://aweia.org (and also from Wikipedia) goes to an empty page.

Best regards,
Pierre Benhaïem 
"
John Adeoye Oyebanji;
CEO, Hardensoft International
President-protem, Airborne Wind Energy Industry Association - AWEIA International
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7305 From: Doug Date: 9/30/2012
Subject: Re: AirborneWindEnergy: DaveS vs DougS
We are endlessly entertaining.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7306 From: roderickjosephread Date: 10/1/2012
Subject: Re: Sorting kite arches by wind-direction dependence (plus "Kite Dom
A few more arch possibilities

An arch could be flown on top of the spread spar ends of a Makani style kite  ... thus you can fly an arch with a single ground tether.

or 

Short lifting kite trains between layers of arching, are set on a swivel spar top and bottom. As long as the arch is launched top first, always pulling lower levels upward... This keeps the trains taught and able to follow the wind.

I know we tend toward avoiding "spar" as it suggests rigid weight, but we can't deny their use. Sparred kites are less prone to collapse in sudden changes of direction.

Assume a swivel mounted tether bifurcates to attach onto two ends of one spar... can the tether still continue up through the skin of lifting ram air kites? then attach onto a top spar ends, then rejoin at a top tether....? This way the tethers are kept spread for stability, the kites cant tangle, you can follow any wind change...

Instead of going through the kite why not use an inner web as a tether attachment top and bottom avoiding piercing and internal pressure loss...

It's usually mixes of tech elements which brings the greatest changes 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7307 From: Rod Read Date: 10/1/2012
Subject: Re: Arch of trains

There's a very sketchy rendering just being posted to my youtube Page

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7308 From: dave santos Date: 10/1/2012
Subject: Makani preparing Wing 8 for hoped end-to-end all-modes sessions.
A brief glimpse of a new Wing 7 sized prototype is seen the recent Toyota e-car video blog just as Makani announced at AWEC2012 that they would go for an end-to-end all-mode proof-of-concept flight in December. We can reasonably suppose this new wing, call it Wing 8, is intended to do the basic feat that Wing 7 failed to show.

Its going to be very exciting to see what happens. Its time to reactivate our Alameda flygen-spotter network, as we hardly hope for an open invitation to view what will be a badly needed triumph or major debacle.

Progress on the large M600 is stalled, and the timelines announced have (once again) slipped. Wing 8 may be do-or-die for the fabulous Google-backed team long considered "too rich to fail". In aerospace, one cannot forever levitate on easy millions and great publicity.

Lets hope Makani succeeds enough to survive to compete against Low Complexity AWE in comparative engineering fly-offs.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7309 From: Joe Faust Date: 10/1/2012
Subject: Re: Arch of trains
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7310 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 10/1/2012
Subject: Re: Makani preparing Wing 8 for hoped end-to-end all-modes sessions.
Is this the video?

Also: http://youtu.be/k_CJgGJNlLM
 "almost like a kite"          [Ed: actually a kite!  I hope one day that reps from MP will know and say that they have a kite, not something "almost like." A new day may open when "actually" is fully faced boldly, courageously, proudly, and without hide or wince.]
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7311 From: dave santos Date: 10/1/2012
Subject: Re: Arch of trains

Nice animation Roddy, 

Its great to see progress like this. The stacked parafoils are right out of the '80s, but its time for a comeback. Here is an amazing AWES design coming out of a shining fog.

A few notes to ponder-

- Side arch tarps progressively "wash-out", they twist like a modern aircraft or bird wing, to reduce induced drag.

- The center tarps, by contrast, are pulled in toward stall. The centerline is where overall Cl (coefficient of lift) is best controlled.

- The trains need more tether above and below to really get sweeping. Tapering foil-sets might be ideal.

- From harmonics we know that the tarps and anchors here act as fixed harmonic nodes and the sweeping trains are maximum amplitude antinodes.

- It follows that you want an even-number of trains for a balanced "tuning fork" normal mode. You can still play with other major modes.

- Bulk resonance in a large array like this will be an  ###some ballet.

- The phased firing of the trains can smoothly drive a large COTS crankshafts (like those in Ultra Class haul trucks or small ships) of several megawatts capacity

- The lower tarp arch section does not do much: Its in lower wind and lift is not needed at that location. A bare rope-arch to rig trains from, with all tarps on top, seems best.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7312 From: Joe Faust Date: 10/1/2012
Subject: Re: Arch of trains
We've noted this before, but it seems fit to be in this conversation:
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7313 From: Joe Faust Date: 10/1/2012
Subject: London Array, 1 GW under construction
I do not often post dips into towered wind turbine text, but the London Array seems a fit power target for AWES gang-and-array rag-and-line efforts. 
The world will take notice when 1 GW  is obtained from a single ground generator station driven by load-transfer lines to dancing aerial sails.  It will be wondered how low-mass is the system compared to the London Array. In first stage: 175 SWT-3.6 , each has a tonnage of ______?_______.      In second stage the array is to have 217 turbines; I do not have the tonnage on the turbines, but taking a figure regarding Siemens 6 MW baby at 360 tonnes, the 217x360=78,120 tonnes for 750,000 homes served or about 200 lb per home.   What will be the mass-of-materials-used figure for an AWES equivalent?
The London Array: 


On the SWT-3.6: 
Weights (approximately)
Rotor   100,000 kg
Nacelle   125,000 kg
Tower for 90 m hub height Site-specific
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7314 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 10/1/2012
Subject: Re: Arch of trains

What a class!

As both talentuous designer,master in 3D and conceptor in AWE Roddy could realize a resume of energykitesystems (being kept of course in actual version) for a presentation outdoors,a little like his first idea.

PierreB
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7315 From: Joe Faust Date: 10/1/2012
Subject: LEP
Line Encyclopedia Project (LEP),   
Line Encyclopedia, a publication by Upper Windpower.
Mission statement: 
LEP is to be a free Internet-based encyclopedia about lines 
for the purpose of increasing the safety and success of kiting activities.

=================
Your notes, papers, links, etc. that align with LEP
are invited for incorporation.  

Thank you, 
JoeF
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7316 From: roderickjosephread Date: 10/2/2012
Subject: Re: Arch of trains
Orite orite, calm down Pierre!
If only we had more people working on this... These designs would have
happened years ago.

Dave I had considered this rig as a collective puller. Not taking power
from multiple nodes...
but instead collectively swaying all of the kites to pull alternate left
then right tethers...lifting water or such

In order to pull alterate sides with as many kites as possible, working
one side at a time, and maintaining the arch dynamic, I should put
whipple tree tethers on the arch below the trains.

Setting trains under grouped arches just looks like It's a steadier way
to work trains. hope it is.

I think I should get around to designing the control lines on.
The collective steering systems (and there are quite a few) need to be
done on or above the points of bifuraction.

Yeah the kites should all be set a bit more "lifty"

Steering the arch around "may" be achieved with a walking motion...
e.g. using the trains to steer the arch to the left, the tension in the
rigging can be focused on the right foot, the left can be lifted / slid
/ moved and refixed more crosswind relative to the right.

alternately..
A central pair of Furling lines on the arches... as per yacht foresails,
would allow a two fronted arch.
e.g. roll in the downwind side (pointing backward) and extend the upwind
side into the wind

now for arches as hexagonal grids... wonder If I can get them them to
walk too? (only as a monsterous vision so far)
roddy