Messages in AirborneWindEnergy group.                           AWES7417to7466 Page 46 of 440.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7417 From: Rod Read Date: 10/9/2012
Subject: Re: AWES Scoring Matrix Design

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7418 From: Pierre Benhaiem Date: 10/9/2012
Subject: Re: AWES Scoring Matrix Design

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7419 From: dave santos Date: 10/9/2012
Subject: Re: AWES Scoring Matrix Design

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7420 From: dave santos Date: 10/9/2012
Subject: Best AWE Altitude is higher than a 500m wind tower //Re: [AWES] AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7421 From: Bob Stuart Date: 10/9/2012
Subject: Re: Best AWE Altitude is higher than a 500m wind tower //Re: [AWES]

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7422 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 10/9/2012
Subject: re: Best AWE Altitude is higher than a 500m wind tower  //Re: [AWES

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7423 From: dave santos Date: 10/9/2012
Subject: Re: Best AWE Altitude is higher than a 500m wind tower  //Re: [AWES

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7424 From: dave santos Date: 10/10/2012
Subject: Ask Damon: Bird Poo Threat to Offshore AWTs ? (Ornithologist's Opini

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7425 From: dave santos Date: 10/10/2012
Subject: Superposed States of AWESs (Quantum Kiting 101)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7426 From: Joe Faust Date: 10/10/2012
Subject: Interlude: Weather Wizards: Wayne German and Cristina Archer

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7427 From: Joe Faust Date: 10/10/2012
Subject: K3 bolstered by "peer economy"

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7428 From: Doug Date: 10/10/2012
Subject: Re: pumping AWE - (my dog dumps sand when he gets up too)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7429 From: dave santos Date: 10/10/2012
Subject: Re: pumping AWE - (my dog dumps sand when he gets up too)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7430 From: Doug Date: 10/11/2012
Subject: Re: pumping AWE - (my dog gets up)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7431 From: Joe Faust Date: 10/11/2012
Subject: Re: pumping AWE - (my dog gets up)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7432 From: dave santos Date: 10/11/2012
Subject: "...certainly none of them are "revolutionary"" Paul Gipe

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7433 From: dave santos Date: 10/11/2012
Subject: Re: pumping AWE - (my dog gets up)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7434 From: Massimo Ippolito Date: 10/11/2012
Subject: Re: Lang's patent

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7435 From: Joe Faust Date: 10/11/2012
Subject: Re: Lang's patent

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7436 From: Joe Faust Date: 10/11/2012
Subject: Line-tension to launch kite

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7437 From: roderickjosephread Date: 10/11/2012
Subject: AWE not always easy

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7438 From: Joe Faust Date: 10/11/2012
Subject: Re: AWE not always easy

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7439 From: dave santos Date: 10/11/2012
Subject: Quantum Kiting 101 (Quantum Entanglement)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7440 From: Joe Faust Date: 10/11/2012
Subject: US patent office seeks aid to spot bogus patent claims

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7441 From: roderickjosephread Date: 10/11/2012
Subject: Re: AWE not always easy

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7442 From: roderickjosephread Date: 10/11/2012
Subject: Re: Quantum Kiting 101 (Quantum Entanglement)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7443 From: dave santos Date: 10/11/2012
Subject: Re: US patent office seeks aid to spot bogus patent claims

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7444 From: Doug Date: 10/11/2012
Subject: Re: pumping AWE - (my dog dumps sand when he gets up too)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7445 From: Pierre Benhaiem Date: 10/11/2012
Subject: Rim Driven Wind Turbine (RDWT),drag-based and lift-based blades

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7446 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 10/11/2012
Subject: Re: Rim Driven Wind Turbine (RDWT),drag-based and lift-based blades

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7447 From: Doug Date: 10/11/2012
Subject: Re: "...certainly none of them are "revolutionary"" Paul Gipe

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7448 From: dave santos Date: 10/11/2012
Subject: Re: Rim Driven Wind Turbine (RDWT),drag-based and lift-based blades

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7449 From: Doug Date: 10/11/2012
Subject: [AWES AWE - suffers from sleep paralysis

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7450 From: Doug Date: 10/11/2012
Subject: Re: Rim Driven Wind Turbine (RDWT),drag-based and lift-based blades

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7451 From: dave santos Date: 10/11/2012
Subject: Magenn Never Fooled Us

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7452 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 10/12/2012
Subject: Re: Rim Driven Wind Turbine (RDWT),drag-based and lift-based blades

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7453 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 10/12/2012
Subject: Re: Rim Driven Wind Turbine (RDWT),drag-based and lift-based blades

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7454 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 10/12/2012
Subject: Re: Rim Driven Wind Turbine (RDWT),drag-based and lift-based blades

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7455 From: Doug Date: 10/12/2012
Subject: Re: Rim Driven Wind Turbine: Honeywell's laughingstock

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7456 From: Doug Date: 10/12/2012
Subject: Re: Magenn Never Fooled Us - Sta-Puf Marshmallow Man

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7457 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 10/12/2012
Subject: Re: Rim Driven Wind Turbine: Honeywell's laughingstock

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7458 From: dave santos Date: 10/12/2012
Subject: Re: Magenn Never Fooled Us

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7459 From: dave santos Date: 10/12/2012
Subject: Coy Harris about "Honeywell's laughingstock" (confirms third-party r

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7460 From: dave santos Date: 10/12/2012
Subject: Re: Rim Driven Wind Turbine (RDWT),drag-based and lift-based blades

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7461 From: dave santos Date: 10/12/2012
Subject: AWE Forecast- "We are still sitting on a barrel of dynamite"

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7462 From: Joe Faust Date: 10/12/2012
Subject: Re: Rim Driven Wind Turbine (RDWT),drag-based and lift-based blades

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7463 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 10/12/2012
Subject: Re: Coy Harris about "Honeywell's laughingstock" (confirms third-par

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7464 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 10/12/2012
Subject: Re: Rim Driven Wind Turbine (RDWT),drag-based and lift-based blades

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7465 From: dave santos Date: 10/12/2012
Subject: NASA's latest AWE Video

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7466 From: Joe Faust Date: 10/12/2012
Subject: Launch AWES components by electromagnetic railguns?



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7417 From: Rod Read Date: 10/9/2012
Subject: Re: AWES Scoring Matrix Design
Treat each category as a knock-out round in a competition..
This way every design has to reach a credible minimum before qualifying to go to the next category ... all the way to qualifying for a final score.


Rod Read

15a Aiginis
Isle of Lewis
HS2 0PB

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7418 From: Pierre Benhaiem Date: 10/9/2012
Subject: Re: AWES Scoring Matrix Design
DaveS,
 
" Conventional HAWT's can't do such feats, nor do they tap the best wind".Yes for now,but by soon (in 20 years) lighter HAWT will can tap winds at 500 m height and offshore from 50 km to the coast,in other words by soon HAWT will tap the best winds (excepted jets-streams which can be the main application of AWE if their power is confirmed) by huge swept areas and maybe replace a great part of fossil. 
 
PierreB
 
 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7419 From: dave santos Date: 10/9/2012
Subject: Re: AWES Scoring Matrix Design
Rod wrote- "Treat each category as a knock-out round in a competition.. This way every design has to reach a credible minimum before qualifying to go to the next category ... all the way to qualifying for a final score."

This works for top winners, but we also want the fullest picture. We need to see the final scatterplots with all contenders present, without throwing out masses of "loser" data. Even the cranks have a place in the study. We can take many views of the data, after all. Also note that a "knock-out" loser may still find good niches, like an "unsafe" system put out to sea, or an "unaffordable" system owned by an elite, and then the matrix "winner" can lose anyway, if the world energy market so dictates.

Our best bet is to get as much quality raw data as possible in play. We can let players self-identify qualitatives (like flygen or groundgen), but we can't expect them to properly quantify merits (like "how safe is your AWES?") without bias. Perhaps a rigorous peer-ranking protocol will serve for this. One would use third-party domain experts in each category, like power engineers exclusively ranking energy generation, CPA/MBA types for reviewing financial dimensions, and aerospace types opining only on flight performance. Near Zero had all its variously specialized experts voting equally on all matters, which introduced domain-ignorance biases into the data that in some cases overwhelmed domain-expert views.

Who wants to do the matrix spread-sheet?
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7420 From: dave santos Date: 10/9/2012
Subject: Best AWE Altitude is higher than a 500m wind tower //Re: [AWES] AWE
Pierre,

The facts are on our side.

Its going to cost a lot for 500m wind towers and they are still too short for the best wind. Christina Archer, based on decades of global wind data, predicts the best AWE winds to be about 1000-2000m. Anyone can clearly see this "wind maxima" zone in the data plots. Add more string to get there, and in principle beat any tower.

Never give up hope,

daveS
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7421 From: Bob Stuart Date: 10/9/2012
Subject: Re: Best AWE Altitude is higher than a 500m wind tower //Re: [AWES]
In years ahead, large arrays of kites might help in mitigating the increased storm activity of a warmer climate.  We may learn to deploy them strategically to steer air masses harmlessly.  Power companies might be asked to fly at certain altitudes and times, and to avoid others.  If a butterfly wing can start a cyclone. . .

Bob Stuart

On 9-Oct-12, at 3:51 PM, dave santos wrote:
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7422 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 10/9/2012
Subject: re: Best AWE Altitude is higher than a 500m wind tower  //Re: [AWES


DaveS,

 

Global Assessment of High-Altitude Wind Power - Home pages  p.310:"the altitude range between 500 and 2000 m has relative constant wind power densities".Particulary at a longer distance of coast,differences between seafloor and high altitude wind speeds above sea are low,by far lower than on land.It will be easier to build 500 m HAWT on sea as to built AWE 2000 m above land and probably towns,with moving parts (tethers) towing with a force of roughly 100 tonnes (per 2 MW) on all tether length,making it a giant invisible guillotine.The possibility for an HAWT to harness HAWE is an indication for AWE to going towards proved ways if it is yet possible.Else identifying some niches.

 

What can give up hope is illusion and no apparent progress,the (interesting) discussions between yourself and Doug being a symptom of what (repetition) produces illusion.

 

However it is quite probable searches in AWE will result in new important ways for some industries.But staying without end in the same AWE paradigm (the betterc conversion system is for later but we will win when others would lost) without wanting to see pogress in HAWT is not a sign of progress but a confinement in one sterile monade where all exterior things (HAWT,even some AWE like Makani) out off our circle is wrong.

 

In fact searches in AWE are useful both for some branches of aviation (inherent stability, lightness...) and wind energy by searches into new materials and means of control to make possible and with good ROI huge fixed rotors,and of course some branches of kites themselves.I see for kite systems means to improve aviation and wind turbine,then indirectly aviation as improving wind turbine,and vice-versa.

 

 

PierreB

 




 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7423 From: dave santos Date: 10/9/2012
Subject: Re: Best AWE Altitude is higher than a 500m wind tower  //Re: [AWES
PierrB,

Thanks for looking up Cristina's exact quote.

Consider that for wind in "the altitude range between 500 and 2000 m", that AWE can potentially harvest this entire ~1500m thick accelerated layer, while 500m towers only scrape the bottom.

In AWE, we should perhaps call this common LLJ wind maxima zone the "German-Archer Jet" :)

daveS
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7424 From: dave santos Date: 10/10/2012
Subject: Ask Damon: Bird Poo Threat to Offshore AWTs ? (Ornithologist's Opini
Below is a email thread with Rob Fergus, a leading ornithologist in state-of-the-art bird nuisance abatement, regarding offshore AWTs and the bird poo threat. In summary- Bad News: Noise is not likely be repellent enough and fouling can occur to the extent that perching surfaces are provided.

Makani is once again openly asked for its intended solution to a specific KiteLab Group identified failure-mode (bird poo fouled airfoils (wings and props), sensors (pitots, static ports, etc.), and generators (windings and heat sinks). Is there a plausible "Ask Damon" answer that cautious AWES investment can bank on?
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7425 From: dave santos Date: 10/10/2012
Subject: Superposed States of AWESs (Quantum Kiting 101)
I have been asked to review kite quantum physics basics for non-physicists on the AWES Forum. Voila-

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

AWES Quantum Hypothesis- Phonon-based  Kite Quantum Physics must show every property of general Quantum Field Theory (QFT). These properties include Uncertainty, Coherence, Superposition, Entanglement, Bose-Einstein Statistics, and so on.

Lets start with some still unnamed fundamental Kite Superposed States-

1) Fully extended string at near-zero tension is the superposed state between the slack and tensioned states.

2) A parafoil or sail in its inflated geometric state, but at near-zero pressure is the superposed state between the collapsed and pressurized states.

3) A kite system during launching occupies superposed states between parked and deployed.

These are key flight-mode/failure-mode transitional factors. Kite QFT is thus predictive of empirical AWES operational challenges, and provides a unifying conceptual framework for abstract analysis across diverse cases.


--------------------------------------------

Quantum Kiting 101- Next: Quantum Kite Entanglement*

* pun not intended :) 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7426 From: Joe Faust Date: 10/10/2012
Subject: Interlude: Weather Wizards: Wayne German and Cristina Archer
Meant to be a compliment
and here dedicated to Low Level Jets Weather Wizards: 
Wayne German and Cristina Archer: 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7427 From: Joe Faust Date: 10/10/2012
Subject: K3 bolstered by "peer economy"

peer economy       socially-coupled economy
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7428 From: Doug Date: 10/10/2012
Subject: Re: pumping AWE - (my dog dumps sand when he gets up too)
--- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, dave santos <santos137@... ***OK so now your arch is a losing idea...
***Great, it's a visually impressive stunt.
****Thanks, what a kind offer - somehow I suspect it is insincere unless I do all the work - OK let's do it. Come over and lift all my turbines.
****You published a video of this sand falling, calling the video some major comprehensive breakthrough in AWE - I saw no AWE in the video, just sand falling.
****You are correct, I am wasting my time suggesting applications for your nonsense, since you interpret it as "complaining" rather than a constructive suggestion, and I will endeavor to not waste another second replying to your posts
****Why not run it by Paul Gipe? Back to idiot newbie-land now eh Dave? Sure reciprocating cycles are the answer - turn back the clock 3000 years to a time before anyone realized that steady-state rotation was the way to go, cite auto engines and the Wright Brothers like all newbies! Go ahead and make a reciprocating system - who is stopping you?

Smart people want to know if something has been tried before (yes) and if it worked well (no). Others want to rediscover it for themselves, or better yet, try to impress a new generation of people who don't yet know it is a bad idea, with their genius. That is a bad long-term idea because eventually they will realize you were promoting a bad idea.

***Dave S., I pointed out an application for your reciprocating ideas.
It's quite telling that you see that as a reason to attack me. Why? The other choice might be to develop a reciprocating water-pumping AWE system. The reason you would rather attack me than say "thanks for the idea" or just develop it, is you are never going to develop anything - it would be too hard - you are going to talk about it forever, changing your main design every month or so, so you have for the past couple years. You can probably always find one more person swayed by mere words to worship your unrealized genius.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7429 From: dave santos Date: 10/10/2012
Subject: Re: pumping AWE - (my dog dumps sand when he gets up too)
Doug,

Relax. Your Eternal Atman is not attacked; its only hurtful attitudes holding you down, like how you ignore aviation wisdom and piss on academia. Let such stressful habits go and you will be happy.

If you then eagerly desire that your turbines can finally fly high, under a Mothra, they need to be hoistable by a halyard. Landing skids or legs, and a tail surface need to be light and effective. A suitable conductor cable of about 500ft completes preparation for flight. Let me know how much of this you can handle, and if you can match funds for the demo with us (Util, LLC) after spending so much on patents. Berlin 2013 is a great demo opp, if you can meet us there. We might cover costs if you are broke, but willing to work hard for a shot at glory.

Its silly to imagine dumping sand is Morthra's sole raison d'etre.  Yes, it was an "impressive stunt"; thanks for the rare compliment. Make no mistake: Our claimed engineering revolution is to lift almost anything, anywhere, cheap, with wind.

We contacted Gipe recently in a small AWE group. He insists he is not an engineer who can properly settle tough technical questions. It wasn't even him who first spotted the funky backyard "fantasy turbine" fad, some German wind super-engineer did. Gipe did enjoy taking the top public lead over the decades in claiming no further revolution in wind energy was possible!* Poor guy spent half his life promoting conventional wind and never once saw AWE coming. Who else you got for us to learn from?

daveS


* Presumably including Superturbine (R) claims.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7430 From: Doug Date: 10/11/2012
Subject: Re: pumping AWE - (my dog gets up)
In answer to your statement below, Paul Gipe tested a SuperTurbine(R) at his test site for a year. That does not indicate he was thinking "no further revolution in wind energy is possible". To the contrary, Paul would not drive out to his site, help put up a turbine, and run it for a year, taking data, and publish the results, then write a few pages about it in his bestselling book, with photos, if he had a closed mind. Nope, it means he has a very OPEN mind to improvements that CAN be run for a year due to someone working out the details, and creating a reliable machine, before asking the world's biggest wind guru to try the new idea and declare one a genius.

Here are Paul's results testing a SuperTwin(TM) at 8 feet diameter:
http://www.wind-works.org/wulf/DougSelsamsSuperTwinatWulfField.html

Here are Paul's results testing a market-leading Bergey at an 8-foot diameter:
http://www.wind-works.org/wulf/DougSelsamsSuperTwinatWulfField.html

Note the SuperTwin(TM) using blades made from 2x4's from Home Depot outperformed the in-production Bergey with NREL airfoils.

Declaring Paul as "poor guy" saying he wasted half his life, and imagining that he and the rest of the wind energy world recognizes your work as superseding their history of powering millions of houses is quite delusional. I mean really delusional. I think you might be getting JUST a little ahead of yourself...

Saw AWE coming? Saw a waste of more millions of dollars as more newbies re-create thousand-year-old failures under the guise that they are trying something new? What di you want him to do, start promoting Magenn like the rest of the idiots? And what else can you call someone promoting a Magenn? Hey Dave I hate to break it to you but AWE is not here yet. I agree that it has huge potential. If anyone agrees, it is me going back decades. But potential is not the same as mastering it or even utilizing it. Nobody has really utilized airborne wind energy for generating electricity in the broader sense yet. Only as a brief demo, not for actual use. Moreover there is nothing on the horizon. You have groups like SkyWindPower, or me, who have what looks like completely workable concepts but making little progress. I don;t see why. I don't see a problem with the concept of their flying propeller array. Then you have the vast majority of AWE ideas that are characteristic of not comprehending really anything about wind, about energy, or business, or anything else, let alone inculcating a new industry.

Do you understand why Paul Gipe would not even talk to you or entertain your nonsense for a single second? Why the first thing he said to you was "Seeya!"? Been there doen that. I'm sure Paul could easily spend every waking hour entertaining the fantasies of thousands of "Why Won't You Listen To ME" newbies, all spouting the same old tired nonsense of citing piston engines, the Wright Brothers, and promoting reciprocating cycles etc.

While we have heard a LOT of nonsense in the field of wind energy over the years, I think your Bose Einstein wobblers take the cake as perhaps the most irrelevant and misguided "I'm a genius - wheee!" thinking we have ever seen in windnenergy - as chicks like to say when they are being sarcastic "good luck with that"....

Meanwhile, the idea of a crankshaft is not lost on me - sure I can see why it seems promising. I don't see any reason why it shouldn't work. Whether it will form an economical wind energy solution waits to be seen (again). It has never worked out on the ground but maybe it will be different in the air. So go ahead and try it. I guess you would have to make a kite that went up then down automatically, then make a crankshaft, mate it with the right gearbox, the right generator, a proper inverter, maybe a way to smooth out the intermittent power, then connect it all together - oh well, too hard - nevermind.

Of course you could always just throw away everything but the kite that goes up then down and connect it to a well, but a task that simple and stark only serves to illuminate the lack of ability/willingness/focus to get any system working no matter how simple.

If you ever want to get a steady 1 kW in about a 20 mph wind, no questions asked, try carving a 2x4 wall stud into a windmill rotor. Maybe you could apply for a grant for $3 to buy the materials. The weight will be maybe 3 lbs. Rotation will be steady-state, able to spin a generator fast. It will last for many years.

I'm not sure how much crankshaft, gearbox, computer, generator,and kite you might need to generate that same steady-state 1 kW, but what we've seen over the years is the newbie's machines often weigh several TONS and cannot match the output of the cheapest off-the-shelf turbines with plastic blades.

But hey, I'd love to see it - I could see some very interesting machines emerging. But I doubt if we will see it. I think it will all be talk, and that's it. I think people have an inner sense of whether they are wasting their time and nobody will ever build one.

But it would be very fun to see.
:)


--- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, dave santos <santos137@...
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7431 From: Joe Faust Date: 10/11/2012
Subject: Re: pumping AWE - (my dog gets up)
Many years ago a blade made for less than $1  was producing electricity that was useful
by DaveS: 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7432 From: dave santos Date: 10/11/2012
Subject: "...certainly none of them are "revolutionary"" Paul Gipe
Paul Gipe years ago concluded as "certain" that no wind energy "revolution" is possible, which includes tapping wind above the reach of towers (link below).

Upper wind is seemingly just another "fantasy turbine" to him. Lets stick with Etzler's 200yr old vision of wind power and the last four decades of serious progress in AWE.

Paul has never thought or written seriously about wind power from its primary reservoir (higher altitudes) since he is "not interested". He has not opined on any specific AWE idea, to my knowledge.

Its a pity that great conventional wind promoters are perhaps not the best judges of future wind power revolutions, as an upper-wind revolution may in fact be our best shot at really displacing fossil fuel and oil. Oh well,


http://www.wind-works.org/articles/FantasyWindTurbines.html
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7433 From: dave santos Date: 10/11/2012
Subject: Re: pumping AWE - (my dog gets up)
Doug,

You go back and forth between "AWE is easy", an matter of making something "in a weekend" and statements like "nothing on the horizon". Why not admit that the truth is somewhere in the middle of these ridiculous extremes?

Make no mistake, AWE is not about any bitter self-proclaimed "greatest living wind energy inventor", but about the upper wind resource, which is real, even if Gipe never noticed it. 

It will take a few more years and a few thousand talented engineers, but its a rather certain outcome that the right kites will emerge to do the job.

How can one be so confident? Get out there with a cheap power kite and feel it *

daveS

* Learning to fly in modern shared airspace helps too.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7434 From: Massimo Ippolito Date: 10/11/2012
Subject: Re: Lang's patent
Attachments :
    Actually DaveL is "guilty as charged" of having proposed one of the best dynamic ideas relating to the AWE concept, and the launch of kites.
    Most people would think that the balloon can act only as a crane, they would never imagine that it could act as a catapult.
    When I read it I was really enthusiastic and we would have liked to adopt it after our comprehensive tests. If only helium cost a bit less or the balloon loss was less than 20% per day.
    Perhaps a less porous balloon or/and hydrogen/ammonia filling could solve the issue.   
    Here we have a picture of one of our tests, with the blue balloon, seen from the satellite.

    Massimo


    		   @@attachment@@
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7435 From: Joe Faust Date: 10/11/2012
    Subject: Re: Lang's patent
    Massimo, 
    • Do you have more photos of the balloon-catapult arrangement?
    •  Have you considered using a rail incline down the hill where a falling mass tugs to launch the kite?  
      •      The mass dropped could be many things: 
        • water. Just release the water to water plants lower on the hill; or release the used water into a culvert that sends the water further down hill for other practical purposes. 
        • Prunings or trash from high; send the mass down the rail to launch the kite. The trash or prunings could be left low for processing, mulching, etc. 
        • Mining? Any ore to be let down the hill?   Dirt moving? 
        • Or use energy to bring back up the same mass. 
    Lift to you and your team, 
    JoeF


    --- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, Massimo Ippolito <m.ippolito@...
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7436 From: Joe Faust Date: 10/11/2012
    Subject: Line-tension to launch kite
    Launch a kite by line tension:
    • Notice that line speed may be increased by using line-speed multipliers. 
    • Notice that phased tugging or pumping energy into the wing set of a kite system is a method, as well as the standard towing. 
    • Notice that stepped towing is a long-stroke version of pumping energy into the wing set of a kite system. 
    • The source of the tension may come from a choice set that is huge, for some examples:
      • Aircraft tow (manned or robot)
      • Other kite systems already far aloft
      • Parachute systems
      • Sail systems
      • River flow
      • Animal teams
      • Human teams
      • Powered winches
      • Moving powered vehicles
      • Falling mass (water, dirt, soil, people, cars, railed cars, trash, ore mined, ...)
      • Rising balloons
      • Tensed bungee cord
      • Torque rubber
      • Springs
      • Ocean waves
      • Anchoring a tether of kite system against ambient wind (the most common method)

    Notes on topic are welcome in this topic thread. 

    Change subject and start new topic for other topics. Use "Post" to start new topic; or start with a fresh email to start a new topic.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7437 From: roderickjosephread Date: 10/11/2012
    Subject: AWE not always easy
    I was in a bit of a rush to get my system together and test today... MacTV were coming for an interview..
    It didn't go too well.
    The lifting kite wasn't steering where it had done previously.
    The stem was not stiff enough.
    Brake equipment was too heavy.
    Ring was too heavy.

    Pretty much as predicted.

    I need to check and change a few things.
    It was an enjoyable experience with a good crew of mates.
    We learned a lot.
    And at least it all stayed connected to the ground.

    I'm probably going to have to change the completely off the shelf / super cheap / one man at home design philosophy, and make something a bit more... eh working

    Might need a large former for a xzylo style mount instead of a bag...

    Sorry we didn't grab any media everyone was focussed on task, however we will be able to share the MacTV footage after it's broadcast.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7438 From: Joe Faust Date: 10/11/2012
    Subject: Re: AWE not always easy
    That is success, Rod.  Getting so many lessons for a session! Super. 
    Thanks for announcement and first-level reporting.  Helpful. 

    JoeF
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7439 From: dave santos Date: 10/11/2012
    Subject: Quantum Kiting 101 (Quantum Entanglement)
    More modern physics review with the Kite Case illustrated-

    ----------------------------------------------------------

    Quantum entanglement is shared quantum values by functionally "identical" mirrored particles. Consider the gendanken (thought experiments) below as ideally taking place in a zero G vacuum like outer space. The properties still manifest strongly with real kites in flow with gravity, with some damping* evident. 

    1) Take a vibrating kite string and clamp it in the middle. Separate the two vibrating halves and you now have a quantum pair. Observe the conserved quantum properties of one "particle" (polarization, frequency, amplitude, mass-energy, etc.) and you have the quantum information still "hidden" in the other particle.

    2) Send a longitudinal phonon pulse down a kite line that splits into two identical lines (like a bridle). The parent phonon will "decay" into a quantum pair that meet the conditions above.

    3) Stretch a line out and twist it. Observe the phononic spin from either end to read out entangled states. Note the complimentary handedness, a key detail of quantum entanglement.

    Note: Quantum Entanglement and ordinary kite string entangling are not closely related ideas. Topologically tangled string is closer to mathematical Knot Theory than a good QFT didactic model.

    ------------------------------------------------------------

    * Next: Quantum Coherence and Superconductance effects in Kiting. 

    This should be enough explanation of the Kite QFT being built on a macroscopic phonon basis. Is there any specific challenge to address?

    The exciting work will be to try to apply these new viewpoints to new AWES array concepts and inspire technology that otherwise might longer remain obscure. This is a practical "utility test" beyond mere factual correctness as "science fun".
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7440 From: Joe Faust Date: 10/11/2012
    Subject: US patent office seeks aid to spot bogus patent claims

    US patent office seeks aid to spot bogus patent claims 

    Patent applications frequently hold many claims; among those claims may be  claims for art that is already known or readily available to those skilled in the arts.  Examiners supposedly would like not to pass through non-novel claims. The public has access to examiners. See the article and the links. 

    When a patent claim is challenged, the claiming inventors may well sharpen their game to the benefit of all. 

    How many streamlined tethers need to be "invented" before some examiner notices that streamlined tethers are part of the common art?

    JoeF
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7441 From: roderickjosephread Date: 10/11/2012
    Subject: Re: AWE not always easy
    I worked out why the driving kites sat too far back.... When I set them the bag was being suspended by the steel ring.. mistake! when the whole loom is tied it should be referenced to the fixed wheel as that's the only thing fixed on the stem. In the garage the ring was suspending the wheel a bit so in the field the ring moved downwind with respect to the wheel ... ooops ... chalked to experience
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7442 From: roderickjosephread Date: 10/11/2012
    Subject: Re: Quantum Kiting 101 (Quantum Entanglement)
    I like the second and third examples ... however in the first example you would need a continuous matched input of vibration causing energy on both separated sides and continued matched line tensions... really unlikely unless your string is as you said in zero g without any inputs (just continued internal phononics / elasticity) or tension.

    But then to make it vibrate in the first place would take, what?, a coordinated cut under tension at both ends?....

    ok I think I've just talked myself round ... good argument Dave
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7443 From: dave santos Date: 10/11/2012
    Subject: Re: US patent office seeks aid to spot bogus patent claims
    Its probably a Kafkaesque use of time doing free prior-art research for the USPO.

    Patents are these days mostly just a sort of statistical asset. Individual patents are hardly ever litigated and hardly ever make a penny directly. No private AWE player seems to have any definite advantage in patents, although KiteGen likes to claim it has blocking-patent dominance. The only way to be fairly certain in advance about inherent value is to hold a large portfolio.

    "Open AWE"* holds the preponderance of sector patents, but has not developed yet as mature patent pool. We can estimate that equity-capital will value our patents in aggregate at a million or so per unit USD. The hard tricky job of early sorting of junk from quality can be avoided by just gobbling up as many patents as possible. WOW internal discussions are sketching out a collective patent pool as part of a far broader R&D strategy. We may even find our massive CC-licensed IP has more value than patents in our rapidly evolving world. CC will come to be respected nearly as much as patents wherever high business ethics prevail, which is the hopeful trend. AWEIA can play a key role in making this happen for us. 


    * weakly affiliated smallholders
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7444 From: Doug Date: 10/11/2012
    Subject: Re: pumping AWE - (my dog dumps sand when he gets up too)
    Ok I will accept that an arch utilizes the ground because I also subscribe to the principle of using the ground as a structural element. And I know who the German Super-Engineer you are talking about is. Been to his website that discusses various wind ideas. He knows his shit inside-out, but as I remember he had a very closed mind that was not open even a crack. He's professor crack, without the pot. I was waiting for his website to cover SuperTurbine(R) but I haven't seen his site in years. As I recall he did not exhibit much in the way of a sense of humor.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7445 From: Pierre Benhaiem Date: 10/11/2012
    Subject: Rim Driven Wind Turbine (RDWT),drag-based and lift-based blades

    A question for Doug,

    Project TTU « Keuka Energy claims its RDWT with 16 drag-based blades gives a very high value of efficiency with wind speed = 10 m/s.Diameter being 7.62 m,swept area is 45 m²  and power is more than 14 kW on the blue curve on Wind Energy - University of New Mexico.The resulting  value seems very high:52% (Betz limit being 59%),so high as value of lift-based blades, comprising that of Barber Wind (another RDWT with lift-based five blades).

    Do you think such a high value is possible for drag-based blades?

    For my knowledge the higher value for drag-based blades concerns multiblade American pumping (about 30%).

    I do not think you like these sorts of designs and calculations from another Pr.Crackpot,but your answer can be useful, above all if the given value of these drag-based blades is too high and looks really impossible.

    Pierre B

    Airborne Seaborne Wind Energy System (another RDWT),yet another this time completely Airborne Flygen RDWT being that described on Dr. Beaujean' paper. 

     
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7446 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 10/11/2012
    Subject: Re: Rim Driven Wind Turbine (RDWT),drag-based and lift-based blades
    Attachments :


      More complete datas (which diameter being 7.62 m,see page 28) on joined paper.

       

      PierreB



      		   @@attachment@@
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7447 From: Doug Date: 10/11/2012
      Subject: Re: "...certainly none of them are "revolutionary"" Paul Gipe
      I found out long ago that the experts in the field as it currently exists are exactly that: experts in the field as it currently exists.
      Why would we really have thought otherwise? Do you have any idea how many experts dismissed SuperTurbine(R) before it go independently measured?

      Here's the funny thing? If you were a wind energy expert, if you were asked to analyze wind energy inventions all day long, all you would have to say is "that sucks" 1000 times for 1000 inventions, and you would be right every single time. You can't blame them after a while - they just shorten it to "ANY new idea sucks" because it is almost always true. Many of us keep noting that the "new" ideas are usually old ones.

      Once, years ago, I was having a conversation with the Chief Engineer at GEWind. I was hitting all the big companies: Vestas, Suzlon, everyone. This guy told me it all boils down to one thing: Cost Of Energy, abbreviated as COE. That's the main thing that matters in energy is the cost. Who knew?
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7448 From: dave santos Date: 10/11/2012
      Subject: Re: Rim Driven Wind Turbine (RDWT),drag-based and lift-based blades
      Pierre,

      Your question to Doug somehow presupposed Keuka's blades are "drag based".

      They are fully lift-based (force orthogonal to flow), they just have a lower L/D ~10 instead of ~100 for conventional designs. Even with this added drag it can still deliver high Betz efficiency at certain speeds. The rim-drive helps generator rpm be quite high, even with a very low TSR.

      Such a design can be roughly comparable in overall performance with hi L/D turbines, but market and operational factors count. It is advantaged in lower winds, but disadvantaged in high winds. Its easier to service and less of a risk to birds. Perhaps this old 70s "rim-drive" approach can evolve into a real contender, not just an also-ran,

      daveS
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7449 From: Doug Date: 10/11/2012
      Subject: [AWES AWE - suffers from sleep paralysis
      Yup it is super easy, just order the parts and hook it up. That's why I say there are no serious players. Imagine the new NASA wondering how to plant a tree. Well NASA, there's a tree and there's a shovel, see if you can figure it out. If it was a tree in Mars you could do it! Bring some of those guys in!
      OK here's a kite and here's a windmill. Can you plant the windmill in the sky? Duh. How can anyone pretend it would be hard? How can anyone spend a hundred thousand dollars and not just build one and fly it? How can Magenn hold a straight face for years and nobody ever says "Hey that thing makes less power than a cheapo wind turbine hanging from a 20-dollar balloon or kite!" There is a sense of drama superseding common sense, as though we are in a dream where we are all paralyzed so we don't hurt ourselves. Nobody can face even the simplest reality.
      Yes I believe AWE suffers from SLEEP PARALYSIS, But I think it could be done decently in a week of time, and I can make half-ass demos in a day. Wish i had more time for it.
      I can think of so many machines to try and only a couple under construction.
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7450 From: Doug Date: 10/11/2012
      Subject: Re: Rim Driven Wind Turbine (RDWT),drag-based and lift-based blades
      --- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, "Pierre Benhaiem" <pierre.benhaiem@... *****Some might call that a drag machine because it has so many blades (high rotor solidity) but I think it still uses lift. You have to be careful believing such power output statistics. They may take one moment when it got a big gust and extrapolate. They never talk about the bad news. It's easy to get a turbine without overspeed protection to look like a rock star for a while, making ridiculously high amounts of power in big gusts, til eventually it burns out. These promotional statistics and probably way overestimated of the data was cherry-picked from a set that had in totality reflected lower performance - just a guess - "when it sounds too good..."

      University
      *******OK great Barber wind -5 blades is two blades too many - of course they are going to conquer the world.

      *****Not really. A good windmill gets a Cp of like 30% if you are lucky. And drag windmills usually do less.
      The farm pumper is marginally a drag machine - a matter of opinion to some extent I think, and I am really not sure of the efficiency but they never work out well for generating electricity and of course many have tried.
      Maybe drag could work for some kind of AWE since swept area is unlimited. In general though you want speed to generate electricity - nothing like fast blades to spin a generator and it is still never as fast as you would like and you need a special low speed generator even using lift - drag gets far worse.*********

      ************Profethor Crackpot!?!?!?#%$*&$(%_%+#Y#)(*+@
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7451 From: dave santos Date: 10/11/2012
      Subject: Magenn Never Fooled Us
      We were smarter about Magenn than Doug imagines. Our LTA expert community in an early email BBS spotted the Magnus LTA fallacy back in the 80's, and tracked it as it raked in 25 million. We witnessed aghast as FF remerged to pluck another eight million from investors. Never were we fooled. The AWES forum has dogged Magenn the whole way. Doug came in late to this posse, and the fuss is over. We did our responsibility to publicly report -probable- aerospace fraud, but we are not prosecutors, and its hard to prove intent. FF acts prefectly bewildered by his engineering failures. It was AWEC's pay-to-play ethos that most helped these characters seem technically legit. High aerospace could care less about tiny clowns. I wish Doug would stop complaining to us about Magenn, so these on-record corrections can end.

      We know to focus on design study and testing.
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7452 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 10/12/2012
      Subject: Re: Rim Driven Wind Turbine (RDWT),drag-based and lift-based blades


      DaveS,

       

      Thank for precisions.The paper CAPS 2010 Report: Celebrating Ten Years of Research precises in page 61 "...(RDWT) is a new concept in drag-based wind turbines...".Indeed blades look like old American drag (with a little lift component?)-based (TSR at better value being 1) multiblade pumping,and given efficiency seems very very high (identical or more than lifted-based).

       

      The following link ISBN 978-1-4507-9223-3 - ASME Global Communities goes to the precedent pdf attachment.

       

      PierreB

       





       
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7453 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 10/12/2012
      Subject: Re: Rim Driven Wind Turbine (RDWT),drag-based and lift-based blades


      Doug,

       

      Thanks for indications.Concerning lift use your analysis joins DaveS' analysis about multi blades.But blades from Barberwind look more as lifted-based.

      "The farm pumper is marginally a drag machine - a matter of opinion to some extent I think, and I am really not sure of the efficiency but they never work out well for generating electricity and of course many have tried."

      - Among other things in good conditions Tip Speed Ratio of farm pumper is only 1,too low for working by the axis a 1500 rpm conventional generator without a big gearbox.But with Rim Driven it can be different.

       

      "5 blades is two blades too many".

      - It is possible Barberwind and other firms use more blades for their RDWT for a structural reason,blades being also like spokes,being set on cross cables,but I am not sure of it.Another thing is that a too high Tip Speed would be a problem for wheel transmission and also for aerodynamic efficiency (losses by Rim),but I am aslo not sure of it.Profils of blades should be different with a rim (I put a ring (section 2 cm) arround a propeller (diameter 50 cm):alone the propeller turns fast,but with ring it does not turn;perhaps the tip speed should be larger,but I am not sure of it. 
       

      "Maybe drag could work for some kind of AWE since swept area is unlimited".I look again what author writes it and see the author is not DaveS but Doug!

       

      Note:the potential Pr.Crackpot could be the scientists which make calculations,in sense I supposed rightly or wrongly to be yours.

       

      PierreB
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7454 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 10/12/2012
      Subject: Re: Rim Driven Wind Turbine (RDWT),drag-based and lift-based blades


      Correction,

       

      " the tip speed should be larger,but I am not sure of it.". The tip of the blade (not tip speed of course).

       

      PierreB
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7455 From: Doug Date: 10/12/2012
      Subject: Re: Rim Driven Wind Turbine: Honeywell's laughingstock
      Guys:
      OK I hate to sound like a broken record but...
      Rim-driven turbine with too many blades verging on drag...
      5 blades instead of 3...
      Hello?
      Why are we back here?
      Just because we are in AWE do we have to always talk like we are ignorant newbies?

      Honeywell adopted a Professor Crackpot design a few years back.
      Their "highly-educated" (no doubt PhD) staff looked at:
      1) Rotor solidity too high
      2) cloth blades
      3) rim drive
      4) recommended for rooftop mounting
      (hey might as well have ALL the newbie factors right? I mean if you are that STUPID, you might as well completely fulfill your role as a newbie idiot and recommend it for a rooftop too, right?
      I mean let's make ALL the newbie mistakes combined right? The only typical newbie idiot feature they missed was vertical axis, but I'll bet they were tempted...

      Guess what happened?
      Honeywell is a LAUGHINGSTOCK.
      NOBODY is using this hunk of garbage that
      a) weighs hundreds of pounds versus say 30 lbs for a competing, superior unit)
      b) costs way too much for the output
      Guess what they eliminated?
      The cloth blades - they decided to use real blades - the cloth ones didn't work out - gee ya think?
      Can we just be a bit blunt here?
      If anyone wants to do wind energy, get a book on it and look this stuff up.
      NO you don't want to use cloth blades, M'Kay?
      NO there is NO advantage to more than 3 blades, M'Kay? And nobody needs to keep asking that over and over every year or every decade - it was worked out LONG AGO.

      Why do you see rotors with too many blades? Because of cogging - people make a turbine, realize it has too much cogging to start in light winds, so they add blades to get it spinning. Startup torque. Then they imagine it "needs" or "uses" these extra blades in normal operation.
      NO they don't "use" the extra blades. What do the extra blades do? They cause drag - they are just along for the ride. Like if you added two more wheels to your car - 4 is all you want!
      So rather than treat these questions like they are brand new, why not get up to speed on the art by cracking open a book on turbine design?
      Why act like simple questions with simple answers are some impenetrable mystery?

      The problem with this group, to me, is this:
      Imagine a group purporting to be studying advanced mathematics. But the people in the group are asking questions like "I was trying to add a column of numbers and two digits added up to more than 9 and I didn't know what to do with the extra digit!", and someone had to explain how to "carry the remainder" (or however we said it in second grade) and you don't even know how to do simple addition using a pencil, yet you talk about advanced mathematical theory.
      This sounds like an exaggeration, but it's really an understatement: witness one member whom I will not mention who promotes ALL the disproven newbie ideas combined, and tries to rationalize it by citing buzzwords from advanced quantum physics. You can't make this stuff up!

      One cannot meaningfully discuss an art without at least a limited introductory background to that art.

      Why did the "smart" people at Honeywell make this mistake? They just made all the typical idiot newbie mistakes because their PhD's assumed they were SO SMART they didn't need to read the beginning textbook on the actual subject, and the bean-counters and executive decision-makers believed them. Result? Not.
      :)
      Doug Selsam
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7456 From: Doug Date: 10/12/2012
      Subject: Re: Magenn Never Fooled Us - Sta-Puf Marshmallow Man
      The recent online conference had us checking out the AWECS website that was promoting Magenn as a sponsor just a few weeks ago. Maybe YOU claim to have "seen through" Magenn's hype (as you claim to see through everyones' hype), but many even dumber "smart" people obviously did not.

      I saw a dozen press releases for Magenn, all 100% lies. Great that you were able to flag the Sta-Puf Marshmallow Man as the comedy it was - that was just the most blatant joke that a child could appreciate. The rest of the jokes involve slightly more subtle humor that, apparently, by your own statements, goes right over your head (pun accidental).
      "What Doug failth to understhand..."
      OK Profethor Crackpot, let's hear it.
      Flame shields up!
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7457 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 10/12/2012
      Subject: Re: Rim Driven Wind Turbine: Honeywell's laughingstock


      Can his design http://www.gual-industrie.com/ improve the record in Proof-of-Crackpotness?

       

      PierreB


       


      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7458 From: dave santos Date: 10/12/2012
      Subject: Re: Magenn Never Fooled Us
      Doug,

      The early 2008-9 Forum did take on Magenn ( a lot) before you ever did (sample below) Never forget you imagined scientists never seriously considered astrobiology before your time. You have severe difficulty properly judging simple matters of record.

      AWEC was never fooled, all they cared about was pay-to-play income. The Magenn "ads" you saw were AWEC's old web stiff from a couple of years ago.

      Please be more careful about facts, Joe and i have been advocating behind the scenes with moderators that you not be removed for endless childish rudeness, but willful factual error is another matter.

      daveS


      ========  Magenn Slams  common in AWES proto-forum (2008-9)==========


      Helium Schemes

      Hide Details
      FROM:
      TO:
       (misc)
      Message flagged
      Friday, January 2, 2009 9:44 PM

      Tony,
       
      Helium is very hi cost... gas, maintenence, & short life (gas retention)
       
      too many defects & a technology that cannot prevail, you are quite right about the terrible L/D
       
      the (Magenn) principal is a carreer civil engineer with no apparent LTA experience, with whom i have no (personal) argument, only pity.
       
      i'm an old LTA pro, its quite a mature field, but very rigourous, so my bleak opinion is conservative.
       
      sorry if i came off argumentative,
       
      dave
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7459 From: dave santos Date: 10/12/2012
      Subject: Coy Harris about "Honeywell's laughingstock" (confirms third-party r
      Doug,

      You never did explain the impressive independent ratings the HW Trubine somehow earned.

      I recently asked Coy Harris of the Americam Windpower Museum about Honeywell's turbine, since they had one installed a couple of years ago. He said it has performed very well for them; they were so pleased, they were upgrading the install electrics. He monitors a busy wind farm of every sort of turbine side-by-side, beyond even NREL in diversity-

      Coy Harris as Executive Director has supervised all of this construction as well as the continued development of the museum’s collection of rare mills. On August 28, 2001, the museum’s 100th windmill was erected and new monies were secured with plans calling for an additional 100 windmills on the grounds over the next several years. 

      Please lay the basis for your minority Conventional Wind opinions in better technical terms, with less spouting,

      daveS
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7460 From: dave santos Date: 10/12/2012
      Subject: Re: Rim Driven Wind Turbine (RDWT),drag-based and lift-based blades
      Pierre,

      Whoever mistakenly called these turbines (RDWT and Aeromotor style) "drag-based" ignored how formal aerodynamics defines lift and drag.

      The StatoEolien is truly drag-based (savonius) and seems to represent the worst possible aerodynamic thinking. One way to spot the problem is to divide wattage into the capital cost for installed energy unit cost- One always finds a very poor result for savonius. This cluster idea just makes it worse. This looks like the poorest design i have ever seen. Doug probably agrees

      Savonius power is sapped by its return side moving upwind at near 2x. Savonius is also worst in power-to-weight, so its worst for flying high.

      As AWE expert pioneers, we should not lose much time with known conventional turbine dead-ends,

      daveS

      PS Rim-drive is a sound power transmission idea- All cars use (reverse) rim-drive for traction.
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7461 From: dave santos Date: 10/12/2012
      Subject: AWE Forecast- "We are still sitting on a barrel of dynamite"
      Much AWE progress has clearly happened in recent years. A few hundred really sharp engineers are deep into the work. 

      Early proofs-of-concept milestones are met. Remaining barriers fall daily. 

      At the current rate of accelerating progress we have already entered the singularity suggested by critical path analysis. AWE may go supernova faster and hotter than Oil did, given such a vast well-distributed superior wind resource. 

      About half of all broadly educated folks on the planet now know something about the quest. Many new talents are joining. A powerful social intelligence is clearly mobilizing to decisively solve AWE. 

      We get our "AWE Manhattan Project" after all; its to be globally cloud-sourced. 

      We race toward an unstoppable revolution beyond imagining.
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7462 From: Joe Faust Date: 10/12/2012
      Subject: Re: Rim Driven Wind Turbine (RDWT),drag-based and lift-based blades
      "The 7.62 m diameter RDWT at the Lubbock site contains
      16 blades. The turbine has a metallic casing around the edge
      which has space for a drive rope to rest. This drive rope is
      threaded around the entire circumference of the turbine and
      then around two direct drive variable high speed generators, the
      master and the slave. Each generator contains a pulley with
      five grooves resulting in the drive rope being wrapped around
      each generator five times"
      From the document you linked, Pierre:
      http://districts.asme.org/districtF/ectc/I_2-1-12_Corrected_ECTC_2011_JOURNAL_VOL._10_-_Final_Part_1_-_Cover-Paper_06.pdf

      [[[??: AWEified: fan-belt method to ground-stationed generator]]]
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7463 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 10/12/2012
      Subject: Re: Coy Harris about "Honeywell's laughingstock" (confirms third-par


      Honeywell's turbine,as well as turbines from Keuka or BarberWind,is a rim driven turbine,but its generator is settled within the rotor and stator,a little like for flygen Beaujean's scheme.In the other hand generators from Keuka's or BarberWind are independant from the rotor which is a wheel not having a stator and being able to be lighter.

       

      PierreB


       
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7464 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 10/12/2012
      Subject: Re: Rim Driven Wind Turbine (RDWT),drag-based and lift-based blades

      DaveS,

       

      The paper CAPS 2010 Report: Celebrating Ten Years of Research precises in page 61 "...(RDWT) is a new concept in drag-based wind turbines...".

       

      So paper's definition is at least different,mentioning a drag-based HAWT _ in spite of lift component Doug and yourself mention.Is it because a confusion between the shape of the whole rotor and the shape (here as drag-based) of each blade?

      For Airborne Seaborne Wind Energy System  this point is important since to obtain a lift from autogiro use Tips Speed Ratio must be high enough without inducing too much aerodynamic loss.So few (3 or 4) lift-based blades are expected.

       

      PierreB  
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7465 From: dave santos Date: 10/12/2012
      Subject: NASA's latest AWE Video
      Some of the shots are known, but many are new. One sees progression-


      Airborne Wind Energy - AWE - YouTube
      Prototype concept to generate energy using kites. System would fly the kites autonomously and ...
      www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7DUpwUeX
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7466 From: Joe Faust Date: 10/12/2012
      Subject: Launch AWES components by electromagnetic railguns?
      Launch AWES components by electromagnetic railguns?
      Store some of mined energy for the launcher. 
      Peaceful use of EMRGs !   
      Instead of "weapon" system:  "service launcher system" with one service in the AWES world.
      Rapid insertion of AWES into upper wind?
      Challenge: Designing EMRG that would be more gentle to the projectile.