Messages in AirborneWindEnergy group.                           AWES7667to7716 Page 51 of 440.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7667 From: Doug Date: 10/20/2012
Subject: Re: Open Invitation to Rogallo

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7668 From: Doug Date: 10/20/2012
Subject: Re: ROI/COE Skystream 3.7 vs Selsam Supertwin 2kW vs TU Delft Kite 2

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7669 From: Doug Date: 10/20/2012
Subject: Re: ROI/COE Skystream 3.7 vs Selsam Supertwin 2kW vs TU Delft Kite 2

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7670 From: Doug Date: 10/20/2012
Subject: Re: ROI/COE Skystream 3.7 vs Selsam Supertwin 2kW vs TU Delft Kite 2

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7671 From: dave santos Date: 10/20/2012
Subject: Re: Data Collection //Re: [AWES] Re: ROI/COE Skystream 3.7 vs Selsa

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7672 From: dave santos Date: 10/20/2012
Subject: Economic Scale for Utility AWES? (update)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7673 From: David Lang Date: 10/20/2012
Subject: Re: Economic Scale for Utility AWES? (update)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7674 From: Pierre Benhaiem Date: 10/20/2012
Subject: Spacing of rotors,spacing of tower wind turbines,spacing of AWES

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7675 From: dcsoftstuff Date: 10/20/2012
Subject: Re: ROI/COE Skystream 3.7 vs Selsam Supertwin 2kW vs TU Delft Kite 2

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7676 From: dcsoftstuff Date: 10/20/2012
Subject: Data Collection //Re: [AWES] Re: ROI/COE Skystream 3.7 vs Selsam Su

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7677 From: dave santos Date: 10/20/2012
Subject: Classic Kite Flight Control as Embodied Quantum Computation

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7678 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 10/20/2012
Subject: Re: ROI/COE Skystream 3.7 vs Selsam Supertwin 2kW vs TU Delft Kite 2

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7679 From: Bob Stuart Date: 10/20/2012
Subject: Re: Spacing of rotors,spacing of tower wind turbines,spacing of AWES

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7680 From: dave santos Date: 10/20/2012
Subject: Catching Errors //Re: Data Collection

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7681 From: dave santos Date: 10/20/2012
Subject: Re: Spacing of rotors,spacing of tower wind turbines,spacing of AWES

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7682 From: dave santos Date: 10/20/2012
Subject: Makani is Hiring

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7683 From: harry valentine Date: 10/20/2012
Subject: Re: Spacing of rotors,spacing of tower wind turbines,spacing of AWES

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7684 From: dave santos Date: 10/20/2012
Subject: Flight Formations //Re: [AWES] Spacing of rotors,spacing of tower w

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7685 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 10/21/2012
Subject: Re: Spacing of rotors,spacing of tower wind turbines,spacing of AWES

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7686 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 10/21/2012
Subject: Re: Spacing of rotors,spacing of tower wind turbines,spacing of AWES

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7687 From: Doug Date: 10/21/2012
Subject: Re: Spacing of rotors,spacing of tower wind turbines,spacing of AWES

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7688 From: Doug Date: 10/21/2012
Subject: Re: Makani is Hiring

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7689 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 10/21/2012
Subject: Re: Spacing of rotors,spacing of tower wind turbines,spacing of AWES

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7690 From: dave santos Date: 10/21/2012
Subject: Re: Spacing of rotors,spacing of tower wind turbines,spacing of AWES

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7691 From: Gaetano Dentamaro Date: 10/21/2012
Subject: Re: Are KiteGen Patents Blocking?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7692 From: dave santos Date: 10/21/2012
Subject: Estimating AWES Economies-of-Scale (Notes)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7693 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 10/21/2012
Subject: Re: Are KiteGen Patents Blocking?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7694 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 10/21/2012
Subject: Re: Spacing of rotors,spacing of tower wind turbines,spacing of AWES

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7695 From: dave santos Date: 10/21/2012
Subject: Must AWE Ventures "Merge-or-Die"? (re: KiteGen)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7696 From: KITE GEN / Ippolito Date: 10/21/2012
Subject: Re: Are KiteGen Patents Blocking?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7697 From: Bob Stuart Date: 10/21/2012
Subject: Re: Must AWE Ventures "Merge-or-Die"? (re: KiteGen)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7698 From: dave santos Date: 10/21/2012
Subject: QualEnergia Interview //Re: [AWES] Are KiteGen Patents Blocking?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7699 From: dave santos Date: 10/21/2012
Subject: Re: Must AWE Ventures "Merge-or-Die"? (re: KiteGen)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7700 From: dave santos Date: 10/21/2012
Subject: Train of Kytoons in a Harry Potter Movie

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7701 From: Doug Date: 10/22/2012
Subject: Re: Are KiteGen Patents Blocking?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7702 From: Doug Date: 10/22/2012
Subject: Re: Spacing of rotors,spacing of tower wind turbines,spacing of AWES

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7703 From: Redazione online QualEnergia.it Date: 10/22/2012
Subject: R: Intervista di Codegoni a Ippolito sul Kitegen: un falso? Richiest

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7704 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 10/22/2012
Subject: Re: Spacing of rotors,spacing of tower wind turbines,spacing of AWES

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7705 From: dave santos Date: 10/22/2012
Subject: Re: Spacing of rotors,spacing of tower wind turbines,spacing of AWES

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7706 From: dave santos Date: 10/22/2012
Subject: English Translation- Re: [AWES] R: Intervista di Codegoni a Ippolito

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7707 From: roderickjosephread Date: 10/22/2012
Subject: mesh of winders flying train arrays

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7708 From: dave santos Date: 10/22/2012
Subject: Cost Engineering Standards for AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7709 From: dave santos Date: 10/22/2012
Subject: Toward a Logical Proof of Superior Kite Arch Scaling Potential

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7710 From: Doug Date: 10/23/2012
Subject: Re: Cost Engineering Standards for AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7711 From: Doug Date: 10/23/2012
Subject: Re: Toward a Logical Proof of Superior Kite Arch Scaling Potential

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7712 From: dave santos Date: 10/23/2012
Subject: Call for Chapters (AWE Textbook to be published by Springer)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7713 From: dave santos Date: 10/23/2012
Subject: Doug Off-topic Reminder //Re: [AWES] Re: Cost Engineering Standards

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7714 From: Gaetano Dentamaro Date: 10/24/2012
Subject: Re: English Translation- Re: [AWES] R: Intervista di Codegoni a Ippo

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7715 From: Doug Date: 10/24/2012
Subject: Doug Off-topic Reminder //Re: [AWES] Re: Cost Engineering Standards

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7716 From: Joe Faust Date: 10/24/2012
Subject: Peak-power records by AWES




Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7667 From: Doug Date: 10/20/2012
Subject: Re: Open Invitation to Rogallo
Dave E.
I bought an Eipper Rogallo hang glider in 1975, flew it off a hill a few times, and quickly sold is as I realized its 4:1 glide ratio would be considered obsolete in a few months. The guy I sold it to took it into some power lines, but was OK.

Cloth surfaces have yielded poor results in wind energy - a tempting starting point for most of us, but one quickly realizes (well the people who actually build useful wind energy machines) that the brutal nature of the wind and the requirement for a low solidity rotor to get high efficiency, and high longevity, favor hard, spinning, slender blades.

You will notice one member of this list will probably reply with an argument to this post - expect that - he feels compelled to argue every time I mention a dreaded "fact" from the world of wind energy, a 3000-year-old art, which most list participants have little or no familiarity.
:)))
Endless fun!
:o...
Doug S.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7668 From: Doug Date: 10/20/2012
Subject: Re: ROI/COE Skystream 3.7 vs Selsam Supertwin 2kW vs TU Delft Kite 2
Another Buzzword from the far-away world of wind energy! WECS! I love it!

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7669 From: Doug Date: 10/20/2012
Subject: Re: ROI/COE Skystream 3.7 vs Selsam Supertwin 2kW vs TU Delft Kite 2
I know this probably sounds like a bunch of complete gibberish to the newbies, but there's a big difference between an average wind speed taken over 1-minute intervals, and an average wind speed for a site taken over a whole season or many seasons.

You'll note that utility-scale wind turbines are rated to have a capacity factor of say 30% at an "annual average wind speed" of say 12 MPH. People see that sort of data, and can't wait to see how much power their new turbine makes at a low-wind or no-wind site.

"Well the turbine makes a great output at 12 mph so it should do OK in my neighborhood at 8 MPH, right?" Wrong! The average annual windspeed of 12 mph implies many productive afternoons of 27 MPH, averaged in with 4:00 AM times of complete calm. Little useful power is actually made at 12 mph, and much lower than that, and you're lucky to not be losing power.
:O
Doug S.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7670 From: Doug Date: 10/20/2012
Subject: Re: ROI/COE Skystream 3.7 vs Selsam Supertwin 2kW vs TU Delft Kite 2
That's four buzzwords from the world of real wind energy now:
1) Betz
2) MPPT
3) WECS
4) Power Curve
wait there's more:
5) Weibull Distribution
6) Yoyo?
(OK I was joking with that last one)
Yoyo - a term with many meanings...

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7671 From: dave santos Date: 10/20/2012
Subject: Re: Data Collection //Re: [AWES] Re: ROI/COE Skystream 3.7 vs Selsa
Derek,

Unlike a seasoned aerospace pro (like David Everett), who is cautious to do the domain homework before making a raft of stark assertions, you prefer to jump right in. Thats OK, just don't expect to look as smart.

You wrote-"It's the responsibility of each 'player' to publish data (real and predicted) - including assumptions.
The data must conform to a standard, this already exists for conventional wind turbines."

Then publish your real data, or you are not a player. Just kidding. Its probably too early for you to meet this standard, as it is so many others. The Wright brothers did not start with a DC-3 spec sheet.

When you do test your first prototype- 
Will it be optimal? Not at all.
Will it have economies of scale? No.
Will you get every windspeed at your first test sessions for a full power curve? Not likely.
Is wind tunnel data OK? It tends to exaggerate predicted performance in real operation.
Will your prototype O&M costs be realistic? No.


You go on- "Yet, we can not find this data - are they shy ?"

Try just looking harder at the archives or do search for it, or pay a researcher to do it for you. If you are in a hurry, it just makes your GIGO tendencies worse. Note that the AWE academics tend to be open-information, but some "top" VC players are closed, but it would be wrong to presume "shy" VCs only have failure to cover. The investors often impose NDAs.


You continue- "Do you think there could be a link between the lack of investment in AWE, and the lack of proof of concept, because there's no published data to prove it ?"

I think the 200+ millions invested so far is quite reasonable, and am grateful for my tiny share of it. None of us would have investment to do work work with scale prototypes if your "marketer" standards were a realistic model for high-risk experimental R&D.


You also asserted- "Comparisons can then be made, there will be winners and losers, just like in the current market."

Are you saying GIGO predicts winners and losers? These are not likely real "winners and losers, just like in the current market."


You conclude- "Start publishing and the investment comes"

OK, be your own test case. Let us know when your growing published results get you investment and what sound conclusions to draw from that data-point,

daveS


PS Don't get discouraged by the "brick-wall" difficulties in your initial approach to AWE. Try getting out and flying kites, maybe take some flying lessons, get your MBA, etc., while you gather power-curves from obscure web pages :)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7672 From: dave santos Date: 10/20/2012
Subject: Economic Scale for Utility AWES? (update)
Given natural early scarcity of hard data in AWE, KiteLab Group uses heuristics* as the best available tool for broad predictions. Qualitative expert narratives are patiently collected and pondered for possible early answers to key questions. This is an engineering Art for Masters, rather than pure Science.

Several years into this adventure, the following "KiteLab finding" keeps rising to the fore, that the eventual required Economic Scale is huge for Utility AWES (kite farm) in competitive energy markets, is likely about 500MW minimum. This is mainly based on flight crew requirements (FAA regulatory compliance) and land usage, followed by all sorts of factors like reduced capital unit costs (financing), safety (insurance), lifecycle economics etc. This is not the place to review all these factors discussed in detail in the 7000+ Forum message-base.

There are many ancillary heuristic conclusions- Kite Unit scale must be huge to match the largest generators (groundgen). Only dense cross-linked multi-kite arrays (trains, arches, domes) naturally meet the scale requirement within reasonable land and airspace usage. Multi-line and multi-anchor designs are greatly favored. Actuation will be by industrial winches kept on the ground (not flying aerospace servos). The whole farm will be flown as one control process, with shared redundant avionics. The farm will closely track demand. Pure tensile structure aloft is favored for scaling (using the Earth as rigid structure). Kite Hybrid retrofitted legacy power plants will be economically attractive in selected situations. Large scale smart-grids are the general enabling condition for allowing large fluctuations in large-scale wind energy supply.

This is not to say that small systems, even tiny ones that just charge a cell phone, will not find profitable niche markets. They will.

Note how hasty calculations based on weaker heuristics reach very different conclusions (GIGO). Time will tell what AWE predictions by what methods first reached sound conclusions.


* Including Critical-Path and Similarity Analysis.



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7673 From: David Lang Date: 10/20/2012
Subject: Re: Economic Scale for Utility AWES? (update)



Not to mention QPKFT [Quantum Phononic Kite-Field Theory :-) ]

 DaveL
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7674 From: Pierre Benhaiem Date: 10/20/2012
Subject: Spacing of rotors,spacing of tower wind turbines,spacing of AWES

Usually in a wind-farm space between turbines is more than 4 times the diameter of the rotor,in width as in-depth.

Nor spacing of rotors (in-depth with angle) from Selsam'Superturbine (7 rotors) is only a little more than one rotor diameter (7 ft),shaft being 70 ft,that with little losses according to the report CEC-500-2007-111. Pr.John O.Dabiri shows Biological Propulsion Laboratory at CALTECH [Wind Energy Research (given link in old post) a configuration where turbines are very near each other and where the efficiency increases.I find some similarity (even is goals are different) between these ways to keep or increase efficiency in spite of link of rotors or turbines.

Is a new aerodynamic field of search rising to allow the maximization of area use?For conventional wind energy?For AWE also? Like-autogiro modes and KiteLab's dense building of like-kite elements could be concerned far more than crosswind kite systems with risk of messes.

I am waiting for answers or some directions,if possible without terms like "crackpot" or "newbies" or "3000 years",but being able to include that of the inventor of Superturbine of course.

PierreB 

 

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7675 From: dcsoftstuff Date: 10/20/2012
Subject: Re: ROI/COE Skystream 3.7 vs Selsam Supertwin 2kW vs TU Delft Kite 2
PierreB

Good spot, I didn't quantify the capacity factor.

Where does your 50% factor come from ? I'm familiar with the 25- That's data you've measured yourself ?

Any chance you can do the other calculation (ESAT), and compare with this one.
Not sure whether there's sufficent information from kitegen for you to do that.

Trying to keep the calculations simple, I know they'll present a rather rosy picture (or maybe not - see below),
but factoring replacements. downtime, maintenance etc is complex,
and the main point is to benchmark different systems against each other for comparison.

Assuming 50% factor :

Kitegen max energy produced per year = 200 stems * 3MW * 34% * 50% * 8766 hours in a year
= 0.9TWh/year
income for year = 0.9G * $0.026 = $23.3 million
Payback = $1.7 billion / $23.3 million
= 73.0 years

That's not a good value (for Kitegen), need some more input.


You're right about the windlift videos - the sound adds a lot. Good presentation.

I've seen your videos also - good stuff. Might come and visit you one day for a chat ...
Have you considered security applications - like airborne CCTV.
Schools may be interested, and even big companies - surveillance stuff. Like drones.

Derek
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7676 From: dcsoftstuff Date: 10/20/2012
Subject: Data Collection //Re: [AWES] Re: ROI/COE Skystream 3.7 vs Selsam Su
DaveS

Obviously hit a raw nerve there. Sounds like you need some funding ...

I suppose you can't change the habits of a lifetime.

Don't be afraid of the truth, don't be afraid of making mistakes.

It's called progress.


Derek
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7677 From: dave santos Date: 10/20/2012
Subject: Classic Kite Flight Control as Embodied Quantum Computation
DaveL wrote- "Not to mention QPKFT [Quantum Phononic Kite-Field Theory :-) ]"

Oh yes, Thanks for the missing mention. We are back at the knowledge frontier again.

For example, consider a child’s kite as a basic quantum-computer suited to solve its flight control problem. Consistent with QFT and quantum computing theory, one finds phononic qubit “cells” (or packets of qubits) in the kite stick and membrane field: one pair encodes yaw, another pitch, and so on. The wind itself is a quantum phonon qubit. The kitestring is a quibit cell. As these qubits interact as a computer, the kite flies. Its a “quantum robot”. 

On the other hand, a kite can be designed with no embodied quantum-computed “inherent stabilities”, but instead depend on a complex digital sensor/microcontroller/actuator-based control system, which adds prohibitive cost and mass to a child's kite, or any AWES intended for low-cost remote extended operations in hostile environments.

The utter elegance of the embodied phonon-based quantum computation is quite apparent in a heuristic view.


* Quantum Mechanics is known for counter-intuitive paradoxes, but a natural logic is at work. The most intuitive QFT and Quantum-Computing model is Macroscopic Phonons, which are mass excitations of atoms, especially at the scale we live within. Thus are revealed quantum computing processes all around us.

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

Quantum Kiting 101 note-

Latest quantum behavior to report-

[Phonon Pair Annihilation (and creation)] Stretch a rubber sheet into a wing surface. Rig it in wind to create a phonon anti-phonon pair on its surface (separated high and low pressure disturbances of the flow field). Pop the rubber sheet like a balloon and the pair annihilates with a "pop". The opening shock of a parachute is the reversed phenomenon, the boson(s) created by suddenly extracting energy from the apparent flow-field.


Is there any QFT property missing from this years-long discussion that might "pop" the quantum kite conjecture?
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7678 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 10/20/2012
Subject: Re: ROI/COE Skystream 3.7 vs Selsam Supertwin 2kW vs TU Delft Kite 2

Derek,

 

High altitude winds are more constant for a given speed.See Cristina Archer's and Ken Caldeira's publications.

 

You ask a good question about the possible link between the lack of reliable datas and investments _ although AWE is not enough mature to offer its own datas _ ,but evaluations are complex and can require months of work to taking account of the site,the costs of land or sea allowed,of system,of maintenance,the efficiency etc.,and should be made by an entity not depending of the company which products are tested.Why not yourself?AWE is an emergent field within wind energy but also within aviation. 

 

Optimization of the AWECS of type flygen - Kite Energy Systems is a short study,but not a curve:features of generator (volt/ampere) are not identical between lighting (toy or demonstrator) application and between charging application.

 

PierreB

 

 


 

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7679 From: Bob Stuart Date: 10/20/2012
Subject: Re: Spacing of rotors,spacing of tower wind turbines,spacing of AWES
Well, the U.S. air force just discovered that they can save fuel by flying in a V formation, like Geese.  There certainly seems to be potential.  There might also be a safety mode, where kites cooperate to withstand a strong gust.

Bob Stuart

On 20-Oct-12, at 12:54 PM, Pierre Benhaiem wrote:


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7680 From: dave santos Date: 10/20/2012
Subject: Catching Errors //Re: Data Collection
Derek,

You write "Obviously hit a raw nerve there. Sounds like you need some funding ..."

Luckily mistaken on both counts. Playing whack-a-mole with AWE GIGO conclusions on the Forum is play; anyway, somebody needs to do it. As for funding, lets agree with Corwin, who said the worst thing that ever happened to Makni was an early flood of millions. My "Mexican" training is in applying minimal funding early, just $2000 for a 300m2 wing (Mothra1), in response to Fort Felker's 2010 challenge to reduce aviation platform costs for AWES from $500 to $5 a lb. There has been ample OPM to play with tarps as an AWE scale-model medium. We are having a ball, best "job" of our lives.

You wrongly "suppose [no one] can change the habits of a lifetime". 

Even if unchangeable bad habits were a personal challenge for you, why try and change good habits of others? In the AWE case we mean applicable practical arts and engineering-science cultures.

You then advise "Don't be afraid of the truth, don't be afraid of making mistakes, It's called progress".

Truth makes us properly fearless; the idea to be afraid of truth is therefore absurd. Lets be worried about not making enough silly mistakes to learn enough truth. Your mistakes (and insights) help the general effort, if you can bear the catching and correcting of errors, for "progress" to occur. Lets steel our emotions. Whether or not one is afraid is not so essential to doing an engineering job-



daveS
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7681 From: dave santos Date: 10/20/2012
Subject: Re: Spacing of rotors,spacing of tower wind turbines,spacing of AWES
We see the basic windpower issue of projected "solidity" here. The broad spectrum of market-successful solidity ranges from high-solidity (Aeromotor) to low solidity (modern HAWT). We know the general role of high solidity is for easier start and useful torque at slower wind speeds. Low solidity offers highest rpm in better wind.

Standard aircraft, including kites, dynamically increase frontal solidity at low speed to maintain lift (higher AoA, semi-stalled flight, plus flaps). Variable pitch HAWTs also self-modulate solidity. Variable solidity is clearly a useful quality to match conditions.

Dabiri's initial work suggests far higher turbine densities than currently popular are practical. Note that HAWT side spacing is usually based on a broad wind rose to orient to. Given a consistent apparent-flow direction, turbines at farms or for AWES can be spaced far closer side-by-side without an interference problem, just as propellers are close-spaced on an aircraft wing.

In heuristic terms, these are Goldilocks questions, where "too hot" and "too cold" are ideally excluded, or else combined in a meta-synthesis for synergies. KiteLab's megascale farm designs mix medium-solidity wing for vertical lift, low-solidity high L/D sweeping wings for power extraction, and a few high-solidity drogues to add passive stability and  tension rope-drive corner-blocks.
 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7682 From: dave santos Date: 10/20/2012
Subject: Makani is Hiring
Its helps us all if Makani gets the best folks possible to "try" to validate this most-daunting corner of the AWES design-space*. Makani is a crucial early "high-complexity" aerospace experiment, akin to "Maxim's Airplane". Its an analytic baseline for direct comparison with alternative architectures. If they can just pull off a fizzled high-dollar trickle-charger, instead of a toxic crater, and nobody gets hurt, that's still a good outcome. 

* Cost-Effective Offshore Jumbo Composite Autonomous Aerobatic E-VTOL AWES

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

Note- This is also a fascinating "Theatre of Cruelty", with a buried headline- 

"Most importantly, applicants must have a positive attitude, fundamental belief in the technology, and willingness to work at a startup pace to help advance an innovative and challenging technology. "

Work With Us

Makani Power, Inc. is developing an airborne utility-scale wind energy conversion technology. Makani is searching for talented and motivated engineers and scientists with a strong analytical foundation (MS/PhD or equivalent) coupled with significant prototyping experience. Candidates are always invited to apply with backgrounds in:

Aerodynamics and Controls
Power electronics
Electrical engineering
Mechanical engineering

The ideal candidate will have extensive experience in one of these fields of specialization combined with an inventive resourcefulness to quickly execute prototype solutions in the field. Further, this candidate would be familiar with the fast paced environment and high-energy culture  that go with launching innovative new products. 

Current Job Openings


POWER ELECTRONICS ENGINEER

Makani is searching for an electrical engineer with a strong analytical foundation (MS/PhD or equivalent) coupled with significant hands-on experience and an appreciation for prototyping at scale. The ideal candidate will have extensive experience (MS or equivalent) with power system design and motor control development combined with an inventive resourcefulness to quickly execute prototype solutions. Further, this candidate would be familiar with the startup environment and have a passion for renewable energy.

KEY RESPONSIBILITIES:

  • Design and on-ground testing of high power switching electronics for wing mounted motor control and dc-dc conversion
  • Analysis and debugging in the field
  • Instrumentation and measurement in noisy environments
  • Power electronics packaging and encapsulation

REQUIRED SKILLS AND EXPERIENCE:

  • Proficiency in Matlab and C
  • Embedded system development with microcontrollers
  • Analog circuit design

HIGHLY DESIRED:

  • PCBA design and manufacturing experience
  • Feedback control system analysis and design
  • Volume manufacturing experience
  • Experience with ">ELECTRICAL ENGINEER—EMBEDDED SYSTEMS
    Makani is searching for an electrical engineer with a strong analytical foundation (MS/PhD or equivalent) coupled with significant hands-on experience and an appreciation for prototyping at scale. The ideal candidate will have extensive experience (MS or equivalent) with embedded systems and instrumentation combined with an inventive resourcefulness to quickly execute prototype solutions. Further, this candidate would be familiar with the startup environment and have a passion for renewable energy.

    KEY RESPONSIBILITIES:

    • Design and integration of flight and ground based avionics systems and instrumentation
    • System testing and verification
    • Analyzing and debugging in the field

    FIVE YEARS OR GREATER EXPERIENCE IN SOME OR ALL OF THE FOLLOWING AREAS:

    • Embedded hardware and software design
    • Avionics and instrumentation
    • Real-time operating systems
    • PCB design and layout
    • High reliability systems
    • Matlab, Verilog, Linux
    • Proficiency in C is required

    MECHANICAL ENGINEER

    Makani Power, Inc. is seeking a mechanical engineer with a strong analytical background (MS or Ph.D.) and 5+ years experience in design, structural analysis, and construction of composite parts.

    KEY RESPONSIBILITIES:

    • The structural design of the M600, Makani’s first utility scale system.
    • The structural design of various components of W7, Makani’s current 30 kW prototype, on an ongoing basis
    • Materials analysis; Coupon testing, and component fatigue testing
    • Interfacing with in-house machinists, fabricators and externally with contractors to ensure component quality and maximize build efficiency

    REQUIRED SKILLS:

    • Design and analysis of composite structures, with strong understanding of fatigue
    • Composite fabrication techniques and related design allowables
    • Background in hands-on, practical design, and testing experience
    • CAD proficient; Siemens NX preferred
    • Design for manufacturing, estimation of mold and component costs and timelines
    • Detail oriented and weight sensitive

    HIGHLY DESIRED:

    • Ability to work in teams; leadership experience
    • Practical knowledge of aerodynamic and low-drag design
    • Knowledge of FAR23, FAR25 or IEC64100
    • Finite element modeling, particularly with NX Nastran
    • Background in aircraft design
    • Has private pilot license
    • R/C plane enthusiast/pilot
    • Experience with component costing, design for manufacturability
    • Can create 2D manufacturing drawings compliant with ASME Y14.5M-1994 GD&T standard
    Most importantly, the applicant must have a positive attitude, fundamental belief in the technology, and willingness to work at a startup pace to help advance an innovative and challenging technology.

    EXPERIENCED MACHINIST

    Makani Power is seeking an experienced machinist or composites fabricator to fill a full-time position in the development, manufacturing, and testing of airborne wind turbines.

    KEY RESPONSIBILITIES:

    • Component fabrication
      • Use of manual machine tools (mill, lathe, etc)
      • Use of CNC machine tools (3 axis mill, water-jet, laser cutter)
      • Use of hand tools
      • Use of welder
      • Familiarity with wood, metal, and composite fabrication techniques
    • Component design
      • use of 2D and 3D CAD software to design major or minor components
    • Component fabrication: use of manual machine, CNC, hand tools and welders
    • Familiarity with wood, metal, and composite fabrication techniques
    • Component design: use of 2D and 3D CAD software
    • Testing support:
      • Work with testing team to determine specifications for testing specific hardware
      • Improve and/or make mechanical systems to aid in testing
      • Design and fabricate testing specific hardware

    REQUIRED SKILLS:

    • Manufacturing experience
    • Experience with manual machine tools
    • Experience with 2D modeling
    • Well versed in metal fabrication techniques
    • Detail oriented with strong mechanical intuition
    • Carbon fiber pre-preg fabrication techniques

    HIGHLY DESIRED:

    • Experience with CNC machine tools
    • Experience with 3D modeling, Siemens NX preferred
    • Experience with composite fabrication techniques
    • Has private pilots license
    • R/C plane enthusiast/pilot


    PROTOTYPING ENGINEER

    Makani Power is seeking a prototyping engineer with both an analytical foundation (BS) and significant hands-on prototyping experience. The ideal candidate would have experience building and testing weight-constrained systems on a short turnaround time.

    KEY RESPONSIBILITIES:

    • Design and fabrication of composite and metal airframe components
    • Support of flight testing operations including offsite travel
    • Mechanically integrate electrical components into test vehicle
    • Perform packaging of electrical components

    REQUIRED SKILLS AND EXPERIENCE:

    • Proficiency in Siemens NX, Solidworks, Catia, or any other CAD suite (NX preferred)
    • Structural statics and good sense of sufficient strength
    • Able to fabricate a metal part from a technical drawing

    HIGHLY DESIRED:

    • CNC mill tool pathing and operation.
    • Soldering and circuit board and other electromechanical assemblies
    • Experience with composite construction and/or design
    • RC aircraft enthusiast or private pilot
    Most importantly, the applicant must have a positive attitude, a passion for renewable energy, and willingness to work at a startup pace to help advance an innovative and challenging field. While the majority of this job will occur on site at our Alameda location, the applicant should expect to spend 20% of days at testing locations around the San Francisco Bay Area. Please submit a resume and a brief description of the work that best meets your interests to jobs+mech[at]makanipower.com.


    ELECTRONICS TECHNICIAN

    Makani Power is seeking an electronics technician with significant hands-on prototyping experience.

    KEY RESPONSIBILITIES:

    • Solder power electronics and avionics circuit boards, test to ensure proper function.
    • Build wiring harnesses.
    • Careful integration of all electronics components into a completed airframe.
    • Maintain and organize electronics station.
    • Design and build manufacturing fixtures to make electronics builds easier and faster.
    • Design and build test fixtures.
    • Build an electronics buck where avionics, power electronics, motors, and servos can be tested as a complete subsystem.

    REQUIRED SKILLS AND EXPERIENCE:

    • Attention to detail and pride in work.
    • Soldering (PCBs, surface mount chips, fine-pitch chips, and connectors).
    • Basic understanding of electricity and magnetism (Ohm’s law, parallel and series circuits, capacitance).
    • Shop experience.
    Most importantly, the applicant must have a positive attitude, a passion for renewable energy, and willingness to work at a startup pace to help advance an innovative and challenging field.

    TO APPLY PLEASE SEND A RESUME AND A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE WORK THAT BEST MEETS YOUR INTERESTS TO: JOBS [AT] MAKANIPOWER.COM


    OFFICE MANAGER

    Natel Energy, Inc. and Makani Power are searching for an Office Manager. The Office Manager will split their work week between the two companies, managing day-to-day facilities operations and performing administrative tasks.

    KEY RESPONSIBILITIES:

    • Management of facilities
    • Tracking and filing documents
    • Assisting finance team on bookkeeping
    • Organizing and maintaining janitorial and office supplies
    • Retrieving mail daily
    • Processing new hires
    • Monitoring company email and voicemail

    REQUIRED SKILLS AND EXPERIENCE:

    • MS Office, particularly Word and Excel; Experience with Quickbooks is a plus
    • High level of organization and accuracy
    • Strong attention to detail
    • Basic knowledge of bookkeeping practices
    • Experience with coordinating and evaluating vendors for office and facilities management
    • Experience in planning team building activities/office events
    • Excellent written and oral communication skills
    Most importantly, the applicant must have a positive attitude, a passion for renewable energy, and willingness to work at a startup pace to help advance an innovative and challenging field.

    TO APPLY PLEASE SEND A RESUME AND A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE WORK THAT BEST MEETS YOUR INTERESTS TO: SHAKIRA [AT] MAKANIPOWER.COM
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7683 From: harry valentine Date: 10/20/2012
Subject: Re: Spacing of rotors,spacing of tower wind turbines,spacing of AWES
V-formation flight mode avoids the turbulence of in-line flight mode. There is turbulence and unsteady flow immediately downstream of a flying goose and also of a kite. 

Selsam was wise to have flown his turbines at an angle to the prevailing wind.

Harry

To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
From: bobstuart@sasktel.net
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2012 13:28:22 -0600
Subject: Re: [AWES] Spacing of rotors,spacing of tower wind turbines,spacing of AWES

 
Well, the U.S. air force just discovered that they can save fuel by flying in a V formation, like Geese.  There certainly seems to be potential.  There might also be a safety mode, where kites cooperate to withstand a strong gust.

Bob Stuart

On 20-Oct-12, at 12:54 PM, Pierre Benhaiem wrote:



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7684 From: dave santos Date: 10/20/2012
Subject: Flight Formations //Re: [AWES] Spacing of rotors,spacing of tower w
Harry,

Bird and airplane V-formations share flight characteristics with Delta Wings, but consider that a side-by-side formation would be more like a long straight wing, so both formations are of interest. The practical problem for both pilots and geese is how to coordinate flock navigation without a clear formation leader, so the V-formation is clearly preferred on operational grounds. While the V-formation has been definitely shown to reduce aggregate drag, in theory, close side-to-side formation might maximize L/D most of all. This is because a broader virtual wingspan is created, with the excess induced-drag by so many short-wing tip vortices cancelled by neighboring wings. 

Phase sensitivity of the individual wings is probably higher for the straight-formation. Bird V-formations well tolerate out-of-phase neighbors. They especially tolerate a mix of birds by age, size, and stamina, by how positions rotate. Our partner at NYC, Zhang Lab, has even confirmed that formation leaders enjoy a drag reduction, helping the most experienced, if not the strongest, goose to lead. There is still so much to learn from birds.

Its wonderful to watch transmigrating Canadian Geese this time of year on the Lower Columbia River try to hold coherent formations with so many local attractions. The geese constantly are splitting in tentative parties, with the main formation then "voting with its wings". One often sees an ignored split-off faction hustling back to the main flock, when the majority fails to follow.

Note that for "Harvesting Flight", propulsion physics is "run-in-reverse"; an inverted V AWES formation could be optimal. An arch kite in fact bends that way, although a cool new delta-arch concept emerged in Austin this summer. Novel kites have a funny way of working better backwards that the designer first imagined. Only broad testing settles such a confusion of conjectures,

daveS
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7685 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 10/21/2012
Subject: Re: Spacing of rotors,spacing of tower wind turbines,spacing of AWES

What is interesting is the union between low density lift-based rotors (Selsam's and Darrieus type) with high density of rotors (Selsam's and Dabiri's).

 

PierreB 




Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7686 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 10/21/2012
Subject: Re: Spacing of rotors,spacing of tower wind turbines,spacing of AWES


Correction:

 

What is interesting is the union between low solidity lift-based rotors (Selsam's and Darrieus type) with high density of rotors (Selsam's and Dabiri's).


PierreB

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7687 From: Doug Date: 10/21/2012
Subject: Re: Spacing of rotors,spacing of tower wind turbines,spacing of AWES
Thanks for noticing, Harry.
What does a SuperTurbine(R) array achieve in upwardly-slanted AWE mode?
1) combines the rotational power of many rotors, into a single moving part.
2) places the rotors with effective relative spacing and angle;
3) orients (tilts) the rotors so they have lift against gravity;
4) driveshaft doubles as tether;
5) automatic downwind aim

Engineering Advantages of scale:
1) Increased power/weight ratio since smaller rotors weight less per unit swept area;
2) Less gearing, or no gearing, required to drive a generator, since smaller rotors spin at a higher RPM, than a single large rotor of the same swept area.

Comparison to other schemes:
Compared to reeling kites, a Superturbine(R)
1) has steady-state output;
2) requires no reels or winches;
3) requires no power storage for intermittent cycles
4) requires no computer controls.

Compared to traveling kites with auxiliary propellers for power, a SuperTurbine offers steady-state, unattended operation and simplicity without reliance on software, computers, communication, and actuating controls.

Great, lots of problems solved, but...
It takes years of testing to perfect even a single-rotor-on-a-tower turbine to the point where it is powerful in light winds and not destroyed by strong winds.
Nonetheless, the SuperTurbine(R) concept is very versatile and could easily turn out to define a key role in AWE technology.

How did I ever think it up? Sitting through agonizing hour after hour of university engineering courses, I was wondering how many years of such torture one might need before on was sufficiently mentally-maimed to actually BUILD something as SIMPLE as attaching a few common, well-understood, off-the-shelf, rotating parts, together on the same driveshaft and re-aim in by a few degrees.

That was in 1982. 20 years later, nobody had yet stumbled across my childhood fantasy machine. I realized, with a world full of advanced PhD thinkers and bureaucrats, designing rockets to the planets and hypersonic aircraft, all were too educated to step back and consider simple ideas, with the mindset of a child asking basic questions and trying simple things.

And God forbid anyone surviving all those years of torture would have enough remaining pride or energy to use their own hands - it's been beaten out of them. They've been trained that they are too good for using hands - they can only prognosticate, write lying reports to get funding, waste tons of money, attempting to get others to use their hands.

I doubt if anyone would have seen or considered a co-axial, multi-rotor, offset-aim, wind turbine to this day, if I hadn't introduced it. I wondered, if one had to hold a flashlight at an angle to place several batteries in series, would anyone have figured out the multi-battery flashlight? Imagine the cops trying to beat you with a flashlight that had only one D-cell!

Funny how I now spend so much time discussing such basic facts of proper rotor design, when the basics of rotor design had been worked out as a useful module in the 1920 or so, as electric wind turbines were developed, and millions built, to power America before powerlines could be installed.

Oh well there are always newbies that need to be started back at the beginning, learning what a rotor is, how it works, etc. Some people are able to take what is known, stand on the shoulders of the giants before them and move forward.

Others remain mired in endless questions and meaningless misplaced "analysis" of what is well-known, unable to move forward, unwilling to acknowledge the work of predecessors, and unable to incorporate their knowledge so handily passed on to us. And so it will always be, I am convinced.

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

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7688 From: Doug Date: 10/21/2012
Subject: Re: Makani is Hiring
That was a long list of qualifications.
I didn't notice any reference experience in wind energy.

Airborne wind energy seems to be the only branch of wind energy where expertise in wind energy is not valued. Well no wonder nobody has a useful product developed yet.

I'd say many, if not most, of the "players" in AWE will end up making a living violating the first law of robotics, like Aerovironment, after all their supposed wind energy expertise (which included, at one point, of calling me to find out where to get blades) and patents, turned out to be worthless.

They dangle that carrot of funding, entice you to spend enough during the initial enthusiasm stage that you will never get out of debt, and they have the company beaten down to the point that they'll take a contract for anything they are told can keep them from going under.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7689 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 10/21/2012
Subject: Re: Spacing of rotors,spacing of tower wind turbines,spacing of AWES


A fitter of a park of conventionel wind turbines could be wise to implement them at an angle to the prevailing wind,to put more turbines in the same area...

 

PierreB



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7690 From: dave santos Date: 10/21/2012
Subject: Re: Spacing of rotors,spacing of tower wind turbines,spacing of AWES
Pierre,

The optimal capture layout of a line of conventional turbines across a prevailing wind would be a slightly concave line as seen form above.

This is placement "at an angle", but the angles (tangents) are subtle and symmetric,

daveS

PS I was deeply touched by Doug's Story, having been his Life Coach until he turned on all of us (after the Bill Gates debacle at Tahoe). Its true, this Child of LA was long ago briefly abused by engineering coursework, but seemed recovered. Then things went downhill after the twins blows of being on the covers of Popular Science and San Francisco Examiner. The emergence of the Ultra-Turbine (TM) was a last-straw. This is a uniquely American Tragedy, a Death-of-a-Turbine-Salesman life. We hope the movie-rights deal covers Betty Ford. 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7691 From: Gaetano Dentamaro Date: 10/21/2012
Subject: Re: Are KiteGen Patents Blocking?
In a recent interview (http://qualenergia.it/articoli/20121001-kite-gen-gli-aquiloni-eolici-che-vogliono-salvare-l-alcoa) Massimo Ippolito stated:

"[... M.Ippolito:] in the whole world, there are 54 subjects, Universities, research centers and private firms, who are pursuing, with methods identical or very similar to ours, strategies to exploit airborne wind energy.

Q. Among these competitors, did you notice promising technologies?

A. Not too much; some are too similar to ours (some indeed have built machines identical to our first prototype), hence those will be short-lived because of the patents, others are too much inferior in terms of potentialities."

In italian: " [... M.Ippolito:] ci sono ben 54 soggetti, fra Università, centri di ricerca e aziende private, che stanno perseguendo, con metodi identici o molto simili ai nostri, strategie di sfruttamento dei venti di alta quota.
D. Fra questi competitor ha notato tecnologie  promettenti?
R. Non molte: o sono troppo simili alle nostre (alcuni hanno addirittura costruito macchine uguali identiche al nostro primo prototipo), e quindi andranno poco lontane per motivi brevettuali, o sono molto inferiori come potenzialità. "

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7692 From: dave santos Date: 10/21/2012
Subject: Estimating AWES Economies-of-Scale (Notes)

We have been trying to realistically estimate the AWES market for years now. Its clear that "2004 Era" calculations were way too crude. Lets help Derek go beyond all those "2007" "cheaper-than-coal" GIGO projections. We know not to draw firm conclusions from just partial notes and scattered data, but note they indeed trend well for utility-scale AWE, and also suggest how complex any sound calculation will be-

1) AWE is substantially the mix of two aerospace engineering disciplines, conventional windpower and aviation. Therefore, the combined energy-unit-cost-to-characteristic-dimension scaling-curves (of small wind turbines to large turbines, and model airplanes to large airplanes) give an rough indication that a considerable scaling factor to applies to Derek's calculations, for more realistic results. 

2) We can review installed-watt cost and refine to lifecycle costs next, but there are many factors to account for.

3) We can't ignore major missing factors like land costs v. fuel costs. Even just land cost is a can-of-worms given variations in real estate pricing. KiteLab Austin directly validated Hay Production dual use last summer, but that's just one case.

4) Some round numbers for napkin-version calculations- A 500W small turbine or RC model aircraft easily costs a 1000USD, which is $2 per watt "installed cost". Somewhere i estimated the cost per watt of a modern airplane, but can't find it. Joe probably indexed-archiving our previous turns on this Iterative Spiral. Cost-per-installed-watt seems rather consistent across ECS scales, but O&M lifecycle costs drive the final result.

5) We keep the gas-turbine energy-unit cost in  mind, to see if we can beat it. Wikipedia offers a value of $1.30 per watt installed for gas turbines. Big wind seems to have around $3 pricing per installed watt, but the results vary greatly with wind quality. 

6) A rough trend in conventional wind is that economies-of-scale are mostly by a favorable extended lifecycle and higher placement. These trends are not so apparent in aviation, where "AWES altitude is cheap", and large aircraft types are retired early due to very competitive passenger and freight markets.

7) Insurability based on safety-critical performance drives aviation design and costs, and will also drive AWE, as aviation.

8) We have to keep in mind that much of the world pays far higher than best-rates for electrical generation. AWE only needs to chip-away at the high-end to to take root and grow.

9) AWE economic or engineering performance may progress far better or far worse than "experts" expect. The whole idea of a useful estimate may be a fallacy.


Hope this helps....
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7693 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 10/21/2012
Subject: Re: Are KiteGen Patents Blocking?


Just before:"Molti stranieri, invece, si sono limitati a copiare le nostre tecnologie e testarle nei loro Paesi. Ma non andranno molto lontano, i nostri brevetti gli impediranno di commercializzarle."

 

In English:"Many foreigners limited on the other hand to copy our technologies, and to make out a will to them in their Countries. But they will not go very far, our patents will prevent him from marketing them."

 

I was wrong.

 

PierreB


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7694 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 10/21/2012
Subject: Re: Spacing of rotors,spacing of tower wind turbines,spacing of AWES


DaveS,

 

Thanks for your analysis.

 

Concerning DougS,Selsam'probably sold more turbines than all the gathered AWE players.Hoping more sales from DougS returning such a Phoenix,and marketing for AWE players.

 

PierreB



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7695 From: dave santos Date: 10/21/2012
Subject: Must AWE Ventures "Merge-or-Die"? (re: KiteGen)
"Merge-or-die" is a common phrase in many markets like high-tech, law, and medicine. The WSJ even publishes articles on the subject. Joby "merged" with Makani rather than "die". WOW, KiteLab Group, Util, and others are building an AWE mass-merger not yet formally announced.  Rather than duplicating efforts and keeping scattered secrets, we intend to streamline and open up R&D efforts. Major investment may pile-on when a consolidated AWE industry dynamic is created. Hold-outs will be bought-up or generally wither away. The AWES Patent Pool is part of the merger strategy. Besides all the sound well-known business reasons for mergers, there is an engineering-science motivation for AWE mergers. By combining into larger teams we soonest reach the critical mass needed to complete broad foundational AWES engineering due-diligence. We keep in mind that Anti-Trust issues will someday emerge if we act greedy, but for now we look like an early "merge-or-die industry" headeded big-time.

A current hot-topic is Kitegen and its seeming IP overvaluation. It recently made big news as an interested party in the Italian Alcoa energy-pricing crisis, although its unclear how the "stem" is anywhere near ready to be deployed en masse. So, will KGR merge into a larger AWE industry group, with a more realistic re-valuation? Or will it wither and die, with a morose aloof founder sinking his ship with all aboard? There is a fine circle of sceintists and engineers associated with KGR who would make a great contribution to a merged venture. Besides the talented team, the pioneering KGR power plant in the Italian Piedmont has value, particularly if it was opened up to a far wider engineering team, by an industry merger, to fund testing of many more reeling methods not dependent on sideslipping, blowers, and robotic poles.

Lets hope Massimo will productively address the KiteGen "merge-or-die" topic, as he also clarifies his claims over KGR's real IP stategy and value.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7696 From: KITE GEN / Ippolito Date: 10/21/2012
Subject: Re: Are KiteGen Patents Blocking?
Pierre,
please, don't trust to everything.
I have an other style in my expressions, the journalist invented both the answers and the tone, I never spoke with the author of the article, and this unknown author, Alessandro Codegoni isn't among the redaction or collaborators of the portal http://qualenergia.it/redazione
Perhaps is just "bittertooth" to have released this interview, he is used to such grossness.
M.



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7697 From: Bob Stuart Date: 10/21/2012
Subject: Re: Must AWE Ventures "Merge-or-Die"? (re: KiteGen)
It is my impression that mergers become popular in shrinking markets, which large airborne generators may be in, but there are usually hundreds of manufacturers when a new technology first becomes popular.  Cars and hang-gliders both followed that pattern, and were slowly reeled in by enonomies of scale in the business overall, while the hardware got shaken out in the field.  
I wrote a business plan based on the difficulty of maintaining a copyright on a popular fiberglass molding.  Rather than trying to protect the design, I planned to sell molds, and form a co-op to trade ideas to improve the business in each city.  Producers could plug in at any level where they could meet minimum specs to use the brand name, or experiment on their own to develop a new version for consideration.  The more owners, the more innovation.

Bob Stuart

On 21-Oct-12, at 2:49 PM, dave santos wrote:


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7698 From: dave santos Date: 10/21/2012
Subject: QualEnergia Interview //Re: [AWES] Are KiteGen Patents Blocking?

So now Massimo claims the QualEnergia interview quoted is a fabrication. What an elaborate set-up that would be. Massimo wildly proposes Gaetano Dentamaro, who posted the article link and quotes to us, is somehow behind the article. Massimo never does deny the basic opinion quoted, and much more specific quotes regarding KGR IP in the group email he wrote.

The interview seems authentic, full of specific details and characteristic expression. The byline, Alessandro Codegoni, is found by the site's search-engine as author of several non-kite QualEnergia articles, so he seems to exist.

Here is a machine-garbled translation-


Kite Gen, kites wind who want to save the Alcoa

The engineer Massimo Ippolito's proposal to resolve the problem of Alcoa with the production of energy at bargain prices thanks to Kite Gen, a device that captures the wind wind around 1,000 meters high, imbrigliandolo in great kite, similar to those used to make changes in the sea. We interviewed him.
October 1, 2012
In the period in which American researchers Ken Caldeira, Kate Marvel and Ben Kravitz, they published an article in Nature Climate Change who contended that the maximum power obtainable from wind at high altitude (estimated in 1800 compared with about 18 TW of all energy humanity) could meet all our needs, without altering the Earth's climate, the engineer Massimo Ippolito 's proposal to resolve the more modest problems ofaluminum production in Sardinia , just using the same energy source, the wind around 1,000 meters in height, imbrigliandolo in large kite, similar to those used to make evolutions of the sea (see here ). The proposal, based on technology called KiteGen has generated surprise, enthusiasm, skepticism and even heavy irony. We then went to seek guidance at the same Massimo Ippolito, president of Turin's industrial automation company Sequoia Automation, which brings about a decade stubbornly forward his idea to tame the power of the wind, the more childish and seemingly unlikely means: the 'kite. We spoke to him just as he went by Ugo Cappellacci, the governor of Sardinia, to illustrate his proposal. As a result of this visit, Cappellacci KiteGen presented to the Ministry of Development, as a possible part of the solution of the problem Alcoa.
Ippolito engineer, to many, this idea of ​​using simple rectangles of cloth, even high tech, to produce the required GWh ultraeconomici dall'Alcoa to stay in Italy, it seems a joke in bad taste, given the drama of the situation. Can you explain how to extract so much energy from the wind with simple kites?
The kites we use are certainly rectangles of fabric and KiteGen, unfortunately, is not the kind of initiative that can be explained in a few lines. It is true, the situation is dramatic, although it could be expected for a long time, but KiteGen was born to offer an alternative to decline. Indeed, we are absolutely sure which is the most powerful and realistic out of the doldrums of the recession infinite. 
KiteGen I knew it would be a project that may seem bizarre. What I had not expected however is the paucity and stupidity of the system in which we have fallen, unable to systemic vision.  
Whoever wants detailed information, you can go to our website www.kitegen.com , and seek technical and popular material that explains the principles and potential. I would like to point out that, both in the work of Caldeira that NASA's KiteGen is explicitly mentioned and for the publication of many patents covering our idea we had to pass tests of originality and feasibility.
Ippolito is known to not have a very accommodating and diplomatic. Since I do not want to do it, we explain, in summary, that the kites, once at altitude, act like wings or sails that go upwind, the wind passing over their curved surface, it creates a tension proportional to surface of the kite and the cube of the wind speed. The kites used today by KiteGen, 50 square meters, pull with a force of several tons. Maneuvering the kite from the ground, by means of two cables, KiteGen to say, can be made to travel along a trajectory to eight, in part of which the kite moves away, by operating an alternator and producing energy, and in part is called back by a motor electric, consuming a small fraction of the energy produced earlier. The use of a kite fast and lightweight, allows to exploit very efficiently a volume of atmosphere much larger than that used by a wind turbine, and to go fishing winds of up to 2,000 meters of height, stronger and more constant than those close to the ground. According to the calculations of KiteGen, a kite of 150 square meters, is expected to reach 3 MW of power, like a big offshore turbine with a capacity factor of approximately 6,000 hours per year, twice the best obtainable on the ground. Although no one actually denies the enormous theoretical potential of high-altitude winds and many engineers think that the road taken by KiteGen to exploit them is one of the most promising, but we must also say that many of the same technicians assume that the estimates of power and capacity made by Ippolito be resized very, once you pass the paper to the real world.
Let's continue with the questions. Although it may be theoretically sound, it is undeniable that the KiteGen, for now, has not entered into a network kWh of energy. Does not it seem unrealistic to propose even more energy-consuming food factory in Italy, which alone consumes at full capacity, 1/150 electricity in our country?
The demonstration is not enter power into the grid but produce it at a cost competitive with the Chinese coal, and our focus right now is the industrialization of the machines. 
alternative proposals in the field for Alcoa, are continuing to sussidiarne electricity interventions with billionaires paid by citizens or burn coal sulfur Sulcis with CO2 capture. Knowing the techniques of CCS, simply an energy balance to find it is a proposal that does not stand up, scientifically and economically. 
We, however, do not propose in the first instance to become the owners of the factory or to manage it, but to nourish with cheap energy given that 90% of the problem on the table is just the cost of energy. 
proposal is this: you invest initially, a small part of the subsidy "superinterrompibilità" in the bill or the amounts provided by the European programs for reducing emissions, which currently would be used for the "solution" of coal with CCS. With this we will develop a system based on high-altitude wind generators that gradually will supply the Alcoa Portovesme all the energy it needs. 
estimate that we could build in the vicinity of Alcoa, an area of a couple of square kilometers, the high-altitude wind farm of 300 MW with a capacity factor of about 6,000 hours a year, would produce all the energy needed to under 30 euro per MWh required by Alcoa to stay Italy. 
During the transition period, some of the workers could work at start of KiteGen. I know that our proposal seems to have been diminished by the Minister Passera, perhaps due to the incompleteness of the information he had, but instead there is interest on the part of local authorities and of the same Alcoa American, beyond the situation in Sardinia, has the same problems with the cost of energy throughout the world. For them, a solution with low-cost renewable electricity, it would be a strategic asset of great value.
But, excuse me, Hippolytus: with this logic any person, more or less sane, which it considers to have in hand an energy technology revolution, but that has never produced anything, say, cold fusion, could ask for millions solve the problem of Alcoa ...
We do not make comparisons absurd and offensive. We have international patents granted, articles and quotes on real scientific journals since 2006 and we have already demonstrated the validity of our approach, producing energy, the research prototype, a hundred doctoral dissertations and the KiteGen, awards and recognition to the concept . We are now working with partners on the machine pre-industrial in Sommariva Perno, in Piedmont, 3 MW, which will serve as a reproducible model.
Many people say that there are many years worked and worked on this prototype, without coming up with nothing ...
After finishing the research phase, just three years working at the demonstrator, and financial resources always lags behind the plan. We anticipated 1000 months / man working for the complete development, and we are at 450. Beyond a very frivolous and unprofessional attitude of the so-called critical, our path does not lead to a toy but to design, build and test in real conditions a complex system, consisting of 78 subsystems. To understand the difficulty, you think to power sensors on the kite, we had to invent from scratch a small wind turbine with battery, mounted sull'aquilone, which alone took months of work and 600,000 euro.
By the way, how much you spent and where they got the money?
So far, the project has enjoyed and spent about $ 10 million for the research phase and patenting with dozens of stakeholders, including international. Just keep the 24 patents worldwide, it costs around € 20,000 per month. 
Approximately 5 million came from research funding in Europe, the rest are private funds, from other industrial activities, and hundreds of private investors, who bought quotas development against the counter guarantee and certificate of our patents. 
The plan implies a path from about 55 million in milestones leading to a pilot farm of 150 MW.
But is it realistic to check for months, and in any weather condition, a kite flying 1,000 feet up, freely rotating on itself, acting as a land of only two cables will not end all in a tangle with or unmanageable ' kite that falls on someone's head?
Absolutely realistic, when the system should not be able to control it is immediately aware, and returns the wing to the ground. However the kite does nothing freely, is instead controlled constantly and accurately, thanks to sensors that real-time updating the dynamics of the kite in the control system of the actuators / generators placed on the ground. As the flight path in the volume plane, also the rotations of the wing itself are therefore not causal, but decided by the control. The flight bound of KiteGen is much safer than a free flight: the possibility that the wing falls can not be excluded, but with a frequency, in perspective, less than commercial flights.
Lack of public support on your project, your accusations are based much of a plot, or at least ostracism, to the detriment of KiteGen from the world of politics and the energy industry. Are not you a bit 'paranoid?
Judge for yourself: in the time we saw 78 million eligible for funding for our proposals on calls for national and regional innovation. Of these we never saw a penny! 
Very often finance coverage ended for other purposes, such as saving Alitalia. 
Notices of Industry 2015 "high-altitude wind power" was explicitly mentioned, but then seems to have gone to the beautiful and original idea of "wind turbines on the summit of the mountains"! Waste of money, of course, a high-altitude wind power because it is viewed from ground level, two because they do not really have to do anything, landscaped grounds. 
Footnote television advertising claims that the taxes are paid for the services . But taxes and contributions on labor and co-workers that I take, I have to pay back without a shred of support for the research we do, and that, once completed, will be an invaluable industrial value to our country. 
So yes, I sincerely believe that many players in the world of energy fear the advent of our technology, which could send in their retirement, and we boycott by all means. 
And not only the giants of fossil fuels or nuclear power, but also certain organizations or associations sources. We know that in Anev, which should favor us in every way, instead of doing everything to discredits us.
But what do you care about the petty Italian? If your technology is of such great value and reliable, you should not have the line of international investors, at the door?
In Italy, many have tried to buy us including important players, but only to make us disappear and pave the way to nuclear power. Many foreigners, however, are limited to copy our technologies and test them in their countries. But they will not go very far, our patents will prevent him from marketing them. 
Perhaps the skeptics-incompetent mentioned at the beginning, they should know that at the time in the world there are as many as 54 people, including universities, research centers and private companies, which are pursuing, with methods identical or very similar to ours, exploitation strategies of high-altitude winds.
Among these competitors noted promising technologies?
Not many: either they are too similar to our own (some have even built identical machines identical to our first prototype), and thus will be a little far for patent reasons, or are much lower as potential.
In addition to kites, there is also the idea of sending share in conventional wind turbines, which are contained in airships (see www.altaerosenergies.com ) ...
Well, I believe that these demonstrations will only be limited to the scale of tens of W, as suspend and maintain share large turbines weighing tons, is not objectively feasible only with the buoyancy of a gas lighter than air. In addition, helium is a limited resource, expensive and non-renewable supply already in crisis, and a balloon or a blimp loses 20% every day.
There are other objections to the KiteGen, a is the wear, and thus the lack of durability, of the components, such as cables and actuators that maneuver the kite and that will be subject to continual stress; the other is on the interference with the air traffic.
The cables, made of polymeric material, the components are more perishable, but are subject to preventive replacement. It is evident that the implants KiteGen will not be achieved in areas intended for commercial flight. In all cases the wings will be equipped with systems and instrumentation (lights and radar transponder) for always being visible to the protection of maximum safety.
One last thing, she presented with tones sometimes a little 'messianic, the KiteGen as the only, or almost only way to save the world from energy shortages and climate catastrophe. Do not overdo it a bit '? Do not you think that other solutions, such as wind standard, geothermal, solar and the like, are now already playing a role as important as that expected for the KiteGen? And there is also the hope of ITER, the international fusion reactor ...
I love technology, in all its forms, I'm not ruling foreclosures. But the experience of recent years shows that most of these new renewable technologies survive only if encouraged, sometimes excessively so, as in Italy. The energy produced by KiteGen, when fully operational, however it will not need incentives, since it will cost less than that of coal. In addition, all existing renewable technologies have bigger problems than expansion or environmental sustainability. The wind on land, for example, is rapidly saturating the places most likely to exploit, and the offshore and floating foundations that will always be too expensive in terms of energy and money needed. Photovoltaics, however, will always be handicapped by its low EROEI: it requires too much energy to build, compared to what it produces in the course of life. A panel silicon has a EROEI, to be optimistic, of 8, the KiteGen of 300. It is true that PV has dropped in price, but I think that this phase will end with the exhaustion of unsold stock, accumulated over the years. If we truly believe, should take advantage of this time to build factories solar panels, powered by the sun and turn around so the problem dell'EROEI, but I see that nobody does. As for Iter, do not make me talk ... with what it costs only one of its magnets I could build the entire prototype KiteGen ...
October 1, 2012

Comments

INVESTING IN KITEGEN

Gaetano Dentamaro - 21/10/2012 - 18:08
WOW SpA, the holding company to invest in the first Kitegen (r), is interested in reducing its stake in KGR Srl (the company holding the patent Kitegen (r)). We invite interested investors to get in touch: venditakgr@windoperationsworldwide.com

MR. IPPOLITO ANSWER

Renato - 06/10/2012 - 19:31
Mr. Ippolito please reply directly, how much energy has poured into his kite network over the past six months, and how much time and 'been flying consecutively? So much to relate to 3 MW and 6,000 hours of capacity factor, more or less, less than one kWh, and more or less than 60 minutes?

MR. IPPOLITO ANSWER

Renato - 06/10/2012 - 19:30
Mr. Ippolito please reply directly, how much energy has poured into his kite network over the past six months, and how much time and 'been flying consecutively? So much to relate to 3 MW and 6,000 hours of capacity factor, more or less, less than one kWh, and more or less than 60 minutes?

FABIO ROGGIOLANI THE INFAMOUS SELLER OF "SNAKE OIL"?

Massimo Ippolito - 04/10/2012 - 00:07
Apart from a few comments showing the spread dell'anafabetismo return and the difficulty in understanding a written page, it seems to me that of Fabio Roggiolani comment particularly tasty, in fact aware drug dealer who sailed and buffaloes: http://www.corriere. it/Primo_Piano/Scienze_e_Tecnologie/2005/08_Agosto/22/nanopolveri.shtml He can not remotely imagine or suspect that in the world there can be honesty and intellectual rigor. Please note you write 25 Euro MWh, not MW, for someone who wrote a book on "the energy of the future" does not seem acceptable. Anyway thank you for reminding me that Matteo Renzi introduced KiteGen in your program, I had not even noticed, and we are honored.

VALID DATA

Renato - 02/10/2012 - 21:31
Thanks Mr. Codegoni is the first time she comes to read me an 'interview with Mr. Ippolito who is not a certified copy of what you can find on the site Kitegen. I would ask only to check the surface of the kites in use today, she brings fifty square meters but I think it's much higher than the true. Mr. Ippolito, she speaks of validated data: it could provide a valid document that shows how much energy he produced his apparatus in the last say six months? You represent a "capacity factor" of his car of 6000 hours / year could provide a valid document that shows the duration of the longest flight so far carried out by his kite, and the hours flown in the last say six months? Thanks for the 'attention. R

@ ALSARAGO58 NOT HAVE

robertok06 - 02/10/2012 - 17:19
@ Alsarago58 have not found much 'cause you have not looked in the right place .... if you search for "fusion engineering and design elsevier" with google helmets on the website of the magazine that comes to these things (not only that, but the most 'famous / influential) ... which deals with the engineering aspects of this type of machines (physical that is done with them, and 'being discussed in other reviews). This long link allows you to see all the articles about the design of components EAST or comparisons with similar machines, or mentioning EAST ... are 6 pages of 50 items each. Article no.54 is entitled "Preliminary design of lithium lead test blanket module for the Advanced Superconducting Tokamak Experimental Chinese" R.

€ 25 MW AND THE CHATTER OF THE KITE JANUARY

Fabio Roggiolani - 02/10/2012 - 13:24
He complains ippolito For years complains with € 5 million of European fobdi I complain instead of complaining I costruuto the first plant and I would have avoided me advertising on workers alcoa For me it is an unlikely thing for years sold for years by followers as chemtrails and now also in the program of the mythical renzi

DRIVEN BY THE COMMENT

alsarago58 - 02/10/2012 - 11:29
Driven by the comment of Robert, I went to look for news on this EAST, which actually did not know.From what I've found (usually news a few years ago), I think that EAST is itself part of the ITER project (which China also cooperates), in the sense that it has the primary task to test some components and techniques that then will be employed on ITER. The main, and most remarkable, is about EAST is to be the first superconducting tokamak, and this is in fact a miniature ITER, and has demonstrated the viability of this route. For the rest I have not read anything about "blankets" of uranium, and even battery, maybe I did not find the references right ... And the possibility of using the deuterium-deuterium fusion, it was only a hypothesis futuristic (at least in the comments left when opening EAST): the reactor at the beginning, work on plasmas of normal hydrogen, groped without reaching the fusion, also because reach it, for the production of neutrons, really complicate operations. The more informed comment on EAST I've found is that, in 2007, but http://www.eskimo.com/ ~ nanook/science/2007/04/chinas-east-fusion-reactor.html. It 's true that the Chinese opened a factory in a week, but now do not overdo it, you do not have built in 3 years ... EAST EAST was mounted in three years, but the design and construction of the various components has required a ten. Among other things,

(Message over 64 KB, truncated)
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7699 From: dave santos Date: 10/21/2012
Subject: Re: Must AWE Ventures "Merge-or-Die"? (re: KiteGen)
Bob wrote- "It is my impression that mergers become popular in shrinking markets."

That's quite true, but markets can also be growing and merger-mania occurring for various other reasons, which include excess suppliers, monopolistic intent, and the quest for economies-of-scale. Market fluctuations also shake out players by temporary shrinkage in generally growing markets.

All-of-the-above seems to apply to AWE, given the Makani-Joby merger, the AWEC consortium experiment, and current ferment toward new mergers. No overnight monopoly seems possible now, as it briefly seemed when Makani-Google first announced*. In particular, the Germans are a strong collection of players not too tempted to merge, except perhaps within their circles.


* At that point Makani could have acquired or partnered with the preponderance of serious AWE players on a balanced R&D effort, but gambled instead on a technological slam-dunk that never happened. They made a minor play in KiteShip. Later the Joby merger and AWEC domination was as far as they got toward cornering the R&D market. 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7700 From: dave santos Date: 10/21/2012
Subject: Train of Kytoons in a Harry Potter Movie
Another weird bit of kite trivia suggestive of a growing popular trend-

In "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1" a Train of Kytoons (tethered winged aerosats) are briefly seen flying over the stone tower house of Xenophilius* Lovegood. They look inspired by Cody, who developed man-lifting kite trains, and also put wings on an early dirigible.

* translation: "lover-of-strangeness"
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7701 From: Doug Date: 10/22/2012
Subject: Re: Are KiteGen Patents Blocking?
54 teams without a single wind energy person, no doubt... (you can't make this stuff up!) Well certainly with 54 teams, there can be NO DOUBT that they are on the right track, right? I think any bureaucrat would agree with that! Funding please!...

Just remember the joke about the drunk looking for his keys under the lamppost. Why is he looking under the lamppost even though he dropped them somewhere else? The light is better there. (punchline)

Why do people want to make power (force x distance / time) by the pull of a (normally stationary) string? They have flown kites and that pull on the string is what they know. That is the extent of the light of their old, reliable lamppost, and they are stuck under that lamppost because what is beyond the light of the lamppost is unknown. To them.
:)
Doug Selsam

--- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, Gaetano Dentamaro <bittertooth@...
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7702 From: Doug Date: 10/22/2012
Subject: Re: Spacing of rotors,spacing of tower wind turbines,spacing of AWES
This is where I get to waste a few more minutes correcting the endless erroneous content of Dave S.' posts, (and sometimes others).

1) First of all, there's nothing about the skew angle of a rotor that allows closer spacing. The angle is just an artifact of a skewed angle for the driveshaft that allows many rotors to be attached to that same driveshaft and still all be in their own fresh wind stream. Tilting hubs etc, can be applied, so the rotors can be straight on. Skew angle has no bearing on the spacing of turbines at a windfarm. Yes if you know which way the wind will come from, you can just place turbines side-by-side. It's the downwind spacing that is the issue, and, again, rotor skew angle has nothing to do with this. All this discussion of skew angle is nothing but meaningless blather, yet someone reading it for the first time would assume DAve S. had a PhD and the discussion had some meaning - it has none.

2) Dave S. is not my life coach or anything else, and I have not "turned on" anyone. I'm used to a yahoo wind energy group where we have 3000 wind energy people and the occasional newbie steps in and needs guidance. In the AWE group, the numbers are reversed. I try to help people new to wind energy learn. I find the insane ramblings of Dave S. to be entertaining in some warped way, but overall, a huge distraction.

Dave S. I have to re-iterate: We see wind energy nutcases come and go. You exhibit all the symptoms. Every time you try to prove otherwise, you just broadcast all those symptoms again, like a person stuck in quicksand sinks deeper every time they struggle.

The quicksand you are stuck in is your own ignorance of the art of wind energy. I tried to extend a branch of understanding so you might grab it and pull yourself out of your quicksand. The reality is, there are unlimited branches for you to grab, but you refuse to open you eyes to see them, so you sink a bit deeper every day.

I'm also a bit jaded at the big bureaucracies that have the status of hero worship in our minds. I noticed a while back that bureaucracies sometimes exhibit a lack of understanding, and can thereby serve to align large numbers of people in the wrong directions, waste huge amounts of money, and not see the forest for the trees.

One has to have a bit of fun in life, and laughter is the best medicine, so please excuse me as I first predict which bureaucracies and companies wasting millions of dollars will fall on their faces, based on a few years of watching it happen, then laugh as they fail to do anything meaningful, day after day, til the days turn into years then decades.

One might try cataloging all wind energy companies, and all "new" turbine designs to come along in the past 20 years, and document how many of these new types of turbines have panned out. Run the numbers.
Thousands / zero. Hmmmm. (A clue? Only if you want to see it. Some don't.)

Now check out the characteristics of those thousands of failures against the characteristics of the few successes that all, mysteriously, look quite similar. Now just don't make your "new" idea resemble the thousands of failures, and you MIGHT have something that really IS new, that has some promise.

All in all my message is this: Learn what is, THEN seek to improve it.
Or don't, and you won't!

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




Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7703 From: Redazione online QualEnergia.it Date: 10/22/2012
Subject: R: Intervista di Codegoni a Ippolito sul Kitegen: un falso? Richiest
L'intervista è stata rilasciata da Ippolito a un giornalista che sul nostro portale si firma con uno pseudomino; il testo approvato da Ippolito, con relative modifiche da lui fatte, è disponibile; vero che il giornalista ha reinserito alcune frasi che erano state eliminate, diversamente il pezzo - a suo avviso - avrebbe perso di comprensibilità.
Come siamo stati raggiungibili per voi, lo saremmo stati anche per Ippolito se avesse voluto fugare i suoi dubbi, forse ha rilasciato molte interviste in quel periodo e aveva dimenticato questa.
Con i migliori saluti
 
La redazione

---------- Messaggio inoltrato ----------
Da: Gaetano Dentamaro <bittertooth@bittertooth.org Date: 22 ottobre 2012 12:23
Oggetto: Intervista di Codegoni a Ippolito sul Kitegen: un falso? Richiesta chiarimenti
A: redazione-online@qualenergia.it


Gentile redazione,

in una discussione che si sta sviluppando sulla lista AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, a proposito della validità di brevetti sull'eolico di alta quota e in particolare di quelli detenuti dalla società KiteGen Research S.r.l., Massimo Ippolito, che della KGR è il socio principale, ha sostenuto che l'intervista pubblicata sul vs. sito a firma Alessandro Codegoni

<http://qualenergia.it/articoli/20121001-kite-gen-gli-aquiloni-eolici-che-vogliono-salvare-l-alcoa
è un falso: Ippolito non avrebbe mai parlato con Codegoni, un "autore sconosciuto" che non farebbe nemmeno parte del novero dei vs. collaboratori.

Riporto sotto quanto scritto da Ippolito stesso nella lista. Sarebbe utile, al fine di chiarire la questione, un commento da parte vostra e/o da parte di Codegoni, il quale potrebbe precisare se, quando e con quali modalità ha effettivamente realizzato l'intervista in questione.

In attesa di vs. cortese riscontro, cordiali saluti.
--

G.
<bittertooth@bittertooth.org Gaetano Dentamaro
<gaetano.dentamaro@wow.pe WOW SpA - http://wow.pe/

__________________________________________________

Redazione Qualenergia.it

Il portale dell'energia sostenibile che analizza mercati e scenari

e-mail: redazione-online@qualenergia.it

www.qualenergia.it

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

Vuoi ricevere la Newsletter quindicinale di Qualenergia?

Iscriviti alla Mailing list:

http://www.qualenergia.it/newsletter


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7704 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 10/22/2012
Subject: Re: Spacing of rotors,spacing of tower wind turbines,spacing of AWES

Thanks for the explains Doug,

 

Particulary the very clear and explicite 1st point.

 

PierreB




Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7705 From: dave santos Date: 10/22/2012
Subject: Re: Spacing of rotors,spacing of tower wind turbines,spacing of AWES
Doug,

The Doug's Life Coach shtick is an old Forum joke you simply forgot. Sorry you can't find the idea incredibly hilarious. I just can't stop laughing at this burnished old chestnut.

My rotor spacing comment was about how close-spaced side-by-side conventional rotors can be without interference, NOT about the SuperTurbine (R) "skew angle" trade-off against masked turbines along a diagonal "rotating tower". That subject was well covered in past years.

Thanks for always attempting to correct my "endless erroneous content". If you ever succeed, it will be Herculean feat of persistence against odds.

Your faithful friend,

daveS
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7706 From: dave santos Date: 10/22/2012
Subject: English Translation- Re: [AWES] R: Intervista di Codegoni a Ippolito
[QualEnergia relies to the idea Massimo's interview was faked]

[Massimo] Ippolito was interviewed by a reporter that on our portal signs with a pseudonym, the text approved by [Editor] Hippolytus, with amendments made by him, is available; It's true that the journalist reinstated a few sentences that had been eliminated, otherwise the piece - in his opinion - would lose comprehensibility.

Just as we reply to you, I'd be willing to inform Ippolito if he wants to dispel his doubts, perhaps has released many interviews at the time and had forgotten this.

With best regards
[QualEnergia Editorial Staff]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Gaetano Dentamaro <bittertooth@bittertooth.org Request clarification
A: redazione-online@qualenergia.it


Dear Editor,

In a discussion that is developing on the list AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, about the validity of patents on wind energy at high altitudes and in particular those held by the company KiteGen Research Srl, Massimo Ippolito, who is the main partner of KGR, argued that the interview published on your machine. Site signed by Alessandro Codegoni

<http://qualenergia.it/articoli/20121001-kite-gen-gli-aquiloni-eolici-che-vogliono-salvare-l-alcoa part of the group of vs. employees.

Carried under the same written by Hippolytus in the list. It would be useful to clarify the question, a comment from you and / or by Codegoni, which could indicate whether, when and how he actually made the interview in question.

Pending vs. courteous reply, best regards.
-

G.
<bittertooth@bittertooth.org
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7707 From: roderickjosephread Date: 10/22/2012
Subject: mesh of winders flying train arrays

Imagine tessellating the system I described in message 7617

 

You could have an array of ground based winders, being powered by a nodal array of kite trains.

 

The basic tile was thus...

a star array of ground based winders,

Above the centre of each group of winders,

Link each tether to a swivel,

A controller figure eights a powerful train of kites above.

 

Should the train be the same vertical stretch as the length between two winders? That way the landed train can be stowed taught between two winders.

Is there an optimal distance between the swivel and the train controller so that the sweep can leverage the winders? Is that zero?




Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7708 From: dave santos Date: 10/22/2012
Subject: Cost Engineering Standards for AWE

We play with AWES cost projections with an understanding how uncertain and incorrect casual estimates can be. At least we are learning new things while gathering essential data.

Fortunately there is a well established field of Cost Engineering, with high existing standards to emulate. If we can attract diligent qualified Cost Engineers to study AWE, we will hopefully get the actionable insights needed-

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7709 From: dave santos Date: 10/22/2012
Subject: Toward a Logical Proof of Superior Kite Arch Scaling Potential
Here is a logical case for large cross-linked AWES arches, for Robert Copcutt, and anyone else in doubt-

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

Toward a Logical Proof of Superior Kite Arch Scaling Potential

Single-Anchor Kites (including Kite Trains) are the default design assumption of most early AWES R&D. Double-Anchor Kite Arches coincidentally developed in classic kiting circles, and are lately entering comparative evaluation with other major concepts. The following is a possible logical proof that Double-Anchor Arches are inherently more Scalable than Single-Anchor-

Whereas, 

1) The flyable sky is finite in the vertical dimension: All AWES are here presumed to operate within this limit.

2) The largest kites are necessarily inflated tensile "soft structure", under cubic-mass scaling law.

3) A Single-Anchor Kite or Train is limited to a maximum width crosswind determined by a ratio of inflated span to vertical scope.

4) It is the ratio of a split bridle to kite wingspan, as observed in standard soft kites across a large scale spectrum; its about 5 up by 1 across, as determined by a balance of the rigger's-angle to the lateral inflation-force.

5) A Double Anchor Kite Arch within the same vertical scope is not so limited. A practical arch far outdoes the single-anchor ratio, and can easily be set crosswind within the vertical limit at about 1 up by 4 across.

6) A geometric projection* of scaling area for each case reveals a conservative 6 to 1 scaling advantage for the arch. At least six maximal single-anchor kites would be needed to match one maximal arch.

Therefore, the Double-Anchor arch is shown to be inherently more scalable by area, at least in the abstract. 


* Only the top half of the vertical scope is projected. Projecting both halves favors arch area even more.

----------------------- notes ----------------------------

Several operational factors cut against the six maximal single-anchor kites- 

a) Each of the maximal kites would be less inherently stable than the arch, and require six control threads. 
b) Six maximal kites would need far more land and airspace for scope against fouling, compared with one arch. 
c) There would be three times the anchor-count and related components, compared to the single arch (both equivalent overall by rated forces).

Arches do entail a practical requirement to actively rotate with wind direction, where single anchor kites just passively rotate. This could be a driving factor in some design cases. In extreme veering wind, both kinds of kites are challenged, with the arch seeming to have better "fail-soft" behavior.

At less than maximal scales, single-anchor kites have many useful applications (including AWES), especially when pairs or circles of anchors are impractical.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7710 From: Doug Date: 10/23/2012
Subject: Re: Cost Engineering Standards for AWE
Maybe between Honeywell, Lockheed Martin, ARPA-E, NASA, DOE, NREL, AWEC, UDelfts, and WOW, (have I missed anyone?) you can figure it out. Or not - the biggest gun, aimed in the wrong direction, is 100% ineffective! "You can't make this stuff up!" AWE is getting funnier and funnier, the longer it baffles the "leading minds", deftly dodging their best efforts to "pin it down".

These agencies remind me of running across the land in a strong wind chasing a piece of paper that blew away - good luck! Every time you try to grab it, it disappears and there it is again, just out of reach. One person can chase that piece of paper, or a hundred can try to chase it and trample each other to death in a stampede. What would that look like? How 'bout millions of dollars wasted chasing the wrong technology because out of all those experts, not ONE knows what to do. Not one even "gets it".

All those years of college. What would your mother think? You should be ashamed! Well, would we expect a government music development program to result in Jimi Hendrix showing the world how to play guitar? Doubtful -- you'd be looking at the marine band - well-produced old standards.

I remember talking with a well-regarded flute-player years ago, who was baffled how my band could go play gigs with no written music. She didn't understand how anyone could play an instrument without looking at a written score. She was baffled that anyone could improvise. Thought it seemed impossible. I guess that is the mindset of some people running organizations: good at following formats and procedures, incapable of thinking beyond what they have already seen. The result? Hundreds of people with PhD's, all stuck at the first stage of waking up to the potential of airborne wind energy: "Hey this string has a pull!" Whooppee guys, good observation, and congratulations on that PhD!

I have a turbine outside making between 500 Watts and 1 kW, all day, sometimes more. The active energy-gathering component sweeps an area of a 10-foot diameter circle. The cost of the energy-gathering component starts with the raw materials: a mind-boggling $3 for a 10-foot 2 x 4 from Cheapo-Depot (careful to find one without big knots).

Shaping it (removing everything but the blade hidden within) costs more than the wood, since you use up sandpaper. But then if you want to paint or varnish it, your costs just doubled or tripled. Leading edge tape - cost doubled again. Still, for around $20 or $30, you end up with a reliable 1 kW energy-gathering unit that will function for many years.

If you can use an off-the-shelf induction motor, you might have an economical product, otherwise you need a supermagnet generator (somewhat expensive even if you make it yourself), and a grid-tie inverter (pretty expensive and easy to ruin).

As with solar, even if the panels were free, by the time you engineer the support system, cabling, inverter, etc. you are lucky to beat the cost of just paying your electric bill. Making power is easy - doing it economically is not so easy.

Geez I'd better get out there and fabricate!
:)
Doug S.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7711 From: Doug Date: 10/23/2012
Subject: Re: Toward a Logical Proof of Superior Kite Arch Scaling Potential
I agree (and always have) that using the (unlimited for our purposes) compression strength of the ground is a wise use of something Mother Nature provides for free (if you consider land free).
Hence the cross-canyon SuperTurbine(R) concept, among others

I'd add the notion that two cross-wind-spaced anchors, one at each end, is just the simplest case, resulting in a single arch. More anchors could be added in between, and upwind and downwind. It takes us back to the array concept. No doubt a mile of land is easier to implement than a mile of spar.

Ironically, most small turbine installations already utilize this "advanced" (futuristic?) concept: The guy wires span some real estate at their base, with that compression strength of the ground being the main structural element in the whole installation.

Additionally, in a 30 MPH wind, the weight of the turbine becomes less and less of a factor. It's basically like a sideways gyrocopter, flying against a guy wire at that point.

OK I've said enough. At this rate astute people (if there are any) (which is actually in doubt by this point!) will figure out how to do AWE just by reading my observations.

OK Doug, shut up and get back out into the shop!
:)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7712 From: dave santos Date: 10/23/2012
Subject: Call for Chapters (AWE Textbook to be published by Springer)
This is sure to be the classic book in AWE. Standards will be very high, given such a great editorial team. Its essential they have access to the best possible engineering-science content. Don't expect this to be promotional vehicle for any particular venture. You need not compose a whole chapter to help; good data sets, unique prototype documentation, graphic illustrations and the like, can perhaps merit a footnote or image credit in a specific chapter team effort. Early contact with the editors helps make these connections. The deadline is Dec. 15. Pass this notice along.

Follow the link to the detailed announcement-

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7713 From: dave santos Date: 10/23/2012
Subject: Doug Off-topic Reminder //Re: [AWES] Re: Cost Engineering Standards
Doug,

Please change the subject line when you have nothing to say on-topic (which was Cost Engineering).

Recall the joke about the Wright Brothers, who came each summer to KittyHawk to fly experiments. The same local farmer would always intrude on their camp, glance at the kites and what-not, smile wisely, and opine, "It will never get off the ground". Year by year he increasingly annoyed the brothers with the same constant refrain, "It will never get off the ground, it will never get off the ground".

The farmer was there the day the Brothers set up the aircraft, fired up its engine, released the catapult, and it flew. The Brothers then looked over to the farmer, who grumbled with scornful agitation- "Well, if you have to do it that way!"

You seem as naive as the farmer to all the great ongoing progress in Kite Energy, 

daveS

PS Percival Lowell, the founder of the modern mountaintop astronomical observatory era, is a specific top scientist who believed in ETs long before you time. There were many others of course. How you can imagine yourself to be the uniquely prescient mind of this subject is consistent with your equally shakey opinions of Kite Energy. Please curb the know-nothing biases.

PPS You have yet to provide the rough numbers needed for lifting all your turbines and conductors (number, weight totals) to 500ft with a Mothra. Combined power rating would be nice too.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7714 From: Gaetano Dentamaro Date: 10/24/2012
Subject: Re: English Translation- Re: [AWES] R: Intervista di Codegoni a Ippo
The journalist under the pseudonym "Alessandro Codigoni" sent me an email confirming that he made the interview by telephone with Ippolito and the text was reviewed by Ippolito's coworker Riccardo Renna before publication on Qualenergia.it website.

He also says that " Ippolito, obviously, knew who was behind that pseudonym, I know him from several years. "

FYI, the email was addressed also directly to AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com but probably bounced back because "Codigoni" is not subscribed to the group.

It's a case of "Romnesia" spreading? I don't think so.

Ippolito wrote: "
Perhaps is just "bittertooth" to have released this interview, he is used to such grossness. "

Talking about slander...

--
G.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7715 From: Doug Date: 10/24/2012
Subject: Doug Off-topic Reminder //Re: [AWES] Re: Cost Engineering Standards
Nice analogy except the farmer needs to have already showed the Wright brothers how to fly, having done it himself, and they ignored it. And the farmer is standing there going "how many times do I need to show you how to fly? Why can you think of only one really lame way to fly when I can show you 10 better ways without breaking a sweat? Why are there 54 of you teams trying the same lame method with no good results? And the farmer gets into his STOL SuperCub with a 50-foot takeoff run, and flies away.

Dave the post was on topic regarding cost: 20-30 bucks for a 1 kW rotor. I know, I know, who cares about a rotor, right? Making a kW? Lasting years? Proven technology? lightweight and reliable? Irrelevant, right? You see, a single word from the world of wind energy makes your eyes glaze over...

People have known there was life in space since prehistoric times. It's only modern "science", with quotation marks, turned into a bureaucracy, that confused "not having proof of alien life" with "proving there is no alien life".

Make no mistake Big Dave, when I was a kid, the "scientific concensus" was "there is no life off Earth", (like the Big Bang today - a simple biblical answer, and as a mere toddler, I already had the somewhat sad, yet promising thought: "I wonder when the "scientists" will attain the level of understanding I already have as a 5-year-old, from hearing what the scientists themselves say!

I mean seriously, I was thinking the "scientists" have this one wrong before I could even read! And most any kid asked if there were life off the planet anywhere would guess "yes". Only trained "scientists" said "no". We still don't "know", its just that more of us have now attained even the mere wisdom of a child, so "scientists" having grown up a bit, to the mental maturity of a 5-year-old, in the ensuing decades, at least now realize that nobody has proven there's no extraterrestrial life.

Dave, you should just stick to one topic:
I'd stick with
1) defending the Honeywell turbine;
2) your quantum physics regarding oscillating arrays;
3) defending cloth surfaces for wind energy gathering;
4) defending non-rotational scenarios;
5) writing exceedingly complicated arguments around complex sets of rules you'll probably never actually encounter, that few can read through, and fewer can understand.
I get the feeling I'm missing quite a few crazy directions of your posts, but...

Go ahead and explain to the world how pulling on a string is the answer to the energy crisis - heck maybe it is! Another prescient saying from the outhouse wall: Eat Sh**, 1,000,000 flies can't be wrong! Or 1,000,000 flies all look for their keys under the lightpost because the light is better there!
:)

I saw an interview with a GM executive on the financial channel where he was laughing at all these electric car companies' struggles, pointing out how surprised they always are at every normal difficulty that car companies are used to dealing with.

He says their biggest problem is they assumed the existing car industry was just a bunch of dummies that knew nothing, then they ran into all the supply and design problems the car industry figured out how to deal with years ago. Said if they had hired a few more people from the car industry they would have a better chance.

Sound familiar?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 7716 From: Joe Faust Date: 10/24/2012
Subject: Peak-power records by AWES
Invited: Keep this thread for posting peak-power records obtained by using AWES. 

What is the peak-power record obtained by SkySails using the fixed-tether-lengthed cross-winding tactic?  
Answer:________________________ on date:________ at site: _______________________. 

What is the peak-power record obtained by _______________ using the Yo-Yo reeling long-strong tactic?

What is the peak-power record obtained by ________________ using a Savonius LTA driver in flygen mode?

What is the peak-power record obtained by ________________ using a Savonius LTA driver in flygen mode?

What is the peak-power record obtained by ________________ using quad-rotor flygen?

What is the peak-power record obtained by ________________ using ________________method?