Messages in AirborneWindEnergy group.                           AWES8074to8123 Page 59 of 440.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8074 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/30/2012
Subject: Re: TED: Roland Schmehl

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8075 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/30/2012
Subject: Joost Kirkenier and Sarina Stevens

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8076 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/30/2012
Subject: KitePower team notes

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8077 From: dave santos Date: 12/1/2012
Subject: Wind Powered Vertical Lift (Review and Update)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8078 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/1/2012
Subject: Re: Wind Powered Vertical Lift (Review and Update)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8079 From: roderickjosephread Date: 12/1/2012
Subject: Re: Wind Powered Vertical Lift (Review and Update)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8080 From: Rod Read Date: 12/1/2012
Subject: Re: Wind Powered Vertical Lift (Review and Update)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8081 From: edoishi Date: 12/1/2012
Subject: Re: Mothra 2

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8082 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/1/2012
Subject: Re: Wind Powered Vertical Lift (Review and Update)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8083 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/2/2012
Subject: Remembering 2008 through Patricia L.Kirk

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8084 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/2/2012
Subject: Re: Another plug for Makani

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8085 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/2/2012
Subject: Re: Another plug for Makani

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8086 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/3/2012
Subject: Re: Another plug for Makani

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8087 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/3/2012
Subject: Sky WindPower Corporation (notes/review)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8088 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/3/2012
Subject: Re: Sky WindPower Corporation (notes/review)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8089 From: weimdad Date: 12/3/2012
Subject: Re: Wax-Filled Nanotech Yarn Behaves Like Super-Strong Muscle

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8090 From: dave santos Date: 12/3/2012
Subject: Weirdest Kite Physics Yet

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8091 From: Bob Stuart Date: 12/3/2012
Subject: Re: Weirdest Kite Physics Yet

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8092 From: dave santos Date: 12/3/2012
Subject: Re: Weirdest Kite Physics Yet

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8093 From: Rod Read Date: 12/3/2012
Subject: Re: Weirdest Kite Physics Yet

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8094 From: Bob Stuart Date: 12/3/2012
Subject: Re: Weirdest Kite Physics Yet

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8095 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/3/2012
Subject: Re: SWP review sparked DBMurr to some rotor adventures

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8096 From: dave santos Date: 12/3/2012
Subject: Re: Weirdest Kite Physics Yet

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8097 From: dave santos Date: 12/3/2012
Subject: Re: Weirdest Kite Physics Yet

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8098 From: Bob Stuart Date: 12/3/2012
Subject: Re: Weirdest Kite Physics Yet

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8099 From: dave santos Date: 12/3/2012
Subject: Macroscopic Quantum Phenomena (including second-sound, etc.)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8100 From: Bob Stuart Date: 12/3/2012
Subject: Re: Macroscopic Quantum Phenomena (including second-sound, etc.)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8101 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 12/3/2012
Subject: Re: Macroscopic Quantum Phenomena (including second-sound, etc.)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8102 From: dave santos Date: 12/3/2012
Subject: Re: Macroscopic Quantum Phenomena (including second-sound, etc.)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8103 From: dave santos Date: 12/3/2012
Subject: Bob's "more realistic methods and solutions"

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8104 From: J Calvert Date: 12/3/2012
Subject: IEEE Spectrum article

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8105 From: Bob Stuart Date: 12/3/2012
Subject: Re: Macroscopic Quantum Phenomena (including second-sound, etc.)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8106 From: dave santos Date: 12/3/2012
Subject: Classical Prediction of AWES Conductor v. Mechanical Tug Transmissio

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8107 From: dbmurr@ymail.com Date: 12/3/2012
Subject: Re: Macroscopic Quantum Phenomena (including second-sound, etc.)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8108 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/3/2012
Subject: Re: IEEE Spectrum article

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8109 From: David Lang Date: 12/3/2012
Subject: Re: Macroscopic Quantum Phenomena (including second-sound, etc.)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8110 From: dave santos Date: 12/3/2012
Subject: Re: Macroscopic Quantum Phenomena (including second-sound, etc.)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8111 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 12/4/2012
Subject: Re: Bob's "more realistic methods and solutions"

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8112 From: dave santos Date: 12/4/2012
Subject: Re: Bob's "more realistic methods and solutions"

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8113 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 12/4/2012
Subject: Re: Macroscopic Quantum Phenomena (including second-sound, etc.)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8114 From: J Calvert Date: 12/4/2012
Subject: Re: IEEE Spectrum article

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8115 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 12/4/2012
Subject: Re: Bob's "more realistic methods and solutions"

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8116 From: Pierre Benhaiem Date: 12/4/2012
Subject: AirborneWindEnergy group as laboratory towards working schemes

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8117 From: Rod Read Date: 12/4/2012
Subject: Re: Bob's "more realistic methods and solutions"

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8118 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 12/4/2012
Subject: Re: Bob's "more realistic methods and solutions"

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8119 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/4/2012
Subject: Levopters

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8120 From: dave santos Date: 12/4/2012
Subject: The Quantum Kite Hypothesis is no Pop Analogy

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8121 From: David Lang Date: 12/4/2012
Subject: Re: Macroscopic Quantum Phenomena (including second-sound, etc.)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8122 From: Bob Stuart Date: 12/4/2012
Subject: Fabric Covered Wings Return

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8123 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/4/2012
Subject: Re: Fabric Covered Wings Return



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8074 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/30/2012
Subject: Re: TED: Roland Schmehl
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8075 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/30/2012
Subject: Joost Kirkenier and Sarina Stevens
Congratulations to  Joost Kirkenier and Sarina Stevens
for winning prize!  
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8076 From: Joe Faust Date: 11/30/2012
Subject: KitePower team notes

#TUDelft #Kitepower team John van den Heuvel & Joost Schw... on Twitpic"
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8077 From: dave santos Date: 12/1/2012
Subject: Wind Powered Vertical Lift (Review and Update)
Kites can far exceed the lifting power of any other aviation technology at far less cost per unit mass. Vertical Lift is effectively engineerable anti-gravity, a Newtonian "up" force. For AWES, the relationship of Lift with Energy is subtle enough that its easy to overlook important principles. The most basic fact is that excess weight aloft robs useful lift, and requires extra power to sustain.

A classic kite approach to useful up-force is modular pilot-lift to carry suspended payloads. This is not so different than how a crane or elevator works. By contrast, many AWES concepts avoid the modular use of lift to carry up dedicated WECS, hoping for complex controls to best maintain a controlled lift and balanced power extraction.

We have explored how the planetary gravity well can be used as an energy storage medium, from pumped hydro in mine shafts to ballast mass lifted higher or lowered according to load demand. Water and ice ballast mass is a practical medium for this. In the simplest version of this principle, a high-flying kite is slowly brought down during lulls to buy time to rise again when the breeze returns. A floaty kite at a few thousand meters can take hours to use up its altitude.

"Excess lift" beyond what is needed just to maintain flight has a useful role in tensioning the AWES rig upward. Drag is also added as needed for more tension. Such pre-tension is an essential precondition of efficient line pumping. For a normal kiteline tilted downwind, the catenary formed by gravity adds to the catenary by wind drag, creating an elastic cushion to damp shock-load transients that might otherwise break the string. Sadly, if you want to pump a kiteline to transmit power, this damping factor robs power, although the catenary is tensioned enough to transmit anyway. If you can tilt the kiteline into the wind, it develops vertical lift to cancel gravity. Pumping then becomes more optimally efficient. Another work-around is to let a thick mass of kite mainline hold its fixed catenary and use secondary thin low stretch lines to do the power pumping. Best of all might be to combine both ideas, if practical rigging allows. 

It may be that vertical kite lift is ultimately more valuable for endless applications not directly related to energy markets. Vertical lift allows us to spread upward and to create useful space, as "Airborne Architecture". We even see how such airborne structure could be someday be permanently deployed on a planetary scale, by pumping in energy to calm zones from below or adjoining regions. Transportation and communications networks could become airborne networks, with hubs aloft.

A focus on vertical lift is most strategic for AWE. In principle, any WECS can be lifted into better wind by cheap lift. Those who master the New Aviation generally are best prepared to master any branch of it. 2013 is looking like a big year for demonstrating "living and working aloft" by wind-powered vertical lift. This is an ideal time to "get in at the bottom" of the new "high civilization".
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8078 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/1/2012
Subject: Re: Wind Powered Vertical Lift (Review and Update)
  • Vertical lift by kite systems
    •  AirborneWindEnergy/message/8077
    • Lift items and then drop them
    • Lift platforms, living quarters, aircraft
    • Lift water to let out for fire fighting or wetting plants or people.
    • Lift seeds for dropping into welcoming soil.
    • Lift large bulky items from one place and let the item down in another place.
    • Lift water to cool the water; bring the water back down for use.
    • Lift hang gliders as a launch method.
    • Lift AWES wing sets into higher wind levels
    • Lift cameras for aerial photography.
    • Lift a mass for dropping to crush itself or to crush other items.
    • Lift pole ends and tower ends.
    • Lift lumber for moving the lumber from one place to another.
    • Lift animals out of ravines.
    • Lift harvested crops from one place and let the load ride the main tether back to a processing center.
    • Lift batteries to be charge aloft by wind or solar or both; then let the batteries back down for use.
    • Lift people for view pleasure.
    • Lift observers.
    • Lift food to keep the food cool in cooler upper airs.
    • Lift the top end of a recreational climbing rope.
    • Lift large catch nets
    • ?

    Please send your kite-system-lifting notes to Editor@UpperWindpower.com

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8079 From: roderickjosephread Date: 12/1/2012
Subject: Re: Wind Powered Vertical Lift (Review and Update)
Lifting communications devices
Lifting hoses and clothes to dry
Lifting wicks to moisten the air
Lifting screens for backdrops and projection
Lifting extrusion devices for long fall cooling, drying and stretching of extruded material
Lifting anything a crane lifts, from container ships out in the bay to dock
Lifting bags of deep water through mangles to pressurise the bags and power turbines
Lifting hulls to offset drag
Lifting ocean sediment to use as fertiliser
Lifting dredged crud from the ocean floor for clean disposal.

If inverted in tidal streams...
Pulling bags of air down...
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8080 From: Rod Read Date: 12/1/2012
Subject: Re: Wind Powered Vertical Lift (Review and Update)
Sinister uses
Lifting UV LEDs for crop lighting at night
Lifting prisoners
Lifting aerosol medicines for dispersal
Lifting surveillance devices
Lifting the back of bankers pants over their heads for thorough wedgying 


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8081 From: edoishi Date: 12/1/2012
Subject: Re: Mothra 2
M2   aka   MOTHRA2     aka  MiniMothra 

Port Aransas,  Texas  -  November 24, 2012 - 7-10 mph winds

Continuing to learn the flight controls by logging as much time as possible flying in various conditions.
 100' of rope  on each wing tip.  On side fixed by sand anchor, the other side mobile for tuning (sometimes even holding one side (VERY TIRING!)).
Many passer-by's joined in the fun - including one man who saw it from his hotel window and another, Ryan Solar, who took the "sun-shot."

Rod Read asks, "What happens if you remove the drogue on M2? Is everything a bit more jumpy?"
Answer: Yes, i have tried that, and it tends to want to nose dive - the drogue flies low b/c it's made with so much super tape holding scraps of tarp together... 

Still awaiting high wind tests.

Currently:
Rigging a kite-turbine to fly in place of the spinnaker..
Replacing the heavy bamboo spar with a much lighter aluminum 2 piece sleeve set.
Trimming the outer blue sails to fly a little "flatter" and fill out the arch shape.

Thanks Joe Faust for archiving these High Resolution Photos:



also posted on Facebook for those who want to "like" it:
http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.450702754967211.91245.415099068527580&type=1



--- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, "Joe Faust" <joefaust333@...
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8082 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/1/2012
Subject: Re: Wind Powered Vertical Lift (Review and Update)
The inputs to this topic thread  or notes sent directly to the editor for the the following folder will be sifted for additions to 

What?
How?
Tips?
Economy?
Safety?
Experimental reports?
Links?
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8083 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/2/2012
Subject: Remembering 2008 through Patricia L.Kirk
Article that could give us a head's up about predictions and flow: 
in organ Urban Land  with  Wind's Promising Future 
Writer Patricia L. Kirk was from Austin, Texas. 
Year 2008 perspective by one writer ... 

Where are we now?
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013 ... soon

KiteLab, Los Angeles
JoeF
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8084 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/2/2012
Subject: Re: Another plug for Makani

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8085 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/2/2012
Subject: Re: Another plug for Makani
http://web.archive.org/web/20100830121459/http://davidanthonyvc.com/?page_id=2 

His site is no longer serving related content. 
The WayBackMachine has some of his files. 

He invested in Sky WingPower and Magenn. 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8086 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/3/2012
Subject: Re: Another plug for Makani
Typo correction:
Rather:
He invested in Sky WindPower and Magenn.

thanks.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8087 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/3/2012
Subject: Sky WindPower Corporation (notes/review)
WATTS    ::  Wind Airborne Tethered Turbine System 
with generators high aloft for sending electricity to ground mobile or grid devices.  Plans are to have the generating rotors also to be the kiting lifters as well as launch and landing powered servants; that three-function role set for the rotor blades is a high calling. 
The aloft platforms aims also to keep the option of being an instrument carrier to meet various purposes. 
July 9, 2012, note: "near ready for customer testing."
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8088 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/3/2012
Subject: Re: Sky WindPower Corporation (notes/review)
Related to this topic thread: 

29 March 2001, news posted: 

Professor plans flying power station    Sci/Tech / 29 March 2001    "gyromill"   
 "Professor Roberts, from the University of Western Sydney,
has spent 20 years proving the concept and is now ready to put it into practice.
He wants to build the first station near Woomera in South Australia".   

 [What is the 2013 report on such 30 years of focus?]
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8089 From: weimdad Date: 12/3/2012
Subject: Re: Wax-Filled Nanotech Yarn Behaves Like Super-Strong Muscle
Newbe member interested in AWE based on self-launching, flexible systems. Once this product could be built longer and then braided it seems perfect for a combination tether/drive shaft - light, strong, flexible. Just make it UV resistant and so it will float for large scale offshore AWE windfarms. I am working on such a system idea. Glad I found this site. Hope this is the type of comments the group accepts.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8090 From: dave santos Date: 12/3/2012
Subject: Weirdest Kite Physics Yet
The mysteries of kite physics only seem to grow deeper. Recall the puzzle posed as to how plastic supercables easily tow ships, yet remain cold to the touch. In thermodynamic terms a huge amount of heat is transmitted in these cables over distance to do proportional work of heating (water and air). In recent years, macroscopic tug force was found to be phononic super-conductance, aka "second sound", but things get weirder still. 

A new quirk to kite power understanding is "negative temperature" on the Kelvin Scale, which actually exists, no kidding, as basic quantum thermodynamics. Negative system temperature is defined as hotter than any positive temperature system it comes in contact with, as heat flows from hotter to colder. 

UHMWPE kiteline is a liquid-crystal supermaterial with superproperties, like generating high negative temperature, that is, its entropy decreases as it crystallizes under a load, so preloaded prestretched lines offer max performance. An AWES cable must move to do thermodynamic work, faster the better, as tensile ballistic super-conductance in the case of supermaterials. Recall,we have two basic AWES rope-driving transmission modes; pumping the line or pulling a continuous loop, with interesting open questions about optimal drive design. 

We see classical kite force as mass times velocity, so how do relativity and temperature interact? At higher relative velocity observed objects appear colder, but in a strange sense, as the time frame "dialates". Whats hard to visualize is high speed molecular-scale action, like the loading/unloading locations of a line around a bull wheel running at hundreds of miles an hour or diamond-speed mach waves sweeping the crystal lattice. Yes, the relativistic effects of our accelerations seem small to "normal" proportion, but they are so intrinsic to the fundamental operation and explanation of the system that we keep them in mind.

Modern physics is a mix of powerful conceptual lenses with which to see kites in new ways. So is it coincidence that deep subatomic scale strings and (mem)branes are now the basis of the most fundamental physics theories? Could it be that macroscale kites of string and membranes are a direct fractal superdimension of tiny kite structures that make reality "fly"? Is our human scale now on the verge of a historic mass-condensation into kite stuff? (no, yes, and yes)
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8091 From: Bob Stuart Date: 12/3/2012
Subject: Re: Weirdest Kite Physics Yet
I don't recall this "puzzle" but it sounds extremely easy.  How would you ask it to make it tricky?

Bob Stuart

On 3-Dec-12, at 12:27 PM, dave santos wrote:
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8092 From: dave santos Date: 12/3/2012
Subject: Re: Weirdest Kite Physics Yet
Bob,

It may have been "extremely easy" for you to see AWES quantum thermodynamics in rope-driving, but it was "tricky" enough that it took me a couple of years to figure out. Maybe the hard part.from your perspective is to see all this as a "puzzle" to anyone else.

Recall that this exploration arose to build a physics explanation for the empirically observed superiority of mechanical kiteline mechanics over conductive cables. We are now far closer to a formal explanation. Anything you can add to this work is appreciated,

daveS
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8093 From: Rod Read Date: 12/3/2012
Subject: Re: Weirdest Kite Physics Yet
Surely just somefink along the lines of ...

Since the whole of the energy is transmitted through lattice bonding attraction... the energy losses happen at 100mph around a bend of 180 degree, 8m bullwheel, 10cm dia cable, and in any stretching whilst straight.

Whereas electrical cable is dual purpose as a tether and conductor it uses two systems of energy transfer. The electrical transfer affects the properties of the mollecular bonding attraction forces. The useful work obtained comes solely from the conductance component.

and some maths

very tricky maths to explain the hysteresis of energy transferred compared to energy inherent during average cable compression and stretching around the wheel

and very tricky maths to say 
metal cables are heavy because they do two things to transfer the energy.

Rod Read

15a Aiginis
Isle of Lewis
HS2 0PB

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8094 From: Bob Stuart Date: 12/3/2012
Subject: Re: Weirdest Kite Physics Yet
"The mysteries of kite physics only seem to grow deeper. Recall the puzzle posed as to how plastic supercables easily tow ships, yet remain cold to the touch." 

A kite tether, ship hawser or other tension member transmits energy in strict accordance with classical physics.  An input in foot-pounds is output in foot-pounds some distance away.  The link moves physically to keep output equal to input.  No heat conversions are involved in the primary job.  In doing it's job, the link will be stretched and relaxed at the beginning and end of each cycle.  This involves a minor conversion of energy to strain energy, which is fully recovered, except for a tiny percentage that is lost to hysteresis, heating the link material.  Kevlar, known for excellent acoustic damping, would heat up much more than more resonant materials, but the cooling rate of most situations, combined with low frequency of excitation make the heat hard to detect.

Quantum mechanics, OTOH, describes the behaviour of an energy flow that has been choked down to examine the individual units of physical substance involved.  At the finest scale, energy is lumpy, so only certain quantities are possible - hence the name.  It has opened up new realms in physics, but it hasn't changed classical mechanics.  Its effects require tremendously sensitive instruments to detect on either the fine scale, or in cosmology.  Its study is very difficult and counterintuitive, because normally, we don't expect things like the results of the Michaelson-Morley experiment showing that a photon is like both a particle and a wave.  This has give the associated terminology a glamorous cachet, but it is not used to describe the behaviour of material in sufficient quantity to form molecules.  That's why I stop reading posts that confuse the two fields.

Bob Stuart

On 3-Dec-12, at 1:21 PM, dave santos wrote:
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8095 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/3/2012
Subject: Re: SWP review sparked DBMurr to some rotor adventures
DB Murr (DaveB)  shares: 
==========================

Here are some relevant images from my files regarding your post #8088.
The four images of the Schraubenflieger should be of interest
(does anyone know know the illustrator for the color rendering?).

Also attached are three images by me. The first is a scan of both sides of
the same maple key I call "FlyHse2"; and I'm not sure of the scan date on this.
The second is my Nov. 18, 2000 "KeysBoat2". The third is called "Key-typeFin" dated Dec. 28, 2000.

Please post this for me on the AWES forum, and keep whatever images you want for your AWE files. 
Also put me on the mailing list for some of that nano wax-yarn for when they start sending samples around.


Lift,

=======================================
Moderator JoeF  is adding: 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8096 From: dave santos Date: 12/3/2012
Subject: Re: Weirdest Kite Physics Yet
Rod,

A fast driven rope ( bicycle wheels are quite good for experimental super pulleys, and are already used the world over to lift water and building materials by rope.

The dual-transmission idea has two versions, a rope and conductor pair, and a single bi-purpose conductive rope. Neither promises to carry more power than pure plastic rope. Instead of synergy, electrical losses due to background thermal noise in the conductor degrade performance (Neptune cold works better, and the winds blow
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8097 From: dave santos Date: 12/3/2012
Subject: Re: Weirdest Kite Physics Yet
Bob,

Classic physics is only enhanced by modern physics. They are not at war, except perhaps in your mind. This is particularly true for inspiring better AWES concepts.

You are very badly misinformed to think modern QM is limited to small-scale (it spans cosmic-scale). You also miss how thermo-acoustic energy over a large spectrum works in very different modes. Thermodynamics is pretty classic stuff, dating halfway back to Newton. To dismiss a physics conjecture as a pop-belief is not the same as rebutting it. Try and rebut claims directly.

Good luck honestly rebutting specific conjectures with a Doug-like strategy to "stop reading" when they are posed. More work may be needed to convince you that these are fertile explorations, if only you bother to read on,

daveS
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8098 From: Bob Stuart Date: 12/3/2012
Subject: Re: Weirdest Kite Physics Yet
No, they are not at war, they are just operating on different scales, according to everyone else.  Can you point to any results that contradict classical physics in mechanical systems that might be used to harvest wind?  

Bob Stuart

On 3-Dec-12, at 5:29 PM, dave santos wrote:
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8099 From: dave santos Date: 12/3/2012
Subject: Macroscopic Quantum Phenomena (including second-sound, etc.)
Kite QM background info links, especially for Bob, if he is still reading this :)


This page establishes that QM works at larger scales than Bob allowed-

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

...which links to kite power related QM-

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

Negative Temperature is  covered here-

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


Quantum Thermodynamics redirects here-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_thermodynamics
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8100 From: Bob Stuart Date: 12/3/2012
Subject: Re: Macroscopic Quantum Phenomena (including second-sound, etc.)
Dave, that article starts off with "Usually quantum mechanics deals with matter on the scale of atoms and atomic particles. However, at low temperatures, there are phenomena that are manifestations of quantum mechanics on a macroscopic scale. The most well-known effects are superfluidity of helium and superconductivity which both show spectacular behavior."
Those temperatures are not useful in wind energy devices.  A high-temperature superconductor might be useful, but I still don't see any application for quantum concepts in the overall engineering wind devices.  We can draw analogies, but they are awkward, and only useful to those who think in such terms already.  For the mechanical engineer, they are a needless distraction.  

Bob Stuart

On 3-Dec-12, at 5:50 PM, dave santos wrote:
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8101 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 12/3/2012
Subject: Re: Macroscopic Quantum Phenomena (including second-sound, etc.)


Bob,

 

Thanks for your analysis about classical mechanics as good basis for studying wind energy devices.I am not a scientific so for me a lot of quantum posts sounds like fog but without possibility to find the reasons you explain clearly.So now and later thanks insisting to direct the forum towards more realistic methods and solutions.

 

PierreB

 


 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8102 From: dave santos Date: 12/3/2012
Subject: Re: Macroscopic Quantum Phenomena (including second-sound, etc.)
Bob,

This is good review. For a couple of years we have been considering the QM of kite phonons far larger than the ambient thermal noise that limits superconducting electron cooper pair transmission. That's why a kite really does exhibit all the QM properties you stopped reading about. Even Young's 1803 two-slit experiment shows macro QM effects (at "room temperature") not predicted classically.

Also note that Wikipedia is necessarily slow in conveying the cutting edge of scientific insight. Contributions to Wikpedia's physics pages (including my own) are more conservative than conjectures posted on the AWES forum. You may be unaccustomed to thinking at the very frontier of human knowledge, given your strong preference for "classic" views.

This is not a question of "contradiction" between classic and modern physics. Classic physics is the foundation, and modern physics is the blossoming structure built on it. What a terrible waste of wonderful ideas from recent centuries if we all adopt a classic-only analytic bias.

As for what this long kite QM brainstorm is good for, you must simply never have read that far- Its to formally show, within a unified QM framework (ignore the more precise accounting), that mechanical kiteline transmission is superior to electrical conductance, as an AWES engineering basis, to help redirect misplaced flygen R&D. If you can do this job better with classical physics ideas, please do so,

daveS


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8103 From: dave santos Date: 12/3/2012
Subject: Bob's "more realistic methods and solutions"
PierreB (or Bob),

What "more realistic [AWES] methods and solutions" is Bob proposing?

Lets compare these to the KiteLab megascale AWES array concepts directly inspired by modern physics*, to see what is meant by "more realistic", 

dave


* QM, thermodynamics, chaos, fractals, cybernetics, materials science, etc.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8104 From: J Calvert Date: 12/3/2012
Subject: IEEE Spectrum article
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8105 From: Bob Stuart Date: 12/3/2012
Subject: Re: Macroscopic Quantum Phenomena (including second-sound, etc.)
Before I start on this, do you have any preference on what tether/conductor materials, L/D ratios, or other specs you want to see in the worked examples?  Anyone?  And, has no one found such an analysis anywhere in the archives?  It seems an obvious first step to reducing trial and error expenses.  Has anyone but Dave understood the quantum approach?

Bob Stuart

On 3-Dec-12, at 7:37 PM, dave santos wrote:
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8106 From: dave santos Date: 12/3/2012
Subject: Classical Prediction of AWES Conductor v. Mechanical Tug Transmissio
Bob asked "any preference on what tether/conductor materials, L/D ratios, or other specs you want to see in the worked examples?"

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

Power to weight is most important, with aerodrag and megascalability also key factors. In the conductor case, separate provision must be made for holding static tether force. Lifecycle cost is also a factor (incl. fatigue). 

Use the best existing COTS materials for kiteline and conductors, and best modern kite methods. L/D can be whatever is best in either case.

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

Thanks for undertaking this, its an important question by any method that works.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8107 From: dbmurr@ymail.com Date: 12/3/2012
Subject: Re: Macroscopic Quantum Phenomena (including second-sound, etc.)
Bob et al,

This is a drawing of what I would term, a 4 dimensional aircraft (or kite), as viewed in flight from above. It is called "Flying Ground". Traveling waves within it help sustain it, as it is woven together into one dynamic structure. Please see http://agronautics.com/post/30202651351

Lift,
DaveB
http://flyinground.com/
http://agronautics.com/
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8108 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/3/2012
Subject: Re: IEEE Spectrum article
Thanks.
Any eventual discussion
on http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/AirborneWindEnergy/message/8062
then might be tied to this thread.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8109 From: David Lang Date: 12/3/2012
Subject: Re: Macroscopic Quantum Phenomena (including second-sound, etc.)
Bob,

One could perform some basic fundamental "Classical freshman Physics" calculations to resolve the hypothesis of the superiority of "mechanical" -vs- "electrical" power transmission for AWE by defining a set of "comparison ground rules" (likely a tricky process to insure "non-bias" of results), ….no need to resort to barely intelligible extrapolations of esoteric quantum, phononic, and "relativistic" (heaven-help-us) considerations into the arena. 

FWIW,  I see the attempts to introduce QM stuff into this arena as simply his trying to extrapolate such ideas outside its conventional area of useful application to hopefully gain insight into what we are working at.

That said, I feel that anyone not qualified to accomplish this electrical-vs-mechanical comparison by performing the appropriate "Classical" calculations, is likely also not qualified to constructively extrapolate QM into the world of macro-mechanical phenomenon. My guess is, the best minds in QM today would agree that the extrapolative leap to "predict common place macroscopic mechanical behavior such as Keplerian orbits" by starting with the basic postulates of QM has not been accomplished (gravity being a big buggaboo); It is one thing to note that certain QM phenomenon can be witnessed at the macroscopic level, BUT, it is entirely another thing to imply that QM postulates are particularly useful, or even correct for predicting conventional macroscopic phenomena…..to wit, maybe you can do the quantitative classical calculations of electrical-vs-mechanical tethers, while DaveS can do the equivalent QM calculations and compare the numbers…should be interesting.

Other than maybe some kind of "heuristic insight", I can think of nothing in AWE that would not yield to conventional dynamics methods.

If nothing else, this discussion could serve to formulate and clarify fair and comprehensive "contest rules"….then anyone so inclined can give the calcs a shot.

DaveL

On Dec 3, 2012, at 7:09 PM, Bob Stuart <bobstuart@sasktel.net
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8110 From: dave santos Date: 12/3/2012
Subject: Re: Macroscopic Quantum Phenomena (including second-sound, etc.)
DaveL,

The basic conclusion drawn here from kite QM heuristics is that tensile mechanical force in a quality line can be transmitted at near superconducting efficiency (second sound is almost ideally Newtonian) with minimal mass. By contrast electrical transmission is more dispersive (less coherent) due to ordinary thermal noise in the conductive lattice. Equivalent electrical transmission by unit distance and energy also requires more mass in the conductive case (except at cryogenic temps).

This is a simple concise summary not inferior to the classic view its built on. Lets only enjoy the detailed modern semantic reasoning needed to reach the correct finding faster and more surely than our finest classicists can using numeric methods.

We have always agreed that kite relativity is not a practical AWE issue (except for Makani's supposed GPS dependence). 

daveS
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8111 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 12/4/2012
Subject: Re: Bob's "more realistic methods and solutions"


DaveS,

 

I do not see any quantum reference in Makani,Ampyx,Windlift,KiteGen,NTS...and they have some working prototypes.Can you make a precise paper relating simulations or measures of power transmission using quantum procedures?

 

It appears here quantum is only a pretence to push off real AWE solutions.In one side you hardly critic companies (KiteGen,NTS,Makani and others);in the other side you propose quantum approach in many posts without proving it.By this way companies evolve since AWEforum rambles on. 

 

PierreB
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8112 From: dave santos Date: 12/4/2012
Subject: Re: Bob's "more realistic methods and solutions"
Pierre,

Advanced science is a deep fountain of technical progress. We may personally fail to create new science, but it should not be for lack of trying. Business is a banal quest by comparison.

Please do critique Kitelab Group technical thinking as best you can, just as i do for other teams. You might concede a "realistic" value to Mothra tech, and the numerous other KiteLab Group experiments freely shared on the forum, to help justify tolerance of the modern physics inspiration behind them. 

Do the business oriented companies you admire really have good solutions? Have they found the truly megascalable methods? Does Bob think so? Lets wait and see if these companies actually can do better than new ideas which may only seen unreal, for lack of understanding.

For whatever reasons, none of the companies you listed has sustained such a varied AWES test program as KG, with so many novel ideas demonstrated. Nor do these companies make utility-lift kite wings close in size or low cost to Mothra. The latest KG AWES work is the best ever, thanks mainly to persistent open-minded curiosity,

daveS
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8113 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 12/4/2012
Subject: Re: Macroscopic Quantum Phenomena (including second-sound, etc.)



DaveS,

 


"The basic conclusion drawn here from kite QM heuristics is that tensile mechanical force in a quality line can be transmitted at near superconducting efficiency (second sound is almost ideally Newtonian) with minimal mass.".
 
Where are process,calculation,prove?
 
Your conclusion about Classical Mechanics/vs QM is now limited to the (not effective!) calculation of electrical cable as a tree hiding the forest of your other posts where QM does not describe only a method of calculation,but the AWES itself as quantum-phonon-wave-Bose-Einstein AWES.
 
Is it so important always having the last word?After such a post from Dave Lang?
 
AWEforum,as tool of cooperative use,should be a mean to help the effective realization of schemes,not to play badmington by perpetual launches of the same QM elements of theory in a non appropriated context.
 
You make a very beautiful work by building Mothra.Please now add the conversion system and control.
 
PierreB
 
   
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8114 From: J Calvert Date: 12/4/2012
Subject: Re: IEEE Spectrum article

Heh. Of course Dave had the jump on my (Google alert based) scoop.  Plus a nice synopsis.

Thanks for the xref Joe. 

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8115 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 12/4/2012
Subject: Re: Bob's "more realistic methods and solutions"


DaveS,

 

Our posts comments crossed themselves.In the last post I express some admiration for your Mothra.I can add the work from Roddy to make Mothra as effective AWES.It is a good think to callup QM time by time,but abusing it works as a brake.

 

You do not know if I admire said companies and for what.You point some lacks I agree,concerning globally low ratio in swept area/land and space used.But by putting all time in balance non enough efficiency of schemes and QM AWES ,you lose credibility.

 

PierreB

 

 

 


 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8116 From: Pierre Benhaiem Date: 12/4/2012
Subject: AirborneWindEnergy group as laboratory towards working schemes

There are perhaps good schemes in KiteLab,Public Kite Power Research, FlygenKite,Selsams and others.

Our AWEgroup should work with more (informal) organization to make effective some non existing schemes in constitued companies:arch on ring (KL and PKPR);ram wing flygen (FlygenKite) etc.

When discussions on forum are not enough to resolve some problems, AWEIA can make a call for sponsors (investors for companies) to pay some elements.

My idea is AWE is far of commercialization,so ponctual operation without a status of company (for me at least) can be a useful mean to achieve some scheme as complete prototype.

For example:I need software,mechanic,electric elements to complete the ram wing flygen;following call for sponsors;following (or vice versa) estimate from engineers,then building. 

PierreB 

http://flygenkite.com

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8117 From: Rod Read Date: 12/4/2012
Subject: Re: Bob's "more realistic methods and solutions"
It's funny,
We're all desperate for some sort of kite power future.
It's so tangible in our engineering experience. We see the need & we know ways to fix it.
Funnier because, 
It's a sociable endeavour. We're off saving the world for goodness sake. How exciting is that!?
But keep perspective. Every superhero / cult leader / great mind, has it's weakness.

Each one of us is a super analysis machine permanently asking, "What's the most important question for me to answer right now?" Yet, we can't answer with certainty because, Not one of us has all of the data. That's why this shared technological forum is of utmost importance to us.

With our shared technological knowledge, we are achieving designs of a communal constructivist experience. Evolutionary picks of the best existing ideas already happen.

Yet even with the best technology we can go awry. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpIxZiBpGU0 The key point in this video being at the end, There's not one person alive who has the 3 elements needed for his enterprise success.. the designer, the marketer and the money expert. 

Today, I'll ask Western Isles Enterprise for help incorporating a research company with a local friend. So that I can bring something to Martin Meteyard of Cooperative Development Scotland. Martin has offered to help with co-operative legal structures advice.
 if you and your colleagues could just put down (even on one or two sides of A4) the main things you would want such a co-operative to be doing and how you would want it to work, then we could start thinking about how to structure it legally.

Between us we have some very capable tech. Lets hope we can bash out the means to structure projects, financing, marketing, and group organisation.

It's true that the pure discovery for most of our current forum membership is our grestest joy, but  bringing that discovery tangibly to the globe, is a huge team mission.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8118 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 12/4/2012
Subject: Re: Bob's "more realistic methods and solutions"


DaveS,

 

Schemes from existing companies are not perfect but sometimes work as prototypes.You want an ideal inherent kite system.To ask the impossible to obtain the possible is a good (but not sufficient) approach.Perhaps you can take some ideas from QM to make a system with inherent controlled chaos where moving elements have some free space to move crosswind.Indeed it is not so important (but calculation is needed) if kites make figure-eight or no,since they move.But it is quite different to call whole QM to justify an AWES constitution.Please not confuse some inspiration _ which can be fruitful, an example being Montgolfier brothers _ and scientific QM AWES claims with their impossibility to balance against currently developed schemes.

 

PierreB
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8119 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/4/2012
Subject: Levopters
Preamble:   We have FFAWE club that has a high focus on using wind differentials to derive energy for deliberate purposes (energy gain, travel, soaring, extended gliding) where Richard Miller in 1967 may have been a leading published first. (However, the parakites in late 1800s was a firm publishing of the principles involved in free-flight multiple-kite systems without out fuel for travel.) 

       Hank DeBey seems to be adding himself to the FFAWE club.   In December of 2011 he wrote to me about having little kiting experience and he was wanting further explanation on just how calm-air  kiting would work (various differentials used by phased tugging, multiple-point pumping of lines, etc).   And now in 2012 we see he is forwarding the use of what Miller, Faust, Santos, German, Kramer , and others have been exploring---special realm of AWES.   Welcome Hank to the FFAWE club!

Note: Distinguish stored wind-derived energy separated from the aircraft and then later added to the aircraft, or beamed-energy which energy was wind derived, etc.    Consider closed-system free-flight aircraft which tap wind differentials (small or large) (gust or layered) via special reactive mining or dual-wing-tethered means. 

Pause for family names.   There is Hank DeBey (founder).  And Henry S. DeBey.  And Sam DeBey.  And others:   See Team .
 
Hank DeBey
Levopters                     (L. lift up wing)
"In general, the strength of the wind in Earth's atmosphere becomes stronger by about 4 miles per hour for every 1,000 feet of higher altitude.  Our Wind Powered Aircraft, referred to as  levopters, extract energy from different winds at different altitudes by connecting wings at different altitudes with a slender but very strong tethers"

In a "nutshell" with sailboat in the sky with keel in one wind layer and the sail in another wind layer: video: http://windpoweredaircraft.com/?page_id=532 
[same fed at YouTube] [And we link the video as #501 on http://www.energykitesystems.net/Videos2.html    We have started a new page of video with #501.  Then the team followed with another video:  See #502  at that page for Wind Powered Aircraft - The Concept & Test Flight ]    They have also an animation and concept designs for the lower wing or "vehicle" that comprises the primary resistive set of the dual-wing kite system "levopter"  http://windpoweredaircraft.com/?page_id=190 

Editorial hope: Collaboration with Wayne German, Del Kramer, KiteLab Group, etc.   Make a large team and continue to usher Tethered Aviation AWE.
[[Note: Of course, a levopter is a kite system; resistive set is in same media as the tether set as the wing set; all kites have their resistive or reaction set or anchor set; e.g. simple toy kid kite: anchor set: kid and his or her hand; that anchor set is moving in difference to the wind that is at the wing of the toy kite. Same trio applies if the kite system has its resistive set moving in the air (or water, etc) with resistive difference relative to what is occurring at the wing set.]]

SAFETY NOTICE: 
Free-Flight AWES require extra control challenges to maintain good relationship with other aircraft and ground-receiving interests. We are not just to let uncontrolled systems flying to just anywhere.   An uncontrolled FFAWE flight device could travel across continents and ocean; or controlled.  The caution is to have only controlled systems in the air or water.   Thanks for keeping the peace!       Wayne German especially has warned us all about the potential abuse of FFAWE; he encourages that the nations of the world treat FFAWE as an absolute non-military sector equivalent to bio-weapons.    May such occur among nations.  [Wayne German is holding tech for traveling to any point on earth with FFAWE methods.]

Wishing the best of lift and winds to the Levopter team!

[Note: Though the text in the site says "not a glider" ... there can be technical reasons for seeing levopters as gliding kites and thus gliders that mine wind differentials with special acuity.  Long live the kite systems in FFAWE !]

JoeF
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8120 From: dave santos Date: 12/4/2012
Subject: The Quantum Kite Hypothesis is no Pop Analogy
Just to correct a terrible misconception on the Forum regarding kite QM-

Phonon-based kite QM is not proposed as a loose metaphor. It is asserted as a literally correct framework with which to better understand kite energy and control problems. The physical kite behaviors described are fully consistent across a wide continuum of well validated QM phenomena.

To falsify the large set of conjectures that follow from kite QM requires specific rebuttals. No amount of despair over the difficulty of understanding the material is a proper rebuttal.

Bob attempted to falsify the kite QM hypothesis with the popular notion that QM is somehow limited to small scales. That mistaken idea was clearly corrected by reference to quality third-party sources. No one else seems to be raising specific reasoned objections. DaveL seems open to the ideas, even as he doubts their utility. If anyone can formulate precise logical rebuttals of the kite QM hypothesis or presented corollaries, please do so. I undertake to prove such objections mistaken.

Once it is properly established that kite QM stands, it will motivate a wider circle to make the effort to see the utility of the ideas with regard to AWES megascale lattice arrays. This is an important enough goal to persist. I am sorry my explanations so far have not been clear enough to help the doubters see fascinating underlying truths. 

Please be patient in developing an understanding of this wonderful subject, which can take years even for dedicated physics students.

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

Pierre, you ask for more detailed calculated results of kite QM. These take the form of the Schrödinger wave equation, Heisenberg's matrix mechanics, or Feynamn's path-integral formulation. You need to understand at least one of these methods to judge the correctness of the calculation requested. Choose a method, and i will work the calculation of a simple kite problem in that format. 

Note that QM heuristics also allow definite predictions by high-level semantics (like English or predicate-calculus). The heuristic-derived prediction presented, that mechanical AWES conductance is superior over electrical, is a case of very high math. After all, high level logic decomposes into numbers, or you would not be reading these ideas, which came to you as binary math.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8121 From: David Lang Date: 12/4/2012
Subject: Re: Macroscopic Quantum Phenomena (including second-sound, etc.)
DaveS, regarding "relativity", I guess I was stimulated by your quote below (underlines are mine)…..

We see classical kite force as mass times velocity, so how do relativity and temperature interact? At higher relative velocity observed objects appear colder, but in a strange sense, as the time frame "dialates". Whats hard to visualize is high speed molecular-scale action, like the loading/unloading locations of a line around a bull wheel running at hundreds of miles an hour or diamond-speed mach waves sweeping the crystal lattice. Yes, the relativistic effects of our accelerations seem small to "normal" proportion, but they are so intrinsic to the fundamental operation and explanation of the system that we keep them in mind.

I acknowledge your abstractions that lead you to a conclusion that mechanical energy transmission is superior to electrical. To wit, you draw on maritime towing as validation of your conclusions….not to mention, the drive rods on a locomotive, piston rods in engines, crankshafts, windmill blades, etc etc etc…..

However, this is a very broad issue. For instance, might you conclude that the national "electrical power grid" would be more efficient if replaced by pulling-on-lines or using V-belts strung across the nation…if not, then why?…if so, then how-much better?  In such cases, the ground rules for comparison are critical. Even in AWE what it means to quantify such considerations depends upon the methods of AWE (Reeling -vs-  Kite figure-8  -vs-  Flygens, -vs- Altitude regime, etc). This is why I dwell on establishing "analytical flyoff" rules to level the playing field (if one is determined to make such an assessment). But either way I see no path to arriving at quantifying this issue via broad QM abstractions that are never backed up by quantitative evaluations…..try your argument on a savvy technical staff of a potential AWE investor and see how far you get!

The good news is, when one quantifies (classically to be practical) their entire AWE design in terms of COP and ROI, such contentions all shake out and get exposed for what they are. So, while Mothra may enjoy basking in the glory of potentially employing a "superior mechanism" of transmitting power, now tell your ROI and COP values….and how you arrived at them (just like you request of NTS :-)

DaveL


On Dec 3, 2012, at 11:34 PM, dave santos <santos137@yahoo.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8122 From: Bob Stuart Date: 12/4/2012
Subject: Fabric Covered Wings Return
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 8123 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/4/2012
Subject: Re: Fabric Covered Wings Return