Messages in AirborneWindEnergy group.                           AWES9082to9131 Page 79 of 440.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9082 From: Joe Faust Date: 4/24/2013
Subject: RAT history from 1899

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9083 From: Joe Faust Date: 4/25/2013
Subject: Fwd: [kitegen] Tether for tropospheric aeolian generator

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9084 From: Doug Date: 4/25/2013
Subject: Re: FLUMILL (cough cough, sniff sniff)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9085 From: Doug Date: 4/25/2013
Subject: Re: FLUMILL (cough cough, sniff sniff)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9086 From: Joe Faust Date: 4/26/2013
Subject: Re: MODERATE [Spam?] -- dougselsam@gmail.com posted to AirborneWindE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9087 From: Joe Faust Date: 4/26/2013
Subject: LTA gases

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9088 From: Joe Faust Date: 4/26/2013
Subject: Seeking ever-up wing component in LTA "solids"

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9089 From: Joe Faust Date: 4/26/2013
Subject: aerofabrix[al]

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9090 From: Joe Faust Date: 4/26/2013
Subject: Re: Seeking ever-up wing component in LTA "solids"

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9091 From: Joe Faust Date: 4/26/2013
Subject: Daryl Yeh

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9092 From: mmarchitti Date: 4/26/2013
Subject: Re: Fwd: [kitegen] Tether for tropospheric aeolian generator

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9093 From: Joe Faust Date: 4/27/2013
Subject: What is in a name? Skybow and some confusion. Records?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9094 From: Joe Faust Date: 4/27/2013
Subject: Re: What is in a name? Skybow and some confusion. Records?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9095 From: Joe Faust Date: 4/27/2013
Subject: Re: What is in a name? Skybow and some confusion. Records?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9096 From: Joe Faust Date: 4/27/2013
Subject: Writhing Thread Actuator Demo

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9097 From: Joe Faust Date: 4/27/2013
Subject: Re: What is in a name? Skybow and some confusion. Records?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9098 From: Joe Faust Date: 4/27/2013
Subject: Re: What is in a name? Skybow and some confusion. Records?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9099 From: Joe Faust Date: 4/27/2013
Subject: Bullroarer

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9100 From: Joe Faust Date: 4/27/2013
Subject: Re: What is in a name? Skybow and some confusion. Records?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9101 From: Joe Faust Date: 4/27/2013
Subject: Arch of Eddy .. variations

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9102 From: Joe Faust Date: 4/28/2013
Subject: SkyBar

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9103 From: Joe Faust Date: 4/28/2013
Subject: Re: SkyBar

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9104 From: Rod Read Date: 4/28/2013
Subject: Re: What is in a name? Skybow and some confusion. Records?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9105 From: dave santos Date: 4/28/2013
Subject: Re: What is in a name? Skybow and some confusion. Records?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9106 From: dave santos Date: 4/28/2013
Subject: Encampment Report

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9107 From: Joe Faust Date: 4/28/2013
Subject: Re: Encampment Report

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9108 From: roderickjosephread Date: 4/29/2013
Subject: Crosswind auto reversing Mothra

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9109 From: President-protem, Airborne Wind Energy In Date: 4/29/2013
Subject: Fwd: Your Yahoo post

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9110 From: Joe Faust Date: 4/30/2013
Subject: Fwd: AWEC 2013 extension of deadline for abstract submission to May

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9111 From: dave santos Date: 5/1/2013
Subject: Blackmail? //Re: [AWES] Fwd: Your Yahoo post

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9112 From: Bob Stuart Date: 5/1/2013
Subject: Re: Blackmail? //Re: [AWES] Fwd: Your Yahoo post

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9113 From: Hardensoft International Limited Date: 5/1/2013
Subject: Re: Blackmail? //Re: [AWES] Fwd: Your Yahoo post

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9114 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 5/1/2013
Subject: re: Blackmail?   //Re: [AWES] Fwd: Your Yahoo post

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9115 From: dave santos Date: 5/1/2013
Subject: Re: Blackmail?   //Re: [AWES] Fwd: Your Yahoo post

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9116 From: dave santos Date: 5/1/2013
Subject: Dishonesty in AWE?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9117 From: Bob Stuart Date: 5/2/2013
Subject: In-Sea Storage

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9118 From: Joe Faust Date: 5/2/2013
Subject: Re: In-Sea Storage

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9119 From: dave santos Date: 5/2/2013
Subject: Re: In-Sea Storage

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9120 From: dave santos Date: 5/2/2013
Subject: Re: Crosswind auto reversing Mothra

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9121 From: Bob Stuart Date: 5/2/2013
Subject: Re: In-Sea Storage

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9122 From: Joe Faust Date: 5/2/2013
Subject: Re: In-Sea Storage

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9123 From: Harry Valentine Date: 5/2/2013
Subject: Re: In-Sea Storage

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9124 From: roderickjosephread Date: 5/3/2013
Subject: biomimetic heart Mothra

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9125 From: dave santos Date: 5/3/2013
Subject: Re: In-Sea Storage

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9126 From: dave santos Date: 5/3/2013
Subject: Correcting Doug (Honeywell and Coy Harris)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9127 From: Harry Valentine Date: 5/3/2013
Subject: Re: In-Sea Storage

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9128 From: Joe Faust Date: 5/3/2013
Subject: Rapid imaging of diasters, etc.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9129 From: roderickjosephread Date: 5/3/2013
Subject: Re: In-Sea Storage

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9130 From: dave santos Date: 5/3/2013
Subject: Re: In-Sea Storage

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9131 From: roderickjosephread Date: 5/3/2013
Subject: Re: In-Sea Storage




Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9082 From: Joe Faust Date: 4/24/2013
Subject: RAT history from 1899

===========================================
Will it not be possible to add to the ordinary Hargrave kite
a small fan driven by the wind to furnish motor power for
use in connection with the self-registering meteorological
apparatus ? It would seem that the whirling fan does not
add sensibly to the pull on the wire at the reel.
===========================================
Above is a clip from the second page of these two pages holding article "SPOOL KITES AND KITES WITH RADIAL WINGS"
Page 155 of Monthly Weather Review, April 1899.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9083 From: Joe Faust Date: 4/25/2013
Subject: Fwd: [kitegen] Tether for tropospheric aeolian generator


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Mario Marchitti <marchitti@hotmail.com Date: Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 8:30 AM
Subject: [kitegen] Tether for tropospheric aeolian generator
To: kitegen yahoogroups <kitegen@yahoogroups.com

 

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/AirborneWindEnergy/message/9015

....

A further solution finally consists in providing only the aerial part of the rope with a sheath made of plastic material that is aerodynamically profiled.

A completely new solution instead consists in manufacturing only the second sector 5 of the rope 3, usually circular, in order to assign it an elongated section, with a ratio between loner axis and shorter axis ranging between 1.5 and 5. This is technically possible, though the resulting section has not yet the desired aerodynamic features. An improvement of the aerodynamic features can be obtained by winding the rope 3 manufactured with an elongated section with a braid and filling the recesses with low-density material in order to obtain an elliptical section. Alternatively, it is possible to extrude along the rope 3, manufactured with an elongated section, a sheath made of plastic material and flexible, in order to obtain an elliptical section. A further great improvement with respect to this solution however consists in using, in place of the single rope 3, two or more ropes with different diameter that are mutually placed in parallel, so that the sum of the resisting sections of the single ropes 3 is equal to the resisting section adapted to support the mechanical stresses provided when designing. By suitably filling the recesses between the ropes 3 with different diameter with low-density material, it is possible to assign a wing-shaped profile to the section, in which the rope 3 with greater diameter will occupy the area with maximum thickness (FIG. 4 b). The multiple rope 8 profiled in this way, as shown for example in FIGS. 4 a4 and 5, can be coated with a woven protecting braid suitable to take part in the global mechanical resistance.

Alternatively, the multiple rope 8 profiled in this way can be covered with a flexible sheath made of plastic material in order to reduce its surface roughness to a minimum.

Alternatively, the rope itself can be woven in order to obtain an aerodynamic section.

Alternatively, the rope can be woven according to traditional methodologies, then annealed into a plastic or elastomeric material and deformed under pressure in order to obtain an aerodynamic section.

The possible protecting braid made of fabric or the possible sheath made of plastic material can be interrupted at regular intervals (such as shown, for example, in FIG. 5), leaving the single rope or the set of multiple ropes composing the global rope, free of flexing, in order to increase the flexibility of the aerial part of the rope and facilitate the re-winding on the winch drums.

Moreover, taking into account the different flight speeds to which different areas of the aerial part of the profiled rope move with respect to air, the chosen wing profile can have different geometric, and therefore aerodynamic, features in different areas of the aerial part of the rope.

Profiling the rope according to shapes that are different from the circular section, however, implies the occurrence of instability phenomena similarly to what occurs for aircraft wings. In fact, we know that the elliptical profiles and the symmetric wing profiles are unstable, namely a positive variation of the incidence angle generates an aerodynamic moment that tends to further increase the incidence angle, till the profile is oriented orthogonal to the current. This behaviour can obviously induce separations of the slipstream, resistance increase and aero-elastic instability of the rope as a whole.

For this reason, with particular reference to FIGS. 24 a4 b56 and 7, another preferred embodiment of the rope 3according to the present invention can comprise a second sector 5 equipped with real tail planes, similarly to those used by aircrafts, that are able to balance the aerodynamic moment generated by incidence variations on the rope and guarantee a stable behaviour. With reference therefore in particular to FIG. 2, it is possible to note that another preferred embodiment of the rope 3 according to the present invention for a tropospheric aeolian generator 1 is further composed, in length, of at least one third sector 6, such third sector 6 being equipped with a profiled section 9 such that its own transverse section has an aerodynamic resistance coefficient CD3 preferably included between 1.2 and 0.05, still more preferably between 0.6 and 0.05 so that CD3<CD1; moreover, such third sector 6 can be equipped with stabilising tail planes 10 in such a number and placed at such mutual distance as to guarantee the global rope stability.

With reference to FIGS. 5 and 6, the tail planes 10 are preferably constrained to the third sector 6 of the rope 3 through at least one hinge 12 and one pin 13 that, allowing the rotation of the tail planes 10 around an orthogonal axis to the axis of the rope 3, guarantee an ordered rewinding of the third sector 6 of the rope 3 including the tail planes 10 on the collecting drum of the rope 3 during the landing procedure. Preferably, the hinge is constrained to the profiled section 9 through at least one strap 11. As shown in FIG. 7, the tail planes 10 can rotate around the axis of the hinge 12 in order to be re-bent towards the rope 3.

The number and the mutual position of the tail planes 10 will obviously depend on the aerodynamic features of the rope 3 and the maximum speed of the rope 3 with respect to air, choosing the solution that guarantees the stability of the rope 3 under all operating conditions and the minimum additional aerodynamic resistance due to the tail planes 10.

The tail planes 10 can be finally constrained to the aerial part of the rope, or can be fastened to the cable automatically with a clip-type mechanism upon starting up the generator and slowly unwinding the aerial part of the rope; similarly, they can be disconnected when rewinding the aerial part of the cable and stopping the generator.

If the tail planes 10 are finally constrained to the aerial part of the rope, they must be able to be wound onto the collecting winches integrally with the rope during the limited takeoff and landing phases.

It has been found that, by constraining the tail planes on the hinge 12 next to the escape edge of the aerodynamically profiled section 9, it is possible to make the tail planes 10 bend next to the winch drums and be orderly arranged on the collecting drum.

It is clear that the tail planes 10 can be more easily wound on the last, more peripheral, rope layer wound on the collecting drum.

In order to guarantee the correct orientation of the tail planes 10 during the flight phases, it has been found that a spring, for example a torsion spring, placed next to the hinge 12 and with enough stiffness as to keep in position the tail planes 10 in spite of the action of the aerodynamic forces, can efficiently solve this technical problem.

As already stated, the innovations brought about by the present invention can be profitably used by any tropospheric or high-altitude aeolian generator.

......


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9084 From: Doug Date: 4/25/2013
Subject: Re: FLUMILL (cough cough, sniff sniff)
Nice review of basic V-A technology. The paper starts with a lie in the first line:
"Vertical axis wind turbines can catch the wind from all directions and at lower wind speed than horizontal axis ones."
Professor Crackpot needs a REASON for you to consider a type of turbine that has had no success. Like all newbies, he imagines fantasy power at low wind speeds, therefore citing the lie that a vertical-axis machine can respond to these low wind speeds better than a horizontal axis turbine.
The reality is that turbines respond to low winds depending on solidity versus cogging, and that does not change the fact that turbines have long targeted the best wind speed range for useful cumulative energy extraction. Like, Hello, this is a well-developed art! Pretend it is not at your own peril!
So, for a person who understands wind energy, they already know they are reading a biased viewpoint as soon as the read the first line which is nothing but a blatant lie. Most of the rest of the paper can also be ignored. There might be a gem in there somewhere with the airborne stuff near the end.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9085 From: Doug Date: 4/25/2013
Subject: Re: FLUMILL (cough cough, sniff sniff)
Wait - you mean with all the PhD's involved, every single example of an open flow turbine has broken the blades? How 'bout "Professor Idiot"? The idiots might try metal blades... How many boat propellers are made from fiberglass? Perhaps the most appropriate response is "Duhhhh..." droool wha? water is how dense? That's almost as dense as the good professor's cranium! Maybe these professors should get some pimply students together, and have a "breakout session"! Or perhaps they need to consult some uneducated country-people in this case, for a dose of common sense. A boat person perhaps. I know, get someone who understands marine propulsion systems! Nah that would be too easy...:)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9086 From: Joe Faust Date: 4/26/2013
Subject: Re: MODERATE [Spam?] -- dougselsam@gmail.com posted to AirborneWindE
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Doug Selsam 
To: airbornewindenergy@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 21:32:12 -0700
Subject: Fwd: Important Helium Announcement!!!
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Mayflower Distributing
Date: Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 2:11 PM
Subject: Important Helium Announcement!!!
To: doug@selsam.com


   






Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9087 From: Joe Faust Date: 4/26/2013
Subject: LTA gases
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9088 From: Joe Faust Date: 4/26/2013
Subject: Seeking ever-up wing component in LTA "solids"
Exploring:
"Nevertheless, an aerogel named SEAgel (Safe Emulsion agar gel) has been produced that floats in air if it is filled with pure nitrogen."    Anon.
Motivation: Ever-up AWES lifters and pilot bodies.

Vision and hope ... and seeking: Better-than-aerogel matrix filled with LTA gas that is LTA "solid" that is sealed with nearly zero leak in a year.

Moving on the project: 
==     SEAgel Aerogel lighter than air solid. Not a UFO   video: 1:15

By DAMIEN GAYLE

PUBLISHED: 04:54 EST, 20 March 2013 UPDATED: 08:13 EST, 20 March 2013


== Delicate: A comparison with this researcher's hand reveals just how puny the flower is - yet it can comfortably hold the weight of the graphene substance balanced on top of it

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9089 From: Joe Faust Date: 4/26/2013
Subject: aerofabrix[al]
AWES and
AEROFABRÍX [AL]
This topic thread invites a watch on the interface of aerofabrix[al] and AWES.
As anyone finds aerofabrix[al] to be a solution in the AWES environment, notes are welcome. 

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9090 From: Joe Faust Date: 4/26/2013
Subject: Re: Seeking ever-up wing component in LTA "solids"
Notes on  http://www.aerogel.org/?p=2017
continue the saga of the new record.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9091 From: Joe Faust Date: 4/26/2013
Subject: Daryl Yeh
This topic thread invites AWES interface with Daryl Yeh.   Windless kiting is associated with AWE in several ways; one regards launching. Another, relaunching. Another: maintaining flight during lulls and calms.  Pumping energy into kite-glider wings has applications in kite energy at many scales.  Many sectors of windless kiting are in an infancy, even though some sectors are with niche-application maturity.   Challenges may be defined and then perhaps mastered, perhaps by separate persons or teams.   We also hope someone will contact Daryl Yeh and invite his take over the kite-energy AWE space. 

Start: 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9092 From: mmarchitti Date: 4/26/2013
Subject: Re: Fwd: [kitegen] Tether for tropospheric aeolian generator
I browsed the patent text several years ago, and I was attracted by that solution (the multiple little fin) to overcome the divergence or instability problem of the profiled tether.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9093 From: Joe Faust Date: 4/27/2013
Subject: What is in a name? Skybow and some confusion. Records?
The scene:   a name "Skybow"
Confusion: There are two different "Skybow" ribbon arches. One does not rotate. The other one does rotate. 
Etienne Veryes had the Skybow that does not rotate about its arch long axis. 
Mueller features a rotating flip-wing ribbon kite that does rotate fast about its long arch axis. 
Both types of kites have two far-spread anchors. 
I have not seen but toy-recreational sizes of these two sorts of ribbon kites. 

We have some discussions on both types of kites. 
In the literature some flip-winging gliders are termed "tumble wing"  ... yet they flip, not tumble; that is, I mean that the leading edge rises and flips back to become temporarily a trailing edge.   Tumbling would send the wing fast into the ground. 

Energy production has not yet been demonstrated (yet in my view) by the ultra-high-aspect-ratio ribbon wing.  The Magenn low-aspect-ratio LTA flip-wing was mostly not set in arch format, though it could have been.    

What may be interesting is to have energy-producing demonstration of a rotating-ribbon flip-wing arch featuring a wing chord of  1 meter that features, perhaps, some chordwise ribs tensions to a slight S form by a rib tip-to-tip-through-rib-center tension line.   A wing of 100 meter length would have an aspect ratio of 100. The wing could ride on a few load-path lines by a bonding-to-lines choice.   The anchor bearing that would allow the rotation and a mining of some energy would need to be robust.  Keeping friction low and perhaps a means for cooling would be involved.       The system is an arched VAWT using flip-wing ribbon foundations. 

Reports on experiments in the above directons are invited to this topic thread. 

Some toy videos: 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9094 From: Joe Faust Date: 4/27/2013
Subject: Re: What is in a name? Skybow and some confusion. Records?
The first link in start post is without content. A WayBackMachine gives an archive of 1997, apparently: 
http://web.archive.org/web/19990218121243/http://www.wizard.net/~jmallos/skybow/ 




Jim's Skybow FAQ 


What's a skybow? 

It's a new kind of kite that acts sort of like an anti-gravity rope---when you and a friend at the other end hold it across the wind it pulls upward making a huge arch in the sky.

Who is flying skybows? 

Kite enthusiasts worldwide are experimenting with skybows, improving flying techniques, design and materials.

How does it work? 

It's not really a rope at all. It's a rapidly spinning ribbon. Have you ever noticed that a dropped card or ticket stub can start spinning and glide away from you as it falls? A skybow's ribbon is attached to swivels that allow it to spin the same way.

So why does spinning make it go up? 

That's a subtle question, but it's basically the same reason a spinning ping-pong ball takes a curved flight. It's called the Magnus-Robins effect.

Okay, so why up instead of down? 

With flat-ribbon skybows the fliers may have to help the ribbon start spinning in the correct direction---the top of the ribbon should spin downwind. Other skybows have creased edges and always spin the same direction, these skybows must be set up properly in relation to the direction of the wind. If started spinning in the wrong direction a skybow is just as happy to spin the otherway and fly into the ground!

Why does it make that eerie sound

The aerodynamic forces always act nearly at right angles to the ribbon face, but the ribbon is constantly turning. This produces a rapidly varying reaction against the air ---sound is the natural result. Since the ribbon has two faces, the frequency of the sound is twice the spin rate.

A skybow flying well makes a howling sound reminiscent of the sound of high wind in a pine woods, a skybow that is not entirely steady sounds like a motorcyle race, with repeated accelerations and sudden downshifts of pitch.

Loudness increases drastically with wind speed. At 20 mph (32 km/hr) the curious have been drawn from a quarter-mile (400m) away. The sound is very directional, with a quiet spot near the fliers and directly behind them.

Why are there sometimes swivels in the middle of the arch, not just at the ends? 

A skybow needs to spin faster where the wind is faster in order to fly high. Multiple sections that spin idependently can accomodate differences in windspeed along the skybow. Usually the fastest winds hit the high center of the arch. Sometimes a single-section skybow is tapered---it's made wider in the center than at the ends so that the high windspeeds at the center can be accomodated when the whole ribbon is spinning at the same rpm.

How long can a skybow be? 

The record so far, 1000 ft (303 m) long is held by, Mr. Big, a six section skybow 5/8" wide (1.6 cm). Tony Frame and Jim Mallos flew Mr. Bigover the Washington Monument Grounds, Washington, DC on November 10, 1997.

 
[More photos of Mr. Big] 
[Andrew Cations' photos of Mr. Big]

The maximum length of a skybow is proportional to the strength-to-weight ratio of the ribbon material. There are fibers made with ten times the strength-to-weight ratio of Mr. Big's ribbon, so skybows two miles long (3 km) may be possible.

How wide can a skybow be? 

Tony Frame and I have flown skybows in widths ranging from 10mm to 25mm. (Tell me about your experiments.)

How do you launch them? 

Skybows are launched by pulling them taut across the wind. They can be launched all at once, or in stages letting one section go up at a time.

How can I get one? 

There is now a 747-sized commercial model, or you can make your own.



Jim Mallos

   visitors since 11/11/97

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9095 From: Joe Faust Date: 4/27/2013
Subject: Re: What is in a name? Skybow and some confusion. Records?

Click around in the WayBackMachine once arriving. 

One of the connected pages: 
for Mr. Big that snapped in a gust. 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9096 From: Joe Faust Date: 4/27/2013
Subject: Writhing Thread Actuator Demo
Turn your head to know the gravity direction: 

This is a tether detail concerning harsh torsions in tensioned line. 

I have not discerned whether this James Mallos is or is not the Jim Mallos of the 1990s Skybow deal. 

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9097 From: Joe Faust Date: 4/27/2013
Subject: Re: What is in a name? Skybow and some confusion. Records?
Ah! Seems Jim Mallos has been posting recently on the Internet. 
One of his posts shows the Kite Lines article featuring the rotating long ribbon rotor kite where Kite Lines was struggling with definitions on the matter. Arch rotor kite seems to have fit. 
http://www.flickr.com/photos/james_mallos/7005795539/sizes/l/in/photostream/   AKA  Kite Lines, Winter 1997-98 article on Skybow kite.


 

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9098 From: Joe Faust Date: 4/27/2013
Subject: Re: What is in a name? Skybow and some confusion. Records?
Robust contemporary link: 

Exploring the art of Jim  ...
wonder if he might glance at AWE ...
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9099 From: Joe Faust Date: 4/27/2013
Subject: Bullroarer
Bullroarer
Bullroarers
Tethered and non-tethered sorts. 
Tehtered: rotating wing and non-rotating wing
Rotating wing: flip wing with basic primary Bounouli airfoil effect followed by secondary involved-air cylinder Magnus effect.  First effect drives leading edge up and back; lift and drag are involved. Secondary effect gives some lift and drag also. 
Perhaps bullroarers are  foundation for rotor kites of low and high-aspect ratios of one or more tethers and one or more anchors.
Pumping energy into the bullroarer on tether can be done while the tether is swiveled or not, but experience differs. 
General study link on video:  


Setting bullroarer-like wings of low or high aspect ratio into winds and mining the involved energy is a task of AWES developers.


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9100 From: Joe Faust Date: 4/27/2013
Subject: Re: What is in a name? Skybow and some confusion. Records?
".. the windbow was designed by Etienne Veyres and Alain Chevalier of France... The Windbow is my [George Peters] version arch ribbon with a few added aerodynamic details to create a super wind toy."
The WindBow (<= click through page title)
page by George Peters
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9101 From: Joe Faust Date: 4/27/2013
Subject: Arch of Eddy .. variations
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9102 From: Joe Faust Date: 4/28/2013
Subject: SkyBar
Hang WECS from SkyBar. 
Anchors could be in soil or hdro-barge or seabed or tension line, etc. 
Tether curtain could be loaded with WECs of VAWT or HAWT sorts. 

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9103 From: Joe Faust Date: 4/28/2013
Subject: Re: SkyBar
http://christojeanneclaude.net/projects/running-fence#.UX1MKaLCaSo
Christo's "Running Fence" may fly yet in SkyBar mode for AWES purposes.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9104 From: Rod Read Date: 4/28/2013
Subject: Re: What is in a name? Skybow and some confusion. Records?
So, an arch rotor kite?
Does anyone have a good picture of airflow around it?
Is there a close relationship lengthwise tension to rotational speed? If so ... They can be arrayed and gang collected more easily.
This link suggests it may be the case...
The old building link http://web.archive.org/web/19991010212744/http://www.wizard.net/~jmallos/skybow/builders.htm
suggests that dividing them up with swivels is not a problem....

Rod Read

Windswept and Interesting Limited
15a Aiginis
Isle of Lewis
HS2 0PB

07899057227
01851 870878



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9105 From: dave santos Date: 4/28/2013
Subject: Re: What is in a name? Skybow and some confusion. Records?
Rod,
 
The rotating skybow is best visualized as performing small local backflips (looping backwards). The lift is in part DS (dynamic soaring) in the gradient, but not really Magnus Effect, since its not a skin-friction effect.
 
Thanks for holding off on your AWEC 2013 abstract, as we hope you will represent the entire "low-complexity megascale AWES" cooperative movement (as the Kite Power Coop).  Dr. BeauJean is quite close to us in scale and construction, so some conceptual coordination may be nice. When is the enew deadline?
 
Shawn Thomas's Island Kites just arrived  :)
 
Very busy with Encampment duties, will report soon...
 
daveS
 
 
PS Nice new and review kite arch material by JoeF. The SkyBar can be dome by local weathercocking in a cross-linked 2D mesh.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9106 From: dave santos Date: 4/28/2013
Subject: Encampment Report
Momentum continues building in Austin as the Encampment advance team finishes prototype and gathers supplies. The hospitality is prepped to a high standard. The hay/kite farm even got a good rain last night, so the grass will be lush green. The Encampent model is relaxed, but leads naturally to a peak intensity. Its not too late to plan attending within the next month or so.
 
Paolo gets here tomorrow, representing WOW/NOKE in partnership with Util and KiteLab Group. Noah Sapir, the Util lead, arrives in a few days with some key people. A round of meetings is penciled-in with local partners like the Tech Ranch, K-Power teammembers. National Instruments is located in Austin, so meetings with sales engineers and hands-on classes are an option for visitors. Jayent Sirohi's Rotor lab, of the UTexas AE dept., is a visit opp, as the lab begins explorations of AWES rotors. A short field trip to WhataKite will introduce novices to classic giant kites (including a large Osborne Parafoil). A ZapKites visit is planned (maybe meet Joel Scholtz, the Texas Kite King). Lupton Machine and John Borsheim's Test Engineering Lab (Altec) are sure bets. The wider network of specialty support shops also figure. There is nothing we cannot cobble together within an easy bike ride with our decades-old technical network.
 
At least six separate groundstations if varied designs are being prepped for trials. Three have cast concrete flywheels, some use mechanical diodes (rachets and double-drives), others are synchronous. As long as there are many details to work out, we let other teams set current peak-power records. We fully intend to scale, only better informed by so much scale work. The quiver of NASA Power Wings will be a special study as AWES drivers. We are very happy with the value and quality of  Born Kite porducts.
 
New and upgraded Mini-Mothra, Mini-MonoMothra, and MonoMothra tarp arches will be featured. MonoMothras are single-tarp arches potentially as big as a soccer field (the largest COTS tarp). A loadpath network backs up the tarp, giving it a ripstop capability. MonoMothra1 is a 1000ft2 tarp, and the mini-mono is 1/4 scale of that. With comprehensive precaution intended, limited human flight at extremely low altitude (~2m) will be explored. Many "airborne architecture" ideas will be tried  We may set some sort of avaition record without flying higher than head-high. Flipwings made by 2kiteSam and me will be tested against a collection of small COTS chargers. Prism's FlipKite is a reference COTS driver kite. Downselects may be made for a useful introductory AWES product. A bunch of odd windtoys may inspire new ideas. New Tech's Wind Yo is an update of a seventies toy, a very specialized tehered wing. The latest foam glider cost 12USD and promises to surprize, rigged as a scale AWES.
 
We even have a nine-foot HAWT flygen to lift high. Many more experiments, small and large, are planned, expect details later...
 
 
 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9107 From: Joe Faust Date: 4/28/2013
Subject: Re: Encampment Report
New Tech Kites has  (click through==
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9108 From: roderickjosephread Date: 4/29/2013
Subject: Crosswind auto reversing Mothra
Stretch a loop of rope over two vertical bull wheels (Horizontal axis)
The loop is stretched crosswind.
On the top side of the rope a Mothra style arch kite system is mounted
on two spread control bars.
The bars are coupled and can swivel Left or Right.
(a coupling rope from LHS tail to RHS tail, and another from RHS head to
LHS head)

The bars swivel on the rope at around 1/4 of their length, they also
link to a bottom rope carriage rider. This component gives an ability to
control the bars vertical attitude.

As the leading control bar reaches one end, it's fore, head, is
knocked the opposite way... setting the rigging to reverse. (the
knocking device each end only pushes toward the opposing direction to
let the sail run past until the system changes direction)

The head of the control bar is tied via a wishbone to the tail ...
knocking the bar head uncleats the tie holder from the main tension
rope. The relationship of the head to the rope sets how the
"wishbone tie rope" is cleated onto the main loop rope topside.
. . thus allowing the sheeting of the Mothra sails to be set for the
return leg.
Drawing to follow
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9109 From: President-protem, Airborne Wind Energy In Date: 4/29/2013
Subject: Fwd: Your Yahoo post

An update from Guido is here forwarded as he requested.
Further lifts.
John Oyebanji
President-protem, Airborne Wind Energy Industry Association (AWEIA International)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Guido Luetsch AWEC 2013 <guido.luetsch@awec2013.de Date: Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 3:30 PM
Subject: Your Yahoo post
To: johnoyebanji@gmail.com
Cc: guido.luetsch@awec2013.de


John,

Sorry for the late respond, unfortunately outlook has identified your email as SPAM and I just found it in the junk-file.

Thanks for informing me about your post on the Yahoo AWE forum.

As discussed last Thursday the problem is not that AWEIA is leaking information to Dave Santos.  The problem is the false accusations that Dave Santos makes (and without any proper research and background) which are beyond belief and that he is attempting to blackmail the conference organization into doing what he wants by  threatening to discredit others.  

I’d appreciate it if you would take it in account to add this to your post which I think it is only fair. Otherwise it appears as if I have a problem with AWEIA, which is not true. Neither I nor the conference organization will communicate with a  blackmailer.

Thank you very much in advance. 

Best wishes

Guido

 


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9110 From: Joe Faust Date: 4/30/2013
Subject: Fwd: AWEC 2013 extension of deadline for abstract submission to May


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: PJ Shepard <pj@aweconsortium.org Date: Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 6:51 PM
Subject: AWEC 2013 extension of deadline for abstract submission to May 13
To: PJ Shepard <pj@aweconsortium.org

For 2013 AWEC selected the German Airborne Wind Energy Association as its conference organizer and presenter. The deadline for submission of abstracts for presentations and posters for AWEC 2013 has been extended to May 13.  Apologies in advance to anyone if this is a duplication. AWEC wants to ensure that everyone has the same opportunity to submit an abstract. Upward! -PJ

The following information has been provided by Guido Luetsch, President, German Airborne Wind Energy Association, BHWE Bundesverband Höhenwindenergie e.V. i.G, on behalf of the organization committee:

The German Airborne Wind Energy Association (BHWE Bundesverband Höhenwindenergie e.V.) cordially invites you to participate in the Airborne Wind Energy Conference, AWEC 2013, to be held in Berlin, Germany, on September 10th/11th, 2013.

Please send in your abstract (if you haven’t done already) latest by May 13th 2013 and spread the news within your AWE-network.

Regarding the ticket prices for AWEC 2013:

Regular ticket price is planned to be 290 Euro/person.

Students ticket price is planned to be 20 Euro/student.

Registration will be open soon at www.awec2013.de .

Call for Abstracts / Call for Posters

Submission Deadline:   May 13, 2013

Notification Due:           June 24, 2013

Conference:                  September 10/11, 2013

If you are interested in presenting your work to other members of this emerging industry, you are kindly requested to write a one-page A4 abstract about what you want to present, and send it to program@awec2013.de  until May 13, 2013.

Your abstract will be evaluated by an international program committee. Notice of acceptance is given on June 24, 2013, together with the type of talk (speaker session/poster session).

We do hope you will be able to act as an active participant at the conference; your involvement, comments and contribution will be highly appreciated. For further information please do not hesitate to contact us, using this email: contact@awec2013.de , or visit the conference webpage on http://www.awec2013.de .

Objective of the conference:

The conference is intended as reference for companies, politicians, researchers, scientists, investors, professionals and students interested or active in the innovative field of Airborne Wind Energy. Submitted abstracts will be selected and arranged in such a way that the conference will provide a consistent compilation of existing prototypes and models, fundamental theories, current research and development activities as well as economic, investment and regulatory aspects. Besides the R&D and technical sessions it is of special interest to have an investment & finance session. All investors (Venture Capital, family offices, Corporate Ventures, private investors etc.) are welcome to contribute their interest, expectation or existing experience about AWE-financing to the conference.

The topics of the conference will include, but are not limited to:

• Historical developments

• Practical experiences and prototypes

• High altitude wind resource

• Wind measurment and weather conditions

• Politicial issues and requirements

• Drag and traction power conversion

• Performance characterisation

• Flight stability, dynamic models and control

• Structural and aerodynamic analysis

• Materials

• Kite and tether design and manufacture

• Generators and electrical subsystems

• Reliability and safety assessment

• Economic potential

• Ecological impacts and footprint

• Sustainability & Climate change

• Financing strategies

• Regulations and insurance

• Investors’ perspective

On behalf of the Organization Committee,


Guido Luetsch

Präsident

BHWE Bundesverband Höhenwindenergie e.V.

c/o Heussen GmbH

Joachimstaler Str. 12

10719 Berlin

Germany

Phone: +49 -173 679 579 0



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9111 From: dave santos Date: 5/1/2013
Subject: Blackmail? //Re: [AWES] Fwd: Your Yahoo post
Guido is incorrect to accuse me of blackmail. There is no "purpose of taking money or property," nor any threat of exposing any secret that would injure a reputation. All the facts so far involved are publicly available on the Net, and my sole intent is to hold Guido and his inside circle publically accountable for specific wrongful decisions affecting us all.
 
How a German AWE Association (BHWE) formed in January so quickly became AWEC's choice for our conference organizer is an interesting development outside of my knowledge. All the pertinent details of this process should be public, for the general good. This is our history, and we deserve to know it. Someday we will, as AWEC cannot long continue to enforce its secrecy on us.
 
Guido should make his accusations with a specific basis, so they can be understood. Perhaps he did not know how blackmail is formally defined.
 
 
A legal definition of Blackmail-
 
The crime involving a threat for purposes of compelling a person to do an act against his or her will, or for purposes of taking the person's money or property.
The term blackmail originally denoted a payment made by English persons residing along the border of Scotland to influential Scottish chieftains in exchange for protection from thieves and marauders.
In blackmail the threat might consist of physical injury to the threatened person or to someone loved by that person, or injury to a person's reputation. In some cases the victim is told that an illegal act he or she had previously committed will be exposed if the victim fails to comply with the demand.
Although blackmail is generally synonymous with Extortion, some states distinguish the offenses by requiring that the former be in writing.
Blackmail is punishable by a fine, imprisonment, or both.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Blackmail

========================== I am sorry for the Yahoo "CSNBC Jobs" Spam Virus  that hijacked the Contact List for this mail account.  Please accept this apology for any trouble caused.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9112 From: Bob Stuart Date: 5/1/2013
Subject: Re: Blackmail? //Re: [AWES] Fwd: Your Yahoo post
I think that Guido should be a lot more specific about what he considers to be Dave's false accusations beyond belief.  If they are beyond belief, they should be of no consequence.  When something "goes without saying" it is usually best to say it, if only for the solidarity.  Surprises are frequently uncovered that way.  

We are trying to promote a new technology that we expect to have tremendous economic impact on the future.  We should be suspicious of anyone involved of being a double agent for the currently vested interests, even the growing ones.  Industrial espionage and IP is only one aspect.  Promising companies are often bought out and buried.  GM and Firestone even paid a hefty fine for destroying public transit, while trying to not be so obvious.  They bought the transit companies, and just transferred all their worst executives there, while enjoying a huge tax break for their troubles.  The streetcars that built Los Angeles are still gone.

Bob Stuart

On 1-May-13, at 8:24 AM, dave santos wrote:


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9113 From: Hardensoft International Limited Date: 5/1/2013
Subject: Re: Blackmail? //Re: [AWES] Fwd: Your Yahoo post
DaveS,
PJ won't get your emails at the skywindpower address as fast as she will if you send same to her awec email.
Yours truly,
JohnO
 
John Adeoye  Oyebanji   B.Sc. MCPN
Managing Consultant & CEO
Hardensoft International Limited
<Technologies roman';">
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Disclaimer and confidentiality note
This e-mail, its attachments and any rights attaching hereto are, and unless the content clearly indicates otherwise, remains the property of John Adeoye Oyebanji of Hardensoft International Limited, Lagos, Nigeria. 

It is confidential, private and intended for only the addressee.
Should you not be the addressee and receive this e-mail by mistake, kindly notify the sender, and delete this e-mail immediately.
Do not disclose or use it in any way. Views and opinions expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender unless clearly stated as those of some other.


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9114 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 5/1/2013
Subject: re: Blackmail?   //Re: [AWES] Fwd: Your Yahoo post

DaveS,

 

I put again the post 8882:"

DaveS,

 

"We have seem many millions wasted by undeserving and even dishonest AWE promoters". This type of sentence,taken on your last "Open Questions...",is a way to throw the depreciation on vague bases:it is what Dave Culp called" yellow journalism ".In this sense "public systematic questioning of AWE players" (out of technical considerations,like I precise in my precedent message) deserves AWE players and so our forum."

 

I am sorry to see you attack again and again all companies and CEO in AWE:AWEC,Guido,NTS,PJ,Massimo,Makani...So I think you should leave the direction of AWEIA.

 

PierreB






Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9115 From: dave santos Date: 5/1/2013
Subject: Re: Blackmail?   //Re: [AWES] Fwd: Your Yahoo post
Pierre,.

I stand by my general opinion, based on years of direct knowledge-

     "We have seem many millions wasted by undeserving and even dishonest AWE promoters".

In any population you will find a spectrum of honesty and competence. To imagine that AWE is currently free of corruption (particularly in marketing claims) is very naive. We have severe ethical flaws by AWEC's secretive culture. Please look more carefully. Perhaps a review of evidence is needed.
 
The invocation of Yellow Journalism* proves you believe in at least one dishonest player, however vague that understanding is. Expect AWE ethics to always be a serious open issue, not something we can hide from,

daveS
 
 
* My dear friend and mentor, Dave Culp, was a well-paid Makani insider trying valiantly to make a losing case, a reality Pierre once again discounts :)
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9116 From: dave santos Date: 5/1/2013
Subject: Dishonesty in AWE?
What do we mean by dishonesty in AWE circles? We deliberate case-by-case with general principles in mind.

Criminal Dishonesty requires the highest standard of evidence, but business and governmental fraud is hardly unusual. We expect cases to develop, if rarely. Experienced investors are aware of the risk. We have some probable cases, in the opinion of more than one expert.

Much more common, and perhaps even more damaging is Intellectual Dishonesty. Venture Capitalists, Marketers, lay-folk, and Yellow Journalists :) have a hard time with Intellectual Honesty-


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


Cases get resolved by open third-party processes (public accountability, peer-review, civil & criminal law, judgement of history, etc.). An AWE "gentleman's agreement" where complaints are secretly covered up, is no substitute for openness. Whistle-blowers are the heros of a new transparency-culture.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9117 From: Bob Stuart Date: 5/2/2013
Subject: In-Sea Storage
MIT has run the numbers for a concrete sphere at various depths, and
finds that sinking one to between 200 and 1500 meters, and pumping
water in and out of it, is economically attractive. At 750, they
predict six cents per KWH, which is an economic margin to trade on.
http://www.gizmag.com/mit-offshore-wind-concrete-sphere-energy-
storage/27357/

Of course, there are many opportunities on land for a pair of cheap
reservoirs at useful altitudes, too. Caverns may be easy to create
under some flat land, too. They might even be enlarged by carrying
off some sand with each discharge.

Bob Stuart
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9118 From: Joe Faust Date: 5/2/2013
Subject: Re: In-Sea Storage
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9119 From: dave santos Date: 5/2/2013
Subject: Re: In-Sea Storage
There are so many flaws in this scheme!
 
No account is given of heat-of-compression loss. No serious concern for embodied concrete pollution (the idea even supports the coal  economy by boosting fly-ash demand). Its not an optimal anchor as a dead-weight  basis with cyclic buoyancy is weak to begin with, since there is the massive seafloor at hand. Only a small buried structure is needed for better anchoring. Its not the optimal pressure vessel geometry for this siting (an ovoid is better), nor does a yanking load from the WECS help. The capital cost would be huge. Its not really a Hoover Dam equivalent, since an artificial Colorado River's worth of energy must be preharvested. I fear MIT Professor Slocum may be riding on his illustrious New England namesake (the wonderful Joshua Slocum). We are seeing an ongoing hollowing out of elite prestige institutions, as academic puppy-mills, in this dramatic era of crisis (recall government of Singapore buying into Springer prestige).
 
The uncredentialed Forum, with its wild talents, has already done far better with this concept space, in my opinion. A recyclable thin-wall bag suffices as the pressure vessel, conventionally anchored against its buoyancy. Heat of compression must be usefully recovered. Conventional anchors would serve the AWES function, but as separate modules from storage; there is no cheap and easy integrated synergy here between storage and anchoring.
    
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9120 From: dave santos Date: 5/2/2013
Subject: Re: Crosswind auto reversing Mothra
Rod,
 
You are on a hot trail here.
 
Keep in mind that massive inertial scaling effects may allow the simplest control of On-Off states of passive self-powered inherent oscillation, with fine-tuning of frequency and amplitude to match conditions (load and wind velocity).  The added feedback flip-flop mechanism you describe may be the trick to best tolerate scale-turbulence.
 
Our cardiac boimimetic model, where passive spontaneous synchronous beating (in a petri dish) and/or active nerve inputs mix and/or alternate, provides useful analogies and contrasts for various AWES cases in this concept space,
 daveS


 
    
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9121 From: Bob Stuart Date: 5/2/2013
Subject: Re: In-Sea Storage
There is no heat of compression involved, Dave.  Sea water is treated as incompressible.  The container is for negative pressure, or concrete would not be considered suitable. Of course the thing is not optimal as an anchor, but it still has side-benefits in that area.  Please explain your reasoning on spheres being non-optimal for pressure vessels.  A sausage skin always splits along the long axis, because the forces on a pressure cylinder are exactly double in that direction.  J.E. Gordon illustrates that in a simple sketch that some early geometer just put into the public domain unsigned.

A recent advance in compressed air storage, a separate topic, uses a water spray to absorb and release the heat of compression, storing it separately in water at moderate temperatures.  This gets the efficiency up to 70%, and it was invented by a girl who is still too young to drive, thinking about an air-powered scooter, after a century of engineers mostly trying to ignore the problem, or proposing far more hardware-intensive solutions.  Of course, this encourages higher pressure tanks, which are more compact bomb equivalents, since much of the energy can still be released instantly.  The ocean is one of the few safe locations for them, if the whales don't get a vote.  


Bob Stuart

On 2-May-13, at 10:58 AM, dave santos wrote:

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9122 From: Joe Faust Date: 5/2/2013
Subject: Re: In-Sea Storage
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9123 From: Harry Valentine Date: 5/2/2013
Subject: Re: In-Sea Storage
Gentlemen,

Several years ago, I published a series of research articles on compressed-air-over-water energy storage .  . . . using deep caverns located next to an oceanic coast .  .  . they just need to be flushed of rock salt. I very definitely too the heat-of-compression into account. In the Middle East, the article mentioned using the heat-of-compression to thermally desalinate seawater . . . . at more northerly latitudes during winter, the heat-of-compression may be transferred into district heating.

Some naturally occurring deep caverns can occur some 4,000-ft to 6,000-ft below ground surface .  .  . with dome shaped roofs measuring 100-ft to 2,000-ft diameter, usable internal vertical height about 1.5-times to 3-times the diameter.


Harry


To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
From: santos137@yahoo.com
Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 09:58:26 -0700
Subject: Re: [AWES] In-Sea Storage

 

There are so many flaws in this scheme!
 
No account is given of heat-of-compression loss. No serious concern for embodied concrete pollution (the idea even supports the coal  economy by boosting fly-ash demand). Its not an optimal anchor as a dead-weight  basis with cyclic buoyancy is weak to begin with, since there is the massive seafloor at hand. Only a small buried structure is needed for better anchoring. Its not the optimal pressure vessel geometry for this siting (an ovoid is better), nor does a yanking load from the WECS help. The capital cost would be huge. Its not really a Hoover Dam equivalent, since an artificial Colorado River's worth of energy must be preharvested. I fear MIT Professor Slocum may be riding on his illustrious New England namesake (the wonderful Joshua Slocum). We are seeing an ongoing hollowing out of elite prestige institutions, as academic puppy-mills, in this dramatic era of crisis (recall government of Singapore buying into Springer prestige).
 
The uncredentialed Forum, with its wild talents, has already done far better with this concept space, in my opinion. A recyclable thin-wall bag suffices as the pressure vessel, conventionally anchored against its buoyancy. Heat of compression must be usefully recovered. Conventional anchors would serve the AWES function, but as separate modules from storage; there is no cheap and easy integrated synergy here between storage and anchoring.
    

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9124 From: roderickjosephread Date: 5/3/2013
Subject: biomimetic heart Mothra
Hearts are closed circuit bag inflation arrangements.

In this case of the standard heart model http://youtu.be/JA0Wb3gc4mE
It may be helpful to look at that video upside down..

gives ideas like
Tugging anchor bags, inflating diaphragms, lifting surface tubes, squeezing bags,
or
a taller mothra and a smaller inner mothra working with/ against each other...

consider the blue ventricle as a horizontal flat elastic bag with a top diaphragm lifted by a controllable mothra.
it can be pulled up with  arrayed lines from the rear loadpaths to inflate the whoopee cushion shape.
The cushion having a sphincter valve / tricuspid valve on its underside.
the artery feeds water through a generator then tubes pipe it back to another bag layer (atrium) underneath the cushion.

Simpler however than all that may be a Mothra Foot Float model,
a floating tube circles each foot of a mothra linked by pulley to the foot controls... (or by any means a rising mothra pulls a float underwater.)
at a depth (dependant on wind speed) the float triggers the mothra to payout the backlines stopping pulling.
float lifts pulling the mothra down to start , re-sets the mothra lines to pull.
Power could be taken from the pulley points.


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9125 From: dave santos Date: 5/3/2013
Subject: Re: In-Sea Storage
Bob,
 
Whoops, thanks for the correction, this scheme is pure gravity, so air compression is not the volumetric storage basis. Its unclear to me if this is an real advantage, given some the major trade-offs-
 
  -The scheme requires the storage to have a deeply submerged dedicated capital infrastructure of motor/generators, with its own extensive conductor network.
 
  -Our reference scheme is simpler (as well as needing far less copper and concrete) by keeping the pump at the surface (maybe even using direct-drive windpower). Our pressure vessel is merely the high-pressure hose required to pump to depth. We do need to recoup heat of compression, but this may be painless if we find the right recovery method or use.
 
We at least seem to have a far lower capital cost and embodied footprint to trade against heat-of-compression. The vision of thousands of massive submerged concrete spheres to serve a large urban population is daunting. We can create a far larger unit size, for a far smaller unit count.
 
The presumption that for the MIT scheme some sort of egg profile is favored over a simple sphere is based on the pressure-depth gradient. Therefore, the lower vessel requires a thicker wall or smaller cross-section for equivalent strength; either way, its a deviation from "ideal roundness",
 
daveS
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9126 From: dave santos Date: 5/3/2013
Subject: Correcting Doug (Honeywell and Coy Harris)
 
Doug,
 
It was Coy Harris, Executive Director of the American WindPower Center and Museum, and perhaps the world's foremost windmill authority and collector, who mistakenly seemed to you to wrongly endorse the Honeywell Turbine.
 
In fairness, he was not comparing it to market winners like his favorite, the Aermotor (easy to collect), but expressing an elite collector's happiness in aquiring an unusual specimen, a sort of rare "Edsel" aquisition. My role was to report (and understand) Coy's joy in filling out the modern part of the museum collection with the donated Honeywell. Its a wind-geek's joy to get hands-on experience maintaining a hundred-plus  commercially extinct (or soon to be extinct) freak turbines. I take pains to critique the turbine's specific shortcomings, and Honeywell's military-industrial culture.

Coy remains our top expert in windmills (with Fort Felker also a contender), far outclassing your personal connection, Paul Gipe, in deep expertise (he frankly admits not to be an engineer at all). I am also proud to be a relation to the Harris clan of West Texas, a bias hereby admitted,
 
daveS
 
 
PS Answering another of your complaints- I keep key metrics in mind in AWES engineering- LCOE, power-to-weight, FAA classifications, MTBCF, etc. Its mistaken of you to claim otherwise. Many of my metrics are aviation-driven. None of your key factors seem to account aviation as such as a key metric space.  We fully share basic wind industry metrics as important factors.
 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9127 From: Harry Valentine Date: 5/3/2013
Subject: Re: In-Sea Storage
With underground compressed air storage (CAES) using massive subterranean caverns, air pressure drops as air is released through turbines. When the cavern is located next to an ocean coast, it becomes possible to excavate a well between the ocean and a lower section of the cavern. 

During recharging, air is pumped in and displaces seawater, forcing most of it back to higher elevation along the coast. During the generating cycle, seawater entering the lower level of the cavern displaces air from the cavern as the air flows through the air turbines. 

For equal storage volume inside the cavern, seawater displacement maintains much higher air pressure during the generating cycle .  . . also allows for a greater usable mass of air to stored in the cavern, especially if the generating system is to operate between an upper and a lower pressure of air.

To be viable, massive storage volume inside impervious rock is needed . . .  .  a concrete sphere on the sea floor is not viable. Some else developed giant inflatable bags a few years ago, to hold compressed air deep in a lake or on the sea floor.

Harry 


To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
From: santos137@yahoo.com
Date: Fri, 3 May 2013 07:57:33 -0700
Subject: Re: [AWES] In-Sea Storage

 

Bob,
 
Whoops, thanks for the correction, this scheme is pure gravity, so air compression is not the volumetric storage basis. Its unclear to me if this is an real advantage, given some the major trade-offs-
 
  -The scheme requires the storage to have a deeply submerged dedicated capital infrastructure of motor/generators, with its own extensive conductor network.
 
  -Our reference scheme is simpler (as well as needing far less copper and concrete) by keeping the pump at the surface (maybe even using direct-drive windpower). Our pressure vessel is merely the high-pressure hose required to pump to depth. We do need to recoup heat of compression, but this may be painless if we find the right recovery method or use.
 
We at least seem to have a far lower capital cost and embodied footprint to trade against heat-of-compression. The vision of thousands of massive submerged concrete spheres to serve a large urban population is daunting. We can create a far larger unit size, for a far smaller unit count.
 
The presumption that for the MIT scheme some sort of egg profile is favored over a simple sphere is based on the pressure-depth gradient. Therefore, the lower vessel requires a thicker wall or smaller cross-section for equivalent strength; either way, its a deviation from "ideal roundness",
 
daveS

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9128 From: Joe Faust Date: 5/3/2013
Subject: Rapid imaging of diasters, etc.

A Kite and Teleoperated Vision System for Acquiring Aerial Images 

Paul Y. Oh and Bill Green
Mechanical Engineering & Mechanics, Drexel University, Philadelphia PA
====================================================

Discussion
  • Immediately upload to incident commanders. 
  • Immediately upload to Internet for the world. 
  • KAP on steroids ... 
  • Crime surveillance
  • Animal stewardship
  • Traffic control
  • Levee watch
  • Border surveillance


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9129 From: roderickjosephread Date: 5/3/2013
Subject: Re: In-Sea Storage
I believe the university of East Anglia were researching underwater bag
energy.
I have suggested that instead of the huge energy needed to pump air
down...
Why not send the energy down as electricity to where water splits more
efficiently at pressure.
Then not only do you get gas at pressure ... it's Hydrogen, Oxygen,
chlorine and sodium hydroxide.
Handy
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9130 From: dave santos Date: 5/3/2013
Subject: Re: In-Sea Storage
Rod,
 
Brilliant, but there is a problem-
 
If you crack seawater, the toxic chlorine byproduct must be kept from harming the Ozone Layer, etc.. So you have to desalinate first.
 
The pressure is useful, but perhaps not valuable enough, since just heating water in a steam boiler easily creates pressure.
 
daveS
 





  
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 9131 From: roderickjosephread Date: 5/3/2013
Subject: Re: In-Sea Storage
If you don't want all the chlorine for American swimming pools
Keep the plates partly enclosed and blow fresh water past them