Superturbine-Mothra Mash-ups
The prior post of mine in this topic thread hopefully implied that the
cliffs of the valley (sic, holding Superturbine®
or the like)
were to be replaced by the side region of kite arches (sic, Mothra or the
like); the torque tubes would be end-supported by the kite arch system,
one or more arches could be involved (sic, even to hold one torque-tube).
~JoeF, 12Feb2014.
Note added: A kite arch could pre-tension a ST (Superturbine®)
torque tube by a holding line as an extension of the torque tube; the line
would attach and dimple the kite arch. See some countering comments by
DaveS in this conversation. ~JoeF 13Feb2014
I believe this design is super collectable and highly stackable:
http://youtu.be/wA4rYK_Ztyc
OK it needs a few patches sewing, bearings set to shafts threaded through
sail and pulleys run and mounted collected to a bottom gen... but
otherwise ...
Nothing that any robot worth it's grease cannot do
CC3.0 nearly commercial BY SA
Rod Read
Windswept and Interesting Limited
15a Aiginis
Isle of Lewis
HS2 0PB
07899057227
01851 870878
http://kitepowercoop.org
CC BY NC SA
Comment and development of this topic will be occurring here.
All, send notes, links, drawings, papers, videos, plans, safety-critical
findings, and photographs!
- Terms and aspects:
- Related links and concepts:
- Commentary is welcome:
-
Rod added a note: |
Nature's similarity case...
Energy sourcing mounted on stacked wings
http://www.underwaterphotography.com/Photo-Contest/underwater-photo.aspx?i=77306#.UvyB_LSLOM8
-
Rod, You don't really show the massive torque drives in
the Mothra-ST model, which are the ST problem part. You missed early
discussions over why "rotating-tower" driveshafts won't scale like
rope-driving.
The turbine placement is curious; besides a forward leaning shaft,
what advantage is there? The in-wing turbine disc location looks to
add parasitic drag, spoil Bernoulli lift, and even develop negative
lift. A seeming hot-spot for a kite "turbine on a wing" is just under
the TE, counter-rotating against the vorticity of local span-wise
flow.
Keep in that pumping turbine stacks are a contender (SkyMill). You
don't know our friend, Grant Calverley (DaveL you know), but it is
easy to overlook the Skymill non-driveshaft autogyro option, in all
the smoke.
~DaveS
12Feb2014
-
Thanks Roddy:
My take(s) on this high quality rendering is:
1) SuperTurbines(R) that slant upward exert positive lift. Slanting
downward tends toward negative lift, tending to pull the whole thing
down.
2) The whole "Mothra" fixation thing is getting a bit overdone. Seems
like it's mostly about pretending Dave S. is doing anything about
airborne wind energy as he plays with tarp kites. As others have
pointed out, nobody has really shown the pertinence or applicability
of the arch kite configuration over other configurations. Sure it
eliminates a lateral spar in favor of relegating that duty to the
Earth, which could be a good feature. That assumes there is some
advantage to a very wide kite in the first place, which there may be,
but also maybe not so much... Unfortunately it loses the advantages
most every other kite has, which are natural and passive downwind aim
from a single pivot point, and the ability to travel across the wind,
which many systems use to increase relative wind.
All in all, while it seems like one of thousands of configurations
that "technically COULD work OK", I don't see any compellingly
advantageous use of material, use of space, nor any suggestion of
superior performance, nor any particular suggestion that it would be
easy to deploy, easy to un-deploy or stow, nor what one would do with
it when the wind died, or if the wind gets extra-strong. I do see a
large circular track. That looks expensive. Reminds me of the old joke
about how many idiots does it take to change a lightbulb?
Answer: 1000, one to hold the lightbulb, and 999 to rotate the
building. In this case it's how much material and infrastructure that
same idiot might need to allow a wind turbine to change direction,
when simply attaching a tether to a fixed point is normally all that
is required (just unscrew the lightbulb - wait, just LET the lightbulb
unscrew by itself...). Hey forget re-aiming individual turbines, let's
re-aim the whole windfarm!
Roddy you are great at rendering. Reminds
me of the days when I used to say "I could live work, and shop in 3-D
CAD", and the 3-D drawings did get me there, to a certain point. Plus
the renderings of an artist from Dreamworks. Well after enough
"conferences", articles in PopSci, PopMech, several green energy and
wind energy magazines, a couple of Discovery Channel videos, and
getting to meet some of the richest and most influential people in the
world, I realized all the hype was just that: hype. No matter how much
attention I was able to garner (and it got boring after awhile), the
reality I saw was even companies who understood exactly how to do wind
power nonetheless were going bankrupt, no matter how many grants and
investment dollars they could take in. I realized the whole industry,
VC people, multi-letter agencies, famous authors, and all the rest,
there were only a very few who could actually create a RELIABLE wind
energy system, of any kind, that did not break down. This seemed to be
a rare talent, and it further became apparent that it was one more
case of those who talk don't know, and those who know, don't talk". I
decided to skip the hype and develop reliable solutions. So, render
away, blog away, but in the end, a reliable and powerful wind energy
solution will need to be constructed, produced, marketed, etc., and
all the talk, blogging, internet debates, all the hype, all the
conferences, all the grants, and all the multi-million-dollar cash
influxes, and even Mothra renderings showing a circular track, will
not change that simple fact. :)
~ Doug S.
-
Rod,
Keep in mind that Mothra was born to scale beyond anything else
flying, fundamentally, as a COTS soft-kite*. Adding ST drive-shafting
negates the advantages. Using Mothra lift to overcome avoidable WECS
mass is not synergy.
The most promising WECS arrays for Mothras to host are also soft,
perhaps a giant pair of opposed looping parafoils, or even a vast
curtain of tiny flygen HAWTS. Big sticks (driveshafts, rigid-wings)
are not just parasitic flight-mass, and poorly scalable, but something
serious to break. Chordwise sticks, as the mash-up shows, want to act
in compression, contrary to the usually supposed ST driveshaft
pre-tensioning need. Mothra will do far better with no added
brittle-structure failure-modes.
The most predictive WECS bench-mark is highest power-to-weight. Mothra
does this for lift-force, and the choice of WECS should be comparably
potent. ~30% stream-tube conversion efficiency has been shown for
membrane wing-mill variants [U. Maine], which may be a power-to-weight
winner over even an ideal turbine. ~30% is a common range for "ugly"
WECS to live (like the venerable
Aeromoter). Evolved
Mothras really might flap in monstrous wind-driven bulk motions, to
outpower any adjunct method.
~ DaveS 12Feb2014
* Tarps v. Formula Racer driveshafts in the prototypes underscores a
stark philosophical divide between Mothras and STs.
|