Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

10962Re: [AWES] RE: Looping wing under a pilot kite

Expand Messages
  • dave santos
    Jan 15, 2014
      Doug,

      The incentive to develop a looping wing under a pilot kite is so that pure tensile force passively drives AWE pumping. This bypasses the major flaw of the SuperTurbine, to not scale to high altitudes, due to cubic mass scaling-law and high negative lift of its driveshaft. 2009 seems to represent your nearing the SuperTurbine scaling-law barrier, with only a small unit achieved flying at a very low angle.

      Of course, Nature invented the single-bladed turbine, in the form of the maple-seed, so any a-priori argument that turbines must have more than one blade is nonsense. The kPower SpinWing is not even strictly a one-blade turbine, as it uses two wings; the upper wing, while providing stable overall flight, still acts against the other wing, flying a smaller pattern. The harder the upper kite works, the more power available at the base, with less damping loss.

      Putting more wings radially into the mix horribly complicates launching and power tapping. As it is, the SpinWing under a Pilot-Lifter will stop looping in calm and land and relaunch in sequence, in good order. Power tapping by a kPower PTO is simple. Reciprocating power is not so impractical or unpromising as you insist: your own car contradicts the "rotary-only" thesis.

      A megascale arch naturally supports an array of WECS units. SpinWings would be arrayed crosswind like any other scale-unit crosswind. The minimal count foreseen for a smaller arch would be two opposed spinwings, for balanced motion. The current single-cell version is not an arch.

      Mass and gravity help looping foils pump. The larger a parafoil, the more its neutral buoyant internal air mass acts to assist overall steady rotation. But as the looper dives past "7 o'clock", the maximum mass-velocity is created by both kite-mass gravity-boost and DS boost. At the weak top of the loop, and in the dive, the PTO recoils easily (by a weak fast-retract bungee). This is a superior more-crosswind cycle compared to downwind reeling schemes.

      A next phase of testing will validate stacks of spinwings along the single helical loadpath, but this is still no closer to an airborne driveshaft scheme, with radially symmetric wings. Its up to you to validate that path, but you have missed the time-frame you impose on others,

      daveS


      On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:08 PM, "dougselsam@..." <dougselsam@...> wrote:
       
      Reminds me quite a bit of Figs. 81-89 of U.S. Patent 6616402 Serpentine Wind Turbine, except you have removed all the other blades except one.
      Can I let you in on a secret discovered a couple thousand years ago?  A rotating sail, or kite, works well when counterbalanced against at least one other rotating sail, or kite.
      The assembly is then called a rotor, and the sail, or kite, is called a blade.
      The advantage is you don't have to steer a single blade in a circle - the circular path becomes automatic.  Automatic steering 3000 years ago - who knew?  Think of square-dancing: "Swing yer partner, round & round!"

      I know, I know, Makani has gotten a lot of mileage showing the world how it can FORCE a SINGLE kite to go in a circle, (after years of forced figure-8's, while people like me wondered why they had not discovered the 3000-year-old and by-now standard circular path), or the equally-ancient concept of at least one more blade per rotor, to counterbalance the first... (One more newbie re-invention - the old one-bladed turbine concept - a Professor Crackpot favorite, but only a very advanced Professor Crackpot usually promotes one-bladed rotors, like the original Skypower prototype from Australia, which, when I first saw it a decade or so ago I thought "Why use a 1-bladed rotor when it just needs a counterweight anyway?" - "Hey, let's add one questionable feature that ruins the whole thing!"
      I remember when this beautiful girl flew in to visit me several years ago.  On the flight, she sketched out a wind turbine where a row of rotors was arrayed along each blade of a large wind turbine, a bunch of little generators replacing the main generator.  That was her first wind energy idea with no experience.  Her idea was not new then, and it is not 100% new with Makani doing it.  Just that Makani used just a single blade root.  "No it's a blade tip!"  Oh, OK if it makes them feel better.  How 'bout a blade midsection?  What is the TSR?  That would tell you if it is a tip, midsection, or root.  Wow, come to think of it, I have not heard anything about them in a long time.  Sometimes big companies buy up little ones just to make sure they don't miss out on something, but then lose interest.
      Here's my question:
      Why beat around the bush?
      Why not build the WHOLE SuperTurbine(R), rather forcing one blade to travel in a circle, with no way to extract the power?  I mean, it's cute, but where are all the rest of the blades?  You can put up 80 tarps, but only 1 blade?  Let me know if you need some guidance... The reason I brought a SuperTurbine(R) to the first AWE conference was to show people how it's done, save them a lot of headscratching, trial and error, reinventing the wheel, and so forth.  I know, sometimes you can hand people an idea on a silver platter but they aren't  ready for it yet.  The nice thing is it has quite a bit of research and some data to back up the concept, and it has wide patent protection.  Maboomba!
      :)
      Doug S.


    • Show all 19 messages in this topic