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

re: [AWECS] Re: Irregularity and perhaps not so good output in crosswind motion

Expand Messages
  • dave santos
    DaveN,   It will be hard to wait two years for your findings, which hopefully will settle many open questions.   Two top reasons that AWE can far outclass
    Message 1 of 20 , Aug 27, 2011
      DaveN,
       
      It will be hard to wait two years for your findings, which hopefully will settle many open questions.
       
      Two top reasons that AWE can far outclass conventional turbines are the superiority of the upper wind resource and the practicality of aggregating kite capacity to drive the largest generators by stringing together arrays. The low-capital-cost AWE advantage is largely negated by higher operational cost, so we must plan for "nuke-priced" energy in the early years.
       
      Please note that an advanced groundgen concept to include for study is a "short-stroke" power cycle (with little or no reeling) occurring at the natural kite orbit (loop or eight) frequency, with a brief elastic recovery phase at the top of each orbit. Line slack (Bob's hysteresis) is a limiting factor, but as the kite arrays grow in size, so grows the altitude potential of "short"-stroke, even to the Jet Stream.
       
      KiteLab and Makani independently identified specific advantages of this groundgen cycle over long-stroke reeling, but it has long existed as an AWECS principle, without the comparative analysis. Most long-stroke designs are so 2004, with many known disadvantages (lower overall efficiency, airspace hog, high line wear, long recovery phase power smoothing, etc,),
       
      daveS
       
    • Pierre BENHAIEM
      DaveN and all, I agree.As I am not a scientific after trials of FlygenKite last days I am surprised the light does not work at a velocity which nevertheless
      Message 2 of 20 , Aug 27, 2011
        DaveN and all,

        I agree.As I am not a scientific after trials of FlygenKite last days I am surprised the light does not work at a velocity which nevertheless seemed sufficient.I tried to extrapolate from the following estimations:  

        see p.7  KiteGen project: control as key technology for a quantum leap in ... (2007):
        "In particular, a

        single 500 m2 kite with 12 m/s nominal wind speed and

        aerodynamic efficiency (i.e. CL=CD) equal to 12 would be

        able to generate 10 MW mean power.".This estimation seems work within the formula:power = 2/27.air density.kite area.cube of wind speed.Cl (CL/CD)².My system produces it only on peak,and less by far in average.After I read curve from Windlift and it is also less by far.I read again (what I can understand!) Loyd's paper "Crosswind kite Power" and it is interesting to see there are 2 parts:"Simplified Analysis" where the power of kite (576 m²,L/D = 20) is 22 MW,wind speed being 10 m/s.This result seems to go with the precedent (500 m² kite).BUT there is a second part "Detailed Analysis" which takes into account other parameters among which in first:"motion cannot be purely crosswind".In the end kite average power is only 6.7 MW instead 22 MW.But "it is a reasonable fraction of that predicted by the simplified analysis".

        This result sounds like a real basis we can use for extrapolation (KiteGen,Delft,Makani and others probably made it to build their simulations).Windlift,Laddermill curves (and perhaps my trials) seems to confirm the validity of this result in a real world.And this paper was written in 1979! 

        PierreB 
           





        > Message du 27/08/11 17:24
        > De : "North, David D. (LARC-E402)"
        > A : "AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com"
        > Copie à : "mark.aull@..."
        > Objet : re: [AWECS] Re: Irregularity and perhaps not so good output in crosswind motion
        >
        >  

        > PierreB,
        >
        > So that will be one of my main goals in the next couple of years....to get a better understanding, for reel-in/reel-out ground-gen, of the "real-world" knock-down factors that need to be applied to Loyd's ideal power equations. Variables will include L/D, flight path, altitude, tether length, kite design [ram air, inflatable,semi-rigid, rigid], reel-out/in speed vs. wind velocity, etc..
        >
        > The ultimate goal is to determine if a ground-gen can really compete with tower-based turbines (I respectfully disagree with some assessments in the AWE community that it cannot). I believe that it can compete at a minimum , in the short term, in certain "niche" markets and maybe, long term, on a grand scale with AWE being a significant portion of wind energy production. As DougS says, the commercial viability of AWE will be determined not by "government bureaucrats" like me (it's pretty funny that Doug characterizes me like that, because I identify more with the inventor types) but by the doggedly determined inventor/entrepreneurs. We at NASA are just trying to help the effort by doing whatever we can by getting a better understanding of the real-world factors through experimentation.
        >
        > Dave North
        > NASA Langley


      • stefano.cianchetta
        Pierre, I tried to look a bit at those data from Milanese et al: Milanese reported 37 Wh produced by a 10m2 kite in about 100sec of active phase. This
        Message 3 of 20 , Aug 29, 2011
          Pierre,
          I tried to look a bit at those data from Milanese et al:
          Milanese reported "37 Wh" produced by a 10m2 kite in about 100sec of active phase. This corresponds to an average power of 1.3 kW during the active phase (530W during a full cycle! similar to windlift but in a weaker wind), infact elsewhere (for the experiment near Casale)they reported 3-4m/s wind speed at 500m.
          They claimed these experimental values are in agreement to their predictions (thus Megawatt scale reached by a 500m2 kite with L/D=12 at a wind speed of 10m/s appears plausible).
          Notably these claims (as order of magnitude) appear to be consistent with the results reported by skysails (as far as I can understand).
          Unfortunately actual data from skysails are not available (I did not find publications yet).
          It appears to me that skysails could potentially answer in deep to our doubts about scalability and real performances...
          I'll wait also for DaveN conclusions!!

          Stefano C



          --- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, Pierre BENHAIEM <pierre.benhaiem@...> wrote:
          >
          > Stefano,
          >
          > Pag.27-28 "Test performed near Casale (IT), in January 2008. Wind of about 1-2 m/s at ground
          > level. Kite effective area: 10 m2, maximum line length: 800 m"
          > shows with AWE it is possible to produce a good amount of energy with quasi no wind at ground.Another thing is trying to know the real output from crosswind motion (not only the peak),according to the variables indicated in M.Loyd's paper,according to eventual other parameters.
          >
          > I took Windlift video for the datas allowing to begin knowing what crosswind motion can produce by itself.
          >
          > PierreB
          >
          >
          > > Message du 26/08/11 16:17
          > > De : "stefano.cianchetta"
          > > A : AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
          > > Copie à :
          > > Objet : [AWECS] Re: Irregularity and perhaps not so good output in crosswind motion
          > >
          > >
          > > Pierre,
          > >
          > > I found in my archive these two documents, you may also try to elaborate these old experimental data!
          > > They look more favourable (10m2 kite area, wind speed 3-4m/s at 500m altitude, output during production phase 1.5kW )
          > >
          > > pag. 27-28
          > > http://homes.esat.kuleuven.be/~optec/events/20090526_milanese.pdf
          > >
          > > pag. 11-13
          > > http://lorenzofagiano.altervista.org/docs/FaMiPi_TR_27082009.pdf
          > >
          > > I found also this Laddermill video:
          > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mChu9MxDeIA
          > >
          > > What about skysail-power?
          > > http://www.skysails.info/english/power/development/2-demonstrator-1-mw/
          > >
          > > Stefano C
          > >
          > > --- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, "Pierre Benhaiem" wrote:
          > > >
          > > >
          > > > Windlift testing - 12 sq. m. wing
          > > > .It is one on the first
          > > > times when we can read one,even two energy curves in real time of
          > > > flight.Datas are wing 12 m²,wind speed being 10 m/s at an altitude of
          > > > 10 m.I suppose ratio L/D could be something like 4.
          > > >
          > > > The red curve shows instataneous (positive or negative) power during
          > > > reel out and in,and is like toothes (irregularity of power the sound
          > > > also shows). During the better time power is about 5 kw,the global
          > > > average (before recovering phase) is about 2.5 kw.The global cycle
          > > > produces 30000 J as indicated by the blue curve going from 110 000 to
          > > > 140 000 J.The time is 55 secondes.30 000/55 = 545 W for the average of
          > > > the complete cycle.
          > > >
          > > > We can see and listen the recovery period takes much energy,but it is
          > > > not the most important problem:Windlift will can bring down these
          > > > values.
          > > >
          > > > But with Diehls-Loyd formula, P = 2/27. air density.kite area.cube of
          > > > wind speed.CL (CL/CD)². So a 12 m² wing should produce something
          > > > like 20 kw.Yes but only on power peak,not as average apparently.
          > > >
          > > > So the best period,5 kw,(and a fortiori the average 2.5 kw) shows a
          > > > power far to expected (at least on a better point of the croswind
          > > > trajectory) 20 kw.
          > > >
          > > > So to produce 2.5 MW it would need 12 000 m² of kites (it is too much
          > > > in regard to ROI), or for the better 2000 m² of rigid kites (it is
          > > > also too much).
          > > >
          > > > What can be improved to maximize crosswind motion?
          > > >
          > > > Dr Breukels' thesis can produce answers by studying the way to benefit
          > > > from control of flexibility of a kite.
          > > >
          > > > But the question is:is it really possible to project GW scale (with reel
          > > > or flygen and crosswind motion) by multiplication of actual low output?
          > > >
          > > > Or AWE should be limited to precise targets like facilitating wind
          > > > access in regions without grid? (projects for jet stream are not
          > > > concerned since crosswind motion is not used).
          > > >
          > > > PierreB
          > > >
          > > > http://flygenkite.com
          > > >
          > >
          > >
          >
        • Pierre BENHAIEM
          Stefano, In case of 3-4 m/s wind speed the power of 1.3 kW during the best period of the active phase is huge,except if L/D is very high (6 or 7 instead 4,or
          Message 4 of 20 , Aug 29, 2011

            Stefano,

            In case of 3-4 m/s wind speed the power of 1.3 kW during the best period of the active phase is huge,except if L/D is very high (6 or 7 instead 4,or if wind speed is a little higher,5 m/s for example).A common point of all curves:power is not regular (you can hear that).And if you pilot a kite by eight-figure you feel the irregularity of the traction.

            The value of 10 MW for 500 m² with 12 m/s nominal wind speed and L/D = 12 roughly corresponds to the "simplified analysis" from Loyd's paper,or to a peak of power.But in Presentazione di PowerPoint p.18 wind speed is 15 m/s,other datas being identical.Power increasing by the cube of wind speed,so 10 MW for 15 m/s wind speed induces half of the output of the same with only 12 m/s wind speed.This value is closer of the result on the "detailed analysis",or of the average power.

            However crosswind kite power can be very promising for a mass production,with kites with higher L/D,and thiner lines,and now can be useful for some niche markets.

            Note:it will be interesting to know results for retrieval phase during glide maneuver according to KiteGen systems .

            PierreB 



             


            > Message du 29/08/11 12:51
            > De : "stefano.cianchetta"
            > A : AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
            > Copie à :
            > Objet : [AWECS] Re: Irregularity and perhaps not so good output in crosswind motion
            >
            >  

            > Pierre,
            > I tried to look a bit at those data from Milanese et al:
            > Milanese reported "37 Wh" produced by a 10m2 kite in about 100sec of active phase. This corresponds to an average power of 1.3 kW during the active phase (530W during a full cycle! similar to windlift but in a weaker wind), infact elsewhere (for the experiment near Casale)they reported 3-4m/s wind speed at 500m.
            > They claimed these experimental values are in agreement to their predictions (thus Megawatt scale reached by a 500m2 kite with L/D=12 at a wind speed of 10m/s appears plausible).
            > Notably these claims (as order of magnitude) appear to be consistent with the results reported by skysails (as far as I can understand).
            > Unfortunately actual data from skysails are not available (I did not find publications yet).
            > It appears to me that skysails could potentially answer in deep to our doubts about scalability and real performances...
            > I'll wait also for DaveN conclusions!!
            >
            > Stefano C
            >
            > --- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, Pierre BENHAIEM wrote:
            > >
            > > Stefano,
            > >
            > > Pag.27-28 "Test performed near Casale (IT), in January 2008. Wind of about 1-2 m/s at ground
            > > level. Kite effective area: 10 m2, maximum line length: 800 m"
            > > shows with AWE it is possible to produce a good amount of energy with quasi no wind at ground.Another thing is trying to know the real output from crosswind motion (not only the peak),according to the variables indicated in M.Loyd's paper,according to eventual other parameters.
            > >
            > > I took Windlift video for the datas allowing to begin knowing what crosswind motion can produce by itself.
            > >
            > > PierreB
            > >
            > >
            > > > Message du 26/08/11 16:17
            > > > De : "stefano.cianchetta"
            > > > A : AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
            > > > Copie à :
            > > > Objet : [AWECS] Re: Irregularity and perhaps not so good output in crosswind motion
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > Pierre,
            > > >
            > > > I found in my archive these two documents, you may also try to elaborate these old experimental data!
            > > > They look more favourable (10m2 kite area, wind speed 3-4m/s at 500m altitude, output during production phase 1.5kW )
            > > >
            > > > pag. 27-28
            > > > http://homes.esat.kuleuven.be/~optec/events/20090526_milanese.pdf
            > > >
            > > > pag. 11-13
            > > > http://lorenzofagiano.altervista.org/docs/FaMiPi_TR_27082009.pdf
            > > >
            > > > I found also this Laddermill video:
            > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mChu9MxDeIA
            > > >
            > > > What about skysail-power?
            > > > http://www.skysails.info/english/power/development/2-demonstrator-1-mw/
            > > >
            > > > Stefano C
            > > >
            > > > --- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, "Pierre Benhaiem" wrote:
            > > > >
            > > > >
            > > > > Windlift testing - 12 sq. m. wing
            > > > > .It is one on the first
            > > > > times when we can read one,even two energy curves in real time of
            > > > > flight.Datas are wing 12 m²,wind speed being 10 m/s at an altitude of
            > > > > 10 m.I suppose ratio L/D could be something like 4.
            > > > >
            > > > > The red curve shows instataneous (positive or negative) power during
            > > > > reel out and in,and is like toothes (irregularity of power the sound
            > > > > also shows). During the better time power is about 5 kw,the global
            > > > > average (before recovering phase) is about 2.5 kw.The global cycle
            > > > > produces 30000 J as indicated by the blue curve going from 110 000 to
            > > > > 140 000 J.The time is 55 secondes.30 000/55 = 545 W for the average of
            > > > > the complete cycle.
            > > > >
            > > > > We can see and listen the recovery period takes much energy,but it is
            > > > > not the most important problem:Windlift will can bring down these
            > > > > values.
            > > > >
            > > > > But with Diehls-Loyd formula, P = 2/27. air density.kite area.cube of
            > > > > wind speed.CL (CL/CD)². So a 12 m² wing should produce something
            > > > > like 20 kw.Yes but only on power peak,not as average apparently.
            > > > >
            > > > > So the best period,5 kw,(and a fortiori the average 2.5 kw) shows a
            > > > > power far to expected (at least on a better point of the croswind
            > > > > trajectory) 20 kw.
            > > > >
            > > > > So to produce 2.5 MW it would need 12 000 m² of kites (it is too much
            > > > > in regard to ROI), or for the better 2000 m² of rigid kites (it is
            > > > > also too much).
            > > > >
            > > > > What can be improved to maximize crosswind motion?
            > > > >
            > > > > Dr Breukels' thesis can produce answers by studying the way to benefit
            > > > > from control of flexibility of a kite.
            > > > >
            > > > > But the question is:is it really possible to project GW scale (with reel
            > > > > or flygen and crosswind motion) by multiplication of actual low output?
            > > > >
            > > > > Or AWE should be limited to precise targets like facilitating wind
            > > > > access in regions without grid? (projects for jet stream are not
            > > > > concerned since crosswind motion is not used).
            > > > >
            > > > > PierreB
            > > > >
            > > > > http://flygenkite.com
            > > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > >
            >
            >


          • stefano.cianchetta
            Pierre, I agree with you. look here at page 20!! http://homes.esat.kuleuven.be/~optec/events/20090526_milanese.pdf Cable drag and recovery almost halved the
            Message 5 of 20 , Aug 30, 2011
              Pierre,
              I agree with you. look here at page 20!! http://homes.esat.kuleuven.be/~optec/events/20090526_milanese.pdf
              Cable drag and recovery almost halved the power in this simulation!
              The output is not regoular for sure, the kitegen group is still working with supercaps to smooth the power output (as far as I know).
              I am curious too about the glide manouver; I have been told that it could significantly reduce the useful life of the kite fabric, but unfortunately I had no real data and this could be just a guess.

              Stefano



              --- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, Pierre BENHAIEM <pierre.benhaiem@...> wrote:
              >
              >
              > Stefano,
              >
              > In case of 3-4 m/s wind speed the power of 1.3 kW during the best period of the active phase is huge,except if L/D is very high (6 or 7 instead 4,or if wind speed is a little higher,5 m/s for example).A common point of all curves:power is not regular (you can hear that).And if you pilot a kite by eight-figure you feel the irregularity of the traction.
              >
              > The value of 10 MW for 500 m² with 12 m/s nominal wind speed and L/D = 12 roughly corresponds to the "simplified analysis" from Loyd's paper,or to a peak of power.But in Presentazione di PowerPoint p.18 wind speed is 15 m/s,other datas being identical.Power increasing by the cube of wind speed,so 10 MW for 15 m/s wind speed induces half of the output of the same with only 12 m/s wind speed.This value is closer of the result on the "detailed analysis",or of the average power.
              >
              > However crosswind kite power can be very promising for a mass production,with kites with higher L/D,and thiner lines,and now can be useful for some niche markets.
              >
              > Note:it will be interesting to know results for retrieval phase during glide maneuver according to KiteGen systems .
              >
              > PierreB
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > > Message du 29/08/11 12:51
              > > De : "stefano.cianchetta"
              > > A : AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
              > > Copie à :
              > > Objet : [AWECS] Re: Irregularity and perhaps not so good output in crosswind motion
              > >
              > >
              > > Pierre,
              > > I tried to look a bit at those data from Milanese et al:
              > > Milanese reported "37 Wh" produced by a 10m2 kite in about 100sec of active phase. This corresponds to an average power of 1.3 kW during the active phase (530W during a full cycle! similar to windlift but in a weaker wind), infact elsewhere (for the experiment near Casale)they reported 3-4m/s wind speed at 500m.
              > > They claimed these experimental values are in agreement to their predictions (thus Megawatt scale reached by a 500m2 kite with L/D=12 at a wind speed of 10m/s appears plausible).
              > > Notably these claims (as order of magnitude) appear to be consistent with the results reported by skysails (as far as I can understand).
              > > Unfortunately actual data from skysails are not available (I did not find publications yet).
              > > It appears to me that skysails could potentially answer in deep to our doubts about scalability and real performances...
              > > I'll wait also for DaveN conclusions!!
              > >
              > > Stefano C
              > >
              > > --- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, Pierre BENHAIEM wrote:
              > > >
              > > > Stefano,
              > > >
              > > > Pag.27-28 "Test performed near Casale (IT), in January 2008. Wind of about 1-2 m/s at ground
              > > > level. Kite effective area: 10 m2, maximum line length: 800 m"
              > > > shows with AWE it is possible to produce a good amount of energy with quasi no wind at ground.Another thing is trying to know the real output from crosswind motion (not only the peak),according to the variables indicated in M.Loyd's paper,according to eventual other parameters.
              > > >
              > > > I took Windlift video for the datas allowing to begin knowing what crosswind motion can produce by itself.
              > > >
              > > > PierreB
              > > >
              > > >
              > > > > Message du 26/08/11 16:17
              > > > > De : "stefano.cianchetta"
              > > > > A : AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
              > > > > Copie à :
              > > > > Objet : [AWECS] Re: Irregularity and perhaps not so good output in crosswind motion
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > > Pierre,
              > > > >
              > > > > I found in my archive these two documents, you may also try to elaborate these old experimental data!
              > > > > They look more favourable (10m2 kite area, wind speed 3-4m/s at 500m altitude, output during production phase 1.5kW )
              > > > >
              > > > > pag. 27-28
              > > > > http://homes.esat.kuleuven.be/~optec/events/20090526_milanese.pdf
              > > > >
              > > > > pag. 11-13
              > > > > http://lorenzofagiano.altervista.org/docs/FaMiPi_TR_27082009.pdf
              > > > >
              > > > > I found also this Laddermill video:
              > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mChu9MxDeIA
              > > > >
              > > > > What about skysail-power?
              > > > > http://www.skysails.info/english/power/development/2-demonstrator-1-mw/
              > > > >
              > > > > Stefano C
              > > > >
              > > > > --- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, "Pierre Benhaiem" wrote:
              > > > > >
              > > > > >
              > > > > > Windlift testing - 12 sq. m. wing
              > > > > > .It is one on the first
              > > > > > times when we can read one,even two energy curves in real time of
              > > > > > flight.Datas are wing 12 m²,wind speed being 10 m/s at an altitude of
              > > > > > 10 m.I suppose ratio L/D could be something like 4.
              > > > > >
              > > > > > The red curve shows instataneous (positive or negative) power during
              > > > > > reel out and in,and is like toothes (irregularity of power the sound
              > > > > > also shows). During the better time power is about 5 kw,the global
              > > > > > average (before recovering phase) is about 2.5 kw.The global cycle
              > > > > > produces 30000 J as indicated by the blue curve going from 110 000 to
              > > > > > 140 000 J.The time is 55 secondes.30 000/55 = 545 W for the average of
              > > > > > the complete cycle.
              > > > > >
              > > > > > We can see and listen the recovery period takes much energy,but it is
              > > > > > not the most important problem:Windlift will can bring down these
              > > > > > values.
              > > > > >
              > > > > > But with Diehls-Loyd formula, P = 2/27. air density.kite area.cube of
              > > > > > wind speed.CL (CL/CD)². So a 12 m² wing should produce something
              > > > > > like 20 kw.Yes but only on power peak,not as average apparently.
              > > > > >
              > > > > > So the best period,5 kw,(and a fortiori the average 2.5 kw) shows a
              > > > > > power far to expected (at least on a better point of the croswind
              > > > > > trajectory) 20 kw.
              > > > > >
              > > > > > So to produce 2.5 MW it would need 12 000 m² of kites (it is too much
              > > > > > in regard to ROI), or for the better 2000 m² of rigid kites (it is
              > > > > > also too much).
              > > > > >
              > > > > > What can be improved to maximize crosswind motion?
              > > > > >
              > > > > > Dr Breukels' thesis can produce answers by studying the way to benefit
              > > > > > from control of flexibility of a kite.
              > > > > >
              > > > > > But the question is:is it really possible to project GW scale (with reel
              > > > > > or flygen and crosswind motion) by multiplication of actual low output?
              > > > > >
              > > > > > Or AWE should be limited to precise targets like facilitating wind
              > > > > > access in regions without grid? (projects for jet stream are not
              > > > > > concerned since crosswind motion is not used).
              > > > > >
              > > > > > PierreB
              > > > > >
              > > > > > http://flygenkite.com
              > > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > >
              > >
              > >
              >
            • Doug
              Hi Dave North: Thanks for posting here, communicating with the people, more than most bureaucrats do. I didn t mean that term b-crat in a perjorative way,
              Message 6 of 20 , Aug 31, 2011
                Hi Dave North:
                Thanks for posting here, communicating with the people, more than most "bureaucrats" do. I didn't mean that term "b-crat" in a perjorative way, as it is sometimes used. I just meant you work at a "bureau". Don't know a better term, but "government researcher" might be more appropriate.

                From the beginning I have been puzzled by your role in AWE. The questions would be:

                1) whether you represent NASA, or just work there and represent yourself as an independent inventor in AWE. both? cake'n'eat-it-too?

                2) whether you can offer assistance to all AWE players equally, or whether you (or NASA) are in fact a player with your own interests. A Collaborator or a competitor? a bystander?

                3) Whether you have indeed surveyed the space and technologies adequately, and assessed each. If so what are your results? Where can we read about the thought process leading to your current actions? Does NASA have a position on the viability of any technology? What has NASA now learned, that could help U.S. Citizens and companies, that could be said to be a result of the work performed so far?

                4) What is the official NASA position on the various technologies? Let's just take the most famous example, with the most press releases: Magenn - does NASA have an official position on inflated, elevated Savonius technologies like Magenn?

                5) Is there any concern that you (NASA?) could be duplicating the efforts of several high-visibility teams funded with millions of dollars that have produced no economically-workable technologies (product) yet for all those millions spent? Is there any concern that if the kite-reeling direction is not "the" answer, that NASA could turn out to be just one more misguided money-loser? Is there a desire on the part of NASA to try and play a role in whatever technology emerges with economically-useful products for power generation? Or is NASA interest restricted to just reeling kites?

                6) Do you yourself, or does NASA, have an official position with regard to the only AWE technology demoed at the first world AWE conference in 2009 at Chico, the technology that was still up and running the next day after being left unattended overnight, built for a few hundred bucks, Superturbine(R)?

                7) After I authored the AWE Primer for NASA, explaining the 3000-year history of wind energy that started with the pulling force on membranes in 1000 B.C and has transitioned to spinning airfoil blades (known as rotorcraft in the field of aviation), does NASA have any feedback on what I outlined as the proven false trails in wind energy and the tendency for newbies to gravitate toward "rediscovering" the entire progression of the art, starting at the pulling thrust force on membranes, and culminating on steady-state, spinning propellers? Where does NASA now feel that it is, in this well-known and oft-repeated historical progression? What year are you now at, in the well-worn 3000-year trail?

                8) Does NASA have an official position on my assertion, in that Primer I prepared specifically for NASA, that a Venn diagram showing the intersection of the set of known, working aviation technologies, and the set of known, working wind energy technologies contains only one thing: a helicopter rotor in autorotation, also known as the autogyro rotor?

                9) Is NASA aware that wind energy and helicopter technologies are so similar that a helicopter company was originally called on as the go-to obvious choice to build some of the first windfarm turbines in the U.S.?

                10) You have indicated a future program to fly kites and extract power from spools and reels "for a few years" while you "learn". Is this now an official NASA program? Does it exclude other design directions than reeling kites? What decision points led to this kite-flying, reeling effort? What decision points led to the exclusion of other technologies? What decision points led to the decision NOT to work on a design direction that has been shown to work easily, now?

                11) I'm building another flying wind turbine now. I could have it running in an afternoon. There is little doubt that it will work the first try. No computers are needed. Yes, learning is what we do, but learning whether it even has a chance to work is a hurdle we passed long ago. On paper, or in the field, this works, here and now. Does NASA have any interest in a technology that can work today, that is at the present intersection of known aviation technology, and known wind energy technology, rather than spending years "learning" about an as-yet uneconomical technology that may or may not eventually bear fruit?

                11) Was there a process to NASA'a (or your) choice of what technology to pursue? Is this decision-making process public?

                12) Does NASA (or you) see any obligation to completely survey the space and issue a report on the various technologies and their advantages/disadvantages?

                13) At this point, what have we as taxpayers gotten out of the NASA effort in AWE?

                We've read the press releases. "NASA now involved in AWE".
                Well, it's been a few years now, and we've seen press-releases from perhaps 1000 entities purporting to either be entering the field, or more likely to have all the details sewn up, (well on paper at least), (and with regard to sexy renderings), in AWE.

                I mean Honeywell, Boeing, now even NASA - is there any limit? Where's the beef? Where's that working system we can see operating today, like the several wind turbines on site here, spinning right now? Waiting for the Chinese to perfect it for you?

                We can go back to the press releases of Magenn a few years back and read about problems solved and a new way to power our civilization from the sky. Only thing is, did any of it turn out to be true? Out of 1000 press-releases in AWE, how many turned out to be true? Well to judge from the field of wind energy in general, out of 1000 press-releases for new wind energy technologies, perhaps zero-to-1 will be true, if you are lucky.

                So thanks for participating, thanks for breaking out of the mold of researchers who refuse to try anything new, thanks for communicating, and I'll be really eager to read back the answers to the questions I've posed above!
                :)
                Thanks
                Doug Selsam



                --- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, "North, David D. (LARC-E402)" <david.d.north@...> wrote:
                >
                > PierreB,
                >
                > So that will be one of my main goals in the next couple of years....to get a better understanding, for reel-in/reel-out ground-gen, of the "real-world" knock-down factors that need to be applied to Loyd's ideal power equations. Variables will include L/D, flight path, altitude, tether length, kite design [ram air, inflatable,semi-rigid, rigid], reel-out/in speed vs. wind velocity, etc..
                >
                > The ultimate goal is to determine if a ground-gen can really compete with tower-based turbines (I respectfully disagree with some assessments in the AWE community that it cannot). I believe that it can compete at a minimum , in the short term, in certain "niche" markets and maybe, long term, on a grand scale with AWE being a significant portion of wind energy production. As DougS says, the commercial viability of AWE will be determined not by "government bureaucrats" like me (it's pretty funny that Doug characterizes me like that, because I identify more with the inventor types) but by the doggedly determined inventor/entrepreneurs. We at NASA are just trying to help the effort by doing whatever we can by getting a better understanding of the real-world factors through experimentation.
                >
                > Dave North
                > NASA Langley
                >
              • Pierre BENHAIEM
                The common element among AWECS is tether and needs searches for: -lightness; -low drag; -protection against lightning both for flygens and groundgens; -for
                Message 7 of 20 , Sep 1, 2011

                  The common element among AWECS is tether and needs searches for:
                  -lightness;
                  -low drag;
                  -protection against lightning both for flygens and groundgens;
                  -for that new materials or improvements of existing materials...

                  PierreB
                  http://flygenkite.com


                  > Message du 31/08/11 17:38
                  > De : "Doug"
                  > A : AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
                  > Copie à :
                  > Objet : [AWECS] Re: Irregularity and perhaps not so good output in crosswind motion
                  >
                  >  

                  > Hi Dave North:
                  > Thanks for posting here, communicating with the people, more than most "bureaucrats" do. I didn't mean that term "b-crat" in a perjorative way, as it is sometimes used. I just meant you work at a "bureau". Don't know a better term, but "government researcher" might be more appropriate.
                  >
                  > From the beginning I have been puzzled by your role in AWE. The questions would be:
                  >
                  > 1) whether you represent NASA, or just work there and represent yourself as an independent inventor in AWE. both? cake'n'eat-it-too?
                  >
                  > 2) whether you can offer assistance to all AWE players equally, or whether you (or NASA) are in fact a player with your own interests. A Collaborator or a competitor? a bystander?
                  >
                  > 3) Whether you have indeed surveyed the space and technologies adequately, and assessed each. If so what are your results? Where can we read about the thought process leading to your current actions? Does NASA have a position on the viability of any technology? What has NASA now learned, that could help U.S. Citizens and companies, that could be said to be a result of the work performed so far?
                  >
                  > 4) What is the official NASA position on the various technologies? Let's just take the most famous example, with the most press releases: Magenn - does NASA have an official position on inflated, elevated Savonius technologies like Magenn?
                  >
                  > 5) Is there any concern that you (NASA?) could be duplicating the efforts of several high-visibility teams funded with millions of dollars that have produced no economically-workable technologies (product) yet for all those millions spent? Is there any concern that if the kite-reeling direction is not "the" answer, that NASA could turn out to be just one more misguided money-loser? Is there a desire on the part of NASA to try and play a role in whatever technology emerges with economically-useful products for power generation? Or is NASA interest restricted to just reeling kites?
                  >
                  > 6) Do you yourself, or does NASA, have an official position with regard to the only AWE technology demoed at the first world AWE conference in 2009 at Chico, the technology that was still up and running the next day after being left unattended overnight, built for a few hundred bucks, Superturbine(R)?
                  >
                  > 7) After I authored the AWE Primer for NASA, explaining the 3000-year history of wind energy that started with the pulling force on membranes in 1000 B.C and has transitioned to spinning airfoil blades (known as rotorcraft in the field of aviation), does NASA have any feedback on what I outlined as the proven false trails in wind energy and the tendency for newbies to gravitate toward "rediscovering" the entire progression of the art, starting at the pulling thrust force on membranes, and culminating on steady-state, spinning propellers? Where does NASA now feel that it is, in this well-known and oft-repeated historical progression? What year are you now at, in the well-worn 3000-year trail?
                  >
                  > 8) Does NASA have an official position on my assertion, in that Primer I prepared specifically for NASA, that a Venn diagram showing the intersection of the set of known, working aviation technologies, and the set of known, working wind energy technologies contains only one thing: a helicopter rotor in autorotation, also known as the autogyro rotor?
                  >
                  > 9) Is NASA aware that wind energy and helicopter technologies are so similar that a helicopter company was originally called on as the go-to obvious choice to build some of the first windfarm turbines in the U.S.?
                  >
                  > 10) You have indicated a future program to fly kites and extract power from spools and reels "for a few years" while you "learn". Is this now an official NASA program? Does it exclude other design directions than reeling kites? What decision points led to this kite-flying, reeling effort? What decision points led to the exclusion of other technologies? What decision points led to the decision NOT to work on a design direction that has been shown to work easily, now?
                  >
                  > 11) I'm building another flying wind turbine now. I could have it running in an afternoon. There is little doubt that it will work the first try. No computers are needed. Yes, learning is what we do, but learning whether it even has a chance to work is a hurdle we passed long ago. On paper, or in the field, this works, here and now. Does NASA have any interest in a technology that can work today, that is at the present intersection of known aviation technology, and known wind energy technology, rather than spending years "learning" about an as-yet uneconomical technology that may or may not eventually bear fruit?
                  >
                  > 11) Was there a process to NASA'a (or your) choice of what technology to pursue? Is this decision-making process public?
                  >
                  > 12) Does NASA (or you) see any obligation to completely survey the space and issue a report on the various technologies and their advantages/disadvantages?
                  >
                  > 13) At this point, what have we as taxpayers gotten out of the NASA effort in AWE?
                  >
                  > We've read the press releases. "NASA now involved in AWE".
                  > Well, it's been a few years now, and we've seen press-releases from perhaps 1000 entities purporting to either be entering the field, or more likely to have all the details sewn up, (well on paper at least), (and with regard to sexy renderings), in AWE.
                  >
                  > I mean Honeywell, Boeing, now even NASA - is there any limit? Where's the beef? Where's that working system we can see operating today, like the several wind turbines on site here, spinning right now? Waiting for the Chinese to perfect it for you?
                  >
                  > We can go back to the press releases of Magenn a few years back and read about problems solved and a new way to power our civilization from the sky. Only thing is, did any of it turn out to be true? Out of 1000 press-releases in AWE, how many turned out to be true? Well to judge from the field of wind energy in general, out of 1000 press-releases for new wind energy technologies, perhaps zero-to-1 will be true, if you are lucky.
                  >
                  > So thanks for participating, thanks for breaking out of the mold of researchers who refuse to try anything new, thanks for communicating, and I'll be really eager to read back the answers to the questions I've posed above!
                  > :)
                  > Thanks
                  > Doug Selsam
                  >
                  > --- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, "North, David D. (LARC-E402)" wrote:
                  > >
                  > > PierreB,
                  > >
                  > > So that will be one of my main goals in the next couple of years....to get a better understanding, for reel-in/reel-out ground-gen, of the "real-world" knock-down factors that need to be applied to Loyd's ideal power equations. Variables will include L/D, flight path, altitude, tether length, kite design [ram air, inflatable,semi-rigid, rigid], reel-out/in speed vs. wind velocity, etc..
                  > >
                  > > The ultimate goal is to determine if a ground-gen can really compete with tower-based turbines (I respectfully disagree with some assessments in the AWE community that it cannot). I believe that it can compete at a minimum , in the short term, in certain "niche" markets and maybe, long term, on a grand scale with AWE being a significant portion of wind energy production. As DougS says, the commercial viability of AWE will be determined not by "government bureaucrats" like me (it's pretty funny that Doug characterizes me like that, because I identify more with the inventor types) but by the doggedly determined inventor/entrepreneurs. We at NASA are just trying to help the effort by doing whatever we can by getting a better understanding of the real-world factors through experimentation.
                  > >
                  > > Dave North
                  > > NASA Langley
                  > >
                  >
                  >


                • Robert Copcutt
                  The most important quality of a tether is its price. The only way to protect from lightning is to bring the kite back to ground level. I am compiling a
                  Message 8 of 20 , Sep 2, 2011
                    The most important quality of a tether is its price.

                    The only way to protect from lightning is to bring the kite back to
                    ground level.

                    I am compiling a spreadsheet with the properties of tether materials. I
                    do not get much time to work on it but will post a link when it is a bit
                    more advanced.

                    Robert.


                    On Thu, 2011-09-01 at 13:56 +0200, Pierre BENHAIEM wrote:
                    >
                    >
                    > The common element among AWECS is tether and needs searches for:
                    > -lightness;
                    > -low drag;
                    > -protection against lightning both for flygens and groundgens;
                    > -for that new materials or improvements of existing materials...
                    >
                    > PierreB
                    > http://flygenkite.com
                    >
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.