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

Re: [AWECS] Multi Autogyro Rotors On One Line

Expand Messages
  • dave santos
    Rod,   I really appreciate your enthusiasm for aerially crosslinked array methods, as they seem to me crucial to scaling AWE, but this concept space is mostly
    Message 1 of 26 , Oct 5, 2011
      Rod,
       
      I really appreciate your enthusiasm for aerially crosslinked array methods, as they seem to me crucial to scaling AWE, but this concept space is mostly neglected by the wider R&D community.
       
      Aerial assembly of kite arrays is definitely a powerful method and has worked in every variation i have tried. Docking kites with a suitable custom spring grapple on a line is a "snap". It looks hard to latch a stock carabiner without a human hand, as it is small and blocks or faces away from an approaching slider line. Hot-swapping is easy in large arrays by pulling down a section. Halyards are definitely useful. A "programmed" sequence of graduated stopper balls and rings is Sam Cody's cool old trick. A good excercise is to figure out how to hotswap a flying line on a single-line kite, its not too hard (use a latching kite messenger that sends the old line down the new line on a ring).
       
      I have not shared this new "finding" yet to Grant or DaveL, but after long consideration it seems to me that traction autogyros on a gang-line will be better retracted by variable pitch blades, rather than pitching the whole rotor disc as SkyMill currently favors, with (hopefully) less drag, less chance of violent blade tuck at high speed, and less fouling potential. The marginal extra capital cost and mass seems acceptable.
       
      Designing traction rotors to clamp around a gang-line at the surface, and climb freely as carriages, seems very versatile,
       
      daveS

       
    • roderickjosephread
      Oh I totally agree array lines are the potential standard, a lifting work horse. for a suitable custom spring grapple I had imagined a corkscrewing top with
      Message 2 of 26 , Oct 5, 2011
        Oh I totally agree array lines are the potential standard, a lifting work horse.
        for "a suitable custom spring grapple" I had imagined a corkscrewing top with a sprung internal gate lever / snap shackle (sorry I said carib)

        A single halyard weight for each link may be more than a remote solenoid. A shared halyard could be useful in triggering small sequential group releases as backup. Is that what "Sam Cody's cool old trick" is?

        Flying spare lines through rings up existing line is elegant and robust and a solid technological basis. There is huge scope beyond simplicity for service kites.

        Blade pitch / AoA / sheeting, True It's where the power comes in. Certainly on live windsurf controls a soft luffing head easily spills and smooth control. Similarly Over or under sheeting allows inneficient wind use in overpowered conditions.

        rod

        --- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, dave santos <santos137@...> wrote:
        >
        > Rod,
        > �
        > I really appreciate your enthusiasm for aerially crosslinked array methods, as they seem to me crucial to scaling AWE, but this concept space is mostly neglected by the wider R&D community.
        > �
        > Aerial assembly of kite arrays�is definitely a powerful method and has worked in every variation i have tried. Docking kites�with a suitable custom spring�grapple on a line is a "snap". It looks�hard to latch a�stock carabiner without a human hand, as it is small and blocks or faces away from an approaching�slider line. Hot-swapping is easy�in large arrays by pulling down a section. Halyards are definitely useful. A "programmed" sequence of graduated stopper balls and rings is Sam Cody's cool old trick. A good excercise is to figure out how to hotswap a flying line on a single-line kite, its not too hard (use a latching kite messenger that sends the old line down the new line�on a ring).
        > �
        > I have not shared this new�"finding" yet to Grant or DaveL, but after long consideration it seems to me that traction autogyros on a�gang-line will be better retracted�by variable pitch blades, rather�than pitching the whole rotor disc as SkyMill currently favors, with (hopefully)�less drag, less chance of violent blade tuck at high speed, and less�fouling potential. The marginal extra capital cost and mass�seems acceptable.
        > �
        > Designing�traction rotors to clamp around a gang-line at the surface,�and climb freely as carriages, seems very versatile,
        > �
        > daveS
        >
      • Dave Lang
        ... SkyMill has been simulating the use of Collective for a long time now - my blade-element rotor model includes both Cyclic and Collective (which you
        Message 3 of 26 , Oct 6, 2011
          Re: [AWECS] Multi Autogyro Rotors On One Line

          At 11:57 AM -0700 10/5/11, dave santos wrote:
          I have not shared this new "finding" yet to Grant or DaveL, but after long consideration it seems to me that traction autogyros on a gang-line will be better retracted by variable pitch blades, rather than pitching the whole rotor disc as SkyMill currently favors, with (hopefully) less drag, less chance of violent blade tuck at high speed, and less fouling potential. The marginal extra capital cost and mass seems acceptable.

          SkyMill has been simulating the use of "Collective" for a long time now - my blade-element  rotor model includes both Cyclic and Collective (which you refer to as "variable pitch blades").

          I don't know what you mean by  "...after long consideration...", but the "return stroke" is not as simplistic as you might insinuate; have you have been doing some rotorcraft simulations of the "return stroke"?   From the simulation work I have done, I personally have found this maneuver to be technically complex - a transient and delicate balance of (unwanted) drag and (vital) lift.

          DaveL





          At 11:57 AM -0700 10/5/11, dave santos wrote:
           
          Rod,
           
          I really appreciate your enthusiasm for aerially crosslinked array methods, as they seem to me crucial to scaling AWE, but this concept space is mostly neglected by the wider R&D community.
           
          Aerial assembly of kite arrays is definitely a powerful method and has worked in every variation i have tried. Docking kites with a suitable custom spring grapple on a line is a "snap". It looks hard to latch a stock carabiner without a human hand, as it is small and blocks or faces away from an approaching slider line. Hot-swapping is easy in large arrays by pulling down a section. Halyards are definitely useful. A "programmed" sequence of graduated stopper balls and rings is Sam Cody's cool old trick. A good excercise is to figure out how to hotswap a flying line on a single-line kite, its not too hard (use a latching kite messenger that sends the old line down the new line on a ring).
           
          I have not shared this new "finding" yet to Grant or DaveL, but after long consideration it seems to me that traction autogyros on a gang-line will be better retracted by variable pitch blades, rather than pitching the whole rotor disc as SkyMill currently favors, with (hopefully) less drag, less chance of violent blade tuck at high speed, and less fouling potential. The marginal extra capital cost and mass seems acceptable.
           
          Designing traction rotors to clamp around a gang-line at the surface, and climb freely as carriages, seems very versatile,
           
          daveS

           

        • harry valentine
          What is needed in my view, is something that follows the KISS principle . . . . - A technology that can access the powerful winds that blow at the higher
          Message 4 of 26 , Oct 6, 2011
            What is needed in my view, is something that follows the KISS principle . . . .  

            - A technology that can access the powerful winds that blow at the higher elevations

            - The technology is very straightforward (NO unnecessary complications)

            - It is rugged, reliable and can withstand the abuse of inclement weather conditions

            - It had a long useful service life 

            - It is cost competitive and can generate electric power profitably while operating without state subsidy


            An overly complicated technology that requires computer-directed precision control may not exactly be what the market is after.

            Regards,

            Harry


             


          • joe_f_90032
            Twenty images in the patent application: Publication number US20100308174 A1 Publication type Application Application number US 12/792,203 Publication date
            Message 5 of 26 , Nov 6, 2013
              Twenty images in the patent application: 
              Publication numberUS20100308174 A1
              Publication typeApplication
              Application numberUS 12/792,203
              Publication dateDec 9, 2010
              Filing dateJun 2, 2010
              Priority dateJun 3, 2009
              Also published asWO2010141753A1
              InventorsGrant Calverley
              Original AssigneeGrant Calverley
              External Links: USPTOUSPTO AssignmentEspacenet
              Full patent application in PDF
              Though the application calls out several possible embodiments, some of which may self-power for part of the operation, but most attention is on the kiting principle without ever using the term "kite" through extensive text.  Is DaveL supporting avoidance of "kite" for the involved rotorcraft kite?
            • David Lang
              JoeF, you ask, ... Is JoeF supporting the use of kite for the involved rotorcraft lifting device? DaveL
              Message 6 of 26 , Nov 7, 2013
                JoeF,

                you ask,
                Is DaveL supporting avoidance of "kite" for the involved rotorcraft kite?

                Is JoeF supporting the use of "kite" for the involved rotorcraft lifting device?

                DaveL


                On Nov 6, 2013, at 8:25 PM, <joefaust333@...> wrote:

                 

                Twenty images in the patent application: 
                Publication numberUS20100308174 A1
                Publication typeApplication
                Application numberUS 12/792,203
                Publication dateDec 9, 2010
                Filing dateJun 2, 2010
                Priority dateJun 3, 2009
                Also published asWO2010141753A1
                InventorsGrant Calverley
                Original AssigneeGrant Calverley
                External Links: USPTOUSPTO AssignmentEspacenet
                Full patent application in PDF
                Though the application calls out several possible embodiments, some of which may self-power for part of the operation, but most attention is on the kiting principle without ever using the term "kite" through extensive text.  Is DaveL supporting avoidance of "kite" for the involved rotorcraft kite?


              • Gabor Dobos
                Gentlemen, Is it a kite or not? I don t know. But I know that the principle is known long ago, e.g.: US 2003/006615 A1 US 7183663 B2 US 7109598 B2 Sep. 19,
                Message 7 of 26 , Nov 8, 2013
                  Gentlemen,

                  Is it a kite or not? I don't know.

                  But I know that the principle is known long ago, e.g.:

                  US 2003/006615 A1��
                  US 7183663 B2
                  US 7109598 B2��� Sep. 19, 2006

                  and the inventors, Roberts and Shepard (not P. J.� but D. H. Shepard) designate their device as� "windmill kite" . Assignee: Sky Wind Power Corp. ...


                  By the way, the inventors and their coworkers, among others Ken Caldeira, published a good summary of the "tethered rotorcraft, a variant of the gyroplane, where conventional rotors generate power and simultaneously produce sufficient lift to keep the system aloft" see:

                  "Harnessing High Altitude Wind Power
                  Bryan W. Roberts, David H. Shepard, Life Senior Member, IEEE, Ken Caldeira,
                  M. Elizabeth Cannon, David G. Eccles, Member, IEEE, Albert J. Grenier, and Jonathan F. Freidin"
                  Energy Conversion, IEEE Transactions on �(Volume:22 ,� Issue:1 )

                  There are also tethered gliders, e.g.: US 2007/176432 A1 -- Hmm..... Is it a glider or a kite?

                  I tend to think, glider is a glider, autogiro is an autogiro, irrespectively of tethered or not. And a kite is a kite...� (What about an un-tethered kite?)

                  Gabor

                  On 2013-11-08 02:40, David Lang wrote:
                  �
                  JoeF,

                  you ask,
                  Is DaveL supporting avoidance of "kite" for the involved rotorcraft kite?

                  Is JoeF supporting the use of "kite" for the involved rotorcraft lifting device?

                  DaveL


                  On Nov 6, 2013, at 8:25 PM, <joefaust333@...> wrote:

                  �

                  Twenty images in the patent application:�
                  Publication numberUS20100308174 A1
                  Publication typeApplication
                  Application numberUS 12/792,203
                  Publication dateDec 9, 2010
                  Filing dateJun 2, 2010
                  Priority dateJun 3, 2009
                  Also published asWO2010141753A1
                  InventorsGrant Calverley
                  Original AssigneeGrant Calverley
                  External Links:�USPTO,�USPTO Assignment,�Espacenet
                  Full patent application in PDF
                  Though the application calls out several possible embodiments, some of which may self-power for part of the operation, but most attention is on the kiting principle without ever using the term "kite" through extensive text. �Is DaveL supporting avoidance of "kite" for the involved rotorcraft kite?



                • joe_f_90032
                  For the embodiments that employ predominately the kiting principle: yes. When blades are motor-driven or jet-driven with no kiting occurring: no. Consistent
                  Message 8 of 26 , Nov 8, 2013

                    For the embodiments that employ predominately the kiting principle: yes.

                    When blades are motor-driven or jet-driven with no kiting occurring: no. 


                    Consistent safety communications trumps scenting investors, politicians, or elitist separatism. 

                    Safety would keep all concerned parties informed that a kite system is at play where tether dynamics distinguish the involved system from free-flying rotorcraft that lift and drag also.  On the radio, the aircraft control tower is not just to say: "rotorcraft lifting device" but tell airmen that a hard-to-see tether of a kite system is in the airspace taking up its needed play space.  The safety issue is more important than informative consistency in patent text; but lawyers, designers, builders, and users would be well served if they did not have to ever struggle with the question, "Is this a kite or is it not a kite."  The FAA will see the "kite" in the play. 

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


                    "rotorcraft lifting device"  is also a "rotorcraft drag device." Either phrase tends to slight the elephant in the room that is a kite system..  The SkyMill rotorcraft kite system spectrum has some embodiments with an auxiliary option of powered blade hub or jet-powered blades; if the tether is severed at the wing for autorotation gliding or for enlisting onboard powered blades in order to have an untethered rotorcraft lifting device, then a different game starts.


                    K3 will best occur when the "K" is fully and well appreciated.   K was adequate to found aviation in the roots of Cayley, Lilienthal, Wright, and Hargrave.   That some powered airmen practiced some puffery accompanied by some loss of respect for "kite" should not rule K3 unfolding.  The kite sector of AWE is huge whereas the untethered RATs part of AWE is to stay honored.  The SkyMill patent predominately focuses on the kiting principle, but wrestles with its identity. 


                    Just how the future will unfold relative to K or hiding-K will be interesting. My guess is that investing will be stronger and steadier by investors who clearly understand and appreciate and honor the kite: wing sets that are coupled by a tether set (here allowing that buoys and anchors are specialized wings).  Hiding K will slow the conversation and perhaps cost awareness and management of safety-critical matters.




                  • joe_f_90032
                    In support of Gabor s references: http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/kitepatents/conversations/messages/799
                    Message 9 of 26 , Nov 8, 2013

                      In support of Gabor's references: 


                      http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/kitepatents/conversations/messages/799

                      and

                      http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/kitepatents/conversations/messages/94

                      and

                      http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/kitepatents/conversations/messages/799

                      and

                      http://www.aweconsortium.org/public/downloads/resources/roberts_et_al.pdf


                      Note: An object intended to operate as a glider may for some while be a kite for launching reasons. While the wing involved is the wing of a kite system, then such wing is a part of a kite system. Once the tether and resistive set is separated, then the wing involved becomes a glider. When the focus is on the ultimate intended use in gliding, common parlance will fuzzily not make such distinction. "I was in my glider during tow."   Instead of "I was in a wing of a kite that upon detaching from the tow will be my glider."  Airspace controllers want to know if kiting is at play, that is, there is a coupling of a wing via tether with a towing device. Other aircraft in the vicinity want to know the hardcore facts about a tether employment; it can be crucial whether there is just a glider occurring or a kite occurring. Big difference. "Glider under tow by a powered aircraft!" uses the fuzzy term "glider" in such scenario; without the "under tow" declaration, then severe damages may result.    Kites are not just its wing set parts, not just its tether-set parts, not just its resistive or reaction-set parts; a kite is an object that has wing set, tether set, and resistive or reaction set parts; a kite is most often placed in fluids where the kiting principle may play.   When that kiting play is specially designed for energy production and task fulfilling, then K3 flowers. 


                    • dave santos
                      JoeF, Concern over the K-word is a classic Wayne German meme as well. Now that kite energy R&D has taken such firm root, it can t be killed by a supposed lack
                      Message 10 of 26 , Nov 8, 2013
                        JoeF,

                        Concern over the K-word is a classic Wayne German meme as well. Now that kite energy R&D has taken such firm root, it can't be killed by a supposed lack of mono-linguistic consensus. Those who freely use "kite" in AWE are generally advantaged over all the fringe terms- tethered-foil, AWT, AWECS, HAWP, HAWE, FEG, etc.. AWES is of course the top operational term, since the FAA has officially adopted this variant (balanced against confusion with standing aviation designations*). Kites are already long defined in FARS, and rotary kites clearly qualify.

                        Perhaps those who strategically avoid "kite" usage can open up new worlds for the kite, by sneaking the kite past the K-word-allergic firewalls. DaveL is certainly able to match his K-language to his audience, as a top kite-person (only kitegods sit on the Drachen Foundation board). During his long life, he has used the K-word far more than most.

                        My favorite take on the K-lexicon is to collect non-English "kite" variants, and trace them back to their roots; as a balance to shop-work and field-testing, and save the posting of such profanity for when Doug is following :)

                        daveS

                        * esp. Airport Surface Detection Equipment = AWE


                        On Friday, November 8, 2013 8:22 AM, "joefaust333@..." <joefaust333@...> wrote:
                         
                        For the embodiments that employ predominately the kiting principle: yes.
                        When blades are motor-driven or jet-driven with no kiting occurring: no. 

                        Consistent safety communications trumps scenting investors, politicians, or elitist separatism. 
                        Safety would keep all concerned parties informed that a kite system is at play where tether dynamics distinguish the involved system from free-flying rotorcraft that lift and drag also.  On the radio, the aircraft control tower is not just to say: "rotorcraft lifting device" but tell airmen that a hard-to-see tether of a kite system is in the airspace taking up its needed play space.  The safety issue is more important than informative consistency in patent text; but lawyers, designers, builders, and users would be well served if they did not have to ever struggle with the question, "Is this a kite or is it not a kite."  The FAA will see the "kite" in the play. 
                        ===================================================================

                        "rotorcraft lifting device"  is also a "rotorcraft drag device." Either phrase tends to slight the elephant in the room that is a kite system..  The SkyMill rotorcraft kite system spectrum has some embodiments with an auxiliary option of powered blade hub or jet-powered blades; if the tether is severed at the wing for autorotation gliding or for enlisting onboard powered blades in order to have an untethered rotorcraft lifting device, then a different game starts.

                        K3 will best occur when the "K" is fully and well appreciated.   K was adequate to found aviation in the roots of Cayley, Lilienthal, Wright, and Hargrave.   That some powered airmen practiced some puffery accompanied by some loss of respect for "kite" should not rule K3 unfolding.  The kite sector of AWE is huge whereas the untethered RATs part of AWE is to stay honored.  The SkyMill patent predominately focuses on the kiting principle, but wrestles with its identity. 

                        Just how the future will unfold relative to K or hiding-K will be interesting. My guess is that investing will be stronger and steadier by investors who clearly understand and appreciate and honor the kite: wing sets that are coupled by a tether set (here allowing that buoys and anchors are specialized wings).  Hiding K will slow the conversation and perhaps cost awareness and management of safety-critical matters.





                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.