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

Summary History of Spread Anchor Kite Systems

Expand Messages
  • dave santos
    Numerous ancient images and accounts depict multiple tethers on kites. As a stability factor, these lines were often spread apart to varied extents, even
    Message 1 of 7 , Jan 3, 2012
      Numerous ancient images and accounts depict multiple tethers on kites. As a stability factor, these lines were often spread apart to varied extents, even if just by outstretched arms. The modern kite control bar's passive spread helps keep a power kite parked at zenith "no-hands". Old Asian and Pacific large kite systems often used pullers managing several tag lines, or taglines anchored separately (staked-out).
       
      Clive Hart's "KITES: A Historical Survey" gives a few specific examples of early modern spread anchor kite systems. Such experiments flourished in the decades before powered flight matured, and are now poised to resume after a century of relative obscurity. We ignore here the systems operating from single points with multilines, like Cody's Warkites.
       
      An 1873 French magazine sketch depicts an unattributed South American kite lifting design with three taglines managing a heavy load bag. The kite itself is a large framed rectangle with elaborate eddy flap and rear bridle pennants. Two side pullers hauled on the wing while a third puller had a tag line to the load.
       
      A. M. Clark in 1875 patented what is obviously a PlaySail, a simple rectangular tarp with taglines spreading from it to four pullers, and a payload suspended under the sail. Clive rashly opines that this is "impracticable"; luckily no one told that to those Nebraska kids on YTube ("The Furry [sic] of the Wind"), who totally rocked.
       
      Then comes Maillot's well documented "man-lifter" in 1885. Its uses a large circular kite with a rectilinear "tic-tac-toe" frame. Two side pullers controlled the "tack" of the wing as the center puller adjusted the overall AoA to direct the load up and down. A large main line lead upwind to a primary anchor.
       
      Baden Powell's Levitor system comes next, with large Rokaku kites stacked from two spread anchors and central taglines to the central payload. Then follows a lost century of muddled reports, fool imitators, and so on, with odd examples of spread anchor kite systems in towed gliding, barrage kites, etc..
       
      The kite spread anchor design space is once again hot, now as an AWES architecture. We understand the fundamental benefits of using the ground surface for control leverage, megascaling, and high airspace efficiency (high density arrays). We have a rich toolkit of methods. Some impressive experiments are planned for this year, but that's a future message thread...
    • Doug
      Don t your FAA rules specify anchor at a single point? Maybe last week when you were touting the advantages of drafting rules ahead of the machines, multiple
      Message 2 of 7 , Jan 4, 2012
        Don't your FAA rules specify anchor at a single point? Maybe last week when you were touting the advantages of drafting rules ahead of the machines, multiple anchor points did not seem important? I'm getting a little confused here. The all-talk formnat seems like it's getting itself into a self-contradictory logjam.

        Oh well, not producing anything just became easier: "We realized we need multiple anchor points to make it work, the week after we agreed to a rule prohibiting multiple anchor points."

        Oh well that's what happens when you always know the answer...
        I have little doubt at this point that AWE will be slowly made impossible due to our own ground-based and paper-based activity.
        Congratulations on aquelching a perfectly viable new technology.

        --- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, dave santos <santos137@...> wrote:
        >
        > Numerous ancient images and accounts depict multiple�tethers on kites. As a stability factor, these lines were�often�spread�apart to varied extents, even if just by outstretched arms.�The modern kite control bar's passive spread helps keep�a power�kite parked at zenith "no-hands". Old Asian and Pacific large kite systems often�used pullers�managing�several tag lines, or taglines anchored separately (staked-out).
        > �
        > Clive Hart's "KITES: A Historical Survey" gives a few specific examples of early modern spread anchor kite systems.�Such experiments�flourished�in the decades�before powered flight matured, and are now poised to resume after a century of relative obscurity. We�ignore here the systems operating from single points with multilines, like Cody's Warkites.
        > �
        > An 1873 French magazine sketch�depicts an�unattributed�South American kite lifting design with three taglines managing a heavy load bag. The kite itself is a large framed rectangle with elaborate eddy flap and rear bridle pennants. Two side pullers hauled on the wing while�a third puller had a tag line to the load.
        > �
        > A. M. Clark in 1875 patented what is obviously a PlaySail, a simple rectangular tarp with taglines spreading from it to four pullers,�and a payload suspended under the sail. Clive rashly opines that this is "impracticable"; luckily no one told that to those Nebraska kids on YTube ("The Furry [sic]�of the Wind"),�who totally rocked.
        > �
        > Then comes Maillot's well documented "man-lifter" in 1885. Its uses a large circular kite with a rectilinear "tic-tac-toe"�frame. Two side pullers controlled the "tack" of the wing as the center puller adjusted the overall AoA to direct the load up and down. A large main line lead upwind to a primary anchor.
        > �
        > Baden Powell's Levitor system�comes next, with large Rokaku kites stacked from two spread anchors and central taglines to the central payload. Then follows a lost century of muddled reports, fool imitators, and so on, with odd examples of spread anchor kite systems�in towed gliding, barrage kites, etc..
        > �
        > The kite�spread anchor design space is once again�hot, now�as an AWES architecture. We understand the fundamental benefits of using the ground surface for control leverage, megascaling,�and high airspace efficiency (high density arrays). We have a rich toolkit of methods. Some impressive experiments are planned for this year, but that's a future�message thread...
        >
      • dave santos
        Doug wrote Don t your FAA rules specify anchor at a single point? Maybe last week when you were touting the advantages of drafting rules ahead of the
        Message 3 of 7 , Jan 4, 2012
          Doug wrote> Don't your FAA rules specify anchor at a single point? Maybe last week when you were touting the advantages of drafting rules ahead of the machines, multiple anchor points did not seem important? I'm getting a little confused here.
           
          A temporary request like this one is akin to endless precautionary concerns that come and go, for example if a suspected aircraft part must be inspected or replaced based on some weak suspicion, then the issue goes away completely once resolved. Also, do not confuse the FAA's temporary AWE rules with those mature standards which will emerge after the evaluation process. There are many points in the temp regs that will prove temporary.
           
          In the case of multiple tethers, a temporary ban on R&D clearly favors KiteLab Group, which managed five years of testing before the temporary rules conveniently blocked US competitors. We have active access to Italian and Mexican airspace (IACO has made no restrictions, 95% of the world is open).
           
          The final end to your pessimistic view is when the FAA eventually finds that multiple tethers best prevent breakaway and allow for up to 100 times more efficient use of airspace. There will be special multi-line/spread-anchor standards akin to multi-engine regs. Kitelab Group will the first certificated under such rules, but meanwhile, in the US, can concentrate on many other great concepts, with no loss of R&D time.
           
          Stop unfairly claiming that folks are only doing "talk"; the flight testing of new systems is a relentless daily routine. Yesterday's parafoil technical flying here was in a full gale, and the operational proficiency was the culmination of thousands of flight hours.
           
          Other useful gaps in the temporary rules are the flying of ordinary hobby kites (very valuable training) and flying small-scale toy kitefarms under 200ft.
           
          Expect to be badly confused if you don't do the homework. You have to understand aviation culture for regs to make sense. Your attention span seemingly does not even allow for reading TACO thru (where this issue is well presented), much less mastering the aviation.
           
           
        • Doug
          Dave S. So your position is that: 1) multi-anchor point systems are the (new) final answer to AWE; 2) Making rules now is (was) advisable; 3) The first rules
          Message 4 of 7 , Jan 5, 2012
            Dave S.
            So your position is that:
            1) multi-anchor point systems are the (new) final answer to AWE;
            2) Making rules now is (was) advisable;
            3) The first rules prohibit multiple anchor points;
            4) This is good since (you think)) it gives you an advantage for now?
            5) You can always get the rules changed in the future if your newly-illegal concepts ever prove superior. (aim gun at foot, pull trigger)
            You are a nut.
            I think you should get a job.
            :)
            Doug S.

            --- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, dave santos <santos137@...> wrote:
            >
            > Doug wrote> Don't your FAA rules specify anchor at a single point? Maybe last week when you were touting the advantages of drafting rules ahead of the machines, multiple anchor points did not seem important? I'm getting a little confused here.
            > �
            > A temporary request like this one is akin to endless precautionary concerns that come and go, for example if a suspected aircraft part must be inspected or replaced based on some weak�suspicion, then the issue goes away completely�once resolved. Also, do not�confuse the FAA's temporary AWE�rules with those mature standards�which�will emerge after the evaluation process. There are�many�points in the temp regs that will prove temporary.
            > �
            > In the case of multiple tethers, a temporary ban on R&D clearly favors KiteLab Group, which managed five years of testing before the temporary rules conveniently blocked US competitors. We have active access to Italian and Mexican airspace (IACO has made no restrictions, 95% of the�world is open).
            > �
            > The�final�end to your pessimistic view�is�when�the FAA eventually�finds that multiple tethers�best prevent breakaway and allow for up to 100 times more efficient use of airspace. There will be special multi-line/spread-anchor standards akin to multi-engine regs. Kitelab Group�will the first certificated under such rules, but�meanwhile, in the US, can concentrate on many other great concepts, with no loss of R&D time.
            > �
            > Stop unfairly claiming�that folks are only doing "talk"; the flight testing of new systems is a relentless daily routine. Yesterday's parafoil technical flying here was in a full gale, and the operational proficiency was the culmination of thousands of flight hours.
            > �
            > Other useful gaps in the temporary rules are the flying of ordinary hobby kites (very valuable training) and flying small-scale toy kitefarms under 200ft.
            > �
            > Expect to be badly confused if you don't do the homework. You have to understand aviation culture for regs to make sense. Your attention span seemingly does not even allow for reading TACO thru (where this issue is well presented), much less mastering the aviation.
            >
          • Joe Faust
            Some notes on more than one line to airborne aircraft to moorings that are soil moored, vehicle moored, free-falling mooring operating, powered-aircraft
            Message 5 of 7 , Jan 5, 2012
              Some notes on "more than one line" to airborne aircraft to moorings that are soil moored, vehicle moored, free-falling mooring operating, powered-aircraft moored: 

              1. The gliding kite that is the manned canopy paraglider hang glider has many lines to its system's mooring (the set of masses: pilot, harness, instruments). The many lines from the wing often are gathered to 8 or risers; then those risers are two spread sets attaching to the falling mooring of the kited wing. 

              2. Balloons and blimps frequently have many lines to earthed anchors (heavy anchor, and some man-as-anchor for control lines) 

              3. Large manned kites in hang glider training frequently use two lines by instructors to the kited wing. 

              4. For safety, anchor lines of various sorts are used in kiting (kill lines, control lines, main-lift-reaction line).  Kiteboarders use two to five lines.  Kitebuggy use two or more lines. 

              5. Sport kiting festivals see the two-line control kites, the two-line rotary ribbon kites, the two-line arch kites. 

              6. Second anchor line for safe downing of large kites is often recommended. 

              I hope someone enter comment to FAA to get multiple lines approved!     
              Fugitive kites, even small kites are hazards to people and property.  
              Secondary anchor lines for downing breakaways seems fundamentally important. 
            • dave santos
              Doug,   It very encouraging that you are finally beginning to absorb aviation rules, but you need to bemore precise and accurate in attempting in to
              Message 6 of 7 , Jan 5, 2012
                Doug,
                 
                It very encouraging that you are finally beginning to absorb aviation rules, but you need to be more precise and accurate in attempting in to technically summarize the issues (to avoid a result like your NASA Primer on AWE earned)-
                 
                1) Multi-anchors are not new but ancient.
                2) Aviation regs are already made. Airspace rules already apply to AWE. Making better rules is ongoing.
                3) The latest FAA circular are not the "first rules" nor does it "prohibit" anything ("FAA requests"), nor even mention "multiple anchor points".
                4) A "temporary ban" is possible, but purely hypothethical, and, yes, would favor those already expert in temporarily restricted methods. Gov-created advantage is not "good" in itself (unless one is selfish like, say, a patent troll).
                5) Rule changes are common and often reflect exact aviation community desires. The LSA category is a great model (Kiteflying was even once banned in NYC Central Park, and kiters got the rule changed.). If you read more carefully, you know we are working internationally, so its not like the FAA can stop the world if they ever do start making unreasonable rules.
                 
                Engaging in childish name-calling on the "pro" AWE Forum is a sad substitute for more intelligent input!
                 
                daveS
                 

                 
                  
              • Doug
                Dave S. In my brief skimming of the latest nonsense, I noted a reference to AWE systems being restricted to only a single anchor point. I just told you about
                Message 7 of 7 , Jan 6, 2012
                  Dave S.
                  In my brief skimming of the latest nonsense, I noted a reference to AWE systems being restricted to only a single anchor point. I just told you about it as one might politely notify a blindfolded bicyclist that he was about to go over a cliff. :)

                  --- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, dave santos <santos137@...> wrote: ("FAA requests"), nor even mention "multiple anchor points".
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.