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

Re: [AWES] Fractal Kixel "hairnet" lifter kite set

Expand Messages
  • Robert Copcutt
    That Reinhart Paelinck paper is an interesting find. I have been looking for prior art on inflated annular wings. The basic inflated doughnut or toroid can be
    Message 1 of 6 , May 17, 2012
      That Reinhart Paelinck paper is an interesting find. I have been looking
      for prior art on inflated annular wings. The basic inflated doughnut or
      toroid can be very strong for its weight. The tyres used on nearly all
      road-going vehicles are an example.

      Some examples of morphing the basic toroid into an aerodynamic shape
      include the disc shaped wing made by Lee Richards here;
      http://discaircraft.greyfalcon.us/World%20Disc%20Development.htm

      The Aerodynes illustrated here are another example
      http://www.rexresearch.com/lippisch/lippisch.htm

      Some model aircraft with annular wings. The ringflieger -
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMI1th87rIE&feature=related
      park shark
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArgrDsIe_7Y&feature=related

      Cellular kites all use the basic principle of the strength of the
      toroid.
      http://www.blueskylark.org/zoo/single/cell/index.html

      When Hargrave was developing his box kite he found that two boxes
      separated from each other produced the most stable result. He also tried
      annular designs but I suspect the materials he had available in 1893
      contributed to him finding the box shape to be best.

      The circoflex took another 100 years (exactly) to develop because the
      single annulus requires a very complex tether arrangement to be stable.
      I suspect Reinhart would have a more stable kite if he used two like
      Hargraves did.

      Something like a Cody could be made using 4 inflated annuli. If there
      were central spars running down the centre of each pair of annuli and if
      those spars protruded beyond the front of the front annuli then they
      could act as tether secure points. I envisage a 3 tether system. One
      tether goes to the bottom front edge of the right back annulus. The
      second goes to the left back annulus. The third divides near the kite
      and goes to the front of each central spar. The front tether can be used
      to retract the kite at great speed. In the power phase all three tethers
      are used to steer the kite and control its angle of attack.

      I think Reinhart's proposal for inflating the structure is not optimal.
      I think a series of pure toroidal shaped support rings would be best.
      They would be spaced apart with inflated spars and then skin would be
      stretched over this inflated skeleton. This way each toroidal bladder
      could be inflated to a different optimum pressure.

      I accept that Dave's proposal of using flat sheets would cost far less
      initially. However, the inflated structure would have such superior
      aerodynamics it is possible that the cost of energy would be lower once
      a factory to mass produced an optimized design was established.

      The superior aerodynamics also means that a dancing pair of these
      inflated kites could tow ships in any direction and at speeds many times
      that of the wind. They could also pull a Kitegen type carousel
      throughout the full cycle - no clumsy scrabble to get the kites out of
      the power window every cycle.

      A pair of small propellers on the central spars would overcome the
      launching and landing difficulties Reinhart mentions with his "balanced
      kite" proposal. (What I have been calling dancing pairs.)

      Another inspiration from his paper is including both the power and
      retraction phases in each cycle of the kite looping through the sky. His
      diagram shows the kite flying in a circle. However, that causes problems
      with the tether tending to twist. A figure of 8 can still be done but
      there would be 2 power/retract cycles per cycle of flight. Taking it to
      its logical conclusion it is like turning the figure of 8 flight path
      from the vertical plane and onto its side on the horizontal plane. So
      the kite would sweep from one side of the power window to the other at
      more or less a constant altitude. It would pull out the tether in this
      phase. At the end of phase 1 it would turn towards the reel and be
      retracted, but again at constant altitude. Phase 3 is another power
      phase going back across the power window in the opposite direction.

      By keeping the kite at the same altitude the whole time we avoid
      problems with wind shear. We just choose an altitude where the wind
      speed suits the kite. When a suitable height can no longer be found the
      kite is changed.

      The speed of the retraction phase is enhanced because we are taking
      advantage of the momentum of the kite built up during the previous power
      phase.

      Another advantage of the short phase (or 4 phase) idea is reduced tether
      wear. The reel is made sufficiently large so that during normal
      operation the tether is in direct contact with the reel drum so that
      there is no tether to tether contact. It should also be possible to keep
      the tether tension roughly constant so that there is no slippage of the
      tether on the drum because of stretching as the tension varies.

      Hope you are all as excited by the potential as I am!

      Robert.





      On Wed, 2012-05-16 at 13:48 +0000, roderickjosephread wrote:



      > I envisage a kite like Reinhart Paelinck designed as a good lifter
      > for tracking the wind, inherent stability and not getting tangled.
      >
    • dave santos
      Robert,   To fully cover ring-wing designs, be sure to check out the Pop Can kite type. It does not have a bridle at all, and self relaunches really well. One
      Message 2 of 6 , May 17, 2012
        Robert,
         
        To fully cover ring-wing designs, be sure to check out the Pop Can kite type. It does not have a bridle at all, and self relaunches really well. One can make a small autonomous AWES very easily with such a kite to initiate a launch cascade. I did not find a single definitive link for the Pop Can, just scattered content.
         
        The first link you shared was a real freak show of rare discs and rings. I would add a review of modern ring wing concepts from the likes of NASA and elite aeronautical engineers like Kroo. My own contribution to this concept space was the Flying Sphere, developed in the late eighties.
         
        daveS
         
      • roderickjosephread
        Robert, your description of active bladder spar control to manipulate dynamics is very interesting. Beyond that I struggle to imagine how the one architecture
        Message 3 of 6 , May 18, 2012
          Robert, your description of active bladder spar control to manipulate dynamics is very interesting. Beyond that I struggle to imagine how the one architecture could be used to perform so many functions. As ever I am simple and need drawings to best understand the whole story.
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.