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

Re: [AWES] Oscillating arch kite AWES

Expand Messages
  • dave santos
    This is a major AWES concept, that a vast soft arch can passively flap like a bird, or weave side-to-side, and thereby drive the largest standard generators
    Message 1 of 10 , Sep 13, 2012
      This is a major AWES concept, that a vast soft arch can passively flap like a bird, or weave side-to-side, and thereby drive the largest standard generators (gigawatt scale) at the anchor points.

      Mothra1 has already shown us both modes- It flaps when stretched a bit and stops when slacked (slack is "easy", let tension actuate). When the wind comes off a quarter, the oscillations change to side-to-side.


      From: Joe Faust <joefaust333@...>
      To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 10:56 AM
      Subject: [AWES] Oscillating arch kite AWES

       
      Of course, Doug Selsam's tease that the best is yet to come is part of the reason I look for another rock to roll aside. 

      And, one of the rocks is still Payne.   He instructed a cross-winding kiteplane that drove groundgen via loop tether; he essentially had a kite arch of one element, but in the full spirit of the instruction  http://www.google.com/patents/US3987987    it would be easy to see oscillating arch kites coming under his disclosure. And bringing in Wayne German's vertical-blinds along with KiteLab Mothra experience and our earlier arch kite shares, I step further in these realms (not being without the fuzzy choice of "kite arch" or "arch kite" for leading label): 

      oscillating kite arch, or oscillating arch kite
      • Awaiting proof of concept model flight: The whole arch of elements go left for a while and then right for a while and then repeat such cycles. The anchor pair are routed to drive pumps or generators; a closed loop to underground generator may be arranged; leave nearly 100% of the land for other uses. The arch wing elements are passively to trigger reverse directions. The wing elements may be barely LTA to sustain the kite arch in true rare calm; the wing elements may be smart to flag in case of storm. Alternative to calm flight: power-drive the load-path arch line to kite the wing elements left and then reverse to right. Alternative failure mode of one anchor: reel-in the elements to the other anchor point while wing elements kite some during the process. Alternative in case of the much more rare double-anchor release: ?   Dislocation of mid-arch load line: pull in each segment to their respective anchors.   
      • v
      • v


    • Joe Faust
      http://www.energykitesystems.net/images/GigaArchAWES.jpg One method for calm-keeper that would
      Message 2 of 10 , Sep 13, 2012
        http://www.energykitesystems.net/images/GigaArchAWES.jpg
        One method for calm-keeper that would double to fly away system parts
         in case of double-anchor catastrophic release.   Site could be rural or urban or offshore. 
        System may be farmed.  Use earth to brace pulleys.   
        Offshore: anchor pulleys to  seabed tensionally.  Face other challenges with solutions ... : )
      • Robert Copcutt
        I think the kite or balloon pulling up at the centre spoils an otherwise promising idea. The Kitelab videos already show the arc is easy to launch by lifting
        Message 3 of 10 , Sep 13, 2012
          I think the kite or balloon pulling up at the centre spoils an otherwise
          promising idea. The Kitelab videos already show the arc is easy to
          launch by lifting the centre with a pole.


          On Thu, 2012-09-13 at 17:40 +0000, Joe Faust wrote:
          >
          > http://www.energykitesystems.net/images/GigaArchAWES.jpg
          >
        • dave santos
          Robert, Yes, an arch flies itself fairly well, but there are problems. A Pilot-Lift Device is just a very useful adjunct. Without it, things are far harder,
          Message 4 of 10 , Sep 13, 2012
            Robert,

            Yes, an arch flies itself fairly well, but there are problems. A Pilot-Lift Device is just a very useful adjunct. Without it, things are far harder, as KiteLab operational testing has long shown.  

            Joe could have made the pilot-lift far smaller in the diagram, closer to a good minimal proportion, and you may not have objected so badly. Note that a Pilot-Lifter can also be stowed on the surface, or trail behind at-the-ready, if its added lift is not wanted during normal operation.

            What exactly would you replace the Pilot-Lift function with?

            daveS

          • Joe Faust
            Robert, Perhaps. But failure and maintenance modes are being addressed by the far-high and away-from-city-perhaps upper central add on. The add-on
            Message 5 of 10 , Sep 13, 2012
              Robert, 
                        Perhaps. But failure and maintenance modes are being addressed by the far-high and away-from-city-perhaps upper central add on. The add-on is intended to be able just to carry a flagging system upon some failure instances.  I do not want the failed arch material to fall on the city, so the upper device will fly the failed material downwind some; the side auxiliary upper lines are with a maintenance purpose for that central-high-remote device:  lateral oscillating pumping of the central high-remote-device during calm challenge; instead of letter the device land, rather pump it until it flies fully on its own again.  Also, the upper high remote two lateral tethers can play a roll in flying out a failed system; winch the upper central device in and kite-lift the failed system of the arch kite. 
            • Doug
              Yeah vertical blinds - another jr. high school idea I had once... Just make laddermill made a bit wider?
              Message 6 of 10 , Sep 13, 2012
                Yeah vertical blinds - another jr. high school idea I had once...
                Just make laddermill made a bit wider?

                --- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, "Joe Faust" <joefaust333@...> wrote:
                >
                > Of course, Doug Selsam's tease that the best is yet to come is part of
                > the reason I look for another rock to roll aside.
                > And, one of the rocks is still Payne. He instructed a cross-winding
                > kiteplane that drove groundgen via loop tether; he essentially had a
                > kite arch of one element, but in the full spirit of the instruction
                > http://www.google.com/patents/US3987987
                > <http://www.google.com/patents/US3987987> it would be easy to see
                > oscillating arch kites coming under his disclosure. And bringing in
                > Wayne German's vertical-blinds along with KiteLab Mothra experience and
                > our earlier arch kite shares, I step further in these realms (not being
                > without the fuzzy choice of "kite arch" or "arch kite" for leading
                > label):
                >
                > oscillating kite arch, or oscillating arch kite
                >
                > * Awaiting proof of concept model flight: The whole arch of
                > elements go left for a while and then right for a while and then repeat
                > such cycles. The anchor pair are routed to drive pumps or generators; a
                > closed loop to underground generator may be arranged; leave nearly 100%
                > of the land for other uses. The arch wing elements are passively to
                > trigger reverse directions. The wing elements may be barely LTA to
                > sustain the kite arch in true rare calm; the wing elements may be smart
                > to flag in case of storm. Alternative to calm flight: power-drive the
                > load-path arch line to kite the wing elements left and then reverse to
                > right. Alternative failure mode of one anchor: reel-in the elements to
                > the other anchor point while wing elements kite some during the process.
                > Alternative in case of the much more rare double-anchor release: ?
                > Dislocation of mid-arch load line: pull in each segment to their
                > respective anchors.
                > * v
                > * v
                >
              • Joe Faust
                Doug, not quite. Wayne s is a fully cross-winding vertical blinds. Though your laddermil may use high-lift airfoil wings to climb, Wayne has lateral-going
                Message 7 of 10 , Sep 13, 2012
                  Doug,  not quite. Wayne's is a fully cross-winding vertical blinds. Though your laddermil may use high-lift airfoil wings to climb, Wayne has lateral-going wings as vertical blind blades that fly cross-wind; and in HAWP 2009  conference ... his short drawing in front of us featured slats or wing blades 1000 ft or m (I forget his units)  tall each; he would have a family of those flying in an integrated system.    Arch such family and drive huge generator. 

                  ~ JoeF
                • dave santos
                  Doug, You did not bother to explain why the Vertical Blind idea is bad (its a sideways ladder-mill ). Show its a High School Idea with evidence, and
                  Message 8 of 10 , Sep 13, 2012
                    Doug,

                    You did not bother to explain why the "Vertical Blind" idea is bad (its a "sideways ladder-mill").

                    Show its a "High School Idea" with evidence, and explain why that is bad. Wayne has never ridiculed you as you do him, even on AWEC2012's chat stream, nor would he resort to unfair argumentation, since that's a fool's boomerang,

                    daveS
                  • Doug
                    OK fair enough. Many people have repeatedly invented the idea - any thinking person realizes one can move airfoils across an area in such a general way,
                    Message 9 of 10 , Sep 13, 2012
                      OK fair enough.
                      Many people have repeatedly "invented" the idea -
                      any thinking person realizes one can move airfoils across an area in such a general way, using cables and reels. There was a huge prototype at Oak Creek windfarm in Tehachapi about 20 years ago that was tested, but broke. I like to call it the clothesline concept, (as opposed to the endlessly-revolving door of revolving-door concepts).

                      As usual, the biggest problem was probably starting too big before working the bugs out, but who knows. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the idea, just that anyone who can understand an automatic pizza oven conveyor belt can come up with the idea, and many have.

                      I get to hear lots of peoples' ideas for wind turbines and certain ones you tend to hear a lot - the venetian blinds idea is one of those. I'd place it in the midrange - "Hey Doug, have you ever tghought of this one?..." "No is it Groundhog Day again?" Not the most popular one, but right up there.

                      It may in fact be a good idea. Making the 180 degree corners at the end might be a bit difficult at 120 mph due to centrifugal force, but all such ugly realities need not be addressed as long as one remains in "armchair genius" mode.

                      The thing about any wind energy device is they tend to get battered to smithereens quickly in a real wind, and otherwise they make little power. Most people just give up because it is so hard to keep picking up pieces and redesigning it, rebuilding, remounting, retesting, and it gets expensive. And that's the ones that even try - most just talk.

                      The worst thing is the vertical-axis people who start with a super-inefficient type and try to rescue it by adding more vanes to guide the wind in better. The resulting monstrosities weigh several tons and cannot match the output of a regular cheapo turbine weighing 30 lbs.

                      --- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, dave santos <santos137@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > Doug,
                      >
                      > You did not bother to explain why the "Vertical Blind" idea is bad (its a "sideways ladder-mill").
                      >
                      > Show its a "High School Idea" with evidence, and explain why that is bad. Wayne has never ridiculed you as you do him, even on AWEC2012's chat stream, nor would he resort to unfair�argumentation, since that's a fool's boomerang,
                      >
                      > daveS
                      >
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.