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

Re: [AWES] Re: Fabric Scaling?

Expand Messages
  • dave santos
    Rob, In the last five years we have made great conceptual progress toward true Megascale AWES based on fabric wing structure. This new work builds on the
    Message 1 of 18 , Sep 27, 2012
      Rob,

      In the last five years we have made great conceptual progress toward true Megascale AWES based on fabric wing structure. This new work builds on the legacy of megascale soft kite pioneers like Domina Jalbert, Harry Osborne, Dave Culp, Peter Lynn Sr, Dave Gomberg, and many others. Many of these folks are still actively advancing the art.

      No such experts nor their grand discoveries were allowed to influence Near Zero's "rigid wing favored" scaling conclusion. Megascale soft wing expertise was even summarily removed from the Expert Panel. Instead, your pessimistic opinion of fabric wing scaling was cited as if a definitive conclusion (despite 4-0 disagreement with your quoted comment during the panel discussion). 

      As WindLift publicly stated at AWEC2012, your team is not really a wing-expert circle (but your mechanical ground design is outstanding). KiteLab Group's R&D includes advanced rigid AWES wings flown comparatively, and in hybrids, with soft wings, across all existing scales. We are true AWES wing experts, with many important innovations developed and tested.

      The following fabric-based Megascale AWES ideas have emerged that address every major concern about fabric wings such as you pose-

      1) Either by scaling law or existence-proof, tensile airborne array structure is the most inherently scalable wing technology. Its the only way to do gigawatt-unit scaling. The largest wings ever made are cellular or modular soft kites (>1000m2). KiteLab Austin's success with its 300m2 rope-loadpath and tarp 1/40 scale demonstrator suggests cheap and practical AWE into the km scale, well within tensile mass scaling-law limits. On the other hand, rigid airborne structure barely scales to perhaps 100m wingspan, and capital cost looks prohibitive. Hull loss risk will remain a deal killer for at least decade and likely far longer, based on overall aerospace "drone" reliability metrics. No existing AWES rigid-wing R&D team is likely able to drive this industry-wide curve down quickly.

      2) By "staked out" (multi anchor) arched methods, megascale fabric kite stability is solved. The Earth itself between spread anchors is the ultimate rigid "control bar".  Graduated porosity is just one of many other low-tech stability factors to engineer with. Runaway risk is also mitigated by multi-lines. New methods were developed to rotate arrays. Cascaded launch of large arrays from a single pilot unit has been shown effective. Single-line jumbo rigid-wing concepts dependent on complex avionics are much more operationally and stability-challenged.

      3) Megascale actuation is best done by massive industrial ground winches, rather than expensive super-light aviation-grade actuators with far shorter lifecycles (<1000hr). Similar logic applies to keeping giant generators on the ground v flying small generators. Large soft arrays helping drive the largest legacy generator plants (coal, gas, and hydro) as "Kite Hybrids" is perhaps the most promising AWES biz model of all. Near Zero failed to understand how strategic such specific ideas may prove.

      4) Simple geometric studies and many actual experiments show that dense arch arrays use land and airspace at up to 100 times greater intensity than single-line concepts with a comparable scope requirement. Effective geoengineering to mitigate adverse climate effects is also far more feasible by the ultimately more powerful dense-array fabric methods.

      5) True crosswind AWE is just as good with soft or hard wings (by power to airborne-mass). Yes, a comparative soft wing is bigger by wing area and does not have so high a "TSR" for equivalent power, but is so-o-o much cheaper and more robust. Its well worth testing both approaches head-to-head in comparative trials (fly-offs) to help settle the issue.

      6) Regulatory certification is based on specific factors such as flight mass/velocity categories, inspectability, and conspicuity. The FAA has further cited as key issues runaway crash concerns and airspace utilization efficiency. Megascale fabric and rope arch concepts seem advantaged in every such requirement.

      These Megascale AWES research findings have plenty of supporting evidence. For example, KiteLab Ilwaco has tested fabric kites repeatedly in real icing conditions and found they reliably and continuously shed ice flakes due to constant flexing, before build up occurs. Other teams validate the same observations about fabric self-deicing. Lift is destroyed by ice far more readily with fine rigid-wings, requiring avoidance or expensive added deicing systems (like inflatable rubber boots or heaters). 

      To review your soft kite Cl return phase issue- 

      1) Your logic is based on long-stroke reeling, an early AWES method widely considered obsolete in the Megascale AWES study circle. Long-stroke issues range form poorest airspace usage to high tether wear. A short recovery phase at the top of a loop or figure-of-eight suffices (short-stroke method).

      2) Soft Kites offer the most variable-geometry of any wing type, and therefore the greatest possible control of Cl. Parafoil kites furl to as little as 1/100 of inflated projected frontal area. Single skin kites furl even more. These proven modes are available to long-stroke designers. The gedanken proof offered you involved a hybrid concept- of a rigid airframe stably ferrying a far more powerful packed soft kite back along a return-phase. Purpose designed AWES along these lines are possible, following the common example of roller-furling in sailing.

      3) All major stability concerns are resolved with multi-anchored cross-linked arrays. One can even imagine the best of all worlds, a megascale fabric-based vertical-lift arch hosting aloft large numbers of smaller rigid wings operating crosswind.  Chaos of any part is cancelled by the bulk array, and the part recovers.

      For lack of staff domain-expertise, Near Zero never understood the hybrid array concept space as a most strategic R&D option, and obviously failed to comprehend the key importance of so many other current ideas. They cherry-picked and cooked expert-provided data to fit a novice conception of AWES scaling possibilities. Only the full range of expert design choices allows the best R&D allocations.

      Your concern that no soft wing AWES is in continuous reliable operation is even more true for rigid wings. A big reason is simply current experimental logistics. Kitelab Ilwaco has at least demonstrated continuous reliable self-operation of small AWES, including up to 40 self-relaunch cycles.  No fabric element has ever worn out, given simple maintenance and quick repair, despite some kites flown relentlessly for five years. Only session constraints limited operation. Lets let third-party judged fly-offs determine if complex brittle rigid wings can really compete with their simple tough fabric counterparts.

      Let me know if any point made here requires more substantiation. I tried to keep the explanations short, but there is so much more supporting evidence that could be offered.

      Thanks again for elaborating your thoughts on AWES Megascaling theory,

      daveS



    • christopher carlin
      Dear DaveS, I must have missed the original remarks on this. Anyway it seems a very interesting question. I wouldn t have thought something one would vote on.
      Message 2 of 18 , Sep 27, 2012
        Dear DaveS,

        I must have missed the original remarks on this. Anyway it seems a very interesting question. I wouldn't have thought something one would vote on. A similarity analysis must be possible to demonstrate how these things scale. My hunch would be they get better as they get bigger but that's without really analyzing things like structure, material thickness and aerodynamics issues. I'd like to hear the whole story simply because I'm curious.

        Regards,

        Chris
        On Sep 26, 2012, at 6:57 PM, dave santos wrote:

         

        Rob,

        Do you rest your case regarding the scalability of fabric kites for AWE? I was hoping for a clear rebuttal or concession to the objections raised to your belief in a Cl-related return phase scaling "barrier" for soft wings. You could also allow that you are not really an obvious expert specialist of megascale AWES concepts. It would be nice at least to know how big you imagine rigid AWES wings will scale, by either size or power.

        Note that there were four votes in disagreement to your quoted comment during the Near Zero discussion, and none in favor. This is not a technical point, but raises the obvious question as to why Near Zero favored your comment out of hundreds to support a controversial conclusion. On the other hand, soft wing experts like joe and me were simply removed from the quantitative process, changing the final result materially. Please understand our zeal to correct this seeming bias, given that public policy will be mislead by any major errors in the Expert Elicitation process.

        If you are done, we will let your last word stand, as an excluded group continues to contest Near Zero's take on this vital question. Thanks for elaborating on your intitial comment cited,

        daveS


      • Doug
        You have yet to demonstrate significant energy capture, let alone reliability and economy.
        Message 3 of 18 , Sep 28, 2012
          You have yet to demonstrate significant energy capture, let alone reliability and economy.

          --- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, dave santos <santos137@...> wrote:
          >
          > Rob,
          >
          > In the last five years we have made great conceptual progress toward true Megascale AWES based on fabric wing structure. This new work builds on the legacy of megascale soft kite pioneers like Domina Jalbert, Harry Osborne, Dave Culp, Peter Lynn Sr, Dave Gomberg, and many others. Many of these folks are still actively advancing the art.
          >
          > No such experts nor their grand discoveries were allowed to influence Near Zero's "rigid wing favored" scaling conclusion.�Megascale soft wing expertise was even summarily removed from the Expert Panel.�Instead, your pessimistic opinion of fabric wing scaling was cited as if a definitive conclusion (despite 4-0 disagreement with your quoted comment during the panel discussion).�
          >
          > As WindLift publicly stated at AWEC2012, your team is not really a wing-expert circle (but your mechanical ground design is outstanding). KiteLab Group's R&D includes advanced rigid AWES wings flown comparatively, and in hybrids, with soft wings, across all existing scales. We are true AWES wing experts, with many important innovations developed and tested.
          >
          > The following fabric-based Megascale AWES ideas have emerged that address every major concern about fabric wings such as you pose-
          >
          > 1) Either by scaling law or existence-proof, tensile airborne array structure is the most inherently scalable wing technology. Its the only way to do gigawatt-unit scaling. The largest wings ever made are cellular or modular soft kites (>1000m2). KiteLab Austin's success with its 300m2 rope-loadpath and tarp 1/40 scale demonstrator suggests cheap and practical AWE into the km scale, well within tensile mass scaling-law limits. On the other hand, rigid airborne structure barely scales to perhaps 100m wingspan, and capital cost looks prohibitive. Hull loss risk will remain a deal killer for at least decade and likely far longer, based on overall aerospace "drone" reliability metrics. No existing AWES rigid-wing R&D team is likely able to drive this industry-wide curve down quickly.
          >
          > 2) By "staked out" (multi anchor) arched methods, megascale fabric kite stability is solved. The Earth itself between spread anchors is the ultimate rigid "control bar". �Graduated porosity is just one of many other low-tech stability factors to engineer with.�Runaway risk is also mitigated by multi-lines. New methods were developed to rotate arrays. Cascaded launch of large arrays from a single pilot unit has been shown effective.�Single-line jumbo rigid-wing concepts dependent on complex avionics are much more operationally and stability-challenged.
          >
          > 3) Megascale actuation is best done by massive industrial ground winches, rather than expensive super-light aviation-grade actuators with far shorter lifecycles (<1000hr). Similar logic applies to keeping giant generators on the ground v flying small generators. Large soft arrays helping drive the largest legacy generator plants (coal, gas, and hydro) as "Kite Hybrids" is perhaps the most promising AWES biz model of all. Near Zero failed to understand how strategic such specific ideas may prove.
          >
          > 4) Simple geometric studies and many actual experiments show that dense arch arrays use land and airspace at up to 100 times greater intensity than single-line concepts with a comparable scope requirement. Effective geoengineering to mitigate adverse climate effects is also far more feasible by the ultimately more powerful dense-array fabric methods.
          >
          > 5) True crosswind AWE is just as good with soft or hard wings (by power to airborne-mass). Yes, a comparative soft wing is bigger by wing area and does not have so high a "TSR" for equivalent power, but is so-o-o much cheaper and more robust. Its well worth testing both approaches head-to-head in comparative trials (fly-offs) to help settle the issue.
          >
          > 6) Regulatory certification is based on specific factors such as flight mass/velocity categories, inspectability, and conspicuity. The FAA has further cited as key issues runaway crash concerns and airspace utilization efficiency. Megascale fabric and rope arch concepts seem advantaged in every such requirement.
          >
          > These Megascale AWES research findings have plenty of supporting evidence. For example, KiteLab Ilwaco has tested fabric kites repeatedly in real icing conditions and found they reliably and continuously shed ice flakes due to constant flexing, before build up occurs.�Other teams validate the same observations about fabric self-deicing.�Lift is destroyed by ice far more readily with fine rigid-wings, requiring avoidance or expensive added deicing systems (like inflatable rubber boots or heaters).�
          >
          > To review your soft kite Cl return phase issue-�
          >
          > 1) Your logic is based on long-stroke reeling, an early AWES method widely considered obsolete in the Megascale AWES study circle. Long-stroke issues range form poorest airspace usage to high tether wear. A short recovery phase at the top of a loop or figure-of-eight suffices (short-stroke method).
          >
          > 2) Soft Kites offer the most variable-geometry of any wing type, and therefore the greatest possible control of Cl. Parafoil kites furl to as little as 1/100 of inflated projected frontal area. Single skin kites furl even more. These proven modes are available to long-stroke designers. The gedanken proof offered you involved a hybrid concept- of a rigid airframe stably ferrying a far more powerful packed soft kite back along a return-phase. Purpose designed AWES along these lines are possible, following the common example of roller-furling in sailing.
          >
          > 3) All major stability concerns are resolved with multi-anchored cross-linked arrays. One can even imagine the best of all worlds, a megascale fabric-based vertical-lift arch hosting aloft large numbers of smaller rigid wings operating crosswind. �Chaos of any part is cancelled by the bulk array, and the part recovers.
          >
          > For lack of staff domain-expertise,�Near Zero never understood the hybrid array concept space as a most strategic R&D option, and obviously failed to comprehend the key importance of so many other current ideas. They cherry-picked and cooked expert-provided data to fit a novice conception of AWES scaling possibilities. Only the full range of expert design choices allows the best R&D allocations.
          >
          > Your concern that no soft wing AWES is in continuous reliable operation is even more true for rigid wings. A big reason is simply current experimental logistics. Kitelab Ilwaco has at least demonstrated continuous reliable self-operation of small AWES, including up to 40 self-relaunch cycles. �No fabric element has ever worn out, given simple maintenance and quick repair, despite some kites flown relentlessly for five years. Only session constraints limited operation.�Lets let third-party judged fly-offs determine if complex brittle rigid wings can really compete with their simple tough fabric counterparts.
          >
          > Let me know if any point made here requires more substantiation. I tried to keep the explanations short, but there is so much more supporting evidence that could be offered.
          >
          > Thanks again for elaborating your thoughts on AWES Megascaling theory,
          >
          > daveS
          >
          >
          >
          > >
          >
        • dave santos
          Doug, Your bias against most pioneering AWE engineering science is at least consistent. Science is just your blind spot (remember last week how stunned you
          Message 4 of 18 , Sep 28, 2012
            Doug,

            Your bias against most pioneering AWE engineering science is at least consistent. Science is just your blind spot (remember last week how stunned you where to learn scientists had seriously considered ET life long before you?). 

            The small amounts of power that any of our toy-scale experiments produce, including yours, is scientifically "significant", especially insofar as a given concept may scale. There are also potential product niches, like charging cell phones in rural India.

            As for "reliable", lets define that in terms of MTBF. Kites are very reliable. Despite long trying, i have yet to "wear out" any, and they seldom break. Seven weeks suspended in gales for a fabric wingmill, with no damage, is pretty good. That wing could have gone many times longer. Hobby kites may have roughly a MTBF of maybe a year (~5000 wind hours here in NW), and repair is quick and easy. None of my many prototypes have ever failed critically. You are invited to inspect and test any of them for basic reliability.

            The "economy" of fabric-based structure is outstanding. One can go flying with a fabric wing more cheaply than any other basis. What is cheaper?

            daveS







            From: Doug <doug@...>
            To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 12:24 PM
            Subject: [AWES] Re: Fabric Scaling?

             
            You have yet to demonstrate significant energy capture, let alone reliability and economy.

            --- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, dave santos <santos137@...> wrote:
            >
            > Rob,
            >
            > In the last five years we have made great conceptual progress toward true Megascale AWES based on fabric wing structure. This new work builds on the legacy of megascale soft kite pioneers like Domina Jalbert, Harry Osborne, Dave Culp, Peter Lynn Sr, Dave Gomberg, and many others. Many of these folks are still actively advancing the art.
            >
            > No such experts nor their grand discoveries were allowed to influence Near Zero's "rigid wing favored" scaling conclusion.�Megascale soft wing expertise was even summarily removed from the Expert Panel.�Instead, your pessimistic opinion of fabric wing scaling was cited as if a definitive conclusion (despite 4-0 disagreement with your quoted comment during the panel discussion).�
            >
            > As WindLift publicly stated at AWEC2012, your team is not really a wing-expert circle (but your mechanical ground design is outstanding). KiteLab Group's R&D includes advanced rigid AWES wings flown comparatively, and in hybrids, with soft wings, across all existing scales. We are true AWES wing experts, with many important innovations developed and tested.
            >
            > The following fabric-based Megascale AWES ideas have emerged that address every major concern about fabric wings such as you pose-
            >
            > 1) Either by scaling law or existence-proof, tensile airborne array structure is the most inherently scalable wing technology. Its the only way to do gigawatt-unit scaling. The largest wings ever made are cellular or modular soft kites (>1000m2). KiteLab Austin's success with its 300m2 rope-loadpath and tarp 1/40 scale demonstrator suggests cheap and practical AWE into the km scale, well within tensile mass scaling-law limits. On the other hand, rigid airborne structure barely scales to perhaps 100m wingspan, and capital cost looks prohibitive. Hull loss risk will remain a deal killer for at least decade and likely far longer, based on overall aerospace "drone" reliability metrics. No existing AWES rigid-wing R&D team is likely able to drive this industry-wide curve down quickly.
            >
            > 2) By "staked out" (multi anchor) arched methods, megascale fabric kite stability is solved. The Earth itself between spread anchors is the ultimate rigid "control bar". �Graduated porosity is just one of many other low-tech stability factors to engineer with.�Runaway risk is also mitigated by multi-lines. New methods were developed to rotate arrays. Cascaded launch of large arrays from a single pilot unit has been shown effective.�Single-line jumbo rigid-wing concepts dependent on complex avionics are much more operationally and stability-challenged.
            >
            > 3) Megascale actuation is best done by massive industrial ground winches, rather than expensive super-light aviation-grade actuators with far shorter lifecycles (<1000hr). Similar logic applies to keeping giant generators on the ground v flying small generators. Large soft arrays helping drive the largest legacy generator plants (coal, gas, and hydro) as "Kite Hybrids" is perhaps the most promising AWES biz model of all. Near Zero failed to understand how strategic such specific ideas may prove.
            >
            > 4) Simple geometric studies and many actual experiments show that dense arch arrays use land and airspace at up to 100 times greater intensity than single-line concepts with a comparable scope requirement. Effective geoengineering to mitigate adverse climate effects is also far more feasible by the ultimately more powerful dense-array fabric methods.
            >
            > 5) True crosswind AWE is just as good with soft or hard wings (by power to airborne-mass). Yes, a comparative soft wing is bigger by wing area and does not have so high a "TSR" for equivalent power, but is so-o-o much cheaper and more robust. Its well worth testing both approaches head-to-head in comparative trials (fly-offs) to help settle the issue.
            >
            > 6) Regulatory certification is based on specific factors such as flight mass/velocity categories, inspectability, and conspicuity. The FAA has further cited as key issues runaway crash concerns and airspace utilization efficiency. Megascale fabric and rope arch concepts seem advantaged in every such requirement.
            >
            > These Megascale AWES research findings have plenty of supporting evidence. For example, KiteLab Ilwaco has tested fabric kites repeatedly in real icing conditions and found they reliably and continuously shed ice flakes due to constant flexing, before build up occurs.�Other teams validate the same observations about fabric self-deicing.�Lift is destroyed by ice far more readily with fine rigid-wings, requiring avoidance or expensive added deicing systems (like inflatable rubber boots or heaters).�
            >
            > To review your soft kite Cl return phase issue-�
            >
            > 1) Your logic is based on long-stroke reeling, an early AWES method widely considered obsolete in the Megascale AWES study circle. Long-stroke issues range form poorest airspace usage to high tether wear. A short recovery phase at the top of a loop or figure-of-eight suffices (short-stroke method).
            >
            > 2) Soft Kites offer the most variable-geometry of any wing type, and therefore the greatest possible control of Cl. Parafoil kites furl to as little as 1/100 of inflated projected frontal area. Single skin kites furl even more. These proven modes are available to long-stroke designers. The gedanken proof offered you involved a hybrid concept- of a rigid airframe stably ferrying a far more powerful packed soft kite back along a return-phase. Purpose designed AWES along these lines are possible, following the common example of roller-furling in sailing.
            >
            > 3) All major stability concerns are resolved with multi-anchored cross-linked arrays. One can even imagine the best of all worlds, a megascale fabric-based vertical-lift arch hosting aloft large numbers of smaller rigid wings operating crosswind. �Chaos of any part is cancelled by the bulk array, and the part recovers.
            >
            > For lack of staff domain-expertise,�Near Zero never understood the hybrid array concept space as a most strategic R&D option, and obviously failed to comprehend the key importance of so many other current ideas. They cherry-picked and cooked expert-provided data to fit a novice conception of AWES scaling possibilities. Only the full range of expert design choices allows the best R&D allocations.
            >
            > Your concern that no soft wing AWES is in continuous reliable operation is even more true for rigid wings. A big reason is simply current experimental logistics. Kitelab Ilwaco has at least demonstrated continuous reliable self-operation of small AWES, including up to 40 self-relaunch cycles. �No fabric element has ever worn out, given simple maintenance and quick repair, despite some kites flown relentlessly for five years. Only session constraints limited operation.�Lets let third-party judged fly-offs determine if complex brittle rigid wings can really compete with their simple tough fabric counterparts.
            >
            > Let me know if any point made here requires more substantiation. I tried to keep the explanations short, but there is so much more supporting evidence that could be offered.
            >
            > Thanks again for elaborating your thoughts on AWES Megascaling theory,
            >
            > daveS
            >
            >
            >
            > >
            >



          • Robert Copcutt
            ... Pierre, you have said this before but the AWE designs I envisage absolutely do not have this problem. The first thing to do is to use a groundgen so that
            Message 5 of 18 , Oct 5, 2012
              On Thu, 2012-09-27 at 09:47 +0200, Pierre BENHAIEM wrote:
              >
              > Land use,even sea use for crosswind AWES are huge.
              >

              Pierre, you have said this before but the AWE designs I envisage
              absolutely do not have this problem. The first thing to do is to use a
              groundgen so that the kite has minimal weight. The second is to ensure
              there are 2 or more tethers. If 1 breaks the kite is designed to
              immediately de-power and the remaining tether/s can be used to pull the
              kite into its docking station. Because the kite is light its free-fall
              velocity is low so pulling it in before it falls to the ground will not
              be a problem. Proper design of the winch will even retract the broken
              tether ends before they hit the ground in the wrong place. Dyneema is
              light so it free-fall velocity is low enough to do this. It also has low
              snap-back so when it breaks it does not create a major hazard like steel
              ropes do.

              If the groundgen is mounted on a raised platform the only land used by
              the AWES is a few m2 occupied by the legs of the platform. Imagine a
              groundgen built on the 1st level of the Eiffel Tower. The land under the
              Tower is well used.

              Robert.
            • benhaiemp
              For fabric multi-MW-scale , the kite area should be 100 (for crosswind system) or 1,000 (for stationary system) times bigger as the bigger existing kite (1,000
              Message 6 of 18 , Feb 28, 2015

                For fabric multi-MW-scale , the kite area should be 100 (for crosswind system) or 1,000 (for stationary system) times bigger as the bigger existing kite (1,000 m²). We know 3D objects (rigid wings) scale by cube law (volume) , and 2D (soft wing) don't.

                But what do we really know about fabric scaling  in multi-MW scale?


                PierreB

              • dave santos
                Galileo s Law still applies to soft structure, but less severely because Rag and string is an effective approximation of ideal lower-dimensional structure.
                Message 7 of 18 , Feb 28, 2015
                  Galileo's Law still applies to soft structure, but less severely because "Rag and string" is an effective approximation of ideal lower-dimensional structure. Even though kite lines are really 3D, two of the mass-multiplier dimensions are very small, and kite membranes are also 3D, but one of the dimensions is inherently very small. To this extent, they greatly mitigate square-cube law. Tensile structure is also inherently favored by equivalent mass, by avoiding shear and bending stress concentrations. The working rule as we scale up soft kite structure is that the membrane thinness and aerodynamic wing-loading remains constant, but rope load paths are added in fractal stages to vast scale, as tensile organization like a mighty tree has stages of twigs, branches, and trunks. At some point too massive a trunk-line will not fly optimally, but this soft-kite limiting scale is beyond the vertical scale of the atmosphere (~15km high)!

                  It also helps that our membranes are ram-air inflated structure, and air is neutrally buoyant. We also experience wing-in-ground-effect boost at higher altitudes with vast wings, and even solar thermal and heat-of-compression boosts. While inferior rigid-structure AWES paradigms will fail to megascale, and tend to fall fatally out of the sky, the weird giant soft kite problem has been how to make them come down with kill lines. They really want to fly. Rigging 22m PLPLs as a stack, on the ground, in gusty winds, the kites seemed like loaded guns or coiled snakes (that killed Eideken), and it is a peaceful relief to launch. Rigid-wing AWES pioneers must deeply worry when flying. Their rigs have scant inclination to spontaneously fly, and seem to want to crash.

                  These are CC+ Open-AWE IP-Pool principles.


                  On Saturday, February 28, 2015 9:44 AM, "pierre.benhaiem@... [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com> wrote:


                   
                  For fabric multi-MW-scale , the kite area should be 100 (for crosswind system) or 1,000 (for stationary system) times bigger as the bigger existing kite (1,000 m²). We know 3D objects (rigid wings) scale by cube law (volume) , and 2D (soft wing) don't.
                  But what do we really know about fabric scaling  in multi-MW scale?

                  PierreB


                • benhaiemp
                  DaveS, Please can you indicate at what maximal area do you estimate scalability of a (manageable) ram-air wing as New Payload Record for Largest Autonomously
                  Message 8 of 18 , Mar 1, 2015

                    DaveS,


                    Please can you indicate at what maximal area do you estimate scalability of a (manageable) ram-air wing as  New Payload Record for Largest Autonomously Guided Ram-Air Parachute - Airborne Systems - Military Suppliers - Copybook (10,400 ft² or 966 m²) ? Thanks.

                     PierreB

                  • dave santos
                    ... On Sunday, March 1, 2015 12:47 PM, pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy] wrote:   DaveS, Please can you
                    Message 9 of 18 , Mar 1, 2015
                      >10km2, but single-skin is favored over double-skin.


                      On Sunday, March 1, 2015 12:47 PM, "pierre.benhaiem@... [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com> wrote:


                       
                      DaveS,

                      Please can you indicate at what maximal area do you estimate scalability of a (manageable) ram-air wing as  New Payload Record for Largest Autonomously Guided Ram-Air Parachute - Airborne Systems - Military Suppliers - Copybook (10,400 ft² or 966 m²) ? Thanks.
                       PierreB


                    • Rod Read
                      A single 10km2 kite sounds nightmarish. Baggsie I m not being the pilot in command. With the current weather here I wouldn t be able to see the whole kite for
                      Message 10 of 18 , Mar 2, 2015

                        A single 10km2 kite sounds nightmarish.
                        Baggsie I'm not being the pilot in command. With the current weather here I wouldn't be able to see the whole kite for a start.
                        Next problem is our gusty, rolling, swinging wind.
                        Having 1000 kites totaling 10km2 fly autonomously together sounds loads easier.

                      • Pierre BENHAIEM
                        10 km² : 5-15 GW range. An AWES plant can be attractive from 500 MW range, which is that of coal plant range. Does not look possible above a town, even with
                        Message 11 of 18 , Mar 2, 2015

                          10 km² : 5-15 GW range. An AWES plant can be attractive from 500 MW range, which is that of coal plant range. Does not look possible above a town, even with an (why not airborne !) net of protection. But above great farms, seas, deserts where AWES as secondary use can provide shade (see JoeF'topic about shade)...

                           

                          PierreB

                           

                           

                           

                           

                          > Message du 01/03/15 23:27
                          > De : "dave santos santos137@... [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com>
                          > A : "AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com>
                          > Copie à :
                          > Objet : Re: [AWES] Re: Fabric Scaling?
                          >
                          >  

                          >

                          >10km2, but single-skin is favored over double-skin.

                          >
                          >
                          On Sunday, March 1, 2015 12:47 PM, "pierre.benhaiem@... [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
                          >

                          >
                          >
                           
                           
                          DaveS,
                           
                          Please can you indicate at what maximal area do you estimate scalability of a (manageable) ram-air wing as  New Payload Record for Largest Autonomously Guided Ram-Air Parachute - Airborne Systems - Military Suppliers - Copybook (10,400 ft² or 966 m²) ? Thanks.
                           PierreB
                           

                          >
                          >
                        • Rod Read
                          How to derive the best arch to put over a population... https://vimeo.com/120671854 Rod Read Windswept and Interesting Limited 15a Aiginis Isle of Lewis UK HS2
                          Message 12 of 18 , Mar 2, 2015
                            How to derive the best arch to put over a population...
                            https://vimeo.com/120671854

                            Rod Read

                            Windswept and Interesting Limited
                            15a Aiginis
                            Isle of Lewis
                            UK
                            HS2 0PB

                            07899057227
                            01851 870878


                            On 2 March 2015 at 13:02, Pierre BENHAIEM pierre.benhaiem@... [AirborneWindEnergy] <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
                             

                            10 km² : 5-15 GW range. An AWES plant can be attractive from 500 MW range, which is that of coal plant range. Does not look possible above a town, even with an (why not airborne !) net of protection. But above great farms, seas, deserts where AWES as secondary use can provide shade (see JoeF'topic about shade)...

                             

                            PierreB

                             

                             

                             

                             

                            > Message du 01/03/15 23:27
                            > De : "dave santos santos137@... [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com>
                            > A : "AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com>
                            > Copie à :
                            > Objet : Re: [AWES] Re: Fabric Scaling?
                            >
                            >  

                            >

                            >10km2, but single-skin is favored over double-skin.

                            >
                            >
                            On Sunday, March 1, 2015 12:47 PM, "pierre.benhaiem@... [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
                            >

                            >
                            >
                             
                             
                            DaveS,
                             
                            Please can you indicate at what maximal area do you estimate scalability of a (manageable) ram-air wing as  New Payload Record for Largest Autonomously Guided Ram-Air Parachute - Airborne Systems - Military Suppliers - Copybook (10,400 ft² or 966 m²) ? Thanks.
                             
                              
                            New Payload Record for Largest Autonomously Guid...
                            Airborne Systems, a world leader in parachute design and manufacturing, announced today they successfully completed a test drop deploying 40,000...
                             
                            Preview by Yahoo
                             
                             PierreB
                             

                            >
                            >


                          • dave santos
                            Yes, giant wings in the sky could be a nightmare, but those of us who grew up preparing for nuclear war are hard to scare, and we know worse scenarios than
                            Message 13 of 18 , Mar 2, 2015
                              Yes, giant wings in the sky could be a nightmare, but those of us who grew up preparing for nuclear war are hard to scare, and we know worse scenarios than wind-powered sky cities >10km (like unabated greenhouse gas)..

                              It would be easy to mostly hide such wings in the sky, by making them light grey or transparent; and its also supposed that the wings might be sparse networks of sails, rather than looming "monolithic" presences.


                              On Monday, March 2, 2015 5:30 AM, "Rod Read rod.read@... [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com> wrote:


                               
                              How to derive the best arch to put over a population...
                              https://vimeo.com/120671854

                              Rod Read

                              Windswept and Interesting Limited
                              15a Aiginis
                              Isle of Lewis
                              UK
                              HS2 0PB

                              07899057227
                              01851 870878


                              On 2 March 2015 at 13:02, Pierre BENHAIEM pierre.benhaiem@... [AirborneWindEnergy] <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
                               
                              10 km² : 5-15 GW range. An AWES plant can be attractive from 500 MW range, which is that of coal plant range. Does not look possible above a town, even with an (why not airborne !) net of protection. But above great farms, seas, deserts where AWES as secondary use can provide shade (see JoeF'topic about shade)...
                               
                              PierreB
                               
                               
                               
                               
                              > Message du 01/03/15 23:27
                              > De : "dave santos santos137@... [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com>
                              > A : "AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com>
                              > Copie à :
                              > Objet : Re: [AWES] Re: Fabric Scaling?
                              >
                              >  
                              >
                              >10km2, but single-skin is favored over double-skin.

                              >
                              >
                              On Sunday, March 1, 2015 12:47 PM, "pierre.benhaiem@... [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
                              >

                              >
                              >
                               
                               
                              DaveS,
                               
                              Please can you indicate at what maximal area do you estimate scalability of a (manageable) ram-air wing as  New Payload Record for Largest Autonomously Guided Ram-Air Parachute - Airborne Systems - Military Suppliers - Copybook (10,400 ft² or 966 m²) ? Thanks.
                               
                                
                              New Payload Record for Largest Autonomously Guid...
                              Airborne Systems, a world leader in parachute design and manufacturing, announced today they successfully completed a test drop deploying 40,000...
                               
                              Preview by Yahoo
                               
                               PierreB
                               

                              >
                              >



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