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

Autonomous AWES Architectures ///Re: [AWES] Re: Multi Altitude Arches and Tethered Networks

Expand Messages
  • dave santos
    Robert, How funny of you to imply KiteLab Austin (or Kitelab Group) is anti-computer (compared to you). Many of our career backgrounds are in avionics,
    Message 1 of 26 , Oct 16, 2012
      Robert,

      How funny of you to imply KiteLab Austin (or Kitelab Group) is anti-computer (compared to you). Many of our career backgrounds are in avionics, computer science, and robotics, with multiple awards from NASA and others for excellence in pioneering autonomous platforms. This is not unique prowess for my part, but a team expression of the social miracle that made Austin Texas a high-tech Mecca. 

      Our key local partners include National Instruments, the leading supplier of R&D automation tools to several top AWE teams around the world. If Silicon Labs (founded in Austin) ultimately supplies the mass embedded-controllers for AWES to the world, thank KiteLab for first lining them up. Would you like some EVB kits?

      KiteLab Austin has long been excited about supervised computer automation of AWES, but with maximal inherent flight stabilities. Supervised automation is also the paradigm of SkySails, and my past Forum posts have consistently lauded this control model. Its wrong for VisVentis to imagine the search for inherent AWES stabilities is somehow Luddite, when its really a key to the cheap simple systems it seeks to create. 

      When you finally are ready to formally propose a formal autonomous control architecture specification, count on KiteLab Group for the most advanced help and insights.

      Re: Arches- Thanks, the drawings do "indeed look great"; but make no mistake, many of those drawings are the actual shop plans for kite energy experiments that were successfully built and flown. Note that Mothra1 short-lined already fills its kite window, a real-world demonstrator of how arches can fill the sky as they continue to scale. Please study and fly arches (test, test, test) before drawing such badly mistaken impressions,

      daveS
    • Doug
      Looks interesting and promising Robert. I hope you would forgive me for suggesting that to me, it looks like the beginnings of a SuperTurbine emerging from the
      Message 2 of 26 , Oct 17, 2012
        Looks interesting and promising Robert.
        I hope you would forgive me for suggesting that to me, it looks like the beginnings of a SuperTurbine emerging from the ground, like a germinated seed, displaying its first leaf, barely suggesting the beginnings of a full-grown plant.
        :)

        --- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, Robert Copcutt <r@...> wrote:
        >
        > Doug,
        >
        > Once the manually piloted Visventis rig is developed my plan was to
        > start on exactly the sort of system you describe. By controlling the
        > current from the generator you effectively control the tether tension.
        > Even our first rig will need current control. The new venue where we
        > moved the rig last month has a number of computer control and robotics
        > enthusiasts. The new Raspberry Pi (costs $35) was developed locally and
        > could easily do all the calculations for controlling the tension at the
        > appropriate level. The step from having the manually powered control arm
        > we have now to flying the kite by joystick may not be a very large one.
        >
        > The joystick allows much bigger kites to be flown but big kites have
        > problems. Too big and they might upset the grid, as Dave suggested.
        > Difficult launching is another as Kitegen seem to have found.
        >
        > There will be a parallel effort for a while where some work on larger
        > kites and others work on automating more sub-systems within the whole
        > AWECS. However, once full automation is achieved the need for huge kites
        > will fall away. It will be cheaper to mass produce a standard moderate
        > sized kite model.
        >
        > In a farm setting the master computer controlling farm strategy will fly
        > some kites higher than others so that winds over a wide altitude range
        > are harvested. I therefore doubt kite arches and tethered networks will
        > be a dominant feature in our efforts to stop ourselves being cooked by
        > global warming.
        >
        > Robert.
        >
        >
        > On Tue, 2012-10-16 at 17:25 +0000, Doug wrote:
        > >
        > > I'm curious:
        > > Analyze a reeling in-out electricity-generation scheme, assuming a
        > > 100% controllable pulling force on a tether, ignoring the actual kite
        > > itself.
        > >
        > > Is it likely that, if the kite and control were free of any cost,
        > > electricity could be economically generated using reels, at the
        > > approximate speed and pulling force of whatever kite system would be
        > > used?
        > >
        > > The analyst would have to take into account the requirement to supply
        > > steady-state power to the grid, whether that included storage and
        > > power electronics for one system, or just an average of so many
        > > simultaneous systems that the average total output was steady.
        > >
        > > So that's a reel, gearbox, motor, controls, power electronics, brief
        > > power storage, frame to hold it all, mount for frame, cable? include
        > > reliability and longevity for reversing components?
        > >
        > > Has anyone analyzed this scenario?
        > > Seems like that would be the starting place to see if reeling kites
        > > appear to be an economically-viable approach to electricity
        > > generation.
        > >
        > > OK for example, NASA spent 100 G's to supposedly survey the field. Now
        > > they are reeling kites in and out. Is there a publicly-viewable
        > > analysis that led NASA to pursue reeling kites as opposed to other
        > > technologies?
        >
      • Doug
        At one time, most of the midwest was powered by small wind turbines, called Winchargers etc. The operative working energy transfer medium was a piece of 3/4
        Message 3 of 26 , Oct 17, 2012
          At one time, most of the midwest was powered by small wind turbines, called Winchargers etc. The operative working energy transfer medium was a piece of 3/4 inch thick lumber 5 or 6 feet long with an airfoil carved into it.
          The reason it caught on was it was simple and cheap and it had overspeed protection so it survived.

          After that, big government and utility programs made sure they were all taken down as a condition of having power lines installed.
          The fight of bureaucracy against green energy has a long history - independence is a nice buzzword but meanwhile, keeping us dependent is more profitable.
          But I think small inventors like us will be the ones who develop the technology, not some big government program. My opinion.

          Anyway, some gigantic world effort to develop AWE would be more likely once such a promising example is there to prove it is viable at all. God forbid we rely on government programs to develop the technology in the first place. You can see how much progress they are making so far.
          Bureaucracies hate to actually solve problems since it means they can't rewrite the same old grant proposal to get more funding.
          There, how's that for a theory!
          :)

          --- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, Robert Copcutt <r@...> wrote:
          >
          > Dave,
          >
          > The arch concept drawings may indeed look great, but at the moment that
          > is all they are - drawings. Sure they have advantages and I did not
          > totally dismiss them. My interest is large scale wind power and to
          > achieve that we need AWECS with a low cost. To get that we need mass
          > production. To get that we need to concentrate global effort onto just a
          > few winning designs.
          >
          > An AWECS farm need not be concentrated into a small area. The main
          > control issue will be predicting where the several kilometre long wakes
          > will be so that each kite has the cleanest possible air.
          >
          > Computers are an essential element of AWE and a lack of realisation of
          > this is, I am sure, the main reason AWE is not already a significant
          > industry. Skysails understand this which is why they are leaders in the
          > field. The need for human interaction is expensive and often unreliable.
          > My ambition is to see huge farms floating on the open oceans. Total
          > automation is vital for that and although the development costs are high
          > the implementation costs are relatively tiny.
          >
          > Robert.
          >
          >
          > On Tue, 2012-10-16 at 17:24 -0700, dave santos wrote:
          >
          >
          >
          > >
          > > Perhaps you overlooked the wonderful image of (our partner) Ed
          > > Jensen's AKA award-winning multi-arches (many arches set one just
          > > above the next) that flew at WSIKF2012 (where Mothra1 did its public
          > > debut). There are also many concept drawings in circulation showing
          > > how neatly arches can entirely cover the kite window, from surface to
          > > apogee. WECS on halyards can fill in the space under a single
          > > arch. Arch networks can be designed for dimensional depth along the
          > > wind axis as well (airborne matrix method).
          > >
          > >
          > > Its single-line-AWES-unit arrays that seem "coverage disadvantaged"
          > > for farm use. Close-spaced automated flight operations would be a
          > > control nightmare. Note that megascale arched kite structure does not
          > > inherently require computers to fly stably, although computers have
          > > good secondary uses.
          > >
          > >
          > >
          >
        • roderickjosephread
          Unforgivable Selsam. For so many reasons
          Message 4 of 26 , Oct 17, 2012
            Unforgivable Selsam.
            For so many reasons

            --- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, "Doug" <doug@...> wrote:
            >
            > Looks interesting and promising Robert.
            > I hope you would forgive me for suggesting that to me, it looks like the beginnings of a SuperTurbine emerging from the ground, like a germinated seed, displaying its first leaf, barely suggesting the beginnings of a full-grown plant.
            > :)
            >
            > --- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, Robert Copcutt <r@...> wrote:
            > >
            > > Doug,
            > >
            > > Once the manually piloted Visventis rig is developed my plan was to
            > > start on exactly the sort of system you describe. By controlling the
            > > current from the generator you effectively control the tether tension.
            > > Even our first rig will need current control. The new venue where we
            > > moved the rig last month has a number of computer control and robotics
            > > enthusiasts. The new Raspberry Pi (costs $35) was developed locally and
            > > could easily do all the calculations for controlling the tension at the
            > > appropriate level. The step from having the manually powered control arm
            > > we have now to flying the kite by joystick may not be a very large one.
            > >
            > > The joystick allows much bigger kites to be flown but big kites have
            > > problems. Too big and they might upset the grid, as Dave suggested.
            > > Difficult launching is another as Kitegen seem to have found.
            > >
            > > There will be a parallel effort for a while where some work on larger
            > > kites and others work on automating more sub-systems within the whole
            > > AWECS. However, once full automation is achieved the need for huge kites
            > > will fall away. It will be cheaper to mass produce a standard moderate
            > > sized kite model.
            > >
            > > In a farm setting the master computer controlling farm strategy will fly
            > > some kites higher than others so that winds over a wide altitude range
            > > are harvested. I therefore doubt kite arches and tethered networks will
            > > be a dominant feature in our efforts to stop ourselves being cooked by
            > > global warming.
            > >
            > > Robert.
            > >
            > >
            > > On Tue, 2012-10-16 at 17:25 +0000, Doug wrote:
            > > >
            > > > I'm curious:
            > > > Analyze a reeling in-out electricity-generation scheme, assuming a
            > > > 100% controllable pulling force on a tether, ignoring the actual kite
            > > > itself.
            > > >
            > > > Is it likely that, if the kite and control were free of any cost,
            > > > electricity could be economically generated using reels, at the
            > > > approximate speed and pulling force of whatever kite system would be
            > > > used?
            > > >
            > > > The analyst would have to take into account the requirement to supply
            > > > steady-state power to the grid, whether that included storage and
            > > > power electronics for one system, or just an average of so many
            > > > simultaneous systems that the average total output was steady.
            > > >
            > > > So that's a reel, gearbox, motor, controls, power electronics, brief
            > > > power storage, frame to hold it all, mount for frame, cable? include
            > > > reliability and longevity for reversing components?
            > > >
            > > > Has anyone analyzed this scenario?
            > > > Seems like that would be the starting place to see if reeling kites
            > > > appear to be an economically-viable approach to electricity
            > > > generation.
            > > >
            > > > OK for example, NASA spent 100 G's to supposedly survey the field. Now
            > > > they are reeling kites in and out. Is there a publicly-viewable
            > > > analysis that led NASA to pursue reeling kites as opposed to other
            > > > technologies?
            > >
            >
          • Doug
            Roddy Your plant has more leaves. Now all it needs is more levels. I was hoping someone on this list would start making sense at some point. Glad you
            Message 5 of 26 , Oct 18, 2012
              Roddy
              Your plant has more leaves. Now all it needs is more levels. I was hoping someone on this list would start making sense at some point. Glad you happened along.
              Superturbine(TM) was developed in response to the question:
              "If nature could grow a wind turbine, what might it look like?"

              As opposed to laddermill, which was developed along the lines of "the blade tips give the most power, so we have all tips" (I'm always amused that Makani hangs their hat on that theme, with so many other various configurations able to make the same claim more accurately. I don't know of any blade tips sporting auxilary propellers to make the power but, hey, everyone is free to promote their best marketing logic...)

              Funny I've never heard anyone claim to just place blade roots in the air. "Our kite is similar to a blade root" though it may be true in many cases.

              --- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, "roderickjosephread" <rod.read@...> wrote:
              >
              > Unforgivable Selsam.
              > For so many reasons
              >
              > --- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, "Doug" <doug@> wrote:
              > >
              > > Looks interesting and promising Robert.
              > > I hope you would forgive me for suggesting that to me, it looks like the beginnings of a SuperTurbine emerging from the ground, like a germinated seed, displaying its first leaf, barely suggesting the beginnings of a full-grown plant.
              > > :)
              > >
              > > --- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, Robert Copcutt <r@...> wrote:
              > > >
              > > > Doug,
              > > >
              > > > Once the manually piloted Visventis rig is developed my plan was to
              > > > start on exactly the sort of system you describe. By controlling the
              > > > current from the generator you effectively control the tether tension.
              > > > Even our first rig will need current control. The new venue where we
              > > > moved the rig last month has a number of computer control and robotics
              > > > enthusiasts. The new Raspberry Pi (costs $35) was developed locally and
              > > > could easily do all the calculations for controlling the tension at the
              > > > appropriate level. The step from having the manually powered control arm
              > > > we have now to flying the kite by joystick may not be a very large one.
              > > >
              > > > The joystick allows much bigger kites to be flown but big kites have
              > > > problems. Too big and they might upset the grid, as Dave suggested.
              > > > Difficult launching is another as Kitegen seem to have found.
              > > >
              > > > There will be a parallel effort for a while where some work on larger
              > > > kites and others work on automating more sub-systems within the whole
              > > > AWECS. However, once full automation is achieved the need for huge kites
              > > > will fall away. It will be cheaper to mass produce a standard moderate
              > > > sized kite model.
              > > >
              > > > In a farm setting the master computer controlling farm strategy will fly
              > > > some kites higher than others so that winds over a wide altitude range
              > > > are harvested. I therefore doubt kite arches and tethered networks will
              > > > be a dominant feature in our efforts to stop ourselves being cooked by
              > > > global warming.
              > > >
              > > > Robert.
              > > >
              > > >
              > > > On Tue, 2012-10-16 at 17:25 +0000, Doug wrote:
              > > > >
              > > > > I'm curious:
              > > > > Analyze a reeling in-out electricity-generation scheme, assuming a
              > > > > 100% controllable pulling force on a tether, ignoring the actual kite
              > > > > itself.
              > > > >
              > > > > Is it likely that, if the kite and control were free of any cost,
              > > > > electricity could be economically generated using reels, at the
              > > > > approximate speed and pulling force of whatever kite system would be
              > > > > used?
              > > > >
              > > > > The analyst would have to take into account the requirement to supply
              > > > > steady-state power to the grid, whether that included storage and
              > > > > power electronics for one system, or just an average of so many
              > > > > simultaneous systems that the average total output was steady.
              > > > >
              > > > > So that's a reel, gearbox, motor, controls, power electronics, brief
              > > > > power storage, frame to hold it all, mount for frame, cable? include
              > > > > reliability and longevity for reversing components?
              > > > >
              > > > > Has anyone analyzed this scenario?
              > > > > Seems like that would be the starting place to see if reeling kites
              > > > > appear to be an economically-viable approach to electricity
              > > > > generation.
              > > > >
              > > > > OK for example, NASA spent 100 G's to supposedly survey the field. Now
              > > > > they are reeling kites in and out. Is there a publicly-viewable
              > > > > analysis that led NASA to pursue reeling kites as opposed to other
              > > > > technologies?
              > > >
              > >
              >
            • Robert Copcutt
              Dave S., you are such hard work. You twist things to imply insult where none was intended. I am glad to hear KiteLab is embracing everything high tech. I never
              Message 6 of 26 , Oct 18, 2012
                Dave S., you are such hard work. You twist things to imply insult where
                none was intended. I am glad to hear KiteLab is embracing everything
                high tech. I never meant to imply it was not. However, you have released
                very little hard information about what you are doing there other than
                Mothra1 which appears to have no high tech components. Inherent
                stability is certainly an advantage but history suggests it is
                insufficient on its own. I look forward to working in a community where
                KiteLab contributes to the open source automation effort.

                Certainly we must test test test but it costs time and money, even when
                we restrict ourselves to tiny kites. I therefore choose to bet on fairly
                small groundgens each controlling a single kite, or a dancing pair or
                triplet. I choose to watch from a distance those who bet on connected
                arrays - kixels as they were dubbed.

                Robert.



                On Tue, 2012-10-16 at 20:59 -0700, dave santos wrote:
                >
                > Robert,
                >
                > How funny of you to imply KiteLab Austin (or Kitelab Group) is
                > anti-computer (compared to you). Many of our career backgrounds are in
                > avionics, computer science, and robotics, with multiple awards from
                > NASA and others for excellence in pioneering autonomous platforms.
                > This is not unique prowess for my part, but a team expression of the
                > social miracle that made Austin Texas a high-tech Mecca.
                >
                >
                > Our key local partners include National Instruments, the leading
                > supplier of R&D automation tools to several top AWE teams around the
                > world. If Silicon Labs (founded in Austin) ultimately supplies the
                > mass embedded-controllers for AWES to the world, thank KiteLab for
                > first lining them up. Would you like some EVB kits?
                >
                > KiteLab Austin has long been excited about supervised computer
                > automation of AWES, but with maximal inherent flight stabilities.
                > Supervised automation is also the paradigm of SkySails, and my past
                > Forum posts have consistently lauded this control model. Its wrong for
                > VisVentis to imagine the search for inherent AWES stabilities is
                > somehow Luddite, when its really a key to the cheap simple systems it
                > seeks to create.
                >
                >
                > When you finally are ready to formally propose a formal autonomous
                > control architecture specification, count on KiteLab Group for the
                > most advanced help and insights.
                >
                >
                > Re: Arches- Thanks, the drawings do "indeed look great"; but make no
                > mistake, many of those drawings are the actual shop plans for kite
                > energy experiments that were successfully built and flown. Note that
                > Mothra1 short-lined already fills its kite window, a real-world
                > demonstrator of how arches can fill the sky as they continue to scale.
                > Please study and fly arches (test, test, test) before drawing such
                > badly mistaken impressions,
                >
                > daveS
              • roderickjosephread
                I think it s a bit much to expect the Americans to have humour Robert, It s a very new language English. Go easy on them. You ll probably see they re nice
                Message 7 of 26 , Oct 18, 2012
                  I think it's a bit much to expect the Americans to have humour Robert,
                  It's a very new language English.
                  Go easy on them. You'll probably see they're nice folks deep down.

                  As for systems development... Is there a particular control system you
                  would like to see work done on?
                  We could share work on systems development diagrams or blocks of object
                  code etc....


                  --- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, Robert Copcutt <r@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Dave S., you are such hard work. You twist things to imply insult
                  where
                  > none was intended. I am glad to hear KiteLab is embracing everything
                  > high tech. I never meant to imply it was not. However, you have
                  released
                  > very little hard information about what you are doing there other than
                  > Mothra1 which appears to have no high tech components. Inherent
                  > stability is certainly an advantage but history suggests it is
                  > insufficient on its own. I look forward to working in a community
                  where
                  > KiteLab contributes to the open source automation effort.
                  >
                  > Certainly we must test test test but it costs time and money, even
                  when
                  > we restrict ourselves to tiny kites. I therefore choose to bet on
                  fairly
                  > small groundgens each controlling a single kite, or a dancing pair or
                  > triplet. I choose to watch from a distance those who bet on connected
                  > arrays - kixels as they were dubbed.
                  >
                  > Robert.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > On Tue, 2012-10-16 at 20:59 -0700, dave santos wrote:
                  > >
                  > > Robert,
                  > >
                  > > How funny of you to imply KiteLab Austin (or Kitelab Group) is
                  > > anti-computer (compared to you). Many of our career backgrounds are
                  in
                  > > avionics, computer science, and robotics, with multiple awards from
                  > > NASA and others for excellence in pioneering autonomous platforms.
                  > > This is not unique prowess for my part, but a team expression of the
                  > > social miracle that made Austin Texas a high-tech Mecca.
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > Our key local partners include National Instruments, the leading
                  > > supplier of R&D automation tools to several top AWE teams around the
                  > > world. If Silicon Labs (founded in Austin) ultimately supplies the
                  > > mass embedded-controllers for AWES to the world, thank KiteLab for
                  > > first lining them up. Would you like some EVB kits?
                  > >
                  > > KiteLab Austin has long been excited about supervised computer
                  > > automation of AWES, but with maximal inherent flight stabilities.
                  > > Supervised automation is also the paradigm of SkySails, and my past
                  > > Forum posts have consistently lauded this control model. Its wrong
                  for
                  > > VisVentis to imagine the search for inherent AWES stabilities is
                  > > somehow Luddite, when its really a key to the cheap simple systems
                  it
                  > > seeks to create.
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > When you finally are ready to formally propose a formal autonomous
                  > > control architecture specification, count on KiteLab Group for the
                  > > most advanced help and insights.
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > Re: Arches- Thanks, the drawings do "indeed look great"; but make no
                  > > mistake, many of those drawings are the actual shop plans for kite
                  > > energy experiments that were successfully built and flown. Note that
                  > > Mothra1 short-lined already fills its kite window, a real-world
                  > > demonstrator of how arches can fill the sky as they continue to
                  scale.
                  > > Please study and fly arches (test, test, test) before drawing such
                  > > badly mistaken impressions,
                  > >
                  > > daveS
                  >
                • Robert Copcutt
                  ... Having said that we also need to consider the example of fighter aircraft which have been developed with obscenely large budgets. These huge budgets seem
                  Message 8 of 26 , Oct 18, 2012
                    On Thu, 2012-10-18 at 16:31 +0100, Robert Copcutt wrote:
                    >

                    > Inherent
                    > stability is certainly an advantage --

                    Having said that we also need to consider the example of fighter
                    aircraft which have been developed with obscenely large budgets. These
                    huge budgets seem to have come to the conclusion that inherently
                    unstable aircraft are better - at least for fighters.

                    Robert.
                  • Bob Stuart
                    All other aircraft are still built with inherent stability. A fighter pilot has such a great interest in instant maneuvering that it pays to rely totally on
                    Message 9 of 26 , Oct 18, 2012
                      All other aircraft are still built with inherent stability.  A fighter pilot has such a great interest in instant maneuvering that it pays to rely totally on computer control.  Do we need to make lightning maneuvers to "fly around" a gust, or just tend toward stability?

                      Bob Stuart

                      On 18-Oct-12, at 10:02 AM, Robert Copcutt wrote:

                      On Thu, 2012-10-18 at 16:31 +0100, Robert Copcutt wrote:
                      > 

                      > Inherent
                      > stability is certainly an advantage --

                      Having said that we also need to consider the example of fighter
                      aircraft which have been developed with obscenely large budgets. These
                      huge budgets seem to have come to the conclusion that inherently
                      unstable aircraft are better - at least for fighters.

                      Robert. 


                    • Robert Copcutt
                      ... Avoiding bats and birds?
                      Message 10 of 26 , Oct 18, 2012
                        On Thu, 2012-10-18 at 10:12 -0600, Bob Stuart wrote:
                        >
                        > Do we need to make lightning maneuvers to "fly around" a gust, or just
                        > tend toward stability?
                        >

                        Avoiding bats and birds?
                      • Doug
                        At least we learned English from books, so we don t have accumulated shortcuts grandfathered in for 1000 years that make us sound like we have a speech
                        Message 11 of 26 , Oct 18, 2012
                          At least we learned English from books, so we don't have accumulated shortcuts grandfathered in for 1000 years that make us sound like we have a speech impediment! Since when are we supposed to remove the letter "r" wherever we see it, and insert it at the end of every word that ends in a vowel? Dang, get those marbles out of your mouth. If our kids talk like you Brits, we put them into speech therapy.
                          :)))
                          (But it sounds so sexy, and everyone loves it!)
                          Here in Los Angeles, with everyone fancying themselves a Shakespearian-trained actor, half the people sport fake partial British accents anyway - you can hear it in the SoCal overall accent if you listen closely.
                          Blimey! you Limey!
                          :)

                          Control systems: the ones I like best are based on favorable geometry and few if any moving parts, no electronics. Like an airplane is built so if you fall asleep it just flies straight, with no control input, due to its physical configuration.

                          --- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, "roderickjosephread" <rod.read@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > I think it's a bit much to expect the Americans to have humour Robert,
                          > It's a very new language English.
                          > Go easy on them. You'll probably see they're nice folks deep down.
                          >
                          > As for systems development... Is there a particular control system you
                          > would like to see work done on?
                          > We could share work on systems development diagrams or blocks of object
                          > code etc....
                          >
                          >
                          > --- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, Robert Copcutt <r@...> wrote:
                          > >
                          > > Dave S., you are such hard work. You twist things to imply insult
                          > where
                          > > none was intended. I am glad to hear KiteLab is embracing everything
                          > > high tech. I never meant to imply it was not. However, you have
                          > released
                          > > very little hard information about what you are doing there other than
                          > > Mothra1 which appears to have no high tech components. Inherent
                          > > stability is certainly an advantage but history suggests it is
                          > > insufficient on its own. I look forward to working in a community
                          > where
                          > > KiteLab contributes to the open source automation effort.
                          > >
                          > > Certainly we must test test test but it costs time and money, even
                          > when
                          > > we restrict ourselves to tiny kites. I therefore choose to bet on
                          > fairly
                          > > small groundgens each controlling a single kite, or a dancing pair or
                          > > triplet. I choose to watch from a distance those who bet on connected
                          > > arrays - kixels as they were dubbed.
                          > >
                          > > Robert.
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > On Tue, 2012-10-16 at 20:59 -0700, dave santos wrote:
                          > > >
                          > > > Robert,
                          > > >
                          > > > How funny of you to imply KiteLab Austin (or Kitelab Group) is
                          > > > anti-computer (compared to you). Many of our career backgrounds are
                          > in
                          > > > avionics, computer science, and robotics, with multiple awards from
                          > > > NASA and others for excellence in pioneering autonomous platforms.
                          > > > This is not unique prowess for my part, but a team expression of the
                          > > > social miracle that made Austin Texas a high-tech Mecca.
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > > Our key local partners include National Instruments, the leading
                          > > > supplier of R&D automation tools to several top AWE teams around the
                          > > > world. If Silicon Labs (founded in Austin) ultimately supplies the
                          > > > mass embedded-controllers for AWES to the world, thank KiteLab for
                          > > > first lining them up. Would you like some EVB kits?
                          > > >
                          > > > KiteLab Austin has long been excited about supervised computer
                          > > > automation of AWES, but with maximal inherent flight stabilities.
                          > > > Supervised automation is also the paradigm of SkySails, and my past
                          > > > Forum posts have consistently lauded this control model. Its wrong
                          > for
                          > > > VisVentis to imagine the search for inherent AWES stabilities is
                          > > > somehow Luddite, when its really a key to the cheap simple systems
                          > it
                          > > > seeks to create.
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > > When you finally are ready to formally propose a formal autonomous
                          > > > control architecture specification, count on KiteLab Group for the
                          > > > most advanced help and insights.
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > > Re: Arches- Thanks, the drawings do "indeed look great"; but make no
                          > > > mistake, many of those drawings are the actual shop plans for kite
                          > > > energy experiments that were successfully built and flown. Note that
                          > > > Mothra1 short-lined already fills its kite window, a real-world
                          > > > demonstrator of how arches can fill the sky as they continue to
                          > scale.
                          > > > Please study and fly arches (test, test, test) before drawing such
                          > > > badly mistaken impressions,
                          > > >
                          > > > daveS
                          > >
                          >
                        • Doug
                          Hey Robert: Congratulations to anyone actually building and testing, by the way. I was wondering, I m not sure if I understand actually: What is the ultimate
                          Message 12 of 26 , Oct 18, 2012
                            Hey Robert:
                            Congratulations to anyone actually building and testing, by the way.
                            I was wondering, I'm not sure if I understand actually:
                            What is the ultimate concept you are pursuing? I mean how in general is your machine supposed to work? Sorry for not fully understanding.
                            :)
                            Doug

                            --- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, Robert Copcutt <r@...> wrote:
                          • dave santos
                            Robert complains, ...you have released very little hard information about what you are doing [with high tech] other thanMothra1 which appears to have no high
                            Message 13 of 26 , Oct 18, 2012
                              Robert complains, "...you have released very little hard information about what you are doing [with high tech] other than
                              Mothra1 which appears to have no high tech components. "

                              Sorry for a lack of "hard information". Let VisVentis set the standard for that metric. 


                              A quick review of KiteLab Group "high-tech" work-

                              NextGen aviation design: Open-Source METAR parser, TACO 1.0, AWES specialty avionics,

                              Experimental methods: videogrammetry, digital data-loggers, power electronics (metering, smoothing, etc), etc.

                              Theoretical: Embodied Field-Computing as superior to conventional digital controls for inherent stabilites; "Quantum Kiting".


                              Let me know if you have questions or trouble finding documentation on these and other KiteLab Group "high-tech" work products. Mothra1 is not as low-tech as you suggest, if an embodied field computing theoretic basis is allowed in your definition of "high-tech". Mothra tech would not exist at all without such advanced concepts to inspire its innovations. Don't be fooled: Mothra is itself a "high-tech component".

                              daveS

                              PS Please share your hard information regarding your "dancing pair or triplet" kite AWES concept.




                              From: Robert Copcutt <r@...>
                              To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
                              Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 10:31 AM
                              Subject: Re: Autonomous AWES Architectures ///Re: [AWES] Re: Multi Altitude Arches and Tethered Networks

                               
                              Dave S., you are such hard work. You twist things to imply insult where
                              none was intended. I am glad to hear KiteLab is embracing everything
                              high tech. I never meant to imply it was not. However, you have released
                              very little hard information about what you are doing there other than
                              Mothra1 which appears to have no high tech components. Inherent
                              stability is certainly an advantage but history suggests it is
                              insufficient on its own. I look forward to working in a community where
                              KiteLab contributes to the open source automation effort.

                              Certainly we must test test test but it costs time and money, even when
                              we restrict ourselves to tiny kites. I therefore choose to bet on fairly
                              small groundgens each controlling a single kite, or a dancing pair or
                              triplet. I choose to watch from a distance those who bet on connected
                              arrays - kixels as they were dubbed.

                              Robert.

                              On Tue, 2012-10-16 at 20:59 -0700, dave santos wrote:
                              >
                              > Robert,
                              >
                              > How funny of you to imply KiteLab Austin (or Kitelab Group) is
                              > anti-computer (compared to you). Many of our career backgrounds are in
                              > avionics, computer science, and robotics, with multiple awards from
                              > NASA and others for excellence in pioneering autonomous platforms.
                              > This is not unique prowess for my part, but a team expression of the
                              > social miracle that made Austin Texas a high-tech Mecca.
                              >
                              >
                              > Our key local partners include National Instruments, the leading
                              > supplier of R&D automation tools to several top AWE teams around the
                              > world. If Silicon Labs (founded in Austin) ultimately supplies the
                              > mass embedded-controllers for AWES to the world, thank KiteLab for
                              > first lining them up. Would you like some EVB kits?
                              >
                              > KiteLab Austin has long been excited about supervised computer
                              > automation of AWES, but with maximal inherent flight stabilities.
                              > Supervised automation is also the paradigm of SkySails, and my past
                              > Forum posts have consistently lauded this control model. Its wrong for
                              > VisVentis to imagine the search for inherent AWES stabilities is
                              > somehow Luddite, when its really a key to the cheap simple systems it
                              > seeks to create.
                              >
                              >
                              > When you finally are ready to formally propose a formal autonomous
                              > control architecture specification, count on KiteLab Group for the
                              > most advanced help and insights.
                              >
                              >
                              > Re: Arches- Thanks, the drawings do "indeed look great"; but make no
                              > mistake, many of those drawings are the actual shop plans for kite
                              > energy experiments that were successfully built and flown. Note that
                              > Mothra1 short-lined already fills its kite window, a real-world
                              > demonstrator of how arches can fill the sky as they continue to scale.
                              > Please study and fly arches (test, test, test) before drawing such
                              > badly mistaken impressions,
                              >
                              > daveS



                            • Rod Read
                              I have found it hard lately to document every last knot and the reasoning behind it... however I covet the Mothra designs in a most un-wholesome way. Go on
                              Message 14 of 26 , Oct 18, 2012

                                I have found it hard lately to document every last knot and the reasoning behind it... however
                                I covet the Mothra designs in a most un-wholesome way.

                                Go on show us yer kit too Dave S.
                                Good close up, high def internet photo style rigging detail. phwoooaaarrrrr


                                On 18 October 2012 20:16, dave santos <santos137@...> wrote:
                                 

                                Robert complains, "...you have released very little hard information about what you are doing [with high tech] other than
                                Mothra1 which appears to have no high tech components. "

                                Sorry for a lack of "hard information". Let VisVentis set the standard for that metric. 


                                A quick review of KiteLab Group "high-tech" work-

                                NextGen aviation design: Open-Source METAR parser, TACO 1.0, AWES specialty avionics,

                                Experimental methods: videogrammetry, digital data-loggers, power electronics (metering, smoothing, etc), etc.

                                Theoretical: Embodied Field-Computing as superior to conventional digital controls for inherent stabilites; "Quantum Kiting".


                                Let me know if you have questions or trouble finding documentation on these and other KiteLab Group "high-tech" work products. Mothra1 is not as low-tech as you suggest, if an embodied field computing theoretic basis is allowed in your definition of "high-tech". Mothra tech would not exist at all without such advanced concepts to inspire its innovations. Don't be fooled: Mothra is itself a "high-tech component".

                                daveS

                                PS Please share your hard information regarding your "dancing pair or triplet" kite AWES concept.




                                From: Robert Copcutt <r@...>
                                To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
                                Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 10:31 AM
                                Subject: Re: Autonomous AWES Architectures ///Re: [AWES] Re: Multi Altitude Arches and Tethered Networks

                                 
                                Dave S., you are such hard work. You twist things to imply insult where
                                none was intended. I am glad to hear KiteLab is embracing everything
                                high tech. I never meant to imply it was not. However, you have released
                                very little hard information about what you are doing there other than
                                Mothra1 which appears to have no high tech components. Inherent
                                stability is certainly an advantage but history suggests it is
                                insufficient on its own. I look forward to working in a community where
                                KiteLab contributes to the open source automation effort.

                                Certainly we must test test test but it costs time and money, even when
                                we restrict ourselves to tiny kites. I therefore choose to bet on fairly
                                small groundgens each controlling a single kite, or a dancing pair or
                                triplet. I choose to watch from a distance those who bet on connected
                                arrays - kixels as they were dubbed.

                                Robert.

                                On Tue, 2012-10-16 at 20:59 -0700, dave santos wrote:
                                >
                                > Robert,
                                >
                                > How funny of you to imply KiteLab Austin (or Kitelab Group) is
                                > anti-computer (compared to you). Many of our career backgrounds are in
                                > avionics, computer science, and robotics, with multiple awards from
                                > NASA and others for excellence in pioneering autonomous platforms.
                                > This is not unique prowess for my part, but a team expression of the
                                > social miracle that made Austin Texas a high-tech Mecca.
                                >
                                >
                                > Our key local partners include National Instruments, the leading
                                > supplier of R&D automation tools to several top AWE teams around the
                                > world. If Silicon Labs (founded in Austin) ultimately supplies the
                                > mass embedded-controllers for AWES to the world, thank KiteLab for
                                > first lining them up. Would you like some EVB kits?
                                >
                                > KiteLab Austin has long been excited about supervised computer
                                > automation of AWES, but with maximal inherent flight stabilities.
                                > Supervised automation is also the paradigm of SkySails, and my past
                                > Forum posts have consistently lauded this control model. Its wrong for
                                > VisVentis to imagine the search for inherent AWES stabilities is
                                > somehow Luddite, when its really a key to the cheap simple systems it
                                > seeks to create.
                                >
                                >
                                > When you finally are ready to formally propose a formal autonomous
                                > control architecture specification, count on KiteLab Group for the
                                > most advanced help and insights.
                                >
                                >
                                > Re: Arches- Thanks, the drawings do "indeed look great"; but make no
                                > mistake, many of those drawings are the actual shop plans for kite
                                > energy experiments that were successfully built and flown. Note that
                                > Mothra1 short-lined already fills its kite window, a real-world
                                > demonstrator of how arches can fill the sky as they continue to scale.
                                > Please study and fly arches (test, test, test) before drawing such
                                > badly mistaken impressions,
                                >
                                > daveS




                              • dave santos
                                Rod, Mothra was built directly from the single sheet plan drawing shared directly to you months ago. Joe hosted it somewhere as well. The basic Kixel method
                                Message 15 of 26 , Oct 18, 2012
                                  Rod,

                                  Mothra was built directly from the single sheet plan drawing shared directly to you months ago. Joe hosted it somewhere as well. The basic Kixel method is essential, and well covered in the single-tarp Mothra predecessors. Another key is to never knot the main loadpaths, but prusik or lash onto them, to maintain the full rated rope strength,

                                  Ed will soon post lots of detail shots of the anchors, fittings, knots, etc.. He informs us that he has designed and built a mini-Mothra, and is testing it in New Mexico; so we await those details too, when he gets back to Texas.

                                  Don't be afraid to rig your own tarp variants, while you wait for the delayed information,

                                  daveS

                                  PS Robert needs to rewatch that Dutch wind professor video you found explaining the role for multi-blades in places like Aeromotors and turbofan engines. Multi-blades in AWE is not the "newbie fallacy", dismissing them a-priori is. Can you find the link again?
                                • Robert Copcutt
                                  Doug, We use an ordinary kite of a size to suit the weather. At the moment we only have 4 line kits so we tie-off the de-power lines right at the kite. The 2
                                  Message 16 of 26 , Oct 19, 2012
                                    Doug,

                                    We use an ordinary kite of a size to suit the weather. At the moment we
                                    only have 4 line kits so we tie-off the de-power lines right at the
                                    kite. The 2 tethers run through 2 pulleys on the steering bar. The
                                    steering bar is supported on a pivot so that the pilot only needs to
                                    apply the steering force with his arms. From the pulleys the tethers run
                                    to reels. For the moment both reels will be locked together. The reels
                                    are mounted on a long horizontal support with the pilot seated on the
                                    other end. It is all on our website along with photos of what has been
                                    made so far. I hope that helps.

                                    The next stage of development I had proposed was very similar to what
                                    NASA seem to be doing. The difference is I would use 3 lines so that the
                                    angle of attack and flight path of the kite can be precisely controlled
                                    at all times. It allows very quick rewinding of the tethers if the kite
                                    can turned to face into the wind. Three independently controlled tethers
                                    also allows us to fly a much more aerodynamic kite.

                                    Robert.



                                    On Thu, 2012-10-18 at 19:04 +0000, Doug wrote:
                                    >
                                    > Hey Robert:
                                    > Congratulations to anyone actually building and testing, by the way.
                                    > I was wondering, I'm not sure if I understand actually:
                                    > What is the ultimate concept you are pursuing? I mean how in general
                                    > is your machine supposed to work? Sorry for not fully understanding.
                                    > :)
                                    > Doug
                                    >
                                  • Robert Copcutt
                                    Rod, Thanks for the offer. I will add a new post to the Visventis web site as soon as I can detailing some next steps. What we will probably both find useful
                                    Message 17 of 26 , Oct 19, 2012
                                      Rod,

                                      Thanks for the offer. I will add a new post to the Visventis web site as
                                      soon as I can detailing some next steps. What we will probably both find
                                      useful fairly soon is a MPPT type controller (maximum power point
                                      tracking). It gets the generator turning at the optimum speed to suit
                                      the wind strength.

                                      I am trying to go easy on everyone. My focus is on getting real AWECS
                                      out there generating power asap so sometimes the limitations of text
                                      only forums take their toll.

                                      Robert.



                                      On Thu, 2012-10-18 at 15:44 +0000, roderickjosephread wrote:
                                      >
                                      > I think it's a bit much to expect the Americans to have humour Robert,
                                      > It's a very new language English.
                                      > Go easy on them. You'll probably see they're nice folks deep down.
                                      >
                                      > As for systems development... Is there a particular control system you
                                      > would like to see work done on?
                                      > We could share work on systems development diagrams or blocks of
                                      > object
                                      > code etc....
                                      >
                                    • roderickjosephread
                                      Thanks Robert, So an MPPT controller for an AWES ... is going to have to take a lot of input data learn what is good for generating power whilst staying safe
                                      Message 18 of 26 , Oct 19, 2012
                                        Thanks Robert,
                                        So an MPPT controller for an AWES ...
                                        is going to have to take a lot of input data
                                        learn what is good for generating power whilst staying safe
                                        apply and monitor the real and predicted changes

                                        cor it's an ask but not impossible
                                        I started a list of AWE parameters a while back
                                        This was the start of the list and it went on loads... http://kitepowercoop.org/images/3d-designs/design%20pics/export/parameters.jpg

                                        I'm sure it can be whittled down and made relevant to each system.



                                        --- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, Robert Copcutt <r@...> wrote:
                                        >
                                        > Rod,
                                        >
                                        > Thanks for the offer. I will add a new post to the Visventis web site as
                                        > soon as I can detailing some next steps. What we will probably both find
                                        > useful fairly soon is a MPPT type controller (maximum power point
                                        > tracking). It gets the generator turning at the optimum speed to suit
                                        > the wind strength.
                                        >
                                        > I am trying to go easy on everyone. My focus is on getting real AWECS
                                        > out there generating power asap so sometimes the limitations of text
                                        > only forums take their toll.
                                        >
                                        > Robert.
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > On Thu, 2012-10-18 at 15:44 +0000, roderickjosephread wrote:
                                        > >
                                        > > I think it's a bit much to expect the Americans to have humour Robert,
                                        > > It's a very new language English.
                                        > > Go easy on them. You'll probably see they're nice folks deep down.
                                        > >
                                        > > As for systems development... Is there a particular control system you
                                        > > would like to see work done on?
                                        > > We could share work on systems development diagrams or blocks of
                                        > > object
                                        > > code etc....
                                        > >
                                        >
                                      • Robert Copcutt
                                        As a first step I was considering something far simpler. Some MPPT controllers simply change the speed of the generator and watch how the power changes. If it
                                        Message 19 of 26 , Oct 19, 2012
                                          As a first step I was considering something far simpler. Some MPPT
                                          controllers simply change the speed of the generator and watch how the
                                          power changes. If it increases they simply follow that direction until
                                          power starts dropping again. Delays between making the change and
                                          receiving accurate response data can make things difficult so I favour
                                          building in more intelligence. If the controller knows how big the kite
                                          is it can make a fair approximation of what speed should suit what
                                          generator current.

                                          Robert.


                                          On Fri, 2012-10-19 at 22:36 +0000, roderickjosephread wrote:
                                          >
                                          > Thanks Robert,
                                          > So an MPPT controller for an AWES ...
                                          > is going to have to take a lot of input data
                                          > learn what is good for generating power whilst staying safe
                                          > apply and monitor the real and predicted changes
                                          >
                                          > cor it's an ask but not impossible
                                          > I started a list of AWE parameters a while back
                                          > This was the start of the list and it went on loads...
                                          > http://kitepowercoop.org/images/3d-designs/design%
                                          > 20pics/export/parameters.jpg
                                          >
                                          > I'm sure it can be whittled down and made relevant to each system.
                                        • Doug
                                          Nice to see another buzzword from the art of wind energy here, after a couple more years of jibber-jabber. I was amazed after the first year or so when
                                          Message 20 of 26 , Oct 20, 2012
                                            Nice to see another buzzword from the art of wind energy here, after a couple more years of jibber-jabber. I was amazed after the first year or so when someone mentioned "Betz". Now we have stumbled across the term "MPPT". That's two (2) buzzwords from real wind energy in 3 years!

                                            You'd be surprised how bad you can mismatch an MPPT program with a turbine and still get decent results. The amazing thing is if you get it in the ballpark, the turbine will magically adjust and they still work together OK.

                                            I've been a dealer for SMA WindyBOY MPPT inverter, which requires additional band-aid circuitry to protect it from overvoltage, then I found a bigger one made in USA at a Windpower 2011 in L.A., but that company went bust and got bought by a friend of mine Mike Bergey who is keeping them as an in-house component as far as he knows at this point.

                                            I have a new MPPT inverter just in, from a new supplier. It purports to solve all the problems the other (designed for solar) inverters have. Still waiting for some strong winds.

                                            Another "ABC's of wind energy" brand new basic fact for the newbies:
                                            The simplest thing is an induction motor directly connected to the grid, as most windfarms used for decades, and many still do.


                                            --- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, "roderickjosephread" <rod.read@...> wrote:
                                            >
                                            > Thanks Robert,
                                            > So an MPPT controller for an AWES ...
                                            > is going to have to take a lot of input data
                                            > learn what is good for generating power whilst staying safe
                                            > apply and monitor the real and predicted changes
                                            >
                                            > cor it's an ask but not impossible
                                            > I started a list of AWE parameters a while back
                                            > This was the start of the list and it went on loads... http://kitepowercoop.org/images/3d-designs/design%20pics/export/parameters.jpg
                                            >
                                            > I'm sure it can be whittled down and made relevant to each system.
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > --- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, Robert Copcutt <r@...> wrote:
                                            > >
                                            > > Rod,
                                            > >
                                            > > Thanks for the offer. I will add a new post to the Visventis web site as
                                            > > soon as I can detailing some next steps. What we will probably both find
                                            > > useful fairly soon is a MPPT type controller (maximum power point
                                            > > tracking). It gets the generator turning at the optimum speed to suit
                                            > > the wind strength.
                                            > >
                                            > > I am trying to go easy on everyone. My focus is on getting real AWECS
                                            > > out there generating power asap so sometimes the limitations of text
                                            > > only forums take their toll.
                                            > >
                                            > > Robert.
                                            > >
                                            > >
                                            > >
                                            > > On Thu, 2012-10-18 at 15:44 +0000, roderickjosephread wrote:
                                            > > >
                                            > > > I think it's a bit much to expect the Americans to have humour Robert,
                                            > > > It's a very new language English.
                                            > > > Go easy on them. You'll probably see they're nice folks deep down.
                                            > > >
                                            > > > As for systems development... Is there a particular control system you
                                            > > > would like to see work done on?
                                            > > > We could share work on systems development diagrams or blocks of
                                            > > > object
                                            > > > code etc....
                                            > > >
                                            > >
                                            >
                                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.