Kite Networks

Doug just has to be patient for Rod to answer to the question of just what Kite Network physics he simulated. I am guessing kite lattice dynamics in gravity and wind, at least, were simulated using Rhino 3D and add-ons like Grasshopper, Flexhopper, or Kangaroo.

If Doug did his own computer graphics, as Rod did, rather than hire a 3D artist, then great, the “rendering-for-hire” presumption fails. Doug seems to concede his modeling did not include any of the physics he defines.

Trying out new features.

Please come back tomorrow.

1 Like

Looking over the evidence…
You have a point about my published simulations only showing successes… Thought I’d posted some over twist fails on YT but can’t see any there.
The dynamic simulations I have posted (Like https://youtu.be/Eg36ua5muj0 ) just use FEA (finite element analysis) on soft line networks. The force vectors applied to network nodes are approximations of kite force … Gravity is also applied. CFD (computational fluid dynamics) is waaay beyond my laptop… I have been planning to revisit the rotary model simulations with more random and violently off axis forces … I aught to get some screen grab of the models failing because it seems quite like the actual fails seen (and posted) on youtube.

Otherwise, Honestly @dougselsam netiquette and clarity is more important than the ego of anyone here… so it must be massive

This topic was automatically opened after 11 hours.

A post was merged into an existing topic: Questions and complaints about moderation.

This collection of drawings is a helpful insight into how @kitefreak sees Kite Networks.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0qQxFlXu7t-cG1iOTNaVUM4Nm8

1 Like

No. Those drawings are from almost ten years ago. I have published many better drawings and concepts since. Luke claims this topic was damaged and should expire soon. Now I agree, since that Google Drive stuff is what the topic has devolved to.

Whose Google Drive folder is that?

1 Like

Seems to be @Rodread’s. Are [edit: ok with] your stuff being hosted there?

No, my stuff has been archived by Drachen Foundation since 2009, and also Energy Kite Systems (JoeF). Rod seems to have made sample copies, given the 1000+ other drawings available, most more recent.

For reference, a paper related to reverse-pumping is found here: Lozano, R., Dumon, J., & Hably, A. (2013). Reverse pumping: Theory and experimental validation on a multi-kites system. 2013 17th International Conference on System Theory, Control and Computing (ICSTCC). doi:10.1109/icstcc.2013.6688978

Three line constant flight is pretty neat…

Deleted Posts above. Did not notice this was a Moderation Lounge move, as protested by deletion.

Kite Networks (scalable designs) is a main topic. So it deserves to be in System Design.

Beside or within Kite Network concept, Dave Santos introduced the concept of aerotecture regarding Mothra in the present forum.

Aerotecture ™ is also a trade name for a wind turbine.
Aerotecture is mentioned on the publication below, The Return of the Rigid Airship:

Aerotecture would be an (habitable?) airborne architecture. Now what could be the difference between aerotecture and kite network? Or would aerotectures be included within kite networks, or even be unities within a kite network?

The difference I see: a kite network can be kites connected by ropes such like a train of kites, as an example of similar unities that are connected. But a kite network can also be a modular construction such like Mothra. From this the “aerotecture” term could define a construction with several elements forming a whole, said elements being or not modular elements. Mothra could be an “aerotecture”, but also the same for a kytoon as it contains several (not modular) elements.

Basically, we explore different ways of scaling.

With arch kites being common, for example, paragliders, my take on “Mothra” was that it was a sort of single kite, with very short tethers at the ends, so it flew close to the ground. From my viewpoint, the only aspect suggesting a kite “network” was that the panels were not sewn together along their seams, but only attached at the corners, leaving spaces for the air to travel through, lowering the aerodynamic efficiency and advantages of a “high-aspect-ratio” wing. Instead we saw a long, “leaky” wing. Seems like it was just too much trouble to bother with a complete construction, so it was just left “as-is” after attaching the corners of the tarps.
If you can imagine a WWII B-29 limping home with a wing full of holes, as we see in youtube documentaries, it may still barely fly, but it flies better without the holes!

It seems to make sense, but let’s try to see further if there is not a possibility for a fractal wing whose elements would be well-sized wings, all of which could form a gigantic wing that would not be possible to achieve in one piece.
Fractal wing

An idea for fractal Mothra is sketched on:

To be honest, I don’t know if it can really work. What do you think about it?

Migratory birds tend to form a V quite close to a delta wing, as for the photo on the link below:

In general I believe flying in a wake is difficult. It would be difficult to transfer flying in patterns from birds to AWE. The birds are precision machines, an AWE rig can not be built with that fidelity and still be cost effective, I believe.

And also multiple tether control is not easy. In addition migratory birds fly in formation in order to protect themselves against apparent wind, as for a cyclist peloton in a race. But kites should not protect themselves against the (real or apparent) wind, quite the contrary.

Thanks Dave. I did all the drawings, in all my patents, myself, using AutoCAD. I’ve never hired an artist. An enthusiastic volunteer provided some great 3-D renderings on my website. Meanwhile, never underestimate the human brain for instant simulations that pan out well in real life as realistic, assuming the person knows his subject matter.

Transversely to these different topologies we can distinguish three families of kite networks, with examples:

Lifting kite networks seem to be achievable devices. It remains to be seen what the strategies are to avoid entanglements. I had proposed using Sharp rotors as separators, but options proposed by windswept and interesting can be better. See also the photo above of the kite network by Ed Sapir.

Power crosswind kite networks, version rotary devices, has been realized.
On the other hand, the other versions seem to be more difficult to realize, while having a great potential: it is necessary to be able to control the crosswind trajectories while preserving space between the units.