Advanced Kite Networks

[Rodread]

OK This is starting to get quite Meta
… But the output is reading fairly coherently now
Process continued
1 NotebookLM ran a distillation again on its own prompt …
How do diverse AWES designs address varied user needs and environmental contexts?
I questioned it on one small niche area of its output

OK Thanks
Now considering 2 of these design parameters you mentioned
1
Terrain Adaptability: Multi-mode anchoring, terrain analysis, and hybrid engagement enable deployment across diverse terrains. Smart selection logic and adaptive configurations ensure optimal performance regardless of ground conditions


and


2
Modular Designs: Many designs use modular architecture for quick adaptation and reconfiguration. This enables quick changes, easy maintenance, and adaptability to different site requirements


Come up with a plan to design and test a system with a feasibility study. How will the designs look, operate, be designed, analysed and tested?

Okay, here’s a plan to design and test an AWES (Airborne Wind Energy System) incorporating terrain adaptability and modular design, along with a feasibility study:
1. Design Concepts
•
Terrain Adaptability:
◦
Hybrid Anchoring System: The design will use a hybrid anchoring approach combining multiple methods. This could include screw anchors, stake drivers, plate spreaders, and rock grippers. The system will intelligently select and combine these methods based on ground conditions.
◦
Terrain Analysis: An integrated terrain analysis system will assess ground conditions using tools like ground penetrators, density analysers, moisture sensors and composition testers. This data will inform the selection of anchoring methods.
◦
Adaptive Configuration: The anchoring system will have the ability to adapt its configuration. It will feature dynamic tension control, ground condition sensing, and distributed load management. It should also have an adaptation range of 360°.
◦
Multi-Mode Anchoring: The design will incorporate multi-mode anchoring to cope with varying terrains, allowing for deployment on diverse ground types. The system will have cross-terrain capability.
◦
Smart Selection Logic: The system will use intelligent algorithms to select the best anchoring methods based on the terrain analysis.
•
Modular Design:
◦
Interchangeable Components: The system will utilise interchangeable components, quick-connect interfaces and standardised connections. This will allow for easy assembly and disassembly. The system should have tool-less assembly.
◦
Modular Sections: The design will consist of modular sections that can be easily connected. The modularity extends to the cable management, and other components.
◦
Quick-Connect Interfaces: Quick-connect interfaces will be used to connect the modules. These should allow for fast assembly, with a target of less than 30 minutes.
◦
Standardised Connections: All connections will be standardised to ensure compatibility and ease of use.
◦
Multi-Mode Operation: The modular design will enable multi-mode operation, with the ability to switch between different performance modes. A target of 5 performance modes should be set.
◦
Configurable Geometry: The design will allow for reconfigurable geometry, and different configuration options, with a target of > 20.
2. Operational Plan
•
Deployment: The system will be designed for rapid deployment and will include tool-less assembly. The hybrid terrain-adaptive anchoring system will allow for deployment across diverse terrains.
•
Operation: The system will adapt to varying wind conditions using integrated control and adaptive configuration changes. The modular design will enable operational flexibility, allowing for quick adaptation to different requirements.
•
Maintenance: The system’s modularity will enable simple and easy maintenance. Quick-connect interfaces and interchangeable components will simplify repairs.
3. Design Process
•
Multi-Scale Simulation: A multi-scale simulation framework will be used to model the system’s performance,. Adaptive fidelity selection and scale-bridging algorithms will be used..
•
Hierarchical Modelling: The design will use a hierarchical modelling structure.
•
Parallel Computation: The design will use a parallel computation architecture to ensure efficient use of resources.
•
Cross-Scale Validation: Cross-scale validation will be conducted to ensure the accuracy of the simulations.
•
CAD Modelling: 3D modelling software will be used to develop detailed designs of the system.
•
Component Selection: Materials and components will be selected to ensure durability, reliability, and cost-effectiveness.
•
Iterative Design: The design will be iterated based on simulation results and testing outcomes.
4. Analysis Plan
•
Performance Analysis: The system's performance will be evaluated across various parameters including power generation, load capacity, response time, and adaptation range. These parameters are important.
•
Terrain Analysis: Performance will be analysed across various terrains to understand the effectiveness of the adaptive anchoring system. The system should be able to handle 12+ different terrain types.
•
Structural Analysis: Structural analysis will be conducted to ensure that the system can withstand the forces and stresses it will be subjected to in operation.
•
Computational Analysis: Multi-scale simulations will be used to understand system-wide behavior.
•
User Feedback: Feedback from user groups such as upland farmers, island communities, and remote infrastructure teams will be collected.
•
Key Metrics: The following Key Metrics will be assessed:
◦
Configuration Options: >20 and 36.
◦
Assembly Time: <30 minutes.
◦
Performance Modes: 5.
◦
Terrain Types: 12+.
◦
Adaptation Time: <5 minutes.
•
Hold Strength: 10-200kN.
•
Load Capacity: 5-50kN.
•
Response Time: <100ms.
•
Adaptation Range: 360°.
5. Testing Plan
•
Component Testing: Individual components will undergo rigorous testing to ensure they meet performance and reliability standards.
•
Subsystem Testing: Subsystems such as the anchoring system and modular sections will be tested together to evaluate their interactions.
•
Field Testing: The complete system will be tested in various field conditions to evaluate its performance in real-world scenarios. This will involve using mobile instrumentation, environmental monitoring, and data collection.
◦
Terrain Testing: Testing will occur across a variety of terrains such as soil, rock, sand and vegetation to validate the performance of the adaptive anchoring system.
◦
Weather Testing: The system will be tested under varying weather conditions to assess its stability and performance.
•
Safety Testing: Safety protocols and fail-safe mechanisms will be rigorously tested to ensure system safety. A safety factor of 5x will be required. The system will need to have a high reliability of 99.9%.
•
User Testing: User groups will be involved in the testing phase to provide feedback on usability and performance.
•
Data Collection: Data will be collected using data loggers and sensors.
6. Feasibility Study
•
Market Analysis: Evaluate the potential market for the AWES design in different regions and user groups.
•
Cost Analysis: Analyse the production, deployment, and maintenance costs of the system to evaluate its economic viability. Cost optimization will be a priority.
•
Regulatory Compliance: Ensure the design meets all relevant regulatory standards for safety and performance.
•
Environmental Impact: Assess the environmental impact of the system to ensure it aligns with sustainability goals. The design should promote environmental harmony.
•
Risk Assessment: Identify and assess potential risks associated with the design, deployment, and operation of the system.
•
User Needs Assessment: Understand the specific needs of different user groups.
7. Expected Outcomes
•
A fully designed, tested, and validated AWES that incorporates terrain adaptability and modularity.
•
A comprehensive understanding of the system’s performance, cost, and environmental impact.
•
A feasible plan for commercialisation and wider deployment.
•
A robust system that can operate reliably across varying terrains and conditions.
•
A versatile and adaptable system that can meet diverse user needs.
•
An economically viable system with competitive advantages in the market.
By combining a hybrid anchoring system with modular design, the proposed AWES aims to be highly adaptable and suitable for diverse environmental conditions. The rigorous testing plan, along with the feasibility study, will ensure a practical and sustainable solution for reliable power generation.

I continued with asking for
Outline the practical engineering steps, funding schemes, documentation and processes needed to complete this
However this should not likely be done in NotebookLM as it is too reliant on the source material
The source is too close to garbage
This type of investigation should be continued on a system with much better reasoning and broad context

[PierreB]

Kite networks could have been made a long time ago, before AI techniques. Let’s look at what was done.

Kite trains look to be the only achieved kite networks. AWE kite trains are also be achieved: Zhonglu High Altitude Wind Power Technology - 中路高空风力发电技术 . Stacked rotors were also realized.

Kite networks show some renderings among others in other fields.

See also Multi-kite airborne wind energy systems (MAWES) : where are prototypes?

Kite experts have so far only validated kite trains. Also the field of kite networks seems to be an eternal promise, but no more, with the possible exception of kite trains (including stacked rotors). I see two reasons for the two respective following concepts: what is called here kite network would in fact be just a kite with empty spaces; the second reason concerns MAWES and is a matter of complexity which could exceed the advantage of the gain obtained by using a plurality of kites.

[Rodread]

There have been other tests of networked kites Pierre . . but you’re right
Not enough to warrant hype
This was a very basic 3 kite triangular bridling between them supporting a load at the centre

I was on holiday in the Netherlands in 2016 and tied it together.
Further simple tests like this will be easy to rig…
One issue which makes me hesitant is that
Kite networks don’t do a lot to stabilise single line kites like these tied to network nodes
Much better to have some steerable attitude individually.
Collectively I think the upwind kites in this set were flown higher

But if you want advice on how to start going about building more scientific tests
I reckon the modern tech - AI can definitely guide an application call for funding with intent on a proposition like this …

Practical Engineering Steps to Develop and Test a Network-Based Kite Airborne Wind Energy System (AWES)

1. Define System Requirements

• Performance Requirements: Specify power output, operating altitude, wind speed range, and energy storage needs.
• Design Requirements: Outline kite dimensions, materials, and modular components for the anchoring system.
• Operational Requirements: Detail deployment, operation, and maintenance procedures, including user safety and environmental considerations.

2. Design and Simulation

• Aerodynamic Design: Use computational fluid dynamics (CFD) to optimize kite shape and wingspan for maximum energy capture.
• Structural Analysis: Employ finite element analysis (FEA) to ensure kite and anchoring system durability under various loads.
• Control System Design: Develop algorithms for autonomous kite control, including real-time adjustments for wind conditions and terrain adaptability.
• Simulation Tools: Utilize multi-scale simulations to model system behavior and validate designs.

3. Prototyping and Testing

• Component Testing: Test individual components (kite, anchors, winch) for performance, durability, and reliability.
• Wind Tunnel Tests: Conduct aerodynamic tests to refine kite design and performance.
• Small-Scale Prototype: Build and test a scaled-down version to validate basic concepts and identify design flaws.
• Full-Scale Prototype: Construct a full-scale system for comprehensive testing under controlled conditions.

4. Field Testing

• Deployment: Test system deployment in various terrains (soil, rock, sand) and weather conditions (high winds, storms).
• Performance Evaluation: Measure energy output, system efficiency, and operational reliability.
• Safety Testing: Validate fail-safe mechanisms and redundancy under extreme conditions.
• User Feedback: Involve end-users in field testing to gather insights on usability and performance.

5. Feasibility Study

• Market Analysis: Assess potential markets, competition, and regulatory environment.
• Cost Analysis: Evaluate production, deployment, and maintenance costs; identify cost reduction opportunities.
• Environmental Impact: Conduct a life cycle assessment (LCA) to evaluate environmental effects and ensure sustainability.
• Regulatory Compliance: Ensure system meets all relevant safety and environmental regulations.

6. Iterative Design and Optimization

• Data Analysis: Use data from simulations and field tests to identify areas for improvement.
• Design Refinement: Implement design changes based on feedback and test results.
• Re-Testing: Conduct further testing to validate improvements and ensure performance targets are met.

7. Deployment and Commercialization

• Production Scaling: Scale up production of validated designs, ensuring quality control and cost-effectiveness.
• Training and Support: Develop training programs for users and provide ongoing technical support.
• Monitoring and Maintenance: Implement remote monitoring systems for performance tracking and predictive maintenance.
• Market Launch: Launch the product into target markets, supported by marketing and distribution strategies.

8. Post-Deployment Monitoring

• Performance Tracking: Continuously monitor system performance in various environments.
• User Feedback Loop: Collect and analyze user feedback to identify further improvements.
• System Updates: Regularly update software and hardware based on field data and user input.

By following these steps, the development and testing of a network-based kite AWES can be systematically advanced from concept to commercialization, ensuring a robust, efficient, and adaptable energy solution.

So says deepseek llama on groq in about 4 seconds of thinking

[PierreB]

@PierreB

Kite experts have so far only validated kite trains.

In addition to the kite network illustrated by @Rodread, I should also have mentioned the kite arches which have been discussed many times in this forum.

I do not consider the Tetrahedral kites (Bell cellular kites and similar) as kite networks, but as “multicelled rigid box kite” (Wikipedia’s definition looks correct). The same for flying rotors because the blades do not form a kite network as such, otherwise, RAM kites should also be considered as kite networks because they include several inflatable cells.

Until proven otherwise, kite networks (apart from perhaps kite trains) and cellular kites do not seem suitable for AWE, but I will admit my error if it was otherwise.

[tallakt]

@Rodread

This type of investigation should be continued on a system with much better reasoning and broad context

Its funny that the world like going from the middle ages to modern times, information went from being previous to being in excess. In olden times, books were precious, and probably mostly they were read. Now, anyone could read news, scientific papers, watch youtube videos continuously, and still not be near reading «all of it», even inside a niche like AWE.

And then we invent just what we need; a technology that generates more information to be digested by humans, albeit in lower quality than the information we were generating ourselves (with a few exceptions, seems a few were ahead of their time).

Use of AI should maybe be focused more towards sifting through information and then selecting what humans should study, rather than writing more stuff.

Or - next level, actually figuring out for us what we should be doing altogether. I don’t think AI is there yet though, as long as current AI is just clipping together lots of stuff that already existed.

[Rodread]

@PierreB

kite networks (apart from perhaps kite trains) and cellular kites do not seem suitable for AWE,

(Other than in a Kite Turbine rotor stack case)… I think kite networks are most likely to be suited to supporting, stabilising or suspending roles, e.g. used in deploying other AWES forms, like kite turbines.
I think there are a lot of forms of network configuration we haven’t yet considered.

Here are a few examples of different void infill network patterns I looked into.

Debating terms again … but
Let’s not consider suspension nets as Kite Networks here even if they are supporting AWES internally.
e.g. Here’s a geographic feature about 1km out my window. A voe ~= a fjord.
If we suspended turbines inside ring nets, above the water, from a double layered tensed net … I don’t think this is a kite network.

It does however hint that network is inherently good for adapting to form and terrain (e.g. clothing, basket weaving, climbing nets…). But It is not flying like a kite.

Kite networks must be flying somehow, not just tensile suspended.
I do think a kite network can make a more inherently stable Meta kite than a single line kite

Network Kites are Stable fliers.

But, For high energy AWES output, and for high tension network forms, we need fast kites.

Surely we can make kite networks that generate efficiently though.
I suspect efficiency is more likely to come from a collective motion rather than generation from individual effectors…, whether the gen is rotary, jerked, vibrated, swayed or pulsed
It seems more likely that large coordination can concentrate force efficiently at single large generators.
e.g.

Djembe OM Kite1

All working as 1 set of rotors on 1 coaxial line for 1 output instead of
methods which stack individual rotors along single kite lines

100’s of these stretched into shape will likely not be as reliable even though they are modular

@tallakt There are several versions of the story of the last human who knew everything there was to know. I’d guess it’s been thousands of years since anyone was all over even just science. Thank tech we don’t live back then. AI is going to totally upend order… It is recursively self improving. If you can quantify specify a challenge AI will be better than you at performing it eventually. It’s going to be better than me at picking my own nose (why is there no emoji for snot / bogey?)

[tallakt]

@Rodread

If you can quantify specify a challenge AI will be better than you at performing it eventually.

Maybe. But in the meantime the challenge is identifying that we are not there yet. At least so I believe.

[PierreB]

Hi @Rodread ,
Yes, there are many kinds of kite networks: power kite networks, lifter kite networks, stacked rotors, cellular netwoks, and combinations of them etc.

I think you are already well programmed for these possibilities which can be promising. AI will follow.

[dougselsam]

I’d say this topic should be returned to the original author, who promised us a working example after changing the name of their efforts to Jalbert Aerology Labs, or whatever exactly that name was. There has been plenty of time for their promised development by now, so, as the new king who emerged to celebrate the beginning of the age of Pisces once said, “Render unto the Romans what is Rome’s” or something like that, let’s just hand this notion of “advanced” kite networks back to its original “advanced” promoter and we can all relax, and bask in whatever certain progress has been made, given all the promises of yesteryear, which of course must have come true by now.

[Rodread]

I totally agree Doug. Send it back for progress.

What I’ve observed on this topic is …
The most significant contributing factors to the lack of progress on “Advanced Kite Networks” is the originator of the idea themselves.

Woe betide any fool who tries to help progress the topic.
They will face a barrage of abuse by email for being so stupid.
Any time I or anyone else I heard of tried to engage the concept - They were declared incompetent, too inexperienced to comprehend the grand vision. . .

We shouldn’t worry this topic is going to be solved soon because
One of such magnificent and benevolent intelligence can surely just arrange it themselves in an instant.

[PierreB]

@Rodread

They will face a barrage of abuse by email for being so stupid.

At least we can praise the designer of Advanced Kite Networks (I haven’t forgotten any capital letters) for a large production of spam in the absence of watts.

[dougselsam]

@Rodread

Woe betide any fool who tries to help progress the topic.

Well, you could change the name. If a topic starts out as a preposterous, overstated promise, with a prematurely self-congratulatory title that has, 100% predictably, turned out to be nothing but the next in a series of empty, meaningless, bragging-ahead-of-any-fact, paper-tigers from the same old source, and nobody says anything about it, where does that leave us?

If someone wants to talk of “advanced” kite networks for making electrical power, that implies a previous, successful development of existing kite networks for making power. If that doesn’t exist, why call any attempt at a kite network generating electricity as “advanced” unless one is addicted to self-congratulation ahead of any even token effort toward building, let alone running, such an “advanced” “network”.

My point is not to discourage any actual efforts toward AWE, but to distinguish such actual efforts, should they emerge, from the specifically-promised and highly self-acclaimed endless-yet-empty bragging by the originator of the topic, who, despite detailed descriptions of such an array, never gave any convincing indication how such domes of cloth tringles would even remain airborne, let alone generate any electricity.

The peak dome-of-cloth-triangles promoted one over a dish crater, pulling heavy electric trains up the sides of the dish, whereby power could later be extracted from letting the trains then roll downhill, with no explanation for why the expensive trains themselves should even be included, versus just generating the power from the same pull that would supposedly bring the trains to the higher elevation.

And of course, any suggestion that the bragging originator of the topic build a small model using, for example, a small train of even a model train meets instant rejection since it would require them to actually DO anything besides further bragging.

That was, in my humble opinion, “Professor Crackpot on steroids” in the sense of adding ridiculously-expensive, unnecessary components, to a Rube-Goldnerg-esque (overly-complicated and only good for humor) idea that would be unlikely to rationalize or even work, period, in the first place.

That sort of input brings any semblance of a serious discussion right down into the dirt, rather than into the sky. That was my only point. If anyone dare speak the truth in so many forums, many people can’t take it.

As Jack Nicholson once famously said “You can’t handle the truth!” And as Warren Buffet once famously said, “When the tide goes out, you can see who is swimming naked.”

[Rodread]

I saw some really good advice on getting s**t done on building a Rube-Goldnerg-esque machine

How to find a wonderful idea | OK Go

[PierreB]

Unless I’m mistaken this design represents a combination of two kinds of kite networks from @Rodread .

Stacked rotor networks ensure power generation, while top lifter kite network ensure lift.

Stacked rotors are a proven technology.

And this lifter kite network seems to be a suitable concept because each kite has some level of autonomy, being tied by the basis of the bridle (only one attach point) and not by the periphery (with several attach points), in a similar way as this proven lifter kite network from Ed Sapir:

Note from Dave Santos: “Pierre, that is me in the photo, who rigged and flew this. Ed Sapir is my student and friend, who did other fine solo projects, like MiniMothra.”

On the other hand, the sails of “Advanced Kite Network” are arranged on the same plane as the net, each sail being integrated into each mesh of said net. Even if each unit can tilt, this does not prevent said units from exerting traction on neighboring units because of their multiple attachments to the periphery. The multiple anchors probably won’t be enough for the cohesion of the whole, at least because of the force of the wind in only one direction at the same time. The result is that such a configuration has never been seen flying and it is unlikely that it will happen.

I myself tried to fly several static soft kites attached to their respective peripheries: they did not fly at all, due to interference deflating them. And things were worse with power kites, except in the configuration of two inverted power kites forming a rotor.

As has been discussed in this topic, the conversion system is not convincing. Of course we talked about Payne’s patent US3987987 figure 5: but there are only two anchors (which also require a whole circular orientation device making the whole thing complex and expensive). But things are unlikely with six anchors:

An interesting analysis was formulated:

Advanced Kite Networks

My starting point with the three tether version of Payne #5 would be to look at the speed of the tether in the generator. If it is not very high, I would immediately suspect issues with tether mass/weight when scaling. Any sag developing at the slack tether will have to be taken up by the kite. This will reduce the effective stroke. I seem to remember though, that we discussed Payne #5 earlier. Lets assume that the tether forms an equilateral triangle where the distance between the legs is a r…

[PierreB]

The author disputes my analyzes above by spam. I therefore suggest that he shows a video of his triangle network in crosswind operation as claimed.

It is therefore useless to show photos of the triangles lifted by a kite lifter: they must fly by themselves and crosswind, according to the claimed operational mode, with the tilting arrangement intended to allow to come and go.

More new spam, but no demo, as usual.

I therefore have nothing more to add on this subject which has led to an impasse as expected.

The good thing is that we can at least see what not to do (in the second part of the comment) when it comes to kite networks, and focus on what could go somewhere (in the first part of the comment).

[Rodread]

Some evidence of nets being capable of sustaining form despite massive impact energy
125000KJ

Rockfall World Record 2025 with 12,500kJ!

[PierreB]

Some comments then photos from Dave Santos:

Here is a money-shot, with wind 60deg shifted, with two sails better able to maintain stability by higher LE AoA. When wind is Point-on, three Chicken-lines will correct Point AoA. Having flown this in place for three days, confirming it self-unfouls and self-relaunches reliably.

The B Cup is pretty much won. The remaining Kite Networks open challenge is collective crosswind oscillation load motion. This rig will do!

Already the kite network self-launches and flies briefly in hot turbulent puffs of Texas breeze, however, the trim of the lead kite(s) needs more AoA for ideal stability. A sliding Chicken Line will fix that.

“Benhaiem Cup contender”: not true. But these achievements are major steps for Advanced Kite Networks.