I’m wondering if AWE could get an airborne aeromine up and running but in kite form? if so many of them in a stacked configuration? https://ip.sandia.gov/techpdfs/AeroMINE%20SAND2020-2901%20M.pdf
I had an a while back contacted dyson to see if he would like the opportunity of developing such a device considered his dyson fans & hovers. Pattern infringements and all that jazz.Got no reply back then. Was unemployed and really could have done with the work. I got as far as a plywood mock then steel steel shelving unit. For those technopunk quality people love so much. so I’m throwing out this there as I reckon it could be made airborne. Made quite functional with a higher output. Especially if it can be run at altitude. I’m almost thinking captain scarlet and sky base. Or marvels helicarrier. Drop in let us know what you think?
A video is on:
Aeromine design looks a little like Skypull:
It does alittle. nacelle pod is more my kind of thinking with the whole thing. looking a lot like the underslung fuel pods with turbines inside. Or fully embedded turbine generator. Much like
7BA1EB07-9824-4468-AFCB-3B019E26F459.tiff (1.1 MB)
But also like or
FE59E2B7-2F60-481C-98C0-4411FDDDB515.tiff (588.3 KB) like a modified mankani type. Or even
01D2DB06-0161-49DF-B0DF-BBD1EC3D4CDC.tiff (1.2 MB)
Box kite style
Also can be improved with a vortex tech to increase low pressure draw in the turbine.
So who fancy bolting a turbo to a kite?
At 1 min in Skypull intended to launch a 25kW demonstrator ~june 2021
Any news on that?
I’m no good with deadlines…
This is, I guess, the discussion of «can we scale down AWE»?
I think wind gradient and turbulence will kill a tiny concept, in particular if you place the kite in a residential area.
Longer tethers and more mass are both showstoppers at this small scale. Imagine a tether hanging across a street or a kite landing into a crowded space. It would have to be soft or weight in the «grams» region
I dont se a 5 kW at a rooftop ever.
I dont think you could assume that safety of AWE could be solved for a rig being placed at a random location with poor maintenance.
Maybe something TRPT with shorter tethers could be slightly better suited for such installations.
Though, a regular HAWT seems superior in most respects to anything airborne
Regarding the Aeromine, I think maybe they dont completely understand the difference between power and force. Once you start removing air from a foil to harvest energy, that pressure difference may not be capable of sustaining a large flow of air.
To have an idea about the energy output you would need to know the pressure difference and the flow for a certain windspeed.
Add al the indirectness of extracting energy, like transporting fast moving air through pipes and a secondary turbine, I am pretty sure you are better off with the solar panels or maybe just grid power…
Retrospectively whatever the scale be that 1m*. 75m*.25m or a mass rig big enough to land aircraft on? I’d would concur with the placement of it would be a primary issue. Obviously residential areas would have and issues to due to falling debris. So this would suit open spaces much better be that next generation wind replacement for current onshore/offshore units it a good use of Bernoulli’s principle.
To make good use of what you’re given. Increase the volume of the flow must have some advantages? If you can Maintain a ratio pressure differential similar to a tornado? Most destructive thing knows to occur due to low pressure system moving vast volume of air at pace.
If efficiency could increase? it would be worth taking a look. Especially if you could match Francis turbines. For efficiency.
There also arguments about how direct things are In real life anyway? I wonder if aviation could benefit from this sort of thing being up scaled?
I suspect aspects of the b2 could be used with modified spars and airframe to achieve similar effect to the aeromine as target vents would still work. As displayed on previous cross section. Sprit kite able to carry the turbine would be my kind of thinking. Never mind the industries it could save.
Trust wing.stl (172.7 KB) ok been doing some work. Based on the areomine, and anti stall technology. I’m Just learning to use Tinkercad. So might be the odd discrepancy. I think it a good head start but would appreciate input. I can see a compound wing design. Would be easy to make and it wouldn’t need to be 3D printed. Thin acrylic sheets, plywood or anything thin and bendy enough would do. Plenty of lift and low pressure zones especially if there the right kind of stacking going on. Though power modules are not shown here they could easily fit in to the pontoons at the end of each wing.
I know it’s a cereal box but I had to visualise what it would look Iike. Not bad for the a morning of cardboard and sticky tape. next I would like to try it in sheet metal. Trust wing visuals. To see how it performs. I’d say it very easy to manufacture. What is shown is but a scale model. Should give you some idea of what I’m aiming for. Kinda reminds me of some fancy chimney vents I’ve seen. It would work much the same way. Just wanted to put it out there for feed back.
Currently an on going project.
Intending using as much renewable/ recycled materials as I can. I know my folks have the metal thanks to a dryer or two that broke. This is a camp size model that I have made. That can fit in a rucksack. I suspect this would work to economy of scale. So the bigger it’s and a larger surface area would help its drafting potential. Negative pressure zone would exist inside the wing structure. And a turbine can be place on the inlets or outlet or both. Much like a turbo from a car. Can be completely neat and compact. Wildlife friendly. In all a totally material efficient design.
I checked out “Aeromine”. Don’t waste your time. It is a VERY TYPICAL 100% GARBAGE Professor Crackpot wind energy idea, NOT valid, going nowhere. It checks ALL of the “Professor Crackpot” boxes, including:
- Output claims 100x what it could reasonably be expected to produce
- Rooftop mounting - inadvisable but always on Professor Crackpot’s wish-list
- Higher solidity (more material = more cost) than existing technology
- Nobody is showing you a meter with output, are they?
The fact that SANDIA LABS is being fooled by this worthless trash illustrates my point:
Unless you are IN THE FIELD OF WIND ENERGY, I don’t care HOW MANY PhD’s you have, you know NOTHING when it comes to wind energy.
Every garage tinkerer thinks they are an instant expert, whereas they actually know LESS than nothing, since what they think they “know” is 100% wrong. BTW the Bernoulli principle is long disproved as the main source of "lift " for the upper side of an airfoil.
Rather than producing 5 kW, these devices do not intercept enough area to produce anywhere near that. Add the Rube Goldberg nature of the theory of operation and you would be LUCKY to get 1/100th of that (50 Watts) in a very strong wind.
Even the illustration showing a narrow tube leading to a wider section where the propeller is located is retarded and 100% opposite to reality, since you would want to place a turbine in the accelerated flow of a restricted diameter. These guys know nothing, and are wasting everyones’ time.
A cereal box is where this 100% wrong idea belongs!
Seems weird after 13 years, is it possible that I am still the only AWE person with any real, actual knowledge of wind energy(???)
By the way, we have a little wind here today, and our “new” (used) 10 kW turbine that I bought from a neighbor is producing 4.3 kW (when I just looked at the meter). Our previous 10 kW turbine had burned out its generator due to one of the three power wires being unattached to its terminal, just contacting it but looking attached (bad installer) causing a telltale funny noise in light winds, but which tech support for this world-leading brand had repeatedly told me to ignore.
Luckily a neighbor’s turbine had to be moved for a drainage project and he got the government to buy him a new one so he sold me his old one for pennies on the dollar. I refurbished it somewhat and we had a crew and a crane come and swap out the old one for the new one and it has been powering our facility ever since. This goes to show you how hard wind energy really is - you can have a proven best brand in the world turbine and it can STILL leave you hanging if one little mistake is made - in this case a wire was pushed behind its slot in a terminal block rather than into the slot, so it “looked right”, made contact, and produced power for years. It was only when the wire finally fell away and the noise got very loud (single-phasing) and we shut it down and had another factory-authorized installer come and check it out that we found it had never been installed properly to begin with.
Now I can replace the burned-out stator on this 1200 lb machine and when the new one eventually fails, we’ll have a replacement here, ready to go. 
Don’t let me stop you swinging a spanner then. It all a learning curve for me. Just a guy doing some tinkering, exploring ideas regardless. Generally like to explore and see for myself. Hence asking questions to be effective with time and effort.
I’m not fussed if your a beginner or a seasoned veteran. I am however fussed about how quickly you can get a product made for use. as I use a k.i.s.s approach. I’m also very used to bolting things together as seeing what happens when I do so. I’d rather cut up cereal boxes to toy with an idea. Then waste money going any further. Resource efficient practices. If It brakes, doesn’t work? I haven’t had to sale any jewels to get there. For me is all gravy.
Then there is a question of what do you want to use it for?
Where thing are moving toward small scale power units. So people can charge the device they may have. There will come a time where largers system will be over clocked reletive to peoples energy needs. I hear of systems on/off grid that don’t use more than 50w. For daily use.
I guess my aim is to find a solution that takes what the wind gives you. Then putting it to best use. From what I’ve learned In the last 5 years. Wind energy as a whole encounters a few issues with inconsistent winds. If there was a way to make that more consistent or even self sustaining. there would be improved reliability. For long duration throughout the year.
As mad hat an idea as that is. It just a question of what are you looking for? And how do you wish to a achieve it? If you can achieve that by what change you have in you back pocket? all the kudos to all those who can!
Hey kudos to your curiosity and willingness to build even crude models to try out concepts. Nothing wrong with that. I’m just giving a factual analysis of the concept itself, not you as a would-be victim of a scam. My info is meant only to educate, not to steer anyone away from exploring new ideas or good ideas. The thing is, that Aeromine is an Aero-mine-field of bad ideas and ignorance. to move forward in wind energy we have to stand on the shoulders of the giants who came before us - understand what works, how it has been developed and why, and understand what has been tried and proven not to work. Otherwise we are likely to just keep repeating past mistakes of others, which is what the mythical “Professor Crackpot” and his band “The Professor Crackpot Syndrome” is all about: coming in knowing nothing except he is “smarter than everyone else” and therefore has no need to get up to speed on any actual knowledge, then since he is “so smart” he just picks up random tidbits of partial scientific knowledge and throws them together, thinking he “has something”, when in fact he has nothing, repeating the past mistakes of others. When you’ve been in the field of wind energy for decades like me and tuned into the various attempts to supersede knowledge with ignorance, you know the symptoms and can easily see them when they re-emerge.
What makes a wind turbine good? Using less material to create more power. Typically if one cannot “see through” your turbine, it is taking up too much space compared to the area it intercepts, reducing efficiency while costing more. The more steps it has before electricty is generated, the worse it is. The more complicated the theory of operation, to less the chance it could ever be economical. In this case, the inventor takes a long-disproven “scientific” explanation for “lift”, then misapplies it to create a less-efficient machine. What is known is simple: a simple rotor sweeps a given area, producing power. A (so far) proven wrong direction is to then construct a funnel or duct to “concentrate” the flow to the rotor. Why?
- The blades will then go too fast in a strong wind, making too much noise and becoming less efficient.
- You already had the most efficient use of materials with a see-through rotor, now you want to add an opaque structure around it (more total material by far) which can indeed increase power, but increases costs more.
- in this case they add a long pipe to bring the air to the suction area - long pipes entail lots of air friction that reduces power
- As someone else pointed out, the little holes on the suction sides of airfoils are inefficient and reduce the effectiveness of the airfoil
- The airfoils take up too much of the intercepted area adding cost and reducing efficiency.
All this idea is is a typical ducted propeller design, except it removes the propeller from the action zone, replacing it with nothing, then adds a symbolic small rotor attached to little holes in the suction side of the duct to communicate with a teeny fan propeller through a pipe. It is a joke, for anyone who knows wind turbine design.
If you are highly-trained in an art, you can easily identify typical beginner mis-steps, right?
Well that is how some of us in wind energy are. The few of us who tolerate or even advocate alternative designs have to know our stuff or we fall into those typical pitfalls. Most newbies can be relied upon to fall into the typical pitfalls just as surely as a wagon wheel will fall into following a rut in the road. People like me, and there are only a few, are here to tell you about the ruts in the road.
Definitely a fair shout. Things considered. Better to take the knock now that find myself on a mine later. Which would be most uncomfortable detour. I had been sat thinking about this. what the key design features would be? I had vaguely thought of an involuted intake. At both ends of the areofoil. As it wouldn’t take all that much to make. Aware that more distance = more problems. So a sealed unit was coming out on top for me. I’m aware of certain types of areofoil that have chambers that aid in lift. But in this case could be used to generate some kind of electricity through suction. I recall some talk about the lift on some video I watched on YouTube. It had
thought I wouldn’t have much idea how that would work bolting a turbo inside the aerofoil then linking it to a motor. it might work but yet to try it. Even something a simple a Tesla turbine would get the job done.
How that would match up here is but a guess for me? Going by the point you have made. If the pipe is too long? efficiency would be effected. If the areofoil is too large effective power output goes down. If the wind is too high that will effect total output and noise production. Much like panpipes. So it balancing act of resource vs worthwhile efforts.
If I had the resource to look at it further. if I started from scratch I was looking at about £500. All in. I’m my case, I had thought of using universal motors coupled to the turbine/ car turbos. They can be quite bulky which would effect an airborne version. The goal was can I power my home with minimal resources. I’m glad you point out potential time hazards, pitfalls and wrong turns. Which is handy when hyper focused of small details and missing the larger picture. Many thanks there.
The other alternative I’ve had in mind was using dyson hover canister as part of the design. Then use the impeller out of a Henry hover. As they are quite common over here. With the meccano style approach to design. Might give of post apocalyptic vibe. So not sure I’d like to got there yet. Definitely could have a lot of fun though. Great that you have the experience to point out what newbies like me miss or even high light thing I’m yet to consider. As far as I’m concerned that was definitely a bonus.
As the aeromine concept is ever evolving?
Erasmus Darwin built something that was precursor to the aeromine
Robert Murray smith is currently investigating the concept?
I’ve recently drop a hint or two with regards to piled carpets being used to smooth air flow in side wall? As Erasmus Darwin version looks like shark gills?
All depends how you go about it? Considering my recent suggestions of turning a box kite into a scramjet? There a whole heap of possibilities?
Even incorporating co flow elements into the design?
If this could also come as an airborne design? Who knows where this might go?
I leave this here? Let you guys make up your minds?