AWES classification

[Rodread]

Designing AWES Standardised CONOPS categorization sheets -
An attempt to devise a standard form for comparing AWES concept configurations

Any suggestions on the following?

Classification Sheet Formats Forum Shared Version.pptx

You can have a go at editing this copy

Two sheet designs are presented
Have a go at populating the sheets or adding further sheet designs
Feel free to duplicate and reconfigure the slide components
A companion sheet providing concept performance data should also be developed

[Rodread]

Is there a resource list of AWES efforts and designs to date which would make the population of charts like this a lot faster easier?
There are those horrendous spam AWES market analysis company reports I suppose.

[dougselsam]

@Rodread

There are those horrendous spam AWES market analysis company reports I suppose.

I recently signed up for “google alerts” over a tech stock, and every supposed “article” is completely meaningless, and obviously written by robots. They only mention price moves, never the actual details of a company. The sentences do not “flow” nor use words correctly, and make no sense to read. They all amount to a few canned phrases, always misapplied, in an attempt to convey stock price movements on a given day, and are a waste of time to try to decipher. Obviously never proof-read by a human. “Artificial Intelligence”, more accurately described as “artificial stupidity”, run amok. A scary warning sign for the future.

I’m really amazed that people are still going on about “how to classify” AWE systems. How complicated do we want to make analyzing all the ways that don;t work? There would be unlimited ways “not” to do AWE. So there could be no end to any effort to keep listing them all and trying to create new ways to categorize them all. The latest “paper” brought up by Pierre is another example, where the urge to simply “say something” is not matched by actually having anything to say.

[PierreB]

@rschmehl

The example of the kite flying a circular path, like the Makani kites, is different, in my opinion. Here there is no mechanical linkage (I should have probably use this term instead of “more or less rigid elements”) of the kite to the center of the circular path.

Hi @rschmehl , Kiteswarms and other dancing kites have “mechanical linkage of the kite[s] to the center of the circular path”. So they might rightly be rotary kites by your explain, as well as crosswind kites by your classification.

[Rodread]

Absolutely @dougselsam
We don’t need to list all possible types.
However the point is to try and emphasise more likely classes and patterns.
Objective architecture structure data like these will be paired with other charts of results and even some subjective data assessments.
Without populating tables like this nothing will change.

[PierreB]

Buffon classified the existing species of animals.
Here, the classification could only allow facilitating the emergence of an exploitable species of AWES.

[dougselsam]

@Rodread

the point is to try and emphasise more likely classes and patterns.

Yeah I get it. My point is AWE seems perpetually stuck in trying to define… anything about itself, except for defining a workable, economical version of the general concept. Seems like a pretense that just creating a bunch of bystander busywork is leading anywhere.

[PierreB]

@dougselsam

My point is AWE seems perpetually stuck in trying to define… anything about itself, except for defining a workable, economical version of the general concept.

Almost everything “simple” has been studied or tested: crosswind (Makani, Ampyx, @Kitepower), rotary (@Rodread , @someAWE_cb , @dougselsam, @Kitewinder kiwee, @rschmehl and me with rotating reel…), Magnus effect (Rotor Flettner, Magenn), lighter-than-air gas balloon (Magenn, Altaeros), SuperTurbine ™ and derivatives, carousels (Kitegen)… maybe a viable solution has passed without our realizing it.

The only AWES in service is @Kitewinder kiwee. There are still more complex architectures such as network kites, stacks of rotors combined with network kites, other combinations I have proposed…

[rschmehl]

Hi @Pierre, you write that ‘The only AWES in service is @Kitewinder kiwee’ but according to my information you can already purchase the Skysails system which is rated a 100 kW.

[Rodread]

Have you heard there’s a wee compny in the Netherlands Kitepower.nl
They have a system live in Aruba too

[PierreB]

Thanks to informations from @rschmehl and @Rodread I correct this, adding SkySails, and @Kitepower. What were their respective productions?

[Rodread]

Good to see some external input coming in to progress the AWES architectural classification sheets and performance record sheets
There are two designs types proposed for classification sheets so far

Your comments here or on the document shared at the head of this thread are welcome

[Rodread]

As a list, The AWES classification so far has… (doesn’t format indenting so well on the forum)

1 AWES
1.1 Model
1.1.1 Company
1.1.2 logo
1.1.3 Web link
1.1.4 Image
1.1.5 Concept name
1.1.6 Rated power
1.1.7 Cost
1.1.8 TRL
1.1.9 TPL
1.1.10 Wind Range
1.1.11 Power Curve
1.1.12 Certifications
1.1.13 Number Deployed
1.2 Lift
1.2.1 Power Consuming
1.2.2 Blade Supported
1.2.3 Auxiliary Support
1.3 Launch
1.3.1 Vertical
1.3.2 Horizontal
1.3.3 Rotary
1.3.4 Kited From Mast
1.3.5 Drone Assist
1.3.6 Catapult, Rocket, Other
1.4 Flight pattern
1.4.1 Crosswind Drag
1.4.1.1 Altitude
1.4.1.2 Elevation range
1.4.1.3 Azimuth range
1.4.1.4 Max Tether length
1.4.1.5 Loop / 8 pattern length
1.4.1.6 Swept Frontal Area to Wind
1.4.1.7 Recover to Base Method
1.4.2 Crosswind Lift
1.4.2.1 Altitude
1.4.2.2 Elevation range
1.4.2.3 Azimuth range
1.4.2.4 Max Tether length
1.4.2.5 Loop / 8 pattern length
1.4.2.6 Swept Frontal Area to Wind
1.4.2.7 Recover to Base Method
1.4.3 Rotary
1.4.3.1 Altitude
1.4.3.2 Elevation range
1.4.3.3 Azimuth range
1.4.3.4 Max Tether length
1.4.3.5 Loop / 8 pattern length
1.4.3.6 Swept Frontal Area to Wind
1.4.3.7 Recover to Base Method
1.4.4 Other
1.4.4.1 Position
1.4.4.2 Altitude
1.4.4.3 Elevation range
1.4.4.4 Azimuth range
1.4.4.5 Max Tether length
1.4.4.6 Flown pattern length
1.4.4.7 Swept Frontal Area to Wind
1.4.4.8 Recover to Base Method
1.5 Blade Construction
1.5.1 Soft
1.5.2 Hard
1.5.3 Mass per blade
1.5.4 Power / mass
1.5.5 Aspect Ratio
1.5.6 Span
1.5.7 Speed Ratio
1.5.8 Blade Area
1.5.9 Number of blades
1.5.10 Lift/Drag excluding tethering
1.5.11 Controls on blade
1.5.11.1 Number of Control surfaces
1.5.11.2 Control Surface Areas
1.5.11.3 Actuation Power needed / surface
1.5.11.4 Control mechanism type
1.5.12 Bridle pattern
1.5.12.1 Bridle Lengths
1.5.12.2 Fairing
1.5.12.3 Bridle flown frontal volume
1.5.13 Stackable
1.5.13.1 Number of layers stacks
1.5.13.2 Part count per layer
1.5.13.3 Modular Maintenance Y/N
1.5.14 Maximum Airspeed
1.6 Power Transmission
1.6.1 Electrical in tether
1.6.2 Phased Traction Retraction
1.6.3 Rotary tether set
1.6.4 Number of tethers
1.6.5 Tether ground separation
1.6.6 Tether Flown Frontal Volume
1.7 Ground Station
1.7.1 Includes Launch Area
1.7.1.1 Tail Sitter Perch
1.7.1.2 Launching Mast
1.7.1.3 Launch rotary Arm
1.7.2 External Launch area
1.7.2.1 Horizontal Launch Strip
1.7.2.2 Vertical Launch Site
1.7.2.3 Drone Assisted Launch Area
1.7.3 PTO
1.7.3.1 Pumping Yo-Yo Drum
1.7.3.2 Ground Rail
1.7.3.3 Ground Plane Rail PTO
1.7.3.4 Axially aligned rotary PTO
1.7.3.5 Direct Electrical Connection
1.7.4 Exclusion zone area
1.7.5 Anchor types
1.7.6 Power Output
1.7.6.1 Electrical
1.7.6.2 Mechanical
1.7.6.3 Propulsion
1.7.6.4 Other
1.7.7 Offshore Application in Plans
1.7.8 Auxiliary field components

A link to my version of the list here

AWES classification list forum.docx

and a copy will be added to the IEA T48 WP5 filespace too

[dougselsam]

How about:

1. SuperTurbine including variants … 2) Everything else

[Rodread]

There’s something else @dougselsam ?
I thought “all roads…”
We’ll make sure to find a place for an ST
®

[dougselsam]

Well Roddy don’t tell anybody but I do have a couple more compelling concepts up my sleeve, but for now, you’ve been quite vocal in noting the lack of recognition for more than just the others - the commonly-pursued paradigms. As I’ve pointed out many times, it reminded me of graffiti I saw on an outhouse wall at 8 years old: “Eat S*** - a million flies can’t be wrong!”. (That would be kite-reeling - a true “no-brainer” that most every team ended up chasing.) The other saying was the “Here I sit, broken-hearted” popular poem made into a hit song by Van Halen.
While we continue to see incredible-sounding numbers claimed for some of these commonly-pursued efforts, I remain skeptical. Something just doesn’t add up - if they work so well, why is there never one in actual operation - demos only(?). Big numbers for several years now, but where are the running systems?

[PierreB]

@dougselsam

why is there never one in actual operation - demos only(?).

Hi Doug, that’s what I thought, but now, there is SkySails 100 kW reeling-kite in actual operation, as indicated on AWES classification - #9 by rschmehl. Certainly I do not know what is the production of electricity, the number of AWES sold, their unit cost …

[rschmehl]

Hi @PierreB, and there is also Kitepower’s 100 kW system deployed on the Caribbean island of Aruba. They also have a home base in the Netherlands, in Melissant. There is a nice TV news feature (in Dutch) about the tests earlier this year.

[dougselsam]

@PierreB

Hi Doug, that’s what I thought, but now, there is SkySails 100 kW reeling-kite in actual operation

Hi Pierre: I checked their website. Here’s a cut-paste (of a translation to English): “While numerous theoretical concepts have been proposed and the feasibility and potential of the use of high-altitude wind energy have been impressively demonstrated by a few prototypes, there is currently no flight wind turbine in automatic continuous operation. This knowledge gap is to be closed with this overall joint project.”
That reads like more “news of the future” to me.
I’d love to know more about whatever happened to the unit they shipped a year ago.

[PierreB]

@dougselsam

I’d love to know more about whatever happened to the unit they shipped a year ago.

Hi Doug,
Some news are linked and quoted on the comment, of which: “The SKS PN-14 achieves a high amount of full load hours (up to 6,000 full load hours/year).”