Barnard's predictions

It’s directly in the menu, but under FAQ. Can’t think of an easy way to have them more prominent.
I just said that because I don’t read all the long posts but there’s a good chance that there are some offenses in there.

For sure… I don’t read them either other than to check the odd sentence is along the same theme as ever was

Kitefreak I warned Mike Barnard that engaging in a debate with you would not be fruitful since you have no interest in any kind of fair discourse or debate. And this is one more example: Your other knee-jerk response to anyone pointing out your false statements, besides invoking “Wubbo” is to call “off-topic!”, as though you and everyone else stays on topic. One more weak excuse. Should we make a topic about you not doing what you say? OK that’s a good idea. Meanwhile, tell me which topic you were in when you got us all excited about your new device, and I’ll be happy to respond there. Regarding the topic this discussion has turned into, due to you implying you will not be following through on what you said, I will again state: You told us you had developed a crosswind AWE system using a power-kite and pulleys that showed so much promise, with its only problem being the high speed due to being unloaded by a generator, that you will connect a generator and show us the results. So until that happens, I don’t want to hear anything else from you, certainly not you harassing any and every poster, pretending to “correct” them, telling them they “fail”, are “in error”, etc. Please just show us you can keep your word, follow through, and do what you said.
And with regard to this claim of multiple “tons” of sand, now repeated by Pierre, some standards could be applied. Normally if one wanted to show how many tons could be lifted, one would fill containers with a weighed amount, then show how that known weight could be lifted. As a starting point. Then you’d still be tasked with how to make that amount of pull useful. Attach a generator? Then what? Pull one time? Make that “horsepower” for one second? Then what? That’s the difference between wind energy, including airborne, and “just flying ktes”.

Doug, Again, the kitesurfer jumping videos is a better bet for you to calculate raw lifting power without worrying about Mothra being the only example.

Debating AWE on-topic is a fair enough condition for you, Barnard, and everyone else.

Wubbo Lives!

Before all this is some quick calculation, taking account of the 300 m² kite speed during rising. If we want power for a longer cycle, we implement longer tethers.

Well you’re back to square-one, “kites can pull”. One long-known starting-point for AWE. Let’s not confuse the starting gate, with the finish line, huh?
Here’s what I would recommend: Fill a 5-gallon bucket with sand and weigh it. Find attachment points that work, and see how many buckets you can lift. Then you can have some real numbers to work with instead of just hand-waving and happy talk. Then of course you are still at “kites can pull” (the starting gate), but you can now at least start with some numbers. Of course that would imply being the least bit serious about it. I could tell you some good ways to make some power with such a kitraption, but I think Santos should figure it out.

kPower has long calculated reasonable numbers, videogrammetrically, from kite jumping videos, and since figured out how to tap power kites various original ways, in addition to previous methods nicely laid out by Payne USP3987987.

There is also Culp et al’s old kite feat of erecting a multi-ton concrete obelisk in a science documentary, which would yield respectable power numbers. Skip the belated “square-one” sand bucket recommendation, which does not even consider lifted distance or time. Doug is now claiming secret power kite rigging ideas (“some good ways”). Barnard essentially predicts no great ideas can solve AWE, mysterious or not.

The Power Kite is AWE being fulfilled in our time; no prediction otherwise was correct.

You are all talk…

What then your, “I could tell you good ways”, you oddly claim above? “All talk”, as Barnard would fairly predict?

Not “still”, but after examination of different methods comprising torsion transfer.

We must always start from kite pull, just as Pocock, as a small child, tied toy kite to stone and as it was drawn along, how he “wondered”. Torsion never has been the kite’s best promise.

Lets reasonably predict Doug is not optimistically holding secret “good ways” to solve AWE, ways somehow better than USP3987987 fig.5.

Pocock and Payne are exemplary AWE prophets. Etzler made the key literary prediction; kites can power civilization.


Pierre I’m not sure why you single out “torsion” when so many other ways have been explored.
My point is, noticing that a kite can lift or pull was a starting point leading to the exploration by many of AWE.
Step 1: Many years ago, people had long noticed kites can pull, and so…;
Step 2: people asked “How can this pull or lift be channeled into useful work?”
Add as many further steps as you need after that to get a working AWE system.
Add as many still further steps as you need to refine such an AWE system to be reliable and economical.
Note that nothing guarantees kites, per se, will even be a part of any resulting reliable, economical AWE system, should it ever be realized.

Meanwhile you have people trying to pretend that a watered-down observation that “kites can sort of pull” but

  1. only briefly and
  2. only when the weight is temporarily distributed across the fabric, and
  3. only if the kite can dump the weight in real time as it lifts off so it is never lifting the entire weight at one time and
  4. only if measuring the actual weight lifted is prohibited, and
  5. only if there is no requirement to lift whatever weight IS there to any particular height or location and:
  6. only if there is no requirement to release the weight in any particular place, and
  7. only if there is no energy capture enabled from said weight as it peels off the fabric…
    So because none of the perhaps thousands of steps have been taken from noticing “a kite can pull”, and even the suggestion of ways to measure such pull is resisted, I would say such an observaation of shedding snd from tarp on the beach take one far less than 1% of the way to developing any AWE system. I’m sure someone witnessed sand rolling off a kite launched from beach long before now, probably over a hundred years ago, and I would surmise it is common at kite festivals which are often held at beach locations.

Santos wants to squirm his way out of this one, as usual. His typical tactics include:

  1. name-dropping and hero-worship of those who have made mundane observations, with obvious inferences, in the past
  2. mischaracterizing the statements of “Doug” and
  3. pretending that “blaming” or “overcoming” “Doug” is the challenge rather than developing an actual, working, reliable, economical (or even halfway promising) AWE system and;
  4. subsituting “slogansm” for logical reasoning and any attempt at engineering even a slightly-promising AWE configuration.
    What I said was I could show you ways to get power from such an arch kite.
    I did not say such ways would eclipse existing wind energy systems, only that I can think of them, and they would produce some power and/or achieve physical tasks. I did not say they would “solve AWE”. One more example of Santos mischaracterizing my statements: he implies if anyone could find a way to extract power from an arch kite they have then “solved AWE”. That is just one example of how the current thinking is often a million miles from even understanding what is needed, let alone “solving AWE” which pretty much means rendering today’s wind energy technology obsolete by coming in at below 4 cents/kWh or even heading down to 3 or 2 cents per kWh.
    Let’s just take 3 cents/kWh. How close to achieving 3 cents per kWh is shedding some sand upon liftoff of a kite?
    No amount of additional B.S. is going to help, so save your breath.

YOU need to go. Santos “needs to go”
Endless B.S is not doing anything to solve AWE and in my experience, is hurtful to clear thinking in wind energy.

Not just me, we all “need to go” upward by our growing technical kite knowledge, toward the “tremendous energy” Dr. Moore reminds Barnard of.

There has been fantastic accelerating AWE progress, with no sign of slowing, even just since Barnard posed his pessimistic thoughts. Lets especially celebrate the global evolution of the TRL9 COTS power kite in all its diversity.

Yes, power kite canopies are all arches in principle, even when bridles converge below. Without the tensile catenary arch principle, one is stuck with rigid cantilever wing mass that hardly scales.

Doug, official circles consider flygen and yoyo: almost all companies use them. For what I know three companies use torsion: Selsam, Windswept and Interesting, and someAWE. And also the only one marketed AWES is none of them.

I experimented flygen (FlygenKite), studied torsion (rotating reel) and experimented it a little, and pull (lever arm), not still yoyo.

Torsion devices work well, a little like current wind turbines, but if their basis is on the ground (as it is usually) they cannot fly as high as yoyo or flygen devices, unless they have rigid parts enough to assure the transfer, which limits scaling, or gigantic ground and flying rotors like rotating reel.

Finally nothing is safe in all this. My opinion is that the maximization of space will be the key unless Kitewinder imposes individual systems.

You don’t have a limit to quote for altitude on torque transfer @PierreB
Also, torque transfer systems do not need rigid flown mass. They can definitely benefit from some. But they don’t need it. Even a simple spin bol kite can demonstrate that.

When we hold a spin bol kite, we don’t rotate with it (if there is no swivel the kite will stop rotate). We undergo its pulling force.

1 Like

Hey, absolutely, spin bol kites are pants at wind power and torque energy transfer, they’re not powerful and they compress, but there is a wee bit of energy transfer going on there.
Purpose designed Kite Turbine rotors by comparison, can use multiple, fast, light, powerful, wide spaced wings on multiple levels. As long as the force from the multiple levels compliments net inflation down the stack then large torque energy transfer is also possible. This stacked ring arrangement can easily be taller than a 1:10 (1 ground ring diameter : 10 ground ring diameters top ring altitude) The ideal ratio depending on many configuration and local parameters.

1:10 or more: that sounds plausible. After there are some practical issues such as the coherence of the whole with different winds and the resulted transferred torque, launching and landing, the rigid parts (excepted the rotors) as it scales… Then comparing pros and cons with other methods comprising yoyo and flygen, static, rotary, and crosswind devices, for an unity, for several unities…

1 Like