Cascaded Pumping Cycle Control for
Rigid Wing Airborne Wind Energy Systems
Sebastian Rapp
∗
and Roland Schmehl
†
Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Aerospace Engineering
Espen Oland
‡
Kitemill AS
Thomas Haas
§
KU Leuven, Department of Mechanical Engineering
(19) (PDF) Cascaded Pumping Cycle Control for Rigid Wing Airborne Wind Energy Systems . Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333562506_Cascaded_Pumping_Cycle_Control_for_Rigid_Wing_Airborne_Wind_Energy_Systems [accessed Jun 04 2019].
My summation… for what it’s worth
Fab kinematic analysis … thoroughly detailed … apart from lacking power data … which given only 1000N and I’m guessing 100s for 100m isn’t great.
Fab control system overview A+
I reserve my right to swear out loud at my computer screen for the presumptions in the introduction section.
2 Likes
Nice paper, but the State Machine described omits many real-world states, like hardware failure modes and other real-world operational exceptions.
It would have been better to support this key claim with engineering reasoning, like scaling laws, lifecycle reliability, and power-to-weight comparisons-
"most of the published papers are dedicated to the design of control systems applicable to flexible wing kite power systems[4–8]. However, due to better scaleability and efficiency the trend goes towards rigid wing AWE systems reflected by the fact that almost all companies in the field operate rigid wing prototypes. Nevertheless, available publications on rigid wing kite control are rare. "
This is essentially an appeal-to-authority logical fallacy, by a small insular AWES design circle. Roland’s count of AWE players consistently omits many small players working with “flexible” power kites, a persistent observation bias. In popular power kiting domains, only flexible kites exist. It would be just as simplistic to only reason from this contradictory fact. Flexible ship kite derivatives are COTS TRL9 baseline models for theoretic rigid wing claims to measure against.
1 Like