Since my original post I have come up with some additional ideas, but first I would like to comment on some of my original statements.
• The size of the lifter kite increases to the point where it is difficult and dangerous to launch and land.
If a power kite is used then the size of the kite can be much smaller though autonomous launch and land system is still a problem.
• A larger turbine will rotate at a much slower velocity requiring more gearing to operate the rope drive efficiently.
The diameter of the drive pulley of the rope drive can be made very large and this effectively increases the rope speed, causing lower rope tension, thinner ropes and more power transfer. The large drive pulley can also be used as a support for the turbine(s), Daisy or MAR3. (See attached)
• The system is not easily adaptable to incorporate multiple turbines.
Although a frame adds more weight to the system, it is necessary to support the turbines and pulleys. It also aids in orienting the system to face the wind. The frame can be aerodynamically designed to provide lift and to protect the turbines from damage during launch and land.
• The floating generator will become too heavy and an alternate support method will be required.
Although a vertical axis generator and driven pulley would be more convenient for adjusting to crosswind kite movements and changes in wind direction, a floating pulley/generator could be supported on a rotating turntable.
• Operating the lifter kite in figure-of-eight crosswind mode might cause the rope drive to rub against the walls of the pulleys causing wear and a reduction in rope drive efficiency.
If we operate the Kitewinder lifter kite in crosswind mode (eg. lazy eight) then the turbine(s) suspended below will follow the same pattern but will not rotate around the tether axis as the lifter or power kite does. The turbines will move from side to side with only a slight up and down movement (lazy eight). The paddle on the Kitewinder will cause the turbine(s) to ‘cant’ in the the effective wind direction. This cant angle can be as much as 60-70 deg. The present cable has drive and driven pulleys which are vertical and so the cant will cause the cable to rub on the walls of the drive pulley. If the drive pulley is horizontal, then this problem is avoided. In the attached sketch (excuse my lousy drawing) I have used two counterrotating turbines to neutralize torque. The cable drive is a serpentine rope which passes around the two drive wheels and is transferred to the ground by means of horizontal angled idler pulleys. The cant angle will wrap or unwrap the rope around the idler pulleys and not rub the walls of the pulleys.
Assuming each turbine will produce 200 watts at a wind velocity of 8 m/sec then we can expect power outputs of 3 - 10 KW at effective wind velocities of 2 - 3 times the 8 m/ sec respectively. This power output is intermittent, dropping to almost zero at the turnarounds. Kitewinder’s data using a moving vehicle shows that an equivalent turbine area would only generate 1.1 KW at 28 m/sec. Evidently the combination of cable drive losses and and turbine inefficiency limits the power output.