Interconnected kites are an open field of study in AWE, with scaling, density, and control advantages over single-kite AWES architectures. This topic starts from ideal geometric and topological principles of kite networks and works toward optimal design concepts.
Quick summary of traditional, hobby, and experimental kite networks-
Kite Trains develop lift in stages enabling very high operations. The kite train altitude record to almost 10km has stood for around a century.
Kite Arches are a powerful way to set a lot of kites crosswind from two anchors.
Kite Lattices are a theoretic new category of 3D kite structure for AWE.
Networking principles are found in endless string-based rigging technologies.
@Rodread is a big fan of kite networks and has done his own development and simulations. This topic is going to blow up.
Yes, Rod is a key figure in AWE Networked Kite concepts, seemingly the first to ever simulate them digitally and also publish in academia (2nd Springer book). Pierre and a few others have also explored kite networks of various kinds.
For our purposes here, let a kite network method be defined as any sort of interconnection aloft between kite elements. This is a topological criteria. At its simplest, multi-line kites are elemental networks; for example, a two line kite is topologically an arch kite. Ultimate networks could be comprised of thousands of lines and unit-kites rigged into large formations.
I think if you check my patents you will see hundreds of line drawings, rendered from my hundreds of computer simulations of “networked kites”, predating Roddy’s great simulations.
What Rod shared were time-motion simulations with realistic physics. Patent drawings as such are static. If there are any actual ST dynamic simulations, let us know. Also any datable texts first identifying kite network concepts, to give due where deserved.
Realistic physics? How do you know that? Roddy’s last prototype flew apart.
The soft wings you’ve advocated for ten years lacked performance. Hard blades as I’ve advocated worked better. Like I said on your “forum”, he had been listening to the wrong people.
Yes, yes, we know - you are resistant to facts.
My early contributions to AWE are adequately documented and explained. When I run a SuperTurbine, you can see the descriptions of performance are accurate.
I would prefer to NOT receive any more e-mails with your name on them as this site has just done. You’ve already ruined your own “forum”. Now you seek to dominate the new forum that was started to get way from that. I’m not going to waste any more of my life arguing with your inaccurate accusations. If that means giving up this forum, so be it.
Stay on topic please. Rod’s kite network computer simulations have included physics. That prototypes come apart in high wind is testing. If you did real numeric simulations of your ST, let us know.
The basic topologies of networked kites are as follows-
Single-line kites are the simplest topology.
A train of kites has a “chain” topology, and a kitefarm of single line kites has a “brush” topology.
An arch-kite is topologically a torus; note that the surface plane is part of topological kite structure in analysis.
Bridle topologies can be considered in a fractal sub-dimension ignored when classifying overall topology of a kite rig.
Meshes and 3D lattices are progressively more complex topologies, but ultimately resolve into the same math of relations between adjacent units and the holes created.
3D Kite-Lattices have theoretic topological potential to accept wind from any direction without overall geometric rotation. Lattice waves driven by wind are the theoretic AWES power harvesting basis.
Rod’s kite network simulations are of single Daisy AWES
and what I (rod) call OM kites
I have renderings and simulations of kite networks … just not simulated with the working turbine inside a lift network yet.
I’ve (rod) removed an abusive post by @dougselsam … However, I do agree a theme of the post removed …
Superturbine predates and inspired Daisy
The distinction between the designs is Daisy exploits a hollow axis torque transfer using the tethers as the shaft medium.
In fact the ST and Daisy AWES prototypes both derive from Rudy Harburg’s prior art. Rudy is a great guy that has released his patent to the public domain.
As rotating systems, we use phase-space analysis to interpret topological kite-network states.
Santos said: “As rotating systems, we use phase-space analysis to interpret topological states.”
Selsam replies: Santos uses big words to pretend he is some sort of “expert”. At this point, after ten years of his ever-shifting themes, I don’t see any subject over which he does not pretend “expertise”. Yet in spite of claiming to be the top AWE researcher for years, he has nothing working today to show for all that “research”, all that “expertise”.
“we use phase-space analysis” - what a joke… “we”. Who the hell is “we” today? “Phase-space analysis” - where is your example of that? “We”… “use”… “phase-space analysis”… Sure Dave. What happened to your “Bose-Einstein Condensates”? Everyone is expected to just conveniently forget whatever you said yesterday. Today is a new day, for a new round of complete BS from daveS. As far as Harburg, I did not derive anything from him. I saw his work long after coming up with my own wind energy designs. Whether he is “a great guy” (meaning you have not had enough interaction with him to annoy him to death), I have not seen any working example from Rudy H. There’s a big difference between being able to get a “sort-of” patent issued, and developing a working wind energy system. But you have cited one more example of illustrations exploring networked kites, whether from CAD, or drawn by hand"
Phase space analysis is the semantic division of a rotation cycle into discrete parts. For example, helicopter rotor designers pay close attention to “advancing” and “retreating” blade phase. For an AWE case, a looping kite can be said to be located at the top or bottom of its loop, and the top phase is characterized by slower flight at lower G-force, while the bottom phase is faster flight at higher G-force.
This is not “BS”, just basic rotary engineering.
RudyH deserves credit for the earliest “inventive leap” of the (edit - Stack of rotors) AWES architecture in our social circle. JoeF can remind us of even earlier prior art in this AWES architectural space. Doug’s specific contribution seems to be the drive-shaft variant.
(rod edit Consider removing or seriously revising the following please)
Doug’s kite networking concepts do not seem to go beyond the “single-line” train topology that Eddy patented a century earlier, without proposing looping torsion.
Continuing elaboration of topological kite networking concepts to include vertically ordered functional layers. The Surface is the bottom network layer, generally followed by a Transmission layer, then a Power-Harvesting layer and perhaps a Pilot-Lift layer. Many sublayers can be defined in each major layer.
@kitefreak was talking about simulations, he didn’t claim rod invented kite networks in general.
@dougselsam you can voice your doubt about the validity of Rod’s simulations.
A prototype flying apart doesn’t mean the same person can’t do simulations. Only if one has claimed to have simulated the prototype exactly and THEN it flies apart one should conclude that the simulation wasn’t good.
Offtopic, personal attack, big nono
Offtopic. Noone has claimed you didn’t contribute to AWE or that your descriptions of performance were inaccurate.
You can alter your notification settings. - Click on avatar in top right, settings, preferences, Emails / notifications
Also: That’s not a nice thing to say. If you must, make it private.
Don’t just provoke people!
If you see a problematic post, flag it! You have not flagged any posts. If there are any other issues with moderation, talk to us directly or use the forum feedback category!
@kitefreak hasn’t accused you of anything in this thread, but you accuse him of making false accusations.
We’re not against you here. You can be a part of this. Or you can provoke people until they turn against you and then leave stating this as the reason.
His judgement was on point.
@kitefreak is not a moderator. Reminding someone to stay on topic is not “pretending to moderate”.
Leave old feuds out of the new forum! We’ll try to make sure noone ruins anything.
Again, if any posts are inappropriate, flag them where they are. Don’t just randomly complain about people!
Noone claims the simulation is perfect. You can voice doubts about simulations without being a dick.
Again, noone doubts that kite networks have existed for a long time. @kitefreak has just claimed that rod was to his knowledge the first to simulate them.
We had a discussion about ‘big words’. On the importance of writing clearly - off-topic discussion split from "The no Market Hypothesis" topic
Discuss the arguments, not the person! Leave old feuds out of the new forum!
You’re free to doubt things someone said due to their track record. But his is unacceptible. If you spot bullshit, call it out where is, but don’t complain about it on a completely different topic.
@dougselsam please be civil and discuss the topic on hand!
Thanks Luke, for the moderation support.
Doug raises a good point about the use of Bose-Einstein Statistics (BES), which clearly apply to kite networks. However, Bose-Einstein Condensate (BEC) identification requires the qualifier “analogue” in proper physics usage. While these seem like “big words”, they are not meaningless, but well worth learning.
BES in kite networks applies to coherent lattice waves, just as a Mexican Wave in a sports stadium audience exhibits BES.
I’ve got no idea what you were saying and I doubt anyone else has.
Yes, there is some homework required before the concepts make sense. The sports stadium analogy was a try at accessible.
BES is quite simple- if a collection of quasi-particles (unit kites in a network) are acting in unison, that’s BES coherence, but if they are just randomly bumping around, like a gas, that’s not BES.
Still sounds like gibberish to me.^^
I recommend this series of posts (click next on the bottom):
The linked text was off kite-topic. My text maps directly to kite design and dynamics, a falsifiable domain where most anyone can replicate basic kite actions.
Identify just what kite network effects are wished to connect to their formal physics, to discuss them one-by-one into clarity.
It helps to know many odds and ends, like sailboat rigging, Network Theory, Braid Theory, crystallography, semiconductors, traditional kites, and so on, for this topic. Part of the learning curve is the abundance of crystal lattice models for possible kite network use. I am reviewing hypercube topologies currently.
The future of kite networks is not an easy topic; concepts are mostly borrowed from other hard domains. There is no clear guide into this subject; that has to come later.