Doug ignores himself as the ready example here of non-technical word usage, when he writes “no power”.

In fact, as a ship-kite power-kite guy, my circle holds the max power records in AWE. Its a team effort, and we all share in the successes. Even the KiteLab Ilwaco’s Seiko self-winding quartz watch AWES counts as real power, at the other extreme.

Doug’s solo effort is closer in power to the watch than the ship-kite, but still worthy. Lets hope he makes more power just as he wants of others.

Also, daveS, actual practitioners do not feel an endless need to cite (or deny) standard definitions, but rather use words the way they are normally understood, so as to make their message understood by normal people.
I forgot one:
“Peter fails”
or its equivalent. (example type of phrase)
I cannot even imagine the running total of the number of times daveS has used this tactic.
One would think that after well over a decade of this nonsense, he would be weary of reading his own repetitive drivel, but instead, it looks like he is just getting started. The longer he goes on, the more impressed with himself he becomes. The internet, with its ease of expressing what nobody would bother publishing in a book, or even waste a stamp to send in a letter, results in some very strange situations.
Sooooo, the “topic” is Magenn (again), and daveS is “an expert” telling everyone “how it is” - in a kaleidoscopic fictitious fantasy carnival-world where everything is upside-down, backwards, and inside-out.

DougS, If you did not “overlook” or “ignore” so much formal knowledge, the phrases would not apply.

Dr. Paul McCready and Miles Loyd are great examples of those who have both practiced flight and used formal terminology well in AWE. Try communicating like them and Good Luck in your AWE practice.

I am a good source of Magenn background in AWE, having known Fred Ferguson and followed his Magnus-based ventures since my own LTA days back in the '80s. If you have any information to add on-topic, please share it.

Funny how you apply these phrases to everyone but yourself and JoeF.
Funny how most teams end up generating at least some power, while you claim to be the best, but rather than generating any power, you point to jets using tailwinds, and hope people fall for it.
Yes I have some more info on Magenn - the same thing I said the moment it reared its ridiculous multi-million-dollar mentally-challenged head:
The idea takes the worst-performing of the commonly-pursued wind turbine types, and reduces the swept area while making it more expensive - and that was just the beginning.
You talk a lot, but with all your supposed “formal knowledge”, produce no results.
Why might that be?

JoeF and I also overlook and perhaps somehow ignore formal knowledge applicable to AWE. Thanks to everyone who helps us fill those gaps.

At least Magenn demoed at higher altitudes in better wind than the ST has been able to show.

You ongoing public relations campaign, trying to get people living in their mom’s basement to think you are the world’s leading authority on wind energy…

I am quite knowledgeable about the ST in relation to aviation scaling laws, and also Magenn shortcomings.

You may know more about supposed “mom’s basement” folks who only understand “common use” of words. Where is the data for that?

And an air Magnus balloon can easily scale, probably more than a kite. I easily realized cylindrical solar balloons until 800 m3, 10 m diameter and 20 m height Solar balloon jumping. The basis was open while the air Magnus balloon should be closed.

See also a 92 m blimp without internal structural framework.

Moreover the air mass in rotation would add some stability.

1 Like

An most of all - the build is really simple… just the outside skin and the rotating drive, pressurize it and add a small pump for leakage… and a onboard HAWT turbine for internal use…

Here is a similar concept to magnus wings. The wing it seems has a C_L in the range 4 to 6 at the moment (which is nuts large if anyone wondered).

A few notes and links-

  • Low Power to Weight is not made up by high Cl.

  • Comparison of high Cl should be made with wings with slats and flaps, like modern airliner wings.

  • Comparison also with biplanes and large low-wing-loading wings.

  • For professional fire fighting, airplanes need to ferry long distances, wherever the fires are in a given year. A slow inefficient cruise is not favored.

  • Low noise is a definite FanWing advantage, but not for fire fighting.

  • Gyroscopic stability becomes an issue if the aircraft needs to roll fast.

  • Hopeful Monsters are loveable, but struggle to survive:

Magnus Effect of a sport ball-

Lift to weight is a metric you seem to put very highly, though our calculations show kite weight is only a big factor in the lower wind range due to gravity slowdown. Higher C_L might even alleviate gravity slowdown. I will agree that mass in general is a bad thing, as is additional motors and moving parts, as is high onboard power use.

Still magnus/fanwing remains an interesting option for AWE, if not the most probable route to success…

Apart from FanWing, and by being focused on AWES, such a comparison with air Magnus balloon would be relevant by taking account of both weight and ease of construction. An AWE rigid plane with (possibly fixed in the construction) slats and flaps is not easy to build but not impossible. Perhaps some soft kites could also obtain a high CL with means comparable to slats and flaps. I think about 4 lines power kites where it is possible to bend the trailing edge during flight, but not with a good result as the initial L/D ratio is already too low.
So for AWE air Magnus balloon is a possible high CL option.

Magnus can only develop high Cl at poor power-to-weight compared to a mass-equivalent power kite.

One way of visualizing the comparison would be to make a SS power kite of the same surface area and mass as the balloon fabric, with no flying motor-gen.

The math paints the same picture about power-to-weight. High Cl has traditionally only been essential for landing a large airplane on a shorter runway, when the plane is dropping and slowing anyway, bleeding off energy.

Let anyone do comparative testing for those who still have doubts.

There are many classic kite designs, “sticky” and soft, with multiple surfaces like a slatted flap wing; not the best flyers.

Magnus will be quite good wrt wildlife…

The First Order Wildlife Factor to AWE Tech is the looming Holocene Extinction. Magnus AWES is a poor engineering choice from that over-arching perspective.

Its plausible that a higher-performing architecture that kills more birds and bats directly could paradoxically save them better from the Holocene Extinction. Once again, the Power Kite seems to be in the Goldilocks zone between inferior design extremes.

Good point…

The Holocene extinction worried me. But now we are saved thanks to the Power Kite. Thanks @kitefreak to be farseeing enough to indicate the way of salvation of humanity and other species.

Pierre, You have not given much prior public notice of concern for extinction, but we are NOT saved yet.

It will take a heroic effort by AWE developers to make the difference. The power kite is far more than pretext for ridicule.

Good luck to anyone who still hopes Magenn can help. Its reasonable to keep the Magnus concept in testing for those who want better data.

@PierreB I hope you dont mind me quoting the data you posted elsewhere:

Blockquote My observations and my question concerns the power consumption of AWES based on Magnus effect but also the Sharp rotor as they scale.

To begin some informations:

  • The chapter 12 of the AWEbook 2018 mentions in page 290 that experiments with a small-scale system (Magnus rotor radius = 0.047 m and length = 0.45 m) the motor power consumption " is much larger than the power produced by the system due, among others, to the significant effect of frictions. For larger scale systems, frictions become less important compared to aerodynamic forces."

  • Omnidea’s curves on show that the motor power consumption is 1/3 or 1/4 the power produced by the system.

  • “Low C for the High Seas Flettner rotor power contribution on a route Brazil to UK Figure 1: One of the first rotor ships, the Buckau (left), and the present-day rotor ship E-Ship 1 (right) Source: (accessed on 10 August 2012, right photo by Carschten). The Flettner rotor modeled here is 35 m tall and 5 m in diameter. Key to its aerodynamic performance are the lift, drag, and moment coefficients, respectively. They determine the lift force l , the drag force d , and the power pME that is needed to drive the rotor.The rotational speed ratio is set to α=3.5. The aerodynamical coefficients are set to cL=12.5, cD=0.2, and cM=0.2, respectively.”

So for Magnus large scale systems the power consumption ratio would be relatively lesser.

The numbers C_L = 12.5 and C_D = 0.2 seem very good and I would assume a best case scenario that could not be expected in real life without further R&D into building such wings.

From what I gather by reading stuff here and there putting in 1/3 or 1/4 of the energy is not uncommon for magnus effect.

I think much of this is due to skin friction, and we cannot expect this to reduce with scale, because, well, skin scales linearily with the projected area of the wing.

Furthermore, the problem for single tether AWE if getting the energy from the kite to the ground, assuming tether strength/mass/diameter to be the main limiting factors. Thinking this way, it doesnt really matter too much if you need to spend that energy locally on the wing.

If a C_D of 12 was realistic, a magnus wing with wingspan 10 m would replace a traditional wing (rigid wing of an airplane) with wingspan 22 meter (the aspect ratio being similar for the two). Though the magnus wing has a much lower glide number and is even more complex to build, I am not sure which is the better option now.

Now to add a few negative aspects og magnus: Because tether is your limiting design factor, you want the kite pull (and thus speed) to be constant. This is not easy to achieve. For magnus wings I cannot see an efficient way to control the power of the wing. You could change the rotational speed during a loop, but that induces further losses (breaking torque) and more weight for the increase in rotor motor power.

Of course you also need a quite hefty power generator for the rotor motors, causing further drag and mass penalty. The power generator probably would introduce a tail to the kite, as now the kite needs to be facing the wind (something that was not really important for just the manus wings)

Let me add, like you did, gyroscopic forces during a loop, along with no straightforward way to control roll and yaw… at least not in a millisecond feedback control sense.

Some of these issues (control issues in particular) would be mitigated by putting the magnus wings in a network, giving then more constant flying speed and reducing the need for power control.

Too good. However cM of 0.2 looks realistic, above all in regard to another coefficient indicated in the chapter 12.

This looks likely, but the high difference of power consumption has been measured for small cylinders ("…much larger than the power produced…") and larger balloons like Omnidea (about 1/3 or 1/4). Perhaps it is due to the relatively higher inertia mass for a larger balloon, I don’t know.