Power kites are already been tested and investigated. They pulls, but they don’t rotate. SkySails tested power kites for both towing a ship and generate electricity: the first work (with some limits), not the second (not more, not less than Magnus balloons).
I have a simple principle: what doesn’t work for some time will never work.
So other AWES architectures are needed. They should maximize the space use, so the flying body or its swept area, should be as large as the tethers are long. I repeated it thousands times.
PierreB,
If you are not doing numeric calculations, don’t use the language of mathematical probability (“chances…not high but not zero… chances… equivalent”).
Your heuristic, “what doesn’t work for some time will never work,” is disproven every time a pioneer perseveres after “some time”. How long is “some time” to you, so that historic counter-examples can be provided? How about the long-lasting light-bulb or safe aviation? Those took “some time”.
Race-for-Water used a SkySails power kite to create rotation force to its propeller in regen mode. Your own FlyGen produced rotation from a non-rotating power kite. The world will likely improve on current examples.
DaveS,
I didn’t use “probabilities” word, but “chances” word.
It is for ship towing, not for utility-scale electricity generation.
You at least now allow ship-towing produces rotation from a power kite, if not your FlyGen.
“Chance” and “probability” are synonyms in dictionaries and WP- " Chance may refer to…Probability (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability)"
If you were not writing about probabilities, what sense of “zero” and “equivalent” did you mean?
No.
No: ship-towing is not electricity production.
Only the second is used in mathematical language. I use the first.
You will win the game of the last word I leave you now. But the systems you advocate will not have even the first word.
I agree it is a good heuristic - if a few companies cannot achieve some goal given enough time and other resources, it is more likely to not be worthwhile.
Another venture may still possibly be worthwhile if you can discover why the other parties failed and come up with a possible solution.
A good heuristic, not necessarily a good way to choose your goals. Tesla succeeded (?) at something that many others have tried and failed at before. Making an electrical car that people will buy. The only difference I can see here is throwing even more money at the problem and good marketing.
Race for water made electricity from towing. Similarly Dave Lang’s White Paper on H2 production at sea also counts. Your FlyGen counts as a rotation proof, if ship-towing does not.
Let Pasteur have the last word here on chance in science-
“La chance ne sourit qu’aux esprits bien préparés.”
Your definition of electric power production differs from what most of us are thinking about, same as your definition that kitesurfing is airborne wind energy… 
True, Tallak.
My definition of electrical power production is whatever Electrical Engineering accepts as such. Same with KiteSurfing as AWE, as defined by the basic physics.
Popular opinion is a poorer guide to technical usages than citing formal criteria. I therefore count aviation tailwinds as AWE, with proportional fuel savings, and bird soaring, wind-seeds, and even toy kites. These are all formally AWE and worthy of study. Magnus kites too, but its one of the weak AWE ideas.
In case you haven’t noticed, the game daveS and JoeF play is to try to redefine words already in common use, in a vain effort to somehow create an illusion that they are involved in wind energy. Rather than trying to create actual change in the actual 3-D world, they think if they can just change the dictionary, they can pretend to be creating change. This has been gong on for 12 years. Most people find it quite annoying. If you point out simple facts, like published statistics for energy production in general, let alone wind energy production, do not include routing airline flights to take advantage of tailwinds, you will not get an answer. Instead they just move on to their next absurd statement. Rather than seeing how silly and ineffective it makes them look in wind energy circles, they seem to think they come out appearing as winners, having demonstrated their cleverness, rather than stubbornly obnoxious, offering no true energy solutions.
Doug overlooks that no one cites standard definitions from engineering science more than JoeF and me. Yes, we do coin new terms, like “AWE” itself.
That’s why Doug has no examples to offer, while I have been invoking here third-party definitions from WP and the applicable engineering science fields. Let Doug and Tallak define terms as they will, and we’ll keep track of their versions.
And the habitual format for a daveS response begins with:
(observer’s name) (verb indicating neglect or misunderstanding by the observer)
examples:
“Doug overlooks”,
“Pierre ignores”
etc.
12 years of silly online word games, still no power generated.
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.
https://www.ingenia.org.uk/Ingenia/Articles/40fced9b-394d-4c6f-a9a7-ed0b952023a8
Moreover the air mass in rotation would add some stability.
1 Like