The same with the study of the impact of the airfoil-airmass interaction:
What are pros and cons of multi-kite systems compared to single kite systems? It looks that multi-kite systems could reach higher altitude, keeping high tether drag only on the secondary tethers, but by using more longer main tether, so more space.
See also
and
and also Centrifugally Stiffened Rotor (CSR) as a model for an AWES? and New research on Multi Kite systems from Freiburg and Limerick.
These papers show the ever-widening gap between Roland and Moritz’s academic circle and the rest of the kite world, ever since Wubbo passed.
Multi-kites have a long history. In AWE, especially on the Old Forum, Kite Networks have long been a central study. Dr. Moore’s CSR seems to be the best early academic study of multi-kites rotating in the same plane, along with Rod’s Daisy; both “MAWES” as defined in these papers, but neither cited under a persistent pattern of EU academic provincialism. Classic Kite Trains once again are not considered, although obviously “mutli-kite”. Also not mentioned are AWE LadderMills, Spider-Mills, or Lattices.
The impressive math models do not yet capture the wonderful formal chaos that top empirical multi-kite flyers observe, the cautious credentialed academics opting instead for idealization under simplified control theory. At some point the two worlds, real and ideal, must meet again.
Here’s real-world prior art-
29 Fighter Kites on one line in 2007. Note “Terry” mentioned in audio. I helped Terry McPherson set a later record of 39 fighter kites on one line, in 2009, at Long Beach, WA-
Here’s just two fighter kites on one line in 2007, with just enough “aggregate stability” to stay up passively-
These topologies descend from Eddy Trains (although Eddy did not invent them). Jim Patton is the modern KiteGod of the Eddy Train, which he independently re-invented(!) I got to fly a 500m high train of large kites in Ilwaco, WA with Jim, from my home away from Texas.
Those who have such unique MAWES kite experience and knowledge of kite history are not part of the EU academic circle dominating AWE conferences and government funding. Although this not the “proof” Pierre demands of an AWE community dis-connect (what Tallak calls a “conspiracy theory”), its rather good evidence.
The Old Forum remains the best single source of Kite Network discussion, including the CSR class.
Reminded by [Zanon et al] above that CSR can be attributed to Payne and McCutcheon fig3 1975. Loyd himself invoked the patent as second only to Pocock, The Master.
How interesting that we are tending to down-select from the menu P&C gave us. The concepts will duly prove out from best-to-worst. Northern EU has settled on fig3; and kPower on fig5, including a multi-kite variant P&C did not note. Fig3 is nutty, as if Payne had somehow intended to fool the Teutons ; ^)
Personal Note: Payne and I both lived in the small town of Annapolis, when this one indispensable AWE patent was filed. I was Captain of my high school sailing team (Key School, Annapolis), that got to sail against the one-design Collegiate League, at the US Naval Academy, for lack of any better competition. Payne was a super-innovative naval architect. We were both active in local open-design “rule-based” racing classes, but never met. I hope kPower’s fig5 down-select keeps AWE’s royal legacy close to the Chesapeake Bay. Just across the Bay was Pelican Land, a skydiving Mecca where Jalbert’s parafoil canopy was taking revolutionary hold, where I spent many weekends with my Dad, a top airshow daredevil. This all set my course in AWE, for better or worse, why I could walk away from the other Bay, when Google-Makani swallowed KiteShip on Alameda Island, and went another direction than sailing-in-the-sky.
Payne further patented a mile-wide power arch (that kPower’s Mothra1 has come closest to), but never got as far as true kite lattices, which kPower thinks to be the ultimate “sailing-in-the-sky” MAWES architecture. If the great Payne is the father of MAWES, these kite-lattices are his child too.
Indeed the rest of the AWE world comprises Makani or Windlift 
.
How many watts the devices on the videos make?
"the EU academic circle dominating ": is it good or is it bad? I don’t think you would prefer not EU organization like Makani.You want replacing them, invoking your kPower (replacing @Kitepower ?!) . Please can you show your realizations and their efficiency? Publications? Prototypes?
Yet another European Multi Kite system
Indeed, and you are invited to the next conference https://irishtechnews.ie/wind-energy-conference-ireland/ leading by @rschmehl ([quote=“kitefreak, post:2, topic:487”] the ever-widening gap between Roland and Moritz’s academic circle and the rest of the kite world [/quote] or [quote=“kitefreak, post:2, topic:487”] the EU academic circle dominating AWE conferences [/quote]),
Congratulations for it. You could wait a long time if @kitefreak (kpower and not kitePower) led AWE sessions.
@kitefreak belong to an old generation engineer who know how 100W feels on a shaft just by touching it.
MAWES
I’ve used this acronym for maritime airborne wind energy systems. But I think it’s more fitting to use it for multi kite/blade/wing awes.
There will emerge another acronym for ship traction awes.
Indeed this could become a “Spidermill” (Laddermill with crosswind kites) configuration, so a class of multi-kite airborne wind energy systems, where several kites combine their respective strengths to the main tether which transmits the resulting global force to the winch acting the generator, using yoyo method.
This can be a reality if the difficult control is achieved.
A sketch is available on Laddermill - #8 by PierreB, and one of the videos is already on Laddermill - #11 by Windy_Skies.
The subject MAWES has a huge cross-over with the forum section on Network Kites [Wiki] Network Kites
Forum links related to MAWES: Scaling in numbers rather than size, [Wiki] Network Kites, Laddermill, Centrifugally Stiffened Rotor (CSR) as a model for an AWES?, New research on Multi Kite systems from Freiburg and Limerick, Kite Networks, Does torque transfer over a network of tensioned hoops scale better (better power to weight) than over a solid shaft?…
And MAWES comprise Kite Networks.
I put again the publication on
Page 7, figure 6 concerning the dual-airfoil 10 MW system. Two tether lengths are considered: 8 km then 15 km, involving in land use being respectively about 200 km² and 700 km² !!! Resulting a density of respectively 0.05 MW/km² and 0.014 MW/km².
When the power/land and space use ratio will be considered, some progress could occur.
Pierre,
Whose fragmentary Google Drive is that?? Those drawings of mine are old and mostly obsolete and do not represent the current ongoing progression of my thinking. There are thousands more drawings on better sites. Its as if Ortho-Kite-Bunch is as far as you ever got. My progressing thinking about kite networks is represented by metamaterial science as developed in the last five years or so.
Why did you start the MAWES topic if Kite Networks was already going? It too bad Moderators think topics like Kite Networks must be opened and closed on some sort of intentional limit rather than on the expectation that fresh insight can happen anytime.
Kite Networks are a subcategory of MAWES.
Under formal network topological classification, all MAWES are Networks. For example, the paper cited describes a MAWES of peer-to-peer network topology.
Cite your sources, please.
I have no formalized source, only recent pratic of use, like on Multi-kite airborne wind energy systems (MAWES) - #19 by Rodread, or on Multi-kite airborne wind energy systems (MAWES) - #5 by Rodread.
(Here I used MAWES in regard to some concerns involved in the publications I later specified on Multi-kite airborne wind energy systems (MAWES) - #22 by PierreB.
In the meantime some commentators indicated other MAWES categories I mention above, that beside the publications. It is the reason why I tried to gather related topics on Multi-kite airborne wind energy systems (MAWES) - #20 by PierreB)
MAWES looks to be a main category and kite networks and other could be subcategories but it can be discussed for another classification.
Hopefully many fruitful topics will get started on the subjects, focusing on different aspects of them or revisiting old ideas again.
One can see the architectures discussed are not the same, or the focus of the topics is not the same, so they deserve separate topics I think. Maybe the topic titles could be edited if the distinction is unclear. A discussion on classification perhaps is another discussion for another topic.
