Multi-kite airborne wind energy systems (MAWES)

Indeed, and you are invited to the next conference 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.

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.

8 posts were merged into an existing topic: Questions and complaints about moderation.

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, and one of the videos is already on Laddermill.

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?

1 Like

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.


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), or on Multi-kite airborne wind energy systems (MAWES).
(Here I used MAWES in regard to some concerns involved in the publications I later specified on Multi-kite airborne wind energy systems (MAWES).
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)

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.

Indeed architectures discussed are not the same although they also contain several connected kites. It is why several topics are used. I gather them in a comment.

I like the term MAWES
(Not least because it is used on the island to describe less towny folks on the North end and West side)
I think to insist multi-kite implies one set of multi-kite configurations would be wrong.
multi-kite rotor yo-yo
multi-kite network lifter
multi-kite mechanical drag mode rotor
multi-kite flygen drag mode
multi-kite laddermill or spider-mill (if one ever gets built)
multi-kite arches and stacks have existed for many years.

There are several sorts of MAWES. And also there are also various purposes and concerns. So IMHO several topics with some links between them can facilitate the understanding.

Collecting resources and threads on a topic is what wikis are good for. Please put links to all forum threads in this wiki:

I’ve removed the wiki status from this thread, as it wasn’t used as a wiki:

“Kite Networks” is the superset of all multi-kite architectures, including the narrow MAWES paper example as applied. Its no big deal to keep track of everybody’s special usage these days.

Kite Networks will remain a standard term-of-art, while MAWES co-exists and fares as it will.