Network Kites and Daisy network kite rotors

@Ollie has updated his Tensile Rotary Power Transmission model
It works a lot faster than any of mine.

He says…
Finally managed to get material damping in there.

Axial force applied from start, after 2 seconds torque applied at the top, after another 2 seconds torque applied at the bottom. This is what happens if you slam the breaking current on.

Next step, add in aerodynamic damping…
And he sees a lot of scope to further improve the model.

1 Like

That’s “braking” current…

1 Like

:rofl:Dunno @dougselsam… Sometimes when I slam it on… It really is breaking current.

@Rodread, please could you enumerate the main elements of the network Daisy kites?

I see the stacked kite rings and the kite lifter, that for an unity.
I guess the network concerns the top of unities and contains the kite lifters. But I am not sure of it.

Perhaps the stacked kite rings are parts of the network, although the concept of connecting unities (= several stacked kite rings) is different of a stacked kite rings (= an unity).

A preliminary analysis could allow to begin to see if the network concept is workable as a full organization of Daisy kites, that in regard to various winds.

I’m really not sure what you mean here @PierreB
There is a huge amount of enumeration, evaluation, computation, a huge range of configuration parameters and a huge range of potential operations. Is it quantitative test data? Qualitative analysis?
From my last simulation analysis mixed with @Ollie’s power scaling mixed with looking at test handling…
I reckon with good generator control, the current kite rig style, PTO sizing and TRPT dimensions (might change the TRPT ring configuration slightly) could handle a 3x3 (tall x number on ring) kite stack up to 10kW, with the same lifter.

A fair comment on the Daisy architecture is that there is no MW scheme proposed.
OK. It hasn’t been “enumerated.” It has been alluded to and hinted toward. Scalable architecture methods have been demonstrated in simulation and physical prototyping. Also methods by which a single turbine configuration (as a net of x many kites in rotary net configuration) may be combined in steady field packing beside similar turbines… With ever taller nets able to work near the centre of such an array.

The limits of transmission of torque on a TRPT is probably what you want to know. And I’ve simulated how that can be done with soft kite turbines using no rigid structure… So… Still looking

This is a very very rough guestimate of potentially what a 1MW single turbine daisy system may be like.

Rated Power 1000 kW
Blade length to rotor radius ratio 0.3 "Current rotor 0.45
Rated Wind Speeds 11 m/s
Power Coefficient 0.2 “Current rotor about 0.1
I reakon diffiuclt to get much above 0.2”
Tip Speed Ratio 7 “Current rotor between 3-4
With a better rotor we should be able to get this up to 6-7”
Air Density 1.225 kg/m3
Lift Coefficient (lift kite) 1
Drag Coefficient (lift kite) 0.2
Tension to Torque Ratio 6 This will depend on the TRPT design
Number of kite ring layers 12 added by roddy

Required Total Rotor Area 6133.2 m2
Rotor area per kite ring 511.1 m2 added by roddy
Rotor Radius 17.9 m
Blade length 5.4 m
Rated Rotor Speed 4.3 rad/s 41.16895347
Axial Induction 0.055
Thrust Coefficient 0.21
Rotor Thrust 94500 N
Lift kite lift required 1297223 N
Elevation Angle 0.6 rad 35
Static Lift Kite Size equivalent 23736.5 m2

Rated Torque 231953.8 Nm
Required Line Tension 1391723 N

Notice static lift kite equivalent size here is huge… and kinda wrong in the calc …it’s not displaying the potential of x wind kites nor the potential of controlled lift on driving kites.
There would be a huge lot of remixing of capabilities and re optimising of parameters before we got anywhere near this scale… Dream on if you like.
There a fanciful prediction for a MW scale Daisy exists

1 Like

@Rodread Indeed I should clarify what I said in my previous comment.

For what I understand (thank to correct me if I am wrong) I see two elements of the Daisy network kite rotors:

  1. the stacked kite rings (with kite connections, with connections of stacked kite rings) as an unity:

  2. the connections of the stacked rings (by alveoli containing the lifters like a honeycomb?) leading to the whole network.

The question can be how 1 then 2 can be realized in regard to various winds in height (1), then in the zone of the whole network (1 and 2).

On “First Year Review” @Ollie indicates in the conclusion: “The aim of this research is to improve the operation of the Daisy Kite and assess how scalable the concept is.”
Is there an updated version?

Yeah,
the update was called 2nd year review I believe.
alveoli?
OK, there are many more than 2 parts.
As for how the whole works together. Generally, the part moving round fastest is not going to slow any of the other parts from going round. The part sweeping the most area is making shed loads of power.
Higher parts will drive more, more often. Driven parts will likely assist in inflation more. Networks help with this stuff.

Please can you indicate the main parts with a rough sketch?
I just found a sketch (see the attachment below) on a complete Daisy network kite rotors on Multi-kite airborne wind energy systems (MAWES) - #19 by Rodread.


How can this hold with different winds in the same zone, with a computerized control, without?

The “23736.5 m²” value can concern the required area for the lift of the whole system in regard to the transferable torque, comprising the lift induced by the kite rings, the static lift kite supplying the complement.

I remember the calculations for the rotating reel system mentioning the required lift for a given transferable torque.

1 Like

The photographs show a stacked kite ring but not the whole network. The videos show the whole network but the elements are not separate enough to allow a clear understanding.

Well, Good. I’m not going to give all my secrets away then.
Bloody hoped it would be understandable by now @PierreB
I have been sharing this idea with you for years.
Bloody loads has been shared on this subject and is out there.
It’s not as simple as saying magical topological analysis along the lines of
2019-09-20_20-36-24
There’s like some stick, some tape, some string and a wheel, and a foamy bit.
That will work if you tie it all together and has done.
Yes complexity can evolve from simple networking of simple parts.

BTW… I am enjoying that paper despite the incredible complexity of terms
( Brain the size of a small planet) (eh… not me)

To be more precise the aerodynamic moment can be solved by the axial aerodynamic force which comprises both lift and drag.

The Required Line Tension of 1391723 N can be the required axial aerodynamic force (lift and drag) to solve the 231953.8 Nm Rated Torque, possibly comprising the kite lifter as I mentioned.

However the required axial force 1291723 N (about 130 tons) is a huge value in regard to the 231953.8 Nm Rated Torque. By comparison for some Parotor configuration (chapter 22, pages 569-570: Ground rotor diameter dg 50 m, Flying rotor inner diameter dk 40 m, Flying rotor outer diameter dk,o = 70m, Distance between rotors lK 100 m) the aerodynamic moment (torque?) of 683 kNm can be solved by the axial aerodynamic force of (“ONLY”) 250 kN (of which lift = 125 kN, and drag = 217 kN), but with only a single layer.

Perhaps for Daisy it is the result of the part of transferable torque layer after layer on 12 layers of kite rings, leading to an increasing part of the Required Line Tension (axial aerodynamic force (lift and drag)) proportionally to the Rated Torque as the number of layers or the total height increase.

@Rodread provided some calculations of the transferable torque between 2 layers :

Yeah
And check out how small the shaft diameter is
Tiny
It’s based on the existing shaft.
Also the lift to torque ratio was specified at the start.
Ia there any account here for rigidity of TRPT? No.
Hence tonnes of lift needed
Did I mention not to rely on that calculation.?
Try link to the nicer graph too.
Remember previously I explained my open source system plans and then you adjusted them to take out a para rotor patent…?
No this time cove.
Details details

This remark is misplaced. I have already a patent about rotating reel as you know, and with a good search report (only A):
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?CC=FR&NR=3034473A1&KC=A1&FT=D&ND=3&date=20161007&DB=&locale=fr_EP
The figure 1 is reproduced in First Year Review in page 69.

Moreover Daisy could be seen by @dougselsam as a SuperTurbine ™ variant. Rudy Harburg’s patent can also be seen as a relevant prior art.

I’m just trying to analyze which AWES can scale. It looks like the higher Daisy is (for the same diameter), the higher the axial force / torque ratio. It is a question of proportions between the diameter and the height, but also of the number of stacked kite rings allowing Daisy to reach a high height/diameter ratio, the price to pay being the high axial force / transferable torque ratio.

For the rotating reel parotor (with only one rotating kite), it is hardly different as the diameter is roughly the same as the top height for an optimal transferable torque with the least axial force (lift and drag) possible. Stacked Daisy is thin while not stacked Parotor is fat, but the principle of transferable torque is similar: see the figure 22.18 (chapter 22, page 571) showing that higher is the distance between the flying and the ground rotors, higher is the axial force / transferable moment ratio.

Perhaps I could correct it a bit, as the axial force / torque ratio looks to be the same (about 6) for the 1000 kW sample (on Network Kites and Daisy network kite rotors - #34 by Rodread) than for other smaller examples, likely due to similar proportions.

However said axial force / torque ratio looks to be very high. Using the 1000 kW Daisy stacked kite ring unity as a reeling yoyo system, that becomes:
Required Line Tension = force = 1391723 N. This force is multiplied by reel-out speed = 11/3. Then the result is multiplied by 4/9 due to the squared apparent wind speed less reel-out speed.
Result: 2.267993 MW.

Daisy designs (which were mentioned but described poorly in your patent @PierreB ) were the first hollow axis autogyro kite turbine … There was quite a lot of potential configuration presented openly on the old forum as soon as I devised it. As for priority dates yes - Rudy Harburg #1 Doug S#2 My yahoo open work#3. Para-rotor came later. Daisy was the first hollow axis autogyro kite turbine. And quite a lot more besides. Moving on.

Maybe @PierreB you should upgrade to ollies 2nd year review for a discussion on the differences in torque transmission

The analysis you did with Roland figure 22.18 (chapter 22, page 571)


Describes how a single ground plane PTO rotor interacts with a single flying rotor kite autogyro in a single configuration

That’s quite different to a stacked and aligned system analysis


Or soft rotary kite system scaling using >100 kites transmitting torque over a soft line network
Like

Yes it has limits as partially shown in

but the benefits are huge.
Ask Rachel…

She’s waaay more clevererer than me

@PierreB
You’re suggesting a method of
holding the torque at the same time as generating from Yo-Yo.

Sounds like the 2nd generation mode of a para rotor…

I can’t wait to see it work.
Make sure to keep us up to date on progress.

No, it is only a yoyo version. It is easy to know it by the numbers I provided.

[/quote]

No, it is not like the 2nd mode generation of Rotating Reel Parotor of which the flying rotor remains stationary.

It is only a suggestion for a yoyo version as the axial force is greater as the moment. But it is for later.

Indeed 2.3.3 page 25 Parotor: “the Parotor uses eight soft kites on a single rotor with a TRPT. In this case the TRPT consists of four tethers equally spaced around the rotors. There are no rigid compo-
nents other than a rotor at each end of the transmission.”
I agree this description. And you? Do you agree the Parotor is a TRPT?

I said:

Similar does not mean exactly the same.
The main challenge of all torque transfer devices is the distance of the transmission, so the top height. Rotating Reel Parotor intends to resolve it by implementing a large rotor enough to reach high altitude, the price to pay being the difficulty to build a huge rotor without rethinking it. Stacked Daisy intends to resolve it by superimposed stack ring kites allowing to reach high altitude, the low torque in regard to the high axial force being the price to pay as I mentioned.

One mentions the prior art in a patent. By this one mentions the problems from the prior art. In the case of Daisy I mentioned possible deformations. I believe you confirmed it in some tests you related in videos.
You state it is the first hollow axis autogyro kite turbine. Can you justify it with a search report? File a patent and one will see.
I don’t claim Rotating Reel Parotor is the first hollow axis autogyro kite turbine. Even the first drawing shows a parachute between the wings-blades. The claim 7 indicates a hollow mast for another function, and this claim is connected to the first as it is a dependent claim. Fortunately there are experienced patent examiners who know the nuances and how patents work.

Your remarks suggest you don’t understand the principle of the Rotating Reel Parotor system as it is
as close to the NTS and KiteGen carousels as to Daisy or SuperTurbine ™ I quoted. So your timelines is nonsense. Moreover generally patents quote other patents as prior art. In a similar way scientific publications quote scientific publications as references.
Note I quote both Daisy and SuperTurbine ™ although @dougselsam considers Daisy as a SuperTurbine ™ The most crosswind kite power system? - #10 by dougselsam.
Patents exist also to avoid arbitrary remarks like yours, unless it is your concept of “open sharing” I don’t yet understand. In the search report there is no relevant prior art for what I claim.

Rachel’s multi-kite airborne wind energy systems (MAWES) are not torque transfer devices. I quote from the Introduction:
" The system class under consideration is that of rigid-wing pumping type systems."

In page 7: “The second observation is that in order to maximize efficiency, a fixed number of aircraft should always be distributed over as many layers as possible. This strategy maximizes the amount of available harvesting area.”
I think the invoked benefits are not quite the same as for Daisy, but it is a subject for discussion.