Yeah, I think it can be turned into a wide range of products. I’m keen to partner up to get this done. However, It’s going to be very hard to organise making a product as a house husband & part time teacher on the Isle of Lewis
Teach the kids how to make a product.
I don’t think these arguments are good enough to justify further AWES development.
The large vibrator aka. Vortex Bladeless Wind Power justify their continued development with less environmental impact. But they are so inefficient due to minimal swept area, that it’s laughable.
Things I can think of:
- Faster scaling of wind power since no construction is needed (climate change emergency)
- Sailing I’m a huge fan of ship traction awes. The only competition is from traditional or rigid sails
- Higher capacity factor
Crikey @Luke … I thought you were saying there weren’t good enough arguments in favour of justifying further AWES development.
Just in case anyone is looking for reasons … here’s my initial 36 taken from recent presentation file
1.Fail Safety & network part redundancy
2.Minimal Cost prototypes £5k/1.5kW
3.Stability & control from simple networks
4.Fail-soft functionality degradation
5.Stacking => multi kite ring contribution
6.Packing => ground area/kW minimised
7.Power to weight >0.7kW/kg
8.Most Scalable AWES by modular unit network addition
9.Flying tuned for deep in power zone ~=20 -30 deg
10.Line efficiency / kite area also fairing + another trick
11.Separated lift and drive launching & land
12.Yaw & Elevation whole stack stall from lifter or back
13.Modular swap & reconfiguration
14.Solidity reconfigurable by radial expansion, number on ring & concentric OM
15.Lattice and stacked lift cumulation hosting options
16.Smaller wings crash better with less Ek & frangible net
17.Structure power and transmission from wind
18.Fewer energy conversions - direct to rotary groundgen
19.No rope abrasion with graded material transitions
20.Consistent L/D governing generation capacity as TTR
21.TRPT - lower line speed lower down = safe & efficient
22.Portability (Scouts camps have demonstrated)
23.Predicted ~=0.17g CO2/kWh
24.Not rigidity dependant.
25.Low wing loading on smaller arrayed tensile rigid wings
26.Open source design framework on components <1kW
27.Generation starts from low & builds with altitude
28.Ring expansion control by bank angle
29.Reverse drivable @ bottom of stack & prop assist viable
30.Performance predicted to improve with scale
31.Suitable for High Cl wing arrays
32.Multiple power tap options position & type
33.Marine analogous versions seem viable
34.Easy diagnosis, repairs & CAA EASA FAA approvals
35.Easier to build smaller simpler wings in smaller facilities
and of course the crippling disadvantages… not
•Multi part complexity (but same parts modularly applied means easy maintenance + no abrasion = low fail rate)
•Multi line drag and snag (but more kite per line is more efficient and fairing! Nets don’t tangle like single lines.)
•It can over-twist (Only if overloaded & You can unwind from below. + powered rotation from below can lift)
•TRPT Elasticity is hard to model for control (Works without control so far. Test data is easy to gather, dyneema is very fast 30M@break >100GPa)
•Needs a big lifter (No, not really, and lift kites stack too. Can also be fractal lift shared, valley slung and lattice held)
•Less studied (Basically, it’s a mechanical drag mode AWES, which is ace! PLEASE STUDY THIS! )
I was referring to the arguments brought forth by @tallakt, assuming lowering LCOE isn’t possible.
Skimming through your arguments, most are “internal”. Arguments why daisy is a good awes design. And this is totally on topic for this thread. Tallakt and I were going a bit offtopic however, considering what advantages awes has from an outside perspective (investors, policy makers, etc.)
For example: “23.Predicted ~=0.17g CO2/kWh” is relevant from the outside,
“25.Low wing loading on smaller arrayed tensile rigid wings” isn’t.
#36 is the one almost everyone comments on first.
“oh it’s pretty, I like the colours”
I must purge all old videos of the ram air rainbow colour kites from the internet.
I think the portability is intersting now everyone in the world will be a refugee and we’ll all be living on top of burning peat moors which you’re not allowed to disturb with a wind turbine foundation … an anchor will be fine though. #37 deploy-able at sea
Just spray the rigid wings?
@Ollie has updated his Tensile Rotary Power Transmission model
It works a lot faster than any of mine.
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.
That’s “braking” current…
Dunno @dougselsam… Sometimes when I slam it on… It really is breaking current.