Slow Chat II

I think we should be frank here… this overly professional “LinkedIn” talk… Always being sure to not step on toes… Walking on eggshells… Really inhibits engineers from isolating issues out of fear of bruising egos.

Makani and a lot of other kite ventures are designed by old men with whimsical dreams… These men, are largely marketers and team builders, which I deeply respect. But they hire engineers to do the impossible, then blame them when their ill-conceived fantasies dont work out… Could it have worked with another 500 million dollars? maybe… But the point is, I dont think the fundamental design was a good one. When their founder passed away, and they decided to go for the rigid kite… They lost their way.

Rigid kites will eventually be the way, I have no doubt, but the best way to make lightweight/ strong objects is with inflatables and origami along with composites… To your point Windy, a kite is very different than a tethered “drone plane” I think… I could go on and on about the difficulty in control… I think the company that has a chance of scaling the most is Enerkite, (albeit with different launching system)

For me personally, I would never put my control engineers in that position. They have nothing but slop to work with.

Im not really sure. There are some articles like this one

And then a slew of documents released. And then the video at 1:32

They lost control of the kite during hovering flight back to the landing position. To me it seems the problem was the aircraft was underactuated. Or, from another perspective, they chose the wrong method to launch/land

The comments after the crash show the team having completely lost touch with realities. «Spend one year to analyse the crash». «It was a good day of flights», «It was not a failure». Heck this was a major failure. They did not see the end coming it seems. Truth is, money doesnt grow on a tree, and these were hemmoraging money at an astonishing rate.

My point is, they did not need such a large kite to learn about this and other problems. More flight hours with simpler installations would have probably given more bang for the buck.

I have being negative because obviously the Makani team did great work on many levels. But we will not get anywhere as a community if we can’t acknowledge that this was, in the end, a failure. Maybe they just werent able to put that on tape, or maybe they just didnt understand that they had failed.

Some tests that I think should have been done:

  • 1000s of flight hours with the smaller kites
  • many flight hours with the smaller kite in challenging wind conditions
  • 100s of offshore flights with a smaller kite
  • 1000s of flight hours onshore before going offshore with the exact same kite (offshore adds time, costs and money)
  • this particular problem of underactuation should have been discovered in simulations

Maybe this would have been already to much within the available budget. Maybe the team was in a squeeze to scale to a big size before they were ready…

2 Likes

I whole heatedly agree. I hear a lot of platitudes when it comes to Makani… an effort to assuage bruised egos instead of looking faults in the face.

The project timeline and goals will have been significantly influenced by where the money was coming from. Call me cynical
That money wanted large scale energy at low cost now. And if you don’t succeed, well that may mean or be interpreted as, our legacy energy systems are just fine → AWES = too hard = stop.
That’s waaay too simplistic of course, but the rate of return on tech R&D to value production (kWh sold) is not typically fast with a complex system

Really, rather than using “Tesla” specifically as an example, let’s compare the entire electric car “industry” to what was erroneously called (in the previous forum) the AWE “industry”:

Many manufacturers have enjoyed successful product launches, with millions of electric cars in production and on the road. They started with some known components (cars, electric motors, computers, and batteries from laptops) and have successfully (so far) combined them into products that people like and use every day for their intended purpose.

AWE, on the other hand, combining known components (kites, blimps or balloons, and wind turbines or powered winches) has zero products in regular use, with most companies having already failed, and the rest still not achieving any commercial success thus far, within a comparable (almost identical) timeframe…

Regarding the whole “self-driving” promises, I knew the whole time it would be MUCH harder than these “visionaries” realized, especially when it is based on either cameras, lidar, or radar, etc. independently-mounted on each vehicle, and onboard, individual A.I. (artificial idiocy?) software.

My go-to example had always been, "What happens when a trash bag is blown across the street, and the “A.I.” interprets the camera data as a pedestrian running into traffic, causing a twenty-car pileup accident to “save the pedestrian’s life”?

What happens with snowy or muddy roads, animals or obstacles in the road, washed out or flooded roads, crazy moves by other drivers, oil slicks, black ice, and so many unknowns that can only be handled by an actual human driver who knows what he is looking at, such as a mere windblown trash bag, versus a running pedestrian?

I’ve always maintained, for at least 30 years, that someday, there will be a future where we will have no traffic jams, even at rush hour, and all cars will travel together at high speed on the freeways in close spacing, with very few “accidents”, but it will require all vehicles to be in constant, instant, inter-communication, much as airplanes have transponders alerting each other and the whole system as to their speed, location, and direction of travel, whereby vehicle control can combine all that information taking all the info from all the vehicles into account and the requisite split-second decisions made in real time.

The result will eventually be cars going through intersections from all directions simultaneously (no more “red light, green light”) at full speed, missing each other by mere inches, to where you wouldn’t even want to look out the window for fear of being scared to death, with the cars of the wealthy “negotiating” faster travel through intersections in real time, if there is an issue with who has priority or gets to go thru first. :slight_smile:

Hi Doug, are you sure? Makani’s failure interests almost no one. For there to be interest, the subject must speak. You say: “the world is collapsing”, you will succeed. You say: “AWE is collapsing”, they will say: “What is AWE?”

Hello Pierre:
Well I was just riffing off some of the titles I see for Youtube videos lately. Always trying for some tragic or catastrophic angle, on otherwise mundane subjects.

Like this one about Robert Plant:
Robert Plant Is Now Over 75 How He Lives Is Sad (youtube.com)
(Turns out the video shows nothing sad about Robert Plant’s life these days - it’s just “clickbait”.)

Anyway, I was imagining some humorous titles such as:
“From Magenn to Makani and Beyond: The Tragedy of Airborne Wind Energy”

or
“Why Airborne Wind Energy Tragically Never Got Off The Ground”

what about
“How Airborne Wind Energy Failed to Live Up to Its Promise”?

or how about maybe
“The Catastrophic Demise of Airborne Wind Energy”

or even
“Why Airborne Wind Energy Still Can’t Get It Up”
?
I hope everyone realizes I this is all tongue-in-cheek and I’m hoping for a laugh, or maybe at least a chuckle.

One funny thing I’ve notice about Youtube videos lately:

It started when I noticed the “narrators” alternately mispronouncing words, but then properly pronouncing them in the next sentence. I was even leaving comments that they needed to get a better narrator.

Then I heard “narrators” unable to read numbers properly, mistaking a decimal point for a period at the end of a sentence, then starting a new sentence, beginning with the rest of the number. (???) I was even commenting that no narrator could be this dumb!

Then I noticed sequential yet unrelated videos having the same exact “narrator” voice.

It finally dawned on me that the “narrators” were nothing but software, utilizing data from a recorded voice!
(Artificial idiocy)

I looked it up and indeed, Youtube is promoting their “A.I.” narration option, with some other companies involved, and even monthly fees in some cases.

Its funny. I would have read your book slaughering the «industry». Though you could probably not stop lemmings like myself from running off a cliff

Or getting stuck in the La Brea Tar Pits…
I guess we all have some version of the same affliction! :slight_smile:

Luckily they weren’t that dumb. Elon bought an existing electric car company that used a modified Lotus as a starting point for the “Roadster”. They used to show up at wind energy conferences offering free rides, then moved on from there.

There’s a long history of attempts at flying cars, using many various approaches, with some even towing their wings around on a trailer. Some actually worked, but none turned out to be very practical. I’m sure you’ve probably heard the old adage that a “flying car” is not a very good car, or a very good airplane - too many compromises in either direction! :slight_smile:

Hi Pierre: I just noticed these three (3) videos featuring Van Halen, all at once, on the same screen:

The Tragic History of Eddie Van Halen (youtube.com)

Bandmates Who HATE Each Other (youtube.com)

The Victims of David Lee Roth (youtube.com)

Clickbait! :slight_smile:

Hi Doug: You describe tragedy in the shadow of success, while for AWE it is the opposite.

Here’s a book by Dr. Vaughn Nelson of West Texas A & M University that features Makani and me, among many others:
Innovative Wind Turbines: An Illustrated Guidebook, Nelson, Vaughn, eBook - Amazon.com:

One topic discussed is the basic categories of wind energy devices, such as “Drag Devices”. (you know - the name AWE people erroneously gave to compound-lift devices such as Makani?)

From Dr. Nelson’s book:

"1.1 DRAG DEVICE In a drag device, the wind pushes against the blades or sails (Figure 1.5). Drag devices are inherently limited in efficiency since the speed of the device or blades is less than the wind speed. The wind pushes on the blades of a drag turbine, forcing the rotor to turn on its axis. Maximum theoretical efficiency is 16% and the maximum speed of the drag device or drag rotor is one-third the wind speed. Note that drag devices have large torque and small rpm. Too many inventors think the high torque means high power—a common misconception. High solidity and low rpm are major disadvantages for drag wind turbines. The earliest known windmills are the Persian windmills, and the ones at Nashtifan, Iran (Figure 1.6) are still operating, grinding grain, although future use is uncertain [1,2]. The windmills are made of wood, clay, and straw. The long axis of the building is erected perpendicular to the predominate winds and curved walls

FIGURE 1.5 Drag device. An example is a sailboat moving downwind."

Now, everyone in wind energy knew what a “drag device” was. Well, except the “AWE” people… (Why? because AWE people were not people in wind energy.) The idea that AWE people were so ignorant of even the most basic wind energy terminology, and chose to stay that way, and even still do to this day(!) was one reason they immediately fell into the category of “idiots” in the minds of “real wind people” (one example being Dr. Vaughn Nelson).

Sure, after a century of being already defined, suddenly, a “drag device” is an airplane that “drags” a lift-based wind turbine around in the sky… Uh-huh, sure…

Oh, and a “lift device” is suddenly a machine where the working surfaces are pulled upward… (well, you know, “lifted”…)

Anyway, Vaughn was nice enough to include my work in his book. I don’t remember if he sent me a copy - if so, it must be in a pile around here somewhere… He used a couple of my pictures in the book:

FIGURE 2.22 Selsam Supertwin; 2 kW, two rotors 3.7 m apart, D = 3 m. (Photo courtesy of Doug Selsam.)

FIGURE 2.23 Doug Selsam with his Sky Serpent, 26 rotors, 1.1 kW at 9 m/s, D = 1 m. (Photo courtesy of Doug Selsam.) :slight_smile:

It’s terribly painful that this isn’t an easy concept to understand. There is a reason sail boats can sail downwind faster than the wind at an angle (or cross wind for that matter) than directly downwind with a spinnaker. It’s really as simple as that.

Kiteship is a primary example of a big, drag, parachute… But what we want is a fast moving foil. Not a bag in the wind.

1 Like

US Solar Factories Are In for ‘Rude Awakening,’ Report Warns - BNN Bloomberg

Mercedes CEO Gets SHOCKED & Calls It QUITS on EVs for These 6 HUGE Reasons! (youtube.com)

Chinese Biggest EV Makers WARN Staff That a “SEA OF BLOOD” is Coming! (youtube.com)

Chinese EV Makers Are Going BANKRUPT in HUGE Numbers! (youtube.com)

EVs Are ROTTING AWAY! Dealers Lots Are OVERFLOWING in 2024! (youtube.com)

Chinese EV Makers Are Going BANKRUPT Leaving Huge EV GRAVEYARDS Behind! (youtube.com)

IT STARTED! EVs Market Crash is HERE! Buyers WON’T Pay For OVERPRICED EVs! (youtube.com)

Why EV Sales Are Falling | CNBC Marathon (youtube.com)

Why EVs Are Piling Up At Dealerships In The U.S. (youtube.com)

Hi Doug, You speak about companies stopping their production for various reasons. But it is not very common for the AWE sector to stop production, having not started.

They should have smaller categories, but here are some links from the first 25 pages (07/01/2024 — 13/03/2024) from https://simpleflying.com/category/analysis/ :

https://simpleflying.com/electric-aircraft-sustainability-life-cycle-assessment/

https://simpleflying.com/useful-aviation-weather-forecasting-tools/#significant-meteorological-information-sigmet based on https://medium.com/faa/a-fresh-forecast-ec83e1b565a9

https://simpleflying.com/rutan-boomerang-private-plane-guide/

https://simpleflying.com/how-do-flight-tracking-websites-work/

https://simpleflying.com/density-altitude-pilots-guide/

https://simpleflying.com/daher-kodiak-100-composite-propeller-guide/

https://simpleflying.com/why-aircraft-take-off-land-into-wind/

https://simpleflying.com/how-many-years-do-commercial-airframes-last/

https://simpleflying.com/aircraft-propellers-typical-rotation-direction/

https://simpleflying.com/mq-9-reaper-uav-facts-list/#a-hefty-armament

https://simpleflying.com/piaggio-avanti-evo-private-plane-guide/

https://simpleflying.com/european-single-sky-analysis/

https://simpleflying.com/climate-transitional-risks-impacting-airline-operations-list/

https://simpleflying.com/carbon-composite-fiber-aircraft-jet-lag-reduction-analysis/

https://simpleflying.com/emergency-airworthiness-directives-facts-list/

https://simpleflying.com/eicas-guide/

https://simpleflying.com/airline-route-profitability-guide/

https://simpleflying.com/how-much-of-an-airlines-expenses-are-jet-fuel/

https://simpleflying.com/air-crash-investigation-crucial-parts-list/#safety-recommendations

https://simpleflying.com/engine-icing-risks-guide/

https://simpleflying.com/flight-stages-highest-fuel-burn-guide/

https://simpleflying.com/helicopter-airlines-failures-evtol-business-model/

Unsure how off topic this is …

I am putting this in slow chat, it is not meant to be serious.

I was thinking your approach to liking new ideas was a little like «Pump and dump» :joy:

Ah, another “moderator”…