Slow Chat II

The idea that anyone needs to have the advantages of taking off and landing into the wind “explained” seems weird. Is it not obvious?

By the way, a friend in his 80’s who owned a propeller factory, and helped get me started, crashed trying to take off downwind (with the wind) with 4 people onboard, after filling with fuel (heavy). They couldn’t quite clear the fence at the end of the runway and flipped the plane over and everyone died in the fire. As usual, another aviation tragedy due to poor judgement / bad decision-making.

Coroner identifies 4 people killed in Corona plane crash - Los Angeles Times (latimes.com)

There was a paper from Freiburg about launching a kite plane from a circular runway posted on the forum a few years back
Worth reading
It’s not the downwind doom Doug invoked

I was specifically responding to this article, link provided in a long list of links to the same source of somewhat confused aviation “information” provided by Windy:

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

If anyone here needs taking off into the wind explained, well…

Meanwhile, I’m not saying unmanned kite-planes should not utilize a circular takeoff. I have no specific opinion on that, but rather, as with most AWE “progress”, just waiting to see anything promising, besides promises of future progress.

I will say that, when you combine general aviation (which is the terminology used for small private planes), with sports like skydiving, hang-gliding, ultralights, light sport planes, gyrocopters, etc., I cannot ignore the overwhelming fatality rate. It seemed that maybe half the people we knew getting into hang gliding were dead or had been airlifted out, retrieved by ambulances, or driven to the hospital by fellow pilots, from crashes with severe injuries.

The example I gave of the four people dying in one crash was simply a single example. I looked up the statistics and found that skydiving had the worst record, followed closely by hang gliding, then general aviation (small planes). The dismal record of general aviation was the biggest surprise.

It seems that no accomplished pilot could possibly make the mistake of taking off downwind in a heavily loaded, freshly-fueled, light plane with 4 people onboard, but somehow, Joe apparently thought he could get away with it.

I took a ride in a powered hang glider (trike) at El Mirage Dry Lake, in view of where a gyrocopter pilot had lost his life a few weeks before.

Paraglider pilots are often severely injured when their canopy collapses, once in view of me and friends, standing above, ready to launch my hang glider. My launch was delayed, and next thing we knew, the fire trucks and ambulances were pulling in to pick up the pilot.

One HG pilot had a flight lasting 4 seconds before he had done a 180 and hit a tree at launch, due to high solar-thermic activity at the time. I found out while driving up to the same launch site.

Another female paraglider pilot died when she got drunk on her birthday and was doing stunts and went into a spin and crash in the desert chapparal below. She was on the phone with rescue people, but could not be found before she died.

Even just being a hang glider pilot seems risky - one very good HG pilot was driving drunk at night up near Big Bear and hit a tree, dying in the resulting fire. So it’s not just the sports themselves that are dangerous, but the people involved, and the poor decisions they sometimes make.

A friend who had over 2000 skydiving jumps had several friends die at once when they were thrown to the rear of an airplane with bench seats, causing an unrecoverable stall, which killed everyone on board. He got out of the sport “before the odds caught up to him”.

He was no dummy, and when he retired from aerospace, bought a couple of condos in Las Vegas and one in the Bahamas, where he was scuba diving with sharks. He stopped that after a lady on one of his dives had her foot bitten off. Within weeks, shark attacks happened to a couple of other ladies too in the same area! But they died.

image

Even though everyone in these sports knows safety is all about avoiding bad decisions, the people involved seem to be prone to risk-taking behavior and bad decision making.

Anyway, I did not create the doom and gloom over aviation, just couldn’t help but notice - when all your friends are hospitalized or dying from it!

Meanwhile, if you don’t know why airplanes like to take off and land into the wind, you don’t understand the ABC’s of flight! :slight_smile:

VIDEO: Plane Explodes in a Massive Fireball After Crashing Near a Highway in Tennessee, Killing All (spreely.com)

A newly promoted airplane design appeared today in “Interesting Engineering”:

Of course, the “press-release breakthrough” headline is misleading, pretending this airplane actually exists:
“World’s largest aircraft delivers colossal cargo to makeshift airstrips”
Oh, it does? It now “delivers”? Or is it just someone’s half-baked dream?
More false “news of the future”?
One more giant aircraft that will never be built?

Just from a glance, the wings are located too far back, and the cockpit has no visibility of the runway…

Anyway, in the “comments”, one person proposes that today’s giant wind turbines might be run as helicopters, able to transport themselves. OK so that would be a whole new version of “airborne wind energy”, right? Not easy to accomplish, but pretty clever thinking right there, in my opinion. :slight_smile:

Here are a couple more possibly-wind-energy-related press-release breakthroughs from the same (today’s) issue of “Interesting Engineering”:

The comments on this one indicate what I suspected all along: the performance advantage is largely an overstated illusion. Even looped airplane wings like this have never gained traction, and it’s hard to imagine airplane propellers in a looped configuration, but that won’t stop “Professor Crackpot!” Let’s hope he doesn’t read this article, and try to use it for a wind turbine!

Here’s another aviation “press-release breakthrough”, from the same issue:

Ok, so suddenly, more "biomimicry(!) is going to save the air cargo industry: Gliders will be towed behind regular cargo planes to ride the vortexes, like a flock of geese. No mention of the logistics of taking off from the restricted space of busy airports, especially the ability of a fully-loaded cargo plane to tow such additional weight and drag, on takeoff, over a populated area…

Once again, the comments seem more astute than the article: It’s an old idea, that never caught on.
Maybe their next “breakthrough” will be providing each airplane with its own engine! :slight_smile:

Looks like my favorite tidal and ocean current power device, Orbital Marine, is starting to catch on!

I wish I had been able to invest in this simple concept. Oh well. Simple ideas are best, because no matter how simple it is, you will still have unforeseen problems, so if it is complicated to start with, which is even worse with regard to unforeseen problems, chances of success are greatly diminished!

Here’s a funny thing. Just as you can see how stupid “A.I.” is when you realize it is narrating and mispronouncing simple words, and especially numbers, in most Youtube videos lately, you can also see that most human “science” “journalists” are still mixing up terms like MegaWatts, and kiloWatts, mWh, kWh, etc. and don’t really understand what these terms mean.

Example from the article:

" A single O2 unit with two turbines can generate close to 2 megawatts and supply power to over 2,000 UK households annually."

“Annually”??? Why do they always have to say that? It’s like a journalistic disease!
Power these homes “annually” - like once per year? No, of course they "think) they mean, for the duration of a year. Or do they even think that far at all? So then what happens when the year is up? The turbine stops working? They can’t power the same two-thousand homes for a week, or a month, only for a year? Not two years?

The “journalists” seldom seem to understand that the word “power” already contains “per unit time”.

Anyway, I guess you have to understand this stuff to see the humor, but it just goes to show you how easily “press-release breakthroughs” get endlessly promoted, without much real scrutiny, because most people, including the people writing these articles, would not know what to scrutinize anyway!

But it gets worse!!!
(Notice they did not say “power” over 2000 homes", but “supply power to” over 2000 homes. (You could also say “supply power to” a million homes - at 2 Watts each!)

Anyway, “2000 homes” is probably a wrong or misleading representation. If the O2 apparatus has a peak power of under 2 MW, that would mean its average output, considering tidal surges and stoppages (intermittency) would reduce the average power (energy per unit time) to less than 1 MW. If that is the case, you would have an average of less than 500 Watts per house. I don’t think less than 500 Watts is enough to power the average house, do you?) :slight_smile:

I noted that the previous topic similar to this has somehow been “closed”. It had a pretty weird title, by the way.

Anyway, while I have no interest in any further conversations that degenerate into arguments about who is censoring whom (all accused parties are guilty), however, given the high-level promises of future progress made, from train track electric locomotives towed up the sides of a crater by an overhead dome of triangular kites, to the future of AWE being in Nigeria, due to intense thunderstorm activity, it would be good to hear how these breakthroughs are progressing, now that some time has passed. :wink:

I believe that particular topic is censored on this forum. :joy:

…I don’t know. I moved the comment here because I thought it better if they made their own topic if they wanted to, since the updates would need to come from them, if they don’t have a website or something. Having an extra topic without any updates would add to clutter.

There are of course some extra practicalities given the person doing the research is currently suspended. Personally I think any updates would be best received if they were in the form of peer-reviewed articles.

What is this about? I was not able to respond?

That was meant to be a joke as there is really no censoring here

1 Like

In your screenshot, you can click on the link in my split message to go to where the comment was moved to, if that feature worked perfectly. It doesn’t so in this case, probably because this Slow Chat II topic is so long, it just links you to the topic instead.

For as to why I closed the topic, see above.

For some more background on the moderation on this forum: Questions about Moderation

This guy in India had his helicar confiscated.

One more example of technological breakthroughs being suppressed! (lol)
Maybe he should switch to AWE - seems like he might be qualified. :slight_smile:

It is perhaps the opposite: trying powering the world, because you will not be able to stop circulation and secondary uses with a very long tether to simply power a single home, in which case anyone would buy an onshore wind turbine instead of an AWES.

And then the disappointment is less: we will be able to say that we were not able to power the world, which is less discouraging than saying that we were not able to power a single home.

It remains to power a boat or a ship, which is starting to happen and develop: this is where an AWE market can exist and deploy, even by using relatively short tethers.

Seems to me the number of non-flying ship sails, (or at least the amount of proposals and renderings), greatly outnumbers the number of kites pulling ships.

Hi Doug, you are never happy. However, we will have to be content with it. I very much doubt that more radical news could arise in this field which is getting tired.

My advice: buy a classic wind turbine rather than an AWES. The first works, the second does not work, whatever the theoretical improvements.

Here we are talking about the 4/27 limit, applicable to an AWES in pumping mode, and which is 4 times lower than the Betz limit (16/27). See also what I say about a tether-aligned (not crosswind) parachute in pumping mode and with a high Cd:

I am thinking of boats rather than ships.

Linked-in just suggested I “connect” with someone from this company.
So I took a quick look.
X-Wind – High-altitude wind energy

They are lucky they got the name “X-Wind” before Elon Musk took it!

OK, so it’s another choo-choo-train idea.
Rather than a dome of kitriangles somehow pulling electric locomotives up the sides of a central crater, like Jalbert Aerapology promised, this is pulling electric locomotives around a track, an idea mentioned more than once on these AWE forums in past years.

A long, oval track with a kite towing an electric locomotive around the track is shown, along with a claim of running several such kite-pulled locomotives simultaneously to generate many many megaWatts.

The website shows a timeline with 2022 representing “now”, and 2024 representing
• Commissioning of the first fully functional X-Wind power plant 2024
• Construction with EPC Contractors: Kite, Powerunit, Rail System
• Further development of control software (in-house R&D)

Well, have we seen this movie before? I guess, “stay tuned”!!! :slight_smile:

See X-Wind Powerplants GmbH.

Just in case anyone needs a grunge rap fusion song about NACA4412 foil blades

I realise this may represent a new low point for the standard of posting

2 Likes

Hi Doug: do you have any news from the author of these Jalbert triangles? It is been a long time since I heard about him. I seem to remember us talking about something like “advanced kite network” a while ago, but without finding a credible way to produce electricity.

Your recent answer to Rod (about power/weight record) is the exact opposite of what you said a few days earlier (see quotes).

You hijack the subject of power/ mass record with asserting again your “I find it odd that you proclaim AWE is dead shortly after…”.

Moreover I challenge you to find a single quote that would confirm your initial statement, given that it would have to be after the announcement of the new curve, i.e. from March 22 (your “shortly after”), and of course before your initial statement I quoted. If you refer to my comment, you will find nothing to confirm that “[I] proclaim the AWE is dead…”. If you read this commentary more carefully, you’ll be able to see under what conditions AWE could exist and which, in my opinion, correspond to higher altitudes than HAWT can reach.

So I await the quote that confirms your assertion.

Now your assertion with the rest:

You speak of an “announced breakthrough”, while rightly stating “I cant verify any claims just now”, which is to say that it’s too early to know if it’s really a “breakthrough”. Yet you don’t hesitate to consider this supposed “breakthough” in contrast to your “[I] proclaim the AWE is dead…”.

All this has a name: lack of intellectual honesty. This leads to a loss of credibility…