Not the same old take on Airborne Wind Energy
If I remember you obtained 1.5 kW with only one rotor of three rigid blades. Did you obtain more with the stack of the two same 3 rigid bladed rotors?
Not yet. Nearly.
With the soft kite rigs, it worked like that. More stacking was more efficient.
So far with the rigid blade stacking… It has worked… up until the point (~850W) it reveals the limitation of the way I connected them, which meant the upper driver bridles attaching the lower driving ring between the kites… thus pinching the lower driving ring a bit too much… That combined with the 70/30 outer blade/inner blade mix twisting the ring … bent then snapped the ring behind the blade fuselage.
Couple tweaks and it’ll come good.
2 Likes
So the next steps could be an optimization of stacked rigid rotors, then elements for automated launch and landing. For the last I think about the rotors on top of each other before takeoff then their separation by the unwinding of their respective ropes, using something like leashes between each of them, or winches settled in the ground station combined with rotor placement nodes on the tethers.
2 very good future steps suggested there thanks Pierre.
I’d be delighted to help you complete that optimisation if I can.
And the launch, yep, there’s quite a few ways to go about it.
Being Scots, I can see about 1 000 000 steps maybe 2 000 000 because
Average person takes about 2000 paces walking / mile
and like the Proclaimers … I would walk 500 miles and 500 more.
that’s potentially 2 000 000 steps
Assuming some giant leaps we might take that back down to 1 000 000 steps
Yeah we have a lot of work to do.
But we could also have a product without optimisation or stack launch automation…
On your website “Patents Pending” expression is mentioned. It looks like a big and likely happy change,
especially for investors. Cannot wait to read your patents and see them on Daisy.
1 Like
There was a too rude message from @dougselsam
basically, it was asking if I was wrong previously to promote open source hardware AWES.
and thus could I be wrong in current and future decisions.
I used an admin privilege to first flag, and reply privately… Nothing happened with flagging, so I’ve deleted the post.
The actual content deserves an answer.
No, I still think, it was the right thing to openly publish my initial conceptual developments as a framework for further work.
Yes patenting should be correctly used for promotion and protection of ancillary development which enables large scale deployments, safe coordination, efficiency, optimization, manufacture, control etc
Both approaches have their correct space for operation and market.
I’m still amazed at the seeming lack of competing work.
Yes, we can all make mistakes, any time… There are ways to help flag the likelihood and train to avoid mistakes when the stakes are high.
1 Like
@Rodread You reply to a message you deleted. It is a weird process. So the “synthesis” you made is also weird. I wonder how “there was a too rude message from @dougselsam” could go with " basically, it was asking if I was wrong previously to promote open source hardware AWES.". What is rude in the asking?
The reality is different. He blamed you for being against patents and those who file for years, to finally plan to file patents. What he said on the message is 100% true. What is harsh (or rude) is the reality he describes.
There is something unethical about blaming patents for years and then intending to file patents as if nothing had happened.
@PierreB Having looked back through old forum messages, I don’t see any conflict here.
Yes for the years when I was working on the initial development of a new technology framework, I wanted that work to be open. I am still very glad that is open. That tech framework is potentially an enormous thing. If exploited greedily, to the fullest extent allowable by law, that tech could make a wealth disparity of grotesque disproportion. I wouldn’t trust even myself with that.
Maybe I’m not greedy enough but Car is not a patent. House is not a patent. Wind Turbine is not a patent. Patenting such an overriding concept is something I still disagree with.
There is nothing wrong with protecting investment in the development of technology which will benefit swathes of wider society if not the whole… Yes if you’ve put hard work into something you should be allowed to guarantee profit from it.
I don’t believe You should be allowed to stop a useful development from existing.
Latching mechanism for car door…there are so many patents on such … fine… doesn’t stop anyone opening any other door or car door.
Patenting a specific coupling detail on a kite network. fine. exploit that hard work you’ve done.
Patenting connection of kites into a network form… not good. Far too all-encompassing.
Windswept and Interesting took a good leap forward today
Only took 10 years but I got my first paycheck today
Wayhey #definiteprogress
3 Likes
Congratulations for fruitful achievement. Can you provide more information please?
1 Like
Windswept and Interesting has had grant funding approved by the local council and also Highlands and Islands Enterprise. One further funder still has to be confirmed. This is for a 6 month phase 1 : definition and scoping of an automated 10kW system prototyping.
Phase 2 build and test still to be approved for funding.
I’ll try to keep the news fresh and available.
Anyone know how to make a kite turbine?
All advice considered
4 Likes
4 Likes
Great news Rod, congratulations!
1 Like
Well done for your talent and your tenacity Rod!
1 Like
Thanks folks
It will take a lot of grit yet.
This funding is for phase 1 (scoping) of our 10kW automated system project
Phase 1 will be - describing the tests, rationalizing choices, describing the economics… outlining the journey ahead in phase 2 (prototyping)
We flew a practical test today…
Unfortunately we had to learn lessons from a quick crash.
The biggest mistake was — Lack of practice.
It’s been over a year since I last flew a Kite Turbine.
And the first time Tom and Anthony had seen one in a field.
I made further mistakes
Seems to be the classic for rotor systems - The lift line tension was too low.
Will I ever learn? How accurately can I judge just on pulling by hand… not well so it seems.
Must get inline load data into the decision to launch.
I should have had a bigger lifter. Will get ordering
I had been considering putting the lifter higher… may have helped mitigate Mistake #2
I had connected the backline anchor before being comfortable with how the rotor was flying.
After launch the rotor and lifter went right (my left from downwind)
I was stuck near the middle trying to hold the backline up.
This helped contribute to the rotor crashing a short while after it got going.
It looked to be going ok ish ~130 rpm
Mistake 3 I hadn’t tensioned up the compression sleeve enough
That’s not too bad… The main ring popped apart upon blade strike.
None of the rods broke… a couple blades snapped.
Can maybe fly a 3X blade rig with what’s left.
Pictures and video to follow
2 Likes
The TSR looks really nice! Could you share the meaning of the column headings? Some are straightforward, but there are quite a few mystic ones also…
Thanks a lot once more for sharing.
That wind was pretty gusty. I guess maybe a contributing factor could be if its close to the ground…
It’s all a bit raw and needs better interfaces…
Time recorded by the PC serial monitor.
status we start with the brake on the release the when the PTO is fast enough we start ramping up the brake current… you can see just after the turbine crashed… the dude sitting at the control box pressed the brake when the rotor was going 130rpm …not good. He was too tired and not well briefed. My fault.
rpm
windSPD TipSPD
TSR Tip Speed Ratio
TSR setpoint there’s a setpoint where we’d like TSR to be on the control box if the TSR is higher the TSR Q (Quotient) is stepped up a little amount. This quotient is used to define how much of the A max (max braking current) is applied
Tension g Axial tension measured behind where the PTO axle is fitted to the ground station frame.
Not a very reliable implementation bridged onto this old beast after it was made .
Gen A braking current
TTR Tension/Gen A
TTR Setpoint as per TSR setpoint we have a TTR Quotient to determine how much of our set max braking current we are prepared to let the TTR govern.
A Max another setpoint dialled on the control box to determine the maximum current we are willing to let the quotients add up to.
SPD Q speed trend quotient of braking current. If the speed is fast enough we determine the speed trend and step up the current if it’s high or rising
step down (larger step) if it’s slow or falling too fast.
SPD Q TTR Q TSR Q
Each Q can be set between 0 and 1
Each Q has a relevance multiple
The multiples add up to 1
Each Q is multiplied and summed to determine the Gen A as a part of max A
This is what we had on the day
// amount contribution of max brake allowed from each component .3x spd trend + .2x TTR + .5x TSR
brakeCurrent = maxbrakecurrent * ((SpeedTrendQuota * 0.3) + (TTRQuota * 0.2) + (TSRQuota * 0.5));
1 Like