Messages in AirborneWindEnergy group. Page 7 of 20.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1303 From: dave santos Date: 2010-03-14
Subject: Great AWE Race /// Re: Loop transmission of mechanical energy
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1304 From: Dan Date: 2010-03-14
Subject: Good Stuff
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1305 From: Doug Date: 2010-03-14
Subject: Re: Loop transmission of mechanical energy
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1306 From: Doug Date: 2010-03-14
Subject: Re: Loop transmission of mechanical energy - power level
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1307 From: Doug Date: 2010-03-14
Subject: Re: Loop transmission of mechanical energy
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1308 From: Doug Date: 2010-03-14
Subject: Flying CoAxial Multirotor Gyrocopter Experiment Video
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1309 From: Joe Faust Date: 2010-03-15
Subject: Re: Flying CoAxial Multirotor Gyrocopter Experiment Video
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1310 From: Joe Faust Date: 2010-03-15
Subject: BaseLoad Energy tackles big-time tether challenges for FEGs
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1311 From: dave santos Date: 2010-03-15
Subject: Re: Loop transmission of mechanical energy
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1312 From: Uwe Fechner Date: 2010-03-15
Subject: HAWT's
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1313 From: dave santos Date: 2010-03-15
Subject: Re: HAWT's
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1314 From: Doug Date: 2010-03-15
Subject: Great AWE Race /// Re: Loop transmission of mechanical energy
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1315 From: Doug Date: 2010-03-15
Subject: Re: Loop transmission / Space Elevator on "down"
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1316 From: dave santos Date: 2010-03-15
Subject: Re: Great AWE Race /// Re: Loop transmission of mechanical energy
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1317 From: Doug Date: 2010-03-15
Subject: Re: Loop transmission of mechanical energy
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1318 From: dave santos Date: 2010-03-15
Subject: Re: Loop transmission of mechanical energy
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1319 From: dave santos Date: 2010-03-16
Subject: AeroInertia: Bola Masses & Pendulum Wings
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1320 From: Dave Lang Date: 2010-03-16
Subject: Re: AeroInertia: Bola Masses & Pendulum Wings
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1321 From: dave santos Date: 2010-03-16
Subject: Electric Kite Vehicles
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1322 From: Carlo Perassi Date: 2010-03-16
Subject: KiteGen notes (March 2010)
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1323 From: Joe Faust Date: 2010-03-16
Subject: Re: TU Delft Course +++ Kite Dynamics Symposium 2009
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1324 From: Dan Parker Date: 2010-03-16
Subject: Re: Electric Kite Vehicles
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1325 From: Joe Faust Date: 2010-03-16
Subject: Re: KiteGen notes (March 2010)
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1326 From: Joe Faust Date: 2010-03-16
Subject: Re: Electric Kite Vehicles
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1327 From: Joe Faust Date: 2010-03-16
Subject: Re: KiteGen notes (March 2010)
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1328 From: Joe Faust Date: 2010-03-16
Subject: Re: KiteGen notes (March 2010)
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1329 From: dave santos Date: 2010-03-16
Subject: High Speed Cableways in Tubes
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1330 From: Doug Date: 2010-03-16
Subject: Re: Loop transmission of mechanical energy
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1331 From: Doug Date: 2010-03-16
Subject: Re: High Speed Cableways in Tubes
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1332 From: Joe Faust Date: 2010-03-16
Subject: Traction kiting :: garden of AWECS participants
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1333 From: Joe Faust Date: 2010-03-16
Subject: Re: High Speed Cableways in Tubes
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1334 From: dave santos Date: 2010-03-16
Subject: Re: Loop transmission of mechanical energy
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1335 From: dave santos Date: 2010-03-16
Subject: Re: High Speed Cableways in Tubes
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1336 From: Doug Date: 2010-03-16
Subject: Re: Loop transmission of mechanical energy
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1337 From: dave santos Date: 2010-03-16
Subject: Re: Loop transmission of mechanical energy
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1338 From: Joe Faust Date: 2010-03-16
Subject: Twist Method: TTQ
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1339 From: harry valentine Date: 2010-03-17
Subject: Re: Loop transmission of mechanical energy
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1340 From: dave santos Date: 2010-03-17
Subject: Re: Twist Method: TTQ
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1341 From: Bob Stuart Date: 2010-03-17
Subject: Re: Twist Method: TTQ
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1342 From: Dan Parker Date: 2010-03-17
Subject: Re: Twist Method: TTQ
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1343 From: dave santos Date: 2010-03-17
Subject: Cat I & 2 sUAS AWE Training (Kite Pilot School)
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1345 From: Joe Faust Date: 2010-03-17
Subject: Re: Twist Method: TTQ
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1346 From: Dan Parker Date: 2010-03-17
Subject: Re: Cat I & 2 sUAS AWE Training (Kite Pilot School)
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1347 From: Dan Parker Date: 2010-03-17
Subject: Re: Twist Method: TTQ
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1348 From: Joe Faust Date: 2010-03-17
Subject: Our group search tool does not function yet.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1349 From: harry valentine Date: 2010-03-18
Subject: Re: Gyros with counter-rotating rotors
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1350 From: Joe Faust Date: 2010-03-18
Subject: Kytoon and cousins teach
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1351 From: Joe Faust Date: 2010-03-18
Subject: Re: Kytoon and cousins teach
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1352 From: harry valentine Date: 2010-03-18
Subject: Loop vs Winch transmission of power
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1353 From: harry valentine Date: 2010-03-18
Subject: Looped Cable windlass mechanisms



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1303 From: dave santos Date: 2010-03-14
Subject: Great AWE Race /// Re: Loop transmission of mechanical energy

 

Lets not just fly-off the two devices, but open the "Great AWE Race" to all safe demos. If an AWE idea has merit it should be workable at model scales. For venues, Drachen is planning a Kite Energy Symposium (Yakima?) & WSIKF 2010 (Long Beach, WA) is a top kite fest in KiteLab Ilwaco's backyard.

 

KiteLab Ilwaco seeks to establish its remote local coast as a regional AWE proving ground. Come test your prototypes here or contract expert kite pilots to do your endurance trials. The hospitality is fine; natural beauty & wind are sublime; & the World Kite Museum & archive are here for those who study all things kites. Relocate your AWE startup here for an edge. Advanced kite/AWE training & all related services also available.


Memory's a fog, the missing 50 grams are probably metric rounding or line weight allowance, as 1lb was the design target; will reweigh.


From: Joe Faust <joefaust333@...>
To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, March 14, 2010 12:09:36 AM
Subject: Re: [AWECS] Re: Loop transmission of mechanical energy

 

DaveS,
        What happened to those other 50 g    on the 1.3 m  turbine described  for Kite Motor 1 on
 
So, we give say 500 g  to  DougS  and 500 g to DaveS; each makes a kite motor driving an endless loop to a ground generator.  We give the same lifter to each team. Both have junction of the kite motor shaft at the same upper station on the tether. Each team uses the same COTS generator on the ground. The teams fly side-by-side with a safe separation laterally for one hour and the total Wh is measured by COTS meters. Then the generator and meters are exchanged and one more hour is flown.  Assume same cost of getting the 500 g  into the shape and structure desired.    Maybe let in a third competitor; someone uses the 500 g to form dancing kites tangentially driving their mini-rod-shaft at junction. And perhaps a fourth competitior with 500 g  sculpted into a variDrogue lofted system.  Other?   Rules might receive refinement by others before the contest gets underway.   Of course there will be a trophy from perhaps KiteEnergy (tm) or AWEIA or others.   And an invitation might be sent out to LIFE magazine and others for witnessing the event, or not; maybe keep this quiet.
 
JoeF

On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 9:19 PM, dave santos <santos137@yahoo. com> wrote:
 

Joe,
 
A multirotor must truly outperform its  conventional turbine competitors by weight-to-power & ROI to gain AWE market interest.
 
Looks like a marginal call, a tangible  test is side by side flyoff of a small multi-rotor AWE prototype weight matched to KiteMotor 1 airborne HAWT (450gr).  Lets presume near equal capital cost. Maybe Doug will like upper winds reachable by cable loop.
 
KiteMotor 1 does indeed have a long driveshaft (80cm) compared to most small turbines,  close to its practical weight limit,
 
daveS


From: Joe Faust <joefaust333@ gmail.com>
To: AirborneWindEnergy@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Sat, March 13, 2010 10:28:31 PM

Subject: [AWECS] Re: Loop transmission of mechanical energy

 

Two more cents in a quick sketch.

 




Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1304 From: Dan Date: 2010-03-14
Subject: Good Stuff
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1305 From: Doug Date: 2010-03-14
Subject: Re: Loop transmission of mechanical energy
Sounds like fun!
:)
Doug S.

--- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, Joe Faust <joefaust333@...> wrote:
>
> DaveS,
> What happened to those other 50 g on the 1.3 m turbine
> described for Kite Motor 1 on
> http://www.main.org/polycosmos/biosquat/kitemoto.htm ?
>
> So, we give say 500 g to DougS and 500 g to DaveS; each makes a kite
> motor driving an endless loop to a ground generator. We give the same
> lifter to each team. Both have junction of the kite motor shaft at the same
> upper station on the tether. Each team uses the same COTS generator on the
> ground. The teams fly side-by-side with a safe separation laterally for one
> hour and the total Wh is measured by COTS meters. Then the generator and
> meters are exchanged and one more hour is flown. Assume same cost of
> getting the 500 g into the shape and structure desired. Maybe let in a
> third competitor; someone uses the 500 g to form dancing kites tangentially
> driving their mini-rod-shaft at junction. And perhaps a fourth competitior
> with 500 g sculpted into a variDrogue lofted system. Other? Rules might
> receive refinement by others before the contest gets underway. Of course
> there will be a trophy from perhaps KiteEnergy (tm) or AWEIA or others.
> And an invitation might be sent out to LIFE magazine and others for
> witnessing the event, or not; maybe keep this quiet.
>
> JoeF
>
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1306 From: Doug Date: 2010-03-14
Subject: Re: Loop transmission of mechanical energy - power level
Anyone truly serious about developing airbourne wind energy can find places to deploy and test where no authority will restrict their height. Try an open desert (away from air bases etc.) where nobody is around to care, a ship in the open ocean, a country that doesn't mind, or an uninhabited island.
Also it is possible to gain the first 1.5 - 2 miles of height by simply driving to the top of a mountain.
The first thing bureaucracy often brings to a project is to make any reasonable course of action impossible due to red tape.
Doug S.

--- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, dave santos <santos137@...> wrote:
>
> Haryy, you wrote- The "flygen" group has a point that they can generate high levels of power at high altitude and transmit the power to the ground via power cable.
>
> Very true, Harry, but so can the groundgen drivers claim, & better. The question is which approach is superior at each scale & altitude. After much KiteLab study & experiment, flygens only seem practical with short conductors & small generators, due to cubic high-density mass scaling penalty & safety-critical/insurability. Current generator/conductor (& hard airframe) weight is absolutely toxic to cheap safe AWE aviation. Updated FAA sUAS regs will properly slow flygen dev to a safe crawl. Don't forget how Makani Power downsized its announced altitude goal 90%, while real kites long ago reached the stratosphere, & could have driven a groundgen to boot.
>
> This harsh flygen prematurity reality will take decades to finally overcome. Utility scale groundgen AWE is ready to happen now. Its not to late for any early AWE player to go with best current practice, while flygen dream-tech matures.
>
> daveS
>
> PS Re: "power level", only groundgens currently offer plausible gigawatt scale unit solutions.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: harry valentine <harrycv@...>
> To: airborne windenergy <airbornewindenergy@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sat, March 13, 2010 11:46:57 AM
> Subject: RE: [AWECS] Loop transmission of mechanical energy - power level
>
>  
> I do have a concern about the power level that a loop drive system could transmit. A wind turbine rotating at at 30RPM with a torque of 150,000-Lb-ft would generate 856-Hp or 638MW. If the drum of the loop were 5-ft diameter, the cable would carry a tensile load of 60,000-Lb-force. Increase the diameter to 10-feet would reduce the tensile load to 30,000-Lbf.
>  
> Laddermill proposed to generate 200MW per installation . . . which could reduce the tensile load on the looped cable to around 10,000-lbf. This would change depending on rotor RPM and torque level.
>  
> Dave Santos approach to using 3-cables that divide into 6-cables would offer greater longevity to the power transmission tension cables.
>  
> The "flygen" group has a point that they can generate high levels of power at high altitude and transmit the power to the ground via power cable.
>  
>  
> Harry
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>
>
> Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use
> .
>
> ________________________________
> Live connected with Messenger on your phone Learn more.
>
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1307 From: Doug Date: 2010-03-14
Subject: Re: Loop transmission of mechanical energy
Wow I didn't realize you had all the details worked out.
OK then so what's stopping your from building them?
Why not build a 1 kW demo? If all basic questions have been satisfactorily answered, it seems like a weekend project to me.
What component are you missing? Can I be of any assistance?
:)
Doug S.

> Doug,
>
> Your questions are extensively addressed in many old AWE forum posts. For examples: The slack side of a moving cable loop hangs well below the pulled side. A static tether to the lifter, to hang the continuous loop turbine from, is basic rigging. Cableways of all kinds are very mature; next time you ski study the skilifts. Of course no airborne turbine pulls harder than its static tension. KiteLab keeps its high L/D turbine square to the wind & the cheap pilot-lifter enjoys relaxed Re flow. Cable loops scale to thousands of meters. No hard structure comes close. Etc, etc. Dozens of old posts elaborate these themes.
>
> Please don't turn this into yet another SuperTurbine (R) thread, unless you finally predict for everyone how high AWE drive shafts will work, with a few numbers like weight/cost/etc, to compare with cableway numbers. Your existing machines are not yet AWE & seem far more suited to non-airborne turbine forums for the amount of "talk" they get here.
>
> daveS
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Doug <doug@...>
> To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sat, March 13, 2010 11:37:07 AM
> Subject: [AWECS] Re: Loop transmission of mechanical energy
>
>  
> The loop appears to be viable. Appears.
> Maybe it is, maybe not. At some level obviously it could work, as no physical laws are violated and it has been demonstrated by Dave S. (among others?).
> I've found there are often unforseen aspects that manifest operating machines.
>
> A few aspects I can think of to check for here:
> 1. Centrifugal force: The cable itself may fly off the wheel by centrifugal force at some speed.
>
> 2. level of tension vs RPM vs power: more power can be transmitted at higher speeds of tether loop travel, just as a driveshaft can transmit more power at higher RPM, being limited by max torque. In the case of the loop, power trtansmitted is limited by tension that may break the cable, or pull the assembly downward.
>
> 3. How much power can you make at what linear speed of looping cable before the tension in the line is pulling the lifting body back to Earth? Lower speeds for a give level of power will entail higher tension levels. then again higher speeds many be too fast to be practical i.e. mach numbers and centrifugal force around capstans and bullwheels.
>
> 4. Tether contacts itself in opposing directions: could be friction and abrasion problems here, or even lockup of the machine if it gets caught or twisted together.
>
> 5. Upward pull: It seems that power transmitted by upward tension will be limited by how hard the machine can pull upward (downwind). I am not sure about this but I get the feeling (seems mathematically unavoidable) even for my own machines that a certain amount of the energy will be "used up" by just providing the energy to keep the thing in the air. As in a helicopter need fuel to stay aloft. Unless you are relying totally on helium etc., for support against gravity, it would seem that the continuous energy required to support the structure against gravity must be subtracted from the usable energy output.
> Anyway a few simple engineering calculations could tell a lot about the tension/centrifugal force aspects.
> I found for example in building regular wind turbines that even a chain drive is challenged at small turbine RPMs by centrifugal force due to low diameter sprockets and high RPM.
> I would recommend someone mathematically model a complete hypothetical looping tension power transmission system and check for these realities.
> Calculate: tether loop tension on both the upwind and downwind traveling parts of the loop. Add that combined tension to the amount of thrust/lift needed to keep the system aloft. Calculate how much power can be transmitted by said tether at said speed. Calculate how a tether would respond to centrifugal force around pulleys at that speed and tension level. Calculate, using the coeffiecient of friction, whether the cable can even remain in contact wioth the capstan/bullwheel at that speed/tension level, considering centrifugal force. You may find out you are trying to "puch a rope" in the sense that the max power transmissable by this method may be severely limited. I haven't run any such numbers but that is my 2 cents on this otherwise seemingly workable concept.
>
> Else just build them and show the numbers of the working systems.
> With my own machines, they are so close to what is already known that little math or calculation is needed to design and build them, as I can just look at other machines and power levels and size everything appropriately, even magnets and airgaps etc. I manufacture and sell great alternators but have never done a flux calculation or simulation in my life - just shoot from the hip and after a few trials and errors, hit the target. But this looping thing would seem to be in a position now to benefit from such simple and straightforward engineering calculations as I mention. Maybe someone has already done that.
>
> At least the concept is straightforward enough that it should be possible to build decent-sized models without too much head-scratching, though it is always 1000 times easier to talk than to build.
> Doug Selsam
> http://www.USWINDLABS.com
> ~<brawk!>~
>
> --- In AirborneWindEnergy@ yahoogroups. com, Bob Stuart <bobstuart@ ..> wrote:
> >
> > There really is no limit to the ratio of a belt drive. The small pulley
> > has to respect the flexibility of the tether, but you can make the big
> > end as large as you care to. Using a large pulley aloft minimizes the
> > power-carrying force on the line, so the kite does not try to reel
> > itself in.
> > Use of this system allows the lifting kite to be feathered into strong
> > winds, maintaining reasonable f orces and steady output, or flown
> > across a gentle wind to get the same output. This seems like a great
> > advantage to me.
> >
> > Looking at old books and bridges, I am struck by the great profusion of
> > trusses. To choose the most efficient one, one can simply draw a
> > funicular polygon over them, and measure the forces and therefore the
> > guages as well as the lengths of the members. A few day's work would
> > have let any engineer select the cheapest type from the whole list of
> > patents, or improve on them. Most modern warehouse ceilings reveal a
> > compromise betwee material and easy fabrication. It won't be so easy to
> > come up with realistic estimates of the cost per watt for various AWE
> > schemes, but that's what we are really here for.
> >
> > Best,
> > Bob
> >
> > On 12/03/2010 9:03 PM, harry valentine wrote:
> > >
> > > The Continuous loop will become increasingly important in the
> > > transmission of power. The windlass is a variation of the continuous
> > > loop that involves multiple windings of cable around the
> > > barrel-pulleys at both ends. The Laddermill group claimed 200MW on the
> > > Laddermill system. Using the continuous loop certainly beats using
> > > gears and long driveshafts.
> > >
> > >
> > > QUESTION: What would be the maximum possible rotational ratio
> > > between input vs. output?
> > >
> > >
> > > Harry
> > >
> > > ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -
> > > To: AirborneWindEnergy@ yahoogroups. com
> > > From: santos137@ .
> > > Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 16:34:10 -0800
> > > Subject: Re: [AWECS] Loop transmission of mechanical energy
> > >
> > > Cool, JoeF, this is the same general idea KiteLab's KiteMotor1
> > > validated. I used a lifter-kite & capstans while Englemann shows bull
> > > wheels & LTA.
> > > Continuous loop transmission from quite high altitudes is practical,
> > > but all solid wing/turbine concepts will long be cubic scale-limited
> > > to low mw ratings.
> > >
> > > ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -
> > > *From:* Joe Faust <joefaust333@ ...>
> > > *To:* AirborneWindEnergy@ yahoogroups. com
> > > *Sent:* Fri, March 12, 2010 4:32:59 PM
> > > *Subject:* [AWECS] Loop transmission of mechanical energy
> > >
> > > <http://www.google com/patents? id=U1ctAAAAEBAJ& zoom=4&pg= PA4&ci=206, 230,343,310& source=bookclip>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -
> > > Live connected with Messenger on your phone Learn more.
> > > <http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9712957>
> > >
> >
>
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1308 From: Doug Date: 2010-03-14
Subject: Flying CoAxial Multirotor Gyrocopter Experiment Video
A favorite video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNijFNL2uV8
Wow look it flies all by itself!
Multiply by 100X and connect to a generator at ground level.
Da's what I'm talkin' 'bout Homie!

You wouldn't get this from a "scientist" (official version).
Nope, only a backyard tinkerer (actual scientist) could come up with this.
How many millions of dollars do you think this took?
None - all it took was a little vision, a few hours of dedication, and some pocket change.
Could any big "lab" have accomplished this? Perhaps in lieu of a single "conference" attendance with its admission and flight costs?

("I think I'll skip this conference and try to build a new type of flying wind turbine") ha ha in your dreams - they get paid to say everything is impossible. 1) Try something new; 2) get laughed at; 3) get fired. That's how they look at it.

Hey if there was something new on the horizon, it could entail "work" so denial and refusal to try anything new, or even consider it, is a safer, easier course.
I guess they would have to have a vision that new configurations are possible and the determination to try them. Ahh it's easier to fly to one more conference and squander the millions on more design stagnation, rubber-stamping what is already known, pushing the same paperwork back and forth from one desk to the next.

:)
Doug S.
(See US Patent 6616402 for stacked rotors with trailing tails on bearings to maintain proper heading and angle of attack)
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1309 From: Joe Faust Date: 2010-03-15
Subject: Re: Flying CoAxial Multirotor Gyrocopter Experiment Video


--- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, "Doug" <doug@...> wrote:
>
> Doug S.
> (See US Patent 6616402 for stacked rotors with trailing tails on bearings to maintain proper heading and angle of attack)

=================================================

http://www.energykitesystems.net/AutoGiroKites/index.html

Doug, the page includes a link to your extensive patent along with a small sample of autorotating kite items.

JoeF

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1310 From: Joe Faust Date: 2010-03-15
Subject: BaseLoad Energy tackles big-time tether challenges for FEGs

 BaseLoad Energy tackles big-time tether challenges for FEGs (flying electric generators)

AWE with skyGen and some tether challenges are instructed:

Application number: 12/505,308
Publication number: US 2010/0013236 A1
Filing date: Jul 17, 2009

TETHER HANDLING FOR AIRBORNE ELECTRICITY GENERATORS

 Joseph A. Carroll

Assigned to BaseLoad Energy

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1311 From: dave santos Date: 2010-03-15
Subject: Re: Loop transmission of mechanical energy
Doug,
 
If you read the old forum posts there is no need to guess we were either clueless or "had all the details worked out" of loop-transmission, just that you were clearly unaware how far the forum explored these ideas before presenting your initial questions.
 
What "stops (KiteLab) from building (Flying HAWTs)? KiteLab's stategy is not (yet) manufacture, but comparative evaluation of diverse promising concepts, to generate (testable) claims & resolve AWE "model uncertainty". Evaluation of flying HAWTs came early, as a baseline, The finding is that such rotors are poorly scalable for flight & not COTS enough. A multi-rotor would be hardly better. The focus now is more immediately promising methods (large looping stock parafoils under stock pilot kites & meshed large-scale AWE arrays).
 
Please do your claimed magic, a "1kw...weekend project" to reach far higher than 40 ft or so your HAWPCON09 demo did. An afternoon project would be to solve your helium blues. Those latex balloons shriveled overnight (at great cost compared to the value of the electricity) & one somehow flew away uncontrolled. Maybe buy a decent mini aerostat. This much is "all worked out": Helium is a problematic crutch for even a SuperTurbine (R), a ROI killer.
 
Yes, please do "be of ...assistance". Clearly answer the long hanging questions posed about the scaled up weight & practical height limits of your driveshaft approach. My conjecture, based on cubic scaling reality, is that such an approach can't even surpass current standard utility scale HAWTs. I predict even 200 ft high will be massive & unwieldy for a mere megawatt or so. I wish my picture were rosier, but maybe your calculations are better.
 
Thank you for accepting the 500 gr challenge. Such a small device might take less than a weekend for someone as fast as you claim to be. You will be able to tap wind hundreds of feet up & properly join the growing AWE club. Let us all know when you have something flying high, it will be greatly welcomed,
 
daveS
 
 


From: Doug <doug@...>
To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, March 14, 2010 1:33:22 PM
Subject: [AWECS] Re: Loop transmission of mechanical energy

 

Wow I didn't realize you had all the details worked out.
OK then so what's stopping your from building them?
Why not build a 1 kW demo? If all basic questions have been satisfactorily answered, it seems like a weekend project to me.
What component are you missing? Can I be of any assistance?
:)
Doug S.

> Doug,
>
> Your questions are extensively addressed in many old AWE forum posts. For examples: The slack side of a moving cable loop hangs well below the pulled side. A static tether to the lifter, to hang the continuous loop turbine from, is basic rigging. Cableways of all kinds are very mature; next time you ski study the skilifts. Of course no airborne turbine pulls harder than its static tension. KiteLab keeps its high L/D turbine square to the wind & the cheap pilot-lifter enjoys relaxed Re flow. Cable loops
scale to thousands of meters. No hard structure comes close. Etc, etc. Dozens of old posts elaborate these themes.
>
> Please don't turn this into yet another SuperTurbine (R) thread, unless you finally predict for everyone how high AWE drive shafts will work, with a few numbers like weight/cost/ etc, to compare with cableway numbers. Your  existing machines are not yet AWE & seem far more suited to non-airborne turbine forums for the amount of "talk" they get here.
>
> daveS
>
>
>
>
> ____________ _________ _________ __
> From: Doug <doug@...>
> To: AirborneWindEnergy@ yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Sat, March 13, 2010 11:37:07
AM
> Subject: [AWECS] Re: Loop transmission of mechanical energy
>
>  
> The loop appears to be viable. Appears.
> Maybe it is, maybe not. At some level obviously it could work, as no physical laws are violated and it has been demonstrated by Dave S. (among others?).
> I've found there are often unforseen aspects that manifest operating machines.
>
> A few aspects I can think of to check for here:
> 1. Centrifugal force: The cable itself may fly off the wheel by centrifugal force at some speed.
>
> 2. level of tension vs RPM vs power: more power can be transmitted at higher speeds of tether loop travel, just as a driveshaft can transmit more power at higher RPM, being limited by max torque. In the case of the loop, power trtansmitted is limited by tension that may break the cable, or pull the assembly downward.
>
> 3. How much power can you make at what linear
speed of looping cable before the tension in the line is pulling the lifting body back to Earth? Lower speeds for a give level of power will entail higher tension levels. then again higher speeds many be too fast to be practical i.e. mach numbers and centrifugal force around capstans and bullwheels.
>
> 4. Tether contacts itself in opposing directions: could be friction and abrasion problems here, or even lockup of the machine if it gets caught or twisted together.
>
> 5. Upward pull: It seems that power transmitted by upward tension will be limited by how hard the machine can pull upward (downwind). I am not sure about this but I get the feeling (seems mathematically unavoidable) even for my own machines that a certain amount of the energy will be "used up" by just providing the energy to keep the thing in the air. As in a helicopter need fuel to stay aloft. Unless you are relying totally on helium etc., for support against
gravity, it would seem that the continuous energy required to support the structure against gravity must be subtracted from the usable energy output.
> Anyway a few simple engineering calculations could tell a lot about the tension/centrifugal force aspects.
> I found for example in building regular wind turbines that even a chain drive is challenged at small turbine RPMs by centrifugal force due to low diameter sprockets and high RPM.
> I would recommend someone mathematically model a complete hypothetical looping tension power transmission system and check for these realities.
> Calculate: tether loop tension on both the upwind and downwind traveling parts of the loop. Add that combined tension to the amount of thrust/lift needed to keep the system aloft. Calculate how much power can be transmitted by said tether at said speed. Calculate how a tether would respond to centrifugal force around pulleys at that speed and tension
level. Calculate, using the coeffiecient of friction, whether the cable can even remain in contact wioth the capstan/bullwheel at that speed/tension level, considering centrifugal force. You may find out you are trying to "puch a rope" in the sense that the max power transmissable by this method may be severely limited. I haven't run any such numbers but that is my 2 cents on this otherwise seemingly workable concept.
>
> Else just build them and show the numbers of the working systems.
> With my own machines, they are so close to what is already known that little math or calculation is needed to design and build them, as I can just look at other machines and power levels and size everything appropriately, even magnets and airgaps etc. I manufacture and sell great alternators but have never done a flux calculation or simulation in my life - just shoot from the hip and after a few trials and errors, hit the target. But this looping
thing would seem to be in a position now to benefit from such simple and straightforward engineering calculations as I mention. Maybe someone has already done that.
>
> At least the concept is straightforward enough that it should be possible to build decent-sized models without too much head-scratching, though it is always 1000 times easier to talk than to build.
> Doug Selsam
> http://www.USWINDLABS.com
> ~<brawk!>~
>
> --- In AirborneWindEnergy@ yahoogroups. com, Bob Stuart <bobstuart@ ..> wrote:
> >
> > There really is no limit to the ratio of a belt drive. The small pulley
> > has to respect the flexibility of the tether, but you can make the big
> > end as large as you care to. Using a large pulley aloft minimizes the
> > power-carrying force on the line, so the kite does not try to reel
> > itself in.
> > Use of this system
allows the lifting kite to be feathered into strong
> > winds, maintaining reasonable f orces and steady output, or flown
> > across a gentle wind to get the same output. This seems like a great
> > advantage to me.
> >
> > Looking at old books and bridges, I am struck by the great profusion of
> > trusses. To choose the most efficient one, one can simply draw a
> > funicular polygon over them, and measure the forces and therefore the
> > guages as well as the lengths of the members. A few day's work would
> > have let any engineer select the cheapest type from the whole list of
> > patents, or improve on them. Most modern warehouse ceilings reveal a
> > compromise betwee material and easy fabrication. It won't be so easy to
> > come up with realistic estimates of the cost per watt for various AWE
> > schemes, but that's what
we are really here for.
> >
> > Best,
> > Bob
> >
> > On 12/03/2010 9:03 PM, harry valentine wrote:
> > >
> > > The Continuous loop will become increasingly important in the
> > > transmission of power. The windlass is a variation of the continuous
> > > loop that involves multiple windings of cable around the
> > > barrel-pulleys at both ends. The Laddermill group claimed 200MW on the
> > > Laddermill system. Using the continuous loop certainly beats using
> > > gears and long driveshafts.
> > >
> > >
> > > QUESTION: What would be the maximum possible rotational ratio
> > > between input vs. output?
> > >
> > >
> > > Harry
> > >
> > > ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -
> > > To: AirborneWindEnergy@ yahoogroups. com
> > > From: santos137@ .
> > > Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 16:34:10 -0800
> > > Subject: Re: [AWECS] Loop transmission of mechanical energy
> > >
> > > Cool, JoeF, this is the same general idea KiteLab's KiteMotor1
> > > validated. I used a lifter-kite & capstans while Englemann shows bull
> > > wheels & LTA.
> > > Continuous loop transmission from quite high altitudes is practical,
> > > but all solid wing/turbine concepts will long be cubic scale-limited
> > > to low mw ratings.
> > >
> > > ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -
> > > *From:* Joe Faust <joefaust333@ ...>
> > > *To:* AirborneWindEnergy@ yahoogroups. com
> > > *Sent:* Fri, March 12, 2010 4:32:59 PM
> > > *Subject:*
[AWECS] Loop transmission of mechanical energy
> > >
> > > <http://www.google. com/patents? id=U1ctAAAAEBAJ& zoom=4&pg= PA4&ci=206, 230,343,310& source=bookclip>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -
> > > Live connected with Messenger on your phone Learn more.
> > > <http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9712957>
> > >
> >
>


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1312 From: Uwe Fechner Date: 2010-03-15
Subject: HAWT's
Hello,

you wrote:
"The finding is that such rotors are poorly scalable for flight &
not COTS enough."

What is the meaning of COTS? I didn't find it in the dictionary.

Best regards:
Uwe Fechner
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1313 From: dave santos Date: 2010-03-15
Subject: Re: HAWT's
Hi Uwe,
 
COTS stands for Commercial Off-The-Shelf (technology). Its considered a key to lean R & D as it minimizes risk & cost while speeding time to market.
 
Existing HAWTs are not AWE COTS, primarily due to excess flight weight. KiteLab's AWE HAWT is a marvel less than half the mass of similarly rated ground turbines. It took months to develop & has high structural complexity. Scaling up would be slow & painful. A somewhat larger cheap COTS parafoil beats it, if not by power-to-weight, then by cost-to-power, so why bother?
 
daveS


From: Uwe Fechner <ufechner@...>
To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, March 15, 2010 2:38:31 AM
Subject: [AWECS] HAWT's

Hello,

you wrote:
"The finding is that such rotors are poorly scalable for flight &
not COTS enough."

What is the meaning of COTS? I didn't find it in the dictionary.

Best regards:
Uwe Fechner


------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AirborneWindEnergy/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AirborneWindEnergy/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    AirborneWindEnergy-digest@yahoogroups.com
    AirborneWindEnergy-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    AirborneWindEnergy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1314 From: Doug Date: 2010-03-15
Subject: Great AWE Race /// Re: Loop transmission of mechanical energy
1) What is a COTS? voltage? RPM? Do we get one in advance so we can tune our system to it?
2) What if someone has an alternate method that doesn't involve the looping tether?
3) 1 lb. seems a bit small to get any significant power - larger size?

--- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, dave santos <santos137@...> wrote:
>
>  
> Lets not just fly-off the two devices, but open the "Great AWE Race" to all safe demos. If an AWE idea has merit it should be workable at model scales. For venues, Drachen is planning a Kite Energy Symposium (Yakima?) & WSIKF 2010 (Long Beach, WA) is a top kite fest in KiteLab Ilwaco's backyard.
>  
> KiteLab Ilwaco seeks to establish its remote local coast as a regional AWE proving ground. Come test your prototypes here or contract expert kite pilots to do your endurance trials. The hospitality is fine; natural beauty & wind are sublime; & the World Kite Museum & archive are here for those who study all things kites. Relocate your AWE startup here for an edge. Advanced kite/AWE training & all related services also available.
>
> Memory's a fog, the missing 50 grams are probably metric rounding or line weight allowance, as 1lb was the design target; will reweigh.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Joe Faust <joefaust333@...>
> To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sun, March 14, 2010 12:09:36 AM
> Subject: Re: [AWECS] Re: Loop transmission of mechanical energy
>
>  
> DaveS,
>         What happened to those other 50 g    on the 1.3 m  turbine described  for Kite Motor 1 on
> http://www.main org/polycosmos/ biosquat/ kitemoto. htm       ?
>
> So, we give say 500 g  to  DougS  and 500 g to DaveS; each makes a kite motor driving an endless loop to a ground generator.  We give the same lifter to each team. Both have junction of the kite motor shaft at the same upper station on the tether. Each team uses the same COTS generator on the ground. The teams fly side-by-side with a safe separation laterally for one hour and the total Wh is measured by COTS meters. Then the generator and meters are exchanged and one more hour is flown.  Assume same cost of getting the 500 g  into the shape and structure desired.    Maybe let in a third competitor; someone uses the 500 g to form dancing kites tangentially driving their mini-rod-shaft at junction. And perhaps a fourth competitior with 500 g  sculpted into a variDrogue lofted system.  Other?   Rules might receive refinement by others before the contest gets underway.   Of course there will be a trophy from perhaps KiteEnergy (tm) or AWEIA or
> others.   And an invitation might be sent out to LIFE magazine and others for witnessing the event, or not; maybe keep this quiet.
>
> JoeF
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 9:19 PM, dave santos <santos137@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
>  
> >Joe,
> >
> >A multirotor must truly outperform its  conventional turbine competitors by weight-to-power & ROI to gain AWE market interest.
> >
> >Looks like a marginal call, a tangible  test is side by side flyoff of a small multi-rotor AWE prototype weight matched to KiteMotor 1 airborne HAWT (450gr).  Lets presume near equal capital cost. Maybe Doug will like upper winds reachable by cable loop.
> >
> >KiteMotor 1 does indeed have a long driveshaft (80cm) compared to most small turbines,  close to its practical weight limit,
> >
> >daveS
> >
> >
> >
> >
> ________________________________
> From: Joe Faust <joefaust333@ gmail.com>
> >To: AirborneWindEnergy@ yahoogroups. com
> >Sent: Sat, March 13, 2010 10:28:31 PM
> >
> >Subject: [AWECS] Re: Loop transmission of mechanical energy
> >
> > 
> >Two more cents in a quick sketch.
> > 
> >
>
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1315 From: Doug Date: 2010-03-15
Subject: Re: Loop transmission / Space Elevator on "down"
OK I may be only seeing half the picture here, but it seems to me this looping scenario amounts to a wind-powered space elevator, trying as hard as it can to go "down". As much power as it's producing, it is using, to try as hard as it can to come down out of the sky.
It seems to me you might have to produce twice the power, or at least twice the total lift, as a system that used another method to get the power to the ground, than pulling downward on your airborne system. In light winds I could see:
1) hey this thing keeps crawling down the tether back to Earth!
2) hey this thing keeps crawling upwind!
3) Hey this thing keeps crawling just far enough down the line that it loses tension and the line is slipping around the wheel!
4) hey as soon as this thing gets going fast enough to really make any power, the centrifugal force of the tether keeps it from making proper contact with the drive wheel!

I do realize that a lot of this has been discussed here and I am sorry if any of this is redundant. If you could imagine anyone carefully reading every word of every long post in this list, you could imagine getting nothing else done all day. Perhaps that is why we see more talk than prototypes. Maybe we should take a week or two off (here) and get to work! :)
Doug S.


--- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, dave santos <santos137@...> wrote:
>
> Doug,
>
> If you read the old forum posts there is no need to guess we were either clueless or "had all the details worked out" of loop-transmission, just that you were clearly unaware how far the forum explored these ideas before presenting your initial questions.
>
> What "stops (KiteLab) from building (Flying HAWTs)? KiteLab's stategy is not (yet) manufacture, but comparative evaluation of diverse promising concepts, to generate (testable) claims & resolve AWE "model uncertainty". Evaluation of flying HAWTs came early, as a baseline, The finding is that such rotors are poorly scalable for flight & not COTS enough. A multi-rotor would be hardly better. The focus now is more immediately promising methods (large looping stock parafoils under stock pilot kites & meshed large-scale AWE arrays).
>
> Please do your claimed magic, a "1kw...weekend project" to reach far higher than 40 ft or so your HAWPCON09 demo did. An afternoon project would be to solve your helium blues. Those latex balloons shriveled overnight (at great cost compared to the value of the electricity) & one somehow flew away uncontrolled. Maybe buy a decent mini aerostat. This much is "all worked out": Helium is a problematic crutch for even a SuperTurbine (R), a ROI killer.
>
> Yes, please do "be of ...assistance". Clearly answer the long hanging questions posed about the scaled up weight & practical height limits of your driveshaft approach. My conjecture, based on cubic scaling reality, is that such an approach can't even surpass current standard utility scale HAWTs. I predict even 200 ft high will be massive & unwieldy for a mere megawatt or so. I wish my picture were rosier, but maybe your calculations are better.
>
> Thank you for accepting the 500 gr challenge. Such a small device might take less than a weekend for someone as fast as you claim to be. You will be able to tap wind hundreds of feet up & properly join the growing AWE club. Let us all know when you have something flying high, it will be greatly welcomed,
>
> daveS
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Doug <doug@...>
> To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sun, March 14, 2010 1:33:22 PM
> Subject: [AWECS] Re: Loop transmission of mechanical energy
>
>  
> Wow I didn't realize you had all the details worked out.
> OK then so what's stopping your from building them?
> Why not build a 1 kW demo? If all basic questions have been satisfactorily answered, it seems like a weekend project to me.
> What component are you missing? Can I be of any assistance?
> :)
> Doug S.
>
> > Doug,
> >
> > Your questions are extensively addressed in many old AWE forum posts. For examples: The slack side of a moving cable loop hangs well below the pulled side. A static tether to the lifter, to hang the continuous loop turbine from, is basic rigging. Cableways of all kinds are very mature; next time you ski study the skilifts. Of course no airborne turbine pulls harder than its static tension. KiteLab keeps its high L/D turbine square to the wind & the cheap pilot-lifter enjoys relaxed Re flow. Cable loops scale to thousands of meters. No hard structure comes close. Etc, etc. Dozens of old posts elaborate these themes.
> >
> > Please don't turn this into yet another SuperTurbine (R) thread, unless you finally predict for everyone how high AWE drive shafts will work, with a few numbers like weight/cost/ etc, to compare with cableway numbers. Your  existing machines are not yet AWE & seem far more suited to non-airborne turbine forums for the amount of "talk" they get here.
> >
> > daveS
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ____________ _________ _________ __
> > From: Doug <doug@>
> > To: AirborneWindEnergy@ yahoogroups. com
> > Sent: Sat, March 13, 2010 11:37:07 AM
> > Subject: [AWECS] Re: Loop transmission of mechanical energy
> >
> >  
> > The loop appears to be viable. Appears.
> > Maybe it is, maybe not. At some level obviously it could work, as no physical laws are violated and it has been demonstrated by Dave S. (among others?).
> > I've found there are often unforseen aspects that manifest operating machines.
> >
> > A few aspects I can think of to check for here:
> > 1. Centrifugal force: The cable itself may fly off the wheel by centrifugal force at some speed.
> >
> > 2. level of tension vs RPM vs power: more power can be transmitted at higher speeds of tether loop travel, just as a driveshaft can transmit more power at higher RPM, being limited by max torque. In the case of the loop, power trtansmitted is limited by tension that may break the cable, or pull the assembly downward.
> >
> > 3. How much power can you make at what linear speed of looping cable before the tension in the line is pulling the lifting body back to Earth? Lower speeds for a give level of power will entail higher tension levels. then again higher speeds many be too fast to be practical i.e. mach numbers and centrifugal force around capstans and bullwheels.
> >
> > 4. Tether contacts itself in opposing directions: could be friction and abrasion problems here, or even lockup of the machine if it gets caught or twisted together.
> >
> > 5. Upward pull: It seems that power transmitted by upward tension will be limited by how hard the machine can pull upward (downwind). I am not sure about this but I get the feeling (seems mathematically unavoidable) even for my own machines that a certain amount of the energy will be "used up" by just providing the energy to keep the thing in the air. As in a helicopter need fuel to stay aloft. Unless you are relying totally on helium etc., for support against gravity, it would seem that the continuous energy required to support the structure against gravity must be subtracted from the usable energy output.
> > Anyway a few simple engineering calculations could tell a lot about the tension/centrifugal force aspects.
> > I found for example in building regular wind turbines that even a chain drive is challenged at small turbine RPMs by centrifugal force due to low diameter sprockets and high RPM.
> > I would recommend someone mathematically model a complete hypothetical looping tension power transmission system and check for these realities.
> > Calculate: tether loop tension on both the upwind and downwind traveling parts of the loop. Add that combined tension to the amount of thrust/lift needed to keep the system aloft. Calculate how much power can be transmitted by said tether at said speed. Calculate how a tether would respond to centrifugal force around pulleys at that speed and tension level. Calculate, using the coeffiecient of friction, whether the cable can even remain in contact wioth the capstan/bullwheel at that speed/tension level, considering centrifugal force. You may find out you are trying to "puch a rope" in the sense that the max power transmissable by this method may be severely limited. I haven't run any such numbers but that is my 2 cents on this otherwise seemingly workable concept.
> >
> > Else just build them and show the numbers of the working systems.
> > With my own machines, they are so close to what is already known that little math or calculation is needed to design and build them, as I can just look at other machines and power levels and size everything appropriately, even magnets and airgaps etc. I manufacture and sell great alternators but have never done a flux calculation or simulation in my life - just shoot from the hip and after a few trials and errors, hit the target. But this looping thing would seem to be in a position now to benefit from such simple and straightforward engineering calculations as I mention. Maybe someone has already done that.
> >
> > At least the concept is straightforward enough that it should be possible to build decent-sized models without too much head-scratching, though it is always 1000 times easier to talk than to build.
> > Doug Selsam
> > http://www.USWINDLABS.com
> > ~<brawk!>~
> >
> > --- In AirborneWindEnergy@ yahoogroups. com, Bob Stuart <bobstuart@ ..> wrote:
> > >
> > > There really is no limit to the ratio of a belt drive. The small pulley
> > > has to respect the flexibility of the tether, but you can make the big
> > > end as large as you care to. Using a large pulley aloft minimizes the
> > > power-carrying force on the line, so the kite does not try to reel
> > > itself in.
> > > Use of this system allows the lifting kite to be feathered into strong
> > > winds, maintaining reasonable f orces and steady output, or flown
> > > across a gentle wind to get the same output. This seems like a great
> > > advantage to me.
> > >
> > > Looking at old books and bridges, I am struck by the great profusion of
> > > trusses. To choose the most efficient one, one can simply draw a
> > > funicular polygon over them, and measure the forces and therefore the
> > > guages as well as the lengths of the members. A few day's work would
> > > have let any engineer select the cheapest type from the whole list of
> > > patents, or improve on them. Most modern warehouse ceilings reveal a
> > > compromise betwee material and easy fabrication. It won't be so easy to
> > > come up with realistic estimates of the cost per watt for various AWE
> > > schemes, but that's what we are really here for.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Bob
> > >
> > > On 12/03/2010 9:03 PM, harry valentine wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The Continuous loop will become increasingly important in the
> > > > transmission of power. The windlass is a variation of the continuous
> > > > loop that involves multiple windings of cable around the
> > > > barrel-pulleys at both ends. The Laddermill group claimed 200MW on the
> > > > Laddermill system. Using the continuous loop certainly beats using
> > > > gears and long driveshafts.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > QUESTION: What would be the maximum possible rotational ratio
> > > > between input vs. output?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Harry
> > > >
> > > > ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -
> > > > To: AirborneWindEnergy@ yahoogroups. com
> > > > From: santos137@ .
> > > > Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 16:34:10 -0800
> > > > Subject: Re: [AWECS] Loop transmission of mechanical energy
> > > >
> > > > Cool, JoeF, this is the same general idea KiteLab's KiteMotor1
> > > > validated. I used a lifter-kite & capstans while Englemann shows bull
> > > > wheels & LTA.
> > > > Continuous loop transmission from quite high altitudes is practical,
> > > > but all solid wing/turbine concepts will long be cubic scale-limited
> > > > to low mw ratings.
> > > >
> > > > ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -
> > > > *From:* Joe Faust <joefaust333@ ...>
> > > > *To:* AirborneWindEnergy@ yahoogroups. com
> > > > *Sent:* Fri, March 12, 2010 4:32:59 PM
> > > > *Subject:* [AWECS] Loop transmission of mechanical energy
> > > >
> > > > <http://www.google com/patents? id=U1ctAAAAEBAJ& zoom=4&pg= PA4&ci=206, 230,343,310& source=bookclip>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -
> > > > Live connected with Messenger on your phone Learn more.
> > > > <http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9712957>
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1316 From: dave santos Date: 2010-03-15
Subject: Re: Great AWE Race /// Re: Loop transmission of mechanical energy
Watts is the basic measure of power output, voltage & rpm are secondary. A De Prony brake is the professional test engineer's instrument to measure shaft wattage independent of generator issues. The looping tether is also secondary, the basic requrement here is ability to reach higher winds. 1 lb is quite enough for rapid aerospace concept testing & is excellent for a personal scale AWE market. Sadly many developers don't see micropower a cool thing & flounder with premature scaling..


From: Doug <doug@...>
To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, March 15, 2010 10:31:19 AM
Subject: [AWECS] Great AWE Race /// Re: Loop transmission of mechanical energy

 

1) What is a COTS? voltage? RPM? Do we get one in advance so we can tune our system to it?
2) What if someone has an alternate method that doesn't involve the looping tether?
3) 1 lb. seems a bit small to get any significant power - larger size?

--- In AirborneWindEnergy@ yahoogroups. com, dave santos <santos137@. ..> wrote:
>
>  
> Lets not just fly-off the two devices, but open the "Great AWE Race" to all safe demos. If an AWE idea has merit it should be workable at model scales. For venues, Drachen is planning a Kite Energy Symposium (Yakima?) & WSIKF 2010 (Long Beach, WA) is a top kite fest in KiteLab Ilwaco's backyard.
>  
> KiteLab Ilwaco seeks to establish its remote local coast as a regional AWE proving ground. Come test your prototypes here or contract expert kite pilots to do your endurance trials. The hospitality is fine; natural beauty & wind are sublime; & the World Kite Museum & archive are here for those who study all things kites. Relocate your AWE startup here for an edge. Advanced kite/AWE training & all related services also available.
>
> Memory's a fog, the missing 50 grams are probably metric rounding or line weight allowance, as 1lb was the design target; will reweigh.
>
>
> ____________ _________ _________ __
> From: Joe Faust <joefaust333@ ...>
> To: AirborneWindEnergy@ yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Sun, March 14, 2010 12:09:36 AM
> Subject: Re: [AWECS] Re: Loop transmission of mechanical energy
>
>  
> DaveS,
>  Â Ã‚ Ã‚ Ã‚ Ã‚ Ã‚  What happened to those other 50 g Â Ã‚  on the 1.3 m  turbine described  for Kite Motor 1 on
> http://www.main. org/polycosmos/ biosquat/ kitemoto. htm Â Ã‚ Ã‚ Ã‚ Ã‚  ?
>
> So, we give say 500 g  to  DougS  and 500 g to DaveS; each makes a kite motor driving an endless loop to a ground generator.  We give the same lifter to each team. Both have junction of the kite motor shaft at the same upper station on the tether. Each team uses the same COTS generator on the ground. The teams fly side-by-side with a safe separation laterally for one hour and the total Wh is measured by COTS meters. Then the generator and meters are exchanged and one more hour is flown.  Assume same cost of getting the 500 g  into the shape and structure desired. Â Ã‚  Maybe let in a third competitor; someone uses the 500 g to form dancing kites tangentially driving their mini-rod-shaft at junction. And perhaps a fourth competitior with 500 g  sculpted into a variDrogue lofted system.  Other? Â  Rules might receive refinement by others before the contest gets underway. Â  Of course there will be a trophy from perhaps KiteEnergy (tm) or AWEIA or
> others. Â  And an invitation might be sent out to LIFE magazine and others for witnessing the event, or not; maybe keep this quiet.
>
> JoeF
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 9:19 PM, dave santos <santos137@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
>  
> >Joe,
> >
> >A multirotor must truly outperform its  conventional turbine competitors by weight-to-power  & ROI to gain AWE market interest.
> >
> >Looks like a marginal call, a tangible  test is side by side flyoff of a small multi-rotor AWE prototype weight matched to KiteMotor 1 airborne HAWT (450gr).  Lets presume near equal capital cost. Maybe Doug will like upper winds reachable by cable loop.
> >
> >KiteMotor 1 does indeed have a long driveshaft (80cm) compared to most small turbines,  close to its practical weight limit,
> >
> >daveS
> >
> >
> >
> >
> ____________ _________ _________ __
> From: Joe Faust <joefaust333@ gmail.com>
> >To: AirborneWindEnergy@ yahoogroups. com
> >Sent: Sat, March 13, 2010 10:28:31 PM
> >
> >Subject: [AWECS] Re: Loop transmission of mechanical energy
> >
> > 
> >Two more cents in a quick sketch.
> > 
> >
>


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1317 From: Doug Date: 2010-03-15
Subject: Re: Loop transmission of mechanical energy
Wow I was thinking you were still pursuing the "wind turbine hangs from a kite or balloon" with a looping tether. Sorry about that.
That's why I said it could be a weekend project:
You have kites already - and lots of them and other people you know with many more, so lifting something up is not a problem.
Wind turbine rotors are available off-the-shelf, or very lightweight high performance rotors can be cut from raw lumber easily in a couple of hours or less.
Generators are ubiquitous in many forms.
You have line that can be looped.
Then you mount a generator in gimbals of a bicycle fork, or,
The rear wheel of an electric bike can have the tire removed and the rim used as a pulley, and you might even stick it on the front fork for directional flexibility of leave it on the back and clamp the front fork for mounting. Or fabricate from scratch. Even lumber works if you don't weld.
But I guess from what you're saying, you are now thinking the old laddermill idea from the 1970's is the way to go. I still like the laddermill too and have a lot more thoughts about it as time goes on.
Good luck!
:)
Doug S.
PS I would be wary of the impetus for decisions at each point.
Typically the pie-in-sky scenario of crackpot would-be inventors goes something like this:
1) identify promising nascent technology;
2) realize the next step is to build one;
3) identify reasons why this could not quite be built yet;
4) return to the all-talk format.
What I see are mainly step 3: identifying reasons why one can't be built yet:
1) not high enough for jet stream on first sttempt (gee ya think?)
2) too many regulations (and more can always be found)
The cure: The real step 3:
If your idea works for real, it will work to some degree at any scale within reason and at any height. Build it at any scale and get it going so you see what goes wrong and build the next one etc....
Current definition of HAWE: High Altitude Wind Excuses
;)
Join the
National Redundant Excuse Laboratories (NREL)
or
Almost Ready to Produce Another - Excuse (ARPA-E)
Can you say: "wahhhhhhhhhhhhh!" ?




--- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, "Doug" <doug@...> wrote:
>
> Wow I didn't realize you had all the details worked out.
> OK then so what's stopping your from building them?
> Why not build a 1 kW demo? If all basic questions have been satisfactorily answered, it seems like a weekend project to me.
> What component are you missing? Can I be of any assistance?
> :)
> Doug S.
>
> > Doug,
> >
> > Your questions are extensively addressed in many old AWE forum posts. For examples: The slack side of a moving cable loop hangs well below the pulled side. A static tether to the lifter, to hang the continuous loop turbine from, is basic rigging. Cableways of all kinds are very mature; next time you ski study the skilifts. Of course no airborne turbine pulls harder than its static tension. KiteLab keeps its high L/D turbine square to the wind & the cheap pilot-lifter enjoys relaxed Re flow. Cable loops scale to thousands of meters. No hard structure comes close. Etc, etc. Dozens of old posts elaborate these themes.
> >
> > Please don't turn this into yet another SuperTurbine (R) thread, unless you finally predict for everyone how high AWE drive shafts will work, with a few numbers like weight/cost/etc, to compare with cableway numbers. Your existing machines are not yet AWE & seem far more suited to non-airborne turbine forums for the amount of "talk" they get here.
> >
> > daveS
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Doug <doug@>
> > To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Sat, March 13, 2010 11:37:07 AM
> > Subject: [AWECS] Re: Loop transmission of mechanical energy
> >
> >  
> > The loop appears to be viable. Appears.
> > Maybe it is, maybe not. At some level obviously it could work, as no physical laws are violated and it has been demonstrated by Dave S. (among others?).
> > I've found there are often unforseen aspects that manifest operating machines.
> >
> > A few aspects I can think of to check for here:
> > 1. Centrifugal force: The cable itself may fly off the wheel by centrifugal force at some speed.
> >
> > 2. level of tension vs RPM vs power: more power can be transmitted at higher speeds of tether loop travel, just as a driveshaft can transmit more power at higher RPM, being limited by max torque. In the case of the loop, power trtansmitted is limited by tension that may break the cable, or pull the assembly downward.
> >
> > 3. How much power can you make at what linear speed of looping cable before the tension in the line is pulling the lifting body back to Earth? Lower speeds for a give level of power will entail higher tension levels. then again higher speeds many be too fast to be practical i.e. mach numbers and centrifugal force around capstans and bullwheels.
> >
> > 4. Tether contacts itself in opposing directions: could be friction and abrasion problems here, or even lockup of the machine if it gets caught or twisted together.
> >
> > 5. Upward pull: It seems that power transmitted by upward tension will be limited by how hard the machine can pull upward (downwind). I am not sure about this but I get the feeling (seems mathematically unavoidable) even for my own machines that a certain amount of the energy will be "used up" by just providing the energy to keep the thing in the air. As in a helicopter need fuel to stay aloft. Unless you are relying totally on helium etc., for support against gravity, it would seem that the continuous energy required to support the structure against gravity must be subtracted from the usable energy output.
> > Anyway a few simple engineering calculations could tell a lot about the tension/centrifugal force aspects.
> > I found for example in building regular wind turbines that even a chain drive is challenged at small turbine RPMs by centrifugal force due to low diameter sprockets and high RPM.
> > I would recommend someone mathematically model a complete hypothetical looping tension power transmission system and check for these realities.
> > Calculate: tether loop tension on both the upwind and downwind traveling parts of the loop. Add that combined tension to the amount of thrust/lift needed to keep the system aloft. Calculate how much power can be transmitted by said tether at said speed. Calculate how a tether would respond to centrifugal force around pulleys at that speed and tension level. Calculate, using the coeffiecient of friction, whether the cable can even remain in contact wioth the capstan/bullwheel at that speed/tension level, considering centrifugal force. You may find out you are trying to "puch a rope" in the sense that the max power transmissable by this method may be severely limited. I haven't run any such numbers but that is my 2 cents on this otherwise seemingly workable concept.
> >
> > Else just build them and show the numbers of the working systems.
> > With my own machines, they are so close to what is already known that little math or calculation is needed to design and build them, as I can just look at other machines and power levels and size everything appropriately, even magnets and airgaps etc. I manufacture and sell great alternators but have never done a flux calculation or simulation in my life - just shoot from the hip and after a few trials and errors, hit the target. But this looping thing would seem to be in a position now to benefit from such simple and straightforward engineering calculations as I mention. Maybe someone has already done that.
> >
> > At least the concept is straightforward enough that it should be possible to build decent-sized models without too much head-scratching, though it is always 1000 times easier to talk than to build.
> > Doug Selsam
> > http://www.USWINDLABS.com
> > ~<brawk!>~
> >
> > --- In AirborneWindEnergy@ yahoogroups. com, Bob Stuart <bobstuart@ ..> wrote:
> > >
> > > There really is no limit to the ratio of a belt drive. The small pulley
> > > has to respect the flexibility of the tether, but you can make the big
> > > end as large as you care to. Using a large pulley aloft minimizes the
> > > power-carrying force on the line, so the kite does not try to reel
> > > itself in.
> > > Use of this system allows the lifting kite to be feathered into strong
> > > winds, maintaining reasonable f orces and steady output, or flown
> > > across a gentle wind to get the same output. This seems like a great
> > > advantage to me.
> > >
> > > Looking at old books and bridges, I am struck by the great profusion of
> > > trusses. To choose the most efficient one, one can simply draw a
> > > funicular polygon over them, and measure the forces and therefore the
> > > guages as well as the lengths of the members. A few day's work would
> > > have let any engineer select the cheapest type from the whole list of
> > > patents, or improve on them. Most modern warehouse ceilings reveal a
> > > compromise betwee material and easy fabrication. It won't be so easy to
> > > come up with realistic estimates of the cost per watt for various AWE
> > > schemes, but that's what we are really here for.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Bob
> > >
> > > On 12/03/2010 9:03 PM, harry valentine wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The Continuous loop will become increasingly important in the
> > > > transmission of power. The windlass is a variation of the continuous
> > > > loop that involves multiple windings of cable around the
> > > > barrel-pulleys at both ends. The Laddermill group claimed 200MW on the
> > > > Laddermill system. Using the continuous loop certainly beats using
> > > > gears and long driveshafts.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > QUESTION: What would be the maximum possible rotational ratio
> > > > between input vs. output?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Harry
> > > >
> > > > ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -
> > > > To: AirborneWindEnergy@ yahoogroups. com
> > > > From: santos137@ .
> > > > Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 16:34:10 -0800
> > > > Subject: Re: [AWECS] Loop transmission of mechanical energy
> > > >
> > > > Cool, JoeF, this is the same general idea KiteLab's KiteMotor1
> > > > validated. I used a lifter-kite & capstans while Englemann shows bull
> > > > wheels & LTA.
> > > > Continuous loop transmission from quite high altitudes is practical,
> > > > but all solid wing/turbine concepts will long be cubic scale-limited
> > > > to low mw ratings.
> > > >
> > > > ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -
> > > > *From:* Joe Faust <joefaust333@ ...>
> > > > *To:* AirborneWindEnergy@ yahoogroups. com
> > > > *Sent:* Fri, March 12, 2010 4:32:59 PM
> > > > *Subject:* [AWECS] Loop transmission of mechanical energy
> > > >
> > > > <http://www.google com/patents? id=U1ctAAAAEBAJ& zoom=4&pg= PA4&ci=206, 230,343,310& source=bookclip>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -
> > > > Live connected with Messenger on your phone Learn more.
> > > > <http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9712957>
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1318 From: dave santos Date: 2010-03-15
Subject: Re: Loop transmission of mechanical energy
Doug,
 
Solid lumber is far from lightweight for anything but toy scale aviation. KiteMotor1's blades are lighter than balsa by volume, & tougher. Loop transmission is great to the extent you can drive the line fast, but its not the only contender. Pumping the line & pulling it around are also great methods. A sewing thread pulled at about 200 mph can do about a horsepower inside of its static breaking strength, a force which small amounts of lift can raise to high altitude, but this is just an illustration. True, all KiteLab's working solutions are lifted &/or stabilized by a pilot-lifter kite, including turbines & looping parafoils, since avionic automation is so poorly developed.
 
Don't think there are too few prototypes around because this forum has too much AWE content. There are now hundreds of prototypes & simulations of varying ambition. The serious AWE players do their homework & closely read everything for clues. The real drag on this forum is near constant off topic repetition of obvious points like how the government isn't making us happy or how sleaze exists in the backyard turbine world. Empty "attaboy" & search futz posts further dilute the AWE focus. Some great talent has been forced to unsubscribe due to such annoyance. If anyone could edit the old posts down to essentials it would be a great help.
 
Still awaiting your answer to driveshaft scaling question...
 
daveS
 


From: Doug <doug@...>
To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, March 15, 2010 1:03:22 PM
Subject: [AWECS] Re: Loop transmission of mechanical energy

 

Wow I was thinking you were still pursuing the "wind turbine hangs from a kite or balloon" with a looping tether. Sorry about that.
That's why I said it could be a weekend project:
You have kites already - and lots of them and other people you know with many more, so lifting something up is not a problem.
Wind turbine rotors are available off-the-shelf, or very lightweight high performance rotors can be cut from raw lumber easily in a couple of hours or less.
Generators are ubiquitous in many forms.
You have line that can be looped.
Then you mount a generator in gimbals of a bicycle fork, or,
The rear wheel of an electric bike can have the tire removed and the rim used as a pulley, and you might even stick it on the front fork for directional flexibility of leave it on the back and clamp the front fork for mounting. Or fabricate from scratch. Even lumber works if you don't weld.
But I guess from what you're saying, you are now thinking the old laddermill idea from the 1970's is the way to go. I still like the laddermill too and have a lot more thoughts about it as time goes on.
Good luck!
:)
Doug S.
PS I would be wary of the impetus for decisions at each point.
Typically the pie-in-sky scenario of crackpot would-be inventors goes something like this:
1) identify promising nascent technology;
2) realize the next step is to build one;
3) identify reasons why this could not quite be built yet;
4) return to the all-talk format.
What I see are mainly step 3: identifying reasons why one can't be built yet:
1) not high enough for jet stream on first sttempt (gee ya think?)
2) too many regulations (and more can always be found)
The cure: The real step 3:
If your idea works for real, it will work to some degree at any scale within reason and at any height. Build it at any scale and get it going so you see what goes wrong and build the next one etc....
Current definition of HAWE: High Altitude Wind Excuses
;)
Join the
National Redundant Excuse Laboratories (NREL)
or
Almost Ready to Produce Another - Excuse (ARPA-E)
Can you say: "wahhhhhhhhhhhhh! " ?

--- In AirborneWindEnergy@ yahoogroups. com, "Doug" <doug@...> wrote:
>
> Wow I didn't realize you had all the details worked out.
> OK then so what's stopping your from building them?
> Why not build a 1 kW demo? If all basic questions have been satisfactorily answered, it seems like a weekend project to me.
> What component are you missing? Can I be of any assistance?
> :)
> Doug S.
>
> > Doug,
> >
> > Your questions are extensively addressed in many old AWE forum posts. For examples: The slack side of a moving cable loop hangs well below the pulled side. A static tether to the lifter, to hang the continuous loop turbine from, is basic rigging. Cableways of all kinds are very mature; next time you ski study the skilifts. Of course no airborne turbine pulls harder than its static tension. KiteLab keeps its high L/D turbine square to the wind & the cheap pilot-lifter enjoys relaxed Re flow. Cable loops scale to thousands of meters. No hard structure comes close. Etc, etc. Dozens of old posts elaborate these themes.
> >
> > Please don't turn this into yet another SuperTurbine (R) thread, unless you finally predict for everyone how high AWE drive shafts will work, with a few numbers like weight/cost/ etc, to compare with cableway numbers. Your  existing machines are not yet AWE & seem far more suited to non-airborne turbine forums for the amount of "talk" they get here.
> >
> > daveS
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ____________ _________ _________ __
> > From: Doug <doug@>
> > To: AirborneWindEnergy@ yahoogroups. com
> > Sent: Sat, March 13, 2010 11:37:07 AM
> > Subject: [AWECS] Re: Loop transmission of mechanical energy
> >
> >  
> > The loop appears to be viable. Appears.
> > Maybe it is, maybe not. At some level obviously it could work, as no physical laws are violated and it has been demonstrated by Dave S. (among others?).
> > I've found there are often unforseen aspects that manifest operating machines.
> >
> > A few aspects I can think of to check for here:
> > 1. Centrifugal force: The cable itself may fly off the wheel by centrifugal force at some speed.
> >
> > 2. level of tension vs RPM vs power: more power can be transmitted at higher speeds of tether loop travel, just as a driveshaft can transmit more power at higher RPM, being limited by max torque. In the case of the loop, power trtansmitted is limited by tension that may break the cable, or pull the assembly downward.
> >
> > 3. How much power can you make at what linear speed of looping cable before the tension in the line is pulling the lifting body back to Earth? Lower speeds for a give level of power will entail higher tension levels. then again higher speeds many be too fast to be practical i.e. mach numbers and centrifugal force around capstans and bullwheels.
> >
> > 4. Tether contacts itself in opposing directions: could be friction and abrasion problems here, or even lockup of the machine if it gets caught or twisted together.
> >
> > 5. Upward pull: It seems that power transmitted by upward tension will be limited by how hard the machine can pull upward (downwind). I am not sure about this but I get the feeling (seems mathematically unavoidable) even for my own machines that a certain amount of the energy will be "used up" by just providing the energy to keep the thing in the air. As in a helicopter need fuel to stay aloft. Unless you are relying totally on helium etc., for support against gravity, it would seem that the continuous energy required to support the structure against gravity must be subtracted from the usable energy output.
> > Anyway a few simple engineering calculations could tell a lot about the tension/centrifugal force aspects.
> > I found for example in building regular wind turbines that even a chain drive is challenged at small turbine RPMs by centrifugal force due to low diameter sprockets and high RPM.
> > I would recommend someone mathematically model a complete hypothetical looping tension power transmission system and check for these realities.
> > Calculate: tether loop tension on both the upwind and downwind traveling parts of the loop. Add that combined tension to the amount of thrust/lift needed to keep the system aloft. Calculate how much power can be transmitted by said tether at said speed. Calculate how a tether would respond to centrifugal force around pulleys at that speed and tension level. Calculate, using the coeffiecient of friction, whether the cable can even remain in contact wioth the capstan/bullwheel at that speed/tension level, considering centrifugal force. You may find out you are trying to "puch a rope" in the sense that the max power transmissable by this method may be severely limited. I haven't run any such numbers but that is my 2 cents on this otherwise seemingly workable concept.
> >
> > Else just build them and show the numbers of the working systems.
> > With my own machines, they are so close to what is already known that little math or calculation is needed to design and build them, as I can just look at other machines and power levels and size everything appropriately, even magnets and airgaps etc. I manufacture and sell great alternators but have never done a flux calculation or simulation in my life - just shoot from the hip and after a few trials and errors, hit the target. But this looping thing would seem to be in a position now to benefit from such simple and straightforward engineering calculations as I mention. Maybe someone has already done that.
> >
> > At least the concept is straightforward enough that it should be possible to build decent-sized models without too much head-scratching, though it is always 1000 times easier to talk than to build.
> > Doug Selsam
> > http://www.USWINDLABS.com
> > ~<brawk!>~
> >
> > --- In AirborneWindEnergy@ yahoogroups. com, Bob Stuart <bobstuart@ ..> wrote:
> > >
> > > There really is no limit to the ratio of a belt drive. The small pulley
> > > has to respect the flexibility of the tether, but you can make the big
> > > end as large as you care to. Using a large pulley aloft minimizes the
> > > power-carrying force on the line, so the kite does not try to reel
> > > itself in.
> > > Use of this system allows the lifting kite to be feathered into strong
> > > winds, maintaining reasonable f orces and steady output, or flown
> > > across a gentle wind to get the same output. This seems like a great
> > > advantage to me.
> > >
> > > Looking at old books and bridges, I am struck by the great profusion of
> > > trusses. To choose the most efficient one, one can simply draw a
> > > funicular polygon over them, and measure the forces and therefore the
> > > guages as well as the lengths of the members. A few day's work would
> > > have let any engineer select the cheapest type from the whole list of
> > > patents, or improve on them. Most modern warehouse ceilings reveal a
> > > compromise betwee material and easy fabrication. It won't be so easy to
> > > come up with realistic estimates of the cost per watt for various AWE
> > > schemes, but that's what we are really here for.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Bob
> > >
> > > On 12/03/2010 9:03 PM, harry valentine wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The Continuous loop will become increasingly important in the
> > > > transmission of power. The windlass is a variation of the continuous
> > > > loop that involves multiple windings of cable around the
> > > > barrel-pulleys at both ends. The Laddermill group claimed 200MW on the
> > > > Laddermill system. Using the continuous loop certainly beats using
> > > > gears and long driveshafts.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > QUESTION: What would be the maximum possible rotational ratio
> > > > between input vs. output?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Harry
> > > >
> > > > ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -
> > > > To: AirborneWindEnergy@ yahoogroups. com
> > > > From: santos137@ .
> > > > Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 16:34:10 -0800
> > > > Subject: Re: [AWECS] Loop transmission of mechanical energy
> > > >
> > > > Cool, JoeF, this is the same general idea KiteLab's KiteMotor1
> > > > validated. I used a lifter-kite & capstans while Englemann shows bull
> > > > wheels & LTA.
> > > > Continuous loop transmission from quite high altitudes is practical,
> > > > but all solid wing/turbine concepts will long be cubic scale-limited
> > > > to low mw ratings.
> > > >
> > > > ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -
> > > > *From:* Joe Faust <joefaust333@ ...>
> > > > *To:* AirborneWindEnergy@ yahoogroups. com
> > > > *Sent:* Fri, March 12, 2010 4:32:59 PM
> > > > *Subject:* [AWECS] Loop transmission of mechanical energy
> > > >
> > > > <http://www.google. com/patents? id=U1ctAAAAEBAJ& zoom=4&pg= PA4&ci=206, 230,343,310& source=bookclip>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -
> > > > Live connected with Messenger on your phone Learn more.
> > > > <http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9712957>
> > > >
> > >
> >
>


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1319 From: dave santos Date: 2010-03-16
Subject: AeroInertia: Bola Masses & Pendulum Wings
Aeroinertia is a distinct phenomenon that often hides within other effects like aeroelasticity. Inertia is a great stabilizing mechanism. Gyroscopic inertia has many applications. Good examples of aeroinertia are the boomerang & bolas throwing weapon. Glide itself is aeroinertial.
 
A couple of days ago i tied a rock into a toy kiteline & was then easily able to tow the kite by swinging the rock around my head. In effect my arm became a much larger crank arm on the cheap. This might be a launch or flight persistence method, but watch out for that rock.
 
Many AWE schemes intend to drive a small turbine mounted on a fast rather unstable wing. If a fast wing sweeps inertially under a stable lifter as a pendulum, it can achieve high speed for the mounted turbine without the daunting control difficulties of earlier concepts. There is a bit more conductor required for the power cable to first go up to the lifter & then down, but this may be a minor disadvantage compared to the advantages.
 
COOPIP

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1320 From: Dave Lang Date: 2010-03-16
Subject: Re: AeroInertia: Bola Masses & Pendulum Wings
Re: [AWECS] AeroInertia: Bola Masses & Pendulum Wings
DaveS,

Could you define precisely what "aeroinertia" is.....I am totally unfamiliar with that term?

DaveL



At 4:00 PM -0700 3/15/10, dave santos wrote:
 
Aeroinertia is a distinct phenomenon that often hides within other effects like aeroelasticity. Inertia is a great stabilizing mechanism. Gyroscopic inertia has many applications. Good examples of aeroinertia are the boomerang & bolas throwing weapon. Glide itself is aeroinertial.
 
A couple of days ago i tied a rock into a toy kiteline & was then easily able to tow the kite by swinging the rock around my head. In effect my arm became a much larger crank arm on the cheap. This might be a launch or flight persistence method, but watch out for that rock.
 
Many AWE schemes intend to drive a small turbine mounted on a fast rather unstable wing. If a fast wing sweeps inertially under a stable lifter as a pendulum, it can achieve high speed for the mounted turbine without the daunting control difficulties of earlier concepts. There is a bit more conductor required for the power cable to first go up to the lifter & then down, but this may be a minor disadvantage compared to the advantages.
 
COOPIP


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1321 From: dave santos Date: 2010-03-16
Subject: Electric Kite Vehicles
Its been noted that electric vehicles with regenerative braking (even a TGV) can be towed by kites to charge. There are many electric car models in or near production. The Prius electric side is rated at 60kw, a typical power rating. Here is yet another COTS opportunity. Set an electric car core on a track to be pulled in circles by a kite & you have a "village scale" power plant. The included battery allows baseload supply thru calm periods. The car may remain drivable for ultimate flexibility. Other modes have previously been discussed: Kite tow & charging cross-country; parked charging with wheels jacked up for kite input. All kite gear can fit in a suitcase.
 
KiteLab Ilwaco has a partner in Portland, OR, that designs & makes the Metroboard electric skateboard, which regeneratively brakes*. A small circular track inside of a tri-tether is planned to demo the fixed AWE concept using a stock Metroboard. The nomadic modes will be trialed along the splendid paved Lewis & Clark beach trail where Kitelab Ilwaco is located.**
 
 
coopip
 

* The Metroboard designer writes-

 

There are two ways to regenerate energy and charge the battery:

 

1)     Exceed the top speed of the motor (e.g, going downhill, where gravity pulls you faster than the motor can push you (around 16 mph).  Note that you will regenerate regardless of whether you are applying power to the motor (i.e., pressing one of the speed buttons on the remote).

2)     Press one of our brake buttons (which will result in slowing you down, but if your kite can pull hard enough to still maintain some speed), you will have a sustained charge.

 

Let me know!

 

Thanks,
ILAN

 
** I've kite landboarded & kite biked this amazing trail the last three years, as an experimental commute. Its like a mini Le Mans course in the dunes, free of trees or wires, full of curves & hillocks. The old page-
 

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1322 From: Carlo Perassi Date: 2010-03-16
Subject: KiteGen notes (March 2010)
Hello,
after a few mails with JoeF and the KGR staff, I summarize here some notes:

1)
The construction site of the first not mobile prototype of KiteGen has
started yesterday (2010-03-15).

It is going to be build on the top of a hill in Berzano San Pietro
(Province of Asti - Piedmont - northern Italy) which is a very small
town... and we are talking about a KiteGen Stem, of course.

Lat/Lon: +45° 6' 36", +7° 56' 58"

http://maps.google.it/maps?q=45.110000,+7.949444&ie=UTF8&ll=45.109998,7.949424&spn=0.003358,0.006539&t=k&z=18

2)
KiteGen is one of the few Italian projects choose by the Italian
Government for the Shangai World Expo 2010.

A few links (in Italian, sorry).

http://video.palazzochigi.it/brunetta_20100310.asx
http://www.innovazionepa.gov.it/media/368070/innovatori_expo_shanghai.pdf
http://www.innovazionepa.gov.it/media/368074/l%27energia%20dell%27aquilone.pdf

--
Carlo Perassi - http://perassi.org/
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1323 From: Joe Faust Date: 2010-03-16
Subject: Re: TU Delft Course +++ Kite Dynamics Symposium 2009

Jeroen notes on March 16, 2010, about the course links:

Hello Joe,
 
First off, I've been enjoying your website . great work!
 
The lecture slides you see on that website are two year old slides.  [[TU Delft Course ]]
We have revamped the kite course considerably to aim it more towards energy generation.
I still have to put the slides online.

I did put all the presentations of the Kite Dynamics Symposium 2009  online  http://www.vimeo.com/user2799915  
 
Kind regards,
 
Jeroen Breukels
 ---------------------------------------------------
Ir. J. Breukels
 
Faculty of Aerospace Engineering
ASSET (AeroSpace for Sustainable Engineering and Technology)

--- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, "Joe Faust" <joefaust333@...> wrote:
> Six lectures.
> Question about the Lecture 4? One slide; question is sent to Jeroen
> Breukels about such.
>
TU Delft Course

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1324 From: Dan Parker Date: 2010-03-16
Subject: Re: Electric Kite Vehicles
DaveS.
 
         Very very nice!
 
                               Dan'l
 

To: airbornewindenergy@yahoogroups.com
From: santos137@...
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 18:59:32 -0700
Subject: [AWECS] Electric Kite Vehicles

 
Its been noted that electric vehicles with regenerative braking (even a TGV) can be towed by kites to charge. There are many electric car models in or near production. The Prius electric side is rated at 60kw, a typical power rating. Here is yet another COTS opportunity. Set an electric car core on a track to be pulled in circles by a kite & you have a "village scale" power plant. The included battery allows baseload supply thru calm periods. The car may remain drivable for ultimate flexibility. Other modes have previously been discussed: Kite tow & charging cross-country; parked charging with wheels jacked up for kite input. All kite gear can fit in a suitcase.
 
KiteLab Ilwaco has a partner in Portland, OR, that designs & makes the Metroboard electric skateboard, which regeneratively brakes*. A small circular track inside of a tri-tether is planned to demo the fixed AWE concept using a stock Metroboard. The nomadic modes will be trialed along the splendid paved Lewis & Clark beach trail where Kitelab Ilwaco is located.**
 
 
coopip
 

* The Metroboard designer writes-

 

There are two ways to regenerate energy and charge the battery:

 

1)     Exceed the top speed of the motor (e.g, going downhill, where gravity pulls you faster than the motor can push you (around 16 mph).  Note that you will regenerate regardless of whether you are applying power to the motor (i.e., pressing one of the speed buttons on the remote).

2)     Press one of our brake buttons (which will result in slowing you down, but if your kite can pull hard enough to still maintain some speed), you will have a sustained charge.

 

Let me know!

 

Thanks,
ILAN

 
** I've kite landboarded & kite biked this amazing trail the last three years, as an experimental commute. Its like a mini Le Mans course in the dunes, free of trees or wires, full of curves & hillocks. The old page-
 




Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft’s powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1325 From: Joe Faust Date: 2010-03-16
Subject: Re: KiteGen notes (March 2010)
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1326 From: Joe Faust Date: 2010-03-16
Subject: Re: Electric Kite Vehicles

So,

instead of just parking millions of cars most of the day, get them on tracks being recharged via kite tug.

Let overcharged cars share kite-gained-charge with those cars that were not privileged to be on track.

Offload extra charge from the car to run home electrical loads.  Put extra charge into grid for sharing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TGV  

So much unused railroad railing!   Kite tug ready vehicles to recharge the cars.    

At seashore: make some fresh water; kite tow the water to inland need spots. De-power the kites and let
gravity return the kites on railed cart to the seashore while using regenerative braking at the kart in the return to charge some
batteries; at seashore: offload the gained charge to do work for the desalination  of the sea water.

Or just transport inland uphill people, goods, etc. during wind via kite tug.  During the next calm, let the railed train drop back to seashore while regneratively charging batteries or ultracapacitors; at seasure, offload charge for doing works at seashore region. 
Up-and-down airborne wind energy technology;
back-and-forth airborne wind energy technology.
Kite-tug those cars to inland uphill; use the cars; charges inland; let the cars drop to sea level while in such process they gain some charge.

Kite pull cars, goods, people, water, rocks, etc. from valley to top of mountains. Let the cars be charged during the tug up.  When dropping goods, people, cars, water, etc. from the mountaintops, let such be in karts that will be regeneratively charging; use the charge in the valley; share the charge excess.

Look Mom, no oil!

CoopIP where applicable                              JpF    for "Kite-charged electric vehicles"  (KCEVs)

 

 

 

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1327 From: Joe Faust Date: 2010-03-16
Subject: Re: KiteGen notes (March 2010)
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1328 From: Joe Faust Date: 2010-03-16
Subject: Re: KiteGen notes (March 2010)
Summary description:
Grazie alla disponibilita di vento in alta quot ed attraverso il Kite Gen (R), sara possibile fornire, in ogni territorio, quantita di energia anche superiori a quelle di fonte fossile o nucleare attualmente utilizzate e cio senza grani stutture, senza creare pericoli per l'uomo, senza creare danni ambientali e ad un costo competitivo con quelli attuali di mercato. Per raggiungere il vento in quota e sfruttarne la maggiore energia cinetica, Kite Gen parte da un radicale cambio di prospettiva: non piu strutture pesanti e statiche come le attuali torri eoliche, ma invece macchine leggere, dinamiche e intelligenti. In aria, a sottrarre energia dal vento a una altezza di 800/1.000 metri, profili alari di potenza, ali semirigide ad alta efficienza pilotate automaticamente. Al suolo, tutti i macchinari pesanti per la generazione di energia. Ad unire i due sistemi, cavi in materiale composito che trasmettono la trazione e contemporaneamente controllano direzione e angolo al vento.

Thanks to the availability of wind at high altitudes and through the Kite Gen (R), you can provide, in each area, amount of power even greater than those of fossil or nuclear energy currently used and this without much Specimen layout, without creating hazards for 'man, without creating environmental damage and at a cost competitive with current market conditions. To reach the wind at high altitudes and exploit the greater kinetic energy, Kite Gen from a radical change of perspective: no more heavy structures and static as the current wind turbines, but instead light machinery, dynamic and intelligent. In the air, to steal energy from the wind to a height of 800/1000 meters, airfoils power, highly efficient wings semi automatic pilot. On the ground, all the heavy machinery for power generation. To merge the two systems, composite cables that transmit traction while controlling the direction and angle to the wind.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1329 From: dave santos Date: 2010-03-16
Subject: High Speed Cableways in Tubes
OVERVIEW- We have seen estimates by KULueven & KiteLab Group that suggest cableway power transmission is competitive & even far superior to electrical conductors in the AWE application. The Steampunk Craze has revived a passion for quaint technology like pneumatic delivery tubes. Pneumatic tube trains have long been considered for long distance high speed travel. Sunken cableways still run cablecars in places like San Francisco. Peter Lynn moves slack kiteline in tubes with water flow. Which all leads to the following concept-
 
A high-speed cableway in a tube could be a practical power transmission method over considerable distances. Earthworm-like riblets along the moving cable would form ring-vortice air-bearings & "levitate" the cable for low friction travel, avoiding contact friction with the tube wall. This concept enables safe unobtrusive efficient cableway power transmission, especially underground, in congested or otherwise problematic settings. Speeds of several hundred miles an hour are possible. Mechanical AWE energy might be so conveyed, at even gigawatt scale, to drive existing utility-scale generators deep within existing powerplants, making them hybrids. JoeF's commuter car charging arrays might be so enbabled. UV degradation would be prevented. Copper & aluminum would be conserved.
 
A limitation of the concept would be turning tight corners, which would require corner-blocks.
 
COOPIP

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1330 From: Doug Date: 2010-03-16
Subject: Re: Loop transmission of mechanical energy
> Doug,
> Solid lumber is far from lightweight for anything but toy scale aviation.

***Doug S reply to Dave S: Last message you were concentrating on machines under 454 grams. That is "toy scale", which you were just lamenting and questioning the lack of interest in. We seem to both agree that small-scale machines can be used to prove a concept - sewing thread is your latest tether suggestion.

***Meanwhile I'm making 1 kW rotors that weigh about a lb each from select lumber. Wood has the same strength-to-weight ratio as carbon fiber in case you didn't know. It is a superior material for one-off prototypes and is considered the best material for at least small wind turbine blades, propellers, etc. Next time you're at a wind tunnel tell me what the fan blades are made of (wood). However, from a large-scale manufacturing standpoint, the cost-of-production and finish issues, raw material consistency issues, as well as possible moisture retention leading to imbalance, lean toward composites, since you can make a smooth mold and hire less-skilled fabricators, or use injection molding or otherwise automate the process.

> Still awaiting your answer to driveshaft scaling question...

***OK here's your answer: The rotors provide lift as well as torque, with each rotor lifting its own section of driveshaft. At such point as we have enough power to twist the driveshaft in half, we're making as much power as we need and that is as high as we need to go. Some of the carbon-fiber driveshafts we currently use are also used to improve performance in vehicles from formula-1 racing cars to garbage trucks, and can transmit 1000 horsepower at a low weight. Obviously both larger and smaller diameter driveshafts are possible to transmit any power level at any torque and RPM. I even heard of one guy who hung a hornet rotor from a kite at a mile height and used the tether rope as a driveshaft to a ground-based generator.
By definition if the driveshaft is failing, we have as much power as we need. If we can elevate it, and it can transmit the power, that's all it takes. Additionally, my patents cover weaving the driveshaft from a cylindrical mesh of Darrieus blades, so the driveshaft itself produces power. All my filament-wound driveshafts really are is your tethers, wound into a spiral. Think about it. My driveshafts are just your tethers used more appropriately to transmit the rotation you need, directly to the generator! They amount to your hypothetical "tethers that tow in a circle", optimized to tow in the circle of the best size at the best RPM to spin a generator.
Thanks for asking.
Doug Selsam
http://www.USWINDLABS.com
~<brawk!>~
> daveS
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1331 From: Doug Date: 2010-03-16
Subject: Re: High Speed Cableways in Tubes
I have to say that even the level-headed Joe F. is starting to sound like the "pie-in-sky" folks in this particular message, with talk of people taking their cars to special tracks upon which they can be towed by kites to make electricity. Like if you had the budget for the track and kites, you couldn't provide it with its own generators, but would need to borrow peoples' cars(?). It doesn't seem like a workable solution to me.

"Hey let's go to the store!"
"Nah my car is up in Tehachapi making electricity - I had to pay some bills and the plant said they could use my car for a generator!"
mmm-hmmm...

Now running your parked electric / IC or fuel-cell car as a mini-peaker plant while parked is not such a ridiculous idea, if it is a plug-in model anyway, but taking it to a special track to be pulled by kites? Please be serious! Aren't we back to population centers being mostly in nonwindy areas again? And with houses, trees and buildings taking up the space where you would build the track?

And cables in enclosures - sure have at it! Maybe that is the future of energy transmission. As long as we're going down the road of sheer fantasy, why not pull out all the stops? Run your enclosure into the sky. Pull rather than rotate. Where have I heard that before... oh yeah 3000 years ago when the first bronze-age cave-man saw a leaf blown downwind... Are we still on topic here? I mean brainstorming is one thing.

And I DO like the general idea of using wind to move water uphill - could be something there. For one thing, creating a head (water height) allows desalination by R.O. as well as electricity production.

I WILL say this group is a definite brain tickler - it definitely gets you thinking! Hey let's talk about space elevators!

I have had this idea since I was a kid: a series of concentric spinning rings around the Earth, like Saturn's rings, each a circular loop of cable or train, going all the way around the Earth, each spinning in a toroidal enclosure, in a maglev configuration with the enclosure. The cables would spin faster than orbital speed for their height. The centrifugal force would be sufficient to lift both: each cable and its hollow-ring-enclosure against gravity. Then you connect the rings with a ladder (or powered elevator) and you have a stairway to heaven. Well whaddaya think?
:)
Doug S.

--- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, dave santos <santos137@...> wrote:
>
> OVERVIEW- We have seen estimates by KULueven & KiteLab Group that suggest cableway power transmission is competitive & even far superior to electrical conductors in the AWE application. The Steampunk Craze has revived a passion for quaint technology like pneumatic delivery tubes. Pneumatic tube trains have long been considered for long distance high speed travel. Sunken cableways still run cablecars in places like San Francisco. Peter Lynn moves slack kiteline in tubes with water flow. Which all leads to the following concept-
>
> Ahigh-speed cableway in a tube could be a practical power transmission method over considerable distances. Earthworm-like riblets along the moving cable would form ring-vortice air-bearings & "levitate" the cable for low friction travel, avoiding contact friction with the tube wall. This concept enables safe unobtrusive efficient cableway power transmission, especially underground, in congested or otherwise problematic settings. Speeds of several hundred miles an hour are possible. Mechanical AWE energy might be so conveyed, at even gigawatt scale, to drive existing utility-scale generators deep within existing powerplants, making them hybrids. JoeF's commuter car charging arrays might be so enbabled. UV degradation would be prevented. Copper & aluminum would be conserved.
>
> A limitation of the concept would be turning tight corners, which would require corner-blocks.
>
> COOPIP
>
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1332 From: Joe Faust Date: 2010-03-16
Subject: Traction kiting :: garden of AWECS participants

Kitesurfers, flysurfers, kitesailors, foil makers, kitebuggy drivers,  paragliders, ...

are invited to direct part of their working kiting gear, knowledge, and skills

to energy-sharing objectives.  Some of the hundreds of thousands of

contemporary traction kiters and free-flight kiters (paragliders) may well join AWECS teams as workers,

operators, experiment teams, makers, repairers, pilots.

http://www.drachen.org/journals/journal06/6-EntireJournal.pdf

Join those kites to cranks, generators, saws, grinders, chargeable cars,

machines, pumps, ...     Invite the scores of kite manufacturers to open service

to the AWECS markets and targets.  Serving the energy market may multiply

their sales big time.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1333 From: Joe Faust Date: 2010-03-16
Subject: Re: High Speed Cableways in Tubes

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1334 From: dave santos Date: 2010-03-16
Subject: Re: Loop transmission of mechanical energy
Doug,
 
KiteMotor1's turbine blades are just a fraction of  its 1lb weight. The stand-off spar, drive-shaft, variable pitch hub, capstan, fairleads, etc. are 3/4 of the mass. The 1.3m dia rotor is not toy scale, any more than an similar size AIR-X 400 is, as the tip speed is over 200mph in a fresh breeze. Let toy scale be defined as kiddie-safe. The Chinese "puddle jumper" rotor toy is toy scale. The sewing thread example was clearly stated as just an "illustration" only to help you understand how the power dynamics of a cable loop allow it to be held up by a reasonable lift force, which you doubted.
 
KiteLab Group cannot encourage any unsafe AWE fly-off such as you suggest, but instead intends to outcompete unsafe competitors in the marketplace on grounds of safety-critical insurability. One monster kite fatality (Eideken '83) on the beach where KiteLab Ilwaco is based is quite enough. Safety is proper engineering & operations (safety culture).
 
If you prefer not to compete directly with KiteMotor1, just do your "week-end project", a towerless kw rated AWE demo manifestly capable of tapping upper wind higher than ground turbines. No, a solid tubular driveshaft is not just a tether. You still have not answered in rough numbers how high you think a multi rotor driveshaft is practical & what you think it will weigh.
 
daveS
 
PS Please find us this curious AWE reference to add to our knowledge base-
 
"I even heard of one guy who hung a hornet rotor from a kite at a mile height and used the tether rope as a driveshaft to a ground-based generator. "
 


From: Doug <doug@...>
To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, March 16, 2010 12:13:43 PM
Subject: [AWECS] Re: Loop transmission of mechanical energy

 

> Doug,
> Solid lumber is far from lightweight for anything but toy scale aviation.

***Doug S reply to Dave S: Last message you were concentrating on machines under 454 grams. That is "toy scale", which you were just lamenting and questioning the lack of interest in. We seem to both agree that small-scale machines can be used to prove a concept - sewing thread is your latest tether suggestion.

***Meanwhile I'm making 1 kW rotors that weigh about a lb each from select lumber. Wood has the same strength-to- weight ratio as carbon fiber in case you didn't know. It is a superior material for one-off prototypes and is considered the best material for at least small wind turbine blades, propellers, etc. Next time you're at a wind tunnel tell me what the fan blades are made of (wood). However, from a large-scale manufacturing standpoint, the cost-of-production and finish issues, raw material consistency issues, as well as possible moisture retention leading to imbalance, lean toward composites, since you can make a smooth mold and hire less-skilled fabricators, or use injection molding or otherwise automate the process.

> Still awaiting your answer to driveshaft scaling question...

***OK here's your answer: The rotors provide lift as well as torque, with each rotor lifting its own section of driveshaft. At such point as we have enough power to twist the driveshaft in half, we're making as much power as we need and that is as high as we need to go. Some of the carbon-fiber driveshafts we currently use are also used to improve performance in vehicles from formula-1 racing cars to garbage trucks, and can transmit 1000 horsepower at a low weight. Obviously both larger and smaller diameter driveshafts are possible to transmit any power level at any torque and RPM. I even heard of one guy who hung a hornet rotor from a kite at a mile height and used the tether rope as a driveshaft to a ground-based generator.
By definition if the driveshaft is failing, we have as much power as we need. If we can elevate it, and it can transmit the power, that's all it takes. Additionally, my patents cover weaving the driveshaft from a cylindrical mesh of Darrieus blades, so the driveshaft itself produces power. All my filament-wound driveshafts really are is your tethers, wound into a spiral. Think about it. My driveshafts are just your tethers used more appropriately to transmit the rotation you need, directly to the generator! They amount to your hypothetical "tethers that tow in a circle", optimized to tow in the circle of the best size at the best RPM to spin a generator.
Thanks for asking.
Doug Selsam
http://www.USWINDLABS.com
~<brawk!>~
> daveS


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1335 From: dave santos Date: 2010-03-16
Subject: Re: High Speed Cableways in Tubes
Doug,
 
JoeF's idea of an electric car, as a mobile power plant that can freelance around, seems far more doable that a cheap, safe, reliable driveshaft to upper winds. A flexible car train may have a future, but the car need not run on a track, a roller driveshaft under the parking spot would do.
 
How about TGV generators that migrate with the Jet Stream?
 
daveS


From: Doug <doug@...>
To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, March 16, 2010 1:10:29 PM
Subject: [AWECS] Re: High Speed Cableways in Tubes

 

I have to say that even the level-headed Joe F. is starting to sound like the "pie-in-sky" folks in this particular message, with talk of people taking their cars to special tracks upon which they can be towed by kites to make electricity. Like if you had the budget for the track and kites, you couldn't provide it with its own generators, but would need to borrow peoples' cars(?). It doesn't seem like a workable solution to me.

"Hey let's go to the store!"
"Nah my car is up in Tehachapi making electricity - I had to pay some bills and the plant said they could use my car for a generator!"
mmm-hmmm...

Now running your parked electric / IC or fuel-cell car as a mini-peaker plant while parked is not such a ridiculous idea, if it is a plug-in model anyway, but taking it to a special track to be pulled by kites? Please be serious! Aren't we back to population centers being mostly in nonwindy areas again? And with houses, trees and buildings taking up the space where you would build the track?

And cables in enclosures - sure have at it! Maybe that is the future of energy transmission. As long as we're going down the road of sheer fantasy, why not pull out all the stops? Run your enclosure into the sky. Pull rather than rotate. Where have I heard that before... oh yeah 3000 years ago when the first bronze-age cave-man saw a leaf blown downwind... Are we still on topic here? I mean brainstorming is one thing.

And I DO like the general idea of using wind to move water uphill - could be something there. For one thing, creating a head (water height) allows desalination by R.O. as well as electricity production.

I WILL say this group is a definite brain tickler - it definitely gets you thinking! Hey let's talk about space elevators!

I have had this idea since I was a kid: a series of concentric spinning rings around the Earth, like Saturn's rings, each a circular loop of cable or train, going all the way around the Earth, each spinning in a toroidal enclosure, in a maglev configuration with the enclosure. The cables would spin faster than orbital speed for their height. The centrifugal force would be sufficient to lift both: each cable and its hollow-ring- enclosure against gravity. Then you connect the rings with a ladder (or powered elevator) and you have a stairway to heaven. Well whaddaya think?
:)
Doug S.

--- In AirborneWindEnergy@ yahoogroups. com, dave santos <santos137@. ..> wrote:
>
> OVERVIEW- We have seen estimates by KULueven & KiteLab Group that suggest cableway power transmission is competitive & even far superior to electrical conductors in the AWE application. The Steampunk Craze has revived a passion for quaint technology like pneumatic delivery tubes. Pneumatic tube trains have long been considered for long distance high speed travel. Sunken cableways still run cablecars in places like San Francisco. Peter Lynn moves slack kiteline in tubes with water flow. Which all leads to the following concept-
>
> Ahigh-speed cableway in a tube could be a practical power transmission method over considerable distances. Earthworm-like riblets along the moving cable would form ring-vortice air-bearings & "levitate" the cable for low friction travel, avoiding contact friction with the tube wall. This concept enables safe unobtrusive efficient cableway power transmission, especially underground, in congested or otherwise problematic settings. Speeds of several hundred miles an hour are possible. Mechanical AWE energy might be so conveyed, at even gigawatt scale, to drive existing utility-scale generators deep within existing powerplants, making them hybrids. JoeF's commuter car charging arrays might be so enbabled. UV degradation would be prevented. Copper & aluminum would be conserved.
>
> A limitation of the concept would be turning tight corners, which would require corner-blocks.
>
> COOPIP
>


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1336 From: Doug Date: 2010-03-16
Subject: Re: Loop transmission of mechanical energy
Dave S.:
OK Kitemotor is not a toy - fine. Wind energy people DO consider the "Air" serise of turbines a "toy" and yes blades can cut you: I have 15 stitches to prove it, from a self-produced wood rotor blade that weighed a few ounces.
What I am trying to tell you as you migrate from using an exclusively "pull" force of your tethers, to citing a rotational force: I arrange the tethers in a tight spiral or helical configuration and bond them together to form a cylinder, which you refer to as a "torque tube". Fine and good, but it is much more than a torque tube. There are other aspects I will not discuss here, but it takes your tether transmits the tangential forces of the blades to the ground, without pulling the assembly down from the skly since the downward pull component of the rotational force is counteracted by the compressibility of the tube, so you have that in addition to the thrust force to counteract any downward pull.
So my configuration is not a space elevator trying as hard as it possibly can to go "down" like yours.

As I said, you put up enough driveshaft (with stacked rotors)to the point that your driveshaft strength is challenged, at which point you are making rated power, and what height that reaches is academic - are you interested in making power or setting an academic height record? If you;re making full power, that;s high enough. How high that could be is probably many times higher than a naysayer like you would imagine anyway, but... It is the amount of power you can take to the ground that counts, not exactly how high you can take the power from. Superturbine(R) allows any diameter turbine to make more power at a lower height by combining the ppower of many rotors, which is why we have operating turbines at a 14-0foot hub height which is unheard of even in the groundhugging wind world.
A superior technology is superior at any height.

I'd say why don't you mathematically prove that my concept is NOT viable, since you are the one issuing the challenge, but I don't think you understand it well enough to do any such calculations.
Please, show me why each rotor cannot lift its own section of driveshaft? Let alone if we used blimps, which I hope will be unnecessary since rotors can fly.

You mentioned COTS - meaning "off-the-shelf" - my shizzle uses all COTS components, and well I guess so does yours, whatever yours is this week. I guess that is one of my points: Every component of your proposed designs can be bought off the shelf NOW from the propellers to the spools to the kites to the generator - so what are you waiting for?

Well all I can say is this whole discussion is geting a bit silly. OK you are the king. You have all the answers. Anything I say or propose is wrong. I have to say I have never debated anyone on any topic with the fixation you have for dissecting every comment I make and trying to negate it, which you are unsuccessful at by the way.

The fact is that I am about 30 years ahead of you on all this and you are simply musing through configurations that I ruled out as a teenager in the 1970's. Where can I buy one of your superior machines?

Compete directly with Kitemotor? OK I hate to say once again "give me a link" cause we now know that is beyond your capabilities, or beneath you in some way, but if you could provide exactly what it is that kitemotor does that I need to exceed, I will try and see if I can comply with that challenge. Ummm - a video showing power output on meters? Ohh sorry I know you hate it when I ask for that...

I have lots of machines running all around the world, making power at this very moment. Where is your running machine? Where can I buy one? Also it sounds like you are backing out of any sort of flyoff citing the usual (safety and rules) excuses.(?) Do I have that right? I know: Let's schedule a flying turbine deployment right next to an airport without asking permission (like in November 2009)!

Doug S.


--- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, dave santos <santos137@...> wrote:
>
> Doug,
>
> KiteMotor1's turbine blades are just a fraction of  its 1lb weight. The stand-off spar, drive-shaft, variable pitch hub, capstan, fairleads, etc. are 3/4 of the mass. The 1.3m dia rotor is not toy scale, any more than an similar size AIR-X 400 is, as the tip speed is over 200mph in a fresh breeze. Let toy scale be defined as kiddie-safe. The Chinese "puddle jumper" rotor toy is toy scale. The sewing thread example was clearly stated as just an "illustration" only to help you understand how the power dynamics of a cable loop allow it to be held up by a reasonable lift force, which you doubted.
>
> KiteLab Group cannot encourage any unsafe AWE fly-off such as you suggest, but instead intends to outcompete unsafe competitors in the marketplace on grounds of safety-critical insurability. One monster kite fatality (Eideken '83) on the beach where KiteLab Ilwaco is based is quite enough. Safety is proper engineering & operations (safety culture).
>
> If you prefer not to compete directly with KiteMotor1, just do your "week-end project", a towerless kw rated AWE demo manifestly capable of tapping upper wind higher than ground turbines. No, a solid tubular driveshaft is not just a tether. You still have not answered in rough numbers how high you think a multi rotor driveshaft is practical & what you think it will weigh.
>
> daveS
>
> PS Please find us this curious AWE reference to add to our knowledge base-
>
> "I even heard of one guy who hung a hornet rotor from a kite at a mile height and used the tether rope as a driveshaft to a ground-based generator. "
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Doug <doug@...>
> To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tue, March 16, 2010 12:13:43 PM
> Subject: [AWECS] Re: Loop transmission of mechanical energy
>
>  
> > Doug,
> > Solid lumber is far from lightweight for anything but toy scale aviation.
>
> ***Doug S reply to Dave S: Last message you were concentrating on machines under 454 grams. That is "toy scale", which you were just lamenting and questioning the lack of interest in. We seem to both agree that small-scale machines can be used to prove a concept - sewing thread is your latest tether suggestion.
>
> ***Meanwhile I'm making 1 kW rotors that weigh about a lb each from select lumber. Wood has the same strength-to- weight ratio as carbon fiber in case you didn't know. It is a superior material for one-off prototypes and is considered the best material for at least small wind turbine blades, propellers, etc. Next time you're at a wind tunnel tell me what the fan blades are made of (wood). However, from a large-scale manufacturing standpoint, the cost-of-production and finish issues, raw material consistency issues, as well as possible moisture retention leading to imbalance, lean toward composites, since you can make a smooth mold and hire less-skilled fabricators, or use injection molding or otherwise automate the process.
>
> > Still awaiting your answer to driveshaft scaling question...
>
> ***OK here's your answer: The rotors provide lift as well as torque, with each rotor lifting its own section of driveshaft. At such point as we have enough power to twist the driveshaft in half, we're making as much power as we need and that is as high as we need to go. Some of the carbon-fiber driveshafts we currently use are also used to improve performance in vehicles from formula-1 racing cars to garbage trucks, and can transmit 1000 horsepower at a low weight. Obviously both larger and smaller diameter driveshafts are possible to transmit any power level at any torque and RPM. I even heard of one guy who hung a hornet rotor from a kite at a mile height and used the tether rope as a driveshaft to a ground-based generator.
> By definition if the driveshaft is failing, we have as much power as we need. If we can elevate it, and it can transmit the power, that's all it takes. Additionally, my patents cover weaving the driveshaft from a cylindrical mesh of Darrieus blades, so the driveshaft itself produces power. All my filament-wound driveshafts really are is your tethers, wound into a spiral. Think about it. My driveshafts are just your tethers used more appropriately to transmit the rotation you need, directly to the generator! They amount to your hypothetical "tethers that tow in a circle", optimized to tow in the circle of the best size at the best RPM to spin a generator.
> Thanks for asking.
> Doug Selsam
> http://www.USWINDLABS.com
> ~<brawk!>~
> > daveS
>
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1337 From: dave santos Date: 2010-03-16
Subject: Re: Loop transmission of mechanical energy
Doug,
 
Thanks for tolerating my questions. This thread is no attack on you, but a consideration of loop transmission v. any other option, including driveshafts.
 
What i did to comparatively assess the driveshaft concept was to review the whole span of human engineering for some application example of a comparable driveshaft/torque-tube that could plausibly reach the upper wind resource as your promotional info depicts. I found nothing close, but maybe you can point to an existence proof of this sort. On the other hand many historic cable-loops have been usefully run for thousands of feet.
 
There are many FEA engineering tools to model a driveshaft's dynamics, but its more your job to use them. I've tried long torque tubes & know the empiric failure limits. What if the generator shorts? Does the tube absorb that shock with a slip-clutch? Sure you can tension tubes to make them more robust, but at great cost in LTA or kite, on top of the weight-lift requirement.
 
Remember KiteMotor1 was an initial baseline experiment, not a favored idea, but it did prove the down-space-elevator fear ungrounded as the many observers can attest. You do need to regulate the mechanical load, but that is normal. Stall it & it does crank itself down, but this is a great feature, not a bug. Once again, the KiteMotor link is-
 
 
Good luck with your kw AWE demo, sincerely,
 
daveS


From: Doug <doug@...>
To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, March 16, 2010 2:59:01 PM
Subject: [AWECS] Re: Loop transmission of mechanical energy

 

Dave S.:
OK Kitemotor is not a toy - fine. Wind energy people DO consider the "Air" serise of turbines a "toy" and yes blades can cut you: I have 15 stitches to prove it, from a self-produced wood rotor blade that weighed a few ounces.
What I am trying to tell you as you migrate from using an exclusively "pull" force of your tethers, to citing a rotational force: I arrange the tethers in a tight spiral or helical configuration and bond them together to form a cylinder, which you refer to as a "torque tube". Fine and good, but it is much more than a torque tube. There are other aspects I will not discuss here, but it takes your tether transmits the tangential forces of the blades to the ground, without pulling the assembly down from the skly since the downward pull component of the rotational force is counteracted by the compressibility of the tube, so you have that in addition to the thrust force to counteract any downward pull.
So my configuration is not a space elevator trying as hard as it possibly can to go "down" like yours.

As I said, you put up enough driveshaft (with stacked rotors)to the point that your driveshaft strength is challenged, at which point you are making rated power, and what height that reaches is academic - are you interested in making power or setting an academic height record? If you;re making full power, that;s high enough. How high that could be is probably many times higher than a naysayer like you would imagine anyway, but... It is the amount of power you can take to the ground that counts, not exactly how high you can take the power from. Superturbine( R) allows any diameter turbine to make more power at a lower height by combining the ppower of many rotors, which is why we have operating turbines at a 14-0foot hub height which is unheard of even in the groundhugging wind world.
A superior technology is superior at any height.

I'd say why don't you mathematically prove that my concept is NOT viable, since you are the one issuing the challenge, but I don't think you understand it well enough to do any such calculations.
Please, show me why each rotor cannot lift its own section of driveshaft? Let alone if we used blimps, which I hope will be unnecessary since rotors can fly.

You mentioned COTS - meaning "off-the-shelf" - my shizzle uses all COTS components, and well I guess so does yours, whatever yours is this week. I guess that is one of my points: Every component of your proposed designs can be bought off the shelf NOW from the propellers to the spools to the kites to the generator - so what are you waiting for?

Well all I can say is this whole discussion is geting a bit silly. OK you are the king. You have all the answers. Anything I say or propose is wrong. I have to say I have never debated anyone on any topic with the fixation you have for dissecting every comment I make and trying to negate it, which you are unsuccessful at by the way.

The fact is that I am about 30 years ahead of you on all this and you are simply musing through configurations that I ruled out as a teenager in the 1970's. Where can I buy one of your superior machines?

Compete directly with Kitemotor? OK I hate to say once again "give me a link" cause we now know that is beyond your capabilities, or beneath you in some way, but if you could provide exactly what it is that kitemotor does that I need to exceed, I will try and see if I can comply with that challenge. Ummm - a video showing power output on meters? Ohh sorry I know you hate it when I ask for that...

I have lots of machines running all around the world, making power at this very moment. Where is your running machine? Where can I buy one? Also it sounds like you are backing out of any sort of flyoff citing the usual (safety and rules) excuses.(?) Do I have that right? I know: Let's schedule a flying turbine deployment right next to an airport without asking permission (like in November 2009)!

Doug S.

--- In AirborneWindEnergy@ yahoogroups. com, dave santos <santos137@. ..> wrote:
>
> Doug,
>
> KiteMotor1's turbine blades are just a fraction of  its 1lb weight. The stand-off spar, drive-shaft, variable pitch hub, capstan, fairleads, etc. are 3/4 of the mass. The 1.3m dia rotor is not toy scale, any more than an similar size AIR-X 400 is, as the tip speed is over 200mph in a fresh breeze. Let toy scale be defined as kiddie-safe. The Chinese "puddle jumper" rotor toy is toy scale. The sewing thread example was clearly stated as just an "illustration" only to help you understand how the power dynamics of a cable loop allow it to be held up by a reasonable lift force, which you doubted.
>
> KiteLab Group cannot encourag e any unsafe AWE fly-off such as you suggest, but instead intends to outcompete unsafe competitors in the marketplace on grounds of safety-critical insurability. One monster kite fatality (Eideken '83) on the beach where KiteLab Ilwaco is based is quite enough. Safety is proper engineering & operations (safety culture).
>
> If you prefer not to compete directly with KiteMotor1, just do your "week-end project", a towerless kw rated AWE demo manifestly capable  of tapping  upper wind higher than ground turbines. No, a solid tubular driveshaft is not just a tether. You still have not answered in rough numbers how high you think a multi rotor driveshaft is practical & what you think it will weigh.
>
> daveS
>
> PS Please find us this curious AWE reference to add to our knowledge base-
>
> "I even heard of one guy who hung a hornet rotor from a kite at a mile height and used the tether rope as a driveshaft to a ground-based generator. "
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________ _________ _________ __
> From: Doug <doug@...>
> To: AirborneWindEnergy@ yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Tue, March 16, 2010 12:13:43 PM
> Subject: [AWECS] Re: Loop transmission of mechanical energy
>
>  
> > Doug,
> > Solid lumber is far from lightweight for anything but toy scale aviation.
>
> ***Doug S reply to Dave S: Last message you were concentrating on machines under 454 grams. That is "toy scale", which you were just lamenting and questioning the lack of interest in. We seem to both agree that small-scale machines can be used to prove a concept - sewing thread is your latest tether suggestion.
>
> ***Meanwhile I'm making 1 kW rotors that weigh about a lb each from select lumber. Wood has the same strength-to- weight ratio as carbon fiber in case you didn't know. It is a superior material for one-off prototypes and is considered the best material for at least small wind turbine blades, propellers, etc. Next time you're at a wind tunnel tell me what the fan blades are made of (wood). However, from a large-scale manufacturing standpoint, the cost-of-production and finish issues, raw material consistency issues, as well as possible moisture retention leading to imbalance, lean toward composites, since you can make a smooth mold and hire less-skilled fabricators, or use injection molding or otherwise automate the process.
>
> > Still awaiting your answer to driveshaft scaling question...
>
> ***OK here's your answer: The rotors provide lift as well as torque, with each rotor lifting its own section of driveshaft. At such point as we have enough power to twist the driveshaft in half, we're making as much power as we need and that is as high as we need to go. Some of the carbon-fiber driveshafts we currently use are also used to improve performance in vehicles from formula-1 racing cars to garbage trucks, and can transmit 1000 horsepower at a low weight. Obviously both larger and smaller diameter driveshafts are possible to transmit any power level at any torque and RPM. I even heard of one guy who hung a hornet rotor from a kite at a mile height and used the tether rope as a driveshaft to a ground-based generator.
> By definition if the driveshaft is failing, we have as much power as we need. If we can elevate it, and it can transmit the power, that's all it takes. Additionally, my patents cover weaving the driveshaft from a cylindrical mesh of Darrieus blades, so the driveshaft itself produces power. All my filament-wound driveshafts really are is your tethers, wound into a spiral. Think about it. My driveshafts are just your tethers used more appropriately to transmit the rotation you need, directly to the generator! They amount to your hypothetical "tethers that tow in a circle", optimized to tow in the circle of the best size at the best RPM to spin a generator.
> Thanks for asking.
> Doug Selsam
> http://www.USWINDLABS.com
> ~<brawk!>~
> > daveS
>


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1338 From: Joe Faust Date: 2010-03-16
Subject: Twist Method: TTQ

This thread

is twisting on

 http://www.energykitesystems.net/TwistMethod/index.html

Welcome to the TTQ party.

CoopIP                                                      JpF

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1339 From: harry valentine Date: 2010-03-17
Subject: Re: Loop transmission of mechanical energy
Loop transmission of mechanical energy can be applied to terrain enabled and terrain enhanced wind power technologies to connect wind power to a water pump, to pump water into storage at higher elevation.
 
Several VAWT's can be connected via a horizontally loop transmission to allow them to drive a single large alternator or single large water pump.
 
Power levels and longevity of the loop transmission will be critical.
 
 
Harry
 

Recent Activity:


Don’t miss a beat Get Messenger on your phone
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1340 From: dave santos Date: 2010-03-17
Subject: Re: Twist Method: TTQ
While twisting line is one way to transmit energy, there are clear practical limitations. Hockles, kinks, loops, & bird cages are common partial failure modes. Samson Rope, a technology leader in Dyneema ship hawsers, asserts on its website that "high twist levels adversely affect the residual strength & should be avoided". Twisting line concentrates stress on a just a few fibers, which fail progressively. Then there is the fact that twisted line pulls with great mechanical advantage, the basis for a "Spanish windlass", so an AWE kite or aerostat must pull against very powerful downforce or the line promptly supercoils into a twisted wad. These problems can be somewhat mitigated by thicker heavier line but this severely limits scaling potential compared to simply pulling or pumping a thinner less abused line.
 
Still, for a small novelty AWE demo, a kite tether based on a "rubber-band motor" or the Thessalian witch's jynx (spinning disk string toy) will do fun micropower. An advantage is high rpm.
 
There are old posts touching on this topic.


From: Joe Faust <joefaust333@...>
To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, March 16, 2010 4:07:12 PM
Subject: [AWECS] Twist Method: TTQ

 

This thread

is twisting on

 http://www.energyki tesystems. net/TwistMethod/ index.html

Welcome to the TTQ party.

CoopIP                                                      JpF


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1341 From: Bob Stuart Date: 2010-03-17
Subject: Re: Twist Method: TTQ
I pulled together some numbers for the weight of loop transmission vs electric conductors, and the loop looks like a clear winner.  If somebody wants to have a particular tether material or voltage compared, let me know, or I'll go with 400V and 1,000' of transmission, with solid aluminum conductors, vs Spectra line. 

Regarding the option of a straight pull vs a drive shaft, I'd like to see the figures for Doug's favourite shafting, which we can take as optimized for this year.  On an old HPV I did the numbers for, even chain drive was six times lighter than shaft drive, but I had different constraints.   Still, J.E. Gordon points out that Nature almost always manages to avoid any serious need to resist torques, which is why ski bindings are so tricky.  Drawing some rough analogies, we can compare a simple driveshaft to a loop fairly easily, I think. 

As Doug points out, the loop system wants to reel itself in, but this is easily solved by always leaving some tension on the return run.  AWE always requires some vertical tension, and it is of great benefit to either mechanical transmission system.  On the loop scheme, one just uses large enough pulleys at high enough speeds to get the ft per min up and the lbs down to a safe figure for the HP expected. 

A simple case of a driveshaft might take those same two tethers, and make them into a ladder with rigid struts to space them apart.  Then, after launch, they could be twisted by the turbine.  If the vertical tension and turbine RPM were adjusted nicely, you'd get a DNA-like double  helix at 45 deg.  If the working diameters and speeds were the same, the "shaft" would have the advantage of having two working members instead of one side of the loop.  Against that, it would loose 29% to the angle vector, the same amount of length, and the weight of the separator struts.  It would also experience far more wind resistance due to its own motion, but that would be partly cured by a full-round construction.  If its diameter were reduced, and speed increased, it might tend to require great rigidity to avoid whipping.  Perhaps some damper rings would act as center-steady bearings in the sky?  I'd be happy to compare numbers for the best hardware folks want to specify, from the shelf or not.

Bob Stuart

On 16/03/2010 3:07 PM, Joe Faust wrote:
 

This thread

is twisting on

 http://www.energyki tesystems. net/TwistMethod/ index.html

Welcome to the TTQ party.

CoopIP                                                      JpF

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1342 From: Dan Parker Date: 2010-03-17
Subject: Re: Twist Method: TTQ
Joe,
 
      I am glad your bringing this subject to the front, I believe this is perhaps the only practicle way to go forward of AWE, genny on the earth. I know the flex shaft, torsion shaft, is a underdeveloped field and will progress. Looking forward.
 
                                                                                     Dan'l

To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
From: joefaust333@...
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 21:07:12 +0000
Subject: [AWECS] Twist Method: TTQ

 

This thread
is twisting on
 http://www.energyki tesystems. net/TwistMethod/ index.html
Welcome to the TTQ party.
CoopIP                                                      JpF



Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox. Learn More.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1343 From: dave santos Date: 2010-03-17
Subject: Cat I & 2 sUAS AWE Training (Kite Pilot School)
PRESS RELEASE/// Please Forward/// First Call For Kite Pilot Trainees
 
Airborne Wind Energy (AWE) is a hot new field in alternative energy. FAA rules for small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (sUAS) define AWE's USA regulatory framework. Early compliance helps predict commercialization prospects for competing AWE technologies. A new aviation profession of AWE Kite Pilot has emerged.
 
KiteLab Group is now registering students for its experimental Cat 1 sUAS AWE Training Course (Kite Pilot School). This is combined Cat 1 PIC (Pilot In Control) & (VO) Visual Observer Training. Completion qualifies for follow-on training for a KiteLab Group Cat 1 Instructor Rating. CAT 2 sUAS AWE category certification training will be offered as FAA requirements are finalized & met.
 
This training is rigorous college-level study with hands-on practice. Mastery of pertinent aeronautical & AWE application knowledge is required. Structured flying hours with varied systems & conditions are assigned. Most coursework can be completed as distance learning. Flexible access to specialized sUAS AWE equipment with instruction is available in Ilwaco, WA, a scenic world-class kiting location.
 
Prior experience in these areas earns partial credit- Piloting (including ultralight, hang glider, skydiving, & paraglider), Kite Mastery, Model Aviation Expertise, UAV Operations, & Membership (in good standing) in an FAA accepted enitity like the American Kiteflier's Association (AKA) or Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA). Membership in the Airborne Wind Energy Industry Association (AWEIA) required. Students must be 14 or older.
 
Course is self-paced with supervision. Cat 1 Base Tuition is $500US. Field Instruction & Flight Testing is $20hr (average 10hrs). Economy food & lodging available. Volunteer work, group registration, or hardship qualifies for free or discounted training.
 
================================
 
Contact: Dave Santos, santos137@...
 
Link:
 
Emerging FAA sUAS Rules
 
 

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1345 From: Joe Faust Date: 2010-03-17
Subject: Re: Twist Method: TTQ
Sorry,
      The paravane flexible driveshaft by DaveS, perhaps you too, and the aerial SuperTurbine have driven groundGen from flexible driveshaft from spinners at dynamic end; these have historical record; there are more paravane examples also.       
JoeF
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1346 From: Dan Parker Date: 2010-03-17
Subject: Re: Cat I & 2 sUAS AWE Training (Kite Pilot School)
DaveS,
 
          Very Kewl!
 
                            Dan'l
 

To: airbornewindenergy@yahoogroups.com
From: santos137@...
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 08:32:18 -0700
Subject: [AWECS] Cat I & 2 sUAS AWE Training (Kite Pilot School)

 
PRESS RELEASE/// Please Forward/// First Call For Kite Pilot Trainees
 
Airborne Wind Energy (AWE) is a hot new field in alternative energy. FAA rules for small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (sUAS) define AWE's USA regulatory framework. Early compliance helps predict commercialization prospects for competing AWE technologies. A new aviation profession of AWE Kite Pilot has emerged.
 
KiteLab Group is now registering students for its experimental Cat 1 sUAS AWE Training Course (Kite Pilot School). This is combined Cat 1 PIC (Pilot In Control) & (VO) Visual Observer Training. Completion qualifies for follow-on training for a KiteLab Group Cat 1 Instructor Rating. CAT 2 sUAS AWE category certification training will be offered as FAA requirements are finalized & met.
 
This training is rigorous college-level study with hands-on practice. Mastery of pertinent aeronautical & AWE application knowledge is required. Structured flying hours with varied systems & conditions are assigned. Most coursework can be completed as distance learning. Flexible access to specialized sUAS AWE equipment with instruction is available in Ilwaco, WA, a scenic world-class kiting location.
 
Prior experience in these areas earns partial credit- Piloting (including ultralight, hang glider, skydiving, & paraglider), Kite Mastery, Model Aviation Expertise, UAV Operations, & Membership (in good standing) in an FAA accepted enitity like the American Kiteflier's Association (AKA) or Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA). Membership in the Airborne Wind Energy Industry Association (AWEIA) required. Students must be 14 or older.
 
Course is self-paced with supervision. Cat 1 Base Tuition is $500US. Field Instruction & Flight Testing is $20hr (average 10hrs). Economy food & lodging available. Volunteer work, group registration, or hardship qualifies for free or discounted training.
 
============ ========= ========= ==
 
Contact: Dave Santos, santos137@yahoo. com
 
Link:
 
Emerging FAA sUAS Rules
 
 




Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox. Learn More.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1347 From: Dan Parker Date: 2010-03-17
Subject: Re: Twist Method: TTQ
Joe,
 
      While I applaud the micro independent individual set up, I do envision larger applications. The time is nigh, the weather is breaking and the fun begins, I do hope a breakthrough on the tether front. Some inside the box, some outside the circle and others off planet thinking will help us there. Can you make a numeric list of what's available in the young art of tethers, then maybe we can explore each from there. DaveS. all ears hears.
 
                                                                                             Dan'l
 
 

To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
From: joefaust333@...
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 10:34:09 -0700
Subject: Re: [AWECS] Twist Method: TTQ

 
Dan,
     There are several families of driveshaft in the picture, so far. The several separated line complex, the flying open-mesh shaft, the traditional hard and tight flexible drive shaft, and the DNA mimic.    You are welcome to prepare notes that can be with linked text; such notes will go on the page being developed; the page will be being spidered by Google. 
 
Can you see a SAF segment lofted to 50 m  and driving a flexible drive shaft tether while a lifter kite or aerostat kytoon keeps things taut?      I have no record of anyone driving a groundGen with rotating tether, but it may have been done.  
 
It would be neat to have a historical first in this realm, even if the realm may not be utilityAWE dominating.
 
Lift,
Joe

On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 6:17 AM, Dan Parker <spiralairfoil@ hotmail.com> wrote:
 

Joe,
 
      I am glad your bringing this subject to the front, I believe this is perhaps the only practicle way to go forward of AWE, genny on the earth. I know the flex shaft, torsion shaft, is a underdeveloped field and will progress. Looking forward.
 
                                                                                     Dan'l


To: AirborneWindEnergy@ yahoogroups. com
From: joefaust333@ gmail.com
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 21:07:12 +0000

Subject: [AWECS] Twist Method: TTQ

 

This thread


is twisting on
 http://www.energyki tesystems. net/TwistMethod/ index.html
Welcome to the TTQ party.
CoopIP                                                      JpF





Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox. Learn More.






Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox. Learn More.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1348 From: Joe Faust Date: 2010-03-17
Subject: Our group search tool does not function yet.
Yahoo! groups search function does not work on very many of its groups. Yahoo! has a program that supposedly is gradually adding more and more groups into the desired search capability; they reveal no promise for AirborneWindEnergy. So, using the shown tool brings no results.

WORKAROUND:
In the Google search field type carefully in lowercase just as shown here where no space occurs after the colon; and be sure to put a space after the forward slant before putting in the word that you seek in our group. Here I illustrate with the word
tether

site:tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/AirborneWindEnergy/ tether

Notice that the site part leaves off http://
Try it for various words and phrases.

Found offers by Google lead to links over which a second page search for term may be needed; and the page will be searchable differently for how you have chosen the group messages to show: summaries, expanded, or titles only.

JoeF
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1349 From: harry valentine Date: 2010-03-18
Subject: Re: Gyros with counter-rotating rotors

 The gyro with the counter-rotating rotors is an interesting concept . . . there is a tail-less helicopter known as a "Manx" that uses concentric counter-rotating rotors . . . like the radio controlled toy.
 
Piasecki built a helicopter with inter-meshing, counter-rotating rotors . . . that concept allow for gigantic rotors and it also allows for each drive-shaft to drive a flexible torque-tube or twist-drive mechanism that could carry power to ground-level alternators.
 
Harry
 
 
Recent Activity:
Yahoo! Groups
Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use
.



Don’t miss a beat Get Messenger on your phone
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1350 From: Joe Faust Date: 2010-03-18
Subject: Kytoon and cousins teach
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1351 From: Joe Faust Date: 2010-03-18
Subject: Re: Kytoon and cousins teach
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY -- NAVAL HISTORICAL CENTER
805 KIDDER BREESE SE -- WASHINGTON NAVY YARD
WASHINGTON DC 20374-5060

Image of cover.

Image of cover.

[formerly] CONFIDENTIAL
[Declassified 17 Aug 72]

O. N. I. Publication No. 46

KITE BALLOONS
IN ESCORTS

NAVY DEPARTMENT
OFFICE OF NAVAL INTELLIGENCE

NOVEMBER 1918



WASHINGTON
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
1918




[formerly] CONFIDENTIAL [Declassified 17 Aug 72]

OFFICE OF NAVAL INTELLIGENCE
Washington, November 1, 1918.


Upon the recommendation of Operations-Aviation this study of the use of kite balloons in escorts, made by the planning section, is published for the information of the naval service. This pamphlet is confidential and for the use of commissioned officers only.

ROGER WELLES
Rear Admiral, U. S. Navy,
Director of Naval Intelligence





KITE BALLOONS IN ESCORTS.


PLANNING SECTION-MEMORANDUM.

PROBLEM.

Kite balloons being available for use with escort vessels, the following questions arise:
1. Should kite balloons be used by vessels escorting convoys?
2. If escort vessels use kite balloons, what are the principles governing their use?

In considering these questions all available publications and reports have been carefully studied and freely used in the notes that follow.

The following information is pertinent:
(1) In July, 1917, experiments were carried out with a kite balloon by a destroyer. It was found that a kite balloon could trace the submarine after her movement could no longer be seen from the bridge; but it is doubtful if a kite balloon observer can follow a submarine that seeks to escape by diving more than a minute longer than the same submarine could be followed from the bridge. When the submarine is leaking oil the kite balloon is more useful in the chase than at any other time.

(2) In July, 1917, the Grand Fleet Destroyers made an experimental hunt for submarines. The submarine was discovered on the surface 8 miles away. Later, two periscopes were discovered, distance not stated.

(3) Later two other submarines were discovered in the same hunt by the kite balloons, distance not stated. No result of the contact, except that the submarine remained submerged during daylight.

(4) On July 12, 1917, H. M. S. Patriot sighted a submarine on the surface at a distance of 28 miles. The submarine submerged when kite balloon was distanced 6 miles. Submarine came up when kite balloon was 4 miles away and immediately submerged. Patriot was directed to the spot by the kite balloon and an attack was made; submarine was probably destroyed.

(5) On May 27, 1918, a convoy was attacked while escorted by a kite balloon. The attack was delivered five minutes after the balloon was hauled down to change observers. This was the first instance on record of an attack on the convoy while being escorted by a kite balloon. A second convoy was attacked on September 3, 1918, when escorted by a kite balloon; one vessel was sunk.

The British believe that enemy submarines feel that they incur no great danger while being sighted from kite balloons at a distance. British publications give the visibility of kite balloons in clear weather at about 20 miles. Visibility varies with light, background, color of balloon, relative positions of balloon and observing vessel.

(6) It is known, of course, that even when convoys are not accompanied by kite balloons, submarines as a rule sight convoys before they themselves are sighted.

-3-



(7) At twilight in clear weather a kite balloon becomes increasingly visible from all bearings, and remains so until it is quite dark. Under these conditions it is probable that a submarine can come to the surface at some distance from the kite balloon and follow it without fear of detection.

(8) Observations from kite balloons are much less efficient when wind is blowing.

(9) When there are white caps on the water the chances of seeing a periscope from a balloon are small.

(10) Recent records covering British operations indicate that a kite balloon has to cruise over 30,000 miles to sight a submarine. The conclusion is, of course, that as a rule--
1. The submarine sees the kite balloon first.
2. The submarine submerges very soon after the kite balloon is sighted.

Considering now the questions to be decided, viz.:
1. Should kite balloons be used by vessels escorting convoys?
2. If escort vessels use kite balloons, what are the principles governing their use?

It is evident that the answer to question (1) depends in part upon the answer to question (2), so we shall investigate the principles governing the use of kite balloons first.

The kite balloon has but one direct use and that is to get information; it has but one drawback that need be considered here, and that is that it gives information to the enemy. The real problem for the kite balloon therefore is to get as much useful information as possible, and to give as little useful information as possible to enemy vessels.

The indirect use of a kite balloon is measured by its effect on enemy submarines. They nearly always submerge in time to avoid being seen from the balloon while they are still on the surface, and thereby voluntarily limit their maneuvering power.

There are two ways of using kite balloons:
(1) In close escort positions. Here the kite balloon vessel zig-zags close to the convoy.
(2) In extended patrol positions. Here the kite balloons are at visibility distance from the convoy in thick weather and at about 12 miles from the convoy in clear weather.

The functions of the kite balloon in close escort positions-where it usually zigzags across the front of the convoys are-
(1) To sight any submarine which through a bad lookout or through taking chances, stays on the surface with the kite balloon in sight.
(2) To sight submarines that attempt to attack in time to give warning and to direct a counter attack.
(3) To warn convoy of browning shots.
(4) To limit the submarine[`]s maneuvering area on the surface so that if the submarine be in the rear of the convoy it will have to make a very wide detour to get ahead of the convoy in position for attack, undiscovered.
(5) To prevent trailing of convoy by dropping astern of convoy just before dark.
(6) To keep submarines submerged after an attack.

-4-



The close escort position is the one that gives the maximum information to the enemy submarine. It makes a conspicuous marker of the convoy's position and thereby enables the submarine to communicate the convoy's position and movements to submarines better placed for attack. It is also quite possible for the sighting submarine itself to gain a position for attack by a wide detour.

The principal advantages of the close escort position are:
(1) Readiness for counter attack.
Comment.--Unless the submarine is leaking oil the kite balloon will probably not guide the attacking vessel more efficiently than it could be guided from the bridge for more than one additional minute--once the attack is delivered.

(2) Protection against browning shots through warnings.
Comment.-Taking into consideration: (a) That the kite balloon has not over two observers.
(b) That the browning shot torpedo will not be in flight more than three minutes, and more often two minutes.
(c) That an appreciable interval is required to give the warning.
(d) That the warning can not tell each vessel the relative bearing of the torpedo.

We conclude that the extra protection given by kite balloons against browning shots is about one minute's earlier notice of danger to the convoy.

(3) Bluffing the submarine.
Comment.--Recent evidence indicates that this element may soon be negligible.

From the above in conjunction with the operating experiences of kite balloons in the presence of submarines we conclude:
That it is not profitable to use kite balloons in close escort positions except in waters where convoy routes are well known-and during weather when visibility is very limited.

The extended patrol for escort of convoys is discussed in various publications. Attention is invited particularly to O. N. I. No. 29 of February, 1918.

The functions of the kite balloon in extended patrol positions are similar to those in close escort positions.

Every convoy carries with it an area within which a submarine may maneuver submerged into position for attack on the convoy. The width of the area is twice the visibility of the convoy from the submarine's periscope--about 14 miles in clear weather plus the length of the convoy front. The area extends an indefinite distance ahead of the convoy.

The afterside of the area is bounded by an irregular line dependent on the formation and speed of the convoy, the speed and radius of the submarine when submerged, and the range of the submarine torpedoes.

This area is called the "diving danger area."

A similar area known as the "surface danger area" includes and extends beyond the "diving danger area" on the flanks and rear by an amount equal to the difference in visibility of the convoy from a submarine submerged and from a submarine on the surface. In clear

-5-



weather the "surface danger area" may be taken to be 22 miles in width.

The flank boundaries of both the "diving danger area" and the "surface danger area" are determined by visibility from the submarine, because the presumption is that the submarine can not maneuver for attack when it can not see. The development of listening apparatus may in the near future extend the "diving danger area" by the flanks--to twice the listening radius rather than to twice the visibility--provided the submerged radius of the submarine keeps pace with the listening radius.

Extended patrol vessels are vessels stationed at visibility distance from a convoy with the object—

(a) Of limiting the submarine's freedom of action on the surface and of preventing the submarines from sighting the convoy.

(b) Of sighting any submarine that does not dive immediately upon sighting the patrol vessel.

If the patrol vessel carries a kite balloon the principles of extended patrol are not thereby altered.

If the patrol vessels are stationed inside the "diving danger area" they may sight a submarine but the submarine may still be able to maneuver submerged so as to attack. If, however, the extended patrol vessels are stationed outside the "diving danger area" and in such position as to sight any submarine in or near that part of the "surface danger area" not common to the "diving danger area," any submarine there sighted will have to dive, and by diving will lose all chance of successful attack on the convoy, since it will have dived without sighting the convoy and without knowledge of its whereabouts.

When the convoy is escorted by antisubmarine vessels it is reasonably safe to assume--for all except the slowest convoys--that no submarine will be able to maneuver submerged successfully for attack if it first sights the convoy when the convoy already has the submarine abaft the beam.

In stationing extended escort vessels care should be taken that the range of vision astern is such that no submarine can reach the "diving danger area" on the surface without being observed either by the extended patrol or the close escort.

The following table gives the bearing in points from right ahead on which the extended escorts should be from the convoy guide:

Speed of convoy.
Visibility .
4 miles
6 miles
8 miles
10 or more miles
7 knots
7
6
5
4.5
9 knots
5
5
4.5
--
11 knots
4
4
3.5
3.5
13 knots
4
3.5
3.5
3



The extended patrol vessel with kite balloon, must keep convoy in sight--closing in for this purpose as weather thickens. In clear weather kite balloon may be about 12 miles from convoy.

-6-



POSITION OF KITE BALLOON VESSELS.

(1) In very clear weather--
(a) With two kite balloons.--One on each bow, in extended escort, positions given above, to make wide zigzags outward from extended escort positions.
(b) With but one kite balloon.--On one bow, in extended escort position crossing occasionally to the other bow and never lingering ahead of the convoy.

(2) With moderate and with low visibility-that is, when kite balloon will not be seen farther than convoy is seen--
(a) With two kite balloons.--One in each of the close escort positions, zigzagging so as to cover the front of the convoy and the wing columns.
(b) With but one kite balloon.--At close escort distance, ahead of convoy and covering the whole front with zigzags.

With regard to the above designated positions, when there is but one kite balloon it should as a rule be stationed:
(a) To windward of the convoy.
(b) On the sunny side of the convoy.
(c) On the side nearest the moon.
(d) On the opposite side to the rising sun at dawn moving around to other side at sunrise. (a), (b), and (c), to be at such distance from the convoy that the submarine must dive before sighting the convoy and be unable to come to the surface between the balloon and the convoy without being seen.

At twilight kite balloons should drop back by the flanks as the light fails, to positions on the quarters of the convoy, keeping as far away as possible without losing touch and not closing up until quite dark. If convoy alters course after dark, kite balloon should stand off on a different course and not rejoin until quite dark, then take close escort positions.

If in sight of land, or if the area ahead of the convoy is being patrolled, kite balloons should be stationed in the close escort position in all visibilities.

Extended patrol should not be used until the minimum requirements of close escort have been met.
Considering now the use of the kite balloon in extended escort positions we find--
(1) That it does not betray the presence of a convoy and therefore gives practically no useful information to the enemy.
Comment.-A submarine seeing a kite balloon can make one positive deduction and several tentative deductions.
Positive deduction.--That a surface vessel is towing a kite balloon in a certain general direction which the submarine can determine.
Tentative deductions--
(a) That a convoy may be near the kite balloon and that it is more apt to be astern of the kite balloon than ahead of it.
(b) That the kite balloon is near antisubmarine vessels--whether a convoy is near by or not--since kite balloons are used in hunting as well as in escort operations.
(c) That the surest way to approach the convoy if there is one near by, is to approach the kite balloon--if possible getting ahead of the kite balloon.

-7-



TThe submarine can make these same deductions if it sights a single vessel of war; so that practically the only information which the kite balloon gives to the submarine is earlier information of the presence of a vessel in a given direction, and correspondingly early information of the general course of that vessel. This earlier information is measured by the relation of the two circles of visibility (1) of the vessel, (2) of the kite balloon. The atmospheric conditions modify very greatly the relation of these circles of visibility. In clear weather the kite balloon would probably be sighted twice as far as the vessel. In thick weather the vessel itself might be sighted first.
(2) That the submarine sighting the balloon will very likely be attracted by it even to the extent of voluntarily leaving the "diving danger area."
(3) That all submarines outside the "diving danger area" will be prevented from entering that area except by chance.
(4) That the trailing of convoys will be prevented.
(5) Any submarine sighted can be kept submerged until convoy has passed or until dark.

We conclude--
That it is profitable to use kite balloons in extended escort positions in accordance with the principles already explained.

The practicability of using kite balloons in bad weather or on long voyages has not been considered. We assume that decision in each instance as to whether or not to take balloons in tow will be based upon operating experience to date and a forecast of conditions likely to be encountered.

SUMMARY.

As to question (1), it is not profitable to use kite balloons in close escort positions except--
(1) In waters where convoy routes are well known.
(2) During weather when visibility is very limited.

It is profitable to use kite balloons in extended escort positions in accordance with the principles already explained, viz--
(1) On the bearings given in the table at the bottom of page 8.
(2) At visibility distance from the convoy, except that in clear weather this distance shall not exceed 12 miles.
(3) In very clear weather--
(a) With two kite balloons.--One on each bow, in extended escort positions given above, to make wide zigzag southward from extended escort positions.
(b) With but one kite balloon.--On one bow in extended escort position crossing occasionally to the other bow and never lingering ahead of the convoy.
(3) [sic] With moderate and with low visibility--that is, when kite balloon will not be seen farther than convoy is seen--
(a) With two kite balloons.--One in each of the close escort positions, zigzagging so as to cover the front of the convoy and the wing columns.
(b) With but one kite balloon.--At close escort distance, ahead of convoy and covering the whole front with zigzags.

-8-



(4) When there is but one kite balloon with a convoy, it should as a rule be stationed:
(1) To windward of the convoy.
(2) On the sunny side of the convoy.
(3) On the side nearest the moon.
(4) On the opposite side to the rising sun at dawn moving around to other side at sunrise. (1), (2), and (3), to be at such distance from the convoy that the submarine must dive before sighting the convoy and be unable to come to the surface between the balloon and the convoy without being seen.

(5) At twilight kite balloons should drop back by the flanks as the light fails to positions on the quarters of the convoy, keeping as far away as possible from the convoy without losing sight of it and not closing up until quite dark. If during this time convoy alters course after dark, kite balloons should stand off on a different course and not rejoin until quite dark, then take close escort positions.

(6) If in sight of land, or if the area ahead of the convoy is being patrolled to the limit of visibility of the kite balloon, kite balloon should be stationed in the close escort position in all visibilities.

(7) Extended patrol should not be used until the minimum requirements of close escort have been met.

Approved as a preliminary study of the subject of the use of kite balloons in escorts, paper to be mimeographed, and to be given wide distribution to forces for information and inviting comment, in order that a definite doctrine and plan covering the subject may be developed.

Sims,
Vice Admiral, U. S. Navy, Commanding.

LONDON, ENGLAND,
September 30, 1918.


Source: "ONI Publications, WWI" ZV file, Navy Department Library.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1352 From: harry valentine Date: 2010-03-18
Subject: Loop vs Winch transmission of power
One concert about the loop method is its dependency on the coefficient of friction between the driving/driven pulleys and the cable. The windlass system would increase contact between cable an pulley . . . extra guide pulleys could mimimize the risk of the cable being "derailed off" the driving or driven pulleys.
 
A winch does not depend on friction between cable and pulley. An mechanical version of AC power transmission would have 2-sets of winches alternately pulling on a pair of cables . . . one cable reels in as the other reels out while under high tension load.
 
 
Regardless whether loop drive or winch drive is chosen, taughtness of the cable would assure proper transmission of power.
 
 
There is a need for a technology that can transfer large amounts of power over distances of several hundred feet.
 
 
Harry


Stay in touch. Get Messenger on your phone now.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 1353 From: harry valentine Date: 2010-03-18
Subject: Looped Cable windlass mechanisms

 
Delft Technical University researhers theorized that looped cable mechanisms may be able carry up to 200MW of power.
 
 
AWE researchers may be aware that a windlass mechanism involves multiple windings of cable around a drum. It appears possible to link 2-drums in windlass mechanism to transfer large amounts of power, smoothly. Companies like Pirelli manufacture steel cables . . . the also have the ability to manufacture a looped cable using a single, super-long strand of high-strength steel.
 
The strand is wound on to a drum that unwinds as it goes around the loop and on each successive pass, the strand is twisted around the previous looped strand. Eventually the looped cable is of the desired cross-sectional area and the ends of the strand are welded together. This is still an evolving technology with future potential.
 
 
Harry Valentine


Live connected with Messenger on your phone Learn more.

Take your contacts everywhere. Try Messenger for mobile