Jump to content

Talk:Airborne wind turbine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Untitled

This concept seems pretty flakey to me. I've split this out from the Wind power article because that article is already too long, and this idea was allocated equal space with onshore and offshore installations, both of which are widely practiced. If this concept is anything other than a crackpot idea, I'd like to see this article fleshed out to answer several questions:

  • If the rotor blades are also used as a lift mechanism, then the thing is a helicopter. :I agree. If the tether breaks or there is no wind, the FEG = flying electric generator descends slowly as an autogyro without power. Typically only minor damage occurs when it lands. What is the steering mechanism? :ordinary GPS = global positioning service plus a computer which makes most of the decisions. Ground operators can also pilot by radio control.
  • Are counter-rotating turbines used? If not, what cancels the rotor torque? :The 15,000 foot model will have two rotors spaced a bit more than two rotor radius apart. The later model will have 4 or more rotors spaced a bit more than a rotor radius apart.
  • Are winds aloft any less variable than low altitude winds? Why?
I believe they are very much so. They're driven by global patterns rather than local factors. For example, the equator is always much warmer than the poles, so the basic Hadley cell is always there. dsws 15:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but much larger scale and typically faster wind. When the wind aloft shifts, The FEG will tyically find a new arrangement that works favorably in about one minute.
  • Identify any patents on this idea, companies/research groups pursuing it, and test articles or prototypes.
see www.skywindpower.com

Iain McClatchie 20:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd also like to know how much 30,000 feet of wire weigh.:#20 aluminum wire is 930 pounds per 1000 feet and 17.6 ohms per 1000 feet = one million ohms for 60,000 feet. We need two conductors very well insulated from each other. (Three conductors for 3phase ac) If the FEG produces 400,000 volts at 1/5th amp, half the energy is line loss. The wire gets warm, but not hot, which helps keep the the tether dry and ice free. Wouldn't that weigh the thing down, so it would be spending all it's energy to get lift up? Sometimes altitude will lost, but typically altitude will be regained as conditions improve. Reduced power will be delivered briefly and rarely. The 30,000 foot tether will weigh at least 30 tons, unless we develop superconductors and/or CNT = carbon nano tubes for strength and/or think less than 1/5 amp. More than 400,000 volts is likely impractical and well into decreasing returns.
  • Does it get lift from wind blowing over its wings? Or by rotors?
www.skywindpower is thinking rotors, but likely wings are possible

I tried contacting the company via their email form, but have not yet heard back.

my guess is neither company has yet found the extensive funding needed yet, so they are stretch thin for man hours. NeilCcpoodle 12:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A much simpler approach is to have a tethered controllable airfoil. The kite might look like a paraglider or like a glider.[ http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/05/Img20040730_0302_at_neustift.jpg paraglider ] The angle of attack control could be via radio, via a conductors in the tether or by an on board computer. Changing its angle of attack in a periodic way would produce a periodic variation in the tension on the tether. This alternating tension could be rectified by a spring and crank apparatus on the ground.

For example, consider 0 to 1000 KG (10,000 N) at 6 cycles /minute along a 500 meter tether. Wire rope is rated at about 1550 N/mm^2 so the wire rope would weigh about 32KG

The sole role of tether (other than optionally carrying some light communication wire) is carrying the kite's wind driven tension. The tether material selection criterion is maximum strength and durability at minimum weight.

The advantage of this scheme is that all the heavy apparatus on is on the ground and only the functional airfoil and light aerodynamic controls are aloft. A lighter kite means that it converts wind into usable energy more efficiently. It can also pull a longer tether and thus reach higher altitudes where winds are steadier and stronger. It can be lofted at lower ground wind speeds and if it comes down to the ground it is less likely to cause serious damage. The kite should be designed to maximize lift at minimum weight subject to durability.

The ground base for the tether has a reel, crankshaft and generator. and can have a fairly small footprint. It would have to be anchored to withstand the peak tether stresses. Many ground bases and kites could be scattered fairly densely over a region.

With more sophisticated controls to avoid kite collisions (and tether tangles) one could have multiple (two in tandem seems reasonable, perhaps more on the same tether at different altitudes) kites tethered to the same ground station. Lou (talk) 20:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with airborne systems?

You know, every one of these guys has a Web site and a place for investors to dump in their money...but no other coverage on the Web. If it's such a great idea, how is it that no-one is actually using it? All the deadlines keep moving away at the rate of 1 year per year. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Over 85 entities: www.AirborneWindEnergyAssociation.org Joefaust (talk) 18:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://energykitesystems.net/AWEstakeholders/index.html inidicates that our article is way behind in posting entities active in this new field. 68.123.232.10 (talk) 20:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fan site. There were Web sites back in 2009, too. Web sites are easier to build than airborne turbines. Does anyone have any shovels in the ground? --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the generator: on ground or onboard in air?

The article's title ought not force the generator to be in the kite; the turbine could be causing oscillations that drive the kite left and right of the wind window to drive railed or oscillating mechanisms for generating electricity on the ground. Ground-based generators means that the mass of the generator need not be lifted to altitude...leaving the kite to flying job only. There are many methods being explored other than the one seemingly being featured in the article so far. There are speciawl reel methods, rail-car methods, line payout-payin methods,.. EnergyKiteSystems.net is an open-source site gathering all of the methods of airborne wind turines, kite motors, kite generators. When the generator is on land or in the water, then large opportunities seem to be opening. Joefaust (talk) 23:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The one scheme that hasn't been floated yet is using an airborne wind turbine to automatically manufacture AA batteries and tiny parachutes, as a method of transporting energy to the ground. That scheme is only a little further away than the ones with flying wires or pull-ropes (let alone lasers or microwave beams). --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the industry has been discussing charging batteries aloft and then bringing down the charged batteries in exhcange for further batteries to be charged. Further: a patent teaches the flow of chemicals up and down with changes in the chemicals aloft; the down-going chemicals are bonded to store energy to be opened later. Similarly, the sending down compressed air has been being examined for various ground works: energy storage, drying of harvested food, space air conditioning, etc. Joefaust (talk) 18:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT merge High Altitude Wind Power to this article

Many reasons: The two articles are not one and the same. Many HAWP devices are not airborne turbines. So do not merge the article. There are many airborne wind turbines operated in very very low altitudes and even at below sea level. So do not merge the two articles. There is non-empty intersection, but poor coverage will occur if merge is forced.Joefaust (talk)

Well then maybe this article should merge to High Altitude Wind Power, though it will have to lose the capitals and we must find some evidence that the phrase exists in the world outside Wikipedia. I don't think tehre will ever be enough content to justify a plethora of articles because no-one is actually building anything; looking at some of the patents cited over at the other article, it's cheaper to file a patent than to hire a draftsman. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Magenn Air Rotor System SOLD to USA company.

This Canadian inovation has been shipped to a US company that bought all competing Airborn Wind Turbine inventions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tunafishes (talk • contribs) 04:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reference? Newpaper article, magzine article, number of the bus on which you overheard a conversation? --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, their Web page is still up, but hasn't been updated since 2009. 411.ca reverse look up on their phone number gives nothing. And a Google search on 105 Schneider Road, Kanata Ontario shows a kickboxing academy and a self-storage site. No news on Google, though. They're gone. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Working prototype

Some company demonstrated a working prototype of one of these at 350 feet. Could someone who understands wind energy better than I do update the article? 140.247.154.41 (talk) 20:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

would this work of mine be considered appropriate here? http://www.instructables.com/id/Enjoy-a-nice-cup-of-kite-powered-tea/ RoderickRead (talk) 07:22, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Airborne wind turbine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:32, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Airborne_wind_turbine&oldid=1204626460"