Wing Wind Power

I think I've seen something similar. You may find this pertinent. Not exactly a kite, but not a bad idea.

http://www.rexresearch.com/kelley/kelley.htm

and this. http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/10/71908

I'm not knocking your idea, just don't want to see you spend too much time on something that's already been thought of. I've done it.

Thank you kramarat; my wing is much simpler than the Kelly one. I haven't seen a kite or wing, capable of being as powerful, or as practical as mine. But if you don't mind, I would rather not talk about the wing itself, as it is the key patentable area.

This makes it hard to be helpful, or even to evaluate the concept suitably. Your coyness resembles that of another ongoing thread on Increasing Gear Ratio in some sort of ill-defined wind harvesting scheme.

A large multitude of these would be an air-traffic hazard, or they might even interfere with each other.

I am only be 'coy' about the wing itself. I saw that thread. I couldn't follow what the poster wanted.

However; My question/need, is, I believe, somewhat more concise; how to best convert the tether force and stroke into grid suitable electricity?

Yes you are correct about air-traffic hazard and possible interference between wings.

And has been considered as follows;

The concept dictates area deployment strategies, radar visibility and responders be incorporated. However, it is not much different to ballooning or airships operation - except this is 'fixed' in known 'farm areas', which would be outside aviation corridors.

Even so the 'farm area' will be 3D radar tracking the wings. I.e. at night, at high altitude, in poor visibility, so also be able to see any approaching aircraft, and assure their diversion.

If you feel there is some oversight, please comment.

I don't know if it would be practical, but as a concept I would look at a ratcheting device to drive a generator with a substantial flywheel. Details might be tricky, though.

Thank you for that idea. The ratchet approach may even allow harnessing of buffeting in steady flight [rather than having to use 'flying cycles']

Like if the tether was tied off to a large 'spring', and the tugging movements were harnessed.

Could I used a pneumatic of hydraulic cylinder as a 'spring'? Is there a way of getting power out of them?

The wing idea is fun to play around with, and see what concepts might apply. However, I think that just about everything one could try will be so kludgy as to be impractical. (See the posts by others on collective cable size and lightning.)

As for the ratchet idea, a simple large weight (half of the wing's lift) might be better than springs or cylinders. When the wing goes up, it drives the generator and lifts the weight. When the wing moves down, the falling weight drives the generator. (Somewhat analogous to left/right feet on a bicycle crank.)

Interesting. Such a thing could be in a 'mineshaft', so 'invisible' [aside from when the wing is landed for maintenance]

Great Idea!

2 units, porpoising such as to deal with the dwell of the other, and power would be continuous

Now I feel we are getting somewhere

This is great!

I'm not trying to knock the wind out of your sails, but here's a rather simple design that seems to work. Sounds like they want to go large scale also.

I think a lot of work has been done on the energy capturing and storage, you may want to focus on the wing design itself in regard to your patent.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hfct44QsOkw

Charlie Brown...

If the wind quits, your kite crashes.

750 tons...have you calculated the cable diameter?

I thought of using this or similar, for the weight.

The absolute breaking strength of that in 1/2" diameter is about 17 tons. You should never apply a cable anywhere close to its absolute breaking strength--without that being my field, I'd think you'd want to apply no more than half that tension to the cable, or about 8.5 tons.

So, you'd need something like 90 of those cables paralleled to withstand a 750 ton tension.

Thank you for your comment and guidance. Fortunately they can make bigger ones, but there will also need to be some redundancy, so inevitably it is a multi-cable tether system. Hopefully less than 90 strands.

With a quick figuring job I get approx 6" dia for 90 each 1/2" cables (should be smaller with compression). I have not figured the cable storage required for 32,000 feet of 6" dia rope, but I bet it will be a pretty big reel.

I always get what I hope for. ^{Well, except for that one time...}

The cable would be long enough for 32,000 ft at say 45⁰, so 45,000 ft, but still, that is only 8.5 miles.

OOPS! You are correct, I misread your OP (original post).

So, now the storage reel must have a capacity of about 1.414 times my first comment. Not really an improvement on the logistics. 8-1/2 miles of 6" dia rope...

Please do not misread my comments. This is an interesting idea to discuss. As Tornado, tcmtech, and others have pointed out, there are many things about this that appear to make electrical generation more difficult than it needs to be.

Oh, and you made a comment in #6: "I am only be 'coy' about the wing itself. I saw that thread. I couldn't follow what the poster wanted." This tells me you have some idea of what is going on. Your comments in this thread show an interest in harvesting the vast experiences available here at CR4. Good for you.

"there are many things about this that appear to make electrical generation more difficult than it needs to be"

I agree, as it now looks. But 'simple solutions' often take a while to find. Then, hopefully, it's "looking fairly easy"

On the storage of unused cable topic; it is a problem to find what to do with it, but in Tornados' suggestion, it could maybe be stored on a reel as part of the traveling weight. Or the reel could be the weight.

One thing to keep in mind is the wing stays aloft, as seldom is there 'no wind' at none of these altitude bands. Perhaps not enough to generate much at times, but generally enough to 'fly'.

Which raises the question; can the tonnage of the weight be adjustable to scale of available lift? If so how so?

Or is there some other way if input/output maximization?

Seldom still involves sometimes and falling a few thousand feet once is going to be more than enough to wreck it.

Yeah, and some guy in a field ten miles downwind is gonna be scratching his head and wondering, Where's the fuselage?

Oh come on Tcmtech I bet I'd get a bigger serve of [freshly opened] Hobbit food if I said it could never happen.

Mr. Doorman,

What is the weight of 8.5 miles of this cable?

John

Using the source given in post #3, 8-1/2 miles of 1/2" rope @ 90 ply will weigh about 270,000 pounds.

Also of possible interest: Pricing of 8-1/2 miles of 1/2" rope @ 90 ply, at the price listed at the website, is $12,825,000 USD. I have a belief that you could get a substantial discount for such a large order, but that will still be a significant impact on this project.

You're welcome!

But think also of the weight--someone else calculated that the 90 strands would create a bundle about 6" in diameter. Without doing any calculation (or remembering the weight of steel per cu.ft.) you might be looking at around 65 to 100 lbs. per foot, x 45,000 feet could be 225 tons your wing has to lift. Is that feasible?

The tether being considered is poly. See post #43.

At one and a half million dollars per mile of tether... How much money to build a mile of four lane highway?

Oh, yes, you're right. Sorry about that, I was confused by the name of the product (Samson Amsteel Blue), and didn't look any closer.

And, it floats (on water) so it weigh less than ~64 lbs./cu.ft (but I suspect not much less), so then I'm guessing maybe 10 lbs. per foot for a 6" diameter bundle, so maybe 22 tons for a 4500' cable. Maybe within the realm of possibility (of the wing to lift that much--I guess I saw figures somewhere in this thread--I won't take the time to look for them again).

Yeah, my offered figure of 270,000 pound (135 ton) is a scientific WAG. The specs on the site do not give the weight of the rope (that I could find, anyway).

So, I simply ordered one 600' spool; the page gave me the UPS charge (which was not very much, the rope is not very heavy), and I checked how heavy a box I could send to them for the same price. Dropped that ship weight a few pounds for packaging, and multiplied it out. At least it is a working number. Still working with the 90 strands at 8-1/2 miles, that makes 4,039,200 feet of 1/2" poly rope. This extends to .067 pounds per foot, or about 1 pound for a 15 foot length of rope. For all I know it is off by 50%, but this sounds reasonable so I used it.

For further consideration, the 135 ton (assumed) weight of the tether must be lifted by the kite. The capacity (the force being generated as pull) of the lifting body will decrease incrementally at the tether is paid out. It appears to be about a 15% reduction at full extension.

We can attach a hot air balloon to automatically fire if wind generator starts descending.

pnaaban, And just how big do you think the balloon will be . Half of the USA will be in darkness when it is deployed. I will give you 10 out of 10 for the brilliant suggestion, my brain would not have thought of that for weeks.You should score about 3 points for that.UK Joe,

Tornado,During the battle of Britain, the UK's Royal Air Force floated these cables up on mamouth air balloons. The purpose of them was to chop incoming fighter and bomber planes into ribbons. do you consider my remark to be on topic. I hope your Government set up a no fly zone around them. One finds the idea preposterous. UK Joe

I know about barrage balloons (way less than 750 tons lift), but why is your question addressed to me? Balloons can stay up when the wind quits; wings cannot, which is what Post 2 was about. So yes, you are off topic, as usual.

Tornado, I addressed my comment to you simply because you are going along with this utterly ridiculous concept of generating power. This for sure will not save the planet. Stop being so touchy and lighten up.UK Joe

Huh?

Joe. Trying to help you out here. Before you manage to make a complete fool of yourself, see the link in post #8. It's enlightening. They manage to make this concept look not so ridiculous.

I have seen on TV a wind generator suspended under a hot air balloon and kept stationary by a rope attached to the ground

The whole point behind generating electricity is to do it as cheaply, smoothly, simple and reliably as possible.

This design does poorly on all critical aspects of power generation. For one the need to continually go up and down in cycles means than the actual power production is less than continuous when the wind is blowing.

It also needs a considerable working area between each one due to the more than likely fact that it will eventually fall out of the sky.

The falling out of the sky part will probably do a fatal levels of damage to the whole unit.

When the tethering cable eventually does break, and they will, where does this thing fly off to and how far away does it go before it gets there?

A considerable amount of system support equipment is needed to keep the thing flying and handle the continual cycling as it goes up and down plus some very large energy storage system is needed to balance out the cycles.

To me this just screams more cost, more maintenance, more problems, less efficiency, and more of everything but savings than say having the wing or several of them just make constant circles around a fixed axis point attached to a large gearbox and generator.

"...having the wing or several of them just make constant circles around a fixed axis point attached to a large gearbox and generator."

Hey, that sounds like a pretty good idea! Would you mind if I work on that? Might be something for the LynDoor™ Industries product offering.

I started with the 747 wingspan of 212 feet but I was thinking of turning them 90 degrees so that they spun on a horizontal axis with a swiveling system under the gearbox and generator myself. Unfortunately when I drew up the concept and started refining it something started looking oddly familiar.

What do you think?

Yeah, that does look familiar. Someone has beaten us to it.

Wasn't it that round headed kid who used to say "Rats!" whenever he was defeated by the kite-eating tree?

^{Thanks to Tornado for my inspiration!}

"...where does this thing fly off to..."

The crash site.

Tcmtech, thank you for your humorous approach.

If you regard each wing as an engine piston, the potential for 'smoothly' is more apparent in a multi-wing installation. A 'pseudo crankshaft' with 3 or 4 wings, is basically what I'm after. A 'physical one', I think is 'impossible'.

"falling out of the sky" is possible, but considered and guarded against in the wing IP.

The main 'reasoning' behind this approach is below 2,000ft, devices are operating in the boundary layer.

Wind higher is more constant and more reliable.

Lightning as a detriment?

The presumption is the 'plastic rope' will not attract lightning or act as a path. Another reason aside from 'weight' for not using steel. Opinion is divided on if the wet rope would produce a 'path'. In any event it would be un-smart to stand near any of these things in an electrical storm - even Tcmtech's one.

Oops! did not see the link, but, from the site:• Very low stretch (0.46% at 10% of break strength) Is this for total length? What?

TWANNNNNNNNG!

When I was just out of school, a wizened mechanical engineer asserted that some of the simplest machines spin on an axle or shaft. He told me that if you can perform a function rotationally, it's much simpler than trying to slide, reciprocate, oscillate or just about any other motion. This is why washing machines, fans, wheels, etc. rotate. It's a very simple solution.

As for wind power, I think the turbine is the ultimate in basic machines. I'm not sure you are really improving much with a tethered kite or an oscillating wing. It sounds like a cool project, but it complicates a process that's already quite fundamental and hard to make any simpler.

Hmm...How to launch it? Tow it with a 747 taxiing on the ground? Use two or three 747s to lift it up there? Maybe this idea is out to launch....

ξ

According to Boeing; The 747 wings weigh 95,000 lbs (43,090 kg) [it's unclear if that is 'dry' and less engines]

Even so;

MTO is 975,000 lb (442,000 kg)

So you're launching about 10% of one 747, that has 10 times the necessary lift.

Or V1 is likely less than 165 kias

This idea is not new...The university that I went to had a professor/lecturer that devoted his whole research career on this exact project you are proposing...even getting students to contribute to his research and build such prototypes. I remember seeing pictures of smaller scale type connected to the back of a high speed car somewhere in the Aussie outback. I'm sure I could dig some stuff up (name of prof, uni, etc) if you want...just PM (Private Message) me

Thank you Mr Fry,

Lots of food for thought in that.

Two wings need a significant spacial separation if operating at similar altitude, and even so, if at different altitudes, so possibly in different wind directions.

Would this present a difficulty in terms of your approach, if the two drum and fair-lead systems were say a mile or two apart?

Or can electrical connection suffice in some way?

p.s. what is a 'sprag clutch'

Along the lines of the ratchet mechanism would be something like a crank shaft that would transfer "up-down" motion to rotary motion for driving a shaft.

It may have been discussed, but don't overlook the hazards of static build up on the wing and especially on the tether. You can get huge potentials!

Just a thought here but have you considered using one way bearings with the multiple kite design. What i envision in with 2 kites as one goes up it winds up the other. Each pulley has a one way bearing on it which when pulled in the locking direction causes the other to rewind with out making the shaft stop its rotation.

With the proper configuration and a good flywheel you could conceivably keep a continuous rotation on a shaft indefinately. That shaft could then drive the shaft of the alternator.

This idea is only useful socially if many are used. What about liability to persons or materiel beneath when the inevitable fall occurs? The politics of obtaining governmental approval ?- refer to fracking fight. I suspect the coy wing design is the gorilla in the woodpile- perhaps if a nacelle with independent power and ability to roam were added, the weight and hassle of the cables could be eliminated, and a transportation module could be developed. Or- use the wing design ( it is better, isn't it?) in aircraft design?

Don't try this at home. It sounds very dangerous, and you must evaluate safety of all persons living within the crash zone, because sooner or later this baby is destined to crash. You would be better off to stick with standard wind turbines (already aerofoils in their own right), and research ways to hydraulically couple the turbine rotation to the generator (located on the ground) through the use of the newest generation of hydraulic motors and pumps. See work done by Ingo Valentin on this subject.

If "wings" are to be the preferred choice why not locate
them in to a wheel format? (like a giant water wheel) i.e.
have a horizontal axis with the generator on the end?

Seems far more logical to me. (than chasing lost wings
all over the country.) If, you could find some company to
insure them? (huge premiums, cheaper to buy electricity!)

I had a similar idea sometime ago, i.e. just small ones for
household roof tops. There are models to be found.

Just a miserable pennyworth. (sorry for the coldwater.)

jt.

Whatever the plan, it's much easier to make changes on paper.

Jet stream winds run in the hundreds of mph. The high wind will produce a relatively constant force that can be harnessed, somehow.

As for the crashing that has everyone concerned, I dunno. Wings fly, or at least they glide if there's air speed. If it's smart and/or controllable, it won't crash, it'll land.

Not being mechanical, I can't be crafty about the fastener. I think the weight and reliability are going to complicate things considerably. Maybe look into the carbon fiber string being dreamt of for the space elevator.

Again, power generation isn't my forte', but is a hydraulic system hooked up to the tremendous steady force a possible answer? Large piston drives fluid through a generator (then needs to be recycled by magic?). As a wild idea, you could hoist smaller turbines to altitude with your larger wing and have them generate power, but that probably introduces too much complexity, weight, friction, etc. to be worthwhile.

This occurred to me but has probably been done for many years. A closed hydraulic system with generators on intake and outflow ends, combined with a heavy piston that's lifted by the wing and lowered by gravity. Power generation occurs whenever fluid flows in either direction.

Since it's flying, weight is the enemy. Make the wing gossamer-like out of carbon fiber or certain ceramics and use a light-strong material for the tether.

Thank you Lyn for your two posts. I appreciate your knowledge and input on the wind aspects greatly.

As your comments exhibit aeronautical experience, what do you feel would be a good porpoising amplitude in terms of the ground mechanism 'piston; stroke?

I had thought, given the size of the wing, and in 'piloting' terms of ± 500 ft, using 1000 ft/min clime/descent rates. Naturally my 'frustration' arrived at of the size of a crankshaft with such a throw. So came looking for help.

It seems the '1000 feet' of string is impractical, except possibly with a 1000 ft mine shaft, or a fairly 'frightening' fair-lead system.

So; it appears time to look for a better flight plan approach. I'd appreciate some input on what amplitude would be more practical, without too much attitude recovery dwell.

The wing inertia comes into this a little, though it is 'thistledown' compared to the lift available, but 'small amplitude' and more rapid frequency of the porpoise, impacts fatigue life, through to scheduled maintenance.

You have yet to consider that the "lift force" aspect of a wing is omni directional. That is if its flipped upside down it becomes a "down force" or if turned on its side it creates a "sideways displacement" force.

Ignoring gravity all those force directions are still equal in magnitude given a constant wind velocity.

Yes, if only I had one of yours tall enough to reach

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

On that note: Advise Please on 'CR4 decorum'.

Should I / Can I, tell this Joe poster to cease his wanton disruption/destruction of input on my concept?

Or should I just hope everyone will ignore what looks like petty BS ego driven barbs and baiting, focused on those contributing?

Or should I just call the useful part 'over' and join in the 'fun'?

You/all real contributors - input please

Thats what the report button is for in theory however I have yet to ever be on a forum where I thought or got the slightest impression that the report button was actually ever connected to anything.

The report button works good for spam, but not much else

we could try to run Joe Blow off

But OBO [Our Benevolent Overlords] get snippy when we do a better job then they do :D

Or should I just hope everyone will ignore what looks like petty BS ego driven barbs and baiting, focused on those contributing?

Joe has rapidly gained a reputation for saying little of value or utility. I think most of us just skip over his responses. I suppose we can at least be amused by someone so bent on proving himself to be useless.

Ok, I'll wait a bit and see what happens.

I would really like to see what answers to my in abeyance inquiries bring, free of the taunts of a guy who can't even 'nominate' working numbers and clearly resents any attempt to help him find some.

I'm getting a picture of how the 'conversion' might be mechanically workable, but I still don't know if the Watts are worth the infrastructure cost. Or in fact, what the actual Watts might be.

AP1: My aero expertise is limited to general concepts. If you need someone to write the flight control software, I might give it a whack.

I just know that some of the complications that are being raised can be dispensed with. That doesn't mean your idea will ever fly. The mechanical problems are pretty big.

Forget re-tasking a 747 wing. It's made to fly a 747 and trying to fly something else with it will be about as hard as designing one from scratch. Take a look at a picture of a B-2 bomber and you'll see where you need to go: a lifting body.

The wing has to be under active control in order to avoid becoming a brick that kills things on the way down. But giving it that control also lets you control the force on its tether. I can just barely imagine the ability to exert a large steady force on the tether.

What device efficiently converts a large constant moment to electricity? I dunno.

But I do know you can change the flight dynamics (ailerons, angle of attack), and generate just enough lift to hold up the tether, or a little less in order to descend, or hopefully a lot more to generate power.

Jet stream winds are pretty consistent, aren't they? My impression is that the wind at 35000 ft is slow (200 mph) or fast (400 mph) - you need to check on that. If you can get it up there, it should be able to generate a LOT more power than surface windmills. The question is, is there enough to overcome the mechanical loads the system puts on itself?

Thanks Lynn.W, I'm sure as you read further, all will/has become clear.

I.e. the 747 was illustrative. The wing would be by necessity, quite different.

But any ideas you may have on the design are very welcome.

Given the Japan nuclear 'fallout' - this might become 'viable' after all.

You're certainly not alone in this quest.

http://blog.cleantechies.com/2010/03/06/wind-power-ideas-might-fly/

Interesting ideas, thanks.

It's true the wind is there, but I think lifting all that copper and iron will defeat these schemes. And lifting little turbines, lifts little area into a lower density media.

The helicopter idea is interesting, as at least it potentially has capture area.

It would be interesting to know the watts to launch and recover or sustain altitude in lulls. So far as I know, rotary wings have lift/altitude density, issues above 15,000 ft.

It would be interesting to tether one of those camera drones and see it they 'auto-rotate', stay aloft, and become generators of useful power whilst supporting copper and tensile tether to the ground. Not to mention the lightning issue, raised in this thread...etc.

But I'm biased.

I'm just being the fly in the ointment. 3500 proposals to harness the wind and only 37 show promise.

I quite like 'flies in ointment' who bring information - good or 'bad'. What is 'wrong' or 'not considered' is much more useful than 'applause' for what I may think I have right.

Clearly 3463 proposals just assumed they 'knew all the answers'.

Do continue

Kramarat, and only ONE WILL BE SUCCESSFUL ????????? UK Joe

Maybe.......maybe not.

Hi Anon,Are you going for a patent on this one? or are you the person that was on television perhaps one year ago.The concept is not entirely novel. It also seems a very elaborate way to produce electricity. How are you going to bring it back to the ground? UK Joe.

Please forgive me everyone. It's me again. CR4 have closed my post down because of one of my comments. I truly did not know anyone else was blogging on Anons subject. I feel a bit foolish telling him what you have already told him. I shall behave myself on this blog unless you are derogative to me.UK Joe.

So at what point does having something that requires $12 million dollars of tether line for one unit, not including the rest of the systems costs, that will likely put out less average power than that of the normal 200 foot rotor wind turbines that are presently being built and installed for a bout 1/4 of that seem like a winning concept?

The whole point of alternative wind based power production is to get the maximum power output for the least amount of invested time, money, materials, operating and maintenance costs.

So when this this does break loose and drops some 8 miles of six inch tether line out over the country side what are the odds that it will fall over multiple roads, rail roads, power lines, houses, farm buildings, waterways, fences, and so on? I don't know about the rest of you but I have my doubts that my house would stand up to having any part of an 8 mile long 6 inch tether line dropped on it and pulled across it.

Hi Tcmtech, How's things with you? I was wondering where Anon was going to get the large gearbox and generator that you spoke of earlier?UK Joe

Probably from a reputable manufacture.

Tcmtech, can you give me the contact number?UK Joe

I can do you one better. Come down to the level of the common and humble engineer and learn to do basic math and internet searches.

I know its going to necessary to poke a big hole in your ego but the end results are well worth it!

If the engineer types are so far below you to have to stoop to their level then why are you here asking them for advice you will not take in the first place?

Tcmtech, I have took your advice and it is all stored in my brain. You have not said too much about it but you have confirmed that coupling gearboxes together is what I have got to do.I am most grateful to you for this but I need to exploit every ones brains to see if there are any more options available for my purpose. We are interrupting Anons blog but the subjects are closely related and CR4 will surely allow this. UKJoe.

Why do you keep writing about Anon? I haven't seen him here yet?

Anon is short for anonymous whatever You may recall he asked the question. OK Anon?

You need to be more specific

the abreviation would be more like AP1

when I think of ~Anon~

or my self AP2

or Anonymous Hero

OK :)

I don't know if this is any help, but, aside from thinking your wing is too big, it could possibly work. As I was drifting off to sleep last night I was thinking about your wing. When I looked down, it was hooked up to something a lot like this, but instead of pumping oil, it had a counterweight attached and around around and up and down it went.

The relatively small up and down movement, translated through a gear box, produced surprisingly high RPMs at the generator end.

That is very interesting. I wonder how it would scale up? I could make the cable arc go over the top so the rope angle [from above] is always the same radial distance from the beam pivot. But the whole thing would have to turn to wind direction, then how could we get the power out? Then again we could put a separate tower, with a pivoted pulley, above it, to deal with direction and angles, then the rope is always vertical.

Yes, there could even be 3 or 4 set around the rope and just a heavy weight down the hole.

Hey, wouldn't be ironic if one of these is what Joe actually wants to gear his 'stick'

Anon P1,Actually yo may have hit the jackpot with this idea. Short movement lot,s of rpm is what I need. If this one was scaled up say 10 times it would make a good prototype. Thanx for that. UK Joe.

Do you have any idea how much horsepower and at what RPM those oil well pump jacks work at?

Tcmtech, I have no idea at all can you please inform us. Thanx. UK Joe

Doubly ironic then, as the Forum "hit your jackpot" because I explained what I need, why and gave them numbers to work with. That you can't, or won't, is part of why you got your thread result. Do learn from that part.

Also learn to notice things, like a persons name signed in the OP. Clearly you did not get why folk chipped you for addressing me as Anon, aside from it being 'obviously' another posters' name.

No, your reaction is to argue, invent other unnecessary, facetious, salutations, like "Anon P1". Could it be this stubborn childish need to be "awesome" mean you never questioned for a second you might be seen as an ill mannered pratt who has totally missed the plot, in both manners and 'solving'?

So, while you ponder the above, especially the context of outcome of your thread, kindly resist the urge to again mess up my dialogue with the people helping me develop this concept.

(meaning, Joe just until you can hear past your 'awesomeness')

Seems I have rattled your cage. Could it be that this post has solved my problem of not needing to have a massive gearbox made.I will not resort to foul language as I am cool as a cucumber now that my problem is solved. By the way is this not the reason for this post. To help people that don't know anything to find answers to their problems????. Sincere thanks UK Joe.

Hello Joe

Do you remember my last post in your thread?

I'm sure most contributors here do - and know what I was doing.

(And thank you all for 'contributing true to the CR4 norm')

Puzzled Joe? Google the OP's name (you missed reading) then look at my avatar.

Now Joe;

In the above 100 posts is everything you need to know, to do your design.

All the technical terms, what they do, how they interrelate physically.

What size limitations bring, how to get around that.

How to work out your 'rope', what 'rope' to use.

Angles, vectors, and wind following solutions.

Even how to do the output calculations.

And even how "impressive" it is against the scale and cost of the engineering involved.

The test for you now is to go back and find all your answers all by yourself.

My reason for deliberately setting out to solve your problem?

To demonstrate to you; "manners" and "comprehension" and "respect" for the "expertise of others", can bring results.

You Have None of the first, so off you go and find what you can in the second.

By by Joe, it was fun.

34point5, Thank you for everything that you and the gang have told me. I shall let the boffins at the University do the calculations. I have downloaded most of them so that they can make use of them. My only concern was to present them with a series of different ways of getting the best out of the energy that I shall be giving them.The scale and cost does not concern me. Comparing the cost of an existing turbine is simply not a factor factor in my equations. I could build an entire wind farm with ten times the output for the cost of just one - 1 mega watt machine that exists today. Angles and vectors and all the other physics that you have all quoted to me mean nothing, simply because I am only the ideas man. I will be putting these devices together and I shall leave the calculations to the people like you that are capable of working them out. If I have been rude, then I apologise to you all. I shall not return to this site as I have an habit of ruffling your feathers. You engineers are a very touchy lot. My overalls are all cleaned and pressed for the day I get the go ahead. I will post a picture or two on this site once my first farm is operating. Like you say I am on my own now so I will get back to the drawing board. God bless. Joe.

I note your comment on the wing size, but I think it has to be BIG as wind is not that 'dense' in power, and the space allocation, both on land and in air, wouldn't be much less for a half scale wing. Nor would the cost be half, given all the peripheral support the wing involves.

But there are enough big machines, I think, to indicate engineering at the scale could be achievable.

?

I was kind of picturing the pump end of the rig being a counterweight and making a complete circle. The up and down force would be geared to rotational force to run a generator. On the up swing, the wing would pull the weight up, on the down swing, the weight would pull the wing down. This may be difficult to maintain in varying wind conditions though. The more likely scenario, is that I'm full of crap.

Not exactly it, but sort of.

No - actually I think you might have solved the 'relative stroke' problem of wing to crank shaft throw.

If we combine all the bits so far, say put a x 4 weight down a 1/4 deep hole and use a 'block and tackle' to lift the weight, the wing gets to porpoise to 'best performance', the spare rope can be static, or fed, or retrieved, to suit altitude. Dropping the weight could even be a launch technique.

And the lesser stroke of the weight and longer leavers, could get the crank/flywheel down to some sensible scale.

Many 'pumps' around a larger weight would allow phased maintenance, or shutdown of a generator - not the whole station output.

And you could 'alter the weight' by looping in, or out, spare pulleys, adding or subtracting to the block and tackle ratio.

And you could use variable speed drives from flywheel to alternators to hit grid frequency.

Now the question is how much power can this system capture/handle/output?

I guess there is an additional loss in the block and tackle. So say I had 250 tons of effective pull, moving a 1000 ton block, rising 200 feet in a minute, then falling at the same rate, what do you think I could get out the other end of this 'converter'?

Anybody?

I haven't followed the discussion carefully, but in what you describe ("moving a 1000 ton block, rising 200 feet in a minute, then falling at the same rate"), the falling motion is the one where you "harvest" (electrical) energy (somehow). (The rising motion is the required reset, and you don't harvest electrical energy during that period--wind energy is converted to potential energy during that lift.)

So, 550 foot-pounds / second is 745 watts.

1000 tons falling 200 feet in 1 minute is 1000 tons x 2000 lbs./ton x 200 feet / 60 seconds is ( 6,666,666 foot pounds per second / 550 foot pounds per second) x 745 watts = 9,030,303 watts or about 9000 kw.

Now divide that by 2 (because you are only producing that power for the time the weight is falling), you're at about 4500 kw, and now consider mechanical efficiency in a drive train and electrical efficiency in a generator (I'll make a WAG of 50% for the two), you're down to 2250 kw. as an average over the entire raise /fall cycle of the 1000 ton weight.

You can probably use the entire electrical grid as sort of a temporary storage device--i.e., you pump 4500 kw into the grid for 60 seconds, then pump nothing in for another 60 seconds, and, hopefully (I know), there is enough diversity of generating sources (like similar wind wing systems working our of sync with this one) to create a steady flow of power into the grid. That might be a pretty big "hopefully" (but not insurmountable).

So what you are saying is that for around 20 times the price you can have the same average power output as the common 2.5 megawatt wind turbines.

But instead of putting out a constant stable power flow its inherently going to surge the electrical grid in 0 to 4.5 Megawatt cycles every minute or so and on top of that its going to have far higher operating costs and maintenance costs behind the complex systems?

rhkramer, Just as a matter of interest. When the weight reaches full height how would one release it ???? UK Joe.

Well, I can work on thinking of ways, but all I did was make a power calculation based on somebody else's assumption that this design could lift a 1000 ton block 200 feet in one minute, and then let it fall at the same rate. Presumably the person designing (or brainstorming) this approach has ideas about that.

Now, let me think--somehow we need to let the weight fall while turning a generator and (presumably) winding in the cable to pull the wing back. Hmm, a little tougher than I thought--I guess you'd have to do something like change the attitude of the wing to minimize the wind force acting on it (and pulling the cable). So, some kind of attitude control device(s) might do the job.