Search:

About Vincente


Real Name:
vin beazel
Member Since:
February 07, 2007
Last Signed In:
May 15, 2008
Profile Views:
730
Blog Views:
1750
View Profile
Send a Message
Send To A Friend
Sign Guestbook
Add as a Friend

Previous Posts
New Video and Audio Host...AlternativeEnergy.com
RE Power Missions Project...Oil2Wind Power Video Challenge
7000 Prophets...siete mil profetas!
REPower Education, and the LeGo RoBoTiCS' PoWeR PuZZLe CHaLLeNGe
Burroughs High-Energy Farm...in Ridgecrest!!
More on Kern Energy Education Projects
Kiteship.com is our newest corporate advisor...
Kern Education Development Collaborative
Kern Energy Education Project
Plans For Building our Energy Kite - First Stages
Archives
February 07
March 07
April 07
May 07
June 07
July 07
August 07
September 07
October 07
November 07
December 07
January 08
February 08
March 08
April 08
May 08
Tehachapi Energy Blogs
Currently listed on over 1100 sites on Google; under my username: vinbeazel
Thanks to the fellas at GE Wind MFG for the unique username!
Subscribe!
RSS 2.0 feed RSS 2.0
Add to My Yahoo
Add to My Google
Add to Bloglines
Add to My AOL
Vincente - > Tehachapi High WindFarms -> Response from Cal-Tech RE: Kites and Lifting Force
Response from Cal-Tech RE: Kites and Lifting Force
Question from William, forwarded to CAL-TECH Kite Obelisk Team:

Vincente; There is something wrong with those numbers.
> Dynamic force at 20 mph is very close to one pound per square
foot. If a kite wing of 420 sq.ft. could achieve a coefficient of
lift of one, it could lift 420 lbs. Very high lift airfoils can achieve
lift coefficients of perhaps 2.5, in which case 420 sq.ft. might
lift 2.5 times 420, or 1050 lbs. Not very close to 6900 lbs.

http://obelisk.caltech.edu/...

CAL-TECH:
Indeed. Parafoils and foil kites have a very high lift-to-drag
ratio. This can be seen by the fact that if flown as a kite, either one
will quickly settle into a position close to 90 degrees from
horizontal above the tether point. At this point the angle of attack is very low
and so is the lift. If a parafoil's lift at 0 angle of attack was more
than the weight of the skydiver, the guy would never make it to the
ground! In fact the guy who sold us that parachute said it would pull no
more than 200 pounds (it's a 2-person parafoil).

The important fact is that it's not quite convenient to think of
kites and parachutes as "lift and drag" devices, since both forces
contribute to the rope tension which in fact provides the weight-raising
force. So a sail or a drag chute will provide much more useful force than
parafoil at equilibrium. However the fact that the parafoil is steerable
affords you some very convenient control.

When the parafoil is launched, its angle of attack is more or
less 90 degrees, and the force it produces is tremendous. However there
are dynamic effects that are hard to quantify that contribute even
more force than the static case of a sail because the parafoil is
moving along a section of a sphere and thus its area is changing with
time relative to the wind direction. This effect is similar to
suddenly unfurling a sail, or a gust of wind, in which case there is a
momentary surge of force compared to the static case of an inflated sail,
except that in the parafoil case, it is a continuously variable action
controlled by steering the foil around. You can think of it as
combining the force of total drag (a plate at high angle of attack) with
the advantages of it being shaped like a wing (thus producing
considerable force perpendicular to its direction of travel), though I'm sure
it's not that simple in reality.

So, in short, to get force out of a high-efficiency parafoil or
foil kite the best thing to do is to fly it in a "figure-eight" path
to keep the angle of attack high but also keeping the kite moving within
its "envelope" (the intersection of the sphere defined by the
tethered point and the rope and the wind field within the region where the angle
of attack is appropriate).

For the big obelisk (14 tons) we were no longer steering the
kite, and went instead with an "automatic" system where the steering lines
were connected to two guide ropes running down wind from the site. The
hope was that the kite would oscillate up and down: if the kite went
up, then both steering lines would get pulled, which acts as a brake, and
it would come down, the steering lines would slacken, and it would
go back up, etc., thus achieving some of the dynamic effect. However this
oscillation didn't happen because the guide ropes were too slack;
instead all this did was force the angle of attack to be high by
keeping the kite down. This still provided more force than the kite at
equilibrium but was way less than the figure-eight flying, thus
with this obelisk it was much more up to the wind whether or not it
would move---that's one of the reasons it was months before it was
raised for the first time.

Here is a video capture of the footage of a kite test we did,
where the wind speed was about 5 mph. The rope was tied to a truck's bumper
via a spring gauge through an eyelet, a rope clutch, and another
eyelet. The rope clutch eyelet assembly was weighed down by 320 pounds of
concrete. Immediately after launch, the whole assembly came up off the
ground; held only by the friction between the rope and the eyelet. This
video capture is at the instant before the assembly slipped down the
rope toward the truck. As you can see the angle between the rope after
the assembly and horizontal is around 45 degrees so it is safe to
estimate the kite was producing 500 pounds of force.

Posted in these Groups:
Topics: kite obelisk energy engineer Cal-Tech windpower
posted by Vincente on Saturday, February 10, 2007 at 01:28 PM
Report a Violation
Viewed 272 times
0 comments from 0 users

Leave a Comment
Ground Rules for posting comments:
  • No profanity or personal attacks.
  • Please comment on the subject of the post itself.
If you do not follow these rules we will remove your comment. Please keep it civil.

To protect users from spam, we need you to prove that you're a human being.
Please enter the text from the image at left.