Kites & kiting

[LaurieAG]

Doble-Dee originally said his 5000 yds of line weighed 1.1 pounds. Looks like Phillip has it correct in spite of me in his last summary. Do you agree?

 

Yes Phillip has hit the nail on the head Turtle. Good one Phillip.

 

It's just a pity that the wind speed is wrapped up in the Drag and Lift equations. I suppose you could plot the wind speed vs calculated height for the kite and plot it on graph paper for reference purposes.

 

We're not exactly restricted in height in Australia but you do have to stay out of aviation airspace if you don't wish to attract the attention of the authorities (unless you're pretending to be a UFO ;) of course).

[Turtle]

Google Acquires Kite-Power Generator

 

[quotename='samzenpus on Sunday May 26, 2013 @10:36AM

from the blowing-in-the-wind dept.' ]garymortimer writes "Google has acquired a US company that generates power using turbines mounted on tethered kites or wings. Makani Power will become part of Google X – the secretive research and development arm of the search giant. The deal comes as Makani carries out the first fully autonomous flights of robot kites bearing its power-generating propellers. Google has not said how much it paid to acquire Makani, but it has invested $15m (£9.9m) in the company previously."

 

[LaurieAG]

We were discussing many aspects of kite power generation in this thread 4 or so years ago Turtle.

 

It looks like Makani has a system that self launches and retrieves but are they going to build a unit that works entirely from a car trailer?

Edited September 29, 2013 by LaurieAG

[Turtle]

We were discussing many aspects of kite power generation in this thread 4 or so years ago Turtle.

 

It looks like Makani has a system that self launches and retrieves but are they going to build a unit that works entirely from a car trailer?

 

Erhm...I know. I just mentioned it to you specifically a couple posts ago.

Thanks Laurie. ...I think I saw some new power generation schemes in my last couple months of reading; I'll review what we discussed here and see if there's something of interest to add. ...

 

The Makani project post is me following up on my statement to you. Heaven forbid anyone read me.

 

Anyway, now that Google and their black-ops department own Makani we're not likely to hear any particulars. Do no evil my ***. Bite me Google. :P

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

phil1882- okay then, allowing s to be 15000 gives 11320.89 feet

Turtle- That's in the range I expected. 2.1 miles up then. Pretty impressive for a guy in his backyard with a dime-store kite and fishing line; but then we already knew that. The scientists down on Christmas island I earlier referenced were bragging about the same achievement with expensive parafoils and Kevlar line. :lol:

Richard Synergy of Toronto, Canada claimed he flew a 270 sq meter Delta to 14,509 ft above ground level on the 14th of August 2000 near Kincardine Canada.

http://tkf.toronto.on.ca/oldsite/richard.htm

 

Dang for a Delta I need to beat 14,509 ft. or 2.748 miles....I need a LOT more line! Another 15000 feet aught to do it.

Edited September 29, 2013 by DFINITLYDISTRUBD

[Turtle]

Quote

 

phil1882- okay then, allowing s to be 15000 gives 11320.89 feet

 

Quote

 

Turtle- That's in the range I expected. 2.1 miles up then. Pretty impressive for a guy in his backyard with a dime-store kite and fishing line; but then we already knew that. The scientists down on Christmas island I earlier referenced were bragging about the same achievement with expensive parafoils and Kevlar line. :lol:Quote

 

Richard Synergy of Toronto, Canada claimed he flew a 270 sq meter Delta to 14,509 ft above ground level on the 14th of August 2000 near Kincardine Canada.

[/size]http://tkf.toronto.o...ite/richard.htm

 

Dang for a Delta I need to beat 14,509 ft. or 2.748 miles....I need a LOT more line! Another 15000 feet aught to do it.

 

First, what a pain in the *** it is that when we quote a post, any quotes within that post are removed. :rant:

 

Second, while I'm glad Phillip got the answer I promised you, I still don't know what I did wrong or how to do the calculation myself like I asked. Whatever.

 

Third, while all the mustered manpower, money, and technology the Canada team employed is dazzling, nothing of it suggests to me that it's necessary for getting a kite to fly so high. I don't doubt for a minute that you can best them by yourself for less than $100 Double-D. Neither do I doubt that if-and-when you do it and say so, their egos would never allow them to accept it. Such attitudes are the main reason I quit hanging with 'professionals' 30 years ago. Recall the guy killed at Long Beach? Professional. And on that project he was in charge of safety. Ooooppppssss. :doh: Probably he was rushing around with insect authority -to quote Mark Twain- and warning everyone to stay back.

 

Carry on D-D. You have my attention and I have your back.

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

Ya, I'm thinkin I should invest in some altitude recording equipment...and a reasonably cheap digital camera that would be no major loss if bad things were to happen to it. Dad says he obtained some old silk kites from a client's warehouse on the cheap, says he'll try to find where he stashed them....not much else is known. Wonder how light it is possible to go for a pair of recording altimeters and a small but efficient digital cam...could always try to strip a cheapy down to the bare minimum I guess...onward and upward, Tallyho!

[Turtle]

Ya, I'm thinkin I should invest in some altitude recording equipment...and a reasonably cheap digital camera that would be no major loss if bad things were to happen to it. Dad says he obtained some old silk kites from a client's warehouse on the cheap, says he'll try to find where he stashed them....not much else is known. Wonder how light it is possible to go for a pair of recording altimeters and a small but efficient digital cam...could always try to strip a cheapy down to the bare minimum I guess...onward and upward, Tallyho!

 

Those silk kites might serve you better if you sold them as collectibles. The Drachen Foundation in Seattle would be a good place to offer them.

 

As to recording altimeters, I still think the Jolly Logic @ 7 grams is a best for a small kite. I noticed the Canada team really fouled up their heavier and more expensive altimeters by setting them wrong. Way to go professionals. KISS :kiss: Keep It Simple Stupid(s)

 

If you're going for a record I would leave off the camera and any other unnecessary oo-la-la technology such as the Canada teams 10 pound angle of attack adjuster. A calibrated bungee bridle would do as well. Keep as much lift as possible to support the string weight. Stick with your fishing line and screw the Kevlar. Screw the elaborate reel too. That stuff is all well and good if you've got money to burn, but it's not necessary.

No need for heavy & expensive GPS to find the kite if it breaks loose either. Write your name and phone number on the kite. KISS'ed again. :kiss2:

Edited September 29, 2013 by Turtle

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

I would think at the least two different altimeters from two different manufacturers would be a plus for verification, having a video shot by a fixed range (?) camera (no zoom?) [ie. the more land and sea area visible with no means of adjusting what's in frame the higher the kite was] from the kites perspective could only help as well for determining rough altitude. Methinks such a camera rig might be all that is needed if one were to snap a pic of an accurate rule that is just in frame on the horizontal, note the distance required to get it in frame horizontally, then take a still from the highest point in the video, then use an accurate map with an accurate scale to determine the number of feet visible in the frame horizontally, then divide by the distance used to get one foot in frame horizontally.

[Turtle]

I would think at the least two different altimeters from two different manufacturers would be a plus for verification, having a video shot by a fixed range (?) camera (no zoom?) [ie. the more land and sea area visible with no means of adjusting what's in frame the higher the kite was] from the kites perspective could only help as well for determining rough altitude. Methinks such a camera rig might be all that is needed if one were to snap a pic of an accurate rule that is just in frame on the horizontal, note the distance required to get it in frame horizontally, then take a still from the highest point in the video, then use an accurate map with an accurate scale to determine the number of feet visible in the frame horizontally, then divide by the distance used to get one foot in frame horizontally.

 

If you have a camera and the necessary lift, then sure. Use it by all means. You don't need a scale in the frame though, just need to know the lens diameter and focal length. Those give you the base angle to then use in calculating the height based on known size of something on the ground that you photograph. I used this method for one of my earliest aerial shots with the Mamiaflex TLR and then measuring the width of a road in the photo. :smart:

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

wouldn't the result of those two be the same as the ratio of feet in distance to get one foot in frame? or am i thinking this out wrong? Though i gotta agree finding something that would be clearly visible at nearly three miles up that can also be easily measured at ground level would be easier.

 

No digicam I can sacrifice yet, am thinking there has got to be a fixed lens cheapy that would be ideal for the task, especially after stripping it of every last gram of unnecessary weight incl. stripping it of it's case and utilizing a lighter battery.

Edited September 29, 2013 by DFINITLYDISTRUBD

[Turtle]

wouldn't the result of those two be the same as the ratio of feet in distance to get one foot in frame? or am i thinking this out wrong? Though i gotta agree finding something that would be clearly visible at nearly three miles up that can also be easily measured at ground level would be easier. ...

 

 

Result of which two?

 

I could make a rough diagram if it helps. I suppose a rule serves a similar purpose, but it adds weight, obscures some of the frame, and may be a depth of field issue.

Edited September 29, 2013 by Turtle

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

sorry Trutle, the lens diameter and focal length. And it was not my intention to send the rule up with the kite but to determine on the ground how many feet from the camera a rule has to be to get one foot in frame...hence the need for the camera to have a fixed ratio that never varies due to focal requirements....I would assume this means a digital camera with a fixed lens of the infinite focus variety.

[Turtle]

sorry Trutle, the lens diameter and focal length. And it was not my intention to send the rule up with the kite but to determine on the ground how many feet from the camera a rule has to be to get one foot in frame...hence the need for the camera to have a fixed ratio that never varies due to focal requirements....I would assume this means a digital camera with a fixed lens of the infinite focus variety.

 

 

OK. So yes, you can find the field of view and the angle thata way, but you need to still measure to the film plane -or CCD in the case of digital- and not simply the front of the lens.

 

 

The type of camera won't matter as long as the setting you use to take the measure is the setting you use in flight. That is to say, you could zoom in on the rule as long as you use the same zoom in flight. If the camera has auto-focus, you may be screwed if a bug or other small something happens in front of the lens. Definitely use manual focus set to Infinity.

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

Wouldn't the distance required to get one foot in frame, automatically give you the ratio....ie. to get ten feet in frame would be ten times as far as the distance to get one foot in frame? So say hypothetically it requires a distance of two feet to get that one foot, ten feet would require twenty and so on...am I missing something?

[Turtle]

Wouldn't the distance required to get one foot in frame, automatically give you the ratio....ie. to get ten feet in frame would be ten times as far as the distance to get one foot in frame? So say hypothetically it requires a distance of two feet to get that one foot, ten feet would require twenty and so on...am I missing something?

 

I don't know. I'm a little scatter-brained today. Do some experiments with a ruler & the camera you have?

 

If your camera on the kite isn't aimed straight down though, you have more of a problem than the simple field of view.

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

getting the camera eye to point straight down is likely the easy part...requiring only a ballasted two axis pivot and some shielding from the wind....will have to check if cheapy digicams eyes are hard mounted or connected to the main board by ribbon.