My reply to Santos' attempt to have the last word on his compound accusations

Santos said: “Doug just has to be patient for Rod to answer to the question of just what Kite Network physics he simulated.”

*** Doug replies: One of Santos limited number of canned responses: “it’s a delay!” That will allow him to go on for unlimited years without ever admitting he was just making things up, as usual. OK let’s all hold our collective breath: Roddy?

Santos goes on: “I am guessing kite lattice dynamics in gravity and wind, at least, were simulated using Rhino 3D and add-ons like Grasshopper, Flexhopper, or Kangaroo.”

Doug replies: So now Santos’ previous repeated accusation of my being “off-topic” (like the out-of-control sports fan fixating on some technicality: “off-sides! Ref! Ref!”) degenerate to Santos “guessing”, about his scolding assertions, injecting a bunch of impressive-sounding buzzwords, without actual knowledge.

Santos continues: “If Doug did his own computer graphics, as Rod did, rather than hire a 3D artist, then great, the “rendering-for-hire” presumption fails.”

***Doug replies: “If”??? How about just saying you were “wrong”? I’ve stated on your forum I saw promise in young Roddy seeing that he started out doing his own renderings like me. If Santos does not know I did my own 3-D computer modeling, after ten years of his abuse, I rest my case. He’s completely out-to-lunch.

Santos concludes: “Doug seems to concede his modeling did not include any of the physics he defines.”
***Doug replies: What do you mean “concede”? Nobody has ever made such claim except you!!! The entire subject here reflects nothing but your ignorance of computer modeling, leading to you thinking renderings contain performance modeling. Nobody but you has ever pretended that simple “renderings” necessarily include “physics”, other than whatever description goes along with the rendering. Like I said, the renderings just do what you make them do. Rotation - a single command. Just because something appears in 3-D does not mean it is derived from the underlying physics as simulated by some supercomputer. One task, rendering, can be done by any person with a PC who sets their mind to it. The other task, simulation, is highly-complex, requiring vast amounts of software and processing power, many people, and huge budgets. I’ve had years of interactions with the top academic names in wind energy and aerodynamics, CFD modeling of even a single section of SuperTurbine™ was deemed so complicated as to require a dedicated project with grant funding, which was applied for from ARPA-E, by me and a team including the recognized top wind-energy aerodynamic lab in the world. It was not funded. No matter, we at least tried. Far easier to just build it, run it, and go from there.

I would give Mike Sanchez his due for ST modeling.

Geez I guess if I were some nitpicking dick, I’d say you are “off-topic” Mike Sanchez came along later, working for “Dreamworks”, contributing the visually-impressive color 3-D renderings included on my website. Not to be confused with my own 3-D renderings.

No, its on-topic here to give MikeS credit where due for ST modelling.

OK so now he wants to argue about “off-topic” again.
(One thing you may notice: he doesn’t “get” humor, or even just sarcasm. He actually takes it seriously and replies to it. He’s used to JoeF coming to his rescue by threatening me with more censorship when all else fails.)
He has provided no reasoning for his latest assertion. Why is Mike Sanchez on-topic with regard to my Roddy’s, and now my, renderings? He doesn’t say. Because he was confused about who did what? As usual, it’s all about his own confusion.
The Sanchez renderings, similar to most, were visual and static, not operational “physics” simulations.
See what you’re getting here?
See how one could just literally go on all day, fielding Santos’ endless attempts to “have the last word”, without ever really saying much of anything? How every “conversation” with him is nothing but a discussion of all the wrong things he says?
One of his other canned responses is to call people “troll”. Who is the real troll?

Please @dougselsam and @kitefreak, could you expose your technical arguments on Efficiency vs lightness that I specially prepared for you. Thanks.

I am done by stating-

efficiency = lightness

You are wrong to try to pit Doug and me together.

You are right as Doug and you are already pitting each other. But please keep in mind your opposition should be useful for AWE readers.

No, a wind turbine can be both efficient and heavy.

1 Like

True, a wind turbine on a pole can be efficient and heavy. Your topic is supposed to be about “lightness” in AWE.

But just before

The will to have the last word makes you lose all logical meaning.

No, my topic is about Efficiency vs lightness.

That’s even worse, to presume efficiency and lightness do not go together in AWE.

Your last word is even worse than the previous one, but still better than the last word to come.

Get a good night’s sleep.

Thanks, and good nap for you.

So Rod confirms that his Rhino/Grasshopper Kite Network simulations have featured an FEA kite network mesh subject to simulated gravity and kite-wind forces. Therefore, Rod deserves the honor just as posed.

Its normal for this sort of confirmation to take due time.