Just read the topic. For example (about your " You all said your opinions, then did nothing about the sorry state of affairs about «lift», «drag», «flygen» and «groundgen»"):
Basically it goes towards an overload of definitions. For example for the yo-yo system, we already have: yo-yo, yoyo, kite-reeling (beware now of the new possible confusion with “reeling” (= rope-drive)), pumping mode, and now bounding. What else? From how many uncontrolled appellations will this system be on the market?
Since all scientifics used and use “lift” and “drag” terms from M.Loyd’s seminal publication, changes are not really possible since hundreds publications are concerned. While some confusions seem to be solved, other confusions appear.
And if AWE wants to be aligned with regular wind power, massive production of electricity is required, not changes of terms.
Good luck on having the AWES taxonomy updated @tallakt
There are good reasons to do it.
I like your approach - write a paper, get a doi, have the updated taxonomy accepted via academic references consensus.
However, I don’t see a drive for this yet discussed in academia. Consensus on change could take a decade.
A faster way may be to go right back to referencing the original Lloyd framing as k-lift and k-drag.
Maybe the prefix K (kite) makes the reference frame obvious to new students converting from wind power… Which can bring the prefixes M, G & T to our scheme scales
I think the big difference between myself and you guys is that I dont care if the community settled on a crappy standard. It could be changed! The first step is just establishing a new baseline. And that baseline will not be a slight twist to the broken heritage from Loyd.
I do think there is a certain chance that I could pull this off. That chance would be a lot bigger if a few of you guys said «well its not exactly what I would have chosen, but its a big improvement to status quo». And then just supported the new proposition to some extent of your choosing.
Instead it seems more important to defend ones own arguments to the grave.
I say again; there is no right and wrong here. Its quite arbitrary. But clearly status quo is a poor choice?
Ok. So you discussed it in a thread. But do I see you pushing «stationary» and «downwind» after the thread quieted down?
Also it should be clear now that while stationary/downwind is a very good option, I much prefer hovering/bounding. Not much more to say about that really…
@tallakt , there may be a chance to impose your classification, by trademarking a working prototype of Kitemill as “Bounding”. Measured efficiency would be associated with the novel classification.
I think you are determined to get your classification. You probably have good reasons.
Since I don’t yet know how useful it might be, I’ll try to see what the implications might be.
In first the only time I saw “crosswind” term (if I am correct), is the one where you quoted the title of M.Loyds’ seminal publication: “Crosswind Kite Power”. This is not a criticism, as this classification tends to distance itself from it. Many discussions in this forum have taken place on this subject.
That said Zhonglu is in “bounding” category, as for Kitemill or Ampyx power. Adding “crosswind” category by checking off the concerned projects (Makani, Kitemill, Ampyx…) could be useful.
Perhaps (not easy) also you could precise that “hovering” and “bounding” can concern the area swept by the kite or/and the kite itself and its area, assuming that sometimes the two can coincide.
This is really funny - I guess. Why would people still be wasting their time trying to endlessly nitpick how to categorize all the failing ways to attempt wind energy? A rose is a rose by any name. You can call a rose any name you want, but the beauty and aroma remain the same.
The funny aspect is this just places us back 14 years ago when the current hype-cycle was just getting started. Of course back then, it was all “really smart people” who were going to show the wind energy industry how stupid they were. At that time it was not even understood who was stupid. I just can’t imagine why people would waste their mental effort arguing all day about terminology. I mean, getting lift and drag backwards was a pretty bad beginner error, but beyond that, this seems to be a “rabbit hole” leading nowhere. I’ve been joking from day-one: “Flygen”? “Skygen”? “Groundgen”? Roundgen"? The whole topic is getting stale. As are these endless armchair-genius attempts to analyze how to build AWE “windfarms” when a windfarm is a result of tower technology, and an AWE system might involve a configuration that differs from a “windfarm”. The really silly thing, to me, is why try to anticipate a “windfarm” without any system in consistent operation anywhere in the world in the first place? If this were just “aviation”, we’d have airlines running by now. Instead we’re still at the starting gate, ready to conquer the world, but unable to conquer a single installation. There are plenty of use cases waiting without worrying about a “windfarm”. Maybe worry about ending up in a “funnyfarm”.