Barnard's predictions

Sorry daveS but I just have to call you out. You told us recently that you had a very promising crosswind kite configuration, that was producing large amounts of power, and that you would soon have a generator connected and get back to us with some output.
We who have tolerated your false statements for years are weary of them. They are just too predictable. Please show us the promised output or go home. I’ve wasted many multiples of the time you deserve, humoring your incessant nonsense. It’s time to “put up or shut up” and “do what you say, or just go away”. I might add, "don’t even try to use the word “delay”. I mean, come on, we’re still waiting for your concert of yesteryear, not to mention Altaeros, which you also said was only a delay.
So you promised crosswind kite output, so show it to us.

Doug,

Check the Old Forum for any news you seek. Its all there. Please quote the claim you are calling out, if you can.

Good luck with you own work.

Most of the sand rolled and slid off the tarps sequentially as the tarps were peeled away from the beach surface, and the tarps themselves also sneakily slid out from under the sand, just like when an illusionist pulls a tablecloth out from under a table setting, leaving the plates and glasses intact, so no matter how many “tons” of sand you would like to imagine were “on” the tarps, only a small fraction of it was lifted, only momentarily, and only a few feet. Part of whatever sand was lifted was already falling as new sand was lifted, further reducing the total weight being lifted at any point, during the 1-second event. As usual, you remain in fantasy-land, actively resisting any attempts to discern facts over fantasy. Once again, you attempt to cite a given (a kite can pull) as your “final answer” or “ultimate accomplishment”. Please allow me to remind you of the concept of AWE, kitepower, whatever you want to call it this week: Everyone already KNOWS “a kite can pull” The challenge for kite-power was to show how to USE THAT FACT to generate usable power, as in electricity. The idea that anyone should even have to tell you that after 12 years of your posturing is absurd. There are standards for measuring power output in wind energy, and a floppy kite sliding out from under some sand upon launch does not meet those standards.

Doug,

Study the video closely, using me for scale. It really was many tons lifted in the air in a few seconds, by just cheap rope and tarps. It was AWEsome.

Change the topic if you want more evidence.

Don’t see anything related to wind energy with a video showing some sand being lifted. No matter quantity.
Why don’t you just let it go you guys?

1 Like

Honestly it makes me gag, and almost throw up, to think anyone could expect to be taken seriously in wind energy by denigrating the very concept of actually measuring power output, while simultaneously claiming to be the world’s top researcher, while endlessly referring to this escape from a sandtrap as though it indeed constitutes the same measurable output derided as “over-reliance on power meters”. If lifting something is the AWE goal, then that should be measurable, and measured outcome, not just one more “dubious claim” over which to have one more “silly argument” that allows the slippery eel to slink and slither away yet again. To measure sand dropped would constitute one more dreaded method of measuring power, which has already been stated as undesirable by the promoter. Additionally, the entire original notion of AWE, kite-power, whatever you want to call it and however you want to approach it. STARTED with the FACT that kites can pull, as a GIVEN, a STARTING POINT, not an end result. The idea is to make the power USEFUL in some way, such as showing you could accomplish some task. There are plenty of valid tasks and indeed entire industries round moving sand, moving dirt, etc. Momentarily lifting some sand and dropping it where it was accomplishes nothing, and if the promoter thinks this incidental side-effect bolsters his claims of being a top researcher, it’s one more sad case of “grasping at straws”. Rather than ever provide any configuration that produces any output, we’re asked to instead humor one more absurd daveS posturing substitute for both crafting a useful device, and for measuring its output.

Barnard also could not revel in the promise of raw kite power.

Dating back to The Master, James Watt, Power was defined by how much mass was lifted how far how fast. The Watt unit of Power is universal, including both mechanical and electrical power. Mothra shedding tons of sticky wet sand over several seconds is not the easiest videogrammetric starting case, even with my tiny image for scale. The Kiwee could also direct pump water and do millwork someday.

A clearer way in AWE to explore Watt’s elemental power of lifting is to measure video kite jumps. The human is a good scale reference, whose weight can be presumed as 100kg, rider and gear. Its then easy to measure the pop-up velocity by frame-rate, and altitude by body lengths, to get typical peak-power estimates around 10kW, for 2kg or so of kite, a super-high power-to-weight, with no-fuel.

The naysayers are wrong, the Revolution is on; AWE in the raw, born in our time-

Don’t see anything related to wind energy with a video showing some sand being lifted. No matter quantity.

The sand was lifted with wind energy, that saved us a lot of work. Sand lifted or-not, every kite is related to wind energy, Olivier. Its all AWE.

At least allow Kitelab’s 2007 KiteMotor1 was wind energy just like Kiwee (turbine under pilot-lifter with cableway to groundgen).

Some folks also have trouble seeing 5% aviation fuel savings, by tailwinds, as AWE. Barnard never saw that as contradicting his pessimism.

Its also who is in the picture. There is a quaint image of the Wright Brothers intently looking at a toy kite to help a child. Yes, that picture has to do with modern aviation. If you see a photo of Wubbo or you or me flying a kite, it is an AWE record.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

Yes, Doug, correct answers are worth repeating. AWEfest was Wubbo’s idea. Anytime a party is made with AWE, it has that spirit. Not just kPower’s pioneering celebrations, but also Enerkite throwing a waffle-party at Tempelhof, or a Kiwee powering music at a party in Spain. AWE at kite festivals counts too.

You will have to wait for the giant event you hope for; its coming, in due time. Wubbo’s prediction is sound.

So funny - you are like a broken record. You “fail” to respond to a single point I made, and instead, just as you have 1000 times before, fall into your predictable invocation of the name “Wubbo”, hoping desperately that “respect for the dead” can somehow rub off on you, and magically rescue the fact that you told us you would be holding such an “AWE-powered” concert, in a certain park in Austin, during a certain season, in a certain year. But that is not even my main point. I only mention that, and your argumentative promotion of the Honeywell turbine, as proven examples of your disconnected thinking combined with a lack of understanding the basics of wind energy.
You are SOOOOOOOO predictable by this point. How many times have you responded to a protest over your concert-that-never-happened by mentioning “Wubbo” by now? 100 times? Just as you have no standards for following through on projects, you have no standards for doing anything useful with the wind. Measuring power is “bad”. Typing the word “Wubbo” is “good”.
I am just letting some of the new people know, take anything and everything you say with several grains of salt. Maybe a few tons of salt.
My point is not your ignorant statements over Honeywell, nor your inability see that you had no way to hold your past-tense supposed concert. Thise are just to set the stage for your present embarrassment of telling us you had a breakthrough crosswind kite power apparatus working so well that it was going too fast and all it needed was to be loaded with a generator, which you said you would do, and we would see the output. Now that is where you are. No amount of repeating the name “Wubbo” will get you out of it. You hve finlly said you hve the system and are going to produce electrical power aand measure it and it is the culmination of 12 years of kite-flying, nd NOW we will finally see the truth of whetheer you cn:

  1. tell the truth
  2. make any power.
    We will be waiting.
    Maenwhile I suggest you just stop talking (when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging) and start connecting that generator.
    For any of the new people here who don’t understand what you are dealing with when daveS posts, pay attention to what he says, as opposed to what he does, and watch how much veracity you ascribe to anything this guy says.

Doug, once again, form proper topics if you really want repeated or new answers. Drawing others into off-topic discussion is not the way to go.

Barnard is a sort of everyman’s devil’s advocate. We are lucky to have him in that role, even as he himself should hope his predictions fail.

As the best summary of Barnard’s AWE analysis, Dr. Moore, then of NASA LaRC-

Mark D. Moore · 2014/01/08 - 12:08 · Reply

I think it’s very useful to present the many perspectives of new technologies, and engage in debate to clarify the assumptions and claims. So I’m grateful that you took the time to scope this out. However, all you have done is – scope out the most basic of information through a simplified analysis of alternatives and Analytic Hierarchy Process (without providing any basis for the AHP values). So up until the final AHP table and summary conclusion, this was a great discussion; but the AHP and conclusions have no real value – because they have no basis. I suggest that we use this article as an initial starting point for engaging in a peer reviewed publication that can really inform the public of the potential of Airborne Wind Energy, and will happily contribute to a vibrant debate that has both sides represented. But for you to not even indicate the potential of tapping into Low Level Jets at altitudes below 2000 ft which hold tremendous energy, to not even indicate that there are hybrid system concepts that are a blend of the best of both inflatable and rigid structures, to not indicate that there are solutions where the vast majority of the tether is not even moving in relation to the vehicle speed – well, it’s obvious to me that you aren’t a systems analyst who has been working this research topic. That’s OK, as long as you don’t claim to know the answers – but essentially you do. You are doing the equivalent of observing the first flight experiments of Samuel Langley and coming to the determination that there is no hope for flight – when just a little good engineering and inside was just around the corner and changed everything. The fundamental physics of AWE are sound, the potential is enormous – let’s work together to truly educate the public, without hype or gross implication. I look forward to working with you to accomplish this goal. Thanks again for your efforts.

1 Like

If you encounter anything that goes against our community guidelines, please flag it.

Can we have the guidelines link more prominent
I’d also consider a sanction now for repeat offenders

It’s directly in the menu, but under FAQ. Can’t think of an easy way to have them more prominent.
I just said that because I don’t read all the long posts but there’s a good chance that there are some offenses in there.

For sure… I don’t read them either other than to check the odd sentence is along the same theme as ever was

Kitefreak I warned Mike Barnard that engaging in a debate with you would not be fruitful since you have no interest in any kind of fair discourse or debate. And this is one more example: Your other knee-jerk response to anyone pointing out your false statements, besides invoking “Wubbo” is to call “off-topic!”, as though you and everyone else stays on topic. One more weak excuse. Should we make a topic about you not doing what you say? OK that’s a good idea. Meanwhile, tell me which topic you were in when you got us all excited about your new device, and I’ll be happy to respond there. Regarding the topic this discussion has turned into, due to you implying you will not be following through on what you said, I will again state: You told us you had developed a crosswind AWE system using a power-kite and pulleys that showed so much promise, with its only problem being the high speed due to being unloaded by a generator, that you will connect a generator and show us the results. So until that happens, I don’t want to hear anything else from you, certainly not you harassing any and every poster, pretending to “correct” them, telling them they “fail”, are “in error”, etc. Please just show us you can keep your word, follow through, and do what you said.
And with regard to this claim of multiple “tons” of sand, now repeated by Pierre, some standards could be applied. Normally if one wanted to show how many tons could be lifted, one would fill containers with a weighed amount, then show how that known weight could be lifted. As a starting point. Then you’d still be tasked with how to make that amount of pull useful. Attach a generator? Then what? Pull one time? Make that “horsepower” for one second? Then what? That’s the difference between wind energy, including airborne, and “just flying ktes”.

Doug, Again, the kitesurfer jumping videos is a better bet for you to calculate raw lifting power without worrying about Mothra being the only example.

Debating AWE on-topic is a fair enough condition for you, Barnard, and everyone else.

Wubbo Lives!

Before all this is some quick calculation, taking account of the 300 m² kite speed during rising. If we want power for a longer cycle, we implement longer tethers.