Let us summarize this reasoning by imagining Doug around 1955:
Standard vehicle on wheels:
We, in standard vehicles on wheels, experience an endless parade of supposed improvements on the already-minimalist “standard vehicle-style on wheels", which is literally the result of thousands of years of refinement. See the date when the wheel was invented. The same basic “standard vehicle on wheels” form serves many uses, both for moving road and rail and to takeoff for aircraft. Obviously, the “standard vehicle” form has turned out to be very useful, and has in fact become “the way” to accomplish transfer from a place to another place.Rocket:
The rocket is a curiosity that has been around for over 700 years, in which time there has been no compelling use-case found for it.So, without going into all the details, it would seem unlikely that a standard vehicle device without wheels would turn out to be advantageous.
We know what happened after 1957, starting with Sputnik.
Now, let us be serious: none of the AWE solutions exist in traditional wind energy: there is no reeling system, no flygen of course, but also no tilted rotor, and no kite or Magnus balloon to sustain the wind turbine. Current wind turbines don’t fly.
So you have two possibilities:
- You always try to demolish each of the proposals, arguing that such an AWE proposal is not aligned with current wind turbines, which is a nonsense since both AWES and current wind turbines are not identical;
- You try to see the propositions, READ them, try to understand then comment or not.