As conclusion: “Although it’s unlikely such unconventional turbine designs will take over the typical tower and blade wind-power landscape, the greater the available options to harness the wind, the better.”
It is not a comment as such, but an article about AWE.
Do you want moderate the author, Michelle Froese?
About your comments about this article, please give your sources. Thanks.
No. The benefits are disputed on https://www.mpg.de/4689869/high_wind_low_energy by Dr. Alex Kleidon.
A time again I am not the author of this article. And also claiming AWES are cheaper or not is a complex task requiring differentiated analyzes. AWES can be cheaper in regard to material. AWES can be more expensive in regard to artificial Intelligence. AWES can be more expensive in regard to land use.
“A post was merged into an existing topic: Press coverage for laypeople”
An existing topic for only one article of Press?!
I posted that comment under the article, but it doesn’t seem to have been reviewed yet.
Burden of proof lies with makani
You’ve proven me wrong. Should have known there’s always someone to dispute anyting.
The terms were used as if they were separate concepts in the article, which can be confusing.
You can delete the topic, if you like. I merged it into this one, as we already had a topic with this link.
I repeat I am not the author who is Michelle Froese.
Reviewed publications are generally used in scientific fields, for AWE books for example. As example the chapter 22 ( https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324135034_Airborne_Wind_Energy_Conversion_Using_a_Rotating_Reel_System ) from Dr. Roland Schmehl and me was submitted to peer review. It is quite different for Press articles. If you have some peer reviewed article in scientific revue or book you should know this difference.
OK but in the spirite of review you invoke it would be useful to quote the reverse statements.
You wrote it is an “unproven claim by Makani”, so you have to prove it is unproven. It will be difficult as Makani’s quoted main claim [This “turbine” without a tower and blades is substantially less costly to transport, build, and maintain.] is shared with numerous AWE companies.
“Someone” is only the Max Planck Institute. But for you it is perhaps nothing. To inform you it is one of the two main organizations about the subject, cons and pros being indicated on (at least)https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Éolienne_aéroportée#La_ressource in a spirite of review.
Already = from today.
If you want to say “reviewed” by forum members, it can be to soon as the link is of today. If no I previously gave an answer.
I take that to mean that Luke commented on the article on the website, but all comments need to be reviewed by the owners of that website before they are shown. It doesn’t have anything to do with moderation here.
This is just Luke reposting his comment on the website here, for us to discuss the article and his comment on it.
Edit: since Luke started the topic before Pierre did, with the exact same link, it makes sense he merged the topics.
Note that “Kleidon” [Miller et al, MPI, 2011] only addressed the two most-famous mid-latitude Jet Streams. Cristina and Ken rebutted strongly, and most upper wind energy is found outside the Jet Stream, This seems like settled controversy. No one, on specific merits, has backed Miller et al, while many back Cristina et al. If we must leave the Jet Streams alone, as a Preserve, we will. Plenty of fruit lower on the tree.
Its a dubious priority to distinguish between “laypeople” and some undefined elite. Its a spectrum of understanding, a bell-curve distribution between least-informed and most-informed, with most of us in the middle, and much coverage blurring the line. Some of the best technical insights to AWE occur in “laypeople” sources, and some of the stupidest in “expert” sources.
Moderation should not muck this up worse. This Forum is plagued by topic-tidying imposed on mixed posting, that breaks side-topics. Even the “repaired” topic structure is still a mess. Topic retirement by software default is also a typical malware effect adding to the mayhem.
It should drive anyone away when intrusive moderation persists. It is bad news if a post was censored, even for a short time, if it merely linked to typical AWE journalism, which is never perfect. No source is perfect. There must be errors for real technical debate, for the best material to prevail in dialog, not by authoritarian decree.
Let the Moderators piss away the glory of life rearranging chairs. This thread should spit to Moderation topic from where Moderation action blew it up. Its only a few clicks to fix, a few clicks, a few…
Again who is “your”? If the author (Michelle Froese) is concerned I do not see any contradiction as she quote elements from others before stating her conclusion.
A detail: please @Luke can you explain how your note to me, excepted if I am wrong (“Your comment is awaiting moderation.” " Thank you for that article! " (is Michele Froese or another concerned?) looks to be made some hours before I sent the article? You may have had the link before but the note needs some clarification, especially since there was splitting. Thanks for it.
On the fund you _ and numerous others that are involved in AWE field_ seem to have some difficulties to accept opinions that can be unfavorable to some aspects concerning AWE like the Max Planck Institute did indirectly, or like the linked article concluded.
To be clear I think AWE is more likely to succeed than to fail. But the pros AND the cons should be discussed without a priori.
The AWE reality in 2019 is the same as that described by Mike Barnard on 2014. Barnard's predictions .
So we can say that all is good year after year, or trying to see what goes wrong.
You can read my Press coverage for laypeople interpretation of that.
For maximum clarity, Luke could have written something like: here is the comment I left on the article on the website, it still needs to be reviewed by the website’s owners before it is shown on the website.
It is a possible explain but I don’t understand why. it is not a common usage in a forum.
Luke didn’t make that comment on a forum, he made it under an article on a website. I have seen that text “Your comment is awaiting moderation” enough times to know that it means roughly what I said.
I of course don’t know if all comments on that website need to be reviewed or only those of new or anonymous users.
Somehow a copied-and-pasted third-party robo-message, “awaiting moderation”, came to look like local moderation?
That make’s sense. We are conditioned to expect local moderation might do such a thing, and the topic branching heightened the false-positive impression.
Again who is “your”? Me? The author Michelle Froese? Other?
And what about the title “Press coverage for laypeople” before @Luke stating " Should have known there’s always someone to dispute anyting." about Dr. Alex Kleidon from Max Planck Institute as he produced his famous study on jet streams discussed here with me on Press coverage for laypeople and with Dave on Press coverage for laypeople ?!
I agree with @PierreB that this should go in Market Analysis where he put his original topic. This does a bit of analysis. I also think his title is better. We’re talking about a single article here, whatever your original intent for this topic was, so just put the name of the article in the title so we know what it is about.
This comment is too nit-picky I think. Of course statements about future technologies as of now are still unproven for example. If you have a problem with this you’re going to have problems with most news articles. Maybe that’s why you started this topic, to link articles with claims from companies repeated without nuance or independent analysis by the writer?
You’d have to qualify that for maximum clarity because you don’t want to go too high, although if we’re talking about Makani the altitude is kinda implied and not an issue.
And it is kind of a misreading of the sentence I think, I take the “may” to mean “has the ability” or “has the choice to.”
That was in reference to the last part of the article I think that talked about the study from the University of Manchester about flexible piezoelectric strips. You agree with that as you say those have only been generating micro-watts.
That’s what happened. I copied the comment here, because it’s not visible on the website yet and may never be. I’m addressing the author of the article.
I do have problems with most news articles.^^ No respect for the truth or epistemic humility.
Yeah I didn’t want to start a new topic for every one of those articles by people who haven’t heard of awes before for people who haven’t heard of awes.
Possible. I read it as “might” and was wondering, why she’s using a bit of epistemic humility there right after stating “This “turbine” without a tower and blades is substantially less costly to transport, build, and maintain” as a fact.
I read it as in reference two both concepts discussed in the article, as fitting for a last sentence, since it was reffering to the “the typical tower and blade wind-power landscape” that won’t be replaced.
Would have liked a bit of discussion about how AWES is represented in the press, if it’s correct, if such a coverage is beneficial for the field and if we should try to influence it.
Of course you may hold me to a higher standard, but the priority should be on the actual article, which might actually be read by awes outsiders, in contrast to this discussion.
I am sorry for my misunderstanding (my question about “who is “your”…?”) about the comment @Luke has adressed on the the website. The context can explain my mistake.
On the fund I maintain what I previously mentioned.
Indeed the article mentions elements falling under market analysis.
I don’t agree again. It is already positive that the press mentions AWES time to time while they are still and still seen as “unconventional wind generators”, with no electricity production. It can be different as AWES are becoming successful.
The forum can try to point the possible improvements in AWE (I think for example to the power/space ratio requirement), avoiding mentioning any insignificant details as novelties week after week.
By having renamed the topic as " Press coverage for laypeople " and ignoring in the same time Dr. Alex Kleidon’s work about jet streams?!
I don’t care.^^ I had intended the topic to go a bit differently than it did. I put it into Analysis / Industry in Market Analysis now.
Didn’t say, I’m meeting the higher standard. Always willing to learn.
The article is intended to be read by laypeople, which I define in this context as people who haven’t heard of awes. The name of the topic was fitting.
I am glad you finally agree my initial choice.
Note: while flags as such are not optimal WECS, they prove the principle of passive self-oscillation dynamics (dynamic stability) that has been developed as “FlipWing” wingmills by KiteLab Group and kPower, as high-AR power wings that self-flap powerfully, in pumping strokes. So its not too far out to accept the energy flag idea in its optimized flipwing form.
Note also that piezo material wants to oscillate at >10kHz for efficiency, but ordinary flags don’t come close. Flipwings directly drive mechanical pumping to a groundgen, a far more efficient WECS basis.
See Old Forum archives and Energy Kite Systems for years of documentation.
This post is in “Press” because the Flag concept was moved here, and the original topic closed.