Barnard: “But commercially it’s never going to be viable.”
He fails to see that AWE is already commercially viable and will only grow from its present viable run.
Please substantiate this claim. Please use the consensus definitions of AWE and commercially viable.
Consensus definition: :::: AWE :: airborne wind energy harvests wind energy by use of airborne flight systems (tether and free-flight kite systems included) to do good practical works (allow “wind”:to be fluids (e.g., water, plasma, air, etc. ). . Count heads in such applied systems in commercial efforts that are doing great good and see that AWE is already commercially viable and growing so.
"commercial viability" :: the ability of a business, product, or service to compete effectively and to make a profit.
Note all the AWE companies that show up year after year after year advancing their products and services; such counts as commercial viability.
Some corners of AWE are profiting from angel funds, government funds. Other corners of AWE are profiting from making and selling good products that work well. Avoid letting a failure here and there stand for the huge AWE world. Some entities were commercially viable up until they were not commercially viable. Some ran away with the spoon and stopped while the profit was good, as the profit was seen to be stopping; they were commercially viable until they were not.
You’re not using the consensus definition of AWE. I’ll promote another description from the 2013 AWE book:
… a renewable energy technology that uses airborne devices to harness the power of the wind. Motivated by the aim to make the world less dependent on fossil energy sources, this technology is currently under investigation by researchers at start-up companies and universities. These researchers are all driven by the conviction that airborne wind energy systems have the potential to substantially contribute to the generation of cost-competitive renewable energy in the years to come, complementing other renewable energy systems.
I’ll add that here we’re talking about generating electricity or generating traction for ships.
You’re not using the consensus definition, or your own definition, of commercial viability here.
What companies exactly and are they commercially viable? Are they able to sustain themselves from the sale of AWES? Are you still using the consensus definitions of AWE and commercial viability?
Again, which companies? And are you using the consensus definitions of AWE and commercial viability here still?
I am a strong proponent of gathering as much information as possible about an issue and trying to see an issue from as many perspectives as is possible. Poorly substantiated or unsubstantiated claims or opinions are toxic to that endeavor. False claims are even worse. Please don’t feel the need to cheerlead AWE here using vague and specious claims. You’re then misinforming us, which hurts our endeavors.
Joe has perhaps done more to inform the world about AWE than anyone else, since the 1960s (!). Joe’s qualification to define “AWE” correctly is well earned, as co-originator of the term.
AWE truly does include the energy migrating birds and airliners save by systematic use of tailwinds, as well as pulling ships or making electricity by kites. Kitesurfing truly is a successful AWE-driven commercialization. R&D is a powerful commercial economic investment sector. AWE R&D has already made several private millionaires, which is true commercial viability for those lucky players.
Joe is not trying to be vague about these AWE facts. His unmatched archives offer more details than any other single source. Countless details about Makani as well, that make the shutdown understandable from an aerospace engineering perspective.
Windy Skies, stop censoring content from public view. You are doing a terrible disservice.
I would like to praise @Windy_Skies ’ judicious moderation here. Indeed once again @kitefreak confuses the readers by changing the meaning of the words according to the realities. Soon he will tell you that a simple kite is an AWES.
Pierre, sure, go ahead and praise Censorship as “judicious”. Free Speech? Not what you praise.
A toy kite is formally an AWES; a airborne system based on wind energy.
Windy Skies is a terrible judge.
Such was carefully examined and found to be so decades ago. A real wind toy kite is also formally a turbine. Such was demonstrated in the old forum in a discussion resisted somewhat by Dave Culp. Such formal inclusion does not prevent developing advanced energy kite systems or other AWES for various scaled needs. Formally, one may find that the traditional toy kite system harvests the wind’s kinetic energy and converts that energy into many other forms of energy some of which perform designed goods. Even the potential energy maintenance and recovery may serve identifiable good works. That such all is formally in the family of larger AWES may clue and ground thinkers who wish to innovate in the airborne wind energy space. Not seeing the formality that includes the simple toy kite as an AWES may seed missing opportunities when facing hopes for designing specialized AWES.
Actually the spiders are kiting; they are demonstrating FFAWE, free-flight AWE; the wing set has multiple members; the tether set melds with the wing set above; the anchor set (spider body) is a lower wing set; the system is an energy kite system fitting formally into airborne wind energy. A main objective of the shown system is transportation.
Sure, yes they can be inspiring but this is like looking at a seed and calling it a tree.
Tiny kite systems = tiny results.
Let’s be proportionate. The basics of trees, aeroplanes, organisms, fluids, everything changes with scale.
seed - toy kite - idea generation - looks nothing like final but holds info
sprout - kiwee one - laptop charger - has green on top stands above mud
sapling - Daisy - car charger - a bit of a clue to the basic form
tree
forest
jungle
Someone could call anything that is acted upon by the wind airborne wind energy. AWE has now taken on another narrower definition though, in which a toy kite does not fall under this narrower definition.
If you want to communicate honestly and effectively, don’t use your own definitions for words, use the definitions you might read in a dictionary or encyclopedia.
That is why I asked you to use the consensus definitions of AWE and commercial viability, not your own. If you were using your own definitions of these words you should say so, or maybe use different words as things get confusing fast if we’re using the same words but one of us means different things when they say them.
Barnard was using one, probably consensus, definition of AWE and commercial viability. It is disingenuous to use different definitions of those words to try to refute him. No, Barnard was not talking about toy kites when he wrote AWE was not commercially viable.
Unfortunately AWES doesn’t yet have a good history of consensus definition.
Windy_Skies,
Not sure, but it appears to me that you are misquoting me; if so, please edit your above post. I did not write what you seem to put up as a captured quote. I see how a toy kite is an AWES according to the definitions I have been using for decades. Are you saying that you do not see the formality that has a toy kite seen as an AWES? I appreciate that you may not see how a toy kite is formally an AWES. But given time and study, you might see how a toy kite is an AWES.
A toy classic kite scene: person holding string that is made taut by a kited wing. Such scene is an AWE scene. The system is harvesting wind’s kinetic energy and converting that energy to other forms of energy to do practical good works; some sound is formed, some heat is formed, some electricity is formed, some potential energy is formed, some mechanical distortions are formed, and more PTOs.
Easily the toy kite is a wind-energy harvester; easily many goods may be described as the result of harvesting the scene’s wind energy. Barnard was looking at a small corner of AWE. Even the corner he was looking at, though not the toy kite, has profit and life and standard business viability in play.
I want to communicate honestly; and I will do such with others’ definitions and the definitions that I understand; both. What is a kite? akiteis.html
Dictionaries and encyclopedias lag from what may be the works of innovative people in active creative discussions. I am assuming that your forum does want to go beyond what has been known.
Consensus? I have been working for about 60 years to see if there is a consensus for “kite”. Have not found the mystery “consensus kite”. When you find the consensus kite, kill it, Windy_Skies, so you might have a door to untilled ground. Some AWE activity is with kites, not all.
As we sort apparent confusion, neat new findings might surface. Barnard gave little coin to AWE. AWE need give him little coin.
Rod, the kiting spider has similarity scaled expressions in the FFAWE world with serious commercial intents.
I am not.
I only quoted the most relevant part, hoping you would be able to use the context to parse my comment and your quote. Here is a longer version:
It looks like to me like your post builds on this misunderstanding and as a result does not address my post. I’ll refer you back to my previous post instead of repeating myself.
You definitely misquoted by truncation method; what was left off made a huge difference. Your new further addition of some of what was truncated holds better. Truncation can change reading impression; what still stands is still in need of editing correction at the original truncation effort; please do not let stand the truncation at the start of your retort, so as not to mislead future readers. . TIA
It is not a misunderstanding on my part to suggest that missing seeing that a toy kite scene is an AWE scene may have developer missing opportunities when facing hopes for designing specialized AWES. Indeed, I suggest that when you see a toy kite as an AWES, then you may then be better equipped to design AWESs. Good luck on the adventure with your definition quest and viability quest. Whatever is operating that has you not see that the toy kite scene is an AWE seen may operate to further not see AWE opportunities in other scenes.!
I include annotated screen shots to show misquotation by truncation method leading to gross stark misreading:
E.g. Missing seeing the thermodynamic and electric realities in a toy kite’s operation as the kite system harvests and converts the wind energy may be a symptom of not being able to see similar conversions in bigger AWES.
At HAWP conference 2009 Chico, I presented a scheme of 10 scales of AWE. AWES smaller than toy was indicated as potentially well serving humans in the future. FFAWE in blood streams may one day help save human lives in a big way. At the other end of the scale, consider AWES in space at sizes of kilometers across flying in space plasmas. A toy-sized AWES in space might even be used to save Earth from death-by-asteroid impact as the kited toy wing harvests energy from space-plasma-winds to tug and disrupt fatal asteroid trajectories.
Want to master AWE for feeding the grids on Earth to serve homes and factories with electricity? Suggestion: master the AWE toy kite scene for its actualities.
The ellipses (…) in the original quote indicate that something was left out. I actually considered quoting like this (…) Not seeing the formality that includes the simple toy kite as an AWES (…) but decided that was too formal for a forum comment. You could have also clicked on the dropdown arrow in the top-right of the quote to see your entire post that I quoted a part of.
I don’t agree that I am misquoting you. The quote highlights that you think that if someone doesn’t see that toy kites would be a part of a formal AWES definition, then… (since, from context, we know that you do think they would be included in a formal AWES definition).
My post is a reaction to that. Barnard was not using some definition of AWE you prefer, he was using one that does not include toy kites.
Anyway, here is the post again with the longer quote:
Someone could call anything that is acted upon by the wind airborne wind energy. AWE has now taken on another narrower definition though, in which a toy kite does not fall under this narrower definition.
If you want to communicate honestly and effectively, don’t use your own definitions for words, use the definitions you might read in a dictionary or encyclopedia.
That is why I asked you to use the consensus definitions of AWE and commercial viability, not your own. If you were using your own definitions of these words you should say so, or maybe use different words as things get confusing fast if we’re using the same words but one of us means different things when they say them.
Barnard was using one, probably consensus, definition of AWE and commercial viability. It is disingenuous to use different definitions of those words to try to refute him. No, Barnard was not talking about toy kites when he wrote AWE was not commercially viable.
Windy_Skies, do you want to present the definition that is behind your clause “this narrower definition” ? Then we might explore if a classic toy-kite scene fits the definition that you present. I do not see where you ever presented an AWE definition that would technically exclude a classic toy kite as a formal example of an AWES.
KiteMill system seems to be a kite system that harvests wind energy and converts the wind energy into various other forms of energy to fulfill good purposes. The KiteMill system seems able to be sized tiny or large; the system lets a kited wing out and then the system brings the wing in; out and in and out and in; PTO seems to have a focus at the ground where tension changes and line outs drive chosen items. Hmmm; all such occurs in a classic toy kite scene: out and in and out and in, reeling, use of energy, converting energy types. It will be interesting to see the definition for AWE that would exclude the toy kite scene. Notice the electrical, mechanical, and biologic conversions in the hands, arms, legs and torso of a classic toy kite system that has a human as part of the anchor system necessarily to oppose the out and in and out of the upper kited wing.
KiteMill Spark may be simply a large modified toy kite system with chosen PTOs replacing the energy conversions that would be detectable in a human-as-anchor. Be careful with the definition you might present that might formally logically exclude the Spark.
WS, you promoted:
AWE:…" a renewable energy technology that uses airborne devices to harness the power of the wind."
Notice that the toy-kite scene formally fits your promotion. A classic toy-kite scene is a renewable energy technology that uses airborne devices to harness the power of the wind. Q.E.D.
It is completely obvious Barnard, and most everyone else, was not talking about toy kites when he said AWE was not commercially viable. If he were he could have just gone to a toy store and see that they were on sale and apparently selling so they must be commercially viable. That logically excludes toy kites from his, reasonably consensus, definition. I’ll refer you back once again to my previous post which you still have not materially addressed.
Formally qualifying as an AWES is part of the issue: toy kite qualified. The other part is Barnard’s focus which has been forever short; he was not looking at the toy kite: agreed. But protecting AWE beyond Barnard’s shorting (abusive) focus seems fitting for a research community scratching for innovation in an infant field of concern. What was in Barnard’s focus was a proper subset of AWE, not all of AWE. The subset in his focus has been commercially viable for some people. Has his subset fed electricity to grids in direct competition with towered three-blade big Wind? No, such subset is not yet feeding electricity into utility grids to any substantial level; and if done microscopically has a huge cost not competing with the electricity markets. Such matter has been obvious to AWE workers as we know the facts; the hype literature draws a different picture. The subset in Barnard’s focus has not made the cut; nothing new for us on the AWE lines. But don’t let Barnard smear “AWE” by his incomplete focus while trying to grab the full “AWE” name!
On the toy side: further: put a toy kite in the hands of every human for 4 hours per day and watch the electric bill go down down down; they won’t be home with TV on, heater on, A/C on, driving during those 4 hours, etc. The world would be energized, renewed, recreated, rejuvenated. : )
And if all those toy kites mod to a toy generator at the reel as has been patented, they might go home with charged batteries to run LEDs for night study of science and spirit to advance world peace. And … with all that massive involvement with toy AWE, there just might arise a swell of support for larger AWES.