AWES still has a while to prove itself competitive at utility energy production.
Daisy prototyping started with toy kites and achieved the best power and reliability to cost in AWES.
A lot of AWES projects do start a bit man child with toy. I looked a bit daft that way myself yesterday.
Commercial viability depends on the market product fit you serve.
Please give third-party sources that agree with your definition, or word usage, for/of airborne wind energy. If you cannot, please use other terms. The things you are talking about might have some place on this forum, but describing a nanobot in the bloodstream as an AWES for example will always irk people and their replies will reflect that. It is another claim about the truth of the world and youād need to substantiate it.
I think a better, not perfect or complete, descriptor for what you are talking about is fluid dynamics. Weāre not inventing new physics here, only trying to apply our knowledge of physics in a novel way. No need to make up new words for concepts that already exist.
See all of Dave Culpās airborne wind energy expressions. See all of Wayne Germanās airborne wind energy expressions. See all of Dave Santosā airborne wind energy expressions. See all patents that deal with airborne wind energy. Dave Santos was one of the two persons that together formed the phrase āairborne wind energyā to express using fluid borne devices to tap the involved fluid kinetic energy to perform works; scale was not a limiting factor. Airborne Wind Energy Industry Association foundations allow fluids beyond air implied under āairā and thus water and other fluids are hugged. Scales are respected in most AWE research efforts from tiny toy on up; I am not the founder of tiny and miniature AWE. It is not novel to respect scales from tiny to huge; and it is not difficult to wrestle with; do AWE small and grow larger if one wants to grow larger.
One need not do new physics to study fluid-borne machines that convert fluid kinetic energy to achieve objectives; and it is understood easily by those skilled in the arts to think of scaling up and down.
Novel explorations sometimes need new words; what word do you feel is new that may be of concern for you; I will address any word that seems challenging to you; please say the word or words; TIA.
If a machine is fluid borne and converting relative kinetic energy to do wanted works, then the activity of airborne wind energy is present: AWE. For an AWE worker who gets disturbed about scale of AWES: then please have that reader tell about scaling challenges they are having; we may then address their challenges, perhaps. Donāt kill the opportunity of scaling! The M600 compared to a world-surround AWES will appear as a near-zero machine scalewise; Makani started with toy AWES and evolved to the M600; but a century before tiny and larger AWES were doing conversions of wind kinetic energy and water kinetic energy to do work with such harvested energy.
ārelative kinetic energyā :: Say there is a full air calm on a winterās morning. Have a truck towing a kite system; have the kite system an aloft impeller integrated as part of the kite system. The kited wing and its impeller will āseeā air moving by their surfaces; the air is moving relative to their surfaces; I am calling in this note, the see moving air as having kinetic energy (though souced from the truck powering against the earth frame to bring on the relative motion of the air while the air is calm relative to the earth as frame. Such kite system is an AWES; such arrangements are being used by some AWE research centers.
It is fine for a corner of AWE to specialize, organize, and begin to haver club-like terms to deal with their carved corner; we might see one day āKEGSā as a club sector of wind energy: Kited Electric Generator Systems". Their cornering efforts would not negate that they would be respected by the AWEIA (Airborne Wind Energy Industry Association) if they did not use the term AWE in their dealings and literature. We have witnessed within AWE an effort to sectorize to ādroneā whilst forgetting that the generative mode of the ādroneā is an energy kite system; all such word play by that effort does not negate understanding such drones as AWES. Leaving open scale, there is room in AWE for a great plenty of exploration aiming to serve the needs of humans.
If you want to define your forum for some exact scale and limit that scale exactly to only feeding electricity into utility grids whilst disallowing progressive discussions on pulling, disturbing, rubbing, cutting, lifting, lighting, heating, seeing, communicating, etc., then I await such narrowing; you are free to press to any AWE sector you wish, presuming you are forum owner. No problem. Those other corners of AWES could be a source of art and technology that will feed other AWE corners; such nurturing has been regularly occurring: corners of AWE feeding other corners of AWE. Big feast!
The only thing I ask is this. The rest of your reply is off-topic I think:
You are an advocate, judging from your messages here and from these older messages. Youāre trying to invent and promote new terminology. That hurts your credibility as youāre not a disinterested observer, but a stakeholder.
Patents are not reliable sources for word usage. Dave Santos is not a third party. I donāt really consider either Dave Culp or Wayne German third party. I havenāt been able to find content from Wayne German in Google Scholar. I found one article with Dave Culp as a co-author:
It doesnāt mention airborne wind energy.
But I now see that this was the wrong question. For word usage you can best refer to corpora, this one for example:
Iāve looked through the 50+ results from the iWeb corpus for āairborne wind energy.ā These results donāt support your definition. Earlier searches I have done also donāt support your definition.
No, see my previous reply for my current opinion on that.
https://patents.google.com/patent/US7093803B2/en
Dave Culp has been a pioneer and leader and consultant in AWE
1 Like
"Windy_Skies says: only trying to apply our knowledge of physics in a novel way.
Do you want your forum to be limited only to the knowledge of physics that you know? And if your targets are ānovelā ways, then sometimes, donāt you think, some novel summary terms might capture the nuances that may be involved in the ānovelā ways?
Novelty might be stifled if we wait for Barnards and SmoeJoe to understand us, if we are doing frontline explorations. Indeed, breakthroughs may not arrive from Los Angeles Timesās third-party reportersā glimmerings. Is your forum going to wait for Audubon Society to understand pioneering AWE work?
Do you want novelty in AWE to show up in your forum? You stated you are after novelty from the physics you know. Do you want novelty from physics that you do not know? Are posters to be bounded by only what makes you comfortable? What if a terrific AWE matter simply strikes you as bizarre and such matter gets hidden or deleted? How much of AWE do you want to skirt your platform and show up elsewhere?
Not any nanobot, but FFAWES bot was mentioned. There will be nanobots in blood that are not AWES.
I donāt see a mention of Airborne Wind Energy in the patent.
We: letās say every being with an interest in developing Airborne Wind Energy.
Our knowledge of physics: all of known physics.
The rest of your post builds on a misunderstanding of what I wrote there so I donāt think it is relevant to the discussion. But no, developing an AWES does not require new physics, just the knowledge of a subset of known physics, besides many other things.
Youāre right, itās industry or scientific jargon or terminology also or primarily, so the usage of the term in peer reviewed scientific literature is a better source than a newspaper for usage of the term in that domain.
So now weāve established there are at least three domains of the term I think: popular press, scientific literature, Joe and Daveās writing.
Good; that should be a strong basis for going forward.
All are invited to add to lists of how tethered fluid kinetic energy-harvesting machines are called in the literature by inventors, developers, consumers, hobbyists, dreamers, science fiction authors, reporters, promoters, sellers, historians, authors, scientists, physicists, technicians, engineers, government authorities, aviation authorities, users, pilots, entrepreneurs, tinkerers, machiniists, futurists, AWEIA, popular press, scientific literature, progressive forums, ā¦ā¦
aerial RATs
aerial WECs
airborne ram-air turbine
airborne wind-energy conversion systems
airborne wind energy generator
airborne wind energy systems
airborne wind turbine
air device
AWEGS
AWES
BAT
buoyant air turbine
electrical kite
energy drones
energy kites
energy kite systems
energy transfer system
flying electric generator
flying electric generator
flying energy generator FEG
flying generators
flying turbine
flying WECs
flying wind drones
flying windmills
flying wind power plant
flying wind turbine
HAWT high-altitude tethered wind turbines
high altitude wind energy systems
high altitude wind system
high flying turbine blimps
industrial kite systems
kite
kite energy devices
kite energy machine
kite energy machines
kite generator
kite hang gliders
kite power system
kite propulsion device
kite propulsion system
kites
kite turbine
kite turbines
LATWT low-altitude tethered wind turbine
man-lifting kites
meteorolical kites
paragliders
paravanes
power generating kites
power-generating kites
power kite
practical kite
practical kite systems
renewable-energy kite
renewable-energy kites
renewable-energy kite systems
scientific kites
skysails
sky sails
tasked kite system
tethered airfoils
tethered aerogenerator
tethered atmospheric energy harvesters
tethered energy device (TED)
tethered energy device system
tethered energy drone
tethered energy drone systems (T.E.D.S.) (TEDS)
tethered energy fans
tethered energy harvesters
tethered fluid deflectors
tethered fluid energy-producing machines (AWES with āairā implying broadly fluids and fluid-like media)
tethered flying wings
tethered hydrokinetic energy harvesters
tethered media deflectors
tethered media energy harvesters
tethered undersea kites (TUSK)
tethered vanes
tethered water turbines
tethered wind energy
tethered WECs
tethered wind deflectors
tethered wind energy generation system
tethered wind energy generator
tethered wind energy systems
tethered wind energy turbine
tethered wind-powered aircraft
tethered wing
tethered wings
tethered wings energy generators
tethered wings energy harvesters
traction air device
traction kites
levopter
levopters
wired airfoils
working kite
working kites
working kite systems
- ā¦
ā¦ many more (will place others)
No other comment on your list.
But we were talking about AWE. I think the question is what domains are valid to draw the definition from. I think it includes the scientific literature and also probably the popular press. On this forum I would like it to exclude Joe and Daveās writing, because of lack of notoriety, lack of wider usage, and the irritation and confusion every time that definition is used, derailing any discussion.
Parallels can be drawn with hydro kinetic devices or even micro fluidic devices and MEMSā¦
But AWES are airborne.
Scaling affects everything.
So we canāt easily generalise between types.
IMO The scientific analysis of AWES devices is currently lagging far behind design engineering.
1 Like
Excellent, Rod. Analyzers must find things to analyze; it seems necessary the lag you mention.
Sweet. What is āthat definitionā that you seem to think derails what discussion? Discussions seem to brgoing fine.
Domains that hold comment on useful tethered wings in fluids would be a starter! If the matter is helpful to move forward on tethered fluid energy-producing machines (AWES with āairā implying broadly fluids and fluid-like media). then why care about the domain of the gems?
I am still talking about AWE: airborne wind energy with āairā implying fluid and fluid-like media in which tethered wings deflect the media.
With study, reflection, study, analysis, discussion: out of confusion may come clarity!
Confusion a necessary state in learning ~ John Healy Murray
I donāt know. Itās your definition. It somehow can include both space sails and nanobots in the bloodstream. It somehow classifies blood flow as wind and blood as air.
It is not clear to me from the rest of your comment you have understood my point about relevant domains (that use the term Airborne Wind Energy). Sure, conceivably insights from microbiology might inspire ideas for AWE but you wonāt find the term AWE in microbiology.
Do a search for āAirborne Wind Energyā in your preferred corpora and youāll see where it is used, i.e. what its domains of usage are. It is used in applied science and the popular press. The definitions in those two domains, applied science and the popular press, roughly agree.
You would like to promote your own, significantly different, definition. Since the term is already in widespread use with its different definition, I donāt think I want to allow that. Just like I donāt think I want to allow people calling a chair a table or an apple a rose, since this is not an absurdist literary forum.
Keep wrestling. In your replies, it is so that you misrepresent things. Not just nanobots, but nanobots that are AWES; not all nanobots are AWES, only those that are fitting the definition of airborne wind energy. Not just space sails, but only those devices among space sails that fit the definition of airborne wind energy. Not just hydrokinetic devices, but only those hydrokinectic devices that are AWES where tethering or RATS are involved. Misrepresenting clues that we are in a discussion of learning where confusion may have a hope to play its good role of teasing out clarity following careful work. You are urged not to shunt things until better clarity is at hand for the decisions in the forum.
It seems that letting āairā in a title for an interest space be a handle for fluids is troubling the discussion. Air has had a root dominant play in tethered wing spaces, but the dominant play need not push away cousins; the cousins using tethered wings operate in water and other fluids; such is why the Airborne Wind Energy Industry Association at its roots and continuing has let āairā stay in title while the media form cousins are not shoved out of the technical picture. It is has not been hidden: technically let āairā in context of the broad field to stay conizant that very much of the technical matters under discourse have cousin-media analogues that are important for reaching energy solutions for the world.
KiteMillās kite-energy system has its technical cousin forms in water and other fluids. Etc. No big problem. Magenn LTA kytoon AWES has its technical cousin in other fluids other than air. Etc. Titles do not determine the focus space; understanding the published āletā could easily keep the scene holding the the richer technical considerations in in all flow media where tethered wings may serve energy harvesting.
Telling that āAWE is already commercially viableā is to have endorsed its failure to generate electricity in a viable way. I think it may still be premature. Companies and researchers continue to work on this objective. Letās not drown them in a generalizing context where everything is equal.
That AWE is already viable does not mean automatically that all sectors of AWE are viable. Consider selling bruised apples for a profit, but note that bruised sections of some apples may be cut out for special handling and processing in different ways than the non-bruised sections. A viable apple may have a bruise. A case of viable apples may hold even a rotten apple; but the case is sold and processed to do good.
The title deal has permitted a neat way to keep the fundamental technology alive across other flow media; such may let scientists and engineers and developers stay ready to move on solutions that otherwise may be missed.
I have changed my above post to read can include both space sailsā¦ instead of includes both space sails andā¦.
Youāre not addressing my point I think. See my previous post.
WS, you urge research papers. Papers serve by presenting definitions of used terms in the paper. Consider letting AWE workers define things in their working papers/paragraphs. Why would you want to block a founder of the phrase āairborne wind energyā from clarifying its generative essence, its roots, its meaning, its application, etc. Some corners of AWE have picked up on sub-total corners; such picking up of sub-total does not obliterate the total. This matter is not equivalent to absurdity. Definitions are tools; setting the scene with definitions is important in engineering, science, math, technology, ā¦
Differing papers/paragraphs traditionally may set their definitional base and then proceed with disclosure and explanations and reportings. Leave it to AWE authors for their papers/paragraphs to set their own scene. Are you intending to put up some definition for airborne wind energy for your forum that must bound all paragraphs in your forum? Or are you going to leave it up to workers and pioneers to form their definitions for their papers/paragraphs? I do not control how popular press or this or that academic center define their terms in their papers/paragraphs.
WS, it does not seem we share how infant AWE is. For me, I see AWE as barely born; there is so much AWE yet to open, even in the electrical-generation corner. My guess is AWE has disclosed less than 1% of itself; in the other 99% holds grand surprises for developers to explore in order to serve humans, Earth, and our coming new space homes. Consider letting AWE unfold in part in your forum. Each worker must work out their grasp of terms as the baby grows.
@JoeFaust, Iāll reply later to your latest comment.
A quick comment now is you can āflagā a comment, which will alert a moderator to look closer at it for any problems.