It’s nice to have familiar terms such as chain and brush to work with in defining networks
It’s probably too early and informal to state
It’s nice to have familiar terms such as chain and brush to work with in defining networks
Yes I’d agree… we must not apply hard rules to something we are all still learning and experimenting with.
If you have a good method of applying BES rules to kite network design great. please share it here.
Absolutely agree with …
It helps to know many odds and ends, like sailboat rigging, Network Theory, Braid Theory, crystallography, semiconductors, traditional kites, and so on, for this topic.
Kite networks as a subject seems to have the potential to be far too big for 1 forum post to cover.
Is it best we restart and convert this topic into a wiki?
We could do similar for yo-yo methods etc
The BES note was in response to Doug’s persistent Old Forum idea that there is no relevant connection between wind energy and “big words” or things named after Einstein. BES figures in kite network dynamics to be discussed, not as “rules” but as a measure of coherent motion. It was not “too early” to lay out the basic topologies that apply to almost everything, given the topic.
Guys: I’m going to go back to the simple facts: Santos tried to imply that Roddy’s moving renderings represented “simulations” that included “physics”. This would require, first, a CFD simulation of the overall wind flow, then how it interacts and affects each cloth wing (kite), the vector pull on each line, the strength of each component including the cloth, the mass of each component, the resulting speed and direction of movement of each component, the resulting rotational rate and torque of the system, resulting in a tabulation of power output at various speeds. That is many orders of magnitude of processing power and sophistication over doing 3-D drawing that rotates. My response to Santos was based on this reality, which he, apparently, was not aware of. His response to me was to accuse me of being “off-topic”, one of a few typical excuses daveS and JoeF use on their “forum” to squelch any dissent that might include facts that shatter their fantasies. So while Santos wants to use one of his “technicalities” to try to silence me, it is based on wrong information. I WAS “on-topic”. HE was not only “off-topic”, he was “off-reality”.
He is capable of including several wrong statements into single sentence, so there is really no point in spending all day, every day, trying to deconstruct his inaccurate and half-understood ramblings and accusations.
Doug somehow missed Rod’s Kite Network simulations with available physics.
Of course all computational physics is partial and primitive, but what Rod did surely surpassed what Doug now claims for his prior ST patent drawings, as simulation-based.
I am responding to wrong statements: My patent drawings were just screenshots, of 3-D models that were, in many cases, capable of being rotated on the screen. They often were in fact rotated while under construction. Patent drawings are static by nature, so that is what you see. Like Roddy’s drawings, they simply do what you tell them to do. They do not “simulate” dynamic operation in a dynamic operating environment, complete with windflow, aerodynammic reactions, wakes, pressures, turbulence, masses, forces, tensions, momentums, tensile strengths, etc. They are illustrations showing movement, and they represent a hoped-for, idealized, greatly simplified subset of operation. Most of the other stuff Santos accuses my work of is also inaccurate, incomplete, leaving out most of the good stuff, with multiple accustions based on inaccurate assumptions coming from an incomplete understanding, but I’m not going to go into all of it here. It’s just way too many details to go into, with end in sight, no reward possible, as far as I can see, based on my experience with Santos. If you guys want to put up with him, you get what you deserve, I guess. Have a McDay.
The topic is Kite Networks, and Rod clearly deserves honor and priority both for complex kite network simulation and an actual physics dynamics component. Doug somehow missed the excitement five years ago when Rod pulled this off.
Doug’s renderings-for-hire meets none of those criteria. If Doug has any actual Kite Network insight to add to the world, he has not yet done so. Let him start a proper topic on how he thinks due credit is denied him in AWE, rather than complain so here.
Testing to see if this animated GIF of lattice waves moves after pasting-
Edit by Windy_Skies: inserted last gif from this page: http://exciting-code.org/boron-animate-phonons
I did not see motion, and the GIF became a PNG, anyone have a fix?
In any case, imagine the lattice wiggling like gelatin. That BES motion is what wind through a kite lattice could produce. As the waves pass overhead, PTO lines to groundgens could tap power.
Clicking on the upload button in the editor works for me.
Do you have a link to the image?
Well, I’ll try that next time. What an amazing fungal net.
The page link is-
The curious takeaway is that molecular and kite network dynamics can be so closely related.
OK, now seeing motion, many thanks windy-skies.
So the practical question for Kite Networks is how to develop lattice waves regardless of wind direction, since we are envisioning lattices far to large to rotate.
Several solutions have been tested by KiteLabs and kPower circle. The general methods include free kites on tri-swivels on network segments, flat SS surfaces that tilt in any direction, kites on vertical lines like common train kites, and tilting large sections of lattice according to wind.
Santos said: “The topic is Kite Networks, and Rod clearly deserves honor and priority both for complex kite network simulation and an actual physics dynamics component.”
***Doug replies: What physics, specifically? (You’ll never get an answer from Santos)
Santos goes on: “Doug somehow missed the excitement five years ago when Rod pulled this off.”
*** Doug replies: another canned response from Santos “Doug missed”, “Pierre fails”, “Peter ignores”… Again, show us the “physics” you are talking about. What “physics” exactly? What is the windspeed? Power output? Masses? Tensile strengths? Momentum of various components? Aero reactions of kite surfaces at various points? Wakes?
Santos continues: “Doug’s renderings-for-hire”
***Doug replies: This is where he can fit so many falsehoods into a single sentence that it becomes impossible and pointless to respond to every inaccuracy. Any answer to his last falsehood simply invites further falsehoods and accusations to respond to. There is no end to it, so there is no point. I will just say the renderings whose screenshots make up my patent drawings were not “for hire”. That is merely one more completely unjustified, completely false, made-up, fictitious characterization by Santos.
Santos continues his sentence: “meets none of those criteria. If Doug has any actual Kite Network insight to add to the world, he has not yet done so.”
*** Doug replies: More falsehoods from Santos: If you check out Figs 65-105 of U.S. Patent 6616402, you’ll see 40 illustrations, taken from 3-D computer models, of networked kite insight, contributed to the art. This patent is pivotal for not only AWE but wind energy in general, with a new U.S. patent derived from it covering the only commercially-deployed floating offshore wind turbine-foundation combination in use anywhere in the world.
Santos concludes: “Let him start a proper topic”
*** Doug replies:
Doug replies: There’s that canned “off-topic” attempt to silence me again. One of a few repetitive responses he uses to try to shut down any discussion when he starts losing his “arguments”.
Santos continues his sentence: “on how he thinks due credit is denied him in AWE,”
Doug replies: I never said anything about “due credit” being “denied” me “in AWE”. From the context, when you say “in AWE”, you mean “according to Dave Santos”. I contend that Dave Santos is not even a factor in AWE at all, but more like an unruly sports fan yelling what the coach and players “should do” from the stands, before being pelted with beers and asked to leave.
Santos concludes: “rather than complain so here.”
*** Doug replies: It may take some time to realize how many interconnected falsehoods Santos is able to inject into a single theme, but this Santos-sentence-fragment is dependent on his previous assertion that “I THINK” “due credit” “is denied (me) in AWE”. I’ve already addressed that “Dave Santos” does not equal “in AWE”, even though he seems to want to promote that idea.
With Santos now claiming a lack of contribution to the art from me, I would point the reader to ascertain "what is the ACTUAL contribution to the art of AWE from Santos? Besides posting on the internet all day? Where has he demonstrated anything promising? What is he building today? Who cites his work? Where is an independently-written article about his wind energy activities? Of all the "AWE activity he claims to engage in over the last ten years, what is his best power output in Watts?
Doug’s patent drawings do show networks of turbines suspended by terrain. Had he shown these as true kite networks, they would rank with Rod’s contribution.
Let Rod answer to the physics component of his simulation if he would again. Otherwise, Doug must rely on the Old Forum archives. True, Doug does not get much extra help with the work of recalling past AWE achievements.
Continuing the discussion of Kite Networks to various key details, but in no particular order.
An Anchor Field is a major method, whereby the arrangement of anchors matches lattice cell structure. Anchor Stations take many forms, from passive restraints to PTO groundgens.
Airborne Network Nodes/hubs take many forms for many purposes. The simplest node is a tri-tether junction with “transistor” logic. The next most-basic node is a pulley line running on another line. Complex nodes gather many IO channels and can host avionic and actuation functions.
A key capability is reverse-pumping energy back up into the Kite Network to sustain flight in lulls.
See what I mean? He is unable to answer a single question. That is not “a conversation”. That is just a series of hit-and-run attacks. As usual, he is wrong. Of course the patent he referred to is important and may define AWE if so applied. But he is talking about a completely different patent than the one I cited. He has not replied to a single point I made, or question I posed.
I specifically cited 40 published patent drawings, taken from my (not “for-hire”) 3-D renderings, of networked kites, to specifically answer him inaccurately accusing me of having made no contribution of networked kites to the world. Kites suspended from other kites. Many interconnected kites, working together, to generate power from the wind. In 40 patent drawings that he pretended do not exist. I did not mention the other patent he referred to, but it is also highly-relevant. And it all represents just the tip-of-the-iceberg.
Doug just has to be patient for Rod to answer to the question of just what Kite Network physics he simulated. I am guessing kite lattice dynamics in gravity and wind, at least, were simulated using Rhino 3D and add-ons like Grasshopper, Flexhopper, or Kangaroo.
If Doug did his own computer graphics, as Rod did, rather than hire a 3D artist, then great, the “rendering-for-hire” presumption fails. Doug seems to concede his modeling did not include any of the physics he defines.
Trying out new features.
Please come back tomorrow.
Looking over the evidence…
You have a point about my published simulations only showing successes… Thought I’d posted some over twist fails on YT but can’t see any there.
The dynamic simulations I have posted (Like https://youtu.be/Eg36ua5muj0 ) just use FEA (finite element analysis) on soft line networks. The force vectors applied to network nodes are approximations of kite force … Gravity is also applied. CFD (computational fluid dynamics) is waaay beyond my laptop… I have been planning to revisit the rotary model simulations with more random and violently off axis forces … I aught to get some screen grab of the models failing because it seems quite like the actual fails seen (and posted) on youtube.
Otherwise, Honestly @dougselsam netiquette and clarity is more important than the ego of anyone here… so it must be massive