Sorry, my standard is transparency and third-party validation. I am unable to judge your work-quality. If high, I am more motivated to comply with your requests.
1 Like
Thank You Tallak, AWE acronyms are not intended to mystify, but to state a high volume of engineering facts and conjectures in the most concise way. Same with our domain equations. We need all our modes of communication, including plain language.
TACO, itself an acronym, is nothing compared to JoeFâs vast AWE glossary that contains all the acronyms so far, many borrowed from existing fields, a fantastic start; some should copy it and add all the new terms. Lets get new help to build on years of formidable prior effort. Joe has been at this since the 60s!
Thanks to everyone willing to help on an expanded acronym-term sharing effort,
1 Like
Iâve looked it over a few times over the years. Iâll do that again.
http://www.energykitesystems.net/0/KITESA/FAQelectric/glossary/a.html
Luke has also linked Tethered Aviation ConOps (TACO) v.1.0 in this thread.
Do you have links to other content?
If you must use acronyms or uncommon terms please at the very least make it clear that they are that and can be found on energykitesystems, by bolding them, putting them between quotation marks, or |otherwise|. So that we know that they are that and can then decide to ignore them or look them up in energykitesystems.net That should make it a little bit easier to parse your writing.
Rich venture are not marginalizing us kite freak. They are doing what they have to. As we do, and those guys are not my customer so I am not waiting for anything from them. Except exchange about vision and market positioning on this forum.
There is that long complain about how big are those ventures and how they concentrate the interest of all. Well, my thinking is that they are having a really hard time managing the technic and that made them still really far from the market. That is the most dangerous phase to me. The one you might stay in for years as makani did. Project have to sprint to the market with the so called minimum viable product.
Having some millions in your pocket from funding will not grant you market access.
Real sales are so much more valuable than funding.
Again about vision, there is not that gap between small product like kiwee and prototype like makani. It is just about how do you go from point A to point B. My guess is I had better do a simple (from users eyes, not counting the thousands development hours) affordable product, makes reference and then move on to something bigger. Bottom up strategy. Others choose top down strategy and some others in between ( like kite mill!).
In any case, market will do itâs darwinian role and you might see big ventures with millions in pocket today, shutting down the Light. This also apply to kitewinder, no need to be said but I prefer to be not ambiguous here
1 Like
Sorry for going on about this. In my defense, I havenât said anything about this for years, trying to parse what you wrote. There were times when I failed.
After thinking about it a bit more, now I think my
Was right, but doesnât capture the whole issue. That focused only on the things I imagined would be easily rectified by you, as a compromise to you.
To be most effective in communicating your ideas, you should go over your writing and try to take away questions like I put in here.
My takeaway: heavy thing be heavy, cloth is light. Itâs muddled writing suggesting muddled thinking. You add to existing knowledge by the depth and breadth of the analysis, not only in your own mind but on paper so that the reader can follow along. The reader can then use that newfound knowledge to guide their actions. If youâre going to be writing in the future with a goal to advancing knowledge or convincing readers, you should improve your writing. If you are committed to writing better, itâs not difficult to achieve. Just going over it and trying to see what questions a reader might still have will make a difference. 20 percent of the effort will make 80 percent of the difference I think.
3 Likes
Windy Skies,
Every question you ask is answered by familiarity with the Old Forum and JoeFâs archives. Let those be your go-to resources to address any muddle over what is meant. If I knew your specific background, that would justify making a special effort to explain things to you. As for links, the Old Forum and Archives contain thousands, many rare. Joe and I have shared more links in public than anyone we know. Please appreciate that as our sufficient contribution to the record. When you need to use acronyms, for example, standard FAA aviation usage, rest assured there are those who know and care do understand them, rather than fear being ignored.
That post was for yourself and @JoeFaust then. Feel free to continue posting like that in the Yahoo forum. Here I would be in favor of moderating them as for those not intimately familiar with the Yahoo forum, it is noise.
1 Like
No, Joe Faustâs archives and Old Forum Archives are for everyone. The New Forum has already recognized these resources as valuable. In fact, there is no greater trove of AWE info than those sources.
Olivier,
If Makani, topping 200M USD, buys 100 Kiwees to share with all teams, as I would do if I was CEO, then I can agree they are not marginalizing you.
I was inside of the early Makani venture and know the current CEO. You really are neglected if they never reach out to help you, having done such fine work creating a real AWE product,
daveS
I didnât say that the Yahoo forum is not accessible to everyone, I said what you wrote is noise to anyone not intimately familiar with the Yahoo forum, and therefore here would have no place in my opinion.
Thanks for posting the below:
Thanks for giving me some ideas, or verifying my ideas. To critique it, without you sharing the tests youâve done and the results, there is no way for me to learn how applicable what youâve done is to architectures I could imagine. I have searched for that on Google and JoeFâs archive and that search didnât give relevant results.
I must also state that whenever I search for stuff in the Yahoo Groups forum, I do not find much. One reason might be the âaverageâ signal to noise ratio of the messages there. As a rule, if you want to engange people on a forum (and that must be the only reason I can see to parttaker in such) is to make every text you write clear and with a obvious purpose, and provide easily obtainable links/references to outside information
1 Like
I agree that the yahoo forum is not useable for many reasons, one of those is the really poor ergonomy of this forum.
Another one will be the need of new players to make their own traces.
Personally from what I have seen, there is not so much valuable content on the forum anyway
1 Like
The Yahoo forum problem is discussion during years about AWE for electricity production which remains a field without economic reality.
The Old Forum was simply the best that could be done in its time. True, there is a high noise ratio, but some cope better than others, and diligent searching based on key terms will enable productive data-mining. The economic reality of âAWE for electricity productionâ is >300M USD in research funding (Makani, Ampyx, KiteGen, etc.). Thatâs a start.
that is why every company should aim to give it an economical reality as fast as possible. So true Pierre
The problem is that AWE venture-capitalism does not embrace optimal experimental design in the form broad open testing across all architectures. Its no mystery why this is so. Most ventures will lose by having their architectures vetted in open testing. This is why the Old Forum was created, to analyze the entire AWE field comparatively, as best as possible from available public knowledge. >25000 posts later, the process continues. The New Forum will help increase the knowledge needed.
Iâm not sure what you mean. Are you saying you would like companies to test all possible architectures? If yes, of course they donât. The investor and the company need to get a return on investment. You donât get that in a manageable time frame by doing basic research, which âtesting across all architecturesâ would amount to, and it is a reasonable standpoint to defend to keep your research to yourself, to maintain your competitive advantage, and thus your chance to succeed and actually make a difference. No need to imagine ulterior motives. Now there is research and also some cooperation in the field on the architectures that have shown some results.
The basic research you would like would need to come from universities and the like. But the people there of course also want to work on stuff that shows promise.
It is reasonable to expect the work of developing a successful architecture is rewarded.
But weâre all online now. Info is instantly shared.
No developer can successfully deploy as fast as nation state scale building and research programes. (especially not a lone househusband)
Yes we all want to do well for ourselves and our families⌠But the sooner we realise the world being a shared resource the better.
Successful beneficial IP can be made to have compulsory licensing.
As for university research, it is very dependent on the experience of the student and teacher. Experience doesnât often come cheap or easy.
I may have cocked up trying to shift the last 2 posts into manufacturing⌠the whole topic here seems to be much more about "how our group goes about AWES engineering "
Do we need a re-name?