QM/M

[JoeFaust]

This was set in a different realm, not Lounge.

[tallakt]

This sounds like a page from a brainwashing script. Unless you can in simple terms explain why this is relevant, Im not interested.

Already calling the emperors new clothes on this one

[PierreB]

I don’t buy this theory. However I mentioned it as there was a recent publication from Joe and Dave (A brief history of kite physics). Dave sent me some information whose the title of the deleted topic below, although I think “fog” would had been more suitable and short. In fact the quantum aspect is mentioned in a small part of the publication. After which Dave sent me several emails criticizing my way of presentation. So I deleted Requested Analogue QM AWE Metamaterial third-party conceptual validations, suggesting Joe to post about this topic.

[JoeFaust]

This was set in a different realm, not Lounge.

[tallakt]

I think you misunderstand the value of imagination. Imagining some nice words will not progress AWE. Only imagination together with understanding if the underlying physics will advance AWE.

Sometimes wierd theories make sense because they actually promote understanding. In this case you have a weird theory, then you try to look for ways that it might fit your domain. The likelyhood of that theory being useful is quite small.

Until one can actually concoct a single worthwhile example of this providing value, I dont think these theories make much practical sense.

[Windy_Skies]

@JoeFaust

This paragraph asks some questions to display some of the pressures that have partially motivated some exploration into QM/M for analogues for kite systems. What to do with fractal turbulence and ever-changing tensile couplings while converting energy from forms to other forms? What to do with layered arrays of continuities and discontinuities? Getting resultants from uncertainties? With wild waves and broad-spectrum of frequencies? Mining irregular flows?

1. I’m not following. Can you expand on each of these concepts using third party references?

---

---

---

2. What are quantum materials and how is a kite like a quantum material?

Also see Questions and complaints about moderation + unlisted, mostly unmoderated, free discussion - #573 by PierreB this topic is very controversial. I think the practical use of the topic is not clear (and this is a forum about an applied science). And analogues to components of AWES would necessarily seem to need to be physical.

[dougselsam]

Wind energy is a magnet for crazy people.
Airborne Wind Energy is a neodymium super-magnet.

[PierreB]

Hi @JoeFaust,
I will try to discuss about some extract below, for the little I understand:

@JoeFaust

What to do with fractal turbulence and ever-changing tensile couplings while converting energy from forms to other forms?

And to help , I’ll extract the three concepts in that first question of the subject paragraph:
A. “fractal turbulence”
B. “ever-changing tensile couplings”
C. “while converting energy from forms to other forms.”

Each of A., B., C. will be addressed now in the spirit of applied science aiming at AWES practical successes.

A. “fractal turbulence” Fractal nature of turbulence
B. Once one applies A., then B. follows in the tensile couplings of a complex kite AWES. That is, given A., then integrated tensile couplings within complex kite AWES respond to the fractal turbulence. (applied logic ). […] C. Conservation of Energy Since A. and B, then C follows.

I would make some observations:

• About A. The fractal nature of turbulence (your link) is at least highly contested as shown in the comments.

• About “applied logic”. You use what you call “applied logic” whose the link goes to First-order logic. By this you apply predicate logic to connect A and B, knowing A (fractal turbulence) is not accepted as such or contains a significant part of uncertainty as the study of turbulence is really complex for our current knowledge. So the First-order logic (predicate logic) cannot work here.

• About B and C. As a result it is not possible to deduce B and C from A. So I don’t see any possibility of applied science.

[JoeFaust]

This was set in a different realm, not Lounge.

[PierreB]

@JoeFaust

fractal turbulence has changing occurring as the embedded tensile couplings interact with the turbulence; those changes physically are energy form changes.

1. As already noted, “fractal turbulence” is not sufficiently referenced. Please indicate some publications about “fractal turbulence”.

2. Do you mean the “fractal turbulence” changes as the kite interacts with it? If yes can you support this statement? And what about the supposed interaction when the turbulence is not fractal? Thanks.

[JoeFaust]

This was set in a different realm, not Lounge.

[PierreB]

@JoeFaust

Fractal turbulence: FractalTurbulenceGeneralStudy

It is a general link about fractal turbulence, not towards a well defined publication. For example the link below describes fractal turbulence but in a different context as yours I think. In spite of that do you validate it in your research? If no could you produce a reference to a precise publication please?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0010218014001989

@JoeFaust

Newton’s Thrid Law of Motion over the interaction of the media with parts of complex kite form resultants in the kite as well as in the media.

How do you mix classical and quantum physics in the same proposition?

[Windy_Skies]

Because this topic covers so many ideas it is difficult to engage with. To fully engage with it you should really expand each idea. That would turn this into a full-length book and no one has time for that. If I comment in this topic it will always be to comment on just a few points.

What you can do is take a few ideas and answer the 5 Ws and H questions for them.

The Journalists' Questions: 5 Ws and an H

Another way to look at it is do you answer many of the questions that a reader might have? Scientific papers, like the one you referenced, are written that way for a reason: they allow the reader to follow along and verify the writer’s thought process and research. Here writing like that would allow us to do an informal peer-review, where now we can’t yet.

@JoeFaust

A. “fractal turbulence” Fractal nature of turbulence
B. Once one applies A., then B. follows in the tensile couplings of a complex kite AWES. That is, given A., then integrated tensile couplings within complex kite AWES respond to the fractal turbulence. (applied logic ). Reading the struggles of Storm Dunker, Walter Meile, and Günter Brenn in their paper Experiments in Line Vibration and Associated Drag for Kites evidences the cause for bringing the concept up in the question of topic. That is, the lift and drag components become fractal generating ever-changing tensile couplings. On a toy SL kite, hold line at tip of one finger and carefully watch the finger tip ever changing; or anchor the line to the base of a drinking cup and then hold the open end of the cup to one’s ear; one will hear the topic resultant.

Like Pierre says, your source of fractal turbulence could be better. But for our purposes the question if turbulence is fractal or not is irrelevant. We just use the best methods available to us, developed by domain experts, to model the fluid flow, like the applied scientist that we are. Just like we’re perfectly capable of designing airplanes without knowing about fractal turbulence, we’ll be able to designs AWES without knowing about it.

For B I see you give a reference:

No mention of (fractal) turbulence there. I don’t see how you can apply fractal turbulence to the paper. So you’ve lost me there.

More info on “the fractal nature of turbulence” would probably help, if you want to try to apply the concept.

[Windy_Skies]

@JoeFaust

Storm’s paper has fractal turbulence (FT) living throughout the article without naming FT; I am guessing I am not appreciating my reading audience in the way you might want; sorry. I am guessing that I depend on the audience to study what they need to get what they want from their wonderings as they read my text.

That’s not how it can go. You’re essentially saying “the proof is left to the reader” at every imaginative leap. Imagine trying to learn anything from a book like that. We don’t need an exposition on the word “for”, we do need one on fractal turbulence and why it is important to us. You brought it up after all as a problem. So what is the problem then, so that we may look into it ourselves?

@JoeFaust

To continue the main topic , readers and discussants are invited to play a bit over https://rdcu.be/b37zy in order to arrive at partial analogues for kite systems. The link leads to a 2016 article in Nature: The rise of quantum materials

That’s a one-page-document summarizing much. I get from that if I squint that kite fabric might be like a quantum material, if every material must be a quantum material. How does that help me? It just adds a label to the fabric? In addition to it being red it is now also quantum? What extra knowledge do I now have about the fabric?

[PierreB]

I am surprised we are still discussing this stuff.

[Windy_Skies]

@JoeFaust

WS, perhaps you will be proposing some analogue for kite systems upon further mulling QM/M.

No. All I’ve taken from this topic is that someone likes to talk about quantum materials and fractal turbulence and perhaps a hundred other things without looking at those things close enough to be able to answer simple questions about them. You’ve lost me.

[Windy_Skies]

Closed and hidden topic at request of topic starter.