We’ve seen the words “Quantum” and “metamaterials” used together to describe multiple units working together. The first thing I’d note is that “quantum” is admittedly poorly understood and mysterious according to the people who study it a lot, so to begin with, applying these concepts to, say, flying kites or wind energy, might be hard to comprehend and possibly invalid, as a start. That’s where the promoters start fading their theory toward “well, quantum analogs” or the like - maybe quantum, maybe not, but it “reminds” someone of some quantum phenomenon. Maybe it’s “sort-of” quantum. But I’m not sure if “quantum” and “sort-of” go together. I’m thinking with “quantum” by definition, something either is or it isn’t “quantum”? Could it be “quantum quantum” where you never even know if it IS quantum as a start? Who knows, but I think - no wait, I know for sure, it is easily possible to arrange multiple similar units to work together effectively without any advanced or unintelligible physics gibberish. . And I also know it does not necessarily take any kind of “quantum” expertise to do it. So to me, it’s just a tactic to avoid admitting one can’t really get much of anything working, whether it is one unit , two units, three units, or thousands - say 3 blades in a rotor, which acts completely differently when changing direction than two blades for example - are rotors “quantum” because they use multiple blades? Who knows. Does anyone care? You just need to know they work.
My SuperTurbine™ concept utilizes multiple rotors, all working together to spin a long driveshaft. Multiple units working together - so is it “quantum”? Is it a “metamaterial”? Well first we should realize that Metamaterial is just a word used in an attempt to describe reality. One thing I notice seems to be a persistent problem we humans have is to assign a word to some reality, but then we start acting like the word is the real thing and try to shift reality to fit the word. But the word is just a tool. The underlying reality is the real thing to study, not the word. So is a SuperTurbine a “metamaterial”? Well let’s realize, maybe we’re just trying to fine-tune the definition of the word, more than really doing anything to change a driveshaft with a bunch of rotors on it.
Now with regard to whether a SuperTurbine is “quantum”, or a “Bose-Einstein Condensate” , well, who knows? Might that question just be more trying to adjust the definition of the word “quantum” than saying anything new about a SuperTurbine™?
We have lots of instances of many subunits working together to create what we would call a larger unit. For example, if one solar panel is good, maybe two is better. And once you have connected two you realize you can have a “solar farm” with as many units as you can afford or have land to fit them into. So since they are similar units working together, are they “quantum”? I really have no idea, but more to the point, I wonder why it matters. If you DO have a way to make several subunits work together, then you do. What you call it does not seem to affect how it works, so I really don’t see the point. I mean, hay, I have a stack of identical papers on my desk - so are they quantum? If they work together to make “a book” is that “quantum”? Is a book a “metamaterial”? Are the multiple, similar windings of a generator “quantum”? Metamaterial? Does it matter? What if you couldn’t write a book no matter how many years you spent trying. Does it then matter if a book is “quantum”? My suspicion is that usually such collections of units working together to make a bigger unit is just that - multiple units working together. To me, the key is figuring out how to get multiple units to work together, not exactly what terminology you want to apply to it. It seems if you have multiple units working together, that is what you have, multiple units working together. Probably not what physicists refer to as “quantum”. I suspect that the word “quantum” as used in physics probably goes deeper than just multiple units working together, but if there IS any “Bose Einstein Condensate” in wind energy, SuperTurbine might be an example, However, I never knowingly applied any quantum physics principles to develop a SuperTurbine™. And since the driveshaft will bend and twist to where not every rotor is in the exact same angle or point in its aim or rotation, I’m thinking it is just multiple rotors that happen to all be driving the same rotating shaft.
My take on the whole “quantum” thing is it is just an excuse to not actually develop the types of system in question, where, for example, large numbers of kites working together would be used in AWE. To me, it’s more about the people promoting such large numbers of kites working together, while being unable to get even a single kite producing meaningful amounts of electricity, because if they could, of course there is the possibility of multiple such units working together. But if a promoter of the idea is unable to get even a single kite to work effectively, they are then also unable to get multiple kites to work together effectively, yet wish to seem to proceed forward, so they come up with stuff that nobody can understand, as a substitute for getting the first kite generating some useful amount of power, which could lead to adding more units, just as it does with other things like a SuperTurbine, a piston engine, a solar array, the four burners on a stove, the multiple windows on your house that combine to let light in, drinking multiple beers, etc. Multiple units are common. In A Bose Einstein Condensate, the “condensate” part means the individual units have become indistinguishable from one another. They have “condensed” into one, as far as we can tell. Well maybe, unless you weigh them - hey it weights two! OK it’s all so hard to understand. A Bose Einstein Condensate would seem to be more than just working together in synchrony… Are multiple kites, even in synchrony, going to become indistinguishable from each other? How about if you have a waiting period for tension to travel on a kite line? So then someone calls it a “phonon”, and they are off to the races again, using big words to create so much confusion that people are expected to forget it is just a guy who can’t get a single kite to make any meaningful amount of electricity, trying to substitute adding mental complication for success using a single kite. Maybe if he can inject sufficient confusion, people will be diverted form seeing he can’t get a single kite to generate electricity, let alone several, and start worrying about quantum mechanics instead of generating electricity. I suspect that is what is really going on is not advanced physics so much as an attempt at a mental shell-game, where the subject keeps changing faster than you can call out B.S. on it. Whether it is quantum in any given case I’m not sure, but I also don’t see that it matters. Seems to me either you can figure out how to do something or you can’t, and what label you place on the result is almost immaterial. A name is just a handle. A rose is still a rose, by any name. So I’d say if someone wants to develop a system of any kind, using multiple units, go forth and conquer, and worry about what to call it after you get it working. Might want to start by getting one unit to work though, first.
Well, kites are actually quantum like atoms send off light at wavelengths tuned to the energy levels of each atom type.
Kites have similar states due to the nonlinear coefficient of moment at different pitch angles. Thus a kite may be stable at one, two or more pitch angles. And each such stable angle will lead to different tether tension. Group these together to add almost unlimited states for a network of kites…
One more example:
The autogyro in the video has stable rotations at zero, slow and hight rotational speeds. Three stable states. And the energy to push it from one state to the next is supplied by the hand, either increasing the speed or slowing it down. Those energy steps will be the same every time!!
Couldn’t resist throwing in this link I saw today:
The entanglement lasts one thousandth of a second.
I always suspected the real top speed in the universe would make the speed of light like standing still, like maybe some signal must propagate the entire universe before you get one reduced Planck constant of movement that we can see, but who the heck knows…
Seems like what we see is like a tip-of-the-iceberg of what really is.
Sorry, not sure what any of this has to do with AWE specifically - maybe someone else can make a connection, just thought it was an interesting article. 
The entanglement risk within a kite farm is still underestimated. A possible solution is studying a kite-farm from the start, considering it as a whole.
I think I’ve made an “entanglement” joke regarding kite strings in the past regarding this “quantum” kite tangent. Only thing is, as kids, we only needed one kite to have entanglement. I remember one time as a neighbor’s dad cursed about another kid (named Dave!) who maybe got the blame for the kite crashing, as the neighbor kid’s dad slowly untangled the string for us.
Not sure if a tangled string is really what anyone would mean by"entanglement" or “quantum” stuff regarding kites - might be a different meaning of the word. I’m trying to think if more than one kite was needed for quantum entanglement - you’d have to ask a “domain expert” - maybe it could have been just entangled phonons on a single string. Wish I understood the whole subject better. So do a lot of people I guess…