It would be best to simply avoid any arguments with you. @dougselsam
Your skepticism of #AWE is legendary as had been your ‘spars’ with DaveS.
How much further has your ‘Flying Serpent’ scaled since those years? How much higher in the wind have you gone?
Fortunately for you, your arch-rival is banned here now so you have the field!
I trust Mr Selsams knowledge in this matter. His post is spot on. The problem is that the text provided does not «compute». Work on your message rather than attacking the audience.
«On internet, no-one knows youre a dog»… thats the good thing here also. No need to swing high credentials here. Just make your point
1 Like
I don’t want to be on a forum where any 1 person has the whole show.
We all have a common mission and are stronger together.
DaveS post some extraordinary claims.
They will require extraordinary proofs.
The concepts and linked ideas are surely considered with good intent. But the basis of each point is often very weakly evident.
And then often ruined with his mistrust and compulsive, wild public derision of anything which reeks of authority.
It’s great AWES has had open forums for years.
Essential for bringing a wide range of ideas into common consideration.
Inclusion is a high priority for that reason.
Do you maintain a copy of the old yahoo AWES Forum @AweEnthusiast?
Inclusion is necessarily reciprocal. We have to look after each others interests to run a forum working on a common mission.
Given the complexity of this mission, trust, as you pointed out is essential, which requires respect and Truth.
Inclusion of these elements is more fundamental to forum working than any member. Human knowledge has a very significant social element. We can’t personally maintain expertise on every topic. We know to share the loads and rewards.
Nobody has a personal vendetta towards DaveS.
His inspirations and views have been great company to many of us over the years. He has plenty of avenues to engage with AWES. This forum is by no means the be all and end all of AWES. He’d have to tow the line of civility to hold common privileges here.
3 Likes
Hi Rod,
You have been a moderator for both forums, and perhaps the only one in this case for all I know. So you’re certainly in a good position to talk about inclusion, if that word has the same meaning for everyone…
@AweEnthusiast (and all),
John,
I must apologize for my error. A provisional patent application has been filed, including the description and names of the applicants, the day and number of the filing. Sorry.
If this is false, I also apologize for this statement.
1 Like
I’ve only been a minor player in both moderation efforts, but I think you’re correct @PierreB
1 Like
Yes John, well that was what they did to others when they held the keys to deleting messages, (and they lie about it to this day) so it is Karma coming back to them if you want to use that term.
You’re good at writing diplomatic-sounding statements, (even if they amount to the typical “Professor Crackpot Outrage” in response to anyone calling out “The Emperor’s New Clothes”, where the outside observer is blamed for the lack of results), and your buddy seems to have a decent knowledge of kite flying, however you both fall into the well-worn wannabe-wind-energy slot of talking big, without anything to back it up.
Also I would note the “circular firing squad” nature of a very few select people, endlessly talking up each others’ “credentials”, yet unable to ever demonstrate any significant output from a working AWE system. What I never see is anyone outside your small circle confirming any of these “credentials” that you guys like to bounce back-and-forth.
Airborne Wind is one topic. Energy is another. You guys haven’t cracked the E egg of AWE, just the A and the W.
Meanwhile, I still agree that censoring messages is generally inappropriate, however, the one person who you’re referring to had regained access, but, it seemed to me anyway, kept breaking “the rules”.
Anyway, his latest “kick” is the modified “Jalbert” apparatus he showed us a couple pictures of laying on the ground, which he promised to have working in short order.
So, assuming what he said was true, he could easily take a video of the Jalbert apparatus in action, publish it on Youtube, and then have you publish the link here. So I guess we’ll hold our breaths in eager anticipation of seeing the Jalbert apparatus in action, eh?
As I recall, he has now ruled out actually producing any power, as that is too pedestrian for a higher-thinking theoretician, but if he ever wanted to add the E to his AW, it would be nice to see a power-meter showing how well it works at a small scale. That assumes he can even get it to fly, let alone make any power.
If they want to use choo-choo trains rolling up and down the sides of a pit to make power, maybe he could find a toy electric train to use. It’s been a few weeks now, so I’m eagerly anticipating the video!
Many thanks, @PierreB for your due diligence.
Hi John, I think we should think positive, in the interest of the development of AWE.
What are we talking about? Apparently Dave’s inability to share his work on the forum. That said, it doesn’t mean that some realizations or concepts don’t take place here. Dave posted several times, and myself posted several topics that are either directly mentioned in Dave works or technological backgrounds of his works:
What is possible with Payne's patent US3987987 figure 5?,
Completing Mothra, including variants,
Advanced Kite Networks, and so on.
In my opinion you could organize your interventions by dividing them into two main categories: Dave’s work, your work including possibly about AKN.
Then about the methodology, taking AKN purposes as example below, and going from general to specific.
Replying in few words about:
-
What AKN intends to do?
-
Then what is feasible?
-
What are the problems for kite network realization, for the conversion system?
-
Is the conversion system of type Payne’s figure 5 with more anchors (it seems that it is)? Or about another conversion system when the anchors, being also fixed, do not hold pulleys (Fig. 5 should be more explained).
My position is very simple: until an AWES emerges outright, all options should be considered, including of course Dave’s as they differ more.
2 Likes
From the FAQ:
So does this comment criticize ideas and not people?
It mostly talks about actions, which can be criticized, and draws personal conclusions based on those actions. Although it doesn’t give sources so we can’t easily independently verify the claims.
This for example:
I’ve italicized where it talks about people. That is suspect. I think it is also pretty innocuous and supported.
I’ve bolded the conclusion. It is overly broad based on this part alone, but it still talks about actions, or possible future actions I think. I don’t see how this comment is grossly misleading or unfair anyway. Do you have better examples? I think they can be found - in other comments and talking about other things.
Whether or not the people talked about are on this forum or not shouldn’t influence the moderation I think, although in practice I think it does.
There are other things to consider, most importantly this:
We’re trying to learn how to do a difficult thing that no-one really knows how to do. Injecting nonsense and misinformation into that, by making unsupported claims, is harmful, or unethical. It confuses. It wastes your time. It drives people away. Show your work, like a math teacher would say. Don’t just say you are an expert, demonstrate it by making strong cases for and against your conclusions from multiple perspectives or doing good experiments. Show your work and your peers can draw their own conclusions.
I would have considered your moderation of this forum fair enough if all were members of a single R&D team with stakes in outcomes.
From a competitor’s perspective, if you don’t get my point why should I bother explaining my ‘advantage’? Everyone chooses what and how much to share.
So really you are just trying to sell an idea? In that case this is a tough crowd, because most people here have own ideas.
It would be better to approach this forum with the attitude that the members, who are usually quite willing to share advice, may know something that could be of use to you and JAL. If you are unable or unwilling to share even the most obvious details, I think you will not get much value from being on this forum.
I share to the limits of my ownership and understanding.
We have David Santos Gorenna-Guinn who is more knowledgeable than I given his training, skills and expertise. If his expressions is considered uncivil to share here, I can’t help that.
That is not a perspective we cater to. We cater to the reader’s perspective, who wants to see claims supported. We want this forum to be useful to the reader. If you don’t want to or are unable to support a claim, don’t make it - or relay it.
This does not seem to match:
It does match @PierreB . I stand in resolute support of a fair hearing and the right to respond to an accusation. If someone is being accused or even misunderstood on the forum, should such an one not be availed the opportunity to respond, clarify or further elucidate? Readers on the forum deserve all sides to any argument that interests them and anyone labelled or insinuated as being ‘professor crackpot’ should be given ample opportunity to come far down to the level of his ‘ignorant’ labeller if he so desires.
As per my use of the term ‘competitor’. You will agree with me that the forum remains a cooperative effort of competing interests. W&I is not KiteMill just as neither of the two is JAL.
OK I’m just gonna throw in one more thought here, which is that this conversation is already far into showing the symptoms of typical newbie-to-wind-energy squirming when trying to get their “wind energy breakthrough” idea accepted on an internet chat group. This goes way back to long before the current 14-year-old AWE hype-cycle. This was already the case when the internet first started and we had a “small-wind” group on Yahoo that included even NREL “scientists”, and most major small wind turbine manufacturing CEO’s. Most have gone bankrupt by now. But we would routinely get new people with zero experience and pretty-much zero knowledge, coming in to announce their new “breakthrough” wind turbine concept. We would usually instantly recognize it as one more version of a typical long-discredited concept. If they had a “working” model, they would be excited that it could spin, but then we would tell them they should add a generator. That was typically where the hostility would start. They would rather call names and accuse us of being “closed-minded”, “intolerant”, all that sort of stuff. In other words, instead of just showing how their idea worked, they would rather make excuses and fling arrows at anyone who would question them in any way. There is no limit to how long such discussions of nothingness could go on. It’s like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It;s just a lot of meaningless bits and bytes on a screen saying pretty much nothing. There really is no substitute for using the right tool for a job. Measuring power output is how wind energy systems are properly demonstrated. The presentation should include data over time, such as a scatter plot or a video showing current and voltage for some duration, since a snapshot could reflect only a brief spike rather than continuous output. And merely showing that a battery has some native Voltage says basically nothing - there is always some new low to try and wrap your mind around. But, bottom line is, when someone claims to have a better way to do wind energy, but can’t show it, they then tend to go into accusation-mode, blaming the people they are trying to convince, rather than just complying with normal practice which would to show output. Until someone can show output, the whole conversation is just meaningless, and this same thing has taken place so many times I could not count them all.
14years is quite some time. It takes tenacity of purpose and gleamings of hope to stay that long in the game. Many efforts have since gone under for ignoring what you yet call ‘hype’. If you consider your request a challenge beyond what has been reasonably shared, embrace the suggested credible third-party umpired ‘fly-off’.
Please read it again - this has been going since LONG BEFORE the current 14-year-old hype cycle for AWE. Once again, the incapable newbies try to blame the audience, in this case trying to shift the conversation to imply that unless I “embrace” some ill-defined “flyoff”, it is my fault that they cannot show any output. Silly conversations that just get sillier the longer they go on. And all these talking points are so old they are worn out, while being ridiculous even when first brought up many years ago. If someone wants to show output, you are in a virtual flyoff right now. The only question is whether you want to participate. I’m done here. This is endlessly amusing, but really a complete waste of time. A few minutes ago I looked up to realize I had burned my breakfast because I got distracted by the continued nonsense on my computer. Done. Have a McDay!
1 Like
Thanks.
Did he really?
Now the proof of concept video is provided yet you are not satisfied. You want to see MW generated.
Please provide copies of your messages that were deleted from the old forum archives as necessary proof of your allegation.
Do your independent investigations of the ‘credentials’ and come out with any proven false claim made.