I did note that human memory is rather short. Accurate records help.
Maybe Doug will recollect with the help of this picture even though not a video.
There was the demo of the electric self-winding Seiko watch with a toy kite activating. Kite Electricity by DaveS, just as Doug requested of him then.
It showed for the first time in AWE R&D chronometer-precision of electrical output, at milliwatt scale.
It did its job- telling time, autonomously.
Anyone can yet choose to remain in doubt of the rightful âWright Brothersâ of AWE.
OK thank you John. Yes this is what I expected to hear next, after the âdumping sand breakthroughâ - the âself-winding watch triumphâ! That is sure to replace all those dreaded âwindtowersâ (to use your behind-the-scenes writerâs language). As though there has ever been any doubt that shaking a self-winding watch could potentially wind the watch. So I guess your answer is that you have NOT been involved with any clean energy project after all?
Thanks for removing all doubt that we are witnessing a regurgitation of the extreme nonsense of yesteryear.
John, just to be clear: You are being used.
I would have replied privately, @dougselsam but this is really about putting public records straight with facts and not derisions.
Quartz-electric self-winding Seiko watch with a toy kite activation, that showed for the first time in AWE R&D, chronometer-precision of electrical output, at milliwatt scale. The watch is effectively a power-plant already performing useful work (telling time)**
I am effectively participating in this âVirtual AWES FlyOffâ. You may turn tail and run.
@dougselsam
As we always tell know-nothing-newbies in wind energy: Show us a power curve or some output on meter(s). The know-nothing newbies then try to change the subject and blame their audience for their own lack of results. What is new here is someone remaining a know-nothing-newbie for 14 years and counting.
A chronometer is in fact a meter.
Now, are you not indeed the âknow-nothing-newbie for 14 years and countingâ inappropriately and rather arrogantly trying to vaunt old wind prowess in AWE?
You may want to answer my earlier questions to you:
How much further has ST scaled 14 years on?
How much higher does the ST fly now?
I can only assume you do not know much about DaveS, I think you can yet learn much from him if you really want to transition to AWE. All you require is a renewed mind and humility.
Below, from the archives are excerpts of his contributions in this field:
This topic will be automatically deleted in 7 days.
And so my question is, why is such a legitimate topic being squelched and the message about the choices in kite fabrics, which could be super-on-topic and helpful for kite designers or many AWE people, moved to an inappropriate topic of ârandom physics and ideasâ or whatever you call it? How is an article about choosing kite fabrics and the various properties of the different fabrics considered
âRandom Engineering, Physics, concepts and ideasâ???
I donât see anything ârandomâ about it, and it presents no new âphysics or engineering ideasâ - nothing like that whatsoever. WTF???
Seems like there must already be a topic on kite fabrics, AND if there isnât already such a topic in such a kite-centric subject as AWE, WHY NOT?
This knee-jerlk moderation just seems to get out of control, no matter who is âin chargeâ. Go back to sleep. Not everything needs to be fixed.
I guess weâll never know where.
Was the topic âkite fabricsâ?
Because I really canât think of a more relevant topic than âkite fabricsâ for AWE.
If such a topic doesnât exist, it should.
Thereâs a post for review.
Iâm looking at it, with my privilege level and my options are agree or disagree
? That doesnât mean much
So should that be approve of this post or disapprove ?
or does it mean Well spotted flagger that is spam or nah flagger this is fine
the forum is getting noisy again
Would be great if we could just
sit all the kids down in front of some nice educational videos from AWEC2021
give them an example of how polite AWES chat goes
How is publication coming along with those videos @rschmehl ?
There has been a new situation (an indirect come back of a banned user) that some of us, and I am one of them, have not been able to handle, leading to mockery.
One of my posts has just been flagged and removed, which is extremely rare for me. I think it may have had an ironic or ambiguous tone. I took the opportunity to remove some of my other recent comments that could be seen as unnecessary.
I myself flagged, which is also extremely rare, a post that should have been flagged in the first place. Mockery has limits.
These remarks are particularly inappropriate. To question publicly the word of a renowned scientist like the author, in this case, and within a prestigious organization like the CNRS is not good for a forum with more or less scientific pretensions. Concerned links below:
Even the author of the linked article in the topic (link reproduced below) would not have dared this kind of questioning, discussing only substantive arguments. This is after all the way serious scientists discuss things, based on mutual trust, even in case of disagreement, which often happens.
You should not complain if one day such an organization or author (CNRS or another, or some scientist) takes it badly.
I claim the article is a blog post and not a study. My support for that is that the claims in it are not supported. You can tell by the lack of references and it not being published in a peer-reviewed journal.
The most important and more widely relevant claim, or unexplored assumption, is the altitude given, so I focus on that. If it were a study especially that claim would have been well supported, but it isnât.
As it is, it is, like I said, a shower thought with pretty pictures.
You should educate yourself on what is needed to support a claim in a study, and what the requirements for studies are to be called such and be accepted for publication.
That is how peer review and the scientific process works.
Iâll also say I would have liked a bit more curiosity from you in exploring the assumptions. Like I say, with so many unexplored assumptions, the analysis is too basic to be of much use.
Although I am not a scientific, Iâve already wrote and published a peer-reviewed article (link below), so Iâm educated enough to know the process, to take your terms. I am not sure about the other way around.
Provide the link(s) of your peer-reviewed publication(s) please. After what we will know better about your ability to denigrate some article from the CNRS. That will be all.
I disagree with your judgement here, @tallakt Even at the risk of further reprisals, as you may choose to excercise your privileges in such abusive and high-handed manner. I duely excercise my right of reply.
Hello Tallak: Imagine what we went through with these people actually RUNNING the forum!!! A clear case of âthe inmates running the asylumâ. However, I would be careful with your well-understood urge to censor their speech. To censor them is to become like them, because despite their latest lies denying it, their censorship was all they really had in the old forum, and they used it to silence any voice of reason that might emerge at any point.
The again, I donât really have a better ideaâŠ
Maybe you could have a âtopicâ called
âComplete Idiocy from Retardsâ
or something equivalent, perhaps not so blunt, and just allow them to only post in that one topic.
Other topics you could start specifically for them (and others could also use sometimes) might be:
âReally dumb ideasâ
âEmpty Talk about Nothingâ
âThings that Wiggleâ
âLies and False Promises for the Futureâ
âThings that will Never Be Builtâ
âIdle, Bragging Talking Pointsâ
âConfigurations that Generate Zero Powerâ
âWind Energy Concepts by-and-for Know-Nothingsâ
âBible Verses for your Dining and Dancing Pleasureâ
âThreats of Taking Over The Worldâ
âTeraWatts before KiloWattsâ
or, how about:
âThe Comedy Sectionâ
(As we call certain booths at Windpower Trade Shows)
agree or 
disagree