It was always obvious “cosine gain” is valid in any engineering context where descriptively useful. Under Windy Skies wrongful criteria, the Springer Textbook should not have used “gain” either, for perhaps the first time in AWE.
Windy Skies is moderating abusively from technical ignorance, wrongly forcing better informed writers into the “Scrapyard”.
The AWE book is peer reviewed and thus a reasonably reliable source. Your original work here is not. That’s the difference. To minimize spreading misinformation, cite your sources. You have now given a source, so that now we can verify for ourselves if “cosine gain” is actually used in the field or not, what it is, and how big of an effect it has.
None of your posts in the topic allowed us to do that, for that you would need to do the following:
It is only your opinion, as for “cosine gain” concern, not more.
@dougselsam mentioned repeated attacks against those with patents, during years. These attacks go against FAQ - AWESystems Forum. Recently I flagged a @Rodread’s post lending me the intention of taking a patent from his ideas (
), after having attacked me several times on my patent on other posts. However FAQ - AWESystems Forum mentions: “Don’t harass or grief anyone,…”, and also: " If You See a Problem, Flag It". In spite this the post is still there, with its repeated sneaky little attack.
@dougselsam rightly mentioned the hypocrisy to attack filers of patents during years to end by filling a patent. And @Rodread deleting his message, it is the hospital which laughs at the charity.
Moderators, if you want posters to follow the rules, start by following them. You have a lot of work for that.
Moderation here is reasonably lenient. Many comments that could be moderated are not. I think it would be best if @Rodread deleted that line.
His posts in the thread go against https://forum.awesystems.info/faq so they were deleted.
I have motivated my opinion.
edited as requested
to read
So now that’s shared @PierreB, are you interested in it at all? … Or do you genuinely not like it?
@Rodread by the same you should remove a similar passage below, and publicly apologize.
“Remember previously I explained my open source system plans and then you adjusted them to take out a para rotor patent…?”
Maybe you should quit your role as moderator.
This sort of idea is true in a broad statistical sense, but fails badly in specific cases. Its quite often the case that scientific “original work” is more correct than peer-accepted dogma. In this case its just as reasonable that the AWE book or any of us could use “cosine gain” correctly, with or without formal peer review.
Its unhelpful if anonymous Moderation authority continues to mindlessly condemn valid original work in the name of peer-approved work only.
Windy Skies: Moderation here is reasonably lenient.
Stopping abusive moderation here would finally be “reasonably lenient”. The Ethics of AWE is about figuring out and sharing the new art urgently, not about peevish Moderators interfering with hard work, while claiming to be lenient.
@Rodread, you should put @dougselsam’s post that was deleted for what reason? Indeed we find numerous Read’s messages using similar terms. His post below would allow the readers to understand better what you answer on Windswept and Interesting, and by this the way how your organization is evolving.
dougselsam
December 20
Well we DID suffer though years and years of Roddy and Mr. Know-it-all gleefully and self-righteously denigrating patents, patent-holders, and the mere idea of anyone ever patenting anything.
I predicted, when I pointed out a while back that the main reason such people don’t like patents is they have no new useful ideas that Roddy might realize he did in fact want to file a patent application or two. So Roddy, after all those years of you and Mr. Know-it-all promoting “open-source” development, talking down the very concept of patents, pretending you two, in your combined infantile know-it-all-ism, had a much better way, and saying how you were even trying to publicize every possible lame idea that ever crossed your feeble brain-cells, to prevent anyone ever getting a patent, how do you now feel about all those former statements you made about patents? Do you think it is hypocritical? Were you wrong then and right now? And if you were wrong then, what other silly things you blurt out publicly might also be wrong? Like you think that one guy whose mom came from your neck of the woods should be in jail for example? You know there is that subset of the population that always accuses the others of whatever they themselves do wrong. I find one of the main features of large portion of clean energy wannabe research and development to be outright dishonesty. “Next year.”…
I think I answered all that needed answering and restated all which was said - just in a reasonable way.
remember
You may wish to respond to something by disagreeing with it. That’s fine. But remember to criticize ideas, not people . Please avoid:
Instead, provide reasoned counter-arguments that improve the conversation.
From FAQ - AWESystems Forum “Don’t harass or grief anyone,…”
This slander is now removed.
Another slander awaiting withdrawal is:
By the same @Rodread you throw the suspicion without any basis on another patent of mine on The most crosswind kite power system? - #28 by Rodread On the following message I replied in details, showing your suspicion was not supported. You did not reply to my arguing, your way seeming to be: slander, slander, there will always be something left!
I don’t see anything agreeable in your attitude.
In the other hand I find @dougselsam’s message pleasant, in an agreeable style, using funny words like “gleefully” or “seft-righteously” and other, without insults, without slanders, telling the true, you “denigrating patents” and persons having patents to finally intend to file patents.
You definitely do not have the ethical integrity to moderate a forum.
@PierreB I can only assume you are trying to be funny.
The discussion you link
Is fully referenced and based on reality, with dates, links evidence.
The subjective character assassination offered by Dougs post… wasn’t nice.
You want to invent a new term for things that are already described perfectly fine using existing principles. I suggest going back to your first post in the topic and improve on it. Improve the quality of your work and it will be better received. Maybe try cooperating with researchers in the field to get their feedback.
The golden rule in communication, from the FAQ
If your comment goes against this, don’t be surprised when it is moderated.
That’s only one of the rules of course, there are others.
I am criticizing the idea of Windy Skies’ anonymous authority. No one is allowed to know Windy Skies as a real person.
This remains a good intro into Cosine Functions in Kites-
Trigonometry is basic to kite physics. When a kite line is swept thru space like a compass, it defines a triangle whose properties reflect performance parameters. “Cosine Loss” was identified in AWE as the relative loss of crosswind power at the edge of the kite window, away from the power zone. The equal and opposite “Cosine Gain” is a proportional increase in potential energy by altitude and/or upwind position in the kite window.
Another key application of Cosine relations is in the distribution of forces in a Tri-Tether junction, aka the Rigger’s Triangle. By setting the angles in particular ways, forces can be amplified by mechanical advantage, like how a bowstring is drawn, or the way a kite is bridled. The Tri-Tether is the simplest possible variable mechanical transmission, and has huge applicability in kite design, under Cosine math.
Reality is on my detailed answer The most crosswind kite power system? - #29 by PierreB. You did not provide a serious reply. The main points are:
and
This is called prior art as all patents mention.
Patents are about concepts, not about pictures. Putting two drawings seeming similar without talking about the concept shows you do not know anything about patents or your behavior is questionable.
You have recognized a slander, it is a first step but it is not enough. You have to recognize the other slanders of which the discussion I link.
Doug’s message described your behavior in a quite objective and pleasant way. And you replied on Windswept and Interesting Ltd - #8 by Rodread without providing the source, which is an unfair process.
As you have given no reference, per Cosine Functions in Kite Physics and other similar comments I do not support this topic being in Math & Physics. I will move it to the Lounge. Comments about that can go to Questions and complaints about moderation.
Windy Skies, you are mistaken, the AWE Book and KAP references given are Cosine Function related. Cosine functions are not simply your misplaced quibble with its gain cases.
After a reply has been made in a topic, or even before maybe, a topic cannot be deleted by a regular user. Comments can usually edited or deleted, for a limited time.
You have that ability in deleting or editing the relevant comments, for a limited time.
Based on the category descriptions, the Lounge is the best category for The Philosopher's Kite
Cosine Functions in Kite Physics is perhaps slightly more contentious.
Moderators do have the technical ability to delete or hide topics. Since both topics have more authors than you alone, the topics should ideally not be deleted without the approval of the participants.
You could give arguments for and against hiding the topics. I’ll go along with your wish and hide the topics for now. Further discussion or insights may revert that.
Delete the topics.
This is the only way to push back against the abusive moderation. I would never have created the topics knowing Moderation would interfere so. Not much third party value to worry about, no one replied to Analytic KIte Philosophy topic and Cosine Functions feedback was mostly objection to using “cosine gain” as defined.
One should always be able to delete ones own stuff. I’ll look into it.