@dougselsam, off-topic and does not add to the conversation.
I would agree to being verbose, but the discussion that whale bumps are of lesser importance could be relevant?
Perhaps in a different topic that talks about the relevance or irrelevance of topics.
The purported benefit of that kind of blade is that they are more efficient over a wider range of AoA. Some types of systems could benefit from that.
I agree that the topic is of lesser importance when you haven’t got a system to apply it to. First get your system working and then think of optimizations. The topic however doesn’t claim to be important, or to be of immediate importance or relevance, so arguing that it isn’t important is arguing against a position that wasn’t taken.
It’s just another idea thrown up for consideration and discussion. The reader can make up their own mind over what to do with it. This topic is not unique in that so, you could make a similar comment in many topics.
A comment that said whale bumps were bad, and why, hopefully in some technical detail, in the whale bump topic, would be on topic and relevant.
Sorry we disagree on that Windy Skies.
To people who know wind energy, the ignorance of even the most mundane facts of wind energy are the reason for so many hopeless, helpless, and clueless efforts to replace existing technology with misguided wannabe solutions. By moving my messages to a different “topic” you’ve removed the context about which they were written. The above message, as I recall, was in reply to Tallak, who had indicated recently hearing how certain wind turbines actually work. It described how the first and simplest windfarm machines from the 1980’s operate. But, no matter. Nobody here understood what I meant anyway. Sorry, I’m still stuck in a mode of talking to real wind people. I guess there’s not really much any knowledgeable person can say that will be allowed to be heard by people who think they know better.
My other message about whale-bumps, owl-serrations, and “biomimicry” delve into the socio-technical overlap where those without actual expertise nonetheless have the urge to inject an “opinion” on technical matters. This obviously hit a nerve with you, so thanks for making my point by trying to silence me. “Biomimicry” ends up mostly as just a “big word”, used to impress people with one’s vocabulary, implying they must know what they are talking about. The fact that the highly-publicized promotion of “whale bumps” was really just a fad that expired years ago should not be mentioned here, since it doesn’t fit in with the new (but getting old) apocalyptic religion that allows so many people to sit around doing nothing while pretending to save us all from said apocalypse.
See my comment above yours. I have not expressed an opinion in the topic. If you can argue from a manufacturing or fluid dynamics perspective for example that they are a bad idea, that would be on topic.
This message contains the technical aim to direct more AWE players towards conventional wind turbine requirements, evoking implicitly @tallakt’s step in this direction. So in my opinion it is a useful message. Of course more details would be welcomed, such like how that can work for different AWES.
I am now being prevented even from discussing the curtain of censorship falling over this Forum. My account is constantly tampered with, and many posts hidden from peers.
I am being censored, intensively. And you think its “excellent”.
Michael Perlberger and HSR Hochschule für Technik Rapperswil are exploring a concept space known as Tumbling Wings. They are not the most notorious sort of player making claims that never materialize, after millions spent.
Notable Tumble Wing prior art includes many classic toy kites, like the Prism Flip, which KiteLab Ilwaco used as-is to drive a COTS pull-cord charger. Lets also recall Peter Sharp’s amazing demo version. kPower has also shared many flying variants. Tumble wings are quite energetic performers at small scale, but challenged at larger scales by design dependence on rigid wings and rings.
The kite classification scheme omits all airborne-networked AWES architectures as such. The old LadderMill is included, but not for its many-unit connected topology. Nor does the classification chart distinguish Reeling architectures, with inherent wind-axial motion downwind, from purer crosswind architectures based on USP3987987fig5.
kPower and many other odd omissions persist in TUDelft’s venture map and classification scheme. Open AWE developers especially need not be the touted AWE “stealth ventures” to be hidden from notice to the intended audience. Kite Networks players are especially invisible, given the dominant role such AWES topologies may play.
1 Like
@kitefreak, partly off-topic, partly misses the point. The talk only mentioned a few architectures out of many. It is a very quick overview. A system increases its chance of getting mentioned after it has been developed to some degree.
Feel free to start a separate topic about “tumbling wings.”
As the industry develops, there will be a litigation phase as IP claims and unfair business practices are disputed and resolved.
AWE investors will seek redress if ever misled by missing technical and business critique, as hidden by censors. AWE is no a polite insider club, where manners really matter, but a major technical quest, where open knowledge is the highest ideal.
1 Like
No topics created for Windy Skies.
Let Roland’s classification contain the Tumbling Wings gap, as censored by Windy Skies.
After intervention of @Rodread we decided to approve this post. Some improvements to not trigger moderation next time:
This is the on-topic part I think:
The rest talks about concepts that are not developed enough to be included in a summary of recent progress I think.
Using words like “notorious” or “odd” is like putting a bullseye on your comment.
1 Like
I think you are out of control in your urge to “control”…
Please take a break and develop a workable AWE concept, and then get back to us.
Thank you.
Checking to see if I am banned, or can participate in discussion on the demo and concepts.
1 Like
The AWE Forum dispute between Netiquette v Technical posting pits two kinds of “concern trolls” against each other, but these are not equal concerns.
The Netiquette side claims that Moderation powers are essential to enforce civil discourse, with tools and restrictions of many kinds. The Technical side anticipates that unrestricted discussion is essential to the aviation safety culture that AWE must adopt.
The R&D danger in AWE is worse day-by-day. Someone is going to be badly hurt or killed by AWES. Technical free speech is essential to reduce risk. Investors should also hear all sides of controversy, without regard for Netiquette concern.
So, it’s good you admit here to being a concern troll.
From here you can find ways to improve your communication style to be more effective in helping the AWES community develop safely.
@kitefreak, this forum is moderated, like almost all forums are, to raise the quality of discussion and not let one party dominate. Nothing anyone can say will make the moderation go away. By participating in the discussions here you agree to be bound by the rules of the forum. Just stay clear of the barrier, it really is for your own safety. If you don’t you can blame yourself for the consequences.
If the guidelines here are a little too vague you can try following one of these:
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules#wiki_answers
Good answers aren’t good just because they are right – they are good because they explain.
Even though sources are not mandatory, if someone asks you to provide sources in good faith , please provide them willingly and happily. If you are not prepared to substantiate your claims when asked, please think twice before answering.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskEngineers/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules
The burden of proof rests with the poster, not the reader.
Address the information presented, not the person who presents it. The subject of your sentence should be “the evidence” or “this source” or some other noun directly related to the topic of conversation. “You” statements are suspect.
You’re not a little kid anymore. You’ve read the rules, start acting like it. I’ll start treating you like it anyway. For now I’d strongly advise you to not post in the feedback category anymore unless it is to ask how to improve.
1 Like
Forget it Windy Skies.
Complaints over your ongoing mis-moderation from a position of anonymous authority stand unresolved.
You are not credible to instruct anyone in AWE “how to improve”.