There is no available information. Sorry. But I take Doug’s report above as plausible on this subject. You have lost all of your already low credibility long ago.
Rod has a copy PDF from PW, that they asked not be publicly rehosted, but he could share it with you too.
Physics World, and its PhD reviewers, should deserve plausible credibility in Physics, not just Doug, who did not complete his course of study, and does not fact-check so rigorously.
The basic kPower claim, that kites are a worthwhile QM Analogue, is now supported by multiple sources. The AWE Metamaterial paradigm is continuing to advance, but not on this Forum, where such ideas are not yet welcome.
This is the ongoing idiocy that substitutes for energy research progress.
Whatever daveS said about measuring amps, I don’t care.
Typically, whatever he says he denies later.
Doesn’t matter. It’s arguing about nothingness anyway.
I think trying to interact with Santos is a bad idea.
It can go nowhere. There is no point in trying.
OK Dave, sorry if I got the part wrong about you measuring the current.
Not sure how or why you would construct and fly such a unit without taking any data, or how that jives with being “the top AWE researcher in the world”, but if you say you did not measure anything, I’ll accept that. I must have misremembered what you said.
Doug, same with “the top AWE researcher in the world”. You make things up and accuse without checking.
I claim to a be a top kite researcher, but not the only one, there are quite a few. Joe is a top kite researcher too. Ask us anything about kites to test our knowledge, If we don’t know, we know who to ask.
Who is a top AWE researcher will be clearer by 2030. It can’t be someone with a failed scheme.
With that even the potential for benefit disappears in this cost/benefit calculation. Let me know when you’d like to continue contributing to the forum and are willing to be moderated according to the rules in the FAQ and I’ll reinstate your posting privileges.
Conversations like the above are more suited for email or pm, which you’ll still have access to.
The first part of that is laughably naive. You’d think you had just discovered the internet yesterday. No one is out to get you. Just cite your sources when asked and enough with the constant neologisms already.
A more patient response: you’re using a wrong model of the world. My person and my decision to stay private are, or should ideally be, both irrelevant. Here is yet another analogy: you can look at a moderator here as a clerk at your local government. You didn’t fill out the form correctly? You’ll have to fill it out again. It shouldn’t matter which clerk you gave the form to, but perhaps one is more patient in explaining the rules to you than another. The rulebook is here. And just like in the real world, if you don’t wish to follow the rules of a place you’ll just have to leave.
Wrong place for this but I’d like to be able to refer back to it in the future so I put it here.
I just see that my post on Quantum Mechanical/Material Analogues for Kite Systems is hidden (see below), so this message is candidate for moderation. I will not change this message, given the context of pretentious jargonous fantasies of the topic, thinking it would be a sarcastic way to underline the smoky side of these theories which have been repeatedly tried before in the old forum. So the moderator can delete it as soon as he wants.
I think @JoeFaust means that Quantum Kites/Material Analogues will be more imaginative. If they are Airborne Material Quantum Analogues, as we imagine that they will produce some power, the AWES will do it by analogy, AWES having always been Quantum Mechanical/Material Analogues before imagination came in the world. As a preliminary way, we can imagine QM/M softwares to raise MetaKite Quantum Oscillating Material Analogue Imagination. After all, imagination is a form of Quantum Oscillation between areas of the cortex that can be modeled by Quantum Quantification of Material Computer Analogues.
But some theoretical problem about non-retrogradable interactions can occur.
So I have a question to @JoeFaust : the Quantum Chain being able to be modified during the processes of analogy, are you not afraid of a retro-action on the imaginative oscillations?
I am waiting for @kitefreak’ and @JoeFaust’ protests about what they call as censorship.
I’m iffy on the whole topic. It’s incomprehensible to me and I don’t think there’s much wrong with my reading comprehension. Communicate better @JoeFaust. I suggest trying to communicate one idea at a time and like you were talking to a 7-year-old.
For example:
I don’t know how many ideas this is, but it’s too many for the number of words used. It’s too dense. And we’re not on your wavelength.
That researchers should always be on the lookout for analogues is good advice. Yes perhaps bees can teach us something about lightweight construction. But if you want to be helpful to us you’ll have to do more than just mention an idea in a list, you’ll have to expand on it a little. Show us a nice video about bees making honeycombs for example.
And no one is going to click 20 links. 4 is my maximum.
For me too, and I guess for the co-authors who are not specialists, having no consistent peer-reviewed publications in quantum physics, which is a large field.
Providing numerous links, often quoting Wikipedia, asking numerous questions that we know without answers, and by juxtaposing or mixing decontextualized theoretical elements to a well-defined domain like AWE (it could be something else and work in the same way), produce an incomprehensible pseudo-intellectual tinkering without any usefulness for the domain concerned. The old forum was full of messages of this sort.
Joe I like the motivational aspect of your message, and I tend to agree with it in general, however I would like to present a few observations:
You and Dave have always been the biggest “strutters” in AWE, the endless self-descriptions as “top researcher”, “domain experts”, etc., in terms of the number of theories, ideas, and notions presented in online forums, compared to how much sense they actually make, and how many (few) (zero?) actual useful or promising apparatus the two of you have demonstrated, based on these theories, in 24 man-years of patting each other on the back as energy-breakthrough-geniuses.
Who ever decided AWE has to somehow be “mysterious”, complicated, profound, or beyond reach or comprehension? Maybe it’s simple, straightforward, and easy to understand, and you guys just don’t understand it and don’t do anything about it. How about that?
To me, the claims of “quantum”-this-and-that are really just artifacts of you guys not understanding wind energy, but hoping that your lack of understanding can somehow lead to some unpredicted success with vibrating tethers etc., which is a common “revelation” among the vast unwashed public, which I am reminded of every time I see a street sign wiggle in the wind and think “There’s all Dave Santos needs to see to imagine he is a genius with another unrealized breakthrough”. All you guys really need is an unfounded theory to support your main theory that you will somehow revolutionize wind energy without ever grasping it in the first place. The whole “quantum” thing is, to me, a desperate grasping-at-straws in hopes that using big words will somehow make you guys seem so smart that other not-all-that-smart people will somehow be convinced you guys do have some breakthrough, but no actual breakthrough ever seems to emerge from all your big talk and whacky theories. Machinery operating in a coordinated, organized, effective way, or multiple parts operating in synchrony do not require “quantum physics” to understand, design, build, or operate. Imagine if there were no lawnmowers and you two had to come up with one. How much BS would we have to listen to, for how many years when the real BS you needed was “Briggs & Stratton” oh, and a blade? Sound familiar, all you need is a motor and a blade? Why make it more complicated than it needs to be? Answer: because if nobody can comprehend what you are talking about they won’t ask you to build one to prove it. So you can go on feigning “expert” status without ever having to come up with an actual solution! How about a V-8 engine? All those cylinders working together - must be “quantum”, right? Just to make sure nobody can comprehend it? Then you don’t have to build it?
"Good works with kites? You guys never demonstrate any “good works”. How about using a kite to return an overdue library book? Or just pump some water like people have been using wind to do for thousands of years! Come on Joe, generating electricity is the currency of our modern electrified civilization. Use whatever phantom quantum wampum you wish, and generate some juice! Most everything you guys say is just posturing, comprising one super-giant excuse for not generating any significant amount of electricity or doing any other of the “good works” you like to cite. You two seem to think if you can keep things sounding complicated enough that nobody can understand it, it somehow makes you “players”. No, getting something working that at least shows promise is what it takes, not endless empty talk.
I’ve told you this one before, a saying I heard a while back that immediately made me think of you:
“It’s good to have an open mind, just as long as it’s not so open that everything falls out!”
By the time you’re calling underground concrete anchors “wings”, I think that’s an example of when “everything falls out”. You might as well just start excavating and pouring concrete and you can “call it” airborne wind energy. Of course people will call you crazy, but you know better…
Other than that I do agree with leaving no stone unturned insofar as using analogies and whatever sources for ideas and applicable analogs.
:)))