Your car GPS screenshot and your sister at a Truck Stop?
Seen from the above, there are no questions and complaints about moderation. This is good news for the new AWE forum.
The video of kiting joyously up snowy mountain peaks, that climbers before only struggled on; That is the real AWE.
Going downhill fast is where New Forum Moderation has led.
A sure sign for moderation: 90% of the posts in the old forum were from Dave, while I’m struggling to see Tom and Windy’s posts lately. That proves a significant improvement of the moderation from the old to the new AWE forum.
Pierre exaggerates somewhat. Joe summed up the posts by contributor, and posting proportions more similar to this Topic emerged.
On this Forum, currently, in public, Pierre predominates. I do not post in public here at all. Let him consider that a welcome improvement.
Its a fallacy to have inherent bias toward most or least prolific. What counts is technical value of an AWE post, not so much who posts.
Not false, and I don’t moderate anyone. That confirms what I just wrote. Unlike Doug and others, Dave was never moderated in the old forum, and for good reason, being the moderator through Joe.
I mean only that your posting percentage currently predominates here. It would be as erroneous to claim you moderate as for for you to claim I did.
Joe did in fact correct me on civility, and made me a better person, and gave you and Doug great freedom to write your angry opinions.
I’m moderated like everyone else here, whereas in the old forum Dave was never moderated, unlike almost all other participants.
Untrue. Joe was very tolerant. Try and produce a censored email. Joe did criticize posting like Doug’s “anal hair” humor, but no body stopped Doug. In the end, those posts are public record, by the thousands. Joe preserved Doug’s written legacy in AWE like no else.
I am not moderated in public here, by not posting publicly. The key thing to Joe was AWE technical content, and Netiquette came second. Here its Windy’s preferences, that you are free to prefer.
Joe continues to receive posts, and I continue to provide them, at a volume far beyond here. Keep in mind that most items are third-party news and content, like Minesto’s grid-tie milestone, or the skiing up mountains. Its been hard work for both of us to create the most comprehensive AWE archive of anyone. Our own part is not 90%. We never called anyone a liar either.
Forum Moderation has never been a real AWE issue. Most essential has been building domain knowledge, especially by building flight experience.
In Aviation, logging flight hours is essential. Those who fly the most, fly the best; and become part of the sky. Similarly, those in AWE who fly the most are most successful, because AWE is a new frontier in Aviation.
Kite pros fly relentlessly. kPower obsessively flies all kinds of kites countless thousands of hours. SkySails has logged over 1000hrs of ship-kite-scale flight; no doubt logging ever more hours with its newly-certified SkySails100 AWES.
Makani did not even manage 25hrs of M600 flight before failing. TUDelft thought once-a-month flights was reasonable. Ampyx has yet to fly a single AP3 hour, many years late. Doug does not even think mastering kite flight is a key to AWE.
The ultimate AWE prize will be Aerotecture, living in the sky on a permanent basis. Wubbo insisted great engineers can create any AWE they dream of and work toward diligently. The AWE community must fly about 1 million AWES hours by 2030, with major mishaps declining to very rare events. Only those who fly these wonderful hours can succeed.
This is an aerotecture wind turbine:
Dave can be right: AWE could lead to this in a similar way as KiteX and Kitewinder now build ground-based wind turbines. It is funny to see predictions after predictions which never realize. The AWE future can be HAWT as well.
Pierre badly confuses the context of a failed wind turbine design, branded “Aerotecture”, and true airborne architecture concepts, technically called Aerotecture in our AWE circles, and explored in great detail (many historical antecedents) on the Old Forum.
This example of Aerotecture emerged from TUDelft’s collaboration with Saraceno, inspired by Mothra-
Mothra was realized as an pioneering Aerotecture design concept, and Saraceno ultimately flew a Bell Cell Kite, as an Aerotecture concept.
This kind of Aerotecture is obviously not what Pierre references and envisions. Pierre also seems to define “never” (as in “predictions which never realize”) in terms of his own timeframe. That would be fallacious reasoning. AWE and Aerotecture can only blossom after Pierre prematurely declaring “never”.
We credit Finnish architect and kite-genius, Martin Bondestam, as the “Father” of kite Aerotecture, by flying scale-models documented in his classic- Parempia Leijoja (Better Kites).
A simple search on Google shows that almost all “Aerotecture” pages refer to a wind turbine design.
There is also Rigid Blimp as “Aerotecture”:
Both represent at least 90% of the pages about Aerotecture, but Dave does not seem to understand what 90% is. The screenshot leads to the link below.
I don’t see any reference of “TUDelft’s collaboration with Saraceno, inspired by Mothra-”, but only a not referenced Dave’ statement.
Fortunately moderation here allows to avoid unreferenced statements, which apparently bothers Dave.
It is not enough to put spectacular words like “Aerotecture” on the table to pretend to associate them with Mothra.
Pierre,
Google Search results are a bad way of knowing about AWE, as you should know by now. For years Makani’s site ranked higher than Wikipedia itself on the subject. On other Search Engines, Joe’s unmatched content was at the top of Search results, and he was also the major Wikipedia Editor in AWE.
If you really had not before known about Aerotecture, now you do. I have webpages on the subject since 1990s, and got an email from Saraceno just this week. Joe’s archives have the largest amount of relevant Aerotecture content. Here is the original TUDelft page. Joe archived many emails and posts between the parties, and on the Old Forum.
KitePower - Flying Plaza - Kites that lift us to a higher level
An Email from Roland at the time-
Roland Schmehl - LR <r.schmehl@>
To: santos137@yahoo.com
Cc: joefaust rod.read edoishi
Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 3:53 PM
Dear Dave,
Thanks for the valuable feedback. I was indeed not aware that there are activities on and interest in Airborne Architecture. We were truly thinking to explore a new field (after the man-lifting experiments around 1900)…
This is a project of Tomas Saraceno commissioned by Rotterdam harbour and Leo and I are MSc student supervisors from TU Delft’s Aerospace Engineering faculty which extends into some minor consulting role. At this moment, our MSc student -I will pass your links on to him- is in the exploration phase and weights the different designs elaborated with the artist with the requirements list. Thank you for the cooperation offer -I will pass this on to Tomas, as well the very good idea that we should target the AWEC2013 (@Leo: this is the Airborne Wind Energy conference scheduled for the fist weeks of September 2013 in Berlin).
By the way: we presented the KitePower project at the TEDxDelft on 5 October. Here are some first stills http://www.kitepower.eu/newsevents/77-tedxdelft-2012/112-impressions.html. This is about the tech demonstrator system with 25 m2 kite and a mechatronic airborne control unit.
Best, Roland
There is no connection between the link and Mothra so-called “Aerotecture”. A mail you sent is not a reference.
Google Search is a powerful tool for existing subjects, not for redefinition of words. Architecture is a word, aerotecture is another word: they don’t design the same. The mail refers to “Airborne Architecture”, not precisely to “Airborne Aerotecture”.
Pierre,
You are free to think Aerotecture is only the commercial name for an obscure rooftop turbine.
Aerotecture is also a term-of-art in AWE for the idea of airborne architecture, which is very ancient, and now possible to engineer.
Aerotecture (energykitesystems.net)
Here is an earlier usage-
- Huang, H., Mikyska, M. et al.: 1993, Aerotecture: The Return of the Rigid Airship , Institute of Design Communications Center, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago.
It is only you who use this term for Mothra. No wonder it doesn’t hit Google’s radar.
For the main uses of Aerotecture see my message above.