[Huang, H., Mikyska, M. et al 1993] and Joe use Aerotecture too, meaning airborne architecture.
You are welcome to use it as well.
Clearly I was using the ORIGINAL airborne meaning of Aerotecture.
Aerotecture was one of two projects conducted in the Institute of Design’s 1992
Systems and Systematic Design course. It considered the ultra-large through
speculation about possibilities at the outer limits of macro-airship technology.
[…]
For 1993, the Japan Design Foundation in Osaka had announced the theme
for its sixth International Design Competition to be: “air”. Teams from the
Institute of Design’s Systems and Systematic Design course had won the Grand
Prize in the first and third competitions and had been among the finalists in the
fourth competition. The prospects for rigid airships seemed both fitting for the
competition and appropriate to the moment. Interest worldwide in large airships
was increasing after a long hiatus following the destruction of the German airship
Hindenburg in 1937. As a contrast to the Nanoplastics study of the ultra small,
the project was set to explore the ultralarge
— a floating city in the air.
The importance of scale for airships was a lure in contemplating the
ultralarge. Lift increases with the cube of dimensional scaling. A lifting body 1
unit by 1 unit by 1 unit doubled to 2 by 2 by 2 will increase its lift eight-fold.
Very large lifting bodies can lift exceptionally large payloads. The challenge was
to explore the edges of what might be possible. There were challenges in
virtually every aspect of structural design, power, construction, and operation, but
the payoffs for scale would be impressive.
When the results of the competition were disclosed, this project, Aerotecture.
The Return of the Rigid Airship, had won the Bronze Prize from a field of
1,127 entries from 70 countries.
Publicity followed the win in Osaka and communications continue to come
in—even to the date of this reissue of the project report. By the end of the
1990’s, 24 articles in five countries plus the U.S. had been published and a
number of presentations had been made in this country and others. Radio and
television also conducted interviews and ran special shows, the most far-reaching
being Episode 3 of Discovery Channel’s Invention series—which continues to be rebroadcast periodically and carries a computer-produced animation of the Aerocarrier in operation.
Clearly this meaning is not referenced. Its meaning is not even indicated. Daisy could also be an Aerotecture design. In any case it is incorrect to blame Google for not referencing this term when you refer to it.
Aerotecture’s original meaning in the '92-3 context is obvious. As a rooftop turbine its not as obvious.
Daisy could be Aerotecture, if Rod so intends, or it turns out so. You are correct on that point.
Google is self-overrated in AWE. Not only Makani failed under Google, but also Google’s AWE search results. kPower may even join the US lawsuit over Google search. Google has already been convicted in EU.
We need not depend on Google to define AWE terms for us. Its our job to get it right.
The use of the word Aerotecture below is inappropriate: TU Delft does not use this term.
This sentence is misleading. In addition, the use of a word without defining its content does nothing.
Roland’s email indicates they were unaware of prior literature like [Huang et al 1993]. Of course they can use the Aerotecture term if they choose to. Why object if they do?
Here is a cool phrase from [Huang et al 1993], that shows a picturesque sense in which “aerotecture” was situated-
“taking a cult into the air when the Earth disintegrates in Armageddon”
Lets agree to take “Aerotecture” to mean what [Huang et al 1993], Joe, and I intend (airborne architecture), and “Aerotecture TM” to refer to the commercial brand of rooftop turbine (which no longer seems active, based on its News page).
It may be that Aerotecture TM made a special effort to score high in Search, for business reasons. Scholars beware.
Pierre,
You wrote-
“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.”
What’s bothersome is censorship of the most diligent here at referencing AWE and aviation knowledge. Others make unreferenced claims and accusations under capricious Moderation. That’s why I do not post in public here.
Here is another early use of “Aerotecture” from a webpage I made in the mid '90s-
Living in the Sky (archive.org)
I wrote:
“Point your search engine to Aerotecture”
However, Google did not yet exist to confound Search results.
Here is another prior Aerotecture use-case by my Dad’s community in Fort Worth, Texas-
Flying Cowboys: Vintage Aerotecture (archive.org)
You may recall from the Old Forum that Ft Worth was once the center of the world for record aviation endurance, the first airplane flight to last a full week, and is this the local “Living in the Sky” culture my Dad raised me in.
" May of 1929, Reginald Robbins and copilot James Kelly landed the monoplane Fort Worth at Fort Worth, Texas after an endurance flight of 172 hours, thirty one minutes, beating the record of the Army-sponsored Question Mark , with its three engines, by nearly a day."
I tried to explain that the term “Aerotecture” had long been in use as a trademark for a company out of, I believe, Chicago (The Windy City). The term Aerotecture was in “crackpot” use long before the current crop of wannabe-wind-energy crackpots emerged. The Aerotecture company received quite a bit of attention in the press and wannabe-wind-energy circles. It was well-known.
It was an attempt to combine architecture and wind energy. The problem the Aerotecture company had was they were “crackpots”, unable to grasp the basics of wind energy, let alone architecture. Their designs were neither effective nor attractive. You can see in that video, for example, they hoped a few concrete blocks would suffice to anchor their rooftop crackpot cross-axis joke-worthy turbines. Other designs they had lay down on the roof.
This AWE contingent is similarly ignorant of wind energy, with their limited knowledge hinging on what they refer to as “the old forum”.
Well the real “old forum” came long before Santos and Faust’s AWE forum. In the real “old forum”, the Aerotecture prototypes, and many other crackpot notions, were roundly debunked.
Today, in my opinion, popular AWE seems to be in a stall, with most of the wannabes having exhausted their imaginations, while having tried only a few concepts, missing promising possibilities. The efforts seem stuck at “kite-reeling”, and if you believe as some, pulling ships, or merely flying kites, or attempted redefining long-practiced optimization of travel around currents as something new.
What the current crop of wind-energy-wannabes see is only a recent slice of crackpot wind energy technology. They scarcely realize they are merely the latest in a long line of wind-wannabe crackpots with interesting but ineffective ideas that disprove themselves in the rare event when they are actually built and actually tried.
What remains consistent is these ideas get promoted before the fact and the promotion is repeated by magazines and websites with nothing better to do, to the point where average civilians, unfamiliar with the realities of wind energy, eagerly lap them up, never noticing when they fall by the wayside, only to lap up the next round of crackpots, never seeing the entrenched pattern, never realizing that they are “the bloopers”.
The problem with “ideas get promoted before the fact” like the ST in Popular Science, or Aerotecture TM, is they simply are not economically competitive as wind energy, despite the best efforts of their promotors.
Kite sports is a hot wind tech sector that has exploded in just 20 years, by great engineering and relatively low cost of entry. AWE continues to grow by leaps and bounds in that same time frame, by every measure.
Pierre now has five references that Aerotecture was originally and persistently used to mean airborne and aviation-related architecture, if references was what he wanted. Google is not a reliable standard for AWE language usage.
Regarding the Conventional Wind Forum Doug recalls, that surely did debunk countless “freak turbines”, as Gipe called them, but just as surely whose discussions where limited in vision to WECS bolted to a mast or tower, rather than Airborne Wind Energy engineered to tap wind higher up than they sought to develop.
Joe Faust really was the original Editor and Host for Kite-based wind energy, going back longer than anyone else living. The New Forum has a very long way to go to ever surpass the volume, lifespan, and impact of Joe’s community efforts. As AWE and Aerotecture evolve far into the future, Joe’s work will be greatly honored.
They don’t. So the first quote leads to a false assumption for a likely non-existent collaboration between kPower and TUDelft about so-called aerotecture.
Aerotecture is a trademark, not more. It doesn’t design any features. It is the reason why both Google and Roland cannot capture this term for an AWE use which is in fact only low-level snobbery. But of course that assumes Roland actually emailed Dave about it. But in any case this term of Aerotecture does not appear on their website.
Dave, since what you say is generally wrong, I suggest that you indicate what you hold to be true in what you write: it will go faster for the reader.
Its true that Roland does not use the term Aerotecture in his email to me, nor on the TUDleft website, but he does admit it was a novel subject to him.
Its enough that [Huang et al 1993] used “Aerotecture” in the context of airborne architecture, and I also used it so in that decade. Pierre now knows what I mean by it, pretentious or not. Let him cite carefully the TM as such, for clarity.
Pierre cannot show this to be “generally wrong”. Its quite correct.
Five references is a fair amount of evidence. Lets make it six-
Running a forum was nice. Getting the first AWE conference off the ground was nice. But beyond that, all I’ve seen is desperation on the part of you two to try and pretend you have some viable technological offerings.
Whether it is (attempted) changing of word meanings, trying to re-categorize airplanes taking wind currents into account when planning their routes (how could they not?), trying to pretend wind sports “are really” the same as providing power to the electric grid, or pretending that mere kite-flying and noting the potential of the large forces involved equates to inventing a new energy technology, you two have yet to show any relevance in wind energy.
Organizing an early conference and a chat group are a different skill-set and a different interest than technical skills, engineering, and inventing a lower-cost source of electric power.
No matter how many angry know-it-all-sounding posts you may waste your time authoring, it does not make you “a player”. Mostly it just solidifies your reputation as an annoyance.
The continued references to Paul Gipe, and continued citations of the normal process of measuring electrical output, third-party verification, etc., stated as though such third-party certification, or even producing measurable power at all, is in any way associated with you or your supposed “research” is just one more subtle way that you attempt to deceive casual readers who don’t necessarily know any better, into possibly believing you are in any way relevant to AWE at this point.
You have succeeded in your 12 years of effort: succeeded in debunking yourself, while merely annoying people, and that’s about it.
SkySails is now operating a 100kW rated AWES grid-tied.
That’s 2020 progress, not “desperation” or “stall”.
ST stall and desperation seems more apt.
Its a fallacy that Joe and I must do everything (we don’t).
All successful kite power supports our expert faith in kites.
Power kite success is AWE success, and there is plenty of it.
I think it was at least half a decade ago that you literally called me on the phone, as though it was an emergency, to tell me I should not post anything that Joe wouldn’t approve of because he had just been diagnosed with a terminal disease and might die from the stress if I posted anything he might consider objectionable. There really is no limit to your ridiculousness.
Yeah, sure they are. Just like Makani, KPS, and all the rest. I’m sure there is a hole in the story. Probably more than one. Dream on.
Your feeble attempts at technical analysis are inaccurate and laughable.
Yes, I called and you screamed you would “tear my face off”. You have continued to post with tremendous rage. Joe has been beating the odds so far. Its great that Joe no longer has to actively host you. Bad guest. Go ahead and scream.
Its true not every AWE venture prevails, like any industry. Using Mass Scaling Exponents to predict design failure is not “feeble”, but technical state-of-the-art.
Here is an Ancient Aerotecture page I edited back in the day.
Vimanas, Indian Flying Machines… (archive.org)
The Vimanas are coming, in the form of Kite Network Aerotecture.
Dave Santos:
For years now you’ve been talking up third party independent testing and certification, using the name of Paul Gipe (as though he is the source of what is simply normal in wind energy).
Can you please provide your best data set from such third-party certification from your 12 years of supposed wind energy research?
Oh you have none? Then why do you keep saying how important it is?
OK, what’s the best data set you have of any kind, showing your electrical output?
No one has yet fullfilled Gipe’s challenge to test AWE to certified third-party wind industry standards. Its too early.
Check back in 2030, and Gipe will be vindicated.