Questions and complaints about moderation + unlisted, mostly unmoderated, free discussion

Note to Pierre now trying to explore in public Aerotecture that is not the TM version.

The idea of Aerotecture, as I use it, is Airborne Architecture in the sense of habitable structure as Merriam-Webster defines-

“the art or practice of designing and building structures and especially habitable ones

This can take either single-unit or multi-unit (Networked) Form. Any large kite or formation is potentially habitable. What makes it Aerotecture is the conceptual intent or actual practice of airborne human habitation. Historic cases like Graf Zeppelin or Airforce1 are Aerotecture, but we are more concerned with wind-based kite Aerotecture here.

Posting here in protest, to prevent abusive public Moderation.

Sounds like more posturing-as-an-authority-by-changing-word-definitions to me. It’s not like you’re actually going to build any such thing, or do any such thing, as your endless talk suddenly now suggests. Just one more daily “talking point”, from my viewpoint.
And what your latest “future accomplishment” word-definition-game doesn’t take into account is:

  1. architecture already has a large branch that takes aerodynamics into account, from many angles, starting with developing the building codes for residential structures to withstand not just high winds, but hurricanes and tornadoes.

Walls and roof structures must withstand 100+ MPH winds, for example:
https://www.fema.gov/emergency-managers/risk-management/building-science/building-codes/high-wind
https://disastersafehomes.com/residential-building-codes.php

Roofing materials must be chosen to match local wind characteristics: https://energyroofingco.com/best-roof-shingles-for-high-wind/
https://www.probuilder.com/10-new-residential-roofing-products

Commercial and especially Hi-Rise buildings must be designed around vortex-shedding, effects on pedestrians, cladding holding fast in high winds, etc.

https://www.wgtn.ac.nz/architecture/centres/cbpr/publications/architectural-aerodynamics

So there is a wealth of publications around a real, existing multi-billion-dollar worldwide industry of aerodynamics as applied to architecture.

And let’s not forget that everything from a Cessna to a DeHavilland Beaver to an airliners to private jets to converted airliners of billionaires, to the old zeppelins, are not only “habitable structures”, but flying habitable structures - nothing new there.

Then there is you and Joe, basking in your delusions of grandeur, desperately searching for some way, any way, to appear relevant in “airborne wind energy”, after having no luck with the original definition of first “High Altitude Wind Power” (replacing tower-based wind turbines) later renamed to “Airborne Wind Energy” as the dreams of “harnessing the Jet Stream” suddenly looked unlikely, in the early days of the current hype cycle.

It is telling that you even cite as a major accomplishment the “naming” of AWE, (but don’t seem to mention the original naming of HAWP)(?).

It either case, redefining words is nice when appropriate, but it doesn’t generate any power. You also renamed wind turbines as “windtowers”, so you could treat them as “the enemy”, but they are still out there producing multiple MegaWatts, while you have yet to produce even “many Watts”, after over a decade of claiming to be the world’s leading AWE researcher etc.

In any case, I think Pierre is right to point out that renaming things or redefining words already in use does NOT constitute introducing technological innovation.

You two have tried about as hard as anyone I’ve seen to substitute naming things or renaming things for introducing new structures, but it doesn’t fly with most people.

Today we’re onto more fake future accomplishments, more “throwing spaghetti at the ceiling to see what sticks” after nothing has stuck so far. Well, good luck with that, and have fun, but I do not think, at this point, anyone is holding their breath in anticipation of any actual product.

Doug correctly identifies Aviation as the existing technological basis for Aerotecture. What is new is specifically envisioning AWE to enable a vast persistent urbanized Aerotecture.

Mothra was an experiment toward this Aerotectural vision, of networking “playsail” kites of cheap tarp units.

image

Dave, do you think you can obtain a larger kite as it is made with several elements? If each element is also a well-sized wing, will the whole fractal Mothra work better?

Nice of you, Dave, to say I am “correct” about something. Because you, and maybe Joe, “are” the ultimate authorities about who is “correct” about what in the field of generating electricity from the wind is “correct” and what is “incorrect”, right?
For example, if some engineer uses statics to calculate whether a concrete anchor will hold a given amount of thrust at a given depth in a given soil type, Joe can “correct” their “ignorance” by informing them of how to use fluid dynamic equations to calculate the amount of “lift” the concrete anchor will generate due to a decades-long “flow” of the soil around the anchor that produces downward-pulling “lift”, right Dave? Because by “redefining” a concrete anchor as “a wing”, Joe has introduced an important engineering innovation - new structure never seen before, right Dave?

And when you announce, oh I don’t know, an AWE-powered concert, a project with “Moab Monkeys” climbing around on your non-power-producing airborne apparatus, or re-powering the gigaWatt generators of an existing power plant with a “power-kite”, we can all count on that innovation as “the real thing” because the “important information” comes from “The world’s leading AWE researcher”, right?

Notice how I have to put little “finger-quotes” around anything you say, because they never come true?

While many of us look at a Magenn, or an Altaeros, as examples of ideas that quickly disprove themselves, at least they produced some small amount of token electrical output.

And after years of you denigrating the idea of torque transmission, saying it can never work, some of the more recent entrants have constructed working airborne wind energy demo systems that produce impressive amounts of power considering the home-made, first-attempt nature of their efforts.

But you guys, with all your bluster, and all your pretense of being an “expert” and acting as some sort of “final authority” in flying wind energy (FWE), even claiming to be the world’s top researcher, you have yet to demonstrate any significant power output from any of your apparatus.

Now the concept of flying buildings, supported by the air, is interesting, but like FWE, it is not a field in which you have actually demonstrated any particular acumen. It seems more like one more case of “renaming” of “redefining” what has been long accomplished, similar to you “recategorizing” the fact that airplanes routinely must take wind currents into account when planning routes and schedules, as a matter of course. To do otherwise would be ignorant and irresponsible. Yet you’ve both tried to steer such word redefinitions toward an example of successful FWE engineering, acting as though it is somehow your own contribution thereto.

Personally, I do not believe attempts to redefine what already is, amount to anything beyond mere wordplay. And it is telling that venues such as this are, in the end, mere strings of words, which, in themselves, do not produce any electrical output.

Given the fact of nothing significant having emerged from merely renaming things, I think people reading this (all four of them?) should realize that paying too much attention to your endless wordplay does not introduce any specific working examples of what is purported to be introduced. No innovations, just redefining words.

Pierre,

Yes, under Network Theory, which applies to many fields, network-scaling is a powerful method. In the science of flight, both birds and aircraft are known to organize into formations far bigger than single units. Birds and sailing ships also show how a large number of feathers or sails are networked as a aggregate unit. Many kites are not a single solid wing, but even deliberately full of gaps to handle wind gust surge and promote stability.

Doug,

Expect kPower effort in Aerotecture (incl. Moab), AWEfest, and AWE R&D generally, to continue. We will continue to define AWE terms-of-art as needed. You are welcome to do better. Please quote accurately referenced, rather than from biased memory.

1 Like

Dave,

What do you think about the scalability of this arch which seems to be made in a single piece? The website below contains the photo of the kite arch.


Well it is a cool word, and a cool subject - well until you become famous for hosting the next hindenberg-esque flying flaming falling barbecue.

Pierre,

This sort of arch has long been well developed by Peters, Walker, and Anders, just to name a few. Its attractive as a low cost design suitable for mass “roll stock” production. It could scale, according to the skill of the developer, and complex design factors known to you. Old Forum archives are a rich data mine of Kite Arch information.

Doug seems unaware that H2 gas is a non-subject in AWE. Even He gas is economically prohibitive. Again, Old Forum archives contain ample information. Note that no old posts of Joe’s or mine are missing. Thank goodness these easily prove Doug’s unreferenced quotes are overwhelmingly imaginary, not matching Search results.

Notice to Rod: You can have Windy as an anonymous Moderator here, or my public posting, but not both. You have chosen Windy. I accept that choice.

Both points of view present good arguments. I believe there is both positive and negative features of kite networks like Mothra or others, and I don’t know what wins. In favor of kite networks holes can improve stability as for parasails. In the other hand migratory birds fly in formation in order to protect themselves against apparent wind, as for a cyclist peloton in a race. But kites should not protect themselves against the (real or apparent) wind, quite the contrary. What are your arguments?

1 Like

The argument is interesting @PierreB but mute in this topic thread

The URL of this thread contains:
unlisted-unmoderated-free-discussion

It says “unlisted-unmoderated-free-discussion”
So why is it being “moderated”?
Is it that the AWE people just can’t control themselves?
That they are so frustrated from over a decade of less-than-desired results that they just feel that if they can control what people say in private, maybe it will change things? Very strange.
Unmoderated? “Free”?
Instead it seems like we have a hidden discussion among three people from the old group, nonetheless “moderated” by one more person from the old group, and at least one more person from the new group. Weird.
I believe this discussion, like so many Santos/Faust discussions, is really just about word definitions. In this case does a “leaky” arch kite constitutes a “kite network” or is it just one wide leaky kite?
The thing is, the discussion does not change the physical configuration of the tarps attached at the corners. It is what it is. So the discussion is kind of worthless - doesn’t lead anywhere. It;s just a swirling vortex of meaningless wordplay, headed down the drain, not a worthwhile discussion. And it’s supposed to be “unlisted” so who cares if some post is “on-topic” or not? Does anyone still think, at this point, after 12 years, further declarations of “on-topic” or “off-topic” carry any meaning?

Individual kite-units only scale to about 1000m2 for reasons expert designers know about. Then to scale up, units can be teamed together like horses. This integrates control and aggregates power. What might be lost by bypass-flow can be saved by less control actuation of individual units.

Most of the technical words and concepts are not “made-up” by us. Network Topological Stability by many-connectedness is hardly our invention. There is always more to learn as continue work the kite knowledge. Its not as hopeless as Doug fears.

Be sure to study Joe’s archives if you missed Old Forum content. This is not the place to repeat a vast quantity of known art in AWE, but the place to complain and question New Forum Moderation flaws.

A parasail has holes to improve stability, but it is not a kite network as such:
https://www.viator.com/tours/Cancun/Cancun-Parasailing-Adventure/d631-3206SKY

How is it possible to aggregate several unities while avoiding mess? By using a train of kites? Other means? Or building a single kite with important holes to scale more, but not too to avoid tangle? In the end planes or wind turbines are not networked, why AWEkites should be?

@Rodread as I indicated to you privately, on topic concerned like Kite Networks I took Dave’s information from the available public forum. But here his arguments are not public, so I avoid to mention them publicly.

A network is classified by its topology. The ST is a network of blades; the shaft is a network “bus” and the rotors are local “star” networks. A parasail has a loadpath network of bridle lines and seams. Networks are made of nodes (junctions) and antinodes (links).

A fish net is a network, the knots are nodes connected to each other by antinodes. A brain is a network, trees are networks, and so on. Often units are called “cells”. Fractals are networks, as are graphs. A lot of mathematics is topologically ordered; network-based.

Yes, Peter Lynn himself explains that large (flexible) kites undergoes both a loss of efficiency and scaling law (not as high as for rigid kites but not negligible).
The question is not what the definition of a kite network is, but how a kite can scale more. Can you sketch a plan for a gigantic power kite containing several elements more or less separated, all that in a whole?

The definition of a kite network is useful to explain the subject.

There have been plenty of sketches shared already, and always more to come. All are archived by JoeF. This is not the place to duplicate all that content.

image

So how many more years do you plan on playing with word definitions? Really, a fishnet is a network? Who knew? Maybe that is why the fish net is called a “net” huh? And it takes “work” to make a net, so a fish net, as a creation, is a “network” right? And so a broadcasting network, for example, gets its name from fishing nets etc. Seems like a discussion for elementary school doesn’t it?

Interesting how being seemingly unable to achieve AWE power, no matter what, leads one to retreat into restricting oneself to examining elementary school word definitions, while simultaneously pretending to be approaching AWE from some higher, beard-stroking level. As though one is the leading thinker, while being unable to think one’s way out of a paper bag.
Meanwhile, do you have any results in producing useful power from the wind after 12 years of this endless posturing?

Word definitions: don’t get hung up on them. Defining and redefining words is no substitute for doing things, designing things, building things, running things, measuring things, using things.

I realize that I have dozens of sketches from the old forum.
But I think it is better to limit to your current attached drawing to better analyze the features.

So I have some questions: why to implement pulleys for each unit-cell? I think this unnecessarily complicates the whole, and multiplies the areas of possible malfunctions: with so many pulleys, it can always get stuck somewhere.

Moreover, given the topology of the assembly, it is unlikely that the L / D ratio can be high, due to the low aspect ratio of the assembly.

Dave Culp’ sail below seems like an easier way to achieve a similar result, and maybe it can scale a lot more than a power kite, but I am not sure.

Please can you represent the motion of your kite Dome, and precise the 3-phase motion? When that works as motor, as generator…?

Pierre, Dave Culp’s OL kite is an SS Power Kite (similar to SS NPW).

Doug, Its solely your idea that AWE terms-of-art are a substitute, or not, for anything. In science and technology, there is no substitute for mastery of jargon. The most expert have the highest technical vocabulary. Let Doug both fail to master the emerging lexigraphy and practice of AWE.

Tallak, gjør narre av deg selv as an AWE Censor and non-referencing Aerodynamicist. In fact, Wake-Energy Retrieval is simple, and Airbus is a prime advocate.

How a fello’fly flight works? - YouTube

There is even drag savings to a leader as well (proved by an NYU friend, JunZ).

Zhang Lab (nyu.edu)

Moderation should stop interfering with AWE knowledge sharing. They have made this Forum barren and unreliable. What little technical content remains goes uncorrected.