@kitefreak You blocked technical content without any explains and in a hidden way.
No.
The main content you blocked, in its original form as well as its corrected form, is the following I put again:
[“It odd if you also think AWE progress has been slower than reasonable."
If there is some decisive progress.
“You may have missed lots of past discussion about tether length to kite area and sweep, including at conferences and in papers.”
Indeed I just got acquainted with Dave’s previous message on 2010 on Yahooist Teil der Yahoo Markenfamilie .
I often evoked this concern. I presented “Land and space used” in AWEC2013 (see the attachment).
An example on: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260586228_Airborne_Wind_Energy_Based_on_Dual_Airfoils :
Page 7, figure 6 concerning the dual-airfoil 10 MW system. Two tether lengths are considered: 8 km then 15 km, involving in land use being respectively about 200 km² and 700 km² !!! Resulting a density of respectively 0.05 MW/km² and 0.014 MW/km².
When the power/land and space use ratio will be considered as I advice it, some progress could occur. Multi-kite airborne wind energy systems (MAWES) - #22 by PierreB and Power to space use ratio .]
Your messages of which one from your forum https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/AirborneWindEnergy/conversations/messages/25789 : “Doug and Pierre are invited to form new topics for specific response to non-AWEC concerns.” say the opposite.
Find out whatever happened to AWEC corp, if you want my help linking. That’s my offer. What did I ever block, how? Publish what you think I somehow blocked on this Forum then, to fix the public record.
We really need the hidden AWE “leadership” story told. Its not just about the EU insiders, but also Makani-Joby’s inside story. This is serious AWE history with ongoing relevance, including discussion of Forum Moderation ethics. No one has made a sound ethical case for embracing venture and personal secrecy in so many forms, from GoogleX to a-priori presumption that anonymous “moderation” is “beneficial”.
Some of the best players are trying to save the world with Open-AWE engineering science. This is at odds with stealth venture-capital ethics. Expect ongoing controversy.
Oh, I think there has been lots of “decisive” progress in AWE, but don’t take my word for it; let future historians of AWE technology sort out the long old roots of decisive success.
@dougselsam, I have flagged 5 of your posts you made today now. If it were up to me I’d delete them. Let’s see what the others say.
How about the guy posting this in 2010 has not generated a single Watt in the ensuing eight+ years, giving you an idea of how serious he really is, and how meaningful his statements are. He’s probably posted 10,000 times since then and still can’t get anything running.
If any “future historians” find some weird reason to even mention your “contribution” it might include that you post thousands of times on supposed AWE forums while actually never demonstrating a single promising device or configuration, never producing ny power since your stated 5 momentary Watts in 2009.
.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LY3ftiLqmE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3XW6NLILqo
Like I said before, and will probably say again:
Where we possibly can find agreement is if criticism needs to have those things, the original claims on here should try to have those things as well. If you make a claim, for or against something, try to:
I think that @kitefreak often doesn’t do that in his claims and you don’t in your criticisms.
1 Like
I flagged these as off-topic in the thread. Complaints about moderation should go here, for example.
I would say something about the first of these two flagged posts as its evokes
In AWE discussions the “wind energy” aspect is often ignored in regard to the aeronautics. However AWE is both.
This remark underlines the knowledge gap in wind energy, based on the mentioned reference in the thread.
I acknowledge that the information provided by @Windy_Skies is also useful for me.
@dougselsam , your observations about the lack of knowledge in wind energy are relevant and concern me too. But they would be still better with more explains on what is possible or preferable in AWE field in regard to current wind energy.
1 Like
I’ve gone ahead and moved today’s 3 post from Tip Speed Ratio to here. I would like that topic to stay on that topic. Feel free to ask the question again somewhere else, or here, @PierreB.
I put @dougselsam’ discussed flagged message.
This message refers in several comments on the topic of which yours on Tip Speed Ratio - #6 by Windy_Skies.
@dougselsam’ message replies in a general way (wind energy) to a specific concern (TSR). For that I think his message is on-topic. The same applies to my answer as it underlines the wind energy aspect as Doug’s given reply to the TSR concern.
I don’t agree. I would like the topic to be specifically about TSR, not anything else. And as I started the topic, because I am interested in the topic, I would like to give preference to my wishes.
Sure, there are many other valid (broader) concerns someone could have, but those are for other topics.
@dougselsam provides an interesting perspective for the TSR concern, linking this specific topic to the (lack of) knowledge in wind energy. One can agree or disagree but his message has a degree of relevance in the on-topic scale that can be compared to a lot of comments in several topics.
Indeed I propose an on-topic scale (in a similar way as search reports for patents) with 1: particularly relevant; 2 : relevant; 3 : technological backround.
“Off-topic” massive use as a moderation tool becomes a wildcard.
I just don’t agree that it was relevant, interesting, or on topic. The topic is TSR, not “the absurdity of the state of the whole AWE wannabe situation”. If someone wants to start a topic on that, I guess they’re free to do so but that topic was not the place for it.
Let us see an example. “Its like saying a combustion engine car should have wooden wheels…” could be seen as not relevant, not interesting, or off-topic in regard to the topic which was “Is the modern Power Kite the answer to Kite Power?”, not the “wooden wheels” or “combustion engine” by transposing your argument. I could quote numerous other examples.
Moreover you just added some other distinct categories for moderation as “relevant, interesting” beside “on topic”, while I indicated the degree of relevance in regard to the on-topic scale. It is not the same. By this you indicate you could moderate something because it is not interesting, whether it is on-topic or not.
Adding “I would like to give preference to my wishes”. Is a moderation tool appropriate in regard to “preference” or “wishes”?
Mentioning a self know-nothing status is becoming a mean to say the reverse. So when I say “I know nothing”, my caller must understand that I am an expert since I have the lucidity to invoke my lack of knowledge. But if the caller understands in a litteral way, I can be offended.
1 Like
I’m just using your words here, “interesting” and “relevant”. I disagree that Doug’s post is that.
This is as good a guide as any for (my) moderation: https://forum.awesystems.info/t/faq-guidelines/5
You can call me out on it if you think my moderation violates that guideline.
Another, stricter, guideline would be this:
https://np.reddit.com/r/AskEngineers/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules
I say that Doug’s post is off-topic. The topic is about TSR, “the absurdity of the state of the whole AWE wannabe situation” and the rest of his message is off-topic.
I try to weigh, what I perceive to be, the wishes of the different users of the forum, the topic starter, the commenters, and the (future) readers. In this case I know what the wish of the topic starter is, a topic quite narrowly focused on TSR. I think the wishes of the commenter and the reader are similar.
How is Doug’s message on topic? Remember that the topic is a technical, narrow, one.
1 Like
Here are some synonyms for know-nothing: airhead, birdbrain, blockhead, bonehead, bubblehead, chowderhead, chucklehead,clodpoll
When I say I know nothing (about the subject) you can behave like I mean that literally. Taking that approach as a teacher or someone explaining a concept is best I think. Just go over everything to make sure there are no gaps in knowledge.
Calling someone a know-nothing is an insult, and insults are against the community guidelines here.
Maye you should read a beginner’s pamphlet on wind energy.
1 Like