I’m with @Windy_Skies. Please just respect the rules, stay on topic and no moderation is neccessary.
2 Likes
The moderators themselves do not consistently stay on topic. In fact, great posts are capable of ranging widely along with essential on-topic content.
Here is more Moderator-generated split-topic brought here back on-topic, to underscore the double-standard Moderators maintain-
I know it sucks getting removed from post privileges at the same time as Doug …
And I know yous twos are nothing like each other.
Just stop digging.
I expect the highest standard from you
If you want the best for AWES development, Live the best standard for it.
You need to identify the formal scaling limits to torque AWES.
Maybe it sucks that you can’t help treating me and Doug the same under petty authority, but the failure to find those scaling limits is far worse.
Let the future decide if unrealistically expecting the best of me was a distraction.
This topic has been broken by moderation. Unable to see or edit hidden postings. Basically, any dissimilarity between AWE requirements and Rutan’s seaplane is not allowed here.
Not only does Windy Skies keep a secret identity, moderation powers are abused for censorship.
The topic is intended as an example of or opportunity of taking elements or ideas from different fields, like a bee visiting different flowers. Brainstorming.
If I post a link to a new rocket design can I also expect your comments about the unsuitability of rockets for AWE?
I split these messages: PSA: a seaplane is probably not a viable AWES
I think you intended to put this somewhere else than in a pm to me:
1 Like
Yes, its called Critical Theory in science and engineering.
Go ahead and try your rocket topic without regard for anything but similarities. In that vein, KiteLab Group developed cascaded launching similar to rocket stages. Discussion of that would naturally cover both similar and dis-similar aspects, without your authoritarian omission of critical discussion.
1 Like
Someone mentions teapots and someone else explains why they are not suitable as boxing gloves. I know of no such game in science and engineering. It’s not called Critical Theory in any case, that’s something else.
Pierre suggests Rutan’s rigid-composite seaplane is perhaps best divided into a sea-buoy/kiteplane, the AWES configuration Ampyx proposes. It might be better for Ampyx to make Rutan seaplanes instead, since the seaplane is a more solid design in its application domain.
Restoring broken thread content-
Note that AWE visionary Wayne German connects vitally to Rutan insofar as this is an AWE Forum.
"The dis-similarities to AWE requirements are also important. Rutan’s seaplane is completely unsuited as a WECS kite due to its high-capital cost, high stall-speed, low unit-power, high-mass, high wing-loading, IC engine, passenger systems, and so on.
No one should expect an offshore AWES wing can double as its own boat and still hope to fly in most-probable wind, and also survive storms.
Recalling that Rutan at least believed in AWE visionary, Wayne German, enough to support him as successor Director of Boeing’s Flight Research Institute, even if Rutan himself had no well-informed sense of power kite design.
Reply
This completely misses the point. The implicit invitation is to look at the similarities and learn from them. We’re all well enough aware of the dissimilarities. The name-dropping is just off-topic.
Talk about the similarities and what we can learn from them instead.
Reply
Folks really are not aware enough of the complex dissimilarities, unless you are belaboring this is as a dead-end model “that we’re all well enough aware of”.
We must elaborate on the aerospace science and aeronautical art of wing-loading, Re, seaplane seaworthiness, and so forth. These are not topics to gloss over.
Lets just be sure superficial similarities don’t mask critical flaws in specific comparison. "
1 Like
You keep pasting this in the topic. I removed it from the topic as off-topic, and argued my case, repeatedly. To have it reinstated you’ll have to argue why it is on topic. You’ll very likely won’t convince me. The topic is:
See other replies by me in the last day in this thread why I think this is off-topic.
The topic is brainstorming ideas by looking at another thing and seeing how it it solved perhaps similar requirements, or maybe it’s just interesting to listen to Burt Rutan talk. Your posts go against making this a good brainstorming topic.
And are also off-topic:
Please set up a post on cascaded launch theory and practice
To secretive Windy Skies, “brainstorming” means his censoring of key AWE facts, like Rutan’s relation to AWE visionary Wayne German. Of course this sort connection is not going to matter to him or her. Only a supposed seaplane analogy is fair game to him or her.
Cascading launch is only mentioned to rebut Windy Skies idea that the relation of rocket science to kites is absurd, as opposed to having both positive and negative correlations. Not feeling like making such topics on the demand of Moderators who have more interest in control than concepts.
Since 1939, the flaws of overdetermined brainstorming have become infamous. Its not even classic brainstorming when a “Moderator” enforces censorship. Here’s some downsides-
WP: " Challenges to effective group brainstorming[edit]
A good deal of research refutes Osborn’s claim that group brainstorming could generate more ideas than individuals working alone.[10] For example, in a review of 22 studies of group brainstorming, Michael Diehl and Wolfgang Stroebe found that, overwhelmingly, groups brainstorming together produce fewer ideas than individuals working separately.[24] However, this conclusion is brought into question by a subsequent review of 50 studies by Scott G. Isaksen showed that a misunderstanding of the tool, and weak application of the methods (including lack of facilitation), and the artificiality of the problems and groups undermined most such studies, and the validity of their conclusions.[25]
Several factors can contribute to a loss of effectiveness in group brainstorming.
Blocking :
Main article: Production blocking
Because only one participant may give an idea at any one time, other participants might forget the idea they were going to contribute or not share it because they see it as no longer important or relevant.[26] Further, if we view brainstorming as a cognitive process in which “a participant generates ideas (generation process) and stores them in short-term memory (memorization process) and then eventually extracts some of them from its short-term memory to express them (output process)”, then blocking is an even more critical challenge because it may also inhibit a person’s train of thought in generating their own ideas and remembering them.[27]
Collaborative fixation : Exchanging ideas in a group may reduce the number of domains that a group explores for additional ideas. Members may also conform their ideas to those of other members, decreasing the novelty or variety of ideas, even though the overall number of ideas might not decrease.[28]
Evaluation apprehension: Evaluation apprehension was determined to occur only in instances of personal evaluation. If the assumption of collective assessment were in place, real-time judgment of ideas, ostensibly an induction of evaluation apprehension, failed to induce significant variance.[10][29]
Free-writing : Individuals may feel that their ideas are less valuable when combined with the ideas of the group at large. Indeed, Diehl and Stroebe demonstrated that even when individuals worked alone, they produced fewer ideas if told that their output would be judged in a group with others than if told that their output would be judged individually. However, experimentation revealed free-writing as only a marginal contributor to productivity loss, and type of session (i.e., real vs. nominal group) contributed much more.[10]
Personality characteristics : Extroverts have been shown to outperform introverts in computer mediated groups. Extroverts also generated more unique and diverse ideas than introverts when additional methods were used to stimulate idea generation, such as completing a small related task before brainstorming, or being given a list of the classic rules of brainstorming.[30]
Social matching : One phenomenon of group brainstorming is that participants will tend to alter their rate of productivity to match others in the group. This can lead to participants generating fewer ideas in a group setting than they would individually because they will decrease their own contributions if they perceive themselves to be more productive than the group average. On the other hand, the same phenomenon can also increase an individual’s rate of production to meet the group average.[2"
PSA: a seaplane is probably not a viable AWES can be seen as an antithesis of the initial topic Burt Rutan talking about designing his SkiGull seaplane. So it can be on-topic by the schema “thesis, antithesis”, building a still more fruitful brainstorming.
Moreover it contains informations about
that deserve to be supported if it is possible.
For both reasons PSA: a seaplane is probably not a viable AWES would again join advantageously the initial topic.
Windy Skies secret identity while asserting censorship authority over public persona is also the antithesis of scholarly freedom.
The content is a concern, not the secret identity.
I don’t understand what this means. Google tells me this might have something to do with Hegel. Are you talking about that? How is it the concept applicable here?
I don’t agree. Like I say, I think this is irrelevant name-dropping. Sure, if Wayne German advanced AWE, a history of him and his work could be welcome in this forum. I don’t see the relevance to this topic.
“Thesis, antithesis, synthesis” makes a an old school model which was (is?) used for dissertation on a given topic.
By two possibilities: mainly Wayne German’s work as a part of the antithesis (soft light power kite vs heavy seaplane to resume Dave’s contribution), secondarily by the link between them if Dave can support his statement.
Pierre, its the same cause for concern with the Northern EU AWE insider circle in private control of conferences and millions of dollars in public and private funding. Its pretty clear that Windy Skies has an interesting hidden agenda behind his or her need for anonymity. We simply cannot judge the merits or flaws of his or her motives.
Not only is the debased content of the secret parties, their compromised engineering science, a valid concern, but also their non-public (secret) dealings in terms of public historical transparency. We happen to know a lot of the behind-the-curtain dynamics are problematic. Lets open up all the secrets to the light.
By deep civic commitment to transparent government, I just can’t play along here willingly under secret authority, over my AWE posting no less, as willingly as you submit. Are we trying to help the World in crisis with AWE, or keep the petty secrets of technical mediocrity? These are incompatible goals.
Secrecy, botched technical content, and weak practice are symptoms of the same disease.
I strongly disagree. You accuse without the beginning of proof. And it is not the first time.This sort of behavior leads to later misunderstanding.
1 Like
No, Pierre, every human story is interesting, and there is plenty of proof of that. Noble or not, Windy Skies background is relevant. Who is this secret authority interfering crudely with postings?
We should not have to prove that secretive players in AWE would better serve knowledge by embracing the grand intellectual tradition of openness.
Keep in mind your recent accusation of censorship on the old AWES Forum. Where was your proof it was not a Yahoo mail server error, that several of us also experienced? No one thinks JoeF, the only moderator, did anything. The posts were easily restored, and had never bothered anyone to begin with.
Try and prove secrecy is helpful to AWE, to show how you do proof.