Questions and complaints about moderation.

I’ve worked in communications from super high speed to super basic. This ordered process is bliss.
Speed of knowledge gain is massively impaired by noise on the yahoo forum.
Chat like this topic is a distraction from actual AWES process.
Imagine a radio system where we all had to listen to all of the chat amongst all organisation staff.
And to join in you had to review all of the old chat (and check for copies of that chat tagged on the bottom of each chat ) before being able to contribute that you wished to offer a fellow mechanic a biscuit or raise an emergency. Madness.
This ordered reasoning process is a huge relief because I care about AWES and hope to engage as many humans as possible in the development.



I like the New Forum too, despite my topic-splitting over-moderation complaint. May this place do as well as the Moderators hope.

Don’t count the Old Forum out just because of “noise”. Let time and datamining sort out what golden concepts that noise intolerant followers necessarily miss. Its rather droll to imagine either venture players or ordinary scholars trying to swim in the wonderful mess. Its been a fine review of industrial R&D psychology, of who burns-out and who stays the course.

Obviously the New Forum wants to be a tidy place for novices to engage; not the place for all-on debating of esoteric claims by the AWE jargon-happy. For all its noise, the Old Forum remains the most open place for that, without the drag of non-technical moderation priorities. I wish anyone on this Forum could critique kPower’s ideas on pure theory rather than acronym-distaste.

Great to have both sides covered… Peace to All.


A @kitefreak’s moderation model on the old forum is on: :
" Pierre,
It odd if you also think AWE progress has been slower than reasonable. The original 2030 timeframe, to scale up effectively, looks on track to me.

You may have missed lots of past discussion about tether length to kite area and sweep, including at conferences and in papers. It’s certainly never been ignored here.

Please do bring the topic up at AWEC2019.".

One of my blocked (since 2 days from now) replies was:

[“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.”
I was and still am the only one to evoke this concern. I presented “Land and space used” in AWEC2013.

An example on: 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) and Power to space use ratio ."]

This is a mix of some unfair statement, followed by the blocked right reply in a hidden way. And it is an example of numerous @kitefreak’s moderation acts on his Yahoo forum.

So @kitefreak’s complaints about moderation are quite ridiculous. But if we want the AWESSystem forum becomes like the Yahoo forum, let us follow @kitefreak’s hair-splittings .

59 Land and Space used.pdf (70.9 KB)


Look on the postive side; at least no one cares to call your complaints “ridiculous”.

You just confirmed my previous message and my blocked post on your forum. Thanks for your “positive side”.

Pierre, I have no control over the AWES Forum, only JoeF does, and he would never censor you. Here is a typical post of mine from 2010 on the Old Forum on the airspace and land maximization topic, discussions you may recall-

Sparse v. Dense AWE Arrays


dave santos

‎Nov‎ ‎9‎, ‎2010 at ‎4‎:‎33‎ ‎PM

Take a 2mw single-tether kiteplane (like Joby’s model) operating under a 2000ft ceiling. To keep safely clear of neighbors it occupies a circular plot near a mile across. Presume a 3x3 array of nine kiteplanes for 18mw from a 3 mile square kitefarm. The same land developed with conventional 5mw HAWTs, spaced normally, could develop greater than 100mw, presuming that better wind capacity-factor aloft roughly offsets the lowered system availibility of complex delicate aircraft. Conventional HAWTs win overwhelmingly in raw land efficiency without even touching the upper-wind. However, the same land & airspace the nine kiteplanes sparsely occupy can be densely packed with airborne turbines or wingmills, in string latticework based on classic kite methods, for over a rated gigawatt. AWE arrays of cross-linked semi-captive elements seem to have a fantastic advantage in space-efficiency, not just safety & control, over single-tether designs.

I used crude geometric methods to estimate these figures, so it will be fun to see how well someone else’s calculations coincide. A suggestive guesstimate is that there is well over a gigawatt average in a tiny mid-lat crosswind patch of sky, just 100m across & 10km high."/

It is an interesting post which could be on Power to space use ratio. So please reference your assertions when it is possible and as I often do. That can avoid some misunderstanding.

For my current comment it can be also a technical problem of Yahoo but in a recent past certain valid contents have been censored at certain periods in your Yahoo forum. In other times there was no moderation. So your critics against the current moderation should be put in perspective.

Please keep focused on technical concerns, not on moderation.


Just keep reposting any lost emails to fix the gaps. Fears of censorship ease when email repair is duly accepted.

It is on Power to space use ratio.
It was on : @kitefreak wrote: “Doug and Pierre are invited to form new topics for specific response to non-AWEC concerns.”

@kitefreak can you explain? Could you quote any “specific response to non-AWEC concerns”.
I cannot reply on your Yahoo forum since you blocked my posts, and in a hidden way. The present topic ,“Questions and complaints about moderation”, seems appropriate even if your Yahoo AWE forum becomes concerned.

Thanks Pierre. I was hoping to answer Doug’s demand to show 100W of power on topic, which kPower videos can help show by multiple cases. But Doug should form the topic, unless he was just trolling.

In your case, you pose complaints clearly not about AWEC2019 as such. This is a good place to air your Moderation concerns, but you are also welcome to freely create such a topic on the Old Forum. No one wants you censored, despite your anxiety on that count.

Please quote if you can.

But you do it, and without explains.

Sure Pierre, here is an example of you raising an interesting non AWEC2019 topic worth its own consideration-

“he is trying to use what he considers as a weak link to use as a Trojan horse to enslave the new forum.”

Allow time to answer any question you have. Remind me if I lose track without answer. Help me find out about what happened to AWEC 501c4 corporation, in the same spirit.

Can you provide the link on your Yahoo forum? I don’t think.

The “call for abstracts” topic that you just posted too, once again off-topic. You have the link. This is the better topic thread to discuss dramatic concerns over censorship, trojan horses, enslavement, and so on.

Can you provide the link on your Yahoo forum? I don’t think.

Its your Forum too. Provide the link if you wish. I provided you the quote requested, and you did not bother to respond.

The moderators of the present forum provide quotes from our AWE forum to justify splitting.
You should do the same, instead of blocking technical content without explains, then being unable to quote from your forum.

The “trojan horse” quote is from you on the AWES Forum. I can link to it, but so can you.

Find out what happened to AWEC 501c4 for me, and I’ll paste the link you want.

Keep in mind, I have no moderation role on Old Forum.