Slow Chat II

Here’s one more example of “Global Warming Derangement Syndrome”: Smithsonian reports on a study showing correlation to the point of obvious causation, from cold periods causing epidemics and mass starvation during the Roman Empire.

Plagues That Ravaged the Roman Empire Were Linked to Periods of Cold Weather | Smart News| Smithsonian Magazine

The study says the evidence is so blatant, it is impossible not to see the correlation - cold weather periods cause mass deaths from disease and starvation. But then the article goes on to cite it as an example of how “climate change” can cause mass deaths and the decline of civilizations.

That would be like me citing ice on roads causing car accidents, as a reason to avoid driving during heat spells, because “temperature changes can cause dangerous road conditions”.

They cite a study documenting the dangers of cold, and try to use it as an argument for making things colder. So we’re firmly in “opposite-land”, where everything is backwards! I mean, we’re already decades into “catastrophic global warming”, so the idea by now is, “We’ve got to make things colder again”, right?

Now it is interesting to note that it was only the ice age that resulted in the evolution of humans in the first place, so is the human race in danger of de-evolving back past the stone age and into the trees if things warm up? Well, maybe. Who knows? But at any given moment, cold weather promotes mass death and starvation. Oh well, no pain, no gain! Let’s turn up the air conditioning! :slight_smile:

They tried to solve problems (turbine protection for Altaeros, safety thanks to a stationary system and double lift, aerodynamic lift and aerostatic lift for Magenn).

In doing so, the problems created have been greater than the problems solved, which seems to have always been the case for AWE projects thus far and probably for an indefinite period.

It has not been demonstrated that a flying wind turbine can be profitable. Perhaps the opposite could be demonstrated, at least with current technologies or those envisaged in a possible future.

I cannot see how an industrial scale Kitewinder system can cost more than a conventional wind turbine. You are replacing a tower with a single skin kite and the cable drive eliminates the weight of the generator and conductive tether. Autonomous land and launch is available for all adverse wind conditions. Because of the higher altitude, more than twice the power is available.

Here is what the manufacturer himself wrote, and see the new opening web page: And among AWES, Kiwee worked very well and was placed on the market. There are other elements to consider, which have been discussed (ease of use compared to that of a classical wind turbine, maintenance, land use, scalability for later…).

1 Like

Another Storm Coming:
This is what “real wind people” sometimes have to deal with:
Getting ready to furl the 10 kW turbine on a 120-foot tower here, later this morning.
It would probably survive by furling itself, but despite having been the best small turbine model for 30 years, it is actually a flawed design that doesn’t furl in a steady-state, but rather cycles between overspeeding, the inverter letting go, furling, coming to an almost complete stop, returning to facing the wind with no thrust because it’s not spinning, back to overspeeding in an unloaded state. So we manually furl it just to promote turbine longevity. Even furled, it can still overwhelm the inverter and cause it to “let go” of the turbine, resulting in overspeeding, but at least being manually furled, it will not get quite as out of control as when it is left to furl by itself.

Gusts could hit 70 MPH later today, tonight, and into tomorrow:


  • WHAT…Heavy wet snow and gusty south winds expected. Snow
    totals of 4-9 inches between 6000-7000 feet, 9-12 inches between
    7000-8000 feet, and 1-3 feet or more above 8000 ft. Winds
    gusting 50-70 mph late this morning through tonight in the San
    Bernardino Mountains.

  • WHERE…San Bernardino and Riverside County Mountains.

  • WHEN…Through 6 PM PST Tuesday.

  • IMPACTS…Travel could be very difficult to impossible. The
    hazardous conditions could impact the morning or evening
    commute. Very strong winds could cause extensive tree damage.

  • ADDITIONAL DETAILS…Snow levels near 7000-8000 ft today and
    Monday during the heaviest precipitation, falling to 5500-6000
    ft on Tuesday. Additional light snow will likely occur
    Wednesday through Friday of next week.


If you must travel, keep an extra flashlight, food, and water in
your vehicle in case of an emergency.

For road condition information in California…enter
8 0 0 4 2 7 7 6 2 3 if inside california or
9 1 6 4 5 5 7 6 2 3 if outside California.

Active Weather Alerts

  • WHAT…South winds 25 to 35 mph with gusts to 55 mph expected.

  • WHERE…Apple and Lucerne Valleys.

  • WHEN…From Noon to 10 PM PST today.

  • IMPACTS…Gusty winds could blow around unsecured objects.
    Tree limbs could be blown down.

  • ADDITIONAL DETAILS…Strongest winds near the foothills of the
    San Bernardino Mountains.


Use extra caution when driving, especially if operating a high
profile vehicle. Secure outdoor objects.

For the reasons I stated above, please explain to me why an industrial Kitewinder system would not be much less expensive than an HAWT. If one of these are destroyed by high winds,it will take months to replace. An industrial Kitewinder system could be set up in a day.

Please support your statement, considering both at equal scale. HAWT are in operation at utility scale since numerous years and everywhere in the world, while there is no marketed AWES.

For the rest I gave the reasons for the difficulties, as did Kitewinder.

First sketch out a design for a 5 MW plant, or a multiple to add to that. Then I could comment.

I love the kitewinder but it is 600 W. You would need to scale considerably or need 8300 Kitewinders.

That would allow me to point out some things that must be overcome in order for that plan to become viable.

Could be you are right though, that the plan is a good one. But we would need to talk about a concrete idea.

What I see now is the problem with the lifter. Handling could be costly. The size could be huge, and that could affect mass. How can the lifter handle 5 m/s low wind but also 40 m/s high wind days. That is a 64x increase in lifting force if the kite is stationary.

The kite will be autonomously landed above a critical wind velocity.

A large-scale Kiwee ​​wind turbine will need to have a gigantic lifting kite even in strong winds. If the wind weakens for a few moments several hundred meters from the ground, it could be a guaranteed crash. Additional aerostatic lift would be required, and maintenance is costly, while safety is not guaranteed due to both wind force on the airship or the Sharp rotor and the weight of the turbine. The control of two devices at utility-scale is not a trivial task, whether during takeoff, landing or in operation.

You know who you are, who this is for

Dr. Crackpot never sleeps.

Winds at altitude are constant and do not drop suddenly. The act of pulling the kite down at say 5 M/Sec will make it controllable.

Yes if the kite is alone (power kite for example), but not with a heavy load like a utility-scale rotor in Kiwee style.

The attraction of things that fly remains strong. I myself gave in to this attraction. To be honest, wind energy started to interest me when I heard about AWES: it was Magenn (!). Maybe I’m not the only one.

And then there is the idea of ​​“saving the planet” (we wonder of what).

Things might be different if wind power manufacturers were interested in AWES, but that’s not the case at all: they probably already understood where it will take them and did not want to risk their reputation for nothing.

“Long-duration storage” implies a costly “power plant” that can only be used for a small fraction of a year, basically an expensive “band-aid”, unlikely to ever pay for itself, no matter how “cheap” it is said to be in the early stages of noncomprehending overexuberance.

I just stumbled across this disturbing clickbait video:
Uncovering The Genius of Fibonacci Turbines (
It tries to “explain” the “superiority” of the100%+ solidity “pinwheel”-style rotor, with its limited swept area and poor ability to convert kinetic wind energy into rotation, recently making the rounds in “windidiot” circles.

I took the time, once again, as we “real wind people” often find ourselves doing, to try and save maybe at least someone, from falling for the 100% disinformation and nonsense being promoted here. To the average person, this guy sounds like a genius, whereas to a real wind person, he is immediately identified as a “complete idiot”. The scary thing is, he is intelligent enough to cite a lot of history and knowledge of math, but a complete know-nothing in his selected topic here, just repeating all the typical know-nothing idiocy that emerges whenever non-wind people try to “explain” anything about wind energy!

I placed this comment after the video:
Facts from a real wind turbine person here: There is no “genius” to this type of turbine, but rather, the complete opposite. It is one more example of turbines designed by people with ZERO KNOWLEDGE of wind energy. What they all have in common is that “any idiot” can understand how they work. And that is your first clue. The performance of any of these high-solidity turbines is abysmal, and any claims of superiority should be ignored. The claim made here is nothing but “clickbait”. We in wind energy find it difficult to convey the real knowledge, accumulated over thousands of years, that has led to what LOOKS like “just a big, leaky propeller” to the average person - but it’s not - it is in fact the most efficient turbine design, which is why it is used in windfarms. And yes, even a Savonius turbine, which you seldom see, due to poor performance, can be slightly improved by adjusting the blade profile away from a strictly circular profile, but the optimal shape has nothing to do with any Fibonacci sequence. In short, you can completely ignore anything said about wind turbines unless it is from someone who KNOWS how to design wind turbines. Just remember this: If “any idiot” can understand how it works, that is probably who designed the turbine, and who will buy it.

May I say once again, “idiots, idiots, idiots”… :slight_smile:

OMG, as soon as I finished watching the last video on “The Genius” of Fibonacci Turbines, this one, by the same guy, reminiscent of the “Biomimicry!” nonsense promoted by the guys running the last AWE forum, came up.

The Unexpected Genius of Bionic Propellers - YouTube

As in the previous video, the emphasis is on mostly irrelevant factors, and of course, “3-D printing” - any excuse to muddy the waters with irrelevance helps to move the false narrative forward.

In the last video, in order to “prove” how “great” the Fibonacci turbine was, the dude “3-D printed” a very small example, and showed that, completely unloaded by a generator, it could be made to spin in front of a fan. But to “prove beyond any doubt” the superiority of the Fibonacci turbine, he said using a hair dryer REALLY made the Fibonacci turbine spin FAST! For the average viewer, this was probably “enough” “proof” to satisfy them, even without any comparison to how fast a similarly unloaded regular propeller would spin in the same hairdryer wind flow.

In this video, the “answer” to “prove” the “genius” of “bionic” propellers was, or course, to “3-D print” one. And show it on camera! Wow, that “proves” how great it is - he has a 3-D printer and made a tiny plastic nonfunctioning model! And the video goes on to “explain” how great the design “will work” (in the future, of course) due to… drumroll please… “3-D printing”!!! (on an industrial scale, of course)… Well, at least he sort of admits that the idea is pretty much going nowhere, in the real world, but…

The problem with the “Genius” of the “bionic” (really “biomimetic”) propellers is, he never showed any advantage, but simply gave a few details of “Frank Fish”, “famous” for figuring out “Whalebumps”.
and citing the failed company “Whalepower” whose “thrust” to add tubercules to wind turbine blades fell on deaf ears, went nowhere (as predicted by me the whole time, by the way) - once again, “real wind people” who actually know what the heck they are talking about, tend to have the ability to debunk nonsense that “sounds great” to the uninitiated…

Another missing aspect of “Whale bumps” is, if they are “the answer to everything”, why don’t ALL fish fins have “whale bumps”? I mean, if they work so well, wouldn’t all fish have evolved to have similar fins, after a few hundred million years? Hmmm…

So, given that, OK now, let’s just stop for a moment, and take a deeeeep breath. If the FINS of MOST FISH, and even MOST WHALES, do NOT have “whale bumps” then the MOST biomimetic (or what he calls “bionic”) blades would NOT have whale bumps, under the rationale that 99% of actual fins do NOT feature bumps on the leading edges, right? So with just a moment’s clear thinking, the entire “story” starts falling flat on its face, right? OK, just checking to see if you are still awake.

When it comes to wind energy, wind is invisible, so people can imagine it doing whatever they want!

I was looking for a paper that popped up a short while ago about the use of a AWE plant to mix the air in the wake of a HAWT wind park. I can no longer find it, anyone who could help point me in the right direction? Maybe the title or author…