Slow Chat II

Lounge
162

Put on glasses.

It’s always the same statements, which you apply blindly to everything that comes your way. There is nothing specific.

I listed your qualifiers, always the same.

In recent months you have added a new fad: devaluing a said invention as soon as it is made up of several inventions, none of which has been demonstrated.

With such reasoning you can denigrate any AWES as soon as it includes a kite (supposed to replace blades) and a tether (supposed to replace the tower), so at least two unproved inventions for the price of one…

163

Pierre: I think you must be losing it. Kites are proven. Tethers are proven. Tethers attached to kites are proven. In fact, a kite without a tether is not a kite, but an airplane. I have been applying valid reasoning for 15 years to an empty room. Empty of anyone who knows anything about the subject matter. I was about to walk out the door to accomplish at least something today, saw there was one more email in my box, knew it would be “Pierre” with more nonsense for me to address…
There, I addressed your nonsense. I hope that makes everything OK. Gotta go have a day. :slight_smile:

164

Go tell that to the wind turbine manufacturers. Vestas will be delighted.

You think you’re debunking this or that, but you’re just adding material to debunk.:slight_smile:

165

I think this is a good day for a reminder of why we are here: We are not looking for stuff that doesnt work. We are looking for stuff that can work. We know that in theory AWE has advantages; less material, high altitude, easy maintenance etc etc. The ideas that can open up such potential is the key. And for every good idea there may be hundreds of ideas. For every smart person a hundred who were not able to add actual contribution. But its hard to know who will come up with that good idea. What we do know is:

  • The more eyes on the problem, the more likely something can show up
  • People all have their path starting from a ignorant baby, then learning, but who knows where the path ends?

I say let all «rubbish» ideas float freely. Lets give constructive feedback so everyone may or may not adjust their path.

Then of course, it is possible to have the opinion that some things have little merit. Just on a gut feeling, or better based on physics or experience. Then I welcome that feedback also - a cutthroat environment supports innovation. As long as we are being civil to eachother (well, in my case civil sometimes bordering to rude, but hey we all have our weaknesses)

:slight_smile:

166

Perhaps some information about how to build a plane then a first proof-of-concept for any rigid AWES design. See also at 8:00 a means for take-off.

1 Like
167

Ok forget “losing it” - you’ve “lost it”.
Go buy a kite at the store. It’s proven. Hopefully it come with a tether (string) - also proven.
Please don’t waste any more of our time with your nonsense.
While a valid argument is welcome, whatever you are doing is nothing but an annoyance, and you are making no sense whatsoever. :slight_smile:

168

My statement was:

And my reply to your nonsense was:

So I spoke about AWES, and you replied about a kite. I see that you are repeating the same arguments as a certain person from the old forum. So according to you a kite is an AWES. And you don’t answer my question about offering a kite (not even an AWES as I mentioned) to wind turbine manufacturers like Vestas.

You who boast of being in the “real wind energy people”, now are saying the opposite, being trapped by your lack of logical sense in what you believe to be your debunking enterprise.

Now you would offer kites to wind turbine manufacturers, according to faulty logic.

I’m going to tell you this: a tether, a kite (not even an AWES yet!) are proven in their respective fields but not (yet) in wind energy. The same goes for a guyed tower, a piston, and so on.

You unnecessarily clutter up with the same drivel, “crackpots”, “idiots”, “the plurality of so-called unproven inventions as a bad sign” without even specifying in which field they are, and without trying to know how they would take place for a wind energy project, and so on.

This is not the right method to try to move forward, knowing that everything we are discussing here is not (yet) proven in wind energy.

Instead of sending hundreds of posts you just send the same post hundreds of times.

I’m going to stop this pointless discussion, having no time to waste.

Try to have a slightly more positive outlook. :slight_smile:

169

You continue to make no sense. I never said anything about offering kites to wind turbine manufacturers. You are just making things up. As I read your recent posts, there is no meaning, no truth, almost just random, meaningless words. Making up your own drivel to argue with.
Whatever you have to say next, I will no longer respond to, for there is no point in responding to utter nonsense.

170

I did this according to your absurd answer:

In their respective fields yes, but not in wind energy field.

Good evening :slight_smile:

171

I noticed in your patent @dougselsam
You haven’t drawn any roads
So how can all roads…?
Is this like a floating offshore sea surface boaty perspective thing?
:wink::stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

172

I’m going to respond here, because in addition to being irrelevant, your comment is completely off topic. There is therefore no point in overloading the concerned topic which may be of interest.

A time more…

As I indicated several times, almost all wrote about the piston, questioning its usefulness.

You want to be the Mike Barnard of AWE. But MikeB is consistent, unlike you. He doesn’t believe in AWE (thinking that the intelligence of researchers is an indication of AWE’s ineffectiveness), nor in unconventional wind turbines. In fact, he’s hardly said a word about them for some time. You, on the other hand, have been spouting insults and complaints on the old and new AWE forums for years, while being ambiguous about believing in AWE. It’s amusing for a while, but tiresome in the long run.

173

Arguing with idiots on these forums is like shooting fish in a barrel - you are guaranteed to win, except what you are not guaranteed is whether the fish can even comprehend that it has been shot. Or one could imagine winning a chess match, but the opponent disagrees, saying he won because he captured more pieces, regardless of the fact that he was checkmated. In AWE it is worse, because the opponent is likely to suddenly claim he was playing backgammon.
Yes I noticed one or two other comments questioning the role of the piston.
What I did not see was a comprehensive treatment of the piston analyzing the relevant forces, nor did I see anyone besides me offering what I see as a proof that it would have no useful purpose, and that whatever positive effect it might be purported to have is nonexistent.

I assumed everyone here, including the promoter, might enjoy a full analysis of even a single component of the proposed wind energy concept. I’m still waiting to see any return on my analysis. Your hostile comments are amusing, yet a bit tedious, and, to me anyway, indicate that you have nothing to say about what I actually wrote, and your balloon comments indicate that you have no comprehension of what I am even talking about.

Imagine you are playing a piano concerto to a full room, and when you finish playing, there is no response from the audience. You scratch your head and wonder why, until someone tells you the audience is 100% deaf. That’s the position i am in discussing wind energy with people who live in a fantasy-land where they think they can improve on wind energy without knowing the first thing about it.

If you can’t understand the conversation, your participation is not needed.
Substituting endless emotional attacks doesn’t get you there.
I would say, if you have no specific response to the comprehensive analysis I wrote about the piston, other than saying other people had mentioned not seeing its purpose then calling me names, save your energy for something meaningful.

This is supposed to be a technical discussion. If you have nothing technical to add, why waste your time? I have a very busy life, so if I do not respond further to your inability to resist writing back even though you have nothing to say, it is not because I think you made any valid points, but just bnecause I cannot waste the rest of my life trying to talk sense into someone who is not interested in making sense.

For many years, I’ve tried to help wind energy newbies overcome their ignorance by teaching some of the facts in the art of wind energy. But I have found after 15 years of this, it seems hopeless. The more facts I offer, the more people just want to argue, not the least bit interested in facts of any kind.

There is a saying that this endless and ongoing situation brings to mind: “You can’t cure stupid”.
I allow myself to get sucked into other peoples’ stupidity, as though, like Holden Caulfield in Catcher in the Rye, I can somehow magically rescue a bunch of innocent kids from falling off a cliff.

Noi I can’t. I can’t “cure stupid” any more than anyone else. The question is, how stupid does it make me, to keep trying?

174

Try with “wind energy newbies” like the engineers from Vestas or other wind turbine companies. Something tells me it will last 15 minutes rather than 15 years. What I don’t know, well maybe not that much, is who will help who.

175

I guess that’s why the last grant proposal we made included many established wind energy people, including the former chief engineer from GE Wind, right?

Why don’t you just “go away”? Don’t you have anything better to do with your time than try to get the last word in, in a conversation you were unable to continue in the first place, due to lack of basic engineering knowledge? Too bad you couldn’t actually participate in that conversation.

176

That makes you think of stacking towers from the bottom. Jack up the tower, add a new section to the bottom, jack up the tower again.

177

image
image1000×620 40.4 KB

Wind Turbine Tower

Made from tubular steel, the tower supports the structure of the turbine. Towers usually come in three sections and are assembled on-site.

Yes, and for both wind turbine tower and pneumatic telescopic mast.

178

Hi Pierre: Thanks for archiving my opinions that have been self-verifying for the last 15 years.
But there are many more.
A couple of my favorites are:

  1. While wind energy is a magnet for Crackpots, Airborne Wind Energy is a Neodymium Super-Magnet!
  2. Wind is invisible, so people can imagine it doing whatever they want.
    :slight_smile:
179

Hi Doug: It’s true, one day I bumped into some wind that I hadn’t seen.
Morality: it is better to believe in invisible forces. :slight_smile:

180

I realized these two sayings should somehow be combined:
Example:
“Because wind is invisible, people can imagine it doing whatever they want, which is why wind energy is a magnet for Crackpots, and AWE is a neodymium supermagnet”.

181

You are misquoting me. I posted a photo of the turbine powering this message, on a 120-foot-tall lattice tower, with 3 levels of guy wires. (Most smaller turbines have guy wires.) It reminds me of a too-heavy AWE system that weighs several tons, with 9 “tethers” 120 degrees apart, but with the antigravity provided by compressive strength of the tower, replacing the need to launch and land, with the turbine designed t9o automatically “fly” itself.

“I” did not “discount” guy wires. I merely reported (for those too asleep to notice), that the utility-scale wind energy industry does not use guy wires, and that I was trying to understand the reasons why. SO, as usual, I state the simplest facts, and the typical head-in-the-sand, wind-idiots want to somehow accuse me of something, for stating such simple facts.

Oh, interesting. I thought “the whole point of AWE” was to “replace hardware with software” and “eliminate those terrible “windtowers””.

Why bother telling me? If you think they should be using guy wires on their towers, tell it to the existing wind energy industry. Tell them they should start using guyed towers. Or look into it yourself, and figure out why they don’t, if you are truly interested in the subject. I proposed a few possible reasons. I’d love to hear what they say, after you’ve researched the topic and been told why they do not use guy wires for utility-scale turbines, if those reasons go beyond the possible reasons I’ve already listed. Or maybe they’ve never considered that you don’t see any reason that they should not take an example from suspension bridges, and start using guy wires, and they need to hear from you, with your better understanding of the space than they are capable of. Yup, the perpetual wind newbies:
“I’ll bet they’ve never thought of using guy wires!” Uh huh - sure…