Slow Chat

[PierreB]

@Rodread

Stop framing this wrongly @PierreB , follow the thread.

Unless you have some proof to the contrary, the general situation is
Once up and spinning even rotors without cyclic pitch control provide more than enough lift to maintain their elevation. The stack elevation is forcefully retarded by the backline.
Not spinning, they are generally sloped to provide some lift via deflection.
Getting rotors up reliably if they’re not spinning requires some additional lift.
As discussed already in this thread.

No this is not a stable arrangement. The result is highly dynamic, both in alignment and variation in
L/D ratios with gusts, lulls acceleration, reconfiguration, deformation, elasticity, flutter…

If you are going to insist on statements and conviction - provide proof.

@PierreB

Also it is not so easy to obtain rotors ensuring both torque and lift. So perhaps rotors ensuring torque and power should be settled close to the ground station, and rotors ensuring lift close to the kite.

Explain this please. Have you made models of what you’re suggesting here?
I’d understand the point if you were challenging this as an established orthodoxy (which it’s not- this is weird new effects shiz) So bring facts, science, results. We are all still looking for the truth of this system

As for this @PierreB

@PierreB

If you really want harness altitude winds for power, then only the lifting kite is used, which incorporates a yo-yo system in aligned or crosswind flight.

What a crock of

My question to ChatGPT:

Here is a comment in a forum: [Stop framing this wrongly @PierreB , follow the thread.

Unless you have some proof to the contrary, the general situation is
Once up and spinning even rotors without cyclic pitch control provide more than enough lift to maintain their elevation. The stack elevation is forcefully retarded by the backline.
Not spinning, they are generally sloped to provide some lift via deflection.
Getting rotors up reliably if they’re not spinning requires some additional lift.
As discussed already in this thread.

No this is not a stable arrangement. The result is highly dynamic, both in alignment and variation in
L/D ratios with gusts, lulls acceleration, reconfiguration, deformation, elasticity, flutter…

If you are going to insist on statements and conviction - provide proof.

Also it is not so easy to obtain rotors ensuring both torque and lift. So perhaps rotors ensuring torque and power should be settled close to the ground station, and rotors ensuring lift close to the kite.

Explain this please. Have you made models of what you’re suggesting here?
I’d understand the point if you were challenging this as an established orthodoxy (which it’s not- this is weird new effects shiz) So bring facts, science, results. We are all still looking for the truth of this system

As for this @PierreB

If you really want harness altitude winds for power, then only the lifting kite is used, which incorporates a yo-yo system in aligned or crosswind flight.

What a crock of]. Does it go against the forum rules, and how? The forum rules: [
About
FAQ
Terms of Service
Privacy

This is a Civilized Place for Public Discussion
Please treat this discussion forum with the same respect you would a public park. We, too, are a shared community resource — a place to share skills, knowledge and interests through ongoing conversation.

These are not hard and fast rules, merely guidelines to aid the human judgment of our community and keep this a clean and well-lighted place for civilized public discourse.

Improve the Discussion
Help us make this a great place for discussion by always working to improve the discussion in some way, however small. If you are not sure your post adds to the conversation, think over what you want to say and try again later.

The topics discussed here matter to us, and we want you to act as if they matter to you, too. Be respectful of the topics and the people discussing them, even if you disagree with some of what is being said.

One way to improve the discussion is by discovering ones that are already happening. Spend time browsing the topics here before replying or starting your own, and you’ll have a better chance of meeting others who share your interests.

Be Agreeable, Even When You Disagree
You may wish to respond to something by disagreeing with it. That’s fine. But remember to criticize ideas, not people. Please avoid:

Name-calling
Ad hominem attacks
Responding to a post’s tone instead of its actual content
Knee-jerk contradiction
Instead, provide reasoned counter-arguments that improve the conversation.]?

ChatGPT:
2 / 2

Based on the forum rules, the comment [What a crock of] appears to go against the rule “Be respectful of the topics and the people discussing them, even if you disagree with some of what is being said.” The comment is seen as name-calling and not respectful to the person being referred to. Additionally, the comment does not provide any counter-arguments or improve the discussion.

This is only an example. I could quote others in abundance from the same author on this topic alone, and who is a moderator to boot. Knowing the bias of the moderation I don’t flag comments anymore since a long time, contenting myself with answering on these comments in the topic itself, in this case:

SuperTurbine (tm) and Serpentine, and other torque transfer systems

An example of your freedom of speech: I call this your freedom to use insulting language, which I cannot deny. That said insults are not arguments. [ad+honimen+4] I think you mean what you think is in your interest. No, a rotor can do both torque and lift (Sky Windpower). And also a rotor can do both torque and thrust (any wind turbine, Kiwee, Daisy, SuperTurbine ™…). It depends on the configuration. In the case of mentioned torque devices, the lifting kite makes the full job of lift. F…

The violation was obvious and was not picked up by any moderator, as I expected. And it is an example among numerous other examples.

Since moderators do not follow the rules they impose, either they should not impose them on others who are not moderators, or the rules should be changed so they can be enforced. I would suggest (ironically) adding to the rules to be followed that they do not concern moderators.