Slow Chat

I think this forum has a validity problem.
It doesn’t show up in the top 3 pages of Searches for Airborne Wind Energy.
It should - but it would need the validating back propagation links from other authoritative AWES sites and resources.

Windswept, HAS promoted this forum broadly elsewhere.
Why? - because this has been the only open online forum where AWES expertise was invited.

I don’t see any such effort from our “top AWES authorities”, who claim interest in this forum, to promote inclusion and usefulness of this forum.

1 Like

This talented wee kite turbine builder called Kavya

Do you mean it has a legitimacy problem? Then first it has to become legitimate before users give legitimacy to it by visiting and commenting, and eventually organizations after a long delay by linking to it.

There are now a few users who do that. There are many more who don’t comment, and there must also be people who don’t log in, or who visited once or twice and then left.

Maybe one thing to do could be to conduct a survey to see what users, or maybe also these organizations, now do and don’t like about the forum.


I don’t see it in the first 10 pages of a search, which is based on Google and anonymized I think. It is the first or second result often when you search for something and add forum though. does show up, which @Tom started I think.

Validity and legitimacy
Same root problem
There’s something fundamentally wrong with the setup of this forum which is inhibiting inclusion and preventing wider network growth effects.
I think a genuine AWES forum needs to be run by an established public facing authentic interest group (whether that exists yet or not)
If it’s not the forum it’s Airborne Wind Energy - And I know that’s not the case.
Our top admins don’t grace us with their presence and now need support.
It was a nice go but - Something radical has to happen - I know some would bawk at the idea and I haven’t asked anyone … but maybe AWEurope could host a forum and pay a minimal sum for moderation and fair scrutiny so that other AWES companies can trust sending links

1 Like

Im not sure a forum run by AWEurope would generate much more traffic…

I agree that the forum should make top 3 on any search.

And I would have hoped some networking effects could bring new users here. I just don’t know exactly what they would be right now except paid ads…

I think some presence at AWEC would have been a good thing. May I suggest next AWE related conference we could find a person (student maybe) who had stood out in AWE but could not afford attendance could go to AWEC and promote the forum at a stand. Maybe we could get some organization(s) to fund that?

I can say from my own experience that while many people in AWE are into talking about AWE, very often they are quite vary about posting online…

1 Like

I need to fill in too many of the blanks to follow along. Why don’t you list and describe the things you don’t like. You’re now jumping to solutions without first describing the problem clearly enough for me to understand.

I’m sure they don’t need it. It’s only fair to ask the users to also pitch in. And if someone with some credibility would like to help with admin tasks, I’m sure they too can have the badge. The only thing I’m worried about now is a visit from truck-kun ending the forum.

Right now this forum is a kind of worker’s collective. If you want to do something or change something, discuss it, and if enough people think it’s a good idea it can be implemented.

I like that setup better than one organization deciding the goals of the forum for itself.

They’ll be more effective, and are more likely to get funding, if they and the donors believe in the forum. So perhaps improving the forum and promoting it should go hand-in-hand.

That sounds like you would like a change in moderation practice?

1 Like

Thanks for the clarifications.

I would like to help if I may.

I believe this is or should be the forum’s objective. Let’s implement this objective and work assiduously to its realization.
Thank you.

Search for “windy_skies” green, or any other word, and perhaps any other query, and you get a single result from this forum, instead of the many there must be, and nothing else. If you search for “windy skies” kite, a reasonably general query, I see two results on the first page.

I think it is debatable you would get better results if you switch forums.

Google now feels like it deranks forums.

Nope. A short explanation may be requested in private.

1 Like
1 Like

"Very excited at the technological overlap between airborne and marine mooring networks, as lift and buoyancy act analogously on similar mega-scale polymer network topologies. The Airborne Wind Energy (AWE) kite network community has been awaiting this convergence to gel, as NREL worked the FOWT side via OpenFAST and MoorDyn.

The hope is the same NREL multi-physics computing environment can support both applications, mostly by just adjusting parametric settings. Congratulations to Jason on his recent recognition!"

Design and Analysis of a Ten-Turbine Floating Wind Farm with Shared Mooring Lines (

Original Topological Order Analogy from 2019, lots of dual progress since-

Dynnamic Similarity FOWT-AWES

Scaling up multi-anchoring in complex geology has been a big engineering gap. This is how kite flyers anchor large kites on the beach, at a rated ton of holding power by a few ounces of polymer. Dead weight and hole curb-effect combine forces.

Here the megascale gabion-anchor method is further refined.

Courtesy: David Santos Gorenna-Guinn

That’s a great looking study.
I’ll have to read that in more depth for sure.

Definite similarities to some of the simple kite network anchor tests and simulations which we’ve run.

But this study goes into much more detail.

@Windy_Skies why is this message moved to slow chat?

1 Like

I later unlocked the original topic, which shows I’m conflicted. You’re familiar with my moderation, what problems do you think I think the comment has? I’ll probably write my version later as well.

1 Like

Yeah it’s from proxy-Dave
but the content is very relevant

The study is probably interesting for some reasonably distant hypothetical future where you have offshore AWE farms in deep waters. The rest of the comment is someone grandstanding though and doesn’t talk about the study itself. So which wins out? If you value not spreading misinformation and would like to increase the validity of the forum – which I assume to mean that you can have a basic trust that statements generally have been validated to some degree and are based on evidence – my vote goes to not allowing the comment.


There is now apparently a kite network community that apparently Dave is a part of or is able to speak for, and this community has apparently been waiting for convergence with research on marine mooring networks, so presumably that community has done research comparable in scope and impact as that done on marine mooring networks for it to be able to gel and not just get washed away. Fine, show us that research.

Again implying comparable research results from this kite network community to that on Floating Offshore Wind Turbines (FOWT). Fine, show us the research. And no, your jpegs aren’t that. What utter ridiculousness by the way to add them to the comment instead of actual research.

[citation needed]

There are more examples.

The comment adds a link to perhaps interesting research, doesn’t add the abstract of what the research is about, doesn’t talk about results or conclusions from the research, and proceeds to instead do what it did, whatever that was.

It’s become a chimera of a comment and is unlikely to get interaction, as to comment you either have to ignore the grandstanding and with that validate the misinformation by your silence, or correct it, which no reasonable person has the time to do and would just derail the conversation anyway. So, deleting the topic is best. Shame about the linked research though, so I instead move it here, although in reality it wouldn’t matter if that got lost as by the time it becomes relevant to you, you can find it again or newer research has been done.

This not a charitable interpretation or reaction to the comment, but there is history to support that, where they for example consistently didn’t support their statements, even after being asked to.

I expect @AweEnthusiast in the future to do a better job as an editor.

That was the long version. The short version is that they’re suspended and allowing their comments is a grace that shouldn’t be expected. The style of writing here is also the root cause, or one of them, of the problems they are having on this forum so allowing it to continue would not help their possible or hypothetical reintegration.


Thanks for clarification.
We don’t need self appointed masterminds proclaiming the future. agreed.

There’s certainly more than me and a few internet stragglers working in Kite Networks now… We communicate ~= Community - yeah that’s loose.

But more importantly about anchor networks -
my background is offshore on oilrig comms, fishfarms and sailing before I was an Airborne Wind Energy dev. With Oilrig comms we were often there to support relocation. With fish farms we had to set and establish arrays of cages in exact spots on lochs and sea sites… - I’d wager I’ve seen more and heavier anchor handling than ~99% of you. I’ve used anchor arrays for kites and multi kite AWES. Anchor handling networks are already relevant in AWES.

@Windy_Skies You often dismiss kite networks. As an admin / moderator you should be seeking broad knowledge of how significant they are in AWES

1 Like

I looked through the topics and I am mostly absent from them. The only snarky comment I found is this, which was in response to the way a thing was written, not really kite networks:

The first slightly dismissive comment is the one you replied to now, if you think Fine, show us that research is dismissive, and the comment about the reasonably distant hypothetical future. The tone of that comment was also influenced by what I was responding to, and its lack of sources.

You could deduce my dismissiveness from my absence in the topics, but I hadn’t expressed it before.

You’re now talking about anchor networks, which I assume to be somewhat different from kite networks.

But yes, airborne kite networks is one of the many things I remain unconvinced about, and relatively uninterested in as it has little current impact on what I do. I’d likely read or watch something that tried to exhaustively talk about their benefits - which maybe are kind of obvious - but also drawbacks, the more discussion about drawbacks and challenges the more convincing it is I think.

Well lucky for you @Windy_Skies you won’t have to worry about lifting a finger to assess kite turbines, kite networks nor anchor networks.
Some techy folks have checked through the due diligence for you.
Today’s news - Windswept & Interesting Ltd has had the Kite Turbine Automation project accepted into the NZTC TechX accelerator (That’ll be BP and Equinor said - looks good - let’s try it)

1 Like

Congratulations! I hope you make good progress.

1 Like