Slow Chat

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.

Examples:

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.

2 Likes

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

Please dont use capital lettering for the title…

1 Like

Correction noted but topic no longer here for possible correction. Moved topic thus renders this observation out of place anɗ somewhat off-topic. I will suggest some more tolerance before topics are moved.

I renamed two topics and moved one of them. You should still be able to rename your topics yourself.

1 Like

I expect so. Thank you.

My question to ChatGPT:

Here is a comment in a forum: [This idea is dumb as fuck.]. 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’s answer:

The comment “This idea is dumb as fuck” goes against the forum rules, specifically the guideline to “Be respectful of the topics and the people discussing them, even if you disagree with some of what is being said” and to “criticize ideas, not people” to avoid name-calling and ad hominem attacks. The use of profanity and derogatory language also violates the guideline to keep the forum a “clean and well-lighted place for civilized public discourse”. Therefore, the comment would likely be considered inappropriate and could be subject to moderation or removal.

Once again, it could not be clearer.
Moderation as a whole and its general line does not respect the rules on which it is based and which it imposes.

2 Likes

Thanks, @PierreB. Would you agree with me that this also includes that a topic should not be tampered with by moderators without the full consent of the creator of the post?

Not sure where to post this as it might offend
SAFETY
One reason to have more than one line.
Did anyone watch the SailGP racing today from Sydney? Wow. Scary for competitors, spectators and shoreside crew.
First race Matt Gottrel from Emirates Team GB fell through a fairing and ended up bouncing around on a harness line beside the main foil. Scary.
Second race a spectator boat encroached on the course and nearly got hit.
After the race. OMG
They have to crane these boats out with a fully rigged sleek rigid racing sail set. The wind picked way up and
We’ll things got a little out of control

There’s probably going to have to be some rules changes.

1 Like

Highly aerobatic tail sitter
https://aera.mit.edu/projects/aerobatic-maneuvers-for-fixed-wing-vtol-aircraft

I would say this is not a reason to have more lines. Rather it is a reason to forget about any design that involves flying kites that are nor actively flying. Anything large dangling from a slack line in high winds is a monster. Does not really help a lot with more tethers.

More than 1 human was actively controlling this yacht rig lift.
Their plan didn’t account for the severity of the gusts.
So the yacht rig had a tough guy or 2 on the guide ropes at the bottom. Obviously their mighty grip was no match for the conditions. And the rig became a 1 line system.
Sticking with yachting - At the end of SailGP Singapore the NZ boat got hit by lightning wiping out all electrical circuits. Active control won’t do much for you in that situation either.
We’ve got a lot we can learn from the stability and scale achieved by offshore oil and gas craned installation operations.
When stuff goes wrong - I like knowing there’s a backup line

1 Like

I believe for flight there can not be any plan B. Just a very solid plan A.

I see this sometimes when we are discussing «what if» scenarios. There always has to be a safe exit. Like for instance having a parachute to take care of a rogue wing with a broken actuator or something like that. But anything you come up with, there are going to be scenarios where things go haywire. So all these extra efforts to stay airborne or land softly may actually end up increasing the chances of serious issues rather than the opposite.

There can not be a Plan B, always, in flight. At one point you just have to make sure the thing is robust as concrete to begin with.

1 Like

I believe in parachutes, auto gyration and glide slopes of very large jets on flame out

I do like your argument though
Design it right in the first place and it’ll not go wrong as much.

Like to think a Kite Turbine has an always deployed parachute at the top…
Just such a shame it has a rotor trying to chop heads if we don’t control the ground access for now

China is adding solar and wind faster than many of us realise: three charts that put it in perspective

That will power a house? It similar to a solar system on output?
Is 3 kW enough to run a house?

Home Load Calculation

The regular load of a home is generally approx. 300W at all times whereas the maximum load of a home is 2200W. A homeowner never runs all loads at the same time. If he installs a 3kW solar system, he can run up to 2.5kW load at the same time.26 Feb 2021 (according to Google)

If this could be made cheaply and effectively theres a potential mass market?

Neat! It would have to be sold with supporting power supplies system? So when there no wind? Then It would be good in various conditions? 3kw of power not a bad start!