Slow Chat

[Windy_Skies]

ChatGPT:

The comment I paste below from a moderator on an applied science forum can be perceived as somewhat negative and not encouraging. Please change the tone of the text to be more encouraging and positive without changing the core ideas. Please keep the text inside the [quote][/quote] tags unchanged. After the modified comment, please include a section on the reasons a moderator might call out the behavior criticized. The original comment: […]

@AweEnthusiast

was my authoritative source here

As a moderator, it’s important for me to ensure that discussions on this forum are based on facts and evidence. While it’s understandable that you may have a strong belief in certain ideas, it’s important to support your claims with credible sources. This helps to maintain the integrity of the discussion and ensures that all perspectives are considered. In the future, I encourage you to reference credible sources when making claims or presenting ideas on this forum. This will not only help to improve the quality of the discussion, but it will also help you to avoid any potential issues with moderation.

@AweEnthusiast

US pioneers from the 70’s

It seems like you have a strong interest in the history of AWE in the US and Europe from the 1950’s until the present day, with a focus on the benefits of single skin soft kites and the drawbacks of other kite types. Instead of trying to inject these ideas into every unrelated topic, why not take the time to research and write an article on your perspective? This would allow you to present your ideas in a more organized and comprehensive manner and would give other members of the community the opportunity to engage with your ideas in a meaningful way. Additionally, this would give you the opportunity to add sources and highlight the issues from every relevant angle instead of just your preferred one.

As a moderator, it’s important to call out behavior that is not in line with the forum’s guidelines and community standards. This can include not providing sources to back up claims, injecting unrelated ideas into discussions, and engaging in “ban evasion.” These actions can disrupt the flow of discussion and negatively impact the community as a whole. By addressing these behaviors, moderators aim to maintain a positive and productive environment for all members.

Some meaning is lost, and some gained.

@Freeflying, the part after the quoted US pioneers from the 70’s was not addressed to John but to someone else, and is not without context, to understate things. They need to do better.

[Rodread]

There’s a good argument to say that investigation into the phenomenon of new classes of kite power systems should be more novel, impactful and disruptive as in many other scientific fields… Papers and patents are becoming less disruptive over time | Nature Science is a bit too boring

But on the other hand
Any new argument, method or system still has to prove itself of merit against the tide of authority brought by more entrenched endeavours.
This makes the scientific rigour of data presentation from new kite power phenomena all the more critical.

I’ve had to polish my game - Still not wearing a suit other than wetsuit, survival or birthday though

[AweEnthusiast]

PRE-PUBLICATION ANNOUNCEMENT

Fair enough, the AWEIA founding team will co-author the requested ChatbotGPT-titled article focusing on The benefits of single skin soft kites and drawbacks of other kite types, as learned from the history of AWE in the US and Europe, from the 1950s until the present day.

Thank you.

[Windy_Skies]

@dougselsam

If only we could make power from the mere naive pronouncements of clean energy nutcases, we’d be all set!

ChatGPT:

Here is a comment in a forum: […] Does it go against the forum rules, and how? The forum rules: […]

The comment goes against the forum rules of “be civil” and “respect each other.” The comment makes fun of clean energy advocates and could be considered disrespectful and offensive. Additionally, the comment does not add to the discussion in a constructive way, which goes against the guidelines of “improve the discussion” and “be agreeable, even when you disagree.”

[Windy_Skies]

You’re welcome to post the article. The deeper and more quantified and more balanced the analysis and the better supported your claims, the more valuable it will be. I would encourage you to narrow the scope to be able to go deeper to have it be more useful.

Please use a format like this to do your inline citations: (Gross, 1942, p. 33) or similar where the reader doesn’t need to read or watch all of it to find your reference. Also please also only use third party references. Wikipedia is not a valid source, but okay for general physics concepts.

ChatGPT on a similar question. I would focus on the bolded parts::

An article on a new concept in airborne wind energy should include the following elements:

Introduction: Brief overview of the current state of airborne wind energy and the inventor’s new concept.

Background: Detailed information on the field of airborne wind energy and the current limitations in generating electricity.

The Concept: A detailed explanation of the inventor’s new concept, including its design and how it differs from current methods.

Theoretical Analysis: A comprehensive examination of the scientific principles behind the concept and the reasoning for why it will work as intended.

Simulation or Prototype Results: If available, provide results from simulation or prototype testing that demonstrate the viability of the concept.

Conclusion: A summary of the results and a discussion on the potential of the new concept to revolutionize airborne wind energy.

References: A list of all sources cited in the article, including relevant scientific papers and reports.

Additionally, the article should be well-structured, easy to understand, and written in a clear and concise manner to effectively communicate the inventor’s ideas to a scientific audience.

Most importantly, if you make a claim (you don’t actually need to), support it:

ChatGPT:

To support a scientific claim, the following methods are commonly used:

1. Evidence: Present empirical data, such as observational or experimental results, to support the claim.
2. Reasoning: Provide logical arguments and explanations based on scientific principles and existing knowledge.
3. Peer-reviewed Literature: Cite peer-reviewed studies or articles that support the claim, demonstrating its acceptance within the scientific community.
4. Replication: Attempt to replicate the results of previous studies to further establish the validity of the claim.
5. Refutation of Alternative Hypotheses: Address and reject alternative explanations for the observed phenomena, strengthening the validity of the claim.

It is important to note that a scientific claim should always be supported by multiple lines of evidence and subjected to ongoing testing and evaluation. Scientific knowledge is considered provisional and subject to change as new evidence becomes available.

Better to just present the data – both in support and against your position to reduce bias – without making claims and let the data speak for itself so that your peers can draw their own conclusions, as they will anyway. That will make for a much more convincing article.

@Windy_Skies

If you have info, share that and support it. The reader can then make up their own mind. You’re always trying to take the shortcut if all you’re doing is posting your opinions or your conclusions without doing the work to support them, and are very unlikely to convince anyone.

[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.

[Rodread]

I’m not a moderator
What a crock of… (usually shit in the colloquial use)
Refers not to a person but to an untruth having been proffered
Am I not allowed to disagree?

[PierreB]

@Rodread

I’m not a moderator

• Message

Rodread Roderick Read is a moderator

Roderick Read

Featured Topic Windswept and Interesting Ltd

Isle of Lewis Scotland

windswept-and-interesting.co.uk

Mostly working on Kite Network AWES designs

Affiliation with organization: Windswept and Interesting Ltd

Joined
Nov 14, '18

Last Post
just now

Seen
just now

Views
950

Trust Level
regular

Groups
moderators academic …

@Rodread

What a crock of… (usually shit in the colloquial use)
Refers not to a person but to an untruth having been proffered
Am I not allowed to disagree?

See the rules of the forum and respect them or not impose them on others who are not moderators.

@Rodread

an untruth having been proffered

What I wrote was verified by my own sources and by:

@PierreB

Precision: the document under discussion mentions in the limitations 7.1, page 46, the question the catenary shape with regard to the weight and length of TRPT as I have done.

[Windy_Skies]

@PierreB

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.

There is no name calling. It also ignores the context of the thread where I assume Rod had already given support for his position. If he did not that changes things. I am not invested enough in the topic to go look.

ChatGPT:

A comment includes the phrase “what a crock of shit” does this go against the forum rules and why?

Yes, such a comment likely goes against the forum rules as it is an offensive, inflammatory, and disrespectful language. Many forums have strict policies against using such vulgar language and may result in moderation actions such as editing, hiding, or removing the comment, or even banning the user who made the comment. The use of vulgar language is generally not considered appropriate in polite conversation and can create a hostile environment for other users.

It is the moderators discretion to decide what to do with a comment. This, though heated and confrontational and could be improved upon, I think is relatively innocuous compared to some other things. Rod here is saying you are making claims without backing them up. If true, that would be indistinguishable from misinformation, which is worse, especially on an applied science forum like outlined by ChatGPT above, than heated language.

I am more focused on misinformation and some other things.

[PierreB]

Regenerated response of ChatGPT (the same question including the same context of the rules of the forum):

The comment appears to violate the forum rules of being respectful and avoiding name-calling and ad hominem attacks. The statement “What a crock of” could be seen as disrespectful and the request for proof before making statements could be seen as an attack. The forum rules encourage improving the discussion and being agreeably, even when disagreeing. The comment could be seen as not adding to the conversation and not meeting these guidelines.

It could not be clearer. I had already mentioned the personal attack, and coming from a moderator who now claims not to be a moderator.

[Windy_Skies]

@PierreB

It could not be clearer.

I gave my response above. Yes, it goes against the forum guidelines (and no there was no name calling or ad hominem attack), but so do a lot of things. It is up to the moderator to make a judgement on what to do with the comment.

Follow the FAQ and you’re safe. Don’t follow the FAQ and you become subject to the whims, or judgement, whichever you prefer, of the moderator.

Did you manage to back up your claim?

[Rodread]

Oh
I am a moderator look
I used to be an admin but I’m not one of those important folks.
Can @PierreB be a moderator instead of me please?

[tallakt]

At least you are still never boring and already one foot in the grave. So chances are you will not be boring ever

[Windy_Skies]

https://www.reddit.com/r/manufacturing/comments/10q3nsf/after_240_convos_with_rmanufacturing_redditors/

You can find the tool here: ImportYeti.com

If you missed the earlier posts, ImportYeti searches 100,000,000 public shipping records to find a quality supplier 1,000x times easier than Alibaba alone. You answer questions like:

• Who makes Patagonia’s jackets and coats? Answer: Kwang Viet Garment
• Who is the top supplier of Extra Virgin Olive Oil in Spain? Answer: Deoleo S A
• Who are the top companies & suppliers who import/export under HS Code 4011.00 – tires?

[Rodread]

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.

[Rodread]

This talented wee kite turbine builder called Kavya

An Extraordinary Talent In STEM: West Windsor Star Student

[Windy_Skies]

@Rodread

I think this forum has a validity problem.

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 startpage.com 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.

https://twitter.com/awesystems?lang=en does show up, which @Tom started I think.

[Rodread]

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

[tallakt]

@Rodread

Validity and legitimacy

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…

[Windy_Skies]

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.

@Rodread

Our top admins don’t grace us with their presence and now need support.

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.

ChatGPT: A forum can be similar to a worker’s collective in that both can serve as a platform for individuals to come together and share ideas, discuss common issues and make decisions collectively. Just as workers in a collective work towards a shared goal, users in a forum can work together to achieve a common objective, whether it is solving a problem, sharing information or discussing a topic of interest. However, a key difference is that a worker’s collective is typically comprised of employees working for a common employer, while a forum is a virtual space where individuals from various backgrounds can come together.

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

@tallakt

promote the forum at a stand

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.

@Rodread

We could sponsor a cleaner /fact checker

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