Thanks for the clarifications.
I would like to help if I may.
I believe this is or should be the forumâs objective. Letâs implement this objective and work assiduously to its realization.
Thank you.
Search for âwindy_skiesâ 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 âwindy skiesâ 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.
"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 (nrel.gov)
Original Topological Order Analogy from 2019, lots of dual progress since-
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
Thatâs a great looking study.
Iâll have to read that in more depth for sure.
Definite similarities to some of the simple kite network anchor tests and simulations which weâve run.
But this study goes into much more detail.
@Windy_Skies why is this message moved to slow chat?
I later unlocked the original topic, which shows Iâm conflicted. Youâre familiar with my moderation, what problems do you think I think the comment has? Iâll probably write my version later as well.
Yeah itâs 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 doesnât 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 â 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 â 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 arenât 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, doesnât add the abstract of what the research is about, doesnât talk about results or conclusions from the research, and proceeds to instead do what it did, whatever that was.
Itâs 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 wouldnât 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 didnât 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 theyâre suspended and allowing their comments is a grace that shouldnât 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 donât need self appointed masterminds proclaiming the future. agreed.
Thereâs certainly more than me and a few internet stragglers working in Kite Networks now⌠We communicate ~= Community - yeah thatâs 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⌠- Iâd wager Iâve seen more and heavier anchor handling than ~99% of you. Iâve 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
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 hadnât expressed it before.
Youâre 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. Iâd 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 wonât 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.
Todayâs news - Windswept & Interesting Ltd has had the Kite Turbine Automation project accepted into the NZTC TechX accelerator (Thatâll be BP and Equinor said - looks good - letâs try it)
Congratulations! I hope you make good progress.
Please dont use capital lettering for the titleâŚ
Correction noted but topic no longer here for possible correction. Moved topic thus renders this observation out of place anÉ 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.
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
PrivacyThis 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 â 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 youâll 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. Thatâs fine. But remember to criticize ideas, not people. Please avoid:Name-calling
Ad hominem attacks
Responding to a postâs tone instead of its actual content
Knee-jerk contradiction
Instead, provide reasoned counter-arguments that improve the conversation.]?
ChatGPTâs answer:
The comment âThis idea is dumb as fuckâ goes against the forum rules, specifically the guideline to âBe respectful of the topics and the people discussing them, even if you disagree with some of what is being saidâ and to âcriticize ideas, not peopleâ to avoid name-calling and ad hominem attacks. The use of profanity and derogatory language also violates the guideline to keep the forum a âclean and well-lighted place for civilized public discourseâ. 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.
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?