What do you call underwater AWE? - off topic discussion split from [Minesto Underwater AWE News]

What do you call underwater AWE?

Off-topic discussion split from:

1 Like

Wouldn’t that be UWCE “under water current energy” or something?

Open flow hydrokinetic energy

Energy Paravane is a good working name. A paravane is a tethered hydrofoil.

A paravane is towed by a boat.

Paravanes are very diverse, not just towed by boat. Fishing tackle is a huge source of paravane ideas. A reaction ferry is a paravane case. A paravane can also tow a boat, in conjunction with a kite.

1 Like

I think you’re just making stuff up again.
Fishing tackle => paravanes “for trolling”

(trolling means towed behind a boat, or in your case, waiting under a bridge - er um I mean internet chat group, ready to pounce on unwitting victims who happen to pass by.)

Doug: “I think you’re just making stuff up again.”

Look at the main Wikipedia Paravane page.Its worth adding winch-tow to the list of paravane modes, just as a fisherman reels in paravane tackle to send the hook-end diving.
The physics of towing are two-way, under time-symmetric Galilean Relativity. So do two kites tethered together tow each other

Keyword: TOWED Thank you for making my point Dave. :slight_smile:

Doug, You are weirdly faking quotes for me again.

Paravanes can also tow, not just be towed. In fact, two paravanes can be tethered together to form a tethered foil pair, just like two sky kites, or a sky kite and paravane. You may think this is “just making stuff up again”, but these are basic kite dynamics, and a paravane is an underwater kite.

It hardly matters if Minesto has done grid-tie yet, its still a “newborn baby”. kPower’s 2012 AWE grid-tie at kFarm may have been the first case.

Dave: I cut-pasted the quote from your message. That is not “weirdly faking quotes”, that IS a direct quote using the quote function on this discussion group.
The quote of the definition YOU provided said paravanes are towed, NOT that they tow.
Paravanes are a towed subset of underwater kites.
In other words, All paravanes are underwater kites.
But not all underwater kites are paravanes.
You are “just making that up”.
Conflating the two definitions is the ever-shifting type of nonsense you are famous for. You are trying to confuse things by adding terms like “basic kite dynamics”.
Yes, a paravane is an underwater kite. When an underwater kite is TOWED it is called a paravane. Otherwise it is just an underwater kite. It would be nice if you could add some factual content - maybe a working AWE system producing economically useful amounts of electricity, or at least something showing the promise to be an economic AWE solution. Just trying to force people into long, drawn out arguments about word definitions seems to be the main skill you bring.
I had introduced the working term in the industry, “Open flow hydrokinetic energy”, for those unfamiliar with the term.
LINK: https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/04/f34/Assessing-Testing-Hydrokinetic-Turbine-Performance-Effects.pdf

It seems you sought to “correct” me, as usual, by, as usual, injecting nonfactual content into an otherwise fact-based discussion - not helpful. Word definitions - the main thought occupying you and JoeF for the last 12 years. Like Joe: an underground concrete anchor “is really” a wing. A fabric sign found on the road, hung as a stationary awning, “is really” an AWE system
 Sure guys!

And to say “it hardly matters if Minesto has done grid-tie yet”, going on with your decade-old+ “newborn baby” bleating, it DOES matter. YOU were the one who suggested I ask them directly, which I did. I guess you just don’t like the well-worn answer.
Putting supposed large amounts of electricity into the grid at low cost is the only reason for these technologies. We’ve watched a trainwreck-in-slow-motion for that same decade as one company after another promises “500 kW” into the grid at a specific time and place, but it never happens. Two of the “most promising” AWE efforts who had made this same promise just went bust or suffered sever setbacks without ever making good on that now-ancient promise. Why is it always 500 kW by the way? Because it sounds good?

Please properly quote Wikipedia for that paravane statement, not me.

Its worth adding winch-tow to the list of paravane modes, just as a fisherman reels in paravane tackle to send the hook-end diving.

The physics of towing are two-way, under time-symmetric Galilean Relativity. So do two kites tethered together tow each other

Form new topics to discuss your non-Minesto non-paravane concerns.

OK so I just got an email quoting Dave Santos still arguing with me about what I should quote, how I should quote, whatever. I had simply highlighted his previous statement then replied, and he has the error-prone audacity to say I misquoted him? So I click on “Visit Topic to respond” and end up here, only to see the whole conversation removed. Where is it? I waste my time writing factual content only to have it mysteriously disappear? I agree with him that the “moderation” here seems overdone. It is no wonder the “million flies” can’t get anything going in wind energy: they are too busy being online busybodies trying to enforce what anyone should even be allowed to say. I’m sure this message too will be moved or removed or something. Oh well, have fun, KIDS.

There’s a link to this new topic in the original topic. I think this conversation was off-topic in the original topic.

I simply highlighted part of your message and replied.
It shows up as an accurate quote of your post.
You quoted Wikipedia.
I then quoted you.
Period.
Is this endless incorrect arguing over trivia really all you’ve got?
Just to fill in where this discussion started for the rest of the kids, you and Joe were expressing great optimism over Minesto.
I had no engineering opinion, one way or the other. As with Makani, I saw no absolute reason it couldn’t work, but, as with Makani, I saw no specific advantage over a regular horizontal-axis turbine. You said it would work because of involvement with jet engine designers from Saab.
I, knowing such credentials mean nothing in wind energy, so maybe not in underwater current energy, decided to weigh in against this effort working out, simply on the basis of you and Joe saying it would.
In other words, I had seen so many instances of you two espousing wrong information, and so few of right information, I decided your and Joe’s opinions (which always seem to match) are a verified negative indicator of truth. So if you two say it will work out, I decided it must be that it won’t work out, based on nothing more than you two saying it will. Such is the state of your combined two-man consensus to me at this point. A “negative indicator”. I got that term from the financial channel. Wanna know the biggest negative indicator for the stock market? It’s when all the analysts agree that it can only go up. The weird thing is everyone knows this, and yet it still holds true, and always has.

No Doug,

The correction in quoting practice is for your reader’s benefit. Its not AWE as such.

Windy Skies is at it again, repressing free speech, even just proper quoting.

I highlighted part of your post, and replied to it. Period. I proved you wrong, as usual, quoting the exact quote you provided


Its just as wrong if I then seem to quote you as author of the Wikipedia wording. Its for your poor reader that you should learn to quote better.

The worst part is Windy Skies once again sending good content (paravane facts) into hidden topics on the pretext of anonymous authority. What a weasel.

The losers here are readers who would have wanted to know about paravanes. The censor is not expected to care.

Dave I agree with you about the moderation - about time you had it happen to you. Now you can experience what I experienced for 12 years on the “old forum”. But you offered the Wikipedia entry in a post, which I now cannot find above, where you used that quote to bolster your position that a paravane is not necessarily towed. But the quote you used said a paravane IS towed. So I highlighted that statement and replied to it. Now, due to the overzealous moderation here moving messages from topic to topic at a whim, that continuity has been lost, but if not for said over-moderation, it was clear to any reader that I was quoting the wikipedia quote that you used in your post to supposedly make your point, but which actually made my point.
Now, don’t you have anything better to do with the rest of your day but say wrong things on the internet?