Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Semantics

Expand Messages
  • Dave Culp
    I dunno folks. Putting wind turbines atop buildings is cool and all that, but hey, does it really constitute high altitude wind energy ? It isn t exactly new;
    Message 1 of 6 , Oct 16, 2009
      I dunno folks. Putting wind turbines atop buildings is cool and all that, but hey, does it really constitute "high altitude wind energy"? It isn't exactly new; the Dutch have been putting windmills atop their granaries for 5 centuries; Indians a couple centuries prior to that.

      I'm amused by the "definitions" being posted here--what, just exactly, "high altitude" should be defined as. It's cool to carve out the niches and all, but pretending such definitions exist, prior to anybody actually installing such systems, let alone naming them, is a little cart-before-horse, don't you think? What the airplane folk do has little relation to what kite folk ought to be doing. Shouldn't we consider defining--and naming--kiting regimes according to the needs of the technology involved, rather than bringing in semantics from other industries? And shouldn't this be a collaborative work, rather than porting over Dave Santos' thoughts as fait accompli? (no offense Dave, but you sometimes seem to replace "what could be" with "what is." I like to get the tense right; helps the historians in the next generation!)

      For my two cents (centavos, pence, centimes--I don't mean to be nationalistic about it  ;-)

      I'm with Christine, "...the HAWP conference includes all altitudes, from low to medium to high. As long as it's floating in the air, we consider it a high-altitude device." Let's work on uniting the players first, before we furcate them. FWIW, I also like her concept of "...if its floating on the air..." Mounted turbines are cool technology, but HAWP should include only devices capable of sustaining themselves in the air--at least intermittently. Just IMO.
    • Joe Faust
      All are invited to enter definitions, related links, explanatory paragraphs, etc. for terms for the working-growing AWE glossary
      Message 2 of 6 , Oct 16, 2009
        All are invited to enter definitions, related links, explanatory paragraphs, etc. for terms for the working-growing AWE glossary : 

            A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M 
            N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z

        Welcomed for any term: 
             historical notes, 
             current uses of a term,
             and potential uses of a term.  

        Neologisms  formed in an effort to express novelty, introduce innovation, display visions, advance an AWE-related product, support an AWE-niche application, make clear distinctions, forward a classification scheme, represent various technical cultural perspectives, etc. are welcome. 

        Rule:  Have fun making your contributions. 
        Soak in the joy of advancing the AWEsome era. 

        We have hundreds of naked terms; 
        dress them up to serve AWE !   Make action over a term once a week or month ... to fit your interest. Send edits as you wish.   Your entries may be posted via e-mail at Notes   at    EnergyKiteSystems.net  

        How high is the sky? 





      • dave santos
        DaveC,   The FAA will rightly judge kite systems in the NAS as aviation. Anybody who fails to acculturate will not be allowed to fly.   Those who seek to
        Message 3 of 6 , Oct 16, 2009
          DaveC,
           
          The FAA will rightly judge kite systems in the NAS as aviation. Anybody who fails to acculturate will not be allowed to fly.
           
          Those who seek to define altitude in a new way are facing a tough climb. But i do agree letting the marketers have some latitude with the language is also reasonable.
           
          Kites are aircraft, this is the birth of a new aviation,
           
          dave
          S
          --- On Fri, 10/16/09, Dave Culp <dave@...> wrote:

          From: Dave Culp <dave@...>
          Subject: [AirborneWindEnergy] Semantics
          To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
          Date: Friday, October 16, 2009, 1:38 PM

           
          I dunno folks. Putting wind turbines atop buildings is cool and all that, but hey, does it really constitute "high altitude wind energy"? It isn't exactly new; the Dutch have been putting windmills atop their granaries for 5 centuries; Indians a couple centuries prior to that.

          I'm amused by the "definitions" being posted here--what, just exactly, "high altitude" should be defined as. It's cool to carve out the niches and all, but pretending such definitions exist, prior to anybody actually installing such systems, let alone naming them, is a little cart-before- horse, don't you think? What the airplane folk do has little relation to what kite folk ought to be doing. Shouldn't we consider defining--and naming--kiting regimes according to the needs of the technology involved, rather than bringing in semantics from other industries? And shouldn't this be a collaborative work, rather than porting over Dave Santos' thoughts as fait accompli? (no offense Dave, but you sometimes seem to replace "what could be" with "what is." I like to get the tense right; helps the historians in the next generation!)

          For my two cents (centavos, pence, centimes--I don't mean to be nationalistic about it  ;-)

          I'm with Christine, "...the HAWP conference includes all altitudes, from low to medium to high. As long as it's floating in the air, we consider it a high-altitude device." Let's work on uniting the players first, before we furcate them. FWIW, I also like her concept of "...if its floating on the air..." Mounted turbines are cool technology, but HAWP should include only devices capable of sustaining themselves in the air--at least intermittently. Just IMO.

        • Darin Selby
          Perhaps what this is pointing to is that, as fun as it is to go fly a kite, high altitude windpower generator devices just aren t as practical, reliable, or
          Message 4 of 6 , Oct 16, 2009
            Perhaps what this is pointing to is that, as fun as it is to go fly a kite, "high altitude" windpower generator devices just aren't as practical, reliable, or as durable as a single, carbon fiber H-Darrieus spinning on top of that grainery you mentioned.      http://www.carbonconcepts.co.uk/windpower/windturbine.htm


            To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
            From: dave@...
            Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 11:38:53 -0700
            Subject: [AirborneWindEnergy] Semantics

             
            I dunno folks. Putting wind turbines atop buildings is cool and all that, but hey, does it really constitute "high altitude wind energy"? It isn't exactly new; the Dutch have been putting windmills atop their granaries for 5 centuries; Indians a couple centuries prior to that.

            I'm amused by the "definitions" being posted here--what, just exactly, "high altitude" should be defined as. It's cool to carve out the niches and all, but pretending such definitions exist, prior to anybody actually installing such systems, let alone naming them, is a little cart-before- horse, don't you think? What the airplane folk do has little relation to what kite folk ought to be doing. Shouldn't we consider defining--and naming--kiting regimes according to the needs of the technology involved, rather than bringing in semantics from other industries? And shouldn't this be a collaborative work, rather than porting over Dave Santos' thoughts as fait accompli? (no offense Dave, but you sometimes seem to replace "what could be" with "what is." I like to get the tense right; helps the historians in the next generation!)

            For my two cents (centavos, pence, centimes--I don't mean to be nationalistic about it  ;-)

            I'm with Christine, "...the HAWP conference includes all altitudes, from low to medium to high. As long as it's floating in the air, we consider it a high-altitude device." Let's work on uniting the players first, before we furcate them. FWIW, I also like her concept of "...if its floating on the air..." Mounted turbines are cool technology, but HAWP should include only devices capable of sustaining themselves in the air--at least intermittently. Just IMO.



            Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now.
          • Dave Culp
            ... Always a possible scenario. Certainly not inevitable, though. FAA regs were promulgated over decades of best practices; nothing more. They continually
            Message 5 of 6 , Oct 16, 2009
              On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 1:14 PM, dave santos <santos137@...> wrote:
              >
              >
              >
              > DaveC,
              >
              > The FAA will rightly judge kite systems in the NAS as aviation. Anybody who fails to acculturate will not be allowed to fly.

              Always a possible scenario. Certainly not inevitable, though. FAA regs
              were promulgated over decades of best practices; nothing more. They
              continually change with time, reflecting changing needs--and mores--of
              humanity. To insist that technology exploration take place only within
              existing "rules" is to stifle "clean sheet of paper" approaches, of
              which yours are some of the best I've ever seen. First question should
              be, "what is best for kites?" Much much farther down the list should
              be, "what will the Feds allow?" Just IMO.


              > Those who seek to define altitude in a new way are facing a tough climb. But i do agree letting the marketers have some latitude with the language is also reasonable.

              Nothing to do with marketing. Everything to do with POV and frame of
              mind. I've watched this nascent industry hobble itself for years,
              thinking that HAWT (Christine's definition) requires flight at
              jet-stream altitudes. Some recognized early that this was (mostly)
              hogwash; others didn't. International success or lack of same today
              fairly closely parallels these world views... How many of tomorrow's
              break-through geniuses have the scales of prejudice before their eyes
              today? Is it not our duty to work to remove these, as carriers of the
              older torches?
              >
              > Kites are aircraft, this is the birth of a new aviation,

              Yet another albatross we hang around our own necks, Dave. Aircraft fly
              free, at ground velocities relatively much greater than zero. They
              require 3-axis stability and fast response, ultra light controls and
              construction. They withstand far larger loads for their weight and
              never need be manned. They cannot effectively use wing-warping nor
              weight/thrust re-alignment. Modern aircraft operate at
              windspeeds--using aerodynamics optimized for--air velocities an order
              of magnitude greater than kites must excel in. To call kites aircraft
              greatly narrows the imagination-space within which we allow ourselves
              to work.

              I named this thread "Semantics" with my tongue firmly in my cheek. I
              know from long experience that we self-designate our design-space,
              often by the words we use. Change the words; change the viewpoint,
              juice the innovation. There's too much evidence of this to ignore,
              wouldn't you agree?

              Dave
            • dave santos
              Dave,   Many aviation/AE types just can t misuse such a basic term like  High Altitude & need terms like Low & Medium Altitude to clearly communicate
              Message 6 of 6 , Oct 17, 2009
                Dave,
                 
                Many aviation/AE types just can't misuse such a basic term like "High Altitude" & need terms like Low & Medium Altitude to clearly communicate deep technical realities. KiteLab seeks to differentiate from other AWE start-ups by owning Low Altitude reliability, safety, economy, & performance, & challenging the over-reaching AWE field by climbing strongly from there.
                 
                Let the supposed new thinkers do as they please with language & JoeF will happily keep track of the dialects. Some of the "High Altitude" hype is clearly marketing driven & not well informed. Its Orwellian to warp language to a false agenda. Scientists & engineers need a linguistic clean-room to advance optimally.
                 
                If we are eventually to fly in jet-stream winds & sweep a high efficiency wing at around 300 kts, such a wing will have a lot of aviation genes. The Feds are the gatekeepers of the NAS. & they know a kite when they see it & they know aviation risk. (The FAA has already found "AWE" suitable for their own use in written communication, but, not to my knowledge, HAWP.)
                 
                Its a burden to explain to aviation & aerospace folks that the "High Altitude" AWE misnomer is insisted on for reasons never made clear. Pilots will be major group to keep on our side as we invade Class G airspace, & poor cultural understanding could be the deal-killer. So lets keep two linguistic tracks, one for existing flying pros & another for newbies. We need both groups.
                 
                daveS
                 
                PS Thanks for the compliments. I could never have advanced so well in technical kiting without your (& Dean's) mentorship.

                --- On Sat, 10/17/09, Dave Culp <dave@...> wrote:

                From: Dave Culp <dave@...>
                Subject: Re: [AirborneWindEnergy] Semantics
                To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
                Date: Saturday, October 17, 2009, 1:37 AM

                 
                On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 1:14 PM, dave santos <santos137@yahoo. com> wrote:
                >
                >
                >
                > DaveC,
                >
                > The FAA will rightly judge kite systems in the NAS as aviation. Anybody who fails to acculturate will not be allowed to fly.

                Always a possible scenario. Certainly not inevitable, though. FAA regs
                were promulgated over decades of best practices; nothing more. They
                continually change with time, reflecting changing needs--and mores--of
                humanity. To insist that technology exploration take place only within
                existing "rules" is to stifle "clean sheet of paper" approaches, of
                which yours are some of the best I've ever seen. First question should
                be, "what is best for kites?" Much much farther down the list should
                be, "what will the Feds allow?" Just IMO.

                > Those who seek to define altitude in a new way are facing a tough climb. But i do agree letting the marketers have some latitude with the language is also reasonable.

                Nothing to do with marketing. Everything to do with POV and frame of
                mind. I've watched this nascent industry hobble itself for years,
                thinking that HAWT (Christine's definition) requires flight at
                jet-stream altitudes. Some recognized early that this was (mostly)
                hogwash; others didn't. International success or lack of same today
                fairly closely parallels these world views... How many of tomorrow's
                break-through geniuses have the scales of prejudice before their eyes
                today? Is it not our duty to work to remove these, as carriers of the
                older torches?
                >
                > Kites are aircraft, this is the birth of a new aviation,

                Yet another albatross we hang around our own necks, Dave. Aircraft fly
                free, at ground velocities relatively much greater than zero. They
                require 3-axis stability and fast response, ultra light controls and
                construction. They withstand far larger loads for their weight and
                never need be manned. They cannot effectively use wing-warping nor
                weight/thrust re-alignment. Modern aircraft operate at
                windspeeds-- using aerodynamics optimized for--air velocities an order
                of magnitude greater than kites must excel in. To call kites aircraft
                greatly narrows the imagination- space within which we allow ourselves
                to work.

                I named this thread "Semantics" with my tongue firmly in my cheek. I
                know from long experience that we self-designate our design-space,
                often by the words we use. Change the words; change the viewpoint,
                juice the innovation. There's too much evidence of this to ignore,
                wouldn't you agree?

                Dave

              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.