Corrections //Re: Doug's Off-Topic Postings
- Dave S.
You seem suddenly dismissive of reeling in-out systems. Seems to me it is not that long ago that you were touting their virtues. Didn't you have it down to a short oscillating cycle a few weeks ago? Wasn't that "the new and final answer to AWE"? Maybe my pointing out the detractive aspects of reeling systems, and the historical inadvisability of downwind/upwind cycle, drag-based, high-solidity systems could have had some relevance. Seems to me a lot of people still take them seriously though.
One thing we have to keep in mind: At any point, you know all the answers about any aspect of this stuff AND you are the final authority on AWE. I move that we give you a title like Michael Jackson being the self-titled "King of Pop" or Howard Stern, the self-titled "King of All Media", you can be the self-titled "King of AWE", or perhaps "The TACO King".
Step aside. Make way for the King!
Next question: Is the King really wearing any clothes?
--- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, dave santos <santos137@...> wrote:
> Its OK for you to opine as you wish, just change the subject line when your repetitive complainingï¿½makes no reference to original subject. If only you were more accurate and creativeï¿½in your critiques, they would have real value.
> Note that TACO advocates multiple anchors as a safety method, soï¿½you are quite confusedï¿½to claim i am "working to have rules drafted againstï¿½(my) own designs." Note that most of my working prototypes are single-anchor-point; KiteLab Group does not represent just one configuration. You also mistakenly think that reel-systems are somehowï¿½relevant to my work; no, all my designs are crosswind, with short recovery phase embeddedï¿½withinï¿½each crosswind cycle. Reel systemsï¿½are mainly an early andï¿½probably obsoleteï¿½benchmark AWES conceptï¿½that others tried. You were never the one able to provide the formal critique of them.
> The key point about your pessimism is that it is directed at all other developers, teams and schemes, except yourself. Itsï¿½notï¿½"vigilant"ï¿½on your part toï¿½overlookï¿½that the least promising of all AWES schemes is the Super Turbine (R), which you describe as a thousand foot tall composite drive-shaft (at what flight angle?). It is so weakly regarded by the domainï¿½engineers, it does not even make the radar of virtually every current survey of AWES contenders.ï¿½Of all wind experts we can name, youï¿½are the lonely optimist of this short-only architecture, and even imagine it to beï¿½"flight", rather than justï¿½a floppyï¿½pole,ï¿½and thus seem to best deserve your ownï¿½petard of "dedicated crackpot" in AWE.
> Are youï¿½not theï¿½truestï¿½"newbie" on this energy-aviation forum, as you neverï¿½expressï¿½any detailedï¿½knowledge or experience in aviation or aerospace? Other contributors onï¿½this list even have far more impressive HAWT experience (like Chris Carlin). That is whyï¿½your "nonsense" tirade seems to best characterize your approach to AWE community, rather than fit those you misunderstand.ï¿½A betterï¿½bet for youï¿½is to master aviationï¿½and forget yourï¿½troubledï¿½"hunger for nonsense",
> Study hard and good luck!
- Doug,You seem to just make quotes up- Instead of my ever claiming "the new and final answer to AWE" exists, my general position has been that "there is much still to be discovered" (asserted to Makani). Surely the Kitelab track-record of making all kinds of different AWES contrasts with the many "one-trick-pony" contenders. There are a half dozen new AWES variants being tested lately, its a long evolutionary journey based on relentless test-modify-test cyclesAllow me to repeat my take on reel systems: 1) They have been an important early "benchmark method". 2) They tend to suffer from an overly long recovery cycle, use too much airspace, wear on the line a lot, etc. 3) Short stroke reeling with chafing gear can mitigate these flaws. 4) Lever/crank based systems with embedded recovery phase at the top of the crosswind sweep pattern wholly avoid the need to reel.Don't worry so much about trying to come up with dismissive names for folks, just focus on technical issues and you will be doing great,daveS
- Could we have a poll of the list members, to see if any member regards any other, or themselves, as infallible?I vote "none." Dave S seems to be voting for himself, and treating us like children.On 7-Jan-12, at 12:27 PM, dave santos wrote:
- That was a tough hit, it seems to me. I've not ever seen text that
claims anyone or himself or herself as infallible in AWE. The one just
hit especially seems ever to move that more can and will be uncovered;
during the evolution a stream of statement seem to be part of the
progressive stream where things are pressed back some while others are
opined as moving forward. All our play seems to be invited; each of us
seems to play with some idiosyncratic style, hopefully not to be taken
as emphatically treating others as though there were some diminutive
status. My slant is with a broad wish that we might stay open-minded
as children and stand ready to have awe for advancing AWE. Ones with a
streaming of larger quantities of enthusiastic sharing will by such be
more vulnerable to attack---more windows to view into the ways, means,
and heart. Those not yet posting or posting little have not opened
themselves as much, it seems. Daring to evolve opinions during this
generative and creative stage of AWE---in an open-stream---manner seems
to me to be a gift to be treasured. Staying with attack on technical
questions and keeping personal vulnerabilities aside might forward the
AWE RAD game best.
- Bob, You wrote-"Could we have a poll of the list members, to see if any member regards any other, or themselves, as infallible? I vote "none." Dave S seems to be voting for himself, and treating us like children."I vote for "none" too, so your poll corrects a misconception.If anyone votes themselves "infallible", now there's a childish mistake. I am sorry if my offerings ever seem like "treating (everyone else) like children", that is not the intent. Feel free to treat me as a child in return; i feel like a child, ;*)If only we were totally focused on RAD, soap opera would hardly be allowed to distract us,daveS
- Thanks, DaveS; maybe we can just run this poll the next time we are contemplating invoking moderation. That has been a time-consuming failure, impossible to do fairly.On 7-Jan-12, at 4:26 PM, dave santos wrote: