As example about AWEC and AWEC 2015 arguing about technical features or choices : telling rigid wings are not scalable enough, telling  about [wings replace the tip of the rotor blade]... , make some contributions for a readable debate .

But other considerations as "factors tending to favor the major German-Dutch investment interests, unless the conference is seen to fail. Its a very close call.", or as about patent system, flood the technical debate of which scalability of soft wing.

For the same arguing endless about Böse-Einstein C or S, floods the technical debate.

For the reader if Böse-Einstein C or S are serious technical concerns, scalability , output...,are not more.

For the reader critics about AWEC's way of management mask the technical debate and perhaps  possibly interesting technical oppositions between AWEIA and AWEC.

So keeping focus on technical and understandable concerns about AWE, and things will be clearer.

PierreB

DaveS,

Precisely no. Please try to take the place of the reader. It is already difficult to advocate good concerns like scalability, so let us avoid flooding them by other considerations that technical considerations.

PierreB

DaveS asked:"So what exactly was your on-topic contribution here? Focusing on speed bumps hardly counts."  ***Answer: I responded to the article by Peter Lynn that YOU cited, which cited a refreshingly realistic critique of ubiquitous speedbumps.   (The road to hell is paved with good intentions, in the form of speedbumps.)  He seems to have some common sense, rare these days.  Thanks for a great read.

We have a brand new SuperWalmart that just went in a couple miles from here, because this formerly-rural, high-wind area, is going "mainstream".  There are no speedbumps in the modern parking lot, just a lot of good painting to delineate pedestrian crossings for the mostly overweight customers.  Very refreshing that we don't have to be shaken to death and ruin our suspensions just to shop at Walmart. 

If anyone is consistently off-topic here, I'd say you are the leading contender (offender).  We really don't need to hear any more of your fictional concert announcements, or trying to fake your way into pretending to understand advanced quantum physics, nor to pretend that misapplying related buzzwords to AWE has any significance or meaning. 

The only meaning these buzzwords carry is that you remain stubbornly clueless with regard to AWE and can't stop compulsively talking about unrelated topics, pretending they are relevant.  This is a common Professor Crackpot symptom in wind energy:  If you can't impress 'em with knowledge, baffle 'em with bullsh**.  Of course, like all the rest of the endless string of Professor Crackpots, the main (if not only) person you are fooling, really, is yourself.

OK I thought of "through-cording" the first time I ever heard of a parafoil, decades ago, and what you are now calling a "dropline PTO" is just more talk of multiple kite-reel tethers to drive a groundgen, which has been long-discussed here, often by you.  Nothing new there.  Talk is cheap.

OK I thought of "through-cording" the first time I ever heard of a parafoil, decades ago, and what you are now calling a "dropline PTO" is just more talk of multiple kite-reel tethers to drive a groundgen, which has been long-discussed here, often by you.  Nothing new there.  Talk is cheap.

DaveS,

Your complaints about AWEC, Makani, KiteGen, German-Dutch investment interests,etc. are interesting only for yourself. The same for your AWE theories by Böse-Einstein-Santos Quanta. You write about "AWEC Post-Mortem" but where is AWEIA after years of your management? In the last AWEC Berlin 2013 congress? No (probably because of piano). Have you some echos of any press of your brillant [Böse-Einstein-Santos-Quanta-Inverted-Boltzmann-Distribution-Airborne-Wind-Energy]  theories? No, year after year. Have you win a jury trial against almost AWE companies or organizations and their bad "investment interests" ? No, year after years.

So keep the focus on some of your good ideas, scalability and some others.

PierreB

DaveS said: "The new part is to define the terms carefully." ***Thinking that endless "defining of terms" is going to get you anywhere is one of the problems holding you back.
" Feel free to offer a better descriptor, if the suggested terms need improvement." ***Sorry but I do not sufffer under the delusion that anyone can "define" their way out of the AWE paper bag.
"The Forum has been the leading venue for defining AWE's working nomenclature,"
***The all-talk format
" introducing many terms now standard (like flygen, groundgen, and even AWE itself)."
***None of these terms does anything to move AWE forward.  They are childish.  "FLygen"  "Groindgen"  Whoopee-doo, you are a genius for identifying a generator and its position.  What do yoiu want, a freakin' medal?  OMG, how meaningless.  Mere words are not what is needed.  You guys literally seem to think that you can make progress by endlessly redeining words - why?  What do mere words and their meanings have to do with it, really?  I think I may have mentioned this before.  All delusional.

DaveS you can stop trying to redefine your way to credibility.  The AWE-powered concert you promised in a given year never happened.  It is over.  If another event even happens, it will be just that - another event.  Meanwhile, Dan's machine powered a small radio for a moment or two.  Congratulations.  If I promised a formula-1 race with a full field of competitors and thousands of people, at a huge track, in a given year, and instead try to substitute a single toy radio-control model car, operated by two people for 2 minutes, a few years later, you'd rightly say I was grasping at straws, right?  OK then.  Your promised AWE-powered concert of years ago never happened for the simple reason that there was no system capable of powering it in the area.  beyond that, no bands were hired, no security, no porta-potties, no tickets, no permits, no infrastructure, no sound-system, no advertising, etc.  In other words it was all a fantasy in your own mind to say you were having a concert.  I don't know why you keep going on about it now.  Lies are lies, and that is it.

Yeah well you're trying to change the subject, and you are creating a strawman argument implying i am somehow against an AWE-powered festival, simply because I pointed out that you announced one at a park a few years ago that never happened.  None of it holds any water, and you can stop trying to somehow position me against a dead guy just because you never had the concert you announced a couple years ago.  Don't blame me for your concert that never happened.  That was just a teeny example the typical incessant nonsense you endlessly spew.
yer buddy,
doug

Yeah, I would say congratulations too, but... I'd be agreeing with daveS. 
i can;t see the video though - something wrong with my computer