|
I'd like to put an end to this confusion.
First of all, the aviation word "crosswind" is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT WORD than "crosswind" in AWE:
1)
In aviation "crosswind" is a NOUN, referring to a WIND (noun) blowing
(verb) ACROSS (modifier) the direction of the runway or
flightpath. It is NOT a VERB. WIND is not a verb, and
WINDING (in that context) is not even a word, in the sense you're
talking about, nor is "crosswinding" even a word.
2) In AWE "crosswind" is a preposition or adjective - a MODIFIER, which MODIFIES (describes) the MOTION OF A KITE, communicating the fact that the KITE TRAVELS ACROSS THE WIND.
The
fact that there has been any confusion about this, from the start, is
one more artifact of "word-worship" where someone assumes that a mere
WORD (collection of letters) IS the main thing to study, (an object of
worship, not to be questioned or recognized for its role in any way,
but simply put on a pedestal then misused) with any related reality
coming as a secondary consideration, treated as nothing but an
annoyance. (Yeah, I'll get to that at some point - who cares,
right now I'm just abusing a word to create confusion!) This is
where Joe can make such statements that consider "crosswind" as a VERB
(which it is NOT, either in aviation nor AWE). It's an
inappropriate and incorrect use of language.
IF, and I say only
IF, someone is actually INTERESTED in using the English language
properly to COMMUNICATE with people, rather than to obscure what is
simple and create confusion where there was none, the way to use such
terms PROPERLY would be as follows:
The AWE version of
"crosswind" combines a noun "WIND" and a modifying preposition "CROSS"
(short for "across"), to describe the DIRECTION of MOVEMENT of a
kite. Keyword: MOVEMENT. Since the word "crosswind"
describes "movement of a kite across the wind", to ask whether a kite
that is NOT moving across the wind is "crosswinding" makes no sense
from two (2) aspects:
1) Crosswind is NOT a verb, so there is no
such thing as "crosswindING", based on there being no such word as
"winding" (in that context) with a meaning of traveling in some
direction related to the wind.
2) The kite was defined as NOT moving across the direction of the wind, in fact not moving at all.
The
REAL words to use, in real English, would be to say a kite is "crossing
the wind" (with "crossing" being the verb (action word) and "wind"
being the noun (thing) that the kite crosses,
It could also be
said as "wind-crossing" preserving the idea that "crossing" is the main
action word (verb) here, again, describing the motion of a kite, and
using "wind" as the modifier indicating WHAT is being CROSSED.
To
first define a situation where the wing is NOT crossing the wind then
ask whether the wing IS crossing the wind is confusing enough.
But to then misuse the English language by using a noun as a verb
(winding), rather than using the verb as a verb ("crossing") is to
simply inject incomprehensibility into an otherwise straightforward
scenario.
Thus, an artificial question is created: one that has no answer, and CAN have no answer.
This,
really, in my opinion, is a perfect illustration of exactly why there
is such a lack of progress in AWE: COMPLETE CONFUSION - confusion over
what words even MEAN, over what TYPE of words one is using, thinking a
NOUN (crosswind) from aviation is somehow equivalent to an ADVERB or
MODIFIER from AWE (crosswind in AWE modifies (describes) the
flight of a kite, rather than describing the wind by naming its
direction).
(Not to mention confusing words with reality, as
though endless word-confusion offers any new insights or suggest any
useful configurations)
Therefore, Joe, I do not think this
entire direction of inquiry is even a VALID conversation. It's
really a treatise on nothingness - more nothingness masquerading as
somethingness.
The word you should be using is "wind-crossing",
and you can then ask if your stationary, tethered wing, flying in a
steady headwind is "crossing the wind" ("windcrossing, if you insist)
or not.
No it is not "crosswinding" because, just as a start, "crosswinding" is not even a word.
If
you want an actual answer, it would be "no, but the wing is deflecting
the wind" because it is not moving across the wind, since you defined
it as not moving at all.
If you want to examine whether the wing
is traveling across the wind under a frame of reference of the wind
itself, then again, no, the wing is not traveling across the wind (not
crossing the wind, not "wind-crossing") since the relative motion of
the wing to the wind is PARALLEL to the direction of the wind.
And
if you want to use the frame of reference of the deflected wind, the
wing is STILL not crossing the wind, because within that small area,
the deflection of the wind follows the pitch and camber of the wing, so
even from that strained interpretation, it would be difficult to make a
case that the wing was "wind-crossing", (let alone "cross-winding,
which doesn't even exist) BUT, if you DID want to make that case, the
ONLY thing you'd REALLY be doing is DEFINING your own use, in that
single context, for the word "wind-crossing".
Therefore, I think
this entire conversation is more absurd than it even appears at first
glance, beginning with the word "wind" being a noun, not a verb, and
ending with the word "crosswind" having a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT MEANING
in AWE (modifier to the motion of a kite) from its meaning in aviation
(noun describing a wind with a particular direction "across" the
direction of a runway, or across the direction of a flight path).
I
believe it is EXACTLY this sort of COMPLETE CONFUSION, where your feet
COULD BE firmly on the ground (so to speak) but instead you do not even
recognize the TYPES of words you are using, let alone their meaning or
proper usage, confusing two completely different words that sound alike
and are spelled alike, then further MISUSING the word in a context for
which it was never intended (using a modifier as a verb), and in which
it makes no sense.
This "theather of the absurd" is, to me, a
complete waste of time, and in no way leads to any new thinking, but
instead serves to bog down thought in a quagmire of
artificially-created confusion. This leads to SAD (Slow Airborne
Wind Energy Development) (or how about "SLAWED"?)
To me, if the
government (let's just say) wanted to find a way to SLOW the progress
of AWE, and to make it seem as confusing as possible, they could
do worse than to hire a JoeF and a daveS to obfuscate any and every
aspect of public discussion on the topic, starting with endless
injections of complete nonsense and off-topic musings, to shifting
every conversation to personal attacks and insults, to finally
abandoning the English language as it is commonly understood, and
instead abusing the language to the point of artificially crafting
meaningless questions that can serve only to add confusion of a
meaningless and inappropriate nature, to a nascent art which, by ITS
nature, already has ENOUGH uncertainty and confusion, without
artificial injections of absurdity in the form of misuse of
language. Enough is enough. I say if someone can't
understand the meaning of simple words, stop trying to use them.
The world doesn't need more confusion. If you are that confused,
I say it would be best to keep it under your hat and not spread it
around - the world doesn't need more confusion based on the mere abuse
and misuse of words. |
Such might shake up the discussion some. 
