This surprise video link came in today from Windpower Engineering Magazine:
Featured Wind power videos

 

Sorry Joe, I think you are out in left field with your penchant for redefining words.  You do not control what the definition of a kite is.  The rest of the world gets a vote too.  Walk into a kite store.  Ask to see their kites.  They will show you kites, not anchors, not string, not reeling devices, kites.  (And not rocks.)  Then they might recommend a certain line weight, or a specific set of lines, to use with a particular kite.  They might tell you how much pull you can expect, so you can figure an appropriate anchor, or suitable object to tie-off to.  That anchor or object is probably not going to be "a wing" unless you happen to be at an airport.  To declare that anything you tie a kite-string to is "a wing" is a definition you have come up with, your pet set of word definitions, that I believe has no real basis.  What you are doing, in my opinion, is redefining the word "kite" after hundreds if not thousands of years of previous use, to have a certain meaning, and deciding that all the past use of the word "kite" was in error, and that "a kite" is "really" always "actually" a set of interconnected wings.  Not just a wing tied off to the ground, but the ground "has to be" "a wing" too.  Not that there is any reason for it, just that you like to think of it that way.  You're basically trying to say that a single "kite" (old meaning) does not exist, and that "kites" can ONLY come in multiples, because after seeing that kites CAN be interconnected, you want to mandate that ALL kites MUST be interconnected with other kites.  Only halfway through the process of redefining the word "kite", you realized you had to switch and use the word "wing" when you mean the "old definition" of "kite" (what everyone else thinks a kite is) because otherwise people would ask "if a kite must consist of multiple kites, then what are the kites that make up THOSE kites, leading to every kite "really" being a infinite number of kites.  And at this point I'm sure you will jump right on that, as you have in private e-mails with me, and agree that every kite is "really" an infinite number of "kites".  Some might note that could be a way of applying differential calculus to a kite.  Not sure how you might split it up further by the time you get to each atom of a kite being "a wing" or "a kite" or whatever you might claim at that point, but to me it quickly degenerates into a "theater of the absurd".
I simply do not agree that, by being a moderator of a group on the internet, you are suddenly "the dictionary" and can mandate word meanings for the rest of the world.  A rock underground serving as a kite anchor is NEVER a wing, never a kite.  Underwater, sure, you could make a case for it.  Although others might call it "a floating keel", resistive hydrofoil, etc., - labels are available for anything we can imagine.  The soil is not "flowing" around the rock creating "lift", even though YOU say it is.  The rock is held down by the weight and friction of unmoving soil, not by a dynamic flow of soil under the rock creating low pressure amounting to upside-down lift based on a change of inertia.  I would suggest you might take a college course or two in engineering and maybe fluid mechanics, or get up to speed on aerodynamics if this is confusing for you.  Start with the definition of static friction versus kinetic friction, as just a start.  Sure, flowing soil, as in a landslide or liquefaction during an earthquake, or maybe quicksand (really mostly water anyway) could be treated as a fluid in some ways, but soil or bedrock for supporting structures or serving as anchors is specifically tested for NOT acting like a liquid.  The idea that this is even a discussion is, to me, just 100% absurd and not worth the time it has taken to type this.  Anyone can go off into their own little world and claim anything "is really" whatever they want to say.  It's whether the rest of the world agrees that remains an important factor too.  At this point I would like to note that most of these discussions amount to a comical "I'd like an argument please" type of situation.  Fun sometimes, but what does it really accomplish?  We say "I want to pursue AWE" so we get on the internet and think "Oh, participating in discussions on the internet can be part of accomplishing AWE."  But at some point beware:  when the discussion degenerates into nonsense, and from there into whether the nonsense is nonsense, I think we've gone off a cliff.  There "is no there there" when all we can do is discuss "what the meaning of is is".  Have a fun day everyone!  :)

~ Doug Selsam

==================================

JoeF replies: 

     Doug, it has been well noted in forum that one welcome to exercise the J-Model

or not.  The J-Model sits as an option for use by creative engineering.   It is clear that you do not want to exercise your explorations in energy kite systems using the J-Model for Kite; I have no problem with your choice.  

    Kite is better known today than ever; the improved set of insights has allowed the J-Model for Kite. When useful, the model is now available.  Pointing to non-users of the J-Model for Kite does not make less the potential good that may arrive from using the model. Within the model there can be statements that do not match statements constructed within some other model; such is natural logic, not proof of the utility of any certain model.  Any member or non-member is free to propose a model for "kite".  

    Readers may search the forum and akiteis for alternative perspectives.  

   To each human: "What is kite to you? 

 ~ JoeF