One argument emphatically repeated many times by the self-described AWE expert on this forum has been to cite the GE peripheral experiment to try blades made of a fabric-covered frame.  The reason I say "peripheral" is that, as I reported on this Yahoo list a few years ago, I had happened to run into GE's director of research in wind energy and when I asked him about it I could tell he did not really take it very seriously.  Seems like it was mostly just someone taking advantage of a funding opportunity.  We did have fabric blades for 2000 years, and blades made of fabric-covered frames for the next thousand years, up until the era of composites such as fiberglass and resin.  The speed required for efficient energy harvesting leans away from fabric for blades, but you never know. 

The topic of making predictions is active today, and juxtaposing that topic, one observation I have about predictions and forward-looking statements in AWE (and elsewhere) is the persistent lack of followup.  We hear a company announce they will power a remote village, for example, but there is no followup.  The world sits in eager anticipation, but no further information emerges.  We are just left hanging.  We have to "do the math" and figure out for ourselves it was inaccurate information the whole time. 

This phenomenon seems epidemic in AWE circles:  make a statement about future actions, then hope nobody remembers, as the statement is rendered untrue by the passage of time.  That is the whole point of noting the statistical worthlessness of predictions in the AWE field. 

But this could be remedied.  I figured I'd wait a few years and THEN (now) ask the self-described AWE expert to fill us in on the current status of the GE fabric blade project he has cited so many times:  How is that project going?  Did they ever even build such a blade at all?  Did they ever run one?  What is the result of this project today?  This followup is MORE important than the original statements.  Predictions are even more worthless when they are made yet never followed up on.  One reason for avoiding the issue of following up on previous statements could be not WANTING to know the answer.

Wind Energy Transitioned from soft cloth blades 1000 years ago, and from fabric on a frame maybe 150 years ago.  Of millions of wind turbines operating at this moment, none use cloth blades.  There are distinct reasons that can be shown from elementary physics equations of motion and energy.  I think it is up to the self-described AWE expert who cited the GE project years ago in this favorite topic of his, to follow up on his citation and bring us the results of that project, now that it has had time to actually happen.  Statements of future events may not be verifiable at the time they are made, but many are verifiable eventually.  So verify, please.  I will be happy to hear the results, and I think the rest of us deserve to hear the results.

Interesting to read this ongoing critique of Makani, year after year, consisting solely of hypothetical guesses as to whether they have flown anything at all in years.  Maybe they are scared to crash their plane, saving it to be hung from the ceiling in a museum.  Ironic that we've heard of no tests since they hired the originator of the phrase saying "test" 3 times.  As though nobody thought of testing before that point.  It seems like there is no information at all about them.  Maybe they gave up.

Make sure you worship him as your new hero of the day.  Put him on a pedestal.  He can be like your new "Jesus", just "believing in" him will magically make all your past sins go away, right?

Let's just get back to the topic at hand: Who else, besides you, calls you an "AWE expert"?

Wind Energy Crackpots and newbies often cite weather forecasting as the answer to overspeed protection, as you predictably also have.  That's always their answer.  They never seem to realize their best production comes in strong winds.  But the real topic today (it's not me who is "off-topic") was not weather forecasting, it was forecasting AWE technological success, which is now amply proven as being fraught with 99% nonsense.
Go ahead and keep forecasting, and I'll keep holding your feet to the fire asking what happened to your predictions.

I do not need to read a paper that says you can get energy from flying across the wind.  I have always known it. 
I repeat my questions:
1) Can you point to ANYONE at ANY TIME, besides yourself, calling you "an AWE expert"?  Lets' see the link. 
2) What is the status of the GE fabric-covered-frame blade project you've been citing for years?

Who calls you "AWE experts" besides you?  (And since you want to drag Joe into it, I don't remember Joe ever calling himself an "AWE expert" -  he plays the role of the more reasonable one).
Just because someone sits with you or talks with you, or is polite or nice to you at a dinner or a conference, is not the same as calling you an expert.  And of course your own dad is going to be complementary.  I don;t think that counts as an answer.  In wind energy, the electric meter makes you an expert.  But since we are in the realm of "all talk, all the time" WHO ELSE CALLS YOU AN AWE EXPERT?

We've read you calling yourself an AWE expert maybe like at least hundreds of times by now.  Could it be a thousand times?  That's probably an exaggeration, but hundreds, yes I think that is accurate.  But who ELSE calls you an AWE expert?  Because I have never seen anyone but YOU say you are an AWE expert, which makes the claim suspicious.  But you just keep saying it over and over and over again. 

Most of the stuff you say makes no sense (my opinion) let alone showing any understanding of even basic wind energy, let alone an airborne version.  Like most newbies, your theme seems to be avoiding any and all facts regarding wind energy.  But now you've been a newbie for at least a decade.  That is not a good sign.  You could have a PhD in wind energy in that amount of time, with a couple of years to spare.  I don't think you will ever graduate to being a knowledgeable wind energy person of any kind at this rate, yet you keep talking about "RAD".  "Rapid"...  Rapid, unless "Doug" mentions no progress in a decade, THEN "rapid" becomes "Doug's" emotional problem because "Doug" is "too impatient".  Pick a lane Dave, Rapid or slow - which are you advocating at this moment?  Or do you have to think about it? 

One could sit here all day and take apart every single thing you write, whether it is your empty bragging and self flattery, constantly hammering home your self-awarded "credential" of being "an AWE expert", or denigrating anyone and everyone who puts forth an opinion or idea for an AWE solution, or in the worst case, a fact.  A very crazy situation in my opinion.

A 2012 Internet net on the GE blade matter: 

Doug, you are not just "playing back"; rather you add statement that are not true. DaveS did not claim that he has the final answer for AWE in his theories; quite the contrary he keeps working parallel with the RAD movement to seek great solutions. Such core missing while carrying a nagging tone on one poster while missing the topic at hand is poor conduct.  DaveS is not a lone voice claiming to be an AWE expert. See those earlier discussions on such matter.  Consider exploring just how many varied experiments DaveS has done with a suggested aim to know about them and appreciate just what was done; a teasing start would be to study one of his first big shares in the 800 page tome posted at Drachen Foundation site; consider constructing a comprehensive timeline of his technical shared notes  about experiments. 

Since I first met DaveS, I extended "expert" over him to anyone I talked to or wrote to when I had a chance.  My first discourses with him on kite controls after he contacted me from my wikipedia posting efforts on kite controls gave me enough evidence to put him as expert; in my view he jumped into my Rogallo and Jalbert basket. About 10 years ago. His expert status for me grew nearly daily. And I witnessed Dave Culp's acceptance of DaveS into expert circle for AWE.  But all such is not needed when energy of relating is focused on RAD sharing where the technology is explored.