Joe what you're doing is degenerating language, deconstructing the very term you two claim to have coined for generating electricity from the wind.
wiggling leaves on trees, taking a nap under a tarp attached to a
house, using kites for hanging fishing-hooks, flying kites in general,
hang-gliding, soaring in engineless gliders, routing of aircraft to
minimize fuel consumption, kite-photography, placing a string across a
river in past centuries, then there would have been no purpose for a
High Altitude Wind Power Conference in 2009. If flying a toy kite
were "wind energy" why do we not find kids flying kites when we look up
"wind energy"? Same with kite-fishing. If strategic routing
of aircraft to save minimize fuel consumption "is" "wind energy",
why do we not find such statistic included in the total statistics on
wind energy generated?
What you two are doing
is not very clever. It's "fake clever". It's confusing
words with reality. It's a practice as old as the hills: when you
have nothing to offer, try to adjust words, or completely destroy
(deconstruct) words, even words you claim to have coined yourself, to
pretend you do have solutions. Finding real solutions requires
two (3) skills which you two do NOT have:
1) the required understanding;
2) the required creativity;
3) the required skills.
two have none of these necessary characteristics. You cannot
build anything that produces any power, you have no workable ideas
directed thereto, and if you did, you do not possess the skills to
build and run such a device.
Let's stop pretending here.
What is going on is this:
Between the two of you, there are no solutions offered.
You two are baffled by wind energy and helpless to come up with a way to improve it.
Neither of you, in 24 combined man-years and counting, has demonstrated any compelling wind energy generating invention, configuration, or concept.
Yet you two have the URGE to supply a solution.
So, with no solution to offer, in lieu of PROVIDING a solution, you instead attempt to deconstruct the very concept of airborne wind energy.
talks endlessly of flipping, flapping, flopping, metamaterials,
"kitematter", Bose-einstein condensates, etc., etc., etc., but cannot
even manage to rotate the drivetrain of an electric bicycle like Roddy
did in his own very creative entry to wind energy. 12 years of
talk, zero results. JoeF, you are even worse, pretending that
finding some trash on the side of the road and taking a nap under it
fulfills the goal of airborne energy.
spiders are promoted as "AWE", not because they have anything to do
with the goal of providing power to our civilization, but just as a
dodge, a diversion, a fake pretense in a daily-shell-game of deception
where you two have, in your own minds, deconstructed the original
concept of wind energy taken to the sky, and instead offer anything you
can possibly think of where the mere words airborne and wind could
possibly apply, and PRETEND they are even relevant to our discussion,
to essentially SHUT DOWN the discussion you started, based on your own
failure to offer any solutions.
you are both REALLY saying is you do NOT want to talk about airborne
wind energy at all, but instead just want to posture as some sort of
"authority" over a subject that is changed second-by-second, as-needed,
for you two to continue to feign "expertise" in whatever you say the
term is supposed to mean at any given moment.
pretend for a moment the subject is, oh, let's say "crosswalks".
Let's say someone organizes a "conference" nd maybe a "chat group" on
the subject of "crosswalks", with the goal of promoting the development
of electrically-lighted signals, markings, algorithms, lighted signals,
talking signals for blind people, reflective paints, sensors, timing
schemes -all the relevant factors.
imagine these same people who had the creative idea of organizing a
"crosswalk conference" had no real solutions themselves, but wanted to pretend
they did, for some strange reason. Their skill set was actually
limited to organizing a conference, setting up a chat group - mundane
stuff that required no expertise in crosswalk design, yet the people
had this "urge" to "pretend" to be "players" in the technical space of
crosswalk design and implementation.
further, in their technological frustration, these original
crosswalk-conference organizers begin to DECONSTRUCT the very CONCEPT
of a "crosswalk". One of them begins to habitually go on and on
about how people have been looking both ways for cars before crossing
the street for over a century, and that every such random street
crossing in history "is really" "a crosswalk", since
"technically-speaking" a person did "walk" a-"cross" a street. So
now we have a "crosswalk" where there IS NO crosswalk. Wow that
Imagine the other one says next, if
a religious person makes the sign of a cross while praying for the
safety of pedestrians, THAT "is really" "a crosswalk" because there was
"a cross" associated with someone walking from one side of the street
to the other. Maybe it gets adjusted further - any prayer using a
cross-sign, for anyone walking, even if they stay on the same side of
the street "is really" "a crosswalk" since there was "a cross" and the
person "is really" walking.
their self-perceived "genius" of their deconstruction efforts, like a
delinquent child trying to "test the bounds of authority", the
scoundrels continue to "test the bounds of vocabulary": One decides
standing on the West side of the road at sundown, NOT crossing, "is
really" "a crosswalk", because the person's SHADOW "crosses the
road". "Proving shade" "is really" "a crosswalk"...
they decide an underground tunnel going beneath the street "is really"
"a crosswalk", even though it makes a crosswalk unnecessary, still,
from a vocabulary standpoint, they can stretch the definition of
"crosswalk" to include even tunneling underground, just as JoeF has
attempted to claim that buried concrete anchors "are really" "flying
wings", and of course any "flying wing" "is really" "airborne wind
energy" so suddenly "just talking about" an underground block "is
really" practicing "airborne wind energy".
words are just handles that make it possible to discuss things.
If you are willing to destroy the meanings of words, you destroy the
discussion you were instrumental in helping to get started. If
your only skill-set is starting discussion, let's not pretend
your skill set includes finishing the discussion, when you are barely
able to even participate in the discussion, let lone offer any true
---In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, <joefaust333@...> wrote :
are some branches of AWE? There are very many. Count sub branches
as branches to get even more for possible defining. Some branches may
be identified by the good practical work intended. Others may be
delimited by the form of energy dominating the conversion of wind's
energy: sound, potential, light, static electricity, heat, utility
electricity, ... Name the branch pertinent to one's comment
to help clarity with audience.
by predicting AWE success in 2030 Dave is wrong a time more by changing
what he called as AWE AFTER he was taught that his "prediction" was not
consistent. Moreover now he didn't precise what he calls as a AWE
branch, what are the other branches. Perhaps he confuses AWE with a
tree. In this case precision about leaves and fruits would be welcome.