Hi Pierre,

An option for you to consider is using your looping kite with a twist-cord-accumulator-transmission (TCAT) that I invented. DougS recently showed one of his videos of a multirotor kite transmitting torque to the ground via twisted cords. A TCAT uses twisted shock cords and a magnetic release catch, which is easy to make. The result is spinning a small generator at ground level at a high rpm, but spinning the generator intermittently at full voltage rather than continuously. So it works even in low wind speeds. This arrangement is not efficient, but it is dirt cheap. I have 3 or 4 videos of how a TCAT works on YouTube. Search YouTube for “tinkerbits”, my user name, if the concept interest you.

PeterS

DaveS,

Please show me your reference and I will be glad to show you the relevant differences.

PeterS

Hi DaveS,

Thank you for citing your reference, per my request, so I can explain to you the relevant differences, as I promised.

First the similarity: The principle of accumulating energy in a rubber band to spin a model airplane propeller is the same way a TCAT stores energy. They both use twisting elastic bands to store energy. Indeed, rubber band airplanes are one of the concepts that led me to invent a TCAT.

But notice that a rubber band airplane does not use a wind turbine, a generator, or a magnetic release catch, and its purpose is not to generate electricity to charge batteries in low wind speeds.

So three of a TCAT’s four main components are missing from a rubber band airplane, and a rubber band airplane does not have the same purpose as a TCAT. The only common element is the twisting rubber to store energy. Yet you believe that the rubber band airplane entirely anticipates the TCAT. That indicates that either you ignored that their different component mechanisms and purposes, or, that you are defining “invention” in such a way that differences between the component mechanisms and the purpose of the device are irrelevant.

So I will state the obvious: Many devices are based on common principles, but that does not mean that they are the same. For example, many devices are based on using aerodynamic lift, but that does not make all of those devices (airplanes, kites, windmills, sailboats, race cars, etc.) essentially the same. There are a great many relevant differences between them in terms of their mechanisms and their purposes. Similarly, there are many devices that use the principle of storing energy in twisted cords, but that does not make all of the devices the same. Many are quite different from one another, using different mechanisms and for different purposes.

Let me clarify why I call my TCAT an invention: The criterion I use when I claim to have invented something is that it would be very likely to be granted a utility patent based on its novelty and potential utility, and which are not obvious to one practiced in the art -- the criteria used by the Patent Office. I distinguish inventions from designs, like they do. Using that distinction, I see you insisting that a TCAT is merely a design, not an invention. So you must be using different criteria. Please state them.

If you can state them clearly so as to show why the TCAT is not an invention, I suspect that I will be able to show you, according to your own criteria, that neither of us ever invented anything.

PeterS

Hi DaveS,

You are now arguing over an irrelevant point, as usual. If you like, change “entirely” to sufficiently”. Please show me your definition of invention.

PeterS

DaveS,

I told you that I suspected that I could use your criteria for definition an invention to show you that you never invented anything. It seems I was correct.

You are claiming that nobody invented anything because nothing can be proven. That means, at least according to you, that you never invented anything. Well done.  

If you still wish to claim that you invented the TCAT, show me your evidence.

PeterS

DaveS,

I see. You can’t state your definition of invention because it is nuanced? I do appreciate that you have considerable trouble with nuances, but give it a try anyway.

You claim to have anticipated the TCAT, yet you show me no evidence. You tell me to go search for your evidence. Nonsense. You claim that others have anticipated the TCAT. So show me. Have you ever heard of the expression, “Put up or shut up”? Perhaps not?

Here is my evidence:

A Bird Windmill blade can be matched with a twist-cord-accumulator-transmission (TCAT) to charge small batteries intermittently in low wind speeds, even while driving its primary mechanical device. The torque of the twist cords does not disrupt the pitching of the blade.

Here is a Bird Windmill blade operating a TCAT in a wind speed of 3 to 4 mph. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZHsJ5wdWHo&index=9&list=UUhYQYjRwGq2ija4KuNs7xbw 

Here is a TCAT operating in a wind speed of 5 mph: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W85Yr1BwIsw&list=UUhYQYjRwGq2ija4KuNs7xbw

Here is a demonstration of a TCAT with a magnetic release catch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsUUES--QGc&list=UUhYQYjRwGq2ija4KuNs7xbw&index=3

Here is a demonstration of a TCAT spinning a 12 volt bicycle bottle dynamo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJl6qeSAAxY&list=UUhYQYjRwGq2ija4KuNs7xbw&index=7  

The purpose of a TCAT is to capture energy from wind speeds that are too low for conventional wind turbines, and to do it cheaply enough to be worthwhile. If connected to a Sharp Cycloturbine, which has much higher torque the a Bird Windmill blade, and which is also very cheap, it should be possible to charge a battery in wind speeds below one meter per second. Intermittent pulses of electricity at full voltage and amperage are fine for charging a battery.

A TCAT is inefficient because it’s output increase does not match the cubic increase of energy in the wind. And, there is very little energy in low wind speeds. But there are some instances where at least some energy can make a significant difference. For example, charging batteries for LED lighting or cell phones in remote villages or farms in developing countries.

It may be possible to size the Sharp Cycloturbine (or an energy kite), the TCAT, and the generator such that, at a moderate wind speed, the TCAT begins to drive the generator continuously. Or, it might be best to use a TCAT with a small generator and combine it with direct drive for a larger generator, with the result wind turbines increase their normal range of wind speeds in the lower range. But that will require a lot of experimenting, which I may never be able to do.

When combined with a Bird Windmill or a Sharp Cycloturbine (or some form of energy kite), a TCAT is a way to provide a small amount of battery charging for an extremely low cost. In some remote places off the grid and without other sources of electricity, that could be important. A TCAT is not intended to be a substitute, but rather an addition.

A TCAT works best if the wind turbine has both strong torque and at least a moderately high TSR, such as a Sharp Cycloturbine.

I look forward to hearing more of your empty claims, definitions, and excuses.

PeterS

Hi JoeF,

Here is the video that shows more clearly what is happening:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdDaRMr4dwg 

This video is incorrectly labeled. This is a Bird Windmill blade, not a Sharp Cycloturbine. I had not yet discovered that the two windmills are distinct because they use different pitch control techniques.

The centrifugal force created by the paper blade puts sufficient tension in the single shock cord so that it can transmit a pulling force to the periphery of the green gear so as to create sufficient torque to spin the generator using step-up gearing. The pulling force is stronger when the blade is downwind than when upwind because blade lift and centrifugal force combine.

The limitation of this energy transmission technique, with respect to kites, is that the blade orbit needs to be relatively large relative to the distance between the blade and the gear, and the centrifugal force also needs to be reasonably high.

When the Bird blade flies in a vertical orbit, which creates a hybrid of a windmill and a kite, the blade cords could be used to transmit energy to turn a wheel/crank, on one or both support poles, by creating torque. But the limitation I described still applies.

----

Where this method of energy transmission might be useful for kites is if a free flying wing-and-blade (probably with a T configuration, with the top of the T radially outward) can be made to fly in circles around its anchor point. A vertical blade would use passive pitch control to generate thrust, which I have achieved. Lift would be provided by a horizontal wing using passive pitch control, which I have achieved. But I have not had time to combine the two, which is far harder to do.

Even in that case, if successful, there would still be a major limitation: The kite would probably be limited to small scale (below 100 kW, and maybe much less) because centrifugal force is inversely proportional to the radius. For the kite to fly upwind, the centrifugal force must remain higher than the aerodynamic lift of the vertical blade that is propelling the kite.

The advantage of such a kite, flying around its anchor point, would not be the great heights that other kites can achieve. It’s advantage would be its enormous swept area.

So it would be a hybrid of a vertical axis wind turbine and a kite. The swept area could be very large while costing very little, and it could be made so as to easily solve the launch and retrieval problem. Probably, it would use a central tower and an expanding orbit as the kite line reeled out. So instead of flying in a circle only as a launching technique, the kite would continue to fly in a circle. I think that it can be done, but it will require a lot of development. It might produce very cheap energy.

However, that kind of kite would be better suited to carrying a ram-air-turbine (RAT) rather than creating torque on a centrally located crank – because the RPM of the kite would be very low due to its large orbit diameter.

PeterS

DaveS,

Once again, you have failed to show me evidence that you anticipated the TCAT. The description of your experiment does not describe a TCAT. A TCAT is not a twisted-rope drive. That is not its purpose. You also failed to notice the differences in components. Where is your torque-sensing release-catch? Where is your step-up transmission? A TCAT functions as an energy accumulator and a step-up transmission, and uses a release catch. A rope drive does not function as an energy accumulator other than incidentally and to an inconsequential degree. So it has no need for a release catch.

You have claimed credit for anticipating the TCAT on the basis of having transmitted torque via a twisted cord. That is a false claim of priority. You have attempted to unfairly take credit for someone else’s work. That is unethical. If you were a scientist, your entire career would be in jeopardy.

The two different devices have glaring differences in purposes and components, yet you see them as essentially the same. How can that be? I suspect that you must have a perceptual/conceptual/ handicap when it comes to making comparisons. You seem incapable of seeing what is missing or different. Or, maybe you lack the ability to discern what is important and what is not. Either way, you exhibit a blind spot. I have noticed similar instances of your blind spot in the past. Please be aware that it may be the cause of your behaving unethically.

PeterS

DaveS,

You are attempting to discredit my priority by claiming that the Aeroflexor is prior art for the Bird Windmill. Priority depends upon a number of different dates. You cite no dates, so you have no evidence. The Bird blade was sold and was in the public domain about 10 years before the date of the Labreque patent. Your claim is false. You made no effort to check your facts. That is irresponsible. False claims about priority are unethical.

PeterS