Messages in AirborneWindEnergy group.                          AWES 26890 to 26939 Page 429 of 440.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26890 From: Peter Sharp Date: 7/1/2019
Subject: Re: Cyclo-kite involves some DS ??

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26891 From: Santos Date: 7/1/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Trubines that beat Betz (review)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26892 From: Santos Date: 7/1/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Trubines that beat Betz (review)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26893 From: Peter Sharp Date: 7/1/2019
Subject: Re: Active Lift Turbine VAWT

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26894 From: Santos Date: 7/1/2019
Subject: Re: Cyclo-kite involves some DS ??

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26895 From: Santos Date: 7/1/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Trubines that beat Betz (review)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26896 From: Peter Sharp Date: 7/1/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Trubines that beat Betz (review)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26897 From: Santos Date: 7/1/2019
Subject: Re: Active Lift Turbine VAWT

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26898 From: Peter Sharp Date: 7/1/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Trubines that beat Betz (review)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26899 From: Santos Date: 7/1/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Trubines that beat Betz (review)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26900 From: Santos Date: 7/1/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Trubines that beat Betz (review)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26901 From: Santos Date: 7/1/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Trubines that beat Betz (review)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26902 From: benhaiemp Date: 7/1/2019
Subject: Re: Active Lift Turbine VAWT

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26903 From: Peter Sharp Date: 7/1/2019
Subject: Re: Cyclo-kite involves some DS ??

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26904 From: Peter Sharp Date: 7/1/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Trubines that beat Betz (review)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26905 From: Peter Sharp Date: 7/1/2019
Subject: Re: Active Lift Turbine VAWT

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26906 From: Peter Sharp Date: 7/1/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Trubines that beat Betz (review)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26907 From: Peter Sharp Date: 7/1/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Trubines that beat Betz (review)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26908 From: Peter Sharp Date: 7/1/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Trubines that beat Betz (review)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26909 From: Santos Date: 7/1/2019
Subject: Re: Cyclo-kite involves some DS ??

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26910 From: Santos Date: 7/1/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Trubines that beat Betz (review)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26911 From: Peter Sharp Date: 7/1/2019
Subject: Re: Active Lift Turbine VAWT

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26912 From: Santos Date: 7/1/2019
Subject: Re: Active Lift Turbine VAWT

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26913 From: Santos Date: 7/1/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Trubines that beat Betz (review)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26914 From: Santos Date: 7/1/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Trubines that beat Betz (review)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26915 From: benhaiemp Date: 7/1/2019
Subject: Re: Active Lift Turbine VAWT

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26916 From: Peter Sharp Date: 7/1/2019
Subject: Re: Cyclo-kite involves some DS ??

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26917 From: Santos Date: 7/1/2019
Subject: Re: Active Lift Turbine VAWT

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26918 From: Peter Sharp Date: 7/1/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Trubines that beat Betz (review)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26919 From: Peter Sharp Date: 7/1/2019
Subject: Re: Active Lift Turbine VAWT

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26920 From: Peter Sharp Date: 7/1/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Trubines that beat Betz (review)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26921 From: Peter Sharp Date: 7/1/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Trubines that beat Betz (review)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26922 From: benhaiemp Date: 7/1/2019
Subject: Re: Active Lift Turbine VAWT

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26923 From: Santos Date: 7/1/2019
Subject: Re: Cyclo-kite involves some DS ??

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26924 From: Santos Date: 7/1/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Trubines that beat Betz (review)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26925 From: gordon_sp Date: 7/1/2019
Subject: Re: Improved Minesto

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26926 From: Santos Date: 7/1/2019
Subject: Re: Active Lift Turbine VAWT

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26927 From: Santos Date: 7/1/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Trubines that beat Betz (review)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26928 From: Santos Date: 7/1/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Trubines that beat Betz (review)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26929 From: dougselsam Date: 7/1/2019
Subject: Re: Cyclo-kite involves some DS ??

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26930 From: Santos Date: 7/1/2019
Subject: Re: Cyclo-kite involves some DS ??

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26931 From: dougselsam Date: 7/1/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Trubines that beat Betz (review)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26932 From: Santos Date: 7/1/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Trubines that beat Betz (review)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26933 From: dougselsam Date: 7/1/2019
Subject: Re: Cyclo-kite involves some DS ??

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26934 From: dougselsam Date: 7/1/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Trubines that beat Betz (review)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26935 From: Peter Sharp Date: 7/1/2019
Subject: Re: Active Lift Turbine VAWT

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26936 From: Peter Sharp Date: 7/1/2019
Subject: Re: Active Lift Turbine VAWT

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26937 From: Santos Date: 7/1/2019
Subject: Re: Active Lift Turbine VAWT

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26938 From: Peter Sharp Date: 7/1/2019
Subject: Re: Active Lift Turbine VAWT

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26939 From: Peter Sharp Date: 7/1/2019
Subject: Re: Cyclo-kite involves some DS ??



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26890 From: Peter Sharp Date: 7/1/2019
Subject: Re: Cyclo-kite involves some DS ??
Attachments :

    DaveS, My patent for a rotary flying toy may have been the first tumblewing. It does not work like the Cyclo-kite. You don’t know what you are talking about.

    PeterS

     

    From: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com]
    Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2019 8:32 PM
    To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
    Subject: Re: [AWES] Cyclo-kite involves some DS ??

     

     

    Here is the WP Tumblewing page. Quote- "glider or kite wing design which rotates about an axis traverse to the apparent wind, not necessarily horizontal", 

     

    plus patent behind Prism FlipKite. Cyclokite is in Tumblewing class.

     

     

     

    On ‎Sunday‎, ‎June‎ ‎30‎, ‎2019‎ ‎09‎:‎28‎:‎23‎ ‎PM‎ ‎CDT, dave santos santos137@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy] <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com

    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26891 From: Santos Date: 7/1/2019
    Subject: Re: Toy Wind Trubines that beat Betz (review)
    We understand Betz only intended a planar swept area, as his math proves.

    You can understand how a real non-planar turbine swept area "hidden" behind the frontal disc area can therefore exceed Betz Limit.

    Its pretty cool that we know such exceptions. Same goes with advancing kite physics. Be patient with the effort. We understand modern aerodynamics better than you hoped.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26892 From: Santos Date: 7/1/2019
    Subject: Re: Toy Wind Trubines that beat Betz (review)
    There is no confusion. Betz is a planar swept area calculation.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26893 From: Peter Sharp Date: 7/1/2019
    Subject: Re: Active Lift Turbine VAWT
    Attachments :

      PierreB,

      You are trying to convince me that the ALT design will not work – but without you’re understanding how it does work.

      My descriptions of how it works, based on the drawing and the animation, are correct as far as I know.

      You demonstrated to me that you do not understand vector diagrams. You believe that one component vector will take energy from another component vectors. That clearly demonstrates that you do not understand vectors. It is one of the reasons why you cannot understand the ALT. You believe that Active lift must detract from tangential thrust. That is incorrect.

      But whether you wish to try to continue to understand the ALT is up to you. I don’t care.

      PeterS

       

      From: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com]
      Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2019 10:04 PM
      To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: RE: [AWES] Re: Active Lift Turbine VAWT

       

       

      Hi Peter,

       

      You wrote; "It’s not my fault that the words in the patent seem to make. Like I said, I paid attention to the drawing and to the animation.". The drawing on the abstract represents xx' and yy' , describing this later in French language. I sent you two times a translation mentioning the two generators, the hydraulic fluid. In spite of them you pursued to assert there is a single generator and a single axis. So I better understood what was it in the patent.  I understood also there are several versions and variants which don't work.

       

      Yes I wanted to understand it, because you presented this ALT VAWT  thereby: "There is a breakthrough in VAWT technology called the Active Lift Turbine." with possible applications in AWE, raising the interest. So I investigated several patents and looked at the versions fairly carefully, taking into account some of your indications. More I investigated more I saw this principle doesn't work. 



      I thank you for your enthusiasm for new principles, and also for VAWT. But your initial statement was not supported by any simulation or prototype.  Patents and animations are not scientific documents.



      In conclusion everyone can get it wrong, even you or me.



      PierreB 

       

       
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26894 From: Santos Date: 7/1/2019
      Subject: Re: Cyclo-kite involves some DS ??
      Peter, you mean Kytoons, which we agree do not exactly match WP's general definition. Just stop adding gas, it leaks off, and it's just a kite again.

      Wikipedia is not perfect, nor are you.

      Let's agree that no one may trust your kite definitions any more than you seem to trust Wikipedia.
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26895 From: Santos Date: 7/1/2019
      Subject: Re: Toy Wind Trubines that beat Betz (review)
      You explained that Betz to you is not max power possible by a swept plane.

      We are paying attention to your departure from what Betz defined.
      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26896 From: Peter Sharp Date: 7/1/2019
      Subject: Re: Toy Wind Trubines that beat Betz (review)
      Attachments :

        DaveS, No matter how many times you repeat your misconceptions, that will that make them true.

        PeterS

         

        From: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com]
        Sent: Monday, July 01, 2019 8:47 AM
        To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: RE: [AWES] Toy Wind Trubines that beat Betz (review)

         

         

        We understand Betz only intended a planar swept area, as his math proves.

         

        You can understand how a real non-planar turbine swept area "hidden" behind the frontal disc area can therefore exceed Betz Limit.

         

        Its pretty cool that we know such exceptions. Same goes with advancing kite physics. Be patient with the effort. We understand modern aerodynamics better than you hoped.

         

         

        On Jul 1, 2019 10:31 AM, "'Peter Sharp' sharpencil@sbcglobal.net [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com

        Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26897 From: Santos Date: 7/1/2019
        Subject: Re: Active Lift Turbine VAWT
        PeterS, no one thinks the ALT can't work, only that it does not look like a breakthrough design.
        Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26898 From: Peter Sharp Date: 7/1/2019
        Subject: Re: Toy Wind Trubines that beat Betz (review)
        Attachments :

          DaveS, Best is not confused. You are.

          PeterS

           

          From: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com]
          Sent: Monday, July 01, 2019 8:48 AM
          To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: RE: [AWES] Toy Wind Trubines that beat Betz (review)

           

           

          There is no confusion. Betz is a planar swept area calculation.
          Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26899 From: Santos Date: 7/1/2019
          Subject: Re: Toy Wind Trubines that beat Betz (review)
          Betz would agree that his "law" is an idealization formally based on a  swept plane. The confusion here is to argue otherwise.
          Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26900 From: Santos Date: 7/1/2019
          Subject: Re: Toy Wind Trubines that beat Betz (review)
          Let's just go with the Danish Wind Association Betz Proof- it really does say "rotor plane". 

          No confusion what Plane means. That's Euclidian.
          Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26901 From: Santos Date: 7/1/2019
          Subject: Re: Toy Wind Trubines that beat Betz (review)
          It's was by looking at Betz most carefully, and having expert knowledge of kite methods, that it was possible to spot the real-world gap in the so-called proof. 

          As John Bell famously said, "the only thing proven by an impossibility proof is lack of imagination". Bell is hero in physics. We live by this credo.
          Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26902 From: benhaiemp Date: 7/1/2019
          Subject: Re: Active Lift Turbine VAWT
          Hi Peter, 

          Your remarks about my understanding of vector diagrams are irrelevant, and only due because I said ALT VAWT doesn't work in an efficient way, unlike you. You do not disprove my words with scientific demonstrations, only by not supported statements about what I understand. Unlike yours my statements are supported, particularly concerning the conflict of forces preventing the rotation. Perhaps you could understand it by not denying the existence of the two generators leading to a division of the forces.

          You have not proved ALT VAWT works. No prototype, no simulation, no calculation. The only thing you have proved is your lack of understanding of what is on a patent, particularly the patent WO2016207574A1.  
          You denied the existence of the two generators that is clearly mentioned on the patent WO2016207574A1. So you cannot understand how ALT can work of cannot work. The drawing you mention is connected to the patent. I provided the translation of the concerned extracts but you pursue to not taking account of this. 
          The device on the patent is not quite the same as V3. And on V3 there is almost nothing. You cannot also understand why there are several versions and patents, all versions being different and leading to a different failure.

          In fact you beleive ALT VAWT works because you see the animation showing a rotation on V3.  



           
          Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26903 From: Peter Sharp Date: 7/1/2019
          Subject: Re: Cyclo-kite involves some DS ??
          Attachments :

            DaveS, You sighted the WP definition of “kite” as accurate. Thank you for admitting you were wrong.

            PeterS

             

            From: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com]
            Sent: Monday, July 01, 2019 8:56 AM
            To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: RE: [AWES] Cyclo-kite involves some DS ??

             

             

            Peter, you mean Kytoons, which we agree do not exactly match WP's general definition. Just stop adding gas, it leaks off, and it's just a kite again.

             

            Wikipedia is not perfect, nor are you.

             

            Let's agree that no one may trust your kite definitions any more than you seem to trust Wikipedia.
            Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26904 From: Peter Sharp Date: 7/1/2019
            Subject: Re: Toy Wind Trubines that beat Betz (review)
            Attachments :

              DaveS, I do not depart from the Betz limit. If you understood the Betz limit, you would not think that I depart from it.

              PeterS

               

              From: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com]
              Sent: Monday, July 01, 2019 8:58 AM
              To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: RE: [AWES] Toy Wind Trubines that beat Betz (review)

               

               

              You explained that Betz to you is not max power possible by a swept plane.

               

              We are paying attention to your departure from what Betz defined.
              Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26905 From: Peter Sharp Date: 7/1/2019
              Subject: Re: Active Lift Turbine VAWT
              Attachments :

                DaveS, PierreB states that it does not work. Both you and DougS have rejected it as not workable. So you speak falsely when you say that nobody thinks the ALT can’t work.

                PeterS

                 

                From: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com]
                Sent: Monday, July 01, 2019 9:00 AM
                To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: RE: [AWES] Re: Active Lift Turbine VAWT

                 

                 

                PeterS, no one thinks the ALT can't work, only that it does not look like a breakthrough design.
                Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26906 From: Peter Sharp Date: 7/1/2019
                Subject: Re: Toy Wind Trubines that beat Betz (review)
                Attachments :

                  DaveS, You misrepresent Betz.

                  PeterS

                   

                  From: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com]
                  Sent: Monday, July 01, 2019 9:06 AM
                  To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: RE: [AWES] Toy Wind Trubines that beat Betz (review)

                   

                   

                  Betz would agree that his "law" is an idealization formally based on a  swept plane. The confusion here is to argue otherwise.
                  Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26907 From: Peter Sharp Date: 7/1/2019
                  Subject: Re: Toy Wind Trubines that beat Betz (review)
                  Attachments :

                    DaveS, You misconception has been explained to you. You ignored it.

                    PeterS

                     

                    From: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com]
                    Sent: Monday, July 01, 2019 9:13 AM
                    To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: RE: [AWES] Toy Wind Trubines that beat Betz (review)

                     

                     

                    Let's just go with the Danish Wind Association Betz Proof- it really does say "rotor plane". 

                     

                    No confusion what Plane means. That's Euclidian.
                    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26908 From: Peter Sharp Date: 7/1/2019
                    Subject: Re: Toy Wind Trubines that beat Betz (review)
                    Attachments :

                      DaveS, You spotted nothing.

                      PeterS

                       

                      From: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com]
                      Sent: Monday, July 01, 2019 9:29 AM
                      To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: RE: [AWES] Toy Wind Trubines that beat Betz (review)

                       

                       

                      It's was by looking at Betz most carefully, and having expert knowledge of kite methods, that it was possible to spot the real-world gap in the so-called proof. 

                       

                      As John Bell famously said, "the only thing proven by an impossibility proof is lack of imagination". Bell is hero in physics. We live by this credo.
                      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26909 From: Santos Date: 7/1/2019
                      Subject: Re: Cyclo-kite involves some DS ??
                      I only claim that Wikipedia is a better starting point for a third-party kite definition. We both agree it's not perfect.
                      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26910 From: Santos Date: 7/1/2019
                      Subject: Re: Toy Wind Trubines that beat Betz (review)
                      You depart from Betz's planar swept area in saying a screw cannot
                      beat Betz by sufficient length.
                      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26911 From: Peter Sharp Date: 7/1/2019
                      Subject: Re: Active Lift Turbine VAWT
                      Attachments :

                        PierreB,

                        I can’t prove that ALT works. That awaits the testing of prototypes. What I said was that my analysis of the drawing and the animation is consistent with the rest of their website that discusses Active Lift. It looks like it should work, and I studied it carefully.

                        There are lots of things for you to feel frustrated and upset about given the bizarre errors in the patent. So if you believe that it doesn’t work, fine. So you are on record at stating that it does not work. And I am on record as saying that it will work. We will have to wait and see if they can supply test results.

                        PeterS

                         

                        From: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com]
                        Sent: Monday, July 01, 2019 9:36 AM
                        To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
                        Subject: RE: [AWES] Re: Active Lift Turbine VAWT

                         

                         

                        Hi Peter, 

                         

                        Your remarks about my understanding of vector diagrams are irrelevant, and only due because I said ALT VAWT doesn't work in an efficient way, unlike you. You do not disprove my words with scientific demonstrations, only by not supported statements about what I understand. Unlike yours my statements are supported, particularly concerning the conflict of forces preventing the rotation. Perhaps you could understand it by not denying the existence of the two generators leading to a division of the forces.

                         

                        You have not proved ALT VAWT works. No prototype, no simulation, no calculation. The only thing you have proved is your lack of understanding of what is on a patent, particularly the patent WO2016207574A1.  

                        You denied the existence of the two generators that is clearly mentioned on the patent WO2016207574A1. So you cannot understand how ALT can work of cannot work. The drawing you mention is connected to the patent. I provided the translation of the concerned extracts but you pursue to not taking account of this. 

                        The device on the patent is not quite the same as V3. And on V3 there is almost nothing. You cannot also understand why there are several versions and patents, all versions being different and leading to a different failure.

                         

                        In fact you beleive ALT VAWT works because you see the animation showing a rotation on V3.  

                         

                         

                         

                         
                        Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26912 From: Santos Date: 7/1/2019
                        Subject: Re: Active Lift Turbine VAWT
                        PeterS, At worst it's inefficient and very uneconomic. It can surely be made to work as a novelty. Go ahead and make one.
                        Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26913 From: Santos Date: 7/1/2019
                        Subject: Re: Toy Wind Trubines that beat Betz (review)
                        The Danish Wind folks properly present Betz. That's my source. I agree.
                        Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26914 From: Santos Date: 7/1/2019
                        Subject: Re: Toy Wind Trubines that beat Betz (review)
                        Don't give up. We have busy lives. You are not ignored. 
                        Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26915 From: benhaiemp Date: 7/1/2019
                        Subject: Re: Active Lift Turbine VAWT
                        I stated ALT VAWT doesn't work in an efficient way. It is not quite the same. 
                        I state also ALT works in spite of losses for reeling kite during reel-out phase.
                        Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26916 From: Peter Sharp Date: 7/1/2019
                        Subject: Re: Cyclo-kite involves some DS ??
                        Attachments :

                          DaveS, So now you deny that you were wrong.

                          PeterS

                           

                          From: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com]
                          Sent: Monday, July 01, 2019 9:54 AM
                          To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
                          Subject: RE: [AWES] Cyclo-kite involves some DS ??

                           

                           

                          I only claim that Wikipedia is a better starting point for a third-party kite definition. We both agree it's not perfect.
                          Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26917 From: Santos Date: 7/1/2019
                          Subject: Re: Active Lift Turbine VAWT
                          Anyone can correctly say the ALT does not work, until prototyped.

                          The practical question is who will build one. Not anyone doing AWE by power kite. Can we find anyone to make one? I can make  a quick HAWT of equivalent mass for direct testing comparison.

                          The ALT clockwork is a hurdle.
                          Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26918 From: Peter Sharp Date: 7/1/2019
                          Subject: Re: Toy Wind Trubines that beat Betz (review)
                          Attachments :

                            DaveS, That is incorrect.

                            PeterS

                             

                            From: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com]
                            Sent: Monday, July 01, 2019 9:56 AM
                            To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
                            Subject: RE: [AWES] Toy Wind Trubines that beat Betz (review)

                             

                             

                            You depart from Betz's planar swept area in saying a screw cannot

                            beat Betz by sufficient length.
                            Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26919 From: Peter Sharp Date: 7/1/2019
                            Subject: Re: Active Lift Turbine VAWT
                            Attachments :

                              DaveS, Excellent fudge. Delicious!

                              PeterS

                               

                              From: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com]
                              Sent: Monday, July 01, 2019 9:59 AM
                              To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
                              Subject: RE: [AWES] Re: Active Lift Turbine VAWT

                               

                               

                              PeterS, At worst it's inefficient and very uneconomic. It can surely be made to work as a novelty. Go ahead and make one.
                              Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26920 From: Peter Sharp Date: 7/1/2019
                              Subject: Re: Toy Wind Trubines that beat Betz (review)
                              Attachments :

                                DaveS, The problem is not with the Betz limit. The problem is your lack of understanding it.

                                PeterS

                                 

                                From: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com]
                                Sent: Monday, July 01, 2019 10:01 AM
                                To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
                                Subject: RE: [AWES] Toy Wind Trubines that beat Betz (review)

                                 

                                 

                                The Danish Wind folks properly present Betz. That's my source. I agree.
                                Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26921 From: Peter Sharp Date: 7/1/2019
                                Subject: Re: Toy Wind Trubines that beat Betz (review)
                                Attachments :

                                  DaveS, Well, aren’t you sweet.

                                  PeterS

                                   

                                  From: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com]
                                  Sent: Monday, July 01, 2019 10:02 AM
                                  To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
                                  Subject: RE: [AWES] Toy Wind Trubines that beat Betz (review)

                                   

                                   

                                  Don't give up. We have busy lives. You are not ignored. 
                                  Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26922 From: benhaiemp Date: 7/1/2019
                                  Subject: Re: Active Lift Turbine VAWT
                                  Peter,

                                  Things are simple. There are several versions, several patents because the author himself claims V1 and V2 don't work in an efficient way. It is the reason he indicates on his website: "why a new version". 

                                  But the new versions (V3 or/and patent WO2016207574A1) don't work more due to another failure as I stated and proved (confict of forces).

                                  You wrote: "There are lots of things for you to feel frustrated and upset about given the bizarre errors in the patent."
                                  You make a pretty pitiful psychological explanation. A time more what you call as "bizarre errors in the patent" is the heart of the patent: the two generators on two different axis you pursue to deny. These "bizarre errors" are an attempt to escape previous design failures, leading to other failures.

                                  Logic conclusion: the author states V1 and V2 don't work in an efficient way. Then he produces new versions like V3 and above all the patent WO2016207574A1. You find it is bizarre. No, the whole concept is bizarre and apparently doesn't work in an efficient way. 
                                  You should be happy to know more why ALT VAWT doesn't work in an efficient way. You can thank me. 



                                   
                                  Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26923 From: Santos Date: 7/1/2019
                                  Subject: Re: Cyclo-kite involves some DS ??
                                  No PeterS, to err is human. Maybe you deny being wrong.

                                  Real ballistic trajectories need not be parbolic (never are). The CycloKite is not first to "overfly" it's anchors. Betz math is for a swept plane.
                                  Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26924 From: Santos Date: 7/1/2019
                                  Subject: Re: Toy Wind Trubines that beat Betz (review)
                                  It is unfair and incorrect to not accept Betz math as formally based on a swept plane.

                                  Can't you see both sides? We all know the "Betz can't be beaten" folks, that the John Bell quote fits.
                                  Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26925 From: gordon_sp Date: 7/1/2019
                                  Subject: Re: Improved Minesto
                                  Attachments :

                                    Attached is a sketch of my proposed system which did not download.


                                    The principle of using an external force to generate crosswind or crosscurrent movement is the same as my concept of moving a restrained kite by adjusting the lengths of diagonal auxiliary tethers.  Does anyone in the forum have any opinion of this concept?
                                    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26926 From: Santos Date: 7/1/2019
                                    Subject: Re: Active Lift Turbine VAWT
                                    It's my sincere position, call it what you want.
                                    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26927 From: Santos Date: 7/1/2019
                                    Subject: Re: Toy Wind Trubines that beat Betz (review)
                                    I understand Betz like the Danish source. 

                                    Don't you?
                                    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26928 From: Santos Date: 7/1/2019
                                    Subject: Re: Toy Wind Trubines that beat Betz (review)
                                    We are sweeter. True.
                                    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26929 From: dougselsam Date: 7/1/2019
                                    Subject: Re: Cyclo-kite involves some DS ??
                                    You fellows are hopelessly lost in nothingness.  We're back to "Wikipedia" and "word definitions" AGAIN, such as the "definition of a kite"???  OMG how dragged down into nothingness can you get?  12 years of arguments over what stretched-to-meaningless definition of "a kite" someone can type on the internet.  Guys, you will never "word-definition" your way to a more economical method for extracting wind energy.  A word is a tool, not an end in itself.  And if you still don't understand what the word "kite" means, who could ever help you?


                                    ---In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, <sharpencil@... filtered #ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509 {font-family:Wingdings;panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;} #ygrps-yiv-1781023812 filtered #ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509 {font-family:"Cambria Math";panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} #ygrps-yiv-1781023812 filtered #ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} #ygrps-yiv-1781023812 filtered #ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509 {font-family:Verdana;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;} #ygrps-yiv-1781023812 filtered #ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509 {font-family:Consolas;panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;} #ygrps-yiv-1781023812 #ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509 #ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509 p.ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509MsoNormal, #ygrps-yiv-1781023812 #ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509 li.ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509MsoNormal, #ygrps-yiv-1781023812 #ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509 div.ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509MsoNormal {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman", serif;} #ygrps-yiv-1781023812 #ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509 a:link, #ygrps-yiv-1781023812 #ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509 span.ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;} #ygrps-yiv-1781023812 #ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509 a:visited, #ygrps-yiv-1781023812 #ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509 span.ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;} #ygrps-yiv-1781023812 #ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509 p {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman", serif;} #ygrps-yiv-1781023812 #ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509 code {font-family:"Courier New";} #ygrps-yiv-1781023812 #ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509 pre {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";} #ygrps-yiv-1781023812 #ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509 tt {font-family:"Courier New";} #ygrps-yiv-1781023812 #ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509 span.ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509HTMLPreformattedChar {font-family:Consolas;} #ygrps-yiv-1781023812 #ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509 p.ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509attach, #ygrps-yiv-1781023812 #ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509 li.ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509attach, #ygrps-yiv-1781023812 #ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509 div.ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509attach {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial", sans-serif;} #ygrps-yiv-1781023812 #ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509 p.ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509bold, #ygrps-yiv-1781023812 #ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509 li.ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509bold, #ygrps-yiv-1781023812 #ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509 div.ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509bold {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial", sans-serif;font-weight:bold;} #ygrps-yiv-1781023812 #ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509 p.ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509green, #ygrps-yiv-1781023812 #ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509 li.ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509green, #ygrps-yiv-1781023812 #ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509 div.ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509green {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman", serif;color:#628C2A;} #ygrps-yiv-1781023812 #ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509 p.ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509replbq, #ygrps-yiv-1781023812 #ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509 li.ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509replbq, #ygrps-yiv-1781023812 #ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509 div.ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509replbq {margin:3.0pt;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman", serif;} #ygrps-yiv-1781023812 #ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509 p.ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509ad, #ygrps-yiv-1781023812 #ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509 li.ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509ad, #ygrps-yiv-1781023812 #ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509 div.ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509ad {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman", serif;} #ygrps-yiv-1781023812 #ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509 p.ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509underline, #ygrps-yiv-1781023812 #ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509 li.ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509underline, #ygrps-yiv-1781023812 #ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509 div.ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509underline {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman", serif;} #ygrps-yiv-1781023812 #ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509 span.ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509yshortcuts {} #ygrps-yiv-1781023812 #ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509 p.ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509ad1, #ygrps-yiv-1781023812 #ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509 li.ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509ad1, #ygrps-yiv-1781023812 #ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509 div.ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509ad1 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman", serif;} #ygrps-yiv-1781023812 #ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509 p.ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509ad2, #ygrps-yiv-1781023812 #ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509 li.ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509ad2, #ygrps-yiv-1781023812 #ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509 div.ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509ad2 {margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:7.5pt;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman", serif;} #ygrps-yiv-1781023812 #ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509 p.ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509underline1, #ygrps-yiv-1781023812 #ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509 li.ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509underline1, #ygrps-yiv-1781023812 #ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509 div.ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509underline1 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman", serif;text-decoration:underline;} #ygrps-yiv-1781023812 #ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509 span.ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509yshortcuts1 {font-family:"Verdana", sans-serif;font-weight:bold;} #ygrps-yiv-1781023812 #ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509 span.ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509yshortcuts2 {font-family:"Verdana", sans-serif;font-weight:normal;} #ygrps-yiv-1781023812 #ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509 span.ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509EmailStyle34 {font-family:"Times New Roman", serif;color:windowtext;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;} #ygrps-yiv-1781023812 #ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509 .ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;} #ygrps-yiv-1781023812 filtered #ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;} #ygrps-yiv-1781023812 #ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509 div.ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509WordSection1 {} #ygrps-yiv-1781023812 #ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509 filtered #ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509 {} #ygrps-yiv-1781023812 filtered #ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509 {font-family:Symbol;} #ygrps-yiv-1781023812 filtered #ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509 {font-family:"Courier New";} #ygrps-yiv-1781023812 filtered #ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509 {font-family:Wingdings;} #ygrps-yiv-1781023812 filtered #ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509 {font-family:Wingdings;} #ygrps-yiv-1781023812 filtered #ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509 {font-family:Wingdings;} #ygrps-yiv-1781023812 filtered #ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509 {font-family:Wingdings;} #ygrps-yiv-1781023812 filtered #ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509 {font-family:Wingdings;} #ygrps-yiv-1781023812 filtered #ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509 {font-family:Wingdings;} #ygrps-yiv-1781023812 filtered #ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509 {font-family:Wingdings;} #ygrps-yiv-1781023812 #ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509 ol {margin-bottom:0in;} #ygrps-yiv-1781023812 #ygrps-yiv-1781023812ygrps-yiv-148999509 ul {margin-bottom:0in;}

                                    DaveS, You sighted the WP definition of “kite” as accurate. Thank you for admitting you were wrong.

                                    PeterS

                                     

                                    From: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com]
                                    Sent: Monday, July 01, 2019 8:56 AM
                                    To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
                                    Subject: RE: [AWES] Cyclo-kite involves some DS ??

                                     

                                     

                                    Peter, you mean Kytoons, which we agree do not exactly match WP's general definition. Just stop adding gas, it leaks off, and it's just a kite again.

                                     

                                    Wikipedia is not perfect, nor are you.

                                     

                                    Let's agree that no one may trust your kite definitions any more than you seem to trust Wikipedia.
                                    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26930 From: Santos Date: 7/1/2019
                                    Subject: Re: Cyclo-kite involves some DS ??
                                    Doug, we do understand Wikipedia on kites.

                                    Wikipedia is a good thing, if not perfect. Not everyone has to like it.

                                    It's pretty awesome, though!
                                    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26931 From: dougselsam Date: 7/1/2019
                                    Subject: Re: Toy Wind Trubines that beat Betz (review)
                                    1) You guys are only arguing about word definitions (again).
                                    2) There are two ways to "beat" Betz:
                                       a) use a funnel
                                       b) use a SuperTurbine or other elongated equivalent
                                    3) neither of these ways actually "beats" the betz coeffficient, since the betz coefficient does indeed only apply to a hypothetically "planar" configuration.
                                    4) This is not that complicated - there is nothing to argue about.
                                    5) No mount of arguing or referring to Wikipedia over stretching the "definition" of the Betz coefficient changes anything in the physical world.  No new solutions are being explored.
                                    6) I think it is pitiful that you could STILL be going on about word definitions and Wikipedia, with no actual solutions, after 12 years of NOTHING, pretending the whole time to be some version of the leading AWE researcher.
                                    7) Once again, this entire thread is ridiculous.
                                    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26932 From: Santos Date: 7/1/2019
                                    Subject: Re: Toy Wind Trubines that beat Betz (review)
                                    This thread is about Doug's "elongated equivalent" to ""beat Betz"".

                                    PeterS does not see how. We are patient in explaining until he does.
                                    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26933 From: dougselsam Date: 7/1/2019
                                    Subject: Re: Cyclo-kite involves some DS ??
                                    Oh really?  You understand Wikipedia?  About kites?  Wow, impressive.
                                    As usual you are relegated to mischaracterizing what I said, to pretend to have something to argue with.
                                    I did not say you don't understand what Wikipedia says about kites.
                                    I did not say there is anything wrong with Wikipedia.
                                    Great for beginners to try to find out some basic info on many topics, though not always accurate.

                                    The problem is not Wikipedia per se.
                                    The problem is, it's all you've got.
                                    That and desperately trying to change definitions of commonly-used words.
                                    And these two problems dovetail - two sides of a coin.
                                     
                                    You are paralyzed, and try to argue about word definitions as a substitute for actual progress.
                                    True experts in any field are not referring to Wikipedia all day every day.
                                    Experts know more than Wikipedia.
                                    It appears to me that you fellows basically spend all day, every day, merely arguing about word definitions, and do not even realize it.

                                    Words only attempt to represent reality, but are not that reality in and of themselves.
                                    Ask yourself, if suddenly you were not allowed to use any words at all, restricted to silence, gagged and not allowed to even post in the internet, THEN would you suddenly have a more economical way to do wind energy?  Because as it is, you do not.  And words won't help you.

                                    Shakespeare said it best: "Methinks thou doth protest too much."


                                    ---In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, <santos137@...
                                    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26934 From: dougselsam Date: 7/1/2019
                                    Subject: Re: Toy Wind Trubines that beat Betz (review)
                                    Anyone who is a knowledgeable player in any such discussion of "beating betz" understands that it is all tongue-in-cheek, and that taking a turbine into 3 dimensions so as to take advantage of an influx of fresh wind after it passes through a plane, does not "Beat Betz", any more than a multi-cylinder car engine "beats" the max power expected from a cylinder of a given displacement.  All we mean is you can beat the max power expected from a planar configuration of a given area if you move beyond the planar configuration, which is not mysterious or surprising in the least, and is not a true source of any valid or meaningful argument.  I'm sure Peter understands all of this very well.
                                    The real advantage of SuperTurbine(TM) is not orienting the drivesaft exctly parllel to the wind hoping for turbulence to eventually bring more power to the system, but instead intentionally running it at an offset angle to increase the swept area, so in  best-case scenario, nobody is even trying to even appear to "beat betz".  By now people should be able to recognize "beating Betz" as nothing but good-natured wind energy humor.
                                    :)


                                    ---In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, <santos137@...
                                    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26935 From: Peter Sharp Date: 7/1/2019
                                    Subject: Re: Active Lift Turbine VAWT
                                    Attachments :

                                      PierreB,

                                      Lecanu predicts that an H-rotor with a Cp of .42 will gain 20% to 30% in power due to Active Lift.

                                      So I assume that since you believe that Active Lift will detract from normal tangential thrust, you predict a Cp of no more than .42. Or, maybe by inefficient you mean to say that there will be a power gain above a Cp of .42, but not at much as 20%. Please clarify.

                                      You state that “ALT” works in spite of reeling losses. But “ALT” stands for the Active Lift Turbine, not for the principle of Active Lift. So I assume that you mean that Active Lift works in spite of losses.

                                      PeterS

                                       

                                      From: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com]
                                      Sent: Monday, July 01, 2019 10:03 AM
                                      To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
                                      Subject: RE: [AWES] Re: Active Lift Turbine VAWT

                                       

                                       

                                      I stated ALT VAWT doesn't work in an efficient way. It is not quite the same. 

                                      I state also ALT works in spite of losses for reeling kite during reel-out phase.
                                      Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26936 From: Peter Sharp Date: 7/1/2019
                                      Subject: Re: Active Lift Turbine VAWT
                                      Attachments :

                                        DaveS, Again you are not making sense. I’ve told you that Lecanu and his associates have obtained funding and they are proceeding toward testing prototypes.

                                        Why would anyone doing AWE want to build and test a new type of VAWT?

                                        Yes, as I have previously stated, any complexity can raise the cost and reduce the reliability. In some cases, complexity becomes worth it only at larger scales. An example is computerized blade pitching for VAWT.

                                        PeterS

                                         

                                         

                                        From: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com]
                                        Sent: Monday, July 01, 2019 10:15 AM
                                        To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
                                        Subject: RE: [AWES] Re: Active Lift Turbine VAWT

                                         

                                         

                                        Anyone can correctly say the ALT does not work, until prototyped.

                                         

                                        The practical question is who will build one. Not anyone doing AWE by power kite. Can we find anyone to make one? I can make  a quick HAWT of equivalent mass for direct testing comparison.

                                         

                                        The ALT clockwork is a hurdle.

                                         
                                        Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26937 From: Santos Date: 7/1/2019
                                        Subject: Re: Active Lift Turbine VAWT
                                        We mean the ALT. 

                                        Active Lift just seems an equivalent term to Dynamic Lift.

                                        The friction of the gearing takes away power, a dominant drag factor at low wind velocity.
                                        Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26938 From: Peter Sharp Date: 7/1/2019
                                        Subject: Re: Active Lift Turbine VAWT
                                        Attachments :

                                          PierreB, You misunderstood what they said. They made it clear with diagrams that if the blades of Versions 1 and 2 move downwind, that will sacrifice a lot of the potential gain because it lowers the true wind speed acting on the blades. But Version 3 solves that problem, and they show how it solves that problem.

                                          PeterS

                                           

                                          From: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com]
                                          Sent: Monday, July 01, 2019 10:31 AM
                                          To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
                                          Subject: RE: [AWES] Re: Active Lift Turbine VAWT

                                           

                                           

                                          Peter,

                                           

                                          Things are simple. There are several versions, several patents because the author himself claims V1 and V2 don't work in an efficient way. It is the reason he indicates on his website: "why a new version". 

                                           

                                          But the new versions (V3 or/and patent WO2016207574A1) don't work more due to another failure as I stated and proved (confict of forces).

                                           

                                          You wrote: "There are lots of things for you to feel frustrated and upset about given the bizarre errors in the patent."

                                          You make a pretty pitiful psychological explanation. A time more what you call as "bizarre errors in the patent" is the heart of the patent: the two generators on two different axis you pursue to deny. These "bizarre errors" are an attempt to escape previous design failures, leading to other failures.



                                          Logic conclusion: the author states V1 and V2 don't work in an efficient way. Then he produces new versions like V3 and above all the patent WO2016207574A1. You find it is bizarre. No, the whole concept is bizarre and apparently doesn't work in an efficient way. 

                                          You should be happy to know more why ALT VAWT doesn't work in an efficient way. You can than! k me. 



                                           
                                          Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 26939 From: Peter Sharp Date: 7/1/2019
                                          Subject: Re: Cyclo-kite involves some DS ??
                                          Attachments :

                                            DaveS, Thank you for repeating your misconceptions.

                                            PeterS

                                             

                                            From: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com]
                                            Sent: Monday, July 01, 2019 10:41 AM
                                            To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
                                            Subject: RE: [AWES] Cyclo-kite involves some DS ??

                                             

                                             

                                            No PeterS, to err is human. Maybe you deny being wrong.

                                             

                                            Real ballistic trajectories need not be parbolic (never are). The CycloKite is not first to "overfly" it's anchors. Betz math is for a swept plane.