You wrote: "I don’t know the reason for that, but clearly, something is seriously wrong with the patent.". Because ALT for VAWT is not workable in any configuration.

This patent is conceived to be a significant improvement in order to make ALT work. But it also fails.

Some details: in the patent the axis xx' is within the stationary gear, and is the central shaft of the turbine but not the center of the stationary gear. The description goes with the drawing but not for all. In V3 the central shaft looks to be out off the stationary gear.  But it is not so important as none among them works.  The different versions and patents don't make sense between them. All failed to describe a coherent device.

As I mention in my previous message the active lift adds power (at the best) for the half part of the rotation, but withdrawn power for the other half part of the rotation. Indeed the active lift goes downwind and in the same times the rotation goes about downwind for a half, about upwind for the other half so in the rather opposite direction. ALT VAWT principle such as described in all versions is a quite false principle.

Dealing between stationary and downwind motion is not possible. The author tried many combinations. V3 is a little different from the patent but doesn't show anything about ALT (particularly if yes or not there are two axis with two generators). The author writes V1 and V2 doen't work. But V3 doesn't work more. None among the versions, none devices among the patents is workable.

There is no prototype and no prototype is expected.

Active lift works for reeling kite during reel-out phase.  

A positive point: you didn't invent it!

PierreB

Its still an interesting case! The sailboat diamond-course similarity case is helpful, because the sails are presumed to always be in trim and there is no gearing complication.

A sailboat can "circle" in a sort of VAWT mode by sailing around a diamond or hourglass path. The boat "reaches" optimally crosswind at the top and bottom of the hourglass, but  tacks up and down wind to make the course. This are not not as powerful cycles as always keeping a crosswind sailing course, with brief tacks to reverse, or 100% HAWT drive cycle.

If there were some hidden power in the ALT cycle, the sailboat case should be able to show it.

You wrote: "Notice that the green arrows point mostly downwind. "

It is obvious on the drawing. So the active lift, as it points downwind, prevents the rotation when the blade goes upwind (the active lift pointing always downwind), making an opposite force against the direction of the rotation. It is also obvious,

"So suggesting a HAWT as the answer to the problem does not follow because the problem that you are describing does not exist."

No, it is ALT VAWT which does not exist.

You were wrong about several elements you did not understand on the patent, of which the existence of the two generators you denied. 

And you were very reckless to state "There is a breakthrough in VAWT technology called the Active Lift Turbine." without understand the elements of the patents and versions. This concept is as breakthrough as any perpetual motion: note that does not mean it is a perpetual motion. But all the analysis shows this concept is false and doesn't work. The failure is different according to the different versions. 

I will stop about this topic because 200 messages and more is too much for a fancy concept. 

No PeterS, Betz is purely a disc-based frontal calculation. The "law" contains no calculation for total swept area of a long screw behind a frontal turbine disc...

This case is no violation of thermodynamics law, just progressive wake entrainment of energy along the screw from the flow field.

Wikipedia got it right-

"(Betz) law is derived from the principles of conservation of mass and momentum of the air stream flowing through an idealized "actuator disk"."

PeterS claim- "I also say that it is the first kite to fly upwind of its anchor points under its own power."

In kite circles, the common effect PeterS claims is called "overflying". as in " Incorrectly trimmed kites produce less responsive steering and potentially make your kite unstable and prone to back stalling or overflying"

Its not even really the kite's "own power " but wind power converted to upwind glide or ballistic travel.

No one should claim a kite first that experts already know to be common, or that may have hidden prior art.

Be patient PeterS, you are not ignored until we stop working the problems. 

Respond to Wikipedia on Betz as a disc area idealization, not the working swept-area of a screw, which is not Betz disc limited.

You beleived  that "There is a breakthrough in VAWT technology called the Active Lift Turbine." 

The analysis I made message after message shows it is not. You don't understand basic physical principles. You don't even understand that an active lift pointing downwind acts against the direction of the rotation when the blade goes upwind. You don't understand the elements of the patent of which the two generators you denied, denying also having denied it. So what you call "explains" is only a mountain of misunderstanding.

So your "I made a sincere effort to explain it to you" is a bit pretentious.

However I can accept you are right if you build an ALT VAWT prototype then compare with a Darrieus VAWT.  

To tap sailboat periodic heeling "can't be recommended" because its a terribly flawed idea. Its no proof of ALT virtue, but evidence of practical and conceptual weakness.

An underwater turbine where the aux prop normally is would be a far simpler better design model, and the boat just follow optimal sailing practice around the course.

Again- look for "disc" in graphic and text. A screw area is not a Betz disk. A long enough screw will beat the disc number.

Betz's law

     I see that I left off a qualifier in my question at the end of post 26824.  I meant to qualify only the flight of the blade with the vertical axis of rotation.  But you faced that matter in your reply; thanks. 

 Corrected question: 

Is there something else that seemed to urge you to discount the Cyclo-kite of vertical axis from qualifying as a kite system?   

Further clarifying: In your definition giving, the title was Cyclo kite. Then in one paragraph "blade"  came into play; and without introducing any new name then, the flow was seeming to be all about Cyclo-kite even as you note the blade could be flown in vertical axis.  So, a little fuzzy flow there. But you have explained well.  

So, I state: I hold the Bird Windmill to be a kite system whereas you do not so hold it to be a kite.   We differ on that.  You require that a wing of a kite fly above its anchor points in a common setting.   I do not require that condition for a kite system; for me, a system may be a kite in none common settings; wing set one, tether set, wing set two, flow media; wing set one and wing set two are anchors to each other; the wings and tether react with the flow media to gi! ve deflections enough to keep the tether set tensioned; the wings may deflect any direction; gravity field is not required.   In the Bird Windmill, the wings are the blade and the complex that consists of poles and Earth; those two wings interact with flow of air in the common setting; the tether set generally remains tensioned.   Bird Windmill and Cyclo-kite are embraced as kite systems in EnergyKiteSystems.  May both systems do good works!

     akiteis 

A kite at EnergyKiteSystems is the totality of the parts: wing sets (anchors are wings) and members of the tether set; the parts may be encrusted with materials of many shapes and sizes and sub-purposes, but the encrustations integrated are simply parts of the kite system.

Some FFAWE kite systems may have wings fly upwind or downwind from its opposing wing; ever the opposing wings are anchors to each other; wind shears are key to FFAWE.  The kite hang glider as FFAWE is a kite system that flies sometimes upwind and sometimes down wind or obliquely; the pilot is anchor wing to the canopy wing; and the canopy wing is anchor to the pilot wing.    

Exactly, the Toy Screw is not limited by Betz disc idealization. Its real and develops

All I saying is Wikipedia states Betz only presumes a disc area, while I point out a screw turbine is not disc-like, but free to develop power all along its depth.

This is not wrong, Wikipedia and I do assert these beliefs, right or wrong, and just you assert your own opinions, even to defining kites without regard to established meaning.

At least nobody will call you a liar, stupid, delusional, and so forth, your ideas nonsense, nor ignore you. Continue to ponder if  Betz is not mathematically realistic enough to cover all possible turbines, because its only a primitive disc model, not a screw-area model.

Again, lets use Wikipedia to use technical terms effectively, with shared understanding-

Kite