DaveS, There seems to be no disagreement whatsoever then because I never said that the Active Lift Turbine is a breakthrough for AWE. It is a breakthrough for VAWT. It is another new way to increase the power of a VAWT, which I consider to be quite important. I said that the principle might be adaptable to AWE. I did not say that the principle is a breakthrough for AWE. So once again, you have misrepresented what I said.

PeterS

DaveS, Then stop discussing it.

PeterS

PierreB,

You say that you are not able to describe Active Lift. On that we agree. You claim that it can’t be described because it is wrong. But you have so far only presented false arguments to disprove it.

Your claim that Active Lift acts downwind withdraws torque (produces negative torque) during one half of the rotor rotation is incorrect. Both the upwind and downwind blade passes of the ALT can produce Active Lift and additional torque.

PeterS

DaveS, What is the “It” you are referring to? Descriptions of the Betz limit do not include attempts to show that misinterpretations of the Betz limit are incorrect. Nor do they try to show that cows cannot jump over the moon.

PeterS

DaveS, Yes I have. And you rejected that claim by asserting that is the responsibility of the student to understand the teacher. I then pointed out that you are the student (as in this case).

So according to you, it is your responsibility to understand me. But you have made no effort to do so. If you wish to do so, then please accurately paraphrase what I say before you disagree.

PeterS

PierreB, I apologize.

PeterS

DaveS, the correctness of the Danish description is not the issue. The issue is your misinterpretation of the Betz limit.

PeterS

DaveS, That is not the issue.

PeterS

DaveS, You have said that many times, which means you continue to miss the point.

PeterS

PierreB,

You are paraphrasing what I said inaccurately. The words in the patent do not agree with the drawing. The drawing does not show any need for two generators. I based my explanations of the ALT on the drawing and on the animation. I cannot make sense of the text of the patent. I have already stated that a number of times.

I am not aware of trying to prove anything. I tried to explain the ALT to you based on my seeing how it does actually work in principle. But I’m not trying to “prove” that it works quite well. I am expressing my opinion about it based on my analysis of the drawing and the animation.

This is indeed a discussion without end. That is because you and DaveS are attempting to prove that the ALT cannot work as they claimed. But you are using flawed arguments. There may be good arguments that can prove it cannot work as they claimed. But you have not yet presented any. My rejecting obviously flawed arguments does not mean that I am attempting to prove something.

PeterS

DaveS, Again, you do not understand. I have made the distinction between the principle of Active Lift and the physical Active Lift Turbine perhaps a dozen times. But you continue to ignore the distinction.

PeterS

PierreB, Non-sequitur.

PeterS

DaveS, If you wish to understand, then paraphrase me accurately before you disagree.

PeterS

DaveS, Non-sequitur.

PeterS

DaveS, Again, you mischaracterized what I said.

PeterS

DaveS, I told you that they are working toward prototypes.

Thank you for your insights on communication.

PeterS

DaveS, No, you are wrong. The issue is your misinterpreting the implications of the Betz limit.

PeterS

DaveS, More accurately, the Lecanu discovery of a way to use Active Lift efficiently is a breakthrough for VAWT.

PierreB, You misunderstand how Version 3 works. As best I can determine based on your ambiguous last line, you seem to be saying that a VAWT blade, produces lift that acts upwind during the downwind blade pass. That is incorrect. Both the upwind and the downwind blade passes produce a lift vector which points predominantly downwind.

For the ALT, the gear system produces additional torque during both the upwind and downwind blade passes. Please study the animation and you will see what I mean.

PeterS

DaveS, Again you ignored the distinction. The ALT is not intended to be a model for AWE.

PeterS

DaveS, That issue has already been explored at length. PierreB and I have given examples. Apparently, you ignored them.

PeterS

PierreB,

I have stated many times that my explanation of the ALT does not include the words in the patent because I cannot make sense of them. The ALT as shown in the drawing and in the animation does not require a second generator. How many times do I have to make that distinction before you hear me? I can’t make sense of the words in the patent. I’m not trying to explain those words. I do not deny the existence of “two generators” being mentioned in the patent. You say that I do deny it, but you don’t quote me.

You are claiming that Version 3 suffers from “the translation of extracts”, by which you probably mean to say that the blades move downwind relative to the central axis, and that doing so lowers the true wind speed acting on the blades. But you are clearly wrong. Look at the animation. The blades do not do that. Instead, the blades move downwind relative to the stationary gear that is offset to windward. As a result, when the blades move downwind relative to the stationary gear, they do not move downwind relative to the central axis of the wind turbine. So they do not suffer from “the translation of extracts”. The animation shows that very clearly.

This is the third time that you have said you are stopping this discussion. That is fine with me either way.

PeterS

PierreB,

Neither of us can match the words to the drawing. So neither of us can make sense of the patent.

I say that I do understand the drawing and the animation.

You wish to prove that I’m at fault for something. Why? I didn’t write the patent.

If you think that you understand the patent, good for you. But most of what you have said so far indicates that you do not understand the concept that the patent is trying to describe. If you believe that the patent words describe something that can’t work, you may be right. But as I have told you a dozen times, I am not relying on the patent words to understand the concept.

Having written my own patent for the Sharp Cycloturbine, and having read dozens to hundreds of patents, I know that they can be very difficult to write if the device they are describing is hard to understand. I had write my own patent because neither my patent attorney nor a person who helped write his patents could understand the Sharp Cycloturbine. The Sharp VAWT contains confusing relative motions, as does the ALT, and some relative motions are especially hard for people to understand.

PeterS