Peter says: Please see my comments inserted into PierreB’s text below, which are in bold.
From: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2019 11:34 AM
To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [AWES] Re: Active Lift Turbine VAWT
The discussion is very long and concerns a point that is likely not important for AWE.
Peter: PierreB does not understand the concept, so he has no basis for concluding that it is “likely not important for AWE”.
So it is the time to conclude this topic. I make a short synthesis.
By opening the Active Lift Turbine VAWT topic PeterS claimed: "There is a breakthrough in VAWT technology called the Active Lift Turbine."
There
is no prototype, no simulation, no prove supporting any breakthrough in
VAWT, without even mentioning AWE application that PeterS suggests.
Peter:
You left out the mathematical model and the animation, both of which
constitute strong affirmative evidence. The inventors are now working
toward prototypes.
DougS intuitively considered this as a likely not useful invention, adding complexity for a supposed better efficiency.
Peter:
I agree that added complexity can increase the cost and reduce the
reliability. But the additional energy capture may be well worth the
added complexity.
DaveS added the problem of power-to-weight ratio in AWE use.
Peter: DaveS’ comment missed the point because I suggested that the principle, not the physical turbine, might benefit AWE.
PeterS
and me thought the principle should have been studied in order to see
if there was a possible application in AWE, thinking it was better to
separate the ALT VAWT device from its principle, so to put off the
problem of weight that is related to the device, not to the principle,
that in a preliminary approach concerning me.
Peter: I did not suggest trying to fly the ALT as a power kite. That was a ridiculous suggestion by DaveS.
More I studied the documents, more the ALT VAWT appeared to be not workable in an efficient way.
- The
author himself claimed on his website that previous versions and
patents are not efficient in regar! d to Darrieus turbine due to the
translational movement concern.
Peter:
Versions 2 and 3, where the blade moves downwind relative to the
central axis of the rotor, lose efficiency. But it is not clear to me
that they become less efficient than a conventional H-rotor. They are
definitely less efficient than Version 3. That is why the inventors
invented Version 3.
Peter:
More precisely, they illustrate with a simple diagram the translation
loss of the true wind speed if the blades move downwind relative to the
central axis of the rotor.
- So he conceveid V3 with an animation.
- V3 has almost no description.
Peter:
PierreB means to say that the animation of V3 is not accompanied by a
verbal explanation. That is because none is necessary.
- In the other hand the patent WO2016207574A1 produces more description.
- Particularly the patent mentions the existence of two generators respectively on axis xx' and yy'.
Peter:
Does it? Where is the quote? The drawings do not show any generators,
much less two generators. A generator at yy’ would not work because
there is no rotation.
- PeterS
claimed there is only one generator, in spite of the patent I attached
several times, providing also the translation of some extracts.
Peter: The patent drawings do not include a second generator. I will explain why below.
- PeterS prefered to refer on the abstract and V3, ignoring the patent.
Peter:
Yes, because patents can be ambiguous, and I noticed an error in the
patent abstract which might be due to a translation error.
- However
the abstract is a part of the patent WO2016207574A1 and clearly
mentions the two axis xx' and yy'. Reading the patent allows to match
said axis with the description and the drawing on the abstract.
Peter:
The patent abstract states that the blades are rigidly connected to the
stationary wheel, and rotate around it. But it is not possible to do
both. So either that is an error in the patent or in the translation of
the patent. Furthermore, the two axes referred to are the central
axis of the rotor and the center of the stationary gear which does not
connect to a shaft, and could not turn a generator.
- V3
doesn't mention if there is one or two generators as there is little
description, even not the wind direction, not the tail vane.
- So the document which has to be considered is the patent WO2016207574A1.
Peter:
False conclusion. The animation is intended for engineers or others who
know how to interpret it. There is no need to show the tail vane or the
wind direction. They are self-evident.. It would be helpful to some
amateurs if those indications were included in the animation, but their
omission is merely a simplification of the animation, not an error of
omission.
Now
PeterS claims there is only one drawing on the copy I sent. I sent it
several times. So it is quite impossible as the patent has five
drawings.
Peter:
You are implying that I am lying. I have no motivation to lie. I’m
trying to explain the principle to you. Lying would defeat my own
purpose. I’m not trying to prove that it works; I’m trying to explain
how it works. Once it is understood, then it might be possible to spot
a flaw.
- My
conclusion of this topic is that t! he author tried to avoid the
previous failures he mentions on his website and also on the
patent WO2016207574A1, by producing another version eliminating
the loss due to the translational movement but leading to another
failure.
Peter:
PierreB’s conclusion is incorrect and unfairly pejorative. Versions 1
and 2 were not failures. Version 3 is not a failure. PierreB is making
false accusations.
On
the patent the author claims that "According to the invention, such a
turbine is characterized in that the distance between the axis of
rotation of the impeller and the point of attachment of the slider to
the rotor associated wing is controlled and in particular is
substantially constant during the rotation of the turbine while the
distance between the center of the satellite roll and the axis of
rotation of the turbine varies during the rotation of the satellite
roll around the stationary roller."
Peter: there are ambiguous words used here due to the translation: “impeller”, “roll”, “roller”.
- The
author claims also on the same patent: "The planet wheels associated
with each of the rotor wings are preferably mounted on the same plate
centered on the geometric center of the stationary roller which is not
coincident with the axis of rotation of the turbine and rotatable with
respect to a minor axis passing through this geometrical center.
Peter: This is poorly written and creates some ambiguity.
This secondary axis can drive an electric generator or some other mechanism such as a pump.
Peter:
The line directly above is very important because PierreB seems to have
been confused by it. Patents try to cover all of the basis. This line
merely points out that if you wanted to (which the authors don’t), you
could connect a generator or a pump to the shaft of each satellite
gear. The authors do not say that the invention requires those
secondary generators or pumps. They are merely pointing out an option
that might come in handy at some time in the future for some reason.
They are merely covering all of the bases. Another reason for covering
all of the bases is to insure that nobody can get around their patent.
Similarly,
the axis of rotation of the turbine can drive an electric generator or
some other mechanism such as a pump. The secondary axis not coincident
with the axis of rotation of the turbine recovers lift forces while the
axis of rotation of the turbine recovers forces dithered.
Peter: Here is a translation problem. The word “dithered” is an incorrect translation.
These forces of lift and raster is generated on the rotor wings by the hydraulic fluid.
Peter:
Here is another translation problem. The word “raster” is an incorrect
translation. Here the use of the term “hydraulic fluid” seems strange
when referring to a fluid, such as a water current or wind.
Halftone
tangential forces are indeed conventionally recovered at the axis of
rotation of the turbine via the connecting arm while normal lift forces
are recovered via sets coulis- buckets / rods / planet gears at the
minor axis that is not coaxial with the axis of rotation of the turbine.
Peter:
Here is another translation problem. The word “Halftone” is an
incorrect translation. The word “coulis” is an incorrect translation.
The
characteristics of the active bearing turbine controlled displacement
which is the subject of the invention will be described in more detail
with reference to non-limiting accompanying drawings in which: - Figure
1 is an illustrative diagram of a lift turbine active according to the
first variant of the invention,"
· https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2016207574A1/en?oq=WO2016207574A1
· PeterS pursued to ignore these main points that are the heart of the patent.
Peter:
Yes, because the patent translation contains multiple errors which make
it impossible to be sure about the meaning of the words in the patent.
That is why I relied on the drawing in the Abstract, and on the
animation.
· I
claimed that these features exacerbate the conflict of forces as the
supposed Active Lift points downwind to a generator in yy' axis, and
the tangential force of rotation goes upwind for its half part, going
also towards the generator in the central sha! ft of the turbine xx'.
Peter:
This is a nonsense statement. There is no conflict of forces to be
exacerbated. To be more precise, the Active Lift component vector acts
normal (perpendicular) to the blade and therefore acts radially inward
(upwind) and radially outward (downwind). The tangential force does not
act towards the central axis; it acts tangentially to the blade’s path.
Mentioning that the tangential force goes upwind for half of the
rotation is irrelevant to Active Lift. Furthermore, during the upwind
half of the blades orbit, there is no positive tangential force when
the blade is headed directly into the wind, so that part of the
statement is also incorrect.
· The ALT principle such as described should add additional torque.
· The author himself indicates (see above) there were losses in the previous versions.
Peter:
It is important to distinguish what is being compared to what. In
previous versions, V1 and V2, the blades moved downwind relative to the
central axis of the rotor. That has the effect of lowering the true
wind speed acting on the blade, thus reducing the lift. So there are
two interpretations of what that means, and it is not clear to me yet
which one the authors had in mind. PierreB’s interpretation is that the
net effect is to make the Darrieus H-rotor less efficient that it would
normally be. The other interpretation is that Version 2 is less
efficient than Version 3 (which makes maximum use of Active Lift
because the blades do not move downwind relative to the central axis of
the rotor). So Version 2 may be merely less efficient than it could be,
but not less efficient that a conventional H-rotor. What it depends
upon is how far the blade moves downwind. If it moves downwind only a
short distance, it will not lower the true wind speed much, and should
be able to produce additional torque.
· I
think there is also a problem with the current version with the
conflict of forces or another problem I has not yet identified.
Peter:
PierreB has not demonstrated a conflict of forces. He only claims there
is one. He seems to be claiming that the vector component of lift (the
component of lift acting toward the center of the rotor) which produces
Active Lift and additional torque somehow reduces the tangential thrust
of the blades, so there can be no increase in torque by using Active
Lift. But he does not show any evidence for his claim. There is no
conflict of forces, so he cannot show it. I asked him for a vector
diagram which showed that conflict he referred to. He did not produce
one. Instead, he cited someone else’s incomplete vector diagram that
does not even include the vector component of Active Lift. So his
diagram is not proof of anything relevant to Active Lift. He has failed
to provide evidence for his claim. In Fig. 2 in the patent, the vector
component of Active Lift can be seen, marked N. No one who understands
vectors would claim that vector N reduces the thrust vector.
· I think also the ALT principle doesn't lead to an additional torque.
Peter:
That is because PierreB does not understand the principle in the first
place and does not understand how it is embodied in Version 3. As far
as I can tell, he does not even understand vector diagrams. He seems to
think that the radially inward and outward component lift vector of
Active Lift reduces the tangential thrust vector. That is impossible in
this case.
· PeterS states the ALT principle leads to an additional torque.
Peter: Yes I do. I agree with the inventors (3 PhD engineers). And I think that what they invented is brilliant.
· In conclusion PeterS and me disagree about ALT efficiency.
Peter:
However, PierreB’s opinion is not based on credible evidence. It is
merely an uninformed opinion based on misunderstanding Version 3. So
this is not much of a disagreement. There are certainly not two equal
and opposite opinions.
· So only a prototype can prove the principle if it is possible.
Peter:
That statement is false. In science, nothing can be proven; it is only
possible to disprove something. Only additional confirming evidence can
be achieved, not proof. A mathematical analysis and an animation also
constitute confirming evidence, and they have been provided. The
inventors have obtained funding and they are working toward prototypes
to be formally tested, as all wind turbines must be in order to
demonstrate that they work as intended.
· Concerning AWE applications some problems has been mentioned (see above).
Peter:
PierreB has demonstrated that he is not qualified to have a credible
opinion on this issue since he does not understand the Active Lift
principle as embodied in Version 3..
· I would add ALT VAWT would likely not work in an efficient way. It would not be different in AWE applications.
Peter:
Again, PierreB’s conclusion is based on his not understanding the
invention, so it is not a credible conclusion. He has provided no
legitimate evidence for his conclusion. I have provided abundant
evidence in my explanations, all indicating that the inventors are
correct and PierreB is incorrect, so the existing evidence is that the
inventors’ Version 3 should work as predicted.
