Digest

Messages in AirborneWindEnergy group. AWES 27193 to 27243

Page 435 of 440.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27193	From: Peter Sharp	Date: 7/6/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Turbines that beat Betz (review)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27194	From: Santos	Date: 7/6/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Turbines that beat Betz (review)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27195	From: Peter Sharp	Date: 7/6/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Turbines that beat Betz (review)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27196	From: Santos	Date: 7/6/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Turbines that beat Betz (review)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27197	From: benhaiemp	Date: 7/6/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Turbines that beat Betz (review)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27198	From: Santos	Date: 7/6/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Turbines that beat Betz (review)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27199	From: benhaiemp	Date: 7/6/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Turbines that beat Betz (review)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27200	From: Santos	Date: 7/6/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Turbines that beat Betz (review)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27201	From: benhaiemp	Date: 7/6/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Turbines that beat Betz (review)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27202	From: joe_f_90032	Date: 7/6/2019
Subject: High-count branched wings driving loop; return in tube

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27203	From: joe_f_90032	Date: 7/6/2019
Subject: Re: High-count branched wings driving loop; return in tube

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27204	From: Peter Sharp	Date: 7/6/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Turbines that beat Betz (review)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27205	From: Santos	Date: 7/6/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Turbines that beat Betz (review)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27206	From: Santos	Date: 7/6/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Turbines that beat Betz (review)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27207	From: Santos	Date: 7/6/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Turbines that beat Betz (review)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27208	From: benhaiemp	Date: 7/6/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Turbines that beat Betz (review)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27209	From: Santos	Date: 7/6/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Turbines that beat Betz (review)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27210	From: benhaiemp	Date: 7/7/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Turbines that beat Betz (review)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27211	From: dougselsam	Date: 7/7/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Turbines that beat Betz (review)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27212	From: Santos	Date: 7/7/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Turbines that beat Betz (review)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27213	From: dougselsam	Date: 7/7/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Turbines that beat Betz (review)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27214	From: Santos	Date: 7/7/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Turbines that beat Betz (review)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27215	From: Santos	Date: 7/7/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Turbines that beat Betz (review)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27216	From: dougselsam	Date: 7/7/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Turbines that beat Betz (review)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27217	From: Peter Sharp	Date: 7/7/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Turbines that beat Betz (review)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27218	From: Santos	Date: 7/7/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Turbines that beat Betz (review)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27219	From: Santos	Date: 7/7/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Turbines that beat Betz (review)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27220	From: Peter Sharp	Date: 7/7/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Turbines that beat Betz (review)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27221	From: Santos	Date: 7/7/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Turbines that beat Betz (review)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27222	From: Peter Sharp	Date: 7/7/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Turbines that beat Betz (review)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27223	From: Santos	Date: 7/7/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Turbines that beat Betz (review)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27224	From: Peter Sharp	Date: 7/7/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Turbines that beat Betz (review)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27225	From: Santos	Date: 7/7/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Turbines that beat Betz (review)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27227	From: benhaiemp	Date: 7/8/2019
Subject: AWES farm in bumper car mode

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27228	From: dougselsam	Date: 7/8/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Turbines that beat Betz (review)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27229	From: dougselsam	Date: 7/8/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Turbines that beat Betz (review)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27230	From: gordon_sp	Date: 7/8/2019
Subject: SUPERTURBINE®

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27231	From: benhaiemp	Date: 7/8/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Turbines that beat Betz (review)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27232	From: Peter Sharp	Date: 7/8/2019
Subject: Re: AWES farm in bumper car mode

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27233	From: gordon_sp	Date: 7/8/2019
Subject: Re: SUPERTURBINE®

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27234	From: Santos	Date: 7/8/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Turbines that beat Betz (review)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27235	From: Santos	Date: 7/8/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Turbines that beat Betz (review)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27236	From: Santos	Date: 7/8/2019
Subject: Re: AWES farm in bumper car mode

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27237	From: benhaiemp	Date: 7/8/2019
Subject: Re: AWES farm in bumper car mode

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27238	From: benhaiemp	Date: 7/8/2019
Subject: Re: AWES farm in bumper car mode

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27239	From: joe_f_90032	Date: 7/8/2019
Subject: Re: AWES farm in bumper car mode

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27240	From: joe_f_90032	Date: 7/8/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Turbines that beat Betz (review)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27241	From: dougselsam	Date: 7/8/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Turbines that beat Betz (review)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27242	From: dave santos	Date: 7/8/2019
Subject: Re: AWES farm in bumper car mode

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27243	From: dave santos	Date: 7/8/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Turbines that beat Betz (review)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27193	From: Peter Sharp	Date: 7/6/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Turbines that beat Betz (review)

Attachments :

DaveS, Again, you falsely state what I said and then disagree with your own false statement.

PeterS

From: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 06, 2019 9:37 AM
To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [AWES] Toy Wind Turbines that beat Betz (review)

DougS,

PeterS seems unwilling to agree Betz is a planar disc model, hence the multiple questions. The next step is review of more realistic higher dimensional Cp models, to compare with Betz numerics.

Understanding Betz is understanding it's limitations as a realistic model. The missing gravity and flight factors are critical shortcomings regular wind folks ignore.

Repetition is simply whatever the learning curve demands.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27194	From: Santos	Date: 7/6/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Turbines that beat Betz (review)

PeterS, I am trying to get you to agree that Betz is fundamentally a planar math model. Do you agree?

Let's all be able to admit errors. I make more than average just by testing more ideas. An error found is knowledge gained.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27195	From: Peter Sharp	Date: 7/6/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Turbines that beat Betz (review)

Attachments :

DaveS, You response was unresponsive. You do not understand how to work with the Betz limit.

PeterS

From: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 06, 2019 10:28 AM
To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [AWES] Toy Wind Turbines that beat Betz (review)

PeterS, I am trying to get you to agree that Betz is fundamentally a planar math model. Do you agree?

Let's all be able to admit errors. I make more than average just by testing more ideas. An error found is knowledge gained.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27196	From: Santos	Date: 7/6/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Turbines that beat Betz (review)

There is no such thing as "working with Betz". It's too crude and provides no design help.

In AWES design, power-to-weight is what to work with.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27197	From: benhaiemp	Date: 7/6/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Turbines that beat Betz (review)

About Doug's message https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/AirborneWindEnergy/conversations/messages/27159: " Not to mention spending all day analyzing the latest vertical-axis-rescue-rumor."

It was adressed to Dave. But for this time I plead guilty for analyzing several versions of devices derived from an erroneous principle claiming exceeding Betz's limit by taking energy where it is not possible, not to mention known concerns like the over use of materials for an equivalent power to a HAWT, and also the addition of useless complexity.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27198	From: Santos	Date: 7/6/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Turbines that beat Betz (review)

Returning to the Toy Turbine elongated rotor that can in principle "beat Betz", but even so cannot beat the Power Kite by power-to-weight.

The Power Kite does not "beat Betz", but leads in AWE as COTS TRL9.

Betz is useless to predict what flying basis is best for AWE. It's at best a teaching case of the specific limits of simplistic scientific idealization.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27199	From: benhaiemp	Date: 7/6/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Turbines that beat Betz (review)

Dabiri's work about thinking a wind farm as a whole rather than the sum of parts could join some requirements of an AWE kite-farm, and even for an AWE unity alone in some configurations. In any case, there is no choice given the length of the rope and the resulting space used. AWES (should) work in three dimensions (as for the example of elongated rotor). Thinking by the whole air volume leads to an evaluation of both potential of wind power (by taking account of the renewal of wind and other concerns) and space use.

Indeed the power-to-weight is also very important.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27200	From: Santos	Date: 7/6/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Turbines that beat Betz (review)

We already think about kitefarm airspace as a whole, including moving WECS as needed to avoid wake interference, without tilting off-axis.

Dabiri offers no insight on elongated toy turbines and Betz, and glosses over the problems of tilting HAWTs off-axis.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27201	From: benhaiemp	Date: 7/6/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Turbines that beat Betz (review)

DaveS,

We must try to understand behind the words. A wind turbine is usually conceived in order to have the maximum power. Generally Betz' law is used as a reference, and reaching Betz's limit is a goal, but not when the whole wind farm is considered, as for Dabiri's work.

From this and also from the space use concern I make an assumption according to which the whole air volume should be considered.

Some remarks as you wrote " We already think about kitefarm airspace as a whole, including moving WECS as needed to avoid wake interference, without tilting off-axis.".

Is it so important to avoid "tilting off-axis"? And who is "we"?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27202	From: joe_f_90032	Date: 7/6/2019
Subject: High-count branched wings driving loop; return in tube

Yet to be fully baked:

Have 10, or so, power-kite wings figure-eighting as branches of one loop line. Set loop line and return tube downwind or close to downwind.

At far field let the branched tethered wings on the loop be drawn into a return pipe forcing deflation. Upon windward exit from the tube, the branched wing return to the sky for flight. PTO: movement of loop drives generator.

This is a cousin to downwinding branched parachutes on a downwind or down hydro stream that return in low drag to the front for repeat flying. And the above and this re-mention are cousins to loop laddermills.

http://www.energykitesystems.net/kPower/LoopBranchesTubeReturn001.png

========================

Note: we have already in forum considered briefly a loop with many branches holding wings that are ever crosswinding both in tube return or in reversal of direction of flight; the branches draw the loop to drive a groundgen.

=========================

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27203	From: joe_f_90032	Date: 7/6/2019
Subject: Re: High-count branched wings driving loop; return in tube

Intended, not 10, but 100.

An air-and-water option: wings in stream while return tube is in air.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27204	From: Peter Sharp	Date: 7/6/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Turbines that beat Betz (review)

Attachments :

DaveS,

“Returning to the Toy Turbine elongated rotor that can in principle "beat Betz,…”

That is incorrect. You have again demonstrated that you do not understand the Betz limit.

PeterS

From: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 06, 2019 11:48 AM
To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [AWES] Toy Wind Turbines that beat Betz (review)

Returning to the Toy Turbine elongated rotor that can in principle "beat Betz", but even so cannot beat the Power Kite by power-to-weight.

The Power Kite does not "beat Betz", but leads in AWE as COTS TRL9.

Betz is useless to predict what flying basis is best for AWE. It's at best a teaching case of the specific limits of simplistic scientific idealization.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27205	From: Santos	Date: 7/6/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Turbines that beat Betz (review)

Pierre B, recall Chris Carlin questioning any need to tilt a rotor in AWE. His same objections still apply.

Kitefarm thinking has been very common on this Forum. Rod and I envision single network farms with no wake issue due to fixed towers.

Dabiri needs to think about AWE perhaps, to better inform us. He has his own topic to post to if you see some new insight.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27206	From: Santos	Date: 7/6/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Turbines that beat Betz (review)

It because Betz is only an idealization that it can be "beat". A gravity well in a wind field can extract more than Betz limit. Black holes, wormholes; it's not hard to beat Betz in modern physics.

Euler had a special fondness for toys. He would have seen the toy turbine insight, even from his time.

PeterS thinks Betz cannot be beaten, ever. Too late.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27207	From: Santos	Date: 7/6/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Turbines that beat Betz (review)

We have beaten Betz to death, once again, with just a toy turbine :)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27208	From: benhaiemp	Date: 7/6/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Turbines that beat Betz (review)

Rod's Daisy rotors are tilted. The area swept by a crosswind kite _ as example that of a power kite for ship like SkySails' kite _ is tilted.

The turbine on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HE7QDJR7RcA is not tilted (but the lifting kite is tilted as other kites). Is this the AWE system you intend to develop?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27209	From: Santos	Date: 7/6/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Turbines that beat Betz (review)

Carlin was questioning rigid rotors in tilt. To make these work well needs hinges in the blade roots. The kite based rotors have inherent passive compliance.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27210	From: benhaiemp	Date: 7/7/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Turbines that beat Betz (review)

For what I know rotors of SuperTurbine (tm) have no hinge.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27211	From: dougselsam	Date: 7/7/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Turbines that beat Betz (review)

Face it: SuperTurbine(TM) is the only way yet demonstrated to "beat Betz" (beat what people had interpreted the Betz limit to be) , in terms of power from a wind turbine of a given rotor diameter. Of the various ways to increase power from a propeller-style turbine of a given diameter, SuperTurbine(TM) has been demonstrated to multiply power with no upper limit, whereas the second-best way to increase the power of a turbine of a given diameter is ducting, funnels, etc., which is limited to about a 2x power multiple. with the duct counting as added swept area, included in a Betz calculation, now seen to use more material than just increasing the propeller diameter itself. So the ducts have not caught on. They don't bet Betz and they cost too much. "No upper limit" is way more than "two times" (2x).

But SuperTurbine(TM) doesn't beat what Betz REALLY says, it beats what had become the common INTERPRETATION of Betz. Instead, SuperTurbine(TM) steps around the Betz coefficient, USING the information provided BY Betz to improve a turbine. Betz said blah blah blah for a given swept area. People had interpreted that a given swept area was equivalent to a given diameter. This is where CREATIVITY comes in. You want to make difference? Come up with something nobody is doing (new), and you can start to bend the existing rules or find ways that the existing rules can be more fully exploited than just standing there thinking you are restricted to a single rotor. Yeah you guys have beaten Betz to death again. Maybe just forget Betz. All you really need to know is your power will be limited, and you can't capture it all, which is obvious anyway. You don't need to know everything. All you need to know are a few things that matter.

---In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, <sharpencil@... filtered #ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667 {font-family:Wingdings;panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;} #ygrps-yiv-1451002372 filtered #ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667 {font-family:"Cambria Math";panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} #ygrps-yiv-1451002372 filtered #ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} #ygrps-yiv-1451002372 filtered #ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667 {font-family:Verdana;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;} #ygrps-yiv-1451002372 filtered #ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667 {font-family:Consolas;panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;} #ygrps-yiv-1451002372 #ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667 #ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667 p.ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667MsoNormal, #ygrps-yiv-1451002372 #ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667 li.ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667MsoNormal, #ygrps-yiv-1451002372 #ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667 div.ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667MsoNormal {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman", serif;} #ygrps-yiv-1451002372 #ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667 a:link, #ygrps-yiv-1451002372 #ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667 span.ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;} #ygrps-yiv-1451002372 #ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667 a:visited, #ygrps-yiv-1451002372 #ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667 span.ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;} #ygrps-yiv-1451002372 #ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667 p {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman", serif;} #ygrps-yiv-1451002372 #ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667 code {font-family:"Courier New";} #ygrps-yiv-1451002372 #ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667 pre {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";} #ygrps-yiv-1451002372 #ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667 tt {font-family:"Courier New";} #ygrps-yiv-1451002372 #ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667 span.ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667HTMLPreformattedChar {font-family:Consolas;} #ygrps-yiv-1451002372 #ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667 p.ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667attach, #ygrps-yiv-1451002372 #ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667 li.ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667attach, #ygrps-yiv-1451002372 #ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667 div.ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667attach {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial", sans-serif;} #ygrps-yiv-1451002372 #ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667 p.ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667bold, #ygrps-yiv-1451002372 #ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667 li.ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667bold, #ygrps-yiv-1451002372 #ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667 div.ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667bold {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial", sans-serif;font-weight:bold;} #ygrps-yiv-1451002372 #ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667 p.ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667green, #ygrps-yiv-1451002372 #ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667 li.ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667green, #ygrps-yiv-1451002372 #ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667 div.ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667green {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman", serif;color:#628C2A;} #ygrps-yiv-1451002372 #ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667 p.ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667replbq, #ygrps-yiv-1451002372 #ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667 li.ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667replbq, #ygrps-yiv-1451002372 #ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667 div.ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667replbq {margin:3.0pt;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman", serif;} #ygrps-yiv-1451002372 #ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667 p.ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667ad, #ygrps-yiv-1451002372 #ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667 li.ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667ad, #ygrps-yiv-1451002372 #ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667 div.ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667ad {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman", serif;} #ygrps-yiv-1451002372 #ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667 p.ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667underline, #ygrps-yiv-1451002372 #ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667 li.ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667underline, #ygrps-yiv-1451002372 #ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667 div.ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667underline {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman", serif;} #ygrps-yiv-1451002372 #ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667 span.ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667yshortcuts {} #ygrps-yiv-1451002372 #ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667 p.ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667ad1, #ygrps-yiv-1451002372 #ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667 li.ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667ad1, #ygrps-yiv-1451002372 #ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667 div.ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667ad1 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman", serif;} #ygrps-yiv-1451002372 #ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667 p.ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667ad2, #ygrps-yiv-1451002372 #ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667 li.ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667ad2, #ygrps-yiv-1451002372 #ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667 div.ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667ad2 {margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:7.5pt;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman", serif;} #ygrps-yiv-1451002372 #ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667 p.ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667underline1, #ygrps-yiv-1451002372 #ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667 li.ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667underline1, #ygrps-yiv-1451002372 #ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667 div.ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667underline1 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman", serif;text-decoration:underline;} #ygrps-yiv-1451002372 #ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667 span.ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667yshortcuts1 {font-family:"Verdana", sans-serif;font-weight:bold;} #ygrps-yiv-1451002372 #ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667 span.ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667yshortcuts2 {font-family:"Verdana", sans-serif;font-weight:normal;} #ygrps-yiv-1451002372 #ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667 span.ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667EmailStyle34 {font-family:"Times New Roman", serif;color:windowtext;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;} #ygrps-yiv-1451002372 #ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667 .ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;} #ygrps-yiv-1451002372 filtered #ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;} #ygrps-yiv-1451002372 #ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667 div.ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667WordSection1 {} #ygrps-yiv-1451002372 #ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667 filtered #ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667 {} #ygrps-yiv-1451002372 filtered #ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667 {font-family:Symbol;} #ygrps-yiv-1451002372 filtered #ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667 {font-family:"Courier New";} #ygrps-yiv-1451002372 filtered #ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667 {font-family:Wingdings;} #ygrps-yiv-1451002372 filtered #ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667 {font-family:Wingdings;} #ygrps-yiv-1451002372 filtered #ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667 {font-family:Wingdings;} #ygrps-yiv-1451002372 filtered #ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667 {font-family:Wingdings;} #ygrps-yiv-1451002372 filtered #ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667 {font-family:Wingdings;} #ygrps-yiv-1451002372 filtered #ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667 {font-family:Wingdings;} #ygrps-yiv-1451002372 filtered #ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667 {font-family:Wingdings;} #ygrps-yiv-1451002372 #ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667 ol {margin-bottom:0in;} #ygrps-yiv-1451002372 #ygrps-yiv-1451002372ygrps-yiv-561962667 ul {margin-bottom:0in;}

DaveS,

“Returning to the Toy Turbine elongated rotor that can in principle "beat Betz,…”

That is incorrect. You have again demonstrated that you do not understand the Betz limit.

PeterS

Returning to the Toy Turbine elongated rotor that can in principle "beat Betz", but even so cannot beat the Power Kite by power-to-weight.

The Power Kite does not "beat Betz", but leads in AWE as COTS TRL9.

Betz is useless to predict what flying basis is best for AWE. It's at best a teaching case of the specific limits of simplistic scientific idealization.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27212	From: Santos	Date: 7/7/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Turbines that beat Betz (review)

While Doug is correct that Betz can be beaten by rotors elongated downwind, the FRONTAL swept area of a tilted ST is the summed shaft and rotor area, so cannot beat Betz. The toy turbine here is proposed to fully align with the wind and beat Betz by keeping frontal area minimized.

It's apt to credit multi-rotor ideas to Rudy Harburg and others dating back even to Fulton. Doug's idea is to envision a rigid driveshaft power transmission for multiple rotors in an AWE context.

It's also noted that the ST is multi-rotor affair, while the toy screw turbine rotor fully unitary. No one has done a "Betz-beater" demo of any AWES rotor. The toy turbine design is a best bet.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27213	From: dougselsam	Date: 7/7/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Turbines that beat Betz (review)

Nice to have a bystander / amateur decide I am "correct" about the subject in which I have the most experience, patents,products, demos, research projects, etc., in the world.

Thanks for saying I am "correct" about something, daveS.

It means so much to have your stamp of approval, with all that implies.

We are truly fortunate to benefit from your wise counsel and prolifery of useful knowledge.

However, please be advised:

A very long turbine, even if aligned with the wind, cannot truly beat Betz either.

Because, as stated hundreds of times on this venue, that whole "planar" thing.

AND my SuperTurbines(TM) hve been run aligned with the wind, especially the ones that tilt back for overspeed protection in strong winds, such s the CEC-funded project, and I'd have to check some data to see if they have "beat Betz" when tilted flat.

The Betz coefficient is a useful tool, not a God to worship.

It's easy to use, if you understand what it is. Doesn't really require a whole lot of discussion, any more than using a screwdriver requires some nutcase expounding on "torque", quantum theory, einstein, etc.

Some people are capable of just using a tool, and moving on, with zero discussion.

Those are people who DO things, not just talk endlessly.

I think the ability to "say" in some sloganistic context, that any turbine could be "called" a "Betz-beater", under any rationalization, seems possibly interesting from a marketing standpoint.

But,you know going in, there would be resistance, which could be good since they say any publicity is good publicity.

From a technical standpoint, the whole thing amounts to just one more opportunity for the daveS/JoeF do-nothing approach to wind energy research, where the thrust is to find ways to redefine words so as to appear, in internet postings, to be doing wind energy research, while in reality mostly just occasionally flying kites for fun, or hanging up a tarp and taking a nap.

In the internet fantasy-world, daveS delights in beating Betz.

In the real world he castigates people using power meters at all.

The existence of the internet has engendered some pretty strange situations...

---In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, <santos137@...

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27214	From: Santos	Date: 7/7/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Turbines that beat Betz (review)

Doug has far more experience in Betz debate than any kite person. We bring fresh thinking to stale argument.

Yes, turbines of Doug's may have already beat Betz during moments of axial alignment with wind, but that Gipe's requirement holds, that tested proof takes third-party verification. One must kindly presume the multi-rotor is one turbine.

Power kites do not challenge Betz, there just isn't a numeric match to our flight energy equations. AWE engineering works far beyond Betz. Betz to us is a historical curiosity that a kite store toy or Doug can falsify.

As for the Black Hole Betz beater, some sort of matter-jet from the surface could be the "tower" to hold it up in the wind. Imagination is the best Betz beater

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27215	From: Santos	Date: 7/7/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Turbines that beat Betz (review)

Clarifying that AWE theory operates beyond Betz, but our predicted AWES performance is well below Cp Betz due to energetic costs of flight.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27216	From: dougselsam	Date: 7/7/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Turbines that beat Betz (review)

Makani could claim their turbines outperform Betz considering the combined swept areas of the rotors and the ambient windspeed. Of course it would be one more Betz-beater trick, cuz word-tricks are the best you can do in beating Betz - can't fool Mother Nature. How does Makani stay in business? They work for just the tips. Why just tips? Cuz that's where the biggest losses occur, and they wanted a challenge, so they added an extra tip to each flying tip, giving the tip two tips, to double the challenge! Glad they are trying their chosen direction - someone had to do it! :)))

So let's list some ways to pretend to beat betz:

1) SuperTurbine(TM) coaxial multi-rotor turbines

2) Funnels, ducts, shrouds to concentrate the wind

3) Artificially accelerate the rotor vs airspeed using a kite or sail (Makani, others)

4) Use a truck to bring a turbine up to speed and then release the rotor and it can beat Betz the moment it first spins up before the pressure-bubble forms in front.

5) Type on the internet

---In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, <santos137@...

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27217	From: Peter Sharp	Date: 7/7/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Turbines that beat Betz (review)

Attachments :

DaveS, No you didn’t. If you understood the Betz limit, you would not make such a claim.

PeterS

From: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 06, 2019 3:38 PM
To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [AWES] Toy Wind Turbines that beat Betz (review)

We have beaten Betz to death, once again, with just a toy turbine :)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27218	From: Santos	Date: 7/7/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Turbines that beat Betz (review)

Betz is not Nature as such, but an abstract Idealization. Nature beats any human idea. Let Doug "pretend" as well.

Makani is no Betz beater by any measure of frontal sweep, either the whole loop, or each flygen turbine.

Betz is also beaten by real wind structures ideal wind lacks, like surface gradient with LLJ boost or coherent gusts. Uncounted small but real effects define a truer Cp limit.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27219	From: Santos	Date: 7/7/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Turbines that beat Betz (review)

PeterS, what stands out in your objections is lack of specifics.

Show how well you understand Betz in depth, like what limits properly apply to Idealizations in Engineering Physics. Cite sources to support your opinions, if possible.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27220	From: Peter Sharp	Date: 7/7/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Turbines that beat Betz (review)

Attachments :

DaveS, Explaining to you is a waste of time because you ignore and misquote.

PeterS

From: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 07, 2019 4:03 PM
To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [AWES] Toy Wind Turbines that beat Betz (review)

PeterS, what stands out in your objections is lack of specifics.

Show how well you understand Betz in depth, like what limits properly apply to Idealizations in Engineering Physics. Cite sources to support your opinions, if possible.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27221	From: Santos	Date: 7/7/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Turbines that beat Betz (review)

PeterS, explain to the world, not me, this is a public forum. Don't worry about being misquoted, you original text stands. Show how to "work with Betz" in AWE, if you have any idea.

Answer to specifics you have not replied to, like omission of flight factors. Refrain from unfocused dismissals. Show you really know more about Betz than what you condemn. Add sources, don't just diss them.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27222	From: Peter Sharp	Date: 7/7/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Turbines that beat Betz (review)

Attachments :

DaveS, I did, and you ignored, as usual.

PeterS

From: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 07, 2019 4:35 PM
To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [AWES] Toy Wind Turbines that beat Betz (review)

PeterS, explain to the world, not me, this is a public forum. Don't worry about being misquoted, you original text stands. Show how to "work with Betz" in AWE, if you have any idea.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27223	From: Santos	Date: 7/7/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Turbines that beat Betz (review)

You are not ignored when misunderstood. Thanks for helpfully repeating key points to make yourself clear.

The elongated screw remains a good aerodynamic comparison to an infinitly thin disc, no matter what anyone thinks of Betz.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27224	From: Peter Sharp	Date: 7/7/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Turbines that beat Betz (review)

Attachments :

DaveS,

“The elongated screw remains a good aerodynamic comparison to an infinitly thin disc,,,,

You are not making any sense.

PeterS

From: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 07, 2019 5:27 PM
To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [AWES] Toy Wind Turbines that beat Betz (review)

You are not ignored when misunderstood. Thanks for helpfully repeating key points to make yourself clear.

The elongated screw remains a good aerodynamic comparison to an infinitly thin disc, no matter what anyone thinks of Betz.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27225	From: Santos	Date: 7/7/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Turbines that beat Betz (review)

Just don't give up trying to see sense.

I tested every kind of turbine novelty that my friends in kite retail industry distribute. The Archimedes' screw and logarithmic spiral turbines have remarkable properties both as toys and abstract geometry.

The logarithmic spiral spin-tail cut from a single cloth disc has amazing properties across a wide wind range.

These toys just need a bit of added spine to develop surprising high torque. Let's hope Doug is wrong about small wind never getting cheap.

Betz itself is a pretend toy.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27227	From: benhaiemp	Date: 7/8/2019
Subject: AWES farm in bumper car mode

Crosswind AWES are studied and realized by almost all universities, companies (Makani, @Kitepower, Ampyx and so on) and organizations involved in AWE. The power/kite area ratio is the main considered ratio, if not the only one. However a crosswind kite uses an huge space with its (too) large power figures, and leads to a high safety concern due to high speed of the kite, moving long tether under high tension. The control is almost only a computerized control: if it fails some serious problems can occur. And the crash is prohibited. Resulting in first the requirement of a large spacing between unities within the air volume of a kite farm.

Another possibility is the implementation of a less efficient AWES by power/kite area ratio, but allowing a better whole space use/power ratio as it is multiplied. As examples Magnus effect balloons
(Magenn), or some stationary devices. Such devices could be stacked and fill the worked air volume. Collisions would be without serious effect in a way that is shown on the video of bumper cars below. By the same the stationary (even huge) kites fly close to each other in kite festivals, while crosswind (even small) kites for competitions take much space.

As a result an AWES farm in bumper mode with less efficient AWES per unity, could become more efficient in the whole.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GypVQrxudOc&t=119s

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27228	From: dougselsam	Date: 7/8/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Turbines that beat Betz (review)

daveS said: "These toys just need a bit of added spine to develop surprising high torque. Let's hope Doug is wrong about small wind never getting cheap. Betz itself is a pretend toy."

***DougS Replies: It's really ridiculous how Santos "needs" to endlessly misquote me or mischaracterize my positions, just so he can have something to "argue" with. He likes to make broad, meaningless, seemingly-sweeping comments, about things I've never even implied, in a vain attempt to appear as THE "authority"(?) of wind energy, the "all-knowing", know-nothing oracle, still going on trying to denigrate Betz.

The Betz coefficient - max possible power output - the one thing he has no association with. Notice how this sort of people constantly try to accuse others of their own shortcomings. He plays with toys, pretending it has anything to do with wind energy, still pretending he "will"(?) exceed the Betz coefficient, so Betz, a guy who the industry recognizes as having figured out how much power can be extracted from the wind, "is" "a pretend toy". (????????????????????)

See? daveS playing with toys is "real", while the recognized industry standard is "a toy". Got that?

And this is supposed to be a serious discussion, and you are supposed to be impressed...

Santos actually takes my simultaneous observation that small-wind companies have been going bankrupt, and in response I've introduced technology aimed at lowering the cost of small wind, and maybe big wind too, yet Santos says he hopes I am wrong about small wind never getting cheap. But I never said small wind could not get cheap. To the contrary, I'm one of the few people trying to do something about it. But for people like Santos, facts are the enemy, and everything must be described as its exact opposite. Everything backwards, everything upside-down.

It's too bad the moderation here is slanted 100 degrees toward humoring him, coddling his consistently-wrong statements, because in my opinion, if he were simply not allowed to make knowingly-false statements (or maybe he is too asleep to even understand how most of what he says is mere false posturing) we would be spared reading at least half of his daily mental-distress-calls. He plays with toys, pretending to be involved with wind energy, unable to actually do so, and goes on and on making no sense with baseless mischaracterizations amounting to accusations, at the expense of people who actually do AWE in their sleep without hardly even trying.

---In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, <santos137@...

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27229	From: dougselsam	Date: 7/8/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Turbines that beat Betz (review)

And so far, just to be clear, daveS (Toy wind turbines that beat Betz) has been limited to pretend method #5, below...

---In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, <dougselsam@...

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27230	From: gordon_sp	Date: 7/8/2019
Subject: SUPERTURBINE®

Doug,

My concept is using multiple turbines on shafts with double universal joints at each turbine. Is this included in your patents or if not I would suggest that it is a radical improvement over the Superturbine®? Double universal joints will enable the orientation of all turbines to directly face the wind direction therefore eliminating cosine cubed losses. In addition the double universal joints will eliminate bending forces on the shafts between the turbines. In your design, the combination of bending forces and torque would require much stronger shafts.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27231	From: benhaiemp	Date: 7/8/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Turbines that beat Betz (review)

Doug, you are severe with Dave. He doesn't think toys can beat Betz more than he can become rich by playing to Monopoly.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27232	From: Peter Sharp	Date: 7/8/2019
Subject: Re: AWES farm in bumper car mode

Attachments :

PierreB, If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that a greater concentration of power kites could be obtained by having the kites fly up and down rather than back and forth across the wind. I agree. That is my thinking behind using the Cyclo-Kite suspended from a pilot kite to create a short-pull power kite.

If a long-pull power kite flies upward and forward during the power stroke, it benefits from a greatly increased apparent wind speed. If the kite is light, then raising its own weight will reduce the power stroke only a little in terms of the maximum power produced. An additional benefit is that the kite will fly higher in faster winds.

Since this idea should be obvious to power kite people, I assume that they have rejected it for some reason.

PeterS

From: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2019 7:19 AM
To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [AWES] AWES farm in bumper car mode

Crosswind AWES are studied and realized by almost all universities, companies (Makani, @Kitepower, Ampyx and so on) and organizations involved in AWE. The power/kite area ratio is the main considered ratio, if not the only one. However a crosswind kite uses an huge space with its (too) large power figures, and leads to a high safety concern due to high speed of the kite, moving long tether under high tension. The control is almost only a computerized control: if it fails some serious problems can occur. And the crash is prohibited. Resulting in first the requirement of a large spacing between unities within the air volume of a kite farm.

As a result an AWES farm in bumper mode with less efficient AWES per unity, could become more efficient in the whole.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27233	From: gordon_sp	Date: 7/8/2019
Subject: Re: SUPERTURBINE®

My remarks about double universal joints applies to the Sky Serpent™. Obviously you can’t have universal joints in your tower based system.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27234	From: Santos	Date: 7/8/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Turbines that beat Betz (review)

It seems Doug after all agrees small wind could be cheap, and that key art might come from the wind novelty world.

Where we disagree is whether COTS TRL9 power kites used according to USP3987987 solve AWE.

After so many years of fantastic power kite progress, the oddball AWES ideas have fizzled. Best toy wins.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27235	From: Santos	Date: 7/8/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Turbines that beat Betz (review)

I actually think real toys can beat poor idealizations. Including Betz.

Another class of real methods for beating Betz is structured windfields with vortical return flows. There is no such wind as ideal Betz wind; that too is imaginary.

In AWE models, we have the same problem, of our idealized equations omitting many critical real factors, like power-to-weight, LCOE, and insurability.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27236	From: Santos	Date: 7/8/2019
Subject: Re: AWES farm in bumper car mode

Bumper balloons could harvest air-pressure pumping when they bump.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27237	From: benhaiemp	Date: 7/8/2019
Subject: Re: AWES farm in bumper car mode

PeterS,

No particularly, as I only compared crosswind kites _ going fast in a large figure and with high tension _ with stationary kites or Magnus effect balloons, with no or slow motion like during reel-out phase (1/3 wind speed downwind) then reel-in phase (without tension) for said balloons, allowing collisions between them with no damage, like bumper cars, so allowing filling the space.

I have yet no envisaged the Cyclo-Kite.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27238	From: benhaiemp	Date: 7/8/2019
Subject: Re: AWES farm in bumper car mode

Dave,

This is both a short and relevant remark.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27239	From: joe_f_90032	Date: 7/8/2019
Subject: Re: AWES farm in bumper car mode

Vertical crosswinding remains in option list, PeterS. The mass of the involved wings gain potential energy that may be spent in the down stroke. PTO options are several for the up-and-down systems.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27240	From: joe_f_90032	Date: 7/8/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Turbines that beat Betz (review)

https://patents.google.com/patent/US3987987A/en

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27241	From: dougselsam	Date: 7/8/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Turbines that beat Betz (review)

Notice: I really just have to point out, yet again, you need to ignore everything daveS says when he refers to things I supposedly said, did not say, etc. He is wrong wrong wrong, I never said small wind could not be cheap, and did not agree with him that "the key" might come from "the wind novelty world". What he is saying, as usual, makes no sense. He never admits he mischaracterizes what I say on a regular, almost daily basis. The whole thing is so stupid. It is impossible to have a discussion when someone just keeps injecting nonsensical statements that have no logical basis, and ascribing positions to me that I have not taken. The amazing thing bout daveS is his ability to combine so many false statements into a single sentence, let alone a whole post. Every few days he takes some completely new tangent, some new branch of science or engineering he suddenly believes is "the answer", and a few days later it is something completely different. Today it is kite-show toys are "the answer", after having beaten (pummeled) the Betz coefficient to death in his typical crackpot anti-Betz nonsense of the previous few days. What seems to really bother him is not so much the exact Betz coefficient, as the fact that there are any standards at all - especially any way to measure power (ohhhhh he hates that...), which separates the people who make power (like me) from those who don't (like him). It's his own shell-game, constant diversions, with him hoping his "monkey-at-the-typewriter" approach will someday, by some miracle, produce something, anything, that is actually true. So far it has not. The only thing he seems to have right is the future of wind energy, apparently, depends on what I think.

---In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, <santos137@...

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27242	From: dave santos	Date: 7/8/2019
Subject: Re: AWES farm in bumper car mode

The basic trade-off with vertical sweep is the reversed alignment of gravity and load motion. Either the PTO struggles upward under both gravity and load burdens, or has to pull down against kite-lift through a return pulley. Both modes are "sapped" compared to crosswind horizontal load motion with minimized cosine-loss geometry (flatter A-frame rig).

Vertical crosswinding remains in option list, PeterS. The mass of the involved wings gain potential energy that may be spent in the down stroke. PTO options are several for the up-and-down systems.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 27243	From: dave santos	Date: 7/8/2019
Subject: Re: Toy Wind Turbines that beat Betz (review)

So Doug seems to now agree small wind power can be cheap, but that key ideas cannot come from the wind novelty market as I think possible for the logarithmic spiral spin-tail.

Doug's past comments about costs in regard to his home turbine tended to paint a bleak picture of "small wind" cost, including cost-deferred maintenance. Good that he keeps hope alive.

---In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, <santos137@...