To reduce launch stress, launch a larger mass with a bungee cord attached to the kite.  You can still wind up with most of the momentum in the kite, possibly by using a timed release.  However, I don't think it will be necessary or economic.  Helicopter drones would be my choice, if kiting is insufficient.

New title spelling only. Content is identical to a December 2011 video by NASA. So, the video does not tell or show any content beyond the 2011 December point.
First title: Airborne Wind Energy

Nice someone added the " -AWE"
==========================================

kite taxi            

Yes it is just another Savonius, weighing thousands of pounds to equal the output of a regular small turbine weighing perhaps 70 lbs. It uses about 20 times the material needed. Even their modest power estimates may be overestimates. Anyone can put renderings on the web and make claims regarding the renderings.

--- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, Pierre BENHAIEM <pierre.benhaiem@... http://www.gual-industrie.com/
improve the record in Proof-of-Crackpotness? PierreB

Hmmm, sounds to me like they're still working out the details if they need to "upgrade the electronics". They've gotten rid of a lot of the features they originally said made it so great, like the cloth blades on bicycle spokes, so it's more like a regular turbine now, just using 7 times the required material. At a 6-foot diameter I seriously doubt if it makes 1500 Watts. A 6-foot diameter turbine is a 500-Watt turbine, not a 1500-Watt turbine. It weighs about 7 times too much for a 6-foot diameter turbine, and probably costs 7 times too much. I'd like to see it survive one of my ultra-punishing test sites that tear turbines to shreds. I'd give it less than one hour to total destruction. Why do turbines like this win awards? because magazines are always looking for a story, and if PhD "experts" get things this wrong, why would you expect journalists to second-guess them. Usually if an owner buys a turbine they are happy if it puts out any power at all, doesn't make too much noise, and doesn't break or burn out. See if it can pay for itself, and see if it can survive ridiculously strong winds that it will probably have to at some point.

The rule of thumb is if your TSR is less than 1, it's a drag machine and if your TSR is more than one, it's a lift machine. If the TSR is exactly one, people will endlessly argue about whether it is a lift machine or a drag machine or a transsexual.

That's what happens when people are to smart to listen... It seems to me they are just duplicating the kite-flying/string-pulling already being done by others. Nice to hear the power cycle makes more energy than the retraction cycle uses - I guess you would want that...
Mars air density is less than 1% of Earth's. A windmill gets power proportional to air density. So a windmill on Mars can only make less than 1% of the power as one on Earth, at the same windspeed. An airship would have to weigh less than 1% as an Earth airship to float on Mars. That is a LOT of required structural lightening, including the turbines themselves. I've always liked that blimp with a grappling hook idea though - let's do it on Earth! Drop a keel in the ocean and go!

The barrel of dynamite has always been there.
I don't see anyone lighting the fuse yet.

Have at the Berlin flight field next year: 

Rim Driven Wind Turbine can perhaps be an interesting scheme for AWE with sea or land support.

So I made some trials to estimate aerodynamic loss due to the rim.

- Rotor four blades from helicopter toy:diameter 0.24 m;diameter of rim section:1 mm;wind speed 5-6 m/s:

Trial alone,tip speed is 23 m/s,TSR being 4.

Trial by adding an adhesive tape of 1 cm wide (section facing wind almost nothing,only the thickness of the tape) arround the rim.The result is roughly identical to the precedent,the additional form drag being low.

- Propeller two blades diameter 0.54 m;wind speed 5-6 m/s:

Trial alone,tip speed is 28 m/s,TSR being 5.

Trial within a rim which mass is 0.17 kg,and diameter of section is (only) 17 mm.TSR is 0.5 ,ten times less.What is the reason of such amount of loss?Aerodynamic loss due to form drag,the shape of the rim taking the wind by section facing wind (while on the precedent example tape section facing wind is almost nothing),or loss due to the weight of the rim?

So I have some doubts about the real efficiency of the design Winflex Wind Turbine where the rim is very thick.Morever its softness makes additional drag losses;the video schows only an animation,not the real built turbine.

I thank for your explains.

PierreB  

   

   

Precision:on the first example with 4-bladed rotor,tips of blades are
free with tape (and of course without),but on the second example with 2
bladed rotor the (little wide) tips are not free since they enter the
rim,so it is possible aerodynamic features are quite different,but
probably not enough to make such a difference with and without rim.

Now my conclusion is the rim should be thin enough to limit taking from
the wind slowing the rotation...

PierreB

--- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, "Pierre Benhaiem"
<pierre.benhaiem@... rim
of
schows

Dave S. Why make yourself look endlessly silly? Consumer Reports:

http://news.consumerreports.org/home/2012/08/results-of-consumer-reports-wind-turbine-tests.html

Why does the Honeywell turbines not still use cloth blades on bicycle spokes? Why did they ever? How much does it cost? What about the excess weight? Does it really put out 1500 Watts?

You don't know the answer to any of those questions, just like you don't know antything about wind energy, period.

Honeywell STARTS with LIES:
1) They compare their turbine to "turbines with a gearbox". Only the uninformed imagine there is a competing 6-foot diameter turbine with a gearbox - there are NONE.
2) They claim to start producing electricity in a 2 mph wind or whatever - I watch turbines and anemometers for hours every day - the wind can't even power up an inverter til you have 5 or 6 mph, even if your turbine was 100% efficient!.

Dave S., I took 2 seconds to google "cost of a honeywell wind turbine" and the first article I clicked on was Consumer Reports".
Consumer Reports found the turbine put out 4 kWH in 15 Months versus about 1500 kWh promised for the site. That is ONE QUARTER OF ONE PERCENT of the claimed results from this turbine. You might as well admit it produces essentially NOTHING. I think most experts just say whatever it takes to get rid of you quickly - "sure it works great"...

Consumer Reports states that their Honeywell turbine would take SEVERAL MILLENIA to pay for itself, yet it has a predicted 20-year lifetime. I can show you a decent competing turbine for about $500 versus $11,000 for this hunk-o-junk.

http://news.consumerreports.org/home/2012/08/results-of-consumer-reports-wind-turbine-tests.html

Here's a cut-and-paste for those online without internet access (huh?)
Energy
Recouping cost of wind turbine may take more than a lifetime
Aug 6, 2012 12:00 PM

Wind power has been the fastest growing source of new electric power, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. But if you're considering a wind turbine to supplement your home's power, consider our experience with one product, the Honeywell WT6500 Wind Turbine, a cautionary tale.

Among the few wind turbines that can be mounted on a roof, the WT6500 is similar to traditional wind turbines: Any unused energy it generates can be sent or sold to a utility for credit off your power bill. But it's quieter than traditional turbines, and according to the manufacturer WindTronics, starts generating power at lower wind speeds. The company claims the unit starts spinning from winds of a mere 0.5 mphâ€"with electricity generated from only 3 mph. Traditional gearbox wind turbines, said the company, require at least 7.5-mph winds to start generating power.

A tool on Windtronics' website had calculated we'd get 1,155 kWh per year at the 12-mph average it predicted for our area of Yonkers, New York. And the authorized installer, during his initial visit, didn't say the roof of our headquarters might generate any less, but that rating is at a height of 164 feet, not the 33 feet WindTronics requires for rooftop installations.

In the 15 months since the turbine was installed, though, it has delivered less than 4 kWhâ€"enough only to power a 12,000 btu window air conditioner for one afternoon. A company representative in charge of installations worldwide recently visited our offices and confirmed that our test model was correctly installed. What's more, he told us that while the WT6500 should start generating power at about 3 mph, the initial juice goes just to power the system's inverter, which must be running before it supplies any AC power elsewhere. The true wind speed needed to start producing AC while the inverter is on is 6 mph, not far from the 7.5 mph needed by a traditional gearbox wind turbine.

The Honeywell costs $11,000 installed, comes with a five-year warranty and has a 20-year expected product life. But having a thorough site analysis by a manufacturer-authorized installer, backed by your own research on websites such as the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, is vital.

At the rate the WT6500 is delivering power at our test site, it would take several millennia for the product to pay for itself in savingsâ€"not the 56 years it would take even with the 1,155 kWh quote we received.

â€"Ed Perratore

Dave:
I GAVE YOU the RULE OF THUMB. PERIOD. You are an uninformed NEWBIE who knows nothing, PERIOD.

A SuperTwin(TM) weighs about 100 lbs., with no attempt to make it lighter. For the past decade or so, the small wind turbine design cult has been operating within what we call the "Heavy Metal" school of wind turbine design. Because we are at a small scale, we can afford a little extra steel.

A crane operator from G.E. Wind once told me "In wind energy, the word is beefy, beefy, beefy".

The idea is similar to "Little red Riding Hood": Build your "house" out of bricks if you want it to survive, or for a wind turbine, use a lot of steel, and make everything a couple sizes beefier and heavier than you think is needed.

I have ways I can make generators, driveshafts, and support structures a lot lighter. Sometimes that can be good but of course you have to be careful. Any component might seem OK for a few weeks, months or even a year, and still fail.

Doug,

Thanks for the opinion of Senior Editor Ed Perratore to add to that of Wind Power Expert Coy Harris. Coy never opined to me about the economics of the turbine, and Ed did not seem technically able to troubleshoot the anomalous output. Coy may have had a better install in a better wind location. Buildings can have serious dead spots in their wind field. There is also the independent rating

I am still collecting information here. Why must you call me names for reporting Coy's opinion? We still need to explain how these two reports can be so divergent. I have not yet rendered my final judgement on this turbine, but hope it will be a model of excellence for you to aspire to,

daveS

The late, great Paul MacCready was fond of pointing out that the air inside a conventional tractor-trailer used to transport the broken-down Gossamer Aircraft was heavier than the aircraft itself.  The very low roll rate of Human Powered Aircraft, which requires a return to wing-warping as used by the Wright Bros. instead of ailerons, is attributed to the hundreds of pounds of air that becomes entrained above and below the wings.

To appreciate the full impact of entrained air mass during movement of a kite system's wing, 

Hey Doug, or even NASA,
If your looking for a whole load of dense energy going by...
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/perpetual-ocean.html 
just ask NASA where it is.

I should have some sketchy test data for you soon,
We (dudes round the village) are re-making our ring this week.
This time using a 6mm 5ply marine board, 2m diameter, 120mm deep fluted to 1.9m diameter.

A few more changes ...
There's nothing like a bit of public failure to kick you up the arse...
Stem: stiffening bits ready to go on, bolts cleaned, new nuts, (new ratchet spanners still to get.)
Brake: disk lightened with loads of holes.
Lifter kite: reset the drogue onto the middle tube only, flown and tested ace with the boys today.
Driving kites: reshaping tether (the outer one) is to be locked to kite tethers with whipping. New mounting will be done with correct driven hoop / wheel suspension tension ratio.
Still loads more to do, but I'm much more hopeful for the second test.

I might add that when considering how to install a device to extract power from a current, everything about kite technology gets easier in the water, while everything about regular windmill designs gets harder.  The foundation gets very pricey, and it is hard to repair.  The kite, OTOH, can swing from a simple mooring and rise to the surface on demand.  The use of buoyancy becomes compact and easy. Currents deemed uneconomic for traditional hard technology should yield to tension-based kite shapes.  The steep price increment for keeping electrics healthy around seawater can be dodged by using the kites to pump water up to a reservoir, to produce power on demand.

the response curve of this kite (tested today) kinda ties with the diving inflated parafoil chat...http://youtu.be/qC1S0lv_GyE 

or pull a chain from the water around a sprocket mounted above a floating barge...
been meaning to draw that

Air cannon with sabot containing the parafoil up to a specific height where the sabot comes apart releasing the parafoil.

For a start-up patents are a needed condition to attract investors.A patent is not an authorization to make but to forbid.In AWE field where no commercial application exist there are hundred and hundred patents,allowing mutual blocking.So the paradox is patents become the best mean to share technologies while initially their goals are quite different.Dave Santos is pertinent thinking towards a collective AWE patent pool or massive CC-licensed IP.It is a step towards what French minister Arnaud Montebourg called "cooperative capitalism".

 

PierreB 

 

 

 

On Paul Gipe's website:"the rated power of Bergey Windpower's 850 is 850 watts at 28 mph".
And the measured power of (8 ft diameter X 2) SuperTwin seems to be 1000 W at 26 mph .

For making a true comparaison SuperTwin should be made with two rotors from Bergey Windpower's 850.Or making a comparison of Twin and a single rotor from Twin.

 

 

Yourself mention blades from Bergey and SuperTwin are not the same.Precise testing will allow to see what is won with Superturbine' configuration,what size should be it,what angle,how many rotors,how much of lift,for what use...

 

 

PierreB 

 

 

 

Pierre, I think your statement, "A patent is not an authorization to make but to forbid" is not fair.

Actually Apple, with its patents, has made possible impressive technological progress, whereas its competitors, copying the ideas, have not improved the technology, on the contrary.

Patents,like author rights for arts, is to protect the work of a creator.

"Cooperative capitalism" is a contradiction in terms, like "ethical banking". Instead of coining new improbable expressions, that hides the problems, it would be more profitable to cope and come into terms with capitalism and banks.

Dave:
You don't need to render a final judgement on this turbine, since you know nothing of wind energy and your opinion reflects complete ignorance. You already have given your opinion, and there is no doubt about it: You know everything, I know nothing, everything I say is wrong, and every crappy joke of a turbine is great.

When I said Professor Crackpot is like a wheelbarrow at a Formula-1 race I was not exaggerating: Consumer Reports agrees: half of one percent of the performance is a similar ratio to 200 mph vs 1 mph. You think what I say is hype - you have no idea.

I called Coy in Lubbock, Texas yesterday. He told me the real story:
The Honeywell turbine experienced a 50-60 mph wind soon after being installed, which immediately burned out its "controller".
The Honeywell turbine system is not operational until they can replace this critical component. What do you think is gonna happen next time they get 50-60 mph winds?

Like I have said, overspeed protection is not the main thing, it's the only thing. Why? Otherwise you will have a turbine that is not operational, which can therefore produce no power. We figured out long ago that you are better off with a turbine that produces a tenth of the power if it survives. In the case of Honeywell, it produces less than 1% of the advertised energy, AND it cannot survive even the first real storm.

I asked Coy how much power it had made. He told me he had no information on power at all. They were just getting their collection of wind turbines all set up, and had no way to measure output yet.

Coy related that their site has the same setup as two of my test sites: 48-Volt battery systems with Xantrex grid-tie inverters. He's planning on putting about 4 turbines through the same inverter. "Funny," I told him, "we are also just about to start trying to put more than one turbine through the same exact system".

I've been a fan of this wind museum in Lubbock, Texas since I first saw it on the web several years ago, noting they had a side-by-side dual-rotor farm water-pumper windmill...

Thanks for the intro.
Just for the record, I have a SuperTwin(TM) mounted at 14 feet height on my van in the backyard that produced 4 kWh every afternoon using a couple of 2x4's as blades. So $5 of lumber produces as much energy in an afternoon as the Honeywell produced in a year and 3 months. Yes I'm sure having a bit of wind helps...

I once took a 6-bladed Hornet wind turbine (5-foot diam, 20 lbs, $500) and carefully took a power curve, measuring 50 Watts at 20 mph. I replaced the six (6) factory blades with a single wooden 2-blade straight-thru rotor (a 5-foot 1x4 from Home Depot) and measured 100 Watts at 20 mph - I got twice the power just by mounting decent blades, and far fewer of them!

I guess I could have tried cloth blades too, right?
K gotta go.
I hope I have shown that everything you have said abou everything I say being wrong is simply wrong.

Keep up the fight for ignorance!

Hey Dave:
Yeah we know flying benefits from light weight - thanks for another revelation. See here's how it works, I bring up a not-so-subtle conflict shared by aviation and AWE, the need for strength, which implies weight, and the requirement for lightness. Your position of course is that I bring up all this without regard for any consequences, that because I am only "Doug", I must not even know aviation requires lightness. Thanks for explaining that. Maybe you think nobody but you on this list knows that aviation requires lightness. Did everyone else catch that bit of subtle instruction from our guru of crackpot?

I hate to burst another of your artificial bubbles in your "fight for ignorance", but your repeated statements that I know nothing of aviation are erroneous. I spent the afternoon yesterday at the Apple Valley Airport hanging with a guy who was divebombing us at over 500 MPH in a modified Soviet Block trainer jet he had hotrodded with a Rolls Royce engine. I used to hang glide. I had one of the first Eipper kites in 1975. Before that, I built a hang glider (that sucked). I have a runway in my yard. I have friends who design airplanes. I'm no aviation expert but I'm not unfamiliar with aviation either.

hey Dave S., you have purported to be involved in wind energy for years now. By this time in my wind energy journey I had many patents pending, many turbines built, data proving my theories sponsored by the government, and Paul Gipe flying one of my turbines for a year before, as you point out, a randomly-chosen $1 automotive diode happened to burn out. Compare this to your progress - sand falling off blowing tarps at the beach, and Paul Gipe will not even talk to you. I think you have some 'splaining to do.

Dave you are blathering. You cannot explain away the fact that the turbine you were promoting as proof that I know nothing, was carefully measured to produce essentailly NO useful power, in over a year, after being installed by an authorized contractor in a site approved by Honeywell, on a rooftop as promoted by Honeywell.
Ever notice how every single thing you say evaoprates the monet anyone checks the facts? Can you ever just admit you were wrong?

Marco,

 

It is not a critic against patent system that I approve.Myself apply for patents sometimes.The nature of patents is to allow to forbid any entity to make what is claimed,but not to authorize yourself making what you claim because of the risk of infringement of rights from other patents owners. 

 

Nor AWE is a special field (comprising several fields) where hundred patents exist and accumulate since decades without business concern.So a "cooperative capitalism" could be an applicable paradox for the other paradox being AWE patents/no business.

 

PierreB  

Dave S. it is hilarious how you can press on in your "fight for ignorance"!
We in wind energy determined long ago that wind tunnel tests for small turbines are almost meaningless. Just an expensive way to fudge the data. They always choose a wind tunnel too small and it forces air thru any turbine, making any turbine look acceptable.

Dave S. guess what? Wind-tunnel testing is a leading symptom of Professor Crackpot! The good professor could never just build a decebnt turbine and put it in the wind, as people across the globe increasingly do. No, he must waste lots of money. Wind tunnels are a good way to waste money: you can;t afford a big enough one but you do it anyway and you force air thru your machine making it look OK at some point. Take your best data and lie about it from then on.

Ask yourself a question: If Professor Crackpot really believed in his machine, would he not mount it in a strong wind site immediately? If he were serious, would he not develop his machine using truck testing so he could test all day every day, instead of renting a few hours in an expensive wind tunnel?

Howe many idiot newbies do you think I have talked to over the years who tested their turbines in a wind tunnel ad thought they had the new answer? Well, pretty much all of them do this. I remember CalState Long Beach getting ahold of me with their Savonius that "had a Cp of something like 40%". The foreign grad students who contacted me believed it! They thought they had a breakthrough! Why, I will never know.

I have a visit every few weeks from another Professor Crackpot. There are many Professor Crackpots in Los Angeles, all seemingly with thick foreign accents. A couple of PC's from Columbia were here a few days ago. Nice guys, looking to buy a generator. Luckily I've learned to avoid talking too much about their machines, we just talk about the generator they want me to build for them. I know it does no good to go into a verbal crash-course in wind turbine design. I think just seeing real wind turbines work, witnessing the speed, simplicity, and power output of a propeller puts religion into most of them. If I can help in that regard, I am happy. Sometimes seeing and feeling accomplishes what mere words could never achieve.

One such P.C. brought his vertical axis machine up on a truck a few weeks ago. He was surprised to find himself standing right next to a real, working wind turbine, that was making power and everything, weighing and costing a fraction of his well-intentioned monstrosity that barely spun in the same wind, even with no generator loading it down.

Wind tunnel testing (unless we are talking about getting airfoil data) is a Classic Symptom of Professor Crackpot! Yet you cite it as proof that this turbine is "good". Amazing how you can exhibit every single characteristic of a know-nothing newbie, this consistently, for this many years.

In your fight for ignorance, I know it is important to try to "prove" that any misguided, wrong idea is good, but you know Dave S., you exhibit one of the worst tendencies a Professor Crackpot can have:

Being a "know-it-all", and being completely ignorant, is one hellofa combination. I think you may be steering a lot of people who don't know any better in many wrong directions. (I'd say "the" wrong direction, but your whole focus on bad ideas completely changes every few weeks).

Patents are a huge pain-in-the-ass, but the system is definitely in place and recognized. Patents should not be seen as a barrier to entry, but instead as an invitation to collaborate, with protection.
Rather than lament the existence of patents, utilize them as intended. They are there to make deals around, so make a deal.
Yes it is sad when idiot clueless inventors publish patents that define a useless machine but with some characteristic that either precludes one getting a pstent on an actual workable idea. but overall, someone getting a patent is saying "this idea is open for business". Find a patent idea you like? Negotiate a working relationship with the patent holder. Don't look at what could be an invitation to do business together as a barrier - negotiating a little patent proteection for your project may be the best thing that could happpen to your effort. When investors see successful patent protection, it is seen as good.

Below is a very good analysis by Gipe of the hype surrounding the Honeywell (which agrees with what Doug and i have stated)

Note that Gipe did not "refuse to talk" to the impromptu group of AWE ambassadors, but engaged in give and take. He did not single out any AWE ideas (out of dozens) for condemnation, since he simply has not followed the field. He merely asked to be informed when AWE meets a narrow test of validated megawatt production. Otherwise, he is "not interested". SkySails was offered as an example, but its not the direct electrical production Gipe wants to see. It may take another couple of years before someone hits Gipe's target, based on Critical Path Analysis. Its looks likely to be a SkySails wing on a groundgen.

=============================
Earthtronic's Honeywell Windtronics WT 6500--A Review
________________________________

October 16, 2009
By Paul Gipe
I've reviewed the series of preproduction wind turbine designs from Earthtronics twice before. See below.
Alas, as I was sitting in my doctor's office today I picked up a copy of Popular Mechanics and there was Windtronics. PM was gaga over Windtronics and unquestingly regurgitated Eartronics claims. So I felt I needed to look at the turbine again.
The product has evolved since I first came across it. It has grown from the Eathronics 760 to the Windtronics 6000 and now is identified as the Honeywell WT6500.
Lest the Honeywell name lend some kind of legitimacy to the WT 6500 note that the Honeywell trademark is simply used under license. Tellingly, "Honeywell International Inc. makes no representation or warranties with respect to this product."
While Earthtronics had provided estimates of annual generation for the previous models, there is now more information posted on their web site than before.
There are no units in use. One turbine has been "tested" in a wind tunnel. Thus, all claims about the product are projecture.
Those who have followed the debate about performance measurements of small turbines realize that testing in a wind tunnel is not testing at all. Wind tunnel "tests" are useful only for design not for estimating the performance of the wind turbine in the field.
Though no turbines have been tested in the field, Earthronics has hired a public relations company.
The WT 6500 is 6 feet in diameter. The 1.8 m diameter rotor sweeps 2.6 m² of the wind stream. Using the standard power rating, a turbine of this size should be rated at 500 W.
Earthtronics web site depicts mounting the wind turbine on the roof and this theme is repeated throughout the product literature. Mounting a wind turbine on a roof is never a good idea. For why, see Rooftop & Urban Wind.
Overspeed Control
It is not apparent from the web site that the Honeywell Windtronics turbine has any form of aerodynamic overspeed protection. Details on the web site are sketchy at best. The web site asserts that a "smart box" will stop the turbine in high winds. How it does so and what happens if it fails is not explained.
Bird Friendly
Earthronics claims that the turbine is more bird friendly than conventional wind turbines. This is unlikely. Of course, since no turbines have been installed the claim can't be proven or refuted. For general commentary on claims such as this see Fantasy Wind Turbines and look for the comments about birds.
Wind Power Classes
Earthronics now provides estimates of annual energy production based on Battelle PNL's wind power classes 3 and 4.
Wind Power Classes represent a range of wind power densities at various hub heights. Battelle provides three heights: 10 m (33 feet), 30 m (~100 feet), and 50 m (~160 feet).
Battelle's Class 3 represents wind power densities from 150 to 200 W/m² or approximately average annual wind speeds from 5.0 to 5.5 m/s at 10 m hub height. The 10 m hub height is approximately that of the rooftop mounting shown on Earthtronics web site.
Battelle's Class 4 represents wind power densities from 200 to 250 W/m² or ~average annual wind speeds of 5.5 to 6.0 m/s at 10 m.
At the height where any wind turbine of this size should be used, 30 m, the wind speed in Battelle Class 3 increases to 5.9-6.5 m/s and in Class 4 to 6.5 to 7 m/s.
Annual Energy Estimates
Let's give Earthronics the benefit of the doubt and pick the higher value. For rooftop heights of 10 m, the turbine will see 5.5 m/s in a Class 3 and at it see 6.0 m/s in a Class 4.
At a height of 30 m, the turbine will see 6.5 m/s in a Class 3 and 7.0 m/s in a Class 4.
Based on the performance of wind turbines of similar size, we can estimate how much the WT 6500 can generate under good conditions.
At 10 m (rooftop)
At rooftop heights the turbine may produce 850 kWh/yr in a Class 3 and 1,050 kWh/yr in a Class 4 wind resource. Earthronics claims that the turbine will produce 2,000 to 2,500 kWh/yr respectively. Earthronics claims exceed likely generation by 2.4 times.
Note that though these estimates are at rooftop heights, they are not estimates of generation on rooftops. All turbines on rooftops have performed substantially below estimates.
However, Earthtronics wisely does not say at exactly what height the wind turbine will generate the estimated amount of electricity.
At 30 m (tall tower)
At 30 m heights the turbine may produce 1,300 to 1,600 kWh/yr in a Class 3 and Class 4 resource respectively. Thus, if the turbine was installed on a tall tower, Earthtronics claims exceed likely generation by only 1.5 to 1.6 times.
As performance claims for small turbines go, these are not outlandish. They may never be achieved but they won't be achieved by a much smaller amount than many other "new, never seen before" inventions.
Power Curve
The power curve doesn't look realistic because it begins at zero and charges toward infinity. Nor is the uses of odd terms such as "plate power" mean anything to cognoscenti.
Nevertheless, we can pick one point off the power curve and its table to see if the estimate is realistic.
At 11.5 m/s, the power curve says that the WT 6500 will reach 1,000 W. Let's call this the rated power. The performance at rated power is about 41 percent. This is high, but not outlandishly so. The rotor loading at rated power of 1 kW is 381 W/m² which again is high, about that of the old Air 403, but not outlandishly so.
The turbine is definitely not a 2 kW turbine as suggested on the web site. At best it is a 1 kW turbine and more properly called a 500 W turbine.
General Commentary
1.    ". . . generating energy from the blade tips rather than through a mechanical center gear. . .
Most wind turbines of this size don't use a gearbox, so I am not sure what they are referring to. They must be setting up straw men to simply knock them down.
There are commercial wind turbines too, Enercon being the most well known, that don't use a gearbox. The rotor drives the ring generator directly. Thus, the ring generator is certainly not original with Earthtronics.
2.    " . . . by practically eliminating mechanical resistance . . ."
Mechanical resistance is not a significant factor in wind energy generation. And many wind turbines don't use a gearbox so they don't have the resistance that Earthtronics is referring to.
3.    ". . . operating in a greater range of wind speeds . . ."
In my books I emphasize that this is usually a tip off to watch for. There's very little energy in the wind at low speeds. So if a wind turbine claims to capture wind energy at very low wind speeds, the response should be "so what. There's not enough energy there to make a difference."
4.    ". . . highest output, lowest cost per kWh installed turbine ever made."
Ignoring the fact that they have not actually installed any of these turbines and thus hard to justify such a claim, we can examine the product's relative cost.
Earthtronics claims that the turbine can be installed for $7,500. It sweeps 2.6 m². Therefore, the relative cost is $2,900/m². This could be comparable to some overpriced small turbines but is nearly three times the typical cost of commercial wind turbines of ~$1,000/m².
And if we consider the rated wind speed of 11.5 m/s of 1,000 W, the $7,500/kW is again three times that of a commercial wind turbine of $2,500/kWh.
5.    ". . . rarely start turning before . . ."
This is a classic straw claim. Who cares when it "starts turning". This means nothing except for the turbine's entertainment value. As Mick Sagrillo would say, if it's entertainment you want, buy a whirligig.
6.    ". . . installed cost is approximately ½ of the cost of traditional turbines . . ."
Maybe in comparison to some overpriced small wind turbine but not to commercial turbines which cost one-third as much as Earthtronics' WT 6500 and we know that commercial turbines work and have the documentation to prove it.
7.    ". . . Honeywell Wind Turbine is a 2 kW turbine that creates 2,752 kWh/yr in Class 4 winds."
As noted above, it is more realistic to call this a 500 W wind turbine and at best a 1 kW system. Further, the 2,752 kWh claim is more than that of 2,500 kWh found elsewhere on the web site.
Conclusion
My evaluation of this product hasn't changed since it was first brought to my attention. There is no substantiation to back up the promoter's claims and the claims themselves are exaggerated.
It is unlikely that this 500 W wind turbine will deliver the performance promised in either Michigan or Ontario.
-End-
________________________________

Updated May 22, 2009
Earthtronics is now promoting the WT6000 Gearless Blade Tip Power System dubbed the Honeywell Wind Turbine. The company now claims that the multiblade wind turbine is 6 feet (1.83 m) in diameter. Thus, the turbine sweeps 2.6 m². The previous iteration used a rotor 5 feet (1.52 m) in diameter sweeping 1.8 m².
However, the manufacturer claims that the new turbine will still produce 1,500 kWh/year or the equivalent yield of 577 kWh/m²/year. In comparison to other small wind turbines, the Earthtronics will need to be exposed to a wind resource of 6.5-7.0 m/s (15-16 mph) annual wind speed. Consumers are unlikely to find few if any sites in Michigan and especially at rooftop heights that windy.
Conclusion? Again, it's unlikely that this wind turbine will produce the reported generation anywhere in Michigan by a large margin.
________________________________

December 30, 2008
By Paul Gipe
In early December, 2008 Western Michigan newspapers were agog over the claims of a new wind turbine manufacturer setting up shop.
News accounts reported that Earthtroninc's new turbine, the Windtronics 760, were being shipped to to 4,200 ACE hardware stores across the USA. The accounts also reported the manufacturer claiming that the 5-foot (1.5m) diameter turbine would produce 1,580 kWh/year.
Is this claim likely?
A wind turbine of this size sweeps about 1.8 m² and could conceivably generate 1,600 kWh/year at sites with an average annual wind speed at hub height of 8 m/s. There are probably no sites in Michigan with such wind speeds and especially at the height where this small wind turbine will be installed.
It's unlikely that this wind turbine will produce the reported generation anywhere in Michigan.
-End-

Felix will end his adventure today in a free-flight kite system (governable parachute with his body as kite system anchor; the wing will be a canopy sailed device; the tether set has high count): 

Maybe one reason that even the most hard-nosed companies always budget ten times as much to break a patent as to pay royalties is that patent holders tend to be hard to deal with.  On average, they will be trying to pay off an investment in legal paper that had odds far worse than any lottery.  Patents are a game that sucker in lots of small players with news of an occasional jackpot, but it is almost always a battle of attrition, with the deeper pockets winning in a positive feedback loop.