Revolutional cycloturbine VAWT wind turbine ! - Page 2 - SkyscraperCity
 

forums map | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Fun Forums > Space, Science & Technology

Space, Science & Technology shaping tomorrow's world


Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old May 20th, 2019, 03:56 PM   #21
Kyll.Ing.
Registered User
 
Kyll.Ing.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Trondheim
Posts: 1,736
Likes (Received): 5535

Quote:
Originally Posted by fountainkopf View Post
Only your stupidity exceeds your arrogance.

Study the Reynolds Number...and after that ask about the effectivity or efficiency.

As you seem to have no knowledge from this field...why comment in the first place ?
Oh come on. I highly suspect that you Googled "Fluid mechanics" for the first time an hour ago and now try to pass off as knowledgeable by listing the first fancy-sounding term you came across in the text. Your complete failure to communicate any sort of knowledge in the field shows you have no idea what you are talking about, making your incessant posting about those "revolutionary" ideas amount to little more than spam.

Your claim is that this turbine can exceed the Betz limit of efficiency. I and everyone else in this thread think this is impossible, and asked how this effect could possibly be achieved. Nothing you have posted since has done anything whatsoever to back up your claim.

You pretend that the graphs you've posted back your statement, when they clearly don't. You pretend that studies show you are right, but refuse to link to them, presumably because they expressly say you're wrong if they exist at all. You pretend that other sources back you up, but refuse to provide them. And now you pretend you know fluid dynamics too, but refuse to elaborate other than listing one term and saying "it has something to do with this". And then you start throwing off personal attacks too.

The request from me is simple. Explain how Betz's limit can be exceeded. How was Betz wrong? If you know only a quarter of what you pretend to do, you could at least give a rudimentary explanation. Or link to any sources that can. Your complete refusal to do either of those things - or use proper punctuation, for that matter - suggests a clear lack of ability. I'm tired of your constant bullshittery, present your case properly or GTFO.
Kyll.Ing. no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old May 20th, 2019, 06:37 PM   #22
fountainkopf
Registered User
 
fountainkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Endor
Posts: 748
Likes (Received): 179

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyll.Ing. View Post
Oh come on. I highly suspect that you Googled "Fluid mechanics" for the first time an hour ago and now try to pass off as knowledgeable by listing the first fancy-sounding term you came across in the text. Your complete failure to communicate any sort of knowledge in the field shows you have no idea what you are talking about, making your incessant posting about those "revolutionary" ideas amount to little more than spam.

Your claim is that this turbine can exceed the Betz limit of efficiency. I and everyone else in this thread think this is impossible, and asked how this effect could possibly be achieved. Nothing you have posted since has done anything whatsoever to back up your claim.

You pretend that the graphs you've posted back your statement, when they clearly don't. You pretend that studies show you are right, but refuse to link to them, presumably because they expressly say you're wrong if they exist at all. You pretend that other sources back you up, but refuse to provide them. And now you pretend you know fluid dynamics too, but refuse to elaborate other than listing one term and saying "it has something to do with this". And then you start throwing off personal attacks too.

The request from me is simple. Explain how Betz's limit can be exceeded. How was Betz wrong? If you know only a quarter of what you pretend to do, you could at least give a rudimentary explanation. Or link to any sources that can. Your complete refusal to do either of those things - or use proper punctuation, for that matter - suggests a clear lack of ability. I'm tired of your constant bullshittery, present your case properly or GTFO.

I surrender...you go so low...that I cannot follow.

I hope everyone saw this...there is very little time to change the train; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNGFep6rncY

Remember that HAWT direction has to be changed into wind with electricity, start with electricity...and control the pitch with electricity.

Therefore ANEW S-1 get 70% into the grid ( at low wind speed )...where as typical HAWT only 40%. Not to mention that VAWT is cheaper to build, maintain and found into the ground.
__________________
My nick is not an Ayn Rand glorification, but a homage to real geniuses in building art !

http://max3fan.blogspot.fi/
fountainkopf no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 20th, 2019, 10:52 PM   #23
Kyll.Ing.
Registered User
 
Kyll.Ing.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Trondheim
Posts: 1,736
Likes (Received): 5535

Posting the same video again does not make it a better argument. The majority of people believe in the existence of Oulu, that safety railings on balconies improve their safety, or that the colour purple is a mix of red and blue. Just because a lot of people believe something doesn't make it false, so that argument is pretty crap.

You have completely and utterly failed to back up your claim that the Betz limit can be exceeded, never mind how and why, either by arguments of your own or by external sources.

Your latest half-baked claim about the usage of electricity to direct the turbine is another evidence of your ineptitude. Betz's limit is not about electricity generation, it's about the maximum amount of kinetic energy that can be extracted from a uniform flow of fluid within a defined, closed control volume. How that energy is expended or converted has nothing to do with it.

Further repetitions of your ludicrous claim will be considered spam and reported as such to the moderators unless accompanied by a serious attempt of backing it up with evidence.
Kyll.Ing. no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 21st, 2019, 06:49 AM   #24
fountainkopf
Registered User
 
fountainkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Endor
Posts: 748
Likes (Received): 179

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyll.Ing. View Post
Posting the same video again does not make it a better argument. The majority of people believe in the existence of Oulu, that safety railings on balconies improve their safety, or that the colour purple is a mix of red and blue. Just because a lot of people believe something doesn't make it false, so that argument is pretty crap.

You have completely and utterly failed to back up your claim that the Betz limit can be exceeded, never mind how and why, either by arguments of your own or by external sources.

Your latest half-baked claim about the usage of electricity to direct the turbine is another evidence of your ineptitude. Betz's limit is not about electricity generation, it's about the maximum amount of kinetic energy that can be extracted from a uniform flow of fluid within a defined, closed control volume. How that energy is expended or converted has nothing to do with it.

Further repetitions of your ludicrous claim will be considered spam and reported as such to the moderators unless accompanied by a serious attempt of backing it up with evidence.


Clearly H-Darreius can reach 60% and propellers remain at 40% at the very best ( and insanely expensive ) !
Attached Images
File Type: jpg de-icing-wind-turbine.jpg‎ (96.8 KB, 4 views)
__________________
My nick is not an Ayn Rand glorification, but a homage to real geniuses in building art !

http://max3fan.blogspot.fi/

Last edited by fountainkopf; May 21st, 2019 at 07:15 PM.
fountainkopf no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 21st, 2019, 08:29 AM   #25
fountainkopf
Registered User
 
fountainkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Endor
Posts: 748
Likes (Received): 179

Here is the proof...similar sized (Re area) VAWt and HAWT in comparison.

Source Marius Paraschivoiu and; http://www.wind-power-program.com/small_turbines.htm
Attached Images
File Type: jpg VAWT_HAWT222.jpg‎ (74.1 KB, 1 views)
__________________
My nick is not an Ayn Rand glorification, but a homage to real geniuses in building art !

http://max3fan.blogspot.fi/

Last edited by fountainkopf; May 21st, 2019 at 08:48 AM.
fountainkopf no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 21st, 2019, 09:57 AM   #26
Kyll.Ing.
Registered User
 
Kyll.Ing.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Trondheim
Posts: 1,736
Likes (Received): 5535

Quote:
Originally Posted by fountainkopf View Post
Here is the proof...similar sized (Re area) VAWt and HAWT in comparison.

Source Marius Paraschivoiu and; http://www.wind-power-program.com/small_turbines.htm
You seem to utterly fail to grasp the nature of the problem. Both of those graphs show a maximum power coefficient of ~50%, which is well below the Betz limit which of 59.3%. Your claim regarding the Betz limit is the one I say is wrong, and the one you repeatedly fail to back up.

I have no problems accepting that vertical axis turbines in general can be more efficient than horizontal axis turbines, but you claim they can exceed 59.3%, without having shown any evidence or arguments for it. The page you linked even explains this at the bottom, which suggests that if you read it at all (which I doubt), you clearly didn't understand its content. The same website goes on to say (on its page discussing the Betz limit, linked to at the aforementioned bottom) that vertical axis turbines in general have a lower efficiency than horizontal axis turbines, which is a different discussion and one I won't take up now, but it's yet another example of a source provided by yourself that upon closer inspection turns out to disagree with your claims.

Last edited by Kyll.Ing.; May 21st, 2019 at 10:07 AM.
Kyll.Ing. no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 21st, 2019, 02:13 PM   #27
fountainkopf
Registered User
 
fountainkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Endor
Posts: 748
Likes (Received): 179

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyll.Ing. View Post
You seem to utterly fail to grasp the nature of the problem. Both of those graphs show a maximum power coefficient of ~50%, which is well below the Betz limit which of 59.3%. Your claim regarding the Betz limit is the one I say is wrong, and the one you repeatedly fail to back up.

I have no problems accepting that vertical axis turbines in general can be more efficient than horizontal axis turbines, but you claim they can exceed 59.3%, without having shown any evidence or arguments for it. The page you linked even explains this at the bottom, which suggests that if you read it at all (which I doubt), you clearly didn't understand its content. The same website goes on to say (on its page discussing the Betz limit, linked to at the aforementioned bottom) that vertical axis turbines in general have a lower efficiency than horizontal axis turbines, which is a different discussion and one I won't take up now, but it's yet another example of a source provided by yourself that upon closer inspection turns out to disagree with your claims.

I also agree that ANEW claimed cp 65%+ for all their products is a high one. OTOH based on my own experience on the field with few prototypes I am inclined to agree that they may exceeded the "sound barrier" in this matter.

I only wish my system that has all components tought out and ready to beat their record...will show something unheard of like "Mach 2+" numbers.

Unfortunately even the 10 KW size is outa my reach. Knowing the Reynolds number effect I would be most certain that Betz would be broken (in the future in MW2+ size) if the 10 KW size system reaches efficiency of 45-50% region.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 7kwvawtcomp10kwhawt.jpg‎ (99.4 KB, 2 views)
__________________
My nick is not an Ayn Rand glorification, but a homage to real geniuses in building art !

http://max3fan.blogspot.fi/
fountainkopf no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 21st, 2019, 02:19 PM   #28
fountainkopf
Registered User
 
fountainkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Endor
Posts: 748
Likes (Received): 179

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyll.Ing. View Post
You seem to utterly fail to grasp the nature of the problem. Both of those graphs show a maximum power coefficient of ~50%, which is well below the Betz limit which of 59.3%. Your claim regarding the Betz limit is the one I say is wrong, and the one you repeatedly fail to back up.

I have no problems accepting that vertical axis turbines in general can be more efficient than horizontal axis turbines, but you claim they can exceed 59.3%, without having shown any evidence or arguments for it. The page you linked even explains this at the bottom, which suggests that if you read it at all (which I doubt), you clearly didn't understand its content. The same website goes on to say (on its page discussing the Betz limit, linked to at the aforementioned bottom) that vertical axis turbines in general have a lower efficiency than horizontal axis turbines, which is a different discussion and one I won't take up now, but it's yet another example of a source provided by yourself that upon closer inspection turns out to disagree with your claims.
No it does not....the propeller can only work out 30% efficiency...you cannot even read the graphs...are you going to graduate soon from high school ?
__________________
My nick is not an Ayn Rand glorification, but a homage to real geniuses in building art !

http://max3fan.blogspot.fi/
fountainkopf no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 21st, 2019, 03:08 PM   #29
Kyll.Ing.
Registered User
 
Kyll.Ing.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Trondheim
Posts: 1,736
Likes (Received): 5535

Quote:
Originally Posted by fountainkopf View Post
No it does not....the propeller can only work out 30% efficiency...you cannot even read the graphs...are you going to graduate soon from high school ?
Whoops, I misread one of the graphs at first but thought I had removed all references to that prior to submitting the post. The point still stands that neither graph reinforces your argument of greater efficiencies than 59.3%. It is also rather idiotic to assume that the power coefficient curve of one single turbine is representative of all turbines built according to its general principle.

Your insult was uncalled for and has been reported.
Kyll.Ing. no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 21st, 2019, 07:15 PM   #30
fountainkopf
Registered User
 
fountainkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Endor
Posts: 748
Likes (Received): 179

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyll.Ing. View Post
Whoops, I misread one of the graphs at first but thought I had removed all references to that prior to submitting the post. The point still stands that neither graph reinforces your argument of greater efficiencies than 59.3%. It is also rather idiotic to assume that the power coefficient curve of one single turbine is representative of all turbines built according to its general principle.

Your insult was uncalled for and has been reported.
Sorry what insult ?

If you only knew what Reynolds number really means and a laminar flow.

Propellers never create a laminar flow.
__________________
My nick is not an Ayn Rand glorification, but a homage to real geniuses in building art !

http://max3fan.blogspot.fi/
fountainkopf no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 21st, 2019, 08:38 PM   #31
Kyll.Ing.
Registered User
 
Kyll.Ing.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Trondheim
Posts: 1,736
Likes (Received): 5535

Quote:
Originally Posted by fountainkopf View Post
Sorry what insult ?

If you only knew what Reynolds number really means and a laminar flow.

Propellers never create a laminar flow.
I've taken fluid mechanics at university level and I can assure you that I'm familiar with those terms, and your hodgepodge use of them wouldn't yield a passing grade even at an introduction course. The Reynolds number is a dimensionless quantity signalling the "level of turbulence" in a flow, and saying "it has to do with Reynolds number" is effectively the same as saying "it has to do with kilograms". The question then becomes "What Reynolds number, and how do you plan to achieve it?" Any quack can Google "Fluid dynamics" and make a word salad of all the terms he doesn't understand, and maybe pass off as knowledgeable to people who have even less of a clue. But to be able to explain a phenomenon using them, one needs experience you obviously haven't shown one iota of evidence of possessing.

If you try to base your turbine designs on laminar air flow (your insistent lack of explanation requires me to make a few assumptions), you really haven't understood much. Since the kinematic viscosity of air is so low (~1.3E-5 m2/s) it takes only a tiny bit of motion to make the flow turbulent. Even the updraft from a candle makes disturbance enough to push the Reynolds number of an airflow well into the thousands:


(picture from Wikipedia)

Naturally occurring laminar airflows at ground level are exceedingly rare (maybe the softest possible breeze over a quiet forest lake at sunset in the late summer), but they are usually synonymous very still air. In other words, not particularly useful for wind turbines. And even if you somehow got laminar flow over your turbine, the motion of the blades itself would stir the flow far into turbulence. Either way, you're supposed to be working with wind here, a phenomenon that's usually known to be turbulent by its very nature. Even if you somehow managed to hit the ceiling of 59.3 % efficiency with a laminar flow turbine, it wouldn't matter much if it would only perform at wind speeds below one centimeter per second. It should also be noted that the Betz limit is derived under the assumption of zero turbulence, so even a perfectly laminar turbine flow would not be able to exceed it.

Then again, maybe you meant something different. It's hard to tell considering your refusal to elaborate anything, which seems to be an obvious sign you have no clue what you're talking about and try to garnish your posts with recently Googled terms on the fly. Given your insistence to butcher basic punctuation (overuse of triple dots [or even double dots, which has no meaning in any language except certain programming languages], or spaces between words and question/exclamation marks) I'm fairly convinced you didn't even graduate secondary school, or at least that you paid very little attention while there.
Kyll.Ing. no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 21st, 2019, 09:29 PM   #32
fountainkopf
Registered User
 
fountainkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Endor
Posts: 748
Likes (Received): 179

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyll.Ing. View Post
I've taken fluid mechanics at university level and I can assure you that I'm familiar with those terms, and your hodgepodge use of them wouldn't yield a passing grade even at an introduction course. The Reynolds number is a dimensionless quantity signalling the "level of turbulence" in a flow, and saying "it has to do with Reynolds number" is effectively the same as saying "it has to do with kilograms". The question then becomes "What Reynolds number, and how do you plan to achieve it?" Any quack can Google "Fluid dynamics" and make a word salad of all the terms he doesn't understand, and maybe pass off as knowledgeable to people who have even less of a clue. But to be able to explain a phenomenon using them, one needs experience you obviously haven't shown one iota of evidence of possessing.

If you try to base your turbine designs on laminar air flow (your insistent lack of explanation requires me to make a few assumptions), you really haven't understood much. Since the kinematic viscosity of air is so low (~1.3E-5 m2/s) it takes only a tiny bit of motion to make the flow turbulent. Even the updraft from a candle makes disturbance enough to push the Reynolds number of an airflow well into the thousands:


(picture from Wikipedia)

Naturally occurring laminar airflows at ground level are exceedingly rare (maybe the softest possible breeze over a quiet forest lake at sunset in the late summer), but they are usually synonymous very still air. In other words, not particularly useful for wind turbines. And even if you somehow got laminar flow over your turbine, the motion of the blades itself would stir the flow far into turbulence. Either way, you're supposed to be working with wind here, a phenomenon that's usually known to be turbulent by its very nature. Even if you somehow managed to hit the ceiling of 59.3 % efficiency with a laminar flow turbine, it wouldn't matter much if it would only perform at wind speeds below one centimeter per second. It should also be noted that the Betz limit is derived under the assumption of zero turbulence, so even a perfectly laminar turbine flow would not be able to exceed it.

Then again, maybe you meant something different. It's hard to tell considering your refusal to elaborate anything, which seems to be an obvious sign you have no clue what you're talking about and try to garnish your posts with recently Googled terms on the fly. Given your insistence to butcher basic punctuation (overuse of triple dots [or even double dots, which has no meaning in any language except certain programming languages], or spaces between words and question/exclamation marks) I'm fairly convinced you didn't even graduate secondary school, or at least that you paid very little attention while there.
With my innovation in my H-darreus turbine I could actually create a sonic boom...if I wanted and had the money to do it.

Clean airflow is also silent...up untill the super sonic speed.
__________________
My nick is not an Ayn Rand glorification, but a homage to real geniuses in building art !

http://max3fan.blogspot.fi/
fountainkopf no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 22nd, 2019, 11:48 AM   #33
fountainkopf
Registered User
 
fountainkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Endor
Posts: 748
Likes (Received): 179

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyll.Ing. View Post
Whoops, I misread one of the graphs at first but thought I had removed all references to that prior to submitting the post. The point still stands that neither graph reinforces your argument of greater efficiencies than 59.3%. It is also rather idiotic to assume that the power coefficient curve of one single turbine is representative of all turbines built according to its general principle.

Your insult was uncalled for and has been reported.
I hope your hearing isn't disabled as well; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybh7NwZv7c8
__________________
My nick is not an Ayn Rand glorification, but a homage to real geniuses in building art !

http://max3fan.blogspot.fi/
fountainkopf no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 22nd, 2019, 11:59 AM   #34
Kyll.Ing.
Registered User
 
Kyll.Ing.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Trondheim
Posts: 1,736
Likes (Received): 5535

Quote:
Originally Posted by fountainkopf View Post
I hope your hearing isn't disabled as well; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybh7NwZv7c8
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor

No further comment required.
Kyll.Ing. no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 22nd, 2019, 02:13 PM   #35
fountainkopf
Registered User
 
fountainkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Endor
Posts: 748
Likes (Received): 179

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyll.Ing. View Post
Enjoy being right for the first time.
__________________
My nick is not an Ayn Rand glorification, but a homage to real geniuses in building art !

http://max3fan.blogspot.fi/
fountainkopf no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 23rd, 2019, 12:32 AM   #36
goschio
mongrel
 
goschio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Ujerumani
Posts: 6,340
Likes (Received): 5956

Don't let the haters affect technological progress.
__________________
ARD 5:33
„Die ARD ist der verlängerte Arm des Bürgers.“, „Fernsehen ohne Profitzensur“., „Wir nehmen jeden ernst – auch Deine Oma.“, „Demokratie statt Umsatz.“, „Andere wollen Geldgewinne. Wir wollen Kulturgewinn.“, „Kein Demokratiekapitalismus. Kein Rundfunkkapitalismus. Kein Informationskapitalismus.“, „Exzellenz statt Profitfixierung.“

fountainkopf liked this post
goschio no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 23rd, 2019, 10:56 AM   #37
fountainkopf
Registered User
 
fountainkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Endor
Posts: 748
Likes (Received): 179

Quote:
Originally Posted by goschio View Post
Don't let the haters affect technological progress.
I am trying not to, but the majority of "experts" are frieked out by the failures made in trying to commercialize the H-darreus !

Last was the X-wind..by an ex-Vestas worker in England.

https://renewablesnow.com/news/uk-ve...lapses-585789/
Attached Images
File Type: jpg cycloturbiini mainos !.jpg‎ (88.3 KB, 2 views)
File Type: jpg aku.jpg‎ (92.7 KB, 3 views)
__________________
My nick is not an Ayn Rand glorification, but a homage to real geniuses in building art !

http://max3fan.blogspot.fi/

Last edited by fountainkopf; May 23rd, 2019 at 12:34 PM.
fountainkopf no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 23rd, 2019, 11:25 AM   #38
Kyll.Ing.
Registered User
 
Kyll.Ing.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Trondheim
Posts: 1,736
Likes (Received): 5535

Quote:
Originally Posted by goschio View Post
Don't let the haters affect technological progress.
It is also important not to let quacks and ignoramuses spew complete bullshit and lies in the subforum dedicated to science, without anybody speaking up against them. Anyone should be able to post what they want here, but the general reader should be made aware whenever bullshit is being peddled, competence is being poorly feigned, ignorance is presented as truth, and discussing the actual science is labelled "hate".

Fountainkopf has shown all the hallmarks of being such a quack, in this thread and others, and his repeated statements about breaking the laws of nature and how everyone else is stupid for acknowledging the known limitations of fluid dynamics - not to mention the incessant ridiculing of the wind turbine types that are actually working - amounts to little more than trolling. His every post is an insult to the profession of engineering and to common sense, hence why I'm reacting so strongly to them.
Kyll.Ing. no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 23rd, 2019, 11:47 AM   #39
fountainkopf
Registered User
 
fountainkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Endor
Posts: 748
Likes (Received): 179

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyll.Ing. View Post
It is also important not to let quacks and ignoramuses spew complete bullshit and lies in the subforum dedicated to science, without anybody speaking up against them. Anyone should be able to post what they want here, but the general reader should be made aware whenever bullshit is being peddled, competence is being poorly feigned, ignorance is presented as truth, and discussing the actual science is labelled "hate".

Fountainkopf has shown all the hallmarks of being such a quack, in this thread and others, and his repeated statements about breaking the laws of nature and how everyone else is stupid for acknowledging the known limitations of fluid dynamics - not to mention the incessant ridiculing of the wind turbine types that are actually working - amounts to little more than trolling. His every post is an insult to the profession of engineering and to common sense, hence why I'm reacting so strongly to them.
I am really sorry for you..there are always 100 besserwissers on every site, but hardly anyone has ever even built an H-darreus let alone several of them and runned them succesfully like I have.

I understand your hate comes from my spaceplane project ..is it not ?

You also forgot that I developed the worlds toughest woodcomposite..not all by my lonesome...some chinese americans were watching it very closely....at our lab.

Not Hu and Li; https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...od/?redirect=1

Above mentioned GE used that woodcomposite to make the world largest 12 MW offshore system.

https://www.windpowerengineering.com...orlds-largest/

Mine would deliver 20 MW and being much cheaper to build in the same size.
__________________
My nick is not an Ayn Rand glorification, but a homage to real geniuses in building art !

http://max3fan.blogspot.fi/

Last edited by fountainkopf; May 23rd, 2019 at 08:17 PM.
fountainkopf no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 25th, 2019, 02:05 AM   #40
Jonesy55
Mooderator
 
Jonesy55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Shrewsbury
Posts: 14,332
Likes (Received): 24434

Call me sceptical but I find it unlikely that a guy in his garage/shed has really made a huge breakthrough in this tech when there are many enterprises with vastly larger resources who don’t seem to think it’s a thing. If it really worked then they would be copying this idea and pumping resource into it to commercialize it.
__________________

Kyll.Ing. liked this post
Jonesy55 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 


Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT +2. The time now is 11:58 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us