posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 12:34 PM
Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by reitze
I was referring to my critics when I disclosed it as a patent and gained approval of a review board. The Director of Strategic Technology and
Development was especially critical... but like I said I proved my point. The primary evidence I used to prove it is what I posted above. The charts
and talk I gave about it are basically represented in the patent. Note that the technique also includes a method to change the radius too... The key
is that on a same size/strength tower its possible to get way-more power out of it over much wider variations in wind conditions.
Did anyone actually say that it defies the laws of physics or not? Do you understand the difference between being skeptical of a new design's
efficiency and the objective knowledge that something would defy the laws of physics?
Well yea there was doubt based on fixed circumference design and strong-opinion that the 3-skinny-blade designs were "optimal" from several Phd
engineers and managers... my matlab didn't "proves them wrong" but did demonstrate my assumptions... and that's why I went further and built the
physical demo. That changed their minds. And that was with fixed-radius... my design(patent) also includes the ability to expand the radius. But
the concept never did "defy the "laws"... rather just their prior understanding of those laws as expressed in a wind turbine.
And BTW, I still wonder about the OP - even though stereo makes very good points in opposition to it. There's too many videos out there of things
being covered over and I don't know enough about home-telescope observer networks to readily adopt the 100% proof of a negative. But at the same
time I don't hold up my reserve based on my own ignorance as a reason for anyone else to hold onto a 1% hmmmm factor. If it were my concept I would
feel a need to produce more/better evidence - like I did for the variable area propeller.