The World’s Fastest Cable Car Is Terrifying
A post was merged into an existing topic: (Teaching kites to fly using) Reinforcement Learning
The trademark expired in 2022: https://www.tmdn.org/tmview/#/tmview/results?page=1&pageSize=30&criteria=C&basicSearch=TENSAIRITY
This means the R in a circle should be replaced with just TM. There is no requirement that every trademark necessarily be registered to be valid, as long as a trademark is identified as such.
Bridging Hard and Soft: Mechanical Metamaterials Enable Rigid Torque Transmission in Soft Robots
Robots with a Twist - Prof. Dr. Jeffrey Lipton (Northeastern University)
Kaitlyn Becker: Mechanical Programming of Soft Robots via Fabrication-Integrated Design
1 Like
This publication uses the terms commonly accepted in VAWT matters, including for Magenn.
You’re certainly the new expert on new terms, like the ones we saw in the old forum.
No wind energy specialist will talk about “transverse-axis”. Search online: you won’t find anything. Not Paul Gipe, not anyone else.
Your insistence on showing off your pseudo-knowledge of “real wind energy” is similar to that of we-know-who about kite experts.
Yeah, that’s because I just made it up for this discussion a few days ago. Of course you didn’t find Paul Gipe using the term - nobody has used it yet. Your statement of even trying to look it up makes me wonder where your brain is at. I just thought of it. I told you that. Oh wait, you were probably hoping to tell me Paul Gipe had used the term transversa-axis before, right? Well thank you for verifying that it was original. And speaking of original content, quit copying my comparisons to Santos. Try something original. And if your spinning sausages are workable, try building the smallest working version that could serve to validate the principle. It should be affordable as long as you’re not, like so many AWE wannabes, trying for one large enough to take a group-selfie in front of it. I knew back when i told you the combined sausage-darrieus was the best idea you’ve ever had, that you would take that ball and run with it. What I did not say was that it was a good idea. There is a difference. If you think it is a good idea, there is a great advantage to making a small prototype, complete with a ground-mounted generator, and a load to drive, such as a battery to charge, with a meter showing your power - Volts and amps - you know, like the big kids build. Although the Reynolds number would suffer, the cube-square law and your wallet would favor a small size. It’s easy to find small pulleys and motors to use as generators. You can partially demonstrate certain principles using discarded plastic water bottles and tongue depressors, etc., but they don’t show that the complete concepts could even work, let alone work well.
There are VAWT and HAWT categories in the wind energy field, and not a “transverse-axis” category. Creating “new” terms that are ultimately useless aligns you with the other DS.
That’s yet another thing you have in common: trying making private posts public. Looking back, with so many points in common, it’s no wonder we had so many DS/DS in the past.
I identified this as a possible idea for a self-rotating device, although not the best one, which could be the Sharp rotor. I’m not claiming, for example, that “all roads lead to Darrieus-Magnus devices”.
That’s not what I’m trying to do. Partial tests followed by short analyses are enough for me to rule out some possibilities.
Fully automated prototypes are not easy to build and are expensive. The many design possibilities within AWE explain the significant amount of theoretical research.
I hope this helps you better understand the AWE research.
1 Like