An example of your freedom of speech:
I call this your freedom to use insulting language, which I cannot deny. That said insults are not arguments.
I think you mean what you think is in your interest.
No, a rotor can do both torque and lift (Sky Windpower). And also a rotor can do both torque and thrust (any wind turbine, Kiwee, Daisy, SuperTurbine ™…). It depends on the configuration. In the case of mentioned torque devices, the lifting kite makes the full job of lift. For example if you use Daisy or SuperTurbine ™ without any lifting kite, you will obtain torque and horizontal thrust in the wind direction, and no lift. The lifting kite must overcome this horizontal force in addition to the weight of the rotors.
As an example with approximate rounded figures: a lifting kite of 3 m², lift coefficient of 1, drag coefficient of 0.4, L/D ratio = 2.5. Then a rotor sweeping frontally 10 m², having a large thrust coefficient of 0.9. Total L /D ratio (rotor and lifting kite): 3 / 10.2 = 0.294. Elevation angle 16-17° which seems to match that on the video at 2’30". It seems that the lower angle results from the higher efficiency of the rotor with rigid blades or vice versa. Indeed the higher efficiency leads also to a higher horizontal thrust. As I mentioned earlier, the rotor could be lifted even more when stationary (2: 00) than when rotating (2: 18) where it is seen to descend due to the horizontal force generated by the rotation.
Perhaps we can add some little aggregated lift (I already mentioned this earlier) but with no major effect. If you take a not tilted rotor sweeping 10 m² in Kiwee style, the required lift from the lifting kite would not be very different for a same elevation angle.
Yes, I’m guilty of nonsense by discussing stuff for years that doesn’t exceed 20 m altitude (apart from the lifting kite), and this in a forum that is supposed to be about AWES harnessing high altitude winds.
At least the “official scientific community” based on Dr. Loyd’s work has escaped this nonsense from the start by retaining only the two main modes of generation: ground generator lift-based (yo-yo), and generators aloft drag-based (fly-gen). The more I look at the torque transfer devices, the more I see how well scientists have been inspired.
I note, however, that you persist in denying the devastating role played by the catenary sag effect as the shaft length increases, which I have detailed at length and on which you have made no argument.
But it seems that even the slightest questioning puts you off your guard. Stay cool!