Renewable energy thread – page 6 – skyscrapercity gas definition wikipedia


It’s not my job to try to find support for your claims. The burden of proof is on you. I will continue to consider you a dimwit until you yourself bring actual substance to your arguments. It’s all "you know nothing", "this is wrong", etc., but when pressed to say why you think you are right, you are completely unable to defend your position. Or for that matter speak coherently, you still seem to have a problem with the use of periods.

Twice now have the things you linked yourself provided a debunk of your argument, suggesting you haven’t read or understood the content beyond a basic belief that it somehow supports what you are saying. Heck, the only scientific articles suggesting arrangements theoretically capable of passing the limit were provided by me, when I tried looking up some better sources than the trite you posted. Don’t expect to win any arguments like that in the long run, it speaks volumes about your capability when the opposing side finds better sources for your claims than you are able to dig up yourself.

For your information, the "tube-like arrangement" of the figure is valid for every type of wind turbine, as it simply illustrates the wind speed before and after the wind passes the turbine, and how a constant mass flow implies that a lower velocity will cause the wind to "fan out" as the turbine robs it of speed. The actual arrangement of the wind turbine in the middle does not matter, Betz’ assumption of an infinitely thin disk was chosen just because it represents a completely idealized scenario. If you look at the calculations (which I continue to presume you haven’t until you give me a reason to believe so), you will notice that the surface area of the wind turbine is not confined to any specific geometric shape.

If you want to hide behind the assumption of three-dimensional airflow, it won’t work either. Just decompose the wind vector; Betz’ limit will be applicable for each of the components. If you can’t utilize more than 59.3 % of the X component of the wind, no more than 59.3 % of the Y component, and no more than 59.3 % of the Z component, you sure as heck can’t utilize more than 59.3 % of the total flow energy.

Not sure why you feel the need to emphasise that the theorem was from 1929 either. If it’s still talked about today, it means it’s still relevant. Go ahead and derive a 2018 Fountainkopf (Takamaa?) limit if you think you can do better, but be prepared to have to explain every single step of your argumentation – and experiences suggest this isn’t exactly your strongest suit.

Most of the physical principles that were identified in the 20th, 19th, and 18th centuries still hold true today. We still apply Newton’s findings today! The derivation of the Betz limit, shown earlier, shows that wind turbines abide by the limit.

"The Betz limit sets a theoretical upper limit for the power production by turbines expressed as a maximum power coefficient of 16/27. While power production by wind turbines falls short of the Betz limit, tidal turbines in a channel can theoretically have a power coefficient several times larger than 16/27."

It is also quite understandable as they are much more clever systems…having centrifugal force that enable conservation of energy…and the wing also creates turning force for the system whereas the HAWT always works like drag based system…never really creating any kinda real force…aerodynamics there just to optimising the result.

Big downside in the most efficient H-rotor is that 1-2 bladed systems need always to be started with the generator. Well untill I developed a new system that I created around 3-4 years ago. It also brings the efficiency close to 80-90 % ( in the best of conditions ).