Patened enclosed vertical axis wind turbine. Seeking business partner.

Swan wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:
1. How many investors have invested money in your imaginary patented wind turbine?
2. How many billion dollars have you secured in funding from these investors?
3. What contractor is building the second-generation prototype?
4. Where is your test data gathered from the first-generation prototype?
5. What is the real patent number, because the first one that you listed does not exist anywhere except in your head.
6. When do you plan to take your company public, and have you filed with the SEC as of yet?

RQAA. He has already answered your questions. Don't mindlessly ask them yet again.

In fact he claims now that he has no data and cannot present a valid patent number, yet he has you TOTALLY fooled, or not and you were just hoping to fool me.

This is why you do not have the missile or unencrypting keys.

He has managed to get to the UK government's IPO site and find the patent from the site address I have posted.

That's the biggest difference.

LOL, the king ...

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:
1. How many investors have invested money in your imaginary patented wind turbine?
2. How many billion dollars have you secured in funding from these investors?
3. What contractor is building the second-generation prototype?
4. Where is your test data gathered from the first-generation prototype?
5. What is the real patent number, because the first one that you listed does not exist anywhere except in your head.
6. When do you plan to take your company public, and have you filed with the SEC as of yet?

RQAA. He has already answered your questions. Don't mindlessly ask them yet again.

In fact he claims now that he has no data and cannot present a valid patent number, yet he has you TOTALLY fooled, or not and you were just hoping to fool me.

This is why you do not have the missile or unencrypting keys.

He has managed to get to the UK government's IPO site and find the patent from the site address I have posted.

That's the biggest difference.

LOL, the king ...

Trolling.

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:
1. How many investors have invested money in your imaginary patented wind turbine?
2. How many billion dollars have you secured in funding from these investors?
3. What contractor is building the second-generation prototype?
4. Where is your test data gathered from the first-generation prototype?
5. What is the real patent number, because the first one that you listed does not exist anywhere except in your head.
6. When do you plan to take your company public, and have you filed with the SEC as of yet?

RQAA. He has already answered your questions. Don't mindlessly ask them yet again.

In fact he claims now that he has no data and cannot present a valid patent number, yet he has you TOTALLY fooled, or not and you were just hoping to fool me.

This is why you do not have the missile or unencrypting keys.

He has managed to get to the UK government's IPO site and find the patent from the site address I have posted.

That's the biggest difference.

LOL, the king ...

Trolling.

[img

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:
1. How many investors have invested money in your imaginary patented wind turbine?
2. How many billion dollars have you secured in funding from these investors?
3. What contractor is building the second-generation prototype?
4. Where is your test data gathered from the first-generation prototype?
5. What is the real patent number, because the first one that you listed does not exist anywhere except in your head.
6. When do you plan to take your company public, and have you filed with the SEC as of yet?

RQAA. He has already answered your questions. Don't mindlessly ask them yet again.

In fact he claims now that he has no data and cannot present a valid patent number, yet he has you TOTALLY fooled, or not and you were just hoping to fool me.

This is why you do not have the missile or unencrypting keys.

He has managed to get to the UK government's IPO site and find the patent from the site address I have posted.

That's the biggest difference.

LOL, the king ...

Trolling.

[img

Spamming.

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:
1. How many investors have invested money in your imaginary patented wind turbine?
2. How many billion dollars have you secured in funding from these investors?
3. What contractor is building the second-generation prototype?
4. Where is your test data gathered from the first-generation prototype?
5. What is the real patent number, because the first one that you listed does not exist anywhere except in your head.
6. When do you plan to take your company public, and have you filed with the SEC as of yet?

RQAA. He has already answered your questions. Don't mindlessly ask them yet again.

In fact he claims now that he has no data and cannot present a valid patent number, yet he has you TOTALLY fooled, or not and you were just hoping to fool me.

This is why you do not have the missile or unencrypting keys.

He has managed to get to the UK government's IPO site and find the patent from the site address I have posted.

That's the biggest difference.

LOL, the king ...

Trolling.

[img

Spamming.

I...

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:
1. How many investors have invested money in your imaginary patented wind turbine?
2. How many billion dollars have you secured in funding from these investors?
3. What contractor is building the second-generation prototype?
4. Where is your test data gathered from the first-generation prototype?
5. What is the real patent number, because the first one that you listed does not exist anywhere except in your head.
6. When do you plan to take your company public, and have you filed with the SEC as of yet?

RQAA. He has already answered your questions. Don't mindlessly ask them yet again.

In fact he claims now that he has no data and cannot present a valid patent number, yet he has you TOTALLY fooled, or not and you were just hoping to fool me.

This is why you do not have the missile or unencrypting keys.

He has managed to get to the UK government's IPO site and find the patent from the site address I have posted.

That's the biggest difference.

LOL, the king ...

Trolling.

[img

Spamming.

I...

Spamming.

Tim the plumber wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
Patent number GB2578267


https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Document/ApplicationNumber/GB1711328.3/8c4ca4b5-1e16-458e-a4c5-904b4b552ac0/GB2578267-20221116-Publication%20document.pdf

Tim, this is an interesting read. How is your turbine different from other turbines that generate electricity from wind? This gets to the heart of a "patent." Someone such as myself won't really know what questions to ask if one is not an expert on other standard designs.

Also, what other turbine would you say is the closest competing model to yours and why is yours better? (i.e. why would yours potentially put that model out to pasture as opposed to it putting yours out to pasture?)

https://basicwindtec.webstarts.com/index.html

All there really.

IBdaMann wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
Patent number GB2578267


https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Document/ApplicationNumber/GB1711328.3/8c4ca4b5-1e16-458e-a4c5-904b4b552ac0/GB2578267-20221116-Publication%20document.pdf

Tim, this is an interesting read. How is your turbine different from other turbines that generate electricity from wind? This gets to the heart of a "patent." Someone such as myself won't really know what questions to ask if one is not an expert on other standard designs.

Also, what other turbine would you say is the closest competing model to yours and why is yours better? (i.e. why would yours potentially put that model out to pasture as opposed to it putting yours out to pasture?)

https://basicwindtec.webstarts.com/index.html

All there really.

Have you considered duplexing the turbine (see below) so that airflow and energy generation is effectively doubled without having to double the hardware?

(Note: Into the Night brought up a great point about keeping the turbine electronics/hardware low and reachable, so imagine this implementation rotated 90 degrees horizontally.

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:Have you considered duplexing the turbine (see below) so that airflow and energy generation is effectively doubled without having to double the hardware?

(Note: Into the Night brought up a great point about keeping the turbine electronics/hardware low and reachable, so imagine this implementation rotated 90 degrees horizontally.

Or better yet make the turbine out of element 115 and have it [quantumly superimpose] and [quantumly teleport] to whatever altitude and location has the most wind, and [quantumly teleport] the [essence of the moraines] gathered [from the unobserved distant past] for retrieval [both at a million times the speed of light and instantaneously] for forcing the FBI to interview me.

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:Have you considered duplexing the turbine (see below) so that airflow and energy generation is effectively doubled without having to double the hardware?

(Note: Into the Night brought up a great point about keeping the turbine electronics/hardware low and reachable, so imagine this implementation rotated 90 degrees horizontally.

Or better yet make the turbine out of element 115 and have it [quantumly superimpose] and [quantumly teleport] to whatever altitude and location has the most wind, and [quantumly teleport] the [essence of the moraines] gathered [from the unobserved distant past] for retrieval [both at a million times the speed of light and instantaneously] for forcing the FBI to interview me.

Do you really think that would be better?

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]Swan wrote:[quote]IBdaMann wrote:Have you considered duplexing the
Do you really think that would be better?

From a technological standpoint, everything is better than nothing

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]Swan wrote:[quote]IBdaMann wrote:Have you considered duplexing the
Do you really think that would be better?

From a technological standpoint, everything is better than nothing

Now we have Swan's paradox:

1. Everything is better than nothing.
2. Nothing is better than everything

Swan wrote:Says the schizzo that literally denies that the Earth had an ice age or has a climate.

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Says the schizzo that literally denies that the Earth had an ice age or has a climate.

Says the EVASIVE moron who can't unambiguously define the things he claims I deny.

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Says the schizzo that literally denies that the Earth had an ice age or has a climate.

Says the EVASIVE moron who can't unambiguously define the things he claims I deny.

Just because [I can't define what I claim you deny] is no reason for me to waste time trying to [define the things I claim you deny].

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Says the schizzo that literally denies that the Earth had an ice age or has a climate.

Says the EVASIVE moron who can't unambiguously define the things he claims I deny.

Just because [I can't define what I claim you deny] is no reason for me to waste time trying to [define the things I claim you deny].

I get it. I'd just like to know why you believe in the things you claim I deny. We really don't need to rehash another hundred times that you can't define what you claim I deny. We can stay focused on you and why you believe what you do.

Swan wrote:No one cares what you deny, least of all me.

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:No one cares what you deny, least of all me.

What, exactly, do you claim I deny, beyond mere undefined buzzwords, of course?

IBdaMann wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
Patent number GB2578267


https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Document/ApplicationNumber/GB1711328.3/8c4ca4b5-1e16-458e-a4c5-904b4b552ac0/GB2578267-20221116-Publication%20document.pdf

Tim, this is an interesting read. How is your turbine different from other turbines that generate electricity from wind? This gets to the heart of a "patent." Someone such as myself won't really know what questions to ask if one is not an expert on other standard designs.

Also, what other turbine would you say is the closest competing model to yours and why is yours better? (i.e. why would yours potentially put that model out to pasture as opposed to it putting yours out to pasture?)

https://basicwindtec.webstarts.com/index.html

All there really.

Have you considered duplexing the turbine (see below) so that airflow and energy generation is effectively doubled without having to double the hardware?

(Note: Into the Night brought up a great point about keeping the turbine electronics/hardware low and reachable, so imagine this implementation rotated 90 degrees horizontally.

Tim the plumber wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
Patent number GB2578267


https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Document/ApplicationNumber/GB1711328.3/8c4ca4b5-1e16-458e-a4c5-904b4b552ac0/GB2578267-20221116-Publication%20document.pdf

Tim, this is an interesting read. How is your turbine different from other turbines that generate electricity from wind? This gets to the heart of a "patent." Someone such as myself won't really know what questions to ask if one is not an expert on other standard designs.

Also, what other turbine would you say is the closest competing model to yours and why is yours better? (i.e. why would yours potentially put that model out to pasture as opposed to it putting yours out to pasture?)

https://basicwindtec.webstarts.com/index.html

All there really.

Have you considered duplexing the turbine (see below) so that airflow and energy generation is effectively doubled without having to double the hardware?

(Note: Into the Night brought up a great point about keeping the turbine electronics/hardware low and reachable, so imagine this implementation rotated 90 degrees horizontally.

Yes.

I think it is a good idea but...

It may have some utility but the objective is to make the servicing of it all as easy as possible.

I think the air flow will be OK, or at least good enough with the simple system and the difficulty of the higher entry having higher wind speeds would mean that you would have 2 systems rather than 1 with 2 wind inputs.

The Problem of air resistance is not reduced really. The benefit would be that you could have a narrower design. I don't think the sacrifice of practicality will work out worth it.

Still, who can know yet?

Swan wrote:All that I care about is that you make me smile

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:All that I care about is that you make me smile

Incorrect. Your actions belie your words. All you care about is whether I believe what you have been told to believe. Any casual reader would need only a few minutes to discover a few dozen examples of you rushing to pivot away from the topic at hand by blurting out the words "Says the schizzo who [doesn't believe what I cannot define]" ... with nary a mention of any smiling involved.

Your modus operandi is to regurgitate the empty, undefined buzzwords of the faith you have adopted and to pivot when asked to explain.

Swan wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
Patent number GB2578267


https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Document/ApplicationNumber/GB1711328.3/8c4ca4b5-1e16-458e-a4c5-904b4b552ac0/GB2578267-20221116-Publication%20document.pdf

Tim, this is an interesting read. How is your turbine different from other turbines that generate electricity from wind? This gets to the heart of a "patent." Someone such as myself won't really know what questions to ask if one is not an expert on other standard designs.

Also, what other turbine would you say is the closest competing model to yours and why is yours better? (i.e. why would yours potentially put that model out to pasture as opposed to it putting yours out to pasture?)

https://basicwindtec.webstarts.com/index.html

All there really.

Have you considered duplexing the turbine (see below) so that airflow and energy generation is effectively doubled without having to double the hardware?

(Note: Into the Night brought up a great point about keeping the turbine electronics/hardware low and reachable, so imagine this implementation rotated 90 degrees horizontally.

Yes.

I think it is a good idea but...

It may have some utility but the objective is to make the servicing of it all as easy as possible.

I think the air flow will be OK, or at least good enough with the simple system and the difficulty of the higher entry having higher wind speeds would mean that you would have 2 systems rather than 1 with 2 wind inputs.

The Problem of air resistance is not reduced really. The benefit would be that you could have a narrower design. I don't think the sacrifice of practicality will work out worth it.

Still, who can know yet?

But you have no prototype. Meaning that you are a wet dream

Swan wrote:Then you will be a billionaire when you build your turbine.

Swan wrote: I'll watch, remind me when your dividends start arriving

Tim the plumber wrote:

Swan wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
Patent number GB2578267


https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Document/ApplicationNumber/GB1711328.3/8c4ca4b5-1e16-458e-a4c5-904b4b552ac0/GB2578267-20221116-Publication%20document.pdf

Tim, this is an interesting read. How is your turbine different from other turbines that generate electricity from wind? This gets to the heart of a "patent." Someone such as myself won't really know what questions to ask if one is not an expert on other standard designs.

Also, what other turbine would you say is the closest competing model to yours and why is yours better? (i.e. why would yours potentially put that model out to pasture as opposed to it putting yours out to pasture?)

https://basicwindtec.webstarts.com/index.html

All there really.

Have you considered duplexing the turbine (see below) so that airflow and energy generation is effectively doubled without having to double the hardware?

(Note: Into the Night brought up a great point about keeping the turbine electronics/hardware low and reachable, so imagine this implementation rotated 90 degrees horizontally.

Yes.

I think it is a good idea but...

It may have some utility but the objective is to make the servicing of it all as easy as possible.

I think the air flow will be OK, or at least good enough with the simple system and the difficulty of the higher entry having higher wind speeds would mean that you would have 2 systems rather than 1 with 2 wind inputs.

The Problem of air resistance is not reduced really. The benefit would be that you could have a narrower design. I don't think the sacrifice of practicality will work out worth it.

Still, who can know yet?

But you have no prototype. Meaning that you are a wet dream

I have a patent.

What exactly do you have other than bitterness?

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Then you will be a billionaire when you build your turbine.

I don't have a turbine to build.

Tim designed the turbine in question. He is looking to build it and become wealthy by changing the paradigm and offering the world a better design.

I merely offered a suggestion to the design which apparently did not resonate with Tim.

Swan wrote: I'll watch, remind me when your dividends start arriving

You have been working overtime to deny the existence of the patent and you have not even offered your analysis of the design in question.

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Then you will be a billionaire when you build your turbine.

I don't have a turbine to build.

Tim designed the turbine in question. He is looking to build it and become wealthy by changing the paradigm and offering the world a better design.

I merely offered a suggestion to the design which apparently did not resonate with Tim.

Swan wrote: I'll watch, remind me when your dividends start arriving

You have been working overtime to deny the existence of the patent and you have not even offered your analysis of the design in question.

Tim the plumber wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Then you will be a billionaire when you build your turbine.

I don't have a turbine to build.

Tim designed the turbine in question. He is looking to build it and become wealthy by changing the paradigm and offering the world a better design.

I merely offered a suggestion to the design which apparently did not resonate with Tim.

Swan wrote: I'll watch, remind me when your dividends start arriving

You have been working overtime to deny the existence of the patent and you have not even offered your analysis of the design in question.

It resonated.

I am impressed with the pictures and indeed there is a casse of great minds think alike. I have had a long thionk about it as I have already considered it. I don't think it has much in teh way of advantages but that's after a lot of thinking about it and I may be wrong.

Who can say at this point?

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:
1. How many investors have invested money in your imaginary patented wind turbine?
2. How many billion dollars have you secured in funding from these investors?
3. What contractor is building the second-generation prototype?
4. Where is your test data gathered from the first-generation prototype?
5. What is the real patent number, because the first one that you listed does not exist anywhere except in your head.
6. When do you plan to take your company public, and have you filed with the SEC as of yet?

RQAA. He has already answered your questions. Don't mindlessly ask them yet again.

In fact he claims now that he has no data and cannot present a valid patent number, yet he has you TOTALLY fooled, or not and you were just hoping to fool me.

This is why you do not have the missile or unencrypting keys.

He has managed to get to the UK government's IPO site and find the patent from the site address I have posted.

That's the biggest difference.

LOL, the king ...

Trolling.

[img

Spamming.

I...

Spamming.

I ...

IBdaMann wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
Patent number GB2578267


https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Document/ApplicationNumber/GB1711328.3/8c4ca4b5-1e16-458e-a4c5-904b4b552ac0/GB2578267-20221116-Publication%20document.pdf

Tim, this is an interesting read. How is your turbine different from other turbines that generate electricity from wind? This gets to the heart of a "patent." Someone such as myself won't really know what questions to ask if one is not an expert on other standard designs.

Also, what other turbine would you say is the closest competing model to yours and why is yours better? (i.e. why would yours potentially put that model out to pasture as opposed to it putting yours out to pasture?)

https://basicwindtec.webstarts.com/index.html

All there really.

Have you considered duplexing the turbine (see below) so that airflow and energy generation is effectively doubled without having to double the hardware?

(Note: Into the Night brought up a great point about keeping the turbine electronics/hardware low and reachable, so imagine this implementation rotated 90 degrees horizontally.

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]Swan wrote:[quote]IBdaMann wrote:Have you considered duplexing the
Do you really think that would be better?

From a technological standpoint, everything is better than nothing

Now we have Swan's paradox:

1. Everything is better than nothing.
2. Nothing is better than everything

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:
1. How many investors have invested money in your imaginary patented wind turbine?
2. How many billion dollars have you secured in funding from these investors?
3. What contractor is building the second-generation prototype?
4. Where is your test data gathered from the first-generation prototype?
5. What is the real patent number, because the first one that you listed does not exist anywhere except in your head.
6. When do you plan to take your company public, and have you filed with the SEC as of yet?

RQAA. He has already answered your questions. Don't mindlessly ask them yet again.

In fact he claims now that he has no data and cannot present a valid patent number, yet he has you TOTALLY fooled, or not and you were just hoping to fool me.

This is why you do not have the missile or unencrypting keys.

He has managed to get to the UK government's IPO site and find the patent from the site address I have posted.

That's the biggest difference.

LOL, the king ...

Trolling.

[img

Spamming.

I...

Spamming.

I ...

Spamming.

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Says the schizzo that literally denies that the Earth had an ice age or has a climate.

Says the EVASIVE moron who can't unambiguously define the things he claims I deny.

Just because you deny the ice age, is no reason for me to waste time trying to prove reality to a government psycho agent like yourself. See what you want is an incompetent fool to go along with your half assed BS, which I actually do to a point because you are the funniest fart I have ever come across. Tell me, have you ever shot yourself in the foot?

Yea, you just did and I helped, now take a shower, because you really stink.

130+

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Says the schizzo that literally denies that the Earth had an ice age or has a climate.

Says the EVASIVE moron who can't unambiguously define the things he claims I deny.

Just because [I can't define what I claim you deny] is no reason for me to waste time trying to [define the things I claim you deny].

I get it. I'd just like to know why you believe in the things you claim I deny. We really don't need to rehash another hundred times that you can't define what you claim I deny. We can stay focused on you and why you believe what you do.

No one ...

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:No one cares what you deny, least of all me.

What, exactly, do you claim I deny, beyond mere undefined buzzwords, of course?

All that ...

Tim the plumber wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
Patent number GB2578267


https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Document/ApplicationNumber/GB1711328.3/8c4ca4b5-1e16-458e-a4c5-904b4b552ac0/GB2578267-20221116-Publication%20document.pdf

Tim, this is an interesting read. How is your turbine different from other turbines that generate electricity from wind? This gets to the heart of a "patent." Someone such as myself won't really know what questions to ask if one is not an expert on other standard designs.

Also, what other turbine would you say is the closest competing model to yours and why is yours better? (i.e. why would yours potentially put that model out to pasture as opposed to it putting yours out to pasture?)

https://basicwindtec.webstarts.com/index.html

All there really.

Have you considered duplexing the turbine (see below) so that airflow and energy generation is effectively doubled without having to double the hardware?

(Note: Into the Night brought up a great point about keeping the turbine electronics/hardware low and reachable, so imagine this implementation rotated 90 degrees horizontally.

Yes.

I think it is a good idea but...

It may have some utility but the objective is to make the servicing of it all as easy as possible.

I think the air flow will be OK, or at least good enough with the simple system and the difficulty of the higher entry having higher wind speeds would mean that you would have 2 systems rather than 1 with 2 wind inputs.

The Problem of air resistance is not reduced really. The benefit would be that you could have a narrower design. I don't think the sacrifice of practicality will work out worth it.

Still, who can know yet?

Swan wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
Patent number GB2578267


https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Document/ApplicationNumber/GB1711328.3/8c4ca4b5-1e16-458e-a4c5-904b4b552ac0/GB2578267-20221116-Publication%20document.pdf

Tim, this is an interesting read. How is your turbine different from other turbines that generate electricity from wind? This gets to the heart of a "patent." Someone such as myself won't really know what questions to ask if one is not an expert on other standard designs.

Also, what other turbine would you say is the closest competing model to yours and why is yours better? (i.e. why would yours potentially put that model out to pasture as opposed to it putting yours out to pasture?)

https://basicwindtec.webstarts.com/index.html

All there really.

Have you considered duplexing the turbine (see below) so that airflow and energy generation is effectively doubled without having to double the hardware?

(Note: Into the Night brought up a great point about keeping the turbine electronics/hardware low and reachable, so imagine this implementation rotated 90 degrees horizontally.

Yes.

I think it is a good idea but...

It may have some utility but the objective is to make the servicing of it all as easy as possible.

I think the air flow will be OK, or at least good enough with the simple system and the difficulty of the higher entry having higher wind speeds would mean that you would have 2 systems rather than 1 with 2 wind inputs.

The Problem of air resistance is not reduced really. The benefit would be that you could have a narrower design. I don't think the sacrifice of practicality will work out worth it.

Still, who can know yet?

But you ...

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:All that I care about is that you make me smile

Incorrect. Your actions belie your words. All you care about is whether I believe what you have been told to believe. Any casual reader would need only a few minutes to discover a few dozen examples of you rushing to pivot away from the topic at hand by blurting out the words "Says the schizzo who [doesn't believe what I cannot define]" ... with nary a mention of any smiling involved.

Your modus operandi is to regurgitate the empty, undefined buzzwords of the faith you have adopted and to pivot when asked to explain.

Then you ...

Swan wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Swan wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
Patent number GB2578267


https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Document/ApplicationNumber/GB1711328.3/8c4ca4b5-1e16-458e-a4c5-904b4b552ac0/GB2578267-20221116-Publication%20document.pdf

Tim, this is an interesting read. How is your turbine different from other turbines that generate electricity from wind? This gets to the heart of a "patent." Someone such as myself won't really know what questions to ask if one is not an expert on other standard designs.

Also, what other turbine would you say is the closest competing model to yours and why is yours better? (i.e. why would yours potentially put that model out to pasture as opposed to it putting yours out to pasture?)

https://basicwindtec.webstarts.com/index.html

All there really.

Have you considered duplexing the turbine (see below) so that airflow and energy generation is effectively doubled without having to double the hardware?

(Note: Into the Night brought up a great point about keeping the turbine electronics/hardware low and reachable, so imagine this implementation rotated 90 degrees horizontally.

Yes.

I think it is a good idea but...

It may have some utility but the objective is to make the servicing of it all as easy as possible.

I think the air flow will be OK, or at least good enough with the simple system and the difficulty of the higher entry having higher wind speeds would mean that you would have 2 systems rather than 1 with 2 wind inputs.

The Problem of air resistance is not reduced really. The benefit would be that you could have a narrower design. I don't think the sacrifice of practicality will work out worth it.

Still, who can know yet?

But you have no prototype. Meaning that you are a wet dream

I have a patent.

What exactly do you have other than bitterness?

Remind me when you are a billionaire and or when you get your first investor. Furthermore your patent number returned no results and is bogus.

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:
LOL, the king ...

Trolling.

[img

Spamming.

I...

Spamming.

I ...

Spamming.

LOL, if this ...