[Yahya (OP)]

You have to ask yourself a question:
Why turbines are used today instead of this method even if it gives much power than turbines ? if it does not need complicated tools such as my clockwork , why not it is already used ?

Because it's a stupidly inefficient use of land, as I already pointed out (before you moved the goalposts).

A parachute needs high ratios to reach 1 Km in 4 hours , if ratio is small it will reach 1 Km in perhaps minutes, but high ratios without my clockwork are inefficient that why my clockwork is important.

Why do you persist in ignoring the fact that you do not need a gearbox if you build a suitable generator?

And, don't forget to reply to this, or people will think you don't know what you are talking about.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=73150.msg549322#msg549322

OK, if everyone here thinks you are right and I am wrong then OK, my clockwork is redundant and this methods is in fact useless.
And I apologize because you have never been wrong before, and you are right in everything you say.

[Bored chemist]

And I apologize because you have never been wrong before, and you are right in everything you say.

It's nothing to do with me. The people here will believe the evidence.
For example, they will think that setting aside a circle of land 4 km in radius to generate 15 Watts is inefficient. (They may consider that sunlight delivers tens of gigawatts to that area, and almost any solar power system could extract more than 15 watts from it)
Do you not agree with that assessment?
They will think that a mechanical clock with a second hand and an hour hand will include a gear train with a ratio of 720 to 1
Do you not agree with that?

And I think they will agree that the most efficient gear box is one that you don't actually use. That way it can't waste any power.

Perhaps you should go back to this thread and try to answer it.

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=73150.msg549322#msg549322

[Yahya (OP)]

For example, they will think that setting aside a circle of land 4 km in radius to generate 15 Watts is inefficient. (They may consider that sunlight delivers tens of gigawatts to that area, and almost any solar power system could extract more than 15 watts from it)
Do you not agree with that assessment?

No,what circles are you talking about I did not mention any circles of radius 4km ?

They will think that a mechanical clock with a second hand and an hour hand will include a gear train with a ratio of 720 to 1
Do you not agree with that?

No, you said 720:12:1 which is a total of 1:60 and that  is what I said
"Thus the overall gear ratio from the second hand gear to the hour hand gear is set as 720:12:1. "

And I think they will agree that the most efficient gear box is one that you don't actually use. That way it can't waste any power.

More efficient but is not practical for the purpose I mentioned the ratio should be high and gearbox for speed increment are not practical at high ratio.
"It's true that high ratios tend to be inefficient."

[Bored chemist]

No,what circles are you talking about I did not mention any circles of radius 4km ?

No.
You did not mention it- because you have yet to think this through.
However I did point out that you can't guarantee what direction the wind will blow- so you need 4 km in each direction from the generator.

No, you said 720:12:1 which is a total of 1:60 and that  is what I said

How on earth did you come to believe that 720 to 1 magically becomes 60 to 1 just because you also have a gear that's 12 to 1.?

"More efficient but is not practical for the purpose I mentioned" and you agreed "the ratio should be high and gearbox for speed increment are not practical at high ratio."

How many times do I have to ask this

WHY DO YOU WANT TO USE A GEARBOX WHEN YOU DON'T NEED ONE?
And, come to that how many times  do I need you to address this?

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=73150.msg549322#msg549322

[Yahya (OP)]

You did not mention it- because you have yet to think this through.
However I did point out that you can't guarantee what direction the wind will blow- so you need 4 km in each direction from the generator.

The parachute would be up on the sky 1 km height using something like a kite to go up. it does not matter this circle because it will not be on earth.

How on earth did you come to believe that 720 to 1 magically becomes 60 to 1 just because you also have a gear that's 12 to 1.?

OK even so it would be of low efficiency as well and barely moves its arms.

How many times do I have to ask this

WHY DO YOU WANT TO USE A GEARBOX WHEN YOU DON'T NEED ONE?

OK could you just give me how you imagine a generator without a gearbox , just think about it , think on it part by part starting from the input torque and the ratio desired and the rope length the speed of the parachute and its torque on the generator, I understand it because I did much calculations but you did not do any.
if you agree the parachute would reach 1km height in say 6 minutes , would that be practical to rise again and again each 6 minutes to a height of 1km.

And, come to that how many times  do I need you to address this?

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=73150.msg549322#msg549322

what are you repeating here ? you told me to shut up on that thread and I did.

[Yahya (OP)]

EDIT:
The parachute won't even make a circle on the sky because it goes up with a kite vertically.

[Bored chemist]

you told me to shut up on that thread and I did.

What I said was " shut up and apologise."

[Yahya (OP)]

you told me to shut up on that thread and I did.

What I said was " shut up and apologise."

Apologize for what ? I said you post nonsense because I'm not convinced of what you posted, but I can't quote because most of your posts in the thread are nonsense to me.

[Yahya (OP)]

Why turbines are used today instead of this method even if it gives much power than turbines ? if it does not need complicated tools such as my clockwork , why not it is already used ?

[Bored chemist]

you told me to shut up on that thread and I did.

What I said was " shut up and apologise."

Apologize for what ? I said you post nonsense because I'm not convinced of what you posted, but I can't quote because most of your posts in the thread are nonsense to me.

If you didn't understand my posts  it's because (as has been shown repeatedly) you do not understand the subject.
Also, if you don't understand it then you are in no position to say if I'm right or wrong.

In fact, I'm right.
That's why you can't quote me saying something wrong.




You said- in that thread- that I was wrong.
So, (yet again) either quote what  I said which was wrong or apologise for lying about me.

[Bored chemist]

EDIT:
The parachute won't even make a circle on the sky because it goes up with a kite vertically.

If you think the parachute will go vertically up, which way do you think the wind is blowing?

This sort of thing is what proves you do not understand the subject.

[Yahya (OP)]

EDIT:
The parachute won't even make a circle on the sky because it goes up with a kite vertically.

If you think the parachute will go vertically up, which way do you think the wind is blowing?

This sort of thing is what proves you do not understand the subject.

How this is relevant to the subject ? it doesn't matter the direction of the wind.

[Bored chemist]

EDIT:
The parachute won't even make a circle on the sky because it goes up with a kite vertically.

If you think the parachute will go vertically up, which way do you think the wind is blowing?

This sort of thing is what proves you do not understand the subject.

How this is relevant to the subject ? it doesn't matter the direction of the wind.

This sort of thing is what proves you do not understand the subject.

Why would a parachute rise vertically?
Have you gone back to your absurd balloon idea again or something?

[Yahya (OP)]

EDIT:
The parachute won't even make a circle on the sky because it goes up with a kite vertically.

If you think the parachute will go vertically up, which way do you think the wind is blowing?

This sort of thing is what proves you do not understand the subject.

How this is relevant to the subject ? it doesn't matter the direction of the wind.

This sort of thing is what proves you do not understand the subject.

Why would a parachute rise vertically?
Have you gone back to your absurd balloon idea again or something?

I will use a kite a sheet just like an airplane it goes up while moving horizontally

[Bored chemist]

EDIT:
The parachute won't even make a circle on the sky because it goes up with a kite vertically.

If you think the parachute will go vertically up, which way do you think the wind is blowing?

This sort of thing is what proves you do not understand the subject.

How this is relevant to the subject ? it doesn't matter the direction of the wind.

This sort of thing is what proves you do not understand the subject.

Why would a parachute rise vertically?
Have you gone back to your absurd balloon idea again or something?

I will use a kite a sheet just like an airplane it goes up while moving horizontally

I presume you don't understand the formula about work = force times distance.

The force has to act along the same line as the movement for that equation to work.
If the parachute/ kite does not travel along 120 meters in the direction of the wind (in addition to whatever height it gains) then you won't get the energy you thought you would.

It really would be better if you stopped posting until you learned some science.l

[Yahya (OP)]

I know but I can increase area for that loss. still less expensive than turbines

[Bored chemist]

I know but I can increase area for that loss. still less expensive than turbines

Yes, but you still need to set aside a space big enough to fly the kite and that's huge, and much more expensive than teh turbine.

You need to learn some science.

[Yahya (OP)]

I know but I can increase area for that loss. still less expensive than turbines

Yes, but you still need to set aside a space big enough to fly the kite and that's huge, and much more expensive than teh turbine.

You need to learn some science.

If the angle is 45 degrees force would be 1/√2)F , I would need √2 * area , instead of 6 square meters I would need 8.6 square meters not that much increase

[Bored chemist]

So, you have roughly halved the area you need.
Do you think that helps much?

For example, they will think that setting aside a circle of land 4 3 km in radius to generate 15 Watts is inefficient.

[Yahya (OP)]

So, you have roughly halved the area you need.
Do you think that helps much?

For example, they will think that setting aside a circle of land 4 3 km in radius to generate 15 Watts is inefficient.

The area is in the sky not on ground why people care about it ?