Talk:Vertical-axis wind turbine

message: * http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/08/the-horizontal-.html
* http://www.bsi-global.com/en/About-BSI/News-Room/BSI-News-Content/Disciplines/Sustainability/Wind-turbine/
* http://earthship.com/vertical-axis-wind-power-generation-final-product  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2:4000:AE0:2DF7:266D:867:CBEF (talk) 19:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: , a HAWT for mixing clay.Mion 10:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Useful links

message: I found a new study which explains why they may be a more efficient option for windfarms, unfortunately I'm not feeling very eloquent at the moment, feel free to flesh it out as you see fitBack ache (talk) 12:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: why they are better than horizontal

message: Hi, i want to know more about how to calculate the forces but i dont really understand the formulas. First, it seems that you dont have to know the angle of attack to calculate the forces. But the angle of attack effects the Cl dosen't it? L D T N is the force parameters i think but where can i find the Cl,CD,CT and CN coefficients?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattias5891 (talk • contribs) 09:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forces 

message: The current state of the article seems to show no disadvantages or downsides to vertical axis wind turbines; they're the greatest thing since sliced bread, apparently. How does the efficiency compare to more standard designs? Any other disadvantages or downsides?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siberx (talk • contribs) 09:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: May I be of some help for You: concerning VAWT tecnology it may be certain, that efficiency does not reach the standards of HAWT technique. There are other Points of view to it: under turbulent windconditions near the ground, close to buildings, between mountains or other disturbing obstacles HAWT technique normaly fails to give good values. There the VAWT technology is better of due to it`s immunity against rapid changes of winddirections and partly, depending on the Type (Savonius or Darrieus) they answer beautyfully to changes of windforce. Savonius is better of in the last, because Darrieus, pending on how the blades are build tends to be slow in reaction to this particular mentioned windcondition.--Kalinco (talk) 07:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

text: And don´t forget the point of view for other deployments but windpower! Slow watercurrents in rivers or oceans are relayable means to produce energy! Water has about 800 times the density of air and so much energy too! So it does not matter if the current is much slower but wind. And the point of it - VAWT tecnology is just perfect for under water because it can keep the head up in the air. Generators don´t like it to much to be kept under water! Sealings have to be changed often because of pressure under water, electrolytic waste, growth and corrosion of materials. So - to have a bad position to VAWT technic can be a mistake.--Kalinco (talk) 08:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Efficiency 

message: This:  VAWTs offer a number of advantages over traditional horizontal-axis wind turbines (HAWTs). They can be packed closer together in wind farms, allowing more in a given space. This is not because they are smaller, but rather due to the slowing effect that HAWTs have on the air, forcing designers to separate them by ten times their width.
Saying this is like saying using 1 mop to clean a floor is not as efficient as using 10 mops to clean a floor.  If a HAWT has a "slowing effect" on air, it means power is being extracted from it.  Likewise, if you have 100 VAWT's in a row and the air isn't slowed down at all, it would suggest that the design of VAWT is horribly inadequate to even extract the slightest amount of energy from wind.
That whole sentence is inaccurate, should be removed -- and the [5] and [6] footnotes are used incorrectly (i.e. just because HAWTs slow air does not make them less efficient, the fact that you need less HAWTs makes them even MORE efficient.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.198.82.34 (talk) 07:01, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is yet one more example of Wikipedia's inability to deal with controversy. It is highly promotional and unbalanced, and very poorly sourced and documented. 2601:1C0:4D01:7A6B:916:EB1E:7F7E:E53B (talk) 09:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: obviously incorrect

message: The traverse-to-wind rotatable airfoil of Congressman Butler Ames was patent-taught in 1908. Such VAWT has not been addressed in the present article.  68.123.235.180 (talk) 20:45, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Butler Ames of a teaching patent filed in 1908 

message: How long have VAWTs been explored?  What are the earliest records of VAWTs?  I'd like to know more about the long history of VAWTs. Who could enhance that aspect of the article, perhaps to a point of developing a separate specialty article about the history of VAWTs?
The discussion (immediately above) about the traverse-to-wind rotatable airfoil of Massachusetts Republican Congressman Butler Ames in 1908 is one such early historical mention. But surely VAWTs were explored before Congressman Ames in the Bay State. Butler Ames was an alum of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, Massachusetts. MaynardClark (talk) 12:05, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: History of VAWTs

message: Challenergy, a vertical-axis Magnus wind power generator, works via the Magnus effect, where a spinning object directs air around it faster on one side than on the other.    Setenzatsu.2 (talk) 21:49, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "typhoon turbine"