Quote: "I am admittedly pretty ignorant of wind generation technology. So to enable my understating of why oscillating technology does not work, could you explain to me why? I want to understand, but please remember to explain in lay person language and for average IQ."

Start with the basic tenet of geometry: The greatest possible area that you can inscribe within a perimeter of given length is that of the figure we call a circle. Every other possible figure will have a smaller area.

Take a fathom of string. lay it out in a perfect circle {yeah - I know :-)].

1: Circumference = 2 * pi * radius

in our example 6 = 2 * 3.1416 * r or r = 6/6.2832 = .955 Ft

2 Area = pi * r^2 = 3.1416 * .955^2 = 2.865 SqFt

By my contention, and that of people far cleverer than I, that is the one limiting case. Now look at a middling case:

Take your string, still a fathom long. Lay it out to describe a square. Each side would be 1.5 feet, n'est-ce pas? The area is therefore 1.5 x 1.5 = 2.25 SqFt. You can see that that area is already smaller than the circle's, though both figures have the same length of perimeter.

We'll not consider another middling case, that of the triangle, cos it involves trigonometry. If you have trigonometry at your fingertips, you prolly wouldn't have asked the question in the first place ;-)

So look at another middling case:

Take that same fathom of string and lay it out as a rectangle, with two of the sides 2 feet long. That leaves you a foot for each of the ends, n'est-ce pas?

therefore A = 2 x 1 = 2.000.

As you see, that is smaller still.

And now the clincher :-) Take the same fathom of string and lay it out as the perimeter of a rectange with two of the sides 3 ft long. What is the inscribed area?

I'll leave that to you, since you've obviously got the picture by now :-).

So you see, the ONLY worthwhile captor of wind-energy is a disk presented to the wind perpendicularly, for the amount of energy you can extract is a function of ("depends on") the cross-sectional area of the "tube" of wind blowing through the captor. That function happens to be a "second order" function, i.e. it has a term in it that needs raising to the second power. That makes it imperative that you grab every square inch of area that you possibly can.

Therefore anything other than the

propeller type rotor is therefore nothing more than a risible attempt at "product differentiation" and can be safely dismissed. Aeoleus, the God of the winds, sez so :-)

Propeller design is a whole other, and quite different, argument.

May the wind be ever at your back, and always between, say, eight and two-and-twenty knots :-)

TrentePieds