New Wind Turbine Design Can Triple Energy Production

Conspirator
Posts: 2312
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 11:34 pm

PostSat Nov 10, 2012 6:24 am » by Cia212


Higher than the Betz Limit? Likely a scam unless the dish shown on the illustration is a shroud funneling air to the center. If that is true then it can beat the Betz limit, but it isn't scalable and, therefore, not viable for any home or commercial use. So, one way or the other, this isn't viable.

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 5982
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 10:24 pm
Location: Evildweeb 2.5

PostSat Nov 10, 2012 8:57 am » by Evildweeb


.


Nice pleasant touchy feely video --- but most likely produced by a major power company.


Did you know on multi-miilion dollar yachts and mega-yachts, they have a single prop blade wind turbine high on a mast that powers the entire ship?


Not quite the same tech as those dinosaur mega towers bitched about in the video.

So, how does a 3-foot diameter marine turbine power entire battery complexes on the mega-yachts?


A good question for another day.


:headscratch:



:cheers:




Image
Image

Beer acquisition continues up to the point of some form of saturation and is driven on a course directed by the path of least resistance to the fridge

Conspirator
Posts: 2312
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 11:34 pm

PostSat Nov 10, 2012 9:22 am » by Cia212


Evildweeb wrote:.


Did you know on multi-miilion dollar yachts and mega-yachts, they have a single prop blade wind turbine high on a mast that powers the entire ship?


Not quite the same tech as those dinosaur mega towers bitched about in the video.

So, how does a 3-foot diameter marine turbine power entire battery complexes on the mega-yachts?

It doesn't power the entire ship. Those are just trickle chargers, they max out at around 1200Watts in high winds but most are around 2-400watts. They can't sustain the electrical requirements of a yacht under load.

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 5982
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 10:24 pm
Location: Evildweeb 2.5

PostSat Nov 10, 2012 9:25 am » by Evildweeb


.


Hi CIA :flop:

Good point.

But I guess what I was getting at is those units are not available to the general public and they are higher producing than public grade turbines.

True?


Cheers buddy.


:cheers:




Image
Image

Beer acquisition continues up to the point of some form of saturation and is driven on a course directed by the path of least resistance to the fridge

Conspirator
Posts: 2312
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 11:34 pm

PostSat Nov 10, 2012 10:05 am » by Cia212


Evildweeb wrote:.


Hi CIA :flop:

Good point.

But I guess what I was getting at is those units are not available to the general public and they are higher producing than public grade turbines.

True?

They are, but they're pretty expensive. I saw a video years ago where a guy designed his own system on the cheap - the array of solar and wind turbines powers a monastery. The monks aren't surfing the internet much (or microwaving food or watching a lot of TV) but it's still quite an accomplishment.

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 2921
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2010 10:47 am

PostSat Nov 10, 2012 10:18 am » by Opalserpent


It would need a good furling system for high winds. looks like it could double as a satellite dish.
Live by the Terror, Die by the Terror.

Conspirator
Posts: 2312
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 11:34 pm

PostSat Nov 10, 2012 11:54 am » by Cia212


Something about this design irritated me, so I spent some time researching. There are many people saying it, but the problems with this device is summed up very well by this guy.

Summary: If scaled up to generate significant levels of energy this would not move except in the strongest of winds, where it would either tear off of the tower or pull the tower over. It's at best naivety on their part, or more likely an attempt to bilk naive investors of money.

•A primary reason is that this is likely a scam. Their patent -- linked from their website -- is for a bladed wind turbine with hydraulic components, not for their conical sail.

•Secondarily, while they claim 2.3 times the efficiency, they neither define efficiency on their website -- lifecycle cost of energy is the only appropriate choice, but they seem to be focusing on direct capacity factor or some such -- nor do they publish any numbers to support their claim.

•Thirdly, the device will not scale. A conical surface such as they project, even if it is 2.3 times the efficiency of a horizontal axis triblade wind turbine would be extremely heavy in any scale outside of trivial prototypes and would present a massive wind load that could not be feathered. Simple calculations show that they diameter would have to be roughly 71% of the diameter of a triblade horizontal wind turbine if the assumption is correct. This means that for a 3 MW generator, they would have a surface area in the range of 15,000-20,000 square meters. Even with ultralight materials, this would be extraordinarily heavy. This surface area would be cantilevered by the cone so that the weight would be quite a distance -- at least meters -- from the attachment point. Their attachment point is not fixed, but a hydraulic pump actuator, so it would have to be bulked up massively to support the stress. The cantilevered weight means it would hang straight down in all but the strongest of winds. The inability to feather it or shed wind load means it would be torn off by high enough winds to move it, or it would tear the tower down.

•Fourthly, they propose an inherent storage mechanism. As a rule of thumb, if a wind generator proposal includes built-in storage, the inventor (polite term) doesn't understand the electrical system and is fixing the wrong things.

•Last, they claim to have exceeded Betz' Law (or Betz' Limit) of a maximum of 59.3% of energy of a surface area of wind being capturable by a wind generation device. As no one has ever even approached Betz' Law with any wind generation device and no one has come up with any theoretical explanation of how Betz' Law could exceeded, this represents either a breakthrough of enormous significance, or a scam.

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 3166
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 10:50 pm
Location: 2 Thirds Down The Bottle

PostSat Nov 10, 2012 12:20 pm » by Toxic32


I found this interesting take on the same subject along with the interesting website it was published on. I will post the link for anyone interested in new technology and inventions.


http://news.discovery.com/tech/bladeless-wind-turbine-spares-birds-120904.html

Website. http://www.scoop.it/t/living-green-integrated-architecture-practices
I question everything. I don't believe anything I'm told or anything I see. Prove it, or fuck off. And that's not me I see in the mirror in the morning.

Initiate
Posts: 278
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 11:22 pm

PostSat Nov 10, 2012 12:52 pm » by Spikey


Cia212 wrote:Something about this design irritated me, so I spent some time researching. There are many people saying it, but the problems with this device is summed up very well by this guy.

Summary: If scaled up to generate significant levels of energy this would not move except in the strongest of winds, where it would either tear off of the tower or pull the tower over. It's at best naivety on their part, or more likely an attempt to bilk naive investors of money.

•A primary reason is that this is likely a scam. Their patent -- linked from their website -- is for a bladed wind turbine with hydraulic components, not for their conical sail.

•Secondarily, while they claim 2.3 times the efficiency, they neither define efficiency on their website -- lifecycle cost of energy is the only appropriate choice, but they seem to be focusing on direct capacity factor or some such -- nor do they publish any numbers to support their claim.

•Thirdly, the device will not scale. A conical surface such as they project, even if it is 2.3 times the efficiency of a horizontal axis triblade wind turbine would be extremely heavy in any scale outside of trivial prototypes and would present a massive wind load that could not be feathered. Simple calculations show that they diameter would have to be roughly 71% of the diameter of a triblade horizontal wind turbine if the assumption is correct. This means that for a 3 MW generator, they would have a surface area in the range of 15,000-20,000 square meters. Even with ultralight materials, this would be extraordinarily heavy. This surface area would be cantilevered by the cone so that the weight would be quite a distance -- at least meters -- from the attachment point. Their attachment point is not fixed, but a hydraulic pump actuator, so it would have to be bulked up massively to support the stress. The cantilevered weight means it would hang straight down in all but the strongest of winds. The inability to feather it or shed wind load means it would be torn off by high enough winds to move it, or it would tear the tower down.

•Fourthly, they propose an inherent storage mechanism. As a rule of thumb, if a wind generator proposal includes built-in storage, the inventor (polite term) doesn't understand the electrical system and is fixing the wrong things.

•Last, they claim to have exceeded Betz' Law (or Betz' Limit) of a maximum of 59.3% of energy of a surface area of wind being capturable by a wind generation device. As no one has ever even approached Betz' Law with any wind generation device and no one has come up with any theoretical explanation of how Betz' Law could exceeded, this represents either a breakthrough of enormous significance, or a scam.


The scaling problem is only a problem if you are thinking of a single generating unit...as opposed to a single pedestal with multi-turbine genertinging 'heads' affixed to the pedestal.

Then imagine a field of closely spaced (much more closely spaced than traditional designs) pedestals, each carrying 6-12 of these dish heads, then you get an idea of how to effectively scale this up to higher electrical generating values.

Initiate
Posts: 278
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 11:22 pm

PostSat Nov 10, 2012 1:04 pm » by Spikey


Cia212 wrote:This looks cool, like a ducted fan design. I wonder if changing the duct shape would impact the fan speed?

Of course, the size is still impractical. 367 feet for one duct - and this only powers one house.


That's exactly what i thought.

112 meter sized hoop and it only generates enough energy for a single household?

That's nowhere near efficient enough. A VAWT only a few meters in height could generate an amount to sustain an average household...and you could fit a lot more of those into the same area occupied by just one of these hoop designs...not practical.


PreviousNext

  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post
Visit Disclose.tv on Facebook