Select Your Favourite Invention

Russell,

this may interest you if you haven't seen it.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/how/stories/hulc_player.html

Chris

First of all, Wind kinetic energy is converted into internal air pressure, so rules change from there, I would say.

even if the rules were to change [they don't]

increase flow, reduce pressure

increase pressure, reduce flow

inconvenient as it may be, you just don't get something for nothing

all the turbines down wind will be in a reduced pressure zone, since the airflow is being redirected up

the airflow can't be redirected & continue on it's normal path at the same time.

Well Ky, a GA.

Great leadership and communications ky. ga.

Thanks Chris and to you too Trans. Its good to see this thread still up and running.

Hi Ky,

You are mostly right, but You overlook that I asked help with formulas, because if I can calculate optimal size of prototype parts then at least half of work is done and prototype would cost that much less.......

You could consider that compared to others, I live in country with industry devastated by our war for independence in first place and mismanagement of government who has taken all that have belonged to >>People<< and dealt it among politicians who did not know better than keep leeching money from companies until they went bankrupt for insolvency. They liquidated them and sold land to foreign buyers, while people lost jobs. In country of 4.5 million, we have 900 000 people with jobs and even those do not receive their pay regularly. Since personal purchase power is low, there is less and less sales, because of which employers are downsizing workforce, creating still worse situation, and government faced with diminishing budget supplied by taxes started raising taxes and inventing new ones, which is making personal purchase power still less.

Seventeen Banks collapsed taking down drain literally hundreds of thousands of companies. If most of my buyers for goods and services were not made insolvent by this and liquidated companies without paying for goods and services received, I would be able to finance it all from my own money. This way, I am still paying back my debts because I am honest man and I would not like to destroy my suppliers who are my friends also. But my company is blocked by AMEX Company Card organization, so they precluded me to earn any money to pay back my debt, and this was made by two of my Traveling Representatives (both Indians) who wanted to save on postage and insurance cost, and in order to do it they misdeclared package worth 100 thousands of Euro to be vorth just 1000$, and so when it was >>lost in transport<< I got just 2000$ from mailing company. From initial 35 000 Euro debt made by AMEX CC there remains just 15 thousands, but they do not want to turn my debt to credit and unblock my company Bank accounts. I cannot even open another company as its Bank accounts would be frozen also. In addition to this, 37 thousand Euro was from mortgage credit which I have to return still another 7 years, so whatever money I can earn is spent on paying that......

So this is my situation, I cannot finance prototype I need to attract investors, even if I have found severall that would be quite willing to invest their money in electricity production, once I demonstrate that it is so as I claim.

In a word, it is madhouse.......

So far all potential investors asked for >>Proof of Concept<< before they would start investing money, and without prototype, or at least convicting computer simulation I cannot give it.

Still it is useful to get informations about contests like one for that energy independent Water tower, but there again those citizens would like to get tried and tested thing, right?

I wanted to collect my own group of colleagues that would criticize my ideas and help me with formulas, that is why I started writing here.

Unfortunately some of people here are allergic to idea that there could be something more effective than Betz Law predict, even if there is Tesla turbine as example that this is possible and that exceptions exist, reasons being employment of different forces than with usual turbines.

Therefore, I am being insulted at worst and misunderstood at best, and I lose hope that there someone would help me in engineering capacity.

My friends that are engineers are on jobs in foreign countries or have moved there entirely, and we are all poor and mortgage ridden, so it is wonder that we are alive at all..........

CR4 ADMIN: This post was edited to remove advertising outside the Commercial Space forum. Please review Section 14 of the CR4 Site FAQ about advertising.

Conversely our politicians have spent millions of Euro for running for presidency, but there is no money available for something that would save the country :-))

I hope You understand me better now..........

How uninformed or manipulative, do you have to be, to site the Tesla turbine against Betz dynamics?

This is too far!

Garthh is totally correct;

All you are doing is trading on the professional credibility of CR4/Global Spec, to find some scintilla of 'approval', to then present that to your 'investors' (fools) as 'proof of concept'. Pure usury.

I am surprised that Admin has not banned you for attempting 'perversion' and 'exploitation' of the Global Spec credibility.

Or at least, removed you and your posts to the 'commercial' section.

Honored colleague,

It seems on surface that You do not understand me at all........

Why do You call me >>uninformed and manipulative<<?

Do You know what is efficiency coefficient of Tesla Turbine?

If I am not wrong, it is around 95%.

If this is so, is it not example that there is turbine whose efficiency coefficient is far greater than Betz limit?

I keep telling that each formula is valid inside given set of parameters, but when parameters change, then formula cannot be applied, that is all........

Now, what I say is that Tesla turbine is example of case where Betz formula cannot be applied, and I have made another that also work differently.

Just tell me: what results would Betz formula give if air speed on output from turbine is greater than speed of air entering turbine?

I am not seeking approval from any CR4 member, including You, I am asking for help to explain how efficiency of turbine I invented and is working can be calculated precisely, in order to adjust its dimensions to required output in form of Rpm and KW or MW generated, because specific Rpm is optimal speed of generator I intend to use.

Both You and Garthh tend to accuse me without explaining reasons for such accusations, and that is not fair!

I have distinct feeling that You do understand me more than You would like to show, just want to provoke me to reveal all details of my inventions.

If that is so, then it is You who is manipulative, not me!

I only ask for help, You can give it or not, that is up to You to decide....

Arguing based on insufficient facts is bad practice, specially if You try to prove me wrong........

In the end, truth shall prevail and You would, if You have any conscience, be ashamed for insulting me without reason....

Thanks for Your comments anyway!

"if air speed on output from turbine is greater than speed of air entering turbine?"

He'd think; You have one of these in there, or your an "over unity" aficionado.

GA, can't read it. Every now and then I simply cannot read anything but the whining and the comments of more knowledgeable than myself on certain issues.

The sentence reminds me of how a PT6 turbo prop works, which is a terrific engine. Suck bang boom and pure jet engines get you going.

Want some thrust.

Wind blows. There is thrust. There is very little wind where I live. I'd have to dig holes in the ground vertically to get 50 degree constant and venturi that for common lows of 70. Been hot as hell at consistent 95 where I am.

For all the planet gifts I know the combinations are the real answer, whereas most really want one bet, like how setting wood afire worked all by itself, for a long time.

So, must be Venturi pipe does not work and speed up air?

If it work, then surely if exit opening is also smallest diameter in Venturi pipe, would not air speed on exit be greater than on entrance?

If turbine also act as air compressor and Venturi pipe, would not speed of air on exit trough nozzles be greater than on entrance to turbine?

I really cannot find any logic in Your statements.

yes

more speed [pressure], less volume

Are you trying to tell us that energy is gained because it runs through a venturi?

Conservation of energy gives a very real limitation to the maximum possible energy extraction.

So far, your comments seem to be contravening that.

I went through the derivation of the Betz law. It assumes 100% efficiency of the turbine. Strictly speaking, it is derived for axial flow, but if radial or semi radial flow is allowed for, the results are similar.

You seem unable to distinguish between "overall energy conversion efficiency" and "mechanical efficiency". For this see my earlier post.

As long as you make these claims. apparently based on lack of understanding of the physics involved, you will continue to have trouble attracting investors as the claims are immediately spotted by knowledgeable people as being unrealistic, even in an ideal case.

CR4 Admin - Post Removed

You have to agree that the total energy possible is determined by the area of the intake as 34.5 pointed out many posts ago

while you may be able to increase the speed [concentrate the energy]of some part of the airflow,

how is it possible that the changes in direction will do anything but increase the turbulence of the majority of the airstream lowering the overall efficiency & ruining the laminar flow you are assuming?

This assumption is at the root of all your claims.

You have to agree that the total energy possible is determined by the area of the intake

I agree!

how is it possible that the changes in direction will do anything but increase the turbulence of the majority of the air stream lowering the overall efficiency & ruining the laminar flow you are assuming?

As I mentioned several times, I do not rely on original air flow as it is turned into internal air pressure first of all. Since turbine is on top and feed by Venturi pipe, when air start exiting trough nozzles of turbine, internal air flow is formed, that is fed from all directions at once, save from direction of turbine. Since turbine is at end of Venturi pipe, first small opening of Venturi is emptied, and that start process of internal air flow, straight trough Venturi pipe. At entrance to Venturi pipe still this internal flow is fed from all directions but one so there is no turbulence. This Venturi is straight therefore there is no direction change.

Process of transforming Wind flow into internal air pressure dampen any turbulence, I would say..........

Internal space serves as buffer for equalization of wind bursts or turbulent air flow.

In case there is Laminar flow outside, then due to system that capture wind and turn it into internal pressure, internal pressure should be equal to fastest Wind layer, which automatically shut doors on levels with weaker wind, therefore only strongest wind can enter inside.

That way maximum of available wind energy is reaped and converted to electricity.

If there is no Laminar flow outside, all doors on all levels work equally and internal pressure created is what enters trough intake area (doors) spread on whole internal surface..........

If there would be guiding vanes inside Venturi pipe and they would create spiral air movement so direction of air pushing on internal blades/wings inside turbine would be perpendicular to their surface, at least some increase in effectiveness can be expected.

But, let us forget such small improvements and concentrate on most important, as You can imagine that turbine consist of many Venturi pipes, end of which is nozzle at rim of turbine, because of which air inside turbine is still more speeded up.

Now, to simplify things, I would consider there is just one Venturi pipe where biggest opening is intake area and smallest is total of all nozzles opening.

Since formulas exists, it is easy to calculate how much air is speed up at nozzles and sum of all nozzles openings help us calculate how many m3 of air shall pass trough nozzles at that air speed.

Since weight of one m3 of air is known, it should be easy to calculate force generated by kinetic energy of air expelled trough nozzles, right?

At least this is my working theory, but maybe I am completely wrong?

If I am wrong, then I shall find some other way to explain working of my turbine and whole WPS...........

What I am missing is formula to calculate how many Rpm would be created, if diameter of turbine is known and generated reactive force is applied to its rim, as well as size of torque force created, to be able to calculate KW produced by generator.

CR4 ADMIN: This post was edited to remove advertising outside the Commercial Space forum. Please review Section 14 of the CR4 Site FAQ about advertising.

Regards, Marijan Pollak

"Process of transforming Wind flow into internal air pressure dampen any turbulence"

I tried to tell you earlier, when I mentioned my own experiments, and showed pictures, that such a thing will not work.

You can not find the truth in this situation by calculation. You absolutely must do some sort of experiment to show your unwilling self what reality is. Just make it out of cardboard and styrofoam and use a simple house fan. Put a load on the output shaft with a pulley and a piece of string, and raise a few grams of weight, or measure the DP with a pitot tube.

Mother Nature will not be denied. You are engaged in sheer folly if you plan the business model around unrealistic and unproven science.

Please.

Does a cows stomach ring a bell? Yes please, make it stop!

Dear Chris,

If it would not be possible, surely engineers I was talking to would say so at once.

If company that build prototypes is sure they can do it and that it would work, then I surely have no reason to think it would not work.

Anyhow, soon we shall see it working, I hope, since one person who is concerned with energy sufficiency of buildings think it is good idea to use.

Your experiment lacked vital component, doors to capture and keep air pressure inside, and You forgot that in fluids pressure is equal in all directions so what You applied was diluted, not used all on surface of water as You planned.

As I explained, all my electric hand tools are gone, and it has to be done with some precision if doors are to be shut airtight.

Thanks for Your concern!

If Wright Brothers were listening to scientists of their time, there would be no aeroplanes today...........

What they wanted to do was also officially >>impossible<< :-))

Regards, Marijan Pollak

Well actually I think his assumption is the air will not just go around.

I.e. treat the 'solidity' of this device as any other 'aerodynamically solid building'.

The "most you can capture with a perfect turbine" Betz number is saying; "in a perfect world 40% will still just "go around".

I mean - for ducks sake! - it's WIND!

It is not compressed air or steam or products of combustion CONTAINED IN A PIPE that must go through the turbine.

Why do people insist that it's the same thing - WHY??????

ARRRRrrrraaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

p.s I love this swirly "PowerPoint Color and Movement" one, in that link in your link.

^{_{(Would seem they 'overlooked' the body of the building).}}

So I saw this pop back up in e-mail and was intrigued. So Henrik14, I'm a little confused, and apologize in advance as I didn't read every post related, but you do or do not have a working prototype? I find asking for private capital without a real working prototype just not within the bounds of such a request. It's worth the struggle to build a properly working prototype before the business plan. Not always easy financially. We build everything and make sure we're on the right track before doing so. Usually and only if we feel it has a very realistic non-BS approach into a valid market place. There's a lot of homework that goes into just that alone.

Experience has shown, even to those that work at the labs here at Sandia, that no matter how much you think you have your idea down and ready to work, there is always some sque to the reality that requires more work and figuring out. The unexpected will always present it self. From the investment point of view, with high risk ventures (start up or new ideas to implement) without a real, tested, or in the process of being tested appropriately proto type, don't expect ready investors. Yet apparently we can still sell new software and cars with gobs of problems. So maybe there is hope for you yet. Non-the-less, best of luck to you. I leave my opinions on your idea for another time.

Hi,

It is exactly my position: I made prototype of turbine by hand and it works.

Now I have all prepared to make small WPS of 10 KW prototype, including company that make them since 1996 that is sure they can do it.

Unfortunately, they want guarantee that when they deliver working and tested prototype, that produce target 10 KW at speed of wind 3m/sec. they would get paid.

If we are not in such situation (I explained in previous mails) then owner would do it on his own expense. He has however 14 engineers on pay and is running around to find projects that are financed already.

I am professional programmer, and I would be able to make program to calculate optimal size of all parts, but I lack some formulas, that is I asked for help here.

Unfortunately as soon as I mention high efficiency turbine, some people see it as red flag and start citing Betz Law.

My WPS first capture Wind, turning it (more or less) into internal air pressure, maintained by Wind replenishing air escaping trough turbine.

Turbine is working on reactive principle as it have nozzles that expel air tangentially to its rim.

Long and short is that I find no reason it would not work, providing that air of sufficient speed is supplied to turbine. For that there is built in Venturi pipe, and turbine itself consist of many Venturi pipes leading to its nozzles.

In addition turbine act as air compressor thus still more producing pressure and raising speed of air before it is expelled trough nozzles.

I can roughly calculate what is speed of air exiting nozzles, and their total opening let me calculate volume of air expelled. From this I should be able to calculate Rpm and torque force created by turbine, to match generator requirements.

That I do not know yet how to do.

Help would be appreciated, but if nobody would help, I would do it on my own, just much later......

I have posted pictures of my WPS, revealing as much as I dare, but nobody has really have taken a look or they do not understand what they see.

Please take time and read my posts, I am repeating myself and losing the time I could spend more usefully.

You are lucky if You work at Sandia Labs, I here have nothing at all and least of all, financial support.

I have contacted VC from foreign countries and few are interested, but since this is not comparable to existing models, they want demonstration that it would work.

How can I do it without the prototype?

Things always go better if I can show my turbine, but I have no means to even make little movie and send it by email. On the other hand, it is really crude and ugly, so I show it only if I must.

Just like people here at CR4, my friend who have studied Physic was trying to explain to me that my turbine cannot be more efficient than Betz Law predict, telling it is even questionable if it would be turning at all.

Since I demonstrated him turbine in work, he is now confused and still refuse to believe his own eyes :-)) So, he still try to prove me it is not possible, and he search for some explanation why he see what he see with his own eyes, thinking I am doing some smoke and mirror tricks......

This has shown me how some people simply refuse to accept reality, once one of basic laws they thought immutable and absolute seems to be malfunctioning.

Anyhow, he slowly accept my explanation that each Law is valid for defined set of parameters, and if parameters change or new are introduced, then it may not be applicable.

Isenotropic efficiency aside, (that would be purely academic discussion) as long a my prototype would produce 10 KW at air speed 3m/sec. and would not cost more than I expect (price per MW produced would be far greater than in 1 MW models I intend to produce, because cost of generator compared to capacity is far greater for 10 KW unit, but considering prices of electricity, still cheaper at least 4 times) then it would be economic to produce and use even such small models of Wind Power Stations.

One thing I am absolutely sure, and this is that my WPSs would be much more efficient than contemporary used HAWTs, less prone to breakdowns, easier to build and maintenance, and what is most important, could work where standard models cannot, and under same conditions they have to produce more electricity because obviously they would extract kinetic energy from far weaker wind, and proportionally more from stronger wind.......

Now, can You help me with formula(s) I need to calculate optimal size of 10 KW WPS of my design?

Any help would be greatly appreciated!

Regards from Croatia, homeland of one of greatest inventors of 20th Century, Engineer Nikola Tesla!

do you have a proto type or not?

within the post I'm replying to you change several times, 1st you do, then you don't, then you do

pick an answer & stick with it...

you can as chris points out make a scale model & use simple water columns & pieces of cardboard to make comparative measurements

if the company [ EAG CENTAR ] that is prepared to make a scaled up version, will provide written guarantees that this is all viable, you should be able to use these documents in your presentation to potential investors.

I never worked with a machine shop that would do more than make any assurances beyond, building to your plans & that the parts [or systems] would be of the dimensions you supply

more likely if you pay them, they will apply a certain number of man hours to your design & building of a proto type

you claim to be able to do the programming, but need some help with the formulas

your gonna [just like you have advised in the thread I linked to earlier] have to be much more specific in your question[s]

Mr. Garthh,

I am realy sorry that English is not my native language.....

I have prototype of TURBINE.

What I need is prototype of complete Wind Power Station of 10 KW.

That I DO NOT have.........

As I pointed out, prototipe should have precisely made doors that would be airtight when closed. That I cannot make by hand.

Recently I have hold presentation at CRANE, which is Croatian Association of Angel Investors, that was very good, at least they told me so.

Present was also owner and Chief Engineer of EAG as part of team working on project. He confirmed that EAG would do it all, from formulas, 3D CAD model and CFD simulation to 3D printing of parts, assembly of prototype with built in 10 KW generator that would supply other member of team, factory of generators TEMA from Pula, who would supply also all necesary to connect generator to Grid and to measure output.

They agree to be paid only after delivery of prototype with results of field testing, showing that it can produce 10 KW from 3m/sec. Wind speed. Investor would be first shown prototype in work with anemometer and voltmeter, etc. connected and measuring power output. Then and only then they would be paid.

So, EAG has taken all risk of failure to produce prototype that work on themselves, and that group of Angels was supposed to invest into high risk ventures.

Maybe they did not like such >>riskless<< investment :-))

They have limit of investment size at 100,000 Euro, for which they take 51% of company shares for their help, but that is actually takeover from actual owner, right?

If investment canot be termed as >>high risk<<, then they cannot justify takeover, I would say.

Final conclusion of dozen or more >>Angels<< was that they would like to see computer simulation first, and unfortunately this cost 9/10ths of prototype price.

Unofficially I heard that they have invested money into projects that either flopped or did not return any profit, so they depleted their resources. Similar thing happened to EAG owner who invested money into some company shares whose value dropped to one third of purchase price paid, so he also could not finance this, else he would do so.

So, I would not give EAG drawings except 3D sketches and detailed explanations how would each part really look like, since with my old versions of software I was not able to draw it in 3D properly. Perhaps drawing expert can do it with same program and computer, but I learned 3D Studio Max for this purpose only, where before I had one designer on payroll who was doing it much better.

This is not just machine shop, those engineers are living from making prototypes since 1996, and if they would not deliver as expected, they would be gone fast from this business. I met number of people I talked to to join the team for work on my projects, and only when I mentioned that EAG would do calculations and prototype, they were ready to join, knowing quality of EAG CENTER work from past cases.....

If I could calculate optimal dimensions, then I would be able to give that measures to them and they would not be forced to do blind search on problem space, trying several versions of computer model.

in regard to formulas I need I have wrote twice exactly what I need to calculate.

If I know volume of air expelled by turbine nozzles and turbine diameter, I need to calculate Rpm and torque produced.

Target Rpm is 1800 and torque should be enough to produce 10 KW on generator supplied.

Everything else I could approximate using Venturi pipe formulas, it would be beter than nothing.

Thanks in advance!

Vc's always want to take control of the company, the price you pay, the terms are gonna be as bad no matter where you go

the angels most likely directed the funds to their "friends" & somehow benefited themselves

Management always makes more than talent.

You have almost posted a question there...

post everything [all the parameters] in as concise & specific a manner as possible, along with the formulas as you understand them

Henrik14, so it sounds as though you've searched the more common means for developing the project to a more solid performing prototype.

Garth and many others here have the same opinion of VC's and Angel investment groups, I think many of us have been down that road. But it seems your doing your fair share of hustle! It will take even more to be sure.

Technically, I don't completely doubt the base possibilities of what your trying to accomplish regarding work force from the air moved within your system. However I don't entirely understand how your design works exactly. So I take it the hand made model is a non working prototype but for observation only.

Because my time here is limited, may I suggest you follow Garths advise to be as concise and specific as possible and include the formulas you are utilizing now as you understand them and their particular application to your system. Your not so far off the mark that some here won't help and I realize you may be typing through a language program or just have difficulty with English. Non-the-less write it all out before typing it out here and see if one here may be better equipped to help you with formulation.

Also when you say your hand model prototype works, how are you measuring that output and if the results are such (to claiming it "works"), seems to me the hand model should be your working prototype. Sometimes there is no need to get that perfect looking prototype, just one that does what you are working for it to do, regardless of it's crude build. Serious investors don't usually give a crap what it looks like (in the technical field) as long as it does what you say it will. So maybe I am still a little confused about your working prototype.

One more thought; when you have the question in polished form, you might want to post it again on the main home page. This thread is incredibly long and others are not privy to your question. But PLEASE get what your are asking for very well defined or you will be raked over the coals, which is no fun and unproductive.

Good to see you. I'll be in touch once I cross that finish line. Small steps at a time but all worth while. Squeezing in a piece of puzzle that does not fit has never helped. I shall wait my time, Ky.

Hey

there's a finish line?

Yep

http://www.inhabitat.com/2010/03/15/the-strata-worlds-first-skyscraper-with-built-in-wind-turbines/

Last year I came up with an idea to convert wind to pressure to pumped storage of water.. and when I considered it in my head, I thought it should work. So then I got some large tubs of water, and and put a 'shroud' on one, and a siphon tube on the other. I filled the shrouded tub with water, and started the siphon. I then put my room-fan facing the shroud and turned it on high, and ensured that all the air pressure was directed into the shroud..

The siphon kept pumping... so then I raised the second tub (receiver) to a water level equal to the shrouded one (source) and then slightly above.. then the water in the siphon stopped flowing.. I was sure that I would be able to push water up hill due to the air pressure in the shroud. I was wrong. I simply couldn't raise it a millimeter.

great idea, simple experiment, natural result. I did not invest another penny in the idea. You need desperately to create a prototype to prove the concept.

the second image here is one where the shroud does not completely block the airflow, but reduces it down to the duct you see going up the hill. In the center of that duct is a water pipe, and the flow of air through the duct is supposed to pull the water through the pipe by the small vacuum created... same principle as an air-paint gun which sucks paint from a container when compressed air move across a suction tube.

I haven't tested this concept... because I lost interest.

Hi Chris and all

Just got back from a trip up north and was not contactable. So here I am and I will keep it very short for now. I'll have a bit more time tomorrow and I'll be on the case.

Talk then, Ky.

Hi Henrik14

My guess at the principle of your idea is below.

Basically, air enters the plenum chamber (tower) through the set of doors facing the prevailing wind, because those doors are blown open by it.

This air then exhausts through a turbine at the top (or bottom if you like) of the tower.

A few comments.

1. Max pressure rise available is given by 1/2*air density*(wind speed)^2.

2. Depending on the turbine design, there must be an exit wind velocity, which carries away some of the energy with it.

3. There is a limit to how low this wind speed can be compared to the prevailing wind, otherwise the prevailing wind builds up a back pressure at the exit and prevents air exit from the turbine. I haven't done the algebra on this, but it will probably wind up as the Betz limit. (This requirement is basically where the Betz limit comes from).

4. If the turbine exits at the top and the prevailing wind into which the exhaust air feeds is fed through a venturi, efficiency may be improved as the exhaust will be "sucked out".

On the other hand a bottom exhaust is mechanically simpler and exhausts into a slower, less energy intensive air stream. With a properly designed exit, the bottom exit may well prove more efficient than the top exit.

5. The available energy is a function of the "swept area" (in this case roughly the elevation cross sectional area of the tower) and the cube of the wind speed. Obviously you can't extract more energy than is contained in that cross sectional area of wind.

6. As mentioned in point 3, efficiency is unlikely to be any better than a vertical axis wind turbine, and the cost considerably higher, because of the cost of the tower.

If the tower had to be built anyway (eg a water tower), then that extra cost is nullified and the idea could be worth examining.

I do object to your roasting of Chris. He has repeatedly shown his willingness to help when he can, but he must first get a clear enough explanation to enable him to do anything.

I had trouble working out what you were talking about even from your second post, and certainly couldn't make any sense out of the first post on the subject.

As it is, the above is mainly a wild guess based on my understanding of your second post.

Well said sceptic

Now that you have made things clear it seems that I understand what the plan is. Unless our Romanian friend has some "wind gears" in place he should be happy now. For an inventor to have clarity about what he (his invention, contraption, design) is doing, is as important as to fully succeed in the end. You have possibly saved him and others a lot of time putting this analysis forward.

Back to the drawing board is the main occupation of an inventor. With his Eastern Block back ground and undisputed intelligence it should be fun. Starting, improving on some thing not feasible is what characterizes a true tinkerer who has too much time on his hands and no advisers to delegate. Except us that is.

Will Mr. Pollock listen or will he switch into defensive mode again and keep postulating about manufacturers building things that need an NDA to have a closer look at? He is biting a helping hand and if he doesn't listen he is falsifying, corrupting, polluting his R&D and will make success impossible or a criminal act. I wonder if his associates are reading any of this.

Thanks for tending to this in such a clear manner sceptic. GA from me, Ky.

Unfortunately, I was writing nearly 2 hours and suddenly all have disappeared, so I would not do it again soon.

Right now I can say just that my invention work and that You are wrong.

According to what You wrote Venturi pipe would not speed up air at all, and this is not so.

It is working exactly because of retaining same mass flow, which I believe is best visible in hydraulics systems.

Total kinetic energy is retained by slowing greater mass of air and speeding up smaller mass.

As long as slowed down mass stays outside of tower and mass inside is speeded up, I can use smaller turbine that is working on reactive principle where exactly air leaving turbine is what powers it.

Pity that my long and nice explanation is lost......

Long and short of it is that my turbine work, I can build whole thing cheaply but strong and only where some double purpose is necessary there would be need for stronger structure (like carrying that Water tower) and then it would be more expensive.

Still it would be economical to build it, even profitable because of surplus energy produced.

Regards,

Marijan Pollak

When in the great wastegate of waterfall I see the beautiful woman with soap. She plays the Kazoo extremely well. It is the naked talent of a great venturi flutist applied to a terrible instrument for its stupid sound.

Back at the ranch a large white newsworthy elephant is discovered, but hailed as a great blessing instead of the political curse it is.

When eating ice cream the conehead was upturned and the monkey brains taken out, and then all was discarded to make the useful cone.

There are competing ice cream cones. The crunchy one is preferred, though children will be given the Nutty Buddy because they are hungry and the mess is less.

When going on with things you are married to regardless of their benefit, or sense, one may well be proud and tell people that you spun your wheels for years.

Then you died remembered as a great hardworking stupid guy who had a boat.

Crazy people and visionaries always have a boat.

It does help if the boat floats, but this is not actually really necessary all of the time.

Hi Chris

I thought I should do some thread hygiene first and now get back to you.

Don't know much about thermite other than it would get too hot while combining it with aluminum. Sceptic made a good point there. What I would also say is that the "double sided tape?" you suggest would leave a footprint after burning and could compromise the bond. The choice of the substrate which bonds the thermite particles to the "tape" would be very important. A shame that aluminum is not magnetic.

I just saw a documentary the other day that showed the laminating process (A380 Airbus)) and it was impressive to look at. They have it now down to a fine art and introducing a new method would be very disruptive to existing technologies, so not really welcome.

Bonding and welding other materials like steel, ceramics, glass would have to be tested and I would be surprised if it had not been done at some stage by some one. It sounds interesting so I will keep it in the back of my head.

All the best, Ky.

Just a thought. It is possible to metalize a ceramic and then braze it to a metal. Aluminum can be anodized, to coat it with aluminum oxide, a ceramic. Could it be metalized and then brazed to the steel? Brazing could be at a low enough temperature that the material qualities of the aluminum and steel would not be altered too much.

KY #2

Potential legal issue researcher (US Federal, State, UCMJ, Tribal, et. al.). Experience, from the opposite side for civilly holding government agencies accountable for their actions and advice on marketing in the states (these little ones up over here).

Welcome back and like Chris said you have courage and should be rewarded for your honesty. If I can help I will, no strings attached. Take your time to clearly state of what help we can be.

PM is a good idea, Chris is right, as usual, Ky.

I've created another vehicle design.. just for fun, and here is a thread to critique it, and to give it a name, if interested.

Chris

Hi there Ky,

Good to get some good Cr4 input from you again. This is a long one. I will browse through and respond in morning. This looks like a good way to do a quick market needs exercise. I will input once I read the list carefully. The company I (still) work for has often selected New Products to develop that have very limited markets indeed. This is just their way of doing things. What they have embarked on is looking at a range products that fall with in the Specialized Company to Specialized Company market bracket. Around 15 of these products were developed over a period of 20-30 years. For each of these, they have sold 1-3 units, one has sold 30 times, three sold 6-8 times. And a few have such limited markets that they have all but given up. This is all because they have not bothered to do the kind of exercise that you have put forward.

I have databases of such Unsolved Technical Problems. I will add in a column with a rating figure along the lines you describe above. This could be a democratic selection figure that is weighted.

I will reply in morning. We are on our way home now as our day ends about now. I imagine Chris G will just about be starting his day right now.

Derek

Jo-burg, SA

Hi Derek

Maybe you should start a new thread with your suggestions. I have by now patented 2 inventions which are on the list. I have twisted and turned not to enter the patenting process again but there is no way out. I hope I'm not going to regret and that I can continue what I have started. I am quiet confident it will but it takes time.

Good to hear from you, Ky.

It is interesting Ky, to read your original thread from January 2009, and compare that to Kickstarter.com which says it started in 2009.

It seems to me that you are psychic. It has always been a great idea.

Cheers,

Chris

Good suggestion Ky,

And Congrats on your patenting of two on the list.

One of the good ideas I take from your 2009 thread is the quick way to establish market relevance. I am now getting into a bit of Sales as well. I might be able to use a similar system to assess products in terms of my selection for a sales campaign. I went through your original thread last night. Great Discussion. One can learnt a great deal from it. My experience has been that I have good skills in some areas of innovation and lack in others. This thread does well in narrowing a few of the gaps for me. Not sure what I was doing in 2009. I found this old thread, by accident, on another section of Cr4.

Your invention with the removal of Kidney stones is fascinating ! I would like to know more about what happended to it since then.

I suppose you are now well into the innovation phase of dealing (hopefully not battling) with the corporates. But tonnes of luck with the commercialization of your inventions.

Thanks Derek

I'll contact you vie PM in the next few days. Things are proceeding although not at the speed I would have liked. From a certain stage on the decision makers call the shots and set the timing.

Yes, you guessed it, the Kidney Stone Removal Device has created some interest and is being looked at by relevant parties. This is going to be very difficult to get to the stage of implementation. A team is now crystallizing and every one is doing their bit to take the trauma out of stone removal.

Talk soon, Ky.