A Question for Real Engineers from a Self-Taught One

Hi,

this can be answered only if the amount of unbalance is known. Pivot horizontal, do measure the additional weight that has to be added/removed at the rear edge to bring the blade to an equilibrum.

If this weight is m, then measure the radius of rotation r and convert your rotation rate to rad/s. 120rpm is 2 rps is 6.28 rad/s = ω.

Centrifugal force is F = m * r * ω²

^RHABE

Hi, RHABE!

Thanks for the response, but see my reply to "masu" here.

Thanks again!

G'day Walks-in-Storms,

First off since this is an international forum I suggest utilizing SI or metric units rather than imperial units. Not only will it make it easier for international participants to follow but it will make all the calculations much simpler and far less prone to error and misinterpretation.

Having said that, I made a rough drawing of your machine (see image at bottom of post) and it seems to me that the thickness of the aerofoils doesn't seem to add up. In the drawing I have drawn the purple aerofoil so it has a thickness of 178 mm which corresponds to the forward section having a radius of 89 mm (3.5 inches).

This seems a little thick and doesn't seem to fit aerofoils in the photograph, so the blue aerofoil in the drawing has a thickness of 89 mm which corresponds to the forward section having a diameter of 89 mm (3.5 inches).

So do the aerofoils have a thickness of 89 mm (BLUE) or 178 mm (PURPLE)?

Next in order to calculate the forces that the centripetal acceleration will cause we need the Pitch Circle Diameter PCD (red dimension in image) or in other words the distance between the vertical central axis of the turbine and the point the aerofoils are attached.

Since you have stated that you have added weights to the trailing edge of the aerofoils I am assuming that you have balanced the aerofoils so their centre of gravity is located where the aerofoils are attached to the frame. This will reduce the force that the centripetal acceleration will cause but this is not the only force your governing system will need to accommodate.

The force I see causing you the greatest grief will come from the aerofoils centre of lift. The idea of the aerofoils in this system is to use the lift they create to rotate the system and this is where the centre of lift comes in. If the centre of lift is acting aft of the pivot or mounting point then this force will cause the aft edge of the aerofoil to be pushed outwards and as a result transfer directly to your governing system.

Things also get even more complex as the aerofoil's angle of attack varies with the rotation of the turbine.

Something else that may be worth investigating is to use your governing system adjust the angle of attack as the turbine rotates. It may be somewhat complex but by altering the angle of the aerofoils according to their position you could control the angle of attack and thus maximize the lift the aerofoils create. Since it is the lift that will ultimately be driving the generator this could increase the overall efficiency of the system.

Ok, there are a few problems but I'm certain that without too many problems we can help you get you're turbine spinning in the wind, could I even go as far as saying

The answers my friend is spinning in the wind, the answers is spinning in the wind!!!!

Sorry about that, I just couldn't resist adding a little quip.

Regards, masu.

G'day, sir!

Thank you for your considerable effort in response to my question. I use feet and inches rather than SI or metric units because I've learned long since that the latter results in not only intolerably frequent, but hugely disproportionate errors. A misplaced decimal point is not only easily done, it magnifies errors - sometimes logarithmically and exponentially. While I can invariably do metric to SAE and feet inches conversions in my head, I find that many, many others can't; and like the German and English languages I learned and used as a child, I am more familiar and comfortable with feet and inches measure.

If I ever get hands on the moron who decided to mix metric with SAE measure here in the U.S.A., I'll murder the purp in the first degree @#$%&!

All of that notwithstanding, the measurements I've given here - width at furling system pivot and widest part of the wing, seven inches (radius 3.5) or 177.8 millimeters; width of wing from leading edge to trailing edge, fifteen inches (381 millimaters), and length from pivot point to trailing edge, twelve inches (304.8 millimeters).

Of course, one cannot be sure what you mean by "corresponding," and why would I give erroneous numbers?

You may note that in the photos here the "Pitch Control Diameter" is drawn on the floor of the garage. It was used in the math I did to derive all the dimensions to which you refer here, and to the triple integral calculus equations (re-learned after many years for this project at considerable effort, I might add) I used in determining necessary maximum-minimum parameters. Center of lift, for instance, was deduced by means of a calculus equation, with the result that I was obliged to re-design somewhat by adding weights in order to shift center of mass (moment of inertia) toward the wings' trailing edges.

"Pushing outward" the trailing edge, of course, changes the angle of attack and effectively furls (governs) the wing. More, I have designed the wings to produce both drag and lift torque, in order to make the VAWT design self-starting (as most turbines of this configuration are not), and included that consideration in the mathematics of the configuration. Complexity of forces engendered by the furling system was another major consideration in the design, one dealt with again by re-learning and employing derivative and integral calculus.

Keep in mind that all had to be done with tools, materials, and space available (together with putting the turbine up on my roof - provided for by making the thing disassemble-able into five three components with which and one old man like me can climb a ladder). This is the reason my furling - governor - device utilizes only screen door springs, a steel ring about the center drive shaft, and lead trailing edge weights (marine lead weight "sinkers").

A photo of one of the several models I built in order to justify my math against my own intuitive reaction to what the latter was telling me is included here.

Again, thanks very much for your response - much appreciated.

G'day Walks-in-Storms,

"I use feet and inches rather than SI or metric units because I've learned long since that the latter results in not only intolerably frequent, but hugely disproportionate errors."

When I started off my engineering career I was working on control systems and primarily used imperial weights and measures. Over a period of three to four years SI units replaced imperial ones and many people had a similar problem with their calculations producing ludicrous results. However, once they got their heads around utilizing the SI suffixes that designate the scaling factor they were surprised at how intuitive the SI system was. In fact for most engineering calculations an accuracy of ±0.05% is more than adequate and in the SI system any value can be expressed to that accuracy by a four digit number followed by a single letter suffix. It's that simple.

"If I ever get hands on the moron who decided to mix metric with SAE measure here in the U.S.A., I'll murder the purp in the first degree @#$%&!"

I am in total and absolute agreement. Anybody that mixes measuring standards hasn't got the first clue about what they are doing and should be shot immediately, no waiting for dawn, just march them out the back and bang.

But, that's for another thread so sorry for getting off topic.

Before we go any further just let me say that I think you are doing a really professional job on the design, especially digging out the text books to relearn the calculus that's needed to do a professional analysis of your design. Well done and keep up the good work.

Ok getting back to the task at hand. Going by the following quote;

"the measurements I've given here - width at furling system pivot and widest part of the wing, seven inches (radius 3.5) or 177.8 millimeters; width of wing from leading edge to trailing edge, fifteen inches (381 millimaters), and length from pivot point to trailing edge, twelve inches (304.8 millimeters)."

In order to make things easier to follow I have knocked up a quick CAD drawing of your system and the following image shows the wing or aerofoil cross section. The primary dimensions are in millimetres (BLUE) but I have also included the inch or imperial dimensions (RED).

I must be misunderstanding something because the dimensions are not adding up.

If the pivot point and nose are coaxial then the pivot point would be 3.5 in (89 mm) back from the leading edge of the wing. Now if the overall width of the wing (leading edge to trailing edge) is 15 in (381 mm) then the distance from the pivot point to trailing edge would be:

But according to your post the distance between the pivot point and trailing edge is 12 inches (305 mm) which would make the overall width of the wing from leading to trailing edge 15.5 in (394 mm).

It doesn't sound much but that extra half inch (12 mm) can have a dramatic effect especially as it is directly related to the force your control system will have to accommodate.

What I think is causing the discrepancy is the way the measurements are taken. If the distance from the leading to trailing edges is 15 inches (381 mm) then the distance from the trailing edge to the point on the surface of the wing that is adjacent to the pivot/mounting pint would be 12 in (GREEN) or in metric 305 mm (PURPLE). It that the case or as usual have I totally messed up.

Finally, I have made some measurements from the photographs and the distance between the turbines vertical axis and pivot/mounting points of each of the wings looks to be about 18.5 inches (470 mm). However, that could be off by a significant amount and result in any calculations being way off the mark so could you please confirm the distance from the turbine's axis to each of the wing pivot/mounting points.

Anyway, I must leave it there for the moment as more pressing items require my attention.

W-a-a-l sir (best John Wayne impersonation possible), shoot . . . no, DON'T shoot! Don't shoot (now what've I done, incited a shooting?).

Just joking, of course (being ridiculous keeps me as sane as I am - which is pretty ridiculous).

And thanks for the kudos. "What doesn't kill me makes me stronger."

The problem with understanding me has always been me. I think in this case it's my description, which included measuring the length of the "wing" aft of the pivot point. The twelve inches is from the that point, the point where the wing pivots on one-quarter inch bolt I'm using. You're more the engineering draftsman (excellent depiction, by the way) than I am, obviously, so you have included the hole at the pivot point, which I neglected. Distances - the 3.5 and others - are from the center of the one-quarter inch hole for the pivot. Attribute the extra discrepancy to the fact that I cut this all out with a handsaw, jigsaw, hacksaw, and tin-snips. I measured with a tape-measure and foot ruler, used a carpenters square, level, and compass for shaping and dimensions.

I am, however and in this regard, acutely aware of how inconsistency in dimensions will effect turbine performance. I have a heck of a time holding tolerances on anything where I want them, and I have used methods that make me glad no one but me is observing (during assembly of the complete affair, I had what will be the vertical frame suspended from my chin-up bar, and sitting on a little "WorkMate" foldable work bench). I have made 27,213 (or was it fourteen?) mistakes, some of them - "some": about 12,222 - utterly ludicrous.

But I in the highest regard the resourcefullness and the ability to get along without dependence upon society. I have also as a tactical matter set strict limits on expenses, the result being that as much of this turbine is being - and will be - built from materials already on hand (you should see this old bird, picking through jar after jar - on the trunk and hood of my car - of miscellaneous bolts, nuts, nails and all the rest for salvage).

Distance from the turbine axis - center driveshaft - to the wing pivot/mounting pivots is 16.5 inches. That wasn't my original design, by the way: I started with a plan based upon that of a turbine found on the Internet (the Lenz Turbine), but when my own calculations varied from those of the original designer, I changed. I had already cut out the wing chord ribs, which meant extrapolation and accommodation. I calculated, for instance, that best angle of attack - angle off the radius of the pitch circle – should be eleven degrees, whereas the original designer chose nine (his pitch circle radius being eighteen inches.

My math study has saved me a whole lot of trial and error, to say nothing of the expense inherent in such, but not all. I should have learned my math and engineering - not been so sure I knew what I was doing, before I started, it seems.

I substantiated (to an acceptable degree, anyway) my original math by building (as I think I said here) a series of models like the one I've posted (I guess I must have "said," since I put up the photos) here.

Have to go (me, too): the wife has her usual Sunday list of "honey does" for me. Hope your own "pressing items" aren't matters of health or safety, and that you'll be back here soon. Your efforts on behalf of my project are much, much appreciated.

More, I'm enjoying immensely the association. THANKS!

Here's a link for a nice little unit conversion tool

http://joshmadison.com/software/convert-for-windows/

Good to see Masu, how's the Mosquito project?

I apologise for answering this first but it is a short answer so I will get it out of the road before diving into the complexities of centripetal acceleration.

The mozzie project is currently on hold partially due to my workshop having a new floor installed but other more pressing project also played a part. Nevertheless, the floor is now down and as after I get everything back in place I definitely intend to resurrect the mozzie project. It will probably be Q1 2010 but it definitely hasn't gone the way of the dinosaurs.

Oh, my goodness - I can't help jumping in here: the "Mosquito" couldn't possibly be the DeHavilland, WW-11 variety, could it? A model, perhaps? Lord, I would have given (I'm an old pilot) my big toes to fly that baby! What a bird!

Or are you an entomologist?

Masu's blog

You might have a look around the machines section, lots of good stuff about renewable/alternative energy

Welcome To CR4 enjoy

Thanks for the reference. I had a good time with Masu's blog and I'll be back there often. I note that area moment of inertia equations related to his DeHavilland Mosquito model project are very similar to those I used in designing the "wings" on my turbine here and calculating thins like resistance to torque and the like. Owing, however, to the varying forces on the VAWT turbine blades resulted from cyclic lift, negative drag, positive (cup or channel sail effect), and more, the equation needed were considerably more complex (requiring, for instance, use of a Fourier Tansform in order to reduce complicated periodic functions to simple "waves" represented by sine-cosine constraints.)

My math having to do with furling of the turbine wings, however, doesn't intuitively seem right to me, and that was the reason for my question here. I'll have the thing up on the roof and in the wind tomorrow (that's assuming I have a clear blue sky's assurance that I don't need lightning protection), though; and that should tell me how close I got it.

With my question, I was hoping to save myself some work: I have to take the thing up there piece by piece, assemble it on the roof, then - if things don't come out right - take it apart, haul it back down, and "tweak" accordingly.

Thanks for the comment and the reference, anyway. Much appreciated.

You might also take a look

http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/46038#comment483294

G'day folks,

This is just a quick post to let you know what's going on.

I'm a bit tied up at the moment due to the pending Leonid meteor shower. Unfortunately I only got my telescope and all the control and tracking system back from the repair shop this afternoon and time is not on my side.

But, I have seen the new posts and I will write a proper response in a couple of days when the current crisis has passed.

In the meantime if anybody is still awake at around 01:30 to 04:30 your local time sit down and watch the constellation of Leo for a while. Over the next couple of days Earth will be passing through the debris field that comet 55P/Tempel-Tuttle's leave behind as passed through the inner solar system. What happens is that as the Earth hits the bits and pieces the comet left behind they burn up in the atmosphere in what's called a meteor shower that all appear to be radiating form a point in the constellation of Leo, hence the name. The frequency varies from year to year but this one is predicted to be a fairly good one with more than 100 meteors an hour.

Regards, masu

FASCINATING! I'll have to look it all up. Good luck with your effort.

G'day Walks-in-Storms & Others,

It's absolutely typical. Six months of clear night skies and a dud telescope servo system, then the one night I have everything working and have something really interesting to look at and guess what?

Yep 8 octas¹ at 1500 feet. Not even a single aeroplane trail, nill, ziltch, nada.

I hope others had a better view of the astronomical fireworks than I did, it certainly wouldn't be dificult.

Ok lets get to the important part but first off you will see me utilizing the term aerofoil which in this case means the wings of your turbine. The term wing technically refers to a specific form of aerofoil that is used to generate the lift needed to support an aircraft. An aerofoil on the other hand is a more generic term that covers anything that moves through air so by force of habit I will usually use the generic aerofoil rather than wing.

First off, if you have dynamically balanced each of the aerofoils the force that the centripetal acceleration produced by the section of the wing forward of the pivot point will be counteracted by the force produced by the trailing part of the wing.

However, the important part here is "DNYAMICALLY BALANCED" which is somewhat more complex than and difficult to achieve than static balancing. Basically it means that no matter how you position the wing by rotating it around the pivot point the balance remains the same.

Achieving a dynamic balance is something that aeronautical design and maintenance engineers need come to grips with on a fairly regular basis and surprisingly it has nothing to do with the wings of the aircraft but rather the control surfaces. If the control surfaces aren't dynamically balanced the force that is opposing the aerodynamic forces will not be constant as it rotates around its axis. I have forgotten the mathematics behind it but if you have an unbalanced aerofoil you have a classic example of an oscillating feedback loop which will cause the aerofoil to oscillate around the pivot point. This is called control flutter and once it starts is almost impossible to stop. It's also not just a nuisance as the oscillations of the control surfaces can very easily overstress the airframe and lead to a catastrophic in flight break up of the aircraft.

I have never experienced nor seen flutter but I have spoken with a fellow glider pilot that has. He informed me that the violence of the vibrations was so great that he couldn't' even focus his eyes let alone see what he was doing. Fortunately he managed to reduce the airspeed before the oscillations had gone past the point of no return so he didn't have to resort to the sack of silk (pilot jargon for a parachute) escape system and he couldn't apply for membership of the caterpillar club.

However, even though the aircraft landed safely and appeared undamaged a closer inspection revealed that the control surface flutter had caused irreparable damage to the airframe and the aircraft was written off. A very expensive result and potentially fatal consequence all because of a few grams of imbalance.

So, how do you achieve a dynamic balance?

It's not easy but you can achieve a pretty good approximation using the following technique which is easier to explain using the following image.

1. To start with you need a flat stable and level surface (thick BLACK line in the image) that is larger than the aerofoil.
2. When you place the aerofoil on the surface it should sit with the for aft axis parallel to the surface as shown by the BLACK aerofoil labelled A.
3. If you now displace the aerofoil from the horizontal as shown by the aerofoils labelled B and C and release it the aerofoil should ultimately return to the horizontal as shown by the BLACK aerofoil labelled A.
4. If the aerofoil doesn't sit horizontally then you will need to add what are referred to as Mass Balance Weights or MBW for short. However there are a few things that will effect how big and where you will need to place the MBW.
1. First off is to determine whether the MBW need to be forward or aft. If the aerofoil sits like the BLUE C example you will need to add MBW to the rear or aft as shown by the BLUE arrow. On the other hand if the aerofoil sits like the GREEN B example then you will need to add MBW to the fore of front as shown by the GREEN arrow. NOTE in most situations there is more material in the trailing section of the aerofoil so the GREEN example will apply.
2. With MBW the SMALLER IS BETTER ^{Note 2} so you should add them as far forward or aft of the for‑aft axis of the aerofoil (RED dashed lines) as possible.
3. MBW should be added so they are symmetric about the for‑aft axis (RED dashed lines) of the aerofoil. If you don't then the balance will only be a static rather than dynamic balance and this could cause flutter.

Once you have the aerofoil dynamically balanced the centripetal forces should cancel out so for all intense and purposes they can be ignored.

However, that's not the only thing that needs consideration and the aerofoils centre of lift is probably more important. Unfortunately I haven't had the time to go into this yet but I thought it would be better if I posted what I had so far.

In the mean time I believe you said you had worked out where the centre of lift was but you will also need to know the coefficient of drag as the two will act together to not only produce the rotation of the turbine but try and rip the aerofoils from their mounts.

If you have the figures then it would make it much easier to work out what will happen.

Regards, masu

• Note 1: An octa is an aviation term that is used to describe cloud cover and refers to the amount of sky that is obscured by cloud in ¹/₈ or 12.5% increments. For example 1 octa at 1,500 feet means that one eighth or 12.5% of the sky is obscured by clouds that's bases are 1,500 feet above mean sea level.
• Note 2: In aircraft when it comes to MBW the rear rudder and elevator control surfaces can cause considerable grief. In most situations there is far more material aft of the pivot point so they nearly always need the addition forward MBW. This becomes problematic as the limited space forward of the pivot point means you have to have a fairly large MBW and this increases the overall mass of the control surface considerably. Because the rudder and elevator are about as far aft of the aircraft's centre of gravity as you can get the increase in mass can easily add up to several kilograms of ballast weight being added to the nose of the aircraft. One of the gliders from the club I used to fly with had its rudder damaged in a ground handling incident. The repairs required an additional MBW and this in turn required the addition of several kilograms of ballast being added to the gliders nose. It didn't mean the aircraft could no longer be flown but it did reduce the pilot's maximum weight by a significant amount.
• Note 3 To create the diagrams for this post I have used a drafting package called DeltaCad which can be download from the net for something like US$39.⁹⁵. It doesn't have all the fancy bells and whistles the more expensive CAD packages have and it's only a 2D drafting tool but it makes creating engineering drawings a breeze and can save you a hell of a lot of time when designing something like this.

Hi Masu,

Control surfaces on aircraft are typically statically balanced, but not dynamically balanced. The difference between the two balance types is seen in bubble balance (static balance) of a car wheel and spin balance (dynamic balance of a car wheel). In a car wheel, if there is excess mass at a point near the right side of the tread at point along the circumference we will call 0 degrees, then applying a weight anywhere across the tread at 180 degrees will statically balance the wheel. If this wheel were on the rear axle of a pickup truck, static balance would work just fine, because the wheel is constrained by the suspension design to moving up and down.

However if this same tire/wheel is used on the front, for steering, then it must be dynamically balanced, because it is now free to move up and down and also rotate about its steering axis. When the two heavy spots rotate, they will tend to pull the wheel first to the right, and then to the left, and the steering wheel shimmies. For dynamic balance, the balance weight must be placed not just opposite the heavy spot (at 180 degrees) but also at the correct location from side to side, so in this case also near the right side of the tread.

For ailerons, simple mass balancing is all that is typically used, with the single balance weight placed at either end of the aileron. For dynamic balance to be achieved, there would need to be two weights, one at each end of the aileron, (or one in the middle) and if the aileron were rectangular in plan and of consistent construction from end to end, these two weights could be of equal mass. The difference between the two methods would only be felt if the aircraft rotated at very high speed about the aileron pivot axis (something that never occurs even immediately prior to a crash).

In this photo, you can see an aileron mass balance weight applied to the outer end of the aileron, which puts the aileron into static balance but far out of dynamic balance.

When I built the boat below, the wing was originally in dynamic balance, which required the the balance weight to be at a height above deck equal to the height above deck of the wing's center of gravity. (You may be able to see the balance weight bar protruding from the wing, about .4 of the way up.) Then, the theory goes, on a dramatic list to one side or the other, the wing would remain balanced during the transient, not just before and after the transient. In practice, I found that the difference was not enough to worry about, and moved the balance weight to just above deck level, where it kept the amount of weight aloft less (and where it was easier to install and remove when getting the boat ready for the water). (The static balance was required so that the angle of heel didn't tend to trim the wing, and so the the wing could be left up while the boat was in the water, without incurring self-destructive oscillations.)

Walks-in-storms has designed his foils to be statically imbalanced so that as they rotate the trailing edge will tend to be forced outward against spring tension. He may find that some damping would be in order. For reducing flutter of control surfaces (and the wings as a whole, in aircraft) a high degree of aerodynamic imbalance and a low degree of mass imbalance seems to work best.

Walks-in-Storms would want to make sure that his pivot points are well forward of the aerodynamic balance point, to avoid flutter. This will put the CG of the foil well aft of the pivot, and would required no additional weight to be added (for the springs to react against).

To check balance, he should use the actual pivot points rather that the wing surface.

Masu and Blink,

Thanks for the comments, guys, but I've done all this long since. I used simple balance and spin methods (powered by an electric drill and one of our suitably rigged-up bicycles or by simple suspension and counter-weighting) in order to determine not only static and dynamic balance, but polar moment of inertia and area (second) moment of inertia. Center and centroidal mass were determined to be as I've already reported here, moreover. I'd have taken photos of the process, but it didn't occur to me at the time either that I would find them useful or that anyone would be interested.

As I said to someone else here, I first used math to calculate lift-drag, centripetal force, radius of gyration, and other cyclic forces resulted from the blades' path around the circle, and I the built some scale models with which to confirm the numbers and quiet my intuitive reaction to them (just couldn't believe what the numbers were saying). I've both balanced (attached a lever with counterweights) and spun the blades longitudinally about both furling pivot point and center of mass point both with and without weight added to the wings' trailing edge, moreover. That's how I determined the shape and dimensions of my blades.

Blink is also right - if I am, that is - in that I've designed trailing edges of my airfoils to be forced outward by "centrifugal" force against spring tension. Accordingly, I've added nine ounces of lead weights to the trailing edge of the "wings." The simple math I used here - centripetal ("centrifugal" force) of the turbine times torque about furling pivot point of the individual airfoil - seems intuitively disproportionate to me, though, and that was the reason for my question. The screen door springs I'm using stretch the five inches distance I need for furling the "wings" when subject to ten pounds of weight, and for some reason my old head can't imagine torque about the furling pivot provided by weight I've added to each wing's trailing edge will produce that much.

Of course, I'll know what I want to know when the VAWT is up on the roof in the wind and I can make measurements.

I was happy to avail myself of Masu's stated interest in doing a computer model, of course - it sounds very, very interesting. That having been said, however, and having taught myself, I am very familiar with all of the calculations any computer must do in order to "model" the VAWT. They're all the same math engineers and designers used before the invention of the computer (I helped fund some of the first programs at Iowa State and North Iowa University where they were developed, matter of fact), even if it's fascinating to observe how they are developed by technology.

As I said, and as much enamored of computers and high tech gadgetry as everyone is today, I have taught myself in order to be maximally resourceful (another purpose for my project) without reliance upon society and its technology. I want to learn, not be dependent.

In short, I believe that much - even most - of today's "progress," is for the sake of economic progress, not the betterment of mankind. It also happens that tomorrow I have to undertake repair of my wife's @#$%! "fully loaded" - hyper-overcomplicated, every damned nonsensical electronic gadget known to the auto industry, Jaguar. To replace a turn signal bulb, I will have to half dis-assemble the confounded car and work for hours.

@#$%*! - oh, I said that.

Incidentally, Blink, my on-board HHO booster, electrolysis powered by heat from the exhaust manifold, resulted in carefully documented mileage of 47.2 miles per gallon on a weekend trip to a football game. That with a car and over terrain wherein the same vehicle driven the same speeds got 39.4 mpg without the booster. We also passed through a near cloud burst during the trip, one so severe that we were obliged to slow down while negotiating huge puddles of water on the highway, such that slipping tires and plowing aside water cut optimum mileage by what I calculate was at least two mpg. CO2, Nitrogen oxide, hydrocarbon, and sulphur dioxide emissions from the car's tailpipe were reduced by forty percent (that will be confirmed by subsequent and arranged-for independent testing)

Three persons - witnesses - took part in the experiment and will as soon as I have it typed up sign notarized statements to that effect, that in order to keep a careful file of the project and its process. When I have the computer chip re-design I've asked a friend to obtain, I will alter the car's engine (or another one) and run it entirely on electrolysis-produced HHO. As is my habit, I may do a model experiment like run our lawn mower on HHO before I go to the effort a car requires, but that's another experiment, too.

No need to comment - I just thought you'd be interested.

Del is that you?

Who's "Del?"

Del The Cat

one of the many resident tricksters

the bit about HHO made me wonder if del hadn't started a new persona

enjoy

Thanks for the link, but if you'll look, you'll see that the supposed "challenge" has been withdrawn. A car is now making its own fuel and running entirely on it, part of an experiment by one Peter Edwin Lowrie. More, having answered literally scores of these supposed challenges - they are merely another form of supposed argument or rebuttal - I know that they are always phony.

Very few of the guys flailing about Newtons Second Law of Thermodynamics has any real idea of what it means, moreover. I trust you aren't one of those.

More, my own research in that field has nothing to do with Newton's Second Law and all that, something you would know were you to have read anything I've said here. Devices I have built thus far, while using HHO electrolyzed on board, have not sought to provide the vehicle's fuel, but to increase efficiency of the fuel injection system. You may a know that the reciprocating engine is less than thirty-seven percent efficient, and that many, many things can be done to improve that. I have accomplished an improvement, and I have it very carefully documented - including disinterested witnesses. If I have been a bit close to the chest concerning details, it is because I have much more experiment in mind, using my current, heat driven HHO device for another entirely different concept. If I say too much, it will almost certainly provide data sufficient to give someone the same idea I have.

I don't propose to market the device, incidentally, preferring instead to give rights to the local high school automotive department. There will be a whole lot of young people looking for work in the future, and this might do it for them.

Finally, I merely thought someone here who had answered my question about my VAWT project might be interested. Perhaps I mistook his intent, too.

If your remarks are intended only as ridicule, I should point out that it not only means utterly nothing to me (why would I care about what what amounts to only a name - "Garthh" - on a website says?) but it proves utterly nothing except the caliber and character of him who uses it. No matter what is said to ridicule him, the man who says two and two is four is right.

Have a nice day, but if all you have to offer is ridicule, please spare me the effort it takes to read it and to have the courtesy to reply.

Very few of the guys flailing about Newtons Second Law of Thermodynamics has any real idea of what it means, moreover. I trust you aren't one of those.

Apparently, all this went right over your head when you put up your series of abrasive posts in the "Enough is Enough" thread, but there is no "Newtons Second Law of Thermodynamics." In that thread, it was pointed out by me, by Nick Name, and by a guest (who provided great detail) that you are thoroughly confused on this point.

Your confusion appears to extend to even the most basic chemistry. You wrote in that thread:

They also know - just as they know the Law of Mass Action - that the oxidation forms a new molecule containing two atoms of hydrogen and one of water. If I were well enough informed in chemistry, I would provide the chemical equation.

That would be quite an equation. I assume it does not seem incongruous to you that you are unfamiliar with the simplest of chemical equations but are proposing a process that is the chemical equivalent of magic.

Certainly, you can believe what you chose to believe, but you will find few here and even fewer in universities who share your belief in cars that run on water. The day will never come when one can get more energy out of burning H2 (or an H2 + O2 mix, i.e., oxyhydrogen) than is required to split the water -- that is independent of the process used... it is the basic chemistry. If you could run the reaction one way and extract energy (2H2+O2 --> 2H2O +e) and then run it the other and not have to add the same or more energy (2H2O +e --> 2H2+O2) we'd live in a magic world: we'd just run the reaction back and forth and have free energy for the asking.

Your process has an advantage (in the appearance of plausibility) over others in that it uses waste heat to provide the electricity for electrolysis. Unfortunately, even highly-engineered exhaust-heat-to-electricity systems like that developed by BMW provide a pitifully small amount of power: 250 watts in the BMW case, from an engine of over 150,000 watt output. The BMW engine is about 30% efficient at its efficiency peak, so at least 500,000 watts worth of H2 would be required to run the engine. Given an unlikely high efficiency of the electrolysis process of 75%, The electrical power required would be 666,000 watts. 666,000/250 is 2664, so the output of the BMW process would have to be 2664 times greater to get to break even.

But I know you will not be discouraged by this; you are, after all, far smarter than the BMW folks. Even per your own humble estimation, your "own self-education is as a matter of demonstrable fact and in terms of study and research easily far in excess of that of most formal doctors of science."

So if the laws of science are to be overturned, you would seem to be the one to do it.

Once you have your vehicle running on water, do let us know, and don't make Stan Meyer's and Peter Lowrie's mistakes of failing to get independent verification.

Thanks again for your remarks. I trust that for those sufficiently knowledgeable they offer their own criticism. It may even be that someone so knowledgeable will take the time necessay to write here in order to explain the Law of Mass Action, and/or the unique bonding of hydrogen and oxygen where water is concerned (Dr. Linus Pauling, double Nobel Prize winner for Chemistry, for instance, first theorized a partial covalent nature for hydrogen in that state). I also believe that I offered elsewhere here the equation to which you refer, that obtained from a PhD physicist in neighboring Victoria. As I admitted, I am not sufficently knowledgeable where chemical formulae are concerned, even to remember what I wrote here, but I believe the formula for burning hydrogen and oxygen to form water is:

2H₂ = O₂ --> 2H₂O

The formula says that two molecules of hydrogen and one of water combine to make two molecules of water and that the concentration of hydrogen, oxygen, and water molecules are:

[H₂]²[O₂] = K[H₂O]²

Be all that as it may, your understanding of the subject is plainly what it is, and, frankly, any effort of mine to explain what you don't understand would take far too long here. I'm probably not that good at teaching, either. Why don't you simply take these formulae to someone knowledgeable before you do what I know you will - ridicule - something that is already evident here to everyone reading - or, in the surely odious (for you) alternative, just study and learn for yourself? More, a competent physicist or chemist might even get an idea of what I'm trying to learn; and were you to be more less dogmatic and religious in your attitude - to say nothing of courteous - than you are here, he might even endeavor to explain it to you.

I'd rather not.

And, for those reading here, "Blink" is dead wrong in what he says here concerning the amount of electrical power necessary to provide power for on board HHO production.

Of course, "Blink" says most of what he does in his seemingly driven effort to sneer and ridicule.

Suffice it to say that I - with many, many others - have learned that something apparently very strange happens in the electrolysis of water, something scientists better than he and I have been discussing and trying to understand for a very long time. That I don't pretend to know exactly what is happening doesn't in any way mean that it isn't happening.

Incidentally, and parenthetically, what data is it you, "Blink" and my other detractor (sorry I don't recall the name) would have me publish? I've told you what my results are, I have explained my reasons for being loathe to publish more (were you paying attention in the interests of anything more than sneering - and were you knowledgeable beyond being able to parrot supposed dogma you obviously do not fully understand - I've already said more than I should have); when I have learned how to proceed further with the legalities of patent rights and establishing scientific validity in publishing my method I will of course do that - everything takes a whole lot of time I don't have right now.

Neither will I bother to wade my way through anything more you write. I'm here on this site for productive discussion, and this isn't productive.

Thanks, again, however - what you've already said and how you say it is very suggestive and interesting. I do confess that I shouldn't have brought the subject up here, but I'm as interested in forensics, debate, and discussion and the way people argue as I am in physics and science. That was my reason for mentioning HHO on another thread here: that particular subject seems to grow heated almost from the first word, and I can't help wondering - among other things - why all the rancor and viciousness develops so quickly. I couldn't resist trying the subject on persons who might otherwise be expected to remain objective. I'm also very interested in psychology and sociology, you see. Thanks for your contribution, "Blink." Sincerely.

More, my own research in that field has nothing to do with Newton's Second Law and all that, something you would know were you to have read anything I've said here. Devices I have built thus far, while using HHO electrolyzed on board, have not sought to provide the vehicle's fuel, but to increase efficiency of the fuel injection system. You may a know that the reciprocating engine is less than thirty-seven percent efficient, and that many, many things can be done to improve that. I have accomplished an improvement, and I have it very carefully documented - including disinterested witnesses. If I have been a bit close to the chest concerning details, it is because I have much more experiment in mind, using my current, heat driven HHO device for another entirely different concept. If I say too much, it will almost certainly provide data sufficient to give someone the same idea I have.

I don't propose to market the device, incidentally, preferring instead to give rights to the local high school automotive department. There will be a whole lot of young people looking for work in the future, and this might do it for them.

Really are you kidding?

Got data?

post it.

I'm not sure why you're here?

You post a question, to which you already had the answer. Masu & Blink try to help & you proceed to give a lecture about your wind project after it's all over instead of as a preamble to the question?

Then mention in passing a story with a bunch of extraneous details, just like any good tall tale does.

Then get all butt hurt when I think you're kidding

No, I'm not kidding. I'm seventy-three years old. Motivation changes - at least it has for me - as you age. I made $1,764, 239.17 in the month of April, 1974 and a lot more before IRS took it all, destroyed my family (broke up not one, but two marrieages), drove one of my kids to three attempts at suicide, and took effective steps to assure that I would never again return to business or gainful employment. I live far better - more happily - when I'm in a tent in the wilderness, penniless. Were it not for Rita, my wife, that's where I'd be.

I care about money (and most of the things folks like you apparently care about) like I care about who's screwing whom in Hollywood, Oprah Winfrey, Michael Jackson (you know who they are, do you know who Dr. Norman Borlaug was?) and all the rest of the dreary drivel the U.S. public dotes and spends their money on.

My VAWT project and experiments with HHO and water electrolysis (HHO isn't my only interest there) are more or less an avocation. Since we moved here to be near Rita's very aged (ninety-two) folks, I haven't been able to train for and play judo, my other passion. I watch TV only for the few minutes it takes to be sure it's safe to go out, and I didn't have a television set for more than ten years before I came back to what the Land of the Free and Nation of Laws cynically calls "civilization." I can't fly anymore, either, shooting is too expensive, and the projects i've spoken of here might make us more independent financially.

No I'm not kidding. I swore an childish oathe to a grandfather that I would assure before I left anywhere I went that it was better for my having been there. Sometimes all I can do is pick up the trash or make someone laugh, but I do it anyway. This project might let me do something for the kids (and other folks) here, and that's my reason for doing it. Not money. Not acclaim. And certainly not for the approval of those whose contribution to most things is sneering insolence.

Why are you so "hot" to get my data? I explained my reasons for writing as I have here - admittedly, I wish I hadn't brought up HHO - and I (somehow - I realize now that I thought I was writing to someone else) sincerely thought you might be interested in my latest data. . I will not explain how I obtain the heat necessary to accomplish what I obviously have, nor will I explain what I do with the gas produced by the process until I can wade through all the myriad of considerations imposed by this litigious, thieving, and - yes - sneering while eager to steal society and nation. Just the damned patent rights matter requires hours and hours of bullshit with a lawyer, time I just don't have to spare right now.

More, documentation for the purposes of validity requires the assistance of someone who knows more about the process than I. I've lost the rights to several other ideas, not the least of which had to do with things I've written (you'd just sneer some more were I to mention one in particular), such that I've become aware that it's a dicey proposition.

Meanwhile, any ideas on my VAWT (you have to admit that yours were pretty obvious; one might even suspect that you were talking down to an inferior - maybe I should have mentioned that I'm a long-time - fifty-five years - pilot and know a smattering of aerodynamics, airplanes, and the like)? You assert on the one hand that I say too little, then complain that I say too much. If I tell you what I've done, for what would be obvious reasons anywhere else, you sneer; if I say little, that's evidence that I'm a liar.

Pal, I don't have the time to read what courtesy and proper respect requires that I read. Anything you have to say that is of merit is most appreciated, but if you can't say something useful to me - that's why I'm here (I don't presume to criticize and instruct anyone in what I'm only learning myself) - spare me having to read paragraphs of mean-spirited and insinuating tripe. I ask what time it is, only to have people like you and "Blink" tell me - in terms that would embarrass a high school sophomore - how to build a watch (or maybe I should say a sundial?). I ask for a mathematical formula, and except for RHABE (thanks again to that gentleman), I get non sequitur - and of course, more sneering - verbiage.

Kay?

Kind of interesting, that about math. Why is it that on an engineering site everyone is so loathe to help with math and math formulae?

What gives you the idea you know anything about me?

Assumption piled on assumption.

You claimed to have "captured lightning in a bottle" [HHO] & can prove it with verifiable data & testing.

Please do.

I would admit you at least can make it all sound plausible, followed by the ever popular I have proof but can't show it to you/patent issues...

When it comes to HHO you know you have a tough battle just overcoming all the nonsense the scammers put out. Acting as if somehow we should all know, that because walks in storms said it, it must be true, is presumptious. You've been on CR4 for a very short time & your reputation does not proceed you.

Possessing the highly developed argumentative skills you claim, you should know that there will be a reaction to anything about HHO around here.

Classic technique, point your finger & jump up & down, claiming I'm using the tactics you are employing.

I never actually expressed any sort of opinion about your turbine. I was just reading & learning. I provided a few links to discussions I thought you might enjoy.

I did accuse you of playing dumb, when it comes to the calculations for your wind project.

I did accuse you of playing a prank [I'm still not convinced it's not] involving HHO.

CR4 home of the opinionated crotchy old guy [just a general observation & part of the beauty of CR4]

"What you are thunders so loudly that I can't hear what you might say to the contrary." Ralph Waldo Emerson.

People who must resort to insult, sneering, and the like betray a great deal. That's "what give me the idea that I know anything" about you. Sorry, but a hawk sounds like a hawk, and a robin sound like a robin. An empty head, like an empty wagon, makes noises explaining how empty it is.

Sorry, but it seems you might do well to stop and think, maybe even listen to yourself. I'll do the same.

Please don't take this the wrong way and I am not being derogatory in any way but I'm not sure that your results with the HHO system are entirely valid.

You're report is fairly brief and that not a problem because this thread is about VAWT not HHO system. Nevertheless, there was something that jump out of your report that could well explain the apparent increase in efficiency.

I quote from your post

"We also passed through a near cloud burst during the trip, one so severe that we were obliged to slow down while negotiating huge puddles of water on the highway"

Having air that is not only saturated with water vapour but also contains suspended droplets of liquid water can and has produced increases in the efficiency of internal combustion engines. There are several reasons for this.

1. First off is the more than 1,000 fold increase in volume when liquid water vaporizes. This can increase the pressure in the combustion chamber and give you extra power.

2. Secondly is the additional cooling. When water vaporizes it takes up a whole stack of energy without increasing in temperature. This is called the latent heat of vaporization and can dramatically cool the temperature of the exhaust and increase the engines efficiency.

3. Next is the reduction in the density of the air itself. It may sound a bit strange but water vapour is actually less dense than air so air that is saturated with water is less dense than air that is dry. This reduction in density could translate into reduced drag on the vehicle and again produce an increase in overall efficiency.

4. Finally there is the reduced speed due to the reduced visibility and need to negotiate puddles on the road. Reducing a vehicles speed will nearly always result in an increase in the overall efficiency.

Large high bypass ratio jet engines sometimes use water injection as it improves the engines performance due to 1 and 2 above. For example the Harrier jump jet utilizes water injection whenever it is in hover mode and can only hover for 60 a maximum of seconds before exhausting its water supply and damaging the engine.

I must admit that I am very sceptical over the claimed efficiency gains with so called HHO systems, but if there is a legitimate improvement I would definitely like to see the detailed results and calculations.

Excellent observations, however, it happens that I've considered them all, plus a couple more (we were driving head-on into a wind gusting to 35 miles an hour, for instance).

It also happens that after several exchanges with certain subscribers here, I tried to post data - and rather foolishly specific data, at that - but the managers here ended the thread and in a rather strange tone (the note said articles about HHO and lacking data would not be published) forbade any more discussion. I wrote another piece, one completely without mention of HHO, but it's so voluminous (lots of theoretical equations both mathematical and chemical), that I'm wondering if I can publish it here.

I'd really like the opinion of someone truly knowledgeable concerning my idea, and I've also thought of starting a thread that asks interested persons for the e-mail addresses. I'm not trying to "pull" anything: I just like to use my brain and experiment. There are obvious - to anyone truly knowledgeable on the subject, that it - flaws in the manner everyone uses Newton's Second to talk about "over unity," "perpetual motion," and all that, and it all has me experimenting to learn more on the matter, that's all.

The sceptical folks here might be interested to know that I obtained at the outset two of the Internet "scam" devices, simply for the purpose of satisfying curiousity and testing. When I had read up on the matter (it happens that I first built an HHO booster in 1972), I started my own experiments. What I've learned resulted in my building seven various designs, one I will probably patent (I can't wait to get the components I need and to try it).

In the censored note, by the way, I reported that on the same trip (not the rainy one, but the Thanksgiving trip to dad-in-laws) with all scientific cautions observed - gas from the same pump, same car with same load, over exactly the same roads and terrain at the same speed, and with the booster rendered inoperative, the same car got 37+ mpg. I have contacted the local newspaper, to ask for a reporter to observe the next test: I will isolate the gas tank, substitute a gallon tank and drive until the engine starves and stops running (a local notary public has refused - he's in the HHO scoffers camp).

Anyway, the site managers will probably strike this, but thanks for your interest. And how're things with the turbine program? How did things go with the Leonid Shower?

And how's the Mossie project (love to see some photos)?

Blink,

I was speaking to masu, and responding to his remarks. More, I don't want to continue in the vein your remarks - remarks so characteristic of certain personality types - reflect. As a matter of fact, my ostracism from websites - something you seem to refer to repeatedly and with relish - was due exactly this sort of thing, demonstrating clearly that certain subjects result the same way. Q.E.D. (meaning it is what I intended and set out to show). The U.S. (my country) is a swiftly decaying society and nation now, and the scrofulous condition of out discourse is a symptom of that decay.

I came to CR4 in hopes of something different, something productive for other purposes, and this is a waste of time. In the future, I won't respond to anything with your "handle" on it.

Have a good day, nonetheless.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry, but when - trying to figure out what put a couple of people here in such high dudgeon - I had pored over this thread and others to which some here have referred several times, it took still another reading (I used the "find" feature of my Word program after having copied it all) to realize that I had written "Newton's Second Law OF Thermodynamics." Worse, I repeated it several times - Freudian, I guess.

I meant originally to say, "Newton's Second Law AND thermodynamics" (actually, my first usage was "Newton's Second Law and that of thermodynamics"). I can't type worth a damn, and write and re-write everything several times, frequently leaving out some of what I originally wrote in the process. If I didn't know better (I tried it), I would suspect the same computer glitch that keeps changing my "hear" to "here," "sit" to "set," "its" to "it's" and a half dozen more the like.

I doubt, on the other hand, that anyone will argue that the laws of motion have nothing to do with thermodynamics, inasmuch as any movement in any system has everything to do with heat (and with the process of enthalpy with which I've spent the last several months heating up the system that is my head). Matter of fact, I think someone here or elsewhere on a "thread" has made (and rather snide, I might add - SURPRISE!) reference to the matter (something about Avogadro's number, counting attoms (was it molecules?), et cetera. There is, however, an apparent contradiction (at least to me) between the laws of motion and the laws of thermodynamics, especially as respect the latter's second law.

I've raised the question elsewhere (I've only lately begun fooling around - and, believe me, "fooling" is the right word - with the mathematics required to understand the matter), and, hopefully, someone will straighten me out (or, even, concede the point).

By the way, I, too, have been experimenting - that over some time - with water injection. I just haven't the manufacturing wherewithall to accomplish anything really significant, so much of it has been in the nature of Gedankenexperiment (thought experiments). Water injection relates, too, to my experiments with on-board electrolysis of water and use of the product to excite endothermic chemical change in gasoline vapor). The stoichiometry of various gases, and steam, has everything to do with my theory (or theories), such that I would love to have the computer programs that would help my Gedankenexperiment. I need specifically to know the process of endothermic and exothermic reactions as related to electrolysis, enthalpy within a system so subjected (or affected), and the speeds - temperatures, too (more on the connection between the laws of motion and thermodynamics) - at which it all occurs.

Unfortunately, I can't get past the now de rigueur scoffing concerning everything that has to do with even the slightest hint of competition for "fossile fuel" - gasoline. Wherever I go with the proposition concerning a computer modelled experiment, minds slam shut so loudly it's deafening.

Still another example - an even simpler one - of the same thing has to do with the Tesla turbine and an idea I have related to using one. There are local machinist shops who can make the kind of turbine I want, but I can't even get my foot in the door where the project is concerned. The same is true of the simple Sterling engine (I could do pretty much the same thing with one) with which I'm experimenting. If I were still in the bucks, I'm sure I could get somebody to manufacture the thing - for, of course, something like ten times what it would actually cost - but to make the investment required to build what I want for either nothing or a price I can pay, no way.

I think I'm just going to settle for what I've got with the hydrogen booster (or whatever everyone seems to insist on calling it), give up trying to understand the stoichiometrical chemistry, and physics, involved. I simply can't get my head around interactions that variegated and complex, it seems.

Anyway, I'm most grateful for you help with my turbine. It's snowing here today, or I would have finished installing my prototype on the roof. I finally managed to derive the modelling equation I wanted, that the integration of all the forces at interplay as the blades go around the circle. I think I've got a problem with both "creep" of the VAWT and its free-standing (guy wires, but not fastened to the roof) and noise, because the aluminum skin on the blades is sure to flutter from concave to bulge a good deal more than I expected. I don't think furling movement at high rpm will be uniform, either - even worse.

I seem, too, to have calculated total generated torque erroneously. One helluva engineer I am.

Obviously, I should have learned my math before I built the thing. I might also have asked the right question at the outset, instead of the one I did ask - RHABE would probably have given me the one I finally arrived at (after having completely built the confounded thing - for crying out loud).

Anyway, thanks again.

I have a question?

wouldn't it be easier to use a centrifical device as a governer?

& while I'm asking silly questions, why bother to mount a prototype on the roof? It would certainly be easier & safer to modify/observe on the ground with out the complications.

you could add some simple wooden spars to your wings to increase the rigidity?

aluminum wings is certainly the advanced version.

you might do a search for some of the tesla turbine threads, Here's one I thought was good & actually had some relevant discussion of the practicalities involved.

Link

yes, you did get caught in our vortex of silliness { I'd say boys will be boys , but that wouldn't be fair to SUE}

CR4+HHO=Bull+red flag

Thanks for the change in tone. The original reason I'm here (to answer you earlier question) is that I'm what I said, "a self taught (another error - self-teachING is more accurate) engineer." While I've been a frustrated inventor since 14, my formal education after high school (private parochial, and two of my three teachers PhDs) having been in criminology and forensics. I'm poring over all the threads here, gleaning information useful to me in several projects I have in progress, that simple.

At seventy-three, twice retired (military and private investigations - scientific and forensic, not window peeking and divorce stuff), and adventurous both philosophically and in the usual sense, I've learned that I have a pretty good mind and that I might contribute something more to my country and fellow man before I "cash in my chips" (I should mention, in that regard, that I never gamble - NEVER).

While my VAWT design is just about completed in a manner that makes alteration feasible only in small ways, I'm certainly willing to listen about governor devices where the next one might be concerned. Centrifugal devices - about a dozen that I've looked at - are all too expensive (part of my survivalist pleasure in resourcefullness is to use what I have at hand and can do myself) or not possible with my very small array of tools and my two-car garage workshop. The one being used is the simplest, most effective, and possible for me - unless I've missed something.

Everything I have been able to learn about wind turbines and constraints imposed by nature suggests that wind and windpower yield dependable results only to the most specific of tests. Math, as I think it was Masu who said, is good, but actual testing is better. I've made a couple of dozen tests (with scale models), learned that the difference between the behavior of a VAWT on the ground isn't close to that on a rooftop. Several scholarly papers obtained from the Internet and elsewhere confirm that, by the way. "Performance of an H-Darrieus in the Skewed Flow on a Roof," by Sander Mertens, Gijs van Kulk, and Gerard van Bussel, "Power Prediction of Darrieus Type Wind Turbine Considering Real Air Velocity on the Wind Turbine," by Du Lian, Jang-Ho Lee, and Young-Chul Kim, as well as others, are examples of data I've been using.

The roof in question is one story, nine inches "rise" in a foot "run," and not that dangerous. It lets me practice a little with ropes, climbing knots and carabiners, too. Sometimes, as with lifting weights and daily training to fight as I still do, you do things the hard way on purpose. And, yes, I could just walk up and down the roof with rubber soled shoes, but that wouldn't let me pretend I'm on a cliff face and let me practice with the ropes. I don't have to wait till it's a hundred and five at midday here to mow the lawn, but I do - I may have to do something like that one day when or where it's even hotter.

Besides, nobody in the neighborhood would shake their heads and swear I'm a looney, either.

I can assure you, however and as self-aggrandizing as I know you will find it, that I am a fastidiously methodical sort. Among the "handles" one like me has acquired by the time he is my age is "Spock" - that from my kids' mother. The Walks-in-Storms, by the way, came while I was still in high school from local Native Americans on account of my penchant for snowshoeing in (including the worst) Iowa blizzards. While that may have originally been more due necessity than anything else, it was later more due curiousity than nerve. I just wanted to know the truth about something I'd heard so much about from people around.

I thought of the all-aluminum wings (found a website with plans and instructions), too, but only after I'd already bought (and started cutting) the plywood. Too soon old and too late smart. The next VAWT will have all-aluminum blades (and several things more resulted from what I've learned).

Tesla turbine data I haven't read or looked at would have to be rare, indeed. Nicola Tesla and his ideas have been a life-long fascination of mine. Thanks for the link, though: I will perhaps write Mr. Stockman a note, see if we can collaborate. I think he'll find the answer to his question very similar to that having to do with my turbine; more, much of my own numbers as applied to the turbine have come from my designing of various Tesla turbines. That's one of the projects to which I refer, and I intend for a Tesla turbine to eventually provide all the power to our house.

It's also an integral part of the project that I dare not - I'd really rather not be thrown off THIS site - mention here. If you think about it, you'll perhaps see what fascinating possibilities are there. Incidentally - damn me for a fool, but I can't resist - if I use less voltage and amperage than the heater and everything else running off my car's alternator and engine uses to run a (you know) booster, why do I care how much it is? Of course, the heater fan, windshield wipers, air conditioner and all that run off the engine and degrade its performance. It I were to use something like one of those - electrical motor or what have you, even another alternator - to inject, say nitrous oxide produced on board by, let's say, the air conditioner, who cares about Second Law of Thermodynamics?

If the fuel I were using burned up in a hundred yards, but what I wanted was the speed (hell, even the noise) that it provides, why would I care that I can't drive four hundred miles on a tankful? If all whatever I'm producing with a "booster" does but reduce tailpipe emissions, and that's my purpose, why do I care about the Second Law - especially if it does nothing more to my alternator, battery, engine and fuel than anything else running off the alternator and battery?

I assure you (again) that I understand perfectly what both Newton's Laws of motion and the laws of thermodynamics mean. So the sun will only last another ten billion years, and it can be shown that there's no such thing as a perpetual motion machine, care - I with maybe fifteen years yet to live - care? Why do I, knowing from experience that I can't run ten miles (my on-board generators aren't perpetual motion machines, either), and having to run a hundred feet give a damn?

I can also assure you that neither Newton's Laws of Motion or the august laws of thermodynamics have a great deal to do in any practical way with what I'm doing with my car. Or my house.

But, parenthetically - and maybe I should have mentioned this only in a more private communication - the discussion of you-know-what fascinates me. Forensics and debate generally are still another of my avocations, you see (and you're right that I've deliberately said things in order to be provocative). One of the contributions I'd like to make to posterity is more understanding of how, why, and all the rest we argue as we do. A behavioral scientist writing in a past issue of Discovery Magazine believes our (death?) spiral into societal chaos is due - or at least symptomatic of - our manner of discussion and discourse.

Some of the goofy (and I say that because it can be demonstrated) reasoning being used by pro and con concerning you-know-what is also being used - and exactly - where, for instance, the health care debate and the war in Afghanistan are concerned. It makes me cringe.

Finally, the truth is that I don't know a hell of a lot about many - most, even all - of the things I stick my nose into. If I pretend to, it's in order to either evoke useful response or to hold my own (time and time again, I've had my ideas blatantly stolen by some asshole with a PhD, simply because I don't [can't afford and don't have the time] have one. Getting an advanced degree doesn't do a damned thing for most people's ethics or honor these days. I'd flunk, at least at the outset, a college - even high school - exam on most of them. But that's what adventure is all about - for me, at least.

Just for an instance of that last, it was I who in 1956 first argued that given a suitable fifty caliber (or other with suitable ballistic coefficient and the rest), I could "engage" (back then, we just said "kill) targets at 2,000 yards. A couple of years later, I suggested a rifle design you'd have a hard time distinguishing from those being used everywhere today. I wrote in that regard a paper - entitled "Special Weapons and Tactics" - that concerning the then top secret affair at a place called No Gun Ri during the Korean War. The latter was derisively referred to as "The Mongoose Trick" (some said "tactic), and the rifle idea was ridiculed and reviled by every, single person who heard it. Any hope I had for the rank I had once been promised went down the proverbial tube.

I wrote the whole paper again in 1966, that while a criminology and police science student at the Univerity of Iowa (I still have the paper, upon which an assistant to Professor Stuart Holcom had written in red ink, "Insanity!" Since development of the Barrett .50, the Cheyenne Tactical rifle and others, since the development in 1967 by a guy named Daryl Gates - Los Angeles PD, 1968 - the SWAT team, how many times have you heard of me (I am not known as either Barrett or Gates)?

And I talk too damned much, especially since the sun is shining again here, and I ought to be up on the roof.

Have a good day, and thanks again for your remarks.

Hi,

- can you send to me or publish here a copy of your paper?

- As wooden blades and aluminum blades are limited by bending stress resulting from centrifugal forces, has anybody though about sails? (VAWT only)

RHABE

Dude talk away

Both informative & entertaining

I wouldn't worry much about getting booted, if I were you. Those who are no longer with us were more than just rude or advocating an unpopular position.

I gathered from your post you have at least a basic understanding of boundary layer effects & thought you could appreciate Mark's discussion.

You like to be up on the roof totally understandable.

I figured the ease of modification & data acquisition would out weigh the difference in wind speed at the early stages. I can see that a pitched roof would introduce turbulence. As Masu pointed out there is no substitute for data gathered under actual working conditions.

My seat of the pants assessment would point me towards mounting on the ground, but I can also see good reasons to mount the whirling blades of death out of harms way

I suppose the the best possible solution would be mounting above ground on a tower.

Actually, the electrical usage of the " HHO booster" is insignificant, just like the output...

On the HHO test plan thread [I know , I know, it's very long], lots of roundy round with posters who wouldn't know double blind testing if it bit em in the ass, you on the other hand are perfectly capable of understanding & setting up just such a series of tests & interpreting the data.

I would love to see something resembling credible testing results from a smog dyno run. John Henry 78 was making such claims & did post opacity results from a diesel semi. working with long haul truckers should yield reams of data, nope... testimonials, last I saw.

It is useful to know the buzzwords & at least pretend to know enough to have a conversation & possibly learn something.

I would encourage you to start a thread & expand on your 50 cal story, I'd sure like to read more of the details.

You certainly have enough content to start your own blog here on CR4

Thanks for the reply. Funny (double entendre perhaps appropos), but I do seem to entertain some - like when I slip and "hot-foot" it around the roof when I've slipped carrying something I should know better. The wind here is tricky and "tacking" about with a turbine blade held best in the breeze results in something that looks quite a lot like Gene Kelly dancing in the rain with his umbrella. Maybe I should say "a cow, attempting to dance like Gene Kelly" - of do I naught but date myself?

Even wife Rita joins in the smart-ass remarks - like over the weekend here with the recent freeze. When I sought to cover the plants in the little desert scent pond I've built in the back yard, I used big sheets of plaster sheeting and a heat lamp. It worked, too - but not before the icey twenty mph wind (no choice, temperature started dropping fast around noon and long before the weather channel said it would) had a lot of fun with me. Rita helped finally when it became clear that I might vanish over the fence and into the clouds, but couldn't resist the (did I say smart-ass?) crack, "I was thinking you'd maybe try getting up on the roof and dropping it over the pond - would have been some real fun."

Everybody's a critic.

I'm learning boundary layer, at least what I can from others and my own crepe paper and window fan "playing around." I'm a (almost) life-long pilot, too - have read a bunch on the subject over the years. I'd love to get my turbine up in the air where the smooth air is, but it's just not feasible (when I start eyeing the water tower that's only about two hundred yards from our place, the wife threatens me with a call to the cops, the guys in white jackets, and a straight jacket. You see what I'm up against here. I'm a hawk (watch it with the doo-doo cracks, please) among chickens.

Incidentally, I'm also experimenting with a furling device like the picture here - a weighted slider on the arms to the turbine, to be pressed by centrifugal force against the airfoils and change angle of attack as angular velocity increases. That'll require some more math in order to calculate amount of slider weight, shape of the slider, etc. I can use the turbine I've already built, I think (but I wish I'd thought of it sooner).

Any ideas?

As to HHO (are you sure we're not going to get the proverbial bum's rush off this site?), that thread is most interesting, especially the remarks by Blink. I've hooked my experimental "boosters" and the like to our Jaguar's computerized electrical system, which provides tachometer, mileage and range readings, and more. Crude (I guess we all know by now that I like it that way), but I can read some of what's happening. More, when I have the test "booster" (how did I come to start calling it that?) hooked to both cars, I can compare the two (crudely again). I can also test emissions from the tail pipe, "fool" (the term is only appropriate some of the time, I insist) with the oxygen sensors by means of a potentiometer on each car, etc.

I understand from friends that HHO tests are being done at several colleges (Purdue, Hawkey Tech, and others), too. I'm about to contact the local high school automotive department, to see if they'll help with some things I want to try.

Incidentally, I happen to be a fair auto mechanic, having volunteered to work for nothing in a small repair shop in Colorado Springs while coaching at the National Judo Institute there. I worked at the shop a year and a half, in return for the owner teaching me about cars. My efforts with HHO are more in the nature of doing something like what hot spark plugs do - just increase fuel burn efficiency. Obviously, you can't run a car on fuel it makes itself (and I never, ever said you could).

In my opinion, even today's cars are pretty crude where engine design is concerned (I invested money in the Wankel engine when John Deere Farm Equipment Company bought rights - I'm pretty sure of what I'm thinking).

As you might guess, the .50 calibre sniper system became a saddle sore with me long since. I thought the idea an obvious one way back then (I shot at least a "brick" of ammunition a week back then, gave shooting exhibitions for 4H and high school projects, and my biggest bitch against the Army was not being able to shoot anywhere near as often as I was used to), I was then something like twenty-two (big mouth - nothing like the quiet, un-opinionated sort I am now), and I thought it made sense. No Gun Ri - and the related question of hostage-takers - was the subject that started my thinking, and when the general I worked for then told me to write it up, I did. Bad mistake. The worst mistake, though, was including in the idea the actual "mongoose trick" - walk up to the hostage taker and kill him with a fast draw from concealment before he could realize he was being killed. That, too, while totally feasible (I proved it to a roomfull of generals), drew all kinds of ridicule (University of Iowa Professor Holcomb, though, corrected the assistant who called my idea lunacy, gave me an A and later referred to my paper in his own writing later; LAPD's Daryl Gates wasn't so kind).

When ordered to report to the commanding general at Fort McPherson, GA, the first thing he asked was whether I had seen the movie at the post theater. It was "Fastest Gun Alive" (Glen Ford).

I've pretty much gone out of the "blog" business - just too danged busy with other things. I told the "Mongoose Trick" story some years ago in my book "Letters to Aaron - the Hal Luebbert Story." It's probably available somewhere on the Internet - if you're that interested. I also "blogged" about it a number of times when I had a website of my own.

Thanks for the HHO thread reference - I'll read it all (after I see why the "check engine" light on both our cars went on this morning - @#$%&!).

Obviously, you can't run a car on fuel it makes itself (and I never, ever said you could).

In this post, you seems that you said just that, given the context.

I believe I can run a small reciprocating engine or Wankel turbine completely on HHO or whatever we choose to call electrolytic gas.

That an engine can be run on the products of electrolysis is completely obvious and is not worth mentioning (other than to perhaps elementary students who might not know that engines can be run on many fuels). So then, the reasonable interpretation of your statement is that an engine can be run (in the style of Stanley Meyer) on HHO created on board, using energy supplied by the engine to run the electrolysis.

In this post, you say that you were "beaten to that particular finish line", as if there were some discovery or invention involved -- not simply that a car can run on hydrogen (or oxyhydrogen) which has been known and obvious for many decades.

and an engine is right now running (as has the one in my 2001 Toyota) on completely electrolyzed fuel. More, if I had not spent do silly much time in discussion with naysayers like you, I might perhaps have not been beaten to that particular finish line.

In this post, you refer to engines running on gas produced on board. If you mean that the vehicle is towing a very large trailer equipped with electrolysis equipment sufficient to fuel a car (this would be a very large trailer), then again this is obviously possible, but foolish to pursue. (A car can be made to run on crude oil, if you tow around a mini refinery.) So again, you appear to be saying that there is something noteworthy here, that a car has been demonstrated to run on oxyhydrogen or hydrogen generated on board, using energy supplied by the engine to run the electrolysis.

Worse, when someone demonstrates an engine running on on-board (have I mentioned that two are running now) produced hydrogen, he will be heard to again pontificate that he knew it all along.

No one in his right mind argues that engines cannot be run on the products of electrolysis. (As I said, I did that as a parlor trick, and suspect that many other high school students did as well.) So in these three quotes you appear to be arguing something more.

Perhaps you can provide links to the tests of the two engines that "are running now" with on-board produced hydrogen. That would give a context for what you are claiming. As it is, your claims are either patently obvious and not noteworthy in any way (if you are saying that a car can run on electrolysed hydrogen) ... or they are extraordinary and implausible (that the gas can be generated on board, using an onboard energy source) and therefore possibly worth some discussion.

Am I misinterpreting what you intended to write?

Blink, you have an annoying habit of butting into other people's conversations. I was speaking to Garthh here, who seems willing to be civil. You, on the other hand, aren't.

As to the "context" you cited, I said, "More, I don't know yet why certain amounts of whatever is produced by electrolysis of potassium salts-water solution increases gasoline mileage on my 2001 Toyota Corolla. Neither do I have the laboratory facilities to find out."

Nowhere in the context you site did I speak of fuel made by electrolysis on board, other than in the quote I give here. Neither does the quote having to do with a Wankel engine you say anything about electrolysis from the car in question's generator. Read it again. That is not how I propose to obtain the electrolyzed HHO, and that's not how I propose to use it.

You give youself and the degree to which you understand the subject matter away. Again!

Neither does the quote concerning a car being run on electrolyzed fuel say anything about the fuel being made by the car itself. Read that again, too. While it is certainly true that I am experimenting, and using, HHO (assuming that's what it is) produced by my car's generator and (considerably modified) electrical system, I do so for purposes other than powering the car that way. I have for comparison experimented with two other systems producing hydrogen obtained from electrolysis, plus one from chemical means. A car's generator can and does produce sufficient current to make a "booster" in turn produce hydrogen. That's simply a fact, and something I trust even a dedicated skeptic like you won't deny. The question being argued (with so much contemptous and sneeing rancor) by most people is whether enough hydrogen can be produced to have any useful effect. I think it can.

Once you've read again all that you've quoted here, you will perhaps see that you continually jump to conclusions not merited by your obviously and prohibitively (where any useful purpose is concerned) biased views.

Now please stop "bugging" me - especially by putting words in my mouth with which to find fault - and stay the hell out of my conversations with people willing to remain civil. Even if it were Hitler who said it, two and two are still four, and nit-picking criticism like yours wouldn't change the fact. And more, even if it were Hitler speaking, rudeness would certainly refute nothing he said. Even if I were a raving maniac, there is no call for your smart-ass tone.

I come from a time and place where calling a man a liar in public demanded retribution; and were you standing where I could reach you, I would give you a judo lesson (from a three-time national champion) you'd never forget. And while I may have said this before, know that in the future I won't respond to anything you say. That would be self-demeaning.

Don't bother me again.

Hi Walks,

It seems that my question "Am I misinterpreting what you intended to write?" has set you off in some way. I'm not sure why, but there is no need to disclose your reasons.

I was careful to provide links for each quote so anyone reading could see the quote in context -- although I now see that I failed to actually make the link with one quote. But anyone interested can quickly find the post using the site search. I did not want to "put words in your mouth", so was careful to copy the quotes verbatim, and provide the source.

If you reread my post you can see that I did not call you a liar, so I hope that you are not going to give me your "judo lesson" should we meet at some point in the future.

I had hoped for clarification on what you meant in those various quotes. The hydrogen used to run hydrogen powered cars (like the BMW dual fuel car) ordinarily comes from methane reformation, because that process is cheaper than electrolysis. But hydrogen from electrolysis works just as well -- it is, after all, exactly the same stuff. So given that we all know that you can run a car on any form of hydrogen, then you can perhaps see that I might wonder what you were claiming when you wrote: "and an engine is right now running (as has the one in my 2001 Toyota) on completely electrolyzed fuel. No one doubts that the BMW runs just fine (albeit with much lower hp output than when running on gasoline) no matter where the hydrogen comes from.

But fear not, I don't need an answer to my question... it was idle curiosity. You needn't reply, and I will honor your request to not bother you again.

Oddly enough, our paths are similar in some respects, and we share interests in aerodynamics, flying, self-reliance, and no doubt many other things. I admire your military service and your service in the police and legal community. I seem to have failed at establishing any rapport, though. But no loss... there are certainly plenty of others here who can provide suggestions for your endeavors.

My family (especially when I was a kid and young man) engaged in debate at the dinner table. More than one spouse of the "kids" (now old farts like me) were driven right over the edge, saying things like "I thought we were here for dinner, not the Harvard debate club." We tend to be sticklers for detail -- and can take things pretty far in what we think is just ordinary, casual debate -- but (and reasonably so) it can come across as the "third degree", or the Spanish Inquisition to others.

Sorry to have upset you ,

Blink

I think it would be a cow doing Donald O Conner { I'm 50 & have seen a bunch of old stuff, the colorized stuff irritates me]

No, you won't get tossed for having the HHO discussion, look at the Test Plan Thread 250+ posts & still active

Blink knows some shit, including the math that goes along with it. There is reference to a nasa study that seemed to be pretty definitive to my undereducated eyes. He is also going to be persistent & pay attention to what you have been saying along the line

No idea about the math involved in limiting the max rpm of your turbine

Which is why I would lean towards weights instead of springs. & fool around with the position & amount.

Backtrack for the documentation...

I understand doing work for it's own reward, the quiet meditation that is mowing the yard at high noon & 105... I spent days in the hot sun moving the backyard into the front, our house is on a slope & the original owner decided that drains & pipe was an acceptable solution to the drainage. I prefer the contour of the landscaping to be the primary method, with excess & rain gutters being handled by the underground pipes. The original owners couldn't believe I didn't think their solution was adequate. Don't care even if they are my in laws, I didn't think it was fun to have to go out in a rain storm to clear the pine needles from the drains

I was trying to encourage you to become part of the community [CR4], I don't blog it doesn't appeal to me. Rhabe expressed an interest in the 50cal /sniper story, what the hell things that go boom are always fun

You know stuff share it or just lurk

up to you

The one being used is the simplest, most effective, and possible for me - unless I've missed something.

Once upon a time I attached a speedometer to a bicycle and later attached the speedo to a shaft enabling a solenoid of sorts to control the shaft speed using the pointer to actuate a braking mechanism.

Being the tinkerer I think you are I should need say no more...

Thanks for the suggestion, but the system I have seems eminently more practical for my circumstances. It's very simple, and once I've been able to "tinker" with it, it will govern the turbine effectively. Even with the adaptability I've designed and built into the turbine, however, it's the adjustment problem that's a bit daunting. I'll have to balance weights and springs, in other words.

If my math were better - Masu's computer info may help enormously with that - I'd have far less work. It's cold up on that blankety-blank roof!

Thanks again, though - your remarks are much appreciated.

You are welcome, thanks for kind words.

Incidentially today I received for review a proposal for the installation of a VAWT design similar to that which you are experimenting with.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Define_thyristor_controlled_braking_resistor

You may find it more exciting doing the tinkering from your work station with electronics than at the roof top. Simple version think of the principles involved when using an electric trailer braking unit.

G'day

Incidentally, and concerning my last here: are you calling me a liar? Doesn't that smack of the middle finger, digitus impudicus salute from a passing car? Is there any reason that anyone reading here shouldn't think that's the kind of "man" you are?

As I said, if all you can offer here is ridicule, why bother?

G'day gals, guys, gurus & blink

You're absolutely right and it's my fault for not being more selective with the terminology.

It would be more accurate to describe the control surfaces as being self centring.

Anyway, getting back to the problem at hand and as usual a picture is worth a thousand words so the image below shows how I would go about balancing the aerofoils.

1. Centre of Lift: The first step would be to calculate and then test for the exact location of the centre of lift. Now this will almost certainly vary with different angles of attack so you will more than likely need to calculate a mean rather than exact position.

2. Pivot Points: The next step would be to mount the pivot points so the centre of lift passes through the axis of the pivot points.

3. Balancing: Ultimately you will be aiming for a system that is balanced no matter how it is position according to the longitudinal axis which you could call a dynamic balance.

a. Test Mount: First off you will need to make up some sort of text frame that you can place the aerofoils on that keeps the pivot axis horizontal.

b. Add Mass Balance Weights: The next step requires the adding of mass balance weights so that no matter where the aerofoil is positioned by rotating it around the pivot axis it remains stationary. For example, if you position it so the trailing edge is directly above the pivot axis it should stay there when released. This is going to be somewhat fiddley but it shouldn't be to difficult to achieve.

Because your aerofoils will be moving in a circular path you will also need to balance them along as well as around the pivot point axis. Also all three of the aerofoils will need to have the same distribution of mass along the pivot point axis.

If you can balance the aerofoil in this manner around the aerofoils centre of lift then for the most part the centripetal acceleration and lift forces will for the most part cancel each other dramatically reduce the force your feathering system will require.

I haven't yet read all the new posts but I thought it was important that I clear up the misunderstanding my poor choice of technical phraseology had caused. When I have had a chance to read all the new posts in detail I will elaborate further.

Regards, masu

Hi Masu,

I am always impressed by your posts and illustrations. Beautifully presented!

Masu,

Thanks again. The beautifully-conceived and presented illustration you provide together with commentary is exactly how I have proceeded. I also (even) tried to determine dynamic balance by actually spinning the turbine (you'd have loved to see me wrapping a rope around the center shaft, then hauling away - a test that got me some exercise, but not much - read that "none" - data).

I've learned from my clumsy math and testing (including models) that my furling device springs may be too strong. That depends, of course, upon how the "blades" perform up on the roof in the wind. I'm admittedly trying to save myself trips up and down, to assemble and disassemble the thing, suspecting that my furling device will require (too many) changes (that I may have made it too strong is dangerous, because failing to furl the "blades" may result in their being ruined).

The furling device is very important, especially inasmuch as I have pretty well decided the matters of static and dynamic balance. The turbine is not going to shake itself to pieces, and the mount will dampen oscillation, nutation, and vibration sufficiently (I think). It's the furling device, and related centrifugal (centripetal) force with which I'm concerned. In that regard, I've made this lame attempt at a schematic drawing:

In the figure, V₁ is the velocity of the blade relative to the center of rotation, and V₂ is the effective wind velocity. Vector –U represents the velocity of the blade relative to the effective wind. The angle O represents the blade rotation angle (9.5 degrees) a₁ to V₁ is the angle of attack measured from chord line to V₁, and a₂ is the blade pitch angle.

Aerodynamic drag forces, of course, act in the direction of –U and the lift forces act in a direction perpendicular to U. As the blade proceeds around the circle, lift and drag forces – I speak now only of airfoil forces, not the "cup" of "channel" drag impetus(es) – rise and fall in an approximate sine wave profile. "Cup" drag (or push) forces compensate for loss of lift, but during transition from lift forces to "drag" (or what I'm calling "push") forces there is still probably a loss of torque to the center shaft.

My math being what it is, I have described the dynamics of the turbine's rotation by way of these equations (pretty well accepted ones, as far as I can determine):

J₁ dO/dt² = torque, that where J₁ is the total moment of inertia of the turbine, and J₂ is the moment of inertia of the blade in question, or each blade individually in the formula: J₂ da₂/dt² = U₃ is the torque resulting from the design's natural aerodynamic airfoil lift forces (a₂ is blade pitch angle). The first formula does not include forces derived or induced by the VAWT alternator.

The total aerodynamic torque generated by lift and drag forces is therefore, I think, T = C_j 1/2pAU²R, where p is air density, A is the reference area, R is the radius of the VAWT rotor (all three blades, etc.), and C_j is the tangential force coefficient derived from lift and drag coefficients.

Weight and dimensions of the turbine and blades are as I've already published them here, and the trailing edge of each blade is designed to move five inches, the distance 10.6 pounds hung on the furling springs stretches them. I have added - as I think I said - nine ounces to the blades trailing edges, that in order to result in exact balance of turbine moment of inertia and resulting centrifugal force-torque (on the blade pivots) forces.

What I want to compute – much of this with an eye toward redesign and building my second VAWT and rotor – is centrifugal force upon the springs used to furl the individual blades as lift-drag forces rise and fall with turning of the turbine. Will the door-springs device suffice, in other words.

I'm hoping your computer readings will tell us that; in the meantime – as I said – I'm trying to lower the risk of my falling off the roof here while I go up and down adjusting and re-adjusting.

Thanks in and advance (and again) to anyone willing to offer contribution.

Walks-in-Storms would want to make sure that his pivot points are well forward of the aerodynamic balance point, to avoid flutter. This will put the CG of the foil well aft of the pivot, and would required no additional weight to be added (for the springs to react against).

Exactly. I screwed up royally where this part of the process is concerned, having designed - and balanced - the blades to function without the furling device before deciding I needed to do that. That happened after several persons - a couple of comments here included - convinced me that trying to brake the VAWT by shorting the alternator field wasn't a good idea. The result of my screw-up was a whole lot of tinkering and adjusting, the further result being somewhat - hopefully not a whole bunch - satisfactory only.

My hope is that the next turbine (already on the drawing board) will be much better, the reason that Masu's computer results are much anticipated.

Thanks again, though - and right on!

Postscript to my last response here: Actually, my VAWT turbine blades are airfoils, my saying that due tests done with strips of crepe paper and ribbon and a household window fan. Air driven over the top of the VAWT "wing" - the fully aluminum skin-covered covered side - is faster than the "under" side, where air "burbles" a bit into the trough created by the open space. There is considerable flow, however, over the open space, such that measurable lift is being created (I measured that, too, with another of my admittedly crude devices - I hung the wing from cords attached to each end).

My airfoil design is a variation, by the way, on one by a guy named Ed Lenz in Michigan (as I recall). On account of my penchant for math, however, I've changed several dimensions, most of the changes due math and tests like those I've described here. I call it my "push and pull" turbine, inasmuch as one portion of each revolution has individual blades alternating between lift and "drag" - the effect like that of cups on an anemometer.

Hey Storm Walker,

is faster than the "under" side, where air "burbles" a bit into the trough created by the open space. There is considerable flow,

The turbulent flow can create greater lift up to the point of the stall,but you will have greater drag than in a airfoil exhibiting laminar flow, which doesn't generate as much lift but has lower drag.

You might be able to avoid the complexities of your screen door furling mechanism by utilizing an airfoil whose chord is not constant along its length, a differing chord section might induce stalling at a portion of the wing at a certain speed, destroying lift and acting as a governor.

I was privy to these NACA airfoil chord designs, but have been forbidden from disseminating them , the powers that be are afraid what would happen if John Q. Pubic got access to this information, the entire power industry cartel would be shut down when people got wise and installed vertical axis wind turbines on their roofs, the vested interests are not about to let that happen.

Maybe to test the design , you could create your own Mobile wind tunnel by mounting the scale models on top of a vehicle. and to enable you to measure the forces involved you could rig-up something like a bicycle speedometer, fish scale and a video camera, you could record the results. This would allow you to get rough ideas when you compare any changes made, but it would be necessary to also make a record of anything that could introduce variables into your experiment, air pressure, temperature,wind speed/direction, and believe it or not, one of the most important influences I have found that can affect the results is a failure to consult the solunar tables and apply corrections for deviation from the standard.

Remember that, as important as it is to consider; lift, drag, thrust and gravity, you must not forget the three R's: Presentation, Timing and Lubrication, these three have always served me well, never letting me down, enabling to create and hold, My Empire of Dirt.

Good luck,

Keep me updated

Packrat

Thanks for the comment. Drag, however, isn't one of my problems. In fact, my furling device depends largely upon inducing stall at turbine rpm as close to 150 rpms as I can make it. I also need to have my turbine self-starting (most VAWT designs aren't) and pitchable blades - like my spring design - are essential for that. I not only have very high winds here in our locale with which to deal, I have a turbine design with comparatively high power co-efficient - tip speed ratio. Solidity (S = Nc/R where N is number of blades, c is chord length, and R is turbine radius) factor is also high enough to assure self-starting (don't forget this is a vertical axis design).

Varying or varied airfoil chord isn't practical for me, either, inasmuch as this is a home garage project, and one being done with a very small array of tools. I can't be sufficently precise; more, the complexity of varying chord arrangements, blade flaps, and the like is far beyond either my tooling or finances. Otherwise, it's a good idea.

The of a vehicular "wind tunnel " is a good one, and one I've considered from the beginning. Besides my window fan model trials, several of my model turbines were tested that way - just by holding them out the window - and had a pickup truck I could borrow, I would set up my full-sized turbine (the one in the photos here) for trials. I may very well do that idea on my next project. I'm already using a bicycle speedometer, and fish scales (for my door spring furling device).

As to lubrication, that was (yet) another of my screw-ups. I bought block bearings whereas I should have bought oil bearings. Again, I'll know better next time.

Thanks for the help. Good ideas.

Hey Stormwalker,

Instead of the screendoor furling device you could fabricate one of those whirling -ball governors as usd on old steam enigines, theballs could be linked to a lever that when the speed increases it moves the angle of attack of the airfoil to the point where airflow separation occurs and the wing stalls, cutting lift and rotational speed. It would seem that a governor could be constructed from readily available components in a garage workshop setting.

I once built an aenemeter from kitchen measuring spoons.

Excuse my sporadic posting but it's difficult getting access to the internet, as the clients are not supposed to use the staffs computers, so I'm reduced to waiting for the not infrequent false fire alarms in ward "C", who keeps doing that , hee-hee, in order to gain access to the charge nurses computer, sometimes Marge , who fills in on holidays, will trade access for a few of my pudding cups, chocolate of course, her favorite, oh we have limited access to computers but there is such a heavy layer of filters, they might as well be Etch-a Sketches, I ended up in this wing because of my research into harvested the waste hydrgen gas that is created in the ponds containing spent fuel rods, the gas is created by radiolysis of water molecules, the hydrogen is now considered a nuisance to dealt with, I know that feeliung, well I came up with, if I may so myself, a brilliant concept to harvest the hydrogen, compress it on site, and combining it HVDC underground transmission lines, utilizing the gas to cool room temprature superconducters, lowering transmission loss, the phrase room temperature is a misnomer , but still warmer than, convential superconductors, so at the receiving end you would have hydrogen and High-voltage direct current delivered to your tap.The Direct current would be a boon because you avoid the syncronazation issue between AC grids. also the pond actually generates hydrogen better the less pure it is, BONUS!

I tried to show the fools at the local Nuke plant my research and ciphering, not only did they scoff but they took active measures to suppress my findings, I think the term," Danger to himself and Others ", is a very subjective thing, and to your difficulty fabricating non-constant chord airfoils, I was quite the panel beater , what you Yanks call a sheet metal mechanic, I think it could be done quite easily being not compound curvature, I could show you how to make wooden bucks from scraps of plywood and twine, and bits of twigs as patterns , similar looking to the little die cut wing ribs in a model airplane kit, If I get out I could pop in and help you, if you just send directions,

hre she comes,gotta go

Excuse the spelling error: this @#$%&! computer keeps correcting what it shouldn't (it doesn't know lie from lay, its from it's, and several things even worse). That "
"here" should have been "hear."

file:///Users/ken/Desktop/2%20wind%20turbines%20spin%20out%20of%20control%20in%20one%20week%20-%20Tainted%20Green.webloc

Well, that worked real well. (sarcasm)

This is truly the height of incompetence. Packrat, sir, your link worketh not. Try to claw your way through whatever filters "they" have placed on your equipment and try again. Please.

Will try, but if it works it was definitely low grade humor ore and not the highly enriched funny stuff, not missing much on the guffaw index.

Have you taken your meds & gone to group yet?

Run Hedley, run!

Have you taken your meds

Took them, hid them under my tongue, stashed them in the leg of my bunk and when Mondor comes by with the library cart , I'll trade him the meds for a carton of Camel sin filtros.

Gosh golly, am I glad you showed up! I fear the our friend Walks-and-Strums misconstrued one of my posts as being vaguely negative. I think I have patched things up with my more recent post... but just in case, if he feels the need of some of your meds, might you be willing to postpone your Camels sans filtre trade? Or perhaps there is something else lying around the ward?

I am eagerly awaiting the repair of your link above. I wonder if there could be some connection with recent events near here. There were several incidents in which windmills came adrift of their moorings, and traveled through several neighborhoods, with apparent evil intent, leaving sliced and diced people, cars, homes, a couple oil company execs, and most sadly, a now useless recording of Elvis's "You are Scarcely More than a Hound Dog".

Zounds!

I could always front WWl some thorazine from my emergency back-up stash secreted in my hollowed out copy of, Vertical Axis of Evil Windmills For Dummies.

Blink,

No need to apologize I appreciate input from someone , who not only sees the big picture, but can help solve the little niggling details.We have quite the underground economy flourishing here with many interdependent industries. The boys over in distillation,are very adept at producing" raisin jacK" , which I might add is one of our top selling items in the Crawlspace duty free shop, and by the time they get get done refining products from our precious bodily fluids, they are as pure as fresh fallen snow.

But, you are right that we live in a litigious society, so if there is any squawking after the fact , I'm sure the boys in documents and printing can come up with an informed consent" signed "by WWL. And with a little research, we can find the pertinent paragraph in the " terms of use in WWL's Paypal account when he signed up , so he could order his fish scales and bicycle speedometer, nobody has ever read all that fine print.

This is a great base of operations here at the Crawlspace Home for the Criminally Insane Gambler, It's like the Stalag in the movie "The Great Escape", except the food isn't as good.

Well, I have a few minutes access during shift change, and something caught my eye earlier whist I was being prepped for my ECT. Lying on the bed looking up, I noticed that the florescent light fixtures bore a striking resemblance to StÜrmwalker's windmill wings, This gave me an idea how I could be of service, if I can cadge , Leotis the custodian's keys to the storeroom, I could try building a Va-Va- Voom VAWT so as to create a duplicate and parallel experiment to try and aid StÜrmwalker in his research........crap here comes the night nurse,Muriel....Later.

.

TRousers

Gilly!

Hey, Walks - you still with us?