Wind Powered Generators

Don't wanna pick nits here, but New Hampshire has a commercial wind farm.

And it's ugly too. I saw these behemoths up on a ridgeline as I was driving back to my parents' house near Keene after skiing at Burke Mtn in Vermont. I recall driving around a bend on a nice two lane and being shocked by the sight. I guess nice scenery has no value any more.

Doesn't make much sense to build an exotic turbine for one location. Maybe some existing turbine could be modified to run a generator. I'd think you would want a funnel shaped duct enclosing the blades to gather more wind power.

But, the current crop of generators run best at 10-13MPH wind speed. That's available in a lot of places.

Cheers.

been tried numerous times and has had uniform results - all negative.

but it stands to reason that if you can build turbofan engines capable of producing a 600 mph thrust, that you can build wind turbines capable of higher speeds. somehow.

Certainly you can. But try to get a turbo-fan engine to work efficiently at 50 mph.

Agreed. I simply meant that we probably had material choices available that could withstand the forces, if properly or innovatively designed. I tend to think that my own designs (part 1)(part 2)might do well in 50mph winds. (with further testing and development )

1) Look up ducted wind turbines on the net. 2) See what Paul Gipe has to say about them at www.wind-works.org Paul Gipe is one of the real experts with wind turbines in general. İ think you are most likely flogging a dead horse.

I don't see an actual analysis of the reason why Vortec went bankrupt. I saw one line that says that the unit was not acheiving expected results. In good sense, I can't accept this as sufficient evidence of technical failure.

My first premise is not of a duct, but of a bulb shape, which is a different animal than the duct. There is a lot of other research into ducts than Vortec, and certainly not all of it is low performance. I say let the research continue.

I'm not asking anyone for money. When I build a prototype, I will do it with my own money. I am shocked at the amount of money that can be made to disappear as noted on the Vortec info you provided, and that makes me think there is more to the story, about mismanagement and greed than technical performance.

I would say that much more wind is being harnessed by small personal wind units than by all the huge conglomerates, and the best efficiency successes also. (entrepreneurs will always be much more judicious when it is their own money at risk)

Chris

Hi Chris - Sorry to disagree and İ don't have data but İ would expect that 99.5% plus of power generated by wind turbines is from commercial machines. Jim Green at the National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) developed a formula: annual energy output (AEO) in KWH = 0.01328 x rotor diameter (ft.) squared x average wind speed (mph) cubed. Efforts that İ have read about attempting to enhance the output have, at the best, made only marginal improvements while adding substantial restriction to the flow causing the structure required to increase greatly. However, İ wish you luck for sure! The turbines available at present are either very expensive or junk with most falling directly into the junk group. Something new is needed.

Yes, something new is needed, and I invented it :-))

But of course, you did not really believe it is possible to invent anything completely new.

Actually, if wind flow is steady then there are number of already patented turbines applicable that have only problem with regulation of rotational speed.

Construction itself could be made stronger for such turbines, just enough to withstand the push of wind (Sail Effect).

In regard to snow and ice, Vertically oriented turbines have no problems with it, since they are self starting (mostly) and because centrifugal force would throw all that cling to them away.

Since wind is so strong, there is no need for high towers to exist, therefore scenery would not be harmed.

Even Afghanistan type of windmills could be used, and they are in use nearly 3000 years there. I even tried to devise some changes to make them more effective, but in such wind it would not be issue.

They are vertically oriented turbines, built in building or mountain to operate in their basically two directional wind.

Conical structure on both sides act as Venturi Pipe, speeding up slow wind, and pointed end could be made in form of doors that could be opened only away from turbine, so they would open only on side where air goes outward from turbine.

That would provide larger area for used air to evacuate from half pipe like wings of turbine (sorry I lack jargon since English is not my native language)......

At same time drag against incoming wind is precluded, therefore nothing is to slow down rotation as it would be case if turbine would be in open air flow.

Since entrances could be conical also vertically, turbines itself need not be high.

Entrances would then more resemble Venturi Pipe, even if this would be not round in cross section but square...........

Only disadvantage is that it is strictly two way directional as structure is fixed. Also, there is no way to regulate wind speed, unless some kind of doors can be used to make opening smaller in stronger wind, but I could envision this also. Instead of doors that open on one side only, there could be doors sliding along the walls in front of turbine, extending outward to make larger opening that would channel wind to turbine in weak wind and sliding inwardly to make outer opening smaller and closing slit of opening directly in front of turbine.

Not much of control of air speed, but how much really, that only some good CFD software could show.

Compared to this, my turbines are still better by far, and system for catching the wind enable them to use always strongest wind or fastest layer of air in case of laminar flow, which is not really used by contemporary models but do most of damage to turbine wings.........

Now, maybe this little illustration of my innovation on 3000 years old design would help You believe I am capable of making still better things.........

But in my search of Patent databases to check if someone have already invented same kind of turbines like me, I saw that someone patented design quite similar to ancient windmills of Afghanistan.

Obviously Patent office did not search among historical data, just in old patents database :-))

But that >>inventor<< failed to improve on old design and have copied them with all their imperfections.

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

There would be considerable >>Sail Effect<<, unlike in case of concrete structures, and due to limited regulation of air speed, at some point thing should be stopped also.

But, I have more ideas how to minimize Sail Effect and at same time regulate air flow more, but this I would not reveal just yet, in case someone would like to buy idea as such.........

I'm talking about a turbine like in a jet engine, not a propeller. A large turbine could harness winds in excess of that which now limits wind generation by today's available technology. I envision a multi-bladed wheel around 20-30 ft in diameter mounted on bearings and shrouded by an enclosure that directs the air flow through the blades, thereby causing the blades to turn. A steam turbine works on the same principal.

As somebody has pointed out, developing new turbine such as You write about just for this one or even few locations is too expensive. Actually I think You could use some steam turbine with such strong wind, only they lack means for rotational speed regulation. Something could be improvised like anemometer measuring actual air speed after some kind of electronically regulated ventile that would be gradually closed if air speed increase or opened if air speed get less.

But such system would have to have Venturi pipe to scoop the wind, and there also could be some iris doors like system for making opening smaller in stronger wind.

Then there is still problem of orienting/turning whole system to face wind if and when it change direction, or it could be two directional system like Afghanistan type of windmills, if wind blows basically in two directions only.

Did You read my posts?

My Windpower Stations would work at this location without problems.

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

With such wind speed production in this area can reach Tera Watts capacity, specially due to ability of my WPSs to be grouped together and so achieve still greater electricity production.

It is simple to adjust my WPSs to such wind speeds while it is not possible at all for contemporary models, therefore it would be solution to this particular problem, how to use such strong winds..........

Incidentally, it would enable use of much slower winds as well, and such wind can be found at 15-20 times more locations than used by contemporary models.

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

Here is WindMap I was able to find for US, so You can see ratio of slower wind location to those comercially usable by contemporary models of Windpower Stations.

I wonder if anyone has attempted to eliminate gear reduction on windmills by using a variable displacement hydraulic pump to maintain constant generator speed (frequency). The drive losses might be a bit greater than in gear transmission, but this might simplify some other components and require less maintenance.

Direct drive?

I do not know about wind systems, but this is a "common" approach with in-stream tidal turbines and some wave energy converters...

Windmills have been used since sometime around 500-900 AD, while there is evidence that wind power has been used as a prime mover (i.e., sali boats) for 6000 years or more.

My question is this. If wind power were all that it is promoted to be, why would humans have expended so much effort and resources to find alternative power sources? If wind were such a wonderful source of energy, we be seeing more of the ancient technology still being used today...

Before wasting more resources on this technology, one should ask, "Why did our ancestors find this energy source inadequate for their needs? What makes our current efforts so much better than what was being used 1000 years ago? Can modern technology overcome the limitations encountered by our ancestors?"

Honored colleague, there were no electricity production in old times, so usage was limited to place and time when wind is available.

Each system has its shortcomings, and You cannot put wind turbine on car to make it move where You want..........nor when You want.

In regard to OP problem, that is too much wind for contemporary models, but my Windpower Stations would work in any wind condition, from 3m/sec wind speed, and they can be tailored to location in capacity also.

They can be grouped in groups of 7, and even such groups could be grouped in groups of 7, producing synergy effects and great increase in available capacity.

All that preclude me to start using such WPS in practice is lack of funds to build the prototype as >>Proof of Concept<<.

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

Anybody interested? You have a new type of turbine and want someone to lay out the cash to build a prototype? 40 million euro easy money? Wow!!!! Good luck and yes there are suckers around but you need a somebody really dumb İ am afraid.

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

Actually with such strong wind even Tesla turbine could be used successfully, and it is something proven to work. However the rest of construction provide air flow regulation and protection from too strong wind, and my turbine in some variations also have self regulatory mechanisms included, which would not be possible if Tesla turbine would be used.

Why should people like You always start criticising without any data?

So, if company producing the prototype would not be paid unless prototype work as it should and produce results as expected, how can investor lose money?

Just by sending list of advantages that my WPS have compared to models in use I have found customers that wanted to buy it at once.

Advantages are this:

1st. My Wind power stations use slower wind, about 5m/sec, therefore can be installed on at least 15x more locations.

2nd. They are cheaper to build, simple to install and repair, they need no special cranes, access roads nor have transport problems. There would be no need to decommission them, ever.

3rd. They do not stop working in strong wind, and they use/spend no electricity for their work as they are self starting and self directing. They are self protected from damage in strongest wind. They use any kind of wind, even turbulent one.

4th. They have much more effective turbine, so they need much less space, or can produce more electricity and have actually ZERO ground footprint. If installed on bad quality land, they provide protection so new layer of compost can be added or mixed with existing soil to make fertile ground and then vegetables can be grown in that place.

5th. Capacity can be tailored to actual location and prevailing winds, and therefore can use ALL available wind very effectively. Also, capacity can be installed in stages, if enough wind is available on location, when there would be financing available or same installation earn enough profit to be upgraded.

6th. They don't produce infra sounds harmful for animals and humans, and could have protection against killing birds.

7th. They can be camouflaged against scenery and so made nearly invisible, and so not spoil vistas. Alternatively same way they could be used for advertising, if situated by the roads. But even if completely transparent, they would not be much noticeable as their background could be seen trough them.

8th. For little greater investment in higher quality materials, my Wind Power Stations could last forever, save for generators, but same rule apply as with higher quality materials they could be made to last indefinitely with proper maintenance.

Last but not least, they would use generators invented in my country that could produce 1 MW at 1800 Rpm, 2 MW at 3600 Rpm and so on, and also greater capacity can be achieved by connecting more than one serialy on same turbine axle.

My WPS are working best grouped together in groups of 7, and such groups can also be grouped together same way, resulting in complex configuration with emergent characteristics, resulting in much greater capacity for electricity production.

However, You are of course free to disbelieve and be sarcastic as much as You please....

I would expect that an engineer would be forming opinions based on facts, but I see this is not rule or You are not engineer :-((

Hope there would be others that ask first what they do not understand before starting to write like You.

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

1) Commercial turbines are generally rated at something like 5 m/s wind velocity. 2) For high wind speeds your structure becomes immense. 3) Commercial turbines are placed high off the ground to get into 'better' wind than is available close to the ground. By design a VAWT must be close to the ground due to structure size. 4) For the output, İ see no way, these turbines would be cheaper to build or install. 5) The garden below the turbine point is a good feature as that may well be the only cash income it provides. 6) They will make noise same as any other - killing of birds with modern low speed machines is a non issue 7) İf they can be camouflaged against the scenery they are too low to be into steadier, stronger wind available at any site. When wild claims are made that go against everything learned to date while offering nothing we haven't seen before - what else to do. There is a fantastic amount of information available about turbines that is public domain. As of yet no one has built a VAWT that is much more than an ornament.

1) No, they need 11m/sec at least, they can only start at 5m/sec, but not produce electricity. That is reason why Indian company Suzlon went broke, and it was 5th in the world in production of WPSs. Nobody checked wind charts for India, so their WPS mostly stand and do not turn for lack of wind strong enough....

2) This is quite opposite. Stronger wind is, smaller part of it need to be channeled trough WPS construction and turbine.

3) Yes, this is same with my WPSs, except my models can be situated on top of factories, hotels, skyscrapers, while contemporary models cannot without strong reinforcements to building structure since there is just one point of forces impact when Sail Effect start waving tower back and forth. However, my WPS have greatest weight on the ground, therefore high structure can be much lighter. In addition, there are mechanisms that let all surplus wind strength pass trough structure without causing damage. You do not know my design, so You can just think in terms of existing models of VAWT while my design is NEW, as I already mentioned.

4) Same argument apply, You cannot see because You have seen nothing and therefore cannot criticize it.

5) Joking again?

6) I guarantee there would be no noises as turbine has no drag against wind.

7) Again theorizing without facts?

Anything revolutionary NEW goes against everything that some people has learned so far, as it opens new vistas for development such things.

Even aeroplanes were considered impossible to make by scientists of that era.......

As we say in Croatia: >>Everything was once first time.......<<, so it will be first time for VAWT to be fully functional.

As I mentioned You are shooting in the dark without infra red binoculars......

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

Sorry buddy but you know zero about wind apparently. Study a bit before investing any money into this thing. As we say in the rest of the world - 'not much use flogging a dead horse' and this is a dead horse or another saying 'there is one born every minute' Any time you think you have discovered something so simple that everyone else has overlooked or not understood it is time to look closely again. İ'm out of here. Have fun.

From Your comments, it is obvious that it is You who do not know much about Wind, not me. I am talking about official data about Windpower Stations of conventional design that are sold on market. Surely those making them know how they work?

You can check it on www.koncar-ket.hr, search for Wind and You can find PDF file about their Windpower Stations with all technical data included.......

As for my inventions, they are registered already and in process of patenting.

Surely Patent office would spot >>dead horse<< at once and tell me why it is dead :-((

Usually people think that if something is simple then everyone could have think of it, therefore by this reasoning, surely someone has tried this before and it is not in use because it do not work for some reason.

Fortunately, always someone has to be first one to think of it, and this time it is me :-))

If I would have money, I would invest it all into this.

Unfortunately my business Bank perished taking all my liquid assets and three to four of my largest clients that declared insolvency and liquidated companies, leaving unpaid big bills for goods and services rendered to them by my company.

Since I am honest businessman and trader and would not also pull down with me my suppliers, I am still paying my debts, and big mortgage I took to be able to do business.

I would say You want to provoke me to say more about my inventions, but I would not tell You.

There are others with same intention speaking about unsubstantiated facts.

I had my inventions studied over by Engineers who are interested to make the prototype, and surely they would not commit themselves to make prototype if there was even single reason why it may not work as expected.

We discussed each part of my Windpower stations and its function in power station as whole, and nobody have found something that cannot function as I described to them. Since each part by itself would function, there no reason why all of them would not function together, since they are connected functionally and the way one support another, producing synergistic effects. Each part is based on known and proven concepts and effects like Venturi Pipe, Coanda Effects, Centrifugal and Gravitational Force and so on. Since all subsystems are built on such effects and principles that are proven to exist and forces that surely would not fail, I think there is no way any of them could fail, and all together also cannot fail to work.

I have just used all those together in a way nobody else did before, that is all...

Final product may look simple and obvious, and still nobody has done that before me. Maybe they reasoned like You and have given up even before they tried to do it....

I have however made little turbine prototype that works amazingly good even in its crude and unprofessional look.

I know that without prototype I dont have much to show, but prototype cost money which I do not have right now due to circumstances described.

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

Also my colleague, some things seems deceptively simple and are even considered to be toys, but if I ask some engineer to explain to me how it works, it suddenly become impossibly hard task since there are no ready formulas nor simulation models, and they present even problem for CAD software to draw it.

So here is one example of ancient toy that would be very efficient wind turbine, much more so than ones used on contemporary models, which would be able to work without fear of being torn apart by Centrifugal Force even in strongest wind. I have studied it to find exactly why it work so efficiently, and based on my discoveries and conclusions I have designed new kind of turbines that use same principles still more effectively.

It have only one shortcoming, that there is no way to regulate speed of rotation by turbine itself. However, my turbine is able to do so.

Here, it is perfect example of thing everyone overlooked and not understood :-))

Yes, dont worry, I shall have all fun in the World seeing my Windpower Stations producing electricity everywhere!

Unsubstantiated claims ≠ facts.

A new turbine design for such a specific location and conditions would not be economical. Most of the US doesn't even have an average of 5 meters/sec wind speed (say 11 mph) Turbines (at least all HAWT type) rotate into the wind now. You are right - wind farms are where there is decent wind - not too little and not too much. The problem today is the lack of storage for intermittent renewables.

I've driven my motorcycle to the summit several times. It's not always windy up there. Also the rime ice formations in the winter months will stymie any kind of rotating structure.

The maximum speed winds mean it is a useless location. Plus the winter conditions Robin mentioned.

Superlative article. Thanks for highlighting it.

great stuff. ga

Writer of this article has not done his homework properly. I am for instance aware that there is patent for rooftop turbine as I have found this in my search trough databases of patents to check whether my turbine exist or not. Same way I am aware that this inventor has got some prize in contest held by Rockefeler Foundation exactly for this invention.

Or those all Internet news and articles and Patent database registration were false?

Same way one has to sort possible from impossible, but that is the catch 22, as one cannot know what is in which case possible and what is not, untill one knows all data.

Making conclusion based on incomplete data is not correct way to bring judgement, and much less to generalize based on similarities.

Surely correct way would be to ask questions about something we do not understand, not to pronounce someting is not possible if we really do not know what it is, how it is constructed and how it works.

As You can see I could claim (in case of innovation of Afghanistan turbines) that there is no tower nor it is necesary, if they are built into mountain sides, as they really are.

If I would describe >>Whirligig<< like turbine, I could claim they spend no electricity , as turbine blades are fixed and cannot be turned to regulate rotational speed in slower ot faster wind. One who do not know what I am talking about and who would assume it is model like standard WPSs, would think it impossible, just as if I tell their blades would not be torn apart by centrifugal force even in strongest of winds.

So, two different things cannot be compared really, if they have no similarities, and specially if they function on different principles.

Take for instance Tesla turbine which have no blades and use Adhesive Force instead of Sail Effect, have no drag on surounding air so produce no sound (please take distinction from original patent and lame atempts to construct it differently using washers to keep plates apart and at same time presenting obstacles to spiral fluid flow), how would You be able to compare it to any other turbine?

Still, whatever Engineer Nikola Tesla have written about it was proven to Patent commision, else patent would not be granted.

I can agree that there could be many fraudsters selling snake oil, but before testing their products one should not proclaim them to be common tricksters and con mans.

Chinese Acupuncture was long time considered to be frauds, but in our time it was scientifically proved to work, and is now called >>traditional Chinese medicine<< :-))

I was amused by article, since I understood prejudice with which my inventions are met, as I realized that I am making similar claims as those listed, except for absurd ones. All the same, author criticized even those who have written that their turbines are self directing even if they told the truth, because innovation consisted of adding the tail and making it like wind pointing device situated on roofs. What is wrong there if truth have been told? Why contemporary WPSs dont have tail that would turn them into wind? It is because they are too masive, and because if 360 degrees turn would be possible, then cables leading from generator down would get twisted and torn sooner or later. Therefore, if those inventors did not understand that there are practicall reasons for lack of tail on contemporary models, then their inovation is not practical unless they have found some way to connect cables so that they can turn on connection together with gondola without losing contact.

All the same, I cannot accept criticism from person who accuse me of not knowing anything about wind, and at same time writting how with stronger wind my construction would become enormous. Such statement show that he is not understanding that contemporary models grow in size because they are inefficient and seek ever stronger wind as their size grows seeking to produce more MW of electricity. But their size makes them less and less capable of working in weaker winds, because turbine wings become heavier and heavier, thicker and longer, which do not lessen beatings they get in laminar wind flow when tip of one blade went in upright position, reaching highest and most energetic wind layer........

If wind is strong, then even smaller turbine could produce same quantity of MW as big turbine in slower wind, so if then it is possible to set up several smaller turbines instead of one big, they could produce colectively more electricity then just one big in same area.

Same way there is nothing wrong with scoops that act as Venturi pipe which provenly speed up air which is comming to turbine, even if it is classical model. It is question of way in which idea was realized, and if benefits outweight expenses or not.

So if for instance in case of ducted turbines this is made of thick and therefore heawy materials, or if those scoops present big obstacle to wind, specialy strong one, then maybe it would not justify expenses of stronger tower to support it and all additional materials used. But, such can be made from relatively thin and strong materials or thin and inexpensive ones like sailcloth spanned over wire frames, then solution may be viable and produce more electricity than it would be otherwise.

I have found such Turbines patented, but only some have had regulation of air flow built in. If there would be proper airflow regulation possible, then even turbines like Whirligig toy could be used and be much more effective than contemporary models. Sure, that would also be still uglier sight then contemporary models which have sort of technological elegance and aestetic, but we cannot discuss tastes, can we?

Of course that it would be better if we can completely remove turbine from height and situate it on the ground, or even under ground if applicable, to remove it from scenery completely..... I could envision even such solutions where just some periscope like structure would be used to scoop the wind at end of tall tower, where tower can be extended or shortened by hydraulic systems (yes, I know it is not much practical, it is expensive, cost energy and so on, but at least this could be used only when there is wind available and removed from sight in other times) and even wind scoops could be opened and closed like petals of flower to regulate wind quantity supplied to turbine, or there could be used other systems for capturing wind, provided there is safeguard against too strong wind. Of course there is still tower in use, but it is easier to hide it by painting it in accordance to background to make it dissapear optically from sight. Such solutions could have turbine and generator on the ground, and they would be both easy accesible for maintenance and repair, just as some claim them to be.

There would be no need for special cranes to lift heawy loads high up when installing WPSs, turbines would be verticaly positioned as air would go down tower vertically, some limitations caused by surrounding wind pressure on back of turbine would be removed so turbine would perform better and harvest more energy, specially if tower would also act as Venturi pipe and speed up air still more before reaching turbine. This way turbulent wind would be no problem and such WPSs could be situated close together, using more of available wind by being more numerous on same location than it would be possible otherwise.

Now apply this design to location with strong wind and there is no need for high tower as wind strong enough can be found even close to ground (or mountain), but removing tower completely is still out of question as it serve one other purpose, and this is regulation of air flow over turbine and protection from too strong winds......

So You see, if such instalations would be built, I could make similar claims like it was listed and criticized, and all of them would be true.........

No, this is still not too much related to my new WPSs, so do not try to guess how they were supposed to work.

There is way to make above described design completely stationary and without moving parts, and since tower need not carry any weight, it can be light and cheaply made, and if made from clear recycled plastic it would be hardly visible againest background, what do You think?

I have read someplace that self cleaning windows are invented , so same technology can keep surface of towers clean, and there would be little to spoil view of natural background...........

So, are You still sceptic about my claims?

Could not they be true after all?

You can bet safely that they are!

Sorry for spelling errors, but speling checker fell into endless loop because I wrote again too much for it :-((