The Future of Wind Turbines? No Blades?...

[Tero]

The tower itself is the moving part. There is a lot of stress on the central rod so it will no doubt break and need replacement every few years

[mistermack]

The tower itself is the moving part. There is a lot of stress on the central rod so it will no doubt break and need replacement every few years
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vMDg3Zmc68

Can't see how that can generate electricity.
If the bottom end is fixed, it can't move a magnet. If it can move, the whole thing needs a very substantial bearing.

I suppose, if it's fixed to the Earth some distance below the surface, and the magnets are mounted approx at the surface, you could get a current going that way.
You would need some pretty impressive materials to withstand all that bending, over the years though.

No wonder they are talking carbon fibre etc.

[pErvinalia]

They seem to suggest that it's the vibrations/oscillations along the shaft that are what provides the kinetic energy to create the electricity. I'd imagine the shaft must have magnets on it at some point and as they vibrate through space, they are altering the magnetic field. If there was some sort of "coil" surrounding it, it could potentially produce electricity via some field equation jiggery pokery..

[mistermack]

They seem to suggest that it's the vibrations/oscillations along the shaft that are what provides the kinetic energy to create the electricity. I'd imagine the shaft must have magnets on it at some point and as they vibrate through space, they are altering the magnetic field. If there was some sort of "coil" surrounding it, it could potentially produce electricity via some field equation jiggery pokery..

Yeh, that's what I was imagining in the prev post.
If the shaft is fixed well below the surface, and the magnets are attached at surface level, then you could get a moving magnetic field.

They would have to be attached some distance above the mounting point of the shaft.

[pErvinalia]

I don't think that's the principle (i.e. it's not a moment-arm). It's the small oscillations along the shaft that provide the kinetic energy. So it's not radial motion about a point of moment, it's presumably motion perpendicular to the axis of the turbine.

[Hermit]

At this stage the company promoting the device is capitalised to the tune of one million dollars, which is basically a shoe string budget. It hopes to raise further capital via a crowd funding campaign starting on the first of June.



At this stage the claims of half the production cost and half the maintenance cost of an equivalent bladed electricity generator seem somewhat rubbery to me.

In short: right now it's a pie in the sky project. Sarich engine, anyone?

[mistermack]

I don't think that's the principle (i.e. it's not a moment-arm). It's the small oscillations along the shaft that provide the kinetic energy. So it's not radial motion about a point of moment, it's presumably motion perpendicular to the axis of the turbine.

Yeh, that's what I was talking about. Not a spinning shaft, just a vibration back and forth, with magnets attached to the shaft, inducing a current in a stationary coil. Or some variation of that.
It would have to be pretty sophisticated, to adjust to changes in wind direction etc, but I guess all of that could be designed in.
Obviously, they know what they're doing, in principle. It's getting materials that could withstand the stresses, and the economics, that are the testing factors.

I hope it takes off. It would be nice, if it could compete well with wind turbines.
It would give the nimby people less to argue against, when someone wants to put one near them.
There was a big wind turbine near where I used to play golf, and it wasn't noisy, even close up, and there was never any sign of a dead bird in the vicinity.
People overplay the downsides. If you're going to have wind turbines, they should be on land where it's cheaper.

At this stage the claims of half the production cost and half the maintenance cost of an equivalent bladed electricity generator seem somewhat rubbery to me.

In short: right now it's a pie in the sky project. Sarich engine, anyone?

Me too. With so much money in the industry, you would think the numbers would be much bigger.
Sounds like they are fishing for capital.

[Hermit]

Sarich talked his way into getting tens of millions of dollars from BHP for developing his revolutionary internal combustion engine design, and eventually the Ford motor company funded his project to the tune of more than 200 million US dollars. What they got out of it in the end was an excellent fuel injection system for two-stroke motors that is used in most two stroke engines for bikes and boats to this day. Trouble is that two stroke engines are well and truly on their way out. The last stronghold seems to lie in chain saws and brush cutters as well as remote controlled model planes and cars, but I don't know if fuel injectors can be made for 5-35cc power (power?) units.

[mistermack]

Sarich talked his way into getting tens of millions of dollars from BHP for developing his revolutionary internal combustion engine design, and eventually the Ford motor company funded his project to the tune of more than 200 million US dollars. What they got out of it in the end was an excellent fuel injection system for two-stroke motors that is used in most two stroke engines for bikes and boats to this day. Trouble is that two stroke engines are well and truly on their way out. The last stronghold seems to lie in chain saws and brush cutters as well as remote controlled model planes and cars, but I don't know if fuel injectors can be made for 5-35cc power (power?) units.

I thought that a lot of snowmobiles and jetskis and outboard motors were two stroke as well, but I'm probably behind the times with those.

[piscator]

The best ones are still 2-strokes.

[Hermit]

I thought that a lot of snowmobiles and jetskis and outboard motors were two stroke as well, but I'm probably behind the times with those.

Yes, they are. In some circumstances two-strokes are actually more suitable than four-stroke engines. The reason they are being phased out has nothing to do with any performance inadequacy. Some government and other bodies are gradually regulating them out of existence on environmental grounds. For instance, though bikes with two-stroke engines in the 250 and 350 classes will always thrash their counterparts on the track, the organisers of the Moto-GP world championship series have outlawed the former out of a concern about their public image as supporters of air pollution. Bike manufacturers stopped designing and manufacturing them because they could no longer advertise those products through publicity and kudos gained in the racing world.

[mistermack]

I thought that a lot of snowmobiles and jetskis and outboard motors were two stroke as well, but I'm probably behind the times with those.

Yes, they are. In some circumstances two-strokes are actually more suitable than four-stroke engines. The reason they are being phased out has nothing to do with any performance inadequacy. Some government and other bodies are gradually regulating them out of existence on environmental grounds. For instance, though bikes with two-stroke engines in the 250 and 350 classes will always thrash their counterparts on the track, the organisers of the Moto-GP world championship series have outlawed the former out of a concern about their public image as supporters of air pollution. Bike manufacturers stopped designing and manufacturing them because they could no longer advertise those products through publicity and kudos gained in the racing world.

I think there's more to it than that.
Four stroke is inherently more fuel efficient, and the main advantage of two-stroke is the power to weight ratio. In most applications, weight isn't all that critical, but in some, it outweighs the fuel economy.
With motorbikes, four strokes are so fuel efficient now that two strokes don't make sense except in the very small bargain bucket sector. And race bikes need to reflect what people are actually riding.

You also come up against a performance wall with big two strokes. They need to carry more fuel at the start of a race, but are lighter by the end of a race. And the lighter they are, the less traction the tyre gets.
It was beginning to get that the big four stroke world superbikes were lapping quicker than the ultra-light ultra-powerful two stroke gp bikes, because they didn't spin up the back tyre so much.

But in the end, I don't think pollution is the thing. It's just that people want to see race bikes that reflect road bikes, and people stopped buying two stroke road bikes because they use more gas.

[Brian Peacock]

They seem to suggest that it's the vibrations/oscillations along the shaft that are what provides the kinetic energy to create the electricity. I'd imagine the shaft must have magnets on it at some point and as they vibrate through space, they are altering the magnetic field. If there was some sort of "coil" surrounding it, it could potentially produce electricity via some field equation jiggery pokery..

Yeh, that's what I was imagining in the prev post.
If the shaft is fixed well below the surface, and the magnets are attached at surface level, then you could get a moving magnetic field.

They would have to be attached some distance above the mounting point of the shaft.

They could stick a wind turbine on the top as well.

Oh, hang on...

[mistermack]

Let's face it, if you came up with a better wind turbine, it would be worth billions.

The fact that this has attracted not much over a million must mean something.

But good luck to them. I hope it's a success.

[piscator]

They seem to suggest that it's the vibrations/oscillations along the shaft that are what provides the kinetic energy to create the electricity. I'd imagine the shaft must have magnets on it at some point and as they vibrate through space, they are altering the magnetic field. If there was some sort of "coil" surrounding it, it could potentially produce electricity via some field equation jiggery pokery..

Yeh, that's what I was imagining in the prev post.
If the shaft is fixed well below the surface, and the magnets are attached at surface level, then you could get a moving magnetic field.

They would have to be attached some distance above the mounting point of the shaft.

They could stick a wind turbine on the top as well.

Oh, hang on...

The Spanish video talks about using fluid to spin the generator.
Which implies this is the same or similar device I saw in 2010 in which the wind-powered movement of the "frond" pressurizes a hydraulic accumulator. It's the pressurized fluid that spins the generator which produces (induces) the juices.