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

Post Reply
User avatar
piscator
Posts: 4725
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 8:11 am
Location: The Big BSOD
Contact:

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

Post by piscator » Sun May 24, 2015 8:29 pm

mistermack wrote:
piscator wrote: 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.
Sounds inefficient.

Sounds a lot more efficient than burning hydrocarbons to boil water in a pressure cooker, then routing the turbulent flow of thousand-degree steam through pipes as your pressure source to turn your turbines.
Also, your fuel doesn't have to be strip mined and shipped, or pipelined, processed, and shipped to where you're going to burn it.

Hydraulic systems typically deliver 85-91% of their theoretical flow to the job. This rivals falling water in a penstock, so flat-footed intuition may not be your best guide in all cases.

User avatar
mistermack
Posts: 15093
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
About me: Never rong.
Contact:

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

Post by mistermack » Sun May 24, 2015 8:50 pm

piscator wrote:
mistermack wrote:
piscator wrote: 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.
Sounds inefficient.

Sounds a lot more efficient than burning hydrocarbons to boil water in a pressure cooker, then routing the turbulent flow of thousand-degree steam through pipes as your pressure source to turn your turbines.
Also, your fuel doesn't have to be strip mined and shipped, or pipelined, processed, and shipped to where you're going to burn it.

Hydraulic systems typically deliver 85-91% of their theoretical flow to the job. This rivals falling water in a penstock, so flat-footed intuition may not be your best guide in all cases.
I see no link. Or quote.
And the steam turbine is doing a different job to the fluid drive mentioned.
It's extracting energy from the gas, not transmitting force from A to B.
In that, it's doing the same job as the blade of the wind turbine, or the body of this proposed wind generator.
If hydraulic fluid drive was so efficient, it would be used a lot more. I've only seen it used where energy losses don't matter too much. Or do you have examples?
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.

User avatar
piscator
Posts: 4725
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 8:11 am
Location: The Big BSOD
Contact:

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

Post by piscator » Sun May 24, 2015 10:27 pm

Sorry mate, mechanical engineering could be another big conspiracy. Too dangerous to go looking for links.... :coffee:

Your losses in a hydraulic system are pump efficiency, volumetric efficiency, and thermo efficiency.
Slip, the boundary between laminar and turbulent flow which causes the friction of any liquid moving over any solid object and aggregates to head loss in a designed system, is not the deal-breaker you might think. In fact, if you can thermocouple the heat generated by compression and friction to help electromagnetically fire pistons, you have something similar to the high efficiency unit injectors which inject diesel fuel into my truck cylinders at upwards of 30,000psi. Accumulate enough pressurized fluid, it can be jetted at a turbine wheel continuously. Compare to a boiler fueled with Russian NG, Iranian diesel, or Aussie bituminous coal, the output of which is jetted to a turbine wheel, and is also subject to line losses.

User avatar
mistermack
Posts: 15093
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
About me: Never rong.
Contact:

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

Post by mistermack » Sun May 24, 2015 10:46 pm

Like I said, you lack links or examples.
In this instance, you are starting with mechanical movement, converting that via a pump to hydraulic motion, then back again to mechanical motion.
It sounds like an unnecessary and wasteful way of transferring mechanical motion to mechanical motion.
In your diesel engine, your reciprocating motion of the piston is converted to rotational motion by a con rod and bearings. I can't see why they can't do something similar here.

It would be a shit diesel engine, if the piston drove a pump, which pumped hydraulic fluid, which had to drive the flywheel. Nobody does it that way, because it's inefficient.
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.

User avatar
piscator
Posts: 4725
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 8:11 am
Location: The Big BSOD
Contact:

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

Post by piscator » Sun May 24, 2015 11:25 pm

Example:
Water hammer

Link:



Incompressible fluids can be more efficient at transmitting force than a steel rod. The key is volume, as free pressure (force) can be made with enough free volume of incompressible fluid. Diesels pump air (a compressible fluid) to turn a flywheel, btw. Also, a flywheel is not a base assumption with a generator. Example: Pelton wheel. Link: Highlight any letter, word, or group of words>right-click>"Search". Everything I post is now a link. Consider me a source.

User avatar
mistermack
Posts: 15093
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
About me: Never rong.
Contact:

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

Post by mistermack » Mon May 25, 2015 12:11 am

piscator wrote:Everything I post is now a link. Consider me a source.
Yeh, a source of red herrings. :clap:
The fuel injection pump is a device who's job is to move fuel, not energy.
It's energy efficiency isn't critical, or even relevant, because it's only moving small quantities of fluid.
The ENERGY is transmitted by the con-rod and crank. Which IS an efficient mechanism.
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.

User avatar
piscator
Posts: 4725
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 8:11 am
Location: The Big BSOD
Contact:

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

Post by piscator » Mon May 25, 2015 1:24 am

mistermack wrote:
piscator wrote:Everything I post is now a link. Consider me a source.
Yeh, a source of red herrings. :clap:
The fuel injection pump is a device who's job is to move fuel, not energy.
Wrong. The fuel injection pump is a device who's job is to energetically deliver fuel.
It's energy efficiency isn't critical, or even relevant, because it's only moving small quantities of fluid.
It's efficiency to deliver fuel at a certain rate is quite important, as more efficiency equates to less power subtracted from the output of the engine at the flywheel.
And high-pressure pumps necessarily have high volumes.

The ENERGY is transmitted by the con-rod and crank. Which IS an efficient mechanism.
Which can't store shit. The ENERGY in the engine came from the sun through BP. The force in the engine came from the momentary incompressibility of a fluid, the expanding gas in the cylinders. This force pushes the pistons.
This wind contraption uses the force of the wind (hence the sun) to move a volume of fluid, which can then be stored under pressure, and released later.

User avatar
mistermack
Posts: 15093
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
About me: Never rong.
Contact:

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

Post by mistermack » Mon May 25, 2015 6:34 am

Are you sure you're not Seth's sock puppet?
You sound more like him every day.
Since when did your own example, the fuel injection pump, become high-volume?
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

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

Post by Seth » Mon May 25, 2015 6:37 pm

mistermack wrote:Like I said, you lack links or examples.
In this instance, you are starting with mechanical movement, converting that via a pump to hydraulic motion, then back again to mechanical motion.
It sounds like an unnecessary and wasteful way of transferring mechanical motion to mechanical motion.
In your diesel engine, your reciprocating motion of the piston is converted to rotational motion by a con rod and bearings. I can't see why they can't do something similar here.

It would be a shit diesel engine, if the piston drove a pump, which pumped hydraulic fluid, which had to drive the flywheel. Nobody does it that way, because it's inefficient.
The benefit of this system, which is essentially a "wobble pump" is that it converts relatively small mechanical motion, which is amplified by the lever arm of the stalk, into energy that can be transmitted a distance and then used to generate electricity.

For example, look at a hand powered bilge pump. It has a long lever but moves the diaphram only a small distance to take advantage of lever-based mechanical advantage. In theory the output of that pump could be used to turn a turbine some distance away by pumping water through a hose.

In this device there are a couple of ways to harness the "wobble," one of which is to use the mechanical advantage of the lever arm of the stalk to drive a high-pressure hydraulic pump that pressurizes a reservoir which is used to drive a hydraulic motor that spins a generator. It's a way of turning reciprocating motion into rotary motion. Clearly there are system losses from friction, heating, etc., but since the energy input is free, inefficiency of this kind is less important than it is when there is a cost to providing the input energy as there is in coal, gas or nuclear plants.

Or, rather than using rotary motion, the short end of the stalk could be coupled to a reciprocating high-power magnet moving back and forth inside a stationary coil, like those "shake weight" LED flashlights you can buy. This translates the wobble of the stalk very directly into electrical energy which can be transmitted and combined to provide useful voltages and amperages.

I think it's a brilliant concept.

In fact, since the system uses high-power magnets as the "return force" that forces the stalk back upright after a "chain" of vortexes has pushed it off-center, one need only wrap a coil about the magnets that move that are attached to the stalk and get voltage directly from the motion. Brilliant.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

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

Post by Seth » Mon May 25, 2015 6:41 pm

mistermack wrote:
piscator wrote:Everything I post is now a link. Consider me a source.
Yeh, a source of red herrings. :clap:
The fuel injection pump is a device who's job is to move fuel, not energy.
It's energy efficiency isn't critical, or even relevant, because it's only moving small quantities of fluid.
The ENERGY is transmitted by the con-rod and crank. Which IS an efficient mechanism.
Wrong. Fuel is energy. Diesel engines translate stored energy in fuel into mechanical energy, so every part of the fuel system is transmitting energy from one place to another, simply in differing forms.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

User avatar
mistermack
Posts: 15093
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
About me: Never rong.
Contact:

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

Post by mistermack » Mon May 25, 2015 7:44 pm

Seth wrote: Wrong. Fuel is energy.
Wrong.
Ludicrously wrong.
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.

User avatar
piscator
Posts: 4725
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 8:11 am
Location: The Big BSOD
Contact:

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

Post by piscator » Mon May 25, 2015 8:08 pm

mistermack wrote:Are you sure you're not my dad?
You sound more like him every day.

Maybe he thought you were an asshole too? :tea:

User avatar
mistermack
Posts: 15093
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
About me: Never rong.
Contact:

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

Post by mistermack » Mon May 25, 2015 8:54 pm

piscator wrote:
mistermack wrote:Are you sure you're not my dad?
You sound more like him every day.
Maybe he thought you were an asshole too? :tea:
No, in fact he never swore.

Actually, he had no interest in assholes at all. That was always an american obsession.
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

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

Post by Seth » Mon May 25, 2015 11:50 pm

mistermack wrote:
Seth wrote: Wrong. Fuel is energy.
Wrong.
Ludicrously wrong.
You're kidding, right? Are you really that ignorant? Any type of fuel is merely stored solar energy waiting to be released. If it's not stored energy then it's not fuel since that's kind of the definition of "fuel."
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

User avatar
mistermack
Posts: 15093
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
About me: Never rong.
Contact:

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

Post by mistermack » Tue May 26, 2015 8:25 am

Seth wrote:
mistermack wrote:
Seth wrote: Wrong. Fuel is energy.
Wrong.
Ludicrously wrong.
You're kidding, right? Are you really that ignorant? Any type of fuel is merely stored solar energy waiting to be released. If it's not stored energy then it's not fuel since that's kind of the definition of "fuel."
If you're that ignorant of science, there's no point in even starting to explain the difference.
No, fuel is not energy. You need to do about four years of physics and chemistry if that's what you think.

Just for a start, the fuel hasn't even got potential for producing energy, without the oxygen in the air. You might just as well say that air is energy.

But it's best if you look up energy and go from there.
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests